New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-12-14
THR DIXON LIBEL SUIT.

The suit brought against Inc uH 4huI
Gazette by Mr. Hepworth Dixon, of which we
obtain the fun particulars by recent mails,
illustrates in very striking manner the
difference between English and American ideas
of the freedom of the Press and responsibility
in damages for libel. Mr. Dixon was an
nounced to preside at the Scott centenary
dinner, when The Pail Mall Gazette remarked
with some surprise upon the selection for that
honorable position of a gentleman who was
chiefly known az writer of obscene books
and composer of vamped-up travels. AL
/ fusion was here made TO Mr.. DiXon's
" Spiritual Wives" and "Free Russia"
! Now, whatever may be thought of tho
character of those two books, they certainly
do not Tor did not before this triaD constitute
Mr.. Dixon's chief claims TO celebrity, for he
! has written q number of books of more or less
repute, which have had upon the whole a
very good circulation. So far then the state
ment of The Pail Mol was incorrect. And
yet we venture TO say that no man in
America would have dreamed of bringing an
action for libel on account of criticism of
that nature Whether, in our respect for the
liberty of the Press, we are not disposed to
sacrifice too many of the rights of private
individuals TO sanction, or at least excuse, all
sorts sOf comments on mems labors, and
purposes, and characters, which are not
obviously and designedly false and ma
liciOus, and which do not, at the same
time, inhict some cOmputable injury. is very
serious question. There arc newspapers which
may be said to make living by SANDER; and
yet they are rarely sued. There is probably
not nublic Ynop in 4ho ITnifaJ
States who has not been maligned in print at
some time or another; and yet it is one of the
most unusual of occurrences for q journal to
be mulcted in damages for defamation. The
natural consequence is that scurrility has in
creased, while the influence of the press has
declined. Newspaper criticism has lost much
of its power to wound, and it would be easy
to point out prosperous journals who have no
longer the ability to hurt the good name of
any respectable citizen.
In England the sacredness Of private char
acter has been much more strictly respected,
and the law Of libel has been enforced so
severely against the Press that wholesome and
Just criticism of public persons has been seri-
ously obstructed. Mr.. Dixon, however, was
not able to profit by this tendency of the En-
BIloH laws duu LUZ uc POI ~ YER
seems to have been inevitable I'M
der the circumstances-the amount of damages
lone farthing) was q declaration by the jury
that they believed the criticism of The Pail
Mall substantially deserved. The coun-
sci for the defense appealed adrotly to the
instructive morality of the average London |
iuryman. He read the most unsavory portions
of the Spiritual Wives" he shocked the jury |
by pointing out that Mr. Hepworth Dixon,
having got access to the prOperest of circulat-
ing libraries and tho most respectable of home
circles by the publication of various decent |
historical books, had taken advantage of his
good character to place in the hands of British |
young men and young women frank account
of certain things which they ought not to
know, and that he had not even accompanied
his narrative by condemnation of the prac-
tees which he described. Mr.. Dixon himself
was placed on the stand and subjected to an
examination about the method
of manufacture Of his book on Russia. He
came out of court, we must say, with tat
tered literary reputation, as well as an i'm
pugned morality, and we hardly think he can
have got much comfort from his farthing