Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-11-27

] q lU0V hTu0Ier,
not any statement whatever tn At the vengeance
WAS deserved by the intended victim. The cap
ton Is merely an epitome OF what follows. and
II you cannot find in the genera tenor and nur-
port of the publication libel upon This man If
you cannot ind imputed u him even an impru-
dence or dlscourteous act, then you are not TO
hnd II In the caption, which is the mere sub
stance IN brief OF the article itself.
Now, n disposed, might, instead of insisting
upon the innocent meaning of these words,
have taken technical objection TO the gentle
mans argument. Where words admit OF in
nOcent meaning in q publ cation which ia al
legged TO be libel, there is required an innuendo,
but there is none in this case respecting the
words in which counsel in argument rely. But
without urging this upon You. | submit tn YOU
that, bearing in mind the kind feelings of the
editor and this man Prince at the time of the
publication; considering the good feeling
each side, and also remembering the context of
the article, you, for both reasons, cannot say
that this caption contains libelous matter.
Now, there is only one other place somewhere
in the body Of the article, for which counsel
claim ibeiOus meaning, and which rel 2tes in
substance that Mr.. Hume registered vow OF
vengeance against the man who had so grossly
insulted his wife. And that merely meant what
Il said; that from her husbands point OF view
she was an insu!ted wife. She felt aggrieveI
and wounded, and he was indignant AZ the i'm
charge that Prince had wsntOnIy and uniuSti-
rahiy lUSultel her, because the conduct OF
Prince had previously been set forth explicitly
and no such Workmanship such uniuStihable
conduct, not even ruieness on has part, not
ever imPrudence, is.charged. And when you
come to look at tits article, this innocent.
harmless construction of il is the oNly cOnstruC-
ton that you, As reasonable men, can put upon
II. For II would I've a new principle that yOuarc
not 10 take into consideration the relations be
tween parties, the tenor and substance of the ar
ticle, the personal kindness and good feel
ing borne by this paper u Prince, in
judging of this question. And it would
be new requirement upon editors that
they must have at their elbows half a
dozen attorneys and as many grammarians
with dictionaries and law books, in order that
not one word which might by carping and can
tiouS criticism be construed as libelous matter
may by any possibility creep into a publication
For such would be the result of the principle of
construction counsel for the plaintiff are seek
ing TO maintain here, and do not believe that
you will allow il to be established.
There Is one other matter on which counsel
relied, gentlemen, and which | had forgotten.
When the publication was read you smiled; and
Gen. Darlington says that was because of the
hbelous meaning in the article. Now. if II was
such grave libel upon this "poOr, injured mer-
chant and m echanic;" ifyOu found it holding him
up to sCOrn and contempt. you would have had
some other feeling than that of humor and offun.
But this smile was not at him. 1t was merely a
kindly smile at the blunder of Mr.. Hume; at
The contrast between his angry earnestness and
MS ridiculous mistake.
Now, how else does he try TO help out his case?
de undertakes to prove libel by experts and by
The indirect testimony of experts at that He
8sys, in effect, that may be yOu cannot find the
libelOus mesning in the article, and he calls
self lie is not competent. He is not to be made
he Judge and jury upon this subject, even if
Abeluus meaning could be proved bv eNuerts
which 1t never could, and never before was
atle mpted to be. 1t Is for YOU TO be the Judges.
And who is the other expert? The testimony of
experts Is given in the most remarkable man
ner. Testimony came out as TO a cOnvCr@ alton
netWeen Prince and Mr.. Moves, in which
Prince, the stamper, told MI Moves that a LADY
had said to him that her husband had sail
something else. And upon that YOU are asked
= hall l..
Mr. Prince told Mr.. NOyes a lady had said 70
him that her husband had told her.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, il we could find
this lady end gentlemCn-if hey eYistad-aui
we could place them on the stand, | have no
doubt We should dnd the same contradiction
between NJ Prince and them that there ha-
been between Mr. Prince and every other wit
hess who has testified to the same f4c.s as him
self. have no doubt he would contradict tn
lady and gentlemen As impartially as he has
six other Witnesses, and As imnar-
italy as he has cOntradicted himself.
But am not prepared. in view OF the dubious
crediblllty of Mr.. Prince, to believe that there
that she said any such thing to Mr.. Prince or
hat her husband said any such thing to her. \
all events Il Is not competent proof a. to libel
ouS meaning. And 20 with Prince, the pawn
broker. What he was dissatisfied with was the
information that he would compromise a chas-
tlsenent for drink. And that was after
Prince, the stamper, had melted him to indie-
nation. SO far as his opinion was concerned
there was no HbelOus measing about il as re-
CARDS the plaintiff and his advice to Prince the
'tamper. was 20 take no notice of it, But il they
want the testimony of Prince, the pawnbroker
rs that OF an expert, and if ii is com petent As it
never was and never can be, we are entitled To
the expression Of his opinion that MT. Prince.
NE stamper, was not very honorable gentle
man. In short, II he L. competent as an expert
TO prove the libelOus meaning OF that article he
l. CONF etent as an expert also TO prove that Mr.
Prince, the plaintiff, Is ascoundrel and deserved
a whipping. If they want TO force one opinion
VI on YOU, an opinion which he did not enter
it is your province also to accept that
other opinion Of his which he Did eN press verv
candidly and very emphatically to NJ, Hume. !
l 10 n0t know that il is necessary for me to
discuss the malice of this publication, Of which !
q great deal was said by Gep. Darlington. Two
Or three recent issues Of the Star have been in
,roGuced mere TOT the purpose OF proving that !
malice. But IL these subsequent papers show
anything, they show subsequent resentment
which is very different thing from previous
express and actual malice; and here L will leave
hat part OF the discussion.
In relation to the second publication, m ade
The day after the alleged libel, and relied upon
by us as constituting an accord and satisfaction,
Gen. Darlington said that il was reiteratOn OF
the old calumny, and that it was not a denial.
You will remember how he dwelt upon the word
how he Kissed il out as though it
were word OF the most pregnant meaning,
when reading this article headed with five P'S.
Ii merely relates to those mysterious initials
which we all remember to have seen posted
about town, and which l believe was only an
L
The article was here read by Mr.. Stanton.1
say this second article was merely a refer
ence to the former one for the purpose of giving
the plaintiffs denial. The former one could
not be denied without referring to it. 1t is
part of this acute and absurd criticiSm-part of
this distortion and eNaggerstion by which they
seek to exc out their miserable case, to say that
was malicious, deliberate, unjusti-
liable, wantOn, and wicked repetition OF the
original calumny. Ii is mere reference for the
purpose of giving denial and nothing more.
Then follows the denial which both Prince, the
stamper, desired regarding the kleptomania
and Prince, the pawnbIOker, desired regard
ing the compromise Tor drink. And
there that denial is. No names were given
and very wisely, because thus there was no
disclosure of the identity of the parties to
those who already did not know it. 1 do not
believe one reader of the Star puzzled his head
about this matter, although there may have
been some dozen or more of people who heard the
orr ginal rumor on the streets, and thus identified
the parties. Yet Gen. Darlington said that the
heads of old and young were filed with ~ ~
ticle. He says even the college mates of -
were puZzling their heads about it. II they
were | think they had much better have been
attending to their lessons. He would have you
believe that the 10000 inhabitants OF this Dis
trict bought extra copies of the Star account
OF the publication. There is scOru in the
first article. and in the second there is no reit-
GRAFTON; there is no repetition of what the gen.