New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-25
THE BROOKLYN RINGS WAR UPON THE
TRIBUNE.
A DECISION IN FAVOR or THE PLUNDERERS.
Journal

DECISION IN FAVOR or THE PLUNDERERs
From The Boston Journal
IL il well known that there exists In BROOK
Ign set OF officials, Of whom Rodman aud 5pragGe are
fair examples, who are Initiating In humbler way Lhe
for cme" anu G' ths R very Dc
torney who pushed the charge of contempt OF oo i
against the editor ia said 10 be one OF them III II quite
possible that the Brookly judge is right in his assertion
TINT theres no law which projects editor II Is eY.
If there Ia law there should be- The question In the
present case is not whether newspaper or its oon-
whether 1t Is well TO submit the individual writer's
in the public press TO this species OF terrorism,
when the paper most concerned Ia ready to accept
the responsibility for publishing the articles Under
these circumstances ought not the inner workings
cret as those OF the ministerial legal and medical pro-
tessonsi Ths matter Is one IN which tho Press y not
the people desire muzzed press they can have but
1t viii DC the public and not the editors who viii suffer
in consequence. without the fearless exposures OF the
newspapers the corruption In New-Iork ana brooklyn
would never have been brought TO light whatever the
legal aspects OF the may be- does require
much argument to show that II grotesque trayesty
on Justice to permit official under Indictment for
grave oenses to lock up OF his most prominent
cusers That tho law sanctions this method Of sencing
by does not make a whit more Just safe.
Judge Gilbert Of Brooklyn doubtless kept within tho
letter Of the iaw but the weight of his decision on
the side Of the plunderers against the people.
WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS.
From The Hes-Hseea Palladium
For the article in question THE TEIBUNE
@nd Itself in the courts and il has been guilty of libel
would doubt cheeruly submit to the penalty. Had
not be compelled to disclose the fact His Tor de-
cnDg to answer was that to do so would DO contrary
10 the regulations OF the Office We agree with the Dis
riotAtorney that the regulations OF newspaper office,
| or OF any corporation or business firm, cannot be
| allowed to set aside n rule Of law. We do not
claim that newspapers have any more rights tnan
or Ss 10 MoTS not Ds55
TO say with impunity. But at the same time We
unable to what is gained by such an assault upon
| the mpersOnaty OF journalism as Is involved IN com
polling editor, who responsible for all that appears
In his columns. to disclose the name OF the writer OF
| fietlar nd
dered in THE TRIBUNE he yndicate his character
naper For If be has been sandered It Is the paper
sricie or the newsboy who sells it, either of whom IL
seems to us. might we'll be singled Ou5 for vengeance
AZ the actual writer OF the words of which he complains
THE EDITOR PRECISELY RIGHT
We think 2a ska ais'hS las sd done precisely
right Tuat THE TRIBUNE has perverted the truth,
Extensively ridcuod aud wantony libeled the best men
| In Brooklyn there Is no doubt. But those men have
their legal remedy They can sue the Tribune Assoct-
ton they the Editor, and they the stock
holders. And II tue Grand Jlry soes NJ to ndIct THE
TRIBUNE nuisance, indict the responsible Editor
mitted 10 the statute that permits any
espionage censorship OF the that Indicated
business which is part and parcel OF his superors con
iience in him. Mr.. shanks per SC should be dropped
| better nor worse than other men, His pluck IA com
mendable and hope TO see him come out from Ray
let the editor Of The Tribune hauled up the subor
have no lot IN the hst lot the editor and the A.
cations. all right II not, let them pay the penalty.
UNwARRANrABLE INTERFERENCE.
From ne M,riden (CORH.) R,psbicdH.
This is veIy foolish proceeding, and will
only tend sympathy for Mr.. shanks and the
paper be represents. THE TRIBUNE Is rich corpora,
ton and IL it publishes ibelOu article IL IL responsible
for II, II being quite mmaerial who che writer was We
think the people VIII look on Inc whole matter AS hlgl
handed proceeding, intended 10 strke uiftcty ut mo
liberty OF the press which - Acknowledged 10 be the
palladium Of public opinion We 90 not belong TO 'Hat
feel they should be held To strict accountability, not
they knowingly publish DO the author who may.
But II editor or publisher s willing TO answer before
justice should DO satisfied II the editor desires TO shit
the ~ as ir az me 1 an eged eos arr
tioe. that is his business Uuder thecrcumstances we
able interference vita his liberty, which no Judge viii
feel 1t safo ~ repeat
"MIGHrY BAD PRACTICE"
The action OF Judge Gilbert in committing
Mr.. W. L. e. Shauks or THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE, for
contempt OF court in refusing TO tell who wrote certain
article In that paper may good law but it's mighty
bad practice. THE TRIBUNE is worth million dollars,
less. IL responsible for what IL says III IL mas
libeled Judge McCue any other person, let 1t be
mulcted in damages. TO 20 behind tho paper to seek
some individual writer, simply shows that the party
who claims to be beed is trying to crafty yengetnl
spirit. Mr. Whtelaw Reid, moreover is editor OF THE
the Office be revealed Mr. Reid Is tho proper man
to reveal them Concerning the merits OF the case out
OF which controversy has grown We have nothing to
say. We believe in holding newspapers to account for
their uterances; but we do not beeYe IN lmpriSonng
subordinate when the responsible editor eau be dealt
with directly.
THE TRIBUNE GOOD FOR ANY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.
From Tie Springfield Republican,.
Judge McCue of Brooklyn is trying hard to
get THE NEw-YORK TRIBUNE indicted for libel IN con-
Meeting him with the recent Trust Company and city
treasury frauds and the Grand Jury wrestling with
Us power to make editor tell who write the articles
of the paper. The TRIBUNE man said he wouldn't and
we imagine the Grand Jury will have 10 give up the
c0numdrum, though they got their victim put III jan yes
terday We can Imagine many cases where the rules OF
Journalism ought 10 away 10 the demands OF Justice
and the writer ofa special article made known Dnt lhs
is not OF them Mr. Whlteaw Reld Is the responsi-
bic manager OF THE TRIBUNE he Is the person 70 lhdlct
If anybody is; and THE TRIBUNE Is good for any
amount of damages-that can be got-ln cI'h suit
ASKING TOO MUCH.
The course of Judge Gilbert OF Brooklyn IN
counting MIR sbanks, tine City Editor OF HE NEW YORK
TRIBUNE iaIl for refusing to answer questions as 10
tue authorship OF certain articles in THE TRIBUNE meets
with general condemnation The disclosure OF tue per
sonal authorship newspaper articles Is no wise re-
anired for the furtheauce OF Justice since the paper
Itself responsible aud sufficient defendant TO any
actions that agsreyed parties may BRING defendant
much responsible aud satisfactory indeed than an
individual journalist could be- Mr. Shanks VIII have IN
hs present persecution not only the sympathy OF his
journalistic cOnreres, but also the CONFIDENCE OF tnst
part OF tue public intelligent enough TO perceive how
aesseDal ~ the general veal Is an Independent press
Prom No,o-York Evening Mai
The Imprisonment of the City Editor of The
help the BrooSiyn Ring or hurt THE TRIBUNE II The
TRIBUNE has wronged any OF the brooklyn politicians
whose nquities It has exposed they have plain and
course pursue to get redress That
paper Is abundanty responsible for all Its utteranees
and can be held for all It's injurious statements IL Is
cowary and mean sort Of business for the Ring people to
seek personal revenge upon Mr.. shanks while neglect
hero of Mr. shanks and addo the circulation aud inhu
encc TRIBUNE by their devious ana dirlngenuOus
methods OF attack, but that IS about all they will do
AN UNFAIR PROCEEDING.
Prom Tie NeVark ~. ~ AdrTIser.
We do not see that II il fair to imprson
Mr. shanks for adheriDg 10 established aud excellent
rna Of iournslism-a rule which compes caution the
part OF pDopreors and holds inexperienced writers ~