The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-01

picst events that can occur in the history
of man Let the idea of never ending hap
pincss, of love. affection of home and all
its kindred associations, ever he entirely
disconnected with all thought of fraud and
dishonesty. A single word may not be
found exactly appropriate with which to
designate these nests of corruption and
hot-bcds of fraud, but we can call the in
dividua members thereof by their right
names, and can see, at glance, that they
are the strongholds of all that is wicked,
corrupt and fraudulent in our politics, and
OF all that is dangerous to our institutions,
and can so speak of them, even if it does
take Il word or two more But this aside,
there is no doubt that Brooklyn has, for
years, been ruled by Il more or less corrupt
combination Of politicians. They rcaped
the rewards, and the tax payers footed the
bills. The New York 1r5unC, us was its
duty, exposed the rottcnncss and corrup-
ton which there existed, end made grave
charges against individuals, said to he CON
ncctcd Herewith While we admired the
fcarlcssncss and ability with which it
entered upon its task of exposure, were in
clincd to think that its structures were too
severe upon certain individuals. This,
however, was their ''look out" not ours.
| The 7HjuHe was able to respond in dam
ages, while Whitelaw Reid, its chief editor,
was ready to answer any criminal indict-
mcnt which might be procured.
Their first step for revenge was to
obtain an indictment against Whitclaw
Reid for libel This was as easy as
falling off from log. He was the rcspon-
sible editor of the 7ttJuno and there was
the article, which every one could read for
himself The charges were therein dis
tinctly made, and were either true or false.
If false, it contained one Of the grosscst
libels ever published III this country if
true, it contained information which every
citizen of Brooklyn, the state of New York,
and the whole country, ought to know. If
false, Whiteaw Reid was gross. foul
slanderer and libellcr and ought to be pun
ishcd, by fine and imprisonment, to the
full extent of the law and, besides this,
he and the association, whom he represents,
ought to have been amerced in damages to
an amount, even, ruinous to him and the
1rtJUn6 association. Norman is so Wild or
prejudiccd, but knows that the remedy was
full, ample and complete that the lesson
could be taught that liberty was not license
that while the press owed duty to the
public, they were, also, bound to respect
private, individual character. Not con
tent with resting upon the opportunity of
a complete vlndication-if such were pos
siblc-they, the Brooklyn politicians, 20 a
step further. They cause to appear before
the grand jury one of the editorial staff of
the Tribune, with the intent of showing
who was the author of the article in ques-
ton. lie declined to give the information.
Technically, we are inclined to think, he
was wrong, but, after all, there are very
grave doubts about it. There can he, if we
understand the law correctly, no libel with
out a publication. If one of our associates.
for example, indites an article and hands it
to us for consideration, we take it there has
been no libel" If we throw it into the
stove, no indictment can be predicated
thereon, because there is no libel. And
why? Simply because II publication is ne
ccssary to constitute lible. We are no
lawyer, but we have read enough of law to
learn, unless we have greatly mistaken the
purport of both common and statute law,
that the essence of a libel Is more in the
publication than in the falsity Without
publication there is and can be no libel.
Without publication, the crime is not com
pletc Technically, we are aware, that
writer may be considered publisher, but
what matters it, so long MS the les
son is taught by exemplary, crushing
punishment Of him who acknowledges him
self responsible. We are familiar, of
course, with the rule of law that person
cannot excuse himself for the commission
OF crime on the ground that he was acting
by the direction of another, his master or
employer; but does it not change the whole
care II there is no crime committed by the
servant or cmploye, and could not be com
mlttcd until the master or employer con-
cluded to do 50. If the essence of libel is
in publication, then Shanks was not Obliged
to answsr il not he was technically guilty
Of contempt. "a
But the outrage did not stop here. The
determination has been TO punish anyone
connected with the Tribune, law or no
law, 1t was not so much Shanks as the
IT'o"''e. 1t made no difference whether
an individual had sinned, whether he was
amenaDle to the laws or not, so long as a
dig could be had at the 7fi6une Shanks
very foollshly as we think, refused to fur
nlsh the name of the author of certain ar
ticlcs, because it was matter of little con-
Germ. Had the article, in question, been n
communication from correspondent or an
outsider, it might have presented differ
cnt question, but, as ii was, it was an edi-
torial tor which only one man was and
could be responsible. Conceding that there
was contempt of court, and that Shanks
ought to have been punished therefor. n
gross outrage has been committed against
individual liberty in his person. The stat
ute laws of the state of New York provide
that an individual shall not be committed
to Jail exceeding thirty days, except in Ger
tain specified cascs-of which CONTEMPT of
court is not one. The district attorney,
howeyer,-or the court acting unwittingly,
! under his direction-commtted him to a