, 1874-06-27

tor5 OF Dlafic Whero aMd hnt u brought against any
gacs and doing p,sInoss in tho Blate. Territory, Of
Distr,ct where said sutt j. brought aud hnrng ID said
All agent asents IN rtspeeto To busfness or ,unte
ass ~ e. e .s:f !: as % II sFs F
livery o cory therso 70 to s prareipal o @ suo sse
anywhere III the Unttod States. aud proof Of said
GO ses. 't .s ss d nsss .ss
fnrun aud affect made upon The principal OF sch
sgont f .he s,ae. efrtory Di.tr!ot q Columbia,
sct!on .cer,na Defors }nl, i, is74.
Suppose aanufacsurer OF oarrisges 10 the
City Of Nav York establishes house IN Chicago
for tue shlo Of such ohrriagcs. aud his business
there is managed by an agent. Tho agent soils
Carriage With fnlso warranty. uuder the pro-
visions OF this section suit might DO brought in
tho Federal Court Of that State, and service bo
made upon the agent there aud upon tho prtnot-
pal in Now York. Is thero my tnjuHtioo In
t!iis7 Should the party who Inns baeu dofrauded
30 compelled to take hls wituoasos to New York
for Lral2
1a1 HARDSHIP
to provide that tha suit may 10 maintained where
tho transaction INT Of which 1t AROSE WAS had2
IL thcro auY injuHtioe In providing that tho
agont sent to Chicago to transact buslness
ahall Ia considered also au agant In regard to
procssa can only bo served upon the aRont who
was such in respect to tho vary transaction out
of which tl,o e11it srises. lfh Naw York oapjtal-
tut Chooses to do business by IN agent In Wost-
cru State, Why should lo not auhtait 10 the 5aria
transact the yorv busIt,oea out OF which the suit
nriBes, as l,s would hayo to do II lle carried on
tho name business tflore In poraon7
10 far 40 have eeau tia criticism Of tho press,
no objection is mado to tho operation OF tls SEQ
lion upon tlo ordinary busnosn Of Tie country,
nor ~ apptiel to Siates aud Territories. Tho
two objeotious are that it may apply to those
engaged in publishing books or newspapers, aud
II may bo enforced In tho courts Of tho District
Of CoIumbia,
First-Why general laws should not amply to
Tho District Of Columbia aa we'll as tho Torrl-
torioB, ia not perceived or why any capitalist Of
Now York or boston, carrying on busineBs by au
agent in this District, should have greater OBJ
1eotion to coming here for trisl than 10 going to
Idaho or Wyoming, iB not very apparent
Second-Dut tbs great objection Ia that 1t ap-
plies to publishers ~ well ~ to merchants, MO-
chanics, manufacturers, and all other business
men.
Now. tn this + ron1v that ths b11 has
n;s,.n,~s, arss .aH r W, MN.
It denis w,tn ut ali mon ahke aud thsy Who make
Inis oo!ectioa ongas 20 SNOW upon W1at gr9unia
s';r aan c.a t.on ~ 'nJa s;.,s,s 1'.t
..1a.s a osusy ooy oto aoo ~ tt, 1tt@;s
.lny ly 1e auoa - aouuB.on ~ ;t ~. npo, =,
t, wy anoaso snsy hos W, y Iney oo4!t tu"s W. H.
lnIy oT an agent m tils n,sl'let - Inc NoW
!is, 1olK thtes company shouM ea1a34sn ptanen
publishing house heto, conducted BY an agent,
ana the house nefo publishes N ttls District q
libel upon oltlzen horo. why should tue com.
pan5 not answer 1eto Tor the consequence of
tue acts performed horo ny thelr AGENT ~ho Is
an agont In respect OF tho publishing here out
ol Which the case atisea Iho idoa that coE11-
nahY or an 1eaavlaoal puons!!lnE paper IN Mew
York could be sued IN this District for libel
publisbed IN NOW IorK IL unfoundod, because
tho company woula not engage In publishing
paper here. aud libel published ~ New York
would not por.nin 20 bu6lnesa carrlod on bore
py ~ agent, anu thefetofe Buch caao Tolua
not bc within Z the soctlon.
lhe la" OF libel is no moro unfaror&blo to tho
press than tho ntatuta against larceny ID utl-
friendly to tho people, Ono perplexos thieves,
tse other AaTs bus neither Is terror TO honest
men. And TINS olil IS no more injurious to pub
lene1s t1ah every 1aw must he winch iooks TO
an lnpartlal num1hla1rntioh OF Justice. paper
on ny taole tnia morning Pubiishee tue names
OF senators VINO Vosea lof sAe Dill, and adds:
Wv hops mat me press Of tne country "1 pas these
q .. ana tas OF teese
n .r,n fro tns 01S - y r. m olfn r.
agents Of tlc psoplo and ths sooner tsy snpreeato
this tls better for ths ssfaty Of thoir liberties.
If mnn's g,ilt il to be- inferred from the faot
that he sbrinfs from tbo
IIpELs or pnAcr1cA1.Lr tnnrsposs1p1E PRESS.
what is to DO said Of q mau who falls into oon-
whore every accusation must be founded o.
proof. aud eyen-bauled iuetioe Ia u1sted out to
all7 Some Journalists uesm to think that il il 4
griovous hardship to be invited into court Of
law. where the offenso chaiged must bs estao-
lshed by proof where they are confronted with tho
witnesses against tbom, whore thoy may bs sidod
by counsel. and nheto no osnsuro CAP fall uuIosa
theis crimlnalty 10 established by evidence, snd
found BY impartial Jurors. But for them to
arraign any man in the land, from the higheAt
to the lowest, charge him With every crime in
tho catalogue, abuse his family, invade his husi
ness transactions, puhliah him to tue world rs d
thief or felon, without word Of evidence or
the slightest provoeat,op, il just the thing. And
to complain Of it IL to attack tho Iborty OF tho
presa.
There IL another featnrs Of this business
worthy Of notice. Whilo the bill WAS under con-
sderation in the Senate, \ Democratic SENATOR
moved to amend this scotion 80 that it should
not apply to ANY suit for libel or sander, Here
the proposition vas directly presented to exempt
ono class OF citizeua from the operation OF 4
general Law, aud declare immunity In favor OF
libel and slander; and every Democrat who vo.ed