New-York tribune., 1874-05-21
LIBELS AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNLCA-


tlODaDlC to them tlan tflaC Oh NJ uo DiO6Ho'
LIBELS AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNiCA-
TIONS.
The General Term of the Supreme Court
sitting at Poughkeepsie has affirmed the de-
cision of Judge Tappen in the matter OF w.
+. G.. Shanks, the chief of The TRIBUNE'S stall
Of reporters, charged with contempt OF court IN
refusing to disclose the authorship OF certain
article in this paper. The Court holds thag !hs
question was technically proper one, ami that
the witness may be compelled to answer it.
Mr.. Shanks is now on his way to Europe, on
duty with the expedition of pilgrims to Rome.
He will return in ample time to meet any
summons aud be ready for his prosecutors
quite as soon az they are ready for him. We
presume that the ruling above noted is according
to the strict construction of the law; but
that the law in that case is unwise
and unreasonable can hardly admit of
a doubt TIE TRIBUNE had been for some
time engaged in the exposure OF Ring OF
official thieves in Brooklyn, quite as rapacious,
though not quite as skllful as their distinguished
exemplars who robbed New-YOrk under the
administration of Tweed and Connolly. Brit
ton, Rodman, and Sprague were the chief in
struments of this corrupt organization. We
need hardly remind our readers what has been
the result of our exposures. BrittOn has been
removed from Office by the Governor after
fair trial; the frauds we charged upon the
Others have been clearly established in court;
and there is a fair prospect that at least some
of the punderers will find their way to the
penitentary. Thus our course has been
justified, and our efforts have been crowned
with success.
OF course the fighting in this affair was not
all on one side. The Brooklyn Ring was rich
and powerful, and it had allied itself, as such
conspiracies always try to do, with citizens OF
some standing and respectabiity, behind whose
skirts it might find shelter in time of trouble.
One of the incidents of the campaign accord
ingly was libel suit against The TRIBUNE,
brought in the name of Judge McCue. This
suit THE TRIBUNE, through its editor and
principal proprietor, instantly declared itself
ready to meet, accepting the full responsibility
for its statements, and promising either to sub
stantiate them in court or to put the
Grand Jury in the way OF testing
them. 1t was evident, however that the Ring
intended to use the McCue suit as means of
wreaking its private vengeance and preventing
further disclosures. 1t ignored the newspaper,
the corporation, and the Editor, and sought
to reach behind all of them to punish the
individual from whom the information
was derived. Even then it had not
the manliness to ask its questions in
the only proper quarter, but sought to
extort from subordinate knowledge, which
he could only have confdentially. concerning
the authorship of an article for which the
Editor and the paper were alone responsible.
and for which they had promptly avowed their
responsibility. Why were these extraordinary
and indecent proceedings taken against SUBJ
ordinate, unless the Ring wanted to satisfy a
personal grudge or to stop the mouth of q
formidable accuser
It seems to be q monstrous perversion of
justice and common sense that such perse-
cutiOn should be possible under the law. We
need not repeat our well-known opinions as
to the duty Of journalist towards his news
gatherers and contributors. This is not case
in which an editor has attempted to shield
himself behind an anonymous correspondent.
The article complained of was q "leadern
published by The TRIBUNE in its own name.
and of it's own motion, as an expression of its
own deliberate convictions. If it was libelOus,
the injured person had remedy against the
responsible editor and also against the respOn-
sible corporation which owns the paper. To
pursue one Of our employees, in order to drag
from him the business secrets of our office,
which, if they were to be obtained at all,
might more fitly be extorted from the princ-
pals than from the confidential subordinates,
may have been legal, but it was not decent.
For genuine libel suits We have considerable
respect. We believe they are valuable agen-
cies both in protecting private rights and re-
straining tendency to recklessness ,and in
justice in the press. During the past six years
The TRIBUNE has not paid six cents for dam
ages in libel suits, and probably it will not
pay any more for damages during the next
six. 1t is careful in what it says, and when it
Is mised into false charge-as the most
cautious of journals may be now and then-it
is prompt enough to make amends without
lawsuit. Rogues in Office and adventurers
without any character to lose pretend to
prosecute ps something's. ~ y peals qt per-