The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-23
The Dana nab.as Corpu. Case.

We think we shall never find reason to re-
hnquish the opinion we have long held-that
the editor Of journal who casts unfounded
aspersions on public officers or private citl-
zens is justly amenable 10 the law OF libel
II there ere not penalties for causeless attacks
on character there ought TO be. We believe
the editor of the Sun is of the same opinion,
for he maintained it with great force of areu-
ment against city contemporary two years
ago. II he has slaudered Boss Shepherd or
Boss Grant or Boss Anybody We should be
willing to see him surrendered, though a
member OF our own profession, to condign
punishment The tremendous power of the
press to destroy regulations and torture pri-
vate feeling ought to be under strong legal as
well as strong moral restraint Every right
thinking man regards honor as infinitely
more precious than life, and an assassin
of character deserves the severest pen
alties which The law can inhict. If
the Sun has been guilty of wanton libels on
innocent men we should rejoice in the inter-
est Of sound morals and honorable journalism
10 have it taught lesson which would impress
journalists with just sense of responsibility.
There are few crimes of deeper turpitude than
the wanton destruction Of character by the
editors Of public journals.
But editors, like other accused persons,
are entitled to the protection of the law 1t
is one of their duties to expose public corrup-
ton; and when, in the discharge Of this duty,
they incur the hostility of powerful men,
the law should protect them so long as they
act from honorable motives. Mr.. Dana s
scathing exposures of the Washington Ring
has raised up hosts of enemies who scruple at
no cxpedient to bring him within the clutches
Of the law. In recent case before Wash
ington court he was frauduleutly subpoenaed
as witness, in the hope that his attend
ance would bring him within the Dis
trict This device for entrapping o
New York editor was so palpable
and SO barefaced trick that Mr. Dana was
justified in refusing to obey a subpoena issued
on false pretence, whose real aim was not to
secure his attendance as q witness, but to
bring him within the jurisdiction of WASH
ington court for purposes quite foreign to the
case in which he was summoned When Mr..
Dana refused to obey the subpoena an attach
ment was issued against him for contempt Of
court, and he very properly resorted to
judicial tribunal for decision as to his duty.
Judge Blatchford has decided that the court
Of the District OF Columbia had no legal au-
thority TO bring Mr.. Dana before it. He
makes this so clear by an able and lucid re-
view Of statutes and judicial decisions that no
intelligent man can doubt it. We approve of
the public spirit of Mr.. Dana in getting
an authoritative exposition of the law
on this important subject. The conductors
of public journals will have o clear perception
of their liabilities since Judge Blatchfords
decision; and although we have no wish that
newspapers should be exempt from response
bility for what they publish we are already of
the opinion that their responsibility should be
defined by law and not be subject to the
caprice OF tricksters, who are willing to pros
titute the law to private vengeance. If Mr..
Dana has ibeled anybody let him suffer; but
every good citizen must abominate the
attempted tricks to bring him to Washington
on a false pretence rs q witness for the real
purpose OF arresting him as criminal. We
quite agree with the Sun that Judge Batch
ford las discharged his duty with manly
sense Of judicial independence.