New-York tribune., 1878-10-15
THE COURTS.
CRITICISM OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.
DR.. M'IASg HAnILToS's LIBEL SUIT AGAINST AMOS

y. EMO.
Allan McLqne Hamilton, an assistant in-
spector the Health Department. sent report on the
nayemcns OF the streets OF NewYOrk to the Health De-
psrtmenl which was published In fun in the
official papers, and abstracts OF which were pub
lished I'm tue newspapers. IL condemned every form
Of pavement now in New-York City except two
the Guidet and Grahamiteand at considerable length
praised the Grahamite pavement. as, among oiher
things the only genuine asphalt pavement letter ar-
pesred in THE TRIBUNE OF which the following Is q
copy:
To Ke Edftor OF The Tribune
SIR: Like yo,,r correspondents az this morning,
who claims that certain aidsvits can be pro ueed by
tho officers OF the " GiBbnmite Pavement Company .
hut does not produce them. 80 the officers OF
that company inpudcntly assert that the city an,
i'm favor tner pavement but cannot prove their
ton. 1t thet young assstont inspector OF Inc
has Thought IL worth while To look outside Of he district
assigned him. aud tc write 20 hs superior o'h9Sr IN to
pavement This letter. lt would appear, WlS written @
under the dctsfion o. the Grahame Pavement COMPANY
or without a fun inquiry into the merits or the subject
What object there the PRODUCTION or TINS 'ettr H
might be dlffcut to lean. 1t IL understood that the
stock OF the GIahlmits PGvemCnt Company mas been
placed " where II wouio 10 the most good anu tIle
name OF at least Oficer in the CITY Government
can be given, vino, taxing official position where
il was supposed he might have 10 advocate or oppose
This pavement, returned 20 the company stock wch
had been presented 20 dim. Wben such example rs
known, those VINO step aside from the strict line OF auy
sphere cannot feel aEgrieyGd their action y looked
upon with snsm'irn. AVENUE
Heir- lork. Fen. 10 1873.
Amos +. Emo, az soon ss the letter was challenged
assumed the ,ibty Of writing IT, and after some
spondeDce. in which Mr. Emo iu effect declined to
make any retrsctlOn, Mr. Hamilton began libel suit
against him.
The complaint gives the grounds Of the suit that
the letter charges Fret that the plaintiff, being
pubno officer, was induced. by elft Of the
stock of the Grahamite Pavement Company. to
step aside from the street line OF his duty
and 70 spend she time and labor which he vas
bound give to hts o8cnl duties in objects other ana
different from those winch he paid by Ihe city TO
perform. Second, tnat tle opinions. actions, and
judgment OF tire plaintiff, public officer
and IN au Official matter. were cOrruptly
procured and Influenced by q z.ft Of stock;
that is that the plaintiff induced by sach
gift OF stock cOmmend sa.d pavement. Third, that
the plaintiff being pu0c officer. made such favorable
report upon the diCtation OF the pavement company
Nj. Emo. In his GDswcr admitting his authorship Of
the letter claimed. first. that all he bsd written
true; and second that II his right citizen to
criticse any pubhc officer long that criticism
dictated 10y pobc spirit, and NOT by private mahOe.
and privileged.
The casp was ried before Judge Donobur IN gu prcme
Court Circuit. On the trial Mr. Emo eudeayOred TO show
support Of his letter tha the statement In Dr. Ham
it0ns report that there was only one asphalt
pavement deserving the name. and some other
statements 20 the qu7iy of payemeuts, were
false 1ls was excluded, aud this exclusion forms one
of the grounds " exception argued on apnea 1He jury
found verdict for piuinun for $1,000 from which the
defendant appealed.
This appeal argued yesterday before the sppreDe
Court, General Term. Several technical que-Ous were
brought forward, but the main question presented BY
the defendant the:
"The plaintiff rruOr being the act OF public officer.
IN relation tO matter ~ groit pubc interest and in
pOTtaucc. the defendant land every other eitzsnI had
rght 90 cl,iCse and comment upon the report se and
the plIiu'ifs conduct Ia making IT, ana provided The
article complained Of dId not irlf scend the limits Uf fair
and honest criticism. and was made without malice.
came within OF the now recognized classes OF prvi-
l. nod saffIIlI IlfmE
should have been lert to the larry TO deter
mine whether or not the Htcle within
those iiuIitS. Aud the question TO be submitted
10 tho jury Is whether the impuatOu eomDlaned Of
Is true false but whether II comes within tins limits Of
fair and honest criticism The whole theory
OF privileged communications VresurpUses that they
alscior 4 true, they can be Justified aud no pry-
lere need be- claimed"
Thc argument Was drawn from this that the press has
the rgut imputs motives 10 public men where their
acts fairly Judged lead L" sueh impnatODs, or the free
dOn Of the pfess - an empty phmse.
For the plaintiff II urged that the evidence offered
by the defendant neither tended 20 show that the
charges Ia tue lotter true, that the
defendant had reasonable cause 20 believe them
to be truc, aud It therefore properly eN-
cluted. No eyileuce offered that tAe plantn had
received stock Of the company aDd tn eltr amounted
10 distinct charge o pcrsOnu dishonesty; an attack on
the plBnn and his work IL Wa, therefore, not
with the privilege acoJtdcd 10 fair criticism OF pubhc
ofiCyrs.
The Court reserved its decision. Francis c. Barlow
Appeared for the pIAinLr; George De Forest Lord for
the defendant