The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1879-09-04
THE DE yoUNG-KALLoCH AFFAIR.

point to moral, and perhaps to adorn a
tragic tale. We shall consider it only IN
itsmoral aspects.
Both De Young and Kalloch stood be-
fore the people as expounders and de-
Tenders of public sentiment concerning
public affairs, one as an editor and the
other as candidate for municipal office
Both had a right to be in the position
they respectively occupied, and each had
right to all the privileges of public
CRITICS mand comment, oral and written,
that these positions respectively con-
ferred. But those privileges are limit
ed. They are limited to proper and
fair disquisition of the subject matter pre-
sented for public consideration in their
pending election. And among these
matters are the personal character and
fitness of a candidate for public office.
No one can question the right of any
citizen, whether he be an editor or not,
to examine and publicly criticize the per-
sonal character of any candidate for
public Office, because, by becoming a
candidate, he puts his personal character
in issue before the public. But even
this right has its limits. 1t extends only
to the right of publishing the truth con-
cerning a candidates personal character.
The moment that limit is overstepped,
the privilege is abused, and the freedom
of the press, or freedom of speech, guar
anteed to our people, affords no protec-
ton against the consequences of libel
or SANDER.
Kalloch was, or had been, preacher,
and one of the most eloquent pulpit
orators known either in Boston or New
York, in both of which cities he had
otficiated in the ministry. But, unfor-
tunately, his private character was not
utainted. Drifting westward, first to
Kansas, where he attempted to found a
university, afterwards to California,
where he embarked in the law and
dabbled in the dirty pool of politics, his
powers of eloquence always gave him
! prominence, and this led to his nomina-
ton for the Mayoralty of San Francisco.
During the canvass for this office, DE
Young, as the editor of public journal
! opposed to Kalloch's election, arrayed
against him this stain upon his moral
character fastened upon him during his
A career in the East. De Young had a
! right to do that. But it is said that he
l also implicated Kalloch's father in some
Z. improper transaction. This he had not a
e right to do. 1t was an abuse Of his edi-
torial privilege. 1t was an indefensible
a wrong. Kalloch's father was not the
n candidate for public office.
e Stunned by this fierce attack upon his
n private character, Kalloch retaliated in {
e public speech, impugning the character
o of the mother of De Young, branding hel
with the basest name known for woman
and through her assailing the character ol
y De Young. All thison the part of Kalloch
c was utterly indefensible; and savors SC
L strongly of sheer malignity as to be in
+ capable of either an excuse or an apology
= For in the first place, Kalloch had nc
:, right to attack the character of De Young
y De Young was private citizen, not {
! candidate for any public Office Hi
! private character was not put in isssuo
Is before the people. Kalloch's was. Blu
q least of all could Kalloch claim the RICH
e to assail De Young through his mother
y That was simply shameful. And for thi
e shameful attack upon the character of til
+ mother, De Young shot Kalloch in tn
>" street.
> The manner of doing this on the par
.' of De Young does not shed much luste
y upon his personal courage. 1t partoo
u more of the character of assassination
!! than of personal assault He drives t
~ II, Kalloch's place in a covered coupe, send
~ boy to call Kalloch and to tell him h
% was wanted at that carriage, the occupan
10 10 of which could not be seen Kallocf
az with some hesitation, went as the bo
-, directed; as he approached, De Youn
~ shot him from the carriage.
, We would not consider this a yer
Nv commendable course Of practice unde
10 any code of retaliation. But, setting til
manner aside, the shooting Of Kalloc
,e- was, of course, legal crime. Howevt
i" base and false may have been Kalloch
ke defamation of De Young and his vene
b. able mother, it could constitute no just
,re fication of the shooting. Human natul
ID would be very apt to render the verdic
nd "Served him right" But such woul
I'M not be the verdict of the law.
er. In the notable case of the Common
Be- wealth VS.. Selfridge, who had publishe
he political opponent as "a coward, a lii
ID. and scoundrel," and who was on tn
in account assaulted in the street with
cane by the son of the posted man, Sci
to ridge shot his assailant fatally. On tt
he trial it was held to .be an act of self-d