New-York tribune., 1879-04-28
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFAMATION.

A person (posslbly in his cups) questions the
virtue IF IL reputable woman. Not being
promptly punished, he mGb his insinuations
and fna,,y his ch"rges more explicit. At last,
on the occasion o. some crisis in the wOman's
life, her marIils for ir tanCe, or attainment
to some sociri ,ignity, he publishes a letter
over his ow. signatJ,. plainly declaring her
IL ft to associate viii decent women. Then,
called to a. count Ie produces some stories
which had been told in club-roCms over mid
night whskey and cards, as proof that he
"acted in good faith that he had heard
the stories from reputable sources, and was
consequently warranted in adopting and pro-
claiming them over his own signature.
Can there be any question as to the outrage
this man has committed 2 Can there be any
doubt that he must be rigidly held to the alb
solute and dcm0nstative proof OF his charge,
or, falling in that, to the punishment which
the common sense of mankind demands for so
wantOn and malignant a crime as he has COM
mtted Is it possible any rational human
being would think that, if he could only show
that he had heard the stories before from APP
parently credible witnesses, he was warranted
in mG King them his own, prOclaiming them
over lis signature and pursuing his victim
with them 7-that he would be relieved from
the duty of proving them as against all re-
buthng evidence land that the woman could
do nothing in the case, unless, indeed, after
her prosecutor had been comfortably acquitted,
to demand court Of inquiry Tor her own
vindicatlOnl
Yet that is precisely what General Stanley
asks. What virtue is to woman, courage Is
to soldier. 1t is as wanton and as wicked
to question one as the other without the am
plest cause, and without being instantly ready
to assume the duty of positive proof. But
General Stanley has for years been not only
questioning but fatty denying the courage of
his fellow soldier, in season and out of sea-
son, in pr. yate and i'll public, in taunting let
ters, AL IN formal charges, formally published
over rs own signature, at a time most skill
fully calculated, as he believed, to ruin Gen
eral Hazen in the public estimation, and drive
him flOm ali enviable public post He asks
now to be relieved from positive proof.
lie waHtJ only to show that he heard
from cr.dible witnesses such stories as war
rarted hin, in believing in General Hazens
misconduct at the battle of Pittaburg Land
ine. All The probabilities were against him.
General Hazen already carried in his body,
as he will to hi, dying day, a Comanche bull
let, received in an Indian fight on the plains.
After the alleged misconduct he still steadily
rose in command, distinguished himself in
action, and held the confidence of his superior
officers. But General Stanley has chosen, so
far as the public know without any provoca-
ton, to pursue him with the charge of cow
ardice Is he not bound to make good his
charge to tho uttermOst and against the fullest
admission of rehutting evidence, or take the
consequences
Yet here we have his counsel struggling
to exclude. and still daily protesting
against the admission Of, eyidence:from eye
witnesses TO prove that Hazen did his full
duty in the midst Of the fighting at Pittsburg
Landing. They seek to show that Stanley vol
unteered to dec!6re his fellOw-soldier coward
"in good faith" and insist that that is
enough. If Hazen wishes vindication, let him
wait till hls accuser has been acquitted of any
offence and sent back to his rank and duty.
Then Hazen can take care of himself by ask
ing for court Of inquiry!
Ii is not possible that any court Of justice
can do so mOnstrous an act AS to sustain this
plea. 1t is not possible that General Stanley
himself can long be satisfied to occupy such a
position. Whatever his faults, he has always
been a gallant soldier. and never a shirk.