Daily Republican., 1880-05-22

besides the way which gives an articl
currency. He claimed that whoever al
sists or acquiesces in publication is
publisher. 1t Is unreasonable to so
that the case is bare of publication.
The gentleman continuing, said: al
who are concerned in making q Lire
are libelers. The communication wa
read to Mr.. Bright, the President of tn
company, and was written by DR.. Tan
tum, and by him was taken to be pub
Tlished. Is there no inference in thi
that Messrs. Tantum aud Bright had
conference? The article was addresset
"ts the public" Do you think it wa
written for amusement or for thsmselve
alonef The jury are bound to suppos'
that there was some inference. 1t doe
not purport TO be q statement Of DR.
Tantum relating to himself, but It Il
an interest In which the names Of botl
Tantum and Bright are coupled.
The article was shswn to Mr.. Brigh
and he said 1t was "a right good piece, )
which was publication. Can any on.
say that these two men upon this gu
thority were not concerned in the pro.
duotisn Of the article? When Mr.
Bright saw his name at the close of the
article and did not express his approval
or disapproval he became a publisher,
and II he could not behold any infer.
ences in the publication he should be
set down as the veriest fool. Having
seen the article and having heard it
read and not interfering, he is equally
as guilty as the man who put it in the
hands Of the publisher.
Mr.. Bates proceeding, said from the
fact that Mr.. Bright standing with clos
ed mouth from the day the article was
published and coming here eighteen
months thereafter and saying he did
not sign the article, should be consider
ed in the aggregation of damages.
Signing Mr.. Bright's name to,ths COM
munication makes DR.. Tantum forger
as we'll as libsller. The doctor
says Mr.. Bright never censured him
for doing so is it not an approval of it
that he kept his mouth closed for eigh-
teen months The article was read to
Mr.. Bright for some purpose and that
purpose was to learn If he approved Of
it. One word from him would have
it. 1t is qualified by him
/ egretting it after he had been brought
here for bail ; no wonder he regretted
the publication Of the article then. No
doubt there are many prisoners confn-
I'd here who regret what they heve
done. When the article was read to
him he expressed his opinion of it by
saying it was a good pisce, but wheu
he was arrested he regretted its publ
cation.
The communication was published
thus: list, 1t was read to Mr.. Bright
with the statement that it was to be
published; End, The defendant endorsed
It by saying ii was good piece. 3rd,
The intimate business connection Of
both men ostensibly concerned their
business, and the article was signed by
the Vice President Of the Insurance
by virtue Of his Office as agent
during Mr.. Rrights absence; 4th, There
had been no syllable of disavowal Mt
tered by the defendant.
II the essence of the matter was in it
having been signed there would be
some reason. If DR.. Tantum had writ
ten the article and dropped it in his
basket and some one had found it and
aiken it to be published the doctor
would have been answerable for it.
Mr.. Lore moved for a non-suit en- the
yround that no evidence lad been given
which showed that Mr.. Bright was con.
,ected with the libel. To support his
notion he reviewed the evidence and
luoted from Wheaton's I'd volume,
,age i47. At AS o'clock the jury was
until ten O'Clock on Monday
morning. The lawyers entered upon
engthy discussion in reference to a
consult.
Mr.. Bird said: DR.. Tantum has not
aid that Mr.. Bright disapproved of
he article. If he regretted 1t why did
10 not say SO the next day in the pa
ers. He ratified it. What was 1t
cad to Mr.. Bright for? Was it to be
laced in their pockets and not let any
ne see it? 1t was addressed to the
ublic and Mr.. Tantum admitted to
Ir. Bright that it was to be published.
here must be and there was rstiica-
ion. To ratify was not TO deny. If
Ir. Bright had said 81 did not author
Ie DR.. Tantum to sign that conmuni-
alton" it would have been ended.
Vhen Mr.. Bright heard the article
BAD he admitted it if he did not ratify
i. II the case to-day stood upon justi-
cation they could not stand.
Mr.. Whitelsy said that one good book
as better than twelve which did not
fer to the cases. He considered the 4
,oks to which his opponents referred
d not relate to the matter. Said he +
r. Bright had nothing to do with the
ritlng, the composing or the signing
the article, The communication was .
ad to Mr.. Bright aud he said "it was
good piece" possibly referring to the v
IMPOSITION. He did not know his e
me was at the end of it. If DR.. Tan
m and he had talked about the con- I
nts and then had he signed it c
,uld have been libelous, but as it was
was not libslious. To be recognized G. g
libel communication must be v
written, aad published and tt
cognized. h
If Mr.. Bright saying it was a good
ing when he heard the article read q
.de him guilty of libel, then the y
sders of the REPUBLICAN or "Gazette" ,e
10 read it and said it was a good piece n
re answerable also for libel. Mr..
hiteley also claimed that Mr.. Bright E.
d no time to make statement as the Nv
.icle was published on Saturday at 3 h,
m. and at 8 a. m. on Monday he was pr
.aefaI S<