Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1880-11-18


reserved for members of the bar and
other privileged persons were also filled.
The press was largely repre- tened.
During the delivery of the opinion the
room was very quiet, the auditors list
ening with close attention to every word.
Amusement was manifested by smiles
during some passages pOrtraying the ut
ter failure of the attempts to show that
the person, Henry L. Morey, ever had an
existence, and there was slight rustic
as many of the spectators turned to look
at one another during the comments Of
the court on Mr.. Hewitt's connection
with the case.
JUDGE DAVIS OPINION.
in dis State the liberty of speech and
the press are projected, and to some ex-
tent restricted by the Constitution OF
the State, and in certain specified cases
| by the statute under these provisions
During d political canvass every person
has the right to speak, write and pub
lish his sentiments and opinions, and to
discuss the chaI acter, fitness, qualifica-
tioDs, habits, opinions, defects. merits or
lack of them, of any candidate for Office,
in such form and manner as to him shall
seem proper, subject in law only to re-
sponsibility for the abuse of thaC right
For such discussions the law sets up NO
standard of morality, taste, humanity or
decency; but leaves those matters Who'll
lY to the censo~ ship, or moral sense of
the people, except that when such wri-
tings or publications are libelous in their
character, and are not privileged, the
publisher must Le able, on a criminal
prosecution, to show to the jury not on
ly that they are true, but that they were
published with good motives and for
JUST liable ends. But these provisions
will be searched in vain to find any right
TO publish as genuine any false or forged
letter or instrument, purporting to be
the act of another, although he be a
candidate for Office. In such a case,
ne ther the foTser nor the publisher of
the forgery is writing or publishing his
sentiments or opinions within the
protection of the Constitution, or dis
cussing any question within the range of
his lawful rights and privileges. He is
both avowedly and in fact, putting forth
to the community as true the writing
and ait of another, and if the publica-
tion is injurious within the law of libel,
he is bound in such case to know its
truth, or take the consequences of its
| falsity. In respect to the forser and of
the publisher with the knowledge of
forgery, there is simpv caSuS omissuS
in the law of felony. which the con-
science OF all decent people must recog-
nize and legislation should hasten to
supply.
Unhappily, under the present condi-
tion of the law, even such an act cOnnot
be reached, except as criminal libel, but
l think it cannot be doubted that if the
contents of such forged letter 0e such
as to expose the alleged writer to CEN
sure or injury, or public hatred, con-
tempt or ridicule, or such as might rea-
sonably provoke him to breach of the
peace, they will be clearly libelous and
the vedom of libel is only the more poi
sonOus because the forger has it put in
to the mouth of the party intended to be
injured. Il there were no precedent the
common law is elastic enough to cover
and redress such wrongs. In any view
of the guilt or innocence of the accused
in this case, the queition of the forgery
of the letter is Of the utmost impor-
tance, because, first, the accused actual
ly wrote the letter and caused it to be
published as genuine, those acts consti-
tute libel, for which he should be held
to trial; or, secondly, if he did not write
the letter and cause it to be published,
yet, as he wrote and furnished to the
newspaper the article entitled "I.ying
and Sticking to It, in which, with the
knowledge that Gen. Garfield had de-
nOunced the letter as a forgery, he reas-
sertS its genuineness, and declares Gen.
Garfield to be a "Iiar" for having de-
nounced it. He must be held to answer
unless he has shown that in fact the let
ter is genuine, and that Gen. Garfield is
therefore a liar in having denied it, and
also show that he wrote and published
the article calling him a liar "with good
motives and for justifiable ends" 1t is
settled that to call a man in public
newspapers liar is libelOus
The Judge here recites the facts of
the case and reviews the evidence. and
says: Collating all the facts, which are
in no material part contradicted or i'm
pugned, We are brought to discern, with
almost the highest degree of certainty
that the evidence Can attain, that the
envelope in which the Morey letter is
said to have been received was never
mailed, stamped, sent and received
through the postofice but once; that it
was mailed that once dt Washington on
some day later than the 18th of Februa-
ry, 1880, and when the steel stamp was
in use; that it was received in New
York and stamped in the Receiving De-
paItment on the 18th or 22d day of the
/ Sanoa month fhnSa oro tho Dnl,, da
of which the figure "2' can be the ter
minal number; that it was sent to the
station and delivered to the person to
whom it was addressed, whose name be-
yond all doubt was not H. L. Morey,"
for i'll that case no eraSure would have
been necessary; that this envelope has,
since its receipt and delivery in New
York, been taken and used by some per-
son bent on criminal purpose, who eras-
ed therefrom the name of the person to
whom it was originally addressed and
delivered, and every day of the month
and day that would clearly show when
1t was, in fact, mailed and received,
for tle purpose Of getting into it letter
antedated to a day prior to the nomina-
tion of Gen. Garfield, and on which he
was known to have been in Washington: ::
and that such person wrote, or caused to
be written thereon, the address, II. L.
Morey, Lynn, Mass, for tie purpose of
deceIVing the publisher of the newspa-
per to whom it might be delivered into
the belief that the letter it should en-
close was the genuine lettsr of J. A.
Garfield. Doubtless it was not suppos-
ed that the envelope would be the sub
Ject of much scrutiny. The letter itself
was the great subject of his thoughts.
and the envelope, he probably presumed,
having served its purpose, would fall un-
needed into the publishers waste basket.
All the facts above enumerated, which
disclose so clearly the character of this
envelope, bear with no less force upon
the question, Is the letter a forgery?
If hnn1rf f1,i L -