Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-12-01
THE MOREY LETTER.
Opinion of Judge Noah Davis The
Chinese Letter Prouen Forgery
and the Circulators Thereof
Justly Secured by the
Court

NEW YORK, Nov l3.-The fact that
Chief Justice Noah Davis was to de-
+ liver his opinion to-day in the case of
Kenward Philip, charged with criminal
| libel on General Garfield, drew crowd
of spectators this morning to the Su-
preme Court in which a decision was
to be announced. Before the judge
took his place on the bench nearly all
the seats provided for the general pub
lie were occupied. and the chairs with
in the railing, reserved for members of
the bar and other privileged persons,
were also filled The press was large
ly represented and rows of spectators
standing close together fringed the in
closure already mentioned.
The prisoner occupied seat near
his counsel. The counsel for Josh
Hart was also near by. The prosecu-
tion was represented by Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Bell, E. w. Stoughton,
George Bliss and John l. Davenport.
Elihu Root, Joel b. Erhardt and As
sistant District Attorney Rollins were
among other persons present.
During the delivery of the opinion
the room was very quiet, the auditors
listening with close attention to every
word. i.
The following is the opinion:
In this State the liberty OF speech
and press are declared protected, and
TO some extent restricted by the consti-
tuition of the State and in certain spe-
cited cases by statute. Under these
provisions, during a political canvass,
every person has right to speak, write
and publish his sentiments and opin-
ions, and to discuss the character, fit
ness, qualifications, habits, opinions,
defects, merits or lack of them, of any
candidate for office, in such form and
manner as to him shall deem proper,
subject in law only to responsibility for
the abuse of that right For such dis
cussions the law sets up no standard OF
morality, taste, humanity or decency,
but leaves those matters wholly to the
censorship or moral sense of the people
except that when such writings or pub
locations are libellous in their charac-
ter, and are not privileged, the publish
er must be able, on criminal prosecu-
zion to, to show to jury not only that
they are true, but that they were pub
ilshed with good motives and for JUS
tltiable ends. But then provision will
be Searched in vain to find any right
to publish as genuine any false or
forged letter or instrument purportlng
to be an act of another, although he be
candidate for Office.
In such case neither forger nor pub
Usher of the forgery is writing or pub
fishing "his sentiments" or opinions
within the protection of the Constitu-
tion, or discussing 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 act of another, and If the
publication is injurious within the law
of libel he is bound in such case to
knew it's truth or to take the conse-
quences of its falsity.
In respect to forger and ofpublisher,
with the knowledge of forgery, there IS
simply a casus omissus in the law OF
felony which the consciences of all de-
cent people must recognize, and legls-
lation should hasten to supply. Unhap-
pily, under the present condition OF the
law even such an act cannot be reached
except as criminal libel; but | think
it cannot be doubted such as to expose
the alleged writer to censure or injury,
o. public hatred, contempt or rldIcule,
or such as might reasonably provoEe
him to breach of the peace, they will
be clearly libellous, and the venom of
the libel only the more poisonous be-
cause the forger has put it into the
mouth of the party intended to be in
jured. If there were no precedent the
common law is elastic enough to cover
and redress the public wrong.
In any view Of the guilt or innocence
of the accused in this case, the question
of forgery Of the letter is of vital inn
portarce, because first, if the accused
actually wrote the letter and caused it
to be published as genuine, those acts
constitute a libel for which he should
be held for trial; or secondly, if he did
not write the letter and cause it to be
published, yet as he wrote and fur
nished to newspaper the article en-
titled, Lying and sticking to it," in
which, with the knowledge that Gen.
eral Garfield had denounced the letter
as q forgery, he reasserts its genuine
ness and declares General Garfield to
be '1iar" for having denounced it, he
must be held to answer, unless he has
shown that in fact the letter is genu-
inc, and that General Garfield is there
fore liar in having denied it; and also
shown that he wrote and published the
article calling him liar with good
motives and for justiiable ends" 1t
is settled that to call man in public
newspy per liar is libelious.
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
plunged, are we brought to discern
with almost the highest degree of GER
tainty that 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 postoffice but once; that it
was mailed that once at Washington
on some day later than the 18th of
February, 1880, and when the steel
stamp was in use; that it was received
in New York and the stamp in the re-
ceiving department on the 18th or 22d
! day of the same month, as those are
the only dates of which the figure "2"
can be terminal number, that it was
sent to station and delivered to a per-
son to whom it was addressed. whose
name beyond all doubt was not "H. l.
Morey," for in that case no erasure
| xro,,Id hove hoon paoacSarv. that this