Litchfield enquirer., 1880-11-25
THE CHINESE LETTER.

|
cordance with Judge Davis subsequent let
ter st
In tins State the liberty of speech and of the
press are declared protected, and to some ex-
tent restricted by the Constitution of the
State aud in certain specified cases by stat
ule
Section of Article l of the Constitution
provides that Every citizen may freely speak,
| write aud publish his sentiments on all sub
iects, being responsible for the abuse of that
right and no law shall be passed to restrain
or abridge the liberty Of speech or Of the
press" Chapter 100 of the laws of 1854 en-
acts that mo reporter, editor or proprietor of
any newspaper shall be liable to any action or
prosecution, civil or criminal, for fair and
true report in such newspaper of any ju-
dieial, legislative or other public official pro-
ceedings, Oh of any statement, speech or argu-
nient in the course of the same, except upon
proof of actual malice" 1t further provides
that this privilege shall not extend to ''any
iibellous comments or remarks superadded
to and interspersed or connected with such re-
port"
Another portion of the Subsection of Article
l of the Constitution defines the rights of per,
sons when prosecuted criminally for hbes in
these words: SIN all criminal prosecutions
or indictments for libels, the truth may be
given in evidence to the jury and if it shall
appear to the jury that the matter charged as
libellous is true, and was published for good
motives and for justifable ends, the party
shall be acquitted, aud the jury shall have the
right to determine the law and the fact.
Under these provisions, during political
canvass, every person has a right to speak,
write and publish ''his sentiments" and opin-
ions, and to discuss the character, fitness,
qualifications, habits, opinions, defects, nier-
Its 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 rcspon-
sibility for the abuse of that right. For such
discussions the law sets up no standard of
morality, taste, humanity or decency, but
leaves those matters wholly to the censorship
of the moral sense of the people, except that
when such writings or publications are libel
lous in their character, and are not privileged.
the publisher must be able, on criminal
prosecution, to show to jury not only that
they are true, but that they were published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
But these provisions will be searched 10 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 can
didate for Office. In such a case, neither the
forger nor the publisher OF the forgery is writ
ing or publishing "his sentiments Or opinions
within the provision of the Constitution, or
discussing 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 act of an
other, and if the publication be injurious
within the law of libel he is bound in such
case to know its truth, or to take the conse-
quences of its faisity. In respect to the forg
er, and of the publisher. with knowledge of
the forgery, there is simply casus omtssus in
the law of felony, which the consciences of all
decent people must recognize, and legislation
should hasten to supply. Unhappily in the
present condition of the law, even such an act
cannot be reached except as a criminal libel;
but think it cannot be doubted that if the
contents of such a forged letter be such as to
expose the alleged writer to censure or injury,
or public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or
such as might reasonably pre3oke kim 10 a
breach of peace, they will be clearly libellous;
and the venom of the libel Is only the more
poisonous because the forger has put it. into
the mouth of the party intended to be injured
If there were no precedent, the common law
is elastic enough to cover and redress such
public wrong.
The accused is charged in this case with
two offences substantially as follows:
,Farst-That he wrote the so-called Morey
letter, therein oounterfeting the handwriting
and signature Of james A. Garfield, and
caused it to he published as his genuine letter
| in a newspaper known as Truth,
| Second-That said letter being IN fact
forgery, but published as genuine, was pub
licly denied and denounced as forgery by
General Garfield. and that after such denunci
alton and denial were made. the accused
| wrote an article entitled Lying AMI Sticking
to 1t, which he published in said newspaper,
| and iD which he reasserted the genuineness of
the letter and declared General Garfield to be
a liar for having denied it, -
If the Morey letter be in fact forgery its
publication was in my judgment libelleus, be-
cause the sentiments it falsely puts into the
mouth of General Garfield are such as would
tend, if believed to be his, to bring him into
popular hatred and contempt and to excite
breaches of the peace.
| In any view of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in this case, the question of the for
gerry of the letter is of vital importance
Because, first, if the accused actually wrote the
letter and caused it to he published as genuine,
those acts constitute libel for which he
| should be held to trial; or, secondly, if he did
not write the letter and cause it to be publish
ed yet as he wrote and furnished to the news
paper the article entitled Lying and Stick
| ing to It," in which, with knowledge that
General Garfield bad denounced the letter as
forgery, he ressserts its genuineness. and de-
| u "
| ing denounced it, he must be held to answer
unless he has shown that in fact the letter is
genuine and that General Garfield is there
fore liar in having denied it; and also show
| that he wrote and published the article calling
| him liar, 'swlth good motives and for justifi
able ends. ~ 1t is settled that to call man in
q public newspaper liar 10 Iibellous. Brooks
agt- Bemis 8 johnson, 49, .sdi,& ss9~ssEss, p
On the questions of good motives and justi-
fable ends, but little need be said for If the
letter he genuine it was entirely lawful and
proper that it should be published, inasmiich
as it relates to a subject in which the people
of the country are deeply interested and upon
which they have right to be Informed of the
lopinions of candidates for the Presidency.
And if the letter were in fact written by Gen.
eral Garfield, his denial was falsehood, and
the Pronunciation of it a. such could not be
4 libel. however coarse the terms in which it
was made The motives and the ends in that
case would be in the eve of the law good"
and .justiiable" within the sense of the Con-
stitution. asss, a.s.s b.4s-.s v-sasasrssa
It-.ollows from these Suggestions that the
question of the genuineness or forgery of the
letter lies at the base of any Just conclusion i'm
this case, and must be fully considered. ste. b
The question may first properly be consid-
cred in the light of Intrinsic and by the evil
dence indispptahle facts wholly independent
of all opinions in respect of the handwriting
r The theory OF the commences OF the letter
is that it was written by General Garfield at
Washington, on the 23d day Of January, 1880,
to one FL. L. Morey, and on or about that day
mailed at Washington, addressed to MOrey at
Lynn, Mass, where il was received by Mercy
It was shown that the letter with its envelope
came into the hands of MIR. Hart, at the office
of the newspaper called Truth, on OF about the
evening Of the 18th of October last, in an en-
velepe mailed in. the city of; New York, ac-
Icompanied by letter purporting to be writ
ten by one 'John w. Goodall, of Lynn" Mr.
Hart testified that he brought and delivered
to the Court both the letter and the envelope.
in the condition in which they were received
BY him. assk 5ss'T. 2 6
A careful examination of the envelope dis.
closed these facts: that it bears on its face the