Ashtabula weekly telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1880-1886, 1880-11-26
HE MOrey Letter-Judge Davis Opin-
ion-Phllp Held 70 Bail.

ni the New York Supreme Court, deliV-
cred the following opinion in the case of
kenward Philip, charged with criminal
libel on General Garheld;
IN thisStatethe liberty Of speech and Of press
ere declared, protected, and to some extent re-
aricted by the Constitution OF the State, and
"a certain specified cases by statute. Under
Nese provisions, during the political canvass,
Fery person has a right to speak, write and
publish his sentiments and opinions, and 10
discuss the character, fitness, qualifications,
habits. opinions, defects, .merts or lack of
them Of any candidate for Office in such form
and manner as to him shall seem prop
~, subject In law only to responsibility
for an abuse Of that right. For such dis
IH EMISSIONS the law sets up no standard of
morality, taste, humanity, or deoenoy, but
leaves those matters wholly to the censorship
or moral sense of the people, except that when
such writings or publications arc libelOus in
their Character and are not privileged, the
publisher must be able, on criminal prOsgcu-
Zion, TO show to tho jury not only that they are
true, but that they were published with good
motives and for iustihable ends But theses
provisions will be searched in vain to find any
right TO publishes genuine any false or forged
letter or instrument purporting to be the act
of another although he be a candidate for Of
noe In suCn case neither the forger nor the
publisher Of the forgery is writing o. publish
ing ibis sentiments or opinions within the
protection 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 another, and If
the publication is Injurious within the law Of
i4Del, ne is bound in such case TO know its
truth or 70 take the consequences OF It's falsi-
". In respect to tho fOrger, and Of the pub
linher with the knowledge OF the forgery
there Is simply casus omissu5 in the law of
M felony which the consciences Of all decent
people must recognize and legislation
should hustcn to supply Unhappy, un-
der the present condition OF the law,
such nn act cannot be reached except as Grim
innl libel, but think it cannot be doubted
that II the contents Of such forged letter be
such as 20 expose the alleged writer 90 censure
or Injury, or public hatred, contempt, or rldi-
cule, Or such as might reasonably provoke
MIN TO breach of the peace, they will be
clearly hbelOus, and the venom Of libel is only
the more poisonous because the forqer has
put It into the mouth OF the party intended 10
be injured. II there were no precedent, the
common law is elastic enough to cover and
redress such public wrong. In any view of
the guilt or innocence of the accused I'm this
case the question Of the forgery of the
letter 10 Of vital Importance, because
nrst, IL the accused actually wrote the
letter and caused II 20 be published as gen
uiue, those acts constitute a libel for which he
could be held to trial; or secondly If he did
not write the letter and cause It to be pub
.Ahuttlt yet rs nc WfOte ana furnished to the
newspaper the article entitled "Lying and
Sticking TO It," in which, with the knowledge
that General Garfield had denounced the let
ter as forgery, he roasserts it's genulneness,
and deolpus General Garfield to be a
"liar" for having denounced it, he must be
held to answer unless he has shown that in
fact the letter Is genuine and that General
aarneld Is, therefore, u liar In having denied
III and also show that he wrote and published
tho article calling him liar, "wlth good mo-
tives and Iustinable ends" It Ia settled that
TO call man In public newspapers Il liar is
hbclous.
The Judge here recites the facts of the
case and reviews the evidence. and
says:
Collatlns all the facts, which are in no ma
terial part contradloted or impugncd wo are
brought to discern with almost the highest
degree Of certainty that evidence can attain
thnt the envelope In which the Morey
letter is said TO have been received was
mover mailed, stamped, sent aud re-
celyed through the Postofice but once; that
II was mailed that once In Washington on
aOlne day later than the 10Th Of February, 1850,
and when the steel stamp was in use; that It
N0s received in New York and stamped In the
receiving department on the 18th or 22d day Of
the same month, as those are the only dates of
G which tho ngdro '2 can be the terminal num-
Der; that Il was sent TO the station and deliver
TO the person 10 whom 1t was addressed whose
nRme, beyond all doubt was nOt "H. l..
MoreY' for In that oaso no eru5uro would
have been necessary that this envelope
has, since It's receipt and delivery
In New York, been taken and used by some
. person bent on criminal purpose, who erased
therefrOm the name OF the person TO whom IL
was originally addressed and delivered, and
every date OF the month and day that would
clearly show whom II was In fact mailed and re-
oeived for the purpose Of putting into It u let
ter antedated 20 u day prior TO the nomination
Of0onera GarhGd, md on which he was known
TO have been In Washington; and that such per-
A sonwrote or caused W bo written thereon the
.sddross, &" II, l.. Morey, Lynn Mass" for the
purpose OF dcceivinR the publisher Of the news
paper TO whom 1t might be delivered into the
belief thut the letter II should inuloso was the
H genuine letter OF j. A. Gurheld. Doubtless It
was not supposed that the envelope would be
the subject Of much scrutiny The letter It.
self was the great subject OF his thoughts and
the envelope he probably presumed, having
served lis purpose, would fall unheeded into
the publishers wnste-baskot
All tho facts above enumerated, which dis
close so clearly the character Of this envelope,
bear with no loss force upon the question, Is
Abe letter forgery2 II Is noxt TO impossible
that they can be true and the lcttor be gen
ulne; but they are reinforced by other facts
which remove from my mind the last shadow
Of doubt. There was no such person as
' fJohn W, Goodall, Of Lynn, Mass" by whom
the letter which accompanied the Morey
letter 20 Mr.. Hart purports TO have
bean written It " proved most clearly
that no such pdrsoh az II. Il. Morey, W. being
i tho person 70 whom tho, letter pufp1rts
20 be addressed ever existed. Tho experts on
both sides aueo thut tho Morey letter, both in
body signature WIS written by the same
hand, some OF them dauaring thore can be no
doubt about IL. An examination OF the letter
ttselt shows this fact TO every person who Is
free from obliluity OF vision or peryorsun OF