The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1880-11-25
Judge Davis on ths Morsy Letter and
Its AufhOr.

SuuS0 DAVIS On VIC MOkOy ActVcE huu
Its Author.
| OK the 18th Chief Justice Noah Davis.
of the New York Supreme Court, deliv-
| cred the following opinion in the case of
Kenward Philip, charged with criminal
libel on General Garfield: .F. sars..
In this State the lib erty of speech and Of press
are declared, protected, and to some extent re-
| strieted by the Constitution of the State, and
| ip certain specified cases by statute. Under
| these provisions, during the political canvass,
every person has n right to speak, write and
publish his sentiments and opinions, and 60
discuss the character, fitness, qualifications,
habits, opinions, defects, merits or lack of
them, of any candidate for Office in such form
| and manner as to him shall seem prop
| or, subject in law only to responsibility
for an 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 publications are ibelous in
their character, and ore not privileged, the
publisher must bglnles on criminal prosecu-
tion, to show to the 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 in vain to find any
right 10 publish as genuine any false or forged
l-letter or instrument purporting to be the act
of another, although he be a candidate for Of
fice. In such case neither the forger nor the
publisher ofthe forgery is writing OF publish
ing "his 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 avoyedly
aid in fact, putting forth to the oom mnnity
a$ true tAswritlng and sct Qe anothers ands II
the publication is injurious within the law of
hn fs hnn nd IN, ,nk raSo 70, I'M ia
truth or to take the consequences of its falsi-
ty. In respect to the forger, and of the pub
| Usher with the knowledge of the forgery,
there is simply a casus omissus in the law Of
felony which the consciences of all decent
people must recognize. and legislation n
should hasten to supply. LUnhappiy, lun-
der the present condition Of the law,
stch an. act cannot be reached except as GRIM
iual libel, but 1 think it cannot be doubted
that If the contents of such forged letter be
such as to expose the ALLEGED writer to censure
OF injury, OF public hatred, contempt, or ridi-
cule, or such as mifht reasonably provoke
him to n breach of the peace, they will be
clearly libelous, and the venom of libel is only
the more poisonous because the forger has
put 1t 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. In any. view Of
the guilt or innocence of the accused i'm this
case the question Of the forgery Of the
lcfter is of vital Importance, because,
first, If the accused, actually wrote the
lcttcr and caused 1t to be published gen.
uine, those acts constitute a libel for which he
could be held to trial; or, secondly, IL he did
not write the letter and cause IL to be pub
lished, yet as he wrote and furnished to the
newspaper the article entitled Lying and
Sticking to - in which, with the knowledge
that General Garfield had denounced the let
ter as q forgery, he reasserts its genuineness,
and declares General Garfield to be a
"liar" for having denounced it, he must be
held 10 answer unless he has shown that in
fact fhe letter is genuine and that GencrM
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 mo-
tives and toetsiiable ends" 1t is settled that
to call n man in public newspapers O liar is
ibelous. -...
The Judge here recites the facts of the
case and 'reviewss-tAe evidence. and
says:
Collatinz all the facts, whi ch are in no ma
terial part contradicted or impugned, we are
brought to discern with almost the highest
degree OF certainty that evidence can attain
that the envelope I'm which the Morey
letter is said to have been received was
never mailed, stamped, sent and re-
ceived through the Post-office but once; that
it was mailed that once in Washington on
some day later than the 18th of February, 1880,
and when the steel stamp was In use; that 1t
WIS received IN New York and stamped in the
receiving department on the 18th or I'D day OF
the same month, as those are the only dates Of
which the figure e22'' can be the terminal num-
Der; that It was sent to the station and deliver
to the person to whom it was addressed, whose
name, beyond ali doubt, was not H. L.
Morey," for in that case no erasurc would
has, since /, its y rcseipt and delivery
in New York, been taken and used byfsome
person bent on a criminal purpose, who erased
therefrom the name of the person to whom, II
was originally addressed and delivered, md
every date of the month and day thar would
clearly show when II was in fact mailed and re-
ceived. for the purpose of putting into IL let
ter antedated to day prior 70 the nomination
of General Garfield, and on which he was known
to hhve been in Yashiugton; apdthat such per
/ sonwrote or caused to be written thereoIttAe
address, "H. L. Morey, Lynn, Mass" for the
purpose of deceiving the publisher of the news
paper to whom 1t might be delivered into the
belief that the letter it should inclose was tho
genuine letter of J. A. Garfield. Doubtless it
was not supposed that the envelope would be
the subject OF much scrutiny. The letter f.
self was the great subject of his thoughts, and
the envelope, he probably presumed, having
served its purpose, would fall UNDECIDED into
the publishers waste-basket.
An the facts above enumerated, which dis
close so clearly the character of this envelope,
bear with no less force upon the question, Is
the letter a forgery? It Is next to impossible
that they can be true and the letter be gem
uine; but they are reinforced by other facts
which remove from my mind the last shadow
Of douht. There was no such person as
"John ". Goodali, Of Lynn; Mass" :" by whom
the letter which accompanied the Morcy
letter to Mr.. Hart purports to have
been written. 1t is proved most clearly
that no such person as II. L. Morey, as being
the person to whom the letter purports
to be addressed, ever existed The experts on
both sides agree that the Morey letter, both in
body and signature, was writton by the Same
hand, some of them declaring there can be no
doubt about it. An examination OF the letter
itself shows this fact to every person who IS
free from obliquity of vision or perversion OF
Judgment. srE5 .-Ggj5
Mr.. Hewitt's connection with this letter, and
the transactions that have grown out of 1t, are
TO say the least, of the most extraordinary
character. According to the testimony of Mr..
Hart, when he QHart) received the letter, the