The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-11-15

are llbelouS IN their character, anu "
not privileged, the publisher must b
able, on q criminal prosecutions, TO sho'
to the jury not only that they are tTat
but that they were published with goo
motives and for iustitiable ends. But thes
proyisions Till be searched in vain TO fin
any right to publish as genuine any falls
or forged letter or instrument, purportinI
10 be. the act of, another, although he be
candidate for ofiicesk In such o case
neither the forger northe publisher OF th.
forgery Is writingor publishing his senti
ments" or opinions within the protection
OF the Constitution, or discussing any
question within the range OF his lawtu
rights and privileges. He is both avow
edly aud In fact, putting forth to the com
munity as true the writing and actot an
other, and Il the publication is inturiop,
within the law Of libel, he sbound in sucl
case TO know its truth, or take the conse
quances Of It's fslsity. In respect to tn!
forger and ofthe publisher with the knowl
edge OF forgery, there is simply a castt
0mi9,s In the law OF felony, which the con
science OF all decent people must recognize
and legislation should hasten to supply.
Unhappily, under the present condition
of the law, even such an act cannot b.
reached, except as criminal libel, but J
think Il cannot be doubted that II the con
tents Of such forged letter be such as tt
expose the alleged writer TO Censure or in
Jury, or public hatred, contempt or ridi
cule' or such as might reasonably provoke
him to breach Of the peace, they will bG
clearly libelous and the venom OF libeI
il only the more poisonous because the
iorger has it put into the mouth
OF the party intended TO De in'
jured. n there were no precedent the
common law is elastic enough to cover and
redress such wrongs. In any view OF ihe
guilt or innocence Of the accused in this
case, the question OF the forgery OF fthe letter
is OF the utmost Importance, because,
first, II the accused actually wrote the Letter
and caused 1t to be published as genuine,
those acts constitute libel. for which be
should be held to trial; or, secondly, II he
did not write the letter and cause 1t TO oe
published, yet, as he wrote and furnished
10 the newspaper tho article entitled "Ly.
ing and Sticking to It," in which, with the
knowledge that General Garfield had de-
nounceu the letter as q forgery, he reas.
serts Its genuineness, and declares Gen.
Garfield 10 be "liat" for having de.
nounced It. He must be held to answer,
unless he has shown that in fact the letter
isgenuine, and that Gen. Garfield Is there.
fore liar in having denied 1t, and also
show that he wrote and published the ar
ticIe calling him liar with good motives
and for justliable ends" 1t is settled that
to call man in public newspapers liar
is libelous.
The Judge here recites the facts OF the
case and reviews the evidence, anu says:
Collating all the facts, which are in, no ma.
terial part contradicted or impugned, we
are brought to discern, with almost the
highest degree OF certainty that the evil
dence 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 postotfice
but ouce; that 1t was mailed that once at
Washington Oh some day later than the
18th Of February, 1880, and when the steel
stamp was in use; that 1t was 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 oil
which the figure "2n can be the terminal
number; that it was sent 10 the
station and delivered to the person
to whom it was addressed, whose name
beyond all doubt was not 81. L. Morey,"
for in that case no erasure would have
been necessary; that this envelope has,
since its receipt and delivery in New York,
been taken. and used bysome person bent
on criminal purpose, who erased there
from 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, ip TACT,
mailed aud received, for the purpose OF
getting into it letter 5Rntedated
TO day prior to the nomination OF
General Garfield, and on which he
ington; and that such person wrote, or
caused to be written thereon, the address,
"H. L. Morey, Lynn, Mass for the pur-
pose OF decelving the publisher OF the
newspaper to whom it might, be delivered
into the belief that the letter itshould in
close was the genuine letter OF ]. A. Gar
field. Doubtless 1t was not supposed that
the envelope would be the subject OF
much scrutiny. The letter itself was the
great subject OF his thoughts, and the en-.
velope, he probably presumed, having
served it's purpose, would fall unheeded
into tic publishers waste.basket.' ~
All the facts above enumerated, which
disclose SO clearly the character OF this en-
.velope, bear with no less force upon the
question. Is the letter forgery? II is
next to impossible that they can be true
and the letter be genuine. But they are
reinforced by other facts which remove
from my mind the last shadow OF doubt.
There was no such person as "John W.
Goodall, OF Lynn, Mass, /" by whom the
Letter to Mr.. Hart purports to have been
written. 1t is proved most clearly that no
such person as Fl. L. Morey, being the
person 10 whom the letter purports to
be addressed, ever existed. The
experts on both sides oil agree
that the Morey letter, both in body and
signature, was written by the same hand,
some OF them declaring there can be no
doubt aboutit. An examination OF the let.
ter itself shows this fact toevery person
who Is free from obliquity ofyision or per-
version Of Judgment. Mr.. Hewitts con.
nection with this letterand the transac.
tions that have grown out OF Ii, are, to say
the least, OF the most extraordinary char,
acter. According to the testimony Of Mr..
Hart, when he received the letter in the
very singular manner In which 1t reached
him, his suspicious were aroused; he saw.
It's importance. iigcnuine, ssa weapon Of
deadly power in the hauds Of Gartield,s
political foes; he was not satistled'te pub.
fish 1t upon the examination which he and
bis editorial staff could make, aud there
fore took the letter and envelope to
the Democratic National Committee for
inspection. He there saw Mr. Hewitt.
Mr.. Barnum, Mr.. Randall, and several
others; Mr.. Hart showed them the papers,
and said, in substance, that he did not
want to publish. the letter II 1t was Tor.
gerry, but II genuine he did, and wanted
no other paper TO get ahead Of him in its
publication. He says 1t was axamined by
all the persons named, but Mr.. Hewitt
made the closest and most careful exami-
nation, and spent fully hall On hour in its
| AEn. khu