The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-11-18
THB MOREY LETTER.
DAVIS'S REBUKE AND HEW-
TITS REJ.OINDER.
The Judge Takes the Congressman
to Task,
Who Hits Back Straight From
the Shoulder,
And Gets the Best of the Bout BY
Long Odds,
While Philip is Held to Answer the Charge OF
Criminal Libel.

While Philip Is Held to Answer the Charge OF
Criminal Libel,
New York, November 13-The fact that Chief
Justice Noah Davis was to deliver his opinion to-
day in the case of Kenward Philip, charged with
criminal libel on Gen. Garfield, drew crowd Of
spectators this morning to the Supreme Court, In
which the decision was to be announced. Be-
fore the Judge took his place on the bench nearly
all the seats provided for the general public were
occupied, and the chars within the railing re-
served for the men bers Of the bar and other
privileged persons, were also filled. The press
was largely represented, and rows Of spectators
standing close together, fringed the enclosure al
ready mentioned. The prisoner occupied a seat
near his counsel, The counsel for Joseph Hart
was also near by. The prosecution was repre-
sented by Assistant District Attorney Bell, E. W,
SLoughtoD, George Bligs and John 1. Davenport
Eihu Root, Joel B. Erhart and Assistant District
Attorney Rolling were among the other persons
present
During the delivery Of the opinion the room
was very quiet, the auditors listening with close
attention to every word Amusement was mani
tested by smiles during some passages portrayiug
the, utter failure Of the attempts to show that
such person as Henry L. Morey ever had an ex.
istence, and there was slight rustic as many Of
the spectators turned to look at one another du'
ring the comments Of the Court on Mr. Hewltts
connection with the case. Following is the
opinion,
JUDGs DAvIs's OPINION.
In this State the liberty OF speech and Of the
press are declared, protected and to some extent
restricted by the Constitution of the State and in
certain specified cases by statute. Upon teese
provisions, during political canvass, every per
son has right to speak, write and publish his
sentiments and opinions, and to discuss the char
acter fitness, qualifications, habits opinions, de-
fects, merits, or lack of them, Of any candidate
for CflGe In such form and manner as to him
shall deem proper, subject In law only 10 respon
sibility for abuse Of that right For such discus
sions the law sets up 10 standard of morality,
taste, humanity, or decency, but leaves those
matters wholly to censorship or the moral sense
Of the people, except that when such writings or
publications are libelous In their character, and
are not privileged, the publisher must be able on
criminal prosecution, to show to the jury not only
that they are true, but that they were published
with good motives and for lusIiaable ends. But
these provisions will be searched In 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 candidate for
office In such a case neither the forger nor the
publisher of forgery is writing or publishing Ibis
sentiments" or opinions within the protection OF
the Constitution OF discussing any question with.
In 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 eot OF an.
other, and If publication Is injurious within the
law OF libel, he Is bound In such cases to know
its truth or to take the consequences Of ts asity
In respect to the forger and Of the publ lsher with
the knowledge Of forgery, there is simply a
cdSus oratssuS 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 can not be reach ed, except
as criminal libel, but think 1t can not be doubt
ed that II the contents Of such forged letter be
such as to expose the alleged writer 10 censure or
injury or public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or
such as might reasonably provoke him to breach
o. the peace, and they will be clearly libelous
and the venom Of libel is only the more poison
GUS, because the forger has It put into the mouth
Of the party intended to be injured. II there
were no precedent the common law is elastic
enough to cover and redress such public wrongs.
Ia any view of guilt or innocence of the accused
in the case, the question of forgery of the 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 he should be held to trial. or sec.
Ondly he did not write the letter and cause 1t to
be published yet, as he wrote and furnished to
the newspaper the article entitled Lying and
Sticking TO IT," In which, with the knowledge
that General Garfield had denounced the letter as
a forgery, he reasserts It's genuineness, and de.
cares General Garfield to be liar" For having
denounced 1t he must be held to anawer, unles
he has shown that in fact the letter is genuine,
and that General Garfield is therefore liar in
having denied 1t, and also show that he wrote
and published the article calling him liar with
good motives aud jlshhable ends" 1t is settled
that TO call man in public newspapers liar In
libeOus The judge here recites the facts of the
case and reviews the evidence.
All the facts which disclose so clearly the char.
acter Of this envelope, bear with no less force
upon the question. Is the letter forgeryH It
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, Ma $751;" by whom the
letter which accompanied the MOrey letter to
Mr.. Hart purports to have been written. It is
proved most clearly that no such person as H, L.
Morey, being the person to whom the letter pur-
ports TO be addressed, ever existed. The experts
on both sides all 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 about II. An examination Of the letter H.
self shows this fact to every person who 10 free
from obliquity Of vision or preversion Of judg-
ment 4 Mr.. .Hewitrs 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 received the letter In the very sin.
gular manner In which II Preached him, his suspi-
cions were aroused he saw It's importance, If
genuine, as q weapon Of deadly power in the
hands Of Garheld's political foes he was not
satisfied TO publish itupon the examination which
he and his editorial staff could make, and there.
fore took the letter and envelope to the Demo
cratic 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.publlsh the letter II 1t was forgery, but
II genuine he did, and wanted no other paper to
get ahead Of him in iu publication. he says 1t
was examined by all the persons named, but Mr.,
Hewitt madethe closest and most careful exam.
ination, and spent fully half an hour in It's ex.
animation ard ther pronounced the letter, both