Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-11-15

Justice Noah Davis was to deliver his opin
ion to-day in the case of Kenward Philip
charged with criminal libel on Gen. Gar
ing to the supreme court, in which the de-
cision wss TO be announced. Before the
judge took his place on the bench nearly all
the seats provided for the general public
were occupied and the chairs within the
railing, reserved for members of the bal
and other privileged persons, were also filed
The press was largely represented and rows
of spectators standing close together fringed
the Enclosure already mentioned. The pris-
oner occupied seat near his counsel
Counsel for Joseph Hart was also near by.
The prosecution was represented by Assist
at District Attorney Bell, z. N. Stoughton,
Geo. Bliss and John 1. Davenport. ElihE
Root, Joel 8. Rekardt and Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Rollins were among the other
persons present.
During the delivery of the opinion
the room was very quiet, the audi
tors listening with close attention to every
word; amusement was manifested by smiles
during some passages, portraying the failure
of the attempt to show that such person as
Henry l.. Morey ever had an existence, and
there was slight rustic as many of the
spectators turned to look as one another
during the comments of the court on Mr..
Hewitt's connection with the case. The
followingis the opinions:
In this State the liberty OF speech and of
press are declared protected and to some ex-
tent restricted by the constitution of the
Stale, and, in certain specified cases, by
statutes. Under these provisions during
political canvass every psrson has right
to speak, write ana publish his sentiments
and opinions, and TO discuss q character fit
ness, qualifications, habits, opinions, defects,
merits, or lack of them, of any candidate far
Office, in such form and manner as to him
shall seen proper-subject in law only to
responsibility for the abuse of that right for
such discussions the law sets up no stand
ard of morality, taste, humanity or decency,
bat leaves those matters wholly to the cea-
sorship or moral seDse Of the people, except
that when such writings or publications are
rebellious in their character and are not
privileged, the publisher must be able on
a criminal prosecution to show to the Jury
not only that they are true but that they
were published with good motives and for
justifable ends. But these provisions will
be searched in vain to find any right to pub
lish as genuine any false forged letter or in
strument purperting to be an act of anoth-
er, although he be q candidate for Office. In
snch case neither the forger nor publisher of
the forgery is writing or publishing his
sentiments or opinions, within the protec-
ton of the constitution, or discussing any
custom within the range of the lawful rights
and privileges. He is both avowedly and in
fact putting forth &c the community as true
the writing and act of another, and if the
publication is injurious, within the Law o.
libel, he is bound in such case to know itH
truth or take the consequences of its falsity.
In respect to the forger and of The publisher
with knowledge of the forgery, there is
simply cdSuS OniSSuS IN the law of felony,
which the consciences 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
be reached, except as criminal libel; but
think it cannot be doubted that if the con-
tents of such forged letter be such as to
expose the alleged writer to censure or in
jury, or public hatred, contempt or r1dicule,
or such as might reasonably provoke him to
breach of the peace, they will be clearly
more poisonous because the forgery is put
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 in this case, the question of
forgery of the letter is of vital Importance,
because, first, if the accused actually wrote
the letter and caused it to be published as
genuine, those acts constitute libel for
which he should be held to trial or, Sec
ondly, If he did not write the letter and cause
it to be published, yet as he wrote and fur
nished to newspaper the article entitled
"Lying and Sticking To It," in which, with
the knowledge that Gen. Garfield had de-
nounced the letter as forgery he reasserts
its genuineness and declares Gen. Garfield to
be q liar for having denounced it, ne must
be held to answer, unless he has shown that
in fact the letter is genuine and that Gen.
Garfield is, therefore, a liar In having denied
it; and also show that he wrote and publish
ed the article calling him liar with good
motives and for justiffRble ends. It is set
tied that to call man in public newspaper
liar is llbellous.
The Judge here recites the effects of the
case and reviews the evidence, and says
COLLECTING all the facts which are in nc
material part contredicted or impugned, we
are brought TO discern with almost the high
est degree of certainty that evidence can at
tain, that the envelope in which the Morey
letter is said to have been received was
never mailed, stamped, and received
through the post Office but once-that it was
mailed once at Washington on the same day
later than the 18th of February, 1880. and
when the steel stamp was in use that il was
received in New York and stamped in the
receiving department on the 18th or 22nd
day of the same month, as those are the onl,
dates of which figure "2" cen be the ter
minal numbsr, and that il was sent to sts
ton and delivered to the person to whom il
was addressed, whose name beyond ell
doubt was not "H. L. Morey,'
for in that case no erasur
would have been necessary; that thi
envelope has since its receipt and delivery
in New York been taken and used by som
person bent on a criminal purposes; VIII,
erased therefrom the name of a person t.
whom it was originally addressed and de
livered, and even the date of the month an,
day, that would clearly show where it was, il
fact, mailed and received for the purpose O
putting into it a letter antedated to da
prior to the nomination of Gen. Garfield
and on which he was known to have been il
Washington, and that such person wrote o
caused to be written thereon the address