The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1880-11-19
The opinion in Full

court on Mr. dcWltL'S connection Win
the case. The following is
THE OPINION:
''In this state the liberty of speech and
OF the press are declared, protected and
TO some extent restricted by the consti-
tuition of the state and In certain speci-
fed cases by a statute. Under these pro-
visions during political canvass every
person has a right to speak, write and
publish his sentiments and opinions,
and 10 discuss the character,
fitness, qualifications, habits, defects,
merits, or lack of them, of any candi-
date for office, in such form and man.
ner as TO him shall seem proper, subject
in law only TO the responsibility for an
abuse Of that right for such discussions.
The law sets up no standard of morality
or decency, but leaves those matters
wholly 10 the censorship or moral sense
of the people, except that when such
writing or publication are libelous in
their character and are not privileged, the
publisher must lie able ON criminal prose-
cution to show TO the Jury not only that
they are true, but that they were published
with good motives aud justifable ends.
But the provisions will be searched in
vain TO find any right TO publish as
genuine any false or forged letter instru-
ment purporLing to be the act of ano-Ie
although he be a candidate for Office. In
such case neither the forger nor the
publisher of the forgery is writing or
publishing his sentiments or opinions
within the protection of the constitution,
or discussing any question within the
range of his lawful rights and privile-
ges. He both avowedly and in fact puts
forth to the community az true the
" .'itIng and act of another, and if the
publication is injurious within the case
of libel he is bound in such to know its
truth or take the consequences OF lis
falsity. In respect to the forger and the
publisher, with knowledge of the foa
gerry, there is simply cdsus OmissuS in
the law of felony which the conscience3
of all decent people must recognize, and
legislation must hasten TO supply. Un-
happily under the present condition of
law even such an act cannot be reached
except as criminal libel, but l think IL
cannot be doubted that, if the contents
of forged letter be such as TO ex"ose
the alledged writer TO censure or injuiy
or public hatred, contempt or ridicule,
or such as might reasonably provoke him
to breach of the peace, they will be clear
~ libelOus, and the venom of libel is
only the more poisonous because the
forger has put it into the mouth of the
party intended to be injured.
aft there were no precedents the COM
mon law is elastic enough to cover and
redress such public wrong in any view
II the guilt or ipnocence of the accused.
on this case the questlf OF the forgery
of the letter IS of the utmost importance,
because: First If the accused actual
ly wrote the letter and caused it to be
Published as genuine, these acts consti-
tute libel, for which he should be held
o., did mt
write the letter and cause it TO be pub
lished, yet, as he wrote and furnished to
| a newspaper the article entitled, Lying
and Sticking TO It. in which, with the
knowledge that Gen. Garfield had de-
nOunced the latter as Il forgery, he reas-
serts its genuinencsS and declares Gen.
| Garfield to be a liar for having de-
nounced ii, he must be held to answer
unless he has shown that in fact the
letter Is genuine, and that Gen. Garfield
is therefore a linF IN having denied it,
and also shown that he wrote and pub
| lished the article calling him liar with
good motives and for justifiablc ends
II is settled that TO call man in pub
lie newspaper a liar Is libelous."
The judge here rccites the facts of the
case and reviews the evidence and says:
collecting all the facts which are in
no material part cOntradicted or i'm
pugned, We are brought to discern with
almost the highest degree of certainty
| that the envelope in which the Morey
letter is said To have been received, was
never mailed, stamped, sent and received
through the postoffice but once. That il
| was mailed that once Mt Washington, or
some day later than the fifteenth of Feb
ruary, 1880, and when tile steel STAMP
was IN use. That it was received in New
-, rs.an. IL.
pot ON the 18th or 22d day of the same
month, as those are the only dates o.
which the figure "2" can be a terminal
number. That it was sent to the station
and delivered to The person To whom i
was addressed, whose name beyond al
doubt was not n. l.. Morey,' for in tina
case no erasurc would have been necessary
| That this envelope has since its receipt
and delivery in New York, been taken
and used by some person bent on a Grim
inal purpose, who erased therefrom the
pane of the person to whom il was orig
inally addressed and delivered, and eV
cry date of the month and day that would
clearly show, when it was in fact mailed
and received, for the purpose of putting
into il letter ante-dated to day prior
to the nomination of Gen. Garfield, and
on which lie was known to have been in
Washington, and that such person wrotC
or caused to be written thereon the adj
dress, ii. l.. Morey, Lynn, Mass, for the
purpose of deceiving the publisher o.
the newspaper to whom il might be de
livered into the belief that tho letter i
should enclose was a genuine letter of j
A. Garfield. Doubtless il was not sup
posed 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 its purpose, would fal
unhceded into the publishers waste
"Ail the facts above enumerated which
disclose so clearly the character of thii
envelope bear with no less force upoI
the question: Is the letter forgery
1t is next to impossible that they can b,
true and the letter be genuine, but theN
are reinforced by other facts which re
move from my mind the last shadow o
doubt There was no such person a
John w. Goodall, of Lynn, Massachu
sets, by whom the letter which accom-
panies the Morey letter 10 Mr.. Hart pur
ports to have been written. 1t is proven
most clearly that no such person as II
L. Morey as being the person to whom
the letter purports to be addressed, eve
existed. The experts ON both sides al
agree that the Morey letter, both in bod
I
hand, some of them declaring there ca
be no doubt about it. An examination
of the letter itself shows this fact L
every person who is free from obliquit
of vision or perversion of judgment.
GOING FOR HEWITT
Judge Davis continues: "Mr. HeW
tits connection with this letter and tn
transactions that have grown out of
are, to say the least, OF most extraordi
nary character According to the test
mony of Mr.. Hart, when he received tn
letter in the very singular manner il
which it reached hun, his suspicion
: were aroused. He saw its importance
if genuine, as weapon of deadly powe
in the hands of Garfield's political foe.
: He was not satisfied 10 publish il upo
the examination which he and his ed
torial staff could make, and therefor
took the letter and envelope to the Dem
ocratic national committee for inspeC
ton. He there saw Mr.. Hewitt, Nj
| Barnum, Mr.. Randall, and several Otl
ers. Mr.. Hart showed them the paper
and said, in substance, that he did nc
want TO publish the Letter if it was u fOl
J gerry, but If genuine BIC did, and Wante,
J no other paper to get ahead of him In II
3 publication. He says il was examine
by all the persons named. but that Nj
Hewitt made the closest aud mos
careful examination of the letter, an
spent fully half an hour in il
examination, and then pronounced la
letter both body and signature, 10 be il
the handwriting of Gen. GaE field
Photographs were then taken for the us
of the national committee, and Mr.. Han
returned with the letter TO his Office, bu
his mind was not fully satisfied, and h
says late in the evening he sought an,
found Mr.. Hewitt again, and was agai
assured Hewett had examined = larg