Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-02-24

ult2lC HAVE dNdtlCA a. Stlii out
he would have been richer good deal
in cash and seif-rcspect than lie is now.
though still not a senator.
4 Good Man Gone Wrong.
Judge Galbraith, of Erie, whose in
| tegrity and ability we have often
| found occasion to commend, has recently
madea remarkable ruling in case of
| criminal libel. It is one which. if sus-
! tanned would do as much to Gverturn the
present established law in sucl, eases and
to unsettle the existing responsibility Of
newspaper publishers. us Judge Patter-
! son IS law in our disbarment case would
have seriously affected the legal profes-
sion had it been sustained by the higher
courts. 1t has never before l.cen held
We believe, that in libel. any more than
in any ether criminal case. there can lie
conviction where an utter absence Of
| malicious intent Or even criminal knOwl-
edge Gy thc defendant of the GtTenSe laid
is shown Hor has any such evidence
before been excluded from the Jury,
made the judges ot til" law an! tie facts,
il any criminal prosecution within our
knowledge. Judge Galbraith Introduces
this innovation hy which an employer
becomes crimin:il!y responsible for the
acts Of his employee, committed without
hi, knowledge or authority and even in
disol,edience to his instructions.
In the case in point a local reporter of
TIE Erie Morn;ng Di$,3nic', after part
Ing with a cotyivi,I friend one night. re-
published in the next day, paper 4 hu-
mDroliS article from the New York
G,Tres, which lie altcret! by !lie insertion
OF hi; friends; name :;.d the location Of
the lulcro'is incident in Erie. It was :,
broadly farcical narrative, not f;,!
t. an! body. But the party to whom it
WAS made II refer took il :;niiss and
prns"cutc,! t'ie publisher of ia" paper foi
| libel. On tie trial it WAS olfrTci! to show
the absence Of malice tilat thn alie%n,l
ar r!c WAS conceived! in Il spirit of inno-
cent mirtll and published rs /, joke that
! the relations in.:Wecn plaintiff and The
| defendant were of the ir!cnllrst char
acirr: that there IA'! never been any
/ differences between them of ANY kind and
| hence no motive for publishing Il libel :;
tlIHt he alleged libel was published with
out the knowledge Of III" defendant and
against his general Instructions to his
su0nr,ii:atss; That it was written and
published after he had left HE office sul
| the night: that he i::;.t received no in
| tlni%iiOt from any source Of IL; intended!
publication, and tia; there WAS an ai,-
sancc of malicious intent to ti"f;,me or
ri,l:ill1 the plaintiff. All Of }l"sc offers
were excluded by the court on tIe general
| ground that the publication OF the mat
ter III Defendant paper being admitted
and tEc matter being q libel iii itself, he l.:
answcrable in 4 criminal prosecution.
And though Judge G;.liraitl! ted tie
jury that they were judges ns the law
and Tie facts, he tulI t!s",n also = TIE
conclusion mast follow that lie is lab !e
ond M.r7 rna Jc Jm thr or ;,H" and,
even if they acquitted. that it WAS nos Il
case in which they ought topnt the cost S
Oh t!.c county or the prosecutor. Il
WASH mucIl wonder they found the eli
tor guilty: nor of much avail that they
recommended him to mercy For or
course he will appeal to the judgment of
a higher court and We have little doubt
of th" result OF tie review.
While Judge GaIbraitl's law is
neasurabIy the law in Il civil action Of
| libel for damages, there are tiw. best of
good reasons why il should not be ap-
| piled 10 the trials of criminal! rrosccH-
tioEs for that cfTense. In general, prin-
cipals are held civilly, but not criminal
| Tyres! !'blSh!e for the acts Of their agents,
within the limits Of their agencies and!
| 10 hold them accountable crinlinalIy for
| acts not authorized and OF w;,!ch the
| principals, had no knowledge, and which
they hal even forbidden, would be q,
stretch OF severity not tolerated
! in any wise Jurisprudence. Judge
GalOratl himself, only a short time ago,
according to the Di&pa'ch, asserted the
| correct principle, when in the prosecution
of two persons for the unlawful sale Of
liquor, it WAS proven that i'll one ease the
Dealers wife sold it, ana in the other it
Was the bartender. In both of these
Gases the learned judge charged the jury
that . crime cOuiu not be committed by
proxy" and that the liquor sellers could
not La maIo f.rimipo oIiy-t;,ou,l, fhav
might he made civil!y--respoiishIe for
acts Of their agents, unless they had /,
knowledge of the transactions and con-
sented to them. The judge charged the
jury that they could not convict under
such circumstances and both defendants
We're discharged. The criminal statutes
Will not be interpreted one way for
liquor sellers and another way for news
paper publishers.
The law of tins state as il now stands
is amply liberal for publishers and et,i-
tors. when interpreted nationally and
liberally, and We're ri judges rational
aHd liberal there would not be he occa-
sion for the committee recently appoint
ed 10y the state editorial association to
memorialize the Legislature for Il better
definition of it. That committee hap
pens to include Mr.. Willard, o; the Erie
Dispdtcis himself, and besides him, Messrs.
McMichael, Mcclure, O'Neili, Jenkins.
Neiman, Chalfant and Hensel. Their
action seems to have become Necessary
Jorc nv rnoc IN of ihn e. i,,,ra of Inr;ul,t;