Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-02-27


they wish 10 appear in the columns OF The STAR.
art notified that all such must Ee accompanied by
the name and address OF the contributor. (not for
publication. but for ycrlficaton, II thought neces
sary) and sent in at early an hour I'm thc morn
Ing Is possible. For want OF the observance Of
thesn two rules much matter Is excluded which
would otherwise appear.
JUICE C0x'5 charge delivered Thursday in the
prosecution Of 3 :. Lacey and j. e. Bruce, Of the
Sunday Item, Tor criminal libel, did not leave the
DEFENDANTS i,.;lch chance Of acluittaI, except on
tle superstition that facts had been proved which
would have ,ncctuATly prevented attempt TO
nllrt- Tn. GCurt leld that, where the truth OF
HeellOTS - iteuent is pleaded under the statute,
thu entire absolute truth must he proved. The
geneTal ruie. undoubtedly Is that the Justification
must be a. broad rs the charge But the rule has
not been t0uni inconsistent With the Gec,Si m, to
the effect hat II the i55 Of the libel be proved,
defendant need not Justify every expression which
hehasrs q in commenting on the plaintiff conduct
and that cpithFts terms of general abuse which
Co not add to the sting OF the charge, need not be
justified: and that the question for the jury is
whether the SubStitce of the HDellouS statement
has been proved true ~ their satisfaction or
whether the fact not justified amounts to a sep.-
fata charge or iEiputltinn against the plaintiff
Substantially distinct from the main charge, or
az least amounts To material aggrlyst..Jn of
sucll m lin charge. The notifications or the rule
that the GbSOi'te tru.b q. the libel In every par
teniar, must D. n-Jved. do not, perhaps, amount
10 mucp. practically, in their bearing upon the
goat mljority OF clSeS. StiiI IL would seem ne
ceSsaTy that 4 jury should know that they are
not compelled To convict merely because there is
afallure TO Justify some abusive word or words,
based a specific charge constituting the gi5t OF
Ebci, which is proved to be true. The modern
Tendency is also To hold that even when plea OF
Justification falls. IL there are any circumstances
as the publication OF a card or advertisement
which Gauss the subject to become of
public interest and concern, the fact that
newspaper in It's comments makes impu-
tationS which cannot be strictly JUS
tiaed, viii not in every instance insure verdict
against it, In an English case, where medical
practitioner, advertising mode OF treatment, WAS
Ifelled as quack ana lmpOSter. and rs being like
ssoun 'reio no pass BID coin, and justification
Was attempted, the jury told by COckburn, c.
- THAT even il Tn" plea OF justification were not
made out. The defendant would stn be entitled to
their verdict II be hid written honestly and with
the I'M ll2n os exercising his vocation as public
writer fairly, and with reasonable moderation and
tuigmcni." (funter u.s. Pan MGU Gtyzeite.}
We are not acquainted with the facts of the case
to which Judge Cox's charge in the present in
sfance applies. 1t may be that the defendants
would not have proflted by fuller statement of
the Laws respecting Qualifications on the ground OF
in the case which tends to show that the
ceieR.ants, as journalists, were comment
inS In good faith on matter of interest
and concern TO the readers of their paper.
But, If the charge IS to be viewed as a general
settlement Of everything that is necessary to be
told the jury to enable them decide intelIigently
In al prosecutions OF journalists for libel, where
Justification Under the statute Is attempted, the
prospect is gloomy for Washington newspaper
men, Since even to rilieule man Is criminal H.
bel, and since newspapers in the eyes OF the law,
have no privilege TO libel which Is not enjoyed by
private individuals, journalist may readily be
brought before jury. And ii the judge then In
structs the jury merely that absence OF actnSI,
malice, srhige, or ill-win on the par of defend.
ant, and his honest belief tp The truth of vhat no
mas puoil9led ar no justification and that there
Aus, 0e proof OF the absolute truth Of the imptl-
tatioh with no suggestion that the proof OF the
truth OF any particular word may be dispensed
with, the indicted journalist will find himself in
great danger of being punished a criminal
The jury may feel that the spirit of the age is op-
posed 10 criminal prosecutions for libel except tn
gross cases, and may ind that the journalist has
merely fallen into some fn3ccuracy In the state
nent OF the details OF matter which, IL true it
Is his duty 10 publish. or that, in expressing his
Indignation at some act which deserves public
tift and Yet be compelled by their idea OF the law
70 convict.
Mr.. Conkllng maintains a profound silence
with regard 10 his appointment 10 the supreme
bench, apparently determined not to crafty
public curiosity with respect TO himself The
Impression seems TO prevail now, if he purposes