National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-02-09
THE LIBEL CASE.
How Far the Right OF n Newspaper Goes
TO Cr,ticiso Public Officials.

now tnr the Right OF Newspaper Noes
TO CritIciso Public officials.
The trial Of Messrs. Benjamin +. Hickman
and Henry Reed, indicted for criminal libel
on Hon. Alonzo Bell, assistant secretary of
the interior was held yesterday in the crimi-
nal court. Assistant District Attorney Tag
CART appeared for the government and Hon.
John Goode and Thomas +. Miller for the de-
PENDANTS. The basis of tho charge was pub
LEGATION in the Sunday Chronicle of April 30,
1889, of which Hickman was tho publisher
and Reed the editor, and the article was
headed, "a Person IL VIII Do TO Watch" and
intimated that Mr.. Bell knew of corruption
in the interior department and took no steps
to correct IL. The Hon. John Goode argued
that no libel was intended to Mr.. Bell, but
q legitimate comment on the conduct
Of that official and that there was no Grim
inality charged against Mr.. Bell If there
was libel in the article it was directed
against Hon Carl Schurz, the secretary, and
Mr.. Williamson, commissioner of the land
Office. If it was libel, then every newspaper
man would be compelled TO have q lawyer at
his elbow to guide him. The freedom of the
press was the bulwark of liberty, and could
not be abridged by congress, for the constitu-
ton forbade IL. Their must have press CEN
sorship and cause tho writer to dance attend
ance with hat in hand upon the censor. Such
plan had been tried in England and failed.
Nlr. lagBNfU Salu tnaJ III Tue COuTJ nelu UlVO
editors could write and publish what they
pleased rejecting upon official characters,
then they should go no further
The court said that no prosecution could
he maintained unless he libel was from mali
cious motives.
Mr.. Miller said that tho article was no more
than o criticism on official conduct and, that
being the ease, it was for the government to
show malice,
The court asked for q reading of the article,
and Mr.. Miller having read it, the court re-
marked that is palpape libel if it was for
malicious motives. The case should proceed,
and the jury decide If it was published for
improper motives. AS it stood it was fla
grant libel.
Mr.. James F. Hood, chief Of the appoint
ment division of the interior department,
testified to Mr.. Bells appointment as assistant
secretary.
Mr.. Samuel Polkinhorn testified to having
sold the Chronicle containing the article and
identified the one produced.
Mr.. Bell testified that he bought paper Of
tho issue containing the article from news
boy, at his residence ON n street. Witness
was eighteen months in the department be-
fore he was appointed assistant secretary.
Had had business relations with u person
cl inning TO represent the paper.
The defendant, Mr.. Hackman, testified that
the article was written by Mr.. Reed. and it
was the public good. and there was no malice,
for he did not know Bell, and never met him
till this suit.
Mr.. Henry Reed testified that he was editor
of the Cincinnati Commercial in 1851; was
with the Sunday Chronicle at the time of the
publication. Mr.. Reed said that not only by
paragraphs setting forth looseness but by
private information, he came TO the conclu-
sion, as had many others, that affairs in some
of the bureaus of the department were not
conducted strictly according to law and JUS
tice. He knew Mr.. Teller very well, and
wishing that his administration should be
success he had interested himself as to the
interior department. The course of Mr.. Bell
had been very freely commented upon, and,
acting on his information, he wrote the arti-
Gle. He did not suppose it was proper here
to state what was his information as to cor
ruption in the land office.
John b. Mccarthy, formerly fthe Chronicle,
and now with the Baltimore Sun and San
Francisco Chronicle, testified to the good
reputation of tine defendants.
Mr.. I. q. Morrow, of the Sunday Gazette,
and Il. II. Darby, job printer; ]. Y. Potts, of
the Ereniag Critic, and II. p. Goodwin, of the
Erening Star, gave similar testimony.
Judge Wylie, before the arguments pro-
ceeded, explained briefly mis- views as to the
law. The only protection that society has
now. he said against utter destruction by
unprincipled newspaper men was that there
were as many on one side as the other If
one newspaper published a libel the rival
newspaper across the way published q libel
on the other side; and so it is that society
is held in the safety of equilibrium. The
power of the press was held by fallible men,
and men who are purchaseable-and he did
not mean by that that they were more fallible
than men in other callings. They will work
for pay. Men work for pay in all departments
of life. 1t was always point ola newspaper to
have circulation, and some newspapers con-
sidered it necessary, in order to get circula-
ton, to be racy and personal. So the people
came to understand these sensational articles
and to pay little attention to them. Yet the
people out of the public walks of life, people
in the country, who get their paper Saturday
night and believed that is in it, are the ones
that are mised. The court took the view,
however, that it would be an injury to tho
| public to confne newspaper writers to n mere
statement of the facts, aud hard measure to
hold man guilty Of libel who wrote some
thing with honest motive which proved after
ward to be untrue. When statements are
made rcckl essly, the fasehood may be taken
as evidence of malice. He thought the do
| PENDANTS should be acquitted if the jury found
that they had published it with an honest
belief thar it was true.
| The jury returned verdict of not guilty.
--S-
" Aavance Legsslat!on."
| The uncertainty of LEGISLATION upon whisky