Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1886-11-08
JUDGE NlLEE's CHARGE.
His Rebuke 70 Young Jickllng.

charge said that 1t was the irst time
in twenty years that be had been
called upon to sit 10 a case of prose
cution for criminal libel. Continuing,
the Judge said:
"The case ie undoubtedly new TO
the people of this community, and it
is certainly new to me, being the first
one | have ever tried.
There was time in England when
the proof of libel was not allowed
to be given before open court, in such
case as this. The courts refused 10
hear it. If the article was libelous
the truth OF it was never given in
evidence The courts in England be.
lieved in The extreme doctrine: The
greater the truth, the greater the
libel"
"ln this way the people of Eng
land hoped to correct the evil. Men in
high places were plunderiag the
State and expressing society, aud
even in the highest courts Of the land
evils OF that kind existed. Men pub
lished what they knew TO be true,
and what vas known to those in po-
sitIon 1t Was matter of couflict
between the Judges end lawyers Of
England. The writings in those days
were from patriotic motives The
writer's ADD publishers sought to de-
fend the poor and weak from the out
RACES of the rich and powerful The
courts in this country were more free.
As early as 1903 the full text of the
law which al been embodied in the
code stated in which case the person
could be prosecuted by an indictment.
The law was framed for the purpose
of benef,ting the people. and to pro-
tect the weak and the innocent If
the legislature Of 1903 tai ever sup.
posed. that what they contemplated
was to be made for the purpose of
protecting llbeler of private char
acter, such as in this case, am sure
IL would never have been undertaken
and passed by them. / had no idea
that the press would have become so
debased aud disgusting for the pur-
pose of assailing an unprotected wo
man. Now assuming every word
stated liz this libel 10 be true, what
does it benefit the public? What
protection 10 the weak against the op-
preston of the strong, could be had
by the publication of such state
ment as this ? What benefit was it
to the people of this community to
know, that "a milliner and an adven-
turess had enslaved and entrapped a
young boy of seventeen years, who
bad been carrying on an aliason with
her for months; and that he only re-
GREETED, after the breaking of the en-
gagement, the beer ard embraces she
had from time to time bestowed on
him p What would it benefit them
to know that the hot-blooded young
Mary lander had challenged b g
Georgian. aud that he bad declined
the challenge because the object. the
person whom they were quarreling
about was not worth fighting for !?
| Why this libel
1.-THE strongest of all things comes
out of the challenge, that the object
of their quarrel was not worth fight
ing about, and it is the strongest way
for the Georgian to get out of the
challenge.
The article was something by print
ing which at most the publisher, who.
ever be was, could make sale, and
that the newsboys of Annapolis could
hawk around the streets No public
interest could be served by the publ
cation ofsuch an article | can scarce.
ly conceive more offensive thing to
be perpetrated 10 any community
than this. The young man ad-
mitted the writing of the article. But
has be proved the accusations in this
miserable paper to be true If be had
he would have ruined the character
and reputation of this Young lady;
driven her from her business and out
of society. His evidence however is
utterly unworthy of belief and incon-
sistent If the case bad been tried
four or five years ago, he would not
tave been a competent witness. as be
would come der the law as in all
criminal cases. The testimony of bis
father is most extraordinary, and ut
terly unreconcilable. 1t is well known
that persons sometimes entrap the
sons of noblemen, or men Of wealth,
iLto marriage in order to gain posi-
ton in society; but that is not the
case here, since she was above him
in social position and Nosldly goods.