The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-03-16
A SURPRISING DECISION
FROM THE STATE SUPREME
COURT-COMMRNTS ON 1T
by the Nashville "Banner," the
Sufferer In the Case, and the
Nashville "UniOn."

arc familiar with the proceedings OF |
the court below and who have given |
careful and unpreiudiced study to the |
law OF libel as il has been developed in |
the decisions OF other and more pro-
rIessive States. II avoids and ignores
or slurs over tome OF the most i'm
p6rtant questions pressed upon the
attention OF the honorable court II ls
an argum emit against the case as given
by the counsel for the defense which
fails to meet some OF the strongest
points presented, and is SOFT OF ram
bling protest against the proposition
that the State OF Tennessee be placed
in line with other States in which the
law Of libel has been more clearly de-
fined. With all Difference TO the hon
orable court, we must say that this
opinion upon the question OF news
paper privilege will not terd to the
needed elevation OF the court oil Ten
nessee as valued and esteemed au-
thority in other States.
We are indebted to the honorable
Supreme Court for the astounding in
formation that it was not seriously in
sisted by the defense that the verdict
in the court below is not sustained by
the evidence. This is revelation to
the counsel who earnestly discussed
the evidence before the honorable
court TO show the absolute injustice OF
the verdict. We are astonished to
find that the great volume OF evidence
in the case, making a record OF dark
and damnable corruption and inhu--
mauity, is dismissed with light and
flippant stroke OF the judicial pen. 1t
Ia TO be regretted that the volum-
inous record Of crime, the mere publi-
cation OF which compelled State adj
ministration to perform longineg-
lected duty by instituting measures OF
reform to correct the most outrageous
abuses, and which forced the resigna-
tion,of one OF the officials who claimed
to be aggrieved-it is to be regretted,
we say, that this chronicle OF shame
should have been deemed by the hon
orable court as worthy only OF a ven
cradle p0oh-pooh
1t is further to be regretted that the
honorable Supreme Court did not
deem il of sufficient consequence to
dwell upon one OF the most important
legal issues presented in the case, or
give its learned reasons for accepting
the extraordinary ruling OF Judge
Mcdonnell which decided the case in
the lower court by excluding the de-
PENDANTS from the defense Of privi-
legged communication before the jury
Judge Mcconnell charged the jury
thst the law OF privileged commune
cations did not apply in this case, be-
cause, forsootb, the parties claiming
10 be libeled were the appointees oil
the Governor It would have beer
interesting and doubtless profit
able 10 have heard the learned
reasons OF the honorable court, for &C
cording to the sacred appointees OF thu
! Governor an immunity from criticism
not shared even by the appointing
power. The learned opinion in sup
port OF this preposterous assumption
, would have been all the more interest
ing in the light OF the fact that sucl
communication as is complained Q
was actually presented to the Gov
ernor and was utterly unavailing II
securing a correction OF the mos
shocking prison abuses. 1t was no
until such communication was mad,
I by the Banner that the great public
J to which it was addressed, commanded
a and compelled the correction Of tn,
CRYING evils that had brought sham
and disgrace upon the State.
The complaint Of the HONORABLE
l court that the counsel for the defens
a did not furnish a sufficient number O
full reports OF cases OF newspaper pub
! LEGATION sustaining their position, lead
! one to deplore the paucity OF lega
: literature at the command OF the hon
orable court, and the lack Of facilitie
which would enable it to examine tn
scores Of decisions in other State
bearing upon the issue and cited b.
the counsel. The question Of priv
legged communication ia one of tn
utmost importance to the press an
the people Of Tennessee, and it
most unfortunate that, when for ia
: first time the highest courtin the Stat
I is called upon - clearly define the la
Of libel it should be restricted to tn
narrow scope Of meager library
, Anticipated volumes, and be denied
! comprehensive review OF recent d.
/ cisions and an ample knowledge {
| the trend OF advanced judicial opir
ion in other States.
. Tn, right Of public journals to maxi
effective assaults upon corruption
7 Office and bring TO the attention OF tn
l people the evils that threaten and VI
dermine their interests isby this deci
ion restricted 10 the narrowest an
most dangerous limits. 1t throws
8 legal safeguard around grssping an
/ greedy monopoly, and makes mol
, secure from public exposure otfici
dishonesty and crime. It's true thI
the honorable court solemnly asse
Y crates that "the public good demand
9 that the dement's Of aspirants for Q
a fee should be known and that dishol
esty and corruption in public plact
should be unsparingly exposed" ar
yet by its exposition OF the law, Il
{ honorable court declares it extra-hs
ardous for public journals to attem
> the public duty which it says should
performed. Not only this, but in II
: moral essay incorporated in its decisic
q the honorable court, after declariI
that corruption in public plac,
should be exposed and the demeli
], of candidates be made known, deli
t erately neutrslizss this declaration |
= insisting that the censorship OF Il
. press keeps from public life the mo
> ess merit which should have no fe
d Of censure, and that if we could ha'
s only pure and honest men in ofi
J. then the court would give the pre-
|, full liberty Of criticism The gist
this learned argument is about to th
9 effect: The press should conden
Z corruption in Office only when the
9 is no corruption in office.
i We bow in profound venersto
s admiration and acquiescence to q
/, honorable court,
4 ACrimimal.