Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-09-12
NEWSPAPER LIBERTY.
Lord Coleridge on the English Law
of Libel.

From the L9ndon Spectator.
In the case of Armstrong and others
vs.. Armit and Others" reported in the
Times OF Monday, the Lord Chief Justice
and Mr.. Justice Denman, sitting in banc,
gave Judgment on point of considerable
interest to newspaper writers and news
paper readers. The Question involved
was simple enough: Would the court
graft an interim injunction to restrain
the defendants in libel action from
further publishing libelous matter to the
prejudice of tue plaintiffs while the hear
ing OF the original libel action was pend
! Ing?
The dispute between the parties arose
from the publication in a weekly paper
called the Admiralty and Horse Guards
Gazette OF an alleged false and malicious
libel contained in an article rejecting up
on sir william Armstrong, Capt. Noble,
w. u. Armstrong and Michel u Co. The
article, If not protected by the publishers
ability to prove that its publication was
IN the interest of the public, and so privi-
legged, was doubtless Il most uncom pro-
missing and offensive libel. AS described
by the plaintiffs council, its object was
Ito convey that the plaintiffs either were,
or at some time had been, members Of a
ring having for its object the acquisition
OF public contracts for the manufacture
or ordnance. and mad effected, or were en-
deavoring to effect, their object by means
of dishonest practices, and by oppression,
corruption, and other discreditable
MEANS" This was the question for the
jury to decide; meantime the plaintiffs
sought to restrain any further comments
on or reiterations of the accusation by the
defendants,
Lord COloridge is never more happy in
his judicial decisions than when he has 10
decide some point Of public interest.
Ever since Lord Mansdeld's famous judy
ments, the public has considered that 1t
has right to look to the Chief Justice Of
England for statements Of the law on
popua ar subjects which shall be both in-
telligible and authoritative. In the pres
ent case, though Lord Coleridge did not
reserve judgment in order to present the
court with a finished legal essaV-as in
the case of caunibalism year or two ago
he yet cOntrived in the course OF his de-
cision TO put theeXlsting state OF the law,
and the policy TO be pursued by the
courts, clearly and well.
He began by stating the extreme i'm
portance Of the particular issue; how it
was "a matter, If there be any in the
world, of public interest,"" and how, il
the alleged libel were true, 1.-THE person
WHO exposed sucn a system ana SuCn a
mischief would do great public service.'
He continued: II cannot tor a moment
hesitate In saying that the subject matter
which constitutes the writing is prlvi-
legged communication. 1t is to the inter-
est OF the whole country that the selection
of our chief weapon OF defense should be
made by Indifferent and disinterested per-
sons" After pointing out that this prIvi-
lege must not be made "the cloak of
private malice" he shows that since 'the
subject and the occasion are privileged"
the "onus is on the plaintiff TO show that
the privilege has been exceeded" In
other words, the duty and right of news
paper to expose any public scandal or
misdeed Is explicitly recognized by the
law, and when such exposure has taken
place, it Is for the aggrieved party, if he
can, to rebuff the presumption Of pnvi-
leve