The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-26
A MISTAKE WITHOUT MALICE
Squire Fei5leman's View of the Senti-
nel's Report of Rappaport's Speech.
In Consequence. Editor Craig and Reporter
Stokes Are Acquitted of Criminal Libel
Ruling Sustaining Coroner Wagner.

The suit for criminal libel brought against
VIM. ]. Craig, proprietor OF the Sentinel, and
NJ 7. Stokes. reporter on the paper, which
has been pending in Squire Feibleman's conrt
for several weeks. was decided yesterday by the
justice acquitting both Mr.. Craig and Mr..
Stokes The suit was based on the report of a
speech Mr.. RapDeport made, in which he was
credited with having uttered anarchistic senti-
ments. The defendants, in resisting convic-
ton, sought to prove that Mr. Rappaport is an
Anarchist. and that he did utter the sentiments
ascribed to him the occasion mentioned in
the report Squire Feibleman. in his written
opinion, says: 1.-The evidence before me album
dainty shows that Mr.. Rappaport did
not use any such language as was
attributed to him, but on the con-
trary, his speech was calm and dispassonate.
and that he advised his hearers on that occasion
that their only remedy was by the
ballot The evidence further showed that Mr..
Rappaport did not counsel the of force in
bringing about the reforms he advocates, and to
which he seems to be giving much OF his time.
The evidence showed that he has at all times
argued that whatever accomplished should
be done by peaceable means. refer to the
forms advocated by the so-called Socialists. of
which Mr.. Rappapors is a conspicuous leader.
trial. sought to prove that Mr.. Rappaport is an
Anarchist, and to establish this allegation some
extracts from his paper, the Indiana Tribune,
were introduced. These in my opinion, show
little, il anything. more than that Mr.. Kappa
port did not believe that the seven
men recently tried at Chicago for
conspiracy to commit murder had
a fair and impartial trial. refer to the An
archists tried and executed Mr.. Rappaport, IN
his paper, INDUCED in some structures on the
trial, but nothing more than may be seen in
other newspapers with reference to other casss.
1t was also shown that Mr.. Rappaport was
quainted with August Spies, who was during
life an open and avowed Anarchist; that Nh.
Rappaport entertained him at his house. How
ever, it is shown that Mr.. Rappapors did not
agree with Spies IN regard to anarchy, but that
he demonstrated with him by telling him that
he would get into trouble If he pursued his
present course. There was some evidence intro
duced to show that there is a rumor in the city
that Mr.. Rappaport is an Anarchist. Such evil
dence was admitted in mitigation and not in
point was meaeer, the principal wit
nesses being officers of the police force,
who, while expressing the belief that Mr.. Rap
paport is an Anarchist, cannot, in any instance,
give their source of authority. l
think the evidence fails to show that Mr.. Rap
paport has the general reputation of being
Anarchist, but that the continued agitation of
his belief that the Chicago Anarchists did not
have a fair trial is by many people interpreted
as meaning that he is in sympathy with an
archy, which he stoutly denies. The defendant
Craig testified that he did not see the alleged
libelous article until after it was published.
The defendant Stokes admitted that he wrote
the article, except the head lines. but claimed
that he did it in good faith, and
without any malice According to the evidence
the reporter believed what he had written
to be true. He was informed by one who had
attended the meeting that DIR. Rappaport uttered
the sentiments and words imputed to him, and
being one of those who had heard rumors about
Mr.. Rappaport's anarchistic views, he published
the report of the speech matter of news,
and without any intention of njurine Mr.. Rap
paport Malice is an essential Ingredient in this
class of cases, and taking all the evidence and
circumstances of the case into consideration,
/ have a reasonable doubt as to the defendants
malicious intent, and that doubt must be solved
in their favor. They must for that reason be
acquitted"
When the Squire had finished reading his de-
cision, Mr.. Rappaport asked permission to say
few words. The Squire nodded, and Mr.. Rap
paport continued, follows
when filed the affidavit in this case, did
it not in spirit OF revenge but for the purpose
of vindicating self before the public. In this
succeeded, because the decision contains COM
plete and sweeping vindication. have nothing |
to say against the discharge OF Mr.. Craig; in |
fact, / am glad that he was discharged. because,
although he may. as publisher. be legally |
liable for the libel, yet as matter of senti- |
ment, 1 would consider it unjust to
hold criminally liable for |
what he neither did nor commanded. |
lD TeI0fSnco 70 IuE StOh0s, nOWeScr, my Oplulou
Is different. On the question of malice, on |
which alone your decision hinges, beg leave to |
differ with the court in respect to the law as |
well as in respect to the facts"
Mr. Rappaport also expressed his appreciation |
Of the fairness and courtesy of Mr. Jones. the |
counsel for the defendant and expressed his |
gratitude for the ability and good judgment |
with which his own attorney, Mr.. w. L. Brown,
had conducted the case, and for the fairness ana
1nselfshness of his treatment. After this the |
parties left the courtroom, and the trial. which
bad attracted little attention, was over.
There will be no further action taken.