Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1891-02-12
Libel Verdict Against the Tribune.

ALEXANDER J. CAMERON MAKES AN EXHIBI-
TION OF HIMSELF ON THE WITNESS
STAND.
1t took jury in the Supreme Court be-
fore Justice Barrett, yesterday. less than
five minutes to agree upon nominal YER
dict of six cents in q libel suit brought by
Alexander ]. Cameron against The Tribune
| Association. The plaintiff, Cameron, in
May, 1885. was appointed by Mr.. Man
nlng, then Secretary of the Treasury, as
| Special Inspector of Customs At Aspinwall
with salary of 50, 500 year. On May I.
| 1885. The Tribune received from its regu-
lar Boston correspondent, w. +. Bryant,
and published the next morning, the fol-
lowing dispatch:
MR.. MANNING MoRTiFIEs MAINE DEMOCRATS.
Boston. May /. Especially IA Maine dispatch
announces that Secretary Manning has made
bad mistake IN appointing one Cameron
special agent of the Treasury on the suggestion
| OF Mr.. Pillsbury. Cameron came to this coun-
try from Scotland several years ago. and found
| employment in Ellsworth with 4 distant rea-
| tive At the end of couple Of years, the
| dispatch saws. his employer found that his
relative had nearly ruined him, swiDdliDg him
out OF several thousand dollars. He wa, ill.,
dicted for the offence. tried, convicted and
a
| Jail After serving his sentence he went TO
| Augusta aud became book-bnder. During
| the period that Pilisbury was State Printer.
| Cameron was State Binder. When the Fusion
| conspiracy ended he had large bill against
| the State, and William r. Smith, of Augusta.
weil-kuown Democrat, and president OF the
Cleveland Club OF that city. openly asserted
that Cameron swindIed the State by securing
| the payment of fraudulent bills. Democrats
| in Augusta and Ellsworth are mortified to
/ laar th..tf hue lun inf IN
responsible office.
The libel suit was based upon the publ
cation of this dispatch, and also of the
editorial on May ., commenting upon the
| same matter. The plaintiff alleged that he
cause of these publications his appoint.
ment was revoked for which he claimed
| $4,000 specis damages, besides $40 900
! general damages. The plaintiff proved by
| Louis G. Martin, who in 1885 WAS special
supervising agent of the Treasury Depart
ment. tina the dispatch as published in
| The Tribune was brought to the attention
| of Secretary Manning, and that within
few days thereafter the appointment was
revoked. Upon this proof. the plaintiff
/ conteuded that The Tribune publication
had caused his dismissal
But Mr.. Choate showed. upon Mr. Mar
tins cross-exsmination. that he had sent
answer to the charges that Cameron did
! bring to him the next dag written state
ment, in which he admitted that he had
served term In Jail for violation Of the
| Maine Prohibition law, and that he had
been arrested on a charge of Assault with
intent to kill. made upon his uncle. the
relative referred to 10 the dispatch In
/ his statement Cameron said thar, watch
] ing my opportunity, | compelled him al
| the muzzle of pistol to sgree to produce
/ and deliver" 10 him certain papers then In
the uncles possession Mr. Martin said
/ he took this answer to Mr. Manning and
/ told him that Cameron admitted having
! been in jail for violation of the Maine
/ Liquor Law. aud OF having been arrested
for other matters; that Mr.. Manning said
/ he was sorry. but that was more than the
! Department could carry. and almost i'm
mediately afterward cancelled the sppoint-
ment. Upon this, Mr.. Choatc contended
| that the dismissal was made upon the
| plaintiff : own admissions
! When the defendant came To put in his
evidence, an extraordinary state Of affairs
was disclosed. The testimony Of witness
! after witness was presented, detailing con
I fc>>iun~ made by Cameron of fraud perpe
/ trated ny himself or his firm upon the
| State OF Maine While he a. State Binder.
/ The State Treasurer. members of the Leg
! i-ature, and other persons Of the highest
| standing testified that Cameron acknow-
! lodged That he had obtained pay from the
State upon fraudulent vouchers for binding
that bad not been done, and that these I'M
/ bound volumes belonging To the State had
/ been sold for old Junk The plaintiff
own explanation upon the witness stand
Of these confessions was the most astound
ipp Of E..a 4 l.t
was true that he had told these witnesses
about receiving pay from the State for
| work not done. and of selling the hooks
for old junk, but In reality these confess
sons were in part lies
II wa- part of his scheme to put up a
jon" on his partner. After they had obtain
Ell pay from the State for the work not
done, his partner, he said, suggested that
that sell the books for old junk and keep
the proceeds. and the Stat, officials would
/ never be the wiser. Cameron said he
| appeared to fall in with this suggestion
and shipped the books away a. If 10 20 to
Z Boston; hut he followed the cartmen
( without his partners knowledge. and had
. them taken up To the attic of his house in
Augusta where they remained for about
two years. He concocted postal card
| and put it on his partner desk a. I ii had
come from the Boston parties. In 1851
/ when the fact of his confessions had be-
come known in the Legislature and he had
( been charged with the frauds in the House
Of Representatives. a. stated by one of the
/ witnesses. he claims that he brought the
/ books from his house bound them and de
/ livered them to the State. He insisted
that he had intended to DO 80 all along and
that that was fultiment of his contract
and not fraud upon the State.
/ Much evidence was also introduced to
prove the alleged swindle upon the rela-
(. tive mentioned in the dispatch. This was
to the effect that Cameron had contrived to
get the property of his uncle in his OVID
name. and then had refused 10 restore it to
him unless he was paid about $1,000. Up
on this point also the jury found with the
/ defendant. The 6 cents awarded to the
plaintiff was because of the mistake made
in the condensation by the Boston cores
pendent of Tie tribune of the dispatch re-
ceived from Maine.
Instead of saying that Cameron had
been indicted for the offence" of swind-
ling relative, ii should have read that ne
was indicted for an offence against the
laws of Maine, tried, convicted" etc.
Justice Barrett charged the jury that even
! If they believed that The Tribune had es-
| tablished the truth of the other charges
| they must still find verdict for the plain
tiff for some amount because of this err
ror. and what that amount should be would
depend upon what damages they thought
| Cameron's reputation had suffered under all
the circumstances and also upon the ques-
| ton whether the error was malicious. The
| jury expressed their opinion emphatically
! upon the subject by their verdict and with
out hesitation, not one Of them voting for
more than cents damages upon the first
! ballot.
Mr.. Choate's cross-examination of the
plaintiff was mastery in the highest de-
gree. He forced Cameron to admit that
| either he had been swearing falsely up
| on the stand or else that statements
he made to the Secretary of the Treas
| ury were not true. He was also COM
| PEELED to admit that he had not dared to
tell Secretary Manning the truth about the
| fraud upon the State of Maine. Wallace
| Mcfarlane was the attorney for the plain
| tiff Sackett & Bennett were the attorneys
| for The Tribune Association.
| = New York Tribune of Feb. 6.