Arizona weekly citizen., 1892-12-31

In the District Court of the First Ju-
 dicial District of the Territory of Ari-
 zona in and for the County of Pima. TERRITORY OF ARIZONA,
 VS.
 R. c. BROWN AND G. w. BROWN
 Paragraph 2857 of the Revised Stat utss provides that "every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sen timeRts on sll subjects, being respOnsi- ble for the abuse of that right; and no law shallIbe passed to r. s rain or abridge the liberty of speech,or of the press. ln
 all criminal prosecutions OD indictments for libel the truth may be given in evl dence to the jury; and if It shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for iustifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact"
 This is in effect the expression of the law as it pertains both in England and the United States to what IS usually de- nominated "the liberty of the press"-
 by it the freedom of the press, as well as of every individual citizen, IS conserved and jealously guarded. It does more, however, than this; it fixes the point at which liberty becomes license and be- yond it may not go without an lnterfer- ence with other rights just as sacred in the eye of the law. and just as zs8lOusly to be protected. The right to freely speak, write and publish is eorrelative to other rights and must respect other rights. Among these latter IS the right of each citizen to the enjoyment of his good name and fame as possessions dearer than any mere property interests, because once lost they may never again be regained. Whenever, therefore, the press be used to blacken and defame the reputation of any citizen, the law has we'll said that this Is no. the exercise of any liberty which it guarantees, but the abuse of it; and that for every such abuse the press must be responsible. Hence it is that our criminal statutes have provided that any person who shall publish aught in malice of sny citizen tending to impeach hls honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation, and thereby expose him to public hatred or contempt, shall be found to be gallty of the crime of libel and suffer the penalty prescribed. The law Is just, Tn that t gives the fullest degree of liberty and freedom to the uttersnce of private thought and sentiment, and humane ID that it protects every citizen from the venemous shafts of malice which the evilly disposed may throw under the cover which false notion of the liberty of the press may seem togive, or in reckless disregard Of tue injury they may inhict.
 The liberty of the prsss. It Hisf be seen, is one thing, while the =iicentious- ness of the press IS another. A man who speaks in a newspaper has, as has been many times declared, no greater right than he who speaks out of it. 4 news paper IS no sanctuary behind which a person can shield himself for breaking the law. "The freedom of speech and liberty of the press" using the language of Mr. Wirt, like other human blessings require the purifying and conservative principle of restraint" In King vs. ! Root, Wend. l13, Chancellor WalwOrtb ! most appropriately said: Tt has been urged upon you that conductors of the l publlc press are entitled to peculiar indUl- ! yences, and have special rights and priv l leges. The law recognizes no peculiar | lights, but such as are common to all. | They have just the same rights that | he rest of the community have, and no | more. They have the right to publish | he truth, but no right to publish false 1 hoods, to the injury of others, with i'm )unity."
 It was for this crime of libel, that yo0 1 were indicted by a grand jury of the l county, composed of the best and most | of our citizens. You were by | hem accused of having in malice, among | ,ther things, ill a newspaper, edited and | controlled by you, published of Brew tier Gam eTcn, the prosecuting witness, | hat he had while an employee in the department of justice abstracted and | certain records pertaining to | aid department This is the plain and Ob- ious meaning and intent of the article set orth Tn the indictment and made the ba- is of the charge. The indictment there ore charges a libel per SC, that IS, one 7hich the law presumes was injurious 0 the reputation of the one of whom be publication was made. To charge nd publish of one that he has been uilty of a crime involving in it's nature
 lack of honesty; integrity or virtue. in itself libel, in that the law will resume that the effect of such a publi- ation is to bring the alleged perpertra- or into public hatred and contempt. 'u abstract and destroy the records of a ublic office is not only made a felony , y Sec. 5403 Rev. Stats. U. 5. but iG IS ( lso of the class of crimes which are de- ominated mala in se, that IS, the acts 'ould be morally wrong in the absence f statute: for certainly we can scarce 7 conceive of crime involving a great r degree of moral turpitude than for -usted clerk of one of the departments [ our government to willfully steal and estroy the records of that departments; nd if charged of one, and believed to @ true, how vile and contemptible' must 8 appear in the estimation of all honest lenl The indictment therefore charg- ] a libel of the most aggravated kind nown t. the law. As to the nature of ais crime let an emminent Jurist )eak:
 "Libelling is great crime, whatever [ sntiments may be entertained by those ' ho live by it. With respect to the cart of the libeller, it is more dark and ase than that of the assassin, or than is who commits a midnight arson. It (
 true that 1 may never discover the