The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-11
THE EUGHIS CASE


The trial Of the case OF Charles Fl. Lu-
grin, editor ofths telegraph, charged with
5criminaliy lineIing Chisf Of Police Rogers,
came - an snd 10 the munirSpaE court
yesterday. the defendant beng found
guilty0 Of the charge. The PssT-IsTELLI-
osKscER has relrsined from commenting
on this case 50 long as il vas befare the
court. but now that verdics has been
reached BY the jnry, brief review OF il
uiILnos Be out Of place.
/ The Telegraph Published against Chief
Rogers an article Of the most defamstory
character. IL charged him With open and
notorious corruption 10 Office and made
tended 10 injurs him In the estimation OF
his fsllow citizens The only possible
Justification for the publication Of such an
article xosld be its absoiuts truth. This
the Telegraph declared its ability TO prove.
II stated that IL only desired an oppor-
& suniiy TO prove aft that II had charged
and that II would do this 10 the sstisfac-
ton OF al men whenever and wherever ii
was accorded an opportunity TO present
the proofs In Us possession.
THIS opportunity was accorded when
Chief Rogers procured the arrest OF Mr..
Lugrin, supposed 10 be the responsible
editor Of the telegraph on a charge of
crIgasnI libel. A change IN the tactics
the Telegraph At once followed. Instead
Of coming boldly forward With proofs OF
she truth Of his chsrges as he had prom
issd. Mr.. Lugrin sought 20 evads the issue
BY taking advantage of every legal tech
nicality. His attorneys fought for delays
and eHdsavo9ed In every way TO secure o
dismissal Of the case without entering into
its merits. Every bubble was made use
OF. Mr.. Lugrin sought TO escape on the
unworthy quibbls that the paper OF which
be was supposed TO be editor had been
described in the complaint as the Daily
Telegraph instead OF as the Telegraph. aud
on the equally unworthy quibDie tha, no
proof had been offered that the paper is
published in Seattle. He failed to ac-
knowledge that he was the responsible
editor Of the Telegraph, and the employees
Of the paper sough: 10 avoid testifying to
the truth of ,his fact Ia every way he
sought to escape conviction, not ON the
merits of the case, not by making good
his charges or by attempting to do 50, bnt
by wrisgling out through the loophole of
legal bubble.
When these tactics failed. however, and
10 became evident that the case must go
TO the Jury on its merits, Mr.. Lugrin's
attorneys announced that they had no
defense 70 o4Tsr. Not the slightest attempt
was made 20 make good single one OF the
charges against Chief Rogers. The opnor.
sunity for which the Telegraph had pro-
fessed TO long had come. but ihe mass OF
/ evidence which would convince all reason
/ able men was not produced. Not the
shadeN OF an effort vas msde to justify the
article Sssailing Chief Rsgsrs-an article
which was either true or infamous. With.
/ eut attempting TO prove discharges which
be had made or 10 explain how he had
been misled INTO making them Il be had
| ne proof, Mr. Lagrin allowed the case 10
| go 30 ths jury without defense or explana.
ton and was promptly convicted.
We beAeye that Mr. Lagrsn is more TO
be pliled than blamed-tasi he had been
misle1 fnto writing the ilbeicas articles by
| tpformR$ioD which was found to be false
ard unreliable when pus 10 The test. II
this be true. the Telegraph has anqaastion-
ably done CAisf RogeEs 3 scat wrcag and
Ia al fairness and m2aIinsss il should
admit us ersur. We prefer 10 believe that
Mr. LRgrIn WAS Iaisged isto error rather
than that ne ~fifuaY psrpetrsssa crim-
inaI libel against fellow citsEsR.