The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28

direction of Chales A. Plummer. Is
that criticism. The line between criti-
cisln ana accusation is as well defined
rs Is that OF the rivers that divide the
towns in Name
Mr.. Noble dwelt upon the distinction
between newspaper criticism of the &C
knoWledged and proved acts of public
officials and accusations against their
charac ter, as defined by the law.
The right OF newspapers is measured
by the standard of fair and honest criti-
cism. Beyond that they lose all privi-
lego.
claim that this charge against Plum
iher was accusation, not criticism and
that is was a malicious charge. They
claim good motive, but when they send
their shafts of sarcasm and obloquy
against mans character and reputa-
ton, they can't come into court of JUS
tlce ana with pious faces stand up and
say good motive, good faith" Why?
Because that would render every man
at the mercy of the dislike of any jour
nalist who might charge him with crime
and then come into court and say: 81
did it with good motive" All how
ridiculous that is But Pm going to
fight them upon their own ground. They
say its spite case.
| claim that the great underlying rea-
son OF this newspaper attack was that
first seizure at the Durant house. |
don't claim that Col. Dow knew they
were selling liquor there, NOBODY
claims that. Col, Dow is an honorable
man. But that first seizure was the
dart that ranked. Didn't SWEET call
Plummer into his office and ask him not
to press that case as it would disgrace
Col. BOWS family? Didn't that first
seizure wound Col. Dow's feelingss They
didn't say anything about that. That
nor tIxo 4
Col. low says that he gave his infor-
nation to Editor Norton just as mat
ter of general news.
What's he pouring it into Editor Nor
ton ears for? Did he pour it into any
body else's ears? Did he tell his clergy
man about it? What do they say Weren' I
they collecting evidence to be used
wasn't Plummer who said: Come down
to the office and do business Why
didn't Norton publish the name Of
Harry Goold if he wants you to believe
that he was driving against the sherif s
office. only. He had Gould's name. Why
did he withhold the publication OF that?
Another source Of information is
home and the latter says he saw no need
to corroborate what BARTLETT told
him.. All, George W. Bartlett when he is
serving the plaintiff is a very weak, low
fellow, but when he is serving the de
tense. in this case, and pouring mis- story
into Col. Dow's ears, then he's trust
worthy man.
Such were Editor Nerton's sources OF
information, including the newspaper
reports of the trial.
What would you say if a man goes TIC
his own paid retainers and tells their
story to the editor of his paper and then
holsters it up with story from perjur-
or and then spreads broadcast d charge OF
crime against you without any further
| Investigation of it's truth?
| Why Judge Gould let the whole fact
out of this case when he came here and
testified in his sharp way, when Mr..
| Coombs asked him as to who knew that
| Plummer sent detectives to the Durant
house, and he replied "You knew it,
Why didn't Norton ask Judge Gould
about it, or Mr.. Coombs? They knew
it. Why, If Charles A. Plummer had
directed Bartlett to lie upon the stand,
would he have told Judge Gould and Mr..
Coombs before the biial that he had sent
| this detective TO the Durant hOusef
What was there about this g otter system
in July. "a that demant such az ex-
ercise Of duty by the Evening Express
| He might use spoilers against the other
hotels and nothing would be- said. but
when he used them against the Durant
house then it was q public duty to de-
nounce the spotter system. They speak
of Charles A. PIummer's use of decoy
letters as u means of discrediting his
character in your opinions, Suppose
some man was sending vile literature in
to the reach of your pure children, and
you couldn't ind out who 1t was,
wouldn't you be justified to send out de
coy letters to discover the miscreant?
| What possible difference can it max .
whether you send out decoy letters to
stop vile literature or illegal liquor from
entering your homes? Suppose man
was robbing your store. Wouldn't yor
send decOy, marked coin to catch
him? Can you find anything in ur sta
tutes that gives these wholesale drug
gists license to sell liquor? Is there
anything upon the statutes that says
that the sheriffs shall not raid the Du-
rant house2
All, this spite case. l submit that the
| only spite case that has appeared in this
evidence is that of the Evening Express
| against Charles A. Plummer.
In regard to the question of damages,
| the consel had said that the plaintiff
had brought no evidence of damages,
but the fact is that libel carries dam
ages upon the face of it, and believe
the court will SO instruct you.
| But what was the injury to his feel
| ings? Did Ih.ve to put Charles A.
tell you about his distress of mindp No.
! Mr.. Noble dwelt at length and wit h
much force upon the effect of the news
paper charge of crime upon Plum mer's
wife and aged father and old friends.
| Mr.. Noble said q We may not have wealth
and pride of family and influence, but
| the measure of man in the court Of
justice is character, not Lineage, honor,
not wealth; reputation, not power"
| In closing, attention was called to the
great truths as stated in Shakespeare {:
| He who steals my house. steals trash.
but he who takes away my good name
takes that which helps him not and
| leaves me poor indeed"
The last words to the jury were
''As you would that others should do
unto you, do you with all fairness an d
hanesty toward tho plaintiff, Charles A.
| Plummer.
| After Mr.. Noble finished there was
quite little burst of applause, which
the sheriff promptly suppressed.
JUDGE STROUT'S CHANGE.