The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-18
foundation had been laid connecting

foundation had been laid connecting
| the defendant with its publication.
Mr.. Belden here interposed, saying
| that the prosecution had not been ad-
| vised the night before that the defense
| intended to argue that objection. He
| had supposed, upon intimation Of the
court, that that objection would come
up on the motion to dismiss after the
closing of the testimony for the plain
tiff. Mr.. Hatch was finally allowed
formally to state his objections to the
Indictment. The objections were, first,
that the Indictment charged that Will
liam e. Haskell composed the libel. 1t
was impossible to prove that he had
composed it. 1t was charged that h
printed it, but it was not proved t4Iat
he had printed it. 1t could not be
shown that he had published it. Until
one of the three things was proved, the
article could not be introduced in evil
dence against Mr.. Haskell.
1t being evident that the whole morn
ing would be consumed in the argu-
ment, the jury was excused until z
o'clock.
In beginning the argument for the
state Mr.. Belden read the Minnesota
statutory definition of libel as follows:
"a malicious publication, by writing, print
ing, pictures, efigy, sign or otherwise than
by mere speech, which exposes any living
person or the memory of any person deceased,
to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or
which causes. tends to cause, any person
to be Stunned or avoided, or which has
tendency to injure any person, corporation,
or association Of persons in his or their bust
ness or occupation, is a libel
Then he quoted section 6497 of the statutes,
which declares: "A person who publishes IL
bel is guilty of a misdemeanor," and section
649s, which declares that "A publication hav-
ing the tendency or effect mentioned in Sec
tion I'll Is to be deemed malicious"
ut was to be deemed malicious If no
justification or excuse therefor is
shown. Shown by whom?" continued
Mr.. Belden. 1T is to be deemed ma
licious, unless a justification or excuse
therefor is shown. Now, then, what IS
the plain, palpable, clear meaning of
that provision? The article which on
it's face is libelous, and if it has the
tendency mentioned in that section de-
fining libel, it is libel, is deemed to be
malicious, and the defendant who max
eS that publication is deemed to be
guilty until-what? Unless what? I'm
less a justification or excuse is shown.
Shown by whom? The party to the
libel as in this case, is charged with
felony, is charged with having com
mitted embezzlement, which under the
law of this state is larceny, which un-
der the law of this and other states
is an infamous crime. Now, then, what
should be the law upon the question,
if your honor please, eliminating from
the discussion and this debate all con-
siderations of what the law is as de-
clared by the legislature of the state?
A person, in cold blood, deliberately
charges another person in pub 1c IN
which carries the charge and dissent
mates it broadcast all over the land of
being guilty of a felony. Now, then,
should the rule be as it is declared by
the legislature of the state or, should
it not? In other words, should the man
who is charged with the crime be COM
PEELED to come into court of Justice
not only a court, but court or justice,
should he. when he comes into a court
of justice, be confronted with the pro
position that the fundamental rules
which have obtained in the civilized
world from time immemorial are to be
reversed in his case?
1.-THE presumption of innocence is not
to obtain. you are not to have the bene-
fit of that presumption it is true you
have been libeled; it is true you have
been libeled in cold blood; 1t is true
that YOU have been deliberately ac-
cused of being a felon, but, because
YOU have been libeled in newspaper,
YOU must come into this court Of justice
and the rules which have been estab-
lished to protect parties accused Will
there be denied you; you will be de-
prived Of their benefits there; the pre-
sumption of innocence will not be al
lowed to obtain; the presumption of
guilt will be adopted, and you must
come in here in the attitude of prov
ing the negative, namely that you are
innocent, notwithstanding the statute
declares that it shall be deemed mali
ciouS."
Mr.. Belden then quoted section 6,5O1
as follows:
"a prosecution for libel cannot be main
tanned against reporter, editor, publisher,
or proprietor Of a newspaper for the publ
catS01 therein of fair and true report OF
any judicial, legislative or other public and
official proceeding, or OF any statement:
the same without proving actual malice In
making the report
"That is" continued Mr.. Belden, 1.-The
publisher or proprietor Of a newspaper
for the publication therein of a fair
and true report of any judicial pro-
ceeding. Now, that raises the ques-
ton, is it to be presumed, if the court
pleases, that because CT the reference
in this article to the Hart affidavit, So
called, that this is a fair and true re-
port, or does the burden rest upon the
defendant to show that it is a fair and
true report. That is the precise issue
that now presents itself for your hon.
or's determination"
Mr. Belden quoted numerous author
tiles showing that in libel cases the
proof of absence Of malice rests with
the defendant. He read decisions in
which the declaration of law is laid
down that "the manager or proprietor
of a newspaper is prima facie criminal
ly liable for a libel published therein,
and cannot escape responsibility SIM
ply by showing that it was published
without his knowledge or consent. He
must further show that the publica-
ton did not occur through any negli-
gence or want Of ordinary care on his
part"
AS the discussion of the liability of
managers of newspapers would neces-
sarily be long, Mr.. Belden said he was
willing to omit it. Mr.. Jackson replied
that the defense was willing to have
the whole matter brought out as one
subject runs into the other almost I'M
avoidably. The court stated that 1t
would be necessary to rule on both the