The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-18

published libel as charged in the in
dictment.
The court ruled that he would allow
argument of the point at this time. Mr..
Belden continued his argument on the
other question, touching first upon the
subject of privileged matter. He said
that if the court should for moment
entertain the argument that the editor
ial was a justified comment on the Hart
affidavit, he would hold that that affi-
davit was itself libelous because it was
not pertinent and because it had never
become a matter for publication, for 1t
had not come out in court proceedings.
The publication Of the Hart affidavit
was libelous.
The very largest latitude, Mr.. Belden
said, was allowed by the law to news
papers in criticising candidate for
public office, but even there it was
necessary to prove the truth Of any &C
cusation. Newell, the best authority.
said that the word privileged" did not
apply to the occasion, but to the words
themselves-that the language was not
defamatory but merely critical.
The next question discussed was the
question of privilege in the publication
of court proceedings. The privilege eX-
tended only to impartial and accurate
accounts, not to garbled and incom-
plete reports. Care must be exercised
in reporting the charge Of the Judge
He showed from authorities that an
impartial report must be one not IN
tended to be detrimental to either party
III the case, not portion OF its pro-
ceedings on papers copied for the pur-
pose of injuring one party.
In the afternoon the jury was excus-
ed again until morning, while the argu-
ments were continued by Judge lden,
upon the line of what were privileged,
and what were not privileged communl-
cations, the attorney citing large
number of authorities to support his
position. Reading from well known
Michigan case, and commenting upon
1t, the speaker said:
'The dweller in a palatial newspaper
office has no more right, no more
privilege to publish matters which Will
work injury to his fellow men than
the humblest peasant, or the jewellers
OH the flats
1t was shown by authorities, that no
paper had the right to publish papers
containing scandalous accusations, at
least until they come up in open court
for hearing. In the case of the Times,
the paper had published scurr1lous
affidavit, before it came into open court,
and without taking the trouble TO as
certain as to the facts. Any reporter
document, which speaks for itself, must
prepare himself to prove it's truth in a
court, if necessary.
At the close of Mr.. Belden's argu-
ment a short recess was taken. Mr.
Peterson then offered to address the
court on the objection that was mace
that there has been no proof of publ
cation. The question then arose
whether the state had introduced all
its evidence on this point. Mr.. Peter
son stated that it had much more evil
dence to offer, although the court had
understood from Mr.. Belden that evil
dence was practically all in Mr.. Peter
son had understood the court to rule
in the morning that the article would
be received in evidence. Court stated
that such had not been the case, but
he thought the state could Withdraw
the offer and proceed with evidence.
After long argument the court sustain.
ed the objection to the Introduction or
the editorial at that time. The case
went over to Monday morning, when
the prosecution will be ready with
more evidence.