The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-21
STATE WINS BOTH
OBJECTIONS IN THE LIBEL SUIT
AGAINST THE TIMES ARE
OVERRULED.
THE CASE GOES ON AGAIN,
AFTER NEARLY ANOTHER WHOLE
DAY IS SPENT IN ARGU-
MENT.
SCORING FOR NEWSPAPERS.
Judge Makes Some Caustic Remarks
State Rests Its
Case.


non-plused 1t had confidently expect
ed that the court would rule with it,
after the lengthy arguments 1T had
made to prevent the state from intro
ducing the alleged libelous article,
force the state to put in the Hart
affidavit as a part. of the prosecution,
and also to prove conclusively that
Mr. Haskell was responsible for the
article.
When the ruling came in it was with
the prosecution in every point, based,
primarily, upon the simple proposition
that the matters in controversy were
fit matters to go before the jury. Then
the state rested, and still the defense
could not believe they were beaten.
Mr.. Jackson and Capt. Hart both ar
gued, but still the court held it's be-
lief.
Mr.. Hatch, the Times Chicago law
yer, had been so certain Of winning
the points that he had gone to Chit
cago, and the defense was obliged to
telegraph to him, in order to have him
present. Mr.. Jackson stated that Mr..
Hatch would open the case for the de-
Tense, and the court allowed a recess
until morning, in order that Mr.. H2.sch
might be present.
No argument ever held in this coun-
ty has created such interest, the court
room having been crowded with attor-
neys who were there to gain Informal
ton in libel law from such eminent
sources. 1t was the general opinion
that no legal point has ever been so
exhaustively prepared or argued in
this city, and the victory was most
comprehensive one.
The defense will open at 10 o'clock
this morning.
When the session of the court were re-
sumed yesterday morning 1t was plain that
the arguments on the question OF Introducing
in evidence the alleged libeous article,
fered by the state and objected 10 by the de-
Tense would take all the morning SO the
jury was excused until p M, and MIR. Peter
son resumed his talk but was interrupted
number of times by Mr.. Jackson until at last
he insisted on his right to argue the case
without interference from the lawyers of the
defense. In discussing the question of priv
ileges in connection with the alleged 1belous
editorial, Mr.. Peterson said:
l want to call your attention here to just
one sentence in this article, and that is all:
'All together, the transaction is one that
deserves the full exposure of which the Times
has Styen it, and should bring upon the oftf-
GERS concerned in and connected with it the
severest public condemnation; in view of
recent absurd decision rendered by one of our
courts, it is doubtful If the rascally officers
of the concern could be brought to justice,
but the less they ought to be made to
feel the weight OF public condemnation, which
they have so richly merited. Now, your
honor, | don't wish to be understood that that
Is the only part of the article which shows
that it is not fair report of the Judicial
proceeding, but it gees to show to the court
beyond the peradVenture OF doubt that 1t
not only does not purport to give fair re-
port of the official proceedings, but it even
attacks the official proceeding itself. Now,
your honor there is not question but what
that paragraph that l have just read to the
court, standing alone, is lfoelous, and is not
based upon any other paper or any other
proposition; and if there was no other para
graph than the one that l have read the state
is entitled to introduce that editorial in this
case.
The evidence in this case is not only that
it is not a privileged communication, but the
evidence is of such a nature that it cannot
be overcome, the article contains within it
self intrinsic truth of the fact that it is not
privileged, that it IS written for the pur-
pose that it shall not be privileged, showing
that they take upon themselves the response
bility of publishing that statement to the
public their own and even attacking the
judicial tribunal ITSELF and l have read the
very article here which they claim is priv
ieged. Now, your honor is 1t TO be the law
OF this state tlat WnGn q newspaper CUES 10
work and publishes statement of that kind
which they herald to the world is made upon
their own responsibility, is it to be the law of
this state that the state shall be obliged be-
fore it introduces such article in evt-
dence before jury, that they shall be obliged
to prove it is not true? 1t does not make any
difference even If we concede that there are
other parts Of this article that do refer to
the writing; if there is any one statement
in this editorial, if there Is any one para
graph in this editorial which upon its face is
| hpr nfn rn M nt hnr
son or no other paper, no other writing or no
other proceeding, / say, your honor, that
makes the article admissible, because the Of
Tense is committed right here, and the state
is entitled to have it in evidence without
reference to any other paper or article.
And it, as your honor suggested, 1t is not
a question of privilege, if that is not the
have the affidavit introduced, if that is not
the theory then l am at loss to see upon
what theory the state should be compelled to
introduce a paper that has been referred to
by the writer of an article which is admitted
! ly libelous; but simply because they have re-
ferred to paper or writing, what right does
the court have to require the state to intro
| duce that paper before the article Itself is
admitted?
/ When Mr. Peterson c;osed Judge Belden pro-
ceeded to give further authorities on the ques-
ton of privilege. He referred to the debate
which had occurred Friday during his alb
sence, referring to the question Of whether
there was the technical question of privilege
/ involved in THIS controversy UP TO THAT LIue.
The court stated that at that time he had
! asked Mr. Peterson a question whether that
question is necessarily involved in this ruling.
He said he had in mind the privilege referred
| to in section PIG of the penal code.
Mr. Belden said this question must necessa-
| rily occur, and will probably occur to the logi-
| cal mind The provision last referred to by
the judge, said he, reads as follows THE
| publication is excused when 1t is honestly
! made in the belief that it is true, and upon
| reasonable grounds for this belief, and con-
| sists Of fair comments upon the conduct of
! person in respect to public affairs" Conunu-
! ing he said:
Now, If the court please, assuming, and 1t
seems to me, as has been suggested by Mr..
! Peterson and as will occur to any lawyer or
any other person having any information upon
! this subject who is able to reason from a
! premise to a conclusion, that the burden rests
| upon the party who has committed the Of
| Tense, and whether it be fair comment; II
! it be fair comment, that fact must be shown
| by the person who makes the comment. The
| language upon It's face being Hbelous, and IL
| belous because the language used excludes the
| presumption or the assumption of fairness
| AS to the contention that the state must bring
| in the Hart affidavit as part Of the case, he
| said that the defense's argument was as false
| and as destitute Of foundation as any conten-
ton ever advanced in court of Justice. 1t
was q contention that the state must prove
| malice, must prove that the editorial COM
ments were unfair and must therefore intro
| duce in evidence the affidavit upon which it
| was claimed the comments were made.
! Mr. Belden then assaled some Of MI.
| Hatch's authorities, claiming that the one that
| had been most banked on involved no ques-
| ton Of presumption. In that case the sue
| cessful effort to get the prosecution to intro
| duce as a part of its case the matter on which
the alleged libel was q comment was under
| taken wholly for the purpose Of obtaining the
accompanying right to address the jury last
! While belief in the defamatory language was
essential to privilege it did not constitute
privilege, though in its absence there could be