The record-union., 1897-10-07

H. w. Johnson, Judge Hollis associate
counsel, spoke on the same two points.
He believed the contention that
the expression of opinion by
newspaper was not libel had
been pretty we'll settled by his as
sociate. In this day it IS well settled,
| he claimed, that the expression in
| newspaper of a charge against a man
viii injuriously affect his character
| in the community is libel. lie
thought the defendants might remem-
Der the Hobson case, where the
cision in the Hobson case, where the
language was. I'VE believe that John
D. Hobson was guilty" etc. His
honor had heard the decision in the
Edwards case, where the phrase used
was, 1T is reported" Is that half as
strong statement as 1T is our opin-
ion" that such is the case? The day
when such things were held to be not
actionable has gone by and the law
of libel has reached the point of per
fection that man can no more shelter
himself behind his opinion or say that
what he published was told him by
some one else. When he prints it in
| his paper he becomes responsible for
| of logic. If it were otherwise there
would be no limit to the infamous
| charges that could be made against cit
izens under the shelter of ''it is my
| opinion
| 1t is all very well to talk of freedom
of the press, but a man is made re-
sponsible for what he publishes. The
| test is. is it libelous in itself. no mat
| ter whether 1t is the opinion of the
editor? Is it not libel to say that in
their opinion H. Weinstock is associ-
ated with band of scoundrels? If it is
| their opinion they are not obliged to
! publish it, but if they do so they be-
come responsible for it, and must pay
| damages if they are awarded. why
| should they be allowed TO vilify citi-
zens in their paper and damage their
! characters, and then shelter them
| selves behind the plea that they only
published it as their opinion?
| He quoted from several cases to show
| that by publishing hearsay a paper
| places itself in the same position as
| the informant 1t can publish what it
pleases, but must stand the conse-
| quences. If one paper publishes Ii
| bel and another copies 1t, giving credit
| to the paper it was copied from, it is
| equally liable. How would character
and reputation be protected if the law
did not punish the publication and cir
culation of a slander or a libel?
Other States punish libel, but our
own State is stronger than any of the
others, and the Supreme Court has rem
| dered decision after decision. The rule
is clear in this State that If the LAM
guage is clear and ambiguous, the court
| shall conStrue the law to determine
whether or not 1t is libel, and if there
| is anything ambiguous in it the court
must let the jury determine it. He be-
| lieved, and should ask the court to so
| instruct the jury, that this article is
| libelous per sc.
| 1t was stated in the Fitch-De Young
case by eminent counsel that a paper
| had a right to sell it's columns to any
one who wished to pay for it, even it's
editorial page. The court said that,
while it had a right to sell it's columns,
| its readers had a right to know it. Is
it no libel to say that Mr.. Weinstock
was connected with paper that was to
be used to protect the gambling hell of
a drunken scoundrel? Is there no pro-
published in a newspaper? Libel is
defined as a publication that tends to
damage a mans reputation or expose
him to blame, scorn or obloquy. Can
! the claim be made seriously that to
CHARGE that Mr.. Weinstock is associat-
ed with blackmailers, boodlers and
scoundrels is not libel? Would no CEN
sure or reproach attach to him if that
were so? Is he, after for years
enjoying a spotless reputation and
being considered one of our best citi-
zens, to be at one fell blow deprived
of his reputation without redress?
| In regard to the contention of the de-
fense that all the portions of the arti-
| Gle not mentioned in the complaint
were admitted to be true, he thought it
a very singular claim. 1t was proper
in this case to set up in the pleadings
only the portions relating to the plain
tiff. What has he to do with the 9TH
er portions or the other persons men
toned and why should he be expect
ed to deny the allegations in the arti-
Gle that relate to others. If the plain
tiff picks out from an article concern
ing himself portions that he wishes to
plead and refuses to plead the rest,
| there might be some reason for such a
contention. In this case everything
concerning plaintiff had been segregat-
ed and pleaded, as he did not wish to
try the cases of others, which he had
nothing to do with, and it was absurd
to claim that he should.
Taking the article, he said it was a
tissue of abuse The head is "a Gil
gantic Combine, Blackmailers. Bood-
! ling Officials and Citizens"> Mr.
Weinstock was mixed up with the 9TH
ers. If these people believed no wrong
Of him why did they put him in there?
What need was there of publishing his
name if they thought he had nothing
to do with it? They called it a huge
conspiracy and said that the Mayor and
Trustees were to form a combine to
control the fall elections and the city
patronage. Who was the Mayor who
was to be in the combine? Why, the
plaintiff. If they believed him innocent.
why did they connect him with the af-
fair? Because they wished to do so.
Why did they publish his name in big
type, if they thought him innocent?
They charged crime. They made
a charge of blackmailing, the selling of
official positions and the protection of
gambling. There is some difference of
opinion on the part of defendants coun-
sci as to the construction of the fourth
paragraph. It is claimed that they
counted on the support of James G.
Davis, in the combination of Trustees
that had been formed and John A Shee-
han and H. Weinstock. They We're 50
| lender of Sheehan's fealings that theY