New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-09-04

But he sends il forth as Tie fruit Of his ma
turly
The jurIcs TO whose tender mercics The law
OF England occasionally submits questions Of
critical justice seem not to learn by experience.
A food Of obloquy has been poured upon them
for their gorgeous behavior. but they handle
the next case with the same sweet sympathy
for the outraged (n author. The other day the
dramatic critic Of The Birmingham POST eI
posed cogcnly the worthlcSsness Of a play
presented In his town that IL had 10 bc with
drawn This. one would say. was service 10
the community. The manager Of The theatrical
company thought otherwise. He brought suit
and Liverpool jury gave him $40 damages.
English critics are asking themselves in de
SPAR If they must bow once for all TO the i'm
perfect law of libel. and abandoning their art,
take to the ignoble but prosperous ways Of the
log roller. The situation Is certainly discour-
aging. and We may congratulate ourselves upon
our own immunity from similar abuse OF
legal privilege. Freedom from ii depends. We
may note not any more upon the wisdom OF
lawmakers than upon m enlightened public
opinion When the public has the courage to
abide by a criticism bearing on It's face the
evidences Of honesty ana authority the scnsa-
y
condemnation will see that they are playing a
losing game They will fear 30 carry their
woes into court rcrccivinS that even IL they got
damages the award viii convey no serious ra.I-
fcation Of their cause. Bat so hong as trash is
supported by a large public it viii appeal to
the law for protection from fair criticism and
will wax fat on lis "yindicaiion." 1t Is The
moral rather than the financial damage per
lao. L., IL
cate The newspaper can pay its bill. but how
about the cause Of honest thinking. which is
SCI back every time twelve good AMI true Dog
berries adjudicatc between the critic and the
criticised and write themselves down is Dog
berry wished to BE- written down?
Tho letter on "rhc Poetic GIFT" which we
quote elsewhere from The London Spectator
establishes one important point but misses an
other 1t may be admitted that the poet. /
"whatcvcr else he may he is also man of
this world not a sort of sensitive scaancmOnc. !
wa wing his futile arms in periodical low water"
All The great poets, from Shakespeare down.
confirm ;his view. But it is not a conclusive
reply. as "Thc Spectators" correspondent seems
tG think ii Is to the assertion that the ncces-
silly TO earn n livelihood by ordinary means kills !
the poetic gift" One must be man Of this
world and feel the current Of this worlds
thought and action if one is to win serious re
suits in any field Of life, and we have always
maintained that American art and letters would
gain enormously if The sympathcs Of the au-
thors and artists were wider in scope than they
usually are. But to ask poet TO look on with
sympathy is one thing; 10 ask that during Il
certain number OF hours each day he should !
share in the prosaic conflict Of human life, bur
dencd by the thought that in this way and in
no other is his livelihood to be secured is like
asking a great general or statesman or any
other leader Of men 10 earn his bread by daily
participation IN The routine work OF his Subor