The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-13
" ADULTERER" NOT LIBEL?
hPPELLATE DIVIsIOS DECIDED THAT
POINT ~ JIFFT

in Brooklyn. yesterday. diring the argument
on tho appeal OF Richard f. Able from q de-
clsion Of Justice Garretson. sustaining de-
murrer nterposed to the complaint by his
brother. Max =. Able. in n suit brought 10y
Richard to recover $4,000 damages against
Max for alleged libel. The plaintiff alleged
that his brother libollcd him By saying he had
bonsted OF adultery. Tho libel was con-
tanned In letter which Max +. Able
Is alleged TO have sent to Felix Eisolt.
In this the writer said that Richard 7. Abbe
had boosted OF his intimate relations with
Mrs EIsolt. This caused an enlargement
between Mr. and Mrs. Eisolt and Richard +.
Able alleged that II disgraced him and blnck-
ened his character. The defendant entered
demurrer to the complaint and 1t was sus-
tanned by Justice Garretson. who said In his
opinion that the matter set forth In the let
ter which IL made the basis OF this action Ia
not libellOus per Sc"
Max +. Able contcnded that the language In
his letter was privileged. that the words did
not charge unchastity but only boas;ing OF
unchastity.
In his argument before tho Appellate Divl-
sion Mr. Dcnslow. representing tho law firm OF
Towns 4 McCrossin. contcnded that the letter
could not he construed a. designed TO convey
the impression that the plaintiff had been un-
chastc with Mrs. Eisolt. and that tho charge OF
unchastity against man was not lbclous
per Sc
Not case exists" he said. whore an allie
cation Of mere unchnstity concerning q man.
not coupled with any violation Of statute law
as to it, mode OF commission, IL libellons. No
requirements of chastity IA TO men. except they
are priests. exist In any state on earth by law.
nor In any code of ethics or religion. All
codes OF ethics. except those Of woman's rights.
advocates aud disciples OF Fourier and Mary
Wollstonccrait. require chastity OF women. but
not OF men.
There j.. and has been. no church or
voluntary association Of men In the world"
h, continued. except the Shakers in modern
times and the Essences in the ancient world
which pledges or pledged its male members
TO chastity a. n condition OF admission. or
makes unchustity IA ground Of dsfellowship
or expulsion. The direct teachings OF the
Founder Of Christianity Is that none but SIN
less men can consistently cast the first stone at
an aiultcrer. AMI rs no slnless men exist
adultercrs shoud 90 unscathed. All ars-
tocracics make unchastity in men sine qua
non of good fellowship. All royal families have
been full OF 1t. In the Bonaparte family II
characterized every woman as well as every
mnn OF the dynasty. All the Caesars. AleSan-
yrs. Stuarts. Bourhons. Guelgales, Tudors.
rlantagene's. HapsburIs Hohen zolernS and
lianovcrS are characterized by IL. All pub
lie men IN America, with one or two exceptions,
have pract!scd 4 more or less notoriously
Benjamin Franklin avows II in his autobing-
raphy and IN his illeGitlmate children. The
peopl" OF the United states unheSitatingly
ssI to wS e ~ rdm nn %ho'f "p
popularity deemed something that uniformly
acSomnanics the successful; tacuq,, powSr,
foremost preacher in the world was, charged
with It; the charge, was. OF course. liSeilops
average feeling OF society was that he was
called upon ms a gentleman 70 fsht the charge.
as gentlemen AS completely by IT, II it were
true. as II II were false. ,-.,...-
se against a man does not bring him into
public hatred. riiicule or contempt. but
merely classincs him as an average man, hay
ins a leaning. iianythIng. toward aristocratlc
cSsriSs \: Weber in replying to tho arru-
Il should certainly blush for shame TO present
ouch a brief as that Of the respondent. II has
been n source OF modification to me TO have
had TO- receive 9nd gSTgse Il aTd doubt po Il
and decorum, and hurls the moa' scanGalous
and scurrilous and all too sweeping
raceous plea for lltertinism and ,iechety.
Such brief has never been presented to any
court and sincerely hope never viii be again.
II says there Is no requirement OF chastity as
to men. except they are priests IN any, state on
earth 10y law, nor in any code Of ethics or re-
lgon and that all codes Of ethics, except two
nHpe OF a1 5.aThe sms 81 S9mH nut
true. The writer OF the brief cannot point 20
single declared and fixed code Of ethics tina,
holds this doctrine In terms. Two-third> OF
these United States have made adultery crime.
some misdemeanor and many a felony,
upon the Cd or New Testame 3of aEes s toT H'Ss
basis the Ten Commandments of God. and not
There IL and has been no church or voluntary
association of men In the world. except the
the ancient world. which pledges lis male
members to chastity as condition ~ al;
or hs st%"%a nj
counts Tor naught Does any church disbar
10" others S MEh Mssy 'ne or ss
ciousy charged. constitute libel per So ? We
find chaplains In every Jail and on every scat
Not content to indct the churches for APP
parent neglect. he hlhsphomousy cites our
doctrines, lie says. The direct teaching Of
the Founder Of Christianity " that none but
exist adultcrers, should go unscathed Il is
our SavIOur's holy life. The words 81 Christ on
terry lie was talking to tho, pharsees.
Ms tbsH ana kpGw their hSar su and e,
say Lot him who IL without sin east tho first
stone 10 cause them all TO stink away. He un-
Every church founded upon His t.. ching has
always condemned those guilty Of 1t with tho
sect that does not preach and decry against
unchastity in man or woman, The respond
ent then makes this astounding charge:
All ariStOcracics make unchnstity in men u
sue qua NON OF good fellowship What n vile
aud bG-clc-s charge And II II were truc. how
does II help his case Thank God we live In a
democracy aud not IN an aristOcracy and the
fact that We do opposes rs diametrically to arS-
tOcraclcs, he their SINE qua nan what II may. II
such II be. no wonder We should be opposed to
u, ] am not here to defend royal families
We have none here. again let US no thankful. II
the RESPONDENTS foul charges arc true. though
believe he libcls many 2f them with his too
frequent and ungunrlod use OF the alb
solutely inclusive terms all and every But
when he comes 10 say, All public men in
America, with one or two exceptions, have
practised II more or less notorlously.' / must
most emphatcally protest ana deny such u
monstTous, infamous charge. True, there are
eases. but the very notoricty that - given to
them III the pillOry Of the public press shows
In itself the exceptional character Of the net,
The assertion that the people Of the United
States unhositatingly elected to the Presidency
man whose unchasity was Nv himself ad
mittcd, and which ~ used to indicate u ma
tional sanction Of unchaStitv, IL inllaciOus
That issue was not til" main one nor was tho
unchastity chalgod adultery. The result in
this state. II the respondent admits this as the
issue, IL certainly against him, for this Gun
dldate had carried this state before tho raisIng