The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-06-17
COURT POKES FUN
At PROF. TRIGGS
Former Minnesotan Loses His
Suit for Libel Against the
New York Sun.
Special to The Journal.

Special to The Journal.
New York, June 17.-The staid
judges of the appellate division Of
the supreme court-men who ordl-
narily ponder with frowning thought
fulness over litigated points and then
write erudite opinions which tax the
understanding of those less learned
in the law than themselves-had to
laugh outright at the suit which Pro-
lessor Oscar Lowell Triggs brought
against the New York Sun for libel.
The professor, who, when at the
University of Chicago, gained wide
notoriety by his enthusiastic exploita-
ton Of his fdiosyncracies which We're
just sprouting when he was at the
University of Minnesota, wanted the
newspaper chastised, financially, for
holding him UP to ridicule and con-
tempt by poking fun at his peculiar
theories as to literature.
The appellate division not only told
the professor that he wasn't entitled
to damages from the Sun, but went so
far as to poke more fun at the hurt
plaintiff for his inability to apprec1-
ate the humor in the newspaper artl-
cles. So Triggs has abandoned his
suit in disgust
The Sun certainly did cause the
public to smile broadly, if not to
laugh uproariously, at the Chicago
professors theories as to the creation
and Interpretation of poetry. Triggs
had promulgated certain hard and fast
rules, and the Sun applied these rules
with vengeance to the writings of
such men as Longfellow, Whittier,
Holmes and Emerson, with ludicrous
effect. Added to this were sundry
truculent comments of the editorial
writer apropos of the professors ideas
on literature in general. Triggs was
wrathy. He'd have the Sun punished,
fn, n e
begun forthwith.
Thru the special term the case went
and laughter followed in it's wake
laughter in which jurists, lawyers
court attaches and bench-warmers
Joined. Then appeal was taken, and
the higher court said that "the arti-
Gle certainly tends to make the ideas
ridiculous, but there is nothing
charged against him which makes
him as a man, Infamous, odous OF
ridiculous"
The plaintiff" continued the court
"objects to the article published al
tending to expose him to ridicule ant
contempt, and to impair his useful
ness as a teacher In the university II
which he Is an instructor. There i
nothing in the article which can posi-
bly, be construed as charging tn
plaintiff with crime or disgracefu
COnuuCL, OT ctTy ACT WHICH WOulu SUI
ject him to the contempt of the com
munity.
1.-The article Is written and ,plainl
intended to be humorous and not seri
Gus. 1t is filled with exaggerations a
to what the author considers to
the result of the application of tn
Ideas of the plaintiff to certain poem
specified. But that the spirit of eS
aggeration and fun pervading the art
Gle was not intended seriously, not
be taken seriously, charging the plair
tiff with any misconduct or lack {
professional ability, is quite clear, an
however much fun Is made Of tn
teachings Of the plaintiff and their e1
feet as understood by the writer {
the article, there is nothing in it thu
can be taken q serious ,charg
against the plaintiff or as subject1n
him to contempt.
THE plaintiff has taken the publ
cation too seriously, and has consit
cred what was intended to amuse tt
readers of the paper, as serious crit
cism upon his work, which it seems
study Of the article does not warrant
This is poor consolation for Profe
sor Triggs, but 1t Is not likely that
will carry the question to the court
appeals to better it,