The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-06-25

gOmery are right then the law per-
hitting suit for defamation Of char
acter has been virtually repealed by
judicial construction.
We are well aware that there are
donable sin to criticize the decision OF
a court We have no sympathy with
the notion that any men are infall1ble.
Judges err and it is the duty of news
papers to saw so 1t is relic of days
when folks believed "the King can do
no wrong to fall down and say you
must not criticize the court. Nothing
Is above criticism by the people ana
the press. 4 great judge finds nothing
to hurt him in criticism. The day the
people fear to criticize any public Off
cial-President legislator, judge-that
day they become subjects and lose SOW
ereignty. Judicial wrongs have been
the gravest crimes against justice.
This paper did, not criticize Judge
Moore though it thinks he should have
let the case go to the jury. He was
tied down by the Montgomery opinion
so closely that the merits of the case
could not be brought out. Under
those circumstances, with perfect good
faith and desire to follow the Supreme
courts rule, he felt impelled to say
that malice had not been shown. The
whole matter then turns in the Su-
preme court: not upon whether Judge
Moore committed error" or any mar
row technical way to let the case go
off upon legal squint, but whether
the Montgomery decision is sound law.
That is the question before the SUI
premc court We have no doubt that
they will meet it as they do all ques-
tons fairly and squarely. and settle
the question for all time upon broad
and fundamental principles. 1t is for
tunate for North Carolina that it has
Supreme court at this time composed
of able and honest men, who hold
the scales of justice evenly, and who
possess the confidence of all parties
and all interests in North Carolina.
They will declare the law as it is,
without fear or favor, uninfiuenced by
the wealth of litigants, the fear of
criticism, the Montgomery decision
that denied jury trial. or anything out
side the law.
There are two paragraphs in the
editorial from which Col. Bruton
quotes, which have been construed to
mean that The News and Observer re-
Elected upon the Supreme court. If
there is any paragraph in the article
open to that construction, it was far
from the thought of the writer, or his
Intention. The readers of this paper
know the opinion it has of the Su-
preme court-their ability. their sense
of Justice, and freedom from any out
side infiuence-and it could not con-
sciously print line that could be con-
strued into any other conception of
their integrity, ability and fairness.
Perhaps Col. Bruton objects TO the
advice given to the counsel of Duke
and Kilgo,, but some of the
supporters of Trinity College de-
clare that the mistake made all the
time was in the fight to keep away
from a jury. There are many of those
who say their case would have been
stronger if the defendants had gone on
the stand, made clean breast of the
whole affair, giving their reasons and
their justification for the course pur
sued" But for some reason the attor-
neys have been careful not to permit
either of the defendants go on the
stand. They allege that the severe
things said about Mr.. Gattil and wide
Nv circulated are true. and yet they
do not offer any evidence to prove it
or anything to justify their course,
If they have good reasons and can
substantiate the grave charges, why
should they not present them to
jury? We believe that North Carolina
juries can be trusted!
Col Bruton is evidently in great
glee because he thinks the editor of
The News and Observer is in the same
category with Duke and Kilgo. Some
years ago DR. Kilgo went about the
state charging that Thomas Jefferson
was "a monster" but when it was de-
sired to defend Prof. Bassett because
he put Booker Washington above
Vance Stonewall Jackson, Lamar,
jefferson Davis and every Southern
man except Robert E. Lee, the Trinity
trustees fell back upon declaration of
Jefferson who opposed any sectarian
influence in the mana cement of a col
lege.
As matter of fact there is no
analogy in the suit brought by Col. W.
Fl. Osborne against Col. M 7. Leach
and The News and Observer or in the
trial or decisions. In that case there
is no contention that The News and
Observer originated any libel of Col.
Osborne All it did was to print
statement made to a member Of the
staff by Col M. T. Leach. who said he
was going to bring suit (Which he af-
forwards broughD against Col. OS-
borne, and the grounds upon which
he would bring the suit. AS soon as
it came to the attention of the editor
"a Col