The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-09

Agencies In al the princip pal cities In the world.
-=------
writers and the ssoourRe Of Whittier and
Longfellow, and spoke Of him as sswatting'
Whittier and bongfellow and stated that for
some months Prof. Triggs was collecting
and comparing names Tor his baby. AT
these statements plaintiff maintained we're
libelous.
Prof. Thggs admitted that be had criti-
cized some OF the hymns. The defendant held
that this lecture showed that the professor
had indeed swatted Jongfellow.
A letter written by Liebler 4 Co. 10 Prof.
Triggs offering him $3.50 a week to lecture
on Romeo and juliet in advance Of their
| production Of the play, accompanied by
| playful Of Romeo and Juliet, was offered
In evidence by Mr.. Osborne and admitted:
| One Of the articles In The SUH complained
| Of referred TO this offer made TO Prof.
/ Triggs and had ventured 10 make some
/ humorous and critical comments thereon,
In reference to collecting names for his
/ baby, II was shown that Prof. Triggs, at q
/ college banquet at Kinsley's, in Chicago,
| in February, 1902, had made an after dinner
| speech In which he told 100 men who we're
! present that he had been unable for about
a year TO decide upon a name for his baby,
| and further that a substantially correct
! account Of this speech was published in
the Chicago Tribune on the following day.
! Feb. p, 1902.
II was argued by the cours sci for the
| defendant in his summing up that the para
! phrase OF Shakespeare In one Of the articles
complained Of was harmless and innocent
| and that the terse and vigorous Ian guage
/ placed in the mouth Of Shakespearian
/ characters was no more vulgar than the
language ascribed by Mr. ToTT send to
his various characters.
After the FINAL verdict Of the jury was
rendered, Mr.. Osborne moved that 1t be set
aside and a new trial be granted on the
around that the verdict was for inadequate
IN the admission Of evidence. jus lie Howard
gave Mr.. Osborne three weeks in which TO
submit a brief
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE,
For the defendant several witnesses were
! called. Mr.. Paul Dana testified that he was
editor in chief Of THE Sun at the time OF
! the publication Of the articles complained OF
in 1908; that he h dnever known Prof l'rlggs,
and had no feeling aginst him and that ne
had never heard Of any feeling on the part OF
any one connected vita The Sun against
Prof. Triggs -,
articles, testified that he did not know Prof.
! Triggs, that he had never known Prof Trtggs,
that he had no i'll will against him and
that he had written the articles in the spirit
Mr. Hollis W. Field OF Chicago testified
that he had an interview with Prof THggs
| in 1901, and a long article written by Mr..
| Field in the Chicago Tribune at the time
setting forth the interview with Prof. Irlggs
was admitted in evidence. Other articles
from Chicago newspapers showing the
attitude Of Prof Triggs toward hymns and
toward Longfelow were admitted in evil
dence, and the reporter of the Chicago news
paper who was present at the baby naming
banquet testified as to the correctness OF his
version Of the speech in which Prof
Triggs recounted his difficulties In finding
a suitable name for his child and the various
steps Of his search for one Another gentle
man from Chicago testified to Prof. Triggs's
| admission Of his comparison Of the creative
| genius OF Shakespeare with that OF Mr..
John D. Rockefeller.
cRoss-RxAMINATIoN OF PROF TBIoos.
The cross-e1amination Of Prof. THggs
| on various questions involved in this great
! literary libel suit is OF such unusual interest
that we transcribe certain portions of il,
Col Bartlett began bis cross-e1amina-
ton by a reference 20 that part OF one Of
| the articles complained Of in which Prof
| Triggs was called 'the panegynst OF Whit
| man"
We're you not at the time Of the, publ
cation OF the first article complained OF In
The SrN. or had you not been, that is to say,
! prior 70 the second day Of March, 1909,
psnegyrist or admirer OF Walt Whitman
What does PanesyTiG mean :, 4, Int In its
over-e1llogy. OF extreme excessive eulogy,
o You had merely eulogizet Mr.. Whitman
"ISnG But S YOU had praised him? A. may say
so. in the sense Of interpreting him In fun
and c0mprshensiye and high meaning ?! on. uho
praises TO the highest possible e1tentl A
Excessively, with a t seanse sc, 81 unmeasureu
q YOU would not say that Tennyson vas
the panegyrist Of Victoria, would your 4. No.
%. Was he the panegyrist OF Alexandra,
the present Queen 4. NO, sin ..., .ho
Q. tQuqtlngl IL s not unlikely that me ne
the future historian OF our literature into the
age Of Poe and the sge Of Whitman" Do YOU
praise Of Walt Whitman A No, sir. it is
not praise IL is Interpretation OF facts -
estimate Of Whitman? A ! think not.
o And there can be no diversity OF opinion
about Walt Whitman. can there; i is a math "a
diyersity OF opinion. certainly.
! o But you told this jury that In the words
p TRGs w EsT WR Mil rEa1 A. DO not thSE it
. carries that effect, that impression ~ say
this building is high, that is not praise that
8 The The height Of this building il . question
OF absolute measurement isn't ~ a. les
O. And there can't be any. well defined
difference OF opinion on that A. 4; Ne sir. %
the merits p2 800 OF Wait Whitman as a poet there
can be no diversity Of opinion. brt It e paIaIiel
10 a certain height OF definite buldlng'
A In the course OF time that becomes a6so-
/ utelv definite. The consensus OF opinlon
establishes the greatness Of men, q lettsTs
precsey as you determine the height OF that
. building 1900
Eus? A NAV be. sir. - ,,.,...-
"G5A You know Ti'i his s" Leave, Of Grsss-' A
The Wel thor,
| Tn. weather began 20 assume more norma con