The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-29
MURPHY VETOES THE STRIPES
HEARST CARTOONS OF LAST YEAR
MUSTN'T BE REPRODUCED
Or the Victim VIII Proceed for Libel, Not
Against the Inventor, whom He Car
tOOnCd Then as MckInIey's Assassin
THAT'S Squared All Others Look out !

Charles F. Murphy gave notice yesterday
through his attorney, James W. Osborne.
that henceforth any paper depicting him
in It's cartoons as arrayed in prison stripes
will have to answer 20 the charge of libel.
Mr.. Murphy ultimatum becomes operative
to-day.
This means. so tho attorney Of Mr..
Murphy explained. that any paper Of gen.
eral circulation under the domain Of the
United States Of America that wilfully and
maliciously utters any photograph sketch
or other form OF likeness purporting TO be
that Of Charles F. Murphy and so labelled
or which shall in any way caricature said
Charles F. Murphy as being clothed in or
grit about with a suit Of prison stripes shall
thereby fall in peril of criminal and civil
prose cution. or both. at the hands Of the
aggrieved. This is definite and final.
= Mr.. Osborne explained yesterday the
force of this announcement Of his client
and the inspiration that gave it being.
"Mr. Murphy has been ibelled by every
PAPER that has printed a cartoon OF him
in prison stripes during this campaign"
aid Mr.. Osborne. -and he feels that it has
gone far enough. Not only does it hurt
him. but il hurts his wife and his friends.
He is determined to bring a stop to this sort
Of thing and TO do so Immediately.
There is no shadow Of doubt that to
print the semblance of a man in the garb
of a jalbird constitutes libel and makes
the owners Of the papers so printing this
picture liable to answer TO the charge of
libel. We are assured on that point. Being
assured, we now mean to take action against
the owners of any paper that shall display
in its columns any me re Of these prison
stripe cartoons"
The attorney for Mr.. Murphy explained
at length how il is that a libel once per-
mittcd to pass current unavenged may
spread and gather venomous force.
1T is not that the very first picture is
not in itself libellous," said Mr.. Osborne,
referring specifically to the case in point.
But the fact that one libellous cartoon
is printed and no action is taken does not
exculpate another person should he re-
print the same picture or a variation of
the same. The law does not recognize
as palliation for an offence the fact that
the same offence has been committed be-
fore by another party with nc punishment
melted out"
Mr.. Osborne then explained how the first
step against the prison stripe pictures had
been taken by Mr.. Murphy. On Saturday
he said he had been instructed by his client
TO see Ward 4 Cow, who control the ad-
vertising space in the elevated rains and
on the elevated platforms, and advise them
of the determination which had been made
by his client to prosecute for libel any per-
sons responsible for the display Of cartoons
depicting Murphy in prison garb.
This Arm OF advertisers had taken the
contract to display in conspicuous places
along the route Of the elevated certain adj
vertisements advising the public to look
out for the cartoons OF Hearst and Murphy
In an evening paper. The Objectionable
feature of these advertisement lay in the
cartoon displayed as a part of them, which
depicted Mr.. Murphy in prison clothes and
Mr.. Hearst standing behind him with his
hand on Murphy's shoulder and a COM
mandatory smile ON his face. Beneath this
cartoon was the legend: He's good enough
for me-when I need him"
Mr.. Osborne saw the advertising firm
and notified them OF Mr.. Murhpy's deter
mination. The advertisers consented i'm
mediately to withdraw the Objectionable
advertisements They would not be put
20 any embarrassment, so they told Mr.,
Osborne, in so doing, for the stipulation they
had made with their clients had recognized
the fact that there might be a protest against
the display Of the four foot high cartoon
and had provided that no breach would bC
committed should Ward 4 Cow be forced
to remove the posters.
And we are not going to discriminate
against Ward 4 Cow" said the attorney
after outlining the facts in the matter
Consistency in this matter will be rigor-
ously adhered to. The newspapers them
selves come next in our consideration
Acting under this consistency, you
client will then bring suit against William
Randolph Hearst, whose papers originates
the conception Of Mr.. Murphy as a jailbird,
the reporter suggested.
Il am not empowered TO give out any
thing further than the statement I have
already made answered Mr.. Osborne.
A friend OF Mr.. Murphy consented Il
enlighten the reporter upon the difference
that the Tammany leader felt to exist be
tween being cartooned - q jailbird b!
Hearst a year ago and beng depicted il
the same guise to-day by papers not unde
the ownership OF Hearst. He said:
When two men are in a bitter politica
uIspuIe one doesn't OILen pay MuCn htIeh
ton 70 what the other fellow says about
him. Last year Hearst and Murphy wer'
not the best Of friends. Murphy pictures
Hearst as the assassin Of Mckinley anC
Hearst pictured Murphy as a convict. Tha
was just between the two Of them and
was all right. Zach one expected to b.
called something bad by the other. Unde
those circumstances Murphy did not objec
to being made out a convict so long as
was Hearst that did it. IL was a bite
Sight and everything went. But it was jus
fight between two.
But now IL is different. The who'll
press Of New Yo~rk-supposed to be al
independent press-has been making Muir
ply out a convict just as Hearst did. The,
stole Hearst's thunder. IL is not a figh
between two political enemies; it is the flgh
OF party against another party. Murph.
as a man does not figure in this fight, an
there Ia not one man on the opposite sid
that stands out against him as an enemy
You see. IL Is the whole press OF New Yor
against Murphy. That makes Murphy mad
1t is the unfairness Of the thing, yol