New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-05-29
ROOSEVELTS INTIMATES
TELL OF HIS SOBRlElY

LAWYER. replied: There was not a repu-
table correspondent in Washington but
who thought the report was SHY 100 an
surd to be REGARDED OF repeated
Counsel on both sides were on their feet
with regard TO this reply and the jury
was excluded. After an argument the an
swer was stricken out
The lawyers then suggested. in the ao-
sence Of the jury. that the legal question
Of the admissibiity Of testimony touching
on general" reports that Colonel Roose-
welt used liquor TO excess be settled.
Contention Of the Defence.
Mr.. Belden said it was the intention of
the defence 10 ask future witnesses ques-
tons in an attempt TO prove the conten-
ton of the defence, that there was IN
existence a general report. amounting To
general reputation. that Colonel Roosevelt
does use liquors ana sometimes TO excess !
that these reports were published in news
papers. and that Colonel Roosevelt read
these reports. and this charge had never
been contradcted by him; that the de-
PENDANT published the report OF the for
mer Presidents reputed excessive use Oh
intoxicants, believing II TO be true anu
not with any malice"
Mr. Belden maintained that sucn tes'-
rconv was required TO show the good faith
and the absence Of malice in the publica-
ton Of the defendants editorial II coulo
not be. In the presence OF widespread COM
ment by the public and in important news
papers. said the lawyer that MI koose-
welt had been greatly damaged by the
repetition Of charges Of intoXicaton IN Il
remote weekly with circulation OF about
900 copies
we propose TO show" continued the
, LAWYER. that such charges as were made
i'm The Iron ore were by no means con
nned TO this region. The plaintiff during
1912 was the most talked OF man IN the
United states. and We expect to introduce
testimony 10 show that adverse comment
as 10 his habits were made in many olher
parts Of the country. This point pears
strongly in showing the absence OF naiice
on the part OF the defendant. In the dec
laration to this suit the plaintiff not only
| included the question of his use or non
use of liquors. but also that Of his general
reputation
The attorney read from the declaration.
quoting that Colonel Roosevelt had never
| been suspected Of drinking alcohoic
uouors to excess" on this basis. he SAID
the defence would claim the right 10 bring
out testimony on Colonel Roosevelts repu-
tation i'm various parts Of the country
The purpose of the defence. as claimed oy
Colonel Roosevelts attorneys, was 10
preyent exclusion Of "hearsay' testimony.
The court asked Mr. Belden whether
tho defence would combat the position OF
the plaintiff that malice in the publication
Of the article was a basis for damages.
Mr. Belden answered that proof Of malice
undoubtedly would increase the basis Tor
damages and ,he defence would combat
the attitude Of the plaintiff
| Wanted Only Nominal Damages.
/ AT first | wanted 10 sue for $4,000
Mr. Pound remarked. but Colonel Roose-
Welt insisted that the amount asked for
sbould be nominal He did not want TO
no vindlctive, but wanted merely dam
ages for the publication Of falsehood.
II was stated by Mr.. Belden that the
| pecuniary damages IN this case unoer inc
law might be any sum from six cents to
$50. 900. regardless OF the amount asked
| in the suit.
Whether the alleged libel was true or
not Mr. Belden argued the defendant be
lieved the article to be true, and aid not
publish il out Of malice.
w. n. Van Benschoten, for Colonel
| Roosevelt. said ne WOULD not oppose the
attitude Of the defence that the admission
OF so-caled hearsay evidence bearing on
the coloners reputation as to liquor was
merely TO mitigate damages. He con
tended. however. that such evidence
should not be admitted unless II nrs'
should he proved that the defendant Kne"
Of the reports tefore he published the a.
tcle and believed them to be true aho