The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1915-02-20
FEDERAL JUDGE SCORES
THE MENACE PUBLISHERS
CONTINUED from Page ~

CONTINUED from Page L.
cited; that it did in a large measure
publish charges against the Church
and against the priesthood, that it
did not publish favorable notices to
the Church or to the priesthood, that
its circulation was built upon the
character of the articles it published
and one of counsel this morning re-
ferred to this paper as a foe to the
Catholic Church and in his argument
advocates the theory that because of
that fact that it was known to be an
enemy and foe of the Catholic Church
and the priesthood that the damages
would be less; in other words because
it would be received with grain of
salt by those who read it. l instance
this for two reasons: because l am
compelled first to say that it is an
acknowledgement that the paper is
hostile to the Catholic Church and it's
priesthood and If that is a fact you
may take that into consideration in
determining whether this article was
or was not in your opinion actuated
by actual malice against the plaintiff
in this case.
I'm case where libel is published
it cannot be given without challenge
simply because one man dislikes an
other and is unfriendly to him and
that man for that very reason would
very likely cause or publish libelous
matter that the damages recovered
would be less. Starting with that we
come down to show what was actually
done by way of this publication, and
also discussing other defenses made
by way of mitigation. There is no
doubt but that ii an editor, any party
who publishes a written libel. does
so with perfect good purpose, with
a good intention, and believes what
he publishes and having reason to be-
lieve what he publishes to be true,
that may be taken into consideration,
should be taken into consideration by
the jury, in determining whether or
not there was present actual malice
on the part of the publisher. AS
say, that would not defend against
actual damages. but against punitive
damages it would be taken into con-
sideration-actual malice; but in spite
of those things, there is evidence
without any due regard of the rights
of others, without due investigation
and reasonable precaution as to
whether the matter published was
true or false, then that is what is
meant by wanton reckless publica-
ton. Now then, you take this evi.
dence into consideration offered by
plaintiff and defendant in that regard
and determine whether you think due
dent or wellmeaning man would take
in order to safeguard the general pub.
lie and those who were affected by
the articles in the paper, from injury,
that is, from reckless, wanton and ma
licious injury of the kind have spoll-
en- of. 1t has been stated in the an
swer and there was evidence pro.
duced here to show how it came about
that this publication was made. The
defendant said that a number OF let
ters, think Mr.. Brown stated twenty
five or thirty, came to his desk as
the editor Of the paper, that lie had
no functions in shaping its policies ex-
cept to read these letters; he threw
in the waste basket such as he chose
to disregard; to preserve, perhaps.
some for his own purposes in connec-
tion with whatever might be done aft
erwards, and sent forward and trans
mitted to the editorial desk such as
he thought might be used in connec-
ton with the publication of the paper.
He said that there were number
Of letters respecting or bearing upon
this matter of the plaintiffs from the
City of Wheeling that came to him
during the month of September. He
could furnish no testimony as to the
authorship, many of them, believe in
the opening statement of counsel,
were said to be anonymous. or
course, unauthorized and unknown
communications, and more emphatic
ally one which is signed anonymous
ly, where the writer does not give
his name to the matter sent out, can
not be accepted or received by any
prudent person as justifying reliance
thereon. But let us see. what was
there in that respect: He says he for
warded two or three to Mr.. Coss'
desk Mr.. Coss then being the edi-
torial writer in charge SO far as this
matter Is concerned, in the absence of
Mr.. Marvin Brown, the editor-in-chief.
Referring to Mr.. Walker, he does not
appear to have had anything to do
with this. In any event, Mr.. Coss at
that time, and Mr. Brown had author
ity to publish matter in the paper.
Now Mr.. Coss says that he received,