Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-01-25
Court Rulings on Libels
Against the Deceased

| 70 the Editor OF The Star:
+, Anent the alleged censorious criti.
cism of the habits and character of
! our first President by prominent
, novelist and his defense of his utter.
ance under the mantle of privilege on
the ground of truth, which has awak.
! ened considerable interest with the
press and public. 1t may be of interest
to the legal profession to note that a
similar attack, a few years ago. in
| Tacoma. Wash, was adjudged crimi
nally libelous in a suit instituted
against the critic by taxpayer in the
courts of that State. which judgment
on appeal. was affirmed by the Su.
preme Court. December %. 1918.
The action was brought at the in.
stance of Col. A. +. Joab of Tacoma
against Paul H. Haffer, a young Ia.
coma Socialist, accused of libeling the
memory of George Washington. Col
| Joab, an attorney, caused Haffer's AZ.
rest after the latter had sent letter
to newspaper referring to Washing
ton as ''blasphemer." stakeholder
and 'inveterate drinker."
| Under the rule of the common law,
and this was the point upon which
the defendant based his defense, prose.
! cutions of this kind may be brought
| where there is surviving relative or
friend of the slandered deceased who
suffers by the libelous attack.
The theory of the law was that if a
! slanderous attack is made on the
memory of deceased it might incite
the relatives of surviving friends of
the dead person to breaches of peace.
| The case was tried before a jury in
! the Superior Court of Pierce County
/ Wash, May 4, 1918. Judge Card pre-
siding. In his trial Haffer produced
what he could from history supporting
| his criticisms of the Father of His
| Country: also relying upon privileGe
respecting the constitutional safeguard
! Of his right to free speech. in accord
ance with the universally established
! custom Of freely attacking the char.
acters of public men. with the further
| contention that the object of his criti
cism was long dead and no injury
I could follow.
Less than two hours were required
10 reach a verdict. Haffer was con-
victed, fined and sentenced TO serve
! four months in Jail. Motion for a new
! trial wa. made and denied. and appeal
| was taken To the Supreme Court, on
) constitutional ground, and on the
! further ground that the criticism was
true and therefore not actionable.
! The decision handed down by the
! Supreme Court, December %. 1918. at.
! tirmed the judgment of the lower
court. the validity OF the trial and the
| sentence, holding that there was no
: question that the article was libelous
and was maliciouslv published. In
/ its decision the court said. "One has
| no more constitutional right to de-
fame the memory of deceased than
| of living persons.
! This Is believed to have set a prec.
! edent for the entire country
| In this connection il is interesting
! to compare the ruling, on January u
! 1925. reported in press notices from
| Kansas City, OF Federal Judge Albert
l.. Reeves in sustaining a demurrer of
the Famous Players-Lasky Corpora
! ton TO the one-miliion dollar suit OF
! Mrs. Virginia Bridger Hahn. alleging
, that the motion picture. The Covered
| Wagon" DETAINED her father. Jim
| Bridser. famous Indian scout. by de
! pictine him as ''two-squaw man
and a drunkard. Mrs. Hahn con.
tended the picture cast reflections
! upon her life and that she had been
damaged accordingly.
| Judge Reeves held that ones an.
| cestors might not he DETAINED beca Sc
! with the generations that what might
be considered perfectly proper in one
| age would be considered improper In
/, another.
| While the merits of the respective
cases are dissimilar. the legal princi.
pie involved appears TO be the same.
| with preponderance of justice in
favor of the last cited case, where
| direct relationship land hence a vest
! ed interest involved existed in sur.
. vivins descendant Of the person whose
memory is claimed to have been Sian.
/ dered.
CONSTANTINE NJ PERKINS