Year: 1868

1t is at once q testimony to the improved
character of the press, and to the growth OF
common sense among judges and juries that
libel suits against newspapers are so much
more apt to terminate in favor of defendants
than they used to be thirty years ago. 1ndi-
vduas who for the first time suffer from such
a cause may very naturally imagine that the
"hcentiousness of the press" is growing, just
as a recruit. hurried into battle, and soon
wounded, might naturally think that the con-
flct was growing fiercer, when, in fact, 1t wa
rapidly dying out. But juries represent pretty
fairly the average sense of the community !;
and it is obvious that the juries OF to-day are
much less prone to believe that an editor Is
actuated by unworthy motives than were the
juries of the last generation. IL 1t were the
general belief of the community that editors
were as rule given to wanton defamation,
that belief would create predsposition among
iurymen to give verdicts against them. Such
an inclination used to exist among jurieS In Old
times. But no sign of it remains.


The judges also treat the press very differ
emily now from the mode to which they were
formerly accustomed Thirty years ago, a
Judge might be depended upon to compel a
conviction for libel where the jury hesitated.
1t is not so now If it be said that this change


is owing to greater seryility, or other dis
honorable motive, on the part OF the judges
we need answer only by pointing to the noto-
rious character of the very few judges who
are given to denOuncing the press In OLD
times the most upright judges were severest
in their dealings with the press; in these times
the Judges who are bitter against it arc men
whom no one suspects of incOrruptibility.


We have been led into this train of thought
by the result of two libel suits, which have
just ended, each of them with verdict for the
defendant. The suit against The Nation was
founded upon an article severely condemnng
the reckless and unfeelng conduct of which
some one, apparently in charge of train on
the New-Jersey Railroad, had clearly been
guilty The plaintiff in that suit based his claim
upon the fact that the description given in The
Nation of the person in fault applied more
nearly to him than to any one else, while 1t was
really subordinate of his who was to blame.
There was no doubt that the defendant did
not identify him as the person in fault, and that,
if he had remained silent, very few persons would
have applied the description to him. He pre-
ferred, however to sue, and thus brought his
name prominently before the public as the con
ductor of train which was managed in a
brutal manner by some one. The result was
that, although he did not appear to have been
the person most in fault, the jury were not
satisfied that he was free from all blame, and
he lost his case and damaged his own character.


The other case brought by Mrs. Dean 0or
merly Miss Boker) against the former publisher
of The Sun, presented clearer case OF tech
nical libel The Sun copied from another paper
n long story, ruinous to the character of Mrs.
Dean. and entirely untrue. But the publication
was made in good faith and Immediately
upon its untuth being pointed ont to the
editor, he made as full a retraction as was
possible. But Mr.. Dean was not satisfied.
He wanted TO make money out OF the transac-
ton and tried one lawyer after another until
he found one who would push .he case vigor-
ously. His counsel made appeal to the
Jury. marvelously like that of Sergeant Buzfuz
in the renowned case of Bardcll rersus Pick
wick. But alas "chops and tomato sauce
are not so powerful as they once were; nor
will even an appeal to the warming pan move
the cold hearts Of n Brooklyn jury. They did
not believe that the action was brought in
good faith or that the plaintiff had sustained
any injury which was not fully atOned for by
the apology publicly made. Probably they
were somewhat disgusted by the effort OF the
plaintiffs husband to make money IN this way,
nor can We blame them.


We do not ask, nor do we understand the
press in general to ask, for release from re-
sponsibilty for wrongs wantonly or even neg
lgently committed. But as in private inter
course gentleman's apology and retraction
are deemed sufficient atonement for an injurl-
Gus statement made in belief of its truth, so
we think should the like apology in the col
umns of newspaper, prominently set forth,
be deemed sufficient satisfaction for an unin-
territorial libel. And such, it is evident, is the
view which courts and juries are beginning to
take. When this is understood, both hbels and
libel suits will be of rare occurrence.