Year: 1868

Ii Is at once testimony 10 the improT Cd ehArac-


ter Of the press and 10 the growth of common sense


among judges and juriez, that libel suits against
newspapers are so much more apt TO terminate in


favor Of defendants than they 1sed 70 be thirty


years age. individuals who for the first time suffer
from such cause may very naturally imagine that


the hcentio1sness of the press is growing, Just as


recruit hurried into battle and sooE wounded,


might naturally think that the conflict was growing
hercer, when, in fact, il was rapidly dying out.


But jures represent pretty fairly the average


of the community and Il s Obvious that The juries


of to-day are much less prone to believe that ed


tor is actuated by unworthy motives than were the


uries Of the last generation If fit were the general


belief of the community that editors were as rule


given to wRnton defamation that belief would ere
ate predispositon among jurymen 70 give Vefdiets
| against them. Such an inclination used TO exist
among jaries in old times. But no sign Of Il re-
mRins,


The Judges also treat the pTeas very differently
now from the mode to which they were formerly
accustomed. Thirty years ago a judge might be
depended upon TO compel q cOnyiction for libel


where the Jury hesitated II ig not so now.. If it
be said that the change ia owing 10 greater sefTil


ty, or other dishonorabe motve on the part of the
Judges we need answer only by pointing to the no
torious character of the very few judges who are
given 10 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 1t are men whom no one suspect Of


ncorfuptibity.


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 TIE Nation was founded upon an arti-
Gle severely eondomning the reckless and unfeeling
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
olainnpon 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 it was
really q subordinate of his who was TO blame.
There was no doubt that the defendant did net
identify him as the person in fGult and that if be
had remained silent, very few persons would have
applied tho description 10 him. he preferred, how
ever, TO sne, and thus brought his name prominent
ly before the public as tho conductor of g train
which was managed IN brutal manner By some
one. The result was that, although he did not APP
pear TO have been the person most IN fault the jury
were not satisfied that he was free from all blame,
and he lost bis his case and damaged hs own char
acteF.


The other case, brought by AIrs. Dean formerly
Miss Boxer against Che former publisher Of TIE
San, presented clearer case of technical libel
TIE iStsl copied from another paper a long story,
ruinous to the character Of Mrs. Dean end entirely
untrue But the publication was made in good
f aith; and Immediately upon its untruth being
pointed out TO the editor he made as full retraetion
as was possible. But Mr.. Dean was not satisfied
he wanted to make money out Of the transaction
and tried one lawyer after another, until he found
one who would push the case vigorously His coun
sci made appeal TO the jury, maryellously like
that Of Sergeant Buzfuz in the renowned case OF
Bardel versus Pickwick. But alas "chops and
tomato sauce not 50 powerful as they once
were ner will even an appeal TO the warming-pan
move the cold hearts Of q Brooklyn jury. They did
not believe that the action was brought in good
faith or that the pl aintif had sustained any injury
which was not fully atoned for by the apology pub
licly made. Probably they were somewhat disgust
cd 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 10 ask for release from responsibility for
wrongs wantonly or even negigently committed
But as in private intercourse gentlemans apology
and retrsction are deemed sufficient stonement for
injurious statement made in belief of its truth,
so think should the like apology in the columns
of newspaper, prominently set forth, be deemed
sufficient satisfaction for an unintentonsl libel.
And such, it is evident is the view which courts
and juries beginning TO take When this is un-
derstocd both libes and libel suits will be Of
Fork ITibt1se