Year: 1869




wrongs are the rage just now, and for the most
part they are against the unlucky editors and
proprietors of newspapers. The other day
country editor was arrested and put in prison
in this city on libel suit for structures upon
one Of our Wall street spectators. The
Chicago Tribune has just been mulcted in
seven thousand five hundred dollars damages
for publishing an alleged scandal about parties
in Chicago. We see, too, that another libel
suit has been commenced against the same
paper for ten thousand dollars damages for
stating in police court item that person
many other similar cases in Chicago, New
York and other parts of the country in which
newspaper proprietors are the victims; but
these will answer for the application of the
moral.


Undoubtedly the malicious libeller should be
punished, and the injured parties should re-
ceive damages where the case of malice or
Intentional wrong is proved; but under libel
laws generally, and the way in which libel
suits are instituted and conducted, the malice
is frequently on the part of the plaintiffs, and
the object to make money more than to satisfy
wounded honor or damaged character. Gen
orally the prosecutors in such suits are needy
spectators, to whom the chance Of wringing
money out of some victim is godsend. Such
persons for the most part would be delighted
to have their characters called in question
by wealthy journal or a rich individual
every day. 1t gives them prospect of
filing their pockets through the mistakes
or imprudences Of others without labor,
and brings, besides, q notoriety which
many of them like. Unfortunately for the
victims, juries are often more remarkable for
tenderness qf conscience than for common
sense or rendering impartial justice. No class
of the people are so useful to the community
as publishers of newspapers, and none are
placed in such delicate position with regard
to alleged libels. In giving the news-that
which is already public through the action Of
the courts or current conversation-they arc
made subject to prosecution and damages,
though no wrong to individuals is intended and
though in case of mistake reparation be offered.
OuAAOS olO dpt w iOISCt tuAb duu W tIcdt u0Wb-
paper publishers with more severity than they
would other persons. In case of mistake,
oversight or the error of employees in Q
damaging publication, where no malice
or wrong is intended, an apology, recan-
tation and the opening of the columns
of paper to explanation ought to
be sufficient. This among honorable men
in private life Is deemed sufficient. But
the truth is the lawyers generally do all the
mischief Libel cases are bonnie bouche to
the legal fraternity, and whenever they see
the least chance of getting employment they
stimulate parties to enter the courts. Then,
again, the lawyers for the defence generally
defeat their clients by assaults upon the plain
tifs, by labored efforts to damage the charac-
ter Of the plaintiffs, and, therefore, by excit-
ing the sympathy of juries for the prosecutors.
This is seen in the Chicago case to which we
have referred. 1t would be better in almost
all cases for the defendants to dispense with
these wordy and frothy lawyers and to leave
the matter to juries with simple statement
of the facts and an unprejudiced explanation
Our libel laws need revision, and the lawyers
should always be avoided when it is possible
to do without them.