Year: 1873

PENTER TO test the question In libel suit
for damages Ought he to do so'


The answer to this question will depend
first of all upon his guilt or innocence. III
he is a licentious man, and has really COM
mitted the offence charged against him,
what could he gain 10y bringing suit FOR
damages in which he would he certain 10
be bcateni Such a suit would not ouly
render more notorious the debauchery ot
which he Is accused, but would result in
the legal establishment of the charge, so
that no person. however friendly to Mr..
CARrENrER, or however disposed to think
fayorably of him, could any longer give
him even the benefit OF a doubt. If hc is
guilty, then, he had better not test the
question in this way.


The wisdom of such q conclusion becomes
more evident when we remember that
there is an old and bitter quarrel between
Mr.. wHITELAw REID, the young and
handsome editor of the Tribune, and Mr..
CARPENTBR, so bitter indeed that on one
occasion the Senator in speech before the
Senate, introduced q sarCastical rumor
that the editor had been seen in the streets
OF New York in woman's clothes and had
not been arrested. The fact that there Is
such n standing quarrel. accompanied by
such sharp Iassages OF vituperation, must
of course tend to diminish the public Gre
dence toward the 1ribunes present hostile
demonstration, a point OF superiority
which Mr.. CARPENTER would wholly lose
10y bringing libel suit ana having himself
proved culpable.


And If lie IS Innocent, ii is by no means
certain that suit for damages would be- the
most judicous rem e ly. To a man of sensi-
bility I'm Mr.. CARPENTERS legislative posi-
ton, there must be something repugnant in
the idea Of king moneyasa compensation
for the injury of slander. Even the adyan-
tage Of havn- ones innocence judicIally
proved may not he sufficient 10 overcome
the repugunnce which such n man may
justly feel against seeking such indemniii-
cation. Moreover, he may consider, sup
posing the charge TO be untrue, that the
attack does him no injury; that no one
whose good opinion he values will believe
it and that il will DO wiser not TO notice
il at all.


Besides, there are those who believe





accusation does no harm TO public
man. The case OF ALEXANDER IIAMIL-
ToS Is familiar to all students of our politics
When Secretary of the Treasury, HAMIL-
ToS, on being charged with pecuniary
intrigue which would have been injurious
to his official honesty, replied by proving
that he was really committing adultery
with the acQulescence of the womaus hus-
band and this explanation rather raised
than lowered Mr.. HAMILTON in public es-
teen, because the adultery was regarded
as comparatively venial offence, and IT
was admitted that he displayed courage in
making the avowal. We remember also
that on one occasion when the evidence
was brought to the late Mr.. GREELEY that
some candidate for Congress TO whom he
was opposed had been guilty OF licentious-
ness, and when it was suggested that he
should publish the proof, he exclaimed !:
mo, never; II would only make ten men
vote for him where one will vote for him
now Very possibly the views Of Mr..
HAMILTON and Mr.. GREELEY may likewise
| be the views Of Mr.. CARPENTER: and for
! this reason, even supposing him to be inno-
cent in the present case, he may decline to
bring the libel suit which the Tribune
! invites.


IL is certain that among the crimes
| forbidden by the decalogue the crime OF
adultery is popularity regarded as the
most pardonable. Men who would die
rather than steal or murder will commit
this crime without hesitation. There are
| laws against it, to be sure, hut the weight
Of public sentiment does not go with the
laws; and ii is even alleged in the public
| journals that several other prominent
Senators are undtsguisedly guilty OF it,
! but that IL has never weakened them in
their party or dlmmed their prospects for
the Presidency. We fear that until this
dopraved public feeling is reformed, the
Tribune's attempt to deal with Mr.. CAR
PESrER for the alleged sin and crime will
prove Intellectual.