Year: 1875

MIR. Evars-I offer to read this article.


Mr. Fullerton That does not entitlc the gentleman To
read IT,


Mr. Evarts-we don't know that-eItracts from othef
papers anything that appears in quotation marks is the


ton disposed Of heretofore Now propose to hold an editor
responsible in the sphere OF public opinion and morality ot
articles that are published his newspaper whether ne is per
sonay the writer they appear as the Issue oi
his paper and not credited 10 any other source


Judge Meteorological matter


Mr. Eyarts-Orgina matter.


Mr. Fullerton-That is adGerent question Does hls appear
to be original matterf He has not yet shown that
Judge Neilson-Inspect the paper and zee


Mr. Fnlerton-I don't want inspect the paper and Sec
Tho gentleman made his proof and laid the Ioundon
for the production Of it


Mr. Fyarsy proposition that editor and publisher Of


pnbo newspaper is responsible public opinion and public
morals for the original articles which put forth IN his news
PAPER whctWr he personally writes them or not inc very
essence OF the independence Of journalism as now claimed aha
II R not for me say il is not justly claimed ethc is 'ha'
there must be an impersonay regard TO what newspaper


itself proposes and sets forth its the newspapers ucrances
to the public Now the other question Of an extract from
another paper, and il was very different matter


NJ Beaeh-They defended it on the same principle


Mr. Fuerton-The proposition is this that Mr. Tilton sha
be judged by everything that appears in me G"4S" age eA
cept that which Is extract from another paper.


Mr. Beach-You are right


Mr. Fuerton- am right That is the proposition OF the
other side and an extraordinary proposition How can we
hold Mr. on responsible for what appears IN that paper
without his authority and without his knowledge or sanction IN
any way Surely that cannot be done four Honor VIII per
ceye that correspondents claim the right to be heard in the pub
lie press and they given opportunity to be heard not De-
cause their sentiments harmony with the sentiments OF the
editor proprietor of the paper but they may be admitted Tor
the purpose OF combating them That often the case Now
there slightest proof in this case so far as THIS article
which they propose read is concerned that was ever
brought under the observation Of Mr. Ton that he ever
~ hade
An. Now until they bring the knowledge Of it home to him,
20 show that he appreciated it, he is not TO be responsible o IT.
1t certainly would extraordinary editor was responsible
for an article extracted from another paper and published IN
his own paper when he put 1t there for the purpose only OF
combating it and showing is fasy and showing its i'm
morality An editor sometimes held legally responsible Tor
everything that appears his paper but that question arises in


different way and under different circumstance and in df-
feen case from the trial They seek TO hod nm
morally responsible for what his paper They seem to say
those must his sentiments because they are published IN MS
paper; but that is non SeQder They are not his because
they appear there at all


Mr. Beach-May add a single word II your Honor pease'


think with reference TO the principle and the object with
which this character evidence offered very readily
discern the principle by whchits admission
These articles offered declarations made on the part OF
Mr. Tlton expressive OF his sentiments in regard TO topics
which considered the other side odous for the purpose
Of identifying him with what called the advanced or ber





II now offered oproye article which published in the
paper OF which the plaintiff proprietor is sought 10
prove that expression Of the opn ons upon given
subject Of Nj Tton There is not proof that he knew
Of the publication Of the article There not the sshest
proof that he approves the sentiments which expresses
But now Sir looking the purpose and effect OF the proof
upon what principle It Mr. Ton to he judged by an
which appeared in paper with which ne was cohheceo
when does appear presumpyey that he was ac
ouaned with the Of the article and when it may OF
perchance docs express opinions which would be entirely re-
pusyc TO judgment and heart! Look a, il in another nt
and by analogy principal is sometimes held to be response
BILE for the declarations Of his agents where these decaa
tioas arc authoritative and made In the course or
the business which has been conAdcd TO the action
Of that agent That the relation between the propre-
tor Of newspaper the paper itself These are no decaa
tons made by agent empowered TO express the sentiments
Of Mr. Tton upon the marriage relation The relation oI
principal and agent established is the extent OF the
authority established which would confer upon writer for
that paper although in the employment Of Mr ton to e1
press or reveal the opinions which Nj Iton may entertain
upon this subject and in whatever gnt You may read H. S as


now stands unaded by proof Of knowledge appreciation on
the part Of Mr. tonis simple declaration Of third party made
through an organ which generally conroedby the plaintiff
Now submit to your Honor with great confidence but with
respect that articles Of that character, expressions OF that
character not traced Mr. Ton to his approval should
not be received the purpose Of characns lis sentiments
upon any subject But your Honor has decided that question


submit is precisely In principle the same proposition which
was submitted when the extract from Tie I0y TaFS was
offered to be read That Published in Mr. Ttons paper
II was his paper in some degree his agent hs oracle but yet
he is not reuonsbe-When his private and personal opinions
are sought to attached to him he not responsible for oil
the expressions which may appear in the paper II this IS
admitted WHY was the extract from 7H7T0y Times adinss
be, II without any proof knowledge approval hes TO be
Judged By this article why not by the article which appears IN
hi. ponr whether be on extract from another not This
is not his composition this is not his declaration OF sentiments
1t is the expression Of third party precisely the same as the
article from The Troy Times expresses the opinions and SEN
tcnts Of another and 10 me the principle appcabet to
the two cases perfectly IDENTICAL aud musI be recognized
sound principle


Mr. FvarsNow II your Honor will observe the attitude in
which Mr Tton and his newspaper occupy 70 the subject I'M
der discussion and in reference which the testimony per-
tnent if pertinent all Having shown that MI Iton the
editor and proprietor OF this newspaper whatever the charac
ter Of his newspaper put forth in It's issues 10 the puD
uon which the public pass in denounng lis publications and
his position as publisher OF opinions in this community calls
upon him no, the question Of his individual responsibility
a. author Of this or that paragraph blt upon his editorial his
popeorial responsibility for dhusing these sentiments
through the community. lie is held ciuly re-
sponsiblo for ucspasses upon individual rights
in an action Of lbcl, no matter whether
h. wrote it himself or not The has settled that question:
that be who publishes responsible for the publications and in
the case Of criminal responsibility the aw doubt your
Honorhas suggested But is prmG ac enough 10 hold Grim
inay an editor the complained Of article for which he s
crmnay prosecuted is in his paper and depends him
70 prove not only he did write ithat would have
been no excnsc for himbut thai inserted with hs
knowledge under general authority which he had given to
subordinate in relation such matters but beyond that
that when its existence brought to his notice, he
did s that he could TO extirpae from the paper and
exclude it from circulation in the to which your
Honor refcrs in the matter Of the prosecution Of the
editor Of rte Ary@ for that is the to which
vonr Honor abiding Now, bearing upon the fortunes
and prosperity Of this Golden Age the credit and esteem Of Nj
Tuton with the community No Determinations az matter Of
fact are made by the Of journal Of those who approve