Year: 1870

The Pres. and ArsMs-a Lf"s


parisons


WHAT THE READERS OF THE Ahso' 'NA


FOR THEIR MONEY.


We think the argus must nave peen guilty.
of a slight exaggeration Saturday morning
when it confessed that in the course OF week
If ,alls nineteen columns short OF the PRESS
ia the amount of selected matter 1t prints.
As the PRESS prints from one to four columns
CT editorial and other original matter dails
while the argus generally prints none at all,
it follows that in the aggregate we must print
every week at least thirty columns more than
our contemporary prints! This, however, is
more than we claim. 1t is nearer the truth
to say that we print each week fifteen col
umns more than the argus does. Taking
this moderate statement as the basis of our
calculation we obtain the following results:


Every month we print Siaty columns more
than the Argus, taking into the account the
difference in the length OF the columns and
in the size of the type as we'll as in the mum.
ber of columns.


Every year we print EIGHT HUNDRED more
columns than the Argus.


In month the excess of matter printed by
the PRRss would make about sic papers OF
the size Of the Argus


In year the excess would make about
EIGHTY papers of the size of the argus.


So that even if we concede that the quality
of the reading in the two papers is the same,
the PRESS for year is worth as much as the
argus for fifteen months. But judging from
the language used by argus subscribers in
the communications published yesterday we
are forced to conclude that the quality of the
reading is such that the more they have of it
the more deplorable their condition.


The great length Of our subscription list as
compared with that Of the argus shows that
the facts stated above are partly understood
by the public. Yet we doubt if the full ex-
tent OF the superiority of the PRESS has
been appreciated.


The Law Of Damages.


Those who take an interest in legal matters
will remember that year or two ago Judge
Goddard OF the Superior Court willie riding
on the Grand Trunk Railway was grossly as
saulted by brakeman who was acting in the
capacity of conductor. The judge it appears
had already surrendered his ticket to the
brakeman when the latter through misappre-
hension or some other cause demanded II
again on the ground that it had not been de-
livered, and treated the julge in very abus-
i've manner. The result was a suit against
the Railway company for damages. At the
trial Judge Walton instructed the jury that
"When the damages which the plaintiff is en-
titled to recover in order to compensate him
for the injury he has actually suffered, is suf-
ficient to punish the defendants, and serve as
awarning and example to others, the jury
ought not to give more. But if they think it
is not enough, then the law allows them to
add such further sum as will make it enough
for that purpose" The jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff of $4S50, which
i've. Exceptions were also filed to the rul-
ings of the presiding judge.


Ghe case was carried up and argued before
the law court which overrued the exceptions
and motion, Judge Tapley dissenting. The
main point in dispute was the right of the
jury to infict punitive or vindictive damages
beyond what was necessary to compensate
the plaintiff for the injury he had actually
suffered taking into account all the aggravat-
ing circumstances. The opinion of the court
reaffirms the right of the plaintiff to recover
such vindictive damages and unless changed
by statute this must be considered law in this
State. OF the conflicting opinions, both ex-
hibting great ability and research, we may
speak more at length at another time.


While the Court has good ground for lay
irg stress upon the beneficial influence which
such an administration of the law will have
upon the conduct OF Railway corporations
yet why should any private individual monop-
olize what is in the nature of fine, after be
has been fully. compensated for his injuries,
physical and moral? Surely it would seem
that if anything additional in the nature of
fine be imposed, it ought to be imposed in be-
half OF the public, aud not of private indi-
vidual. When the injured party is fully COM
pensated, or in the words OF Judge Tapley,
"made whole in the eyes OF the law, just as if
the injury had not been done," why should
anything additional be given to him? 1t is
said that the law "blends the interest of the
injured party with those OF the public" But
can any good reason be given for this? Would
it not be better to let the jury discriminate.
and render to the public what belongs to the
public, and to the individual simply his due and
no more? Both might be covered in the same
action. But it is difficult to see why TO pun
ish one party another should be presented
with naked gratuitY of some odd thousands
Would it not be well for our legislature to
revise the law on this subject?
As regards the parties concerned in this
particular case, we have no personal feeling
whatever. If the railway company is to be
fined for the benefit of any private individual,
we know of no one to whom we should be
more willing to have the fine given, than to |
Judge Goddard. 1t is the principle of the
thing we object to.
A NICE MAN FOR CONGRESS 1T is re.