{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3537, "word_count": 641, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9121000170707703], "ccnet_perplexity": [1873.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
sphere, and discusses Nle'ieis VIII" az -


ly and fairly before the public then, 1t may De con-
fden,y asserted, he has lawful right not only 10
commend Virtue but 10 censure Vlce-to unmasK
Hvnocrsy as well as uphold lnnocence-to rebuke
Has-orss and expose absurd Pretenslon-ln all
which he is performing duty as sautary as now
ever less essential and important than, that OF Inc
Judge on the bench and though, unlike the LATER
ne is responsible TO those ne may 'n)ufe' 'h'ousn
error OF information of Judgment, 1t is not egi-
tmate presumption from such error that ne Is i''-
peed by personal malice and liable 10 punishment nj
as a culprit. Such is the doctrine mainta'neu on
our mart with regard 10 the Rights OF the Press IL
this doctrine be unsound, and It's converse the Iue
applicatiou of the Law of Libel, then there is no
Editor who is not to-day liable 10 actions iof hoei
more numerous than the separate issues of MS Jour
nal since no newspaper is issued which does not
contain scensorious' or 'ridiculing' accounts OF
crimes and fol!ies-nearly all related at second
hand or on hearsay, and many Of them wholly OF
partly mistaken


~, The suprene Court of New York is now engaged In
The cause of j. Fenimore Cooper vs. GTeeey a. NctIra
tor libel Some time since, Messrs. Greeley hcLiau
xere sued for libel by Mr. Cooper. and mulced In con-





presions used in severely critical rview OF one oi M
Coepers novels The trial. ii we remember arcn' loon
oace In Osego county. " Y and Mr. Greeley being ooseo
IN attend H. filled up s leisure hours In writihS Iepo'


bch WAS very lengthy portions OF IL eeng very anushe
and not a, all fn;terng to the novelist VINO IN hiRn
ddyeon immediately Instituted another suit for i'e anu
picked the report 20 pieces, TO hhd points 10 of! t
c0u' 'PiA''' "'' ~ '-'' rPhil. T. S. Gazette.


~ Our cotemporary here repeats mistake
~ bao hesn so often ilerated, that we feel
,spud TO interoose correction. Our dlttlculues
with Mr.. Cooper have nothing to do directly with
h;e books . or with reviews. We DO not remember
rha, we ever reviewed one OF his books with sever
irv. But in 1871, Mr. Cooperhad libel suit against
Mr. Weed OF the Albany Evening Journal, at fon-
IA. Montgomery Coun,y, on which an inquest was
nkenin MIR. Weeds absence, under circumstances
which were detailed, not quite accurately, IN a let
ter from Fonda TO The Tribune. MIR Cooper coia
claimed of our correspondents version OF the matter
in a le,tcrto the Albany Argus, which we repno
;sbed remarkin. that il did pot materially change
our opinion of Mr. C.'s conduct IN the prerplses
Thereupon he sued US for libel, as he had threat
rned 10 do in his letter to the Argus, laying int
venue in Saratoga County, where the case came te
rial IN Dec 1S42-J. F and Il. Cooper Tor PLAIN
if. and H. Greeley for detence-ana he OBJ
tanned verdict Of $500. We hastily reported tn
trial from our documents and memory, with run
oing commentary on the arguments Of Nh Coope
and Judge Willard and on this report Mr. Cooper
sued US agan-which is the present action


We are now in the eleventh year OF our EaIiorla
experience, and no man but MIR. Cooper ever sa"


it TO bring us TO trial on an action for llbel-though
certainly, we have come much nearer lbeling
great many other persons than that gentleman
Mr.. C. shall win this suit, on the ground that any


censorious or ridlculing matter IN PRINT Is
libel, we shall be liable 10 be ruined ohand by al
infinity of beLsui,s on behalf of John Tyler JohI
Jones, Madam Restell, &c. &c.