The Law of Libel.
{"character_count": 3840, "word_count": 671, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9657999873161316], "ccnet_perplexity": [2096.10009765625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The Law of Libel.


We have ever dissented from the suggestion o
a change in the Law of Libel by our Legislature
convinced.that all which could be desired by the
stanchest advocate of the Liberty of the Press II
the due Interpretation and correct administration
of tile LaU as IL iS-of the well settled common
Law. as it has come down to US unaffected by the
nass;ons of the hour. We pretend to no profound
acquaintance with legal authorities OF with Law
as science, but we do claim to read what Il
written in plain English with tolerable percep
ten of its import, and we cannot be mistaken III
our conviction that the Law of Libel as admins.
tered by the most eminent English Judges is very
different from the same law as expounded and EN-.
forced by our New-York Circuit Judges, esPe
cialIy of the Fourth and Fifth Districts. That
the variations of the latter from the decisions and
spirit of the former are most important, and ia.
tally subversive of the Liberty of the Press, we
have endeavored in our imperfect way TO show
and we rejoice to state that what we have SC
cumsily attempted is fully accomplished by
Judge Wendell in his just published edition Of
Starkie on Slander, reprinted from the latest
English edition, and greatly enlarged by annota
tons bringing down the digest Of all importan,
British and American cases to our own day.


When this work appeared, we announced it
and gave, instead of any judgement of our own.
the concentrations of the Albany Argus and N
Y. Evening Post, two journals not at all likely to
be affected on this subject by any feeling excited
by the recent litigation and decsionsi this
State. We there rested, awaiting the opinions OF
those whose legal eminence must give weight TO
their opinions, as we'll as an opportunity TO ex-
anime the work more closely for ourselves. The
result has in both respects been most satisfactory.
The reading of Judge Wendell's Introduction and
portion his Notes has deepened even our strong
conviction that the recent Trials for Libel before
the Circuit Court of our Middle Districts have
been conducted in defiance of Law as well as
Justice-that it is legally demonstrated beyond
cavil that errors the most grevous have crcpt into
the ruling of our Judges, and been multiplied and
aggravated until they amount to practical de-
nial Of all right to the delendant-of all Liberty
to the Press. But our opinion on this point was
already well known; it is far more to the purpose
that we find it sustained, essentially, not only by
the authority Of Judge Wendell, but by the con-
curing and approving voice of Chancellor Kent,
Justice Story OF the US. Supreme Court, Judge
Greenleaf, Professor Of Law in Harvard Univer
sity, Hon. Roger N. Sherman Of the Connecticu,
Supreme Court, and others of the most eminent
Jurists in the Union, who have examined Judge
WIS work, and expressed their hearty concur
renee III IT'S principles and deductions.


Such an array of legal strength and character.
In vindication and support Of the Liberty Of the
Press, cannot be without its effects even upon
our Judges. We have lively faith that the very
last libel-trial has taken place in this State in
which the defendant is held guilty in drawing
some expressed inference from certain stated
premises, and yet not allowed to show the valid
atty OF those premises or the legitimacy of that
nference-or in which an Editor shall be Judi
cially declared libeer of the author of some
work he is criticising, yet not allowed to put in
evidence the work itself, to show the Justice and
relevancy of his comments thereupon, and go
down to the Jury upon that issue. Should such
prove to be the case, we shall rejoicingiy believe
that the hardship which few Editors have been
called temporarily to suffer has resulted in gen.
eral and lasting good.


U correspondent says ne has read the Life