wnr
rrnjyn j t
"-x?j ; rjflwnwrw'
THE SCRANTON TRIBUNE THURSDAY, OCTOBER iy, 1890.
VERDICT REACHED
IN THE LIBEL CASE
Jury Spent Five Hours
Deliberating on
Its Merits.
CLOSING SCENES OF
THE FAMOUS TRIAL
Arguments to the Jury Were Made
by Attorneys John T. Lennhnn nnd
Cornelius Smith for the Defendants
nnd Attorney Joseph O'Brien Ar
gued the Case for the Common
wealthCourt Room Was Thronged
All Day Judge Edwards' Charge
to the Jury Was a Clear and Con
cise Statement of Everything Pei
tninlng to the Law of Libel and
the Case at Bar.
At 4 45 ycsteiday afternoon the cas
of nichuid J. Little und Michael J.
O'Toole. charged with libel, was given
to the juij. A verdict was leached at
1140 Inst night and will be lepoitcd to
couit .it !) otlock this morning.
Attoines .John T. Lenahan and
Cornelius Smith made the closing ar
guments to the jui.v yesteulay for the
defens-e In the libel cae of the com
monwealth against Hlchard .1. Little
and Michael .1. O'Toole. Colonel L" H.
Hippie, piosecutor. They were fol
lowed b Attorney Joseph O'Urlen,
who closed foi the commonwealth.
At 4 45 In the afteinoon the charge
of the coin t was completed und the
taFc was submitted to the juiy with
lnstiuctlons to eal the vet diet nnd
bring it into court at 9 o'clock this
morning.
Mr. Lenahan began his aigument at
9 35 In the morning and spoke until
12 o'clock The great couit loom was
crowded and his address was followed
with close attention. He disappointed
the vast ciowd that had gatheied to
hear him. Something brilliant und
clever w.is expected, what was hcarl
was a torrent of the most brutal in
vective ever henid In that court 100m.
To be sine Mr. Lenahan was at the
disadvantage of aiguing u desperate,
vllllanous case, but that can hardly
be pleaded ns justification for the
chaiacter of his address It was vig
orous and forceful but totally-deficient
in logic and consistency to say noth
ing of the subject mattet. It seemed
us If association with the Sciatiton
ian people dining the tilal had Im
bued him with the spirit that shines
through the columns of that malodor
ous publication.
THEY WERE AMAZED.
Tho attoinejs in the defense with
him weie at fiist amazed, then dis
gusted and finally alarmed When Mr.
Lenahan concluded he said that would
dose the aigument foi the defence
and coutt adjourned for tho noon ic
cess and Mr. Lenahan went to his
home In Wllkes-liaire.
Immediately the other attorneys had
a consultation with the result tlu't
when coutt opened In the afternoon
Attorney Smith asked permission to
talk to the jury for fifteen or twenty
minutes nnd was allowed to do ti.
He wanted to get ftom the mouths
of the Jui 01 s the bad taste that Mr.
Lcnahan's address had left.
Attorney Smith was followed by At
torney O'Urlen, whose closing address
for the commonwealth culled forth
pi also and congratulations even f r m
the attorneys foi the defense. He
levlewed all of the facts In the case
and the law beating upon them In a
clear und concise manner, ariaiiglng
his argument so cleverly that It fol
lowed step by step In natuia! fre
quence ftom beginning to e'il. His
arraignment i the elefendants 'for
their infamous libels and reckless
newspaper methods was perhaps the
most dramatic Incident of the trial.
"If the law will not protect a man's
reputation from such tenlble assaults
as this, what remains but for him
to take the law into his own hands?"
was one of Mr. O'Brien's impressive
statements. His effott of yesterday
places Mi. O'Bilen In the front rank
(f the pleaders at the Lackawnna
bar.
Judge II. M. Edwards consumed
forty-five minutes In his charge to the
jury, which was perhaps one of the
most lucid and dispassionate presen
tations of the law of llbelever heaid
in a criminal court In Pennsylvania,
It Is printed In full herewith and de
serves a careful and thoughtful peru
hul The court room was crowded to
the doors all day.
MR. LENAHAN'S ADDRESS.
Court opened yesterday morning but
It was not until 0'31 that Mr Lenahan
begun his closing argument to the jury
for the defense. He opened with the
statement Unit they had the foreor
dained knowledge that under the evi
dence In tho case the verdict would be
one of acquittal The lnvv of libel In
Pennsylvania was lead by the attor
ney and he then ptoceded to discuss
what a defamatory libel is. Ho quot
ed the common law definition of libel
for the purposo of shoving that the
principal Ingiedlent of libel Is malice.
"It is asserted," ho continued, "that
we have charged Colonel Hippie wit hi
a crime and also held him up to public
ridicule and contempt. While tho
law safeguards with aii cf Its armor
the reputations of Its citizens It gives
permission to furnish the public) with
certain kinds of infoimatton. That Is
what we have &&.
"The press Is not only the bulwark
of our liberties but the safeguard of
our institutions it Is the scouiglng
whip that drives bad men from olllce
The public pi ess In this Instance de
nounced the methods of Colonel Ezra
II. Ripple. Tho Scrnntonlan Is an in
dependent newspaper that owes no al
legiance to any party and has for its
mission tho correction of publlo
abuses, '
Mr Lenahan 3ald that O'Tonlp was In
00 way responrlble for the articles that
appeared In Che Heiantonlan. An as-
roclnte editor under the law lb not
held accountable for what appears In
.the columns of the paper on wlich he
Is employed unless It ran be shown
that ho hnd something to do with the
writing of the articles complained of.
The only evidence to convict O'Toolo
with the writing of the articles con
rprnlntr Colonel lllcnlo was given by
Deputy Constable Jacob Ellman "ThH
was the last person." the speaker con
tinued, "with Whom O Toole would
have talked on such a question " Mr.
Ijcnnhnn afti'r rounJly abusing Ellmatt
foi stevetnl minutes went on to explain,
what O'TooIp's iclatlons with the
Scrnntonlan are and why he left a ?1?
a week position on the Times to accept
a $15 a week poslclon on the Sriun
toian. "I will leave that branch of the case,
to you," lie Mild, " onlldent that It will
not take you many minutes to remove
him entirely from this case."
He then nttarked the motive for the
prosecution which lit said was prompt
ed by spleen and malice.
private Lirr. clean and purf.
After refeitlng to Colonel Hippie's
public ( nreer and the olfices he tins held
he said his nWhcds In polltl' s mnde
him a 1H 'subject for censuie and com
ment. With his private life they had
nothing to do. It Is admittedly clean
and pme. Mr. Lenahan said
He took up the question of malice
In connection with th publication of
the articles . ontendlng that they pub-
fished them In good faith believing that
what was contnlned in them was true.
It was not In his own In
tel est solely that Colonel Ripple
bt ought the prosecution Mr. Len
ahan cliRised Jle said It was
because the Scrnntonlan wps a busi
ness rival of the Tiibune In which
Colonel Ripple Is Interested Attcr
telling the juiy what a meat nnd lum
inous light In the newspaper woild tho
Scrantonlnn Is the spcuker said that
Colonel Ripple was mou interested In
flushing the Scrantomnn than in in
dicating his pilvate chaiacter. "HJs
U Is no Vlndira" !
fill "Kvrrv onn
said Every one
private chaiacter ne
tion, Mi. Lenahan said "Every
admits It Is blameles4
"The ma n question be tonsideied
in this case," the spcuker continued.
' is this: AVns theie rei-on for I le pub-
lieation of these in tides? There is no
evidence here of actual malice. The
men had never met or quarrelled.
jiiirHii woreis nan not pusseu ueiwtcn.
them. Little had no personal lesont
ment In bis bosom against 'Jolonel
Ripple It was not actual mnllee, not
even legal malice that induced him to
print these attlcl"s. It was thnt the
public might Know how public affairs
weie conducted."
Mr. Lenahan made .1 Ieni'iy infer
ence to a factional light In the Repub.
litan part and the adoption of the
Ci aw foid county rules of coindu 'tin?
primaries and the opposition to them.
One of the nstonisblnr and reckless
statements made by Mr. Lenahan was)
thnt they had lot printed a line cr
word about Co'o.iel Hlpp'o that was
not supported by evidence in tho case.
THE LIBELS? REVIEWED
He took up the libelous editorial and
the communication signed "A Wotk
Ingman," and ende.avorcl lo show th.it
they contained little of a. libelous na
ture and that what might be ccitiMd
ered libelous wai not written with
malicious intent. He also 1 onsiclered
at some length the libdjus uitle'ea
printed in the Sermtonian of Aug 6.
"I have gone tive.- tin testimony at
some length because it was hontewhat
complex," he said. "There is nc thing
to indicate that we weie actuated by
malice. Ale jou gentlemen of the
jury on fcueh evidence ti tonstgn th's
man because I ihlnk O Toole Is out
of this cts-e are you goin;j to fend
such u man as Little to tall for a
year. On your nwnr.ool don't do it,
under the evidence you couldn't do It."
Mr. Lenahan's r.dduis ftom begin
ning to end vas ,1 succession of thus!
to save the defendants from the pun
Isment their acts call for rn the ground
that they had no iraice in their heaits
toward Colonel Ripple.
When Mr. Lenahan finished, he said
that ended the argument for the de
lense Court adjourned for dinner and
Mr. Lenahan went to his home In
Wllkos-Bane. When coutt opened in
the afternoon. Attorney C. Smith said
he had not Intended to addressl the
Jury, but had changed his mind and
asked for twenty or twenty-live min
utes in which to explain the case of
the defense to the Jurots.
Mr. Smith stated over and over again
that theie was no malice behind
Little's action In libelling Colonel
Ripple and told the Uirois theie was
dltect evidence to show that such was
the case. He laid much sttess upon the
fact that Colonel Rlnple and Llttlo
have no acquaintance und that there
has been no ill-will or hatted between
them This was urged as a circum
stance fiom which the Jurors might In
ter that there was no malice
MR. O'BRIEN'S ARGUMENT.
At 2 o'clock Mi O'Brien began his
ntgument for the defense and spoke for
two hours.
"I suggest at the outset of this aigu
ment," he snid, "that you twelve men
take to ourself the great responsibil
ity that the commonwealth of (Pennsyl
vania hits placed upon your shoulders.
It Is not necessary for me to sugges-t
to you tho gteat importance of this
case. In considering It let us rise above
the mite of politics, let us fnitlj con
sider the merits of the case bofoie us
without leferencc to passion or preju
dice. Let us address out. solves to the
facts of this Important lawsuit Let
us leave the history of Greece and
Rome out of this case. It has nothing
to do with It."
Mr. O'Bilen lead the lnvv of libel
under which tho defendants weie tried.
Ho then said that Little admitted hav
ing written and published the libel, so
that pait of the case was an open book
When you go out to your jury joom
and take these papers with you," Mr.
O'Brien said, "you will find upon read
ing them that they fnlily dtlp with
matter tending to hold Colonel Ripple
up to public hutred and contempt."
Tho speaker devoted some time to ex
plaining the theory on which the law
of libel Is founded. Then he continued
The law-abiding character of Col
onel Eztu H Ripple was shown when
on Monday moinlng, July 31, insteal
land lassitude so common In m!d
aummer oro promptly relieved by
HorsMs Acid Phosphate
Genuine bean name Ilortford's on wrapper, 1
1CUE I
EHHauaaHa
of taking the law Into his own hands,
ho went before n magistrate nnd had
these two dcfamets, HI chard J. Llttlo
und Michael J. O'Toole, arrested. That
was the supreme test of n man's re
spect for the law. If such a thing hnd
been wiltten about me my llrst Im
pulse, 1 confess It here, would have
I been to hunt out thi man who wrote
tnai article ana iiiroitit; mm Jiui mis
piosecutor, with the weight of yeais
and discretion on his shoulders, went,
as a good citizen ought, and Invoked
the uld of the law nnd he Is here to
day asking this Jury to vindicate Ills
action."
DASTARDLY EFFORTS.
Mr O'Brien then teferied to the das-
lardly 4 (Torts of the defense to steal
away Colonel Hippie's reputation while
piotestlng to save themselves that
his private life Is spotless.
"If Colonel Hippie was guilty of
bribery, us they said ho was. why bo
fore this article was published did they
not have him nnested for that of
fense?" asked Mr. O'Brien. "All they
had to do was to lay the intormation
bofoic the dlstilct attorney, or swear
out Information before a magistrate,
and then thev would have all the op
portunity In the world to prove their
case If they could. Hut they did not.
The Scrantonlan constituted Itself
Judge, jury nnd the law and proceeded
to try and convict Colonel Hippie."
Mr. O'Brien referred to the delibera
tion with which the editorial was writ
ten nnd published. Mule thought about
the matter for several days before the
nitlole was printed There was such
delibeiatlon and such palpable evidence
of malice that there Is no palliation for
his offense The speaker said that
when a man has a good, honest law
suit ne uiways has n good, honest de
fense, but we find the defendants with
fow or flve ,iefpnsos '
tilne they find the old one will not do.
J hey lmve tnged," Mr. O'Brien con
tinned, "that this Ih a political matter
nnd vet nine-tenths of the libelous
matter In this papet yes, I ,vill for
this occnslnn dignify It bv calling It
n paper about Colonel Ripple, soys not
a wind about politics Nnt 11 wold was
sild about his iccord us 11 public office
noiiier nnei if anything to his disadvan
tage could have been dug up vou cim
rest nssuied that Little, the libeller,
would have unearthed It. Not a sin
gle fact could they get to show that ho
1U"1 m,t 1,P''n tlUC' lo PVl"-v "uWlp "
nml VOt thov SrlV U,0' are stacking
,. . , , ,,,, ... , . , "
" i-Km. .,iiui'iiy mm tor nts
conduct In public life."
TORN TO SHREDS
Mr O'Btkn toie to slueds the nrgu-
ment of the defense that the libel was
minted for the public good and be-
causo lt was a public matter The de-
rense made to 'A Card fii.m a. AVoifc-
ingman" Mr. O'Brien desctlhed as bald,
billy and foolish The language he
contended was the same as In tho ed
toiials "That .shows." said Mr.
O'Brien 'that the vile pen of Richard
Little penned both ni tides. If you
fall to give the stamp of our con
demnation to these Infamous attempts
to wieck a man's leputation, If instead
of sending this piosecutor out of this
court room vindicated you send him
forth with a tarnished leputation,
what Is theie left for this man, or any
other man who Is thus grossly libelled
In this paper, but to take the law Into
his own hands. So I speak to you to
day not In this case alone but In the
Intel est of law nnd ordei In this com
munity." Tho next step In Mr. O'Brien's ar
gument was a consideration of the
libels pilntcd In the issue of August C
These, independent ot what was fcaid
In the article of July 30, pioved the
malicious intent. Mi. O'Bilen contend
ed He also leferied to the abuse ot
Judge Edwaids and of the private
counsel for the commonwcilth con
tained In the same Issue Mr. Holgate
objected to this line of nrgument nnd
Judge Edwaids sustained It He would
piefer. he said, that his name be not
mentioned In the discussion of the case.
FOR TEH PUBLIC WEAL.
'They tuv these publications were
for the public weal," Mr. O'Bilen ron-
tiuued "We s'iy they were boin of
malice thnt could only come trom hell
or the bosoms, of Richuid J. Little und
M J. O'Toole If there was one miss
ing link In the commonwealth's case
It was furnished when Little was on
the stand. You remember how he hes
itated and tiled to evade questions
and how malice was written nctosg
his face and was manifest In his evetv
utterances. Let me submit to you that
when a man, who occupies a public
place in this community such as Llttlo
does, and is here for nine years and
yet has not made application for citi
zenship, It comes with bad giace from
him to discuss politics nnd attempt to
reform them. On his own admission
be is a man who has not Interest
enough In this country to become one
ot her citizens "
Next Mr O'Bilen consldeied tho case
against Michael J. O'Toole He said-
"O'Toole left a position on tho
Times, a clean, decent paper, where ho
received $17 and accepted a por
tion $2 a week less on the Sciantonlan.
He did this because tho Times would
not print the foul articles he penned
and he turned to the Scrantonlan as
naturally as a duck to water und soon
ho came under the wing of proud Rich
aid himself. Water seeks Its level so
stick togethei bos, a pretty pair ou
make.
"O'Toole Is a pretty bright fellow and
yet he went on the stand and swore
that he does not know who the owner
of the Scrnntonlan Is although he has
woiked on It for over six months. Llttlo
was braver than O'Toole. The latter
not only wanted to swear himself out
of It, but wanted to get Little out of
it, too. Just think of this
proposition, nentlemen of the Jury' As
sodate editor of the papei for sis
months and did not know.the names of
the ownets of the paper. Do you be
lieve that""
ELLMAN'S TESTIMONY.
An extended leference was then
made by the speaker to O'TooleJs con
versation with Constnblo Ellnian In
which O'Toole admitted writing up
Colonel Ripple nnd then turned to a
consideration of the evidence with lef
erenco to the Infoimatton obtulncd by
Llttlo with leference to Colonel Rlp
plj using money in politics. It was of
the flimsiest natute Imaginable. Mi.
O'Brien said. Ho refeired to John J.
O'Grady who Is employed by tho
Scrnntonlan, Is a Jnll blid and Ins
swoin to a state of facts not till". Tho
testimony given by John H. Fellows,
Wade M Finn and Maor James Molr,
the Juiy was asked to consider in the
light that these men ate political ene
mies of Colonol Ripple unci that tho
fact that they all talked with Little
about Colonel Hippie at the same pe
riod was a circumstance fiom which
tho Jury could Infer that there was a
conspiracy to lnjuie Colonel Rlnple
"Yet their plea Is that all they
said was for the public good," was
Mr O'Bilen's impiessive temark.
"Just think of It, gentlemen of tho
Jury, they Bay they did this for the
public good. Mr. Vldaver referred to
their paper as the Sewertonlan. Libel
not tho sewer. The sewer has a good
purpose. It carries the filth from us,
but the Scrantonlnn carries it to us.
Theiefore libel not the sewer."
Mr, O'Brien discussed the provision
of tho constitution with loferenco to
the liberty of the pi ess which socially
piovldes that while the pi ess Is freo
those In charge tire responsible for lta
utilise
IF LAW DOES NOT PROTECT.
"If the right ot reputation and repu
tation Itself cannot bo protected then
what can we say of tho elllcacy of the
law. When the press turns from its
pathway to attack the citizen, when
It beLomes a menace to the community,
then wo turn to the law and ask It to
curb this paper that brings darkness
and filth Into tho home. When tho
press departs from its true mission,
as It did In this case, when such hands
ns those of Llttlo and O'Toolo pen
libels, then wo would nsk the law to
restrain the men engaged In this un
holy task. I speak here today for tho
public peace of this community, which
is endangered every time the Scran
tonlan Is Issued. 1 speak not only for
the reputation of this man, but for
the leputation of cveiy man In this
community. I nsk you to convict these
men of the Infamous libel against this
prosecutor and against the peace of
this community."
When Mr. O'Brien closed, Mr. Smith,
of counsel for the defense, submitted
a law point to the couit to Instiuct
the' Jury that there can be no convic
tion, because It had not been proved
that the paper was circulated. Mr.
Newcomb objected to the offer ot the
point on the giound that It had not
been submitted ut the proper time.
Judge Edwaids said this was true, but
he would not enforce the rule ot court
und would consider It with the other
law points. It was later on refused.
The last chapter In the trial of this
famous case was tho chaige of Judge
Edwaids to the jury, which followed
immediately after the presentation if
Mr. Smith's law points. The judge
spoke as follows:
CHARC4E Or THE COURT.
Gentlemen of the Juiy The Indict
ment In this ense chaiges the defend
ants with miblishlng of and concern
ing the prosecutor, Ezia II. Ripple, a
malicious and defamatory libel. Tho
articles complained of appear In a
newspaper called the Scrantonlan.
They appeared on Sunday, July 30, this
ear
The case Is of considerable Import
ance for more than one leason. It Is
important to the defendants because It
may result in tho Imposition uion them
of a line or imprisonment, botli or
either, nt the discretion of the court.
It Is Important to the commonwealth
to secute a vindication of the law If It
has been transgiesied. It also con
cerns the community ut latge, because
tho pi Indoles Involved In the tilal of
a case of this chaiacter concern the
lights of Individuals, the limitations
with which the law sui rounds the pub
lic pi ess, nnd the general peace nnd
welfaio of society.
It Is the duty of this Jury, ns It Is
the duty of nil luiles, to give the de
fendants a fair and impartial trial.
This they aie entitled to under the
law. You must decide the case accoid
ing to the law and the evidence. You
ate not to be Influenced In the slight
est degieo by passion or prejudices.
The law nnd the evidence nrc to be
your sole guides, leading you to a ver
dict The verdict you shall tendet.
whateveu it may be. must bo such as
will satisfy your own conscience anil
Judgment, and such as will meet the
stern lequlremonts of the facts of the
ease and the law as applicable to these
facts.
There are some well-known principles
of law which aie Invoked for the pro.
tectlon of the defendants Each of tho
defendants Is piesumed to be Innocent
until he is proven guilty The but den
Is upon the commonwealth to ptove the
defendants guilty beyond a leasonable
doubt. In applying the doctrine of ica
'onable doubt you must bear In mind
that the commonwealth Is not held to
the certainty of mathematical demon
stiutlon, she must ptove her case be
yond a teasonable doubt This Is such
a doubt as cieates In the minds of a
jury a substantial, reasonable hesita
tion us to tho guilt of the defendants
after cateful nnd conscientious consid
eration of all the facts and of the law.
The commonwealth need satisfy jou
only to a inoiat certainty.
PROVINCE OF Jl RY.
It Is your exclusive province to weigh
nnd determine the facts in the case.
Most of the facts came ftom the wit
nesses who go upon the stand and tes
tify. In this case jou have the im
portant addition ot the printed articles
complained of The credibility of the
witnesses Is for you. You tiro to Judge
of their truthfulness. You have a right
to consider their mannei upon the
stand, the Interest they may have In
the tesult of the case, their telatlons,
social or other, to the pirtles In the
case, the contradictions If any In
their testimony, and the cortoboiutlons
which you may find In the facts and
clieumstances of the ease Weigh tho
testimony carefully, consider It fairly,
examine the published articles con
tained In tho Indictment fiom all
standpoints, and follow the dictates of
un enlightened judgment to n final ver
dict legardless of tho consequences,
Having made these piellminary ob
servations, I will now explain to you
the law of lluel
Theie are many definitions of libel to
be found In the law books. I will give
ou some of them. Sir William Rus
sell defines libel to be "A malicious
defamation of the character of another
expressed In printing or writing, or bv
signs or pictutes, tending to blacken
the reputation of a person, nnd thereby
to expose him to public hatred, con
tempt or ridicule." Another ddlnltlon
I take from an opinion of the Supreme
court of the United States. It Is as
follows- 'Every publication which,
either by writing, printing or plctuies.
charges or imputes to any person that
which renders him liable to punish
ment or which Is calculated to make
him Infamous or odious or ildlculous,
Is prlmg. facie a libel nnd Implies
malice." Justice Story defines libel to
bo "Any publication the tendency of
which Is to degrade or Injuro another
person, to bring him Into contempt,
ridicule or hatred, which accuses him
of a crime punishable by law, or of an
act odious and disgraceful to society,
Is a libel."
DEFINITION OF LIBEL.
In our own state In Its cat Her history,
eino of the judges defined libel to be
"Any wiltten or ptlnted slander which
tends to expose a man to contempt,
ildlcule, hatted ot degiadatlon of char
acter." But outside of these definitions
we hac In Pennsjlvanla an act of as
sembly which defines the offence ot
libel. It leads thus: "If any peison
shall wilte, pilnt, publish or exhibit
any malicious or defamatory libel, tend
ing either to blacken the momoiy of
one who Is dead or the reputation of
one who Is alive, and thereby exposing
him to publlo hatred, contempt 01 ildl
cule, such pel son shall be guilty of a
mlsilemeanor "
You will notice that all these defi
nitions, us well us tho act of assembly,
agree In their descilptlons ns to tho
essential features of tho offence. Any
malicious publication, injurious to the
leputation of nnother, is a libel. Mal
ice Is nn essential element of the of
fence. The very publication of the
libel Is ptlmu facie evidence of malice
and will require the defendant to ie
but the presumption of It. Though
malice In tho common acceptation of
I the woid means hatred, a desire of re
venge or settled anger against a per
son, yet In Its legnl sense It means tins
doing of an net without a Just cause,
wrongfully and wilfully or recklessly.
The man who publishes slanderous
matter, calculated to defame another,
must bo presumed to have Intended
that which the publication Is calculated
to bring about, unless he can show the
contrary, and It Is for him to do that.
This is all 1 havo to say In this con
nection about the law of libel.
Much has been said In this case nbout
tho freedom of the pi ess. It has been
well snid thnt a free press Is the prldo
of a ftee country. It Is one of the bul
warks ot liberty. The constitution of
Pennsylvania provides that "the print
ing press shall be free to every pel son
who may undertake to examine the
proceedings of the legislature or anv
branch of the government, and no law
shall ever be made to restrain the
light thereof. The free communica
tion of thoughts nnd opinions Is one of
the Invaluable rights of man, and every
citizen may fieely speak, write nnd
print on any subject, being lesponslble
for the abuse of that liberty "
THE PRFSS IS TREE HERE.
In some countries the ptess Is not free.
Newspapets cannot criticize even the
official conduct of public officers, cen
sors are appointed who have the power
to decide what shall or shall not ap
pear In a newspaper, and If they see
fit they have the right to confiscate the
whole edition of a newspaper If their
mandates have been violated. But in
this country, and especially in this
state, the freedom of the press Is for
ever secured by constitutional provis
ions. But the same constitution which
guarantees the freedom of the press
also declares that, "All men have tho
right to enjoy and defend life, liberty,
property and reputation."
A man's leputation Is ns much his
pioperty ns his house and lot. Indeed
It is considered by some men nnd most
men a more sacred possession It Is
entitled to tho protection of the law,
and no man has the right unlawfully
to Injure a person In his reputation
any mine than he has the right to take
away from him his property. Consid
ering that the fieedom of the pi ess Is
protected bv the otganlc law of the
state, and that the leputation of every
cllzen of this commonwealth is equally
protected by constitutional guarantees,
It Is our duty to Inquire how far the
public press may go In discussing a
man's character and In exposing him
to the contempt und hntted of the pub
lic. It Is unquestionable that the public
press has great latitude It has the
light to discuss freely all measutes re
lating to municipal, state and natlonnl
government; it has the right to ex
amine, Investigate, apptove or con
demn the official conduct of all men
noting In any public capacity It is Its
duty to expose conuptlon In public
places and to enlighten the people ns to
nil matters of public Interest But It
has no light to Injure a man's lepu
tation without just cause It has no
right to expose him to public contempt
and hatied unless he deserves it.
IT OWES A DUTY.
Tho pi ess owes a dutj to every In
dividual citizen If It is about to pub
lish nni thing derogatoty to the char
acter or rcDutntlon of a citizen It Is
Its duty fitst to investigate the nccu
satlon and to use every reasonable
means to verify the truth theteof be
foie publication. If It fail in this par
ticular and the publication Is of a elc
famatoiy chaiacter, and if the publi
cation be made In a negligent, catclesd
or reckless manner 01 In a vindictive
spirit, then the law presumes that the
publication was made maliciously and
the publlsheis are guilty of libel
Nevertheless, a newspaper publisher
has a right to explain the circum
stances under which the publication
was made, he has the right to offer
cvldenre to rebut the presumption ot
malice which ailses fiom the character
of the publication Itself, and if It be
found that he published the article In
good faith, that he exercised proper
cate In the investigation and the veri
fication of the subject matter of the
article, and that his Intention wns
simply to enlighten the public, and that
from an honest motive, he may be ac
quitted of the charge of publishing n
malicious or defamatory libel.
Coming to the evidence in this case
the tits't question foi u to decide Is
us to vv hethei the defendants aie re
sponsible for the publication of the ar
ticle complained of in this case. The
defendants are Richard Little and
Michael J. O'Toole. There Is no ques
tion about the connection of Richard
Little, one of the defendants, with th
newspaper tailed the Scrantonlan He
admits upon the witness stand that he
Is the editor and sole proprietor and
was such In Julv and August of this
year
He admits wilting one of the articles
set forth In the indictment, but the
responsible connection of the other de
fendant with the Scrantonlan Is denied.
Was Michael J. O'Toole responsible In
nny way for the wilting, production or
publication of the alleged libel? You
have heard the testimony upon this
point. Mr. O'Toole himself goes upon
the witness stand and tells you that
he is only an employe of Mr Little, and
that he vvotks on tho Scrantonlan at
the rate of fifteen dollars per week,
that nlthough he Is named as associ
ate editor In the columns of the paper,
he is to all Intents and purposes only
a teporter, occasionally doing editorial
wotk. He Is corroboiated by Richard
Little himself.
THE SOLE OWNER
Mr Little sajs that he Is the sole
owner of the paper, and that Mr.
O'Toole Is In his employ at the wages
I have alteaely mentioned. If this co 1-
tentlon Is correct, then It will be your
duty to acquit Michael J O'Toole, be
cause If he Is only an employe on the
paper he cannot be convicted. But tho
evidence of Mr Little and Mr O'Toole
Is not the onlv testlmonj In the case
Mr Schoch testifies that at Hanlsburg
befote the Investigating committee Mr
O'Toole swore that he was associate
editor of the Scrantonlan, and that
when the paper was shown him he said,
"This Is out paper "
But Mr O'Toole says the same thing
today, he ndmlts that he Is associate
editor of tho paper, and counsel for the
defendants claim that the expression
"This Is our paper" Is of vety little ac
count The most Important testlmonv
Is that of Jacob Ellnian, who says that
In a conveisation with Mt. O'Toole, the
latter Informed him that he had wilt
ten up Mr Ripple on the previous Sun
day, which would be July SO, and that
he was going to write him up again.
You are to Judge of the ct edibility of
this witness, and jou must consider
the whole of his examination, both In
chief and on cross-examination, in ni
rlvlng at a conclusion as to the exact
character of his testimony. Mr O'Toolo
denies the Interview with Ellman, and
denies writing tho articles complained
of. If you ore satisfied from this tes
timony, beyond a leasonable doubt,
that Mr. O'Toole wrote tho article pub
ilshed In the Scrnntonlan on Sunday,
July 30, leferrlng to the prosecutor,
then he stands upon the same footing
as Mt. Little, the other defendant. But
if you believe that ho did not write It,
and that he Is not concerned In any
waj', as propiletor. In the publication
of tho Scrantonlan, and was not in July
of this ear, or If you have a leason
able doubt upon that question, It will
be youi duty to acquit Mr O'Toole.
THE LIBELOUS ARTICLES.
I will now call out attention to the
nt tides alleged to be libelous and tho
circumstances suuoundlng their pro
duction and publication. First of nil.
tho edltoil.il article entitled "Hippie
nnd the Tribune." Tho paper will go
out with you. You havo the pilvllege
of examining tho article for yout
selves. After you have lead the ar
ticle through, tho flrHt question you
will ask will naturally bo: Is It libel
ous? Does It tend to blacken the repu
tutlon of the prosecutor? Has it a
telll& Lahp t 'Mi
ffSi!ft9!SJicBWf
B
BQBE&u'! ' taRS!B3ffi3n'c- 3M h s WHfc5ft
KG&?m&!tJii'ijK'K.i'm&H'VHXr WT N.' K fSJL.11
vFLF"afiMFZw I Xht xtKS fjft Tu
MwmmmmTmm
iMMt- nriiAkw ivKzss", aBffl
Ask Your
Grocer for
Ceylon
Sold Only in Lead Packets,
'SALADA'
UPTON'S
CEYLON TEA5
ARE THE BEST,
FOR SALE BY ALL GROCERS.
tendencj to expose him to public
hatred, contempt or ridicule? I do not
see how you can avoid the conclusion
that this article Is libelous and that it
tends to blacken the leputation of tho
ptosecutor and to expose him to public
hatied and contempt
An examination und analysis of the
article will satisfy j'ou on this point.
It charges him with betraying the
political paity to which he belongs, It
accuses him of debauching politics In
the county, It says of the piosecutor
that he is "this thing who is literally
steeped In political coiruptlon and
blacke.it hjimeiiw," It chaiges him
with cowardice and that when lighting
was going on he wns absent in a cellar
or somewhere else, and It accuses him
of stunting mound as an old soldier,
although he never fought in the war,
theteby In effect accusing the prose-
piitnr nf .1 fnlnn tirptnncp '
No Jury can avoid the conclusion
that to proclaim a man a cow aid, a
hypocrite, a debaucher of politics, nnd
a false ptetender tends to expose the
man to public contempt and hatred.
After urriv Ing at the conclusion that
the article is libelous, the law then
steps In and saj-s that legal malice Is
nresumed and It is for the pen-on ac
cused of writing or publishing the libel
to rebut this presumption by proper
evidence. If he falls to do this he Is
guiltj', although no actual ill-will
against the piosecutor appears in the
casM 1 have alreudv .stated to you
what legal malice is. It Is the doing
of an act without sufficient cauj-e.
wrongfully and wilfully or recklessly
Every person Is ptpsumed to Intend
the natural consequences of his act. A
man may be guilty of publishing a libel
on another although he may be a
stranger to him and although actual
ill-will and anger do not and cannot
exist
COMMONWEALTH'S CLAIM.
In the piesent e'ase the common
wealth claims that nut only Is there
legal malice, but that tho evidence dis
closes actual malice upon the part of
the defendants against the prosecutor,
especially on tho part of the defendant
Little. You have a tight to consider
the eiuestion of actual malice, although
it is not necessarj for the common
wealth to establish the existence of
actual mallco in order to secure a con
viction of at least one of tho defend
ants In this case.
It Is claimed that the article tef erred
to could not emanate fiom any source
than a mind Instigated by actual mal
ice and Ill-will. On this question you
have a right to consider tho nrtlcle
itself, its apparent purpose, Its tone
and spirit, the occasion of its publica
tion and its subject mattet. I am dis
cussing the edltotlal article now What
is the apparent putpote of the article"
The headlns is "Ripple and the Trib
une "
You may find from the nrtlcle that
the moving cause originated In connec
tion with the Tilbuno and that the In
tention was to attack the Tribune,
bringing in the name of Rlnple inci
dentally Was It necessary to bring in
the name of the piosccutoi and discuss
his personality If the put pose was to
attack another newspaper, of which
the proscutor was a stockholder or
director"' This Is for j-ou to consider
Look ngaln ut tho tone and spirit of
the article. Is It fair, Is It decent and
nppaiently clothed with an honest pur
pose, or Is It, as the commonwealth
says.villlfylng.vltuperatlve and bteath
Ing w 1th actual malice ' It Is a ques
tion for vou to anawei. In this ques-
tlon of actual malice jou have a right
to consider the subject m itter of tho
article. Does It contain facts or accu
sations only? Was It published for the
purpose of enlightening the public or
for the purpose of giatlfylng spite nnd
Ill-will? Evidence has been tecelved
snowing subsequent publications by
the defendants, or one of them, con
cerning the prosecutor.
ABOUT ACTUAL MALICE.
This evidence bears on the point of
actual malice, the principle being that
If one pet son publishes today a libel of
another and follows it up tomorrow
with subsequent attacks the Infetence
might be drawn thut the publisher was
actuated by malice. You have a light,
gentlemen of the Jury, to consider nil
these questions In determining the
question of actual malice. If you find
that such malice exists in this case, It
makes the case of the commonwealth
ho much the stronger.
I will now call your attention to the
defenso made in relation to tho edi
torial article.
Mr. Little went upon the stand and
stated to vou In substance, that ho
published the article for an honest pur
pose nnd from nn honest motive, that
It was done for the benefit of the pub
lic and with the Intention of purifying
politics in this county. We allowed
him to state the sources of the Infor
mation upon which he based the accu
sations contained In tho article and we
opened the door quite wide bj admit
ting the testimony of several witnesses
who declared that they Informed tho
defendant of the fact that the prose
cutor had expended money Improperly
for pulltlcnl purposes.
This evidence was admitted for the
purpose of rebutting the legal pie
sumptlon of malice, as well us the ex
istence ot actual malice I have alieady
said to jou thnt a newspaper publisher"
must exerclso reasonable cate and pru
dence In publishing nt tides reelecting
upon tho character of the Individual
citizen. If through carelessness and the
Pure,;and
PreciousPacKet
,rny restored
Health and
Energy "are
due to yo.u
Refreshing
ICIOUS.
Tea
50c, 60c. and 70c. per pound.
want of proper Investigation he llbell
an Individual he is guiltj", although In
did not Intend to publish a libel.
Unless this doctrine Is correct, ther(
Is no protection for the Individual It
ills reputation. Has the presumption
of malice existing In this case and the
fact of actual maHcp, If you believe it
proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
been rebutted by the defendant Little,
or has the defense raised in your mind
a reasonable doubt upon this question1!
Let us examine the evidence briefly. It
Is my duty to Instruct you as to tltn
testimony of several of the defend
ants' w ltnesses. The testimony divides
itself Into two branches.
ALLOWED TO NAME THEM.
The defendant Little was allowed ta
name the perhons who gave him th
information, and to state what they
snid to him. These witnesses were al
lowed to testify so as to corroborato
the defendant. But, as I now reaall
the evidence, onlj- two witnesses tes
tify that they informed Little that tliey
themselves were the recipients ol
money from the prosecutor to be used
for political put poses. You heaid tha
testimony of John J. O'Orady. He sayt
that before the publication ot the edi
torial article complained of, he In
formed tho defendant Little that he,
O'Gradj-, had ten dollars from tho
prosecutor to work for Pryor and Kelly
In 1SD7 and had been promised a place
In the county jail.
You may consider that his testimony
is weakened by the fact that when
sworn before the commissioners In the
contested ejection case he testified that
he had lecelved no money for his vote
or for political services from anybody
in the campaign of 1897. It may bo
true that he Informed the defehdant of
this fact, but even on that question
the Jury has the right to judge his
ciedlbilitv The other witne&s in this
class Is Charles Teeter. He also says
that he had a talk with Mr. Llttlo In
June, and told him that he, Teeter, had
received a little money from the prose
cutor for polltlcnl put poses or political
vv ork.
The testimony of tho other witnesses
is of a different character. I refer par
ticularly to the testlmonj" of Mr. Finn,
Mr Fellows and Mayor Molr. They
testify that they gave information ta
the defendant as to the use ot money
for corrupt purposes in politics by tha
prosecutor, but their testimony is
b.ised on what Is known as hearsay
evidence. They do not testify that they
themselves lecelved nny monej- from
tho prosecutor, but that they knew ot
others or had heard of others receiv
ing money, and that tills hearsay evi
dence they communicated to the de
fendant. This evidence Is not of a very
satisfactory charactei, but we ad
mitted it because if true it came to
tho defendant and may be used by hlnv
as an excuse for the publication of at
least n portion of the at tide In ques
tion, and for the purpose of rebutting
the ptesumptlon of malice.
SHOULD HAVE GONE FARTHER.
It may occur to you, gentlemen ot
the Jurv. that the defendant in tho ex
01 else of proper care as to the matter
that went Into his newspaper, should
have made further Investigation and
should have veiltled the hearsay dec
imations made to him by the witnesses
that I have mentioned. You will under
stand that this evidence In rearatd to
the use of money lor corrupt purposes
in politics only t elates to n portion ot
the editorial article published In tho
Scrantonlan on July 30 namely, that
portion which charges the prosecutor
with debauching politics in this county,
and with the attempt to defeat candi
dates of his own party.
Does the explanation given b' tha
defendant Llttlo ns to the- publication
of this part of this article satisfy you
that he wrote it for an honest purposo
and that he was not actuated by mal
ice' Is it of such a satlsfactorj- char
acter as to remove the presumption ot
legal mallco attaching to the chargo
of tho corrupt use ot monej- in poli
tics? If it does, or if there Is a reasonable
doubt In your minds upon thlB ques
tion, then the defendants cannot bn
held responsible for the publication of
that portion of the article. But that
Is not all that is contained In the ar
tlclo complained of. I havo ulready
called your attention to other charged
tending to hold the prosecutor before
tho public ns a cow aid und a false pre
tender Is there uny evidence In tho
case which tends In anv way to Jus
tify these accusations or to rebut tha
presumption of mnllee which attaches
to their publication? I can find nono
myself If there is none, then regard
ieps of tho charges In connection with
the cotrupt use of money In politics,
the defendant Little may be convicted
ns ho stands charged In this Indjct
ment I have only tefetred to the edttoilul
nrtlcle. Theie Is another article pub
lished in the same Issue of the paper
and which Is complained of by tha
prosecutor. It Is entitled a "Card from
a Woikman." It has ben lead to j-ou.
It Is not necessary for me to read it
again You cannot escape the con
clusion that It Is libelous In character
and holds up the prosecuton to publla
hatred, contempt and ildlcub.
WHY DID HE DO IT?
Why did the defendant allow this nr
tlcle to be published? He tolls youthat
It came to tho olllce-as a communl-
ICotuinucd on Pugo 10
I . ...! - .
t, --