James Parton, The life of Horace Greeley

[229] (copied from your paper into the next day's “Sun” ), and was not brought to until a whole bucket of oysters which she had just opened had been poured over her in a hurried mistake for water. Since then, she has frequent relapses and shuddering, especially when my client's name is mentioned, and utterly refuses to see or speak of him. The match is dead broke, and my client loses thereby a capital home, where victuals are more plentiful and the supply more steady than it has been his fortune to find them for the last year or two. He loses, with all this, a prospective interest in the concern, and is left utterly without business or means of support except this suit. Besides, how can you tell, in the absence of all testimony, that the editor was not paid to insert this villanous description of my client, by some envious rival for the affections of the oyster—maid, who calculates both to gratify his spite and advance his lately hopeless wooing? In this case, it certainly is a libel. We affirm this to be the case, and you are bound to presume that it is. The demurrer must be overruled.

And so it must be. No judge could decide otherwise.

Now we are thrown back upon a dilemma: Either we must plead Justfication, in which case we admit that our publication was on its face a libel; and now, woe to us if we cannot prove Mr. Cooper's client's face as sharp, and his whiskers of the precise color as stated. A shade more or less ruins us. For, be it known, by attempting a Justification we have not merely admitted our offense to be a libel, but our plea is an aggravation of the libel, and entitles the plaintiff to recover higher and more exemplary damages. But we have just one chance more: to plead the general issue—to wit, that we did not libel the said John Smith, and go into court prepared to show that we had no malice toward or intent to injure Mr. Smith, never heard of him before, and have done all we knew how to make him reparation—in short, that we have done and intended nothing which brings us fairly within the iron grasp of the law of libel. But here again, while trying our best to get in somehow a plea of Not Guilty, we have actually pleaded Guilty!—so says the Supreme Court law of New York—our admitted publication (no matter of what) concerning John Smith proves irresistibly that we have libeled him—we are not entitled in any way whatever to go to the Jury with evidence tending to show that our publication is not a libel—or, in overthrow of the legal presumption of malice, to show that there actually was none. All that we possibly can offer must be taken into account merely in mitigation of damages. Our hide is on the fence, you see, any how.

But to return to Richard's argument at Ballston. He put very strongly against us the fact that our Fonda correspondent (see Declaration above) considered Fenimore's verdict there a meagre one. “ Gentlemen of the jury,” said he,

see how these editors rejoice and exult when they get off with so light a verdict as $400! They consider it a triumph over the law and the defendant They don't consider that amount anything. If you moan to vindicate the laws and the character of my client, you see you must give much more than this.