Among my earliest a.s.signments was one which brought me my first experience of newspaper libel suits, designed not for prosecution but as a means of intimidating the newspaper concerned. The extent to which the news of the suit appalled me was a measure of my inexperience, and the way in which it was met was a lesson to me that has served me well upon many later occasions of the kind.
A man whom I will call Amour, as the use of his real name might give pain to innocent persons even after the lapse of forty years, was express agent at a railway station in the outskirts of Brooklyn. His reputation was high in the community and in the church as a man of exemplary conduct and a public-spirited citizen, notably active in all endeavors for the betterment of life.
It was a matter of sensational, popular interest, therefore, when his wife inst.i.tuted divorce proceedings, alleging the most scandalous conduct on his part.
The _Union_ was alert to make the most of such things and Kenward Philp set me to explore this case and exploit it. He told me frankly that he did so because he thought I could "write it up" in an effective way, but he thought it necessary to caution my inexperience that I must confine my report rigidly to the matter in hand, and not concern myself with side issues of any kind.
In the course of my inquiry, I learned much about Amour that was far more important than the divorce complications. Two or three business men of high repute in Brooklyn told me without reserve that he had abstracted money from express packages addressed to them and pa.s.sing through his hands. When detected by them he had made good the losses, and in answer to his pleadings in behalf of his wife and children, they had kept silence. But now that he had himself brought ruin and disgrace upon his family they had no further reason for reserve. I secured written and signed statements of the facts from each of them, with permission to publish if need be. But all this was aside from the divorce matter I had been set to investigate, and, mindful of the instructions given me, I made no mention of it in the article.
When I reached the office on the morning after that article was published, I met Kenward Philp at the entrance door of the building, manifestly waiting for me in some anxiety. Almost forgetting to say "good-morning," he eagerly asked:
"Are you sure of your facts in that Amour story--can they be proved?"
"Yes, absolutely," I replied. "But why do you ask?"
"Oh, only because Amour has served papers on us in a libel suit for fifty thousand dollars damages."
My heart sank at this, as it had never done before, and has never done since. I regarded it as certain that my career in the new profession I had adopted was hopelessly ended at its very beginning, and I thought, heart-heavily, of the wife and baby for whom I saw no way to provide.
"Why, yes," I falteringly repeated, "every statement I made can be supported by unimpeachable testimony. But, believe me, Mr. Philp, I am sorry I have got the paper into trouble."
"Oh, that"s nothing," he replied, "so long as you"re sure of your facts.
One libel suit more or less is a matter of no moment."
Then, by way of emphasizing the unworthiness of the man I had "libeled"
I briefly outlined the worse things I had learned about him. Philp fairly shouted with delight:
"Keno!" he exclaimed. "Hurry upstairs and _libel him some more_! Make it strong. Skin him and dress the wound with _aqua fortis_--I say--and rub it in!"
I obeyed with a will, and the next morning Amour was missing, and the express company was sending descriptions of him to the police of every city in the country. It is a fixed rule with the great express companies to prosecute relentlessly every agent of their own who tampers with express packages. It is a thing necessary to their own protection. So ended my first libel suit.
x.x.xVII
[Sidenote: Later Libel Suit Observations]
During the many years that I pa.s.sed in active newspaper work after that time, observation and experience taught me much, with regard to newspaper libel suits, which is not generally known. It may be of interest to suggest some things on the subject here.
I have never known anybody to get rich by suing newspapers for libel.
The nearest approach to that result that has come within my knowledge was when Kenward Philp got a verdict for five thousand dollars damages against a newspaper that had accused him of complicity in the forging of the celebrated Morey letter which was used to General Garfield"s hurt in his campaign for the Presidency. There have been larger verdicts secured in a few other cases, but I suspect that none of them seemed so much like enrichment to those who secured them, as that one did to Philp.
It was not Mr. Philp"s habit to have a considerable sum of money in possession at any time. His temperament strongly militated against that, and I think all men who knew him well will agree with me in doubting that he ever had one-half or one-fourth the sum this verdict brought him, in his possession at any one time in his life, except upon that occasion.
In suing newspapers for libel it is the custom of suitors to name large sums as the measure of the damages claimed, but this is a thing inspired mainly by vanity and a spirit of ostentation. It emphasizes the value of the reputation alleged to have been damaged; it is in itself a boastful threat of the punishment the suitor means to inflict, and is akin to the vaporings with which men of rougher ways talk of the fights they contemplate. It is an a.s.surance to the friends of the suitor of his determined purpose to secure adequate redress and of his confidence in his ability to do so. Finally, it is a "don"t-tread-on-me" warning to everybody concerned.
Inspired by such motives men often sue for fifty thousand dollars for damages done to a fifty-cent reputation. It costs no more to inst.i.tute a suit for fifty thousand dollars than to bring one for one or two thousand.
In many cases libel suits are inst.i.tuted without the smallest intention of bringing them to trial. They are "bluffs," pure and simple. They are meant to intimidate, and sometimes they accomplish that purpose, but not often.
I remember one case with which I had personally to deal. I was in charge of the editorial page of the New York _World_ at the time, and with a secure body of facts behind me I wrote a severe editorial concerning the malefactions of one John Y. McKane, a Coney Island political boss. I specifically charged him with the crimes he had committed, cataloguing them and calling each of them by its right name.
The man promptly served papers in a libel suit against the newspaper.
A timid business manager hurriedly came to me with the news, asking if I couldn"t write another article "softening" the severity of the former utterance. I showed him the folly of any such attempt in a case where the libel, if there was any libel, had already been published.
"But even if the case were otherwise," I added, "the _World_ will do nothing of that cowardly kind. The man has committed the crimes we have charged. Otherwise we should not have made the charges. I shall indite and publish another article specifically reiterating our accusations, as our reply to his attempt at intimidation."
I did so at once. I repeated each charge made and emphasized it.
I ended the article by saying that the man had impudently sued the paper for libel in publishing these truths concerning him, and adding that "it is not as plaintiff in a libel suit that he will have to meet these accusations, but as defendant in a criminal prosecution, and long before his suit for libel can be brought to trial, he will be doing time in prison stripes with no reputation left for anybody to injure."
The prediction was fulfilled. The man was prosecuted and sentenced to a long term in state"s prison. So ended that libel suit.
[Sidenote: The Queerest of Libel Suits]
The queerest libel proceeding of which I ever had personal knowledge, was that of Judge Henry Hilton against certain members of the staff of the New York _World_. It was unusual in its inception, in its character, and in its outcome.
The _World_ published a series of articles with regard to Judge Hilton"s relations with the late A. T. Stewart, and with the fortune left by Mr.
Stewart at his death. I remember nothing of the merits of the matter, and they need not concern us here. The _World_ wanted Judge Hilton to bring a libel suit against it, in the hope that at the trial he might take the witness-stand and submit himself to cross-examination. To that end the paper published many things which were clearly libelous if they were not true.
But Judge Hilton was not to be drawn into the snare. He inst.i.tuted no libel suit in his own behalf; he asked no redress for statements made about himself, but he made complaint to the District Attorney, Colonel John R. Fellows, that the _World_ had criminally libeled the _memory of A. T. Stewart_, and for that offense Col. Fellows inst.i.tuted criminal proceedings against John A. c.o.c.kerill and several other members of the _World"s_ staff, who thus learned for the first time that under New York"s queer libel law it is a crime to say defamatory things of Benedict Arnold, Guy Fawkes, or the late Judas Iscariot himself unless you can prove the truth of your charges.
The editors involved in this case were held in bail, but as no effort of their attorneys to secure their trial could accomplish that purpose, it seems fair to suppose that the proceedings against them were never intended to be seriously pressed.
Finally, when the official term of Colonel Fellows drew near its end, Mr. De Lancy Nicoll was elected to be his successor as District Attorney. As Mr. Nicoll had been the attorney of the _World_ and of its accused editors, the presence of these long dormant cases in the District Attorney"s office threatened him with a peculiarly sore embarra.s.sment. Should he find them on his calendar upon taking office, he must either become the prosecutor in cases in which he had been defendants" counsel, or he must dismiss them at risk of seeming to use his official authority to shield his own former clients from due responsibility under the criminal law.
It was not until the very day before Mr. Nicoll took office that the embarra.s.sing situation was relieved by Colonel Fellows, who at the end of his term went into court and asked for the dismissal of the cases.
One other thing should be said on this subject. There are cases, of course, in which newspapers of the baser sort do wantonly a.s.sail reputation and should be made to smart for the wrong done. But these cases are rare. The first and most earnest concern of every reputable newspaper is to secure truth and accuracy in its news reports, and every newspaper writer knows that there is no surer way of losing his employment and with it his chance of securing another than by falsifying in his reports. The conditions in which newspapers are made render mistakes and misapprehensions sometimes unavoidable; but every reputable newspaper holds itself ready to correct and repair such mistakes when they injure or annoy innocent persons. Usually a printed retraction with apology in fact repairs the injury. But I have known cases in which vindictiveness, or the hope of money gain, has prompted the aggrieved person to persist in suing for damages and rejecting the offer of other reparation. In such cases the suitors usually secure a verdict carrying six cents damages. In one case that I remember the jury estimated the damages at one cent--leaving the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceeding.
x.x.xVIII
[Sidenote: Early Newspaper Experiences]
During the early days of my newspaper service there came to me an unusual opportunity, involving a somewhat dramatic experience.
The internal revenue tax on distilled spirits was then so high as to make of illicit distilling an enormously profitable species of crime.
The business had grown to such proportions in Brooklyn that its flourishing existence there, practically without interference by the authorities, gave rise to a very damaging political scandal.
In the region round the Navy Yard there were illicit stills by scores, producing spirits by thousands of gallons daily. They were owned by influential men of standing, but operated by men of desperate criminal character to whom homicide itself seemed a matter of indifference so long as its perpetration could conceal crime or secure protection from punishment by means of the terror the "gang" held over the heads of all who might interfere with its members or their nefarious business.
It was a dangerous thing to meddle with, and the officers of the law--after some of them had been killed and others severely beaten--were in fact afraid to meddle with it. There were warrants in the United States Marshal"s office for the arrest of nearly a score of the offenders, but the papers were not served and there was scarcely a pretense made of effort to serve them.
It was made my duty to deal with this matter both in the news columns and editorially. Every day we published a detailed list of the stills that had been in operation during the preceding night, together with the names of the men operating each and detailed information as to the exact locality of each. Every day we printed editorial articles calling upon the officers of the law to act, and severely criticising their cowardice in neglecting to act. At first these editorial utterances were admonitory and critical. With each day"s added demonstration of official weakness they grew severer and more denunciatory of the official cowardice or corruption that alone could have inspired the inactivity.