THE LITTLEJOIIX LIBEL mi 
 
 THE C^SE 
 
 OF 
 
 DE WITT C. LITTLEJOHN 
 
 cif/amst 
 
 HORACE GREELEY, 
 
 TRIED AT THE 
 
 OSWEGO TEPi3I OF THE SUPREilE COURT OF THE STATE OF 
 NEW YORK, AT. PULASKI, SEPT. 10-13, 1861, 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 HIS HONOR, WILLIAM J. BACON, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 THE RULINGS OF JUDGE BACON, THE ARGUMENTS, AND POINTS OF 
 MESSRS. D. H. MARSH, I. T. WILLIAMS, JOHN K. PORTER, 
 CHAS. B. SEDGWICK, AND HENRY A. FOSTER. 
 
 PHONOGEAPHIOALLY REPORTED EY JAMES L. CROSB-X. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 PUBLISHED BY THE TRIBUNE ASSOCIATION 
 
 154 ISr J^SSJ^TJ STREET. 
 1S61. 
 
20 ' 
 
 c • 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Dl rst Old York Library 
 
THE LITTLEJOHX LIBEL SUIT. 
 
 THE EYIDEXCE, AEGUMEXTS, CHARGE, etc. 
 
 The case of Littlejolin agt. Greeler, which has 
 excited so much interest — more especially in the 
 political community — was brought to an issue on 
 Thursday, September 12th. The trial commenced 
 on Tuesday, in the Supreme Court Circuit, held 
 at the Tillage of Pulaski, Oswego County. Curi- 
 osity and interest had drawn large numbers of 
 people from the surrounding country and from 
 nearly all parts of the State, who looked forward 
 with anxiety to the expected developments of the 
 doings of the third House, in the legislative busi- 
 ness of the State — the list of witnesses on both \ 
 sides comprising many of the most prominent 
 political men — and the little town was crowded • 
 with strange faces. j 
 
 Justice Bacon of Utica presided. The Hon. 
 Henry Foster of Rome, the Hon. C. B. Sedg- 
 wick of Syracuse, and Messrs. Marsh, Webb, and ' 
 J. C. Churchill of Oswego, appeared for the plain- 
 tiff. I. T. WiUiams, esq., of New-York, Messrs. 
 Porter and Cagger of Albany, and Messrs. Grant 
 and AUen of Oswego, appeared for the defendant, j 
 
 The Complaint and Answer in this case are as 
 follows : 
 
 SUPREME COURT-COUNTY OF OSWEGO. 
 SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. 
 De Witt C. Littlejobn agt. Horace Greeley. 
 To Horace Greeley, Defendant: You are here- 
 by summoned to answer the complaint of De Witt C. Littlejolin, ' 
 plaintiff, a copy of which is herewith served on you, and to serve 
 a copy of your answer on the subscribers, at their otli';e in the 
 City and County of Oswego, within twenty days alter the service 
 ol this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or tae plaintitf 
 will apply to the Court lor the relief demanded in the com- 
 plaint, MARSH 6: \\EBB, 
 
 riainiia's AtcorneyB. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 De Witt C. Littlejobn agt. Horace Greeley. 
 
 Osu-es-o Count?/, SS. — I)e Witt C. Littlejobn, plaint- 
 iff in this action, complains of Horace Greeley, defendant there- 
 in, and shows to the Court here thit the plaintiff was a member 
 of the Legislature of the State of New- York, whose session com- 
 menced on the first Tuesdaj- of January, 1860, and was the rep- 
 resentative from the first Assembly District of Oswego County 
 in the Assembly of said State at said session of said Legislature, 
 and the said plaintiff further shows that be 'ore the 26tli day of 
 September, liitjO he had been renominated in said Assembly Dis- 
 triut as, and had become, and was a candidate for re-election as 
 member of the Assembly cf the S'.ate of New-York to represent 
 said district in the Legislature of said Sta-.e. 
 
 That on or about the 2Gth day of September, 1860, the said de- 
 fendant was one of the editors, proprietors and publishers of a 
 certain newspaper, printed and published in the City of New- 
 York under tbe name of The '-New- York Tribtne." That 
 on or about the Sdid 2eth day of September, the said defendant 
 contriving and wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the 
 plaiutitl in his good name, fame and credit, and to cause it to be 
 suspected and believed that tbe plaintiff was influenced in his 
 acts and doings as such legislator by corrupt motives, and that he 
 was corrupt as such legislator, and was therefore an unlit and im- 
 proper man to be re-elected as a member of the Legislature, did, 
 to wit: at Oswego in the County of Oswego and elsewhere 
 falsely, wickedly, and maliciously compose and publish and cause 
 and procure to be printed and published in the said newspaper 
 of and concerning the plaintiti and of and concerning his acts and 
 doings as such legislator aforesaid, and against his good name, 
 f ime and character, a false, scandalous, malicious and defamato- 
 ry lioel in the words and figure- following, that is to say: "A 
 Correspondent earnestly inquires our opinion concerning the 
 nomination for members of the Legislature of D. C. Littlejohn at 
 Oswego (the plaintiff meaning), and of Austin Meyers at Syracuse. 
 On this subject our opinion has been so often expressed that it can- 
 not bein doubt. Beth these persons were prominentin the corrupt 
 legislation of last Winter. Accordingly, both of them ought now 
 to be defeated. Or, if they must be sent back to pursue their 
 career at Albany, it should not be the work of Republican 
 veters " (mt-aning and intending thereby to cliarge that the legis- 
 laiion of the Legi>lature of the State of New-York, last Winter, 
 was corrupt, thit the legislators thereof were Influenced by cor- 
 rupt motives, ani tha: the plaiutitl was prominent in such cor- 
 rupt legislation, and that, being thus corrupt, he ought not to be 
 re-elected to the suid Legislature), and thU complainant further 
 shows that, by reason ol the printing and publishing of the said 
 folse, scandalous, malicious, slanderous, and d-^fanatory words, 
 by the said defendant, the said plaintitf has sustained great in- 
 jury to his sood name, fame, ci edit, and character, and has been, 
 and is, suspected to have acted corruptly a< such legislator afore- 
 said, to the damage of the said plaintiti of twenty-five thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment against the said 
 defendant for the said sum of #2.5,ti00, with costs." 
 
 iMARSH WEBB, of the City of Oswego, 
 Plainiiff s Attorneys. 
 
4 
 
 State of Kevj- York, Oswego County, ss. : De Witt C. Little- 
 jolin, the above-named plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposes and 
 says that the foiegoin:; complahit is true, of his own knovvledse, 
 except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and 
 as to those matters he believes it to be true. 
 
 D. C. LITTLEJOHN. 
 Sworn this 5th day of December, WGO, before me. 
 
 J. E. BLODGETT, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 De Witt C. Littlejohu agt. Horace Greeley. 
 
 Coxinfj/ of (J.-ncrgo, ss. — The detendant iu this action 
 by T. T. AVilliams, bis attoraey for answer to the 
 plaintiffs complaint therein, says: That at the time of, 
 and immediately before the pnblication of the words 
 in the said complaint set forth aud referred to, the 
 said defendant, as such editor and proprietor of said 
 newspaper, was earnestly inquired of as to his opinion 
 concei'uing the nomination for a member of the Legis- 
 lature of the said plaintiif ; that as such editor and 
 publisher, and as a public journalist, it was the busi- 
 ness, dury and right of the said defendant, fully, 
 fairly, and truly to answer such in(^uiry, and state 
 fully and according to his best knowlege,* information 
 and belief, such opiuion as he entertained couceruing 
 said plaiutitf, and concerning his said nomination, aud 
 the facts and rei)resentatious and reports upon which 
 such opinion was founded; that, thereupon, and in 
 pursuance of said inquiry, and iu answer thereto, he 
 did publish and cause to be printed and published the 
 ■words iu said complaint stt forth; that said publica- 
 tion -was made in good faith, in the true aud honest 
 belief that the same was iu every respect just and true, 
 and with good motives, and for justifiable ends, to 
 •wit: that some person, other than the said plain- 
 titt", and more lit aud proper to be a legislator of the 
 State 01 Xew-York than the said plaiuiiti', should be 
 elected as a member of said Legislature, instead and 
 in place of the said plaintiff, who was so then in 
 nomination, and a candidate for election, as a member 
 of such Legislature, and canvassing for yotes in favor 
 of his election to said Legislature in preference to a 
 candidate who, as the defendant verily believed, was 
 a better and a fitter man, to wit; one Leauder Bab- 
 cock, who was the candidate and in nomination for 
 election as a member of said Legislature in opposition 
 to said plaiuiiflF. 
 
 And for a second and separate defense to said 
 cause of action in said complaint alleged, the 
 said defendant says that the Legislature and the said 
 Assembly in said complaint referred to, during the 
 session thereof, in the year 1860, pas.sed divers and 
 sundry acts, to wit: An act entitled " An Act to au- 
 thoiize the sale of certain lands belonging to the State, 
 and to empower the Corporation of ihe City of New- 
 York to purchase the same. ' Also an act entitled 
 " An Act to authorize the construction of a railroad in 
 Avenue D, East Broadway, and other streets and 
 avenues of the City of 2sew-York." Also an act en- 
 titled "An Act to authorize the construction of a rail- 
 road in Seventh avenue, and in certain other streets 
 and avenues of the City of New-York." Also an act 
 entitled " An Act to authorize the construction of a 
 railroad in Fourteenth street and in other streets and 
 avenues of the City of New-York;" also, an act en- 
 titled An act to authoiize the construction of a rail 
 road in Tenth avenue, Forty-second street, and cer- 
 tain other avenues and streets in the City of New- 
 Y'ork." 
 
 That said acts were and are, aud, for a long time 
 before the publication of the said words iu the said 
 complaint set forth, had been called, denominated, and 
 known in the community and among all good and 
 worthy citizens of the State of New-York as "cor- 
 rupt legi^'lation,■■ and were at the time of said publica- 
 tion so denominated in common parlance by such citi- 
 zens, the whole of which said legislation was greatly 
 disapproved of by all such good and worthy citizens 
 of the State of New-York, and was in fact mischievous 
 and injurious to the public interest. 
 
 That in and about procuring such legislation large 
 sums of money were generally and publicly reported, 
 understood, reputed, and believed to have been im- 
 ])ronerly used and expended iu inlhiencing members of 
 said Legislature to vote for the same, aud other im- 
 ])roper influences were generally and publicly re- 
 ported, understood, and believed to have been 
 used for that purpose, and which said legislaticm was 
 generally reputed, understood, and believed to be and 
 to have been corrupt. That this defendant, at the time 
 of the publication iu s^iid complaint mentioned, fully 
 believed such reports to be true. That the said plain- 
 tiff in fact was active and prominent iu said legislation 
 — to wit: as Sj)eaker of the said House of Assembly, 
 and otlierwise actively exerted himself iu procuring 
 the passage of said acts in the said House of Assem- 
 bly, and did, as a member of said Hout^e, therein advo- 
 cate and vote for the passage of the same, publicly 
 aud privately, and was generally known to favor au'd. 
 to be in favor of said acts and of the passage thereof 
 respectively. 
 
 As to each of the said acts the said defendant says, 
 ; that at the times when the same was passed and was 
 so voted for by the said plaintiff, the same was, ever 
 since hath been, and still is, of a nature and tendency 
 highly prejudicial to the interests and welfare of the 
 people of this State; that at the time when he, the said 
 pL-iintilf, so voted for the same he, the said plaintiff, 
 well knew and fully believed such to be the evil nature 
 and tendency of such act, and, as he also well knew, 
 ' was bound \r\ law aud morals, aud by his duty as such 
 , member of Assembly, to voteagsiinst the same; yet he, 
 the said plainiiiT, wickedly, willfully, and corruptly 
 I dieregarding his said duty in that behalf, and with the 
 dishonest intent and purpose of working such prejudice 
 ' to the iuterests and welfare of the said people, and 
 sacrificing the same to advance the personal and indi- 
 vidual interests hereinafter in this defense stated, did 
 vote for such act as aforesaid; that said plaintiff's mo- 
 live in so willfully and corruptly voting for the said 
 first-mentioned act was so to advance the personal and 
 : individual interests of James B. Taj lor and Ow^en W. 
 Breunan, and divers other persons interested therein, 
 i and that as to each of the other acts above mentioned, 
 his motive in so voting for the same was so to advance 
 the personal aud individual interests of the persons 
 I named in the first section of such act, and of divers 
 ; other persons interested in said acts respectively, as the 
 
 ■ defendant is informed aud believes. 
 
 That the said defendant did with good motives and 
 for justifiable ends, and in accordance with his duty as 
 fcuch journalist, editor, and publisher, and in good faith, 
 and without any malice or other evil, or unjustifiable 
 \ motive, cause to be piiuted and published the said 
 words in said complctint set forth. 
 
 And for a third and separate defense to the said ac- 
 tion, the defendant says, that the Legislature of the 
 State of New- York, which commenced' its session on 
 j the first Tuesday of January, 1860, and the House of 
 1 Assembly of said Legislature did, during said session, 
 pass divers acts, to wit: the acts aforesaid, the pas- 
 sage of which said acts by the House of Assembly and 
 Senate of such Legislature were aided and promoted 
 by improper influences brought to bear upon said Leg- 
 ' iislature, and upon divers members thereof, and that 
 1 corrupt influences were used to procuie the passage of 
 j said acts, bj persons who had no voice or vote in said 
 I Legislature, and who were not entitled or authorized 
 i to interfere with said Legislature, or the members^^f 
 ! said Houses, or either of them, or in the legislation 
 thereof, but who, on the contrary thereof, acted from 
 , personal, selfish, mercenary, and corrupt motives, and 
 1 not with a view to promote the common weal or gen- 
 
 ■ eral good of the State, or the citizens thereof generally, 
 i And that such legislation thereby became and was 
 j corrui)t legislation, and was so generally denominated 
 
 and believed to be by the good and worthy citizens of 
 ' this State, who were conversant with the facts ecu- 
 
5 
 
 nected tlierevritb, and by the said defendant; that 
 the said plaintiif was a prominent member ot said Leg- ; 
 islature, to wit. Speaker of Bald Honee of Assembly, 
 and prominent in aiding and promoting said legisla- 
 tion, and advocated the same. And the defendant says 
 that the said words in said complaint set forth, and so 
 published by the said defendant as aforesaid, were not 
 understood by any person to have any other intent or \ 
 meaning than to charge as herein aforesaid, and that j 
 within that intent and meaning the said charge is true, i 
 as hereinbefore set forth ; that the said defendant, in; 
 the printing and publication of the said article or words [ 
 in the said complaint set forth, caused to be printed and 1 
 published what he verily believed to be true, and 
 what he believed the public interest required to be | 
 known, and what he believed it was his duty to cautic ' 
 to be printed and published, and that in the said print- ' 
 ing and publication he acted without malice, and ia 
 the discharge of his duty as such public journalist, 
 editor and proprietor, he being, as such public journal- ; 
 ist, charged with the duty and invested with the right j 
 of fully canvasf<ing the merits and publicly discussing 
 the fitness of all persons who were candidates for elec- \ 
 tion to public office or places of public trust. | 
 And for a fourth and separate defense to the said ! 
 cause of action, the defendant says, on information and | 
 belief, that the acts aforesaid were in fact corrupt 
 legislation, and that the passage of said acts, and each 
 of them, by the said Legislature, and by the said 
 House of Assembly, was aided and promoted by per- 
 sons commonly called Lobby Members, and persons 
 who had no voice or vote iii said Legislature, and 
 were not entitled to any voice or vote therein — and by 
 persons who had a personal, priviate and pecuniary 
 interest in the said acts, and by persons who sought in 
 obtaining the passage and enactment thereof, and of 
 each of them, to promote their own personal and private 
 interest in disregard of and to the detriment of the 
 
 general and public interest, and the interest and well- 
 eing of the State, and the people thereof at large. 
 And that the passage of said acts was aided, and that 
 the same were passed and enacted by the said Legisla- 
 ture and by the said Assembly, by means ot"^ and 
 throagh the improper and corrupt influences aforesaid, 
 brought to bear upon individual members of said Legis- 
 lature and said House of Assembly, and that the said 
 individual members of said Legit^lature and of said 
 House of Assembly were persuaded and influenced by 
 unstatesmanlike, wrong, selflsh, sordid, pecuniary and 
 corrupt motives in past^sing, enacting, advocatiog, and 
 voting for the passage and enactment of said acts, and 
 each of them, and so promoted, advocated, passed 
 and enacted said acts, and each of them, influenced 
 by favor and afiectiou, reward, and the hope 
 of reward, and from pecuniary and corrupt 
 motives, aims, ends and purposes, and for and ia the 
 hope of receiving money, franchises, privileges, and 
 otner pecuniary, seliisb, and merceniry considerations, 
 motives, aims, ends and purposes, as' well for them- 
 selves as for their friends and other persons who 
 might and were expected to account to such indi- 
 vidual members of said Legi'^lature and Houee of As- 
 sembly for such pecuniary gain or advantage as should I 
 or might come to them from, on account of, or by rea- I 
 son of such legislation. i 
 And the delendant says, for reasons aforesaid, the ' 
 said Legislation in the said words referred to was ; 
 corrupt legislation — and tbat the said plaintiff was 
 active and prominent in said legir-lation, and was dur- 
 ing the whole thereof Speaker of the House of Assem- 
 bly, and was a very inlluential member thereof, and 
 that the said plaintifl' advocated the passage and enact- 
 ment of said acts, and was known as, and was a 
 prominent promoter and advocate, and voted for said 
 acts and each of them. 
 
 And the said defendant says, that the words in the 
 said complaint set forth, so published by the said de- 
 fendant as aforesaid, were not imderstood by any per- ; 
 
 son to have any intent or meaning, and the said de- 
 fendant had no intent or meaning in the use and publi- 
 cation of said w ords, than to charge the said plaintiff 
 as herein aforesaid, nor were the said words under- 
 stood to charge anything other than as in this answer 
 is liereinbefoie set forth to be the truth concerning said 
 Legislature and the said plaintifl". 
 
 And the defendant says that, in publishing sail 
 words in said complaint set forth, and in causing the 
 same to be printed and published, he published and 
 caused to be printed and published, the truth, and that 
 said printing and publication were done and caused to 
 be done with good motives, and for justiflable ends, 
 and without malice or other improper motive. 
 
 And fifthly and separately, the defendant further 
 asserts and states the several facts and circumstances 
 above in the defenses stated, and will give the same in 
 evidence on the trial of this action, in mitigation, to 
 reduce the amount of damages which the plaintitf may 
 claim to recover. 
 
 I. T. WILLIAMS, Attorney for Defendant. 
 
 CitT/ and Counti/ of JS'erc- York, ss. — Horace Greeley, 
 the delendant in the above-entitled action, being duly sworn, de- 
 poses and says, that he has read the foregoing answer, and knows 
 the contents thereof, that the same is true of his own knowledge, 
 except as to the matters therein stated on information and be- 
 lief, and as to these matters he believes the same to be true. 
 
 HORACE GREELEY. 
 Sworn to before me this 23d day of February, 1861. 
 
 THUS. SADLER, Notary Public. 
 
 SUPREME COURT— CiRcriT— Oswego Covn-tt— Before 
 Justice Bacox. 
 Littlejohn agt. Greeley. 
 
 Monday, Sept. 9, 1861. 
 
 Attachments were ordered, on the application of 
 Mr. Allen for defendant, for witnesses not answering 
 to their names, viz.: George Law, Thurlow "Weed, 
 James B. Taylor, John Kerr, Hugh J. Hastings, 
 Abraham Van Yechten, Eichard Busteed, and others. 
 
 Mr. Grant for defendant, when the case had been, 
 called on the calendar, suggested that on account of 
 the absence of so many witnesses, the cause be 
 set down for to-morrow; they would all be ready, 
 doubtless, for to-morrow, and it would be more con- 
 venient for all. 
 
 Mr. Foster, for plaintiff, assenting, it was so ordered; 
 and cause set down accordingly. 
 
 Tuesday Afternoon, Sept. 10, 1861. 
 
 Case called, and the following gentlemen impanneled 
 as Jurors : 
 
 Peter H. Morrison Williamstown. 
 
 Samuel Balcom Redfield. 
 
 Lewis Smith Coustantia. 
 
 MiRON Stevens Orwell. 
 
 John R. Mitchell Parish. 
 
 Nelson White Richland. 
 
 L. Weed Richland. 
 
 William Scripture Sandy Creek. 
 
 Walter Pierce Sandy Creek. 
 
 Henry Mendall Amboy. 
 
 Daniel B. Daring Coustantia. 
 
 George C. Parker Constantia. 
 
 Mr. Williams — If your Honor please, I suppose we 
 have the opening. 
 
 Mr. Foster— I suppose not; the question of damages 
 at least is concerned herCj and of course we have the 
 opening. 
 
 Mr. Williams — The criterion of opening, if your 
 Honor please, is, who has the alHrmative ? The an- 
 swer in this case contains not a syllable of denial of any 
 
6 
 
 tind or cliaracter; the questiou of damages is always 
 open in every case. 
 
 The Court— Is the publication admitted by the an- 
 swer ? 
 
 Mr. Williams — Everything, Sir; the answer contains 
 not one syllable of denial of any kind whatsoever. 
 
 The Court — The rule on that question is settled, I 
 believe; when the complaint is all admitted, the de- 
 fense has the right to open. 
 
 Mr. Foster — That, I believe your Honor, is confined 
 to cases when the sum to be received is specific, and 
 the plaintiff, therefore, has nothing to do; and con- 
 lined to those cases alone. I have not examined all the 
 authorities in reference to this particular, because I did 
 not suppose the queation would be rai ed ; but I feel en- 
 tirely confident that in aH cases where the damages are 
 not definitely fixed in the complaint, the plaiuiifi" has 
 the opening. 
 
 The Court— W];at would be the object; is there 
 anything for yon to prove ? 
 
 Mr. Foster— Xo, Sir; nothing at all. 
 
 The Court — I have never known the r^uestion raised 
 in an action of this kind, where there is a riuesiion of 
 damages. Generally, where the cause of action is 
 admitted, there is no controversy. 
 
 Mr. Foster — We think that, in the opening of this 
 case we have to present this libel to the Jury ; and how 
 is it to be done unless we are to do it? | 
 
 Mr. Williams — Every allegation in the complaint is 
 admitted. My learned friend on the other &ide will find { 
 it impossible *to put his hands upon a case which con- \ 
 firms the statement he has made. j 
 
 Mr. Foster — I can find an abundance of them. 
 
 Mr, Williams — You will not find one in this country 
 or in Engldud. 
 
 The Court — A very recent case occurred in the Vth 
 District, when Judge Smith gave the opinion, when 
 the question arose, and he allowed the plaintiff the 
 opening; but, on an appeal, that decision was reversed, 
 and the Supreme Court held that he was in error to 
 allow it. 
 
 Mr. Williams — I have a esse here — in the 7th of 
 English Equity — a case brought for an injury where ; 
 the question of damages is entirely o} en — una 
 the Court says: "The test to determine the' 
 order of beginning a trial, is to consider which party 
 would be entitled to the verdict, supposing no evidence ' 
 given on either side, as the burden of proof must lie on 
 his adversary." i 
 
 Mr. Foster— 1 undertake to say that I can find cases 
 of our own if I have time ; I am very sure my friend is 
 mistaken. * i 
 
 Mr. Williams— I thiak I have looked at all the | 
 cases and I am quite sure there is no such distinction i 
 as my learned fritnd seems to think. i 
 
 The Court — I am sorry this question had not at- i 
 tracted the attention of Coun>el lefore. 
 
 Mr. Marsh — Perhaps your Ifonormay be relieved by ! 
 the fact that the pleadings oo not admit all the allega- 
 tion?. The gentleman states that we aver that the libel 
 was upon Mr. Littlejoim and of his particular conduct, 
 while the third and fourth answers aver that they did 
 publish as stated, but they do not admit the allegation 
 that they refer to, and are spoken of, Mr. Littlejohn 
 in his individual capacity as a legislator; but say they 
 spoke of legislation. I know that on a motion 
 once made in this case, my learned friend contended 
 that was a question to be submitted to the Jury; at 
 any rate he has not admitted all the allegations m his 
 answer. I may as well read them. 
 
 [The counsel here read the third and fourth answers 
 in pleadings already published.] 
 
 Mr. Williams — If your Honor please, all proper 
 admissions are admissions by silence in the pleadings. 
 
 The Code provides that everything alleged in the 
 complaint shall be deemed to be admitted which 
 is not denied in the answer. lu this answer 
 there is not a syllable of denial. We have 
 taken the affirmative on every point. We have 
 not denied one syllable, but we have taken the 
 burden of proof directly upon our shoulders. I see 
 nothing in what my learned friend has read to justify 
 the statement he made before he commenced reading. 
 I submit to your Honor that the case we have pre- 
 sented is one where the damages were not fixed. But 
 if that were the criterion, damages in this case, 
 judging from the pleadings, be said to be fixed, for the 
 plaintiff sa>s he has suffered damages to the amount of 
 $■25,000, and the ullegaTion is not denied in the answer. 
 
 The Court — I don't see ho^ there is any evidence to 
 be given iu this case by the }ilaintiff; and if there was 
 none to be given on the other side, he would undoubt- 
 edly obtaia a verdict. Even iu a case on a promissory 
 note, there would still have to be a computation of in- 
 terest. 
 
 Mr. Poster — If your honor please — If we show the 
 authorities, will yon give us our rights ? 
 The Court — Most certainly. 
 
 Mr. Marsh — If the gentleman will take the benefit 
 of what he says, we will take damages for $20jOOO. 
 Mr. Williams — I speak of the pleadings. 
 Mr. Sedgwick — Why, we should then be at liberty 
 to go on and give evidence; there is no possible evi- 
 dence upon which you could give $"25,000 — no possible 
 way of taking a judgment for $25,000. 
 
 Mr. Williams — It is very easy for the counsel to 
 maintain that they could prove facts not contained in 
 the complaint; but they do not pretend that anything 
 in the complaint is denied. 
 
 IMr. Sedgwick— Do you pretend that we could take a 
 verdict for $25,000 ? 
 
 Mr. Williams — That is not material in the case at all ; 
 you have nothing to prove, if we sit down and say 
 nothing you would claim judgment on the pleadings. 
 
 Mr. Foster — We could prove other publications to 
 show express malice, to enhance our damages. 
 
 The Court — What! not under your present com- 
 plaint ? 
 
 Mr. Foster — Certainly; there is no doubt of that. 
 Mr. Williams— It would be impossible for them to 
 prove malice beyond what is set forth in the complaint ; 
 every syllable of that stands, if we were to give no 
 evidenc-e they can give none; you cannot prove what 
 you have not averred; the Court of Appeals have 
 decided that. 
 
 Mr. Foster suggested that if the Court would take a 
 retess the authorities in the case might be found. 
 The Court took a rece&s of one hour. 
 
 I EVENING SESSION. 
 
 j Mr. Foster — I will cite to your Honor from Gra- 
 i ham's Practice, page 289; also, from 3d Bosworth,. 
 j commencing page 200, the case of Fry and Bennett — 
 the 2d note and the 5th head note. The answer in the 
 case of Fry and Bennett was as follows: The defense 
 set up, 
 
 ! 1. " The items contained in tha article are true." 
 j That is our case here. 
 
 I 2. " These articles are fair and impartial criticisms." 
 , That is our case too. 
 
 i 3. "That the defendant had probable cause to be- 
 j lieve them to be true, and did believe them to be true, 
 j and published them without any malice." That is our 
 j case also. 
 
 I Mr. Williams— If your honor please, I was cot 
 ignorant of the case of Fry and Bennett; and if the 
 counsel had only read that case, I apprehend he would 
 not have made the statement which he did. The rule 
 laid down in Graham's Practice embraces^ all cases. 
 The learned counsel claims an exception in all 
 those cases where the amount of damages is hot; 
 
1 
 
 iixed in the complaint; vet that is certidiily at vari- 
 ance with three or four of the cases cited ia Graham. 
 Ttiere is no doubt, as said in Graham, that the Eng- 
 lish Jndyes had begun to refine u])0u this matter, and 
 tiaally they came to a determination that they wou'd 
 establish an arbitrary rule. Consequently they sin- 
 gled out some cases in which they would give the 
 opening to the plaintirt", and among them was the case 
 of hbel. Tbey did not establish a principle. Your 
 Honor will observe they only establish a rule, 
 and the rule is wholly arbiirary, for they omit the case 
 of malicious prosecution. Now, if your Honor please, 
 as to the case of Fry and Bennett. If the learned 
 counsel wishes to stand upon that case, let him 
 admit on the record that the communication is 
 a privileged one. Let him admit that, and he 
 must give affirmative evidence of malice; and with 
 that aumission on the record, let hiui proceed and give 
 Lis affirmative proof. Now, I assert that the rule I 
 maintain is the uniform practice of the Courts in this 
 State. We have never adopted the English arbitrary 
 rule. 
 
 The Court — I don't know that there has been any 
 rule established in the Courts in this State ; I am cer- 
 tain there is not any in the rural district?. But it 
 seems to me that the case in 3d Bosworth is very dear 
 authority of the right of the plaintitf to open. I shall 
 rule that the plaintitf has the right accordingly. 
 
 Exception for defendant. 
 
 MR. MARSH'S OPENING. 
 Mr. Marsh— If the Court please, and Gentlemen of 
 the Jury ; the case which you are called upon to try is 
 an action for libel: a printed communication in The 
 Tribune, published in New- York by Horace Greeley, 
 the defendant, charging De Witt C. Littlejohn, the 
 plaintiff", with corruption as a legislator. Several arti- 
 cles appeared at different times m The Tribune upon 
 that subject — one upon the 11th of September, aiid 
 another one — the one upon which this action is founded 
 — on the 26th of September, and a third one on the 8th 
 of October. Mi\ Littlejohn saw the article of the 26r,h 
 of September, the one upon which we sue, and wrote 
 to Mr. Greeley expressly denying the allegations iu 
 that article. Mr. Greeley publislied that letter, with a 
 tirade of abuse — a libei far worse in point of fact than 
 the other one — showing a degree of maliciousness about 
 it, and witliout any further inquiry into its premises. 
 In selecting upon the libel on which the action is 
 brought — for we did not choose to bring an action on 
 all of them — we selected this second one, which is iu 
 these words : 
 
 " A correspondent earnestly iuquires our opinion concerning 
 the nomination Tor meuibeis of the Legislature of D. C. Little- 
 john at Oswego and of Austin Myers at Syracuse. On this sub- 
 ject our opinion has been so often exj-ressed that it cannot be in 
 doubt. Both tliese persons were promiuent iu the corrupt legis- 
 lation of last Winter. Accordingly, both of them ought now to 
 be defeated. Or, if they must be sent back to pursue their ca- 
 reer at Albany, it should not be the work of Rnpubiican voters." 
 
 Thereby chaiginsr Mr. Littlejohn, as a member of 
 that Legislature (and it is well known to all of us that 
 he was Speaker of the House at the time), with corrup- 
 tion as a legislator. By bringing the action upon that 
 particular libel, we will throw the whole subject open 
 without limit, and not specifying the charge which 
 Mr. Greeley had seen lit to make in other publications, 
 and throw the broad subject open upon the charge of 
 coriuption as broad as it could be made, and give him 
 all the chance to ])rove any act of corruption upon the 
 part of Mr. Littlejohn. But, now, gentlemen, we 
 have come here to try this action; and that the case 
 may be fully understood, it may be right and proper 
 that I should at some length state the grounds of the 
 defense, which they have set up in their several 
 answers. And it is 'of some importance, your Honor, 
 that I shottli state them here, because, upon these 
 
 ' answers, the question of testimony will mainly de- 
 ; i)end ; and the length or brevity of the cauee which we 
 are about to try, will be measured. The first answer 
 I which they set up, I call an answer, claiming the com- 
 I muuication as a "privileged communication," for he 
 1 says: 
 
 j [The counsel here read the first answer from the 
 ; pleadings.] 
 
 j The first time I may venture to say that he ever 
 j gave a Democrat a character superior to that of a 
 j Whig or a Republican, whether true or false. That 
 we claim to be a plea of privilege and that is a question 
 [for the Court solely to decide upon. I know on a 
 previous occasion on a motion in the matter it was 
 argued that was a question for the jury, but I conceive 
 however it is a question solely for the court. 
 I Now for the second plea : 
 
 j [The counsel here read the second answer in the 
 pleadings.] 
 
 There, 1 conceiye, is a good and valid plea in this 
 case. If they can search into the recesses of Mr. 
 Littlejohn's heart and find that his motive was cor- 
 rupt, and find what his thoughts are, and if he thought 
 corruptly, why then, they have made out their justifi- 
 cation and not till then. And yet in relation to these 
 same acts not a remonstrance was heard from the city 
 of New-York — these railroad acts dignified by the 
 Hon. Horace Greeley as the "Gridu-on Eailroads" 
 — not a remonstrance from the whole city of New- 
 York was ever heard against any one of them. There 
 were applications for numerous others, and often as 
 against these, but no remonstrance was heard; though 
 indeed another Legislature has intervened, and though 
 Mr. Littlejohn has been again the Speaker of that 
 Assembly, Yet no one remonstrance against these 
 railroads has heen heard except through Horace 
 Greeley and his Tribune. Now for the third defense. 
 They say : 
 
 [The counsel read the third answer in pleadings.] 
 
 Now, that we say is a plea amounting in a few words 
 simply to this: "that the legislation was corrupt, and 
 all we intended to charge was that there was there cor- 
 rupt legislation, not that Mr. Littlejohn was corrupt." 
 Now, we hold that no evidence whatever can be given 
 to show any such thing as that. If that were so — if 
 evidence could be given as to these reports of what was 
 done in the Lobby, why all the members of the Third 
 House, there, Horace Greeley himself included, might 
 be called up to testify what they did and who they did 
 it with ; who they paid money to ; whose influence they 
 tried to procure, and what means they took to procure 
 it. You will see at once, that such a thing could not 
 be done, because the Legislature is not on trial here; it 
 is Mr. Littlejohn alone that is on trial — and the ques- 
 tion is, whether he is guilty of corrupt legislation. 
 Now, the fourth answer, I may say, is not of the same 
 import. I think the Counsel will not require that I 
 should read ir. The fifth answer says: 
 
 [The Coitnsel lead the fifth answer]. 
 
 Now, under this state of pleading, your Honor will 
 perceive at once the questions will arise how far the 
 reputation of any such thing or any such charges could 
 be evidence, or how the acts of any other person than 
 Mr. Littlejohn can be evidence. Every person knows 
 how easy it is to get up a report of corruption. No 
 man, your Honor, no man, gentlemen, knows that bet- 
 ter than Horace Greeley himself; for no one among 
 you has probably forgotten the charge which was 
 made against him — honest as he is — with having re- 
 ceived a t ribe at Washington for the purpose of pass- 
 ing certain corrupt measures there. No one has proba- 
 bly forgotten the fact that he was charged with re- 
 ceiving a !>i,000 check, and Mr. Greeley felt very in- 
 dignant about it, and undertook to explain the matter 
 and show that he received the check honestly. If 
 reputation is enough to make the standard of charac- 
 ter the reputation which the honorable gentleman 
 there acquired might conaemu him. I speak of it to 
 
8 
 
 show that mere reputation is not to take away the 
 character of any man; and I eay that the rule of law, 
 establiehed by repeated aud numerous decisions in this 
 State, is not to admit such testimony to be given, and 
 thej used language like this: "If such testimony 
 were to be allowed, and public report or reputation 
 being enough to fix the charge — all that anybody 
 would have to do to ruin another individual, would j 
 be to get up a report that he was guilty of a certain ! 
 act, and when he was prosecuted for libel, then he 
 might give in evidence the very report which he had 
 himself created in order to put the other individual 
 down.' 
 
 1 have been, your Honor, a little more full in stating 
 these things, and in stating the pleadings, that you 
 might see and be folly aware of the kind and character 
 of the testimony which must be offered under such a 
 state of the pleadings. We are all aware that a large 
 number of the witnessess are here — a large number 
 from Oswego, a large number, I understand, from the 
 City of New-York, and a number from this place — and 
 judging from the pleadings, we can suppose that the 
 line of proof which will be attempted will be — first, 
 that there was such a reputation, which we shall ob- 
 ject to, of course; next, that there was a reputation of 
 corrupt legislation ; that we shall object to because it 
 does not tend to convict Mr. Littlejohu. They will 
 attempt, undoubtedly to show that iu the procuring of 
 these acts certain persons were applicants, and certain 
 other persons were stockholders, with a view of show- 
 ing some corruption in that matter. To that we shall 
 object; if they can show that De Witt C. Littlejohu 
 was a stockholder, or show that he was corrupt, they 
 are at liberty to do. But if your Honor, after a review 
 of the case and the law upon the subject, sees that this 
 testimony is not proper, we then bring this case to a 
 speedy conclusion, for it leaves them only one other 
 ground of defense, or two at the most — one, to show 
 actual corruption iu De Witt G. Littlejohn, and the 
 otber — but in fact it is the only defense they can Have 
 — the other may be to attack his general 'moral charac- 
 ter, and if the gentlemen choose to do that, they are 
 welcome to the fullest opportunity. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF JAMES PLATT. 
 
 James Platt for plaintifi" testified that he was ac- 
 quainted with the circulation of The N. Y. Tribune. 
 
 Mr. Porter for defendant objected, on the ground 
 that there was no allegation which calls for the proof; 
 and there is no denial of the master alleged in the com- 
 plaint. 
 
 Overruled — Exception for defendant. 
 
 Mr. Platt further testified the circulation of The 
 Tribune was very large in Western New-York, Oiiio, 
 Wisconsin, and Michigan — though he was not a sub- 
 scriber to the paper — aud from general reputation he 
 should say it had an extended circulation over this 
 county [Oswego]. 
 
 Mr. Marsh then offered in evidence a copy of The 
 N. Y. Tribune, dated Sept. 11, 1860, and ofiered to 
 read the article headed " Legislative Corruption," for 
 the purpose of showing the 'juo animo. 
 
 Mr. Porter for defendant objected on the following 
 gi'ounds : 
 
 Ist. That the article is not counted on in tbe com- 
 plaint. 
 
 2d. That it does not appear to have been written by 
 the defendant. 
 
 3d. That it is not within the issue made by the 
 pleadings. 
 
 Obiection overruled — exception for defendant. 
 Mr. Marsh then read the article referred to as 
 follows: 
 
 Legislative CoRRrPTiox. — Certain local journals persist 
 in misrepresentations of the course of The Tribune respecting 
 State matters so gross that we cannot refrain from noticing them. 
 We tBie the following from a leader in the last Chatauqua Dem- 
 ocrat as a sample: 
 
 " There may have been, and doubtless was. the Ms«a/ amoiint 
 of 'Legislative corruption' at Albany last Winter. But that 
 there was that which should justify the wholesale and indiscrim- 
 inate denunciaiionsi of that Legislature, with which tlie columns 
 of The Tribune have teemed for many months, we have no 
 evidi nce of, and do not believe. 
 
 '• In our own county, Mr. W. L. Sessions was the especial 
 object of The Tribune's denunciations, and why ? Simply be- 
 cause he was a /earfj/jp aud prominent member of th&Stnate. 
 Although the shafts of The Tribi ne have assumed a more per- 
 sonal aspect toward Mr. Sessions, they have been aimed indis- 
 criminately at Mr. Smith and every other member of the Legis- 
 lature. There have been no exceptions in this wholesale abuse 
 of the last Legislature If The Tribune was honest, why does 
 it not particularize and discriminate 1 There were scores of Re- 
 publicans who voted atjainst all those measures denounced as 
 venal and corrupt, and yet they are all included in the anathemas 
 of The Tribune." 
 
 Every careful reader of The Trirune knows how unjust, 
 how essentially false, are the material portions of the above. 
 Time and again have we urged that very discrimination which 
 The Democrat accuses us of ignoring — time and again have we ex- 
 plained that no Legislature ever contained more upright and 
 worthy members than our last. Messrs. Bell, Murphy, Man- 
 lERRE, and others in the Senate— Messrs. Lucius Robinson, 
 CoNKLiNG, Flagler, &c., in the House — forming about half the 
 Republicans in either branch — were as honest and faithful legis- 
 lators as our State ever had ; and this we have repeatedly asserted 
 and proved by their acts. There was a very different lot of Re- 
 publicans, however, forming nearly half of those elected, who 
 conspired with seven-eighths to nine-tenths of the Democrats to 
 pass some of the most corrupt and unjustifiable acts that ever 
 were put through a Legislature, as our columns have likewise re- 
 peatedly shown. That Mr. Session's name appears habitually in 
 this latter category, we deeply regret ; but the fault ia entirely his 
 own. There may have been fools in that Legislature who voted 
 wrongly because they knew no better: but he is not one of 
 these. 
 
 — As we are challenged for specifications, with the cool asser- 
 tion that there was " the usual amount of Legislative corruption 
 at Albany last Winter," we will merely premise that, if that 
 was but " the MswaZ amount," it is high time that it should be 
 rendered wrausual, and this, by the blessing of God and with the 
 help of the People, we mean to secure. To this end, let us once 
 more proceed to discriminations and specifications. 
 
 — We fear it is true that some "Legislative corruption" is 
 " usual" at Albany and at other capitals ; but has it ever be- 
 fore proceeded to such extent that a Governor has felt con-S 
 strained to veto in succession half a dozen of the principal 
 measures of a Legislature wherein his political friends had a 
 majority? We can recollect but two instances of this— one in 
 Pennsylvania, when Gov. Snyder was compelled to resort to the 
 extremity of dissolving the Legislature, to prevent the corrupt 
 passage of a lot of Bank charters ; and one in our own State, 
 wherein Gov. Tompkins had to do substantially the same. In 
 either case, public sentiment almost unanimously condemned 
 the Legislative majority and sustained the Governor— as we are 
 sure it does now. So much for what is " usual" in this line. 
 
 Now for a " specification"— and the first that comes to hand 
 will serve the purpose: 
 
 Gov. Morgan, in his Annual Message, recommended the 
 chartering of more Horse Railroads in our city, and briefly indi- 
 cated the main objects which should be held in view in framing 
 those charters. The charters were framed and the bills passed ; 
 but the stipulations in behalf of the city which he had urged 
 
 I were totally disregarded. The leading advocates of these char- 
 ters were personally apprized by him that the charters must be 
 modified in accordance with his original suggestions ; but his 
 suggestions were still defied, and the bills passed in the teeth of 
 
 ' his remonstrances. He could of course do no otherwise than 
 
 I veto them ; so he did it ; and here is the Special Message stating 
 
 I his reasons: 
 
 St.\te of New-York, Executive Departjient, > 
 Albany, April IG, 18G0. i 
 
 ' To the Astemhly: 
 
 ! I return to the Assembly, in which they originated, the foUow- 
 ing bills, authorizing the construction of Railroads iu the streets 
 ' of the City of New-York: 
 
9 
 
 " An act to authorizp tlie construction of a Railroad in Avenue : 
 D, East Broadway, and oti.er streets and avenues of the City of ' 
 New- York." 
 
 "An act to authorize the construction of a Railroad track on 
 South, West, and other streets in the City of Nt-w-York." 
 
 " An act to authorize the construction of a Railroad in Seventh j 
 avenue, and in certain other streets and avenues of the City of 
 New -York." 
 
 " An act to authorize the construction of a Railroad in Tenth 
 avenue, Forty-second street, and certain other avenues and 
 streets of the City of New-York." 
 
 " An act to authorize tlie construction of a Railroad in Four- i 
 te£nth street and other streets and avenues of the City of New- , 
 York." 1 
 
 No person appreciates more fully than myself the utility of 
 railroads as a medium of communication between distant sec- 
 tions of a great city. 
 
 In the conviction that greater facilities in this respect were ; 
 required in New York, I took occasion, in my annual Message, ] 
 to advert to this necessity, and to recommend " thit the number ] 
 " of railroads iu the upper part of the city be increased ;" and : 
 took occasion in this connection to add: '• In doing this, how- 
 " ever, care should be tafeen, while limiting and equalizing the 
 '• rates of fare on all railroads in that city, to ri nder the valuable 
 "franchise a source of income to the city." It was obvious, 
 therefore, to the Legislature, from these declarations, that all 
 which was necessary to secure my approval of the additional 
 railroad facilities required by the interests of the citizens of 
 New-York was, that tlie grants for this purpose which might be 
 made should impose suitable conditions, iu view of the valuable 
 franchises granted, should guard against the abuse of the privil- 
 eges conferred, and should require the services to be performed 
 at the least cost to the public consistent with the obligations 
 imposed. It is because the bills before me fail to embody these 
 essential provisions, and are deficient iu other respects of those 
 safeguards which I deem necessary to the protection of the 
 public interests, that I am constrained to withhold my signature 
 from the bills herewith returned. That the privileges propobed 
 to be conferred iu tliese acts are deemed of great pecuniary 
 value, needs no other elucidation than the fact that responsible 
 individuals stand ready to pay a large bonus icto the treasury of 
 the City of New-York for the franchises conferred upon the 
 persons named in these bills, without co>t or equivalent. 
 
 I deemed some return to the city simply equitable, because 
 the streets have been opened, graded, and rendered ready for the 
 reception of the rails proposed to be laid down, at the expense of 
 tha property -holders, and that a suitable psyment into the City 
 Treasury would to that extent alleviate the burden of taxation 
 which presses so heavily upon its citizens. Or, if this method 
 were deemed objectionable, it would have contented me had 
 the bill in question so reduced the fares for the transportation of 
 
 Eassengers, so as to have proved a veritable benefit to the 
 umbler classes of citizens who are driven far from the centers 
 of business by the high ren-.s prevalent in the more accessible 
 districts of the city. In this respect, also, the bills before me 
 fail to conform to the intimations contained in my annual mes- 
 sage. While it is notorious that the profits of the existing rail- 
 roads in the City of New-York are vastly disproportioued to the 
 amount of capital actually invested the roads now proposed are 
 allowed to conform to the prices for the transportation of passen- 
 gers charged by those already in operation, without any other 
 restriction or reduction. 
 
 Again, the bills to which I am constrained to interpose my ob- 
 jections, are giants of power in perpetuitj-. Ordinary prudence 
 would suggest that this should be avoided. Powers that are use- 
 ful to da j-, under the changing circumstances of communities, 
 and of municipal operations, may a few years heuce, become ob- 
 jectionable. Hence it is that the exclusive benefits of patents 
 are limited: the existence of corporations circumscribed within 
 certain periods; lerry franchises defined -and restricted. The 
 whole genius of our Government requires, that privileges 
 granted, especially those of pecuniary value, or affecting the 
 public convenience, shall, after a certain time, cease, and the 
 power of revision and amendment be exercised iu accordance 
 with the requirements of public interest. 
 
 But the privileges conferred in these acts, authorizing in some 
 cases the entire engrossment of streets, are without limitation : 
 and if, at any future time, the use of these public avenues should 
 be demahded for other purposes, there is no determinate peiiod 
 to which the inhabitants or corporate authorities could look for 
 a cessation of the privileges now granted. Nor is there any 
 power reserved on the part of the Legislature to alter, modify, 
 or repeal these grants, however flagrant shall be the abuses 
 which may grow up under them. 
 
 It is perfectly evident that the Governor is no 
 lawyer, or be -would have never made that remark. 
 
 Nor is there any provision in these bills piescribing a time 
 within which the proposed railroads shall be constructed. 
 
 of the distance to which a car. whf n started, shall prooepd. Rnn- 
 nin2 in zigzag directions, it is iu the power of the several com- 
 panies to break their connections at siiort intervals ; and thus, in- 
 stead of cirryii g a passenger the u hole distance he may wish to 
 proceed, compel him to pay two or more fares befare reaching 
 the desired pomt. 
 
 An objection more flagrant than any in which I have adverted, 
 is the utter want of responsibility which pertaiLs to these asso- 
 ciations. They are not required to file s.ny articles of a.»sociation, 
 and within a month after organization the public may be entirely 
 at a loss to know who are the parties in interest. Being withouw 
 a corporate name and without corporate responsibility' prosecu- 
 tions could only be nr.aintained against individuals and these, 
 with no accessible public record to exhibit either their namesj 
 residence, or interests, might prove altogether intangible. And, 
 as if his immunity were not sutficient, the bills before me, vio- 
 lating all just precedent provide that suits for damage or demand 
 be brought exclusively in the Courts of the First J udicial Dis- 
 trict. 
 
 The Governor bad not read the bill or he -would not 
 have said that nor bad he read the Constitution either. 
 He has not fjuoted the bill correctly; nor does he state 
 the ettect of it properly : 
 
 Thus while the persons upon whom these privileges are con- 
 ferred in these acts are residents of vaiious sections of the State, 
 litigants are compelled to resort for redress to the City of New- 
 York, no matter what may be the circumstances ot the case, or 
 how onerous the burden thus injposed. That this is a flagrant 
 departure from the principles and practice which govern ordi- 
 nary legal controversies cannot be questioned. 
 
 I have thus briefly stated my objections to these meaures, 
 drawn froni the inherent defects maiji.est in the bills themselvesw 
 They are in my judgUient of so grave a character, and so clearly 
 calculated to destroy the utility ol the measures proposed that 
 I cannot consent to become a part5- to their enactment. Sin- 
 cerely do 1 deprecate the w ant of additional railroad facilities in 
 the city, with whose interest, social, civil and commercial I 
 have long been connected. But I cannot consent to the sacrifice 
 of permanent interests lor temporary advantages. The measures 
 thus_ objected to are. iu their present shape, at variance with 
 justice and sound policy ; not in consonance w ith tte wishes, 
 or the wants of the great mass of those for whose benefit they 
 are professedly designed, and being deficient in those legislative 
 safeguards which should mark wise and discrimiitKiiiiglesislation, 
 my omy alternative lies in the exercise of my comtitutional 
 prero;:ative, and I tlieiefore return them severally without my 
 signature. E. D. .MORGAN. 
 
 We have not a word to add. The man of decent understand- 
 ing who reads this ^lessage understands the whole case— he 
 cannot but understand it. There is no question as to char- 
 tering the Roads— the only question is " Shall they be chartered 
 in the interest (primarily) of the community ? or solely in the 
 interest of the corporators?" That question the Legislature 
 proceeded to answer by passing the bill over the Governor's veto 
 by the following vote: . 
 
 [Here folio-sv the name of all those -who voted on the 
 Bill.] 
 
 — There were four or five other bills so passed, vetoed, and re- 
 passed over the vetoes, involving similar questions and interests, 
 and passed by nearly the same votes [for which see Daily 
 Tribune of August 7]. It is imnecessary here to recapitulate 
 them. The above is a fair sample of the whole. 
 
 Now, it is possible that there weie simp".etons in the Senate or 
 Assembly who voted Yea above because they knew no better: 
 and such should be kept carefully away from such dangerous 
 spots as Albany ever more. Their naturally anxious mothers 
 should never allow them to go out without sending some one 
 along to tell them and show them how to come in when it rains. 
 But the great body of the Yeas in the aboTe and on similar div- 
 ] sions were bought— simply, nakedly bought and paid for with 
 ' cash in hand, or the promise of profitable interests in the cor- 
 ' porations thus chartered; and a good many of them have been 
 i down here since the adjournment, looking sharply after their 
 I pay. Others, more circumspect, have only sent. The whole 
 I matter is just as notorious in well-inf«.'rujed circles as the negotia- 
 
 Nor is he a Constitutional la-^\'yer or he would never i f*"^ " Fusion" between the Bell, Dough s, and Breckinridge 
 
 have made that remark. 
 
 Secure in the privileges conferred, the parties in interest may 
 delay action to such time as their own couvenience shall be best 
 subserved. In the mean time the imnmnities granted may be 
 the subject of constant barter and sale, without the slightest ac- 
 criiing advantage to the public. Equally deficient are they in re- 
 quirements as to the time and manner in which the cars shall run, 
 
 factions. 
 
 The People will do just as they see fit about re-electing or 
 otherwise honoring the men who voted to override the Gov- 
 ernor's Vetoes as aforesaid. Our duty in the premises is doae 
 when we say that if any one of these unfaithful legislators, no 
 matter of what party, shall be re-elected or otherwise white- 
 
10 
 
 washed '• y a popwlar vote, it wiil be done without our aid and 
 agaiust our most earnest remonstrance. And here we rest. 
 
 Mr. Marsli then otlisred in evidence a copy of The 
 TKir.i NE dHted O.-t. 23, 1860. 
 
 Mr. Porter objected, ou the s.ime ground as before, 
 for defendant. 
 
 Objection overruled. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Mv. Porter — I must insist that the oeutleman read 
 "svithout interiKlariug. lie read tiie Governor's Mes- 
 saMe that -we could scarcely tell wbic'i was the Gov- 
 eruor t* an J whii h t \'.e coiint^tl. 
 
 Mr. Marsh— Wei!, it I . id not speak better Uw Hian 
 the Govcruor did, I sL.oi.Ll be asban^ed to belong to the 
 bar. 
 
 The Court suggested that the counsel better confine 
 Liniself stri. ily to the reading. 
 
 Mr. Marab then proceeded to read, as follovs^s: 
 
 it, shall at all t'm -i be frf.e"'y upheld in thi» 
 
 MR. D. C. LTTLEJOIIN— THE TIMES — GOV. 
 
 ARD. 
 
 \ OSWEGO COUNTY. 
 
 !EW- 
 
 roLiTics 
 
 CorrespoLdeUce of the N. Y. Tiiues. 
 
 ( )s\vK(,o, Saturday, Oct. 20, 1860. 
 
 The Uepal i" M:..rrin .iilv -viLle-av. aive in thi.s section o f 
 
 •the S^are. - ' ■ ii g Im^letn execited by the de 
 
 cree issued , ' ■ . ;>uf city, that Speaker Littlejohn 
 
 must not t e - .-r.ioe Assembly. 'J his impertineiice 
 
 iu local aft tii - ri th u a.-, an i;iterfere.iice, end the leasou given 
 for it is leg&rued a> a;, i.^sult. There is no n an in this ci'imini- 
 iiity who e> ys a l.juhtf ihararte' I'or peisonal integrlGy than 
 Mr. Litclejr-iiu' ana t .i,^ cb-a'g- uf corruption thai Mr. Greeley has 
 made a^iai: si 1; ui i- ne:i;(rd vvi:h c U'eioit 
 
 Tiieie wts a vt^iy lar-e me^tiu;! of the Re] ublicans held here 
 last i.iglit. at hich. ai'tdi- a speech of ail hour ai.d a half on Na- 
 tional politics, by Ex-Lieut. -Gov. H. J Rayojond, of your city, 
 Mr. Litilejohu discussed the State le^iislation ot last "\Muter, aud 
 e3peciariy th-' New-York railroad bills and other measures to 
 •which exception had been taken. He handled Mr. Greeley 
 without gloves — brar.dii g him as a calu ULiator, and as stabbing 
 private caaracter for the sake of attaining poliiical purposes ol 
 bis own. He ;--serted in i he broadest and uiost emphatic man- 
 ner, tha; h'^ li-d ce^er profited, nor expected to probt, to the ex- 
 tent of a :a;t]) .r.j, from any action he tver took as a legislator 
 wpon any public 'luestion whitever, and challenged contradiction 
 from any quarter. 
 
 Mr. Brown, the vigorous and independent editor of The Oswe- 
 go Times, has written a letter to Mr. Greelej^, handling the phi- 
 lojopher very much as he handles other people The public 
 feeling heie'is very decided and bitter against Mr. Greeley's 
 course. 
 
 The Republican ma.ioritj' iu this county will be larger than 
 ever before. Nubndy here, of any party, looks for le.-s than S'l,- 
 000 Lincoln majoritv in the State. The Fusion has hurt the op- 
 position very seriously all through this section. Liitlejohn will 
 be re elected by not less than 1,000 majoritj'. ' 
 
 POLmCS IN CENTRAL NEW-YORK — ONONDAGA 
 COUNTY. 
 
 Correspondence of The N. Y. Times. 
 
 SvKACrsE, Saturday, Oct. 20, I860. 
 The political c anvass is very vigurou8l \ conducted in this county. 
 The Republicans have the advantage very deciuedly oVer their 
 ■opponents m oi gauization, in union, and in ei thusiasui. TLei- 
 meetings are freijr.ei.t and large, aijd ij.dicate unuiistakably the | 
 popularity of their cause. This is one of the most decidedly [ 
 Anti-Slavery- counties in the State, yet tlie feeling of the Repub- 
 licans ia decidedly con.'^ervaii". e, and no one expects or desi es at 
 Mr. Lincoln's hands any intcrleience with Slavery or wiih the 
 constitutional :i.hts ot "the Slave States. The threats of disunion 
 produce not the slightest etFeci upon an} bod}'. 
 
 Mr. Yanc3 spoke Heie a few evenings since to a large audierce, 
 made up of men of all parties. He was exceedingly guarded in 
 his remarks, aiming to show that the North would leap cn st 
 profit from adow ing Slavery to extend and increase. Personally 
 he produced a favorable impression ; but the political etiect of 
 his speecii v,ili bt# to swell the Republican vote. 
 
 Mr. Greeley has been in the county making Lincoln speeches. 
 The principal object of his visit, however, seems to have been to 
 look after the Re"publicau IMeuibers of Assembly, iu whose pref- 
 erences for United States Senator he takes a very marked and pe- 
 culiar interest. .He made no speech iu this place, but held a se- 
 cret conference yesterday with some ten or fifteen Republicans 
 who are hostile to the re-election of Mr. Seward and are endeav- 
 oring to defeat the RepubUoan candidate for the Assembly. The 
 corruptions of last A\ inter's Legislature afford the ostensible 
 ground for this hostility. This county will give a much larger 
 Republican majority than ever before. 
 
 The foregoing bulletins appeir conspicuously in yesterday's 
 Times. In so far as they indicate the perfect affiliation of its 
 editor with the Littlejohu and Myers school of politicians, they 
 require no remark. Every mau's right to choose his own com- 
 
 pany and keep 
 journah 
 
 I\Ir. Littlejohn's " handlmg Mr. Greeley without gloves," 
 " bianding him as a ca^umnitor, and as stabbing private charac- 
 ter for the sake of attaining political purposes of his own," &c., 
 is all in the way tf business. I have a. " political purpose " to 
 subseive in the premises ; and that is to purify the" legislation of 
 our State fr</ni iuiluences and operations which have rendered it 
 a ten 01 to tax-payers, and a stench iu the nostrils of honest men. 
 tielieving this sort of legislation to be every way wrong and 
 ruinous, I mean to expel it from the St, t^, or at all events from 
 tne Republ'can party. If the Democrats see fit, as they have 
 done in Saiatoga County, not only to renoujinate their own cor- 
 ruptionists, but to take up and try to reelect those whom popular 
 indignation at their misdeeds has driven from ourpartj-, I believe 
 it wiJ be the worse for them. At ail even's, I shall do what ap- 
 pears to be cle.irly right, •■ in the faith that I{i;:ht makes Might.'' 
 
 is it not beautifully cool, this talk of my opposition to the re- 
 election i.f the tocds of the City Railroad jobbers as " impei- 
 tinei-ce in loeal affairs'?" When Mr. L'ittlejohn descended from 
 the Speaker's Chair la;t Winter to urge the Assembly to over- 
 ride a New Y^ork City Governor's veto of five bills proposing to 
 gridiron the streets of this Cit}- for the benefit of jobbers scatter- 
 ed all over the State, was not that " an ii.terference'' in " local 
 affairs?" Did he not know that our Municipal authorities and 
 our Tress all but unanimously protested agaicst the passing o 
 those bills in the shape objected to by Gov. IMorgan ? ^' Local, 
 affairs," eh ? Does not Mr. Littlejohn know that it is the gena al 
 scope and infiuence of such legislation as that we are now con- 
 sidering— with the fact that the Republican party is implicated in 
 and damaged by it— that has precluded the running again of nearly 
 all his CO adjutors in the objectionable legi.dation of last Winter, 
 and w ill defeat a good portion of those who have engineered a re- 
 nomination ? 
 
 But we are told that " there is no man in this community [Os- 
 wego] who enjoys a higher character for personal integrity than 
 Mr. Littlejohn." Every community of course erects and gradu- 
 ates iis own standards of integrity, and there is no objection, so 
 long as it does not attempt to thrust them on other people. When 
 I was in Chicago 
 
 Mr. Marsh— I am reading the wrong paper ! This is 
 an article on wnich we have another libel suit pending. 
 
 Mr. Porter insisted that the whole article should be 
 read. 
 
 Mr. Marsh declined; the gentleman might read it, if 
 he chose to put it iu evidence. I will withdraw it en- 
 tirely. 
 
 The Court decided it might be withdrawn. 
 
 Exception taken for defendant, ou the ground that 
 the pbiiniilf had no right to withdraw a paper thus par- 
 tially read. 
 
 Piaintirl rested. Adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, Sept. 10. 
 OPENING FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 Mr. Williams said: If your Honor please, the 
 plaintitt' having ofiered no proof to take this case out of 
 the doctrine of a privileged communication, we insist 
 ihtit a ctiuae of action is not made out on the part of 
 I the plaintift'. I understood the coursel on the other 
 1 side to put their claim to open the case upon the au- 
 I tbority of the case of Fry and Bennett, which was to 
 i the eftect that where the plaintiff must give affirmative 
 proof of malice, he is entitled to the opening. To that 
 we accede, as a proposition. The plaintitt' took the 
 case, as we supposed, to give proof of malice. We in- 
 sist he has given no such proof thus far— we therefore 
 move that the complaint be dismissed. We also move 
 that the complaint be dismissed upon the additional 
 ground, that upon the face of the article itself, it is by 
 
11 
 
 law a piivilepecl communication, and therefore not j 
 libelous. And we also insist, that upon a fair con- ! 
 struction of the word^ of the publication, it contains ; 
 }io libelous charge ag liast the plaiaiiff personally, but 
 is onlv a fair criticism upon the public acts^ of the ' 
 plaintiff. We say it is a privileged communication, ! 
 and then we say, whether privileged or not, there is ' 
 no charye contained in the words used that id libel- 
 ous of itself. 
 
 The Couut — I will rule first that it is not a 
 privileged cornniunication, and second that the terms 
 of the publication do import a hbelous charge jier- , 
 sonally upon the plaintilf, au i, therefore, it is libel- 
 ous as to hitti. ' 
 
 Exception taken for defendant to each of these 
 propositions. I 
 
 Court adjourned to Wednesday. 1 
 
 Wednesday, Sept 11, 1861. | 
 MR. WILLIAMS'S OPENING FOR DEFENSE. ! 
 
 Mr. Williams, in opening for the defense, said: ; 
 May it please the Court, gentlemen of the jury; it now 
 becomes my duty on the part of the defendant to state 
 to you the nature and character of the defense, and 
 the substance of what we expect to prove, and 
 60 to state it that you may be able if pussil)le 
 (as the testimony goes on, step by step) to apply 
 it to the case yourselves, tmd to fully appreciate 
 its bearing. It is imdou1)tedly the duty of the 
 counsel wlA sums up the case, to explain the 
 bearing of the testimony upon the various points of 
 the case. It is, however, well enough for the coun- 
 sel in opening to endeavor to relieve this duty as 
 much as possible; and it condaces to a better under- 
 standing of the tet-timony, especially if it be of an 
 intricate and circumstantial character, fully to explain 
 it so that the j ury may comprehend it and apply it to 
 the case as the testimony proceeds. 
 
 You have heard, gentlemen, from the counsel for the 
 plaintiff something of the nature of the case; he has 
 told you that it was an action for libel, brought by 
 Mr, Littlejohn, a member of the House of Represent- | 
 atives of this State and the Speaker of that House, 
 against Mr. Horace Greeley of the County of West- 
 chester, one of the editors of The TribUxXE newspa- 
 per, for an article that appeared in that newspaper on 
 the 26th of September last. Mr. Littlejohn, he told 
 you, at that time was a candidate for reelection to 
 the Assembly from the 1st Assembly District of Os- ; 
 wego County. And while he was so a candidate, he \ 
 has told you, that Mr. Littlejohn was bitterly and vio- \ 
 lently assailed in his personal character by an article j 
 published in The Tribune. " i 
 
 The counsel commented upon it at some length and ' 
 they have given some evidence wliich I suppose will ' 
 be claimed to be evidence of malice on the part of Mr. 
 Greeley in the publication of the article complained of. i 
 The learned counsel spent a few moments of his time in 
 speaking of his client. With the private character of his ' 
 Client, gen'lemen I beg leave to say here in the outset, 
 in my judgment we have nothing to do — we have noth- 
 ing to do whatever with the private character of Mr. I 
 Littlejohn. That has not been assailed in The Tuiijune 
 newspaper in any way or in any form as I understand 
 the meaning of the article complained of. Whatever 
 of good name Mr. Littlejohn may have as to his private ! 
 character as a citizen in your midst we are here with- 
 out any motive to assail it — we don't propose to assail 
 it. Whatever may be his domestic virtues, however 
 strongly may be attached to him his personal friends 
 and followers, we have not one word to say of that. 
 We would not abate the tithe of a hair from any good 
 name he may have won in this community by private and 
 domestic virtues. The learned counsel al^o commented 
 in his opening upon the character of the defendant. I ^ 
 thought the gentleman went aside a little — I think a i 
 little unprofessionally aside — to say something deroga- 
 tory of the defendant, lie spoke of bis being a lobby 
 
 member of the Legislature and of his having received 
 a bribe while a meriiber of Congress. 
 
 ]\Ir. Marsh — I did not say he received a bribe; I 
 said he was cliarged with it. 
 
 Mr. Wir,MA.M.s — I thought it a little unprofessional, 
 because Mr. Greeley's cliaracter is not on trial here. 
 The learned couns'el told you that Mr. Littl^-john's 
 character was on trial here. He certainly will not 
 pretend tliat Mr. Greeley's is. If he expect to get a 
 verdi^-t for damages, his damages look in some sense to 
 an indemnify for what he has suifered. You know that 
 if a man without character traduces you, it does you but 
 little harm; if a man who takes bribes lit»e's you, it is 
 comparatively harmless; but if a man, lofty in char- 
 acter, and pure in motives, assails you, it' does you 
 more harm. 
 
 It was scarcely in the way of the counsel, yet I do 
 not complain of it if the counsel thought it his duty; 
 but I am not liere to vindicate Horace Greel»-y, nor 
 apnlogize lor or palliate any act of his life. He needs 
 no apology, no iialliation, no vindication, from me or 
 from any other living man ! That I feel, and I leave 
 it there. It is not unprofessional, gentlemen, for coun- 
 sel to assail the character of their antag<miits when it 
 become a part of their case, or when it becomes in any 
 view important they should do so. You know that 
 we liwyers. when we get up before a Jury, are 
 privilcLjed men. I can say things abwit Mr. Little- 
 john, for instance, here before you, and, if pertinent to 
 the case, the law will protect me, which, if I said in 
 the street, I might be lirfble to an aciion for damages 
 — perhaps to impiisonment — for saying. I do not 
 comulaia that character should be assailed when it is 
 necessary to do so; but when it is not in any sense 
 necessary I have observed that the better part of the 
 profession avoid it, and I have thought it light to say 
 thus much to you, because there is always something 
 due to decorum which may not safely be withheld. 
 
 The learned counsel told you, gentlemen, that, when 
 Mr. Littlejohn was a candidate for election to the 
 Assembly from the First Assembly District in Oswego 
 County, an article appeared in The Tribune newspa- 
 per, which charged him with corruption as a legis- 
 lator. The words were these : 
 
 " A correspondent earaestly inquirps our opinioii concerning 
 the nomination for members of the Legislature of I). C. Little- 
 john at Oswego, and of Austin Myers at rfyrai.-use. On tliis sub- 
 ject our opinion has been so oft'^u expressed that it caimot be in 
 doubt. Both these persons were prominent in the corrupt legis- 
 lation of last Winter. According!}-, both of them ought now to 
 be defeated. Or, if they must be sent back to pursue their 
 career at Albany, it should not be the work of Republican 
 voters." 
 
 That IS the whole ot the article ! It is for publish- 
 ing that article, or for its being published in The 
 Tribune newspaper, that we are^ here to-day. Gen- 
 tlemen, it will be a part of our case undoubtedly, un- 
 der the ruling of the learned J udge, to show that Mr. 
 Greeley had no malice against Mr. Littlejohn. I do not 
 tliink ibe article on its face im{)]ies malice. As I un- 
 derstand it, Gentlemen, Mr. Littlejohn and Mr. Greeley 
 had known each other for several years— pertiaps for 
 many years. There had never been, so far as I am 
 informed, the blightest misunderstanding between 
 these gentlemen — not the slightest fceiiu^ whatever of 
 any character unkind or unpleasant in its nature. I 
 don't think that it will be pretended that up to 
 the publication of this article, anything ever appeared 
 in The Tribune newspaper, * or fell from Mr. 
 Greeley's lips, in the least degree unkind toward Mr. 
 Littlejohn. He had no malice." But he tells you on the 
 face of this paper, what he did think ; and he tells you 
 more emphatically in the article which the learned coun- 
 sel read in evidence — more emphatically, all the reasons 
 why he published this article,and why he was opposed to 
 the election of Mr. Littlejohn. He says, "on this subject, 
 our opinion has been so often expressed, that it cannot 
 be in doubt." How expressed ? The plaintiff s coun- 
 sel read to you last night from The Tribune the 
 
12 
 
 expressions bere referred to. It had been expressed 
 by saying through the columns of that journal that 
 there were measurep, acts, laws, passed by the Legis- 
 lature of 1860, that were corrupt, and no man wlio 
 voted for them ought to be returned to the Legit^la- 
 ture again: and he printed the names of every man 
 voting Tiro and con — Democrats and Republicans — 
 without the slightest shadow of a distinction of party, 
 or fiivor of pert-on, from beginning to end; and he 
 said that none of tliese men ought ever to be returnrd 
 to the Legislature. And when he is inquired of 
 again by the correspondent, he says: " Our opinion 
 on this subject," that is, our opinion on the subject of 
 returing any of the members who voted for the corrupt 
 measures of last Winter, " has been expressed," and 
 they read to you last night the expression of it referred 
 to. And, in the light of this, you see the motive, and 
 the whole motive, that actuated the publication of this 
 article. Mr. Greeley did believe, and he believed it 
 in common with almost every intelligent citizen of the 
 State of New-York, that the measures in question were 
 passed by corrupt and corrupting influences, which 
 made it corrupt legislation. He believed that! And 
 he thought that the purity of the Legislative body was 
 a consideration higher and more important than party 
 success, and therefore he said, all the men, of what- 
 ever party, who voted for these measures, ought not 
 again to be returned to the Legislature. He came 
 to believe this as other men came to believe it — as, 
 perhaps, some of you, as hundreds within the hearing 
 of my voice, came to believe it. Was Mr. Greeley at 
 Albany durmg the session ol that Legislature ? Not 
 an hour. Was he present when any of the corrupt in- 
 fluences were brought to bear upon any member of the 
 Legislature ? Why, if they had been going to do any- 
 thing of that kind, Horace Greeley is the last man on 
 the face of this round globe that would have been in- 
 vited to the interview ! How did he come to believe 
 this? Just as other men came to believe it — from the | 
 almost universal expression of opinion ; from the unan- ^ 
 imous voice, as well of individuals as of the public 
 press; by the voice of the Governor, through his veto 
 message; from the voice of Greene C. Bronson, , 
 speaking in the W^est Washington Market case; 
 from the voice of John McKeon, speaking in the : 
 eame case; from the voice of Wm. Curtis Noyes, 
 speaking in the same case — all good men and true. 
 Could Horace Greeley^ doubt it ? Read for yourselves 
 but one-tenth part of the bundle of scraps cut from 
 ditferent newspapers of ail parties from one end of the 
 State to the other, which I now hold in my hand, and j 
 could you doubt it ? It is an old saying that " what ! 
 everybody says must be true," and there is much good 
 sense in the a'dage. 
 
 Gentlemen, you were told in the opening that The 
 Tribune newspaper was the only paper that com- 
 plained of this — that The Tribune alone assailed Mr. 
 Littlejohn, and that it was vindictive in its tone and 
 in its spirit. They have given you all the evidence 
 they are at liberty now to give; all the evidence they 
 have got, or could get, tending to show that IMr. Greeley 
 was actuated by vindictive or malicious moiives. But 
 whether or not Mr. Greeley was actuated bv malicious 
 motives, I assert, and will prove if it is dispiited, that it 
 was, and has been, the universal voice of the press of 
 the State of New- York from the day these measures 
 were passed, find the fact was known to t!ie community 
 that they had passed ; up to this very hour it was, and 
 is, the universal voice of the press of the State of New- 
 Y^ork that the measures in question were corrupt, that 
 the acts were disgraceful, that the legislators were 
 corrupt men, disgraceful to themselves, disgraceful to 
 the State, a hissing and a by- word among men, and 
 to go down forever as a hissing and a by -word. If 
 Mr. Greeley or The Tribune fell into an error on this 
 point, it was the common error of the press every- 
 where. Gentlemen, the press has some "duties and 
 some rights. When you take up a newspaper, or go to 
 
 buy a newspaper for two, three, or five cents, as the 
 case may be, and there are two newspapers at the hame 
 stall, you take that which has the most news in ir. By 
 that very act you approve of putting all the news into 
 the newspaper that can be found. You want that news- 
 paper that tells you the most news. If a man is lit for 
 his place as a newspaper editor, he is a man who ob- 
 tains all the news he can — all the information, and all 
 the instruction for the people that he is able to obtain; 
 for these newspapers are in some sense our schoolmas- 
 ters in this Republican country, to bring us to the 
 knowledge of what it is im})ortant for us to know, in 
 order to preserve our Government and retain our liber- 
 ties. I say a man who assumes these functions, has a 
 duty to perform. You know, gentlemen, that a com- 
 mon carrier has a duty to perform to the public. If you 
 take an article to the "common carrier who plies his call- 
 ing upon the Lakes or elsewhere, and he refuses to 
 carry it, you sue him for it, and compel him to take it, 
 if it be within bis capacity to do so; because the law 
 recognizes his calling, and makes it his duty, as far as 
 possible, to exercise that calling for the best interests 
 of the public. So it is with a tavern-keeper, and a 
 score of other callings which I might name. And this 
 is true of a newspaper editor. He ought to tell you the 
 news, and let you know what is going on. He ought 
 to enlighten you; if the foe lurks in ambush, let 
 him tell us of it, and we will be on our guard. 
 If the foe to our liberties, our rights, j^our interests, 
 lies in wait for us, let the newspaper tell us of it. If 
 the foe is approaching, give the alarm. Don't stop to 
 get absolute proof of it, or he is upon us before we 
 can guard the gate. The editor should inform, ac- 
 cording to the best of his knowledge and belief, con- 
 cerning the subject. The community needs often to be 
 roused, and to be told of the stealthy approach of the 
 enemy, the suspected approach of the enemy, if you 
 please. That is the duty of the newspaper editor. He 
 is bound to do so if a true man and a lover of his 
 country and his fellow-men; and he will do it, though 
 he be called into court to answer for libels never so 
 often. If he has a duty to the public, paramount to 
 his duty to himself, he will, if he is a true man, sacri- 
 fice self-interest for the public good. If these meas- 
 ures were corrupt the people ought to know it, and 
 ought to be guarded against them and the repitition of 
 acts of similar corruption. Gentlemen, there was an 
 in(|uiry made by a correspondent of The Tribune, 
 desiriiig to know whether that journal would support 
 for re-electioa the men who had voted for this corrupt 
 legislation, saving that two of them, Mr. Myers of 
 Syracuse and Mr. Littlejohn of Oswego, were renomin- 
 ated, and demanding to know if The Tribune was 
 going to support these men ? We want to know, said 
 these inquirers, because The Tribune is an influential 
 paper and believes that purity is above party. " What 
 iias that paper to do with the people of Oswego ?" 
 Why, the paper circulates there and many people be- 
 lieve that it tells the truth ; and it is bound to speak out. 
 If silent it may mislead these people. They look into 
 the columns of The Tribune to see what Mr. Greeley 
 thinks of the matter. They want to know what Mr. 
 Littlejohn is, and vrhether' they ought to send him 
 back or not. They think the newspapers bound 
 to tell them one way or the other. That is 
 what the inquirer and the people of Oswego iu 
 effect said to this paper. Suppose the editor of 
 that newspaper had kept silent on the subject 1 He 
 misleads these people, don't he ? They wrote to him 
 for information and enlightenment on the subject, and 
 if he is a true man he will enlighten them. If he cares 
 for the interest of party alone he will not enlighten 
 them; but if he cares more for the interest of good 
 morals and of good government he will enlighten them, 
 though it rend the party in twain. That is our case 
 and our view of it. 
 
 That corrupt legislation of last Winter ! What do I 
 say ? " The corrupt legislation of last Winter ?" You 
 
13 
 
 have heard the expression a thousand times ! It is no- i 
 torious ! You eay " a man," but wheu you mean a 
 particular man. you say " the man." Everybody 
 knows w^hat you mean. The legislntion was notori- 
 ous ! Nothing could be more so. From the 17th of 
 April, 1860, up to this hour, more political nominations 
 have turned upon that than upon any other one thing 
 probably that ever occurred in the whole history of the 
 8tate of Nevv-York. I remind you of the Chicago Con- 
 vention; did not that turn upon this question of the 
 corrupt legislation of last Winter 1 You know whether 
 it did or not. You lieard men stuoifnng the State last 
 Autumn, making this the theme and almo.st the only 
 thenie, of political persuat-iou and of political discussion. 
 You lemember that Senator Spiuola, a Brooklyn Dem- 
 ocrat, traveled the whole State over, and throughout 
 the State of Maine and elsewhere. I happened to meet 
 him in Maine my nelf— giving everywhere as a reason 
 why the now rresideut of the United States should 
 not be elected — that this legislation was so corrupt, 
 making this ihe great argument against the liepublican 
 party; and this had to be met everywhere. If Mr. 
 Greeley had omitted to come forward and take 
 the ground he took in the article in question 
 be would have been recreant to his party, recreant 
 to his trust. The learned Counsel told you 
 that this legislation met with no rebuke. Why, gentle- 
 men, he told you that Mr. Littlejobn w^as re-elected 
 from the First Assembly District of Oswego, and sent 
 back to Albany, and that he was re-elected to the 
 Speakership again, without one word of reprobation 
 upon that subject. Gentlemen, the very caucus that 
 nominated Mr. Littlejobn for the Speakership last Janu 
 ary passed strong condemnatory resolutions of the 
 corrupt legislation of tbe preceding Winter, and of 
 "which. Mr. Littlejobn said to those around him, " he 
 hoped the resolution would be unanimously adopted." 
 Here it is: 
 
 Whereas, Certain measures at the last session of the Legisla- 
 ture were vetoed by the Governor, and subsequently passed 
 over his vetoes : and ' 
 
 Whereas, The people at the last election condemned these 
 measures, and sustained the vecoes of the Governor; therefore, 
 
 Be it Resolved, Tliat the Republican members of the Assembly 
 will, in their official capacity, sustain the principles set forth iu 
 the veto message of the Governor, and faithfully c&ixy out the 
 decision of the people as expressed at the last election. 
 
 Can you have anything more condemnatory than that ? 
 The counsel told you that no remonstrances were sent 
 np against these bills. Why, gentlemen, the name of 
 the remonstrances that were sent up was legion ! But 
 how iale ! I will endeavor to show you why it would 
 have done no good to have filled the Capitol with re- 
 monstrances against these measures. 
 
 Gentlemen, this case divides itself naturally as it 
 already occurred to you, I am sure, into two distinct 
 heads. First, Was there corrupt legislation during the 
 Winter of 1860 ? Second, Was Mr. Littlejobn promi- 
 nent in that coiTupt legislation ? Now, gentlemen, it 
 used to be said in old times that " the greater the truth 
 the greater the libel;" but those times are long gone 
 by; though even in those old times tbis maxim was 
 never applied to the case of a action brought for 
 damages. It only applied to caees of indictment. It 
 has always been true thtit the trutti of libel was a per- 
 fect defense in a civil action ; and, in this State, it is 
 made a perfect defense against indictment by the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 It is a perfect defense if we show that what we 
 have said to be true. Now, you will observe we have 
 charged two things: First, tnere was corrupt legisla- 
 tion during the Winter of 1S60; second, that Mr. Lit- 
 tlejobn was prominent in that corrupt legislation. We 
 shall prove the iirst of these propositions, 1 think, to 
 your satisfaction. We will put this branch of the case 
 beyond the possibility of a doubt. Now, let me pro- 
 ceed to show you the nature of this proof, and confine 
 your attention to a critical and minute examination of 
 the nature and character of this proof. You see at a 
 
 glance, it cannot be direct proof. You know tliat 
 if a man is going to commit a crime, he never 
 invites two or three good honest men to go 
 along and see hina do it — never! never! All male- 
 factors are convicted, if couvi.;ted at all, in almost 
 every instance upon circumstaniial evidence. A man 
 who is to do a wrong deed goes alone and in silence, he 
 invites no scrutiny and no observation. He knows, 
 perhaps, that there is one eye upon him — the eve above 
 — and he means there shall be no other. He is brave 
 toward Heaven, but he is cowardly toward man. You 
 see at a glance that the proof we have to give 
 you must be circumstHntial. If you were go- 
 ing to get the Legislature to give you, or 
 to a number of you, a million of dollars, 
 you would at once perceive that you had got to approach 
 the subject velvet -footed. You would tind it for your 
 interest to wear a sedate and perhaps a saddened 
 face, an air of modesty and quiet, which would not 
 subject you to scrutiny. You never would be seen 
 talking with anybody of a suspicious character; you 
 would never talk wnth anybody who would peacli 
 upon you; you would cover up jour footsteps as 
 carefully as pDssible. That is this case, isn't it ? 
 You see we have circumstantial evidence, and cau 
 have nothing else. If we had direct evidence, it 
 would be almost a suspicious circumstance — for it 
 would tend to impeach the ability with which the 
 scheme shotild have been concocted. We are charging 
 something pretty broad. It rests upon the shoulders 
 of a good many men, no doubt, and these men who 
 are implicated in it are just as guilty one as the other. 
 It is very hard to prove guilt' by gtdlt's own instru- 
 ments. We shall call witnesses, gentlemen, M'ith 
 whom we cannot converse and say — " What can we 
 prove by you?" They won't tell us. We have 
 got to call these men and get from them such cir- 
 cumstances as are calculated to convince yott morally 
 that this legislation of the Winter of 186Q was 
 corrupt. Mr. Littlejobn may be literally accurate 
 in many of his statements; I could put my hand 
 upon a good many of his printed statements with- 
 in the last year where he says " I never took a cent 
 directly or indirectly, for my vote or my influence in 
 the 'Legislature." Whether he did or not is not mate- 
 rial here. That is not necessary in any sense to es- 
 tablish our defense. Whether he did take bribes 
 or not is not a matter we are going to inquire into 
 particularly. We dont care much about that. We 
 are going to show that the legislation was corrupt 
 and that he was prominent in that legislation. 
 What is the word "prominent!" That it is more 
 difficult to convict Mr. Littlejoim of this, than 
 to convict perhaps most of the members who 
 were prominent in the Legislature, you may well im- 
 agine. He was the Speaker of the House; he was a 
 very influential man with that Legislature, if control 
 over their votes is evidence of influence. He was 
 prominent; he could come down from the Speaker's 
 chair and address the House with great effect. He is a 
 good speaker — an effective debater. He could carry 
 almost any measure he saw fit, and it was important 
 to have just such a man in just that place; and of all 
 men connected with the whole matter, he 
 nmst be kept above suspicion — hke the chaste 
 lady in the Masque, "lofty, spotless, and serene," 
 not even to be chatted at, but only pointed out and 
 grinned at by those satyrs and goblms of the Legisla- 
 ture — the Lobby. He must be a man who never re- 
 lents, whose heart has no softening toward corruption, 
 and who must never lend a ])ityiiig ear to the 
 ravens of the Lobby when they cry for bread. That 
 was a part of the progranune, and that was admirably 
 carried out by one whom I will denominate the Father 
 of the Lobby, and who had, in the peisnn of Mr. 
 Littlejobn, one whom I may denominate his fondest 
 and best beloved son. Now, under these circumstances, 
 Gentlemen, how do you suppose we cau prove Mr. 
 
14 
 
 Littlejolm'e connection \vith this matter? On tbe , 
 other bide, they have told us that v,e cannot prove | 
 it; the learred coiineel told us in tbe opening that we j 
 couM not look ibto tbe retesfies of bis heart and see ! 
 the motives he had ; it vras his boast that we could not j 
 look into that. Gentlemen, we shall prove it by cir- ' 
 cumstantial evidence, evidence by which almost every | 
 other crime is proven. We skall prove if. ; and when { 
 that is proved, you will agree with me that the task of i 
 proving that Mr. Littlejobn was prominent in it is ] 
 very slight. I don't think that wilfbe denied. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we have named iu our answer those 
 acts which are generally denominated the New- York 
 railroad acts, four or "live of them, and what is 
 called the Taylor and Brennau or " West Washington 
 Market bill, " of which the learned counsel spoke last 
 nieht. We have specified these; we might have 
 named many more; might name the Brooklyn Ferry 
 bill, to pass which the Common Council of the City 
 of Brooklyn appropriated $20,000. But let that paes. 
 It is important, in thirs view, to ask how came the 
 Common Council of Brooklyn to appropriate $20,- 
 000 to get that measure parsed. As you pass over 
 to Brooklyn you pay two cents ferriage, and 
 they thought " it too much ; they thought they | 
 ought to pay only one cent, and sought to obtain [ 
 the passage of an act to effect it. A great many I 
 people pass over these ferries, perhaps a mil- 
 lion daily. How many members of the Legislature 
 were there ? sav 150; and you want 76 votes to pass 
 a bill. But what did they want with $20,000 ? To 
 get 76 votes. These men who acted in Brooklyn 
 were not fools ; they appropriated it out of the Trea- 
 sury, $10,000 was spent, gone, from the Treasury of the 
 city of Brooklyn forever ! Where did it go to 1 What 
 do you suppose made them do that, if they had not 
 known that that was the way to get measures through 
 that Legislature. And Mr. Greeley is arraignei; before 
 you, for having the same opinion. They 'bucked their 
 opinion with $20,000. When a man bets $20,0():>, you 
 may know he has got a sure thing of it. 
 
 But their names are legion. I need not i o over 
 them. That Legislature was notoiiously cormpi; Gov. 
 Morgan stated openly that " eighty niembf r« of that 
 Legislature took money for their votes." liv. Little- 
 jobn, in one of his speeches, said "that perhaps more 
 members of that Legislature were open to improper 
 influences than of any other former Legislature." Mr. 
 Weed said: " God grant we may never look- upon its 
 like again." The-e measures, which we have denomi- 
 nated corrupt, and to which we mean principally to 
 confine our proof, were, you remember, vetoed by the 
 Governor, and they } assed over the Governor's veto 
 by a vote of two-thirds. Gentlemen, ever since 
 Sturtevant was imprisoned ia the City of New-York 
 for a contempt of Court, for refusing, as an Alderman, 
 to obey the lujunction of the Court, in granting and 
 giving' rights to lay a railroad track on Broadway and 
 other streets — from that moment until the 17th of 
 April, 1860, there has been iu this State a bevy of men 
 who know that in these railroads there was a gold 
 placer of inestimable value, and they have sought 
 their game with their whole hearts. It never was 
 achieved until that never-to-be-forgotten day, the 17th 
 day of April, 1860, when the wish of their hearts was 
 gratified, and they succeeded in the long-sought, labo- 
 rious, carefully-studied, ingenious, cunning measure of 
 taking out of the City of New- York— oh, I could say 
 millions, but I must say more than can be counted by 
 millions, something that cannot be valued by money. 
 I will speak of that hereafter. The City of I^ew-York, 
 you know, is peculiar in its geograpLical structure. 
 Unlike other great cities, it may be almost said to 
 have length without breadth ; it is'^nearly fifteen miles 
 in length, and scarcely two in width. On the one side 
 is the North Kiver, and on the other winds the East 
 River. At the lower part of the town most of the busi- 
 ness is done; Wall street, the great money market of 
 
 this country, is, you know, far down in the low er part 
 of the city. Men who do butiness down town live up 
 tow^n; men who do business in New-York like 
 to live in the city, and I have sometimes thought it 
 might almost be a duty to do so. If they do not live 
 there, they cannot vote tliere. Where tiieir projierty 
 is, there they desire the rights of citizenship, and of 
 voting for its protection. If they live there, they 
 must, morning and evening, go up and return through 
 this tunnel, if I may call it so, from their places of 
 business to their homes. Some means of getting up 
 and down quick is indispensable. Now there are the 
 Third, Sixth, and Eighth Avenue lioads, which are 
 the principal routes up and down. You may go up 
 these roads iu the morning and evening, and you will 
 observe cars that will cairy about 40 persons, if 
 crowded close, with 70 seated or hanging on. As a 
 general rule, between 8 and 10 o'clock in the morning 
 the cars may be eaid to average from 00 to 70 passen- 
 gers, some hanging on at the risk of personal safety. 
 Omnibuses ply up and down, running on the same 
 streets with the railroads, and you go into an omnibus 
 when you cannot get into a car; otherwise you get up 
 town the best way you can. We have felt this incon- 
 venience for a great while ; we have felt that there 
 must be more railroads up and down the city; we have 
 known that the Third and Sixth and Eighth Avenue 
 liailroads, make nominally modeiate dividends, per- 
 haps 15 or 20 per cent on the money nominally in- 
 vested, but a small part of which was ever acttially 
 invested as capital, for it is not well to tell the 
 public that they are doubling their money every six 
 months. Some of those boys in the Sixth Ward might 
 not like to hear of their making profits so immensely 
 large. But those who have been behind the scenes, as 
 the Third Avenue Kaihoad, know that there never was 
 anything so lucrative in this country as sotce of these 
 roads. I have no doubt the money actually invested 
 there doubles itself once every six months. They dis- 
 pose of what it will not do publicly to divide, by meas 
 ures judiciously concerted. All is well taken care of. 
 The stock is owned by a few individuals. I believe 
 Mr. Weed owns $60,000 of it, and George Law the 
 greater part of all the rest. These proportions may 
 not be precisely correct. I only mention it incidental- 
 ly. Now, gentlemen, we want these railroads; we 
 havebten laboring hard to get them for a good many 
 years. The Governor, ia his message, said that the 
 people wanted them, and he is a citizen of New-York; 
 and, although the learned counsel made some remarks 
 about Gov. Morgan, which I thought a little out of 
 place, for I believe in deference, as well as obedience, 
 to magistrates. But I do not complain ; seeing it was 
 necessary he should say it. It has been said by Mr. 
 Littlejobn that the message which was read to us vir- 
 tually imputes corruption to every member of the 
 Legislature. He wi?<.sZ attack the Governor; there is 
 no other way; the Governor's me.ssage stands between 
 him and a verdict. He understood that. I do not com- 
 plain of the attack, only I would speak with what re- 
 spect I could of the Ci^^ef Magistrate of the State. I 
 don't think it does any good to depreciate the officers of 
 the Government before the public. Obedience to the 
 law and deference to magistrates are cardinal virtues. 
 They are the very palladium of liberty itself. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I say we wanted these roads; we 
 knew that the Third, Sixth, and Eighth avenues have 
 five cents a piece for carrying passengers back and 
 forth; and we know they made these itmnense amounts 
 of money ; and nobody knows better than that loi:)by, 
 of which the counsel spoke last night when he charged 
 Mr. Greeley with being a member of it, the immense 
 value of these franchises. They have been trying 
 from year to year to get these or similar bills through. 
 In 1859 they succeeded in the House, and lost ic in 
 the Senate by only one or two votes. And when the 
 Autumn of 1*851) came round it became exceedingly im 
 portant to arrange etiectually to carry these measures. 
 
15 
 
 was known that the Legislature would he Repuhliran j 
 ■. lien elected. Thor^e geirlenien ot the Lol>>)y discov | 
 t ied that there was one glorious pretext to put'forward I 
 to reach a clas^ of rnen who were strong politicians, 1 
 and who thought pa^ty was to be advanced a liftle j 
 over the head of sonie highec principles. Tliey hit I 
 upon a plan for carrying it; it was wortliy of its great I 
 author, the father of the l^obhy. They faid : " we pro- 
 pose now, that this Letjislature pass these railroad bills, 
 and out of these bills v\-e will get the whole fund that 
 we want to elect our President. We will get a million 
 dollars out of tliese bills to sfiend in electing our Piesi- 
 dent next Fall — in electing Sir. Seward it he sliould be i 
 nominated." That was one plan fixed upon. It [ 
 seemed to them that the pretense was at least plausible, , 
 and that it might carry; conseciuently that was put 
 forth for the ear of some. It had this tendency at 
 least, to let the wliole thing go into the hands of those i 
 who were the acknowledged leaders and managers of 
 the party. If A. B. was one of the managers of the j 
 party, he says: " Now, C. D. cannot comphiin that I i 
 have a liand in this, for I act for the party." C. D. | 
 does consent that A. B. may manage it for the party. 
 Ir, was a good pretext at all events, and it had the 
 effect to get it into the hands of the leaders 
 of the part\'-. Well, gentlemen, in the city of 
 New-York, in the Autumn of 1859, this was 
 the real though disguised issue upon which can- 
 didates for the Legiblature were elected or de- 
 feated. You will observe there were various inter- 
 esrstc^ be considered in this thing. The first was the I 
 corrupt Republican Lobby interest, which was ciis- i 
 guised by the pretense of a party fund to elect Mr. } 
 Seward. The second was corrupt Democratic Lobby j 
 influence, which took the disguise of the stage mo"- i 
 nopoly. I 
 
 Tbe're were men who had invested in New-York 
 omnibus stage lines a very large amount of capital. ] 
 If railroads are put on the same streets, they would 
 drive the omnibuses off, atd these men would sustain j 
 great loss — consequently they should be indemnified. ' 
 That was plausible and well'done, but it was simply a 
 blind. There are three men who managed that. They 
 were leaders at Tammany, and claimed to represent 
 the stage interest. It was very wise, you see,' to let 
 the Democratic party or some of tlie leaders into this 
 thing, so far as to have some hoi i upon the Demo- 
 cratic members, and one-third went to these men, un- 
 der the pretense of the stage interest. But, Gentle- i 
 men, I think we shall show to you that the stage in- \ 
 terest — the real men — never got a dollar. That was ! 
 the second interest. Now, Mr. George Law, owning, 
 as you know, a large interest in the railroad already, 
 has an interest that would clearly be afiected by any : 
 additional roads. For, there is tile Sixth avenue road 
 running along on one side of the Seventh avenue, and I 
 there is the Eighth avenue road ruuuing aloner the 
 other side. Now, those who own on this Sixth or 
 Eighth avenue railroad — if they can carry 70 passen- 
 gers in one car, instead of 40, which is the full caiiacity 
 of a car — they would be damaged by having ccmipeting 
 a road put down in the Seventh avenue. That was 
 clearly so. Now, Mr. Law and his party I will call 
 the George Law interest — not meaning any disrespect 
 to him, personally, at all — and I may say herel cannot 
 Rtoj) in what I am saying, to apologize for eveiy name 
 I may mention. I mean no jiersonal disrespect to any- 
 body. I am telling you facts, and whomsoever they 
 hit, they must bear it — I cannot help it. Thus, 
 you see that Mr. Law had really large interests 
 here; he thought he had as large a stake in it as any- 
 body, and I think so too. Mr. Law forced himself 
 iipon the other two interests — the corrupt Repub- 
 lican (called in New-York " the Machine Republicans' ) 
 and the corrupt Democratic — not until he had circum- 
 vented them in the Senate, and had the majority of 
 that body in his pocket — he had passed bis ''Gridiron 
 bill " in the Senate and they were compelled to make 
 
 terms with hiai and take him i i as an equ^ partner. 
 Fro 71 thi.t time forth, George Law^ owned atliird; the 
 Republican lobby a third; the Democratic lobby the 
 remaining ihii d.' 
 
 Let nie just glance over this airain. There were 
 three interests; one I will call the New -York niiboadi 
 monopoly, represented by Geo. Law (I might have 
 called if, by that name before, and avi.-ided the 
 us-, of Mr. Law s name); then the corrupt Democratic 
 Lobl>y interest, and, third, the corrupt Republican 
 Lobby interest. These three were the represented in- 
 terests in these measures; and I think if we should 
 strain matters a little, they would come down pretty 
 nearly to be led by three men. Under this organiza- 
 tion when a man came up for election from the 
 City of New-York in t')e Fall of 185^ it berame 
 of considerable importance where he shoald be 
 upon the great (^uesiion. This programtLe was 
 ado])ted. To illastra^e — A. B. gets the nomination of 
 tlie Republican party; he U felt of and found to be all 
 right on the question. " Very well," says the Demo- 
 cratic interest, "let him be elected." Then C. D.. 
 gets a nomination in anot' er district b}^ the Demo- 
 cratic party. He is felt of and found all right — " Let 
 himgo in,'' say the Republiean leaders. But tiere comee 
 a man from the Republican side—" It won't do to trust ; 
 he is honest and true, don't trust him." So say these 
 Republicans in secret — " We will let him be lieieated; 
 let the Democrat go in, he is safe." In iha" way taey~ 
 went through the city, though with immense labor; 
 and they got almost every man in that city safe for 
 them; and that is the reason why the learned counsel 
 on the other side found last night that the New- 
 Y^rk members nearly all went for these measures. 
 That is the secret, and you may as well understand 
 it, ^'entlemen, though perhaps at the exj'ense of weary- 
 ing you. 
 
 \\ ell, gentlemen, we will say the members are now 
 elected, " We have elected our men" chuckled the 
 lobby, " out of the difiierent parties; we have taken 
 glorious good care of that little town of Syracuse; and 
 we think we are toleraMy safe on Oswego.' It t irned 
 out they' were entirely sa^e at Oswego. We will go 
 up to Albany now. The Demo ratio and Republicarij 
 iiitejesis are there at Albany ; they are going t'^ make 
 sure work this time. Up to this time, you will recol- 
 lect, there were but two parties to Ibis scheme — the^ 
 whole loots to be divided only by the figure 0. 
 
 " Biightly it sparkles to plunderer's eyes.'' 
 
 At first this thing seems to be going through all right. 
 Mr. George Law, a man of great wealth, and of great 
 ability — 1 si>eak what I know — discovers this plan. 
 Now, says Mr. Law: " I am not going to let these fel- 
 lows rob me.'' He goes up to Albany and goes to 
 work in the Senate. In the Senate tiiere aie 3"2 
 members, and you know of them would be sufficient 
 for his purposes. Mr. Law went there with Ids money 
 and his genius, his friends and his retainers ; and got 
 up what was called the *' Gridiron Bill." Embracing 
 all the feasible routes in the city and aggrega ing them 
 into one bill, he got that through the Senate. You see 
 then, that Mr. George Law has checkmated them; and 
 done it very well, very cleverly. There mast be a 
 compromise now. It takes place, and Mr. George 
 Law joins with the other two interests, and then they 
 divide these into five measures — into five bill.-^, putting 
 in the names of persons satisfactory to these three 
 great interests. Mr. Law, the Railroad interest. 
 
 Mr. , well I won't mention his name, and 
 
 his associates and followers, the liepublicau in- 
 terest; and for the Democratic interest — I may 
 as well call Peter B. Sweeney hy name: for you 
 know who I mean; he is Sachein of Tammany, 
 a lawyer in New-York; was once Public Administra- 
 I tor; a'fterwaul District-Attorney, though he mielyif 
 ! ever appeared in Court; I believe he was afterward 
 I Commissioner, appointed by the Speaker of the House, 
 
16 
 
 to appraise Dr. Thompson's and other damages occa- f you got it there was a provision ia the Constitution 
 t;ioned !»y the burning of the Quarantine property of . that they aij^ht tdke it: away, and you take it subject 
 Staten Island— though he was not a Eepublicnn nor a I to that ])rovision— it is a part of the bargain by wnich 
 Know-Nothing, as I believe Mr. Littlejohu was when ' you ac(|uire it. Kow, these men did nt mean to make 
 he iirst went to the Assembly. two bites of a cherry. From the time I iiave referred 
 
 Mr. Foster— Does the counsel mf-an to say that i to, when this magnificent mine of wealth appeared he- 
 Mr. Sweeney was appointed by Mr. Littlejohu ? He j fore the eyes of the politicians of that day— from that 
 liad better say Gov. 31organ, if he means to speak the j time, to the time they attained it, whatever of iu- 
 :iutb. ^ I genuiry, whatever of skill, could be brought to bear 
 
 Mr. Williams — I see they repel the imputation | upon the subject, has been brought to bear; and by almost 
 ihat Mr. Sweeney was appointed by Mr. Liitlejohn. I j a flight of genius these acts of 1860 were so framed as 
 ghall be glid if they relieve themselves of that imputa- I to evade this glorious constitutional provision ! Evade 
 tion. I hope it v\;on'_t trans^-pire during this trial that ; v7/ _ Wickedly evade it! Evade it iu fraud of 
 Mv. Littlejohn is in any closer connection with the rights of the people; for it subjected the people to 
 Mr. Sweeny than what I have indicated. I see a cruel monopoly of moneyed, huge, unwieldy, soul- 
 they shrink from it. They had better slirink less corporations, which were afterward fortiied and 
 from it; they will be fortunate if they evade i'u. took assignments of the grantees in question. These 
 Though Mr. Law had this stupendous interest, acts create no corporations, nothing of the kind; they 
 his name does not appear on any of these bills. The cor- ^ give to A, B, C, D, E, F, G-, H, and thtsir assigns for- 
 rnpt le aders of the Republican party who had these mil- : ever the rights and franchises conferred. You see 
 lions of iiitei est iu these bills, observed the same cau- | it is a grant with no power to take ic away under 
 tion: their names do not appear; but I think the name j the provisions of the Constitution, conferring tfie right 
 of Mr. Peter B. Sweeney aiid those of his two princi- to lay down and run these various roads aJl over the 
 pal associates do appear. I don't know why they city ; everywhere a road can by any possibility be nec- 
 saw tit to take this risk, but they did. Perhaps they essary or profitable. They give it to these grantees 
 had not so trusty followers as the other interests had. and their assigns forever ! The plan was most cun- 
 Gentlemen, a good many years ago, when the old Dem- ningly devised. The more I consider these laws, the 
 ocratic party was in existence — for although I never > more I appreciate the astonishishing intellect of that 
 was a member of it, I cannot wi'hholdthe expression of ' man to whom I have so often referred for I am told 
 my admiration of some characteristics that old "party as it that it was his device that thus laid the constitution 
 once was — a fierce war was, as you remember, waged ; powerless at the foot of the Lobby. Thus he counseled 
 upon corporations as dangerous monopolies. They were ' with himself and his confederates — " We will have the 
 right ! When the convention of 1846 came together, franchises granted to A, B, C, D, E, F, and their 
 they provided by the fundamental law of the State that ! assigns — to persons who shall hold them for 
 corporations thereafter created should forever be sub- i us and transfer them at our bidding; then we 
 ject to legislative control, should be dissolved, their . will form corporations under the general act 
 charters taken away, repealed or modified if the legis- of 1850, and take assignments from these per- 
 la'ive power saw fit to do so. It was a good and wise sons to our corporations, and there we are 
 provision ; it was a protection which we needed in our forever secure from the people, whether their majesty 
 fundamental law. They meant to protest the people speak through Legislatures or constitutional Conven- 
 against the tyranny of large moneyed mon'opolies; and tions, we are safe." " We will do that; and then we 
 they did well. That Constitution stands to day. It I will form corporations without personal responsibility 
 stood in full force and power on the 17t;h of April, 1860. [ or liability; lay down tracks and run these roads or 
 It was necessary, because a franchise given by the not, as we see ht, we have it all in our own hands for- 
 Legislature; the"^ law-making power — is in the nature , ever." *' Our franchises are purchased from individuals, 
 of a contract; it had been so decided by the Court in ! and no Legislature, no law, no Court, no constitution- 
 the case of the Dartmouth College — that a fran- al Convention, nothiog under the broad light of heaven 
 chise — a gift to the founder of that college — is iu can ever take away from us this right ! VV^e have got 
 the nature of a contract, and could not be taken it to-day; we have got it forever and forever !" 
 away by the Le.sislature. The Constitution of ; That is the fearful truth ! There is but^'one 
 the United States provides that no State shall pass . event that can take it away, and that is that 
 any law impairing the obligation of contracts; ' awful event — Revolution! That is the only thing 
 therefore if a contract exists, any law of the that can ever take away these rights. Gentlemen, it 
 State, an act of the Legislature impairing it was competent, it was usual to provide in acts of the 
 would be void, as contravening the provisions of the character of these, " These acts may be repealed by 
 Constitution of the United States. A grant is a contract; any subsequent Legislature," and then it would be in 
 a franchise, a gift, a right conferred by the Legislature the power of the Legislature to take away these 
 is a contract, and since the case of the Dartmouth Col- grants, because it was a part of the bargain that 
 lege this principle has never been doubted. No legis- gave them that they might be so taken away, 
 lative power can take it away. The Constitution of Yet only one of these acts had that clause m 
 1846 provided that hereafter wheo the Legislature it. The Legislature had their attention called 
 grants franchises, the Legislature shall have the power to the subject you see; because they pro- 
 of taking them away; and those who take any of these vide in only one of the bills that the grants may be 
 grants, shall take them subject to the right of the I repealed or modified, but the others never — never! 
 Legislature, to take them away. If I sell you a horse , Under that one, in which there is this right to take 
 to-day, with the right to take it back to-morrow, I can back, they have got organized with a President and 
 do so, because it is a part of the bargain ; but if it is Secretary and opened their stock-book, and it forms 
 not a part of the bargain, I could not do so. Thai is | what is called the Belt road. It runs along the North 
 the case exactly. Keep it steadily before you, that under and East Rivers, across near the Central Park, 
 our State Constitution, no grant could be made to any j and belts the lower part of the city corn- 
 corporation, or joint stock company, or company having { pletely. This franchise is of very great value, 
 the rights, franchises, &:c., of a joint stock company it runs along by these docks (pointing to the map) 
 which the Legislature could not take away ; so that all in the lower part of the city where an immense busi- 
 gi'ants to corporations, companies, and associations nees is done; so if you have goods there upon these 
 were taken, subject to the right of a future Legisla- docks they can be run right out on to the track and 
 ture to take them away. If you form a corporation, then they are ready for transportation to any part of 
 or procure a charter from the Legislature, any future the city. That is one of the most valuable interests 
 Legislature can take it away again : because before probably in the world. The corporation when they 
 
17 
 
 ome together fixed the stock value of the franchise at 
 Mie million and a quarter of dollars. They were very 
 cimriing to value it at this comparatively trifling sum, 
 if they had put it ten million dollars which is its prob- 
 able vfilue, they would have alarmed the people. But 
 we will t;ike their estimate of it — a million and a quar- 
 ter ! ! True, this grant has a repealing ^-lause in it; but 
 t lie others have none. The Seventh-avenue grant is 
 •-ircfely less valuable, and that is true of some of the 
 other grants: and this ioimense amount of proj)erty 
 was nominally given to various persons named in these 
 bills respectively by the Legislative acts of which we 
 complHiu, and which we say were corrvpt. That act 
 is corrupt, which ought not to have been passed by 
 reason of having been voted for from motives other 
 than the public good. If when you are about to elect 
 a man from your District to represent you at AU)auy, 
 he says, " I'want you to elect me to tbe Legislnture, 
 for, although the property of the State behmgs to all 
 the citizens alike, yet I want to take a million dollars 
 worth of the property of the State and give it to A B, 
 C D, and E F ; " you would reply, ' ' O no, you must not 
 do that; you must not take away our property and give 
 \ it to individuals; that is not right. You must legislate 
 for the good of all — for the good of the whole State. 
 You must not select a single individual interest, and 
 promote that at the expense of all the rest ; thac is cor- 
 rupt." You heard the oath administered to the Grand 
 Jury — " you do solemnly swear you will present no 
 person from envy, hatred or malice; you will with- 
 ' hold no presentment through fear, favor, affection, re- 
 ward, or hope of reward." If they violate that oath, 
 they should' be indicted, and your "District Attorney 
 would charge theniyin the indictment with having act- 
 ed corruptly. We say a usurious contract is a corrupt 
 contract — that the parties corruptly agreed to take 
 more than seven cents fof the use of a dollar for a 
 year. A usurious agreement is by law a corrupt 
 agreement. The statute of 1853 provides tliat a party 
 may he indicted for being influenced to give his vote by 
 any external consideration of good or advantage — an in- 
 dictment for a violation of that act must charge him wiih 
 having committed a corrupt act. Now we charge these 
 acts with being corrupt ! We say tbat these persons 
 voted to take away from the State a franchise, or ra- 
 ther give away from the State a right, which was 
 of great value, to individuals, selected individui'ls; 
 and the very act itself on its face was corrupt. If your 
 servant, when his friends come around hiai, gives 
 away your property, a hoe to-day, and a wheelbarrow 
 to-morrow, and a shovel tlie next day, you don't think 
 there is much difference between his case and that of 
 the man who takes your property without giving it 
 away to his friends;' you don't think there is nmch 
 difference; there is none in law and none in morale. 
 But to the act 8 : An act to authorize the construc- 
 tion of a railroad on southwest, and certain other 
 streets in the City of New- York." 
 
 Mr. Foster — There is no such bill mentioned in the 
 answer. 
 
 Mr. Williams— Is your position this, that you will 
 not allow me to prove corruption on Mr. Littlejohn by 
 showing it through this act ? If this is your position 
 tell the Jury so. 
 
 Mr. Foster — I am not here to be catechised; I pro- 
 pose to talk to the Court. 
 
 Mr. Williams — [proceeded to read from the acts; 
 reading the names of the grantee8,characteri8ing tliem 
 as for the most part, unheard of and unknown individu- 
 als holding DV appointment — holding for tlieir 
 masters]. Gentlemen, these acts took that form, 
 and they came forward to be passed in tbat form — giv- 
 ing franchises to men — Why given to these men ? 
 Why not give to Mr. Weed. Mr. Law, and Mr. Swee- 
 ney and their associates, the real owners of them? 
 They did not choose to let their names appear. Millions 
 given away here, to men you never heard of — you may 
 poll this Court-room and you cannot find a single man 
 
 2 
 
 who ever heard of half of ihem; you cannot find teu 
 men who know one of them. In some countries it is 
 commoa to pension a veteran patriot who has done 
 great service to the nation. It is so in England. I 
 look with admii-ation on the English Constitution in 
 that respect. The great Duke was pensioned. I re- 
 member billing in the Ilonse of Commons when the 
 vote was passed giving a ])en8ion to the Speaker who 
 had filled the chair of tiie House of Commons for 18 
 years, without having received a shilling for his ser- 
 vices. It ib common and I conceive proper, for Legis- 
 lative bodies to reward the services of great men vtho 
 have served their country; men who have exposed 
 their lives upon the field of battle. 
 
 " PatriotB h'^ve toiled, and in their country's cause 
 Bled nobly ; and tlieir deeds, as tbey deserve, 
 Receive proud recompense. We t'lve in charge 
 Their names to the sweet lyre. The historic muse, 
 Proud of hT treasure, marches down to latest time ; 
 An sculpture, in her turn, gives bond in stone 
 And ever-during brass, to guard them 
 And immortalize her trust." 
 
 But who ever heard of these men who have mil- 
 lions given them ? Your money and mine ! The 
 State of Maryland, a few years ago, contemplated the 
 necessity of running railroads through the City of Bal- 
 timore, and what did they do ? They gave the fran- 
 chise to certain individuals, pledging them to proceed at 
 once upon tlie work or lo::=e the franehise; they fixed 
 the fare at five cents, provided that one cent on each 
 passenger should be paid into the City Treasury to 
 make a park; and that one cent to-day has built a 
 park superior to the New- York Central Paik, which 
 has cost nearly $7,000,000! Thgt js history. Seven 
 million dollars it has cost to-day, and it is but begun, 
 Baldmoie, I am told, has a park superior to 
 this, out of the one cent of the five cent fare on just 
 such railroads as these. Take away my property and 
 yours! I tell you, they take away the property 
 of every man in the State of New-York. These men, 
 then, have got these franchises. I will give you the 
 form in which they dispose of their stock. It will be 
 a printed paper like this: " For and in consideration of 
 the sum of $10, to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof is 
 hereby confessed and acknowledged, I — whoever it may 
 I be— hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set over to such a 
 , corporation — naming it — all my right, title, andinterest 
 ; in and to the franchise conveyed to me in chapter 111 
 of rtct so and so; to have and hoM unto the said corpor- 
 ation forever." That is the way they have disposed 
 j of their tranchises, or at least a ]^art of them. We 
 I shall take the trouble to prove only one of these as a 
 j sample. Now, these men named,' as I have told 
 I you, represent respectively one of the thiee in- 
 I terests. The division of those respective interests 
 j was carefully agreed upon and fixed before the pas- 
 \ sage of the acts. Some of these men have not been 
 ' true to tbeir masters; although, gentlemen, in the cor- 
 rupt machine politics of the day, the great virtue of a 
 man is to be false to every human being but one — a 
 man like the man who "hasn't anything and wants 
 something;" the man who brought the pi[)e-layers 
 from Phifadelphia in company witli the man in a snuff- 
 colored coat and a white hat — vou remember all about 
 him. The great virtue to be true to one and false to 
 all else is rare, but such men can be found, and tbey 
 are the most valuable men in the world. Kochefoucault 
 sought such men and would have no other about him, 
 and" the Kochefoucault of this country has adopted the 
 same maxim. It is said that a majority of one of these 
 franchises have already been sold out for $50,000 — the 
 road most needed by the people of that city — to a party 
 whose pecuniary interest absolutely forbids him to 
 build or run the road. I do not assert this as a fact — 
 though it is highly probable — so probable that if it be 
 not already done I feel sure it will soon be done. In 
 this event of course the miuoritv grantees will stand a 
 pretty good chance to lose all benefit from their fran- 
 chise ; at all events it is miderstood there never will 
 
18 
 
 "be a trac'k laid do"^n over that aveuue. Ton will re- 
 member the Governor ia his veto-message suggested 
 the very thing to Mr. Littlejohn and his associates be- 
 fore he came down from the speaker's chair to advo- 
 cate the passage of these bills over the Governor's 
 veto. You recollect that he said that these 
 grantees were not a corporation, and there- 
 fore not within the provision of the Constitution, and } 
 therefore the grant was iu perpetuity. The message 
 which the learned counsel attacked with such severity ! 
 He suggested to Mr. Littlejohn that there is no obliga- ! 
 lion imposed on these grantees to make or build these 
 roads by the bill iu question. He says these roads are 
 needed very much ; but by making the bill a law, if I 
 the gi-autees or their assigns have sucli interest in an- i 
 other road as to make it for their best interest not to [ 
 build this road, or either road, they never will build it. ' 
 it is easy to suppose those who own the Eighth and I 
 Sixth avenue Kailroads have such an interest in j 
 them that they find it for their interest to prevent the 
 building of the Seventh avenue Road ; they never will ! 
 build It ; they never will permit it to be built. That is ! 
 clear. Are you going lo compel them to build it ? 
 You cannot. The Governor teUs you there is no 
 provision to compel them to do it. They may hold 
 these franchises forever and never build those roads. 
 And you may go to New-York in 1870 — when your 
 children are doing business there in 1890 you and they 
 will go up in cars with 70, hanging on inside and 
 out at the hazard of life and limb, because eomebodv 
 under this act owns the franchise on the Seventli 
 Avenue, and there are no cars there. It will be so in 
 1890; it will be so in 1900, and soon until— what? 
 Call a convention for a new Constitution? That will : 
 not remedy it. " No State shall pass any law impair- j 
 ing the obligation of contracts'' says the Constitution I 
 of the United States. Gentlemen', a revolution that j 
 sweeps away all things and opens wide the grave of j 
 empire, between yoa and your children to-day i 
 and the privilege of going up the Seventh Avenue in \ 
 a car, 10, 20 or 50 years hence ! The thought ia 
 overwhelm, ing, but it is true. What di!>posi- 
 tion has been made of this franchise one can- 
 not hear; but it is true that not a blow has been 
 struck directly or indirectly by any of these 
 grantees or their assigns to build a road on any one of 
 these avenues, though they might build a road iu three i 
 weeks' time for about $10,000 a mile. They have not | 
 done it. Are they going to do it ? Ask "those deep [ 
 in the secrets — peihaps they will tell you. Are you I 
 going to build these roads? We demand of them, Are j 
 you trading and speculating on these franchises iu Wall j 
 street 1 Or are you selling these rights, these franchises, , 
 or realizing on them, just as you gamble with stocks iu | 
 the stock market ? They have not done anything j 
 yet, and they cao never be forced to do anything, un- 
 less you upset the Government by a revolution.' The 
 law cannot do it. The Legislature cannot do it. A 
 Constitutional Convention cannot do it. There is no 
 power to do it. Revolution ! Kevolution alone stands 1 
 between you and me and the execution of these fran- \ 
 chises so much needed, so much called for by the peo- 
 ple, as you are told bi' tne Governor iu tis auuual j 
 message" of 1860. These gentlemen, who are the j 
 grantees of these rights, I understand, make hand- ' 
 somely out of them by selling them. I understand 
 that $5,000 is deemed to be a fair price in the market. 
 Precisely how it is divided, or how it is mixed up, I 
 confess I cannot undertake to state. Nobody can who i 
 is willing to do it. I nodce the name of Wm. A. Hall \ 
 iu one of these acts. I do kuow what became of his j 
 fi-anchise. Wm. A. Hall is one of nature's noblemen ; 
 he didn't know that his name was in this bill till after | 
 it was passed. After the adjournment of the LegiJa- I 
 lature the father of the lobby came to him and said: \ 
 " You see your name is in this bill; we want a little ; 
 money." "Money! What for?"' said Mr. Hall | 
 *' Oh,"' said he; " you kuow these things cost; these i 
 
 things cost— it is very valuable, Mr. Hall." Well, 
 Mr. Hall declined to pay any money. The veteran 
 then applied to Mr. Hall to sell out his riglits under 
 the act— offered him $3,000. Mr. Hall declined. Mr. 
 Hall then began to consider what he should do 
 with this unexpected acquisition. There is, genrlemen, 
 in the City of New-Y''ork a society for the 
 reformation, protection, and, in some degree, support of 
 titose persons of the other sex who have been aban- 
 doned to vice and crime. At the head of that 
 institution, is the daughter of that veteran re- 
 former, now no more, who exhibited in our time the 
 valor and the piety of ancient heroes, Isaac T. Hopper. 
 It is refreshing to speak of personal virtues and touch 
 on lofty themes, iu the connection in which I am now 
 speaking, for I have been leading you through a laby- 
 rinth " of darkness," as darkness itself, where the very 
 light is darkness. When we contemplate one bright 
 spot, it is a repose to the heart — i*; softens and subdues 
 us. Well, gentlemen, Mr. Hall thought he would do 
 what good he could with this waif of sin thus be- 
 stowed upon him. What he had received by the craft 
 of abandoned men he hastened to bestow for the bene- 
 fit of abandoned women. He assigns all his interest 
 to this institution, and from this franchise, God grant 
 that many a poor child of sin and sorrow 
 may find* that repose, at the close of a life 
 of want and shame, which may lead to brighter Hopes, 
 than any of these witked men who bestowed on him 
 that franchise, can ever hope to find. That is what . 
 became of one of these franchises — it will go for the ' 
 benefit of these poor sufferers, those who are sinned 
 against as well as sinning; and if any effort of mine 
 can ever assist to wrest it from the ha'nds of those who 
 are now cheapening it in the market, and augment it 
 to its full value for them, it shall be most freely be- 
 stowed. Now, geutlem^i there must have been 
 some motive for takin» this property and giving it to 
 these individuals. Wnat do you suppose was the mo- 
 tive of Mr. Littlejohn in doing it ? On the 3d of April, 
 I think, these bills passed the House of Assembly 
 and the Senate, and wete sent to the Governor for 
 his sanction. On the IGth he retui-ned them, with 
 his veto message, which was read to you 
 last night, in which he sets forth their 
 enormities in language of the sternest rebuke, 
 using the word " flagrant," which is almost the only 
 adjective used to enhance the word wicked; '■'•Jia^rant 
 wickedness" is probably the most intense expression in 
 our language. " These Jla grant 2Lctt^," he&ays, and he 
 repeats the" word. He says " this franchise is in per- 
 petuity.' This message 'is read in Mr. Littlejohn's 
 hearing; and after the reading, he leaves this lofty 
 station where he sits, as I have said, like the lady in 
 the masque, " lofty, spotless, and serene;" becomes 
 down to the floor of the House, and mingles in debate, 
 advocating the measures, and by virtue, of the pecu- 
 liar hold he has on that body of men through whatever 
 appliances it may have been brought into exercise, he 
 carries the measure over the veto of the Governor. 
 In England, and I refer to Engli^h legisla- 
 tion as a model always, so far as the purity 
 of legislation Is concerned; in England the 
 veto power has been used but three times in 
 more than two centuries. It exists there as it does 
 here. In this Government Presidents have lived * 
 through their four years' of office without vetoing a » 
 single" measure, and down to a late period vetoes were 
 uncommon. I challenge the histor ian to show a single 
 veto of a measure of any character which was not put 
 upon politicel grounds. ' But is there any politics here 1 
 Nearly half the corporators are Democrats, and the 
 rest Republicans. It was voted for alike by both 
 parties, as you were shown last night. No politics 
 here. In Gen. Jackson's time the attempt was made 
 to pass a bill over his veto, because, tbey sai_d,_ " Gen. 
 Jackson represents one class of political opinions, we 
 represent another class of political opinions, we labor 
 
19 
 
 ■I:at our party and political principles may prevail, the 
 bill in (j[uestion rejiresents a great political principle." 
 Why did the member from Oswego take flie pains to 
 come down out of bis chair and advocate 
 the passage of measures that were mainly 
 financial — ([uestioiis of franc1)ises worth money? 
 Was any political principle involved ? Any 
 State or p'arty politics at stake ? Yes, we are told 
 there was. Mr. Littlejohn, in his speech, in which he 
 vindicated himself from the imputations of various 
 newspapers — The Post, The 2' ivies, Herald, Tuiu- 
 u.vE, &-C. — tells you that there was. He says he 
 was "opposed to selling franchises." Why? ''be- 
 cause," he says, "if you sell the franchises, those 
 who build the roads w;ll have to raise on the fare; and 
 I go in for the iaboving classes." For the "toiling 
 poor " is his well mounding phrase. " Thev who live 
 and work in New- York ought to go the whole length 
 of that city for five cents, and it we sell the fran- 
 chises, they will raise the fare." Wliy, Mr. Little- 
 john, your bill provides that it shall not be above 
 five cents. You know — it is history — that these 
 railroad corporations are the most lucrative that 
 the world ever saw. It ie history. You go in 
 for the "toiling poor"? Why didn't you just 
 take hold and cut that fare down to three cents? 
 Nay, why did you oppose that measure when it was 
 pressed by othei';?. There weie men in New-York who 
 oifered to come forward and pledge themselves — give 
 security to biiild the roads and run them in the best 
 manner, for three cents a passenger. This was well 
 known. It was stated in the House over and over 
 again, in the hearing of Mr. Littlejohn, and published 
 in the New- York papers again and again. Tbe gen- 
 tlemen who came forward and offered half a million for 
 one road m 1859, were still ready, cash in band. In 
 1860, over two millions could have been obtained. The 
 wealthiest men in the city offered this, money down, 
 for these franchises, with pledges of every kind that 
 could have secured the community against abuse. Why 
 did'nt you go in for that ? If not that, then something 
 of this kind ? You might have done it. Don't skulk 
 from the issue by debating witb the Governor, whether 
 the grants are in perpetuity. Answer this if you can. 
 We shall hear what his counsel will say toit^ Well, 
 gentlemen, if you can find any motive for Mr. Little- 
 john's conduct on that occasion that can help his case 
 you will find it. Let the counsel on the other side find 
 It if they can. But he did give one more reason for it. 
 The Governor in his veto message after speaking of 
 rendering these valuable franchises a source of income 
 to the city. He gays: 
 
 " Again, tte bills to which I am constrained to interpose my 
 objections are grants of power in perpetuity. Ordinary prudence 
 would suggest that this should be avoided. Powers that are 
 useful to day, under the changing circumstances of communities, 
 and of municipal operations, may a few years hence become ob- 
 jectionable. Hence it is that the exclusive benefits of patents are 
 limited ; the existence of corjfcrations circumscribed within cer- 
 tain periods ; lerry franchises defined and restricted. The ivhole 
 genius of our Government requires that privileges graiited, espe- 
 cially those of pecuniary value, or attecting the public conven- 
 ience, shall, after a certain time, cease, and the power of revision 
 and amendment be* exercised in accordance with the require- 
 ments of public interest. 
 
 " But the privileges conferred in these acts, authorizing in 
 Bpme cases the entire engrossment of streets, are without limita- 
 tion ; and if, at any future time, the use of these public avenues 
 should be demanded for other purposew, there is no determinate 
 period to which the inhabitants or corporate authorities could 
 look for a cessation of tJie privileges now granted. Nor is there 
 any power reserved on the part of the Legislature to alter, modify, 
 or repeal these grants, however flagrant shall be the abuses which 
 may grow up under them. 
 
 Nor is there any provision in these bills prescribing a time 
 within which the proposed railroads shall be constructed. 
 
 " Secure in the privileges confened, the parties in interest may 
 delay action to such time as their own convenience shall be best 
 subserved. In the mean time, the immunities granted may be the 
 subject of constant barter and sale, without the slightest accruing 
 advantage to the public." 
 
 " But the GoveiTior was mistaken," says Mr. Little- 
 john; " he had not looked far enough into the Consti- > 
 
 tution. I, a pcor legislator and a very humble man, 
 have looked farther into it." Tbe Coi Btituiio i is writ- 
 ten on two 01- three pages of paper, every pu )lic man 
 knows it by heart. Yoii know it as you know \our 
 calecVistr. "But the Governor had not looked into 
 the Consti. ution." ]Mr. Littlejohn bad looked further, 
 and he says they are not in perfietuity, because article 
 8, section 3, provides that jnint-stoclc corporations and 
 associations sball be included in the word corporation. 
 ^^'hy, gentlemen, tbp word company or association is 
 not named in these bills ! Th^-re is rio decent pretense 
 for sayirg that these acts create joint-stock companies or 
 associations within the constitutional provisiiui. No 
 more pretenee than than there would be for saving that 
 a pecuniary note, reading ' ' for value received, I promise 
 to pay .John Doe and Richard Roe five hundred dollars" 
 creates a corporation or joint-stock company. They 
 are no more within the constitutional provision than 
 they are witbin tlje ten commandments. I don't give 
 Mr. Speaker Littlejohn much credit for that subterfuge, 
 it only adds stu]iidity to profligacy. Why, <Ud he think 
 so ? Then I will tell you what I think a good legisla- 
 tor, what I think an honest man, would liava done iu 
 i thote circurnstancee. He would say, " Why, Gov. 
 ' Morgan says these are grants in peri)etuity; I guess 
 i Gov. Morgan knows of article 8th, and section Sd; and 
 j the law which governs joint stock companies. I am 
 not a lawyer; but the Governor, he has by his side the 
 law officer of the State — the Attorney-General. The 
 Governor has not said this in a public document which 
 I is to live foreyer, without looking into it. I think I 
 . had better look into it. I will take tbe advice of coun 
 i sel learned in the law." Don't yoa think an honest 
 man"s mind would have run in that groove of Thought I 
 Don't you think he would have taken that view of it ? 
 I There is not a lawyer in the State of New-York, who 
 has any character to lose, but would have laugb- 
 ' ed at the question — not one ! But this is Mr. Little- 
 john' s apology for this; nay, bis " defense " uttered 
 nearly six months alter the passage of the bill. He 
 had six months to get his answer or apology 
 '• ready. But he did not apologise ; he said 
 in siibstance: " I voted right, the" bill was right and 
 j ought to have been passed." He justified himself for 
 i doing what he did. Six months after; with all the 
 : flood of light which had been thrown upon it, that is 
 the best subterfuge he can devise. Then he came for- 
 ! ward — true to his company of forty — and vhidicates 
 i the measure, and says it was rigbt. That was tbe un- 
 ■ kindest cut of all. If he had said at this time, " I re- 
 I pent: I did not miderstand this; I was mistaken; this 
 { has given franchit-es^of inestimable value to those gran- 
 tees. They are selling out, and getting $5,000, 110,000 
 j and Slo.OOO a share. I think I did a little wrong." It 
 would have softened the case souiewbat, and it'would 
 have tended to show that he was more dupe than profli- 
 gate. Didn't he know at the time he voted for 
 these measures that there were men in New- 
 Yoik ready to give enormous sums for what he 
 was bestowing for nothing Mr. Conkliiig, who sits 
 over yonder will tell you that he raised his voice 
 in the hearing of Littlejohn; and iliat he pro- 
 tested against this profligate legielai ion; he came for- 
 ward and said: here are millions ready to be given by 
 the most substantial men in New-Yoi'k ready to bind 
 themselves to aid " the toiling poor," for whom Mr. 
 Littlejohn has such sympathy. The feeling among 
 our best citizens went so far that a Judge of the Court 
 of Appeals came down from his high seat, and drew a 
 bill which was ]uesented in the House and presented 
 in tbe Senate; it was conmiented upon and urged iu 
 debate and through the press, as the bill under which 
 these railroad grants ought to be made. It provided 
 that these franchises, under certain circumstances, 
 should go to tliose who would tome forward 
 and give the largest sums and the best assurances 
 of speedy and beneficial uge to the public and 
 which should most iuuie to the benefit of the city 
 
20 
 
 and the S'ate. It was admiiaMy drawn and it 
 \uet the public approval It would_ have left in 
 your }»oekets and mine, in connnon with the people 
 of the city and the State, the benefits of these millions 
 — and would have .aiveii us the needed railroads into 
 the bargain. Why "didn't 'Mr. Liftlejohn vote for that ? 
 and if there was any provision he didn't like, why not 
 amend it ? He was powerful and could do it, and malie 
 it right, if in an 3' respect he thoui^lit it wrong. It i>-ave 
 the State and the people the benefit of these franchises. 
 ■\Vas it theiis of light '/ or had the lobby earned them, 
 simply by having spejit the whole Winter in Alhany ? 
 There are Mr. Littlejohn's brother and his brother-in- 
 l iw, both at Albany. They are there in the House, 
 inside the railing, silting with the members, and talk- 
 ing with the mimb -rs'and sometimes tliey whisper 
 together, and then very (|uietly go out toyetheq How 
 came he wirhin thi- circle tber-e, Fredeiick Ss^Little- 
 j'thn ? He came with a pass from the Speaker. And 
 there is Dr. Thompson of Quarantine memory, how 
 came he to be there? Look into his hands and you 
 will see a pass from the Speaker. 
 
 Mr. FosTKR — I ask the counsel by what authority 
 he says that Fredeii .k S. Littlejohn and Dr. Thousp- 
 son had authority to come on the floor by u p-iit^r iiom 
 the Speaker ? 
 Mr. WiLLiA^r? — We will prove it, Sir. 
 j\Ir. Foster — Very well, go on then. 
 Mr. Williams — The counselis nervous on the sub- 
 ject of Frederick S. Littlejohn ! He knew he ought 
 i;!)t to have been there. He was a wolf among the 
 sheer. Counsel repel the imputation that he got 
 there by the aid of Sfjeaker Littlejohn. You know that 
 r.o man gets on to the floor of the House among the 
 mem'-ers without a pass from the Speaker. Lawyers, 
 while attending the Court of Appeals, and citizens 
 whose honest business culls them to Albany, hang 
 aroand the railing to see what is going on in there; 
 but no Speaker yives a pass to men of that stamp. 
 Fiedeiick S. Liulejohn gets $40,000 of. the sto. k of 
 cue of these roads. Dr. Thompson gets $10,000. What 
 is it given for? What has Frederick S. Lit l»rjohn 
 done to to get $40,000 in stock, which I say is worth 
 more than par? What has Dr. Richard H. 'Thompson 
 of Brooklyn — you know hmi by reputation — what has 
 he done to get $40,000 ? I wonder if it will not turn 
 out — I don't know that it will, for we d -n't select 
 our witnesses; tbey don't come and tell Horace Gree- 
 ley what thev w'iil testify— but I wonder, if in- 
 stead of— 40.0:j0 and 40,000 makes 80,000— there was 
 not $120,000 appropriated to the L'ttlejohu family ? 
 I don't know that there was; we are in tL,e enemies' 
 camp so far as getting information is concerned; but 
 I think we shall prove it. We don'c think it is 
 a trifling matter for a man to go into the 
 balls of leuislation, and sit down with a member and 
 converse about a bill he is about to pass. I don't see 
 why a legislator should not be as discreet as a Judge, 
 or as caieful net to be influenced by selfish motives, or 
 by others' unworthy motives, as the learned Judge on 
 the Bench. And, gentlemen, there is not one among 
 you, who would not turn pale at seeing that done in 
 the Judiciary, which Mr. Littlejohn certainly did per- 
 mit to be doi e every day iu a legislutive body. If you 
 should see a sight o*f that kind, gentlemen, you would 
 say, " The legislaiive body is gone, I know, but I 
 didn't know that the Judiciaiy was. I thought, I 
 dreamed. I believed that that was pure and upright 
 etilh" The General Government is menaced by foes 
 from without, but the State has a foe within, more in- 
 sidious and more dreadful, more desolating, more 
 destructive to the liberties of the people, more sub- 
 versive of Government. Read the histoiy of falling 
 empires, and learn the dreadful lesson this trial is cal- 
 culated to teach you. 
 
 But, gentlemen, I have detained you long enough on 
 this question ; let me })a8S to another bill, not so dread- 
 ful in its ultimate importance, but upon which I think 
 
 the proof will be equally strong. I mean the " West 
 Washington Market bill. ' A word of history here, 
 tljat you may understand it. The city is bounded 
 on an old map, by certain water bounds and 
 limits. It happened some years ago that some persons 
 desired to obtain the right to run out some piers into 
 the North River, he&v what is now the West Wash- 
 ington Jlnrket, and the privilege was granted to them. 
 They used these piers for some years, when, by some 
 current of the river, accretions began to form, and by 
 and by these places began to get too shallow for large 
 vessels, aiid finally l)ecame almost useless. The city con- 
 ceived the idea of filling them up and makiugland out to 
 the end of the piers. Well, the city fillud taemup and 
 made the land in (iue8ti(m, wldch is worth to-day near- 
 ly or quite $2,000,000. The city filled it up, but know- 
 ing that the title was m the State by liw, though the \ 
 State does not always claim land thus created, they did 
 not put up any large buildings upon it; but simply 
 shanties which they rented from time to time, tiU the 
 city got about $40,000 a year from the land. The rents 
 of these lands were afterward adjudged to be worth 
 $108,000 a year, all of which belonged to the State, and 
 should have been paid into the State treasury. This 
 ]>roperty so wrested fromi the ocean, belonged to the 
 State by the law of the land. The State then liad in 
 that property about $2,000,000 iu value; and you 
 and 1 had' an interst in it as citizens of 
 the State. In 1855 the Harbor Commissioners re- 
 ported to the Legislature that the land belonged / 
 to the State, and that the city was receiving the profits 
 from it. On that commission was ex- Gov. Patterson 
 and John L. Talcott of Buftalo, one of the ablest law- 
 yers of the time. There was no doubt about the title 
 of the State; and the Land Commissioners were called 
 upon to take the land; but for some reason they omit- 
 ted to do it, until the 24th of April, 1858, when an ap- 
 plication was made iu writing by James B. Taylor and 
 Owen W. Brennan, to the Board of the Commissioners 
 of the Land Oflice, which consists of ex-oflicio mem- 
 bers of the Government — the Attorney General, the 
 Speaker of the House, and vaiious others. They said 
 this property belongs to the State, that they desired 
 a lease for a year, and would give you $5,000 a year 
 quarterly in advance. The same' day, hour, 'and 
 minute * perhaps, t» is body passed a resolution 
 giving a lease to Taylor and Brennan, for one N 
 year, at a rent of " $5,000, payable quarterly 
 in advance, and they directed the deputy 
 Secretary of State to execute a lease accordingly. 
 After thi's, Taylor and Brennan discovered that the city 
 being in posses^iou they mio^ht have some difliculty in 
 getting possession. They tnought it was well enough 
 to have fiom the State a covenant of quiet enjoyment 
 and p('S>eh..-3on of it. So th-y went to the Deput'y Sec- 
 retary of State, and by some means — rumor tells 
 what* — got him to insert iu the lease a coven- 
 ant of quiet ei joyment, *stich a covenant ob- • 
 tained ffom this 'lunctionaryj and, not being 
 given by the Board in the resolution, was utterly void. 
 Still the Board seem to have been very friendly I They 
 pass a !esoluti(m continuing the lease* as long as the 
 State sha 1 hold the property, or until otherwise 
 disLOsed of. Soon another, a* resolution is adopted . 
 conveying to Taylor and Brennan all claim against the 
 ciry and others for back rents of tlie premises in ques- 
 tio'n, in consideration that they, by a bond executed by 
 themselves, will indemnify the State against costs. 
 They seem to have a perfect understanding with the 
 Board! By and by they commenced suits against the 
 city — one a'eaiust the city and all the tenants, 184 in 
 number; but, notwithstanding this bond of indetanity 
 against costs to the State, the Attorney-General al ways 
 appears with their attorney in these suits. After a 
 while, that Board of Commissioners find that they 
 have done ratlier a striking thing, fur no consideration, 
 but this bond to indemnify the State against liability, 
 which could not at the most haye amounted to bat a 
 
very trifling sum. Chief Justice Bronson says he has 
 done more work for one dollar than this bond in fact 
 indemnified the State againet. The Board had by thi^j 
 resolution (if valid) civen away the back vf-uie since 
 1S53, amounting to over a half million dollars for which 
 the city of Xew-York wasiuevitably liable; for a bond 
 of indemnity to the State against" lia-' ilities which it 
 never could incur, and which never co ild be enforced 
 againgt it, for you cannot sue a State. Tiiey found they 
 had gone a little too far, to they parsed a resolution 
 rescinding the former one and confined the back rents 
 to the period of the date of the lease. But you observe 
 il the first resolution had any validity, the second one 
 wasthe merest twaddle that ever fell from the lipsor pen 
 of man. "A " bargains with " B," who gives him a 
 consideration for a bond that is satisfactory and after- 
 ward "A," backs out of the bargain. An individual 
 cannot do that, and the State cannot do that. If the first 
 resolution was valid it will stand forever and secure. 
 Then, without any consideration at all, some-how or 
 other, Taj lor and Brennan got a lease of these pre- 
 mises worth $108,000 a year, so long as the State should 
 own them for §5,000 a year, and all tlie back rents 
 amouu'ing to over lialf a million of dollars. After 
 this came Mr. Littlejol.n into office as Ez-officio 
 member of the Board of Commissioners. Now, gentle- 
 men, observe, up to this time the covenaiit of (|uiel 
 enjoyment, conraiued in the original lease was 
 utterly void. It never had any sanction whatever 
 by the Board. It was put in the lease by 
 Mr. Morton! " \Miat private grief be had, I 
 i know not; he is wise and honorable; per}iaj)s 
 he will, with reason, answer you." Up to this time 
 ^ Taylor and Brennan had no covenant for quiet enjoy- 
 I ment or possession of the land. Up to this lime the 
 I State had not agreed to join to 'fight his battles 
 through, if indeed thare was any battle to fight. Mr. 
 Littlejohn goes into ofiice, andiimong his earliest acfs 
 at the pioper time he rises in the Board of 
 Commissions and proposes a resolution, renewing 
 the lease for the term of a year, making it end in 1860 
 sometime, upon "the same terms, conditions, and cov- 
 enants contained in the former leape." That resolution 
 pat-sed, and under that they e.\ei ured the first lease tliat 
 was valid, hy which they compelled the State to figlit 
 through the battles of Taylor and Brennan, and eti'ectu- 
 ally ^iixe them for §5,000 wha^ was really woith 
 $lo8,(i00. That second lease, which was given under 
 Mr. Littlejohn's resolutiun, and bears date the 3d of 
 May, 1859, conveyed the title which the act in ques- 
 tion compelled the Controller to p^urchase Taylor and 
 Brennan. Taylor and Brennan are now in a pretty 
 good fix. They have got a title to all the back rents — 
 some kind of a title at any rate. They have got the 
 sanction of the Board for a lease, with cov- 
 enants of quiet enjoyment of the premises. 
 They have remarkablv good luck in ge ting through 
 these suits. Let us follow them through it. Mr. 
 Littlejohn's resolution, under wt ich they got their 
 title, was passed on the 3d of May, 1859. 'On the 14th 
 of May, Taylor and Brennan commenced suits. On 
 the ■-24ih of May they recovered a judgment by default 
 against the city, lor the possession of this' land in 
 question, and 'lor $69,108 45. That judgment was 
 entered on motion of John II. Piatt, Attorney for 
 Taylor and Brennan, and Lyman Tremain, Attorney- 
 General of the State of New- York. October Gth, a 
 second judgment by default was entered against 
 the city of New-York for $49,629 80 on mo- 
 tion 01 Mr. Piatt, Attorney for Taylor and 
 Brennan, and Mr. Tremain, Atfornej^-Gen. A third 
 judgment was entered December, 18o9, on the report 
 of three referees, for $54,196 i39; it was entered on a 
 report bearing date 1 )ecember 10, on motion of Piatt 
 alone. The next judgment, which was the judgment 
 for back rents, beginning back from the time the 
 city first began to occupy the premises, up to the com- 
 mencement of the suit, was eiitered December 15, 
 
 1850, on report of referees, on morion of Piatt, for 
 $483,194 14— ihete four judgments n.aking an aggre- 
 gate of $659,12.) 28. You see at a j^lance how that 
 
 ■ judgment was obtained. If you occupy my premise?, 
 and you let them to the gentleman next to you, and he 
 pay-; you the rent, I can sue you and recover all the 
 money he ha? paid you, as money h-id and received 
 f^r uiy benefit. All the rent' which the Cify of 
 New-York had already got, for the use of the 
 premises, or what it was reasouaidy worth, the city 
 was liable to Taylor &. Brennan, for under that reso- 
 lution. These referees reported, upon their oath, ihat 
 these premises were worth $108,000 a year; and they 
 gave judgn.ent at that rate. Well, gentlemen, here 
 we are; here are judgments agiinst the City of New- 
 York amounting to over $659,000, in favor of Taylor 
 
 Brennan, on" the docket. There they stand and 
 Taylor &. Brennan have a lease stil. unexpired. There 
 we' are in the Autumn of 1859 and at the commmence- 
 meiit of the session of 1860. Tnere we are when Mr. 
 Littlejohn is made Speaker; witii absolute power to 
 appoint the Committees just as he pleases. I don't 
 , know but that statement needs some qualification; 
 ; that Lobby is a powerful body of men. Its head is 
 i sometimes called '* The Dictator." But there we are; 
 
 this property owntd by the State, worth $J,C00,OUO, 
 I and Taylor & Brennan have judgments under their 
 i leases for $659,000 and u[)ward. \Ve go into the Legie« 
 I lature under this sttite of things. What do you sup- 
 I pose now takes place ? I want you to reconcile this 
 I conduct of Air. Littlejohn. which I am about to detail 
 I to you, with legislative purity, with legit-lative decency, 
 j if you have the means — if you know how. Here is au 
 1 act which" is entitled, if the Court please, entitled " Aa 
 act to authorize the sale of cei tain lands belonging 
 to the State, and to empower the Corporation of the 
 I City of New-York to purchase the same, ' passed 
 April 17, 18i.0, notwithstanding the objections of the 
 i Governor. [The counsel read from the \^'est Washing- 
 ! ton Market bill, referring parti ularly to the seventh, 
 j section.] That bill is what the learned gentleman last 
 ' night called the " West Washington Market bill. " That 
 bill first pasted on the 3d of April, 1860. Taylor & Breu' 
 nan were there with their whole following, where they 
 had been during the entire Winter l;ibo:ing for the 
 passage of this bill, and incidentally no doubt for ti;e 
 other bills — the railroad acts; the proporal probably 
 was with the master of the Lobby and Mr. Littlejohn, 
 " Don't you oppose my bill for payiug my judgments, 
 and I won't op['Ose your bi'l for gettiuu the railroad 
 franchises." At all events, such a proposition was prac- 
 tically acceded to. And so they went on ; tbey were love- 
 ly and pleasant in their lives, and in their death perhaps 
 they will not be divided. They went into the Legisla- 
 ture hand in hand, they succeeded on the same day, 
 their bills stood side by side in the public archives and 
 the pu'-'lic prints, fortune favoitd them alike, alike 
 triumphant over the Governor's veto, alike aided 
 through by Mr. Littlejohn, with the aid of all tlie 
 Lobbv machinery and Lobby appliances; alike in both 
 cases lie left the'Speaker's chair to advocate their pas- 
 sage over the Governor s veto, in bothinstances attack- 
 ing the Governor, alike voting for both on the same day. 
 Now, what excuse Mr. Littlejohn may have for tlus 
 conduct I shall not attempt to conjecture; 1 leave 
 that to him and his able though sensitive and troubled 
 counsel; it is their duty to explain, palliate, justify, if 
 they can. I will tell you one or two difficulties in the 
 I way of getting through with any rational justification 
 of that bill. These judgments against tlie city were 
 obtained througli fraud so uross that they were set 
 aside by a mo^t indignant order of the Supreme Court 
 of the State of New-York — as obtained by fraud and 
 nothing else but fraud. They were got hy def'auli; 
 
 ■ the city did not defend for some reason or other ; they 
 
 i charged it upon tlie Corporation Counsel. They charged 
 I he was in the interest of Taylor «Sc Biennan. *If affida- 
 vits are true whi-.h we have'here, they either prove it or 
 
22 
 
 that he was crippled in his defense by the Commission- 
 ers ot the Land-Office. On the 3d of April these bills 
 came up before the House for passage. Mr. Conkling 
 and other good and true members of the Legitilatare 
 had presented protests and memorials — hut how vain ! 
 Why talk to men who had all things, to use their 
 own phrase, "fixed," '■^fixfd?" They were told that 
 the judyments were collusive and corrupt, and ou^jt 
 not to be passed — that proceedings were pending to 
 set them as^de. "Mr. Xoyes says there is a perfect de- 
 fense against the actions. The Corporation Couneel, 
 JuOge Bronson, savs there is a pertect defense." You 
 know Judge Bronson, who T)rLsideci over the Supreme 
 Court for so many years. " Mr. ^IrKec-n says they are 
 corru})t, and cannot be sustained." Mr. Conkling quotes 
 all these bigli authoiitit s. Wuat did Mr. Littlejohu do'' 
 He came down from that }dace, where you remember 
 you saw him sitting so lofty, and so serene, and seem- 
 ingly so spotless — he came' down and took the floor of 
 the House, and there stated in the hearing oi the coun- 
 try that these judgments were good and valid judg- 
 ments; that the Controller of the Citv of New- York 
 favored the payment of them; that Judge Bronson 
 said they weje valid jitdgments, and ought to be paid. 
 "I know about this matter," was his exclamation. 
 " I knew about this matter," were the words he used. 
 They were asked by Mr. Conkling, " Why not leave it 
 in the discretion, and not make it the duty, of the Con- 
 troller to pay these judgments." A motion so to 
 modify the bill was voted down, and the imperious di- 
 rection retained. Such legislation cannot be found on 
 another statute book, either in England or Ameri- 
 ca, It was stated by counsel, Mr. Evarrs, 
 " that the Controller, under that act, could have been 
 compelled by mandamus to pay these judgments;" 
 and he would have been compelled to pay ihem, but 
 that the judgments were fraudulent, and ,tOon set 
 a^ide and vacated by the Court for traud. No compro- 
 mise was ottered or made until they v^^ere set aside. 
 But after they were set aside, Taylor »fe Brennan, 
 knowing the matter would not bear .the test of judicial 
 iuvesrigation, came in and had a compromise. Mr. 
 Litilejohn was told aH thif was, and would be, yet 
 he came down, and by means oi statements which 
 had no fmndation in "fact, these bills were passed. 
 The next day a letter was written by Judge Bronson 
 to the Governor, iu which Judge Bronson expressed 
 the opinion that "they were fraudulent, void and 
 ought not to be paid." He referred to the statement 
 of the Speaker and branded it as it deserved, and he 
 denies that he ever said that the judgments were valid 
 or ought to be paid. He denied that iu an aiiidavit, 
 a copy of which I have here; Controller Haws denied 
 that he ever said he was iu favor oi paying them, or 
 that Le ever said that they ought to be'paid, but perti- 
 naciously insisted chat they were absolutely void for 
 fraud. • Wljeu this bill canae before the Governor for 
 his signature, he declined to sign it. He returned it 
 with this extraordinary message which you have 
 heard read. In that message he extracted the passage 
 from Judge Bronson' s letter to which I have referred. 
 He stood up firmly against this tide of lobby corruption. 
 He stood firmly suppoi-ted by one man--leaniug 
 upon one man, relying upon that support for 
 he felc that it was honest, faithful, earnest. He 
 knew the man. He sits over there. [Pointing to 
 Mr. Greeley.] [The counsel read the Governor's mes- 
 sage from Senate Jo icr rial, ^2igQ^'6^.] Now, gentlemen, 
 on the 17th of April, the bili, as I have said, was re- 
 turned with this message; this message with the ex- 
 tract from Judge Bronson' s letter was read in the pre- 
 sence and hearing of Mr. Littlejohn; and after it was 
 read, Mr. Littlejohn left the Speaker's chair and came 
 down again in tbe arena and advocated the passage of 
 the bilL Now, if he carried the bill on the cJd of 
 April by stating that the judgments were valid and 
 ought to be paid, and based his authority on this sub- 
 ject on the pretended statements of Greene C. Bronson 
 
 and Mr. Haws, if he then believed those statements, he 
 certainly was disabused of that belief by the Govern- 
 or's message, where the Governor quotes from Judge 
 Bronson the language which has been read to you. 
 Gentlemen, I don't know what were Mr. Littlejohn's 
 motives in making the statement he did make 
 when the bill first passed; whether he will claim 
 he believed the judgments were good and valid 
 because he relied on the judgments and opinions 
 of Haws and Bronson. If he does, a wonder- 
 ful change h is come over the spirit of his di'eam 
 before the 17th, when his mind is disabused on that 
 subject; when the Governor argues and expostulates, 
 still he comes down and advocTites the passage of the 
 bill, and canies it over the Governor's veto, and 
 makes it the law of the land. There would be some 
 relief to this matter if you could think that Mr. Little- 
 john was entirely iynorant of all that had transpired iu 
 the ofiice of the Land Commissioners during ttiat cur- 
 rent year; but the difficulty is, Mr. Littlejohn was a 
 member of that Commission, and it was his own reso- 
 lution that gave Taylor and Brennan these rights, if 
 they had any real rights. He was then sustaining 
 himself as a member of the Board of Land Commis- 
 sioners, or at all events he was carrying out the same 
 plan or purpose, which seemed to have been con- 
 , ceived and acted ujjou while sitting in that Board. I 
 j doa't know what will be the explanation of all this. 
 ' I know it will not be that Mr. littlejohn was 
 ignorant. He has been several times Speaker 
 of the House of Assembly, and I don't 
 I believe it is going to be claimed by counsel that he 
 acted ignorantly, stupidly — that he was decived or 
 duped. If he has any excuse for his conduct, any 
 I apology lor it, it seems to me it all points one way. 
 His philosophy must have ]«een, "If the servant is wor- 
 thy of the hire, then the hire is worthy of the servant." 
 \ Alter the bill was pas.'sed Mr. Haws hesitated to settle, 
 i he waited to take the advice of counsel; and finally 
 I got a hearing before Judge Ingraham and the Judge 
 set aside all these judgments, a:..d directed that Taylor 
 and Brennan should pay back §30,000, which they'had 
 j received from the Keceiver as rent ot these premises. 
 
 They bad over $GO,OUU from the rents of this property 
 j at the time the judgments were all set aside. When 
 this was done, Taylor and Brennan otfered a compro- 
 I mise. Judge Bronson hesitated for a long time and was 
 ' very slow to come into the arrangement. But Taylor 
 and Brennan were ingenious, Mr. Mattison of Utica 
 was in New-Y^'ork for weeks; they retained Judge 
 Beardsley, who had been the partner of J udge Bronson, 
 and finally succeeded in bringing about a settlement, 
 I by which the city was to pay to the State $300,000 for 
 tlje title to the land; and pay to Taylor «fe Brennan 
 $300,000 for the judgment, and allow them 
 to retain the $60,000 they had iu their hands, thus giv- 
 ing Taylor & Brennan $360,000, and the State. 
 $300,000. The bargain was well enough for the city 
 ; because the city got land worth $2,000,000, but the 
 State has lost — lost what it was entitled to all the 
 back rents, amounting to $659,000 and upwards, and 
 the whole of the property, and it has got $300,000 
 which the counsel last night boasted had been got 
 through the efforts of Mr. Littlejohn. If this is the 
 kind of bargtiin Mr. Littlejohn generally makes for the 
 State, one would suppose he hardly would be success- 
 i ful, even in the business of a common carrier. He 
 ' trades better for himself than he does for the State, or 
 ! he will soon be bankrupt irretrievably. As I have 
 ! said, theee judgments were set aside and that settle- 
 I ment was made, and the city has got the title to the 
 property, and the State has lost it; and the State has got 
 $300,000 for what was worth, mcludingthe back rents, 
 over $2,500,000. If there is any excuse for this, let them 
 have the benefit of it. It is reported that a great deal 
 i of money was used about that Legislature : it has come 
 I out lately in testimony before the Albany Grand Jury 
 I that a great deal was expended — I have heard it said 
 
23 
 
 more than a million dollars were spent in and about 
 that Legislature. I don't know how this may be; but 
 some very bold things were done. I don't know 
 Whether the Speaker partieipated in anything; but 
 things were done around him so closely that it, seems 
 very strange if he did not know anything about 
 them. Take a scene of this kind and I don't see 
 how 3Ir. Littliijohn can be free from ^ome knowl- 
 edge of it. A member is sitting in his seat. He 
 has a little local bill which he wants passed ; 
 one of the Clerks goes over to him and says, " Have 
 you any interest in that bill?" (naming it). "Yes." 
 
 Do you want to get it passed'/" "Yes." "How 
 much "iuterest have you in it?" "I don't know." 
 "Well, yoii better find out, pretty d — n quick." 
 -'Why, what do you mean by that ?" This leads on 
 to a little explanation, till the member says, " How 
 anuch will do ?" " Well, how much will you give ?" 
 " Will $50 do ?" "I don't know but it will." The 
 $50 is paid over, the Clerk goes back to hU de.>k, and 
 the bill is taken up and passed in a very few minutes ! 
 I don't know how tbat is doae, or whether there is 
 any connection with Mr. Littlejohn o/ not; but if I 
 had a clerk who was sitting before me, I don't believe 
 he could do such things as that without my knowing 
 it. There were a great many honest men who 
 voted for these measures, and Mr. Littlejohn explained 
 in his great defense last Autumn at Oswego, how it 
 came about. He saysia his speech, in vindicating him- 
 self for voting for tiie Susquehanna Raib-oad bill over 
 the Governor's veto (that was a bill, you recollect, 
 that gave to a corporation somethiug like a million of 
 dollars, out and out, to build a railioad) — Mr. Little- 
 john, vindicating himself in his speech, says, "the 
 State built the Erie Canal, and the Oswego Canal." 
 So it did, and the State owns them. You build a house, 
 and you own it ; but if you buiUl a house for a corpora- 
 tion, the corDOration own it, and not you. Is there any 
 connection between the two? But he says "there 
 were twenty or thirty members who would have voted 
 against our measure "(some Oswego County measure) 
 if I had not gone in for theirs." That, gentlemen, is 
 what they call at the South los^-rvUntg ; and that is 
 the way in which a great many men, good, honest 
 men, were unwittingly drawn into ^voting for 
 corrupt measures. Those men at Albany who 
 have been practicing at that bar — as I will call it — for 
 twenty years, know all about these kind of obliga- 
 tions. One of the.-e good, honest men comes in from 
 the country, and takes his seat. Our lobby man s-iys: 
 " There is a good, honest, old "man, we must let him 
 alone." " Oh, no," says another, " there is a way to 
 reach him;" and he goes up to hiin and says: " What 
 have you got ?" " Well, I have got a little local bill 
 here." Well, he gets him to give a pretty good 
 description of it ; and when the proper time comes, be 
 goes around to the member and says: " Here is a bill 
 about the City of New-Y^ork that I want you to vote 
 for." "Well, I don't know anything about it," says 
 the member. " Well, if you don't vote for it, we will 
 kill your bill, that's all." " Is it all right ?" inquires 
 the member. " O, yes, it is all right." "Well, 
 if it is a^l rig^t, I will vote for it." 
 In this manner good and honest men are 
 got to vote for very corrupt bills. However, it is 
 not to be excused. If you go to one of these men, and 
 say, " Here, that is not proper legislation; if your bill 
 is light, it ought to pass. You are here to act for the 
 State, and not for the individual. Y'ou are to act for 
 the public good." Y'ou can very easily convince one 
 of these men, and very easily make him say, " Well, 
 they will never catch" me so again." But Mr. Little- 
 john has stated on a gre-^t many occasions, that he did 
 not receive any money for his voie. 1 presume a great 
 many men could take the stand to say, " I never re- 
 ceived money for my vote." Let us suppose a little 
 occurence: one man approaches a member, and says, 
 "Do you know Mr. So-and-so ?'' "Yes. ' "Had 
 
 any conversation with him?" "Y'es." "Wanted 
 you to vote for his bill?" " Y^es." " Did anybody 
 else want you to vote for it ? ' " Y'es." " Who, Mr. 
 So-and-so?" " Mr. So-and-so said there was money 
 for it." "How much?" "$500." "For each 
 man who voted for it ?" " Y'es. ' " Well, I want you 
 to vote for the bill" "I don't take any bribes." 
 " Oh no, of course not. I don't talk about bribes — but 
 there is Jones, he is a good fellow, he won't give you 
 any money, but suppose you come around to iny room 
 to-night and take a little brandy and water, and have a 
 little game of whist." Well, by and by evening comes 
 and he goes around to his friend's room and tnere he 
 finds Jones, a very accomplished player, and they sit 
 down to have a game of whist, and this accomphshed 
 playerToses $500; the member puts it in his i)Ocket and 
 tfoes away, and never gambles again during the whole 
 Winter, but he votes for the bill just as sure as you are 
 born. These fellows who have had 20 years' experi- 
 ence about Albany, don't get mistaken in their men. 
 But some men do not gamble. " N'o," says one, "I 
 won't play." He talks it over, however — for instance, 
 there is Dr. Thompson over there sittinfj beside a mem- 
 ber for two hours talking with him, perhaps about some 
 railroad, or some corportion, in the City of New-Y'ork. 
 Well, he talks it over, and finally one says: "You 
 must vote for this bill, its all right ; the old man has 
 got an interest in this bill, and it must go through ; it 
 j is on the slate; and if you should be hard up at any 
 time, So-and-so will lend you a little money." A few 
 hours pass, and a little money is lent to that man; and 
 he votes for the bill. This system is carried onto a 
 vast extent. One man went up to Albany in the 
 Winter of 1860, and said, I want to get a very import- 
 ant will case placed fir?t on the calendar; I have got 
 $60,0tj0 in this case, and I am ready to pay liberally to 
 I have this done. The other man says: "Hush, don't 
 talk so loud — come with me and we will go over and see 
 that man." By and by partiesare seen, things go along, 
 the bill is passed, and the man goes home, minus how 
 much of the $60,000 ? I don t know; but I mean to 
 ask him some time when I meet him in the street. 
 There is one other case in my mind now of the passing 
 of a bill. A good man of 'New-York wanted a bill 
 passed, and he went up to Albany, and took with him 
 , a man not f o good as he was, an<1 he went to another 
 man, not so good as he was; and it so happened that 
 1 tha good man came back to New-Y''ork with $3,000 less 
 j in his pocket — but his bill was passed. The reporters 
 I of The Tribune could have filled the coluums of that 
 I paper with matters of this kind. Did not Mr. Greeley 
 j believe it ? And was he malirious in expressing his 
 belief? Gov. Morgan talks right out. He 
 says; "Eighty members of the Legislature received 
 money for their votes." A reporter comes to Mr. 
 Conkling on the floor of the House, and shows him a 
 list of over seventy men, and he says, "I know every 
 one of these men have taken bribes." Mr. Conkliog be- 
 lieved it, and told Mr. Greeley of it, and Mr. Greeley 
 believed it. Were all these things carried on under 
 the eye of that man, and in his almost all-pervading 
 presence, and he not know it I It is perhaps only a 
 misfortune to be poor. We have proof that Mr. Little- 
 john failed a few years ago for a large amount of 
 money — I only sjteaK of it as a circumstance to show 
 that he was not rich. I have heard it said: "Elect 
 such a man to ofiice, he is above corruption, he is 
 rich." I don't mean to say that poor men are not juet 
 as honest as rich men ; as a class I believe they are. 
 But Mr. Littlejohn acknowledged his poverty d'uring 
 tliis session, and he says emphatically, " My only pur- 
 pose is to make money." That is what he said, and I 
 don't know whether 'it is true or not; but if true he 
 was iu the way of great temptation. Gentlemen, I 
 could go on and name bill af er bill, and circumstance 
 after circumstance, and detain you till the going down 
 of the sun. 
 
24 
 
 " Not po:g«*ous East, with richest hand, 
 Showert'd on her kiiijis barburio pearls and gold,"' 
 
 in puoli Uvisli al»nndance as did that Lej^islatiire n]ion 
 that Lobby. " Pizzsiio never held out more dnzzliug 
 lures to his robber band when he led them forili to 
 the fOU'pust of the Cliildren <-f the Sun." But I for- 
 bt-iir. We shall go into this case for the pulili/ good, 
 for the good ot just and hoiu^st legislation, and the up- 
 holding of trutli; with no hatred or unkindne.-8 toward 
 Mr. Lit lejohn, except that we deplore that a man of 
 his talents ^honld have lent himt^eli to such iiii(inities. 
 We have uothiuf' to say in temper, nothing in anger. 
 We are tilleil with sorrow, but helieve it a duty we 
 owe to the Stat^^, to the cau-e of good govei'umeut and 
 good morals, as well as to the " toiling poor." And 
 with the blessing of God, we mean to do our duty. 
 Court took a recess. 
 
 AFTERNOON SESSION— Wednksday, Sept. 11. 
 
 TESTLMUXY OF HON. FREDERICK A. CONKLING, 
 SWORN FOR DEFENDANT — EXAMINED BY MR. WIL- 
 LIAMS. 
 
 Q. Where do you reside ? A. I reside in the City 
 of New- York. 
 
 Q. What is your business? A. I am by profession 
 a merchant, and am now a member of the House of 
 Kepresentatives of the United Slates. 
 
 Q. You were a member of the Assembly during the 
 session of 1^6U 1 A. Yes, Sir. 
 
 Q. When did the sescion commence ? A. I think on 
 the 4ta dav of January, and terminated on the night of 
 the 17th of April. 
 
 Q. Do you know ^Ir. Littlejohn? A. Yes, Sir; I 
 first knew him as a member of the Legislature in J854; 
 I was in the LeiiisLitnre wuth iiiui that year, and I 
 think then made his acqutiintauce for the llret t'n.Le. 
 
 Q. Were you a member of the Legislature at any 
 time between 1854 and lf?60 ? A. Yes, Sir, in 1-.39. 
 
 Q. 
 forward 
 railroads / 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick objected for plaintiff, ai we had 
 nothing to do with that year. 
 
 Mr. Williams — We wish to connect Mr. Littlejohn 
 with the entfcrpri.-e at that early period. 
 
 The Court sustained the objection. 
 
 Exception for defendant. 
 
 Mr. Williams — If we cannot prove Mr. LittL jobn's 
 connection with that legislation till the 4th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1860, I suppose we should not be allowed to 
 prove his complicity with the euterpiise at any earlier 
 periol, or that he was elected for the very purpose of 
 carrying out that enterprise ? 
 
 The CouKT— I doubt whether this would beany 
 more admissible. 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick — The electors of his District are not 
 on trial now. That is their business. 
 
 Q. Were any bills in reference to the street railroads 
 in the City of *Ne w-Y'ork introduced during the year 
 1860? 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick — I object to that; if there were any, 
 there is a competent way of showing it by the 
 record. 
 
 Objection ovei ruled. 
 
 Exception for plaintiff. 
 
 A. Such bills were introduced. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. They wt-re several in number; 
 I am unable to say who introduced them; they were 
 reported from the Standing Committee on the Incorpo- 
 ration of Citie*- and \'illages, tothe House, for its action. 
 
 Q. Who was Chairman of that Committee on Cities 
 and Villages ? A. Elias Pond, I think, of Monroe 
 County. 
 
 Q. By whom was that Committee appointed ? 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick objected, as the ujalter was not sus- 
 ceptible of proof and entirely immaterial and irrele- 
 vant. 
 
 Objection overruled. Exception for plaintiff. 
 
 During the session of I'^.V:) were any bills brought 
 ird or passed in reference to the Nev.-- i ork city 
 
 A. Bv the Speaker of the Honse of Ateemblv. 
 
 Who was the Speaker at that time A. Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn. 
 
 (). Were these bills ever considered io Committee of 
 the Whole 
 
 OI)jected to as immaterial and irrelevant. Objection 
 overruled. 
 
 A. My rec/)llection on that point is not very distinct. 
 I could refresh my memory by the Assembly Journal. 
 I know tlie practice was regarded as being veiy sharp 
 on that subject, and 
 
 ^Ir. Sedgwick — Never mind the iiractice. 
 
 [A copy of the Assembly Joiu-nal w as liandcd to the 
 witness.] 
 
 Witness — [Reading]. I find that the — 
 Mv. Sedgwick objected to this readhig from the 
 Journal. 
 
 Witness — The bill never was formall}'- considered 
 in the Committee of the Whole. 
 _ Q. Weie vouintbe llouee when thege New-York 
 city railroad bills passed the House for the firct time ? 
 A. My recollection is that I was. 
 
 Q. Do you • recollect whether 3[r. Littlejohn par- 
 tici{)ated in the deb ate on these bills at any time, in the 
 
 ? A. I think he did not. 
 
 Q. Were you in the House at the time these bills 
 passed over the Governor's signature ? A. I was not. 
 
 Q. Were you in the House at the time the West 
 Washington Market Bill first passed the House ? A. 
 Yes Sir. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Littlejohn participate in the debate on 
 that measure ? A. Yes Sir. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect what he said in relation to his 
 knowledge of the matter, or of Mr. Bronson's opinion 
 of the Taylor & Brennan judgments? A The 
 Speaker of the House stated, in debate, in rejdy to 
 some remarks I had made in opposition to the Jjill, that 
 he had information from the public authorities of New- 
 York in reference to that bill, and that he had the au- 
 thority of the Corporation Counsel and the Controller 
 for saying that tlie bill was right and ju-oper, and 
 ought to be passed ; and as to the judgments, amount- 
 ing to between $6l)0,UU0 and 8700,000, recovered by 
 Taylor & Bieuuau, he had tlie authority of the Corpo- 
 ration Counsel for saying that they were good and 
 va'id juduments. 
 
 Q. Who was the Corporation Counsel at that time? 
 A. Greene C. Bronson. 
 
 Q. Who was Mr. Bronson's immediate predecessor 
 ill t hat office ? A. I am unable to say whetlier Kobert 
 J. Dillon or » 
 
 Q. W^as not Mr. Busteed? A. Y'es, Mr. Busteed 
 was. 
 
 Q. Y''ou said you participated in that debate ? A. 
 Yes, Sir; I opposed the bill from the time it was iu- 
 troduced until it was passed. 
 
 Q. Did you make any statement in the hearing of 
 Mr. Littlejohn in that debate in reference to these 
 jtCdgnieiits and in reference to tiiat bill. 
 
 Mr. SEDG\vicq objected to the (|uestion. The Court 
 admitted the evidence, and the plaintiff 's counsel ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. I stated repeatedly that the judgments were 
 founded in fraud, and would be set aside upon a proper 
 bearing by the Courts. 
 
 Q. ^Vel■e you in the House when the W^est Wash- 
 ington :\larket bill passed over the Governor s veto ? 
 A." I don't distinctly recollect. (Witness looked al the 
 Journal of the Assembly.) I find now that I was. 
 and voted to sustain the Governor s veto. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Littlejohn vote on that question? A. 
 Tne Speaker was piestnt, and voted in the affirmative. 
 
 Q. Can you say whether the Speaker can.e down 
 from the ctiair, or particij)ated in any way on that 
 vote ? A. My recollection is that I rea< hed the House 
 just as the Clerk was beginning to call the roll, and. 
 the discussion had taken place before I reached the 
 House. 
 
 Q. You don't remember that you participated in the 
 
25 
 
 debate on that occasion ? A. Xo, Sir; I am confident 
 I did not. 
 
 Q. Were you in the House at the time the Govern- 
 or's Veto Message was read? A. My recollection is 
 that the Message bad been read before I reached the 
 House on mv return from Xew-York, which I did 
 about 12 o'clock on che 17th of April, 1860. 
 
 Q. What was Mv. Littlejohu's influence in the 
 House at the time these bills were passed ? and prior 
 to that time in reference to passing bills ? 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick objected to the ouestiou as mpve mat- 
 ter of opinion, and immaterial. 
 
 The Court overruled the objection, and the plaintiff s 
 counsel excepted. 
 
 A. I considerec 
 
 member of that Assembly. 
 
 Q. Speak of his ability to pass or reject bills — the 
 bills in question, and other bills ? 
 
 Mr. Skdgwick objected on the ground that no man 
 could speak of Mr. Littlejohu's power. We insist 
 that if there is to be any limit to this investigaiion, 
 it is high time to put down the stake. 
 
 Mr. Williams — We propose to prove, first, that there 
 was corrupt legielation'diuing the session of ISCO. We 
 think our charge is, that there was corrupt 1 eg i relation, 
 and we propose to prove it. We specify certain bills, 
 which we say we wiU prove were corrupt measures. 
 Our purpose now is to prove that these measures were 
 in point of fact corrupt, and to establish that fact affir- 
 matively. We_ propose to prove, secondly, that this 
 man, the plaintiff, was a prominent participant in that 
 corru})t legiblation. 
 
 The Court — And your offer does not embrace any 
 offer to prove that the plaintiff was personally cor- 
 rupt ? 
 
 Mr. Williams — Wg offer and propose to prove that 
 Mr. Litttlejohn was cognizant of and knew of the cor- 
 ruption of thete measures; and that knowing these 
 facts and having full knowledge of that corruption, he 
 lent his aid and influence to carry them, and by virtue 
 of his excrtioris, power, industry, and appliances he 
 was successful in carrying them tiirough. 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick — The propositions of the counsel 
 seem to be intended to cover up the point of contro- 
 versy instead of bringing it out, and to lead to getting 
 in, in a sort of a loose M'ay, evidence about ever3^body 
 and everything, except the plaintiff in the case, and 
 what he has done, and what has been done to him. 
 Now, if I understand at all what the answer is, they 
 must prove, not that there was unwise legislation, not 
 that there was legislation that had better not have 
 been, but they must prove that there were bills passed 
 there by means of corru{)tion, atd that the legislator 
 was bribed or improperly influenced in other wavs; 
 and they must point that proof directly to the plaintiff, 
 and shovv that he advocated, or votea for, or assisted 
 in the passage of bills, induced to it by bribery, or in- 
 terested personalmotivesthatare equivalent to bribery. 
 Now, if I understand the gentleman oi-ening, they do 
 not propose to prove that Mr. Litilejohu was guilty of 
 this; he avoided this throughout. They don't expect 
 to prove that anybody piit money into Mr. Littlejohu's 
 palm, or that he has received anytbiug, or that he has 
 u?ed a cent of monejr to induce other persons to vote. 
 The only allegation is that, in legard to certain bills, 
 he advocated tbem and voted for them ; that he had a 
 right to do. _ It does not go one step towai-d making 
 out this justification; that these measures were unwise 
 in themselves, or that the rights of the State or the 
 City of New-York were prejudiced by the legislation 
 of 1860, unless it goes beyond a mistake in judgment, 
 and beyond an error, or beyond being properlv influ- 
 enced to vote for an unjust or unwise measure. It must 
 have been througl j corruption and through corrupt mo- 
 tives. They are charged upon tire pLiiutifl in tbis li )el. 
 and imless their proof reaches this point, it noes, for 
 nothing, and offers no legal defense. It don't' ju^tity 
 the charge made to appeal to the feelings of the Jury, 
 
 to prejudice the Jury, or to defend this action on what 
 other men have done. Tie counsel now does not aver 
 tliat he will show that tbis corruption reached Mr. 
 Liftlejohn, that hy was biibed, or that hefcmade an im- 
 proper use of ij is position in the Assembly to biibe, 
 induce, or otherwise improj erly iafiuence other mem 
 hers. We will admit tiiat these bills are all corrupt, 
 if you choose. Suppose there was bribery there. 
 Suppose these appliances, on which the gentleman 
 dwelt so long this morning, were used ! What of it, 
 if it does not reach Mr. Littlejohn ? Nobody else is 
 on trial here. He is the man who is to be affected; 
 and because he has voted, because he has large influ- 
 ence in the Assembly, because he may influence by his 
 eloquence or example to vote for a measure — all that 
 does not attect tlie point of this controversy a particle. 
 That is a matter between him and his Creator, who 
 has given him these taltnts and powers, and to Him 
 alone is he answerable for a just Ube of them. He is 
 answerable here only that he should be free from 
 bribery, though it reach every other man in the As- 
 sembiy. 
 
 Mr. Williams — I am sure the gentleman misunder- 
 stands the defendant's position. In my opening I felt 
 disposed to spare Mr. Littlejohn, as much as possi- 
 bl'^, and said that it was not our duty to attack his pri- 
 vate character in any domestic sense; bu;, the whole 
 drift of the opening was to show that there was but 
 one motive and one fact that could by any possibility 
 explain his conduct; and what that fact was tl e coun- 
 sel understands clearly. What motive could there 
 have been for this extraordinary conduct but one ? 
 We propose to establisfi that Mr. Littlejohn was a» 
 guilty as any other man. If ic took to pass these 
 measures over the Governor's veto two thirds of all 
 the votes, Mr. Littlejohu's vote was a constituenr part 
 of this two-thirds, we attach to him as much guilt as 
 to any other man. Nay, he was promiueut in that 
 legislation. All those measures were corrupt, and he 
 was prominent in them from motives of which I 
 scarcely feel myself capable of speaking, from the 
 magnitude of their enormity. As to the word bribe, 
 on which the gentleman lays so much stress, no man 
 will s fvear positively ; but we shall press it before the 
 jury to believe that some things very similar to that 
 mut-t Lave influenced Mr. Littlejohn. 
 
 Mr. Sedg\vick — The counsel endeavors to avoid the 
 real que jfion in this case. Does he mean to say that 
 for a member of the Legislature to vote contrary ta 
 the veto of the Executive is corrupt ? What does he 
 mean by "extraordinary measures that he voted for V ' 
 On one or two occations he had the audacity to speak, 
 in favor of a measure he proposed to vote for and 
 nothing more. He talks about members receiving 
 money, and about money being raised iu.the City of 
 New- York — enormous sums of money for the purpose 
 of carrying certain bills through the Legislature. But 
 does he dare to say that he expects to prove that Miv 
 Littlejobn received one dollar of that money ? Daie 
 he say that in the presence of this Jury, *and then 
 come before them and ask them to believe it on 
 such tesiimouy as he knows he has got in this 
 case ? and all the evidence that raking the 
 earth, and I hud almost said the place below the earth, 
 will bring to pi ove bis case here ? Does he dare to 
 say that ? And yet he insinuates it to the Jury. The 
 whole tenor of his speech is, that somebody was 
 bribed; he dare not say it was Mr. Littlejohn. 1 don't 
 speak merely of pert>onal bribery, but also of any 
 conduct unbecoming a legislator; and on this point we 
 challenge scrutiny. And the gentleman can go through, 
 with his examiuation to show tbat Mr. Littlejohn or 
 anybody else was cognizant of tiiere fac^s. But they 
 do not 'expect to reach that point. They propose to 
 show that there was corrupt legislation;" that these 
 measures were unwise and imprudent; and because 
 Mr. Littlejohn was a member of the Legislature, and 
 had the audacity to speak and vote upon them, that he 
 
 I 
 
26 
 
 was prominent in the oorrnpt legislation. And yet 
 ISIr. Littlejobn, in his personal cluirattor, u a 
 pure and honest man ! Now, I *-fiy. there is 
 no a>ub (ftstinction to bo made. If Mr. Little- 
 jolin has received a bribe, he it) not an honest 
 man; be is not a pure man; and bis personal charac- 
 ter is as corrupt as bis olli'-ial character. He is dishon- 
 est if lie bas sold the i;iterest8 of the State for money, 
 or for personal consiilerati')Us; there is no such subter- 
 fuge bere. You have got to show that he was con- 
 n-^cted witb some hill th it passed the LeKiel;tture and 
 voted lor it, iiiUuenced hy corrupt appliances; or that 
 be, being inteiested in the measure, attempted to use 
 these appliam-es upon his brother members. It is not 
 enough to show that lie spoke in favor of a measure; 
 because that is bis right and Ids duty. It is not enough 
 to show that he niH'ered from the Governor; members 
 of the Legislature may Jionestly ditier from the Gover- 
 nor. Thar is not the point, The point, I repe it again, 
 is what they seek to avoid, and not to meet. 
 
 Mr. Wit'liams — My learned friend does not seem to 
 understand me yet. Geailemen sometimes think it 
 proper to use gentle language, wbeu they can do so, 
 and such language is generally understood, I believe, 
 by gentlemen; Imt the counsel sees lit not to under- 
 stand me, or he is endeavoring very ingeniously to 
 draw us from the real issue. Now, I will put an end to 
 this misunderstanding bere by a few words, and tell 
 the gentleman bere now that we will prove these 
 measures to have been corrupt measures; and we will 
 prove that Mr. Littlejobn was one of tbe principals — a 
 chief in that corruption; and if the counsel sees tit to 
 tay that because !Mr. Littlejobn is a corrupt legislator 
 that be is a bad father or a bad husband he is at liberty 
 to do so. When the counsel says that we concede that; 
 he is an boaest man, I &ay tliat" no such concession can 
 be drawn from anything that fell from uiy lips. Tlje 
 counsel must underetand that we projiose to [irove Mr. 
 Littlejobn to be the chief of those corrupt men who 
 passed those'corraiit measures ' , 
 
 RULING OF T)IE COURT. 
 The Court — We have desired -to have distinctly 
 presented the scoj e and extent of the defense which 
 ie introduced here, for it is important for us to get at 
 the precise issue, and to know what U to be tried and 
 what we are called to pass upon. That involves neces- 
 sarily the construction of the article in (|Ue6tion, and 
 tbe character and purport of the alleged libel. The 
 libel comi>laiDed of is in the following words: 
 
 " A corre3poudei:t earnestly inquire? our opinion concerning 
 tlie noDiination lor members of the Legislature ot D. C. Little- 
 jobn a: O-iwego and Austin Myers at Syracuse. On this subject 
 our opinion bas been so olteu expressed that it cannot be in 
 doubt. Both th»8e persons were prominent in the corrupt legis- 
 lation of last Winter. Accordingly, both of them ought now to 
 be d'ifedted. Or, if they must be sent back to pursue their ca- 
 reer at Albany, it should not be the work of Republican voters.' 
 
 That allegation is a charge of personal corruption in 
 recjectto the ]dalntifi"; that he "was prominent in 
 the corrupt legisbilion of last Winter. ' And involving 
 that propof-ition, and stuting that as of fact, it is not, 
 iu my judgment, a defense that the leu:i.-lat ion, with 
 respect to other persons, and other parties, and other 
 subjects, was of an improper or corrupt character. To 
 impute thiscbart/e is to impute personal corruption to 
 the plaintiff; and I hold, therefore, 
 
 F'.rst : That the ])ublicalion involves a charge of 
 personal corruption, andean only besustaiued by proof 
 tending to show that the plaintiff acted and' voted 
 under mercenary api'liauces, or, in orher words, that 
 he was bribed to vote and act as be tlid; or that he 
 derived some personal advantage from the acts or the 
 votes he gave. 
 
 That is my judgaient of the character of this libel. 
 
 S€':onil^ : Now, then, if that tie so, 1 hold that it does 
 not sustain the defense to show that tlie l^egislature 
 was reported and believed to be corrupt; or that other 
 members acted under corrupt iidiuences; nor that such 
 iegifelatiou was iu fact, or was believed to be injurious 
 
 to the public and only designed to advance private in- 
 [ tercets. 
 
 Tiiat is ray judgment upon that pfoposition. It fol- 
 lows, then, if that be so, that the matter set forth in 
 the ;id and Ith answers which set up corrupt legisla- 
 tion in general terms; and that Mr. Littlejobn voted 
 and acted in this Legislature, constitute no defense, 
 and no proof can be given under these answers. I de- 
 cided l ast niiiht, in overruling the motion to dismiss 
 the complaint, t!iat it involved'a personal charge; and 
 also that the publication was not a privileged one. The 
 tirst answer sets up tliat tlie puiilicatiou was a privi- 
 I leged one. Upon that subject I liold 
 I Tnird : Tiiat the publication is not a privileged one 
 ; on I he part of the defendant, as tbe editor of a public 
 I journal. Tiie press to comment fully and freely upon 
 . public characters, from the Tre^ident down, and to 
 I utter these things with tbe utmost freedom — to cbai-ge 
 ] ollicial men with incompetency and imbocjlity, witb 
 I ignorance or corruption — to charge judges with ignor- 
 ance, incompetency, or venality — and the proof of the 
 truth of any of the.se allegations is a perfect defense. 
 But the press has no right, under its guaranteed free- 
 ] dom, to piibli di what is not true. It bas no right to do 
 I that which shall be an injury to the country, or which 
 ! shall wrongfully assail pi'ivate character. Tiiese 
 assaults on ind vidaals or u])on private character do 
 not become privileged because tbi-y are uttered bv the 
 editor or pro})rietor of a newspa[)er. Tiiey have large 
 protection and large immunities, and it is right they 
 should have; but they do not extend to the length of 
 makmu: publications of this cbai-acter privileged within 
 i tbe rule. 
 
 1 Fourth : It follows, therefore, that the matters pet 
 1 forth in the first, third, and fourth answers constitute 
 no defense; and therefore, as I conceive, no proOf can 
 i be given under them. 
 
 1 The proof must be confined to such alle<raJion8 as 
 ' impute improper, wicked, or corrupt conduct to the 
 ! plaintiif; and in this case, the second answer, as I 
 ' understand, substantially does make that allegaiiou. I 
 I hold. there ore: 
 
 I F'fth : Tlait the proof must be confined to the sec- 
 ond answer, and must be such proof as will tend di- 
 rectly to prove that the plaintiff wickedly, willfully, 
 and corruptly voted for those acts which are set forth 
 in this answer, and they can only be supported by 
 proof of personal corrui)tion, or to such evidence under 
 tbe fifth answer as is competent in mitigation. 
 
 1 In that aspect of the case, this riuesnon is inadmisei- 
 
 I ble. Under these propositions, tbe proof must neces- 
 sarily confine itself within the line of evidence which 
 
 , I have indicated. 
 
 i The defendant excepted to each and eveiy one of 
 tbe foregoing propositions eepurattly. 
 [ Mr. PoKTKu — Do I understand your Honor to hold 
 i that when we charge corrupt legislation, and that the 
 ' plaintiff corruptly advocated it, we cannot prove the 
 : iruth of the entire proposition ? 
 
 The Court — You can prove that he was corrupt by 
 appliances or infiuences made to him, but you cannot 
 prove the proposition that the le-islation was corrupt, 
 and that be advocated and took part in that legislation. 
 
 ]\Ir. roKTEK — I submit to your Honor that the libel 
 divides itself into two branches. The one charging 
 that certain measures were procured by corruption ; 
 the other is that tbe plaintiff corru{ tly advocated them. 
 According to the construction your Honor gives to the 
 article, I submit that it is perfectly comi)eteut to 
 prove the truth of each branch of the proposition. If 
 there were doubt on the subject, tbe plaintiff has 
 ' solved it. He bas introduced in evidence another arti- 
 cle, containing similar charges, by way of aggravation 
 of damages, and it is well settled by the authorities 
 that we have a right, without any ])lea, to prove the 
 truth of any other libel read in evidence in aggrava- 
 tion of daniiiges. I am sure I must understand your 
 Houoi's decision. Does my friend upon the other side 
 
 i 
 
27 
 
 mean seriously to claim that vre are rot at lib- 
 erty to prove the truth of the publication allefjed 
 to 'be libelous ? On the contrary, he told yonr 
 Honor that if driven to it, he should admit 
 that the legislation was corrupt, atul he ad- 
 mitted if it was corrupt, and the plaintift' corruptly 
 participated in it, then our libel was justified — it 
 ceased to be a libel. It may be better here, for the 
 purpose of avoiding misunderstanding, to state more 
 fully that my learned associate has done what we 
 purpo:=e to prove; and how we purpose to prove it. 
 Our charge in the article complained of was of a corruot 
 legi;lative combination, as your Honor construes it. 
 Assuoaing that construction for the purpose of the 
 argument to be correct, we propose to prove it — and 
 that tbe plaintiff was one of that corrupt combination. 
 We cliarge that it was a combination to defraud the 
 people of the State and of the City of New-York; 
 that it was entered into and consummated for private, 
 unworthy, and corrupt ends. We propose to prove it. , 
 How ? _ We must first characterize these acts wiih ' 
 corruption, and it is upon the evidence that the Jury ' 
 is to characterize theni. We must then characterize ' 
 the actors; and if proved to be corrupt, one of them, ' 
 at least, is to be characterized by the Jury. And how i 
 is this to be done ? My learned friends on the other 
 side cay, " You cannot penetrate into the se'irets of the 
 plaintilFs heart; and as you cannot, vou can found no ; 
 ittdgment or verdict upon the fact of corruption." This 
 is a proposition no lawyer wi 1 seriously advocate 1 
 for one moment. The gentlemen call upon us to | 
 produce the witness who has ever toucbed the i 
 palm of De ^Vitt C. Littlejohn with a bribe, j 
 TheT/ may call for it — the knc does not. The lav: calls 
 for the corrupt act ; and the act, which otherwise migbt ' 
 be lawful, becomes corrupt by the corrupt intent. 
 To illustrate: We have proposed to prove, as stated by 
 my learned astociate in tlie opening, that certain rail- \ 
 road bills were proposed in the House of Assembly for : 
 private advantage, and in fraud of the public. We ; 
 propose to show that there was a corrupt combination ■ 
 for the purpose of passing these bills between members 
 of the House and other persons not member^! of the 
 House, but who were engaged in corruptly influencing 
 them. There were actors without — there were actors 
 within. They had a common purpose; and the pur 
 pose of neither was the good the country, bnt private 
 advantage. We propose to show that these bills cost 
 the people between two and three millions of dollars, 
 vcted away by Speaker Littlejohn and his confeder- 
 ates, for no purpose, except deliberate profliiracy and 
 the profits to be derived therefrom. Now, Sir, if this 
 be true, is it no de'ense ? I aver that we establish its 
 truth, if we can prove to the satisfaction of the Jary, 
 tbat the corrupt intent consisted simply in this: That 
 of the millions thus taken frooa the people, $10,000 
 should go to the brother, and $40,000 to the brother-in- 
 law of the pldiutilF ! When we prove these facts, it 
 is for the Jury to say whether there was a corrupt mo- 
 tive for the Speaker's votes. When we find that the 
 act was manifestly against the public interest ; when . 
 we find that men were bought and sold like slaves in ' 
 the market; when we prove that this was done pub- ; 
 lidy and openly, and under the eye of Speaker Lirtle- . 
 john; when we prove that, seeing these things, he con- 
 sented; wheniwe prove tbat the Governor of the State i 
 arrested the corrupt bills by the veto power; and 
 when we follow it up by proof that the plaintiff 
 left his place in the Speaker's chair for the purpose, 
 as a disputant in the arena, of arguing the question in- 
 volving practically the issue whether his brother 
 shoula receive $ 10,000, and his brother-in-law $40,000 
 more, of the profits of this iniquitous legislation — do 
 these facts constitute no defense ? Why, Sir, is it 
 possible that having alleged, we may not jirove them ? 
 When we charge that men are bought and sold, may 
 we not prove it ? When we charge as you hold, that 
 Mr. Littlejohn was corrupt, may we not prove it, as 
 
 we prove any other fact, by circumstantial evidence ? 
 Have we not "to give this Jury the benefit of the light of 
 all the surrounding circumstatces, which will enable 
 them to judge of the motives of the actors ? How are 
 we to arrive at tbat, your Honor ? When we show that 
 the measures were notoriously corrupt — that it was so 
 charged on the floor of tbe House, and that Mr. 
 Sneiker Littlejohn undertook to defend the bills on 
 frivolous and unworthy grounds; that he voted for 
 them, used his influence for them, and joined issue with 
 another deps^rtnient of the Government to force their 
 passage, will your Honor say tbat we do not establish 
 corruption, be;au?e we do not trace the bril)e directly 
 to his private pocket ? You hang men on circumstan- 
 ti^il evidence ! I ask, then, on what principle it is, in a 
 case where the very prdvampii of the accusation con- 
 sists in the intent, that you will not receive circumstan- 
 tial evidence to establish the intent ? Your Honor, I un- 
 derstand, gives a very limited definition to the term cor- 
 ruption. I submit, Sir, that it has never been held, either 
 upon the trial of an impeachment or upon a criminal trial 
 for corrupt action, as a legislator or a public oflicer, 
 that you were not permitted to leave to the tribunal 
 that is to pass upon the fact, the determination of the 
 motive of the act and its circumstances. Your Honor 
 I)roposes in the first place, if I un^^erstand your ruling, 
 to exclade the evidence to show that there was the 
 corruption which we charge, and then to exclude 
 the evidence of the plaintiff's participation in 
 that corruption ; but you ofi'er to us the privilege of 
 proving that some man advanced to biin with a bribe; 
 tendered it, and that he accepted the tender and pock- 
 ted it ! If you look at_ our Statute of bribery even, 
 you will find no sticb limitation there. 
 
 Corruption and brit)ery are two things. When you 
 charge a corrupt combination, you do not charge a 
 criminal offense under tbe statute ; when you charge the 
 act of bribery, you charge an indictable crime. I sub- 
 mit that the 'ruling which your Honor proposes 
 to make is at war with every decision which has ever 
 been made m this country, or in any country, upon a 
 question like this. I am surprised. Sir, that the in- 
 genious presentation of this case by my learned friends 
 lias withdrawn your honor's atte'ntio'n from the prin- 
 ciple upon which cases of this kind rest. I never be- 
 fore heard it suggested m a Court of Justice tbat, in 
 this country, and in a civil action, you could not prove 
 the tru'h 'of the matter alleged in the libel — a charge 
 involnng in itself the very matter complained of. 
 You cannot detach these sentences; the whole may be 
 true, or a part may be true ; but whether the whole, or 
 a part only, is to be determined by tbe Jury on all the 
 evidence adduced. Now, Sir, I submit that it is en- 
 tirely proper for us to show — if, as I suppose we can — 
 that Mr. Llttlejohii was elected for the express pur- 
 pose of carrying out engagements in regard to this 
 legislation ; and that the men who were the prominent 
 actors in procuring these measures were prominent 
 acto 's in procuring him to be renominated and reelected, 
 and in placing him in the cliair of the presiding oflicer 
 of theAssembly. I suppose it to be entirely competent, 
 under your Honor's construction of this libel, for us 
 to prove what the motives were that influenced those 
 who voted for those measoi-es — not one but each, and 
 all, if we can. 
 
 Your Honor holds that there will not he complete 
 justification, unless we bring home to him the corrupt 
 intent. In that we concur. But we claim that this 
 is a question for the Jury, to be determined upon the 
 evidence, llhe corrupt intent is an inference from the 
 facts to be drawn by the Jury, and not a presumption 
 of law, to he deduced by the* Court. I suppose it to 
 be competent for us to p'rove tbat votes in support of 
 these measures were openly bought and sold. " 1 sup- 
 pose it to be clearly, undeniably competent for us to 
 prove that the vote which Mr. s'peaker Littlejohn cast, 
 and the speech which he delivered, put into the 
 pockets of his brother and brother-iu-la v $SO,000. It 
 
in a qnestion of fact f.»r this Jnry whether that was 
 his intent — whether hi? purpose 'was to defraud the 
 peo| le aud to l>ent*tit the nieuibera of his own house- 
 hold. I h-nbmir there can bene <|UHsfii)n as to what 
 would be the iufenMu-o froai the fa its proposeil if 
 proved, for no two honest men wouhl diiror as >o the 
 dedui tion. I admit it would he rouvt-nieut to the 
 counsel on the other t-i<le to exclude this evidence. 
 They invited ns here, with tlie assurance that they 
 were prejiaiedtoineet our jusfifit-atiun. On a ]Mevi()U8 
 occaeion they moved to "strike out the defendaut'e 
 answer. The motion was denied, and each of these 
 four auswei-8 st.mds by the previous jud^niient of the 
 Court. Now tliey jiropose to make for us a new iissuo, 
 and that is, whether De Witt C. LitHejohn was bri!>ed; 
 and also to prescribe the mode la which we shall prove 
 h — by calling some snbscribing witness to the fact. 
 There is no such rule of evidence. 
 
 If I am li^jl't in supposinj? that we have charged 
 coiTuption in the answer, will your Honor say that we 
 are not permitted to prove ir ? But if we' had not 
 charged it, we should in thid ca*e be at liberty — with 
 a justification or witliout a justification — to prove the 
 truth of the allegations. It is competent evidence in 
 mitigation of dam^.ues, and the Jurv have a riyht to 
 see the circumstances under which this ai tide, alleged 
 to he libelous, was issued to the world. If it was 
 through the wrong, or even tlie indiscretion of Mr. 
 Littlejohn, it is a question which the Jury have a right 
 to consider in determining the amount of damages, 
 even had we no justification ui)on tlie record. If 
 he. by his public act, in voting $80,000 into the 
 pockets of his brother and brother-in-law, gave 
 occa^ion for us and the public at large to be mis- 
 led, he is not entitled to the same measure of damages 
 that he would be, un ier other circumstances. If it be 
 established that the legislation was corrupt, and that 
 the measures wliich rendered it iufamous were tboee 
 which were Ciirried over the Governor's veto by the 
 personal vote and voice of the pi tin tiff, he is not in a 
 condition in which to claim from the Jury the same 
 measure of redress for the sujipos^d wrong that he 
 mitrht if he could have said, " I had no participation 
 in this matter." I confess. Sir, I am taken by surprise 
 at the doctrine advanced — and I hardly know how to 
 meet it, because it is so completely opposed to those 
 well settled rules upon this subject, as I understand 
 them, that it scarcely needs to be met by the views I 
 have Rugcested. It seems to me it must be clear to 
 your Honor that this evidence does tend to establish 
 the truth of the matter charged as libelous — that from 
 the facts to which I have adverted, in conjunction with 
 the other facts detailed in the opening, the Jury have 
 a right to presume that either bribed or influenced 
 by personal motives, by hopes of ambi'ion^ by a desire 
 to serve his friends at fhe expense of his country, or 
 by desire to proujote the interests of his party at the 
 expense of his countrv, and either of these "is clear, 
 manifest. un(iue8tionable corruption. Does your Honor 
 believe that at any fireside in the State of New York, 
 two men can be found to differ upon the fjuestion; 
 legislation for the private good of other parties to the 
 prejudice of the public is corrupt legislation It is 
 uot necessary that it be for his own private 
 emolument. If I for the purpose of benefiting 
 another, sell my soul or my vote, I am 
 coirupt. It matters not in this respect who is 
 to be benefited by it. Is the motive conu{)t ? I^ot — 
 was the act a bribe ? Under vour Honor's decision no 
 officer can in any event be charged wuh corruption, 
 unlesb you can })rove a direct and persoiwl bribe I Tlie 
 Press of this country is muzzled from this time forth, 
 and corruption may walk forth unabashed and unre- 
 bnked; it has been fuinislied with a shield here which 
 will protect it everywhere. ^My learned associjite re- 
 fers me to the defiidfions in the book.■^ of corrui)tiou. I 
 cannot Pto[i to read tliein or t'» debate what constirutes 
 corrup'.ion. We have never yet beard the sugg-.gtiou 
 
 from the lips of man that a breach <if a public trust was 
 ' not i-orrupt, or that casting a vote against <.iuVs con- 
 . science was not corruption; that fiilsthood to the con- 
 stituency who elected an oliicer to tiie Ass^mhly is not 
 corrnptitm; that falr-e)ioo<l to the State iu whose Capi- 
 tol a man sits a^ prvhidir^g otlicer of a deliberative body 
 , is not L'ori ui)t. ^^'e have not charged bribery. We do 
 j charge conuption. And if we shiUl prove that oorruii- 
 tion by bribery, it does not weaken our case. Our only 
 I rearon for refraining to specify the particular forms of 
 corrui)tion is tha; somo of our witnesses arc adverse to 
 j us, and what they will prove we do not fully know. 
 I But we do know that we can prove facts, which if un- 
 contradicted will leave no two honest men at variance 
 as to what was the motive for the official action of the 
 plaintiff who has invited u^ here to investigate it, aud 
 now seeks to shun investig-ation. 
 
 Mr. Skdgwk k— It is a pretty early stage of the case 
 to argue an ajjpeal from your Honor's decision, but. if 
 such is to be the order, I desire to say a word. I say 
 no fair-minded man can read the libel for which we 
 have brought this defendant into Court, without giving 
 it the construction which has been given to it by the 
 Court. It is iu eveiy sense a reasonable, just, and 
 proper construction of the language. It is what the 
 author meant when he wrote it, and what he leaves 
 his counsel to disguise. Is'ow, if that is a proper con- 
 struction of the li.tl, if that is what he meant to 
 charge, I say it is entirely immaterial what is the char- 
 acter of the legislation which they seek to bring ia 
 here. A man may be just as corrupt in voting for a 
 good measure in the Legislature as for a bad one; it i& 
 the motive that operates upon him that is to try that, 
 and not the churac;ter of the legislation. If it 
 had been just that railroad bill that Gov. Morgan 
 would have drawn up, witliout any object or interest, 
 of couise, or any personal consiueraiiou ; if it tiad 
 been, for instance, the bill overruling the Court and 
 orgauiz ng the iSinth-avenne Kailroad, it; would not 
 have been the question whether that was good or bad, 
 but whether Mr. Littlejohn's votes upon it were cast 
 upon public grounds or upon private grounds? whether 
 cast for what he believed to be tiie public interest, or 
 what he knew to be his own corru})t personal interest 1 
 I don't confine the question to a ({uestion of bribe, nor 
 does the Court; it is a question of impuie, personal, in- 
 terested motive, operating upon him. It matters uot 
 whether the bill was drawn by the Governor in the 
 Executive Chamber, or whether concocted by the 
 men who have been named here this morning as" those 
 who concocted the corrupt legisla:ion for the Citv of 
 New-York. It is a matter entirely indifferent, 'fhe 
 argument of the counsel who has sat down is 
 precisely the same argument, presented before, only 
 perhaps more compact, and iu a terser form. He pro- 
 })Otes to prove that the legislation itself was corrupt, 
 which it may be in various ways. It may have been 
 gotten up by interested parties, deceitfully and cor- 
 ruptlully; it may have been carried through the Leg- 
 islature by wholesale bribery of others, so that three- 
 fourths of the members who voted for the measure 
 were directly hi ibed for their votes; and yet a man 
 may have voted with these corrupt members, and may 
 have advocated the measure, andttill be as little liable 
 to the charge of bribery or corrujition as anybody who 
 voted against the measure from the beginning. There 
 is a distinction. It is the motive which 
 operates on the member who gives his vote in a par- 
 ticular case, that decides whether it is a just, fair and 
 honest vote ti>r whut he supposes to be the beet meas- 
 ure that can be procured — or whether it is cast with- 
 out regard to the merits of the question and for some 
 corrupt personal motive. Now, here is a distinction 
 which the ( ouusel wholly loses si^ht of. lie endeav- 
 ors to put it one side; to put it out of the case and to 
 argue that if the legi-lution was bad, or if any of the 
 ii embers concerned were gidlfy, then were all guilty 
 
29 
 
 of corruption and therefore cculd be libeled in the 
 manner in -which Mr. Littlejohn has been libeled by 
 the defendant ia this case. Now look at this second 
 answer; it is the only one left in the case, 
 except the 5th; aud you will see, they have 
 there specified the various acts of legislation 
 which they say are corrupt. I undertake to 
 say in reply to what has been suggested I ly the coun- 
 sel; that in no one of these roe-risuree of legislation is 
 any relative of Mr. Liitleiohn interested to the 
 amount of $10,000 or 40 cents, or ever has been. We 
 desire to do away with that, and that when they come 
 to the proof we shall see what there is of it. I desire 
 to do away with the impression that is sought to be 
 made upon the Court, by the assej tion in such broad, 
 emphatic terms. There is not one word of truth in 
 it. We challenge investigation, that anything or 
 anybody connected with hiui has operated in the least 
 degree, 'in the remotest manner, upon him ii giving 
 the vote wliich he gave for these measures. We do 
 not pretend to say they are shutout from testimony; 
 that is not the purport of the decision; but it 
 is, that they shall prove what they have 
 charged. The difficulty is, the counsel says 
 they have charged one thing, and the Court has 
 given a different construction to the language they 
 have used. If the Court is right, then this evidence 
 about which they talk, unless it goes to the charge of 
 personal corruption, personally interested motives by 
 bribery or otherwise of the plaintiff, is entirely for- 
 eign to the case, and there is no reasoning or authority ! 
 thiat can alter this conclu^ion. The counsel insists I 
 upon a construction of the libel, which I say i? an un- 1 
 fiir, di?ingenuous, dishonest construction of the lan- 
 guage. It is not what was intended at the time it was I 
 written. There is where we differ. The evidence 
 that would be competent to show corrupt legislation, ■ 
 then, is an entirely different class of evidence from 
 tnat whioh goes to show that Mr. Littlejohn is a cor- j 
 rupt legislator; that his motives were bad, or that he 
 was bribed, or operated upon by appliances that were 
 improper to be brought to bear upon a legislator. If , 
 the libel is what they say it is, then our cause of action | 
 fails entirely, and we are not entirled to sustain this ' 
 action, because one member of a Legislature cannot ! 
 maintaiu an action which charges legislative corruption j 
 on the whole body; it is entirely too general. If their j 
 construction of the libel prevails the suit must be dis- | 
 missed. So that, after all, we necessarily come back, | 
 in the discussion of this question, to the point, what j 
 does the libel, fairly construed, mean? If it means! 
 what we claim, then it excludes all this mdss of evi- 
 dence that is offered as to how these Kailroad bills ' 
 were got up; who was interested, and what was done ; 
 by other parties, as entirely foreitrn to the case. We i 
 come directly to the point whether Mr. Littlejohu's ; 
 votes were corrupt votes ? Whether he was affected 
 by coiTuption or venality, or by personal, unworthy, 
 illegal, interested motives; and that is the principle 
 that is to control the e^-idence in their case. That is, to | 
 draw a line between this great mass of evidence which j 
 is entirely foreign to the case and that which gots to I 
 bring home to Mr. Littlejohn corrupt, or venal, or in- 
 terested m.otives in the votes which he gave. 
 
 The Court — It would doubtless be no impediment 
 on the judgment or discrimination of any man to 
 admit that his views might be somewhat shaken by 
 the very ingenious and able argument of the Counsel 
 for the defendiint — an argument that I listened to with 
 great pleasure — yet I am not shaken in the view 
 which I take of tliis case; and have only to reiterate 
 the decision that I have already made. This question, 
 it seeme to me, might have been decided before we 
 came down to thfs trial, upon a demurrer to the 
 answer which would perhaps have settled the legal 
 principles under which this trial should take place. 
 But the question is here now, upon the pleadings as ^ 
 they exist, and must be disposea of. But I will not \ 
 say that my opinion may not change hereafter, upon j 
 further retfectiou, or further argument ; but at present 
 
 it is decided, and clear, that the construction which I 
 have given to tljis libel, is the true construction; and 
 being so it involves a charge of personal corruption, 
 and is only sasceptible of defense by proving a state 
 of facts that brings it up to that point of proof. It is 
 not enough that you make proof of general corruption 
 in the Legislature; that 10, 20 or 50 men were person- 
 ally corrupted; that does not show that the plainiitl 
 in this case was actuatea by corruption or mer- 
 cenary motives in the part which he took in 
 that legislation. That would be trying his case 
 while you tried the matters and case of other corrupt 
 men; and no principle of justice, I think, would 
 authorize that. This inquiry would be undoubtedly a 
 very interesting one, and a A-ery important one; and I 
 may confess to a very pardonable curiosity myself to 
 have this whole investigatiou opened up, aud the 
 public would doubtless receive a beiiefit from it. It 
 would require doubtless no great stretch of the imag- 
 ination to conceive a state of facts which would both 
 astonish and shock the public mind. But this is not 
 the arena in which these things are to be tried. We 
 are not engaged in a legislative investigation, we are 
 trying the rights of an individual, a pure question of 
 libel between two private parties; and in so trying, in 
 accordance with the rules of law, we are, in my judg- 
 ment, confined to the precise issue, which I think "is 
 only legitimate before thi^ Jury, and which I have in- 
 dicated in the decision, that these oilers are not proper; 
 but the proof must be ccl fined to the precise point 
 which 1 have indicated in deciding the question. 
 
 After a short consultation, the defendant's counsel 
 made the following offers to prove : 
 
 OFFERS TO PROVE. 
 
 First : The defendant offers to prove that the acts 
 set forth in the answer were severally passed by the 
 votes of members of the Assembly, of* whom a majority 
 were bribed to vote theretor, and who voted therefor 
 corruptly ; aud the defendant claims that this proof is 
 admissible for the purpose of justifying a portion of the 
 matter charged as libelous, proposing to follow it up 
 with proof justifying the residue. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Second : The defeudaut offers to prove the same 
 facts ia mitigation of damages. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant , 
 
 Thh-d : The defendant offers to prove the same facts 
 for the purpose of showing the truth of the article not 
 embraced in the complaint, but read in evidence in ag- 
 gravation of damages. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 FoiirLh : The defendant offers to prove the same 
 facts, and that the plaintiff' voted for and supported in 
 debate the passage of those acts, with notice that a 
 majority of those who supported them were bribed, 
 and that certain of the parties soliciting their passage 
 aud seeking the benefit thereof had bribed them, claim- 
 ing that this evidence is admissible for the purpose of 
 justifying the article alleged to be libelous. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Fifth : Offers same facts as in last proposition in 
 mitigation of damages. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Sixth : Offers same facts to show the truth of the 
 article from The Tribune read in evidence in aggra- 
 vation of damages. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Srventh: OHiers to show that certain members of the 
 Assembly who voted for the Kailroad bills mentioned 
 in the answer did so under and in pursuance of a cor- 
 rupt agreement with parries named as grantees of the 
 franchises conferred in the acts, to apportion and divide 
 the proceeds of such franchises exceeding two millions 
 of dollars between them and private friends of such 
 members, embracing among others the brother and 
 brother-in-law of the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff, 
 with notice of theee facts, and for the purpose of secar- 
 iug such benefit to his brother aud brother-in-law, and 
 
30 
 
 knowing that puch bills were prejudicial to the public , 
 interet't, voted for and advocated tliom in dehate, and 
 exercised hie iiitliu'nce over otiier incmberH of tlie 
 House to secure their passxpfe — the defendant, daiiuiiig ' 
 that this evidence is aduiitisible iu juttilicatiou of the , 
 charge of corru{^>tiou. | 
 
 Excluded. Lxcention for defendant. i 
 KiL^ltth: Olfere to snow the same facts, with the further 
 fact that the plaiiititf iu violation of the rules of the 
 House, permitted his brotlier and brother-in-law, and 
 other parties to be benefited, to be admitted upon the 
 Hoor of the Assembly during the set^pions thereof, when 
 they were not entitled thereto; the defendant claiming 
 that from all these facts tlie Jury would have the 
 riuht to infer a corrupt intent on the part of the plaintilf. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Ninth: OHers to show all the facta stated in the 
 foregoing propositiors. Claiming that the Jury have a 
 right to inter theretrom, that the pluintitf in voting tor 
 said acts, respectively did so from corrupt motives and 
 for private objects in violation of his oaths as a mem- 
 ber of the Assembly. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for the defendant. 
 
 We claim that it is a "luestion for the Jury, whether 
 the article claimed to be libelous, charged tbe i)laintiff 
 with corruption. 
 
 The plaintitis counsel retired for a short consulta- 
 tion: and when they retumed made the lollowing ob- 
 jection: 
 
 The plaintiff objects to these propositions, and each 
 and everyone of them; as "inadmissible in e\ndence 
 under tbe" ruling of the Court ; except that the defend- 
 ant may be allowed to show that the brother and 
 brother-in-law of the plaintiff, or either of them, was 
 interested, tj the knnirlrdfre of the pJaintijI', in any 
 stock in any of the roads'^ urnnt(^ in th,e difcnda nts 
 su-cr to hix complaint, ioidilhsit vote upon any of 
 the said bills was influenced by such knowledge. 
 
 The Court sustained the objection, under the ruling 
 already given. 
 
 Exception for defendant. 
 
 Mr. PoRTKR — We ofler to prove further, the facts 
 stated in the first defense. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 We offer to prove the facts stated in the third de- 
 fense. 
 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 We offer to prove the facts in the fourth defense. 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 We also offer to prove them separately in mitigation 
 of damage?. 
 Excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 TESTDIONY OF 3IR, CONKLING CONTINUED. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Sedgwick. 
 
 Q. Did you understand Mr. Littlejohn to state that 
 he had any conversation or personal interview with 
 the Corporation officers of the City of New- York ? 
 
 Objected to on the ground that the witness had 
 already given the language. Objection overruled. 
 Exception for defendant. 
 
 A. I understood Mr. Littlejolm to say that he had 
 information from the public authorities of the city, but 
 not that it had been given in any direct personal inter- 
 view or communication. 
 
 Q. That he had l)een informed that =uch were their 
 views ? A. That he liad information on that subject. 
 
 Q. Did he say he had seen or had any direct "com- 
 niunicatien with Mr. Bronson ? A. Xo, 8ir, I did not 
 understand him to make any such a-^sertion. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether, when you made the 
 statement that these judgments were' invalid and 
 fraudulent, and would be set aside — do you remem- 
 ber whether Mr. Littlejohn was in the House ? A. I 
 am very confident he was. 
 
 Q. — Did you see him. Do you remember that you 
 
 ^ The Belt Road, in which MesBrs. R. H. ThompBon and F. S. 
 LiltJejohn are stockholders, is not named in the said answer. 
 
 saw him ? A. — 1 know that the remarks, which I 
 have referred to as having been made by tlie Sjieaker, 
 were made m re[)ly to a speech of my own, in wliich I 
 made tln'se statements — that these judgments were 
 founded in fraud and collusion ; and" his rejily to that 
 was, that tlie Corporation Counsel had pronounced 
 them good and valid judgments, as he was informed — 
 not informed personally, but that he had this infor- 
 mation from the public authorities. 
 
 O. — That was in reply to you / A. — That was in 
 rej ly to my speech. 
 
 Q. — Now, Sir, at the time of that debate, do you 
 remember that a member of the House rose and stated 
 that iMr. LitilMjohn was a member of the Board of 
 Land Commissioners, and asked him to state what lie 
 knew of the matter ? A. — I think nothing of the kind 
 occuned. 
 
 Q. — Have you any memory on the subject, whether 
 SUCH was or was tot the fact ? Whether he was not 
 directly appealed to by a member of the House, as one 
 of thai, Board, for his knowledge ou the subject ? A. 
 j My recollection is distinct as to the order in which the 
 i debate proceeded; aud it is, that the Sficaker followed 
 me immediately witliout any such appeal as has been 
 referred to being made by any member. 
 \ Q. — Then there was no such appeal mar?e ? A. — To 
 < the best of my knowledge aud recollection no such 
 1 appeal was made. 
 
 i Q. Have you i-ecently examined any report of that 
 I debate ? A' I have not. 
 
 I Q. Have you had any personal difficulty with Mr. 
 I Littlejohn ? A. I have had controversies with him in 
 
 the House of Assembly of this State. 
 Q. Were they of a jiersonal character? A. Perhaps 
 
 in oue instance they might have been. Mr. Littlejohn 
 
 made charges against me. 
 Q. Never mind the cause. Did you attend the 
 
 caucus that was held at the last Legislature to oppose 
 1 his election for Speaker ? A. I did not. I was not in 
 
 Albany at the time at all. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF HORACE GREELEY, SWORN FOR 
 DEFENSE. 
 Examined by Mr. Williams, 
 j Q. You are the defendant in action ? _ A. Yes, Sir. 
 I Q. What were your personal relations vnXh Mr. 
 Littlejohn on the 2Gth day of September last, and 
 prior to that time ? 
 Objected to. Objection overruled. 
 A.I believe they were good ; always good so far as 
 1 I can recollect. We have been acfiuainted al)Out _ 20 
 years, and I have no knowledge of any personal diffi- 
 ' culty, or political, between us during that time, except 
 in regard'to these measures of that Legislature. 
 I Q. Had you any personal unkindness toward him, 
 growing out of that matter ? A.I had not. Sir. 
 ! Q. Or at the time of tliis publication of the 26th of 
 September ? A. No, Sir. 
 
 ! Q. Had you at any time any malice toward Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn, of any kind, or nature, or description, or for 
 any cause whatsoever ? A. I am not aware gf any. 
 
 i Q. On the 26th day of September, at the time of the 
 publication of the article in question, 1 w^ant to know 
 if you believed the statement to be true 
 
 ' Objected to as incompetent. Objection overruled. 
 
 ' Exception for jilaintiif. 
 
 [ A. Yes, Sir, I did. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Sedgwick. 
 
 Q. You say you had no malice or unkindness except 
 
 ' what grew out of tiiese bills / A. I am not aware of 
 
 i any — I mean previous to this time. 
 
 Q. Now, Sir, did you not attack him in your paper 
 
 i upon grounds entiiely personal previous to that time ? 
 A. I am not aware that I so attacked him. 
 
 Q. Did you before or immediately after this publi- 
 cation, without any sub8e(iuent ground, attack him for 
 
 : private transactions not connected with these political 
 acts ? A. I think not, Sir. In tbe article partly read 
 by Mr. Marsh, Times stated in a letter from 
 
81 
 
 Oswego, that Mr. Littlejohn had been making a very- 
 severe attack upon me; had "handled me without 
 gloves," and BO on; and that hig character was estab- 
 lished in Oswego. Well, Sir, I had undei stood that a 
 requisition was once issued by the Governor of Illinois 
 for Mr. Littlejohn, and I said if the Governor of this 
 State had answered the requisition made by the Gov- 
 ei-nor of Illinois, his character would have been estab- 
 lished in Chicago as well as in Oew^ego. But I was 
 mistaken ; there was no requisition for him. 
 
 Q. Had you any information, except in general 
 terms, of what be had said in regard to you ? A. I 
 had tbe information read last night that I was " handled 
 without gloves," called a calumniator, &c. 
 
 Q. Had you attacked Mr. Littlejohn before the 26th 
 of September by name ? A. I think never, separate- 
 ly from others; I was repeatedly asked, are you in 
 favor of reelecting those Republicans who voted for 
 those corrupt measures ? and I said, never. 
 
 Q. The question I put was, whether you had at- 
 tacked Mr. Littlejohn by name in your paper repeated- 
 ^ before the 26th of September, 'charging him with 
 corrupt legislation in connection with those measures 
 or any otheis ? A. In tbe article read he was named. 
 
 Q. I mean prior to September, and during tbe Win- 
 ter of 1860 ? A. 1 have no recollection of it ; I might 
 have said so. 
 
 Q. Don't you remember whether you had named 
 him? A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Do you refer to private communicatious when 
 you say you had so often stated your opinions ? A. I 
 referred to pub icaiions. 
 
 Q. Then you had published your opinions before ? 
 A. This article does not refer to him alone. 
 
 Q. I mean whether you included him among other 
 persons? A. I c id, Sir. 
 
 Q. Had you been inquired of with regard to tbe 
 propriety of Mr. Littlejohn' s nomination I A. Xo, 
 Sir, but with regard to tbe propriety of Republicans 
 voting to reelect members who had supported those 
 measures. 
 
 Q. Had you been inquired of specifically as to the 
 propriety of Littlejohn's nomination? A. Lictlejobn 
 and Myers, I thiuk the inquiry was in that case. 
 
 Q. This was a private in(iuiiy; was Mr. Littlejohn 
 named in it ? A. I am quite sure he was. 
 
 Q. Who was it written by? A. I don't remember. 
 
 Q. Was it a nameless man ? A. Well, Sir, your ques- 
 tions force me to say that it so happen^ that I did not 
 w^rite the article on which this suit is founded, 
 but I do not wish to evade any responsibility for it. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether the writer of that article 
 had any malice ? A. I think he did not even know 
 Mr. Littlejohn.' 
 
 Q. Wbo"^ was the writer ? A. Mr. Charles A. Dana, 
 one of my associates. 
 
 Q. Who was this correspondent? A. I don't 
 know. 
 
 Q. Then you never saw the letter? A. Xo, Sir, I 
 did not; but I know that similar inquiries were made 
 of me. 
 
 Q. Have you ever withdrawn the charge contained 
 in that article in reepect to the Gov€rnor of Illinois on 
 finding that it was untrue ? A. I offered to withdraw 
 it before my suit was commenced ; I oft'ered to state 
 the exact fact. 
 
 Q. Offered to state what fact ? A. I don't wish to 
 call other people's names here. 
 
 Q. Did you offer to retract it.without qualification 
 as to Mr. Littlejohn ? A. Certainly, as regards Mr. 
 Littlejohn. 
 
 ^ Q. Without qualification ? A. I had to state to 
 him 
 
 Q. The substance of it is, you oflfered to retract as 
 to him by stating the facts as to another ? A. There 
 was another person whose name I did not wish to 
 mention. 
 
 Q. Then to make an unqualified retraction you 
 never did ofi'er ? A. So far as concerned Mr. L., I did 
 
 offier to retract, and to say I was undtr a misappre- 
 heni-ion when I made tbe statement. 
 
 Q. Why not retract it w^hen you found it was 
 i wrong ? You had control of the columns of your pa- 
 per, hadn't you ? Why not state that you were mie- 
 taken, if you had no malice ? A. 1 should very glad- 
 : ly have stated so. You will see the reason why I did 
 ' not, in a letter which I wrote to Mr. Marsh. 
 
 Q. Why could you not, when you found out it was 
 i not true, take it back and say it was not true 1 A. I 
 , had not made a false accusation ; I had been mistaken 
 in regard to the man. 
 
 j Q. The question is why, having found out the accu- 
 j sation against Mr. Littlejohn was unfounded, you did 
 not retract it voluntarily in your paper, over which 
 you had control ? A. Well, Sir, because I could not 
 I state all the circumstances without injuring another 
 person whom I wished very much not to injure, 
 j Q. Could you not state that your information with 
 ' regard to Mr. Littlejohn was unfounded, and stop 
 I there? A. It was noli exactly unfounded; it was mis- 
 taken. « 
 
 Q. Mistaken by you or the person who informed you ? 
 A. I certainly thought I was right when I made the 
 statement. 
 
 Q. Was you ever told that Mr. Littlejohn was sent 
 for by the Governor of IlUnois ? A. I now think, 
 ; Sir, that when the information was given Mr. Litile- 
 ijohuwasnot mentioLed; but I certainly thought I 
 was correct as to the complaint I heard of our Gov- 
 : ernor for not answering the Illinois requisition. 
 
 Q. You then di-i publish tliat article making that 
 accusation, that Mr. Littlejohn had been indicted in 
 Illinois, without having been so informed byffcy per- 
 son ? A. I don't think the accusation was so broad as 
 you state it. 
 
 Q. When you found and was informed that the per- 
 son communicating the information had not mentioned 
 Mr. Littlejohn, why clidn"t you say that in your paper, 
 and thus end the matter ? A. iBecause I felt that it 
 i was my right to state all the circumstances which led 
 me into that mistake, so as not to expose myself un- 
 justly to the charge of having fabricated the charge; 
 and I thought Mr. Littlejohn would not desire to have 
 me state them. 
 
 Q. That was the reason you did not take it back ? 
 A. I was then threatened with a libel suit; still, I 
 offered then to mnke the statement. 
 
 Mr. Marsh — Q. Have you got. the lettei- which 
 threatened you with a libel suit ? A. No; I suppose 
 you have it. 
 
 Q. Was you threatened with a suit ? A. I so un- 
 ; derstoodit. 
 
 j Q. Were you not informed distinctly that if you 
 would retract the charges that was all that was asked 
 , of you ? 
 
 [Objected to on the ground that the paper is in ex- 
 istence, and should be shown to the witiit-^s, and that 
 the paper being in writing is the best evidence. Ob- 
 
 ' jectiou sustained ] 
 
 j [Exception tor plaint iftM 
 
 ■ Q. Have you the letter which Mr. Marsh addressed 
 to you 1 A. I have not heie; I suppose I have it 
 ; somewhere. 
 
 Q. Is that a copy of it [showing witness a paper] ? 
 I A. I could not remember exactly, 
 i Q. Is that your letter ? [Showing witness another 
 i letter]. A. That is my handwriting, and that is the 
 letter I wrote. 
 
 I Q. Well,^ is that a copy of the other letter ? A. 1 
 i pre*>ume it is, but I don't know. 
 
 I The Coimsel for the defendant objected to the paper 
 I which was a copy, on the grounds: First, That it was 
 not proved to be*a copy. Second, That if pi oved to 
 be a copy it is inadmissible for that very reason. 
 Objection sustained. 
 I The Counsel for the plaintiff' then offered in e-vidence 
 ; the letter of Mr. Greeley, which Mr. Greeley himself 
 read to the J ury as follows : 
 
32 
 
 O FiTK OF The TitinrNR, ) 
 Nk.W-Yokk. Nov. 26, 18G0. J 
 
 Gknti f.mkn: 1 liavo your lett<»r oi the 24tli thi» inomont. 
 
 A ullusioji to Mr. Littlejnhii in Thk Tuiiu'.nk occurs to 
 
 .ne as having j-ivcn warrnnt for your dtMiiund It was that in 
 
 hich 1 spoke of his having been wanted in Illinois. My au- 
 thority for that stttteiu'"! t is John W eut worth, Miiyor of Chicago ; 
 li.it it now occ'irs to nie that the re(Hii-.itiou of Gov. IJissell on 
 !i >v. Kinc was for .Mr. Kitzhugli, the futher-in-law and hu^iness 
 I trtner of Mr. Littlfjohn, not Ibr Mr. L. himself; thon-ih 1 un- 
 d»-r>taiid lUid bi lieve that it wa'* on account of partnership tran- 
 -iicfions. If Mr. Littl.johii desiren that I shuU ascertttin and 
 imblish the exact fiicts in the ca-f, I will gladly do so. 1 have 
 h.-.^i'ated hitherto, because Mr. Fitzhuuh is iioz in public life, is 
 ■11 old UKiu. for whom I have the kindest regard, and whom 1 do 
 ! It wish to drag b< fore the public iu any unpleasant connection. 
 Mill, if Mr. Littlejohn desires a correction of this statement 
 piade, I will do it cheerfully, and iu exact accordance with the 
 
 ict.*. 
 
 As to all other tuat'.ers which Mr. L. may have to complain of, 
 I have onlv to say that I shall very gladly correct any niisrepre- 
 seiitation I have made that may beshown'to lueto be such. But I 
 cuiinot chtnge my opinions with reg-^rd to much of the legisla- 
 tion of last AN'inter. w'iereof_Mr. l.ittlejohu was a proiuinent 
 advocate. 1 consider tiiat legislation every Way wrong, unjustifi- 
 able, and corrupt ; and, while 1 do not know that Mr. L. received 
 any money for his sliare in it. I deem it of such a chiracter that 
 it would be no less objectionable to my mind if 1 wtrecou- 
 vin ?-'d that he bore his part iu it without hope or expectation 
 of reward. 
 
 If vou will point out to me the averments in The TitmrNE 
 that ^Ir. L. demands should be retracted or corrected, I will do 
 ^^ilatever seen-.s to me just, but no more, because Mr. L. threat- 
 ens me with a libel-suit. Indeed, it is probable that, in the ab- 
 sence of such threat, I might be induced to go further than I 
 would otherwise have done. But, whether threatened or not, 1 
 shall be at all timea ready to undo any it.justice I may have com- 
 mitted. Yours, 
 
 « HORACE GREELEY. 
 
 Messrs. M.vrsh and Webb, Oswego, N. Y. 
 
 Q. I>M you attend the Legitslative (Assemblj) can- 
 cus of tne"la?t Winter ? A." Yes, Sir. 
 
 Q. Did yua attend it lor the purpose of opposiug 
 Mr. Littlejobu's renoniinatiou as Speaker ? A. For 
 that express purpoee, aud no other. 
 
 L)id you publ sh, immediately preceding that 
 cawu?, a charge against Mr. Littlejohn, in your 
 paper ? A. 1 have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Which was withdrawn immediately after ? 
 A. There was something publislied, not immediately 
 before that election, but earlier, which was corrected 
 the next day, I think. An erroneous statement was 
 made in The Trikuxe, not by me, with regard to 
 some of these West Washington 'Market leases, but I 
 contradicted it the very nexl; day, without waiting for 
 any suggestion from Mr. L. 
 
 Q. ^Va^ it with regard to this caucus ? A. Ko, Sir, 
 I think not. 
 
 Q. Was it intended to operate on that election. A. 
 I cannot eay, becaue<e I did not write n. 
 
 Q. Was it withdrawn immediately alter the election 
 of Si)eaker ? A. No, Sir; I think* it was before — 
 many days before the caucus, according to my recollec- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. Were you a candidate for any office at that 
 time ? A. No, Sir, I was not. Q. Not a candidate for 
 Senator? No, Sir, I don't know that I was; may have 
 been spoken of among other?. 
 
 Q. Hadn t you .spoken of yours-elf as a candidate to 
 members of the As.-<embly ?* A. No, Sir. I had not, 
 neither at that time nor 'at any other time; I never 
 solicited any member's supi)ort for tiiat olli'-e. 
 
 9- Were'any of your partuen in the paper there so- 
 liciting votes for you as Senator, to your knowledge ? 
 A. No, Sir, not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Not Mr. Dana'.' A. Nq^ Sir, lie was not there. 
 
 Q. Nor Mr. Camp ? A. He was there as a mem- 
 ber of the House. 
 
 Q. And Mr. Cleveland ? A. He is our Reporter 
 there every Winter. 
 
 Q. Has lie any interest in the paper ? A. No, Sir. 
 
 Q. Is he a relative of youra? A. He married a fcis- 
 terofmine. 
 
 9. Do you know whether either of them were so- 
 liciting votes lor you at that lime ? A. I am very con- 
 fident thev were not. 
 
 I _Q. Tla.- your paper fince made an attack upon Mr. 
 Littlejohn in connection with the Liverpool Consulate ? 
 A. I am not aware that it has. 
 
 Q. Did not you iiniiounce that he had declined (re- 
 ferring to him as a prominent jiolilician) becau8e lie 
 nmelt fat jobs liere ' A. I don t recollect it. Sir; I 
 have not publiislied nor written such a j)aragraph. 
 
 Q. Have you seen such a paragraph in your paper ? 
 A. I can confidently say ttiat 1 never "wrote, insti- 
 gated nor inserted such a paragraph. 
 
 Q. At the time of the caucus, when the nomination 
 was announced, did you make any verbal remarks on 
 it? A. I cannot recollect any; I was very strongly 
 opposed to his election, l)ut don't recollect any remark's 
 I made. 
 
 I Q. Did you oppose liis election and solicit votes 
 against bim, ciiarging him with the same corruption in 
 office which you have charged iu your paper, in order 
 to defeat his el-^ction ? 
 
 Objected to as to the general form. Objection over- 
 : ruled. " « 
 
 I A.I have no recollection of saying so, but I did o# 
 pose bim on account of those measures, and I probably 
 ' said so, though I have no recollection of it. 
 ; Q. To members of the Legislature whom you talked 
 with in 0]ipo!;iag him, did you repeat in i^ubstance this 
 publication ? A. I cannot remember the words; I 
 have no recollection of the precise words I used. 
 ] Q. Don't you know generally what arguments you 
 ' used against him — whether in substance you did repeat * 
 j what you had previously published in your paper ? A. 
 1 I wiU'tell you what was the substance of what I said. ' 
 I thought Mr. Lucius Kobiuson an houeet, upright 
 legislator, and I had not the same opinion of Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn. 
 
 Q. That generally is what you said? A. That is, 
 ' in my judgment, what I said. 
 
 I Q." That, in your opinion, Mr. Lucius Eobinson was 
 'an upright man, and Mr. Littlejohn was not? A. I 
 i said legislator. 
 
 j Q. Did you not say in substance that he was guilty 
 
 ' of those things that you had previously charged him 
 with in your paper ? 
 
 Objected to. Obj ction sustained. 
 
 I Ke-direct examination, by Mr. Willums — Q. There 
 is the paper of 11th of September, which was read in 
 evidence. Is Mr. Littlejohu's name mentioned there ? 
 
 { A. It is contained in the lUt of Yeas on the City Rail- 
 
 \ road bills. 
 
 I Q. Is there any other allusion to it there ? A. No, 
 
 I Sir; there is none. 
 
 Mr. Williams asked the counsel for defendant to 
 give him the paper containing the article which was 
 partly read the evening before, which they refused, on 
 the ground that it had been entirely wuthiliawu. 
 
 i The Court took a recess. 
 
 EVENING SESSION. 
 Re-direct continued, 
 i Q. B -tween the article that appeared on the 11th of 
 September and the L'6th of September, did anything 
 I appear in the columns of The Tima NE touching Mr. 
 Littlejohn, that you remember ? A. No, Sir. 
 i Q. Between the 26th of September, the date of the 
 , article in question here, and the article of the 23d of 
 ' Octo' er, a part of which was read last night, did any- 
 thing appear in the columns of The Tribune touching 
 Mr. Littlejohn that you remember ? A. I remember 
 none. 
 
 Q. At all events, you wrote none ? A. I am quite 
 coniident I wrote none. 
 
 i Q. The arti{!le followed immediately on the article 
 in The Times, which stated that Mr. Littlejohn 
 "handled you without gloves," and called you a 
 calumniator ? A. I am not certain about the dates. 
 If you furnish me the paper.. I can tell. 
 
 C^. Have you been sued by Mr. Littlejohn for the 
 
 ' publication of this matter, concerning which you were 
 
33 
 
 inquired of in your cross-examination ? A. Yes, Sir; 
 another libel suit is pendiug on that, 1 believe. 
 
 Q. Was that suit brought after you wrote that 
 letter -which you read. A. Yes, Sir; after that. 
 
 Q. Your comments, or whatever was published in 
 The TribU-ve, was in rejjly to those articles in Tke 
 Times? A. Yes, Sir. 
 
 Q. At the time of the publication of the article of 
 
 Objection sustaioed. Exception for defendant. 
 Q. Had you any otiier motives for oppofciug the elec- 
 tion of Mr. Littlejohn to the Assembly or as Speaker 
 than tbo.^e that you have mentioned? A. I had no 
 other motive for oppoting his election to the Assembly; 
 but it IS quite possible that, after these suits, or threats 
 of suits, there may have been a little personal feeling 
 on my side; 1 could not say that I had no personal 
 
 the 23d of October, did you believe then what you feeling: on the 1st of January last. I certainly did op 
 ' ' • ^ - ---- 1" * T j-j i pose him mainly ou account of our difFerence on these 
 
 I measures; but I could not say I had the same feeling 
 i toward him l ist January that 1 formerly had. 
 j Q. Did you, at the time you opposed Mr. Littlejohn 
 I as candidate for election to the Assembly in the Au- 
 tumn of 18G0 believe the measures in question were 
 I corrupt measures ? 
 i Objected to. Objection sustained, 
 j Cross-examination resumed, by Mr. Sedgwick. 
 I Q. Do you mean to say that between the 26th of Sep- 
 : tember and the 23d of October vou did not write or 
 
 stated in that article ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Who was your informant on that point 1 
 
 Objected to. Objection sustained. 
 
 Q. You were asked upon the direct examination 
 whether you were told what was published in the 
 article of the 23d of October ? A. I answered thac I 
 understood it so; but now believe I was mistaken. 
 
 Q — At the time you understood it so ? A. At the 
 time I certainly did. 
 
 Q. Have you seen Mr. Wentworth since ? A. Yes, 
 Sir 
 
 Q. The letter which you read was in reply to Mr. ' publish any article against Mr. Littlejohn? A. I mean 
 
 Littlejobn's attorneys' ? A. Yes, Sir 
 
 Q. The Messrs. Marsh and Webb, the attorneys who 
 brought this suit, and who brought botu suite ? 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Q. Where were you at the time the article upon 
 which this suit was brought was published ? A. Ac- 
 cording to my recollection, I was away, speaking; I 
 saw the article, but it did not attract my attention un- 
 til this letter from Marsh and Webb 
 out of town. 
 
 Q. When did yon first see that article ? A. I think 
 on the second morning, while I was away somewhere. 
 
 Q. You were awav, and got The Tribune, and saw 
 it ? A. Yes. Sir. 
 
 (^. Prom the time this article appeared, have you 
 written or published anything concerning Mr. Little- 
 john? A. I do not recollect having written a para- 
 graph, except the aiticle that they called attention to. 
 
 Q. Xone aside from that? A.'iso, Sir; no other. 
 
 Q. Did you write the article to which they called 
 your attention ? A. No, Sir, I did not ; but I ^ wrote 
 the correction which appeared next day of a misstate- 
 ment in it. 
 
 Q. I understand you to say an article did appear 
 concerning this legislation, or something of that kind ? 
 A. It was concerning the West WasHiugt^^ Market 
 generally, and with regard to Mr. Liiitlejohn, it made 
 several statements, and among others that he had 
 signed a particular lease to Taylor and Breeuau, which 
 I found the next day had not "been signed by him, but 
 by his predecessor. 
 
 Q. You corrected that in your next issue ? A. In 
 the next issue, according to my recollection. I think it 
 spoke of his granting this ^^'est Washington Market 
 lease, and the next day I think Mr. Taylor called upon 
 me and said " You have made a mistake about Mr. Lit- 
 
 to say that I do not recollect any such article. 
 
 Q. 'Do you recollect writing an article in reply to a 
 A. j letter he 'wrote you? A. 1 remember such an arti- 
 i cle. 
 
 Q. Is that the article ? [handing witness a paper]. A. 
 Yes, Sir, I recognize Mr. Littlejobn's letter, and that is 
 my article in reply. 
 Q. That appeared on the 8th of October? A. Yes, 
 I know I was \ Sir. 
 
 Counsel for the defendant moved to strike out the 
 above answers, as the plaintiff neither oilers nor pro- 
 poses to offer the letter in evidence. 
 Motion denied. Exception for the defendant. 
 Q. At what time was you in Chicago during the Fall 
 
 I think. 
 
 a in Chicago for several 
 
 ' when this paper was published in regard to Mr. Little- 
 john ? A. I have been in Chicago about the Isr of Jan- 
 uary for the three last years 
 Q. Then you had not b( 
 months prior to the time when this was said to yoa 
 there? A. No, Sir; that had been said to me in the 
 Winter of '58 or '59. 
 
 ; Q. Then the publication was founded upon a state- 
 ; ment made to you two or three years before ? A. Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Q. Did you take any means to verify your recollec- 
 tion before the publication of the article ? A. No, Sir, 
 because I had no doubt. 
 
 i Q. Did you take any means to ascertain the fact 
 before this letter to Marsh and Webb ? A. No, Su-; I 
 did not know it was disputed. 
 
 I A. After receiving that ktter, did yon have any 
 communication with Mayor Wentworth before you 
 
 I wrote that answer ? A.' No, Sir, as the letter will 
 show; it begins, " Yours of the 24th, ' and it was 
 
 : answered on the 26th, I think. 
 
 I Q. Did you meet the Committee having in charge 
 
 tlejohn." I looked at the documents, saw it was ^ the West Washington Market bill, and use your influ 
 
 wrong, and corrected it 
 
 Q. Aside from that article, has there been any allu« 
 sion to Mr. Littlejohn ? A. There has been a tele- 
 graphic dispatch, it I recoUect right, about his declin- 
 ing the Consulate. 
 
 Q. You have been asked whether you opposed Mr. 
 Littlejohn for the office of Speaker for the year 1861. 
 Will you tell the Jury why vou opposed Mr. Little- 
 john ? 
 
 Objected to as immaterial. 
 Objection overruled. Exception for plaintiff. 
 A. My objection was to the character of the legisla- 
 
 ence with that Committee to pass that bill ? A. Never, 
 Sir; never. 
 
 Q. Did you ever meet with them ? A. Never ! 
 Q. Never met that Committee at aU ? A. Never ! 
 Q. Your recollection is good on that point ? A. Very 
 good! 
 
 Q. Did you ever publish in The Tribune, or was 
 there ever published in The TribUiNe, an article ap- 
 proving the leasing of this West Washington Market 
 property to Taylor and Brennan ? 
 Objected to." Objection sustained. 
 Q. What was the circulation of The Tribune in 
 
 tion he had favored and supported, and on account of j September and October, 1860 ? A. I think in all the 
 these measures I thought he was not a fit man for editions — Daily, Weekly, and Semi- Weekly — about 
 Speaker, and that his opponent was a better man; for | 250,000; but whether these ariicles were or were not 
 lie had been in the preceding Legislatdfe and opposed j published in all, I do not know 
 
 these measures. 
 
 Q. AVhy were you opposed 
 which you speak ? 
 
 Objected to as immaterial. 
 
 3 
 
 Mr. Williams — Q. Did you make any exertion, or 
 to these meastires of j did anybody, to your knowledge, to circulate in the 
 Oswego Diotrict the article upon which this action is 
 I founded ? 
 
34 
 
 Objected to. Excluded. 1 
 
 Mr. Williams read for defendant; oflered in evi- 
 dence the veto of CJov. Morgan in the West Washing- 
 ton Market bill, and proposed to read it from the 
 printed Senate Journal. > 
 
 Objected to as not competent testimony. | 
 
 Mr. Williams cited the case of Turdy agt. The 
 People in 4 Hill, 40.*); and De Bow agt. The People, in i 
 1 Denio, 14; and 10 Howard's U. S. Reports, 334 and | 
 33S; and 7 Johnson, oO and al; and 3 Hill, 43(). | 
 
 The Court said althoutfh the testimony might be com- ' 
 petent p' r sc, yet, under the prteeni aspect of the i 
 case anil the present issne, it must be excluded. I 
 
 ExcejUion for defendant. j 
 
 Mr. Williams oliered in evidence an exemplified 
 copy of the preamble aTul lesolutDu o'lered by Mr. 
 Littlejohn as one of tlie members of the Board of Laud , 
 Commissioners, granting the lease in question to Tay- 
 lor and Brenuan. 
 
 Objected to and excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 Mr. PouTKH offered in evidence the acts in question 
 to which the articles refer. 
 
 Objected to and excluded. Exception for defendant. 
 
 The evidence was here closed. 
 
 The Court adjourned till next uiornin». 
 
 Thursday Morxing, Sept. 12, 1861. j 
 ARGUMENT OF JOHN K. PORTER FOR THE DE- j 
 FENDANT. j 
 
 Gentleme.v: a few rough notes, made during the I 
 recess, of the topics to which I can properly restrict the i 
 discussion, will enable me, in some degree, to abridge 
 the argument. I acknowledge the embarrassment : 
 under which we present the case, after the exclusion of I 
 the evidence on which we mainly relied. Ii is diffi- : 
 cult for a lawyer to abandon in an hour the rooted con- | 
 victions of twenty years. We do not readily acquiesce \ 
 in what we conceive to be a departure from the settled j 
 principles of law. To our faith in them we cling tena- 
 ciously, and it fails us so rarely that in that faiih we 
 soon grow old, and part with cherished rights as with \ 
 cherished fjiends. But we are bound by the rulings of , 
 the Court, and must discharge our duty as we may, in 
 conformity with the devisit^ns made for our guidance. ' 
 
 I have the honor to appear befijre you as one of the \ 
 couneel and defenders of an alleged libeler. The pub- I 
 lication complained of is in these words: [ 
 
 " A correspondent earnestly inquires our opinion concerning 
 the nomination for members of the Legislature of D. C. Littlf-- 
 john at Uswego and of Austin Myers at Syracuse. On this sub- ; 
 jeet our opinion has been so often expressed tliat it cannot be in ' 
 doubt. Both these person.-; were prominent in the corrupt legis- 
 lation of last \\'iufer. Accordinaly, both of them ought now to 
 be defeated. Or, if tliej- must be sent back to pursue their ca- | 
 reer at Albany, it should not be the work of Republican voters." j 
 
 I read the article, and understand it. You read it, j 
 and understand it. You understand it as I do. It i 
 charges corrupt legislation at the Capitol in the Winter j 
 of 1^60. It charges that Speaker Littlejohn was a 
 prominent advocate of that corrui^t legislation. So it I 
 was understood by every reader of Thk Nkw-York | 
 Triblwe. If there was* any man who was free from i 
 all doubt on that question, it was Speaker Littlejohn. ' 
 He called on the editor for an explanation or retraction. 
 Mr. Greelev, in the noble and manly letter which he ; 
 read upon tTbe witness-stand at the requcht of the plain- 
 titi"8 counsel, frankly stated the purpose and intent of 
 the ai-ticle. It was "not to charge Mr. Littlejohn with : 
 personal corruption, but with being a prondnent advo- 
 cate of measures corrupt in their tendency and nature, 
 and in the circumstances attending their adoptioa. 
 That letter, which the plaintiff chose to withhold' from 
 the world, he has uiveu to you. It ( onfirms your con- 
 claeion. The article was intended by ihe publisher as 
 it wae understood by the reader, axi'd yet you are told 
 
 by the learned counsel that the language has another 
 meaning in a court of justice, and tiiut, lor ti.e purpose 
 of a libel suit, it imputes to Speaker Li tlejohn per- 
 soiuil corruption and bargaining lor a bribe. It seems 
 to be claimed by the counsel that you are bound to lind 
 the defendant gniliy of a charge which upon the evi- 
 dence you believe he never made^ and that you are to 
 find a verdict against your conscience and your oath, 
 which is to rest for its support upon the oath and con- 
 science of another. I do not believe the Court will so 
 instruct you, but, this is the theory of the prosecution. 
 
 Until 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I never heard it 
 suggested by any lawyer or layman in this coutitry, 
 that, when in a civil action, a paper is read, which is 
 claimed to be libelous, and the truth of which is 
 alleged in the pleadings by the defendant, upon his com- 
 ing to trial With wiinet-ses summoned at an expense of 
 a $1,000, to })rove the truth of the allegation, sentence 
 by sentence, line by line, and clause by clause, to the 
 satisfaction of a jury, the truth can be excluded in a 
 court in which blind justice holds her balanced scales — 
 unless the defendant shall go further and prove in addi- 
 tion the truth of charges he never made. Hitherto, by 
 the common understanding of all American lawyers 
 and jurists, it has been deemed an absolute right to 
 aver and jirove the truth of the matter alleged to be 
 libelous. But our friends propose to inaugurate a new 
 era in the law of hbel. The Jury are no longer to read 
 the pajier upon which they are to pass. They are to 
 find damages for an accusation, though they cannot 
 find the accusation. On a question of doubtful intent 
 the Oourt is to find the fact, and the Jury to vi.-it 
 upon the defendant the penalties of a wrong" of which 
 they believe him to be innocent. We were challenged 
 by the pl.iiutift' to prove the truth of the publication 
 on which he counts. When we accept the challenge, 
 and oiier to prove its truth, be tells us, in substance, 
 tliat we cannot be permitted to prove it, that he will 
 elect what evidence we may, and what we may not 
 ofier, and that we may prove the truth of bis infer- 
 ences, but not of our alleg'Jtions. You will readily 
 perceive that, when propositions like these are enter- 
 tained, discussion becomes embarrassing, as we are 
 bound to abide by such rulings as have been made by 
 the Court, and may yet be made in the course of the 
 trial. Within the narrow limits assigned I shall pre- 
 sent the cjise as well as I can upon the topics to which 
 the discussion is cut down by the Court. 
 
 You will not fail to appreciate the public aspect of 
 the grave questions involved in the issue. The fearless 
 comments of a free press on the public acts of those 
 you entrust with power, are your only protection 
 against profligate legislation and official coi-runtiou and 
 venality. Even with such exposures of malfeasance 
 in office and partisan intrigue as you have hitherto had, 
 and with the princely revenues of New-York from its 
 magnificent public works, your industry is taxed four 
 millions annually for Sta'te purposes alone. Every 
 farm from Lake Ontario to the sea is under mortgage 
 to-day to the tax-gatherer, not for the legitimate sup- 
 port of Government, but to supply the ever-recurring 
 deficiencies of a treasury drained hy corrupt legislation. 
 You are taxed because the capitolof a free State is pol- 
 luted by jobbers and money chancers. Laws are en- 
 acted by the mercenaries o"f the third estate. Where 
 we most need integrity, roguery thrives and honest 
 men are in disrepute. Whoever is guilty, who- 
 ever innocent, ttie fact exists and is known 
 of all men. It is matter of public history, 
 and as familiar to every citizen as the fact 
 that the cohorts of rebellion are now advancing in 
 arms to subvert the Kepublic. Do I mistake the sen- 
 timent of this commuuiiy when I say that deeply as 
 we abhor the brazen front of treason which boldly en- 
 counters the perils of crime and war, still more do we 
 detest and abhor the treachery, the thievery and the 
 jteculation of those among otuselves, who betray pub- 
 lic trusts, who ritie and stab the people', and 
 
35 
 
 in the house of the people. However it 
 may be with individuals, we know the laxi- 
 ty of public morals prevailing among many of 
 those who have crept into high places. It has been 
 found that theie are gold mines nearer than California, 
 accessible to plastic consciences. M(!n have learned 
 to buy their offices and sell their votes, to barter honor 
 for emolument and conscience for coiu. Human souls 
 are bought and sold at the public shambles. In the 
 present case we are not permitted to inquire who 
 these men are. But we may well as^, wneft we are 
 called on to silence the sentinels who should warn us 
 against corruption, what will be our condition when 
 you have muzzled those whose duty it is to guard us, 
 when A'ou have knifed the watchdogs who protect us 
 while "we sleep ? You are to viudie-ate all rights and 
 enforce all laws; but in doing so, and in arriving at a 
 judgment in each particular case, you will not lose 
 sight of what is due to the community at large, or dis- 
 card from view the circumstances and surroundings 
 which reflect light on the acts and motives of those 
 who are arraigned before you as wrongdoers. We 
 are to abide by the decisions of the courts, but we 
 especially rejoice when they gladden good men — as 
 the exclusion of our evidence gladdened the worthy 
 gentlemen whom we brought hej e to reveal the doings 
 and bargainings of the Albany lobby. How speedily 
 the cloud rolled away which seemed before to darken 
 the court -room. 
 
 It is because you are h^-e in the discharge of a high 
 public duty that I adverl to these public considera- 
 tions. The learned counsel seem to think that those 
 only who hold office owe duties to the State, and that 
 it is the duty of Horace Greeley and all else to be 
 silent when officials speak. I hold that the highest 
 and most important duty under the State Government 
 is that devolved on the juror when he sits in judg- | 
 ment on the rights of others in a court of justice. { 
 Trial by jury lies at the basis of our whole system of \ 
 law, and it is the most essential and the most honora- \ 
 ble trust imposed on the citizen of a free republic. I 
 Legislators may make laws and unmake them— judges ! 
 may pronounce decisions and reverse them — but we all j 
 feel and know that high above these in practical im- 
 portance and efficient protection rises the institution of 
 trial by j ury — the time-honored safeguard of civil rights ' 
 and civil liberty. This institution alone has niade 
 England a free nation against all the power of the 
 throne. British jurors in the State Trials Infused new 
 life and liberty into the Constitution of their country. 
 But here there is no such antagonism. The right of 
 trial by jury is cherished by our judges and our rulers 
 no less than by ourselves. My friends mistake, I 
 think, when they suppose the Coui-t will withhold 
 from you the first Question which arises in this 
 case — whether in the article complained of 
 Horace Greeley charged De Witt C. Little- 
 john with personal corruption. I think they 
 err in supposing that when that question is committed 
 to you, twelve men of the County of Oswego will im- 
 pute to the defendant a charge not made in the publi- 
 cation, or condemn him for the bold and manly utter 
 anee of his opinions of the corrupt legislation of 1S60, 
 and of those who were its public advocates on the 
 floor of the New-York Assem- ly. The frank utter 
 ance of his honest convictions was what was demanded 
 of Mr. Greeley by the 250,000 citizens who, as the plain- ■ 
 tiff' has proved, are subscribers for The N. Y. Trie 
 vsE. It was demanded by a million of men, who, as 
 the counsel tell you, are the habitual readers of that I 
 journal. The result of this trial will be regarded with | 
 the deepest interest not only by them, but by other 
 millions whose attention will be attracted by an i>eue j 
 on that open and bold corruption which has brought 
 dishouor upon our State, and has become memoratiie ! 
 in our national history. L ke the celebrated Croswell 
 case, illustrated by the genius of Hamilton, the no- ; 
 blest defender of a free press, it involves principles 
 
 and lights rising in magnitude far above the issues of 
 the hour; and it involves also the standard of integrity 
 demanded by an American Jury of the public officer 
 who claims at their hands the vindication of his char- 
 ac'^^er by their indorsement of his public acts. 
 
 You are to determine w^hether an American journal, 
 in commenting upon laws vetoed by the chief magis- 
 trate, condemned by the public judgment, conceded by 
 men of all parties, creeas and factions, to bear the 
 brand of corruption upon their face, may unite its voice 
 in a protett against corrupt legi^-lation, and may, in the 
 exercise of a fair and free censorship of the acts of 
 public men, proclaim its opposition to all who advo- 
 cated those laws. You are to determine whether the 
 meaning of the English language is the same when you 
 read it at your own firesides, and when counsel read it 
 to you in the jury box. You are to determine whether 
 this article was intended by the publisher, and under- 
 stood by the reader, as an imputation that Mr. Little- 
 john was bribed, — or as an appropriate comment on his 
 public acts deeply affecting the interest and honor of 
 the State he was bound to serve. 
 
 I admit that the obligations of public duty are too 
 commorily ignored, and it is only on rare occasions 
 that we "are brought to feel them in all their force. 
 Tbey should never be forgotten by those occupying 
 relaiions of trust and confidence— lesst of all by 
 those claiming high and honored official positions. 
 Subordinate ouly to the duty we owe the Creator, 
 from whom we receive oar Vireath and daily bread, ia 
 the obligation to the State and country, under which 
 property, Jiberty, and life are made secure, and in 
 whose prosperity is interwoven that of each citizen, 
 and of all who "are to succeed him in the enjoyment; 
 of the blessings of civil liberty. All sucli ideas would 
 provoke only a smile from the trained politicians of the 
 New-York lobby; but recent events have admonished 
 even them that love of country, though it may some- 
 times sleep, is not dead in the' hearts of the free men 
 of the North. It i-? a noble attribute of our nature, 
 sometimes wanting in politicians, but never wanting 
 in the great body of a people. It marks even the 
 wandering Oriental tribes. It comes to us with the 
 sanction of religion, with the touching memories of the 
 Hebrew maidens mourning in exile lor their country, 
 and the still more touching memories of the Kedeem'er 
 of Mankind, who permitted his dearest human aftec- 
 tions to center in the land consecrated by his nativity 
 and his ascension. 
 
 Gentlemen, considerations like these either weaken 
 or strengthen their hold upon the human heart, when 
 men are brought into positions of extended influence. 
 Self-love and selfish aspirations deepen in intensity by 
 indulgence. Earnest and generous devotion to nobler 
 and higher aims, the desire to advance the interests 
 and promote the happiness of kindred and friends, 
 classes and races, country and humanitv — these, too, 
 grow with our growth and strengtlien with our 
 strength. While the first tend to ciaft and falsehood — 
 the last lead to love of truth and loyalty to right. 
 Many of you ditfer widely in your opinionsfrom Horace 
 Greeley;* but whether you 'judge him by the develop- 
 ments of this trial or those of his past life, I need not 
 ask to which of these classes, in your judgment, 
 he belongs. He was called upon ut the threshold of 
 an eventful life, which will be full of interest to after 
 times, to make liis election. He had occasion to con- 
 sider early grave questions of right and duty, which 
 to some of us even now are almost new. By the de- 
 cision then made, we are all Lis witnesses that he has 
 not failed to abide. Thirty vears ago he went, with the 
 training in integrity received by the sons of the 
 farmers of New-England, to seek a"home in the metro- 
 politan city, Irom which he was destined to exercise 
 an influence that will leave its impress on the age. 
 He entered that city poor and penniless — but rich — 
 jich ill that love of truth which has illustrated all his 
 life, and of which the publication now in (question is 
 
flii eviilence— rich in thoFc hk'h attiibutes of man- his oflirinl position, and my learned fiierds olaim that 
 \\oo^^, iNiiiraLre, love of country, htve of humanity, love his persouHl reputation is unstained. What then must 
 of liyht; and Ironi that liay to this, thonuh he mav of- he the v;»liie of the politiral charucter of iMr. Little- 
 ten have be»-n deceived in* men, otten niit«Ieil in Judg- .jolin, wlien i; hoius a depreciation of $.2.'),()U() ^itlioiit 
 niont, has he ever t';iili d to he true to his convietiDns ? ' preventing h's reelection to ollice, within nx weekfl 
 Has lie ever faltered in what he believed to be public ; after the put)licalion of the alleged libel / His counsel 
 duty? Has lie ever been leiLMied wii h corruption, or j cliiiin that he was vindicated iu Ids county hy rc- 
 faise to the known interest of his country ? election to the Asficmbly, in the State by re-electi<m to 
 
 Do you helieve this was the prevalent srint of the | the Sneakers ip, and iil tlie Nation i)y ajipoiutnient to 
 men who voted for the Gridircii Kuilroaa acts, and one of the highest and most lucrative pl icea iu the 
 the M ushington Market bill, w hich were read in vour gilt of flie Federal Aduduistration. Aly eloquent 
 hearing yesterday / 'I hese are public lawn, and 1 use associate suggests, that after all he may be right 
 them as part of inv argument. Is it not well that there in his appreciation of the pecuniary value of political 
 is at lea->t one mnn — I trust tliere ate many more — toex ' charac ter at the Capitol, but his counsel will hardly 
 pose tlie character of laws like this — to express bis con- ; claim it. Neither tUey nor I have any right to assume 
 victions and your own — to deduce from them the >&i\ie it, and if that sum has been lost by any member of the 
 conclusions you deduce, and to unite witli you iu man- ' Assembly of 1<SG(I — relv on it, gentlemen, it has been 
 ly condemnation of the actors as well as the acts ? j saved to the State of Kew-York. If Mr. Greeley has 
 " It se'^ms to be conceived by the plaintifi' that the interfered with the prosperity of the loljby, and dimin- 
 iournnlist who acts iu the interest of the public is not islied the pecuniary j)rotitB "of legislation, our prayer 
 at lil)erty to discuss the claims of political candidate?, \ should be that the reform may not cea^e until every 
 even on the ground of their previous official acts, with- ! particirant in those proiits shall have gone out from 
 out tirst holding a court of imjuiry to ascertain ; public life as naked as when he was born. [Voice in 
 ■whether those acts do not admit of explanation. , the crowd — Amen.] 
 
 Gentlemaii, in mattersof general concern, the necessity I do not believe that Mr. Littlejohn's counsel will 
 of sucli an inqui-ition would preclude all discussion, claim that his political character, or, if they prefer the 
 The impending dai^ger nnist be met with prompt and phrase, his personal character in an official capacity, 
 sudden warning. You see the tiames bursting at mid- has been dei>reciated iu value $25,000 by the charge "of 
 night from a dwelling in which a cripple and a chiM being a prominent advocate of the measures which Mr. 
 are sleejdng. AVill you tmuse to inquire whether it is Greeley and this entire community believe to have 
 not an optical illusion before you give the alarm? been corrupt. They will claim a verdict of six cents, 
 You are in Charleston, and leani fiom a slave, whose and can reasonably claim no more, for they make it a 
 lips are not adadtted to the cross, and who must stand part of their case that he has been vindicated from the 
 mute iu a court of justice, that incendiaries are abroad, charge, as well at home as abroad. But w^hy seek a 
 and in an hour the city will be w'ranped in lire. \Vill six cent verdict ? To fasten upon Mr. Greeley the 
 you waif for better evidence until master and slaves stigma of a libeler, and to make a precedent for future 
 are involved in a common conflagration ? Y'ou learn verdicts against journalists who venture to denounce 
 that the pub'ic enemy is advancing upon the gates of the corrupt legislation. It depends on you what the pre- 
 capital. Will you j^ause before you rouse the sleeping cedent shall be. 
 
 eentinels? Y'ou find men in public confidence bartering Should this action have been pushed to trial? My 
 away the honor and interests of the State. WiW you learned friends think it should. 1 am not prepared to 
 permit the traffic to go on, while you wait for coufed- concur with them. Peihans I shou'd, if Mr. Littlejohn 
 erates to turn St Hte s evidence against each other. A had availed himself of tne opportunity to take the 
 candidate is on the eve of election whom you believe stand and vindicate his character. That opportunity 
 to be an unsafe custodian of a public trust." Will you we tendered him by examiniuij Mr. Greeley. He 
 permit hiui to be elected first, and then satisfy j"our j swore that Le believed the matter alleged in the publi- 
 scruples by deploiing the wrong you miijht have cation to be true. It was the right of Mr. Littlejohn 
 averted? On questio'ns involving th"e general welfare to prove by his own oath that it was not true. He 
 the press owes us a present, immediate duty, and it is had the election to speak or be silent, and he elected 
 false to its trust when the duty is postponed, whether silence. He invited investigation, and when we 
 from fear, favor, or afi'ection. Whoever seeks places tendered tlie proof, he insisted on its exclusion. He 
 of public trust challenges scrutiny of his public acts, chose not to avail himself of a noble opportunity to 
 The judges upon the bench, my eloquent friends on vindicate his honor, not by excluding our proof, but 
 the other aide who have been "honored with high offi- offering his own. Horace Greeley invited crose-ex- 
 ces, the iucuoibents of the highest places iu the" State aminationon oath — the best test of truth known among 
 and the nation, shrink from no such scrutiny, and are , men. De Witt C. Littlejohn, though he claimed hi* 
 content to be judged by their acts. When a candidate ' honor to have been impugned, invites no such test. It 
 presents himself tor office he brings his public charac- was his right to be sworn or liot, at his })leasure. He. 
 ter into the canvass, and cannot complain of open and could rely for the vindication of his character either 
 frank discussion of his antecedent political acts, on an ai lificial rule of presumption, or on his own tee- 
 When the press falters in the discharge of this duty, timony in open court. If that testimony had been given, 
 it 18 because it is faithless, stifled, or corrupt. it would h ive been under the eyes of this thronged 
 
 It is alleged that by such discussion tlie political assemblage, of this honored Court, of his own coun- 
 character of Mr. Littlejohn has been damnified. He sel, of the witnesses we summoned to give the eyi- 
 claims that Mr. Greeley owes hioj $"Jo,()00, wJiich has dence he excluded, and of the chieftains of the third 
 been lost by the plaintitl' and taken by the defendant, estate. The ordeal of an oath, in open Court and in 
 not in cash but in value. Nor is tllis all. It seems view of th»=8e witnesses, presented no attractions to 
 that iu another suit now pending other $2'), 000 is Speaker Littlejohn, no terrors for Horace Greeley, 
 claimed for further loss of churacter. Nor is this all. \ If he had accej'ted this ordeal, my friends could have 
 for it is intimated that two other libels are waiting insisted with more plausibility that this suit is prose- 
 their tum for prosecution, when your verdict in this cuted, not for money, but for the vindication of hia 
 case shall have commended the prudence of the experi- ! political character. When a plaintiff comes into 
 ment. _ Court in an action for a political libel, and begins his 
 
 Is it true then, gentlemen, that this little article has I case by proving that he has not been damaged 
 danmified the polit cal character of Sfieaker Littlejohn ] even in his political character, and follows 
 $2.3,000. He swears it has, and demands his money. : it up by proof that before the suit was commenced he 
 Has he been traduced in his private character? No; 1 received a frank and manly letter disclaiming any in- 
 the complaint characterizes the charge as relating to i tentionto impute to him personal corruption — when he 
 
37 * 
 
 excludes proof of the trutli of the matters coiitahied in i these cases are clearly defined. Neither will encroach 
 the alleged libel— when be iierniits the defendant to upon the prerogative of tne other, 
 swear to his full belief of their truth— when he, know- I submit that ihe publication is not a libel— that it 
 ing whether they are in fact true, chooses to be silent, does not impute corruption to Mr. Littlejohn. Let me 
 and when under these circumstances he deujands not be misunderstood. Mr. Greeley believed the plaia- 
 money of the defendant, what do you believe as jurors? tiff to be gui'ty of corruption. We know that, not 
 Does he want character or does" he want money ? I ' from this article, for the article forbears to speak upon 
 do not deny that Mr. Littlejohn may have sustained tl) at subject — but from the sworn answer, and Mr, 
 damage to 'the amountof six cents — nay, of twenty-five , Greeley s oath uj)on the witness-stand. The complaint 
 cents or §25,00U — but believe me,and I think you do imputeci to the defendant the charge that Littlejohn was 
 ■ believe me in your inmost hearts — it was not from corrupt. This called for an answer upon that point. 
 Horace Greeley *s comments, but the votes on which He had not before expressed his opiiiiou on that })oiat, 
 he commeuted. There they stand, and there they will but he had as little hesitation in expressing it when the 
 remain forever. Your statute-book is polluted by un- occasion demanded, as in offering to sustidn it by evi- 
 dean laws — enduring memorials of the infamy dence, and verifyuig his belief on the trial by his oath, 
 of New- York legislation in the year preced- But the inf|uiry is as to the iutent, not of the answer, 
 / iug the rebellion. Those raiiroad ' acts made but of the origi'ual article. It is to be understood by us 
 irrepealable by leyislative compact ! Those grants of as it was then understood by the public in the light 
 more than baronial franchises in perpetual mouofiolv, of the surrounding facts. It is matter of public history 
 with no duties imposed, no obligations assumed ! that the Legislature of 186U went Lome justly or un- 
 When the years roll round, and the generations melt justly laden with a heavy burden of infamy. It, is 
 away that intervene between u& and the twendeth matter also of public history that only .s7'.r of the mem- 
 century, and the demand of millions shall still be made bers of this Assembly who supported these corrupt 
 for railroads on the piincipal avenues of New-York, measure-, whether from puie or impure motives, were 
 the answer will still be: "The right to build those permitted fi gain to set foot in the Capitol. Now, 
 roads was sold — nay, not sold but given — by the Leg- Horace Greeley is called upon for his opinion as to the 
 islature of 18G0, to parties known and unknown, ;or reelection of two of the^ parties who voted lor those 
 the benefit of political gamblers, and no road can be measures — both his political associates. It was his 
 builo until you buy out the last assign of the last right — it was his duty — to answer according to bis 
 ] descendant of the last gambler, and the ail lonaire convictions; and what is his answer ? That legislation 
 proprietors of rival roads, who purchased the rights of was corrupt; and in that legisldtion both these 
 straggliT'g grantees to protect in perpetuity their own parties were prominent. What is the charge ? 
 monopolies agriinst the demands of industry and com- First : the general fact — not that the legislators — 
 merce. And so on from generation to generation so but that the ietfislation was corrupt. Second : 
 long as any of these gran'ees, their descendants, or that, in this legislation, these two members were 
 assigns crnx connect themselves with these infamous prominent. Was this article intended to single out the 
 laws through the title made for them by the votes of guilty agents who procured the corrupt legislation ? 
 Speaker Littlejohn and his confreres in the Legis ature No; it was to denounce corrupt laws, and those who 
 of IbGO." j were their prominent advocates. Does he claim to 
 
 W^e are relieved, gentlemen, by an interlocutory de- have peculiar knowledge, not within the view of the 
 cision of the Court from considering one question of public? No; he is speaking of public acts and public 
 law we had intended to discuss — whether the publica- men. He unites his voice to that of the GoveriiOr who 
 tion in question aJ/ndttd the construction placed uporr vetoed the corrupt bills; to the voice of the people 
 it by the learned Judge for the purpose of ruling upon who sustained the Governor, in the Fall of 1860, by 
 the evidence. But, though then presented only inci- a majority of over 60,000 votes — and with the active 
 dentally, we do not feel at liberty to trespass upon his interest of the Albany lobby enlisted for bis defeat, 
 indulgence by opening the question for the purpose of Mr. Greeley believed with you, and you, with each 
 discussion here. A publication admitting of two con- man on this Jury. And what he believed, he spoke, 
 structions, one innocent and one libelous, is deemed He was not called upon for a list of parties 
 libelous for all interlocutory purposes, until the trite to le proceeded against before the Grand 
 construction is submitted to tbe Jury, to be determined Jury of Al any. He was called upon 
 by them as a question of fact. Iq other words, if the to know whether, now that an oppportunity was pre- 
 language admits of a construction which would render sented, he was ready" to rebuke an advocate of these 
 it libelous, it is the right of the plaintiff to have the measures, in the person of a trusted Republican le-.der 
 language construed by the Court in the offensive sense, and personal friend. If Horace Greeley had loved 
 to enable him to take the vei diet of the Jury on the ofiice as much as he loved truth, he would have been 
 question whether it was so intended or understood. If silent. If he bad political aspirations of the lower or- 
 the words admit only of one obvious meaning, and that der, which prefer place and pay to honor and integrity, 
 plainly libelous, the question of construction in a he would have been a mad man to make this publica- 
 civil action belongs exclusively to the Court, tion, whether tiue or false. But there was a monitor 
 and it is deemed for all purposes libelous within which did not permit him to falter in the dis- 
 in law, as well by the Court as the Jury, charge of a duty his own conscience enjoined. He felt 
 
 In this case, under the ruling of the Court, I assume j that, let the consequences be what they might, though 
 that the publication is suscejitible of a construction [ a majority of the Legislature were his trusted 
 which would render it libelous if so intended and | political friends, though one of them was a man of 
 understood. It is obvious, upon the face of the pub- marked ability, of commandiLg influence, trusted 
 lication, and will be conceded by my learned friends, ' at home, trusted by the Legislature, elevated 
 as by every one who reads ir, that it admits a con- ; to a high public position — he was bound to speak what 
 struction which renders it innocent. We think it : the public welfare demanded. He spoke that, and 
 demands that construction, but defer, of course, to the spoke no more. Now, gentlemen, is there one word 
 ruling of the Court, and are content to argue the ques- in this article which imputes t ) Mr. Littlejohn the sale 
 tion on the assumption that it admits of either con- j of his vote for a bribe? You are told it is susceptible 
 struction. It will be gratify in g_ to the Court to in- ; of that construction. But the questicm is, whetnerit 
 struct you, that under these circumstances the law ! does not admit and demand a very different construc- 
 confides that quettion to you. It is a pure question of tion, in harmony with the intent of the writer and the 
 fact, and it is for you to determine in whicii of these understanding of the reader. Honor to the good, old, 
 two senses the publication was intended and under- right tridl by Jury. I believe it was Lord Bacon who 
 stood. The prerogatives of the Court and the Jury in said that the wisdom of the common mind of the masa 
 
of men infinitely siirjMissep tliiit of the wiseet man. Trial 
 by Jury, in a rase like this, is a right of inestinuible 
 value. ' l>e Witt C. Littlejohn unes for dainagen which 
 he claims to havesuetained from words which ljuve gone 
 forth to the people, and it is for the people, as repre- 
 sented in the Jury liox, to sav liow tiiebo word^< weie 
 intended, and how they are tairly to be nn(ier^tood. 
 Yon hnug to be.ir the jndgn.ent "of the popnlar niirid, 
 uuenibarrat'sed by those technical rnles and artilicial 
 retinements which, while they sharj^en the faculty of 
 l•ea^oning in debate, often dim the moral vi.-ion and 
 cloud the understanding of those who study books 
 more than ihey stmlv men. It is because the popular 
 mind is best a'diipted to the construction of pojmlar 
 language, that the law commits (juebtions like these 
 to the conscience and intelligence of the Jury, holiiiug 
 that, !'or this ]uirj)o.-e, the practical eeui-e of twelve 
 men will furnish a safei- criterion than mere judicial or 
 jtroferriouHl opinion. You have he:ird this article 
 read. What is its plain and obvious intent? 
 Do you understand it as a cliarge that 
 the plainiilf received a bribe? These words 
 are to be underetotd by you now, and here, as 
 you understood them when reading ti.e article by your 
 own tiiecide, on the evening of its publicuiion. Even 
 without the aid of other evMence, you have no diffi- 
 culty in reaching the clear conclusion that it was not 
 intended to cluuye the plaintiff with selling his vote, 
 but with advocating corrupt legislation. But, gentle- 
 men, however it may be with the article upon its face, 
 the I'laiuiiif hai clear, controlling, and irreeiptible evi- 
 dence, that the intent of Mr. Greeley was not to 
 charge him with personal corruption. ]\Ir. Littlejohn 
 had a liglit, if he c! ot^e, to stand upon the article. He 
 had the ligbt, if he pleased, to resort to other evidence 
 to reiitct light on the import of the lane uvige, juid the 
 intent and purpose of the writer. He cho^e not to 
 trust Lis case upon the lan^mtge of the article, but 
 tj resort to extrintie eviden e. Tuat evidence 
 U now the property of both. It belongs to the case. 
 In legal cflect, he stipulated when he introduced it, 
 that it should be read tide by side with the libel, that 
 you might thus a?cerTaiu the* secret heurt and intent of 
 the deten.'ant in making tlie publication comj lained of. 
 The I'liiintitl' introduced for this purpose 31r. Greeley s 
 letter of >>ov. 26, 1)^60, and his article of The Ti{iblnk 
 of 11th Septeniber — one of them two months after, and 
 one two weeks before the publicaticn iu question. 
 Tou remember the alleged biibe refVrs to the opiuions 
 previously expressed iu Thk TiuiawE. The article of 
 Ilth Septemi er is the only one thepla nliff ventures to 
 produce and submit to your scrutiny. Now, gentle- 
 men, as Horace Greeley s'peaks in tlie article of 11th 
 September, he speaks in the alleged libel. The plain- 
 tiff makes Mr. Greeley his witness, and the statements 
 in that artic.e become' evidence iu the cau?e, to which, 
 if you believe tbem, you may give effect by your ver- 
 dict. The party who introduces the statement of bis 
 adversary does so at the peril of its bein^ fully believed. 
 "We bo'h agree that this article and this letter are fair 
 and reliable evidence of the ititent and puii)0.-e of Mr. 
 Greeley in publisliingthe article alleged to be libelous. 
 Let us'then consider thtir efiect. On the day the arti- 
 cle compluiued of was published, as the proof discloses, 
 the relations of Mr. Greeley with Mr. Littlejohn were 
 precisely the same that they were at the time of the 
 publication of the article of 11th September. On the 
 cue day as on the other, they looked back on an uninter- 
 rupted iiersoualand political friendshij) of twenty years' 
 duration. On tne one day as on the other, each re- 
 membeied with jdej^sure the devotion of the other to 
 the political piinciples of whicn both were advocates. 
 On one day as on the other, each recurred, but with 
 very ditfeient views, to the Lej^i?lature of lf:i6i'. Mr. 
 Greeley looked back to it iu the same spirit 
 in which you do now. and thanked God that he had 
 opposed it from the beginning. Mr. Littlejohn looked 
 back to it in another spirit, and I have no right to say 
 
 he thanked God that he had supported it to the end. 
 Kememberin^, then, that the relations of the two pur- 
 ties were precisely the same at tl e dates of the two ar- 
 tichs; that they were written iu the like spiiit, and 
 with the same purpose and intent, le' us recur to the ar- 
 ticle of Sept. 11, wliich is made evidence by the idaintiff 
 to ascertain what was in the mind of Mr. Greelev, and 
 whether he meant to chari^e Mr. Liltlejohu w'lih sell- 
 ing bis own vote, or simply meant to charKe that the 
 le^iii-lation was unpatiiotic and corrupt; that it was 
 desiiiued to advance otiier interests than the public 
 good; that those who advocated it were either de- 
 ceived or deceivers; and that so believing, he was iu- 
 tlexibly opposed to their re-election. 
 
 Lkgislativk CoKKrPTio.v.— Certain local journals perBistin 
 niisreiirefcentatiouH of the course of The Thibi ne reS'pectbig 
 State mattera so gross th»t we cannot refrain from noticing them. 
 We take the followlDg from a leader in the last Chautauqua Dem- 
 ocrat aa a s imple: 
 
 " There may have been, and doubtless was, thn usual amount 
 ol ' Legislative corruption' at Albany last W inter." 
 
 " The usvol amount of Legislative corruption at Al- 
 bany?" Time-honored nsiiges of our ancestors! 
 What has become of them ? There was a period in our 
 history when high cflices were filled hf u])right 
 men. Those whose lives touched the era of the Kevo- 
 lution, retained the spirit of patriotism its fires had 
 kindled and loathed crime and corruption and ve- 
 nality. But here a prominent public journal enters the 
 lists against Thk TuiiaxK and iniiuiates that there is 
 a usage of corrupiion which Keimblicans are bound to 
 respect ! It is because corruption is ac(iuiring the 
 sanction of usage, gentlemen, that ihU case, involving 
 the issue of corrupt legisla'ion, transcends in interest 
 and importanre any previous libel suit in this country. 
 The corrupt ionists appealed to the i)eople against Gov. 
 Morgan, and were defeated by an overwhelming ma- 
 jority. They appealed to the representatives of the 
 l)eople at the Chicago Convention, and their support so 
 weakened the bauds of his other supporters, that the 
 foiemost statesman of the Hepuhlican party fell in the 
 house of his friends a victim of corruption in which, 
 no share was imputed to him. Lei us proceed: 
 
 " But that there was that which should justify the wholesale 
 and iudiscriuiiQate denunciations of that Legislature, with 
 which the columns of Thk TKinrNB have teemed for many 
 months, we have no evidence of, and do not believe. 
 
 " In our county, Mr. W. L. SeirBions was the special object of 
 The TKiBr>E'.s denunciation, and why ? Simply because he 
 was a /eerf?//'/ and prominent member of the Sena, e. Although 
 the shafts of Thk Tkibi ne have assumed a more personal aspect 
 towards Mr. Sessions, t-.iey have been aimed indiscriminately at 
 Mr. Smith and every other njember of the Legislature. There 
 have been no exceptions in this wholesale abuse of the last Leais- 
 lature. If The Tkibo'e was hone?t, why does it not particular- 
 ize and discriminate ? There were scores of Republicans who 
 voted aijainst all those measures denounced as venal and corrupt, 
 and yet they are all included in the anathemas of The Tribune " 
 
 xsever, gentlemen. If such an article could have 
 1 eeu found it would have been produced. Mr. Greeley 
 did not denounce the entire Legi.-lature. He made the 
 same disciimination which the people made. With 
 six memorable pxceptione, the peo[tle said that of all 
 the merakiers of the Assembly who voted for these 
 measures no man, whatever his private worth or 
 public capacity, should return to the Capitol. Mr. 
 Greeley's condemnation was of those who voted for 
 these measures, not of those who voted against them. 
 Let Mr. Greeley speak for himself: 
 
 "Every careful reader of JThe Tkibt'nk knows how unjust, 
 how essentially false, are t'o material portions of the above, 
 'l ime and again have we urged that very disci in. ination which 
 77ie />t-/rt(jrr((; accuses us ol ignoiing — time and again have we 
 explained that no Legislature ever contai)nd more upright and 
 worthy members than our last. Messrs. Bell, MruruY, Man- 
 lEKKK, and others in the Senate— Messrs. Li cirs RoBiXsox, 
 Conkli.m;, I-'l.'VGLEK, Lc, in the House— forming about half the 
 Republicans in either branch— were as lionet and fnithful legis- 
 lator> as our Stute ever had ; and this we have repeatedly asserted 
 and proved by their acts. There was a very ditierent lot of Re- 
 publicans, however, forming nearly half of those elected, who 
 conspired with seven-eighths to nine- tenths of the Democrats to 
 
39 
 
 pass some of the most corrupt and unjustifiable acts that ever 
 were put through a Legislature, as our columns have likewise 
 repeatedly shown. That Mr. Sessions's name appears habitually 
 in the latter category, we deeply regret : but the fault is entirely 
 hi* own. Ttiere may have been fools in that Legislature who 
 Toted wrongly because thej' knew no better ; but he is not one of 
 these. 
 
 '' As we a'e challerged for specifications, with the cool asser- 
 tion that there was ' the usual amount of Legislative corruption 
 at Albany last U'inter,' "we will merely premise tbat, if that 
 was but ' the MiJ/aZ amount,' it is high time that it should be 
 rendered ?/«usual, and this, by the blessing of God and with the 
 help of the People, we mean to secure. To this end, let us once 
 more proceed to discrinjinadons and specificatiDus. 
 
 '• We fear it is true that some ' LegiJative corruption' is 
 ' usual' at Albany and at other capitals ; but has it ever before 
 p.^ncf eded to such extent that a Governor has felt constrained to 
 veto i>j s jcce^sion half a dozen of the principal measures of a 
 Legislature wherein his political friends had a majority ? We 
 can recollect but two instances of this— one in Fenn'pylvania, 
 when Gov. Snyder was compelled to resort to the extremity of 
 dissolving the Legislature, to prevent the corrupt passage of a 
 lot of Bank charters ; and one in our own State, wherein Gov. 
 Tomptiiis had to do suhstantially the same. In eirher case, 
 public sentiment almost unanimously condemned the Legis- 
 lative majority and sustained the Governor— as we are sure it 
 does now. So much for what is ' usual' in this line." 
 
 Here, gentlemen, you have two branches of the Re- 
 publican party— that of which Mr. Greeley is the 
 acknowledged national exponent, and the other, 6ome 
 of whose leaders have honored us with their presence. 
 Some of 5'ou, I doubt not, noticed the benign and 
 beaming smile which illumined the commanding fea- 
 tures of one of these chieftains when the ruling was an- 
 nounced which secured immunity to the Lobby, so far 
 at least as the present trial is concerned. It iu no de- 
 gree impairs the force of the decit-ion as the law of t lis 
 ■case, and yet I fear the rulings may have been misun- 
 derstood, and that even the lobby may find that there 
 is little occasion for coogratulation in the decisions 
 made on this trial, when their limirs and 
 •application are more epecitica'ly defined. You 
 perceive, gentlemen, from the extract embodied 
 in this article that a Republican journal adverse to Mr. 
 Oreeiey does not deny the corruption of the bills in 
 question, and does not claim that the votes in their 
 favor can be defended. But he bege Mr. Greeley to 
 discriminate. All our friends did not vote for these 
 measures — do justice ! — do justire by publishing the 
 names of the Republicans who voted manfully to defeat 
 them. 
 
 And in this opinion our learned friends seem to con- 
 cur. Bear in mind the aduiission which yesterday fell 
 Kke a knell from the lips of one of the learned counsel 
 — " We will admit that these bills were all corru[it, if j 
 you choose;" and that admission we accepted, without 
 ■v^aiving the ottered proof. 
 
 'When all men agree that the?e laws were corrupt, 
 when the plaintift" admits that he was their advocate, 
 VfSiB it not time for a Republican to hold those re- 
 sponsible who voted for their enactment ? [Mr. Por- 
 ter then read the residue of the article of Sept. 11, as 
 contained in the evidence, and proceeded in his com- 
 ments.] You perceive, gentlemen, that Mr. Greeley ' 
 throughout deals only with political action and politi- 1 
 cal responsibility, ile divides those who sustained | 
 these corrupt measures into two classes, the deceivers 
 and the deceived, and considers them in either case 
 unsafe custodians of public rights. He was opposed 
 alike to the re-election of those who, having eyes, 
 could not see or would not, and those who looked cor- 
 ruption straight in the fare, and struck hands with it. 
 Was he not right ? Is not that your theory ? 
 It is the theory on which Gov. Morgan went down to 
 the people at the Fall election, and obtained that noble 
 and triumphant verdict, a worthy tribute to an able, 
 fearless ai.d upright man. " It is worthy of note that 
 Mr. Greeley, on public grounds, condemns all alike 
 who voted for these measures. If it is a libel on Mr. 
 Littlejohn, it is equally a libel on each of the eighty- 
 three members who supported the corrupt bills." Of 
 all these gentlemen he alone claims to have been tra- 
 duced. In view of the tacts to which I have referred, 
 
 how should he commend it to your favorable considera- 
 tion. My friends will do it much better, but 
 if I were compelled to present it, could 1 
 do it better than in some such form as this: 
 " I voted for these Railroad bills, which seem to be 
 conceded by all men to be corrupt ; I voted for the 
 grant of millions to pditical paupers and scheming 
 millionaires. I voted to prohibit railroads forever in 
 the chief avenues of New-York, unless by the consent 
 of named and nameless grantees, and this under color 
 of a grant of further railroads in Xew-York. I now 
 demand your verdict declaring that I was not corrupt. 
 I voted for the West Washington Market bill. I 
 voted to sacrifice property of the State of immense 
 value, by an unusuil measure, which tended to 
 put public rights in jeopardy, and advance private 
 interests by interfering with the ordinary ad- 
 ministration of the courts of justice. These 
 meas^ures I voted for understandingly. I had no- 
 tice from the Governor of their flagrant character. 
 1 left the Speaker's chair to advocate them on the 
 floor of the House. Through my prominent support 
 of those bills, they are now recorded in your statute- 
 books. The measures were corrupt, but I am iuno- 
 cent. I took no bribe. I made no gain. Horace 
 Greeley said I was prominent in this legit^lation. He 
 is a wanton libeler. I demand your verdict." 
 
 I hope my friends will be able to present his case 
 more favorably; but I have given its leading features 
 as they impressed my mind during the progress of the 
 trial. I need scarcely recur to the prominent charac- 
 teristics of the Gridiron bill.-!i, so admirably analyzed 
 in the masterly opening argument of my associate. 
 You remember that they were grants in perpetuity, 
 obviously framed to evade the Constitution, and with- 
 out the usual reservation of the power to alter and 
 repeal. You remember they were grants of franchises 
 invaluable for use, invaluable for disuse, made market- 
 able alike to tho;e who would build roads and 
 those who would prohibit their construction for 
 the purpose of excluding rivalry and perpetuating 
 monopolies already overgrown. They were grants 
 not to corporations" subject to general la^rs, but to men 
 whose names are unknown as benefactors of their coun- 
 try, who a: e scarred with no wounds, unless they be 
 wounds received at the primary meetings of hostile 
 parties — men who have not augmented your revenues 
 by public works, illustrated your history by their 
 genius, or enhanced your glory among the nations. 
 No, they are grants to lawyers of whom you never 
 heard ; to brewers whose names are new to your eai*; 
 to hackneyed politicians whose reputations are 
 too familiar to commend them to your regard. 
 To such men, of whom we are at liberty to say nothing 
 except as you happen to know of them, or as you 
 yourselves' are ignorant of them, were these grants 
 made by Speaker Littlejohn and his associates. And 
 here too we have another attempt to intermeddle with 
 the administration of justice, and to carve out for the 
 George Laws or others who may have control of these 
 roads, a convenient judicial district, within which 
 alone all causes are to be tried ia which the proprietors 
 of the roads may be concerned, and for what reasons 
 it is not difiicult to conjecture. Was this scheme 
 fraudulent upon its face as disclosed in the statute 
 book? Does it reek with shameless, open, undis- 
 sembled fraud ? So Horace Greeley thought, and in 
 this respect I do not understand the learned counsel 
 for the defendant to ditter from him. 
 
 Mr. Foster — The counsel said no such thing. I 
 think it is time to interrupt this course of argument. 
 
 Mr. Porter — Mr. Sedgwick stated in his argument 
 yesterday, to which Mr. Williams replied, that they 
 would admit that all these bills were corrupt if we 
 chose. 
 
 Mr. Foster — No, Sir, he said no such thing. 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick — We do not mean to say so. 
 
 Mr. Porter — When the counsel make 'an admission 
 
40 
 
 becomes the property of tlie canpe. It belongs 
 to both imrtieH. I cannot concede the ik'ht of counKcl 
 to withdraw an iidniiMhion made in prcseni-e of tlie 
 Jury, even on the ground that he did not mean to 
 make it. 
 
 Mr. Sepgwick— I did not 8!^y I did not mean to 
 pay it. I say expressly I did not say any such 
 thinp. 
 
 Mr. Williams— We certainly eo understood it dis- 
 tinctly. 
 
 Mr. PoRTEiJ — i have no doubt my ela(nient friend 
 thinks he did not make the adnii>bion; we otten, in the 
 earneptnoss of discuseion, say what we do not reinem 
 her afterward, our minds bei ig eni/rossed by tlie main 
 qneetion involved iu the dipcuseion, aid it "not unfre- 
 fjuenily happens tluit we 8^^y more than at tlie time we 
 intend. I heard what my iriend paid, and called tlie 
 attention of my ast^ociate to it at the time. I felt the 
 importance of tlie admipsion, and took occasion to 
 allude to it in my own pubse<inent argument to the 
 Court, and there "was at that time no di^chiimer. We 
 have acted upon it on the trial, and I cannot consent 
 that it be withdrawn frc m the Jury. But 
 neither the counsel nor myself can be under 
 embarrassment on that "subject; for hip 
 client has chopcn to make evidence of the 
 statement of Mr. Oreeley in Thk Tiuhi nk of Sept. 11; 
 and the corrupt character of those n easares is thus es- 
 tabliphed by the concurrent assent of both parties. 
 These were the measures advocated by Speaker Little- 
 john with notice from Gov. Morgan of their "fla- 
 grant" character. I am not called, as the evidence 
 now s'ands, to argue the question as to his motive. It 
 is sufficient for my luirpoee that i\Ir. Greeley, in the al- 
 leged libel, did not charge him with corruption. In the 
 previous article he conceded that all were not corrupt- 
 ed. He claimed that some were bought, but I e made 
 no such claim as to Speaker Littlejohn. Some he in- 
 sisted were bought and paid for. They made sale of 
 their souls. They thought they were only sell- 
 ing their votes. Some voted for the bills not 
 knowing what they did, but he was o/jiosed to 
 tl e re-election of all, not excepting Speukei Litllejon. 
 But we are furnished by the plaintifl' with other 
 evidence, whi?h he could introduce, though we could 
 not, and which utterly excludes the only construction 
 that can render the publication libelous. The plain- 
 tiff introduces Mr. Greeley's statement in Lis letter of 
 26th November. If you believe it, the phiintitf is 
 bound by it. Iu that letter which you have heard 
 twice read already, 3Ir. Greeley disclaims any inten- 
 tion /// any previous pnljUcntion to impute personal 
 corru[ tion to Speaker Littlejohn. Both sides agree 
 that in the light of this evidence you are to read the 
 alleged libel — that they are all written in the same 
 spirit — that in each V oil find the heart and purpose of 
 Horace Greeley. What then was the intent and im- 
 port of the article ? I know those measures were cor- 
 rupt. I do not know that Speaker Littlejohn 
 was corrupt. I do not know that he was 
 bribed. I do know that he was their prominent 
 advocate, — and knowing that I cannot advise his 
 re-election — certainly not by KepuMican votes. If 
 this is the fair import and intent of the article, it was 
 a fair and just criticism upon his public acts. It was 
 made in good fuith, from a sense of public duty and 
 not of malice. If you so read this article, it will be 
 your right and your duty to find a verdict for the de- 
 fendant. I a^sume that the Court will so instruct you. 
 A.«i I do not know what may be your conclusion on 
 this subject, 1 will advert briefly to such other ques- 
 tions as you may find it necessary to consider. 
 
 In this case we have ])roved affirmatively the ab- 
 sence of all malice, lliat this is matter of oefense to 
 the claim for damages beyond the amount of j'roved 
 and actual injury will j>robably he c(»nceded. But I 
 am ))onnd to suJimit to the Court another view of this 
 -ubject, which has been contidered and elaborated on 
 
 authorirjr by mjriearned associate. It is that whero 
 malice, is affirmatively disproved, the gravamen of the 
 action is gone, and there is no civil remedy in such a 
 cat-e, even for actual damages. I do not aver il to lie 
 the law, but I submit the ([UCftion lor decision. The 
 earliest and laleet autlioritiea agree in the i>roi)0>iliou 
 that malice is thf^ gist of the a( tion, and without actual 
 malice established either by proof or presuiujilion, there 
 can be no recovery. Thuauthoriiiesfurtherestnblisb the 
 pr(>i)osition that the presuAiption of malice from tlie 
 faiseliood oi the publication may be repelled by jiroof. 
 The ]n-inciple8 involved in the consideration of tiiis 
 (luestion are discussed in a luminous ojiinion of Mr. 
 Justice Selden in a case to which I will give your 
 honor a reference. The commonly-received opinion 
 hiis been that the presumption of malice can only be 
 rej elled by jiroof that the communication was piivi- 
 leged. It may-, perhaps, well lie considered w+iether 
 this restriction has not rested on the practical dilliculty 
 in other cases of rebutting the presumption of mali' e. 
 Until the recent changes in our law of evidence, the 
 ])arty wb^ could alone elfectually rejiel the iu- 
 terence of malice, and until the recent decision 
 by the Court of Appeals, no witnef-s was 
 permitti d to testifv to his own secret intent. These 
 changes may well have thrown open the question 
 whether the rule of civil protection may not extend to 
 all cases where malice is expressly disproved, and the 
 pul>licati()n ismade on probable cause, in good faith, 
 and from commendable motives. This is not the ap- 
 propriate occasion for an extended di^cusfioo, and we 
 are content to take your Honor s ruling, giving a note 
 of a few authori'ies of which such as are accessible 
 here will be handed up to the Court. , (16, New-York 
 Kepoits 372; 15, New-York E. 120; 1, Wendell's Star- 
 kie 266; 4, Barnw. and Cress 247). Had Mr. Greeley 
 reason, from the public acts of the plaintiff, to believe 
 that the matter alleged to l)e libeh:)U6 was true in wliat- 
 ! ever sense it may be construed ? If the acts of Speaker 
 Littlejohn misled the defendant and the pulilic into 
 even an erroneous belief that he acted from improper 
 motives, he cannot comjilain of the consequences of 
 his own wrong, as if it were the wrong of another. 
 
 I have referred to these legislative acts, and read 
 them in the course of my argument not as eviience, 
 but as laws; which the Court, the parties, the Jury, and 
 the counsel are bound to know. They are our only 
 authentic history. They are presumed to be read an(l 
 known by all men. If you violate them, though you 
 ' never saw them, vou incur the penalties they impose. 
 If your own rights are invaded, though you never 
 heard of their existence, they secure to you protec- 
 tion and redress. Mr. Littlejohn is proved to have 
 ' voted for them and advocated them. If you believe, 
 upon the face of these laws, that they were corrupt; 
 that Littlejohn supported them not with an eye to the 
 public good, but from other and })rivate 
 I motives, I care not what they were, you 
 j will have no difficulty in characterizing his 
 I act. I said your farms ' were mortgaged for the 
 benefit of puhlic plunderers. Suppose the Legislature 
 I of 1860 by a shorter cut, and they loved short cuts, had 
 { chosen to" enact that the jieople of the State of New- 
 York shouhl give to George Law and Isaiah Kynders 
 — each representative men, but of widely variant 
 classes — $.),0U0,000, and that the tax-gatherer should 
 call on the farmers of New-York to relieve their faims 
 of the incumbrances created by the act for the benefit 
 of these two public benefactors — if De Witt C. Little- 
 jolin had voted for that bill would not, all the nation 
 I have cried shame ? There is legislation of a character 
 I BO gross that no room is left to doubt the intent of its 
 ! advocates. I put the case by way of illustrating with 
 ' jirecision the rule of presumption on (luestions of 
 ' motives and intent. There are acts so fla- 
 grant on their face; so directly at war 
 i with the public good; so incoiiMstent with 
 honest intent, that we may presume, in the absence of 
 
41 
 
 other proof, the presence of unworthy motivee. In 
 the case supposed, you need not ask whether an intel- 
 liiient man wbo voted for the bill was honest or cor- 
 rupt. If you knew he was not bribed, you would feel 
 that he had not even the erccuse of interest to cover a 
 bold, naked act of flagrant corruption. If in such a 
 case he was bribed iu fact, you would expect no wit- 
 ness, and need none beyond the act. The bill and the 
 vote would point to the guilty motive as unmistakably 
 as the bloody dagger iu the vision of Macbeth to the 
 bloody hand. Whether the plaintiff was corrupt or not, 
 the fact is undisputed that Mr. Greeley so believed. 
 If he did not believe that legit^lation was corrupt, was 
 there another man in all this State who did not be- 
 lieve it / Turn it over in your minds. Have you ever 
 iu partisan di-scussion, in your interviews with politi- 
 cal friends or political foes, met one man so shameless 
 as to avow he did not believe it ? As you believed, 
 Horace Greeley believed. I appeal to the bold, manly 
 utterance of bis belief, in the article of the lltb of Sep- 
 tember, in which he states the grounds of bis belief at 
 the peril of eighty-three libel suits. If the article now 
 in question is a libel, then eighty-three times $25,000 
 is the sum of the debts he owes, contracted in 
 two columns of The Tribune in a single day. 
 
 I appeal to that noble letter, in reply to the menace 
 of a libel-suit, in which he frankly avows to Mr. Little- 
 john, that he entertains the opinion which he cannot 
 change; that these measures were corrupt, and equally 
 , frankly disclaims any intention in his previous articles 
 ' to impute to him personal corruption. I appeal to the 
 oath of Horace Greeley — an oath upon which an honest 
 man can rest as upon a rock. He spoke, gentlemen, 
 what the ai'chives of the State will speak forever ! 
 He spoke what Gov. Morgan, in his veto message pro- 
 claimed to history — what every man in this State of or- 
 dinary Intel igence believes — what you believe in your 
 consciences and upon your oaths — and what the damn- 
 ing records of these public acts will forever prove. Did 
 Horace Greeley believe the matter alleged in this arti- 
 cle ? Do you see and know, and did he see and know, 
 that Mr. Littlejohn was either a culpable agent or a 
 deluded instrument ? Do you feel this the only legiti- 
 mate inference from the act unexplained? Has he 
 availed himself of the opportunity to present himself on 
 the stand and explain the act and the motive ? Do you 
 believe the testimony of Mr. Conklin, that this plain- 
 tiff, whether deceived or deceiver, was prominent in 
 the advocacy of those corrupt measures ? In either caee 
 he was not entitled to re-election, and that is what 
 these articles oeclare, and what 1 trust, for the honor 
 of the State, for the honor of Oswego, this Jury will 
 declare ! ^ \Vhat motive had Mr. Greeley for making 
 the publication, if he did not believe it ? These men 
 were his political friends and associates. Why make 
 enemies of eighty-three public men, all occupying 
 prominent portions — all indorsed by their respeciix e 
 constituents as men of influence and honor \ He loved 
 the paity of which he was a chief tain ; but he was 
 true to his convictions, and on a question of public 
 right and public duty, spared neither friend nor foe. 
 He proved his faith b}^ his works. What he believed 
 he uttered. He believes it now. You believe 
 it now; and Mr. Littlejohn has not chosen 
 to shake either your belief or his by his oath. If 
 that belief was wrong, had Mr. not Littlejohn by his 
 public acts given Mr. Greeley, and the people of this 
 State, reason to believe that he was a prominent advo- 
 cate of corrupt legislation ? If we have been misled, 
 has it not been by his own acts ? not done secretly and 
 in a corner, but m the broad blaze of noon and under 
 the high canopy of heaven; done in the view of the 
 people at their Capital. Mr. Littlejohn must abide by 
 the rule by which we must all abide. The tree is 
 known by its fruits. Where the act is of such a 
 character as to lead the mind involuntarily to the con- 
 clusion that it proceeded from bad motives or sriaoge 
 delusion, it demands explanation, and until ex] luiiitd 
 
 the mind rests on its first conclusion. Mr. Littlejohn 
 sought publicity and he found it ! Washington at the 
 close ot a long and honored life, sought retirement and 
 found it. They were going in opposite directions. 
 Littlejohn was bound upward, and like every man that 
 climbs, he must take the peril of the climber. He who 
 risesabove the mass of men must exj)ect observation and 
 scrutiny. He who invites judgment, must abide judg- 
 ment; he who enters the walks of public life with a char- 
 acter that shrinks from scrutiny, and cannot be trusted 
 to live down political criticism on jiublic acts, has mis- 
 taken his vocation. I neither claim nor concede that 
 a candidate for ottlce may be wantonly traduced, but 
 when his public acts are criticized fairly, without mal- 
 ice, in good faith, with probable cause," I claim that he 
 is entitled to no special favor from jurors or from 
 couits, when he brings his character to the forum, for 
 the purpose of converting it into money. Like the 
 author who invites publicity by issuing a new volume to 
 the world, he invites honest censure, when he demands 
 undue commendation. Above all, should the plaintiff 
 in such a suit be sure that his own act has not misled 
 the man he prosecutes. Take, for instance, the West 
 Washington market bill — one of those bills almost un- 
 heard of iu the annals of corruption, to withdraw law- 
 suite, by legislation, from the tribunals of public 
 justice. It speaks its purpose on its face. It bears 
 the bi-and of the Governor s veto. It shocked the 
 moral sense of the community. It is stamped by the 
 public judgment as a bald attempt to cover up by legis- 
 lative fraud a fraud committed in the courts, and with- 
 out a judicial hearing to dispose by a quasi commission 
 of the rights of three quarters of a million of men, 
 women, "and children! Your public documents dis- 
 close its character, the Governor's veto exhibits it in 
 i all its tiagrancy, all parties agree that it was corrupt ! 
 i When men excuse themselves for their votes by the 
 ; plea of blindness and iunorance, does it not require 
 i ecme boldness to select as the foundation of 
 i a libel-suit the strictures of a journalist upon 
 la law which the plaintifl's cotmsel have so 
 j strenuously sought to exclude fromyour consideration? 
 j They challenged us to prove the truth of the pablica- 
 I tion. We accepted the invitation, and tendered the 
 ; proof. On their objection it was excluded. They 
 , seek to ignore the West Washington Market bill. I 
 would counsel them to do go. But you cannot iynore 
 ; it. The facts are in, in part at least. When'they 
 : proved Mr. Greeley's article of 11th Sept., and his 
 : Bubsecj^uent letter, they proved too much. In support 
 ; of this bill the plaintilf surrendered the Speaker's 
 I mace, and took the floor as champion against the veto. 
 Why shrink from the disclosures apprehended from our 
 ' witnesses ? You saw Taylor here — no williog witness 
 ' — brought here as a prisoner for viola'ing the mandate 
 ' of the Court requiiing bis attendance as a witness. 
 \ Gentlemen: What manner of laws are these from 
 ; the investigation of which, iu open day, their advocates 
 1 recoil ? What manner of laws are' those which the 
 I learned counsel is unwilling to have read in your hear- 
 ' ing, and w ill not submit to your judg-ment'/ And why, 
 iu a search after truth, do they choose darkness rather 
 than ligh , and seek shelter constantly beneath the 
 j long robes of the law ? Enough appears in this case 
 i to show that more ought to appear before the plaintiff 
 ^ can entitle himself to your veraict. As with the Mar- 
 ket bill, so with the Gridiron bills. Take one as an 
 \ illustration: Speaker Littlejohn and his associates gave 
 > the franchise of a railroad that girdled the metropolis 
 ' of the Kew World, inclosing a population of three- 
 quarters of a million, the heart, the li e, and the wealth 
 , of the nation, a free i:ij't to men unknown as public 
 benefactors — ^(tve it, as your State archives show, 
 when responsible parties were willing to pay half a 
 -million for the grant; rejected security when it was 
 oftiered, and gave it without security— .^'^ore it when 
 you were paying a tax of four millions to save the 
 State from repudiation — nay, gave millions more — 
 
42 
 
 gave it in peqietuity, to day, to-movrow, and forever — 
 gave it with n»)tii-e fn-m the Governor of its 
 forrnp'ioti — ;;ave it to be ;rauil)l»d for at tlie faro- 
 taliles of New- York. They marked the lines of other 
 jiitta ut niillionn jilone the gieat avenues of industry 
 and I'omnierie, in a lily contuii.iiig one-liftli of the 
 l'0[)ulation of the State. Tliese men did not eell, buf; 
 alienated, without money and without price, loyal 
 franchises, jiarcel of your State Bovereignty. The bills 
 came into the Assembly Clianiber. Speaker Litilejohn 
 was tlieir chanij'ion, and (Jov. Morgan the channiion 
 of the public. The (iovernor was strong in the I'eo- 
 ple's conlidence. The Speaker was stionjier in the 
 Veople's c-apit!il, where the air was dai k with ui\( lean 
 birds. He trinn)plied. Was it the triumpli of legis- 
 lative purity or legislative corruption ? Tlie learned 
 counsel claims that he was not paid for his voice and 
 Lis vote, and he wants bis pay now from Horace 
 Greeley. How much ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I am detaining you too long. On 
 tliemes like these I could weary you to the going down 
 of the Bun. But 1 am content to pause heie and com- 
 mit the rights of my client to your keepiiiir — for it is to 
 you, and not to the Court, that the law commits them 
 on the gieat issue in this case. If you fa l to dispose 
 ot it on the (|uer«tion of libel or no libel, the legic^lation 
 is before you, naked, sbaineless, corruj>t. The promi- 
 nent advocate of that legislation is before you, calmly 
 asking your a]>proval and commendation. You are to 
 inquire": 1. Did 31 r. Greeley impute to the plaintili' 
 personal biil>ery and corruntiou I 2. Has be been 
 damnified by the supposed < n:M'ge in bis politi -al char- 
 acter 1 3. Was the publication made u itbout mt.lice,ia 
 good faith, and from a high sense of public outy 4. Did 
 Mr. Greeley lirmly l)tlieve the facts stated in the 
 publication / and had Li tlejohn by his public acts 
 given him good reason to believe tliera to be true? 
 
 If the public-iii >n was true, silence on the par^ of 
 Mr. Greeley would have been criminal. If Littlejobn 
 had given him good reason to believe it to be true, si- 
 Jence on his part, though it ndght have been politic, 
 would ttill have been criminal. He was not silent. 
 He spoke — a3yousp<.ke — as the Goyernor spoke — as 
 the neople spoke, aud as I trust you will speak by your 
 verd ci ! If, as I hope, that veryict shall be f>»r the 
 defendant, it will l)e one to which every honest man 
 in the State will promptly and cordi'ally respond 
 
 A.Mt.N ! 
 
 .MR. FOSTER'S CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE 
 PLAINTIFF. 
 
 If the Court Please — This, gentlemen of the 
 Jury, is an action of very great importance, as the 
 counsel on the other side has already told you. It is to 
 determine, in my judgment, whether private character 
 is worth preserving, and whether it is entitled to any 
 protection in courts of law, against unjust assaults, or 
 whether the public press shall run riot in its abuse of in- 
 dividuals, whether in public or in private station. It 
 is in every aspect, very grave in its considerations; it 
 appeals to us all, as men, as fathers, as brothers, and 
 as citizens — it appeals to us alL as it aft'ects all the rela- 
 tions in life. Some men, gentlemen, esteem property 
 as above almost everything else; but 1 care but little 
 for that man who does not regard his character as 
 paramount to every earthly interest which Le has, or 
 who does not care for the character of his family as 
 far above every other earthly interest. And the man 
 who will sit down silently, and unoomplaiiiingly, and 
 /quiescent, under a charge against bit public or private 
 h onetty and character, is unworthy a jdace among the 
 .sons of men. I mean to be as brief, geutlemen, as the 
 
 circumstances and the facts of thia case will allow. I 
 do not desire to make any a]<peals to your passions, or 
 tc^ your prejudices; I shall attempt to address myself to 
 your sober reason and your judgment, and if tail 
 tliere, I desire not to make a lodgment anywhere else. 
 I shall not expect, in connection with what has already 
 been consumed in the ojiening on our side, to occupy 
 aliuost Seven hours of your time in the arguments of 
 counsel. I desire, gentlemen, to place no clap-trap be- 
 fore you; I desire only — and if I can do so, I shall con- 
 sider my duty performed — to place before you the fact! 
 and the cin-umstances which call for your consi lera- 
 lion in this case, and which, in my judgment, will lead 
 you to a correct result. 
 
 We have had in this case, on the part of the defense, 
 a most strange and unaccountable opening. It occu- \ 
 pied three and a half hours of the time ot this Court 
 and of this Jurv. It was strdng« in its every aspect. 
 It was talented and able; but it seemed to have no re- 
 gaid whatever to the circumstaiices and the facts of 
 this case. It traveled all over creation — it assumed as 
 facts what tliev have never attempted toi)rove; it was 
 rambUng and discursive, and in my judgment, utterly 
 untitled to be presented in a I'lace like this. \N'e are 
 here, minisfeiing at the altar ot the law; we have 
 eac h and every one of us taken upon ourselves the ob- 
 lig'itions that belong to our places; and in my judg- 
 ment it is juct as much the duty of counsel to confine 
 themselves to matters w-hich are* strictly and legally in f 
 the case, as it is for the Judge, correctly, and to the 
 best of his understandi^ig and ability, to charge the 
 law apjilictible to the case; or for the Jury upon their 
 oaths to tind what they deem to be the facts in the 
 case. This is no place for the use of outside intiuences; 
 they are unbeconiing and nusjdat ed, and in my judg- 
 nient it is paying a very poor compliment to'the in- 
 telligence and perception of the Jury, to try to palm 
 olf upon thtm sucli things in pieference to the facts 
 which actually belong to the case. In mv opinion, 
 gentlemen, that oj ening was made because the counsel 
 on the other side did not expect to be allowed to give 
 such proof as they had at command, and the elaborate 
 and able argument of the counsel who has just pre- 
 ceded me was founded with the utmost ingenuity 
 and ability — not upon the evidence in this case, but it 
 is based upoa t.'iat strange opening with which you were ^ 
 entertained, at the opening of this case for the* defense. 
 1 will barely remark that I presume you will try thia 
 cause upon the evicence — that I believe is the nature 
 of your oath; and not upon tlie opening- of counsel, 
 or uj on the argument of counsel, based upon that 
 opening, and framed/ upon it, altogether. You are to 
 try the caute upon the Jat te in the case, and upon the 
 constructions of law" which the Court shall announce 
 to you from the Bench. 
 
 Why, gentlemen, strange things have taken place 
 upon this trial. The Court upon solemn argument, 
 and after the counsel who opened the case had expended 
 three or four arguments — the Court deliberately de- 
 ! cided two })ropositions. First : That tliis article in 
 I The N. Y. Trihune of the 2Gth of September, the 
 ; one uion which the suit is brought, was j^cr.-^c libelous; 
 I that it imported to charge the plaintiff with personal 
 I corruption; and the Couit as deliberately decided 
 I another question — in the second place, that the article 
 1 was not a privileged one, and must be eustained by a 
 ] proper justiticai ion, or if not sustained, the punishment 
 i to be inflicted upon the lit;eler is to be mitigated by 
 ! such mitigating circumstances as are set forth in the 
 } ] St and 5th answers. Yet, strange as it may seem, an 
 ; appeal was directly taken bv the counsel who summed 
 up this case, and again this question was solemnly 
 ^ argued and adjudirated upon, and the jirior decision of 
 I the Court su.-tained ! And yet again, in the face of all 
 this, it has been urged upon you, in the closing argu- 
 ment of the counsel, hour alter hour, that thid article 
 
43 
 
 IS not libelous iu its character, and that this is one of 
 the quefctions now open for you to dtcide ! As I have 
 already said, you have your approiuii.te duty to per- 
 lorm, I have mine, and the Court has his; and it is 
 upon the faithful penormance, by each of us, of the 
 duties respectively belonging to us tbat justice can be 
 obtained, and proi er results arrived at. The great 
 beauty and faruiony of om- system of juiisprudence is, ! 
 that it leaves fj^uestions of 'law to the Court, who : 
 lias made that science the study of his life, and who is 
 responsible for the faithful periormance of that duty. | 
 But even if the Court makes a ndstake and a party is i 
 injured in consequence, he has his remedy by au ap- 1 
 peal to a higher Court to have the case again adju- i 
 dicatfd upon; and if need be it can be cariied to the I 
 Court of Appeal.-', the Court of l<tst resort. And under ! 
 
 / this system the Jury has as its proper province to 
 weigh the credibility of witnesses and to determine, 
 upon what they say, what are the true facts in the 
 ca=e, and then to apply these facts under tbe rules of 
 law which the Court lays down. Thus there is no 
 difficulty in arriving at a correct result, and if any 
 mistakes are ccmojiited they can be corrected there- 
 after. But suppose that, iu" defiance of the charge of 
 the Court to the Jujy, the Juiy should say that they 
 are belter lawyers than his Honor, and should over- , 
 lide his rulings, and find a verdict inconsistent with 
 the facts aid with the Judge's theory of the law! 
 There could be no redress obtained, because there 
 
 ) -would be a proper ruling of the question to the Jury, 
 of which we could take no advantage on either side. 
 Hence you see, gentlemen, the strong necessity that 
 each department of the Court should { erform its own 
 functions alone, aid leave the other departments to be 
 performed by them severally iu accordance with their 
 duty. I do not make these remarks because I fear 
 that you will assurce the province of the Court at all, 
 but on account of the strange arguments which have 
 been addressed to you, telling you that, in ttFect, you 
 are the judges of the law as you are of the facts. That 
 is a gross mi?take. The counsel have not told you so 
 in plain words — they would not like to do that — but 
 they have done so in substance, by telling you that it 
 is your duty to find what is the character of this paper 
 of the 2Gth of September, notwithstanding the Court 
 ^ has decided that it is libelous per se — that is, showing 
 that it is upon its face libelous, and charges the 
 plaintiff with corruption. 
 
 Kow, gentlemen, the words of publication in The 
 Tribune are as follows: 
 
 " A correspondent earnestly inquires our opinion concerning 
 the nomination for members of tbe Legislature of D. C. Little- 
 john, at Oswego, and Austin Myers, at Syracuse. On this sub- 
 ject our opi ion Las been so ofieu expressed that it cannot be in 
 doubt. Both these persons were prominent in the corrupt leg- 
 islation of last Winter." 
 
 " Prominent in the corrupt legislation ! " Prominent 
 in forwarding legislation which was corrupt ? 2S"o; 
 by no means. But " Promiuent iu the corrupt legisla- 
 tion^'' showing inevitably that the writer of the arti- 
 cle intended it to imply that they were foremost of the 
 corrupt ones in the corrupt legislation alluded to. 
 
 " Accordingly, both of them ought now to be defeated." 
 
 Why should they be defeated, if their motives were 
 honest, although others who were acting in that leg- 
 islation were corrupt ? If Mr. L ttlejohn were a man 
 of the abilities which they concede to him, because tie 
 happened to vote on the same side with men who hap- 
 pened to be corrupt, on the passage of a bill, does that 
 prevent him from being a legislator ? 
 
 " Or, if they must be sent back to pursue their career at 
 Albany," ( 
 
 Now, what is the meaning of that word " career " 1 
 Was it an honent career 1 Was it a mistaken career ? 
 Or was it a corrvpt career ? To which of these terms 
 does the word " career" inevitably apply ? What is 
 its ireaning if it does not apply to this corrupt career ? 
 These same bills are not to be repeated at the next ses 
 
 sion; but the implication is, that they are not to be 
 sent back to continue this career of corruption, which 
 attended the legislation of 1860. 
 
 " it should not be the work of Republican voters." 
 
 Xow gentlemen, it is of little consequence to ushereto 
 which political party the jdaint iff or the defendant be- 
 longed. .We do not tit here as politicians, we sit here to 
 investigate the facts of this case, and to determine upon 
 them according as the evidence shall show. We do 
 not sit here to favor one set of men or another; one 
 class of parties or another. But even if we did, this 
 legisltitiou of 1860, be it what it may, and the legisla- 
 tion with regard to these particular acts which have 
 been specified in the answer set up in this case, was 
 participuted in by both side?, and by members of both, 
 political parties;' and a large majority of each political 
 party supported these measures. There are no reasons, 
 therefore, why any man through prejudice to those of an 
 opposite party, should swerve one iota from the proper 
 discharge of his duty here. If the Republicans of that 
 Legislatuie are corrupt because they passed these acts, 
 then the Democrats of that Legislature are also cor- 
 rupt, because they united with them, and the votes 
 show that a majority of both political parlies participa- 
 ted in the votes in favor of these bills. 
 
 I shall speak no more upon the question whether this 
 article is libelous or not ; I shall leave the Court to 
 protect itself, if any protection is necessary, against 
 the appeal from its decision to you. I have no doubt 
 but that as Lis Honor shall charge you in this respect, 
 so you will find. It is the province of the Court to de- 
 cide whether upon its face *tiis article is libelous ov 
 not, and it is the province of the Court to decide 
 whether upon the face of this whole article it is a priv- 
 ileged one; taking into account the fact that the de- 
 fendant is the editor and publisher of a paper and 
 ; upoii^ these two points the Court has solemnly decided, 
 and 1 trust that from that decision there is no appeal 
 until after this trial is closed; and then if the counsel 
 think that wrong has bfron done, they can appeal to a 
 higher tribunal and correct the mistake, if any has 
 I been committed. I shall assume, therefore, for the 
 purposes of this case, that this article is libelous; and 
 my next proposition is, that being libelous, and not 
 : proved to be true, the law infers malice, and thatinfer- 
 '. ence is not to be refuted by the testimony of Mr. Gree- 
 1 ley himself, merely giving what his opinions and his 
 ' views were of the motives which actuated its publica- 
 j tion. We have bad this strange doctiiue promulgated 
 here, that by reading other articles from The Tribuxe 
 in this case, we have taken them as our testimony, and 
 taken them to be true. Why, gentlemen, if this were 
 not iu a court of justice, and if this was not a grave 
 ! question between two citizens of standing and charac- 
 ' ter, this would be farcical to the utmost extent. Upon 
 ! the same theory, the reading of the arii. le itself on our 
 i p-^rt would be taken as evidence of its truth. These 
 i other articles were admissable only for one single piir- 
 I pose: for tbe purpose of showing the intent with which 
 the defendant made these charges. They are given in 
 evidence to characterize that intent, -and to show if he 
 was actuated by express malice or not. They are given 
 in evidence, legally" given in evidence, with the appro- 
 bation of the Court, for the purpose of showing that 
 these personal attacks and charges were continued by 
 the defendant. He did not rest upon or^e article, the 
 article in quesiion here; but he preceded it by one of 
 the 11th of September, in which he made a charge as 
 outrageous, against all who voted for these bill?, as he 
 made against this plaintiff; although in this article it is 
 not equally made by name, except to place the name 
 in the list "of those who voted for certain bills. He com- 
 menced them before Mr. Littlejohn was nominated; 
 but he commenced them doubtless when he expected 
 that he M ould be noniinated. This first article was 
 promulgated in The TKUiUNE on the Uth of Septem- 
 i.er, 1860; and on the I'Jth of the same mouth the con- 
 
44 
 
 Ptitnentfj of >[r. Litth-john rr-nominated liini r.naiii- 
 iiioiifly to rei'i-fsent lliem in I lie Ashtuibly. l)id he 
 eto)> tliere Uti the Sih of (ktohcr. or before that 
 time, he rereived a leitt-r from Mr. Liitlejohn, not jihk- 
 iiiff tliut it Khould be puhlit^hed, hut a letter denying in 
 the most solemn manuei any luirtiiipation in any tor- 
 nij't k'f^itilation of nny desciiption, and calling* npon 
 him, a.-* one man hat* a r glit to call upon another whom 
 he thinks has dono liim an injiitiiiie, to review i is course 
 and ^ee whether it does not beioii.e him to make t-ome 
 reparation in the wav of recantation or exjdanatiuu. But 
 tohis utter furpiise, lie llndstliat Ictterin I'hk Tkiulxk 
 u few daya altt-rward, aiTomi^iinitd w ith comment-', 
 over the signature, tlie iniiialaof Horace Greeley, " II. 
 G.. ' wliich were more ollensive than the other lihcl. 
 
 yiT. Wm-liams — Ibiit paper has not been put iu e\i- 
 deuoe at all. 
 
 Mr. Skdgwick — We proved by Mr. Greeley that he 
 published Hueh an article. 
 
 Mr. Fo^TKK — This is on a question of malice, and 
 we prove by him that he published tluit letter ; that 
 be ^^ubli^hed it with comments over bis own initials, 
 taking two occasions to follow up Mr. Litflejohn, who 
 bad iu a friendly manner wiitteu him a letter not in- 
 tended for publication. 
 
 Mr. Williams iueisted that the letter was not in ev- 
 idence. 
 
 31r. Foster — Nobody claims that the contents are 
 in evidence; we claim that he admitted the receipt of 
 such a letter, and jiuldished it in Thk Tkibl .ve. If 
 those comments were just and proper, it was bis duty 
 to have put them in evidence. 
 
 Mr. PoKTEK — I Hin very reluctant to interfere with 
 couneel, but I trust vour Honor will say to the Jury 
 that we have not the right to give iu evidence the 
 declarations of Horace Greeley. 
 
 Mr. Foi^TKK — Tiiey had a perfect right to introduce 
 the letter of Mr. Littlejohn to Horace Greeley, and his 
 respouhe to it. 
 
 Mr. Williams — Could we introduce the paper ? 
 
 Mr. FosTKK — You could introduce the letter and the 
 paper. Well, on the 2Gth of November Horace Greeley 
 Avritee a letter to Mr. Littlejohn in reference to an ar- 
 ticle which he had publislied on the 2'-Sd of October — 
 an article in which he admits that be charged upon 
 bira iu substance, with baviijg been indicted in a 
 neitfbboriug State for crime. 
 
 Mr. PuKTEii submitted that they were not at liberty 
 to use a paper w ich was not in evidence. 
 
 The CoL KT said the letter had been pur, in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Foster — It seemt^ from this letter itself that 
 previous to this time, and after the otlier publication to 
 which I have alluded, Horace Greeley taw fit to charge 
 the plaintiirwitb h iving been indicted in a foreign State 
 fur crime. He i>rofe>>j-es in this letter to have ol)taiiied 
 theinlorniation — which l.e admits wasinacc uiate — from 
 Mayor Weniworth of Chica.ao, and yet be swore on 
 the stand that he had not eetn Mayor Wentwurtb for 
 a long time, and that he obtained the information which 
 he had iu the Fall of 1S.J>^, and even then he did not 
 obtain infornihtiou from Mr. Wei.tworth; that the in- 
 dictment was against the plaintirt in this case. But he 
 left you to suppose from his tet-timony on the stand, 
 till we cross-examined him. that Mayor Wentworth 
 had corrected his mis'ake, and iu consequence of the 
 correction of Mnyor Wentworth, w^hy, he was willing 
 to correct the mistake under certaiu circunihtances, yet, 
 I say, it turned out on the cross-examiudtion that he 
 had not teen Ma^'or Wentworth in the meantime, from 
 the time this article was published till the time he was 
 applied to for a retraction of it, and that is the ^^tioblt 
 letter." It is a scandalous letter, degrading to any 
 man of character who would wriie it — uWrly de- 
 grading — I care not who he is, or what he is, or what 
 his pretensions are ' — utterly degrading to him as a man 
 of honor ! And if I wanted to show that Horace Gree- 
 ley was steeped in malice toward Mr. Litth-john, he 
 has furnished the most irrefragable evidence of it in 
 this letter. He has Slated on his oath that be never 
 
 had information that De Witt C. Littlejohn had beeii 
 indii ted, or that a requitt tion had been uiade by the 
 (ioveinor of another State on the (Jovernor of this 
 State for his rendition as a fugitive from justice. Yet 
 when called upon in manly terms to correct tlie ern)r 
 — I will do so, he says, upon tin; condition that you 
 will con.-ent that I shall slander Mr. Fitzhnj:!), one of 
 the most honorable nien iu ibis country. W hat nrason 
 on earth was there why Horace Greeh'y should not say 
 iu his pai er: " I was'mistaken in the article charging 
 3Ir. Littlejohn Avith having been indicted; it was 
 founded ujiou a mistake, and I withdraw the charge." 
 What right had be to impose upon Mr, J^ittlejohn that 
 be should be a wi h him in an assault upon his 
 
 friend, iMr. Fit/.hiigh ? Is that the way to do a man , 
 justice and repair an injury to him He calls Mr. 
 Fitzhugh his (they have it brother-in-law; tliej have 
 copied it wrong,)'fat^ler-in-law^ That shows a<iam how 
 reckless and careless he isiu bis statenients, as well as 
 iu his letters and in his articles in The Tkiblne. 
 We all know there is not the slightest relationship or 
 connection between them, except that of business. 
 And if I am assailed by a libeler, and when I satisfy 
 him, and he is satislied "iiimself that he has libeled me, 
 am 1 to get justice done me upon condition that I will 
 consent, and that I will be a party to nis assault upon 
 my father-in-law, or my w ife, or my child \ Why, 
 gentlemen, it is the lirst law of human nature, so far 
 as human nature is high and honorable, to repair an 
 injury which has been done. Tell me, gentlemen, 
 what' obstacle was in the way of Mr. Greeley's say- 
 ing in his paper: ''We were mistaken wiien we 
 charged in the article on such a day that Mr. Little- 
 john had been indicted in Illinois, or that Gov. Bissell 
 of that State had issued a reciuisitiou for him upon 
 Gov. King of this State." Tell me what earthly reason 
 was there why no just retraction should be made, and 
 why Mr. Greeley should insist upon the conaiiion that 
 he should have Mr. Littlejohn's consent to utter foul 
 and infamous assHuli 8 ajiainst another man who was 
 his neighbor and bis friend / Now, gentlemen, all this 
 j)retext that Mr. Fitzhugh was an intimate friend of 
 Mr. Greeley's is mere pretense; there is no intimacy 
 
 ' between them, and never was. And such is the case, 
 and has always been, between Mr. Littlejohn and M 7- 
 
 I Greeley. Tliey have belonged to the same politica 
 
 I party, but they have had no intimacy. We "deny it 
 
 . enjpjjatically, nor can Mr. Greeley etate the time that 
 Mr. Littlejohn, when in New-York, ever called at his 
 
 I office to see him. We deny the intimacy. We don't 
 
 ! mean to say that they were on bad personal terms; but 
 
 : we say this, iu answer to all this talk about their being 
 intimate friends. They belonged to what has long ex- 
 isted as different interests in the same party, and each 
 knew the jihice, with reference to those divisions, iu 
 which he stood and in which the other stood. 
 
 I But there may be some motive for assailing Mr. 
 
 I Littlejohn. Mr. Littlejohn has occupied, prior to these 
 assaults upon him, a very high and honorable position 
 among the men of talent -.and iutelligence in this coun- 
 ty, and all over this State. No man has been Speaker 
 of the Legislature for a great many years so many 
 times as he; no man has been more heartily supported 
 by his constituents than he has; and until these charges 
 were made against him, his private character was 
 without a blemish. He had been unfortunate in busi- 
 ness, and who has not? Who could say he could 
 ride out the storms of L^57 in safety ? Who could lie 
 down at night in the Autumn of that year with the 
 full as:-urauce that he could wake up bolvent the next 
 morning — especially if he were engaged largely in the 
 purchase of grain ? Men can bear tbeir providential 
 mi.-fortunes, because they come from a hand that is 
 
 1 always filled to ttie hist and to the end with kindness. 
 
 ' But that is enougb without being assailed by ruthless 
 libelers and having their character destroyed ; and at 
 the very time, too, when they most need it; when all 
 
 , their eaVthlv substance is swept away from them. 
 
 ! [The Court here took a recess till the afternoon.] 
 
45 
 
 AFTERNOON SESSION. 
 MR. FOSTER RESUMED. 
 
 I wap coramenting, gentlemen, on this letter of the 
 26ih of November. " It says: 
 
 " Office op The Tribune. ? 
 " Nkw-Yokk,Nov. 26, 1860. 5 
 
 " Gextlemex: I have 5'out ]etfer of ilie 24th this moment. 
 
 " A simple allnsion to Mr. Littlejohn in Thk Tribtxe occurs 
 to me as having given warrant for your demand. _ It was that in 
 which I spoke of his having been wanted in Illinois. My au- 
 thority for that statement is John Wentworth, Mayor of Chi 
 cage ; but it now occurs to me that the requisition of Gov. Bissell 
 ou Gov. King was for Mr. Fitzhugh, th« father-in-law and busi- 
 ness partner of Mr. Littlejohn, not for Mr. L. himself," 
 
 And what diflPerence could it make, I ask, whether 
 Mr. Fitzhugh was Mr. Littlejohu's partner in reference 
 
 ' to whether he should do justice to Mr, Littlejohn or 
 not in retracting the article he had publisbed. H^d he 
 any right to claim that Mr. Littlejohn should consent 
 that he might assail Mr. Fitzhugh before he would 
 consent to do justice to Mr. Littlejohn '/ And yet the 
 counsel puts this forward as a case of great promptitude 
 and willingness on the part of Mr. Greeley to do Mr. 
 Littlejohn justice, and to my utter surprise, to verify 
 the position of Mr, Gree'ey , he tells us that one partner 
 is answerable for the acts of another. In acerttun sense, 
 gentlemen, he is. If one of two partners makes a con- 
 tract, the other co-partner is bound pecuniarily for the 
 performance of the contract on the part of the co-part- 
 
 \ nership. But where on earth , except at Albany, is it held 
 that one co-partner is liable for the indictments of an- 
 other ? Where on earth else is it heard of, that you 
 have a right to slander one co-partner for acts charged 
 — though they be not criminal — ou another, without 
 any participation in them in the slightest degree ? i 
 adding insult to injury ! When a man asks for redress ' 
 from a faLse charge, then to turn around and insist 
 that be must consent to let his co-partner be assailed ! | 
 And this is high-minded and honorable conduct on the { 
 part of the principal editor of the Union. 
 
 though I understand and believe that it was ou account of 
 partnership transactioES." j 
 
 Well, suppose it was ? I take it if the people of 
 Illinois had a compl-iint to make against Mr. Little- 
 john for any conduct of his they would indict hioi for 
 it, and not indict Mr. Fitzhugh alone. I deny that 
 there is any principle that imputes to one man the 
 crimes of another." It is enough for us that we have 
 to bear our own infirmities, and the responsibilities of 
 our own acts; and no man has any right to throw any 
 greater load upon us than that which it is our duty to 
 bear. It shows the recklessness with which shafts are 
 aimed from that almost all-controlling press. It shows 
 how careless they are in their statements, and how 
 they scatter broadcast over the land insinuations 
 against the character of men who ditter with them. I 
 concede to the editor of that paper talents of a very 
 high order; I concede that in the main he is an honest 
 man; but I have a right to assert, however, that he is 
 utterly impracticable when brought into connection 
 with any body else, that he knows no such thing as 
 molding opinion by opinion, that he knows no such 
 thing as being influenced at all by the opinions or 
 knowledge of any other man — he is utterly impracti- 
 cable, wedded to his own sophistries and dogmas en- 
 tirely. 
 
 "If Mr. Littlejohn desires that I shall ascertain and publish 
 the exact facts in the case, 1 will gladly do so." 
 
 What has Mr. Littlejohn to do with the facts in the 
 case ? How is He connected with them ? Why was 
 he to be asked to consent to a publication of the exact 
 facts, as long as they did not regard him or affect him 
 in any way ? Why should he be mixed up in this 
 matter in any shape, so long as it is conceded that the 
 charge never emanated from Mr. Wentworth against 
 him at all ? Why should such claims be insi&ted on by 
 an honorable man, who claims to be honorable among 
 
 I his neighbors ? The only principle I know of, is — 
 ' that ample justice should be done for the wrong; and 
 then let the wrong-doer look about to see if any other 
 person is properly subject to his assaults — but let him 
 be just first! Do justice unqualifiedly and without 
 condition. He who denies the right of his neighbor to 
 ! unqualified and unconditional redress is unworthy the 
 I f-ituation that enables him to wield the terrible power 
 of such a press as that. 
 
 " I have hesitated hitherto, because Mr. Fitzhugh is not in pub- 
 I lie life, is an old man, for whom 1 have the kinde4t regard, and 
 < whom I do not wish to drag before the public in any uupleasaut 
 I connection." 
 
 ! Then why does he want the assistance and consent 
 ! of Mr. Littlejohn to drag him before the public ? And 
 j why does he make it a condition upon which alone he 
 ! will do justice to Mr. Littlejohn, when he confesses 
 I that he never had a syllable of information against 
 j him, from any person in the world ? 
 
 I " Still, if Mr. Littlejohn desires a correction of this statement 
 ' made, I will do it cheerfully, and in exact accordance with the 
 j facts." 
 
 No fact is material to Mr. Littlejohn except one — 
 that he is not the party who has been indirted in Illi- 
 nois, and for whom a requisition has been sent by 
 Gov. Bissell to Gov. King. What else has he to do 
 with it 'I. He confesses here that there was no indict- 
 ment against him and no requi.sition for him. Then 
 why not say so like a man, and place his columns in a 
 position to "be entitled to credit when they shall assail 
 some other man ? But the honoraole man is willing 
 to do more. He is willing to take back the lihel he 
 has uttered on being satii^Jieil ! Mr. Littlejohn com- 
 plained that he had been assailed in the article for 
 which this suit is brought; he complained in this let- 
 ter of the 24th November, long before the suit was 
 brought, with a view to avoid litigation — desiring not 
 the money of Mr. Greeley at all, but desiring to have 
 his fair fame vindicated from the unjust aspersions cast 
 upon it. 
 
 "As to all other matters which Mr. L. may have to complain 
 of, I have only to say that I shall very gladly correct any mis- 
 representation 1 have made that may be shown to me to be 
 such." 
 
 Why, the editor of The Tribune not only holds a 
 position from which he can assail all mankind — 
 according to the doctrine of his counsel — with impu- 
 nity, but he holds a Cuiirt — a Court, too, unknown to 
 the laws of this State — and a judicatory of his own, 
 at which he insists that those who have been injured 
 by his conduct shall come, and show }iim that they 
 have been wronged — he, whose duty it is to inquire, 
 before he wrongs them, whether he is doing a wrong; 
 then, when they claim that he has wronged them, he 
 very quietly asks them to come and cool their heels in 
 his antechamber, until he shall have leisure to examine 
 into the truth or falsity of these accusations which he 
 has made ? Do you believe in such arrogance as that ? 
 Ate you williug'to bow to the influence of a press that 
 issues editions of 250,000, and to concede for a moment 
 that those assailed throughout the length and breadth of 
 this broad country, and among the nations of Europe, 
 can only obtain' redress, no matter how clear 
 their claim may be, until they come into the presence 
 of this august 'traducer, and 'satisfy him that he is 
 wrong? Submit to sucli things, if you will. I will 
 be no participator in any such fawning sycophancy 
 and degradation as that ! 
 
 " But I cannot change my opiniocs •with regard to much of the 
 legislation of last Winter, whereof Mr. Littlejohn was a promi- 
 nent advocate. I consider that legislation every way wrong, 
 unjustiKable, and corrupt ; and, while I do not know that Mr. 
 L. received any money for his share iu it, I deem it of such a 
 character that it would be no less objectionable to my mind if I 
 were convinced that he bore his part ia it without hope or 
 exj.'ectation of reward." 
 
 He goes on to set up his opinions of the legislation 
 of that Winter. It is not a quebtion of opinion, gen- 
 tlemen ; it is a question whether in truth and fact his 
 
4G 
 
 charges agninet Mr. Llttlejolm are true. That is the , known to favor and to be in favor of mid acts, and of the passage 
 (luentiou. Tlie opinions ol Mr. Greeley may be entt-r- i tliereof resper tiviiy. 
 
 tallied upon a wrony: loundatioii, as tliot^e of any other ' " "a**! "cts the said defendant sayH that at the 
 
 human W: 
 
 ,,,,, 11^; ., » ,i„ .1 ' r •.• ' c\ ' " 'he BHHie was puKHed and was go voted lor hv the said 
 
 iniS. He 18 tiot above the lufu niUieK Ot hu- ; pIui.UiH. the same was eUr .ince hath been and Htill i. of a 
 man nature. lie lliis no inlalJlbuity, UUKhs presiding t nature and tendency highly prejudical to tlie interentH and wel- 
 
 Avfiich insues editions f'^^e of the people of this State; that at the time when he, the 
 
 - . . , A direct char/,'e of corruption; and lie voted for them 
 
 r all Ills in(|uny about this matter, he hiis not yet ; believing and knowing that they had this tendency for 
 id out but Mr. Fitzhugh is .Mr. Littlejohn'H father- evil. 
 
 over the coUimnB of a newspaper 
 of 'J.'jOjOOO raises his character and ^ives hiui attributes 
 which do not l|elong to humanity at large. Certainly 
 his jiaper is evidence that he is not above erior, for 
 afte 
 fouu 
 
 in law, lie is willing to commute if Mr. Littlejoh 
 ^Yill consent that a man whom he calls his father-in- 
 law is the guilty person, and that it was in regard to 
 partnership transactions. 
 
 " If you will point out to iv.e the averments in TiiR Tkiri-ne 
 that Mr. L. demands should he retracted or corrected, I will do 
 whatever aeeniB to me just, but no more, because Mr. L. threat- 
 ens me with a libel-suit. Indeed, it ia probable that, in the ab- 
 sence of such threat, I might be induced to go further than I 
 would otherwise liave done. But, whether threatened or not, 1 
 shall be at all times ready to undo any injustice I may have com- 
 mitted. " Yours, 
 
 "HORACE GREELEY. 
 " Messrs. M.a.ksh Sc AVej'.b, Oswego, N. Y." 
 
 Why does he not say I will do whatever is just and 
 right Wluit does it "mean, more or less, than that "I 
 will do just what I have a mind to' about it, irre- 
 spective of what all the rest of tlie world may think 
 with regard to the truth of the msitter chdiged", or the 
 motives by whicti I am actuated in making them ? 
 And that is the '' noble letter," gentlemen, in whicli a 
 freeman of your county has been assailed, in the most 
 outrageous a'nd nujustiliable manner, by him who sits 
 at the head of Thk TiiinuNE. 
 
 Is this article libelous ? Did Mr. fJreeley mean to 
 charge Mr. Littlejohn with corrupt motives ? Aye; I I 
 have it under his own oath that he end. My learned 
 friends have shirked his answer entirely in tlieir argu- 
 ments; they have ignored it altogether. Mr. Little- 
 john, when he commenced this suit, bej^au by iiling a 
 complaint under oatb, and in this oath he chai-f^es tliat 
 these things are untrue and libelous, emphatically 
 aud distinctly. And l)y filing this complaint under 
 oath, he compelled Mr. Greeley to make answer, and 
 he did so. 1 hold in my hand" a copy of tha*; answer, 
 which was served upon the «ttorneys of Mr. Little- 
 john by the attorney of the defendant. You will bear 
 in mind that all this answer is shut out by the Court, 
 ezcept the second aud fifth answers, one of which 
 justifies the charge to its fullest extent, aud the other 
 states the same facts in mitigation of damages. And 
 the changes have been rung" here by the counsel that 
 he has not charged Mr. Litiiejolin fiimself with cor- 
 ruption, but that he voted for these bills, whi.h were 
 corrupt; and that he lias been prominent in this cor- 
 rupt legislation, and that he never meant to charge him 
 with being corrupt himself. We will eee iu a moment, 
 if there is any value in language, if he has not so 
 charged j)im. 'He has not only denied him any re- 
 traction, but he has followed hini into Court here," and 
 placed upon the records of the Court for all time, tliis 
 malicious and defamatory charge, and put it in the 
 broadest language which he could find for that purpose. 
 Tbe counsel have talked about, bribery, and have 
 called your attention to the fact that they have not 
 
 said plaintiH, 80 voted for the name, he, the said plaintiH, well 
 knew and fully believed such to be the evil nature aud tendeiu-y 
 of such act." 
 
 " And, as he also well knew, was hound in law and morals, 
 and by his duty as such DiCmber of Assembly, to vote against 
 the same." 
 
 Charging him with knowing that it was his duty to 
 vote against them : 
 
 " Yet he, the said plaintiff, wickedly, willfully aud corruptly 
 disregarding his said duty iu that behalf." 
 
 No personal charge here, my learned friend ? 
 
 Mr. Wii.LiAM.s — Are you trying us on the answer? 
 
 Mr. FosTKK — 1 am trying" no motive now. I am 
 showing whether you have furnished evidence bv your 
 justification of express malice. That is what 'I am 
 doing, and 1 trust I am succeeding with all who can 
 listen and weigh ])atiently our own acts and doings. 
 
 Mr. PouTEK — I ])resume my frien^i does not mean to 
 misstate us; but it is due to^us that we should state 
 our exact position, which he seems to misunderstand. 
 1 said the artirh' did not charge liim with corru[)tion, 
 but the complaint alleged that we did charge corrup- 
 tion, and iu the answer we did char^^e it in the broad- 
 est form ; but we are not prosecuted on the answer, but 
 on the article. 
 
 Mr. Foster — And there is no principle by law bet- 
 ter settled than that when you \mi in a charge in your 
 juetilication; that cliarge on the record is evidence 
 againf-t you. But wliat a dilemma do they put Mr. 
 Greeley in here; he swears in his answer that he did 
 mean to charge him with corruption. 
 
 " And with the dishonest intent and purpose of working such 
 prejudice to the interests aud welfare of the said people, and 
 sacrificing the same to advance the personal and individual inter- 
 ests hereinafter iu this d-='feii8e fita'eJ, did vote for such act as 
 aforesaid; that said plaintiff's motive iu to willfully end cor- 
 ruptly voting for the said first-mentioned act was so to advance 
 the personal aud individual interests ol' .lames B. Taylor and 
 Owen W. Brennau, and divers other persons interested therein, 
 aud that as to each of tee oilier acts above mentioned, his motive 
 iu so voting for the same was so to advance the personal and in- 
 dividual interests of the ptrsous named in tbo first section of 
 such act, and of divers other persons interested in said acts 
 respectively, as the defendant is informed and believes." 
 
 And yet it is contended that he published this article 
 with pure motives, and believing it to be true. And 
 now we have this other and very strange conclusion 
 asked for by my learned friend — that the publisher of a 
 newspaper, if he chooses to step one side, can allow 
 anything to appear in his paper, and then shirk re- 
 sponsibility by coming into Court and sweat ing that 
 he had no malice when he published it. There is no- 
 principle better settled, than tbe publisher is just as 
 guilty in such a case as if he had written it himself. 
 
 Bui the learned counsel who opened this case jdaced 
 editors on a level with common carriers, and insisted 
 that they had duties to perform, that they had duties 
 to the piiblic, and if they even suspected wrong they 
 were bound to let it be known ; if they heard any- 
 
 charged him with tbat. Bribery and corruption are ! thing wrong they were bound to tell it", and if they 
 two cifiierent things — they are not synonomous terms. | knew anything wrong it was their duty to disclose it. 
 There is corruption where there is bribery, bui; there They should have taken the other side of a caniers" 
 may be corruption iu a dozen instances where there is i duty — a carrier is bound to carry all the aiticlesof 
 
 no bribery. Well, in this sccnud answer he goes on to 
 ennumenite these four Kailroad bills, and also tliis 
 bill in relation to the West ^Va6hington Market, and 
 he charges that they were corruptly ])asEed. Then he 
 says : 
 
 " That the said plaintiff, in fact, was active and prominent in 
 said le-dsla'iou, to wit: as Speaker of the Baid House of Assem- 
 bly, and otherwise actively exerted himself in procuring the pas- 
 sage of said acts iu the said House ot Assembly, aud did, as a 
 member of the said House, therein advocate aud vote for the pas- 
 sage of the same, publicly and privately, aud was generally 
 
 a carrier 
 
 t jose who choose to employ him. But there ie another 
 principle — he must carry "them safely, and the law 
 holds him responsible for any negligence on bis part, 
 lie is re6})oni-ible to the owner for any less by robbery 
 or theft from outsiders. How would my learned 
 friend like to have that priuriide applied here ? The 
 editor is bound, if he stands, on a par wifli carriers, fo 
 see that his paper does not traduce anybody; he is 
 bound to see that the interests of indiviiiuils, as well 
 as the public interests committed to his charge (I don't 
 
47 
 
 know who committed them, but suppose they are), are 
 carefully protected; and that do man i:^ allowed to be 
 demolished by the strong hammer of The Tkihune ! 
 And more especially, like the common carrier, shoild 
 he be bound not to rob the packapes knnsrlf! Tliis 
 man, who holds all these public ard private and indi- 
 vidual iuterests in his hand, should look to it that he 
 does not willfully damage them himself ! He must so 
 conduct all the business that is intrusted to him in this 
 mysterious manner as to have everything go safely to 
 its destination. The common carrier is liable for loss 
 by fire; tire without his fault; he is bound to protect 
 it against all but the acts of the public enemy, and see 
 that all arrives safe and in good condition at its place 
 of destination. Let my learned friend, when he 
 assumes the rights of a common carrier, assume also 
 his duties, and to especially not to turn robber of pub- 
 lic or private character himself. Gentlemen, I want 
 to adopt, as a portion of my argument upon this point, 
 the language of one who has had time to condense his 
 thoughts, and to speak in a form much more entitled to 
 credit before a jury, than can he given to a counsel 
 summing up a case before a jury. It was an action 
 for libel against an editor of this county for copying 
 from another paper an article, and publishing it. [ rhe 
 counsel read from 2d Hill, 513, the opinion of Chief- 
 Justice Nelson.] 
 
 Yes, before these editors and publishers can claim 
 the exception which is claimed here, they must get some 
 statute passed, which shall wipe out the provitions of 
 the common case, and the conclusion of the common law. 
 AVhen that day sball arrive that any free country on 
 earth allows tne press to take the private morals of the 
 country into their hands and in their protection, then 
 farewell to all that is desirable in the condition of man; 
 for no despotism would be so galling. You cannot fight 
 against the press, you have no standing-place. What 
 can an individual do against the editor of The Trib- 
 UXE? Where can he find a place on which to meet 
 his attacks — and how can he continue the battle against 
 him? In such a conflict he would be inevitably 
 worsted so far as appearances on paper are concerned. 
 An editor has all the appliances and means to make 
 his warfare effectual and continued. 
 
 Now, take the idea if you please, that Mr. Greeley 
 knew nothing of this article until it was published ; 
 that he had nothing to do personally with having it 
 inserted in his paper; how stands his answer which he 
 makes under oath, and where he in express terms ad- 
 mits that he procured it to be published in his paper ? 
 Let the counsel reconcile these things if thi-y can. 
 They should have done it as they went along; iu stead 
 of traveling out of the case continually. In my judg- 
 ment it would have been been better to have been 
 stopping the weak places in their case. 
 
 We think there will be no difficulty in your minds, 
 gentlemen, in the first place that this article is libelous 
 ■per se ; that is, there is enough here to show that it 
 was maliciously published — that is, what tlie law 
 terms malicious. And it is no excuse for an editor to 
 go on the stand here and swear that he had not any 
 bad motives in having it published. If he is to be 
 believed here, he had no motive at all, for he did not 
 know of it. And yet Mr. Greeley is held up by his 
 counsel as a person who is striving to purify tfie pub- 
 lic legislation of the country. Yet it turns out here, 
 by his own showing, that non constat he was asleep 
 when all tbis was done. Ah ! he should net have been 
 asleep; he should have been wide awake and seeing 
 what was being put into his colamns, day after day, 
 derogatory to the character of individuals. It has 
 been decided repeatedly, gentlemen (and this case of 
 Hotchkiss against Oliphant decides it), that an action 
 for libel against the proprietor of a newspaper edited 
 by another, though the publication may be without 
 his knowledge, yet it is a libel on his part, and he is 
 liable to be prosecuted; though so far as actual motive 
 is concerned there could have been no bad motive. 
 
 But the law holds him all the while to keep his paper 
 under his control, or under the control of souie one 
 who will see to it that nothing libelous is permitted 
 to enter there. Tbis article then is libelous ; there is 
 no piivilege on the part of the defendant; and malice 
 i* shown to all intents and purposes, as the law re- 
 quires it in order to sustain the action. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, is the lioel true? Bear in mind 
 that this cJiuse in to be tried upon the evidence; and I 
 beg you not to forget that; if you do you may be led 
 astray. Y''ou are not to take the declaration of coun- 
 sel; you are not to take rumor with her hundred 
 thousand lying tongues. You are not to try Mr. Lit- 
 tlejolm by what has been said oat of doors, or what 
 has been said here by counsel. There is only one w^ay 
 in which the defendant can escape a verdict against 
 him; that is by proving the libel to be true, and prov- 
 ing it by testimony, not by declamation, not by reiter- 
 ating slander here by the mouth of counsel; not by 
 reiterating that certain legislation with regard to the 
 City of New- York was corrupt; not by proving that 
 Mr. Greeley believed it to be corrupt; not by presses 
 in all parts of the State charging, if you please, that 
 it was corrupt. That is not evidence to satisfy a Jury. 
 You are not to decide this case upon slang which has 
 been uttered here or elsewhere. You are not to take 
 as part of the testimony in this case, that the West 
 Washington Market Bill \vas corrupt, because iu the 
 first ])lace, there is no evidence to show it; and in the 
 second place, it is an utter untruth; not altogether, 
 but the greatest part of it is untrue. Y^ou are not to 
 take it for granted teat the legislation with regard to 
 that law was corrupt — the veto of a Governor is no 
 evidence of corruption in the Legislature, when it has 
 discharged the duty as well as the right of two-thirds 
 of the House present when the veto Message is re- 
 turned, to pass that bill if they approve of it over that 
 veto of the Governor, a^ it M'as originally passed by a 
 majority vote before the veto was introduced. Men 
 we make Governors we don't make despots; we elect 
 a purely executive officer, having nothing whatever 
 to do w ith legislation, except by his message to present 
 the condition of the State, and to recommend the 
 passage ot such laws as he pleases. But that imposes 
 no obligation upon either House of the Legislature to 
 pass a single one of the bills he proposes, or to favor 
 one of the measures he proposes. He is authorized to 
 sign all the bills which he approves that are presented 
 to him after having passed both Houses; and he is au- 
 thorized in case he disapproves any of them, to re- 
 turn them to the House with his objections, within 
 ten days after he receives them: and then triat same 
 Constitution provides, wisely provides, that after a bill 
 has been returned with his veto message, two-thirds 
 of the members of each House present, shall pass it 
 if they are in favor of it, notwithstanding the veto. 
 And yet Governors are talked about here, as though 
 their 'will was to be law. iiiit the rel)le^•entative8 of 
 the people are sent there exjiressly for tlie purpose of 
 lejyislating and of devising bills which are to be 
 pdbsed, determining in the first place whether they 
 shall be passed, and determining in the last place 
 whether they shaU be passed over the Governor's 
 veto. 
 
 We have been treated here to an eulogy on English 
 legislation and the purity of Englisli legislation. Uow 
 pure it was on that day when my friend stood on the 
 floor of the House of Commons, 1 cannot say; but if he 
 has read the history of Lord Walpole's adnunistration 
 he^ would have Ibund there more corruption than ever 
 existed before or since in that or any other country, 
 and yet he talks about the purity of English legislation 
 as a tning to be adoj)ted by American citizens; and the 
 fact that there has been but one veto there in a century 
 which my learned friend has been able to ascertain, 
 what does it prove ? It is not her Majesty who signs 
 a bill or directs whether it shall be signed or not; it is 
 her Majesty's ministers, her Cabinet; and unlike an 
 
48 
 
 Americ an Cabinet which does not control the President, 
 it i.-< the perfect tiuderstanding tnere, that the advice of 
 the Cabinet is to be followt^d liy tiie Kintr or C^ueen, us 
 the la.-e uiay be; and whenever that fails and there is 
 a «ii?agrceuieiit heiween the King or Qia-eii and tlie 
 Cal'inet, then llie Cn'tinet retitrti, or td-e llu-y are re- 
 moved iustinter. And they have another doctrine 
 there, geutlenien; when the House of Conanons by a 
 det-ided vote, votes against any measure of the Cov- , 
 eminent, of the Admiiiit;iraiiou, tlie Ministers resign 
 immediately, as a niatler uf course, and her M.ijesty, 
 or his Majesty, ai>i>oiuts an admiui>trarion according lu 
 juinciide and m views wich the majority of the House 
 of Coniuions upon the matter in ([uestiou. 
 
 Now what is the evidence of corruption iu any of 
 these bills, and wliere is it / Wtiere, except iu the lan- 
 guage of the counsel, do you hud it ? 1 mean before 
 you, as jurors actinir under au oath, to be governed by 
 the testimony given before you. Yet they say the evi- 
 dence was excluded. ISupi>o.-e it was: the case is not 
 to be tried upon what we may suppose to have beeu 
 the evidence if it had not been excluded. The ad[nis- 
 siou or exclusion of evidence lies alone within the 
 province of the Judge, and it is the duty of counsel to 
 use, iu their argument to the Jury, aud the duty of the 
 Jury to use, wuen tiiey retire to "the jury-box, the evi- 
 dence which was received and which is before them 
 iu the case. But my learned friend has said, '■ These 
 statutes need not be "in evidence; they are on the stat- 
 ute-book, and the Court will take judicial cognizance 
 of them, aud the Jury wi:l take judicial cognizance of 
 them'" — as great a fallacy as ever was supposed, in my 
 iudgment. But I am perfectly willing to meet him 
 there. Now, I am going to talk a little about this 
 West Washington Market bill iu answer to my friend 
 wl.o o;.ened this case, aud who denounced it iu all 
 shapes and forms — as indeed both counsel did. It they 
 could present that opening as testimony, they would 
 be much let^s able counsel than I take them to be, if 
 they could not make out a case. You will bear iu 
 mind, as the counsel who opened this case has told you, 
 that this land, which was used for the West Washin^^- 
 ton Market, was on a spot which wa's once out beyond 
 low water mark, and docks and piers were extended 
 out, and, in consecjuence of ' that, earth formed 
 there from the action of the currents and their disturb- 
 ance, and that the city proceeded to till it up and made 
 land there; that the citv alone expended all the money 
 that was expended, and! the State never paid a cent; 
 aud but for the erection of these wharves aud piers, 
 there would have been no land there, but water, as it 
 always had been, It was these obstructions which 
 caused the eddies, which threw out of the current the 
 passing soil which Hows in the stream, and thus 
 made these little islands or accretions to the land. It 
 was made, too, at the expense aud by the efforts of 
 the city entirely. Somewhere aloug in 1855 or 1856, 
 the attention of the State officers was called to the fact 
 that there wasl and there, where it was origmally water; 
 and the claim was interposed rhat the State, as para- 
 mount owner, was entitled to all the lands thus made. 
 Bear in mind that all the lime the State bad never 
 reaped a sixpence of compensation from it at all, and 
 had never expended a fcixj.ence in any way or in any 
 shape whatever. Upon the attention of the Commis- 
 sioners of the Land- Office being called to the fact, they 
 executed a lease to Taylor Brennan, or to Taylor 
 alone, and that lease had to be renewed from year to 
 year. Now, it is a grand mistake iu my friend when 
 he says that the city made $llo,OOU. 
 
 Mr. Williams— But it is in proof. 
 
 Mr. Foster — Where ? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM3 — In the West- Washington Market 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Foster — I have reliable evidence that the city 
 did not receive $5,000. 
 Mr. Williams — Ii is in a law book. 
 Mr. FoiTKU — That is not evidence here. I repeat, 
 
 the State never recei ved a cent for it, and the Attorney 
 (ieneral advit^ed against any suit upon the ground that 
 the Stale would not obtain "it . 
 
 iSIr. Williams — Wliat is the evidence of that ? 
 
 Mr. FosiEK — Just the same as you had in the 
 oj'ening. 
 
 Mi\ Williams — That was upon facts I expected to 
 show. 
 
 Mr. Foster — Yon did not expect to prove them. 
 
 Mr. Williams— I did expect to provethem aud will 
 now if you will lot me. 
 
 Mr. Foster — \Vell, they got this land and what was 
 the result ? Out of this laiuf which cost the State not 
 one cent, they have reaped $300,000; the money is iu 
 the treasury to-day — that is not disputed. Gentlemen, 
 what was the character of that law^ ? It was just, be- 
 nevolent and riglit in its purpose, and it was pist such 
 a law as the State would be bound to pass in a ques- 
 tion between it and the city, througli whose means 
 alone such claim as it had had come to its hands. 
 That law directed the Commissioners of the Land 
 Office to sell the land to the city upon such terras as 
 were e(iuitable and just, taking into consideration the 
 fact that the accretions had been made to a large extent 
 by the expenditures of the city. Was not that just ? 
 Whi.h of vou would stand ready to pick the pockets 
 of the city ? 
 
 A JuiKjR — This land, then, was not sold to a Corpo- 
 ration or body of men ? 
 
 Mr. Foster — No, Sir, not at all. 
 
 Mr. Williams — It was sold, aud we have the proof 
 of it here. 
 
 Mr. Foster — Yes, Sir, aud I am going to tell how 
 it was sold. [The counsel then read from the West 
 Washington Market act, re iding the :3d and 7th sec- 
 tions.] Is not that just ? And where is the man that 
 \ will deny its justice, or claim that it goes one step 
 further than the city was in duty and honesty 
 bound to go ? The seventh section directs the Con- 
 troller to "buy the land upon such terms as he shall 
 deem most just. That is what he is directed to do. 
 What is there iu that, gentlemen, that shows evi- 
 dence of corruption ? He is directed upon such terms 
 as " shall be satisfactory to himself," and he is not 
 directed or authorized upon any other terms to pay 
 one dollar more to any body of men, or any man, 
 than he deems to be just and right. These are the two 
 great objectionable features of that bill. In other 
 words, the Commissioners of the Laud Office, your 
 own State officers, a body of men iu whom you can 
 have confidence, if in any body, for they are elected 
 by the people every two or three years — they are au- 
 thorized to sell this land upon terms which are just and 
 equitable. That is the length and breadth of the West 
 Washington Market bill. The city authorities, because 
 they deemed it right aud prudent to do it, paid Taylor 
 6c Breunan and their associates such sum as they 
 i chose to pay — not as they were bori'id to pay — but as 
 ' they chote to pay. for their outstanding claims. And 
 i you will bear iu mind that this arrangement was made 
 j with Taylor »fe Brennan after their" judgments were 
 ' set aside. And that is the corrupt legislation of 1860 ! 
 I have read you the sections which have been relied 
 upon to show that this legislation was corrupt. I 
 I should be ashamed of the citizen of the State of New- 
 York who should claim that, when the city had re- 
 ! claimed all this land, the State should take it, irre- 
 spective of what they had paid for it ! I should be 
 ashamed to be a citizen of a State that should attempt 
 \ to reap where thev had not sown at all. And I would 
 I be ashamed of the' legislator, be he who he may, who 
 ; was oi)po8ed to such a bill as that, and there would be 
 no day of my life that I should regret that 1 had dealt 
 with the City of New- York fairly and honestly, put- 
 ting it in the powder of the State olficers to do what was 
 I right with the city. Gentlemen, that bill is a fair 
 sample of all the others, the Governor's veto of the 
 i one to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
49 
 
 Why, they tell us, with regard to these raikoads 
 about which we have heard eo much, that there is a 
 great necessity for tliese raih-oads in this city, which 
 they say is fifteen miles long. The Governor, in_ his 
 Message, desii'es ihe same roads, aud so he desires, 
 among other thin;,'s, that the fare on all the roads 
 should be eijaal. Have my learned fj lends attempted 
 to deny that ihe fare in these bills was precisely the 
 same as what they were on the old roads / Why, 
 what is one of the j^reat faults that the Governor finds 
 with these acis ? They don't pay a lai-ge bonus into 
 the City Treasury for you and! to pay whenever we 
 ride, as we frequently do, on those railroads in the 
 City of New-Yoik. Ihey don't pay a large bonus to 
 relieve men from paying for the improvement of the 
 city iu proportion to their property.^ They don't pay a 
 large bonus into the City Treasury in order to relieve 
 the rich and compel the poor to pav a larger piice for 
 traveling than they otherwise would. For all that a 
 railroad corporation or any other corporation pays in 
 the way of a bonus is estimated, in its capital stock, or 
 to the holders of that stock, and the managers will see 
 to it, if they can, that they shall reap a fair reward 
 for all their investments, in whatever form. I do not 
 blame Gov. Morgan for desiring that the class to which 
 he belongs should escape taxation. I do not blame the 
 slaveholders of Baltimore that they should have a 
 Park more expensive than our own, built by the poor 
 who ride in the railroads and public conveyances, and 
 who have to pay this bonus ! I mean I don't blame 
 them 80 far as their own class is concerned. But I say 
 Gov. Morgan is worthy or blame if he attempts to 
 foist these obnoxious principles into these bills. Sup- 
 pose all the railroads through our country had to pay a 
 bonus on their charters. This would relieve the rich 
 from taxes, Gut would necessarily impose upon the 
 passenger an additional burden ; and I am thankful, 
 for one, that the Legislature did not adopt any such 
 provision in regara to these railroads in the City oi 
 New-York. And I trust, gentlemen, tliat when any 
 of you use those roads you will be able to recollect 
 that you are not paying a tax into the Treasury of 
 that city, whose bueiner-.s you increase by your busi- 
 ness there, and whose prosperity you pamper by your 
 business. There is scarcely a railroad in the State 
 that charges the fare allowed by law. The New-York 
 Central, with its fare reduced to two cents a mile, 
 does not charge even that; while if they had paid a 
 bonus of |10,0U0,000 to the State they would have to 
 increase the fare in order to reap a fair investment on 
 their capital. Yet if I were a rich man in the City of 
 New- York 1 should admire the logic of his Honor the 
 Governor. 
 
 NoWj was there no necessity for railroads when 
 these bills were passed ? Let mv learned friend speak. 
 He has told us of the Third, and Sixth, and Eighth ave- 
 nue roads extendiog to the upper part of the city, with 
 this same rate of fare, and with cars calculated to con- 
 tain 40 people comfortably, and yet he has told you 
 that at nearly all hours in the day, from morning till 
 late at night, there are generally from 60"to 70 hanging 
 on to these cars, many of them at the immiuent hazard 
 of their lives ; and yet it is wrong to have railroads 
 unless you can have them with the Governor's particu- 
 lar principle attached to them — that a bonus must be 
 paid into the City Treasury ! But, gentlemen, his Ex- 
 cellency discovered that these acts were grants in per- 
 petuity ! You have heard of those who see things 
 yvhich' are not to be seen ? and the same difficulty 
 seems to have existed with him that exists with my 
 learned friend in this respect. I will endeavor to 
 show you that they are not in perpetuity at all; but 
 that t&ey can be repealed, whenever the Legislature is 
 in session, if they desire to do so. My learued friend 
 says they cannot be repealed because they are not 
 joint stock companies, but they admit that the Legis- 
 lature has provided for repealing certain corporations 
 and joint stock companies. Now, it is not necessary 
 
 that a thing should be called a joint stock company, 
 or a corporation, or association in order to make it so. 
 The question is simply whether they exercise the 
 rights of associations, the rights of corporations, or 
 the rights of joint stock compauies ? In other words, 
 do they exercise rights which individuals as such, and 
 copartners as such, cannot do ? Can individuals exer- 
 I ciee the right of laying railroads tiirough the streets 
 of the City of New-York? Can a partnership be or- 
 ganized for such a business as that ? No. They must 
 ! have, in addition to the associating together of the per- 
 } sons and individuals, a franchise granted by the Legisla- 
 i ture of the State, which alone can grant it. We have a 
 i little iustrument here called the Constitution. It is 
 j small, as my learned friends say, but it is very potent 
 I indeed ; and I want to call your attention not only to 
 i the 3d section of the 8th article, but also to the Ist 
 I section. There wnll be no mystery then, and I think 
 i no question but that the Legislature can, at any 
 I moment they please, alter or repeal any of these char- 
 : ters as they see tit ; and that the gi ant is upon this 
 j constitutional condition that the Legislature shall have 
 that power. The Ist section of article 8th says: 
 
 "Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall 
 not be created by tpecial act, except for municipal purposes, and 
 in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the objects 
 of the corporation cannot be obtained under general laws. All 
 general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this section may 
 be altered from time to time, or repealed." 
 
 And these are j ust such cases, and you wiU find them 
 acted upon in Syracuse, New- York, Buffalo, Brook- 
 lyn, aud I don't know but other cities. " And may 
 be from time to time repealed." It is not necessary 
 to insert them in the bill, for here is a bill that cannot 
 I be controverted, aud which ovenides all other bills 
 ! and all other acts imtil the people, in their majesty 
 aud in a constitutional way, shall wipe it out, and 
 place another in its stead j and the third section of this 
 article says: 
 
 " The term Corporation, as used in this article, shall be con- 
 strued to include all associations and joint stock companies hav- 
 ing any of the powers and privileges of corporations not pos- 
 sessed by individuals or partnerships." 
 
 Is it not one of the incidents of a corporation to be 
 allowed to lay down rails and carry passengers on a 
 railroad ? 
 
 I But, gentlemen, there is anothe difficulty with this 
 i bill which the Go\^ernor has fouud out, and which in 
 his opinion, and the opinion of Mr. Greeley, is evidence 
 I of fraud and corruption on the part of the Legislature. 
 They provided for this monstrous principle that suits 
 to be brought by and against these companies shall be 
 ^ tried in the First Judicial District of New- York ! 
 i Well, now, in the first place, they have not construed 
 j the meaning of this section rightly at all; it refers only 
 I to the suits to be brought iu pursuance of this act ; as 
 for instance, where any difficulty might arise between 
 the city or the property owners fronting on the streets 
 in which the roads were. It was never intended to 
 relate to suits between them and individuals. But 
 whether it was or not is of no cousequence whatever, 
 \ as I will show you by another constitutional provision. 
 Now, you will bear in miud, that Mr. Conkliu^^ testified 
 i here that he believed that Mr. Littlejohn took no part 
 I in the debate on those bills, but believed he did on the 
 I West Washington Market bill; but not on these rail- 
 road bills vrheu they were first passed; but he did 
 after the Governor's veto was presented. The Speaker 
 does not diaw up the bills, and he is not accoimtable 
 for their form ; lie is accountable only to the same 
 extent as any other member of the Legislature, to see 
 tnat they contain no principle injurious to public 
 property, so far as he can under the circumstances of 
 i ths case. These bills passed in the first place with all 
 I their features, without any attention being paid to 
 I them, 80 far as the Speaker was concerned. Now, 
 I gentlemen, there is a little rule of parliamentary law, 
 j which provides that when a bill is returned under the 
 I veto of the Governor it cannot be amended — you have 
 
50 
 
 got to take it and paes it over hi8 veto ns a ■whole, or 
 not at all. There is a little clause in this eame 'M 
 flection of the Sth artifle, which makes it whollj" un- 
 imjiortant what the law itself may have declared with 
 regard to the Court in which suit 'shall he brought: 
 
 " And all corporations shall have the right to biip, nnd shall be 
 subject to be sued iu all Courta, hi UXe manuer as uuturul per- , 
 
 KOUS.*' I 
 
 Now, gentlemen, should that bill have been ^killed 
 because it contaiued this restrictiou ? When it was 
 utterly nsele?8 as coming in contact with the Constitu- 
 tion aiid could work injury to no hum:in being what- 
 ever .' But "• there were no articles of association." 
 There are none in any of these Kailroad bills; there is 
 not in any Cise where ^ charter is granted by special 
 act; and you may go back to the foundation of the 
 Government and find no such thing as an article of as- 
 sociation in the statute book. It is only where associa- 
 tions are formed under general laws, where companies i 
 are authorized to make special charter for themselves, I 
 and limit its duration as they mav to 10,000 years under 
 the general litiilroad act. And there is no jiower to re- ] 
 peal it, except that which I have referred to in this 
 first section of the Constitution. And you know that 
 railroads wliich are organized under the general Rail- ■ 
 road act, do limit the duration of their charter to a 
 thousand years, and some of them even more. And a \ 
 thousand years is just as objectionable as a million is, i 
 because it is too far in the future to remedy any difficul- \ 
 ty which may exist. And this twaddle, for it is but ' 
 twaddle, let it come from what source it may, that j 
 •where a special charter is granted there are in it articles 
 of association, is perfectly preposterous. I should like ! 
 to have my fiiend sit down and hunt up the statute ' 
 authorizing a special charter and providing for articles i 
 of association. You can find it in the acts where sev- 
 eral companies are consolidated together in a gen- 
 eral act, as in the consolidation act for all the railroads j 
 between Albany and Bufialo. | 
 
 But the Counsel says : " These railroad charters ; 
 given as they are here, are intended to keep out all 
 other railroad coi-porations." Well,' what of that ? 
 What would a charter ])e worth if it did not do this ? i 
 Who would venture to build a railroad in Avenue D, i 
 if another company could come and put another road 
 in the same street ? Who would take a charter or in- 
 vest a dollar in such a concern as that ? Does it not 
 obtain in all other charters ? And if it were a power 
 to be exercised by the Legislature, after havicg passed 
 a charter for a raili-oad through the length of our State, 
 with the additional right to alter or niodify or repeal 
 the charter and lower the taiifl of prices; who would 
 expect to see an honest Legislature authorize another 
 railroad to be laid right along side of it? But 
 I have spent more time, gentlemen, upon these 
 statutes than they are worth ; yet it is prop- 
 er that a little of this mist and darkness 
 which has 1)een attempted to be thrown around this 
 ca«e, should be dissipated, and that these acts should 
 be placed in their proper light. One of these very 
 acts, which they denominate the "Belt Road," and 
 which the Goveraor vetoed, had in it this express pro- 
 vision for its repeal or alteration. Yet it falls under 
 the same fell swoop of his Excellency's veto. I want 
 to say another word, and give you the history of that 
 legislation, and see whether his Excellency, notwith- 
 standing this veto, addressed undoubtedly to the popu- 
 lar ear, might not have substituted something better, 
 if he thought these bills so injurious to the public in- 
 terests. On the 10th day of April, 1860, these five 
 bills with regard to railroads were retunied from the 
 Senate to the Aseeu bly, with the concurrence of the 
 Senate thereto, and on that 10th day of April the As- 
 sembly ordered tliem to be sent to the C4overnor, who 
 received them probably on the 11th. He knew^ i»er- 
 fectly well that it was decided by the concurrent vote 
 of both Houses, long before he vetoed theee bills, that 
 
 the I^egislature should adjourn on the 17th of April, 
 seven davs, at the most, from the time ho received 
 these bills. There is another instrument of this 
 little book, the Constitution, which ])rovi<les 
 that the Governor has a right to hold bills, 
 and unless tliey are i-etin-ned to the Ijegisluture 
 within ten days they become laws unhss the Lr^ishi- 
 ture before (ca (hiys kIioU hare niljovrwd, then they 
 fail, lie sent them back to the House on the IGth, 
 when he knew that on the next day the Ijei^iblature 
 was to adjourn, and he had only to hold them over un- 
 til the next day, and they would have been killed so 
 dead as to have never l>een heard of again. He had it 
 iu his i>ower to demolish these bills, but he chose to 
 write a message for the public ear, and thus throw the 
 responsibility upon the House, who did just what he 
 expected they would do, passed them over his 
 veto, and then if there w;>8 any public clamor 
 he expected to get the benefit of it ; 
 and to get. the railroads, too! If he believed them un- 
 constitutional and wrong, what right had he,while hold- 
 ing in his hands the power to desstroy them ; what 
 right had he to give them up and place them in the 
 hands of a body which the defendant in this case says 
 was corrupt? Better let that incorruptible (JloveiTior 
 hold them one day longer, and they would have been 
 as dead, as all tlie vetoes in the world could make 
 them. And there would have been ample time to have 
 prepared and submitted to the Legislature such bills 
 as it was his prerogative to do, which could have been 
 free from all the olSjections wiiich he had to the?e bills. 
 
 But, gentlemen, let us see what the Govenior him- 
 self did in that same year. In 1853, tlie Xew-York 
 Common Council undertook by resolution to give to 
 three individuals a grant to lay down railroads in 
 nearly all the streets of New- York. Bat it was found 
 they "had not any such power. They undertook to 
 make this gi-ant for the benefit of individuals and their 
 assigns, just as these bills say. The Court did not 
 sanction right of eminent domain in the city, they 
 chose to reserve it in the State. But in this very year 
 of J860, and this same session, a bill was 
 introduced confirming these resolutions. The 
 first section grants the permission intended 
 to be given by the Common Council in the 
 resolution passed in 1853, to William Ivider, James 
 Murphy, Minor Story and their assigns. There is this 
 difference, in the other bills there was 12 individuals, 
 here there are but 3 ; but the more exclusive it was the 
 more proper for the Governor to sign. Let us see how 
 far it went — it is pretty s-ridiron-y, gentlemen: 
 " Through Ninth avenue, Gansevoort street, Wash- 
 ington place, Greenwich street, and such other streets 
 and avenues as are mentioned in said resolution," and 
 the Lord knows how many of them there were. If 
 you look at these five acts you understand the privi- 
 leges granted; but when you want to leam 
 what franchises are granted in this bill, which 
 the Governor signed without any hesitation, you 
 have to explore the resolutions of th*e Common Coun- 
 cil of New-York for 1853, to ascertam what that statute 
 is. Yet this apnroved itself to the Governor and he 
 ; signed it. Ana, according to the argument of my 
 learned fi lends, there is no right to rei>eal this, there 
 is no limitation at all to the fare; they can charge as 
 much as they please; and the* bill provides 
 "that this a^-t shall take effeLt immediately!" 
 , But we heard of no veto there ? It is no 
 corporation, no joint stock company, and no asso- 
 ciation; it has no limitations, and no responsibility; 
 and you must search through the archives of the Com- 
 mon Council to find out what is really granted by that 
 law; but it anpiovcd it^ielf to his Excellency the Gov- 
 ernor. Now,"! don't find fault with his Excellency, 
 but upon what principle can it be assumed, in the ab- 
 sence of all evidence, that these five acts which 
 they complain of are all wrong 1 You will bear iu 
 miiid, this resolution was passed in lt!53, and this law 
 
51 
 
 is passed seven years afterward, and the roads not 
 built then — seven years gone by, and the enterprise 
 not completed ! And there is no provision declaring 
 that they shall finish them in any given time. 
 There is not an objectionable feature in 
 the bills of which they complain that is 
 not in that single one. And' we heard in the open- 
 ing ttiat there is another flagitious fault in theee bills; 
 we have not heard of it in the evidence ; and you will 
 bear in mind that we threw the door open wide in that 
 respect, provided they would consent as a part of their 
 proposition to connect Mr. Littlejohn with the corrup- 
 tion; but we did not deem, nor did the Court deem, if 
 we had consented to it, that it was proper to spend the 
 time of this Jury and this Court in the investigation of 
 a (question of corruption of a party of men at large. 
 That was not in issue here. It is the busi- 
 ness of legislators to purify themselves of corruption, 
 when they may deem there is coiTuption in their body. 
 Committees are aiipoiuted to investigate into the trutJi 
 of these charges, and bring the guilty to justice This 
 was done in the case of a Senator from Long Island in 
 1830 or 1831, and also in the case of Bishop Campbell 
 in 1835 and 183G, and both these members were ex- 
 pelled. And it has again and again been brought into 
 play ; and it has been brought into action in the Con- 
 gress of the laud, and been instrumental to some extent 
 in pm-ilying legislation there. There, in the Legisla- 
 ture, is the pliice to purify legislation from cor- 
 ruption, and there is the place to attack the Lobby. 
 My learned associate, never said there was corruption 
 in'the legislation. He said if we admitted there was 
 corruption in the Assembly, that didn't affect Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn ; unless it was proved that he was corrupted. 
 He said farther, if they could convict him with the 
 corruption, then he would concede the corruption in 
 order to give them every facility ; but not thus to let 
 them go into the corruption of the Assembly — to go on 
 a fishing excursion here at the expense of the County 
 of Oswego, in the admin^tration of its jurisprudence. 
 Now, gentlemen, I trust 1 have dissipated all the pre- 
 tense of corruption. How much there was in that 
 legislation I don't know ; I am not responsible 
 for it, for it is long since I have taken any part 
 in Ipolitics except as a voter ; violent scenes 
 take place on the lobby ; nor I cannot 
 tell; the defendant can explain to you better; he was 
 there. " xsothiog but good motives actuated this pub- 
 lication," and yet, not content with what I have stated 
 with regard to the matter, he consents to become a 
 member of this corrupt third house of that Legisla- 
 ture, and goes to Albany for the express purpose of in- 
 terfering with the business which belongs to the mem- 
 bers alone. What voice had Horace Greeley in organ- 
 izing that Assembly ? What right had he to interfere 
 between the constituents who sent their members 
 tbei-e and the oflicers they were to appoint ? It was 
 time enough for him, and it was proper for him, only 
 when they had done their work, to speak. Then, if 
 he is the public conservator of the public morals and 
 legislation, let him speak. But what business had he 
 then with the nomination of Speaker ? To go there to 
 lobby — going 15U miles from his home to labor for 
 the express and sole purpose of defeating an 
 individual from being Speaker of the Assembly ? 
 Who gave him his commission? Is it in virtue 
 of this right claimed of being an editor? 
 Why, the Lord forgive and save us; these rights are 
 like the rod of Aaron, swallowing up all other rods, 
 legislative or otherwise, and they have a maw as inor- 
 dinate as that of death ! I should suppose, from the 
 tone in which Horace Greeley speaks of the 3d 
 House, that of all things on earth he would scorn to be 
 found there, much less in presenting appliances there to 
 the Legislature with regard to matters exclusively 
 their own. The Court has expressly provided that 
 they are the judges of the election and qualification of 
 their members; and the Court boa placed in their 
 
 power alone the selection and election of their officers, 
 and any tampeiing with them, no matter what is as- 
 signed as the motive, is suspicious in the highest 
 degree. Gentlemen, Horace Greeley is not conscious 
 exactly, so that he can swear to it, that on 
 the 1st day of January he intended to become 
 a candidate for the Senate of the United States 
 — a proud ofiice, to which the highest of usmay aspire; 
 it is in my judgment, to him who can afford it, the first 
 office in the world, a thousand times more to be desired 
 by him whose pecuniary condition will allow him to 
 take it, than the oflice of President. Few men have 
 filled the situation of President, but have fallen 
 from their high estate; but many a man's^ honor 
 through life and long after death, has been acf^iured in 
 this body, which until recently has been distmguished 
 for decorum and dignity. I do' not speak of Mr. Gree- 
 ley for being a candidate ; I do not blame him for hav- 
 ing Chapman and Opdyke and all these men to help him ; 
 but I ask you if there is not some little temp- 
 tation to suspicion that he wanted Mr. Litjohn 
 out of the way — he ksew him to be a friend of the 
 great man whom they have described as the gi-eatest 
 statesman on this continent, and who was overthrown 
 by somebody at Chicago — perhaps the defendant knows 
 who. The Scripture gives us an instance of the man 
 who felt an unwillingness to have i\Iordecai sitting at 
 tliegate; and I think it is not too much to say that if 
 the defendant had happened to aspire to the office of 
 Senator, it would have been convenient and been 
 easier for him to reach that elevated station if Mr. 
 Littlejohn and Mr. Myers of Syracuse were not there; 
 both of whom were known to be the ardent friends of 
 that great and honorable statesman who now is at the 
 head of this Governmeot. Look and see if you can- 
 not find some motive there, gentlemen, without travel- 
 ing very far out of this case; see if you cannot 
 ascertain without much difficulty why this ponderous 
 hammer of The Tribune was brought to bear upon 
 these men, to annihilate them. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, only lix of the members of that . 
 corrupt Legislature, my learned friend tells you, have 
 been returned. Will he tell us what has been the fair 
 average of those returned since the single-district sys- 
 tem, when there has not been more than the ordinary 
 corruption which they speak of? When have there 
 been more than six retained in office ? Kotation in 
 
 , office is the cry; towns claim their turns; and I think 
 one of the great evils of the new Constitution is the 
 single districts for the House and Senate that have 
 
 ^ been established. 
 
 j The next theme of our learned friends, is that the 
 plaintiff has sufiered no injury. He has been reelected 
 by his District, and reelected by the Assembly, with a 
 new set of men too, you will remark, with the excep- 
 tion of six; and he has received an honorable, and 
 j what was once a. lucrative appointment to a foreign 
 I country. But are these evidences that he has not been 
 : traduced or injured ? Gentlemen, De Witt C. Little- 
 I john v.'as known in this place in the first Assembly 
 j District; he had come there as the learned defendant 
 went to A'ew-York, poor; he had been the architect of 
 his own fortunes, and built up a local reputation as 
 high as fl at which the defendant enjoys in the City of 
 Xew-York, and by his own sterling industry, integi'ity, 
 and talent. He has not built himself up to grind other 
 people down, or by wielding an engine of power, 
 witn which no other engine in this country can 
 probably be compared. He could meet these 
 assaults in his district and he did meet them there for 
 he spoke in almost every school district there, and he 
 refuted all the allegations of corruption, and he 
 satisfied that constituency that he had been maligned 
 and abui^ed. He did not seek a re-nomination, but it 
 was forced upon him, and when he was ])laced in the 
 field, he fought that battle as a man should, and he 
 succeeded. Is that any evidence that he had not been 
 injured ? He received the election of Speaker of the 
 
House after his arrival at Albany, by au Assembly 
 fresh from their constituents, with the exception of 
 five wlio voted with bini on these bills, lie succeeded 
 then, because his friends were the }H-ojde iiud these 
 new members were satitjfied that all this clamor aj^aiust 
 him was unioimded and unjust. And he received 
 from the men who a]>|)reciated his merits 
 the oiler of a high national oflice. Yes, 
 gentlemen, he received it; but coiild he accept it, 
 with this cloud over his character ? I ask you, could 
 he go as the representative of this nation to England, 
 there to bo met by these libelous articles in Thk Tjuu- 
 uxK (tor they circulate there), and by the missiles 
 which his friend Mr. Greeley would send after him, 
 with no record to show that he had been maliti;ned ? 
 It was duo to himself, due to his friends, that he tmould 
 hrst sustain his character, and wijie oif the blemisti 
 which had been j)laced upon it, before he should place 
 himself alar from thofe who knew him well. How 
 proud a thing it would have been for Mr. Littlejohn, 
 as the American Consul at Liverpool, in passing 
 through the streets there, fo have been hooted 
 at as the man who had been the corrupt Speaker of a 
 corrupt House of Assembly in America! I submit 
 that it was his first duty to wipe out, this stain on his 
 character, and show the'injustice of those who had ma- 
 ligned him, and who had forced him into a court of 
 justice lor redress. How could he go and leave this 
 stain behind him ? He could not do it. Justice to his 
 family, to himself, to his friends, to the institutions of 
 ourcountiy, and to the Government who had tendered 
 him this high office abroad, all required of him that he 
 should not go there with a tarnished reputation. 
 
 It is a blessed privilege, gentlemen, that a man can 
 be tried by a jury ! It is a blessed privilege when a 
 man can be tried by those whose sympathies are and 
 should be like his own, and who look with indig- 
 nation upon every attempt of those in power to bear 
 down on those wJio occupy positions, and whose means 
 will not enable them to return the assaults and fairly 
 protect themselves. Do you care for your interest or 
 your families ? Are your own reputa ions worth a 
 groat to you 1 Be careful that you don't aid in this 
 over-riding influence of the press ! Be careful you 
 don't hold out inducements for it to be corrupt and 
 regardless of the rights of citizens ! Public journals 
 are good in their place ; but let us look at this point 
 upon which we have heard so much. Who is it writes 
 ttiis article against Mr. Littlejohn l Is it one naving a 
 right to vote for or agidnst him as member of the 
 Assembly, in the District of Oswego ? — or is he a man 
 who officiouely interferes in these things ? If he had 
 published this in a paper which circulates only in 
 Oswego Coimty, or in that district, it might to some 
 extent have been pardonable, if it was from honest 
 motives. But what necessity was there, for the 
 purj)ose of defeating Mr. Littlejohn in the 1st 
 Assembly District of Oswego, of sending this 
 to at least a million of people — all over the country, 
 and to some extent all over the globe ? The privilege 
 not only to prevent bis election, but to impair his rep- 
 utation to the ends of the earth! And yet " he is not 
 injured!" Could Mr. Littlejohn, if he had ever so 
 much ambition, accept any State nomination with this 
 stigma attached to him, with any hope of being 
 elected, until he had wiped out this stain ? I should 
 like to know what my learned friend considers injury 
 and insult to a man. Nothing, I supi)ose, but takiug a 
 dollar out of his pocket would be an injury. Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn has a light to aspire to the highe^t office in this 
 land; his talents entitle him to it, and his course in 
 life entitles him to it; and his faithfulness to his politi- 
 cal friends, and the faithful performance of his duty, 
 entitle him to it, if he chooses to ask for it. But is he 
 not shut out as etfectually as if he were hanged, while 
 he consents to this traduction on his fame and his ma- 
 ligner stands on the record uniebuked? 
 
 This is not an action for slander uttered bythebreath 
 
 of living man— heard to-day and forgotten to-morrow ! 
 250,000 papers issued from The Tuir.UNE Office contain 
 this article; they were read deliberately by millions of 
 people, and theHe.papers are preserved in' every town 
 in tliis StatCj and in all the iN'oriheni States of thi^i 
 nation, and in all tlio other States where they circulate 
 at all. Thev are bound up and kept for reference in ' 
 public and in private libraries, where gentlemen de- 
 sire a continuous history of the counti-y, for nothing 
 like a newspajier continues that history bo gra])hicnlly, 
 and in the main so correctly. And when Mr. Little- 
 jotin shall have done with all the alf'airs of this earth, 
 and shall be sleeping in the grave, these traductions of 
 this defend'int may meet those who may come after 
 him in his line, under circumstances calculated in 
 the most poignant degree to wound their feelings, 
 and their mouths iire eliectually closed till this unjust 
 libel is wiped away, either by an honorable retraction 
 of the defendant or by a verdict of a J ary that shidl 
 set its stamp upon such conduct and vindicate the char- 
 acter of the maligned. What are all the verbal slan- 
 ders on earth, compared with one declaration like this, 
 and a series of them going out from week to week? 
 What are the words of a mere eai tlily individual, com- 
 pared with these deliberate, cold-blooded attacks, 
 which leave their sting behind them, and will sting, 
 for ages, perhaps, tliose who trace their line of 
 descent through the blood of the accused ? And the 
 man who wilfnot stand up in the face of the world 
 — aye. against the world in ai-ms, if it be necessary — 
 to vindicate h'n character from such assaults as these, 
 deserves to be hooted from all society, and to be 
 hunted into some desert, -where he shall no more meet 
 his fellow-men. We may be maligned by libelous ar- 
 ticles, and thev may be followed by those of a kindred 
 character, and these followed by a refusal to retract, 
 by justifications spread upon a record, and by w^hole- 
 sale assaults of counsel in Court, with no evidence in 
 law to prove corruption, and yet counsel talk to a 
 Jury about sixpences and sixpenny verdicts. You re- 
 member, gentlemen, that the counsel almost conceded 
 that, if he had any claim at all, it was $^35,000, for 
 they had not denied the amount of the claim. But we 
 do not pretend that we are entitled to that sum, because 
 it is in the declaration merely. We knew that the dam- 
 ages were to be assessed by a Jury, yet the defendant 
 does not choose to deny that we have suffered damage 
 to that amount; and when he does not choose to, 
 when called upon under his oath, you may fairly infer 
 that Horace Greeley would not have a libel like that 
 written npon him* for anything like that sum. And 
 you may take it into account that he did not see fit to 
 deny it, but came here and spread his justification 
 upon the record, and it will stand there through all 
 time unless your verdict shall wipe it out, and effectu- 
 ally blot it from the minds of men. The cases of 
 Eoot vs. King, in 7 Cowan, G28, and Dole vs. Ryan, 
 in 10 Johnson, 249, show what the law is; and there 
 are other cases, with which I do not feel at liberty to 
 occupy your time. There is no distinction be- 
 tween the publisher of a newspaper and an 
 individual, except that what is published is re- 
 corded for all time, and except as the power 
 to do injury is greater on the part of the publisher of 
 a paper, so he should be more scrupulous not to pub- 
 lish anything in Lis paper which he does not know to 
 be true. Where is the man who has any sensibility of 
 soul and of feeling, and who regards his character as 
 worth preserving, who would not rather be stabbed 
 to the heart, and die tlnis with no reproach upon him- 
 self, than to have his character, which is a thousand 
 times dearer to him than lile, killed for all time for 
 him, for all time with his childi'en and tiisgi-and- 
 children ? 
 
 'SYith regard to the series of offers which were sub- 
 mited here yesterday, it was asserted that they were 
 rejected on our objection. I appeal to you, gentle- 
 men, if we did not consent, .'t nil -^tn'rea of this case, 
 
53 
 
 that they might connect Mr. Littlejohn with corrup- 
 tion to the greatest extent which they pleased. One 
 of their propositions included the offer to prove that 
 the brother and brother-in-law of the plaintiff were 
 owners of a portion of the stock in one of these roads ; 
 and while we objected to the residue, we consented 
 that they might prove that, and we stated expressly, 
 in the hearing of the Court, that we did not deeire to 
 shield Mr. Littlejohn not the least iota in this case. 
 Have we tried to prevent the fullest investigation with 
 regard to any corruption which may extend to him? Not 
 at all; we have invited it to the utmost extent; and 
 you remember that my associate stated yesterday, if 
 they would connect the plaintiff with the corrupt 
 legislation, we w^ould concede, for the purposes 
 of this case, that the legislation was corrupt. 
 And "Mr. Littlejohn has not been called as a witness 
 here.'' Why, is there anything more ridiculous on 
 earth, coming from counsel, than that, when there is 
 not one particle of proof against Mr. Littlejohn — not 
 one iota of that justification is proved. What is there 
 to call him on the stand ? We rested our case, and it 
 was made out to the fullest extent. How have they 
 shaken it ? Have they proved that one sixpence has 
 gone into his hands or his pocket from the legislation 
 of that year ? Have they proved that any friend of 
 his has received a dollar of it ? Have they proved 
 that he gave any vote in that Assembly for the purpose 
 of benefiting any individual improperly ? Why, upon 
 the same hypothesis upon which tlie fraud and corrup- 
 tion are charged, there has never been a railroad 
 charter granted in this State in which there 
 has not been corruption. There has never been a rail- 
 road charter granted but what was intended to benefit 
 individual stockholders, and provided for certain Com- 
 missioners to distribute the stock. " Private interest !" 
 Why, you cannot carry on public purposes which the 
 State does not carry on directly, except by holding 
 out public inducements to individuals to embark their 
 fund's. This whole Northern country is cross-barred 
 with railroads, to the immeasurable benefit of indivi- 
 duals; and these railroads have been constructed by 
 men who supposed they should make large sums by 
 their investment. 
 
 But I am not going to talk to you about the measure 
 of damages. Lay aside all prejudice against either of 
 these parties, and treat them as though they were 
 individuals from the farther banks of the Ganges. 
 Treat them as though you had never heard of them, 
 but had ascertained what their position was, and their 
 power to do evil where they" lived. Treat them as 
 though you had never heard of them outside of this 
 case, and then you will do exact and equal and proper 
 justice between them. I will leave it with twelve in- 
 telligent men from the County of Oswego, set apart 
 by the officers of their respective towns for the sacred 
 office of jurors. I will leave it with you, on your 
 responsibility, to determine what should be done to 
 wipe out this foul and unfounded stam on the character 
 of the plaiutifF, and what should be meted out to the 
 man who has not at all attacked sixty- four other mem- 
 bers who voted for these bills. He does not come here 
 claiming to be impoverished; his counsel triumph- 
 antly tell you that he has expended a thou- 
 sand dollars in getting witnesses in this case. 
 Money is free with him. Calculate the daily re- 
 ceipts' of the editor and proprietor of that paper, wMch 
 issues an edition of two hundred and fifty thousand 
 copies, a large portion of them daily; and by the 
 lowest standard, you will find that the gross receipts 
 of his office are more than $.3,000 a day, irrespective of 
 the advertising patronage and the job-work done in his 
 establishment. Do not consider Jiim poor. We have 
 not been able to reach his sensibilities, and make him 
 do justice ; and I am satisfied there is only one place 
 through which he can be reached, and that is, through 
 the pocket. Try it, gentlemen, and see if you cannot 
 make him do Mr. Littlejohn justice. If you cannot ' 
 
 make him do justice to Mr. Littlejohn, I ask you to da 
 justice to him, and Justice will be satisfied. 
 
 REQUESTS TO CHARGE. 
 
 Before the charge the counsel for defendant asked 
 the Court to charge the following propositions. The 
 defendant asked the Court to charf^e the Jury: 
 
 First : That if they believe from the testimony that 
 the defendant acted in the matter of the publication in 
 question, without any malice or mischievous intent, 
 but solely from the sense of duty to the public, they 
 mast find for the defendant. The Court declined to 
 charge this proposition. The defendant excepted. 
 
 Second : The defendant asked the Court to charge 
 the Jury that it is a question for them to say in what 
 sense the words complained of were used. The Court 
 declined. Defendant excepted. 
 
 Tlurd : The defendant asked the Court to charge 
 the Jury that it is a question for them to determine 
 in what sense the words complained of were under- 
 stood. The Court declined. The defendant excepted. 
 
 Fourth: The defendant asked the Court to charge 
 the Jury that malice on the part of the defendant is es- 
 sential in order to maintain the action. The Court de- 
 clined. The defendant excepted. 
 
 Fifth: The defendant asked the Court to charge the 
 Jury that in the absence of all malice on the part of 
 the defendant this action cannot be maintained. The 
 Court. declined to charge the fourth and fifth propo- 
 sition as desired, but charged in the language of the 
 charge to the Juiy on that subject, and declined to 
 charge otherwise. The defendant excepted. 
 
 Sixth: The defendant asked the Court to charge the 
 Jury that if they believe the testimony of df.fend- 
 ant, the presumption of malice which arises from the 
 face of the libel is rebutted. The Court declined to 
 charge this proposition, but charged as in the seventh 
 proposition submitted to the Jury, and declined to 
 charge otherwise. The defendant excepts. 
 
 Seventh : The defendant asked the Court to charge 
 the Jury, that if they believe from the testimony that 
 the defendant, at the time of the publication in ques- 
 tion, believed it to be true, and that in coming to that 
 belief he had exercised due care and diligence, pru- 
 dence and discretion, to ascertain the truth of the 
 charge, the defendant is entitled to their verdict. 
 The Court declined to charge, except as in the 
 seventh proposition of the Judge. The defendan*^^ 
 excepted. 
 
 Eighth : The defendant asked the Court to charge 
 the Jury, that if they believe that the defendant made 
 the charges in question solely from a sense of duty, he 
 is entitled to their verdict, even though they should 
 believe that it was a mistaken f enee of duty. The 
 Court declined. The def'eudanrs excepted. 
 
 CHARGE TO THE JURY. 
 Judge Bacon then charged the Jury as follows: 
 Gentlemen of the Jury: The duty that I have 
 to dischai-ge m this case is a very plain and simple one, 
 and I shall proceed to its discharge in a very plain and 
 simple manner, and I trust with commendable brevity. 
 And I shall do so entirely unaffected by any outside 
 considerations, and utterly irrespective of any conse- 
 quences which maybe supposed to follow from the 
 discharge of that duty. It is the privilejre, and busi- 
 ness, and duty of thsi counsel to present the case to t!ie 
 jury, with all the ability, and the eloquence, and the 
 zeal, which have been manifested in this case by the 
 respective counsel who have addressed you. It is' their 
 privilege and their right to make to you, elaborate, 
 learned, and lengthy arguments, and, if they shall 
 choose, to make earnest and even passionate appeals to 
 you. 
 
 The business of the Court and the duty it has to per- 
 form are quite ditterent; they demand no such zeal, no 
 
54 
 
 snoh carnestneBS, and no Bucb seneibility. I have nothing 
 to do, LTt'iitleinen, but to direct von to some plaiu. aim- 
 j>le proposiliona of law, whiili I suppose to be involved 
 lu the case, and whiib are to be taken by you ay land- 
 marks and {guides, and to sufrgest to you a very few 
 topics to which your attention Bhould be directed, 
 wnen you come to deliberate on the case in the jury- 
 room. 
 
 And I nniBt ask yon, gentlemen, in the first place to 
 dismiss from your attention a very considerable portion 
 of thai which has been talked about here, lieeauee, 
 in the sliape which the case has assumed, and within 
 the contracted issues to which 1 felt it my duty to 
 confine the cause, a great deal whicii was said in the 
 opening, of course would now be deemed irrelevant to 
 the cate. That opening was adapted to a state of 
 things which the coimsel very rightfully, as he 
 deemed was the law, supposed it to be his duty to 
 open to yon. And if I had construed agreeably to the 
 view taken of it by the counsel, the field would have 
 been a very large one and a very wide one, and his 
 opening none too extended for the field he would have 
 felt himself obliged to occupy; but having made a 
 ruling in the early part of this case, which, whether 
 right or wrong, is for the present the law of the case, 
 we are brought down to a very narrow issue, and a 
 very few points to which it is needful that 3'our atten 
 tion should be directed. 
 
 The counsel for the defendant claims that the Jury 
 is to judge whether this is a libel or not, and whether 
 it imputes personal corruption to the plaiutitf or not ; 
 and that in this respect you are at liberty to construe 
 the language of this libel as you see fit, and as in your 
 judgment it shall seem to demand at your hands. Kow, 
 gentlemen, as a general 1 proposition I do not dissent 
 to that; for the general rule of law is that the jurors 
 are the judges as to whether the publication alleged to 
 be libelous, is so or not. I admit that to be the general 
 rule of law, but I do not think it to be the invariable 
 rule of law ; and I think a case could be presented — and 
 unless I much misconceive it, this case is one — where 
 the general rule does not apply. If a libel 
 is doubtful and uncertain in its meaning ; if 
 it consists of a variety of allegations upon a variety of 
 subjects; tlie duty of construing them may very 
 properly fall within the province of the Jury. And I 
 can" illustrate that as well by the case of Fry agt. Ben- 
 nett, which has been read to you, as by any other case. 
 In that case, the libel complained of, consisted of a va- 
 riety of allegations, some of which consisted of nothing 
 more than what might be deemed fair, though perhaps 
 severe, criticisms, upon the conduct of the plaintiff in 
 that suit, as a conductor of an opera; and there were 
 other allegations that imputed to him that which was 
 in its nature disgraceful and perhaps even criminal. I 
 do not stop to characterize them, but there were a vari- 
 ety of allegations of tliis kind, in regard to some of 
 which the defendant claimed they were privileged, and 
 in regard to all of which the plaintiff claimed he was 
 entitled to recover, because they were not within any 
 such privilege. The Court, in giving the case to the 
 Jury, told tliem they must take these libels themselves 
 and discriminate with regard to what portion of them 
 came within a just definition of legitimate criticism, 
 and that which was without the bounds of just criti- 
 cism, and was defamatory, injurious and libelous in its 
 character. That case well illustrates a class of cases 
 where the Jury are indeed the judges, and should I 
 rightfully be the sole judges, of the character of the 
 libelous charge alleged. 
 
 But in this case, gentlemen, I was obliged to make 
 a ruling in order to dctenijine what were the issues to 
 be tried, and in order to confine the proof to what was 
 fairly triable before you, and I was obliged myself to 
 give a construction to the language of this libel; and I 
 gave that construction to it, in which I laid down the rule 
 that the libel imi^uted personal corruption to the plain- 
 tiff, and that any proof outside of that was irrelevant 
 
 proof, and therefore not admissable. I say I web obliged 
 to make that ruling; for the case was one which 
 in my judgment called for it; and, having made tliat 
 ruling, it is to be taken as the law ot the case uow, 
 and to be held as the law throughout. Now, that 
 ruling may have been erroneous, and all wrong; and 
 it is very likely that, having begun with this error, 1 
 may have tottered on continuously; but there is great 
 satisfaction in knowing that this wrontr, if it be such, 
 is not irreparable, and will not injurio\isly atl'ect the 
 defendant in this case; for, happily, there is another 
 tribunal, which revises all my errors — all errors com- 
 mitted in the Circuit, in the haste in which causes are 
 tried there, and in the abnence of all needful delioera- 
 tion — a tribunal that sits in calm judgment on all these 
 cases, and rights the wrong where it exists; or, if it 
 does not exist, allirms the ruling. Therefore, Centle- 
 men, there will be an opportunity hereafter to correct 
 these errors into which 1 may have fallen, and the de- 
 fendant will be deprived of no just right which ])er- 
 tains to him in that regard. That being the case, tiie 
 first proposition of law which I have to lay down 
 is this: 
 
 First : The Court having ruled that the alleged libel 
 contained a charge of personal corruption, the Jury 
 will receive this as the construction of the language, 
 and consequently that the words are in law libelous. 
 
 You will take that, gentlemen, as the ruling of the 
 Court in this case. The construction I give to tlie 
 words is that it imputes a charge of personal coiTup- 
 tion, and therefore is in itself libelous. This relieves 
 you from the duty of construing it for yourselves. 
 
 Second : A libel is a willful and mahicious publica- 
 tion concerning another; but malice so far as the law 
 requires it to sustain the action, is implied from the 
 publication of that which is untrue; the law pre- 
 suming it to exist in such a case. Therel'ore express 
 ?7m/ice is not required to sustain the action; but this 
 presumption may be repelled by circumstances that 
 tend to disprove it. 
 
 Now, in this, I don't know but I may be supposed 
 to run coimter to the decision ©f the Court of Appeals, 
 in the case to which my attention was called. If I do, 
 I shall be foimd to be in error ; but I have always sup- 
 posed that w as a true proposition in law, from the 
 earliest day in which my attention as a student was 
 ever called to the law appertaining to libel and slander. 
 And although Judge Selden seems to imagine a sort of 
 imaginary and attenuated line between malice in law 
 and malice in fact, yet as I have always understood the 
 law to be, that from the falsity of the publication, 
 malice is implied, though it may not in point of fact 
 exist; because no man is at liUerty to publish an^^thing 
 but the truth; and if he publishes that whi.-h is not 
 true, the fact of its untruth, in the law, implies malice 
 in the publication. It is very true that in that case 
 Judge Selden held that the uiference of the law did not 
 exist ; and the reason was that it was a privileged 
 communication. If I had held in this case that 
 the publication here was privileged, then the inference 
 of the law would have been displaced, it would not 
 have existed. In that case in the Court of Appeak, 
 the communication was a privileged one and tberefore 
 it was protected prima Jacw^ and the plaintiff was 
 obliged to show, in order to maintain his action, that it 
 was uttered maliciously. Because, alihougli when a 
 party has uttered a truth, yet if he is actuated by malice 
 in that regard, he is still liable to be prosecuted and pay 
 damages, lie pays them in that case because he is 
 actuated by malicious motives extending beyond the 
 mere fact of publisniiig that which is not true. That 
 proposition, then, is the law, which I lay down for 
 vour guidance; that the law implies the publication to 
 be malicious if it be untrue ; and in this case the de- 
 fendant, standing unjustified, and theim)>utation being 
 one of personal corruption, and there being no ijroof 
 that there was personal corruption, the allegation is an 
 
55 
 
 untrue allegation; therefore by law is impliedly 
 malicious. 
 
 Third : If one by mit?take, or inadvertence, or want 
 of pufficieut knowledge, publishes a libel, the law im- 
 pute:i malice only so far as to make him liable for such 
 damages as the Jury may deem reasonable under all 
 the circamstances of the case. 
 
 The law only imputes malice just so far as to make 
 him liable for damage s which may eeem reasonable. 
 They may be nominal damages, just according to the 
 circumstances, there being nothing to enhance them to 
 any aggravated degree, and this covers that class of 
 cases. 
 
 Fourth : But there may exist actual malice in the 
 purpose and spirit of the author of the publication ; or 
 ihere may be an entire absence of malice on his part, 
 and both are subjects of proof outside of the mere fact 
 of publication. 
 
 Now the plaintiff may prove express malice ; he may 
 prove that the party has said, " I will publit^h such an 
 article against such a man; I mean to follow him up 
 and have vengeance against him — I will have it." 
 Expressions of that kind, indicating a purpose and 
 spirit and intent to inflict an injury, or at all events 
 that the party is not actuated by an innocent purpose, 
 and that he does not act by inadvertence or through 
 mistake — that it is not an error of judgment or of in- 
 formation, but that it is a deliberate design to inflict 
 an injury, and that he sets about preparing the means 
 by which the injury is to be inflicted. On tjie 
 other band, there may be a perfect absence of malice, 
 there may be no thought of ill will and no purpose to 
 injure, but simply to utter what he thinks to be true, 
 with a motive which seems to him to justify it; or 
 that he seems to be called upon by some great public 
 exigency to utter what he^thinlis just and right, 
 though it may be mistaken, untrue, and false, yet he 
 has not the animus and the purpose to inflict an in- 
 jury; therefore he has no actual malice in the case. 
 
 Fifth: If actual iralice is shown to exist, it will not 
 protect one who has published that which is prima 
 facie libelous, although without this^ the publication 
 would be privileged, or even justifiable. 
 
 This is only repeating what I said in a more specific 
 form. Wherever you show actual malice you deprive 
 the party of any justification he had by reason of the 
 fact that what he said was privUiged; because if a 
 man will say what is privileged, with a wicked and 
 malicious purpose, it does not excuse him. 
 
 Sixtii : If the plaintifi" has proved here the exist- 
 ence of actual malice, that may be considered by the 
 Jury in aggi-avation of damages, and those of a puni- 
 tive character may be given. 
 
 And tnat is tne only case in which punitive dam- 
 ages can be had, but only those which naturally flow 
 from the utterance of a lihel. It is where a malicious 
 character stamps the publication that you can go 
 beyond the ordinary character of damages and give 
 those which are called " punitive," or sometimes 
 vindictive^ which is not a good term. 
 
 S eve nth : If, on the other hand, the defendant has 
 satisfied the jury that he was not actuated by malice, 
 but published what he did without any malicious mo- 
 tive and believing it to be true, that is to be considered 
 by the jury, and wUl materially mitigate the damages. 
 
 "That is a contrary fact, and it reduces the damages, 
 if the defendant shows that he was actuated by good 
 motives and had no malice in his heart, no design to 
 injure and no purpose of vengeance, and that he did 
 not indulge in any vindictive, injurious and hateful 
 feelings toward the party, but that he uttered what he 
 believed to be true — what he had heard from others, 
 and what he supposed he had a right to publish be- 
 cause it was true — in the absence of all feelings of 
 hatred, animosity and IQ-will, then, gentlemen, it is 
 very clear that the damages should be essentially miti- 
 gated; because you take out of the slander, or the 
 
 libel, the sting and its intensity, and you strip it of 
 that which gives it its worst character and form. 
 
 Whenever the defendant presents himself for proof 
 of this kind, plainlilfcan again prove this on other oc- 
 casions the party has made malicious and defamatory 
 attacks in a harsh and cruel manner. On the other 
 hand, the defendant has a right to show that his per- 
 sonal relations toward the party, were ahyays good 
 and kind, and that he had no practical ill will toward 
 him, and did not look upon him in the light of an ene- 
 my; but in respect to what he uttered, he did wiiat he 
 believed to be true, and what he thought he was called 
 upon to utter by high considerations of the public good. 
 If such a state of things exists, then the damages, as 
 you perceive, are gi-eatly mitigated. 
 
 Now in this case upon one side, there is some 
 proof that some malicious motives existed. On the 
 other side, it is insisted that there is proof of the abso- 
 lute and entire absence of all malicious motives. The 
 proof on that subject lies within a very narrow com- 
 pass; it was drawn entirely and exclubively from the 
 defendant himself. He states upon the stand, that so far 
 as he knows, his personal relations towards Mr. Lit- 
 tlejohn were of a friendly character; that so far as he 
 knew himself he had no malice in making the libel. 
 
 On the other side, it is insisted that, in addition to 
 the intrine.ic character of the act itself, he had pub- 
 lished in regard to the plaintifi" other statements, and 
 had made other allegations in regard to him ; that he 
 had opposed his election to the Speakership of the 
 House, and that he had publij^hed something with regard 
 to him, which, on being asked to explain and retract, 
 he had declined to do so, except in the way which he 
 thought it was equally just and right he sliould be 
 called upon to explain. And it is said this shows an 
 inimical and malicious feeling. It will be for you to 
 judge with regard to this. Here is the statement of 
 the defendant, in which he states just what he did and 
 just what he th. ought. And the letter which has been 
 read is also before you, gentlemen, and in evidence. I 
 must say, with regard to it, that 1 think it a very 
 manly and honorable letter, and such as indicates on 
 the part of him who wrote it no feeling which any 
 honorable mind might not entertam. Still, you are the 
 judges with regard to all that, and with regard to the 
 conduct of the defendant on the occasions which have 
 been spoken of; you are to say whether, in your judg- 
 ment, they indicate that he was actuated by motives 
 of ill-will and malice, or whether, divested of all 
 motives of that kind, he did what he did in good faith, 
 and in the exercise of what he thought were his just 
 rights, without any design or intent to injure or defame 
 or oppress the man. 
 
 I leave that question of this case with you, gentle- 
 men ; your conclusions upon it are to be drawn from 
 the testimony which is in the case and not from any- 
 thing outside, for upon this particular head you have 
 nothing to enlighten you except the testimony which 
 was given here upon the stand. Finally, gentlemen, I 
 have to say to you : 
 
 Eighth • The amount of damages are in the sound dis- 
 cretion of the Jury ; they are not to be measured by 
 any standard of dollars and cents; that is, the Court 
 has no rule to give, by whi..h you are to be guided; 
 you are the judges in that respect, you are the ai-bitra- 
 tors in respect to what shall be awarded in compensa- 
 tion. They are intended to repair the injury alleged 
 to be done to the plaiuiifi", and the pain and mental 
 suffering which he has undergone in consequence of 
 this libel uttered against him, are fair considerations 
 for the Jury. And in estiamting the damages upon the 
 foregoing principles, the character, condition, position 
 and influence of the respective parties is to be taken 
 into the account. 
 
 One party may be more likely to suffer from a libel 
 than another; for all men do not sufler alike by any 
 means. Men differ in constitution and in temperament ; 
 they differ in their surroundings and relationships in 
 
5 
 
 6 
 
 life; they difler iu the positiou they occupy. The 
 plaintift' is a public man — a uiau of mark and distinc- 
 tion; a man wlio had occupied an elevated place in the 
 Legislature of tlie State; and such a mim would be 
 likely to feel a libel with greater acuteness than one 
 living in a more obscure j)Osition and traveling in a 
 Buialler round and occupying a mueh more limited 
 field. On the other hsmd, the power of the party in- 
 juring, if any injury has been inflicted, may also be 
 taken into consideration. The position the defendant 
 occupies as the propiietor of an infiueutial press — a 
 paper maintaining the largest circulation, certainly, of 
 any paper on tliis continent, and probably in the 
 world, nmch read, extensively distributed and widely 
 appreiiated, and whi^^^h has become almost a public 
 institution iu the Stare, under the guidance of great 
 . ability, is to be considered. An engine of this de- 
 scription, of course, is capable of inflicting more injury 
 than one of inferior character, smaller circula- 
 tion, and a lower type of respectability. For if an 
 injury has realty" been inflicted, its intensity 
 must be aggravated by the high respectability 
 of the quarter from whence it comes. All these con- 
 siderations may be taken into account by you in arriv- 
 ing at a just conclusion in this case. They are all I 
 have telt it my duty to mention to you, for I do not re- 
 gard it as any part'of my province to step out of the 
 plain, simple path which the law has marked out for 
 me — to lay down the law which I suppose enters into 
 the case, and ask you to give to those propositions such 
 weight, and to those considerations such importance as 
 you think they are entitled to. Upon the whole 
 subject of damages, in a case where the Jury come to 
 the conclusion that a right to recover them has been 
 established, the rule is, perhaps, no where better ex- 
 pressed than in the words of Justice Bosworth, in the 
 case of Fry vs. Bennett, which I will repeat to the 
 Jury, as containing a proper direction for them in this 
 case: *' The true rule is, that if the defendant fails to 
 justify, the plaintifl"is entitled to recover, at all events, 
 his actual damages. He has a light to these, although 
 the defendant, at the time of publishing the libels, be- 
 lieved the facts alleged to be true. 'The actual dam- 
 ages are to be determined by the Jury, in the exercise 
 of a sound discretion, upon a careful consideration of 
 the oftense or misconduct imputed to the plaintiff, the 
 circumstances of the publieation, the extent of its cir- 
 culation, and the natural and necessary consequences 
 
 of such a publication, according to the results of hu- 
 man observation and experience." Be yourselves the 
 judges aa to what shall be the result of tliis nuit. I 
 have no personal desire, nor wish, nor purpose, other 
 than that vou sliall do justice, exact and ample justice, 
 between these parties. 
 
 The counsel for the defendant excepted to the lirat 
 second, fourth, sixtli, and eighth propositions of the 
 charge. A/so to that portion of the charge tliat holds 
 that the plaintilf can prove that on other occasions the 
 defendant has published articles and doDe that which 
 is claimed as evidence of malice. Also desired the 
 Court to charge further that the act of Mr. Greeley in 
 opposing the election of Mr. Littlejohn as Speaker, 
 after the transaction in question, and after this suit 
 had been threatened, cannot be taken in evidence. 
 
 Court declined. Exception for defendant. 
 
 DISAGREEMENT OF THE JURY. 
 The Jury retired about 4 o'clock p. m. At about 8 
 o'clock in the evening, in the absence of the defendant 
 and bis counsel, the Jury came into court and stated 
 that they Avere unable to agree, and made some inquiry 
 of the Court as to whether he liad instructed them that 
 the act was a libel. The Court repiated the propo- 
 sition contained in the charge, reading from his min- 
 utes; and again the Jury letired. It is understood 
 that after the Jury retired one man of their number, 
 who had heretofore been for giving the plaintifl" nomi- 
 nal damages, refused to do so, so that the Jury stood 
 nine for the defendant, two for giving nominal dam- 
 ages to the plaintifT, and one for large damages to 
 plaintiff. About 9| o'clock the Jury again came into 
 court, and stated they were still unable to agi-ee. One 
 of the jurors asked the Court if the Jury were at lib- 
 erty to decide upon the question whether the article 
 complamed of was in fact a libel. The Court replied 
 that he had twice instructed them on that point, and if 
 he had not been understood he did not think it possible 
 he should now be understood. Thereupon the Jury 
 were discharged.