We conclude, the public feel slightly interested in our libel case;
therefore we shall take the liberty to lay before our readers a few
extracts from the weekly press of our city, as we did in our last the
opinions of the dailies.
[_From the N. Y. Weekly Despatch._]
During the last three months Branch’s _Alligator_ has been the talk of
the town. Through the columns of his little sheet, Branch has made
charges of the most serious nature against prominent citizens and office
holders. At first no notice was taken of these attacks, finally,
however, these charges were so generally talked of that it became
necessary for the parties assailed to notice them. Mayor Tiemann, Simeon
Draper and Supervisor Bell united in a complaint before the Grand Jury,
who found an indictment; whereupon all the rest of the individuals who
had been honored with the attentions of the _Alligator_ set to work to
aid in bringing Branch to justice. His case was set down for trial in
the sessions on Monday last. When the case was called, Branch announced
himself ready for trial; the District Attorney, however, said he would
not be ready till Tuesday. An attempt had been made on Saturday to
prejudice the case by one of his bondsmen, being indused to surrender
Branch, and on Tuesday, in the middle of the trial, Mr. Southworth, the
other bondsman, went into Court and surrendered him. In both cases other
parties came forward and took the places of these pretended friends. By
applying the sharpest rules of legal practice, his testimony was ruled
out and Branch was convicted, and without giving him time to breathe, he
was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to be imprisoned in the
Penitentiary for one year. The Recorder in his remarks volunteered the
gentle hint to the rest of the newspapers, that there were a number of
other editors whom he meant to put through a similar course of sprouts.
While we do not care to quarrel with the verdict of the jury, and
certainly do not wish to be understood as advocating the license of the
Press to assail unjustly the character of any individual in the
community, we must say to the Recorder and the parties to the trial,
that we hardly think they will find any other case in which they will be
permitted to put an editor through with quite such railroad speed,
though we admit that if justice were as promptly administered in all
cases, the Court of Sessions would stand much higher in public
estimation. Of the real merits of Branch’s case we have no means of
judging. That he believed the truth of the charges he made we have not
the slightest doubt. If there was any falsehood in the matter, he was
the dupe of it and not the perpetrator, and we sincerely regret that the
prosecutors saw fit to avail themselves of legal technicalities to shut
out what his witnesses had to say. It is quite as unfortunate for them
as it is for Branch. While their suppression consigns him to prison it
leaves the prosecution open to invidious comments, all of which might
have been silenced by dragging the slanderers (if such they are) into
the light of day and refuting these calumnies. That, however, is their
business, not ours. In the meantime poor Branch has been consigned to
the tender mercies of the Ten Governors—one of whom, at least, has
publicly announced his determination to “put him through the _roughest
course of training_ any man ever got on the Island.” We were surprised
to hear that the Governor in question had made this _heartless_ speech.
We supposed him to be a _Christian_ and a _man_, but we cannot reconcile
the idea of striking a fallen and powerless brother as either an
evidence of _Christianity or manhood_, and we trust the Governor will
yet see the impropriety of attempting to put his threat into execution.
We see by this morning’s _Express_, that Branch was on Friday seen in
the quarry with his hands all a mass of blisters, working away under a
broiling sun. This looks as though the Governors intend to give him the
full benefit of his sentence.
The _Herald_ takes the occasion of Branch’s conviction to read us a
lecture on the enormity of scurrility and libel. No other print in the
country is so well qualified for the task. Bennett evidently thinks New
Yorkers have short memories, not to recollect the obscene and licentious
character of the _Herald_ in its earlier days. He has used Branch as
often as any other paper in New York to abuse people towards whom he had
incurred a hostility, but now he is down, Bennett kicks him with the
rest. We perceive that George Wilkes has commenced a libel suit against
Bennett for what he said of _Porter’s Spirit_.
[We have taken the liberty of _italicizing_ a portion of the above
article—_Ed. Alligator._]
[_From the Sunday Times._]
LIBEL CASE CHARACTERISTICS.—The conviction of Stephen H. Branch, before
Recorder Barnard, on Wednesday, of a libel on Mayor Tiemann and two
other public officers, naturally created a sensation. So did the remarks
of the bench. Sentencing Mr. Branch to a year’s imprisonment in the
penitentiary and a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, while such a
man as Peter Dawson is subjected to incarceration for only sixty days,
is not likely, however, to exert a wholesome effect upon the public
mind. We have no doubt the recorder meant, by his severity, to make an
example of Branch, in order to deter other indiscreet men who are more
led by their impulses than their judgment from indulging in similarly
reprehensible publications: but we conceive that justice administered
with such rigidity, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, might
seem to wear the aspect of persecution; and converting Branch into a
martyr, neither elevates the character of the court, nor wins the moral
sympathy of public opinion. The general mind has really appropriated the
idea that because Branch attacked so important a person as Mayor
Tiemann, the whole power of the corporation has been consolidated into
one grand vindictive effort to crush out the courageous but silly
slanderer. Every one naturally murmurs, therefore, if this be so, who
may not be the next sacrifice? Common rumor does not hesitate to
insinuate that the character of the proceedings taken against Branch,
and the peremptory treatment bestowed upon the counsel for the prisoner,
were the result of a preconcerted arrangement of the authorities. This
assumption believed, who feels secure of justice should he be
unfortunate enough to incur the enmity of a coalition so potential?
Mr. Branch’s libels were coarse, scandalous, and boldly reiterated. It
was difficult to believe them wholly foundationless, because an
investigation was demanded with such persistent audacity. Branch openly
avowed his readiness to establish all his statements, however
defamatory; and although they criminated citizens whose good name we had
always been taught to esteem, they started our incredulity, and set
every thinking mind astir with painful distrust. We were glad,
therefore, to find a legitimate course adopted, and an appeal to the
laws made to decide the truth or falsity of the accusations.
Mr. Branch, as a libeller of the most extravagant kind, merited condign
punishment; but, after all, it is very clear that Mr. Branch’s strange,
wild, energetic, incoherent nature, has been made use of by somebody
else to accomplish his own purposes. Branch has been the catspaw of some
deeper and more sanely plotting intellect behind the curtain; and we
regret that the Recorder considered it necessary to rule out the
testimony which might have introduced us to the principals in this
offensive operation, instead of their harum-scarum instrument. It would
have been, as far as the libelled ones are concerned, much better to
have probed the whole affair to the bottom, even if the exact rule of
evidence had been made to yield temporarily to the exigency. It would
have been better for them to let the public perceive precisely on what
ground all this edifice of mendacity had been constructed. It would have
exhibited the confidence which belongs to conscious innocence. It would
not only have exposed the real wire-workers of this game of wholesale
calumniation, but, in demonstrating the integrity of the parties
assailed, it would have left no unexplained mystery, no dubious point of
fact, around which malice might still gather the shadowy wind-breath of
current scandal. If, however, they are satisfied, we ought to be. We are
not convinced that Randall’s Island is a paradise of official morality,
and the great public would not credit us were we to hazard an assertion
to that effect; but we _are_ satisfied that the particular charges made
by Mr. Branch are untrue, though imposed upon him as truths, and we hope
that, having had their probity completely substantiated in the premises,
the gentlemen so recklessly accused by Mr. Branch are not disposed to be
vindictive.
In conclusion, we must be permitted to say that we do not admire the
tone of the Recorder’s remarks on passing sentence. It is the first time
we have had occasion to allude to this gentleman except in terms of
merited commendation. We entertain a high opinion of his general
impartiality. His promptitude, his disdain for pettifogger’s quibbling,
his nice sense of justice, and his freedom from those tainted
associations which rob the bench in some quarters of dignity and public
confidence, have all contributed to place him in the front rank of our
criminal magistracy. We do not impugn his integrity, therefore, but the
quality of his judgment both in imposing so severe a sentence upon this
weak and foolish victim of designing knaves, and in speaking of “other
libellers,” to all of whom he contemplates meting out a “similar
punishment.” We know very well that he intended to threaten no
respectable press, or to hint at fetters _in terrorem_ upon its proper
independence—but his language may be easily misinterpreted; and when we
consider how liable the most prudent journalist is to daily imposition,
the observation that “this verdict settles the fact that no man can make
an assertion in a newspaper without being liable to be punished
criminally, unless he can substantiate it,” seems to us one of
gratuitous harshness, and in any body else would be called one of
petulence and ill-humor. Branch’s excitement, however, had doubtless
disturbed the usual current of quiet feeling which characterizes the
conduct of the Recorder, and we see the effect. The best of us are open
to these influences, and we are not inclined to forget how much the
community owes to the general honesty and equity of Recorder Barnard, in
our exceptions to what is, perhaps, but a hasty expression or so in the
present instance.
Considering that there are at least 10 or 12 suits for libel pending
against the _Herald_, for gross and malicious libels upon sundry
respectable citizens, it is really refreshing to peruse its comments
upon the warning given by Recorder Barnard in the Branch case, to
libellers generally. What the _Alligator_ IS, the _Herald_ WAS; and if
the latter has improved in decency in proportion as it has increased in
responsibility, necessity, not choice, lies at the bottom of the
metamorphosis. We are afraid that the Recorder’s hint was purposed, in
fact, for the special edification of the _Herald_. And, notwithstanding
that journal’s sudden disposition to saponize _both_ the gentlemen on
the bench of the General Sessions, instead of its customary one, the
Recorder may chance to give its responsible conductor a lesson of
impartiality he little expects by coercing him, despite his
self-importance, to keep company with Mr. Branch, as a reward for some
of his virulent assaults on private character.
[_From the N. Y. Sunday Mercury._]
BRANCH’S SENTENCE.—Quite unexpectedly the trial of Stephen H. Branch,
for libel against Mayor Tiemann, Simeon Draper and Isaac Bell, was
brought up and dispatched, during the past week, with a velocity which
would make the most wholesome impression, were the rest of the District
Attorney’s calendar put through with equal promptness and exemplary
effect. Branch was found guilty, and sentenced to one year’s
imprisonment on Blackwell’s Island, and two hundred and fifty dollars
fine. The _Tribune_, in alluding to this sentence of Branch by Recorder
Barnard, says:
“Considering that the libel, however groundless essentially, appears to
have had a real foundation in statements made to Branch by persons whom
he undoubtedly believed, and whom his counsel had ready to produce (but
their testimony was not allowed), we must consider this sentence a
severe one. We believe it will excite for him a sympathy which it is
unwise to provoke. Branch, we believe, has been trying pretty hard to
libel _us_ in his abusive little sheet; but we have never considered his
slanders worth any sort of notice. It may be well to stop his career,
but not to make him a martyr. And we say most decidedly, that
considering the libel for which he was indicted was really based on
information furnished him by persons whom he had reason to believe, we
deem his sentence a harsh one, and trust it may be mitigated by pardon.”
By the press generally, the matter is regarded pretty much in the same
temper, excepting the anomalous instance of the _Herald_! That
immaculate sheet takes occasion to give utterance to any extent of wrath
and indignation against Branch and his _Alligator_, and
characteristically against such of its cotemporaries, present and past,
as it would desire to denounce and stigmatise, with an odor which has by
no means been washed from its own bedraggled garments. Indeed, as the
direct object of the _Herald_ would appear to be a malicious fling at
the _Spirit of the Times_ in view of another case on the Recorder’s
docket—that of Judge Russell’s indictment—so the _Herald_ lays itself
liable to another indictment, which has been duly entered against
Bennett for no less than twenty-five thousand dollars.
The _Herald’s_ fulminations, and the political pressure brought to bear
upon Branch by his prosecutors must inevitably have the effect of
exciting a warm public sympathy for their object. Such, indeed, is the
manner in which the infliction of the full penalty of the statute is
regarded in this case, that the prosecutors themselves will be forced to
step in as petitioners for a pardon, or incur no little odium in the
business. Besides, what is very sensibly remarked by the _Tribune_, as
to the foundation of Branch’s charges, it might be added that the public
have no means of judging whether those charges are well founded or not.
By a course of proceedings altogether extraordinary on the part of the
prosecution, the apparent real evidence in the case was completely
excluded, and Branch convicted solely upon the oaths of his prosecutors,
without an actual investigation of the presumed issue on which the libel
originated. The public are largely exercised on the matter, and inquiry
is particularly active as to who the “Matron” really is? Why she was not
put upon the stand, and what she could have to say for herself? How
would her previous character have justified her taking the stand as a
witness, or of holding the position she has occupied under the chief
magistrate? These points are matters of curious comment among the
people, necessarily provoked by the seemingly harsh and rough-shod
procedure in the case. It is to be regretted the matter was not fully
cleared up by the production of the entire evidence.
HOW BRANCH CONFRONTS HIS FATE.—The renowned tamer of alligators—I may as
well add, _en passant_—was duly surrendered to Warden Finch on Thursday,
having been escorted hither to his prison by a little host of friends,
whose temper indicated no disposition to desert him. Sympathy is
strongly in his favor, on the ground, of course, that, whatever may be
thought of his offence, his treatment at the hands of the officials and
lawyers, has been such as only a weak and comparatively friendless man
like him would meet. You will soon see his prosecutors forced to sue for
his deliverance, just as eagerly as they have pressed for his
imprisonment.
Besides the sensation created here, it has been noticeable that a
general scattering—“on leave”—of certain subordinates, has taken place
during the late “inquest.” It is doubtful if Stephen will, even here,
have a chance to confront the mysterious “matron.” The fright of the
trial being apparently over, the fugitives from the Alms-House will
doubtless return forthwith. Under the discipline of these precincts they
will find their best protection, as well from the impertinence of
cross-examining lawyers, as from the no less stringent inquiries of a
keen public curiosity, mainly aroused by the suppression of the inside
testimony which could be found here. The nature and source of this I
have already pointed out. Should the motion in arrest of judgment reopen
the trial, it will doubtless be for the admission of the main evidence
in the case, so mysteriously and adroitly evaded by the prosecution.
Then only can the provoking rumors, now so general, be set at rest, or
satisfactorily determined.
The fate of Branch here, it appears, will be in no degree lenient, as
there is more than one petty tyrant under the vice royalty who seems
desirous of venting his spleen upon the unfortunate man. He has taken
his place, it appears, already, by direction of the keepers, beside the
common fellows in the quarries. The directions of one of the Governors
is quoted to the effect that he would be “put through the roughest
course of training any man ever got on the Island.” I have purposely
withheld a variety of matters in connection with these precincts this
week, until the interests with Stephen, with regard to the Ten
Governors, is more definitively settled.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen H. Branch’s Alligator.
------------------------------------------------------
New York, Saturday, August 21, 1858.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If there be one thing more than another on which we had fully made up
our minds it is this: that our country is pre-eminently free—yea, the
freest in the whole family of nations. But the history of the past week
has taught us how very easily it is to be mistaken.
The trial of Stephen H. Branch in our Court of Sessions, a few days ago,
teaches us a lesson which we ought not soon to forget. From the time
that our great nabob, Mayor Tiemann, associated with the Peter Cooper
_guild_, first made their complaint, or “Trinity” of complaints, down to
the passing of the sentence in the Court of Sessions, the trial was one
of the most vindictive and one-sided affair, on the part of the
prosecution, that we recollect during our sojourn on this “miserable
globe.”
In the first place, it was proved on the trial that one of the
complainants, or more properly _persecutors_, had never been before the
Grand Jury. In the second place, it would appear that indictments by the
dozen must have been preferred against the accused; for if we recollect
aright, he was arrested every day for nearly a fortnight, previous to
his trial. And again we have been told—how far it is true we care not to
inquire—that one man who professed great friendship for him, and became
his bail on the last arrest, two days before his trial, on the following
day withdrew his bail, and delivered the unfortunate man up to his
adversaries; and in consequence of this latter act realised a contract
from the city authorities. “Save us from our friends.”
If all this be true, it is one of the most arrant pieces of villany ever
recorded of Christian men.
When we come into court we, unfortunately, if possible, find things
worse. The ruling of the Judge was altogether too strict—too severe—in
fact too arbitrary. The Judge, it appears to us, made it a point of his
business to shield, as much as possible, the complainants on the one
hand, by interfering in behalf of the Mayor, when he was being
cross-questioned by defendant’s Counsel; whilst on the other hand he
ruled out the principal evidence in support of the defendant, and of
course deprived the accused of the slightest shadow of a chance to
establish his innocence.
Then comes the Recorder’s charge to the Jury. And that we think is in
keeping; or, perhaps, we ought to say an improvement on the spirit of
the whole proceedings. Let any one sit down and read that charge calmly
and dispassionately, and we venture to assert that for severity the
reader cannot find a case to surpass it, nor perhaps even to equal it in
the history of modern English jurisprudence.
Then, if we consider the hurried manner in which the prosecution got up
this trial, and their mode of conducting it, as described above, we must
consider the proceedings unwarranted by the premises; and forms a great
contrast to the tardy manner in which our Courts mete out their
infinitismal doses of punishment to Thieves, Burglars, Murderers and
Desperadoes.
There is still another charge, which in our opinion is the gravest of
all. After the rendition of the verdict the counsel for the defence
moved a stay of proceedings; now mark the reply of his honor. _That he
had yesterday considered the possibility of such an application, and
had_ THEN MADE UP HIS MIND _that it could not be granted_. So from this
it would appear, that the whole affair was settled before the parties
came into court; and so far as the trial goes, it was simply a
collateral incident of the proceedings, and not at all an operation for
attaining the great end of justice.
Now, we do not say a word as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Branch. He
may be guilty—he may be innocent; we are just as far, if not farther,
from that point than we were a month ago; and this is the ground of our
complaint.
If such proceedings be allowed permanently to obtain in our courts of
justice, then we say that “trial by jury becomes a mockery, a delusion,
and a snare.”
------------------------------------