I HV 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Lewis P Langfeld 
 
M 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OP 
 
 B, W, WILLIAMS AND OTHEKS, 
 
 EDITOR AND PRINTERS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEW DROP, TAUNTON, MASS,, 
 
 FOR AN 
 
 > 
 
 ALLEGED LIBEL 
 
 AGAINST WILLIAM WILBAR, 
 A RUMSELLER OF TAUNTON, 
 
 CONTAINING THE LIBELOUS ARTICLE ENTITLED 
 
 "A DREAM," 
 
 * 
 
 THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, 
 
 THE ARGUMENT OF H. B. STANTON, ESQ. 
 
 AND THE CHARGE OP 
 
 HIS HONOR, JUDGE HUBBARD 
 
 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE TRIAL OF 
 
 B, W, WILLIAMS AND OTHERS, 
 
 EDITOR AND PRINTERS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEW DROP, A TEMPERANCE PAPER PUBLISHED AT TAUNTON, MASS., 
 
 FOR AN ALLEGE*) LIBEL UPON 
 
 WILLIAM WILBAR, 
 
 A RUMSELLER OF TAUNTON, 
 
 BEFORE THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT AT NEW BEDFORD, 
 AT THE NOVEMBER TERM, 1845, 
 
 HIS HONOR, JUDGE HUBBARD, 
 
 ON THE BENCti. 
 
 TAUNTON, MASS., 
 
 HACK & KING, PRINTERS, DEW DROP OFFICE 
 
 1846. 
 
GIFT 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 In compliance with the wishes of the friends of temperance, not 
 only in Bristol County, but in Boston and different parts of Mas- 
 sachusetts, the editor of the Dew Drop has been induced to publish 
 his trial for Libel in pamphlet form. The testimony of respectable 
 witnesses, the argument of Henry B. Stanton, Esq., and the charge 
 of his Honor, Judge Hubbard, will, in the opinion of the pioneers 
 of the temperance reform, be of essential benefit to the cause. 
 
 The rumsellers and their supporters throughout the State, looked 
 forward to this trial with the most intense interest. They fondly 
 hoped that the result of it would forever silence the " temperance 
 fanatics," and that they might, for the future, pursue their unlawful 
 calling, without the least molestation. In this, however, they were 
 disappointed. They found no favor with the Judge or Jury, and the 
 result of it, so far from satisfying the dealers in alcohol, has proved 
 to their entire satisfaction, that they can no longer hope for redress 
 from Courts of Justice in the old Bay State, for criticisms upon their 
 man-destroying traffic. It has also settled the question that temper- 
 ance editors may " Dream" about rumsellers, even though they may 
 be wide awake. 
 
 The report of this trial is given to the public in the hope (hat it 
 may tend to make the traffic in intoxicating drinks disreputable. 
 The argument of Mr. Stanton, which was an able and eloquent ef- 
 fort, and a most withering and scorching rebuke to all the venders 
 in poisonous liquors, will be read with deep interest by the lovers of 
 Temperance. B. W. W. 
 
 M890784 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TKIAL OF B, W. WILLIAMS AND OTHEHS. 
 
 Supreme Judicial Court, Bristol County, 
 November Term, 1845. 
 
 HIS HONOR, JUDGE HUBBARD, PRESIDING. 
 
 WILLIAM WILBAR, \ 
 
 vs. > Action for Libel. 
 
 B. W. WILLIAMS, and others, j 
 
 Counsel for the Plaintiff, T. G. COFFIN, Esq., of New Bedford, 
 and A. BASSETT, Esq., of Taunt on. 
 
 Counsel for tlie Defendants, H. B. ST ANTON, Esq., of Boston, and 
 T. D. ELLIOTT, Esq., of New Bedford. 
 
 This was an action for Libel. One of the Defendants, B. W. 
 Williams, was the editor and publisher, and Hack &, Bradbury were 
 the printers, of a Temperance Paper, published at Taunton, called 
 the DEW DROP. 
 
 In January, 1845, an article was published in the paper, entitled 
 " A Dream," which was the foundation of this action. 
 
 The plaintiff commenced his action in April, in the Court of 
 Common Pleas. Damages were laid at $3,000 00. By motion of 
 the defendants, the case was carried to the Supreme Judicial Court. 
 The trial commenced on Thursday, November 13, 1845, and closed 
 the following Wednesday. 
 
 The following is the alleged libellous article : 
 
 A DREAM. 
 
 "WAS IT ALL A DREAM? 7 
 
 As we sat in our room a few days since, thinking 
 what more could be done to advance the cause of Tem- 
 perance in this community, we fell asleep and dreamed 
 the following dream. We were in Rum Hollow, and 
 by sojne irresistible impulse we were drawn into that 
 
6 
 
 house of human slaughter, kept bv one WILBAR. 
 Such sights as we there saw, may we never behold 
 again. As we passed the threshold, the first object that 
 attracted our attention was the presiding genius of the 
 place the incarnate Devil. On an elevated seat in 
 the back part of this indescribable hell, he sat ; while 
 ever and anon there issued from his mouth, flames of 
 fire, which withered and scorched all the deluded 
 wretches who had been enticed within, by the intrigue 
 and cunning of his faithful understrappers. Unobserved 
 by the devil's agent, whom we immediately recognized 
 as Wilbar, we concealed ourself behind a huge cask 
 labelled Mania a potu. 
 
 Having recovered somewhat from the shock on enter- 
 ing this den of the devil, and from the effects of the 
 pestiferous air which filled the place, we took a survey 
 of the premises. Around the store were arranged Casks, 
 Barrels and Demijohns, some of which were labelled as 
 follows : MAN-KILLER MANIAC BEVERAGE 
 ORPHAN-MAKER SOUL-DESTROYER 
 THE DEVIL'S SYRUP DRUNKARD'S COUGH 
 AND DELIRIUM TREMENS, &c., &c. We no- 
 ticed also several signs nailed to the wall, a few of 
 which bore the following inscriptions : MEN TRAINED 
 
 HERE FOR THE GALLOWS. LESSONS GIVEN IN SuiCIDE. 
 
 CHILDREN INSTRUCTED IN THE ROAD TO DEATH. Di- 
 rectly over the place where Wilbar stood were suspend- 
 ed a Skull and Cross-Bones. On the shelves above the 
 casks and barrels w r ere placed bottles, and w T e saw a crea- 
 ture which resembled the devil in miniature, occasionally 
 thrusting his head from the necks ; this we supposed to 
 be the " Bottle Imp." 
 
 Near the devil was a caldron of flaming liquid, which 
 we afterwards discovered was filled from the devil's own 
 mouth, boiled down, bottled and labelled LUCIFER'S 
 ELIXIR. We had thus far surveyed the place, when 
 the door opened at our side, and a young, blustering 
 man, W 7 ith a red face and blood-shot eyes, stepped up to 
 a cask labelled THE DEVIL'S SYRUP, and with an oath 
 swallowed the entire glass. We easily recognized this 
 man by his swaggering gait and horrible profanity. We 
 have often seen him engaged about the store, serving at 
 
 :.- 
 
times as an under clerk. Another immediately entered 
 arid called for a glass of SOUL DESTROYER. He drank 
 and took his seat by the stove. A moment after, the 
 door was again opened, and a miserable wretch staggered 
 in ; his hair was matted together, his eyes horribly 
 swollen, his clothes torn and ragged, the very picture of 
 despair. With a desperate effort he reached the coun- 
 ter and called for a glass of MANIA A POTU. An old 
 ftian with spectacles approached towards the cask behind 
 which w r e were concealed, and drew from it a glass. 
 We held our breath until he left, for we discovered him 
 to be the very man who once stood up in Court and tes- 
 tified he had never sold in this store a single drop of 
 MANIA A POTU. He administered the dose to his victim, 
 who immediately became a raving maniac. 
 
 Customers now Hocked in, some cursing and swear- 
 ing, others quarreling and fighting. Among the number 
 was a young man who stepped up to the counter and 
 called for a glass of LUCIFER'S ELIXIR. At this moment 
 a fiendish chuckle was heard, and Wilbar looking towards 
 the devil, clapped his thumb upon his nose, and with a 
 significant look which w r as answered by his majesty, 
 proceeded to pour out the burning liquid. The young 
 man drank to the very bottom of the glass, and with a 
 horrid yell fell down dead upon the floor. His pockets 
 were immediately rifled of their contents, and lest life 
 should not be entirely extinct, another glass was poured 
 down his throat. 
 
 A rustling was now heard upon one of the shelves, 
 and one of the Bottle Imps was heard to say, " The 
 Dew Drop man ; " whereupon the dead body was left, 
 and all hands rushed to the door, having armed them- 
 selves with rotten eggs and rotten apples, doing, as we 
 afterwards learned, but little harm. 
 
 The hellish laugh of the devil, the screeching of the 
 Bottle Imps, the hissing of the caldron, and the gibber- 
 ing of the customers interrupted us in our dream, and 
 we awoke. " WAS IT ALL A DREAM ? " 
 
PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY, 
 
 Mr. Bassett, for the plaintiff, enquired of the Jury whether any of 
 them had heard aught of the Libel, or " were biased." One of the 
 Jurymen stilted that he had heard something about it, but was not 
 biased ; whereupon Mr. Bassett proceeded to read the writ, or rather 
 the declaration, which was about 9 feet long, setting forth that the 
 plaintiff, Wilbar, was a most respectable grocer, that he had acquired 
 an enviable reputation in town, that he was of reputable character, 
 that he had been most wickedly, maliciously and grossly slandered 
 by the said Williams in the Dream aforesaid, &,c., &,c. (Mr. Bas- 
 sett finding some difficulty in pronouncing certain words used in the 
 Dream, and which were inserted in the writ, Mr. Coffin told him he 
 had better spell them.) 
 
 Mr. Coffin moved that the specifications of defence, filed by the 
 defendants, be stricken out of the case. The Court ruled that this 
 motion should have been made before. 
 
 Mr. Bassett proceeded in a very brief manner to open the case 
 to the Jury : 
 
 " Gentlemen of the Jury : We propose to show that the defend- 
 ants were the proprietors, editors and publishers of the Dew Drop ; 
 that the paper has a large circulation through Massachusetts and the 
 New England States ; that an Extra was issued containing the 
 Dream, and that more or less has been said about the Dream from 
 the time it was published up to the present date. I hold in my hand 
 the Dew Drop of January 29, 1845, containing the Dream." (Mr. 
 Bassett attempted to read it, but being unable to pronounce the 
 phrase mania a potu, and other terms, Mr. Coffin corrected him.) 
 The Extra Dew Drop was also introduced to the Jury. 
 
 Several witnesses were sworn, and the examination on the part of 
 the plaintiff proceeded. 
 
 SIMEON DEAN first took the stand. I worked at Hack &> Brad- 
 bury's printing office on the 29th of January last. The Dew Drop 
 was published by B. W. Williams. Hack & Bradbury were the 
 printers office over Cooper's store. B. W. Williams was editor 
 and publisher. Don't know about the paper being circulated any 
 where. Mr. Williams took them out of the office. I don't know 
 whether there were any papers of the number with the Dream in it 
 sold out of the office. Hack & Bradbury didn't sell any. J. W. D. 
 Hall's boy has taken papers out of the office, but don't remember 
 that he took any of this number. The Extra Dew Drop was printed 
 a short time after the 29th of January. Mr. Williams took all those 
 extras awny. None sold by Hack &, Bradbury. I have been in the 
 
employ of Hack &; King until last night. Was in the employ of 
 Hack & Bradbury as long as they were together. Don't recollect 
 that Hack &, Bradbury ever sold any Dew Drops. 
 
 Cross-examination. Hack &, Bradbury printed another paper 
 called the Beacon of Liberty. They print Books and Pamphlets. 
 It is a printing establishment. 
 
 BENJ. F. HASKINS. I worked for Hack &, Bradbury last Janua- 
 ry. They were printers. The Dew Drop was printed at this office* 
 I work now for Hack & King. Mr. Williams took them away when 
 they were printed. He takes them himself with the knowledge of 
 the printers. I never carried any out myself. A part of them are 
 printed the night before the publication day. They were published 
 once a fortnight last January now once a week. The advertise- 
 ments are handed to Mr. Williams, and he hands them to the printers. 
 The Extra Dew Drop was printed at Hack &, Bradbury's. Mr. 
 Williams took the Extras. He took them all. Mr. Williams gave 
 the order to strike them off. 
 
 Several Dew Drops, printed in February and May, were here 
 shown to witness, who testified that they were printed at Hack &, 
 Bradbury's office. Their advertisements, as printers, were found in 
 these papers. 
 
 JAMES P. ELLIS. I took the Dew Drop last January. I presume 
 it Was left at the door of the office where I stay. I don't know who 
 left the number of the 29th January. I pay Mr. Williams for the 
 Dew Drop every year. Mr. Williams called upon me to subscribe 
 for it, when it first started. I don't remember whether I had the 
 Extra, It is printed at the corner of Weir and Main streets. I 
 read the Dream. It struck me at the time that it meant Wilbar. I 
 read the article the same morning it was published. Taking it alto- 
 gether, I thought it meant W. Wilbar, without reference to any par- 
 ticular point. I know nothing about the old man with spectacles, 
 keeping at this shop, except by common report. I have often heard 
 of the old man with spectacles. I don't know that the old man with 
 spectacles kept at Wilbar's store at that time. I heard that he did 
 before and since. I don't know that this old man has been in Court 
 as a witness against this store. I have not heard either of t be defend- 
 ants say anything about this Dream meaning Wilbar. 
 
 Cross-examination. I have lived in Taunton 25 years. I have 
 known Rum Hollow ever since I have lived there. I have known 
 Wilbar two or three years. Simeon Wilbar keeps a shop, a cellar 
 in Rum Hollow. William W T ilbar was said to be the largest dealer 
 in Rurn Hollow, and that was the principal reason I thought the 
 Dream referred to him. I have seen the interior of W. Wilbar's 
 
10 
 
 shop. It was full of people, some young, and some pretty old. 
 This was generally in the day-time, I have seen out in front, drunk- 
 ards there more or less. The correctness of the picture in the 
 Dream, and the things I had heard, led me to suppose that it meant 
 the plaintilf. (Mr. Elliott here asked the witness what he understood 
 by "Man Killer," " Maniac Beverage," &,c., which are parts of the 
 Dream? Coffin objected. Mr. Elliott argued that he wanted to 
 prove what the witness understood by those terms, and how the com- 
 munity understood them. The Court admitted the evidence.) I 
 understand the terms to be used in a figurative sense, not literally. 
 (Mr. Coffin here said that the editor actually meant to say that the 
 Devil was in the store.) I should think the first part of the Dream 
 was a good figurative description of a dram-shop. " Around the 
 shop were arranged casks, barrels, demijohns, some of which were 
 labelled as follows : 'Soul Destroyer,' * Orphan Maker,' c Drunkard's 
 Cough,' &c." Does this language, as you understand it, describe 
 the shop and articles for sale 1 Ans. It does. " Near the devil 
 was a caldron of flaming liquid, which we afterwards discovered was 
 filled from the devil's own mouth, boiled down, bottled, and labelled 
 Lucifer's Elixir." Did you understand this to be a figurarive ex- 
 pression 1 Ans. I did. " Another immediately entered and called 
 for a glass of mania a potu." Did you understand this to mean fig- 
 uratively ? Ans. I did. Is this language a just representation of 
 those who frequent low tippling shops ? Ans. It is. " Young men 
 falling down dead upon the floor." Did you understand this in the 
 same way ? Ans. I did. I understood all the Dream to be an al- 
 legorical description of all tippl ing-shops, and of this shop in partic- 
 ular, if it is a tippling-shop. In regard to rifling money if you 
 saw this article in another paper, not knowing the parties, should 
 you think the money was actually stolen ? Ans. I should not. If 
 you should take up this paper in New Jersey, not knowing the par- 
 ties, what should you think of it, taking the whole piece together ? 
 Ans. I am not prepared to say what I should think of it. 
 
 BENJ. F. HASKINS. (A number of Dew Drops, of different dates, 
 containing remarks of the editor upon the Libel Case, were shown 
 to the witness.) Question. By whom were these papers printed 1 
 Ans. Hack &, King. 
 
 WILLIAM NEWCOMB. I reside in Taunton. Don't know how 
 far Rum Hollow extends. There is a place so called in Taunton. 
 I have been in Wilbar's shop. I have read the Dream. I suspected 
 it referred to Wm. Wilbar's shop when I read it. I thought it meant 
 his shop because it described the old man with spectacles. I have 
 seen an old man with spectacles in Wm. Wilbar's shop. I thought 
 
11 
 
 the Dream referred to Wm. Wilbar's shop, because there were more 
 casks there than in any other shop in that quarter. He kept grocer- 
 ies, such as sugar, tea, coffee, corn, pork, rice, &c. some herrings 
 also. (Mr. Coffin here remarked that Taunton was a herring town, 
 and this article was sold in every store ; whereupon the Court smiled.) 
 I have no doubt in my mind who was intended by this Dream. 
 
 Cross-examination. I have been in there two or three times per 
 week. Wilbar does not keep that shop now. I think he left last 
 spring. I saw casks in his shop, and I supposed there was liquor in 
 them. I have been in Simeon Wilbar's store. (Coffin objected to 
 the evidence. Court admitted it.) Have net seen any casks in 
 Simeon Wilbar's place. Simeon Wilbar's shop is under the same 
 roof with William Wilbar's a cellar. There is no communication 
 between the two shops. I have bought liquor at William Wilbar's 
 shop within a year. My business has carried me more to William 
 Wilbar's than to Simeon Wilbar's shop. I have no doubt I bought 
 liquor at William Wilbar's shop prior to Jan. 29. I have drank 
 there. Liquor was sold in Simeon Wilbar's shop kept in decanters 
 back of the bar. It has been .said that William Wilbar sold the most 
 liquor. I have seen a good many casks in the back part of the shop 
 of William Wilbar, and so many that it was difficult sometimes to 
 get round them. Have seen other people drinking there. Don't 
 recollect of seeing the old man with spectacles in Simeon Wilbar's 
 shop waiting upon customers. Don't recollect of hearing cursing 
 and swearing in William Wilbar's shop not heard much noise 
 there. I don't know but I might have seen men worse for liquor 
 there. Don't know as I have seen men down drunk there. 
 
 PARDON LEONARD, JR. I reside in Taunton. Never read the 
 Dream, nor heard it read. I was born in Taunton. I am a Con- 
 stable. I have been in William Wilbar's shop, and also in Simeon 
 Wilbar's, but not so frequently in the latter as in the former. Wil- 
 liam Wilbar's shop was called a rum shop in the Hollow. I have 
 seen folks drink there. Good many casks there all kinds of casks 
 and decanters. Have seen the room pretty well filled with custom- 
 ers. No doubt about seeing a good many drunk there. I have been 
 in the back of his shop. There is a door from the shop to the 
 barn. Never saw any gambling there. William Wilbar keeps 
 most all kinds of provisions. 
 
 LEONARD CROSSMAN. I own the building formerly occupied by 
 William Wilbar. I read the Dream. The Dream referred, I think, 
 to William Wilbar. I thought it referred to him on account of the 
 description of the casks, &c. 
 
12 
 
 Cross-examination. I don't remember of seeing labels on the 
 casks. I let the barn to William Wilbar. He hired the whole 
 building paid from $300 to $400 for it, 
 
 JOHN REED. I heard the Dream read in the house at the time of 
 it. I expected it meant William Wilbar's store. Hack &, Bradbu- 
 ry printed the Dew Drop before Hack &, King. I don't know as I 
 bought the Dream of Hack &/ Bradbury. I don't know when the 
 Dream was bought. It was read in Mr. Lane's tavern. There was 
 a bar kept there. (A long Lane that bar-room, said the Court.) 
 William Wilbar kept shop in what is called Rum Hollow. Is the 
 Cohannet Bank in Rum Hollow ? No : just this side. (Coffin here 
 said that the Cohannet Bank was exceedingly hollow.) Can't state 
 the date when I bought the Dew Drop of Hack & Bradbury along 
 through the winter some time. They sold them for two cents apiece, 
 J didn't generally buy them of Hack &, Bradbury when I could see 
 one in the house. 
 
 NOBLE BRIGGS. I have resided in Taunton for over three years 
 : past. I saw the Dream, and bought it of the boy, Simeon Dean, in 
 Hack &/ Bradbury's office. Hack &, Bradbury were not in the 
 office. I tried to get it of some one else : I would have given a 
 number of dollars rather than not have it. Carried it home to my 
 wife. 
 
 ROSWELL WniTTEMOREjOr the old man with spectacles . I bought 
 the Dream in the office, but can j t say of whom. I bought it of a 
 sandy-haired man. I called for a paper that had got the Dream in, 
 I gave the paper to William Wilbar. I believe it is in being now. 
 Cross-examination. Never went there but once for the Dream. 
 Mr. Coffin here introduced a Dew Drop of February 26th, con- 
 taining an article in relation to the prosecution of Wilbar. He 
 read extracts from it, which he supposed would tend to aggravate 
 the case. As soon as he had finished it, Mr. Elliott read the whole 
 article, which, when taken together, tended to show the motive in 
 writing the Dream and all other articles of a similar character. r 
 The whole article was read by permission of the Court. 
 
 All the witnesses for the plaintiff having been examined, Mr. El- 
 liott proceeded to open the case for the defence, offering some re- 
 marks which were pertinent and to the point. 
 
 " Gentlemen of the Jury : I do not propose to detain you with a 
 long speech. This is a new case in this County to me, and I have 
 no doubt it is to you. We have never heard of a man coming to a 
 Court of Justice and asking protection for himself as a violator of 
 law. Thus far it is a novel one. Wilbar, a rumseller of the very 
 worst description, asking a Court of Justice to protect him in his 
 
13 
 
 business. One of the defendants is editor and publisher of the Dew 
 Drop ; the other two are printers. Supposing this Deam to be a 
 libel, there is no evidence to show that Hack & Bradbury circulated 
 one of them. It must be shown that they sold them at that time, or 
 at any subsequent time. There is no evidence that any of the pa- 
 pers were sold with their consent. Mr. Williams took the papers. 
 He is the publisher, and admits it. He publishes it for good and 
 justifiable ends, and so long as it is published legaljy, it is a worthy 
 publication. Papers of this description have done great good. The 
 Dew Drop is promoting a great and good cause. Mr. Williams in 
 conducting it has helped to carry on this cause. He has assisted to 
 clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, to restore the parent, and to 
 raise the fallen, and he deserves your thanks and mine, and will, I 
 have no doubt, receive them. 
 
 If Wilbar's business had been legal, it would not have done to at- 
 tack it rudely. If the plaintiff had a right to sell, the defendants 
 had no right to bring reproach upon his business. Wilbar is a rum- 
 seller. He does not come here with clean hands. He does not 
 maintain ..that place in the community which entitles him to redress. 
 He stands upon very different ground from what he would, if he 
 was in a legal business. We expect to prove that William Wilbar 
 kept a hell in Rum Hollow. We shall describe the character of this 
 store, by men whom you will believe. William Wilbar is the great- 
 est rumseller of this hole." 
 
 Mr. Elliott here quoted various authorities to show that an action 
 cannot be maintained for anything written against a party engaged 
 in an illegal transaction. 
 
 " We don't mean to say that the Dream was literally true. We 
 mean to contend that there were casks there which contained that 
 which produced delirium tremens, &c., &/c. We don't mean to say 
 .that he killed men, but that he sold that which killed. To prove 
 'chis, is somewhat of a matter of fact. We shall introduce evidence 
 to prove this beyond a doubt. This is a figurative description of a 
 dram-shop, and we shall satisfy you on this point. ' Men trained 
 here for the gallows.' We shall show that Mr. Wilbar's business 
 ,ends to train up men for the gallows. * Children instructed in the 
 road to death.' We shall show that the rum trade tends to this, and 
 that .children are, in Wilbar's shop, by trading with him, learning 
 the road to death. We shall show you that the plaintiff has sustained 
 no legitimate damage. We shall show you that Mr. Williams has 
 been conducting a temperance paper that he has no ill will against 
 William or Simeon Wilbar. He wanted to do all he could to " rout 
 Rum Hollow/ and we hope and expect you will sustain him in it. 
 
14 
 
 The statements in the Dream are fairly figurative, or representative 
 of a shop where liquor is sold. 
 
 DEFENDANTS' TESTIMONY, 
 
 SAMUEL L, CROCKER. Mr. Bassett enquired of the witness, 
 vious to the examination, if he was interested in this suit. Mr, 
 Crocker replied that he felt no more interest in it than all good citi- 
 zens should feel in a case of this kind. " Have you offered to pay 
 any money towards defraying the expenses of the defendants ?" He 
 said he felt very sure that he had made no such agreement, but 
 jAvould have done so, if he had been asked. 
 
 Mr. Elliott proceeded to examine the witness. I am a resident of 
 Taunton have lived there for the last twenty years. My house is 
 within eight of Rum Hollow. Wilbar occupied a shop in Rum 
 Hollow in January, 1845. On the side of the door, outside, was a 
 sign, with the words, Rum, Brandy, Gin, &c., painted upon it. 
 (Coffin objected to this testimony. Court ruled it admissible.) I 
 saw every day of my life (Coffin objected Court ruled it admissir 
 ble) men whom I knew to be drinkers going in and coming out. I 
 often saw it in the morning, early, lighted up, and drunkards hurry- 
 ing to it. I have seen drunkards passing in and out at all hours of 
 the day have seen loads of rum going into the store. There is a 
 screen just inside of the door. 
 
 When I saw the Dream, it brought to my mind a circum- 
 stance connected with this shop. I went into Wilbar's store with an 
 officer in order to try to lessen the amount of intemperance during 
 this week, which was Court week. I was at first insulted, but was 
 soon, however, well treated. Some of the customers thought this 
 was the correct course, viz. : to put a stop to the use of liquor, and 
 to prosecute the drunkards. Saw persons drinking, and others who 
 were about to drink. Saw a woman with a tin pail in her hand, and 
 saw some one in the store draw something and put into the pail. 
 Saw casks, barrels and decanters there. Persons were in there who 
 appeared to be intoxicated. Have seen drunkards pitched or 
 pushed out of the store. This is a very common occurrence. 
 Great deal of noise there, generally in the evening, and often during 
 the day, when there was an unusual collection of people in town. . 
 I remained in the store fifteen or twenty minutes. I saw hogsheads 
 of rum, barrels, and standing casks in the store. I did not see any 
 groceries sold. I went behind the screen. 
 
15 
 
 Cross-examination. I saw the sign on the outside years ago. Ac- 
 cording to my belief the sign was there. (Coffin here said in an 
 insulting manner, "I don't care what you believe.") I am sure 
 that the time I was in Wilbar's store was in September before the 
 Dream was published. The pitching out of the shop is of common 
 occurrence. I could not specify any particular day. 
 
 Mr. Elliott here stated that Mr. Crocker was anxious to leave 
 town, unless Mr. Coffin wished to detain him longer. Mr. Coffin 
 replied in a most impudent arid ungentlemanly manner, that Mr. 
 Crocker was the very last man he wished to have anything to do with. 
 We should think so the bad generally shun the good. 
 
 JAMES W. EARL. I knew where William Wilbar kept before 
 February, 1845. I live within 100 feet of his store. Have seen a 
 good deal of drunkenness and heard a good deal of noise about the 
 premises. I have often looked into the store. Have seen a great 
 many there, in all the different stages of intemperance. Heard 
 cursing and swearing at night. Seen persons coming out in a fight- 
 ing condition, and have a knock down in front of the store. Those 
 persons who frequent this store are about as mean a class as can be 
 conveniently found any where. I have seen persons coming out 
 drunk ; an every day occurrence. I have rendered assistance to men 
 who were down drunk about the door of Wilbar's shop. Have 
 helped to get them a shelter and have taken care of them. Have 
 seen casks going in and out , also bottles, jugs, rundlets, kettles and 
 coffee-pots. Have seen persons going in and out at the side door on 
 Sunday. Have also seen them intoxicated about the building. I 
 have been out near the door when they were about shutting up for 
 the night. Seen some of the customers drunk, arid some so as to go. 
 Have seen them fall out. Have been waked up at night by noise. 
 Went out and saw fighting round the door of Wilbar's shop. Shop 
 sometimes open and sometimes shut at such times. I know persons 
 who make it a point to hang about there. Do you know John Ken- 
 ny 1 (Coffin objected, Court ruled the question admissible.) Yes. 
 He had been intemperate. Have seen John Kenny coming out 
 drunk from Wilbar's store a few days before he died. He died July, 
 1844. He was taken the night I saw him with delirium tremens. 
 He was wild, raving mad, showed fight, wanted to hurt every body. 
 He said a caravan of lions, tigers, &,c., was after him. I have read 
 the Dream. 
 
 Cross-examination. I live in the brick building. Bank building 
 between Rum Hollow and my house. I occupy the whole house. 
 Have not been into Wilbar's shop for two or three years. (Mr. Cof- 
 fin, with the assistance of Mr, Earl, made a drawing oT Rum Hoi- 
 
16 
 
 low.) There is a side-door to the building south-west side. Have 
 seen persons go in at the front door on Sunday. Seen Field go in 
 there. There is an Oyster Cellar under the store. Some time in 
 the Spring of 1844 Wilbar commenced occupying this store. Have 
 seen children of years of age in this store. I was 6 or 8 feet from 
 the door. Two Gregory boys were in there, one about 9, and orie 
 about 11 years of age. Kenny came from Wilbar's door when I 
 saw him. I know the printers of the Dew Drop Hack &, Bradbu- 
 ry. Mr. Williams has let me have the Dew Drop from the office. 
 
 ASA TISDALE. I live in Taunton. Was acquainted with Wil- 
 bar's shop. I have purchased liquor in his store. I have paid for 
 the liquor. In one instance I paid for three loco-foco matches, and 
 had the liquor thrown in. With two exceptions, I bought liquor al- 
 together at Wilbar's shop. I have seen other persons there, some 
 drinking and some smoking. Have seen them buy articles there. 
 Have seen persons buy a pint, two quarts, and a gallon of rum there. 
 Have seen from one to fifteen or twenty in the store at a time, of all 
 ages from 17 and younger up to 60. Liquor was kept in bottles, 
 decanters, barrels and hogsheads. There were marks on the barrels, 
 viz.: "W. W." "Gin," " Brandy." Wilbar was there tending. 
 There was a sign on the door outside, "Rum, Gin, Brandy, Wines, 
 Cordials." I have seen twenty hogsheads at one time in the store. 
 Have seen persons there at all times some in for it. The princi- 
 pal business of Wilbar was selling liquor. Have seen children go 
 in there with tin pails. The last time I bought any thing there was 
 in February. The last time I bought any liquor there was one year 
 ago last October. I know Pardon Barton. I drank a great many 
 times with him at Wilbar's. He is dead. (Coffin said this might 
 be allegorical.) He was an intemperate man. He appeared as ra- 
 tional as anybody when not intoxicated. I never saw any one fight- 
 ing in Wilbar's. 
 
 Cross-examination. I bought liquor there about once a week. I 
 bought no more liquor because I left off drinking. Didn't want any 
 more. 
 
 DOCT. CHARLES JEWETT. I am a physician and surgeon by pro- 
 fession. My attention has been drawn particularly to the effects of 
 spirituous liquors upon the human system. I have read the Dream. 
 I took it to be an allegory ; not a literal description of facts ; but fig- 
 urative. Question What, in your judgment, as a physician, is the 
 effect of spirituous liquors upon human life ? (Coffin objected no 
 bearing upon the case. The effect of spirituous liquors is no justifi- 
 cation for the defendants. Court decided the question to be compe- 
 tent.) I believe, as a physician, the direct tendency of spirituous 
 
17 
 
 liquors is to destroy life. It affects the coats of the stomach, and 
 through the medium of the nervous system, deranges all the func- 
 tions of the body. Alcohol passes directly into the circulation, and, 
 consequently, is distributed through the whole constitution. It is 
 classed by the most eminent medical writers as a poison. It is, with- 
 out doubt, one of the most accurate poisons. There are but one 
 or two others that will destroy life quicker. There is no power in 
 the human system to change the nature of alcohol. It remains the 
 same wherever it is found in the system. It is absorbed but not di- 
 gested. The breath of an habitual drinker may be collected on the 
 inside of a glass vessel, by a chemical process, and from it alcohol 
 may be distilled. An effort was made some 15 or 20 years since to 
 ascertain the number of drunkards who died annually in the United 
 States. New Haven was taken as a fair sample. It was estimated 
 that there were 30,000 drunkards in the United States who died in 
 consequence of using intoxicating drinks. I believe this to have 
 been below the mark. The use of alcohol is the cause of delirium 
 tremens. There is no other cause. The subjects of delirium tre- 
 mens are apparently mad, raving, under great fears ; they suppose 
 themselves to be pursued by demons and evil spirits, invisible to oth- 
 ers, but visible to them. (Coffin here asked if he did not think that 
 the devil was really after them. The Doctor replied, that it might 
 perhaps be so.) They commit suicide under the influence of this 
 terrible disease. I have seen diseases terminate fatally where medi- 
 cine would have apparently cured the patients if they had not been 
 hard drinkers. Drunkards have a cough peculiar to them. I could 
 recognize this cough without seeing the patient. The case related 
 by Mr. Earl was without doubt a case of delirium tremens. It is 
 the opinion of medical writers that the constitution of the child be- 
 comes tainted by the excesses of the parents. I have seen a great 
 deal of figurative writing in connection with the temperance cause. 
 I considered this Dream as allegorical. Intemperance is one of the 
 most fruitful sources of insanity, and the hardest to cure. (Dr. 
 Woodward having been quoted by Dr. Jewett, Coffin said that he, 
 Dr. Woodward, was raving mad upon the subject of insanity.) 
 
 Cross-examination. " Were the English nation hard drinkers ? " 
 They were. " Were they long lived ?" I think not. The Germans 
 were not as hard drinkers as the English, Scotch or Irish. The 
 Scotch are the hardest drinkers. They consume immense quantities 
 of spirits. Delirium tremens is always produced by alcohol. "Are 
 these evil spirits'?" Can't tell positively. Delirium tremens is an 
 illusion which the subject cannot divest himself of after he has re- 
 covered. Dr. Sewall is good authority. 
 3 
 
18 
 
 REV. J. CURTIS, Chaplain of Charlestoivn State Prison. I have 
 been a Clergyman since October, 1825. Was Chaplain at the Au- 
 burn Prison two and a half years, and at Charlestown Prison 17 
 years. I have directed my attention to intemperance as a source of 
 crime. This is a duty I owe to the State. I have probably exam- 
 ined thousands at Auburn and Charlestown prisons with regard to 
 their habits of intemperance. I tried to get the prisoners to be frank 
 and tell their habits of life. (Coffin objected. Court decided that the 
 witness must confine himself to his personal knowledge and obser- 
 vations.) More than three-quarters of all the -prisoners in Charles- 
 town of whom I have had personal knowledge, were intemperate men. 
 There is nothing so destructive to the morals of men, as intemper- 
 ance. All other causes combined, do not produce so much immor- 
 ality as the use of intoxicating drinks. It destroys the kindlier feel- 
 ings, and hardens the heart. I have read the Dream. A sister of a 
 convict in prison sent him some papers and books, and among them 
 was this Dream. Wishing to examine the papers so see if they were 
 proper for the prisoner, I saw this Dream. I read it. I supposed it 
 to be an allegory, and an exceedingly apt one. I think the use of 
 intoxicating drinks injurious to the soul. 
 
 Cross-examination. Mr. Coffin asked, what is the soul ? Ans. 
 The intellect, the will and the affections. " Did Noah get drunk ?" 
 Yes. " What is your opinion of Noah's happiness?" I think he is 
 in Heaven. " His soul was not injured then," said Mr. Coffin. Mr. 
 Curtis replied, that the soul might recover from the injury received 
 from the use of liquor, the same as the body may recover from it& 
 effects. (i What induced you to think the Dream an allegory?" 
 Ans. From the general character of the piece, and my knowledge 
 of the rum business. " Is the Book of Job an allegory ?" (Court 
 here stated that the witness need not answer that question, unless he 
 was willing to. Witness declined answering.) However humilia- 
 ting it may be to me now, said the witness, I was, when I first left 
 College, a rumseller. I thought men who traded at my store were 
 temperate, but I will relate two instances to the Jury to prove the 
 contrary. One man, a lawyer, who traded with me, acquired habits 
 of intemperance by the use of liquor at my counter, and died a 
 drunkard. Another man, who was a member of Congress, became 
 confirmed in his habits of intemperance while trading with me, and 
 died a drunkard. I feel humbled before God as I think of these 
 facts. If the whole property of Massachusetts were given to me, I 
 would not be a rumseller. I have no property which I acquired 
 while in this business. Before I entered the ministry, my feelings 
 and views were changed. 
 
19 
 
 BENJ. F. HASKINS. Mr. Coffin asked the witness what color Mr. 
 Bradbury's hair was? Witness. There he is you can ask him, 
 " What color is Mr. Hack's hair ?" Inclined to be sandy. 
 
 MRS. MIRANDA J. BARTON. My husband's name was Pardon B. 
 Barton. He died the 28th of October last. He died in the In- 
 sane Hospital at Worcester. I knew William Wilbar's place. I 
 have seen my husband there frequently. "Was he or not intemper- 
 ate ?" (Coffin objected. Court ruled the question to be competent.) 
 He was ; so much so that he took to it all the time. I have seen 
 him there half a dozen tiuies a day. I have seen him in there when 
 he was the worse for liquor, and sometimes when he was sober. He 
 went to the Insane Hospital the middle of last May. He behaved 
 very bad before he went. At one time he caught the axe and drove 
 us all out of the house and threatened to kill us. He jumped out of 
 bed. He was a moulder in the foundry. He said the devil was af- 
 ter him, and he had got to kill us. I was not with him when he 
 died. He was carried from the work-house in Somerset to the Hos- 
 pital. Frequenting the rum shop made him a pauper. He was 35 
 years old. Had four children. He was, after he stopped drinking, 
 very much against these rumsellers. He would curse all the rumsel* 
 lers to the lowest notch. 
 
 Cross-examination. I lived down by the Baptist Meeting House, 
 few steps from Wilbar's shop. Most always saw him standing in 
 the store door. 1 never went into the store. He worked at the 
 Weir Bridge. He was in Somerset a little over a month. He was 
 confined to the house about three months, He had a sister in Som- 
 erset who was deranged. My husband was confined for insanity 
 three years ago. He had two sisters who were insane. They were 
 not intemperate. Mr. Barton did not take any ardent spirits in my 
 house while he was sick. Was confined to the house a month or 
 six weeks before he was carried to Somerset. I attended him con- 
 stantly. When he was first taken, the disorder lay in his feet ; it was 
 a sort of inflammation. Dr, Gordon attended him. 
 
 GEORGE E. SHATTUCK. (Mr. Bassett asked the witness if he had 
 any interest in the case. Ans. None, except such as all good tem- 
 perance men ought to have, and such as I suppose you have. " Have 
 you agreed to pay any money for the purpose of carrying on this 
 suit V Ans. No.) I reside in Taunton. I knew Mr. Wilbar's 
 place of business. I have stopped repeatedly before the door. Have 
 seen a great many drunk in and around the shop and door. Have 
 heard cursing and swearing there. These persons were generally 
 very low, miserable persons, very intemperate. I have seen Mr. 
 Wiibar there. I have seen sometimes twenty or thirty in tb^e at a 
 
20 
 
 time. Court days, the Hollow is generally full. My business led 
 me to pass by there often. Some persons near there bound shoes 
 for me. I have passed by sometimes two or three times a day. 
 These things I saw a great many times. I have been by there all 
 times of day, and almost all times of night. Sometimes at 1 1 
 o'clock at night and sometimes before daylight in the morning. 
 Shop was sometimes open in the night. Have frequently seen a 
 great many hogsheads and barrels going in there. They smelt like 
 rum. 
 
 Cross-examination. I am in the shoe business in Taunton. My 
 store is east of Wilbar's. Couldn't see his shop from my store. I 
 lived on the Green at that time. Did not go through Rum Hollow 
 to go to my house. Was obliged to go through the Hollow often. 
 Have been in the Hollow on High Court Days. Went there to 
 see the fun. I saw the people intoxicated on these days in 
 the Hollow. It was not fun to me-, it might have been to some peo- 
 ple. Have seen a great many coming out of Wilbar's shop. More 
 rum sold at this shop than at any other in the Hollow. Have seen 
 men coming out drunk. Have seen persons coming out drunk at 
 all times. I never went into the shop. Went as far as the step of 
 the door. There is a screen just inside of the door. The screen is 
 a little one side, so that I could look in. Have seen the store open 
 after nine o'clock a great many times. Have heard cursing and 
 swearing there. I hear swearing generally when I pass by. 
 
 JAMES WOODWARD. I am Deputy Sheriff in Taunton. I knew 
 William Wilbar's place of business. It is a place where there are 
 a great many in. Lower class and loafers generally go there. Have 
 seen persons in thereunder the influence of liquor. They go in and 
 drink. Sometimes there is considerable noise in there. I went in- 
 to Wilbar's store once with Samuel L. Crocker. It was Court week. 
 There were several in there at the counter. They had something 
 turned out ready to drink. They turned round. Saw casks and 
 hogsheads of all sizes in there. Saw persons drawing something 
 from them. Strong smell of liquor in the store. This is the largest 
 establishment in the place. Have seen them unloading a great many 
 .casks there. Have seen people bringing out kegs from this store. 
 
 -Cross-examination. I am often called down to this store on busi- 
 ness, so often that I could not tell how many times I have been there. 
 
 GEORGE H. BABBITT. I reside in Taunton. I was Constable for 
 Taunton at the time Wilbar kept store. I was acquainted with Wil- 
 bar in his place of business. I was in there the latter part of No- 
 vember, one year ago this month. I had two warrants against Mr. 
 Wilbar, and went to serve ihem. There were a number in there ; 
 
 
21 
 
 some drinking and some standing round. Half a dozen or more in 
 there. There was a screen just inside of the North door. I could 
 see in the door at the side of the screen. The screen was to take 
 off the prospect from the bar. I have passed there a number of 
 times every week. I have seen people going in and coming out in 
 all conditions, some drunk and some sober. I didn't know any dif- 
 ference in the store between the months of November and February. 
 Have known the store since the foundation was laid. Have frequent- 
 ly seen them loading and unloading goods, barrels, &,c., at his store. 
 I think they kept groceries there. 
 
 The Counsel for the defendants here stated that they had no more 
 evidence, and closed the case for the defence ; whereupon the Coun- 
 sel for the plaintiff stated that they should introduce some rebutting 
 testimony. 
 
 EEBUTTING TESTIMONY, 
 
 HORATIO W. FIELD. I have been in the store where Wilbar kept 
 for the last ten years. The plaintiff entered into possession of the 
 store in March, 1844. He occupied the first floor. Simeon Wilbar 
 occupied the cellar and upper story. William Wilbar boarded with 
 Horatio Field. From the first of December up to the time William 
 Wilbar left the store in April, there was no rum sold there. "Did 
 the plaintiff give any instructions as to the sale of rum ?" (Mr. El- 
 liott objected. Court ruled the question inadmissable.) There is a 
 .door in the West side which leads to Simeon Wilbar's entry to go 
 .up stairs. No communication between Simeon and William Wil- 
 bar's store. In cold weather, the front door of William Wilbar's 
 store is generally closed. William Wilbar would go in the morning, 
 (Sunday,) sweep out the shop, lock it up, and go back. The usual 
 time of shutting up the shop in winter time was ten o'clock, but 
 oftener nine and half past. I have never seen any fighting, or heard 
 eursing and swearing in this store since April, 1844. Wilbar kept 
 groceries and provisions to sell. 1 know Asa Tisdale. Between 
 April 1844 and April 1845, I have known Tisdale to buy all kinds 
 of groceries which a family would need, such as butter, cheese, pork, 
 flour, codfish. Mr. Wilbar and I have delivered them to him. I 
 should think fifty dollars worth of groceries were delivered to him 
 while Wilbar kept there. 
 
 Cross-examination. I shall be twenty years old the 23d of Janu- 
 ary next. I commenced to keep in this store when I was 12 or 13 
 years of age. I have been clerk thejre.eyer since. I am a relation 
 
22 
 
 of Wilbar's. lie is my uncle. There is a door that leads from 
 Wilbar's store to Simeon Wilbar's barn. William Wilbar was com- 
 plained of, the second week in December. I can't say but what 
 there was a large stock of liquors on hand from the first of Decem- 
 ber up to the first of April. I can't tell certainly whether there was 
 or not. There might have been a good stock on hand and there 
 might not have been ; I think very likely there was. It was sold of 
 course. I perhaps have sold it ; don't recollect that Wilbar sold any. 
 I put the money that I took for this liquor into Wilbar's safe. I ex- 
 pect Mr. Field sold part of this liquor. I did all the selling. It is 
 a part of my business to sweep out the store. Wilbar swept out 
 Sundays. I swept out more than once a day. I used to sweep out 
 every morning except Sunday and Monday. I was in there so con- 
 stantly that the door could not have been open without my knowing 
 itj except once or twice, when I was out of town. There was a 
 window in the door. I don't know what Wilbar did Sundays. 
 Don't know who kept the books. The books kept themselves for 
 ought I know. Wilbar's shop was a remarkably quiet place. I pre- 
 sume there has been liquor sold in tin pails. It may have been that 
 I gave Tisdale three loco-foco matches and liquor, but don't remem- 
 ber. I don't recollect having sold crackers and liquor. 
 
 ELIAS A. MORSE. I am a Deputy Sheriff. I knew Pardon Bar- 
 ton for a dozen years. I went home two years ago last April and 
 found him in jail. I had to confine him in a room. I had him there 
 fifteen days. He got much better before he went out, but was not 
 quite recovered. On the 16th of May I arrested him. He was 
 sent to the House of Correction as a man not furiously mad. Have 
 known but very little about him since. I have been into Wilbar's 
 store, but not to stop any. Passed it frequently, but not so often as 
 some others. The North door is generally closed in cold weather. 
 
 Cross-examination. I have been into Wilbar's store, and have had 
 to open the door to get in. I was in a few times wh&n Wilbar occu- 
 pied it. Don't know as I ever saw any disturbance there when 
 Wilbar occupied it. I have frequently had warrants to serve on peo- 
 ple in and about there. Went there to find them. Barton has had 
 the reputation of being a very intemperate man. The door of Wil- 
 bar's store was partly glass. Don't know whether I could see 
 through or not. 
 
 JAMES SPROAT. I pass by Wilbar's store a number of times a 
 day as I go to my house. The door of the shop is like other doors 
 generally closed in cold weather. 
 
 Here ended the examination for both parties. 
 
The following is the substance of Mr. Stanton's address to the 
 Court and Jury, in closing the case for the defendants. As the ad- 
 dress occupied more than five hours in its delivery, the reader need 
 hardly be told, that this is little more than an abstract of it. So far 
 as it goes, it may be regarded as a tolerably correct report, for it has 
 been revised by Mr. Stanton from his own notes and at the trial. It 
 was a sound, able and thrilling speech, and was a most withering 
 and scorching rebuke to the plaintiff. He repeatedly drew tears from 
 many persons in the Court House as he depicted the terrible effects 
 of the rum traffic. He often turned to the plaintiff, Wilbar, as he 
 animadverted upon his man-killing business, and poured a torrent of 
 terrible invective upon his head ; but Wilbar remained unmoved, 
 and apparently almost lifeless. 
 
 MR, STANTON'S ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS. 
 
 May it please your Honor 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury : 
 
 As was remarked to you by my learned associate in his opening 
 address for the defendants, the cause you are impannelled to try, is 
 of a novel character. Probably the precise questions which it pre- 
 sents for your decision, have never before been submitted to a Jury 
 of this Commonwealth. Nor is this' merely a novel case. It exhib- 
 its features more embarrassing than this. The main questions here 
 to be settled, are intimately connected with one of the leading moral 
 enterprizes of our age an enterprize which enlists the warmest feel- 
 ings of large masses of men, and concerning which our fellow citi- 
 zens entertain opinions as varied and contradictory as ever found a 
 lodgement in the human mind. It would be too much to presume 
 that you, gentlemen, have not adopted some of these opinions, and 
 participated to some extent in this feeling. I pray you to be on your 
 guard, and let no sentiments of favor cr aversion, towards either of 
 the parties now at your bar, obtrude into this temple of Justice arid 
 influence your decisions. Let this cause be decided on its true legal 
 merits. I am especially solicitous that the temperance reform may 
 be no further involved in this trial, than is necessarily connected 
 
24 
 
 with the proper interpretation and construction of the alleged libel 
 set forth in the plaintiff's writ, and the nature of that defence which 
 we set. up for the alleged publication of that libel. 
 
 What, then, are the questions which it is your duty to decide 1 
 They are not, I apprehend, whether the temperance reform is wise 
 in itself, or judiciously conducted not whether total abstinence from 
 intoxicating liquors is right or expedient not whether men should 
 sign the temperance pledge and organize temperance societies not 
 whether moral suasion alone, or combined with the judicious en- 
 forcement of wise laws, is best adapted to secure the great end which 
 all benevolent men desire not whether this Dream is written in good 
 taste and temper, and is, upon the whole, a timely and apt publica- 
 tion not whether the Dew Drop is a valuable auxiliary to the cause 
 of sobriety and sound morals, and the labors of its editor a blessing 
 to the community in which he dwells. No, gentlemen, these ques- 
 tions are not now submitted for your decision ; and though I enter- 
 tain long considered and firmly settled opinions in regard to each of 
 them, I am not so far forgetful of my duty as to obtrude them upon 
 your consideration. 
 
 The real questions for your determination are : 
 
 First. Did the defendants publish the Dream, set forth in the 
 plaintiff's declaration ? 
 
 Second. If so, did they publish it " of and concerning " the 
 plaintiff? 
 
 Third. If so, is it a Libel ? 
 
 Fourth. If so, has this plaintiff any right to seek redress, for such 
 publication, in a civil suit, in a Court of Justice ? 
 
 Fifth. If so, have the defendants, during this trial, justified this 
 publication ? Have they proved it to be true, according to its fair 
 interpretation ? 
 
 Sixth. If they have failed in this last particular, then what com- 
 pensation in damages, shall they render to the plaintiff on account 
 of this publication ? 
 
 I will examine these questions in their order ; remarking in the 
 outset, that the burden of making out his case rests upon the plain- 
 tiff. He is to convince you of our guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 
 It is not our duty to prove ourselves innocent. 
 
 1st. Did each of the defendants publish this Dream? The law 
 defines publishing thus : " The wilful and intentional delivery of a 
 libel, by way of sale or otherwise, is a sufficient publication." 
 [Wood's List., 431.] Waiving all argument in regard to Williams, 
 I submit to you that there is no proof of a publication by Hack &/ 
 Bradbury. They were merely job printers, having no pecuniary in- 
 
terest in the Dew Drop, never selling it, but simply printing it in the 
 way of their trade, after which the whole edition was regularly taken 
 from their office by the editor. I ask you, then, to acquit Hack & 
 Bradbury, whatever disposal you shall see fit to make of the remain- 
 ing defendant. 
 
 2d. Was this Dream written and published of and concerning 
 the plaintiff? 
 
 On this point, you are to hold the plaintiff to strict proof. 
 
 If the publication applies only to a class of persons, then the 
 plaintiff cannot maintain his action, even though he be one of that 
 class. He must convince you that he is the person specially alluded 
 to. To this point, I cite White v. Delevan, 17 Wendell's Reports, 
 49. 
 
 Now, 1 contend that this Dream is a vivid and faithful picture of 
 any and every dram shop in the State. No one of Satan's emissa- 
 ries, who does his master's bidding by ministering to the baser appe- 
 tites of our nature, has the right to say, " I am the original of this 
 portraiture." Why, then, does William Wilbar claim a monopoly 
 in this fancy sketch ? Is his tippling-shop pre-eminently "the house 
 of human slaughter?" To this, it is replied, that the Dream speaks 
 of "one Wilbar." But, there are two Wilbars who keep dram-shops 
 in " Rum Hollow," in Taunton. And if it be doubtful to whicfi 
 the Dream applies, then this action must fail. Why, then, does the 
 plaintiff say of* himself, " Behold the man ! " Is the picture so life- 
 like, that there can be no mistake as to the original ? Is it a true 
 likeness ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I am fully sensible of the load under which the de- 
 fendants' case staggers at this precise point ! The plaintiff's lead- 
 ing witness has testified, that, on reading the Dream, he thought it 
 referred to William Wilbar, because it was such a perfect description 
 of his grog-shop so striking in its general outlines so apt in its 
 minute particulars ! And methinks I hear the plaintiff now saying, 
 " What, not mean me when you penned this Dream ! Why, never 
 did sunbeams more faithfully impress the living lineaments of the 
 human countenance on the daguerreotype plate, than this Dream 
 portrays my house of human slaughter in Rum Hollow. Not mean 
 me ? Impossible ! " Really, I fear we shall have to abandon this 
 ground of our defence. For, all the witnesses represent the plain- 
 tiff's establishment as a real hell-hole, a very Devil of a place; and 
 so does the Dream. Gentlemen, we must yield this point. William 
 Wilbar is the Recruiting Sergeant for perdition in Taunton he ia 
 the Crown Prince of Rum Hollow -and I despair of convincing you 
 
26 
 
 that this Dream is not a faithful sketch of his administration in 
 realm. 
 
 3d. Is this publication libellous? 
 
 To this I reply : undoubtedly it is. It possesses every element of 
 a libel it meets every definition of a libel which the books furnish. 
 It represents somebody as engaged in a most scandalous, infamous 
 and diabolical avocation, and for the sordid purpose of pecuniary 
 gain. If the plaintiff be the person intended, and the publication 
 be false, then there is no amount of damages too great to be wrung 
 from these defendants. There is not one of you, gentlemen, that 
 would have such a paper published of him for all the wealth of Po- 
 tosi. But, if, OR the other hand, the publication be true if it be a 
 faithful delineation of the plaintiff's vocation, then is there no depth 
 of infamy too low for you to consign him to. Let your verdict place 
 a whip in every honest hand, to lash him naked through the world. 
 
 4th. But suppose you shall find, that all the defendants published 
 this Dream that they wrote and published it of and concerning the 
 plaintiff and that it is clearly libellous an important question then 
 arises, viz. : Does the plaintiff sustain such relations to the laws of 
 this Commonwealth in regard to the subject matter of this Dream, 
 as entitle him to come to those laws and ask for redress on accoont 
 of this publication ? 
 
 In discussing this branch of the case, I shall address myself main- 
 ly to the bench for, the questions involved in it are chiefly legal 
 questions. It will be for his Honor to instruct you what the Jaw is 
 on this point, and it will be your duty to apply the rules thus given 
 you, to a few simple facts, about which, with perhaps one or two ex- 
 ceptions, there will be no dispute between me and the learned coun- 
 sel for the plaintiff. 
 
 May it please your Honor, I deny the plaintiff's right to maintain 
 this action, because : 
 
 First ; at the time of the alleged publication of this Dream, he 
 was and had long previous thereto been engaged in the traffic in 
 spirituous liquors, without being duly licensed therefor, according to 
 the 47th chapter of the Revised Statutes; and therefore, in violation 
 of law. 
 
 Second ; during the same period, he kept a tippling-house and 
 dram-shop, in violation of the laws of this Commonwealth. 
 
 Third ; the publication was made of him solely in his vocation as 
 such a trafncer, such a keeper, such a violator of the laws. 
 
 Fourth ; and from these facts (which are for the jury to determ- 
 ine, and which will hardly be disputed) the inference is drawn, both 
 by principle and authority, that this plaintiff, being thus the violator 
 
'21 
 
 of the law, cannot come to that same law for aid in obtaining darn- 
 ages ifor what is published of him in regard to his agency in a busi- 
 ness >in which he thus transgresses the law no matter how libellous 
 the publication be, nor from what motives put forth. 
 
 I will first glance at those general principles on which this rule of 
 iaw is founded. 
 
 As between the Deity and His subjects, human government is a 
 divine institution. But, as between man and man, the ruler and the 
 ruled, human government is, for all the purposes of this argument, 
 a contract. Like other contracts, it has its consideration its con- 
 ditions precedent and subsequent its things to be done and not to 
 be done, by both the contracting parties. For instance, the govern- 
 ment confers benefits and imposes burdens, on its subjects. The 
 bearing of the burdens by the subject, is the condition precedent on 
 which the government confers the benefits upon him. The govern - 
 raent extends its protection to the citizen, and exacts obedience to 
 its requirements from him. The one is a consideration for the oth- 
 ^r. The yielding of the obedience, is the condition precedent on 
 which the protection is extended. The government wards off ag- 
 gression upon the rights of the citizen, and imposes restraints upon 
 his conduct towards itself and his fellow citizens. The submitting 
 to the restraint, is the condition precedent on which the government 
 binds itself to ward off the aggression. All righteous government 
 among men, is based on this reciprocal discharge of duties. Justly 
 does human government, echoing the Divine, say to its subjects, 
 " this do, and thou shalt live." The refusal to discharge these re* 
 ciprocal duties, brings retribution in its train. Does the government 
 fail to confer benefits, to extend protection, to repel aggression, upon 
 its subjects 1 Laws violated with impunity, or open insurrection 
 against its authority, or successful revolution, are the consequences, 
 sooner or later, as the history of Nations, written in blood, proves. 
 The injustice of taxation without representation the imposing of 
 burdens without conferring corresponding benefits, was the cause and 
 the justification of our own glorious revolution. On the other hand, 
 does the citizen refuse to bear the burdens, to yield the obedience, 
 to submit to the restraints, which the goverment imposes, then 
 fines, imprisonment, death itself, are the consequences. 
 
 Let me apply these principles to the case now on trial. And, in 
 so doing, I am far from saying, that in the application of these prin- 
 ciples to all conceivable cases, there will be no need for modifica- 
 tions, for limitations, for exceptions, and especially for explanations. 
 I apply them only as general principles to this particular case. 
 The plaintiff was living in the hourly violation of one of the con- 
 
23 
 
 servative laws of this Commonwealth. In so doing, he was preying 
 upon the vitals of society, sapping the foundations of morality, un- 
 dermining the social edifice. If all his fellow-citizens should do as 
 he was doing, we are a tribe of anarchists, a horde of barbarians, a 
 nation of bandits. An editor libels him in this his vocation: holds 
 it and him in respect to it, up to public detestation. For once in his 
 life, this contemner of the laws, this enemy of social order, enters 
 the sanctuary of the law, not to repair the breaches he has made in 
 its walls, not to offer himself a sacrifice on its altar for his crimes, 
 not to do homage to the Deity which impartial justice has enthroned 
 there; but to invoke the aid of the law in his behalf in regard to the 
 very matter in which he has trampled upon the law and set it at de. 
 fiance ! What, I pray your Honor, has this law to give to the man 
 who invokes its aid under such circumstances ? It owes him noth- 
 ing but punishment for his offences. If he has been libelled, it is 
 his own rebellious hand which has plucked down scorn and infamy 
 on his own head. He is eating the fruit of his own doings. Let 
 him be filled with his own devices. He has sown to the wind. Let 
 him not shrink from reaping the whirlwind. 
 
 William Wilbar, in respect to the subject matter of the alleged li- 
 bel, refuses to bear the burdens which the law imposes. Why should 
 he enjoy its benefits ? He scoffs at its requirement of obedience. 
 Why should he be sheltered under its protecting wing ? He breaks 
 loose from all restraint upon his conduct in this regard burls ruin 
 and death round the land defies the penalty for his crimes. Why 
 should the law, which he thus despises and contemns, ward off ag- 
 gressions upon him ? Does he dare to come to a government of 
 law, and ask it to aid him in obtaining damages for a libel published 
 of him in respect to his agency in the sale of spirituous liquors ? 
 Why, the law, in this regard, is his worst enemy. It has long been 
 waiting to get him within its reach, that it might scathe him with its 
 retributions. How dare he pollute its sanctuary with his presence ? 
 Does he flee here for protection 1 His asylum shall be his grave. As 
 plaintiff in this action, he is an OUTLAW. And yet, he comes here, 
 trampling at every step upon the provisions of the 47th chapter of 
 our Revised Statutes, and has the brazen audacity to ask your Hon- 
 or and this Jury to put money in his purse, because a law-abiding 
 citizen has, in characters of fire, blazoned abroad his law-despising, 
 man-destroying, heaven-daring vocation. Let the Bench frown upon 
 him. Let the jury-box flash its indignation around him. Let him 
 be placed outside this temple of Justice which he defiles, and there, 
 clad in sackcloth and ashes, do penance for his legal transgressions 
 and his moral crimes, 
 
29 
 
 Of course, your Honor does not understand me as insisting, that 
 Wilbar should have no protection from the law that he should be 
 subjected to assaults and robberies with impunity. He is a member 
 of society, and however unworthy he may be, society owes it to it- 
 self that it protect him in these respects. But, I speak of him as 
 the plaintiff in a civil action for damages' for a libel on him in re- 
 gard to his agency in an unlawful pursuit. Surely, there can be no 
 principle of law more sound or salutary, than that a party who pur- 
 sues an illegal vocation shall not recover damages for a libel upon 
 him in that vocation. The law will not permit him to take advan- 
 tage of his own wrong, nor will it aid him in making money by his 
 own transgressions. For him and his libeller, so long as the quarrel 
 is confined to them, the law has nothing to give, and from them it 
 has nothing to take. It lets them alone, and will aid neither one of 
 two such wrong doers. Undoubtedly a different rule obtains in 
 criminal prosecutions for libel. There the government has its rights, 
 and the mere illegality of the party's vocation, will not, of itself, 
 constitute a defence fora libel upon him in that vocation : though 
 perhaps, this fact might mitigate the punishment, in case of convic- 
 tion. Again : The rule for which 1 contend is also deducible from 
 all the authorities. 
 
 There are many legal maxims and propositions of general appli- 
 cation, which have their origin in those foundation principles of im- 
 partial justice, from which I deduce this rule. I mention a few of 
 the most familiar, such as : " No man shall take advantage of his 
 .own wrong." 4< He who would have equity must do equity." "Ex 
 turpi contractu actio non oritur." " The law permits no man to 
 stipulate for iniquity." So, the courts will not enforce contracts 
 when founded on a consideration contra bonos mores. Nor will they 
 aid the party, who has paid such a consideration, to recover it back, 
 even though the other party refuse to fulfil the contract. Nor will 
 they aid either one of two gamblers, or sustain a party who sues to 
 recover a wager. In the language of Lord Mansfield, Courts of 
 Justice will not so far forget their dignity as to stoop to aid either one 
 of such parties. So, the Courts will not, in action for assault, sus- 
 tain the plaintiff who was the aggressor. In all such cases, they 
 dismiss the party with the consoling maxim, damnum absque injuria. 
 
 But, we are not compelled to grope among the analogies of the 
 law in search of authorities to support this rule. It is laid down 
 explicitly in the books. 
 
 In 2 Starkie on Slander, 87, (Wendell's edition,) it is said, the 
 plaintiff cannot recover if the vocation in which he is libelled be an 
 illegal one. In 3 Stephens' Nisi Prius, 2222, the rule is laid down 
 
30 
 
 thus : An action cannot be maintained for anything written against 
 a party concerning his conduct in an illegal transaction. A leading 
 case in support of this principle is Hunt v. Bell, 1 Binghanvs Re- 
 ports, 1. The question was elaborately argued, and the Court unan- 
 imously declared that a person who pursues an illegal vocation has 
 no remedy by action for a libel regarding his conduct in such voca- 
 tion. Another leading case, (very similar to that now on trial,) 
 where this rule is broadly laid down, is Manning v. Clement, 7 Bing- 
 ham's R., 362. In Tibbart v. Tipper, 1 Campbell's Reports, 351, 
 it is said by Garrow, that in an action for a libel upon an author, 
 Lord Kenyon admitted evidence of the nature of the plaintiff's 
 works : and it appearing that they were themselves of a libellous 
 and scandalous description, his Lordship threw his parchment at his 
 head, and dismissed him from the Court with infamy. The follow- 
 ing cases and authorities illustrate and enforce the same principle : 
 De Wutz v. Hendricks, 2 Bingham's R., 314 Yrisarri r. Clement, 
 2 C. & P. 223 Southy v. Sherwood Walcot v. Walker, 7 Vesey 
 Jr., 1 and 2 Merivale's R., 435, and other cases cited in 6 Peters- 
 dorff's Abridgement, 557 1 Starkie on Slander, 230, note 6, (Wen- 
 dell's edition) Bush v. Brainard, 1 Cowen's R., 78 Paul v. Fra- 
 zier, 3 Massachusetts Reports, 71 ^Riddle v. Proprietors &,c., 7 
 Massachusetts R., 183 Girardy v. Richardson, 1 Esp. R., 13. See 
 also the celebrated case of Commonwealth v. Chccver, (as reported in 
 the N. Y. Evangelist, July 4, 1835,) where the Attorney General 
 lays down the rule thus : '' What the law allows as lawful, it pro- 
 tects the citizen in doing. And when the people, by the law, declare 
 that no man shall make rum, then if the distiller is libelled, he 
 has no cause of complaint." So, " the law bids these reformers ta 
 forbear to libel a citizen in a business protected and sanctioned by 
 law." 
 
 [The counsel read and commented upon these authorities at con- 
 siderable length. His comments being somewhat technical, we shall 
 not attempt to report them.] 
 
 And now, may it please your Honor, if I have succeeded in satis- 
 fying the Court, that a party who pursues an illegal vocation cannot 
 maintain an action for a libel upon him in that vocation, we ask you 
 to instruct the jury to find, whether this plaintiff was, at the time of 
 the publication of the alleged libel, pursuing such a vocation, and 
 whether the publication is of him in that vocation ; and if they find 
 these issues in the affirmative, then to acquit the defendants, however 
 libellous the publication, and from whatever motives put forth. 
 
 Having now, gentlemen of the jury, finished this exclusively legal 
 discussion, it remains Jo examine before you the two main facts on 
 
31 
 
 which that discussion proceeded, vi/., that the plaintiff was engaged 
 in the traffic in spirituous liquors, without a license, and in keeping 
 a tippl ing-house ; and that the Dream was published of him solely in 
 that capacity. 
 
 These questions are for your determination, and if you find that 
 the plaintiff was so engaged, and that the publication was of him in 
 such vocation, then, should the Court charge you on the point of 
 law I have just been discussing, according to my request, it will be 
 your duty to acquit the defendants without exploring further into the 
 merits of this case. 
 
 Infer not from this, that the defendants are seeking to escape 
 through some technical flaw which ingenuity has found out for them* 
 No : they are here to meet this case in all its aspects. On every 
 point which it presents, they ask for no mercy and they will show no 
 quarter. They defy the plaintiff, and tell him he shall have ample 
 satisfaction on every issue tendered. But, he has dared to summon 
 them into a court of law, and they will hold him to its most stringent 
 rules and " cavii on the ninth part of a hair.' 7 They will teach him, 
 that as respects the issue he tenders to them at this bar, he has no 
 rights here. They will brand him " OUTLAW !" The sanctuary 
 where he has fled, shall become the altar on which he is offered up. 
 He has invoked JUSTICE. Let him have it. It shall be to him a 
 consuming fire. But, that their triumph may be complete, they will 
 waive all objection to his forcible entry, never asking quare clausum 
 fregit, and give him a locus standi in Court, and then, by proving 
 the truth of the libel, will drive him in disgrace from your bar. Then,. 
 
 " Lay on, Macduff ; 
 And damn'd be he that first cries. Hold ! Enough ! " 
 
 To the point : 
 
 First. Did the plaintiff traffic in spirituous liquors without a li- 
 cense 1 Did he keep a tippling-house, in violation of law ? 
 
 The fact that he was not licensed according to the provisions of 
 the Revised Statutes, is admitted. 
 
 I will not weary your patience by going over the great amount of 
 evidence introduced to show that he trafficed in ardent spirits and 
 kept a dram-shop. Nor will I insult your understandings by seem- 
 ing to doubt for one moment, that every mind on your panel is fully 
 made up on these points. As to the great extent and ruinous conse- 
 quences of his traffic, and the atrocious character of his dram-shop,, 
 I shall have something to say while examining another branch of our 
 defence. 
 
 Second. Was this Dream written and published of the plaintiff, 
 
:>oleiy in his vocation us a dealer in spirituous liquors and the keepei* 
 of a tippling-house, in violation of law? Or, did the defendants in 
 their publication travel out of the line of his business and attack 
 him in other respects ? 
 
 The discussion of this question so closely embraces another, that 
 for our convenience, I will examine them both at once. Then let us 
 also inquire : 
 
 Third. Is this Dream, when subjected to a fair interpretation, 
 true ? Is it, when its real meaning is ascertained, a justifiable criti- 
 cism upon the plaintiff's business. 
 
 Here is the very gist of this case. If we satisfy you that this pub- 
 lication is true, his Honor will instruct you that we are entitled to' 
 your verdict. It accords with the common serise of mankind as well 
 ns the law of the land, that in civil actions for libel, the establishing' 
 of the truth of the libel, constitutes a complete defence to the action. 
 
 You are aware of the grounds on which we base this part of our 
 defence. We have set forth on the record, that this publication was 
 made solely in regard to the traffic in spirituous liquors in tippl ing- 
 houses and dram-shops that the plaintiff was engaged in such traf- 
 fic that the publication was not a literal description of scenes which 
 had transpired, but an allegorical description of the nature and ten- 
 dencies of such traffic, and of the effects of the excessive use of 
 such liquors that the terms and epithets employed in this publica- 
 tion were not literal descriptions of the persons or agents engaged in 
 such traffic, nor of the kinds of liquors sold by them, but allegorical 
 and metonymical descriptions of the occupation of such persons or 
 agents, and of the nature and tendencies of such traffic, and of the 
 effects of the excessive use of such liquors and that, as thus under- 
 stood, the publication is true, and was a justifiable criticism upon the 
 plaintiff's vocation. 
 
 Let us now examine this piece of writing, and search out its 
 meaning. 
 
 It is to be read and construed by you, sitting as jurors, precisely 
 as you would read and construe it at your own firesides. In entering* 
 a Court of law, it has brought with it no new rules of construction. 
 It purports to be an allegory. It bears for its caption the words, "A 
 Dream." 
 
 This kind of writing is among the earliest known to the history of 
 letters. In every age, it has been among the commonest modes of 
 conveying thought and feeling. Dr. Campbell, in his celebrated 
 work on the philosophy of rhetoric, gives the true reason for this, 
 viz. : " It addresses itself to the natural mind of man." It enters 
 largely into every species of composition, sacred and profane. To 
 
33 
 
 It we are indebted, under Divine inspiration, for some of the most 
 beautiful, sublime and instructive passages in the Bible. It is the 
 foundation of all poetry, whether it be the majestic verse of Milton 
 or the simple ballad of Burns. Its occasional introduction kindles 
 a smile on the face of the gravest essay, while its more constant use 
 never wearies, but always charms in the lighter novel and tale. In 
 adopting this kind of writing " to hold the mirror up to nature ; to 
 show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image," the defendants 
 have but obeyed the instincts of our common humanity. 
 
 Let me point out one or two of the principal rules which should 
 guide us in the interpretation of this species of composition. 
 
 It always has a meaning, but it is not prima fade ; a literal mean- 
 ing. 
 
 It should never be subjected to a forced, wilibmogeneous construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Nor should it be made to contradict itself, by construing one por- 
 tion of an entire piece literally, and the rest figuratively. It should 
 be construed as a whole, and in consistency with its general scope 
 and tenor. 
 
 The reader is bound to take it for what the writer intended it to 
 be, unless compelled to put another interpretation upon it. To this 
 end, he should get at the mind of the writer, the scene before him, 
 and his object and aim. 
 
 The law, in actions of libel, always asks, what did the writer 
 mean how shall we understand him ? And the best criterion to 
 decide these questions is to inquire, how would an intelligent reader, 
 who was acquainted with the subject matter and with the feelings of 
 the writer, and who appreciated his object, and was skilled in that 
 sort of composition, have understood him. 
 
 In the light of these rules, let us interpret this Dream. 
 
 The first paragraph shows the motive of the writer. " As we sat 
 in our room, thinking what more could be done to advance the cause 
 of Temperance, we fell asleep," &c. There he exhibits his naked 
 heart. Let him have the benefit of its philanthropic pulsations. 
 What is the evil which he would remove ? INTEMPERANCE the 
 master-curse of our country a curse which drains it of $140,000,- 
 000 annually, to purchase a beverage which poisons, not refreshes 
 which fills our alms-houses with 250,000 paupers which crowds, 
 our jails and penitentiaries with 50,000 criminals which instigates 
 200 murders annually which causes two-thirds of the suicides, and 
 one-third of the insanity in the nation, destroying the bodies, de- 
 throning the reason and ruining the souls of the victims .which ex- 
 cites half the quarrels, and causes half the accidents which distract 
 5 
 
34 
 
 and appal society which recruits an army of 500,UUU American 
 drunkards, curses to themselves, pests in the community, entailing 
 disgrace and poverty and wounds and sorrow on countless relations 
 and friends which mantles the nation in mourning, by consigning 
 annually to premature graves 40,000 of its citizens which, in a 
 word, stands out prominently in the midst of the innumerable phys- 
 ical, social, mental and moral evils which afflict our race, towering 
 aloft, the monarch of the realm. 
 
 To do what they may to arrest the march of this abomination of 
 desolation, my clients have consecrated their lives. They saw this 
 plaintiff busily employed in swelling this tide of ruin. They sketched 
 his likeness and hung it up before the public eye, that strong and 
 virtuous men might abhor him, and weak and erring men might shun 
 
 O t O O 
 
 him as they would the walking pestilence. For this they deserve not 
 Only the verdict of your acquittal, but the tribute of your applause. 
 
 In this same paragraph, the defendants describe the dram-shop of 
 the plaintiff, as tf that house of human slaughter;" and in another, 
 as " this den of the Devil. 75 These are figurative expressions, and 
 I only mention this because, being in the introductory part of the 
 Dream, they furnish the key of interpretation to unlock the meaning 
 of the whole. But, properly understood, was not Wilbar's shop a house 
 of human slaughter ? From all the testimony, it appears that he 
 was a large dealer in intoxicating liquors the largest in " Rum 
 Hollow," so called, in Taunton, Signs, bearing the wofds, : "Rum," 
 " Brandy," " Gin," were suspended on his door, giving token of 
 what was on sale within. Shameless exhibition of his infamous 
 trade ! His shop was crowded with hogsheads, barrels, kegs, de- 
 canters, and bottles of these liquid poisons. Night and day was it 
 haunted with miserable creatures, to be counted by scores, in every 
 stage of intoxication. The old drunkard, from whose brow inebrie- 
 ty was effacing the last lineaments of God's image, Was there. The 
 youth, sowing the first seeds of that appetite whose ripe fruits would 
 poison body and soul, was there. Graceless woman, exchanging her 
 virtue for rum ; unsuspecting childhood, just crossing the threshold 
 of temptation, were there. Brawling, quarreling, blasphemy* were 
 there. The streams of liquid fire were unsealed, and constantly run- 
 ning, month in and month out, every hour in the day, not excepting 
 the sacred Sabbath. At night, the wretched customers of this plain- 
 tiff, who were too intoxicated to stagger to their affrighted homes, 
 were pitched out of the doors, often by the dozen, to wallow in the 
 mud or chill in the snow, while the inhuman author of their miseries 
 closed the gates of his hell and went home to sleep, not in the peni- 
 tentiary, but in his own bed with none to molest or make him afraid. 
 
Was it not a house of human slaughter r Was it not the temple of 
 Drunkenness, where this plaintiff, as ministering priest, offered up the 
 .daily sacrifice to his remorseless Deity ? Says the poet Young : 
 
 " In our world, Death 4eputes 
 Intemperance to do the work of Age ; 
 And, hanging up .the quiver nature gave him, 
 As slow of execution, for dispatch 
 Sends forth licensed butchers ; bids them slay 
 Their sheep (the silly sheep they fleeced before) 
 And toss him twice ten thousand at a meal. 
 
 O what heaps of slain 
 Cry out for vengeance on them 1" 
 
 Our butcher, unlike those of Young's time, was not licensed. 
 
 The Dream goes on to say, that " the presiding genius of the 
 place, was the incarnate devil. On an elevated seat in the back part 
 of this indescribable hell, he sat ; while ever and anon there issued 
 from his mouth flames of fire which withered and scorched the delu- 
 ded wretches who had been enticed within," &,c. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, that all writers, sacred and profane, serious 
 and comic, prosaic and poetic, have installed the Devil as the pre- 
 siding deity over the orgies of Drunkenness. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah, in lamenting the intemperance of his time, 
 says, after describing the drunken feasts of the Jews, " my people 
 are gone into captivity, and hell hath enlarged herself." Paul, in 
 warning the Corinthians against intemperance, says, " Ye cannot 
 drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils." Shakspeare 
 puts into the mouth of Cassio, after a debauch, these words : " O 
 thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, 
 let us call thee devil." Again : tc Every inordinate cup is unblessed, 
 and the ingredient is a devil." The writers of fiction and poetry 
 furnish innumerable illustrations of a like character. I quote but 
 one more, which, though long, is graphic, and helps on the argument. 
 It is by Makay, a living British poet, and is entitled 
 
 THE DREAM OF THE REVELLER. 
 
 Around the board the guests were met, the lights above them gleaming, 
 
 And in their cups replenished oft, the ruddy wine was streaming ; [bounded, 
 
 Their cheeks were flushed, their eyes were bright, their hearts with pleasure 
 
 The song was sung, the toast was giv'n, and loud the revel sounded ; 
 
 I drained my bumper with the rest, and cried, " away with sorrow, 
 
 Let me be happy for to-day, and care not for to-morrow !" 
 
 But as I spoke, my sight grew dim, and slumber deep came o'er me, 
 
 And 'mid the whirl of mingling tongues, this vision passed before me, 
 
36 
 
 >lethought I aaw a demon rise ; lu held a mighty bicker. 
 
 Whose burnished aides ran daily oVr, with floods of burning liquor : 
 
 Around him pressed a clunvrous crowd, to taste this liquor greedy, 
 
 But chiefly came the poor and sad, the stiff Ymg and the needy ; 
 
 All those oppressed by grief and debt, the dissolute and lazy, 
 
 Blear-eyed old men, and reckless youths, and palsied women crazy. 
 
 i4 Give, give !" they cry, " give, give us drink to drown all thoughts of sorrow^ 
 
 41 If we are happy for to-day, we care not for to-morrow!" 
 
 The first drop warms their shivering skins, and drives away their sadness, 
 The second lights their sunken eyes, and fills their souls with gladness ; 
 The third drop makes them shout and roar, and play each furious antic, 
 The fourth drop boils their very blood, and the fifth drop drives them frantic. 
 1C Drink ! 5> says the demon, li drink your fill ! drink of these waters mellow, 
 ' They'll make your bright eyes blear arid dull, and turn your white skins yellow, 
 " They'll fill your home with care and grief, and clothe your back with tatters, 
 tk They'll fill your h^ar.t with evil thoughts, but never mind what matters?" 
 
 u Though virtue sink, and reasoning fall, and social ties dissever, 
 
 ril be your friend in hour of need, and find you homes forever ; 
 
 For I have built three mansions high, three .strong and goodly houses, 
 
 A work-house for the jolly soul, who all his life carouses. 
 
 An hospital to lodge the sot, oppress'd by pain and anguish. 
 
 A prison full of dungeons deep, where hopeless felons languish. 
 
 So drain the cup and drain again, and drown all thought of sorrow, 
 
 Be happy if you can to-day, and never mind to-morrow /" 
 
 But well he knows, this demon old, how vain is all his preaching, 
 The ragged crew that round him flock, are heedless of his teaching ; 
 Even as they hear his fearful words, they cry with shouts of laughter, 
 " Out on the fool ! who mars to-day with thoughts of an hereafter. 
 tl We care not for thy houses three, we live but for .the presc?it : 
 <{ And merry will we make it yet, and quaff our bumpers pleasant." 
 Loud laughs the fiend to -hear them speak, and lifts his brimming bicker, 
 11 Body and soul are mine!" quoth he " I'll have them both for liquor !" 
 
 Was not the author of our Dream right when he installed the in- 
 carnate Devil as the presiding deity of William Wilbar's dram-shop? 
 
 The Dream further says : " Around the store were arranged casks, 
 barrels and demijohns, some of which were labelled as follows : 
 MAN-KILLER MANIAC BEVERAGE ORPHAN MAKER SOUL DES- 
 TROYER THE DEVIL'S SYRUP DRUNKARD'S COUGH and DELIRIUM 
 TREMENS, &,c." 
 
 Of course, this is not literal. It is the use of the rhetorical figure 
 called metonomy, i. e., putting the effect for the cause. The passage 
 simply means, that the excessive use of the liquors sold by the plain- 
 tiff, often produced the effects named in these labels. As thus inter- 
 preted, the passage is true. 
 
37 
 
 Ardent spirits are ti " MAN-KILLER." They destroy life by pro* 
 ducing disease. Speaking to this point, how frightful is the cata^ 
 
 logue of Milton ; 
 
 "All maladies 
 
 -Of gb&stly pastti,or racking torture, qualms 
 Of heart-sick agony, all feverous kinds, 
 Convulsions, epilepsies^ fierce catarrhs, 
 Intestine, stone and ulcer, cholic pangs, 
 Demoniac phreozy, moping melancholy, 
 nd moon-struck madness, pining atrophy, 
 Marasmus, and wide wasting pestilence, 
 Dropsies and asthmas, and joint-racking rheums ! " 
 
 What a fearful list of diseases, produced by intemperance, did 
 Doct. Jewett give us from the stand. He also stated that the intem- 
 perate patient was more difficult to cure than others, his habits baff- 
 ling the skill of the physician. Says the celebrated Dr. Rush, 
 '.' Spirituous liquors destroy more lives than the sword. War has 
 its intervals of destruction ; but spirits operate at all times and sea- 
 sons upon human life." He adds, that " ardent spirits dispose the 
 system to disease of all kinds." To the same effect is the testimo- 
 ny of all the distinguished physicians of this country arid England, 
 and of all the leading medical societies in both nations. 
 
 But ardent spirits instigate to murder, produce death by suicide, 
 accidents, and various other means, and so are properly called " Man- 
 killer." Sir Matthew Hale, the great light of criminal jurisprudence, 
 says, " if all the murders, manslaughters and rapes, which have been 
 committed during the 20 years I have been on the Bench, were di- 
 vided into five parls, four of them would be found to have resulted 
 from intemperance." Says a distinguished French lawyer, (i of 1129 
 murders committed in France during four years, 446 were the con- 
 sequence of quarrels in tippling-houses." The Coroner of London 
 said recently, " I think intoxication is the cause of one half the in- 
 quests that are held in the metropolis." Rev. Dr. Cathcart, of Pa., 
 kept an account of all the murders committed in this country in one 
 year. He says, " of the 209 murders, a very large proportion are 
 known to have been occasioned by the immediate use of ardent 
 spirits." The late Chief Justice Parsons said, " I have been so long 
 in the habit of hearing criminals of all grades refer all their miser- 
 ies to intemperance, that I have ceased to ask them the cause of 
 their ruin." S. Chipman, Esq,, who has visited every penitentiary, 
 jail and work-house in the State of New York, in search of facts, 
 says, that in his opinion, " more than five-sixths of the persons com- 
 mitted on criminal charges are intemperate." Hugh Maxwell, Esq., 
 of New York city, has stated, that of the twenty cases of murder 
 
38 
 
 tried by him while prosecuting attorney, every one was caused by 
 intemperance. I have lying before me a mass of testimony to the 
 same effect from judges, prosecuting officers, and wardens of state 
 prisons, all over the country. I will not weary you with detailing it. 
 Rev. Mr. Curtis, the worthy Chaplain of our own State prison, has 
 told you from the stand, that in his opinion, from an observation of 
 it-he causes of crime for twenty years, more than three-fourths of all 
 jthe crimes, from the petty assault up to red-handed murder, are at- 
 tributable to intemperance. Dr. Jewett has testified that the number 
 .of deaths in our country annually, caused by drunkenness, is more 
 than 35,000. 
 
 But, we find proof lying at the very door of the plaintiff's shop, 
 that rum is a man-killer. The poor wretch Kenny, a regular cus- 
 tomer of Wilbar's, staggers from his counter and in two days dies in 
 a horrible fit of delirium tremens. Poor Barton, another constant 
 customer of Wilbar's, and whose Y/idow with her weeds fresh upon 
 her brow, has told you the sad story of her husband's fate he seizes 
 an axe in a fit of delirium tremens and attempts to slaughter his wife 
 and children, and finally dies in the Worcester Asylum. Truly is 
 rum a man-killer, and William Wilbar traffics in i( distilled death 
 and liquid damnation." 
 
 So are ardent spirits a " MANIAC BEVERAGE." Dr. Jewett has 
 told you they are a fruitful source of insanity. The reports of the 
 Worcester Asylum abundantly attest this truth. Of the 272 patients 
 admitted in one year, the insanity of 56 was caused by intemperance : 
 and I select but an average statement. Out of 495 patients admit- 
 ted into the Lunatic Asylum, in Liverpool, 257 came to that state 
 through intemperance. Well might the drunken Cassio say, " O 
 that men should put an enemy in their mouths, to steal away their 
 brains ! " And truly does Holy Writ say of men like this plaintiff, 
 " Cursed is he that putteth the cup to his neighbor's lips ! " 
 
 So are ardent spirits an " ORBHAN MAKER." They make wives 
 widows, and children fatherless. They send both parents to early 
 graves the father dies with delirium tremens the mother hides her 
 broken heart in the tomb the children find their refuge in the alms- 
 house. We may say of this infamous plaintiff, He hath no child- 
 ren ! " for, methinks a father would pity and spare. 
 
 Rum is a " SOUL-DESTROYER." Well did Rev. Mr. Curtis define 
 the soul to consist of the reason, the will and the affections. All 
 these, intemperance destroys. Nor can we forget that awful passage 
 of Holy Writ, il No drunkard shall enter into the kingdom of God." 
 Wo to this plaintiff when Divine Justice " maketh inquisition for 
 blood ! " 
 
39 
 
 Ardent spirits ate ' 4 THE DEVIL'S SYRUP." This is an apt name 
 lor what the eloquent Robert Hall called *' distilled death and liquid 
 damnation." Wilbar did sell the Devil's Syrup, and he was the dev- 
 il's agent. Qui facit per alium, facit per sc. 
 
 .Rum is the " DRUNKARD'S COUGH AND DELIRIUM TREMENS." 
 Dr. Jevvett has described to you the peculiar cough of the drunkard, 
 and has told you that nothing else produces delirium tremens but al- 
 cohol. So say all the authorities. Of all the diseases which appal 
 mankind, delirium tremcns, the trembling delirium, the fearful mad- 
 ness, is the most horrible. This terrible insanity, summons around 
 the bedside of the tortured wretch, all that is loathsome on earth and 
 frightful in hell. Other kinds of madness are often accompanied 
 with pleasing delusions, this never. At one moment, the sufferer 
 fancies himself covered with disgusting vermin. At the next, le- 
 gions of devils glare upon him and torment him before his time. 
 Methinks the sacred penman must have had this appalling disease 
 before him when he spoke of the wrath of God as " the cup of trem- 
 bling " the cup of tremcns ! May a merciful Providence never 
 commend to this plaintiff the fearful cup which he So often applied 
 to the lips of his neighbors. May he never meet the fate of Kenny 
 and Barton, whom his murderous vocation sent to the bar of God 
 before their time. 
 
 The passage of the Dream on which I have been commenting, al- 
 so states, that signs were nailed to the walls of the plaintiff's shop, 
 bearing inscriptions like these : " MEN TRAINED HERE FOR THE GAL- 
 LOWS. LESSONS GIVEN IN SUICIDE. CHILDREN INSTRUCTED IN THE 
 
 ROAD TO DEATH ! " 
 
 The same remark applies to this part of the passage, as to the 
 the other. It is not literal, but is a metonymical description of the 
 liquors sold by the plaintiff putting the effect for the Cause. It is in 
 evidence, that by the door of this shop were signs bearing the words 
 Rum, Brandy, Gin, &c. These, and other similar liquors, were 
 largely sold by the plaintiff. According to our rule of construction, 
 this passage of the libel is true. 
 
 Ardent spirits do " TRAIN MEN FOR THE GALLOWS." I have al- 
 ready shown that a large share of the murders are caused by intem- 
 perance ; and therefore, the dram-shop furnishes a large share of the 
 victims for the extreme penalty of the law. Two of the recent mur- 
 ders in this State, for which the offenders have been executed, were 
 committed through the influence of intoxication. The rumseller 
 and the hangman stand to each other in the relation of producer and 
 consumer. The one trains men for the gallows; the other hangs 
 them on it. 
 
40 
 
 Intoxicating liquors do GIVE LESSONS IN SUICIDE. Suicide is self- 
 destruction. Mankind are suspended by i( the brittle thread " over 
 the grave, lie who cuts that thread by a single stroke of his own 
 hand and drops into eternity, is a pell-murderer. He who wears 
 away its fibres by constant friction, and weakens it, so that it pre- 
 maturely breaks, is also a self-murderer, a gradual suicide. Intem- 
 perance produces both these results. An able medical writer states, 
 that more than half the suicides in this country I now speak of di- 
 rect and instantaneous self-murder are committed through the in- 
 
 o 
 
 fluence of intemperance. You recollect the statement 1 read from , 
 the Coroner of London, that intoxication was the cause of half the 
 inquests held by him. As to gradual self-murder, we have the testi- 
 mony of Dr. Jewett, that in America, intemperance, by slow but 
 sure steps, carries its tens of thousands to an annual grave. Dr. 
 Rush declares that " the constant use of ardent spirits, like a bold 
 invader, seizes on the very vitals of the constitution, and does not 
 give over till it has destroyed its victims." On this point, the testi- 
 mony of medical men is overwhelming. Then, figuratively, Wil- 
 liam Wilbar's shop was an establishment where lessons were given 
 in self-destruction. No thanks to him or his accursed trade, that 
 half his customers, long ere this, have not, with suicidal hands, 
 opened to themselves the Gate of Fear. 
 
 The dram-shop does "INSTRUCT CHILDREN IN THE ROAD TO 
 DEATH." 
 
 It is in evidence that children were often seen in and around the 
 plaintiff's shop sometimes in search of a drunken father some- 
 times to purchase rum sometimes as spectators of, or participants 
 in, the Bacchanalian revels over which \Vilbar and his great partner, 
 the Devil, presided. 
 
 Does intemperance lead to death ? Who doubts it? Is the child 
 apt in following the example of his elders, especially his parents ? 
 Says Solomon, train up a child in the way he should go, and when 
 he is old he will not depart from it. Pope's expressive line has be- 
 come an adage just as the twig is bent the tree 's inclined. Says 
 the same philosophic poet : 
 
 Vice is a monster of so frightful mem, 
 As to be hated needs but to be seen ; 
 Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face, 
 We first endure, then pity, then embrace. 
 
 The admitted fact that the offspring of intemperate parents are 
 more apt to become intemperate than those of sober progenitors, 
 arises also from another cause, viz. : the appetite for strong drink ac- 
 
41 
 
 quired by the parent is, by natural generation, communicated to the 
 ctiild. This appetite is a disease ; and like many other diseases, is 
 hereditary. Aristotle says, (i Drunken women bring forth children 
 like unto themselves/' Dr. Darwin thus expresses himself, " all the 
 diseases arising from drinking spirituous liquors, are liable to become 
 hereditary, even to the third generation, gradually increasing, if the 
 cause be continued, till the family becomes extinct." The celebra- 
 ted Dr. Caldwell says, '" By habits of intemperance, parents not only 
 degrade and ruin themselves, but transmit the elements of like deg- 
 radation and ruin to their posterity." See also, the testimony of Dr. 
 Sewall, in his Pathology of Drunkenness, page 14, and a large ac- 
 cumulation of facts and opinions in the Prize Essay called Bacchus 
 ^two works which I commend to the careful study of this plaintiff, 
 and which will teach him that his dram-shop is the gateway of hell, 
 opening the avenues of death to the old and the young. And if his 
 learned counsel will con them over, he will be satisfied of the truth 
 of the inuendo he has thrown into this part of our Dream, namely, 
 that the plaintiff was engaged in the detestable crime of corrupting 
 the minds and hearts of the youth of this Commonwealth. 
 
 The Dream also states, that " Directly over the place wherfe Wil- 
 bar stood, were suspended a skull and cross-bones." Although the 
 Counsel who drew the declaration has twice set forth this passage, he 
 has not seen fit to append to it any inuendoes. He seems to be at 
 fault in divining its meaning. I will assist him in interpreting this 
 part of the Dream. The skull and cross-bones are the emblem of 
 death. They are sculptured on grave-stones to tell the passer-by 
 that Death has been busy there. How appropriately, then* is this 
 death emblem suspended over the head of the human butcher who 
 slaughters mankind in Rum Hollow, in Taunton ? 
 
 We have now reached that passage in this publication, where the 
 plaintiff, when driven from every other spot, will take his stand and 
 ask for your verdict. I will read it : 
 
 " Customers now flocked in, some cufsing arid swearing, others 
 quarreling and fighting. Among the number was a young man who 
 stepped up to the counter and called for a glass of LUCIFER'S ELIXIR. 
 At this moment, a fiendish chuckle was heard, and Wilbar, looking 
 towards the Devil, clapped his thumb upon his nose and with a sig- 
 nificant look, which was answered by his majesty, proceeded to pour 
 oiit the burning liquid. The young man drank to the very bottom 
 of the glass and with a horrid yell fell down dead upon the floor. 
 His pockets were immediately rifled of their contents, and lest life 
 should not be entirely extinct, another glass was poured down his 
 thrtiat." 
 
 6 
 
ts 
 
 I mention lierc, (and it will become important soon,) that in his 
 declaration, the plaintiff has omitted those words which I have 
 marked in italics. 
 
 lie insists, that however it may be with the rest of the Dream, 
 the writer has, in this paragraph, departed from the line of the plain- 
 tiff's vocation as a rum-seller, and charged him specifically and Jifc- 
 erally with the crimes of murder and robbery. In his various inu- 
 endoes he says, this paragraph means, that " the young man drank 
 of a beverage given to him knowingly and maliciously by said Wil- 
 bar, whereby he died that the said Wilbar, by force and arms, did 
 violently and feloniously take the property of that young man, so de- 
 ceased as aforesaid, and appropriate the same to his own use that 
 said Wilbar wilfully, wickedly and with malice aforethought, did 
 with force and arms make an assault upon the said young man, and 
 whereby he wil fully and designedly took his life, with the intent 
 thereby to rob him of his money, goods and chattels that by the 
 aiding and abetting of Wilbar, men were wilfully and maliciously 
 killed 4hat he administered to some person in his shop a deadly 
 poison which caused instant death that he committed the sacrelig- 
 ious and felonious act of robbing from the dead," &,c., &/c. 
 
 Now, may it please your Honor, we ask the Court to instruct the 
 Jury, that the plaintiff is bound to satisfy them that the meaning set 
 forth in his inuendoes, is the true meaning of the paragraph, and 
 that if they find it does not mean what the plaintiff has set forth, 
 then he has, so far as this paragraph is concerned, failed to make out 
 his case and this too, even though they should be of the opinion, 
 that the paragraph, rightly construed, is libellous, and the defendants 
 have failed to prove it to be true. To these points, I cite, 1 Starkie 
 on Slander, 421, and 2 Starkie, 51-2, (Wendell's edition,) and Old- 
 ham V. Peake, 2 W. Blackstone's R., 959. 
 
 We also ask your Honor to instruct the Jury, that if they find,, 
 that by omitting the words " clapped his thumb upon his nose, and 
 with a significant look, which was answered by his majesty " the' 
 plaintiff has altered the meaning or changed the sense, or has con- 
 fused the meaning and rendered the sense doubtful, that then he must,, 
 so far as this paragraph is concerned, fail in his action ; for, be has- 
 not set out the libel which the defendants published. 
 
 That this is sound law, I cite 1 Starkie on Slander, 377, 380, 381, 
 and note (c) at the bottom of that page (Wendell's edition.) Also,. 
 Tabbart v. Tipper, 1 Campbell's R., 352-3. 
 
 I submit to you, gentlemen of the Jury, two questions First? 
 does this paragraph mean what the plaintiff has set forth in his inu- 
 endoes ? Second, what does it mean, when fairly construed ? 
 
43 
 
 This paragraph is to be read in the light of the whole article, and 
 m consistency with its general character and scope. When it pur- 
 ports to be and is, in its outlines and in its details, an allegory, a 
 dream, you should, before consenting that any part of it is a literal 
 statement of events which transpired, be forced to that conclusion. 
 
 Now, did a young man call for a glass of Lucifer's Elixir, literal* 
 ly 1 Was a fiendish chuckle heard, literally ? Did Wilbar look 
 towards the Devil, literally ? Did he clap his thumb upon his nose, 
 literally ? Was his significant look answered by his majesty, liter- 
 ally ? Gentlemen, there is not one of you who, at the first glance, 
 does not see that this is a mere fancy sketch. Then, for the same 
 reasons that you believe this to be a fancy sketch, you must believe 
 the rest of the paragraph to be but a continuation of that sketch. 
 No man but this plaintiff, no thing but this writ, is so absurd as to 
 believe that the writer, with no other passport but a comma, suddenly 
 leaped from the airy regions of fancy to the terra firma of reality. - 
 Then, Wilbar did not literally pour out the burning liquid for, 
 there was no Lucifer's Elixir there. The young man did not liter- 
 ally drink it for, there was no young man there who called for Lu- 
 cifer's Elixir. He did not literally fall down dead on Wilbar's floor 
 for, he was no more literally there than was the Devil. And, not 
 being there nor falling down dead, another glass of Lucifer's Elixir 
 was not poured down his throat, nor were his pockets rifled. 
 
 Thus, gentlemen, all these terrible inuendoes 3 which the fertile or 
 frightened imagination of the learned counsel has conjured up, van- 
 ish into thin air on examination, as Macbeth's ghost vanished on be- 
 ing questioned. I think the counsel must have been dreaming when 
 he drafted this part of his declaration. And he might well go to 
 sleep over a writ three yards long. This, too, will account for his 
 leaving out those words the very key which unlocks the meaning 
 of the whole passage. 
 
 But, say you, what had the writer in his eye when he penned this 
 paragraph what meaning did he intend to convey ? This, he was 
 sketching with a free, bold pencil what might naturally happen, and 
 what has happened a thousand times, in such low, filthy, cursed tip- 
 pling houses as that kept by William Wilbar. He meant to write it 
 so plainly that he that run might read it, and a wayfaring man though 
 a grog-seller, need not err in regard to it, that rum murdered men, 
 and that the rumseller, who filched money from the pockets of his 
 customers and gave them rum in return, was a robber ; and, gentle- 
 men, look you there, and BEHOLD THE MAN ! 
 
 I have now gone through with the main points in those parts of 
 this dream which the plaintiff has incorporated into his writ. He 
 
he-is omitted many portions of it and i follow his example. I have 
 dwelt long upon this p;irt of the case, beeause I wished to satisfy 
 you beyond all reasonable doubt, that this whole publication was 
 written of the plaintiff in his vocation as a dealer in spirituous li- 
 quors, in violation of law ; and that, in its outlines and details, it is 
 true, and is a justifiable criticism upon his vocation. And, so am.ple 
 has been our proof, that I feel authorized to brand this J)ream, with 
 all its glowing epithets and lines of fire, into jhe forehead of this 
 man, telling him to wear it as a fitting frontlet, that the world may 
 take knowledge of his character and occupation. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, I think I might stqphere and ask for your 
 verdict. But, as it is impossible for me to divine your thoughts, 
 and as it is but discharging a duty I owe to my clients, to leave no 
 part of this case unexamined, I will investigate the only remaining 
 question submitted to your decision. 
 
 If, on all the issues I have argued to you, you should find for the 
 plaintiff, an important question then arises : What damages shall he 
 recover at your hands ? 
 
 The foundation of the action for libel is, that by the publication 
 complained of, the plaintiff has sustained an injury which he seeks to 
 repair by compensation in damages. In the present case, William 
 Wilbar alleges in his writ, with vast amplitude of statement, that this 
 Dream has injured his business and stained his character ; and he 
 comes to your bar and asks for money to repair his losses in trade 
 and reputation. 
 
 The plaintiff sets forth in his list of grievances, that he was en- 
 gaged in a wide and profitable business that he was diligent in 
 trade that. he was carrying on his business with the reasonable ex- 
 pectation of thereby gaining an honest livelihood and a just prefer- 
 ment and good estimation with all the good and honest citizens of 
 Taunton that he was a true, honest, just and faithful citizen of this 
 Commonwealth -that by his diligence in trade he had obtained a 
 good name, fame and credit among his honest, worthy and reputable 
 neighbors and that these defendants, envying his reputation, and 
 maliciously intending to bring him into public scandal, infamy and 
 disgrace, and ruin his wide and profitable business with those good 
 and worthy citizens of Taunton with whom he was honestly, justly 
 and truly dealing in his occupation, published of and concerning 
 him, in his said trade and occupation, this false, infamous dream, 
 thereby greatly injuring him in his lawful calling, bringing him into 
 great reproach and scandal, and causing him great disturbance and 
 anxiety of mind ! 
 
 Believe me, gentlemen, when I say, that I have not been reading 
 
from a dream, but from the plaintiff's writ; and that I have given 
 .YOU scarcely a tithe of those 'allegations of a similar character with 
 which it abounds ! Surely, if a twentieth part of this be true, these 
 defendants should expect no mercy from you. But, Divine inspira- 
 tion need hardly have told us, that i( a man seemeth right in his 
 cause, but his neighbor coineth and searcheth him." Let us exam* 
 ine this catalogue of grievances. 
 
 Have the defendants, by this publication, injured the plaintiff's 
 wide arid profitable business ? There is not a shred of proof to sup- 
 port the charge. But, suppose it be true. The defendants are en- 
 titled to the gratitude of this man for circumscribing, for utterly 
 destroying a business which was ruinous to him, to his customers, to 
 the community in which he dwelt. For every glass of liquor he 
 sold, he was liable to indictment, to fine, to imprisonment. If he 
 had his deserts, where would he be now ? All his companions in 
 this diabolical trade could scarcely furnish money enough to pay the 
 
 debt he owes the Commonwealth for violating its laws. And he is 
 
 
 
 here asking those laws to give him money ! They owe him nothing 
 but impoverishment and ruin. Were his life stretched out to the 
 length of Methuselah's, it would hardly suffice to serve out the im- 
 prisonment the law would inflict upon him. And he dares to come 
 into a Court of Justice and ask for money ! 
 
 Was he diligent in trade ? Aye, diligent in making paupers, in 
 jobbing the poor of bread, in instigating men to commit crimes, in 
 crowding our alms-houses, our jails, our penitentiaries, our insane 
 asylums, our grave-yards, with the plundered, maddened and mur- 
 dered victims of his vocation. And our publication has made him 
 dless diligent, more languid in this his trade : for which he asks you 
 to put your hands in our pockets and get money for him. 
 
 He says we have deprived him of his customers. Where is the 
 proof? He has offered none. True, we have showolhat two of his 
 .constant customers trade no more with him. Kenny, who died of 
 delirium tremens almost at his threshold, will never stand at his 
 counter again. Barton, who went from his shop to die in a mad- 
 house, will trade no more with him. How much money will you 
 give him for the loss of these customers ? 
 
 And, was it this Dream which brought him into scandal and re- 
 proach among the good and worthy citizens of Taunton ? No, it 
 was the reality, not the dream ! It was not this publication, but his 
 occupation, which made him infamous. And, in the name and be- 
 half of every good and honest citizen in Taunton, I indignantly de- 
 ny, that by his business, he was obtaining among them a just prefer- 
 ment and good estimation. I repel the foul calumny, and tell him 
 
46 
 
 that it is through their long suffering and forbearance, that the doors 
 of his pest-house were not forcibly closed and he driven from the 
 town in disgrace. 
 
 And did our dream cause him great disturbance and anxiety of 
 mind? It was hicrh time that something had filled him with anxious 
 
 & o 
 
 thoughts. The kindly suasion of his temperate neighbors, the 
 tears of the orphans he had made, the beseechings of the widows he 
 had clothed in weeds, the curses of the infuriated Barton, the terri- 
 ble agony and frightful death of Kenny all these had not moved 
 him. The quarrels which he daily instigated, the blasphemies which 
 continually rung in his ears, the slow but sure work of death which 
 he saw going on around him all these had not moved him. The 
 law, at long intervals, waking from its torpor, visited him with its 
 retributions. Still he went on. diligent in his vocation, plundering, 
 torturing, poisoning, adding fresh fuel to consuming fire, without 
 feeling one remorseless pang, one anxious thought. By all that is 
 precious on earth and sacred in heaven, if these defendants have been 
 able to penetrate the seat of feeling in the bosom of this indescriba- 
 ble wretch, they are entitled to the applause of men and the favor of 
 God! 
 
 But, says this writ and it is a rare production William Wilbar 
 was a true, honest, just and faithful citizen of this Commonwealth, 
 pursuing his lawful calling! Gentlemen, this is too bad! First 
 comes Williams with his allegory, and says that Wilbar is the devil's 
 agent. Then comes the counsel with his allegory, and says he is a 
 faithful citizen, pursuing a lawful calling. There was one man on 
 earth from whom even William Wilbar might rightfully expect sym- 
 pathy his retained and feed counsel. And though the hand of ev- 
 ery other man should be turned against him, his arm should be 
 stretched out in his defence. And now, to be taunted by him, in 
 open court, with pursuing a lawful calling, is heaping insult upon in- 
 jury. Why, it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, 
 which declares that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be in- 
 flicted ! 
 
 But, gentlemen, the plaintiff is here after money. What injuries 
 have we inflicted upon him as a rumseller 1 What good deeds has 
 he done in that vocation, which entitle him to take money out of our 
 purse ? He has long enjoyed special privileges ; and is he not con- 
 tent with those ? Unlike you and I, he can inflict great injuries 
 upon the community with impunity. By his business, he can com- 
 mit assaults and robberies ; he can make paupers and felons, and not 
 be held responsible therefor. He can make rich men poor, wise men 
 fools, sober men crazy, virtuous men felons, without let or hindrance. 
 
47 
 
 it" you and I call a man a bankrupt, or a madman* or a thiefy or a 
 robber, we must respond in damages in an action of slander. But 
 he can make men bankrupts* madmen, thieves and robbers, aye, and 
 by diligence in trade can kill them, and lo, if you and I say so and 
 print it, he can be the plaintiff in a libel suit, and we must defend 
 ourselves as we can. So, this man can levy taxes on the communi- 
 ty, and make the community pay them too. The rum-pauper tax of 
 this State, is about 300,000 annually. The rum-criminal tax, is 
 some $10,000 or $15,000 annually. This tax is levied by William 
 Wilbar and the like of him. And we pay it. But, if the Legisla- 
 ture wish to lay an annual tax of $70,000, to carry on the govern- 
 ment, the whole State is up in arms from Berkshire to Barnstable. 
 And yet, this same people bear these rum-taxes with a quiescent hu- 
 mility that would do honor to a starved and scourged donkey. So, 
 if this plaintiff, for the sake of gain, sells worthless or poisonous 
 articles, he can take money therefor, while for doing the same 
 thing, the provision dealer is indicted and punished. So, if 
 this plaintiff, for gain, infuriates his customers with rum, knowing- 
 ly and wilfully, and they commit batteries, larcenies and murders, 
 he, unlike other accessories, escapes, while the law inflicts its ven- 
 geance upon the poor dupe of his trade and occupation, letting the 
 principal go and punishing the agent yea, it may be, permitting the 
 seducer to sit upon the jury which condemns his victim, 
 
 And now, gentlemen, William Wilbar has participated largely in? 
 the enjoyment of these special privileges. And not content with the 
 advantages which these monopolies confer upon him in his trade and 
 occupation, he has the modesty to ask for more. He wants you to 
 help him to get money. He has become so accustomed to living by 
 plunder without law, that he has grown bold and hopes to plunder by 
 aid of the law. 
 
 And for what acts of his rum-selling life does he ask you to give 
 him money ? Let him present us with his bill of particulars. Let 
 him make out his account current with the defendants, the commu- 
 nity and the law. I ask for the items. How much will you give him 
 for the disease he has instilled into the bodies of his customers, by 
 his diligence in trade ? How much for reducing them to beggary f 
 How much for palsying their limbs, blighting their minds, ruining 
 their souls? How much for breakincr the hearts of their widowed' 
 
 o 
 
 wives, and sending their starved children to the alms-house 7 How 
 much for destroying Kenny and Barton- 7 How ftmch for under^ 
 mining the foundations of social order, trampling on the laws, and 
 contributing all in his power to swell the tide of intemperance which 
 pours over the land, blasting everywhere, cursing everything ? Be-- 
 
48 
 
 fore I consent that my clients pay him one farthing, I demand lift 
 bill of particulars " for work and labor done, and materials for the 
 same provided." 
 
 But, gentlemen, if money must be forth-coming for this plaintiff, 
 6f whom will you exact it? Surely, you will not go to the poof 
 widow of Barton and ask her to sell her weeds to raise money for 
 the destroyer of her husband. You will not do that. Will you go 
 to the penniless heirs of Kenny, whom Wilbar robbed of a father/ 
 and ask them to take the bread from their mouths and give it to him '{ 
 You will not do that. Will you go to the poor-houses and jails, and 
 work-houses, arid insane asylums, and penitentiaries, and search out 
 those whom his trade has sent thither, and ask them to contribute 
 money to the wretch who has ruined them ? You will not do that. 
 Will you go to the grave-yards, to which his trade and occupation 
 sent their annual contributions, arid disentomb the dead, and sell 
 their skeletons to the anatomist, to raise money for the keeper of a 
 house of human slaughter ? You will not do that. Passing by all 
 these, will you come to the law-abiding, generous-hearted, gallant 
 young philanthropists now at your bar, who, in the discharge of a 
 high civil and moral duty which they owed to socieiy in sustaining 
 the supremacy of the laws and restraining immorality arid alleviating 
 human misery, painted with a bold pencil this monster and his den, 
 and held the picture up to public gaze, that all men might know him 
 and abhor him and shun him will you come to them and exact mon- 
 ey and give it to this vile wretch ? No ! You WIL NOT DO THAT ! 
 
 Let me remind you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the case of Wil- 
 bar vs. Williams, Hack &, Bradbury, is not all which will be invol- 
 ved in the verdict you may render. 
 
 Public virtue, sound morality, the welfare of society, are on trial, 
 and anxiously await your decision. Pursued, overtaken, outraged, 
 these precious interests flee to you for succor and protection. Let 
 the halls of Justice be their inviolablo asylum. Let them here find 
 their home and their friends. 
 
 The cause of sobriety is on trial. Intemperance, the pestilence 
 which walketh in darkness and the destruction which wasteth at noon 
 day, covers the land with sadness and shame, with sin and sorrow. 
 Shall honest, generous, well directed efforts to stay its march, be vis- 
 ited with punishment, while those who minister to its virulence go 
 unwhipt of justice? Then has judgment fled to brutish beasts and 
 men have lost their reason. 
 
 The supremacy of the laws, the authority and perpetuity of civil 
 government, are on trial. I cannot but regard these constant and 
 unpunished violations of our license laws, as tending to Undermine ^ 
 
49 
 
 the very basis on which our free institutions rest. These violations 
 are injurious to the cause of sobriety. Our fathers erected these 
 barriers all around our borders, to beat back the waves of intemper- 
 ance, so that they might not overwhelm our good old Commonwealth. 
 And, the advancing knowledge and enlarged experience may have 
 disclosed many defects in them, yet the safety of the State requires 
 that they be firmly upheld till stronger and higher barriers are erect- 
 ed in their stead. This plaintiff has combined with the thousands 
 of rumsellers in Massachusetts, to prostrate these walls of defence, 
 and let in the surges of drunkenness to sweep unrestrained through 
 the land. He is a bad citizen, the enemy of his country, guilty of 
 moral treason. An importer of famine and pestilence would be less 
 guilty. The man who should give succor to our foes in war, or open 
 the gates of our citadel to hostile armies, would not more deserve 
 the name of traitor. But, I regard these repeated violations of our 
 laws as still more injurious, because of the dangerous tendency of 
 their example. Beware of bad precedents. Obsta principiis. If 
 the license laws may be broken with impunity, so may any other and 
 all other laws on our statute book. Witnessing the indifference 
 which so lamentably prevails in regard to the resistance of the laws 
 by the rumseller, other classes of men will be emboldened to set other 
 portions of our code at defiance, till pillar after pillar of the social 
 edifice falls, and the whole becomes amass of shapeless ruins. Said 
 the great Lord Chatham, when resisting the illegal encroachments 
 of the British Crown upon the liberties of the people, " this I know ; 
 where law ceases, there despotism begins." Let us then, gentlemen, 
 regardless of our opinions on the subject of temperance, band to- 
 gether, hand in hand, to save our civil institutions from prostration. 
 Impelled by the instincts of self-preservation, let us stand by the law 
 and vindicate its supremacy. But, higher motives than this should 
 influence you. The jury-box is the guardian of social order. Prove 
 not recreant to your trust here* Teach this plaintiff that for him 
 and his clan, you have nothing to give but retribution and infamy. 
 
 The liberty of the press is on trial, and waits for your verdict. 
 Of all the instrumentalities for good or for evil, which exist among 
 a free people, the liberty of the press should be watched and guarded 
 with the most jealous care. Often has it been the last resort of free- 
 dom in its conflict with tyranny. Said Milton, the republican of 
 Charles the First's time, ' give me the liberty to know, to argue and 
 to publish freely, above all other liberties." Said the illustrious 
 Chatham, " Let there be a weak Prince, a wicked Minister, and a 
 corrupt Parliament, and give me a Free Press, and the Constitution 
 is safe the liberties of the people are secure." The brightest jew- 
 
50 
 
 el in the professional diadem of the great English advocate Erskirie, 
 was his successful resistance to the rule of law expounded by the 
 judges, that in criminal prosecutions for libel, the proof of the truth 
 of the writing and of the good motives which caused its publication, 
 were not a complete defence. By the aid of Charles James Fox, 
 the great Commoner, this once discarded rule became the law of the 
 British Empire ; and now the people of England may breathe their 
 discontents, may thunder their denunciations even, in the very ear 
 of Majesty. Justly prizing this great right, our ancestors provided 
 guarantees for its protection in the organic law of the Republic and 
 of this Commonwealth. The Constitution of the United States pro- 
 vides, that " Congress shall pass no law abridging the liberty of the 
 press. The Constitution of Massachusetts declares, that (i the lib- 
 erty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a State ; 
 it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth." 
 These defendants are the editor and the printers of a public news- 
 paper. Jefferson denominates the men of this class, sentinels on the 
 watch-towers of freedom. In publishing the article for which they 
 are now arraigned, were they true or false to their trust 1 The plain- 
 tiff was a traitor to his country and his kind. Human and Divine 
 law were at war with his vocation. Virtue, humanity, law and re- 
 ligion had appealed to him to abandon that vocation. They had ap- 
 pealed in vain. These defendants, deeply moved at his crimes, and 
 regarding their high mission as conductors of a free press, gave ut- 
 terance to the indignant voice of an outraged and long suffering 
 public sentiment. And by Heaven, if they have been able to arrest 
 or impede him in his guilty career, they are entitled to his thanks 
 and yeur verdict. Yea, I take stronger ground. Such are the re- 
 lations which this plaintiff sustains to the laws of this Common- 
 wealth and to society at large, that if this publication were the most 
 scandalous ever uttered, and these defendants the most despicable 
 wretches that ever defiled the earth, William Wilbar is not the man 
 to come into a Court of Justice and say so. 
 
 But, gentlemen, I have detained you too long. From all the tes- 
 timony in this case, the plaintiff must be regarded as the keeper of 
 a dram-shop of more than an average degree of infamy, and the por- 
 trait shadowed forth in this Dream as only a faithful likeness of the 
 man and his occupation. If the features be Satanic if the general 
 impress and mein be fiendish if every virtuous eye which scans it, 
 kindles with indignation if its exhibition has sunk the original so 
 low in public esteem that even contempt scorns to follow him the 
 fault is his own not the limners. In the discharge of a duty which 
 they owed to God and man, they have sketched him faithfully, notb- 
 
51 
 
 ing extenuating, nor setting down aught in malice. By your verdict, 
 then, stamp this Dream, with all its blistering epithets, upon the au- 
 dacious forehead of William Wilbar. Forget not, that in reaching 
 your bar he has trodden that law in the dust which gives protection 
 to your rights and dignity to your office. Pie has poured contempt 
 on its majesty, scorned its precepts, defied its penalties, and despised 
 its ministers. So far from shielding him by your verdict, drive him 
 hence with indignation, and let him thank Heaven that he was not 
 scathed by its vengeance when he dared to invade the Temple of 
 Justice on such an errand as that which brought him here. 
 
 We intended to insert an abstract of Mr. Coffin's argument for the plaintiff, 
 but we find upon looking at our notes that they are too imperfect for publica- 
 tion. We did not expect, at the time of the trial, to issue this pamphlet. 
 
 The strength of Mr. Coffin's argument was upon the question of damages. 
 He was at times eloquent upon this point; indeed, his whole speech, though 
 somewhat below his usual efforts, was a good one for his client. We expected 
 a severe castigation, but we were in this disappointed. The following was 
 the only remark which savored of insult : ct Who is this Ben. Williams, the 
 author of this blasphemous mildew, who has dragged my client from modest 
 privacy 9 " 
 
 This document is intended for the benefit of the temperance cause; this, 
 therefore, will be a sufficient apology for the non-publication of Mr. Coffin's ar- 
 gument, although in the opinion of gentlemen versed in legal matters, it will 
 seem incomplete. ED. DSW DROP. 
 
JUDGE IIUBBARD'S CHARGE. 
 
 [It was our intention to give a complete report of the very able and impar- 
 tial Charge to the Jury, of the learned and upright Judge, who presided at the 
 trial of this cause ; but, circumstances beyond our control prevent our giving 
 more than a summary of its leading points.] 
 
 His Honor remarked to the Jury, that we live under a government 
 of laws, designed to protect every man's life, liberty, and reputation. 
 The plaintiff avers in his writ that he is a good, worthy and peace- 
 able citizen of this Commonwealth, and, at the time of the publica- 
 tion complained of, was pursuing an honest and respectable business 
 as a grocer, in the town of Taunton. That the defendants, envying 
 his good name and reputation, and seeking to bring him into dis- 
 grace, have published of and concerning him, a false, scandalous 
 and malicious libel, by reason of which he has been injured in his 
 reputation and business. And, to repair these injuries, he has 
 brought this action. 
 
 His Honor then gave a lucid history of the law of libel, and point- 
 ed out the modifications which it had undergone, especially in this 
 State, during the last 30 or 40 years. He defined a libel to be, " a 
 malicious publication, expressed either in printing or writing, or by 
 signs and pictures, tending either to blacken the memory of one 
 dead, or the reputation of one who is alive, and expose him to pub- 
 lic hatred, contempt and ridicule." 
 
 He then pointed out some of the changes which had taken place 
 in the grounds of defence for publishing libels, and drew the dis- 
 tinction in this respect between civil actions for damages and crimi- 
 nal prosecutions by indictment. 
 
 Formerly, it was held as settled law, that ft the greater the truth, 
 the greater the libel " and the truth of the charges contained in the 
 publication, was no justification for their utterance, nor would the 
 proof of their truth on the trial be allowed. This was alike the rule 
 both in civil and criminal cases. In more recent times, these prin- 
 ciples, and the practice under them, had been essentially changed. 
 In 1826, the Legislature of this State passed a declaratory act in re- 
 gard to what should constitute a sufficient defence in a criminal 
 
53 
 
 prosecution for a libel. The provisions of the act of 1826, were 
 substantially incorporated into the Revised Statutes. In chapter 
 133, section 6, the law is thus laid down : 
 
 ." In every prosecution /or writing 1 or for publishing a libel, the defendant may 
 give in evidence, in his defence upon the trial, the truth of the matter con- 
 tained in the publication, charged as libellous; provided, that such evidence 
 shall not be deemed a sufficient justification, unless it shall be further made to 
 appear on the trial, that the matter charged to be libellous, was published from 
 good motives and for justifiable ends.' 5 
 
 For the purposes of this trial, our business is confined to those 
 ,niles which govern civil actions for damages. As contended by the 
 counsel for the defendants, and admitted by the counsel for the plain- 
 tiff, it is now well settled, that in civil actions for Iibel 3 the proving 
 of the truth of the publication, at the trial, constitutes a complete 
 defence for making it ; and this, too, without regard to the motives 
 which actuated the defendants in making the charges, or the injury 
 which the plaintiff may have sustained thereby. If he has suffered 
 great damage in consequence of the publication, and if the motives 
 which influenced the publisher in thus holding him up to the world 
 were bad, still, if the defendant proves his charges to be true, the 
 plaintiff has no remedy by civil suit, and his assailant stands acquit- 
 ted in the eye of the law. Nor does the law in this respect depart 
 from sound principles of justice. If a man has been guilty of 
 crimes, or if he pursues an iniquitous business, or if his character 
 be infamous, it is not for him to come to the law for damages be- 
 cause his character and his calling have been described before the 
 public in their true colors. True, if the faults or the crimes of a 
 bad man are held up to the world for no good purpose, for no justi- 
 fiable ends, the Commonwealth may interfere by indicting and pun- 
 ishing the publisher. But, the law will not allow a bad plaintiff to 
 profit by his own iniquities, by recovering damages from a bad de- 
 fendant to be put in his own pocket. 
 
 In the outset of this case, then, there are three important questions 
 for the Jury to settle. 1. Is this publication the Dream a libel ? 
 2. Was it published of and concerning the plaintiff? 3. Was it 
 published by all the defendants 1 
 
 As to the first point, probably the Jury, in view of the definition 
 of a libel which the Court has given, will have no difficulty in arriv- 
 ing at the conclusion that this Dream is a libellous publication, pro- 
 vided it be false, and therefore malicious. This is admitted by the 
 defendants' counsel. 
 
 As to the second point, the Jury will examine all the evidence in- 
 troduced on both sides, and say, whether the publication refers to 
 
54 
 
 the plaintiff. Here, the burden of the proof is on the plaintiff. He 
 must satisfy you that he is the person specially designated in this 
 Dream, as the keeper of " that house of human slaughter." Wit- 
 nesses have testified that on reading it, they thought it referred to 
 the plaintiff*. They give you various reasons for this belief. Some 
 give as the reason, that he kept a large liquor store in ' Rum Hol- 
 low " that he was the largest liquor dealer in that notorious place 
 that he generally had a large number of drinking customers in 
 and around his shop that there were signs up at the door with the 
 words Rum, Brandy, Gin, &,c., upon them, &c. Some give as the 
 reason, that an old man with spectacles (as described in the Dream) 
 was a clerk in this store ; and others believed it referred to the plain- 
 tiff, because it appeared to them to be a faithful and apt picture, in 
 figurative language, of his establishment. It is for the Jury to say, 
 not merely from the belief of these witnesses, but from reading the 
 Dream and comparing it with all the evidence as to the character 
 and description of the plaintiff's shop and the kind of business he 
 there carried on, whether he is the person to whom it referred. 
 
 As to the third point, it is not contended that Mr. Williams, the 
 editor and publisher, did not publish, in legal contemplation, the al- 
 leged libel. But, it is contended, that Hack & Bradbury, the other 
 defendants, being merely job printers ; having no pecuniary interest 
 in the Dew Drop ; not selling, or mailing, or giving away the paper ; 
 but, merely printing it in the way of their regular business, as they 
 did other jobs; and, when the entire weekly edition was struck off, 
 handing it over all at one time to Williams, or permitting him to 
 come and take it away this is not a publication by them. But, the 
 Court lay down the law to be, that if Hack &, Bradbury printed the 
 newspaper for Williams, though merely as job-work, knowing that he 
 was intending afterwards to publish it ; and if they handed it over to 
 him, or permitted him to take it, knowing that he intended to publish 
 it, and he afterwards did publish it, this was, in contemplation of 
 law, a publication by them. 
 
 If the Jury arrive at the conclusion that this is a libel, and that it 
 was published of the plaintiff by all the defendants, then another im- 
 portant question arises, namely, Have the defendants justified the 
 publication by proving the libel to be true ? 
 
 Here his Honor examined the specifications of defence filed by 
 the defendants, and the objections of the plaintiff to their sufficien- 
 cy. By the general issue, the defendants deny that they published 
 the article, and at the same time they say, that if they did publish 
 it, it is true according to its real and fair construction. They also 
 state that it is an allegory a figurative piece of writing, and should 
 
55 
 
 be so interpreted. That it was written solely to describe the charac- 
 ter and effects of the excessive use of intoxicating liquors in tip- 
 pling-houses and drarn-shops, and of the traffic in such liquors in 
 such establishments. That if the plaintiff really kept such an 
 establishment, this dream was a justifiable criticism upon his voca- 
 tion. They also state, that he was the keeper of such a shop, in vi- 
 olation of law, he not being thereto duly licensed. The Court hold 
 the law to be, that however insufficient under the old system of spec- 
 ial pleading, yet that system having been abolished in this State, and 
 a more liberal, general and perhaps loose mode adopted in its stead, 
 these specifications of defence are sufficient to entitle the defendants 
 on this trial to introduce evidence of the truth of the publication, 
 especially as it appears that the plaintiff has not been misled and 
 is not surprised thereby. 
 
 Then, is this publication true ? The Jury will inquire into its 
 character. Is it a figurative piece of writing is it an allegory ? 
 Look at its caption " A Dream." Does it sustain its allegorical 
 character throughout ? Is it, in its general scope, or in any of its 
 details, a literal description of scenes which transpired under the wri- 
 ter's eye? These questions are for the Jury to determine. The de- 
 fendants allege that it is a fair description of a tippling-house and 
 dram-shop. Is this so? And if it be, then did the plaintiff keep 
 such an establishment, and is this Dream a fair description of that 
 establishment ? The leading question, the very essence of the in- 
 quiry, in looking at this Dream is, is it a fair description of a dram- 
 shop, and did William Wilbar keep such a shop ? Does the article 
 purport to be anything else does the proof justify its application to 
 the plaintiff? As is contended by the defendants' counsel, an alle- 
 gory has a meaning though the meaning is not a literal one. Un- 
 doubtedly such a piece of writing must have some features of truth 
 about it, or it would have no point. 
 
 Look, then, at the plaintiff's shop and the kind of business he 
 carried on there. It is urged on the part of the plaintiff that he 
 kept a common grocery. But was that his principal business ? Had 
 he been a grocer only, he might well complain that this publication 
 had injured him in his business. But, he kept his grocery in a dis- 
 graceful place, called " Rum Hollow." Did he sell large quantities 
 of intoxicating liquors ? Did he, in fact, keep a low, disorderly tip- 
 pling-house and dram-shop, resorted to by great numbers of intem- 
 perate men to gratify their appetite for strong drink ? The plaintiff's 
 witnesses state that a good deal of rum was sold there. Newcomb 
 swears to this effect. Leonard swears that liquor was frequently 
 drank there, and that there were a great many casks, barrels and 
 
re 
 00 
 
 hogsheads of liquor on sale there. jfiltis testified that the' plaintiff 
 sold more rum than any other man in " Rum Hollow," arid he 
 thought the Dream was a fair description of his store. This is the 
 general character of the plaifttiff J s testimony on this point. This 
 evidence is fully supported by the defendants' witnesses. Crocker 
 describes the signs at the door Rum, Brandy, Gin, &,c. For what 
 purpose were these signs placed there ? They were in fact an invi- 
 tation to all to come in and drink these liquors. This witness swears 
 that there were frequently scores of drinking men in the shop, in all 
 stages of intoxication. When he was once in there he saw men 
 
 o 
 
 standing at the counter, with glasses of liquor before them. He has 
 seen drunken men pushed out of there has heard noises and quar- 
 relling there, both during the day time and in the night has seen 
 scores of intemperate men around the doors, in various degrees of 
 drunkenness. It is for the Jury to say, whether this was a tippling- 
 house the haunt of the drunkard. Earl described the screen 
 which stood within the door. For what purpose was this screen 
 placed there ? Why did the plaintiff seek to screen the inside of 
 his shop from public view 1 The Jury must judge. This witness 
 testifies that he has seen a great many intemperate men going in and 
 coming out of this shop, in all the stages of drunkenness. That a 
 great deal of low company was in and around there constantly. - 
 That he has frequently seen men pushed out in the day time and in 
 the night, and fall down dead drunk. That this was often the case 
 when they shut up at night ; and he has picked up these wretch- 
 es, and helped them to a shelter. He has seen fighting and knock- 
 ing down around the door, and has heard quarrelling in the night 
 which has called him up, arid has heard much cursing and swearing 
 in and about the establishment. He has seen persons go in there on 
 the Sabbath. He described the case of Kenny, who was a regular 
 customer of the plaintiff, who was an intemperate man, and who 
 went home from his shop intoxicated, and in a day or two died in a 
 horrible fit of delirium tremens. Tisdale,the reformed man, swears 
 that he has frequently bought and drank liquor there, and has seen 
 many others do the same. He has seen drunken men in and about 
 the shop. He has seen Barton drink there frequently, and knows 
 he was an intemperate man, and a customer of the plaintiff. This 
 is the man who had the delirium tremens, and was sent to the Insane 
 Asylum, at Worcester, where he died. Mrs. Barton, the widow of 
 the man just named, described the habits and haunts of her late hus- 
 band. He was a hard drinker, and bought his liquor at the plain- 
 tiff's. He spent all his money there for rum. He had a fit of de- 
 lirium tremens, and tried to murder his wife and children with an 
 
57 
 
 axe, while in one of these fits. He went to the poor-house, and then 
 to the Asylum, where he died. Shattuck testified to many facts sim- 
 ilar to those sworn to by Crocker and Earl. Without going more 
 into detail, it is for the Jury to say, in view of all the testimony, 
 whether the plaintiff kept a tippling-house and dram-shop, and wheth- 
 er the Dream contains a faithful description of his establishment ? 
 
 His Honor then examined the Dream in detail, in reference to the 
 epithets used, and commented upon some of its passages at length. 
 We give but a sketch of this part of the Charge. 
 
 At the outset of this Dream, it speaks of the Devil being the pre- 
 siding genius of the place. We cannot believe the writer meant to 
 state that the Devil was literally present in bodily form. Does not 
 this go far to stamp the whole publication as a figurative piece of 
 writing 1 The Dream describes the marks on the heads of the casks 
 and barrels such as " Man-killer' 4 ' ' Orphan Maker," &c. The 
 defendants allege that these are figurative statements of the effects 
 produced by the excessive use of spirituous liquors, and that the 
 plaintiff kept such liquors for sale. The plaintiff, by his inuendoes 
 in the writ, gives a very different interpretation to these epithets, 
 namely, that the defendants meant to charge the plaintiff with the 
 commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, such as murder, &c. 
 It is for the Jury to decide which has set forth the true meaning. 
 To arrive at this meaning, let the Jury look at the whole article its 
 evident object and compare those passages which are unquestiona- 
 bly figurative, with those which the plaintiff alleges are literal. 
 Read it as you would at your own firesides. No other rules of in- 
 terpretation are to be applied to it in a Court of Justice, which you 
 would not apply to it on your farms and in your shops. Have we 
 any reason to suppose the writer would depart from his general line 
 of description, by intermixing literal with figurative passages. The 
 article should not be made, unnecessarily and hastily, to contradict 
 its general character as " a Dream," an allegory. Examine it, then, 
 in view of these obvious rules of interpretation. 
 
 If the Jury think the defendants have given the true interpreta- 
 tion, then the question arises, are these descriptions true ? Is rum a 
 man-killer? Has not the testimony on this point been ample? 
 Does not its excessive use shorten human life by producing disease 
 and instigating murder ? Is it properly called maniac beverage ? 
 Who has not seen men crazy with rum ? Dr. Jewett has told us it 
 is a fruitful source of insanity. If it sends parents to untimely 
 graves, is it not an orphan maker ? Does it not injure and destroy 
 the soul, by blighting the intellect, leading captive the will and hard- 
 ening the affections ? Rev. Mr. Curtis, the worthy Chaplain of the 
 8 
 
State Prison, has described to us its destructive effects upon the mor- 
 als of man. Is it, then, a soul destroyer 1 Does it produce the de- 
 lirium tremens, that awful disease which destroyed Kenny, and an- 
 nually kills its thousands ? Doct. Jewett has told us that excessive 
 drinking is the cause, and the sole cause, of this mania a potu, 
 which the counsel for the defendants so aptly denominated, in Scrip- 
 tural language, "the cup of trembling." Then, did the plaintiff 
 sell the liquors which produce these awful effects, and is the descrip- 
 tion in the Dream, in this respect, true ? It is for the Jury to decide. 
 
 The Dream states that signs were nailed to the wall, containing 
 various inscriptions. It is in evidence that there were signs at the 
 door, bearing the words Rum, Brandy, Gin, &c. Do these liquors 
 lead to the results stated in the Dream, and is this part of it a fair 
 statement of the character of the business of the dram-seller? Do 
 these liquors instigate to murder and train men for the gallows ? Dr. 
 Jewett and Rev. Mr. Curtis have both stated that at least three- 
 fourths of all the crimes in the country, murder included, are caused 
 by drunkenness. Does not our common observation teach us the 
 same ? These witnesses have told us that intemperance is one of 
 the causes of suicide. May not the excessive use of spirituous li- 
 quors, both by shortening men's lives, and by leading them to com- 
 mit self-murder, be said to give lessons in suicide ? And was the 
 plaintiff engaged in a business which tends to such consequences 1 
 Was he pursuing a calling which leads children in the road to death ? 
 Might his business be properly described as producing death to the 
 body, the morals, the souls of his customers, old and young ? The 
 Jury must decide. 
 
 His Honor, after similar comments upon other parts of the Dream, 
 then read the passage which describes the young man who called for 
 a glass of Lucifer's Elixir, and on drinking it, fell down dead on the 
 floor, and had his pockets rifled. He commented at some length on 
 this paragraph. The Jury must read this passage in view of the 
 general scope and character of the whole article. Was this a literal 
 description of an event which actually transpired in the plaintiff's 
 shop ? Parts of it were obviously figurative such as the Lucifer's 
 Elixir, the presence of the devil, &c. Was it the fair interpretation 
 of the whole passage to say, that the writer suddenly changed from 
 the figurative to the literal from the fancy sketches of an allegory 
 to the sober statement of facts? Was it anything more than a 
 strongly colored picture of the effects of excessive drinking, of 
 beastly drunkenness? Is it true, that extreme intoxication, in such 
 young men as are here described, caused death death of the reason, 
 of the affections, and often the literal death of the body? May not 
 
men, when " dead drunk," be said, iu ! figurative language, to have 
 fallen down dead 1 Does not the rumseller, who strips his poor cus- 
 tomers of all their earnings, rob them, figuratively speaking? And 
 is this the fair interpretation of the passage, and did the plaintiff 
 pursue such a business ? These questions are for the decision of 
 the Jury. 
 
 To this passage, the plaintiff has appended various inuendoes, 
 which he avers set forth the true meaning of it. He says the de- 
 fendants have charged him with poisonsng his customers, knowingly 
 and wilfully, whereby they died with committing the crimes of 
 murder, and robbing the dead, &/c. The defendants aver that the- 
 passage is merely a metaphorical description of the effects of exces- 
 sive drinking. Which is right ? The Court charge the Jury as 
 matter of law, that the plaintiff is bound to satisfy them that his in- 
 uendoes set forth the real meaning of the writer. And, if he fails 
 to convince the Jury that he has stated the real meaning of the pas- 
 sage, he has so far failed to make out his case. 
 
 Then, upon the whole article have the defendants proved it to be 
 true, according to its fair interpretation 1 Here the burden of proof 
 is upon them. If they have failed, you must find a verdict for the 
 plaintiff. If they have succeeded, they are entitled to an acquittal. 
 
 His Honor then charged the Jury upon the other main point raised 
 by the defendants' counsel, namely, that the plaintiff, being engaged 
 in an illegal vocation, could not maintain an action for a libel upon 
 him in that vocation. The authorities brought forward by the de- 
 fendants' counsel fully sustained this position. The Court instruct 
 the Jury to inquire : 
 
 1. Was the plaintiff engaged in an illegal vocation 1 Was he 
 selling spirituous liquors without being duly licensed therefor ? Did 
 he keep a tippling-house and dram-shop, in violation of law? 
 
 2. Was the libel published of him solely in regard to his agency 
 in that business ? 
 
 3. If the Jury find both these issues in the affirmative, then the 
 plaintiff cannot maintain this action ; even though the publication 
 be libellous, and the defendants have failed to prove it to be true. 
 
 But, if the defendants have travelled out of the line of the plain- 
 tiff's vocation as a rumseller, and have attacked him in other res- 
 pects, then they are so far liable. But, if the publication is of him 
 solely in that vocation, and that vocation is illegal, then he cannot 
 come to the law and ask it to give him damages for what is pub- 
 lished of him in regard to a business in which he transgresses the 
 law, even though the publication be false, and have caused damage to 
 the plaintiff. Courts of Justice will not interfere in behalf of either 
 
60 
 
 one of such guilty parties. Yet, while this is true of civil actions for 
 damages, the same rule does not obtain in regard to criminal prose- 
 cutions for libel. There the Commonwealth has its rights, and is 
 supposed to have sustained injury, and the mere illegality of the vo- 
 cation of the libelled party, will not of itself constitute a defence; 
 though, in case of conviction, this fact might go in mitigation of 
 punishment. 
 
 His Honor examined the authorities, and reasoned upon and illus- 
 trated these positions at some length. 
 
 He then made some remarks upon the great value of the liberty 
 of the press, in sustaining the supremacy of the laws and putting 
 down vice. Men love darkness rather than light. They evade the 
 penalties of the law. The press discovers and lays bare their dark 
 deeds. Men who do not fear the law, dread the press : for it expo- 
 ses their crimes to the eye of the public, so that good men shun 
 them and hold their character and their practices in just abhorrence. 
 The voice of a free press is often the last resort of an outraged pub- 
 lic, to rebuke and restrain vice. But, while Courts and Juries 
 should guard its liberty with a jealous eye, they should never give 
 countenance to its licentiousness. 
 
 In conclusion, his Honor remarked upon the subject of damages, 
 and instructed the Jury that if they found a verdict for the plaintiff, 
 to give him such damages as he was entitled to under all the cir- 
 cumstances of this case. Otherwise, to acquit the defendants. 
 
 After consulting together about three-fourths of an hour, the Jury 
 agreed upon a general verdict of NOT GUILTY. 
 
 The counsel for the plaintiff excepted to several of the rulings of 
 his Honor Judge Hubbard, and it is understood that the points of 
 law will be carried before the full bench for determination. 
 
YB 07545