Scofield v. Milwaukee Free Press

• Decision Date: 24 October 1905
• Citation: 105 N.W. 227,126 Wis. 81
• Parties: SCOFIELD v. MILWAUKEE FREE PRESS ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

126 Wis. 81

105 N.W. 227

SCOFIELD

v.MILWAUKEE FREE PRESS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 24, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court, Milwaukee County; J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

Action by Edward Scofield against the Milwaukee Free Press and others. From orders overruling defendants' general demurrers to the complaint, they appeal. Affirmed.

Appeals by the several defendants from orders overruling their general demurrers to the complaint, which alleged the incorporation of the Milwaukee Free Press Company, the official relation thereto of the several individual defendants, and that they directed and participated in and consented to all of the publications complained of, and further alleged that factions existed in the Republican Party, to one of which the plaintiff belonged, and to the support of the other was devoted the newspaper published by the Milwaukee Free Press Company and the several defendants; that plaintiff was a private individual, occupying no official place and in no candidacy at the times mentioned, and that in the year 1887 he was a member of the State Senate in the Legislature of Wisconsin, at the session of which Philetus Sawyer was a candidate for election to the United States Senate, and was elected, with the support and vote of the plaintiff. Further, that for many years the Free Press had pursued a course of malicious attack and defamation against this plaintiff, and that on September 21, 1904, it published an editorial under the title, “Come High, but Must be Had,” asserting, in substance, that Sawyer paid a big price for the senatorship; that it was reported that every Republican candidate for the Legislature that year had Sawyer money in his pocket, distributed to them by personal agents in sums ranging from $500 to $1,500 to each, with the explanation that Sawyer was very anxious that the state should go Republican, and that the payment was “just to help pay the legitimate, you know”; and that in this way, and others, Mr. Sawyer had not far from $200,000 invested in the senatorship when he went down to Madison to claim it, and there was no one to dispute his ownership. This publication was not alleged to be libelous, but complaint further alleged that on the following day, September 22d, the defendants, with intent to defame and injure plaintiff, maliciously published the following false and defamatory matter:

“The Price for a Senatorship.

To the Editor: It probably would not be difficult to obtain many specific facts of great interest to those who are curious as to the cost in this state of a United States Senatorship, as illustrated in the cost to the late Senator Sawyer. Ex-Gov. Scofield then a state senator, was made a distributing agent for the ‘Mare of Oshkosh.’ One day, while in the office of a Door county business man, a messenger came in and asked for a private interview with the merchant, who was in close touch with the Republican candidate for the assembly. When the messenger departed, the merchant showed me a bunch of bank notes labeled ‘$500,’ and, while he said little, I could see that he was thoroughly disgusted. He plainly told me that it was Sawyer money, and had been sent to him by Scofield. Soon after election I again called at this same man's office. He went to his safe, took out the identical package, from which the label had not been removed, and prepared it to send by express to Senator Scofield. He remarked that he was glad he did not have to use it. The Free Press is undoubtedly very close to the truth as to the amount sent each Republican candidate for the Legislature and then even, very likely, few cases like the above where the money was returned. It would be interesting to know how far the money went on its return journey.

+-------------------+
                ¦[Signed]¦Citizen.” ¦
                +-------------------+
                

By innuendoes, the assertions that plaintiff was distributing agent and that plaintiff sent the $500 to a Door county merchant meant to charge plaintiff with distributing and paying money for the purpose of corrupting and bribing members of the Legislature, and a candidate for the Assembly, in order to secure their votes for said Sawyer as United States Senator. The final clause of this article was alleged to mean and insinuate that plaintiff received the money from the merchant and fraudulently converted it to his own use. The intent of the whole article was alleged to charge the plaintiff with bribing legislators and candidates to vote for Mr. Sawyer “contrary to the statutes of the state of Wisconsin and in violation of the Criminal Code of said state.” It is also alleged, but not as a separate libel, that on the following day, the plaintiff having declared his purpose to bring a libel action, the defendants published an editorial referring to the commencement of another libel case against them by one Barney Augustus Eaton, who at once discontinued it, and, though he was a senator at that time, has not been in any higher office since. The plaintiff alleges malice and the intent to injure him in the estimation of his neighbors and of the people of the state, who had theretofore trusted him and elected him to the office of Governor.

Kronshage & McGovern, for appellants Milwaukee Free Press Co., Myrick, and Kronshage.

Turner, Pease & Turner (A. L. Cary, of counsel), for appellant Upham. Quarles, Spence & Quarles, for respondent.

DODGE, J. (after stating the facts).

The editorial of September 21st is clearly capable of being understood to charge that during the political campaign of 1886, when were to be elected the legislators upon whose suffrages depended the outcome of his own candidacy for the United States Senate, Mr. Sawyer paid out to legislative candidates very large sums of money for the purpose of so securing their support and his election, for it is stated as a “price paid” for the senatorship, and that, when Legislature convened, he claimed and had undisputed ownership of it; also that he thereby “bought and paid for what he got.” This idea is carried forward into the article of September 22d by the heading thereof, “Price Paid for a Senatorship,” and, again, by reference to such expenditures in the article as the “cost of a United States Senatorship.” Then, in the latter and alleged libelous article, the plaintiff is...