Lydiard v. Wingate

• Decision Date: 17 December 1915
• Docket Number: 19,417 - (81)
• Citation: 155 N.W. 212,131 Minn. 355
• Parties: L. A. LYDIARD v. W. S. WINGATE AND OTHERS
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

155 N.W. 212

131 Minn. 355

L. A. LYDIARD v. W. S. WINGATE AND OTHERS

Nos. 19,417 - (81)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 17, 1915

Action in the district court for Hennepin county against W. S Wingate, C. O. Lundquist, G. A. Gruman, B. T. Allen and George B. Safford, to recover $28,000 for malicious publication of the letter which is quoted in the opinion. From an order, Leary, J., overruling the demurrer of defendants to the complaint on the ground that the facts stated therein did not constitute a cause of action defendants appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Libel -- retraction by publisher of newspaper.

1. Defendants caused a circular letter to be published in certain newspapers of which they were neither owners nor publishers. It is held: The defendants are not within the provision of G.S. 1913, § 7901, requiring a demand for retraction before suit will lie.

Criticism of public officials.

2. The interest which every citizen has in good government requires that the right be not unduly curtailed to express his opinion upon public officials and political leaders, to seek and convey information concerning their plans and purposes, and to freely criticise proposed methods and measures.

Libel -- words not libelous per se.

3. The article set forth in the complaint does not charge plaintiff with any moral or legal delinquency, nor does it reflect upon his character, and the acts and purposes imputed to him as a member elect of the legislature and as a political leader are neither corrupt nor such as are regarded by the public generally as dishonorable or discreditable from the viewpoint of practical politics, therefore the publication is not libelous per se.

Norton & Norton and John N. Berg, for appellants.

Healy & La Du, for respondent.

OPINION

HOLT, J.

The court in overruling a demurrer to the complaint herein certifies the question involved to be important and doubtful. The action is for libel. The complaint after alleging that defendants maliciously published by circular letter and in certain named papers in Minnesota, "and in other newspapers generally circulated in the state * * * of and concerning plaintiff, these words": (omitting the caption of the letter head showing that it came from the headquarters of the Anti-Saloon League and naming the officers thereof)

"Brewers' Plot Promptly Unearthed.

"Scarcely had the votes, cast in the recent election, been counted before the selfish influences which controlled the legislature of 1911 began active work to secure absolute control of the machinery of the next House. Mr. L. O. Lydiard, an old hand at the business and a man who had been consistently wrong on every matter in which the interests of the people were involved, is the leader in the movement.

"If the newly elected members could be lined up and organized in such a way as to place men favorable to the brewery interests and their allies in control, they would be able to stifle practically all legislation inimical to their supposed interests. They would be able to obtain control of every appointment and would be able to use the patronage club effectively on every weak-kneed member.

"We feel that the people of the state should know what is going on so that they and the men recently elected to the House may be warned in due season and be on their guard against the plausible proposals of these reactionaries. The particular plot they were caught hatching appears to be to capture the Hennepin delegation of eighteen members, band them together under the unit rule, elect Mr. Lydiard chairman and eventually vote the entire eighteen for a speaker who could be trusted to organize the House in the interests of brewery control.

"It is imperative, therefore, for good citizens and good legislators to use all proper means to drag this secret plot out to the light of day and prevent its success.

"Yours for an unfettered legislature,

"Geo. B. Safford,

"State Superintendent.

"Minneapolis, Minn., November 7, 1914.

"Please publish the above at the earliest possible moment. Late returns show a county option majority in both houses."

The first point raised by appellants is that the only publication alleged is in newspapers, and there is no averment of demand for retraction -- a condition precedent to the maintenance of suit. Clementson v. Minnesota Tribune Co. 45 Minn. 303, 47 N.W. 781. Defendants are not the owners or publishers of the newspapers in which the alleged libel was published, hence cannot bring themselves within the provisions of G.S. 1913, § 7901.

No special damages are pleaded. No innuendoes apply the article or any part thereof, to plaintiff. The application must be made from the article alone. By inference it may be assumed that plaintiff was a member elect of the legislature. It may also be gathered from the publication that for some time the saloon question has engaged the attention of the public; dividing it into two contending factions or parties; each party seeking to elect members of the legislature who would support the cause it espouses and enact laws favorable thereto. It is common knowledge that the legal voters of the state, and of the several communities thereof, are somewhat evenly divided on the proposition. When a question of this character reaches the stage where the inhabitants of the state become intensely interested in solving it by means of legislation, we have a political question similar in every respect to any political issue ever fought over by the great political parties of the land; and we may expect the fight to be carried on in the same manner. It is perhaps true that the old maxim (of doubtful ethical worth): "The end justifies the means," is sadly overworked in practical politics, and this apparently with no conscientious scruples, unless thereby aid or comfort has come to the opposition. While this is to be deplored, we must nevertheless recognize that the practice and rules of war are to some degree applicable to political controversies. It is necessary to plan political campaigns. These plans are not always announced from the housetops. Often their success depends upon keeping them from the knowledge of the opposition. Concert of action between those of the same political faith is aimed at both in elections and in legislation. Such being the case, it follows that if one party thinks it has discovered some plan or plot to its undoing, formulated and about to be sprung by its antagonist, the alarm is at once sounded, and steps taken to avert the threatened danger. To impel its own members to effective effort and intimidate those of the opposition the alarm is, as a rule, excessively noisy and exaggerated. What would have been styled a fair and legitimate plan of action, had it been adopted in furthering its own purpose, is denounced as a conspiracy, plot or cabal when employed by the opposition. No one is seriously misled by these exaggerations, usually incident to political campaigns for votes and legislative measures. It is doubtful whether courts can assist good government by a ready attempt to curb criticism of party leaders or officials, unless it clearly appears that the criticisms, if false, accuse the individual of a positive wrong. For aught that appears in the letter published, plaintiff had a perfect right to ally himself with the opposition to the Anti-Saloon League; to seek the chairmanship of the Hennepin delegation; band it together under the unit rule,...