Triggs v. Sun Printing & Publ'g Ass'n

• Decision Date: 05 August 1904
• Citation: 71 N.E. 739,179 N.Y. 144
• Parties: TRIGGS v. SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS'N.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

179 N.Y. 144

71 N.E. 739

TRIGGS

v.SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS'N.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Aug. 5, 1904.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Oscar L. Triggs against the Sun Printing & Publishing Association. From an order of the Appellate Division (86 N. Y. Supp. 486) reversing an order of the Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This appeal is taken in pursuance of leave granted by the Appellate Division allowing the appellant to appeal to this court from such order of reversal, and from each and every part thereof. That court certified that a question of law has arisen, which, in its opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, and stated it as follows: ‘Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’ Three libelous articles were complained of. The first was published March 2, 1903, and was as follows:

‘Triggs in Altruria. Prof. Oscar Lovell Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), of the University of Chicago, is the brightest jewel in Dr. Harper's crown. Who doesn't know and venerate Triggs? Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), the hammer of hymn writers (meaning this plaintiff contrived to injure the writers of hymns), the scourge of Whittier and Longfellow (meaning that plaintiff's criticisms of the poets Whittier and Longfellow were like a scourge), the panegyrist of Walt Whitman, who wrote of him in a still unpublished poem, ‘I love young Oscar (meaning plaintiff), a wind of the Northwest, full of vigor, cheek and elan’ (meaning that plaintiff was full of impudence, and was brazen-faced in his attitude towards the hymn writers and the poets). For some months Prof. Triggs (meaning plaintiff) was collecting and comparing names for his baby. The baby was named at last, redeemed from anonymity, and the proud father (meaning plaintiff) once more had leisure to brood beneficently over the university and the universe. We have waited, not always with true philosophic patience, for the unfolding of his new thought. We knew that he would not leave the world barren for long. To quote Walt once more: ‘Frequent, iterant, dripping and persistent like rain, regular as taxes, a stayer.’ And now the god has spoken (meaning and intending to ridicule this plaintiff by likening him to a deity). At the Cook County League of Women's Clubs, Saturday, Prof. Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) looked into the seeds of time and had a vision of the ‘new man.’ Hear and tremble, miserable homuncules of to-day. ‘The business man of the future would not be recognized by the business man of to-day. The present order of man will pass away. There shall come a new humanity. Notice the passing of patriotism, which is merely an expanded egotism. Notice the new state of diplomacy. All this points to the new era when the social spirit will prevail, when the selfish, the egotistic motive will be gone. The business man will wish to share his successes with the rest of society.’ We hate to differ with Prof. Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), but his remarks about patriotism are reported incorrectly, or there is some kink in his definition. If patriotism is expanded egotism, what is Triggs? If Triggs and patriotism are one, how can patriotism ‘pass'? (Meaning this plaintiff, and meaning that this plaintiff is an example of expanded egotism, or more, or that he is devoted to self and selfishness.) We are ready to believe in the ‘new humanity’ and to welcome it, but what is new humanity without the same old and ever young Triggs (meaning this plaintiff)? Insisting that Triggs must and shall be preserved, let us cast an admiring glance at the business man of the future. He will share his successes with the rest of society. It would be Philistine to call for a bill of particulars. The new business man will divide his profits among his customers or among the whole community. The individual dividends may not be large, but they will show a kindly spirit in the divider. Presumably the customers or the community will consent to be assessed in case the business loses money. Let altruism have its perfect work. It may be hard for a thoroughly new business man to resist the temptation to give his goods away. As for Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), and all other altruistic professors of the Chicago University, they will pay Dr. Harper for the privilege of working for him. Already some of them delight to prepare for the new order by giving themselves away (meaning that this plaintiff should perform his services to the University of Chicago gratuitously or without pay, or that this plaintiff is not worthy of his hire).'

The next article was published April 6, 1903, and was:

‘The news that Professor Oscar Lovell Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) of the University of Chicago may appear as a theatrical advance agent will give joy to every friend of higher education in America. Such a dazzling promotion for Professor Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) must at once make college teaching more attractive to ambitious young men. Hitherto the complaint has been that the pay is small, and the work leads to nothing more. A young man who might have been a lawyer with an income ranging from $8,000 upwards, with a prospect of a seat on the bench, or perhaps a brilliant political career, might reasonably have hesitated before becoming a professor with an income of $3,000 or $4,000 at the utmost, and no brass bands, and skyrockets. But professor Triggs has blazed the way to new glories (meaning and intending to ridicule this plaintiff, and to compare him with a brass band or skyrockets). For years he (meaning this plaintiff) has been showing his colleagues that a professor of mettle can himself be both a brass band and a skyrocket. And now a theatrical manager offers him the exceeding great reward of $700 a week to travel ahead of a play called ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ placing the stamp of professional approval upon this production of a hitherto unknown author, and assure the good people of Indiana and Illinois that in his way Shakespeare is the equal of Gen. Lew Wallace, or even Professor William Cleaver Wilkinson, of the University of Chicago. This is fine, and all the more so because, if Professor Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) keeps on developing, he will inevitably become the whole show himself (meaning and intending to ridicule and scoff at this plaintiff by charging him with sensationalism and misconduct in his profession, and with an intent to monopolize the duties of the department of English at the University of Chicago, and of incompetency and a lack of dignity and of ability).'

The last article was published April 10, 1903, and was as follows:

‘Triggs and Romeo. To men of good liver, life is full of happiness. To us it is, and long has been, one of the greatest of these felicities to guide amateurs to Prof. Oscar Lovell Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), a true museum piece, and the choicest treasure in Dr. Harper's collection (meaning and intending to ridicule this plaintiff, by comparing him to a museum piece, or a freak or a curiosity, and by characterizing him as the principal attraction in a collection of other museum pieces, freaks, and curiosities). We cannot boast of having discovered Triggs (meaning this plaintiff), for he was born great, discovered himself early, and has a just appreciation of the value of this discovery (meaning that plaintiff, in his work, is governed by personal conceit, or an inflated idea of his own importance, and of the value of his work in the University of Chicago). But in our humble way we have helped communicate him (meaning plaintiff) to the world, assisted in his effusion and diffusion, and beckoned reverent millions to his shrine. We have joyed to see him (meaning this plaintiff) perform three heroic labors, viz.: (1) ‘Knock out’ old Whittier and Longfellow. (2) ‘Do up’ the hymn writers. (3) ‘Name his baby at the end of a year of solemn consultation’ (meaning and intending to charge that plaintiff, in his profession and in his position as an instructor in the department of English at the University of Chicago, had little or no regard for the value of the writings of the established poets, Whittier and Longfellow, or the writers of hymns, and intending to place him in a ridiculous and odious attitude by a reference to his private life and to domestic affairs). But these achievements are only the bright beginning of a long course of halcyon and vociferous proceedings. As yet, Prof. Triggs is but in the bud (meaning and intending this plaintiff, and meaning and intending to place him in a ridiculous and odious position). He (meaning this plaintiff) came near blossoming the other day, and the English drama would have blossomed with him. A firm which is to produce ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offered him $700 a week to be the ‘advance agent’ of the show, and to ‘work up enthusiasm by lecturing.’ Prof. Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) was compelled to decline the offer, but the terms of his refusal show that it is not absolute, and that ‘some day,’ as the melodramas cry, he will illuminate Shakespeare, dramatic literature, and the public mind: ‘I regret my inability, at this time, to take advantage of this opportunity, for the plan proposed seems to me to be an excellent one. I would regard it, from my point of view, as an educational opportunity. It would gratify me to be able to present my views on drama, on Shakespeare and on this particular play to audiences that would gather together from a serious interest in the drama itself. This would be a form of ‘university extension’ not hitherto tried, and which should be attended with good educational results-such as I would desire, and such, also, as I assume you would desire.' The nap is worn off the phrase ‘university extension.’ What Prof. Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) proposes, and the country hungers for, is Triggs (meaning this plaintiff) ‘extension.’ He must...