
    
      Superior Court of Detroit.
    
    JOHN MINER vs. DETROIT POST AND TRIBUNE.
    
      Libel — John OMnaman — EMract from George V. N. Lothrpp’s Argument to the Jury.
    
    This was an action of libel, in which plaintiff recovered a verdict for $250.
    Defendant took the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment below, and granted a new trial.
    A pretty full statement of the facts in the case appears in 48 Mich. Reports, page 358, to which the reader is referred for the details.
    We would like to give the whole of the argument to the jury of the leader of the bar of Michigan, Hon. Geo. Y. N. Lbthrop, but the space that is left for other matter admonishes us that we must forego that pleasure, in this volume at least.
    The following extract from the argument of Mr.. Lothrop to the jury is of interest to the citizen, the statesman and the diplomat, as truly as to the members of the legal profession.
    After referring to portions of the alleged libelous article,
    MR. LOTHROP SAID:
    And then it (the article in the Post and Tribune) proceeds: ■ “Instead of that he (Police Justice Miner) turns upon a helpless Chinaman who has no political influence to sustain him, and much prejudice to combat.”
    Now, gentlemen, there is no libel in that, not one particle of it. And most unfortunately it is true. This Chinaman was helpless. There are large communities in which he is not only helpless, but more than helpless. In this community there is no such gross prejudice as exists in some other places. But the Chinaman is none the less
    A STRANGER IN OUR GATES.
    He is not surrounded with friends here. No love or affection go out to him here, and the Chinaman is helpless; and the fact that he was helploss — I do not impute it as a crime to Judge Miner — would have been an entirely proper consideration to have moved Judge Miner to consider that while he administered justice, and exacted justice, he should be sure that he did not press the line or plummet of justice too far against this man or against these men. The Chinaman was helpless; the Chinaman had no political influence. You know it. Why, gentlemen, could the Chinaman be made a citizen of the United States? You may come •from the farthest land of Europe, you may belong to the most down-trodden, oppressed people of Europe, and our gates are open. Citizenship is open, and there is but one single office in the whole land to which the new comer is not welcomed if he can attain it. Let him come from China and he will meet decisions — I think they are utterly unsound and utterly indefensible; but he will none the less meet them — which declare that these United States are not broad enough for citizenship to the Chinaman. He cannot become a citizen of the United States, but he must remain forever an alien and a stranger. Shall the Chinaman go back under such circumstances? Shall he remain here in the land, he to whom so long as he lives in the light of the sun there is no honorable and cheerful recognition, and no receptacle but the darkness of the grave! He, under such circumstances, is justified in turning his back on a land like that. This is not the land of my youth, nor the land of my faith. I was reared to believe, and I gloried in it as an American citizen, and I still glory in the faith, that these United States were
    THE REFUGE FOR DOWN-TRODDEN, OPPRESSED HUMANITY,
    of whatever land, and that here they should meet a better civilization and receive a warmer recognition, that they should be welcomed to the privileges of citizenship. That is my faith. I am told that over 200 years ago my own ancestors came, the victims of persecution, to this land, and so long as I live and retain my memory of that, I will never be untrue to that faith, and I will insist that every person who comes here shall receive the same recognition. If they shall not, then we admit there is no virtue in our civilization, and I also think we admit that there is no divine inspiration in our Christianity. That man has no political influence. He could not vote, and I know voting is not indifferent to Judge Miner. He could not vote. He not only could not vote then, but there was a bar constantly against him. As I said before, he was not only without political influence, but he was absolutely a stranger, and had only such friends as those who from Christian motives desired to go out and recognize him as a man, and cal1 upon him as a common sharer in a common salvation. Judge Miner was bound, while he recognized that this man was subject to impartial justice, to remember that he was also a stranger, not knowing our language, not having friends here, and that he was entitled to as much consideration as the circumstances of the case would justify; and what the newspapers said upon that subject was simply and only literal truth, “ instéad of this he turns upon a helpless Chinaman who has no political influence to sustain him, and much prejudice to combat.” Why, he has mountains of prejudice to combat. I doubt whether there is the door of a family into which the stranger Chinaman can receive social admission. He can go where his money pays, within certain limits; he can receive certain menial employments, but that probably is the limit of the Chinaman’s enjoyment in free America. Now, this fact was a matter of criticism; and I have pointed out to you that it is not libelous; I assume as a matter of course that the court will tell you that it is not libelous, because
    IT IS FAIR CRITICISM ;
    and its only bearing in this case will be for you to determine whether it indicates any malice, or whether it is a fair application of this case as there stated in the article.
    (February, 1882.)
    
      John Atkinson for Plaintiff.
    
      H. M. Gheever and Geo. V. N. Lothro'p for Defendant.
     