Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 20, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 January 1899 — Editor Babcock’s Case Dismissed. [ARTICLE]

Editor Babcock’s Case Dismissed.

The libel case against F. E. Babcock, editor of the Democrat, came before Judge Thompson late Wednesday afternoon. On Dec. 24th the Democrat stated, in effect that the county auditor had drawn warrents on quite a number of claims before they had been acted upon by the commissioners, or in other words charging the auditor with having committed a criminal act. On Dec, 31st, the same paper, in an article purporting to give the proceeding of a special session held that same week, stated that the claims referred to had been allowed, thus plainly charging that the commissioners had allowed the claims after the auditor had issued the warrants, and thus, to all intents and purposes reiterating the charge that the auditor had issued the warrants illegally. And that no one might misunderstand that the charge against the auditor had been repeated, the sentence stating that the claims had been allowed was followed by this remark: “This appears a rather unusual proceedings, to draw warrants for claims before same have been acted upon by the commissioners, and naturally lead one to ask who is allowing the bills in Jasper county.” And in another part of the same paper, cf Dec 31st, reference is made to the necessity of the grand jury investigating “The drawing of county warrants before they have been officially allowed.” Thus to the common mind, it is evident that the Democrat meant in its issue of the 31st of Dec. to repeat and reiterate its charge that the auditor hud issued the warrants before they were allowed by the commissioners, thus falsely charging him with a criminal act. But in what the common mind would see only a re-iteration and repetition of the charge against the auditor, the judicial mind saw a retraction and a correction, perhaps on the homeopathic principle of “similia similibus curanter,” and the decision was reached that no libel had been committed, and the case was dismissed. The prosecuting attorney took an exception and stated his intention to take an appeal to the Supreme Court.