There is at least one anomaly in the law of libel and slander which justifies the existence of this chapter. The publicity necessary to vindicate oneself under present conditions acts as a deterrent to many people in the prosecution of a libeller. The system of hearing cases _in camera_ would be better adapted to the feelings of libelled persons--those who hesitate to subject themselves to the bright blaze of newspaper details--than the existing open court trial. There is no reason why the scoundrel who libels a person should have the right to fling fresh insults and fictitious statements at his victim in the free atmosphere of a court of law--with the full knowledge that the case will be reported in the press. The greater the lie the greater the shrinking--from further publicity on the part of the victim. As matters stand, a man can be prosecuted criminally for a libel, or he can be sued for damages, or both. The form of a criminal prosecution most recommends itself to the thinking mind, for the actual punishment of the guilty must always be more satisfactory than the mere recovery of a sum of money.[19] Abuse, written or spoken, must not be confused with an actionable tort. One is comparatively safe in describing a man in writing as a “dirty scoundrel,” whereas it might be otherwise were one to allude to him as a “vicious thief.” Some sense of proportion and an exact knowledge of the use and meaning of words are useful possessions to the person of violent temperament! In Roman law, truth might be pleaded in justification of libel or slander, at least in those cases where the public was interested in the exposure. By the _Lex Cornelia_, it was made optional for the injured person to proceed against the offender either civilly or criminally. Truth is an answer to a civil action under the English law, but truth, coupled with evidence of public expediency, must be taken as essential in defence of criminal proceedings. Where, however, a man, actuated by good faith in the pursuit of his own interests, libels another man, he has a perfectly good defence. A certain individual who believed himself to have been defrauded by the machinations of another, in connection with a will, wrote to a third person for information. References were made to the alleged fraud in the letter, which was published in the press as part of the evidence at a coroner’s inquest. These facts come within the meaning of the immunity above referred to. It is possible, in this country, to libel the dead, _i.e._, where the libel is calculated to cause pain to surviving relatives or descendants. This is almost an anomaly, but it is a most proper one, nevertheless! The maxim, “_actio personalis moritur cum persona_,” applies, too, for no right of _action_ lies; the right to bring criminal proceedings, is that intended by the reference. FOOTNOTES