§8. A slander written or printed, is called _libel_. A libel is a malicious publication in print or writing, signs or pictures, tending to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. And it is considered in law a publication of such defamatory writing, though communicated to a single person. A slander written or printed is likely to have a wider circulation, to make a deeper impression, and to become more injurious. A person may therefore be liable in damages for words in print or writing, for which he would not be liable if merely spoken. In case of libel, a person is not only liable to a private suit for damages, but may be indicted and tried as for other public offenses. §9. It is a principle of English common law, that in a criminal action for libel it is immaterial whether the matter of it is true or false; and a person prosecuted for libel is not allowed, in justification, to prove to the jury the truth of his statement, since the provocation, not the falsity, is to be punished. And, whether true or false, the libelous publication is equally dangerous to the public peace, and is presumed to have been made with malicious intent. §10. It is held--and perhaps it is the prevailing opinion--that in a civil action for damages, a libel must be false as well as scandalous, and, consequently, that the truth may be pleaded in justification. This point, however, is not fully settled. The reason for this distinction between cases of public and private prosecution, it is not easy to perceive. If it is just to inquire into the good or bad intentions of the publisher in one case, it would seem to be equally so in the other. §11. But the common law has been materially modified and relaxed in this country. In most of the states it is provided by their constitutions or by law, that the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury "that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted." As it may sometimes be proper to speak or publish an unfavorable truth concerning others, the principle of the above provision would seem to be founded in justice. In the state of Vermont, and perhaps in a few other states, if the party prosecuted proves the truth of his statement in any case, he is acquitted. §12. The right of _personal liberty_ is secured by express provision of the national constitution, which guaranties to every citizen "the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_." (Cons. U.S. art. 1, sec. 9.) The nature of this writ has been explained. (Chap. XXXVI, §4.) The same provision has been inserted in the state constitutions. This was a common law privilege, independently of any constitutional enactment. The principal object of the provision seems to be to take from congress and the state legislatures the power to abolish this privilege, or even to suspend it for any time, or in any case, except the particular cases mentioned.