l
malice. If the defamatory matter complained of is _false_, the law
_presumes_ that the publication was malicious, unless it can be shown
either that it was "privileged" by statute or otherwise, or the
presumption of malice is overcome by actual proof. That is to say, if
the publisher claims that, although false and not privileged, the
defamatory publication was not malicious, he must prove it.

Of course, if it was not false, it would not be legally malicious.

THE THREE DEFENSES

The defense to libel suits, therefore, are three, namely:

(1) To prove the published charge is true. This is called a
"justification."

(2) To show that the publication was "privileged."

(3) To prove circumstances connected with the publication tending to
show that it was not malicious, or was provoked and excused by the
conduct of the complainant. This is called a defense "in mitigation of
damages."

To prove that the defamatory publication complained of is _true_ is an
absolute and complete defense.

The old maxim of the English criminal law, "The greater the truth the
greater the libel," frequently quoted erroneously in this connection,
has no application to actions in the civil courts, and at the present
time would scarcely be invoked even in any of the criminal courts of
this country, except under the most extraordinary circumstances.

But it is not enough that the writer of defamatory articles himself
knows that they are true, unless he is able to produce, when required,
_competent legal proof of their truth_. What he himself has witnessed
is, of course, competent evidence as far as it goes; when such proof can
be strengthened by official records or other documentary proof, and by
the evidence of other persons who can testify of their personal
knowledge to the truth of the publications, a defense of the strongest
character is presented.

But one distinction should be observed carefully, a misconception in
regard to which has given rise to many libel suits that have been
difficult to defend. When it is said that "the truth is a complete
defense," the literal truth of the published statement is not meant;
_but the truth of the defamatory charge_.

_To illustrate_: A prominent official, say a judge, during the progress
of a political campaign, either in the course of an interview or of a
public speech, makes the charge against a candidate for an important
office that he (the candidate) obtained his naturalization papers