se may be "criticised." But if the
_person_ who produces it is defamed, this must be defended, if at all,
upon some other ground than that it is _criticism_.

Moreover, to justify such comment on men's actions or on the products of
their hands or brains _as criticism_, it is essential that the acts or
things so criticised should have actual existence.

_For instance_, a newspaper comments with great severity on certain
occurrences which it publishes as the official acts of a mayor of its
city. Before these strictures can be defended as _criticism_, it must
appear that such official acts really occurred.

Again, newspaper proprietors might well be held liable for publishing a
ridiculing criticism of language pretended to be quoted from the book
which the critic is reviewing, but which language the author of the book
had not actually used.

If the publishers who are defendants in a libel suit are unable to show
that the defamatory publication is _true_ or that it is _privileged_,
then the injured plaintiff is entitled to a verdict _in some amount_.
How small this sum shall be will depend upon how good a case the
defendants can make out _in mitigation of damages_. The range of
defenses that may be interposed for this purpose is very broad. The
following may be enumerated as the most important:

(1) That the general conduct of the plaintiff gave the defendant
"probable cause" for believing the charges to be true.

(2) That the complainant's general character is bad.

(3) That the publication was made in heat and passion, provoked by the
acts of the plaintiff.

(4) That the charge published had been made orally in the presence of
the plaintiff before publication, and he had not denied it.

(5) That the publication was made of a political antagonist in the heat
of a political campaign.

(6) That as soon as the defendant discovered that he was in error he
published a retraction, correction or apology.

(7) That the defamatory publication had reference not to the plaintiff,
but to another person of a similar name, concerning whom the charges
were true, and that readers understood this other individual to be
meant.

ABSENCE OF ACTUAL MALICE

The principle underlying all the above defenses is that they tend to
show an absence of _actual malice_. Many other circumstances, too
numerous and varied to be classified, and which properly could be used
in the same manner and for the same reason to reduce damages, will