Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/633

 CUANK 17. WATEU3. 621 �such discussions they are not held to prove the exact truth of their statements, and the Boundness of their inferences, provided that they are not actuated by express malice, and that there is reasonable ground for their statements or inferences, all of which is for the jury. Kelly V. Sherlock, L. R. 1 Q. B. 688; Kelly v. Tinling, Id. 699; Mor- rison v. Belcher, 3 F. & F. 614; Henwood v. Hnrrison, L. R. 7 G. P. 606; Davis v. Dmcan, L. R. 9 G. P. 396; Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235. �Some of the afifairs of a railroad company are public and some are private. For instance, the honesty of a clerk or servant in the office of the company is a matter for the clerk and the company only. The safety of a bridge on the Une is a subject of public moment. The public, in this sense, is a number of persons who are or will be interested, and yet who are at present unascertainable. AU the future passengers on the road are the public, in respect to the safety of the bridge, and as they cannot be pointed out, you may discuss the construction of the bridge in public, though you thereby reflect upon the character of the builder. If this definition of the public is a Sound one, the commonwealth, considered as a stockholder, is not the pubUc, for its interests are entrusted to certain officers, who are easily ascertained; nor would the interests of the shareholders be- come a public matter merely by reason of their number, unless it were proved that it would be virtually impossible to reach them in- dividually. If, therefore, the question were merely of the effect of the scheme upon the shares of the New York & New England Rail- road Company, a corporation already chartered and organized, I should doubt somewhat whether it would be of a public nature. But, inasmuch as the project was one which affected a long Une of road, as yet only partly built, and the consolidation of several companies, it assumes public importance. Perhaps the right of legislative inter- ference may be taken as a fair test of the right of public discussion, since they both depend upon the same condition. The legislature cannot interfere in the purely private affairs of a company, but it may contrbl such of them as affect the public. It cannot be doubted, I apprehend, that the legislatures of Gonnecticut and Massachusetts would have power to permit or to prohibit or to modify a scheme such as is now in question. It interests the public, consisting of the unascertained persons who will be asked to take shares in it, and those through whose land it will pass or whose business will be helped or hindered by it, that such a Une should be well, and even ��� �