The Free South
Published
by William Shreve Bailey
Cincinnati Atlas, October 10, 1851 and published in The Covington Journal, Saturday, October 11, 1851, page 2
Fire in Newport
We sincerely regret to learn that our friend and contemporary of the Newport Daily News, Mr. Wm S Bailey, has met with a severe calamity in the burning of his office and dwelling. About 2 o'clock yesterday, some cowardly villain set fire to the building in which Mr. Bailey resided, part of which also served as a printing office, and in a few minutes there was nothing left but a pile of smoldering ruins. Mr. B and his family barely had time to escape with their lives, without saving any of their furniture, type or presses. His loss is about$3000--without any insurance. It was his all, and therefore the loss is a severe calamity to him. His policy of insurance had expired a few days previously.
The citizens of Newport are determined that the
spicy little "News" shall not be killed off in this manner and
they are already at work to make up a sum to set Mr. Bailey upon his tripod
again. A public meeting was to have been held last evening for this
purpose. We hope soon to see friend Bailey again at work and with better
luck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Free South, 3 September 1858, page 2
As we announced last week, we issue our weekly this week, under the name "The Free South". This name we have adopted as expressive of the great purpose for which we aim.
The gents of Newport, being aculated by an emulative spirit, have recently organized a "Kentucky Club" for the purpose of playing that spirited game-Town Ball.
The Free South, 3 September 1858, page 3
Newport has been vastly improved during the
past month or two, by the introduction of gas and the substantial paving of the
sidewalks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, 29 October 1859, page 3
NEWPORT NEWS
Great Excitement in Newport-A Visit to the office of the Free South
It cannot be denied that the Captain Brown insurrection case, now being tried at Charleston, has had its effect upon people every where in the South. The statement made in the examination of Brown and his confederates, that an outbreak of the same kind that occurred at Harper's Ferry would be commenced at the same time somewhere in Kentucky, led some of our citizens to believe that it might occur at Newport Barracks, and they have been on the quivive? for such an outbreak ever since.
In connection with this matter we will state that there has been published in Newport for the past several months, a paper entitled the Free South, the proclivities of which have been decidedly Black Republican, and since the late outbreak of Harper's Ferry, a portion of our citizens have been of the opinion that Mr. Bailey, who is publishing said paper, was in some way "connected with the movement" and they have felt that some approval or disapproval should be manifested on the occasion.
Last night the fire bell rang and in a few minutes after a large number of our citizens assembled at Court house square, to see what it meant. Someone suggested that they should go down to Taylor street and "move" the press of the Free South and following that suggestion, the party started down to the office.
Arriving there, some fifteen in number, they
went up into the office, took the forms on the press for the printing of today's
paper, and moved them into the street, all of which was done very quietly, and
then made an attempt to move the press, which proved too heavy for them. Finding
they could not move the press and after distributing the forms of the paper, the
crowd advised Mr. Bailey that he had better move his office to the opposite side
of the river and if it was not done within the course of fifteen days, they
would do it for him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, 30 October 1859, page 3
NEWPORT NEWS
Final Destruction of the Free South Newspaper office in Newport
Yesterday the citizens of Newport completed the work of the night before. During the meeting of the day it was reported that a member of Abolition sympathizers from Cincinnati, among them a late Republican candidate for the legislature, had visited Mr. Bailey, the editor of the Free South, and contributed money, as well as promising physical aid in case of necessity. This caused an informal meeting at the office at Col T L Jones, where it was agreed to hold a public meeting at three o'clock PM at the Court house to consider the subject of the continuance of the Free South in Newport and handbills were printed and distributed, calling a meeting of the citizens.
At the appointed hour, the bells were rung and a large crowd of the most respectful and orderly citizens convened at the Court house. Major J R Hallam was called to the chair and C W Cavanaugh, Esq. was appointed secretary.
Colonel T L Jones offered a preamble and resolution, denouncing the Free South newspaper as incendiary, but in view of the public excitement, recommending non action for the present. Colonel Jones and Mr. Anderson advocated the resolution and they were opposed by T D Edwards, Esq. and Major Hallam, when Major Joseph A Piner, Esq. moved to strike out that part which recommended non action. This motion prevailed by an immense majority and then a resolution was adopted unanimously to move the office to Cincinnati. The meeting thereupon adjourned to the printing office.
At the hour appointed, or soon thereafter, the committee, accompanied by a large number of citizens, assembled in front of Mr. Bailey's office on Taylor street, and from the demonstrations made, Mr. Bailey seemed to know what he might expect.
He appeared at one of the windows of his building, and after stating that he was aware of the step about to be taken, remonstrated in strong language against it. Whereupon the committee told him he had better submit as no harm was meant to him or his family. All they intended to do was remove his press and apparatus to the Ohio side of the river.
Mr. Bailey proceeded in keeping his doors closed against the intruders, which caused a portion of the committee to bring forward missiles with which to burst the door open. The home was then entered and all the material of the printing office of the Free South brought out and placed upon wagons, with the view of transporting it to Ohio side of the river. When the party having it in charge, however, they reached the water's edge they suddenly changed their minds and threw the press and fixtures into the river.
Afterward, a meeting was held and a vigilante committee appointed whose duty it is to see that the Free South shall not again be established in Newport.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, 22 November 1866, page 2
LAW REPORT
SUPERIOR COURT-DAMAGE CLAIMED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF A NEWSPAPER OFFICE IN NEWPORT
Wm S Bailey vs. Oliver Root, Charles Air, Orville Winston and James Berry. In this case tried before Judge Storer and a jury, the plaintiff claimed to recover $20,000 damages for the destruction of the printing materials of a newspaper published in Newport Ky. called the Free South, an anti-slavery journal and also for the loss of the profits of the concern (stated to be about $1000 per annum) resulting from the acts of the defendants. The number originally sued was about twenty, but a compromise had been affected with some, on others service had not been obtained, and the rest died after the suit was brought.
On the part of the defense there was a denial of the trespass in the first instance. And secondly, a legal objection was interposed, growing out of an alleged settlement or compromise made with four of the trespassers, which it was contented operated as a release of all the rest. It was also charged that the Free South was an inflammatory and seditious sheet.
The plaintiff, his daughter and others testified to the mode in which the trespass was committed, the value of the property destroyed, and the individuals whom they recognized in the crowd, some carrying and exhibiting pistols.
Mr. George Vox? (or Fox) before he was called to the stand toward the close of the testimony. was examined in relation to the alleged compromise. He had heard a conversation between Colonel Taylor of Newport and Judge Johnston. The Colonel desired to have his sons released. Judge Johnston stated that he could not release them, but was willing not to prosecute if their portions of the damage was made good. Colonel Taylor said that he felt grieved that his sons should be engaged in such a transaction, desired the case disposed of and was willing to pay their proportion. Judge Johnson said he would take $2000 and let the Colonel's sons off. Colonel Taylor thought that where there were so many engaged that amount would exceed a fair proportion. But finally it was agreed that $1500 should be paid by Colonel Taylor and that that should his sons and J R Hallam also.
In the opening speech for the plaintiff, Kittridge denounced the act committed by this mob as the most unparalleled outraged ever committed by the so called Southern chivalry previous to the great war which was not done in the heart of the Southern Confederacy, where a sensitive feeling arising from property in negroes might account for the impulse. But it took place in a town half of whose population was from Ohio, the owners not owning any of this species of property.
Colonel Jackson in his reply did not undertake to vindicate a transaction in which a mob undertook to destroy the private property of a citizen and only attempted to account for the proceeding upon the principle, upon which epidemics, moral and physical, take possession of a community. The sentiment prevailing in the state at the time of this occurrence was "that if a man did not like slavery he could leave the state" and many had thought perhaps the great majority that the editor of the Free South was inciting negroes to rebellion. It was true they did not all own slaves, but a great many were allied to families who did own slaves in and around the Blue Grass region. And thought they were right in standing up for their relations. This as he said before, being butone of the epidemics of the land, taking possession of the good citizens as well as the bad.
Judge Storer in the course of his charge, referred to the claim set up that Air was not present when the injury was committed, or only that he was a looker on. Unless he encouraged by his conduct or conversation the acts of the others, he had to be left to the forum of conscience of moral law. As to the others, it was not denied they were present; and though they may have participated in different degrees in the act, but in this form of action no distinction could be made.
Upon what justification do they stand and require of the jury to believe that their conduct was such as good citizens ought to have exhibited? If it could be found anywhere, it must be in the evidence, and it was not for the court to say whether the evidence would authorize to find such a justification or not. One thing might be said that it was difficult to say where it could be found. And if it could not be discovered then the acts of these defendants, who were shown to have been present in law, was altogether inexcusable, unwarrantable, and illegal and the Jury ought to visit such damages upon them as would not only vindicate the rights of the plaintiff as a citizen in claiming the protection for himself and his family which others assert belong to them, but give him the assurance that he was not to be driven away from any portion of these United States, except it be by the judgment of the law, except it is on conviction of a crime, except it is by the verdict of his peers.
Although he (Judge Storer) was no accustomed to look to the consequences of a case, when it was not becoming in a judge to do so, circumstances do occur when, in the course of judicial duty, it becomes imperative on the part of the Court to ask those who are to pass finally upon the issue to put the case to themselves. The right of one man to pursue his business is but the right of every other man to pursue his. And if one man be suffered to be deprived by the means by which he lives, another may, and by and by brute force will usurp the place of law. Their safety, their honor and the permanency of their institutions depend upon vindicating the law.
This is not an ordinary case where a man sues another for damages for property lost. It is a question whether a man has a right to live in his own house, to pursue his own lawful employment, whether he is to be held at the mercy and caprice of half a dozen or a hundred men, or is to live under the protection of the law. If this plaintiff had conducted himself in a way to disturb the public peace, or to produce insurrection, the law was open at that time and there was a mode by which he might be held to account.
The Jury would not be bound to render vindictive damages, but it was in their discretion to do so. Whatever the damages they considered the plaintiff had sustained, they could deduct from that the amount proved to be paid to him.
The Jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict at about half past five o'clock and had not agreed to a verdict up to the hour of adjournment. A sealed verdict will be returned today.
Judge Stallo, E W Kittridge and W S Taylor appeared for plaintiff. Colonel Jackson, J M Jordan and Messrs. Hallam and Root for defense.