Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1865-03-10
THE LAW OF LIBEL.

! we say ana II Is "'
II od;,o-s w.re 50 accommodating as to
Give oven a limited paragraph Of denunci-
e,;on 70 every case of public and private
outrs,e which is Indignantly detailed to
.bsm every day, we might all be publish
inc, :. ouartos," and those of most formid-
able size. In the estimation Of the mass
of our otherwise well-informed citizens,
the editor seems to be a licensed and legal
" authorized excoriator of other men;
with a hide impervious to bullet and in
sensible to the cowskin, and heart cal
lous to the writings of his victims. He
is, furthermore, expected to ignore the
possibility of there being more than one
side to story, and to act vigorously and
promptly upon the er parte statement of
every responsible or irresponsible John
Doe or Richard Roe who may desire to
see his enemy figuring as scoundrel in
half-column Of loaded matter. A mild
suggestion by the editor, that the adver-
Using columns of his paper are open to
the public at "three dollars per square
for the first insertion" and that the ag-
srieved Doe or Roe can therein and on
those terms pour fourth his woes over his
own proper signature, is met by the
wounded Doe with stare of establishment
or blast of indignation. Doe is at once
firmly impressed with sense of his own
public spirit. and only desires to make
public the rascality of Roe as a matter of
public information, and to put the COM
munity on their guard. The editor don't
see it in that light, and John Doe stalks
off in wrath, and-stops his paper. II
the editors of Storey county could recol-
lect and publish list of the subjects which
have been suggested to them as proper
themes for indignant denunciation, sensi-
BILE people would "larf most consumedly,"
and would accuse us Of eSaggeration.
There has scarcely been paper yet pub
/ lished in Nevada, but has, at some time
or other. felt impelled, as public duty,
to speak harshly of certain men or certain
measures; and when such an unpleasant
duty has fallen to our lot, we have, per-
haps, at times, put little 100 much GQ"G-
forts in our inkstand. Whenever we
have made this use of our pen, however,
it has been in allusion to public function
aries, who, BY the assumption of official
robes, have rendered themselves the legiti-
mate objects of public scrutiny; and as
their acts have affected the rights of the
people, so have they rendered themselves
amenable alike to public praise or public
censure. 1t is not, however, of that
species of newspaper censure that we are
speaking at present. We hold firmly and
tenaciously to our right to expose and de-
nounce official corruption whenever proven
to our satisfaction, and shall, in such cases.
pile on the agony without stint, regardless
of ive-shooters or "juries of our country
men," There is another class of news
paper criticism. which is not properly of
general public benefit, and is not strictly
within the line of editorial duty; yet it is
the species which the editor is more
frequently called upon to indulge in
than any other. That is criticism of
the transactions Of business corporations,
and private business transactions between
citizens. 1t is precisely such a case as &C.
cupied most of last week in one of the
District Courts of San Francisco, and
which resulted in a verdict of $500
against the proprietors of the Erentng
| Bulletin. We were well conversant with
the subject matter of that suit, and were
much astonished at the verdict of the jury.
At the time of the publication Of the Of
| fensive article, we took notice of it in the
! News. We believed the Bulletin to be
actuated By the best of motives, in pub
fishing The History of Promising
Mine although we had an erroneous
opinion, at the time, that the swindling
was being done by other parties. Had
the same information been detailed to us
that was given to the Bulletin, and we
been requested to write an article upon
the subject, we should have taken an en-
tirely different track and probably been
prosecuted for libel by altogether different
parties. We venture to say that there is
scarcely an editor on the coast that would
have hesitated to publish 1.-THE History
of Promising Mine" upon the same au-
thorisy that the Bulletin acted on. We
have seen, however, how courts of law
look upon these things, and the San Fran
cisco Judgment will have the effect of plac-
ing the editorial fraternity on their guard
as to how far they may interfere with and
denounce the conduct of the affairs of
business corporations, or impute rascality
to private individuals. 1t should also
prove instructive to the general public,
and teach them what an unreasonable
thing it is that they are constantly expect
ing editors to do, when they ask them to
indulge in unstinted denunciations Of the
business transactions of citizens which at
the first blush seem deserving Of the Bit
terast condemnation.
| The verdict to which we have made al
lusion-a verdict rendered, most probably,
in accordance with the instructions of the
Court-establishes the principle, very en-
phatically, that the reputation of the citi-
zen is not free property to be banded
about recklessly, and blasted with impu-
nifty, and that there is nothing IN the edi-