Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1868-03-26
Prosecutions for Libel.

The laws relating to newspaper libels,
both in this country and Europe, have al
most invariably been unduly severe upon
the press. This has, however, been the
case chiefly with respect TO the letter oil
the law, for it has but rarely been enforced
tothe oppression of the newspaper interest
That venerable and well informed individ.
ual known as the Oldest inhabitant can
scarcely recollect an instance where a
newspaper publisher has been subjected to
anything more than mere nominal dam
ages for utterances in his journal claimed
to be lbelous But this very fact, togeth.
er with the fact that such suits are so often
brought, and that publishers are so ire
quently subjected to the necessity of EN-.
ploying counsel 20 defend them from silly
or malicious prosecutions, show that some
thing has ben wrong about our laws, and
that they have not kept pace with pub
lie opinion and the changed condition OF
affairs.
A recent decision of an EDg lish Judge OF
high rank shows how the prerogatives, OF
rather the rights, of the press are regarded
in that country. An editor of the Pal
Mall Gazette openly denounced in the col.
umns of that paper, a certain American
physician as ouack. The physician
brought suit, and, we believe, proved that
he was no quack; but the Judge decided
that the publishers of the Gazette could not
be held liable for damages, even if the OBJ.
jectionable statements should be proven
to be erroneous, provided 1t appeared that
no malice actuated them. The particular
point made by the judge was that the pub.
lie interest demanded that writers for the
press. In their impersonal character oil
critics on behalf of the public, should be
allowed wider liberty Of expression than
individuals; and hence that the statement
made by the editor of the Gazette. though
it might have rendered him liable il
uttered in conversation, or even IN pri-
vste, over his own name, did not render
him liable, uttered editorially, as a pub
lie censor and conservator of the public
interest
A recent case in New York, both parties
to which are well known in the vicinity Of
that city, further illustrates the tendency
Of pubic opinion in this direction. The
case is that of Dean o. Beach. The c.se
Is clear one of injury done the plaintiff
but as it u shown to the jury that this in
jury was not done through any malicious
intent or criminal carelessness on the par
Of the defendant, he is acquitted of al
liability in the matter. 1t is pleasant to
notice that the State of Wisconsin, and we
believe also Hinneeota, has taken another
step in advance by imposing the burden Of
proof in libel cases upon the Plaintiff in.
stead of the defendant and also providing
that no publisher of . newspaper shall be
liable for damage on account of any Ian
guage that may occur in public speeches
and trials reported in such newspaper
4. A. L<x
manifestly should not-shield any pub
Usher in wanton or malicious attacks upor
any persons character or business, do pro
tect him from petty and malicious prosecu
tions from every miscellaneous person whC
may deem himself offended or injured By
newspaper item Therein they encour
age the journalist to do more faithfully hi
duty as Q public censor, as well as re
porter of news, and essentially benefit tn.
people at large, whose servant he ISL Chi
cage Post a. mf