New-York tribune., 1872-03-08
IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALEU.


Thc ;nouirv into the official conduct of In
suronce Superintendent Miller was urged 10y
The Ncac- York Times with great violence for
many months. Mr.. Miller was accused by that
papcr of blackmaling the insurance companies,
extorting presents from them misappropi'-
ating TO his own use money belonging to the
State, corrupily turning over companies To DC
plundercd by Tammany receivers with whom
he was in league. and committing various
other oflcnses for which, If they could DC
provcd he ought not only to have been cx-
pelled from Office, but sent TO the State
Prison. The Times was fully aware OF the
gravity of these charges, and pledged itself
to substantiato them. "What we shall do"
wrote the editor last October, sis to make
" good all that We have said OF Mr. Miler,'
"and show precisely the sort of man he 49,
"and what he is doing with the
Insurance Department." The LcgiSa-y
ture at last ordered an investigation.
Mr.. George Jones, the chief proprietor and
general manager of The Times, and Mr.. l.. j.
Jennings, the leading editor. were called upon
to fulfill their promise, and they refused to do
so. Mr.. Jones repeated the pleasant fiction OF
impersOnalty in which he indulsed when he
was called upon to testify against Mayor Hall.
Mr. Jennings avowed that he knew nothing
about the charges himself the articles against
Miller had been written by persons in whom
he had confidence ; having convinced himself
that these writers were trustworthy. he per
mitted them to say what they pleased Asked to
give their names, he refused. Pressed to indicate
to the committee any source whence they could
probably obtain testimony in support OF the
charges of The Times, he sheltered himself behind
a plea of confidence. In a word, he would give
nothing but the bare statement of newspaper
which Of laie years has become notorious for
the reckIessness of its attacks upon private
character. " If this is not enough" he says in
effect, 81. cannot help you" 1t is not my
Cuisines to go hunting for evidence for the
| committed" "Tbe paper is responsible to
"the law for anything it says" He was ques-
toned particularly about his charge that Mil
Ter had appropriated $4,000 belonging to tho
State, and his replies Oh this point illustrated
perfectly what ne understood to be the respon-
sblity of journalist:
O. On what authority do you assert that the money be
Onged TO the Gtatei
A. On the authority OF the writer iD The Times.
Who the writer in The Times was, he would
not say but that he can hardly have been
worthy of Mr.. Jennings's implicit confidence
is evident from the fact that eXAttOmey-
General Reynolds gave a formal opinion that
the money belonged not to the State but 10
Miller.
We have no doubt that Mr.. Jennings is sin
cere in biz view of the duty Of IN editor, hut we
beg our readers to observe the inevitable
suit of his theory. Some person persuades the
Of a u
corrupt; on the mere word of this person,
who may be a liar or fool for all that the
editor believes in him, the newspaper there
upon opens II furious attack, makes charges of
felony. and demands "a legislative investigation,
volunteering to substantiate its statements
at the proper time. The originator
of the accusations, perhaps, could never
have given them currency, but when great
newspaper takes them up people imagine
there must be something i'll them. Well, the
investigating committee meets; the editor is
examined; and instead of bringing forward
his proofs he declares that he acted upon the
information of person whose name he will.
not DISCLOSE that he made the charges with
out knowing whether they were true or false;
that when he offered to substantiate them he
only meant that he would defend an action
for libel if one should be brought against him.
This is nothing but defending anonymous at
tacks, which the good sense of the world
agrees in declaring infamous. 1t is absurd to
say that the paper itself assumes the respOn-
sibility when the paper refuses to give its
proofs or to pretend that the law Of libel
gives the assaled person his remedy, when it
is notorious that not one man in ten thousand
can afford In sup n DpWsDaDpr
The rule it seems to us, is very simple
one, that an editor is never justified in attack
ing personal character unless he is prepared to
give the names of his witnesses to any legiti-
mate tribunal that may call for them. lie has
no right to throw down n bundle OF damaging
charges before the courts or the Legislature,
and say "There, make what you can of them,
" but do MT ask me to help you" We recognize
the binding obligation of confidence between
an editor and his assistants, and we have many
a time proved how strictly we respect it; but
this duty Of confidence does not apply to n
case like the present. The journalist has no
right, as a member of an honorable profession,
as q good citizen, or as a Christian, to blacken
private character on the word of witnesses who
will not submit to an examination. We are
no defenders of Miller but we think he is en-
titled and the public is entitled, to demand of
the managers OF The Times that they shall
either prove their charges retract them
-----