New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-12-27
NEWSPAPER "LIBFLS.p


The case of the State of Pennsylvania VS..
Mr.. C. c. Taylor, City Editor of The PhiIadel-
phia Press, in which verdict of guilty has
just been rendered, illustrates the extremely
unjust and Onerous way in which the law of
libel is interpreted against public journals
We will state the facts as briefly as possible
The Press last November, printed an article,
in which it was averred that for the purpose
of corrupting revenue officers the sum of
$4,000 had been raised and placed in the
hands of Theodore Walton; that out of this
money the price was paid for the assassination
of Detective Brooks, and that Mr.. David H.
Lane assisted in raising this fund. Now the
point to be observed is that when Mr.. Lane
complained of this statement to the editor OF
The Press that newspaper made just as full
retraction as could possibly be made in such
case. 1t expressed its regrets that it had done
Mr.. Lane the injustice Of printing his name in
connection with the nefarious practices of some
of the worst men in the community; ii
acknowledged that he had always had repu-
tatiOn for integrity, and that the correction
was due to him. Could any journal have
made a more ample and honorable amende
Mr.. Lane, it is stated, was inclined to let the
affair drop, but being thereto urged by poll
ticians who nOurished old grudges against The
Press, he made the complaint upon which this
case was founded. The jury found Mr.. Taylor
guilty. The truth is, in the present absurd
state of the law, any other verdict was hardly
possible. Technically, there was a libel; the
publication was not disputed, and the retrac-
ton, at law, perhaps could go for nothing
Still, had we been upon the jury, we confess
that we should have felt at liberty to infer a
want of malice in the publication from the
very fair and honorable course taken by The
Press 80 soon as it was satisfied that its first
opinion was erroneous.
In arguing that newspapers should have
liberty, we have never claimed for them reck-
less license. In discussing their duty Of pub
fishing facts, we have never asserted their
right to disseminate falseboOd. On the con-
trary, we have always, and with our whole
force, urged that it was for the interest of all
fair minded journalists that those of the pro-
fession who publish SANDER. and. upon proof
of its character, refuse an equally public
retractiOn, should be summarily and legally
dealt with. Mistakes will occur, sometimes
through the necessary haste with which daily
journal is compiled, and sometimes from an
er parte statement of facts which appears to
be plenary. The conductors of newspapers
are mortal, like other men, and being mortal
their Judgment is not infallible. The gist OF
libel is its malice; this, of course, the law,
itself, as it now stands, is obliged to infer |;
but when an editor has done all in his power
to atone for an injury accidentally inflicted
he has done all he can to show that no was
not originally governed by malicious motives
He sets the injured man right before oil his
readers; he tells them that the information
which they received was unfounded; it is very
much as If a person who had unwittingly cir,
culated Islander should take pains to SO,
every one whose ears 1t had reached and t;