, 1873-07-06

ponding, has placed serious obstacle in thor
way.
THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Tho whole law and jurisprudence upon tho
subject Of 1lbclouB publications has boon thor
oughly ovorhaulod In the dobatcs Of tho Penn
sylvania Constitutional Convention. Tho law OF.
libel roats on two assumptions, which arc Home-
what inconsistent:
Frst-Tlat, In tho dofonso of suit for dam
agco. tho. publisher can Justify by proof Of tho
truth Of the allegation made.
Second Tint, in criminal prosecutions for
libel, tho truth Is not sufficient defonso, because
OF tho old maxim that tho greater the truth tho
creator tho libel
This second proposition han beon modified In
several States, but iii ponnuylvania, mud perhaps
other placcs, tho publication of liboloua
article is indtotablo, and IN tho trial, proof Of
tho truth Of tho statements Ia not admissible.
Mr. George Ii. Dallas, In d vcry able apecol to
tho Pennsylvania Convention, took tho ground
TINT tho radical error in the low Of libol WAS that
1t made tho truth tho vital point when in Justice
the crimiuality and responsibility should rest
exclusively upon tho fact OF the malice. Was
the publication, whothor true or falso, published
with tho malicious purpose to injuro tho por-
son ltbolod7 II tho publication WAS wholly
unnecessary, and tho facts OF no pub
lo concern, and tho publication intoud-
cd to injuro the pnrty llibelcd, thon it
ought to be punished independently OF tho
fact whothor tho statements were true or falso.
Tho law Of libel is, to great extont, all unwrit-
ten law. It Ia found IN tho decisions of Courts,
dating back beyond tho time whom such thing
as a uowHpapor was known anl, though tho FREQ
Of tho day the opinions Of Judges hive progreaB-
cd worry slowly. Tho whole form aud manner OF
publication Of nows and Of all other popular ip-
formation has changed tho newspaper has bo-
como the universal medium Of information and
al the appliances Of science have boon adopted
to enlarge it's sphore and extond ita
utility yot publications. In such news-
papors aro still tried by tile Courts with
reference to loyal principles laid down in
casoa whore 1ibels wore published in anonymous
lottors, or in hand-billa posted on the wills.
Mr. Dallas argued that the publication Of
newspaper was o legitimate business, "a distinct
aud RS we'll dotluod as any other trade, art, or
profession. a material part Of that business ia
to give to tho public fair, reasonable, aud at
times strong comments upon current public
events. III doing this. Ao claimed for publishers
tho samo priyilogos that wore extended to nll
IL. tftt NJ
its eIocts-anything that is calculated to reflect
discrcdit on man, or to oxpoao him to ridiculo
or disgrace, is libeloua. In Pennsylvania tho
truth cannot bo pleaded In defense when re-
sort is had to criminal prosecution The
case is told of the publication Of tho arrest Of
man for thoft, and Ills committal to jail to await
trial therefor; tho local newspaper, by tho blum
dor Of tho compoBitor, tranBposod tho names,
and tho item WAS published to tho effect that tho
| magistrate WIS committed for theft. For this
tho editor was lablo to indictment, and, excluded
| from any right to explain tho accidental charao-
tor Of the libel, he waa equally liable to conyc-
ton and imprisonment in the pcnitontiary.
Undor tho same law, in tho eamo state if a
newspaper. in stating that a B had robbed an-
other Of @l,500, and Oh trial for lbol could only
would bo liable for libel upon tho aoousod thief.
The same gentleman contendod that among
the distinctions made botwoen newspaper and
any othor person practicing o legitimate busi-
moss, WAS that all prosumptionB were against tho
paper, and wore all In favor of tho citizen when
nfnf.& that tin 1a1r@
presumeB TINT O newspaper, in all publications.
concerning candidatcB for Office orpublio officers,
or persons properly beforo tho public In conneo-
tion with any matter proper for public investi-
cation, does intend maliciously and willfully to
defame and ipjure tllnt porson, the natural and
reasonable presumption ought to be precisely
tue opposite. The conductor Of newspaper,
In presenting daily for the consideration Of the
public mattor proper for general information
and investigation is entitled to tho natural, fair,
aud reasonable presumption that ho docs it for
tho public good, md in that limo Of Ills own
proper buainoss, and not from my Ill will. In
public contests, where the onds orc public, FREQ
pross nlone can truly servo tho State, and public
purposes are best promoted by FREQ discussion.
The publishers Of newspapers alone OF all oth-
era following legitimate businoss, aro denied
by law tho privilege of showing that IN error OF
mistake WAS not malicious, and was uninten.
tjonal. Tho following Illustration was giyon in
tho debate:
builder ia not permitted, wantonly, to throw the
matoriaa Of which ho IL constructing building right
aud left to the injury Of every WHO may bo pass.
ing. II he does, thero ia sucA negligence established
by that fact al0nc, tat malice becomes the natural and
necessary presumption and he muat 10 convicted Of
manalaughter, md even Ut ay boy Of murder but he
would DO always permitted to show, II ha could that
In the fall Of tho material, which resulted u Injury,
he was c.,argcablo With no neglect, and had beou
guilty Of no n,a!ico, but conducting hiu usual b,ls.
III tho rcgu!ar and ordinary wny, and that the In,
jury tho result Of accident merely and such proof
IL mado to the satisfaction Of the jury. would operate
to acqu!t him III criminal prosecution to secure