New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-09-02
TIE Privileges or JOURNALIST IN
ENGLAND

ENGLAND.
A question has just been decided In the
Liverpool Court Of Chancery which has lively
interest in this country on account OF Its bear
ing upon a recent and still pending contrO-
yersy of our own. An action for libel having
been brought against a weekly paper called
The Leader, the plaintiffs applied for an order
compelling the editor, Mr.. Vaughan, to give
the names of the persons from whom he
received the information alleged to be
libelous. Mr.. Vaughan refused to violate
the confidence of his contributors, and
after elaborate arguments and many ad-
jOurnments Vice-Chancellor Little finally
sustained him in his refusal. The decision,
however, was based upon the very unsatisfac-
tory ground that by answering the editor
might lay himself open to q criminal action
for conspiracy The right of q journalist to
conceal the name of bis informant where no
such danger existed was not admitted The
other Liverpool papers comment on the decls-
ion with some care, and The Daily Post says:
eff The Leader case had for the first time re-
"sulted in an editor either being compelled to
" disclose the sources of his information or to
" 90 to prison for refusing, it would have been
necessary on grounds of public policy to pass
"an Act better defining the amount and sort OF
"concernment which is to render person liable
"to be questioned and perhaps specially pro-
"tecting the public's servants on the Press.
"Tlere is no difficulty in bringing them to book,
"and it is only a disguised way of making them
"powerless for good to render it unsafe for
members of the public to impart to
"their Press protectors confidential informa-
" ton. We take the high ground that II a
Journalist accepts the responsibility OF what
che publshes-as, indeed, he cannot help
"doing-he is entitled to keep in his own
"breast the names of those who have put him
"In possession Of his materials. The Press
"ere now has had to fight for and has won
"its liberty. 1t may now have to contend IN
"defense of its usefulness. There can be 10
usefulness on the part of the Press without
"g0od information, and good information
"cannOt be had if confidential communications
"to editors are to be exposed by the Court OF
"Chancery. 1t would be very bad thing for
"the public if through the exercise of the
"power claimed by Vice-Chancellor Little the
"Press were either debarred from materials,
"or deferred from using them, or made to
"depend upon floating and idle gossip, or
"upon persons who would be Indifferent to the
inconvenience of being paraded before
"court of equity as dark conspirators."
This is the common sense view of the case
for which we have contended all along, and
we believe the time is not far distant when
it will be recognized in our statutes. The
right of an editor, assuming the responsibility
for everything he publishes, to keep the
secrets of his contributors, is not only essen
tial to the liberty and usefulness of the Press,
but it is the best safeguard against reckless
and libelous publication. Journalists will be
much more careful what they print when they
feel that they cannot divide the responsibility
with the writer or informant, but must
shoulder it all themselves.