Los Angeles daily herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1873-1876, 1874-05-06
Newspaper Responsibility.

In the recent libel suit against the
Chronicle, Judge SHARPsTEIN very
clearly and fearlessly lays down the
law as to the rights, duties and privi-
leges of newspapers. An opinion
seems to have grown up among scrib-
blers for public journals that the press
has rights superior to the rights OF pri-
vate individuals; that an individual
In an editorial capacity has right to
destroy another persons character, but
as private citizen he can not. The
worst and most corrupt monopoly in
the United States to-day is the monop-
oily of the press.
The fact is painfully notorious that
the great majority Of the newspapers
are open to brides, and for money are
ready to espouse any or either side of
q cause, or to advocate any measure
for the swindling Of the people. In
politics the class of papers referred to
will support whatever candidates pay
the most money. What man is there
who has run for office that has not had
to pay in his assessment to "buy
that paper and the other" "The
money must be raised to-day, or the
editor says he will accept the offer of
the other party" Ifthere is mining
scheme on foot, give the papers share
of the stock to help it along. Do you
want to lay off a city, a perfect fraud,
and by selling lots swindle thousands
of people out of their hard earned
money? Be liberal with your corner
lots to the newspaper fraternity. Do
you want to run for office? Just hire
some paper to ruin your opponents
character; and when the responsible
parties are brought into courts Of jus.
tice, throw sand in the eyes of the
court and jury by arguing on the ne
cessity of sustaining the "liberty and
independence of the press"
The following is part of the instruc-
lions referred to. 1t rests on the great
corner stone Of our Declaration of In
dependence and the Constitution of
the United States, that all men are
created equal, and have equal rights
and privileges-none more, none less:
A great deal has been said, gentlemen, in
regard to the press-and do not take any ex-
ception to what has been said concerning it
but you must not be led to suppose that the
press has any other rights, or has any pecu-
liar rights, any rights that do not pertain and
belong to every individual in the community.
The press has no more right to encroach upon
the rights of private citizen than private
citizen has to encroach upon the rights of the
press. OfcOurse, we all favor freedom of the
press; we all consider 1t an agent and neces-
sity of civilization, and no one favors ham,
perng it with unreasonable conditions or veX-
ltions. But in this country there is no right
more sacred than that of the private citizen.
There is nothing above it, There is no power
except that of The Government, that OF the
sovereign power-and that in exceptional
ctSes-that can with impunity trench upon
the rights of the private cltizen. The press, l.
that respect enjoys the same rights and i'm
munities as an individual, and no more. 1t
Is said, and very truly said, that the conduct
ola leading newspaper involves great care,
and, might add, great hazards; for the more
any one knows about the ms de workings of Il
newspaper, the more they will BE- impressed
WITH The immense responsibility which per-
sons a sumo who undertake 10 conduct a pub
lie newspaper. But in this country, gentle
men, nobody can be compelled to embark in
that business unless he chooses to. And if a
man does not understand the business well
enough to understand the hazards of it, and
understand the responsibility he is assuming
1t is far better than he should keep out of it, If
he dos not understand the hazard and re-
sponsibility which he Is assuming, then fair
Inference is that he makes up his mind to
hazard
and when he does so, there is a stipulation,
implied at least, between him and the mem
bers of the com munity that he will so conduct
II as TO in ure no citizen. And if he fails in
that part of the stipulation OH his part, he
must expect 10 respond in damages. IS :"
But without malice there can be no libel.
When the libel is proved, the malice is pre-
sumed. Even if the evidence failed to prove
that the parties ever met each other or ever
heard of each other before, it would make no
difference.