The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-06

Hditerial assponsibility.
In the Brooklyn trial on Thursday his Honor
Judge Nelson rendered, incidentally. what
seems to as an eminently wise decision, and
We are happy to note that good law and strict
justice seem for once to coincide. His judy
ment was that however the editor or pro-
prietor of newspaper may be responsible in
damages for injuries done to others by pub
LEGATIONS made in his Journal yet he cannot be
accounted morally responsible for the effect
of any articles that appear in his paper unless
1t be shown that they were either written by
himself or distinctly published with his
knowledge and consent Discussion of tho
point arose upon the profer by Mr.. Evarts Of
certain articles printed in the Golden Ago
while Mr.. Tilton was editor. One of these
articles was an extract from the Troy Times,
given as news, and Of course It was not pre-
tended that Mr.. Tilton wrote It; and 1t was
not proposed even to show that he wrote the
others. It was argued that as these pieces
contemplated marriage from very loose stand
point it would be sufficient to show that they
were published in paper controlled BY Mr..
Tilton in order to show that he held the same
views, and the learned counsel proposed to
make precedent in this case ito hold an editor
responsible in the sphere of public opinion
and morality for articles that are published
in his newspaper. whether he is personally
the writer of them or not il they appear as
the issue of his paper, and not credited to any
other source''-that is, as was further ex-
planned, if the articles ware ''original matter"
Now the theory of editorial responsibility
thus imagined by Mr.. Evarts would place
editors in . difficult dilemma between their
obligations to public morality and their obi
cations to give the news. For the ''original
matter" contemplated by the lawyers covers
all that is given in newspaper that has not
been previously printed. It does not merely
mean the editorial articles those presumed
expressions Of the editors opinions on the
topics of the day, for which his responsibility
is never denied and for which alone Of oil that
appears in the paper he can be nationally
deemed responsible but it covers all that he
prints without copying it from some other
journal or printed source-all that does not 90
within turned commas. Our first obligation
is to give the news. Are We responsible,
morally, for what the news may be2 Here is
the Beeoher trial. with many things in it not
palatable to squeamish fancies and much that
is justly offensive to correct taste and the
publication of the whole story is as necessary
part Of the process as the throwing open to
the public the doors Of the court room. Are
we, because we print the story, responsible
for all the insidious villanies, the fragrant
violations Of good faith, the elaborate justiA-
cations Of vice it includes? And suppose we
declined to publish it because of snch q
theory Of moral responsibility, would not the
public properly inquire who constituted ~ .
judge ofwhat their intellectual diet should bep
No such theory Of editorial censorship over
the public will hold in these days; and Mr..
Evarts himself would scarcely be pleased if
editors should hold him strictly responsible
for his proposition in regard to it. We under
stand well enough that as Q lawyer his duty is
to his client ~ ours in supplying the news is
to the public. He is under obligation to get
in every point of evidence that promises to
tell in his favor; and if admission of the evil
dence is resisted it may be even his duty to
invent absurd theories Of responsibility, in
the hope that under cover of these the
evidence may slip through and. therefore,
we shall not do him the injustice of believing
that he would strictly maintain on its merits
the monstrous injustice Of his theory.