Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-05-02
4 Newspaper MulCtcd.

Newspaper Mulctcd
In the good old times the outraged feelings
OF person sl.nlercd, or conceiying himself
to be >landcred in one of the public prints
were soothcd by the spectacle of the news
paper man, his libeller, inyoluntarily sun
ming himself in the pillory. with the con-
oOmitantl of the delicate attentions wont to
be bestowed upon the pilloriel journalist by
the average rabble of those days or, per-
haps, he was taught Lesson in etiquette by
the removal of an car or two or a surgical
| operation on his nose ndeT the new dis
pensatiOn, however, corporal atonement has
been charged into a legal attack upon the
exchequer Of the offending newspaper -
instead of the pound of flesh healing salye
OF legal tender is sought. 1t is seldom, how
ever, in this country, at least, that public
journal is beaten in a libel suit, the average
jury's idea of the freedom of the press being
very liberal one, and their verdict for dam
ages seldom going above fractional parts of
one dollar-as for instance Charles Reade's
famous suit against The RoHu Tdbl.,
wherein the testy novelist recovered the
bewlldering sum Of six cents and hosts of
similar cases. Bat there was notable excep-
tion to the general sule, last week, when the
Springfield RePHJicaa was mulctei in the
Of a. I 4 II
Rev. {. d. LOthrop. As already stated in
these columns, Mr. L)throp charged the
managers Of the k'PUbhc~t with false and
malicious libel in accusing him Of systemati-
cally and cruelty beating his wife and chill
dren, nourishing them with chicken feed,
and other foul offences. The defence set up
was the truth OF the assertions made. There
was vast amount Of conflicting evidence
and the trial was long and closely contested
one, lasting from April l0ih to the 18th As
the Judge Indicated in his charge, 1t was
necessary for the paper, in order to make
valid defence, to prove not only that its
statements were true generally, or that
portion of them were, but that all were
and that there was 20 express malice in their
publication. Ofcoursc NJ malice was prov
ed and it therefore must have bcen on the
first point that the R.PsG',loG came to grief.
Whatever the rights and wrong OF this
particular case, il seems to u' that in rak
ing up such a thing aS a family quarrel and
in daily trumpetiug forth the dis
agreeable details, newspaper goes
wholly beyond the limits of legiti-
mate journalism. \ newspaper is not
scayenger or detective. Much less i it
sheriff Judge, Jury and cxecutioncr. 1t has
DO right, under ordinary circumstances, to
arraign private citizen As a criminal before
a tribunal. And in the present case, pander-
ing to the public tlste for sensation and pre-
dilection for SANDER i, we believe, contrary
to the public good and certainly violation
of the eanons of the higher journalism. If,
too, every newspaper should take
hand in every family quarrel of
which its managers ami attaches
should become cognizlnt, the consequences
may be imagined. 1t need not be said that
in the RsPHJh'dq'S original publication of
Mir. Lothrops family troubles there was no
element of malice i: resulted simply from
Il mistaken theory Of what constitutes news.
The upshot of the trial again inculcates the
fact that everything that happens is not
news; and that publishing everything that
comes into the newspaper drlg-net is not
enterprise.
In this connection tn, Boston Jomnal
has an editorial article that gives
50 clear and true an exposition nl
the legitimate province of journalism
that We can not refrain from reprinting it,
in part-and we may add that its structures
have an application nearer home than
Massachusetts.
When We take into view the conflicting
character of the evidence and the unwilling
ness of the average Jury 10 abridge the
freedom OF the press by an oyer-risid appli-
cation of the libel laws, it is evident that We
to understand the purport of the verdict
1t is less vniicatlon of the Rev. Mr..
L0throp than an emphatic expression
OF disapproyal OF the course pursued
by the Repubhcdr, and the zeal with
which it gathered together all the floating
gossip and idle tales OF country
community and spread them before its read
ers. Here was family quarrel, more re-
pulsive and painidl in many OF its features
than the average, and attaining II degree Of
publicity which made 1t almost impossible
Tor a newspaper published so near the town
as the RepEJlicdr to ayOii making some
mention OF it. \ newspaper cJaduc;el on
what appears to us to be the sound theory OF
journalism would have opened its columns
with reluctance to such Il subject; would
have restricted it to the narrowc-t possible
limits and would have taken the most scru
pulOus care 10 verify such iactS "a 1t felt
compelled to print. The policy Of the
RepEJitCaH was quito the reverse Oi this 1t
would scarcely he UNJUST to say that II
entered with gest upon the case a. promis
ing the most appcti2ins developments
OF news that it hunted up or hunted
down every shred Of material bearing upon
it The ReyujLrcn' policy was not adapted
to help eithe. the iuhi't or the parties con
cerned it, tendency was to broaden Il
scandal which could scarcely be too narrowly
restricted, and 10 eater 10 too prev
alent liking for gossip. The same
paper has erred 50 often IN invading the
sancti,ies of private life, and has shown such
Il consistent and systematic disregard OF the
rights and the senslbihti,s ut Individuals
thar it IS almost too much to hops that ii
will lay to heat the lesson which the verdict !
conveys. The result ut the tr:al will never |
theles7 90 80 establish the principle that the |
ambition to be bright and "ncw-y mast
not override private ilghi~-