Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-29
JUDGE AIIEs's Theory OF JOURNALISM

meneed. It was an action to recover
damages for libel. The San Francisco
Chronicle had charged the Bulletin and Call
with having sold their columns to cor
poration. The accused asked $1,000 dam
ages for the alleged injury resulting from
this charge. The case has dragged along
until now Some months ago the defend.
ants interposed demurrer on the ground
that no sufficient cause of action was
stated in the complaint, and that the
article complained OF was not ibelous.
Judge Allen has now delivered an opinion
sustaining the demurrer. The full text of
his ruling has not yet been published, but
its tone may be gathered from the follow
ing excerpts Judge Allen says that the
publishers Of a newspaper have the same
duties as individuals in the support or
advocacy of any matter, with perhaps
can increase of responsibility because ad-
"dressing or reaching larger number.
San advocate, or a minister of the gospel,
"reaps the benefit of his talent, sells for
"gain the product of his brain, and the
''same can be done by newspapers. There
sis no law which prevents newspaper
I" from selling its talent, or that of those it
"employs, and there is no libel in saying
"that it does. The opinion concludes by
"saying that it is no mora libelous to ac-
"cuse one of selling his newspaper for
{" gain than to accuse merchant of dispos.
sing of his wares"
The whole of this argument is illogical.
The question to be decided was whether
the article complained of was libelous. To
determine that, the effect of the article
should have been considered. A statement
is ibelous which tends to iniure the
reputation and character of the COM
plainant. Judge Allen has taken the
ground that it does not injure the reputa-
ton and standing of newspaper to say
that it can be bought for any purpose.
The test of that allegation is not difficult.
When the Chronicle said that the Bulletin
and Call had sold their columns it certainly
did not intend to compliment them, or
merely to state fact of no greater signifi-
canoe than an ordinary commercial transac-
ton. 1t intended to injure the Bulletin
and CaU and it took this method because
it believed that public opinion condemned
the sale OF journalistic opinions as wrong.
And it is not to be questioned that a public
opinion of this kind does exist Judge
Allen cites the case of the advocate as an.
alogous to that of the journalist. Well,
the public have even gone SO far as to
convert that form of transaction into a
term of reproach, and when it is desired to
impair the influence of anyone who is sup
porting an obnoxious cause, he is forthwith
denounced and held up to scorn and con-
tumely as "a hired advocate" Again,
when it is desired to say something very
injurious about newspaper it is called
''venal;" and whenever that term is used
it is used in an injurious sense.
Judge Aliens assertion that it is no
more libelous to accuse one of selling
his newspaper for gain than to accuse
merchant of disposing of his wares," is
particularly unfortunate, for there is no
analogy between the cases. In every
charge of venality against journal there
is implied an act of dishonesty towards the
public. In every such charge it is faithless-
ness to a public trust which is really in.
timated. 1t is sought to be conveyed
that the journal has taken money to make
the worse appear the better cause; to
assist some one in perpetrating wrong
against the people; to do iniquity and to
refuse justice. Now to say that charge
like this is merely the equivalent of stat
ment that a merchant sells his wares, is to
betray singular ignorance of the nature
of libel, and also of the nature of journal
ism. In order to create a parallel Judge
Allen must have declared that to charge a
journal with venality was no more ibelous
than to accuse merchant of selling adul-
terated wares, or of cheating his customers
in making change. But as the latter
charge would undoubtedly be libelous, it
could not be employed, though nothing
less will establish any analogy between
the cases. The proof of the libelous char.
acter of statement can only be derived
from its effect. In this case experience
has shown that charge of venality is re-
garded by the public as derogatory to the
character of newspaper. Whoever wishes
to pay journal high compliment will
say that its columns cannot be bought.
The injuriousness of the converse PROPOSE.
ton is necessarily implied.
The question whether many or few
journals do as matter of fact sell their
columns is not in ISSUE What is in issue
is the character of particular charge of
venality. There may be some who think
all journals capable of being bought
There are men who pretend to think that
all women are capable of being seduced.
But it remains a fact for all this that
venality and prostitution are looked upon
as disgraceful, and that charges of either
ofense are calculated to injure those
against whom they are directed. Judge
Aliens theory of journalism is one which
has no point of contact with existing facts.
1t is fantastic and unreal. The journal he
imagines, which cannot be injured by a
charge of venality, does not exist. The
doctrine that all journals have right
to sell their columns is contradicted every
day by actual experience. The goodwill
of newspaper consists largely in the
popular belief in its integrity. No news
paper avowedly conducted on the ad-
vocate's method could obtain a foothold.
Whatever journal should declare its ad-
hesion to Judge Aliens idea would lose
the confidence of its readers And this
because the public do not believe that a
journal which habitually sells its columns
can be trusted as an adviser or guide
In fact therefore the charge of venality
| Jnas ;n,nra iar, -na ala Tn fact oIuo fba