Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-31
fREss OPINIONS ON JUDGE Al.
LENS RECENT DECISION.

California exchanges Of the News very
generally dsnouncs the grounds given
BY Judge Allen for his recent decision in
the Buletin.C Chronicle libel suit. The Sac.
ramsnto Bee says. with regard to the
matter:
There 10 a vast. and almost illimitable
distance IN the public mind between the
bar and the press. The lawyer may have
but one client at o time. but q newspaper
has many Thousands. II 10 expected to
advocate the best interests Of the people;
to stand guard upon the outer wall to
prevent any sncroschments upon their
rights and privileges; to be ever watch
full and ever wary In their interest. and
to be at all times honest-that is. to
freely declare Its own conviction without
fear. favor, affection or special reward.
A lawyer 10 not held up to public scoru
for taking q fse-in any case however
bad-upless be accepts money from both
sides. and that is rarely done, 50 far as
the people are aware. The editor who
sells his talent and columns to advance
. cause. in opposition to his own solemn
conviction. is looked upon by his fellows
In the profession and by the public a.
we'll a. . wretch untitled to associate
with gentlemen. The merchant sells
dumb thinss; the minister quotes and
attempts to interpret Scripture; but the
editor puts forth living thoughts: upon
home. every day subjects that are pom
dered. remembered and affect society in
all its parts, and which. therefore, have
. tendency to alter laws. to change
dynasties. to control governments. to
maintain or ovsrturn society itself. und
IL he receives pay for thus speaking con-
trary to his honest convictions he 10 0
knave, q bad man in the community
and whoever attempts to condone such
high offense and justify such corrupt
action is o dangerous citizen, whether he
Is on or of the bench. Aud any man
who has no mere sense than to utter
such immortality il not ft to sit upon
any seat Of justice.
Tho Sacramento Record. Union in o
discussion Of the question says:
Judge Aliens assertion ''that 1t Is no
more libslous to accuse one Of selling
his newspaper for gain than TO accuse
a merchant OF disposiug OF his wares
il particularly unfortunate, for there Is
no analogy between the cases. In every
charge Of venality against . journal
there is implied an act OF dishonesty
toward the public. In every such charge
IL il iathlessness to q public trust which
Is really in,imated. 1t Is sought to DO
conveyed that the journal has taken
money to make the worse appear the
better cause; to assist some o in per.
petrating o wrong against the people; to
do iuiquity and to refuse justice. Now,
to say that q charge like this is merely
the equivalent Of Q statement that q
merchant sells his wares. Is to betrsy q
singular ignorance Of the nature OF libel,
and also OF the nature Of journalism.
The Examiner Of San Francisco says ;
No more serious or substantial libel
could be directed against any man than
to charge Q newspaper proprietor who
processes independence Of thought and
action with selling his editorial columns
for coin. 1t involves his reputation ut
it's most vital point. The belief which
be succeeds 10 inspiring in the commu.
nifty, that the u~ttersnces Of his journal
are independent aud honest, is his prin-
cipsl stock in trade. To put sand in
sugar is NO worse morally than for q
newspaper man, while protesting to sell
the honest smana,ions Of his own mind.
to corruptly dilute them with views inim-
ical to the public good. and which his
readers would not buy II they were not
deceived a. to the polluted source from
which they really sprang.
About the particular merits OF tho case
involved between the Bulletin and Chron'
icle we know little and care less. But in
the interest OF the press We do feel con-
cernsd that II shall not 60 forth. With
the force Of an undisputed legal decis.
ion, that cit IL not q libel 10 soy that q
newspaper has sold its editorial columns
for coin." II it oncs ONE to DO be-
lisved that it 10 not wrong 10 say 1t. II
will soon be thought not wrong to do IL;
and II II ever does, then goodbye to the
boasted influence OF "the fourth estate"