Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1881-06-24

In the case Of Judge L. L. Knapp of Mid
dlebury against Mcssrs Fuller and Smith,
proprietors Of the Addison County Journal,
for libel, Chief Justice Pierpoint charged
the jury substantially as follows;
If you find that the meaning which is at
trbuted 10 that article in the declaration is
the true meaning-that that was the object
and purpose of it by the parties who pub
llshed it-then the court tells you that it is
libclous. 1t constitutes a charge which no
man has right to make against another I'M
less he is able to make the truth of it appear
when he is called upon. No newspaper edi-
tor, no individual, has a right 10 promrlgate
the idea which is attributable to that article
about any man or woman, unless he is pre-
pared 10 make it good by proof of its truth.
Such charges arc serious things when they
arc put atoat by word of mouth. They are
still more serious when they are put into
newspapers and circulated throughout the
land-more serious in their consequences, and
indicating more deliberate purpose on the
part of those who pronulgate them. The
man who sits down and writes out dcliber-
atcly, an article of this kind, has il put in
type, prints it in his paper and sends itbroad-
cast over the land, should be held response
bic for the consequences of his falsehOod and
it is no answer to say that newspaper people
do such things every day. That is no JUS
LITIGATION of it; it is only aggrava-
ton. II is additional reason why
when case of this kind comes
into court, court and jury should put
their hands upon it in the hope of suppress
ing the evil, however fruitless the effort
may be. The liberty of the press is very
much talked about, as is the liberty of the
individual. The liberty of both is a sacred
thing-which ought to be preserved at all
times and under all circumstances But
what is personal liberty and what is the lib
erty of the press? Does it mean that you
are at liberty TO do just what you have
mind to :! Does it mean that you are at lib
crty TO say just what you please about any
body and everybody? by no means. The
liberty Of the individual and the liberty of
the press is liberty under The lao. The law
is superior TO the press; the law is superior
TO the individual. The liberty of the indi-
vidual is the liberty which the law gives
him. and protects. him in; and the liberty of
the press is of precisely the same character.
Tie liberty of the press is not RIGHTEOUSNESS
any more than the the liberty of the indivd-
ual it is the right which the press has under
the law. Under the law the liberty of the
press does not give the press right to pub
lish falsehood about any one. 1t does not
give the press the right TO make false ac-
cusations in their papers any
more than individuals have a right in
private life to make false accusations
against their neghbors. And it is no justifi-
cation to say that newspapers unfortunately
are in the habit of doing it, The press to
certain extent may be said to be licentious-
You see great deal in the newspapers that
you would not want to give your wife or
daughter to road. When they are libelous
and false, the parties who publish such
things are responsible to the parties whom
they charge. 1t has been said that the pub
lie press is the great instructor of the people,
the source from which the people TO
great extent obtain their education, the
source from which they obtain largely
the information which they possess in re-
gard to public affairs. And that is undoubt-
eddy true. Newspapers are an indispcnsa-
bic necessity to the community. But that
does not give them the right to publish that
which is improper to publish. 1t does not
give them the right to publish that which is
false and scandalous and libelous. Indeed,
it is one Of the strongest reasons in the world
why everything nf that kind should Is" CIV
cluded from them. If the people are to be
educated by the press, the education they
receive should be pure; not such an educa-
ton as they get from the scandalous articles
we often see in print. The public press can
not shield themselves on any such ground as
that from the responsibility which is incur
red by the publication of that which is false
and libelous.
The distinction between liberty and
license, drawn by Judge Pierpoint, is of
course not new but it is one which needs to
be often repeated The licenti0us press
needs cline upon line and prccept upon pre-
cept," and TO line and precept must occa-
sionall be added the lash of legal penalty.
And after all and IN spite Of such discipline
there are, and Will continue TO be, members
of the Press who cannot be kept within the
bounds of doccncy and truth. The reputable
portion of the Press of this country, how
ever, have no more in common with the
new spaper scavengers and lbcllers, and no
more desire TO shield them from just punish
ment than other reputable private indiyidu-
ais have. And the respectable papers are
the mai MY of the Press in this r .i.,try.
The nla jon. = American newspa cfs will
not KIN inliy AMI wilfu'ly publish false
hoods or nsn.la:c vile charges of which
they have no evidence, or fill their columns
with stuff unfit TO be brought into decent
family circle If this were not the case libel
suits would be much more frequent and often
er successful than they are. There are enough
Of the Arabs OF the Press, enough of those
who need legal restraint TO keep them within
the bounds of decency, 10 make a law of Ii
bel necessary But that law troubles the
truthful and honest editor no more than .hc
law against stealing troubles homes. men