The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1882-01-19
NEWSPAPER INFLuENCE.

NEWSPAPER INFL LUENCE.
A recent judicial decision, in Cal
ltornia court, presents some features
alike interesting and mayhap instruct
i've, not alone to newspaper publish
ers, but to the general public, as de-
termining the use to which newspa-
per may put its influence and re-
sources without incu-rlng the charge
of venslity or corruption, The case
that called forth this decision created
| no small amount of interest on the
Pacific slope and the tinality was not
reached until the contestants tested
their cause in the supreme court OF
the state, the opinion being given by
the chief justice. The details are
lengthy, but may be summarized
with succinct brevity. The
Chronicle newspaper, of San
Francisco, made the accusation that
the Bulletin newspaper, of the same
city, sold its editorial influence to the
Central Pacific railroad company for
the sum of $4,000. The dignity of
the Bulletin was offended at this
charge and it instituted suit for libel
against the Chronicle. The chief JUS
tice ruled that the charge was not
libelous. He put this question by
way of illustrations: "Is it morally or
illegally wrong for person to advo-
"cate q project, matter or claim for a
''pecuniary or valuable considera-
"tiOn?" This he answered in the
negative and proceeded to fortiiy his
position i'll the following words:
Talent is as much the capital of the
advocate, the lawyer aud the editor
las merchandise is of the merchant;
''he has as much right to sell his
"talents as the merchant his merchan-
disc. The lawyer, the minister, the
parliamentary advocate, the lecturer,
Tho author, sells his talent, and he Is
mot the less respected for so doing
The greater the learning, industry,
"eloquence and the esteem in which
"he is held, the greater his pecuniary
compensation. 1t seems to me that
sit is no more libelous to accuse one
"of selling for gain the support and
advocacy of his newspaper than it
would be TO accuse the merchant of
Selling for gain his merchandise.
There is great deal of common sense
in this opinion. As matter Of course
there are circumstances that would
and should modify the principle. The
publisher, who, for pecuniary gain,
lends the influence of his paper to
further schemes or measures that
embody downright swindling, or that
are beyond the pale of morality,
would undoubtedly incur the censure
of society. But in the majority of
cases society regulates these matters,
by its own unwritten laws, as uner-
ringly as II does other things, and pol
icy, if no stronger consideration,
prompts the journalist to care and
circumspection. A newspapers IN
huence, won by hard toll, great
expense and careful management,
is a valuable part of its stock
in trade, and 1t would be some
what preposterous to assume that the
paper is to derive no benefit whatever
from It's infuence-that its sole source
Of revenue is TO consist in Its subscri-
bers and those who pay so much per
line for advertisements i'll its columns.
We're this theory to prevail newspa
per properties would be materially
diminished III value. The history OF
the newspaper press in this country
shows that the influence acquired by
and conscientious journals
is rarely misapplied in behalf OF
measures that fail to reach the stand
ard of legitimacy. legally and morally.