New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-10-25
TIE Law OF LIBEL.

A CORRESPONDENT DEFINES ITS NATURE AND
POINTS OUT TIRE BENEFITS WHICH WOULD RE
suit FROM ITS STRICT ENFORCEMENT.
To the Editor or The Tribune.
SIR: Recent decisions and verdics against
the American News Company Of this city for merely dis
trbung bes contained iu irresponsible papers edited
by backguards and published by bankrupts have t
very general attention and caused much com
ment OF not very wise sort Among other comments
notice that the rulings Of Justice Russell in the Pres
colt and those Of the three judges VINO at General
Term affirmed the rulings OF the trial justice in the
Shauks suit, spoken Of as defining a new law OF
libel On the contrary lawyers well know thai
law considerably older than courts and in three
four centuries past there has been in England from
which We receive tho law, only one decision
which held bameless the bookseller vender or
would say here the newsdeaer who handled q libel,
knowingly innoccntly The law which so old that
the counsel OF the company calls It ga relic
OF 5arbarsm holds and has always held that not only
is the writer publisher and printer the type-setter who
puts libel in type the messengerboy who carres the
manuscript from the author to the printer, clerk
who sells the sheet containing 1t to another the news
dealer company which distributes It, blameworthy
but that the buyer who reads IL aOud 10 a third
person is guilty If he the originator OF the libel
This sweeping ani severe But the law has
always stood, and 1 think it is Just ~ it
stands for wiltul libel Is 40 base thing that the
H.
Nor Is It's application to the news companies at ali
harsh. The reasoning this effect, as urged by the
cOInpanys counsel has always appeared puerile. The
company is great corporation distributing many
thousands Of various papers to other dealers who sup
ply the public dispatch in delivery is necessary it's
success its customers the public entitled to quick
therefore the company should be projected by
the aw, prosecuted under It. AL OF which may be
true but the public do not and they are not en-
titled to the rapid service Of nbes or other filth.
The company claims for itself, that the
press necessity to the people not only this but
that free press is essential to good government But
bes are news, is necessary good govern
! meut that they should be quickly distributed.
| The law enforced, It Is argued, Will
| incOmmo le the company IN its business Very
true and an individual may be very much incom-
NODDED. not to say injured. by the libel the
pany hastens to circulate The company cannot, 1t is
claimed stop examine AL the papers it circulates
Then II take It's RISKS, every business has 10, and
IL cannot expect the law to be reversed in its special be-
half Besides it not true It would have to examine
oil papers 1t is under obligation to circulate Papers
which knows to make q trade or libel. When 10 per-
sists in circulating them after having had chance
to know their general character, It voluntarily accepts
the risks. Nobody would think OF suing the snews
company for what IL published IN any responsible Journal
Tor the law is particularly severe the original pub
sner libel As matter " fact the troubles Of the
American News Company have grown out VI their per-
sstgnt circulation notoTiousy infamous sheets
owned anu published BY companies Organized in other
States By the same irresponsible persons.
Then there is another phase Of tue matter-the re-
spOEsDy or the news companies for the existence CT
the class OF papers that has got them into suits
which, from present appearances, Will cost them many
thousands OF dollars IN damages costs and lawyers fees
The company has nobody to blame but It's own agents.
Tney gave currency and they only. TO the worthless
sheets whose lbcls they have defended; They could
have been successfully started bad not the news
company loaned them it, imprint and afforded them Its
great facilities for distribution IL dl so without IN
qury as TO the character OK Tue PROJECTORS or OF he pro
posed publications. Tie company imposed the first
numbers it's customers who were before Ignorant Of
the existence and Of tue infamous sheets II It
hal reckesSy ndorsed aud circulated Forged paper
has these nOeHous papers tie offence would have
been against the State punishable the
crni 81 The difference solely III the nature Of
the offence not ID the degree. And when the company
il severely mucted for such publications. IL
ia only getting wnat 1t invited and what It deserves
,btse suits In the st suits tried The company did not
attempt to prove te oe rue t thhey SET 70 III ueieee
% ony about one-tenth OF the total edition
nj the paper jury took only that fact into eonsid
Grafton and gave the plaintiff one tenth OF what he asked
The next suit the company defended by attempting
~ show that the libel OF which they ignorant when
ir S taey were mulcted in very nearly the Whole
s siSi Claimed Now tie company It may be hoped
will come ito and do the pubic deal
good By or tso oft oft Re Sa. trade
papers which make libel trade, and which exist only
because this great monopoly circulates them. Many
a. these papers are only scandaOus bar obscene,
poth in guage and Illustrations and tneI publication
ought BE- suppressed by law In every Instance they
are published by irresponsible persons or fictitious com
NAMES whom person would think OF suing FOR |
ton,eges The company may also, view OF its recent
experience adopt d SAFER policy In the taking Of new
rss nv giving circulation TO sheets yet UNBORN ana IN
named and prUeced by the same class OF INSCRIPTIONS
rtseals as those to 1t It's present difficulties.
Very respectfully, . t. u
Netr- York, oct 81 1882.
four correspondent is too sweeping, especially IN |
his complaints against the American News Com |
papv. which Is most careful, responsible and con-
seryativey managed institution. Still. within GER
tam limitations, there Is great force in what he