The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-12
NEWSPAPERS AND THE LIBEL LAW.

ton and without much regard to their truth.
Ii, indeed, they were as careless as most peo-
pie are, society would be shaken to its center
But as matter of fact, they are conducted,
as rule, with a sense of responsibility, re-
straint>and obligation far beyond that which
governs society itself"
We venture the assertion that there is no
business or profession in the country in
which there is larger per cent of high
minded and conscientious men than in the
newspaper profession. As a rule, the con-
ductors of newspapers recognize their re-
sponsibility to society and to individuals as
well, and while at times they seem to cut
and slash with unpleasant vigor it will
usually be found to be in the interests Of the
public good and from no other motive. Of
course we speak of respectable newspapers;
not of a class-of which there is here and
there an exponent-that lays no claim itself
to responsibility, and is rated by the public
at its own self-estimate.
And this leads us to a consideration of the
existing libel laws. That they are great
burden to the press no editor or publisher
doubts; that they operate to check and re-
strain the legitimate and beneficial work and
influence of the newspaper there can be no
doubt with those who know anything of
their operations; that they are squarely in
the way of the public good, there can be
little question; that they are the bulwark of
fraud and the weapon of scoundrels is per-
fectly notorious. But they afford possible
job for alleged lawyers, and the prevailing
impression among large proportion of that
profession seems to be that the newspaper is
fair prey, and therefore any amendment or re-
peal of the burdensome restrictions seems to
be impossible so long as the working majority
of the Legislature or its committees con-
tinues to be of profession which, for some
reason or other, has assumed a position of
antagonsm to the public press. 1t was made
the duty of several gentlemen representing
the State Editorial Association to present the
matter of the libel laws to the judiciary COM
mittees of the late Legislature and ask some
amendment. 1t is due the members COM
posing those hard-worked committees to say
that most courteous and respectful hearing
was accorded, yet there appeared to be no
present desire to reform the laws on the part
of any, while several freely confessed their
irksomeness and conceded that they
were obnoxious to the criticism
of the press association. On the
part of other members there was evident
the feeling that the newspaper was public
enemy, and the editor vicious animal to
be legislated against and muzzled, while the
proprietors' pockets were fair game for any
one who, under cover Of the law can posi-
bly, muster up prima facie libel, The ad-
justment of these suits, by paying a small
sum of money, is generally cheaper than to
defend them under the existing laws ard
court decisions, which array all the tech
nicalities and sinuosties of criminal pro-
cedure against the newspaper and in favor
of the plaintiff, and hence briefess barrsters
can make fee in this field when all others
are closed against them.
The experience and observation of every
I one is that but few, if any, cases of libel
brought before the courts are by plaintiffs who
have been or who could be damaged by the
publication complained Of If decent news
paper has unwittingly injured a reputable
man, there is immediate reparation to the best
ability Of the paper, and, as a rule, if a suit
be persisted in after that is done, it is purely
vexatious and not for the vindcation of
character that should be of itself its own best
vindication. The almost universal rule is that
reputable men do not go to the courts against
newspapers, and that decent newspapers do
not libel reputable men. The bulk of libel
| plaintiffs are those against whom real libel is
practically impossible, and the result OF libel
suits as indicated by the records of the courts
show in what estimation juries hold those
whose characters or regulations are so himsy
that a judicial proceeding is necessary to
keep them together. Our present libel laws
are the resorts of rogues and the compost
heap upon which shysters batten and fatten.
If libel laws were made what they should be,
they would be a protection to reputable
persons in case of real libel, and
thus answer their proper purpose; but as
they are, those who have real ground for
action are retarded from prosecuting
good cause because of the use, or rather
abuse, OF them by unworthy persons. 1t is
within the experience of almost every editor
and publisher that there are alleged lawyers
who seem to scan the columns of news
papers to see where libel suit can possibly be
made to stick, and after they have filed the
preliminary pleadings propose to the paper
to compromise the matter by the payment of