The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-01-24
An INTERESTING DECISION.
The Supreme Court Says That the
Columns OF a Newspaper Are
Not for Sale.
Alta, Jan. al

The long contested suit of Fitch VS.. De
Young has been decided by the Supreme
Court adversely to the defendants. The
action was brought to recover damages for /
libel in asserting that the Bulletin had
"caved down the bank and its owners
practically sold their paper to wealthy
corporation for coin. A demurrer was in
terposed by the Chronicle on the ground
that the article was not ibellous, as the
| columns Of a newspaper were as mer-
charitable as any other commodity. Judge
| Allen sustained the demurrer and the case
went to the Supreme Court, which has
reversed this judgment. The full text
| of the opinion is as follows:
| Action for libel, brought by the pub
Usher of one newspaper against the pub
| Usher of aaother newspaper. The article
| published in the latter newspaper charged
the plaintiff with being party to a secret
conclave, in which he, the plaintiff, sold
the support and advocacy of the former
newspaper to certain corporations. for
| large sum of money.
The defendants demurred to the COM
plant on the ground that it did not set
forth facts which constitute cause of
actien, and that the alleged libellous mat
tiers were not libelous.
The demurrer was sustained, and the
plaintiff declining to amend, judgment
went for defendants.
AS journal the only relations existing
between newspaper and the puhlic are
the relations between it and its readers;
outside of its readers it has no relations
with the public. 1t is fair To presume
that its readers are such because of their
sympathy or agreement with the general
course of its editorial policy. A news
paper, to its editorials, is, IN the main,
read because its readers are III accord with
its general sentiments, and desire r. -
i co., r..,oo confidence in it's genera
=. urse. They have right to presum
> that if a radical change occur, the chang
will be from conviction, and that fair
y dealing will suggest that due notice there
- of be given, to the end that they may,
y the choose, cease to remain such.
readers of newspapers are at all honest
their own sentiments, proprietors of news
)" papers owe to them the duty of being sill
," cere. 1t would not be sincere TO do tht
u which is charged in the article set out
" the complaint. The tendency of II
III course charged would be to lessen IL
uF confidence of readers, and thus to dimil
Vi ish their number or to change them as
XC character-in either event it might expo
III the proprietors to loss. We cannot $,
~ that it would not expose the proprieto
~ of newspaper to the hatred contemE
ridicule or obloquy of fits readers, or wou
not injurs them in their occupation,
accuse them of acts having tendency
lessen the confidence of It's readers or
lessen the number of it's patrons. On t
IL contrary, we think it would have til
effect.
re- To illustrate: Suppose the proprietO
hi of the CAL and Bulletin had announc
;tb in the columns of those papers that tn
70 had changed their course and had neg
: q tiated sale of their support and advOca
lodi to the railroad corporations named in t
ii. complaint, for the sum of thirty o
an thousand dollars, would such announC
TO ment have exposed the proprietors to CO
ra- tempt or ridlcule, or have tended to inju
them in their occupation? If not, there
ar no libel in the article complained of.
no yea land of this there can be no doub
&c the article is foundation for an action.
No Judgment reversed and cause remande
nm with instructions to override the
le- murrer, with leave 10 deIenoahts 10 al
nee wer. MYRICK,
MD We concur: Thornton and ShaI
ner stein, il.
ted =----