Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-27
NEWSPAPER LIBEL.
Opinions of a few Sharp Philadelphia Lawyers
On the Interesting Subject

Opinions of few Sharp Philadelphia Lawyers
On the Interesting Subject.
Among some interviews with Philadel-
phia lawyers on the subject of newspaper
libel, published in the New York Herald,
are the following:
81 think that when newspaper dis
cusses public men, public measures or
public interests, its utterances should be
privileged - said Lawyer Richard P.
White. ''In other words, nothing but
proof of. both falsehood and malice or
gross negligence should render it liable.
When a newspaper discusses private in
terests, private business or private per-
sons, it should be held liable for any in
jury Or annoyance which it may cause to
the last cent that ii possesses. 1t is
the publication which causes the injury,
and 70 ask that the sufferer should be
turned over for redress to some irrespon
sible penny-a-liner who invented the tale
and who probably had no object in view
but 10 furnish something acceptable to
his employers, would be about as reason
able as 10 say that the burglar who
cracked the safe and carried off the money
should not be responsible, but that the
man who made the burglar s tools or the
child who sold him the matches with
which he exploded the powder in the key
hole should be liable for the damages.
Character is worth more than money and
should be more jealousy guarded.
There are some discreditable lawyers,
but we know, of course, that all news
papers are honest, decent and reputa-
Bile. -
alt is hardly becoming in me to talk
upon this subject, said Lawyer Charles
+. Warwick, city solicitor, Fbut l will
say if the law Of libel in New York is not
like that in Pennsylvania the sooner it
makes it so the better, for ours meets all
requirements. Beyond all doubt, the
proprietor of a paper is the proper person
who is responsible for the assertions his
paper makes. BY suppressimg the names
of his writers and reporters and adyertis-
ing his own as proprietor and editor he
alone gets all the credit for the bright
ideas and good reportorial work in
his paper But when anything goes
wrong or the paper is sued for libel
the Herald would have the name of the
unfortunate reporter OF writer of the arti-
Gle that caused the trouble Immediately
made public and surrender him to the po-
lice This is unfair. The law now settles
it that the proprietor of Il paper is respon-
sible for its assertions. That is right,
and l hope it will always remain so. A
change of the law will work no good to
the press. There is no excuse for an ar
ticle smirching a character or reputation
ever getting printed. Newspaper men
ara gentlemen of education and there is
reason why they should not be as careful
with the news as about the news. -
"After twenty years somewhat extern
sive experience in libel cases, always in
the defense of newspapers, here, - said
Lawyer Rufus e. Sbapley, 81 am con-
WINGED that reforms are greatly needed
in our libel laws, and more particularly
in the mode Of administering them. The
great majority of civil suits for money
damages are purely speculative, trivial
and unworthy of serious consideration.
But of the reasons why they are so often
resorted to, i'll proper cases, in prefer
ence to criminal prosecutions, arises from
the practical difficulty always found in
procuring Il conviction in a criminal
court This is due to many causes, but
chiefly to, first, the fact that as newspa-
pers, as n rule, refuse to disclose the
name of the really guilty party, the
writer of the libel, juries are slow to con-
Wet the editor or publisher, who are only
technically guilty; second, the fact that
newspapers, as 4 rule, consider them
selves bound i'll self-defense, to stand by
an editor or publisher charged with Grim !
inal libel: and third, from the unfortu-
nate fact that prosecuting officers and
judges too frequently stand in awe of the
press that they forget at least Il part of
their duty to the people, and seldom
trouble themselves to secure a conviction
where there should be q conviction
Newspapers are, therefore, largely re-
sponsible for the condition of the libel
laws, the lax way in which they are en-
forced i'll criminal cases, and the cOnse-
quent encouragement given to civil suits
as the only mode of redress practically
open to persons who have been caTelessly
or maliciously libeled by their employees
elf the respectable newspapers of the
country would in proper cases encourage
rather than discourage convictions, and
if they would hold their subOrdinates to a
stricter accountability and promptly dis
cloce the name of the writer of every
careless, malicious and improper libel,
speculative suits would grow less frequent,
and the public would have less cause to
complain of wanton publications relating
to private persons and private affairs and
assaults upon public men,
who have at least some rights which
should respect.