Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-29

lsv Of Texas, relsting to civil
cases., SIS derived from the supreme
court decisions NAV be thus summed up:
L. A paper may be sued, civilly, for
libel wherever 1t is circulated.
2. Matter rslsting to the qualifications
Of candidates for office is privileged il
! true.
8. Jas. and reasonable grounds for
believing matter respecting the quslifca-
tons Of candidates for Office TO DO true
will defeat 81 seton for libel even though
the publications we're IN fact false.
4 To secure privilege II respect
to publications concerning csn-
dida!es the matter mus. be
3such as would be appropriate
for the electors to consider in making q
selection for office.
! II is apparen. that these regulations If
en.cted into statutory lsH would fall fsr
short OF working code and that they
utterly fall to regulate the subject where
regulation is most needed. 1t is in TIE
channels OF ordinary events that tae tTcu-
! bles Of editors and publishers srise. Ic.
accurate kilograms in regard to business
failures, and hssty kilograms relating TO
sensational matters are fruitful sources
OF litigation to the newspaper which, be It
ever go careful, is, lie all things in
this world OF ours, sometimes an,
unwilling victim OF mans iudiscretion.
The extent and degree OF 3 newspapers
ponsibIllsy, the subjects OF jurisdic-
ton, damages malice and costs, in their
relation to civil remedies for libel, sli
demand positive Legislation, in order tbs!
the paper and the Individual nay kcow
their exact rights. No responsible jour-
nal would willingly aud wsntonly COM
nit q civil t-espass.
TIE necessity for epactments which
will remove, as isr as possible, sll doubts
as to the prerogstIves CT the
press will appear from the
statement that the publication
gu. Of which grew the famous suit Of
Wren vs.. Belo was submitted ia advance!
to one Of the ablest law firms in the stale
and pronounced to be rot Hbelous. The
lawyers who CHANGED to be upon the.
bench-Ho abler than the authors Of the
opinion-difered from the latter in tie
Interpretation OF the law and that differs
ercs CT opinion, baaed upon technical
isY, cost the defendant something over
sli, OCo. =,
THE GAZETTE respectfully submits 70
the Twenty fl; st legislature, soon to ases
semble az Austin, and to the public,
seven suggestions waicr, If Incorporated
Into civil statute upon the subject OF
libel, 1t believes would further the ends
OF Justice and protect the public from
scurrilous Journalism AID journalism
from the bl;czmsiIer. The rexsons for
each will be given hereafter. They are:
l Venue in civil actions for llbeld
should be laid az tne place OF publ
catioT, or 81 BONG plsce where
in the plaintiff Is showa to
have suffered special damage from the
publication;
2. The defendant should be permitted
to show the circumstances Of the publ,
cation, and to prove The Gbsance Of mali
cious intent;
8. In the abserce OF &stual malice, , 81
recovery should be limited TO actr.l
damages;
4. The plaia.if should not b, entitled
in any case to recover more than $4,000
in excess Of sctual damages;
8. Oae>halt Of all punitive dam
ages recovered by the plaintiff
should go to the public free school fund,
or some other benevolent fund OF the
state; :
6. The plaintiff should be required 10
give bond for costs in the sum Of at least
$500 before bringing the suit, AID rea.
sonsb!e attorneys fee should be allowed
BY the court to the prevailing party in i'd
dition to the costs;
7. The autho. Of the libel, II known to
the plaintiff, or # his Iame c.n bs ascer-
tanned by application to defendant, ehould
be q necessary party 10 the suit.
5. The truth Of the publication should
xlFays be permitted. to be shown in justI
fsstion, and whsse sae matter is propsp
hr public intormftisa Go be decided 81
the jury, iksassl& be complete de-
fsnsss4s -
) osa RiMsis assAch, meliowE chew
yoseph 8; iaRpsgent -
An Affair Of 'sfaG,