Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-10-25

Inc Ne" YORK Herald IL doing service both To
sne newspapers Of the country and the puhl,c IN
eainn2 attention 70 the evils OF the present ltbe
M"S "nicn Cypress every one except a class OF
speeu.Atve attorneys who derive a precarious
sua upu.Aoie living through the cultivation OF
ton that no damage suits aoainst nevsnsner.
DAseo upon alleged nbels, be permitted. and that
IN criminal prosecutions the sole penalty
% imprisonment OF the actual ubelIer
WINE might In its nrst branch
pe"eicomed oy the presz, Is perhaps Impractical.
pie 1nce the citizen who Is injured pecuniarly by
wrong Done manciously TO his reputation by
printed iaisehood is as much entitled to refm-
Oufseiaent a. when he Is the victim of any other
oamage-working injury. But the existence OF a
oosAoie evil known TO every responsible news
paper out not fully appreciated by the general
Puonc- Is clearly established by the Herald dis
cussion, ana some effective method OF correction
Snouio % devised One source OF hardship is the
oroad scope OF lioellous printed matter. Charges
OF suggestions, which, II spoken. would be disre-
SAlueo oy the law, are punished criminally and
" oAiaA8es civilly, II written or printed. So
oiWcuit Is IL TO limit the scope
o. the term under the decisions that
Jeremy Bentham's definition is at once suggested
"nicn describes libel as "anything published
upon any matter, OF anybody, which anyone is
Pleased TO dislike" Rulings made In early days
often BY servile judges when alleged slanderers
among the common people were hunted down by
the sandered great and punished not merely by
une and Imprisonment but by exposure In the
piiory, whipping, branding. loss Of ears and the
burning OF dsfamatory matter by the hangman.
are applied TO the modern newspaper which Is
compelled BY the public demand to print daily a
great mass Of matter under circumstances of
haste and excitement which render an occasional
1nadvertent libel, under the broad construction
OF that word, unavoidable. The old law on
the subject Is so harsh and unjust In IT'S
application TO the modern press that Juries almost
Invariably iaterfere for the latters protection and
the law from Its too great severity Is not enforced
From this tendency OF Juries 1t often results that
the public loses the protection which IL needs
against substantial defamation prompted by ac-
oal malice An appearance OF conformity should
be secured bet een the law and public opinion as
represented In the practice OF Jures False and
actually malicious defamation should be dis
eliminated from other forms OF disparage-
ment, and should be universally viewed as
misdemeanor to be punished with certainty by
nne or Imprisonment sufficiently moderate
70 be enforced While prosecutions are per-
mitted for every trivial libel and while juries
are uncertain as to what amount Of punish
ment, through the within or prejudice OF judge a
verdict OF guilty may infict Indictments will per-
haps be as rare, and as unsucca ssful a means OF
penalties Unfortunately applicable to onenSeS,
some deserving and others not deserving such
punishment, be ooviated, there will be ground to
hope that In respect 10 the former class the law
may be enforced Prompt and full retraction or
correction should prevent inadvertent miSstate-
ments from constituting a ground OF action or
prosecution against a newspaper. The dis
tinction should be steadily maintained De-
tween nbels upon public persons, who de-
afAl~- x.r2
private individuals The speculation In claims
Tor damages from pretended nbels by snyster law
yers Is so notorious that IL might not be un-
reasonable 70 require full security for costs from
the plaintiff In all damage suits for libel against
newspapers, thus checking, perhaps, 20 some
extent the practice OF bringing blseleSs suits In
the expectation that q newspaper Will avoid the
expense and annoyance OF litigation by a SETTLE
msaI The entire body Of old decisions concerning
libel. followed by some modern ones, needs to be
intelligently modified TO suit the times 1t Is a
duty imposed upon newspapers by custom and
public expectation to record the events OF each
DAY, 70 comment freely upon them In the interest
OF the community. to expose corruption and OBJ
preston, TO scrutinizs and, II necessary, TO
criicise the acts OF public servants and the work.
ings Of public Institutions TO act In Short as GEN.
sors as well as recorders In the honest discharge
OF these functions, newspapers should be defended
by confining the import OF nDellous defamation
within narrower limits or by relaxing the rigor-
Gus restrictions which hamper the plea OF truth,
or by enlarying the bounds OF privileged publica-
lions or BY extending the borders OF non-libellous
criticism; and this protection should be given
even though r involves the grant OF greater lati-
tude 70 the press in printing than is permitted TO
Individuals in speaking. The beneht to the COM
munity arising from the fearless performance OF
the duties OF this new pubic ONCE far outweighs
the evil Of occasional inadvertent injuries to the
reputation OF citizens