The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-12-28

The New 0rR IIGTHtd oil lute ms DcVu
devoting great deal OF space to the sub
iect OF newspaper libel laws and their
injustice. a few days since several
pages were occupied with publication
OF the libel laws OF all the States in the
UKion, and the developments were al
most startling. 1t was shown that in
many OF the States the laws were not
only loosely constructed but were gross.
" unjust, amounting almost to outrages
on the spirit OF the Constitution, which
guarantees a free press. The Herald adj
voCates sweeping reform in the matter,
and that one is needed cannot be dis
puted.
In Wednesdays issue the Herald pub
fishes lengthy editorial on this sub
ject in which some wholesome views are
embodied. Apropos to the coming
meeting OF the Legislature, we quote as
follows from the Herald, and commend
the article, much OF which is applicable
to West Virginia laws, to our West
Virginia lawmakers:
"When It man-when for instance, the
proprietor of a newspapcr-is painstak-
ing in the selection of his assistants, is
ready to correct any error which they
may have fallen into, is mindful OF his
high trust as the manager OF vast
power which may be welded Tor i'll or
good, unjust is it, oppressive, contrary
to all legal rule for the judge to tell the
Jury they must convict him for words
introduced into his paper by some acct
dent over which he had no control"
That is the opinion OF Mr.. joel Prem
tiss Bishop. 1t is set forth in his great
work on criminal law, seventh edition,
volume 9, paragraph 925.
No man has studied American law
more thoroughly than Mr.. Bishop. No
man has written on it more inteligently.
His treatises are standard authorities Tor
Bench and Bar in every State of the
Union.
After a careful survey OF our libel law
the conclusion reached by this distin-
guished writer is that it is unjust, op-
pressive, contrary to all legal rule TO
hold the calcful proprietor responsible
for words introduced into his paper by
some accident over which he had no con-
troll.
Yet that is Just what the existing law
does. The proprietor may be, us Mr..
Bishop so APPLY says, painstaking in the
selection OF his assistants, ready to correct |
any error they may have fallen into,
mindful OF his high trust us the manager
Of a vast power which may be welded for
i'll or good. Nevertheless, for any libel
lous statement which in the rush OF bust
ness Just before going to press may have
Slipped into the paper through the in-
advertence OF trustworthy emplOye or
the deception OF an interruptions core.
spondent, the proprietor, wholly iRno-
cent OF the wrong, is liable to damages
without limit and to criminal prosecu-
ton.
At the same time the real offender
the actual libeller-is allowed to 80 scot
free.
A law which thus subjects newspaper
publishers to hard and unjust discrim-
ination not made against any other class
of citizens is not only contrary to the
American idea OF justice and fair play,
but is also against that American con
slitutional principle which guarantees
equal protection OF the laws to every
person in the Republic.
In any legislation that touches the
freedom OF the press or the liberty OF the
citizen the United States ought TO lead
the world. II ought, for example, to
have n far more liberal and Just libel law
than any nation OF the Old World.
But look at Germany, subject to an
iron rule which would not be tolerated
hero. with press censorship that could
not exist in land that boasts OF its
freedom and republicanism. Even there
we find features OF newspaper law that
We might copy with advantage. The
civil law OF libel, the law which permits
suits for damages, is practically q dead
letter 1t is the criminal law that is
chiefly enforced. That is better for the
press and better for the public. For :
violation OF the press law the publisher,
,ditor, printer and circu!ator are pri-
ndrily liable. But they become exempt G
I thev disclose the name OF the writer !
II the article complained OF. The aim !
Il this Just provision is to reach the ac- '
.ual offender instead OF holding the in 5
locent publisher.
Look at England. It is only few
,ears ago that an important reform in
he law OF libel was carried. A measure
,mbodving still greater reform is pend
ng in Parliament with every prospect 6
Il becoming law. Here is one Of its 4
eNding provisions: G
No person shall be found guilty upon I
he trial OF any indictment OF Informs
ion for the publication OF a libel ii it be
proved on behalf of the defense that
iuch person was not part or privy to the
publication OF the libel charged in such
Indictment or information, and that the =
mid publication did not arise from want
II due care or caution on his part.
That is recognition OF the great prin.
,iple advocated by Mr.. Bishop that the 9
proprietor OF newspaper cannot Justly =
~ foiNlHy 1Nn hold raannugihla fnp fhn VNuh. | a