Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-29
A LIBEL LAW.
The sw AZ 1t Is Wads BY Inlerpresa
ton and as Il Should Be Made
By Enac.msnt.
Let this Twenty. First Legislature Frame
Legal Protection for Both Newspapers
nnd People.

So much has been said and written OF
the libel Law that it will sstonish news-
paper readers who have never taken the
trouble to peep into the statutes to learr
that, with respect to civil actions, theri
is no such thing IS Texas libel law
Curiously enough, the real dangers &c
which the Texas press is subject. in the
collection and dissemination OF news
come not from any existing lxw, but from
the lack Of such law.
The penal code of Texas contains an
elaborate chapter on the subject Of libel
Yet, though its provisions are
unusually vigorous, in the entire
history Of Texas jurisprudence but
six instances are recorded Of criminal
prosecution for libel. This law sharply
defines the elements Of libel, giving the
offanse broad Interpretation, and pres
scrioing as penslty fine Of not less
than 800 nor more than $4,000, or i'm
plisonment in the county jill not exceed
Ing two years. Harsh as this statute, in
its entirety sppears, the newspaper world
Is disturbed but little by its exist.
ence, knowing full well that juries
which, in criminal caseg, are judges
hosh Of the lEw ard the facts
will not convict under ii, except
In cases in which convictions are merited.
The concluding erticle OF this chapter Of
the penal code reads as follows:
This title regulates the law with regard to
| libel when prosecuted as penal offense, and
i, not intended to have any operation upon the
the recovery of damages.
It is to the decisions of the supreme
court OF Texas that one must go for in
formstion as to the status Of the question
In this state in relation to civil actions,
and these cover an exceedingly
narrow ggeu1d, being limited to
two cssee, one Of which turned upon
technical questions Of very unusu,l
nature. These cases are:
Belo vs.. Wren, 60 Tex CSC; Express
Printing Company vs.. Copeland, 81 Tex,
354.
The first was decided upon purely tech
nicsl grounds, involving but two ques-
lions: l. Whether q paper could be sued
for libel wherever 1t might be circulated.
2. Whether testimony taken before leg
islstiVe committee which, by resolution,
was continued beyond the session of the
Legislature, AID which WAS not required
TO make report Of it's proceedings, and
whose Investigations were intended for the
guidance Of tina encouragement in Ger.
tain criminal prosecutions By the state,
was privileged matter; that is, whether
the same immunity should be given to the
publication of The proceedings Of such
committee as to reports Ct legislative and
Judicial proceedings. The first que stion
Was decided in the affirmative; the sec
ond, in the negative.
The case Of the Express Printing Com
pIDy vs.. Copeland, which was decided
fsvorsbly 10 the journal appealing, in
volved much more interesting and
important question than that
Of Belo vs. Wren. The plaintiff,
who had been candidate
for mayor Of San Antonio, recovered q
judgment for s25OO damages because OF q
publication which charged him with NAL
administration of a private trust. The
decision Of the supreme court, reversing
the case, is notable IS bold and liberal
advance, in consonsnce with the spirit of
the age, in favor Of ths freedom of the
press In the discussion Of matters sffec-
ting the public welfare. A quotation from
1t which emtodies the leading idea, may
be Of Interest to defeated candidates who
would alleviate the pAngs Of disappointed
ambition with the guineas Of In oppoei-
ton newspaper. Thus reads the opinion
Of Justice Watts, rendering the decision
Of the court: +
1t may be asserted as a sound principle agpd
o. e supported by authority, mat when q per !
son consents to become candidate for pubrf
office. conferred By popular election, ne
should be cosidered as putting his charactsEin
| issue 30 far as respects his qualifcatiotSfo for
the ofi3e. Whatever pertains tor ~
qualification Of the candidate for BE office
| sought is a legitimate subject for Discussion
and omment, provided that such discussion
and comment is not extended beyond the pre-
| scribed limits. That is, all statements and COM
ments in this respect must be confined to the
truth, or what In good faith and upon probable
| cause is be lieved to be true, and the matter
must be pertinent to the issue, l. e., 1t must
relate to the suitableness or unftness of the
candidate for office. II the matter
published Is true, and such as lie justified by the
occasion, there could be no recovery by the
candidate against the publisher. II the matter
is not justified By the occasion, then the
fact that the person against whom 1t was d.
rected was at the time q candidate for office
would not exempt the publisher from liability,
whether the matter published was true or
false. And although the matter published
might be justified by the occasion. still, II it
was false, q right OF action would accrue
aga INST the Publisher, to defeat which the
burden would be upon him to chow that ths
publication was made in good faith. in the
honest belief Of Its truth, and besides that there
were Just and reasonable grounds for enter
tanning that belief It Ia implied by
the ruls announced by US that the matter pub
lished must be such az Is justified by the