St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-31
SAINT PAUL.
LIBEL LAWS LINCER.
An Opinion on q Mooted Cues
ton by a Learned
Judge.
Proprietors of Establish
ments Responsible for En-
ployes' Actions.
Subscribers to Stock Must
Either Put UP or Shut
Up.
Decisions of the Supreme
Court in a Number Of
Cases.

The libel law of 1887 has been pro
nouuced constitutional by the supreme
court of the state. The opinion was
handed down yesterday, with one judge
dissenting. and by the decree OF the
court its constitutionality is upheld. A
decision in this case has been awaited
with an unusual degree of Interest, ana
particularly in publishing and legal cir
Giles. The case comes from Mlnneap-
OILS. and grew out of plain instance of
mistaken identity. An I'M ured huS-
band traced his wife to the opera house,
where he created a sensation by thrash
ing her escort and dragging her from
the house. The Pioneer Press reporter
heard the husband in the case was ID.
A. Allen and so printed it, but followed
it up with an Immediate retraction and
complete apology. Allen began an
action for damages in the district
court; but the case, being thrown out
under TIE law, was appealed by Allen.
The decision of the supreme court uD-
holds the law, but sends the case back
for trial under the principles laid down.
The title of the case is Dexter A. Allen,
appellant, VS.. Pioneer Press Company,
respondent, and the decision as follows:
Dexter A. Allen, appellant, VS.. Pioneer
Press Company, respondent:
Judge Mitchell, i'll the opinion, says:
The questions raised by this appeal in
volve, first, the validity, and second, the
construction of chapter 191, General
Laws 1887. entitled ''An act to regu-
late actions for libel" The act is
claimed to be unconstitutional on three
grounds. The first is that the subject
of the act is not expressed in the title,
as required by section 81, article 4. of
the constitution. This section has been
before this court for construction in so
many cases. beginning with Ramsey
County VS.. Heenon. 2 MIMI, 339, and
ending with The Minnesota Loan and
Trust Company VS.. Beebe. at the pres
ent term, that all that need be said on
this point is that all the provisions of
the act relate, and are germane, to the
subject expressed in the title and
proper to the full accomplishments of the
subject so indicated. The second OBJ
lection to the act is that it is partial or
class legislation, in that it gives to pub
llShers of newspapers certain rights
and immunities not given to other de-
Pendants in action for libel. 1t does
not follow that it is unconsttu-
tional because its provisions are limited
to the publishers of newspapers. Laws
public in their objects may confined to
a particular class of persons, if they be
general in their application to the class
to which they apply; provided the dis
tinction is not arbitrary, but rests upon
some reason of public policy growing
out of the condition or business of such
class. Such distinctions are being con-
Stantly made, as i'll the case OF miners.
married women, common carriers, rail-
road companies and the like. This kind
of legislature is not confined, as defend
ant seems to contend, to cases involving
the exercise of what is termed the po-
lice power of the state. The act
under consideration applies alike to all
publishers of newspapers. And III view
of the nature of the business in which
they are engaged. and the fact that
newspapers are the channels to which
the public look for general and lmpOr-
tant news, and that,even in the exercise
OF the greatest care and vigilance, and
actuated by the best motives, they are
liable through honest and eXcuSable
mistakes to publish what may after
wards prove to be false, we can not
say that it is either arbitrary or
without reason of public policy
to make such provisions as are made by
this act for the special protection of
newspaper publishers when sued for
libel. The third and 10y far the most
serious objection urged against this act
is that it conflicts with section s, article
l, OF the constitution, which provides
that ''every person is entitled to GER
tain remedy in the laws for all injuries
or wrongs which ne may receive on his
person, property or character" 1t is
contended that the act in question is
uncon> titutional for the reason that it
depriveS person of an adequate rem
Oh, mi to hic IN
cause, IN certain cases, it limits his
right of recovery to special damages of
certain kinds specified in the second
section and prohibits the recovery Of
general damages; that is, damages to
character OF reputation which the law
preSumeS. without proof. from the mere
fact of the fasity of the publication;
and hence i'll such cases, if person is
unable to prove any special or pecunl-
airy damages, there could be no recov-
cry at all. The question is not without
difficulty or free from doubt. This act
undoubtedly assumes to intro
duce an important and radi-
cal change in the law of libel;
and as legislation of the kind is com
paratively new, judicial precedents are
almost wanting. 4 Our act was
copied from an act passed in Michigan
in 1885, except that the latter expressly
excepted from its operations publica-
tons involving criminal charge. Ibis
act was recently before the supreme
court of that state in the case of Park
VS.. Detroit Free Press, 40 N. w. Rep.
731, in which it was held uncOnStitu-
tional on the very ground here urged by
plaintiff. While the views of that
learned court, and especially of the
eminent jurist who wrote the opinion
in that case, are entitled to very great
weight, yet we think they hardly have
the authority of decision of the ques-
ton, because it was really not in the
case, inasmuch as the court held that
the publication involved criminal
charge, and hence was not within the
operation of the statute. We are, there
fore, compelled to consider the ques-
ton mainly upon principle. as res inte-
era, which it certainly is in this state.
The guaranty of a certain remedy in the
laws for all injuries to person, property
or character, and other analogous pro-
visions, such as those against eXacting
excessive bail, imposing excessive fines,
intlicting cruel and inhuman punish
ments, and the like inserted I'D our bill
of rights, the equivalents of which are
found in almost every constitution in
the United States, are but declatOry of
general fundamental principles, founded
Ill HdGuIdI IlSIt anu yuSIlCc, anu WHICH
would be equally the law of the land if
not incorporated in the constitution.
There is unqueStiOnably limit in these
matters, beyond which, the legislature
should go, the courts could and would
declare their action invalid. But inside
of that limit there is, and necessarily
must be. wide range left to the judg
ment AMI discretion of the legislature,
and within which the courts cannot set
up their judgment against that of the
legislative branch of the government.
Again it must be remembered
that what constitutes ian adequate