The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1889-09-03
THELR.&N. CO., OLSEN CONTROVERSY.
To THE EDITOR OF THE Historian:

10 THE EDIIOk OE 1HE ASTOhlAN.
In a late issue of The DAILY AsTo-
RIAN, reference was made to a recent
decision by Judge Allyn, in the case
of the I. BY. & n. Co. VS.. Andrew o.
sen, wherein it was stated that Judge
ALLYN held that a man cannot, with
out previous agreement, specifically
stated, collect money for a communi-
cation to newspaper"
This statement credits Judge Allyn
with having decided a question that
did not arise in the case, and, mas
much as the article has been copied
and commented on by the OTegO7liGl
and other papers, it Is but just to
Judge Allyn that a correct statement
of his decision should be published.
The facts in the case were as follows:
The company instituted an action
against Olsen to recover the amount
subscribed by him towards the con-
struction of its road. Olsen, in his
answer, alleged as a counter claim
that at the special instance and re-
quest of the company, he had written
and caused to be published in the Pa
cific Journal an article taking
grounds against the allowance Of dam
ages claimed by John Briscoe for right
of way for said railroad through the
land of said Briscoe," and that said
company promised and agreed to
pay therefor so much as the same was
reasonably worth" and that "the same
was reasonably worth the sum of
$500" The company denied making
any such contract.
At the trial Olsen testified that
such a contract was made and that
the object was to $50 excite the peo-
pie against Briscoe's demand that he
could not recover it." he also intro,
duced in evidence copy of the article
he claim to have had published pur-
suant to the contract. In that article
he represented himself as having nc
interest in the controversy other than
as a citizen and property owner in the
county, and as such desiring to see
the road constructed for the common
good.
The counsel for the company then
moved the court to withdraw the tes-
timony of Olsen concerning the al
legged contract from the jury and to
instruct them to return a verdict foI
the reason that the alleged contract
was void as being against public
policy, in this, (1st), that Olsen, while
in truth acting for hire, for the pur-
pose ofdeceiving the public and exert
ing an influence which he otherwise
could not, represented him
self, In the published article,
as being actuated solely by a
desire to forward the public welfare
and cd that the object of the pub
hshed article was to prevent Briscoe
from securing an impartial trial be-
fore a jury in court of justice"
This motion Judge Allyn allowed
and directed a verdict accordingly
While the court did not discuss the
question presented, the argument, a.
to the first proposition was this, tha
it is against public policy to permit 1
person to recover compensation TO
services rendered under false colors
That while possibly, one might legal!
contract to write and publish, for
compensation, an article to inhuenc,
the public in favor of the claim of th,
party whose cause he advocates, it i
his duty to disclose the fact that h
is paid for his advocacy, or at least t.
refrain from disclaiming mercenar.
incentive. As to the second ground
the argument was that any contract
the purpose of which is to improperl.
influence or prejudice those who ma.
become jurors to pass on the deman,
in question, in court of justice,
void. Y.