New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-03-13
REFoRM M TIE LIBEL LAWS.

The need of reform in the libel laws is at
tracing attention in many States. Legis-
lators are waking up to the fact that the news
paper publisher or editor rests, in defending
libel suit, under the burden Of legal pre-
sumption which is not inflicted upon the mean
est criminal. The man who is caught picking
pocket is innocent in the eye of the law until
he has been absolutely proved guilty, but the
newspaper publisher or editor who is sued for
libel is presumed to be guilty until he Is
proved to be innocent. BY this we mean that
the old presumption Of the common law that
any publication affecting a mans reputation
injunously is necessarily malicious still sur
wives in this State as well as in many others.
The publication may have been made in entire
good faith, and without any personal motive
whatever, merely presenting the statements
made as part of the current news Of the day.
Yet if it contains so much as one error, the
presumption of the law is that the entire pub
lication was malicious, whereas every intelli-
gent man probably knows that there is no real
basis for such charge. To be sure, the ap-
plication of this rule has been somewhat soft
ened by legislation and the rulings of courts.
newspaper cannot be sued for libel in this
State for printing an account Of trial in court
or of legislative and official proceedings, and
the courts Of England and of the most liberal
States of the Union have also extended quail
fled privilege to the publication Of a report
Of the proceedings of public meeting, held in
good faith, and at which matters Of public in
terest are discussed. But even this latter ex-
emption is not inscribed in the statute-book.
To reconstruct the libel laws of this State
so as to bring them into accord with modern
ideas Of justice, Mr.. Saxton has introduced a
bill in the Assembly, making a few simple
changes. One is to put upon the Statute-boo
the ruling already made by the courts that
for example-if one public man, in a mass
meeting speech, accuses another public man Of
dishonesty in connection with his public duties.
the newspapers shall not be open to libel suits
for printing the speech. The bill provides
also that If the publisher in his next issue or
within three days after he learns that libel
published by him concerning any one is un-
true, shall, in as conspicuous a manner, print q
full and fair correction or retraction, and shall
be able to show that the publication was made
| in good faith, and was the result of mistake
or Misrepresentation, the hbelled person shall
not be able, in bringing suit thereafter, to
obtain punitive damages, but only such dam
ages as he can show to have been really sus-
tanned. This provision Is more in the interest
Of the public than Of the newspapers. as all
the proposed notifications are. Men Of char
acter who have been aggrieved by some news
paper publication would usually be far better
contented with an immediate retracton, which
could be read by their neighbors and friends
and the public at large while the s}Ender was
still fresh, than with tardy yindication to be
| obtained by the slow process of a libel suit.
There Is an old story about man who prose-
cuted one Of his neighbors for chicken steal
ing, and found after long litigation that he,
| the plaintiff, was widely known merely "a the
man who was mixed up in chicken-stealing
casep Men who have just grievance often
shrink from the long delay, the annoyance, the
expense and the notoriety Of a libel suit. There
are newspapers, no doubt, which presume upon
this unwillingness, and make no effort to cor
rect an Injustice, because they know that the
average man. whose time is valuable, viii
probably submit to such wrong rather than
attempt to right il In the courts. But we be-
iieye the number OF such journals to be very
small II, however. the Saxton bill should be-
coma law, a libelled person would stand in an
infinitely better position toward sucR news
| papers than now. He could make formal