The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-04-04
The House.
From Saturday 3 Dlaly.l

The house met at 8 a. M, Speaker Alex
ander in the chair. Prayer by the chap
lain, Rev. II. w. Dodge.
The speaker submitted pending motion
to reconsider the hol se substitute fol the
senate libel bill.
Mr.. Pope spoke contending that the
press should have the benefit of such a
law, and cited from the Belo vs. Wren case
that the freedom of the press should not
be restrained further than was necessary
to protect private character from SANDER.
This bill does that. Why not then do away
with the unreasonable feature of the pres
ont law as to exemplary damages?
Mr.. Moses opposed reconsideration. He
was not disposed To muzze the press, but
it should bs restrained like individuals. 1t
is unwise to subject the people to the ne
cessity of defending themselves as sug-
gested by the shotgun from the licentious-
ness of the press. What amount of money
will restore the sullied character of wife
or mother slandered in the press and leav-
ing secret murmur of suspicion. The
press has power enough without further
license. He referred to an article in the
Fort Worth Gazette relating to the recent
discussion of the libel bill as scurrilous.
Mr.. Hamby-Is there anything libelous
in that article?
Mr.. Moses-But we don't want to be
forced in the position of having to seek
redress from license of the press.
Mr.. Hamby-The press don't ask for
license. The article read from the Ga
zette was offensive, but it was not
libelous and l challenge any member
here to show anything libelous
in it. The argument of the gentle
man from Burnet (Mr. Moses) seems
to be to muzzle the press, but the bill does
not prevent nor does the law now on the
books prevent the press from retracting
articles which are offensive, but which are
not hbelous, Responsible papers can be
held responsible and such papers don't
ask for license to abuse people, but for
protection from unreasonable prosecu-
tons. There is no statute defining civil
libel, but you have laws which punish men
for criminal libel. Then, why not give
the press the same protection as individ-
ualsY They are entitled to Justice and
fairness as much as other professions.
Mr.. Owsley argued that the bill should
not be reoonsidered. The law as it stands
to-day was sufficient,repr senting the wis
dom OF 500 years.
Mr.. Hayes referred to the fact no man
copld use the columns of the press with
ont paying for It. Some of the papers
had agents on the floor of the house
soliciting paid write-ups of members. He
didn't see why he should have been selec ted
as mark for shaft aimed at him, uu-
less il was because ne had refused $40 or
Sl5 tor write-up. Is that not subsidiz-
ing: Yet they say they don't desire to
blackmail, He excepted The STATESMAN
and few other papers from such work.
Mr.. McGaughey favored the bill. A
for puthng, he had never been pulled, and
as far as he knew had done no great thing
to be pulled. The press, he argued, was a
safeguard TO give the public informa-
ton which should not be suppressed, and
hedging the newspapers WAS like sitting
the voice of the people. As for the
Gazette it was one OF the best papers in
Texas.
Mr.. Stevenson, OF Parker, eonteuded
question on mere personal grounds, but
should look at it from government
standpoint. This papers, like ourselves,
| have their likes aud dislikeS. The su-
| preme court holds, Is in the telegraph
case recently, that actual damages to indi-
vidusls include damages TO their feelings.
/ This bill don't effect the question of SC
tual damages. The jury are left the
/ judges of that question.
Mr.. Jones said that no man had & higher
regard for the honest press than he had,
and argued that it was unfortunate that
honest papers should be subject to ex
treme laws, which he contended we're nec'
essary to meet the case of subsidizing