New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-04-12
THE DEFEAT OF THE LIBEL DILL.

Inc OdAUOn Libel Dill was DSuiJ pO"'Nh IN
NE Assembly. This unfortunate result seems
DO have been due in part to the not unnatural
resentment of some of the members at the In
Justice shown to the Legislature by few reck-
less newspapers. But what they did was to
punish all newspapers for the sins of few
This was simply adding injustice to injustice,
and the longer the column gets in arithmetic
of that sort the worse the sum total is. 1t was
also due in part, no doubt to the desire OF
members NJ a certain class TO "get even" with
the correspondents and newspapers. The mel
ancholy truth must be admitted that certain
proportion of every legislative body has reason
to fear the zeal which correspondents show in
ascertaining the truth about their actions, and
the CELEBRITY with which the newspapers print it,
It does not follow that all or even most Of the
votes against the Libel bill came from men Oh
this class, but it is obvious that their natural
desire would be to hurt the newspapers If they
could, and they seem to have supposed this was
a chance The leader of the opposition was
Mr.. Acker, of Steuben, who, so far as we re-
member. has never succeeded until now in at
tracing public attention. He cannot BIO said
to have done so on this occasion with marked
success, seeing that his speech was an extraor-
binary exhibition either Of ignorance or OF
spite, and bristled with misrepresentation. Ono
of the more fragrant Of these was that this bill
vas to confer a privilege upon the newspapers
which the rest Of the community does not en-
Joy. The fact is, as we all know, that 1t was
to put the newspapers merely on an equality
with the rest of the community by removing
from the defendant in libel suit the burden
of a presumption which does not Ito even
against the meanest criminal. Equally foolish
and malicious was Mr.. Acker's suggestion thas
the newspapers would print ibels conspicuous
y and retractions in out -theway corners.
That is what frequently happens nowadays with
the less scrupulous journals, but it was one OF
the great merits Of the Saxton bill that it mads
sure that the retraction should be as cOnspic-
uous as the libel.
One of Mr.. Acker's glazing missta temcnts
was that the passage Of tho bill was not do
sired by the newspapers as a class. On the
contrary, this injustice under which they labor
has long been a grievance with intelligent
editors and prophetors, and must continue to
be 30 until IL is removed. Probably even the
member from Steuben would admit that Horace
Greeley, with all his strength Of feeling as
journalist would not ask anything for tho
newspapers which his conscientious judgment
az citizen would not approve, and It is more
than twenty years since Mr. Greeley in his
Recollections Of Busy Life" expressed him
self on this subject as follows:
have often heard It asserted from the bench that
editors claim IMMUNITY Mbelwhioh is not tho truth.
WhAtI claim and insist just this That the editor
shall be protected by the nature and eXisenccs OF
HIS calling TO tho Same bI66nt and In tho same do
grce that other protected by tho eIIgcnces,
tho requirements, Of their callings or positions TO
spccevey.
For instance: Iudgo on the bench, lawyer at tho
bar, may libel Rtrocously; and hold may be fairly
held responsible for such oo but tho Law" will not
presume him a lbeller from tho mUre fact that he
speaks disparaglngy Of somo person or persons.
householder applied to for the character OF his late
servant may respond: i turned HIM OF because
found him eyescrvant, drunkard and thief' yet
tho law will presume no malice not specifically proven
because It that in giving his eI-servants char
aOter the householder acting in the line OF HIS
duty. Had he posted up those precise words I'm a
public place, the law would have presumed malice,
because duty required such posting.
Now let apply tho principle above enunciated 10
tho actual in hand jefferson Jones posts up In
q barroom, livery table or on tho town pump these
words Clifford Eokes last night caught steal
ing hog and committed by Justice Smith to
await indictment and trial" Inc law VIII presume
that posting malicious, and will deal harshly with
Jones no should fail 10 prove It literally true And
why Clearly, because duty required him TO mako
any such proclamation OF his I5ighbor's alleged
fraty, because Of tho fair, natural presumption that
he was moved so 20 post by hate or malevolencc.
But that paragraph might appear in the columns
Of any Journal that hahltuay printed police inteli
CONGO, without justifying rendering plausible a
kindred presumption. II might, indeed, be proved
that the editor had inserted tho item with malicious
intent TO injuro Nokes; and then say: Punish the
nbeler to the extent OF the law" But / protest
against presuming editor libeller because In the
routine OF his vocation, tho line Of his duty, no
prints information which may prove inaccurate or
wholly erroneous, without fairly exposing him 10 tho
presumption that he lmpelled TO utter It by a
maiovolent spirit, purpose to injuro or degrade.
This is an injustice which will be removed
some day, and we shall not cease to labor to
that end. 1t is a disgrace to the law that an
editor should be presumed guilty until he can
prove himself innocent, while piokpocket is
presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.
-
CT1NTER