Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-25
THE ARNOLD CASE AGAIN,

Inc San FRANCISCO Cdu says that the
moral effect of the verdict in the Arnold
murder case is this, that che who under
takes to libel his neighbor takes his life in
his hand" This is not true, because it is
too broad a statement. So far as the YER
dict goes in the direction of establishing a
code, it does unquestionably tend to fortify
the doctrine that whoever kills another
who has purposely vilely slandered his
family and endeavored basely to wreck the
reputation of ones wife and children, deals
with an assassin, and has rightly treated
him as such. But to say that the
verdict tends to establish the doctrine that
any one may try, convict and slay his
libeler is incorrect.
There are ibels and libels, and only
rarely is one SO malignant as to bring on
or Justify bloody encounter. But such
an ofense as that of Garness is of class
of libels that really demands new CLASH
fication and far more expressive title than
hicSi' L hC luSSSd StllliIltGuI IudI 1uStl-
fies Arnold, even if he did not fire in self
defense, it can be frankly admitted is, how
ever, inharmonious with the law, and
though manifest in this case at the sacri-
flee of life, typical of the manly sentiment
of the age, of the degree of the chivalric re-
naming in the civilization of the era.
But that sentiment has never gone to the
extent of justifying life-taking in retalia-
ton for ordinary libel-that would be
savagery.
Were the laws as stringent concerning
libel and the punishment OF character
wreckers as they are in condemning muir
der and theft we would have less abuse of
types and the columns of the newspapers,
fewer ibels uttered, fewer lives wrecked,
and fewer tragedies as the outcome of the
wagging of foul tongues. The sensational
press, the liberty with which the scurril-
GUS newspaper deals with private matters,
the prying and nosing of constituencies
reporters, hired to do the dirty work of
heartless publishers, have done more than
all else to break down the barriers of
privacy and to make the domestic life of
anyone noteworthy enough to attract the
co.nmendatory attention or the criticism
of the community free field for explora-
ton by Paul Prys and blackmailers. 1t is the
simple and undeniable truth that because
OF the infamous practices of some of its
members, the press of the day owes it to
society to inaugurate a reform in this mat
Ter OF dealing with the private concerns of
the citizen. If there had been Spartan
resolution to refuse scandals, on the part of
all the newspapers of California, such as in
yolved the Garness circulars, there would, in
all probability, have been no homicidaI
outcome to that infamy 1t was because
of the deplorable readiness for coin, or for
mere sensation, of some of the press to
give the wings of news to the infamous
anonymous circulars, that to-day the peo-
pie are apologizing for the taking of
human life and excusing jury for justi-
flying homicide.
This is the simple truth, and the law
makers and journalists of the day may as
well face it. 1t is not at all surprising
that the world is holding newspaper men
In less and less regard, and considering
them as either venal or heartless. 1t is
deplorable that it is so, but not the less is
1t true. For our own part, without iusti-
Tying Arnold for staying Garness for his
Infamous offense, we believe that the cow
ardly heart that prompted the scheme of
the circulars and of the use of the press
columns, also prompted an act of physical
assault when Arnold taxed the blackmail-
ing Judas with his crime, and that Arnold,
in reasonable belief that his life was in
danger from one who could assassinate
character, killed his assailant in seIf-de
fense