The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1891-07-17

A Disgrace % Civilization.
! The present libel laws IN Indiana
Attention Il again called ~ Il by jur,
giving Z verdict OF 81 500 against the
editor Of the Madison Democrat In . ~
bel suit. of which no says;
sln JSnusry isst prominent hosc'
keeper stopped me ~ | passed his door
and asked me 70 send my reporter up. ~
he had good item Of news. Forgetting
III. h. reminded me : second time Com
plying with his request, my reporter
called On him. and from the news he re-
lceived. an article stating that the hotel
Keepers female help and one Of HE
boarders hsd left the hotel together. and
liz va presumed. left the town t0geths =.
appeared the next day In the Dairy
Democrat. the hotel keeper authorizing
lus 20 sigm bis name 10 Il ~ We desired,
and 70 pay Tor the publication II neces-
|sary. No one connected with the Demo-
Icral bad any knowledge Of the parties
|named 10 the article except the hotel
keeper.
Tho young lady mentioned In the ar-
lticle Was persuaded TO enter suit through
ID guardian against tho Democrat Co..
and THE sfter 70 bad opened our col
umns 10 tho reply Of the offended par
tiles, publishing their reply 10 the claimed
offensive article the following day.
| "I,etters have been written ne and
scores OF our best citizens have come
voluntarily 10 US and expressed the
hope that the case would be reversed, Is
W we're made 70 suffer innocently for
publishing an item OF news furnished Us
by reliable parties and proven to be lit
orally true 81 tie trial. The public are
interested in having . good paper Ia
their midst. one that fearlessly publishes
the news actually occurring, and any
thing that will curtail that end is con-
demned By them
! The present libel law was undoubtedly
constructed for the benefit OF shystcr IT.
torneys, who are : Disgrace TO the legal
profession and who persuade" parties
TO bring actions, in hopes Of securing q
II fec themselves by compromise, from
publishers who dislike the annoy ance OF
being compelled to attend court. Not
succeeding 10 securing . compromise
the shysters take the Judgment. or most
Of sny they may obtain, under this
disgracefpl Law TO restrain the freedo n
Iof the press, - contingent fee"
! But the Law 10 not likely TO be changed
until the editors Of I'll parties unite IN
asking the legislature for fair law on
the subject Of libel This presumes that
there ought to be . strict enactment de-
lining libel, and providing pen alties ~
for DO respectable editor Graves any IN
limited IiceDee 70 print articles shout
persous. But fair information. and due
diligence TO iind the truth In regard 10
any sGair. and entire absence OF any
malice, aud full correction, should . re-
porter be, without any fault OF his. mis-
led into making incorrect statements
ought 10 be recognized By law - full
defense against any action for libel for
/ publishing any current item Of news
Otherwise newspapers would be a. dull
q those Of . century ago O. far ~ ne W
10 concerned. or, IL continued % At pres
ent. are subject 10 the annoyance OF .
suit By any pcttifogger who can 'per-
susde' some weak client to permit them
to sue. We have "been there" and
know whereof We speak.
! But the COusIER IL nos sanguine % 10
the correction Of The evil. Publishers
nearly I'll think they ere sharp enough 60
keep out OF such scrapes. till IN % IN
Guarded moment s0me avaricious, I'M
priucipled peltifogger catches them ND
end 20 they are not likely to unite upon
ANY just measure.
For two years We brought II before
different editorial associations without
effect, and theo concluded editors gener :
ally believed moro 10 recreation than
business. when they got out Of their Of
Ificss and sway from home.