The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-08-15
NEWSPAPER LIBEL LAWS.

One of the most interesting parts OF th ,
proceedings OF the recent convention at ST.
Paul of the National Editorial association
was that in relation to the newspaper libel
laws. These laws are generally defective.
In most cases they are absurdly unfair to-
wards the newspaper, and II the news
papers win, as they generally do, it is be-
cause the juries disregard the law in the
interest Of fairness and justice; also, in
most cases whore a paper IS mulcted the
jury is partisan or preiudiced, or the judge
is unfriendly. While it is the exception
for newspapers to lose, the records show
ing that the plaintiffs lose more than 80
per cent, of the libel cases, the laws
should be amended so as to deter
men from bringing suit except for
good cause when there is reasonable
probability of success. We have seen
statement 70 the effect that an eastern
newspaper had won in something less than
g score of libel suits, but il had cost tle pup
fishers more than $4,000 10 defend. \
vicious or virdictive person will bring
libel suit without the slightest hope of get
ting verdict, but he knows that he will
put the paper TO great cost for attorneys,
witnesses, court expenses, etc. The edi-
torial convention took the matter up, and
the committee on legislation presented an
exhaustive report on the subject, of which
the following is an extract:
Next TO the publication OF the laws in the
newspapers which is urged for the benefit of
Ill the people. your committee thinks the libel
laws, which especially affect tlase who belong
TO our craft, deserve consideration. The subject
was discussed al length in desultory manner
sc. -,
no practical results followed. That injustice is
done publishers under the libel laws of the var
ious states can hardly b questioned.
The press is a power for good or iii, and it is
but Just that 1t should be held rigidly to ac-
count so that private characters be not want
only assaied with impunitJ. We do not, there
fore, complain because most OF the states have
made the malicious defamation OF character
a misdemeanor punishable by line and i'm
prisonrnent in addition TO the old remedy Of
suit for damages. This Is right. What we
think may be justly urged is that some way be
provided by which he who innocen;ly without
malice or intention OF doing injustice, publishes
something wrong about an individual. may be
permitted by reiraction and apology, TO escape
fine, imprisonment and the payment of dam
ages.
The libe' law is peculiar in making the jury
judges OF both law and fact. Whether this is
most matters the jury must take the Law from
the court. A distinction is made in some
courts. We think rightly, between the deferse
OF truth where ones personal defects and mis-
fortunes are spoken OF and where his misdo-
ings are told. Your committee are OF the
opinion that the truth ought to be a full and
complete defense Except possibly, where ones
misfortunes rather than sins are exposed in
all libel proceedings. We also believe that the
statutes OF eve;y state should contain section
like this:
No prosecution for libel, either civil or Grim
inal, shall be maintained against publisher of
paper unless an opportunity be first given
such publisher TO retract and correct the same
and il such retraction and correction be made
Is fully and publicly as the libeious article this
shall be a complete defense unless malice be
proven by the prosecution
Publications declared TO be libelous are often
made innocently and with the best OF motives.
and i: is unjust that penalty be inflicted for
such an act. unless the publisher refuse 10
make all reparation in his power
The report was discussed exhaustively and
the opinion generally expressed was, not
that newspapers should be shielded from |
the legitimate consequences OF willful |
wrongdoing. but from malicious prosecution !
and the legal sharks; that laws should be |
enacted to prevent the commencement of |
suit, which had no good ground. In our |
opinion ne libel laws should provide that |
the publication of truth for public purposes |
is no libel, that the burden of proof should |
rest on the prosecution, that the publica-
tion of an apology should remove the pre-
sumption of malice, and then that the
prosecution should give bonds for the pay
nent OF costs in the event of the failure OF
his suit. There is room for improvement
in the Utah statute relating to libel