Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-02
GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY?


II THE GAZETTE can rightfully in
terpret the evidence. the News did not
sell its opinions to the railroads, but it
did sell its space, and it is immaterial
whether the space so disposed Of was
all occupied by what is termed "legiti-
mate advertising" or not.
AS The GAZETTE reads the testi-
mony, the crime OF the News was not
against honest journalism, but against
the reputation of journalism-against
itself and all other Texas newspa-
pers.
The crime OF the News was falsehood
and arbitrariness, or, what Receiver
Eddy is reported by Receiver Camp
bell as having termed a ''stand-and-de-
liver" policy with regard 10 the rail
roads. The crime of the News was in
sincerity and lack OF judgment.
AS The GAZETTE understands the
position Of the News, that paper has
always opposed legislative control OF
corporations-it believes in free trade
and in permitting competition TO regu-
late corporations into justice. The
man nature, especially when incor-
porated. will voluntarily forego any adj
vantage. CT how a foreign railroad OWL
ership can be expected to look after the
interests of Texas further than TO make
il pay as big dividends on railroad
property as can be squeezed out OF the
people: but. despite this. THE GAZETTE
is firmly convinced that the News held
TO the opinion that the railroads, I'M
controlled by Texas law, would do as
much. if not more for Texas. than if
controlled by Texas law. Holding TO
this view, the News was free to express
-lch opinion without impugnment of
It's motive And. holding to this view,
the News was free 10 demand compen-
sation for extra space devoted to its eX-
preston desired by the railroads. If
the News opposed railroad regula-
ton and had so declared itself.
and the roads, as directly inter-
ested parties, desired more space
devoted to such opposition than the
News would voluntarily have given,
no man can say there was prostitution
if the News demanded pay for this eX-
ira space. There is quite a difference
between the sale Of an opinion by
newspaper, and the sale of space for
the persistent expression of such opin-
ion honestly held The railroads had
no claim on the News space merely be-
cause the News held that the roads
should not be regulated.
But did the railroads demand this
extra advocacy OF their cause, or did
the News propose it? In either ease,
the News could have justified itself.
The railroads were expanding money
on lobbyists, and the News could
consistently have said, I'VE are
and have been for you've have
III our own expense used our
influence with the public-if you
have money to spend in educating the
people to oppose railroad legislation.
why not advertise more literally with
Is? We work for railroads that do not
reach within hundreds Of miles of Gal
weston. as well as for roads that run
into Galveston-why not, then, give Us
Jumping contract for advertising SO
that all the roads shall contribute equa-
bly, for the service We have been per-
forming for all the roads alike?"
THE GAZETTE contends for the le-
gitimacy of such transaction as is above
outlined. The News could have done
this without crime and without Just
protest from any one save, perhaps, the
railroad men like Eddy, who, under
such circumstances. might have felt
that il was a kind of 'stand-and-de-
liver policy" But. however they might
have felt, THE GAZETTE maintains the
legitimacy of it.
The News had right to sell its space
for pure advertising at 4 rate which
would justify it in deyoting more space
to arguments in opposition to railroad
regulation. but the News had no right.
year ago, to deny that it had made
such Jumping contract" the News
had no right to go on the stand and
swear to denials which it was COM
PEELED the next day to withdraw: the
News had no right to shrink from the
whole truth about this matter and thus
put TO shame every newspaper in the
state.
The News had offended no law in
making the contract for advertising
with the pool or Traffic association.
but the News did offend law when it
denied that contract, and when it
failed TO boldly admit it and to main
tain its own right TO enter into such
contract. If the contract was wrong.
why did the News make it? If it was
right, why did the News swear such
contract was not made?
Every man in Texas knows the Texas
railroads made that contract by resolu-
ton with the News because the News
was an advocate of their cause, and had
the News boldly avowed the contract
F.