The morning call., 1891-01-18
NEWSPAPER EDITORS And OWNERS.
"JurieS Seem TO Think Them NOl-EIiStent
One Is Robbed, but Gets No Redress"
FROM The .4rgonaat, San Francisco

From the 14rgondut San Francisco.
1t does really seem as though the verdict
in the case of Stock versus Kerr ought to
make gentlemen of the press think little.
There was no doubt that the defendant had
applied money of THE CALL newspaper to
his own USE That he had confessed in the
presence of witnesses, and his statement
had been reduced to writing. There was
not a person in court. from the Judge on the
bench to the spectators on their chairs, who
entertained the smallest doubt respecting
the merits of the case. Yet the jury, by
vote of ten to two, found for the defendant.
1t Is true that Judge Hunt had charged them
that if they could not fix on Kerr the taking
of some particular sum of money on some
particular day, they could not give the
plaintiff a verdict; and it is also true that
the evidence fell little short of this re-
Quirement. But enough was proved to have
insured victory for the plaintiff if that
plaintiff had not been a newspaper pro-
prietor.
The verdict is in line with all the recent YER
diets in cases where newspaper proprietorg
have been concerned The man who shot
and killed Charles de Young was acquitted.
The man who shot but did not quite kill M.
j. de Dung, was also acquitted. The man
who libeled George X. Fitch in the most out
rageOus manner in which newspaper
owner can be libeled, was found by jury
to have damaged him to the extent of one
dollar. And now the man who rnbbed Lor-
Ing Pickering is pronounced by jury to be
free from the obligation of repaying the
money he stole. 1t would really seem that,
in the opinion of the class of citizens from
which jurors are drawn, newspaper edi-
tor may be robbed slandered, wounded, or
killed with impunity.
That is not an enviable position for O. class
of persons TO occupy. 1t places editors, or
at least newspaper proprietOrs, on the foot
ing of the outlaws of olden time. Any man
may beat, maltreat or even kill them with
out mourning responsibility for the act.
They are out of the protection of the law
which guards the convict from assault and
the harlot from violence.
1t would seem that journalists owe it to
themselves to inquire why this invidous
distinction is made in their case; why thew
alone OF all 6readwlnntrs are ostraciZed as
parlahs. There must be some reason
Whole communities of intelligent and civil
Lied men do not for a. series of years to-
gether agree to pronounce sentence of out
lawry upon the members of recognized
profession without some overpowering
cause. What has the press of San Francisco
done to bring down upon its members SO
extraordinary and ignominious a degrade
ton?
We confess that the solution of the
problem Is beyond our power. If it should
be the conviction of the public at large that
the daily newspapers of San Francisco have
deliberately made themselves champions of
falsehood instead of truth; that they have,
almost without exception, pandered to the
lowest and meanest prejudices Of the most
ignorant and most brutal class OF the COM
munity; If their opinions on passing events
have been formed, not from desire to find
out and express what is right, but from a
cowardly instinct to crlnge and fawn upon
the apostle of wrong; if they almost invari-
ably esDouSe the cause of the strong against
the weak. OF the ignorant against tina wall
informed, of the brutal against the humane;
If they have nothing but sneeTs for kindly
suggestions or generous proposals, and use
the power of the printing press to dissent
nate the dictates Of barbarlsm; if the public
believe that this is the character of our
daily press-then, perhaps, one may under
stand why they should ostracize uewspa-
pers, and hit their owners on the head when
they get a chance But is that real
picture Of our city journals?