The World. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1891-1896, 1893-06-15
THE Law Or LIBEL AGAIN.

Ihh LAW VI L1nhL h1h4NeS
Ii would perhaps De well fol some
Circuit Court Judges and officials to
carefully consider tho following edi
torial, from the columns Of the Bait.
more Sm II may prove If benefit,
and especially the latter paragraph
a hint to the aeise il sufficient Il ii as
follows:
The recent prosecution If the man-
ager and editors Of i Baltimore PAPER
for certain alleged libelous ntteranees
furnishes a striking illustration u the
grave abuses which may arise under
the laws relating 70 criminal libel to
which The SIN referred Id its editorial
columns on Thursday While, as was
pointed out in tina, article, II may he
difficult 10 establish BY statutory de-
finition the precise difference between
the liberty and the license Of the press,
there can be no doubt that the penalty
Of Imprisonment at present provided
in criminal libel for oyerstepping what
is frequently purely technical and
imaginary boundary line is not only.
unreasonable and ont Of proportion t..
the offense, but il dangerous to the
public interests AZ well ~ opposed u
the enlighted and progressive spirit Of
the age There can be no desire on
the part Of respectable newspapers to.
assail public Or private character,~or to
make their columns the vehicles Of de-
famation. Apart from higher consid
& erations, such q policy does not pay,
and, therefore, for their own sakes
publishers are disincllned to course
from which they themselves will be
the greatest sufferers. When such
newspapers deal frankly and boldly
with public questions apa public men
it's safe to conclude titatNthey have
not done in 4 spirit of malice Or
from desire to work personal injury
EYen the best and most carefully edit
cd papers may make mistakes, but an
error Of statement, and especially one
which il promptly corrected, should
not be made the basis. for imprison-
ment Or heavy damages Ii the i'd
cent case TO which We allnde, the jury
being judges Of the law al well as Of
the facts, chose to be guided hy the
law Of common sense instead Of the
legal rules that might have led them
to d different result They refused to
assume that the indicted persons were
aetuated by malice Or q wrongful mo-
tive, orto look at the alleged libel
through technical spectacles Their
verdict was popular rather than a
professional verdict, and il valuable
as proof of'the manner in which the
public at large II disposed 70 regard
this subject,
The same indisposition 10 be made
9a. = 4 4 + 7
the instrument Of private vengeance
was also manifested several years ago
by q jury III another libel case, Id this
city, in which newspaper was sued
for 4 statement which was claimed u
be inaccurate. III spite III sophistical
and technical pleas, the juryI declined
70 " governed BY specious Arguments
that may have been convincing 200
Years agouhder a. monarchical govern.
ment, but which are out u date IN !.
Tree country ii the present century,
Sand gave verdict fir the newspaper.
Theagreat mistake that II made ii
considering The subject NJ libelous
newspaper publications arises from j
failure 70 remember the progressive
character of the age and the differ
ences between modern American ana
Old World conditions 81 life The old
English common law has been Inodi-
fed in many essential particulars II
new circumstances have demaNded
and The severe and harsh penalties
provided by our stern forefathers for
trivial oflenses have been swept away
by the mllder and wiser policy of th,