The record-union., 1894-04-14
BASED ON ERROR.
Criticisms of Judge CatIn's Decision
by the Press.
They We're Written without Correct
knowledge of the Facts in the
Case and Are Unfair.

The following are specimens of many
of the criticisms of the recent decision of
Judge Catlin in the Gilman Bee libel case.
To those who have any correct informa-
ton it will be seen that an incorrect state
ment of facts gives a color of justice to
the conclusions:
ITO admit that they only published
such statements of facts as occurred 47s
the course OF q criminal proceeding, ana
then impose penalty because the defend
ants could not IN their defense convict
the plaintiff beyond a reasonable DOUBT
Ia judicial decision that is something
strikingly vel."-Stockton Independ-
ent.
ut had published the arrest of a citizen
for an alleged crime. In doing so 1t had
not gone beyond the allegations in the
warrant. ."-San Francisco Morning Call.
''If a paper which publishes the fact
that man has been arrested can be sub
jected to a fine, even when it gives the
man an opportunity to deny the charge
against him, then there is no safety for a
newspaper in publishing any of the pro-
ceedfmgS IN q criminal court, and the free
dom OF the press will be severely I'M
paired. San Jose Mercury.
Under this decision no newspaper
could say word about a case i7t court
until Judge or jury made decision or
rendered verdict."- Bernardino
Times-IndeX.
''If Catlin's decision is the law, the peo-
pie need not expect much criminal news
from the press. The average newspaper
cannot afford to publish an arrest or
sworn complaint if it is exposed to arrest
or heavy damages" s."-Santa Cruz Sentl-
nell
THE proceedings before the courts are
tho nf 10 hlin anH IVha,1 "A
newspaper publishes the plain facts of
warrants issued and complaints filed, adj
mittedly as in this case, without comment
or prejudice it is certainly contrary to
common sense that it should be held
guilty of libel. l.'-Bakersfeld Californian.
Many more of the same sort might be
quoted. All these papers have been misled
by the statements OF the Bee, which are
more false than its statements concerning
Mr.. Gilman, for the reason that, as to the
latter it had a belief founded upon report,
while as to the former it knew the facts.
There was no such admission nor any
such fact in the case as stated by the
Stockton Independent. Nor is it true that
the article contained nothing more than
that citizen had been arrested for an
alleged crime, as stated by the Gait, for
ia such case there would have been no
libel at all. The statements of the San
Jose Mercury, and other papers, to the
effect that the libel was merely the pubh-
cation of the proceedings in a criminal
court, are equally untrue. If they were
true there could have been no suit main-
tanned against the Bee, because such
statement, presuming it to have been sub
stantially correct, is expressly protected
by the statute.
The libelous article was not and did not
purport to be report of the proceedings
in a criminal court, or in the course OF
criminal proceeding. 1t was report of a
private caucus at private house, of a
fabricated and ScandalouS tale rehearsed
by four women to three men. one of the
latter being Bee reporter on the scent
for news" one the reporter OF another
paper, not of the sensational order, and
TOO intelligent to publish the proceedings
of such criminal court" and the other
the Chief of Police. The Bee reporter
had much difficulty in understanding the
story, but none in compiling 1t for the
paper in which it was published in the
afternoon of the same day, after being
properly dressed up with such headlines
as "a Widows Story" "A Damaging
Tale Against a Sacramento Merchant
His Actions Were Of the Grossest," etc.
This article. the details of which it
would be indecent to repeat, the Bee has
succeeded in palming OFT upon portion
OF the press as "a fair report Of a judicial
proceeding" such as any paper has q
right to publish. The article itself did
not pretend to be founded upon judicial
proceeding. 1t concluded with the state
ment that the woman told the Chief of
Police that she would go to the police
office this afternoon and swear to a COM
plaint against Gilman. She said that she
very much disliked to 60 into court. but
she had been advised TO do so, and said
that she felt she had To do something to
stop Gilman'S insults" F"
The Bee now relies upon the fact that
the Chief of Police, with the reporter,
were present at Mrs. helley's house, to
give the conclave there assembled the
color ofa judicial proceeding" and in
this way to justify itself in the imposition
upon its brethren OF the press of the
idea that it did nothing more as the Catt
says, than to publish the fact that a citi-
zen had been arrested for an alleged
crime.
When called upon to answer for as
gross a libel as was ever published
against prominent merchant and a re-
putable citizen, it made no pretense that
the publication was of that character
known in law as privileged" 1t could
not have found a reputable attorney to
put bis name to such plea. 1t had no
alternative but TO justify the libel and if
possible to prove its truth In order TO
make a complete defense.
1t therefore pleaded that it had the
Illegal right and privilege to publish
the libel because it was correct and
true" not because it was "a fair and true
report, without malice, of judicial,
legislative or other public proceeding"
The enterprise was desperate cast. 1t
was to destroy Gilman and win; or TO
get off with the loss of few hundred
dollars under the plea of mitigating cir
cumStances.
There is not one of the critics who are
now denouncing the decision who is so
unjust and unintelligent as not to up
hold it, if he were compelled to read the
article which the Bee at the trial at
tempted, as its only possible defense, to
prove true, and now, as an after thought.
seeks to impose upon the public as a
privileged publication"