The record-union., 1894-05-30
THE SUGAR TRUST CHARGE.

A newspaper correspondent at the
East put in circulation the statement that
the Sugar Trust contributed an immense
sum to the Democratic campaign fund of
1892. The United States Senate Investi-
eating Committee on the 24th instant had
the correspondent before it and de-
manded that he give the committee the
information necessary to enable it to as
certain the facts in the acase. The corre-
spondent, who represented the Philadel-
phia Press, declined to give his authority.
OF course, as he alone had the informa-
ton according to his own claim, his
declination practically ends the investi-
cation in that direction. But it does not
close the inquiry as to the defensibleness
of the correspondents position. He
sent out to all the press, and it was pub
hshed far and wide, story that involved
political dishonesty and probable COR
ruption, if true; story that shadowed
great political party and brought under
party and the President elected at the
close of the campaign.
One of two things is undeniable; un-
less he was prepared to reveal the proofs
to the proper authority when called
upon. the reporter should not have pub
lished his story; if he is not prepared to
give the committee his authority he is
wide open to the just suspicion that he
never was in possession OF the proofs-in
short. that he lied. AS the Courier
Journal well says:
It's the easiest thing in the world to con-
coet sensational charges at special rates"
and the author OF the letter which provoked
the investigation, must at least attempt to eS-
tabl1sh his allegations or be elassed with that
brood OF unscrupulous penny-a-liners who
are ever ready TO substitute fabrication for
TACT, and who are a most discreditable incu-
bus upon modern journalism.
The ethics of journalism do not protect
newspaper men in such cases as these.
There is no honorable rule that binds the
reporter, correspondent or editor to
secresy in order to protect the informant,
where the public good and general con-
Germ rise superior to the personality of
the informant. The good newspaper man
will not give away' his correspondent
or informant, but he will not publish as
facts statements from any informer with
out fortiication that will enable him to
establish the truth when it becomes essen
tisl to the public good that the truth
should be known.
Take the case under consideration. a
newspaper writer makes a grave charge,
one of national concern-one he knew to
court investigation; it is essential that the
charge be either established or disproved.
The only man who can furnish the proofs
or give the direct clew to them is he who
makes the charge, and he is therefore
called upon to do one of these things. He
st once refuses to give his authority
on the ground that it would be breaking
faith" with his informant. He then pro-
ceeds to tell the committee how it may
possibly get at the truth by calling in
host of people who ought to know if any
such sum of money was so contributed.
But, as is obvious, this would be a mighty
task and unsatisfactory, would cost the
nation great sum and consume months
of time, while to ''keep faithn the corre-
spondent is protected who. if he tells the
truth, can put the committee instantly
upon the right track.
There is nothing for it, then. but to con-
denim the correspondent. refuse to ac-
cept his statements and to pronounce his
plea of privilege and good faith to be
evasion and deceit.