The morning call., 1894-05-31
THE PRIVILEGES OF CORRE.
SPONDENTS.

The Senate is now engaged in consider
ing to what extent newspaper correspond
ent may use information which he believes
to be reliable without giving the name of
bis informant should the information pub.
lished lead 10 investigation or trial. The
facts are that Correspondent Edwards
and Correspondent Schriver made state
ments In their respective journals reflect
ing upon certain Senators and other pub
lie officials upon information given them
by persons whose names they are not at
liberty 20 disclose. The Senate denies
the right Of correspondents to make state
ments derogatory to the character of men,
bers OF that body and to screen themselves
behind unknown persons. The action of
the Senate so far indicates a purpose TO
regard as false and malicious statements
for which the correspondent cannot show
responsible source. Something may be
said on both sides Of the question. The
Senate may correctly hold that the fair
fame Of Senators should not be exposed to
anonymous aspersCns. 1t will be justified
in regarding as anonymous reports circu-
lated on authority which the correspond
ent cannot produce. The assumption that
the correspondent is qualified to Judge of
the truth of the information given to him
by parties who enjoin secrecy is not in all
cases tenable. Some correspondents are
thus justified; others are not. The as
persed official may justly claim that he
should not suffer by the latter class OF cor
respondent
On the side OF the press it may be urged
that the object of the revelations is to pro-
Vrrh Fvo Fho Il
officials. Reputable papers have nothing
to gain by the publication of reports that
do not prove to be true. The fact of max
ing what newspaper men call scoop"
would be small compensation for the sub
seQuent discovery that the scoop" was
barren of matter, if not malicious in in
tent. The reputable journal would say.
further, thatiit was responsible for its cor
respondents, and had as much interest ia
conforming its statements to facts as Sem
atOrs had Ia having statements so con-
firmed. The argument may also be ad-
vanced on the newspaper side that reputa-
BILE and influential journals exercise
wholesome restraint upon public officials.
Certain acts are disreputable which are
not illegal. In the debate in the Senate
Senator Hill! declared that speculation in
stock that might be affected by the votes
Of the spectators was not illegal.
"a Senator" be said. ''has a legal
right to do what Ia not prohib-
lied" He was not defending the morality
OF such speculations, but disposng of the
notion that there was law against it.
Now, Senator would suffer more from
loss of public respect In consequences of
being detected in such speculation than he
would from any consequence of legal
action, even If speculation were unlawful.
The press is the medium through which
the public expects to be informed of such
transactions. and is also the medium
through which public opinion is expressed.
The correspondent. therefore, acting in
the public interest, knowing that the Jour
nal be especially represents will be greatly
injured by lack of judgment on his part,
may be allowed wider exercise of discre-
ton than could be intrusted to an indi-
vdual engaged In other pursuits. The re-
mark of Senator Hill that the accused
Senators should be summoned seems d.
rectly TO the point.