New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-19
4 REASONABLE DEMAND

With n great deal Of viCOr and carneStneSS
"Thc Ncw-York Herald " has recently been al
vocating a reform of the libel laws or this State
II has not unwiscly. directed it's main Efforts
toward the abolition Of two of the most inelui-
fable phascs of the law Of libel rs it still exists
In this State one Of them Is the presumption
Of personal malice on the part OF tn" publisher
based alone upon the incorrcctncsS OF The publ
cation. even though it may have been the most
accidental mistake or unavoidable error. The
other is the liberty that the law still gives To
iurics 10 inhct punitive damages upon the pub
Usher independent Of the degree of actual per-
sonal injury suffered 10y the complainant In the
case.
The. doctrine Of punitive damages never has
been and never could be justified ~ Il reason
able part of the law in civil cases. 1t belongs,
and ought always To have been kept. exclusively
within the domain Of the criminal law II the
punishment now prescribed by the criminal
code for offences Of this character Is not severe
enough Jet It bc made so and those found
guilty 10y due process Of law pay the prescribed
penalty Punitive damages are said TO be given
"as n warning 10 other wrOugdoers.' But that
* The, legitimate function of the criminal law.
and furnishes no reason why the plaintiff In
such an action should receive monetary prize
over and above his full compensatory damages
II that money is 10 be- taken from the defendant
rs a punishment and warning, II should be
paid into ;hc public treasury rs fine. More
over In criminal cases the limit OF the me
f. fixed bv statute: but there Is practically no
limit 10 the money penalty which prcjudiced
or passion-gllidcd jury may Impose upon the
defendant publisher In II libel suit under the
head Of punitive damages. The law should De
so amended not only In the interest Of publish
crs but Of the general public. so as 10 Abolish
vindlctivc damages rs an element in the award
ing Of vcrlicts IN civil cases.
The theory Of the presumption OF malice Is
another relic of the musty past unworthy to
be longer retained In modern Jurisprudence 1t
has no analogy In the principles that govern
other classes OF cases. Either n person who
has been injured by false publication should
receive compensation for that injury without
regard 10 the motives Of the publisher of the
libel or else, If the action Is To be predcatcd
upon the evil feelings and purposes of the pub
Usher. the plaintiff should be required, rs in
other classes of cases. 10 prove the facts that
he charges and upon which he relies. The an
swcr that il commonly made that il Is extreme
" difficult In most cases TO prove malice af-
lrmativcy IS no answer at all; II really means.
what all know to be the fact that In most In
stances there Is no malice on the part Of the
publisher but the incorrect publication Is Il mis-
take. If il has injured any one, that person Is
entitled io indemnity accordingly; but his right
10 recover should no more be based upon the
false assumption of intentional wrongdolng on
the part of the publisher than should the la
bllity Of railroad corporation for It's negligence
I'm iuiurlug Il passenger.
Publishers Of newspapers are not unreason-
able. and they do not ask for any special priv
ilcges or mmuntlcs not given by law TO all
the rest Of the public. But they do ask that
they should not be Disseminated against and
put under burdens of proof and penalties I'M
posed upon 10 other class or individuals In the
community Public opinion Is compelling the
correction of such wrongs in other States and
countries How long will Ncw-fork continue
10 stand ms the most unreasonable ana the most
ulibcral of them all in the matter Of conform
ing the law Of libel 10 the spirit and develop
ments of modern civilization?