Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1894-03-30
- THIS THE LAW.

On August 10Th. 1892, c. H. Gil
man, Of this city, was arrested for
the crime Ct rape. That afternoon
the Bee published very briefly the
story If the woman, taking particular
pains also to find Gilman and to OBJ
tain i, statement, which it printed
n h. desired, after It had been read
e lan. in the same issue Of the
paper. The gist Of the woman's
story as printed was the same sno-
stantially as told to the Chief OF
Police and the Police Judge, upon
which a warrant was issued, and up
on which he was held to answer to
the Superior Court by Police Judge
r. O. Gravens. On habeas corpus
proceedings subsequently, Gilman
was released. Spurred on TO it by
malicious enemies of the Bee, he
commenced libel suit for $50, 900
against this paper. In his decision
upon the case both sides having
consented that it be tried by the
Judge-Judge A. p. Catlin, of our
Superior Court, found Judgment
against the proprietors Of the Bee
for $500 damages.
After publishing the Judges de-
cision the Bee says:
IL Mr. C. II. Gilman is banking
on getting $500, or any other sum,
from this paper, he had better post
pone his hilarity until he hears from
the Supreme Court, for certainly the
Bee does not propose to permit this
matter to rest here. The fight has
only commenced.
The Examiner further says:
OF course this absurd ruling Will
not stand. The way is quite smooth
enough for the libertine, the footpad,
the forger, the confidence man and
the assassin now, without throwing
the judicial ernine around them to
shield them from the discomfvrts OF
publicity. The law very properly
makes court proceedings privileged.
1t exempts a newspaper from any
claim for damages fer "a fair and
true report, without malice, OF a
judicial, legislative, or other public
official proceeding, or OF anything
said If the course thereof. ;" There
can be no logical ground Of this ex-
emption which would not equally ex-
cuse the publication of accounts OF
the preliminary stages OF judicial
proceedings, as in the Sacramento
case. with the statements of the par
ties concerned.
The Bee was not merely justified
in publishing fair report OF the Gil
man case-it was bound to do so by
its duty to its readers and to the
community Of which it is servant.
The duty of keeping the public en-
liohtened is one for whose fulhllment
the press has fought for two cen
turtles. Step by step it has trampled
down the barbarous old English law
of libel, in the face of the logged re-
sistance of Judges and Parliments,
and it is not going to be forced back
into the eighteenth century now. VI
course the Bee will carry its case to
the Supreme Court, and in doing so
it will nave the sympathy and sup
port of the entire press of the State,
whose cause il is maintaining.
The Post takes this view of the
matter:
IF this view of the law of libel Is to
stand, the liberty Of the press Is at an
end. Not only will the burden OF
prosecuting persons accused or crime
be shifted from the District Attorneys
Of the State to the editors of news
papers, but ali any malefactor lies
do, in order to prevent the details Of
his offense being made public, viii be
70 send in written denials. A more
absurd view of the law Of libel could
scarcely be conceived.