The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-11-25
An Object Lesson.

fully present his case for impartial dis
~cussion it is necessary to repeat som
statements already familiar to the read
ers of The Tribune. At a late hour ant
after the earlier editions of The Press
had already been printed the night edi'
tor in charge received from a source
not yet made public, h startling in
telligence hat the treasurer of OF
the leading financial concerns of the
city was a defaulter and had ~absconded
This announcement appeared in a small
portion of the city edition of The Press
There was no foundation whatever
for this announcement. The accused
official was not a defaulter and on the
same morning the ~defamatory article
appeared he was at his office attending
to his duties as usual. The editor-in-
chief, Hon. Charles Emory Smith. was
in Boston at the time of the libelous
publication and could have a no
knowledge of it, but Notwithstanding
this fact a warrant for his arrest on
the charge of malicious libel was sworn
cut Civil suits for damages were also
commenced by the aggrieved party for
800, 600, and by the company for $780,
900 against the owners of The Press.
The attorney for the maligned treas
urer subsequently addressed a letter to
Editor Smith proposing that If he would
give to the attorney the names of the
night editor in charge of The Press and
- AZ ,,,orAo ,,lno r,-,,telnl <la do
aging article the criminal prosecution
against MI. Smith would be abandoned.
To this Mr.. Smith replied that he would
not secure immunity for himself on the
conditions proposed. In the meantime,
however. The Press had in the fullest
manner corrected its error and made as
complete reparation as a newspaper
could possibly make for the blunder Of
the subordinates in its employ.
Viewed from an impartial and in every
way disinterested standpoint certain
conclusions are inevitable. The first Is
that Editor Smith cannot possibly be
guilty of malicious libel. His absence
in another state at the time relieves
him of all personal responsibility for
the appearance of the article. 1t fol-
lows that those who are pressing such a
prosecution are themselves manifesting
a spirit of revenge and injustice utterly
uncalled for and unworthy.
AS to the question Of damages: The
maligned treasurer demand $500, 900 and
the company he represents claims $780,
| nln Tta~a e., not N ea,,n ,a Il, kl,o nttxy
of Philadelphia who for a moment be-
lieves that any such damages have been
sustained-or n damages at all, for
that matter. The aggrieved treasurer
has not suffered an iota in character or
pocket. He stands Just as high in the
estimation Of his fellow citizens Is he
ever did, and he holds the same position
with the same salary as previous to the
libelous publication. No single person
in the world believes him guilty. The
financial institution concerned has not
been and will not be damaged to the
extent of a single dollar in its vast bust
ness operations in consequence of the
falsely alleged dishonesty of its treas
urer. Upon what principle Of justice,
we ask, should Editor Charles Emory
Smith be punished for a criminal libel
of which he could not possibly be guilty:
or upon what reasoning in equity should
The Press company be required to pay
$3.50, 900, or any other sum-, as damages
that were not sustained either by the
libeled treasurer or the company he rep
resents?
There is a moral rs we'll as a legal
side to an issue of this character. The
Press has fully demonstrated hat the |
libel was not uttered with malice. A
subordinate of that paper was not sufi-
GENTLY careful, and committed a grave
blunder. The Press has sustained in
finitely greater injury as the result of
that tblunder than has the libeled bank
official or his institution. The person
directly aggrieved, and the president of
the bank indirectly involved, are mani
Testing a spirit of revenge in the civil
and criminal cases they are pressing
that will not commend them in the esti-
nation of just and fair-minded men.
Editor Smith has shown himself a man.
ly man in declining to purchase i'm
munity for himself on the terms pro-
posed. In protecting his errlng subor-
dinates he is right. If any person ma
liciously deceived any. one connected
with The Press by imposing upon them
false information, such person should
not, however, be shielded by Mr.. Smith.
This seems to us to be the common
sense view to take of the case under
consideration. 1t Is one hat concerns
all publishers.
THE Republican party" observes the
Philadelphia Inquirer, wants a presi-
Dental candidate who will hold New
Jersey. Maryland and Kentucky in the
Republican column and who can carry
New York and keep on carrying her.
In that event, why not urg the NOM
ination Of that gallant leader and peer
less plurality getter, General Daniel H..
Hastings? He would come as nea to
sweeping both North and South as any
other living Republican.
Some one who has taken the trouble
to scan the newspaper files for the
past eight months that they
chronicle, in that period. nearly 200
.lynchihgs. Tho number of legal exc
in that time ID not reported. but
II probably II leas than half = large.
x