The record-union., 1895-03-02
LITERARY REVIEW.

anu ValuaDie WOfK upon Glle SUBJECT
Azel F. Hatch, A. B., of the Brooklyn
bar, has just given to the law fraternity
a timely and valuable work, the title of
which quite fully introduces it, namely:
statutes and Constitutional Provisions
of the States and Territories OF the United
States, and the Statutes of England, on
Libel and Slander, with suggestions Of
amendments. 1t is published by the
American Newspaper Publishing AS
sociation," 322 Potter Building, New
York.
After carefully examining the work
we are convinced that better idea of the
scope of the volume cannot be given than
is presented by the author in his preface.
wherein he says that his book has Deen
prepared 'for the purpose of showing the
chaotic condition of the statutes on libel
and SANDER. 1t is intended also to show
how meager are the statutes of many of
the States on this subject, and how slightly
they modify the common law OF The SIX
teenth and seventeenth centuries. 1t
viii serve useful purpose if it shall be
instrumental in emphasizing the absur-
dity of applying to free press among
free people, and in the age Of the tele-
graph, the Press Association and the
modern newspaper the rules of the Star
Chamber promulgated for The purpose
of suppressing public discussion in an
age when the daily newspaper was un-
known. Ifit shall suggest amendments
tending to a clear and explicit statement
of the law, or tending to remove some Of
the hctionS, absurdities and wrongs OF
the common law, as applied to modern
publications, or tending more surely to
punish the malicious defamer, while
defense of the honorable publisher, l
shall be amply repaid for the labor be-
slowed upon it."
1t will have precisely the effect Mr..
Hatch desires. 1t is the first brief,
pointed and plainly written work OH the
subject. All proceeding books on libel
have treated only of the law as it is, and
mas been, and not as it should be. Ali
libel and SANDER laws in the English
tongue are epltOmiZed without note and
comment. But TO make omparisOn OF
all these and deduce conclusions is task
laborious and not satisfactory to the gem
eral or even the technical reader. 1t
could do no more than convince him of
the truth of Mr.. Hatch's words as we
have quoted them, namely, that our libel
and SANDER laws, and the remedies for
injury from libel and slander, are con-
hicting, chaotic, an ''oila podrida," and
that as rule they are ill-adapted TO mod
done? Why, to point out how we
may bring about an approach to uni
formity, and in SO doing to make
these laws conform to the demands of the
age without exposing society TO any
greater dangers or individual rights to
trespass, and yet so as to protect the hon
est publisher in the dissemination of
news truths.
Mr.. Hatch has augmented the value of
his work by adding chapter OF sugges-
ton, and it is to this that we turned with
much expectancy. These suggestions
impress US as in the main we'll advised,
and born of very broad and generous
judgment. To outline this valuable
chapter is only to stimulate desire to
read it in full and to give it deep
thought. 1t Is in itself so concise and
clear cut that any attempted abridgment
must be inadequate.
In brief we may say, however, that
Mr.. Hatch deduces conclusions which
Justify him in these leading propositions
and statements. The English common
law of libel constitutes the basis of our
Jurisprudence, but subsequent English
statutes have not come into our accept
ance of the common law as modltiers.
SO that In some respects we have common
law rules, relative to libel and sIander.
that do not obtain now in the original
home of the common law. Thus tOx's
Act of 1892, the first great step toward the
freedom of the press, has no force and ap-
plication in the United States.
The law of libel as it came to us was
aimed at repression of public discus
sion; the spirit of our age, however, is
promotiVe OF it and proceeds upon belief
in publicity as the most powerful of cor
receives. Up to the Act of Fox (i792) the
English libel law was the. protection of
the kingly prerogatiYe and bar to dis
cussion, and hence bit in the mouth of
the press. Upon this basis the long line
of court decisions grew, and out of this
fact ran the order to the colonial Govern
ors to prohibit printing except under
Gubernatorial censorship.
But with the revolution came the need
and the demand 1Or free press, but even
then the idea Of free press as we enter
tain it, had no abiding place, and so the
Bill of Rights and the Declaration and
the Constitution as originally framed
were silent upon the great questions of
freedom OF speech and press.
In more modern times the press and
the rostrum have taken a new place in
the economics of human rights-so TO
speak-and hence the need for the modi-
1icatious that have grown out of statutory
enactments and others which must be
grated upon the law and make its fruit
age conform to the conditions and thought
OF the age.
The telegraph, the perfecting press, the
free library, political and public discus
sion, self-government and representative
systems Will not tolerate the censorship
under which society early in our history
was content. Diffusion of intelligence,
the spread of free school systems, ease OF
intercOmmunication rapid transit news
gathering and distributing, and the lib
erty to criticise public men and affairs,
have made it impossible that the rigidity
OF the old laws can be maintained.
hn hrIg of 81, III
with news is now one of the foremost OF
civilization, and il is responsive to de-
mand that is the OutgroWth of social con-
ditious of broad horizons and liberal
spirit.
The fiction of the common law was that
the reason for the law of libel and slander
was preservatiYe of the peace which deta-
nation tended to disturb. But that fic-
tion has been prolific of evil. the right
to reputation, credit and good name is
one that is personal and inalienable, alb
solute and entitled to the protection OF
law. 1t follows that the defamer ought to
be held in damages for his wrong doing
and be punished for malicious and will
idl assault upon it. But the right to this
protection is subject TO the same restric-
tions imposed on other rights for the gem
eral welfare. SO we have arrived 1T an
agreement upon these truths that free
speech and a free press are essential 10
tree government; that the free communi-
cation of thoughts and opinions is a
human right. But it is also Il privilege.
fast growing into right as great as the
others, to publish whatever Will con-
serve public good. So while attacks on
character cannot be justified on the
grounds OF morality CT public policy, nee
essary publication of the truth for public
benefit is TO be permitted. even to deia-
nation, if there is no malice, and the in-
poster and cheat, because OF this deiama-
lion. has no cause OF cnmnlaint. and The