The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-02-14
LEGISLATIVE NOTES.

The senate Yesterday morning had vi
Fo- discussion Senator BOwsers llbe
hill After all the committee amend
ments and several offered by members o
the senate had been adopted the bill wa!
Dassed to engrossment, reading as lol
lows: Iii.
Section /. Be it enacted by the legs
lature of the state of Texas; III an!
sniff brought for the publication OF iDe
in any newspaper IN TINS staie lnc man, e !;
shall recover only actual damages IL Il
shall appear that the publication was
made i'm good faith and its talsty WaS
due to negligence, mistake or mlsappre
hension of the facts, and that in the mex
regular issue of said newspaper altei
such mistake or misapprchension was
brought to the knowledge OF the publish
ers. whether before or after SUIT Drought
4 correction was published IN as cOhSpIc
nous A manner and place IN said news
paper rs was the article sued on as IL
Sec. 2. That in actions for libel, il there
10 M EXPRESS malice, then no exemplary
or punitive damages shall be awaFrueu'
hut such malice may be inferred from
tho nature and tone of the statements
claimed to be libelOuS. IT,, ,,
Soc g. No exemplary or punatlvc Ghih-
ages shall be recovered unless the pam
tifr shall, before bringing SUIT give nv
tice by mail or otherwise to the 1IGlehunlii
30 publish rctraction oil the HDe'' anu
,llow the defendant a reasonable uihc
in which TO publish such Tetractl0n, ana
make such amends as are reasonaDle
md nossible under the circumstances
az the case; and proof of the pubhcaiioim
If any such retraction or CORRECTION sum
mo admissible in evidence under inc GGhcic
nj issue on the question OF g0od laltii VI
Tho defendant, and in mitigation ana re-
duction of damages; PROVIDED, tnnt tm
retraction shall be published III eqg' w.
lent tyne and in the same cdltlons Oh Eno
paper as the original libel anu 80 i"'
40 practicable in the same poslIion:
c. A In an action for libel against
rho nroprietor or editor of any, news,
naner or other periodical the deleh1ahi
NAV Mead in his answer that tne liDe'
was inserted without malice ana WIN
ant gross negligence, ana tnat ~ Wv
earliest subsequent opportunity ne III
sorted in such publication fun apology,
and that the apology was printed III 40
large an edition and equally c9hspiu"
ous in position and style of type ana uSB.ttc
of nblicity as was the insertion Vi ~
oririnal. or if such publication was pun
'i;aSSads onIv nj intervals exceeding Il
nonth, that he offered 10 publish Such
anologv, with equal degrees OF cohsplcu
onsness and publicity in any paper "iiem
the nlaintiff might name, ana IL sucil ptn
10 tiled In the answer, evidence OF ils 'rut"
mdv no admitted and may be taken mo
confederation by the jury i'll estimating
the damage.
Senator Lewis spoke very lorciDly III
favor of the bill He argued that lhe lum
should be as clear III such ihnItcln nj 40 al
others requiring Legislation; nc o nxom.
NOT materially affect the right 10 eAeh
Mary damages. and as II matter oil lact
tha sunreme court had affirmed the recof
erv of nh damages in but one case IN lh,9
stotn II WINS to the interest OF ItlGhhts
tbnt the procedure be made so clear ln"I
thev NAV know when they nave go3u
grounds for suit, and it was also 10 tnc
interest of defendants to AVOID Wy , vA
ncnse of trivial litigation. me nllsnn'
has the fullest scope, Tor reco'silns 10
tunl damages. At the same tllhe Wv
no>ysnoners should be allowed To maze
corrections of errors where none was u,
tended and in the nature OF newspaper
,york could not be avoided, as III cases
,',bera the word "not" for instance, mignt
bannen to be omitted or erroneousiy
printed. ,, onnoood IN |
the bill. and 80 far as correcting laise re
norts was concerned 1t dld not Jake away
the onnortunity for publishing slanderous
ynottar under the protection Of publishing
a rctraction. The press, he argued, should
a void wrong. and be responsible, as are IN
diyiduals. ~. A. LII
After some further discussion the Dill
yas enrrossed by the following vote:
Ayes-Atlee, Bailey Beall Bowser, Coi-
nHitt Crowley, Dean, Dibrell, Gage,
Greer, Lewis, McComb, Presler; hogers'
Shelburne, Stafford, Tips, Whltaker'
Nays-Agnew, Boren, Darwin, HARRISON
Lawhon, Mckinney, Sheriff. otee'e' |
Woods. a.,
action.
That which has been anticipated for
weeks is now at hand, and the Legislature |
is wrestling with the question of redis- |
tricting the judicial districts of the state
This is a problem that has bobbed sere- |
nelly up in legislative halls for the past
four years. 1t has always been STAYED |
off successfully, but now it looks MS
though it had come to stay and will not
down at mere bidding. Governor |
Hogg recommended redistrictng i'll his /
call for n special session of the Twenty |
llfSt leglSulurc' anu inc uihlttl mas p'Sh
called up repeatedly since. During the |
just closed, Governor Culbcr-
son hung the rcdistricting proposition ON |
his ensign of retrcnchmCut and reform, I
and promised the people that il should he
done even before any torclble request ,
had been made. 1t was thought by the |
governor and others that the rcdiStrict |
ing proposition was a big feather and n
mighty item in the rctrenchmcnt idea, |
hut it now seems as though there is GO
ing To- hn q biz fnhI nNnr the mnttrr in