The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-25
PROGRESS OF BILLS
SENATE PASSES SOLDIERS HOME
BILL WITH AN APPROPRIATION.
A Libel Bill Also Goes Through
Milier-Bowers Election Contest i'm
House Leads to Argument.

There was a sharp contest in the Sem
ate yesterday over Senator Sellers bill
to amend the libel law. The provisions of
the bill have been heretofore described.
1t Is provided that where the defense in a
suit for libel SANDER is justification it
shall be sufficient to prove such justifica-
ton by fair preponderance of the evil
dence The bill had run the gauntlet thus
far without striking a snag, but when
it came UP yesterday for final passage a
vigorous fight was made upon it, led by
Senator wray, of Shelby and Senator Gift
ford, of Upton.
Senator Wray said he would have liked
time to prepare himself for an argument
but he was opposed to the bill and regard
ed it as dangerous measure. With the
statutes as they are construed he de-
clared that the newspapers were suf-
fciently prone to drag the names of good
men through the mire, and he was un-
compromisingly opposed to taking down
any of the barriers that had been erected
to curb the spirit of defamation.
Senator Newly favored the passage of
the bill. He was, he said, in favor of
equality in all things. There was not an
other instance on the statute book where
in the trial of a civil case it was not COM
petent to prove any proposition by fair
~
that there was either reason or justice in
the trial of q libel case to handicap the
defendant with difficulties that were not
contemplated in other cases. This view of
the case was also supported by Senator
Shlveley, who was unable to understand
why hardsnips should be iniicted on a de-
fendant in libel suit such as were not
imposed on defendant in any other case.
Senator Alexander said he had been on a /
sides in libel cases and he had come to the
conclusion that this bit of law that dis
crlmnated against the defendant in suits
Tor libel was gross injustice, a relic of
barbarism and he was heartily in favor of
Its being wiped out.
Senator Clifford, who is wont to invest
with sentimental hue every question that
comes before the Senate, apostrophised the
to know If the Legislature was going to
leave 1t unprotected from the venom and
smile OF the slanderer This bill he regard,
the Senate that if it was passed, muscular
fathers. with hickory clubs and strong
armed brothers with pistols would have to
go after the brood which it was proposed
to turn loose on the, public.
Senator Newly asked Senator Clifford IL
libel was still on the books, and the latter
said he did, but still he was satisfied that
ing tendency. Senator Seller said the SUI
preme and Appellate Courts time and again
cases was wrong and unjust, and he was in
favor of making the law to conform with
the views OF the higher courts of the
State.
The bill was passed. 1t was significant
that among the men who voted against it
were some of those who deservedly I'M
deservedly have been made the subjects of
severe newspaper criticism, and have been
compelled to spend a good deal of time
hair. The following shows how they voted:
Ayes-Alexander, Bird. Bozeman. Crtim-
packer Duncan, Gostiin, Haggard, Kern,
Kearns, Leyden, Mcdonald. Mc1anus, Nc
Lean, Null. Newly, O'Brien, Phares,
schneck, Self, Seller Shiveley, Stuart,
Sweeney, Vale, Watson and Wishard-26;
Nays-Baker, Barnes, Beck, Boyd, Col
lett, Cranor, Clifford, Holler, McCutchan,
Ntzhugh,. McKelvey and Wray-11.