The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-09-22
Some Reflections
as TO Libel Suits
Penn" in Philadelphia Bulletin.

Penn" in Philadelphia Bulletin.
Libel suits against newspapers in the
midst of u political campaign are always
viewed with more or less suspicion. They
are part of the sheet lightning of politics:
| they make a flash, but seldom hit. As a
rule. they fizzle out in the dust of court
docket after election. and no more is
heard of them. An explanation, an apol-
ogy. private negotiation or the inter-
mediary offices of mutual friends open
the way for closing the incident. That is
the conclusion which doubtless most per-
| sons had in mind when they heard of the
suit which James l.. Miles has brought
against the Philadelphia Times.
Yet on the face of the facts as they are
known there Is a strong presumption in
faVor OF Miles, as plaintiff, who has
apparent ground for his suit. The article
| OF which he complains Is calculated to
produce In the mind of every man who
reads 1t an impression that Miles is a
downright rascal, unworthy of any hon.
est mans respect or confidence. Now, the
point may be fairly made whether any or
ali the facts that are known Of his career
| can be justly construed, even from an un-
friendly standpoint, SO as to warrant this
sweeping criticism under the privileged
Y ~
discussing the fitness and deservings of a
| candidate for Office. Miles, personally, Is
an agreeable, well-behaved man, with the
bearing OF a gentleman: professionally he
had respectable standing at the bar and
politically he has been associated loyalty
with the organization and leadership Of
his party the same as hundreds Of excel
lent men whose fidelity is assured by sat
| isfying their ambitions for public office,
"a M ka,t
thought of making defense or apology for
any mistake or delinquency he may be
charged with. either politically or official
ly. | am talking of him In a perfectly
judicial temper But | think that any
| newspaper which makes the deducuon
that the man Ii a wretched corruptionist
from the very limited evidence which at
present sustains the theory and then
starts in to fling at him with all the vague
generahties and innuendoes and devised
epithets that sink like drops Of poison into
the public mind. is guilty of moral as
sassination, and cannot take shelter un-
der the cover of legitimate discussion Of a
citizen in his public character.
l am one of the comparatively few who
think that the famous $4,000 verdict
against the Times now before the Su-
Dreme court, was excessive, even making
all allowance for the wrong or injury that
may have been done to ex-Mayor Smith.
IL was excessive, because II was far more
than the plaintiff himself really expected; /;
1t was far more than the bitterest journal
istic enemies of the paper had looked for.
ana II was excessive even as an exemplary
admonition to libellers. A fourth or a
NTH part of the amount would have been
ample from either the personal or the
punitive point of view. From the stand
point OF the general interest of the press
it was bad rs a precedent or as setting
standard for rate of damages such as
has never before been known in the his
tory of Pennsylvania Journalism. II the
eN-mayor. who himself never assumed to
be among the purest specimens of citi-
Zenship could obtain such damages what
mulct would be put upon a newspaper
which might be hailed into court by
man of really high character? AS result
the veriest scamps who have a grievance
against the press or the charlatans of the
bar who egg on men to believe that their
regulations have been ruined and that
there must be reparation in q legal raid on
the publishers privy purse do not think
now of suggesting less than 100000 as the
measure of their gricfs.
The chief reason why that $4,000 yer-
it has been approved by a good many peo-
pie who are not generally uncharitable,
was that the anti-Smith libel was only a
specimen of style of writing and conf
ment and distortion that purposely aims
at holding up a public character for q
sensation" This is sometimes defended
on the ground that ''judicous exaggera-
ton" may do more than exact statement.
Ii springs chiefly, however, from half
l..le
unfair notion that it pays to use the
club on public man. and that 1t is
rather Il smart" thing to make some one
writhe and howl for the delight of the
crowd. 1t is not personal malice or even
hot partiSanship, or the temper of the
common scold, so much as the instinct
and practice of the Snowman who draws
the lookers-on into his tent by provoking
the well-behaved animals on the inside
to make a noise.
The hurtfulness of this style OF discus
sion to the press In general Is to be found
in the difficulty which is experienced in
inducing legislatures to relax those fea-
lures of the libel law which bear heavily
or uniustly on a newspaper. A citizen of
cleanness of probity like McCreary or
Warwick, running for office and char
acter built up by years of square dealing
and manly citizenship derided, lampooned
and dragged around in the cutters of
cheap sensation is certainly quoteu by
dispassionate men of affairs as reasons
why libel laws should be made more strin-
gent and verdicts of damages more op-
pressive. 1t was the influence of this kind
of reasoning that made the opinion which
justified the Bill Smith verdict. unfair as
il is when applied to mat particular case.
Miles as a candidate for office must eX-
pect the most searching examination and
discussion of his official record in the full
blaze of publicity; but the practice of
assuming motives without facts or proof
and then enveloping man in cloud of
coarse epithets Is neither a manly nor
legitimate exercise of the eaitorial privi-
lege On the face of the case as 1t stands
today it lacks justification, and this may
be said fairly without regard to the gem
eral question of Miles fitness for the OIL
flee. The libel laws are hard enough with
out giving ground for making them worse.