The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-01-19
JUSTICE AS TO LIBELS.
ON the Philadelphia Times.

From the Philadelphia Times.
The Public Ledger. in an editorial re-
view of the recommendations of the Penn |
sylvania State Editorial association for re-
form in our libel laws, takes exception
to the provision forbiddng criminal prose-
cution for libel Of any person who had no
knowledge of the publication, was in no
way responsible for it except as an editor
or proprietor of a newspaper and who is
not guilty of any criminal act or purpose.
1t declares that this would be a clearly
inequitable and oppressive enactment so
far as those holding subordinate positions
in newspaper offices are concerned" and
it adds that "the responsibility for the
publication of defamatory matter should
rest upon the chief directing heads of the
establishment" The theory of our con-
temporary is entirely justifable in regard
to civil actions for damages, where the
responsible direction of a newspaper
must be answerable to any one who shall
be injured by publications in their col
umns, even though they had no knowledge
OF the publication, but to assume that any
person who is entirely guiltless of crimi-
nal act or purpose shall be placed in the
criminal dock and tried for a crime COM
mitted by another and may thus be tried
siNty-seven times in Pennsylvania, is one
of the lingering relics of the old common
law brutality established centuries ago,
when there was little liberation of news
papers by either government or law.
-
Let us illustrate this as applied to the
Public Ledger itself. a few years ago
most defamatory and certainly fagrantly
libeous article was published in the col
umns of that journal. 1t was not even
privileged communication. 1t was not
intended to serve any public good. 1t was
simply wanton defamation of several citi-
,t,,tt tll itnn of
mate of the county Jail, who was soon
afterward convict in the penitentiary
That the responsible direction of the
Ledger had not approved of it and that
the publication was the result of some
accidental failure of the responsible direc-
ton of the paper to examine and revise
the article, was not doubted by any How
would L. Clarke Davis or William " Nc
| Kean. or George w. Childs have judged
| law if for such publication in the Ledger
| of which they had no knowledge whatever
until it was given to the public and that
| could not have been published al all had
| it come under their notice, they had found
| themselves in the criminal dock, when,
| If punished according to the merits of the
| libel, the penalty could not have been
| other than both fine and imprisonment?
| Fortunately for the Ledger, the men thus
| WantOnly DETAINED by one of those acci-
| dents that will happen in the most careful
| ly directed newspapers, did not need libel
| suits to sustain their reputation, but there
are tens of thousands in this city who,
| under like provodation, would have
/ pressed for both criminal conviction and
| damages
Another pointed illustration is given in
| the case Of Charles Emory Smith, the
chief editor of the Press, who was ar
rested for libel because of q wanton deta-
81
| and a night editor after all the leading
editorial writer's had left the office, charg
ing embezzlement or defalcation by d
| prominent officer of one of the leading
financial institutions of the city. This
publication was made when Mr.. Smith
was in Boston, and it was even a greater
wrong to the Press than it was to the in
| stitution and the officer who was thus de-
famed; but, under the laws of the state,
| Mr.. Smith is crminally liable, and could
| be indicted in every county in Pennsyl
| Yania. and also be compelled to defend in
damage suits in each county Of the state,
| if the plaintiffs or prosecutors choose thus
to avail themselves of existing laws. In
no other criminal procedure known to
the law can any person be indicted for
a crime when entirely guiltess of either
criminal act, knowledge or purpose. The
| newspaper editor and publisher alone can
thus be placed in the criminal dock and
tried for an offense of which he may be
entirely innocent ana of which he may
have had no knowledge whatever Such a
law is a blistering stain upon the admins
tration of justice in this evening OF the
nineteenth century.
.
There Is certainly need of restraint upon
all who write for newspapers by making
them responsible for their own crimes,
and the subordinate in a newspaper office
who, without the orders or knowledge of
the responsible direction of the paper,
lecklecsly detames a citizen should be
himself answerable for his crime. 1t
would teach much higher appreciation
of newspaper duties and would certainly
aid much in elevatins the standard of
American journalism. As "A rule. it is
not the responsible editor ana publisher OF
newspapers who either write, direct or
suggest reckless defamation of character.
1t comes almost wholly from The now
legally irresponsible newspaper writers
who are employed by scores on the leading
newspapers of the count y, and VINO are
often in position to gain publication tol
defamatory articles which may not be
properly understood even by those who re-
J wise them with care. There should be