The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-06-07

important His famous letter to the
Press of May IA, 1894, was the imme-
diate occasion and the essential basis
of the investigation ordered by the sem
ate. The substance Of that letter was
that the Sugar trust had made heavy
contributions in the campaign of 1892;
! that 1t made these contributions with
the understanding that its interests
should be protected in passing the sug-
ar tariff; and that the sugar schedule
| presented by the senate in the CON
| struction of the Wilson, German bill
was framed explicitly in compliance
| with that understanding. These gen.
.eral propositions were fortified and ILL
animated with great fullness and min
uteness of specific information. The
central and commanding link in the
chain of evidence was the striking
and startling revelation that Secretary
Carlisle, as the representative of the
administration, and in the interest of
the trust, had framed the sugar sched-
ule and that it was actually presented
and placed before the Finance COM
mittee in his own handwriting.
When Mr.. Edwards was called to the
stand and asked to name the source
from which he obtained that informa-
tion, he very properly declined to do
So Every other honorable and right
minded journalist in the United States
would have done the same thing under
the same circumstances. Mr.. Edwards
received the information in confidence
and he manfully refused to violate that
confidence. 1t was no rightful concern
of the senate who the informant was.
| rhA Atalxr 60 90, &c
quiry was, Is the statement true? AS
a matter of fact Mr.. Edwards had him
self seen the paper. He knew the Sec
retary's handwriting. There could be
no chance of mistake. Yet he was
never asked If he had seen the paper
and knew it to be what he said it was.
\ The effect was not to get at the truth,
but to get at the informant-not to
punish the wrong but to punish the ex-
poser of the wrongdoing. To know the
! source of the information was in no
way needful to determine whether the
information was true. The statement
was susceptible of proof entirely in
dependent of its origin. Every member
of the committee knew it was true. AS
a matter of fact the paper was after
wards produced and the statement was
absolutely verified in every particular.
To insist on the name of the informant,
therefore, was not prompted in the in
terest of truth or of justice, but simply
and solely for the purpose of furnishing
him, and Mr.. Edwards would have been
less than the true and chivalrous man
he is had he yielded to this sinister de-
mand.
The question involved is far broader
and far more important than this par
ticular case. We shall not now assume
to discuss the proposition whether
there are legal distinctions between
the case of Mr.. Edwards and those of
Chapman, Havemeyer and Searles. But
there is broad moral distinction
which will be instantly recognized. Mr..
, Chapman was the broker who refused
to answer whether he was acting for
senatorial clients in sugar speculation.
, If there was corrupt connection be-
tween the trust and the senate, Messrs
! Havemeyer and Searles were partici-
pants. These parties were accomplices
; in the alleged wrong and were seeking
, to suppress the truth. They were all
. acting against the public interests. On
/ the other hand, Mr.. Edwards was ex-
posing the wrong and moving for the
, public welfare. While they were seek
ing darkness he was turning on the
l light. Their object was to conceal, his
to uncover. They were in a conspiracy
1 between the trust and the senate, and
he was laying it bare in the interests
of the people. There was in their act
/, | the element not only of evasion and
suppression but of turpitude, while his
I was warfare against wrong and de-
) fence of public rights. They suppressed
r the truth and aided and shielded the
1 guilty; he revealed the truth and only
withheld the wholly unnecessary name
of the informant; and to proceed
against them all alike for contumacy IL
to confound cases which In every mora
quality are as wide apart as the poles
In declining to betray his informant
Mr.. Edwards was following the estab.
lished and indispensable code of jour
nalism. He was acting upon a prin-
i ciple which lies at the very foundation
r of the freedom of the press and OF the
e security of the rights and interests
n of the people. 1t is the prerogative Of
I journalism to publish legitimate infor.
( nation which serves to enlighten ant
e protect the public; 1t is the safeguard o.
= the public and Of every Individual tha
| lhlS pbphNdhlph pC unutl
n all the restraints and responsibilitie!
i which the law imposes upon journal
= ism. If a newspaper publishes state.
: ments which are false or unjust to an
4 person, 1t does so at it's own peril. Their,
: is ample remedy in the law of libel anC
s any aggrieved party can secure re-
: dress. The vital question is. is the in
r formation true, and it is proper for pub
: lie information? The source OF infor
= nation is of no consequence. Tn,
+ newspaper, not the informant, takes
y the responsibility. Newspapers deriv,
e their intelligence from many sources
n some Of them public, some of them pri
, vate, No rule is better established am,
= none is more important in the public
: interest than the rule that while ever.
L newspaper is amenable TO the law 4
/. its information shall be false OF in
! furious. Its guardianship Of the source
e OF confidential information shall be sa
s credly respected. So manifest is tn
d propriety Of this principle that Mary
e land has passed a law which protect
q the condolences of Journalists the sam