The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-17
LAW OF LIBEL.
And the Bill in the judiciary Com
mittee of the Senate.

The senate judiciary committee at
noon gave a hear ing to the pub
fishers on the French bill to repeal the
law of 1887, allowing the pleading of a
published retraction in mitigation of
damages for libel
Managing Editor Condo Hamlin, of
the Pioneer Press, presented the OBJ
jections of that paper to the law He
first called attention TO the fact that
libel against a woman was expressly
exempted from the provision allowing
retraction for the purpose of mitigating
damages. He explained the law as il
stands today and said that as it now
stands it operated in favor of a paper
only where absolute innocence of malice
could be shown. The value. of the re-
traction so far as the general public
was concerned, was that it gave the
paper a chance to show honesty Of pur-
pose while at the same time it cid not
prevent the collection Of damages, and
where the paper refused the retractiOn
it placed the plaintiff in better shape
than he was at first, so far as his case
was concerned.
AS to actual experience in libel suits,
Mr.. Hamlin quoted the experience of
the Pioneer Press as an example; and
said that in eight years but one mer-
itorious libel suit had been brought
against that paper-that was the Don
nelly suit. The others were simply
speculative cases. While no damage
to speak of had been recovered by
plaintiffs, they had cost the paper
thousands of dollars to defend.
H. P. Hall appeared for the State
Editorial association, and said all the
members of that association wanted
was fair treatment.
Frederick Driscoll showed that, even
under the present law, the papers were
constantly at the rSercy of a class of
lawyers who disgraced their profession
by constantly soliciting people to allow
them to bring these suits for a share
of any damages that might be recOv-
cred. The newspapers were working
for the development of the state; their
publishers were doing as much, if not
more than other class of business men
for the interests of the state, and it
would be an outrage to repeal the law
and take away what little protection
! it afforded
Mr.. Driscoll and also Mr.. THOMPSON.
of the Dispatch, asked any one present
! to state what interests would be SUBJ
| served by the passage of the law.
| Senator Thompson said they could
not answer that until they had heard
! from the other side.
| Senator Spencer said they were will
! ing to hear whatever the publishers
| had to say, but he didn't care to hear
| from any senators at that time.
! Senator Keller said he had voted for
| the passage Of the law in question, but
| he thought perhaps it should be
| amended, at any rate the papers should
| be more careful.
Attorney Brown, representing the
| MINNEAPOLIS Publishers association
argued that the duties of a, newspaper
were of a quasi-public character, and
| accordingly should be in a certain
measure protected by the law. In cases
| of court reporting, as an instance
where the reporter was not a LAWYER,
| and innocently gave the wrong name
| for a crime with which a man was
charged the paper SHOULD be given a
chance of rectifying the error. News
| papers paid large sums annually In