The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-06-22
professioua, Secrets InviolabIe.

Inc courts, ndNlnB nelu lHdI ClSISy-
men and physicians need not 'eveal
professional secrets on the witness
stand, may soon be asked to extend
this exemption to newspaper reporters.
A movement with this object in view
has already grown out of the prosecu-
tion and acquittal of the two cores
pondents, Messrs. Edwards and Shriv-
er who were charged with contempt
of the senate sugar trust investigating
committee because they declined to re-
veal the sources of the information
which they had published.
In considering this subject the ele-
ment of common sense must be kept in
sight. The newspaper reporter, when
within his sphere of duty, is simply
medium of communication between the
people and peoples servants. To him
custom has delegated the function of
keeping an eye on things. The repor-
ter who abuses this trust is soon dis
credited and there are means of pun
ishing him when he deliberately mis-
represents. But when he conscien-
tiously tries to do his duty it is obvious
that he must faithfully shield profess
sional condolences or abandon his vo-
cation. In the course of his days work
he is brought into contact with the
leading men of every department of
human activity and often receives from
each valuable information upon the
condition that the giver's name shall
not be published. When that informa-
ton is of legitimate public interest,
it is printed upon the responsibility of
the paper in whose columns it appears,
and the identity of the person who
gave the reporter the first clew is alb
solutely of no consequence to the pub
! lie, and therefore none of it's business.
| In the case mentioned above, a repu-
table paper in Philadelphia and one in
New York printed information gath
cred by Messrs. Edwards and Shriver,
| and alleging that the sugar trust had
made corrupt bargain with the Cleve-
land administration. Details were Civ
| en- and if the weight of the allegation
merited judicial inquiry the end of JUS
tice would manifestly have been accom-
| plished when it should have been de-
| termined whether the statements made
in the newspaper articles were true
or false. If false, the papers stood re-
! sponsible before the law; and if true,
| their publication was evidently a pub
! lie duty. The attempt as made, how
| ever, was not so much to get at the
bottom truth of the matter as to
run down the source of the two repor-
ters' information. The entire machin-
cry of the law was directed toward the
! Identification of the person or persons
who had given the scheme away, and
because these reporters would not re-
veal this non-essential secret, they
were unsuccessfully prosecuted for
| contempt.
We can see no difference in point of
sanctity between the professional con-
fidences of the reporter and those of
the doctor or the priest. 1t is as much
a hindrance to justice for the clergy
man or physician to decline to testify
in a criminal trial as it would be if
the reporter were also to refuse. All
should be privileged or none. That a
reporter should be subject to subpoena
just like any other witness concernir q
matters within his own knowledge,
that is to say, with reference to facts
which he knows at first hand, is read
lily admitted, for in such matters he
stands on par with all other specta =
tors of crime; but that he should
be subject to punishment for declining
TO violate the condolences of his pro-
fession, for refusing to betray those
who have placed trust in his honor,
is intolerable. Such liability cannot
be defended,