The record-union., 1897-09-27
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUSTICE,

An old journalist whose reputation
was worldwide and who stood abreast
with the front rank of his profession
in America, once remarked that as
rule "the newspaper editoriaIly written
twenty-four or forty-eight hours after
the fact is best edited That is, he
wished to be understood as protesting
against ''too previous" expression Of
opinion.
In these latter days the tendency Of
Journalism is largely in the opposite
direction and with a few rare excep-
tions the result is hasty and sloppy
writing under the idea that he who
shoots first is the best marksman. Prob
ably fifty per cent. of all cases have
to be followed by modified statement
and opinion or by absolute reversal, and
not infrequently by confession of haste
and inaccuracy. But this latter ac-
acknowledgement is witnessed only in
those journals that have the courage to
confess error and do tardy justice.
Thank heaven there are some such.
The great mass of the journals of the
day, however, proceed upon the the
ory that it is all around bad to ad-
NIT error or submit to correction. That
is to say, the modern paper very largely
is conducted upon the basis of the in
fallfbility of it's editorial department.
Instead of suffering correction and in
spring respect and admiration by
frank statement Of misconception and
error the effort is made to bolster the
original proposition, and maintain it at
all hazards, under the false idea that a
newspaper lessons its influence if it ad-
mits it's fallibility.
That adhesion to this code is greatly
reducing respect for editorial expression
will not be denied by any candid mind
or just observer. The public is never
a fool, though it may for brief time
be misled and deceived. Much sooner
than editorial managers generally fam
cy, the public comes to estimate the
rectly.
A recent instance of hasty judgment
and illogical writing. among very many
upon our note book, emphasizes these
remarks. We have notes of twenty
seven interior and San Francisco news
papers, which have condemned the Su-
r,rav,,a Co,,,+ oF fvoNfo,-o;o apd in
dulged in harsh, unjust and hurtful
comment upon a decision Of the court
pronounced in an opinion written by
Mr.. Justice Van Fleet. and concurred
in by all the other justices in the case,
of an action brought by a father for
damages for the accidental killing of
his infant SON.
In every one of these criticisms save
two, the Justice who wrote the opin-
ion is personally and bitterly assailed,
his motives impugned, and his judg-
ment of the law denounced as false,
dangerous to society and as revolu-
tionary. That such criticism remain
ing unchallenged would tend to affect
the standing of the Justice in his pro-
fession and respect for him among his
fellows and to lessen regard for the
bench goes without saying. The
facts upon which the criticisms were
based were misstated. and the public
had no means Of knowing that this was
so, at least until the official report Of
the decision year hence or more
should appear, when the incident viii
have been lost to publicity. though the
wound of the criticism remained.
In these assaults upon the court the
basis uniformly was a garbled state
ment made by a sensational and un-
considerable paper in San Francisco.
and which TO this date has not had the
manliness to make a correction. 1t
rudely if not malciously tore from the
opinion a single sentence unsupported
by the context, and thrust it before
the public as the essence of the deeis-
ion.
The Supreme Court reversed judg-
ment in the court below, because the