The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-09-22
---aIss .-s--..,7 1870
NEWSPAPER LIBEL.

The Fest publishes tniS morning a paper
on Newspaper Libel" read by Mr.. +. II.
Bushick, before the South and Wet Texas
Press association In session at San An
tinio recently. The Post trusts that every
Will read Mr. Bushcks paper carefully
and obtain a clear idea Of the injustice
being done uae press OF Texas under our
pres mt court made libel law.
Is 1t not a remarkable fact that SO enter
prisng ana liberal State as Texas has re-
mained all these years without an explicit
and fair, or. indeed any statute defining
civil libel?
Possibly no other agency In Texas has
done so much for the State as the press
and yet in no other State have the legs-
ators 50 failed 10 grant the press that just
protection which is given to oil other kinds
Of enterprise The fact is by no means
| creditoble to Texas.
Mr., Bushicl clearly and ably shows that
while the Federal and State constitutions
speak eoquently of the freedom OF the
| press and guarantee In theory the pro-
| lection OF the exercise OF that freedom
| yet the absence OF statutory law here has
| permitted the courts to wander through tn.
mazes OF the old English law ANA conflict
Ing decisions in scores OF volumes OF ro-
ports, until utter confusion has resulted
and he press constitutional rights have
been ovorrd1en. Al present it is imposs-
bio for even n cautious and Intelligent
publisher TO determine what is libel and
what Is privileged matisr
In no other line OF business are the rights
of property and Of conduct left In such a
condition.
This court made laws holds that any hurt
iul publication Is presumed to have been
piece OF malice on the part Of tho pub
Usher Common sense ms well "a com
mon justice would rcpudlate this holding
The mere fact Of publication Is the proof
of tho malice, the courts say. and the d
fendont In tfo libel suit can not proven
vindictive damages by proving the absenc,
of such malice The LEGITIMACY OF IN,
newspaper business is not In effect. recos
nizcd. for the publisher IN denied the RICH
TO show that he was acting honestly nnt
: without ill-will within the line of his bust
nofs aud for the benefit OF the public
That tsis Is violation by the courts o
tho spirit OF constitutional guarantees I,
apparent Freedom Of the press mean
protection Ogainst damages except actual
damage, or Ylndlctive damages only whei
this freedom has been abused through mai.
Ice To say that the press Is free merel
because there Is no censor to handle con
In advance, is absurd censor under on
ennrt made law would be really a protec
tlon ana n relief
What is suggested fer the press. not a
license but as common justice Is a plal
statute, defining privileged matter tull,
ana throwing the burden OF proof Of speclt
malice upon the plaintiff. before he ca
recover other than actual damages. Tn,
presa simply asks That the injured part
10 compelled to mako out his case. lnstoa
: OF having the courts presume that IL
established from the publication itself an
forthwith ordering the jury to assess pun
tive damages.
Tho libel law MS It is interpreted her
| u mons'rous wrong done rhe press. an
the plpers are again appealing to the publ
Tor justice Mr.. Bushicks paper admirably
presents all these points and ought TO b
appreciated and practically indorsed by al
good citizens Of the State.