The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-10

San Antonio Express.

san Antonio Express.
The Galveston News has recently given
its patrons some object lessons in the
freedom Of the press, or rather the abb
sence of that freedom In Texas.
This has not been done with the idea of
impressing upon the people the disadvan-
tage under which responsible Texas
newspaper labors in trying to serve the
public, so much as in explanation of what
are under present conditions unavoidable
derelictlons of plain duty which the
press owes to the public.
One evening last week a citizens club
composed OF reputable and public-spiri.ed
citizens took action with regard to GER
tain public matters concerning the well
fare Of the city aud adopted series of
resolutions embodying the views OF the
club in regard to the difficulty which con-
fronted the common council in respect
to the selection of minor city officers.
The proceedings Of the club were not
published in the daily papers in full for
reasons which the publishers deemed suf-
hcient. The president of the citizens
club, however. thought the public should
be advised of its action, and in transmit
ting the resolutions the News said: I'VE
believe that the resolutions en1pody facts
wA.oh the public is entitled to be made
acquainted with. Further, we do not
think there is single libelous utterance
in the series of resolutions. The pub
LEGATION Of the resolutions will. in our
opinion, do much good and tend to break
up the much deplored deadlock in the
The News realized its obligation in the
premises as a public journal and would
have gladly complied with the request of
The president OF the citizens club, but
after consultation with its attorney, was
advised that 1t could not do so without
danger OF becoming involved in litigation.
In mali g this explanation the News
adds: The libel law of Texas. or rather
the lack Of civil libel law defining the
rights of the press in this great State of
ours precludes the possibility of printing
a great deal of important matter to which
the public is entitled but which the press
can not give 10 the public without dan
ser of expensive litigation. few more
object lessons of this kind and perhaps the
people of the State will understand that
The press in seeking to have a libel law
passed, is not seeking license to abuse the
trust. but for protection in the peoples
interest"
The Express has heretofore endeavored
10 show that the public is the chief suf-
'erer by the restrictions placed upon the
press in the dissemination Of news in
Texas. or course, the newspaper is made
ess attractive to the reader and is much
criticised and censored for its shortcom-
ngs in tho matter of printing the news
Is he public would like to have It and
IS it might with the utmost proprlety do
n any other State in the Union except
Texas. or perhaps in any other enlight-
med country on the face of the earth in
which there Is any pretense of free speech
md an untrammel'ed press, but the pub
lie Is beginning to- understand that the
ault is not with the newspaper, and this
3 made more apparent by the fact that
he delinquency ~ not local. but extends
. every responsible newspaper in the
state. 1t thus happens that many facts
which should be given to the public free
y are suppressed entirely or only appear
n newspapers published outside of the /
State,
The lawmakers have been repeatedly ap.
'ealed to to remedy the matter by Just
md liberal statutes defining libel and per- /
laps In the course Of time the people at
arge may see their interests clearly |
nough to force them to do so.