The record-union., 1899-02-07
CHE PROPOSED RETRAcTIoN LAW

<ACl 1ue itilcn nave Sifiiiio1 "a 7"
on their statute books but. of course,
1t would not be applicable to our sys-
lem. The principle involved however
is the same. The present bill is not
ideal but is infinitely better than no
bin at all upon the subject.
The better bill was one drafted upon
the lines of the Massachusetts law and
recommended to the Legislature OF 1897
by the Joint legislative Committee of
the California Press Association, the
Southern California Editorial Associa-
ton, the Sacramento Valley Press
League and the Pacific Associated
Press.
That bill was introduced by Assem-
blyman Melick and was known as AS
Eembly bill 654 1t added to the Civil
Code a single section, and made It
read:
Any person aggrieved by publica-
fion in a newspaper or other periodical
publication, before bringing suit for
libel thereon, shall, by himself or his
attorney, make written demand upon
the publisher Of the same for a retrac-
tior, specifying in such demand the
Statements complained Of If. within
three days after such demand, full
and fair retraction, with equal prom
Snence as the alleged libel, is published
in said newspaper, or in case OF
weekly or semi weekly newspaper, in
the next issue of said newspaper, the
defendant in such action in case OF a
suit. may introduce evidenc OF such re-
traction, and that the alleged libel was
published in good faith, without actual
malice; and unless the plaintiff proves
actual malice or want of good faith,
or failure to retract after written de-
mand, he shall recover as damages only
such loss or injury as he shall specially
allege and prove
The bill explains itself sufficiently
perhaps. It simply gives the publisher
q chance to do the honest, manly thing
and to right any wrong he may have
done Inadvertently, or through mislead-
ing information, etc. 1t required that
actual malice should be proved. Why
not? 1t is an essential, why not then
prove it. establish it to the satisfaction
vi a SOuil VI jury II uiii4 tCd a 1SoNSaS
to actual damage suffered if malice is
not SO established and if retraction
has been made.
The Shortridge bill, however, and
which the 'Record- Union" printed in
full on Saturday, adds two sections TO
the Civil Code. One prohibits exem-
plary damages unless the plaintiff has
demanded ''retraction or correction of
the liber' before bringing suit, allow
ing the defendant reasonable time" in
which to perform what is demanded of
him. Proof of the publication OF the
.'retraction or correction" shall be adj
missible in mitigation of damages, pro-
vided that the retraction or correction
is published in as conspicuous a place
as was the libelous article.
Another section provides that in an
action for libel published in any news
paper the plaintiff shall recover only
actual damages if it appears on the
trial that the publication was made sin
good faith and without actual malice
or i'll will. and that there were reason
able grounds for believing that the
statements set forth in such publica-
ton were substantially true, and that
a retraction or correction was made"
as before provided. That is all there
is Of the Senator's bill
Some of its inaccuracies and errors
are these: It refers only to newspa-
pers. whereas there are publications
which are not newspapers but are peri
odicals which should not be exempt.
to retraction. There should be no toy
ing with the words If a paper pub
fishes a libel and it's error is brought
home to 1t and its proprietor is half de-
cent, he will manfully, instantly with
draw his statement, retract the pub
lished libel, and do it as prominently
as the libel was printed, and see to it
that so far as is possible the retraction
reaches the same readers
The new bill gives the malicious libel
er chance for escape by assertion that
he believed his information to be Sub
stantially true That is too elastic
a word. He should actually believe his
statement to be true or else he should
face the music as a libeler for the lust
of sensation. That retraction is
coupled conjunctively with this reason
able belief of the substantial truth of
the statement does not remove the OBJ
lection to the quoted word
AS in large number of cases the OBJ
ject sought to be accomplished by libel
is attained Immediately, and as to wait
long for retraction will often render its
value small, it will be seen that char
acter wreckers will have wide mar
gin in their favor, which the honest and
straightforward publisher does not
need. He ascertains the facts first,
and seldom publishes libel that he
is not justified in, or that on its face
does not show 1t to be not malicious.
The earlier bill fixed definite time
for retraction, namely three days after
notice It'is preferable to the indefi-
mite one OF reasonable" It is true,
however, and every fact should be un-
covered In this matter. that in some
cases three days would be too short q
time IN which to ascertain II the claim