The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-05
pef,ni,,on OF Libel.
Galveston Tribune.

Galveston IrlDune.
Answering a statement by Representa-
tive-eiect Shropshire concerning the news
paper libel law. The Houston Post says:
Mr.. Shropshire thinks we have about
the libel law we WANT AZ matter oil
fact we have TO statutory libel law in
Texas. and the best lawyers VIII tell you
that they can never anticipate what the
courts will do in the premises
Just as long as a statement Is truta,
let Il be published, but beyond that no
journal should wish TO go, says MIR, Shrop-
shire. But at present the solvent papers
can not tell the truth with IMMUNITY. II
they could justify by showing the truth,
they would ask no more but they do not
seek so much. The Houston Post paid
out s2500 for publishing an ordinary itsm
OF news, without malice, and That the
courts saii was the unquesuoned struth,
but which, on the flDsSst technicality.
was held to be lbelous.' and because
libelous was presumed to be malicious,
The Post made full reparatlon In It's col
rinps and proved any absence OF either
reckless publicstion or malice, but was
mulcted in ,lndictiye dsmages!
That is precisely the point No news
paper objects TO paying actual damages
for injuries done by improper publication
or by publication Of an uutruth The case
to which The Post refers is so palpabiy I'M
Just uhat nothing more is needed to rea-
sonatle minds in advocacy OF libel law.
The Post printed the facts of the arrest
and the next day the fact of the release.
The first publication did not say the pris-
oner committed the crime, but that he
was arrested pursuant 10 the sheriff's or
der stating he was wanted for that crime.
T., h. NH Il
were stated and the publication pointedly
testified TO the victims good character.
The court held that the man was dam
aged and that the damage was caused by
the publication. 1t entirely ignored the
correction and the fact that the damage
was caused by the sherff's mistake. I'm
questionably the innocent man had a
cause OF action. but 1t was against the
sheriff and his bondsmen, not against the
newspaper.
Under this decision newspapers are
made responsible for the mistakes of all
officers. AMI the greater the mistake the
greater the newspapers crime, which is
but another way Of putting the old Eng
lish rule that the greater the truth the
greater the libel.
Newspapers are not seeking license.
What they are seeking most is defini-
ton of libel. II it is libel to publish an
officers announcement to officers else
Where in order that the escaping criminals
may be apprehcnded. let the legislst ure
say so, and the newspapers will know how
10 act
a logical application of this rule would |
make IT ibetous to publish the fact that |
grand Jury had indicted a man for crime |
u which he might prove timxelf innocent. |
Lhere are many cases of arrest in which |
ne accused is released upon q nolle pros |
lui lntrinsically they do not differ from
ne case In which The Post was mulcted
IN THIS connection, the Tribune takes oc-
aston to relate that 1t has been threatened
WIN a libel suit for publishing the tes-
lmony introduced In criminal hearingt
y this condition it has actually come. and
lnleSs there IS some legislative relief. no
.,. spap., Is ale In publishing criminal
tenn until the prisoner has been tried bia
ase affirmed by the courts of last resort
nd ne is behind thr bars.