Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-14
THE LIBEL LAW.

A more unjust law never disgraced our
statute books han the one relating to
libel. 1t is VIGOROUSLY unfair all around.
To properly perform it's functions a libel
law should be comprehensive enough to
not only punish the newspaper that ma
liciously libels an individual but likewise
protect a in the honest exer-
else of it's duties as a newsgatherer. Sem
ator C. H. Eggleston, one of the ablest
members of the Sixth legislative assem-
bly, submitted a paper on the subject to
the late meeting of the Montana Press
Association, which is comprehensive and
direct to the point. 1t reads as follows:
The libel law of Montana should be
so framed as to afford the reputable press
protection from shysters of every kind. 1t
should also be framed as to discourage
d~isreputable and all disrepu-
table methods in journalism. AS a class
the ~wspap of Montana are as clean
and decent as any in the country. Mis-
takes, however, will happen in the best
regulated newspapers. When they DO
happen, a reputable newspaper is always
willing to do the right thing, and that be-
ing the case, it should not be exposed to
the possibility of heavy damages or OF
tedious and expensive litigation. Nine
times out of ten the newspaper either
wins the case outright or is assessed NOM
inal damages: but even so, it is at the eX-
pense of much time, worry and money.
The law should be so framed that the per-
son who thinks he has been libeled should
be required, before beginning suit, to give
the newspaper opportunity to publish a
retraction in a conspicuous manner, so
that readers who saw the original item
cannot possibly overlook the withdrawal
of the offensive statements. The news
paper having done that much, the person
llibeled should not be permitted to demand
punitive damages. If he can prove that
he has suffered damages which the re-
traction has not remedied, then he should
be permitted to claim and collect such
actual damage, and not a dollar more.
Many states have adopted a law embody-
ing this feature. 1t is a good law and no
honest man can object to it.
There is another amendment that
earnestly recommend. Prosecutors in &C
lions for criminal libel should be required
to prosecute the actually guilty person
or persons. These, it is true, can be
prosecuted under existing laws, but the
guiltless may be prosecuted with them.
Many criminal prosecutions have been
directed against entirely innocent parties,
while no attempt is made to punish the
guilty. The new Pennsylvania law has
a provision covering this point, and it is
clearly in the interest of reputable jour
nalism and in restraint of irresponsible
writer's. The person who either carelessly
or maliciously furnishes a libelous pub
LEGATION to a newspaper, as may be done
by any of the correspondents who furnish
news to the press, has little or no respon-
sibility under existing laws. Indeed, they
are an open invitation to recklessness or
the part of the inconsiderate, and to ma
licious publications on the part of others
Under the amendment which I propose
the guilty person must answer and suffer
the actual punishment for his crime-fol
malicious libel is really Q crime and