Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1899-01-02
The Gould Libel Case.

Inc lines entered OF record IN the dis
trict court of Santa Fe county. Wednes-
day last, against DR.. George T. Gould,
editor of the Las Vegas Optic, for Grim
inal libel, should forever stand as a
warning to the newspaper men of New
Mexico, that personal character and
reputation cannot be attacked with i'm
punity. In connection with this matter
a brief history of the cause of the pun
ishment of DR.. Gould for maliciously
and ~libelously attacking the editor of
The New Mexican will not be out of
place, and is as follows:
At various times during the past
summer complaints were received from
different citizens of San Miguel county
of violations of the law governing the
warrants by the board of county COM
m%issioners of that county, in Santa Fe.
SO frequent did those complaints be-
come that The New Mexican sent a rep
resentative to Las Vegas for the pur-
pose of examining the records in the
county clerks office and determining
the truth or falsity of the charges which
We're being made against several of the
county officials. The records were eX-
amined carefully, and without preju-
dice, and the result of that investiga-
ton was published in The New Mexican
on August 20, 1898. By the records of
the board of county commissioners it
a shown that the law governing the
conduct of county affairs by the COM
m%issioners was a dead letter in San Mi
guel county; there was no guess-work
in the article published as the pages of
record on which the violations of law
are to be found We're given, and the en-
tries quoted word for word.
The action of The New Mexican in
making that expose angered the editor
of the Las Vegas Optic, although he
was not concerned in the matter n
way or the other, except that he con-
sidered himself called upon to defend
the unlawful actions of the board of
county commissioners. In the article
published showing up the condition of
affairs in San Miguel county, the pri-
vate characters and regulations of the
officials whose names appeared were not
mentioned-only their official acts call
ed into question.
officials, ignored the matters which
had been touched upon, the accusations
of illegal conduct made, in The New
Mexican. Never once did he deny one
records of San Miguel county. That he
could not do, but he ~endeavored to dis
tract public attention by beginning a
villainous, ~unprovoked and libelous as
sault upon the private life and charac-
ter of the editor of The New Mexican.
This he termed a refutation of the Off
cial record of the transactions of the
San Miguel county commissioners as
published in this paper. To these at
tacks The New Mexican made no reply,
except to bring the matter to the atten-
ton of the courts, and the grand jury
of Santa Fe county found three indict-
ments against the editor of the Optic
for criminal libel. DR.. Gould was ar
rested and on Monday, December 10,
placed under bonds to appear for trial.
Wednesday morning the cases came be-
fore the county; the plea of guilty of
the charges entered and a fine Of 500
and costs in each of the three cases was
imposed.
There is a lesson taught in the case of
The Territory of New Mexico VS.. George
T. Gould, criminal libel, which the men
engaged in the newspaper business in
New Mexico ought not to forget. Fiji
teen years ago the editor Of a paper who
could Skin an opponent" either polit-
lcal or in the same profession, and hang
the hide on the back fence to dry, was
considered a smart man, one with whom
to be acquainted was an honor. Thank
the Lord, there has been a great change
In the newspaper business since hat
time. Today, the majority Of the men
running papers are gentlemen who re-
spect their neighbors and have some
regard for their profession. Billings
gate and libel no longer have a place
among the reputable editors of the land
and it is not necessary for men to tame
ly submit to the besmirching of their
characters by every libeler who sees fit
to attack them.
The public acts of officials are open to
criticism at all times, and 1t is the duty
Of every newspaper to expose official
~malfeasance whenever. and wherever
found, but no paper dares to impugn the
motives or attack the reputation of april
vate citizen except at it's W risk. The
right of a paper to expose official mis-
conduct is undeniable, but there is no
right, no law to justify an attack upon
the private life or reputation of an Off
cial whose public acts may be such as
to call for criticism and condemnation.
There are persons so dense that they
cannot understand a distinction of that
kind, and sometimes it is an expensive
school which finally teaches them that
there IL a dividing line between public
and private life: