The record-union., 1899-04-21

it, and rebukes the Governor for ap
pI owing the bill. An idea of how the
Interior newspapers feel about the mat
ter may be gained by reference to the
expressions of a few, since these re-
fleet the generally prevailing senti-
llment.
The Woodland Democrat" thinks the
newspapers will thrive as of old,
though suffering inconvenience, but
that the legislators who voted for the
law will not be aided in their political
ambitions hereafter-that the presses
Will leave these men in such obscurity
that the trump of the Angel Gabriel
will not call them to life. The Fresno
| Democrat" holds the law to be un-
constitutional and that the legislators
who supported the bill signed their po-
l-litical death warrants. The Ukiah
Press stigmatizes the law as legis-
lative rot. The MADEIRA Mercury de-
clares that the press of California as a
whole is not unfair and generally rem
ders justice, but that it should remem
ber the legislators who put upon it the
indignity of the signature Act which it
denounces as infamous.
| The San Jose Mercury" says the eff
feet of the law will be, whatever the
design of it's authors, to place in the
hands Of o1var1r x,o ,r,o fro,,1 o,1 ooro-
mon nuisance, a weapon with which to
annoy, harass and persecute the press.
1t holds the measure to be unjust and
ridiculous, though it comedies that there
has been ample reason for putting some
sort of restraint upon the unprincipled
! and reckless yellow journals of the
time. The deeper significance of the
law is that it constitutes an ill-advised
If not wanton attack upon the liberties
of the press and the liberty of speech,
the bulwarks and safeguards of Ameri-
can freedom
The Alameda Argus does not be-
lieye the law will stand the test to be
applied in the courts, and declares that
besides being a stupid and ridiculous
Act, it is the result of the blind fury
of legislators driven to desperation by
the assaults of brutal newspap pers; but
! it is the hight of injustice to make the
many suffer for the sins Of the few
The Bakersfield Californian" says
there would have been no complaint Of
a law making some one person on each
paper responsible for libelous articles
The law as it is it denounces bitterly
as Infamous.
The Stockton Independent says it
| Will obey the law, but that it is abso-
lutely impossible for the newspaper to
give the news and not render itself la
BILE under the libel laws of the State
There will OF necessity, in printing
news, appear articles which are libel
Gus and defamatory.
And SO the complaint goes up and
down the line of the interior press, not
one word being uttered in defense Of
the law, and not a single witness ap-
pearing who declares it to be just or
nece essary, or that it will be possible to
| obey it strictly and preserve the char
acter of newspaper. This conclusion
is sound. There will be, there is al
ready, an effort to laugh the matter out
of court, to kill the law by ridicule
That, we think, will not prevail If it
is an unconstitutional Act the test be-
fore the courts will determine it. If
il is not open to legal objection then
the press must submit until the meet
ing of the next Legislature, which will
assuredly repeal this crippling and Of
fensive Act of the last one. The read
ing public, the Record Union" believes.
will be found presently the most earnest
protestant against the law, for as we
have elsewhere said, its operation will
work suppression of publicity and thus
| make q cover and safe refuge for the
lawless and the dishonest, both in and
out of public station.