The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-01-30
IS 1T WISE AND JUSTa

Two bills, one by Senator Ashe, one
by Senator Dickinson, are in, to repeal
the bond provision relating to actions
for libel or SANDER, now required by the
Act of March %, 1872 Senator Dick
inson's bill goes further than Senator
Ashes, in calling for the repeal of all
laws amendatory of the Act of 1872.
Practically, however, they are the same
in purpose.
The Act of 1872 requires that in an
action for libel or slander-no reference
criminal neutrality-suspicious. summons
issues the plaintiff must give to the
clerk a bond in the sum of $500 pen
atty, with at least two competent and
sufficient sureties, to protect defendant
in repayment of his proper costs and
charges awarded under the law, in case
the action is dismissed, or the plaintiff
fails to recover.
In addition to this the Act provides
that if the plaintiff RECEIVERS he shall
be allowed, besides his other costs,
500 toward paying his counsel. If the
action is dismissed, or the defendant
RECEIVERS, 500 is allowed him for a like
purpose
This is the law, then, which it is
proposed to repeal Possibly some other
bill in the multitude of measures now
before the houses may aim to fill the
gap such repeal will make. But we as
sumo that there is no such bill, and
that the purpose is to strike out the
bond or undertaking clause.
It has been assumed by some that
the two bills referred to are aimed es-
pecially at newspapers, and are intend
ed to punish them. We are not in
formed as to that: we are indifferent
to the point, as we do not consider 1t
an essential matter. Nor are we to
be understood as questioning the mo-
tiwes of the authors of the bills. We
are bound to assume that they are do
Ing what, under their obligations, they
think best for the general good. We
discuss the bills and the law on their
merits, regardless of any other consid-
erations, and considering their effects
only. Clearly, then, the effect of the
repeal would be to permit any person
to sue any citizen for libel or SANDER
without putting up bond to pay costs
If the action is not maintained.
Thus it win be observed that the law,
as it stands. is for protection of all de-
PENDANTS in such actions-not fort news
cause it was felt to be necessary to put
a check upon impecunious fellows who
We're annoying people and papers with
threats of libel and SANDER suits, using
for a blackmail levy. 1t was, prior to
the enactment of the law referred to-
easy for lowgrade lawyers to gather
up clients scarce conscious of wrongs
to be righted, bargain with them to
bring suits in libel against responsible
people. and secure neat sums from
them on settlement, since many would
settle who had had complete defenses,
but preferred to pay rather than sacri-
fee the time and endure the annoyance
necessary to show the defense to be
sound
If the law is repealed scores of people
OF whom newspapers are compelled to
speak in a way that at first blush may
seem Hbelous or slanderous - people
who, except for the backing of chicane
and intriguing low-grade lawyers,
would not sue-will be bouncing upon
the papers and people with suits at
law in libel or SANDER, taking the gam
ing chance of recovering, and losing
nothing II not successful.
What with the contingent fees and
no retainer by shysters of police courts,
that sore Of kidney can secure in nearly
every days record of arrests, hearings,
meetings, news events and local hap
penings. material that will breed libel
suits for the class who have everything
to gain and nothing to lose financially.
II man has good cause Of action
Tor libel against another he ought to be