The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-03
HOUSTON. TUESDAY, JAN. .. lsoo.
NOT LIcrNsp. prr JUSTICES.

NOT LICENSE. BUT JUSTICE!
1t Is astonishing to note the total mis-
apprehension by some legislators OF the
character OF libel law which the press OF
Texas Is asking from the incoming legis-
lature This establishment becomes the
greater when newspaper man betrays
ignorance of the scope and effects of the
law demanded.
1t is not license that the papers want
at all, as some OF these mlslnformed peo-
pie seen to imagine. The law which the
reputable, responsible press asks for would
not give to a single parer in TeNas any
aGdlionN liberty to attack character. or
to publish offensive matter. All paaIt is
desired is that malice shall not be pre-
stunned from the publication itself; that
malice shall be proven by the plaintiff in
an action and that In the absence OF
malice the plaintiff in a libel SAT- shall
aecovar only act,rsl and mot punitive dam
ages The press only wants TO be per-
niitted to defeUd lawsuits as all olhsr
corporations and firms aai tatizcns are
allowed to do 1t is justice and fair treat
ment and not license, by any means. that
the responsible solvent papers demand.
AS an illustration of the misrepresentation
OF the purposes OF those who are seeking
to have the State ennet libel law, In
stead Of leaving us under bench law
based upon the old English common law.
may be cited the following interview IN
the Ennis News with Hon. II. CLAY
Shropshire, "a newspaper man and member
elect to the Legislature from Parker
county:
y think we have about the libe, law we
want. would net favor law 10 give pub
Fishers any more latitude than they now have.
Just 20 long as statement Is truth, let y
be published, but beyond that no journal
should wish 10 CO. There are no clauorings
for % more liberal law except from the large
papefG--the smaller publishers are not usual
~ financially responsible, but. suppose that
all the papers were turned loose to say what
ever diseased liver, n dtsordcred brain or
an acrimonious disposition might dictate, aud
away goes the reputation and good name OF
our best PEOPLE Good people would be hound
cd and niallgDcd by every irresponsible yrlper
who rsa. 2 dislike for thom. Better leave the
law as II Is.
Mr. Shropshire thinks 1--WE have about
the libel law we wantI' As matter of
fact we have no statutory libel Law IN
Texas and tho best lawyers viii tell you
THAT they cln never anticipate what the
courts Will do In the premises.
just as long as u statement is truth
let It be published. but beyond that no
journal should wlah to co. Says Mr.,
Shropshire. But MT present the solvent
papers can not tell the truth with impu-
nifty. 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 s25o0 for publishing an ordinary
item Of news, without malice. ani that
the courts said was the unqusstloned truth
but Which. on the illmsiest technicality,
NILS held to be ''libellous," and because
libellous was presumed to be 'maliuous!'
The Post made full reparltion in its col
umns and proved any absence OF ether
reckless publication or malice, but was
muicted In vtndiotive damages!
The present bench made law does not
protect chayacter or truth from the rock
less and Vicious assaults OF the irrespon-
eibie press, and the law asked for would
give neither the solvent nor tho Judgment
proof paper any greater latitude than NOW.
ulbellous matter now would BIO llbellous
then, and no journal THAI could be made
e pay : Judgment would At any time In
dtslgc 10 reckless statements, or In nm
3ueAfiablc assaults upon character, The
large papers" ara not alone In asking for
4 e fair libel law. but they are unquestloa-
B ably NE ereatest sufferers under the pres.
NeQt confused court -1nAde laws. The pres-