The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-04-18
THE NEW STATUTE OF FRAUDS

thick and fast the aching heads OF newspaper
proprietors throughout the State. Tomorrow
all articles rejecting upon the dead or assailing the
living are to be signed, in each instance, by the
true name OF the writer" This remarkable specimen
OF legislation by which it is proposed to undo the
magnificent assertion OF the freedom OF the press
toward the close OF the last century Joint produc-
ton OF wel-known corruptionists, egged on by the
railroad and Endorsed by the present Governor The
estimate OF the statute by Governor Gage tersely
expressed when in published interview at Los An
gees he treated the bare suggestion that he intended
to enter the newspaper business absurd for the
son that he had signed it. together with the anti
cartoon bill
1t stands confessed that the object of this conspr-
acy between the legislative and executive departments
OF the State government is to gag the press. Like
all similar efforts it will miserably fail. The breaches
OF the contribution to which Grove l. Johnson Sena-
tor Morehouse Governor Gage and other stung and
sore victims of just criticism parties have been
already pointed out, and in due time will probably
arrest judicial attention But it would be amazing if
purblndness were not an inherent attribute of
malignity, that these astute and aspiring lawyers
should have produced many questions OF nterpre-
tation. Among them the most difficult to solve is
the meaning of the phrase, the true OF the
writer" Within the language OF the statute con-
the man who composes an article or the copyist? A
local article, tending to backen the memory OF the
dead to disparage the living, may be the product
OF three or four different minds Their contributions
may have consisted OF suggestions so interbended
that it is impossible to segregate them The language
through which the suggestions expressed may
have been selected by person or persons who fur
nished none OF the ideas The words may have been
dictated to an amenuenss. Now under these condi-
tons which are practical and could be infinitely
varied who is the writer meant by the statute? We
free confess that TO the ordinary lay mind this
question seems an unanswerable conundrum. But
more difficult problems can be suggested. Suppose,
for public reasons that is from good motives and for
justihable ends it is deemed expedient by newspa-
per proprietor to repubIish the opinion OF court in
which shameful misconduct has been imputed for
example, to asprant for the Senate OF the United
States reporter copies, two or three reporters
copy the opinion may be that it is set up from
the volume in which it originally appeared In this
case who is the writer? Was the opinion written by
the Judge the bench OF Judges who signed or by
the copyist? Will some OF the more learned pro-
fessional tools OF the railroad answer these ques-
tons?
1t is conceivable that upon the grounds already
stated, it might be considered proper to publish a
judgment roll, including the finding and the decree
in particular case, as for instance, suit in Los
Angeles that affects one of highest State off
cials. These papers the composition OF the law
yers the clerk, the process servers and the court
Who is the writer under the new law?
1t might almost be wished that the act should be
operative for brief period, that the public might
have an opportunity by actual examples, to test the
common sense and the legal ability of the legislators
whose agitated and perturbed brains are re-
sponsibe for such a half-fedged abortion It's
phraseology is unusually respectful to the dead Are
Dan Burns and his supporters included in this cate
CORY or will the recognize the fact that ply
sically they survive?