The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-25
no THE PRESS JUSTICE.

DO THE PRESS JISTitl.
II the people Of Texas appreciate the
capability and influence OF the press In
building up the State; in pointing out and
guarding popular rights and interests: in
disseminating useful intelligence; in ex-
posing crime and in aiding In the general
education OF the masses, they can give a
practical demonstration OF this apprecia-
ton this year that will prove mutually
beneficial to both themselves and the
press.
The press OF Texas is practically fet-
tered press 1t is theoretically given free
dom OF expression by the constitution but
really is SO bedged about and hampered
by the decisions OF our courts that 1t has
less liberty, II responsible in damages,
than the press OF many European coun-
tries which we affect to regard sometimes
as Sitting In darkness" 1t is not lib
erty'' to be told that we can do thing
II we desire to, but that we will be pun
ished II We act upon this permission. This
is exactly the condition of the freedom of
the press In Texas. And the worst OF 1t
Is that In the absence OF any statute
specifically defining what we can or can
not publish with impunity, the press is
afraid to publish anything. Matters OF
grayest concern to the public, exposures
called for by both regard for morality
and social and political safety, things that
the community ought 10 know and have
a natural right to know, are prohibited,
Censored" by our confused court-made
libel law. because malice" would be
presumed" on the part OF the publisher
from the mere fact of their publication and
who should sue for them.
This barbarous and tyrannical Censor
ship" applies. of course, only to the re-
putable. financially responsible press. That
is the singularly unjust feature about It,
The irresponsible press, the free-lances,
can indulge in all the license imaginable
and laugh at law suits. The result is
that the very object of the laws, the pro-
lection of the citizen against reckless as
saults by the press, is defeated. The pa
denied IT., while those who do not appre-
olate the restraints OF conscience and
common decency go unpublished In the face
of their defiance of such libel laws as
we have.
Here is an Inconsistency about the sit
uation that is as ridiculous as it Is I'M
Justly discrlminative.
The reputable press OF Texas asks not
for unbridled or irresponsible license. 1t
wants only its constitutional rights fully
outlined and prescribed by statute 1t is
willing to pay for actual damages in any
case OF injury though the Injury was in
flicted without malice toward the victim
and in good faith toward the public. 1t
does not, however, want to be further
treated as now-and as no other agency or
class in Texas is treated before tho
courts--presumed to be guilty before the
charge Is proven and upon proof merely
of the publication itself.
The press wants its rights and Is en-
titled to them. The solid papers are not
responsible for the abuse of liberty and
fairness by the irresponsible, nor does
the present condition OF the law check
tho license Of the latter. There Is no ex-
cuse. therefore. for further delay in legis-
lation in the direction OF plain compre-
hensive just statute defining libel Such
delay can only be the result of pique or
prejudice on the part of certain politicians.
This year another Legislature is to be
chosen. VIII the people manifest their
| appreciation of the utility OF an untram-
meled and uncensored press by aiding In
electing only men TO the State senate and
house who are willing to do common JUS
tlee to the press? Or will they continue
to neglect their own highest interests by
indlfferently putting aside this matter?
In selecting your legislative candidates
this year think of this thing and obtain
from them a promise to assist In giving
Texas a free press such as other States
enjoy.