The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-01-22

urged that the bill be reported ,ayor,h,,,
ne SAID newspapers are afraid 10 pup,,s,
on ,h news nnaet sne existing common laS
~ the SUBJECT All that was asked was thai
ene neWspspers be permitted to 20 into eourt
oh the same basis with other iit,xants
MI Hogsett said he could not give nj,
approval 10 the h.il, He said thar the Mi
vas framed to DO away with actions ,or mn NJ
ne condemned some Of the actions that are
Drought IN this State for libel hut he Wa
Yppposea 70 giving free license to ;he press
nc shlu that so tar as he would "a would
De that under proper plead!ngs newsnsns.s
may give In evidence ali the facts and esrs
~ 'is, ,,, as well as to urge the truth OF
Yuasa eaton Gon IN MITIGATION for damages.
tt. greenwood replied briefly 10 Mr.
hogsetts objections lie said that Il wa.
ssw'i,uenS that Mr.. Hogsett had not studied the
ohi' tnat about ell the bill contained was
10 define privileged conmunications Uo
asked as favor that tne bill he reno- al
Iavoraoly; he asked It not Tor the news
PAPERS but because the people demanded
~ ne did not ask that the members Of the
committee commit themselves to II ana was
WILING for thosa who were opposed to it 10
ngnt i on the floor of the huse
VT. Green OF Yoakum said he had studied
ne question good deal and he believed
no answered Mr. Hogsett's obies.
ton to the bill. He said this bill does
not throw the bars down TO publishers The
aeeislon Of the courts have gone very faY
towards sitting the publication Of the uews
by the press OF the State He cited eases
IN which papers had been mulcted for dam
ss,s when they had published news as Il
nan occurred. He thought that in cases
where legitimate Items OF news were pub
hshed That the newspapers should NOT be
ineld responsible for damages. He regarded
the bill before the committee as being very
conservative.
Mr.. Heslep OF Burleson county opposed
The bill on the ground that It would cause
iIecklossness on the part OF newspapers in
the publication Of news He thought thnt
newspapers should not be relieved OF Tia
burden of malice. He asserted that IN case
o. libel many people would read the original
uon Of it that might be published He
thought II would he a difficult matter 10
provo actual damage.
Mr.. Conway thought the bill ought to be
considered very carefully.
Mr.. Greenwood said that while Texas was
operating under the common law Of Eng
land as to libel. that country had hal 4
statute on the subject for many years ane
.hat same was much more liberal than the
law which he now proposes for this State
Mr. Hogsett said that he had come to the
conclusion that II the bars are 20 be turned
down to the press of the State law to that
effect should be put in a few lines. He
moved that the bill be reported back 10 the
house with the Recommendation that It DC
not pass. Carried by vote OF seven TO
three,
Those who voted against the bill being re-
ported favorably we're: Messrs Hogsett
Decker, Conway. Cole. Person Hemphill
anu llDuls.
REVENUE BILLS ACTED ON
The house committee on revenue and taxa
ton this afternoon set next Wednesday as
the date for consideration OF the bill remit
ting the State ad valorem ;axes for 1900 in
Wharton. Colorado, Austin and Jackson coun-
ties. Messrs, Thurmond and Tinker made
short preliminary arguments in support 9;
the bill.
bill by sstterwhite making jury scrip
negotiable was acted upon favorably.
bill by Shaw permitting surety com.
panies TO give bond for county officers and fix
Ing the bond maximum at $4,000 was acted
on favorably.
A hill by Talbot making the state rabic
for costs whore land sold for taxes reyer.
to the State was acted upon adversely. Tai
bot pointed out that many newspapers had
lost the cost cf publication of citations In
suits for taxes under the present law. Hen
bricks OF Rusk opposed the bill on the !
ground that the newspapers could refuse 20
publish citations II they feared they would
not be pad.
Willnghsm warned the committee THAI
favorable action on this bill would encour |
age tax deliuduents.