The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1902-06-25
Hiuce the Anti Dusiling Law, are
libe,ou. Publications Privti"Erd:

Siuce the Anti -Dusiiing Law, are
Liheiou. Publications Privileged:
We have reason to believe that ut least one
OF the editors in Greenvllis has taken anront
at our remarks last week about their quarrel
We disclaim any and all intention 10 be
either ofiensive or tlsagreeable to either. but
their treatment OF each other was offensive
10 the public. and ID, therefore, fairly . sub.
to Inject nothing but kindness, while we pro-
test against their methods.
Personally, we have been friendly TO one Of
them for more than forty years With the
other We are less acquainted. and would not
know him n we met him In the road. We
are taking sides with neither. Both are
wrong. IL II their manner against which We
protest. We have no personal grievance
against either.
The frst editorials Of the News In reference
to the Mountaineer were merely badinage.
While they were Irritating, they furnished
no Qualification for the defamation Of charac'
TOR. Nothing Jusiides that. Reply In kind
With less acrimouy. would have been better,
n reply was necessary.
The long residence Of the Mountalneer. TO
seiher with the prominence Of that paper
among the country press. acceniuate tue mis-
take Of assaillng the character oi competitor
who 10 a comparative stranger In the
community.
The yiru!ence OF the attack on the character
Of The Greenvtile News must defeat It's pur.
pose and. unqusstionably, II must have been
Injurious 10 its author.
Since the dueiiing law has been put on the
s,atute books We have thought It possible
that Il nas been forgotten that there is law
ssa,nst the defamation Of character. and.
therefore, Is was supposed that character was
lei unprotected. and at the mercy Of those
Who may have felt, for any cause. disposed TO
tetrsct from their nelgnbor's good name.
Whom men In this State were relieved Of
the danger OF facing pistol at thirty graccs.
they may have thought that the object OF
their attack had no defence. In such cases
The propr,elies a. well n the equities have
been too Omen disregarded.
Character 10 The most sacred thing on earth.
and hs that would destroy the character OF
any one approaches too near to the act OF q
public enemy.
The former methods OF answering for libel
ous speech having been prohibited In this
State, and tbs former prejudice against ap-
pealIng TO tho courts for redress not yet hsv-
Ing entirely passed away, II seems that charse-
Ter has been regarded lightly By some. and
has been the subject OF too frequent attack
u II gratifying, however, 70 know that q bet.
Tor public sentiment 10 chrystalizing.
Gentlemen arc forbidden TO defend them
selves In this State. The courts. therefore.
must punish offenders who assail character.
Those who offend the public By their improp-
or publications, and those who would rob
their neighbors oftheir good name are proper
subjects upon whom 70 exert the correcting
innuenoe OF the law against defsmatory pub
lIcationa
The remarks OF both the 9reenville editors
nodoubt contain statements which they could
not eslablish BY the verdict Of an impartial
Jury. And II sithor has any doubts a TO the
libelous nature Of mis- remarks he has only 10
refer the matter TO the youngest lawyer at
she Green Vile bar, and be satisfied on that
point.
Al fnr as we know, both editors are respect
cd By the people OF Greenville. and neither
oould prove 10 tho satisfaction OF . jury that
he bad over tho other any great prs.eminenoe
ss to character and respectahilitg. But sup
poss ono stood very high and the other stood
very low, the law against the publication Of
iibelous matter would apply 10 all alike.
Al one star differeth In glory from another
star, % one editor differs In character from
another editor. But the stars appear In their
places In the armament. and both editors are
entitled 10 live 10 Greenvills e. long N they
behave themselves. II either 10 the future
should assaii the other. he would become Q
proper subject for An example TO the rest OF
IN.
The owners OF either printing once arc
abuudautiy able 70 respond Ia money dam
ages for whatever libeious articles they msy
print.
A man may not fight q duel In this State.
The time has come when the Courts should
teach reckless editors that they are account
able for the publication Of articles which
have for their purpose the injury ofsnothsr's
good name.
proper sentiment revolts At the Idea OF
publishing ugly things OF nsighoor. who
could he seen. face 70 face, any hour OF the
day.
Since writing the above We md the follow
ing paragraph on tbs Journalistic sea, which
goes TO show that II IL only the forbearance ol
injured parties 10 this State which permits oi
their being unscrupulously or unressrainedly
abused:
"Psys 5000 for EpitheL-The Jury at Wilkes
barre. Pa, In the case of BnxHrt Va. Myers
brought In q verdict for 5000 During the
Knights Templer parade in 1885 Myers did
not decorate his buiIdipgs for the occasion
The Evening Leader, Of which Boyart 10 the
editor and proprietor, alluded 10 the fact.
This sngered Myers. and he. II was alleged.
called Bogart . vile name and questioned MS
honesty. Bogart entered suit for $4,000 dam.
ages"
When proper sentiment prevails In South
Carolina the public and individuals will be
protected, at least from those who are able 70
respond In money.