The San Francisco call., 1903-01-07
CRITIcIzEs THE PAPERS.


With few scruDles and millions of dollars
a their command and actively interested in
many political movements of the State for
b Sneir own exaltatlon. these said propretors
ace the rights OF the people and the security
of the State. Capable OF misrepresenting pub
lie as well as private interests. when they
can not dictate to public officers in the per-
forInance of their sworn duties. they do no;
officials, with the many important interests
under their administration, may become their
victims. II their insatiate and insolent de-
msnds be not obeyed by them. A fine to such
millionaire publishers. or a limited imprson-
ment, which does nott place upon them the
conVlcts stripes, is not source OF fear nor
can such minor penalties deter them from
the course which ambition or revenge may
II timorous or. plant men should under the
present imperfect laws chance TO be elected to
public Office ii may well be foreseen that such
officers may become the mere toys or tools OF
these ambitious publishers.
The reckless and libelous abuse of private
ehar acter by few certain newspaper proprie-
tors is made more dangerous when they guiltily
combine or conspire TO aid Op'abet one another
in defenses against action for libel
The rights OF citizens should be protected
tute the purposes and privileges of a free press
hence 1t is apparent that the punishment now
prescribed by law is inadequate Ito act as a
deterrent for grave an offense.
1t is time to reflect upon this menacing and
growing peril 1t is time that the people
should by law assert their majesty. 1t is timt=
10 preserve the sanctity Of good character from
the wanton and malicious abuse by the harpies
who befoul II. 1t is time to place a public
barrier against newspaper intimida tion pri-
Tate citizens. legislators and other public Off
GERS and to demonstrate that our State govern
ment must not be conducted by and for few
newspapers. but by and for the people.
No honest journalist deem such neces-
sary action subversive OF his liberty and privi-
leges or limitation or the constitutional rights
Of the press. While honest criticism OF public
officers IS both a right and a duty upon the
part of newspapers, and while ii is also right
am fn NAL 1Var ion
potency of all public servants, yet Hbelous
abuse and caricature hnd no justification when
perchance, the policy OF a public officer does
not accord with the interests or views Of the
libeler.
II indivikual regulations may be torn to
libeer who stands intrenched behind his
moneybags. yet public officers ought at least
10 be permitted TO conduct official duties with
out interference and vilfcation If con-
stitutional law can be devised by the Legisla-
ture to reach this desired end. amendment
TO the constitution tending to abate this alarm
ing evil may ia the future become a grave
necessity.
At least Tor the present remedy against
wanton and libelous assa Ults upon the repu-
tation OF private individuals and public Off
GERS respect for law and decency may pos
sibly be enforced by making the crime OF libel
hve years imprisonment In the state prison
and minimum imprisonment therein of one
year
1t seems to me that It would be no in
justice to the press or the State nor cur
tailment Of its proud liberty 70 raise the value
in law Of mans and womans reputation
especially considering the fact that the priv
ileged libeer may still stand upon his extraor
binary constitutional right of having the
jurors ana not the court determine ;he la W
As II is but Just. however, that there should
be no especial privileges given to one class
accused OF crime over another | recommend
constitutional amendment changing section 2
Of article 1 Of the constitution whereby this
legal anomaly OF permitting the libeler
10 submit the law for the determination Of
the jury be abolished and the court be given