Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1904-10-17
Republican National Ticket
RECOGNITION OF A GREAT PRIN
CIPLE.

The verdict of the jury in the Glib
son-Hofer libel suit was given in rec
ognition Of a great principle - the right
and duty Of n newspaper to publish
the actions of public officials.
Even unpleasant as it may be, there
is still incumbent on the publisher Of
a public newspaper the duty of max.
ing known to the public misdeeds, or
what appear to the public to be mis-
deeds.
Hence the bringing of libel suit
for large amount of damages was
an illustration of how far an official
may be mslead by the bad counsel of
a lawyer.
While counsel for Gibson fought for
his client and got the strongest posi-.
BILE instructions from the court in
favor Of damages for his client, the
jury was aetuated by the higher prin-
ciple Of protecting the public.
Their verdict was not a personal
finding against Chief of Police Glib
son, nor for lIofer Bros, but the enun
citation of the truth that the newspa-
per has a fearless duty to perform in
such cases.
While the wording Of the reporter $
article may have been technically
libelous according to the Oregon stat
ute, which is about as vicious as the
"Oregon boot" the jury found for
the defendants
The journal is willing to admit that
the articles published about Chief of
Police Gibson may have been incorrect
in some details, and may have done
him an injury, the jury found for the
principle.
This verdict establishes the princi.
pie that daily newspaper can pub.
lish what appears to be the mscou-
duct Of public official in good faith,
and even score that official, and no
damages can be collected.
The argument of attorneys for the
defendants that a despotism as bad MS
that existing in Russia would be es.
tablished if the press could not criti |
else public officials was accepted by |
the jury.
The composition Of daily newspa
per in great haste leaves room for err |
rors of Judgment aud errors of fact,
but IL the newspaper is seriously cali
ing attention TO misconduct of an Of |
fetal, and acting in good faith to.
ward the public, and not actuated by |
personal malice, this verdict shows
that no damage suit can be maintained !
by the official.
A public Official belongs to the pub.
lie and so do all his acts, and COM
munity would not support newspa
per that screened official misconduct |
that had come to the eyes of the pub.
lie generally. There is no other course
for a public newspaper to pursue but
To publish such matters ms news or
suffer the accusation Of having been
sileuced.
All that is said in this article is in
support of the principle of publicity
as the best means of protecting the
public aud as the only means of Sc
curing decent administration Of public
affairs.
The necessity Of keeping before the
public the records aud acts of public
officials relieves the newspaper pub.
fisher of the imputation of personal
malice
II is as much the duty of newspa
per to publish such matters as It is
the duty OF public officials to perform
their duty justly, foarlc-sly aud in a
proper manner,
The newspaper has public duty 10
perform. and the official who is AL,
vised 60 jump iuto the courts aud seek
redress la libel suit has NO other
but OF having bin Of
costs 10 pay OF course he can put
the publisher Go trouble and expense
10 defend, but in following such bad
advice he pays money and gains
Aeithcr respect nor exoueration,
------7s, ,-------------