The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-08-27
Gle until after the same was pub

fishing Company"
The article written by Mr.. Merritt
was the substance of statement given
him, by Col. Leach. He wrote down the
| figures as Col. Leach gave them to
him. Later the substance of the
printed statement was filed in Col.
Leach's complaint in his action
against Col. Osborn in Wake Superior
court. What Mr. Merritt did-and he
did nothing but print in advance of
filing the substance of Il complaint by
the plaintiH in suit already insti-
tuted-has been done a thousand times
in North Carolina in the past ten
| years. We were prepared to prove
| by Mr.. Andrew Joyner, the widely
| known correspondent; Mr.. w. l. Un-
derwood, former city editor of the
Charlotte Chronicle; Mr.. j. M. Reece,
editor of the Greensboro Record, and
other newspaper men that the grounds
upon which a suit is to be brought
are often printed before the complaint
/ is filed--in fact that in cases of i'm
portance to the public that course IS
| general. But such evidence could not
get before that jury. 1t shows that
Mr.. Merritt was doing the usual thing
| in the case that was tried here this
week. Has it come to pass in North
Carolina that a newspaper cannot
! print the news of cases in court
purely as items of news-without be
| ing fined one-fifth of their Vaiue
The statements in the article were
all furnished Mr.. Merritt by Mr.. Leach,
a reputable citizen. He did not Vouch
for them and the paper distinctly gave
the public the name of its informant
and later gave Col. Osborn the same
information. If the statements were
incorrect, the incorrect statement was
made not by Mr.. Merritt or The News
and Observer, and if every time
newspaper prints such an article II
is required to pay $1,5OO or $Z'ooo
every live newspaper will be put III
bankruptcy before the year is out. IL
is because of the fact that the very
life of the North Carolina newspaper
is at stake that I declined Judge
Wards suggestion to pay $1,000 and
quit. That would have been the
easier and the short-Sighted and selfish
course, but if Col. Osborn's lawyers
can secure $4,000 or $4,000 for such
publication, made in good faith upon
the authority of d reputable gentle
man, then every paper must pursue
one of two courses: /. Quit printing
the news when it is, news; or 2. Be
subsidized so it can pay excessive
damages for printing news before 1t
becomes ancient history.
have not written this article to
reflect upon the jury or for any pur-
pose whatever except to state to the
readers of this paper exactly what it
has done and to submit to them
whether it has done anything worthy
of being mulcted in heavy damages.
The matter of paying a fine for pub
fishing news is a matter not to be
compared with having the approval
of the good men and women who read
these columns. They are the best
judges of whether this paper is capa-
pie of uttering a libel. Good men
during all these years would not place
confidence in this paper if it black
ened the character of honorable men.
To have won the approval of ten
thousand subscribers imposes a re-
sponsibility that is ever present with
me. l would prefer to surrender
every dollar / have and mortgage the
paper than to acquiesce in verdict
that is a clear miscarriage of justice,
and fail to exhaust every legal remedy
to secure it's reversal. In doing this
| am not actuated by desire to eS-
cape the payment of money, but be-
cause it is a duty l owe myself and
the simple right to print the news
and to end the antiquated notion that
malice is presumed when a newspaper
prints incorrect statements, along with
correct ones, making correction and
retraction of all errors. AS editor of
this fight upon principle as important
to the public of this generation as
the repeal of the seditiOn laws were
important in the year 1900. the i'm
prisonment of editors in 1898 for criti-
cism of public officials was no greater
shackle upon the press than presum-
ing today that they are guilty of malice
when they print the substance of
complaint upon the authority of the
plaintiff before it is actually filed. The
acceptance of Judge Wards offer of
$1,000 ''to settle the case" would, in
my mind, have been a surrender of
principle, and therefore lit was de-
clined. 1t may be that The News and
Observer will get no relief from the
punishment sought to be imposed. If
So 1 can only continue in the fight
for protection of honest newspapers
against such unjustifiable penalties, for
just so sure as the Right will pre-
vail, the day is not far distant when
newspapers in North Carolina that
lave wrought no injury cannot be
punished for failing to shut out the
light from the people with reference