Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1905-02-18
Editorial ~ - *
II y Correspondence
THE CODE LIBEL LAW-BETTER
THAN BEFORE.

e rom current Reports, lt WOuiu dp-
pear that about 600 editors in the
state are very much excited over alleg
ed changes in the libel law in the
new Code. The editor Of the Pioneer
Press has sent out circulars to the
country editors calling attention to
the new law. and warning the editors
that they should have the old law
substituted for the new if they would
properly safeguard their interests.
The editor of this paper has talked
over the new law with some of the
ablest lawyers in the state and would
recommend to any editor who thinks
the new law is wrong, that he read
it. The new law allows the plaintiff
to recover only especial damages" if
a retractiou is published, while the
old law allowed the plaintiff to re-
cover "actual damages" which in
cludes both special and general
damages. The new law allows ten
DAYS in which the editor of weekly
newspaper may retract, while the old
law allowed only three days-certain-
ly not benefcient provision for the
editor of a weekly paper.
Under the old law, the plaintiff
could recover punitive damages if
he proved malice, in spite of a retrac
ton; but under the new law there is
absolutely no chance to get punitive
damages if retraction be published
The Code commission also deserve
the thanks of the editors of the state
for striking out provision of the old
law which endangered the constitu-
tiouality of the whole act. The
supreme court itself had already
questioned the constitionality of the
act, and it would only have been a
matter of time until the question was
raised. The editors of the state, who
thought they had the best libel law
in the country, have in fact been
sleeping over a powder mine.
Before any editor further critises
the libel law, let him read it and
compare it with the old law. 1t is
Section 212, of Chapter 70, of the
Code.
~
The editor o. this paper has deci !
ed to reform, and give up having
off hand opinions on subjects with
which we are not very familiar. For
instance, we could never see but that
it was very unwise policy on the
part of the state to sell it's school
land at minimum of SIS per acre,
when, as we thought, by holding it a
few years the state could get twice
that sum. There is a bill before the
legisl iture raising the minimum at
which school lands can be sold to $40
per acre. The public lands commit
tee had public hearing Oh the bill
on Tuesday evening, and we came
away from the meeting thoroly CON
vinced that we were entirely wrong
before. 1t was brought out at the
meeting that the most of the school
lands Of the state are now in the
swampy and cut-over regions of the
northern part of the state, where a
man can labor for ten years and do
very we'll if he gets forty acres in
good tlllable shape. Instead of
discouraging buyers the state should
do everything possible to attract
people to that part of the state that
it may be settled up. Again S. now
with the interest for term Of years
and with The property improved and
on the tax rolls is much better not
only for the state but for the school
fund than $50 at a far distant date.
We are still of the opinion that the
praire school lands of southern and
western Minnesota shCulc have been
held at a minium of $40, but the
conditions in Northern Minnesota
are so much different than they were
in the prairie sections that it is too
late now to try TO remedy the mis-
take made on the prairie lands by
making another mistake oD the wood
ed lands.
***
Some of our previously conceived
notions on requiring private banks to
incorporate as state or national
banks also received a jolt at the
public hearing on that subject by
the com mittea on hanks and ba kinp