The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-09-04
LEGAL MINDS IN OPPOSITION.

Not long ago Judge ]. O. Humphrey
OF the Southern District of Illinois
ruled that the officers and managers of
lawless combinations, combines, and
trusts were not personally responsible
in the law for the illegal actions that
their trusts, combines or combinations
might take. His ruling was that it was
the trust, combine, or combination it.
self that was guilty of the violation of
the law, and it alone could be held ac-
countable to the law, The decision was
one that aroused 3 good deal of opposi-
tion in the country at large, and yet it
was perfectly logical, straightforward,
and offered practical solution Of all
the troubles. For, the remedy for any
violation of law under that decision
would be far more prompt, effective, and
thorough than could be any possible
action against the individual. Under
that decision it would be perfectly feas-
ible for the court to take possession of
the offices of the trust, combine, or COM
bination, lock up its books, securities,
or records, and prevent its doing any
business whatever from the moment the
judgment was rendered until the con-
Germ freed itself from lawlessness.
But that does not seem to be the
settled law More recently there was
charge filed against the New York
Herald for publishing indecent personal
advertisements. The complaint was
made by the Reverend Charles II.
Grubb, who, perhaps following the doc
trine of Judge Humphrey in the case
above referred to, brought suit against
the Herald Company as the aggressor,
ignoring the individuals who received,
handled and placed those advertise
ments in the Herald, But now comes
Magistrate Wahlc, who reviews the fe-
cisions of judicial tribunals governing
the case, and holds that the Herald
Corporation is not liable, and that the
advertisers and the individuals vino
accepted the advertisements over the
counter, who put them in the forms,
and who did the manual work of plac-
ing them in the Herald, are the ones
who should be held responsible for their
appearance in that paper.
il does not seem to us that this de-
cision of Magistrate Wahle has either
logic or sense to back it. Clerks in
paper receive and handle advertise
mcnts as offered. and as they are en-
ployed to do. 1t is not their business
TO discriminate among advertisements
and to say what should be inserted and
what not, Suppose that a lottery ad
vertisement should be received by
clerk in the business office OF news
in the paper in the usual way. Would
the United States hold that clerk to
account for the appearance of that
advertisement in the paper7 Not for
one moment. The United States would
jump on the paper at once, forbid 1T
access to the mails, and no plea by the
newspaper that it was not responsible
for the appearance Of that advertise.
ment, but that it had been put in by
the clerk, by the compositor, by the
foreman, would avail. Tho paper
would be shut out from the mails, and !
would be ruined without repair, pre-
cisely on the line of Judge Humphreys |
decision.
We do not bring up the New York
Herald case by way of au invidious |
comment upon the course of that paper |
in printing advertisements which Par. |
son Grubb denounced That has moth |
ing to do with the question What we |
are considering is merely question of |
responsibility for anything that may |
be unlawful or against public policy |
that may appear in newspaper, or
that may be done by any corporation.
According to Magistrate Wahle, the |
paper is not responsible for what ap- |
pears in its columns According to !
Judge Humphreys decision the paper
or the corporation accused, whatever |
it may be, is the only thing that can
be held responsible. As between the |
two, we say that undoubtedly Judge |
Humphrey IS ruling is the only one that |
has any practical sense or available |
Justice 10 commend it i