Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-06-14
The Libel Law.

The libel law upon which the South
Carolina Press association has been
working for a number Of years past
came up for discussion at the annual
meeting in Spartanburg this week, and
it was decided that there would be no
abatement of the efforts of the associ-
alton to get the law on the statute
books.
It will be remembered tnat q libel
law was passed by the general assem-
bly, at its recent session; but the gov
ernor vetoed it because of what we
believe the opportunity 1t afforded for
political capital, and the general as
sembly falling into the trap Of los
ing its head over the famous message,
failed to pass the act over the govern
or's veto.
The situation 1t seems to us Is very
we'll illustrated in the familiar dodge
of the small boy, who. when pursued by
a yellow jacket throws off his cap 80
the insect will go after 1t instead Of
continuing after himself
1t will be remembered that accepting
the policy of unfair treatment pursued
by some of the papers against him
as the gauge Of battle, Governor
Blease has been seeking to make cap
ital against all the press, good, bad
and Indifferent, and in the particular
matter of that veto message Of the IL
bel bill, he threw a lot Of vitriol and
one thing and another that caused the
legislators to lose sight Of the real
issue. In our view the governor did
what he did more to make monkeys
out of the legislators than anything
else, but whether that was the pur-
pose or not, that was the result, for
when they gathered themselves to-
gether and wasted lot Of good ener-
gy in voting to expunge some meaning
less twaddle from the statute books,
they allowed the meritorious law
about which all the fuss had develop
ed to die under the veto. There was q
good deal in the whole situation that
was really laughable, and we have no
doubt that Governor Blease laughed
heartily.
The libel law that the State Press
association wants is perfectly fair and
proper. The editors are only asking
for justice for themselves and the
public. They do not seek to take ad-
vantage of anybody. This thing does
not apply to criminal libel at all, but
only civil libel, and the main feature
Of IL Is that when through misinfor-
nation or otherwise a newspaper pub
fishes what It believes to be a fact,
but which afterward was found out to
be hurtful to somebody, the newspa-
per can by proper and satisfactory
correction claim such mitigation OF
damages as might otherwise go against
a presumption of malice. There Is no
desire on the part Of the newspapers
to escape any actual damage that
might be occasioned. and no request
for anything Of the kind, and neither
do the newspapers ask for any soften
ing of the present very severe penal
ties for criminal libel. They are only
asking for what Is right, fair and just
to themselves and the public alike and
they are asking for it in behalf Of the
public as we'll as themselves.
OF course in a matter like this, so
lily understood by the public, 1t Is
easy for designing people to hide the
real issue by Misrepresentation, by the
resort to actual slander against the
press; but outside Of that there stands
in the way no good reason why this
law should not be passed.
The proposed law does not give and
1t Is not intended to give, single
right or privilege that the press does
not now exercise, or that 1t will not
continue to exercise.