Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1913-02-14
lsed South Carolina as a lawbreaking

Mr.. Stevenson of Chesterfield, said
that he regretted that q reference to
the fact that he had signed the minor
ity. report In favor Of the bill made II
necessary for him to take the floor.
The measure had q personal ap-
peal to me because I have time and
time again been maligned by news
papers. This Is what Influenced me
to sign the favorable report. l have
been a sufferer from the careless
characterization Of newspapers, but
want to do what's right by South Car
olina- I have borne 1t In silence.
It was beneath my dignity to wrangle
with irresponsible editors OF irrespon-
sible newspapers"
Mr.. Stevenson said that q member
Of the judiciary committee had called
his attention to the constitutional
phases Of the newspaper bill he
pointed out that the statement to
which the newspaper was to be forced
to allow any man to reply did not
have to be false. The communication
must be printed whether the state
ment which occasioned 1t was founded
on error or truth. The newspapers
would have to open their columns, no
matter how long 1t might be or whom
1t came from. .t.,..t..
+ 10 r.. 'h'E SI8xo S0nbgttuStons.
Mr.. Stevenson said that the first
amendment made to the constitution
of the United States provided that no
law should be passed "abridging free
dom of speech or Of the press" This
same phrase occurred In the state con-
stitution as well. fa."
For these reasons Mr.. Stevenson
said he was forced to take the back
track" because he had found that he
was on the wrong trail"
Mr.. Epps Of Sumter, advocated the
passage Of the bill, although he ad-
mitted that he had never been at
tackled by q newspaper.
IF you succeed in fintng q news
paper editor, what is a paltry sum In
comparison with. the destruction OF
your character?" asked Mr.. Epps. i
maintain that the bill to require that
you be given the right to reply In q
newspapers columns, Is not an IN
fringement on the right Of the press
II 1t is constitutional to fine an edi-
tor, II Is constitutional to require him
to publish your reply"
Mr.. Brice Of Chester, who signed
the unfavorable majority report OF
the judiciary committee on the bill.
called the attention Of the house to the
fact that large majority Of this com
mittee was opposed to the bill, that
only four members had signed the Ia
vorable report and that one of these
had repented.
Mr.. Brice said that IL the bill were
a law a newspaper could not publish
report Of the speech OF the author OF
the bill without laying itself liable to
having its columns filled with replies
from men who might consider that
what he had said reflected upon them
nor could they publish court proceed
ings for the same reason. Mr.. Brice
held that the libel law passed last year
protected all citizens. He, too, was or
the opinion that the bill, II 1t became
law, would conflscate property-the
newspapers space.
Publicity Is Just as much protec-
ton to the people as the courts are.
said Mr.. Brice. IF you pass the DILL
you run the risk Of keeping the peo-
pie in darkness about fraud and cor
ruption."
Mr.. sapp of Lancaster. spoke in
favor Of the passage OF the Dill.
Shall the press Of South Carolina
be protected to the detriment Of the
people?" he asked.
Mr.. Lilies Of Orangeburg held that
enough had already been said on the
measure to prove to the unprejudiced
that 1T was both unnecessary and un-
wise and "the entering wedge toward
hampering the freedom Of the press,
onetof the foundation stones OF I'D
erty. He stressed the fact that the
enactment Of the bill would work
tremendous hardship on the struggling
country press, putting 1t to great ex,
pense. Mr.. Lilies declared that should
the bill pass, board ought to be ap,
pointed to determine when a. printed
statement was detrimental to the
character Of man and when ne
should have the right to use the col
umns of newspaper.
There has been nothing advanced
in all the arguments for this bill to
show that the people demand II" de-
clared Mr.. Lilies. "I am thankful that
the time has not yet come III South
Carolina, and I do not believe 1t ever
will come, when honor and true man,
hood, anything pure and holy ana
good need protection from news
papers" ..-
Mr. Lilies then moved the previous
question on the whole matter at 1923
The house proceeded to kill the bill
by vote of 55 to So and put on the
"clincher" by a vote Of 81 to so.
Mr. McQuinn and Mr.. Rempert
both addressed themselves to points
Of personal privilege before the vote
was taken. .s.