Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-07-09

4
! publicity. II is our source OF news
that we rely on to enable us TO get
| out a newspaper; and If we break con
fidence with the source of news We
! will lose all of our sources and would
have no newspaper. +. .
| at is a matter OF information, was
| given to me in secrecy-it is a mat.
ter Of honor, aside from the newspa.
per standpoint" =..@..-. !: r..
In the opinion of the court, the po-
sition of the witness is untenable.
Though there is canon of journals
tic ethics forbidding the disclosure of
newspapers sources OF information
Ia canon worthy of respect and un-
doubtedly well-founded, 1t is subject
! to qualification: II must yield when
| in conflict with the interests of justice
the private interests involved must
yield TO the interests of the public.
This principle has been applied by
! this court in the case of United States
VS.. Kekauofia. 3 4. s. Dist CT Haw.
259, involving communications made
by church member to church Off.
cials. In this case it was said by
Judge Dole: .s9j .s..:.s @s:. .-E....
mo private or social or religious OBJ
legations can dispense with that uni
versal one which lies on every mem
Der OF society to divulge all informa-
tion in regard to crimes against the
public interests, except as provided by
law, in the recognition OF certain COM
munications which are privileged, be-
cause of the sentiment that to COM
pei testimony under the circumstan-
ees would be. of more prejudice than
value to the public These privileged
communications include those made
between attorney and client, husband
and wife, physician and patient, GER
gyman and penitent and some others. /"
Id. 2e1 ..a1... l. ,-=:..
And it is not within the power Of
court to add to the list of commu-
nications which are privileged Even
the privilege as to communications be-
tween priest anu nenitent required a
statute for its foundation ID; Wig.
more, Evidence, sec. 1894. ....-.
And the principle has been enforced
specifically as 10 communications to
newspapers and their representatives
A Wigmole, Evidence, 1886, sec. 1886,
and note Z, citing, inter AHA, the Par.
nell Commissions Proceedings, and
United States vs.. Shriver.
Such a rule of privilege would be
in violation of a sound public policy
Smiths Digest of Precedents of Priv
lege of Congress, 1894, 1928, S4S, $50,
, reporting the Shriyer case, supra.
Thus, in ex parte Lawrence, ,48 Pac
1874, 116 Cal 29S, newspaper report
er was held to be in contempt of legis-
lative authority in refusing to dis
close to a state senate committee the
names of persons from whom he had
received Information touching
charge of improper conduct of senat-
ors then under investigation See also
People VS.. Durrant, 4S Pac. IS, Sc, 116.
CAL 179, in which was dismissed a
similar claim of privilege, with the
statement that "the claim scarcely
merits comment"
For 800 Years it has now been re-
cognized as fundamental maxim that
the public Tin the words sanctioned.
by Lord Hardwicke) has a right to
every mans evidence. We may start,
in examining the various claims of ex-
emption, with the primary assumption
that there is a general duty to give
what testimony one is capable of CIV
Ing, and that any exemptions which
may exist are distinctly exceptional
and are so many derogations from
a positive general rule" Wigmore,
Evidence, 1866, sec. 2192.
In general, the mere fact that
communication was made in express
confidence, or in the implied conf.
dence of confidential relation, does
not create a privilege This rule is
not questioned today. No pledge of
privacy, nor oath of secrecy, can avail
against demand for the truth in
court OF justice. !. !. Accordingly,
confidential communication to al
clerk, to trustee, to a commercial
agency, to a banker, to a journalist,
or to any other person not holding
one Of the specific relations hereaf-
ter considered. is not privileged from
disclosure" Id. 31S6-31S7, sec. 1885.
( The decision of the supreme court
of Georgia, in the case of Plunkett v.
Hamilton, 20 S. E. ISL, 1876 Ga. ~. IS
l.. R. A. On. So $50, follows the Cali
fornia case of Lawrence, above, cited,
and also the New York case of People
v. Fancher, Thomp. &, c. 467. The
court in the latter case sustained an
imprisonment for contempt for refusal
to give the name of the writer of
libel published in newspaper.
( In a ~ 90 in tho Now .IarSov elInrama