New Britain herald., 1916-01-04
WHAT OTHERS SAY
Views on all sides of timely questions as discussed in ex- changes that come to the Herald Office.
Freedom of the Press. Bridgeport Telegram,

upheld the freedom of the press. and
 has given out the dictum that justi-
 fable criticism, of officials in public life cannot be classed as HbelCus,
 when the actuating motive on the papers part is a sense of public duty
 The most recent instance is that
 which was decided the other day when Judge William S. Case of the
 Superior court denied judgment to Atty. Frank l.. Wilder in his libel suit against the Bridgeport Post The suit arose from the fact that Atty
 Wilder, who has for some years held the position of deputy judge of the city court, shared for some time the secret that it was the autonotil, of Carl SiemOn that had causal a mys- ter1ous killing some four years be- fore. When the nublic disclosure came through the efforts Of the vic- tlm's widow to obtain damages, the air of mystery which surrounded the affair and the desperate efforts which were made to hush it Up only served to whip up public interest But the facts finally came out in full and naturally there was much comment When 1t was disclosed that , mystery which the police department of
 
 hausted it's best efforts in attempting 10 unravel was a secret shared by a number of persons including several public officials, among whom was Deputy Judge Wilder.
 Judge Wilder came into possession of the secret innocently enough, through the efforts of Sie,nan to en- gage him as counsel, and he prop fn onf might at some future time come be- lore hls court. But he turned the case over to his law partner, and for some months after shared in the se- cret itself, and in the know1edga of the efforts which were made to keen the case out of the courts vher, 1t properly belonged under the laws of Connecticut
 It was this aspect of the case upon which the Post commented editorially, and these comments furnished the basis for the libel suit If such criticism Of public officials and public affairs could be choked off it would he death blow at the freedom of the press. But it is the essence Of the Connecticut law that in order to be libel in such instances, maEce must be the actuating motive and this the plaintiff clearly failed 70 es- tablish, hence the unfavorahle deci- sion accorded to him. And in estab- fishing the presence of malice or the absence of 1t, and the lengths 10 which a newspaper may go in iustif- ablo criticism. Judge Case, in the clearly worded mem orandum accom- panying the decision points out that common sense, the state of public opinion, the known facts and circunn- stances of the case are the governing factors, and not mere technicalities In his own words, the case "cannot be measured with a yardsticl.'' He says:
 But what really concerns us is the fact or chain of fate that atten led this remarkable case up to it's final public exposure. It is the method that lays the transaction under the ban of disapproval and that properly subject to fair criticism everyone directly concerned in its SUD- pression.
 This, in brief, is the material which the Post had at hand when it made the comments which form the basis of this action and these comments should not be measured by Q yard stick but interpreted with some in- telligent regard to the situation with Which the paper was dealing with newspapers privilege of fair comment on matter of public interest. They are too well settled and their limits depends upon a reasonable and fair of its language.
 In a previous libel case, Burns V. Telegram, the Superior court (Judge Burpee presiding) ruled that news paper report of public business is in the nature O. a privileged communica- ton and that a newspapers honest effort to present facts of public in terest, gathered from authoritative to it's readers cannot be con- structed as libelous. The supreme court of the state recently affirmed this view and it stands as the law of the state.
 That decision was a shield to the news columns of independent news papers, as the Wilder decision Is a shield to the editorial columns There could be no freedom of the press were | newspapers debarred by fear of libel l from presenting to their readers the | facts ofimmediate public transac- l tions, nor could there be any real l freedom of the press were indepen- 1 dent papers debarred by fear of libel | from reasonable and justifiable criti l cism of public officials (includlng | judges of city courts) when circum- stances scene ed to warrant it.
 The higher courts of Connecticut l in recent decisions, have been notably 1 broad minded on these points, and l while rigidly guarding against the | Iibels of malice, or libels actuated by | the evil gossip, they have at the same 1 time made it clear that the laws of 1 the state as interpreted by the courts 1 support a real freedom of the press, | such as the founders of our country | intended and expressly stipulated.