New Britain herald., 1916-01-20
The Press and Officials

once again the Supreme Court of Connecticut sets its seal of approval on the newspaper duty, we will not say right, to sharply criticise officials or all kinds who fail to do their duty to the State or who are so lost to a sense of fitness that they besmirch their officials robes with transa ctions of discreditable nature. At the same time the Court makes it clear that there must be no malice Or per- secutlon in the criticism. If this is in evidence the party responsible for it cannot escape consequences as the law allows.
 This reaffirmation of the Courts position as defined in the Burns case ia made on the complaint against William J. Pape, editor of the Water bury Republican for alleged criminal libel, made by State Senator Jame A. Peaseley. In the trial Court the case was eliminated by technical plead ing on demurrer. The supreme Court held that this was error and the case goes back to be proceeded with ac- cording to law
 There were nice little points at- tending the procedure in this case. The action was brought under the breach of peace and abusive language statute. The object of this was to take from the accused a chance to produce and show the facts upon which he based his criticism. When the case reached the upper Court the defendant came forward with a de- murrer which was sustained, claiming special privilege. Thus one act of manoeuvers at law was met by an- other without touching the real is- sue.
 With these procedures the State is little concerned. What it does want to know is the standing of an official with scant respect for the dignity of his office and the extent to which the public watch dog, the press, can go in criticism of such lack of respect
 In our judgment the Supreme Court in this decision clearly defines the law on this vitally important matter The opinion written by Justice George w. Wheeler, all The others concurring. points out the charges made against the Senator and says: These are charges of corrupt conduct in a speci- fic matter of gross breaches of public duty. They are not expressions of opinion but rather assertions of fact"
 The Court goes on to say: "If un- true, they (the charges) passed the boundary of fair criticism, and were abusive and offensive, even to the point of being scurrilioious. The right and duty of the press to give to the public information regarding the pub lie conduct of public officer is re- cognize by our law and on another occasion we said the free and fear less performance of that duty will be protected by the Court; but the very nature of that duty implies good faith. That means that the occasion for comment must not be used to cir culate false and defamatory matter | nor be made an opportunity for the qualification of personal antagOnisln l or malice. Fair criticism by the press is one of the strongest agencies which 1 free government knows for keeping 1 the public service honest and capable l and it's officials faithful and honor 1 able. It's rieht of criticism must 1 not he hampcred."
 We believe that this paragraph pro- l tects every honest newspaper. At the 1 same time it clearly points out that 1 great instrument of the press is not ] to be employed for purposes of malice. The newspaper which takes this chart l for it's guide need fear nothing. On the other hand, the shifty, lodging official, always on the edge of break ing the law, ever alert to use his of- fcial position for personal gain, is to clearly understand that the Courts cannot be used to save him from the | lash of stinging criticism when it is evident that he is being false to his oath of office, in spirit if not in deed