Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-10-20
MORE ABOUT THE TRIBUNE LIBEL SUIT.

The Journal is in receipt Of fuller information
than was contained in the press dispatches con-
corning the decision in the libel suit of the City of
Chicago against the Chicago Tribune. Our interest
in the matter grows out OF the present effort In
New Mexico to curb the freedom OF the press
through the medium OF libel suits brought against
tho Journal.
AS these suits originally brought against
us we had serious objection to them. 1t was
really rather personal matter between Messrs.
Reynolds and McMillen and the Journal. We were
willing to leave the matter to jury. II had
said false and malicious things concerning these
gentlemen willing to be held responsible.
We RETAINED from all discussion OF the facts pend
ing judicial decision.
But the amended complaints are different.
These gentlemen evidently did not know in the be-
ginning just how they considered themselves beled
although they sufficiently certain in their
minds that they had been injured to Justify begin
ming kind OF libel suits. They sued for
one libel to begin with and for different one Ia
the amended complaints.
At present they wish to complain that the Jour-
nal classed them with gang in New Mexico and,
by inference charged them personally with all the
evil deeds have charged against any men,
Der of gang. So they wish to bring every edi
toral uterance OF the Journal for eighteen months
in ISSUE To read those utterances to jury would
require weeks. Such suits would weigh us down
with the expense of the litigation. If these men
maintain such suit there is no reason why
anyone who conceives that his name has been
nected remotely inferentially with the gang"
cannot maintain a libel suit claiming that all
have charged against the gang is imputed to him
Fifty suits, easily two be maintained
against us for these same utterances IL such
sructon of the law be established 1t can be
that such Interpretation of the law would
permit any newspaper to be smothered into silence
by the sheer expenses of the litigation.
+, Because Of the power which 1t would give to
crush newspapers. the Chicago judge held that
cities could not maintain libel suits. He decided
that any Interpretation of the law which would
coerce newspapers into silence is contrary to n
sound public policy. Listen to these quotations from
his decision:
This action is not in harmony with the genius
spirit and objects of institutions
'It fits in rather with the genius of the rulers
who conceived law not in the purity of love for
justice but in the lustful passion for undisturbed
power.
at will therefore, be unnecessary to consider
the other questions involved"
Judge Fisher took up Attorney Kirkland's frs:
and principal contention-that the action was not
rnaintainable, that to allow recovery would violate
the freedom Of the press guaranteed by the con-
stituton.
1t was to this point that he devoted himself
based his decision.
stripped of all elaborate argument" he said
in this connection, the fact remains that, if this
action is maintainable then public officials have In
their power one of the most effective instruments
with which to intimidate the press and to silence
their enemies.
at is weapon to be held the head o.
every one who dares print speak unfavoraby
Of the men in power.
at is not the sanctionng OF falsehood. it Is the
protection Of the right to speak the truth, the
ercise Of which right would become very hazardous
IL actions such this could be maintained For
fear of publishing an occasional falsehood accident
ally. would refrain from telling the truth.
1.-THE court has sympathy with news
papers indulgng in scandal and defamation than
have the most bitter assaiants OF the press But
the remedy is not to be found in laws suppress
ing publication
"Such laws would merely result in suppressing
the only remedy for the evil-pubcation Of the
truth even OF the press
Fortunately" he said, while the good the press
is capable of rendering II unafraid is without limit,
the harm 1t do has its own limitations
"The press Is dependent for It's success. for its
very existence almost, upon public confidence. It
must cater to public sentiment it labors to
build 1t up. 1t cannot indulge long in falsehoods
without suffering the loss of that confidence from
which alone comes its power, its prestige. and Its
reward
ION the other hand, the harm which would cer
tainly result to the community from officialdom
unrestraned by fear Of publicity is tncalculable."
The journal holds with this Judge that defama-
ton of private character should be sterny punished
For that purpose, and no other. libel laws should
exist. Whenever such laws can be used by officials,
members Of invisible government, or powerful BEN
eficiaries of special privilege. to intimdate news
papers which discuss public evils. official or I'M
official It Is indeed contrary to "the genius. spirit
ana objects Of our institutions"
will the libel law be so construed as TO put in the
hands Of unofficial, invisible but all-powerful
government. the power to destroy the freedom of
the press to discuss public wrongs?
Whether Messrs. Reynolds and McMilen are
seeking such an Interpretation of the law Willingly
Or unwittingly is immaterial The legal conse-
duences in their contention is upheld, would
DO destructive to the constitutional guarantee Of the
freedom OF the press. Designing men, seeking to
pcrpetuate undisturbed, their pernicous power.
could avail themselves Of that decision
THE CASE OF SENATOR GORE.