Year: 1868

enterprising proprietor Of the New York
Ledger has from time to time induced
many Of the most gifted literary men
Of the country to enrich his columns win
productions written above their own sigma
tures This has answered the expectations OF
Mr.. Bonner SO far as 1t was useful as an ad-
vertisement for his journal; but were there
ever, before or since, newspaper articles SO
wonderfully and hopelessly dreary, nat, scale
and Improbable as were the disquisitions that
have appeared in the Ledger above the sigma
lures of men who are looked upon as standing
among the sayans of the land? Moreover,
there is such thing as being too fine. There
is nothing gained by planning and vanishing
the under side Of barn floor. Ii the practice
of signature should attract to the newspaper
press the great minds Of the country-the stu
pendous intelects, for instance, of our legis-
lators or the polished genius of our dlvlnes-is
it not possible that newspapers might come 10
be better written than there was any need Tor
and made too good for daily food? This, per-
haps, was what was the matter with the ar
ticles written for the Ledger by the presidents
of all the colleges in the land. On the other
hand, the practice of publicity might be found
to have the very contrary effect and to drive
the best writer's out of the newspaper held.
Many men who have a reputation gained
by work more solid and enduring than
that required for the production OF news
paper leaders cannot do themselves JUS
tice under the conditions of rapidity indispen-
sable in journalistic labor. They are willing,
perhaps, to write for newspapers under the
shield of anonymity, but they would be reluc-
tant to peril their reputation by avowing them
selves to be the authors of productions so crude
and unpublished as the leaders Of daily journal
must often of necessity be. Either they would
desert the field altogether or they would fall
into the practice of lending their signatures to
other obscure and unknown writer's, who would
do the work for which the first received the
credit, if not the pay. This is the case in
France, where the public is constantly misled
in double manner-first by paying attention
to men rather than to reasons, and, secondly,
by accepting as the utterances of men whom
they know the deliverances Of men whom they
do not know.


The English courts have recently decided
that while newspaper writer's, as private indi-
viduals, have no more right to denounce pub
lie man or expose a public wrong or danger
than any one else, still, in their capacity Of
critics, acting in behalf of the public, they should
be protected in a greater latitude Of remark.
Last winter the Pail Mall Gazette editorially
denounced certain American physician, then
in London, as quack, and the injured doctor
brought suit against the paper for the libel.
Had the writer of the article complained ofmade
the remarks which formed the basis of the
action in conversation, or had published his
denunciation of the doctor as his own private
opinion over his own signature, he would
have been liable to be compelled to pay for
his indiscreet candor; but the judge before
whom the case was tried decided that the pub
lie interest demanded that writer's for the
press, in their capacity Of critics on behalf Of
the public, should be shielded in the express
sion of their opinions and held harmless, il
these opinions are honestly entertained and
expressed without malice, Notwithstanding tn ey
might turn QUITO be erroneous.