Year: 1873

whole subject of the law OF libel III oesnn
upon a proposition of Mr.. Dallas 10 insert ii
the Declaration of Rights the following clause


"Au papcrs relating to the conduct OF oioe'7 VI
men I'm public capacity or to any other mattor Propoi
for public investigation information snIil oo p','i
legged and no recovery conviction snah oo "'


sustained In any suit or prosecution, o'l VI


for the pubicaton thereof except where such paper
shall have been mallcously published ana na'loo i
not be presumed from the fact OF publication


In course of the debate variety OF ahehu-
ments was proposed qualifying In greater OF
less degree the very large liberty ohereu 'no
press under such a provision, liberty whch IL
was strenuously contended verged on IRE
sponsjbility and license. The discussion has
covered pretty much the whole ground, ana
the article as finally adopted on Tuesday uh
doubtedly meets the average public sentiment
1t is as follows:


sEc r That the printing press shall be free TO every
person who undertakes TO examine the prOceounPS VI
the Legislature any branch OF the Government "uu
no law shall ever made to restrain the right thoreo


The free communication Of thoughts and opinions Is one
OF the invaluable rights OF man, and every ctzeh may
freely sneak write and print on any subject being re-
sponsible for the abuse OF that liberty NO coh'I0oA
shall bo had in any prosecution for the publication OF
papers relating TO the official conduct OF officers OF men


in publlc capacity or TO any other matter proper ior
public investigation information Whefe tne iAo' ''a'
such publication not malieiously or neghgehuy
made shall be established to the satisfaction OF o jury
And in all indictments for libel tho Jury shall have the
right to determine the law and the facts under tc ul
rection Of the court as In other cases"


This seems a very specific definition OF the
freedom of the press. The clause correspond


ing hereto in the present Bill OF Rights Is


identical with it, except that the sentence III
the above, beginning with "no conviction"
&C., reads as follows:


In prosecutions for the publication OF papers inVes


eating the conduct OF officers men in pubic
capacity or when the matter published is proper for
public information, the truth thereof may be gwen IN
evidences and in all indictments for bels the jury shall
have right TO determine the law and the facts under
the direction of the court, as IN other cases"


Ii nav be doubted whether the proposition
originally made by Mr.. Dallas does sufficiently
restrict the publishers of newspapers or hold
them to reasonable responsibility for their
published utterances. This was the fatal OBJ
lection to it in the minds of the Convention.
The glaring defects Of the existing law OF
libel and the gross abuses which had grown
up under it were patent enough, and 1t
was agreed that reform was demanded,
but Mr.. Dallas's first proposition was
so radical a change that 1T seemed
to the Convention to be throwing of
from the press all restraint, and leaving
the public practically no remedy against in
furious and libeOus publications. There was
a disposition on the part of some of the MEM
bers to make this clause of the Bill of Rights
very general in its terms and leave to the
\ bo ,f
upon the subject as should be deemed wise
and prudent. The answer to this was conclu-
sve. The Legislature has that power already;
has had it always; but the political Rings that
control legislation have found it for thernterest
to keep the press muzzled, to prevent its inter
ference with their operations. Under the law
as it now stands, the truth cannot be told
concerning the infamous sCOundrels who make
politics a trade legislation a matter of traffic,
political parties the Instruments of robbery and
wrong, and the people their victims 1t is the
duty of the journalist in a well ordered So
ciety and under just laws to hold up
the political cnt-purse to public repro
baton, to put the people on their guard
against dishonest officials and scheming,
corrupt demagOgues. But under the Penn
sylvania construction of the law of libel the
rogues had the whip hand of the press while
they held the people by the throat, and to
tell the truth about them was penitentiarY
offense. One of the objects sought by this
amendment was to release the press from such
shacllles, so that the people might learn the
truth and be aroused to cast off the rule of the
Ring. 1t was not safe to leave to the Legis-
lature which was the creature of the Ring the
enactment of laws the effect of which would
be to destroy or weaken Ring rule.


The practical operation of the provision
which makes publisher responsible for negli-
gence as well as malice, is yet to be learned;
but on the face Of it there does not seem to
be any great hardship in the requirement of
some degree of care and watchfulness on the
part of those who hold so important a relation
to society, and WELD so powerful an influence
in public affairs. journalism seeks no unusual
immunity, demands no special privileges; it
does not ask Gas large charter as the wind,
"to blow on whom it likes;n it only recognizes
its duty to society and ITSELF and asks
to be permitted to discharge that duty
faithfully and cOnscientiously. The inter-
ests of society and the interests of
clean, honest journalism are identical.
Decent journalism does not live on scandal
OF war with society; nor does it need to be
shackled or muzzled in the interests of public
morality. The position of THE TRIBUNE is
that of all respectable journals in the country,
and has been frankly stated heretofore. Who
ever feels aggrieved at any publication in a
newspaper should have a cheap and speedy
remedy, and where there is clear libel his
recovery in damages should be ample and
certain. But it should be remembered that,
with all the loose talk about reckless and
libelous journalism, it is very rare indeed that
nri vnte character Ia attacked eYcent in 90 ana