Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Typo: A Monthly Newspaper and Literary Review, Volume 6

Quixote as Editor

page 70

Quixote as Editor.

Every reader of Cervantes' immortal story finds that his sympathies throughout are with the eccentric hero. The other characters, whether fine ladies and gentlemen or rude peasants, are all more or less despicable. Mean and treacherous, lying and deceitful, they can find no higher employment nor more congenial recreation than devising elaborate and humiliating hoaxes for the man who, partly because he is unsuspicious and incapable of dissimulation, is from their point of view, an extremely funny character. Moreover, he so absurd as to think that he has a mission. He is also poor, which is another comical circumstance, and which renders him fair game for insult and contumely. Apart from his monomania, the knight of La Mancha is intellectually, as well as morally, far above his persecutors, and there is much of mature wisdom in his utterances. Yet he pays for his blunders a penalty more severe than others do for their sins; and we realize that this worthy man would not be many hours at large in a modern community before he would be « run in. » If he were to appear in the nineteenth, instead of the sixteenth century, we can guess what line he would take. He would not ride forth on his Rozinante, with Mambrino's helmet on his head, to redress human wrongs—he would buy a press and some types, and issue a newspaper. The result would be the same, and the Knight of the Rueful Countenance, ere long, would find himself the occupant of a prison cell.

Most people have read how gallantly, and at what enormous cost, The Times exposed a vast and deep-laid scheme to defraud the great financial institutions, and how a brass tablet in the Stock Exchange commemorates the action. We know how, at a later date, the same paper laid bare in all its details a great political conspiracy, and how the work was only checked by the astuteness of the rogues themselves, who entrapped the paper into publishing certain forged letters, and thereby temporarily succeeded in casting discredit upon the whole. It is well known how certain New York newspaper-men, at the risk of their lives, exposed and defeated the Tammany ring. Prominent among these was the late Mr George Jones, of the New York Times, who refused the tremendous bribe of five million dollars, offered to purchase his silence. And as the Spanish gentleman in his library pondered over the exploits of Amadis of Gaul and Palmerin of England, and burned to emulate them, so does the country editor sometimes dream of treading in the path of the British Thunderer or the Times of New York. There is no lack of abuses—political and financial rings are to be found, even in our small communities. Quixote goes forth on his mission. ؟Need we add that he comes to speedy grief, and has small thanks for his pains? A newspaper with great influence and large resources may succeed in the difficult task of defeating some villany which the authorities are afraid to touch, or with which they are secretly in league; but to the struggling and uninfluential paper such an attempt is suicidal. Even The Times itself, in its warfare of four years ago, came out so heavy a loser financially that its enemies predicted its speedy ruin. Quixote, upright and truthful though he be—the soul of honor and integrity— is not exactly the man who should edit a newspaper.

Yet there are times when a public journal, in the clear discharge of its duty, finds it necessary to publish what is in law and in fact a serious libel. There are cases where, notwithstanding every safeguard and the closest vigilance, a libel will find its way into print. In either case, the publisher or editor will probably have to see the matter through in the Supreme Court. The position is full of anxiety, and he consults a lawyer. This is not always the wisest thing to do. In Great Britain, there are professional men who are recognized authorities on the law of libel. In the colonies (saving the Supreme Court judges) there are none. It is not worth while for the ordinary practitioner to study the subject. In more than one important case the defendants would, to all appearance, have been better off if unrepresented by counsel. It was not so much for the libel as for the line of defence that they were cast in damages and costs.

When a newspaper man finds himself face to face with a libel action, he must turn a deaf ear to the friend, legal or otherwise, who urges him to plead « privilege. » The plea is futile, and is very likely to exasperate the Court. Nor should he put in a confused plea which may be taken to mean justification or privilege, guilty or not guilty, as the Court may choose to interpret. Only two courses are open— to withdraw as honorably as possible, or stand his ground and fight manfully to the end.

There are two ways of withdrawing. The defendant may, in effect, plead: « I am a liar, a defamer, and a scoundrel. I published the libel, knowing it to be false. I retract everything, and throw myself on the mercy of the Court. » We have never known such a plea to be put in, and do not expect ever to see it. But we have many times met with an « apology and retractation » quite as abject, signed by the offender, and published far and wide at his expense. It is overdone. Readers, while they feel some degree of contempt for the writer, attach little importance to the withdrawal; probably thinking that after all there may have been very good grounds for the charges. It is only too evident that the apology was dictated by a lawyer, and the signature obtained at the point of the legal bayonet. Practically there is only one way in which the journalist can withdraw. « I acknowledge that the charge was unfounded. I was misled by information which at the time I had every reason to believe correct. The libel was published in good faith, and with the honest belief that it was for the public good. I have already publicly apologised [and have tendered so much by way of damages to the plaintiff]. If this plea is urged in a straightforward manner and backed up by evidence, and the Court and jury are satisfied that there was no malice in the case, the penalty will not be very severe.

Privilege can only be urged in the case of an action arising out of a bonâ fide and correct report of proceedings in courts of justice or in parliament, or when reprinting public documents, such reprints not being garbled. It is very rare that proceedings are taken in such instances. We know of only one case where a man was foolish enough to take action against a newspaper for reprinting a parliamentary paper, and he was acting under legal advice. In this case, the plea of privilege was successfully set up; but it would be quite untenable in such cases as that of Evison v. Thornton, reported in our December issue, or Syms v. Haggen, heard during the present month.

If a man does not wish to withdraw, he must plead justification, or be prepared for the worst. For some unaccountable reason, lawyers are very shy of this plea. When Mr Haggen's counsel found his mouth closed and all his evidence shut out, he assured the Court that if he had mistaken the line of defence, it was with the concurrence of able counsel. This was actually the case. Two prominent legal gentlemen had held that to plead justification would be dangerous, and that on a plea of not guilty the accused could call evidence to show that he had acted in good faith, and had reasonable grounds for his belief. The Judge rightly refused the evidence as irrelevant.

page 71

It was an attempt to introduce proof of justification under cover of an entirely different plea. Judging by his Honor's remarks on the affidavits, Mr Haggen, under the plea of justification, could at least have established his bonâ fides. If the article—as damaging an all-round libel as ever was printed—was justifiable, ؟why, in the name of common sense, was not that plea, for which the law has made special provision, put in ؟Mr Edwards's loose references to « bushels » of libels and a « professional libeller » were unwarranted; but no one can blame him for assuming that the defendant did not plead justification because he knew his action could not be justified. The sentence of the Court was fully warranted, even though every word of the libel should yet prove to be true. If the defendant falsely and maliciously libelled the complainant and the department of justice, all will agree that he escaped with a very moderate penalty; for the injury to Mr Syms alone is irreparable. If, on the other hand, the statements were justified, he was rightly punished for not substantiating what he had written and published.

For after all, the primary object of a libel law is not, as some newspaper men seem to think, the protection of the press, but the protection of the public. By his nondescript defence, Mr Haggen effectually debarred the complainant from clearing himself of the foul charge against his character. It may have been in his power to have done so. He came prepared, his counsel said, with « bushels » of affidavits; and had justification been the plea, he would have been heard. As it is, he still lies under the stigma, intensified by the hints of defendant's counsel, and the extraordinary affidavits, which, though their contents are not publicly known, evidently made a deep impression on the Chief Justice.

One more word of advice to Quixote the editor. Before publishing a libel, be perfectly sure not only that it is true, but that its publication is for the public good. The interests of society, as well as the law, demand this much. Even this is not enough. Be sure that you have such evidence of its truth that in a court of justice you can establish every word and every detail. Then you may, with some degree of safety, go ahead. Even in that case, according to the Chief Justice, there is a more excellent way. Do not publish the facts, but lay an information and procure a committal—the law will not hold you responsible, even if you have made a mistake. Here all newspaper men will join issue with his Honor. It may be a more risky, but it is a more legitimate method, for an editor to fight the battles of the public through his paper than as a common informer in the courts. The law might sustain him, but he would certainly incur the ill-will of the community.