Rensselaer Republican, Volume 25, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 March 1893 — REFUSED TO AMEND AN UNJUST LAW. [ARTICLE]

REFUSED TO AMEND AN UNJUST LAW.

The legislature has made some important changes in the Indiana school book law. One is the trustees may purchase books for use in the schools as property of the schools, another that dealers will be allowed a per cent, for handling the books, but the solons could not be persuaded to permit supplementary work to be used in the schools. This is, however, a dead clause practically, as most schools, both city and country, use supplementary books. They cannot get along without them. The state series is not comprehensive enough.

The Indianapolis Journal cites the cases of Salmon P. Chase and Horace Greeley, who turned their -backs upon the party in whioh they became distinguished, and by which they were honored, to achieve the presidency, as parallel to that of Judge Gresham at the present time. Both of these great men, much greater than Gresham, died unhappy with~noneof their high hopes realized. The presidential bee has been buzzing for so long a time in Gresham’s hair that his head is turned and he is led by this ignis fatuus over into the enemy’s country where he is to get lost in the shuffle.

The senate yesterday tabled the bill to amend the Grubbs libel in the interest of newspapers. The bill, which was introduced by Senator Magee, proposed to amend the present law so as to allow a pub fisher, in case of a libel suit, to submit in evidence any subsequent publication in the way of retraction, explanation or apology to disprove the allegation of malice. This just and reasonable amendment to the law was refused the amendatory bill being, on the motion of Senator McHugh, laid on the table. This action is a denial of justice to the press. The present law makes publishers liable in heavy damages for a libelous or defamatory publication which may have been foisted upon them by interested parties or have come in the way of regular correspondence, and been published without any malice whatever and supposing it to be true* The publisher is denied the opportunity of showing that he did not know the publication was libelous and that he had no malice. A man who is charged with passing counterfeit money is permitted to show that he has no guilty knowledge that it is counterfeit. Guilty knowledge is a necessary element of most crimes, yet under the Grubbs law publishers who are made defendants in libel suits are denied the opportunity to show that they had no guilty knowledge or malice. b nator McHugh, of Tippecanoe, led the opposition to the amendatory bill, and took occasion to denounce American newspapers and newspaper men in very strong language. Judging from the tone of his speech, we should say that with a little training in Russian methods he would make a very good censor of the press, of the kind he seems to think it needs.

He is doubtless smarting under the deserved lashings he has recently had on account of some of his Satanic legislative schemes, and took this method of getting even with the press. It was a mean and cowardly revenge, and the press will not forget him, nor those who voted with him against amending the Grubbs law. —Indianapolis Journal. We fully endorse the above sentiments of the Journal. There is no newspaper that is not liable at any time to be misled into publishing libelous matter, and not only without malice upon the part of the newspaper but actually from a desire to serve the best interests of society by denouncing wrong

doing. The proposed amendment to the Grubbs libel law did not relieve newspapers from liability if they retracted and corrected the libellous mat ter, but on ly gave them alTopportunity to mitigate the damages by proving in court the fact that they had made such retraction and correction. It was no more than the commonest justice to have given them that right But the state senators refused this act of justice and we regret most keenly to be obliged to say that our own senator, Hon. W. W. Oilman’s, name was given among those who virtually declare that newspaper publishers are outside the pale of ordinary right and justice