OCR Text |
Show ? m ' l N0T NECESSARY TO SPEAK IN WHISPERS . W' ' t This paper has commented approvingly on the decision of tho ! !& supreme court of the state of Missouri upholding the right, of a g newspaper to present the shortcomings of men in public positions to I K the public so that the peoplo may be informed as to the conduct of m their servants. The Salt Lake Tribune takes up this same subject E& Ud f?ly reinforCcs what wo have said with this editorial opinion : $jj vl "The Supreme Court of the State of Missouri has recently H rendered, a straightforward, commonsense opinion "on the matter IIL f th liberty of newspapers to comment upon matters of public KS moment, even though officials may consider themselves injured by W$hi cn comment. A St. Louis paper commented editorially on a bank mj& ; failure, and criticized the Secretary of State for his delay in clos-KEf clos-KEf ln& t,e bank when it was already insolvent, and, as the paper HP claimed was known to be so by the Secretary of State. The Sec-V Sec-V retary sued the paper for libel, and the ease proceeded through the Sf various llearinSs until it reached 1he Supreme Court of the State. y j& That court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which held wL' 'againfl tllc nesP'Per, and restated the old doctrine of freedom of fr the discussion in the following well-chosen words-Sf words-Sf . The legal propositions that a newspaper has the right K fairly and honestly to comment upon a matter of public Rp&, interest and that the official conduct of a public officer is BfeV a matter of public interest are well settled ;,' - The people arc not obliged to speak of the conduct of mL, their officials in whispers or in bated breath in a free gov- &. ernment, but only in a despotism. W i "There can be no doubt but that this is not only the true I principle of law, but is the only fair principle that can possibly K be adopted in this country. For, if a newspaper is not allowed to fc express its opinion as to the derelictions, either supposed or actual, B of public officials, then the public has no protection against cils-KjJ cils-KjJ honest officialdom. No honest newspaper wishes unjustly to as-Bfe as-Bfe sail any public official, either personally or in the performance of K his public duties, but the right to comment upon official acts, to K criticize the doings of public officials, is one of the bulwarks ot p .j freedom which cannot safely be assailed in a Republic. -s" "The decision of the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirms n woll- y .established principle in American jurisprudence, aii'l, in fact, in English jurisprudence, as announced by Chief Justice Cockburn mri r- hi ill II i i i in i II i ! TwmrM m T that, 'those' vfho fill a" public position must not be too thin-skinifclf in reference to comments made upon them.5 "The time will never come in this or nny other free country when the newspapers will be debarred from their rightful privileges of fair comment upon public acts, without reference to the high .standing or eminent official position of the one criticised." |