THE LAW OF LIBEL
Mr. McMULLEN, from a majority of the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Patton's [H. R. 36] to amend certain sections of an act concerning public offenses-to make libel a civil offense; with a recommendation that it pass with certain amendments. A minority report from the same Committee recommended the striking out of Section 10, the present law.
Mr. MOODY said: It seems to me that the reason these standing Committees are appointed is in reference to their fatness, and it certainly seems to me that we should give some consideration to their recommendation.
Mr. SMITH said: What the gentleman says is very pertinent, but I am a little like Andrew Jackson, who said, when asked if he had not worn to support the Constitution, said I swore to support the Constitution as I understood it. He desired an explanation of the provisions of the bill before voting on it.
Mr. McMULLEN said: I think if the gentleman from Tippecanoe [Mr. Smith] will not insist on the reading of the bill I can briefly explain the changes proposed, and thereby save the time that would be consumed by the reading The first section proposes a change in the existing law in this: the present statute makes it embezzlement for a tenant to appropriate to his own use, with Intent to defraud his landlord, the share of the crop belonging to the landlord. Under the present statute an indictment will net lie unless the whole crop is appropriated. The amendment reported by the Committee makes it embezzlement to thus appropriate $25 worth of a crop. The amendment reported by the Committee to Section 2 takes out of the present statute but part of what is known as the provoke law, making it a misdemeanor to attempt to provoke another to commit a breach of the peace. Sections 4 5. 6, 7, and 8 seek to amend the game laws by allowing seining and netting fish and trapping and otherwise killing quails. The Committee believe the present laws are better than the proposed bill, and therefore ask that the said Section be stricken out. Your Committee has reported in favor of Section 9 of this bill, for the reason that the Statutes of 1881 leave out the words, "or any false pretense," and this bill seeks to re-enact the statute as it is found in the statutes of 1876. Our Supreme Court, in a late case that will be reported in 8lst Indiana, came to the conclusion that under the statute as it now is, an indictment will not lie unless the false pretense is a false token or writing. The bill seeks to remedy that matter by enacting that if a person obtain anything of value by false verbal misrepresentation, he shall be punished. Section 2 of this bill seeks to repeal the libel act. Your Committee believes that the existing act is a statutory law and should not be repealed. We believe that persons pecuniarily irresponsible can be reached in no other way than through this act A judgment in an action of slander avails nothing, and if this statute is repealed DO remedy is left.
Mr. PATTEN said: I am in favor of repealing this libel law; that is, the law that makes it criminal to write and print libel. It think it is contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. For sixty years the State of Indiana existed without criminal libel, and it was only four years ago that it was incorporated in the statutes of Indiana. All men who attempt to do what is right need no such law as this to protect them. Today libel stands upon the same footing as that of slander. I think if it is right to make criminal libel it is right to make criminal slander. I think it is proper that we should have press criticism. Let the newspapers lay on the lash to every scoundrel in Indiana. An honest man invites criticism at all times. The newspapers are the schoolmasters to educate the people. I think this is a law that ought to be repealed. I hope that this House will wipe it out of existence. Every man in this House is willing to stand upon his own character, and as one Representative I am willing to be criticised.
The minority report was rejected.
