THE LAW OF LIBEL.
[TO TR. EDITOR or Tal "Srzcwron."1 Sra,—I am pleased to notice that you are calling attention to the present state of the law of libel. I have been engaged in writing upon financial subjects for the past twenty-five years, and I know from personal experience how hardly the law presses upon all newspaper men, and especially upon those who, like myself, are continually called upon to criticise pro- motions or financial transactions. It is my businesi to know all that goes on in the City. It should be my business to tell people what. I know. But would any newspaper print my articles ? Is it likely that a great daily paper of ample means would risk the chance of every shady promoter in the City taking proceedings for libel, proceedings which must always end in loss to the newspaper ? However careful a daily paper may be, it knows that a certain percentage of its profits must go each year in defending libel actions that should never have been brought, or in settling cases that are only one remove from blackmail. Financial criticism has therefore degenerated into the manufacture of innocuous paragraphs that have no meaning to those interested in finance, and are not intended to convey any meaning. Even the relation of bare fact is dangerous. A short time back a director of a well-known company informed me that his company would pass the dividend. I duly chronicled the fact in a daily newspaper. But the chairman did not wish the news made public, and he instructed the solicitors to threaten the paper with an action for libel unless they contradicted the statement, which they promptly did. Yet the dividend was duly passed! If a newspaper proprietor could make men of straw find security for costs, a large percentage of libel actions would never be brought. But the shady solicitor, and his still more shady client, know quite well that, however frivolous the action, no Judge can insist upon the plaintiff in a libel action finding this security. As the newspaper has everything to lose, and nothing to gain, it prefers to compromise a definite loss by paying cash down. The law of libel has had the earnest attention of the Newspaper Society for many years, but it cannot apparently effect the change it desires. Parliament declines to act, on the ground that it must protect the public, but I contend that the libel laws protect the promoter and City shark. This was never intended, and the sooner the alteration you advocate is made, the better for the public
and the Press.—I am, Sir, &c., RAYMOND RADCLYFFH. 15 Copthall Avenue, E.C.
Previous page
