 |
| 1880 Pocket Pistol Advertisement |
Before we get into this story, let's remember that even in the 1880s, the law was the same as today in that there are two forms of defamation and a distinct difference between slander and libel. While they are both defamation, slander refers to spoken defamatory statements; libel refers to defamatory statements made in a permanent form, such as in writing or print. Either way, spoken or printed, they are an assault on someone's reputation. Both are considered civil wrongs, with the focus being on the damage caused to a person's reputation.
Someone can make the argument that someone's name and reputation were viewed as more of a valuable asset back in the Old West than it is today. As for a slanderer's defense, his only real defense is to prove that the statement he made was true. Of course, the slanderer has no defense if his statement is proven false. And think about this, whether in the Old West or today, proving specific monetary loss from slander can be difficult. Because that's the case, it makes it hard to win a slander case unless the victim can prove monetary loss from what the slanderer said.
The primary focus was on "reputational harm" and protecting an individual's reputation from false and damaging statements. Because of that, in the 1880s, courts tended to favor those bringing libel suits. And here's something else, in many states, a defamatory statement was presumed false, and the defendant had the responsibility of proving what was written was true.
Yes, in some states, the courts placed the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate the truthfulness of what was printed. That was the way things were. Of course, that meant that defamation claims could be brought to court a lot easier, even for minor inaccuracies in newspapers.
In the 1880s, libel law favored those claiming reputational harm. The plaintiff's burden of proof was often lower, and Constitutional protections were limited. That means there were a lot of challenges for newspapers back in the day. Yes, especially during the era of sensational journalism, also known as "Yellow Journalism," where newspapers felt they were above the law and showed they had no decency by printing just about anything they wanted to.
So yes, a lot of newspapers were sued and lost a lot of money for printing fake stories, out-and-out lies, and defamatory statements. Some newspapers even went bankrupt after being sued for libel.
So why did I just tell you all of this? Well, it goes to why one newspaper editor shot his rival newspaper editor. You see, the murderer printed something in his newspaper about his rival editor that couldn't be proven, and he knew he'd lose a libel suit. He called the rival editor a "Horse Thief," in his newspaper. It wasn't a really smart move.
The rival editor decided to sue for libel. On the day that he went to their local courthouse to start his lawsuit, the other newspaper editor, the one who printed the defamatory comment, showed up. So yes, one newspaper editor was suing the other newspaper editor for libel over one calling the other a "Horse Thief" in print. What happened next makes the story especially sad.
As reported in the Morning Press newspaper on February 16, 1880:
EDITOR SHOOTS RIVAL EDITOR
S. H. Brummett, editor of the Hollister Enterprise, was shot and killed by G. W. Carlton, publisher and editor of the Hollister Telegraph. It was the result of a newspaper quarrel. The deceased leaves a wife and two children.
The bitter newspaper war waged for some time past by George W. Carlton and E. S. Harrison, of the Hollister Telegraph on the one side, and S. H. Brummett, of the Hollister Enterprise, on the other, resulted on the 12th in the murder of the last mentioned editor. The causes which led to the murder may be briefly explained:
It appears that the Supervisors of San Benito County invited bids from the three weeklies in the county to publish the delinquent tax list, which involves a profit to the contractor of $5OO. The proprietors of the aforesaid weeklies agreed among themselves to make a joint bid, so that they might all share in the profit. Such a bid was sent in, but one George W. Carlton got a fourth party, for a consideration, to put in a lower bid, and the contract was awarded to him. The bitter feeling this underhanded act caused was great, and an article on the subject appeared in the next issue of the Enterprise attacking Carlton, who retaliated by publishing statements most derogatory to Brummett’s character.
On the day of the shooting, Carlton's Telegraph contained an article denouncing Brummett as
"A HORSE THIEF,
a debauchee, and a man whose whole life had been revolting in the extreme."
Immediately on reading the article, Brummett started for the courthouse, saying that he would give Carlton a chance to prove his charges in court. While waiting there for the District Attorney, about 11 a.m., George W. Carlton came up with both hands in his pockets.
Brummett asked him why he had “published such a lie about him?’’
Carlton, on the instant, without a word, drew a revolver and shot him through the head, the bullet penetrating the brain.
THE HOLLISTER HOMICIDE
— FUNERAL OF S. H. BRUMMETT.
The obsequies of S. H. Brummett, an account of whose murder at Hollister has already appeared in the Press, took place there on the 13th. The funeral services were conducted in the Christian Church by the Rev. J. K. Wallace, who preached an affecting sermon. The church was filled to overflowing with a sympathetic congregation. The funeral was conducted by the Hollister Fire Department, and was attended by citizens in carriages and on foot, making the largest cortege ever seen there. The business houses were all closed till the obsequies had ended. The grief of the wife at the grave was heartrending.
The deceased was born and raised in South San Juan and left many warm friends and relatives in the county. Everything possible has been done for the widow and her fatherless children.
The Enterprise will be continued by John McGonigle, its former owner. No violence toward Carlton is apprehended, although the jail is double-guarded, as also is the Telegraph. Carlton has made no statement other than to claim that his action was done in self-defense.
-- end of article
The Pacific Rural Press published the following report on February 21, 1880:
The killing of one editor by another at Hollister, California, last week gives occasion for a brief preachment on one phase of journalistic ethics. It would indeed seem as though the affair at Hollister, the rise of the spirit of Cain, the shedding of blood, the wails of the widow, the silent eloquence of the grave, would have some power to put an end to petty warfare between editors, which, beginning in an ill-use of type, proceeds at length through steps of hate, vituperation and slander, until at last the personal encounter is reached and a life is taken, while the demoralizing excitement and useless expense of a murder trial are inflicted upon a peaceful community.
And Why? Simply because two men have forgotten their duties as citizens — have proved false to their mission as journalists; have outraged their own consciences, and instead of being public teachers and conservators of public morals, have become public brawlers —a menace to the peace of their neighborhoods; a curse to themselves and the land they live in. It is no part of honorable journalism to serve personal ends.
It is a sublime conceit which leads an editor to think that the public is more interested in his personal ambitions, disappointments, and grievances than they are in the private affairs of any other citizen of equal rank. It is true that there is a class of people who gloat over journalistic quarrels and roll under their tongues the sweet morsels of slander and abuse which quarreling editors defile their columns with.
As a rule, it is the same class that would stand in the wrapt contemplation of a dog fight. And while the editor who allows himself to indulge in personal thrusts at his neighbor is winning the plaudits of this element of society, he is losing the respect and esteem of those whose encouragement and support alone can make his paper an enduring power for good in the community. Thus, he abuses the trust committed to him, and if he reaches success by the stinging quality of his pen and the conscienceless nature of journalistic behavior, it is because he finds supporters who are thoughtlessly led into his low tone of thought, or are fitted by nature and surroundings to enjoy it.
Of course, we do not mean that editors should be incited by unity of thought, and, like birds in their little nests, agree. So long as the imperfections of human knowledge cause differences of opinion, it must be expected that journals will disagree, and it is in the interest of the determination of truth that they should. It is well that journalists maintain the faith that is in them by the most vigorous writing within their power.
There is enough in ideas and principles to employ a writer's most acute thought and trenchant style, and the exercise of such abilities will win him renown. But to forget that this is the mission of his calling, and to till his sheet with ill-natured attacks upon the personality of his rival papers, is an insult to the community and a breach of contract with readers who are fed upon petty personal passions, hates and slanders instead of the news and the truths of general value which it is the office of the newspaper to disseminate.
We trust that all journals which are disposed to make their personal quarrels the subjects of their heaviest journalistic labor will take warning from the Hollister episode. Summon a little self-respect and a little respect for the calling of the journalist, and the evil influence of personality in journalism will be no more.
Personality in Journalism.
The killing of one editor by another at Hollister, California, last week gives occasion for a brief preachment on one phase of journalistic ethics. It would indeed seem as though the affair at Hollister, the rise of the spirit of Cain, the shedding of blood, the wails of the widow, the silent eloquence of the grave, would have some power to put an end to petty warfare between editors, which, beginning in an ill-use of type, proceeds at length through steps of hate, vituperation and slander, until at last the personal encounter is reached and a life is taken, while the demoralizing excitement and useless expense of a murder trial are inflicted upon a peaceful community.
And Why? Simply because two men have forgotten their duties as citizens — have proved false to their mission as journalists; have outraged their own consciences, and instead of being public teachers and conservators of public morals, have become public brawlers —a menace to the peace of their neighborhoods; a curse to themselves and the land they live in. It is no part of honorable journalism to serve personal ends.
It is a sublime conceit which leads an editor to think that the public is more interested in his personal ambitions, disappointments, and grievances than they are in the private affairs of any other citizen of equal rank. It is true that there is a class of people who gloat over journalistic quarrels and roll under their tongues the sweet morsels of slander and abuse which quarreling editors defile their columns with.
As a rule, it is the same class that would stand in the wrapt contemplation of a dog fight. And while the editor who allows himself to indulge in personal thrusts at his neighbor is winning the plaudits of this element of society, he is losing the respect and esteem of those whose encouragement and support alone can make his paper an enduring power for good in the community. Thus, he abuses the trust committed to him, and if he reaches success by the stinging quality of his pen and the conscienceless nature of journalistic behavior, it is because he finds supporters who are thoughtlessly led into his low tone of thought, or are fitted by nature and surroundings to enjoy it.
Of course, we do not mean that editors should be incited by unity of thought, and, like birds in their little nests, agree. So long as the imperfections of human knowledge cause differences of opinion, it must be expected that journals will disagree, and it is in the interest of the determination of truth that they should. It is well that journalists maintain the faith that is in them by the most vigorous writing within their power.
There is enough in ideas and principles to employ a writer's most acute thought and trenchant style, and the exercise of such abilities will win him renown. But to forget that this is the mission of his calling, and to till his sheet with ill-natured attacks upon the personality of his rival papers, is an insult to the community and a breach of contract with readers who are fed upon petty personal passions, hates and slanders instead of the news and the truths of general value which it is the office of the newspaper to disseminate.
We trust that all journals which are disposed to make their personal quarrels the subjects of their heaviest journalistic labor will take warning from the Hollister episode. Summon a little self-respect and a little respect for the calling of the journalist, and the evil influence of personality in journalism will be no more.
-- end of article.
George W. Carlton is now on trial at San Jose for the killing of S. H. Brummett at Hollister last February. Brummett was editor of the Enterprise at Hollister, while Carlton edited the Telegraph in the same town. Carlton denounced Brummett as a "horse thief." The next day, Brummett met Carlton and asked, “What made you put in that d—d lie about me?” At this, Carlton drew a pistol and shot Brummett dead. Carlton is only indicted for manslaughter.
-- end of article.
The Ventura Signal newspaper reported the following on August 28, 1880:
Carlton Convicted.
San Luis Obispo Tribune, The editor Carlton, who killed a business rival at Hollister and unjustly escaped indictment for murder, was convicted by a jury in San Jose last week of the crime of manslaughter. Every means was afforded this murderer to evade the penalty of his cowardly crime. The grand jury indicted him for manslaughter when the presentment ought to have been for murder.
A change of venue was given him, and the trial was transferred to Santa Clara County. Notwithstanding all these advantages, Carlton was convicted. The prompt conviction of this fellow is an indication that the people of California are becoming weary of the bloody dramas, which have been so frequently enacted during the last few years, and are determined to discourage future assassinations by enforcing the statutes against the assassins. If juries will but do their oath-imposed duty, the murder era in California will speedily close. Carlton has been sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.
-- end of the article.
So now, you may be asking yourself how Carlton, though intentionally going to the courthouse with a pistol in his pocket to shoot Brummett, and did without provocation, was not charged with murder instead of manslaughter? We know that Carlton approached his rival newspaperman, Brummett, and shot him in the face because Brummett was in the process of suing him for libel. And no, it's not every day that I read about one newspaper editor shooting a rival newspaper editor over something printed in a rival paper.
Most folks at the time believed that Carlton simply drew a pistol from his pocket and shot his fellow journalist in the face because the dead man was about to sue the killer and would have probably won a lot of money for what he printed. It was believed by many in San Benito County that Brummett may have even put Carlton's newspaper out of business.
And with local tempers running pretty hot, Carlton's defense requested and got a change of venue to a place where he was not known. Then Carlton claimed "self-defense," and he had his charges reduced to manslaughter instead of murder. And a jury, yes, in 1880, only awarded Carlton six years in prison for killing Brummett by shooting him in the face.
Of course, as I said before, "What happened next makes the story especially sad."
So yes, George W. Carlton shot a man in the head to stop from being sued for libel and got away with murder. Some say the system failed. Others said that he and his lawyers played the system. Either way, Carlton got away scot-free without ever having to pay for what he did.
Which, of course, with all of us knowing how such things still take place with regularity today, shows us that times haven't changed much after all.
Tom Correa
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.