NEWSPAPERS AS PROPERTY.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 48, 26 February 1864, Page 5

NEWSPAPERS AS PROPERTY.

(From the Economist) There is One side of all press questions wliich public men, whether hostile or favorable to journalism, seem hi all countries to forget. Newspapers , anc property, very fluctuating property it is true, but still as much property as any other business likely to be affected by the presence or absence of certain mental capacities. The security of that property is a3 reasonable an object of statesmen's solicitude as the security of any other, and there are, as we shaU immediately show, special reasons for believing that the pecuniary value of journals is an immense check upon the abuses inherent in journalistic as in all other forms of power. As a matter of fact, though the principal writers in many journals are shareholders, there are but two firstrclass papers in London in which the two functions are absolutely and avowedly united. Yet public" men, whenever they discuss the.question, always ■ speak as if they regarded the editors and contributors only, and liad never heard of a press interest, distinct from that of men of letters. Mr. Cobden, for example, has published tliis week a letter, in which he threatens to drag the editor of the Times from the shelter of the anonymous, and by implication at least condemns utterly that system of writing. Tho Times, witli the want of fairness wliich, when the Manchester School is concerned, it sometimes displays^ had accused Mr. Bright of proposing at Rochdale to enrich the- poor by dividing the , estates of tlio rich. Mr.; Cobden, .though not himself attacked, lost his temper at the charge on, his friend,' and, of Pourse, though wiser than riiost men when cool, is, when angry, as silly as all the rest of. us. He sent a ferocious letter >to the. Times, /accusing its staff of seeking

'■ coWfiipt" advantages, arid its .'.edifetf of, pva* suing "a grwrie of seefesy to; the and -servility to the Government,*' and -tfo*drid up & letter at once furious and;.foolish by the' 10l- ** lowing proposal: — " It will be for public men to decide, each in his. own case, , (for myself! have no doubt on the subject),' whether, in response' to such attacks as these, theywill continue to treat the Times as an impersonal myth, or whether, on the. contrary,;, they will in future summon the .responsible! editor, mariager, or proprietor to the Jt»ar of .public 1 opiniori, ; and hold him; up by name to the obloquy which awaits- the traducer •aridcalumniator in every other walk of :. political ; and social 'life*'' -V '*-• v.Ayr a A ■ r->:?A\i;,. -V „; We are not about to discuss the. advantages; arid evils of the anonymous as regards^newspaper writers; They haye been discussed ad nauseam, i and it is hot' necessary ■ for : wA[ to argue that"* signatures would .in ; no)degre« diminish the virulence ' : and. . njifairness of.wliich Mr.* Cobden complains. ; His own letter is its. own" answer, '.for he signs his name to ; a production very much, more insulting and unjust than ithe accusation ; which called it forth; But - we. want to point out how, the . privilege of , the . anonymous affect's English journals as property, /.and how property rights affect the tone; of 'English journalism; '■' -V-V' • V ; '* --^V- "_ ' It is not too much to say that a law prohibiting anonymous writing would -involve the confiscation of one-half the newspaper v prpperty of Great Britain. '- It 'would transfer the ownership froiri the proprietors 'toa yery few conspicuous writers; People 'who buy newspapers do "so first of all for the j sake ,of the news, afimction in which one' journal tends, under the levelling influence . of railway^ and telegraphs, to become very nearly as good as another; 1 arid, "secondly^ for certain 'articles which, either for • views .-'or": style,- or 'both, interest and amuse them. If the names of the writers were signed, the .public, would in a month recognise the individual, ; pen .which most deeply gratified their tastes, /and would; followthem wherever they wenty The proprietors, therefore, would be compelled* either to admit those -writers to partner ship,-or to N pay them salaries, . which would, * pr^tically transfer the revenue l. of .the journal to them, pr by letting them- go, 'run.' the risli of'almost-im-mediate ruin. • They could inthe va^t !-' competition of London secure writers quite as able, but everybody- would look- for the signature, to which he had been accustomed. Smith might be as good as Jones, but people who have been delighted with Jones won't take the, trouble to cultivate the same delight in Sririth. : Mr. Douglas Jerrold, for instance^to; fquote an instance too wellknown to be invidious-— could probably have carried half the constituency of Lloyd's Weekly away to a rival, publication. This does indeed occur in France, where the signing system exists, 'the -"adhesion" of a man like, say Edriiond /About, -to : a. paper, being , matter . of graye 1 iinpqrtjV to the prpprietorof the paper he quits. ..The system is not quite ruinous in" France, -because, the existing journals of Paris have from many causes a sort of moriopoly, butof they had riot, a few writers would be able to command salaries which would swallow -up the whole profits of journalism. They would,, in fact, treat the proprietary as the great -smgerstreat operatic lessees, and it would, in a year or two be advisable to pay litterateurs' not to join' a rival production. Supposing .Mrr- Charles Dickens unattached, for example, it AwpyUdpay the proprietors of "All the Tear Round 'A to give him a life annuity not to join_" Once a Week." In a very short time the oily safe newspapers would be those in which the favorite writers were also the sole or ruling proprietors, and every really 'successful .' leadermaker would set up a paper of his own, arid the existing properties would be in .fact transferred. ''A- '"■■'•; That process niight or might, not be advantageous to the literary class ;— they are, as a rule, such very bad men of business, that we think on the whole it would -not,— but, it would most undubitably be disadvantageous to the country. It is, we conceive, to '■ the very remarkable division of power - between the editor andthe proprietary ;which prevails in the English press that much of its; special tone is to be attributed, its conspicuous moderation, its freedom from idealogy, arid its immoveable conservative leaning." There is not, so far as we know, at this moment a really subversive paper in England, and only one — The Nation —which advocates., views opposed to the ordinary laws of the larid. There are plenty of clever writers among* us of very extreme opinions, dozens, for example, who could, if unfettered, soon create:a strong party devoted to what we may style— -thoxigh we admit the injustice of the word— "socialist" views upon property. There are very'niany more — more than any one not acquainted with the talk of editors'", offices -would believe — who would begin a crusade for labor as against capital. They write, as it is, quite freely enough, but then, under existing arrangements, then* views are bound down till they are endurable by men who, being proprietors, have all the inherent instincts ; bf a propertied class, who will not bear j,' for. example, repeated attacks on the institution.of property. The result is not to silence such men — that would be most injurious—- but "to employ their very Considerable force ' in harmony with existing institutions, Fourrier, as it were, employing himself in promoting, cooperative stores in Rochdale, Prqudhon pleading fiercely against overstrained protection for game, and Victor Hugo protesting against treating criminals like wild beasts.- - Extreihe opinions are forced by the pressure tobecome" working opinions, and their possessors, instead of dreamily discussing first principles, .or wasting their strength in destruction, contribute their quota, often a very valuable brie, to the general progress of the people. 'Those who doubt the accuracy of tMs view will, do ~ well to remark the thorough conservatism, of tone — we do not, of course mean in a party sense — which distinguishes . all the successful penny newspapers. As they have become properties so they have beconie conservative, till at this moment the most radical of; them all would be pronounced ;by■. a- continental ideaJogue decidedly anti-progressive. .The horror, df disorder, tumult, anarchy of any kind, which is a great part to the same cause, and, though sometimes pushed very : far, has, on the whole, a most beneficial result, .-.- The propertied class, ,, in feet, influences the press, as it does ,, every . other power , in the country, and as its 'weight is' always,- in favor of the order and decency without which political life sOon becomes a riaade strife of • factions, it is " well- that it should. To abolish the anonymous is to destroy its influence,- to destroy its influence is to hand the whole press over to the ideologues, and we may warn Mr. Cobden it is not his ideas which, they will strive to advance. At the same times, perfect secrecy would be most prejudicial to : the true value of English journals, for it would shut up the very, best channels of information. , Editors, cannot write beneficially^ without data, and data can only be obtained from the men who really guide events. Suppose no Editor in England really know the view of tho British Cabinet upca this Schleswig-Holstein affair, how could th y either stir up the people -to support, or resist its action ? They would either havo to strike in tlie dark, so making inextricable confusion between the country and its governing men, or to dictate the courso tlie Cabinet must follow, that is, in fact, to resume the reins themselvos, and, as editors did in France, under Louis Phillippe, and do in America now, initiate a policy of their own.-" They must, to be efficient^ ascertain the .truth, aaid responsible statesmen will not communicate information to invisible persons. Thoy must know more or less the individuals they are trusting, and thus the very practice Mr. Cobden assails so bitterly — secrecy -to -the publio and non-secrecy to the administration , —ha*} arisen for the general benefit of all.