Page:History of Oregon Newspapers.pdf/167

158 Stark streets—Mr. R. E. Bybee, Mr. C. B. Bellinger, and Mr. A. Noltner—engaged in conversation. J. K. Mercer was standing in the doorway of Mr. O'Brien's cigar store listening to the conversation which was going on. The three gentlemen named were standing nearer the edge of the sidewalk than the door of the cigar store. While the conversation was going on, Mr. McDonald came along. He passed the gentlemen, going between them and the cigar store. Apparently his purpose was to pass along and not stop. Just as he came opposite the door he glanced up and, observing Mercer standing there, he stopped, confronting Mercer. Confronting Mercer, McDonald said: "Mercer, are you responsible for that article attacking my family?" The question was asked in an ordinary tone of voice, within hearing of the three gentlemen on the sidewalk and several who were in the cigar store at the time. When interrogated Mercer was observed to rather quail and shrink back. He admitted that he was responsible for the offending article, at the same time making some rather insulting remarks, in effect saying, "Well, what do you propose to do about it?"

The quarrel was then described at length, and finally the shooting, in which some eight shots were exchanged. The next day the Oregonian involved both Chapman, the editor, and Mercer, saying that Chapman had written the article from information given him by his associate. McDonald, fatally wounded, died the next day, and Mercer, tried for murder, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years in the state prison.

Commenting on the incident, the Oregonian, in an editorial September 20, called attention to the conditions which had resulted in the shooting:

"There is a style of journalism (the editorial said) or pretended journalism, that is always a menace to the public peace. It is malicious and scurrilous, utterly without responsibility, has no regard for the decencies of life, wantonly as sails private character and even invades the sancticty of homes; it collects filth from all quarters and, passing it through its columns, makes it more filthy still; and, relying for immunity on its want of personal character and its utter pecuniary irresponsibility, it riots in slander and defies those whom it assails to obtain redress."

The editorial concluded by ascribing a share of responsibility to the patrons of the paper who made that sort of thing possible.

Somewhat similar sentiments on the part of other papers led to a movement to obtain a tightening of the existing loose laws on libel.