Page:History of Oregon Newspapers.pdf/260

Rh "Judge Hanna's ruling yesterday," said the Tribune of January 1908, in the course of the trial, "practically shut out all material evidence for the defendant, by denying him the statutory right to prove the truth of his alleged libelous article, after he had testified as to the proper motive for publication." One of the witnesses for Putnam was Oswald West, then railroad commissioner, later governor.

To make a long story short, the supreme court of the state of Oregon came to the rescue of Putnam, who, incidentally, had the story in his own paper covered colorlessly, with all subjective description studiously avoided. The record of the case in the Jackson county courthouse shows the following summary:

—True bill for libel.

Found guilty and fined $150.

Supreme court finds error in trial as alleged; judgment of lower court in all things reversed and set aside and new trial awarded to the appellant.

Circuit court allows Putnam $45 for his court costs.

Case dismissed for want of prosecution; further ordered defendant and his bond be exonerated.

This was a complete vindication of Putnam's conduct as an editor. As long as he remained in Medford, about eleven more years from the date of his trial, he continued to criticise freely whenever he thought public interest demanded.

When the Daily Tribune entered its fourth year (March 20, 1909), just a few weeks before the consolidation of the Mail and the Tribune as the Mail Tribune, Editor Putnam said, in a double-column leading editorial of several hundred words:

"The paper that has no enemies has no friends. . . The Tribune has critics—but "to escape criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing," and the Tribune has something to say, something to do, and intends always to be vital force in the life of the community. It has the courage of its convictions.

A bitter personal fight has been made against the Tribune because it printed the truth. It has fought anew the battle for the freedom of the press. It has been boycotted because its policy could not be controlled. Its editor has been thrown in jail, unjustly convicted and fined, slugged on the streets, and denied justice by two grand juries. . . But having established the justice of its cause, The Tribune, with charity for all, bears malice toward none."