THE PRESS AND PUBLIC OPINION 379
is ready to follow that standard. Artists, dramatists, musicians adhere to a standard and would scorn a proposal involving the prostitution of their artistic ideals. The social influence of art — Count Tolstoi to the contrary notwithstanding — is infinitesi- mal as compared with that of the daily press. The greater the power and opportunity, the more solemn and grave the respon- sibility.
Legislation can do nothing to improve the quality of the daily press. Even the libel laws are seldom invoked and afford little protection from the deliberate assaults of malicious pens. More comprehensive laws it would puzzle the most astute jurist to frame. Just as it is impossible to draw a legal line between "shilling shockers" and yellow-covered semi-criminal fiction, on the one hand, and tales of adventure and bold exploits or of clever detective work, so is it impossible to point out where realism of the proper kind ends and indecency begins, or where legiti- mate controversy closes and blackguardism and truculence usurp its place. The utter failure of the California "signature" law is a pertinent illustration. This statute was passed in pur- suance of a mistaken notion as to the irresponsibility of the press. It requires every statement of fact and every expression of opinion which reflects on the character or standing of any person to be signed with the name of the writer. The theory is, of course, that editorial writers and reporters and correspond- ents will be more careful and guarded if their names have to be appended to their several contributions. In truth, this require- ment does not enhance the responsibility of the newspaper in the slightest degree. The law of every state holds the proprietor responsible for every line which appears in his paper. The proprietor is a more conspicuous person in his community than any one of his employes. The risks, legal and moral, which he is willing to incur his subordinates will hardly shrink from. The California press has undergone no change in consequence of the new statute, which is either ignored or rendered a mock- ery and absurdity by the farcical way in which it is observed.
The signature system, if rigidly enforced, would have one important effect : it would destroy much of the prestige of the
