The Right to Protect a Source in 1887 Seattle

A few days ago the case came up for trial, the plaintiff having filed a petition for divorce. In order to use the information which had previously been told to him, the defendant’s attorney of cruelty was furnished the proceedings of the previous trial to the newspaper. The reporter was asked to state where he had obtained his information concerning the trial. An objection was made, and after appeal, Judge Wilson, in whose court the second trial was held, gave his decision. The Court held that any information given a reporter in his capacity of a public journalist was considered a privileged communication. The judge had always viewed the law on this subject from a broad standpoint. In his opinion, it would be folly to compel a reporter to divulge the name of his informant. The public thirst for information on all topics is the reporter's incentive. If the informant were obliged to face the consequence of having his name appear in the newspaper, it would be impossible for any journalist to obtain any important information if the court held a right to inquire into the manner in which that information was obtained or what the name of the reporter's informant was. Judge Wilson said that such a policy and construction of the law would be a blow to the freedom of the press.