The Last Word

One way to be unpopular in Holmes County, Miss. is to criticize the sheriff for mistreating a Negro. When good-looking, dark-haired Mrs. Hazel Brannon Smith, 41, tried this in the two weeklies she owns and edits, she found herself on the losing end of a libel suit filed by the sheriff. But last week, thanks to a Mississippi Supreme Court decision, Editor Smith's courageous editorial voice had the last--and winning--word.

It was a voice that, in front-page editorials or in her weekly column, "Through Hazel Eyes," had long sounded like the county's conscience. Just out of the University of Alabama, Hazel Brannon arrived in Holmes County in 1936, borrowed $3,000, bought the weekly Durant News (circ. 1,475). She was doing well enough by 1943 to take over the county's only other paper, the Advertiser (circ. 2,800), in the county seat of Lexington (pop. 3,198), put them both to campaigning against gambling and bootlegging in the dry county.

64 Indictments. In 1946 she badgered the county into grand jury investigations that produced 64 indictments against slot-machine operators and liquor racketeers. The same year she landed in trouble when she interviewed the widow of a Negro during the trial of five white men charged with killing him. Since the widow was a witness in the case, the judge found Editor Smith in contempt of court, told her: "I realize you are putting on a great campaign for law and order, but if you read history, you will see that the only Perfect Being did not make much of a hit with His reform." Editor Smith appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court and won a reversal. In 1948, after an ex-G.I. had been killed in an auto collision with a man just acquitted of bootlegging charges, she roasted the jury for leniency; the editorial won the year's top award of the National Federation of Press Women.

As bootlegging increased again in Holmes County, Editor Smith repeatedly attacked Sheriff Richard F. Byrd. Then, on the Fourth of July weekend last year, the sheriff drove up to a group of Negroes gathered about a small country store at Tehula. He asked one of them, Henry Randle, 27, what he meant by "whooping." The Negro denied any whooping, witnesses reported, and the sheriff cursed and struck him. When Randle raised his arm to ward off the blows, the sheriff drew his pistol and yelled, "Get going!" As Randle ran off, Sheriff Byrd reportedly shot him in the thigh.

Editor Smith ran the story--along with the fact that she had not been able to reach Sheriff Byrd for a statement. The next week, with Byrd still silent, she front-paged an editorial that won her the second top award from the Federation of Press Women: "The laws in America are for everyone--rich and poor, strong and weak, white and black. The vast majority of Holmes County people are not rednecks who look with favor on the abuse of people because their skins are black. Byrd has violated every concept of justice, decency and right. He is not fit to occupy [his] office."

Punishment. Sheriff Byrd broke his silence with a $57,500 suit for libel: he denied he had even fired his pistol that night--or that Randle had been shot. Despite the testimony of a white physician who had treated Randle's wound, the jury believed the sheriff, gave him a verdict for $10,000 against Hazel Smith. She appealed to the State Supreme Court, charging that the libel verdict against her was "punishment for daring to criticize a white man for abusing a Negro."

Last week the state's high court unanimously reversed the Holmes County Circuit Court. Ruled Justice Percy Lee: Editor Smith's story had been "substantially true. The right to publish the truth, with good motives and for just ends, is inherent in the Constitution." Commented Editor Smith: "I don't regard this as a personal victory, but rather as a victory for the people's right to know."

In California the press won another court victory. When San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Jack Howard refused to tell who had given him a union official's direct quotation in a labor dispute, a county judge ruled him in contempt and sentenced him to "an indefinite period" in jail (TIME, Oct. 17). Since Howard had apparently identified his informant, i.e., the union official, in his news story, the judge reasoned, he had waived the protection of the state law giving newsmen the right to refuse to disclose their sources. But the State Court of Appeals held that the quote need not have come to Howard from the union official himself, but from a friend. Therefore, decided the court, Howard was exercising his legal right to protect his sources.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.