the gallery.”
The reporters themselves disagree as to the com
parative advantages of the two systems,51— from the point of view of the historian there seems little choice as regards real authoritativeness. The explanation of the prolonged and obstinate opposition of
Parliament to the presence of reporters during their sessionsmust be found in the theory that lies behind the English government, it has been a government by classes instead of by themasses. It was long before the tug-o'-war between the sticklers for parlia
mentary authority and those who desired publicity for the sake of the public was decided in favor of publicity . But in time even opponents of the reporters were won over . G . O . Trevelyan notes
that Charles James Fox had been one of the most formidable among the ancient enemies of the parliamentary reporters, yet in
1778 he declared that “ the only method of preventing misrepre sentation was by giving more publicity than ever to the debates
and decisions of the House , since the surest recipe for killing a lie was to multiply the witnesses to the truth .” 62 No similar prob lem has been presented to the American federal government and
hence the members of the press have had free access to Congress except during the executive sessions of the Senate . Congress, rather than the press , has arranged for the reports of its proceed ings . These have been verbatim reports, and not a word or a sign of approval or of disapproval of the words spoken on the floor has escaped the note books of the stenographers. So keen have been members of Congress to make sure that they have received
good measure , pressed down, shaken together , and running over, that they have added to the official reports of legislative proceed ings a mass of material having its origin in times and places far removed from legislative halls. The same theory that the public has a right to know how its business is conducted pervades all classes and is applied to legis lative bodies , however small or comparatively unimportant.53 61 A . Kinnear, “ Parliamentary Reporting,” Contemporary Review , March, 1905, 87 : 369- 375; A . P . Nicholson , “ Parliamentary Reporting: A Reply ," Contemporary Review , April, 1905, 87: 577 -582. 52 G . O . Trevelyan , The Early History of Charles James Fox, p . 347.
63 Francis Lieber notes an illustrative case in Columbia, S . C .,where two reporters were sued . They subsequently published a re
