Very near the time when this state entered upon its separate constitutional existence the common-law rule fell under the censure of some of the ablest exponents of English justice.
[The opinion then sets forth a number of judicial criticisms of the common-law doctrine and proceeds:]
From the foregoing it appears that the rule under consideration resulted solely from the early seizure of jurisdiction over slander by the ecclesiastical courts, which could not award damages at all, and the inability of the temporal courts to strip that jurisdiction from their rivals except in cases involving special damages. It never did rest upon any principle of right or justice or any decent regard for character. It was unsuited to the true genius and real needs of the people over whom it tyrannized, even from the earliest times. It created anomalies in the law of defamation which rendered that law absurd and grotesque. For example, words “touching” some disreputable good-for-nothing in his work or trade were actionable. The most sensitive, cultivated, high-bred woman could be foully slandered with impunity. Written ridicule of the style of her hat gave ground for exemplary damages. She had no redress for spoken words inflicting one of the deepest wounds her sex can suffer. The rule was not merely insufferably wrong; it was wrong in a matter of so precious a nature that it was shocking. It was suppressed because it had long been reprobated as odious and was universally detested. The question now to be decided is, Does that rule obtain in this state?...
This is not the case of a principle which commands considerable approval, is founded upon fair reason, is merely of questionable wisdom, and which therefore ought to be followed until abrogated by the legislature. It is the case of an outlawed rule of negation whose sole function has always been to thwart natural justice in one of the dearest and tenderest of human interests. Therefore its rejection is justified by Duncan v. Baker (21 Kan. 99) and Whitaker v. Hawley (25 Kan. 674), supra.
The world is censorious, and a woman’s or a maiden’s reputation for modesty and chastity is an asset of inestimable value. Its loss renders her poor indeed. Injury in fact is the necessary result of such a deprivation, whether or not the sufferer can point to specific damage in a few paltry dollars or to liability to a trifling fine if the charge were true. Therefore the pleading of special damages as a basis for relief ought to be treated as a useless fiction, like the one condemned in Anthony v. Norton (60 Kan. 341), supra.
Taking into consideration the origin and history of the rule, the reason supporting it, its character, its consequences, and the degree of its appositeness to our constitution and system of laws, it does not apply to the conditions or meet the needs of the people of this state, and consequently it is not a part of the law of this state.
This problem has been met and solved by different states of the American Union in different ways. In some the rule is obediently observed. In some it is followed under protest—is characterized as a disgrace to the state—but still is followed. In some statutes have relieved from its iniquity in whole or in part. In some it is frankly repudiated by the courts because it lacks the sanction of reason and justice. This court has no legislative functions. As Lord Campbell said, it is here only to declare the law. Under the statute of 1868 it must determine whether a rule of the common law invoked in a judicial proceeding contravenes the constitution or statutes of the state, or has been modified by judicial decision, and whether it is adapted to the conditions and is suitable to the needs of the people of the state. This duty has been discharged in the present case.[[442]]
LUMBY v. ALLDAY
In the Exchequer, Hilary Term, 1831.
Reported in 1 Crompton & Jervis, 301.
Action for words.
The judgment of the court was now delivered by