The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-08
The Effort of Congressman-Elect
Lind to Show Malice in
Times Article.

No important facts were brought out |
yesterday afternoon in the closing hours |
Of the trial.
Despite the energetic inquiries of the
defense it was unable to show positively
who wrote the first part Of the nation
atty" pamphlet which the Times attrib-
uted to Lind. The last part, as was testi-
fed yesterday, consisted OF extracts from
a speech delivered by Edward Peterson of
the st. Paul Rosing club. Neither could
the Times prove who paid for the publ
cation Of the pamphlet.
John Thaung, a st. Paul undertaken
and second vice president OF the Roslng
club, said he thought the pamphlet was
printed under the auspices of the club;
he didn't know. A part Of the pamphlet
was taken from a newspaper and the re-
mainder from a speech. He did not
know who paid for the printing. The
purpose Of the publication was Ito help
Mr.. Rosing.''
Can you show me place. asked At
torney A. B. Jackson, for the. defense,
where the name Of Mr.. Rosing is not
coupled in the pamphlet with the name OF
Mr. Lind?"
The witness replied that he was unable
to translate we'll. Thereupon Judge Holt,
asked to interpret references in the
pamphlet, read huently an English YER
sion, showing that the names of the can
didates always appeared together.
J. August Nielsen, also Of the Rosing
club, had seen the pamphlet, but had
never read it. 1t was distributed by
some one about the clubroom In st. Paul.
The club had not paid for printing the
pamphlet. It had not been sent out by the
club or at the clubs suggestion.
N. o. Warner Of the Swedish American
National bank St. Paul, was the first wit
ness that the defense presented who was
able to identify as genuine the signature
Of a letter exhibited by Attorney Jackson.
T1o{c 1@&% MI
lund Of the .Rosing club. It had been sent
to the witness with a copy Of the pamph
let. Both letter and pamphlet were made
part Of the evidence.
The defense rested. Mr.. Lind, called in
rebuttal said that his office in the New
from the Times building. There was also
telephone connection. He was In the city
Friday.
II object" interposed Mr. Jackson. 1T
certainly was not crime for the Times
| to be opposed to Mr.. Lind even if it
| might be charged as a mistake
| 1T Is for the jury to say ruled the
court, whether proper steps were taken
| by the defendant to inform itself of the
| facts" ~
Mr.. Lind then repeated that he was in
town Friday and Saturday as well. The
| Times office, he added, was only a block
and a half from the democratic head
| quarters.
At this point the state made it's first
definite attempt to establish a malicious
| intention upon the part of the Times.
| Il met Mr.. tombstone" Continued Mr..
Lind, gazing confidingly upon the eager
| face Of his attorney, Mr.. Cohen, II met
Mr.. tombstone Saturday morning, and
asked him why he had published the
| asked me about it? He made some re-
mark about Mr.. Corser and Mr.. Stevens
having denied it to him. 1 said they
were not sent by me. He asked If the
statement in the Times was not true, and
I said it certainly was not-that wouldn't
be guilty Of such a. thing.
He asked me why had sworn out 8
| warrant, and then he said: Ever since
you refused to act upon the letter Mr.
Haskell sent you, the Times has had ne
use for your That Is the way recolec
it. I said that was an old matter arl(
had nothing to do with the other. HI
answered. Well, it has something to dc
with it, "
Mr. Jackson inquired: I'm your con
versation with Mr.. tombstone, did you no
say you would carry the war against tn,
Times to the bitter end?"
mo, sir. I never used that expression
in my life. I said we would have to flgh
1t out"
The witness denied that he had trie,
| 10 secure Ill0 SdSSlS IdllC0 VI I11c LILIES Jul
ing the campaign.
The Arguments.
y Although Mr.. jackson tried to secur
the closing argument for his side, as il
, the district court, Judge Holt decided tina
!. the practice of the municipal court mus
, prevail, and that the defense must b
heard before the state.
Mr. Jackson then argued that the &C
ton had been brought for campaign pur
:: poses only; that, in fact, the bringing Q
the action might have had much to d
= with Mr.. Linds success. The Times ha
. not transcribed its legal right in publish
Il ing the pamphlet and commenting upo
it. Editor tombstone had believed tina
Q the pamphlet was issued by Mr.. Lind
I authority, belief that part Of the evi
dence in the case had tended to supper
a Mr.. tombstone had not been actuated b
8 malice, but by partizan zeal that was b
n no means immoderate No criminal lib
8 had been proved, because, in the circum
. stances, the mere falsity of the state
: ments, If the jury believed them to /
+ false, you'd not legally presume malice
Such presumption from established falls
, ty did not apply to publications regardin
candidates in political campaigns
Mr.. Cohen, closing for the state, dc
clared that the Times had failed to tax
d ordinary precautions to ascertain whethe
v it's intended publication was true or falls
e mus IL naQ gone DeyOnQ us legal priv
v leges. Moreover, the conversation Satu1
d day morning between 'Messrs. Lind an
k tombstone pointed towards private ma
It ice as a motive for the publication.
: The Judges Charge.
y In charging the jury, Judge Holt sal
: that it was the duty Of the defendant t
{ use all reasonable diligence towards as
pertaining the truth of the article befo1
it was published But the publication wa
justified if it consisted of a comment upo
I facts or upon what the defendant reason
/ ably supposed to be facts. Newspaper
i had the same right to discuss candidate
that citizens had, but no more. Yet
devolved upon the state to show actu;
i malice in such cases, because the suprem
| court had held that communications re
+ garding candidates were privileged an
that a. newspaper Is not liable even fe
I a libel unless malice could be shown,
| unless the statement published we
known by the publisher to be false.
III PHILLIPS FOR CHIEF