New-York tribune., 1916-02-19
INJUNCTION ASKED
SEEN AS MENACE
Newspaper Liberty at Stake
Points Out Colonel Sacket'
Representing The Tribune.


an article bv Samuel Hopkins Adams
on the Greenhut method Of merehsn-
dising and gave counsel until Wedne'-
dsv 70 fle briefs Meantime the tempo
rarv injunction issued by Justice New
burger continues in force
BENJAMIN Paskus. for the Greenhut
Interests. conceded in his opening that
8 court Of equity would not ordinarily
intervene 70 prevent the publication
q matter that might be lbellous. This
However. is not an ordinary case ne
declared. setting up that the Greenhut
Company. operating a store Of ninety
departments. employing 5000 people
and doing business Of millions
year. depended upon its reputation for
fair dealing 20 continue IN business
The Tribune. he said, has very sub
,tartial circulation. and includes
among is readers many Of the custom
.rs Of the store, whose goodwill the
management is anxious TO retain.
The Tribune. he went on 10 say has
for more than year, as means Of
advertising itself and Of getting adver-
,isements into its columns, adopted
process Of terrorism through attacking
advertisers. It publishes daily what Il
terms an Advisors Column and It has
published series Of exposes. II Is not
an ordinary case of printing news. It
!, a case Of advertising for its own
profit.
at advertises first 20 last the truth
sDd IL has gone TO the unusual length
Of agreeing 10 repay 20 It's readers
such sums as they may have paid for
merchandise bought from one adver-
tising in The Tribune. this irresPec-
tive OF the merit or value OF the com
plaint. I'm this work Il has feat.
ured the writings Of a man named
Samuel Hopkins Adams.
an the very announcement Of the
article complained Of they show an
Intention Of increasing the profits OF
The Tribune in circulation and adver-
tising"
ir. Paskus went on 20 say that the
very life Of a department store de-
pended upon its ability 10 protect It's
Goodwill. Il could not prove any dam
age 10 such an intangible thing as
goodwill in suit az law, ana
therefore its onlv relief from threat
ened libel was in an action In equity.
The announcements Of the Adams arti-
cles he said were lbellous. IN that they
intimated that instead Of the Greenhut
Company's placing on sale large guam
titles of goods from the Brooklyn store
OF A. d. Matthews, the Matthews name
and stock were used as bait TO sell
tumble Of worthless merchandise.
I've will concede." said he. that you
cannot restrain n libel But where
there is a movement 10 destroy per
sons business and this IS a continuous
thing relief IN equity will lie. The
defendant cam Il possibly be hurt by
DELAY. II has had all the advertising
out Of this thing that 1t can get. There
IS no limit 10 the damage that may be
done the plaintiff.
Before this article IS printed the
defendant should be compelled TO prove
the truth Of the proposed publication.
The vacation Of this injunction without
such proof might mean enormous in
jury 10 this business
Marlin Case Cited.
To show that the Greenhut case is
different from the ordinary cases where
IN attempt has been made 10 prevent
the publication In newspapers Of hrtt-
cles on the ground that they would be
libellous, Mr.. Paskus cited the so-called
Msrlin Fire Arms Company case. This
WIS an instance IN which q magazine
attacked the value OF a frearm. An
injunction was refused by Justice
Scott, who was overruled by the Appel
late Division of the Supreme Court,
which In turn was overruled by the
Court Of Appeals. the court Of last
resort agreeing with Justice Scott. Mr.
paskus urged that the Appellate Di-
vision ruling that libel which may
injure property may be restrained,
while one merely injuring ii person
could not. was correct and applied 20
the case in issue, despite the reversal
by the Court Of Appeals.
"lf any decision could be rendered
absolutely against the contentious OF
this plaintiff it would be the decision
Of the Court Of Appeals in the Marlin
case" said Colonel Henry W Sackett,
opening for The Tribune. "This is an
extraordinary, an amazing application.
IL asks this court OF equity to forbid
the publication Of articles concerning
the plaintiff corporation on the sole
ground that they will be false and
hbellous and therefore damaging
such decree is without precedent
IN this state Even such q preliminary
injunction as that of Mr. Justice New
burger rs without precedent in this
STATE mere is not a single instance
IN the Federal courts or the courts o,
any OF the states where such a decree
a II mere asked for has been sustained
on final judgment
ne higher courts Federal and state.
without exception, have held that such
decree violates the constitutional
rights OF the publisher not only under
the Constitution Of the United state.
tOrbidoing Congress 20 enact Laws
'abrdging the freedom Of speecb y,
Of the press, but under the constitu.
tions Of the several states, all of which
contain provisions substantially in the
language Of New Nork's constitution,
Every citizen may freely speak. writ,
and publish his sentiments on oil sub
jects. being responsible for the ahus,
Of that right. and no law shall b.,
TaSsed TO restrain or abridge the lib
erty Of speech or Of the press
"ln the language of the United States
courts, there is no remedy for the
abuse Of this right except an action
for damages or a criminal proceeding
Defendant has right 20 have the
truth or falsity OF rho issue determined
by a jury tual as az common law. That
+: cannot get in a court OF equity.
Neither court of equity nor any other
department Of government can set up
censorship IN advance on such mat
ters ana prevent person from eXer-