New-York tribune., 1916-02-19

powers Of court Of equity In fact.
the highest appeal court OF sister
state not only declared such an order
should be set aside "a grossly uncon-
stitutional and In violation of.such con
stitutional guarantees, and as estabnsh
ing n complete censorship over me
press so enjoined.' but went further
and declared that the defendant coulo
not be punished for contempt IN Suo-
fishing the prohibited articles IN direct
violation of the preliminary injunction
because the exercise Of such authority
by court is direct violation OF the
Constitutional ultra Vires ana is apso
lutely null and void
I'VE point at the threshold OF me
argument 20 the constitutional guar
antees Of tho liberty OF the press oe-
cause Of its importance. Ihis case docs
not merely concern the defendant or
the publishers Of other newspapers IN
New York City. II such an injunction
order as this can be sustained there Is
no other outcome than the complete
annihilation OF the constitutional lid
erty of the press and of trial oy jury
and in place thereof the establishment
in our couyts Of equity OF a censorship
as absolute as ever existed or now
exists In any Of the most absolute mon
arches Of Europe.
at is manifest that the attention OF
the Justice who issued the eX parte
nrelimiuarv Injunction was not called
TO the constitutional privileges affected
.herehv. The defendant is entitled. as
a matter Of absolute right, 70 denial
Of the Injunction, even though aN OF
the facts alleged by the plaintiff were
admitted TO be true.
"But The Tribune has not pubhshed
and does not propose TO publish false
statements regarding this plaintiff, but
the living truth for what IL believes TO
be a benefcent public purpose.
Colonel Sackett continued TO review
the work of The Tribune for truthful
advertising. begun more than year
ago. and told Of its investigation into
the purity Of its own columns before
saving anything about what might be
In so doing" said he. ft refused TO
accent an advertisement which the ).
3. Greenhut Company desired 10 nave
inserted nj regular rates. This reJec-
ton was followed by a call Of the ad-
vertising manager of the Greenhut
Company, who holds q similar place
with its successor, the plaintln, VINO
WAS informed that the advertisement
was rejected because Of the reputation
Of the company in respect 10 the
honesty Of its advertising and OF us
sales methods. He admitted that the
concern had resorted 20 such practices,
but claimed all such methods had oeen
eliminated. He was advised that the
reformation was too recent 10 permit OF
his advertising being accepted and was
advised 70 wait year.
"The Tribune thereafter made an IN,
vestigation of the Greenhut Store. and
on March 5, 1915, published an eN,
Dosure Of the same. No complaint had
been made Of that article, though II
was stronger than the published matter
complained Of in this case" The next
month the J. B. Greenhut Company
went into bankruptcy and its stock in
trade was conveyed to the plaintiff IN
September 1915, the month In which
The plaintiff was incorporated; and Ihe
Tribune was following, regarding that
company. the same methods that it had
applied to the J. B. Greenhut Company.
lie proceeded TO give authorities TO
show that such an injunction would
not he il all the allegations OF the
plaintif should be admitted.
Mr.. Paskus interrupted TO remark
that while all Of what Mr.. Sackett
might say of relief in equity against
libel might be true in ordinary cases,
the case in issue was not an ordinary
one and was governed by the Marlin
case.
Answering that. Mr.. Sackett pointed
out that while a temporary injunction
was refused by Justice Scott in that
case. and his refusal reversed by the
Appellate Division. the Court OF Appeals
had sustained the lower court in ruling
against the contention Of the Marlin
Fire Arms Company and had held that
even in that case where the matters
complained Of were libels on its prop
erty and special damage could not be
shown, the issue Of an injunction would
violate the constitutional rights Of the
defendant.
Mr.. Paskus retorted with q quotation
Of the opinion Of the Appellate Division
IN that case, which led the court TO re-
mark that the controlling decision was
that Of the Court Of Appeals and gave
counsel until Wednesday to file briefs