New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1918-11-03
Court Excoriates
Hearst Papers;
Decides for Them
Nevada Judge Restraints
Council of Defence Under
Antitrust Law
Lauds Motive, However
Asserts That Body "Unfortu-
nately Adopted Method
Which the Law Forbids"

CARSON CITY, New. Nov. q The
in the United States District Court
here about which they are not likely
to boast, for it was a victory on legal
points only. The moral issue went
decidedly against William Randolph
Hearst.
Federal Judge harrington. in grant
ing temporary restraining order to
prevent the Nevada State Council of
Defence from barring Hearst newspa-
pers from the state, showed his strong
disapproval of the unpatriotic senti-
ments expressed in excerpts from the
Hearst papers that now form part
Of the record in the case.
"Among all the quotations from the
Hearst papers set out in Mr.. Lemmon's
director of the Council of Defence and
State Food Administrator affidavit, "
the court says, "there is not one which
can be characterized as patriotic, or
which can be regarded as unfriendly
to the Central Powers. True, all OF
the charges are made against the
Hearst papers collectively; THE Elk
smincr' (San Francisco) is not spe-
officially accused of uttering yeditious
sentiments; but The Examiner is a
Hearst paper.
Looks for Denial in Vain
al have searched carefully. but in
vain, through the entire record for any
express denial or dsavowal of the
sentiments expressed in the excerpts
from the Hearst papers.
"This leaves in my mind y painful
impression. Are the extraordinary pow
ers of this court being invoked for the
protection of complainants and their
business, and for no other reason? This
impression is not affected or effaced
by the suggestion that MANY of the
alleged utterances appear 20 have been
made before entrance into the war, and
therefore at time when there was no
espionage act.
awe must bear in mind that the es
pionage act is the test of criminal
sedition, not the measure of loyalty.
Some expression Of disapproval, some
assurance that it is periodically sup
porting the government, and will con-
tinue to do so, and that no utterances
like those quoted in Lemons affidavit
will appear in it's publications. would
not seriously transgress the proprietles,
even though it be conceded that COM
plainant's loyalty is not a legal issue
in this proceeding.
"Any one who gives systematic ex-
preston to and intends to continue the
sort Of propaganda alleged in the Lem
mon affidavit must expect disapproval
and opposition, and that efforts will be
made to restrain the publication of
such sentiments"
Violate Antitrust Act
Judge Harrington held that the State
Council of Defence's resolution declar-
ing the Hearst newspapers TO be un-
patriotic and advising Nevada news
dea srs not to handle them under pain
Of icing deemed guilty of disloyalty
would be contrary to the provisions of
the antitrust act He. therefore, grant
ed temporary Injunction preventing
the Council of Defence from barring
publications pending final decision
In this connection, the court said:
at is understood, however, that this
order in no wise restraints the de
PENDANTS from seeking to enforce the
provisions of the espionage act in the
manner provided by law. whenever OF
by whomever it may be violated"
Judge harrington has taken the posi-
tion that the Council of Defence, in at
tempting to exclude the Hearst pub
LEGATIONS from the state, was usurpine
the powers Of the courts or the Post.
master General.
The court expressed the opinion that
the state council was not actuated by
malicious motives. On this point the
court said:
81 am satisfied that the members Of
the Council of Defence were actuatet
by no wanton or malicious purpose te
injure the complainant or its prop
erty. Their design was and is to sup
press what they deem to be insidious
German propaganda. In doing this they
have unfortunately adopted method
which the law forbids."