The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1919-05-14
FORD AN ANARCHIST
ISCHARGE IN SUIT

IeTTOBaJlon or prospective Jul OiS
! tinued in the Henry Ford-Chicaso
Tribune million-dollar lfPel suit.
The same twelve who underwent
barrage OF questions from counsel on
both sides yesterday were being held
still subject to challenge.
won it's first tilt when Attorney Ste
leased today, it was believed.
Counsel for the defense yesterday
won it's first tilt WIN attorney Ste
venson was permitted by the court
to define anarchy and "anarchlsm
over the vigorous protest Of Fords
counsel. The defense announced they
will attempt to prove that In a sense
Ford is an anarchist as the tribune
charged in the alleged libel.
Henry Ford's attorneys, according
", are determined that no man VINO
cherishes kindly feeling for anarch-
ism shall serve on the million dol
lar" jury that will decide his suit.
They are equally firm in their in
tention to prevent the acceptance
OF any person who took an active
part in the Newberry-Ford Senatorial
contest last autumn.
One big legal argument that looms
is the contention over the limit OF
the testimony. The Ford attorneys
have served a "trial brief' on oppos-
ing forces which sets forth the claim
that the trial should be restricted TO
the simple and direct isues OF the
charges Of libel. The plan Of the
campaign Of tn Tribune's attorneys,
however. Is on broader lines, for their
plea OF defense involves an explana-
ton of the whole general condt-
tions in the country which produced
the situation on which the editorial
was based.
Trying to Marrow Issues
Judge Tucker has not yet an
nounced when he will decide on the
Ford brief in support Of a narrow
ing of the issues to the mere fact
that Ford was designated as an an
archist. The Tribune attorneys have
taken testimony on both sides Of the
Atlantic and brought witnesses from
abroad, in addition to assembling
vast mass OF documentary exhibits,
with a view to going more deeply
and widely into the controversy. II
Ford should win this point 1t would
be expected to shorten the case sew
eral weeks
Mr.. Stevenson declared that the
Ford forces need not be at all mis-
taken about what the Tribune meant
in its editorial
1--WE will" he said, prove that Mr..
Ford was an anarchist; we are here
to prove that he was an anarchist at
the time that this article was pub
lished, an anarchist in the sense that
I have outlined, an anarchist in the
sense in which this editorial was
written. an anarchist in the sense in
which the reader Of this paper would |
understand that 1t was used. from |
what was said in the paper and what !
preceded it this being the culmina- |
ton OF a long discussion on this sub |
ject"
Cites FOrd's Talk to Employees.
eff you can prove that Mr.. Ford is |
an anarchist, that is a proper thing"
said Mr.. Lucking.
I'VE will prove it, said Mr.. Steven |
son. "It is the claim OF the defense
that when that editorial appeared it |
was necessary that men should be en-
ccuraged to aid their country, and
that Mr.. Ford took a stand before his
employees which was inimical TO the
best interests OF the country and
that in that sense Mr.. Ford was an
anarchist. We are not going to show
that he is bomb thrower, but we in
tend to show that in the sense OF the
definition OF anarchy he is an an
archist"
Mr.. Stevenson opened a volume of
United States Supreme Court de-
. Cisions.
1--WE shall read some definitions of
anarchy" he declared.
Il submit that this is not a proper
form Of argument" interrupted Mr..
Lucking.
I'VE have the right to show to the
/ Sur uyh W. Nn NJ
our defense" said Mr.. Stevenson.
THE higher courts have ruled that
whatever kind of anarchy it may be
any person guilty OF it is not a 1T per-
son to enter the United States" broke
in Mr. Murphy.
The court permitted Mr.. Stevenson
to read the decisions. The last one
was:
Anarchy is an absence OF govern
ment or an insuffciency OF govern
ment."
an the sense that Mr.. Ford was
trying to cripple and make insult
ficient the government, the defense
in this case will prove that Mr.. Ford
was an anarchist said Mr.. Steven
son.
Ford Counsel Shout Objections.
Attorneys Lucking and Murphy
were on their feet shouting objec-
tons
The defense claims that in the
writing of that editorial Mr..
Stevenson began again.
1T makes no difference" shouted
Mr.. Lucking. what may have been
that view, This case is TO be de-
Cided on the understanding of that
editorial as obtained by the persons
who read it. and not by the views of
some scholarly individual in the
secrecy of an editorial sanCtum. 1t
is not the sense meant hut the sense
conveyed that is the Criterion!'
I'm the sense outlined" said Mr..
stevenson. the sense that any man
whose acts have a tendency to Grip