Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1919-08-19

ant idealistp and remarked that his .
views on disarmament might be diff
ferent II his factories were on the RIO
Grande instead Of on the peaceful Can
adian border.
Counsel for the manufacturer at
first fled suit in the federal court at,
Chicago. but later withdrew 1t and In
stituted proceedings in the state court
at Detroit. Here the Tribune applied
for change Of venue and Judge James
G. Tucker of the circuit court Of Mall
comb county at Mt Clemens, was
agreed upon to hear the case. Selec-
ton of jury began May IL. It con-
sisted of eleven farmers and one road
builder.
Witnesses From Border.
A feature of the case was the pro-
-duction by the defendant of more than
20 witnesses from the Mexican border
to testify,to raids, murders and other
acts. which, to the mind of The Tri-
bune counsel, established the fact that
there was q condition Of anarchy along
the border.
Professor Reeves Of the University
Of Michigan, appearing as an expert,
testified that many Of the Ford utter
ances corrosponded with the teachings
of well recognized anarchists. He
gave definitions Of the word "anarch-
ist" which contained no reference to
bomb throwing, but which denoted one
who works to overturn the govern
ment.
Counsel for the defendant argued
that government exists only so far as
IL can enforce its DEGREES and protect
the lives and property Of its citizens.
that without force there can be no
government and that where there Is
no government there Is anarchy.
Therefore, they sought to establish
that in opposing the recruiting Of SOL
Giers, Mr.. Ford opposed government
itself and, by the same token, sought
to establish anarchy. Hence Ford is
an anarchist" they said. The defense
throughout was one of Justification
and the right of fair comment.
Bishop Testifies for Ford.
Bishop Charles D. Williams, Epis-
copal bishop of Eastern Michigan.
was one Of the principal witnesses for.
the plaintiffs. Many of Mr.. Ford's ut /,
terances which the defendant had call
ed anarchistic, he said, also were to
be found in the scriptures and in the
writings Of -anarchistic philosoph-
ers. AS to the Ford propaganda, he
drew the distinction that man might
advocate policies which
would result in anarchy, without him.
self being an anarchist. II his object
was to establish anarchy, then he
could be characterized as an anarchist.
Mr.. Ford's object, 1t was stated. was
to establish universal peace.
Counsel for Mr.. Ford attempted to
prove that the editorial was written
in malice-special malice-as we'll as
lication of the editorial. TO this end
they charged that The Tribune was
pro- German and that its advocacy of
Intervention in Mexico was a mask to
hide friendship for Germany. The
theory advanced was that by interven-
tion American munitions would be d.
verted from the enemies of Germany.
Mr.. Ford did not accept the deflni-
tions of anarchy given by Professor
Reeves. He, personally as a witness,
and by other means, insisted that by
anarchist The Tribune meant the old
fashioned bomb thrower Of the Hay
market Square variety. That, his law
yers asserted, was the impression that.
Tribune readers would get from the
editorial.
The hearing was one of the longest
en- record, according to counsel. Tran
script of testimony approximated 20.-
100000 words.