The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-09-08

You will bear in mind, gentlemen of the jury, that counsel, in trying a case, no matter whether they are the ablest counsel in the world, or only ordinary lawyers, naturally perhaps. claim everything and conccde noth- ing, for the purpose of the trial.
 There has been no ruling made in this case that I know of. that in ap,. Way attempts to abridge the right of Tree speech, fair comment or free criticism by any American citizen of any matter fairly before the public mind, even if it is contained in -aa speeches of the President of rho United States.
 There is no obligation on the narr or any citizen to agree with auz-h,d,, olae on any subject on earth, 1vhetb- ar 1t IS the President, Secretary of state or who. Every man has n rfg5,- to his own opinions and convictions and the right to advocate them in any reasonable way; and the only Dr1r- pose of examining into NIr. Ford's 7It- tarances has been as they might Dfr- lure 10 you just exactly what 4ha man is. what his views were and whether the characterization of him as an anarchist or as an Ignorant idcaIist, Was justifiabIc
 Newspaper and Individual.
 On the other hand. a newspaper has the same right that an individual has to comment on and criticize mai tors of public interest or men in pub- lie life or anything else that may seem to them mete and proper to criticize or comment on, providing they injure nobody. They have the same right an individual has-n0 more and no less. No newspaper has the right to libel anybody for tho sake of promoting their own opin- ions.
 The plaintiff has charged the de fendant with express malice. which of course, permits the defendant, on the other hand, to show that he had no malice, and to show what his mo- lives were. whether good or bad. in the matter in question. That was the reason for admitting the testi- mony as to what had come to the knowledge of the Tribune as to rba conditions on the border, and what those conditions really were.
 I have said numerous times. gen tlemen of the jury, that preparedness was not an issue here. and it is not It does not make particle of differ ence, as it seems to me that MT Ford was opposed to preparedness. as he had the right to be. Or that tho Tribune advocated preparedness which it had a right to do.
 Whatever MT. Ford did or said. if anything, with the intention of ob- strucinE the government in it's legi- innate purpose to make such prepar- ation as it saw fit to make, I have said, might be considered.
 Now, upon the question of fair com ment, if you become satisfied that the charges or characterizat tions contain ed in the editorial in question are true in substance that will end your con sideraion Of the case, and your yer dict will be for the defendant, no cause for act.on,-because the truth is defense. If it is true. they had a right to say it.
 If you do not become satisfied that the characterization or charges in the editorial are true, you may then con- slider whether they constitute fair comment or not.
 Fair Comment Defined.
 have been, all through this case, in doubt as to whether or not fair comment had any place in the case as a matter of defense; but after fully considering the opinions of our su- preme court in the Won Lonkhauseu case, and the case of DakhyI Y. La bouchere. End Kings Bench. page 325. an English case there cited with ap- proval, I have concluded to permit you to consider it.
 The defense of fair comment need not be considered unless you find in favor of the plaintiff upon the defend ants claim of justification, for if the editorial complained of was true in the sense in which the statements in it are made, and would be reasOna- bly, understood by readers, that is of itself sufficient defense, irrespective of any other question. If, however, you should not find in favor of the defendant, upon the question of jus tifcation. then it would remain for you to consider the defense of fair comment, for that is a separate de fense upon which the defendant might succeed, even if it did not sue ceod upon the defense of Justification.
 What is meant by flair comment and how you are to determine wheth- CT or not the defense has been sus- tained, I will now point out to you.
 It is the right of every one, not the privilege of any particular one, to comment fairly and honestly on any matter of public interest and the de- fense of fair comment is equally ap- plicable. whether the criticism is oral or written.
 You should exercise care not to be nisled by the word fair in this connection. The defense is that of fair comment, but as comment is criticism, the Supreme Court of this state, in dealing with the subject, has made some statements which I give you, as defining and describing what is meant by fair in this connection.
 AS criticism is opinion, it can nev- CT be primarily material to inquire into it's business. The right to criti- cize implies the right to judge for ones self of the justness of the criticism. It would seem to be but a delusion to say one has the right to criticize, provided the criticism be just. The justness or unjustness can never be more than a matter of opin- ion. The test always is, was the criticism bona fide? Was it the honest conviction of the publish err"
 You will observe from this Ian guage that the question is not whether you would or would not have made the same comment on the same facts. The writer had the right to i1Idre for himself of the justnesS of