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

the law in this connection, and you must so treat it.
 Fair comment is that which is con cGIyed and used in a spirit of fairness 1 with reference to the subject matter and the person at which the comment is directed, and not for the gradIca- ton of any personal 5Il-wiU or private malice toward the individual. If it ex- cecds these limits, the comment is not fair, and the person using it may render himself liable if the words that he uses are u5elous under the law, as they are in this case. The statement of fact as to Henry Ford's treatment and intended treatment of his employees who were or might be recruits in the National Guard clear lE relates to the attitude of Henry Ford towards the employees of his company who were members of -ha National Guard The relation or attitude of such employer to his em- D-oycs who are members of the Ma tonal Guard, or m ght enlist in it., under the circumstances existing on and after June IS, 1916, at tho time when the Guard was called out di- Tecrly concerned tha public interest. and ] charge you that such relation or attitude was matter Of public in- .'a IA.t d ."--A .'ltA-t anu roper subject of Commeu.
 That is because of NIr. Ford's prominence in the labor world. his wealth. the number of his employees. which was larger chan any other man had anywhere, and so forth; i- being my idea that when man rises to such prominence in the world. nat urally all that he does and all that he says iu relation ro public matters and private matters, in so far as those private matters concern his eruplOyes. it is very natural as it seems 10 me. that the public should 1 conceive themselves at liberty to criticize and condemn. or praise, as 1 they might see it to do. his action in regard to public questions, and par ticuIarlv n regard to his treatment of his own employees.
 It appears in this case that the relation or attitude of the plaintiff |. Henry Ford, towards the employees of his company. had been, over a period
 of more than a year immediately preceding June g. 1916. Eircn wide publicity. and you are therefore charged that this relation and hls acts were lcriLimate and proper | subject for comment
 Again stating fl, I think that Henry Ford, by his public acts and utter ances upon the different phases ot the questions relating to the war; to the national defense and to the cn- | forCemcut and protection of the rights of Amricln citizuns-pOss-bly not to the war at that time, as the l world war had not then commenced, I mean we were not in it, that you ! will treat this question as it existed at the time prior to our entry into the World War of course-rendered his views and h's conduct in this respect oDan to comment or fair criticism. The right to indulge in such criticism
 was one which was possessed not only by the Tribune Company and other newspapers. but by any citizen, for the question was one of public in tarest. and one which was being dis cussed by Henry Ford as such. Those
 who. like the Tribune Company, differed from Henry Ford upon these questions. have the same right which he claimed for himself, of attacking bis judgment. his views, his conduct, land the result which would be ac- | lompIished by the theories which he ! advocated. if successful.
 They might not. however, attack his private character, but the person attacked may form part of fair l comment if t be warranted hy them, or is a reasonable inference from r1an7. Nor should such criticism ex- ceed the bounds of fair comment as explained to you heretofore. what fair comment really is. Within those bounds they must keep, whether | newspaper or individual
 l. is. of course, well known that at the time the editorial was published inc National Guard had been called out 10 be sent to the Mexican bord- CT.
 II was also well known that state of disorder and lawlessness which -ba authorities were unable to stop, | existed in Mexico and along the bord- CT.
 You will as I have said before, not consider at all the question of fair 1 comment if the question of justiica- ton is determined in favor of the de- fendant, because that will end the case.
 may then consider the question whether or not what was said in the editorial can be treated as fair com rnert under the definition I have given you.
 If it can be and should be, you will then determine the case in favor of | the defendant
 But if as I have said, you ma there was no justification for the use | of the term anarchist" or the other terms and characterizadons employed in the editorial. your verdict must be for the plaintiff for the amount or | damages inflicted upon plaintiff to his 1 raT,utation and feelings; and if you | find further that there was actual or express malice behind the publica- I ton. you may then add to the amount ] of actual damages that you find him to have suffered in the two respects which have mentioned, such further sum by way of added damages, as vour good judgment dictates.
 In considering the defense Of falr i comment, you will bear in mind the l difference between your duty in con sidering the defense of justification and in considering the defense of fair l comment. which difference is simply this: Under the defense of justlhca- ton the question for you is, Was that which was published of and concern ing the plaintiff true? Under the defense of fair comment the ques- l tion for you is, Was the comment which was published of and concern l i,r tho plaintiff the actual and hon.