The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-05-19
IS FORD PRIVATE OR
PUBLIC CHARACTER
Status=as Citizen Will Have
Bearing on Million Dollar
Libel Suit.
Special pespotcA TO The Sun.

MOUNT CLEMENS. Mich. May 1S.-Is
Henry Ford n public character or q
mere private citizen? Is he OF such
prominence that q newspaper Is justi-
| fed in commenting upon his supposed
policies and actions as they would upon
the President OF the United States or
piece OF architecture. or is he a mere
| mentor and somebody who ever has
| sought the public limelight7
This is a question which Judge Tucker
will be called upon to decide before the
, taking of testimony in the automobile
makers 100000 suit for libel against
the Chicago Tribune.
The question is likely to come be-
| fore the court in arguments on a brief
filed by the plaintiffs attorneys on the
/ eve OF the trial, in which they asserted
that the issue in the case narrowed
down to the Tribune having made a
statement. alleged to DO false, regard
ing Mr.. Ford's policy toward National
Guardsnen in his employ at the time
of the Mexican border trouble in 1916
and used them as the basis OF an edl-
torial calling him an anarchist.
The brief denies In toto the truth OF
| the statements alleged to have been
obtained from an official OF the Ford
Motor Company June 81. 1916, assert
Ing that-the company would not hold
Jobs open for employees who enlisted
to go into military service or provide
for their families while they were gone
But independently OF this, II assert,
that the comment in the editorial based
upon this despatch. is libellous in 81,
particulars-in calling Mr.. Ford an IAN
archist," an Ignorant idealist." an "an
archist enemy OF the nation" "lgno
rant" 80 incapable OF thought that h,
cannot see the ignominy of his per
formance," and $50 deluded a human
being" this Characterization being am
plihed by the statement that he ant
Ibis enterprises belonged in place wher,
there was neither public law nor pro
lection.
The brief asserts: Even II the fact
set forth as the basis OF the articl,
were true, they would not justify tn,
use of the language or the head line o
the other ,characterizations Of the plain
! tiff in the body OF the article. Their
; was no legal obligation on the part o
the plaintiff to adopt the policy towart
employees commended for by the de
PENDANT. Employers generally adopte
I no such policy"
, This refers to providing for enliste
, employees and their families during tn
time they were In military service.
The person whose language or con
duct may be commented upon publicl
, must be one who Is either a public ser
want or one who Is a candidate for pub
lie office or one who as a writer, actor
| painter or the like has offered hi
works for public criticism, or one VIII
3 has voluntarily projected himself b.
3 fore the public by the expression OF HI
views upon a public topic. II the bris
comes up for argument the Tribune
, attorneys are expected to assert that NJ
. Ford has made himself public rattle
/ than a private parsonage at least b
the projection OF his views on prepared
e ness as expressed in page advertisement
r published In many American newsps
!. pers. including the Tribune.
Q 1t had been expected that the arg,
= ments on this brief would decid
4 whether the case will be finished quickl
y or continue for weeks, with testimon
showing the Mexican border and ger
eral national conditions at the time {
the utterance OF the editorial. The Tril
une attorneys expressed the belle
. however, that Alfred ]. Murphy's opel
ing address charging the Tribune wit
| motives harmful TO the nation, ha'
d opened the subject beyond the limi
a set I'D in the brief.