The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1919-08-20
BOTH SIDES ARE CLAIM.
ING A. VICTORIOUS END
Tribune Counsel Says Failure of
Jury to Give Substantial Dam
ages Vindicates Tribune

said that they took nine OdlioCS lddl
Il can remember" the first one, accord
ing to Leonard Measel, another juror
standing eight to four in faver OF
awarding Mr.. Ford some damages
Attorney Alfred j. Murphy for Mr.
Ford said:
.s ..The important issue in this case
has been determined favorably to the
plaintiff. He has been vindicated.
Money damages were entirely sub
ordinate and were not sought by Mr.
Ford. He stands not only vinidcated'
but his attitude as an American citi-
zen has been justified after a trial
wHich raised every issue against him
which ingenuity and research could
could present. His friends are entirely
ssatfafed.''
weymouth Kirkland of counsel for
the Tribune, said:
I'VE consider it a victory for the
reason that Attorney Alfred Luckling,
& in closing fer Mr.. Ford, stated that
anything less than substantial dam
agcs wound be defeat for his cll-
ent.''s 80
KS ssFhe jury was out ten hours.
OHcRd1ng 4EGltOrIaI.
IT was on June %, 1916, after Mex
fcan bandits had raided Columbus n.
M, and military preparedness was a
burning issue, not only because of the
Mexican menace but because of the
conhagration in Europe, that The Chi
cago Tribune printed its famous edl-
torial haeded Ford an Anarchist.
Editorial writer's Of the Tribune testi-
fed that they had followed Mr.. Ford's
pacihstic propaganda, but had not rec
ognized it as a real danger OF the
country until news item was recelV-
ed from Detroit that Mr.. Ford was
trying to discourage the recruiting
OF the guard which had been ordered
to the Rio Grande. The item, au-
thenticity of which was denied by
Ford witnesses, stated that the Ford
Company would net pay the salaries
OF employees who went to the border,
hold their places for them nor care
for their dependents.
It. was then that the editorial was
written. It called Mr.. Ford an "igno-
views on diSarmame ent might be diff
ferent If his factories were on the Rio
Grande instead of the peaceful Cana
dian border.
Counsel for the manufacturer at
first fled suit in the federal court at
Chicago, but later withdrew it and
Instituted proceedings in the State
court at Detroit. Here the Tribune
applied for a change of venue and
Judge James G. Tucker Of the circuit
court of Macomb county at Mt. Glenn
ems, was agreed upon to hear the case.
Selection of jury began May II. 1t
consisted 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 bor-
der to testify to raids, murders and
other acts which, to the mind of The
Tribune counsel established the fact
that there was a condition Of anarchy
along the border.
Professor Reeves of the University
OF Michigan, appearing as an expert.
testified that r,any-bf che Ford utter
ances correspond with the teachings
of well recognized anarchists. He
gave definitions Of the word "anar-
cbist" 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
itKcan 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 recruiting of soldiers,
Mr.. Ford opposed the government it
self and, by the same token, sought to
establish anarchy.
Hence Ford is an anarchist" they
said. The defense throughout was one
of jurisdiction and the right of fair
comment.
Bishop Charles D. Williams. Epis
copal bishop of Eastern Michigan,
was one Of the principal witnesses for
the plaintiff. Many Of Mr.. Ford's ut
terances which the defendant had
called anarchistic. he said, also were
to be found in the scriptures and in
the writings of non-anarchistic phil
osopl1ers. AS to the Ford propaganda
he drew the distinction that n man
night mistakenly advocate policies
wh ch would result in anarchy, with
out himself being an anarchist. If mis- !
object was to establish anarchy. then
he could be characterized as an an
archist. Mr.. Ford's object. it was stat
ed was to establish universal peace.
Council for Mr.. Ford attempted to
prove that the editorial was written
in ma1ice-specific malice-as we'll as
the malice assumed in the mere pub !
lication of the editorial. To this end
they charged that the tribune was
pro- German and that its advocacy OF
in Mexico was mask to1
hide friendship for Germany. The
theory advanced was that by interven- !
tion American munitions would be
diverted from the enemies Of Ger