The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1921-09-22
LIBEL SUIT
THREAT FOR
FREE PRESS
Attorney Says Actio n
Against Tribune With
out Precedent.

Chicago, Sept. 22-Arguing for
a free press as a principal bulwark
of democracy, Weymouth Kirkland,
of counsel for the Chicago Tribune
today declared the s10,000.000 libel
suit of the City of Chicago against
that newspaper was a revival Of
monarchical doctrine and without
| precedent in American law He
asked the court to uphold a general
demurrer, which if allowed would
have the effect of a ruling of mo
case
The case came before Judge Har-
| ry M. Fisher of the circuit court of
Cook county and because of its IN
usual legal aspects and local po-
| litical significance attracted a large
! audience
| Mr.. Kirkland, early in his argu-
ment, stated that from the long
struggle for freedom of expression
political rule has been evolved,
| mot without application to this
/ suit which he phrased as follows:
~COrrupt Power at Work.
"Only arbitrary, oppressive or
corrupt power has sought to en-
slave or destroy the free utterance
Of the press"
! He contended that the suit was
an attempt by a government 10
/ restrict the due freedom of the
press" adding:
THE form of attack is novel and
| in America at least, without preced-
hn
| the same as marked the whole
, course of obstruction to free ex-
preston; namely, to protect en-
trenched authority from inquiry
| and criticism" =,s..z.--s--s.7.- -ss-,
Mr.. Kirkland traced the history
of attempts to stif1e free expression
of thought from the days OF the
Roman republic, through the
empire and into England. There,
he said, the printing press at its
| inception was restricted by cen
sorship and licensing systems and
the law of libel in its most oppres-
sive form was applied by the Star
/ Chamber under James l. and
Charles l.
Cites English History.
The attorney instanced punish
ments like cutting off of ears, dealt
out to authors and publishers of Ut
terances which displeased the reign
ing power and pointed out that the
fines levied in other cases were SO
enormous as to be confiscatory. He
brought out that by 1895 England
and about 1928 in the American col
onies the control of the press by
the kingly prerogatives of licensing
and censorship had given way be
fore the advance of popular power,
but there had been employed from
the earliest time a collateral meth
Cd of attack, sought to be revived
in this suit, the action of libel.
He said that during the reigns of
Queen Anne and of George III. the
cause of free discussion passed
through fiery trials and lnstanced
the martyrdom of Tutchin for pre-
suming to criticize an action of par
lament He pointed out that de-
spite repressive measures this was
the age of Swift, Addison and Steele
and the periodical press grew apace
and the first daily newspaper ap-
peared," adding:
The most remarkable fact about
persecution is its inefficiency. In
the main it has the opposite effect
of its intention"
Reviews Stamp Act.
Mr.. Kirkland reviewed the effects
of the stamp act, saying that it re-
duced the newspaper circulation
of Great Britain to half that OF
America although the population
was double that of the colonies.
In other words, and it is peril
nent to this suit" said Mr.. kirk
land, the method of suppression
by economic attack is far more cf-
fective than that of personal perse-
cution. Today any government
which sought to perpetuate itself
by paralyzing criticism or prevent
ing exposure, could accomplish its
purpose best, not by cutting of the
ears of its editors, but by enacting
a heavy tax or by enforcing claims
for confiscatory damages, such as
are made in the present suit"
Mr.. Kirkland pointed out that the
stitution declared that congress
stitution declared that" congress
shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech or of the press"
and that similar declarations are
found in all state constitutions.
That of Illinois. he said, guarded
against revival of the common law
doctrine of libel which excluded
the truth of a publication as de-
fense OF it. He quoted it as fol-
lows:
Quotes Illinois Law.
Every person may freely speak,
L ~ .zNEr J
being responsible for the abuse OF
that liberty; and in all trials for
libel, both civil and criminal, the
truth, when published with good |
motives and for iustifable ends, |
shall be sufficient defense"
He argued that the federal form
assumed the existence of the right |
and forbade its abridgment but that |
the Illinois provision was direct de- /
claration of a right