Source: https://openjurist.org/283/us/697
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:17:44+00:00

Document:
STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. OLSON, Co. Atty.
Messrs. Weymouth Kirkland, of Chicago, Ill., and T. E. Latimer, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Messrs. James E. Markham, of St. Paul, Minn., and Arthur L. Markve, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
'Section 1. Any person who, as an individual, or as a member or employee of a firm, or association or organization, or as an officer, director, member or employee of a corporation, shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating, having in possession, selling or giving away.
-is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided.
'Participation in such business shall constitute a commission of such nuisance and render the participant liable and subject to the proceedings, orders and judgments provided for in this Act. Ownership, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, of any such periodical, or of any stock of interest in any corporation or organization which owns the same in whole or in part, or which publishes the same, shall constitute such participation.
Section 2 provides that, whenever any such nuisance is committed or exists, the county attorney of any county where any such periodical is published or circulated, or, in case of his failure or refusal to proceed upon written request in good faith of a reputable citizen, the Attorney General, or, upon like failure or refusal of the latter, any citizen of the county, may maintain an action in the district court of the county in the name of the state to enjoin perpetually the persons committing or maintaining any such nuisance from further committing or maintaining it. Upon such evidence as the court shall deem sufficient, a temporary injunction may be granted. The defendants have the right to plead by demurrer or answer, and the plaintiff may demur or reply as in other cases.
The action, by section 3, is to be 'governed by the practice and procedure applicable to civil actions for injunctions,' and after trial the court may enter judgment permanently enjoining the defendants found guilty of violating the act from continuing the violation, and, 'in and by such judgment, such nuisance may be wholly abated.' The court is empowered, as in other cases of contempt, to punish disobedience to a temporary or permanent injunction by fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than twelve months.
Under this statute (section 1, clause (b), the county attorney of Hennepin county brought this action to enjoin the publication of what was described as a 'malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical,' known as The Saturday Press. published by the defendants in the city of Minneapolis. The complaint alleged that the defendants, on September 24, 1927, and on eight subsequent dates in October and November, 1927, published and circulated editions of that periodical which were 'largely devoted to malicious, scandalous and defamatory articles' concerning Charles G. Davis, Frank W. Brunskill, the Minneapolis Tribune, the Minneapolis Journal, Melvin C. Passolt, George E. Leach, the Jewish Race, the members of the grand jury of Hennepin county impaneled in November, 1927, and then holding office, and other persons, as more fully appeared in exhibits annexed to the complaint, consisting of copies of the articles described and constituting 327 pages of the record. While the complaint did not so allege, it appears from the briefs of both parties that Charles G. Davis was a special law enforcement officer employed by a civic organization, that George E. Leach was mayor of Minneapolis, that Frank W. Brunskill was its chief of police, and that Floyd B. Olson, the relator in this action, was county attorney.
Without attempting to summarize the contents of the voluminous exhibits attached to the complaint, we deem it sufficient to say that the articles charged, in substance, that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling, bootlegging, and racketeering in Minneapolis, and that law enforcing officers and agencies were not energetically performing their duties. Most of the charges were directed against the chief of police; he was charged with gross neglect of duty, illicit relations with gangsters, and with participation in graft. The county attorney was charged with knowing the existing conditions and with failure to take adequate measures to remedy them. The mayor was accused of inefficiency and dereliction. On member of the grand jury was stated to be in sympathy with the gangsters. A special grand jury and a special prosecutor were demanded to deal with the situation in general, and, in particular, to investigate an attempt to assassinate one Guilford, one of the original defendants, who, it appears from the articles, was shot by gangsters after the first issue of th per iodical had been published. There is no question but that the articles made serious accusations against the public officers named and others in connection with the prevalence of crimes and the failure to expose and punish them.
The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and on this demurrer challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The district court overruled the demurrer and certified the question of constitutionality to the Supreme Court of the state. The Supreme Court sustained the statute (174 Minn. 457, 219 N. W. 770, 58 A. L. R. 607), and it is conceded by the appellee that the act was thus held to be valid over the objection that it violated not only the State Constitution, but also the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Thereupon the defendant Near, the present appellant, answered the complaint. He averred that he was the sole owner and proprietor of the publication in question. He admitted the publication of the articles in the issues described in the complaint, but denied that they were malicious, scandalous, or defamatory as alleged. He expressly invoked the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case then came on for trial. The plaintiff offered in evidence the verified complaint, together with the issues of the publication in question, which were attached to the complaint as exhibits. The defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence, invoking the constitutional provisions to which his answer referred. The objection was overruled, no further evidence was presented, and the plaintiff rested. The defendant then rested, without offering evidence. The plaintiff moved that the court direct the issue of a permanent injunction, and this was done.
This statute, for the suppression as a public nuisance of a newspaper or periodical, is unusual, if not unique, and raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It was found impossible to conclude that this essential personal liberty of the citizen was left unprotected by the general guaranty of fundamental rights of person and property. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666, 45 S. CT. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138; Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 362, 373, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 382, 47 S. Ct. 655, 71 L. Ed. 1108; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 532, 75 L. Ed. 1117, decided May 18, 1931. In maintaining this guaranty, the authority of the state to enact laws to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its people is necessarily administered. The limits of this sovereign power must always be determined with appropriate regard to the particular subject of its exercise. Thus, while recognizing the broad discretion of the Legislature in fixing rates to be charged by those undertaking a public service, this Court has decided that the owner cannot constitutionally be deprived of his right to a fair return, because that is deemed to be of the essence of ownership. Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 331, 6 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191, 29 L. Ed. 636; Northern Pacific Railway Company v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 596, 35 S. Ct. 429, 59 L. Ed. 735, L. R. A. 1917F, 1148 Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1. So, while liberty of contract is not an absolute right, and the wide field of activity in the making of contracts is subject to legislative supervision (Frisbie v. United States, 157 U. S. 161, 165, 15 S. Ct. 586, 39 L. Ed. 657), this Court has held that the power of the state stops short of interference with what are deemed to be certain indispensable requirements of the liberty assured, notably with respect to the fixing of prices and wages (Tyson v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, 47 S. Ct. 426, 71 L. Ed. 718, 58 A. L. R. 1236; Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U. S. 350, 48 S. Ct. 545, 72 L. Ed. 913, 56 A. L. R. 1327; Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525, 560, 561, 43 S. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. 785, 24 A. L. R. 1238). Liberty of speech and of the press is also not an absolute right, and the state may punish its abuse. Whitney v. California, supra; Stromberg v. California, supra. Liberty, in each of its phases, has its history and connotation, and, in the present instance, the inquiry is as to the historic conception of the liberty of the press and whether the statute under review violates the essential attributes of that liberty.
The appellee insists that the equstions of the application of the statute to appellant's periodical, and of the construction of the judgment of the trial court, are not presented for review; that appellant's sold attack was upon the constitutionality of the statute, however it might be applied. The appellee contends that no question either of motive in the publication, or whether the decree goes beyond the direction of the statute, is before us. The appellant replies that, in his view, the plain terms of the statute were not departed from in this case, and that eve n if they were, the statute is nevertheless unconstitutional under any reasonable construction of its terms. The appellant states that he has not argued that the temporary and permanent injunctions were broader than were warranted by the statute; he insists that what was done was properly done if the statute is valid, and that the action taken under the statute is a fair indication of its scope.
With respect to these contentions it is enough to say that in passing upon constitutional questions the court has regard to substance and not to mere matters of form, and that, in accordance with familiar principles, the state must be tested by its operation and effect. Henderson v. Mayor, 92 U. S. 259, 268, 23 L. Ed. 543; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 244, 31 S. Ct. 145, 55 L. Ed. 191; United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133, 148, 149, 35 S. Ct. 86, 59 L. Ed. 162; St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362, 35 S. Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265; Mountain Timber Company v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, 237, 37 S. Ct. 260, 61 L. Ed. 685, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 642. That operation and effect we think is clearly shown by the record in this case. We are not concerned with mere errors of the trial court, if these be such, in going beyond the direction of the statute as construed by the Supreme Court of the state. It is thus important to note precisely the purpose and effect of the statute as the state court has construed it.
Third. The object of the statute is not punishment, in the ordinary sense, but suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical. The reason for the enactment, as the state court has said, is that prosecutions to enforce penal statutes for libel do not result in 'efficient repression or suppression of the evils of scandal.' Describing the business of publication as a public nuisance does not obscure the substance of the proceeding which the statute authorizes. It is the continued publication of scandalous and defamatory matter that constitutes the business and the declared muisance. In the case of public officers, it is the reiteration of charges of official misconduct, and the fact that the newspaper or periodical is principally devoted to that purpose, that exposes it to suppression. In the present instance, the proof was that nine editions of the newspaper or periodical in question were published on successive dates, and that they were chiefly devoted to charges against public officers and in relation to the prevalence and protection of crime. In such a case, these officers are not left to their ordinary remedy in a suit for libel, or the authorities to a prosecution for criminal libel. Under this statute, a publisher of a newspaper or periodical, undertaking to conduct a campaign to expose and to censure official derelictions, and devoting his publication principally to that purpose, must face not simply the possibility of a verdict against him in a suit or prosecution for libel, but a determination that his newspaper or periodical is a public nuisance to be abated, and that this abatement and suppression will follow unless he is prepared with legal evidence to prove the truth of the charges and also to satisfy the court that, in addition to being true, the matter was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
Fourth. The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or periodical, but to put the publisher under an effective censorship. When a newspaper or periodical is found to be 'malicious, scandalous and defamatory,' and is suppressed as such, resumption of publication is punishable as a contempt of court by fine or imprisonment. Thus, where a newspaper or periodical has been suppressed because of the circulation of charges against public officers of official misconduct, it would seem to be clear that the renewal of the publication of such charges would constitute a contempt, and that the judgment would lay a permanent restraint upon the publisher, to escape which he must satisfy the court as to the character of a new publication. Whether he would be permitted again to publish matter deemed to be derogatory to the same or other public officers would depend upon the court's ruling. In the present instance the judgment restrained the defendants from 'publishing, circulating, having in their possession, selling or giving away any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper, as defined by law.' The law gives no definition except that covered by the words 'scandalous and defamatory,' and publications charging official misconduct are of the class. While the court, answering the objection that the judgment was too broad, saw no reason for construing it as restraining the defendants 'from operating a newspaper in harmony with the public welfare to which all must yield,' and said that the defendants had not indicated 'any desire to conduct their business in the usual and legitimate manner,' the manifest inference is that, at least with respect to a new publication directed against official misconduct, the defendant would be held, under penalty of punishment for contempt as provided in the statute, to a manner of publication which the court considered to be 'usual and legitimate' and consistent with the public welfare.
If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter-in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction-and, unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of consorship.
The criticism upon Blackstone's statement has not been because immunity from previous restraint upon publication has not been regarded as deserving of special emphasis, but chiefly because that immunity cannot be deemed to exhaust the conception of the liberty guaranteed by State and Federal Constitutions. The point of criticism has been 'that the mere exemption from restraints cannot be all that is secured by the constitutional provisions,' and that 'the liberty of the press might be rendered a mockery and a delusion, and the phrase itself a by-word, if, while every man was at liberty to publish what he pleased, the public authorities might nevertheless punish him for harmless publications.' 2 Cooley, Const. Lim. (8th Ed.) pp. 885. But it is recognized that punishment for the abuse of the liberty accorded to the press is essential to the protection of the public, and that the common-law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility for the public offense, as well as for the private injury, are not abolished by the protection extended in our Constitutions Id. pp. 883, 884. The law of criminal libel rests upon that secure foundation. There is also the conceded authority of courts to punish for contempt when publications directly tend to prevent the proper discharge of judicial functions. Patterson v. Colorado, supra; Toledo Newspaper Company v. United States, 247 U. S. 402, 419, 38 S. Ct. 560, 62 L. Ed. 1186.5 In the present case, we have no occasion to inquire as to the permissible scope of subsequent punishment. For whatever wrong the appellant has committed or may commit, by his publications, the state appropriately affords both public and private redress by its libel laws. As has been noted, the statute in question does not deal with punishments; it provides for no punishment, except in case of contempt for violation of the court's order, but for suppression and injunction-that is, for restraint upon publication.
The importance of this immunity has not lessened. While reckless assaults upon public men, and efforts to bring obloquy upon those whon are endeavoring faithfully to discharge official duties, exert a baleful influence and deserve the severest condemnation in public opinion, it cannot be said that this abuse is greater, and it is believed to be less, than that which characterized the period in which our institutions took shape. Meanwhile, the administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, expecially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with offical misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.
In attempted justification of the statute, it is said that it deals not with publcati on per se, but with the 'business' of publishing defamation. If, however, the publisher has a constitutional right to publish, without previous restraint, an edition of his newspaper charging official derelictions, it cannot be denied that he may publish subsequent editions for the same purpose. He does not lose his right by exercising it. If his right exists, it may be exercised in publishing nine editions, as in this case, as well as in one edition. If previous restraint is permissible, it may be imposed at once; indeed, the wrong may be as serious in one publication as in several. Characterizing the publication as a business, and the business as a nuisance, does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. Similarly, it does not matter that the newspaper or periodical is found to be 'largely' or 'chiefly' devoted to the publication of such derelictions. If the publisher has a right, without previous restraint, to publish them, his right cannot be deemed to be dependent upon his publishing something else, more or less, with the matter to which objection is made.
Nor can it be said that the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is lost because charges are made of derelictions which constitute crimes. With the multiplying provisions of penal codes, and of municipal charters and ordinances carrying penal sanctions, the conduct of public officers is very largely within the purview of criminal statutes. The freedom of the press from previous restraint has never been regarded as limited to such animadversions as lay outside the range of renal enactments. Historically, there is no such limitation; it is inconsistent with the reason which underlies the privilege, as the privilege so limited would be of slight value for the purposes for which it came to be established.
The statute in question cannot be justified by reason of the fact that the publisher is permitted to show, before injunction issues, that the matter published is true and is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. If such a statute, authorizing suppression and injunction on such a basis, is constitutionally valid, it would be equally permissible for the Legislature to provide that at any time the publisher of any newspaper could be brought before a court, or even an administrative officer (as the constitutional protection may not be regarded as resting on mere procedural details), and required to produce proof of the truth of his publication, or of what he intended to publish and of his motives, or stand enjoined. If this can be done, the Legislature may provide machinery for determining in the complete exercise of its discretion what are justifiable ends and restrain publication accordingly. And it would be but a step to a complete system of censorship. The recognition of authority to impose previous restraint upon publication in order to protect the community against the circulation of charges of misconduct, and especially of official misconduct, necessarily would carry with it the admission of the authority of the censor against which the constitutional barrier was erected. The preliminary freedom, by virtue of the very reason for its existence, does not depend, as this court has said, on proof of truth. Patterson v. Colorado, supra.
Equally unavailing is the insistence that the statute is designed to prevent the circulation of scandal which tends to disturb the public peace and to provoke assaults and the commission of crime. Charges of reprehensible conduct, and in particular of official malfeasance, unquestionably create a public scandal, but the theory of the constitutional guaranty is that even a more serious public evil would be caused by authority to prevent publication. 'To prohibit the intent to excite those unfavorable sentiments against those who administer the Government, is equivalent to a prohibition of the actual excitement of them; and to prohibit the actual excitement of them is equivalent to a prohibition of discussions having that tendeny an d effect; which, again, is equivalent to a protection of those who administer the Government, if they should at any time deserve the contempt or hatrad of the people, against being exposed to it by free animadversions on their characters and conduct.'12 There is nothing new in the fact that charges of reprehensible conduct may create resentment and the disposition to resort to violent means of redress, but this well-understood tendency did not alter the determination to protect the press against censorship and restrain upon publication. As was said in New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. Nolan, 89 N. J. Eq. 387, 388, 105 A. 72: 'If the township may prevent the circulation of a newspaper for no reason other than that some of its inhabitants may violently disagree with it, and resent it circulation by resorting to physical violence, there is no limit to what may be prohibited.' The danger of violent reactions becomes greater with effective organization of defiant groups resenting exposure, and, if this consideration warranted legislative interference with the initial freedom of publication, the constitutional protection would be reduced to a mere form of words.
For these reasons we hold the statute, so far as it authorized the proceedings in this action under clause (b) of section 1, to be an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We should add that this decision rests upon the operation and effect of the statute, without regard to the question of the truth of the charges contained in the particular periodical. The fact that the public officers named in this case, and those associated with the charges of official dereliction, may be deemed to be impeccable, cannot affect the conclusion that the statute imposes an unconstitutional restraint upon publication.
The decision of the Court in this case declares Minnesota and every other state powerless to restrain by injunction the business of publishing and circulating among the people malicious, scandalous, and defamatory periodicals that in due course of judicial procedure has been adjudged to the a public nuisance. It gives to freedom of the press a meaning and a scope not heretofore recognized, and construes 'liberty' in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to put upon the states a federal restriction that is without precedent.
Confessedly, the Federal Constitution, prior to 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, did not protect the right of free speech of press against state action. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250, 8 L. Ed. 672; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 434, 12 L. Ed. 213; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76, 15 L. Ed. 269; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 89-91, 15 L. Ed. 816. Up to that time the right was safeguarded solely by the Constitutions and laws of the states, and, it may be added, they operated adequately to protect it. This court was not called on until 1925 to decide whether the 'liberty' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right of free speech and press. That question has been finally answered in the affirmative. Cf. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462, 27 S. Ct. 556, 51 L. Ed. 879, 10 Ann. Cas. 689; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 538, 543, 42 S. Ct. 516, 66 L. Ed. 1044, 27 A. L. R. 27. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 47 S. Ct. 655, 71 L. Ed. 1108; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 532, 75 L. Ed. 1117.
The defendant here has no standing to assert that the statute is invalid because it might be construed so as to violate the Constitution. His right is limited solely to the inquiry whether, having regard to the points properly raised in his case, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive him of his liberty without die process of law. This court should not reverse the judgment below upon the ground that in some other case the statute may be applied in a way that is repugnant to the freedom of the press protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 680, 18 S. Ct. 229, 42 L. Ed. 622; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213, 225, 18 S. Ct. 583, 42 L. Ed. 1012; Yazoo & Miss. R. R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217, 219-220, 33 S. Ct. 40, 57 L. Ed. 193. Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544-546, 34 S. Ct. 359, 58 L. Ed. 713.
This record requires the Court to consider the statute as applied to the business of publishing articles that are in fact malicious, scandalous, and defamatory.
The complaint charges that defendants were engaged in the business of regularly and customarily publishing 'malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspapers' known as the Saturday Press, and nine editions dated, respectively, on each Saturday commencing September 25 and ending November 19, 1927, were made a part of the complaint. These are all that were published.
Defendant Near again appealed to the Supreme Court. In its opinion (179 Minn. 40, 228 N. W. 326) the court said: 'No claim is advanced that the method and character of the operation of the newspaper in question was not a nuisance if the statute is constitutional. It was regularly and customarily devoted largely to malicious, scandalous, and defamatory matter. * * * The record presents the same questions upon which we have already passed.' Defendant concedes that the editions of the newspaper complained of are 'defamatory per se.' And he says: 'It has been asserted that the constitution was never intended to be a shield for malice, scandal, and defamation when unrue, or published with bad motives, or for unjustificable ends. * * * The contrary is true; every person does have a constitutional right to publish malicious, scandalous, and defamatory matter though untrue, and with bad motives, and for unjustifiable ends, in the first instance, though he is subject to responsibility therefor afterwards.' The record, when the substance of the articles is regarded, requires that concession here. And this Court is required to pass on the validity of the state law on that basis.
There is no basis for the suggestion that defendants may not interpose any defense or introduce any evidence that would be open to them in a libel case or that malice may not be negatived by showing that the publication was made in good faith in belief of its truth or that at the time and under the circumstances it was justified as a fair comment on public affairs or upon the conduct of public officers in respect of their duties as such. See Mason's Minnesota States 1927, §§ 10112, 10113.
The scope of the judgment is not reviewable here. The opinion of the state Supreme Court shows that it was not reviewable there because defendants' assignments of error in that court did not go to the form of the judgment and because the lower court had not been asked to modify the judgment.
The act was passed in the exertion of the state's power of police, and this court is by well-established rule required to assume, until the contrary is clearly made to appear, that there exists in Minnesota a state of affairs that justifies this measure for the preservation of the peace and good order of the state. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 79, 31 S. Ct. 337, 55 L. Ed. 369, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Gitlow v. New York, supra, 268 U. S. 668-669, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138; Corporation Commission v. Lowe, 281 U. S. 431, 438, 50 S. Ct. 397, 74 L. Ed. 945; O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Ins. Co., 282 U. S. 251, 257-258, 51 S. Ct. 130, 75 L. Ed. 324.
In 1913 one Guilford, originally a defendant in this suit, commenced the publication of a scandal sheet called the Twin City Reporter. In 1916 Near joined him in the enterprise, later bought him out, and engaged the services of the Bevans. In 1919 Bevans acquired Near's interest, and has since, alone or with others, continued the publication. Defendants admit that they published some reprehensible articles in the Twin City Reporter, deny that they personally used it for blackmailing purposes, admit that, by reason of their connection with the paper, their reputation did become tainted, and state that Bevans, while so associated with Near, did use the paper for blackmailing purposes. And Near says it was for that reason he sold his interest to Bevans.
The articles in question also state that, when defendants announced their intention to publish the Saturday Press, they were threatened, and that soon after the first publication Guilford was waylaid and shot down before he could use the firearm which he had at hand for the purpose of defending himself against anticipated assaults. It also appears that Near apprehended violence and was not unprepared to repel it. There is much more of like significance.
The long criminal career of the Twin City Reporter-if it is in fact as described by defendants-and the arming and shooting ariing out of the publication of the Saturday Press, serve to illustrate the kind of conditions in respect of the business of publishing malicious, scandalous, and defamatory periodicals by which the state Legislature presumably was moved to enact the law in question. It must be deemed appropriate to deal with conditions existing in Minnesota.
It is plain that Blackstone taught that under the common law liberty of the press means simply the absence of restraint upon publication in advance as distinguished from liability, civil or criminal, for libelous or improper matter so published. And, as above shown, Story defined freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to mean that 'every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends.' His statement concerned the definite declaration of the First Amendment. It is not suggested that the freedom of press included in the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted after Story's definition, is greater than that protected against congressional action. And see 2 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 886; 2 Kent's Commentaries (14th Ed.) Lect. XXIV, p. 17.
The Minnesota statute does not operate as a previous restraint on publication within the proper meaning of that phrase. It does not authorize administrative control in advance such as was formerly exercised by the licensers and censors, but prescribes a remedy to be enforced by a suit in equity. In this case there was previous publication made in the course of the business of regularly producing malicious, scandalous, and defamatory periodicals. The business and publications unquestionably constitute an abuse of the right of free press. The statute denounces the things done as a nuisance on the ground, as stated by the state Supreme Court, that they threaten morals, peace, and good order. There is no question of the power of the state to denounce such transgressions. The restraint authorized is only in respect of continuing to do what has been duly adjudged to constitute a nuisance. The controlling words are: 'All persons guilty of such nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided. * * * Whenever any such nuisance is committed * * * an action in the name of the State' may be brought 'to perpetually enjoin the person or persons committing, conducting or maintaining any such nuisance, from further committing, conducting, or maintaining any such nuisance. * * * The court may make its order and judgment permanently enjoining * * * defendants found guilty * * * from further committing or continuing the acts prohibited hereby, and in and by such judgment, such nuisance may be wholly abated. * * *' There is nothing in the statute3 purporting to prohibit publications that have not been adjudged to constitute a nuisance. It is fancful to suggest similarity between the granting or enforcement of the decree authorized by this statute to prevent further publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory articles and the previous restraint upon the press by licensers as referred to by Blackstone and described in the history of the times to which he alludes.
The opinion seems to concede that under clause (a) of the Minnesota law the business of regularly publishing and circulating an obscene periodical may be enjoined as a nuisance. It is difficult to perceive any distinction, having any relation to constitutionality, between clause (a) and clause (b) under which this action was brought. Both nuisances are offensive to morals, order, and good government. As that resulting from lewd publications constitutionally may be enjoined, it is hard to understand why the one resulting from a regular business of malicious defamation may not.
It is well known, as found by the state Supreme Court, that existing libel laws are inadequate effectively to suppress evils resulting from the kind of business and publications that are shown in this case. The doctrine that measures such as the one before us are invalid because they operate as revious restraints to infringe freedom of press exposes the peace and good order of every community and the business and private affairs of every individual to the constant and protracted false and malicious assaults of any insolvent publisher who may have purpose and sufficient capacity to contrive and put into effect a scheme or program for oppression, blackmail or extortion.
Mason's Minnesota Statutes, 1927, §§ 10123-1 to 10123-3.
Mason's Minn. Stats. 1927, §§ 10112, 10113; State v. Shippman, 83 Minn. 441, 445, 86 N. W. 431; State v. Minor, 163 Minn. 109, 110, 203 N. W. 596.
It may also be observed that in a prosecution for libel the applicable Minnesota statute (Mason's Minn. Stats. 1927, §§ 10112, 10113) provides that the publication is justified 'whenever the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justificable ends,' and also 'is excused when honestly made, in belief of its truth, and upon reasonable grounds for such belief, and consists of fair comments upon the conduct of a person in respect of public affairs.' The clause last mentioned is not found in the statute in question.
May, Constitutional History of England, vol. 2, c. IX, p. 4; De Lolme, Commentaries on the Constitution of England, c. IX, pp. 318, 319.
See Huggonson's Case, 2 Atk. 469; Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 319, 1 L. Ed. 155; Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 337, 373, 22 P. 790, 6 L. R. A. 430; Nebraska v. Rosewater, 60 Neb. 438, 80 N. W. 353; State v. Tugwell, 19 Wash. 238, 52 P. 1056, 43 L. R. A. 717; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195, 16 Am. Rep. 528; Storey v. People, 79 Ill. 45, 22 Am. Rep. 158; State v. Circuit Court, 97 Wis. 1, 72 N. W. 193, 38 L. R. A. 554, 65 Am. St. Rep. 90.
See Duniway 'The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts,' p. 123; Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. 2, 261.
Journal of the Continental Congress (1904 Ed.) vol. I, pp. 104, 108.
Dailey v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, 98, 44 P. 458, 32 L. R. A. 273, 53 Am. St. Rep. 160; Jones, Varnum & Co. v. Towsend's Adm'x, 21 Fla. 431, 450, 58 Am. Rep. 676; State ex rel. Liversey v. Judge, 34 La. Ann. 741, 743; Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 304, 313, 15 Am. Dec. 214; Lindsay v. Montana Federation of Labor, 37 Mont. 264, 275, 277, 96 P. 127, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 707. 127 Am. St. Rep. 722; Howell v. Bee Publishing Co., 100 Neb. 39, 42, 158 N. W. 358, L. R. A. 1917A, 160, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 655; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. Nolan, 89 N. J. Eq. 384, 105 A. 72; Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 24, 34 Am. Dec. 368; New York Juvenile Guardian Society v. Roosevelt, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 188; Ulster Square Dealer v. Fowler, 58 Misc. Rep. 325, 111 N. Y. S. 16; Star Co. v. Brush, 103 Misc. Rep. 631, 170 N. Y. S. 987; Id., 104 Misc. Rep. 404, 172 N. Y. S. 320; Id., 185 App. Div. 261, 172 N. Y. S. 851; Dopp v. Doll, 9 Ohio Dec. 428; Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 319, 325, 1 L. Ed. 155; Respublica V. Dennie, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 267, 269, 2 Am. Dec. 402; Ex parte Neill, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 275, 22 S. W. 923, 40 Am. St. Rep. 776; Mitchell v. Grand Lodge, 56 Tex Civ. App. 306, 309, 121 S. W. 178; Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. 158, 182, 31 Am. Rep. 757; Citizens Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Montgomery Light & Water Co. (C. C.) 171 F. 553, 556; Willis v. O'Connell (D. C.) 231 F. 1004, 1010; Dearborn Publishing Co. v. Fitzgerald (D. C.) 271 F. 479, 485.
"I am a bosom friend of Mr. Olson,' snorted a gentleman of Yiddish blood, 'and I want to protest against your article,' and blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
'I am not taking orders from men of Barnett faith, at least right now. There have been too many men in this city and especially those in official life, who HAVE been taking orders and suggestions from JEW GANGSTERS, therefore we HAVE Jew Gangters, practically ruling Minneapolis.
Jew, who boasted that he held the chief of police of Minnoapolis in his hand-had bought and paid for him.
'It is Jewish men and women-pliant tools of the Jew gangster, Mose Barnett, who stand charged with having falsified the election records and returns in the Third ward. And it is Mose Barnett himself, who, indicted for his part in the Shapiro assault, is a fugitive from justice today.
'Practically every vendor of vile hooch, every owner of a moonshine still, every snake-faced gangster and exbryonic yegg in the Twin Cities is a JEW.
'Having these examples before me, I feel that I am justified in my refusal to take orders from a Jew who boasts that he is a 'bosom friend' of Mr. Olson.
'When I find men of a certain race banding themselves together for the purpose of preying upon Gentile or Jew; gunmen, KILLERS, roaming our streets shooting down men against whom they have no personal grudge (or happen to have); defying OUR laws; corrupting OUR officials; assaulting business men; beating up unarmed citizens; spreading a reign of terror through every walk of life, then I say to you in all sincerity, that I refuse to back up a single step from that 'issue'-if they choose to make it so.
'If the people of Jewish faith in Minneapolis wish to avoid criticism of these vermin whom I rightfully calls 'Jews' they can easily do so BY THEMSELVES CLEANING HOUSE.
'I simply state a fact when I say that ninety per cent of the crimes committed against society in this city are committed by Jew gangsters.
'It is Jew, Jew, as long as one cares to comb over the records.
'I am launching no attack against the Jewish people AS A RACE. I am merely calling attention to a FACT. And if the people of that race and faith with to rid themselvs of the odium and stigma THE RODENTS OF THEIR OWN RACE HAVE BROUGHT UPON THEM, they need only to step to the front and help the decent citizens of Minneapolis rid the city of these criminal Jews.
'Either Mr. Guilford or myself stand ready to do battle for a MAN, regardless of his race, color or creed, but neither of us will step one inch out of our chosen path to avoid a fight IF the Jews want to battle.
'Whereupon I have withdrawn all allegiance to anything with a hook nose that east herring. I have adopted the sparrow as my national bird unit Davis' law enforcement league or the K. K. K. hammers the eagle's beak out straight. So if I seem to act crazy as I ankle down the street, bear in mind that I am merely saluting MY national emblem.
'There are grand juries, and there are grand juries. The last one was a real grand jury. It acted. The present one is like the scion who is labelled 'Junior.' That means not so good. There are a few mighty good folks on it-there are some who smell bad. One petty peanut polician whose graft was almost pitiful in its size when he was a public official, has already shot his mouth off in several places. He is establishing his alibi in advance for what he intends to keep from taking place.
'But George, we won't bother you. (Meaning a grand juror.) We are aware that the gambling syndicate was waiting for your body to convene before the big crap game opened again. The Yids has your dimensions, apparently, and we always go by the judgment of a dog in appraising people.
May, Constitutional History of England, c. 1X. Duniway, Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, cc. I and II; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) vol. II, pp. 880, 881; Pound, Equitable Relief against Defamation, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 640, 650, et seq.; Madison, Letters and Other Writings (1865 Ed.) Vol. IV, pp. 542, 543; Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 319, 1 L. Ed. 155; Rawle, A iew of the Constitution (2d Ed. 1829) p. 124; Paterson, Liberty of the Press, c. III.
§ 1. Any person who, as an individual, or as a member or employee of a firm, or association or organization, ganization, or as an officer, director, member or employee of a corporation, shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating, having in possession, selling or giving away.
In actions brought under (b) above, there shall be available the defense that the truth was published with good motives and for justifiable ends and in such actions the plaintiff shall not have the right to report (resort) to issues or editions of periodicals taking place more than three months before the commencement of the action.
§ 3. The action may be brought to trial and tried as in the case of other actions in such District Court, and shall be governed by the practice and procedure applicable to civil actions for injunctions.
After trial the court may make its order and judgment permanently enjoining any and all defendants found guilty of violating this act from further committing or continuing the acts prohibited hereby, and in and by such judgment, such nuisance may be wholly abated.
The court may, as in other cases of contempt, at any time punish, by fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than twelve months, any person or persons violating any injunction, temporary or permanent, made or issued pursuant to this act. Laws Minn. 1925, c. 285.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 1

§ 3