C5 
 
 IIBI1BMIWI II I 
 $B 12fi fill 
 
WhatmePwsSaid 
 
 Comment on 
 
 theTen Million DollarLibel Suit 
 againsaihe ChicagoTribune 
 
 Compliment, of The ChicagoTribune 
 
Editorial Comment in the 
 American Press 
 
What American Editors Said 
 about the 
 
 Ten Million Dollar 
 Libel Suit 
 
 Editorial Comment in American 
 
 press on the lawsuit brought in the 
 
 name of the City of Chicago against 
 
 The Chicago Tribune 
 
 
 December, 1921 
 
 Published for Private Circulation by 
 
 The Chicago Tribune 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
Preface 
 
 N the following pages will be found the 
 views of the American press on the suit 
 for ten million dollars damages brought 
 against The Chicago Tribune by the cor- 
 poration of the City of Chicago at the 
 instance of the Thompson administration. 
 
 This suit was a novelty in American law, being founded 
 on the theory that because a municipal corporation holds 
 property, makes contracts, employs credit and carries on 
 business, it is entitled to bring action like a private 
 corporation, for libelous publication. 
 
 To this suit the Tribune filed demurrer chiefly on the 
 ground that a municipality is a political agency, an agency 
 of government, and that to permit a suit for civil damages 
 for libel would be infringement upon the right of free 
 speech and free press. 
 
 On this ground Judge Harry M. Fisher, of the Circuit 
 Court of Cook County, sustained the demurrer in a 
 notable opinion, widely quoted, as will appear in the 
 following editorial discussion of the case. 
 
 From this discussion it will be observed that virtually 
 the entire press of the United States, to say nothing of 
 several of the leading newspapers of Great Britain, 
 recognized the importance of the suit as a recrudescence 
 of the long continued effort of governmental authority to 
 paralyze criticism, an effort beginning with the Star 
 Chamber and ending with the thorough establishment of 
 political freedom in the American republic. 
 
 The suit is an anomaly, without precedent in American 
 law, and as Judge Fisher remarked, is "not in harmony 
 with the genius, spirit and objects of our institutions. 
 
 A78G79 
 
 [3] 
 
It does not belong in our day. It fits in rather with the 
 genius of the rulers who conceived of law not in the 
 purity of love for justice, but in the lustful passion for 
 undisturbed power." 
 
 The comment of the American press on this case and 
 Judge Fisher's decision, the Tribune believes, is of 
 historical interest and therefore offers it to the newspaper 
 fraternity and to the public as a noteworthy expression 
 of American thought and principle. 
 
 
ALTON (111.) Tclcyrupli, Oct. .>, UKM. 
 
 Libel Suits and Officials 
 
 Mayor Thompson, in the name of the City of Chicago, 
 has sued for libel The Chicago Tribune. The Tribune, 
 the city's suit alleges, hurt the reputation of the city. 
 
 Many things are involved in the suit. There is, of 
 course, the question of whether a newspaper is allowed t o 
 criticise public officials. There really should be no 
 argument on this point. The modern American form 
 of government is not the idealistic thing the fathers 
 intended it should be. The people of this republican 
 not pure democracy are guaranteed the right of getting 
 rid of officials who do not, in the modern parlance, hit 
 the ball. The method is the ballot box. But many 
 things have been done to destroy this right. The great- 
 est instrument against it is the political machine, a 
 form of primary, party bossism and other things. 
 
 When all these elements destroy as they have in 
 many cases the right of removal by the people, there 
 must be some recourse. That recourse is the news- 
 paper. If there ever was an inalienable right, it is that 
 of the newspaper to criticise public officials. Any judge 
 who would seek to deny or curb this right is taking from 
 the American people one of its greatest treasures, a 
 treasure no other people enjoy. 
 
 Then, in the Chicago case, Mayor Thompson, osten- 
 sibly, is using money of the city of Chicago to fight a 
 newspaper which has criticised government of Chicago. 
 The suit, it is to be remembered, has been brought by 
 the city. 
 
 EAST ST. Louis (111.) Journal, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Valiant Free Press Necessary for the 
 Public Weal 
 
 The decision of Judge Harry Fisher that the city of 
 Chicago had no actionable cause against The Chicago 
 Tribune and News in the $10,000,000 damage suits in- 
 stituted by the city administration positively and 
 specifically upholds the freedom of the press as a con- 
 stitutional right. The press is at liberty, the court 
 
 [5] 
 
held, not only to exercise the equivalent of free speech in 
 printing news and expressing opinion, but to expose 
 wrongdoing in public office and even to attack public 
 servants. 
 
 Modern society could not exist in security, nor repre- 
 sentative government endure, without alert, just, im- 
 partial, vigorous and fearless publicity. And the un- 
 trammeled press, sincere in motive and honest in pur- 
 pose, is the most indispensable of public institutions. 
 The church, the schools, commerce, the people and the 
 government itself depend on the daily newspaper as 
 their most valuable and necessary auxiliary, using it 
 constantly as their own medium to advance the general 
 welfare. 
 
 The press sees and hears everything of importance in 
 all parts of the world. Its vigilance and publicity pre- 
 vent revolutionary upheavals, hold standard political 
 entities together, locate and feed the starving and per- 
 secuted, and maintain a kind of international equilibrium 
 of peace and progress. The press states or molds public 
 sentiment and opinion against great wrongs and for 
 noble principles. 
 
 The present is the people's era, and the press is the 
 people's institution. That these are existent and recog- 
 nized facts is demonstrated especially by the universal 
 demand for publicity at the forthcoming disarmament 
 conference. It is feared that the disarmament con- 
 ference will not be sufficiently successful without the 
 glaring light of publicity. 
 
 As the press is public, it must be free. Because it is-/ 
 responsible to the public, its abuse of power need not 
 be feared, for the public would cease to support a news- 
 paper that violated its trust or failed in its duty. Put-*' 
 ting the press in chains would be the same as shackling 
 the people. In the finality, it is by its fulfillment of 
 public obligations that a newspaper merits respect and 
 wields influence, and by disregard of public interests or 
 the common weal that it destroys itself. 
 
 [6] 
 
OSKALOOSA (la.) Iln-aliL Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press 
 
 The damage suit brought in the name of the City of 
 Chicago against The Chicago Tribune for $10,000,000 
 involved more llian an attempt to "get even with I he 
 press" for exposing a lot of public irregularities in 
 Chicago. It held in its wake the destiny of the freedom 
 of the press. Judge 1 Fisher, in deciding to throw I lie 
 case out of court recognized the importance of the dan- 
 ger, and emphasized it in his decision. 
 
 The decision was of far-reaching importance to news- 
 papers, as the suit was the first on record in which a 
 municipality sought to restrict the right to criticize its 
 corporate acts. 
 
 The court said that examination of the early English 
 law only served to point out the necessity of avoiding its 
 principles. He characterized its history as telling the 
 story of the struggle for human liberty. 
 
 "It is a succession of repressive measures with vary- 
 ing degrees of inhuman penalties on the one hand and 
 a stubborn resistance to them by the champions of 
 liberty on the Other," Judge Fisher said. 
 
 "The freedom of speech and of the press was, at the 
 very inception of our government, regarded as indis- 
 pensable to a free state," said Judge Fisher. 
 
 The court said that torture and even death itself had 
 not availed to suppress the desire for freedom of speech 
 and public worship and that legitimate restraints had 
 been narrowed down to four heads blasphemy, immor- 
 ality, sedition and defamation. .Dismissing the first two 
 as not involved in the present hearing, he held that if 
 the articles in which The Chicago Tribune asserted that 
 the city was "broke" were neither seditious nor libelous, 
 they were unrestrained. He then pointed out that the 
 counsel for the city had admitted that the publications 
 were not seditious. 
 
 Judge Fisher extolled the part which newspapers play 
 in modern industrial and social development and in 
 times of national stress such as the recent war. He 
 said that with increased power of the press had come 
 naturally increased abuses of power. He pointed out 
 that often a great part of the press is led to serve eco- 
 
 [7] 
 
nomic interests to the detriment of the public, but he 
 added that the harm it could do was limited by the fact 
 that existence of a newspaper depends upon the public 
 favor. 
 
 "It cannot long indulge in falsehoods without losing 
 that confidence from which alone comes its power, its 
 prestige and its reward," Judge Fisher said. 
 
 "On the other hand the harm which would certainly 
 result to the community from an officialdom unrestrained 
 by fear of publicity is incalculable." 
 
 The court said that if the present suit could be main- 
 tained" then public officials would have in their power 
 one of the most effective instruments with which to 
 intimidate the press and silence their enemies." 
 
 From the Sioux City Journal, reprinted in the 
 COUNCIL BLUFFS (la.) News, Oct. 24, 1921. 
 
 A Notable Press Victory 
 
 Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago, in sustaining the 
 demurrer of The Chicago Tribune to the $10,000,000 
 libel suit brought by the municipality, has helped to 
 maintain the principle of a free American press. Again 
 a notable newspaper victory has been won and a service 
 of information and interpretation has been protected 
 for the good of the public. A muzzled press would 
 not be worth much in America where journalism has 
 been developed to a point at which the newspaper is 
 regarded as a public necessity. 
 
 Mayor Thompson had been attacked and criticised 
 for his management of .the city's financial affairs. 
 Chicago was found to be unable to pay its current bills 
 for its regular corporate expenses, and the Tribune and 
 the News referred to this condition as "bankruptcy." 
 It was pointed out by the papers that the city adminis- 
 tration, which had been administering the a flairs of 
 the municipality, had brought the finances to sucli a 
 condition of "bankruptcy." Therefore Mayor Thomp- 
 son, in suing the two newspapers in the name of the 
 city and in its behalf, charged that (hr good name and 
 the credit of Chicago had been injured to the extent 
 of $10,000,000. The two suits were the first on record 
 
 [8] 
 
in this country, and the objective of the city officials 
 was to restrict the right of a newspaper lo criticise their 
 corporate acts. In other words an organization or an 
 individual which composed a part of the business or 
 the social life of the community was to be restricted from 
 expressing an opinion about the way the affairs of (he 
 community were being handled. 
 
 Once more it became necessary for an American judge 
 to remind the public that this is America and not K up- 
 land. Only a few months ago another judge held in 
 the case of Len Small, governor of Illinois, that the 
 old English idea of "the king doing no wrong" con Id 
 not be applied here because there were no kings in this 
 country. Governor Small's attorneys had claimed im- 
 munity for their powerful client because of his executive 
 position. Judge Fisher holds that the portion of the 
 English law which restricted the liberty of the press had 
 not been inherited by America. No lese majesty is 
 possible here because America has no personage of 
 majestic influence or character under the law. Referring 
 to the suit, Judge Fisher said: "This action is not in 
 harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 institutions." 
 
 If the city of Chicago had been able to proceed with 
 its suit against the Tribune and News, a precedent dan- 
 gerous to American freedom, liberty and privilege 
 would have been established. It would have meant that 
 the great American public would be limited as to the 
 service it received from the daily newspapers every- 
 where. That service consists of the news of the day 
 and an interpretation thereof. If a municipality or 
 other organization had the right under the law to enjoin 
 the publication of facts and the expression of opinion 
 in any particular, the barrier reared against the news- 
 papers might be put anywhere. That would assail the 
 very spirit of American liberty, would break down one 
 principle after another until little of value would be left. 
 
 The newspaper stands apart as an American institu- 
 tion. Its purpose is twofold the manufacturing of a 
 commodity or service that can be sold at a profit for 
 the benefit of its proprietors and employers and the 
 dissemination of honest opinion and facts for the benefit 
 
 [9] 
 
of the majority it serves, 
 intolerable. 
 
 Any impairment of either is 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS (Ind.) News, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 A Silly Suit 
 
 The silly libel suit for $10,000,000 damages brought 
 against The Chicago Tribune by Mayor Thompson and 
 other officials in the name of the city of Chicago evidently 
 did not impress Judge Fisher of the Circuit court as hav- 
 ing any merit as of course it had not. For last week 
 the court sustained a demurrer to the complaint a 
 demurrer that seems to have gone to the merits of the 
 controversy. The theory was that the city of Chicago 
 had been injured by the criticisms directed by the 
 Tribune against Thompson and his associates. The 
 judge held that such a suit "is not in harmony with the 
 genius, spirit and objects of our institutions, " and he 
 continued : 
 
 Stripped of all the elaborate argument, in the confusion of 
 which the question for decision might look difficult, the fact 
 remains that, if this action is maintainable, then public 
 officials have in their power one of the most effective instru- 
 ments with which to intimidate the press and to silence 
 their enemies. It is a weapon to be held over the head of 
 every one who dares print or speak unfavorably of the men 
 in power. . . . The press has become the eyes and ears of 
 the world, and to a great extent humanity in contact with 
 all its parts. It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal 
 of the suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our 
 officials and of those men in high places who have it in their 
 power to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which 
 unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts of public 
 benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would continue 
 undismayed, and public office would be the rich reward of 
 the unscrupulous demagogue. 
 
 The remedy of Thompson and the others, if they had 
 been aggrieved, was clear namely a libel suit on their 
 own behalf. But they chose to put the city forward 
 as plaintiff whether they had any right to do this is 
 certainly very doubtful and to assume that the city 
 was injured, not by the administration in power, but 
 by the critic of that administration. This is no new 
 theory; on the contrary, it has often been put forward 
 by public officers seeking to silence just criticism, though 
 
 [10] 
 
never till now has the city, through the very men 
 criticized, sought redress in the courts. There have 
 always been people to say that the city "would be 
 hurt" if the truth were told, and that therefore silence 
 should l>r kept concerning misfeasance, malfeasance or 
 ftonfeasance in office. That was the notion of the Tweed 
 ringsters at the very time that they were robbing the 
 city of millions. The crookeder public officials are, the 
 more "jealous" are they for the good name of the city. 
 As far as Chicago has been injured it is not by the 
 Tribune, but by Thompson and his crowd. It is amus- 
 ingly impudent that they should have assumed to act 
 in defense of the reputation of the city impudent, 
 and wholly in character. The real question, as Judge 
 Fisher said, was whether they, as "public officials," 
 should "have in their power one of the most effective 
 instruments with which to intimidate the press and to 
 silence their enemies." 
 
 LOGANSPORT (Ind.) Tribune, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Big Bill Loses 
 
 Mayor Bill Thompson's suit against The Chicago 
 Tribune for $10,000,000 for alleged libel on the basis 
 that the Tribune's statement that because of the manip- 
 ulations of the political machine the City of Chicago 
 was bankrupt, has been thrown out of court by Circuit 
 Court Judge Harry M. Fisher on demurrer filed by the 
 Tribune. Judge Fisher in sustaining the demurrer 
 made this judicial statement: 
 
 'This suit is not in harmony with the genius, spirit 
 or object of our institutions. 
 
 "It does not belong to our day, but rather to the day 
 when monarchs promulgated laws with the purpose of 
 carrying out their lustful passion for undisturbed power. 
 
 "Since no cause for action exists, it is unnecessary to 
 consider any of the other questions involved in the argu- 
 ment." 
 
 HUNTINGTON (Ind.) Press, Oct. 22, 1921. 
 
 Judge Fisher in rendering his decision in the suit by 
 Mayor Thompson of Chicago against The Chicago 
 Tribune, said of a newspaper: "It is the spokesman of 
 
the weak and the appeal of the suffering. It holds up 
 for review the acts of our officials and of those men in 
 high places who have it in their power to advance peace 
 or endanger it. It is the force which unifies public 
 sentiment. But for it the acts of public benefactors 
 would go unnoticed, impostors would continue undis- 
 mayed and public office would be the rich reward of the 
 unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 GOSHEN (Ind.) Times, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Tribune vs. Chicago 
 
 Since his $10,000,000 damage suit was kicked out of 
 court, Mayor Bill Thompson would doubtless welcome 
 a suggestion of some workable plan to muzzle The 
 Chicago Tribune. 
 
 GOSHEN (Ind.) Democrat, Oct. 26, 1921. 
 
 Free Press Upheld 
 
 When he brought a $10,000,000 libel suit against The 
 Chicago Tribune in the name of the city of Chicago, be- 
 cause of criticisms of his administration, Mayor Thomp- 
 son must have known that he had little chance of suc- 
 cess. Free criticism of public officials or their admin- 
 istrations has been a popular institution of this country 
 from the outset as well as one of its most important safe- 
 guards. Journalistic freedom has been and is sometimes 
 abused, but, as Thomas Jefferson once wisely said, even 
 that is "a part of the price we pay for our liberty, 
 which can not be guarded but by the freedom of the 
 press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." 
 Jefferson made this memorable statement in 1786. Fifty 
 years later De Tocqueville, the visiting French writer, 
 noted that no American had "as yet dared to propose 
 any restriction on the liberty of the press." Now, 13.5 
 years later, the same may be said unless we except 
 Mayor Thompson's libel suit and its transparent aim. 
 
 That The Chicago Tribune's demurrer to the Thompson 
 libel suit would be sustained by Judge Fisher of the Cir- 
 cuit court could almost have been regarded as a foregone 
 eonclusion. Judge Fisher upheld not only the Tribune 
 
 [12] 
 
a free press in general and the right of the people 
 to he fully informed concerning their own aiVairs and 
 interests. 'The press," he says, "has become the eyes 
 and ears of the world," and further: "It is the spokes- 
 man of the weak and the appeal of the suffering. It 
 holds up for review the acts of our officials and of those 
 men in high plaees who have it in their power to advance 
 peaee or endanger it. It is the foree which unifies public 
 sentiment. But for it the acts of public benefactors 
 would go unnoticed, impostors would continue undis- 
 mayed, and public office would be the rich reward of 
 the unscrupulous demagogue." In this decision the 
 Thompsons of every section are duly warned that they 
 can never reverse popular sentiment in this connection, 
 based as it is on the command of the constitution itself: 
 "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the free- 
 dom of speech or of the press." 
 
 x 
 JACKSON (Mich.) Patriot, Sept. 28, 1921. 
 
 Libeling Government 
 
 A few professional politicians, temporary occupants of 
 public offices in Illinois, have brought suit in the name of 
 the city of Chicago against a newspaper because of its 
 criticisms of their public acts. They allege the city of 
 Chicago has suffered material losses and impairment of 
 credit because of the newspaper's attacks. No untruths 
 are charged against the paper. 
 
 The doctrine that government can institute on its own 
 behalf civil or criminal action for libel is a most dangerous 
 one. If it is sustained, a member of Congress of one party 
 might be declared a criminal for public criticism of an 
 opponent on the floor of the House, ministers of religion 
 would have to keep in mind the doctrine that they must 
 not speak of the sins of their community from the pulpit, 
 judges themselves might be assailed for giving a man a 
 bad reputation. 
 
 Judicial remedies should of course be open to all 
 citizens, but Government itself should not appeal to one 
 of the most powerful of its own agencies, the courts, to 
 establish the line between what is permissible and for- 
 bidden in criticisms of Government. 
 
 [13] 
 
CADILLAC (Mich.) News, Oct. 12, 
 
 Mayor Thompson's administration in Chicago is suing 
 the Tribune for libel because that paper declared the city 
 was "broke" as a result of reckless extravagance in civic 
 work. The defense contends that any criticism of an 
 administration may be made without transgressing 
 legitimate freedom of the press unless the criticism is cal- 
 culated to incite citizens to disregard the law or to seek 
 to overthrow the government. The Tribune has public 
 opinion with it in attacking the Thompson machine just 
 as it had in the libel action brought by Ford, the pacifist. 
 
 KALAMAZOO (Mich.) Gazette, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 The Tribune Suit 
 
 One of the most novel law suits ever brought in an 
 American court, one, in fact, that is without precedent, 
 was that of the City of Chicago against The Chicago 
 Tribune, in which $10,000,000 was asked because of the 
 newspaper's criticism of the civic administration. A 
 Chicago judge disallowed the right of the city to have the 
 fact of whether or not the city was libeled by the news- 
 paper tried by a jury on the ground that the suit was not 
 "in harmony with the genius, spirit or objects of our 
 institutions," and "did not belong to our day, but rather 
 to a day when monarchs promulgated laws with the pur- 
 pose of carrying out their lustful passion for undisturbed 
 power." 
 
 The fundamental law of the United States is the incar- 
 nation of justice, and regardless of the letter of inter- 
 pretative enactments or the numerous abridging or 
 amplifying decisions which govern our conduct, it is a 
 fact that law born of a desire for power is unconstitutional, 
 and should be immediately so stamped. It is, and it 
 should be, on the other hand, the right of administrators 
 and judicial officers to discharge their duties without 
 fear or intimidation from any extraneous institution, even 
 the press, because if the press is to enjoy the right of 
 free speech it must respect that right and not permit 
 it to attain the color of a privilege to trespass on the 
 rights of others, since it is a Blackstonian fundamental 
 
 [14] 
 
that for every right there is an obligation, and the obli- 
 gation of the press is just as important as its right. 
 
 The wisdom of the Chicago decision will, therefore, be 
 universally approved because the City of Chicago could 
 not show I lint the plaintiff was for personal motives trying 
 to embarrass the conduct of civic affairs, or itself trying 
 to wrest from the elected officials of the city the power 
 which properly belongs to them. The rights of the press 
 remain unabridged, and it is meet and right that this 
 should be so because in the role of critic it becomes the 
 custodian of a great trust. But there should be no con- 
 struing that right to mean that the press has a license to 
 challenge well meaning administrations to the point 
 where citizens will shrink from accepting public office, 
 and where the power of administration, instead of being 
 vested in the elected officials, will in fact be the property 
 of the occupant of an editorial sanctum. The news- 
 papers of America do not want such power. It would be 
 an embarrassment, but they are not on that account 
 disposed to surrender their right to discuss freely and 
 fearlessly the motives and executiveship of adminis- 
 trations. 
 
 DETROIT (Mich.) Free Press, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Loses a Lawsuit 
 
 The action for libel which was brought by the city of 
 Chicago against The Chicago Tribune rested upon the 
 accusation that the newspaper by untruthful charges 
 against the city administration had impaired the credit 
 of Chicago and had prevented it from borrowing money. 
 A demurrer was filed by the defendant and the court 
 has now held that the city has no right of action for libel 
 against a newspaper. 
 
 The theory of the law in Illinois, as the court outlined 
 it, is that the utmost freedom of public criticism is desir- 
 able in public affairs, and that any state of the law which 
 permitted a public administration to defend itself against 
 its critics by libel suits financed out of public funds would 
 result in an intolerable restriction upon free speech and 
 a free press. 
 
 It may be said that a city having an honest adminis- 
 tration of its affairs ought not to be left without redress 
 
 [15] 
 
for false and damaging charges and that if the law does 
 not provide a remedy, the door is open for any mendacious 
 enemy of the city to damage it by lying accusations. 
 The force of this position is not to be denied, but against 
 it there stands considerations weighty enough to over- 
 balance it completely. 
 
 It is to be remembered first that the inability of a 
 municipal corporation to sustain actions for libel does not 
 extend to the officers of a city. If they are charged with 
 wrongdoing in office, they may go to court; but when 
 they go, it will be upon their own responsibility and 
 they will pay their own way. They will not be able to 
 turn the people's money and the organization through 
 which the people govern themselves against private 
 citizens and private enterprises. A vindictive man in 
 office might make it dangerous for any honest citizen to 
 speak his mind about city affairs if officials could turn 
 the city's law organization and the city purse against 
 citizens in libel suits. Public criticism is the first weapon 
 of the people against bad public administration, and it is 
 too precious to be threatened or limited by the men 
 against whom it is directed. Their remedy is to go to 
 the people with answers to their critics and in the long 
 run it will be a sufficient remedy. 
 
 GRAND RAPIDS (Mich.) Press, Oct. 19. 1921. 
 
 Fighting Press Freedom 
 
 The Chicago Tribune has just waged a successful battle 
 in court for the freedom of a newspaper to criticize a city's 
 administration, expose corruption wherever possible and 
 tell the facts about the situation in the public treasury. 
 The Thompson-Lundin machine last spring filed suit for 
 the city against the Tribune for $10,000,000 damages, 
 the claim being that the city's credit was injured by the 
 revelations published in the newspaper. Judge Harry 
 M. Fisher, in dismissing the case, made it very plain that 
 to hold the Tribune for its plain speech would be a blow 
 at press freedom in general and the right of the people 
 to be informed about their government. 
 
 Tammany, as represented in the Murphy-Hylan con- 
 trol of New York, has also been trying to stifle the free 
 
 [16] 
 
utterance of press opinion. Recently the New York city 
 hall issued a proclamation to the business men, mer- 
 chants and shopkeepers of the city, informing them that 
 the New York crime wave was due to the fact that the 
 newspapers had charged rotten administration with mak- 
 ing the city "a paradise for criminals" and were thus 
 drawing lawbreakers to prey upon citizens. The cfty 
 hall deduced from this that the dealers should "act 
 accordingly" in other words, withdraw their advertising 
 to scare the papers into a state of proper submission 
 to I he city hall. The rotten administration was not 
 disproved. 
 
 These two machine moves against journalism are a 
 type of the sort of sporadic attack upon courageous pub- 
 licity which has occurred ever since men have found rea- 
 son for being afraid of the truth. The un trammeled 
 newspaper is the public's great defense against corrup- 
 tion; and if the Thompsons and Hylans of the land ever 
 succeed in such attempts against the newspapers of their 
 cities we may as well hand over our political freedom to 
 the dictator along with our principles of free speech and 
 free press. 
 
 GRAND RAPIDS (Mich.) News, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 The Tribune's Law Suit 
 
 In a sweeping decision, Judge Harry M. Fisher, of the 
 ( 'ircuit court at Chicago, has upheld The Chicago Tribune 
 as against the city in a suit for libel brought by the latter 
 because of the Tribune's charges that the municipality 
 was bankrupt. The Tribune has kept up a constant fight 
 on the so-called Thompson regime, charging Thompson 
 and his followers with gross misapplication of funds, 
 extravagance and misconduct in administering the affairs 
 of the city. 
 
 'This action is not in harmony with the genius, spirit \ 
 and objects of our institutions," read the written opinion \ 
 handed down. 
 
 "It fits in rather with the genius of the rulers who con- / 
 ceived law, not in the purity of love for justice, but in / 
 the lustful passion for undisturbed power. 
 
 [17] 
 
"It will, therefore, be unnecessary to consider the other 
 questions involved." 
 
 There is a growing tendency among public servants 
 to consider the business of public administration as their 
 business. It is their business to the extent that they are 
 citizens and taxpayers, but it differs from a business 
 owned in fee simple by an individual in that it belongs to 
 the whole community, state or nation. To prevent a 
 newspaper from disclosing what goes on in the conduct 
 of public affairs would be the same as denying the pro- 
 prietor the right of access to his own books. 
 
 The only check that the taxpayer has on his servants 
 in office is that afforded by publicity through the columns 
 of his newspaper. Most municipalities are unwieldy in 
 their size. There is no end to the opportunities for 
 irregular conduct. Favoritisms and prejudices are the 
 order of the day. What would happen to government 
 in these days of free and easy abandon if it were not for 
 the newspapers only those can conceive who can visualize 
 the worst. And goodness knows that Chicago needs all 
 the checks that can be placed on a coterie of public 
 officials, who, whether the public likes it or not, do pretty 
 much as they please. 
 
 CADILLAC (Mich.) News, Oct. 27, 1921. 
 
 Cities and the Libel Law 
 
 That a newspaper has the right to criticize a munici- 
 pality without fear of being held accountable for libel is 
 established by the decision handed down by Judge Fisher 
 of Chicago in deciding the suit brought against The 
 Chicago Tribune and the Daily News by Mayor Thomp- 
 son. Thompson, long the object of attack on the part 
 of both papers, brought suit against the papers for ten 
 million dollars, alleging that they had printed false state- 
 ments regarding Chicago's financial standing, thus injur- 
 ing the city's credit. Mayor Thompson sued in the 
 name of the city, making this the first suit of the kind in 
 which a city sought to restrict the right to criticize its 
 corporate acts. 
 
 The court held that libel was applicable only to private 
 persons or corporations, therefore the action of the papers 
 
 [18] 
 
 
in criticizing corporate acts of the city was permissible 
 without fear of libel. This suit has been watched with 
 groat interest, not only by newspapers, but by dishonest 
 officials who saw in a favorable decision for the city of 
 ( liicago a powerful weapon to use against the press, and 
 thus further their own dishonest ends. Had the court 
 established the ruling that it is possible to libel a municK 
 pality it would be possible for dishonest officials to use 
 I lie public funds to hide their own misuse of their offices, 
 and no newspaper would dare expose their crookedness. 
 A favorable decision by Judge Fisher would have provided 
 a shield for dishonest officials which would have enabled 
 (hem to continue their operations unchallenged by public 
 opinion because the press would not dare bring them to 
 account. 
 
 A newspaper's power for good in any community rests 
 upon the faith which its readers have in it. It must be 
 truthful and fair in all its dealings with the public. Its 
 readers will not long tolerate a newspaper which is un- 
 truthful, and once the faith of its readers is destroyed it 
 ceases to be an agent for good in any community. The 
 record of its daily acts is spread upon its pages for all 
 who care to look at it. In the interest of the public's 
 welfare it frequently is compelled to criticize the acts of 
 officials chosen by the puttlic to serve it. If it were not 
 for an honest and fearless press there would be many 
 more cases of dishonesty on the part of public officials, 
 and it is therefore a matter for congratulation that a 
 court decides the press has the right to hold strictly to 
 account individuals who are holding positions of public 
 trust. 
 
 DULUTH (Minn.) Herald, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Just Decision 
 
 The city of Chicago, by its own choice and for its 
 sins, has a city government that smells to heaven. The 
 better class of Chicago newspapers have fought it, and 
 in fighting did not mince the words it used as weapons. 
 
 The Thompson regime, enraged by the publishing of 
 too much truth, had the city bring enormous libel suits 
 against The Chicago Tribune. The city, speaking for 
 the Thompson gang, asserted that the charges of the 
 
 [19] 
 
newspaper had damaged the city's financial standing, 
 to the injury of its credit. 
 
 This raised some very interesting questions, which the 
 Tribune's attorneys brought out through a demurrer to 
 the complaint. The ten million dollars asked for would 
 of course result in the confiscation and suppression of the 
 f newspaper if such damages were awarded. And the 
 press, they contended, should not be prevented by such 
 means from attacking evils in government. 
 
 On the last point Judge Harry Fisher, before whom 
 the case came, has sustained the demurrer and thrown 
 the case out of court. And by so doing probably he 
 has thrown hundreds of other such cases out of court; 
 for if a city can be legally damaged by newspaper at- 
 tempts to overthrow their corrupt and inefficient govern- 
 ments, then either newspapers would keep still or the 
 courts would be busy collecting libel damages. 
 
 'This action," said the judge, "is not in harmony 
 with the genius, spirit and objects of our institutions." 
 Wise judge! Sound decision! It is a victory not only 
 for a free press, but for sound government and decency 
 in public affairs. 
 
 CROOKSTON (Minn.) Times, Oct. 26, 
 
 Press Freedom 
 
 The suit for $10,000,000 damages brought against The 
 Chicago Tribune by Mayor Thompson of Chicago has 
 served a good purpose by pointing out once more, in an 
 emphatic manner, the function and merits of the news- 
 paper press in general. 
 
 The suit was dismissed by the court as an unwarranted 
 attack on the freedom of the press. Because the Tribune 
 criticized the mayor's conduct of city affairs, the mayor, 
 identifying himself with the "city" in a way not un- 
 common among office-holders of long tenure, tried to put 
 the Tribune out of business. Judge Fisher, in upholding 
 I lie right of the defendant to publish its criticism, declared: 
 'The press has become the eyes and ears of the world. 
 It is the spokesman of I lie weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their 
 
 [20] 
 
power to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force 
 which unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts of 
 public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would 
 continue undismayed and public offices would be the rich 
 reward of the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 Tliis is the literal truth, as every thinking citizen doubt- 
 less agrees. The law and public opinion both recogni/c 
 that, whatever may be the possibilities of the press abus- 
 ing its great powers, they fear far less than the dangers 
 that would spring from the repression of honest comment. 
 
 MANITOWOC (Wis.) Herald, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 The Tribune's Suit 
 
 The City of Chicago is suing The Chicago Tribune for 
 printing the alleged fact that the city was "broke." It 
 was claimed that this is libelous in that it would tend to 
 injure the credit of the city. If it was so, it was the 
 plain duty of the Tribune, as a public servant, to publish 
 the facts in the case. If the city wins its suit, it may 
 establish a dangerous precedent. Dangerous to the 
 people of the country, who rely on their newspapers for 
 what information they have regarding the conditions of 
 their government. It may have been so, or it may not 
 have been so, but certainly there was some reason for 
 the publication of the statement. Granted that it may 
 have had a political motive, and that it was not true 
 that the city of Chicago was "broke," still the publication 
 of a public matter of such importance would be calculated 
 to stir up a considerable public interest in the condition 
 of the finances of the city. If there was nothing the 
 matter with them the Tribune's statement could easily 
 be shown by its opponents to be false and misleading. 
 If it was true, it was the plain duty of the paper to say 
 so. But to make statements regarding public matters 
 libelous is to put a muzzle upon the press which will 
 result in the suppression of news, which will effectively 
 prevent the publication of any news in any city liable 
 to be detrimental to the administration. Surely if all 
 that is necessary for city officials to do in the event 
 of publication of statements regarding their actions is to 
 go into court and sue for libel, very few newspapers will 
 
 [21] 
 
print their views on public matters. Public officials, 
 often honest enough, but placed in a position in which it 
 is so easy to dispose of other people's money, will be 
 protected against exposure, and the honest man will 
 have considerable difficulty in getting his argument 
 before the people. The Chicago officials, having played 
 hob on so many occasions with the money of the tax- 
 payers, naturally resent any interference with operations. 
 But the people should be alive to the dangers of suppres- 
 sion of the press, the freedom of which is guaranteed 
 under the constitution. 
 
 Wausau Record-Herald, reprinted in 
 MARSHFIELD (Wis.) News, Sept. 26, 
 
 The Tribune's Libel Suit 
 
 The city of Chicago has sued The Chicago Tribune for 
 ten million dollars. If it wins the suit the Tribune will be 
 practically broke, but that eventuality is so remote that 
 the people chiefly concerned are probably not worrying 
 much about it. Whatever the facts in the case may be, 
 the general opinion throughout the country is that the 
 city of Chicago can't stand the publicity in court which 
 would be necessary to prove anything against the Tribune. 
 
 The suit may be accepted as a gesture, a gesture not 
 meant to impress the country at large but a certain set 
 of ignorant voters in the city of Chicago who insist upon 
 displaying the depths of that ignorance by repeatedly 
 returning to power city officials who not only fail to give 
 them a good government but who make that government 
 cost more than a good government should. 
 
 Outside of the city of Chicago the main interest in this 
 suit is not whether the Tribune has said some things that 
 were not true about the city government but whether 
 the privilege of the press is to be in any way hindered or 
 abridged. It is certainly indispensable to good municipal 
 government in a city like Chicago that the press have the 
 freest possible hand in criticizing abuses. 
 
 The present suit attempts to overthrow this privilege 
 under the contention that the city has suffered material 
 damage owing to the evil repute of the city government 
 which has come about through the efforts of the Tribune. 
 
 [22] 
 
If a group of city officials are permitted to stifle criticism 
 by a device of this kind the conditions of municipal 
 government in the large cit : es of this country, which are 
 hnd enough as it is, will soon become utterly intolerable. 
 
 FOND DU LAC (Wis.) Reporter, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 The decision of the courts in the libel suit instituted 
 against The Chicago Tribune by the City of Chicago, is 
 not only a victory for the Tribune but also for a free 
 press something guaranteed by the constitution of the 
 United States but which public officials and even courts 
 some times have sought to override or set at naught. 
 In the Tribune case the courts held that a city govern- 
 ment could not be libeled and that the Tribune had a 
 right to criticize the financial condition of the City of 
 Chicago and in so doing was but fulfilling its mission as a 
 newspaper and a guardian of the public interests. Offi- 
 cials are all too often inclined to imagine when they 
 attain office that they are supreme and are answerable to 
 nobody during their tenure of office. They consider 
 their acts and official records as matters concerning 
 themselves only, but all such acts are open to public 
 criticism by the press and all official records are at all 
 times accessible to the press despite official contentions 
 to the contrary, as the press is the representative of the 
 public and as such has a right to criticize and demand in 
 the public's name. Most of all it is the guardian of 
 public interests, a guardian without which officialdom 
 in many instances would run amuck with a vengeance 
 whenever it so desired. 
 
 EAU CLAIRE (Wis.) Telegraph, Oct. 18, 
 
 In the suit nominally by the City of Chicago against 
 two Chicago newspapers for allegel libel, the court held 
 that no such suit could be sustained in this day and age 
 and hence threw the case out. If a city could maintain 
 such an action for damages on account of newspaper 
 comment on governmental affairs, there would be an 
 end to press criticism of public wrongs except by would- 
 be journalistic martyrs. 
 
 [23] 
 
GREEN BAY (Wis.) Gazette, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press Protected 
 
 In sustaining the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune to 
 the $10,000,000 libel suit brought against it by the cor- 
 poration counsel in the name of the city of Chicago, 
 Circuit Judge Fisher has performed notable service for 
 freedom of the press. His decision throws the case out 
 of court as constituting no cause for action. The judge's 
 excellent conception of the real issues involved in the 
 suit is shown in his comment that it is an action "not in 
 harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our con- 
 stitution," and that "it fits in rather with the genius of 
 the rulers who conceived law not in the purity of love 
 for justice but in the lustful passion for undisturbed 
 power." This is a clear distinction between popular 
 government and boss rule. The machine in the city of 
 Chicago built up by the Thompson-Lundin forces seeks 
 exactly that "undisturbed power" which will permit it to 
 despotically control municipal affairs. It is under just 
 such power that cities are looted, taxpayers robbed, 
 trusts betrayed, public morals debauched. It is under 
 such power that graft and corruption thrive. It is 
 precisely the character of Tweed government and later 
 of Tammany government in New York City. 
 
 If these political machines, bent upon the seizing of 
 arbitrary power and upon the exploitations that go with 
 it, could shield themselves against attack and exposure 
 by bringing libel suits against the press in the name of the 
 city, thereby avoiding personal and financial responsi- 
 bility, the people would be robbed of all protection. As 
 the court says, the honest official seldom fears criticism. 
 He answers argument with argument, but the dishonest 
 official is restrained by the fear of laying his character 
 open to judicial inquiry. To permit him to cloak his 
 iniquities by labeling suits with the name of the munici- 
 pality would be equivalent to muzzling the press through 
 libel actions ad infinitum. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune charged that the Thompson 
 administration had brought the city to the verge of 
 bankruptcy. Whether this is precisely true or not, there 
 can be no question as to the public service it was rendering 
 the city. If Mayor Thompson has been personally 
 
 [24] 
 
libeled that is a different matter and is of course action- 
 able, but that could have nothing to do with a suit in- 
 stituted by the city. To hold otherwise would be to 
 destroy the very foundations on which honest, responsible 
 government rests, while the freedom of the press, easily 
 the most potent factor for safeguarding our institutions, 
 would be put under the heel of politicians, gangsters and 
 grafters. 
 
 The Tribune has won its first great victory in its battle 
 with boss government in Chicago. That it and I lie- 
 Daily News, which has taken an equal part in the cru- 
 sade, will win other battles and eventually clean out the 
 Augean stables follows as a matter of course. Politicians 
 of the kind that rule Chicago cannot stand up against an 
 aroused, fighting press. Publicity will be their undoing. 
 Nationally considered, there is a state of perpetual war- 
 fare between the forces which would deprave govern- 
 ment and the press. At times these forces loom large 
 but the newspapers "get" them eventually. The 
 Chicago decision is a victory for constitutional liberty 
 and for every municipality in America, for without free- 
 dom of the press assured there would be no security 
 against corrupt and vicious government anywhere. The 
 principle upheld is of the first magnitude in the perpetua- 
 tion of our institutions. 
 
 JANESVILLE (Wis.) Gazette, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Newspapers and Criticism of Officials 
 
 Far-reaching and effective will be the decision uphold- 
 ing the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune in the suit of 
 the City of Chicago against the newspaper, charging libel 
 and seeking to collect $10,000,000 damages. Of course 
 the "city" itself really did not sue. A city is its people. 
 The city officials sued in the name of the city, but in 
 doing so sued itself, for the Tribune is also a part of the 
 city through its individual ownership. The aggrieved 
 parties were the criticized officials. Involved also was 
 the right of a newspaper to criticize, and to discuss offi- 
 cials and their acts. In 1908, when the New York World 
 and Indianapolis News brought out some facts in reference 
 to the activity of Douglas Robinson, brother-in-law of 
 President Roosevelt, an effort was made to sue the 
 
 [25] 
 
papers and hale them to Washington for trial under the 
 assumption that the World and the Indianapolis News 
 circulated in the national capital. 
 
 It was almost a parallel case, as the government itself 
 was held the aggrieved party plaintiff. Federal Judge 
 A. B. Anderson dismissed the case, holding that the 
 defendants could not be carried to Washington to be 
 tried in an antagonistic atmosphere where the archaic 
 libel laws of the District of Columbia were in force, and 
 also said something that every public official and every 
 newspaper should know: 
 
 "It is the duty of a public newspaper * * * to tell 
 the people, its subscribers, its readers, the facts that it may 
 find out about public affairs and matters of public interest. 
 It is its duty to write and draw inferences from the facts 
 known." 
 
 But Judge Fisher, who upheld the demurrer of The 
 Tribune Company and dismissed the city suit against the 
 newspaper, went even farther in his statement as to the 
 function of a newspaper in its attitude toward public 
 matters. 
 
 "But for it [the press]," says the court, "the acts of 
 public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors con- 
 tinue undismayed, and public office would be the rich 
 reward of the unscrupulous demagogue. Knowledge of 
 public matters would be hidden in the bosoms of those 
 who make politics their personal business for gain or 
 glorification." 
 
 There is one great corrector of evil publicity It is 
 the only thing that the people of a free government, a 
 government based on the sovereignty of the individual 
 guaranteed by his right to the ballot, may depend upon. 
 For that publicity, the public must look to the newspaper. 
 A newspaper might well find the easiest way to let things 
 slide along with no mention of the derelictions, minimize 
 the waste, or it can be constructively helpful in calling 
 attention to places where the funds of the city that 
 means the men and women and children who make up 
 the population of the city are being wasted and officials 
 are lax in measures to correct evils that are patent. 
 
 Courts untrammeled nor moved by politics or political 
 considerations and a free press are the two great bul- 
 
 [26] 
 
warks, the protective fortifications, of the American 
 republic of the United States. 
 
 MILWAUKEE (Wis.) Sentinel, Oct. 19, 1!K>1. 
 
 The Duty of Free Speech 
 
 Bearing in mind the possibility of an appeal to a 
 higher court, it may be said that the decision in the suit 
 brought by Mayor Thompson against Chicago newspapers 
 Tias resulted in a restatement of certain fundamental 
 doctrines that is not likely to be reversed if it should 
 come up for review by another tribunal. 
 
 Briefly, the issue turned on the question so hotly de- 
 bated during the war: "How far is a citizen entitled to 
 go in criticizing his government?" In the present case, 
 the governmental agency that felt aggrieved was the 
 municipality of Chicago, but the same reasoning would 
 apply to state and national administrations. That the 
 newspapers were selected to bear the brunt of the charge 
 of having impaired the city's credit by their criticism is 
 also nonessential, for the same liability would attach to 
 criticisms uttered by individuals in conversation. 
 
 In defining the limits of justifiable free speech thev 
 court ruled against extremists of two opposite schools. 
 There is little comfort in the decision for hidebound 
 officialdom which inclines to the bureaucratic and pa- 
 ternalistic view that the government knows better what 
 is good for the people than the people themselves. This 
 idea, the court finds, originates in a "lustful passion for 
 undisturbed power." If every critical remark were just 
 ground for harassing the critic with a lawsuit, "then 
 public officials have in their power one of the most 
 effective instruments with which to silence their enemies." 
 
 On the other hand, the wail of the radicals who havey 
 been so prolific in their abuse of our government during 
 the last few years is cut short by a sharp reminder that 
 there are "fields in which all who are decent and possess a 
 sense of reverence and loyalty have agreed it would be 
 overstepping the bounds of freedom to travel without 
 restraint, namely, blasphemy, immorality and sedition." 
 
 A sense of balance in interpreting constitutional lib- 
 erties must rest on good will toward the government. 
 The citizen whose heart is in the right place will agree 
 
 [27] 
 
with the court in holding that so long as he is not "incit- 
 ing a breach of the peace, he is not only within his abso- 
 lute right, but is performing a public duty" in using free 
 speech in the way it was intended to be used : to keep the 
 government close to the people. 
 
 MANITOWOC (Wis.) Herald, Oct. 24, 1921. 
 
 Press and Government 
 
 Popular rights and political efficiency are both upheld* 
 by the decision of a Chicago judge, throwing out of court 
 the $10,000,000 suit brought against The Chicago Tribune 
 by the mayor of the city. The action was inspired by 
 criticism of the mayor. Though drastic, the court held 
 that such criticism was a legitimate function of a free 
 press a verdict in which public opinion will probably 
 concur, regardless of the character of the litigants them- 
 selves. 
 
 The need of freedom in printing news and commenting 
 on it becomes greater as communities grow and public 
 business, like all other business, becomes more complex. 
 The newspaper is a sort of responsible middleman be- 
 tween the public and its officials, representing the interest 
 of the former while closely observing the latter, recording 
 their acts and holding them to strict account. It is a 
 great power which the newspaper wields, but there is 
 little danger of its being abused more than momentarily. 
 Its work is all public, and so the public itself is in position 
 at all times to hold it to its duty, prospering it by support 
 or destroying it by disapproval. 
 
 The press has become, therefore, a powerful though 
 unofficial organ of government. Intelligent popular 
 government would be impossible without it. Continuous 
 progress in government is possible mainly because, while 
 public servants come and go, the press is permanent, 
 forever on the job of public service, translating public 
 will into public action. 
 
 [28] 
 
Ilolyoke (Mass.) Transcript, reprinted in 
 BARRON (Wis.) News, Nov. 25 
 
 Newspaper Rights and Duties 
 
 Volumes have been written about the power of the 
 press and, doubtless, volumes will continue to be written 
 to the end of time. Hut Judge Fisher of the Circuit 
 Court at Chicago, in the decision in which he ruled in 
 favor of The Chicago Tribune in a libel suit brought 
 against it in the name of the city of Chicago, but in 
 reality by a political gang in the city, which resented 
 the fearless expose of its weaknesses by the defendant 
 paper, crowded within the limits of his decision some 
 thoughts that come home with great force to the mind 
 of the true newspaper man. Here is one of unusual 
 power: 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and ears of the world, 
 and to a great extent brings humanity in contact with 
 all its parts. It is the spokesman of the weak and the 
 appeal of the suffering. It holds up for review the acts 
 of our officials and of those men in high places who have 
 it in their power to advance peace or endanger it. It is 
 the force which unifies public sentiment. But for it, 
 the acts of public benefactors would go unnoticed, im- 
 postors would continue undismayed and public office 
 would be the rich reward of the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 And a little later Judge Fisher expressed in clear-cut 
 fashion a principle that lies deep in the mind of every 
 editor worthy of the name. It is that a newspaper 
 which makes it a practice to mislead or misinform its 
 readers cannot prosper. Said Judge Fisher: 
 
 "It cannot long indulge in falsehoods, however, with- 
 out losing that confidence from which alone come its 
 power, its prestige and its reward. On the other hand, 
 the harm which would certainly result to the community 
 from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity is 
 incalculable." 
 
 The court said that if the suit could be maintained 
 "then public officials would have in their power one of 
 the most effective instruments with which to intimidate 
 the press and silence their enemies. It would be a 
 weapon to be used over the head of everyone who dared 
 print or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 [29] 
 
CLEVELAND (Ohio) News, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 New York and Chicago Mayors Try 
 Suppressing Freedom of the Press 
 
 Disapproving the conduct of municipal affairs in the 
 last four years, many citizens of New York and most of 
 the newspapers there favor the election of a new mayor. 
 This displeases Mayor John F. Hylan, who hopes to be 
 re-elected in November. It seems to make him particu- 
 larly "mad" that newspapers should dare to criticize 
 even a mayor. So he has given an interesting exhibition 
 of endeavor to use his official position to punish the 
 papers guilty of finding fault with his official acts. 
 
 Mayor Hylan has promulgated a proclamation aimed 
 at the offending journals. In it he accuses them of 
 advertising New York as "a paradise for criminals" and 
 "a gold mine for thieves." He speaks of the "hate- 
 crazed newspaper publishers" who oppose his re-election. 
 He wants citizens to curb those publishers. He calls on 
 "business men, merchants and shop keepers" in particular 
 to "think this over, place the blame where it belongs 
 and act accordingly." 
 
 Mayors' proclamations usually are issued by publica- 
 tion in the newspapers the only way in which they can 
 be widely and promptly circulated. But would the New 
 York papers publish a mayoral proclamation suggesting 
 that those papers be avoided by readers, blacklisted by 
 advertisers, boycotted, mobbed or otherwise curbed? 
 The papers would and did, with glee. All five morning 
 papers published the proclamation, though four of them 
 are anti-Hylan. The only surprise is that a paper 
 politically friendly to the mayor should have joined in 
 the exposure of Hylan temperament. 
 
 Now consider the Chicago instance. It may be less 
 amusing, but more instructive. We gather that the 
 city government of Chicago, like that of Cleveland and 
 almost every other city, has been short of funds. Proba- 
 bly it has disliked to economize, as individuals and 
 private businesses must, and has taxed its citizens as 
 heavily as possible. Apparently it has also been borrow- 
 ing money, or trying to borrow it, rather than stop some 
 of its spending and try to live within its income. 
 
 [30] 
 
We suppose Chicago newspapers, feeling that the tax- 
 payers' interests were not being sufficiently taken into 
 account, protested against some of the taxings, borrow- 
 ings and spendings as newspapers always have done in 
 American cities. We should think they might, consider- 
 ing that Chicago's tax levy comes to $84,973,000 a year, 
 or almost ten times Cleveland's, though her population 
 is much less than four times Cleveland's and her total 
 real estate tax valuation or duplicate is about the same 
 ($1,653,171,000 for Chicago to $1,600,000,000 for Cleve- 
 land). 
 
 The Chicago Tribune, Chicago's foremost newspaper, 
 has been foremost in condemning the taxing and spend- 
 ing, we take it. At any rate, the Tribune has been 
 singled out for attack by the city administration and the 
 attack has taken the curious form of a libel suit, brought 
 in the city's name, against the Tribune for $10,000,000. 
 The city government alleges that it has been damaged 
 to that extent because the newspaper's comments on the 
 conduct of public business have injured the city's credit 
 and hampered the city administration in borrowing more 
 money. As the dispatches point out, the $10,000,000 
 demanded amounts to virtually the total value of the 
 Tribune's physical property. Mayor William Hale 
 Thompson's administration is, in effect, asking the courts 
 to put Chicago's biggest newspaper to death for daring 
 to defend the people against the extravagance of the 
 taxspenders. 
 
 "Only arbitrary, oppressive or corrupt power has 
 sought to enslave or destroy the free utterance of the 
 press," Attorney Wey mouth Kirkland told the court in 
 opening the argument for the defense and reviewing 
 tyranny's attempts to suppress freedom of speech since 
 the days of the Roman empire. "The city's form of 
 attack is novel and, in America at least, without prece- 
 dent. But the end and animus are the same as marked 
 the whole course of obstruction to free expression 
 namely, to protect entrenched authority from inquiry 
 and criticism." 
 
 Where the New York exhibition is only diverting, the 
 Chicago affair carries a serious suggestion of danger. 
 In this case the court may handle the absurd case as it 
 deserves, but who can tell what another court may do in 
 
 [31] 
 
another case? Courts sometimes give strange decisions 
 and do not always seem to give the public interest much 
 consideration as Clevelanders need not be reminded. 
 In addition, judges may be subject to political influence 
 wielded by mayors or other officeholders seeking to sup- 
 press public criticism of their acts. Such efforts to 
 muzzle newspapers might even command the sympathy 
 of judges trained to regard any adverse criticism of them- 
 selves as wrong, unlawful and punishable at their pleasure. 
 In fact, contempt-of-court proceedings have hitherto 
 constituted the greatest and almost the only menace to 
 that freedom of the press which the constitution of the 
 United States guarantees as essential to freedom of the 
 people. 
 
 The mayors of New York and Chicago may not know 
 it, but an attack on one is an attack on the other. The 
 American people know it. They will fight as hard as 
 may be necessary to overthrow any who attempt to 
 chain and gag the newspapers of America. For they 
 realize that their liberty is at stake and that it would be 
 lost if their newspapers could be suppressed for ventur- 
 ing to tell them the truth about the acts of their elected 
 servants, ambitious to turn masters! 
 
 WASHINGTON (Ohio) Herald, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 Full Publicity 
 
 The trial of the case, in the courts of Cook county, 
 Illinois, in which Chicago city officials are seeking to re- 
 cover from The Chicago Tribune ten million dollars on 
 account of a publication appearing in that newspaper 
 which, it is alleged, libeled them, is calculated to make 
 us all do a little thinking. 
 
 We are not familiar with the facts forming the basis 
 for that suit, and not until the case is finally disposed of 
 would it be proper to comment on them anyway. The 
 beginning of that trial, however, does bring forcibly to our 
 attention a very manifest tendency on the part of officials, 
 in many sections of the country, to restrict publicity. 
 
 There has grown up a very decided inclination to keep 
 official action in the dark, to keep the public in absolute 
 ignorance as to all facts, and to briefly and formally an- 
 nounce the official conclusion. 
 
 [32] 
 
(Generally speaking, the people are entitled to all the 
 facts upon which official action is predicated. There are 
 no rulers in this country of ours. The very keystone of 
 our arch of free government is publicity a free press and 
 free speech and open sessions of all court and official pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Generally speaking, that is true and yet sometimes 
 when we see how designing and selfish politicians of petty 
 dimensions can misstate and willfully pervert facts, the 
 nonsensical conclusions they urge as logical, the gullibil- 
 ity of so many people, we are inclined to doubt the wis- 
 dom of adhering to a literal insistence on publicity guar- 
 antees. 
 
 Right now there is a hue and cry being raised demand- 
 ing full publicity during the sessions of the disarmament 
 conference. 
 
 Naturally we all want to know what is going on. We 
 do not take kindly to any behind the scenes activity. We 
 don't relish "canned" conclusions of officials and yet we 
 want success to attend the conference more than we do 
 to satisfy a justifiable curiosity. When we think what 
 may happen when the two by four political wiseacres get 
 all the detailed facts and discussions in advance of final 
 action, we fear that they may be able to stir up a very 
 dangerous misunderstanding again as they have done 
 before. 
 
 YOUNGSTOWN (Ohio) Telegram, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Escaping the Gag 
 
 Mayor "Big Bill" Thompson's unique plan for muz- 
 zling all the Chicago newspapers except the ones that laud 
 "Big Bill" has failed. The Chicago Tribune and Chicago 
 News have won the suits brought against them for tra- 
 ducing the fair name of the city of Chicago $20,000,000 
 worth $10,000,000 in each instance. 
 
 In throwing the suit out the court did not pass on the 
 truth or falsity of the charges made by the two newspa- 
 pers. It merely ruled that the city as a corporate person 
 cannot bring suit for wounded sensibilities or injured 
 credit. As mayor of the city for the last six years "Big 
 Bill" Thompson is chiefly responsible for the credit and 
 good name of the city and there is nothing to prevent him 
 
 [33] 
 
bringing suit in his own name against the offending news- 
 papers if he believes the charges made by them are un- 
 true. 
 
 The mayor has no intention of bringing such suit. 
 The chances of victory are too slight. He will have to 
 hunt up some new scheme for destroying the freedom of 
 the press. 
 
 YOUNGSTOWN (Ohio) Vindicator, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 In sustaining the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune 
 to the $10,000,000 libel suit brought by the city of 
 Chicago, Judge Fisher took the only course possible 
 under the circumstances. Chicago officials sued the 
 Tribune and the Daily News on the ground that the 
 criticism by these two papers of the city's financial 
 administration had injured the city's credit. Judge 
 Fisher held that if the suit could be maintained, "then 
 public officials would have in their power one of the 
 most effective instruments with which to intimidate the 
 press and silence their enemies. It would be a weapon 
 to be held over the head of everyone who dared print 
 or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press were, 
 at the very inception of our government regarded as in- 
 dispensable," Judge Fisher {remarked, adding that the 
 city's attempt to restrict them was "not in harmony 
 with the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions." 
 He added a warning, however, which many newspaper- 
 men need. "The press," he said, "cannot long indulge in 
 falsehoods without losing that confidence from which 
 alone come its power, its prestige and its reward. On 
 the other hand, the harm which would certainly result 
 to the community from an officialdom unrestrained by 
 fear of publicity is incalculable." 
 
 DAYTON (Ohio) Herald, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press 
 
 The action of Judge Fisher of Chicago, in throwing 
 out of court the action brought by the city against The 
 Chicago Tribune, in which $10,000,000 for libel was 
 sought, is in spirit and harmony with American customs 
 
 [34] 
 
and traditions. The day when the press can be muzzled 
 is past, if, indeed, it ever generally existed here in America. 
 
 The city of Chicago claimed the Tribune had libeled 
 it by printing the statement that it was bankrupt. In 
 support of its plea for damages it claimed that the state- 
 ment had so injured its standing and credit that its bonds 
 no longer found attractive markets. The Tribune, by 
 demurrer to the suit, maintained that no cause of action 
 properly existed. 
 
 In dismissing the case Judge Fisher wisely ruled that 
 it was not in harmony with the spirit and object of 
 American institutions, but belonged to that day when 
 monarchs promulgated laws for the purpose of carrying 
 out their passion for undisturbed power. He refused to 
 try the case on its merits, because it had no merits. 
 
 The decision will be universally approved in free 
 America. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the 
 constitution means freedom of speech for the individual 
 and for the newspapers which speak for him. The news- 
 paper is a vital element of free government. To limit its 
 proper criticism of individuals in the public service for 
 wrongs brought about by that service, is inconceivable. 
 In that case the individual would be put above his 
 work. He would be free to act as he pleased, to serve 
 the interests he desired to serve and to encumber govern- 
 ment with obligations which the people who compose 
 government instantly would disapprove and repudiate 
 if they were given the opportunity. 
 
 The newspaper is the bulwark of free government, the 
 refuge of right and the enemy of wrong. It is the 
 guardian of the public will and so long as free govern- 
 ment endures, it cannot be limited in the proper func- 
 tions it must enjoy in order to be free to carry out the 
 will of a free people, unfettered in spoken or written 
 word. 
 
 The American press is free, and it must be kept free. 
 
 CLEVELAND (Ohio) News, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Newspapers Still Free 
 
 The constitution of the United States means what it 
 says as to the freedom of the press. American newspa- 
 pers may tell the truth, even about politicians in office, 
 
 [35] 
 
and not have to shut up shop on demand of the angry 
 politicians. If a city government is conducted extrava- 
 gantly, recklessly or badly, the people of that city may 
 learn about it through their newspapers, since the news- 
 papers are not to be intimidated by fear of having their 
 plants taken from them. 
 
 All this has just been decided by an American court, 
 by Judge Fisher of Chicago. So the statements in the 
 foregoing paragraph are not such self-evident truths, 
 such simple facts of American liberty, that they could 
 be taken for granted in the absence of judicial decision 
 upholding them. 
 
 The case decided by Judge Fisher was the $10,000,000 
 suit brought against The Chicago Tribune and recently 
 mentioned in these columns. The action was brought 
 in the name of the city of Chicago by Mayor William 
 Hale Thompson and other officials, whose official acts 
 and policies the Tribune had dared to condemn. The 
 politicians' claim was that the publicity had libeled the 
 city government and injured its credit or borrowing 
 power. The $10,000,000 demanded as damages was 
 about the total value of the paper's property. Had the 
 politicians won the suit, the Tribune would have been 
 put out of business and city hall politicians everywhere 
 would have been free to go as far as they liked without 
 fear of publicity. 
 
 Fortunately, the judge sustained a demurrer entered 
 by the newspaper, threw the absurd case out of court 
 and notified the city hall crowd that they had no cause 
 of action. Said Judge Fisher: "This action is not in 
 harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 institutions." 
 
 That is true, of course. Yet that obvious truth did 
 not serve to prevent the bringing of the anti-constitu- 
 tional lawsuit. It did not spare the judge, when he 
 wished to throw the unprecedented case out of court, 
 from entering into an explanation that court decisions 
 in foreign countries do not necessarily apply in this 
 country, that the United States never inherited provi- 
 sions of the English common law restricting the liberty 
 of the press, that the laws of medieval England are as 
 much to be avoided as followed, and so on. 
 
 [36] 
 
When an elemental principle of American freedom is 
 not to be protected from initial attack without that sort 
 of argument, American freedom is not so secure as it 
 might be. Though we may be thankful for Judge Fisher, 
 we may be fearful that another judge, another time, may 
 be more amenable to politicians than to principles. It 
 is still as true as ever that eternal vigilance is the price 
 of liberty. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD (Ohio) Sun, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 The decision of Judge Harry Fisher that the City of 
 Chicago had) no actionable cause against The Chicago 
 Tribune and^News in the $10,000,000 damage suits in- 
 stituted by the Thompson administration, following 
 newspaper criticism of that administration, positively 
 and specifically upholds the freedom of the press as a 
 constitutional right. 
 
 The press is at liberty, the court held, not only to 
 exercise the equivalent of free speech in printing news 
 and expressing opinion, but to expose wrongdoing in 
 public office and even to attack public servants. 
 
 Modern society could not exist in security, nor repre- 
 sentative government endure, without alert, impartial, 
 and fearless publicity. And the untrammeled press, 
 sincere in motive and honest in purpose, is the most in- 
 dispensable of public institutions. 
 
 The church, the schools, commerce, the people and the 
 government itself depend on the daily newspaper as 
 their most valuable and necessary auxiliary, using it 
 constantly as their own medium to advance the general 
 welfare. 
 
 The press sees and hears about everything of impor- 
 tance in all parts of the world. Its vigilance and pub- 
 licity prevent revolutionary upheavals, hold standard 
 political entities together, locate and feed the starving 
 and persecuted, and advance those things which make 
 for progress. The press states or molds public sentiment 
 and opinion against great wrongs and for great principles. 
 
 As the press is public, it must be free. Because it is 
 responsible to the public, its abuse of power need not be 
 feared, for the public would cease to support a newspaper 
 that violated its trust or failed in its duty. Putting the 
 
 [37] 
 
press in chains would be the same as shackling the people. 
 In the finality, it is by its fulfillment of public obliga- 
 tions that a newspaper merits respect and wields influ- 
 ence, and by disregard of public interests or the common 
 weal that it destroys itself. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD (Ohio) News, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press 
 
 If the press of this country has any particular right 
 to exist that right is centered in the privilege of being 
 plain spoken. And so the action of Judge Harry M. 
 Fisher of the Circuit Court of Chicago in sustaining a 
 demurrer of The Chicago Tribune to Mayor Thompson's 
 $10,000,000 libel suit is important. Under the guise 
 of representing the City of Chicago, Thompson sought 
 damages for an imaginary libel which the Tribune al- 
 legedly had been guilty of. The court held that 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and ears of the world. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which 
 unifies public sentiment. But for it the acts of public 
 benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would continue 
 undismayed and public office would be the rich reward of the 
 unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 In this tribute to the press the court has emphasized 
 what other courts in other days have held as the just 
 measure of expression of the power and position of the 
 press. Every honorably conducted newspaper in America 
 is upheld in the court's decision and warning is issued to 
 unscrupulous political bosses and enemies of well or- 
 dered society that they have no recourse at law when 
 their intrigue against civic government is uncovered 
 and thrown upon the screen for the public to gaze upon 
 and reflect over. The press is a bulwark of strength 
 to community life and the avenging arrow that pierces 
 the heart of unlawful enterprise. 
 
 [38] 
 
AKRON (Ohio) Times, Oct. 23, 1921. 
 
 Municipalities Cannot be Libeled 
 
 Mayor William Hale Thompson of ( Chicago is known as 
 a politician who is practical to the Nth degree. On 
 Chicago he has a hold that will be hard to break. His 
 machine dominates thru force and fear. But The Chicago 
 Tribune, a newspaper of his own political faith, has 
 arisen above partisan considerations and is telling the 
 facts to the people of Chicago. Failing in an attempt 
 to throw a cloud on the title to land occupied by the pa- 
 per's building, he had the municipal corporation of Chi- 
 cago sue The Tribune for $10,000,000 libel. This was 
 to serve notice on other papers that they should say noth- 
 ing or face similar suits. When suit was filed the Sun- 
 day Times commented on it as a proposition that struck 
 at the last defense of the citizen against entrenched and 
 predatory politicians and is glad now to note that the 
 case has been thrown out of court by Judge Fisher, who 
 held that a libel suit does not lie against a municipal 
 corporation, being an infringement of the constitutional 
 guaranty of free press. 
 
 After defining the fundamentals of libel, Judge Fisher 
 held that "stripped of all elaborate argument, in the con- 
 fusion of which the question for decision might look 
 difficult, the fact remains that if this action is maintain- 
 able then public officials have in their power one of the 
 most effective instruments with which to intimidate the 
 press and silence their enemies. It is a weapon to be 
 held over the head of every one who dares print or speak 
 unfavorably of the men in power." This is worth every 
 one's attention. If public officials could silence news- 
 papers they could also take away the right of the indi- 
 vidual to express an unfavorable opinion concerning 
 them. Therefore, said Judge Fisher, "this action is not 
 in harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our in- 
 stitutions. It does not belong in our day. It fits rather 
 with the genius of the rulers who conceived law not in the 
 purity of love for justice but in the lustful passion for un- 
 disturbed power. 9 ' 
 
 There is a local application that should not be over- 
 looked. 
 
 [39] 
 
ATHENS (Ohio) Messenger, Oct. 24, 1921. 
 
 Popular rights and political efficiency are both up- 
 held by the decision of a Chicago judge, throwing out of 
 court the $10,000,000 suit brought against The Chicago 
 Tribune by the mayor of the city. The action was in- 
 spired by criticism of the mayor. Though drastic, 
 the court held that such criticism was a legitimate func- 
 tion of a free press a verdict in which public opinion 
 will probably concur, regardless of the character of the 
 litigants themselves. 
 
 The need of freedom in printing news and commenting 
 on it becomes greater as communities grow and public 
 business, like all other business, becomes more complex. 
 The newspaper is a sort of responsible middleman be- 
 tween the public and its officials representing the interest 
 of the former while closely observing the latter, recording 
 their acts and holding them to strict account. It is a 
 great power which the newspaper wields, but there is 
 little danger of its being abused more than momentarily. 
 Its work is all public, and so the public itself is in position 
 at all times to hold it to its duty, prospering it by sup- 
 port or destroying it by disapproval. 
 
 The press has become, therefore, a powerful though 
 unofficial organ of government. Intelligent popular 
 government would be impossible without it. Continu- 
 ous progress in government is possible mainly because, 
 while public servants come and go, the press is per- 
 manent, forever on the job of public service, translating 
 public will into public action. 
 
 LIMA (Ohio) Gazette, Oct. 26, 1921. 
 
 Press Freedom 
 
 The suit for $10,000,000 damages brought against The 
 Chicago Tribune by Mayor Thompson, of Chicago, has 
 served a good purpose by pointing out once more, in an 
 emphatic manner, the function and merits of the news- 
 paper press in general. 
 
 The suit was dismissed by the court as an unwarranted 
 attack on the freedom of the press. Because the Tribune 
 criticized the mayor's conduct of the city affairs, the 
 mayor, identifying himself with the "city" in a way not 
 
 [40] 
 
uncommon among officeholders of long tenure, tried to 
 put the Tribune out of business. Judge Fisher, in up- 
 holding the right of the defendant to publish its criticism, 
 declared : 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and the ears of the 
 world. It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal 
 of the suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our 
 officials and of those men in high places who have it in 
 their power to advance peace or endanger it. It is the 
 force which unifies public sentiment. But for it, the 
 acts of public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors 
 would continue undismayed and public offices would be 
 the rich reward for the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 This is the literal truth, as every thinking citizen 
 doubtless agrees. The law and public opinion both 
 recognize that, whatever may be the possibilities of the 
 press abusing its great powers, they are far less than the 
 dangers that would spring from the repression of honest 
 comment. 
 
 COSHOCTON (Ohio) Tribune, Oct. 28, 1921. 
 
 The Press Must Be Free 
 
 Judge Fisher's decision in the $10,000,000 libel suit of 
 the City of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune is a 
 sweeping assertion of the right and duty of newspapers 
 to keep the public fully informed of the conduct of the 
 Government and of public officials and to criticize 
 official and governmental acts which in its opinion are 
 detrimental to the public welfare. 
 
 The judicial opinion is such a clear and comprehen- 
 sive statement of the functions of a newspaper as the 
 guardian of public interests and the instrument by which 
 the public is kept informed of all things necessary to 
 enlightened opinion and judgment on the conditions of 
 society and governmental acts, that it ought to be uni- 
 versally read by the people. The Judge forcefully 
 defines the right of the newspapers to publish all facts 
 bearing upon the public welfare and to comment upon 
 them for the purpose of informing and directing public 
 opinion and thus unifying and crystallizing it for action 
 against the bad and for the good. 
 
 [41] 
 
The only conditions which govern the liberty of the 
 press are the honesty and sincerity of its purpose and the 
 conscientious and reasonable care exercised by the news- 
 paper in ascertaining the truth and expressing its own 
 opinion. The object must be the public welfare and 
 never the injury of the public official whose conduct is 
 subject to exposure and criticism or detraction of the 
 administration whose acts are condemned. While the 
 Judge's comments upon the functions of newspapers are 
 highly interesting and instructive, a few paragraphs on 
 the main point at issue show the scope of the decision: 
 
 " Stripped of all the elaborate argument in the confusion of 
 which the question for decision might look difficult, the 
 fact remains that, if this action is maintainable, then 
 public officials have in their power one of the most effective 
 instruments with which to intimidate the press and to silence 
 their enemies. It is a weapon to be held over the head of 
 everyone who dares to print or speak unfavorably of the 
 men in power. 
 
 "The freedom of speech and the press was, at the very 
 inception of our Government, regarded as indispensable to 
 a free state. * * * 
 
 " While good reason exists for denying a publisher the right 
 to print that which he cannot prove against an individual, 
 and recklessly to pry into his personal affairs, defaming his 
 character and reputation, no reason exists for restraining 
 the publication against a municipality or other governmental 
 agency, of such facts, which, as Judge Taft puts it, it is 
 well that the public should know, even, if it lies hidden 
 from judicial investigation." 
 
 The Chicago suit differs from previous suits of this 
 character in that it was brought in behalf of a municipality 
 as a whole as representing the interest of citizens and not 
 by a public official. The courts have sustained the 
 rights of the press to publish facts bearing upon official 
 conduct and to comment thereon with reason and sin- 
 cerity and the decision establishes its right to criticise 
 municipalities and all other governmental agencies when- 
 ever in its opinion the public welfare requires it. 
 
 Judge Fisher's able exposition of the functions of the 
 press as a public guardian and his assertion of its freedom 
 to publish facts and express opinions concerning govern- 
 mental policies and conditions and official acts is pecu- 
 liarly timely and valuable in view of the efforts during 
 and since the war to muzzle and control the newspapers. 
 
 [42] 
 
 
He points out the danger attending any attempt to gag 
 or intimidate the press. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD (Ohio) News, Oct. 29, 1921. 
 
 The Right to Criticize 
 
 Immunity from criticism has never been a prerogative 
 of public officials in this country, and any hope they may 
 have been entertaining that the mayor of Chicago was 
 going to secure it for them by muzzling Chicago papers 
 has gone glimmering. Instead, a judicial decision has 
 reaffirmed the principle that criticism is not only the 
 privilege but the duty of the public press, and editors 
 are accordingly rejoicing that another "Insolent attack on 
 the constitutional freedom of the press," to quote the 
 Philadelphia Bulletin (Ind. Rep.), has only succeeded, 
 as the Kansas City Star (Ind.) observes, "in making 
 that principle more secure." 
 
 "The first attempt on record of city governament to 
 avenge itself upon a newspaper critic by a libel suit has 
 failed completely," the Boston Herald (Ind. Rep.) re- 
 ports, and the principles involved in the decision "are 
 nation wide." The suit brought by Mayor Thompson 
 in the name of the city, asking for ten million dollars 
 damages against The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago 
 News for "injury to the credit of the municipal corpora- 
 tion," was evidently intended, the Herald believes, "to 
 silence criticism in the press and on the platform." A 
 successful outcome of such an issue, involving a penalty 
 "large enough to wreck any newspaper property," would 
 make "anything like fair and frank criticism of a munic- 
 ipal administration impossible." But, as the Seattle 
 Times (Ind.) notes the court "properly" held that such 
 criticism "is within the rightful purview of the press" 
 and that newspaper comment dealing with governmental 
 conditions "could not be curtailed without abridging the 
 freedom of speech of these publications." 
 
 The action which the Thompson administration, 
 "enraged by the publication of too much truth," as the 
 Duluth Herald (Ind.) puts it, brought against its critics 
 was, indeed, in the opinion of the Columbia (S. C.) 
 Record (Dem.) "one of the most vicious assaults upon 
 
 [43] 
 
the freedom of the press ever launched in the United 
 States," and in "hitting straight from the shoulder" 
 in an unequivocal defense of that traditional American 
 right, the Great Falls (Mont.) Leader (Rep.) thinks 
 Judge Fisher, who wrote the decision, has earned the 
 thanks of "every honest citizen and every honest news- 
 paper of the United States." The principal defendant 
 in the case also believes that "citizens throughout the 
 country. . . . will realize that the decision is a note- 
 worthy assertion of American constitutional right," even 
 though "any comment by the Tribune may be dis- 
 counted because of our selfish interest." 
 
 While "the effort to impair the right of the press to 
 criticize public officials was a bold stroke," the Nashville 
 Tennessean (Ind. Dem.) thinks /'it is just as well that it 
 was taken and made the subject of judicial determina- 
 tion." In every city, the Roanoke World News (Dem.) 
 says, "the autocratic politicians in power would prefer 
 to have the press muzzled," and they are "always ready 
 and anxious to spring upon the press which dares to 
 criticize." But, warns the Grand Rapids Press (Ind.) 
 "if the Hylans and the Thompsons of the land ever 
 succeed in such attempts against the newspapers of their 
 cities we may as well hand over our political freedom to 
 the dictator along with our principles of free-speech and 
 free press." If men holding office could "make it possible 
 for the press to criticize their official acts," the result, 
 as the Hartford Times (Dem.) sees it, would be that 
 "this country would not long remain free," for, as the 
 Philadelphia Public Ledger (Ind.) says, "no matter how 
 corrupt, how dangerous or sinister any official might 
 be, he would be able to use the power of the municipality 
 in hiding his crookedness and infirmities. With the tax- 
 payers' money he could prosecute any taxpayer who 
 publicly questioned his crookedness." 
 
 [44] 
 
NEW YORK Evening World, Sept. 23, l!h>l. 
 
 Chicago Has One, Too 
 
 Newpapcrs ami (lie public will watch with interest 
 the libel action against The Chicago Tribune brought in 
 the name of the City of Chicago by the Thompson ele- 
 ment in the City Hall. 
 
 It is inconceivable that any court or jury would care 
 to set the precedent for such a muzzling of the press, so 
 great a restriction on the right of criticism of public 
 affairs by alert newspapers. 
 
 Still, Mayor Hylan ought to watch this trial with 
 interest. If it should happen that the courts punished 
 the Tribune, the Mayor of New York would not need to 
 make himself ridiculous by public proclamations against 
 "hate-crazed" and "disloyal" newspaper publishers. 
 
 He could instruct his Corporation Counsel to sue and 
 make them pay for their "mad fury." 
 
 NEW YORK Editor and Publisher, Sept. 24, 
 1921. 
 
 Newspapers Cannot Be Silenced 
 
 The newspapers of two cities, New York and Chicago, 
 are far from being popular with their respective mayors. 
 Mayor Hylan says the New York newspapers are 
 "knockers" instead of "boosters," because they have been 
 engaged in showing up the shortcomings of his admin- 
 istration. Mayor Thompson, of Chicago, is so worked 
 up over the things that the Tribune and the Daily News 
 of that city have been printing about its government 
 and its officials that he has brought suit on behalf of the 
 municipality against each of them, asking damages of 
 $10,000,000 for the injury they have done to Chicago's 
 credit and its officials. 
 
 Both of these mayors have reason to be upset over the 
 revelations these newspapers have made public concern- 
 ing the mismanagement, incompetency and wasteful- 
 ness of their respective administrations. How much 
 more comfortable they would feel if the newspapers kept 
 silent about such matters, and confined their attention 
 to pink teas, tiddle-de-wink matches and donkey parties ! 
 
 [45] 
 
Fortunately, the newspapers are not afraid to expose 
 graft, crookedness and chicanery wherever they find it. 
 All a public official need do to prevent them from pub- 
 lishing annoying charges against him is to discharge his 
 duties as an honest and faithful servant of the munici- 
 pality to the best of his ability. If he errs in judgment 
 he may be criticised but his integrity will remain unim- 
 peached. 
 
 Freedom of the press is one of the greatest safeguards 
 of a republic. Men who hold public office know that 
 their acts will be subjected to the scrutiny of the Argus- 
 eyed newspapers. They may try to put something over 
 on the public, thinking they won't be found out, but later 
 they usually discover they are mistaken. 
 
 Libel suits, the withdrawal of advertising, and even 
 threats of personal violence will not stop the newspapers 
 from the performance of their duty to the public to which 
 they owe allegiance and whose interests they are bound 
 to protect if they are to maintain their position in the 
 community. 
 
 NEW YORK World, Sept. 25, 1921. 
 
 Lese Majesty in Chicago 
 
 When President Roosevelt discovered in 1908 that The 
 World had told more truth about the acquisition of the 
 Panama Canal than was good for his reputation he or- 
 dered Attorney General Bonaparte to bring suit against 
 The World for "a libel upon the United States Govern- 
 ment." In very similar fashion Mayor Thompson of 
 Chicago has brought a $10,000,000 libel suit against The 
 Chicago Tribune in the name of the city not for criti- 
 cising Chicago but for criticising the Thompson Admin- 
 istration. 
 
 Lese majesty, which has disappeared from every 
 monarchy of Europe, still survives in this proudest of 
 democracies, at least in the imaginations of politicians 
 elected to high office. Mayor Thompson appears to 
 believe, as Theodore Roosevelt believed before him, that 
 when information concerning an important official act 
 is likely to injure the prestige of an office-holder it is a 
 libel against the Government to print it. If incompetents 
 
 [46] 
 
in office cannot be criticized because of the shaky dig- 
 nity of the offices they hold, democracy is already a fail- 
 ure and may as well be given up at once. 
 
 The Tribune, it is said, embarrassed the City of Chi- 
 cago financially by revealing certain conditions at an 
 inopportune juncture. It is the business of democratic 
 government so to conduct itself that it can stand the 
 truth at any time. Evidently Mayor Thompson is 
 convinced that he is Chicago and that Chicago is a 
 municipal Kaiser. 
 
 NEW YORK Fourth Estate, Oct, 1, 1921. 
 
 Press Should Unite in Its Own Defense 
 
 Are newspapers to be penalized for printing the news? 
 Is it a crime against the common weal to condemn 
 practices in high places that are detrimental to the 
 public? 
 
 The city of Chicago has sued The Chicago Tribune for 
 confi scatory damages ; the mayor of New York has issued 
 a proclamation against New York papers generally, 
 which, in spite of its ridiculous aspect, is serious because 
 it is under his official seal; the Ku Klux threatens to sue 
 the New York World and makes more dire threats against 
 it and other papers of the country; an official of the Anti- 
 saloon League accuses the newspapers in the larger cities 
 of being parties to a conspiracy to discredit prohibition. 
 These are of the number of similar attacks of recent 
 history. 
 
 These constitute an attack on the freedom of the press 
 that is as potential as vindictive. 
 
 If the newspapers of the country must refrain from 
 publishing items of news because they affect the standing, 
 political or otherwise, of certain individuals or organiza- 
 lions through fear of retaliatory measures, or if they must 
 quietly pass by public acts that are inimical to public 
 good, then there is no such thing as freedom of the press, 
 and the principal province of newspapers of publishing 
 all the news and defending communities or the country 
 from apparent malfeasance in office is of the past. 
 
 Since the inception of this republic there has been a 
 constant and victorious fight against constitutional or 
 
 [47] 
 
legislative infringement upon the rights of the press. 
 If this new sort of attack achieves momentum, energized 
 by even partial success, the always present charge that 
 newspapers are controlled will be true destructively 
 true. 
 
 If a person or an organization, from intrenchments of 
 power, can with impunity call publishers to account for 
 publishing the news about them, or establishing a just 
 censorship of their acts, it will mark the beginning of the 
 end of freedom. 
 
 Each individual publisher justly fights his own indi- 
 vidual battle, but abstractly the concern of one is the 
 concern of all. Newspapers should unite in the use of 
 their most effective weapon against this iniquitous tend- 
 ency publicity, pitiless and complete. 
 
 NEW YORK Newsdom, Oct. 5, 1921. 
 
 The High Cost of Free Speech 
 
 The Libel Action by the City of Chicago Against The 
 Chicago Tribune Raises This Important Issue. 
 
 The $10,000,000 libel suit of the City of Chicago against 
 The Chicago Tribune has begun and its progress will un- 
 undoubtedly be watched with keen interest by at least 
 every publisher and politician in the country. On the 
 opening day of the trial the attorneys for the newspaper 
 moved to have the case dismissed, basing their arguments 
 on the constitutional right of the freedom of the press, 
 and pointing out that the suit vitally involves the ques- 
 tion of whether a publication may be sued for libel to the 
 extent of its total valuation, and hence virtually be put 
 out of business if the suit is won. 
 
 It is a rare thing indeed for a newspaper so large as the 
 Tribune to be sued for its total value. But small and 
 struggling publications have often been thus annihilated 
 by powerful persons or interests whom they had attacked. 
 We recall an editor of a little paper in Pennsylvania who 
 was ruined and sent to jail (since he could not pay the 
 fines and damages imposed) after resolutely attacking 
 the all-powerful Boies Penrose, U. S. Senator. The 
 Chicago Tribune, a rich paper, feels for the first time the 
 
 [48] 
 
doom that constantly threatens every outspoken small 
 publisher, and at once raises the issue of free speech, 
 freedom of the press and constitutional privilege. 
 
 The right to criticize any public official or act of gov- 
 ernment is surely a principal heritage of all citizens in a 
 republic. It is a right fought for through many cen- 
 turies and dearly won at the expense of entrenched au- 
 thority, which has ever sought to spare itself the pains 
 of public inquiry and the warm rays of the spotlight. 
 But in these columns we have often pointed out that this 
 very valuable commodity, freedom of the press, is today 
 controlled by altogether too small a minority of the 
 American public. The newspapers are incorporated 
 stock companies, but almost invariably controlled by an 
 individual, either owner or the representative of some 
 group or family owning control of the publishing prop- 
 erty. In short, in a nation of one hundred and ten mil- 
 lions this vital freedom of the press is vested in probably 
 not more than two thousand principal publishers of the 
 press, or approximately two-thousandths of one per 
 cent, of the citizens of the republic bestowing their 
 editorial freedom. 
 
 Now we have made a close study of the kinds and char- 
 acters of American publishers today, and must regret- 
 fully report that few of this rare minority measures up 
 to the highly specialized freedom and privilege they 
 constitutionally enjoy. All citizens, of course, enjoy 
 free speech, but free speech is a dwarf compared to free- 
 dom of the press. The average newspaper reader has 
 no more chance of outtalking or influencing the press 
 in its use or abuse of its freedom than he has power to 
 employ his constitutional free speech in persuading 
 Grant's Tomb to become a useful suspension bridge 
 across the Hudson. The average newspaper publisher, 
 like the reader, is just an individual, with private no- 
 tions and plans and ambitions and greeds. He is one of 
 a fortunate few who control great sources of public opinion. 
 And as an individual he helps himself with such means as 
 he has at hand, in this case powerful and extensive and 
 safeguarded for him by the constitution of the republic 
 where he fortunately thrives. 
 
 As we had occasion to set forth in a recent leading 
 article, the press has overworked its particular kind of 
 
 [49] 
 
political free speech until the time has come when news- 
 paper opinion, for or against, is likely to result in a con- 
 trary verdict from the voters at the polls. But apart 
 from the domain of politics, the newspapers of this 
 country still possess enormous influence, great power for 
 good which they too often neglect, and greater power for 
 harm and evil which some of them abuse with serious 
 result to all concerned. 
 
 Returning to the case of The Chicago Tribune, it 
 seems that city officials base their libel action on certain 
 articles published which, they maintain, hurt the city's 
 credit and impaired the market for municipal securities. 
 V\l This is a novel claim, and one which would certainly 
 have appealed to Louis XIV. or George III. In short, 
 the civic bosses of Chicago (who long ago earned the 
 profound contempt of the American public everywhere) 
 hit upon a new manner of defense by attack, and of pro- 
 tecting entrenched authority (monarchy, if you wish!) 
 from the burning spotlight of public inquiry and criti- 
 cism. 
 
 The law of libel is a strange and peculiar specimen of 
 the lawmaker's expert blend of loopholes and fine or 
 imprisonment. A really gifted mudslinger can damage 
 the character or achievement of anyone with ease, and 
 be immune to legal action. Whereas a straightforward 
 and earnest exponent of truth and fact is liable to find 
 that the cost of free speech can make the high cost of 
 living seem like a bargain. For example, it is possible 
 and convenient to declare in print that "we can not be- 
 lieve that Senator X. would lend himself to such a scan- 
 dalous and criminal scheme." This ostensibly praises 
 Senator X., but it firmly embeds in the dullest wits a 
 conviction that everyone but the writer can and does be- 
 lieve Senator X. involved in a scandalous and criminal 
 scheme. Senator X. takes a back-hand wallop from 
 which no amount of acquittal can ever wholly revive 
 him. But had the writer stated plainly that he thought 
 Senator X. scandalous and criminal, even though citing 
 a specific instance of the Senator's defective character, 
 he would be inviting the Senator to go to law in the mnl- 
 ter, and probably presenting the politician with a wealth 
 of cleansing publicity, not to speak of possible damages. 
 
 In this way it is shown that the law of libel practically 
 
 [50] 
 
defeats itself. Anyone deliberately setting out to in- 
 jure another can do so in print with great subtlety and 
 lasting effect. But an independent editor or publisher 
 who is straightforward in thought, method and intention 
 may render himself liable, be ruined by costly trials or 
 excessive damages, be put in jail, be silenced by the very 
 persons or interests he bravely endeavored to expose. 
 
 Henry Ford went into court with The Chicago Tribune, 
 with a result on which many still reflect with glee. The 
 Tribune does not appear to be a particularly libelous 
 sheet, yet it seems to get on the nerves of those whose 
 damage-dreams run into millions. We hardly expect to 
 see the powerful Tribune put out of business by the dam- 
 ages it will have to pay in this case, or any other case 
 involving Boss Thompson and his gang. The American 
 people fought for freedom of speech, won it by sacrifice 
 and retain it by vigilance. The newspapers, great or 
 small, must bear this in mind, and serve loyally those 
 who bestow this great privilege upon them, bestow it 
 simply because newspapers are supposed to be the voice 
 of the people and that voice and that only by demo- 
 cratic right must be free. 
 
 NEW YORK Evening Post, Oct. 17, 
 
 No Crime to Criticize Officials 
 
 Dismissal of the libel suit for $10,000,000 brought by 
 Mayor Thompson and other officials in the name of 
 the city of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune rebukes 
 as impudent an attempt as has ever been made to silence 
 criticism of public officials in this country. If Mayor 
 Thompson felt himself wronged by the comment of Chi- 
 cago newspapers upon his administration of affairs, why 
 did he not bring suit in his own name? Judge Fisher 
 was severe upon the point. "The honest official," he 
 said, "seldom fears criticism. He answers argument byj 
 argument and only in extreme cases resorts to law. The 
 dishonest official is often restrained by the fear of laying 
 his character open to a searching judicial inquiry. But 
 if he can hide his own infirmities by labelling his action 
 in the name of a municipality, the number of suits would 
 be governed only by political expediency." 
 
 [51] 
 
It is not always easy for public officials even outside 
 of Chicago to realize that the remedy for newspaper 
 criticism of their actions is not suppression of the offend- 
 ing newspapers but suppression of their own ill-judged 
 policies. 
 
 NEW YORK World, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Free Press Again Upheld 
 
 With a seemly promptitude, Judge Harry M. Fisher of 
 the Circuit Court has sustained The Chicago Tribune's 
 demurrer to Mayor Thompson's $10,000,000 libel suit, 
 brought ostensibly on behalf of the City of Chicago. 
 
 In rendering his decision and in giving notice that an 
 amended declaration will be of no avail, Judge Fisher 
 makes it properly plain that what he upholds is not the 
 case of the single newspaper involved but the constitu- 
 tional freedom of the press and the right of the people 
 to be keenly and broadly informed concerning their own 
 affairs and interests. "The press," says the bench, "has 
 become the eyes and ears of the world." Further 
 
 "It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which uni- 
 fies public sentiment. But for it the acts of public bene- 
 factors would go unnoticed, impostors would continue un- 
 dismayed and public office would be the rich reward of the 
 unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 This is a just tribute to the responsible newspaper 
 press. It is a judicial .recognition of the need, voiced 
 by indirection in the basic law of the state, of serious, 
 intelligent criticism of the system, purposes, instruments 
 and faults of government. 
 
 Commenting in a previous editorial upon Mayor 
 Thompson's suit, The World referred to the action for 
 libel brought against itself in 1908 over the Panama Canal 
 Zone seizure by President Roosevelt for the United States 
 Government. The principles of law as a bulwark of free 
 discussion which prevailed in the greater case are satis- 
 factorily upheld in the lesser. We should fancy that 
 there might now be recorded a definite, permanent check 
 upon the attempted industry of establishing a doctrine 
 
 [52] 
 
of "lese majesty" under the standard of American democ- 
 racy. 
 
 NEW YORK Evening World, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 To the Higher Court 
 
 Virtually dismissing a politically inspired libel suit 
 brought against The Chicago Tribune by Mayor Thomp- 
 son and his political associates acting in the name of the 
 City of Chicago, Judge Fisher has reaffirmed and given 
 new standing to one of the cardinal principles of modern 
 democracy, the right and privilege of free criticism of 
 public policy in the public press. 
 
 It is true this right and privilege may be abused at 
 times, but the penalty for such abuse ought not to be 
 administered through the legalistic mazes of court pro- 
 cedure. If democracy is to endure, the penalty must be 
 inflicted by public opinion. 
 
 If a newspaper is unfair in its criticisms of public 
 policy, time will reveal the errors. The public must 
 train itself to remember and balance the accounts for 
 or against the newspaper. 
 
 If a newspaper is generally right, it deserves public 
 confidence. If it is usually wrong and misleads the 
 public, then it will lose the confidence and support of its 
 readers. That is the supreme penalty which may be 
 inflicted on a newspaper. 
 
 Courts cannot settle such questions. The final ver- 
 dict may not rest on any single issue, true or false. 
 Not twelve men but all the readers of a newspaper must 
 bring in the verdict. The jury is always "out." 
 
 While the issue is being decided the newspaper must 
 be free to devote its energies to newspaper making, not 
 to defending itself against the politically inspired legal- 
 ism of politicians who happen to control in City, State 
 or Nation. 
 
 Between The Chicago Tribune and Mayor Thompson 
 time and the citizens of Chicago must judge. This may 
 be hard for Mayor Thompson, but it is a price he must 
 pay for living in a Nation which aspires to democratic 
 government. 
 
 [53] 
 
NEW YORK Times, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Proper Newspaper Criticism 
 
 In throwing out of court the ridiculous suit for $10,- 
 000,000 damages brought by the City of Chicago against 
 The Chicago Tribune, Judge Fisher reaffirmed some 
 fundamental and wholesome principles. The press is 
 far from being unbridled. Laws exist to punish it for 
 sedition, indecency, or personal defamation. But public 
 policy and judicial decisions have long permitted and 
 even encouraged the freest criticism of men in office. 
 Judge Fisher well said that, if newspapers were to be 
 deprived of that liberty, a new weapon would be placed 
 in the hands of unscrupulous officials. 
 
 Every one understands that it was not really the "City" 
 of Chicago that sought to mulct or silence the Tribune, 
 but Mayor Thompson. He but makes a new use of the 
 phrase, "1'etat, c'est moi." It was the Mayor that the 
 Chicago newspapers attacked, and the Mayor purely 
 in his public capacity ; the man at the head of a municipal 
 administration which was bringing disrepute and peril 
 upon Chicago. Possibly the Tribune went too far in 
 asserting that Chicago had been made "bankrupt" by 
 the Thompson regime, but that was only a rhetorical 
 exaggeration of the admitted truth. And on the main 
 allegations made in the suit the Court emphatically, 
 and in line with many precedents, held that there was 
 "no cause of action." Thus a peculiarly impudent 
 attempt to limit the freedom and usefulness of the press 
 has had the stamp of deserved judicial disapproval 
 placed upon it. 
 
 NEW YORK Sun, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Lese Chicago 
 
 A wide interest attaches to the ruling of a Chicago 
 judge that officials of that city have no cause for a libel 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune based on the assertion 
 that the defendant had uttered hurtful things about the 
 city's financial condition. New York, since the question 
 of the city's pocketbook is particularly prominent here 
 too at this moment, looks on the Chicago suit and its out- 
 
 [54] 
 
 
come with especial interest. It welcomes a judicial 
 ruling that should protect the public right to discuss 
 public a Hairs. 
 
 Often have officeholders objected to press criticism, 
 as did the Mayor of Chicago. The Non-partisan League 
 administration in North Dakota has complained that the 
 newspapers misrepresented the State's finances and so 
 injured its credit, a charge identical with the one that 
 Mayor Thompson made in Chicago. 
 
 The public must have accurate information about its 
 affairs and must guard against misrepresentation. The 
 best guaranty for this we have been able to develop is 
 free criticism of government. If criticism were restricted 
 we should find it much more difficult to arrive at the truth. 
 As the Court pointed out, to allow officials to sue upon 
 spoken or printed assertions would be to give them a 
 weapon that could be used against any opponent or 
 critic of those in power. 
 
 The dangers in freedom of discussion of public ques- 
 tions, the opportunities for misrepresentation, have not 
 been considered by democratic communities as com- 
 parable to the dangers involved in any official or judicial 
 restriction of this right. 
 
 NEW YORK World, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 In rendering his decision and in giving notice that an 
 amended declaration will be of no avail, Judge Fisher 
 makes it properly plain that what he upholds is not the 
 case of the single newspaper involved but the constitu- 
 tional freedom of the press and the right of the people 
 to be keenly and broadly informed concerning their 
 own affairs and interests. "The press," says the bench, 
 "has become the eyes and ears of the world." 
 
 NEW YORK Editor and Publisher, Oct. 22, 
 1921. 
 
 Free Press and the Law 
 
 Freedom of the press has been an important factor 
 in the activities of two departments of government dur- 
 ing the past few days. The Chicago Tribune success- 
 fully defended the principle, as well as its own existence, 
 in the Circuit Court of Illinois, in the suit filed by the 
 
 [55] 
 
City of Chicago to collect $10,000,000 damages based on 
 the Tribune's criticism of the city administration's 
 methods of government and finance. So much for the 
 judiciary. 
 
 In the U. S. Senate, however, there now reposes a bill, 
 railroaded through the House, which would punish by 
 fine and exclusion from the mails any newspaper which 
 published the news of any event on which the public 
 had placed wagers, or quoted the odds at which such 
 wagers were made. The latter bill and the action of the 
 City of Chicago had the same fundamental intent 
 the placing of statutory limitation on what may be printed 
 in the public press. 
 
 Judge Fisher in dismissing the suit against the Tribune, 
 said: "The action is not in harmony with the genius, 
 spirit and objects of our institutions. The freedom of 
 speech and of the press was at the very inception of our 
 government regarded as indispensable to a free state. 
 There is need of so much knowledge in our complicated 
 social order that unless we were advised by those who 
 are expert in collecting information and disseminating 
 it, we would be helpless. 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and the ears of the 
 world, and, to a great extent, humanity in all its parts. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which 
 unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts of public 
 benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would con- 
 tinue undismayed and public office would be the rich 
 reward of unscrupulous demagogues. 
 
 "The Court has no more sympathy with newspapers 
 indulging in scandal and defamation than have the most 
 bitter assailants of the press. But the remedy is not to 
 be found in new law suppressing publication." 
 
 The court said that if the present suit could be main- 
 tained "then public officials would have in their power one 
 of the most effective instruments with which to intimidate 
 the press and silence their enemies. It would be a wea- 
 pon to be used over the head of every one who dared 
 print or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 No comment is necessary on this clear statement of 
 
 [56] 
 
the rights of the press as they were affected in the Chi- 
 cago case, but it can well be studied by those who seek 
 to insure by statute the moral integrity of the nation. 
 
 NEW YORK Fourth Estate, Oct. 22, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press Still Lives 
 
 Among many recent cases of individuals or corpora- 
 tions trying ineffectually to recover from newspapers 
 for alleged damage caused by an endeavor to protect 
 the common good, or for publication of news items 
 affecting them, that of The Chicago Tribune is pre-emi- 
 nent because of the peculiar features of the case. 
 
 Here was a strongly intrenched political machine 
 charged with dissipating the public funds by a newspaper, 
 in its undoubted province of watching and conserving 
 the rights of the public, in an attitude that had many 
 indications of revengeful spite. 
 
 In sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the suit the 
 judge gave utterance to an axiomatic truth when he 
 said that harm would certainly result to a community 
 from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity. 
 
 During the war the newspapers of the country were a 
 unit in supporting the propaganda of Americanism. 
 Propaganda may have become a habit with some of them 
 and reached into other fields without warrant. For 
 such cases there is a remedy, but that is entirely a dif- 
 ferent matter from restraining rightful expression of 
 opinion. 
 
 The freedom of the press is so important a funda- 
 mental of democracy that it was written in one of the 
 greatest safeguards of liberty the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 It is a matter of felicitation, not only among news- 
 papers but among all citizens of the country, that efforts 
 so far to undermine the right of free speech have been 
 fruitless. 
 
 Without an absolutely free press, free to record news 
 in an impartial manner, and free to safeguard every 
 interest of community and country, to fearlessly uphold 
 the powerless against the powerful, with the power to 
 collate and give united force to public opinion, all the 
 
 [57] 
 
works of the founders and preservers of the Nation 
 would go for naught. 
 
 Especially must the press be safeguarded against the 
 encroachment of political organizations, which, primarily, 
 are promoted by selfish interests. 
 
 Both the press and those who would restrict its prov- 
 ince must finally stand at the bar of public opinion 
 the supreme court of their actions. 
 
 The press is unafraid ! 
 
 NEW YORK Literary Digest, Oct. 29, 1921. 
 
 The Right to Critizise Chicago 
 
 Back in 1735 an old printer named John Peter Zenger 
 so irritated the Colonial rulers of New York by attacks in 
 his Weekly Journal that it was solemnly resolved in 
 Council that certain of the Zenger writings should be 
 publicly burnt by the common hangman and that the 
 publisher himself should be charged with libel. The 
 subsequent jury verdict of "not guilty" has been" called 
 "the morning star of that liberty which subsequently 
 revolutionized America." No copies of the Chicago 
 Tribune have been burnt in Grant Park, but the Trib- 
 une and The Daily News have been sued for libel by the 
 city government on the ground that their criticisms of 
 the municipal administration and their charges of "in- 
 solvency" were hurting the city's credit to the extent 
 of $10,000,000. Judge Harry M. Fisher's decision that 
 the city has no cause of action against the Tribune is 
 greeted by the press with phrases recalling the historian's 
 verdict in the case of old Zenger. "Free Government 
 Upheld in Chicago," "The Freedom of the Press Vindi- 
 cated," "No Crime to Criticize Officials," "A Victory 
 for Free Speech," "Freedom of the Press," are sample 
 headlines. The suit, according to the New York Eve- 
 ning Post, "was as impudent an attempt as has ever been 
 made to silence criticism of public officials in this coun- 
 try." "Another insolent attack on the constitutional 
 freedom of the press" has now been decisively repelled, 
 says the Philadelphia Bulletin. 
 
 In Chicago, The Evening Post finds Judge Fisher's de- 
 cision "a healthy thing for municipal government," upon 
 
 [58] 
 
which "the people of Chicago together with newspapers 
 everywhere are to be congratulated." The Chicago 
 Tribune itself, while remarking that any comment of its 
 own might be discounted because of selfish interest, be- 
 lieves that Americans throughout the country "will 
 realize that the decision is a noteworthy assertion of 
 American constitutional right." If such a suit, it says, 
 were to be sustained in law, "all criticism of public ad- 
 ministration would rest under the paralyzing threat of 
 exhausting or completely destructive attack by politicians 
 in power," and "no more fatal assault upon the liberties 
 of the individual could be devised." For the most part 
 the Tribune contents itself with summarizing the Judge's 
 decision, which goes deeply into the principles involved. 
 Before the court hearings were held the Tribune an- 
 nounced to its readers that "to coerce or destroy the 
 Tribune was the immediate purpose of this suit, the in- 
 timidation of all newspapers and prevention of free 
 speech the second objective; and, as the Tribune has 
 evidence to prove, the overturning of the republican 
 form of government was its ultimate goal." 
 
 It appears from Judge Fisher's decision that the city 
 government of Chicago took exception to a number of 
 Tribune articles in the Small campaign, particularly 
 to one referring to the city as "broke," "bankrupt" and 
 "insolvent"; complaining that they gave the impression 
 "that the management of the administrative and gov- 
 ernmental affairs of plaintiff were conducted in a corrupt 
 and incompetent manner," and finally that "said griev- 
 ances" damaged the city in its "good name, reputation 
 and financial credit" to the extent of $10,000,000. Judge 
 Fisher holds that the right to free expression of opinion 
 is only limited by restraints against blasphemy, im- 
 morality, sedition and defamation. But defamation or 
 libel "is that class of prohibited publication which affects 
 only private persons," and can not hold against munici- 
 palities. They "have no character or reputation to 
 defend. They exist to conserve order and advance the 
 public good." As regards the position of the press, the 
 Judge said in part, as reported in the Chicago papers: 
 
 "It is not only a great privilege but, to my mind, a posi- 
 tive moral duty of those who have the facility to keep a 
 watchful eye and to give generous expression on all public 
 
 [59] 
 
matters, the knowledge of which few citizens could obtain 
 even when personally seeking it. 
 
 * 'Fortunately, while the good the press is capable of ren- 
 dering, if unafraid, is without limit, the harm it can do 
 has its own limitations. It cannot long indulge in falsehood 
 without suffering the loss of that confidence from which 
 alone comes its power, its prestige and its reward. 
 
 "On the other hand, the harm which certainly would re- 
 sult to the community from an officialdom unrestrained 
 by fear of publicity is incalculable. 
 
 "The honest official seldom fears criticism." 
 
 "This action," said Judge Fisher, in summing up his 
 reasons for giving judgment for the defendant, "is not 
 in harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 institutions. It does not belong to our day. It fits 
 in rather with the genius of the rulers who conceived 
 law not in the purity of love for justice, but in the lustful 
 passion for undisturbed power." 
 
 It is not surprising that a judicial decision which eulo- 
 gizes the press while emphasizing its privileges should 
 receive apparently unanimous editorial approval. A 
 wire to Mayor Thompson failed to draw a word from him 
 to help us state his side of the case. It is perhaps fair 
 to assume that Corporation Counsel Ettelson spoke for 
 the entire city administration when he told a Chicago 
 Tribune reporter: "We have decided to make no com- 
 ment except to say that we think Judge Fisher's decision 
 is wrong." 
 
 BROOKLYN (N. Y.) Eagle, Oct. 16, 
 
 An Absurd Suit Dismissed 
 
 Of all the libel suits ever brought against newspapers 
 in this country the most absurd in origin and purpose was 
 that started by Mayor Thompson of Chicago against 
 the Tribune of that city. The Tribune had assailed 
 the Thompson administration, declaring that it was 
 ruining Chicago, and Thompson caused suit to be brought 
 against it on the ground that its charges had injured 
 the city's financial credit to the extent of $10,000,000. 
 Throwing the suit out of court Judge Fisher character- 
 ized it as "not in harmony with the genius, spirit or 
 object of our institutions." And to this he added: 
 "It does not belong to our day, but rather to the day 
 
 [60] 
 
 
\\lini monarchs promulgated laws with the purpose of 
 carrying out their lustful passion for undisturbed power." 
 It is worth recalling that when newspaper attacks 
 were directed against thr Government of New York 
 City as it was under the control of \Yilliam M. Tweed 
 and his associate thieves precisely the same reply was 
 made from official circles. The credit of the city and 
 its reputation abroad were being hurt by newspaper 
 criticism. We have heard that cry revived in behalf 
 of the present New York City Government. But Mayor 
 Hylan, though he has urged business men to withdraw 
 advertising from what he calls "the hate-crazed press," 
 has never progressed so far in stupid retaliation against 
 his critics as did Mayor Thompson. The latter occupies 
 a lonely and unenviable eminence. The court has stuck 
 him in a pillory from which he will not soon escape. 
 
 BUFFALO (N. Y.) Express, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 It was a peculiar city government which imagined that 
 the city of Chicago could maintain a successful libel 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune. The attempt was of 
 much the same character as the effort to assert the 
 principle in behalf of Governor Small that the king can 
 do no wrong. The court's decision against the city 
 must have been expected even by the lawyers whom the 
 city employed. 
 
 BUFFALO (N. Y.) Courier, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 In throwing out of court the suit for $10,000,000 
 which the city of Chicago had brought against The 
 Chicago Tribune for alleged libel by the Tribune in 
 publishing statements that the city was bankrupt, 
 the court said: 'This suit is not in harmony with 
 the genius, spirit or objects of our institutions." 
 
 BUFFALO (N. Y.) Times, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Would Have Lost if It Had 
 Been Winner 
 
 Every city, Chicago included, is to be congratulated 
 that the $10,000,000 libel suit of the City of Chicago 
 against The Chicago Tribune, was thrown out of court. 
 
 [61] 
 
A great principle was at stake here. 
 
 If it were once established that a municipality could 
 maintain an action in damages against a newspaper for 
 criticizing a municipal administration, cities would be 
 compelled to run the risk of being deprived of that great 
 safeguard an outspoken newspaper press. 
 
 Chicago would have been the loser if it had been the 
 winner of this suit, brought in Chicago's name but in 
 opposition to its welfare. 
 
 AUBURN (N. Y.) Citizen, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 A Free Press 
 
 Some time ago, following an election in Chicago, the 
 mayor of that city brought an action against The Chicago 
 Tribune, charging libel, to the extent of $10,000,000 
 damage done to the city. The action was the result of 
 an attack on Mayor Thompson, charging incompetence 
 and showing how the city had suffered under his direction. 
 
 In reply to it, The Chicago Tribune entered a demurrer. 
 This means the paper admitted the truth of the matter, 
 but held that it was insufficient in law to sustain the 
 claim. The case has now ended with the judge uphold- 
 ing the Tribune's demurrer. It is a victory for a free 
 press in this country. 
 
 The laws of libel as concern newspapers are very 
 broad, and in many ways the papers are cramped in 
 their duties to the public by the limitations imposed. 
 But in a political campaign, the limit is raised, and news- 
 papers are more free to say what they think of individ- 
 uals and what they advise in policy in a manner not 
 customary in ordinary times. Besides, public men are 
 open to attack which in the case of private citizens might 
 constitute libel. It should not be otherwise. 
 
 "The press," says the decision, "has become the eyes and 
 ears of the world. It is the spokesman of the weak and the 
 appeal of the suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our 
 officials and of those men in high places who have it in 
 their power to advance peace or endanger it. It is the 
 force which unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts 
 of public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would 
 continue undismayed and public office would be the rich 
 reward of the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 [62] 
 
A free press is perhaps the most important institution 
 in any country. The truth in all matters must he made 
 known, and where censorship exists, truth is suppressed. 
 Too strict construction of the libel laws, especially where 
 public men are concerned, is similar in effect to censor- 
 ship. Tf a newspaper is not free to express its opinions 
 within the bounds of decency, the most fundamental 
 of our liberties are in danger. 
 
 UTICA (N. Y.) News, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 In newspaper circles attention has been called to the 
 libel suit for $10,000,000 brought against The Chicago 
 Tribune by the municipal authorities of that city. The 
 newspaper had criticized the administration, pointed 
 out where it had wasted the public funds and brought 
 accusations right and left which it claimed to be supported 
 by facts and figures cited. The Thompson adminis- 
 tration claimed that they and the municipality had been 
 damaged thereby, but when the case was brought into 
 court, Judge Fisher dismissed it, standing by the prin- 
 ciple that officeholders are and ought to be subjected to 
 the publication of whatever disclosures the case warrants, 
 and that the effort to do so on the part of the newspapers 
 is commendable and one of the best protections and safe- 
 guards the people have. 
 
 BUFFALO (N. Y.) Times, Oct. 21, 1921. 
 
 "A Daniel Come to Judgment" 
 
 IN THESE DAYS THIS IS NOT ONLY THE 
 PLEASANTEST KIND OF NEWS, BUT 
 IT IS ALSO VERY RARE IN 
 THE DESPATCHES 
 
 The City of Chicago some time ago instituted a very 
 novel suit against two newspapers for criticising the 
 municipal government as to its financial methods, and, 
 as charged in the complaint, for injuring the credit of 
 the City so that it could not sell its bonds. The case 
 recently came to trial, and the Federal Judge sustained 
 the demurrer entered by one of the defendants claiming 
 no cause of action. In the hurry and rush of American 
 
 [63] 
 
life, this decision will probably pass unheeded by the vast 
 majority of our citizens; but it upholds one of the funda- 
 mental rights underlying all genuinely free government. 
 The soul of the opinion is set forth in the following words 
 of the Judge, that, 
 
 "The harm which would certainly result to a community 
 
 from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity is 
 
 incalculable." 
 
 He further stated that, 
 
 "At the very inception of this Government liberty of 
 speech and of the press was regarded as indispensable to a 
 free state," 
 
 adding, that those who attempted to check the passion 
 for it have been branded by history as barbarians and 
 tyrants. 
 
 No more interesting, or more strenuous, or more im- 
 portant chapters of Anglo-Saxon progress exist than the 
 history of the struggle for free press, free speech and the 
 corollary of both, the right of peaceable assemblage. On 
 these three rights rests the whole structure of modern 
 civilization, and of liberty, present and to come. It is 
 glad news, therefore, that a Federal Judge not only 
 knows this history, but has the courage authoritatively to 
 declare it, and the lucid language with which to clothe 
 it with a new vitality. 
 
 "Bureaucracy" in this country, the crystallization of 
 departmental machinery, the petrification (first cousin 
 to putrefaction) of precedents have grown to be formid- 
 able agencies for the delaying, the denial, and in fact the 
 obliteration of justice, which evils can be successfully 
 fought only by a free press, by free speech and free assem- 
 blage. One by one the Federal Judges are becoming 
 aware that there are still in this Republic sovereign citizens 
 who remember Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. 
 
 NEWARK (N. J.) Star, Sept. 27, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press in Chicago Libel 
 
 Action 
 
 Because it is said to be entirely without precedent in 
 the United States, vast interest will attach to the suit of 
 the city of Chicago for $10,000,000 against The Chicago 
 Tribune for libel. Its importance can scarcely be exag- 
 
 [64] 
 
gerated, because involved in it is the question of what 
 does and what does not constitute that freedom of the 
 press which is guaranteed by the very first amendment 
 to the Federal Constitution and by the constitutions of 
 most, if not all, of the states. 
 
 Does the liability of a newspaper for its criticisms, 
 which is recognized in the case of individuals, extend to 
 incorporated municipalities? That is the question at issue, 
 involved with another, which is how, if at all, it is possible 
 to measure the intangible and determine to what extent 
 the criticism of a city's finances in a particular journal 
 has injured its credit, and, that being determined, how 
 that loss of credit is calculable in dollars and cents. 
 
 The basis of the suit, brought in the city's name, is 
 not that responsible officials, who would have recourse 
 in individual suits for libel, were attacked, but that the 
 integrity of the city as a solvent and going concern, 
 under the methods being pursued, was assailed. Now if 
 a free press can be restrained, in principle, from criticizing 
 what it considers to be faulty financing, and can be kept 
 from open condemnation of practices it believes to be 
 ruinous, does it not follow that the whole body of ex- 
 pressed journalistic opinion is at stake? 
 
 Would the musical critic be safe in saying that the 
 soprano was not in her best voice, or the dramatic critic 
 in pointing out the weak structure of a play or the 
 faultiness of acting? These are not reflections upon per- 
 sonal character, but upon the merit of performance, and 
 in a sense fall in the same category as the Chicago paper's 
 excoriation of municipal finance. If the conduct of the 
 people's business is not subject to review and criticism 
 by the responsible organs to which they look for enlighten- 
 ment, what protection have they against intrenched 
 authorities perpetuating themselves in office by bestowing 
 what appear to be present benefits while piling up an 
 inheritance of knotty difficulties for the future to solve? 
 
 It is notable that it is the Thompsons and the Hylans 
 and the Gillens of politics that are most vociferous in 
 their onslaughts upon the newspapers, interpreting 
 criticism of official conduct as attacks upon themselves 
 as individuals, and ascribing to the comment an animus 
 it does not possess. It is unthinkable that the sort of 
 ideas they cherish can prevail against that freedom that 
 
 [65] 
 
is the constitutional guaranty of the press, not for its 
 own sake, but only in order that a whole people may be 
 informed of the truth. 
 
 ASBURY PARK (N. J.) Press, Oct. 3, 1921. 
 
 Blow at Free Press 
 
 The city of Chicago is trying out a novel experiment. 
 It is suing The Chicago Tribune for ten million dollars 
 on the ground that it was libeled by that publication. 
 The city holds that the Tribune's attacks were untrue, 
 that they tended to impair confidence and undermine 
 credit and as a result had a disastrous effect upon the 
 municipality's plans to borrow money. 
 
 The point raised is an interesting one. A corporation 
 has redress in law if it is attacked. There was a time 
 when a corporation could not sue for libel. Corporation 
 lawyers had a bill passed in most states that gave the 
 corporation the libel status of the individual. The result 
 is that the city of Chicago comes into court. 
 
 If the city of Chicago were to win its suit, the entire 
 plant of The Chicago Tribune would be wiped out. More- 
 over, if the city were to win its suit, no newspaper would 
 dare criticize the financial management of any of our 
 municipalities. The suit, the Tribune says, represents 
 an attempt to throttle the press. And so it is. The case 
 is one that will be watched with unusual interest. 
 
 CAMDEN (N. J.) Post-Telegram, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Victory for a Free Press 
 
 It was a new and novel proposition in American juris- 
 prudence that a newspaper could be sued by a munici- 
 pality for libel. The City of Chicago, by its mayor, 
 brought an action for libel against The Chicago Tribune, 
 claiming $10,000,000 damages. In sustaining the de- 
 murrer entered by the Tribune Judge Fisher said that if 
 the suit could be maintained "then public officials would 
 have in their power one of the most effective instruments 
 with which to intimidate the press and silence their 
 enemies. It would be a weapon to be held over the head 
 
 [66] 
 
of every one who dared to print or speak unfavorably of 
 the men in power." 
 
 Municipal abuses cannot be corrected unless the com- 
 munity is fully informed as to maladministration and it 
 looks to the local press to supply this information. The 
 newspaper performs a public function in exposing mu- 
 nicipal delinquencies. 
 
 Public officials if libeled may sue and get damages, the 
 samr as the private citizen. But if they could command 
 the vast power and unlimited resources of the munici- 
 pality to punish or suppress the newspaper that had the 
 temerity to criticize their official actions, corruption 
 would have full sway in our cities, with gang rule and 
 terrorism making property and life unsafe. 
 
 As Judge Fisher says: "The freedom of speech and of 
 the press was, at the very inception of our government, 
 regarded as indispensable to a free State." In these latter 
 days the enlarged corrupting power of wealth, the growth 
 of our cities and the development of political machine 
 methods to dominate municipal administration put upon 
 the press a tremendous responsibility to serve the people 
 by exposing weakness, venality and lawlessness in public 
 affairs. To the credit of the press, be it said, it performs 
 its public duty fearlessly and honestly. 
 
 To suppress criticism, as Mayor Thompson attempted 
 to do, would be to foster all the vicious and evil features 
 of corrupt administration, and subvert the genius, spirit 
 and objects of our institutions. 
 
 PATERSON (N. J.) Press-Guardian, Oct. 22, 1921. 
 
 Free Press Upheld 
 
 When he brought a $10,000,000 libel suit against The 
 Chicago Tribune in the name of the city of Chicago, be- 
 cause of criticisms of his administration, Mayor Thomp- 
 son must have known that he had little chance of success. 
 Free criticism of public officials or their administrations 
 has been a popular institution of this country from the 
 outset as well as one of its most important safeguards. 
 Journalistic freedom has been and is sometimes abused, 
 but, as Thomas Jefferson once wisely said, even that is 
 "a part of the price we pay for our liberty, which can not 
 
 [67] 
 
be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be 
 limited without danger of losing it." 
 
 Jefferson made this memorable statement in 1786. 
 Fifty years later De Tocqueville, the visiting French 
 writer, noted that no American had "as yet dared to 
 propose any restriction on the liberty of the press." Now, 
 135 years later, the same may be said unless we except 
 Mayor Thompson's libel suit and its transparent aim. 
 
 That The Chicago Tribune's demurrer to the Thompson 
 libel suit would be sustained by Judge Fisher of the 
 Circuit Court could almost have been regarded as a fore- 
 gone conclusion. Judge Fisher upholds not only the 
 Tribune but a free press in general and the right of the 
 people to be fully informed concerning their own affairs 
 and interests. 
 
 "The Press," he says, "has become the eyes and ears 
 of the world," and further: "It is the spokesman of the 
 weak and the appeal of the suffering. It holds up for 
 review the acts of our officials and of those men in high 
 places who have it in their power to advance peace or 
 endanger it. It is the force which unifies public senti- 
 ment. But for it the acts of public benefactors would go 
 unnoticed, impostors would continue undismayed, and 
 public office would be the rich reward of the unscrupulous 
 demagogue." 
 
 In this decision the Thompsons of every section are 
 duly warned that they can never reverse popular sentiment 
 in this connection, based as it is on the command of the 
 Constitution itself: "Congress shall make no law abridg- 
 ing the freedom of speech or of the press." 
 
 
 MILLVILLE (N. J.) Republican, Nov. 5, 
 
 Rights of the Press 
 
 As some people connected with the Millville city 
 government appear to be obsessed with the idea that the 
 only function of a newspaper is to pleasantly pat officials 
 on the back, and that when it criticizes and shows up 
 their failures it is a plague, it is not out of place to quote 
 from the decision of Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago, in 
 \\liichhethrewoutof court the $10,000,000 suit brought 
 in the name of the city of Chicago against the Tribune 
 
 [68] 
 
 
of that city. The newspaper had been very severe in 
 its strictures on the rotten city government of Boss 
 Thompson. It asserted that in reality, through prof- 
 ligacy, the city was bankrupt. Thompson set up the 
 claim that the Tribune's articles had injured the credit 
 of the city and brought suit to recover $10,000,000. In 
 reality the suit was instituted by Thompson for personal 
 revenge. In his decision Judge Fisher among other things 
 said : 
 
 "The freedom of speech and of the press was, at the very 
 inception of our government, regarded as indispensable to 
 a free State. Those who attempted to check the passion 
 for it were branded by history as barbarians and tyrants. 
 
 "The harm which would certainly result to the community 
 from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity is 
 incalculable." 
 
 Judge Fisher, in an answer to the contention of the 
 city that the same restraints that prevent libel of public 
 officials should operate to protect municipalities, held 
 that, while a newspaper might not recklessly pry into 
 the personal affairs of officials, no reason exists for re- 
 straining publication against a government agency of 
 such facts as it is well for the public to know. 
 
 Judge Fisher extolled the part which newspapers play 
 in modern industrial and social development and in 
 times of national stress. 
 
 LANCASTER (Pa.) Examiner, Sept. 23, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press 
 
 The Chicago Tribune, one of the leading newspapers of 
 the Middle West, is fighting for its life. It is the defend- 
 ant in a ten million dollar libel suit brought by the city 
 of Chicago. 
 
 Chicago's municipal government at the present time 
 is under the control of the Thompson machine. In the 
 campaign last fall the Tribune fought it most vigorously, 
 and criticized officials from the mayor down without 
 mercy. The Thompson men contend that the news 
 articles and editorial expressions damaged the city's 
 credit, and have sued for the total amount of the news- 
 paper's property. If it should lose, it would have to 
 discontinue publication. 
 
 [69] 
 
Certainly a victory by the city would be a most un- 
 fortunate precedent. The freedom of the press must 
 not be impaired. The Tribune did not libel individuals; 
 it did not assault our system of government; it merely at- 
 tacked the manner in which certain individuals were con- 
 ducting the government, and was, we believe, within 
 its rights in so doing. 
 
 Suppose the Wilson Administration had entered suit 
 against every Republican paper that criticized it for 
 mismanagement. The courts would have been too busy 
 with the many cases involved to consider any other 
 litigation for many months. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Evening Public Ledger, Sept. 23, 1921. 
 
 "Whom the Gods Destroy" 
 
 It is interesting to observe that in New York and in 
 Chicago frenzied attacks have just been directed at 
 great newspapers by powerful politicians temporarily 
 in possession of public offices. New York and Chicago 
 are gang-ridden. 
 
 Mayor Hylan, in one of the most astonishing procla- 
 mations ever issued by a public official in the United 
 States, calls upon all "merchants, business men and shop- 
 keepers" to visit reprisals on newspapers that have been 
 criticizing his Administration. 
 
 The outburst seems to have been prompted by edi- 
 torial criticism of police officials who sent mounted squads 
 Cossack-fashion to ride down a crowd of unemployed 
 folk. 
 
 In Chicago the Tribune has been taken into court to 
 fight a $10,000,000 suit for libel instituted by "the City of 
 Chicago." The "City of Chicago" in this case is the 
 political tong whose offenses the Tribune exposed. 
 
 Newspapers cannot make a bad politician good. But 
 they can worry and keep him on edge. 
 
 Silence or censor them for a day and every loot-hun- 
 gry political thug would feel that he had drifted by acci- 
 dent into Heaven. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Record, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune is not without justification in 
 claiming that the suit of the city against it for $10,000,000 
 
 [70] 
 
is an effort to intimidate the press. Of course, if the 
 Tribune's statements about the city's finances were un- 
 true it deserves sonic penally, and it' I hey were malicious 
 the penalty might be severe. But American cities are 
 notoriously badly governed, and the only protection 
 the public has lies in vigilant criticisms by the newspapers. 
 A suit for $10,000,000 looks like intimidation, and it will 
 be a great time for crooked bosses if the newspapers can 
 be scared out of handling municipal politicians without 
 gloves. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Evening Public Ledger, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 The Muzzle 
 
 To fully understand the line of reasoning followed by 
 the politicians who, as temporary occupants of important 
 public offices, have sued The Chicago Tribune for $10,- 
 000,000 damages because of that newspaper's criticism 
 of their official acts, it is necessary to follow it to the 
 logical conclusion. 
 
 The suit is being pressed in the name of the City of 
 Chicago, which, in the complaint against the Tribune, 
 is alleged to have suffered material losses because of the 
 attacks made upon public administrators. The Tribune 
 is not charged with telling any untruth. Therefore it 
 appears to be the feeling of the complainants that evil 
 or error in public affairs matters not at all. Do any wild 
 or foolish or criminal thing and fear not; but talk about 
 these things, draw public attention to them, and you are 
 a criminal! 
 
 Members of Congress, Judges in the courts and minis- 
 ters in their pulpits ought to be interested in this view 
 as it is expressed by a representative group of office- 
 holders in Chicago. If it were to be accepted or support- 
 ed by a court decision or a jury's verdict and there is no 
 danger that it will be a Senator or Representative of one 
 party might be haled to court for public criticism of his 
 opponents on the floor, and the courts themselves might 
 be assailed for giving a man a bad reputation by declaring 
 him guilty of a crime. 
 
 Ministers of religion would be required to believe that 
 sin doesn't matter so long as you do not talk about it or 
 
 [71] 
 
seem to be aware of its existence. They might be called 
 upon to pay heavy damages to the communities in which 
 they labor for merely intimating that all the folk who 
 compose their various congregations are not pure in 
 spirit and utterly blameless in their daily lives. 
 
 The movement for a muzzled press was supposed to 
 have ended with the departure of Palmer and Burleson 
 from public office. But it has been revived suddenly 
 in Chicago. It will have a short life this time. The 
 suit against the Tribune is as silly as it is vicious. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Record, Sept. 27, 1921. 
 
 If Mayor Thompson can show that the City of Chicago 
 has suffered $10,000,000 damage through the criticism 
 of his administration by the Tribune of that city, how 
 much could Tom Smith have collected if he could have 
 mulcted the newspapers of Philadelphia for their caustic 
 remarks on his regime here? At least $20,000,000, we 
 should say. And there would seem to be just as much 
 justification for such a procedure in this city as there 
 appears to be for "Big Bill's" effort to penalize the too 
 independent Tribune for its antagonism to his methods 
 in Chicago. Honest criticism is not to be dodged in this 
 fashion by political bosses. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Evening Public Ledger, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Criticism Is Not Criminal 
 
 The right of newspapers to criticize the city adminis- 
 tration is sustained by Judge Fisher, of Chicago, who has 
 dismissed the suit for $10,000,000 damages brought by the 
 City of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune for injuries 
 alleged to have been caused by the Tribune's criticism of 
 the financial condition of the city. 
 
 It was charged that the Tribune's criticisms injured 
 the public credit. The motive for the suit was political. 
 The action was an attempt to silence the critics of the 
 present Administration. It was thus thought that crit- 
 icism could be silenced by haling the critics into court and 
 demanding heavy damages from them. 
 
 The custom of free speech in the discussion of public 
 
 [72] 
 
affairs is of too long standing for it to be suddenly 
 stopped as the Chicngo politicians tried to stop it. 
 
 The Court has interpreted (he law in accordance with 
 the spirit of American institutions. While its decision 
 is of peculiar interest to newspapers, it is of vital im- 
 portance to the whole people. The newspapers regard 
 themselves as commissioned to safeguard the public in- 
 terests and to expose everything which threatens those 
 interests. The people look to them for information 
 about what is happening in government and for instruc- 
 tion as to the significance of it. If they are to perform 
 their proper functions they must be free to say when a 
 public official has been unfaithful to his trust and to 
 point out how he has violated it and what the effects of 
 that violation are. The Chicago Judge has sustained 
 their right to do those things. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Public Ledger, Oct 17, 1921. 
 
 Press Freedom Upheld 
 
 The City of Chicago, or rather that part of it repre- 
 sented by Mayor Thompson and "Thompsonism," has 
 lost its suit against The Chicago Tribune. It was the 
 contention of the city's attorneys that the Tribune and 
 the Chicago Daily News had "libeled" Chicago in print- 
 ing criticisms of the corporate acts of the municipality. 
 Damages in the sum of $10,000,000 were asked. 
 
 On the face of it the suit was brought to stop the mouths 
 of Chicago newspapers in the future and to punish them 
 for what they had done to the thing called "Thompson- 
 ism" in the past. In sustaining the demurrer filed by the 
 Tribune, Judge Fisher pointed out that if the city's 
 action was held maintainable, 
 
 then public officials have in their power one of 
 the most effective instruments with which to intimidate the 
 press and to silence their enemies. It is a weapon to be 
 held over the head of every one who dares print or speak 
 unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 So ends a dangerous and insolent attempt by one of 
 the most arrogant of political "machines" to maintain 
 itself in power and to outlaw, crush and silence all possi- 
 ble effective criticism of itself and its acts. The ruling 
 made was the expected ruling. Upholding the conten- 
 
 [73] 
 
tions of the city would have meant that no matter how 
 corrupt, how dangerous or sinister any official might be, 
 he would be able to use the powers of the municipality 
 in hiding his crookedness and infirmities. With the 
 taxpayers' money he could prosecute any taxpayer who 
 publicly questioned his crookedness. 
 
 To accept any such doctrine would be to prepare the 
 way for a period of municipal corruption and debauchery 
 that would smell to heaven. Extended to State and na- 
 tional Government, it would mean the end of popular 
 government and a quick drift to self -perpetuating autoc- 
 racies built on a lust for undisturbed and unending power. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (Pa.) Bulletin, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Press Freedom Vindicated 
 
 Another insolent attack on the constitutional freedom 
 of the press is decisively repelled in the practical dismissal 
 of the libel suit for $10,000,000 brought nominally by the 
 city of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune. The 
 real prosecutors were the preposterous Mayor THOMPSON 
 who refused to invite the King of the Belgians to what 
 he termed "the sixth largest German city," and his 
 associates in the government or misgovernment of that 
 ill-served municipality. The Tribune has been merciless 
 in its criticisms of the THOMPSON regime. It has inci- 
 dentally asserted that they have brought Chicago to a 
 state of bankruptcy. For this reason THOMPSON & Co. 
 alleged that the newspaper had injured the credit of their 
 beloved city to the extent of $10,000,000. 
 
 The enterprising Mayor had no notion of substituting 
 a $10,000,000 damage suit for a municipal loan. His 
 great idea was to silence his powerful opponent and over- 
 awe the press in general. Merely to put the newspaper 
 to the enormous expense of defending the case in a lengthy 
 trial would have served his punitive purpose. It would 
 likewise have proved a deadly weapon to overawe the 
 press in every other American city by furnishing a prec- 
 edent for striking at the freedom of newspapers to ex- 
 amine into the acts of municipal officers and criticize 
 them in all the fearlessness of public spirit and civic 
 patriotism. 
 
 [74] 
 
The principle enunciated by Judge HARRY FISHER, 
 that "the harm that would result to the community 
 from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity is 
 incalculable," goes to the root of the controversy. As 
 he pointed on 1. if public officials were allowed to rnain- 
 laiu a suit of this nature "they would have in their hands 
 one of the most effective instruments with which to in- 
 timidate the press and silence their enemies. It would 
 be a weapon to be held over the head of everyone who 
 dared print or speak unfavorably of the men in office." 
 So clear and cogent a vindication of freedom of the press 
 in political criticism forms a precedent of inestimable 
 value in every community. 
 
 From the Cincinnati Times-Star reprinted in the 
 PITTSBURGH (Pa.) Gazette-Times, Sept. 29, 1921. 
 
 Can You Libel a City? 
 
 The suit of the City of Chicago against The Chicago 
 Tribune for $10,000,000 damages for libel for saying that 
 the city was "broke" is, of course, largely politics. But 
 the suit has an importance other than personal. The 
 Tribune declares that in criticizing the financial condition 
 of Chicago it was performing a public service and that 
 to permit a governmental entity to sue for libel is to 
 entrench the party in power. That the borrowing ability 
 of Chicago has been affected by the Tribune's criticisms 
 of the financial policy of the Thompson administration 
 may be true. And it ought to be true. The pump in every 
 big city is worked too facilely. All that municipal ad- 
 ministrators had to do was to approach with their buck- 
 ets, and, presto, they were filled. And it has been going 
 on so long that at last many cities are able to see the 
 bottom of their financial wells. What cities need is not 
 so much laws of libel as laws that will permit them to 
 raise enough money by taxation to enable them to func- 
 tion, and yet will prevent the wasters from dissipating 
 the public funds, secured from bonds or from taxes, on 
 dishonest contracts and extravagant schemes. 
 
 [75] 
 
PITTSBURGH (Pa.) Press, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Thompson Fails to Gag the Newspapers 
 
 When Chicago's machine mayor, Thompson, acting 
 ostensibly in his official capacity, brought a $10,000,000 
 libel suit in the city's name against The Chicago Tribune 
 for saying that graft and extravagant incompetence in the 
 public service had reduced the city government to virtual 
 bankruptcy, it was evident that he was chafing under the 
 criticism and imagined that by the intimidation of such 
 a libel suit he could perhaps silence the paper and make 
 it easier for his machine to carry the next city election. 
 
 The Tribune was not frightened for a single moment 
 by his "bluff" but relied upon the constitutional guarantee 
 of a free press to protect it in keeping the public informed 
 as to Thompson's maladministration. It trusted the 
 common sense of judge and jury to detect Thompson's 
 purpose. It was, of course, his own personal suit, not 
 the city of Chicago's, which was made to appear as the 
 plaintiff. 
 
 The city of Chicago was not being hurt but benefited 
 by the Tribune's exposure of graft and incompetence in 
 office. Ring government does not benefit the taxpayer 
 and is not intended to. It exists for the private benefit 
 of the ringsters and the grafters who thrive wherever 
 rings are in power. And it is not only the right but the 
 duty of an honest newspaper to tell the truth about it. 
 
 The Tribune's confidence that no such suit as Thomp- 
 son's would stand was not misplaced. Judge Fisher has 
 not only thrown the case out of court but serves notice 
 on Thompson that a motion to reopen the matter by the 
 filing of an amended bill will not be entertained. The 
 opinion which accompanies the decision should be read 
 by ring politicians everywhere. Their desire to gag the 
 press is doomed to disappointment as long as America 
 remains America, the home of free government. Judge 
 Fisher pointed out that if a newspaper is not free to 
 criticize public officials, "then the latter have in their 
 power one of the most effective instruments with which 
 to intimidate the press and to silence their enemies. It 
 is a weapon to be held over the head of every one who 
 dares print or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 [76] 
 
WILLIAMSPORT (Pa.) Sun, Oct. 8, 1921. 
 
 Muzzling the Press 
 
 Mayor Thompson, of Chicago, is suing The Chicago 
 Tribune for libel. 
 
 The Tribune published a statement to the effect that 
 the city of Chicago was bankrupt, and the mayor con- 
 tends that the statement was false and that it was the 
 cause of serious difficulties when the city tried to dispose 
 of its bonds. 
 
 There is a moral side to this controversy. And it 
 seems that the moral element outweighs the financial to a 
 considerable extent. 
 
 Whether the Tribune will be forced ultimately to pay 
 the ten million dollar damages which the plaintiff seeks 
 to extract from it is a question of importance to the con- 
 tending parties only. 
 
 But whether any government in this land of the free, 
 city, state, or federal, can destroy an important organ of 
 public opinion in its entirety whenever such an organ 
 becomes detrimental to its plans and policies, is a ques- 
 tion of the most vital concern to every citizen of the 
 republic. 
 
 If the Chicago mayor succeeds in crushing the well- 
 known morning paper a precedent will be set to other 
 governments, city, state, and federal, so dangerous that 
 the ultimate effect can hardly be estimated. It will be 
 a nice bit of czaristic autocracy. The freedom of the 
 press, as sacred as the federal constitution itself, will have 
 been rudely assaulted. Squint-eyed politicians and Tam- 
 many Hall men of every description will ring their liberty 
 bells and summon all their confederates to a grand and 
 hilarious "bundesfest." 
 
 When Lloyd George, on a recent occasion, tried to 
 muzzle the London Times by withholding from that 
 paper official information on government affairs, the 
 whole world decried the act of the British statesman as 
 both puerile and tyrannical. 
 
 But Lloyd George's act was extremely amateurish. 
 
 It takes one of our little American despots to show the 
 world how it should be done. It takes a product of Fe- 
 licia Hemans' "holy ground," upon which the Pilgrims 
 
 [77] 
 
once set their feet; it takes a citizen of this "sweet land 
 of liberty," to wield the hickory club that will deliver 
 what executioners used to call the stroke of grace. 
 
 If a paper is actually guilty of libel it should be made 
 to pay for it. But you don't hang a man for a mere 
 theft. 
 
 Americans believe in freedom of conscience. That is 
 a sacred religious principle with them. Freedom of 
 conscience implies freedom of action and freedom of 
 expression. One's conscience may urge him to express 
 himself concerning a certain matter either in private or 
 in public. A public expression of opinion, or public 
 criticism, may at times be very severe. But if it is de- 
 served we ought to have it and the critic ought to be 
 praised for his valor. 
 
 American principles of freedom also used to apply to 
 newspaper editors. These men are the guardians of 
 the public weal in an unofficial sense. Their papers act 
 like checks upon conscienceless governments. They 
 are sinners like the rest of us, and for that reason they 
 may go astray. But they cannot be missed in the make- 
 up of this modern world. Their position is one of ex- 
 treme importance and responsibility, and unless they 
 prove wholly unfaithful to their sacred trust and work 
 the ruin of the public instead of its welfare, no political 
 force should be allowed to decapitate them financially 
 or use them as a devil's footpad for purposes of self- 
 aggrandizement. 
 
 The Chicago libel suit ought to interest every American 
 citizen, from Maine to California. 
 (Copyright, 1921, Religious Press Bureau of America.) 
 
 ALLENTOWN (Pa.) Call, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 Right of Press to Criticize Public 
 Officials 
 
 Out in Chicago a suit for $10,000,000 was brought by 
 the City against the Tribune alleging that the credit of 
 the city had been damaged to that extent by certain 
 of the newspaper's publications. That suit has been dis- 
 missed and the city has lost. 
 
 The result of the suit is one that is heartening to pa- 
 
 [78] 
 
pers all over the land and of value to the public in demon- 
 strating again that the freedom of the American press is 
 not to be throttled. 
 
 The Tribune for years has been merciless in its expose 
 of affairs as conducted by Mayor Thompson. Con- 
 stantly the party in power has been stung to the quick. 
 Recently a bond issue was not subscribed for because of 
 the fear that the city was on the road to bankruptcy as 
 a result of the Thompson policies. Then followed the 
 suit. 
 
 Now it was evident all along that there was no earthly 
 hope of getting ten million dollars from The Chicago 
 Tribune in any court of law. It was evident that the 
 suit was not instituted for that purpose. The sole pur- 
 pose was to muzzle the paper and by muzzling one sheet, 
 fear would be thrown into the entire group of papers and 
 the Thompson party could continue its conduct of Chi- 
 cago affairs undisturbed. The suit was so preposterous 
 that the intent was evident, which was to browbeat and 
 to inconvenience by making the paper the defendant in 
 a case that could be dragged thru the court for years at 
 great expense and embarrassment to the latter. Success 
 of the Chicago suit would likewise have had its influence 
 on the press in every other city. 
 
 But the Chicago suit has failed and the right of papers 
 to inquire into the conduct of public affairs emerges un- 
 scathed from the attack, in fact it is all the more strength- 
 ened. In dismissing the case the judge declared that 
 "the harm that would result to the community from an 
 officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity is incalcu- 
 lable." It summed up the entire situation and defined 
 the rightful policy of the American press. 
 
 No one with any sense of decency believes in unwar- 
 ranted attacks upon public officials simply because 
 they are officials and may differ politically or otherwise 
 from those who write for the papers. But that the acts 
 of public officials are protected by the Kaiseristic prin- 
 ciple of "lese majeste" is intolerable to American ways of 
 thinking. That it has been completely destroyed by the 
 Chicago verdict is of value to the entire American press, 
 whose freedom must be protected and defended with as 
 much spirit and determination as the other sacred prin- 
 ciples of the national Constitution. 
 
 [79] 
 
BOSTON (Mass.) Globe, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 People Versus Polls 
 
 In the two foremost cities of the United States the 
 press and the Government are at loggerheads. The 
 Mayor of New York, not liking what the newspapers 
 say about him, publicly proposes to the big advertisers 
 that they put pressure on the papers by withholding their 
 support. "If some of you business men would stop 
 advertising for the next six months, many of these news- 
 papers would have to go out of business, and they would 
 then stop this knocking and conform . to more decent 
 business methods." 
 
 The city of Chicago, acting through the Thompson 
 political machine, has brought a $10,000,000 libel suit 
 against The Chicago Tribune for certain criticisms of the 
 financial administration of city business. Such a suit, 
 if successful, would, of course, wipe out the newspaper. 
 
 Both attacks on the press are unmistakably crude. 
 In New York it is a Tammany Mayor resorting to the 
 methods of the ward boss. In Chicago it is an attempt 
 to twist the libel law away from its true intent into doing 
 the work of confiscation. In both places more than a 
 city administration is at issue. 
 
 The issue is whether authority shall be immune from 
 public criticism. 
 
 Merely to state this case would seem sufficient to 
 indicate how indefensible such immunity is, yet it is 
 surprising what quantities of short-sighted advocacy 
 the proposal to suppress free criticism can find. 
 
 It is the same kind of judgment displayed by parents 
 who laugh at their children when they swear, "because 
 it sounds so cute," and then consider themselves the in- 
 jured parties when those same children land in the 
 prisoners' dock. 
 
 Authority any and every kind of authority likes 
 to go unchallenged. That is in the nature of the case. 
 It is so much easier to go ahead and do things without 
 being obliged to answer questions of how, when, where 
 and why. One of the first instincts of authority is to 
 look for some way to stifle or evade such questions of 
 its stewardship. 
 
 [80] 
 
Now, the whole experience of democratic experiments 
 in government has been that, for self -protection, its 
 stewards in authority must he subject to continual 
 scrutiny and frequent challenge. Where society is 
 simple, tliis can be done by voice in the town meeting. 
 Where society is complex, as it is in a great metropolis, 
 this has to be done through the press. The mere sug- 
 gestion that it be stopped is preposterous. It is like 
 the hired man objecting to being given orders by the 
 farmer who employs him. Do the Chicago municipal 
 authorities object to public criticism of how the city's 
 money is spent? Well, whose money is it, anyhow? 
 
 The same duel between light and darkness which sets 
 the press and Governments of these two cities to calling 
 coffee and pistols is staged by the impending Disarma- 
 ment Conference. When these American, European and 
 Asiatic Governments meet to consider how the money we 
 pay in taxes is to be spent, much, if not everything, will 
 depend on how strongly we insist that their deliberations 
 be in the open, where they can be seen and criticized by 
 the citizenries of their several countries. Some of those 
 Governments are heartily in sympathy with the Tammany 
 Mayor and the Chicago political machine. They would r 
 exclude the press if they could or dared. 
 
 But beyond the immediate issue a larger one looms. 
 Casual perusers of events may sometimes wonder why 
 zealots for the cause of popular liberties should often raise 
 such a hullabaloo over the right of free speech. In this 
 or that particular case one finds himself rather sympathiz- 
 ing with the suggestion that this or the other spouter 
 ought to be shut up. A little more extended study reveals 
 the tack in the tire of this idea. Stated quite simply it is 
 this: If I let anybody else be shut up today, tomorrow, 
 when I may feel just as strongly about something, I may 
 be the one to be shut up. Consequently, no matter how 
 foolish or obnoxious my neighbor's utterances may be to 
 me personally, it is to my interest to let him talk. (In- 
 cidentally, as a matter of practical politics, it has also 
 always proved far safer in the long run.) 
 
 The classic instances of this are in the period of our own 
 antislavery agitators. No small part of their support 
 came from people who, at the start, like Wendell Phillips, 
 had little interest in Abolition as such, but who were 
 
 [81] 
 
intelligent enough to perceive that you cannot run a 
 country by means of a democratic form of government 
 unless you allow its citizens the utmost freedom to criticize 
 those to whom they have deputed their authority. 
 
 Uncle Dudley. 
 
 BOSTON (Mass.) Herald, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 Chicago's Libel Suit 
 
 The mayor of Chicago has brought suit against The 
 Chicago Tribune for $10,000,000 on a libel charge. He 
 files the action in the name of the city and founds it on 
 the allegation that the newspaper damaged the credit 
 of the city and contributed to its financial embarrass- 
 ment by printing certain statements at an inopportune 
 time. For several days the arguments in the case have 
 been going forward. The amount of damages named is 
 said to be enough to absorb the entire plant of the paper. 
 
 This suit of Mayor Thompson's is interesting to the 
 whole country because of the issues involved. The 
 defense claims that it is against public policy to permit 
 a city to sue a newspaper for libel and demand con- 
 fiscat9ry damages. Also, as might be expected, that the 
 statements to which exception is made were true, that 
 the city was "broke" when the Tribune so asserted, 
 that a large part of the articles upon which the suit is 
 based were merely reports of city council meetings and 
 other official and privileged matter, and that the printed 
 statements were reaffirmations of charges made openly 
 and repeatedly by candidates for public office. The 
 mayor in the name of the city claims that the Tribune 
 printed statements concerning the condition of the city 
 treasury which hampered the city in its efforts to sell 
 municipal bonds in the open market. The paper replies 
 that the law is supposed to safeguard bond issues in 
 such degree that their value will not be so affected, and 
 that it is not good public policy to prohibit the free 
 discussion of the finances of any institution that has 
 bonds or securities of any kind to sell. 
 
 And of course the defense builds its case upon the 
 guarantee of the freedom of the press upon which all 
 newspapers must depend for their security and the 
 
 [82] 
 
opportunity to render that public service for which a 
 newspaper should stand. Indeed, the Tribune's counsel 
 the other day reviewed the whole story of the struggle 
 for free speech from the period of the Roman Emperors 
 down to the present time. The constitution of the 
 United States and the constitutions of every state in 
 the union sustain the principle of freedom of speech and 
 press. 
 
 Clearly this is a rare case. It is said to be without 
 precedent in this country. Are newspapers to be pro- 
 hibited from criticism of official incompetency? Must 
 newspapers refrain from publication of what they believe 
 to be the truth as to the finances of their state or their 
 city? 
 
 BOSTON (Mass.) Transcript, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Newspapers and the Public 
 
 The decision of the Cook County Circuit Court in the 
 libel case brought against The Chicago Tribune by Mayor 
 Thompson in the name of the city of Chicago does much 
 more than justify the particular editorials and news 
 articles in which that paper had criticized and denounced 
 the administration of Thompson. The finding of the 
 court is squarely for the Tribune; but besides settling 
 the immediate question whether or not the Tribune had 
 defamed the mayor and his administration, the decision 
 lays down some general principles that must serve as 
 precedents in the consideration of the matter of public 
 criticism by newspapers. The decision raises the news- 
 paper, in this public relation, quite above that of the 
 private defamer who perhaps, for reasons of his own 
 interest or from malignant motives, circulates a slander 
 against his neighbor. The bent of the decision may be 
 gathered from the following extract: 
 
 The press has become the eyes and ears of the world, and, 
 to a great extent, humanity in contact with all its parts. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which 
 unifies public sentiment. But for it the acts of public 
 benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would continue 
 undismayed and public office would be the rich reward of 
 the unscrupulous demagogue. 
 
 [83] 
 
Naturally this ruling does not affect the question of 
 the newspaper's responsibility for an abuse of the liberty 
 of writing and publishing on all subjects. It does not 
 supply any defense whatever for scandal or defamation. 
 But it does take account of the equal responsibility of the 
 newspaper to the general public to tell the truth to the 
 best of its ability where the public is deeply interested. 
 If the press is the eyes and ears of the world, is it justified 
 in closing both eyes and ears to a public evil ? Manifestly 
 the Illinois Circuit Court thinks it is not. 
 
 Men in office are fairly subject to newspaper criticism. 
 If they were not, public officials, in this day of the world, 
 would have not only the newspapers but the general pub- 
 lic under a complete system of intimidation. 
 
 BOSTON (Mass.) Herald, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Critics of Chicago 
 
 The first attempt on record of a city government to 
 avenge itself upon a newspaper critic by a libel suit has 
 failed completely, through the sensible and well-con- 
 sidered ruling of Judge Fisher in the case brought by the 
 city of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune and the 
 Daily News, for alleged injury to the city's credit and 
 financial standing, to the amount of ten million dollars, 
 through their criticisms of city officials and policies. 
 
 The counsel for the city cited as a precedent for the 
 case a suit brought by the city of Manchester, England, 
 thirty years ago, on similar grounds; but the judge 
 brushed this case aside, for the sufficient reason that the 
 decision of a foreign tribunal furnished no precedent in 
 such a case, and he quoted the provision of the Illinois 
 Constitution of 1870 that "every person may freely 
 speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible 
 for the abuse of that liberty," and affirmed that "the 
 freedom of speech and of the press was, at the very in- 
 ception of our government, regarded as indispensable to 
 a free state." Legitimate restraints upon this freedom 
 have been narrowed down to four heads blasphemy, 
 immorality, sedition and defamation. The judge dis- 
 missed the first two as not involved and held that if the 
 Tribune's articles alleging that the city was "broke" 
 
 [84] 
 
were neither seditious nor libelous, they were unrestrained. 
 If the present suit were maintained "public officials 
 would have in their power one of the most effective in- 
 struments with which to intimidate the press and silence 
 their enemies. It would be a weapon to be used over 
 the head of everyone who dared print or speak unfav- 
 orably of the men in power." 
 
 This suit for ten million dollar damages by the Chicago 
 city government was evidently meant to silence criticism 
 in the press or on the platform. With such a possible 
 penalty impending large enough to wreck any news- 
 paper property anything like fair and frank criticism of 
 a municipal administration would be impossible. The 
 principles involved are nation-wide. They apply as 
 plainly to a Fitzgerald or Curley government in Boston 
 as to a Thompson government in Chicago. It is for the 
 interest of all concerned that there should be fairness 
 and reasonable restraint in all criticism of public officials, 
 but that is a different thing from treating the city itself, 
 by a legal fiction, as a private person, for whom the laws 
 of libel might be invoked, with damage claims of ten 
 million dollars. 
 
 BOSTON (Mass.) Globe, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 The city of Chicago's $10,000,000 suit against the 
 Tribune has been thrown out of court, and the newspapers 
 of the Windy city may now continue to express their 
 doubts about the kind of government that Mr. Thompson 
 passes around. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD (Mass.) Republican, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 In throwing out the city of Chicago's $10,000,000 libel 
 suit against "The Chicago Tribune" the judge has ended 
 one of the greatest farces that ever got into a court of law. 
 The notion that in criticizing the finances of a city a 
 newspaper exposed itself to a suit for damages measured 
 by the alleged injury to the city's credit was worthy of 
 the present Thompson administration. 
 
 [85] 
 
KINGSTON (Mass.) Leader, Oct. 29, 1921. 
 
 The Newspaper 
 
 In upholding the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune to 
 the Thompson suit against that paper for $10,000,000 
 Judge Fisher paid this tribute to the newspaper as a 
 disseminator of public information and defender of the 
 people : 
 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials and 
 of those men in high places who have it in their power to 
 advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which unifies 
 public sentiment. But for it the acts of public benefactors 
 would go| unnoticed, impostors would continue undis- 
 mayed and public office would be the rich reward of the 
 unscrupulous demagogue. 
 
 The newspaper is the greatest factor for good a com- 
 munity can have; the greatest aid a merchant can have 
 and the most formidable foe a dishonest man or business 
 can have. 
 
 BALTIMORE (Md.) Evening Sun, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Victory for Free Speech 
 
 The decision of Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago, sus- 
 taining the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune to the 
 $10,000,000 libel suit brought by the city of Chicago, is a 
 distinct victory for the cause of a free press in America. 
 
 The Tribune and the Daily News are being sued on 
 the ground that they printed false statements regarding 
 the financial affairs of the municipality, thereby injuring 
 the city's credit. In pressing its claim the city admin- 
 istration was relying on certain portions of the English 
 common law restricting the liberty of the press. Sus- 
 taining the demurrer, the judge denied that this country 
 had inherited these restrictions. On the contrary, he 
 held that the founders of the republic were distinctly 
 opposed to any such restraints on free speech. 
 
 The freedom of speech and of the press (he said) was at 
 the very inception of our Government regarded as indispen- 
 sable to a free state. Those who attempted to check the 
 passion for it were branded by history as barbarians and 
 tyrants. 
 
 [86] 
 
We have previously alluded to the possibilities that 
 illicit grow out of a decision in this suit favorable to 
 the municipal government of Chicago. We venture 
 to say that a quarter of a century ago a city administra- 
 tion would hardly have dared resort to such a suit to 
 silence its newspaper critics. In recent years, however, 
 we have been traveling a strange path in the direction 
 of suppression. It was about time that some court should 
 stand up and call a halt. If a newspaper del berately 
 misrepresents the facts it is the first to feel the effects 
 of an abused public confidence, and the lesson is always 
 a costly one. But far costlier to the public would be a 
 system under which public officers could suppress criti- 
 cism of their acts by legal process. 
 
 BALTIMORE (Md.) Sun, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Judge Fisher's decision that the city of Chicago has 
 no cause for action against The Chicago Tribune is a 
 preliminary victory for the newspaper in its defense 
 against the city's $10,000,000 libel suit. His statement 
 that incalculable harm would result to the community 
 from "an officialdom unrestrained by the fear of pub- 
 licity" is a deserved tribute to the part which newspapers 
 play in attracting public attention to the acts of those 
 who occupy offices of public trust, even though it does 
 seem to attribute to public officials a venal character 
 which most of them do not possess. But more interest- 
 ing is his belief that the American people will not long 
 support a newspaper which habitually misrepresents the 
 truth, for this is a contention that critics of the press 
 do not always recognize as sound. That it is sound is 
 the theory of modern journalism, and it finds support 
 in the general proposition that the press should not be 
 subjected to official censorship. Chicago's denial of 
 this proposition is, according to Judge Fisher, "out of 
 harmony with the genius, spirit and object" of American 
 institutions. 
 
 [87] 
 
BALTIMORE (Md.) American, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 The Freedom of the Press Vindicated 
 
 The "never-ending audacity of elected persons" must 
 surely have reached its climax in the recent suit brought 
 by the city of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune. 
 The legal advisers of the City Council contended that 
 the Tribune and the Chicago Daily News by printing 
 adverse criticisms of the municipal administration had 
 "libeled" the city and thereby lowered its credit in the 
 money market. To cover the alleged financial loss 
 damages were asked in the sum of $10,000,000. This is 
 merely an unusually insolent way of saying that a, 
 municipal administration, by whatever means it may 
 have been returned to power and however inimical to 
 public interests its corporate acts may be, is immune 
 from unfavorable criticism. In the same category of 
 thought belong those administrators who, when an 
 outside survey of any department or phase of the govern- 
 ment of which they are the servants makes a critical 
 report, try as long as possible to keep the report from 
 circulation lest its publication should give their city or 
 state "a black eye." 
 
 Fortunately, there is a considerable number (not yet 
 so large as it should be) of people who are weary of 
 whitewashing reports, shallow boosters and weak-kneed 
 administrators, and who want to know the truth, the 
 whole truth and nothing but the truth about the admin- 
 istrations which are in charge of their public business. 
 Still more fortunately, as in the case of the suit mentioned, 
 there are clear-headed judges who conceive that a very 
 important part of the duties of their office is to defend 
 popular rights and liberties. Judge Fisher in pronounc- 
 ing in favor of the Tribune declared that if the action of 
 the City Council were sustained, then 
 
 public officials have in their power one of the most effec- 
 tive instruments with which to intimidate the press and to 
 silence their enemies. It is a weapon to be held over the 
 head of every one who dares print or speak unfavorably of 
 the men in power. 
 
 No other judgment could, under the circumstances, 
 have been handed down and the two Chicago papers 
 which have consistently, in the name of good citizenship, 
 
 [88] 
 
carried on a campaign of criticism against the existing 
 municipal administration of their city have earned the 
 thanks of the whole country and have been handsomely 
 vindicated by the judge who decided in their favor. 
 
 BANGOR (Maine) Commercial, Sept. 17, 1921. 
 
 Something New in Libel Suits 
 
 There is something new in libel suits in that which 
 has been brought against The Chicago Tribune, in that 
 the suit is brought by the city of Chicago as a corporation. 
 The ad damnum is set at $10,000,000 and it is alleged 
 that libelous statements made by the Tribune regarding 
 the financial condition of the city resulted in impairing 
 the credit of the city and increased the difficulty of trans- 
 acting the business of the city. 
 
 We doubt if the Tribune is greatly worried. The suit 
 is clearly the outcome of the political conditions in 
 Chicago and the Thompson administration is apparently 
 attempting to get back at the Tribune for criticisms 
 made. The freedom of the press would certainly be 
 threatened if a newspaper should be penalized for pub- 
 lished statements regarding the financial conditions of a 
 city. Such suits could as well be brought by a state or 
 national administration. 
 
 BANGOR (Maine) Commercial, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 That the $10,000,000 suit brought against The Chicago 
 Tribune in the name of the City of Chicago has been 
 thrown out of court is not surprising, for few believed 
 that a newspaper is going beyond its province in criti- 
 cizing the financial condition of a city. Should the 
 Tribune have been penalized for its expression of opinion 
 and its publication of the facts on the ground that the 
 credit of the city was injured thereby, a heavy blow 
 would certainly have been struck at the freedom of the 
 press and at representative government as well. 
 
 WATERBURY (Conn.) Democrat, Oct. 1, 1921. 
 
 Mayor Thompson bitterly resents the criticism his 
 administration invites, which explains the city govern- 
 ment's ten-million-dollar libel suit against The Chicago 
 Tribune. 
 
 [89] 
 
HARTFORD (Conn.) Courant, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 The absurd suit of the city of Chicago against The 
 Chicago Tribune for $10,000,000 damages has been 
 thrown out of court. The judge rules properly that it 
 does not belong there. It was a case of politics trying 
 to use the law against a free press and the right of the 
 people to know what their own government was doing. 
 
 HARTFORD (Conn.) Times, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Tribune's Victory 
 
 Had Mayor Thompson and his crowd been successful 
 in their suit for $10,000,000 for libel brought in the name 
 of the city against The Chicago Tribune there would 
 have been an end to freedom of speech and of the press 
 in the Windy city. The court throws the suit out and 
 orders a decision for the defendant, an outcome of the 
 litigation which lawyers and newspapers expected. 
 
 If men holding office could make it impossible for the 
 press to criticize their official acts this country would 
 not long remain free. It is the function and duty of 
 the press to keep the public informed about its affairs. 
 The Tribune declared that the policy of the adminis- 
 tration which has Chicago in its grip was driving the city 
 into bankruptcy. The city sued, claiming that the 
 statements in the paper affected its credit and hurt the 
 city's good name. But the Tribune was doing its duty 
 by the people of Chicago, and apparently it never en- 
 tertained any fears as to the outcome of the case. 
 
 Comparatively few people ever stop to think of what 
 they owe the newspapers. Every day, for expenditure 
 of but a few cents, they can buy papers that give them 
 accounts of the most important happenings throughout 
 the world. If matters of international concern are 
 settled in Paris or London, the news is printed in the 
 same issue with accounts of the social activities of the 
 reader's neighbors, the sale of real estate or whatever 
 may be the news. If the city council, the legislature, 
 congress or the executives of the city, state or nation 
 have taken action or neglected to take action on some 
 important matter, it is the duty of the press to comment 
 
 [90] 
 
upon it, fairly and honestly, for the protection of the 
 people. As the judge in Chicago said, when dismissing 
 the suit against the Tribune, but for the press "the acts 
 of public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors 
 would continue undismayed and public office would be 
 the rich reward of the unscrupulous demagogue." The 
 victory of the Tribune over the political machine that 
 controls Chicago is really a victory for the Chicago 
 public. 
 
 NEW HAVEN (Conn.) Register, Oct. 28, 1921. 
 
 The Free Press Upheld 
 
 For more than the newspaper craft is the interest in 
 the decision of the Chicago district court freeing The 
 Chicago Tribune from the ten-million-dollar suit brought 
 against it by the mayor and other officials of that city 
 for alleged libel on the city's good name. As the reasons 
 for the sustaining of the demurrer and the practical dis- 
 missal of the suit are stated, it is a decision upholding 
 an institution dear to all Americans, the free press. 
 
 The complaint against the Tribune, it may be re- 
 membered, was that in effect it charged that the Thomp- 
 son administration had bankrupted the city. The suit, 
 it was clear, was not so much to recover $10,000,000 
 and restore the city to solvency as to punish the too frank 
 newspaper and warn it and others in the future against 
 such freedom of speech. Judge Fisher, in making his 
 decision, seems to- have considered less the question 
 as to whether the charge of having bankrupted the city 
 was sustained, than the question whether it was for the 
 public good to bludgeon a newspaper into silence. Un- 
 mistakably he decided that it was not. This was his 
 view on that point: 
 
 "Stripped of all the elaborate argument, in the con- 
 fusion of which the question for decision might look 
 difficult, the fact remains that, if this action is main- 
 tainable, then public officials have in their power one 
 of the most effective instruments with which to intimidate 
 the press and to silence their enemies. It is a weapon 
 to be held over the head of everyone who dares print 
 or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 [91] 
 
It is presumable, and the judge did presume, that the 
 newspaper acted without malice. Against an individual 
 there might be malice, but a newspaper thinks too much 
 of that good will which is its life to malign its community. 
 Against that the public seems very well protected. It 
 remains that something be done to make sure that the 
 public is also protected against the suppression or the 
 intimidation of any newspaper that dares to denounce 
 officials who it honestly believes to be acting in sub- 
 version of the public interest. That something Judge 
 Fisher's decision seems in a way to accomplish. 
 
 PROVIDENCE (R. I.) Tribune, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Press Freedom Upheld 
 
 The city of Chicago has lost its suit against The Chicago 
 Tribune charging that paper with "libeling" the city in 
 printing criticisms of the corporate acts of the munici- 
 pality. Damages in the sum of ten million dollars were 
 asked. 
 
 It was, of course, a ridiculous suit, brought really not 
 by the city but by the notorious Mayor Thompson, who, 
 however, in his political audacity assumes to be the city. 
 It was he that the Tribune, as well as other Chicago news- 
 papers, criticized, and he in his public capacity as the 
 head of a municipal administration which was bringing 
 disrepute and peril upon Chicago. 
 
 In throwing the suit out of court the judge reaffirmed 
 some fundamental and wholesome principles. The press 
 is far from being unbridled. Laws exist to punish it for 
 sedition, indecency or personal defamation. But public 
 policy and judicial decisions have long permitted and 
 even encouraged the freest criticism of men in office. 
 The judge in this case pointed out that if the city's action 
 was held maintainable "then public officials have in 
 their power one of the most effective instruments with 
 which to intimidate the press and to silence their enemies. 
 It is a weapon to be held over the head of everyone who 
 dares print or speak unfavorably of the men in power." 
 
 Thus again an impudent attempt to limit the freedom 
 and usefulness of the press has had the stamp of deserved 
 judicial disapproval placed upon it; and again a danger- 
 
 [92] 
 
cms attempt by one of the most arrogant of political ma- 
 chines to maintain itself in power and to outlaw, crush 
 and silence all possible effective criticism of itself and its 
 acts is defeated. 
 
 The ruling made is the expected ruling. Upholding 
 the contention of the city would have meant that, no 
 matter how corrupt or sinister any official might be, he 
 would be able to use the powers of the municipality in 
 hiding his infirmities and crookedness. With the tax- 
 payers' money he could prosecute any taxpayer who 
 publicly criticized his crookedness. 
 
 To accept such doctrines would be to prepare the way 
 for a period of municipal corruption and debauchery 
 that would smell to heaven. Extended to State and 
 Federal Government, it would mean the end of popular 
 rule and a quick decline to self -perpetuating autocracies 
 built on a lust for undisturbed and unending power. 
 
 [93] 
 
CASPER (Wyo.) Tribune, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 Destroying the Cornerstone 
 
 William Hale Thompson, mayor of Chicago, has had a 
 lesson which he may sit down and think over, with much 
 profit. It ought to take a little of the wire edge off 
 William's temper and make a better mayor and citizen 
 of him if such is within the possibilities. 
 
 At least he will not again seek to remove the corner- 
 stone of all modern government when he gets peeved. 
 
 His suit for ten million dollars against The Chicago 
 Tribune, on behalf of the city of Chicago, as alleged 
 damages, claimed against the newspaper for impairing 
 the city's credit, by reason of publications reflecting 
 upon the city's financial condition and its management 
 under the mayor's direction, was dismissed. 
 
 The case rested upon the right of free speech and the 
 court's ruling added strength to the principle involved. 
 The city's right to sue in such circumstance as existed 
 was denied, while the plaintiffs as public officials were 
 reminded that they had all the remedy and protection 
 required by the laws of libel. 
 
 The court suggested that the power of a newspaper 
 to injure a community or a public official is limited by 
 the degree of public favor it enjoys. If a newspaper 
 persistently misrepresents the facts, shows animus, un- 
 fairness or spite, it destroys public confidence in itself 
 and its influence over public opinion is small. That is 
 all the protection necessary to a public official conscious 
 of performing his duty. It would be a most dangerous 
 and destructive power to place in the hands of public 
 officials the power to silence a newspaper that exposed 
 or criticized public acts. 
 
 The mayor of Chicago is not now and never will be 
 big enough to abolish free speech or suppress the honest 
 opinion of newspapers. 
 
 SEATTLE (Wash.) Times, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of the Press 
 
 A victory for good government the country over was 
 won by The Chicago Tribune recently when a court in 
 that city dismissed a suit for $10,000,000, brought 
 
 [94] 
 
against the newspaper for articles dealing with the 
 financial standing of the municipality. 
 
 The claim was made that these articles "injured the 
 city's credit." In I ruth and in fact, the action was 
 designed to muzzle The Tribune because it had been 
 unsparing in some of its criticism of political and govern- 
 mental conditions in the Middle Western metropolis. 
 
 The court properly held that such discussion was 
 within the rightful purview of the press and that news- 
 paper comment dealing with such matters could not be 
 curtailed without abridging the freedom of speech of 
 these publications. 
 
 If there is one vital service the press renders the people 
 of any community, it is that of exposing conditions in 
 government which otherwise would remain secret. To 
 abridge that service would be to render impossible ex- 
 posures of inefficiency and corruption and would make 
 it practically impossible for the people to force "an 
 account of stewardship" from their public servants. 
 
 Sioux FALLS (S. D.) Argus, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 The Real Defendant 
 
 Every newspaper in the country is interested in the 
 outcome of the $10,000,000 suit brought by the Thomp- 
 son machine, in the name of Chicago, against The Chicago 
 Tribune. The question involved in the suit is a funda- 
 mental one. If a city can maintain a civil action in libel 
 against a newspaper so can a state and so can the nation. 
 The result would of course be to ruin the newspapers 
 which could not be frightened into submission and the 
 day of a free press and free speech in this country would 
 be at an end. We can not think that the courts will give 
 standing to such a suit. Its success would give to po- 
 litical machines the most dangerous weapon ever put 
 in their hands and they could plunder at will when the 
 press was gagged. In this respect the real defendant in 
 this action is not The Chicago Tribune but the whole 
 American people. 
 
 [95] 
 
Sioux FALLS (S. D.) Argus-Leader, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Daniel Come to Judgment 
 
 Undoubtedly good law and certainly good sense was 
 the ruling of Judge Harry Fisher of Chicago, who threw 
 out, on demurrer, the suit of the city of Chicago against 
 The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago News for libel, in 
 an action in which "$10,000,000" was claimed in the way 
 of damages. 
 
 Judge Fisher held that an action of this kind could have 
 no standing in an American court, that it was not in har- 
 mony with the genius, spirit and objects of our institu- 
 tions, and that the precedent established by a city in 
 England could not be the guide for courts in America. 
 
 Had the court given standing to such a suit, machine 
 politicians would have been given a weapon which they 
 would not have been slow to use. If a newpaper can not 
 safely criticize a city, as a corporation, it would be equally 
 unsafe to criticize a state or national administration. A 
 strong federal machine entrenched at Washington could 
 do pretty much as it pleased so far as the newspapers are 
 concerned, for they would not dare to go after things with 
 bare knuckles as they do now. The same thing would 
 be true in state and municipal affairs. Protected from 
 the pitiless publicity which is a public safeguard, machines 
 like that of Mayor Thompson in Chicago, or of Tammany 
 in New York, could misrule, rob and plunder at will, for 
 the people would not know the facts and the newspapers 
 would not dare to make any charge unless they were in a 
 position to bring absolute proof in court. 
 
 At the time the Chicago action was brought, the Argus- 
 Leader said that the suit was really one against the entire 
 press of the country and against the American people. 
 The decision of the Chicago judge was to be expected. 
 When a newspaper gets unfair or grows untruthful, the 
 public will in the end appraise it for what it is worth; 
 but the time has not yet come when an "administra- 
 tion," be it municipal, state or national, can silence the 
 American press through actions for libel. If all the people 
 could be taxed to pay the costs of such actions, there 
 would be no limit to them until the press of the country 
 had grown servile and timid. 
 
 [96] 
 
FREDERICK (Okla.) Leader, Sept. 23, 1921. 
 
 A Blow at Freedom 
 
 It is a most unusual spectacle, that of a city adminis- 
 tration suing a newspaper for damages such as is the 
 case with the city government of Chicago and The 
 Chicago Tribune. 
 
 If such a case could be made to stand up in the courts, 
 then the freedom of the press would be a farce, as criti- 
 cism of public officials is one of the prerogatives specific- 
 ally granted to newspapers and citizens generally. 
 
 If a set of officials can proceed to spend the money of 
 the people as they please and to the press is denied the 
 right to criticize their acts, then a great source of pro- 
 tection from official dishonesty has been removed from 
 the people. 
 
 It is true that the liberty of the press is often abused, 
 but not as often as is the trust imposed in public officials 
 hot rayed. 
 
 FREDERICK (Okla.) Leader, Sept. 28, 1921. 
 
 The Truth, Fitly Spoken 
 
 The suit of the city of Chicago against The Chicago 
 Tribune for libel has brought out the fact that the libel 
 law of Illinois makes this provision: 
 
 "Every person may freely speak, write and publish 
 on all subjects, 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 
 justifiable ends, shall be sufficient defense." 
 
 This is such a provision as the Oklahoma Press asso- 
 ciation has contended for in the Oklahoma laws, on sev- 
 eral occasions, but always unsuccessfully. 
 
 The national constitution provides that "congress shall 
 make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the 
 press," and most state constitutions make the same pro- 
 vision but Oklahoma is one of the states where lawmak- 
 ers have presumed to restrict this American principle, 
 and to define what is "privileged" matter, and what is 
 forbidden matter, against which the truth shall be no 
 defense. 
 
 [97] 
 
To read the Oklahoma libel law, one would be justified 
 in believing that it was constructed by adventurers from 
 other states who were afraid of ghosts of their past lives. 
 
 No one should be permitted to commit libel or slander. 
 No one should be allowed to use the power of the press 
 to wreak malice or spite. But the truth, "published with 
 good motives and for justifiable ends," should always be 
 a "sufficient defense," and if Oklahoma publishers were 
 as alert to the interests of their profession as they are to 
 the public interest in other things they would see that 
 this was the law. 
 
 Constructive criticism, for the public welfare, both of 
 men and of measures, should be an implied duty of the 
 public press, to be encouraged rather than throttled. 
 
 MCALESTER (Okla.) News-Capital, Nov. 1, 1921. 
 
 Newspaper Criticism 
 
 When The Chicago Tribune was vindicated in court in 
 its inalienable right to criticize public officials, newspapers 
 all over the country rejoiced that another attempt to 
 muzzle the press had failed. And it's a mighty good 
 thing for all concerned that the attempt did fail. 
 
 The press of the country has survived because it has 
 rendered service to the public, and one feature of that 
 service is its courageous attacks at all times on that 
 which is corrupt and disastrous. Newspapers make mis- 
 takes sometimes, but in the great majority of instances 
 they will be found on the side of right and progress. 
 
 The press has no leave to print falsehoods, and every 
 state has stern libel laws to protect those who might be 
 damaged by false statements. The press, however, does 
 have leave to show up men intrusted with public affairs 
 who are not worthy of that trust. 
 
 The News-Capital for its part has never undertaken 
 to dig into men's private lives nor has it made of its issues 
 personal ones. We think such procedure not worthy 
 of a newspaper. Criticism of men's public acts is at all 
 times a prerogative of newspapers and one that should 
 be carefully handled but sincerely followed. 
 
 [98] 
 
 
MINOT (N. D.) Republican, Saturday, Oct. 1, 
 
 Popular Liberty at Stake 
 
 The $10,000,000 damage suit begun by the City of 
 Chicago against The Chicago Tribune is a test case of 
 vast importance to the country and is being watched 
 by the people with widespread and increasing interest. 
 Once they realize what is involved in this action the 
 people will take a still greater and more active interest 
 in the matter. The real issue is the freedom of speech 
 and the press guaranteed to the people of the United 
 States by the federal Constitution. It is one of the 
 foundation principles upon which this government was 
 founded and may well be called the cornerstone of pop- 
 ular liberty. The first act of tyrants of all kinds is 
 usually to suppress free speech and muzzle the press. 
 The greatest force in exposing and destroying tyranny 
 and evil doing is pitiless publicity. There may be mis- 
 takes in the publicity, but its enormous general value 
 should cause the overlooking of the errors which are 
 inherent in any human institution. 
 
 If the Chicago case should establish a precedent that 
 a city or any other governmental body can successfully 
 sue and thru law inflict so-called punishment upon 
 the newspapers, America will have taken the greatest 
 possible step backward toward despotism and oppression 
 of the people. It will be the cue for every rotten political 
 alignment and corrupt clique of politicians to use the 
 law to club and embarrass the opposing press, to silence 
 it and to prevent it from telling the truth and protecting 
 the people against the wrongdoers of every sort the 
 grafters, the oppressors, the misusers of power, the trick- 
 sters, the jobbers, the wasters, the agents of misgovern- 
 ment of all kinds. A mere glimpse at the possibility 
 should be enough to make one realize the danger and 
 inspire him to immediate action to prevent it. 
 
 The Tribune said that the City of Chicago was bank- 
 rupt, that it could not pay its bills. Perhaps this state- 
 ment was true at the time, perhaps it was not strictly 
 a fact. It emphasized a bad financial condition, how- 
 ever. Many North Dakota newspapers as well as in- 
 dividuals have declared that North Dakota is bankrupt. 
 Such a statement is far more true than if applied to Chi- 
 
 [99] 
 
cago. This state is in a condition of financial embar- 
 rassment that almost amounts to bankruptcy for all 
 present practical purposes. Maybe Chicago was tem- 
 porarily in the same situation. The criticism tends 
 to act as a spur toward correction. 
 
 Suppose the Nonpartisan league government in North 
 Dakota could sue every newspaper for libel and harass 
 it thru the courts. What a tremendous power for harm 
 for oppression, for suppression of news of the evil fruits 
 of Townleyite rule, for enabling the clique to hide behind 
 the veil of silence and continue to delude the people 
 such a system would give. 
 
 Good men are not harmed by misstatements, as a 
 rule. Libel actions are made to appear vastly more 
 important in a court room in the unnatural atmosphere 
 created by clever attorneys than the actual facts war- 
 rant. But very seldom is a man injured even by wrong 
 statements. Few newspapers deliberately misstate or 
 attempt to injure good men. Their criticisms of the 
 other kind are a public service. 
 
 So the whole nation should rise up in support of The 
 Chicago Tribune. The issue is not a fight between 
 Chicago politicians and a local daily there, it is the 
 question of free speech and a free press and a precedent 
 that will mean continuance of these things unhampered 
 for the protection of the nation, or a reversion toward 
 the old days of star chamber government and wrong- 
 doing made easy. 
 
 FARGO (N. D.) Forum, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 A Victory for Good Government 
 
 Regardless of the merits of this particular case, it 
 would have been a very dangerous precedent to estab- 
 lish if the City of Chicago had been permitted to main- 
 tain its suit for $10,000,000 libel against the Chicago 
 Daily News and The Chicago Tribune. 
 
 The suit has just been dismissed on a demurrer, the 
 court holding that the city had no cause for action. 
 
 These two Chicago papers have been very outspoken 
 in their criticism of the Thompson administration and 
 
 [ 100 ] 
 
every decent citizen admits the criticism has been, in 
 the main, well founded. 
 
 But the city administration brought suit for $10,000,- 
 000, claiming the city's credit had been destroyed by 
 the publicity. Undoubtedly the administration was 
 less concerned about the city's credit than it was about 
 putting these two newspapers out of business, for a 
 verdict for that amount probably would have bankrupted 
 both of them. 
 
 Also, the administration, just as is the case with the 
 North Dakota state administration, ignored the fact 
 that what had injured the city's credit in the first place 
 was the course of the administration and not the publicity 
 given that course. 
 
 But the action of the court in dismissing the case per- 
 mits the taxpayers to retain the only defense they have 
 against public dishonesty and inefficiency. If the suit 
 had been maintained, no newspaper in America would 
 have dared raise its voice in criticism of any municipal 
 or state administration. Criticism would be construed 
 as libel and the whole power of the municipal or state 
 government could then be employed to put the news- 
 paper out of business. It would give dishonest politi- 
 cians a tremendous club to silence all honest and inde- 
 pendent criticism, not only from newspapers but from 
 almost every source. If a newspaper could libel a city 
 government, why could not an individual be guilty of 
 the same offense in making a speech ? 
 
 The fact that some newspapers abuse the right of 
 criticism does not warrant silencing all criticism. The 
 decision in the Chicago case is a victory for the cause of 
 good government and human liberty. 
 
 DEVILS LAKE (N. D.) Journal, October 29, 1921. 
 
 Press Freedom 
 
 The suit for $10,000,000 damages brought against 
 The Chicago Tribune by Mayor Thompson of Chicago 
 has served a good purpose by pointing out once more, 
 in an emphatic manner, the function and merits of the 
 newspaper press in general. 
 
 The suit was dismissed by the court as an unwarranted 
 
 [101] 
 
attack on the freedom of the press. Because the Tribune 
 criticized the mayor's conduct of city affairs, the mayor, 
 identifying himself with the "city" in a way not uncom- 
 mon among officeholders of long tenure, tried to put the 
 Tribune out of business. Judge Fisher, in upholding 
 the right of the defendant to publish its criticism, de- 
 clared : 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and ears of the world. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their 
 power to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force 
 which unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts of 
 public benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would 
 continue undismayed and public offices would be the 
 rich reward of the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 This is the literal truth, as every thinking citizen 
 doubtless agrees. The law and public opinion both 
 recognize that, whatever may be the possibilities of the 
 press abusing its great powers, they are far less than the 
 dangers that would spring from the repression of honest 
 comment. 
 
 ALBUQUERQUE (N. M.) Journal, Oct. 3, 1921. 
 
 Libel Suits 
 
 The Chicago Tribune is being sued for libel by the city 
 of Chicago. The basis of the suit is the Tribune's state- 
 ment that the city is bankrupt by reason of the inefficiency 
 and criminality of the Thompson machine which con- 
 trols it. 
 
 A demurrer to the complaint has just been argued and 
 is now in the bosom of the court awaiting the pronounce- 
 ment of his decision. 
 
 The demurrer is based upon the argument that the 
 freedom of the press, guaranteed by both state and federal 
 constitutions, will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed, 
 if governments, either municipal, state or national, can 
 maintain suits for libel except in cases of sedition. The 
 immense power of a government otherwise can be used 
 to suppress criticism of its misconduct. All newspapers in 
 the United States await the decision with intense interest. 
 
 [102] 
 
Suppose, for instance, that the demurrer he overruled 
 and the precedent thereby be established that government 
 can main lain such a suit. Thereafter there would be 
 nothing to prevent the state of New Mexico from suing 
 the Journal or any other newspaper for any criticism of 
 the administration of the state. Silence would be the 
 result. Evil could go unscathed and extravagance and 
 favoritism might run riot without exposure. The people 
 would be unadvised of conditions and their liberties and 
 rights would pass from them. Such a situation is un- 
 thinkable. 
 
 Yet an effort is being made in the suits of J. M. Ray- 
 nolds and A. B. McMillen against the Journal to put a 
 construction upon the libel laws which would set a prec- 
 edent that would accomplish the same result. 
 
 Concerning the statements made by the Journal re- 
 garding these men upon which they originally brought 
 suit, we do not care to say anything. We promptly 
 answered in those cases and were ready to try the cases 
 in the courts instead of in the newspapers. The question 
 was merely whether we were justified in certain concrete 
 statements we had made concerning them. 
 
 However, these gentlemen were unwilling to "go to 
 court" on these remarks which they originally thought 
 were their sources for a grievance. They therefore em- 
 ployed lawyers more capable than themselves and have 
 filed amended complaints. It is these amended com- 
 plaints which are a menace to the freedom of the press 
 and therefore a menace to the people. If the principles 
 of law which they attempt to lay down can be made to 
 stand in the courts, all criticism of existing conditions in 
 the state will be silenced. Because the interests of the 
 people are involved so vitally, we feel free to discuss the 
 matter. It is by no means a private question between 
 Messrs. Raynolds and McMillen on the one hand and the 
 Journal and its editor on the other hand. Wittingly or 
 unwittingly these gentlemen are striking a deadly blow 
 at the people of New Mexico. 
 
 The Journal has talked with great freedom about the 
 bad conditions in New Mexico. It has made rather con- 
 crete charges against certain influences in the state. 
 Sometimes it has called them "bosses"; sometimes 
 "higher ups"; sometimes the "junta"; sometimes the 
 
 [103] 
 
"gang." For more than a year we have pointed out how 
 the state has suffered at their hands. During all of that 
 time we had never mentioned the plaintiffs in these actions 
 or the First National Bank in any connection, until after 
 July 15 of this year. 
 
 Soon after the latter date we said the "gang" was after 
 us. The allusion pointed rather directly to the First 
 National Bank. These gentlemen now plead their con- 
 nection with the First National and argue that the 
 Journal previously used the word "gang" as recited above 
 in attacking general state conditions. Therefore, they 
 say, when we later used the word "gang" in a way which 
 pointed to the First National that we imputed to that 
 bank all that we had previously charged against the 
 "gang" in earlier months and that, in view of their con- 
 nection with the bank, we thereby imputed it to them 
 personally. So they sue us on the theory that what we 
 have said about Fall, Hawkins and others previously, 
 now hurts the standing of Raynolds and McMillen. 
 
 If this theory can be established as the law, a free press 
 in New Mexico is gone forever. Guy Rogers and Charles 
 White, who happen to be executive officers of the First 
 National, can maintain suits, saying we impute to them, 
 merely because they are such officers, all that we have 
 said over a year gone by. Any man whom we have ever 
 intimated that we thought belonged to the Invisible 
 Government in New Mexico in the remotest way could 
 sue us saying that we charged him with everything with 
 which we ever had charged anybody. 
 
 If all criticisms of vague and undefined class of men can 
 be imputed to every individual whom we have intimated 
 as associated with that class in any phase of their activ- 
 ities, a multiplicity of vexatious suits can result which 
 would crush any newspaper by the dead weight of ex- 
 pense incident to their trial. 
 
 The original suits of these two men could have been 
 tried in two days. If they are to be permitted now to go 
 into all that we have said about other men in an effort 
 to show that we mentally included the plaintiffs all of 
 the time and secretly meant them in every criticism, the 
 cases can not be tried in two months. The sheer expense 
 of trial would be enormous. If this c;m l>r done news- 
 papers must cease to criticize anyone. 
 
 [104] 
 
The people should be alert as to what the real result of 
 these cases would l>r upon the freedom of the press in 
 New Mexico in case a court should hold such complaints 
 to be good pleading. 
 
 No one wants a return to the silence of the grave which 
 prevailed for years. If this can be accomplished, any 
 manner of selfish or corrupt political activity is safe from 
 exposure. 
 
 ALBUQUERQUE (N. M.) Journal, Oct. 17, 
 
 The Tribune Libel Suit 
 
 The judge hearing the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune 
 to the complaint of the city of Chicago against lhat 
 paper, for $10,000,000 damages for libel, has sustained 
 that demurrer and refused to allow the city to amend 
 its complaint. This ends the case in the lower court 
 unless the decision of the Appellate court remands the 
 case with a reversal of the ruling. 
 
 The Thompson-Lundin-Small machine has ruined 
 Chicago. The Tribune said so. Under the plea that 
 the strictures of the Tribune had destroyed the credit of 
 the city, Mayor Thompson brought this action in the 
 name of the city. The court has said "nothing doing." 
 
 One shudders in contemplation of what would have 
 happened to the freedom of the press of Illinois to discuss 
 public evils had this malodorous gang succeeded in its 
 attempt, earlier in the year, to elect a complete judicial 
 ticket. With the judiciary in the hands of the gang, 
 the great safeguards of liberty and property would have 
 been gone. The Tribune would have been put out of 
 business in all probability. But the people rebelled 
 against turning the courts over to the politicians and an 
 impartial judge sat between the Tribune and the con- 
 spirators. 
 
 We congratulate the Tribune. We also congratulate 
 the people. Freedom of discussion is not to be curtailed 
 in Illinois. A little later we will see whether it is to be 
 curtailed in New Mexico. When public evils of every 
 kind cannot be discussed before the people with safety 
 to the newspaper, our liberties will disappear. The 
 
 [ 10-5 
 
people of a democracy must be given a chance to know 
 what is going on. 
 
 The judge in the Tribune case made a ruling of far- 
 reaching effect. We will discuss it later. In brief, he 
 held that the English rule of libel was not inherited by 
 the United States along with the common law. He pro- 
 nounced it incompatible with the genius of our govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Unless the libel law is evolved and liberalized to meet 
 the needs of a democracy, a government of the people 
 can not survive. They must know the evil before they 
 can correct it. 
 
 ALBUQUERQUE (N. M.) Journal, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 More About the Tribune Libel Suit 
 
 The Journal is in receipt of fuller information than 
 was contained in the press dispatches concerning the 
 decision in the libel suit of the City of Chicago against 
 The Chicago Tribune. Our interest in the matter grows 
 out of the present effort in New Mexico to curb the free- 
 dom of the press through the medium of libel suits 
 brought against the Journal. 
 
 As these suits were originally brought against us we 
 had no serious objection to them. It was really a rather 
 personal matter between Messrs. Raynolds and Mc- 
 Millen and the Journal. We were willing to leave the 
 matter to a jury. If we had said false and malicious 
 things concerning these gentlemen we were willing to 
 be held responsible. We refrained from all discussion 
 of the facts, pending a judicial decision. 
 
 But the amended complaints are different. These 
 gentlemen evidently did not know in the beginning just 
 how they considered themselves libeled, although they 
 were sufficiently certain in their own minds that they 
 had been injured to justify beginning some kind of libel 
 suits. They sued us for one libel to begin with and for 
 a different one in the amended complaints. 
 
 At present they wish to complain that the Journal 
 classed them with a "gang" in New Mexico and, by 
 inference, charged them personally with all the evil 
 
 [106] 
 
deeds we have ever chared against any member of a 
 gang. So they wish to bring every editorial utterance 
 of the Journal for eighteen months in issue. To read 
 those utterances to a jury would require weeks. Such 
 suits would weight us down with t lie expense of the liti- 
 gation. If these men can maintain such a suit there 
 is no reason why anyone 4 who conceives that his name 
 has been connected remotely or inferentially with the 
 "gang/' cannot maintain a libel suit, claiming that all 
 we have charged against the "gang" is imputed to him. 
 Fifty suits, as easily as two, can be maintained against 
 us for these same utterances, if such a construction of the 
 law can be established. It can be seen that such an inter- 
 pretation of the law would permit any newspaper to 
 be smothered into silence by the sheer expenses of the 
 litigation. 
 
 Because of the power which it would give to crush 
 newspapers, the Chicago judge held that cities could 
 not maintain libel suits. He decided that any interpre- 
 tation of the law which would coerce newspapers into 
 silence is contrary to a sound public policy. Listen to 
 these quotations from his decision : 
 
 "This action is not in harmony with the genius, spirit, 
 and objects of our institutions. 
 
 "It fits in rather with the genius of the rulers who con- 
 ceived law not in the purity of love for justice but in the 
 lustful passion for undisturbed power. 
 
 " It will therefore be unnecessary to consider the other 
 questions involved." 
 
 Judge Fisher took up Attorney Kirkland's first and 
 principal contention that the action was not main- 
 tainable, that to allow a recovery would violate the free- 
 dom of the press guaranteed by the constitution. 
 
 It was to this point -that he devoted himself almost 
 entirely and upon this argument that he based his de- 
 cision. 
 
 "Stripped of all elaborate argument," he said in this 
 connection, "the fact remains that, if this action is maintain- 
 able, then public officials have in their power one of the 
 most effective instruments with which to intimidate the 
 press and to silence their enemies. 
 
 "It is a weapon to hold over the head of every one who 
 dares print or speak unfavorably of the men in power. 
 
 [107] 
 
"It is not the sanctioning of falsehood, it is the protection 
 of the right to speak the truth, the exercise of which right 
 would become very hazardous if actions such as this could 
 be maintained. For fear of publishing an occasional false- 
 hood accidentally, men would refrain from telling the 
 truth. 
 
 "The court has no more sympathy with newspapers 
 indulging in scandal and defamation than have the most 
 bitter assailants of the press. But the remedy is not to be 
 found in new laws suppressing publication. 
 
 "Such laws would merely result in suppressing the only 
 remedy for the evil publication of the truth even of the 
 press. 
 
 "Fortunately," he said, "while the good the press is 
 capable of rendering, if unafraid, is without limit, the harm 
 it can do has its own limitations. 
 
 "The press is dependent for its success, for its very exist- 
 ence almost, upon public confidence. It must cater to 
 public sentiment even as it labors to build it up. It cannot 
 indulge long in falsehoods without suffering the loss of that 
 confidence from which alone comes its power, its prestige, 
 and its reward. 
 
 "On the other hand, the harm which would certainly 
 result to the community from an officialdom unrestrained 
 by fear of publicity is incalculable." 
 
 The Journal holds with this judge that defamation 
 of private character should be sternly punished. For 
 that purpose, and no other, libel laws should exist. 
 Whenever such laws can be used by officials, members 
 of invisible government, or powerful beneficiaries of 
 special privilege to intimidate newspapers which discuss 
 public evils, official or unofficial, it is indeed contrary 
 to "the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions." 
 
 Will the libel law be so construed as to put in the 
 hands of an unofficial, invisible but all-powerful govern- 
 ment, the power to destroy the freedom of the press to 
 discuss public wrongs? 
 
 Whether Messrs. Raynolds and McMillen are seeking 
 such an interpretation of the law, wittingly or unwittingly, 
 is immaterial. The legal consequences, in case their 
 contention is upheld, would be destructive to the con- 
 stitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press. De- 
 signing men, seeking to perpetuate undisturbed their 
 pernicious power, could avail themselves of that decision. 
 
 [108] 
 
From The Amarillo Tribune, reprinted in I he 
 SANTA FE (N. M.) Nrtr Mr.rirun, Oct. ->S, 1921. 
 
 Harking Back to the Stone Age 
 
 Some lime ago The Chicago Tribune declared that the 
 
 city of Chicago was bankrupt. The city fathers filed a 
 ten million dollar libel suit against the Tribune and 
 charged that the publication of the editorial had injured 
 the city's credit. 
 
 Saturday the case was thrown out of court by Judge 
 Harry M . Fisher, who declared: 
 
 "This suit is not in harmony with the genius, spirit or 
 objects of our institutions. It does not belong to our day, 
 but rather to the day when monarchs promulgated laws 
 with the purpose of carrying out their lustful passion for 
 undisturbed power. Since no cause for action exists, it 
 is unnecessary to consider any of the other questions in- 
 volved in the arguments." 
 
 It would have been a fine precedent if the Chicago 
 politicians had won a libel suit against a newspaper. 
 If published criticisms of public officials and govern- 
 ments were prohibited, as the Chicago suit really sought 
 to do, free government would become a myth. The 
 only hope of democracy is based on three great prin- 
 ciples, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free- 
 dom of religion. Which of these is greatest it is im- 
 possible to say, but to permit the abridgment of any 
 of these would invite revolution ultimately. 
 
 SALEM (Ore.) Statesman, Oct. 25, 1921. 
 
 In throwing out the city of Chicago's $10,000,000 libel 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune the judge ended one of 
 the greatest farces that ever got into a court of law. The 
 notion that in criticizing the finances of a city a newspaper 
 exposed itself to a suit for damages measured by the 
 alleged injury to the city's credit was worthy of the pres- 
 ent Thompson administration in Chicago and that is 
 saying a mouthful. 
 
 EUGENE (Ore.) Guard, Oct. 28, 1921. 
 
 The Chicago judge who dismissed the ten million dollar 
 libel suit of Mayor Thompson against The Chicago 
 
 [109] 
 
Tribune made law and common sense harmonize when he 
 said: 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and ears of the world. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which 
 unifies public sentiment. But for it, the acts of public 
 benefactors would go unnoticed, impostors would continue 
 undismayed, and public office would be the rich reward of 
 the unscrupulous demagogue." 
 
 MISSOULA (Mont.) Missoulian, Oct. 25, 
 
 In dismissing Mayor Thompson's libel suit against 
 The Chicago Tribune, Judge Fisher said: "The honest 
 officials never fear criticism." We don't know about 
 fear, but we have observed that most of them regard 
 criticism as an offense that should be prohibited by the 
 constitution. 
 
 WICHITA (Kan.) Beacon, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 No Muzzled Press 
 
 The victory of The Chicago Tribune and Chicago 
 News in the trumped-up libel suit for $10,000,000 brought 
 by Chicago politicians is a vindication for an unmuzzled 
 press. 
 
 If the suit had gone against these two newspapers a 
 serious precedent would have been set. 
 
 These papers have had more or less fault to find with 
 the administration of William Thompson, mayor, and 
 his lieutenants. They spoke their views freely in 
 criticism. Thru the instrumentality of Thompson and 
 his forces, libel proceedings were commenced against 
 the papers, on the ground that their criticisms were 
 impairing the credit of the city. Of course the poli- 
 ticians under fire were not really afraid of that. They 
 resented the attack being made upon them. 
 
 If they had won the suit it would have meant that 
 newspapers all over the country would be deprived of a 
 considerable portion of their freedom and crooked 
 politicians would have much easier sailing. 
 
 It was a fortunate thing that the newspapers were left 
 unmuzzled and free. 
 
 [110] 
 
WINFIELD (Kan.) Press, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Tribune Suit 
 
 In throwing out the city of ( liicatfo's $10,000,000 libel 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune the judge has ended 
 one of the greatest farces that ever got into a court of 
 law. The notion that in criticizing the finances of a city 
 a newspaper exposed itself to a suit for damages meas- 
 ured by the alleged injury to the city's credit was 
 worthy of the present Thompson administration. 
 
 TOPEKA (Kan.) Daily Capital, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 The Freedom of the Press 
 
 Judge H. M. Fisher of the circuit court of Chicago 
 made short work of sustaining The Chicago Tribune's 
 demurrer to the action brought by the Thompson polit- 
 ical machine of Chicago for 10 million dollars' damages, 
 the suit being brought in the name of the city. Mayor 
 Thompson and the city machine alleged that the 
 Tribune's attacks upon the city government had vastly 
 damaged the city's credit and good name. They evi- 
 dently were conscious that a libel suit on behalf of them- 
 selves individually would have little chance of a verdict, 
 and by bringing the action in the name of the city they 
 avoided liability personally for costs and attorney fees. 
 
 In his decision sustaining the^JTribune's^demurrer 
 Judge Fisher held that the suit is contrary to "the 
 genius, spirit and objects of our institutions," included 
 therein being a free press. At a time when there is wide- 
 spread criticism of the newspaper press Judge Fisher's 
 remarks are worth reading. He says: 
 
 The press has become the eyes and ears of the world. . . . 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power to 
 advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which unifies 
 public sentiment. But for it the acts of public benefactors 
 would go unnoticed, impostors would continue undismayed 
 and public office would be the rich reward of the unscrupu- 
 lous demagogue. 
 
 These are just acknowledgments of the service ren- 
 dered the public by an unshackled press, a service not 
 
 [mi 
 
always valued at its true worth, but recognized when a 
 crisis or emergency arises which threatens to hamper it. 
 Judge Fisher enumerates some of the functions per- 
 formed by the American newspaper which make it 
 necessary to good order and the common welfare. In 
 Chicago the power of the press, sometimes described as 
 a menace, is as great as anywhere in the country, yet 
 has not been powerful enough to protect the people of 
 Chicago from misrule. It is not Chicago's press, but 
 its voters, who are responsible for the Thompson 
 machine. And this may be said of every important city 
 suffering from corrupt or incompetent government. 
 
 KEARNEY (Neb.) Times, Sept. 20, 1921. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune is enjoying the luxury of a ten 
 million dollar libel suit brought by the city of Chicago, 
 or rather by Mayor Thompson in behalf of his adminis- 
 tration, which is as thoroughly damned throughout the 
 country as Tammany was ever damned in its palmiest 
 days. The question at issue is really the "freedom of 
 the press," in the sense that criticism on a basis of gen- 
 erally known facts is libelous and punishable. 
 
 NORFOLK (Neb.) News, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 Free Press at Issue 
 
 The libel suit of the city of Chicago against The Chicago 
 Tribune for $10,000,000 raises several interesting points 
 of law and public policy, but none is of greater importance 
 than the one involving the right of a newspaper to 
 criticize city officials where the criticism might be taken 
 to reflect on the financial condition of the city. The 
 Chicago Tribune was brought into court by the city 
 officials after it had severely criticised the conduct of the 
 city's affairs by the "Big Bill" Thompson administration. 
 It would be a pretty safe guess to say that "Big Bill" 
 was more concerned on the effect of the criticisms upon 
 his political future than upon the financial standing of the 
 city. But be that as it may the question raised is 
 whether or not severe limitations are to be placed upon 
 the right of a newspaper to comment upon the acts of 
 
 [112] 
 
public officials. If the libel suit goes against the Tribune 
 it will be difficult for the press, or for individuals, for that 
 matter, to discuss freely the conduct of the finances of a 
 city by its officials. 
 
 Municipal finances are so closely related to the admin- 
 istration in power that it is difficult to discuss one without 
 involving the other. Heretofore it has been considered 
 that public policy demanded the widest freedom in the 
 discussion of public officers and candidates for office. 
 Only by such discussion can the merits or demerits of 
 officials be brought to public attention. 
 
 It will be remembered that Gov. Small, one of "Big 
 Bill's" lieutenants, took the virtual ground recently 
 that the governor of a state was, like the king of old, 
 above the law and could not be prosecuted on the charge 
 of embezzlement, a charge which had been brought 
 against Small. The courts decided that the suit against 
 the governor was not immune from prosecution. The 
 Tribune appears to involve a similar contention. The 
 outcome will be awaited with great interest. 
 
 FREMONT (Neb.) Tribune, Sept. 27, 1921. 
 
 An Important Libel Suit 
 
 A case is in progress in Chicago that is fraught with 
 mighty results for the people, and for newspapers in 
 particular. Mayor Thompson has brought suit against 
 The Chicago Daily Tribune for $10,000,000 and against 
 the Chicago Daily News for a like amount, alleging libel 
 damages by each paper in amounts stated. The peti- 
 tion avers the papers are guilty of stating that the City 
 of Chicago was bankrupt, and thus injuring the credit 
 of the municipality. These statements were in criticism 
 of the Thompson administration for the extravagant 
 way in which it was carrying on the government of the 
 city that made it necessary to vote 20 millions of dollars 
 in bonds to pay current expenses. 
 
 The Tribune has been called into court first and has 
 filed a demurrer which is at this time before the court. 
 The newspaper's attorney is denying the right of a city 
 administration to bring a suit in the name of a munici- 
 pality. It is claimed the prosecution of such a suit is a 
 
menace to the freedom of the press, and an abridgment 
 of the right to criticize public officials. Take away from 
 a newspaper the right of publicity in connection with any 
 public administration and its privilege to point out official 
 corruption, you have immediately laid the foundation 
 for the perpetuation of a corrupt government, and with 
 no hope of its dislodgment. If newspaper publicity 
 is to be curtailed how, then, would entrenched corrup- 
 tion ever be dislodged? What protection would the 
 taxpayer have against a plundering gang that would 
 corruptly squander public funds? As it is now, with 
 almost an unlimited right of the press in this regard, it 
 is impossible to stop the rankest plundering of the public 
 treasury. The people cannot afford to have any re- 
 strictions in this regard thrown around the newspapers 
 of America. 
 
 If this suit is permitted to come to trial, every news- 
 paper in America will be subject to possible embarrass- 
 ment from the filing of such suits. Suit after suit could 
 be instigated which would bankrupt the publishers to 
 pay lawyers' fees and court costs. A threat of such 
 suits would be an effectual warning to, and restraint 
 against, a newspaper publisher that he could not indulge 
 in the criticism of a government that was spending public 
 funds with an unrestrained hand even to the point of 
 bankrupting the public treasury. If such suits can be 
 initiated and carried forward, we would have the anoma- 
 lous situation of the money of the public being used to 
 prosecute the very agency that is the public's only pro- 
 tection against looting public funds and the possible 
 bankruptcy of the political division, whether it be a 
 town, city, or state. 
 
 The political gang that has control of Chicago is very 
 powerful, and it remains to be seen whether it can make 
 these attempted law suits stick. 
 
 GRAND ISLAND (Neb.) Independent, Oct. 1, 1921. 
 
 The Johnstown Democrat comments quite to the 
 point in pointing out that if the city of Chicago wins 
 its suit of libel against The Chicago Tribune the effect 
 will be bad on popular government rather than good. 
 The suit is a novelty. Says the Democrat: "Chicago 
 
 [114] 
 
is suing The Chicago Tribune for ten million dollars on 
 the ground that it was libeled by that publication. The 
 city holds thai I he Tribune's attacks were untrue, thai 
 they tended to impair confidence and undermine credit 
 and as a result had a disastrous effect upon the municipal- 
 ity's plans to borrow money. The point raised is an 
 interesting one. A corporation has redress in law if it 
 is attacked. There was a time when a corporation 
 could not sue for libel. Corporation lawyers had a bill 
 passed in most states that gave the corporation the libel 
 status of the individual. The result is that the city 
 of Chicago comes into court. If the city of Chicago 
 were to win its suit, the entire plant of The Chicago 
 Tribune would be wiped out. Moreover, if the city 
 were to win its suit, no newspaper would dare criticize 
 the financial management of any of our municipalities. 
 The suit, the Tribune says, represents an attempt to 
 throttle the press. And so it is. The case is one that 
 will be watched with unusual interest." 
 
 SCOTTSBLUFF (Neb.) News, Oct. 15, 1921 
 
 An Attempt to Muzzle the Press 
 
 The Chicago courts, in sustaining the demurrer of The 
 Chicago Tribune to the libel suit against it by the city 
 administration under Mayor Thompson, have prevented 
 another effort to muzzle the press. 
 
 The Tribune has been an able and powerful friend of 
 the people of Chicago in protecting them against the 
 administration of Mayor Thompson. It has fearlessly 
 challenged his methods, has fought his alleged system of 
 looting the treasury, and has been a vigorous friend of 
 good government during the time when good government 
 was apparently undesired in Chicago. 
 
 Stung by the many attacks made against him, Mayor 
 Thompson finally instructed his city attorney to start 
 suit for $10,000,000 libel against the Tribune. The courts 
 have thrown out the suit. If the newspapers of the land 
 are to be deprived of the right of criticism, of investiga- 
 tion and of printing the facts about the city adminis- 
 trations, then one of the best means of defense against 
 maladministration in office will be lost. It was not 
 
 [115] 
 
until papers began to be published and not until the 
 papers were freed from censorship by rulers, that the 
 cause of the common people began to succeed. 
 
 Liberty of the press has been one of the most precious 
 rights of mankind. It never is very popular with public 
 officials, especially with a certain kind of public officer, 
 but it has always been the main reliance of the mass of 
 people, in protecting their liberties. It is as inalienable 
 a right as that of trial by jury. 
 
 It has been protected again, by the decision of the 
 Chicago courts. It could not well be otherwise. There 
 is no place for the venomous newspaper, the one that 
 prints the sly slur; but there is every demand for the 
 honest, fearless newspaper of true convictions, and the 
 courage to voice them. 
 
 LINCOLN (Neb.) Star, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A decision that was of far-reaching effect in regards 
 to newspapers was that of Judge Harry Fisher, in de- 
 ciding that the city of Chicago had no cause for action 
 against The Chicago Tribune, in a suit for $10,000,000 
 for libel. The city alleged that the paper had pub- 
 lished an article that damaged the city's credit, by 
 printing false statements regarding the city's credit. 
 The judge ruled that portions of English common laws 
 in this regard had not been inherited by the United States, 
 and that the freedom of the press in this country was in no 
 matter thereby restricted. 
 
 YORK (Neb.) News-Times, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 By the decision of Judge Fisher in Chicago sustaining 
 the demurrer of The Chicago Tribune in the suit for 
 damages by the city of Chicago, the principle of the 
 freedom of the press is further sustained. 
 
 NEBRASKA CITY (Neb.) Press, Oct. 25, 1921. 
 
 It is no longer a crime for a newspaper to criticize 
 a city government. The city of Chicago, through its 
 mayor, sued two Chicago newspapers for $10,000,000 
 because the newspapers had said the city was about to be 
 bankrupted through the machinations of careless or 
 indifferent officials. The mayor declared the news- 
 papers had brought the city into public scandal and 
 
 [116] 
 
disgrace by publishing (he facts. The court held other- 
 wise, however. 
 
 PALMYRA (Mo.) Spectator, Sept. 21, 1921. 
 
 Chicago, always enterprising, is trying something new. 
 The city, as a corporation, is suing The Chicago Tribune 
 and the News for $10,000,000 each for libel. These 
 papers contained many items saying the city was broke, 
 financially, and said other things the Mayor thinks are 
 very detrimental to Chicago's interests. There is little 
 probability of judgment being secured for these enor- 
 mous amounts, or any other amounts, for that matter. 
 It is not that the city has been damaged by the criticism 
 of the papers but very likely the feelings of the officials 
 running it have been hurt. 
 
 KANSAS CITY (Mo.) Star, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 A City Gang Tries Intimidation 
 
 What presumes to be the city of Chicago hasHbrought 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily 
 News for libel. In each case the plaintiff asks that 
 damages of 10 million dollars be awarded. The suit 
 grows out of the contention of the city, so-called, that 
 criticism by the defendants of the financial administra- 
 tion of city business embarrassed the city in obtaining 
 loans and was detrimental to the city's credit. The 
 city has brought suit in its corporate capacity. 
 
 The Tribune filed a general demurrer against the suit, 
 contending that the city had no case. A hearing to 
 test the validity of the case was begun last Thursday. 
 In a formal statement out of court the Tribune has held 
 that at the time of filing of the suit last December "the 
 city hall machine controlled the mayor's office of Chicago, 
 the Chicago city council and the newly elected governor." 
 The statement further maintains that this political 
 force planned to gain control of the state legislature, 
 the circuit court of Cook County, and in fact to dominate 
 the city and state governments altogether. Only the 
 Tribune, it is contended, was left to fight this threatened 
 domination; and it is in retaliation for this opposition 
 that the machine, assuming itself to be the city, has 
 
 [117] 
 
brought suit, declared by the defendant to aim at com- 
 plete destruction of the newspaper and to restrict the 
 due freedom of the press. 
 
 The outstanding question to be decided in this case 
 will be whether a city or municipal corporation may 
 bring suit for libel against a newspaper that would 
 involve the virtual annihilation of the newspaper. 
 Counsel for the Tribune has contended that a suit for 
 libel may be brought by a public official or officials as 
 an individual or individuals, but "that the city govern- 
 ment as a government, with all the immense power 
 behind it, should not be permitted to prosecute for 
 words merely bringing it into 'contempt, ridicule and 
 scorn' before its citizens, who have the right to change 
 it in form, nature and conduct." 
 
 Counsel for the plaintiff, who maintains that the suit 
 is brought by no political party but "by the city and its 
 3 million inhabitants," answers that these parties are 
 asking "not the suppression of any publication of truth, 
 fair comment or criticism, but that this defendant 
 newspaper should not have the right deliberately, 
 maliciously and falsely to tell lies." 
 
 Machine politicians, when under fire for what they 
 have done in their official capacity, always like to insist 
 that the attacks are on the fair name of the city or the 
 state. They think to confuse the public by identifying 
 themselves with the government. So Gov. Len Small 
 of Illinois proposed at first to resist arrest for defrauding 
 the state of funds on the ground that his arrest would 
 interfere with the workings of the state government. 
 
 The suits brought by the Thompson machine in 
 Chicago against the two newspapers in the name of the 
 city will be recognized by the public generally for what 
 they are an effort to intimidate the newspapers from 
 exposing what the gang is doing. 
 
 KANSAS CITY (Mo.) Star, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Free Government Upheld in Chicago 
 
 Judge Fisher's ruling in Chicago dismissing the case 
 which the city government had brought, in the name of 
 the city, against The Chicago Tribune, marks another 
 victory for the principle upon whose maintenance our 
 
 [118] 
 
whole modern theory of government depends. The 
 Chicago officials who sought to break down that prin- 
 ciple have only succeeded in making it more secure. 
 
 The principle involved was a fundamental one and 
 Judge Fisher's ruling was the stronger and more con- 
 clusive of the issue for being based solidly and un- 
 compromisingly on it rather than on a mere legal ism. 
 He rested it upon a doctrine that is quite literally the 
 foundation of free government wherever it exists in the 
 world, for if that doctrine had not been established, 
 and if government under whatever form had made secure 
 its pretension to be the arbiter of thought and speech 
 and assembly, all governments today would be autoc- 
 racies. 
 
 The action of the plaintiff, he declared, was not in 
 harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 institutions. This declaration goes to the heart of the 
 matter. Let it be supposed that any group of public 
 officials, in a city, state or nation, could maintain the 
 doctrine the plaintiff relied on in this case. They could 
 declare themselves to be the city, state or nation, and 
 acting in that capacity could suppress any newspaper 
 that dared to criticize their acts, silence public speech 
 and forbid public assembly. They would, in making 
 good such pretensions, set government back where it 
 was when absolutism in France and England broke up 
 the presses, burned the books, maimed and imprisoned 
 the printers and searched the houses of citizens suspected 
 of knowing how to read. 
 
 The power of declaring what shall be printed and read 
 has never been given into the hands of any modern 
 government, and for the best of reasons. It is a power 
 that inevitably tends to destroy freedom. There is a 
 law of libel, and there are proper laws determining what 
 is obscene, immoral and defamatory. These laws are 
 based upon grounds of public policy. But there is no 
 law in America that forbids political discussion, or dis- 
 cussion or criticism of the acts of political agents. There 
 never can be such a law while free government exists. 
 
 If public officials need any protection against the press, 
 other than that afforded by the law of libel, they have it in 
 the fact, as Judge Fisher points out, that the power of 
 a newspaper to injure a community or a public official is 
 
 [119] 
 
limited by the degree of public favor it enjoys. If a 
 newspaper habitually misrepresents the facts, shows 
 animus, unfairness or spite, it cannot retain public con- 
 fidence or influence public opinion. That is sufficient 
 protection for any public official conscious that he is 
 performing his public duty. To give into the hands 
 of officials who want to conceal their acts the power to 
 silence a newspaper that exposes and denounces them 
 is to thrust the whole public out of participation in its 
 own government and to give that privilege over to any 
 clique powerful enough to seize and hold it. 
 
 Judge Fisher has thrown this amazing pretension out 
 of court, and in so doing has rendered a far-reaching 
 opinion, not in favor of The Chicago Tribune alone, but 
 in favor of the American people, the real defendants 
 in the case. 
 
 ST. Louis (Mo.) Globe Democrat, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 Can Governments Be Libeled? 
 
 The question really involved in the $10,000,000 suit 
 which the City of Chicago through its present corps of 
 officials has brought against The Chicago Tribune because 
 of criticism of municipal finances is whether government, 
 whatever its degrees, City, State or Federal, can be 
 libeled under the principles of law that now prevail. 
 Something very close to this question was raised when 
 President Roosevelt directed the prosecution of a New 
 York paper or its responsible heads for criticisms on 
 the purchase of the DeLesseps company's rights in the 
 Panama Canal, but the point was obscured by a contest 
 over court jurisdiction in which the newspaper was 
 sustained. While the Chicago suit can probably have 
 but one ending, we may be glad that it was brought 
 because of the fine argument on the history and present 
 quality of press immunity, submitted on a demurrer 
 in the case by Wey mouth Kirkland. The conventional 
 libel argument dwells much on British precedents. Mr. 
 Kirkland brought to general knowledge from the text- 
 books a decisive American case, that of one Zender in 
 New York who, as far back as 1735, ten years after the 
 royal prerogative of licensing and censoring newspapers 
 
 [120] 
 
had been abolished in the colonies, was prosecuted for 
 denouncing a corrupt Colonial Governor. He was 
 acquitted and Robert Morris' declaration, qimlrd by 
 Mr. Kirkland, was to the effect that the result was "Ihr 
 germ of American freedom, the morning star of that 
 liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." 
 The case is one with which all Americans should be 
 familiar. 
 
 The Chicago suit is a civil, not a criminal, case. Though 
 a wide latitude is permitted in discussing the acts of 
 individual government officials, it is proper that they 
 should be given a right of action in instances of out- 
 rageous and malicious misrepresentation. But the doc- 
 trine that government itself, that impersonal entity 
 made up of many collective forces and influences, can 
 institute on its own behalf either criminal or civil action 
 for libel is a most dangerous one. Abuses will arise and 
 do arise of course by reason of government's lack of 
 defense in the courts against misrepresentation, and in- 
 dividuals associated with government may suffer oc- 
 casional injustice, but any damage resulting is only 
 temporary and truth will ultimately prevail. If unfair 
 criticism could be penalized, a way would be opened 
 to penalize righteous criticism. 
 
 Judicial remedies should of course be open to all 
 others, but for the government itself to utilize one of 
 the most powerful of its own agencies, the courts, to 
 draw a line between what is permissible and what is 
 not permissible in criticisms of government would involve 
 many perils. It is a privilege which free governments 
 may wisely forego and in foregoing it they draw to 
 themselves elements of greater strength, not weakness. 
 
 ST. Louis (Mo.) Times, Sept. 26, 1921. 
 
 When a City Is Slandered 
 
 The people, rather than a jury, can penalize a news- 
 paper which libels its own city. The suit of the City of 
 Chicago which is really the suit of the Mayor against 
 The Chicago Tribune should result in victory for the 
 newspaper. The mere matter of the damaging of the 
 municipality from improper utterances of the journal 
 
 [121] 
 
is less important than the issue of the freedom of the 
 press which is involved. 
 
 Fully as vital, however, is the phase represented in 
 officialdom seeking to take to itself the power to punish, 
 which the reading public possesses, and which the reading 
 public quite dependably employs. 
 
 For the lying newspaper does not permanently de- 
 ceive a large portion of its readers. A great majority 
 of the people are intelligent, and are capable of forming 
 cool judgment from facts they discern by sensible measur- 
 ing of affairs in their visible development. These people 
 know how to discount the prejudiced story, the exag- 
 gerated declaration, the innuendo. They know, more- 
 over, when falsehood is being employed, and while 
 their attitude may not seem resentful, they will make 
 their repudiation of misrepresentation felt in good time. 
 
 There may be temporary deception where malevolent 
 and undisputed statements continue, but ere long the 
 very bitterness of the course will arouse the suspicion 
 of fair-minded citizenship. Some of the most carefully 
 planned campaigns of falsehood have plainly revealed 
 their purpose as to bring repudiation of the course by 
 the people before the latter understood the real facts. 
 They did not know the truth, but they could recognize 
 lying. 
 
 When the good name and the welfare of a community 
 are involved in a campaign of misrepresentation, the 
 unmasking of the liar is especially certain. No loyal 
 citizen wants his home town defamed, and when an 
 editor carried away by a determination to accomplish his 
 ends through whatever means seem easiest to employ- 
 maligns his city and its defenders, he will be made to 
 feel the displeasure of the people. Their repudiation 
 of his tactics is worth more to the slandered community 
 than any other redress it might obtain. 
 
 ST. Louis (Mo.) Globe-Democrat, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A Notable Decision 
 
 The libel suit for $10,000,000 brought by the City of 
 Chicago against The Chicago Tribune has been thrown 
 out of court. The city, through its officials, contended 
 
 [122] 
 
llial the publication of a statement Ilia! Chicago was 
 bankrupt made il impossible to sell mimieipal bonds 
 and was libelous. Circuit Judge II. M. Fislier sustained 
 the demurrer to I lie suit, holding that there was no cause 
 of action. 
 
 Another precedent which will be valuable in deter- 
 mining more exactly what constitutes the freedom of 
 the press has been set by this decision. But the suit 
 was peculiarly lacking in any justifiable "cause of ac- 
 tion," alleging that interviews quoting several Alder- 
 men as saying that the city was bankrupt were libelous, 
 and that the newspaper, not the officials who were 
 interviewed, was the instrument of the misrepresentation. 
 It was, moreover, directed by officials who were capable 
 of personal resentment toward criticism of their admin- 
 istration, but in the name of a government itself im- 
 personal and distinct. 
 
 Weymouth Kirkland, attorney for the Tribune, cited 
 in his argument a notable libel suit in the early history 
 of the country, in which a New York publisher named 
 Zender, in 1735, was prosecuted for denouncing a cor- 
 rupt Colonial Governor. He was acquitted, and a most 
 significant principle of American thought and legal en- 
 actment, that of the immunity of the press from dom- 
 ination from any source, whether a power within the 
 government or without, had its beginning. This prin- 
 ciple has not been allowed to deteriorate. Sedition is 
 without its boundaries; criticism of government and 
 government officials is not. 
 
 Those who may be dealt with unfairly, or falsely 
 accused, and who are actually the objects of libel, should 
 not be left without means of recovery; but this was 
 not true of the City of Chicago in its suit against the 
 Tribune. The court said that the suit was not in accord 
 with the "genius, spirit or objects of our institutions." 
 The newspaper is one of these institutions. It has 
 helped much in the organization of modern society. 
 The contact of today between people and nations is 
 mainly of its creation. Complexities that now adhere 
 to every department of life would permit of endless 
 abuse if the right of the press to free speech were abridged. 
 This was recognized by the court in the suit against the 
 Tribune. The decision adds weight to precedents al- 
 
 [123] 
 
ready established and makes it clear that the freedom 
 of the press is as indispensable now as in the eighteenth 
 century. 
 
 ST. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 The Press Must Be Free 
 
 Judge Fisher's decision in the $10,000,000 libel suit 
 of the City of Chicago against The Chicago Tribune 
 is a sweeping assertion of the right and duty of news- 
 papers to keep the public fully informed of the conduct 
 of the Government and of public officials and to criticize 
 official and governmental acts which in its opinion are 
 detrimental to the public welfare. 
 
 The judicial opinion is such a clear and comprehensive 
 statement of the functions of a newspaper as the guardian 
 of public interests and the instrument by which the pub- 
 lic is kept informed of all things necessary to enlightened 
 opinion and judgment on the conditions of society and 
 governmental acts, that it ought to be universally read 
 by the people. The Judge forcefully defines the right 
 of the newspapers to publish all facts bearing upon the 
 public welfare and to comment upon them for the pur- 
 pose of informing and directing public opinion and thus 
 unifying and crystallizing it for action against the bad 
 and for the good. 
 
 The only conditions which govern the liberty of the 
 press are the honesty and sincerity of its purpose and 
 the conscientious and reasonable care exercised by the 
 newspaper in ascertaining the truth and expressing its 
 own opinion. The object must be the public welfare 
 and never the injury of the public official whose conduct 
 is subject to exposure and criticism or detraction of the 
 administration whose acts are condemned. While the 
 Judge's comments upon the functions of newspapers 
 are highly interesting and instructive, a few paragraphs 
 on the main point at issue show the scope of the decision : 
 
 Stripped of all the elaborate argument in the confusion 
 of which the question for decision might look difficult, the 
 fact remains that, if this action is maintainable, then 
 public officials have in their power one of the most effective 
 instruments with which to intimidate the press and to silence 
 their enemies. It is a weapon to be held over the head of 
 
 [124] 
 
everyone who dares to print or speak unfavorably of the 
 men in power. 
 
 The freedom of speech and the press was, at the very 
 inception of our Government, regarded as indispensable to 
 a free state. * * * 
 
 \Yliile good reason exists for denying a publisher the 
 right to print that which he cannot prove against an individ- 
 ual, and recklessly to pry into his personal affairs, defaming 
 his character and reputation, no reason exists for restraining 
 the publication against a municipality or other govern- 
 mental agency, of such facts, which, as Judge Taft puts it, 
 it is well that the public should know, even if it lies hidden 
 from judicial investigation. 
 
 The Chicago suit differs from previous suits of this 
 character in that it was brought in behalf of a munici- 
 pality as a whole as representing the interest of citizens 
 and not by a public official. The courts have sustained 
 the rights of the press to publish facts bearing upon 
 official conduct and to comment thereon with reason 
 and sincerity and the decision establishes its right to 
 criticize municipalities and all other governmental agen- 
 cies whenever in its opinion the public welfare requires it. 
 
 Judge Fisher's able exposition of the functions of 
 the press as a public guardian and his assertion of its 
 freedom to publish facts and express opinions concerning 
 governmental policies and conditions and official acts is 
 peculiarly timely and valuable in view of the efforts 
 during and since the war to muzzle and control the 
 newspapers. He points out the danger attending any 
 attempt to gag or intimidate the press. 
 
 Columbus Dispatch, reprinted in 
 
 ST. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch, Oct. 24, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Tribune's Libel Suit 
 
 The city of Chicago, as represented by the adminis- 
 tration of Mayor Thompson, recently brought a $10,000,- 
 000 libel suit against The Chicago Tribune, based on its 
 criticisms of the city government. It was alleged that 
 these criticisms were hurting the credit of the city, 
 lowering the market value of its bonds, keeping business 
 men from the outside away from it, etc., for all of which, 
 reparation was demanded in the sum above mentioned. 
 To this declaration in Judge Fisher's court the Tribune 
 
 [125] 
 
entered a demurrer, denying the right of the city to bring 
 suit for libel on the basis of newspaper criticism. This 
 demurrer was fully sustained in a decision rendered 
 by Judge Fisher a few days ago. To have done anything 
 less would have been to strike a deadly blow at the 
 legitimate freedom of the press in one of its most im- 
 portant functions the searching out and exposure of 
 inefficiency and corruption in public office. Deliberate 
 disregard of truth in this function brings to the offending 
 newspaper its own punishment in loss of influence and 
 standing with fair-minded people. To prevent such 
 criticism through the machinery of legal prosecution, 
 even though the right to criticize be occasionally abused, 
 would lay the foundation for a dozen evils in an ineffec- 
 tual attempt to remove one. 
 
 MACON (Mo.) Chronicle, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 There's one part of Chicago Mayor "Bill" Thompson 
 can't run. That's the judiciary. With his case against 
 The Chicago Tribune and The News thrown out of court 
 and his protege, Governor Len Small, facing trial for 
 embezzlement, "Big Bill" is probably thinking the law 
 is the main stumbling block in the way of making this a 
 happy world. 
 
 MACON (Mo.) Chronicle, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 If men like Mayor Bill Thompson of Chicago could 
 recover from newspapers that criticized them and their 
 administration, then newspapers would be of no earthly 
 use and the municipal clique could run things in their 
 own way. The restraint imposed by publicity keeps 
 some men apparently honest. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD (Mo.) Leader, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Tribune Libel Suit 
 
 The suit for $10,000,000 brought by the city of Chicago 
 against The Chicago Tribune for alleged libel was thrown 
 out of court Saturday by Circuit Court Judge Harry M. 
 Fisher. Judge Fisher upheld the demurrer filed by the 
 Tribune to the suit. The suit was based on state- 
 ments made by the Tribune that the city was bank- 
 
 [126] 
 
rupt, which officials held injured the financial status of 
 tin 1 city and il was unable to dispose of bonds. 
 
 This shows how Hill Thompson is using the city as a 
 personal plaything. The Tribune's charge was a reflec- 
 tion on Thompson and not on the city. The city is in a 
 bankrupt condition as a result of Thompson's incom- 
 petency. Thompson, as a result of charges against him- 
 self, puts the city to the expense of bringing a personal 
 law suit for himself. This alone gives some idea of why 
 Chicago is broke. 
 
 DENVER (Colo.) Times, Oct. 19, 1921. 
 
 Off the Pedestal 
 
 Thin-skinned office holders have seldom been led 
 into a more ridiculous predicament thru "injured pride," 
 whatever that may be, than the administration of the 
 city of Chicago in seeking to obtain $10,000,000 in 
 damages from two newspapers for alleged libel against 
 the municipal corporation. 
 
 The action was strictly on a par with the "divine right 
 of kings" theory enunciated by Governor Small, also 
 of Illinois, when he tried to escape arrest last summer 
 and invoked an archaic argument for which the American 
 public had only hoots and derision. 
 
 Last week a Chicago judge sustained the demurrer 
 of the newspapers involved in the damage suit and dis- 
 missed the action against them as being "not in har- 
 mony with the genius, spirit and objects of our institu- 
 tions." 
 
 The outcome was inevitable and the suit served merely 
 as a temporary vehicle for official spleen against the 
 defendants. It revealed the fact that some lawyers 
 are quite without a sense of humor and are not unwilling 
 to appear foolish if only the consideration is adequate. 
 
 For an American city the action of Chicago was indeed 
 a strange precedent. To allege libel for criticism of its 
 acts as a corporate body was bad enough, but to seek 
 redress under the common law of England was to invite 
 public hilarity. Had the city's suit been sustained, 
 doubtless its next act when under fire would have been 
 to claim the protection of King George. 
 
 [127] 
 
The one redeeming feature of the farce was the fact 
 that Chicago has enough shame to feel hurt at anything 
 that might be said about her in an official capacity. 
 This is a sign of regeneration. The public is more or 
 less reassured to know that her feelings have been hurt 
 $10,000,000 worth. Everything is up these days, even 
 the value of rasped municipal sensibilities. No doubt 
 the newspapers will evince a more tender attitude in the 
 future, so that the object of their unkind remarks may 
 not die of humiliation. 
 
 We can imagine what would have happened to the 
 newspapers of the United States had shrinking Chicago 
 won her slander suit. Every mayor in the country 
 would have ordered his city attorney to start proceedings 
 at once against the bete noir of the administration. Free 
 speech would have been litigated to death. What 
 wouldn't city hall in Denver have done to us ! Oh, boy ! 
 
 Judge Fisher, who opined that we have enough law 
 over here without bringing over any more of the old 
 English common or garden variety and Judge Smith, 
 who last summer gave a judicial pin prick to the bubble 
 of the divine right of kings fallacy, have both done the 
 public a good turn. It will be a sorry day for this nation 
 when its newspapers are muzzled and any unit of govern- 
 ment may set itself up on a gilded pedestal and announce 
 that it is above honest criticism. 
 
 TRINIDAD (Colo.) Chronicle, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Tribune vs. City 
 
 Among many recent cases of individuals or corpora- 
 tions trying ineffectually to recover from newspapers 
 for alleged damage caused by an endeavor to protect 
 the common good, or for publication of news items 
 affecting them, that of The Chicago Tribune is pre- 
 eminent because of the peculiar features of the case. 
 
 Here was a strongly intrenched political machine 
 charged with dissipating the public funds by a newspaper, 
 in its undoubted province of watching and conserving 
 the rights of the public, in an attitude that had many 
 indications of revengeful spite. 
 
 In sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the suit the 
 judge gave utterance to an axiomatic truth when he said 
 
 [128] 
 
that harm would certainly result to a community from 
 an officialdom unrestrained by fear of publicity. 
 
 During the war I lie newspapers of the country were 
 a unit in supporting the propaganda of Americans. 
 Propaganda may have become a habit with some of them 
 and reached into other fields without warrant. For in 
 such eases there is a remedy, but that is entirely a different 
 matter from restraining rightful expression of opinion. 
 
 The freedom of the press is so important a fundamental 
 of democracy that it was written in one of the greatest 
 safeguards of liberty the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 It is a matter of felicitation, not only among news- 
 papers, but among all citizens of the country, that 
 efforts so far to undermine the right of free speech have 
 been fruitless. 
 
 AVithout an absolutely free press, free to record news 
 in an impartial manner, and free to safeguard every 
 interest of community and country, to fearlessly uphold 
 the powerless against the powerful, with the power to 
 collate and give united force to public opinion, all the 
 words of the founders and preservers of the Nation 
 would go for naught. 
 
 Especially must the press be safeguarded against the 
 encroachment of political organizations, which, pri- 
 marily, are promoted by selfish interests. 
 
 Both the press and those who would restrict its 
 province must finally stand at the bar of public opinion 
 the supreme court of their actions. 
 
 The press is unafraid ! 
 
 STOCKTON (Cal.) Independent, Nov. 3, 1921. 
 
 Press and Government 
 
 Popular rights and political efficiency are both upheld 
 by the decision of a Chicago judge, throwing out of court 
 the $10,000,000 suit brought against The Chicago Tribune 
 by the mayor of the city. The action was inspired by 
 criticism of the mayor. Though drastic, the court 
 held that such criticism was a legitimate function of a 
 free press a verdict in which public opinion will probably 
 concur, regardless of the character of the litigants them- 
 selves. 
 
 [129] 
 
The need of freedom in printing news and commenting 
 on it becomes greater as communities grow and public 
 business, like all other business, becomes more complex. 
 The newspaper is a sort of responsible middleman 
 between the public and its officials, representing their 
 acts and holding them to strict account. It is a great 
 power which the newspaper wields, but there is little 
 danger of its being abused more than momentarily. 
 Its work is all public, and so the public itself is in position 
 at all times to hold it to its duty, prospering it by support 
 or destroying it by disapproval. 
 
 The press has become, therefore, a powerful though 
 unofficial organ of government. Intelligent popular 
 government would be impossible without it. Continuous 
 progress in government is possible mainly because, while 
 public servants come and go, the press is permanent, for- 
 ever on the job of public service, translating public will 
 into public action. 
 
 NOGALES (Ariz.) Herald, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 The Freedom of the Press 
 
 The Chicago Tribune is being sued for $10,000,000 by 
 the City of Chicago for libel. The Herald understands 
 that the officials of the city, swayed by partisan politics, 
 maintain that the Tribune injured the credit of the city 
 and made it impossible to dispose of bonds necessary to 
 the welfare of Chicago. 
 
 Every newspaper in the nation is interested in the 
 outcome of the big suit. Never before in the history of 
 American courts has a similar case been tried. 
 
 The suit is a deep thrust at a free press. In the opinion 
 of The Herald it is an attempt of partisan politics to 
 muzzle the voice of all opposition. 
 
 If the City of- Chicago is really afraid of publicity then 
 why did it bring the suit? The Tribune publicity localized 
 the matter. The suit has made it a national affair. The 
 city government of Chicago is far more responsible for 
 widespread publicity than The Tribune. 
 
 All of the grandiloquent bluff and bluster of Chicago, 
 all of its spouting and ostentatious rag-chewing cannot 
 prevent the plucky press from speaking as it should. All 
 the protests and crocodile tears of all the politicians in 
 
 [130] 
 
Chicago cannot down the pen which is wielded to expose 
 graft and corruption. 
 
 Chicago had a black eye before the Tribune began to 
 fight the city government. It is known far and wide 
 that the controlling politicians of the Windy City 
 punished with fiendish ferocity those who refused to bow 
 to thrir shrine. Ward-heelers and soap box orators have 
 had their day in Chicago and an electric wave of joy 
 swept around the State of Illinois when the plucky 
 Tribune began its "spotlight" campaign. The Tribune 
 and the Chicago Daily News did not dance to the music 
 of the crowned creatures of Chicago. 
 
 The suit for $10,000,000 against the Tribune, if won, 
 will smash that great newspaper. It will mean that no 
 more can the press voice complaint to the people against 
 a government, whether it be city, county or state. It 
 will mean that the star of city government can be shifted 
 to suit the pleasure of politicians. 
 
 It must not be! 
 
 PHOENIX (Ariz.) Gazette, Oct. 29, 1921. 
 
 Freedom of Speech and Press 
 
 In his decision sustaining the demurrer of The Chicago 
 Tribune to the $10,000,000 libel suit brought by Mayor 
 Thompson and certain other officials of the city of 
 Chicago, Judge Fisher, of the Circuit court of that city, 
 has struck a decisive blow for real Americanism through 
 freedom of speech and freedom of the press. 
 
 Stripped of confusing details, the libel suit was filed 
 against the Tribune in the name of the city of Chicago 
 because that newspaper had attacked the mayor and city 
 officials, charging that their administration had bank- 
 rupted the city. 
 
 Conceiving that they would be able, at one blow, to 
 vindicate themselves and punish the newspaper which 
 had the temerity to prefer charges against them, the 
 mayor and his associates brought the suit for the stagger- 
 ing sum which, if they were successful in their fight, would 
 have resulted in the crushing of the Tribune out of 
 existence. But Judge Fisher was not to be led astray 
 from the real issue, the attempt to fasten a muzzle upon 
 
 [131] 
 
the press, and with wonderful directness cut straight to 
 the heart of the matter. This is what he said: 
 
 Stripped of all the elaborate argument, in the confusion 
 of which the question for decision might look difficult, the 
 fact remains that if this action is maintainable then public 
 officials have in their power one of the most effective instru- 
 ments with which to intimidate the press and to silence their 
 enemies. It is a weapon to be held over the head of every- 
 one who dares to speak or print unfavorably of the men in 
 power. 
 
 Continuing in this strain Judge Fisher pointed out that 
 freedom of speech and of the press was regarded as 
 indisputable to a free state at the very inception of the 
 American government. And in this he unquestionably 
 puts his finger upon the heart of the whole matter. 
 Americans today need definite knowledge as to the things 
 making up our complicated and involved social organiza- 
 tion, and it is the sacred duty and function of the news- 
 papers, which are expert in the collecting and 
 disseminating of such information, to keep the people 
 informed as otherwise the public would be utterly help- 
 less. Going deeper into this phase of the matter Judge 
 Fisher said: 
 
 The press has become the eyes and ears of the world, and, 
 to a great extent, humanity in contact with all its parts. 
 It is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the 
 suffering. It holds up for review the acts of our officials 
 and of those men in high places who have it in their power 
 to advance peace or endanger it. It is the force which unifies 
 public sentiment. But for it, the acts of public benefactors 
 would go unnoticed, impostors would continue undismayed 
 and public office would be the rich reward of the unscrupu- 
 lous demagogue. 
 
 The Gazette knows full well that neither Judge Fisher 
 nor any other honorable judge in the courts of justice of 
 these United States would have any more sympathy with 
 newspapers which indulge in scandals and defamations 
 than is possessed by the bitterest and most vicious 
 assailants of the press. Neither has this paper any 
 patience with such publications or such policies. There 
 can be no excuse or extenuation of conduct of this sort. 
 Yet the Gazette firmly holds to the contention that the 
 remedy for such a course is not to be found in a new law 
 which would suppress publication. 
 
 [132] 
 
Nobody has a right to mistake freedom for license, of 
 course, and the laws protecting the individual from libel 
 are clearly defined and easily to be understood. Further, 
 the Gazette holds that they should be rigidly observed 
 by every self-respecting newspaper. 
 
 It would, however, be absurd if the law of the land 
 were so interpreted by the courts as to protect the 
 unscrupulous public official from exposure through the 
 columns of the press, and this paper, for one, is glad to 
 know that free speech and free press continue as bulwarks 
 of the constitutional liberty and freedom of the American 
 people. 
 
 [ 133 ] 
 
AMARILLO (Tex.) Tribune, Sept. 29, 1921. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune Suit 
 
 The suit of the City against The Chicago Tribune for 
 ten million dollars damages, if successful, will mean the 
 death of the Tribune, because a judgment of that size 
 could be satisfied only by sacrificing the newspaper. 
 
 The suit is said to have grown out of criticisms of the 
 city administration published by the Tribune, charging 
 extravagance and waste in the expenditure of public 
 money. It would be impossible to judge the merits of 
 the controversy at this distance, but it may be assumed 
 that no jury will be found that will give the City the judg- 
 ment asked for, even though the newspaper may have 
 overstepped the facts in its published criticisms. If 
 this is true, it is quite likely that the suit was brought 
 for political reasons. 
 
 But if the City should win its suit a serious blow will 
 have been dealt to the freedom of the press. Newspapers 
 with the courage to denounce extravagance and graft in 
 high places are none too numerous and the elimination 
 of a powerful paper like The Chicago Tribune would be 
 held up as a warning against published criticisms of 
 public officials. 
 
 Freedom of the press is essential in a democracy. The 
 people are quite as conscious of this fact as are the pub- 
 lishers of newspapers and they can be counted on to 
 resist any abridgment of this right. Honest officials 
 have nothing to fear from honest criticism and no news- 
 paper can long survive unless it sticks to the truth. 
 
 DALLAS (Tex.) Morning News, Sept. 29, 1921. 
 
 Chicago Turns Plaintiff 
 
 The city of Chicago is suing a pair of newspapers for 
 printing the statement that Chicago is bankrupt. It is 
 claimed that the city's financial arrangements were em- 
 barrassed by the statement, and damages running up into 
 the millions are asked. Technically speaking, it prob- 
 ably couldn't be true that Chicago is a bankrupt. At 
 least the city hasn't gone into Federal or State courts 
 and submitted to genuine bankruptcy proceedings. It 
 
 [134] 
 
is probably a fact also that Chicago is not insolvent, so 
 long as its taxing power remains. Indeed, courts have 
 been known to compel a debtor municipality to levy a tax 
 commensurate with its obligations. 
 
 These considerations may all have been known to the 
 newspapers who made or circulated the statement that 
 Chicago is bankrupt. But so must they have been known 
 to every intelligent person who read these alleged state- 
 ments. In fact it is difficult to understand how they 
 could be read without being interpreted in the light of 
 these considerations. In view of this aspect it may turn 
 out that, even in case of a verdict against the defendant 
 newspapers, the award would be nearer the price of a 
 soda fountain drink than of a battleship. 
 
 The actual damage done to Chicago can scarcely have 
 been anywhere near the amount claimed. The suit, 
 therefore, wears the guise of an attempt to discipline 
 newspapers either for a misstatement which can not have 
 hurt the city greatly with those who dealt with Chicago 
 on its credit, or else for a loosely worded statement of 
 criticism aimed at the administration of Chicago's gov- 
 ernment. Manifestly, if Chicago is going to sue in her 
 corporate capacity every paper that ever published any- 
 thing derogatory to William Hale Thompson and his 
 management of finances and affairs, there's going to be 
 a long litigation calendar ahead. 
 
 Probably there is not a city in America where a strong 
 and vigilant and critical political opposition is more 
 needed than in Chicago. If that great city, with the 
 maze of corruption and blatant vice with which its very 
 name is associated over the country, is ever to regain 
 a reputation which will be an asset to it morally and 
 financially, the redemption will never come through 
 muzzling or disciplining outspoken critics of the city 
 administration. 
 
 From the Brooklyn Eagle, reprinted in 
 FT. WORTH (Tex.) Record, Oct. 9, 1921. 
 
 Chicago as a municipality has brought two $10,000,000 
 suits, against the Chicago News and The Chicago Tribune, 
 respectively, for libel damages. The assertion is made that 
 attacks on the financial administration of the civic cor- 
 poration's affairs under Mayor Thompson damaged the 
 
 [ 135 ] 
 
credit of the city, which is entitled to recover. So far as we 
 know, this is an utterly unprecedented proceeding and is 
 of course dictated by the mayor. No such action could 
 be prosecuted in New York state, and it is almost a safe 
 prediction that the suit will be thrown out by the courts 
 of Illinois. A city has such powers as have been granted 
 to it by state lawmakers. The power to bring libel suits 
 is not included in any state of the union in city charters. 
 For this there are excellent reasons. First, the freedom 
 of criticism of city administration is a right of all tax- 
 payers. Second, if the politicians mismanaging a muni- 
 cipality could sue critics not at their own expense but 
 at the expense of the treasury, prosecution would be 
 not merely possible but probable. 
 
 FT. WORTH (Tex.) Record, Oct. 21, 
 
 Victory for Taxpayers 
 
 Not only the freedom of the press but the rights of the 
 public in a very large way, the right of the taxpayer to 
 know all facts of record that show how public affairs 
 are handled, were involved in the suits brought against 
 The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News by the 
 city of Chicago. These suits were for $10,000,000 each, 
 the charge being that the newspapers had libeled the 
 city and harmed its credit so it could no longer find ready 
 sale for its bonds. While the city of Chicago was named 
 as the plaintiff in the suit, the moving spirit in the liti- 
 gation was William Hale Thompson, mayor of Chicago, 
 whose methods of handling municipal affairs, had been 
 criticized in a vigorous fashion by the newspapers. It 
 was a novel suit, probably the first of its kind : the amount 
 named was the approximate value of the papers. It had 
 importance so far-reaching that it contemplated a new 
 order for this country. 
 
 Recently when the suit came up for hearing, brilliant 
 lawyers appeared for each side. The Tribune suit came 
 up first. Its attorneys had filed a demurrer to the peti- 
 tion. In a general way the filing of a demurrer means 
 that, even if all facts alleged in the bill of complaint be 
 true as stated, they would not constitute a cause of 
 action. It raised the full question of whether the plaintiff 
 is in court with a valid cause or not. The court sustained 
 
 [18 3 
 
the demurrer, saying I ha I all (he facts stated in the very 
 lengthy bill of complaint did not state a cause of action 
 for a suit in court. 
 
 Then the court went further, declaring the suit was 
 not in harmony with the spirit of the age. Rather it 
 recalled the days of monarchical and despotic rule The 
 Tribune had printed facts from (he records of the city, 
 had (old (he truth of city management, albeit with some 
 vigor and persistence. Had the Tribune and the News 
 lost their suits they would have been bankrupted and put 
 out of business, and other papers would have had their 
 existence threatened if they offended the temporary 
 occupant of the city hall. The existence of a free press 
 was at stake. Newspapers may have their faults. They 
 are but the product of human hand and brain, but for 
 any court to have said that newspapers could not tell 
 the story of a city misgoverned and mismanaged would 
 have been to turn government over to exploiters and gag 
 those who would keep the public informed. The defeat 
 of Thompson is a triumph of public right. 
 
 BEAUMONT (Tex.) Enterprise, Oct. 16, 1921. 
 
 A Lost Libel Suit 
 
 A Chicago judge Saturday dismissed the suits of the 
 city of Chicago against the Tribune and Daily News seek- 
 ing punitive damages for libel in the sum of $10,000,000 
 in each case. The city had, the court held, no cause of 
 action. The suits had been brought because of publica- 
 tion in the two papers of matter alleged to have injured 
 the city's credit, but were in reality the outgrowth of the 
 fight against Mayor William Hale Thompson. 
 
 In refusing to allow the petitions to be amended the 
 court held that the English common law limiting the 
 freedom of the press had not come down to America 
 as a legal standard, and that the suits in point were not 
 "in harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 institutions." 
 
 Determination of these cases will be of interest to 
 newspapers everywhere, as well as to the people who per- 
 ceive in an untrammeled press the best safeguard for the 
 liberties of the citizen. 
 
 t 137 ] 
 
LAREDO (Tex.) Times, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 An Important Decision 
 
 Some time ago the city of Chicago filed a suit for 
 $10,000,000 damages against The Chicago Tribune, 
 charging libel. It seems that the administration con- 
 sidered articles concerning the city management as 
 damaging to the character of the officials and the suit 
 was instituted, the amount claimed being based on the 
 amount of the fortune of the proprietor of the Tribune 
 rather than on actual damages. 
 
 Judge Fisher the other day sustained the Tribune's 
 
 demurrer to the suit and refused to permit the city to 
 
 / / amend its petition. In rendering his decision he said 
 
 / ll that portions of the English common law and statutes 
 
 \v which restricted the liberty of the press had not been 
 
 inherited by this country and added: "This action is 
 
 not in harmony with the genius, spirit and objects of our 
 
 institutions." 
 
 The principle upon which a municipality bases its 
 right to demand redress for hostile criticism is the same 
 as that upon which is founded the doctrine of lese majesty. 
 It is opposed to our free institutions, because the govern- 
 ments are the creature of the people and do not exist by 
 divine right. 
 
 Our declaration of independence says: "Governments 
 are instituted among men, deriving their just powers 
 from the consent of the governed," and upon this declar- 
 ation was formed our constitution, the first constitution 
 of a free people to be committed to writing. 
 
 No government is above criticism, and particularly 
 not our government, which is created by the vote of the 
 people, who have a right to elect another government in 
 its place whenever they may see fit. 
 
 Above all is the federal government, which is formed 
 by the union of the states; then comes the state govern- 
 ment, and then the town or municipal government, the 
 charter for which political entity is granted by the state, 
 in conformity with laws enacted by the representatives 
 of the people. 
 
 This is the first time a municipality has attempted to 
 sue a publisher for utterances considered libelous, and 
 the decision of the court is far-reaching in its effect. It 
 
 [138] 
 
establishes thai the city administration has no right to 
 sue for libel as an entity, however any of the individuals 
 in the administration may be aggrieved personally. 
 
 There have been severe criticisms of the Chicago 
 city administration, not all of them confined to the 
 Chicago papers. Perhaps no mayor of Chicago has ever 
 received the adverse criticism directed against William 
 Hale Thompson, not even Carter Harrison in the balmy 
 days of his rule, when Bathhouse John and Hinky Dink 
 were at their zenith. 
 
 But if Mayor Thompson is aggrieved he has the right 
 to bring an individual suit against any person or corpora- 
 tion, and the attempt to use the prestige of the city 
 government to back the petition in the present case was 
 of no avail. 
 
 Much of our law is based on the English common law 
 and on statutes of ages past and gone. But any part of 
 common law which relates to the monarchy or a privileged 
 class necessarily must fail when translated to our code, 
 for it is based upon something which we do not recog- 
 nize the superiority of one person or class to the rest of 
 the people, and no government is above the law, any more 
 than a person. 
 
 The trial of the governor of Illinois is another case in 
 point in which the old English common law was invoked 
 in the attempt to base a defense not permissible under 
 our law. "The king can do no wrong," says the old 
 English law, while here every man is a sovereign and has 
 equal rights with another. 
 
 Our public domain is held in the name of the people, 
 our prosecutions are brought in the name of the state 
 or the commonwealth, and it would seem strange for an 
 American to be told that the municipal government 
 claimed the powers of a sovereign in claiming to be above 
 adverse criticism on the part of any of the people. 
 
 SAN ANTONIO (Tex.) Express, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Incalculable Harm to the Community 
 
 "This action is not in harmony with the genius, spirit and 
 objects of our institutions. * * * The newspaper cannot 
 long indulge in falsehoods without losing that confidence from 
 which alone come its power, its prestige and its reward. 
 
 [139] 
 
On the other hand, the harm which would certainly result to 
 the community from an officialdom unrestrained by fear of 
 publicity is incalculable." 
 
 Thus Judge Harry Fisher, in sustaining The Chicago 
 Tribune's demurrer to the "City of Chicago" (vide the 
 works of "Big Bill" Thompson) "libel" suit for 
 $10,000,000, on the allegation that the Tribune (and the 
 Daily News) have printed "false statements" regarding 
 Chicago's financial standing and thereby "injured" the 
 municipality's "credit." 
 
 The court's decision is that the "City" has no cause of 
 action; that it is a public corporation, not a private 
 person susceptible to defamation; and that the "City" 
 cannot amend its petition in the suit. 
 
 Common sense raised the expectation of that decision. 
 As to the history, the theory and the law of the rights 
 involved constitutional and statutory Judge Fisher's 
 exposition "hath been most sound." Nevertheless, one 
 who considers the City Hall and other municipal causes 
 of what the Tribune, the Daily News and other local 
 newspapers are impelled to say, day after day, about the 
 municipality's conduct, as well as "credit," must wonder 
 whether Chicago's officialdom of the Thompson-Lundin 
 ring is at all "restrained by fear of publicity." 
 
 For one of many examples of "credit," it was neither 
 the Tribune nor the Daily News, but Thompson's own 
 chief of police, who lately announced that half his force 
 were either criminals bootleggers or in league with this 
 criminal element! 
 
 Howbeit, Heaven help Chicago even more were its 
 press inoculated with tetanus germs, per such a "libel" 
 suit! Its reformative struggle quite in accord with 
 "the genius, spirit and objects of our institutions"- will 
 go on. The press is doing splendid service to the com- 
 munity in thus preparing it for the next municipal 
 election. 
 
 GALVESTON (Tex.) Tribune, Oct. 20, 1921. 
 
 Judge Fisher of Chicago has no doubt robbed his city 
 of the damages the municipality would have received in 
 its suit against The Chicago Tribune. Had the case 
 gone to a jury there is little doubt that the verdict would 
 have been for at least one cent damage. 
 
 [140] 
 
There is much in contention of The Chicago Trib- 
 une's attorney in I he $10,000, 000 libel suit filed against 
 that paper by the Chicago city government thata victory 
 for (he city would mean I he muzzling of the press insofar 
 as criticism of city officials goes, for the whole suit, \yhich 
 was engineered and filed by Mayor William Hale Thomp- 
 son, is predicated upon the fact that the Tribune's anim- 
 adversions against the financial condition of Chicago were 
 really aimed at the administration of Thompson whose 
 administration has not been such as to engender any 
 great amount of pride among the best citizenship of the 
 Western metropolis. So far as the record published 
 shows, there has been no evidence introduced to dispute 
 the Tribune's charge, to-wit, that the city was "broke," 
 its income frittered away in more or less spectacular 
 stunts and in taking care of the Mayor's political -sup- 
 porters. The contention of the city seems largely to be 
 that but in charging the city was embarrassed financially 
 the Tribune harmed the city's credit and made it im- 
 possible to sell its bonds a contention that is certainly 
 far-fetched since with the taxing power in hand and 
 billions of property subject to taxation, there could not 
 possibly be any question as to the city's solvency so far 
 as bond-holders go nor of the city's ability financially 
 further to tax its citizens to raise the money for interest 
 and sinking fund. Mayor Thompson, opposed by practi- 
 cally every paper in Chicago, has long sought some way 
 to "get back at them" for their opposition. Evidently 
 he believes that in his little $10,000,000 libel suit against 
 the Tribune a similar amount, we believe, is sought from 
 the Chicago News he has found the way. The defense's 
 demurrer should be upheld, because if city officials and 
 city administrations can be put above criticism by news- 
 papers it will be a sad day for the taxpayers of every 
 city in the country. 
 
 KNOXVILLE (Terni.) Journal-Tribune, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 A City Not Libeled 
 
 Not long ago, "Big Bill" Thompson, mayor of Chicago, 
 brought suit against two of Chicago's le'ading daily pa- 
 pers, for ten millions of dollars alleged damage to the 
 city due to what the papers had printed. 
 
 [141] 
 
The facts are, the papers did severely criticise "Big 
 Bill's" management of the city's affairs, or, more prop- 
 erly speaking, mismanagement. And it is only natural 
 for him to thus assume, as he has persuaded himself, he 
 is the city of Chicago, all alone by himself. One of his 
 calibre is capable of imagining vain things. 
 
 But the judge before whom the case would have been 
 tried, had it come to a trial, did not share the views of 
 the complainant in the case. He held that the articles 
 printed in The Chicago Tribune were neither seditious 
 nor libelous. Judge Fisher held that libel is applicable 
 only to private persons or corporations, and that the 
 city might not sue for libel "unless by some legal fiction the 
 plaintiff is to be regarded for the purpose of this suit as 
 a private person, in which event the publications are 
 defamatory and libelous would lie." 
 
 Had the judge stopped with that and gone no further, 
 that of itself would have been sufficient to knock "Big 
 Bill" out of the box, but as if insult added to injury, 
 assuming that such a man is capable of either insult or 
 injury, the judge didn't stop with that, he went on fur- 
 ther and spoke words of praise of the press that indulges 
 in criticism of public officials. And the judge proceeded 
 to further say: 
 
 "This suit is not in sympathy with the genius, spirit 
 and object of our institutions. It fits rather with the 
 genius of rulers who conceived law not in the purity of 
 love for justice, but in the lustful passion for undisturbed 
 power." 
 
 If "Big Bill" or any to be found anywhere, can derive 
 comfort or solace from anything found in the ruling of 
 this judge, let them have all the comfort they can get 
 out of it. 
 
 MEMPHIS (Tenn.) News- Scimitar, Oct. 24, 1921. 
 
 Trivial Lawsuits 
 
 Declaring that Mayor Thompson's $10,000,000 libel 
 suit against The Chicago Tribune was not in harmony 
 with the genius, spirit and objects of our institutions, 
 Judge Fisher of the Circuit court last week sustained the 
 demurrer of the defendant and consigned the case to the 
 ash can. 
 
 [142] 
 
 
A few more decisions of this nature would have a 
 wholesome effect, not only upon officials who make a 
 practice of suing when they are exposed, but also upon 
 lawyers who make a practice of reading the newspapers 
 for some unintentional error upon which to base a libel 
 suit. 
 
 It was never intended that the libel laws should pre- 
 vent a journal from printing the news or exposing a 
 corrupt official. It was not intended that a newspaper 
 should be penalized for an unintentional error, which it 
 is always anxious to correct and usually is quick to do so. 
 
 "The press has become the eyes and the ears of the 
 world, and to a great extent its voice," as the judge stated 
 in the outset of his opinion dismissing the suit. Con- 
 tinuing his description of the function of a newspaper, 
 Judge Fisher declared: 
 
 "It is the substance which puts humanity in contact 
 with all its parts. It is the spokesman of the weak and 
 the appeal of the suffering. It tears us away from our 
 selfishness and moves us to acts of kindness and charity. 
 It is the advocate constantly pleading before the bar 
 of public opinion. It holds up for review the acts of 
 our officials and of those men in high places who have it 
 in their power to advance peace or endanger it. It is 
 the force which unifies public sentiment. Trade and 
 commerce depend upon it. Authors, artists, musicians, 
 scholars and inventors command a hearing through its 
 columns. In politics it is our universal forum. But for 
 it, the acts of public benefactors would go unnoticed, 
 impostors would continue undismayed, and public office 
 would be the rich reward of the unscrupulous dema- 
 gogue. Knowledge of public matters would be hidden 
 in the bosoms of those who make politics their personal 
 business for gain or glorification." 
 
 Some officials do not respect the right of the public 
 to be informed concerning the public business. The 
 worthy citizen takes an interest in public affairs as he 
 takes an interest in personal matters, and is anxious to 
 hold the so-called public servant to a strict accounta- 
 bility for his stewardship. 
 
 The individual or the newspaper may comment or 
 criticize as it desires, in order to obtain service in con- 
 formity with the individual's conception of public good, 
 
 [143] 
 
so long as unlawful means are not advocated and a 
 breach of the peace is not incited. 
 
 Articles objectionable to some officials not only are 
 within the right of the paper, but frequently it is per- 
 forming a public duty in printing them. 
 
 LOUISVILLE (Ky.) Herald, Oct. 16, 1921. 
 
 The decision of Judge Harry Fisher, sustaining the 
 demurrer of The Chicago Tribune in the suit brought 
 by the city of Chicago claiming damages to the tune 
 of $10,000,000, is a decision first of all for that good 
 government of which a free press is, beyond all else, the 
 bulwark. The declaration that any precedents in English 
 common law restricting such liberty could not be held 
 to have descended to American practice is a very healthy 
 one and has applications beyond the immediate case. 
 Decidedly, a blow was struck for the protection of the 
 people. 
 
 FRANKFORT (Ky.) State Journal, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Libeling a City 
 
 No newspaper would have any desire to libel the city 
 in which it is published. "Ne'er a peevish boy breaks 
 the cup from which he drinks in joy," observes the great 
 Persian poet, Omar. 
 
 The welfare of a newspaper is so dependent upon the 
 welfare of the center of population in which it is pub- 
 lished that only a fool as the manager of a newspaper 
 would want to slander the city. The Chicago Tribune's 
 victory in the suit for $10,000,000 for libel of Chicago 
 was expected. The outcome of the case is a victory, 
 but not a surprising one, for the press of America. 
 
 By the way, no officer of any city imagines that any 
 newspaper could have an interest in maligning the very 
 source of its meat and bread. Criticising a city admin- 
 istration is a thing apart from libeling a city. The 
 administration in Chicago winced under criticism of 
 conditions for which the Tribune and the News held it 
 responsible, and sought vindication in a damage suit. 
 The right to criticise an administration, and its results, 
 fiscal and otherwise, must exist if liberty is to be main- 
 tained. 
 
 [144] 
 
VALDOSTA (Ga.) Times, Sept. 23, 1921. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune has the record in the matter 
 of libel suits for vast sums brought against it. Henry 
 Ford claimed a million and now the city of Chicago 
 demands ten millions on the ground that its credit has 
 been injured by the Tribune's discussion of the manage- 
 ment of Chicago's finances. If every American news- 
 paper that at one time or another has criticized the 
 management of the finances of its city or town were 
 convicted of libel, practically the whole American press 
 would be threatened with bankruptcy. 
 
 SAVANNAH (Ga.) News, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 When Newspapers Criticize 
 
 Nobody should be surprised by the decision of Judge 
 Fisher in the suit of the city of Chicago against the 
 Tribune of that city for $10,000,000 for printing of alleged 
 false statements regarding Chicago's financial standing 
 to the detriment of the city's credit. Judge Fisher 
 decided in favor of the newspaper on the ground that 
 "this action is not in harmony with the genius, spirit 
 and objects of our institutions." The decision is of 
 much importance throughout the whole country because 
 the suit was the first on record in which a municipality 
 sought to restrict the right to criticize its acts as a cor- 
 poration. 
 
 Newspapers should have a very free hand. If mayors 
 could hamper them by saying what they should print, 
 what they should be permitted to say about municipal 
 corporations, the time would come when the public 
 would be in slavery to a few politicians. Many indeed 
 are the men in brief authority who seek to prevent news- 
 papers from criticising their acts. The Chicago case is 
 one in point. Mayor Hylan of New York actually 
 issued a proclamation aimed at newspapers in that city 
 and suggested to merchants that they should not adver- 
 tise in certain papers. All this is an old story with the 
 newspapers; they see mayors come and mayors go, and 
 they know just about what to expect from them when 
 these men in office for a time, perhaps over-impressed 
 with their own importance, seek to censor or punish 
 newspapers. 
 
 [ 145 ] 
 
The Chicago decision shows the "little kings" where 
 they belong. Let them attend to their business, which 
 is the public's, without playing too much politics, and 
 they won't have to worry about newspaper criticism. 
 A man in office who deserves praise will get it sooner 
 or later; and the man in office who deserves to be adverse- 
 ly criticized will get that, too, however much it may 
 wound his self-love. 
 
 JACKSONVILLE (Fla.) Times Union, Oct. 23, 1921. 
 
 The Press, the Public and Officials 
 
 Everywhere are newspapers as well as public officials, 
 and, of course, people, the public, or there would be no 
 need of either of the former. Because there are people, 
 especially those who desire to be informed as to current 
 events and happenings, in which they are more or less 
 intimately concerned, there are newspapers. To serve 
 the public is the function of these modern purveyors of 
 news and comment thereon, including publicity with ref- 
 erence to the doings, or the failure to do, in the case of 
 public officials, some of whom are known at times to 
 object to being made the subject of newspaper publicity 
 and observation and, if needed, criticism. 
 
 Quite recently the city of Chicago brought suit against 
 two prominent newspapers of that municipality, claim- 
 ing damages for a very large amount in each case. There 
 is reason to believe that the suits were instituted by 
 politicians of that notoriously misgoverned city out of 
 revenge for exposures with reference to official delin- 
 quency. However that may be, the judge of the Cook 
 county circuit court, before whom the first of these cases 
 was brought to trial, threw it out of court, holding, in 
 the course of a very important opinion, that 
 
 The press has become the eyes and ears of the world, and, 
 to a great extent, humanity in contact with all its parts. It 
 is the spokesman of the weak and the appeal of the suffering. 
 It holds up for review the acts of our officials and of those 
 men in high places who have it in their power to advance 
 peace or endanger it. It is the force which unifies public 
 sentiment. But for it the acts of public benefactors would 
 go unnoticed, impostors would continue undismayed and 
 public office would be rich reward of the unscrupulous 
 demagogue. 
 
 [146] 
 
It will be well for public officials everywhere to make 
 themselves familiar with the ruling, as laid down by 
 the Chicago court, and its judicial opinion with reference 
 to the true functions of newspapers and their rights and 
 privileges under the law. It is not necessary to go far 
 from home, wherever may be one's place of residence, 
 to find public officials, particularly those of the "un- 
 scrupulous demagogue" type, referred to by the Cook 
 county jurist, who would be only too glad if the news- 
 papers were not "the eyes and ears of the world," if 
 they did not hear and see and report to the public things 
 that officials would rather should not be made public. 
 And how they would find "rich reward" if the public 
 could be kept from knowledge of what they are doing 
 or are not doing in their administration of public affairs, 
 the people's business! As it is, in too many instances 
 there is sparing of public officials when scathing criticism 
 and severest condemnation is their deserving. And it 
 is only fear of this severer treatment that deters certain 
 officials from "going the limit" in their wrongdoing or 
 the protection of wrongdoers. 
 
 HOT SPRINGS (Ark.) New Era, Sept. 22, 1921. 
 
 The Rights of the Press 
 
 Wey mouth Kirkland, of counsel for The Chicago 
 Tribune, against which a suit for libel in the sum of 
 $10,000,000 has been instituted by the City of Chicago, 
 in an argument in the case yesterday declared that 
 limits to the freedom of the press have for their object 
 protection of the rights of the individual, but not pre- 
 vention of criticism of governments or public officials. 
 
 In that statement is bound up practically all that 
 could be said regarding the freedom of the press, about 
 which so much controversy has been waged ever since 
 newspapers began circulating. No reputable newspaper 
 will seek to delve into the private lives of individuals, 
 to magnify divorce suits and bring innocent children 
 into the limelight because of the sordid lives of their 
 parents and to hold up to public curiosity and gossip 
 the domestic relations of prominent people. Some so- 
 called "yellow" journals do this. The better class of 
 
 [147] 
 
journals hesitate to print this class of matter and use it 
 only when the circumstances are out of the ordinary 
 and the people of such prominence as to justify the 
 stories. 
 
 But with public officials the case is different. Officials 
 represent the will of the people in governmental affairs, 
 and while reputable journals do not deal with the private 
 lives of officials, their public conduct is a matter of vital 
 consideration. Newspapers have been criticized for 
 delving into public conduct of officials, but Cooley's 
 "Constitutional Limitations" says: 
 
 "If newspapers may not publish news with impunity, 
 they may at least discuss with freedom and boldness all 
 matters of public concern, because this is the privilege 
 of everyone. The privilege extends to matters of govern- 
 ment in all its grades and branches; to the perform- 
 ance of official duty by all classes of public officers 
 and agents; to the courts, the prisons, the reformatories, 
 the public charities and the public schools." 
 
 "This is the privilege of the citizen," declared Mr. 
 Kirkland. "Of the press it is far more it is the duty. 
 It is the duty required of the press by the public which 
 hold the press accountable for its alert and faithful 
 performance." 
 
 MONTGOMERY (Ala.) Advertiser, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 Two Political Curiosities 
 
 Mayor William Hale Thompson, of Chicago, has 
 haled the owners of the Chicago Daily News and The 
 Chicago Tribune into court to show cause why they 
 should not pay the city of Chicago $10,000,000 each for 
 " libeling " the community. He charges that their attacks 
 upon his administration have resulted in discrediting 
 Chicago and lowering its financial credit. 
 
 Mayor John F. Hylan, of New York, issues a formal 
 proclamation to "the business men, merchants and shop- 
 keepers" of New York in which he recites certain offenses 
 against the city committed by the anti-Hylan news- 
 papers. He says the "hate-crazed" papers have reck- 
 lessly attacked the police department and done it 
 injustice, and in doing injustice to the police and the city 
 
 [148] 
 
government harm has been done the city. According to 
 Hylan people would think, from reading the papers, that 
 New York suffered frequently from crime waves, when it 
 does nothing of the sort. 
 
 Mayor Hylan regards the situation as rather grave, 
 and he suggests to the business men of New York that 
 they should bring the papers to time by withdrawing 
 their advertising patronage. 
 
 No, it is not a hoax either in the case of New York or 
 Chicago. The two demagogues are in deadly earnest. 
 That is the funny part about it all. 
 
 Think of our two greatest cities having men like these 
 in their highest places of power! 
 
 MOBILE (Ala.) Register, Oct. 17, 1921. 
 
 Judge Rebukes Plaintiff 
 
 Judge Fisher, in his dismissal of the ten million dollar 
 damage suit brought by the city of Chicago against The 
 Chicago Tribune for saying that the city is bankrupt, 
 uttered a profound truth when he declared: "This suit 
 is not in harmony with the genius, spirit or object of our 
 institutions." For a municipality or other political unit 
 successfully to sue one of its constituents for damages 
 would be to win a revenue that is practically confiscation 
 of property. It places a governmental authority in the 
 wrong relationship to the governed. A parent might as 
 well turn on a child or a cow gore her offspring. As the 
 judge said: "It does not belong to our day but rather to 
 the day when monarchs promulgated laws with the pur- 
 pose of carrying out their lustful passion for undisturbed 
 power." The Tribune is used to damage suits of all kinds 
 but this appears to be unique among them all. 
 
 COLUMBIA (N. C.) Journal, Sept. 24, 1921. 
 
 Free Press Attacked 
 
 The suit brought against The Chicago Tribune in the 
 name of the City of Chicago, for $10,000,000 damages 
 for libel, is the most vicious attack upon the freedom 
 of the press that this country has ever seen. Wey mouth 
 Kirkland, one of the defendant paper's attorneys, fittingly 
 
 [149] 
 
characterized it as having the end and motive of securing 
 protection for "entrenched authority from inquiry and 
 criticism." 
 
 An unshackled press has always been considered one 
 of the essential elements of a free country. The founders 
 of this Republic recognized it in the Constitution, and 
 sought to insure its existence by writing into that founda- 
 tion of our liberties a provision that the right of a free 
 press, as the right of free speech and of free public assem- 
 blage, could not be prohibited. 
 
 The suit against the Tribune, if won by the powers 
 who instituted it, would put out of business one of the 
 largest and most influential dailies in America today as 
 effectively as if it were done by the iron-hand authority 
 of some Prussian censor, for the sum asked is the valua- 
 tion of the Tribune publishing company's assets. It 
 would set a precedent, nullifying in practical effect the 
 constitutional guarantee, for every deluded little crook 
 who happened to hold an office of authority would im- 
 mediately seek the same method of protecting himself, 
 however much a criticizing paper might be serving the 
 public. 
 
 The laws of libel are very stringent in the various 
 States. If a newspaper makes an unprovoked, unjusti- 
 fied or malicious attack upon the character of any person 
 that person can and should be able to secure redress in 
 the courts. But it is a different matter when an office 
 holder seeks to put a reputable newspaper out of business 
 for criticizing the acts of his administration, or the effects 
 of those acts. 
 
 Mayors are elected by the people to serve the people. 
 If John Henry Citizen does not like the way he is served 
 by his duly elected public servant, the constitution gives 
 him the right to say so. And, if John Henry Citizen is 
 the owner of a newspaper, the constitution guarantees him 
 the right also to print what he thinks, and his reasons for 
 so thinking. If John Henry does not own a newspaper, 
 and still wants to tell his opinions to the world, he has 
 the right to write them to any newspaper for publication, 
 if it sees fit. 
 
 The suit of the City of Chicago seems to be tainted 
 with the same old monarchical doctrine that Len Small, 
 indicted governor of the State which boasts the Windy 
 
 [150] 
 
City, sought to use to shield himself from arrest for 
 alleged embezzlement "The King Can Do No Wrong.'* 
 The slogan did not save Small from arrest, nor will it 
 serve the officials of Chicago as a weapon for putting the 
 Chicago Tribune out of business. 
 
 RALEIGH (N. C.) News, Oct. 18, 1921. 
 
 Silliness Rebuked 
 
 The silliest attempt to suppress honest criticism of 
 any public officers was when the city government of 
 Chicago started a suit against The Chicago Tribune for 
 ten million dollars on the ground that it was guilty of 
 libel in that it had animadverted upon the city adminis- 
 tration. Nothing could please unworthy and inefficient 
 public officers better than to have the courts muzzle 
 the press. The absurdity of a city recovering money 
 from a newspaper for criticizing bad government was 
 apparent to everybody except to thin-skinned and in- 
 competent officials. Of course the judge threw the case 
 off the docket. 
 
 The best service a journal can render a city like Chicago 
 is to uncover the kind of city government which has 
 afflicted it for some years. If a newspaper is silent when 
 public officials are either corrupt or inefficient, that 
 journal instead of being a public agent of service becomes 
 itself unworthy and advertises its own unfitness. 
 
 [151] 
 
Criticizing Public Officials 
 
 From the London Times. 
 
 On the same day lately two items of news were pub- 
 lished, one from Persia, the other from the United States, 
 but both of interest to the editors of newspapers, and 
 perhaps to their readers. A Persian newspaper had 
 joked about titles conferred upon the victors in a recent 
 battle; whereupon the Minister of War sent for the edi- 
 tor, gave him 200 lashes and put him in prison. The 
 American attempt to deal with an editor was less puni- 
 tively ingenuous, but also less successful. The Mayor 
 of Chicago brought an action for libel against The Chicago 
 Tribune, claiming 2,250,000 damages on the ground that 
 the paper had to that extent impaired the credit of the 
 city by its attacks on the municipal administration; but 
 the action was dismissed. The methods of the Minister 
 and the Mayor were different, but their motives and 
 their aims were the same; both resented criticism, and 
 both tried to suppress it. No doubt the Mayor would 
 have acted like the Minister if the institutions of his 
 country had allowed him to do so; and no doubt 
 Mayor and Minister alike believed that they were 
 acting in the public interest. Officials always have 
 believed, and always will believe, that it is wrong to 
 criticize them; they are experts, and know better than 
 any editor what ought to be done; if they sometimes do 
 evil that good may come, they are to be judged by the 
 good they intend, not by the evil they do, or, rather, they 
 are not to be judged at all, but left free to get on with their 
 job, whatever it may be. Only by long and painful 
 experience have Western nations learned that freedom 
 of criticism, with all its drawbacks, is better than the 
 freedom of officials to do as they please. 
 
 TORONTO (Ontario) Tribune, Oct. 27, 1921. 
 
 Free Press Necessary 
 
 The decision of Judge Harry Fisher that the City of 
 Chicago had no actionable cause against The Chicago 
 Tribune and News in the $10,000,000 damage suits in- 
 stituted by the nefarious Thompson administration posi- 
 
 [152] 
 
lively ami specifically upholds the freedom of I he 
 as a constitutional right. The press is at liberty, t Ill- 
 court held, not only to exercise the equivalent of free 
 speech in printing news and expressing opinion, but to 
 expose wrongdoing in public office and even to attack 
 public servants. 
 
 Modern society could not exist in security, nor repre- 
 sentative government endure, without alert, just, im- 
 partial, vigorous and fearless publicity. And the un- 
 trammeled press, sincere in motive and honest in pur- 
 pose, is the most indispensable of public institutions. 
 The church, the schools, commerce, the people and the 
 government itself depend on the daily newspaper as their 
 most valuable and necessary auxiliary, using it constantly 
 as their own medium to advance the general welfare. 
 
 As the press is public, it must be free. Because it is 
 responsible to the public, its abuse of power need not be 
 feared, for the public would cease to support a newspaper 
 that violated its trust or failed in its duty. Putting the 
 press in chains would be the same as shackling the people. 
 In the finality, it is by its fulfillment of public obligations 
 that a newspaper merits respect and wields influence, 
 and by disregard of public interests or the common weal 
 that it destroys itself. 
 
 Ge Qu'il Faut Savoir 
 
 Liberte de la Presse 
 
 Un joli proces de 2.250.000 livres de dommages et 
 interets a ete intente a la "Chicago Tribune" par la 
 municipalite de Chicago. 
 
 La "Chicago Tribune" avait public* une serie d'articles 
 critiquant les extravagances de Tadministration muni- 
 cipale de Chicago et declarant que ces extravagances 
 avaient amene Tadministration a une veritable ban- 
 queroute. 
 
 Le maire, M. Thompson, qui se fit remarquer pendant 
 la guerre par ses manifestations pro-allemandes, et les 
 autres membres de radministration repondirent en as- 
 signant le journal pour entendre dire que ses articles 
 etaient diffamatoires et pretendant que les articles de la 
 "Chicago Tribune" avaient nui au credit de la ville, ils 
 
 [ 153 ] 
 
reclamaient au nom de cette derniere, 2.250.000 livres 
 sterling, pour repondre du tort cause. 
 
 Le journal opposa a cette demande d'incompetence que 
 le juge admit en declarant que Faction n'etait en har- 
 monie ni avec le genie, ni avec 1'esprit, ni avec le but des 
 institutions americaines. 
 
 Le juge ajouta que si une telle action pouvait etre 
 admise, les autorites publiques auraient a leur portee un 
 moyen trop aise d'intimider la presse et de reduire leurs 
 adversaires au silence. 
 
 La presse, dit-il encore, est de venue "les yeux et les 
 oreilles du public. Elle est le porte-parole des faibles et 
 des souff rants. Elle a le droit de commenter les actes des 
 fonctionnaires et des gens en place. Si ce droit n'existait 
 pas, les bons administrateurs, les bienfaiteurs du pays 
 resteraient inconnus: les imposteurs ne seraient jamais 
 demasques et les fonctions publiques seraient le riche 
 butin des demagogues." 
 
 Conclusion : 
 
 Quel magnifique jugement de bon sens. 
 
 Ceci est un peu semblable a mon cas actuel. 
 
 Pourquoi suis-je devenu publiciste apres la guerre? 
 
 Dans le but seul de critiquer et de combattre un 
 autoritaire incapable qui aurait ete heureux d'abattre 
 tous les petits fonctionnaires et autres. 
 
 II est parti de Boulogne, nous n'en causerons plus. 
 Paix a sa triste memoire. 
 
 Pierre LENNE. 
 
 
 [ 154 ] 
 
DEPT 
 
 Th,< T~ "T"" ONIY TEL. NO. 642-3405 
 
 fit? 
 
 . 
 
 LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
 (J9096slO)476-A-32 
 
 .General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley