Evening Republican, Volume 22, Number 192, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 August 1919 — FORD IS NOT AN ‘ANARCHIST' [ARTICLE]

FORD IS NOT AN ‘ANARCHIST'

TRIBUNE ARTICLE DAMAGEP HIS REPUTATION SIX. CENTS. Mount Clemens, Mich.,' Aug. 14. A jury tonight awarded Henry Ford six cents damages against the Chicago Tribune for calling him an anarchist. Orvy Hulett, foreman of the jury, said that they took “nine ballots that I can remember,” the first one, according to Leonard Measel, another juror, standing eight to four in favor of awarding Mr. Ford some damages. “Does the award of six cents about express the feelings of the jury as to the case?” a reporter asked Mr. Huiett. “It just about does. That expresses „our judgment,” Attorney Alfred J. Murphy for Mr. Ford, said;

“The important issue in this case has been determined favorably to the plaintiff. He has been vindiicated- Money damages were entirely subordinate and were not sought by Mr. Ford. He stands net only vindicated but 'his attitude as an American citizen has been justified after a trial which raised every issue*' against him which ingenuity and research could present. His friends are entirely satisfied.” Weymouth, of counsel for the Tribune, said : “We consider it a victory for the reason that Attorney Alfred Lucking, in closing for Mr. Ford, stated that anything less than substantial damages would be a defeat for his client.” The close of the great suit, which began three months ago, came when the lawyers and spectators had about made up their minds that they were in for a night of waiting and watching, with a mistrial as the probable outcome. The jury had been out ten hours when a resounding knock was heard on the 'high old-fashioned door of the jury roonv Same of the (lawyers had not yet returned from dinner nor had Judge Tucker put in an appearance. Bailiff Kelly went to the door and then hurried to Walter Steffens, the court clerk, and whispered: “They’re ready to report.” Mr. Seffens got Judge Tucker and the absent lawyers on the telephone and in ten minutes all was Teady. Mr. Hulett was plainly laboring under suppressed emotion as he rose

and faced the court I “Have you reached a verdict, gen- ! tlemen?” asked Judge Tucker. “We have,” replied the foreman. > “You may deliver it” , Mr. Hulett first gave the directed 1 verdict of no case Against the Solomon News company, which distributed copies of the Tribune of June 23, 1916, containing the aflleged libel. _ j The award against the 1 nbune was then given and the clerk recorded the following as the ver“You do say upon your oath that the said defendants, the Tribune company, is guilty in manner anc form as the said plaintiff hath m has declaration in this cause complained and you ‘assess the damages of the said plaintiff on occasion of the.premises, over and a'bove hit costs ami charges toy him about his suit in this toehalf expended, at the sum of six cents damages and you find that the defendant Solomon News company is not guilty as directed toy the court” The jury acknowledged the ver-

diet ‘as correct and hurried from the court room. None would discuss their deliberations in detail. One juror stated that for six hours the ballots stood 8 to 4 to give the plaintiff an award. Then two of the four joined the majority. The remaining two held out until nearly 8 o’clock, when they surrendered and the knock sounded on the door. 'Mr. Ford was not in ecrui*. The Tribune was represented 'by Cant. Joseph Medill Patterson, one of the publishers.