Aaron Sapiro’s declaration in his $1,000,000 libel suit against Henry Ford was pronounced by Judge Raymond to be in need of amendment.
The Judge suggested to William Henry Gallagher, chief of counsel for Sapiro, to make amendments in the formal declaration, which contained 21 counts and 141 instances of alleged libel in a series of articles in Ford’s “Dearborn Independent.”
Judge Raymond called attention specifically to a paragraph in the complaint which said: “Cattlemen of the West last year reorganized their association partially on the Sapiro plan, with Jewish agents hovering around the new project, seeking to get control of it. The Sapiro plan will get ’em if they don’t watch out.”
Mr. Gallagher, although protesting the complaint was as complete as necessary, said he would amend the declaration, probably tomorrow morning.
Mr. Gallagher placed in the record excerpts from a number of articles from the “Independent” which he said would show that the defendants accused the plaintiff of being a member of a Jewish conspiracy.
William J. Cameron, editor of Ford’s mouthpiece, was on the stand, but was not permitted to answer many questions. He proclaimed that he is a free, unshackled editor, free of “business office” influence, and personally responsible for the contents of the paper.
Before Judge Raymond’s ruling on the question of the Jewish issue there were persistent rumors that Senator Reed would withdraw from the case if racial prejudice became the point of issue. This rumor was born of the fact that Senator Reed delivered on several occasions, particularly at a settlement house meeting in New York in 1915, addresses which were literally eulogies of the Jewish race.
The questioning of William J. Cameron was resumed on the subject of his conversations and communications with H. H. Dunn, author of the articles on which Mr. Sapiro’s suit is founded.
In reply to a question of Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Cameron declared that “You’re the editor; be sure you are right,” became a formula for Mr. Ford’s remarks to him, when he sought to go into matters of the editorial policy of the publication, of which, as president, Mr. Ford is the head.
Even after the “Independent” received a demand for retraction after it had printed articles naming Sapiro in connection with an alleged “international band of Jews seeking to dominate American agriculture,” Cameron said that Mr. Ford’s formula still was applied.
“Did he ask how far you had gone?” asked Mr. Gallagher.
“I never discussed details with Mr. Ford,” was the reply. “When I am running a paper I don’t wish to accept any one else’s judgment on a matter like this.”
He admitted that his last conversation with the motor manufacturer was “within recent months,” but no detail of that meeting got into the record.
When Mr. Gallagher demanded the original manuscript of the Dunn articles, half the defense counsel leaped to their feet. Burly C. V. Longley, chief counsel to the Ford Motor Company, shouted that he “didn’t know whether we will or not.”
“Is the manuscript in existence?” Gallagher demanded of Cameron.
“I believe it is.”
“Well, bring it in then.”
Senator Reed rose and said pacifically, as Gallagher and Longley were glaring at each other: “We’ll get it here if we have it.”
Mr. Gallagher read extracts from the libelous articles into the record–a recital filled with “Jewish grip,” “Jew-directed holding companies,” “Payments to Jewry,” “Jewish submarine,” and other such phrases.
He asked the editor if he hadn’t published the attacks on the “Jewish ring” and Sapiro with information “diametrically in contradition” in his office, but on objection, the Court shut off an answer.
In the course of the citations presented by Gallagher, when he read the names of other Jews mentioned by the “Independent” along with Sapiro as co-plotters, Judge Hanley of the defense ceaselessly objected. Judge Raymond allowed Gallagher to go ahead in most cases. Finally, on Hanley’s continued objections, the Judge said that “something will have to be done to clarify this case, for it is so complex and confusing now that it would not be fair to give it to a jury.”
Mr. Gallagher retorted that he would “claim every possible advantage for every example offered.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
