News Brief

W. J. Cameron, editor of the “Independent,” was again on the witness stand yesterday, his sixth day of testifying. Gallagher tried again to get Cameron to tell about Ford’s anti-Jewish views. When Ford counsel objected, Gallagher asked that the jury be dismissed from the court while the point was argued. The jury was excused and Gallagher said to Judge Raymond:

“There is no use trying to pull the wool over our eyes by saying there is no Jewish question in this case and that Mr. Ford’s attack was purely an attack upon Sapiro. Sapiro would not have been attacked had it not been for the Ford Jewish question.

“This being a matter of articles regarding the Jewish people or international Jews who dominate the Jewish people, it is directly pertinent to the argument. Did Henry Ford say “Go after Sapiro as an individual,” or did he say, “Pick out some Jews and go after them.” Counsel for Ford seem to pretend that in pursuing our questioning of witnesses we must ask, “Did you talk with Henry Ford about Aaron Sapiro?”

“One of the elements in this case is the individual responsibility of Ford,” he continued. “A beginning must be made somewhere. We will show that this series of articles declared upon was part of a general series dealing with the Jewish people and their actions in this country. This series was initiated by Ford, run by his order. He directed Cameron to enter upon them. We wish to prove the degree of ratification of Cameron’s acts by his superior.”

“For some peculiar reason there seems to be some extraordinary sensitivity on the part of Ford now about his views regarding the Jewish people. It seems to be a taboo topic: ‘Oh, you musn’t discuss the Jewish people!’ ‘Oh, you musn’t discuss the activities of Jews.’

“Why, if the present disposition had ruled Mr. Ford earlier, then there wouldn’t be any law suit. No use to try to pull the wool over our eyes that this is an individual attack on Sapiro. What does the opening article say? Sapiro is not even named. It is the ‘Jewish band’ which is assailed. That is the fundamental issue in this case.

“Sapiro is the most humble of all the conspirators named. They were reported to be Otto H. Kahn, Bernard Baruch, Julius Rosenwald, and so on. Besides these men Sapiro was inconspicuous. There was a libel on every one of those men if there was a libel on Sapiro. Sapiro was only an incident or a cog in the machine.

“Now as regards publications on the Jewish people or on ‘the International Jew,’ it is competent to inquire whether the defendant said. ‘Go after the Jews!’ it is competent to inquire into the initiation of these attacks by Ford. It is only when responsibility is fixed on Ford that injury comes back to his hand.

“If Ford told this man, ‘Go after the Jews, send your investigators over to Europe, go through the libraries, get all you can, then publish it and I’ll stand behind you!’ that fact is pertinent here.

“Ford has libeled through his paper man after man,” Gallagher went on, “and when, after two years, he sensed an atmosphere of prejudice had been created, he said to Cameron: ‘Lay off a while.’ Certainly there is no more harm in asking this witness if Ford directed articles against the Jews than to ask on what Jew, and so on.”

Ford counsel commented sarcastically on Gallagher’s impassioned plea to allow the court to hear testimony on Ford’s views on the Jewish race and reiterated that “the entire Jewish race is not on trial here-it is simply Aaron Sapiro with whom we must concern ourselves.”

Judge Raymond ruled that Ford’s views could not be brought into court at this time, but his wording indicated that these views might be brought in at a later time, when Ford himself was on the witness stand.

During the questioning of Cameron, the names of Louis Marshall and Paul M. Warburg, New York banker, were mentioned by Gallagher, but Cameron denied all knowledge of connection with these prominent men.

“Did you discuss any publications at all with Mr. Ford?” Gallagher persisted.

“I had no discussion with Mr. Ford pertaining to any publications about any Jews,” Cameron said.

Soon Gallagher, having asked about the name of Warburg in the reprint, asked:

“Mr. Cameron, will you see if other persons weren’t named?”

“At this moment,” said Cameron. “I don’t recall.”

“Can’t you refresh your memory?”

“Yes, here’s the name of Louis Marshall.”

“Your Honor,” interjected Hanley of Ford’s counsel, “there’s no evidence Mr. Marshall is a Jew.”

“Did you ever discuss with Ford an article naming Bernard Baruch or Louis Marshall?”

“No,” said Cameron. “Ever discuss an article mentioning Otto H. Kahn?” “No.” “Or Goldman, Sach & Co.?” “No.” “Did you discuss any article naming Paul M. Warburg?”

“If so, it was in connection with the Federal Reserve System.”

On the next question: “When did you first discuss with Ford any article naming an individual Jew?” Hanley’s objection was sustained and the court adjourned for the day with the odds going to Sapiro’s side.

Judge Raymond accepted tentatively sixteen of the amendments containing various numbers of the alleged libels, He struck out the seventeenth, which was as follows:

“Whereas, at the time of the publication hereinafter complained of the term Jew and its derivatives as used in the publications hereinafter complained of, had become, to the persons to whom the libels hereinafter set forth were published, a term of scorn, contempt, reproach, ridicule, hate, approbrium and contumely, particularly when used with reference to and when applied to an alleged ring, body, organization and government of Jews which was alleged not to yield allegiance to the respective governments under which its members lived, but planned and conspired to and did dominate and control said governments, the people under such governments, the culture and businesses of said peoples, and the natural resources of their countries, in the interests of said alleged body, organization and government of Jews, and against the interest and expense of the peoples.”