OCR Interpretation

The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, September 23, 1914, LAST EDITION, Image 2

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1914-09-23/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

De done to transact its business with
out annoyance."
Curts said: "There is no power in
any court to place over a speaker or
paper a bushel which will prevent the
discussion of questions. There is
neither a statute, nor a congressional
action to prevent sueh. conduct.
"That would be a censorship such
as of which we have never had. In
the comparison with such a censor
ship, that of Russia or of the wars
would be mild. That cannot be the
Toledo, Ohio, Sept. 23. The cita
tion of The Toledo News-Bee and
its editor, Negley D Cochran, by Fed
eral Judge J. M. Killets for contempt
of court is expected to result in a
historic fight for free speech and a
free press.
It is the result of the long fight be
tween the people of Toledo and the
Toledo Railways & Light Co. for pos
session of the streets of Toledo,
which began under Mayor Samuel M.
Jones in 1903. The present contempt
proceedings grew out of the publica
tion of news reports and editorials
in The News-Bee both before and
after Federal Judge Killets declared
a three-cent fare ordinance passed
unanimously by the city council in
valid. Judge Killets cited Harry J. How
ard, managing editor pf The News
Bee, for contempt of court, and also
John Quinliven, business agent of the
Central Labor Union. Quinliven was
cited for a speech he made criticiz
ing Judge Killets and his decision.
Howard was charged with contempt
for printing extracts from Quinliven's
speech, and also for editorial com
ment. Managing Editor Howard appeared
in court and had action continued to
give his lawyers time to examine the
charges. The following day Editor
Cochran was cited forthwith after an
editorial appeared on the first page
of The News-Bee in which he took
the position that the paper did not J
want to censor judicial decisions and
would not pertnit judicial censorship
of the paper's editorial policy.
In an editorial published last March
the statement was made that Judge
Killets was no more than a two
legged man even if he was a judge,
and this editorial was complained of
by Killets in his charges against How
ard. In the Cochran editorial the
statement was repeated.
The day after Cochran was cited
Killets amended his charges and add
ed new ones, complaining that from
1903 up to date The News-Bee had
fought the street railway company
and opposd granting it a franchise,
and that it elected the administration
in 1905, 1907, 1909 and 1911, and in
1913 made the fight so strong that all
parties had to pledge themselves to a
three-cent fare.
This long fight against the com
pany, the judge charged had made it
embarrassing for a judge to adminis
ter justice to the street railway com
pany. Finally Killets announced that he
would dismiss the charges against
.,vfairnflW HHlMrfl.JA-
)mmi riM

xml | txt