A Newspaper Editor's Silence in Court: The Lugrin Libel Trial

NO EVIDENCE PUT IN. Lugrin Offers Nothing in His Own Defense. THE DAY SPENT IN ARGUMENT. Instead of the sensational disclosures hoped for, the case went to the jury on legal argument. The Lugrin libel case developed a surprise at 9 o'clock yesterday morning when the superior court was informed by Attorney Will H. Thompson for the defense that the defense had no testimony to offer. It was a complete surprise to everybody. It had been whispered around that Attorney Thompson, John Considine, Eugene Ware and a number of others had been summoned as witnesses and that sensational disclosures were to be made. The audience came prepared to stay and hear the testimony, and one sociable fellow on the back seat had taken off his shoes so that his feet should be comfortable while he was being regaled with the rich, rare and racy testimony that he fondly hoped was forthcoming. Instead of treating the crowd to such illuminations, the day's proceedings consisted of legal argument and constant marching and counter-marching on the part of the jury. The defense desired to argue law points so that the jury might hear them, but the court and the state attorneys were opposed to this and the jury was ordered out of the court room on each occasion. The jury left at 9:10 a.m. and returned at 2:30 p.m. It marched out again at 3:30 and at 5:30 took a recess of five minutes, marched out of the court room, but the jurymen again filed out like soldiers and will return at 9 o'clock this morning. The legal points have all been argued, the closing arguments have been made and the case will go to the jury shortly after 9 o'clock Friday morning, when Judge Glasgow has charged the jury. One matter that has been overlooked in the case is that counsel for the defense admitted by stipulation that, if John Collins had been in the city, he would have testified that C. H. Lugrin was managing editor at the time of the publication of the alleged libelous article on June 22. At the opening of court Attorney Will H. Thompson arose, looking as fresh as a lark. He wore a scarlet boutonniere, and with his long Prince Albert coat and gracious air, looked dignified as a deacon. Holding his gold-rimmed eyeglasses daintily in his right hand between his thumb and forefinger, he said: "We rest, if your honor please." "The defense rests?" said Judge Glasgow, with a rising inflection, and in tones which betrayed the fact that he was surprised. "Yes, your honor, we rest." This announcement caused the sociable gentleman in the back seat to begin putting on his shoes and to otherwise make himself ready to leave the court room with several others who were not handicapped by the necessity of putting on their footgear. Attorney Allen then arose, and, with a pleased look on his face, said that he had prepared some instructions to the jury, which he would submit to the court. To this Mr. Thompson objected, as he alleged that the municipal court was one of special jurisdiction, having the same powers as the justice courts. If, however, the court decided to instruct, he would insist that the rules of the superior court be observed and that the instructions be presented before the argument. Judge Glasgow did not share Mr. Thompson's view, and held that he had the same powers as the superior court so far as the case before him was concerned, and that he would instruct the jury after the arguments were heard. In order that the jurymen's minds might not be muddled by the many authorities to be quoted, they were excused until 2:30 in the afternoon. The interim between 9:10 and 2:30, with the exception of the lunch hour, was consumed by Messrs. Thompson and Allen. The former, in behalf of the defense, contended that the fact that Mr. Lugrin had charge of the Seattle Telegraph, and that he was the managing editor of the paper and in that capacity had charge of its publication was not sufficient to go to the jury on. He held that the state had failed to establish a case against Lugrin and that therefore the court should instruct the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal. The attorneys for the state contended that a case had been established and that the only question to be considered was as to whether Lugrin was the party responsible for the publication of the alleged libelous article. All that was essential had been proven and therefore the court should instruct the jury in accordance with these views. Numerous authorities were quoted and much of the legal straw of Wednesday was threshed. At 2:30 o'clock the jurymen returned and after they were seated Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Bass began the opening argument for the state. Mr. Bass read the information, which contained a copy of the alleged libel and the interpretation of the phrases used therein. These were to the effect that Rogers while chief of police had received bribes from gamblers and other unlawful characters, in return for which he protected them from the rigors of the law. Then Mr. Bass defined the law of libel and what was necessary to procure a conviction. In order to prove this particular case it was necessary to prove that the article was published in King county, that it was libelous and that it caused the party to lose public confidence and esteem and to be exposed to contumely. Mr. Bass strongly contended that all this had been proven, as the article was libelous per se, it held Chief Rogers up to hatred and contempt. He held that Lugrin had been for a long time manager of the Seattle Telegraph and had control of the paper, and was therefore responsible for its utterance. He thought it a peculiar feature of the case that none of the employees who testified knew who the managing editor was, and stated that it was a go-as-you-please paper, wherein the different departments did as they pleased, and he compared it to a ship drifting about the country without a pilot. He also mentioned that the fact that he caused to be published other libelous articles both before and after June 22 should be taken into consideration. Mr. Bass proceeded to read these articles, and quoted from an article published on ... which demonstrated to the ... that Rogers was unfit to be chief of police, and they have had sixty days to prepare to put in their case in court, and yet they have failed. Why did they not put in their testimony yesterday and today? No, on the contrary they hid behind technicalities. Mr. Bass held that if the jury believed that Mr. Lugrin published, or caused to be published, or assisted in publishing or circulating the libel, it was the duty of the jury to find him guilty. At the conclusion of Mr. Bass's speech, Mr. Thompson said he desired to call the court's attention to three or four instructions which he desired should be given to the jury. Mr. Allen objected to Mr. Thompson reading these authorities. "I will not read my authorities till Mr. Allen has read his." "How long will it take?" asked the court. "About one hour," answered Mr. Thompson. The court excused the jury for an hour, and the learned gentlemen argued and quoted volume after volume on the points at issue, much of which was not intelligible to those who are not doctors of law. When the jury reassembled Mr. Thompson began his argument for the defense. It was a very able argument, and in it he held, as he has all through the trial, that the guilt of Lugrin must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and claimed that the state had failed in this particular. The evidence in the case against Lugrin was entirely circumstantial. There was no direct evidence whatever that Mr. Lugrin had written or composed the alleged libelous article. He reviewed the testimony, which, he said, proved that several other editors wrote some of the articles put in evidence. He scored the attorneys for the state for casting aspersions on the testimony of those summoned from the Telegraph office simply because they had not proved their case. There was no evidence that Lugrin ever wrote anything for the paper, except that by Costello, who swore that he saw him writing at a table one day, but he did not know what he was writing about. "Yet," he exclaimed, "the state would make you believe that Lugrin has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." He held that the guilt must be fixed on the man who wrote the article before a conviction could be secured. He held that neither the defense nor the state wanted to show Bolton Rogers up. He held that it was unworthy for Rogers to appeal to the criminal law for redress. He should have appealed to the civil law. By the former method the state pays all the bills whether Lugrin is convicted or not. The state put Rogers on the stand, but the attorneys for the prosecution did not ask him if he was guilty of the things charged by the Telegraph. If they had done this it would have compelled the defense to go into this question. Mr. Allen then made the closing argument for the defense. He complimented Mr. Thompson on the skill with which he had conjured up technicalities. The defense was remarkable for the manner in which it had conjured up technicalities and for the way in which it had sought to hoodwink the court as to the law in the case. It was a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the law, as Mr. Lugrin had, as it involved injury to character and property. He held that the same mercy should be shown to the defendant when he libeled Rogers as he had shown to Rogers. Counsel for the defense had the hardihood to say that it was cowardly to seek satisfaction in the criminal courts for the alleged libel. If he had sought satisfaction in the civil courts the learned counsel would have said that it was mercenary to seek golden salve for his hurts; that he should have sought his satisfaction in the criminal court. It was a case of a man being damned if he did and damned if he didn't. He held that the mission of a newspaper was to publish the news and comment on the current events of the day, but it was not privileged to blacken private character. The law says to the newspapers: "You may exist and you may publish the truth. If you publish libels, however, you must come into court and prove that they are true or you will be punished for it." Mr. Thompson had the audacity to say that had Rogers been questioned as to the alleged libel he would have said it was not true. The counsel said that the defense, instead of trying to prove its case, pleaded the baby act. They say to Rogers: "Your reputation and character are destroyed, but you have got to come into court and prove me guilty before I can be punished." Mr. Allen continued: "I say this is a hideous doctrine, and hold that the defendant must prove that he is innocent in this case." Mr. Allen then stated that the defense had acknowledged that it had never intended to try to prove the libel, and that it had been agreed by Mr. Lugrin and his attorneys some time since that the defense was to be a purely technical one. He held that all the evidence went to show that Lugrin was not only the editor, but the managing editor. Collins and Costello and others admit this. It was published on the editorial page that he was the managing editor. If Lugrin had libeled one of the jury Mr. Allen opined that he would have been called to account for it. Mr. Allen went on to say: "If Lugrin is not responsible, why did he not go on the stand and say so. He is the best person in the world to do that. I do not think he should hide himself behind technicalities. I hold him to be equally guilty if he wrote the article, published it or caused it to be circulated. If such a libel had been published against me, by the great God, the man who wrote it would go hence or I would go myself. Mr. Thompson says the law protects everyone, and yet, according to his idea, Rogers has no protection against the vile attacks made by this man. "In conclusion, I will leave Mr. Lugrin in your hands to accord him such justice as you deem best. I also leave in your hands Mr. Rogers' reputation and the general good of the community. It has been held by the defense that we have not shown that the Telegraph is published in Seattle. Here are the papers offered in evidence. Each of them is dated Seattle in a number of places, and I think this is enough proof that the paper is published in this city." At the conclusion of Mr. Allen's address the question of the charge to the jury came up. The defense asked for a written charge, and after a short discussion it was decided to let the matter go over till this morning at 9 o'clock, when the jury will be charged and the case given to them.