Minnesota Rag ePub download

It was the least likely of cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. The defendant Jay Near did not have the money nor the inclination to appeal his case all the way to the Supreme Court. What he wanted was to have a gag order lifted so he could resume publication of his newspaper, a scurrilous rag known as the Saturday Press. Only events played out far differently than he or anyone could have imagined. The ACLU took an interest, and the publisher of the Chicago Tribune paid for the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case but the chances of a favorable ruling did not look promising until two conservative justices died within days of each other. As fate would have it, conservative president Herbert Hoover appointed two moderates to the bench, one of whom would write the Court’s opinion. In 1931, Near v. Minnesota was decided 5 to 4 in Near’s favor—a decision that bears directly on freedom of the press today. Journalist Fred W. Friendly does a bang up job in recounting Near’s incredible story from muckraking journalist to First Amendment hero, in a whirlwind 179 pages.

The Twin Cities of 1920s Minnesota was, according to Ed Ryan, a cop on the beat at the time, a “wide open town with gambling joints, slot machines, houses of prostitution . . . You name it we had it . . . When you see slot machines and gambling all over the place, there has to be a pay-off (to public officials).” The respectable newspapers, with a number of reporters on the take, turned a blind eye on the corruption. Not publisher Howard A. Guilford. He practiced a brand of journalism that, as the author put it, “tattered on the edge of legality and often toppled over the limits of propriety.” Enter Jay M. Near, who joined his crusade as co-publisher. He ratcheted it up a notch—several notches, actually—by indulging his anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-labor prejudices in his seamy accounts of wide-spread city corruption. Despite this, much that the two men published was true or at least more true than false.

Rather than go after the paper for libel, the state’s attorney general got a restraining order to stop publication. Backed by a newly-enacted Public Nuisance Law—popularly known as the “Minnesota gag law”—the judge ordered the Saturday Review to cease publication. Guilford and Near appealed their case up through the Minnesota appeals court system—losing each round—until reaching the Supreme Court. By then, Guilford had dropped out, disappointed and exhausted from the process, and the ACLU, and Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune, had taken up their cause. Though disgusted with much of the content of the Saturday Press, the ACLU focused their attention on the Public Nuisance Law, citing is as “a menace to the freedom of the country,” and singled out a phrase that would become central to the High Court’s decision: “prior restraint.” What drew McCormick’s interest was his zeal for freedom of the press.

Had Near’s appeal reached the Supreme Court one year earlier, it’s likely he would have lost, due to the conservative majority then presiding. But with the sudden deaths Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Associate Justice Edward T. Sanford, the Court adopted a more moderate view with the appointments of Owen T. Roberts and, as the new chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes appointed himself to write the Court’s majority opinion.

Hughes scolded the plaintiffs—“whose character and conduct remain open to debate and free discussion in the press”—for not seeking legal remedies for false accusations “in actions under libel laws for redress and punishment, and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of papers and periodicals.” Further on he wrote: “The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.” “Judgement reversed,” he concluded.

The term “previous restraint” would morph into “prior restraint” and become central to a series of landmark decisions, particularly New York Times Co. v. U.S., better known as the Pentagon Papers decision.

Final note: Near v. Minnesota was a significant change in the Court’s direction, away from conservative judicial activism that had undermined the working class, the civil rights of minorities, and free speech, toward a more liberal era of judicial restraint, signaled by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), “The switch in time that saved nine,” where, for the first time the Court upheld a state minimum wage law.

Minnesota Rag, by Fred W. Friendly

Fred W. Friendly spent his life in journalism as a reporter, editor, teacher, and author. He worked with Edward R. Murrow on many distinguished news programs. This is the story about the Duluth `Rip-saw' and other muckraking journals that told about the connection of Duluth officials to the local underworld (p.4). Local newspapers were more interested with advertising than local corruption. Duluth was very important for its iron ore from the Mesabi Range (p.5). Chapter 1 describes the area and the times. Duluth was a company town owned by the steel and railroad companies. The wealthy lived in Victorian mansions. The articles in `Rip-saw' were popular (p.8). Prohibition meant liquor operators needed police protection and payoffs to politicians (p.9). Did `Rip-saw' sell advertising to eliminate unfavorable news items (p.12)? [Don't most newspapers today do this?] One of the important families, Pierce Butler, was appointed to the US Supreme Court (p.12).

In October 1924 Morrison's paper claimed that a candidate for office suffered from a venereal disease, allowed "blind pigs" and slot machines (p.17). Publisher John L. Morrison admitted the information was "malicious and false" (p.20). Politicians and the major newspaper association cooperated to pass a "gag law" (p.21). [To prevent competition?] A single judge could stop publication forever (p.22)! Its passage was not mentioned in the newspapers. In April 1926 articles led to an injunction (p.24). Morrison left the state for health reasons, and died from a brain clot. The `Rip-saw' ceased publication (p.27). Chapter 3 tells about the hundreds of weekly scandal sheets published in the 1920s. Minneapolis was a crossroads for Canadian whiskey. Corruption provided stories omitted from respectable newspapers, such as the sexual adventures of the upper crust (p.32).

When Guilford tried to expose the links between the police and gambling some gangsters tried to kill him. Chapter 4 starts by telling how an industry association used gangsters for price fixing. The police chief banned the `Saturday Press' in Minneapolis as obscene (p.44). County Attorney Floyd Olson asked for a permanent ban (p.51). Prominent attorney Thomas Latimer claimed the law was in violation of the state constitution. "There is no constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is true" (p.62)! The ACLU defended Near over this "prior restraint" (p.63). Minnesota newspapers supported the Public Nuisance Law (p.64). `Chicago Tribune' publisher Robert McCormick supported the appeal to the US Supreme Court (p.90).

Chapter 8 describes the politics and personalities of the US Supreme Court. Chapter 9 tells of the arguments in court. Chapter 10 discusses the vote to declare prior restraint unconstitutional and overturn the Minnesota law. A state legislature cannot alter a right in the US Constitution. Chief Justice Hughes read the decision (Chapter 11). Chapter 12 tells of the aftermath. Do people believe whatever is printed is true (p.157)? [Or what is said on talk radio?] McCormick said the weekly was suppressed for its true stories of official perfidy (p.160). Gangster tactics were used against another weekly (p.163). In 1934 Guilford ran for mayor of Minneapolis but gangsters shot him dead in the street (p.165). In 1935 Near died of "natural causes". Another muckraker was murdered in 1935 (p.166). So too Kasherman in 1945. The `Epilogue' tracks this precedent as it survived attacks from Presidents, legislatures, and the judiciary (p.173). Newspapers could report official actions without the fear of legal actions unless it involved "malice". The "Pentagon Papers" case was a beneficiary of the Near v. Minnesota decision.
The last pages have the `Acknowledgments', `Select Bibliography', `Source Notes', the Supreme Court decision, and the `Index'.