Alabama Justice

Since March 29, 1960, the New York Times has been in deep trouble in the Deep South. On that date the Times carried a full-page advertisement appealing for funds to help defend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Southern Negro leader, against a charge of falsifying his state income tax returns. Signed by four Alabama Negro ministers, the ad accused "Southern violators of the Constitution" with bombing King's home, assaulting his person and harassing him in an effort "to remove him physically as the leader to whom the students and millions of others look for guidance and support." Although none had been named in the ad, four Alabama officials took personal offense, sued the Times and the four ministers for $2,500,000. By last week it was clear that in the State of Alabama justice can be a chilling matter.

Montgomery circuit court juries have already handed two city officials--Police Commissioner L. (for Lester) B. Sullivan and Mayor Earl D. James--all they asked for: $500,000 each. Remaining to be tried, on identical evidence, are the suits of Montgomery Public Works Commissioner Frank Parks (asking $500,000) and Alabama Governor John M. Patterson ($1,000,000). Belatedly deciding that the ad had injured him too, former Montgomery Police Commissioner Clyde C. Sellers last week brought additional suit for $500,000.

After the first adverse judgment was rendered against both the Times and the clergymen, the Times set the necessary legal machinery for a new trial in motion. But when attorneys for the four ministers did not appear at the scheduled hearing last January, Judge Walter B. Jones ruled that the clergymen had lost their right to a new trial.

As .a result of Judge Jones's ruling, the ministers were liable for immediate collection of the first $500,000 judgment. The Rev. Ralph Abernathy's one-twelfth interest in a 307-acre Marengo County tract was sold for $4,350. Abernathy's five-year-old Buick sedan was auctioned off for $400, and the cars of two other ministers were attached. All told, the first efforts at collection raised some $6,000. With the judgment effective for at least 10 years, the ministers face two choices: 1) they can sue for recovery from the New York Times on the basis of their contention that their names appeared in the ad without their knowledge and approval, or 2) submit to the judgment--and let the plaintiffs go on collecting.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.