Through a case study of Minnesota daily newspaper editorials, this paper examines the extent to which one state's newspapers championed the freedoms of speech and press during the national crisis of World War I. The historical relationship of the press and First Amendment defense is briefly reviewed. Guided by the question "How did the Minnesota daily press react to wartime suppression?" analyses of editorials from a sample of dailies during three months in 1918, four months in 1912, and three months in 1920 provide material for interpretation. Minnesota's population and repression record are profiled and the climate of the war era is discussed. Five hypotheses and their underlying rationales generated by five general questions about support and suppression of freedom of speech asked in the research are presented and explored. Findings indicating a lack of First Amendment defense are elaborated in five points, further supported in tables and figures, while a list ranks newspapers according to support for suppression. It is concluded that (1) editorials in the nineteen dailies studied failed to uphold the speech and press rights not only of unpopular minorities but also of commercial newspapers, and (2) further research beyond the exploratory stage could both intensify and extend this study. Sixty-one footnotes and a six-page reference list are appended. (JK)