The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-07-17
THE CASE OF MR. DANA.

he CASE VI MI. DANA
The Inform alton Of Criminal Libel
Against Iyim-Thc Matter Before Judge
Observation-Disclosures Argument
Davenport .sDOne"-DaRa TriU pha Mt.
1t viii be remembered that about tie middle OF
last month Mr.. Charles A. Dana, OF the New York
Sun was arrested In this city on q charge OF hav.
ing published in that paper libel seriously re-
Meeting upon Alexander ID. Sheppard, OF Washing
sOn, and Henry NJ. Cooke, Governor OF the District
Oi Columbia. II was stated In the alleged libel
that Sheppard and Cooke had acted corruptly in
counexion with the Metropolitan Paving Board of
Washington and tnat they had sworn
yalsely before an Investigating committee
Of the House OF Representatives I'M
mcdately after the publication Of tho mat.
ter in question an information was sworn
in the Police Court at Washington against Mr..
Dana charging him with criminal libel upon the
individuals named. This informal lion was brought
on from Washington to this city. and upon this pa
per o warrant was issued by Commissioner Dayen.
port for the arrest OF Mr.. Dana whose removal to
Washington for trial there before the Police Court
without Jury was the object OF these proceedings.
At the preliminary inquiry before tho Commissioner
one OF Mr.. Dana's counsel, Mr.. W. o. Bartlett, In
strong terms denounced the action o: the Commits
eioner in issuing the warrant as wholly unconsttu-
Gon3l ami illegal and contended that this Police
Court at Washington had no power or authority
whatever to try the offence. Finally. after much
discussion, IL was agreed that tho case should
come up before Judge Blatchfoyd, In the United
States District Court for his decision, and yester
DAY the argument was entered upon
Ex-Judge William D. shipman aud Mr.. W. o.
Bartlett appea,ed Us counsel Tor Mr.. DANA who
was i'll court with several friends
MIR. Bliss, United States District Attorney, and
Judge Fisher, OF Washington, and Mr.. Harrington.
Iulrbla, appeared for the prosecution.
During the hearing the courtroom was crowded,
aud among those present was an artist from one
Of the Illustrated papers, taking Sketches
ARGUMENT OF EB. BI.isS.
Mr.. Bliss, United states District Attorney, said.
according to the assignment Of the Court, ne now
had to move for warrant OF removal OF Charles
a Daq He would conne e q .Iian 10 tS Se
papers. In this case one L. D. Williams
came before Commissioner Davenport and made
complaint was an information alleging the
Rbel a1d that the libel was published IN the Dis
trct OF Columbia. The defendant had an examina-
ton and was then committed to the custody Of The
marshal He INF. Bliss applied to the Court under
the thrtytrd section OF the act o. 11S3!or order
pfremoval Of Mi. Dana to the District OF Columbia
II was contended on the examination before the
Commissioner that the ruce Court In Washington
had no jurisdiction over the alleged offence but
nc contended that II had. lie read statute giving
SO the Police Cour, original Jurisdiction IL the DIS
t1ct OF Columbia OF al orences not punishable
with death or punishable with imprisonment in tho
fenitentiary Congress mad, b! statute, exclusive
jurisdiction over offences committed In the Dis
Srct Of Columbia. Ey the act or 1881 1t
provided that all misdemcanols, except certain
Hhed as heretofore. IL was held IN the case OF the
United states VS.. Kendall that the law included the
District OF Columbia, and that IL had the ordinary
common law jurisdiction. He submitted that libel
was an offence against the common law. 1t was
held that this law extended to crimes, conspira-
ries &c. The Maryland reports showed that libel
was an offence Cognizable by she Courts at COM
mon law. Libel is Included In the misdemeanors
Of which this Police Court had jurisdiction. The
defendant had been committed on sworn COM
plant oy an ofseI Of the government before
ana he (Mr. Bliss therefore believed there Was
nothing left now for tue Court but to send Mr.
~ trial MIR. Bliss cited cases in support
81 his position. stating that the only thing
mitted the offence imputed TO him In 1858 the
Ease Of Beverly Clark came before Judge Benedict,
IN tlis district. This was case on Indictment.
Clark had been arrested a warrant issued by
commissioner Osborn for an offence committed In
10 Michigan for trial. On the case going before
sudee Benedict II was commended that the prisoner
Eould not be remanded, because the indictment
MD not allege al offence; but the Judge held that
II set up that he coDspired &c. and remanced the
81 the present case we're not before the Court put
he held that as the Police Court In the District
tion against Mr.. Dana was sworn, was a
Court OF competent Jurisdiction The Court had
nothing left but to remand him there for trial
There wac nothing oat OF the ordinary course Ia
dong this. 11ere was nothing IN this case except
the loose and Uoundiees charges OF the press OF
pnicaI positions whose views DO not happen TO
Agtec WITH those Of particular journals
ARGUMENT OF Nh BARTLErr.
M. Bartlett, for the defendant, said this was an
application to the Judge FOR the performance OF one
Of The grayesi duties he was ever called upon TO
perform he called upon TO decide that u citi-
ZEN OF the State OF Few YORK shoui be sent TO
dungeon IN Washington nd have his liberty jeop-
aruized by the acton OF a Police Court The
citizen with regard to whom this demand
fineniahcd Of Amcrcans--dst,nguis by
his leaning his talents and tue purity OF his lie.
Me came there 10 know npon what authority this
made upon some provision OF the old common law,
grenc Of tue oarDarsTn o! England. The Court OF
kin3s Beuch would not grant ep Information un-
less ths party applying ioi 1t would swear tnat the
libel was not true. Or what avail would II te for
libel, end was not IN the city when 1t was pub
hshedY OF what avail would i be to refer to the
davenport WAC tnicStehed 10 lcGk up witnesses
that hight De called Ia ia,o Of hr, Dana1 lie
States In his hand and inierposed that
against iiis proceeding. That Constitution
Ss5aoSna to every clti2en o the Tight OF
ton there was no night OF trial by jury The learned
gentleman quoted f!o!u CnIe, Justice Marshal IN
support OF his views. The Cliei Justice said It
vo'd be usees. to ask toe Judges to swear TO sup
port the Constitution Il they were called upon 20
Vioiate It, lie called upon The Court sustain tie
Constitution, which gave every citizen the right OF
Ponce Court where lie would be tired Without a
Iury. TIE provisions OF the oid states we're that
Tho provisions or the Constitution shall lie pre-
service therein. There was nothing that was SO
jra'ncd the constitution as The right that al Of
ieSeS aeAas, the United States should be tried by
Jury. IL was opposed bY Alexander Hamilton only
% lhe g!ound that there could not arise Ia AL
mlG'e une sub moral monster as q
man VINO would sag tcat all o'fences
should not be tred before jury. In Virginia Pat
Ilck Ecnry sald, ~ trial BY jury Is gone, all ls
r9Ic;" lha si2is l2w declared that offences should
bc 'i.cd u the Stale where tucy We're Committed.
mr. talia was rcsdect OF the state OF New YORK,
ara had been before the alleged offence. and If he
had committed any offence al oil be had committed
II in the state oikew YORK. The 10 OF conspiracy
was trat alleged cUnsp,rators seoull be tried In
The place where the conspiracy was entered into.
IL was alleged IN the Information that the libel was
~ a paper printed ID New YORK and uuplsled in