The sun., 1873-07-25
An ErrIng World.


on the DANA libel ease. country Justice
of the Peace is very APP t) imagine that
his knowledge OF the law is extensive and
complete, and the consequence of his con-
ecit is that he make more egregious blum
ders than would bc possible to Il modest
man who knows that he doesn't know any
ihing. II we say that the Uorld in lis dis
cussions of this libel case las reminded us
oi such II country justice, We are bound
e. add that such an exhibition Of a want
oi accurate inlOrluat on is exceptional in
its columns.
The World Reg ~ Ivy exprcs ing dissatis-
faction with the ucto on Of Ju lgc BLATcu-
foRp. II sud-
"judgc RLtrCuroRp hrs consequently left
IL doubt nm imrortant point on which there
ought to he nc doubt at all. II IS still unccr-
TAIN whether Congress, ~ organizing a C1jiTt IN
the District Of Columbia with jurisdiction to
editor in the United static pc psrsonay son SI answer @
able IN Washington for every exposure he makes
Judge SnIPMAN, II he had had an opportunity.
would have made so convincing an argument on
tLis capital point as 70 have set that question at
rc- { In public estimation, and have Jus 'ihcd the
District Court in placin: its dc isiun on
brVaHer and moe comprehensive basis
The point which the ITor'd speaks Of was
not before the court, and could not possi-
bly, arise in the case I'm Ter discussion.
Consequently il could not be decided.
ANY opinion expressed by the Judge on
that question would have been mere obiier
dicituH, and uf no bnding force; and as
Judge SHfPMAN is himself fresh from the
bench. an able lawyer entirely familiar
with practice, we think the World errs in
its supposition that he would have made
h"conv lncinR argument or any kind of
mn argument, on IA subject not before the
court.
We understood this 10 he the view taken
by Nj. BARTLETT at the time Of the hear
Ing. He quoted the provision of the Con-
rtitution that criminal trial shall be held
In the state where the crime shall have
been committed, ana he said: d" Whenever
that question shall come up for legal dis
russion thus recognizing the fact that it
did not arise ia this ,;ise-"I contcnd that
tins provision wal lie found fatal to any
tIch measure rs IL undertaken here against
M. DANN' Atthe same time hrconcrdcd
the opposite doctrine { bc thIt OF the past
decisions in liel ca.s, ana said: 81
merely wish 10 oder these views a. those
which mus from n ''cssity, Tor tle pres
crNat.on "I liberty. be the prevailing doc
'rincs of the future IN this country.
A. there l. not "court IN the
District of Columbia with jurisdiction to
try criminal librls 10y Iury. it wds entirely
beyond the province of tht court 10 al
judicate upon he power ol such "a court If
Congress should establish one.
We may IL well state, however. that we
do not understand that there j. any diff
ference of opinion among lawyers ~ to the
eIiAttng laW-ueriycd, its MIR. BARTLETT
stated, from long series of common law
decisions dating buck To dark and barbar-
Gus tirucs-that the crime of libel II held to
he committed IN every county where the
newspaper containing IL j. sent toa sub>oTi-
Der. Thus in the Commonwealth vs.. BldH-
dtnJ % Pickerlug's Reports-a case which
arose early in Massachusetts and has been
often cited, and still rema ns unshaken, il
was held that where libel was published
in Il newspaper printe IN Rhode Island,
but which usually circulated in a county
In Massachus tts, and the number contaiu-
ing the libel WIS actually circulated in
such county. this was conclusive evidence
of puhli alton in such county. A.
hrAREIE put tie law "If a procure B to
publish Il libel, y il IaJ lie to bc indict'' '''
every county III which II '''i9"cs '""'
libel"
vI,t ~. DABTLETT suggested was that
49,. princip.e- land down 10y Chief Justice
MARSHALL in the case of AARON BURR rs
20 the prop place OF trial taken in con-
nection with the provisions contained in
the Constitution oh that subjeot, might
lead TO n reversal OF that ancient doctrine
AZ applied a. hbels, whenever the courts
of the United States, after lull argument
should adjndicate upon tant matter afrcsh.
This, ms the HOrLi contends, Is not OF
very great practical Importance 40 far as
State courts are concerned; Tor. H. il re-
marks: IF THE Sun libel, citizen of
Drcgon-and il would he the same if the
WOrid lihcls citizen OF Orc4on-its rdi.
tor II in no danger So long u, he keeps out
of that State And this position OF the
WoUd is strengthened by its citation OF an
official declaration of WILLIAM II. SEwARD.
when Governor of this state, that n citi-
zen OF this state should not be- surIcn-
dcrcd for trial in another state ON n
rcuuslton where the charge i libel.
But that doctrine can hardly he held TO
apply, so far ~ we understand the subject,
Ia the rendition by Dlst. ict Judge of
persons accused of offence against the
United State. The Judiciary act of l1s0
provides That for any crime or offence
against the United States the offcndei may.
where he may be found, be arrested and
Imprisoned or hailed FOR trial before such
court as by ths act has coenizance OF the
offence And if such commitment OF
the offender shall be in district other
than that in which the offence Is 10 be-
tried, II shall be- the duty of the Judge of
that district whore the delinquent Is i'm |
pli7oncd, scasonably 10 issue, and Oi the |
Marshal of the same district To execute. a |
warrant for the removal of the offender to |
the district in which the trial may he had. ." !
We npprchend the words - any crime or !
offence would include libel where that is |
an oii"n"c. Now is libel an offence aguinst
the CntVd States in the District Of CO!um- !
bia; The U'Orid contends that II is not.
Its argument is.
There j. no statute 0f libel among the iaWs
OF the thll"d state, and II has been again and |
~ llln uc' lucd mat the FcdrTI courts lave no |
cHmllhl jurisdiction except such az Is conferred
ca thrh! by the Constitution or by express
Although these propositions are gene