New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-06-29
WASHINGTON.
TIE WAR ON THE PRESS.

rup RIFLES GOVERNING THE REPORTERS GAL
1rRy AND THE NEW LAW REGARDING LIBEL
,xpox TIE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE lhiD0Nh
WASHINGTON June 27.-For several years past a
-, disnosition has been manifested by certain
,iai,ed states Senators and Representatives to
make war upon the press. This tendency has SHOWN
;,saf in many ways but especially IN the new ruies
g. the government of the Reporters Gallery.
Io,tod nv the Senate year ago, and more recently
n the attempts that have been made TO enact laws
which shall put offenses committed by newspaper
h,isbers within the jurisdiction of the courts OF
She District of Columbia, and thus more within the
oyer of Washington officials. Very little has ever
han said about the new rules governing the Repor-
tens Gallery They were agreed to IN the Repnpii-
nan caucus of the Senate during the special Execu
five session in the Spring Of 1S53 and are reported
to have been devised by Senator Conkhng.
Previous To that time cards of admission were
issued by the Vice-Presdent TO the representatives
,fsuch Journals rs applied for them, and when cor
RESPONDENT once obtained the right TO seat IN the
Gallery. he could not be removed expelled without
vote of the Senate This gave fair opportunity
for the full discussion of any resolution of expulsion
that might be introduced and the correspondent,
through his friends on the floor, had right to be
heard b. the new rule, the Committee on Rules is
givep exclusive control of the Reporters Gallery,
sud decides without reference to the Senate who is
entitled to seat there Beside this by vote of the
Committee, which consists of three Senators any
correspondent can be expelled from the gallery with
ont vote of the Senate and without the knowledge
Of any Senator except those on the Committee
s,cb authority ms this was exercised in one case
1ur;rc the recent session. and was threatened in an
other The good sense of the Committee probably pre-
vented the carrying of the threat in the latter case
into execution. the oiense of the correspondent
being simply to speak in his dispatches of the adyo
Gates Of a speedy return to specie payments as
"hooes, currency men," Some of the infationists
thought that the inference from the phrase that
they were dishonest currency men," and hence the
threat Nothing can be more evident than that to
protect the press from injustice, the Senate and not
one OF its committees ought to determine when
newspaper man has so far abused the privileges of
the body as to merit expulsion from the gallery.
The recent action Of the Senate is still more
marked IN its hostility to the press. Senator Car
pcnter has lately written letter defending the
general provisions of the Judiciary bill, which he
and Senator Conkiing forced through tue Senate
few days before the adjournment, and particularly
its eleventh section. OF the necessity of remodelng
teiudicary system of resin many par culars there
can be no doubt. The eleventh section is the only
one which criticised in the Senate when the
bill passed. and the one to which the Senator de-
votes especial attention.. This blu was first re-
ported from the Judiciary Committee by Mr.. Car
penter on the 11th of June. As then reported, the
eleventh section, making service of process on an
agent in civil suit equivalent to service on the
principal formed no part OF the bill On the next
day Mr. Carpenter, from the same Committee, re-
ported another bill identical with the first, except
that the eleventh section had been Inserted That
was the bill that passed. Now, Mr.. Carpenter, In
the letter referred to. SAYS:
The idea that n company or an individual publishing
paper in New-York could be sued in tins District for
lbe Published in NewYOrk Is unfonnded because the
company would not engage in publishing paper here,
and libel published In New-York would not pertain to
business carried here by an agent, and therefore
such case would not be within the section.
Mr. Carpenter is manifestly wrong in several par
tculars III this statement. Under present laws
company or individual publishing paper in New
York can be sued in this District for libel published
j. New-York. The suit of Camp against the Editor
of The TRIBUNE is a case of this kind. Mr.. CaTpen-
ter's bill did not attempt to change the law in this
respect. But Mr. Camp could do nothing with his
case until ne found the Editor of The TRIBUNE III
Washington. Mr.. Carpenters bill would allow him
TO serve his process on the agent of THE TRIBUNE
here aud on the Editor in New-York. Senator Car
peners defense Of the section is afterthought and
was not urged when Senators Bayard and Wadleigh
called attention 10 its Objectionable features Ill de-
bate.
The hostility of Congress to the press has gone
still further is proved by the passage of an act
which, IN effect. gives to the Criminal Court of the
District If Columbia jurisdiction over cases of GRIM
ina libel, with the power TO arrest the offender In
any pant of the United States Criminal offenses in
this District have been triable in two courts-the
Police Court, which has had exclusive original
Jurisdiction in all cases of misdemeanor, and the
Criminal Court, which has had jurisdiction of al.
other crimes Criminal libel and SANDER have been
within the jurisdiction of the Police Court. The
District courts hold that the ofense OF libel is
mitted here provided the publication containing
the libel is circulated in this District. 1t was
this ground, il will be remembered, that the Wash
ington Ring attempted to bring here last Summer
New-York editor for trial before the Police Court.
Had that case been trable before a jury in the
Criminal Court, and had the S3d section of the
Judiciary act of 1889 applied to the courts of the
District of Columbia, the Ring would have then
been successful. These imperfections in the law
Congress during its late session. has remedled.
During the last week Of the session. Congress passed
the following bill:
Az ACT e,rins Jurisdiction upon he Cmins Court Of the District
OF Columbia AM Or other purposes
BE enacted de-, That the Criminal Court OF the DIS
trct Of Columbia shall have jurisdiction OF all crimes
and misdemeanors committed IA said District not law
fully triable IN other court and they are required
by law TO be prosecuted by indictment on Information
SEC O. That the provisions Of the thirtythird sec
ton Of the judiciary act Of 1889 shall apply to courts
by act Of Congress In the District Of Columbia
The ruling that a man could not be brought from
NewYork here to be tried for libel before the Police
Court because it had no jury, is evaded in this act
by the first section, which turns the case over to the
n. Ioa apH tha furt her