The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-04-13
THE CHANDLER-BUELL LIBEL
SUIT.

The circumstances surrounding this
case are very well known. Senator
CHANnIER "f Michigan, brought action
against Mr.. BUELL. for libel in writing
AN article against him in Washington,
and publishing it in Michigan. He at
tempted to have BUELL. arrested, and
brought into the District of Columbia to
he there tried, claiming that rs the arti-
Gle was written in the District, in was an
otfcnse against the United States, and
triable in Washington. The arrest was
made. but the defendant sued out writ
of haJsas corpus and was released. The
grounds for his release were princi-
pally; First--that while libel
is admitted to be an offence against the
United States, still the mere writing Of II
lbellous article in the District of Column
bia, for publication elsewhere, does not
give the United States Courts jurisdic-
ton. but the Courts of the State in which
the article appeared, clone have authority
to try the otfense. Had the publication
been made in the District then there
would be no question about il, but in this
case, the Michigan State Courts were the
proper authority to take cognizance of
the case. 1t will be remember
ed that some time since we published
the report Of Congressional
committee appointed for the express pur-
pose of examining into the law of libel
in the District, known as the Poland Gag
law, and this committee unanimously
took the same ground as here presented,
in their report explaining the operations
otsaid law.
Secondly-It was held, that the in
dictment contained a flaw, in that it omit
ted to state that the libel was published
in the District of Columbia, and there
lore. IN ACcOTuaICt VIII INC P'''Nit'C
above, it was fatal, and the prisoner should
be discharged. These are the two chief
grounds upon which the matter
WAS settled. 1t was so
decided first in the United States District
Court of Missouri, the State in which
BUELL. resided when arrested, and in an
appeal taken to the Circuit Court, the de-
cision Of the Court below was affirmed
Judge DILLEN of the Circuit Court, gave
in his decision as follows:
AS the grand jury have not plainly
said that the defendant published an ar
ticlc in the District of Columbia, in adj
diticn to the publication in Michigan,
the Court cannot intend that they meant
TO saw it. 1t is fundamental doctrine
in English and American law that there
can be no constructive otfense; that be-
fore Il man can be punished his case
must be clearly within the law; the
charge Is TO be Enthusiastically set forth IN
the Indictment, and il there be uncer-
taintv or fair doubt whether the law
embraces the act, or the indictment suf-
fciently charges the otfense, the doubt
is to be resolved in favor of the accused.
~ have no hesitation in applying these
liberal and just principles to the present
case, because if libel in the District of Col
umbia be not an indictable offense against
the United States, it is an exception,
curiously brought about, to the general
rule that there are no common law
otfenses against the general government,
and because the defect in the present in
dictment is not merely formal or techni-
cal, but goes TO the gist Of the offence