Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-06
The Damn Libel Suit.

Charles A. Dana, Esq. editor OF the
New York Sun. has for many weeks been
discussing the question of the right OF
the courts OF the District of Columbia TO
compel him to so to Washington city 10
answer the charge that he has been guli'y
OF llbelling criminally a citizen OF that
district. Mr. Dana has SO far had the
best of the argument. as presented ifoh
one point OF view In fact, II the teacn-
ings OF the fathers of the republic on
such questions as those involved In this
case had been consulted and followed as
they ought to have been. such prose-
cutions as the one under consideration
would never have been thought Oh
Mr.. Dana. however, is eating OF the run
OF tree which he himself ASSISTED III
planting In 1861 he and his northern
brethren decided TO conquer and rule the
South. let the consequences be what they
might. They thereby converted our gov
eminent into very different sort or one
from that which the trainers OF the CON
stitution supposed they had provided Tor
But the people still have some rights
laws cannot rightfully deny TO them; ana
one OF these rights is the one claimed oy
MIR. Dapa-namely. the right TO b. tried
at home for a criminal libel or any other
such offence against the laws OF the iahu'
What are the facts? Some time ago
there appeared in Mr.. Dana's paper the
New York sun, reference to Mr.. Noyes'
editor of a paper published In Washington
city, on account Of which he began
prosecution against Mr.. Dana-not, now
ever, in New York city. where the sun Is
published. but in the District OF Columpla'
and Noyes desires to use the United States
courts i'm that district TO compel Mr..
Dana TO answer in Washington charge
which ought to have been brought against
him in New York city. where Mr.. Danas
paper is published, and where he resides,
as everybody knows.
Mr. Dana relies upon the sixth article
Of amendment to the Federal Constitution.
which provides that "in all criminal prose
cutions the accused shall enjoy the right
10 speedy and public trial by an impair
tial jury Of the State and district wherein
the same shall have been committed"
We do not think that this provision was
intended to apply TO any such suits as
Mr. Noyess. who seeks redress for a
personal grievance: nor to any except real
criminal prosecutions-that is, prosecu-
ticns for violations Of the law-as II
seems to us is abundantly clear from the
Il nguage Of the sixth amendment, which.
after saying what we have quoted above,
ADDS:
The accused shall har the
right to be Informed of III ma
ture and cause Of the accus alton;
10 be confronted with the wit
nesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor; and TO have the assistance Of coun-
SCI for his defence.
This language justifies US in contending
that Mr. Noyess libel suit against Mr..
Dana does not come under the sixth
amendment to the Federal Constitution.
But we call Mr. Dana's attention to a
paragraph in the eighth section, which
reads as follows:
Congress shall have power
TO exercise exclusive jurisdiction
in all cases whatsoever over such district
mot exceeding ten miles square as may
by cession of particular States and the
acceptance of Congress become the seat OF
government Of the United States"
That is to say, Congress has power to
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
District of Columbia lin all cases what
sorver," and If Mr.. Noyes is proceeding
against Mr. Dana under law Of
the United States. II will not be easy
to show that he is proceeding under an
unconstitutional law.
II, however there is any law that justi-
fies Mr. Noyes's prosecution Of Dana,
it ought TO be repealed at once. So we
join Mr.. Dana in crying, Away with
such laws