Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-04-09
CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT
District Attorney McTarlane Speaks in the
Dana Libel Case.
Reasons Why the New York Editor
Should Be Removed to Washing
tOn-Buell Case Cited.

The argument on the application for a
warrant of removal for Charles A. Dana
of the New York Sun to this city, where
he has been indicted for criminal libel on
complaint of Mr.. Frank B. Noyes, was
resumed before Judge Addison Brown in
the United States district court at New
York yesterday afternoon.
District Attorney MacFarlane began his
argument for the government by saying
that when he left the court room on Sat
urday evening he understood that, from
what the counsel for the defense had said,
they were in doubt as to whether there was
such place as the District of Columbia.
Il have nothing to do with the result of
granting this application" said he, cor
what elect IT may have on the liberty Of
the press-whether it will result in drag
glns edltors from Alaska or Portland to
Washington for trial. l have nothing to
do with any Of these horrible possibilities.
1here is but one answer to make to the
liberty of the press. That is, if editors
pers for criminal purposes and for crafty
ing spite against individuals, there will
be no fear of them being tried in the Dis
trict of Columbia or anywhere else.
The Power of Removal.
Now. We are met with an objection
which, If well taken, is conclusive. That
is that neither under section 101i of the Re-
vised Statutes nor under any law whatever
is there any power to remove to the Dis
trict of Columbia offenders against it's local
or municipal laws apprehended in other
districts of the United States
II understood Mr.. Root to admit in a sort
of tentative way that under section 1O14
offenders against the general laws of the
United StateS-perSonS charged with haV-
ing committed in the District of Columbia
ofrenses which would be offenses against
the laws of the United States wherever
committed-might be apprehended under
section 1O14 and sent back to the District
for trial. but in respect to the long list Of
crimes against the local or municipal law
whether 1T be robbery, arson, rape, bur-
glary, libel or any of the long list of mis-
demeanors, that there is no law whatsoever
by which persons having committed those
offenses in the District of Columbia may
be apprehended outside of the District
and sent back for trial, and it Is very eX-
traordinary that it has gone on for ninety
four years since the act Of 1871 without
finding OUT
Mr.. MacFarlane claimed that Congress
has applied to the District of Columbia the
legislation under the Constitution, so that
fugitives from justice from every part of
the Union who take refuge in the District
OF Columbia are surrendered upon the re-
QUESTION from the executive of the state
where the crime is alleged to have been
committed. The construction of the law
offered by the defense, he claimed, would
leave no means in force for bringing back
criminals to the District of Columbia who
had once escaped from there.
For the past sixty years." said Mr.. Mac
Farlane, ''aS shown by the reported cases.
section 10l4 has been used as the basis for
legal proceedings applicable to the Dis
trict of Columbia against persons appre-
her ded in other districts and charged with
the commission of crime in that District. l
submit that that is the practical interpreted
ton of this section