The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-07
MR.. BARTLETT'S VIEWS
Opposition to the Warrant of
Removal to the District of
Columbia.
QUESTIONS INVOLVING LIBERTY
Claims That Decision I'm the Case
VIII Affect All the People and
the Press.

NEW 1Ohh, N. ., April o.-ATS ullIeIIC
upon the application for warrant of re-
moval of the case of Charles A. Dana
from this city to the District of Columbia
were resumed before Judge Brown in the
United States District Court this after
noon. Franklin Bartlett spoke first for
the defense. In opening Bartlett said the
question of the Indictment had been gone
so fully into by his colleague, Mr.. Root, it
left very little for him to say on the sub
iect.
He said: "If your Honor please, a
great deal of the ground which my learned
colleague, Mr.. Root, covered yesterday in
his able argument must necessarily be gone
over to a certain extent by me in my argu-
ment this morning, and it may be
well that one argument may tread
upon the other, but in discussing the
animus of the prosecution, and throwing
some light upon the article which con-
tanned the alleged libel, and, after indicat-
ing one or two defects in the papers to
show there was insufficiency to some ex-
tent, must follow the argument of Mr..
Root. l shall call the attention of your
Honor to certain constitutional guaran-
tees in the case now at bar, and
/ shall endeavor to convince
the court that any construction snch as
that contended by my friend, the learned
District Attorney would be fatal to these
constitutional guarantees and would virtu-
ally lead to the subversion of the constitu-
ton. And then, in conclusion, I shall
argue as to the meaning of the thirty-third
section of the judiciary act of 1874, when
incorporated and made part of the act Of
July A. 1874.
81 shall discuss to considerable extent
the meaning of that act as now made part
ofthe law of 1874, and then. in conclusion,
I shall call the attention of your Honor to
contemporaneous constitution of that
act or section as made part of that act
which will make it impossible for your
Honor or any court in this country to
hold that there is any power under the act
of 1874 to remove the distinguished gen.
tleman whom have the honor to repre-
sent, or any other citizen of the State of
New York, or of any State jim the Federal
Union to the District of Columbia for trial
under an indictment for libel"
Mr. Bartlett, after referring to the alleged
defects in the indictment, read from a copy
of the paper containing the alleged libel,
and said: 1.-THE word dishonest used in
connection with the whole article. is the
same as it would have been in an ordinary
article; that is, as if the article were in
spired by malice and vindictiveness, show
ing the party indicated was a dishonest
man.
at might be well for the court to inquire
as to the quo amino of this prosecutor.
D.. - . ol,a
publishing this article. 1t may be well for
your honor to consider and for the people
of this country to consider, the quo amino
of the prosecutor in the District of Column
bia, or the person inspiring the prosecution.
zone objection to this affidavit is that the
District Attorney swears of his own
knowledge as to the commission of this
offense. He does not swear positively that
any offense was committed. He simply
swears upon information and belief.
'He swears on deponents' informations,
and that the grounds of his belief are de-
rived from the reading of said Indictment
and the bench warrants, and on that state
ment in the affidavit he charges the posi-
tive commission of crime. 1t should set
forth facts and circumstances which are re-
lied upon to prove the charges.
"Those facts and circumstances should be
within the knowledge of the party making
the affidavit by more formal veriication.
Let me call your attention to the word of
James Kent, in which he declared that one
of the absolute rights of individuals and
the right which has been declared by the
people of this country as inherent and not
right to personal liberty, and that with
out security and enjoyment of this right,
there can be no civil liberty. So, say,
sir, comprehend the great question under
lying all of our arguments is the great
question of the right of personal liberty.
"This issue before your Honor to-day
concerns not only the distinguished gen.
tleman, whom we have the honor to repre-
sent, but it affects every citizen OF the
United States. 1t further affects the press
of the country"