Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-12


York Sun by the District grand jury, and
the predicted resistance on the part of the
indicted to trial in this District, raise some
questions of interest, both to the news
papers and people of the country. and es-
pecially perhaps to the citizens of Wash
ington, whose legal status is involved in
the discussion. Some Influential newspa-
pers. yielding to a tendency with which
The Star sympathizes to resist vigorously
on suspicion any possible extension of an
already unjustly burdensome law of libel,
have criticised the indictment estab-
fishing a precedent under which "a New
York publisher may be taken to Texas or
California Oklahoma or Alaska, or San
Francisco publisher brought to New York"
This criticism is based upon a misunder-
standing of the law. This District Is the
only part of the republic in which libel is
an otfense against the law of the United
States, and to no other place than the ma
tional capital can the removal for trial be
sought of libeller who has committed
from a distance this offense against the
local law. AS an offset to this peculiar
privilege is the unique and exclusive disa-
bility announced in the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States that
the District is not state under the Con-
stitution, whose people can sue in the fed
eral courts. and that its residents stand in
this regard in a more unfavorable attitude
toward the national judiciary than aliens
On the one hand they are debarred from
seeking as citizens of a state the impartial
justice of United States court elsewhere
against the citizens Of another state. On
the other hand offenders against the local
law who are found in any of the states,
can be brought and are brought frequently
to this Jurisdiction for trial, and the list Of
offences upon which such removals can be
sought is broader in the case of the District
than in that of any other part of the
republic. The law makes both exceptions
in the case of the District, the one to its
injury. the other to It's benefit.
1t is useless to argue now that these ex-
ceptions ought not to exist Until the law
is changed-and 1t should be altered in
both respects If altered at all-the only
question that Is pertinent is whether there
is a difference between criminal libel and
other offences against the local laws which
entities the libeller to tender considera-
ton of his wishes as to his place of trial
that Is not accorded to any other law
breakers.
1t is claimed that as the Suns place of
publication is New York no offence has
been committed in the District of Column
bia. This contention is based upon an
idea of the law Of libel as some news
papers might like to have it, and not as it
actually is. If Mr.. Dana had written a
letter to friend in Washington in which
he imputed personal dishonesty to a bust
ness man Of this city and had mailed it
without showing 1t to any one in New
York he would when his friend here had
received 1t and read 1t, have been guilty of
an offence against the libel law of this
in
does not differ from that prevailing else
where in the United States. Is he any the
less of an offender against this law be-
cause the libel is printed instead of writ
ten. Is circulated among several hundred
people In this city instead of being con-
fined to single individual, and is shown
to thousands of persons in New York be-
fore 1t Is sent here to do its work of
defamation? Can a criminal violate our
local laws with impunity merely by COM
hitting a more aggravated crime of the
same kind somewhere else? The case of
DR.. Graves, who transmitted from Provi-
dence to woman in Denver a poisoned
liquid. which was received by her in Dem
yer and there caused her death, is cited by
one newspaper as an instance, by way of
contrast to the present case, in which the
offender was properly removed for trial
from his residence to Denver, where the
crime was committed. Instead of furnish
ing contrast, is there not an analogy be-
tween the Graves murder and this libel?
The ofense in the present case is also
attempted murder, not Of life, but of repu-
tation. The poison was concocted In New
York and transmitted to Washington. The
reputation to be murdered is here, and not
In New York, where the victim is COM
paratively unknown. Why is not a MUIR
derous attack upon a Washington reputa-
ton an offence committed in Washington
just as much as murderous attempt upon
the life of a resident of Denver is an Of
fence committed in Denver? Does it make
any difference that the would-be murderer
in one case sent his poison from Provi-
dence and in the other from New York?
The victim of the libel In this instance is
not newspaper or an editor or an official
In public life, in respect to whom consider
able freedom of utterance is permitted by
public opinion, but he is a business man
whose personal integrity in the line of his
business is injuriously and malicously as
sailed by charge imputing moral turpi-
tude. In the same place where the greatest
damage to his reputation has been done or
attempted he is entitled to vindication.
The Star. in common with all other news
papers of the country, suffers from the in
justice of the present American law of
libel and has urged and continues to urge
the substantial amendment of the law
There should be distinction between
actual and presumed malice. the import of
libellous defamation should be confined
within narrower limits full effect should be
given to the correction or retraction of I'M
Intentional misstatements, a provision in
respect to security for costs might dis
courage speculative black mailing suits
and there are other particulars in which the
law can with justice and propriety be
amended But the real grievances of the
newspapers under existing law will never
be remedied If public sympathy is forfeited
by an effort on the part of the press to secure
a protection, denied to everybody else, against
responsibility for false and actually mali
cious defamation, committed against per-
son not in public life. Both the press and
the public will be fairly and justly pro-
tected only when the deliberately malicious
Ibeller is adequately and certainly pun
ished, and unintentional defamation, except
to the extent of reimbursement in the case