Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-04-06
THE DANA LIBEL CASE
Arguments Of Counsel at the Hearing in
New York.
An Adjournment Taken Until II
O'Clock This MOrning-POints
of the Lawyers.

In the hearing at New York yesterday
to decide whether Charles A. Dana, editor
of the Sun, should be sent to this city
for criminal libel on Mr.. Frank B. Noyes,
MIR. Root, counsel for Mr.. Dana, began to
speak the moment United States District
Attorney MacFarlane concluded. He re-
viewed the history Of the case. He occa-
siopally referred to statute books, and at
frequent intervals read from sheets of
closely written matter. Mr.. Root spoke
for three hours and an adjournment was
taken at $40 o'clock, the argument to be
resumed at II o'clock this morning.
Following is summary OF the AFTER
Moons proceedings:
Mr.. MacFarlane-'If your honor please,
On the It'll of March there was presented in
the Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbfa an Indictment by the grand jury,
charging Charles A. Dana and VIM. M:
Laffan with having committed the crime of
libel. by publishing and circulating in that
District certain copies of the New York
Sun. The indictment was sent to this dis
trict with a bench warrant issued thereon,
the defendants not being found in the Dis
trict, and upon the Indictment and warrant
the customary complaint was made out
there before a commissioner, who issued
the warrant, and one of the defendants,
Charles A. Dana, was brought before the
commissioner and the identity of the de-
PENDANT having been proved the commits
sioner made the usual commitment"
Mr.. MacFarlane then explained why the
application was made, and gave a descrip-
ton of the proceedings before the commits
siorer on the 18th of March, when Charles
A. Dana was identified as one of the de-
eEdants mentioned in the indictment.
Mr. MacFarlane then referred back to
previous case, in which an application was
made to remove Mr.. Dana to Washington
for a former alleged libel and that al
though Judge Blatchford decided that 1t
could not be done Mr.. MacFarlane claimed
that the judge had overlooked one of the
statutes in rendering this decision.
Mr. MacFa ra then said: BY the act
of March 3, 1891, defining jurisdiction of the
police courts in the District of Columbia,
libel and conspiracy are expressly men
toned, showing that they are recognized as
crimes in the District and liable to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which
mas general jurisdiction over all crimes"
After citing two cases in support of his
application Mr.. MacFarlane concluded.
having spoken a little over half an hour.
MIR. Roots Argument.
Mr.. Root. in replying, said: I'm this pro-
ceeding the defendant. a citizen of New
York, residing in this city, has been ar
rested by a marshal of the United States,
under a warrant issued by commissioner
OF the United States in this district, and
has been brought before the commissioner.
The warrant was issued upon an affidavit
made by the United States district attor
ney, which charged no offense, but set
forth upon information and belief that an
indictment had teen found against a per-
son named in the warrant, by the Cir
cult Court of the District of Columbia,
his arrest was asked for, and to this ahi-
davft was annexed what purports to be
copy of the indictment. Upon being
brought before the commissioner the In
dictment, or the alleged copy of 1t. was
offered in evidence, the defendant having
demanded an examination, and a witness
was put upon the stand and asked certain
questions. for the purpose Of Identifying
the person then before the commissioner,
and upon that the government rested. The
defendant objected that no probable cause
had been shown for the issue of the war
rant upon which he was arrested or for
any further process of commitment; that
no probable cause had been shown support
ed by affirmation; that there was no proof
of any offense committed, either here or
in the District of Columbia"
Judge Brown-"That was the Indictment.
I see the affidavit of the United States at
terney states that 1t is an exemplified
copy"
Mr.. Root shall also endeavor to show
your honor that there was not sufficient
evidence. Mr.. Dana offered to prove If
firmatively that there was no probable
cause that he was guilty of the crime
charged, and he offered to prove affirma-
lively that no offense had been committed
by him within the District of Columbia or
within the jurisdiction of the court which
1t is alleged found the Indictment, and that
it should be excluded.
1T appeared before the commissioner
lnat the QeIeHuant was u CltlZen, not OF
the District of Columbia, but of the city
of New York, resident Of New York and
that he was actually in the city of New
York at the time of which the alleged
crime was committed. Now, 1t is obvious
that the question to whether the de-
PENDANT shall be taken from his home in
New York to the District of Columbia to
be tried for a criminal offense committed
there oy reason of the fact that he was
the editor of newspaper published in the
city of New York, copies of which came
into the ordinary course in the city of
Washington, was Of Importance to the
entire press of the United States. and that
the proceeding is a proceeding in which it
is not only the right of counsel. but Of the
courts to consider the questions of juris-
diction, of power and of right from the
foundation.
THE authority under which 1t is sup
posed that this proceeding may be main
tanned by the government is. as l under
stand it, to be found in section 1014 RS.
1t is a reproduction in substance of the
thirty-third section of the judicial act of
1884,"
UnconstftutiOnality Claimed.
Mr.. Root then read from the statute
books, and argued at length that the pro-
%l-& q