New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-19
MR.. DANA STILL IN NETWORK
COMMISSIONER SHIELDS HOLDS THE
EDITOR.
THE QUESTION OF HIS REMOVAL TO WASHINGTON
TO STAND TRIAL TO BE ARGUED
ON APRIL

The preliminary examination Of Char.es y. Dana
Editor OF The Sun" in the action brought against
him by Frank Il. Noyes. treasurer OF Ihe EVehhg
Star" OF Washington. for alleged crHiiha! HO@-'
was begun before United States commissioner
Shields Yesterday. Unusual interest has been man
ies,ed In the case ever since il became known tnat
indictments had been found against Mr. Dana the
editor and William NJ. Laffan' the puoHShe', Vi
The Sun" by the Federal Grand jury OF the us
trjc, OF Columbia on March Z. The Commissioner 5
courtroom was filed by representatives OF the press
and members OF the legal fraternity.
Tho only question to be decided here IS whether
or no. there is sufficient legal ground on whicA 10
compel Mr. Dana and Mr.. Laifan 10 appear IN W ASH
ington and defend the complaint filed aSalns' 'he"i
in that city, or whether the alleged onence Was
not really committed in tins city since the "oruS
charged 10 be hbelious were a''"dAiS Pe' ~
published here.
Mr. Dana was represented by "Jere" wilson, VINO
figured conspicuously in the breckenridge tT'al at
Washington as the attorney for MISS PoAaFu' Emu
Root and Franklin Bartlett Of this city. Inc "oF
eminent was represented by United States DISTRICT
Attorney Wallace Macfar!ane and his assistant
John O. Mott. Mr. Dana accompanied by MS
son. Paul Dana, ex-presideHt OF the PARK boaFd
The District Attorney offered the certified copies
OF the indictment and bench warrant IN evidence
Louis Kennedy. clerk in the Office OF United states
Marshal McCarty then proved the service Of the
warrant on Nh Dana on March s. MI Root de-
clined TO admit the identity of the defendant and
Thomas Hitchcock was called by the prosecution to
identify Mr. Dana as the Editor of The sun
On motion of Mr.. Macfarlane Nh Dana was held
TO await the issue of a warrant Of removal lie
was allowed TO go on his recognizance.
During the examination before Commissioner
Shields, Mr. Root endeavored TO show that MT
Dana had nothing whatever TO do with the sales
and circulate OF The Sun by the Newly ork
Sun Publication Company that he had anything
10 do with sending copies Of The Sun to Wash
inc on Eebr
When Mr.. Root tried to introduce testimony as TO
what Mr.. Dana's business was. AR Macfariane oo-
jected to any attempt being made to try the merits
of the case here The Commissioner sustained Mr..
Macfaranes objection, and said that he WoG1G only
deal with the question Of identity.
Mr. Hitchcock managed. however. 70 state that
Mr. Danas business was confined to the supervis-
ion of the literary matter that goes into The Sun
Mr.. Hitchcock said that Mr.. Dana had not lived in
the District Of Columbia for the last ten years and
Sun" office every day during the last twenty i've
years, excepting on Sundays or when either ne or
Mr. Macfarane contended that the Indictment
was prima-iacie evidence Il al it contained except
Mr Root replied: This Charles A Dana is
world MIR Macfarlane said there were twenty
SIX Charles Danas in the city directory a -,
Paul Dana was called to the stand but was al
lowed 10 go again without being examined. Here
Il have JUS; received information that Frank B.
Moves, named in the indictment as the person
UDelled, Is not ana was nOt on
a resident of the District of Columbia. but that ne
is registered voter Of the Thirteenth Election Dis
trct OF Montgomery County. Maryland and mas,
therefore, simply selected place where ne WCCid
like 10 have the defendant in this case tried MY
Root offered proof for record
The Commissioner said that ne could not 90 into
the evidence. Mr. Root then made several motions
10 discharge the defendant. In each case oiTeTlnG
proof for record. Among other things which MI.
Root offered to prove these:
That the defendant had committed no CHSnce
within the District of Columbia. and hat there
could he jurisdiction therefore. in me court
where the Indictment was found; that there was no
probable cause 70 believe that any OF the oitence
set out in the indictment We're ever comnltted' tAat
neither the warrant nor the Indictment was Sus-
tanned by oath affirmation.
All OF Mr.. Roots motions % discharge ne de-
PENDANT was denied. and Commissioner shields fOr-
maly held Mr.. Dana TO await the issue by nlted
States Judge of warrant of removal. when IS tne
usual course in such cases. provided me Odee
should not be convinced by the defence tfat ne
would not be justified in issuing such warrant of
removal. Argument as 10 whether or not ne war
shall issue Will be heard before Ch'e' states
District Judge Brown on April