New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09
THE D4NA-NOYES LIBEL CASE.
ARGUMENT FOR REMOVAL BY UNITED STATES
pIsTRIcT-ATTORNEY MACFARLANE.

ARGUMENT FOR REMOVAL BY UNITED STATES
pIsTRrcT-ATToRNEY MACFARLANE
Argument in the case OF Frank b. Noyes. OF
Washington. against Charles A. Dana and Will
lam VI. Lahan. a motion for a writ OF removal
10 the District OF Columbia. where the Indictment
for criminal libel found. resumed yester-
day afternoon In the United States District Court
Judge Addison Brown presiding. United States
Distrct-Attorney Wallace Macfarlane spoke yes
ter,ay and prefaced his presentation OF the Gov
ernments side OF the by recitng the circum-
stances OF the Indictment OF the defendants In the
District Of Columbia on March T. the receipt Of the
certified copies OF the complaint. indictment and
bench warrant. the Identification OF one Of the de-
PENDANTS before United States Commissioner
Shields and other phases OF the case. leading up
to the present application for a writ for the re-
movaI of the defendants Washington.
Mr. Macfarlare said he would show that Section
iOli OF the Judiciary Act OF 1889 had for sixty
years been used the basis OF proceedings TO get
persons back to the District of Columbia for trial
on charges OF crime alleged to have been COM
mitted There.
He saii further:
have nothing 20 do with the result OF granting
This application o. what effect IL may have on the
liberty % the press. whether IL will result in drag
gng editors from Alaska or Portland 10 Washing
for trial. There Is but ono answer 10 make ~
cease c To- use the columns Of their papers for Grim
inai purposes and for gratifying spite against in
IN.
IN tho Dis,r.c, Of Columbia anywhere else. In
Section SO OF the Revised Statutes relating the
District OF Columbia. Congress has provided that
->'r'iyrs from justice snail be delivered up wher-
ever apprehended. in all cases where required by
Sections 70 20 rs Title g. Of the Revised Statutes.
relating 10 cxtradtion between States. Congress
has applied TO the District OF Columbia the lesis-
llton under the Constitution to which have just
referred so that fugitives from every part OF the
Union who seek refuge in -he District Of Columbia
shall be surrendered the reqLisition OF the En-
ccutive OF the State whore the crime was COM
mtted.
Mr. Macfarlane then referred TO and quoted from
various authorities and cases on record. He con-
t!nued.
r. section l.olt which provided for ex,radition
from the District, did not provide for exiradition
- that District then there Is no law covering this
Now. = seems to me that offences or crimes
against the District OF Columbia OF necessity
crimes against the United States.
Mr.. Marfarlane then went 10 show that libel
was a crime in the District OF Columbia. He said
he was much surprised hear the attorneys FOR the
defendant. AMI particularly ex-Judge Wilson. OF
Washington. making statements that hhe was not
n crime IN thai District.
Mr. Iacfarlsne contended that the libel
ml.tef wherever II published. and that every
copy OF the publication containing the libel vas n
newspaper containing a libel whether printed In
any other State or Territory. he claimed. was "A
llbc wherever that paper containing tho libel was
circulated The statutes. he said. made editors alb
umns ~ their newspapers. The newspaper was
publication IN every city. county or state IN winch
Eiihn Root then asked the judges to set a day for
counsel for the defence might arrange that with
tho observation-disclosures.
30 definite date was fixed. IL was said that tho
briefs would not be hiei before next week or the
for