The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-07
PLEAS FOR MR.. DANA
EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL or
THE EDITOR TO WASHINGTON.
Arguments of Lawyers Franklin
Bartlett and Jere M. Wilson I'm the
Famous Newspaper Libel Case.

city to the District OF Columbia were
resumed before Judge Brown in the United
States District Court this morning. Yester-
day afternoon after United States District
Attorney MacFarIane had stated the case
and made his application. Mr.. Elihu Root,
one of the counsel for the defendant, con-
sumed the remainder of time up to the adj
1ournment In arguing against the grant,
ing of the request of the United States
district attorney. Lawyer Franklin Bart
lett announced last evening that he would
be ready to continue the argument for the
defense when the proceedings would be
resumed to-day. Ex-Judge Jere Wilson, of
Washington. accompanied by lawyers Bart
lett and Root arrived at the court room
at IL o'clock. AS yesterday the coun-
sci table Uttered with bulky docu-
ments and statute books which were placed
there by the lawyers on both Sides Mr..
MacFarlane and his assistant, Mr.. Kohler,
were promptly on hand at the appointed
time dl o'clock, but Judge Brown had not
put in AN appearance.
When Mr.. Dana arrived, a. few minutes
after IL O'Clock. one of the court officials
prevented him from entering the Enclosure
set apart for the lawyers and reporters
However, when the indicted editor made
known who he was, the officer opened the
gate and let the very much interested gem
one of the eastern windows where he held
whispered conversation with lawyer Root.
In the meantime, Messrs. Wilson and Bart
lett were reading law books and sheets OF
manuscript. JIoge Brown came into the
court at u:23 and, after having got through
with some half dozen men VINO were anx-
ious to become naturalized citizens of the
United States, the Dana argument was re-
Sumed.
In opening, Mr.. Bartlett said that the
question oil the indictment had been
fully gone into by his colleague. Mr. Root
70 sy On the subject e V He aai e III shall
Gail the attention of your Honor to certain
case now at bar and l shall endeavor to
convince the court that any construction
the learned district attorney, would be
fatal to these constitutional guarantees or
would virtually lead to the subversion of
the Constitutions; and then, in conclusion,
shall argue as to the meaning of the
thrty-third section of the judiciary act of
of the act of July "a 1874. ] shall discuss
to a considerable extent the meaning OF
that act as now made part of the law of
1854 and then, in conclusion, shall call the
attention of you Honor to a contemporary
eous construction of that act or section,
as made part of that act, which will make
1t impossible for your Honor or any court
in this country to hold that there is any
power in the act of 1874 to remove the dis
tinguished gentlemen whom have the honor
to represent, any other citizen OF the
federal u union to the District Of Columbia
for trial under an Indictment for libel
THE WORD DISHONEST.
Mr.. Bartlett, after referring to the al
legged defects in the indictment, read from
copy of the paper containing the alleged
libel and said: 1.-The word dishonest used
in connection with the whole article is not
the same as it would have been in any
ordinary article: that is, as il the article
were inspired by malice and vindictiveness,
showing that the party indicated was
dishonest man. 1t might be well for the
court to inquire as to the quo amino of this
wph malice N pubsSn en1 this article It
may be we'll for your Honor to consider,
and for the people of this, country to con-
slider, the quo amino of the prosecutor in
the District of Columbia or the person in
spring this prosecution. My objections to
attorney does not swear of his own knowl-
edge to the commission of any offense;
Tense has been committed. He simply
swears upon information and belief. He
be on of hs n1r%aon and
from the reading of said indictment and
the bench warrants, and on that state
tive commission of a crime. It should Set
forth the facts and circumstances which
are relied on to prove the charges. These
the knowledge d Of the party f making the
ton of a public official '''''' ''''
Let me call your Honor's attention to
the words of James Kent, in which he
of individuals and the right which has
been declared by the people of this country
as inherent and inalienable is the right
to personal liberty, and that without the
security and enjoyment of this right there
ean pc no civil liberty So say sir the
ments is the great question of the right
| of personal liberty. The issue before your
Honor to-day concerns not only the dis
| tinguished gentleman whom we have the
honor TO represent; but it affects every citi-
| affects the press of this country, Tor il the
power which is invoked by the district at
i forney against our client be successfully
liberty of the press of the United States"
/ After speaking for about twenty minutes
| took up the point that a person accused
OF crime was entitled to speedy trial be-
fore jury in the State where the alleged
| crime was committed.
JUDGE BROWN INTERRUPTS
Judge Brown interrupted Mr.. Bartlett
| when the latter was discussing whether
| the offense, if any had been committed
was committed in New York or in the Dis
trict of Columbia. Judge Brown said: 1.-THE
| question is what will these papers show as
| to the offense. Was the offense committed
| in the District of Columbia or not? Was if
merely committed, SO far as Mr. Dana is
| concerned? am bound to consider that
| The only charge against Mr.. Dana is to
suppose that he had written d paragraph
WHICH is alleged to be libel, and that Mr.
Laffan circulated and published it in the
District of Columbia and that Mr. Dana
knew that that would be done. Mr. Root
claimed yesterday that the only act of Mr..
Dana's was an act done here, although he
might have known that injurious conse-
quences might occur elsewhere; that Mr..
Laffan was the instrument by which the
act of circulation elsewhere was made.
The question is, so far Mr. Dana is
concerned, where was the offense If anv
committed? The consequences are SUB.
posed TO have resulted in the District of
| Columbia. / do not remember whether the
indictment charged it or any other place
| where the paper circulated. 1t must
be assumed that some injurious consequence
resulted in the District of Columbia other
wise the indictment would not have been
found
After Mr.. Bartlett had spoken for over
two hours. he said: Now, having gotten
through my Introductory remarks i will
proceed with the main argument. 1t is con-
coded that the only basis for this appIica-
ton is the Incorporation in the act of
June a. 1874, relating to the Criminal Court
| of the District of Columbia, of Section So
OF the Judiciary act.''
Mr.. MISUNDERSTANDING different IS
claimed now
There arose question as to which act
this case should come under and LAWYERS
Root and Wilson tried to address the court
4