The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-02
Editors of indianapolis News
Successfully Resist Effort
to Transfer Their Case.
No CRIMINAL MALICE If
KNOWLEDGE WAS LACKING
Government Suits Grow Out of
Articles Intimating Graft in
Canal Purchase.

l'NDlANAPOblS. ~ June l.-DclaVan
Smith and Charles Williams, editors of
inc Indianapolis News. today success.
FULLY resisted, for the moment at least,
Their removal TO the District of Coum-
bla to stand trial for criminal libel on
account of publishing articles intimat-
ing that there was enormous graft in
the Panama canal purchase.
Lawyers for the publishers denied
malice in the stories and editorials
complained of. They gained from
Judge Anderson a ruling that evidence
should he introduced to this effect.
The defendants committed no offcnsc
for which they could he removed to an.
other district for trial they said. All
torncys for the government vigorously
reslsted the introduction of testimony,
but were overrulcd.
Distinctions in Malice.
Judge Anderson. in his ruling. dc.
clared malice in civil action was diff
ferenJ from malice IN 4 criminal case.
Implied malice IN a newspaper publica-
ton might he sufficient 10 Justify Il
Judgment for damages against the pub
Usher, But III a criminal action diff
fcrent degree of malice was required
II must be express malice. he said.
intent said Judge Anderson. "Thc
owner Of Il newspaper might well be
held civilly for ANYTHING that appeared
in his pages. because the men who put
If there are mis- agents. but whom it
comes TO question of criminal llabil-
ItY for publication of an article, il is
different
''As fer example. if the proprietor
of a newspaper in New York q could
l. I,,.
paper. for because rich As they are,
they are not rich enough 80 own their
own yachts)-but suppose the pToTri-
etor Of New York paper should be
of for SIX months cruising III his
Yacht In his absence vicious arlItle
appeared III nis paper. Should he be
held criminalIy? II does not occur TO
ME that he could be held crimInalIv
liable
Owner Must Have knowledge.
81 am speaking about the ultimate
facts. ii the owner is not present he
actually knew nothing about the publ
cation and could not possibly be held
guilty Of the crime.
Questioning Charles r. Williams, cd
itor of the News, Assistant United
States District Attorney Mcnamara
drew out that Mr.. Williams had not
written the editorials complained of, i'm
which IL was declared 10 he desii able
that the part Of c. P. Taft, Douglas
Robinson, William Nelson Cromwell
and j. Pierpont Morgan in the Panama
transfer should be investigated. lie
had. however, approved them. Mr..
Williams said the publications Of thc
editorials. he thought, was In the in
terest Of public morality and lntcg-
rty.
Writer Explanation,
Louis Rowland, who wrote the edi-
toriaIs and handed them TO Mr., Will
liams, told tho court that he wrote them
because he thought the subject was
S'tne biggest thing in the campaign
He had made no personal investigation
into the records Of the senate inquiry
and he did not know persona Iy that
G. p. Taft was interested IN the Pan
ANA transfer. 4 newspaper did not
have the time 20 make such lnyestIga-
lions. he SAID.
Delavan Smith testified that he bad
no personal knowledge Of the editorials
before they were published, as Mr.. vii,
Iiams had full charge of the editorial
page
Ernest !. Lewis, staff correspond
emf Of thc News, declared he had no
instructions from his paper MS to how
he should handle tho Panama canal
matter I'm his dispatches.