The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1909-06-03
EDITORS IN LIBEL
!. CASE WIN A POINT
Sustained in Demand to Give
Testimony. \
ARE FIGHTING EXTRACTION
Judge Anderson, In indianapolis News
Action, Permits Smith and VIII
Iiams to, Prove AbsencS
4 OF Malice. VA

Indianapolis, Ind, June g. Delaydn
Smith and Charles WilliaN owners
of the indianapolis News, Il before
Judge anderson OF the, Uni ed States
court OF this district, re1isting re-
movai to the District of Columbia for
trial on indictments charging them
with having committed criminal libel
Ia publishing articles intimating that
there was an enormous graft in the
purchase by the United States of the
! Panama canal zone.
Messrs Smith and Williams were
Indicted by the grand Jury of the Dis
trict of Columbia jointly with the pro-
prietors OF the New York World.
Stuart Mcnamara assistant United
States attorney for the District of
Columbia, and Charles W. Miller, dis
trict attorney, represent the govern
ment in the case, and Ferdinand Win
ter of this city is the attorney for the
defendants.
Question Of Malice Raised.
Mr.. Winter maintained, and sought
to prove his points by the evidence
presented, that the newspaper pub
fishers were not guilty of the malice
necessary to complete criminal libel.
and that they had not committed an
offense for which they could be re-
moved from one district to another
for iris. and that the indictment
charging them with criminal libel was
baseless. ~
The government resisted the intro
duction of evidence in the hearing,
Mr.. Mcnamara and Mr.. Miller con-
tending that it was inessential for a
committing magistrate to hear evil
dence. Tho exhibits of editorials
printed in the indianapolis News. they
held, were libeIlous If they violated
statutes f the District of Columbia,
providing that criminal libel may lie
in the publication of an article not
justified in truth, anu that a person
found guilty may be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more
than five years, or both. The govern.
ment maintained that on the face of
the indictment and the information
the defendants should be transferred
to the District of Columbia for trial.
Rules Against Government.
Judge Anderson ruled against the
government. The defense then placed
Z upon the stand Ernest |. Lewis, a staff
correspondent of the News, who de-
MED that he had any instructions from
his employers as to handling the Pa
mama canal matter in his dispatches
from the political headquarters at
Chicago during the last campaign.
"Of course, there Is back of this the
intent said Judge Anderson. The
owner of newspaper might very well
be held civilly for anything that APP
peared in his pages, because the men
who put it there are his agents, but
when It comes to question of crimi-
nal liability for publication of an arti-
Gle, it is very different thing. AS,
for example, II the proprietor of a
newspaper in New York q could not
cite this illustration for a western
I9per, because, rich as they are, they
az \ not rich enough to own their own
yachts)-but suppose the proprietor
OF New York paper should be off for
six months cruising in his yacht. Dur
ing his absence there was a vicious
article appeared in his paper. Should
he be held criminally? 1t does not oc.
cur to me that he could be held GRIM
inally Liable"
Williams Takes Stand.
Questioning Charles r. Williams,
editor-in-chief of the News, Mr.. Nc
Namara drew out that Mr.. Williams
had not written the editorials COM
planned of, in which it was declared to
be desirable that the part of G. p.
Taft, Douglas Robinson, William Mel
son Cromwell and j. Pierpont Morgan
in the Panama transfer should be in
vestigated He had, however, APP
proved them Mr.. Williams said the
publication of the editorials, he
thought, was in the interest of public
morality and integrity. He had made
no inquiry on his own score, he said,
but he had based his attitude on
knowledge OF the history of the Pana-
ma transaction from the start.
Louis Rowland, who wrote the edi-
torials and handed them to his chief.
Mr.. Williams, told the court on the
stand that he wrote them because he
thought the subject was the biggest
thing in the campaign" and he should
not have discharged his duty if he had
not discussed II.