The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-06-02
ROOSEVELT CAUSED
INDICTMENT FOR LIBEL
Defendants Claim Panama Cana
Publications Not Prompted
BY Malice
tBy Associates preaa)

"H"N'"N"FN""N"N4
Indianapolis June Delavln
Smith and Charles Williams. owners
Of the indianapolis News, were be.
fore Judge Anderson OF the United
States court OF this district yester-
day. resisting removal TO the District
Of Columbia for trial on indictments
charging them with having commit.
ted criminal libel IN publishing artic.
lea intimatlng that there was an en-
ormous graft In the purchase by the
United States Of the Panama zone.
Messrs Smith aud Williams were In.
dicted by the grand jury Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, Jointly with the
proprletow OF the New York World
The deiehae maintained. aud sought
10 Prove its points by evidence pre-
sented that they were not guilty OF
the malice necessary 10 complete
criminal libel, and that they had not
committed an 0ffense for which they
could be removed from one district
TO another for trial, and that the IN.
dlctment charging them with criminal
libel WAS baseless. The attorneys for
the government resisted the introduc.
lion OF evidence contending that 4
was inesseniial for committing mag.
lst.ate to hear evidence.
Judge Anderson ruled against the
government He called attention 20
the necessity OF proving express, not
implied malice In q prosecution for
criminal libel, and said that Il was
his duty TO determine this question
by hearing evidence before he should
decide II the defendants should be
removed tor trial.
The defense then placed upon the
stand Ernest / Lewis, staff cores.
pOndeni OF the News, who denied that
he had had any instructions from his
employers as to handling the Panama
canal IN his dispatches from the po.
liiical headquarters at Chicago In the
last campaign.
Must show Malice
Judge Anderson declared that NAL.
Ice IN civil action was different
from malice In a criminal case I'm.
piled malice Ia a newspaper publlca-
lion might be sufficient 10 Justify o.
iudgmen' for damages against the
publisher. but Ia criminal action ox.
press malice was required
'rhe owner Of newspaper. said
Judge Anderson, might well be held
ciyllly ivr anything that appeared IN
his pages because the men who put
Il there are his agents. but when Il
comes 10 question Of criminal ia.
bility Ior publication Of an article,
II is different
Stuart Mcnamara, Of the govern.
inent's legal array, characterized as
absurd The charge OF corruption Ia
The Sale Of the Panama canal.
Defends Attack.
The court asked ~ Winter counsel
for the defense, Tor information IA 70
the senate investigation Of the Crom.
well affair Mr.. Winter said that Mr..
Cromwell had made 4 appear that na
was only attorney FOR the French com.
pany and that there were no gohe.
tweens Ia the transfer 10 the govern.
ment, though II was charged that the
stock uf me French company had
been bought by Americans for only
81 900, OOU.
What inference has the public a
right to draw commented Judge
Anderson There Is the point"
THE rubllc had the right said
Mr., Winter, TO discuss. aud n posi-.
BE 10 yentllate the matter. especial
" 10 national campaign upon which
depended a large part Of the charac
ter Of the membership OF congress,
Earlier IN The afternoon Delayan
Smith was on the stand and said be
hal no personal knowledge OF the edl.
torlals before they we're published, as
Chas. Williams had isll charge Of
the edltOiia page.