River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1909-02-04
ST|MSON TELLS
JEROME TO SUE.
PROMISES TO HELP HIM IN THE
CANAL LIBEL CASE.
is NOT AN INTERFERENCE
This Applies to Douglas Robinson, But
Government May Itself Prose-
cute to indicate Taft's
Good Name.


New York, Feb. Henry l.. Slim.
son. United States district attorney
for the southern district of New York,
made public last night letter in re-
ply to one written by District Attor-
ney Jerome on the subject of begin
ming an action for criminal libel in the
state courts against the publishers of
the New York World because of pub
lished charges regarding the Panama
canal purchase.
Mr. Stimson tells Mr.. Jerome to go
ahead and assures him that such ac-
ton on your part will in no wise be
regarded as an interference, but, on
the contrary, we shall regard it as our
duty to cooperate with you in all
proper and lawful ways"
May Say Taft was LibeIed.
1t is apparent from the wording of
the letter that while the federal au-
thorities concede to Mr.. Jerome the
right to appear as the protector of
Douglas Robinson's good name, they
reserve to themselves the privilege of
acting in defense of the reputation of
"a gentleman who occupied the posi-
ton of head of the war department"
in any federal jurisdiction where the
case applies.
The reference to the gentleman
who occupied the position of head Of
the war department" is taken to mean
President-elect Taft, who was secre-
tary of war at the time of the Panama
canal purchase and is the first intima-
ton that the government may allege
that he is the person who has been
libeled through the article COM
planned of.
Mr.. Stmson's Letter.
Mr.. Stimson's letter is as follows:
my Dear Sir: | have received your
letter of January 26, and have given it
careful attention. The series of pub
LEGATIONS in the New York World, to
which you refer, have for some time
been under my consideration. These
publications, which l concur with you
in considering libelous, appear to have
been circulated by the newspaper in
question in a number of distinct and
independent jurisdictions and to con-
tain charges rejecting upon the per-
sonal character of a number of men,
of whom some are in public life and
some are private citizens. In each of
these jurisdictions, under well-known
principles of law, each of these pub
licatiOns would constitute a separate
offense, and as it happens in this case,
each one is characterized by distinct
and peculiar features.
Your letter makes clear the offenS6
against the laws of New York state,
constituted by the attack upon the
reputation of Mr. Robinson, circulated
among his friends and neighbors in
New York county The circulation Of
similar charges of personal corruption
or dishonor against a gentleman who
occupied the position of head of the
war department, among the officers
and men of the army resident upon
the military reservations in my dis
trict, or among the residents of the
District Of Columbia where the war
department is situated, may well en-
gage the attention of the officials
whose duty it is to enforce the law in
those localities.
Wants Harmony of Prosecutors.
"But, while these alleged offenses
thus possess features which are dis
tinct and to a certain extent peculiar
to these different jurisdictions, they
all relate to the same general subject
matter, the Panama canal purchase,
and prosecution for any one Of them
bears necessary relation to, and may
be to some extent practically affected
by the result of prosecution for any
other. In such a situation, | conceive
that it is the duty of all prosecutors
not to allow any conflict OF jurisdic-
tion to jeOpardize an ultimate convic-
ton, but to take up the work in spir-
it of harmonious cooperation with the
common aim that the offenders shall
be eventually tried and punished in
the forum where that end can be most
suitably and effectively accomplished.
In accordance with your request l
have conferred with the attorney gen.
eral and l am authorized to say that
his views upon the present situation
fully coincide with my own.
Promises His Cooperation.
I'm answer, therefore, to your query
as to whether a prosecution on your
part as to the alleged libel of October
3 upon Mr.. Robinson, would be re-
garded as an unwise interference
with a matter over which the federal
courts have jurisdiction, and in which
action has already been taken by the
federal authorities / beg to assure
you that such action on your part will
in no wise be regarded as such an in
reference, but, on the contrary, we
shall regard it as our duty to cooper
ate with you in all proper and lawful
ways.
you may, therefore, be assured of
my cordial cooperation in bringing to
light all facts relating to this trans
action, and l am happy to offer you
access to all sources of information
on this subject under my official con-
troll. In the same way l should be
very glad to be furnished by you with
any evidence which your investiga-
tions upon the subject may disclose.
Very respectfully yours, Henry L.
Stimson, U. s. Attorney"