Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-01-18
Some Doubt Exists Over Power
to Bring Panama Scandal
Publishers to Trial
SIMILAR ATTEMPT
FAILED
Effort to Bring Charles A. Dana to
Washington Several Years Ago Is
Recaled-lndictment Is Probable and
Question Will Be Observation-Disclosures
as Plaintiff.

Washington, Jan. 18--There is grave
doubt as to whether the proceedings
which are believed to have been COM
menced against the New York World
and the Indianapolis News can be
prosecuted to a successful conclusion
should indictments be found by the
local grand jury. One important ques-
ton seems to be without precedent.
That is whether, under the common
law. criminal proceedings for libel can
be brought by the United States.
In the District of Columbia, as in
Maryland. the old English laws are in
force. The paragraphs referring to H.
bel are carefully drawn. and it will
be nice question for the courts in
constituting them to determine whether
the United States can be libeled There
is a precedent, however, for an in
teresting question which has been
raised.
Suhpoenas have been served here
which indicate that the local grand
jury will be asked to indct the pub
fishers of the New York World and the
indianapolis News for alleged GRIM
inal libel. Should presumable cause
be shown ard the Indictment be re-
turned, it is by no means certain that
the defendants can be brought to
Washington for trial.
One of the subpoenas which have
been served calls for Harry Christ,
Washington correspondent Of the
Brooklyn Eagle, to appear before the
grand jury in New York. So far as
known no subpoenas require witnesses
to appear before the grand Jury at In
dianapolis. This may develop later. A
number of persons connected with the
Indianapolis News have been sub
poenaed to appear in Washington. If
the government does not seek and OBJ
tain indictments in New York and In
dianapolis presidents warrant the pre-
diction that the prosecution will fail
so far as the editors of the New York
World and Indianapolis News are con-
cerned.
Precedent in Dana Case.
In 1895 Charles A. Dana, then editor
OF lHe New DIX sun, NSo dileSSu "
have libeled Frank B. Noyes, then con-
nected with the Washington Evening
Star. The local grand jury promptly
found an indictment charging Mr.
Dana with criminal libel. Mr.. Dana
was arrested in New York City. but re-
sisted extradition to the District of
Columbia. He appeared to the New
Yord courts for a writ of habeas cor
pus.1 The case was hard fought on
both sides and was in the courts from
June to December, 1895. Mr. Dana
won. He was granted the writ and the
courts refused to surrender him to the
of the District of Columbia
on the grounds that if an offense had
been committed it was committed in
New York, where the newspaper was
published, and that the accused was
entitled to trial in that jurisdiction.
In ordinary criminal cases it is COM
mon for the criminals when arrested
in New York or other places outside
the jurisdiction of the district to- De.
extradited at the request of the local
authorities. But in cases involving
criminal libel the old English law,
which seems ample to punish. certai ly
where an individual is the complain
ant. runs counter to other laws. In the
case of Mr.. Dana the old common law
was useless. for the reason that I'M
der other laws MIR. Dana could resist
and was only in danger Of
punishment upon apprehension in the
District of Columbia.
The parallel between the Dana case
and the case which has just been COM
is striking, and the records i'll
the former case will undoubtedly be
cited in resisting extradition should the
local grand jury return indictments.
Individual as Plaintiff.
One suggestion regarding the expect
ed prosecution is that an individual,
and not the United States government
is the real plaintiff in the case. 1t is
true that the subpoenas served here
read "the United States versus the
Press Publishing company"
But if the proposed action is GRIM
inal in character, as is generally as
sumed to be the case, that would be
the form of a subpoena, even where an
individual is the complainant, accord
ing to the practice in the District of
Columbia.
The identity of this individual, or in
dividuals, for there may be more than
one of them, is purely a matter of spec