New-York tribune., 1909-01-27
WATTS FOR DIR. ROBINSON
TO Make REQUEST.
Thinks 4ction by the State Should
Take Precedence OUer Federal
Prosecution.

libel in relation to the Panama Canal charges
printed on October 3 of last year. Mr. Jerome
said IN this communication that he believed ac-
ton by the state should take precedence Of an
action by the federal government
But the District Attorney indicated that hs
would not prosecute unless Douglas Robinson
expressed a wish that an action should be be-
gun. Mr.. Jerome said. too. that he would not
proceed II he could not do without interfer-
ing In "a matter over which the federal courts
have Jurisdiction"
Mr.. Robinson said last night that he had nOs
heard OF Mr.. Jerome's letter or of his intention.
He will in all probability. be consulted by Mr..
Jerome to-day.
OFFER TO PROSECUTE
The District Attorneys letter follows:
1 have given the matter published in The
New York World OF October 3, 1903 careful
consideration / am of the opinion that 1t IS
plainly a libel upon Mr.. Charles P Taft and
Mr.. Douglas Robinson, assuming, OF course that
II Is untrue as TO the syndicate mentioned there
in and their alleged connection Herewith In
der the law OF this state its publication Is a
crime and as il published in the County
of New York II is my duty under certain CIR
cumstances to prosecute those responsible ror
the publication.
The publication has a much wider general
Importance than is found in most Hbels IL in
substance charges that by corrupt and dishon-
orable IL not criminal means the Treasury OF
the United States depleted to the extent
of S3650O.000 through the connivance. TO give
It no harsher description. of some Of the chief
officers Of the state. and that this great sum
divided among government fsvorifes IN
the world Of politics and finance"
II would seem that charge so serious ss
this and affecting the interests Of all the people
Of the United States. regardless or poIitical
faith. should not pass unchallenged. but should
be investigated in a court OF law, where sworn
testimony is considered and not mere denials.
whose falsity. II proved. brings no penalty 70
the persons making them
FH,o&4 h0TTFd hA
shown by the persons making such charge or
they should be properly punished for an acf the
which the people ought TO feel in their govern
ment and to diminish the efficiency OF the SER
vice it Is created to render them
From this point OF view the federal authorf-
ties. II seems to me- have distinct interest and
positive duty 10 perform. and from what you
tell it would seem that the jurisdiction OF the
federal courts IL adequate.
PEOPLE OF STATE INJURED
There Is another point OF view however Wills
the whole people OF the United States have
been injured by the publication Of such false
and Hbellous matter the people OF this state have
received distinct and separate injury in that
had false matter published about him in the
community in which he lives and is respected.
the direct purpose and tendency Of which II 10
brand him dishonorable and dishonest man.
as one who was willing TO trade upon the honor
OF his brother-in-law. the President OF the
United States.
This offence L am Ioath TO allow 20 pass unpun-
ished or. at least. without an effort to properly
Dunish II Therefore should Mr. Robinson ex-
press TO me his wish to have an action for GRIM
inal libel instituted. I shall institute such
action provided may do so without an unwise
interference with matter over which the federal
courts have Jurisdiction and in which action
has already been taken by the federal authori-
ties
You are Of course familiar with Section SO
OF the Penal Code OF this state. providing:
Whenever IT appears upon the trial OF an
Indictment that the offence committed in
her faf
stances that the courts Of the state or govern
ment had jurisdiction thereof and that the de-
fendant has already been acquitted or convicted
on the merits upon a criminal prosecution under
the laws of such state or county. founded upon
the act omission in respect to which he is
upon trial. such former acquittal or conviction
is a sufficient defence
1t would therefore. be useless for me 10 obtain
indictments in this matter II the federal au-
thorities SHOULD obtain indictments and were OF
opinion that these last should be tried before
those obtained in the state court 1t would not
he seemIv for me 10 endeavor to press such
actions to trial ahead of the actions OF ths
United States without the consent and approba-
tiOn of the federal authorities.
FAvoRs STATE PROSECUTION
There are number OF considerations which
readily occur upon reflection which seem to ms
to make il proper that IN case Ike this
state prosecution should take precedence over
one by the United States.
The article in question Is an attack upon th9
integrity OF high officers OF the state govern
ment of the United States in purpose. at least
upon the President himself and upon the Press
dent-elect-
Further there exists throughout the county,
strong feeling, and from my point OF view. Just
and wise feeling. that criminal prosecutions
should only be had In the federal courts in mat
ters strictly concerning the United States and
where no adequate remedy elsewhere exists. II
may be wise that in obedience 10 this feeling OF
the people precedence should be given. To the
state court.
To summarize:
II Mr.. Douglas Robinson requests me 70 COM
nence actions Tor criminal libels against the
persons responsible for this publication I viii
do So provided that the Attorney General Of
the United States informs me that he deems Il
wise that the state prosecutions shall take
precedence in the trial Of any Indictment that
might be found over the trial OF any indictments
against the persons that may be found for
the same matters In the federal courts
JURY ADJoURNs SUDDENLY.