The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-06-02
COURT RULES
AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT
Prosecution Must Prove Malice
in the indianapolis
News Editorials.
PROBABLE FAILURE OF
LES MAJESTE CASES
DGE DOES NOT THINK THE
NEWSPAPER PRoPRIEToRs
CRIMINALLY LIABLE.

indianapolis. June 1-Delavan Smith
Ind Charles Williams, editors of the
indianapolis News. today successfully
resisted, for the moment at least their
removal TO the District of Columbia to
stand trial for criminal libel on ac-
count of publishing articles intimating
that there was enormous graft in the
Panama canal purchase.
Lawyers for the publishers denied
malice in the stories and editorials com
planned of. They gained from Judge
Anderson a ruling that evidence should
De introduced 20 this effect.
The defendants committed no Of
Tense for which they could be removed
to another district for trial, they said
Attorneys for the government vIgor-
ously resisted the introduction Of tes-
tim0ny, but were overruled.
Ruling Of the Court.
Judge Anderson. in his ruling, de-
cIared malice in a civil action was diff
feTent from malice in criminal case
Implied malice in a newspaper publica-
ton might be sufficient to justify
Judgment for damages against the pub
Usher. But in a criminal action a diff
ferent degree Of malice was required
81 must express malice, he said.
"Of course, there is back of this the
intent" said Judge Anderson. TIL
owner OF a newspaper might we'll be
held Civiily for anything that appeared
il his pages, because the men who put
it there are his agents. but when it
comes to a question of criminal liabn-
ity for publication of an article it is
different,
An Illustration.
AS. for example, if the proprietor OF
a newspaper in New York q could not
cite this Illustration for a western pa
per, for, because rich as they are, they
are not rich enough to own their own
yachts)-but suppose the proprietor or
@ New York paper should be off for six
months cruising in his yacht. In his
absence a vicious article appeared In
his paper. Should he be hFfd- cFfTniHaT--
ly2 Il does not occur to me that he
could be held cTiminally liable
OF am speaking about the ultimate
facts If the owner is not present, he
actually knew nothing about the pub
LEGATION and could not possibly be held
guilty of the crime"
Evidence of the Editor.
Questioning Charles r. Williams.
editor Of the News, United States As
s.stant District Attorney Mcnamara
drew out that Mr.. Williams had not
written the editorials complained OF. IN
which it was declared to be desirable
that the part of &. P. Taft, Douglas
Robinson, William Nelson Cromwell
and J. PierpOnt Morgan in the Panama
transfer should De investigated. He
had, however. approved them. MI
Williams said the publication OF the
editorials, he thought was I'm the in
t5rast of public morality and integrity.
Louis Rowland, who wrote the edito-
rails and handed them to Mr. Williams,
told the court that he wrote them be-
cause he thought the subject was the
biggest thing IN the campaign" He
had made no personal investigation into
The records o. the senate inquiry and
he cid not know personally that G. =.
Tat wHs interested in the Panama
N2nsfe-. a newspaper did not have
TINE 90 make such Investigations, he
said
10 Personal knowledge.
Dear-1 Saith testified that he had
I'D personal knowledge of the editorials
before they were published, as M VII
Fans had full charge Of the editorial
page
Ernest T. Lewis, a staff correspond
eat NJ the News. declared he had no
instructions from his paper as TO now
DE- should handle the PGLala CanaI
matter rr his diguatcheS-