The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1909-10-12
JUR:ST DECLARES THAT PANAMA
CANAL LIBEL CASE is OF A
POLITICAL NATURE.
STATEMENT IS ISSUED
Judge Anderson of the United States
District Court Makes a Significant
Against Deievan Smith and c. r.
Williams on Charge of Libel.

Williams on Charge of Libel.
Indianapolis. Ind, oct. l1.-That the
so-ca!led Panama libel case was
more or less of Il political nature. was
the comment oI Judge A. h. Anderson
of the United States district court at
the close of argument today in the
cas-. of Charles II. Williams and De-
lavan smith. proprietor of the Indian
apoIis News, whom the government is
seeking To remove 10 the District of
Columbia for trial on "a charge of
criminal libel.
Judge Anderson said he did not
wish To give the impression that he
had formed an opinion in the merits
of the case. but wished to point out
the trend of argument toward the
courts further enlightenment as to
whether or not this was the probable
cause for the Indictment OF Williams
and Smith by the federal grand jury
of the District of Columbia for Grim
inal libel. The basis of the action Is
published articles intimating that there
was IA graft of s2sO00.00O in the sale
of the Panama canal zone to the
United States by the French com
pany.
What is the guilty intent to he
shown on the part of these defend
ants?" the court asked stuart Me
Namara. special attorney of the de-
partment of justice, in charge of the
proceedings The judge declared he
doubted ii it could be shown that the
.iafa ttasA tl.N., .4
to libel Theodore Roosevelt Charles
p. Taft. William Nelson Cromwell,
President Taft. J. p. Morgan, Douglas
Robinson and others.
The whole Panama canal project
is great political project" said the
court, and there has been and is
much honest expression OF the opin-
ion as to the advisability of having
chosen the Panama route in preference
to the Nicaraguan route and now
since the cost of building the canal
is so much larger than at first esti-
mated. as to whether or not the
United States should own any At
lantic- Pacific canal.
Public Duty.
The press has a public duty to per-
form and in political discussions il
seems To me that the conception of
libel should he greatly different from
the conception that should apply to
case Of libel on persons private
character"
Judge Anderson said If Il set of
Americans went to France and bought
up the securities from the French
Panama Canal company for $4,000 600,
as alleged. and then sold them to the
United States for $40.o0O,OO0 ii should
be regarded as IA nasty piece of bust
ness" but in no sense a crime.
Stuart Mcnamara, attorney for the
government, interposed that in his
opinion a crime was charged for the
reason that il was alleged, that the
syndicate used its influence upon the
administration at Washington TO put
the deal through" and that If the
charge were true, Theodore Roosevelt.
Elihu Root and c. p. Taft were in
criminal completely with the "syndi
cate" To swindie the people OF this
country.
1t is my personal opinion" said
the court. that liberty is best pre-
served by passing over some aspects
tt tAi SkiiaSNu va AiiN iAtAAAAS AieS
under consideration, which should not
be passed over in a libel case of per
sonal or private character
Mr.. Mcnamara. in his argument
earlier, maintained that the Indian
apolis News was sold in Washington
and that therefore the crime charged
was committed in Washington as Well
as elsewhere. He said the records at
Washington absolutely refuted charges
of corruption in the Panama purchase:
that the defendants had not consid-
cred the records in publishing the
charges complained of and that what
ever was the intention in their minds
T the act they committed amounted to
criminal libel.
We cannot go into investigation of
the subjective state of the minds of
the defendants" he declared. we can
only judge from the outward acts
committed"
The only testimony he offered consist
ed of copies of the issues of the Indian
apolis News containing tho alleged
libelous articles and selections from
! the report of the senate committee 0f
1906. which Investigated the Panama
canal deal and examined Mr.. Crom-
well as attorney for the French own
err.