The Topeka state journal., 1909-02-26
FRON OTHER PENS
THE CANAL LIBEL CASE.

1t is to the public interest that the
indictments found in the District of
Columbia against the newspapers
charged with publishing libels in con-
nection with the Panama canal charges
Of impropriety are based upon alleged
libels against individuals instead of the
United States government, as was at
one time proposed. There is the color
of official local residence in the cases
of Mr.. Roosevelt and Mr.. Root, who are
mentioned in the fifth count, and in the
case of Mr.. w. H. Taft, named in the
fourth count, as libeled by the New
York World and the Indianapolis News.
There is no such ground, however. in
the cases of Messrs. Robinson. Charles
P. Taft, Cromwell and Morgan named
Cromwell and Morgan are residents of
New York, and Mr.. c. P. Taft is a citi-
zen of Cincinnati.
An indictment drawn against the
publishers of the World and the News
in Washington on the score of having
libeled the United States would have
placed the proceeding upon a most OBJ
jectionable plane 1t is not to be de-
sired that the federal government
should have the power to set itself up
as complaining witness and hale to
the seat of government for trial any
person whom any high official may re-
ments, regardless Of his place of resi-
dence. Nor is it desirable that. the
government should move in this juris-
diction in the name of an individual as
a nbeled person and possess the same
right of extradition.
If Mr.. Cromwell and Mr.. Robinson
have been libe1ed by the New York
World, the city of their own residence
and of the publication is the proper
place for the trial to ascertain the fact,
and, if 1t is established, to administer
punishment. An effort in good faith to
determine the guilt of the alleged libel
ers and to procure a thorough sitting
of the allegations advanced against the
eight men named as the libeled should
take the form of New York and In
dianapols indictments. in which juris-
from trial by resisting extradition un-
der the decision in the Dana case
Washington Star.
BROwBEATING OF WITNESSES.
Mr Heney, the able public prosecu-
tor in San Francisco. resents with
and umbrage the innuendo
and back talk of witnesses; very pro-
perly, no doubt. A witness should be
made to understand at once upon TAX
ing the stand what is expected of him,
and to submit graciously and patient
Iy to any kind of examination short of
attack which lawyers may
make. Suppose an attorney snarls.
snaps and growls at the witness, or
sneeringly smiles suspicion. What of
it? A witness is only an unprotected,
defenseless citizen doing his duty; to
be terrified or cajoIed into revealing
his innermost thoughts according to
the way the lawyer intends him to
speak them. To impugn the veracity
of a witness by insinuation or yelled
threats is a legitimate device for roll
ing him to the point of saying some
thing which may be used to advantage
against him. What! A witness to be
allowed to tell a simple tale of what
he has seen or heard, uninterrupted
and undismayed2 Neveri Justice
might be precipitated. and witnesses
might retain their self-respect. Wit
nesses may be distressed. bullied, and
cowed. but legal circumlocution must
be preserved and the dignity of the ad-
yocate safeguarded.-Wash ashington Post.