Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-10-13

Judge Anderson said he was too busy
with other matters to write long
was one of great public interest and
| Importance and involved several COM
pick questions of procedure in the
United States courts. He would pro-
coed, he said. to sum up at once his
view of the evidence and the argument
Il am of the opinion, said Judge An
drson. that the fact that certain per-
sons were called thieves and 'swind-
lers' does not constitute libel per Sc. A
newspaper has a certain duty to per-
form. As a former President has said.
1T is the duty of a newspaper to print
the news and to tells' the truth about
it. 1t is the duty of a. newspaper, to
draw differences for the people.
Alleges Peculiar Features.
| Now, there were many peculiar cir
cumstances about the whole Panama ca
nal business. l do not wish to be under
stood as rejecting upon anybody in or
| out of office. except such person or per-
sons as 1 may name. =
THE revolution In Panama. the circum-
stances concerning it, were unusual and
peculiar. The people were interested in
matter of great public concern; a large
portion of the people favored the Mica.
raguan route; another portion those who
were interested in it. officially and person.
ally-just interested-preferred the Pam
anna route. A committee was appointed
| to investigate the relative merits OF the
| two routes. They investigated and re-
ported in favor of the Nicaraguan Short
| ly afterward they changed to Panama. Up
| to the time of that change, as l gather
| from the evidence, the lowest offer which
| had been suggested as the one at which
the Panama property-the property OF
the Panama Canal Company-could be
procured, was something over one hun
Arad millions Then rather suddenly IT
became known that 1t could be procured
| for forty millions.
Now, there were a number of people
| who thought there was something wrong
something not just exactly right about
that transaction. and l say for myself
that now I feel a natural curiosity to
know what the real truth was.
Committee Hears Testimony.
Thereupon the committee of the United
>States Senate was: anpsintedt to investi-
gate those matters-&bout the only way
| 1t could be investigated. The committee
met. as stated in these articles. these
men who knew all about it. l think
| that is the proper way to speak of WILL
liam Nelson Cromwell. Well. these men
| were called before the committee, and
Mr. Cromwell. upon having certain ques-
| tons put to him. stood upon his privilege
as an attorney and refused to answer.
That was the state of the case, as shown
by the evidence, when we adjourned last
June.
Eat this session of court certain parts
Of the records showing the proposition
before the Senate, have been introduced
by the government and the impression
made upon my mind from such parts as
the government saw fttto Introduce is
not more favorable to Mr.. CromwelFs
position than it was upon the former
hearing So far as the record has been
read, Mr.. Cromwell stood upon his priv
ilege whenever questions were asked the
answer to which would or might reflect
upon him or his associates; but whenever
question was asked him which gave
him an opportunity to say something In
their behalf he ostentatiOusly thanked the
examiner and proceeded to answer. To
my mind that was just grounds for sus-
picion.: ! am suspicious about 1t now.
Situation Outlined.
$50 we have this situation. Here is a
matter of great public concern. l was in
terested, you were interested, We were all
interested. Here was a newspaper printing
tn news-or trying to. Here was this mat
ter up for discussion, and l am not will
ing to say that the differences were too
strongly drawn. / am not approving
them. l am simply saying that 1 am not
able to say they were too strongly drawn.
Now II that is the situation, the ques-
ton is, Did these defendants under the
circumstances, act honestly in the dis
charge of this duty which I have spoken
Of. which the law recognizes. and were
they actuated by desire to injure the
persons who are affected by their act? II
1t we're necessary to decide this case upon
the question of privilege or lack of malice
/ would hesitate quite a while before I
| would conclude 1t was my duty to send
these people to Washington for trial. But
that is not it.
, THE indictment charges these defend
ants with commission Of crime in the
District Of Columbia. Now, the Consti-
amendments, provides that the accused
shall be tried in the state or district where
the offense Is committed.
The Indianapolis News is owned by
these defendants, conducted and publish
ed by them. printed by them in the city
of Indianapolis, state Of Indiana At the
time covered by this indictment it had
daily circulation of about $4,000 copies.
disposed of In the state Of Indiana some
| four or five hundred more in one or two
OF the adjoining states, and to the Dis
trict OF Columbia there were sent by mail
about fifty copies to subscribers. persons
! who ordered them sent. The defendants
have. no agent or bureau or office. and
| maintain no. agent or bureau or ONCE in
| the city Of Washington, in the District Of
Columbia. for the circulation of papers
| within that District.
Question to Be Decided.
80 the question. do the defendants
| when they prepare and publish fftv
| copies in the city Of Indianapolis and de-
posit them in the United States mail In
this building to be transmitted by mail
to fifty subscribers in Washineton-tlo
they publish those fifty copies in Wash
ington? If they do. II they did, the court
has jurisdiction of the offense. will not
| go SO far as to say that 1t has NJ tho de-
PENDANTS. But IL they did not, then the
court has neither Jurisdiction of the Of
| Tense nor the defendants
! ITO my mind there is but one conclusion
dence shows that the defendants do Or
| did. they do and did In the state Of In
diana. city of Indianapolis I am not
| here to say that if these defendants had