New-York tribune., 1909-02-04
WRITES STIMSON AGAIN
JFROME NOT SATISFIED.
Question of Precedence IN Panama
Canal Libel Case.

District Attorney Jerome hss answered tne .,.
cei,e5 l,x him from United States Attorney sum
son n reference TO prosecution for ailegeo IN
snal Hbel 81 the publication OF charges Ie1u
70 the Panama Canal purchase MI jerome
On January Is suggesting that be get pTeceoence E
n 2 srft AGAINST The World" provided tha< 'ii
=. ,5ee,7e5 wise by Attorney General bohapalA 70
ara not an interference with the federal case IA
Stinlson wrote in reply :hat an acuoh Os w
Jerome would not he looked upon as an ln1erlei
ence and bespoke cooperation in all proper ~
lawful WAYS" Il was learned late yesterday lla'
the District Attorney had answered tie iat'eI'
When seen las. evening Mt. Jerome declined 10
make the letter public without the consent Of MI
Srir1sor The United States attorney did not give
this consent. Il was learned that pTobaOlV 10 10
action would be taken by the District Attorney u'
he had heard from the federal official. The tedeTal
Grand 175- II IS said viii not hear witnesses again
lntn next Tuesday. II was denied that there was
sEy hitch between the authorities, county ana
federal
A LAWYER familiar with federal practice. who has
followed the case carefully said that he could not
interpret AIr StiInsons letter Delaney NicoA
said the same thing when first read il II was
pointed our that it old not answer NJ Jerome s
most vital inquiry, contained in summary which
follows:
u Mr.. Douglas Robinson requests me to com
sons responsible for this publication, l VII 90 go
provided that The attorney Genera. O me 4tfa 5
stale prosecutions shall take precedence IN the tl
uf any Indictment thst might be found over me
trial any Indictments against the sans persons
that NAV he found for the same Tnalters N me
federal courts.
The two paragraphs IN Mr. stimson's answer
which more nearly approached reply 70 the fore
soirE but which said nothing about giving Mr..
Jerome precedence, were:
IN ansver. therefore. 10 your query as 70 wneineT
= prosecution your part as 10 the aliesel H1e!
Of October , upon Mr. Robinson would De regafutu
IS an uaWise Interference with a matter over
which the federal courts have Jurisdiction, and IN
which action has already been taken by me Ieo-
eral authorities" ] beg @ assure you that sGcLl
action o. you part viii in wise he regarded
a. Euch an interference, but on the contrary
shall regard II OUT duty 10 cooperate Win
e-oU in all proper and lawful ways
You therefore be assured OF my cCrdlal CO
operation in bringing light all facts relating 10
5his transaction. and I happy 10 ofIeT you &C
cess 10 all sources OF information on this subjecI
under my Official control IN the same way, 1
should he very zlad 70 be furnished by you with
Euy evidence which your Investigations upon the
subject may disclose
The lawyer said that II M jerome should get
precedence II would only one suit against
The WorId," for the defendant defendants
could be tried Il two places al the same time
The whole course Of the proceedings, he said, would
deDend entirely upon the answer OF the United
states attorney 10 the District Attorneys later
communication presuminE that il referred TO bis
request for precedence in the prosecution.