University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1909-10-23
The Riqht of Free Speech.

Judge Anderson of the United States
Court, questioning the propriety of in
dictment in the Panama libel case,
went to the heart of the issue. Re
marking that there were honest eX-
pressions of opinion regarding the
choice of routes for the Panama Canal.
and as to the wisdom of the Govern
ment's constructing or owning an At
lantic-Pacific canal, he characterized
the whole Panama scheme as "a great
political project" He continued:
The press has public duty to
perform and in political discussions it
seems to me that the conception of
libel should be greatly different from
the conception that should apply to
case of libel on persons private
character. | am not seeking to preju-
dice the case at this time; | am only
seeking for light on the question here
as to whether criminal libel may be
possible in this matter. Criminal IL
bel is a crime against society.
Il am of the opinion that the fact
that certain persons were called
thieves and 'swindlers' does consti-
tute libel per Sc. A newspaper has
certain duty to perform. AS former
president had said: 1t is the duty of
| newspaper to print the news and to
tell the truth about it. 1t is the
duty OF a newspaper to draw infer,
ences for the people"
The vital question in this whole
proceeding against the New YORK
World and indianapolis News is the
freedom OF the preSs-itS freedom to
discuss public policies and the acts
and purposes OF public officers and OF
men VINO deal With the Government
Free publication and discussion Of pub
lie affairs in which the people are
concerned is not only a rigat but a
duty. 1t is nee eSsary to the protection
Of society and the safeguarding OF
/ fearlessly lay bare all facts touching
upon public questions and govern
mental acts ana shall direct public
opinion to their significance.
AS the real issue in the libel cases
is the freedom OF the press, so the
/ real point OF the contention against
g.. JD NJ nf . h., II,
I Washington for trial is the right OF
the citizen to be tried where the al
legged offense was committed and to be
protected from the injustice of trial
far from home under conditions which
make successful defense costly and
difficult. On this point Judge Ander-
ingS. said:
That man has read the history OF
our institutions to little purpose who
does not view with apprehension the
success of such proceeding as this
20 the end that citizens could be
dragged from their homes to the Dis
I t!ltl Oi oO!uHIDIot lilc SSdI VI SoNCi IL
ment. for trial under the circum
stances Of this case"
Every step in the libel renders clear
er the evident intent to use the pro
. cess of the Government to punish the
accused newspaper men, not for libel
but for criticism of the Roosevelt ad
.rinistration. The effect of such pun
ishment would naturally be the intim
idation of the press generally. 1t is
) this aspect of the cases which em
r phasize their Importance as tes
: Of the fundamental and constitutional
right of free speech.
: The decision of Judge Anderson
r against the removal of the defendant:
: marks the first victory in this grea
) battle for the liberty of the Ameri
e can press.-St. Louis Post-Dispatch.