New-York tribune., 1909-03-07
THE TRIAL or 4 LIBEL SUIT,

The Tribune did not wait until the present
legal proceedings had been proposed 10 condemn
the publication by The New York World" Of
scandalous charges relating to the purchase Of
the Panama Canal. 1t appeared TO us from the
first as il does now, that The World had
committed a serious offence against private
rights and public decency. It was not betrayed
by haste into mistaken judgment and an i'm
proper course but acted deliberately and, It
would seem. il the face of a specific warning
that the accusations which IL was about 10 cir
cuIate were not only false but were being dealt
in elsewhere By hlackmailers. The freedom Of
the press IS not attacked when the courts are
invoked in such a case.
While the recent preliminary processes OF the
law were going on with some seemingly foolish
effort 70 make a mystery of them-we were not
greatly disturbed by the cry Of the sufferers that
the ancient crime of seditious libel against the
United States was 10 be alleged IN the pleadings.
That unconcern has been justified by the indict-
ments found. here and al Washington, which
aver that various individual citizens have been
IfheUed. and which in that respect. are entirely
familiar and regular.
There is however. another feature OF the cese
as il now stands which deserves the gravest
consideration. From the Office Of the United States
Attorney in Washington there lately came, ap-
TarentIy on sufficient authority. the announce
menr Of a confident expectation that Mr.. Joseph
Pulitzer. proprietor OF The World and mem
bers Of the staff of that newspaper who had
been indicted with him would be required 10
appear for trial in Washington Without pro-
Tossing or possessing. any authentic information
on tie subject. we think that. indictments having
now been found IN this jurisdiction the proceed
ings in Washington will be dropped and the
cause tried here But. whether or not the event
is 10 confirm this opinion. deem II our duty
to say that the defendants ought not to he, and
we believe they will not be. taken 10 Washing
ton or anywhere else for trial
In referring. on March &c 1895. to an effort TO
take Mr Charles A. Dana. editor Of The New
York sun" 10 Washington for trial on a charge
Of criminal libel. The Tribune said:
It matters little how harmless may be the
action proposed II any particular case in which
power Is asserted II the power asserted be
arbitrary power Il its assertion under any cir
cu1nstances would BE- inconsistent with liberty
Of the person OF the press. there is no satet+.
but in prompt and uncOmprornising denial Of
the right 10 exercise Il IN any case once
Yielded 10 and established upon the firm foot
ing Of judicial precedent II cannot well be law
fully disputed. Il IS liable TO he nlaoe at any
time an instrument Of oppression The assertion
now made Of the power 10 take the @ @edlior ot
q newspaper from his home 10 the District OF
Columbia 10 tTy him for an article in his news
PAPER which constitutes a libel under the laws
OF that District Is threat against the liberty
Of the press in every state in the Union The
establishment Of that power would limit. in
fringe upon and reduce the liberty OF the press
We have seen no reason 70 revise the opinion
then and thus expressed. II was confirmed at
the time in these words by Mr.. Elihu Root. Of
counsel for Mr.. Dana:
Upon This Indictment Mt. Dana stands as
stands every editor Of & newspaper in the
United States. He writes his editorial with the
specific Intent that II shall be published at the
place Of publication which is here fixed In the
Indictment as the city of New York. II is pub
hshed there. he is responsible Civilly and Grim
iually for that L would be q great
limitation upon the freedom Of the press in this
country 10 say that every editor in every city
and state IS liable 10 be taken 10 any part OF
the earth where his papers may happen TO go,
and tried over and over again. hundreds OF
times perhaps. for a, single article. The
freedom OF the press, How can there be free
dom OF the press II there exists the arbitrary
power 10 punish all over the length and breadth
OF this Iand7
The view which we took and which Mr.. Root
sustained with characteristic vigor Of UtteTance
was affirmed by the decision Of the court in Mr..
DaHa's favor. If that Interpretation of the law
has been reversed or modified In any analogous
case. we are not aware Of the fact. That Il con-
forms TO the principles OF justice we entertain
no doubt Whatsoever.