Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1909-10-14
FEDERAL JUDGE ANDERSON Die
MISSES CASE AGAINST
NEWSPAPER MEN
REVIEWS CIRCUMSTANCES
AND QUESTIONS GROuDS eon Il
ACTION AND JURlSDlc.
TON OF COURT

Indianapolis, Oct. 12.-Federal Jua,.
Anderson today dismissed the proceaS
ings against Delavan Smith and Cha.
K. Williams, proprietors of the Indian
apolis News, who were resisting re-.
moval to Washington for trial N
charges Of criminal libel in publishino
articles alleging their was a corrunt
profit of $2S,000 600 in sale of the pana.
ma canal to the United States.
THAT man has read the HISTORY .,
our institutions to little purpose" said
Anderson, in conclusion, who does not
view with apprehension a proceeding
which will permit citizens to be drap'
ged from their homes to seat of gov.
eminent for trial under the circum.
stances OF this case. The defendants
are discharged"
IL am of the opinion" said Ander.
son, that the fact that certain Der
sons are called thieves and 'swind.
lers' does not constitute libel per Sc.
LAS the former president said. Il
is the duty of newspapers to print
the news and tell the truth about II
1t is the ldty of newspaper to draw
differences for the people"
The court reviewed what is called
''many peculiar circumstances about
| the whole Panama canal business"
and added:
"A number Of people thought there
was something not just exactly right
about that transaction, and | say for
myself l feel natural curiosity to
know what the real truth was. A com.
mittee of the senate was appointed to
investigate. asked VIM. Nelson Crom.
well certain questions, but he stood
upon his privilege as an attorney and
refused to answer. Cromwell stood up
on this privilege whenever questions
were asked an answer to which might
reflect upon him or his assistants; but
whenever question was ASKED giving
him an opportunity to say something on
their behalf, he answered To my mind
that is just grounds for suspicion
did these defendants, in publishing
the matter complained of, act hon.
estly in discharge of the duty which
! have spoken of, or were they actual
ed by desire to injure the persons
affected? 1t 1t were necessary to de-
eide this case upon a question of privl-
lege or lack of malice, would hesitate
| quite while before concluding it was
my duty to send these people to Wash
ington for trial. But the indictment
charges them with comission of
crime in the District of Columbia. The
constitution of the United States pro-
| vides the accused shall be tried In the
state or district where the offense Is
| committed
When these defendants put in the
papers matters OF libellous nature in.
to the postoffice at Indianapolis, either
1t became a separate and independent
| crime In every district and state into
which the papers went, or there was
but one crime. and that there
Il think that between these two
views the latter Is the more reasonable
and correct one. Where people prin!
q newspaper here for circulation
throughout counties and districts there
Is but one publication and that one
here. II that in true, there was no
publication in Washington. II the his
tory OF liberty means anything the
prosecuting authority should not have
the power to drag citizens there foF
trial"