New-York tribune., 1909-10-13
NO NEW LIBEL VENUE
PANAMA TRIAL At HOME.
Judge anderson Rules against the
Government at Indianapolis.

the United States Court OF this district dismissed
the proceedings to-day against Delavan Smith and
Charles r. Williams. proprietors Of The Indian
RpOlis News" who resisting removal to the
District Of Columbia for trial They charged
under a grand Jury Indictment with having com
Snitted criminal libel in publishing articles alleg
ing that there a corrupt profit OF SS.0C0Oo0 in
the sale OF the Panama Canal 10 the United States
THAT man has read the history OF our institu-
fions little purpose" said Judge Anderson in
ending his decision who does not view with ap-
prehension the success OF such a proceeding as
this. 10 the end that citizens could be dragged
from their homes 10 the District OF Columbia, the
Heat of government. for trial under the circum-
stances of this The defendants are dis
charged"
AT the close of argument in The hearing OF Messrs
Smith and Williams to-day. Judge Anderson SAID
that he was too busy with other matters TO write
long opinion IN the case though 1t clearly was one
OF great public interest and importance and IN
VOWED several complex questions OF procedure in
the United States courts. He would proceed he
said, 10 sum up at once his view Of the evidencs
and the argument Il am OF the opinion, said
Judge Anderson that the fact that certain per-
sons were called thieves and 'sWinders does not
constitute libel per Sc newspaper has certain
duty 10 perform. AS former President has said:
III is the duty OF a newspaper print the news
and 10 tell the truth about it. II is the duty OF
newspaper to draw inferences for the people.
Now, there were many peculiar circumstances
about the whole Panama Canal business. do not
wish 10 be understood as rejecting upon anybody
IN out OF Office. except such persons or persons
as may
PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES
the revolution in Panama, the circumstances
concerning il, unusual and peculiar. The
people were interested in the construction OF the
canal. II was matter Of great public concern; a
large portion OF the people favored the Nicaraguan
route; another portion. those who were interested
in it officially and personaliy-just interested-pre-
ferred the Panama route. A committee was APP
pointed TO investigate the relative merits OF the
two routes. They investigated and reported in IA
vor OF the Nicaraguan. Shortly afterward they
changed 10 Panama. Up 10 the time Of that change
as 1 gather from the evidence the lowest ofrer
" hich had been suggested the at which
the Panama property-the property OF the Panama
Canal Company-could be procured was something
over slOO 100000. Then rather suddenly II became
known that could be procured for $4o.OJO,Vo
Now there were a number OF people who
fhought there was something wrong-something not
lust exactly right-about that transaction, ana
say FOR myself that now feel natural curiosity
10 know what the real truth was
..Tbereupon the Committee OF the United States
Senate was appointed to investigate these mat
iers-about the only way il could be investigated
The committee met, stated in these articles
these men who knew AL about it think that
is the proper way 10 speak of William Nelson
Cromwell. Well, these men were called before the
committee. and Mr.. Cromwell. upon having certain
questions put 10 him. stood upon his privilege as
an attorney and refused answer. That was the
adjourned last June.
GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION
At 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 fl 10 introduce is not
more favorable TO Mr.. Cromwell's position than 1t
was upon the former hearing. So far the record
has been read, MI Cromwell stood upon his privi-
9ege whenever questions were asked the answer
nr.l -gr-l.s
associates. but whenever a question asked
him which gave him opportunity 10 say
Thing in their behalf he ostentatiousy thanked
the examiner and proceeded to answer To my
mind that was just grounds for suspicion. ] am
suspicious about il now.
$50 We have this situation. Here is matter Of
great public concern. was interested you were
interested, We were all interested Here was a
newspaper printing the news-or trying TO- Here
was thls matter, up for discussion. and / am not
willing 10 say that the differences were TOO strongly
drawn l. am not approving them-I am simply
saying that am not able 10 say they were toe
strongly drawn
Now if that is the situation the question is
did these defendants under the circumstances ACT
honestly in the discharge OF this duty which I
nave spoken Of. which the law recognizes and
were they actuated by desire to injure the per
SONS VINO are affected by their act? If il were
necessary 10 decide this case upon the question of
privilege or lack of malice ] would hesitate or,ita
a While before would conclude it was nv duty 70
~-'N N-~SS leollS 10 washington for trial. Ruf
that is not it.
Ihis indictment charges these defendants ,ri,b
commission of crime in the District Of Columbia
Now' the Constitution Of the United States in one
OF The amendments, provides that the accused shan
be Tried IN the state district where the offence
IS committed.
The Indianapolis News is owned IN tboe. -,
PENDANTS, conducted and published by Them mint
ed by them in the city OF Indianapolis sta,o %
Indiana. AT the time covered by This ;,7io..,.
II had a daily circulation of atout On o,o oorio
All but about 1000 circulated ana 5is,os.5
or in the state OF Indiana. some forr o. &C.
hundred more in or TWO OF The a5;oi,i,
states, and 10 the District Of columbia ,baro 49,
sent by mail about fifty copies Ia s,,bscri,,ars
persons who ordered them sent The deferdo,,,
have no agent or bureau or Office and rnsir,sin
no agent or bureau Office in the CITY ~ wet
sngton, in the District OF Columbia for the circ,,
lation Of papers within that district
so the question, do the defendants ube, ,r,.
prepare ana publish fifty copies in the CITY ~
Indianapolis and deposit them in tho I-n;,os
States mail in this building 10 be trans,ni,tea -,
mail 70 fifty subscribers in WashinRton-do they
publish those fifty copies in Washington II the,
do II they did. the court has Jurisdiction az The
offence. 7 VIII not go far 10 say that /, has
OF the defendants. But il they did not then tbe
court has neither jurisdiction of the offence mo-,
the defendants
DEFENDANTS ACTED IL INDIANA.
ITO my mind there Is but one conclusion 70 bo
drawn. Everything that the evidence shows tl,.,
the defendants do or did. they do and did in the
State of Indiana, city Of Indiana polls. / am not