The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-10-13

position than it was upon the former
| hearing
so far as the record has been read
Mr.. Cromwell stood upon his privilege
whenever questions were asked the an
swer to which would or might reflect
upon him or his associates; but when
ever a question was asked him which
gave him an opportunity to say some
thing in their behalf. he ostentatiously
thanked the examiner and proceeded to
answer. To my mind that was just
grounds for suspicion. I am suspicious
about it now. So we have this situation.
Here is a matter of great public con-
Germ. I was interested. you were in
terested, we were all interested. Here
was newspaper printing the news or
trying 10. Here was this matter up for
discussion and l am not willing to say
that the differences were too strongly
drawn. I am not approving that. am
simply saying I am not able to say
they were too strongly drawn.
The Question at Issue.
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 have
spoken of. which the law recognizes, or
were they actuated by a desire to in
jure the persons who are affected by
their act? If 1t were necessary to de-
eide this case upon the question of
privilege or lack of malice 1 would
neSltdCo quite d Wn1le DeIOrS L WOulQ
conclude it was my duty to send these
people to Washington for trial. But
that is not it.
This indictment charges these de-
PENDANTS with commission of crime in
the District of Columbia. Now, the con-
stitution of the United States in one of
the amendments, provides that the ac-
cused shall be tried in the state or
district where the offense is commit
ted.
THE Indianapolis News is owned by
these defendants, conducted and pub
hshed by them. printed by them in the
city of Indianapolis, state of Indiana.
At the time covered by this indictment
ii had a daily circulation of about 10000
copies All but about 1000 were cir
culated and disposed OF in the state
of Indiana; some four or five hundred
more in one or two of the adjoining
states, and to the District of Columbia
there were sent by mail about so cop
les to subscribers, persons who ordered
them sent. The defendants have no
agent or bureau or office and maintain
of Washington, in the District of Col
umbia for the circulation of papers
within that district.
$50 the question is. do the de-
PENDANTS. when they prepare and pub
lfsh fifty copies in the city of In
dianapolis and deposit them in the
United States mail in this building to
be transmitted by mail to fifty sub
Iish those fifty copies in Washing
ton? If they do, if they dtd. the
court has jurisdiction of the offense- |
I will not go so far as to say that it |
lid not, then the court has neither
of the offense or over the
defendants.
No Middle Ground
ITO my mind there is but one ques-
ion to be drawn. Everything that
'endants do or did, they do and did
n the state of Indiana. city of
county of Marion. l am
lot here to say that if these defend
Ints had an agent in Washington to
whom they sent for circulation copies
If this paper, they might not be
Lmendable to prosecution. If they
Gould be arrested in Washington.
''I have thought about this thing
rood deal, and it seems to me ! am
ompeIled to take one OF two views,
nd there is nothing between them.
ssFither when a newspaper owner
r proprietor does what the evidence {
n this case shows those defendants
i'd composed, printed and deposited +
\ the mail for circulation, these
apers containing, for the purpose of
his statement, libelous articles
ither they are guilty here and in
very county. district or jurisdiction
nto which these papers go or they
re only guilty here.
sFWhen these defendants put these
apers containing those q will here
fter call them) libelous articles into
he postoffice here in Indianapolis
nd they went through the mails
throughout the country into the
arious states, counties and districts
f the United States, either it be-
anne a separate and independent
rime in every one of the counties,
istricts or states into which the
apers went, or there was but one
rhine, and that was here.
at think between these two views
lie latter view is the more reasonable
ne and is the correct one.
eff the history of liberty means
nything, if the constitution means
nything, then the prosecuting
uthority should not have the power
, select the tribunal, If there be
lore than one to select from at the
apito1 of the nation nor should the
overnment have the power to drag
tizens from distant states thereto
,r trial The defendants will be dis
narged.'