University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1909-10-24
The Riaht 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-Pacifc canal, he characterized
the whole Panama scheme as "a great
political project" He continued:
The press has a 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 a
case of libel on persons private
character. l 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 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 a
| certain duty to perform. AS former
president had said: 1T is the duty of
tn INT q
/ 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 who deal with the Government.
Free publication and discussion of pub
| lie affairs in which the people are
concerned is not only a right but a
duty. 1t is necessary to the protection
of society and the safeguarding of
public interests that the press shall
fearlessly lay bare all facts touching
upon public questions and govern
mental acts and 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
the removal of the accused persons to
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
difficult. On this point Judge Ander
son, dismissing the removal proceed
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
to the end that citizens could be
dragged from their homes to the Dis
trict OF Columbia, the seat of govern
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
ministration. The effect of such pun
ishment would naturally be the intim
idation of the press generally. 1t is
, this aspect of the cases which EN-
phasize their Importance as test
of the fundamental and constitutional
right of free speech.
The decision of Judge Anderson
against the remova, of the defendants
marks the first victory in this grea
battle for the liberty of the Ameri
: can press.-St. Louis Post-Dispatch.