The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-10-20
THE SILLY LIBEL SUIT.

Judge \. b. Anderson OF the I. ,.
District Court Of indianapolis has dls'
missed the proceedings against the
editor of the Indianapolis News wh'en
were designed 10 take him 10 Washing
ton for trial i'm the so-callcd PANAMA
libel casc, In dismissiDg the proceed
ings. Judge Anderson states: lhaI
man has read the history of our IN
stitutions to little purpose who docs
not view with apprehension the sue
cess of such Il proceeding as 'ms' 10
the end that citizens should be dragged
from their homes TO the District OF
Columbia. the seat Of government, Tor
triul. under the circumstances of TINS
ease.
1t was inevitable that this should be
The end Of that form of procedure IT
will bc remembered that good many
wears ago. proceeding somewhat slml'
lar To this was instituted IN the cliN
of New York against Charles y. Dana
Of tho Sun. The effort then was the
same as now II was thought 10 take
Dana TO Washington for trial for Ilhci.
But the effort failed. II was held that
any procedure for libel against Dana
must hc had in New York, where ms
paper was printed and where the libel
was committed. if libel ~ was. The
very genius Of our institutions torbids
this sort of compulsion, II The editor
or proprietor Of newspaper can be
taken away for trial from the lurls-
diction whcrc the paper is publlshed
then he NAV be taken TO any place
whatever in the country where his
paper is circulated III the editor "t
the indianapolis News could bc taken
70 Washington for trial. ne could lac
taken 10 San Francisco. Semitic, Boston
or anywhere else where n copy OF ms
newspaper could bc shown to have hccu
circulated. In thar case all that the
prosecution would have 10 do would
be TO find out some community where
hostility is felt against thc paper. take
there the editor or proprietor. and have
Mani fcstIv the grossest expressions ano
persecution could easily result, and the
cruelest injustice Gc perpctra,cd. Tho
rule of Judge Anderson in this east
merely follows the precedent in tho
Dana case. II is fortunate for tn,
freedom of the press in this country
that this precedent is formed and fol
lowed. and that Judge Anderson was Sc
emphatic IN declaring the law,
But Judge Anderson did more thar
that in' this case. In addition to hi'
statement in the same proceeding dur
ing the trial thar there seemed TO b,
sufficient ground for publishing IN,
story that was printed in the Indian
apoIis News, the Judge in closing thi,
case said that he was very Strongl,
impressed by The argument Of th'
! counsel for the defense that these ar
ticics were not in themselves libclons
that there are very many pcculia
circumstances about this Panama Cana
or Panama Canal business. and n,
proceeded TO state that Mr. Cromwell
whenever asked questions the an
swcrs to which would, or might. rcfcc
| upon him or his associates. s,oo,
upon his privilege as attorney and re
| fused TO answer,
All of which rcinforccs the PROPOSE
ton that the institution of this sui
was hasty, ll-adviscd, and not justi
! fed by sound reason or fair view
of the law, The case. rs decided. how
ever. 10y no means wen, TO tho merit o
the complaint, II merely denied the righ
! of the government 80 force the cdito
Of the indianapolis News To 20 I,
| Washington for trial He can still b,
| tried in indianapolis But we doub
very much that he ever will he trfc,
AT all, especially before Judge Andcr
son; because it is evident from wha
Judge Anderson has said that he con
sidcrs the publication privileged. tha
there was sufficient justification 70
] the publication, and whether the state
mcntS rs printed were true or not il i
An evident proposition that there art
some things with regard to Tins who'll,
matter that would he very imtcrcstin,
reading 10 tue public. and that hay,
never yer hccn printed.