New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-10-12
CAN LIBEL HEARING
COURT GIVES ITS VIEUyS.
Declares Case More or Less of a
Political Matter"

Political Natter"
Indianapolis. Oct u.-That tho so-caIie5 .r,-
ANA libel case" was more or less of a noli+i
ca! matter" was the comment OF Judge A 3 Ander-
son. Of the United States Court OF this disrric a,
me close OF argument to-day in the hearing of
Charles r Williams and Delavan Smith propre-
tors OF The Indianapolis News whom the govern
men; is seeking TO remove the District of Cou:--
ba for trial
The Court said that it did not wish to give an
impression that il had formed an opinion on the
merits OF the case but that it wished TO point out
me trend Of the argument toward its further en-
ASntenmen; as to whether not this was prob
sole cause for indictment OF Messrs Williams and
smith by the federal grand jury of the District of
Columbia for criminal libel IN their having pub
Ashed articles intimatins that there was graft
OF S-&oOOo in the sale OF the Panama Canal Zone
TO the United States by the French company.
What IS the guilty intent to be shown on the
part Of these defendants?" the Court asked Stuart
Mcnamara, special attorney Of the Department of
justice, IN charge Of the proceedings. The Judge
went on TO explain that he had doubt that It could
be shown that the defendants had malicious fore
thought to libel ex- President Roosevelt President
Taft, Charles P. Taft William Nelson Cromwell J.
Plerpont Morgan. Douglas Robinson and others.
The whole Panama Canal project is a great
political project said the Court and There has
been and is much honest expression Of opinion
as 10 the ACCESSIBILITY OF having chosen the Panama
route in preference 10 the Nicaragua route; and
now since the cost Of building the canal is so much
not the United States should own any Atlantic
Pacific canal.
The press has duty to perform. and in poIft-
zeal discussions It seems 70 me that the concep-
ton OF libel should be greatly different from the
conception that should apply 10 q case of libel on
persons private character. I am not seeking 10
prejudice the case at this time. I am only seek
ing for light on the question here TO whether
criminal libel may be possible in this matter Grim
maj libel Is crime against society"
NOT SATISFIED AS TO CRIME.
The Court was not satisfied, Judge Anderson
said that the published articles complained Of
charged crime against the persons alleged TO
have been injured II set of Americans the
Court continued, went to France and bought up
the securities from the French Panama Canal
Company for S12,00O.On0. alleged, and then sold
them 10 the United States for &40o00,1oo it should
be regarded as Z nasty piece of business" but
II no sense crime
M Mcnamara interposed that. in his opinion,
crime was charged for the reason that it was
alleged that the syndicate" used its influence
upon the administration a Washington Ito put the
deal through" and that II the charge were true
Theodore Roosevelt Elihu Root and William H
Taft. persons in authority. in criminal com
picity with the syndicate" TO swindle the peo-
pie Of this country.
1t IS my personal opinion said the Court that
liberty is best preserved by passing over some
aspects Of an alleged libel Of the nature now under
consideration which should not be passed over in
libel case Of personal or private character"
Ar. Mcnamara. IN his argument, maintained that
The Indianapolis News" though printed Ind
annapolis published in Washington. well
in many other jurisdictions; that copies OF the
paper we're sold in public there and that therefore
the crime charged was committed in Washington
as vel a. elsewhere.
Judge Anderson asked Nj Mcnamara how in
his opinion, il should be decided where such libel
case should be tried. Mr.. Mcnamara said that he
thought the frs. court in which an action vas
brought should have jurisdiction The judge there
upon suggested that. If this view Of the matter
were aiop.ed. the question would arise whether Or
noe q proceeding for libel might lie in a hundred
different jurisdictions
And also. this view asked the Court, would
A conviction in one Jurisdiction a further
proceedings in the same matter in a hundred other
jurisdicuons?"
Mr. Mcnamara said he was 10. prepared 10 an
sver this question. He cited authorities which ne
said would show that the United States Supreme
Court had approved removals for trial from one
United States district 10 another and TO the District
or Columbia IN proceedings similar 10 TINS prosecu-
ton q the publishers OF The Indianapolis News.
COUNSEL FOR THE WORLD" HEARD.
Jobn D Lindsey. Of New York. counsel for The
New York World who is attending the hearing
here Joined IN the discussion By asserting that the
action against The indianapolis News" and d
similar action against the publishers Of The New
York World" had been designed by Mr.. Roosevelt
ia the public statement in which ne declared that
re American people and their government had
L1eu raaIiciously uoeled ia the Panama canal con-
rroversy and that the action TO be brought was
ma IN redress II the wrongs OF any individual
CITIZEN.
Mr. Lindsey opposed the conception that these
defendants should be moved from part Of the
country 10 another. and said that the setting ot
such 4 precedent would be destructive 10 the prin-
ciple CT liberty.
Mr. MCNAMARA devoted large part OF his arga-
ur 10 attempting establish the fact of criminal
Iirsl or, the part OF the defendants. He said the
records al washington absolutely refuted charges
81 corruption il the Panama purchase; that the de-
f,.Iaats nad uot considered these records in pub
fishing the cn4rges complained Of and that what
o.. vas The intention in tner minds. the act they
committed amounted 70 criminal A5el
wv. cannot so into investigation Of the subjective
,,re az lie minds Of Tie defendants said MI Nc
,,an,ar... we eau only judge from the outward
acts committed
The only testimony Ae offered consisted OF copies
~ me issues ~ The Indianapolis News contain
o HE ALLEGED 5ellous articles and selections from
tfe lsBg-t Of the Senate committee OF ~" "AlcA
t-.,-t5,.te5 The Panama deal and examined NJ
o,-,,r17.eu ~ attorney Icr he French owners
AIg1o,eHt ,glu be continued tomorrow. Inc gov
Irnt 7ytlt submit further authorities in lis con-
te-tfoa as 10 the meaning Of criminal Abe! ana as
q. t.e right OF tao Court 20 order tie remoVui OF
fe defenAauts 10 another district for trial Fefd-
r,ud ~. Winter, OF this city will argue for the
defendant
cERmAfi TARIFF INVESTIGATION.