Wauwatosa news. [volume] (Wauwatosa, Wis.) 1900-1948, 1909-04-02
HOW GOVERN MENT
MAY Be LIBELED
PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED SHOW
EXACT STATUS OF LAW ON
THE SUBJECT.
The PANAMA CANAL CASE.
Freedom of the Press by No Means So
Unrestricted as People Gen
orally Believe.
FACTS FROM HIGH LEGAL SOURCE

LibeIs against the United States gov
eminent axe punishable as crimes under
the common law, in state courts This
fact has hong been we'll known to Grim
inal lawyers, and its rediscoyery by tue
| public, and particularly py the press,
may turn cut to be the most valuable
and wholesome result of the present
ovcrhauiin& of the New York Worlds
charges IN connection with the Panama
canal. So much has been said about
the freedom oil the press. guaranteed
| by the federal constitution. and 80 much
congratulatinn has been INDUCED in over
the brief life of the old seditiou law
! Of 1IJS, that people in general have
wrongly believed IL newspaper was i'm
muuc to punishment for any misconduct
! ii might charge against the government.
so long as it did not accuse individuals
! IN their private capacity. Law aud pre-
! CedentS exist for dealing with such eases
as that of the Panama Libel" Free
dom of the press is guaranteed but not
| freedom to do malicious harm To the
| government
Libel a Breach of Peace.
! Libel was regarded as a crime hy the
| English common law because il tended
| to cause breach. of the peace-torcible
retaliation by the party aSsaled-and
such retaliation by force was an ofrcnse
against society, hence Il crime. There
has been some confusion in the minds of
editors as to the difference between civil
. suits for libel and criminal prosecutions
In civil suit the person attacked seeks
recompcnse for the injury done to him
| personally; III the criminal prosecution
the state is the complainant, on the
ground that the libel is, potentially at
| least, breach of the public peace
the state is always the complainant ia
| the prosecution of ERNIE
Libel against the government was
recognized in England as Il crime by the
old statute de Scandalum Magnatum,
but this statute made falsity of the
| charges an essential element in their
constituting a crime. Under the famous
| or iufamous-Court of the Star cham
her the common law rule was much re
striCtad.
| But malicious, embarrassment of the
government by the publication of false
| charges continued To be regard d as an
| indictahle oftense against the govern
| ment and this theory was held ia cover
| also scandalous publications against "a
! foreign ambassador. Such attacks on Il
| foreign envoy were regarded as criminal
| oftenses againS, T. government be
cause they naturally tended to inter-
| fere with ts dealings with foreign gov
ernmeuts.
Mild Form OF Treason
This is good law within The United
| States today. wherever the common law
has been adopted in state practicc--aud
| that is in nearly all our states, which
naturally based their legal systems On
what the colOnisis brought with them
! from the mother country. The English
eases in this line, even though many
years back, are still the highest pre-.
/ CrdeutS in American courts. Libel against
! the government partakes in theory of
| the nature of treason, but il is of course
n much milder otfense and more nearly
comparable with contempt of court IL
| is an Interference with government ac-
! ton or policy unjUstihed by truthfulness
of the charges, or honest motives in max
| 'ng the charges.
Since the lapsing Of the old sedition
law Of f79S the federal government has
not prosecuted libels against itself but
il has an along had two, and perhaps
three, resources in this direction, and il
is the governments action in preparing
to make use Of these resources that DC
caSions the present tumult.
Government Has Recourse.
The other resources Of the government
in the present case are; First, the two
federal statutes passed in 1925 and 1898.
respectively, applying 10 federal reserva-
tons the criminal laws Of the states in
which they are situated, in so far as
there are no appropriate federal stat
utas. This. too, is familiar matter 10
criminal lawyers. A post office, for in
stance, is government reservation and
under sole control Of the federal authoii-
| ties. Many crimes are committed in
pOStoflices--crmes Of all sorts, and these
crimes are continually being prosecuted
in the federal courts, to secure imp0s-
| ton OF peng tiles prescribed by state
laws. Were ,his not done, many crimes
would meet with no provision for their
| punishment So far, the law, as law, is
| Il perfectly plain matter and ii should
serve to dispel the appearance Of mys-
| terry in the inquiries now proceeding.
The investigation at Washington an
pears little more doubtful. The grand
| jury Of the District Of Columbia has
| power 10 iudict for criminal libel. but
| the code does not specify libel against
| the federal government as a crime. In
| the District If Columbia the United
/ States appears az the prosecutor o.
crimes The question in regard 10 this
/ branch of the proceedings seems To be
| rs 10 whether the code can he held to
! cover libel against the government: and
/ if the code does not cover that. whether
/ indictment in possible under the com
J mon law Of Maryland, which by federal
/ statute supplies such gaps as occur in
/ the provisions Of the code. There is a
/ chance that through the district govern
I luent the federal government might be
+ held 10 have n Limited common law inr-
I isdictiOn.
Freedom of the Press
/ Meanwhile. the lively and not unim-
portant question of how far the cuusti-
/ tutioual freedom of the press" extends
/ involves some Interesting matters Of hiss
/ tory. II III q curious fact that the last
I prosecution Under the common law for
/ ihellng the government, ia the person
Of the President. WIS ted mp with the
I last prosecution under the seditlon act
of the Adams administration. and the
interest Of the case loses nothing from
the fact that IT'S public Importance was
counted ~ great that Alexander lIamil-