The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-13
Newspaper Men Are
 Upheld. FEDERAL JUDGE SPEAKS PLAINLY OF PANAMA DEAL Declares Transaction Was Not
 Above Suspicion. I. DisctsarsfnG Delevan Smith anA c. V. wfliiasns, Juags Anderaon Takes Rap ct wilIfana
 Nelson CromsveII.

Indianapolis. Ind. Got. I2. Judge A. B Anderson of the United States Court today dismissed the proceed inss against Delevan Smith and Charles R. Williams, proprietors of The In- dtanapolis News. who were resisting removal to the District of Columbia for trial under a grand Jury indict- ment charging them with criminal libel in publishing articles alleging that there was corrupt profit of 32s.- 100000 in the sale of the Panama Ca- nal to the United States.
 That man has read the history oi our institutions to little purpose. said Judge Anderson. in concluding h.s decision. who does not view with apprehension the success of such pro- ceeding s this to the end that the cit- izens could be dragged from their homes to the District of Columbia ths seat of government for trial under the circumstances of this case. The defendants are discharged
 At the close today of argument in the hearing of Messrs. Smith and Williams, Judge Anderson said that he was too busy with other matters to write 6 long opinion in the case. although 1t clearly was one of great public interest and importance. and Involved several complex questions of procedure in the United States Court. ne WOutu pfoeeWu, ne s&1u. 10 sum up at once his view of the evidence and the argument
 'f am of the optnion," said Judge Anderson, that the fact that certain persons were called thieves and swim dlers' does not constitute libel, per SC. newspaper has a certain duty ts perform. As former President haa said. It is the duty of a newspaper to print the news and to tell the truth about it. It is the duty of a news paper to draf differences for the peo- pie.
 Suspicious Circums sa aces.
 Now there were many peculiar cir-. cumstancss about the whole Panama Canal business. I don't wish to be un- derstood as reneeting upon anybody in or out of -offiee except such persoa or persons as I may name. The rev. olntion in Panama. the circumstances concerning it, were unusual and pe- culiar. The people were interested in the construction of the. canal. It was large portion of the people favored the Nicaragua route; another portion, those who were interested in it, of1- cially and personality just interested preferred the Panama route. 4 committee was appointed to investt- gate the relative merits of the two routes. They investigated and report ed in favor of the Nicaragua route. Shortly afterwards they changed to Panama. Up to the time Of that change, as l gather from the evidence, the lowest offer which had bees sug- gested as the one at which the Pan- anna property--the property of the Panama Canal Company--coul be pro- cured was something over t100, ,0oo.- 900. Then rather suddenly 1t became known that it could be procured for $40. 600. 900.
 Nov there were a number of peo- pie who thought there was something wrong something not just exactly right about the transaction, and I say for myself that now I feel a natural curiosity to know what the real truth was.
 '"rhe real truth was 'thereupou the committee of the United States Sen ate was appointed to investigate these matters about the only way it could as stated in these articles. these men who knew all about It." think that is the proper way to speak of William Nelson Cromwell. We'll, these men were called before the commit tee, and Mir. Cromwell, upon having certain questions put to him. stood on his privilege as an attorney and refused 10 answer. That was the state of the case as shown by the evidence, when we adjourned last June.
 Conduct Of Cromwell.
 At this session of court certain parts of the records showing the prop OHit.on before the Senate have been introduced by the Government snd the impression made upon my mind from such parts as the Government saw At to introduce Is not more favor able to MT Cromwell's poeition than 1t was upon the former hearing. So far as the record has been read. Mfr. Cromwell stood upon his privilege whenever questions were asked. the answer to which would or might re- fleet upon him or his associates; but whenever a question was asked him which gave him an opportunity to say something in their behalf. he ostenta- tiously thanked the examiner and pro- cesded to answer. To my mind that was just grounds for suspicion. am suspicious about fl now.
 "So we have this situation. Here is matter of great public concern, was interested. You were interested. We were all interested. Here was a newspaper printing the truth. or try ing to. Here was this matter up for discussion. and am not willing to say that the inferenees were too strongly drawn. I am not approving them--T am simply saying that am not able to say they were too strong ly drawn.
 NOW, If that Is the situation, the question is. did these defendants un- der the circumstances. act honestly in the discharge of their duty which have spoken of, which the law recos- niEes. and were they actuated by a de- sire to iniure the persons who are affected by their act.
 ''1f it were necessary to decide this case on the question of privilege or lack of malice. would hesitate quite a while before would conclude it was my duty to send these people to Wash ington for trial. But that Is not it. This indictment charges the defend- ants with commission of crime in the District of Columbia. Now. the Consultation of the United States, in one of the amendments. provides that the accused shall be tried fin the State or disrict where the osense Is com. mttted.
 The annapolis News Is owned b! these defendants, conducted and pub. lished by them. printed by them in the city of Indianapolis. State Of Indiana aN.. T. 4-nf KW.Q Haae.