New-York tribune., 1909-01-19
CANAL LIBEL CASE
DELAYED AT START
rORU OF SUBPOENA MADE
IN ISSUE.
Counsel for Employees Of "The
World" and Federal Prosecutor
to File Briefs.

to File Briefs.
,sre Ward in chambers. heard argument
..ste-dav IN what is supposed to be the start
:. tbe criminal libel suit brought by the United
o..oe against The New York World" on ac-
.a,,,. Of certain statements published by that
.suenaper in connection with the purchase of
..o Panama Canal The specific argument cen
- unon the validity of the subpunas served
or I Angus Shaw and William P. McLaugh-
=. +vro employees Of the Press Publishing Com
,r1 which publishes The World" ordering
4,en 10 appear before the federal grand jury
for examination
1ohn NJ Bowers and Delaney Nicor. counsel
,o- Shaw and Mclaughlin. having obtained an
,-der 20 show cause why the subppnas should
~. he quashed. appeared to argue the motion
,ile Tinted States Attorney Stimson and sew
srsI assistants opposed the motion for the gov
.-roent Argument lasted until nearly O'Clock
han both sides were directed 10 hand up briefs
,+1o,ctocll to-day. Judge Ward will probably
NOT hand down a decision before tomorrow.
Mystery continued 10 enshroud the whole case
NJ Stirnson steadfastly refused to show the
r,rernnent's hand and counsel for the other
side we're equally reticent The propriety of
sun7rooning witnesses to appear before the fed
e-sl grand fury here as has been done. in
criminal libel case which will have to be prose-
cuted if az all, in the courts of the District Of
Columbia was not touched upon by the lawyers
who confined argument to the legality OF the
form of subpoena adopted by Mr.. Stimson.
HOLDS SUBPGNAS VOID.
Mr. Bowers and Mr.. Nicoll contended that the
subppnas were irregular. and hence void. in
that the persons summoned We're not informed
Of the nature Of the proceeding concerning which
they were TO testify. Mr.. Stimson said the sub
prnas served on Shaw and Mclaughlin fol-
loved the form recognized in this district for
upx ard Of fifty years. and were the same in form
as the subppnas used in the banking cases, as
8 result Of which the indictments of Charles
W Morse. Alfred H Curtis and F Augustus
Heinze were secured.
Mr. NlcoII. in speaking Of the right of his
clients 10 know what the government was in
restigating. said: The air is fun of all man
ner of rumors that my clients are TO be haled
before the federal courts with threats Of all
manner of novel prosecutions under laws hun
dred years old Why this secrecy and mystery.
demand TO know"
Who your clients who are threatened as
defendants?" broke in Mr.. Stimson at this point,
With a smile Mr.. Bowers was on his feet in
stantly. however. TO say that his clients and
those Of Mr.. Nicor We're only the persons named
IN The subpoenas. and were not defendants"
Mr.. Bowers further contended that the sub
pqnas were irregular because they called upon
the witnesses TO testify ito all and everything
which you may know. generally, on the part Of
the United States Judge Ward seemed To
think the word generally" a pretty broad one,
and said at this point: Il don't see how wit
ness who had been summoned to testify gen
oTlr 1,.,I
got into the jury room. where he might perjure
himself"
MANY DECISIONS QUOTED.
Counsel for both sides offered many decisions
il cases dealing with the form of subppnas. but,
oddly enough the 1nainstay Of each side proved
10 be one decision recently handed down by the
United States Supreme Court. This was the
case Of Hale agt. Henkel. an outcome of the
federal prosecution of the American Tobacco
Company.
Hale was summoned 70 testify before the
grand jury. hut the subpoena did not indicate
the defendant or the nature OF the case. He
was merely told that it was a proceeding
brought under the Sherman law. He questioned
the validity Of the summons. and the case was
htigated up TO the United States Supreme
Court which finally decided in favor of the
fendaat in a number Of his contentious. Hence
both sides cited this case to Judge Ward as the
present law.
As Judge Ward was sitting in the United
States Circuit Court he heard part Of the argu-
ment before the court convened in the morning
and then ordered adjournment until 1
O'Clock Pending his decision he continued the
subpenas in force. but held them in allegiance.
Mr. Stimson in defence of the form of the
subpGnas. said that the subpoena issued in the
case Of Theodore H. Price was similar to those
IN the present case. The subpoena for Mr..
Price. he said. was blank one. and up
held by the United States Circuit Court of this
district
MI Bowers intimated that the government
mac started out on "a voyage of discovery OF
klnd which the law did not tolerate. He quoted
several decisions to show that subpmnas in
unusual form might lead abuse of process.
ne said that some of the lines Of the usual
iorfn Of subpoena had been stricken out this
Ease so as TO summon the men to testify in a
matter concerning the nature of which there
vas no hint suggestion in the papers. He
argued that the decisions Of the higher courts
" such cases contained suggestions to the lower
courts to be on the alert to prevent any abuse
Of process.
Mr. sTIMsON's ARGUMENT
'ases often arise" argued Mr.. Stimson. in
which ii is impossible TO tell who the offender
until after the grand jury inquiry. Such
cases often concern great corporations, and ii is
impossible to find the guilty until after an
eAbended inquiry Witnesses before grand
Jury according to the United States Attorney.
mao no more right to know the name of the de-
'enaant than they had to know the facts on
"Heh the Investigation was based.
SER 'Ncoll said that United States attorneys