New-York tribune., 1909-06-02
ICANAL LIBEL HEARING
POINT FOR THE DEFENCE.
Indiana Judge Hears EUiderDce as to
Intent.

Indianapolis. June 1-Delavan Smith and Charles
r. Williams. owners Of '"The Indianapolis News"
were before Judge Anderson of the United States
District Court to-day resisting removed to the Dis
trict of Columbia for trial indictments charging
them with having committed criminal libel in pub
fishing articles intinatng that there graft in
the purchase by the United States OF the Panama
Canal Zone Smith and Williams were indicted by
the grand jury OF the District of Columbia jointly
with the propretors OF THE New York World
Ferdinand Winter. attorney for the defendants
maintained to-day that the defendants were not
guilty OF the malice necessary TO complete criminal
libel that they had not committed offence for
which they could be removed from district 10
another for trial. and that the indictment charging
them with criminal libel was baseless.
The government resisted the introduction of evi-
dence in the hearing, Stuart McNamara and c. W
Miller contending that it was not essential for
committing magistrate to hear evidence
Judge Anderson ruled against the governments $
contention He called attention to the necessity Of
proving express not implied. malice in a prosecu-
ton for criminal libel. and said that 1t was MS
duty to determine this question by hearing evidence
before he could decide whether the defendants
should be removed for trial
The defence then placed the stand Ernest L.
Lewis. a staff correspondent of The News, VINO
denied that he had had any instructions from his
employers as TO handling the Panama Canal mat
Ter N his dispatches the political headquarters
at Chicago during the last Presidential campaign
The government renewed its objections 10 evi-
dence and Judge Anderson in discussing the ques-
ton declared that malice in civil action was diff
ferent from malice in criminal case.
''Of course" said Judge Anderson, the owner OF
a newspaper might be held cvilly for anything thar
appeared in his pages because the men who put II
there his agents: but. when " comes 70 a ques-
tion Of criminal liability for publication Of an arti-
Gle It is very different thing As. for example, IL
the proprietor of a newspaper in New York q
could not cite this illustration for Western paper
because. rich as they are they are not rich enough
TO own their own yachts) but suppose the proprie-
tor Of New York paper should be off for six
months cruising in his yacht. During his absence
there was a vicious article appeared in his paper
Should he be held crimina1y? 1t does not occur to
me that he could be held criminally liable
L am speaking about the ultimate facts. II the
owner is not present, he actually knew nothing
about the publication and could not possibly be held
guilty of the crime"
Questioning Charles r. Williams. editor in cher
of The News" Mr. Mcnamara drew out that Mr
williams had written the editorials complained
Of in which It declared 20 be desirable that the
part OF C. p. Taft, Douglas Robinson. William
Nelson Cromwell and J. Pierpont Morgan In the
Panama transfer should be investigated He had
however, approved them. Mr. Williams said the
publication of the editorials. he thought. was IN
the interest OF public morality and integrity. He
had made no inquiry his own part. he said, but
he had based his attitude on knowledge or the
history of the Panama transaction from the start.
Louis Rowland. who wrote the editorials and
Court on the witness stand that he wrote them be
cause he thought the subject was the biggest
thing in the campaign and he should not nave
discharged his duty II he had not discussed II He
had made no personal investigation into the records
of the Senate inquiry, and ne did not know per
sonalIy that c =. Taft interested in tho
Panama transfer newspaper did not nave
the time upon such Investigations he said
He was suspicious. and he Yet suspicious he
said. He thought he had good reasons for every
thing he wrote.
What did you mean when you wrote that The
New York World might now be short on evidence,
but It could be long presentation"
II meant that possibly just now there ~as not
sufficient proof satisfy crossexamining lawyers
Bfr Rowland replied
Earlier In the afternoon Delavan Smith was on
the witness stand. He oaid he had personal
knowledge Of The editorials before they were pub
Iished as Mr.. Williams had full charge Of the
editorial page.
Unless the government decides - Introduce owl
yence Tomorrow argument will begin. and the case
will probably be In Judge Anderson's hands by
evening