The Mobridge news. [volume] (Mobridge, Walworth Co., S.D.) 190?-1917, 1909-10-15
THE PANAMA SUIT
FEDERAL JUDGE ANDERSON DIS.
MISSES CASE AGAINST
NEWSPAPER MEN
REVIEWS CIRCUMSTANCES
AND QUESTIONS GROUDS FOR
ACTION AND JURiSOlC-
TON OF COURT

Indianapolis, Oct 12.-Federal judge
Anderson today dismissed the proceed
ings against De.avan Smith and Chas.
K. Williams, prOprietOrs of the Indian
apolis News, who were resisting re-
moval to Washington for trial on
charges of criminal libel in publishing
articles alleging their was corrupt
profit OF SIS, 900 900 in sale OF the Pana-
ma canal to the United States.
That man has read the History of
our institutions to little purpose" said
Anderson, in conclusion, who does not
view with apprehension a proceeding
which will permit citizens to be drag
ged from their homes to seat of gov
ernment for trial under the crcum-
stances of this case. The defendants
are discharged.
Il am Of the opinion" said Ander-
son. that the fact that certain per
sons are called thieves and 'swnd-
| ers' does not constitute libel per Sc
LAS the former president said, it
! is the duty of newspapers to print
| the news and tell the truth about it,
| 1t is the duty of newspaper to draw
| inferences for the people
The court reviewed what is called
many peculiar circumstances about
| the whole Panama canal business"
and added:
| "A number of people thought there
was something not just exactly right
! about that transaction, and | say for
| myself | feel natural curiosity to
know what the real truth was. A COM
mittee of the senate was appointed to
| investigate, asked VIM. Nelson Crom-
we'll certain questions, but he stood
| upon his privilege as an attorney and
! refused to answer. Cromwell stood up
| on this privilege whenever questions
were asked an answer to which might
reflect upon him or his assistants; but
whenever a question was asked giving
him an opportunity to say something on
their behalf, he answered. To my mind
that is just grounds for suspicion.
Did these defendants, in publishing
the matter complained of, act hon
estly in discharge Of the duty which
l have spoken Of, or were they actuat-
ed by desire to injure the persons
affected? 1t it were necessary to De
eide this case upon question OF prlVl-
lege or lack of malice, ! would hesitate
quite while before concluding it was
my duty to send these people to Wash
ington for trial. But the indictment
charges them with comission of
crime in the District of Columbia. The
constitution of the United States pro
vides the accused shall Re tried IN th'
state or district where the offense Il
committed
when these defendant Is put in tn
papers matters of libellC bus nature in
to the postoffice at Indian \apolis, eithe
it became separate and xindependen
crime in every district an ID state int
which the papers went, o there wa
but one crime and that th ERE
81 think that between these tw
views the latter is the moro reasOnabl
and correct one. Where p eople prir
r newspaper here for circulatl o
| thrOuhgOut counties and dis (triCts theI
Is but one publication and that on
| here. If that is true, the( re was n
| publication in Washington. ( the hi
tory of liberty means any hing tf
| prosecuting authority should not hay
the power to drag citizens there fo
trial"