The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-06-02

the presentation OF the offensive edito-
rails which were part of the exhibits
contained in the indictments.
Once he came near stating plainly
that he thought it not unreasonable
that newspapers should discuss public
transactions over which there was any
question of any doubt. This was after
Ferdinand Winters, attorney for the
News referred to the government in
vestigation of the Panama Canal deal
four years ago, during which William
Nelson Cromwell failed to produce the
names Of all the parties who were
thought to be interested.
The News introduced five witnesses,
Ernest Lewis member of the reperto-
rial staff, who was stationed at Chica-
go during the campaign, and who testi-
fled that he had no instructions to
hand it, to the government about the
canal matter: Delavan Smith, who said
that he didn't know what the editorial
page contained until after it appeared;
Charles r. Williams, editor of the pa
per who took the responsibility for the
offensive editorials, and Lewis How
land, editorial writer, who wrote the
article.
Not Guilty Of Malice.
Mr.. Winter, the attorney for the de-
PENDANTS, maintained today, and
sought to prove his points by the evil
dence presented, that the newspaper
publishers we're not guilty of the mall
ice necessary to complete criminal IL
bel, and that they had not committed
an offense for which they could be re-
moved from one district to another for
trial, and that the indictment charg-
ing them with criminal libel was base
less
duction of evidence in the hearing, Mr..
Mcnamara and Mr.. Miller contending
that it was inessential for a commit
ting magistrate to hear evidence. The
exhibits of editorials printed In the
Indianapolis News, they held, were Ii
belous If they violated statute OF the
District of Columbia, providing that
criminal libed may lie in the publica-
ton Of an article not justified in truth
and that person found guilty may be
fined not more than 81 900 or impris-
oned for more than five years, or
both.
The government maintained that on
the face of the indictment and the in
formation the defendants should be
transferred to the District of Column
bia for trial. Judge Anderson ruled
against the government. He called
attention to the necessity of proving
express, not implied, malice in a prose-
cution for criminel libel. and said that
1t was his duty to determine this ques-
ton by hearing evidence before he
should decide II the defendants should
be removed for trial.
The Man Who Wrote.
The defense then placed upon the
stand Ernest l. Lewis, staff CORE
spondent of the News. who denied that
he had had any instructions from his
employers as to handling the Panama
Canal matter in his dispatches from
the political headquarters at Chicago
during the last campaign.
Further objections by the govern
ment's attorney to the admittance of
evidence was made as each successive
witness was called during the day, but
Judge Anderson said he would hear all
that was offered by either side.
Judge Anderson declared malice in a
civil action was very different from
malice in criminal case. Implied
malice in newspaper publication
might be sufficient to justify a judg-
ment for damages against the publish
err. But in criminal action differ
ent degree of malice was required It
must be express malice.