Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-10-12

is so much larger that at first estimated.
as to whether or not the United States
should own any Atlantic Pacific canal.
The press has duty to perform. and
In political discussions 1t seems TO me
that the conception of libel should he
greatly different from the conception
that should apply TO a case of libel on
persons private character I am not
seeking to PREJUDICE the case at this time.
I am only seeking for light on the Ques-
tion here as to whether criminal libel
may be possible in this matter. Criminal
libel is crime against society.
The court was not satisfied. Judge An
derson said, that the published articles
complained of charged a crime against
the persons alleged to have been injured.
If set of Americans. the court con-
tinued, went to France and bought up
the securities from the French Panama
Canal Company for Sl2.N0ooo, as alleged.
and then sold them to the United States
for $40,O00.0o0 1t should be regarded as q
nasty piece of business but in no
sense a crime.
Attorney Mcnamara Responds.
Mr.. Mcnamara int>rposed that in his
opinion a crime was charged for the
reason that 1t was alleged that the syn
dicate' used its influence upon the ad-
nlinistration at Washington Ito put the
deal through" and that IL the charges
were true Theodore Roosevelt. Elihu
Root and William II. Taft. persons in au-
thority. were I'm criminal completely with
''the syndicate to swindle the people OF
this country.
1T is my personal opinion said the
court. that liberty is best preserved by
passing over some aspects OF an alleged
libel of this nature now under consid-
ton which should not be passed over in q
libel case OF personal or private charac-
ter
Mr.. Mcnamara in his argument dur
Ing the day. maintained that the Indian
apolis News. though printed at Indian
apOlis, was published in Washington a.
we'll as in many other jurisdictions; that
copies of the paper were sold In PUBIC
there. and that therefore the crime
charged was committed in Washington
as we'll as elsewhere.
Judge Anderson asked Mr.. Mcnamara
how in his opinion it should be decided
where such a libel case should be tried.
Mr.. Mcnamara said he thought the first
court In which an action were brought
should have jurisdiction. The judge
hereupon suggested that If this view OF
the matter were adopted the question
would arise whether or not proceeding
for libel might lie I'm a hundred different
Jurisdictions.
And also in this view" asked the
court, would a conviction in one juris
diction be a bar to further proceedings in
the same matter in hundred other juris-
dictions?"
Not Prepared to Answer.
Mr.. Mcnamara said he was not pre-
pared to answer this question. He cited
authorities which, he said would show
that the United States Supreme Court had
approved removals for trial from one
United States district to another and IN
the District of Columbia in proceedings
similar to this prosecution OF the pub
fishers of the Indianapolis News.
John u. Lindsey of New York. counsel
for the New York World, Joined in the
against the Indianapolis News and SINH
lar action against the publishers of the
New York World had been designed by
Mr.. Roosevelt, In his public statement. in
which he declared that the American peo-
pie and their government had been ma
liciously libeled In the Panama canal con
troversy and that the action to be brought
was not in redress of the wrongs Of any
individual citizen.
Mr. Lindsey opposed the contention that
these defendants should be moved from
one part of the country TO another and
said that the setting of such a precedent
would he destructive to the principle OF
liberty.
Corruption Charge Refuted.
Mr.. Mcnamara devoted large part OF
his argument to attempting to establish
the fact of criminal libel on the part OF
the defendants. He said the records at
Washington absolutely refuted charges OF
corruption In the Panama purchase; that
the defendants had not considered these
records in publishing the charges COM
planned of and that. whatever was the in
tention in their minds. the act they COM
United amounted to criminal libel.
I've cannot go into investigation Of the
subjective state OF the minds of the de-
PENDANTS said Mr.. Mcnamara: I'VE can
only Judge from the outward acts COM
mitted.''
The only testimony he offered consisted
Of copies of the issues of the Indianapolis
News containing the alleged hbelons ar
ticles and selections from the report OF
the Senate committee Of 1905. w.ich in
vestigated the Panama deal and exam
ined Mr.. Cromwell az attorney for the
French owners.