New-York tribune., 1910-01-27
LIBEL CASE FAILS
oU4SH INDICTMENT.
No Jurisdiction, Decides Judge
Hougk, IN World" Suit,

If
:. this court be entered Quashing the In
s..,,,eut herein because upon the con-
-.-,.ct,on Of the statute hereinbefore stated
~ indictment Is not authorized by the
-.st,,re upon which IL rests
-hsse were the finai words with which
,.sre Hough in the Criminal Branch OF
- United States Circuit Court dismissed
..ss-ersav the government suit against the
Press Publishing Company. publishers OF
.s-ae World" charging libel in the printing
,rs circulating on government reserva tions
~ newspapers containing libellous state
-,ents regarding Theodore Roosevelt Will
iarn H Taft. Douglas Robinson. Charles P.
TAFT and William Nelson Cromwell in con-
recrion with the purchase by the United
srstes CT the Panama Canal.
DeLancey Nicoll. the company's counsel.
,rutiuued his argument when the court re-
-ouvsned st 1880 o'clock He continued TO
selve into the country's legal history.
bringing forth case after case which he
,ited II support Of his motion TO ouash.
yudgs Hough frequently interrupted. and
again and again brought him hack TO the
question OF jurisdiction. This was deemed
significant, but Mr.. Nicon made excursions
irto every phase Of the case
Tuited States Attorney Wise began his
made b. Mr.. Nicon. when he opened his
motion 70 ouash. Judge Hough stopped
hin.
stick 70 the question Of Jurisdiction" he
sid. and Mr. Wise did as requested. It
vas an able presentation Of the govern
rsnts case. Getting dywn 70 the argument
mai the state, when an offence has been
committed on state and federal territory,
should prosecute, Mr.. Wise said:
The mere fact that a libeIler commits
libel on state territory at the same time
does uot mean that the prosecution should
~ n rhe state territory for the offence
committed On federal territory. In Massa,-
chuser1s : hbener may be prosecuted for
pbei Il every county in which the libel is
circulated n New York only one prosecu-
uon r-zy be brought
BRINGS CASE TO POINT.
Cite ne 2 case Of a crime IN which the
s-ate and nation have concurrent jurisdic-
rcu." Judge Hough suddenly interpolated
IL. Wise said that he could not DO so.
hut said that an act might constitute two
offences. one against the federal govern
nent and one against the state govern
menL
"suppOsi-g This defendant should be con-
vcted here" the court continued. "and
punished. and should be subsequently in
6ictsd II the county Of New York. could
he set Up The conviction here as bar?''
q think not" answered Mr.. Wise.
Then. was that the intention OF Congress
Il passing this statute?' asked Judge
Eough. Tt is necessary that we should
know this
Judge HoUgh. when Mr.. Wise had con-
oluGed. delivered MS decision. and IT was
ranuscripJ- He said:
TIE court Is relieved OF much embarrass-
nelI by -l6 form OF one OF the motions
made. TIE jurisdiction OF the court is per-
smpJ0rllT challenged by the motion To
guash. O-her motions have been made
Eticn VII ro- be considered But mas
much as z decision under q motion 10
quasn Is row speedily renewable by the
higaesI court l shall dispose OF the case
One question that has been presented is
whether ne sending by mail or otherwise
Z nc ordinary course OF business OF libel
lous matter 70 place without the county
or district Of original publication consti-
a Sf pIsSasas al bee De Rase %
Er1 penaairNviz, whether II such place OF
des-inaCIo- be within the exclusive furisdic-
ro1 OF the United States, the crime OF
hosl 50 cornuItJed is cogniZable IN the na-
uolal courts. This last question is the
broader one; Il Is peculiarly federal in its
nature, and 10 thar question alone the de-
cSOL ABOUT 70 Dc given IS erected This
1dic1nenL is admittedly based upon the
scT O. July :, 1895 taken IN conjunction
with the appropriate portions OF the penal
lsv o. New York then IN force.
L has been admitted here IN argument
repeatedly and cannot, ! suppose, be de-
nie6, rhar the mere fact thai by the same
scr or series OF acts crime is committed
aogr-Za5le by the courts OF both state and
lSuoI AFFORDS no reason for limiting the
Jrrlsclcrlon 70 Try the qnences committed to
s--1er tribunal The offences may be pun
is1a1le and actually punished by the trib-
1naE q both Such may be and has been
Il many cases the result OF the double al
iegtance by every citizen. and the double
Eu-hu-ttv Inherent both n the separate
paris and n The sum total OF what the
Chef Justice called an iudiSsoluble union
o. 1ndeSr-ZcIible states.
INTENTION OF CONGRESS
TIE question seems most material
rleJher II was the intention OF the franz
IS q LneSe series OF statutes OF which
re sCr q 1888 is the last 10 instruct the
ieoersl courts 70 take cognizance OF any
nc ever o1ence cogDizable by local
n1rrlclPa- -av. wherever such courts would
1zve jurisdiction, il each United States
gsElcI Court, OF the Circuit Court for
gyfr district could be regarded as
oo-f o. p-e1ary state Jurisdiction Con the
Cl1.nA sloe) for Z county consisting OF
- ne national lands within the district
nsnt q the Ultimate problem To put il
-4ooreer way, the question is this;
ne -lDeloCS matter here complained Of
H@S printed anc published IN the County
SeW YORK Therefore the state court
s-LL,E II thar county has jurisdiction. II
- aso published n the County OF Or
t-se --ere1ore. The state court sitting in
- count mas Jurisdiction
- Il VFas also published in the West
rr.--l reservation. which Is both in the
-3-nly q Orange ana the southern dis
- q New York. and, therefore, this
togrt mas Jurisdiction
70 Ire proposition that this can be true
an unwilling 70 yield assent until in
sL-clec 1y higher authority. Most Of the
.--4 OF lie on national reservations are