New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-10-25
PANAMA LIBEL ARGUMENT
Case "a Legal Curiosity" Mr.
NicoII Tells Supreme Court
BIG PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
Congress- Charged with Re
enacting sedition Laws OF
17a8-Libel Defined.

.,- oct M-The mai ell"Il 20
So. -, ----,z,ernnent was made IN ora
-. before the Supreme court '.''
oiiie'. o. UNFOLD the validity OF the N
-, ia the New York federa e'1i
-. press Publishing Company OF
- Of nbel growing out ~ ne pIil .fI-
o, an article in The New YORK
ton =. -, ,,,e nurcbass Of the Panama
-, The governments efforts we're oP-
- -, s-s7,-,,er,.s for the Press Publish
s,g Company designed 20 sustain 'i'e a.
~ - -, ,,,,.-er FEDERAL court in qUashing
the indictment
The rroceedinss were unusually inteIes'-
tng and peculiarly impressive s"eei'-Hs
,,-l,,5r,le, RI law n.-re said 70 be in'ViFeN-
ribe1lots statements Il was alleged i4@o
heen published concerning the hlk
acials % the land James g McIAes i'o''i-
speefal assistant TO the Attorney Oei4S' a.
and Delaney Nicou Opposing Co-i-s.'
ravo long been prominent IN me PN'1'0
eye. 49,
--l,o article in question was printed N nc
tos, az ,be Presidential campaign OF I'VE
7. &C. charged that Charles p. TAFT, DOUG q
Robinson and William Nelson rom" ca
yri,b I Pieruont Morgan ana others O.
tanned control o. the Panama C6ilal 80
o - -, 90 and through their intimacy
nit
me United States. and William II Adll'
So, s..orerarv Of War. had sold the prop
-, % the United States Al pToit -.
soc go aa0 Much attention had beeh 80
:. a., case bv President Roosevelt ouTIiie
ia ~s,,r,sizn. and ne even made = a SUI
5ec, of discussion in a special iheSSo7S ~
Congress. .u.o..-,a-t
M McReynolds in his opening statement
=, 80, ,ro lower court had erred IN
,,l7zehIns the Indictment against the fieSs
Publishing Company on the charge OF ci-
-f,la+fng a HbeIous article at the Nss'
Point military reservation. He argued thA'
rl,e1 was a Inisdemesnor under the NJ"
York code. and that Congress, IN hhe WIN
ifs 6utv Of protecting the people OF est
Point had made the code applicable TO ms
federal Jurisdiction This il had done unoer
the law enacted IN 1895.
Re-enactn1ent of Sedition Laws.
NJ nSicou spoke OF the case as "a legal
,.,,riositv." He said, as he turned to Attor-
roy General wickersham. that it was not
his CWickersham's) illustrious intellect
which had made the discovery Of the power
or Congress TO punish libel committees
within a state but that OF his predecessor
Attorney General Bonspsrte. 1t was the
latter. said the attorney. who had maze
aha revelation that in 1898 Congress. without
intending 81, really had re-enacted the sedi-
ton laws Of 1876.
Inst before coming to his peroratfon Ny.
SicoU had presented to the court IN
dramatic fashion an argument 10 show that
the whole history and life Of the country
condemned the construction Of the act or
Congress asserted by Ire government. He
dUrelt first upon the unpopularity OF the
eedition act of 1898. designed to punish the
publication of articles with intent to store
up sedition. Then he came down to 1880.
when, he said. in the very room In which
he was speaking, James Buchanan later To
be President Of the United States, in the
trial Of Judge Peck before the United
States Senate had argued that the found
ers Of the Constitution had been afraid TO
give the federal government any authority
over the subject OF Ihefs
''curious Reading"
FINALLY he took up President Rooseveits
z5pecisl message to Congress in regard q
the alleged libel. He designated il as
curious reading" For the next few min
utes his voice rang through the little court
room as he read portion of the message
holding il to be a high national duty
10 bring to justice him who wsntonly and
Hsckedlv and without one shadow of Jus
1ificauon seeks to blscken the character Of
reputable private citizens and to convict
the government OF mis- own country in the
eyes of the civilized world of wrongdoing
Of the 5asest ana foulest kind
In his concluding argument, Mr. Nc
Reynolds told the court that the govern
nent was concerned in protecting the peo-
pie residing in q federal jurisdiction. and
whether the offence charged was strictly
within the law. In rebuttal TO the arg1l-