New-York tribune., 1910-10-22
PANAMA LIBEL SUIT Up
Briefs on Both Sides Filed in
United States Supreme Court.
CHARGES BY GOVERNMENT
Press Publishing Company
Makes Reply-Argument
Set for Monday.

Washington. Oct. H.-Briefs on behalf OF
the government and the Press Publishing
Cornpany, of New York. were filed in the
Supreme Court of the United States to-day
in the so-called Panama libel case. The
case Is that in which ex-President Roose-
velt ordered the Department OF Justice 20
proceed against the publishers OF "The New
York World" because Of the publication OF
stories to the effect that there had been
favoritIsm In the purchase of the Panama
Canal property by which capitalists. includ-
Ing Charles p. Taft. brother OF the Presl-
dent. Douglas Robinson, brother-in-law OF
ex-President Roosevelt, and others, were
charged with having obtained great imam
cfaI benefit Because THE World C1rcu-
lated on the government reservation at
West Point the libel proceedings were
brought in the federal courts. and on the
legality of this action depends the chief
contentious of counsel
The governments brief Is signed by At
tornev General wickersham. James c. Nc
REYNOLDS and Stuart Mcnamara 1t con-
tains statement OF fact. and an argument
intended TO show that the indictment
against the Press Publishing Company
should not have been guashed-
The Governments contentions.
..Tn effect" saws the brief. the published
articles charge that Charles p. Taft Doug
las Robinson and William Nelson Cromwell
with r. Pierpont Morgan and others. actins
through an American syndicate. ootaineu
cortroI of the securities of the French COM
nsnv which owned the Panama Canal route
and it's properties for the approximate sum
of ss O5n O0o Aided by the intimacy "hlch
thev enjoyed with Theodore Roosevelt the"
President of the United States and orother-
ip-Iaw of Douglas Robinson. and William
II. Taft. then Secretary Of War and brother
~ Charles p. Taft and by the cooperation
of these officials with them. they were EN-
sbIed TO effect the sale Of the Panama
Canal to the United States for s45.Hno0 ana
rea, n rroft Of some sSS 90 90 which was
divided as charged. among government
| farorites in the world OF politics and
! france"
! The substantial question which the gov
! ernment asserts is before the court Is de-
/ scribed in the brief as whether or not the
United States courts have Jurisdiction 10
Dunish q corporation which printed in the
/ citv of New York a newspaper containing
{ a libel criminal under the laws OF the STATE
! of New York and circulated copies OF the
! same within the federal territory OF west
/ Point The governments argument is pased
| on an act of Congress of 1895. wAlcn. the
| brief saws operates to transfer the state
law 10 federal territory for the purpose or
furnishing acts committed there, WHICH, II
performed outside and In the jurisdiction
of the state. would be amenable to its
| laws"
II Is further argued that il is not only
the right but the duty Of Congress so TO
Iegislate concerning territory under It's ex-
elusive Jurisdiction as TO preserve peace
and good order therein. Because one may
he punished for issuing libel in New York
| is no reason" the brief says. for allowing
him TO go free OF all punishment for circu-
! lating it at West Point. The people In the
latter place are entitled TO protection
| The inconvenience to accused persons OF
being subjected to prosecutions IN places
where alleged nbels arc circulated IS met
with the argument that the Inconvenience
which may be suffered by criminals has not
generally been regarded as adequate reason
for permitting them to operate without re-
straint."
! The suggestion that the offence charged
could be punished in New York state
courts. and therefore was not intended to
be included in the act Of 1895. is answered
by the statement that the State of New
York cannot punish an OIeilCS COiiiil IOSu
| at West Point against the United States
The Defendants Reply.
| The brief for the Press Publishing Com
pany was filed by Delaney Nicoll and as
sociate counsel. This contended that even
although the language OF the act Of 1S9S
were literally broad enough TO cover the
case, 1t should not be so construed for sew
eral reasons. The first Of these was that
the general acquiescence Of legal minds