Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-01-06
ROOSEVELT LIBEL SUIT.
Supreme Court Says Action Against
Press Publishing Co. Will Not Lie.

Supreme Court Says Action Against
Press Publishing Co. Will Not Lie.
By unanimous decision, the supreme
court of the United States on last
Tuesday decided that the Federal gov
ernment could not maintain the So
called Panama canal libel suit
against the Press Publishing company
Of New York, in the Federal courts
of New York. In so holding, the court
affirmed the decision Of the circuit
court Of the United States for the
southern district of New York, which
had quashed the famous indictment.
| In effect the decision was that the
Federal court had no Jurisdiction over
the alleged offense, because the case
might have been brought in a state
| court.
The Press Publishing company, pub
fishers of the New York World, was
indicted in March, 1909, in the cir
cult court Of the United States for
the southern district Of New York
Oh cnaTBe Oh lDel.
In effect the alleged libel was the
| publication Of articles, stating that
Charles P. Taft, Douglas Robinson,
and VIM. Nelson Cromwell, with j.
P. Morgan and others, obtained con-
| troll Of the Panama route for about
| 100000 and by the cooperation OF
| Theodore Roosevelt, then president OF
the United States, and brother-in-law
| Of Mr.. Robinson, and VIM. H. Taft,
! the secretary of war, and brother OF
Mr.. Taft, were enabled to effect the
sale of the Panama canal to the
| United States at profit Of $780,
| 10000
The United States claimed jurisdic-
ton to punish the alleged libel on
the theory that the publisher had
committed a crime upon. Federal ter
ritory at West Point, n. Y, and In
the postoffice building in New York
| city.
1t was argued that wherever the
papers containing the alleged libe
| articles might have been printed that
they were technically published" up
| on these Federal reservations, and
that the Federal government had the
power to punish such publishing.
The indictment was quashed on the
ground that the court was without
| Jurisdiction of the crime of libe
charged in the Indictment The Unit
| ed States appealed from this con-
struction of the statute under which
1t claimed the indictment was auth
| orized.
The decision Of the court today
| dealt entirely with the act Of con-
gress in 1898, under which the in
dictment was brought. The effect OF
this act was to incorporate the Grim
inal laws Of the several states in force
on July l, 1898, into the Federal
statute and to make them applicable
to Federal reservations within the va
rious states. Among these state laws
was a New York libel law.
The court, through Chief Justice
White, stated that while the statute
left no doubt where acts were done
on reservations which were expressly
prohibited and punished as crimes by
law Of the United States, that law
was dominant and controlling, yet
on the other hand, where no law OF
the United States had expressly pro-
vided for the punishment Of offenses
committed on reservations, all acts
done on such reservations which were
made criminal by the laws Of the sew
eral states were left to be punished
under the applicable state statutes.
Chief Justice White said that in
vestigation plainly established:
First, that adequate means were
afforded for Furnishing the circulation
Of libel on a United States reserva-
tion by the state law, and in the
state courts, without the necessity of
resorting to the courts Of the United
States for redress.
Second, that resort could not be
had to the courts of the United States
to punish the act Of publishing a
newspaper libel by circulating a copy
Of the newspaper on the reservation
upon the theory that such publication
was an Independent offense, separate
and distinct from the primary print
ing and publishing of the libelous ar
ticle within the state of New York,
without disregarding the laws of that
state and frustrating the plain pur-
pose of such law, which was that there
should be but a single prosecution and
conviction.
These propositions being true, 1t
follows in the light of the construc-
ton which we have given the act of
1898 that the court was right in
quashing the indictment as not auth
oriZed by that act. No other conclu-
sion, we think. was possible, as the
court could not have sustained the in
dictment without giving to the stat
ute a meaning directly conflicting with
the construction which we have affix-
ed to it."