The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-01-04
Gov ernment t Fails to
Maintain Panama
Canal Libel Suit. =
BANK GUARANTY
LAWS ARE UPHELD
Highest Tribunal Declares Use
constitutional Alabama Con
tract Law'-Railroads Lose
Fight Against Amendment
to Hepburn Rate
Law.

Washington, D. c., January BY a
unanimous decision the Supreme Court
OF the United States to-day decided
that the Federal government could not
maintain the so-called Panama Canal
libel suit" against the Press Publish
ing Company. of New York. in tho Fed
eral courts of New York. In so hold
ing the court affirmed the decision o.
the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Southern District OF New York.
which had quashed the famous indict-
ment.
In effect. the decision was that tha
Federal court had no jurisdiction over
the alleged oftcnse, because the case
might have been brought in a state
court.
The Press Publishing Company, pub
Usher OF the New York World, was in
dicted in March. 190s In the Circuit.
Court OF the United States for the
Southern District of New York on a
charge of libel
In effect. the alleged libel was the
publication OF articles stating that
Charles P. Taft Douglas Robinson and
William Nelson Cromwell, with ]. Pier
pont Morgan and others. obtained con-
troll OF the Panama Canal route for
about s30,000.000. and by the CO. opera-
ton of Theodore Roosevelt, then Pres
!dent of the United States. and brother
in-law of Mr. Robinson and William
II. Taft, then Secretary OF War, and
brother of Mr.. Taft, We're enabled to
effect the sale of the Panama Canal to
the United States at profit of $4,000
600
Clnimed Jurisdfction.
The United States claimed Jurisdiction
TO punish the alleged libel on the the
DRY that the publisher had committed
crime upon Federal territory at West
Point. n. Y, and In the most office
building In New York City.
1t was argued that wherever the pa
pers containing the alleged llbeIous
articles might have been printed, that
they were technically published" upon
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 ju-
risdlction OF the crime libel charged
In the Indictment. The United States
appealed from this construction or the
statute, under which it claimed the in
dictment was authorized
The decision of the court to-day
oealt entirely with the act OF Congress
In 1885, under which the indictment
was brought. The effect of this act
was 10 incorporate the criminal laws
OF the several States in force on July
!, 1888, into the Federal statute and
10 make them applicable to Federal
reservations within the various States
Among these State laws was New
York libel Law.
The court. through Chief Justics
White. stated that while the statute
left no doubt where acts were done ~,
reservations which were expressly nro- +
hibited and punished as crimes bv a
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 provided
nf
mitted on reservations. all acts dons
on such reservations which were made
criminal by the laws of the several
states were left TO be punished under
the applicable State statutes.
Rcnsons for Decision.
Chief Justice White said that the
Investigation plainly establishes
First-That adequate means were ar
forded for Furnishing the circulation OF
libel on United States reservation
by the State law and In the State
courts. without necessity OF resortinr
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 n news
paper libel by circulating copy or
lie newspaper on the reservation upon
he theory that such publication was
an independents offense. separate and
diStlnct from the primary printing and
publishing of the libelous article With
III the State OF New York. without d;s-
resardirg the laws of that state ana
frustrating the plain purpose OF such
law, which was that there should he bur
Il single prosecution and continuation.
These propositions being true. If
follows in the light of the construction
Which we have given the act OF lSaS
mat the cour; Was right in uuashing
the indictment as not authorized BY
That act No other conclusion we
think, was possible. as the court could
not have sustained the Indictment with
out giving 10 the statute meaning
directly conflicting with the construc-
lion which we have affixed to IT."
Declared Constitutions.
Washington, y. c., January 3-Tha
bank guaranty laws OF Oklahoma. Ne-a-
hraska and Kansas were declared To-
day constitutional by the Sunren,o
Court of the United states. and thus
Inc light over the establishment OF the
policy OF guaranteeing through tho
State of deposits in banks was won
by the advocates OF such policy.
The opinion of the court in the cases
was snnounccd by Justice Holmes. Ne
said tho main objection 10 tho laws
was that the assessment OF banks by
the STATE in order TO create n fund 10
guarantees the deposits in other banka
within the state took private property
OF one bank for the private use of an.
other without compensation,
I'm tho frst place." said Justica