The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-04
Case Originated By ROOse- vGIt Is QuaShed By the
 Supreme Court
RIGHTS OF STATES ARE
 PROTECTED BY DECISION
Chief Justice White Says That the State Laws and the state Courts Are Ample to Handle Such
 Cases

Washington, January 3.-By unani- nous decision the supreme court de- cided today that the federal govern
 nent could not maintain the so-caled 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 court today dealt entirely with the act of Congress in 1898 under which the indictment was brought. The ef- feet of this act was to Incorporate the criminal laws of the several states in force on July l. 1898, into the federal statute and to make them applicable to federal resers ations within the vari- ous states. Among these states laws Was New York libel law.
 The court through Chief Justice 1 white stated that while the statute | lett no doubt where acts were on reser- Vatlons which were expressly prohib- | ited and punished as crimes by a law or the United States that law was dom | lhant and controlling yet on the other hand where no law of the United States mad expressly provided for the punish- ment of offenses committed on reserya
 tlon, all acts done on such reservations which were made criminal by the laws or the several states were left to he punished under the applicable statutes.
 States Rights Protected
 When these results of the stat1Ite | are borne in mind," said the chief iue tlce, Tt becomes manifest that Con Sress, in adopting it. seduouslvf f con | sidered that the twofold character of our constitutional government had in view the purpose, so far as. the pur- ishment or crime was concerned to in-
 teriere as iittle as might be with the authority of the states --orA inc 1s0s-' 1ect over all terrltory situated within
 thelr interior boundaries and which hehce would be subject to exclusive state Jurisdiction but for the existence or united States reservation. Tn ac- complfshing these purposes II Is an parent that the statute, instead of fix Ing by it's own terms the punishment TOT crimes committed such reserya tfons which were not previously pro | vlded for by a law of the United States. aoopted and wrote in the state law | L. | fense. although punisi.ed as an offenss against the United States, was never | theless punishable only in the way and to the extent that it would have been punishable If the territory embrace,I ny the reservation remained subject to the jurisdiction of the states'
 Facts Established
 Chief Justice White said that investipa- | ton is plainly established
 | l. That adequate means were afforded | Tor punishing the circulation of A Iibel o,, a united States reservation by the state laws and in the state courts, without the | necessity of resorting to the courts of 1 the United States for redress. | ?. That resort could not be haS,to fbs courts of the United States to punish the act of publishing a newspaper libel hv circulating copy of the newspaper on the reservation upon the theory that sucb publication was an offense separate ana distinct from the primary printing and publishing Of the libeous article within the state of New York without disre garding the laws of that state and frus- trating the plain purpose of such law | which was that there should be but a single prosecution and conviction. These propositions being true, 1t follows in the | light or the construction which we have given the act of 1898, that the court was right in quashing the indictment as not authorized by that act
 No other construction, we think, was possible as they could not have sustained the indictment without giving to the statute meaning directly conflicting with the construction which we have affixed | to it.
 | "rhe ruling which we now make does not, of course, extend to a subject which is not before us. It follows, therefore. | that we do not now intimate that tbe rule which in this case has controlled our decision would be applicable to a case which was wholly submitted on A reser- | vation disconnected with acts commit l ted within the jurisdiction of the states and where the prosecution for such crime l In the courts of the United States in. stead of being in conflict with the ap- | plicable statute law was in all respects | in harmony herewith.
 --------e------