Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-01-04
WORLD LIBEL SUIT
THROWN OUT Of
SUPREME COURT
DECISION UPH0LDS THAT
OF THE LOWER TRIBUNAL
Federal Authorities Have No
Jurisdiction Over Alleged Of
fensei Action Might Have
Been Brought in State Courts,

DOVll ~ uuSllk HI OlQlU Otdl tot
fBy Mornlng Journal Special Leased wireI
Washington, Jan. BY unanimous
decision. the supreme court of the
United States today decided that the
federal government could not main
tain 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 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 state
court.
The court today dealt entirely with
the act of congress In 1898, under
which the indictment was brought.
The effect OF this act was to incor~
porate the criminal laws of the sew
eral states In force on July /. 1898, in
to the federal statute and to make
them applicable TO federal reserva-
tions within the various states. Among
these was New York libel law
The court through chief Justice
White. said that while the statute
left no doubt that whore acts were
done on reservations which were ex-
pressly prohibited and punished as
crimes by law Of the United States
that law was dominant aud controll-
| ing: yet, where no law of the United
States expressly provided for the pun
| ishment of offenses committed on
reservations all acts done ON such
reservations which were made crimi-
nal by the laws of the several states.
were left to be punished under the
applicable statutes,
when these results uf the statutes
are borne IN mind. said the otiief
Justice, ~ becomes manifest that
congress, in adopting " suddenly
considered the two-fold character of
our constitutional government and
had in view chat enllghtened purpose.
so far as the punishment OF crime
was concerned. to interfere as little as
might be with the authority OF the
states on the subject over all terri
tory situated within their exterior
boundaries. and which hence would
be subject to exclusive state iurisdic-
ton but for the existence of United
States reservation
I'm accomplishing these purposes.
IL IL apparent that the statute, instead
OF fixing by its own terms the pun
lshment for crimes committed on
such reservations which were not
previously provided for by a law of
the United States. adopted and wrote
in the state law, with the single diff
ference that the offense although
punished AS an offense against the
United States was nevertheless pun
ishable only In the way and to the
extent that II would have been pun
ishable If the territory embraced by
the reservation remained subject 10
the jurisdiction of the state"
chief Justice White said that inves-
tlgating plainly established:
First, that adequate means were
afforded for furnishing the circulation
OF q libel of United States reserva-
lion by the state law, and In the state
courts. without the necessity OF re-
sorting to the courts OF the United
States for redress.
Second that resort couii not be
had to the courts of the United States
to punish the act OF publishing a
newspaper libel by circulating Il cory
of the newspaper on the reservation
upon the theory that stieh publics-
tion was an Independent offense sepa-
rate and distinct from the primary
printing and publishing Of the libel
lous article within the state OF New
York. without disregardIng the laws
of that state and frustrating the plain
of such law, which was that
there should be but a single prosecu-
tlon and conviction.
These propositions being true. II
follows In the light OF the construc-
ton which We have given the act of
1898 that the court was right in
1uashng the indictments as not au-
by that act, No other con-
clusion we think. was possible. at II
could not have sustained the indlct-
ment without giving to the statute a
meaning directly conflicting with the
TO the statute we have
affixed to II.
"The ruling which we now make
does not, of course, extend to sub
iect which Is not before lis. II follow,
therefore. that We do not now Init
mate that the rule which In this case
has controlled our decision would be
applicable to case which was wholly
on reservation, discon-
nected with acts committed within tho
Of the states and, whore
the prosecution for such crime In the
courts Of the United States instead
Of being In conflict with the appli-
cable statute law was In all respect