New-York tribune., 1911-01-04
PANAMA LIBEL SUIT
FALLS TO THE GROUND
United States Supreme Court by
Unanimous Decision DiSmiSSeS
Governments Appeal.
WITHOUT ITS JURISDICTION
Chief Justice White Holds That
State Laws Are Ample to Pun
ish Offences on Federal
Reservation.

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 Publishing Company
of New York in the federal courts Of
New York. thus affirming the decision Of
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 the fed
ersl court had no jurisdiction over the
alleged offence becausc the case might
have been brought in state court.
The decision of the court to-day dealt
entirely with the act of Congress of
1898 under which the indictment was
brought. The effect of this act was to
incorporate the criminal laws of the sew
eral states IN force on July l, 1898. into
the federal statute and to make them
applicable to federal reservations within
the states. Among these was a New
York libel law.
The court, through Chief Justice
White, held that. while the statute left
no doubt that when acts were commit
TED on reservations which were expressly
prohibited and punished as crimes by 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 for the
punishment Of offences committed on
reservations all acts done on such res
ervatons which were made criminal by
the laws of the states We're left 10 be
punished under the applicable statutes.
Chief Justice Whites Opinion.
When these results Of the statute are
horne in mind" said the chief justice,
st becomes manifest that Congress, in
adopting il, sedulously considered the
iwofold character Of our constitutional
government. ard had in view the en-
lghtened purpose. so far as the punish
ment or crime was concerned, to inter-
fere as little as might be with the
authority Of the states on that subject
over all territory situated within their
exterior boundaries, and which hence
would be subject to exclusive state juris-
diction but for the existence of a United
States reservation. In accomplishing
these purposes it is apparent that the
statute. instead Of fixing by its own
terms the punishment for crimes COM
mitted on such reservation which were
not previously provided for by law Of
the United States. adopted and wrote In
The state law. with the single difference
that the offence. although punished as an
offence against the United States. was
nevertheless punishable only in the way
and to the extent that it would have
been punishable if the territory en-
braced by the reservation remained sub
ject 10 the jurisdiction Of the state"
The chief Justice said that investiga-
tion plainly established the following
points:
First-That adequate means were af
forded for Furnishing the circulation Of a
libel on a United States reservation by
the state law and i'm the state courts,
without the necessity Of resorting 10 the
courts Of the United states for redress.
Second-That resort could not be had
20 the courts Of the United States 10
punish the act of publishing a news
newspaper on the reservation upon the
theory that such publication was an in
dependent offence, separate and distinct
from the primary printing and publish
'ng Of the libelous article within the
state Of New York without disregarding
the laws Of that state and frustrating
the plain purpose Of such law, which was
that there should be but a single prose-
Cution and CONJUNCTION.
Lower Court Sustained.
These propositions being true. It fol-
lows in tho light of the construction
which we have given the act OF 1893
that the court was right in quashinc the
indictment as not authorized by that act
No other conclusion, We think, was pos
sible as the court could not have sus-
tanned the Indictment without giving 10
the statute q meaning directly conf1ict-
Ing with the construction which we have
affixed IN H.
The ruling which We now make does
net. OF course. extend TO subject which
IS rot before us II follows therefore.
that 40 do not now intimate that the
rule which in this case has controlled
our decision would be applicable 10 a
casc which was wholly committed on
reservation. disconnected with acts COM
,rittod within the jurisdiction or the
states and where the prosecution for
such a crime i'm the courts Of the United
states. instead Of being in confilct WIN
tho applicabie state law. was in all re-
srects IN harmony herewith.
The Press Publishing Company. pub
Ilsher Of The New York World was in
di,tcd in March. 1909, in the Circuit
Court Of the United states for the
Southern District Of New York on
charge 81 libel. IN effect the alleged libel
was the publication Of articles stating
that Charles r. Taft. Douglas Robinson
and william Nelson Cromwell, with J.
Pierpont Morgan and others, obtained
control Of the PanamaG anal route for
about $4,000. 900. and Dy the co-opera
tion of Theodore Roosevelt, then Presi-
dent Of the United States and brother
in-law Of Mr. Robinson. and William II.
Taft. then Secretary of War and brother
Of Charles =. Taft, were enabled TO effect
the sale Of the Panama Canal to the
United States at profit Of S36,0OO,O0O.
The United States claimed jurisdiction
10 punish the alleged libel Oh the theory
that the publisher had committed a
crime on the federal reservations n,
West Point and in the postoffice build
ing in New York City. It was argued
that wherever the papers containing the
alleged libellous articles might have beer
printed. they were technically pub
lished" on these federal reservations and
that the federal goyerproent had the
power 10 punlsa such publishing
The indictment was quashed i'm the
C;rc,Gf court on the ground that tbf