Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1911-02-02
ATTACK ON RULER
|SPUN|SHED WITH
A YEAR IN PRISON
Editor My|ius, Who Accused
King George of Bigamy, Con-
victed and Consigned
TO Cell.
TRIAL is A SUMMARY ONE
Monarch Not Called as a Wit
ness, but Writes q. Letter
Denying Having Married
Two Women.
TRIAL is A SUMMARY ONE

Denylng haVlng A.ssiiieu
Two Women.
London. Feb after brief proceed
ings today before n special jury. Lord
Chief Justice AlSerstone today cleared
King George OF imputations against
his personal character by finding Ed
ward F. Mylius guilty of circulating
a libel. Mylius was sentenced TO one
years Imprisonment.
Mylius was charged witE distribute
ing in England copies of the I4iberator,
Paris publication edited by Edward
Fl James in which it was alleged that
his majesty, while Prince of Wales,
had contracted morganatic marriage
with the. elder daughter of Admiral
Sir Michael Seymour at Malta in 1880.
Admiral Chief Witness.
The crown called the admiral as a
witness and he testified the daughter
In question. now the Wife of Captain
Napier. of the British navy, had never
seen his majesty until 1895. when the
.Ising called on the witness at Ports
t4nouth.
His only other daughter died in 1885
and for three years preceding her
Malta. where he was commander in
chief of the Mediterranean squadron.
The king had not visited Malta while
his daughter was there and his Young
er daughter had never spoken to h,m.
The prosecution was conducted Nv
Sir Rufus lsaacs. the attorney general,
assisted by Sir John \. Simon sollcl-
tor general. and Attorneys RoNlatt and
Muir. Mylius had no counsel. looking
after his own defense.
The defendant sought to have the
king summoned as i witness. but this
was refused on constitutional grounds
When he demanded the kings presence
in the court. asserting that he could
not be legally tried in the absence of
his accuser Lord Chief Justice Alvcr-
stone again ruled against him. dc
claring that the defense knew per
fectly we'll that under the constitu-
ton his majesty could not be present.
Letter From King Read.
In dramatic speech Sir Rufus char
acterized the story of the morganatic
marriage as absolutely false, regretting
that his majesty was not permitted to
personally face his slanderers, and
concluded with the declaration that the
suit had not been brought to protect
the monarchy. but that King George
had sought the protection of the court
~
After sentence had been passed Sir
Rufus read a letter signed by King
George authorizing the attorney gem
eral to state publicly that the writer
had never been married except to Queen
Mary had never gone through II cere-
mony of marriage except with the
queen, and that he would have at
tended the proceedings to give testi-
mony to this effect. but for the adj
vice of the lawyers of the crown that
it would be unconstitutional for him
to do So
To Set Story at Rest.
1t is assumed the government brought
the present proceedings less to punish
the circulator of statements and opin
ions offensive to the crown. than to set
at rest for all time the story immed-
lately involving the person of the king.
The public was admitted 10 the court
room, but the police took every pre-
caution to bar suspicious characters
Among the notables present was Home
Secretary Winston Churchill
The crown was represented by Sir
John A. Simon, the solicitor general;
Sir Rufus Isaacs, the attorney general
and Public Prosecutors Roylatt and
Muir. The latter conducted the prose-
cution of DR.. Hawlcy Fl. Crippen, who
was convicted of the murder of his
wife, Belle Gilmore. the actress.
Woui0h't IaiI Ihe Nlhg.
Opposing this brilliant array of coun
sci was no one but the defendant him
self, who elected to conduct his OWN
case. 1t is understood he asked that
King George be subpoenaed as wit
ness, but this was not permitted as the
summoning of his majesty to the wit
ness stand would be unconstitutional
After the formalities of opening the
proceedings We're concluded Mylius be-
gan his case by demanding the return
OF his private letters which he asserted
had been seized in gross violation of
his legal rights. He then said:
Il wish to ask whether the king is
present. 1 demand his presence because
every accused person has the right to
be confronted by his accuser. and sec
ondly, because in a libel action the
prosecutor must be in court in order
that the defendant may see him; and
thirdly, because there is no proof that
the prosecutor is at present alive
Chief Justice Alverstone replied:
THAT has already been the subject
of an application before me and you
know perfectly we'll that the king cam
not be here
Statement of Prosecutor.
Sir Rufus then opened the prosecu-
ton. He said the alleged libel at
tackled the kings honor and was in
tended to lower him in the esteem Of
FlSHt-IlllQeQ clClZenS. Inc llDel, ne
said was of the grossest character. and
charged his majesty with having con-
tracted shameful marriage at Malta
in 1890 with the dauohter of Admiral
Sir Michael Seymour. by which there
had been an offspring and that his
majesty had "foully abandoned" this
lady in order that he might marry the
princess.
The charge had been repeated thrice.
first on November 80, and last in an
article entitled .'Sanctified Bigamy."
which said:
I'VE We're offered a spectacle of i'm
morality in it's sickly. beastly mon
strosity. The king committed the crime
of bieamy with the completely of the
prelates of the Anglican church. He
has a supertiuity of wives like a sui
tam"
Raising his voice and with a dramatic
gesture the attorney general exclaimed:
II tell you at once there is not the
fafntest vestige of truth in these state
ments"
King Ineligible as Witness.
Sir Rufus said he regretted the dis