The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1913-05-29
CALLS CHARGE
AGAINST T.R.SILLY
Witness Says He Never Saw
Him Other Than Sober.
DEFENSE REVEALS ITS HAND

viii Claim Editor Accused of Libel
Merely Repeated Current Talk as to
ColoneFs Habits.
Marquette, Mich, May 29. = The
star witness in behalf of Colonel
Roosevelt in the ex-president's suit
against Editor George A. Newett, OF
Ishpeming, for alleged libel, was John
Callan O'Loughlin, Washington cores
pondent of the Chicago Tribune.
1t gave OLoughlin an opportunity
to expound a Roosevelt policy in de-
cidedly effective fashion, when Attor-
ney Belden, for Newett, referred to
the ordering of an American battle
ship fleet to make trip around the
world.
Colonel Roosevelt ordered the
fleet around the world as demon
stration to the world, and Japan in
particular, that the United States was
ready for war, if need be- said the
witness.
Attorney Belden objected, but Judge
Flanagan ruled that the statement
was fair answer to the question.
During your twenty years expert
ence with Colonel Roosevelt have you
ever seen him in the slightest degree
under the influence of liquor?'
ST not only never saw him under the
Influence of liquor, but it seems abso-
luteiy silly to ne to have anyone sug-
gest the fact that he ever was" re-
piled O'Loughlin emphatically.
Isn't it true that it was commonly
stated and printed in the press that
Colonel Roosevelt drank to excess in
1922"
40 not know a newspaper man in
washington who ever ms1e such
<tatement or gave the highest Gre
ence to such rumor. They knew posi-
lively that it was not true.
Attorney Belden stated that it was
the Intention of the defense to ask
future witnesses, in an attempt to
show the position of the defense. that
there was in existence a general re-
port amounting to general reputation
That Colonel Roosevelt does use Ii
|4uors and sometimes to excess that
Iese reports were published in news
pers and that Colonel Roosevelt
read these reports and this charge had
never been contradicted by him; the
defendant published the repotr of the
former PRESIDENTS reputed excessive
M u III Tex ants, believing 1t to be
true and not with any malice
Attorney Belden maintained that
The good faith and absence of malice
I'll the publication of the defendant s
edftoriaI It could not be in the pres
euce of widespread comment by the
public and in important newspapers,
sated the lawyer, that Mr.. Roosevelt
had been greatly damaged by the repe-
tition of charges of intoxication in a
remote weekly with circulation of
about 5000 copies.
ssI propose to show" continued the
lawyer, that such charges as were
made in the Iron Ore were by no
means confined to this section. The
plaintiff during 1912 was the most
B41hSu-O1 Iidu I1O OIiLCo ototOo,
and we expect to introduce testimony
to show that adverse comment as to
his habits were made in many other
parts of the country. This point bears
strongly in showing the absence of
malice on the part of the defendant"
s'In the declaration to this suit the
plaintiff not only includes the ques
tion of his use or non-use of liquors,
but also that of his general reputa-
tion," said Mr.. Belden.
The court asked Mr.. Belden whether
the defense would combat the position
of the plaintiff that malice in the pub
Iication of the article was a basis for
damages. Mr. Belden answered proof
of malice undoubtedly would be the
basis for damages, and the defense
would combat the attitude of the
plaintiff.
Attorney James Pound, for the plain
tiff, said: "At first 1 wanted to sue for
$4,000, but Colonel Roosevelt insist
ed that the amount asked for should
be nominal. He did not want to be
vindictice, but wanted merely damages
for the publication of a falsehood."