Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-05-28

the legal question of the admissibility OF
testimony touching on general reports
that Col Roosevelt uses liquor to excess
be settled.
ATTORNEY Belden stated II was the in
tention of the defense to ask future wit
nesses. in an attempt to prove the con-
tention of the defense that there was IN
existence a general report, amounting TO
a general reputation. that COL Roose-
Welt does use liquors. and sometimes 10
excess, that these reports We're pup-
Nshed in newspapers. and that Col.
Roosevelt read these reports. and TINS
charge had never been contradicted by
him: the defendant published the report
Of the former Presidents reputed eX-
cessive use Of intoNicants. believing IL
to ne true and not With any malice
To Show Lack of Malice.
Air Befden maintained that such
testimony was required 10 show good
faith and the absence of malice in the
publication Of the defendants editorial.
II could not he. in the presence of
Widespread comment by the public and
in important newspapers. stated the
LAWYER that Mr. Roosevelt had been
greatly damaged by the repetition or
charges If intoN ication in remote
weekly with circulation OF about
:, Gou copies
We propnSc Ia show continued the
LAWYER that such charges as were
made i'll the Iron ore we're by no
means confined TO this region. The
pldintiff during lsfe was the most
talked Of man in the United states
and We expect Ia introduce testimony
to show that adverse comment As TO
has habits We're made in many other
strongly in showing the absence Of
malice on the part of the defendant
Would Prove Bad Repute.
In tho declaration To this suit the
plaintiff not only included the question
- his use or uon-usc Of liquors. but also
tlat If lis general reputation said Mr..
EcEdcn.
The attorney read from the declaration.
quoting that Col Roosevelt had never
hcon suspected OF drinking alcoholic
LIQUORS IL excess ON this basis. he said.
Tho defense would claim the right to
bring ont testimony on COL Roosevelts
reputation in various parts of the coun-
try. The purpose of the defense, as
claimed by Col. Roosevelts attorneys,
was to prevent tho exclusion of hear
say testimony throughout the trial.
The court asked Mr.. Belden whether
the defense would combat the position
OF the plaintiff that malice in the publ
cation Of the article Was basis for
damages Mr.. Beldcn answered proof
of malice undoubtedly would increase the
basis for damages. and tho defense would
combat the attitude of tho plaintiff
Attorney Pound rose here and said:
AT first ! wanted To sue for $4,000.
but col Roosevelt insisted that the
amount asked for should be nominal He
did not want To be vindictive. but wanted
merely damages for the publication of a
falsehood.
II was stated by Mr.. Belden that the
pecuniary damages in this case under the
law might he any sum from = cents to
sti.op. regardless of the amount asked
In the suit.
Believe Charge to Be True.
Whether the alleged libel was true or
not. Mr.. Belden argued. the defendant
believed the article TO be true, and did
not publish it out of malice.
Attorney w III. Van Benschoten. for
Col. Roosevelt. said he would not oppose
the attitude of the defense that the ad-
mission of so-calied hearsay evidence
bearing upon the colonefs reputation as
10 liquor was merely to mitigate DAM
ages
He contended however. that such evil
dence should not be admitted unless IT
had first been proved that the defend
ant knew of tile reports before ne pup
he true and based his article on them,
believing them to be true.
Under the position of the defense.
argued Mr.. Van Benschoten man may
lie as pure as st. Paul, and his reputa-
tion may be ruined in a moment by
LIT of gossip monSers. The two points
by the defense are lncom-
patible. You cannot mitigate and deny
ut the same time.
Too Vigorous for Drunkard.
Much of the testimony which followed
the appearance of Col. Roosevelt on the
stand yesterday was introduced to indi-
cate that the plaintiffs physical vigor,
his functional perfection, his violence OF
exercise and his immense capacity for
work could not exist i'll the person OF
one who got drunk. and that not lnfre-
auently. as the alleged libelous editorial
in the Iron Ore charged.
Important witnesses on this phase OF
the examination were DR.. Alexander
Lambert. Roosevelt's family physician
and intimate friend of thirty years. and
Dr. p y. RiXey. surgeon general, I. :.
y. retired whose official duties during
! ne MCKINLEY and Roosevelt terms of Of
nee included little else than to guard the
physical well being. Other
witnesses were Jacob Riis and Gibson
Gardner. the former socioioSlst and
writer and the latter newspaper man.
whose duty for many wears compelled
him to take close note of everything per-
tanning 10 Col. Roosevelt.
DR.. Lambert aside from his intimate
social and professional relations with the
plaintiff testified that he had made
special study of the heart and lungs and
of the effect OF alcohol. tobacco, opiates
and drugs on the human system.
When Mr. andrews, on cross-eAamlna-
ton suggested that witnesses knoWledg-
o. what the colonel drank AT mealtime
d:d not extend 10 breakfasts. the doctor,
who talked very rapidly. sparkled back:
"Oh YES indeed. many breakfasts.
have frequently stayed at the Roosevelt
home all night and might drop IN AT
breakfast any dan. as | frequently did.
Dr Lambert said he had given special
attention 10 the study OF alcoholism more
Than To any other line. had written
book on the subject. which was standard
in tho profession. and probably during
his career had treated i"..sS cases of AL
coholisa and allied disorders
Organs Prodigiously Healthy.
"lIe j. extremely temperate. testified
the doctor Ills heart and liver. which,
10 an alcoholic. would be affected, he said,
We're prodigiou>ly healthy and competent.
~. never Was called upon to treat his
llt