Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/679

 644

The Green Bag

that his rights have been invaded, may elect when, and to what extent, he will obey the mandates of the court and the requirements of the law as interpreted by the court, instead of pursuing the orderly course of appeal, not only the courts, but government itself, would become powerless, and society would soon be reduced to a state of anarchy." Chief Justice Sheppard, dissenting, said:— "The specific acts charged against them relate wholly to declarations and publications which violated the preliminary injunction as issued. I have heretofore expressed the opinion that so much of the injunction order was null and void, because opposed to the constitutional prohibition of any abridgment of the freedom of speech or of the press. 33 App. D. C, p. 129. Subsequent reflection has confirmed the views then expressed. I concede that the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the controversy and of the parties, but I cannot agree that a decree rendered in excess of the power of the court— a power limited by express provision of the Constitution—is merely erroneous and not absolutely void. That proposition is met and conclusively disposed of by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall., 163-175." (Washington Law Reporter, v. 37, p. 706, Nov. 5, 1909.) Corporations. Prohibited by New York Statute from Practising Law. N. Y. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York denied, on Oct. 22, the application of "The Associated Lawyers Company" for the court's approval of its incorporation. The court said:— "While it has never been legal for a corpora tion to practise law, a system has grown up by which corporations undertake to procure attorneys for the transaction of the law busi ness of its clients, and while the legality of such corporate action has been doubted, the impropriety of allowing corporations to enter into such a business has been universally recognized, and by this legislation it has been prohibited." See Public Service Corporations. Defamation. So-C'ailed "Panama Libel"— Immunity of Newspapers Printing Fair Comment—Such Cases can be Tried Only in Jurisdiction where Publication Occurred. U. S. In the proceedings brought against Delavan Smith and Charles R. Williams, pro prietors of the Indianapolis News, at Indian

apolis, Oct. 13, Judge Anderson of the United States Circuit Court discharged the defend ants, who had been indicted for alleged criminal libel in publishing articles alleging that there was a corrupt profit of $28,000,000 in the sale of the Panama Canal to the United States, and who were resisting the removal of the case to the District of Columbia. "I am of the opinion," said Judge Ander son, "that the fact that certain persons were called 'thieves' and 'swindlers' does not constitute libel per se. A newspaper has a certain duty to perform. "Here is a matter of great public concern. I was interested, you were interested, we were all interested. Here was a newspaper printing the news—or trying to. Here was this matter up for discussion, and I am not willing to say that the inferences were too strongly drawn. I am not approving them— I am simply saying that I am not able to say they were too strongly drawn. Now, if that is the situation, the question is, did these defendants under the circumstances act honestly in the discharge of this duty which I have spoken of, which the law recognizes, and were they actuated by a desire to injure the persons who are affected by their act? If it were necessary to decide this case upon the question of privilege or lack of malice, I would hesitate quite a while before I would conclude it was my duty to send these people to Washington for trial. But that is not it. "This indictment charges these defendants with commission of a crime in the District of Columbia. Now the Constitution of the United States in one of the amendments provides that the accused shall be tried in the state or district where the offense is com mitted. "Everything that the evidence shows that the defendants do or did, they do and did in the state of Indiana, city of Indianapolis. I am not here to say that if those defendants had an agent in Washington to whom they sent for circulation copies of this paper, that they might not be amenable to prose cution in Washington, if they could be arrested in Washington. I am compelled to take one of two views, and there is nothing between them. When newspaper owners or proprietors do what the evidence in this case shows these defendants did, composed, printed and deposited in the mails for circulation these papers containing the, for the purposes of this statement, libelous articles, either they are guilty here and in