The Roosevelt Panama Libel Case Against The New York World The United States Vs. The Press Publishing Co: A Brief History of the Attempt of President Roosevelt by Executive Usurpation to Destroy the Freedom of the Press in the United States, Together with the Text of the Unanimous Decision of the United States Supreme Court Handed Down by Mr. Chief Justice White, Affirming the Action of Judge Hough of the United States Court in Quashing the Indictment
Hva folk mener - Skriv en omtale
Vi har ikke funnet noen omtaler på noen av de vanlige stedene.
Andre utgaver - Vis alle
act of July alleged libels argument asserted bill ceded place charged circulation common law constitutional construction conviction copies counsel criminal law criminal libel Cromwell Cromwell’s decision defendant defendant’s District-Attorney Douglas Robinson editor eral ernment exclusive jurisdiction Federal courts Federal Government Federal libel law Federal territory French Government Grand Jury independent crime Indianapolis intended Joseph Pulitzer Judge Anderson Judge Hough jurisdic Justice Day Justice Harlan Justice Holmes Justice Lurton Justice Story Justice White lese-majesty letters rogatory liberty McReynolds ment newspaper offense committed Panama Canal Company paper passed Penal Code person Post-Office Building President Roosevelt Press Publishing Company printed and published publication publishing a libel Pulitzer purpose quashing the indictment question Roose Sedition act Sedition law Southern District Stat statute Supreme Court Taft tion trial United States Attorney United States Government Washington West Point Wickersham William Nelson William Nelson Cromwell York World
Side 48 - ... to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute ; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States...
Side 71 - Line. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
Side 48 - ... any false scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States...
Side 77 - When a crime is within the jurisdiction of two or more counties of this state, a conviction or acquittal thereof in one county is a bar to a prosecution or indictment thereof in another.
Side 31 - States, such offense shall be liable to, and receive, the same punishment as the laws of the State in which such place is situated, now in force provide for the like offense...
Side 77 - When an act charged as a crime is within the jurisdiction of another state, territory or country, as well as within the jurisdiction of this state, a conviction or acquittal thereof in the former, is a bar to a prosecution or indictment therefor in this state.
Side 82 - I am interested in the Panama Canal because I started it. If I had followed traditional, conservative methods, I should have submitted a dignified state paper of probably two hundred pages to the Congress, and the debate would have been going on yet. But I took the Canal Zone, and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes on the canal does also.
Side 45 - It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however 506 THE QUEST FOR AUTHORITY...
Side 73 - States having cognizance thereof, be liable to, and receive the same punishment as the laws of the State in which such place is, or may U.
Side 17 - ... act which is a legal wrong and but for his privilege would afford a good cause of action against him, all that is required in order to raise the privilege and entitle him to protection being that he shall act honestly in the discharge of some duty which the law recognizes, and shall not be prompted by a desire to injure the person who is affected by his act.