The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1873-02-27

lWshingt0n Correspondent Republican
1t u the intention Of the Hou.e judiciary |
Committee on Tuesday next, CT the first day |
O which lhs 1o0e On b oheainsd for that |
purpose, to present articles Of impsachment
aeainst Marx W. Delahay, United States
Judge for the district Of Kansas. Proceed.
ings against this officer were begun in The
House Of Representatives, February 8, 1879,
By the introduction BY Hoar, of Massachu-
setfs, Of . petition from Eldridge. Dundam
aud Co., and Others, merchants
Of New York, for the impeachment
Of Delahay, for corruption, nalfeasance and
incompetencey in Office. The petitioners
presented their allegations, giving facts,
dates, &C.: and these documents were re-
ferred 70 the judiciary Committee. A pre-
liminary examination seemed to warrant a
further investigation, and on March 10, 1872,
Mr.. Butler presented 4 resolution extending
the power Of the committee. A great num-
Der Of Witnesses were obtained, and during
the present session; the testimony was pri-
vately printed for the use of the committee,
making over three hundred pages. Nearly
every witness called testified to the shameless
intoxication'of Delahay, both on the bench
and in his private capacity Of citizenship.
Witnesses testified that they had taken him
from the gutter, and had frequently seen
him 20 much intoxicated on the public street
q to be scarcely able to walk, and that he
had frequently been taken home in that con.
dition.
A DRUNKEN COURT.
A. L. Williams, the Attorney General Of
death held the Office now filled BY Judge
n>l.kA. Eol L.. ~ q ho
Judge since 1868, the time of his appoint
ment, that he was unquestionably given to
the use Of intoxicating liquors to great
extent, both during the sittinss of the court
and during the recess; that he, witness, has
delayed the bringing of clients into court for
several days in order to have them sentenced
BY 4 sober court. The witness being pressed
to state the circumstances and occurrences
regarding Judge Delahay's intoxicarion on
the bench, made the following statement: A
person was convicted for the forgery of gov
eminent brands. such Is are used in the
Qua.termss,er's Department for branding
horses and mules. His residence was in Salt
Lake valley, ON the stage route between that
place and Leavenworth. He had been con-
victed and was standing up for sentence.
The speech of the Judge was substantially
to this effect: have known you Mr.. -
calling him by Dame) for number Of years,
and feel very sorry for you, very sorry
| could send you to any penitentiary in the
United States; could send you to the Dis
trict of Columbia; but shall send you to
the peniteniiary in Illinois, for this reason !:
the warden in the peniientiary there is an
old friend of mine, and will write to him
and he will treat you like gentleman. {"
The next instance that occurs to me, in point
Of time, was within some two wears. The
gentlemen OF the committee will probably
recollect that, in the revenue laws, in one
clause the penalty for one offence made the
minimum punishment imprisonment for two
years and 81 900 fine. In passing sentence
on some one convicted of that offence, it was
said that the party had no property, 30 that
no fine could be collected, and the judge,
who vas intoxicated at the time, fined him
81 900 and refused to fix any other penalty.
and after having done 40 turned round to
the crowd and said: "You have been long
time impeaching old Mark Deiahay and now
would be a good time to do it," That was
the language substantially. In great num-
Der Of instances his charges to grand jurors
and petit jurors were very acetious. He
would say to them: "If any of Won have any
potatoes to dig, bring them along and the
court would Dig"
INGALLS, TAKFs A HAND.
An interesting portion 81 the testimony il
that of John J. Ingalls,, the Senator elect Of
Kansas, to fill Pomeroy's place. He was
lawyer, practising in Delahay's court. He
had some clients Of large wealth, and in
particular case, which involved fifty thous-
and dollars, and parhaps double that
amount, Mr.. Ingalls, was very anxious TO
have the speedy action of the judge. in
order to protect his clients, the judge
IA the substance Of Ingalls, testimony:
BE was in the habit Of coming into the court
in the morning and adjourning it without
permitting anv business being done. II was
necessary for ingalls, purpose that he should,
in open court, sign certain processes or legal
documents. and ingalls, was at loss to know
how he was to obtain the action. He asked
officers of the court and many other persons
what wa to Re done, and they advi-ed him
to employ Thomas A. Osborn, son-in-law
of Judge Delahay, and now governor OF
Kansas. Osborn and ingalls, made an
agreement by which the former was to re-
ceive five hundred dollars il he was success
full in getting the action necessary. The
next day after the agreement, the judge went
to the court house and opened court after
dark, and signed the papers required by In
gals. For this service sixty days draft
was given to O-born, but when it fell due
the clients of Mr.. Ingalls, refused to pay it,
and it was protested against ingalls,, and suit
was begun. He refused to pay the amount
The following question and answer will give
some idea of Mr.. Ingalls, idea regarding the
matter:
You have stated that SUI, was institu-
ted seainst you on that draft. Did you mott
fy any one, and If 40, whom; what defense
you would set up to that suit ii j; we're
pressed?
A. / addressed notes concerning the matter
one to Thomas A. O,born and one to Judge
Delahay, notifying him in substance, that
suits had been brought against me on II at
draft; that it was unpaid az had no per-
sonal liability in the matter, so that hoped
the suit would be Withdrawn. In conversa-
ton with Judge Horton. who WIS one Of the
attorneys for Osborn in the matter. / stated
to him that was not personally liable, and
did not propose to pay il If could avoid il
by any legal de'ence, and that should de-
fend sgainst it BY every means in my
power" 1t does not appear that the d aft
was ever Paid.
FURTHER TESTIMONY.
Another member of the bar, q. W. Click,
testified az follows, referring TO case that
had been argued: The next morning he
CINE into court, and opened cour, and de-
cided the case. He didn't give any pariic-
ular reasons for it, onlv stating that he had
examined the authorities and the western
authorities, and he decided tn b. governed
b. them, and while the New York author
tiles were entertained by him, he considered
that the Supreme Court of that State did not
Q mount to much, AZ it was composed Of car
penterr, shoemak:rs and tailors, aud such
fellows did not amount to much. II. gave
no reasons except that for his decision. He
then asked him for time to prepare bill Of
exceptions, and he said he would give no
time. 1t was arranged between Judge D~la- |
hay and the attorneys, that instead OF copy
ing all the papers that had beer offered 10 |
evidence, they should be filed as bill OF
exceptions by giving proper heading and |
and they we're 10 BIZ |
filed n the bill of exceptions on Saturday |
noon. He came in and We told him that the |
bill of exceptions was ready for him to eign. |
He looked at it and showed il hack. Says he, |
''Do you suppose am going to sien any
hing of that kind" I explained TO him |
mat it va all documentary evidence and |
presented in the bill Of exceptions just A il |
had been offered in evidence, that we had
numbered each particular document, and the |
other party had admitted that it was corr, ct.