The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-21


The evidence We printed yesterday, to-
gether with the analysis of Norton's bank
ruptcy proceedings, and the additional testi-
mony OF Marshal Packard and Mr.. Beckwith,
which We print this morning, show con-
clusively the necessity of Judge Durelrs i'm
parchment As regards the political charac-
ter of Durells conduct the testimony OF all the
witnesses who were present when the famous
Mechanics Institute order, restraining the
McEnery Legislature, was issued, was 80 oeity
given as to shed but little new light upon the
question. Nothing certain seems to be de-
rivable from it except that the Judge issued
this order of his own MOTION and
that he justified it by the rather gro
tesoue remark that at one time Lord Bacon
issued similar order. Judge Durell is not
the rival of Lord Bacon either as the greatest
or the meanest of mankind, else we might
grieve over the fact that he was not more spe-
cifc with regard to his Baconian precedent.
| There is this, however, about the testimony,
that it narrows the whole question of the
Judges conduct to the legality of the order.
The questions of fact are all settled, and set
tied as favorably for Judge Durell as if he had
had the naming of the committee Of investi-
cation. The argument, both as it affects
Durells conduct as judge and the right OF
McEnery and the people of Louisiana, hinges
upon the order itself. Even if we thought no
great moral wrong attached to Judge Duren,
we should demand his impeachment as the
best means of determining the power of fed
eral judges over the governmental machinery
of the States; but aside from this important
matter there are other considerations which
demand his trial and the determination Of his
guilt.
Judge Duren is charged with completely
with Norton in controlling the entire bank
ruptcy business of the State, and even, in
conjunction with q creature Of his own
making, with prohting from the miseries of the
people The testimony taken before the Con-
gres sional Investigating Committee, which is
very voluminous on this point has an ugly
look. Norton was the intimate friend of
Judge Durell, and Duren made him a sort of
universal assignee in bankruptcy for the entire
State of Louisiana. The creditors of bank
rupt were seldom allowed to choose their own
assignee, and the assignee appointed by Judge
Durell, that is, Norton, seldom condescended
to share with the creditors the proceeds of
bankruptcy sales. The people of Louisiana
being poor the bankrupts of that State usually
show assets in very small amounts; hence it
was comparatively easy for Norton to swallow
up everything in costs and charges. In many
| he
in bankruptcy regarding it as set
tied policy on his part that, whatever
the sums realized upon the sales of bankrupts'
estates the whole amount belonged to him and
his friends for their trouble in the matter.
He kept from the creditors all he could get,
and waited anxiously for Judge Durell to
afford him new opportunities for obtaining
more In making his returns he never
troubled himself about vouchers for his al
legged expenditures, and Judge Duren did not
require them, but confirmed him in the pos
session of all that he had got. The abuse was
crying evil in the State-a condition OF pub
Lie administration which pointed inevitably to
corruption in public officers and even in the
judiciary. Norton was publicly and privately
charged with being the tool of Durell, and
with confscatng estates to his own profit and
that of his master Duren could not have
been in ignorance of these scandals, yet he
continued to appoint Norton assignee in bank
ruptcy all the same and to confirm his whole
sale confscations of bankrupt estates. In
all these matters we do not charge actual guilt
upon Durell. He, of course, claims that he is
innocent, and Norton says he never received
any of the money he had so generously per-
mitted his assignee in bankruptcy to appro-
pirate We are disposed rather to regard the
action taken by the Investigating Committee
though what the real action of the committee
will be remains to be seen-as q mere prelimi-
nary examnation but the testimony, as we
said before clearly shows the necessity Of
Judge Durell's impeachment, and we cannot
see how Mr.. Wilson and his colleagues can
avoid presenting articles against him. There
is Just cause tor his being brought to trial,
and this determines the whole question of the
necessity of his impeachment.
There are serious charges against Judge
Durell in other respects. Abundant testi-
mony, taken before the committee of Congress,
shows that he was often guilty Of conduct un-
becoming jurist He was frequently rough
and discourteous toward the Bar, and, in the
language of some of the witnesses, he was
often ''excited." but, in the opinion of others,
intoxicated, upon the Bench. He was not only
arbitrary in many of the cases which he heard,
but he was, besides, illogical and illegal in his
rulings. There was nothing proved against
any of our State Judges impeached two years
ago, that equals even the least of the charges
preferred against Judge Durell II the alleged
partnership with Norton was true he used
his high Office to rob the poor people Of