New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-01


charge that Judge Westbrook was guilty OF an
impropriety in appointing his second cousin
and former partner q referee and allowing
compensation for his services rs such, Is sum-
marily disposed of. The proof is, the report
states, that appointment was made upon the
recommendation of the counsel of the different
parties connected with the litigation, and that
the allowance made to said referee was not in fact
made by the Judge. Summing up what has been
proved in regard to Judge Westbrooks action
and conduct in relation to the Manhattan litl-
CATION, the report says: Although your COM
"mittee can point out violations OF good taste
@and acts of indiscretion, they are clearly OF
the opinion that upon his part there was no
aintentional violation of his duty as judge,
"and nc act or action which furnishes ground
" for impeachment
The conclusions Of the Committee in regard
to the remaining charges may be briefly stated
They find that Judge Westbrooks omission to
require an adequate bond from receiver III
| the Lebanon Springs Railroad case was
inadvertent and not intentional" and that
he is not to be regarded as guilty of any lnten-
tiona neglect of duty or a reckless exercise OF
his functions in that case. They find that his
|
Life and the National Life companies were not
open to criticism; that there was nothing
censurable in his appointing his son
referee since all that tho referee had to
do was to act as clerk to take down testimony ;
that the Rufus F. Andrews charge was
awholy improved; that there is nothing In
the testimony taken by the special insurance
committee which can properly be MADE
ground of impeachment In conclusion the
Committee give the statutory description OF
impeachabe offences, and add that although
Judge Westbrook's actions in some instances
have been indscreet and unwise, yet there Is
"nothing in that conduct which affords ground
for impeachment
The minority report is a much less extended
document. They dissent from the conclusions
of the majority, and call attention to the fact
that it was in the power of the Committee 10
report in whatever form was warranted by the
evidence since the investig ;rtiCn did not look
solely to the question OF impeachment. Ihey
also admit that a resolution of removal would
not be iustfabe. But they take the position
that a prilna facie case has been established,
and that upon all the evidence Judge West
brook should be put upon his trial, adding that
"unti the charges made before your judiciary
Committee are met by better and clearer ex-
plantations than have been offered thus far,
the said Justice should not continue to exer-
L" else the duties of his Office"
1t has been evident ever since the complete
breakdown of the Andrews charge that the
investigation would end practically as it has
ended. The result reached, therefore, by the
majority of the COmmittee-vhich the Assem-
bly, ratified by an emphatic vote-will occasion
no surprise. Judge WestbroOk energies from
the ordeal without being presented for impeach-
ment, but the fact that no portion of the Com
mittee regards him as free from censure, and
that three members report in favor of employ
ing the EXTREMIST measures against him, cannot
fail seriously TO impair his official standing and
influence.
1t goes without saying that the re-
port of the Committee completely vlndl-
Gates ex-Attorney- General Ward. The COM
mittee announced two weeks ago that there
were no facts in their possession impeaching
his official action, as the law officer OF the State,
in any particular. The report states that " the
"evidence shows that in the conduct of that
Litigation Mr.. Ward was actuated by the
"purest motive, and that his conduct through
"out was that OF faithful, high minded pub
" lie officer"