New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-27
JUDGE WESTBRooK'S CONDUCT

CONTINUATION OF THE AkGJ MENlS BEFORE TIE
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - THE AD-
DRESSES OF MIR. HARRIS AND Mr.. PERRY.
ALBANY, May 26.-The Assembly Judiciary
Committee again this afternoon to continue the
hearing Of arguments of counsel in the Westbrook-
Ward investigation. Mr.. stetson. Of the associate
counsel of the committee further considered the
action Of Judge Wesbrook in connection with the
Manhattan Company litigation and the correspond
ence concerning 1t afording sufficient bases for
unlimited censure and inference Without following
many other lines of argument to conspiracy, which
had been 80 repeatedly and publicly made, it
enough to say that any OF them was. by Judge
Wes,broOk's conduct. rendered worthy Of belief.
He then took up the matter Of insurance receiver
ships and allowances. In the course Of the
investigation there had been introduced sub
standaIy all of the evidence taken before
the special committee of the Assembly ana instead Of
original argument this evidence he submitted the
port Of that committee. That committee had reached
conclusions which fully demanded the impeachment Of
Judge Westbrook had their examination addressed
10 this specific instead Of the general subject Of
cevershps But OF the orders OF allowance granted
by Judge WsbroOk. viz, the order allowing james W.
Hustled $4,000 ID the National Life Insurance matter
would be specially considered. The papers themselves
on their very face, showed Judge Wesbrook
that this claim was altogether doubtful.
The assent Of Mr. Yates counsel for the Insurance De
partment afforded the Judge no Justification whatever
IN on Inference could
and that was that Infamous order made. not be-
cause the Judge supposed it right because he
corrupty desired to the friendly consideration OF
James W Hustled, widely known for his ability to deal
with members OF Assembly in case OF any difficulty
| arising in legislation.
Hamilton Harris. counsel for Judge Westbrook, then
made his argument which occupied three hours in de-
| livery IL opening his address he declared that the
whole argument OF SIR stetson was based solely upon
differences which were not warranted by the testimony
and most Of which based Misrepresentation Of
the facts proved. he then proceeded 10 examine the
testimony SHOW that ne entire course OF Judge West
brook was according TO law. ana enurely without
| judicial Improperly. In regard Judge WcsturOoks
actions the Manhattan case ne maintained, nr=t that
every order ana every u.Cl7ioh IA 10y iHe JHu-e was
not only legally rgAi bIl ln Iefauvty demanded ny TIE
law the due administration Of Justice; and second
that party 10 the action las taken any APP
neal from any order decision made by him
but that. the contrary all are satisfied with the
viewed the progress Of the sui 70 Illustrate IA The
result OF the litigation was wise, brnehcent ana just
tween Judge WestbrOOk and his receivers and their
counsel Mr.. Harris held hat the letters themselves
(Which lay bare Judges motives and disclose
I'M, &c n ,es,1a 70 General Wr,fr S,,,n vr.r
not for the defence of the Manhattan Compan but
Of tbs receivers. the subordinates Of the
Judge, who was the trustee Of the property" The
charge that Jud Nesbrook or Messrs swayne or DI-
Ion communicated the possible Of the Jay
Gould others IA dlsprOyed by the Judges words and
by tie testimony Of Messrs. ewayne ana Dillon.
Throughout the correspondence by the Judge with his
own officers began ana ended N the Interest Of Justice.
The appointment OF +. L. WestbrOok Mr.. Harris
tiuued, the Lebanon Springs Railroad case the
result Of agreement OF contrasting parties, for which
Judge McrtDrDOk in responsible. the
speaker then defended Judge We-brOOk from the charge
OF having allowed excessive sums 10 receivers and
counsel His acts all within the law and were
open protest The charge tnat the Judge, without
stunt and without regard 10 Judicial pr0pncty had APP
pointed relatives TO office and had paid them large fees
No judge had been moro careful III these
partlc llars.
Upon redssembling OF the committee his evening Al
Perry Of the counsel for the committee, began his
argument His conclusions from the evidence had not
conceded with those OF hls associate. Mr.. StetsOn he
should De false to himself ana false 10 his
eense duty he should ask this committee TO mpeacn
Judge WestbrOOk when he Perry believed be was not
guilty charge when ed tAat course, or had
been guilty any offence. Inc speaker then took
up the testimony bearing On the question OF con-
spiracY declared that the assumptions necessary 10
connect Judge NestbrOok and Jay Gould would not DC
drawn il Of common chicken thief II Judge
WestbroOk cOiusOn and sent those gushing let
ters either derauged tOJL He believed mat,
instead evidence OF the guilt OF Judge West
brook letters the best evidence his