Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-04-01
Bar Meeting.


 adjourned meeting held pursuant [
 notice ou the 18th of March, A. D.. lSs; respectfully represent, that uuderstApd lng that Hon. ". V. Hoover has bee suspended upon the ground If alleye, suspicious or charges connected wit the indictments presented by-the Gran, Jury of t.e First JudicIal District O tue Territory, against J. c. Tiffany Wood and others: they have carefuli
 examned the fiicial action of JudR 1 Hoover m these Cases as well as his rela uons with the accused-that they hav made Inquiries and sought information on the subject ID all quarters where i would be likely to be obtained, and hay, at sad meeting unanimously come t, the conclusion that there Is not tn slightest ground for harboring any sus | picioh against him ln these matters; Uu on the contrary that the evidence Ii clear that hls conduct m them has beer entirely just and impartial, and that h, has manifested by his acts his intention to deal tdlr!y alike with the government and tue defendants. The facts in con nectiou with tuese cases may be summed | up orlsfy thus. At the last Septsmbel tern Of the Distinct Court, numerou. indictments were presented agalust Tiffany, Wood, Hoag and Collins, charg lug them with various offrnses sad tc have been committed On what Is known as the San Carlos reservation. Wood Hoag and Collins were arrested aud br ught before the Court at that term Tiffany was then absent from Arizona. When Wood and HOag were called on for arralgnmeut, their counsel demand. ed copy of the indictments, Ia neces- sary part ot the proceeding under the Complied Laws of Arizona. Sec. 24S page l2S.) The District Attorney stated that they were not entitled to copies under the law. No reference to the Statute or to any decision affecting the subject was then made, nor was any argumeut presented at that time. The Court assuming that the District Attor- uey was familiar with the law, denied the request of the defendants and they excepted. The cases were then by mutual consent continued for the term. Al the March term, the defendants be- ing called on to plead, objected to doing so on the ground that they had not been legally arralgned, no pies of the in- dlctments having been furnished tu them. Thereuphn the District Attorney claimed that the Court had already docId. ed that they were not entitled to copies and that the matter was res adjudicata. Judge Hoover thereupon remarked that no argument lad been made or law cited on tue furmer occasion. and that II an error had been committed 1t woUld be better to cOrrect 1t Rt once than to eudanger the valid.'v of the proceedings aud directed the al ument to proceed upon the rrgh, of tne defendants to copies. After the Co1nsel for the de feudant had made hls argument and cited the above provisions of th statute, the case of Horubuckle vs. Toombs, IS Wallace p 64S, and several other cases the District Attorney said that he did not wish to argue the m ttter, but would c1nsen, to the defendants having copies, whereupOn the Cletk, by direc- ton of Judge Hoover, entered an order that tue Clerk make the copies and that tue arraIgnment be postponed to the following day as on the motion of the District Attorney. Judge Hoover states tnat he directed the entry to be made ID that form out Of deiicacy towards the District Attorney. On the next day the acc Ised we're regularly arraigned. Mo- tIons tO qnash several of the indictments and dt murrers tO them were prepared 4u handed to the Clerk for filing, and -luiiar ID itions and demurrers prepared Co tho remainder of them. when the ue g- Of Juige Upover's suspension was received This was the entire judicial ar1Inn taken and 70 our minds 1t evince~ clearly desire Of the Judge to act fairly by the Government. B. aihrri lg to the refusal to allow the defendants copies be wpnld have enabled them to re- tam a fatal exception iu the court of a cpuvIcnon. By the course he pursued he saved the rig ts of the Government aud cured the irregularity of the pro ceedings. We think his action in these cases Irnishe | conclusive evidenceof his good faith.
 Moreover, we have enquired fully into the eXteut uf hI- acquaintance and re- latlOns with the defendants and as 10 any circumstances tending to show any i'm proper iuti nacy with them.
 We have ascertalned upon careful in quiry that the acquaintance between Judge Hoover and Tiffany IS extremely slignr, consI sting merely of a casual in troduction by NJ. ". Stewart, Esq, one Of our most respectable citizens, and an occasional interchange of street saluta- tions- With the other defendants in the San Carlos cases Judge Hoover, SO far as we can le trn, has no acquaintance.
 But one person. Mr. l.. c. Hughes the edItor of the Tucson Star, and author of some slauderuus editorial comments in immediate connection with the an- nouncement of Judge iiOover's suspen- sion, has veutured to say anything tending to Cast suspicion on Judge Hoover ID connection with these cases. Hughes stated at the meet ing of the bar that gen tlemen whose name he refused to disclose, and who, he said, was not then iu ruc>pn, had told him that he had seen Judge Hoover and Tiffany several times on one evening go together from the Palace hotel to the office of the defend ants counsel, and that he was dlsgusted by seeing such movements on the part of the Judge and the defendant. Judge Hoover and Tiffany must emphatically deny that they were ever at the Pal ace hotel together or eEer went thence or from any other place to the office of MesSrs Earll, Smith & Stephens, the de- feudants' counsel, or that they ever talked with one another ahout the cases, and Messrs. Earl, Smith < Stephens de- ny that Judge H lover and Tiffany ever came to their office together or that any intervi " took place at their office be- tween Hoover and Tiffany.
 There is another circumstance indica- tive of the honestytf Judge Hooyer's conduct which strikes us with some force, viz: Another grand jury of the First JDdicial District was about 10 he im- panneled. If Judge Hoover des red to favor the defendants be would certainly have done all in his power to avoId the exposure of any errors committed m the preparation If the indictments found at inc former term until after the discharge Of the grand iury for the March term {; that the indictments found at the Sep temher term were open to much crll- cism. and most if not all Of them to grave objections we do not think can be questioned. The legal existence of a grand jnry of the United States n thls Territory is under several decisions or the Supreme Court of the United States snmeu hat more than doubtful. The charging Of large numbers of different Iarcenies and embeZzlements ID slngie court in the same indictment, and me singular mode of stating many Of the nfFenses charged will, we think, strike the mind of any lawyer as wide depar- tures from established practice. In view of the surroundings we can scarcely be- lieve that If these cases had been pro ceedad with, any failure to obtain con victions upon the merits could with req son have been charged upon the Judge We transmit herewith certified copies of these indictments for inspection. In conclusion it k proper for us to say that while we are aware of the pendency ot other charges against Judge Hoover We have. at this time, investigated this one only, because We have here and now the fullest opportunity to do so, the pro ceedings in these cases having been taken under our owD immediate o6ser- yaiion, and being. in the main. matters
 I to-o .ho ,,araore who cOuld