New-York tribune., 1886-04-28
AGAINST JUSTICE DONOHUE.
THE ACTION OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION.

further consideration OF the charges "s"i". '
Donohue. of the supreme Court After long as
-, - ,ho ronort of the Committee on Grievances
q, which was embodied defence of the Judge 'onu"o'
.nbmi;,od by ex-Judgo William G. Choate' II was re-
,olv,d by q decisive vote TO ask the LesiSN"'"0 "
investigate his case ....o =,
rxJndee Henry T. TIowand from the Commi''eo o'
crtevanccs read s report, embodying the reply o' e
,aco william G. Choate to the charges against Jus"co
Donohuc the main points of which are as ioilo"s'
Ihave been requested by Mr. Justice Donohue no TO
Iscerin and state 10 you INV & Of the petition
presented to your committee chafghE MN ort,rs
w. Sor cause why niunctions should not issue restrain
inc the Police Department from mahims ia pneaniiine
The nrIncipai and most serious chargc maue "eanSs H
Judge Douohue is made in conneeuOn& VIA VIA the criminal
tht of screening criminals, settng as!u" tuo nnt
H. 49, and protecting criminals from inc pun y
r % INV law TO their crimes-and the method OF dong
This is alleged the same IN all hese cases; 9y ms
taking jurisdiction of an eqnltaUIe hclon ,I ~
restrain Police Department from mHhlS a1Ie III % ,h
I'm such actions granting temporary DHhctos; la to W
hearing OF the plaintiffs actions 10 continue 'no'o III
The petition IN substance charges that he had no uris-
Snctions Il claims that he he had no such right
and from this assumed knowledge on ms part tiat nis
cs we're lie gal seeks TO draw the Inference that DIS
motive was corrupt-the desire shield and protect
criminals. Both branches Of this accusation are are
T''"os' IT is fair ana dcbatable question
o~ 6a he acts a6oa to be done the doing
Of which arrest is threatened, without warrant by
public officers not such as are made criminal oy any
sfaiue or al law court OF equity has or has
20; jurisdiction Of the case and power pending tho
decision Of the to restrain summary arrests where
the making OF the arrests wl cause ireparaole loss ana
injury to the or pGoPoFb sb oI ne fb
NJ the cases and the by which similar orders
eFnf nS m' o fiSs1 thas @ SS
be that the injuucuons so granted, py
whole number of similar iniunctonns granted
In each twelve the moving papers pre-
eented to court In which the planis claim
nr and prma facie proof that his proposed acts
we're lawful acts and not crimes, bnt which we're pre-
gl
scrpt!Ou OF some statutory or common law crime ana
n"ce authorities threatened under their general
authority peace officers to arrest without warrant
10 interfere viii business and proprietary rights
one strong argument IN favor OF the contention tHas
important To protect the criminal jurisdiction from en-
cr0achmens the part Of the civil jurisdiction II Is
equally mporAntto protect the civUurisdicon aga nst
encToichmen,s on the part OF the criminal Jurisdiction.
Whatever conclusion may ne maze AS 10 tue form OF
defects the papers particular Judge Donohue
has granted OF these njunctions when he dd
Legality OF the for which the arrests were tIrea-
ene and that he had rightiui TO grant .e
since 1888. the parties having had reasonable oppor-
tuhty test lhs question IN this FORM JUICE Donohue
has repeatedly refused any njunctlons In
booknsklng This fact carefully concealed by
The other the petitioners argument that the
OF Judge Donohue in these cases has parayzed
the administration OF criminal justice. even assuming
that he has eredn deciding the question Of jurisdiction
Is equally grOundless
The nlunct only stayed summary arrests without
warrant .,..,. , , . =, a..
for the done, those acts were violation
Ihc Poice commissioners are officers the CITY. In
Ioraon Counsel The stngushed lawyers who held that
clearly exercising jurisdiction and authorlty 10 winch
n S nS Ssaes aS the facts alleged careful argument con-
sideIaon aad delay on the ctys part FOR preparation
Neilhcr The cys L." Department nor tle Dsflct ~
toney at any time ccmPs ned to the Judge e9er % OF hn et
cases the subject Of SPECIAL complaint herein
after particularly commented on.
The pretence OF the petltlon tnaJ nese InJuno
criminals from the just consequences
Of their crimes gave them Immunity from punish
according 10 law or parayzed the officers OF the
law who chiefly responsible for administering the
law by the exercise OF this civil jurisdiction by
Judge DCnOhue, groundless assumption as matter O
tie effect properly attributable to the granting OF the
iLuuctiOns
Judge Cnoate then took up order the several cases
and many Of the statements Of be
were utterly untrue, that delays IN hearing arguments
upon nuuc;iOns IN deciding the causes were not
In any case the fault OF the Judge, but either
The result of agreements between counsel OF
Circumstances with which the Judge had nothing to
do In the two instances in which the Judge
unable 10 give a full explanation owing to the
OF time the happening OF tn events referred
to Of records to which TO refer the com
muncaton frankly stated that II the facts were as
stated IN the petition the granting Of tho orders was
due inadvertence, to which any active. busy nudge
would liable AT the time ddge Choate says that
injustice done TO any one by these orders even
Justice Donohue is maze the subject OF an attack al
though what he did ha been by all the judges
OF the General Term The communication further
stated
As appears by the certificate of the clerk submitted
herewith judge DOnohuc during tue six covered
10y these 40 900 ORDERS which were sub
eci records of the court aud at least
equal number OF eI pdre orders not subject 20 such
entry. 1t Is, OF course, Impossible ior so lnnShse
Of business TO be transacted whout many mad
V~rent matters Of FORM No Judge ever sat on
bench for several who did not make many cr-
and m
Judgments that seemed to the parties harsh unjust
ana n Se' not ssnt or
The attorney OF any hSant who com plains OF any wrong
done or any oppressive committed against him or his
The facts contained in this letter are. extent
proved by accompanying papers and letters. but 50
lar tAey proved they are susceptible OF The
irest proof and as yog are aware judge DSn6I1e ,
prove facts which constitute his v;ndcaton Ihat
Iht has been denied him. And IN closing THIS comnu
caton earnestly protest against gross injustice
OF the Association of the Bar making itself Joint ac
Ct tue petitions its own statement or the case against
Judge Donohue. in the face Of his enia OF an wrongful
and improper acts-wLeD lie has denanded and they |
have refused Iu examination into the tru'h OF Tie
II this petition had been merely fair and candid state
facts they believed 10 exs;the injustice
and after a refusal his demand Tor investigation
would be NJ itself most unfair ana uhgehefOus teane
oi Judge by the bar; but the petition IN when
the association IL asked 10 JOIN Is unfair ul- ul |
saodd and Degrading ID tone, narLed MARIE aDS
improper iiDputations TO tho motives OF the |
accused JuiRc anu Ny SIOso c1'S
geratOns the purpose and effect OF his alleged IL
legal orders; all of which suggest that 1t was not In
good ailh designed for The public interest. but that II Is
the product OF personal hostility, political intrigue or
unrcasOunR prejudice The petitioners have apparent
N studuusly suppressed the names OF the counsel
procured the objected TO. where those names
would have operated TO the advantage OF the accused
in lse They aid conceal. fail to state many material
fycts AS above pointed out. which were presumably
them and would have been 10 ms advantagc II
stated They mistaken the facts as ir Instance
IN alleging that "bOOkmakiug" WAS prohibited by |
s,atnlc ami In stating the language OF inc oonpIainth
the FrencE Bal case for the purposes OF nvecuye and
rhetorical effect. |
Iu the reference conduct OF the two French Dalls
they have sought to hold the Judge responsible ior
what tney choose 10 call drunken revels. which, II |
they took place have been by the connyance OF
nIice who chArKed WIN the duty OF