The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-23
He Is Said To Be Incompetent, Dishonest, and
in Every Way Omitted to Hold the Office
to Which He Has Been Nominated.
The Presidents Purpose in Urging Pas
sage of Morrison's Tariff Bill.
Force of Experts Whose Business It Is to
Deprive Soldiers of Pensions-H a Sus.
pended Officer Was Fully Vindicated.
THE POLLARD CASE.


Serious Character of the Charges on Which
His Confirmation Is Contested.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON, April 22-In executive session,
this afternoon, the Senate spent over an hour
debating the nomination Of Charles r. Pollard,
of Delphi, to be Associate Justice Of the Supreme
Court of Montana, vice General John Coburn,
suspended. The Judiciary committee were pre-
sented with long series of very ugly charges
against Pollard as soon as hia nomination was
sent in, and made a thorough investigation,
sending to Indiana for documents aud other ev-
idenca. The nomination was reported adversely
by party vote Of the committee and the SEN
ate was asked to reject Pollard for several rea-
sons-frst, because the President has no right
to suspend judge of United States Court dur
ing recess Of the Senate; second, because John
Coburn, an ex Union soldier, was removed with
crate; third, because Pollard is dishonest,
incompetent, illiterate, and in every way unfit
to bold the Office to which he was appointed.
The frst proposition involves legal techncality
which will always be matter Of dispute be-
tween the Senate and the President The law
forbids the President to remove q judge Of a
United States court and the Senate holds that
judges Of Territories come under that restric
tion; the President argues that they do not and
unless the law Is mnde more explicit the point
can never be decided. The second proposition
was covered by Mr.. Edmunds's resolution, but
has been ignored in other cases, SO that it does
not cut much of figure in this case; but in sun
port Of the third objection the committee pre-
sented some very remarkable evidence. 1t is
charged that, a few years ago, Pollard, who was
then living in Jasper county, was employed by a
man named Robert M. Bardley. living in Texas
to collect note Of 81, 800. Before collection
was made, Bardley died, and Pollard got himself
appointed administrators of the estate. The
note had to be taken into court. and Pollard col
lected $500 from the widow q retainer. He
got a judgment on the note. collected the princi
pal and interest. and kept it for his own use.
The widow tried for several years to get the
money from him, but failed. At length her
brother went to Indiana from Illinois, where he
was then living, and brought a suit against Pol.
lard by which he was compelled to make resti-
tuition. The committee presented to the Senate
sworn transcript Of the record in the case.
Another charge was that while Pollard was
practicing law in Jasper county, he was retained
by simple-minded girl to collect a debt Of.
81, 700 that was due her from q debt Of her de-
ceased father Pollard persuaded the girl that
she could not collect it, and induced her to as
sign her claim to him for $780, He afterward
collected the full amount, and when the girls
friends discovered the fact they endeavored to
make him disgorge, but the assignment was
shown to be legal.
There were several of these cases, and one of
q different sort. Pollard was temporarily acting
as prosecuting attorney on one OCCASION in the
county in which he lived, and drew an indict-
ment against a horse-thief who, in
that document, was described as stealing q
'hoss." The indictment was dismissed because
of the mistake in spelling, and it was question
whether the word was mis- spelled from igno-
rance or to enable the thief to escape punish
ment AS Pollard afterward turned Up in court
as counsel for the same thief, it was generally
understood that the mistake was intentional.
With the report of the committee was pre-
sentcd certified copy of the indictment and all
OF the charges were supported by voluminous
evidence, which required the clerk half an hour
to read. MIR. Edmunds made long speech in
favor OF rejection, covering the charges and
dwelling upon the technical points involved, and
was followed by Mr.. Hoar in the same line Mr.
Voorhees, got the floor to reply, but gave way for
a motion to adjourn, as he said he would require
considerable time to make defense of Pollard
It Is generally believed here that Pollards nomi-
nation will be rejected