The Monmouth inquirer., 1889-08-08
The County Investigation.
JUDGE toUDDER's CHARGE.

JUDGE tCUOOER CdAhtEi
On Thursday morning the different
Counsels appeared before Judge Scud-
der. at the Monmouth House, Spring
Lake.
Lawyer Heisley requested postpone
ment for one month, as he desired to
personally examine the County Clerks
bank account and bank book with
Judge Scudder's permission; he also
wanted time to have an expert to ex-
anime the bridges erected by Dean &
Westbrook; TO see if there were not
abuses in the issuing OF subpoenas in
criminal cases, etc.
Judge Hoffman and Mr.. Arrowsmith
and Mr.. Cenover argued against an ad
iournment.
Judge Scudder then gave his decision.
which was as follows:
This investigation, by the statute is
under the order of the Court aud I ap-
pointed Mr.. McDermott Commissioner
to take this testimony instead of having
it taken before me in open court, for my
own convenience and also for con-
venience of counsel, and because it is a
proper way to do. 1t seemed to me,
and it was so understood by counsel at
the time, that it was a convenient time
of the year to make this investigation,
during the recess of the court, when
counsel were not engaged in litigated
cases in courts. 1t would, of course,
have interfered with such work and it
was suggested then that the Commits
sioner and counsel were to remain here
during the summer and attend to this,
and that it was convenient time to do
it; and SO I appointed Mr.. McDermott
Commissioner to take this evidence and
also appointed the court Stenographer
to await upon the Commissioner and
counsel. for the convenience of all parties
and to save expense by expediting the
matter; ard in that way I supposed the
thing was to be pursued with the great
est diligence and promptness; and I rec
ollect giving directions to the Commits
sioner 80 allow no unnecessary delay but
to give it their prompt attendance; in
the interest of the parties charged. The
public had right to know the facts. if
they were true as stated, and the parties
accused had right to be heard in their
answer, to see whether they could give a
satisfactory explanation of the matters
alleged against them. 1t was, therefore,
in the interest of all parties that the
thing should be done with promptness
and expedition, and counsel assented to
it. Counsel now desire postponement
of this matter. / think the application
would be contrary to our expectations at
the time the order was made, in the first
instance, and I think it would cause a
very great delay, because, as has been
stated, il we got into our fall term-our
fall court begin and counsel get interest
ed in cases in court; and the Commits
sioner himself will be engaged in court,
and it would embarrass us very much.
There is, it seems to me. an objection to
postponement which has not been stat
ed by counsel, and that is this: il there
be any truth in these charges against
these public officials. it is in the interest
of the public, and also in The interest of
those parties, that there should be a
prompt judicial investigation. For our
term of court begins on the first Tues
day in October, and before that time,
we oughr to have this testimony closed
so that the prosecutor can have some
little time to prepare these cases for
presentation before the grand jury, if
there be any cases of that kind disclosed
by the testimony, assuming that may be
the result. 1t seems to me the Court
ought not to take any further control;
L have already expressed my desire and
feel that the matter should be done
promptly. L think the Commissioner
has full power in the exercise of his dis
cretion, as an officer of the Court, under
the direction of the Court to grant
reasonable adjournments and I think
that with the power given to the Com
missioner the Court ought not to inter-
pose and say the Commissioner. counsel
and all of you shall stop for thirty days
and do nothing. 1t is casting burden
upon the counsel and the Commissioner
and it is also subjecting these parties to
aspersions during that time, as if this
testimony was making very strongly
against them and they have not yet had
any opportunity to reply. except as they
have been put upon the stand by coun.
sci of the petitioners. think this mat
ter could be gotten through in the
coming thirty days with more conven-
ience to counsel and to all parties, than
any other time. II we were in the midst
of active engagements in court, should
think that reason would be much strong
er than it is now; although ] feel that
Mr.. Heisley for certain private reasons,
ought to have vacation. it is an un-
fortunate thing that it happens in this
way; but the public ought not to be
made to suffer. am not disposed to
make any order restraining the Commits
sioner. say to him grant reasonable
adjournments but would rather say
that at the expiration of thirty days, the
Commissioner should report to me.
Mr.. Conover: We simply ask the
Court to allow us one week out of the
thirty days.
The Court: / should be very much
inclined to say that the testimony should
close within thirty days; for shall want
to examine the testimony ip order to
call the attention of the prosecutor to it
if necessary.
Mr.. Arrowsmith: That will be very
satisfactory to us, that the testimony
should close within thirty days.
The Court: I will not make that
order at present, but I will make an order