The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-15
WILLARD NOT GUILTY.
His Counsel Says the Ex-Presi
dent Was Not on Trial.
THE ENQUIRY WAS As TO CAKES.
Hearing 40 Milwaukee Was Ex-Parte,
Ensmy, Get In His work.


henry Willard, OF the Northsrn Paci6c
railroad, rho Wa charged. in she report
Of Master Of Chancsry Carey, IN the pro-
ceedings against Receiver Cakes. with hav-
ing made unlawful gains in bis dealings
with the Northern Pacific road, 10 IN the
Orient His counsel. whselsr III. Peck
ham. made the following statement today
for publication In defense Of Ar. Willard:
ssThs statement IN the papers Is calcu-
lated 20 do Mr. Willard great injustice
From y careless reading Il would De in
TERED thst IN some legal proceedings con-
Quoted in the ordinary way. TO which Mr..
Willard vas 3 party, it bad been adjndged
BY the master that Mr.. Willard had made
illegal gains. Nothing could be further
from the fact In the consolidated suit In
the United States circuIg court for the
Eastern district of Wisconsin against the
Northern Pacific road. Thomas +. Cakes.
its then president, and Messrs- Rouse
ard Payne. we're. by the consent OF the
railroad company. appointed receivers.
This inquiry 50 Milwaukee was not made
ia order TO recover anything from NJ
Willard. No Judgment or decree Of any
kind can be rendered affecting him. The
only result that can be effected Is the re-
moyal or retention of Mr.. Cakes IS
receiver. Had the inquiry been conducted
with this view only. toe result would have
been that it WAS not necessary 20 decide
whether there had been unlawful gains.
etc. BY Mr.. Willard or any other director,
inasmuch as II wss clear that Mr.. Cakes
neither knew nor ought 10 have known OF
sneh unlawful gains.
The inquiry does not seen 70 have been
conducted with that point in view. On
the contrary. its purpose seems 10 have
been 10 attack Mr.. Willard. IL was con-
Quoted by the special antagonist of Mr..
Willard. Brsyton Ives Mr.. Petit, the
petitioners counsel, put before the master
what testimony he chose. So far IS Mr..
Willard was concerned, there was no
other side. Mr.. Willard had no stand
ing in the proceedings. and could not
be heard. Had he volunteered as wit
ness he would have been subject TO ex-
animation such as petitioners counsel
chose to have, and without the right to the
aid of counsel and without any control by
any court over the examination. Certainly
no counsel would allow his client to be
put in such position.
Now, as to the charges made in the re-
port. / can only say that Mr.. Willard most
emphatically denies any unlawful gains
aud any wrong doing whatever. The way
20 try whether Mr.. Willard is culpable or
otherwise is by suit against him, not to
bring an Irrelevant matter on
petition TO remove receivers. One
such suit was brought about a
year ago, nominaliy by one John
swope-reaily. I understand, by the same
interest which flied the petition 10 remove
the receivers To that suit Mr.. Willard
answer. The time TO take testimony has
long since expired. and the suit has been
practically abandoned.
'sAs to the charges reported by Master
in Chancery Carey, Mr.. Willard is quite as
ready TO meet them as he was TO meet
the Swope case, and only after q judgment
ia a suit brought against him and where
he has been heard will an intelligent pub
lie give the matter any consideration.
With the testimony taken by Master Carey
] am not familiar. 1t was presented by Mr..
Petit, Mr.. Ives counsel, and / am told
does not warrant the conclusion. The gist
Of Mr.. Carey's report seems 10 be
that. in regard to the Northern Pacific &
Manitoba railway, it is alleged that Mr.
Willard made q profit BY reason OF un-
reasonable compensation for his services,
and that be made an unreason able profit
That is stated At 1868 6l9.T0. The question
thus in the mind of the master seems to
have been one OF regret. The master con-
coded a right TO compensation, but said
Mr.. Willard charged TOO much. and has
apparently allowed him nothing. Clearly
that Is matter of opinion on
which people will differ. aud on
which no one is competent to
form an opinion unless be knows the
facts. ! am told that items of cost amoun-
ing 10 500, 90 have been overlooked by
the master. In that is so IL would reduce
Mr.. Fillard's compensation or alleged ille-
gal gains TO si63, 6la 70. But, as have
said. whether the master has drawn COR
rect conclusions from the testimony sub
mitted TO him does not seem to me of the
least Importance or worthy Of the least at
tentlon. tx paFte proceeding without the
presence OF the party charged are notori-
ously useless to attract attention"