The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-01-01
CLARK'S CONDUCT CLEARED.
Nothing UnpT0leSSiOnal in The Union
Railway Case.

Judge Clarh's Only Connection With
the Case Was During His Partners
Canvass in the Late Political Cam
paign in Tennesses-An Exhaustive
Answer Filed 20 All the Alleeations
in the Petition The Day Spent in
Beading the Court Record.
Chattanooga. Tenn. Dec 31.-In tho
United States circuit court to-day be-
fore Judges Lurton. circuit judge. and
Key. retiring district judge for Middle and
Eaat Tennessee. the charges Of unprofes-
sional conduct against Mossrs. Dark and
Brown We're heard on their own motion.
asking au~lmmediate hearing The deter-
miuatlon of these charges. which wers
embodied IN petition filed Oct. 1s. 1891.
by Messrs. Barr & McAdoo. acting for
the bondhollers OF the Chattanooga Union
Railway Company. will settle the matterf
of Mr.. Clarks reconhrmation by tho
Senate 10 succeed Judge Key. Congress-
man-clect Foster " Brown was conduct-
ing the litigation for his firm as local
counsel OF the Farmers Loan and Trust
Company OF New York, trustee, while
Judge Clargs only connection with tho
case was during Mr.. Browns canvass in
the late campaign. Consequently the pe-
tition, which was not pushed. was not
brought to Mr.. Browns attention till Dec.
20, by the Ming Of charges Ia Washington
against his partner. Judge Clark.
An exhaustive answer was then fled
60 all the allegations i'm the petition. To- j.
day none Of the b0ndholders were presents
and an attempt was made TO continue the
hearing till Jan. 10, but Judge Lurton{
ruled that as the question on the motion
related 10 professional conduct 40 should9
De decided by the record and corrcspon-i
dence in the case. The day was spent inf
reading the court record and the
voluminou9 correspondence between
Messrs Clark a Brown and Messrs. Tur-
ner, Mcclure and Rolstou, the New York;
attorneys for the trustees. The argu-7
ments OF the attorneys viii be heard to- I
morrow and n decision win probably be
rendered In the afternoon. Many prom-
inent lawyers who heard the testimony
say that the charges resulted from a mis-
apprehension of the facts In the long lit@
igation, and that the record and cores
pondence fully sustained the course OF
Messrs. Clark e Brown as above reproachs
careful and conscientious.
The chief allegations are; First, that
$500 was au eXorbitant fee for their SER
vicca, apd, Hecaad D4at fhey accepted
employment from the trustees while repre-
aentug the creditor, or aniagonlstic in
terest. The evidence showed that the ac-
cuscd had fallen out of the case Of their
client, james. before taking new service.
Attorney Barr on the witness stand testi-
fed that bc drafted the petition here, but
the paragraph charging unprofessional
conduct was inserted after Il reached hts
partner, W. G.. McAdoo, IN New York.
HIS relations with Judge Clark had al
ways been pleasant. lie said further
that after his firm became attached TO
the b0ndhoders' cause "a letter was cir
culated. as they were informed, in New
York by Messrs Clark q Brown discred-
itlng his firms connection with the sults
that Alr. Clark at once lent his aid TO
repudiate the false misslve, but Mr. Brown
ala not and on oct. IS, 1884, the petition
was filed al the instance Of II. W. Bartal.
a bondholder. Collusion with Judge
Shepherd counsel for the receiver. was
also alleged IN the petition, but the charge
was not supported.
This community felt greatly relieved
after the reading of the record which
showed that AIessrs. Clark a. Brown
| courted Investigation as 20 the amount of
their fee or any action in the premises.