The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-19
THE REPORTS.
Representative Bailey Thinks the
Charges Have Been Proven.

Representative Bailey Thinks the
Charges Have Been Proven.
Representative Bailey's report first re-
cites the charges against the Judge and
says the evidence establishes the following
pertinent facts: "A. ]. Kicks became clerk
of the Circuit Court for the Northern dis
trict of Ohio on March 20. 1878. and served
in that capacity until July 81, 1889. when
he became the district judge for the same
district. During the time while he was
clerk there was pending in the Circuit
Court a large number of cases brought by
John C. Birdsall, of the Birdsall Manu-
featuring Company, against various de-
PENDANTS, involving a question of patent in
fringements. The moneys out of which
Judge Kicks is charged with having de-
frauded the government" says the report,
ARE the fees for making final records in
fifty-five of these cases, which are speci-
fed in the memorial praying for his i'm
parchment, and which were not finally dis
posed OF until after he had become the
judge of the District Court. Notwithstand-
ing the fact that Judge Kicks had ceased
to be clerk of the court before the final
disposition of these cases, he claimed the
right to make the final records and to coll
lect the fees for that work. His defense
for this conduct is that as he was clerk
when a decree was entered in the cases he
was entitled to make the final records, and
that in his emolument reports for the first
a frst G half f'' CT t 1853 'a he had had charged geo 1 hims she
: with a part of these fees. The answer
to this contention Is that the DEGREES which
were made while Judge Kicks was clerk
were not final and did not entitle him to
make final records. The final DEGREES which
alone prepared the cases for a final record
to be clerk and had become judge. AS
to his claim that he had charged a part
of these fees to himself in his emolument
report for 1888 and 1889 the answer is that
If he did this it was a plain violation of
the law, which provides that the clerk
shall take his compensation for each year
out of the fees which are earned that year.
The report says that under Section S3 of
the Revised Statutes each year stands by
itself, and the clerk has no better right
to anticipate fees which may be earned
in. a subsequent year than he would have
to recover a part of the excess which had
been earned in a previous year. In his own
testimony Judge Kicks testified that he re-
b buf he adm admitted that they WE re neitber
received nor earned when he so reported
them.
Inc report quotes an answer made during
the course of the investigation as to how
Judge Kicks ascertained the amount for
which he charged himself for records in the
Birdsall cases, and says in his explanation
that he selected fees in the cases where he
knew the parties ssm to ba be solvent, if true
i%itigants for his debt and leave the in
continued the report. fit is not true as
a matter of fact, because Judge Kicks knew
Z ktIok llOSG = T.
were earned he would be compelled to ac-
count for them without reference to the
solvency or insolvency of the parties. The
government holds the clerk responsible for
all fees earned, whether collected or I'M
collected, on the theory that the clerk can
collect them by requiring a deposit or a
bond to secure the costs. But, conceding all
that Judge Kicks claims and waving the
moral question of soliciting the solvent
parties for himself and leaving the in
solvent ones for the government, he does
United States. The purpose, and the only
possible purpose in picking out these cases
and anticipating their fees, was to increase
his personal compensat ton, and in doing
that he was not only violatine the law, but
he was practicing a deliberate and willful
fraud as will easily be seen by a simple
calculation"
The report then goes on to argue that IL
Judge Kicks had closed his account with
the government for 1883 with certain
specified unearned fees omitted "he would
have received for his services 81, S31 and the
&49 which he had improperly taken would
have gone to whoever was the clerk when
the records were actually made. This
amount, therefore. ought to have gone to
Martin Sanders, so that the result of the
wrongful taking of these fees by Judge
Kicks was to deprive Martin w. Sanders of
$50 and the government of $493. II 1t is al
legged that this fraud was committed while
Judge Kicks vas clerk and that he Is not
amenable for 1t as judge, it can be replied
that the fraud was a continuing one, in
itiated while he was clerk, but consummat-
ed while he was judge"
The report quotes frons q letter from
Judge Kicks to the Acknowledgement Of