The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-16

either OF mlsdemeanor or ignorance anu
Incompetence, for judic al act on during
the trial OF Herman l.. Chase. The indi-
cations of corruption or willful violation
of duty therein presented are intensified
by the fact that he has swept away the
more charitable consideration, that his
crime against justice originated in ignor-
ance of duty. by admissions and confess
sions made by him in an interview in
Spokane May Z, 1894.
In closing the memorialists pray that
Arthur may be impeached and removed
from Office for the many cases COM
planned of, pledgng aid and assistance in
the investigation.
The charges are supported by several
afiidavits of irregularities and negligence,
in which are cited the case of the state VS..
Annie Lewis and certified by the defend
ant. Mary Phillips. Ross Phillips, Mary
Shelby and Maggie Sears. In the state
VS.. Chase, il is certified to by j. X.
Lambly.
The accusation against Judge Arthur
dates back to the trial and acquittal OF
Herman l.. Chase. May 6, 1894, on the
charge of assaulting Marie Nelson. The
Woman's Protective association and
prominent ScandInavians vigorously pro-
tested at the time against the rulings of
the court, particularly the charge to the
jury. The principal instructions objected
to were that tho testimony of the prose-
cutrx must be corroborated by cicum-
stances. in order to convict. and that for
the purpose of conviction il was neces-
sary TO show that the bruises on the
woman's person were made in the attempt
TO commit the crime charged. 1t was also
contened that the court Transcribed its
authority in permitting the jury to take
written instructions TO the jury room.
j. Il. Lambly, a job pr inter-, assumed an
active part in the agitation against Judge
Arthur, and formulated charges against
him, TO constitute the basis of an iudici-
ment by the grand jury. After an inves-
tigation that body reviewed all the allega-
cations and officially branded them as
"false and malicious" The grand jury
then came in for liberal share of criti-
cism, but after time the subject was
crowded out of the public min by fresher
events and the general supposition was
that the prosecution had been dropped.
The arrival of Mr.. Lamby al Olympia
and the presentation of articles of inn
parchment were not n surprise, however,
to those in the inner circle. A clamor had
been raised for the abolition of one of the
superior court judgeships in Spokane
county. This proposition was received
with considerable favor by those antagou-
istic to Judge Arthur, in the hope that he
might be the one sacrificed. 1t was
learned later that his Office is constitu.
tionally established and cannot be dis
turbed by legislative enactment. Then
came a revival of the charges against Ar
thur for misconduct and malfeasance in
office.
The articles of impeachment are sub
stantially the same as the counts in the
information presented to the grand jury.
Judge Arthur is accused of incompetency
and gross violation of duty in the conduct
of the Chase case. Inebriety is another
count, his accusers charging HIM with
having fallen asleep on the bench. 1t is
claimed that in the Hyde-Heller case he
intimated, through a baillff, that he was
willing to accept 81 900 from Heller. An
other complaint relates to the appoint
ment of w. b. Roberts as receiver of the
Washington Savings bank, which is
claimed to have been irregular. Hlbtuat
use OF morphine is another allegation.
a co by of the grand jury report, exone-
rating the judge, was sent to Olympia,
and his principal attorney, T. {. GrifIitts,
was preparing to leave for the state capi-
tai, when n message arrived announcing
that the committee would start for Spo-
kane. Frank II. Graves and j. +. Eenton
were to join Mr.. GrifIitts within n few
days, Mr.. Graves having business first at
Portland, and Mr.. Fenton receiving no.
tice by telegraph at San Francisco to pro-
coed at once to the scene of the impeach-
ment trial.
The committee will be in session n
week or 10 days. if it is deemed advisable
tn all tho tacfi,,oopxy f,r
sentation to the house. 1t is important at
the same time TO proceed rapidly. mas
much as the impe achment would fail
should the legislative term expire by con-
stitutional Limitation before a decision
had been arrived at.
In impeachment trials the house of rep
resentatives first considers and votes
upon the presentation of articles. If this
is carried. the senate alone tries the case
For the removal of judge both houses
vote jointly, the constitution requiring
three-fourths of all the members of each
house to declare the Office vacant. The
proceeding in the Arthur case is under
the impeachment clause.
Judge Arthur's friends claim that Mr.
Lambly is actuated by malice. II and
Arthur had an altercatio over a business
affair before the latter's elevation TO tho
bench. The story is that Arthur slapped
Lambly's face, whereupon be swore ven
geance. This, il is contended on the
other hand, will amount to nothing in the
investigation. Lambly will appear only
the representative of influential per-
sons who will be on hand TO see that the
inquiry is thorough and that no petty
tricks are resorted to for the purpose of
prejudicing the minds of the committee.
l.. 4 IL.
and business men in the ranks OF tho
prosecution, and the Woman's Protective
association includes representatives of
many of the most prominent families in
the city.
Guilty or innocent, the fact is apparent
that Judge Arthur will not have a walk
over, for a powerful array of ability AMI
courage will confront him. The judge
will return home on the same train with