The record-union., 1895-01-23
CASE OF JUDGE RICKs.
The Jurist to be Censured, but Not
1mpeacheii.

The Jurist to be Censured, but Not
1mpeached.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2l.-The ATTEMPT to
impeach Judge Kicks of Cleveland. O.,
failed to-day in the House Judiciary
| Committee by viva voce vote of to 7,
and instead of a resolution for impeacb-
ment, which Bailey of Texas had pre-
pared to report to the House, one will be
presented denouncing the fee system.
which, in the opinion of members, has
made the proceedings possible.
Judge KICKS gave personal eXplana-
tlon to the committee OF the accounts in
the Blrdsall case. which he had handled
as Clerk OF the Court, and which fur
nlshed ground for the Investigation, and
testimony was given against him bv
Martin W. Sanders, who had been his
Deputy Clerk and who succeeded him in
the Clerkshlp when Judge Kicks was
promoted to the bench.
To-day's review OF the case. which was
OF bitter and acrimonious character.
changed the opinion OF no member of the
committee, and the charges were ignored,
as 1t had been expected they would be
when all the members could be brought
together for vote. The case was MADE
largely party question, although Kicks
had 1our Democratic votes, and as the
next Congress is strongly Republican
there Is no probability that it will be re-
vived.
JUDGE RICKs' DEFENSE
WAsHINGToN, Jan. 22-The House
Committee on Judiciary had an open
meeting to-day to consider the charges
with his attorney. V. p. Kline. Tie Gem
tral Labor Union of Cleveland was rep
resented by Arnold Green and General
Edward ). Meyers. AT the suggestion of
Chairman Culberson, Judge Kicks made
a statement OF cases III which improper
receipt OF ices was charged.
Judge Kicks said: Il claim that I had
the right to complete the records as | did.
claim | accounted satisfactorily to the
Government for all the money. My sue
cessor as clerk lost nothing by the trans
action, and L acted str ictly in accordance
with the custom followed by the courts in
such cases."
Judge Kicks also said he had affidayits
from the clerks Of several courts showing
that II is the practice OF the clerk to
charge himself with the completed rec
ords. The charges for the work were
made eighteen months before he was ap-
pointed Judge, and before be hai any
idea that he should be appointed.
Chairman Culberson inquired WHY he
had not returned the accounts to the At
torney-GeneraPs Office III one report,
instead OF scattering them through sew
eral years.
The Judge replied: sit was not nv
duty TO complete all records, but it was
my option or privilege, so l charged my
self with those in which the parties were
solvent. Had l charged those in which
parties wereslnsolvent and I.well knew
some of them were, l would have become
a guarantor for the Government for the
cost of work. L hold the clerk was not
obliged to make returns until the work
was done"
Had he done otherwise than he did. he
claimed, it would have been necessary
tor him to advance some SI,7O0. He said
when became Judge l ran the risk
OF collecting when work was done"
Stone OF Pennsylvania asked if it were
not fact that in all the Birdsall cases
fees were estimated in advance by him
self aud his successor as clerk and col
lected before work was actually done.
Judge Kicks said it was question of
the right to estimate work without know
ing the exact amount to be done. This
was discussed, and the Judge said the
general average was about correct, as in
some cases the work slightly exceeded
the estimates and in others fell below.
Judge Kicks stated in answer to a
question from Bowers that he had never
passed upon his own accounts as Judge.
Bailey inquired whether if contest |
over the records had been made he wouId
not have been called upon to decide it.
and The Judge said that as matter OF
fact no contest had been made.
Then followed q contention between
Bailey aud the Judge as to whether doc
uments bearing on certain phases of the
case had been submitted at the hearing
at Cleveland, which ended with Bailav
becoming rather angry and declaring:
Jpn be sworn and testify they were not :"
while you swore in your report in
1885," asked Bailey of the Judge, that
the fees in the BirdseII cases had been
earned and received, they had not been
actually earned or received ?'
II think" replied the Judge, ''that the
oath can be fairly construed IN the light
of what / have explained to be the uni
versal custom"
The Judge was about to explain his
construction of the law, when Bailey
said: The committee can pass upon the
law without testimony. What l want to
get at is your motive. DO you know any
thing of law that justified you in doing
that's"
II have explained what the custom is"
said the Judge.
IF it were the custom of clerks to
steal, that would not be a defense against
Indictment for theft" Bailey retorted.
Your testimony, as | understand it, is
that you SO returned fees in advance as
earned when there was chance to make
money from them, but did not when they
were doubtful
II could not be expected to incur liabil-
tiles that were doubtful" the Judge an
Swered.
The questions and answers passed
thick aud fast, until the Judge said rather
warmly: The Comptroller, who is the
accounting officer OF the Government, is
satisfied with my accounts, and is not
here complaining of them"
But certain persons who have never
been indicted for theft have com pIainad
OF them," Bailey retorted, hotly, land
this committee, which is part OF the Gov
ernment, has adopted the resolution for
your impeachment"
The examination was conducted at