The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-07
MINORITY, REPORT
Reaches the Same End, but by Some-
what Different Route,

q d aa
s iEt4f#
Reaches the Same End, but by a Some-
what Different Route. @
TO tho Honorable Members Of tho Gem
3 oral Assembly Of Virginia:
NO PERSONAL MATTER.
We, the undersigned, members OF the
Committee for Courts of{,Iustice, to which
committee was referred the charges pre-
ferred against Judge OIL. Campbell, Of
the County Court Of Amherst, by the
members Of the bar Of the city Of Lynch
burg and the bar of the county Of AM
herst, having finished 4 their investiga-
ton, would most respectfully report:
1st Charge No. 1 was stricken out by
the committee for the reason that every
allegation alleged therein occurred prior
to the election OF tho said G. j. Campbell
as judge Of the County Court OF AM
herst, by tho Legislature Of Virginia,
and If anything In said charges was ma
'terlal, 1t should have been brought to
the attention Of the previous Legisla-
ture, and this Legislature should not in
vestigate the same
Charge No. relates to tho enforcement
of the local option law Of the courthouse
district Of Amherst county and the man
nor in which Judge Campbell conducted
the election Of r. B. Ware at q Demo-
CFaLlO plllIldl I'LL Liz lttll VI louVs llttL
part Of the charge which relates to the
manner Of holding the primary election,
the committee did not hear testimony in
regard to. for the reasons they gave in
the case of charge No. /; and because
they thought 1t immaterial.
NOTHING CORRUPT.
AS to that portion Of the charge In
reference to the enforcement Of the local
option law, wo arc of the opinion that
no corrupt or improper conduct has been
proven. 1t Is In proof before the COM
mittee that Judge c. j. Campbell regu-
larly gave to the grand jury Of Amherst
laws. There Is q conflict In the testi-
mony as to what that charge was the
Same being given verbally to the said
grand jury and we are not willing, after
this long time, to take the evidence of
partisan witnesses to show what that
charge was, especially when the change
or definition Of q word may have changed
the entire meaning Of said charge. We
are further Of tho opinion that Judge
G. J. Campbell, nor any other Judge
In this Commonwealth, should not place
himself In tho position Of a detective, and
20 around the county ferreting out eyi-
dence for or against citizens to be tried
In his court thereby rendering himself
unfit to sit in the case In the event an
indictment was found. That If it was
anybody's duty to look after the violation
Of the revenue law, In our opinion, 1t was
the duty Of the Commonwealths Attor-
ney, who is ono Of the petitioners in
this case. and by reference to tho testi-
mony Of o. L. Evans, Commemorative
Attorney Of Amherst county, 1t will be
seen that the same complaints were made
to him which were made to Judge G. j..
Campbell, and his only excuse for not
investigating them was that he did not
think a Commemorative Attorney should
place himself in the position Of de-
tective, and that under the law. he was
only paid fee In case of conviction, and
he was afraid he would lay himself liable
to the charge Of hunting UP cases to put
money In his own pocket 1t IS In evil
denco that both, he and the Judge, stated
to- tho parties that If they knew of any
violation Of the liquor laws. they had
two remedies: One to furnish witnesses
to 20 before the grand jurics and one to
60 before a Justice That in relation to
the charge that Judge Campbell instruct-
ed the grand Jury that a druggist had
a right to sell medicated LIQUOR, the
medicated here Is merely a definition.
If 1t meant that tho druggist had right
to use whisl1ey In compromising mediclne'
then we think the instructions were right
whether the druggist had liquor license
~
Sliouor license, then, Of course, he could
sell pure whislsey only on the preserip-
ton Of a physician. And we are OF the
opinion, II the druggist, Day, abused his
prescription privilege, 1t cannot; be I'M
puted to the. judge as a wrong And we
are further of the opinion that the
charge that G. J. Campbell, while Judge,
pa tronlzed said Day as a whlskey seller.
has not been satisfactory proven So we
arc of the opinion that charge No. 2 has
not been proven In any part
Charge No. 8 relates to the coWhldlng
of DR.. Crawford; we are Of the opinion
that DR.. c. II. Crawford was not justi-
fiable,in publishing the article which ap-
peared in the christian E'ederation,' in
regard to Judge C. ]. Campbell. We are
| further of the opinion that Judge G. j.
| Campbell at the times that he Issued
the rule and attachment did not intend
| to take any personal notice of tho article
which appeared in tho "Chrlstian Fedora
| tion;" that he intended to deal with him
| only as court; but we nre OF the opin-
Ion that when Dr. Crawford appeared In
Amherst county the second time, Judge
/ Campbell had then ascertained and come
to the conclusion that he had no power
to deal with him as n court In the con-
| tempt proceedings he then determined to
try to extort an apology from Or. G. II.
Crawford in court, and, falling In this,
| then to make personal matter or the
same, and II no apology was made, then
he determined to inflict corporal punish
ment on the said DR.. Crawford, and we
are also of the opinion that Judge Camp
bell was In this state of mind and feel
Ing when he went on the bench the
morning Of the trial, We are of the opln-
| ion that 1t Is immaterial whether the
| Judge, on leaving the bench, had adjourn
ed court or not for the day; we are,
therefore, of the opinion that after the
said Campbell Instituted contempt pro-
| ccedngs In his said court, and proceeded
| TO issue a rule as we'll as attachment on
said Crawford. bringing him TO his court
In The custody Of the sheriff t. answer
the said charge of contempt, and after
finding that the said Crawford had not
been guilty Of the contempt as charged
and filling to punish him through the
process of law. to have resorted to per-
sonnl violence, he was guilty of Gross
\ judicial impropricty and conduct unbe-
| coming Judge. And while we believe
] the aggravation on the part of Craw-
ford was grave and humiliating, judge
Campbell having undertaken to deal with
II ns court, he should not afterwards