The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1904-12-13
CHARGED MORE
THAN He SPENT
THAT is THE GRAVE POINT,
REPUBLICANS THINK, IN THE CASE
AGAINST SWAYNE.

His Practice of Naming so Day
His Expense, When Evidence
Showed He Spent Much Less, Re-
garded by the Committee as a
Point on which the Federal Judge
of Northern District of Florida
May BE Impeached.
Washington, Dec. 12.-Eight Repub-
lican members of the House Judiciary
Committee, Representatives Parker of
New Jersey, Jenkins of Wisconsin.
Alexander of New York, Littlefield of
Maine, Thomas of Iowa, Gillett of Call
ifornia, Pearre of Maryland, and War
ner of Illinois, to-day submitted to the
House their views in the case of
case of Judge Charles Swayne of the
Northern district of Florida.
While disagreeing in some particu-
lars with the views submitted for the
full committee last week by Repre-
sentative Palmer of Pennsylvania,
they say that the question of charging
$40 a day for expenses had been
brought out for the first time in the
additional testimony taken since last
session and laid before the commit
tee. With respect to the record on that
point they are of opinion that an i'm
peachable offense has been made out"
This makes the committee practically
unanimous for impeachment, although
differing on the ground.
The views submitted by Messrs.
Do nj
field, Thomas, Gillett, Pearre and War
ner are as follows:
I'VE do not think that the additional
testimony strengthens the case
against Judge Swayne except in the
particulars hereinafter referred to. On
the contrary we think it materially
weakens it in the particulars relied
upon in the former report. AS to those
particulars. in our opinion, the evil
dence wholly fails to justify impeach-
ment proceedings.
Didn't Like His Use of the Car.
I'VE not only do not approve, but
we distinctly and emphatically disap-
prove, however, of the matter of the
use of the private car in charge of the
receiver, Durkee, in 1908. We think
the judges action in the use of the
property and employees of the receiver
is a legitimate and proper object of
adverse criticism and censure, but
since there is nothing in the record
that tends to show that the judge was
Influenced in any of his judicial acts,
either directly or indirectly, or was
attempted to be influenced thereby,
we do not think the facts present a
case of such gravity as to justify i'm
parchment on that ground.
The making of false certificates for
reasonable expenses for travel and
attendance is now presented for the
first time. The testimony establishes
the fact that in several instances,
the last 1903, his disbursements for
expenses were considerably less than
the amounts he certified. which were
uniformly $40 a day. We think the
law does not authorize a district judge
under such circumstances to certify
more than his actual disbursements
as expenses. 1t does not authorize
him to certify actual disbursements
even. unless they are reasonable
He Didn't Try to Explain.
Unexplained, there does not appear
10 be anX justification for making
these certificates and receiving the
money appearing to be due thereon.
Evidence as to the alleged practice of,
other judges in this respect was Of
fered and excluded. and we think
properly. 1t would have been COM
petent for him when a witness in his
own behalf to have stated why he
made those certificates. AS a witness,
he answered and explained every 9TH
er charge. This charge he made no
EFFORT. as a witness. to answer or ex-
plain. The inference from the record,
In general principles, is that the charge
Is admitted to be true, and that he has
no explanation or answer thereto.
Whether satisfactory explanation
can be made we do not say. We must
take the record as it stands. Upon
this record unanswered and unexplain-
ed, we are of the opinion that in this
particular, an Improbable offense has