The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-12-13
ALL ARE FOR IMPEACHMENT
ATTITUDE OF COMMITTEE IN
 JUDGE SWAKEE,S CASE.

Members Find That Accused Certified
 to Spending s1O for Expenses When
 They Were Much Less-This ConHid-
 cred . Very Strong Point Against Him-0n It the Committee Thinks an
 Impeachment Case Has Been Made
 Out, and So Reports.
 Washington, Dec. 12.-Eight repub- lican members of the house judiciary committee-Representative Parker CN. u, Jenkins (Wis.), Alexander (N. Y.), Littlefeld (Me.), Thomas Ia.), Gillett, (cal.), Pearre (Md.), and Warner tIll.) to-day submitted to the house their views in the case of Judge Charles Swayne of the northern district t--of Florida. While disagreeing in some particulars with the views submitted for the full committee last week by Representative Palmer of Pennsylva- mia, they say that the question of Charging $10 g day for expenses has been brought out for the first time in the additional testimony taken since last session, and laid before the com- mittee. With respect to therecord on that point they are of the opinion that an impeachable offence has been made out''
 This makes the committee practically unanimous for impeachment, although differing on the grounds.
 The views admitted by Messrs. Jen- kins, Alexander, Littfield, Thomas, GIL lett, Pierre and Warner are as follows:
 We do not think that the additional testimony strengthens the case against Judge Swayne, except in the particulars hereinafter referred to. On the eon- trary, we think 1t particularly weakens it, in the particulars relied upon in the fomer report. As to those particulars, l in our opinion, the evidence wholly fails to justify impeachment proceedings
 We not only do not approve, but we distinctly and emphatically disapprove. however, of the matter of the use of the private car in charge of the receiv- CT, Durkee, in 1893. We think the | judges action in the use of the property and employees of the receiver is a legit- innate and proper object of adverse crit icism 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 thing the facts present a case of such gravity as 1 to justify impeachment on that ground.
 "The making of false certificates for reasonable expenses for travel and at tendance is now presented for the first time. The testimony establishes the fact that in several instances, the last in 1903, his disbursements for expenses were considerably less than the amounts he certified, which were uni fornly S10 a day. We think the law does not authorize a district judge un- der such circumstances to certify more than his actual disbursements as ex- penses. It does not authorize him to certify actual disbursements even, un- less they are 'reasonable.' Unexplained, there does not appear to be any justif1- cation for making these certificates and receiving the money apparing to be due thereon. Evidence as to the alleg- ed practice of other judges in this re- spect was offered and excluded and we 1 think properly.
 Tt would have been competent for him when a witness in his own behalf to
 have stated why he made those certifi-
 cates. As witness he answered and
 explained every other charge. This
 charge he made no effort, as witness, ! to answer or explain. The inference
 from the record, in general principles, l is that the charge is admitted to be true, and that he has no explanation or
 answer thereto. Whether a satisfac-
 tory explanation can be made we do not say. We must take the record as it
 stands. Upon this record unanswered
 and unexplained we are of the opinion
 that in this particular an impeachable offense has been made out"