Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-25
Judge Swayne's Hotel Expenses.

| Judge Swayne's Hotel Expenses.
| The first witness called this morning was
| w. F. Hardwick, assistant manager of the
| Worth Hotel at Fort Worth, Tex. He tes-
tilted, under examination, that Judge
| Swayne was a guest of the Worth Hotel
| for one and three-quarter days in 1897. His
| total bill amounted to s625. The statement
| of the auditors Office of the Treasury De-
| partment, covering disbursements to Judge
| Swayne, shows that he charged at the rate
| of $40 day for the day and three-quarters
| in question.
| Daniel c. McIlheny. manager of the
! Oriental Hotel at Dallas, Tex, testified
that Judge Swayne was guest of that
| hotel for forty days in January and Feb
| ruary, 1896 His total bill for that period
was $11o.s0, but he was allowed $500 re-
| bate on a special rate which had been al
| lowed him by arrangement, and the
! amount paid by him therefore was S97
| The Treasury records show that Judge
! Swayne drew $500 expenses for the forty
| days covered by the hotel bill
| Representative Palmer, the chairman
| of the subcommittee OF the committee on
| the judiciary, which is pursuing the Swayne
investigation, developed the fact that the
| S97 paid by Judge Swayne covered not only
| his board and and lodging, but a number
of other small items. as well, including
wine laundry, express charges and tele-
grams. so that was the total amount eX-
| pended by Judge Swayne during that time
| in your hotel?'' Representative Palmer
asked the witness.
TT was
THAT was very reasonable commented
Mr.. Palmer. rather sarcastically. s2a@ .
E. Davis, an attorney at law of Pensa-
cola, Fla, was called to the stand and at
the instance of Judge Liddon. counsel for
the interests in opposition of Judge Swayne
gave testimony in detali concerning railroad
fare and living expenses on various routes
in Judge Swayne's judicial circuit.
Interested in Impeachment.
He asserted that he had been interested
in procuring the impeachment of Judge
Swayne and was still working to that end.
Ex-senator Higgins of Delaware, counsel
for Judge Swayne, asked witness to tell the
names of the persons who employed him
to push the impeachment of Swayne Judge
Liddon interposed an objection, giving as
reason the fact that the making public of
the names might result in injury to Judge
Swaynes opponents. "They are afraid of
Judge Swayne and they are afraid of his
court Judge Liddon declared.
Mr.. Higgins objected to what he termed
the "insinuations'' of Judge Liddon but
the committee told the witness he need not
give any information concerning his en-
ployers.
Calhoun Contradicts E. F. Davis.
Particular interest centered in the testi
mony of John NJ. Calhoun who was next
called upon. At recent session of the
subcommittee Ellis F. Davis, an attorney
at law of Mariana, Fla. testified that
Calhoun had offered him s1oO and his ex-
pei ses if he would proceed to Tallahassee
where Judge Swayne then holding
court, and compromise a contempt case
there pending before the latter.
Davis testified at that time that no
amount of money was mentioned until
Calhoun had had talk with Judge
Swayne, and that then $500 was sug-
gested.
Calhoun today gave Davis the lie direct
He said that instead of having asked
Davis to secure the compromise, Davis
himself had suggested 1T and had en-
deavored to carry it out. He asserted
that he had never mentioned the compro-
mise to Judge Swayne and that the lat
ter knew nothing of efforts in that direc-
ton, so far as the money proposition in
volved was concerned
After Calhoun had been put through his
direct and cross examination Chairman
Palmer took him In hand and the witness
grew somewhat mixed up in his answers
Davis Recalled.
At the close of Calhouns testimony Davis
was again put on the stand and in turn
gave Calhoun the lie. The statements of
the two witnesses agreed on no two points
and both admitted that this discrepancy
COULD not be due to bad memory
The incidents described were stated to
be clear in the minds of both Calhoun and
Davis, and the matter seemed to be simply
a question of veracity. The two men who
could have corroborated one Or the other
of the witnesses by direct testimony are
dead.
Robert J. Boone, a lawyer of Mariana,
Fla, was the next witness for the defense
but after Mr. Higgins had asked him a few
questions he was excused in order that
some documentary evidence might be in
troduced later in connection with his tes-
timony.
Richardson contradicts Calhoun.