The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-04
nAsrro rrEwsrIyrs DOWN.

BADING TH1M8EkyH3 DOWNs X The arguments of some of our we'll meaning Republican contemporaries, as well as soma of the independent news papers. in their efforts to sustain the Senate verdict in the swayns matter are very badly strained. As swayne Is Ia Republican oficiai. and as those who 50 adroitly white-washed him are Re- publicans, 1t stands to reason--Rspub. lican reason. we mean--that the sparti- san papers ean see no wrong in the senate's action. They are having scns dincuity. however. in satisfying their own scruples on the subject.
 The New York Mail, for example. finds that athsre was evidently no oor- ruption or criminaiity in Judge Swayns's conduct" but it immediately adds: we are inclined to think. how ever. that if he had been tried for want Of fine scrupls and perfect sQueamishness. he would not have been acquitted so readily" That is, as The Mali sees 1t. he was not guilty but he shouldn't have done 1t! That is . fine example of looking two ways. Then The Hartford courant admits that the appointment of swayne was not the hanpiest of Harrison's appointments" Then 1t hopes 1t is not uncharitable to
 say that "the Judges conduct has been in some particulars censurably injudi-
 cious. if not unjudiciai." That Is . rt&tfn xn~ra s>v~~n sh~u ThA Hatl ana those expressions are pretty fair sam l ples of Republican comment. They
 tenderly censurs the Judge and approve
 his acauittai.
 The Boston Herald has some conn ments which we think are entitled to
 serious consideration. Here is . sam.
 pie:
 The charge that he collected the
 msIImgm amount s.n si,9wsS ,S,a ey lay for side of his district, when his actual ex- penses were less, appears to have been made apparent; but It was also made
 apparent that this is the general prac- l tice of judges. The law provides that in such cases a Judge shall be reim- bursed for his actual expenses; but
 euch reimbursement shall not exceed the sum of si0 per diem. Plainly 1t was not the intent of the law to fix the daily allowance at S10. whether or not | actual expenses reached that sum. The sum named is q maximum, and we ques- | ton If any Judge on the bench in the \ ease of a similarly worded private con- tract would uphold a regular maximum payment in the absence of any detailed expense account. But 1t was apparent that Judge Swayne could not be con- victed without duplicating similarly a large portion of all the Federal district | judges in violation of law. Would it not have implicated also a large num- Der of his senatorial judges. who, it Is presumed, not without reason. draw | their full mileage allowance for travel
 ing expenses, although they travel on 1 passes?
 The Herald makes a statement or a
 charge that we have seen given in a number of our contemporaries as a req
 son why Judge swayne should not have
 been convicted; that is. that when he
 misrepresented his expense account and
 collected money to which he was not
 entitled he was doing what practically
 all the judges do. If this is true we
 are satisfied that 1t is not right for the l judges to do 1t. As to what The Her.
 aid says about the Senators. that may
 or may not have had something to do with the failure to convict Swayne.
 Perhaps 1t really had It's influence.