Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-28


cases, none of which was less than SIS.
running from that up to 500. the total
amounting to $3.50.
'As the Judge presiding in the District
branch of the police court since April
last, save when i'll or absent from other
cause, when a substitute Is provided VINO
possibly may have Imposed minimum
fine because of want of knowledge as TO
the rule of increased fines after the first
offense. but to state as you have In your
letter, that the enforcement OF the law mas
been hampered by the later practice OF
the court of accepting collateral In the
amount of so and imposing fines In the
same amount against old Offenders, IS
grossly erroneous, and one of the judges
of the Police Court l protest against the
further use of such letter so far as sought
to be made applicable to the judges OF
the Police Court before committees of Con-
gress or elsewhere"
Judge KimbalPs Sentiments.
Judge Kimbalrs communication to the
Commissioners is dated January 81. The
/ sentiments expressed in Judge Kimbalrs
letter are similar to those expressed by
Judge Scott In his Introduction Judge
Kimball says:
Upon the advice of friends I have not
heretofore answered the very erroneous
statements with reference to the Police
court WHICH you maze IN your report 10 the
President on the smoke cases, but when
you read that report to committee of
Congress / determined to reply; for fear my
silence would be taken for an acknowledge
ment of the truth of your charge that the
Police Court was derelict in the perform
ance of it's duties This / want to deny in
the most positive terms. Since your ap-
pearance before the committee my reply
has been delayed by the time necessary to
secure the facts from the records. The rec
ord of smoke cases in 1904 after the higher
courts had affirmed the decisions of the
Police Court sustaining the law, will clear
ly show our action and who is responsible,
if there is any such fault as you charge in
your report.
Some Figures From Records.
Judge kimball then proceeds to give
some figures taken from the records of the
Police Court. During the first three months
of 1904, he says, 43 smoke cases were. liled,
and in each of them $IJ collateral was de-
posted. In all but one of these cases col
until the close of the year, Judge Kmball
says, Judge Scott he.u the District Court,
and 113 smoke were filed, of which
$50 were fled prior to December 30 In $50
of these cases defendants forfeited col
lateral The 30th of December it is stated
the assistant corporation counsel began
asking for trials in every case. Judge Kim
ball mentions that not one of the cases in
19oi in which trials were had was against
the Electric Power Company. Judge Kim
ball declares that the collateral taken is
supposed to be an amount satisfactory to
the assistant corporation counsel. and no
animation was ever made by that official
to the judges or to the financial clerk that
he was not perfectly satisfied with the
amount taken
FORGETTING Collateral.
In speaking of the methods pursued in
connection with FORGETTING of collateral
Judge Kimball says:
The defendant is called by name both
inside and outside of the court room. If
he does not appear, whatever collateral is
IN the hands of the financial clerk is for
felted The court does not know whether
the case is a smoke case, a snow case or
one Tor the violation of any one of a hun
dred other ordinances which NAV cause
even our best citizens to answer in the
Police Court, but the assistant CORPORATION
couhsel does Know, and if the amount of
collateral deposited in the case is not suffi-
Gent in his Judgment he can apply to the
judge for an attachment and bring the
party into the court and have the proper
fine imposed. This he has done a great
many times in other cases, but never in a
smoke case till January 4, 1905. On that
date he made such a request of me- which
was granted, and when the defendants were
brought before Judge Scott fines were i'm
posed in excess of the amount of collateral
deposited
I'm conclusion" says Judge Kimbal1, IT
reaffirm my denial that the enforcement of
the smoke law has been hampered in any
way by the action of the Police Court. The
judges sustained the law, imposing fines in
the very few cases the assistant corporation
counsel brought before them within the
terms imposed by the act of Congress and
as seemed just according to the facts in
each case, and in way they had every rea-
son to believe perfectly satisfactory to the
District of Columbia as represented by its
ants, ,n,.a
our most enterprising and best business
men. They were not criminals. They
showed the court evidence that they had
spent large sums of money to abate the nui-
sance. and that they were doing all in their
power to that end. 1t was also claimed
that of necessity there must be objection
able smoke when the fires We're first start
ed, and that the law was unreasonable in
not conceding 1t and making an allowance
for it. Under such evidence the court acted
in the several cases, always sustaining the
law and trying to do exact justice in each
case.
Statement of Mr.. Duva1l.
Corporation Counsel Duval, to whom the
letters of the judges were referred for re-
port, declares that collateral in Police
Court cases was not and is not now fixed
by the assistant corporation counsel. He
says he is informed that Judge Scott di-
rected Financial Clerk Sebring to require
cases In his statement Mr.. Duvall says:
I'm April, 1902, there was a series of
cases against Lindley E. Sinclair, manager
for the Potomac Electric Power Company,
the Metropolitan Railway Company and
the Columbia Railway Company, respec-
lively, pending in the Police Court. In each
OF these cases jury trial had been de-
handed. A trial was had in the Police
Court in one of the cases; there was a
conviction, and the defendant appealed to
the Court of Appeals.
1T was deemed desirable to make the
case on appeal a test of the law and the
defendants liability Hereunder; under my
advice the remainder of the then pending
cases were disposed of by the acceptance
OF pleas of guilty in twenty cases. with
nnes aggregating $500, the prosecutions be-
ing suspended in the remaining cases.
Judgment in the test case was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals in June, 1902 and
in July, 1902, Sinclair forfeited $40 collat-
eral in fifteen of the cases in which the
prosecution had been suspended. This was
under my advice, in view of the bona fde
prosecution Of the test case
The test case was appealed to the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and was
by that court dismissed on January 4, 1904
This action settled the uIlastion Of lilo h;I;+,,