The sun., 1908-04-03
Should Judge Wllfey BE Censured
without a Hearing?

The report Of the subcommittee OF
the Judiciary Committee Of the House
of Representatives in the case of Judge
WHITLEY Of the United States Court for
! China is 80 far as we know without a
parallel in the annals Of Congress,
The facts in the case are these: A
petition for the impeachment Of Judge
WHITLEY was presented TO the House by
Congressman WALDO Of Brooklyn. The
House referred the charges in the petit
tion to the Judiciary Committee, with
instructions 20 look into the same and
report TO the House whether or not i'm
peachment proceedings should be insti-
tuted. Ihe sole question presented to the
judiciary Committee was: Impeachment
or no impeachment? The committee
appointed a subcommittee consisting
Of r. o. Moon OF Pennsylvania. q. j..
DIEKEAiA OF Michigan and f. Y. WEBB
Of North Carolina to investigate the
charges. The subcommittee thereupOn
made an examination Of the charges,
took the testimony of LoRRIN ANDREWS,
the author Of the petition or in other
words the accuser, and received all the
evidence he desired to oher. II refused,
however, TO hear Judge whitley or any
one in his behalf
The subcommittee set forth the results
Of it's deliberations in a report Of thirty
eight printed pages which was given TO
the press before the full Judiciary Com
mittee could act upon it. THE conclu-
sion OF the subcommittee, says the
report, "deduced from the memorial
from the examination Of the petitioner
and from our construction OF the prece-
dents Of impeachment trials in the United
States ia that the actual facts charged in
the said memorial even il established by
competent legal evidence would not
justify a conviction Of Judge WiLfLEi
upon charges Of impeachment before the
United States Senate, and would not
therefore warrant the presentation by
the House OF Representatives Of such
articles Of impeachment.
Then comes the remarkable feature
OF the report The subcommittee pro-
ceeds TO assume for the sake OF argu-
ment that the improved facts have
been established and administers TO the
Judge q hypothetical heprimand of the
severest character without, we repeat,
having heard word Of testimony on
his side. The report terminates in the
following extraordinary way: Such acts
Of legal oppression and OF abuse Of
judicial discretion lie at the foundation
of the charges which are made before
the House Of Representatives in the
form prescribed by law and custom,
and are presented as a question Of high
privilege upon the solemn responsibility
Of a member Of the House. Charges so
presented against this court the United
States Court for Chinal have a peculiar
and dangerous significance. In this case,
by what we believe to be sound principles
of legal construction, they are dismissed
as falling short Of imputing impeach-
able offences, and Judge whitley is
thereby cut Of from every opportunity
OF defence He can file no answer and
make no denials, nor explain TO the
House the legality or necessity Of his
judicial actions. These charges, there.
fore, stand uncOntroverted and il his
judicial acts in the future shall be marked
by the rigorous and infexible harshness
attributed to him they will hang as a
portentous cloud over this new court,
impairing the usefulness OF Judge
whitley, impeding the administration
Of justice and challenging the integrity
OF American institutions
1t should be needless to point out that
this action Of the subcommittee in con-
demning, by hypothesis or implication,
Judge whitley without a hearing sets
at naught all rules Of judicial procedure
as well as the instincts Of justice and
fair play. The rebuke is also launched
in disregard Of the responsibility Of Con-
Ercss for the administration Of justice in
the Far East. To condemn a man with.
out giving him hearing is such a gross
violation Of all principles Of equity that
the mere announcement that such q