The Washington herald., 1908-04-19
CASE OF JUDGE WHITLEY.
The Judiciary subcommittee ard It's
Remarkable Report.

In letter 10 the New York Evening
Post. after referring 70 Judge Wifey's
vindication in the report made TO the
| President by Mr. Root, Afr. Crsmmond
Kennedy says:
AT the hearing the subcommittee took
no testimony except that OF the pr6secut-
ing witness. Judge Wiley was allowed
to cross-exanaine his accuser, but not 20
testify or to produce other witnesses in
his own defense.
Upon these proceedings 0ncludng ar
guments pro and con) the subcommittee
of three came 10 the following concIu-
sion, as stated in their report
- The conclusion cf the subcommittee deducsd
from the memorial from The examination q the
petitioner tWnfeys acUlserl, and from our con
structiou Of the precedents of impeachment TRIALS
in the United States. Is that the actual facts
charged IN the said memorial, even established
By competent legal evidence would net Justify
conviction q Judge WuAey upon charges Of i'm
parchment before the United states Senate, and
would not Therefore warrant the presentation by
the House q Representatives q articles Of mpeach-
ment'
Here the report might have stopped.
for every one Of the charges and specif-
cations had been considered. the question
referred to the subcommittee had been
answered, and the purpose of the pre-
liminary inquiry fulfilled; but, seemingly
oblivious TO the requirements of propriety
and justice, the rights and prestige Of
the Judge, and the influence and work
OF The United States Court in China.
the subcommittee added the following
| observations, as if Judge Wiley had
/ been convicted or might have been guilty
of the offenses with which he was
charged"
Mr.. Kennedy then cites the derogatory
and superfluous remarks Of the sub
committee. and concludes as follows:
IF Judge Wiley, as stated by the sub
committee, has been cut of from every
opportunity Of defense and can file no
answer and make no denials. nor explain
to the House the legality or necessity OF
his judicial actions it would be a viola
tion Of the first principles Of justice for
the Judiciary Committee or the House TO
condemn him or cast any aspersions upon
him. OF indulge in any insinuations 10 his
discredit-espeCially when the subcommit-
| tee has reported that the charges in
question. even if established, would not
| justify his conviction by the Senate II
articles of impeachment were presented
against him.
when the subcommittee says that
these charges. therefore, stand uncOEtrO-
verted' 1t can only mean in view of its
other utterances, that they have not been
examined or disposed Of except TO the
extent Of finding that they fall short OF
imputing impeaehable offenses,' and are
the efore outside the jurisdiction of the
| Hou e. Furthermore. as matter OF fact.
the judge does deny the charges, so far
as they impugn the integrity or propriety
OF his judicial conduct. There simply has
been no investigation inter parties. What
the subcommittee says on these charges
| Except its conclusion that they fall
short or imputing impeach2ble offenses,
and that the judge has had no OppOr-
tunity OF explanation or defense), should
| be struck out of the report by the full
committee as ultra wires, unfounded, mis-
| chieyous and unjust"