Norwich bulletin., 1912-05-09
Archibald Was
 a Silent Party
JUDGE INTERESTED IN OPTION
 FROM RAILROAD,
HAD CASE BEFORE HIM
Lighterage Case Under Consideration When Deal Was Made-Partner Signs Damaging Letter.

Washington, May s.-Charges against Judge Archibald of the com merce court were amplified before the house committee on judiciary, which is to determine if impeachment pro ceedings shall be brought against the jurist.
 How Judge Archibald in partnership with Edward J. Williams, a Scranton coal dealer, while deliberating as a judge on the "lighterage cases" to which the Erie railroad was a party, is alleged to have negotiated an option from that railroad for forty-two thou sand tons of clum bank property to be sold at a $12,000 profit was related to the committee by Williams himself.
 Judge Archibald, accompanied by his two sons and his counsel, A. $. Worth ington, heard the testimony and occa- siona1ly locked at. photographic copies of letters bearing on the case, one of them letter in which the judge spoke of his connection witr the Culm bank neg getiations.
 Asked to Discount ArchbaId's Note.
 In addition to that transaction, Will Hams testified about another one in which he said Archibald acquired an interest with him in an option on a million acres of Venezuelan timber land for which the judge gave a note for $500
 Williams tried to discount this note with c. J. and w. P. Roland of the Marion Coal company of Scranton, who at that time had a case pending before Judge Archibald in the federal court. The Bolands refused to dis count the note and later lost their case Williams admitted telling W. F. Roland that if he had discounted Judge Archbald's note the case might have resulted differently, but he denied that Judge Archibald knew anything of his making such a remark 10 Roland. Archibald Silent Party.
 The testimony relating to the Culm bank matter included reference to an assignment by Williams of an inter- est in the options secured to w. P. Roland and silent party" whom he admitted, under examination, was Judge Archibald. When asked why i Judge Archibald was referred to as a fsilent party" Williams said he thought it was not lawful for a jurist's s name to be used in such transactions. Williams related how the option for the Culm bank property was negotiat ed for with officers of the Erie rail road and how a sale for the property was arranged for. and said that he and Judge Archibald were to divide the profits. During tne negotiations with I the Erie, Judge Archibald told him that the lighterage case was then before his court. Williams said.
 Erie Lighterage Case.
 Judge Archibald showed me the briefs in the case,'' sand Williams, land to16 c,hn case in which the Erie was interested didn't know what lighterage meant, and he told me. Then he gave letter l to MT. May of the Erie and also told me that he would see the general counsel for the Erie, MT. BroWnell, about the option"
 1 When Williams was first called to the stand he testified of the transac- l ton involving Judge Archbald's note | for $500 and the case in his court in 1 in which the Bolands were interested 1 Chairman Clayton producing a photo | graphic copy of letter signed by Will 1 Hams, in which he said he told w. F. Roland if he (Boland) had discounted | Judge Archbald's note the case of John w. Peel vs. the Marion Coal company, in which the Bolands were | interested. would not have been decid- ed against them. The letter was read to Williams, and he said dramatical 1 ly:
 q can swear before God that those words never came from me"
 Did you sign this letter? asked the chairman.
 'Yes, that is my signature, but signed it without looking at 1t. l die not know those words were there.
 A Damaging Letter.
 The letter, which was read from the photographic copy, follows:
 Scranton, Pa, July 31, 191L 'To Whom It May Concern:
 '"This is to certify that I, Edward Williams. called on William P. Roland about December l5, 1910. with note l of R. w. Archibald, judge of the Unit ed States commerce court, for $500, tc have said note discounted. l did mol tell Roland at the time that the judge knew that I was going to call on hir to discount the above mentioned note I only informed him about July 25 1911. he made mistake in not dis counting said Archibald note, as ht was interested in the case of John W Peel vs, Marion Coal company, whict was then before the United States court, and he would have saved all et the costs had he discounted the note,
 (Signed) "E. J, WILLIAMS"
 GA, M, BlaekmoRe.)