Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1912-07-10
Counsel ISSUED Statement
IT WAS THE FIRST REPLY FROM
THE JUDGE SINCE PROCEED
INGS STARTED.
DENIES MISUSE OF court
Declares That In No ease Has Proof
Been shown of Where His Of
ficlal Act Was Wrong.

NASltlNGION, july v,-Sounsel
for Judge Robert w, Archibald of the
commerce court against whom artl-
cles Of impeachment have been re-
ported 20 the house, issued state
ment today asking that public opin-
ion be suspended until the accused
jurist has had an opportunity TO pre-
sent his defense to the senate, which.
sitting as "A court, will try the charges
againts him.
Consideration Of the Archibald i'm
parchment resolution In the house
Will be resumed Thursday.
The statement made public by his
counsel is the first public reply from
the Judge. and indicating the tenor
of the defense In the expected trial,
In part follows:
Judge. Archbalds counsel states
that he emphatically denies that In
any of the transactions referred to In
the report of the judiciary commit
tee or which are embraced In the ar
tlcles of impeachment for the use or
alleged misuse of his court.
When the original charges made
against him were presented to the
president and the attorney general, he
was given no notice and had no hear
ing. In the proceedings before the Ju-
dietary committee he was permitted
to cross examine witnesses, but 1t was
explicitly stated that the proceeding
was a hearing and not trial. In the
hearing before the committee the prin-
cipal charges which had led the pres
ident and attorney general to take ac-
ton were shown to be utterly un-
founded. When the evidence was
closed what charges the committee
might make could not be known TO
Judge Archibald or his counsel until
they were presented to the house.
Judge Archibald, therefore, VIII
have no opportunity to present his de-
Tense until he is summoned before the
senate and until he has had hearing
there he asks that public opinion In
his case be suspended"
The statement took up In detail tho
principal upon which the judiciary
hearings were held, reading in part as
follows:
First That In a suit brought by
John Peale against the Marian Coal
company, In wlhhc the Boands were
largely interested, Judge Archibald
had overruled a demurrer to the COM
plaint filed by the counsel for the
Marian Coal company because the Bo-
lands had refused to discount $500
not which Judge Archibald had en-
dorsed.
Second. That in the same suit,
Judge Archibald at the instigation or
the Laclkawanna railroad officials, or
dered the Marian Coal company to
close its testimony in thirty days.
Third. That after Judge Archibald
had become member of the COM
merce court, he at the request OF an
7 ,a1ya mn inh1rnd
Judge Wilmer before whom the case
of Peale versus Marian Coal company
was then pending, to decide that case
in favor of Peale.
Fourth. That through Judge Arch
bald. Mr.. Seager, one of the counsel
of the Lackawanna railroad company,
was given advance information that
the Peale case would be decided
against the Marian Coal company.
All these charges except the third
related to Judge Archbald's official
acts. BY the evidence before the Ju-
dietary committee of the house, every
one of these charges was so complete
" disproved that no reference is made
to any of them in the report of the
committee or in the articles of i'm
parchment,
"The committee, however, has rec
commended the impeachment or judge
Archibald on thirteen other charges,
only two of which relate to the per-
formance by him of any judicial act,
and in neither of the two excepted
cases Is 1t charged that he acted cor
ruptly.
THE principal charge by the com
mlttee relates to Judge Archbalds
connection with the attempted pur-
chase from the Hillside Coal and iron
company Ga subsidiary of the Erie
railroad company, of its interest In
the Katydid Culm dump. That Judge
Archibald was interested In the pro-
posed purchase is not denied. 1t Is
not claimed by the committee, and we
assume that it will not be claimed by
any one that the mere fact that fed
eral Judge Is Interested in the at
tempted purchase Of property from
one who is or may be litigant in MS
court is a criminal offense or Is even
in itself evidence of a corrupt mind.
In his report the sole ground upon
which the committee relies in reach
ing its conclusion that in this partic-
ular case Judge Archibald acted cor
ruptly Is the evidence as to the value
of the Katydid Culm Dump. The
committee assumes that the interest
of the Hillside company In the dump
was worth a great deal more than
Judge Archibald and his associates
were TO pay for 1t.