The Washington times., 1914-07-31
WRIGHT PROBERS
QUIZ TWO LAWYERS
Facts of the Elliott Contempt
Case Reviewed by R. Ross
Perry and Nathaniel Wilson.

The committee investigating the i'm
peachment charges against Justice
Daniel Thew Wright. resumed its probe
Of the Elliott contempt case. tried be-
fore Justice Wright, when Attorneys
r. Ross Perry and Nathaniel Wilson
were examined today
Mrs. Perry was asked about an edi-
torial which appeared in an evening
paper. touching on the Elliott incident
end critIcising Justice Wright for his
alleged arbitrary action in refusing to
permit Attorney Perry to advise Elliott
as to the rights in answering certain
question.
Attorney Wilson reviewed the action
ef Justice Wright in holding Elliott in
contempt of court, and he touched
briefly on criticisms he had heard of
Justice Wright.
When questioned by Attorney Darl-
ington, Mr.. Wilson said his relations
with Justice had always been friendly
Slthough not intimate.
In the last ten years have you ever
Snade or heard any criticism unfavor-
able to Justice Wrisht?" asked Chair
man Mccoy.
II have had very decided convictions
about the seriousness of the business
of a Judge" responded Mr.. Wilson.
and about the necessity Of a judge
being di1erent from anybody else.
as Il is a very dangerous thing to
members Of the bar or those outside.
J have felt that there is absolute need
for a judge to keep away from any
influences"
Ralph Barnard, who, testified pre-
yiously about a conversation he had
with Justice Wright with reference
to the colored members of the bar.
corrected the record of his testimony,
saying he had misunderstood a ques-
ton put by Attorney Darlington.
Perry Briefly Re-examined.
Attorney Ross Perry was briefly re-
examined today on an editorial which
appeared in an afternoon paper in 1908.
regarding the court episode in which
Justice wright and. the attorney fig
ured. the latter being directed to take
his seat"
DO you know why the editorial was
NO. I did not write it. and know
nothing about it, said Mr.. Perry.
You were counsel for the paper at
the timer
Yes"
Mr.. Perry said he had never written
an editorial in his life-with the eXcep-
ton of one boosting a Christmas Day
cSleOrdtlOn-
The next witness was Attorney Ma
thaniel Wilson, a veteran practitioner.
who related the details of the II. B. FL
hott contempt case of 1902.
Mr.. Wilson said Mr.. Elliott was
a young attorney in his office. and
that one day he CMr. WILSON, was asked
to come to Justice Wrights court.
where Mr. Elliott was in difficulty.
Elliott asked his advice, he said, about
answering question in a pending case,
~ nl,-Ee l. - l. l.,
own judgment-if the information came
10 him confidentially he was not OBJ
hged to reveal Il.
Was Sent To Jail.
Mr.. Elliott declined to answer the
question and the court insisted that he
must do So" said Mr.. Wilson. when
Elliott refused he was committed for
contempt A motion to quash was over
ruled and he was sent to Jail. There was
also a writ of habeas corpus which was
made returnable to Justice Wright by
the Chief Justice, Mr.. Clabaugh. This
writ was denied and Justice Wright re-
fused bail to Mr.. Elliott, although an
appeal was taken TO the Court of APP
peals"
Mr.. Wilson said that quite a Spirited
Interchange occurred between himself
And Justice Wright over the rights of
Mr. Elliott and the appeal filed, but
tn1t Ine matter was afterWard Straight
ned out by mutual explanations in
",'urt For time, he said. he felt that
he justice had made remarks which
reflected upon him as an attorney.
Justice Wright had decided on the
matter" he said, land he believed that
contempt committed against his court
vas not renewable by any other justice
- the Supreme Court of the District, but
mat he alone had Jurisdiction"
Justice Wright Refused Bail.
did Justice Wright refuse bail, al
though an appeal had been taken to the
Court Of Appeals after Justice Wright
himself had heard the habeas corpus
natter" asked Chairman Mccoy.
Yes" said Mr.. Wilson, who added
that the Court of Appeals allowed bail
ond rendered an opinion in favor of
Elliott.
The Elliott case is known as the
'traresty of justice" case in the Coop
er charges. the Court Of Appeals ex-
J'ressing the opinion that it was a mis-
oarriage OF Justice TO send to the orig
NAL trial Judge in a contempt matter
me habeas corpus writ in the same
case.