The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1914-06-06

morning of that day with Mrs. Gould
to 20 to a dentist. We met Mr.. Lambert
at the rear OF the Treasury Building
and after exchanging remarks with him
We proceeded to our house on Sixteenth
street. <
After lunch Mr.. Lambert and Mr.. Les
ter came up to my house In their motor.
and am unable to say which did the
talking. They had an application for
receiver In the case you mention.
asked them the customary questions,
and they said they had gotten together
and agreed on the appointment Of re-
ceiver. / asked them where Justice
Wright was, and they told me he had
left the courthouse and they were UNI
able to find him. They explained they
had selected two attorneys. represent
ing each side. and put In Mr.. Reside as
q practical man. ! signed the order at
my house in this city,"
Justice Gould said that at the time
he did not know the bond for the receiv-
ers had not been approved by Judge
Wright, and that therefore the matter
would have to go over for another day
anyhow. because the approval Of the
bond was necessary to make the receiv-
ership order operative.
Argue Hypothetical Question.
Justice Gould. Attorney Darlington.
and the committee thereupon became
enmeshed in a tangle Of hypothetical
questions, involving what action Justice
Gould might have taken IL he had known
these things and II certain other condi-
lions had been different The net result
of the replies seemed to substantiate the
contention of the defence that Justice
Gould had acted. in part at least, under
a MISREPRESENTATION
Representative Nelson, of the commit
tee, was interested to know upon what
grounds Justice Wright had set aside
the order Of Justice Gould and appointed
Ambrose to the receivership.
You appointed three gentlemen as re-
ceivers. and thought they were fit men
for the work. Did Justice Wright have
any complaint to make as to their 1T
ness?
No, sir
"or as to the legality of your action In
signing the order for their appoint
ment?"
mo. sir. but ] think he felt that, as
vacation Judge, he had the sole control
over the matter, as he was presiding
over the case"
Then it was a matter of pride with
him?'
More Than Pride.
Il would not say that 1 believe he
felt that these men had gone behind his
back. That would have been more than
a matter OF personal pride. II would
have meant rather a feeling that some
Of his judicial functions had been taken
away"
Later Mr.. Nelson suggested that II was
a question of judicial patronage. but
Justice Gould couldn't see II in SO light
a vein.
Were you ever asked by Judge Wright
to try the Cooper case% asked Chair
man Mccoy.
Since the death of Justice Clabaugh."
replied Justice Gould. Il have been pre-
siding in Court No. l. which handles the
criminal cases, and before which the
Cooper libel case would come. At one
lime Justice Wright asked me IL i would
Try the case. He said in effect that he
saw no reason why this case should take |
any different course from other criminal |
asses" |
Willing to Preside.
Justice Gould explained that Wright
had meant that the impending Congress |
,ional investigation should not stand in |
he way. Continuing. he said:
Il suggested that while l was willing |
o try the case / questioned the eNpedi-
.ncy of such a course. j felt that my
citations with Justice Wright were such |
hat / ought not to try il, not that
elt l coud not try it fairly. but as you
NOW. 1t is as important that the public |
eel that the case had been tried with
ut bias as that it should be so tried.
Judge Wright acquiesced In this and that |
nded the incident as far as I know
Justice Gould stressed his statement
hat Justice Wright's purpose had not
zen to urge him to try the case but \
merely to ascertain IL he was willing
o do so.
The committee will meet again at / |,
clock Monday afternoon. II