The sun., 1917-08-30
SWAMI PILLORIED IN
INGRAHAM' REPORT
Commissioner Excoriates the
Prosecutor. but Cant Prove
Delchsnty Charge.
HEARING WAS NrLLIFIED
Hurried Indictments for Per-
jury Made II Impossible to
Use Witnesses.

Edward Swami. District Attorney. was
severely criticised yesterday in q long
report to Gov. Whitman by George
l." lngraham. special commissions
~ nd to hear the evidence upon which
'ity club and James A pcletIant%
80 "a, to have Mr. Swami removed from
,r'' The special commissioner iaiis
| to ind any adequate ground for removal
and recommends to the Governor tha' no
| ssich action be taken.
| But in the courpe Of an exhaustive re-
view NJ the labor troubles that led UP ~
the charges. Of the action taken by the
\ District Attorney In cases growing Out
Of these troubles and Of his method OF
meeting the City Club and Delehanty at
tacks the 1ne-aham report offers un-
! insulated criticism of the prosecuting
! officials.
! And the commissioner states bluntly
that the District Attorney was aware Of
each OF the things done by his .ubordi-
, mates OF which the criticism is made
Viola ton Of the constitutional rights Of
accused person and then without any
warrant in law, practically dismissinE
prosecutions after indictments had been
returned when the defendants had come
to the aid of the District Attorneys per
sonal case are the most serious derelic-
/ Nature Of the Charges.
The City Club and Delehanty charges.
says the report. alleged misconduct in
Office. ,ncompetency and neglect ana vio-
lations of the law in the administration
of the Distric, Attorneys once In 1916
and 1917. Mr. Swami was charged with
fling with the Court OF General Sessions
misleading and false recommendations
A.r L. alCr
charged with seeking TO intimdate
Lucien :. Breckenridge. whose testimony
WAS material to the investigation OF the
charges.
, The Ingraham report reviews the
labor troubles among the garment
makers durinS the years subsequent TO
1910, including the murder of one Liebo-
witz and an assault upon David Manuse-
vitI Four indictments were found In
: the latter case Lucien 5. Breckenridge
was retained as a special assistant TO
: prosecute the chaarres and twelve addi-
tional indictments were found The in
dictments were pending when the pres
ent tanGle began and the District At
torney's Office presenteu TO the court a
recommendation that the bail Of the de-
4 PENDANTS be discharged In each OF the
!. twelve cases the District Attorney GER
, tined that he did not believe that con-
e indictment Of RrecktnridH~.
Then followed the charge that Rreck-
y inridge had been indicted subsequent 10
: the making OF charges against Mr.
u Swami upon the charge OF receiving
money from persons interested in the
prosecu ton OF the labor cases.
The whole prosecution for these
| crimes" says the report would see,n
| ho, n n6npah IuARe
ehanty transmitted q copy OF his memo
randum TO Your Excellency. which re-
u fiected upon the prosecution OF these Of
fences and the administration of the la "
In relation TO these labor union dis
a turbances. Immediately there was great
a activity by the whole District Attorneys
= etan. not apparently to prosecute thoss
v guilty OF the crimes. but to discover
r. some method of pushing those who has
h testified as TO the ones who had com
m!tted the crimes As against Breckin
!. ridge who had been an Assistant DIS
n trict Attorney during his predecessor
y term Of office, witness was procureI
h who testified that Breckenridge had bee'
" guilty OF receiving money from those in
d terested in the prosecution OF the de
II PENDANTS Breckenridge wac thereupc'
y indicted.
witaesses Not Dope dable.
.Breckinridge having been disposed O
as witness by the indictment agains
him. the only other witnesses who coul
n, possibly testify to sustain the charge
made by Judge Delehanty against th
District Attorney were the witnesse
p upon whose testimony the Indictment
r. for murder and assault and robbery an
AZ other crimes had been obtained Thes
eI witnesses included the persons who ha
I'd been assaulted and were the victims c
the crimes to punish which the indic,
NJ ments had been obtained. The Assistar
I'd District Attorneys had come to the cor
,s ciusion that these witnesses had all bee
ls guilty OF perjury before the Grand Jur!
=. lust what that was based on does M
70 appear but II is quite evident that
is the witnesses could be indicted or COZ
o. victed for perjury, or induced to confe'
that their testimony before the Gran
Jury had been false their credibility q
!, witnesses In any investigation OF II
charges against the District Attorne
would be destroyed
II The report continues that the wi
nesses were indicted for perjury and he
under bail too heavy for them TO Civ
eo and that they were taken 10 the offit
r. of the District Attorney and sweatt
p for long periods Under this pressu,
ne several of them confessed and were i,
% dicted.
o' In concluding his report Commission
. lngraham said:
There is no charge. and there is
,, evidence OF any corruption as that ter
~. is usually understood, that is. of &c
~ Influenced by a monetary or fnanci
" ",u consideration. The respondent has hi
~, ! a long experience at the bar and on q
o' bench of the Court of General Session
have with freedom criticised the co
duct OF the District Attorney and !
J. assistants in relation 10 the matters tn
are included in the charge and includ
On in my report. but have come to I
conclusion, and recommend 10 your T.
celiency that, considering all the G
uel cumstances disclosed and the fact tn
an there Is no charge Of a general faiiu
red properly to perform the duties or I
rk- oftice except as hereinbefore specific
ev the public interest would Justify yo
ion Excellency in the exercise OF your d
or cretion in refraining from removing t
the respondent as District Attorney OF