Evening journal., 1918-08-09
COUNCIL HEARSCASE
OF UTILITIES BOARD
Stenographic Notes object
ings Only Evidence in I'm
peachment Hearing
GARRETSON SAYS HE'S
FIVE-CENT FARE MAN

Following session lasting three
hours with the Thermometer registering
q4 degrees In Council chambers, mel.-.
bers or City Council heard impeachment
proceeding instituted by that body
AGAINST C. d. GarretsOn and Philip j.
Isaac. members Of the Board OF Public
Utilities Commission, sometime ago.
These charges were filed last week by
Councilman Robertson, when the case
was postponed until last night. The
hearing was concluded shortly before
midnight when it was announced a
decision would be handed down by
Council In the near future.
The hearings were featured at times
by Tits between Philip l.. Garrett and
Henry r. Isaacs, representing Commits
sioners Garretson and Isaac, and Coun-
Gilman Robertson and President Of
Council Lyon, who presided at the
hearing. The Councllmen called but
two Witnesses in their case against the
commissioner, who were charged with
misfeasance and nOnfeasance. These
witnesses were two stenographers who
took notes at meetings OF the Commits
sioners with Council on June o and
June "a. during which It was alleged
that Mr.. Garretson had stated that he
would be opposed to the Commission
ers resembling their order granting the
Wilmington and Philadelphia Traction
Company the right TO increase trolley
fares. The stenographic report showed
that the following question was asked
Mr. Garretson:
"If this company should be bought
by a party and bought on an honest
valuation Of the property and not on
the watered stock valuation, would the
board consider resembling the Order2
What we want 20 do is to protect the
pocketbooks Of the people OF Whining
ton and II the person who buys 1t
could give the people better service
than they are getting at the present
time for a flve-cent fare. would not the
board think It was their duty to res
clnd its order?"
Mr.. Garretson last night denied that
the question asked him at that time by
Mr.. Robertson was so worded, but said
that the question asked had been as
follows:
N man or set OF men made a bone
flda offer to buy the Traction Company,
etc"
This was known as No. 10 in the bill
of particulars and It appeared to be the
only one that the Councilmen hinged
their case on, no direct evidence being
produced by them bearing on the other
nine counts in the bill OF particulars.
Mr.. Garrett, attorney for Mr.. Gar
retson, questioned his client at length
on the other nine counts in the bill OF
particulars.
When the case was opened last night
by President of Council Lyon, Mr.. Gar
rett asked that the charges be dropped,
contending that the bill Of particulars
did not allege anything sufficient as
5asis for impeachment Henry r.
lsaacs, attorney for Commissioner
Isaac, also made similar motion,
both OF which were voted down by
Council unanimously. The attorneys
asked that exceptions be noted.
Mr.. Robertson then called the two
witnesses, Wilmer 5. Boldly. a stenO-
grapher, chief clerk in the district
superintendent office. United States |
Department OF Labor Employment Ser
Vice. and Arthur G.. NOlkman. another |
stenographer. Both men testified TO /
the statements alleged to have been |
mado by Mr.. Garretson and Mr. Isaac |
at the meetings in Council chambers in |
June. Boldly testified that the language |
quoted in the bill Of particulars alleged |
10 have been used by Mr.. Garretson was
correct.
Following the calling Of these wit |
nesses, Mr.. Robertson, who had ad- |
mlnlstered the oath to the witness, !
called Mr.. Garretson, which caused Mr., !
Garrett to object, saying that the State
constitution did not compel any man
10 testify against himself, and his re-
fusal to testify should not be held pref
udical to him. Mr.. Robestson said he
thought Mr.. Garretson would be glad
of chance to testify.
Councilman Catccart said that II he
was In Mr.. Garretsons place with the
same charges on his shoulders, no laws
on Gods earth would keep him from
defending himself.
Mr.. Garrett coniended that Il was
up to City Council to first produce the
edivence against Mr.. Garretson and he
added that il the case proceeded the
way he wanted It, he planned TO call
Mr.. Garretson himself.
Mr.. Robertson then read assignment
No. 10 after which he moved that the
case be closed against Mr.. Garretson.
Mr.. Robertson objected TO a motion