The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-15
GAVE REBUKE TO HIM
District Attorney Spends
Busy Day Assailing His
Judgeship Foes.
SOME OF THEM DON'T CARE
Fight Over Reputation of EX-
Jurist by City Bar Associa-
ton Stirs Attorney.

In a statement issued last night John
A. Carver. vce-presdent of the Assoc
citation of the Bar of the City of New
York. charged that District Attorney
Edward Swami deliberately lied on
Wednesday night when he said that Mr..
Carver had called upon the District
Attorney and asked him to consent to a
Judgment setting aside the so cent gas
Law.
He further said that Mr. Swann's
statement was absurd on its face be-
cause the District Attorney was never
in position to enter into any such
agreement, as the Federal action .nvolv
ing the gas rate question was being
defended by the Public Service Commits
sion and the Attorney General. AID the
District Attorney did no work upon the
case, and merely appeared in Il for
short time as a formality.
While MIR. Carver was issuing tbs
statement Mr.. Swami launched a series
of attacks upon all of the members
of the Judiciary committee of the Bar
Association. which refused Wednesday
night to indorse the District Attorneys
Supreme Court candidacy. His state
ment charged Only that either they or
their ners at times had represented
corpora Ious OF individuals involved in
litigation against the city.
Mr.. Swami also gave out through his
Office "A statement bearing the signature
OF Samuel Untermyer. whose son the
Bar Association helped to defeat in the
contests for election to the Supreme
Court bench last year.
Denies Charges in Detail.
MIR Carers reply went into details
n TO ,ns relations with the District
Attorney In the litigation over the gas
rate question with n view to exposing
the fa.sity of the public officials state
Inents.
District Attorney Swami attempts to
meet the serious charges OF misconduct
aeoinst him by the judiciary committee
Of. the Bar Association Mr.. Carver
said. "by brir ging forward entirely ir-
relevant matter, some of which concerns
me. IN doing this he exhibits the char
ac;cr:stics which the Bar Association
has condemned
at is absolutely false that / asked
him 10 withdraw his answer in the gas
case TO which he refers or that I re-
qlested him TO consent to judgment
In favor of the company setting aside
III cish;y cent law.
q VI tIiow ridiculous the statement of the
DISTRICT Attorney is is obvious in the
fact tiat both the Public Service Com
mission and the Attorney had
prrviousy served separate answers,
putting in issue the allegations of the
company's complaint and that the
withdrawal Of the answer by the
abled the company to obtain a judg-
mcnt.
THE District Attorney was made
party defenCen. merely because II
10 his duty 70 enforce the penalties
provided in the case of violation of
statute. Robert c. Taylor entered
an appearance as his solicitor on
March IL. 1919. and his time to answer
expired on April "A, 1919 No answer,
however. was served and he remained
IN default for some time. when his
attention was called to the fact and
7 consented TO waive the default"
Mr.. Carver explained that the city had
applied to be made n party to the pro-
ceedings which were pending In the Fed
eral court. and that Judge Julius NJ.
Mayer had ruled that. as a matter OF
law. the city was neither a necessary
nor a proper party. In May, 1919. he
been requested TO permit the Corporation
Counsel to be substituted as his attorney
in place of Mr.. Taylor which was a pal
pable attempt to cvade Judge Mayors
order refusing to make the city a party
TO the action.
Delay In Filing Gas Answer.
II was for the purpose of advising Mr..
Swami as TO the improperly Of consent
kt4er 60 ...l.
Mr.. Carver said. that he called upon the
District Attorney on May g. 1919, at
which time Mr.. Swami informed him
that he had Informed the Mayor that he
would consent to the substitution At
the time of this visit which was his only
visit 60 Mr.. Swami IN connection with
the case. Mr.. Carver said no answer
had been ficd by the District Attorneys
office 10 the gas company's suit and the
answer was not filled until n fortnight
later, when II came from the office Of
the Corporation Counsel and not from
the District Attorney
AT the Office OF Delaney Nicoll who
was characterized by Mr.. Swami as no
htical counsel for the Interborough
Rapid Transit Company" the only com
ment was: Who cares what Swami
says. anyway" Mr. Nicoll would not
talk.
Mr.. Swami spent the greater part Of
the day debating statements contain
Ing references to the traction monopo-
"" ''pronteering landlords" and other
interests which he says are allied
against him.
In Mr.. Swans attack upon members
of the commit that refused 10 in
dorse hts candidacy, he speaks Of VIII
lam ID. Guthrie. chairman Of the COM
mittee. as "o<~insel for the traction com.
bination." and says his partner skill
fully devised the scheme for transfer
ring the assets and franchises OF the
tfanction companies through a series
90 corporations frorl the Metropolitan
90 the marlborough. He was counsei
for and defended those who perpetrated
the frauds known as the Wall street
ferry scandal
Speaking Of De Lancey NicolI the
District Attorney said 1T is quite nat
ural that he. in carrying out the orders
of his clients would oppose me for any
public office because of my efforts 10
prevent the imposition OF a ten cent fare
upon the people OF this city"
Another member OF the committee
g. ex-Justice Francis NJ Scott" said
Mr. Swami He, I am informed. was
recently w. 4 as counsel bv some Of
tho gas CO. anies TO help bring about
On Increased price for gas In violation
az the state statute. The same Fran
~