Evening star., 1949-08-23
Criticism Of Star Editorial
In Comment on the Carter Case.


In Comment on the Carter Case.
fSee Editorial: A Matter OF tMisinterpretatioD
To the Editor Of The Star
Nine days after the U. 8. Court Of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia Circuit
voided on August /. 1949, the action Of four
District Court judges who refused to allow
a bondsman to continue serving after one
of the judges previously had approved his
application, The Evening Star saw fit to
call in question the unanimous decision Of
judges Bennett Champ Clark, William K.
Miller and E. Barrett Prettyman the latter
of whom wrote the decision for the court.
Messrs Harold H. Bacon, Assistant U. 8.
Attorney; George Morris Fay, U. S. Attorney
Ross O'Donoghue and John D. Lane Assist
ant u. 8. Attorneys, were on the brief for
the u g. Attorney as amicus curiae, urging
dismissal Of the appeal. Mr.. L. Clark Ewing,
Assistant y. s. Attorney also entered an
appearance for amicus curiae.
Mr.. Philip B. Perlman. Solicitor General
of the United States, reargued on behalf OF
the u 8. Attorney as amicus curiae urging
''the dismissal Of the appeal or aflrmance
Of the orders"
Here was glittering and formidable array
Of Governmental legal counsel.
Mr. George e. c. Hayes, with whom
Messrs. James A. Cobb and Howard Jenkins.
jr., were on the brief, appeared for the
bondsman.
In its analysis Of the controverted ques-
tions which arose. the U. s. Court of Ap-
peals found that the bondsman was granted
authorization to engage in the business Of
executing bonds" and entered upon the busi-
ness,
Afterward. the Judge who had at first
approved the application called in question
y statement to the effect that the bondsman
~ {AtA
Of any offenSe involving moral turpitude.
At the hearing, the bondsmans attorney.
Mr.. Hayes, contended that he. the bonds
man, had never been convicted Of any Of
the charges made against him 20 and 13
years before and further. that he had never
been even tried upon any OF them-au had
been nolled pressed or dismissed The record
therefore stood clear. the Court Of Appeals
held, as Mr.. Hayes had asserted at the hear
ing. It is important to quote this statement
in the published opinion.
In the hearing to shcwAcause, it was de-
veloped:
".s . The application for authority to
engage In the bonding business had been
prepared by q reputable. experienced and
respected member, Of the bar. This attorney
{Mr. Hayes) kueWsof the charges against
Carter. He also knew that the statute and
the rules required information as to con-
victions only. But never having heretofore
PREPARED one Of these applications, he went
to the District Court and copied the Ian
guage from an application which had been
approved i" = the attorney interpreted the
expression, in view Of the statute and the
rules, as meaning charged and convicted.
or simply convicted The court con-
cluded that the statement on the application
had been made In good faith, not willfully
or with purpose to deceive the court
I am led to the conclusion (the judge OF
the District Court saidO that 1t was given
in good faith. partly because Of the high
standing Of the applicants counsel"
Six months after the hearing referred to,
the District Court however entered an order
denying the application.
The Star in its editorial expression states
"that counsel (Mr. Hayes had misrepre-
sented the facts" Twice The Star repeats
the ~ statement that Counsel had misrepre-
sented the facts" This Is an ugly charge.
not borne out by the record as above quoted,
and tends to smear an honored member OF
the District Bar Of many years standing.
and one whose whole professional life has
been usefully spent in the District Of Co
lumbia, and in no way justifying your ur-
called for reflections upon him.
Two interpretations-the one held by the
District Court Judge. and the Interpretation
(not Misrepresentation as submitted 10 the
District Court by MIR. Hayes-were at issue
before the Court Of Appeals. After full con-
sideration, the Court of Appeals upheld the
Interpretation Of MIR. Hayes.
The difference in meaning between the
words Interpretation" and "misrepresenta-
ton" is as wide as East is from West. The
callous use by you Of the word "misrepre-
sentation" in your editorial does cruel in
justice to one who, for SO many years. has
worthily won the confidence and respect Of
this community. EMMETT j. SCOTT.