Page images
PDF
EPUB

matter to send it to the Grievance Committee, and I therefore move that the motion to refer it to the Grievance Committee be laid upon the table. I think that the proper action upon this paper, which ought not to have been read publicly before this Association, because the name of one of our judicial officers is mentioned in it, it ought to have been read in an executive session of this body, it is the handling of a man's name, whose record has been that of a good citizen, who was thought by his constituents to be of such a character that he could be elected a Judge of the Supreme Court of this great State.

How easy it is to put a stain upon a good name by an aspersion, or an insinuation, or by innuendo destroy, effectually destroy, the character of a man who has stood upright, and square, and manly, before the community in which he lives? Now, then, this communication should, in my judgment, Mr. President, and I hated to speak upon this question, but I felt, after hearing what happened and hearing this paper read, we should have respectfully sent that paper back to the Jamestown Bar Association, stating to them that we cannot receive that paper, as they do not attempt to make charges; it is a mere communication that ought to be referred back to them and not go to our Committee on Grievances. There is no complaint here to go before this Committee, and, under the Constitution itself, which I have read, and I have read it as it is printed here, I do not believe that our Committee on Grievances has jurisdiction of the matter, and I most respectfully move that the resolution be laid upon the table.

The President:

The motion before the house is that the motion to refer this matter to the Grievance Committee be laid upon the table.

Frank Harvey Field, of Brooklyn:

Mr. President, I didn't hear a second to the motion to lay on the table, so I presume the main question is still debatable.

The President:

I am not very stringent about holding matters not debatable.

Mr. Field:

I simply want to venture one or two observations upon this matter. Of course, it is an exceedingly unfortunate thing that the name of a Supreme Court Justice should be involved in the post-office scandals that have been going about the country. We have had one unfortunate echo of them down in Brooklyn, where a distinguished ex-Member of Congress, a very much honored citizen, has been found guilty of connection with a contract while a Member of Congress, and subjected to a heavy fine. The entire country is more or less agitated over this matter, and, perhaps, that tells against anyone whose name is brought into connection in any way with it. It seems to me that the point of the last speaker is not well taken. While the Jamestown Bar Association disclaims making any charges, they certainly set forth facts that seem to me to constitute a complaint, and to lay the matter on the table, when it has been brought before us by a local Bar Association, does not seem to me to cover the question. We ought either to send it back to the Jamestown Association, with the suggestion that they formulate charges, or else that it ought to take the course suggested by Mr. Hornblower, and be referred to our Committee on Grievances. If it is referred to the Committee on Grievances, and the complaints do not rise to the seriousness of charges, or, if in the minds of that

very able Committee of this body, they do not deem the matter worthy of the rank of complaint, and altogether deem Justice Hooker's connection with the matters have been honorable, it seems to me there could be no better body to consider and clear the character of the Justice concerned. So it seems to me that the matter either ought to take the course suggested in the motion of Mr. Hornblower, or else sent back to Jamestown, with the specific suggestion that the matters complained of be more specifically formulated.

Mr. Lovatt:

Mr. President, I intended to make a motion embodying the suggestion just made by the gentleman from Brooklyn, but I didn't think I could on an amendment to Mr. Hornblower's motion, that it would hardly be considered an amendment, it might be offered as a substitute, but if it is in order, I would move, as an amendment, that this paper be referred back to the Jamestown Bar Association, with a request that if, in their judgment upon this question, the facts warranted it, that they should put their communication in the form of charges and transmit it to the Committee on Grievances of this Association. I want to make it just as full as possible.

The President:

I understand the motion to lay upon the table is withdrawn.

Mr. Lovatt:

Yes, sir.

The President:

There is substituted for it a motion to amend, to the effect of returning this paper to the Jamestown Bar

Association for an investigation on their account, and then, if they prefer a complaint or charges, for their resubmitment to us, to the Committee on Grievances - is that amendment seconded?

Horace McGuire, of Rochester:

I second the amendment.

George E. Waldo, of New York:

Mr. President, it seems to me the first speaker is entirely correct in his definition of this communication as being a complaint, and if it is signed by a Bar Association, which is represented here, it clearly is equivalent to a signature of a member. While I, with that speaker, do not in any way prejudge the Justice, or intimate in any way that there is any foundation for this complaint, yet, so far as any publicity is concerned, that has already been had in the press all over this State, and all over the country, and I believe that it is due to this Association, due to the Bar of this State, due to the Supreme Court, and it is due to Mr. Justice Hooker, that this matter should be investigated by this Association, by its Grievance Committee, and Justice Hooker's name should be cleared from all aspersions, if these charges are unfounded; and if they are founded, that then proper course should be taken by this Association. There is nothing that brings this Association, there is nothing that brings the Bar of this State, or of the country, into more discredit, than their not taking proper course when complaints are made of any member of the Bar, or of any member of the Supreme Court, and it is a duty that we owe to ourselves, as members of this profession, that we should take the steps suggested in the original motion.

Simon W. Rosendale, of Albany:

Mr. President, I warmly second the proposition made by Ex-President Hornblower in this matter. I listened to the criticism or objection made by Mr. Lovatt to referring this to the Committee on Grievances, but it seems to me it is a misconstruction. The powers referred to in paragraph 8, on the Committee on Grievances, you will see in a moment, refers to the powers of the Committee as a Committee: "The Committee may receive and hear all complaints," etc., of course, that confers the power and jurisdiction upon the Committee to receive things outside of the meetings of the Association,— sort of a second tribunal, as a Committee organized and representing the Association to receive these communications, and to act upon them, and further they may, in their discretion, hear any specific complaint that may be made to it by any member in writing. I recollect when this Committee on Grievances was organized, and this By-Law adopted, it was the purpose of the Association to clothe the Committee with the receipt of these complaints during the interregnum of the sessions of the Association. It was believed to be proper to have a tribunal to which complaints might be made. It is very evident that unless there is some such power existing somewhere, or unless the Association will take cognizance of public complaints, or private complaints, made in respect to such matters as seem to be contained in this communication, there is no reason for the existence of the Association. Certainly it seems any respectful communication received by this Association, may be taken up by it and may be by it referred to any of its Committees. It does not follow, because the Committee on Grievances is clothed with certain powers and authority, specifically mentioned, it in anywise interferes with the power of the

« PreviousContinue »