602 



NEW YORK. 



An unusual number of investigations were 

 set on foot, some of which were to continue 

 during the recess. Among the latter was one 

 regarding the effect of dealing in " futures " 

 and getting up u corners " in grain, provisions, 

 etc., and one affecting the administration of 

 the Department of Public Works in New York 

 city. There were two investigations of alleged 

 abuses in the management of receiverships of 

 insolvent insurance companies one made by 

 the Senate and the other by the Assembly. 

 The former was conducted by the regular In- 

 surance Committee of the Senate, and was con- 

 tinued during the recess. In the Assembly, it 

 was proposed at first to place the investigation 

 in the hands of the Committee on Insurance, 

 but, as there were some indications of a purpose 

 to smother the inquiry, it was promptly taken 

 from that body and placed in the hands of a 

 special committee, of which Mr. Chapin, of 

 Kings County, was the chairman, and Major 

 Haggerty, of New York, proved to be an ac- 

 tive and zealous member. The report of this 

 committee was submitted about two weeks be- 

 fore the end of the session. The principal 

 charges had been that there were unnecessary 

 delay, inordinate expenses, and general laxity 

 of management in closing up the affairs of in- 

 solvent insurance companies and savings-banks. 

 These were fully sustained by the investigation. 

 Among other features of the committee's re- 

 port were a review and condemnation of the 

 course of Judge T. R. Westbrook, of the Su- 

 preme Court, who, as was alleged, had made 

 several appointments of receivers and granted 

 many of the orders under which their extrav- 

 agant and inefficient proceedings had taken 

 place. Many facts and details were presented 

 in the report, and legislation was recommended. 

 Several acts were considered, some of which 

 had been introduced into one House or the 

 other, before the committee's report was made. 

 One of these, submitted in the Assembly by 

 Mr. Sharpe, of Ulster, and providing for the 

 general charge of the winding up of insolvent 

 corporations by the State Treasurer, with the 

 legal aid of the Attorney-General, passed both 

 Houses, but was vetoed by the Governor after 

 the close of the session. 



Another important investigation was set on 

 foot in the Assembly by the following reso- 

 lution, offered by Mr. Roosevelt, of New 

 York: 



Whereas, Charges have been made from time to 

 time by the public press against the late Attorney- 

 General, Hamilton Ward, and T. E. Westbrook, a 

 Justice of the Supreme Court of this State, on ac- 

 count of their official conduct in relation to suits 

 brought against the Manhattan Eailway ; and 



Whereas, Those charges have, in the opinion of 

 many persons, never been explained or fairly refuted ; 

 and 



Whereas, It is of vital importance that the judiciary 

 of this State should be beyond reproach : therefore 



JResolved, That the Judiciary Committee be and it 

 is hereby empowered and directed to investigate the 

 conduct of the late Attorney-General, Hamilton Ward, 

 and Justice T. E. Westbrook, in relation to the suits 



against the Manhattan Elevated Eailroad, and report 

 at the earliest day practicable to this Legislature. 



This resolution was strenuously opposed by 

 the friends of Judge Westbrook, but was adopt- 

 ed on the 12th of April by a vote of 99 to 14. 

 There was some delay in beginning the inves- 

 tigation, and at the request of the committee 

 it was allowed the assistance of counsel, Mr. 

 Albertis Perry, of Oswego, and Mr. F. L. Stet- 

 son, of New York, being selected for the pur- 

 pose. The inquiry was conducted in part at 

 Albany and in part in the city of New York. 

 Efforts were made to secure a final adjourn- 

 ment of the Legislature before the investiga- 

 tion was finished, but it was defeated. The 

 committee made its report on the 31st of May. 

 The majority, after reviewing the evidence, 

 presented their conclusion in the following 

 resolution : 



Resolved, That Theodoric E. Westbrook, a Justice 

 of the Supreme Court of this State, has not, upon the 

 evidence submitted to the Judiciary Committee of 

 this House, been guilty of any impeachable offense. 



In justifying this conclusion, the signers of 

 the report, consisting of W. A. Ponder, chair- 

 man of the committee, F. B. Smith, Amasa J. 

 Parker, Jr., O. S. Searl, James D. McClelland, 

 and D. S. Potter, said : 



The statutory description pt impeachable offenses 

 is " mal and corrupt conduct in office and high crimes 

 and misdemeanors (1 E. S. [fifth ed.], 456). The 

 term "mal and corrupt conduct in office," as defined 

 by Judge Grpver in the case of a judicial officer, con- 

 sists of " an intentional violation of duty to the preju- 

 dice of public justice, or a reckless exercise of his func- 

 tions, indifferent as to whether what was done was 

 right or wrong." Applying this test to the judicial 

 conduct of Judge Westbrook, as disclosed by the evi- 

 dence before them, your committee have come to the 

 conclusion that, although in some instances his ac- 

 tions have been indiscreet and unwise, yet there is 

 nothing in that conduct which affords ground for im- 

 peachment. The committee have discussed at some 

 length the merits of orders for the granting of which 

 it isTurged that Judge Westbrook should be impeached. 

 They have done this in order to ascertain, if possible, 

 whether or not the ;judge was actuated by unworthy 

 or improper motives in granting such orders, and not 

 because they deemed it within their province to re- 

 view his errors, whether of fact or of law. Every 

 lawyer knows that almost daily orders are made and 

 judgments given, which, on review by the judge him- 

 self or an appellant tribunal, are vacated, modified, or 

 reversed as oeing improvident, irregular, or illegal. 

 Tribunals are especially established by the Constitu- 

 tion and laws for the correction of such errors, and it 

 would be a dangerous precedent for a legislative _com- 

 mittee to assume this prerogative and condemn a. Judge 

 for his mistakes, omissions, or inadvertencies. Under 

 such a system, and tried by the standard which has 

 been urged upon the committee in this case, there is 

 not a judge in the State who would be safe from im- 

 peachment. The private character of Judge West- 

 brook is without a stain. His industry and ability are 

 shown by his numerous opinions recorded in the re- 

 ports, by the united voice of the bar of the Third Ju- 

 dicial District, and the testimony in this case. Before 

 recommending the impeachment of such a judge, your 

 committee have deemed it their duty to require that 

 specific acts of mal and corrupt conduct on his part 

 should be established, not by hearsay, or surmises, or 

 fanciful inferences, but by legal and convincing evi- 

 dence. In the opinion of your committee that has not 

 been done. 



