IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

July 29, 1912.

Ordered, That the answer of the respondent Robert W. Archbald, additional circuit judge of the United States from the third judicial circuit, and designated as one of the judges of the United States Commerce Court, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, be printed for the use of the Senate sitting in the trial of said impeachment.

Attest:

CHARLES G. BENNETT, Secretary.

ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD.

In the Senate of the United States sitting as a Court of Impeachment for the trial of Robert Wodrow Archbald, a circuit judge of the United States.

ANSWER OF THE SAID ROBERT WODROW ARCHBALD TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED AGAINST HIM BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE 1.

For answer to the first article the respondent says:

1. That the said first article does not set forth anything which, if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not further entertain the charge contained in said first article.

2. The respondent admits that some time early in the spring of 1911 and prior to the 31st day of March of that year Edward J. Williams informed respondent that John M. Robertson owned an interest in the Katydid culm dump near Moosic, Pa., and that he, Williams, could get an option on Robertson's interest in said culm dump, and suggested to the respondent that if a similar option could be obtained from the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. for its interest in said Katydid culm dump the dump could be sold to advantage. At the same time said Williams suggested to the respondent that if both of said interests in the said dump should thus be acquired by respondent and himself a profit of two or three thousand dollars each to said Williams and the respondent could be made by a resale of said dump. At the same time said Williams suggested to respondent that he, the respondent, should communicate with Capt. William A. May, the superintendent of said Hillside Coal & Iron Co., to ascertain whether said company would sell its interest in said culm dump; and if so, on what terms.

The respondent thereupon, by telephone, inquired of Capt. May whether it would be possible to secure an option upon the dump in question from the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. Over the telephone said Capt. May informed the respondent, in substance, that it had been the ordinary policy of said company to keep its culm dumps, but that the circumstances relating to the Katydid culm dump were peculiar, and if the respondent would write a letter to him on the subject he would submit it to the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. Accordingly, on the 31st day of March, 1911, the respondent wrote and

handed to said Williams, to be by him delivered to Capt. May, a letter, of which the following is a copy:

W. A. MAY, Esq.,

Superintendent Hillside Coal & Iron Co.

DEAR SIR: I write to inquire whether your company will dispose of you interest in the Katydid culm dump, belonging to the old Robertson & Law operation, at Brownsville; and, if so, will you kindly put a price upon it?

Yours, very truly,

R. W. ARCHBALD.

Several weeks thereafter, nothing having been heard by the respondent from Capt. May in response to said letter, and said Williams in the meantime having frequently called upon the respondent in reference to the matter, the respondent again, by telephone, inquired of Capt. May what had been done. Capt. May replied that Mr. G. A. Richardson, one of the vice presidents of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co., was to be in Scranton in a few days, and that he, May, would go over the matter with said Richardson, and would let the respondent know the result. During the greater part of the month of July the respondent was holding a circuit court of the United States in New York City, and spent the whole of that month in that city, except that he went home to Scranton at the end of each week. Up to this time there had been no reply received from Capt. May in regard to said proposed option, and said Robertson, the owner of the other interest, was not disposed to allow the verbal option, which he had given to said Williams, to remain open indefinitely. Upon being informed of this by said Williams, the respondent, on the 4th day of August, 1911, while in New York in performance of his duties as circuit judge, as above stated, called on George F. Brownell, at his office in New York, City, said Brownell being then the general counsel of both the Erie Railroad Co. and of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co., the latter company being a subsidiary of the former company. The respondent called upon said Brownell, because he had been informed by said Williams, as the respondent recollects that the question of said Robertson's claim to an interest in the Katydid culm dump had been submitted to said Brownell. On that occasion the respondent informed said Brownell that he had called upon him because he understood that he, Brownell, had considered the question of Robertson's interest in the Katydid culm dump, and further told him that he, Robertson, had promised that he would sell his interest in said dump, and that if he, the respondent, could acquire the interest of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. in said dump the conflict of interests which had theretofore interfered with any sale of said dump would be ended. Said Brownell thereupon took the respondent to the office of said Richardson in the same building, informing the respondent that said Richardson was the proper officer of the company to pass upon the matter. Said Brownell introduced the respondent to said Richardson. Respondent then stated to said Richardson that he, respondent, was there simply for the purpose of getting an early answer one way or the cther from the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. to the request which had been made of that company for an option on its interest in the Katydid culm dump. Said Richardson then informed the respondent that he would communicate with Capt. May upon the subject. The respondent heard nothing further until on or about August 29, 1911,

when he casually met said Capt. May on the street in Scranton, and was then informed by Capt. May that the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. had decided to sell its interest in that culm dump and requested respondent to tell Williams to come and see him, May. The respondent immediately notified said Williams of this conversation with Capt. May, and on the following day, as the respondent is informed and believes, said Williams received from Capt. May a letter, in the words and figures following:

[Pennsylvania Coal Co.; Hillside Coal & Iron Co., New York; Susquehanna & Western Coal Co.; Northwestern Mining & Exchange Co.; Blossburg Coal Co. Office of the general manager.]

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS,

626 South Blakely Street, Dunmore, Pa.

SCRANTON, PA., August 30, 1911.

DEAR SIR: As stated to you to-day, verbally, I shall recommend the sale of whatever interest the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. has in what is known as the Katydid culm dump, made by Messrs. Robertson & Law, in the operation of the Katydid breaker, for $4,500.

In order that it may not be lost sight of, I will mention that any coal above the size of pea coal will be subject to a royalty to the owners of lot 46, upon the surface of which the bank is located.

It is also understood that the bank will not be conveyed to anyone else without the consent of the H. C. & I. Co., and that if the offer is accepted articles of agreement will be drawn to cover the transaction.

Yours, very truly,

W. A. MAY, General Manager.

The respondent admits that during the whole period covered by the negotiations and transactions hereinabove referred to he was a judge of the United States Commerce Court, duly designated and acting as such judge; that during the same period the Erie Railroad Co. was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and was a party litigant in certain suits, to wit, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. The Interstate Commerce Commission, Nos. 38 and 39, in the United States Commerce Court; that said suit No. 38 was conmenced by petition filed in said court April 12, 1911, and was heard by said court on May 17, 1911, on motion of the petitioners for a temporary injunction; that on May 22, 1911,, a temporary injunction was granted by said court in said case No. 38; that on June 13, 1911, the Interstate Commerce Commission appealed from the order granting said injunction to the Supreme Court of the United States; and that on June 16, 1911, the United States also appealed to the Supreme Court from said order; that the said suit No.. 39 was begun by petition filed in the United States Commerce Court April 27, 1911; that a preliminary injunction was granted by said court on May 29, 1911; that on June 6, 1911, the Interstate Commerce Commission appealed from the order granting said injunction to the Supreme Court of the United States; and that on June 16, 1911, the United States also appealed to the Supreme Court from said order. Respondent denies, except as hereinabove admitted, that he at any time or at any place, by correspondence or by personal conferences or otherwise, undertook to induce or influence or did induce or influence the officers of said Hillside Coal & Iron Co. or the officers of the Erie Railroad Co. to enter into any agreement to sell the interest of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. in the Katydid culm dump. He denies that he willfully or unlawfully or corruptly or otherwise took any advantage of his official position as such judge to induce or influence

the officials of the said Erie Railroad Co. or of said Hillside Coal & Iron Co. to enter into any contract with him and the said Williams, or either of them. He denies that at the times and places stated in said first article, or at any other time or place, through the influence exerted by reason of his position as such judge, he willfully or unlawfully or corruptly or otherwise induced the officials in said Erie Railroad Co., or any of them, or the officials of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co., or any of them, to enter into any contract with him and the said Williams, or either of them.

Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald denies that he is guilty of misbehavior as such judge or of any crime or misdemeanor as charged in said first article.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE 2.

For answer to the second article respondent says:

1. That the said second article does not set forth anything which, if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misdemeanor, as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not further entertain the charge contained in said second article.

2. The respondent admits that, on the 1st day of August, 1911, he was a United States circuit judge duly designated as one of the judges of the United States Commerce Court, and that he was then a judge of said court. He further admits, on information and belief, that on said day the Marian Coal Co., a corporation, was the owneras lessee of a certain culm dump at Taylor, Pa., and was then and there engaged in the business of washing and shipping coal; that prior to that time the said Marian Coal Co. had filed before the Interstate Commerce Commission a complaint against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. and five other railroad companies, as defendants, charging them, the said defendants, with discrimination in rates and with excessive charges for the transportation of coal shipped by the Marian Coal Co. over their respective lines of road; that all of the said defendant companies were common carriers engaged in interstate commerce; and that the decision of said case by the Interstate Commerce Commission was subject to review at the instance of any party defendant thereto by the United States Commerce Court. The respondent further avers that at the same time there was pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission another case in which the Marian Coal Co. was complainant and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. alone was defendant. He further admits, on information and belief, that one Christopher G. Boland and one William P. Boland and their brother, one James M. Boland, were the owners of two-thirds of the stock in the said Marian Coal Co., and as to the operation of said company had all the powers which a control of the majority of the stock might legally give them, and that said Christopher G. Boland and said William P. Boland engaged one George M. Watson, an attorney at law, to endeavor to settle said cases then pending as aforesaid before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and certain other litigation in which the Marian Coal Co. was then involved, by selling to said Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. all the stock of the said Marian Coal Co. owned by the said Christopher G. Boland,