E. Long on the ground that the said Long was carrying the said revolver while in the discharge of his duties as such Government forest ranger. When the petition for the said writ of habeas corpus was presented to Judge Baker he doubted the right or jurisdiction of a Federal judge to grant writs of habeas corpus, and asked whether or not counsel for the Government had examined the authorities to ascertain whether such right existed. During the hearing for the said writ it developed that the petitioner had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail by the Circuit Court of Tucker County and was at the time confined in the said Tucker County jail. Whereupon Judge Baker solemnly inquired as to whether or not it was then too late to apply for relief by a writ of habeas corpus. The district attorney for the northern district of West Virginia was obliged to satisfy Judge Baker by authorities that he not only had the right to issue the said writ but that it was not too late to make the application for the same, even after the petitioner was confined in the jail of Tucker County.

Twenty-ninth. In the trial of the case of the United States v. John Smith, tried at the Parkersburg May term, 1922, after the evidence for both the Government and the defendant had closed, Judge Baker announced that he regretted that he was compelled to direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the Government had failed to prove the venue of the offense. In making this announcement he said that it was in evidence that the offense was committed in the city of Sistersville, but that the Government had failed to prove that the city of Sistersville was located within the northern district of West Virginia. The city of Sistersville is an incorporated town, incorporated under an act of the Legislature of the State of West Virginia and for years had been one of the best-known centers connected with the production of petroleum, oil, and natural gas in the United States of America, being situate in Tyler County, W. Va., which is one of the counties named in the act of Congress constituting the Northern Federal District of the State of West Virginia, and situate exactly halfway between the city of Wheeling, Ohio County, W. Va., and the city of Parkersburg, Wood County, W. Va., in both of which lastmentioned cities Judge Baker holds his Federal court under the acts of Congress, and he has been compelled to go through the city of Sistersville many times in the course of his travels as a United States district judge, and in the course of his experience upon the bench has had many cases before him coming from Sistersville, as well as numerous witnesses who have testified before him, saying they came from Sistersville. Judge Baker, however, required the Government's attorneys to furnish authority upon the question and numerous direct decisions were presented to him, and no authority being found opposed to the idea that the judge should take judicial notice of the fact that such proof fully established the venue, and after carefully considering of the same for about one day, the court determined that the venue had been established as a matter of both law and fact.

Thirtieth. During the Elkins November term, 1922, Sol Wolford and Hoy Raines were charged with violating the national prohibition act, and during the progress of the case counsel for the said Wolford

informed the court that he desired to enter a plea of guilty, and that the said Raines, who was a son-in-law of the codefendant Wolford, would plead "not guilty" to the charge. The court thereupon inquired of Assistant United States Attorney Matthews what the Government desired to do in the matter, to which Mr. Matthews replied that the Government would accept the plea of guilty upon the part of Wolford, and that in Raines's case it desired to make some further investigation as to his connection with the acts charged in the information. Thereupon the court upon its own motion called the said Raines to the bar of the court, had him sworn to answer questions, and made inquiry of him concerning his connection with the offense charged. During the said inquiry Raines admitted that he had a key to the building searched by the prohibition agents; that he knew there was a still there; that he had participated in its operation by placing a fire thereunder, and also knew the purpose for which the still was to be used, showing clearly his guilt. After this information had been obtained through the said inquiry of the said Raines, the Government announced that it could no longer prosecute Raines since he was immune by reason of his statements made under oath, and that the court's action would bar any further prosecution so far as Raines was concerned. The court thereupon asked counsel for Raines to have him plead guilty and he, the court, would impose a fine of $5, which counsel, however, refused to do, maintaining that the court had rendered his client immune from further prosecution.

Thirty-first. During the Wheeling October term, 1922, in the trial of the case of the United States v. Walter Savage, charged with violation of the national prohibition act, Judge Baker took the position that for a Federal prohibition agent to enter upon the inclosed lands of another made him a trespasser per se and it was necessary for the district attorney's office to lay before the judge the statute of West Virginia upon this question before he, the said judge, was convinced that it was no violation of the laws of the State of West Virginia on the part of the said prohibition agent.

Thirty-second. At the Wheeling May term, 1922, of the Federal court, during the trial of the case of United States v. Thomas Arrington, an efficient Federal prohibition agent, was introduced as a witness on behalf of the Government. During the course of his cross-examination counsel for the defense sought to impeach his testimony by showing that he, Arrington (who was a colored man), had sworn falsely as to his color when obtaining or securing his marriage license in Washington County, Pa. A printed form of the application for the said marriage license was sought to be introduced by the defense, to which counsel for the Government objected on the ground that the matter had been introduced and brought_out_by counsel for the defendant on cross-examination and was therefore a collateral matter, and that the answer of the witness was final and could not be contradicted. The court thereupon adjourned court for the day to ascertain the law with reference to the question raised, and thereupon called into his room the United States district attorney, and upon inquiry was advised by the said United States attorney that the defense on cross-examination had a right to ask the witness the question that was propounded, but that the answer of the witness thereto was final and could not be contradicted because it was

a collateral matter. With this view Judge Baker agreed. However, when the court convened the next morning, he ruled contrary to his previously expressed opinion on the matter as herein stated and allowed the defense to introduce in evidence said paper copy relating to the said marriage license application.

During the following term at Parkersburg, to wit, May 23, 1922, the same witness was again introduced on behalf of the Government, and the same question arose with reference to his impeachment and the application for the said marriage license. Whereupon the district attorney presented such an overwhelming array of authorities that the court was compelled to reverse his ruling and exclude the very paper or printed copy which he had allowed to be introduced in evidence at the former trial.

Thirty-third. The said William E. Baker has been guilty of defrauding the Government in the following manner: The law allows Federal district judges, while absent from their homes in the discharge of official duty, actual and necessary traveling expense and the reasonable expense of maintenance actually incurred not to exceed $10 per day. The said William E. Baker makes a practice of certifying to the accounting department of the Government that he has actually expended for his daily maintenance $10 and is reimbursed to that extent, when in truth and in fact he does not actually spend the said sum of $10 per day, as can and will be conclusively shown. In order to accomplish his purpose in this respect, the said William E. Baker is guilty and has been guilty of making and using false certificates well knowing them to be false and fraudulent.

T. A. BROWN, United States Attorney Northern District West Virginia.

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

County of Berkeley, 88:

I, -, a notary public in and for said county and State, do certify that T. A. Brown personally appeared before me on this day of April, 1924, and being by me first duly sworn, did depose and say that he is now the United States attorney for the northern district of West Virginia; that he has read and inspected the charges above set forth against William E. Baker, judge of the district of West Virginia Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, and that he believes said charges to be true as is therein alleged; that the same can be sustained by ample and proper proof; that he has personal knowledge of many of the offenses and violations charged therein, and that he has interviewed various persons residing in West Virginia relative to said charges, who state that they are familiar with the said charges and the facts of the same, and that said charges are true, and that the said persons are ready to appear and testify to the truth of the same before any committee or other body authorized to administer oaths, and that in many instances information concerning said charges have been voluntarily brought to this affiant by persons who apparently thought it was their obligation as a citizen of the United States and of the State of West Virginia to give such information that justice should be done in the premises.

Taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me this witness my signature and official notarial seal.

My commission expires

day of April, 1924, as

Notary Public as aforesaid.

The following resolutions were passed by the House:

[H. Res. 325, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session]

Whereas certain charges against William E. Baker, United States district judge for the northern district of West Virginia, have been transmitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the Judiciary Committee: Be it Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to inquire into the official conduct of William E. Baker, United States district judge of the northern district of West Virginia, and to report to the House whether in their opinion the said William E. Baker has been guilty of any acts which in contemplation of the Constitution are high crimes or misdemeanors requiring the interposition of the constitutional powers of this House; and that the said committee have power to send for persons and papers, to administer the customary oaths to witnesses, and to sit during the sessions of the House until adjournment and thereafter until said inquiry is completed and report to the next session of the House.

[H. Res. 336, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session]

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee, authorized under the provisions of H. Res. 325, adopted May 23, 1924, to make inquiry into the official conduct of William E. Baker, United States district judge for the northern district of West Virginia, is hereby authorized to employ such stenographic, legal, and clerical assistance as it may deem necessary.

Resolved further, That all expenses incurred by said committee under the provisions of H. Res. 325, including the expenses of such committee or any subcommittee thereof when sitting outside of the District of Columbia, shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers, ordered by said committee, signed by the chairman of said committee, and approved by the Committee on Accounts, evidenced by the signature of the chairman thereof: Provided, however, That the total of expenditures authorized by this resolution shall not exceed the sum of $2,500.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Parkersburg, W. Va., November 25, 1924. The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m. in the Federal Building at Parkersburg, W. Va., Hon. Leonidas C. Dyer (chairman) presiding.

Present: Messrs. Foster, Hickey, Kurtz, and Dominick, members of the subcommittee and Guilford S. Jameson, clerk to the Judiciary Committee; also, Hon. William E. Baker, judge of the northern district of West Virginia, and his counsel, Messrs. John J. Coniff, Wheeling, W. Va.; Frank W. Nesbitt, Wheeling, W. Va.; and Harry H. Byrer, Martinsburg, W. Va.; also, Hon. Thomas A. Brown, United States district attorney for the northern district of West Virginia, complainant against Judge Baker, and his counsel, Messrs. J. B. Handlon and Charles J. Schuck, Wheeling, W. Va., and Messrs. William C. Grimes and Howard D. Matthews, Parkersburg, W. Va. Mr. DYER. The committee will be in session. The clerk will read the House order.

(House resolution 325 was thereupon read as follows:)

Whereas certain charges against William E. Baker, United States district judge for the northern district of West Virginia, have been transmitted by the Speaker of the House of Representative to the Judiciary Committee: Be it Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to inquire into the official conduct of William E. Baker,

United States district judge for the northern district of West Virginia, and to report to the House whether in their opinion the said William E. Baker has been guilty of any acts which in contemplation of the Constitution are high crimes or misdemeanors requiring the interposition of the constitutional powers of this House; and that the said committee have power to send for persons and papers, to administer the customary oaths to witnesses, and to sit during the sessions of the House until adjournment and thereafter until said inquiry is completed and report to the next session of the House.

Mr. DYER. Under an arrangement that has been agreed upon, the complainant will have to-day to present his testimony. We will proceed and have the first witness come forward.

Mr. HANDLON. Judge T. A. Brown, United States district attorney, will be the first witness, Mr. Chairman, concerning the charge mentioned in the specifications as the Sawa matter.

Mr. NESBITT. If the committee please, we feel, in the interest of justice, that it would be advisable, if the committee agrees with us, that the witnesses be excluded while the testimony is being introduced. Mr. DYER. The committee does not deem that necessary, and it is not the practice, Judge. All the testimony will be public.

TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS A. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA.

(The witness was sworn by the chairman).

Mr. NESBITT. It has been suggested that perhaps the chairman did not understand our request. The request was not that the public be excluded, but that the witnesses who are expected to testify be excluded.

Mr. DYER. The committee does not think that that is necessary to the proper consideration of this matter. Proceed with your wit

nesses.

Mr. HANDLON. Judge Brown, will you, in your own way, detail to the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary whatever you know concerning the matter referred to in the specification of charges as the Sawa matter.

Mr. BROWN. It was during the May term of the United States District Court of the Northern District of West Virginia, 1922, that what we know as the Sawa case came up for consideration.

Mike Sawa was brought into the Federal court on two informations. One of them charged him with having possession of a quantity of moonshine liquor and another one charged him with the possession of, I believe, two moonshine stills and a quantity of mash.

He

He was brought into court. He was foreign, and apparently was unable to understand the English language to any great extent. seemed unable to speak English intelligently.

When he was brought in and arraigned in the usual form, an effort was made to ascertain what he wanted to do in the cases, whether he wanted to plead guilty or not guilty.

The court undertook to inquire of him and I think perhaps it was Mr. Schuck, special assistant, United States district attorney's office, who tried to find out what he wanted to do. But they were unable to satisfy themselves that the man understood what was being said. to him, or that he understood what he was charged with.