THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SWAYNE It is difficult to understand how the wit ness could have made that answer, if Swayne made the statement to which he last testi fied. He was not however confronted with his former statement before the Senate. Swayne was notified that a quit-claim deed had been made to Mrs. Swayne, Edgar the grantor declining to make a warranty on account of the "old Alberta Caro" or McGuire claim. He wrote the agents to omit block 91 and send the papers for other property for which he had been negotiating. There was no pretence that a deed was ever made or sought to be made to Judge Swayne. Sometime in August, Belden and Paquet, plaintiff's attorneys in the McGuire suit wrote Judge Swayne requesting him to recuse himself. To this he made no reply until he reached Pensacola to hold the Nov ember term. November 5, while the criminal docket was being disposed of, Mr. Paquet came into court and Judge Swayne suspended proceedings, called him up and in the presence of Mr. Blount, one of the de fendants, and attorney for the defendants, in the McGuire suit, called attention to the letter stating that he had not answered it as he thought it should be disposed of in court when the other side was represented. He stated that he had negotiated in behalf of a relative for block 91, that during the negotiations a quit-claim deed had been forwarded, and on inquiry it was developed it was because the grantor would not war rant against the Caro claim, that thereupon the deed was returned and all negotiations terminated, that while the letter was not a formal application he would treat it as such, and thought under the circumstances he was qualified to try the case and felt in duty bound to go on. In argument he was vig orously assailed for failing to recuse him self, but a discussion of that phase of the case is clearly immaterial as he was not im peached for such failure. In fact, if his conduct in thus failing was a proper subject of adverse criticism it only furnished the stronger motive for the alleged improper
201
and contemptuous conduct of Paquet, Belden, and Davis, and makes it more probable that they were guilty of such conduct, as it intensified the motive. Paquet was not a witness, and the testimony that he was in formed by Judge Swayne on November 5, that the judge had terminated all connec tion with lot No. 91 was uncontradicted. The clerk testified that substantially the same statement was made by the Judge on Friday, the 8th of November in the pres ence of Paquet, Belden, and Davis. It seems that Blount, Paquet, and Davis, (claimed by Blount, but denied by Davis), were conferring from time to time about the trial of the McGuire case up to Satur day. It had been set down for trial at the beginning of the term on the motion of both parties. About five o'clock Saturday afternoon the criminal docket having been disposed of, the parties endeavored to make a disposition of the McGuire case. Paquet, Belden, and Davis were in court. Davis it was claimed was sitting with and conferring with Paquet representing the plaintiff, W. A. Blount representing the defendants. Plain tiffs desired a postponement until the fol lowing Thursday. To this the judge was willing to agree if defense consented. De fendants insisted on immediate trial. The judge ordered the case to go over until Monday at 10 when it should be tried unless plaintiffs could show cause for continuance. Mr. Belden said he wanted to try the case, and was all ready except procuring the at tendance of his witnesses. He claimed he needed forty witnesses, one of whom was out of the state, but he could not give his name. He afterwards tried the same suit in 1902, with full opportunity to get all the witnesses he wanted and only used six teen witness all of whom lived within a mile or two of the Court House and could have been summoned if at home, in about two hours time. Paquet was the leading counsel. He left court and prepared a precipe for a suit in ejectment in the state court against Judge Swayne, claiming dam
