been concluded, in which trial there was a disagreement of the jury.
Rae Tanzer has never been brought to trial upon the charge for
which she was originally indicted.
It is now charged by these proceedings in impeachment that said
H. Snowden Marshall employed the powers of his office for the pur-
pose of shielding and preventing the exposure of unlawful and
improper conduct of one James W. Osborne in relation to facts
involved in civil litigation which was pending in the State court in
the State of New York. Other charges present in different wording
certain other conditions affecting this same litigation, but the gist
of the charge and of all charges connected therewith is contained in
said charge No. 25.
While there has been no certain oral testimony directly showing the
interest of the office of the United States district attorney in favor of
James W. Osborne in the matter of the civil litigation against him,
and the subsequent litigation in the criminal court for the southern
district of New York, it is my opinion that the county courts of New
York would have furnished to the said James W. Osborne all the
procedure necessary to thoroughly bring before the proper court any
contention, either civil or criminal, he might desire to make in
answer to the petition filed against him by Rae Tanzer for seduction
and breach of promise of marriage.
There seems to me to be no good reason why these criminal cases
were instituted and prosecuted in the United States courts.
The very first procedure against one of the persons defendant in
these causes, Frank D. Safford, was in the shape of an affidavit by
one Mayhew, a post-office inspector, to which the testimony of Hon.
Martin Littleton, formerly a Representative in the Congress of the
United States from the State of New York, is as follows :
Mayhew admitted he made a positive affidavit as to a state of facts which he did not
know of and which, in my opinion, under the law of the State of New York amounted
to false swearing or perjury, and he stated when crowded on the question as to why
he did it that he was directed to do so by Mr. Roger Wood, assistant district attorney.
The question of these indictments and trials in the Federal court
of the State of New York is best explained in the language of Mr.
Littleton when he further said as a witness :
I had thought that the assumption of jurisdiction in these cases by the Federal
authorities, the assumption of jurisdiction to prosecute in the first instance Rae Tanzer
in the Federal coiut as and for sending a letter through the mails which was part of
a scheme devised to defraud, was an improper assumption of jurisdiction. 1 think
that the case never ought to have been in that court. I will not say there can not be
two opinions about it, but I will say that I think you will search the records of the
court in vain to find where such jurisdiction has been assumed or asserted in regard
to a similar state of facts. After that was done, of course the indictment of Safford,
the indictment of Tanzer and Tanzer's sisters, the indictment of the Slades and
McCullough, all rested upon the single act of fixing the jurisdiction by the complainant
before Commissioner Houghton, for without that of course there would have been no
12 CHARGES AGAIiSrST H. SI^OWDElsr MARSHALL.
testimony given in the Federal case and there would have been no interference or
alleged interference with the Federal courts; none of these things could have been
brought out or none of these indictments could have been returned in the Federal
court. I think the original and vital mistake or wrong or wrongful assumption of
jurisdiction was in assuming to try and prosecute her under a Federal statute, when
obviously if she was what she was claimed to be and her lawyers were what was claimed
to be there was a perfectly plain remedy in the State courts.
These cases were conducted principally by Roger B. Wood, an
assistant in the office of the district attorney, Marshall, with the
latter's full sanction and approval, and without desiring to make
intemperate or unauthorized comment upon the conduct of the
United States district attorney or his assistants in these cases, it does
appear to ma. that the arrest and prosecution of the persons arrested
and indicted in the United States courts in these cases, a.ll of which
grew out of the arrest of Rae Tanzer on a charge of sending a letter
through the mails to James W. Osborne with intent to unlawfully
defraud, were not cases properly to have been brought in the courts
of the United States and their having been brought in said courts
was a wrenching of the jurisdiction thereof.
28. I charge him v, ith ha^ing prostituted the office of United States district attorney
for the southern district of New York.
34. I charge him \vith corruptly and willfully failing and refusing to present to the
court the trial of cases material and important evidence and in concealing or assisting
and acquiesung in the concealment or destruction of material and important evidence
relating to pending cases in the United States district court for the southern district
of New York.
35. I charge him with being corrupt, grossly negligent, and unfit to retain the office
as United States district attorney for the southern district of New York.
33. I charge him with having willfully and persistently violated the laws of the
United States in connection with the performance by him of the duties of such United
States district attorney for said southern district of New York.
38. I charge him with ha^^ng corruptly and willfully refused and neglected to take
cognizance of unla'.\ ful conduct of his assistant district attorneys in connection with
the performance by them of official duties as such assistant district attorneys.
39. I charge him with corruptly participating in or acquieei"ing to the presentation
to the court in trial of cases in the southern district of New York of alleged evidence
which he knew to be untrue and manufactured, or in the manufacture of and attempt
to manufacture sui^h alleged e^'idence.
40. I charge him v ith produi ing v, illful injury and vrong to litigants in said dis-
trict court and to < itizens of the United States by his unla\\ ful and improper conduct.
These charges allege in substance that said H. Snowden Marshall
has been corrupt and grossly negligent in the conduct of his office as
district attorney and is personall}^ unfit to retain said office.
Charge 34 particularly alleges his assisting and acquiescing in the
concealment or destruction of material and important evidence relat-
ing to pending cases in the United States District Court for the South-
ern District of New York, and the evidence upon this was the evidence
pertaining to one of the cases alleging concealment of the effects of a
bankrupt, and while there was some testimony as to one of the assistant
district attorneys having sent for a witness and having asked for the
production of certain papers and one paper having been produced to
him, which he examined, he did tear it up, but this act of tearing up
was with the consent of the witness appearing and was not material,
inasmuch as it was but a copy, the original still remaining in the
hands of the witness.
There is no evidence to sustain the charges that H. Snowden
Marshall is personally unfit to be United States district attorney for
CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MAKSUALL. 13
the southern district of New York. On the contrary, all of the tes-
timony which has been given to the committee, this being the testi-
mony of leading lawyers of the New York bar, the testimony of
Federal judges, and, in fact, nearly all the testimony which this
committee has received has shown to the committee that Mr. Mar-
shall is a man of good character, of excellent professional standing,
and one who apparently in the past has had high regard for the duties
of his position and has attempted to carry out these duties honestly
and impartially and to the best of his skill and ability.
In this connection it is but fair to the district attorney himself to
say that almost all of the criticism directed by witnesses against the
office of the district attorney has been directed against the conduct
of certain of the assistants in his office.
We were not called upon to investigate the acts and conduct of
assistants in the office of the United States district attorney for the
southern district of New York except in so far as they directly af-
fected the charges against the district attorney himself, and there-
fore I can only say that some of the acts complained of against the
assistant district attorneys are apparently acts which had their
origin in improper appreciation of legal ethics and mistaken zeal.
There was evidence offered concerning certain of the methods
and procedure of the office of the United States district attorney
for the southern district of New York, but as he is a subordinate
under the Attorney General of the United States and his office sub-
ject to investigation by the Attorney General, I do not feel inclined
to discuss this evidence here, for none of the methods and procedure
which may be objectionable constitute grounds for impeachment of
this district attorney.
The subcommittee had in mind the examination in executive
session of the grand jury minutes hereinbefore referred to for the
reason that it felt that it could thus best obtain the truth concern-
ing the charges of impeachment made that indictments had been
returned in said jurisdiction without evidence; and it was the inten-
tion of this subcommittee to hold the evidence of said minutes in
the strictest confidence.
As this evidence was not obtained by the subcommittee for the
reason before stated, the subcommittee makes a special report of this
fact to the full committee.
With these minutes refused, the subcommittee, in what it deemed
its proper scope of investigation, examined the foreman of the grand
jury and certain others of the grand jurors who had returned the
indictments agamst Von Rintelin, Lamar, Monnett, Buchanan,
Schultheiss, and Martin, and some persons who had appeared before
said grand jury as witnesses.
Our investigation has shown there was some evidence presented in
each of the cases m which indictments were found, which cases were
brought immediately to our attention by the charges of impeachment
made, and unless the full Judiciary Committee desu-es further pro-
cedure to procure all the evidence submitted to said grand juries in
said cases, this to be evidenced by the complete stenographic notes of
said proce?dings, it is my recommendation that no further proceedings
be had under House Resolution No. 90.
Of Su hcom mittee .
SEPARATE VIEWS BY HON. JOHN M. NELSON.
To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives:
The undersigned, a member of the subcommittee of the Committee
on the Judiciary, appointed to investigate the impeachment charges
of Representative Frank Buchanan against H. Snowden Marshall,
district attorney for the southern district of New York, respectfully
submits the following views :
The undersigned is convinced, upon the evidence submitted,
that H. Snowden Marshall is not a fit person to hold the office of
district attorney for the southern district of New York. However,
if the Committee on the Judiciary or the House shall insist upon a
recommendation by the subcommittee at this time, either for or
against the impeachment of Mr. Marshall upon these charges, without
authorizing the production of the grand jury minutes disclosing how
indictments were found against Representative Buchanan and others,
Rae Tanzer, her attorneys and witnesses, I am constrained reluctantly
to concur in the recommendation of the subcommittee that further
proceedings under Resolution No. 90 be discontinued.
The investigation, notwithstanding it has extended over a period
of months, has been necessarily unsatisfactory and incomplete. Not
only has the committee been refused permission by the district attor-
ney, acting under the direction of the Attorney General, to inspect the
grand jury minutes in these cases, but has been subjected to the
most severe attacks on the part of Mr. Marshall himself and news-
papers doubtless inspired by him, which has greatly handicapped the
official discharge of our duties. Under these restricting circumstances
the committee confined its eft'orts to the taking of testimony of wit-
nesses suggested by the impeaching Member, Mr. Buchanan, who has
from the beginning protested that this was most unfair to him. He
has properly insisted that it was his duty merely to furnish prima
facie proof, and that the committee should make an independent
investigation of the various charges presented by him against this
district attorney. The committee, however, found itself surrounded
by a stone wall of difficulties. On every hand the investigation found
itself confronted with cases being tried in the courts, and the com-
mittee was reluctant to take any steps to procure evidence that
would in any way interfere with their trial.
The undersigned has, therefore, been constrained to come to the
conclusion that either the grand jury minutes in the Buchanan and
Rae Tanzer cases should be produced by judicial process, or the
investigation should be postponed until after the trial of these pend-
ing cases. While there is evidence before the committee which is
conclusive of the fact that Mr. Marshall should be removed from the
office of district attorney, it is my best judgment that the case should
not be presented to the Senate by the House until all the facts that
CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 15
are readily available have been developed, which under the circum-
stances described has not been found possible.
The large purpose of any impeachment proceeding is not punish-
ment of any individual, but the removal of any civil officer, invested
temporarily with power, who deprives citizens of rights or jeopardizes
their liberty, and, therefore, is a menace to our republican form of
The Constitution denounces impeachable offenses under the terms
of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
It is not contended in the charges of impeachment against Mr. Mar-
shall that he has been guilty of either treason, bribery, or crime.
His offenses, therefore, are covered, if at all, by the word "misde-
meanors." From the beginning the precedents show that attorneys
for civil officers on trial in the Senate have insisted that the language
of the Constitution covered only indictable offenses, and the Senate,
with possibly one or two exceptions, has seemed to incline toward
that view. The House, however, through its managers, has invari-
ably insisted that impeachment is a "means of removing men from
office whose misconduct imperils the public safety and renders them
unfit to occupy official positions." Believing that this is a sensible
and just interpretation of the intent of the framers of the Constitu-
tion, and that it is supported by the best American text writers on
the Constitution, the undersigned has adopted that standard by
which to measure the official conduct of Mr. Marshall as district
attorney. Temperamentally he is neither calm, dispassionate, nor
judicial. He is a person of inordinate self-esteem, keenly sensitive to
criticism, and passionately vengeful. Within the brief period that
he has acted as district attorney he has wielded the tremendous
power of his office, not to do impartial justice, but to achieve his
object or to carry out the wishes of others intrenched in power. He
is a "respecter of persons" and does not hesitate to use unjustifiable
means to befriend whom he would befriend and to destroy whom he
would destroy. As a consequence of his misuse of power, the rights
of American citizens have been abridged, their reputations ruthlessly
ruined, and their liberties jeopardized without just cause.
John M. Nelson.
Statement of Facts Accompanying Views of Mr. Nelson.
Your subcommittee agreed upon the following grouping of charges:
Group A consists of charges 1, 2, 3, and 4, as they appear in the printed record,
which we designate as "conspiracy with persons and corporations."
Group B consists of charges 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 24. '-matters relating to
improper procuring of indictments."
Group C consists'of charges 9, 10, 11, and 12, "relating to the shipment of war muni-
tions, and conspiracies with foreign GoA-ernments."
Group D consists of charge 16, "unlawful use of public funds in labor matters."
Group E consists of charges 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. -'attempting to improperly
influence and improperly procure judges for the southern distri<^t of New York."
Group F consists of charges 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32. 33, and 37. which -'relate to
what is known as the case of Rae Tanzer, and improper conduc t v iih James W. Osborne
in improperly using the power of his office."
Group G consists" of charges 28, 34, 35, 36, ;
roup G consists" of charges 28, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 40, "relating to his personal
16 CHARGES AGAIXST H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL,
The subcommittee did not have before it evidence tending directly
to sustain charges contained in the foregoing subdivisions, except
charges 5 and 6 in group B, charges contained in group F, and charges
34 and 38 contained in Group G. Charges 5 and 6 in group B are
as follows :
No. 5. I charge him with corruptly inducing and prociuing grand juiies to retiu'n
into the District Court for the Southern District of New York of indictments charging
crimes \vithout there being evidence before said grand jury which would in any degree
justify the finding and filing of such indictments.
No. 6. I charge him with being guilty of oppression in corruptly prociu-ing indict-
ments from the grand jiuy in said district charging reputable citizens with crime,
although there was no evidence before the grand jury which would in the least warrant
These charges were intended to cover the indictment found against
Representative Buchanan, with others, chargmg them wdth con-
spiracy to restrain trade. Kjiowing that the House was very much
concerned to ascertain whether a Member had been questioned in
another place for utterances of his on the floor of the House, the
undersigned, as a member of the subcommittee, has given careful
consideration to all the evidence, so far as it rebates to the finding of
this mdictment, and has concluded that whi'e there is evidence before
the committee to show that testimony was taken before the grand
jury relating to the indictment and the persons against whom it was
found, ranging over a period of several months prior to the indict-
ment, yet there was no testimony before the subcommittee to show
either the relevancy of the evidence before the grand jury or the
In reference to Representative Buchanan's indictment, attention
is directed to these significant facts:
(a) The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Metro-
politan Tobacco Co., although its own investigator, Mr. Marshall's
assistant, Mr. Thompson, found and reported it had and was con-
tinuing to violate the antitrust law. (See also testimony of Ochs,
Locher, and Wolf.) Yet it did indict a Member of Congress and
others of the peace council, opposing the sale of munitions of war and
the program of preparedness by means of speeches and literature,
under the antitrust law.
(6) The indictment itself is vague and indefuiite, stating no specific
fact either as to manufacturers, articles restrained, or places where
strikes have been incited.
(c) The testimony of grand jurors discloses (1) that Mr. Bu-
chanan's name was handed in by the district attorney with others,
and that he was indicted with them in a "bunch" ; (2) that no name
was added b}" the grand jury and no name taken away; (3) that Rep-
resentative Buchanan as president and Mr. Taylor as his successor
were indicted, but the secretary and treasurer and other officers were
not; (4) that Mr. Marshall summed up the law, and that his assistant,
Mr. Sarfaty, summed up the evidence; (5) that this was unusual
unless requested by the jury; and (6) that the jurors discussed in
the grand jury the impeachment of Mr. Marshall by Representative
Buchanan on the floor of the House.
(d) Henry A. Wise, former district attorney, testified that the
grand jury is "worth a 2-cent piece" ; in other words, that it is merely
a rubber stamp or cash register manipulated by the district attorney.
CHARGES AGAIKST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 17
In short, with reference to the mdictment of Mr. Buchanan, all the
surrounding circumstances lead to the conviction that the production
of the grand jury minutes so strenuously denied the subcommittee,
or the trial of this case, will disclose that he is the victim of hostile
political and financial interests who feared the campaign begun by
the Peace Council, through labor organizations, against the propa-
ganda of preparedness and the sale of war materials and supplies to
any of the nations now engaged in the European conflict.
Group F contains nine specific charges, all practically included in
No. 25, which is as follows:
No. 25. I charge him with having employed the powers of hia office for the purpose
of shielding and to prevent the exposure of unlawful and improper conduct of one
James W. Osborne in relation to facts involved in civil litigation, which was pending
in the State court in the State of New York.
This charge is intended to cover Mr. Marshall's use of the power of
his office to assist his associate and friend, Mr. James W. Osborne,
charged with seduction and breach of promise in a civil suit. In
order that his favoritism may be seen in its proper proportion, all
that is necessary is to contrast Mr. Marshall's action in the Rae Tanzer
case with his action in the New York Tribune case. It is to be noted
that in each case he deals with section 215, Crimmal Code, which
prohibits schemes or artifices to defraud by the use of the mails.
THE RAE TANZER CASE.
A virtuous young Jewess, Rae Tanzer, living with her two sisters,
through a flirtation met with a person giving his name as "Oliver
Osborne," some where on the streets of the city of New York, and
subsequently went with him to Plainfield, N. J., where the injuries
complained of occurred. Their relations continued for some time
afterwards. Before bringing a civil suit, she claims to have dis-
covered that Oliver Osborne was James W. Osborne, and she ad-
dressed him the following letter:
Sunday, December 27, 1914.
Mr. James W. Osborne, Esq.,
115 Broadivay, City.
Dear Oliver: Trying to change your mind? It's too late. You have ruined
my life, and I hold you to your promises.
I have kept this trouble to myself, but can't stand it any longer; therefore I'll
have to seek help through other soiu'ces. I have waited this while thinking you would
be reasonable and consider what this means to me.
I want no publicity, for there's still a little pride left in me, although you have
taken most out of me. jMy meeting you Christmas eve was by chance. Taken by
surprise, weren't you? Was as near to you on several other occasions before then,
but didn't want to be bold. Will tell you when and how sometime.
Did I get the letter you never sent me? Well, I still have the ones you sent me
when you were the California ranchman, which I kept, not for a purpose, but because
I thought you were just the grandest man. and I loved you with a heart that wasn't
meant for a man like you to trifle with. You know it wasn't for the diamonds (that
you are still having fixed for me) or your money. I was always in the habit of dress-
ing nicely, but things weren't as nice with us lately. I was content. Did you ever
hear me complain? In fact, I tried to hide everything until everything was in better
You know I was a good girl until I met you, Init I was so infatuated with you from
the start that I lost my head entirely and didn't stop to reason, but always knew you
would protect me, for I didn't think a man of your reputation would act otherwise;
but I hope my doubt is all a misunderstanding on my part, for your sake.
18 CHAEGES AGAIlSrST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL.
Don't let me confide in anyone or do anyt'dng you wouldn't like me to do, for 1
haven't as yet, but will have to if you won't protect me. 1 knew you weren't going
to meet me Christmas eve, but I went down anyhow. That all added to my misery.
Will wait to hear from you until Saturday next, and then I shall not write you again.