and changed the form of application for continuance as may be seen on inspection, getting the application in entirely good form, as he believed, and now believes, stating exactly what occurred, and how it occurred, protecting his client's interest, and making the record he was preparing speak the truth. Respondent changed the form of expression, but it comported exactly with what occurred, and with no view of deceiving the court, or practicing a fraud on the court. affidavits which were made on the motion for new trial by White and his two witnesses, or persons whom he had desired to use as witnesses on the trial of the said case of State v. White; but they need not be set forth here, as they have no bearing on the controversy as it now stands in this court. "If respondent's recollection is correct, and he thinks it is, the motion for a new trial was filed on Friday. The following day was motion day in the criminal court, and in the natural course of events the motion for a "Respondent put in the report what occurnew trial in the White case was called the red on the first application for a continufollowing day. When it was called, respond-ance, because the stenographer was not present was engaged in the trial of a criminal ent at that time. case for one of his best clients before a com"On page of the report furnished remitting magistrate, and, when the clerk of spondent by the stenographer, Cates, there the criminal court called respondent over was a declaration of the distinguished Atthe telephone and told him that the motion torney General, which was marked 'Question for a new trial in the White case was about No. 15,' and which was in the following to be disposed of by the court, respondent re- words: quested the clerk to inform the court of his situation; that is, that he was in the midst of a trial and could not get away, and to ask the court that the motion be heard on another day. "In response to this the clerk informed respondent that the court would not grant the request. Then the respondent asked the clerk to get the Attorney General to come to the telephone. In response to this the clerk replied that the Attorney General declined to come. "The court disposed of the motion for a new trial in this way, in the absence of respondent and his client, and overruled the motion, fined respondent's client $250, and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment. "Respondent went to the clerk to file his affidavits, and was informed by the clerk that his honor, Hon. S. D. McReynolds, had directed that the respondent be not permitted to file the affidavits. "Respondent honestly believed that his client was innocent, and the court's failure to grant a continuance, and subsequently a new trial on the affidavits, and the action of the court in passing upon the motion for a new trial in the absence of the defendant White and his counsel, and in refusing to continue said motion to another day, was arbitrary, and that it indicates an unfriendly personal feeling, if not a distinct animus, toward respondent, and he was, therefore, thereafter particularly careful to not offend the court or to appear to violate any of its rules. "In the trial of the White case respondent had a stenographer employed to report the case, and when the proceedings above referred to were had, and the last act in the unpleasant trial before his honor, Judge McReynolds, was over, he requested the stenographer to furnish a transcript of his notes, so that a bill of exceptions might be presented to the court. The stenographer, Mr. M. O. Cates, had this done, and gave to respond 66 ““The place where he sold the liquor was in four miles of a schoolhouse?' "And the reported response of the witness, Red Gordon, to this declaration on the part of the Attorney General, was: 'Yes, sir.' "Respondent did not remember that such proof was made, did not believe it was made, does not remember it now, and does not believe it now. "The alleged question is, and was, in the nature of a declaration by the distinguished Attorney General, and not in the form of a question, and affiant was impressed, when he saw it in the record, that if he had heard it on the trial he certainly would have objected to it as being leading, and suggestive, and unknown to the forms of law, and he did not remember hearing the Attorney General make this alleged question by cutting it out of the report. "With these changes in the report he took it to Hon. M. N. Whitaker, Attorney General, who is careful and painstaking in matters of this kind, told him it was the stenographer's report, with some changes made by him, respondent, and began to point out in the report the application for a continuance, where he had changed its form to state the true facts, and yet put it in better form. The Attorney General replied substantially as follows: "I am not going to examine it now, Bob. I have not time. It may be filed as of this date, and you may leave it here. I want to examine it.' "Respondent then left it with the Attorney General for two or three days, until the Attorney General told respondent over the telephone that he could go to his, the Attorney General's, private office and get the record, that he had left it on his desk or table, and that it was all right. "Respondent then filed it with the court, or the clerk of the court, and it was in the possession of, or at least accessible to, Hon. the time that respondent was cited to ap- [eron made an absolutely false statement to pear, on having called the judge's attention the court. to the condition of the record. "Respondent discovered that the said honorable court, S. D. McReynolds, had interlined with a pen, at question 15, these words: "And within four miles of a schoolhouse where school was kept.' "Respondent knew that said proof was not made, at least he did not believe that it was made, he does not now believe it was made, and he did not then believe it was made, and he, therefore, took the record, and went to Hon. S. D. McReynolds, and complained of this interlineation, and asked that it be stricken out. "His honor inquired as to what stenographer reported the case, and respondent, after some study, said it was Cates, M. O. Cates. The judge then told respondent to go to the said Cates and have his notes examined, and if that proof was not shown in the note of the stenographer he would strike it out. Respondent did go to Cates, and he here and now expressly and earnestly denies that he attempted to get Cates to deceive the court, or to practice fraud on the court. "Respondent told Cates what the judge had inserted in the record, and asked Cates to telephone the judge that what he had inserted was not in his notes. Respondent knew that it was not, knows it was not, in the notes, and he did not then believe, and does not now believe, that the proof interlined was made, and he believes that the stenographer will verify his statement. "Respondent says this in no disrespect to his honor, S. D. McReynolds, and respondent in no way intimates that Judge McReynolds was not acting in good faith when he made the interlineation. "Respondent is aware that any arbitrary action on the part of the court, or the Attorney General, or action that respondent may have imagined was arbitrary (and he here and now avers that he has no object to reflect on the honor, dignity, or integrity of either of these distinguished officials), would warrant or justify him in deliberately changing a record, whether it was a correct or incorrect record; but he solemnly avers that he had no purpose to change the record, or fraudulently alter it in any way, but he was making the record which he verily believed, and which he now believes, speak the truth. He submitted it to the Attorney General, and left it with him for two days before it became a record authorized to be filed, and he then took it to the court for final inspection before it should become a part of the record. When Hon. S. D. McReynolds entered an order citing him to appear and show cause why he should not be disbarred, respondent was greatly troubled in mind and pained and mortified. The order in itself is a declaration of respond "It recites that he did it for the purpose of practicing fraud on the court. "It adjudges respondent guilty, and recites that the facts are in the possession of and in the knowledge of the court. "Respondent was shocked and mortified when he was cited to appear and show cause why he should not be disbarred. He consulted several lawyers, friends of his, and members of the Chattanooga bar, and to a number of them he confided his troubles; and in that state of mind which this great sorrow naturally put him, he said things and did things which in a manner reflected on this honorable court. He has since realized, and he now more fully realizes, that this character of talk and this conduct on his part was highly reprehensible; that it was an unjust and an unwarranted reflection on this honorable court, and he deeply and greatly regrets it, and whatever may be your honor's course in this case, respondent profoundly apologizes for this mark of disrespect to the court, and asks that this honorable court consider the great sorrow that had suddenly come upon him, involving his character, the happiness of his family, and everything that was and is near and dear to him. "And having fully answered, respondent prays to be hence dismissed." The next witness was his honor, Judge S. D. McReynolds, who was presiding on the trial which we now have under examination. He testified as follows: "I can make that statement first, and give you gentlemen the right to ask me any question you may desire. "The White bill of exceptions was in the hands of the Attorney General, so I was informed. When I saw it, as I remember it, it was presented to me by the clerk. In going over it-although it had been O. K.'d by the Attorney General, the court generally looks over these matters-and in looking over this bill of exceptions, I found that 'within four miles of a schoolhouse, where school was kept,' was not in there. The court was of opinion that that was asked, but did not take his own opinion about it, but also inquired of the Attorney General, and perhaps of the assistant clerk, or deputy clerk, who stated he thought it was proven, or words to that effect. And, after the bill of exceptions was on my desk for some time-and by the way, I will say that the bill of exceptions did not reach me within the time-within the time given, but I was informed by the Attorney General that Mr. Cameron had presented the bill of exceptions to him within the time, so the bill of exceptions did not reach me until after the time expired, but I did not want Mr. Cameron to lose his rights in the court by not "Mr. Jesse Littleton: We do not make any objection, your honor. "Court (continuing): Mr. Cates then brought me the copy of the transcript which he claimed to have furnished to Mr. Cameron, and I went over it, and I found "Mr. Jesse Littleton: Now, if your honor please, it has not been proven to be a copy of the transcript. I took up the bill of exceptions. And finally | was instructed or had some authority to it gets here, and I directed the clerk to speak from Mr. Cameron, but I can give mark the bill of exceptions filed within the you this statement if you desire that. time, so Mr. Cameron would not lose his rights of appeal, because it had been in the hands of the Attorney General and did not reach the court. I presumed the clerk had marked it. I never thought anything more about it until about the 9th of January. I was in the office, and Mr. Cameron appeared and said he wanted to see me. The court was busy. Just a minute or two afterwards I stepped to the door and called "Mr. Whitaker: We will prove that. Mr. Cameron. He came into the office and "Court: I will stop there. That is all said: 'You have inserted something here the court can state now, unless you make the which ought not to be here.' He was stand-others things competent. ing up with the bill of exceptions laid on the "Mr. Jesse Littleton: I will ask your honor arm of the desk turning over to find it. I this: Will your honor allow me to ask yousaid: 'In reference to four miles of a school- after examining Mr. Cates, to ask you two house?' He said, 'Yes,' knowing that was or three questions? the correction I remembered having made. He showed it to me, and I said: 'From the best information I can get, that was in there. I asked the Attorney General, and he said it was in there, or said it was proven.' I then asked Mr. Cameron did he have any special knowledge about this matter not being proven. He said he did. He said he would swear to it, and he mentioned it to Mr. Tatum before the trial-before the "Court: Yes, sir; any time." The next witness called was the stenographer, M. O. Cates. This witness testified that he was the stenographer who took the case of State v. White, and that he made a correct record of the proceedings, and that he offered upon the trial of the present case a correct copy of his report, fully compared with his notes. He further testified that, after his notes were written up, he took the original and carbon copies both to Mr. Cameron, with a bill for both; that he never saw the original copy again until after Judge McReynolds ordered him to bring the carbon to his of fice. He identified the original copy which he handed to Mr. Cameron. In making out the identification the witness was asked: "Look at this copy, and say whether or not that, as a whole, is the document you handed to Mr. Cameron. A. To the best of the second page is not, neither is the next, my knowledge and belief, the first page is, neither is the next. The balance of it is my work, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Q. State whether or not you had the pages numbered when you presented it? A. Yes, sir. Q. There is five pages substituted for seven of your own pages; did you count them? A. I think that is right. motion. I said: 'Of course, Mr. Cameron, if this does not belong to the bill of exceptions, and it was not proven, and you can satisfy the court that that is correct, the court will strike it out of the record. While, of course, that means a reversal of the lawsuit, that is neither here nor there; if that was not proven, the court will strike it out.' I then said to him, 'What stenographer was in this case? I understood him to answer rather this way, 'Marsh.' He said, 'Marsh,' and went on to describe the stenographer that takes notes here sometimes, and that I can mention if you desire. I said to him I would not put much credibility in his reports, because I had had some little experience here with him in another case. He then said, 'Morrison.' I said, 'Do you mean Charlie Morrison?" He said, 'Yes.' The court said to him: 'If it is Charlie Morrison, Buchanan, or Cates, they are all reputable stenographers, and you can see them, and can see about it. If they state to you that it was not in there, I will strike it out'-and asked him to see them. He went out of the office, and left the bill of exceptions. I don't know whether he left it with me, or carried it back to the clerk's office. The court immediately went around to the other court, and found Mr. Morrison, and asked him about it. Mr. "Mr. Shepherd: Q. Now, Mr. Cates, did Morrison said he was satisfied he was not Mr. Cameron come to your office some time the man that reported it; that he did not after the 9th of January, and make any think he reported but one case here. The statement to you with reference to this next morning I was called by Mr. Cates-transcript? A. He came to my office some Gentlemen, I realize this is not competent time during January; I don't know what "Mr. Shepherd: Now, if your honor please, without reading these two pages, I will just treat them as read, showing the difference in the two records. "Court: All right. "Q. Now, Mr. Cates, the carbon copy that has been introduced is the carbon copy of your notes? A. Yes, sir; that is the carbon copy of the original transcript I delivered to Mr. Cameron." to you. A. I cannot state the exact words, | stated that he had gone to Judge McReythe language of Mr. Cameron; I can give nolds and told him he did not believe that McReynolds told him to have me call Judge the substance. Mr. Cameron came to my was in there, and Judge McReynolds thought office and told me what Judge McReynolds it was in there, and thought that another inserted in the record, and he said he did stenographer named Norris had reported the not think it was in there. Q. Did he have case, and he told him, 'No,' that Cates had that record with him? A. He did not. Q. reported the case, and that he had done his What else did he say? A. He told me that | reporting in that case, and then that Judge when he went to see the judge about itnow this is the substance of it-the judge insisted that he was not absolutely sure it was in there, neither was Mr. Whitaker sure it was in there. He told me he had changed the form of the application for a continuance to a certain extent, and had called "Q. When he came to you about this mattheir attention to it, and that it was all ter, he did not offer you any inducement right, and then he said that Judge McRey- to deceive the court, did he? A. He did not. nolds told him that, if I would call him up Q. He did not offer you any inducement, or and state that what he had added was not any reward of any kind, to say anything to in the record, he would strike it out, and the court? A. He did not. Q. He did not then Mr. Cameron asked me to look at my intimate that he wanted you to deceive the notes, and [I] looked at them and told Mr. court, did he? A. He merely asked me to Cameron what was there. Then Mr. Camer- call the court up and say that the language on insisted that what the judge had added he had added was not in my record. Q. to the transcript was not in there, and I Do you remember what was in that record, told him that it was not, and then he asked Mr. Cates, what part was changed-do you me to call him up and state that the thing remember what was in there? A. I think that he had inserted in the transcript was So. I have my shorthand notes with me. not in my notes. Q. State whether or not Q. Look at that question 15, "The place where you got your carbon copy and showed Mr. he sold that liquor was without [within] Cameron what the carbon copy showed? A. four miles of a schoolhouse?' A. That is I did not at the time Mr. Cameron was talk-correct according to my notes. Q. Is that ing about it; I had forgotten that I had a a correct copy? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, look carbon copy. Q. Did you get your notes? A. I did. Q. Read your notes to Mr. Cameron? A. Yes, sir. Q. You read your notes in accordance with that carbon copy, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then he asked you to call up Judge McReynolds and say to him that the thing was not in your notes? "Mr. Jesse Littleton: We object, your honor, to Mr. Shepherd stating that. "A. Yes, sir. He asked me to call up Judge McReynolds and say that what he had inserted, the language, was not in my notes. "Mr. Jesse Littleton: Was that after you had read the notes to him? A. Yes, sir. "Mr. Shepherd: Did he ask you to say anything else? A. Did not. Q. Well, did he say anything about the judge doing that, or what was said? A. Well, after I had read the what my notes showed, why he stated that the way it was, he had left out just a little, and that judge had added a little, and that is the sum and substance of it. Q. Did he state whether or not he still wanted you to call up the judge and make that statement to him? A. I think that was the last thing he said to me as he left the office. Q. Did you call up Judge McReynolds? A. I did. Q. Then later you came to Judge McReynolds' office? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then found the discrepancies? A. Yes, sir; I did not compare the application for continuance. I compared the page to my testimony. Q. What else did Mr. Cam here, where Judge McReynolds interlines, A. 1 Then comes the following in the record: "Judge S. D. McReynolds, being crossexamined by Mr. Jesse Littleton, testified as follows: "Q. Has your honor any special recollection of it being proven, 'where school was kept?' A. No; as I stated to Mr. Cameron, that I only had a general recollection now that that was really proven. No; no special recollection that it was proven. Mr. Littleton, I thought it was proven, in reference to 'within four miles of a schoolhouse.' I never considered it very material 'where school was kept.' I inquired about it-asked lection of it, and the Attorney General said it was, and he would make affidavit it was, and I inserted it. Q. You not only discussed it with the Attorney General, but with the clerk, or the deputy clerk? A. I think I did mention it to him. Q. Now, then, Judge, the clerk and the Attorney General and you agreed that it was proven? A. Yes, sir; we thought that it was. I do not know that I mentioned 'within four miles of a schoolhouse where school was kept,' because I never thought that was material. Q. Well, did your honor just insert that 'where school was kept' without any recollection? A. General recollection only. Q. And you did not discuss that with the Attorney General? A. I don't think I did—I don't know whether I mentioned 'where school was kept' or not. Q. But you did discuss whether 'within four miles of a schoolhouse' was proven? A. Oh, yes; and he told me he would make affidavit that it was proven. Q. That 'within four miles of a schoolhouse' was proven? A. Yes, sir. Q. The Attorney General did? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, did the clerk agree with the Attorney General? A. I think he did. Q. Now, then, Judge, after you had discussed this with the Attorney General, you added this, 'within four miles of a schoolhouse where school was kept? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have no independent recollection now that it was proven, 'where school was kept?' A. I certainly have not. Q. Did your honor add this in here: 'It was a White Oak whisky bottle'-did your honor add this, 'He said it was?' A. That was made after comparing this after I got the carbon, merely to show the difference in this page and the page that was furnished him. A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether or not you remember whether in the trial of that case it was proved that the sale of whisky in question occurred in four miles of a schoolhouse? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember that proven? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Mr. Cameron present to you a transcript of the record in that case? A. The stenographer's report. Q. This transcript of the report? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you O. K. that paper? A. Yes, sir; that is my O. K. on the back of it. Q. State what Mr. Cameron said to you at the time he presented it with reference as to whether or not it was a stenographic record. A. Mr. Cameron came to my office with this bill of exceptions in this case, and, if I remember correctly, it was the last day in which he had to present it under the law, and for that reason he wanted me to pass on it at once. I said to him that I was busy, and did not have time to do it then, but that I would agree that the bill of exceptions be filed as of that date. That was satisfactory to him, and he either indorsed that then on the bill of exceptions or later, and left it there with me, but before leaving I asked him if he had presented me the stenographer's report of the case, and he said he did. So I examined it, either the next day or the day following, I am not sure which, made a very superficial examination of it, because of it being a stenographer's report, and I O. K.'d the bill of exceptions without discovering that it did not contain the statement that the whisky was sold within four miles of a schoolhouse. Q. Did Mr. Cameron say anything to you with reference to his having changed it to some extent? A. I am sure he did not, but I am conscious that human memory is frail at the best. If he had stated that to me I would have examined it-examined it carefully. I have no recollection of his telling me that he had changed it in any way, and if he had told me that, I don't believe I would have O. K.'d the bill of exceptions without a more careful examination. Q. State whether or not you O. K.'d the bill of exceptions under the impression that it was the stenographer's report? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. State whether or not you knew that the paper had been changed in any way when you presented it to Judge McReynolds? A. I did not. Now, I want to state this: That at the same time I had a bill of exceptions on my desk in another case, I forget what case it was, from Mr. Schoolfield, and I passed up both bills of exceptions at the same time. Mr. Schoolfield's was one of his characteristic bills of exceptions, gotten up according to his own recollections of the case, and I had a lot of trouble trying to correct it, and make it state "Q. You are the Attorney General of this anything like what I believed the occurrences circuit, are you, Mr. Whitaker? A. Yes, were, as is usual, and I know I thought at sir. Q. Did you try the case-represent the the time that I wished he had presented me state in the trial of State v. J. E. White? a stenographer's report like Mr. Cameron "Court: I will state this for you. Mr. Cates called me up, he said at the direction of Mr. Cameron "Mr. Jesse Littleton: If your honor please, we object to anything Mr. Cates said. "Court: Well, Mr. Cates has been on the stand. He said this, and I might tell you what he said Mr. Cameron told him. eron. "Mr. Jesse Littleton: If your honor please, he had no authority to speak for Mr. CamThe only way in which you could make that competent would be to contradict this gentleman. And if your honor please, we do not want to impeach him, and we think it is incompetent. "Court: What Mr. Cates told me? "Mr. Jesse Littleton: Yes. sir; we do. We insist that is incompetent in any phase of the lawsuit. That is not a part of the res gestæ; it is hearsay." The next witness was M. N. Whitaker, the District Attorney General. He testified as follows: |