The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-16
nRNilDS IMPEACHMENT.
II. Beach Concludes His Argument In
Favor Of the Respondent.
loeE VAN COLT FOR THE PROSECUTION.
In What Respect the Accused May
be Considered Guilty.

In What Respect the Accused May
be Considered Guilty.
SARATOGA, N. T., August Is, 1872.
The Court met at ten A. n. twenty-nfn mem.
oore present
ARGUMENT FOR DEPENcs.
Mr.. Beach, Of counsel for tho respondent, con-
tinued his argument. He said. at the time Of the
adjournment Yesterday he was calling the atten-
taon Of the Court to the fact that Commodore Van.
Aerbt brought an action to recover %, 0Oo, 900 IN
bonds In order to settle the Erie litigation and this
action was opposed to the last by Fisk Gould.
otill Justice Barnard in the Fan Of 1871 rendered
Judgment against Fisk Could This showed that
he was not, as charged, always acting In the in
tsrests Of those parties. 1t showed, to
the contrary, that 10 was an in
hexible and incorruptible Judge, rendering
indgments not In favor Of this man or that man.
but In favor of Justice only. Counsel then pro-
seeded to explain the origin Of this litigation,
which was In an EFFORT made by Commodore Van.
Aerb to get possession of the control OF the Erie
Railroad, and, said he, the struggle Is not ended
yet 1t is matter Of great and overshadowing in
Forest; It is no mere personal interest. or an in
forest confined to any one or two or three men,
solved in it. Nor was Judge Barnard the only
Judge who has become connected with
Shis litigation. Other eminent judges
had taken action similar In all
respects, one may or other, with that taken by
Judge Barnard, and II this Court condemns him It
must condemn all. Counsel then called attention
70 another instance Of what he termed not only
Just and wise, but q bold action on the part OF
Judge Barnard. He referred to the Injunction
tpon the New York city ofIicials. When other
judges shrank from the responsibility Judge Bar.
Hard, with boldness worthy the memorable
examples Of the past, came to the rescue
q the interests Of the people, How, he
asked, can this action be reconced with the
charges Of corruption so nippant,y and 80 pertlna
odously hurled at hms This Court may not like his
q the charge OF being corrupt and INSCRIPTIONS.
re u but iorty-two years OF age, and fifteen OF
is has been scrufinized as perhaps no mans has has
ever been before and yet what do we ind The
COMMITTEES Of the Assembly which had made
The O Counsel S tSe nm WIN p'''A'' '0''op"0n
N t1.a Of TO tne 1 os soatnne AL.
fasm, saying that the most pronigate plunderer Of
the aee Ia here to impeach the uprightness Of o
Aaye welght here Ae then referred to the Shrsten.
end related the circumstances Of that event. He
40 an: because he e Judge. He then referred
Shystctan in the city testified directly that the
sTnsrd In Hotcins the threat tI made By Judge
Barnard that, having driven one set of scoundrels
% s sSs 9s s0 nSe
threat was done in the spirit Of pleasantly, and
TT that threat Is brought here TO show that this
lneee parties. 1t was not reasonable to suppose
that yudge or any one else about to engage In an
sss wS1S 81 p % s Ss
fus &c da Drive these parties out ss' Of y the h;
We're su q osst9sot iSsl The
RroeeeSinqs Of coHrt ought they not TO DO driven
sSsn those who hold our courts In Contempt and
e.. Tas.s ss Testimony 3 the wit
nade uee Of by Judge Barnard and said that It was
proved that no such case as Birdseye refers to was
sSssevsr but the statement. and eonsra
ssss then s' r. sessy to ana the pFS snsn9ss
mt Judge Barnard appointed his H. friends a. ref
iSCuid sppoins bis enemies to act as reisree sS
ass sn sst paper s%1s
York papers, to the erect that the struggle
ssve 'i him from disqaalinca,ion. BE denied
ssSiaI mat these statements =, IT,, should appear
Gty Of New YORK; and also the appearance here Of
an Mlomensd form hitting about among the mem.
sss tSis respcndsnt is Convicted win Be- the death
the great demo Ss%Sc,st ". party We'll g; said
Go:S:si snsn referred 70 torn: q grss. Sl'ssnsss
crusade against Judge Barnard and in exerting its
66uencs on this Court, and said that this practice
closed his argument with an eloquent peroration,
tlictttng applause from the spectators when he
took hh seat, which the President suppressed.
Of counsel for the prosecution, then proceeded TO
make the closing argument, and In commencing re-
the press the bar and others, and asked why 1t
that this respondent had SO many enemies. This
lated TO make for him friends Instead OF enemies
and yet according to the counsel, he IS surrounded
BY enemies. He asked again how was it that he
has Oil the enemiess DO they come out OF the ground
or must there not be some good reason for
causing everybody to turn against hims The coun-
Del then referred to the reprOaches cast upon the
Bar Association by the respondents counsel, and
defended that association from his attacks. He also
noticed other remarks and declarations OF the coun
Del, and then proceeded 10 state that the impeach
Dent Of this respondent had been Instituted &C.
cording to the constitution and laws OF the State
No respondent was without precedent. In ali
l0rmer impeachment cases the respondent an
ewered in detail, giving the law and the fact. In
this case we have only
THE PETTY LARCENY PLEA.
" not guilty general denial Thus the prose-
eution, after deliberately detailing the charges,
we're deprived Of the opportunity Of knowing what
ne defence was to be- In Illustration he referred
20 the testimony concerning the chairs. ave were
led SAID the counsel, ITO believe that there would
BE raised question ofidentlty as to those chairs.
Bat We md the identity Of the chairs IL admitted,
Ind then one witness named, he thought
Quackanbush) testified that the chairs were
Ne respondent swcars that he thought
NE chairs ready made and paid for them on the
epot. A. 70 the Foley Injunction the counsel said
There was nothing very remarkable In that II was
orOpeY that this Injunction should ISSUE and it was
keued but it required q weeks ArQument1