The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-20

Concerned, which shows that this is the document.
He insisted that i was insufficient to intr9dace
was the only evidence the House could go by. he
read the constitution which provides that no ia,
Sca o Sce can AFTER the
ment have been presented to the Senate.
This shows sna judicial r =
there Is not, he repeated, particle Of evidence
adopted how could they be presented to the Sen.
ate He asked II there was single case which
could be cited where the articles ever sent to
by the officers of the I1onseY There was no case,
80 far as he could find, In which proceedings
charges being first duly authenticated by the GER
tifcate OF some 0fcer. lie looked upon this matter
of impeachment as similar to that OF an indictment
by grand Jury, and proceeded to state what was
required Of such jury in presenting an Indictment
and how fatally defective an indictment is which is
Mr.. Van Colt said that In the case of Judge Pres
colt, the articles were not authenticated
The President submitted the question to the
went Into private consultation.
The doors were opened in few minutes, when
the President announced that
THE COURT DENIED THE PLEA.
The Court then took q recess until four p. M.
Afternoon Session.
The Court reassemblcd at four p. M.
ACTS BEFORE HIS PRESENT TERM.
Mr. Beach SAID that the next plea counsel TOT
Judge Barnard would make was that the Court
ought not to take cogniSanGe Of the charges or
prior TO his election to his present term OF Office.
Counsel then put in evidence the oath OF ONCE
taken by Judge Barnard on January 2, 1851, also
that taken on December rs, 1865.
Mr.. Van Colt put in replicatlons to these pleas
maintaining that the charges are truthful impeach-
able, relevant and material, and insisting that they
show good causes for impeachment,
Mr.. Beach said it would be perceived that the
whether he should be put on trial for
acts alleged to have been committed at
q time prior to hts present term Of ONCE.
endorsed by them, and II was questionable whether
this Court could pass In review the acts of an
official after they had been passed upon and APP.
proved by the people. He then cited q number Of
precedents to show that such action had been de-
IN he ns az mostn
OF the Court at least He also referred to the
Of Congressman Matteson. That gentleman, 1t was
offered to expel him after he had been reelected.
He read portion OF the debate IN Congress on this
case IN which !,h Mr. Smith OF Virginia, took the
worthy to associate with the other members,
If THE PEOPLE REFLECT HIM
they purify him so far as the case Is concerned.
Counsel read other opinions OF the same character.
He associated the case Of Judge Merritt, of whose
counsel one was Charles O'Conor. lie also detailed
the case OF Philo Q. Fuller, who, when the Legsla
could be impeacaned who was not in office,
removal from Ol1lcc and disqualified to hold Office;
hence the offender must be In Office. The commit
II,
be impeached for offences committed while In office
under a prior term. Counsel said many of the
transactions charged against the defendant oc-
CURED prior to 1868, and they were known to the
people, his constituency, before they were
called upon to decide again whether ne should
the case Of acts committed by public officer and
the decision OF the people upon them saying that
ne was ut person 1, to hold the once again.
by the counsel applys to eleven Of the thirty eight
" Nw,,o w., , ,or<,rr u,r ,,,nonu. >,,,, IN, ,
and said it was q question OF law that was to be
decided upon. He referred to the fact that the
power Of removal in the Senate was broad and en-
braced many causes. 1t was not confined to any
one cause The Senate may remove an officer who
is so far disabled by sickness that he cannot dis
Nor is the cause confined to q present term Of
office, but 1t extends to period prior to that
term. This question OF power Of removal was thor
the preliminary proceedings in this case and the
position here assumed was negatived. Counsel
counsel on the other side, and claimed that
the argument on it was misapplied; that, in
acted on the ground that the OFFENDING member had
been expelled for action during preceding term
eligible to reelection But, said he, we need not
go SC far back. The last Assembly had impeached
Judge Cardozo, Judge Barnard and Judge Nc
case, too, counsel maintained, had
are now IN court Of law, ana the question was to
be passed upon whether crimes committed by men
lie had much respect for the voice Of the people ee
as expressed at the ballot box but were the crimes
OF man to be pardoned by popular voter He
asked II criminals are to be kept out OF state
Prison by the condOning
EFFEcTs or POPULAR ELECTION
The declaration that the Assembly was the grand
inquest of the state had been sneered at but il
such nevertheless He asked where was the power
LODGED to take out Of the bands q This Court an
election, great as it it, is subject to other powers.
The people elect man; they put him in place;
not true that mere election purifes or pardons q
man. Counsel says this is q court to try crimes.
found the statute Of limitations e which released
Judge Barnard from his crimes Where is the lim-
tation which cuts of Judge Barnards RESPONSE
lead to. There are thirty-twO Supreme Court
Judges. All these Judges, according to the position
crimes during the last months Of their term anu
escape punishment.
Mr.. Reynods-Does counsel say that Judge is
Mr.. Van Cott-There are many things which in q
Judge are crimes, and yet they are not lndctable
Those were the acts he referred TO- They can be
reached only through court of Impeachment and
the security and reputation OF the State depend
upon maintaining here this position.
Mr. Beach quoted from Blackstone that such Of
fences az those referred to by counsel were ndict-
able.
Mr. Van Colt continued referring to cases which
occurred in England centuries ago, In which
officials were impeachcd for offences committed
while IN office during previous terms. These were
cases of trial and punishment Of persons out of
office for crimes committed while in Office. This
was for the purpose OF punishment. He would re-
gard the escape OF the defendant on this plea az in
furious to the people and degrading TO the Office.
The Court then adjourned till ten A. NJ. to-m0r-
row.
BAR ASSOCIATION AGENT.
The Board OF Managers having adopted reso-
luton requesting the Par Association TO aid them
In whatever way they could in the prosecution Of
the charge against Judge Barnard that association
has designated Albert Stickney, OF New York to
act in conjunction with the counsel already Sc
lected.
NEW YORK CITY.