The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-15
3iRNARD'S IMPEACHMENT.
Beach Combating the Charges Against
the Supreme Court Judge.
HING IN THEM .
The Accused a Model Of Purity and
COnscientiOusness.
No CRIMES IMPUTED HAD BEEN PROVED,

EU CRIMES IMPUTED hAu DEEM rhJvEu'
SARATOGA, August IA, 1872.
The Court met at ten A. NJ, thirty-four members
present.
I Mr. Beach, OF counsel for the respondent, re-
kumed his argument at the point where he yester-
day stopped, and which was upon article !,
charging Judge Barnard with issuing an order d.
fecting the receiver Of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company to open Its safe and secure possession OF
the books OF the company. The order was Issued
pm the report of the receiver that the key OF the
safe had been secreted. 1t is charged that the re-
port was unverihed, and therefore Judge Bar
hard acted trregulary and with wilful
bnd corrupt Partially to James Fisk, Jr.
hhe counsel said the practice was for the
court to act upon the report Of its oficer, re-
teiver, without requiring a verifcaton. The next
hrticle was the eighth, which charged Judge Bar
hard with wilful and corrupt conduct and with
betting beyond his jurisdiction In making the above
mentioned orders after the case had been removed
10 the United States Circuit Court. Counsel said it
WAS unnecessary for him to meet this charge,
IT was disposed Of In the answers he had made to
preceding ones. The counsel then proceeded to
kpeak Of
Mnd the orders issued in the matter. He detailed
khe condition Of the a1airs Of this company when
these proceedings were initiated showing that there
WAS great dissatisfaction the part Of the stock
holders with their management; that these stock
holders had Q most powerful opposition to contend
with; that In short they were powerless TO get
khe slightest information satisfaction concerning
kmatters In which they were deeply interested. 1t
bvas then that these men applied to Messrs. FISK
EGould for assistance. 1t Is In evidence that Fisk
sUoud were not voluntary tnterferers In the affairs
lof this company. They were applied to because
hhey had control Of very important road to which
lit would be great advantage to connect the AL
hlany and Susquehanna road, and yet when they
kwere applied to they did not at once acquiesce.
b hey directed their counsel to make an investiga-
kion. There was elaboration on their part. The
BY the purchasing Of 100000 worth Of stock the
control of the roa. could be secured and the relief
eouk ut by dissatisfied stockholders could he at
raluPu. This stock was secured and then com.
fenced the struggle for possession. The action in
Ftituted by the stockholders was met by counter
Pome close Incorporation, and which had man
hged the affairs Of the road to the detrlment Of the
h hmined the proceedings instituted, claiming that
the stoc.h holders had the right to appeal to and
tem by the law. He pointed out the necessity and
AUTHORITY FOR THE MOVEMENT,
md explained that there was no other way under
the circumstances TO reach the end, which was
IN case WAS regulars IT, d
counsel. the charges against the president Of the
company which were sworn to were correct and
promptly IN issuing orders which would interpose
Enscs en 20 90 ms cEnduct and the charges which
the respondent should be applied to this president
Counsel then glanced at otner articles bearing
Upon the action In the same case, ana called
the attention Of the Court to the evidence taken
In support Of these articles which, he said, went
r the was anf liz ten
proceeded TO comment upon the action Of the
parties who, he said, endeavored to obstruct the
proper and legal proceedings instituted by the
ttockhol6ers, both before and after the legal
in the course OF his remarks he referred to an
prder issued by Judge Parker, and who efter-
prgna oraef ayns as hs d SO
Psked, Is not this Judge impsached for his action
A. Is 81, because . nc simply erred He Ga not 40 what
10 Sastened q Correct and restiy Il. Then why why
bhis determination against Judge Barnard 1t Is
Which he NJ make Ie asp
httentlon 70 the order issued by Judge Peck
kttached to the application was very defective.
81 making any complaint at tie action H 81 Judge
Peckham, but to show the haste with which these
proceedings were carried on.
HE IMPUGNED NO ONES MOTIVES.
He belived all acted on both sides with good
motives, but he did want TO have this Court act
1npartally. II one Judge Is to be condemned then
let all the other Judges acting In this case be con-
nemncd alike and In common. DO not, he said,
taat all the others have, and condemn him,
syhile you let the others 60. Above all,
bets in the same manner that other Judges act,
Hnd leave the others unscathed. Treat all alike.
by ana eminent FOR
the action OF Judge Barnard in these cases,
wt tool these standing forth
know why these acts OF Judge Barnard should
BE- selected for even anmadversion II he is
condemned, then we must condemn many OF
our most learned and eminent judges who
renspicuously adorn tne Judicial bench. Counsel
t1en referred to the fact that In the course Of this
Trial the respondent had been shut or from giving
in proof against the charge Of corrupt conspiracy,
established; and yet counsel the other side
talked OF such conspiracy being SHOWN. Counsel
subject. It was disposed of by the Court and he
Noud not give 1t further attention. Counsel then
Sndge barnard with issuing. through favor OF Ira
Snaler counsel an Injunction against the Milwnu-
nee and 81. Paul Railroad Company the complaint
stances OF the case. After first speaking in the
highest terms OF the character OF Ira shafer, whom
charge in an unenvia5e light, he maintained that
IN this case the plaintiff was pursuing perfectly
look for any improper impure action on the part
pt Judge Barnard, The counsel then took up the
twenty NTH article, charging the respondent with
rroDgfully directing the
LEASE OF TIE OLYMPIC
Hheatre to James y. Hayes when others onered to
pay more. Counsel insisted that Judge Barnards
action was perfectly proper In this matter taking
into consideration al the circumstances Of the case
counsel then stated the circumstances OF the case
of Stamwood vs. the Pacific Mail Steamship Com
pany: He insisted that Judge Barnard did nothing
Hn this case but what considerate and just Judge
ought to do and. under the circumstances, would
Ho. Thls company owed $1,000 to the plaintiff
ftanw0od. 1t was an acknowledged In
ncbtedness, and yet when Judge Barnard
nirccted the payment It was refused; then the
lIainu u appeared before the Judge and wanted an
oroer nut u being saturday afternoon Judge Bar
3lru totu nun lie was not In the habit OF granting
nnougnt would be effective in the matter; he
mrote hote 70 the company advising them to pay
The debt and thus avoid other r,roceastinva Ih;a