The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-26
TIE JUICES CRATE" REFEREE.
How Sc0undrels Were To BE Driven
Out of New York.
THOSE G. G. ID. ERIE CHAIRS.
Barnard Riding Roughshod Over the Pacific
Mail Steamship Company.


the witness stand Witness sad:-Whllc the AS
scmbly Judiciary Committee was in session heard
Judge Barnard frequently say, referring to their
session. THAT, suppose, will form tue hundred
and lltieth article OF impeachment" referring to
something TRANSPORTING IN his Court.
MI. Beach objected on the ground that the evil
dence was mmaterial, frivolous and trinihg.
Mr. Parsons said the evidence had reference to
one Of the specifications in the thirty-seventh ar
ticle.
MIR. Van Colt said he was not disposed to argue
the question; STILL he was bound TO not CO the OBJ
lection, it touches part OF the charge the prose-
cution were bound to support with evidence. The
question raised here was the had up yesterday
| whether Judge could be imYeached for offences
| not ndictabc at law That question reaches, In
iact all the charges, for there not charge
! which was indictable at law. Counsel then cited
several English authorities to show that the tenure
of Office Of Judge was based on good behavior.
| Now we charge, said he, bad behavior on the
part Of Judge Barnard. You may not ndict
q Judge for being drunk on the bench
nor for using bad language, for many
other like acts Webster said you could not
mpeach Judge except he violated a law. Now,
what law must he vioate--the common law or the
parliamentary law He maintained that unless
Judge conducted himself in becoming manner he
violates the law. Ii he is partial instead OF i'm
partial II he s corrupt instead OF lncOrruptible he
ia amenable. He claimed that this was the usage
of England, and we had taken our usage prece-
depts from England lie asked counsel on the
OTHER side II he knew OF case IN which q Judge
had ever been indicted for an official act; but,
the other hand, we found
JUDGES IMpEACHED FOR BAD MANNERS
and corruption in Office, for all manner of offences,
except indictabe ones. A Judge IL not sueabe at
law Tor any suit or Tor any decision, no matter how
clearly IL may he proven that 1t was partial or cor
| rupt. Why Is this 1t Is because he should be
sale and secure in the discharge of his duties
| Were it otherwise his whole time would be taken
up in defending himself against such suits Coun-
sci argued these points ut length, citing additional
authorities TO sustain his position that inpeacn-
ment Is not limited to lndiot.uie offences.
J. II. Reynolds OF counsel Tor the defence, re-
sponded. After reading the specifications. winch
was to the effect that the said Judge BARNARD whilc
sitting Court, while So. atciing himself remarked
IL am going TO scratch ny sli, and That SUPPOSE
Will make the one thousaAdth Oh one thousand and
first article of impeachm mt against me- counsel
said that it was claimed that this was undisnhed.
They do not say that the act OF scratching was I'M
peachable but that the remark accompanying
the scratching was impeachable AS to the
English precedents, counsel said they were
to discuss and explain them in order to
show tnat they were inapplicable The counsel
says judges hold their onices during their good be-
havior. That is so in some of the States, but it is
not so here. Their term OF Office Is nAed by the
stitution and by statute lie maintained that our
system provides for The very evil which the prose-
cution seek to reach through this Court. They ad
nit that Judge Barnard has not committed an in
LEvITY Or vULGARrrY ON THE BENCH,
but nothing which amounts to a crime; and then,
counsel said, We come to the question as to the
power oil impeachment, and that Orngs the whole
the non and sa thus Court viii hold ta mo-
| charge shall be entertained except what reaches
the dignity OF a crime then such charges as TINS
the Court, the constitution IL silent as to upon
what cause judge shall be impeached or upon
what cause he may be removed; tuerelore the pre-
cedents cited 60 Tor nothing. Counsel read from
Story on what constitutes impeachment, and who
declares that the common law cannot govern cases
of impeachment, and to ascertain what are and
what are not high crimes for impeachment recourse
must be had to that great basis OF American juris
prudence. Counsel cited u number OF other author
tiles sustaining his position. He said whatever may
be the opinions precedents or rules as to the United
according to common law; or II there Is, then no
common law to govern cases in the United States,
| we have IN our state a common law which cOmpels
us to proceed in such cases and punish according
: to the statute. The constitution Of the United
States provides In so many words that the trial Of
all crimes, except Of impeachment, shall be by jury.
Judge story MAN tanned that impeachment shall be
for the violation OF some law tnat is common law,
or some statute law. Now there Is no law, common
| or statutory, requiring Judge to conduct himself
in any particular manner. Ihis Judge Is charged
with breach OF decOruIn, and that Is made crlme
| for impeachment"
The President put the question-"shall the obJec-
| ton be sustained ~ and IL was decided In the
| fflImative Senators Benedict and McGowan only
DRIVING sCoUNDREIs FROM NEW YORK
vi He
| ness as to Judge Bafnards saying IN public lunch
roOm-.I have driven one set Of scoundrels out OF
| New York and am going to drive out anOther;r
that he admitted he made TINS remark while on the
BENCH and that 1t had reference TO a suit between
Fisk and the Union Pacific Railroad. Counsel said
| they proposed to show that this was threat made
In the presence of Durant, witness in the case of
| the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
w. D. Bartlett, on the part OF the defence, OBJ
jected, and proceeded to argue that person Is
liable to impeachment for THIS OFFENCE because 1t Is
not liable to Indictment. lie read from the consti.
stood the question was SIMPLY as to the adnlissi-
bity oil the evidence and to its effect.
Judge Grover said he would vote Tor 0verruling
this objection, as he did not know what effect 1t
would have before the evidence in the OF the
| Union Pacific Railroad.
The question was put to the Court and the objec-
| ton Overrued unanimously.
bered the remark attributed to Judge barnard. as
made by him; there was q large number OF persons
| present; Judge Barnard said Il have driven one
| set of robbers out Of New York and intend to
drive anOther;' the remark was made by Judge
Barnard while he was sitting on the bench holding
| Court; 1t was in a room Tor holding Chambers.
Counsel then proposed to examine the witness
| as to Barnard's appointing person receiver be-
cause he was ms tBarnapds) friend, and that Bar
Mr. Beach objected, stating his reasons, but the
Court Overrued the objection by rs to l-(Senator
THE WITNESS PROCEEDED
to state that he was In Court when there was an
application for receiver In the case OF judgment
debtOr Barnard said, 'ln such matters we always
appoint receivers you are gone, counsellor; there
Is u man Will appoint; he IL friend oil mine
know him very well' and then said to the coun-
selor, .You Will have to tell your client that Judge
Barnard Is such a bad man that he will not grant
this order"
Cross examined by Mr. Beach II was employed
to make these observations only q reporter; as q
reporter am employed to make observations OF
the sayings and d0ings Of oil the Judges; do not
remember any such Instances with regard to other
Judges; have noticed remarks on the part Of Bar
nard; noticed his remark concerning II. J. Hay
mOnd.
Counsel-Do you know, Of your personal know
ledge, that Judge Barnard referred TO II. J. Ray
mOnd
witness-I knew It az well as I know anything.
Counsel and witness here passed words as to the
testimony, and finally witness said he did not
know, OF his personal knowledge, that Judge Bar
nard referred to II. J. Raymond or Eaton.