The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-21
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.

being present The question on the plea by the
defendants counsel that the Court has no jurisdc-
ton OF offences committed by the defendant while
holding ONCE at previous term, was pending.
Mr.. Beach read portion OF the argument in Con-
gress by Mr. Groves in the case OF Matteson to the
effect that member was purified OF offence by q
reelection. r.
Mr.. Van Cott cited o resolution in the case of
Blount, to the effect that Blount not civil Of
not impeachable.
Mr.. Beach having said that he understood some
OF the managers wished to be heard on this very
important question, the President decided that, IN
less the Court otherwise decided, only one OF the
counsel on each side could be heard according to
the r ale OF the Court
Mr.. Bartlett said he hoped the rule would be ex-
tended 80 as to allow him at least ten minutes IN
few remarks upon this question, which he thought
would prove conclusive
Mr.. Beach made the same application.
Senator Lewis moved that one OF the counsel, in
addition to the number allowed, be heard on each
Chief Judge Church said he hoped the decision Of
the Chair would be sustained. II this was mere
question OF courtesy no one would be more ready
to grant II than he but II open the door to this
nsrs al % We as we a
already been said for the Court to decide the ques
ton; besides 1t seemed to him that the rule should
be adhered to, as 1t was very proper one to fol-
low.
Manager Niles said he had no desire to continue
the discussion OF this question but as other argu
ments similar might arise he thought 1t would save
time now to nave 1t fully argued.
Manager Avord said a majority OF the managers
agreed TO the ruling OF the Chair md would be sat
is6ed with hearing OF one Of the counsel on each
side.
The President put the question, and 1t was decided
Judge Peckham, and Senators Benedict, Har-
rover, Lewis, Lord, Murphy, 1ieman, d. p. Wood
and woodin voting in the Affirmative. The vote
stood @.
Mr.. Beach then proceeded to address the Court
in advocacy OF his plea. lie said he had listened
other side, but had failed TO hear anything which
sustained the negative OF this question. He had
undertaken to explain the cases cited here; but
STILL there stood the decisions
The counsel then proceeded to argue the point,
maintaining that all the precedents worthy OF fol-
lowing we're to the effect that an Official could not
be impeached for offences committed while holding
Office under previous term. He denounced the
precedents cited from the English Parlia
Of that country, and claimed that they
should not be followed In this civilized age,
Assembly born in the spirit OF reform, and which
turned out to be an abortion at the start-be fol-
lowed here. Should this Assembly, he asked, be
allowed 20 dictate to this High Court its action,
and that too, against all recent precedents esab-
lished by authority OF the highest intelligenceS
Counsel cited number OF authorities In relation
to holding civil officer responsible for his official
action, and maintained that he could not be sub
ject to the action OF the criminal law II would
prove especially Injurious to the principles OF GOV
eminent to thus hold such officers responsible. He
insisted that If this Court decides that this defend
ant can be called to account for offences committed
prior to the time he was reelected and his action
endorsed by the people, then 1t would assa the
chief point In the structure OF our government.
The people had passed upon the action OF Judge
Barnard and endorsed IT, and ifyou he said, review
that action and reverse IL, then you attack and
overthrow the cardinal principle of our govern
men, G inc counsel SPOKE az Length on TINS point
should be sustained, and 1t was decided In the
negative as f0llOws:-
Yn4s-Chef Judge Church judges Folger and Rapallo,
ann senators FOSTER Narrower, Lewis, Lord Murphy,
NAYs--Prcsident Beach, Judges Allen, Grover. Peck
dict Bowen, Chatneld Cock, Lowery, McGowon, Mad
%inslow, D. r Wood and woodin-s ''"""'' "'''"
Mr.. Beach then moved to strike out OF Article 0
the words ''averring that action was brought by
plaintiff with wrongful intent" He said he could
not see why these articles should charge ltigant
with wrongful intent without duplicating Judge
Judge s Church mr. was of opinion that the words
should not be in the article, but he thought the
0ouy' could not make the change:
Mr.. Beach, under this explanation, withdrew his
motion, and moved to strike out the whole OF Ar
ticle 49, which charges Barnard with conspiring
rectors Of the Possession OF the albany
and Susquehanna Railroad. He moved against
the article it did not charge the defendant
with any unlawful action. The counsel said that
there had been no unlawful action taken In this
matter, and cited several authorities a. to what
II.
saws this article charges conspiracy to do act
which was not unlawful, but the attainment Of the
purpose was accomplished by a conspiracy. He
said the charges in this article were connected
with others, to make one unbrOken line Of charges
and to strike out one would affect the
others. He then explained that the charges
were made up into articles for convenience, and
then detailed the acts embodied in this charge, and
the mode and manner In which they were done, to
show that there was conspiracy.
The President put the question to the Court and
the motion was denied.
Mr.. Beach then moved to strike out Article 20,
which charges that Judge Barnard received pres
ents OF 81, 500 and upwards from Fisk and Gould,
while actions In which they were Interested were
pending before him.
Counsel maintained that the article did not spe-
officially charge that Barnard decided ip favor OF
Fisk because OF the presents received.
Mr.. Van Colt, in reply, cited the case OF the
charges against Lord Bacon, in which 1t was not
shown that he received brides for decisions. Coun-
sci said the charge AYERS that Barnard received
presents, one OF which was in naming mis- child
and the other was OF sumptuOus furniture and this
in face OF the fact that there actions pending
before him. This was the Suits were pend
ing; presents were made, and corrupt orders were
issued.
Mr.. Beach replied, insisting upon the points
The President put the question on sustaining the
objection to the twentieth article, and 1t was
ruled.
Mr.. Beach then moved to strike our articles 81
and IS, which charge the defendant with repeat
eddy deporting himself in q manner unseemly and
indecorous and using language coarse, obscene and
spre the belief that causes were decided corrupty
and partially In his court.
Mr.. Beach said that he not only asked for the
striking out Of the articles, but his motion also
directed against each and every specification con-
tanned in them. He said IL would be perceived that
they charge no unlawful act or illegal decision.
They are directed against his conduct and manner
on the bench, and these articles present to the
Court the simple question whether vugarty of
manner or familiarity are OF themselves impeacha-
BILE offences. He thought this was rather matter
OF haste and IL was, In his judgment, Incapable of
IIn t1,ae
crimes only, were Improbable Offences and cited
authority on the point.
Mr.. Van Cott In replying. said that these charges
involved the case n the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, which resulted through the action OF this
Judge being driven rom this to an adjoining State.
This Judge had declared that he had driven set
OF scoundres from the state and intended to drive
another, and he made good his declaration. As to
whether Judge on the Bench can use such Ian
guage as cannot be used In a promiscuous
l.IasS ..f IaIfn and