Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-05-30
THE IMPEACHMENT
FOUR OF THE ARTICLES HAZE BEEN
CONSIDERED.
Continuation Of tho witnesses who Had
Been Bulldozed-- Cutting Down the Pay
of Managers, Which May Cut Down tho
Session.

day morning at $780, and proceeded with its
business, with Senators Deuel., Dornelly; Lang
don, Morehouse and Page absent.
LAFAYETTE FRENCH.
Immediately upon the opening, the cross
examination of Lafayette French, whose direct
testimony closed the proceedings of the pre-
vious afternoon, VAS proceeded with by Mr..
Losey, of counsel, at some considerable
length, during which Mr.. French
repeated substantially what he testified on the
direct examination until the point was reached
where Judge Page objected to the stipulation
entered into between himself and MIR. Kins-
man, attorney for Riley, as to the issuing of
an order disallowing Riley's fees. Upon this
point Mr.. French admitted that he did not
object to the stipulation being stricken out, but
rather intimated that it should be 60 stricken
out if wrong, and that Mr.. Kinsman interposed
no objection to its being. stricken out, though
refusing to do it by his own action. MIR.
French also declined to admit that he
had stipulated his cause away by con.
senting to the clause objected to by Judge
Page. He further stated he desired to win his
case, but had no preparation for it by sum-
moning witnesses. Answering as to his inter
est in the trial of Judge Page, he said he was
in St. Paul some twenty days at the time Of
the judiciary committee examination, general
ly meeting with the committee and advising
with Mr.. Clouyh, who conducted the examina-
ton. He had never, however, been engaged as
| counsel, and did not so consider himself, and
had not contributed anything to the trial be-
You'd his own time.
THOS. RILEY
being recalled, stated that he received the sub
poenas from the clerk and served them, and
that was'all he had to do with them. He swore
positively that Page struck out the objection
able stipulation, without the consent of his at.
torney.
c. G. KINsMAN,
the attorney for Riley, was next sworn. Mr.
kinsman testified that he lived in Austin, was
| an attorney, and was present at the meeting OF
| the county commissioners Jan. 1874, as attor.
ney for Mr.. Riley; told the commissioners il
| the bill was not allowed be was instructed tC
bring an action against the county. Judge
Page advised the board that the bill was no,
| a legal charge. In reply to question of Mr
Hall, the sheriff, Page told him he was not
there to instruct sheriffs, but if he would APP
pear in court, he would instruct him. 10 Com.
missioner Kimball, Page said he had not made
an order, but would do so. Page asserted that
the subpoenas were issued to make work for q
deputy sheriff he would not have in his court.
MIR. Klnsman then described the proceedings
in the action from the commencement down to
the presentation of the stipulation before
Judge Page in chambers. Judge Page objected
to that portion of the stipulation regarding
the issue of the ORDER and requested him to
strike it out. He declined and Page took the
pen himself and struck it out. Page refused
| to allow him to summon the commissioners.
lie did not consent to the stipulation being
stricken OUT Pages manner was pleasant.
Cross-examined by hr. Losey, referring to
the stipulation, he said: When the paragraph
was reached relating to the order, Judge Page
said that was not true, that an order had beer
issued. Can't swear positively whether Judge
Page said before the commissioners that the
order had not been made, or had not been filed.
Thought that part of the stipulation vital tt
my case. My recollection is that Mr.. French
did not manifest much interest on that point
think Page asked me to strike it out and
refused. Page left the point open for proof
Did not hear French say if the facts were not
stated correctly he wanted it stricken out
| Page did not refuse to receive proof but re
ceived all offered himself asking questions
French made no argument on the case. Pag,
| conducted himself quietly but can't say b,
did impartially. Don't think so stated to tn,
committee: Knew Judge Pages views of tn,
case when consented to try it before him, ane
believed the interests of my client would b.
protected
WILLIAM RICHARDS
was the next witness. Has been a county com
-AAoeAoAeI eAuce JdnudIy, 1910. was present a
the meeting when Riley's bill was presented
Bill first presented at the March session o
1875; had some talk over it, and laid it aside
at the evening session took it up, and Page
French and the board talked it over. Page de
clared it illegal. Page and French got to talk
ing loud, the Judge accusing French of sellin
out his party for the benefit of that contempt
BILE Irishman. and each charged the other Will
being corrupt. The board calling them t,
order both apologized, Page stating at the sam
time he took nothing back he had said abou
that little upstart. Coming down to the poin
of the order, Mr.. Richards testified positivel,
that Page said before the commissioners tina
no order had been made but that he nigh
make one. The bill was disallowed by tn
: commissioners, relying solely upon the opinio,
Of Judge Page.
On the cross-examination it was brough
out that Mr.. Richards had testified before tn,
judiciary committee that the quarrel betwee,
French and Page in the presence of the count,
commissioners, grew out of what he called th
Baird bill, but that he had since refreshed hi
memory. Also, that Lafayette French was hi
son-in-law, aud that he could not swear posi-
lively whether Page said an orde. had not bee,
filed.
Senate took a recess to 2 o'clock