Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-28

An Able Review of the Case for the
Prosecution---The Argument of Gov.
Davis Replied to---The Speech to be
Concluded To-Day---The Beginning OF
the End in Sight. +
The sessions of the impeachment court yes
;erday continued the focus of interest, the
seats in the lobby and aisles of the chamber
being well filed throughout both sittings,
many members of the legal profession being OF
The number. Upon the Senate organizing, Mr..
Losey, of counsel in answer to an inquiry OF
Manager Campbell, said respondent had decid-
ed to let his case go to the Senate without
further argument.
Hon. Henry Kinds, Of the managers, there
upon entered upon the closing argument in the
case. He commenced by saying, that the time and
under which he was called upon |
to address the Senate was unfortunate both for
the senate and himself. The Senate had sat !
here week after week, and was naturally tired
of hearing constant repetition OF the argu-
ment, law and the facts in this case 1t was |
upon to address the Senate at all upon such an
important matter as it was considering. Still
more unfortunate was it that he was Obliged to
follow the eminent counsel whose ability, legal
acumen and forensic powers were known
and acknowledged by all men. Still he had
bss ass.s ASSIGNED anser the and
he would fall far short of what would
be expected, and from which he would like to
be relieved, he had his duty to perform. 1t was
undoubtedly fortunate that the able argument
Of his associate who opened the case, ms other
associate who reviewed the law and the facts.
and the skillful exposition of the Law by the as
sistant counsel, had most thoroughly reaped
the entire field, leaving for him nothing but
the gleanings.
The scene now being witnessed is one of rare
occurrence, and the doings Of the Senate IN the
matter is one of q very high order-a duty that
should be performed with deep sense of The
obligation resting upon each member. A high
judicial officer is arraigned for trial as to his
fitness for the position he holds. High posi-
ton often corrupts and transforms the occu-
pant from fair-minded and generous-hearted
citizen into tyrant. But under our torn OF
government the man that sits in the highest Of
fee in the land is not beyond the reach of the
rebuking and reproving hand of the people
no tyrant can long lord it over the people who
elevated him to his trust.
Counsel has portrayed in eloquent terms and
with pathetic appeal the terrible consequences
following conviction of respondent and
Of the managers is stern and unyielding
and forced upon them by the prayers Of TWEEN
ty thousand people for relief from the baleful
influences of malicious minded and arbitrary
Judgment. The part of the Senate is, IS not !, one
of sentiment, but Of firm and unyielding duty
"a duty that must be performed without fear
or favor.
MIR. Kinds then took up the question of pun
ishment, insisting that removal from office was
in no degree punshment-fOr office did not be-
long to any individual-it is public right,
and belongs to no one man. The Senate in its
wisdom can suspend the person found guilty
from his office Il an hour, day, or longer,
according to the enormity Of the offense.
MIR. Kinds refuted the position to MIR. Davis,
that employment of private means, was an
unheard of proceeding, citing the trial OF Judge
Barnard of New York and other presidents, in
support of his statement.
Counsel in his closing argument, MIR. Kinds,
said, made an unfair attack upon the commu-
nifty of Austin. He did not specify particular
parties, but made general assault upon the
character Of that people, which II true ought
to sink them into the lowest strata OF lnfamy.
He might retaliate with fairness, tracing the
actslcom planned of as the legitimate fruits of
! the acts of respondent, but he would not.
The brook, little here and there-County Au-
ditor, French, Ingmundson. Became general
burst its banks, OVERLOOKING all Mower count y.
Finally flooding the Senate.
| The counsel also alluded to the Judiciary as
! the embodiment Of the public conscience.
True, but the judge is not that sole embodi-
ment, and because this judge has not been the
true exponent of that public conscience he is
| brought before this Senate on impeachment
| proceedings. Counsel had also spent much
time in controverting the injustice Of er post
| tuct0 laws. Senators. the managers desire no
aid from such laws. but simply that you shall
decide as to the guilt of respondent under the
laws as they exist. Judges, by virtue of their
| offices, are not subject to impeachment, which
fact makes it all the more important that the
controlling power of impeachment should be
firmly held.
Mr. Kinds then proceeded to the considera-
ton of law involved in the case. In theis are
great principles of constitutional law, the
nature and attributes of impeachment courts
Whether this body is really court or simply 9
body for political purposes exercising certain
delegated judicial duty. If a court you have
taken an oath never administered to a
Judge, and possesses no judicial power. The
law prescribing your duties is the constitution
and thar prescribing your Jurisdiction On,
court in the parliamentar.
sense of the word, though bearing no judicia
power-a court for the trial Of Impeachment
with unlimited powers, and from which ther,
is no appeal. In short, this is not a judicia
body. The rule that gives criminal the bene
fit of every reasonable doubt has no place in al
impeachment trial. You find the facts and tn
law and decree the judgment upon them
which is final and beyond the reach Of appeal
Not the accused alone is interested in this trial
but the entire people of Mower county and tn
State. The precedent hereafter establishe,
will form part of the history of the State.
The object of impeachment is not punish
ment. Prohibiting man from holding offic
{ takes from him no right he has. The sole oh
ject is to relieve the people from the discharg
Acts punishable by Impeachment may consti
tute crime or nothing more than misCOnduC
in Office. The exercise of arbitrary power by
Judge. to Cypress the weak or wreak revenge
) is unfit for the position, and such conduct cor
stitutes AN impeachable Ofense.
+ It had been argued that a person could nc
be impeached, except for indictable offenses
= In REPUTATION of this position, Mr.. Hind
argued at considerable length, the purport c
! his argument being that an offense, to be in
8 peachable, was not necessarily indictable, d.
q ducing at the conclusions the following declars
a | lions of law.
|. First-That courts Of Impeachment have n
\ judicial power, but are political bodies an
= governed by parliamentary law.
= Second-A verdict of guilty is not punish
= ment of accused but simply protection
: the public.
g Third-Impeachable offenses are not confne
to indictable crimes.
e Mr.. Kinds then proceeded to argue the la
: and the facts contained in the articles af in
: parchment, commencing with the fifth, not. /
, said, because it was stronger or weaker tina
. the rest, but because it stands out alone an
unconnected with the rest. Upon 1t no ev
e dence has been introduced to refute it, viii
Q the facts set forth are acknowlede
b by respondent in his answer. The artic
q charges an act, admitted by respondent, whic
; we maintain is impeachable With no ev
:; dence to harrass and confuse the mind, the a
ticle is presented to the Senate upon it's merit
Z and is to be considered under the law apple
t, hIe to impeachah1e offenaes From this artic
h he proposed to establish two principles, esse
Il tally connected with the other nine article