Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-18
THE IMPEACHMENT.

1l1G 1Ull EAOHMIlNl L.
The Evidence all Submitted at Last Coun-
sci Ask a Recess Before Proceeding with
the Argument-The Senate Take this Re-
quest Under Amusement.
The impeachment court yesterday morning
was failure, only seventeen Senators appear
ing in the chamber at any one time. After
waiting around for nearly two hours, by COM
mon consent the Senators scattered, save two
or three, with an understanding that they
should again meet at 2:30 P. N. At that hour
quorum had assembled, and a few minutes
later the president called the court to order,
the roll was called and business proceeded with,
MI. Lafayette French, on the stand at the time
OF the adjournment, in rebuttal, being recalled
and asked a few minor questions at the con-
cluslon of which he was cross-examined by
Judge Page, reiterated his statement that the
Riley bill was presented at the March term,
1860; he had the bill in his possession some
six weeks ago, but he had lost it. There was
not testify before the judiciary committee that
at the time OF the controversy with respondent
the Baird bill was under consideration by
the board Pressed by Judge Page, MIR.
French could not state what act MI.
Greenman did in the court case before
alluded to. Have great interest in this case,
and do not appear as counsel at this time but
simply from my own interest in it.
d. w. Hlllman, the stenographer of the
House Judiciary committee, read the evidence
OF b. T.. Tanner, county commissioner, before
that committee, at which time his evidence as
to the Riley bill was different in many respects
from that given few days since.
After finishing his reading upon this point
Mr. Hlllman was made the witness of respond
emit, and read the cross examination OF Mr..
French before the judiciary committee as to
the Baird and Riley bills, to show that that
witness had contradicted himself.
Mr. Mcintyre, county auditor, was called to
identify the Baird and Riley bills, and was fol-
lowed by Thomas Riley, who was called to cor
rect an error in his testimony. R. o. Hall,
sheriff, was then called, and testified he was
present at the January term of the
county commissioners in 1876 when the Baird
bill was presented. Judge Page and Mr..
French had some quarrel. Cross-examined
he said the Riley bill was not before the board
while he was present. In the controversy there
were some words said about corruption. I can
identity the time from the fact that it was
when entered upon the office of sheriff.
MIR. Klnsman, attorney, testified as to MI.
Allen being called as a juror, when he claims
time Covered BY the As CHARGE
also testified as to conversation with Judge
Page as to his right to arrest Stimson for con-
tempt in circulating the petition for his resig-
nation, the court not being in session at the
time the petition was circulated. At another
time in talking with Judge Page, he said he
had his doubts as to his right to punish Stin-
son, and he should look the matter up CAREFUL
ly, and if he found he had no such right he
should discharge him.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Davis, Mr.. Kinsman
said he had told the managers Of this CONVEX
sation only three or four days since. Denied
emphatically that he had told any one since
the testimony of Judge Page, that he (Kins-
many had been in the habit of STIMULATING his
cases away, that he was now ready to testify to
anything he knew in the Page matter.
Mr.. Grant, member of the board of county
commissioners, thought athe Baird bill was
up in JAN, 1875. Judge Page and Mr. French
were present. DON remember of this. Riley
being present, the judge and French had
some argument but no quarrel.
In his cross-examination Mr.. Grant said he
would not be positive about the Riley bill be-
Mr. E. w. Martin, appeared for the first
time, and swore that he was at the meeting of
the county commissioners, January, 1875, when
the Baird bill was up. Heard no quarrel be-
tween French and Page.
Cross-examined, MIR. Martin said he was in
dicted for the escape of Pugh and sentenced by
Judge Page to pay fine of $50.
Thos. Rlley swore there was no personal
quarrel between Judge Page and French, Jan
uary, 1875.
Mr.. Schneider, sworn, said F. W. Allen in a
conversation with him said Judge Page asked
Vaudeville what political work he had done for
Sheriff Hall that he should appoint him
deputy.
Mr.. Joseph Adams swore he heard Andrew
Knox, foreman of the Ingmunson grand jury,
complain of the treatment it had received from
Judge Page.
I. lngmundson testified as to the arrange
ment with bankers for the deposit of county
funds and gave his recollection of two or three
conversations before mentioned in testimony,
his evidence upon either point not being Of any
special importance.
F. w. Frisbie, residing at LIE Roy, testified
that he was a member Of the grand jury at the
September term, 1878, He was asked if he
heard Judge Page charge the jury upon the law
of libel, to which respondent objected that the
prosecution was too late in introducing such
evidence. After argument the court sustained
the objection.
Messrs. Teetum and Cameron were briefly ex-
amined upon points of no special Importance
when Mr.. Olough, of managers announced
that so far as they then knew, they rested their
case, reserving the right to introduce some
documentary testimony not yet received.
Mr.. Davis desired Mr.. Clough to declare the
case absolutely closed, except as to the reserva-
ton made, but Mr.. Clough declined to do SO.
Mr.. Davis then said if the managers should
decide to rest their case, respondent would do
likewise. Speaking further, Mr.. Davis called
The attention of the court to the arduous duties
of counsel in the case, giving them little time
in which to prepare their argument. He also
mentioned the fact that the Journal of evil
dence and proceedings was some three or four
days behind. He did not know the views of
the Senate, but counsel would very much like
a recess.
MIR. Gilman, Of the managers, said they
would like to be heard upon that point.
Senator Nelson moved that the rule be so
amended as to allow three instead of two
managers to take part in the closing argu-
ment.
In answer to Mr.. Davis Senator Nelson said
he had not made the motion at the request of
any one, but he had heard it suggested that the
managers SO desired.
Senator Nelson also moved, to test the
sense of the Senate, that argument commence
to-day.
Senator Armstrong, to give Senators time to
think over the two motions, moved the Senate
adjourn, which motion prevailed.
COMMUNISM.