New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1878-06-05
IMPEACHMENT.
SUNNI ary of the Trial Of Judge sherman
Page, of the Tenth Judicial q istrict. Be
fore the Minnesota State senate, sitting
as q Court of Impeachment.


as = Court Of impeachment.
st Paul, Wednesday Nav 22.-At noon
to-day the State Senate, sitting as high court
ofimpeachment for the trial of Judge Sher-
man Page. of the Tenth judicial district, was
called to order by Lieut.. Gov. Wakefield.
Nearly all the members responded to the roll
call. OF the managers on the part of the House
there were present Speaker Gilman, and
Messrs. Campbell Mead and West. The coun
sci for Judge Page, Messrs. Davis, Lovely, and
Losey were also present. Mr.. Davis presented
a protest against Senator Clough, of Mower,
county, being allowed to sit in the court on the
ground that he had formed and expressed an
opinion, that he was one of the grand jury
mentioned in the articles Of impeachment;
because he was elected under pledges to vote
for convictions; because of personal bias;
because he was one of the prosecutors and
one of the witnesses. The court then ad-
journed for the day.
THURSDAY, May 3d. The court of inn
parchment was called to order at 10 O'Clock,
and after little preliminary business of no
special interest, Mr.. Davis proceeded to argue
was answered by Mr.. Campbell on behalf of
the managers, and after a short secret session
the court decided that it would not receive the
protest. The counsel for Judge Page then
raised the question of jurisdiction, on the
ground that the articles of impeachment in
oAiC AOuSc udu Dctll auOplcu ny u p2IU pOCe
vote, and that there was no evidence that
they were properly before the Senate. After
argument, this point was oyerruled, and the
court adjourned.
FRIDAY, May 1.-The court being
opened, Manager Campbell proceeded to
open the case for the prosecution. He spoke
OF the law in cases OF impeachment and then
took up the specifications in the articles
against Judge Page, reading each one, with
n m M tinC n,,f1 ,ay,o
The per diem OF witnesses was fixed at $1.50
per day and mileage four cents. The court
unanimously resolved, that while the body
recognizing the right Of the newspapers to
publish all of the proceedings in full, it dis
claims the propriety and right of the press to
comment upon its proceedings and upon the
parties to the controversy as being prejudicial
to the course ofjustice."
SATURDAY, May IS Thee court adopted
a resolution ordering that only witnesses who
are examined for the prosecution or defense,
whose testimony is material to the issues
shall be paid fees and expenses. Ex-Governor
Davis made motion to quash the tenth ar
tlcle Oilmreachment and proceeded to argue
that this charge was Indefinite improper, and
its Introduction in violation of all legal rules,
and contrary to precedent Manager Mead
replied to Mr.. Davis arguing that the Senate
had power to authorize the managers to
amend the charges. He claimed that the
COuHotl lOl buC uCieuS0 IulSCOnSGTucQ the
character OF the article He argued that
if all other charges fail the tenth article alone
will sustain the charges. The Senate went into
secret session to consult upon the matter, but
without coming to q conclusion Upon open
ing the doors the President announced that
they would take the matter under advisement
until Monday and shortly after adjourned till
Monday, at $50 O'clock.
MONDAY, May 27,-Thcre was no quor-
UNI at the morning session, and after waiting
for an hour for absentees to arrive, the court
adjourned till 2 O'Clock, when nearly full
Senatew was present. d. s. B. MoHison, of
Austin was called by the managers, aud testi-
fled to the facts connected with the indict-
ments for libel brought against him by Judge
Page, and which constitute the basis forthe
first article. He claimed that his bail had
been fixed at an excessive amount, and there
had been great delay in bringing him to trial
On the cross examination he acknowledged
that he had never been ready for trial Mr..
H. Davidson, of the Austin Register testified
as to the publication of libelous article and it's
retraction, during which there was a good
deal Of sparring between counsel as to the
admissbility of certain evidence Mr. David
son acknowledged on the cross examination
that his firm had paid $3.50 towards paying
the expenses of the prosecution.