Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-03-15
ARGUMENT.

An Ead Finally Reached After continu
log Four Days-An Able and Exhaustive
Review of the T. stimony--Counsellol
Brisbln to be Heard To-Day.
| A bare quorum answered to the roll call Of
the senate at 8 O'Clock yesterday morning
Senator Kinds renewed his order OF the even
ing before directly that hereafter three ses
sIons be held daily, from 9 to 1880, from $50
to 6 p. m. and from to 10 p. M, which after
brief discussion was adopted by viva voce
/ vote.
| Mr.. Arctander then resumed his argument
the fourth day OF its continuance addressing
himself to article XIV, IN which drunk.
enness during q term of court 10 Lyon
county in 1881, pursuing the same coarse in
reviewing and anaiyzlng the testimony pro
and con, as upon other articles, from which he
drew the conclusion that tho prosecution had
| failed to sustain the charge.
| Mr.. Arctander then took article XVII, the
| omnibus article-wth its six specifications,
| reviewing them In their regular order. Spec
1 ifleation one charges the Judge
with being drunk during the pending
| of supplementary proceedings at Marshall,
Lyon county, in 1875. The prosecution had
1
| charge, against whom the defense had pro.
ducel two of the lawyers In the case, one a
| witness and the other one Of the parties to
the proceedings, all well known and reputable
citizens who had most emphatically contra
dicted the prosecution, and at least created a
reasonable doubt as to the truth of the
charges.
The next specification covers the time of the
order in the Carter divorce case IN New Ulm,
10. foYpr fOr Eo%I,
the prosecution and the defense. The main
support of tie prosecution was B. F. Weber,
the ever present Weber, the man who is SO
anxious to receive the judges Office that he
has shown his willingness to swear to almost
anything in the least calculated to smirch the
judge. But even Weber did not dare to
swear the Judge was drunk, only that he
thought he was under the influence of
liquor. An examination Of the, evidence of
the four witnesses for the prosecution shows
that they contradict each other in the very es.
contradiction the positive testimony of the
witnesses for the defense, disproving the al.
legations, and the charge falls to pieces be-
yond even shadow of doubt.
The next was that of the Tower case, in
chambers, at New Ulm in June, 1880. The
prosecution had introduced but two witnesses
to sustain the charge, Morrill, and Wallin.
Inc cetense we're unable, from the nature OF
the proceedings, to receive the testimony
Of parties in attendance upon the proceed
ings, but they had introduced evidence which
went to show that the facts alleged by the
prosecution could not have occurred, in which
they had been forclbly sustained by the con-
tradietions of the two witnesses for the prose-
cution and which most effectually disposed of
the charge.
Before Mr.. Arctander had concluded his ar
gument upon this specification, Senator
Adams called attention to the fact that there
was no quorum present, and as the time for
recess had nearly arrived, he would move RS
cess to ESQ, which was voted, not.
withstanding the fact that uuder
the provisions OF parliamentary law, the only
act that can be done bya legislative body OF
tess than quorum in attendance, Is to adj
journ. But the act is In accordance with the
theory frequently advanced by members of
this court, that it is bound by no law or pre-
cedents, but it is in fact law unto itself.