Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-11


ment of the honorable court acquitting him
| of all corrupt conduct in office or crimes or
misdemeanors, alleged in the articles OF I'M
parchment against him presented.
E. ST. JULIEN Cox,
Respondent.
B. BRIsBIN,
LORENZO ALLTS,
W. 81. SANBORN,
G. X. DAVIS,
JOHN w. ARCTANDER,
Counsel for Respond
Upon the conclusion of the reading the re-
| spondent moved that the court recede from
| rule 16, or that it be so modified as to
allow him to summon such witnesses as may
be deemed necessary in his defense.
Senator Campbell moved reference to the
committee on rules.
| Senator C. F. Buck thought it important to
settle the matter at once.
| Counselor Arctander stated that respond
emit desired to be heard upon the
application, and upon motion of Senator q. +.
Buck recess was taken to $50, when counsel
will be heard upon the application.
Recess to 2:3O p. m.
| AFTERNOON SESSION.
| Called to order for the afternoon session,
Mr.. Arctander. of counsel for respondent, pro-
ceeded to argue the application for change
| of rule 16. He said that the rule the respond
ent now attacked was the handiwork of the
senate, and the duty before him was therefore
| delicate matter. The motive actrIating the
senate in it's PRONUNCIATION was one of public
economy, but the respondent thinks that in a
matter of the importance involved in this
matter, the matter of expense ought to
| disappear, and we feel confident that if the
court can be convinced that the rule works
injury to us, it will not hesitate to change the
l III o1o iv hot hn r1rla
stands, the state has secured great advantage
over the respondent. The sweeping character
of the charges render it very difficult to dis
prove them by five witnesses. The state
| has its witnesses selected to sustain the
charges made, covering long period of time,
during which they will bring up isolated
cases, of which respondent will know nothing
until the testimony is addnced.
| Another thing, the question of drunkenness,
one of the principle charges, is largely mat
| ter of opinion, some people holding man is
drunk when his breath smells of liquor, while
| another will claim man is not drunk as long
as he can walk. But under this rule, there
| will be five witnesses for the prosecution
to swear respondent was drunk on a
certain occasion while the five witnesses
| for defense, reasoning from different stand
point, will swear to the opposite. Another
| thing the State, in this question of drunken
ness. have positive fact to prove, lille the re-
spondent has to prove negative. in law always
recognized as much more difficult thing.
Another privilege always granted the de-
tense in criminal proceedings, is that of i'm
peaching witnesses, and to show notice, etc.
| The rule limiting the defense to five witnesses
excludes us from this course.
Take article Is for instance. This charges
habitual drunkenness. The prosecution is the
attacking party. They select five men to
prove the charge, who will swear they have
| seen respondent drunk on numerous cases. It
| will readily be seen that the defense cannot
summon any five men by any possib means,
| who could be at the very places mentioned by
prosecution to dlsprove the allegation. The
prosecution knew this point while the defense
are to certain extent moving in the dark.
Mr.. Arctander assured the court the re-
spondent had no desire to summon an unnec-
! essary number of witnesses. On many of the
charges, probably but four or five witnesses
at the outside would be desired, but in others,
| they should wish to produce such a cloud of
proof to disprove the charge therein made,
but also by implication go far toward disproy-
| ing similar allegations made in other charges.
| Continuing, Mr.. Arctander claimed that no
limitation of this kind made by rule 16, had
ever been made in an impeachment court. for
the reasons he had stated, in support of which
he read references of different authorities in
the noted Impeachment trials of the country.
Mr.. Alexander closed his argument by en-
larping upon the proposition that the limit
ing of witnesses for the defense was danger
| GUS precedent, but also against the constitu-
tionalrights of the accused A contrary course
| would be to turn back to the dark ages, he
said, before the trial of Warren Hastings,
| when an accused was not allowed 10 introduce
testimony in his defense. Even In the trial of
| Warren Hastings, when there was no written
constitution, the right of parties accused of
crime were allowed to produce all the evil
dence thought to be necessary to disprove the
allegatio IS made against him, and establish
his Innocence. 1t should not be allowed to be
said in this case that respondent was convicted
because he was not allowed to produce wit
nesses to prove his innocence.
We know if we are allowed to praduce our
| testimony we can crush this prosecution
| The case has before been tried in The newspa-
| pers But now we ask the privilege to pro-
duce the facts to the world. We ask this
| privilege, the right, to produce these facts.
| We ask no more in this case than the law
! gives to the man who comes into court with
| his hands reeking with the blood of his vic
| tim. Respondent is not on trial for his life,
but for that more dear to him and to
all good citizens, his honor, and for the sake
| of the honor and dignity of the senate, if not
| for his, we ask that he be given the same
rights accorded to the meanest criminal in
the land. This point, he said, was the turn
| ing DO1nL IN GQlS case. Ii Uno res OOnQenG was
| to be prevented from proving his innocence
| by the force of the rule as it now stood he
| might as well sit still and listen to the
verdict to be pronounced upon. But
| if, on the other hand, he was allowed to pro-
duce the necessary evidence, he felt confident
the foul charges made against him would be
disproved in the most emphatic manner.
The argument of Mr.. Arctander was able
and eloquent. and was attentively listened to.
| Mr.. Collins, of the managers, said the man.
| ayers had no part in the adoption of the rule.
Further, he would say that the managers only
desired full and fair trial, and he mad no doubt
if the interests of justice demanded the court
would allow such witnesses as might be
deemed necessary. He saw no difficulty IN the
way The managers should undoubtedly want
| to summon more than five witnesses upon
certain articles, and he did not doubt the court
would allow the request when made. Contin-
uing counsel claimed that respondent was as
well informed as the prosecution upon the
charges involved, and there was no reason why
accused should be allowed greater latitude
| than the prosecution. The managers had no
| feeling in the matter further than that both