Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-17
COX IMPEACHMENT,

| to Articles ~ and 20 are Unsunlcient
and Should Not be Considered.
At $50 yesterday afternoon, the hour to
which the impeachment court on Saturday
adjourned, there were only some dozen sena
tors In their seats, and it was 500 p. m. before
quorum was present, and the body wal
called to order, and in accordance with previous
understanding, counsel for defense proceeded
to give their objection to the consideration o.
the specifications filed by the board of man
ayers to articles II and 20, as ordered by tn,
senate.
Mr.. Allis of counsel for the defense opened
the argument, combining himself to the on,
point of objection, that allowing that thu
board of managers had the right to formulat,
amended articles of impeachment, or charges
1t was in this instance attempted to deprive re-
spondent of his constitutional rights to have
the charges made against him served upon
twenty days before trial. In this ease the
amended articles were served upon
respondent January 6, and the
trialwas begun Jan. 10, leaving but four days
from time of service until defendant was ar
raigned for trial, and that therefore by the
Inhibited from introducing evidence bearing
upon those articles.
Mr.. Arctander, of counsel, followed Mr..
Allis upon objections to the consideration of
the articles in question. There were numer-
GUS objection to this consideration, he said,
Important alike to the accused and the state.
Our first point is that the article is too indef-
mite to constitute a charge within the juris-
diction of the court: The court decided that
definite, by requiring the prosecution TO pre-.
pare and present specification, alleging parlicu-
lar offenses at particular times. The specifca-
tions have been presented, but we claim that
like the original charge they are too general
in their nature to constitute an offense triab,e
by impeachment. In support of this position
Mr.. Arctander read at length from the pro-
ceedings of H. D. Pringle, judge
Of the surrogate court, Chenango.
Dow, canal commissioners of New York, in
both of which cases, indefinite charges as
made in article II in this case, were thrown
out by the senate sitting as court.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Arctander
claimed that there was no legal right in the
first place, for the filing of specifications by
the managers after the house of representa-
tives had adjourned, and that, even conceding
the right, the managers in this case had not,
ments of the law, by setting out particular
oftenses, so that respondent could prepare his
defense in a proper manner. The article
charges respondent with being intoxicated on
several occasions, covering period of three
years, to an extent incapacitating him from
the discharge of his official duties. This
charge the senate has by vote decided as too
indefinite. Now, are the specifications more
explicit?
Mr.. Arctander here read the specifications,
and then continued. We take the position,
senator's, that these specifications inform us OF
nothing. 1t is principle of law that time is
not material. The managers have acknowl-
edged that the dates given in all cases were
not correct, but under them, if they are al
lowed to furnish evidence. they can cover any
period of time desired, thus preventing re-
spondent from any intelligent preparation for
lis defedse.
liar proceedings in the Page Impeachment
trial, where the managers, required to furnish
specifications, set forth all the facts in detail,
giving times, places, and the character of the
offense, SO that the defense knew just what
charge they had to matchmaking not done
here. We knew before that Judge Cox was
charged with certain offenses, said to have
been committed somewhere in his district,
and that is all we are informed of by the speci-
tications; they give no facts which will enable
the respondent to act intelligently in contro-
verting the allegations made. Take for in
stance the fourth, sixth and eighth specifica-
tions, where the specifications charge respond
ent with being drunk at certain places; the
records show he was hundreds of miles away,
but being permitted to introduce testimony,
the managers will attempt to show that re-
spondent was drunk at some time, where we
will not know until the evidence is introduced.
With the exception of the seventh specifca-
ton of article II, not a particle of evidence
have been manufactured since, and up tOthe
present time nothing has been developed or
given us any information as to what proof we
have to meet. So with the specifications to
article 20. In fact the specifications are so
vague we have nothing to even guess at.
Continuing, Mr.. Arctander said it seemed to
be the policy of the managers to keep the de-
Tense in the dark as to the real character of
the charges made against them, and so the
specifications were made IS blind as possible.
So far as the articles are concerned, we are pre-
pared to meet every one of them, but as to
these specifications we are entirely in the
dark, and can know nothing until the evidence
is introduced.
Secondly, Mr.. Arctander claimed that the
managers had no right to introduce new or
amended articles in Impeachment proceedings.
That power was vested solely in the house of
representatives by the constitution. The board
of managers represent that body only
SO far as the prosecution of the
charges found by it. But in
this case the managers attempt to do what
the house of representatives cannot do, formu-
late charges upon which no testimony has
been taken, but merely upon the heresay.
Continuing Mr.. Arctander said, but allow
ing that the proceedings of the managers were
legal, and that the specifications met the re-
quirements in such, the managers were de-
barred from producing testimony upon them,
by not not having met the constitutional re-
quirement of serving upon the defense notice
of the charges against them. Another thing,
the house may perhaps adopt additional arti-
cles, but there is not case on record except
ing the Page case in this state, where the
board of managers is allowed to exercise this
authority. In all impeachment cases before
the United States senate, all amendments to
the articles, replications, etc., have first been
submitted to the house, and by that body
acted upon, and if agreed to the managers in
structed to sustain them before the senate.
At it's conclusion Senator G. F. Buck asked
Mr.. Arctander il he understood him rightly,
if it was claimed by respondent that the spsci-
fications made to articles II and 20 by the man.
ayers, were no more specific in law and fact
than the original articles.
Mr.. Arctander answered in the affirmative.
Senator Adams then read the following par
agraph, with which the several articles are
concluded:
"And the house of representatives, by pro-