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

the Rule Limiting the Number Of Wit
nesses-Able and Eloquent Argument Of
Counsellor Arctander-Lengthy Debate
by the Talking Men of the Court Upon
the misunderstanding in Retaining the
Rule, with Slight Notifications.
The senate, sitting as court of impeach-
ment for the trial of Hon. E. st. Julien Cox,
Judge of the Ninth judicial district, met in
the senate chamber, Market hall, at IL m. yes
terday, pursuant to adjournment. The board
Of managers were represented by Hon. II. G..
Hicks, Jas. Smith, Jr, A. G. Dunn, s. w.
Collins and Warren J. Ives, while respondent
was in attendance ia person, and by Messrs.
Allis aud Arctander as counsel.
Shortly after Hon. C. A. Gilman president of
the senate, called the court to order and stated
that the sergeant and assistant sergeant at
arms were absent on official business.
was authorized to appoint temporary SER
geant- of-arms, and A. 81. Bertram was ap-
pointed, subscribed to the oath of Office and
entered upon the discharge of the duties.
The roll call showed the following senator's
present: Messrs. Aaker, Adams, boutwell,,
Buck, c. F., Buck, D., Campbell, Case, Crooks,
Howard, johnson, A. M, Johnson, R. B.,
Langdon, Lawrence, Mccormick. McCrea,
Mclaughlin, Morrison, Peterson, Powers,
Rice, Smaller, Shalleen, Tiffany, Wheat, White,
Wilkins, Wilson.
Specifications under articles II and 20, as
ordered by the senate, already given in the
GLOBE, were read by the clerk.
Mr.. Arctander, of counsel for accused. pre-
scented the answer to the complaint, which
was read by clerk.
RESPONDENTS ANSWER.
Stlte of Minnesota, High Court of I'm
parchment. In the matter of the impeach-
ment of the Hon. E. st. Julien Cox, judge of
the district court IN and for the Ninth dis
trict.
And now comes the above named respond
emit, and protesting against the manifold de-
fects, errors and informaiities contained in the
| alleged articles Of impeachment, alleged to
| have been exhibited against him by the house
of representatives of the State of Minnesota,
| court. and reserving to himself all right and
| benefit of exception thereto, and to the insult
ficiencies and defects thereof on their face ap-
| pearing, respectfully submits the following
answer to said articles,
/. For answer to the matters alleged
| and set forth in the first article, respondent
protests that the said article is insufficient in
| law, in this: That the facts in said article
stated do not constitute either corrupt con-
| duct in Office, a crime, misdemeanor or a
public ofense.
II. For second and further answer to
| said article, and The charge or charges there
/ in contained, respondent denies each and every
allegation, matter, statement, or thing in said
article contained, and each and every part,
portion and parcel of each and every such al
| legation, either in manner as therein alleged
or otherwise, save and except that respondent
admits that at the times in said article speci-
| fed, he was Judge of the district court of
| Minnesota in and for the ninth judicial dis
| trict.
| III. For third and further answer to said
article respondent says that he is not guilty
of the pretended charge in said article con-
tanned and that he is not guilty of any other
corrupt conduct in Office, or of any misbe-
havior in office, or of any crime or misde-
meanor in office or of any crime or misde-
meanor at all, as in said article alleged or
| otherwise.
| ~. For fourth and further answer to
said article respondent alleges that the said
pretended charge in the first article contained
was in the month of February, A. D. 1878,
duly and fully and thoroughly examined into
| by the house of representatives of the state of
1 y
of said house and by order of the said house,
and that after having summoned and
| fully examined witnesses as to said charge,
the said committee of the said house of rep
resentatives on the 4th day of March, A. D.
1878, unanimously reported to said house of
representatives that after full and thorough
examination of and investigation of said
charge, the said committee found the said
charge false, untrue, slanderous and malicious,
which said report was by said house then
and there duly adopted, where
fore respondent alleges, that by said
examination and report and the adoption of
the same, respondent was and has been &C
| quilted of the said charge, and should, there
| fore, not be required to further defend against
the same.
| V. For fifth and further answer to said
charge, respondent alleges that no testimony
was ever adduced before the house of repre-
sentatives or before the judiciary committee
of said house on the charge in said article
contained, substantiating said charge, but that
the same was voted and adopted by said house
of representatives without being supported by
any evidence whatsoever.
| SECOND.
| 1. For answer to the charges alleged and
| set forth in the second article, respondent
protests that the said article Is insufficient
in this, that the facts therein stated do not
| constitute either corrupt conduct in Office, a
| crime, misdemeanor, or public offense.
II. For a second and further defense and
| answer to said article and the pretended charge
or charges therein contained, respond
emit denies each and every allegation,
matter, statement or things in said article
| contained, and each and every part, portion
/ and parcel of each and every such allegation,
either in the manner and form as therein al
| legged or otherwise, save and except that re-
| spondent admits that, at the time in said arti-
Gle mentioned, he was judge of the district
court of the state of Minnesota in and for the
Ninth judicial district.
Ill. For a third and further defence and
answer to said article respondent says that he
| is not guilty of the pretended charge in the
| said article contained, and that he is not
guilty of any corrupt conduct in Office, or of
any misbehavior in Office or of any crime or
| misdemeanor in Office or of any crime or mis-
demeanor at all, either as in said article al
| legged or otherwise.
The answers to the Sd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 18th,
| 9Th, 9th, 10th, 18th, 18th, 18th, 18th, 18th,
| 10th, 18th and 10Th articles are identical in
| language with the answer to the second arti-
| Gle, and need not be reproduced here.
SEVENTEENTH.
I. For answer to the 18th article respond
emit protests that the same is indefinite and
uncertain, and does not inform him of the
nature and cause of any accusation against
him.
H. For second and further answer to the
pretended specification to said article served
upon respondent on the 9th day of January,
A. D. 1882, respondent objects and protests
against the same, and any consideration of the
nf n O.