Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-03-06
ABSENT JURYM EN-.
The Manifest Impropriety and Illegally
of Their Sitting In Judgment


of Their Sitting In Judgment
To the Editor of the Globe:
"Emquirer,'' in Friday mornings GLOBE
asks quite number of questions in regard to
the conduct of the Cox impeachment trial.
Without undertaking to answer them in de-
tail, 1 ask what right has Enquirer to as
sumo, insinuate, or fear, that any member of
that court, who has not been present when the
testimony on behalf of the defense was deliv-
cred, and personally saw and heard the wit
nesses upon the witness stand, aUiU, without
having heard and seen them, condemn the ac-
cused? OF course if any member conscien-
tiously believes that the articles of impeach-
ment do not charge an improbable offense, it
is his duty to vote for acquittal, no matter
what the testimony may have been. And in
his case it is not necessary that he should be
present, except at the final vote. The same
is true OF those who, having heard the
testimony for the prosecution, believe it
did not make out case for the
state. As to the Others, it is SO manifestly
their duty to either hear tn. witnesses for the
defense, or, giving him the benefit of the
doubt vote for his acqulttal or not vote at all;
that it seems to me unjustifably gratutous TO
insinuate that they may do otherwise. They
have taken an oath that they will decide
does not consist of the spoken auords merely.
An important element of it is the tone, looks,
and manner of the witness upon the stand.
This is especially true when the testimony is
contradictory in its character, or when the
question is one of opinions, in regard to which
the witnesses are liable to be under the infu-
ence of personal bias, or the weight of testi-
mony may materially depend upon their SEEM
ing intelligence and candor or otherwise.
ordi ~ .e 1~o
any of the jurors were absent when the wit
nesses were delivering their testimony. A
grand jury consists of %, of which Is are a
quorum and IL are necessary to find an indict-
ment. No lawyer and no common sense lay
man, would claim that an Indictment was val
i'd, though 16 were present when the testimony
were given, and - finally voted for the indict-
ment, unless all of that twelve heard all the
testimony.
Our constitution provides in regard to i'm
parchment trials (sec. IA, article ~ that: "No
renee of two-thirds of the members present. "
What is the legal meaning and force of the
word present in this connection?
In forced and narrow grammatical sense,
it may be claimed to mean those present only
at the final vote, which would lead to this:
That whereas a quorum consists of only 81, a
man might be convicted by the vote of only
IA, out of a senate of Al, and not one-half OF
that IA having heard or read word of the
testimony upon either side. An argument OF
Interpretation which leads to such absurdity
can not be sound. The true Interpretation oil
the constitution is to be arrived at by taking
all its requirements together. And as in thi:
case it is an imperative requirement in thu
same sentence of the constitution, tina
the senator's shall decide according to evidence
it must mean that to convict there must be tn,
concurrence of two-thirds of those presen
at the giving Of the evidence. H. F. NJ.