Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-18
HALF AND HALF.

A Point Gained by the Defense in the Cox
Impeachment Trial-The Senate Decides
Not to Receive Evidence Upon Article
Twenty, Because of Its Insufficiency-
Hearing of Evidence Upon Other Charges
Resumed.
The court of impeachment was called to
order promptly at 10 o'clock, yesterday, Vice
President Wilson In the chair. Organized in
the usual form, Manager Dunn proceeded to
address the court in answer to the argument
of counsel for the defense, that the speclfica-
tions to articles II and 20 were insufficient
and ought to be rejected by the court.
The first objection made by respondent,
Mr.. Dunn said, was that the speci-
fications had in effect amended those
articles, and that being new articles, re-
spondent had not been served with them
within the constitutional provision. Mr..
Dunn called attention to the fact that Dec.
10th the point was argued as to the INSULT
cheney of the articles in question, at the end
of which the managers were required to fur
nish specifications to be served upon respon-
dent Jan 9th. That was the situation when
the court convened Jan. 30th.
tim, and argued that they met all the require
ments of the court as to making specific
charges, and furnished respondent with
proper understanding to any al
legations he would have to meet.
In no way had the constitutional
rights of respondent been jeopardized by the
articles or specifications thereto. Respond
ent was impeached when the house SO resolved,
the articles and specifications filed hereunder
haip n m otfar of rrootina within tho oon
troll of the senate, as counsel acknowledged
when argument was made upon the demurrer
upon articles II and 20. When the demurrer
was overruled, respondent stood before the
senate convicted judge. The senate then
had the legal right to pass judgment upon.
But the senate saw fit not to adopt that rigor-
Gus course, but allowed him to file an answer
to the charges and proceeded to answer. The
position taken by respondent was
all lawyers agreed upon the commencement
of these proceedings, respondent announced
he desired the fullest investigation, and now
effort was being made to get off on techni-
cality.
Another point made is that the articles in
question were never voted by the house. This
was not a true statement. The articles were
voted by the house by the same vote as were
all others, the specifications filed thereto
under the orders of the senate, being mere
matter of practice. The acts charged against
respondent were pertinent to himself, that he
was intoxicated, and a spe cifcation chang
ing the time and place he was so
intoxicated, specifically, stated the
offense, and merely sustained the article voted
by the house, without in the least changing
it's character.
In conclusion Mr.. Dunn said the managers
had been met with various insinuations by
counsel, that the charges had been secured by
money, that the managers had organized
themselves Into a smelling committee, and
finally that the specifications had been put in
to mlslead respondent. These charges Mr..
Dunn Indignantly denied, claiming that the
managers only desired to honestly do the duty
devolved upon them by the house.
Manager Hicks claimed that the managers
had desired to give respondent the fullest pos
sible information of the charges expected to
prove. The senate by unanimous vote de-
cided the first sixteen articles were good, and
all that has been put into the seventeenth and
twentieth articles are the accusations contained
in the first sixteen articles.
Mr.. Arctandcr, of counsel, replied briefly,
arguing that articles IL and 30, having been
declared by the senate to be insufficient, to in
fact contain no charge the SEN
ate could try, the specifications became
new articles, and therefore respondent was
entitled to the twenty days. notice, and not
having received that, he could not be tried
upon them. Counsel did not desire to try this
case upon technicalitles, but they did demand
as right, that in whatever charges tried they
should be furnished with specific facts to en-
able them to meet and refute the accusations
made against respondent. Such has been the
universal practice in impeachment trials, the
facts upon which accused is to be tried being
set forth with the greatest minuteness. We
want to interpose no technical proceedings,
but we do claim we have the right to assert
our constitutional right to be informed of the
charges made against us.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Arctander
claimed that the house could not delegate its
authority, and that the specifications filed by
the managers, being in effect new articles,
could not be considered by the senate. But
whether new articles or not, they were inOper-
alive under the ruling of the senate, in that
they were not specifc and certain. He did not
charge that the managers had intended to mis-
lead respondent by the vagueness of the speci-
fications, but they did mislead.
By Senator D. Buck-Asked counsel if, in
case of indictments of general character as
to time, etc., if the court could not require
the prosecution to furnish bill of particu-
lars.
Mr.. Arctander answered that an ordinary in
dictment, such as charging the sale of liquor,
ETC., was not analogous to the case at bar.
When the specifications simply allege time
and place, and these being immaterial, the eff
feet is simply that they are wholly indefinite
and uncertain, and hence do not inform the
respondent OF the probable nature of the
charge made against him.
The argument having been concluded the
senate at this point went into secret session,
remaining with closed doors for something
more than an hour discussing the points
raised. Immediately upon reopening the doors
a recess was taken until $50 p. m.
Afternoon Session.
Although the senate adjourned to $50 p. N.
it was ten minutes of O'Clock before there