Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-12
COX IMPEACHMENT.


nal that he was made to take an
active part in the proceedings of the court
on the afternoon of the 9Th inst AS he was
not present that day, mistake had evidently
been made. He presumed his namesake, Hon.
D. Buck, of Mankato, was intended. As a
matter OF history, correction should be made.
President Gilman announced that the clerk
would make the correction.
An order was offered by Senator Wilson that
hereafter the daily SESSIONS of the senate be
from $50 a. m. and from 2:3O to in the af-
ternoon.
Senator Rice moved to amend by inserting
10 in lieu of 9, and upon yea and nay vote 1t
was adopted; yeas II, nays Is. The order, as
amended, was then adopted.
Mr.. Manager Hicks then proceeded with the
opening argument for the prosecution. He
said the issues presented by the answers of re-
spondent have some of them already been de-
cided by this court. The court is of limited
Jurisdiction, and can only enquire if accused
is guilty, and if so, remove him from Office.
The first issue raised by respondent is that the
offenses charged are not improbable offenses,
which has already been decided by the
court. Respondent then sets up that this is
not court, the senate having adjourned sine
die, notwithstanding well established prece-
dents that the senate may sit as court when
not sitting as senate.
Mr.. Hicks then commenced review of the
charges presented by the house of representa-
tives, first taking up that of drunken
ness. The disease of drunkenness was
of varied character and operated upon
different persons in different ways. We
do not expect to prove in this case that
respondent has been maudlin DRINK and to-
tally unfit for the performance of his duties at
all the times charged. But we expect to show
that alcoholic poison has peculiar effect up
on respondent, confusing and paralizing his
mind, and producing hysterical excitement.
shadow of doubt, that in the past four years
respondent has attempted to perform the du-
ties of district judge while in state OF dis
gushing intoxicatiOn. This will be done with
no malice, but as a matter of duty.
Mr.. Hicks then took up and reviewed the
first charge, that of being drunk while hold
ing court in Martin county in January, 1878.
He said it was not expected to prove that re-
spondent was maudlin, but that he was SO
unfit to perform the duties of his Office.
Next Mr.. Hicks took up the case of a term
of court in Waseca county held in Waseca,
held March 20, 1879. It was, he said, the
unanimous opinion that respondent was en-
tirely sober the first week. Then the wit
nesses will tell you he began to come into
court acting peculiar. This goes on until the
9th Of April, when he goes on regular bac-
chanal orgie, coming into court with his
other evidences of extreme drunken
ness-in fact so drunk as to be en-
tirely Obvious to the proceedings
going on before him. The clerk of the court
will tell you that after the noon adjournment
he took respondent to the hotel and put him
to bed, and that when it came time to open
the court he went to the hotel and escorted
him to the court room, where later he, the
clerk, had to adjourn the court, and respond
emit was driven to quiet place outside of town
to allow him to get sober.
Mr.. Hicks then invited attention to the con-
duct of respondent at New Ulm Brown county,
about the 18th OF June, 1878, where case was
being tried in chambers. Mr.. Severance, one
OF counsel, will tell you he found respond
emit in GROCERY drunk. To the credit of re-
spondent be objected to sitting, but it was
agreed upon between counsel he should not
be called upon to decide any points, but that
the clerk should keep the record, and respond
emit should decide the points when he got
sober.
The next case occurred at st. Peter, when
| with suit involving $4,000, respondent was
so drunk the case had to be adjourned, as the
| lawyers on both sides will certify.
The next case occurred at st. Peter, October
1879, where when respondent was on a spree,
L dUcOiuOCly lCAuoCO W oiRA q uCCCoodly lCSdi
document, until forced to do so by the inter-
| ference of a life long friend, and when he did
sign it, his signature shows he was drunk.
Mr.. Hicks passed over articles 6, Z, s and 9,
very briefly, saying it was not expected to
prove respondent was drunk but only slightly
under the influence of liquor.
The next case of gross intoxication occurred
| in Lyon county, May 2, 1881, when respondent
being called upon to naturalze two parties
thu rfioc fO no oh in,
in bar room for the purpose. Finally, in
duced to go to the court room, he got into a
dispute with one of the parties and struck him
| in the face.
The next two articles, II and 10, Mr.. Hicks
said covered only slight deviations from the
path of sobriety:
The next was an aggravated case. Respond
ent had appointed special term Of court at
New Ulm, June IL, 1851; but instead of going
to New Ulm to open the court at the time set,
he was found in front of a whisky shop in ST..
Peter in maudlin state of intoxication, so
drunk that when found by an attorney, re-
spondent threw his arms around the attor-
ney's neck, and told him he would give him
any order he wanted.
June IA, 1881, in Lincoln county, respondent
was drunk, and while drunk prostituted his
Office by taking prisoner behind the court
house, and telling him if he would come into
court and plead guilty he would fine him but
$40, but if otherwise he should fine him $50,
and the contract was carried out.
Articles Is and 16, were passed overy very
briefly, Mr.. Hicks stating it was doubtful if
any testimony would be put in upon the latter.
The case at Marshall, Lyon, October, 1881,
was another aggravated case, respondent ap-
pearing to try the case SO drunk he could
hardly get into the court room, and the court
had to be adjourned.
At New Ulm, March 80. 1878, when a d.
vorce case was pending, you will be told that
respondent was so drunk that he went through
the streets of New Ulm whooping and bowling,
and when the court was in session, respond
emit took money from his pocket and sent for
beer.
All these facts and many others, Mr.. Hicks
said, would be given to show that respondent
from the time he entered upon the duties of
judge he had been an habitual drinker.
Referring to the charges of frequenting
houses OF i'll fame, Mr.. Hicks said it was ex
pected to prove that October IA, 1881, four
days after the meeting of the legislature, and
when he must have known charges were to be
brought against him. he got on drunken
debauch at Minneapolis, pawned his watch for
S25, and spent the day with woman OF the
town.
This, in conclusion, Mr.. Hicks, was what
the prosecution proposed to prove, by reliable
citizens, embracing the best men of the dis
trict.
A recess was here taken for five minutes.
EXCLUDING WITNESSES.
Upon reassembling, after the recess, and
while the sergeant-at-arms was in search of
the first witness, Mr.. Arctander offered mo-
ton that while the examination of witnesses
was in progress all other witnesses be ex-
cluded from the court, in support of which he