The advocate., 1891-06-03

AA4A
were prepared TO- prove, and dfR offer tC
prove by prominent. eltiEena shat Judge
ROtkin had, ut different .pOints in.Shis state
been. frequently. drunk and had engaged in
drunken QAaErels on. the. public streets; but
the Senate, ip it's wisdom, held that it wai
not an impeaObable offense for a district
Judge 70 get "glofiously drunk" as often
as he pleased odtbide Of his Judicial
district; and refused TO hear any evidence
upon thispoint.' D... ,'1'.. a1'''" q o'''
The Senate also decided shat iSwas nos tE
impeachable offense for district judge. .tC
visit and patroniEe all the whisky joints in
his district. There was no joint too low FOR
this Judge TO visit; no boot-legger too de-
graded TO become the intimate chIm1 and
daily companion Of this Judge; and yet this
high court Of impeachment solsrnnfy de-
Cided that such acts did NOT constitatei'a
misdemssnOR in.ofEices'!t. 94~ - '.oAa...n'
TheYeHidenoe estabhshes the. fact beyond
question. that Judge .Rctkip. is. an .habitpall
user Of Intoxicating drinks. to.a fearful OK,
tent. AS many as thirty witnesses on the
part Of the state testified to such facts Aa
lead to Che belief that whisky and beer have
been his common beverage, and that ne was;
while holding hid. terms Of court, frequently
prostEated from their effects; and on cross
examination. thiFty-fOur of his. own wit
nassas testified TO hsXing drank Intoxicating
liquors With. him.. some. of them 80 .fEa-
quently that they could NOT give any. definite
idea of the number of times they had seen
him drink intoxiOants, In one case it was
proven, and NOT denied, that Judge Botkin;
in tks absence Of the proprietor; raised the
back window Of q drug store "joint" and
went IN and helped himself and others 10
whisky; and in another case IT, was proven
by. numerous ereditable witnesses that he
was. in bed at. a, hotel in the day. time, and.
in, Q drunken stppog for several hours, and
with several whisky bottles in the bed with
him, while officers Of the court and parties
having business 70 Be transacted were Rs the
court house waiting for court TO be opened:
Upon the testimony your committee be-
lieyed and. still believe that no 1nan.who
uses Intoxicating drinks TO the extent proven.
against the respondent. Ia qualified for tho
proper diSchRrge.of tha Important and,re.
Spo9sible duties pertaining 70 the high Of.
fee Of district judge. Yet the decision Of
the state Senate, the high and mighty body
elected on prohibition platform, in pro-
hibition' state; encourages the violation Of
every provision Of the prohbitory liquor
law. It condones the ,offense Of drunken.
ness in ajudge elected on the same plat
forms... 10. .,9aus. .o.,. aD."e..9.4. .l,-." 40.
On tha ninth article. charging. oppression
IN office ip u4lswlglly and malicioysly .im-
prisOning free American citizens, the eyi-
dence showed that Judge Botkin had, for
tEsS purpose Of wifeating his vengeance, i'm
priSonsd four ciEzeHs OF this state; without
even-A shadow Of cause; and yet Of the 'tffts
tyyGva members ofthis high court who were.
voting, sixteen voted toacquit,
10 face Of an oyerNhelming mass Of unCop-.l
and unimpeached evidence. The
tour citizens oppfeS5jivelY GId Illegally ar
.>... $500. .s-S. 0...s ~..- -. .s..S s.s1.'.s