The news & observer., 1901-03-20
~ never did until this Impeachment

in conference in reference to those pa
pers?"
"There was some little confusion in
conference some talking across the
board about the matter, and / do not
remember very clearly just what was
said"
Here the witness stated the custom
in regard to the fling of dissenting
opinions. He added.
II state these things because they
were the reasons thar influenced me in
refusing Judge Clark permission to file
an additional dissenting opinion at this
time l knew of no precedent to war
rant it. Nor did l regard it my duty
to vote to spread upon the minutes an
order LClark's protest. to the clerk not
to do thing that the court had ordered
him to do"
Touching the dissenting opinion of
Judge Clark, the witoess further said:
When the erasures and changes were
made in that opinion. l do not know
/ never heard of them or saw them till
this impeachment proceeding began"
What occurred when Judge Clarks
dissent was being discussed?'
WITH THE OBITUARIES.
There was some sharp discussion be-
tween Judge Clark and Judge Mont
gomery, in regard TO the character of
the dissenting opinion. / myself laugh
ingly remarked that as there was moth
ing before the court | knew of no place
in the reports where the dissent could
be put, unless it was with the obituary
notices and that if Judge Clark wanted
to put it there as his obituary he had
my permission to do So
The witness here, in reply to queS-
tions from counsel, said he had never
been influenced in his opinions by poll
tics or any consideration other than the
law; that he had never attempted to
suppress the opinion If any judge on
the bench, when properly put before
the court, and that he had never tried
to bring the acts of TIC Legislature into
disrepute. On this roint he read an
extract from his opinion in the case Of
Green VS.. Owen, explaining: Il read
this to show that it was my position be-
fore any impeachment proceedings were
begun or even thought of, so far as |
know, and such is my position now
to give full faith ana credit to the acts
of the Legislature, so far as they are
consistent with the Constitution and my
oath of office
On further questions being asked, the
witness said that when he took his seat
on the bench he had never given any
thought to the office holding cases nor
had he even read Hole VS.. Henderson.
He continued:
But in the asylum cases, decided on
that doctrine, l actel against my own
artxy he
authority of the distinguished counsel
who argued those cases and filed briefs
in them 1 offer these briefs as showing
the doctrine on which 1 acted in the
asylum cases and all the office holding
cases since
BRIEFS IN EVIDENCE.
8 Counsel for the judges now asked that
the witness be allowed to file these
prosecution objected and the President
intimated that he would not allow the
briefs introduced.
Capt. Cook, however, asked to be
heard on the questica He contended
that the defendant mad right to put
in evidence the considerations that in
fiuenced him in his decisions, it having
been charged against him that he had
DSCAA lililuSlCSQ NY ItfllSdl motives.
Mr.. Watson conteDded that the evil
dence was not compe .ent He added:
1--WE don't complain tf Hoke VS.. Hen
derson We don't complain of Wood
VS.. Bellamy. 1t is this whole drove of
cases that are using Hoke
VS.. Henderson and Wood VS.. Bellamy
as a base of operations for
these judicial incursions that we com
plain of. We argue that no brief
is admissible in any case II a brief
is admissible, then it is permitted for
them to bring witnesses here to prove
what sort of oral argument counsel
made"
Mr. Osborne contended that the briefs
were competent, and Judge Douglas,
added
These are original briefs which were
handed to nc as justice, on argument
of the case l have preserved them
ever since. r was Influenced by the re-
putation and standing of counsel, as we'll
as the authorities cited"
After argument the President changed
his opinion as to the competency of the
briefs and allowed their introduction as
evidence.
The examination was continued, Gov
ernor Jarvis asking:
Were you ever influenced in your
opinions by partisan considerations?
Il was not so influenced consciously
and l don't believe l was unconsciously
influenced"
THE CROSS EXAMINATION.
The direct examination of Judge Doug
las was completed at exactly o'clock.
He was cross examined by Mr.. Watson,
who asked:
do we understand you to say or to
claim that the court is any less response
Bile by advising the clerk to issue that
writ than if it had in express terms or
dered him to issue it,"
II think they are. because there was
nothing before the court on which to act. .
did you know. at the time you gave the
clerk your last advice, as you call it, that
| a legislative resolution passed by the
Legislature in June still claimed contro
of the oyster fund.-"
| II saw some reference to it in the
papers, but l did not think that resolu-
| tion was anything more than it purporteC
10 be on it's face-an inquiry concerning
the condition of the Treasury"
Had your attention not been dircctl.
called to it?''
Il think It had