The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-09
EVIDENCE IN IMPEACHMENT OF
JUSTICES FURCHES AND DOUGLAS
First Publication of the Testimony on Which
Judiciary Committee Based it's Report
in Favor of Impeachment.
THE MANDAMUS TO THE STATE TREASURER

stead, and from this the papers we're
| typewriter.
! @. Who delivered the draft to you?
| A. 1t was sent me-one of the servants
| OF the court, who waits upon the judges,
brought it.
Q. Were you present at the time it was
drawn up?
| A. No.
@, Did you have any conversation with
any of the Judges at the Marlborough
hotel?
A. Yes.
@. State the substance of that con-
versation.
A. They told me it was my duty to is
sue the process upon the judgment which
authorized It.
@. When did this conversation take
placer?
A. | do not remember the exact time,
though it was sometime before the writ
was issued.
@. Had any of them told you to issue
the writ before this?
A. | had been told by Judges Faircloth,
Furches and Douglas, that it was my duty
to issue the writ as stated above.
think they told me two or three times
in this building that ought to issue the
writ
@. Did you meet them more than once? T?
A. Yes.
@. At that conversation to which you
referred a moment ago. did Judge
Furches state that he would prepare the
writ 10 be used?
A. No
@. Did not some of the court object
that no notice had been given the oppo-
site s.ee9
A. Yes; | think that point was raised.
@. Did not Mr.. Charles A. Cook, now
Associate Justice. come into the court
and state that he was attorney in the
matter?
A. do not remember. There was a
refusal to act on the ground that there
think.
O. Is it the usual practice that there
shall be motion in writing?
A. Yes.
O. Was the writ not refused because
no notice had been given?
A. Yes: or, as | understood it. that the
application was not in proper form.
O. Have you another memoranda in the
matter?
A. Exhibits. page IS of the Minute
Docket, where the judgment is recorded.)
@. Did you ask any of the Judges to
prepare writ for you?
A. No.
Q. | believe it is the 12S n. C. Report,
in which Judges Clark and Montgomery
file dissenting opinions?
A. Yes
| @. Did Judge Montgomery file any futh-
er dissenting opinion?
a. Judge Montgomery filed no further
dissenting opinion in writing. but dis
/ sented in conference, though | am not able
to recall his language.
i Q. Did he not state that he thought the
Court had not the constitutional right to
issue the writ?
A. | do rot remember
q. Did Judge Clark file any further
dissenting opinion in writing to the ac-
tion OF TIE Court?
/ A.. Judge Clark sent letter to me in
structing me not TO issue it, together with
a written dissent.
/ q. Will you please produce the letter?
A. Yes. (Witness produces the follow
| ing letter.:
To Thomas s. Kenan, Esq, Clerk of Su-
preme Court.
The other members of the Court hav-
| ing declined your application to instruct
4 you whether to issue or not to issue the
peremptory mandamus againt the de-
PENDANTS. and the Court having so far
lailed or refused to grant the PLAINTIFF S
motion, twice made in open court, for
the issuance Of such writ, Now there
fore
AS one member of the court ] hereby
| instruct you not to issue the said writ
! because (l) 1t is not authorized by the
| former opinion of this Court; (2) It's
issuance at this iuncture is contrary TO
| the course OF practice of the Court; (3)
Inc Court is without any jurisdiction to
issue the writ; (4) The Court has not
/ ordered you to issue it, and you are with
out any authority until so ordered
You will please record this upon your
| minutes as part Of the proceedings in
| this ccse
| (Signed) WALTER CLARK
Justice.
| On Friday. October IL (before this let
ter was received), applied to the Court
sitting in conference. for directions as 10
/ my duty in issuing the writ, but they were
/ not in as plain and specific language
as thought would justify me in
doing so; and this letter relates to that
matter At his request, / gave a copy Of
The writ 10 Judge Clark on the same
/ day ii was typewritten-the 18th. After
this, the conversations mentioned above
! took riace in reference to issuing the pa
| per But ! went again before the court
IN conference at the next ensuing meet
| ing on the 10th, when the language used
! in response to my application for advice,
was direct and ppointed, to the effect, on
| the part of the majority that the writ
! should be issued. The writ was in my