The news & observer., 1901-03-21
'BYNUM EXPERTS"
TO GEL THEIR PAY
lCOntinued from page 81

Mr.. Watson: I'VE are willing to leave
it 10 your honor without argument.
Captain Cook: But we want to argue
it,
The President: Il VIII give you half
an hour on each side"
Captain Cook 81 promise you we Will
not ask an extension of the time
Captain Cook spoke first fer his SIDE.
In the beginning of his remarks, ne sald
this was expert testimony and 1t would
be hard for him to find authorities tor
the introduction Of this evidence. He con-
tended however that il was authorized
by flght ana justice, as these experts
were to prove, not what the law Is Dut
what it seems tc be. This testimony he
declared, was Intended to bear on the
question OF intent. He added:
A coed deal has been said about the
experts that have been brought here
possibly much that ought not to have been
said. Remember that when you brought
those resolutions in the House you had
two Supreme court judges on the stand
sworn to answer only particular ques-
tions and not to tell the whole truth
Judge Allen wanted to know if Captain
Cook meant to reflect CT the Managers
or the method employed in the taking Of
testimony. Captain Cook said
Il do not mean to imply that these
gentlemen would do anything other than
what is just and right. But such exam
ination of witnesses is the necessary
method in Impeachment trials.
TO ENLIGHTEN SENATORS.
In concluding his remarks Captain
Cook said that if the Senators were
a
the law he would not insist on introduc-
tion of this evidence, and he hoped no
Senator would be offended with the de-
fense for making this attempt to en-
tighten them.
Mr.. c. NJ Busbee, fer the prosecution,
said that as he understood the testimony
offered, it was that the witness should
state that in his opinion the opinion Of
the court was good law; then, that in
his opinion the court by its opinion was
not Influenced by improper motives. He
argued that such evidence as this could
not be admitted in any court He reaG
a number Of authorities to the effect thai
the evidence of lawyer as to what is
law cannot be introduced in any case He
continued:
My friends called the names CT a
dozen lawyers this morning. Why they
should have called them all at once, I
do not know
Mr.. Rountree, OF the Board Of Man
ayers: Yes, you do"
Governor Jarvis. We'll if you know,
state the reason
Mr.. Busbee: Il thought Governor that
it was just simply for the purpose Of
making just little parade"
Governor Jarvis: ''Well | say most abb
solutely it was not and you should not
say So
There was a laugh at this reminder OF
the warm" testimony spread before the
Senate at its morning session.
Mr Busbee Il would not, had you not
asked for it,"
Governor Jarvis: "1ou thought so be-
cause that is what you would have done
yourself"
Mr.. Busbee continued his argument.
showing that if such testimony as this
were allowed there would be no end to
the number of lawyers that might be
brought here on either side.
Tom, Dick and Harry would be drug
here to testify"
Captain Cook 1--WE have no Toms and
Dicks, you may have some Harrys."
Mr. Busbee: We'll you have some
Bills, and l think / heard some Toms and
Dicks called" Laughter.)
COULD FIND NO PRECEDENT.
Mr.. Busbee concluded his argument and
Mr. Long next spoke for the defense, re-
GREETING the absence of precedent on this
point, but stating what he thought ought
70 be precedent. He added
I'VE are in a court from whose decis-
ions and judgments there is no appeal.
Each Senator must say these are the facts
as fad them, this is the law as |
find it,
What do they charge? They charge
that these Respondents wilfully, intention
ally violated the laws of the land and the
constitution. We want to show by these
witnesses whether these charges are true
or not On this point it seems to me the
opinion of learned lawyers ought to he
admitted"
Before concluding, Mr.. Long intimated
that his side would appeal from the de-
cision OF the chair, saying:
Il think it a question that each Sena-
ter ought to decide for himself-whether
or not he wants information as to what
tie law is"
Mr., Pou, for the prosecution, followed
Mr.. Long. He said, thereby causing a
laugh:
The reasons advanced by the other
side have not even the merit of being
plausible. 1t is not even prima facie
reason for doing what they are here
seeking to do. They have stated the law
Of expert testimony, but all the books
agree that law is not one of the things
about which there can be expert testimony,
as every court in the land is presumed to
know the law. They say they have no
authority fer the introduction of this evil
dence and they speak truly All the au-
thorities are Cn our side"
Here Mr.. Pou read from the Johnson
impeachment in which just this kind Of
evidence was excluded Also Greenleaf
on Evidence to the same effect was read
and he added:
1T seems TO me it is a proposition that
cannot be argued. The textbooks are
against it, the precedents are against 1t.
Nothing they show can be perverted into
an argument for it."
THE ONLY KNOWN PRECEDENT.
Mr.. Watson followed Mr.. Pou, and said:
IF the diligent counsel will go through.
the great library over yonder don't
believe they'd find a single precedent for
this. The reason there is such little