The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-20
MORE EVIDENCE TODAY
Chief Justice Furches Made Fine
Witness For Himself.
JUDGE DOUGLAS DID NOT DO so WELL
Both Of Them Made Some Damaging Admis-
sions. All Eyes Are Now Turned to
Experts" Who Are Flock
ing to The City.


Yesterday was the fifth day of the
Impeachment trial.
six witnesses were examined for the
defense during the day, as follows:
Chief Justice Furches, cross examined
for an hour and half
Maj. M. W. Robbins, Mr.. J. B. Hol-
man. Mr.. ]. H. Hoffman and DR.. S. w.
stevenson, all of ncdell county, to
prove Judge Furches character
Associate Justice Douglas, on the
stand for four hours. On completion or
his examination the court adjourned.
This morning when court meets Cat
10 o'clock Judge Walter A. Montgom-
cry will be put on the stand.
Judge Furches made a splendid wit
ness for himself-both his demeanor
on the stand and his answers told
greatly in his behalf. The testimony
OF Judge Douglas, especially on cross
examination, was not SO favorable
Both Judge Furches and Judge Doug
las placed the responsibility for issuance
of the writ on Col. Eenan, the clerk
declaring that when it was issued in
October, 1900, there was no order OF
court therefor, and that when they ad-
vised its issue they did so as individuals
and not as a court. Both of the judges,
however stated later in their testimony
that the decision in White VS.. Auditor,
IN NTa=y directed
authorized the clerk to issue a man
danaus. upon proper application, and
that il was on the strength OF. this de-
cision that they advised the clerk to is
sue it.
Also Judge Douglas, evidently for
retful Of the declaration in the Bill of
Rights against "perpetuities in office, "
said he thought under Hoke VS.. Hen
derson the Legislature might put a
man in office for forty or fifty years, or
oven for life, and he could not be dis
turhed unless the office, with its duties,
was absolutely wiped out by the Legis-
lature or the officer vas removed by
.inapeachment He thought this the doc
+rina of Hole VS. Henderson pushed to
it's logical conclusion.
He also discussed at some length the
thrilling doctrine of IN PARI MA
TERRA and declared that though the
court didn't give the. secret away until
after the Legislature of 1897 had met
and adjourned, that was the trademark
under which they were doing business
in office holdig cases. even away
back in the tertiary period of Wood VS..
Bellamy.
The Judge thought there had been
other writs of mandSmus issued to take
money cut of the Treasury, but he
couldn't recall them just now"
Judge Furches was closed questioned,
on cross examination. in regard to the
office-holding cases and he found con-.
siderable difficulty in explaining some
of his own opinions. '1nis, for instance,
was never explained. Why the new
duties i'm the new ais were expressly
withheld from Day py the court in the
penitentiary case, while the new duties
in the new act were expressly conferred
upon Abbott in the Railroad Commits
sion case Or again. where the court
derived the doctrine that the duties of
an office were property, as was held in
Days case.
And many more embarrassing ques-
tions were asked these judges and their
answers We're such as TO have made the
day one not altogether encouraging for
them.
1t remains to be saem how far Judge
Montgomery will this morning help
them out of the hole.
The character witnesses put on the
stand gave Judge Furches a fine char
acter with only this reservation, that
he is a strong and bitter partisan.
JUDGE FURCHEs CROSS EXAMINED
When the court met for the morning
session, the roll-call showed As Senators
present. Judge Furches resumed the
stand for s-examination.
Mr.. Pou, for the prosecution. began by
calling the attention of the witness to
the fact that he had said in his evidence
on Monday that the court refused to allow
Judge Clark to file his dissenting opin-
ion, whereas in his (FurchesD answer to
the Articles of Impeachment it is stated
that Judge Clark withdrew the papers"
The witness said the court refused to
allow the filing OF the opinion and Judge
Clark never withdrew it. He repeated the
circumstances related in his direct testi-
mony on Monday-the refusal of the court
to allow the films Of the protest and the
printing of the dissent, and the courts
reasons for so doing. Then he was asked:
Did not Judge Montgomery say that
Treasurer Worth declared he would pay
the money if mandamus was issued?"