The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1901-03-21
TRIAL OF THE JUDGES.
Continued from First PAge.)


Mr.. Harris-''They were not prss-
emit"
"Who agreed on the facts"
"Mr. Busbee and myself"
"Were you present when the An
davits were signed:"
~ drew them, but was not pre-
sent when sworn to before Mr..
Cade."
"What was done with the papers
after they were made out and sworn
to?"
"rhey were sent to Judge Star
buck at Washington, n. c., think"
"You sent them to him some
where in the frst district"
Eyes"
"Do you remember the date the
facts agreed upon were sworn to-"
~ do not"
''The case was then carried to the
Supreme Court, was it not?"
"After the decision by Judge
Starbuck."
"Was the Attorney General con-
suited about the case?''
~ think not"
"Did the court render . decision
ct that time?''
81 think 80. In Nay 1900"
"When was the next time you
took any steps toward enforcing the
Judgment"
81 don't remember. 1t was in
the fall along towards October"
"What was the first thing you
did,"
81 had talk with the now dead
Chief Justice. I next asked the
court to issue peremptory man.
damus. The Chief Justice or Judge
Furches-I do not recall which
asked me if had given the other
side notice. said did not think
they were entitled to notice. 1
thought that having final judg-
ment by the court l was entitled to
mandamus. The court insisted that
l notify the other side. All the
members of the court were present.
then telegraphed Mr.. Cook, coun-
sci for defendants. Mr.. Cook waived
notice, and said 1 was entitled to
the mandamus. Judge Furches
wanted to know if L had an afr
davit. The court declined to hear
the matter without an affidavit"
"Did you refuse to make an affi-
davit?"
81 did not. I did not have one
with me-"
"And did you make an affidavit?"
81 did not"
"Why did you not make out an
affidavit?"
81 had reason in my mind. l
never intended to make an affida-
Wit"
This answer was objected to by
Capt. Cook and Mr.. Osborne, who
asked that the question be stricken
out. They held that the statement
was not communicated to the court.
They maintained that the intent of
the witness was not to be consider
ed.
Capt. Cook stated that the ques-
ton must sooner or later he settled
and he asked to know in what man
ner an appeal could oe taken from
the ruling of a presiding officer.
President Turner here stated that
the witness could not testify as to
intent.
Senator Woodland desired to know
that when a member of the court
was in doubt as to ruling what
should he do. He ask if a division
could be called and whether the
matter would be settled in open or
executive session.
| Senator London said that when
question Of evidence was under con-
sideration the presiding officer de-
cided, though member, could call
for division, and if sustained by
one-fifth Of the members of the
court could appeal. He said this
was the rule in both the johnson
and Holden impeachment trials.
Mr.. Woodard-"Is any discussion
permitted in calling for division"
Mr.. London-"A call for q divis-
ion is made without discussion. It
is not necessary to go into executive
session."
Mr.. Watson, of counsel for the
prosecution, said he was inclined to
think that on the motion of any
Senator the court could go into exec
utive session. It is proper to do
this on any question.
Mr.. Foushee-"Either side ought
to have the right to appeal from the
ruling of the chair. I give notice
that I will make motion to amend
the rules to this effect"
The question as to whether the
witness ever intended to issue an
affidavit was withdrawn by Mr..
Watson.
''The court refused your motion a
second time unless based on an affi-
davit?"
''They declined to hear me.''
"What did you do next?"
81 called on Col. Kenan, clerk oil
the court, demanded that he issue
the Writ.n
"You did that in writing?"
"Colonel Kenan required that it
be made in writing" (The letter
to Col. Kenan was here shown in
evidence.)
"What was your next step?''
'That was the last thing did
concerning the writ. 1 left the citv
and was gone week.
"You talked to the auditor and
treasurer about this matter and re-