The news & observer., 1901-03-21
FIRED. 7. BOPKINs, Prop.,

roof of any one selling the same
s---------.----------------
Of lawyers to prove what the law is. You
see what a monstrous proposition this
is
Il don't know but one precedent for it.
That occurred in Iredell, the county OF
my friend Long. There was lawyer
up there who argued case before an
cid magistrate. In doing so, he an
nounced proposition of law. 1t sounded
strange to the magistrate and he said
go The lawyer offered to swear to it.
The Book was produced and he swore, on
this testimony the magistrate decided,
but when the case went on appeal 70
higher court the decision was reversed,
the fact OF the lawyers swearing to
proposition OF law leaked out and came
near running the old magistrate, who
then wanted to prosecute the lawyer for
perjury. / don't know whether my friend
Long was relying on that precedent or
not when he summoned these lawyers
here But l tell you, if this motion were
adopted this bCdy would become the
laughing stock CT the State-that the Sen
ate, in this high trial, were sitting here
listening to testimony of lawyers as to
what the law is. Why their proposition
is that this Senate turn itself into an
awkward squad and put itself into the
hands Of dozen lawyers to be taught the
manual OF arms"
Governor Jarvis here interrupted Mr..
Watson to ask
Suppose Judge MaRae should write
a book on this case couldn't it be read
here?"
Yes" replied Mr. Watson, "but he
wouldn't be allowed to come here and
swear that his book was true" (Laugh-
ter.)
ONLY AUXILIARY COUNSEL.
And" continued Mr.. Watson, I'm
almost convinced that when an expert is
summoned to prove point in a case nine
out of ten of them are auxiliary counsel
for the side that brings them into court"
Governor Jarvis: DO you think that
an answer to my question:"
II don't think the gentleman under
stands his own side of the question.
CLaughter)
IF that's an answer to it l must con-
fess I dc not" Renewed laughter).
Major Guthrie, for the prosecution,
made short speech showing that the
evidence was incompetent.
Mr. f. H. Busbee for the defense, gave
ms endorsement 10 every. duIHOTlly Oh
the subject. but apologized for the lacl,
CT preeedents on his side by saying that
this particular question had not been sub
mitted since 1903, in Ohio, and that there
was no record of the trial He argued that
it was a question of fact and not of law
that they wanted to prove by the "ex-
perts."
Senator Wcodard wanted to know of Mr..
Busbee what was the question of fact he
wanted to prove. Mr.. Busbee replied:
Whether or not the judiciary had en-
croached upon the powers of the legisla-
tive department, and to do that we will
have to go into the law-the decision com
planned Of"
Mr.. Osborne, for the defense, argued
that the prosecution had used Justice
Montgomery as an expert" asking him
what he would have decided in certain
eases. He added:
I'VE are not content to fight this case
on the hard and cruel rule laid down BY
the manager of the prosecution. / wouldn't
convict a dog on it. He found the only
precedent That in Andy JChnsons case.
We want to show that this decision was
not so palpably wrong as to show cor
rupt motive.
HE PRESIDENT hOLlN(I.
This completed the argument of coun-
sci, and President Turner ruled tinat
the testimony offered was incompetent.
His decision in full was as follows;
The Statute, chapter 30 of the Sec
ond Volume of the Code, section 1927,
subdivision 4, provides that the presid-
ing officer, shall decide in the first in
stance, without a division, all questions
of evidence and incidental questions l
am OF the opinion that the presiding Of
fcer must decide questions of, evidence
and incidental questions according to the
established rules of law and evidence
that prevails in the courts of the State.
"On trials Of impeachment the rules
CT evidence are the same as provided in
criminal trials before the ordinary courts
of law Eng. En-. Law q ed.) VOL IS. D.
1910, Hartsell's Precedents 1853; Story ca
the Constitution, section 1893; Cushing's
Law and Practice of Legislative Assem-
bles, section 1868; State VS. Buckley. 54
Ala, 599; State VS.. Hastings, 81 Neb.,
S.
Pearson, J., said in Hooper VS. Moore,
80 n. c., p. 1872 What is the law of an
ether State or of a foreign country is as
much question of law, as what is the
law of our own State. There is this diff
ference, however: the court is presumed
to know judicially the public laws of
cur State while in respect to private
laws and the laws of other tSates and
foreign countries, this knowledge is not
presumed. This is familiar
learning Woodson's. section IT'S.
The court takes judicial notice of and
determines for itself the law.
Norman vs.. Kentucky Board of Man
ayers, etc, 50 Ky 1S-556. King Coun-
try vs.. Ferry. 5 Wash. $50; Rider VS..
Frither, 40 Ohio 8, 2S5: Conrad VS.. Fish
r, 81 Mo- app, 352; Simmons VS.
ithell, 29 Fla, 179; Osborne VS.. Black
IN, 7S Wis, 209; Interstate Land Co
MaNn.nll and Crnnt II O