The news & observer., 1901-03-27

WUNlOA'S 1NIALEH CUHE1 CAIAkhHs
"a skilfully and well-constructed speech. +"
OF course the doctrine of Hoke VS..
Henderson had to do it's stunt in Gov
ernor Jarvis speech, as it has in all
others; so Governor Jarvis took it early
and was over with it,
THIS TERRIBLE THING"
He wanted to know why the Legislature
had not wiped out this terrible thing. y
He would be Obliged if some one would
tell him what became of Judge Connor's
bill to do it.
Mr. Rountree obliged him by saying it
was left on the House calendar
And why did you do that?" exclaimed
Governor Jarvis at the top of his voice
and in wild dismay. why didn't you
pass it? Why not wipe out this terrible
thing? If you had done it there would
have been an end to this argument here. "
He was more quiet now, and he'd not be
so unkind as to undertake to suggest
that its repeal would have some effect
on legislators appointed to office"
The picture drawn by Mr. Pou of the
condition OF the penitentiary under the
Fusicnists had wrung Governor Jarvis
heart and made cold chills run up his
back, he said but he wanted to remind
Senators that while the court kept Day
in it didn't keep out anybody appointed
by the Legislature of 1899.
MIR Day and Mr.. Travis have been
running it since as sort of partnership,
and in their recent report they say its
in better condition than it ever was be-
fore Are you going to impeach the court
for that? You will have to do so by Mr..
Pou's logic"
Then he took up the case of Abbott VS..
BoddingfeId. and said:
"The railroads, in the taxation eases,
made exactly the same arguments as
these adduced here today by Mr.. Pou,
to-wit That the old commission law
was wiped out. Simonton so held, but the
North Carolina Supreme court decided
differently and Judge Simonton was bound
to accept that decision. Thus the court
saved the State many thousands of dol
lars in taxes. Senators, we lost Bed
dngfield, but we got into the Treasury
$50 900 and more under that decision.
He thought such good deeds on the part
Of the court ought to count for something.
The other side, he said, picked out only
the decisions in which there were flaws;
and no account was taken of the many
good ones.
POLITICS OR NOT POLITICS.
Touching the question OF politics, which
by the way was destined to occupy most
of his attention during the remainder
of his speech, Governor Jarvis said:
THE first man to mention politics in
this case was the manager. Half his
speech was devoted to proving that there
is no politics in it. Now, Senators, l
am going to say there is, aud I'm going
to prove it.
Walking across the floor shaking the in
dex finger of his left hand, the speaker
demanded:
Answer me this question 10 Your con
sciences, Democrats: Is there a Senator
hero who believes that if these men had
been Democrats these Articles of Impeach-
ment would ever have found their way
into tbs Senate? If therc is such a
Senator. he has right t. say there is
no politics in it. Otherwise he knows
there is politics in it. Is there a Demo-
cratic Senator here who will say that
if these Respondents belonged to his par
ty he would vote to convict? If not you
must in this case, also, vote to acquit.'
conscience.
Then the speaker did wha. is called in
country debating societies, begging the
question"
He depicted the "awful stigma that
must ever attach TO Judges Furches and
Douglas if convicted, and aided: And
when you vote guilty yoa have put the
same stigma upon the dead Chief Jus
tice" He impressed this point for some
minutes then went into a discussion OF
the legal points
1t seemed to him that running through
the Articles of impeachment were two
charges:
One that the Respondents have viola
ted the Constitution and laws; the other
that they did it wilfuliy and with tao
| motive.
He argued that tie Senate must oe
| convinced on these two points beyond a
| reasonable doubt.
TEARS FOR THE EXPERTS.
In passing, the speaker cropped few
| tears ON the grave CT the experts. and
! expounded their eminent fitness for the
| work they were called upon to do This
part Of his speech was vorv sad.
He now undertook 0 explain away the
| cases of Wilson VS. Jenkins and Sbaffer
VS.. jenkins, which explain consume d
a quarter of an hour; bvt no doubt in
the speakers estimation, it was We'll
spent Then he asked
IF you intended that White should not
| be paid anything why didn't you say So
| in plain unmistakable language?"
He declared that he did not believe
| that Whites claim for salary was "a
| claim against the State. within The con
! temptation of the Constitution, and he pro
| posed to give reasons for this belief. In
I (CtCptinupd on EoIIrtb pooo