The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-28
VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT.
(Continued from First Page.l

81
who Is infallible and what man so good
or wise that he is wiser than the court
and should set himself up against the
highest court in the land?"
He reminded Senator'S that they were
no court of review and asked: Where
did you come from, born Of Heaven thou
blessed and eternal spirit?' All men are
prone TO err, and desperately wicked,
but as for me I'm the one perfect and al
together lovely
AM SO MODEST
That's what you'll have to say OF
yourselves IL you do what the managers
ask in this case. AS for me, gentlemen,
/ am so modest that 1 simply tell you
what think II should utter the pray
er, God be merciful to me sinner I'd
put one more thought to it, God be mer-
ciful to me fool"
Such modesty, in one who had SO boldly
and fearlessly flung defiance to the flu
ture only the day before, was most be-
coming.
AS Mr.. Osborne sailed along he espied
the spires of Expertville, and with Gov
ernor Jarvis he wept a few tears over
its untimely fate. Then he plucked UP
heart and took consolation in the fact
that the President of the Senate was
right,in the light of authorities and prece-
dents, in ruling out such evidence. He
added t'The only difference between you
and me was whether you should follow
precedent or make a precedent for your
self"
Now he landed on the shores of Wood
VS.. Bellamy, of which the court had al
ready heard much and made wonder
full discovery. He found that the admis-
sion Of the briefs OF attorneys in Wood
VS.. Bellamy as bearing on the question
of intent, was equivalent to an instruc-
ton from the President to the effect
that intent is material in this case. He
added:
You cannot Judge man guilty with
out guilty intent. Prove that they
violated their oaths when they swore to
perform their duties to the best of their
ability. Prove that and / go with YOU
Prove that they swore falsely when they
swore to do equal and exact justice be-
tween all men. Prove that and go with
you, for then you will have shown in
tent, and not till then.
Articles of Impeachment g. and 4
were rapidly passed over, for this bold
mariner was now bound for the troubled
waters OF the office holding cases. When
he reached them he crowded on all sail
and entered them boldly
HIGH TONED PROFESSION.
First he referred to Major Guthrie's
argument in the case of Bank VS.. Worth,
saying:
my profession is heightened one,
gentlemen, and / would not ask a judge
to do an impeachable thing. I would not
argue before any court to its hurt. Am
1911
profession and politics would get
out of it before I'd do such thing
would get out of it before I'd do it.
wouldn't walk to eminence in any pro-
fession over bleeding hearts and blighted
lives
Having fred this shell across the bow
OF Major Guthries craft, to bring her
to, he took pop at Judge Clark whom
he denounced "the unimpeached and un-
impeachable,'' and added:
They wouldn't let the judge file his
dissenting opinion and for that I'm sorry.
But he gets it in here somehow. He'd
already filed one; where in the world
did he get authority to file two. If he's
got a right to file two, where are you
going to stop him? Just keep on filing
'em and filing 'em to the end of time"
And here came the inevitable-that
which not one Of the twenty-one lawyers
in this case Counsel and managers) has
been able to escape-the doctrine of Hoke
VS.. Henderson. This is port at which
every craft of argument yet launched has
put In. Some have spent much of their
time there; the stay of others has been
short. Mr.. Osborne seemed in no hurry
to leave it. In fact most of the rest of
his speech was devoted to this famous
case.
After leaving it, the next point cited
was the Day case. On this he said:
They argue here that the law taking
away Days office was constitutional be-
cause 1t gave that office to three men.
In other words, you can't take my prop
erty from me and give it to one man,
but you can take it and divide it among
three men. The bigger the crowd the
more constitutional it gets"
The case Of Abbott VS. Beddingfeld
was also explored briefly, the speaker
contending that it was absolutely correct
in every word and letter.
AS for the doctrine of in pari materia
It was so old that he never expected to
hear it brought into question. On this
point he read from State VS.. Bell, Is N.
c. Reports. He added:
Il don I KNOW WneIner, II i sat on
the bench, I'd follow that precedent or
not; but / do know you can't impeach
these judges for following a precedent
laid down fifty years ago."
"If there was ever any departure from
the doctrine of Hoke VS.. Henderson it
was in Wood VS.. Bellamy. 1t was done
at the request Of Democrats and for
Democrats; or rather l should say it was
done for the people of North Carolina,
in those asylum cases."
He said the impeached judges had de-
cided thirty-nine office holding cases and
twenty-five of them were in favor of
Democrats
"Is is strange then that |, as q Dem
ocrat, should stand here and plead for
them? Let me tell you this; They have
never decided in favor of Democrat,
unless that Democrat could invoke the
doctr:ae of Hoke VS.. Henderson; they
never decided in favor of Republican
unless he could invoke that doctrine"
At this point the court took recess
until o'clock, at which hour Mr.. Osborne
resumed his argument and concluded it
in half an hour.
The thermometer had now risen many