Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-04-29

that the jury should not take into con-
s1derat'"n arguments Of counsel, ,u-
prem" court holding that such state
merit was prcjudicial Mr.. Hookway,
Srnklcr cnntendcd, could have cast his
vote without opening the way to inl-
nHatlcn of attempting prejudice.
! Judge C"wan was accused by Snklcr
at untalrne~> in his opening state
mrAt III which he declared at four Diff
trrcr1 time, that he would 90 on the
stand. Statements made at that time
py CnWan. Sinklcr said, were untrue,
and known TO be 50 by Cowan. He
took this method OF placing before the
court the statements which he did not
! dare t" make under oath on the wit
ness stand. Cndcrhandcdncss was al
SO charged
Reviewing the history of the case in
the house briefly, Sinklcr declared that
C"wan S attitude throughout had been
one OF attempted conccalmcnt of cvi-
'lence, ;i5h' from the time the house
committee commenced its work, and
TINS was pointed to as one evidence of
su1lt' tor, If not guilty, Sinkler de-
c'arcd that he would come forward and
ask for full and complete Investigation.
opening all avenues of information DOS
sible. Shutting out of evidence in
this court had been made on obiec-
t'ons of defendant, although there
were many witnesses here. In investi-
cations of this character, he contend
ed, that widest possible latitude should
be allowed.
The claim Of the accused jurist that
TINS was criminal action was also
disputed, Sinkler declaring that it was
civil procedure, remedial in its ma
ture, and punitive only to the extent
OF removing from office. If criminal,
then guilt must be established bcvond
shadow of doubt; if civil, then guilt
must be established by fair preponder-
ance of evidence. But the claim that
tins was civil case was not advanced
because the prosecution did not be-
llcvc that it had failed to establish
guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
! he law on Impeachment was quoted to
show that an accused, even if convict
cd III the senate, was not immune from
crn'na action on individual charges
that might be contained in the articles
Of impeachment He further pointed
to the law that man cannot be
placed i'll jeopardy more than once for
the same offense, las another basis
for the claim that impeachment is civil
in its nature.
10 prove the charge OF habitual
drunkenness, 1t is not necessary to
show a man drunk continuously; evi-
lencc on drug store charges was point
I'd to to Indicate that Cowan had viu-
ated his own injunction in one case,
md had a personal knowledge of law
'iolation, but failed to take action,
while on delayed cases, he declared it
. be not only the duty OF the judge
% hear and try cases, but to decide
hem, and for that reason declared the
lelay OF cases to be an impeachable
'ffcnse.
Sinkler then launched into individual
pccitications. With reference to the
une incident i'll Rugby, first broached,
lc declared that J. \. Alinkler had
'erjurcd himself on the stand for the
lcfense. and that the prosecution had
lowr beyond all reasonable doubt that
uch was the fact. Writing in the
'ote! register on the night of June II,
he signature OF Judge Cowan, was
ol1,ted to as evidence of drunkenness.
nd the attorney declared that the
tory of AIinker being i'll that night
vas false in every detail and brought
II only for the purpose of excusing
-owaiL if any excuse could be made,
or going to sleep on the bench on
he afternoon OF that day. by attribut-
'g such candtion to an act of char
tv.
Bloom Makes Apology.
A public apology for statements
published by him was made today by