Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-03-31
NEWS OF THE COu,AN TRIAL FROM
LATE YESTERDAY r. NJ.

z>>>e>>~>>>>>~>>>>
The rule that was made yesterday
by President Burdick on the question
of the Introduction of evidence tend
! ing to prove continuous delay In the
making of decisions In cases, Is one
CT great importance. This charge was
contained in specification one of the
| sixth charge, and was to the effect
that the defendant jurist had, from
time to time, delayed decisions In
cases. The decision of President Bur
| dick was made on the strength of the
fact that Section 1907 of the Revised
Codes, laying down the procedure in
cases of Impeachment, sets forth the
fact that charges must be contained
in the articles of impeachment, that
are so clear and of such a nature that
the accused may answer the same.
Also on the ground that there were
forty-nine other specifications under
the same charge in which specific
cases were set forth.
That was the contention of Counsel
Tracy Bangs in his argument in sup
port of the demurrer to the specifica-
ton in question. He declared that
the specification, which he character
lied as a blanket charge, would nee.
essitate the defendant to make answer
to charges that might be raised at a
moments notice and without any op-
portunity to prepare defense.
George Bangs argued that this spec
ification was correct and compared
it to the first charge under the artt.
cles, that of habitual drunkenness,
claiming that they were of the same
nature. In his statement George
Bangs stated that the accused had
failed to produce certain records of
the cases in which he was accused,
specifically, notwithstanding that no.
tice had been served on him for some
time.
On this point Judge Cowan himself
stated that the notice to bring such
records had not been served upon
him until the night before he left
Devils Lake, although 1t had been Is
sued March Is, according to the dates
of it. March % was the date Of
service.
Habitual drunkenness and delaying
cases, Tracy Bangs declared, were
two different things, and he claimed
that if this blanket specification was
allowed to remain, that counsel for
the prosecution could bring in a great
number of cases eight or ten years
old, to which the defendant would be
unable to make reply because of hav-
ing no previous notice. Such cases,
he said, would be used as talking
point on the forty-nne cases that have
been specified
When President Burdick announced
his ruling, Senator Bessesen asked for
roll call, and he and Senator Mellow
ell of LaMoure, were the only mem.
bers of the court to vote against the
elimination of the specification.
Opened Way to Similar Demurrer.
With this question disposed of, the
demurrer relating to charge eight and
the three specifications Hereunder
was brought up. These charges recite
domineering methods, controlling of
juries and unfair treatment to wit
nesses, litigants and counsel, and the
same argument was advanced In favor
of their elimination as had been used
in the previous charge.
Counsel George Bangs went into a
much more lengthy consideration or
argument against this demurrer than
he had in the previous one, but along
the same line, charging that the spec
ifications were very similar to that
under the first charge in which no par
ticular incidents are recited. The first
charge is that of habitual drunkenness.
When the argument had been con.
cluded counsel for the prosecution ask
ed that time be allowed till this morn
ing in which to cite authorities on
the question, and such time was grant
ed.
Against Cowan on Another Point.
The final vote on the que; ion OF
sustaining the demurrer that had been
interposed w.'h reference to the spec.
ifcations un.lrr the third charge re
suited in the demurrer being overrui-
ed by a vote If - % Is. This vote
was taken ate: lengthy arguments
had been submitted in which the
ground had been thoroughly covered.
The specifications in question charg-
ed that Judge Coawn had frequented
places thai wore known 10 I've hind
pigs, and :ryI'1E in support Ut the
demurrer Collsnl T. Z. Eangs dec."r.
ed that the purch Use by an individual
of Intoxicating ]iquir did not, in itself,
constitute crime under the laws G
the state. Nor did the frequenttng OF
such places constitute an Improbable
defense. And, too, the specifications
failed to set forth any particular time
that the defendant had frequented
such places, or had purchased liquor
in such places in his opinion. He de-
clared that for a magistrate to fer
quent such places did border very
closely upon crime, and that to pur-
chase liquor was to enlist aid in sup
porting such places in that it increas'
ed the revenues.
The question of crime in office, mis-
demeanor in office and malfeasance
in office, entered into the argument
and caused no little discussion upon
the part of the attorneys.
Voting in favor of sustaining the
demurrer on this point were Senators
Baker, Carter, Duncan, Ganssle, Gron'