The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-04-29

statement Dy the district court Judge
that the jury should not be taken into
consideration in the arguments of
counsel, the supreme court holding
that such statement was prejudicial.
Mr.. Hookway, Sinkler contended, could
have cast his vote without opening
the way to the imputation of attempt-
ing prejudice.
Judge Cowan was accused by Sink
Ter of unfairness in his opening state
ment In which he declared at four
different times that he would go on
the stand. The statements made at
that time by Cowan, Sinkler said,
were untrue, and known to be so by
C0wan. He took this method of plac-
ing before the court statement
which he did not dare to make under
oath on the witness stand. Under
handedness was also charged.
Reviewing the history of the case
In the house briefly Sinkler declared
that Cowan's attitude throughout had
been one of attempted concealment of
the evidence, right from the time the
house committee commenced tis work,
and this was pointed to as one evil
dence Of guilt, for If not guilty, Sink
Ter declared that he would come for
ward and demandsa full and complete
investigation, opening all the avenues
Of Information possible. The shutting
out Of evidence In this court had
been made on the objections Of the
defendants &hough there were many
witnesses hSta In investigations of
this charactefe e k,contended that the
widest possible $.atude should be
allowed. g.
The claim Of the aceo,csts jurist that
this was a criminal acssb was also
disputed, Sinkler declarihA Gs*hat it
was a civil procedure, remeds N it's
nature and punitive only to the ex-
tent Of removing from Office. II GRIM
inal. then the guilt must be estab-
lished beyond a shadow Of doubt. II
civil, then the guilt must be estab-
lished by fair preponderence Of the
evidence. But the claim that this was
a civil case was not advanced because
the prosecution did not believe that
it had failed to establish the guilt be-
yond any reasonable doubt. The law
on impeachment was quoted to show
that an accused, even IL convicted in
the senate, was not immune from
criminal action on individual charges
that might be contained in the arti-
cles Of impeachment. He further
pointed to the law that a man cannot
be placed in jeopardy more than once
for the same offense as another basis
for the claim that impeachment is
civil in it's nature.
To prove the charge of habitual
drunkenness, It was not necessary to
show a man drunk continuously. The
evidence on. the drug store charges
was, cited to indicate that Cowan had
violated his own Injunction In one
case and had personal knowledge Of
violations Of the law, but failed to
take any action, while on delayed
cases, he declared It to be not only
the duty of the Judge to hear and try
caaas but, decide them, and for that
reason declared the delay of the cases
to be an impeachable offense. $.@
,Sinkler then launched into the in
dividual specifications. With refer
ence to the June incident in Rugby,
j. A. Mink1er had perjured himself
on the stand for the defense and that
the prosecution had shown beyond all
reasonable doubt that such was the
fact. The writing in the hotel regis
ter on the night Of June II, the sig
nature of Judge Cowan, was pointed
to as evidence of drunkenness and
the attorney declared that the story
of Minkler being i'll that night was
false in every detail and brought in
only for the purpose Of excusing
Cowan, II any excuse could be made,
for going to sleep on the bench on
the afternoon of that day by attribut-
ing such condition to an act of charity.
1t became apparent at noon today
that there was little hope Of. complet-
ing the opening argument. for the
prosecution this afternoon and there
is possibility that Attorney Sinkler
will be allowed to continue tonight
or Monday until the entire case has
been covered. The defense, Of course,
will insist that the opening argu-
ment cover all phases of the case
that conviction will De urged upon,
and up to noon Sinkler had covered
only two, the Rugby and Lakota in
cidents.
Resuming his address this after
noon. Sinkler digressed fer a time
SA NuOoSlOA VI POAAtAN6 LnoI Adu
been injected into the case, declar-
ing that no politics had been inject
ed by the prosecution, but that they
come from the defense and were in
jected fer the purpose Of giving some
sort OF an excuse for voting for an
acquittal. The action, as contend
ed, grew: out Of the movement for
law and order in Devils Lake.
The question Of law in tle final ar
guments may be as broad as desired,
the only point that cannot be touch
ed by the defense being that of jur-
isdiction.
MEXICO ASKS