The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-04-11
Efforts to Introduce Them in
Evidence Led to Bitter
Battle
CHAIRMAN noMNES CHARGED
J0RDAL WITH C0HCEALING
Said He Had Not Disclosed the Whole
Truth Of the First Investigation TO
the Board Of Managers-Had Ig.
nored subpoena.

peachment voted to exclude the eyi-
dence or offer Of proof with reference
to the delayed court cases in second
judicial district, other than those
specified in the articles of impeach-
ment, this vote being cast at noon to-
day following a bitter fight that occu-
pied the entire morning session. Il
was on question Of whether or not
these cases should be allowed, and
was inaugurated by the filing of an
application to that effect by the
board OF managers. and concluded
after the opposing counsel and SEN
ators had taken an active part In the
discussion. In course of the fight
Chairman Homnes and Member Mes
tos Of the impeachment board declar-
cd that o. P. Jordal, chairman Of the
committee which conducted the in
vestigation before the house, had will
fully concealed evidence and that he
had refused to obey a subpoena of
the impeachment court to appear and
give testimony, or produce the records
OF the earlier investigation. The close
Of the fight came at noon when the
vote Of twenty-four to eighteen
against admitting the unspecifed
cases was cast, roll call being as fol-
lows:
Against admitting unspecif1ed cases
Allen, Baker, Carter, Duncan,
Ganssle. Gronvold, 0underson, Hook
way, Jacobson. Kennedy, Kretchmar,
Linde, Martin, Mcdonald, Mclean,
Syvertson, Stevens, Talcott, Thore-
son, Trimble, Walton, Welo and
Young.
For admitting unspecifaed cases
Bessessen, cashel; Davta, Duis, Elken,
Ellingson, Garden, Gilbert, McDow-
ell, Overson, Plain, Putnam, Steele Of
Stutsman, Steele Of Renyille, Turner,
Welch, Whitcher and Williams.
Today's brilliant finish opened
shortly after the morning session had
been called to order when President
Burdick announced that the board Of
managers had filed communication.
In this communication the managers
stated their purpose Of once more
bringing up the question Of introduc-
ing evidence on the delayed cases
other than those specified, and in the
communications the cases in ques-
ton, twenty-six in number, were list
ed but not read. The board set forth
the orders upon which the question
had been raised, one being that it did
not wish to assume the responsibility
for not placing such evidence before
the court; that the evidence proposed
tended to prove the facts alleged, and
that the trial was one Of inquiry in
which all the evidence should be Sc
cured tending to determine the fitness
of the accused for office.
Objection to the reading Of the cases
that were proposed was made by the
defense on the ground that then the
very object that has been sought for
several days, that of getting these
cases into the record, would have been
accomplished, the sole question be-
fore court being that Of whether or
not the specified cases should be per-
mitted to come before the court.
At this point President Burdick
took hand in the proceeding, stating
that the proof in question should be
allowed:
Burdick's Statement.
"Let me say, the question and the
only question to be determined is, il
John F. Cowan fit man for Judge?
We are here to get all the informa-
tton we can on this very question
and while we should not violate the
rule Of law in looking up the matters
not specified in the articles of i'm
peachment, yet we should give the
articles q reasonable and fair con-
struction. Under charge seven there
is no question in law but what coun-
sci for the board would have a right
to show delayed cases other than
those specified in the articles. have
so ruled on this order The senate
though took the view that 1t would
work an injustice to the respondent
in that he would have no time in
which to inform himself. The board
Of managers have only offered to
prove twenty-six cases not specified
and their request Is quite reasonable.
The objection has been raised by the
respondents counsel that the charge
Of delayed cases In the articles Of
impeachment is not impeachable and
II that contention be correct, then no
harm can possibly come to the re-
spondent by any hearing on the de-
layed cases, either as to those speci-
fed or those which counsel for the
board of managers now offer and ask
leave to prove. The full and COM
plete vindication Of the respondent,
IT. that be done. demands that we hear
all the evidence on the charges in the
articles Of impeachment. The re-