The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-05-04

~ OOUU gOvU
taken UP and pounded time and
again throughout the day. And on
each occasion, each incident that was
reviewed. the speaker pointed to
them as the acts of district court
Judge: a man. whom he said every
fundamental principle Of the Ameri-
can judiciary should be the leader in
that which was for the good, rather
than one who should take part and
encourage that which was not right
that which was not or should not
be countenanced by the law.
Who Gave the Information!
One of the topics dealt with yes
terday afternoon was that of the let
ters that have been reported as hav-
ing been sent to the wife of the
respondent and to his daughter On
ly two persons could have disclosed
the fact that such letters had been
sent, he declared. and those two
were the sender and the sendee. And
in his opinion he felt that it was
something that had been used in an
effort to create prejudice. These
letters are purported to have been Of
an insulting nature relative to the
case in progress-nOw so near its
close.
Discussed the Evidence.
Discussion of the evidence on the
incidents alleging drunkenness upon
the part Of the accused was taken
up at great length during the after
noon and evening. He referred to
witnesses who had been brought to
Bismarck for the prosecution, and
those who had been brought here for
the defense. He recited the fact that
the defense had declared that certain
witnesses had been promised to ap-
pear before the court who had failed
to do so, as ofsetting the claim of the
defense that the prosecution had fail
ed and neglected to place certain 9TH
er witnesses upon the stand.
And when they-meaning the de-
fense-could not think of anything
else to use against witness, George
Bangs declared that they wanted to
know whether or not he had the
dyspepsia And then Mr.. Bangs
pointed to some of the witnesses
brought by the prosecution, such as
Stansberry and Fulkerson who had
, testified to the Churchs Ferry Incl
dent. and he declared that the evil
! dence introduced probably indicated
that there had, as matter Of fact,
been two Churchs Ferry incidents in
,, stead of one And he denied the
claim of the defense that the Bisbee
and the Churchs Ferry incidents
we're closed.
What Judge Can Do.
A very large portion of the time
yesterday afternoon was given over
to the consideration of the question
of how far a Judge of the district
court may go before he becomes sub
ject to impeachment. George Bangs
cited authorities to justify and sub
stantiate the position of the board Of
managers than when a Judge does
certain things, even If those things
are not recognized as crime in
some other person. that they must be
considered as such or as impeachable
offenses when committed by a jurist.
This was taken up largely for the
purpose Of denying the position that
the defense takes with reference to
the question Of purchasing liquor in
drug stores. While not admitting the
state has proved that Judge Cowan
, has purchased liquor in drug stores
and has habitually frequented such
places alleged to be places wherein
the prohibition law has been openly
and notoriously violated, the defense
has contended that no offense against
the laws of the state has been COM
mitted because there is no law or de-
cision Of supreme court making
, such action subject to action. But
this view is not that of the prosecu-
} ton. .-t..
COwan Hears Entire Address.
The accused iurist sat in the court
room during the entire address. Time
after time George Bangs would enter
into discussion of his-CUwan's--un-
!. fitness for the Office as seen from the
; viewpoint of the prosecution, and the
words would at times be the most
. stinging in their nature. still the ac-
/ cused sat by and heard it all.
} At times George Bangs would be
almost leaning over the shoulders Of
the accused as he walked from one
side to the other of that portion of
tho senate floor given over to coun-
} sci, driving home arguments for the
prosecution and setting forth reasons
why the court should convict
, On Drunkenness Evidence.
Attorney Bangs denied the pro-
priety of the action of the senate in
, shutting out the evidence on cases of
intoxication previous to Jan. 1. 1909.
. as proving the charge of habitual
drunkenness. declaring that such evil
dence should have been admitted.
. He denied that this was criminal
proceedings, but that it was an in
vestigation. or the demanding of an
| accounting from public official.
, And that If the court did convict him,
: 1t was not taking from him anything
that belonged to hint was merely
: returning to the people what they
had given him for short time, and
!, Continued on Page 81