Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-09-17
F YEARS, 6 MONTHS
 EACH FOR M'YAYS
(Continued from page one.)

Continued from page one.)
 tainly have no desire uc pres de in the case, but the Constitution and the Laws have nct provided that the judge can be removed from the bench in this manner, even if he is sub poenaed as witness. Now, the mak- CTS o: the Const tuition seem to have had sufficient confidence in the judges of the Ssate to believe that they would not be guilty of anything derogatory to the dignity of that high office, or of any unjust ce, prejud ce Or malice to the prisoner on trial be- the removal of the judge from the bench, except by voluntary eX- change of circuits with some other persap, or, if he was personally d S. qualified by reason of some of the matters, set up in the Constitution m which case he can certify that fact and the bar can select a special judge. Our Const, tw ion and Statues have provided no method by which the defendant can demand the re moval of the judge.
 T think l may not be accused ef impropriety when l repeal what counsel has just sad and what many others have said, that during my term of cffice on the bench I have never given any one the right, by any act of mnne, to believe that there would be any prejudice or partial ty snoWn by FIG fer one side as against the other in any case pending before me l think l have established repula- ton for being mpar ial; it has evel been said to me that 1 have no ene- mics and no friends when on the bench. Friends have sometimes com plaiuad that that was true. This has been said often eEough to make t, think, no impropriety for me to Tefel to it. Counsel has reiterated it here this, mcrnlng-'
 By MT. Rhoton Interrupt fg) Counsel for the defendants haV' mads that statement and wish to re peat it now.
 By Julge Grace: Of course, l all not under takirg to say now tha counsel were actuated by any ohel motive than the one set out Ill the'' motion. but if any such idea ex ist thsy may dismiss it from the! minds as being ent rely without an. foundation.
 Now, as far as the facts set up Il the mo,on are concerned, counse | must have been misinformed, Nr, mucn misiyformed, as to the testl mony tna would probably be g vel by me. The facts in the case are that ,snti the trial of MT. John MIG Vay-the first trial of John McVay, kney y ncne of the McVays-then l go acquainted with John McVay an only knew him by sight. Since tha tral have krown George when
 zee him on the street, but don t sup nose we have met to know each othe half dozen times in the last tW wears. I dcut knew Ed and Culle or. ,n, fact, any of tkem sutficlen nall to pick them out in a crowd
 knew them when l saw them con into the court room as witnesses, d least l supposed they were MaVay' hut tp say could Identify either 1n of thcm if I met them on the stree would have been wrorg. l could Te dc it oday. l don't think l have eve been introduced to either che CT then
 "lt is not fact that l could giV any te stimcny as to the whereaDoW' of either oue of the McVays at fn time ment oned, CT any other perso in that hall. 1 passed through th hall without noticing who was oher' .l,As to the, mark on the wall III .I7s, ateas6t that I have SksogleIlges z how or when t. was put there without any foundation. l could no give any test mony as to now it va