The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-09-19

moved from his office of governor of
this state for the cause stated in the
| article Cor articles) of the charges pre-
ferred against him upon which you
have found him guilty?' Shall Will
liam Sulzer be disqualified to hold any
office of honor. trust or profit under
this staten
And the final judgment of the court
shall be certified by the president of
the court and clerk of the court
Argument Begins.
D. Cady Herrick, leading counsel
for Governor Sulzer, argued in behalf
of the challenges he announced yes
terday he would make to the sitting
as members of the court of Acting
Lieutenant Governor Wagner and
Senators Frawley, Ramsherger and
Sanner. Judge Herrick stated that
the objection to Senator Wagner was
based upon the fact that las acting
lieutenant governor he is interested in
the result of the trial. as in the event
of the conviction of the respondent,
he would succeed to the dignity,
profits and emoluments of the office
of lieutenant governor"
"This case" said Judge Herrick, Sin
some respects, is the greatest since the
impeachment trial of President john
son. 1t has aroused the country.
There can be no question that the
senators on the Frawley committee
have formed and expressed opinion
on every article of impeachment"
Judge Herrick then read the arti-
cles of impeachment as adopted by
the assembly, declaring that the de-
fense's challenge is founded on ''the
right to seek trial by an impartial
tribunal. one that is not prejudiced in
advance"
He cited court opinion bearing on
the absolute necessity of all the judges
being uncontaminated by bias.
Every member of this court he
said. should be free from even
suspicion of bias, in order that the
governor may be given such fair
treatment as is accorded the meanest
criminal accused of the smallest
crime"
Parker Replies.
At the completion of his arguments,
he formally challenged the right of
the four senators to sit. As Judge
Herrick closed Judge Alton B. Parker
rose and began to speak without
notes.
'I shall contend before this high
court" he argued, that you are with
out authority to exclude from its
membership any member The people
of the state of New York are SOW
ereign They said in the beginning
that this court shall be composed of
the court of appeals and the senate,
and you are without power to say to
any member, whether judge or sena-
ter. You shall. not sit in this court =.
Judge Parker declared that the state
legisla ton made no provision for judge,
senator counsel to challenge any
member of the high court Citing pre-
cedents established in the trial of the
Impeachment OF President Andrew
johnson and other executive and ju-
dicial officers, he argued that the peo-
pie of each senate district in the state
were entitled TO a vote of their repre-
sentative. He recalled numerous in
stances where members of former
courts of Impeachment. who had serv-
ed on committees the reports of which
had resulted in the adoption of i'm
parchment articles, had requested to
be excused from sitting in judgment
but had their request denied by their
colleagues. His presidents ranged in
time from the seventeenth century in
England, to 1909. when during the i'm
parchment of John H. Shively, auditor
of the state of Washington, Is of the
AZ members of the senate were chal-
lenged.
In the Shively case Judge Parker
pointed out, it had been held that a
senator's vote belonged to the constitu-
ents and to himself
The only precedent in support of the
challenges. he said was in one case in
which a senator had been excluded be-
cause he was brother of the accused.
He did not specifically mention the
case.
At the close of the arguments on the