The Oklahoma City times. [volume] (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 1908-1984, 1915-03-30

Ftnney, the first time he had seen IL.
Although at the time the order was
given he was manager II would not
necessarily come under his personal
supervision However, his record book
simply showed the date when the ship
ment of coal was made and that ten
tons Of 1t was 10 be charged to A. z.
Watson.
Senator Russell asked the witness
II the card file which had been men
toned In connection with the booking
Of orders. should show the order nv
made by the salesman and Finney said
that II should
The court held brief executive
session at the conclusion Of the morn
iug session
Records Are Kept Out.
Just what effect It any loans Of
money made by G. b Amcs to A 4.
Watson corporation commissioner,
had ON official actions N Watson, rel
ntlvc to corporations Amrs represent
ed, was sought To be brought out in
the first session ~ the Impeachment
trial of Commissioner Watson. Oh
lectlOns To- such line NJ questioning
was sustained by the court on vote
Finally on the request NJ Senator
Shaw, after a question had been put
to Mr. Ames he was permitted 10 an
swcr The question was: Did YOU
loan Commissioner Watson money to
influence his official nfton"
4 did not answered MIR Amcs
'Ihe transaction was entirely per
sona transaction
Apparently the defense depended
largely Oh the claim that Commission
cr Watson had never been influenced
/ In his official acts OH the corporation
commission from the fact that he had
1 borrowed money from men represent
{ Ing corporations To bnck this the
attorneys for Watson suggested they
/ could produce the records uf the com.
mission and show what they sought to
/ establish
Objection from the prosecution
! was that the records wuuld not dis
/ close whether or not such q condition
existed; that no matter what the
records show, II did not remove the
fact that Watson had borrowed mon.
ey from these sources nnd that In
Itself constituted sufficient grounds
for his unfItncss for the position he
/ occupied. The question of admitting
such testimony before the court was
voted on by the court and the tesu
mony rejected In this the prosecu.
tion scored the first important point
In the trial.
States Policy Involved.
Authorities and prrcrdents were
cited by both sides In the argument
as to Jurisdiction Of the court. and
the limitations Of the acts complained
Of Gases were cited where il had
been held that nm officer could not
be- impeached for acts committed
while he was holding another office,
und the law Of condoncment cited.
II was held also by the attorneys rep
rcsentlng Commissioner Watson that
the simple fnct that he had borrowed
money was insufficient to constitute
impenchahlc matter They further
contended that the prosecution was at
tempting to proceed az In a criminal
trial and that there was nothing
crlmlnal In the complaint against
Watson
Attorneys Plnkham and Hudson for
the prosecution contendcd that this
was no criminal notion, that the ac.
tion involved the question Of what
was to he the policy of the state
that It was In Keeping with the court
of impeachment as n tribunal from
which no action could be- reviewed
ana to set a precedent by which the
acts Of public officials should be guild
ed. The principle at stake was one Of
policy and the members of the court
Of impeachment had It I'm their power
to Judge OF the fitness or unfitness
Of public official to hold public
trust
inouKnt IL WAS Improper.
Immediately upon the Oyerruling Of
the motion for acQuittal, G. Il. Ames,
first witness was called. He testified
ns to lOanlng money 10 Commissioner
Watson to be used In the schooling Of
james Watson u son, who was In col
lcge. The payments were made by
Alr Ames In monthly instalments
Commissioner Watson had promised
TO repay the loans, but still owed
most Of It. Mr. Ames was asked II
he had ever pressed Watson for re
payment Of the money and he said
that he had 81 hard that he had ne
/ hopes of ever getting any Of IT, While
he had known Watson for a number
NJ years aud considered themselvp,
ON friendly relations he thought that
the only breach In their relations wa,
caused by his insisting on the re-
payment Of the loaned money.
Finally asked II he thought the
matter Of Watson borrowing none,
from him, under the circumstances
was proper, he said that he did not
think so. This question aud answer
however, were later stricken from the
record at the direction Of the chief
Justice
II developed during the trstlmnn,
uf Mr.. Amcy that during the time W
L. Chapman was secretary 10 the
commission Immediately after state
hood that the Frisco railroad. for
| which Amcs was then attorney. II,
, well rs others had paid Chapman
for copies N papers filed with the
commission This arrangement, Mr.
Ames said, was made with the con
sent uf j ! MrAlrStpr then ono ni