The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1921-03-23
FIRST BOMB FROM
DEFENSE IN TRAPP
IMPEACHMENT PRO
CEEDiNGS Is 4 DUD':
COURT ONERRULES THE
MOTION TO QUASH
CONTINUED from Page One)

hOlION ~ W ASH
Continued from Page One)
managers, opened for his side. He
quoted from Articles ST. and of the
state constitution TO show that the
senate, sitting as a court Of impeach-
ment was a judicial body and could
not encroach upon the powers of a
legislative body - the house - which
brings Impeachment charges. He said
the senate did not have the right to
inquire into the houses vote to i'm.
peach. He also asserted the senate
could not 20 behind the articles Of
impeachment 20 question the evidence
before the house on which the articles
We're based with the house record
showing the articles We're regularly
adopted by that body, the senate must
accept them as the legal expression
of the body which has power to bring
Impeachment proceeding he maintain
cd. To hold otherwise would be to
put the house on trial instead of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, he said.
House Acts as Grand Jury
j. d. Lydick, one of the Trapp at
torneys, made the only argument for
the defense. His line OF reasoning
was about as follows:
Just as the senate, sitting as court
Of Impeachment, becomes a judicial
body, so the house of Representatives
acting on impeachment charges, takes
nm iudicfa1 cbaraotar cpd 10 s1ihiact m
the principles governing judicial pro
cedure. In effect the house becomes
a grand jury, and its articles of i'm
peachment may be attacked just as in.
dictment of grand jury.
Allegations that an indictment is
due to corruption of grand jurors or
is based on insufficient evidence are
grounds for attacking it, and the same
grounds are applicable to articles Of
Impeachment. In support of this ar
gument he quoted a number of au-
thorities. including Blackstone, Storey
and Judge Tom Doyle, presiding judge
OF the Oklahoma criminal court of ap-
peals He also referred to the SulZer
case in New York, in which it was
held that the house acted in q judi
cial capacity and not legislative in
bringing impeachment proceedings
against Sulzer, when the latter had
called the legislature in special ses-
sion; as a legislature it could consider
only those matters presented to it by
the governor.
Charges Republicans With Corruption
Lydick charged that Republicans had
corruptly used their power to have
impeachment voted in the house. He
charged bribery, conspiracy and coer.
cion in connection with the adoption
Of the articles Of impeachment He
construed alleged promises in regard
to federal patronage as coming under
the bribery law, ond quoted the fol-
lowing words from the conspiracy stat
ute: falsely to maintain any suit,
action of proceedings" He said he
was not questioning the right Of the
Republican members to sit in inn
parchment proceedings. But he assert
ed some Of them were bribed and the
vote was therefore Illegal and void.
Rights Of the Accused
The rights Of the accused, he in
sisted, began to when the trial start
ed, but as soon as Impeachment pro.
ceediDgs were instituted in the house
The common law, in his view, regu-
lates Impeachment proceedings as it
does grand jury action. If the house
did not indict Trap according to law,
the licutenant-governor can not be
tried for impeachment he declared. He
claimed that If permitted to introduce
evidence on the point, he could show
the Trapp impeachment charges We're
only the first Of a series planned by
Republicans against Democratic office
holders. There would be no chance
to bring out these points in the trial
he said, as the only thing then at
issue would be whether Trapp was
guilty Of the offenses charged. Ly-
dick concluded his argument with an
appeal for the rights OF the individual
which he viewed as bulwark against
bolshevism and anarchy.
Democrat PrOsecutes
Porter Newman, Democrat, and vice.
chairman Of the investigating com.
mittee, closed for the prosecution. He
said Lydick's argument was not to the
point. He contended the house had
q right to bring Impeachment charges
and could make its own rules of pro-
cedure. He denied the house assumed
judicial character in such cases and
that the common law applied. He
even asserted the house was not re.
quired TO hear proof before voiinb i'm.
peachment, The court had no right,
he declared. TO go behind the vote OF
the house by which the articles OF I'm.
peachment We're adopted. II the allie.
cations made in regard to bribery were
true. ne asked, why didn't the accus.
ers go into court and prosecute? lie
said that so far as he knew no such
attack upon articles OF impeachment
as had been made by the Trapp forces
had ever been attempted before. Ile
charged Trapp with trying To- avoid
trial and trying to divert attention
from the real issue.
Court Rules Obversely
Justice Harrison reiterated his ruling
Of the previous day-that the causus
paragraph should be stricken. He said
the house Is not a grand jury and not
altogether confined to hte rules that
govern a grand jury, although It's pro.
ccedings are somewhat analogous. The
court has no control over the house
In impeachment proceedings. and
neither is It governed by the common
law where 1t conflicts with the state
| constitution In violation Of these
principles he classod both the motion
| IN lrnnnnnh Ihn ntntIun. ~ H. hn..rn