Year: 1872

this Judge engaged unlawful crusade against
these parties. 1t not reasonable to suppose that
Judge any else about TO engage In an una"iui
act would 20 into public hotel and openly pronounce
his intentions that these he going to war against
would hear It, But he did drive those parties out OF inc
State they left and whyl The counsel asked II these
men guilty Of obstructing the proceedings OF
court ought they not to he driven out OF tho sAtef
What criminals there than those VINO hod our
courts in contempt and who set themselves up against
their decrees


Mr.. Beach then referred to the testimony given by the
witness, Judge Birdseye as to indecent expressions
made Of by Judge Barnard. and said that IL was
proved that such Brdseye reers 10 was ever
Judge Barnards calendar. Such testimony unsup-
ported by anything whatever hut the witnesss STATE
ment and contradicted by the record ana several VIII
nesses, would, before jury be entirely anu pr1pdny dGS
Barnard appointed his friends referees, and man
tanned that this was entirely rgnt ana prope e,o 10
act referees Counsel then referred to publication
appearing Simultaneously IN newspaper IN tha TINS ect S
that the struggle by the respondent ana MS
counsel Was SSs ssYe bI nun ad was little
that these statements should appear simultaneously IN
York He also referred TO the appearance here OF an
lIomened form fitting about among the members OF
spondent Is convicted it will be the death of the great
Democratic party. Well Sir. said counsel il the death
version Of the honesty and justice Of this Court then let
II die and pass away. Counsel then referred In terms OF



In the crusade against Judge Barnard and In exeTng
influence on the Court and said that TINS praece had
argument with eloquent peroraon, elicitng applause
from the spectators when he took his seat which the
President suppressed.


MIR. VAN CoTTs ARGUMENT.


Judge Van Cott OF counsel for the prosecution, then
proceeded to make the closing argument and In begin
ning referred to the respondents counsePs attacks
upon the press the bar and Others and asked how IL
was that this respondent had so many enemies. This
respondent blessed with qualities well calculated to
make for him friends instead of enemies, and yet ac
cOrding to the counsel, he is surrounded by enemies
He asked again how 1t that he has all the enemies
DO they come out Of the ground must there not be
some GOOD reason for causing everybody to turn against
him The counsel then referred 10 the reproaehes cast
counsel and defended that Association from his
attacks. He also noticed other remarks; ana
state that the impeachment OF this respondent had been
instituted according the Constitution and laws OF the
the respondent was without precedent In all former
Impeachment the respondent answered IN detail
giving the and the fact In this case We have only
the petty larceny plea OF not gnya genera Gea the
charges were deprived of the opportunity OF knowing
what the defense be. In illustration he :referred
10 the testimony concerning the chairs We led,
said the counsel to believe that there would be raised
question Of identity to those chairs But we hnd the
identity OF the chairs is admitted and their one witness
named he thought, Quackenbush) testified that the
chairs were ordered to be made and then AGAIN ,he
respondent swears that he bought the chairs ready
made and paid for them on the spot


THE FOLEY INJUNCTION


As to the Foley Injunction the counsel said there was
nothing very remarkable in that. 1t was proper that
this Injunction should ISSUE and was issued but 1t
required weeks argument


Mr. Beach-That was on the order to show cause.
MI Van Cott-It makes no difference. weeks argu-
ment was required tia Injunction whereas Fisk and
his associates able TO get injunctions at once


Mr.. Beach-so did Foley afterward There was an
order to show cause and upon that was the argument


Mr. Van Cott-I repeat, this injunction which 1t
was perfectly right and proper to ISSUE and the witness
strahan who secured it, said it was and nevertheless 1t
was not issued with the proMpntude with which lnJunc-


ons were issued at the instance Oh FISK ana oherS lying


Cc1nse then examined tile charge that Judge Barnard
had declared that he had won the position OF Judge and
with it the patronage attached to the Office Won what
and how and from whoml Why said Counsel this Judge
that tie patronage OF the Office belonged him to give
whom he pleased Counsel then examined as to what
was the office of referee and his duties he judge
how would II look for judge TO appoint jurors what
sort Of men should these & referees be these men Sho
relieved of the responsibilities OF publicity attaching
judgei Counsel then further detailed the duties OF
referee, and pointed out the opportunities they have for
making money out of suit0rs. This referee business
Counsel sad, had excited and very iustlyi excited the
indignation and condemnation OF the press so great an
or WSs Arranged peached lined and con


fined the Tower of London for exercising the patronage


Mr Beaeh-In that way were not the offices sold for
| prlcef . - t'F- - .
pfee Sas fa8 oT Claimed a right to
sell them that it was patronage OF the once Deiong
Counsel dwet for time upon this point and then
referred TO other them the present OF
cutoH did not charge that this present was to the
Judge direct payment for services but the inference
position OF the Judge. Fisk was not the man TO make
such presents without purpose He insisted that this
But what an exhibition we have in this case,
One day gift is made on another day the bank boo
taken TO the house of cOuresan to prove TO his mis-
tress how much money Fisk had given AS to the deco
ratons of Judge Barnards house. we have the testi-
| mony of two witnesses, Andrew j. Garvey and his
brother John. Both testify that the work was done and
nard ordered it DONE saying that he had Tweed
have the statement Of the Judge that Garvey waylad
him and asked him when his family would be out OF
town. that he could and touch up his house that
he did and touch the hOuse-did Dtlo painting
up here and there and he believed, "painted some few
faces on the walls" That all. Now, which is the
most probable stOryi


THE PROPOSITIONS OF THE PROSECUTION


The counsel then stated that the prosecution made the
following propositions:


First That all rights OF persons property are held
under the law and are the subject OF legal definition


which obligatory with those who charged with the
judicial administration OF the State.


Third That all wul violations Of right, and all will
fu departures from the established course of justice by
wrong and injury OF suitors for justice, are mpeachable


ToTrG. That whether such violations of legal rights
and such departures from the established course Of
justice intentional, is matter Of inference from
the intrinsic circumstance Of each case, and from the
extrsc facts showing the relation OF the Judge to the
parties, and the probable motives from which he acted


Ffth: That the sale, delay partial administra-


on Of justice, the exercise OF judicial functions or
the principle Of patronage, is judicial corruption.


SiIth: That the webeiDg OF society and usefulness In
the office require that the Judge should 80 demean him.
self in respect OF his judicial actions as TO inspire conf
dence in the Judge aud In the Court, and that any
demeanor Of the Judge, as Judge, which has natural
tendency Justly to impair that confidence Is degreda
ton of the Office OF the Court which calls for his removal
from office.