Year: 1876

argument was confined principally to
showing that the State had lost great
deal in the way Of interest by the Treas
urer's having deposited State funds in
banks not paying as high rate ofinter.
est as others; that the Treasurer had not
made his report as required by law, be-
cause he wished to keep these facts FROM
the public, and that conspiracy to de-
fraud the State had been formed
between the Treasurer and his son, as
was evidenced by that ten thousand
dollars worth of stock owned by his son
in the Ksnawha Valley Bank. He
claimed that the Treasurer had evinced
a disposition 10 have the Investigation
squelched through fear of meeting it.
He concluded by saying that he simply
wished to do his duty in the case; that
he had no personal animosity to Mr..
BUsDErT, but he wished the court to
vindicate the honor and purity of West
Virginia.


Having finished, Mr.. MORROW, of
counsel for the respondent, rose to oaddress
the court. He commenced by remarking
upon the effect of the trial. This effect
would not be of so much importance to
the respondent as man, he being simply
an atom in the body polite; but if there
was q power in the State to crush one
man, that same power might in future be
adduced to crush the very ones who now
invoked it. The great question to be con-
sidered was, co1ld citizen be deprived
of his rights aud privileges under the
Constitution by vehement abuse and
clamor2 He proposed, in the line of his
argument, to consider what were the du-
ties of the Treasurer, and whether he
had 50 violated his duties and trusts as to
justify such an action as impeachment
He alluded TO the manner in which State
money was paid into the Treasury. The
Treasurer did not handle one cent Of il.
1t was paid into the legal repositories by
those charged with its collection, and
the Treasurer merely checked upon
it as occasion required; in SO checking he
was not limited in his discretion as to
which depository he might draw his
checks on, and since this discretion was
permitted him by law, there was no
right to compel him to account
for it. By drawing his checks upon
any depository he saw fit, he had violated
no law, and the charges of wicked and
corrupt determinations was "beneath
the contempt of an honest man." He
claimed that it was the duty of the State
to uphold the rights of her officers, and
to frown down clamor, and he said that
"he had no feeling m common with those
who, unable to be figures among figures,
were determined to be cyphers among
cyphers by making cyphers of others"
He read the various statutes in relation
TO contracts with the banks and the rate
of interest required. He also read from
the Treasurer's report to the effect
that the banks paying the larger rate of
interest had the smallest deposits, which
arose not from any FAULT of the Treasurer,
hut from that OF those who collected the
money and made the deposits.


MIR. MORROW further contended that no
matter how much Mr.. BURDETT had done
to increase the deposits anywhere he hal
violated no law, and was therefore guilty
of no high crime or misdemeanor. To
sustain an impeachment such crime or
misdemeanor must be proven and there
must be shown violation ofsome statuary
legislation or common law duty, neither
of which had been shown in this case.
He then alluded to the number OF srti-
cles of impeachment, which expressed
over and over again in useless repetition
the same charges. 1t had been almost
conceded that the State had not lost so
much as would buy cheap stogie, yet
1t had been charged that the respondent
had been guilty of terrible crimes All
the charges, in a nutshell, could be con-
deased to two counts-improper trsnsac-
tions with certain banks, and failure to
make certsin reports.


These had been repeated BY the Mana
gers seventeen times, and it was like the
landlord who furnished his guests with
four kind. of meat-ram, lamb, sheep
snd mutton. He reviewed the testlmo-
nv brought to bear on the bank transac-
ton, claiming that nothing of fraudu-
lent criminal or unlawful nature had
been committed; that no one was injur-
ed. and there could be no fraud without
injury, neither had any bribery been
committed.


The above is q very brief synopsis o'
the counsers argument. Of course 1t
does not dc 1t justice, only giving, as 1t
does An outline Of his remarks. He will
conclude this morning.


STATE NOTES.