Daily Globe

ARTICLE TEN.

The Present Stumbling Block in Page Impeachment.

Respondent Moves It Be Quashed, for the Reason It is Vague and Indefinite, and Does Not Contain a Specific Allegation.

Argument Sends the Senate Into Secret Session, from Which It Emerges Only to Adjourn, Without Deciding the Conundrum Raised-Examination of Witnesses To-morrow.

The sitting of the impeachment yesterday was attended with no special feature. The usual array of witnesses were present as spectators, but the ticket rule having been put in operation, more of them found resting places than before in the gallery. Immediately after the roll call Senator C. D. Gilfillan offered the following, which was adopted:

Ordered, That only witnesses who are examined for the prosecution or defense, whose testimony is material to the issues, shall be paid fees and expenses, and of the materiality of the testimony of each witness the court shall determine.

Mr. Davis, of counsel for respondent, said he conceived it a proper time to bring before the Senate their exceptions in the shape of a demurrer to article ten. He argued that in this, as in any other proceedings, a person accused of an offense is entitled to specific allegations, so that he might know what he had to meet. He had never heard that a man could be tried for his habits extending over five years, or for his personal demeanor, and if he could, he was certainly entitled to specific allegations.

Senator J. B. Gilfillan, interrupting, said he understood the managers abandoned the tenth article.

Several of the Managers—We have not. We depend upon all the charges.

Mr. Davis, further continuing, said he could assure the court respondent had subpoenaed only witnesses material as to the allegations down to charge ten, and it would be evident to the court that if such indefinite and scattering charges as are contained in that article where allowed to stand, the limit of the investigation could not be told, as respondent would have the right to summon from all parts of the State witnesses to refute the specified allegations as were developed on the trial. The manifest injustice of the proceedings were self-evident. He therefore moved that the tenth article be quashed.

Senator Nelson—As a member of this court, there are two questions I would like to hear discussed. First, has respondent the right to demand a bill of particulars, and if so has the Senate the power to demand such a bill on the part of the managers.

Mr. Davis said a person could not be tried upon an impeachable offense until he had been furnished articles twenty days. An article so general in its terms as in this case, did not furnish respondent with such a notice of the offense alleged as contemplated by law and practice, in that it did not furnish him with any specific allegation, thus depriving him of the power to interpose denials.

Mr. Mead, of the managers, had no doubt the Senate had the power to compel the presentation of a bill of particulars, and the managers would be ready at any time to furnish such bill. As to the tenth article he argued that it stated an impeachable offense, and it was sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of practice and precedent. Mr. Mead read from authorities to sustain his position, and concluded his argument with the assertion that all other articles failing, the managers expected to be able to convict upon the allegations contained in the tenth article.

Mr. Davis replying, said the last statement of Mr. Mead developed the latent intent of that tenth article—that respondent, purging himself of the other allegations made against him, the learned managers under this vague and indefinite charge, intended to spring upon respondent a flood of allegations of which he had no previous notice, and which, from their very nature and the manner of presentation, he could not meet. Mr. Davis then proceeded to re-argue the point that the article did not contain specific charges, quoting liberally from eminent authorities in support of his position that such specific allegations were a necessity in impeachment trials.

Manager Mead replied, reading from Storey to sustain his position that in impeachment trials the strict rules hedging in and about court trials cannot be employed.

The argument concluded, the Senate went into secret session upon motion of Senator Edgerton.

The doors reopened, the president said he had been instructed by the court to say that no conclusion had been reached on the point raised, but had taken it under advisement until the Monday session, and then inquired if the managers were ready to proceed with the examination of witnesses.

Manager Mead said they were, and indicated Mr. D. S. B. Mollison as the first witness.

The president directed that the witness stand be prepared, but Mr. Davis, of counsel, interrupting, said that while he did not wish to delay business he desired to state to the Senate that under the division of labor of counsel that of the cross-examination of witnesses had been assigned Mr. Loaey, of LaCrosse, who had been called from the city and could not be in attendance to-day.

Senator Nelson—At what time will the counsel be ready to proceed Monday—as early as 8 o'clock?

Mr. Davis—The hour named is early, but we will be ready at any hour the court may decide upon.

Senator Armstrong—Some of the Senators are compelled to be absent Monday forenoon, myself among the number. I therefore move we adjourn to 3 P. M. Monday.

Senator Hall did not think such an adjournment was advisable. Over a hundred witnesses had been employed in the case, and the expense of the trial was a matter of vital moment to the people, who would think there was something wrong in thus frittering away valuable time. It was important that every hour of time possible should be improved. He trusted there would be no such adjournment as proposed.

Senator Nelson, while recognizing the urgent necessity of putting in as much time as possible in the investigation, also recognized what was due to the counsel. There was a great amount of work in the preparation and conduct of such a case, and upon the statement of Mr. Davis that they would be ready to proceed Monday morning, he would move to amend the motion of Senator Armstrong to adjourn to 9 o'clock Monday morning.

Senator Edgerton suggested that the amendment be simply to adjourn.

Senator Nelson accepted the suggestion.

Senator Doran did not think there would be much more than a quorum, if that number, present Monday morning. Many of the Senators had pressing private as well as public business to look after, and it was not unjust to the interests of the State that they should have half a day to look after pressing private affairs. He believed the adjournment better be to the afternoon, and meet the situation squarely.

The President—The Senator is out of order. A motion to adjourn is not debatable.

Senator Doran—But I am all right. I have said what I wanted to. [Laughter.]

Senator Henry endeavored to speak, but the President put the motion to adjourn, and upon the response, declared the court adjourned to 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.