Daily Globe

COX IMPEACHMENT
Argument of Defense that Specifications to Articles 17 and 20 are Insufficient and Should Not be Considered.

At 2:30 yesterday afternoon, the hour to which the impeachment court on Saturday adjourned, there were only some dozen senators in their seats, and it was 3:20 p. m. before a quorum was present, and the body was called to order, and in accordance with previous understanding, counsel for defense proceeded to give their objection to the consideration of the specifications filed by the board of managers to articles 17 and 20, as ordered by the senate.

Mr. Allis of counsel for the defense opened the argument, confining himself to the one point of objection, that allowing that the board of managers had the right to formulate amended articles of impeachment, or charges, it was in this instance attempted to deprive respondent of his constitutional rights to have the charges made against him served upon him twenty days before trial. In this case the amended articles were served upon respondent January 6, and the trial was begun Jan. 10, leaving but four days from time of service until defendant was arraigned for trial, and that therefore by the terms of the constitution the prosecution was inhibited from introducing evidence bearing upon those articles.

Mr. Arctander, of counsel, followed Mr. Allis upon objections to the consideration of the articles in question. There were numerous objection to this consideration, he said, important alike to the accused and the state. Our first point is that the article is too indefinite to constitute a charge within the jurisdiction of the court: The court decided that the article as originally presented was too indefinite, by requiring the prosecution to prepare and present specification, alleging particular offenses at particular times. The specifications have been presented, but we claim that like the original charge they are too general in their nature to constitute an offense triable by impeachment. In support of this position Mr. Arctander read at length from the proceedings of H. D. Pringle, judge of the surrogate court, Chenango, N. Y., and also the case of Robert C. Dow, canal commissioners of New York, in both of which cases, indefinite charges as made in article 17 in this case, were thrown out by the senate sitting as a court.

Continuing his argument, Mr. Arctander claimed that there was no legal right in the first place, for the filing of specifications by the managers after the house of representatives had adjourned, and that, even conceding the right, the managers in this case had not, in the specifications filed, met the requirements of the law, by setting out particular offenses, so that respondent could prepare his defense in a proper manner. The article charges respondent with being intoxicated on several occasions, covering a period of three years, to an extent incapacitating him from the discharge of his official duties. This charge the senate has by vote decided as too indefinite. Now, are the specifications more explicit?

Mr. Arctander here read the specifications, and then continued. We take the position, senators, that these specifications inform us of nothing. It is a principle of law that time is not material. The managers have acknowledged that the dates given in all cases were not correct, but under them, if they are allowed to furnish evidence, they can cover any period of time desired, thus preventing respondent from any intelligent preparation for his defense.

Mr. Arctander here called attention to similar proceedings in the Page impeachment trial, where the managers, required to furnish specifications, set forth all the facts in detail, giving times, places, and the character of the offense, so that the defense knew just what charge they had to meet--something not done here. We knew before that Judge Cox was charged with certain offenses, said to have been committed somewhere in his district, and that is all we are informed of by the specifications; they give no facts which will enable the respondent to act intelligently in controverting the allegations made. Take for instance the fourth, sixth and eighth specifications, where the specifications charge respondent with being drunk at certain places; the records show he was hundreds of miles away, but being permitted to introduce testimony, the managers will attempt to show that respondent was drunk at some time, where we will not know until the evidence is introduced. With the exception of the seventh specification of article 17, not a particle of evidence was taken before the house. All the others have been manufactured since, and up to the present time nothing has been developed or given us any information as to what proof we have to meet. So with the specifications to article 20. In fact the specifications are so vague we have nothing to even guess at.

Continuing, Mr. Arctander said it seemed to be the policy of the managers to keep the defense in the dark as to the real character of the charges made against them, and so the specifications were made as blind as possible. So far as the articles are concerned, we are prepared to meet every one of them, but as to these specifications we are entirely in the dark, and can know nothing until the evidence is introduced.

Secondly, Mr. Arctander claimed that the managers had no right to introduce new or amended articles in impeachment proceedings. That power was vested solely in the house of representatives by the constitution. The board of managers represent that body only so far as the prosecution of the charges found by it. But in this case the managers attempt to do what the house of representatives cannot do, formulate charges upon which no testimony has been taken, but merely upon the hearsay.

Continuing Mr. Arctander said, but allowing that the proceedings of the managers were legal, and that the specifications met the requirements in such, the managers were debarred from producing testimony upon them, by not having met the constitutional requirement of serving upon the defense notice of the charges against them. Another thing, the house may perhaps adopt additional articles, but there is not a case on record excepting the Page case in this state, where the board of managers is allowed to exercise this authority. In all impeachment cases before the United States senate, all amendments to the articles, replications, etc., have first been submitted to the house, and by that body acted upon, and if agreed to the managers instructed to sustain them before the senate.

At its conclusion Senator C. F. Buck asked Mr. Arctander if he understood him rightly, if it was claimed by respondent that the specifications made to articles 17 and 20 by the managers, were no more specific in law and fact than the original articles.

Mr. Arctander answered in the affirmative.

Senator Adams then read the following paragraph, with which the several articles are concluded:
"And the house of representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter, any future articles or other accusation or impeachment against the said E. St. Julien Cox, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make under the said articles, or any of them, and of offering proof to all and every of the aforesaid articles, and to all and every other articles, impeachment or accusation which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said E. St. Julien Cox may be put to answer the said crimes and misdemeanors, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given, as are agreeable to law and justice."

In conclusion Mr. Arctander argued, allowing the right of the managers to amend the articles by specifications, that in this case they had not done-that the presented specifications filed were but the semblance--that in fact they were in no respect more specific than the original charges which the senate refused to consider, and that for this reason, if for no other, they should be refused.

Mr. Arctander's argument, which was closely followed by the senators present, was concluded at 5:30 p. m.

In answer to this Mr. Arctander replied that the position taken by respondent, supported by impeachment proceedings in the national senate, and by all other authorities they had been able to find, was that the house could not delegate its authority to its managers to formulate articles, that the only power of the managers was to prosecute, and that they must confine themselves in the prosecution to the charges made by the house.

The court then adjourned to 10 o'clock this morning, when Mr. Dunn, of the managers, will present an argument in support of the sufficiency of the specifications.