guage but the substance of it was that it was advised on the part of Murphy for him to go to bed and stay in; that he had been out; and the Judge evidently wanted to go back.

saloon of Hall & Smith.

minutes after that.

Q. Where did you go?

A.

Mr. Murphy said that he had been at the Mr. Murphy and myself left the room a few

We went down to the sidewalk on the outside of the hotel. Q. Now state what took place there between Murphy and you.

A. We stayed there probably over half an hour, I think, talking; and Murphy was watching the Judge's room. He went round the corner several times, and looked at his window to see that he stayed there, and didn't go out again.

Keeping watch at the front door of the hotel to prevent the Judge from going out to get more whiskey at this saloon of Hall & Smith's at a time when he felt that he had too much. Going round the corner and looking up at the window to see if the Judge remained there. And then swearing that he never saw the Judge under the influence of liquor. Attempting to convey the impression to this court that he was perfectly sober, except that he did what most any man will do, take a glass of beer occasionally. But we are not obliged to rely upon Dr. Cummings and Mr. Collister to show that Dan Murphy has either willfully lied, or has forgotten a great deal. We called Mr. Cleghorn. See page 1,026. Mr. Cleghorn resides at Waseca and is acquainted with Judge Cox. He

says:

Q. You may state whether or not during that term of court, upon the streets of Waseca, you saw Mr. Murphy in the company of Judge Cox, or with Judge Cox, when Judge Cox was drunk.

A. I might say he was under the influence of liquor.

Q. To what extent ?

A. Not so much at that time as I saw him afterwards; I would consider that when a man is drunk he is pretty well gone; but I should consider that he was under the influence of liquor at the time we speak of.

Q. To what degree?

A. He was not so drunk but what he could walk and talk.

Q. Was, or was he not, so under the influence of liquor at that time as to make himself conspicuous or noticeable?

A. He was; quite so.

Q. Now, you may state the circumstances.

A. I heard a noise on the street, and having nothing to do, I walked out to my front door to ascertain the cause of the noise,-the loud talk.

A. It was just after nightfall; just on the edge of the evening. I saw three or four persons standing on Bailey's corner, some eighty feet from me, and a person coming towards me from them. It was Dan Murphy. After he got there I saw it was Dan. Said I, "Dan, who is that up there?" His remark to me was that the Judge

And then came an interruption.
After some little discussion.

Q. You may say what Dan Murphy said as he approached you.

A. After I asked him who that was up there, he remarked that it was "Judge Cox, drunker than a fool." I says, what are they doing? He says, telling a story. I remarked, let's go up and hear it, and we walked along up there and listened to the story.

Q. Now, who was telling the story?

A. Judge Cox was telling the story.

Q. You may state the character of that story.

Mr. ARCTANDER. That is objected to.

Mr. Arctander objected to the character of that story; I don't know but it is quite as well that Mr. Arctander objected; that the objection was sustained. It was such a story that I should be ashamed to read; it is a story that I am glad to say cannot go upon these pages; it was a story perfectly outrageous in its obscenity; recited by his honor on the public streets of Waseca; no wonder the counsel objected. We find Murphy approaching Cleghorn, stating that it was Judge Cox "drunker than a fool" and again testifying here that he never saw the Judge under the influence of liquor. This obscene story, it seems, was told in a loud tone of voice upon the streets in the nanner I have stated. I think, taking the testimony of Mr. Collister, Dr. Cummings and Mr. Cleghorn, we have shown that Daniel Murphy is not entitled to credit here. We have shown that for some reason or other-a reason that I do not care to ask particularly about-he has stated under oath what is manifestly false. Mr. Murphy has also distinguished himself by swearing that there was considerable wrangling in that Power against Herman case, the morning before the adjournment. In this I think he was contradicted by every witness who has gone upon the stand. I may possibly except Father Hermann. The witnesses testify, right through, so far as that case is concerned, that the cross-examination of Mr. Power commenced immediately upon the opening of court, and that it was continued, uninterruptedly, up to the time that the motion was made for adjournment. It is not very material anyway, but characteristic of Murphy. Mr. Bohen, a young man, an insurance agent, has testified that he was in court, occasionally, was there at the time of the adjournment, and in his opinion Judge Cox was sober. Mr. James Murphy testifies that on the second and third day of the trial, and at the time of the intermission, Judge Cox looked weary and tired,-another witness who gives the appearance of Judge Cox as has been described to us by the witnesses for the respondent, a wearied, tired, instead of flushed appearance of the face. Mr. Murphy is the witness ashamed of his business. I happen to live in a town where we have upwards of thirty places where liquor is sold. We have, of course, very respectable men keeping some of those places; we have some who are not so respectable; but I do not believe there is one of them, if put upon the witness stand, who would be ashamed to acknowledge that he kept a saloon, when asked his occupation.

Now during that trial there were twelve jurors, more than twice that number during the term of court. There was, of course, the usual audience, and the number of people which you usually find about a court room in the trial of a case, especially a case of that character, a case in which Father Hermann was interested; and yet look at the men they have been obliged to rely upon. They have brought two witnesses here, both saloon keepers, who were jurymen. There were ten other jurymen who sat in the case, who knew all about the condition of the court and they did not dare to call any of them gentlemen. One of that jury, its foreman, sits before listened to that testimony, is a member of the senate. I refer to Senator McCormick who was foreman of that jury; why did they not go to him? Why are they obliged to rely upon two saloon keepers? Why, if they desire to get out the truth on this point, is it necessary to hunt up this young man Bohen, who looks to be hardly twenty-one years of age, and admits that he was in court but little, to

testify as their fifth witness? Why do they do that? Why not call upon the jurors who were present? I desire to call your attention to Mr. Lansing for a moment. It appears that he was a witness residing at St. Peter, a carpenter by tra le, and a near neighbor of Judge Cox--I think he has known him twenty years. He was forty miles from home, and resided in another county,a witness for Father Hermann in the Powers vs. Hermann case. It cropped out that he was on a jury in that court the day before, on another case; and when we come to investigate that matter we find that he was taken from the bystanders by his old friend Murphy who knew he resided in Nicollet county, and was not a competent juror in Waseca. That is not a criminal offence by any means; but it is a thing that reflects not only on Judge Cox, but upon the Sheriff who put him there. Here is a man who lives at St. Peter, in Nicollet county, a perfect stranger, except to the Judge, and down there attending a term of court at Waseca as a witness. They desire a juror, and the sheriff, Murphy, who knew him, and had known him for over twenty years, selects him. Now it is barely possible that he was eligible as a juror, but I say, as a matter of fact, that he was not, that he had no right there, that it was not only a breach of law, but that it indicates what I have spoken of before, the manner, the demoralization with which this court was conducted. What right had he there? I suspect, gentlemen, that if one of you should happen to drop into Judge Wilkin's court in Ramsey county, you would be very much surprised to find yourself empanelled as a juryman. You would be very much surprised, and I have no doubt at all, that if it were a criminal case, it would result in a new trial; because jury men are not qualified unless they are residents of the county in which they serve. Our statute is very brief upon it; but it says that the qualifications of petit jurors shall be the same as those of grand jurors. I know it would be a very remarkable thing for a grand juror to be taken from outside the county. I apprehend that if a man got upon the grand jury who did not reside in the county, the work of that grand jury would be very promptly set aside. There is no lawyer who would permit it. Yet there is Judge Cox's neighbor taken by the sheriff of that county, with the consent of the Judge, and put on the jury in that case. I have no doubt that it was an imposition upon the parties in the case,-that they had no idea they were trying a case to a man who lived forty miles away in another county; they supposed they were trying that case to such jurors as they were entitled to have.

Mr. Lansing testifies that Judge Cox, upon that fatigued appearance; he calls it fatigue; he looked admit that he was under the influence of liquor. the attention of the Senate to these as a specimen of by counsel here. Mr. Lansing was asked:

day, had this same weary; he does not Now I want to call the questions asked

Q. You say you are fully able to tell whether the Judge was sober or drunk? A. I think I am.

Q. Now this morning was there anything the matter with his eyes, in the nature of being blood-shot, or otherwise?

A. No, sir.

Q. I will ask you to state, Mr. Lansing, whether or not you have ever noticed the eyes of the respondent blood-shot, even after the most fearful sprees? A. I don't think I have.

Trying a judge of the district court here, and the counsel asks repeatedly this question, "Have you seen the eyes of the respondent bloodshot even after the most fearful spees ?" I think the counsel used that language very ill-advisedly. I do not believe it the kind of language anybody should use in a case of this sort-to ask the witnesses, one after another, whether they ever saw Judge Cox after or during his fearful sprees. It seems to have been quite a common occurrence; a very common occurrence for him to have fearful sprees. I believe that nearly every witness testifies that he has seen him on fearful sprees. There is a peculiarity about these witnesses, Mr. Lansing with the rest. They have all seen Judge Cox upon sprees, and some of them upon fearful sprees, but none of them ever happen to have seen him at the time our witnesses saw him at the time we allege him drunk, and I expect that if we were prosecuting Judge Cox for the sprees these witnesses have seen him upon, and we were to put them upon the witness stand to prove our charges, many others would come as witnesses for the Judge, who had seen him upon sprees at other times than those the witnesses testify to.

The peculiarity is that while they have all seen him upon sprees, it never happens that they saw him upon the sprees we accused him of, it always happens to be at some other of his numerous debauches. Now, Mr. Lansing is desirous of helping out his old friend and neighbor, and he testifies that he saw Judge Cox walk up that morning from the court-house to the hotel-he followed behind him; that it was not Hayden who was with him, he knows it was not; when we get right down to it, he had never seen Hayden before that week, and yet he comes here and attempts to testify that he knows it was not Hayden; he could not tell who it was, but he recollects distinctly, and is able to tell you the size of the man, that it was a pretty stout man, shorter than Hayden; yet the only acquaintance he had with Hayden was obtained during the few days he had been there. He has never seen him since then; I think he testified that he thinks he could point him out. Still he is very certain that Hayden did not walk up with the Judge. Another effort upon the part of the respondent to show that Hayden was mistaken in saying he walked up with the Judge to the hotel that eventful morning.

In this connection I desire to call the attention of the court to this fact. On page 298 Father Herman says that on the morning of the third day of April Judge Cox looked wearied; Lewis Brownell testifies that Judge Cox looked sick on that same occasion. They admit there was something the matter with him, that he looked sick, or wearied, but they do not attribute it to intoxicating liquors; it is something else. Now let us see what did affect him. Judge Cox came back there in the afternoon after he had been in bed, as has been testified to, and that doesn't seem to be denied. He came back and excused the jury until night, giving as the reason, that he was troubled with a sick headache; and one or two witnesses testified that he had a sick headache. Some witness, I have forgotten who it is, testified that he took a glass of beer with him; they took a pony of beer as they walked up to the hotel. I suppose Judge Cox took that pony of beer to cure his sick headache! I never heard beer recommended for a headache; would never use it myself for a headache of any kind, but I believe they took it as a remedy for the sick headache. They will claim that he took the ride on the

2nd of April, when he had the hotel-keeper and one or two others in the carriage with him, for a sick headache. The fact is, as stated in the opening, that a friend of Judge Cox took him on that occasion, and drove him around town for the sake of keeping him out of these saloons; the carriage was gotten from that livery stable, and the livery stable keeper, Welch, drove him around, as has been testified to here, to keep him reasonably sober. Yet the defence would have you believe he was suffering from a sick headache; drinking beer and immediately following it up with a drive around town. If any of the senators have ever had a sick headache, they know what it is, and what the treatment is. They know that a man gets into bed as quick as possible, and has no inclination for beer, and not the slightest incliation for a carriage ride, on such an occasion.

It is not an occasion when a man wants an airing by any means, but begs for perfect quiet. This carriage ride might result from one or two things. His friends might take him out, or the Judge might desire himself, under such circumstances,-in such condition, to ride around the town. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Collister testify that in the evening they called upon the Judge, and he told them he regretted what had occurred, regretted his condition; talked to them about it getting into the newspapers. That was the time he felt he was under obligations to these men for the treatment he had received. He felt kindly towards them. He felt they were friendly to him, they desired to shield him, and he expressed to them them the hope that this disgraceful conduct upon his part should not get into the newspapers; and they told him it should not, and I believe it did not, at any rate in that town.

Now in that connection I desire to call your attention to what Mr. Taylor has testified,-a little conversation which he had with Judge Cox; the conversation the counsel for the respondent has attempted to distort,―a conversation had with him on April 15th, and after the argument of the motion. On page 13 of the Journal of the 12th of Jannary you will find this:

Q. Did you have any conversation with the respondent after this time upon his conduct during the day?

A. Not any extended conversation; after court adjourned we went to the hotel. Judge Cox was quite lively and talkative with different ones in the room. I was not engaging in the conversation, but sitting in the room, and he came and sat down beside me and requested that I should not say anything to Judge Lord about what I had seen in the management of the court.

That is the remark Mr. Taylor has testified to. Now the counsel on page 108 of his argument attempts, I think to distort that in this language:

There was a statement made by Mr. Taylor from and by which either he, or the managers, I don't know which,-tried to draw out an inference that Judge Cox admitted himself that he had been intoxicated during the term. The language of the witness did not necessarily show it, but the way it came out,--the way in which the question was asked, and the way in which it was answered, rather left an impression on my mind, that if the witness did not desire to throw out a slur or insinuation to that effect, the managers at least desired so to do. The remark was that Judge Cox had come down, and sat by the witness and talked with him, and told him he should not say anything to Judge Lord about what he had seen concerning the managment of the business in court. Now that was brought out in such a way as to lead you to believe that Judge Cox was desirous that the wit