Newspaper Page Text
T« COMPLETE REPORT OF THE OPENING ARGUMENTS (.Continued from page nine) remember that conversation? Mr. E. R. Sinkler: He did state he didn't know the name of the man they were going to elect. He did not know, wheher it was Tom Marshall or some other man. 1 will refer to the testimony because I believe my notes do not fail me on that proposition. He went on and stated, "you are a fool, Dan. and Dan said I know it, and then Cowan says why didn't you comealong and made up so we could have worked this campaign to gether and we could have carried this election. Question. Did he state for whom? Answer, 1 wouldn't state positively whether it was Mr. Cowan or Dan Brennan that gave the name of the candidate. Question, What name was given? Answer, Tom Marshall." That is testimony which will be found on April 2C, pages 58 and 59 of the Journal, so that Dan Brennan was corroborated in his story by a man, you saw his ap pearance on the witness stand, you know that Martin Haugehouge didn't lie. Some of you who are in this senate have known him ever since he was a child, and know that Martin Haugehouge is a man who is absolutely honest, and worthy of credit in any statement he may make. Dan Brennan testified that Cowan was drunk Martin Haugehouge testified he was drunk. And there isn't one scintilla of evidence in this case to the contrary. No witness went upon the stand in that regard, did they. As to the time and place, of course Cowan thought to im peach Dan V. Brennan. Dan V. Brennan whom they say is the head and front of this movement, and Judge Cowan said when he was speaking of Dan V. Brennan" "If he had a son like that he would wish him in hi* grave, rather than see him go about here wearing that look of hate upon his face." Dan V. Brennan they claim is the head and front of this movement, and if he is some of you old men would say I would be proud to know that Dan V. Brennan was my son I want to tell you one thing, (lentlemen, whatever they may say about him. they haven't impeached him in any particular and he has been shown by the evidence in this case to be a man from top to toe, every inch of him. Twenty-three years old is all he is, and if he is the head and front of this movement, and if he is the man that is going to drive out the political life of Judge Cowan with this record behind Judge Cowan which we have shown in this case, then I will say all honor to the young man who bears the burden upon his shoulders, and is willing to stand up against the ridicule that has been heaped upon him and willing to bear his breast to the lances that have been aimed at him by the cohorts of John P. Cowan. Dan V. Brennan has been corroborated in everything he has said in this case by the witnesses who have come upon the stand. They sought to impeach him and I can just as well discuss that matter here now while I am upon that proposition, they sought to impeach him by showing, by bring, ing Bassford and Morrison, Norman Morrison, a member of the legis lature, a member of the sister house over here, (indicating) They brought those men here for the purpose of impeaching Dan. Dan goes on the stand and in his direct examination he states, he admits it that he did state to those men that in order to purify the life, the moral conditions of Devils Lake, it wa3 necessary to drive from political life John F. Cowan, and two other persons. He hesitated not in that declaration. These other men came upon the stand and the substance of their testi mony was practically as Dan V. Brennan gave it. Bassford stated upon my cross examinatiion of him wfoile he was holding that conversation with Dan Brennan. Dan Brennan took from a .desk in his office a file of papers and he said here are affidavits which contain matter which is sufficient to send John F. Cowan to Hell. No. to send any man to Hell, those are the words he used. Dan Bren nan had no affidavits at that time. Bassford states further at that time Dan Brennan offered to pay this man $50 to work for a certain political party on election day. That statement' carried with it its own refu tation, because I do not believe that you believed that that man was worth $50 on election day for one day's work. Brennan has hidden nothing in this case he has concealed nothing, he has been open and above board. Fair in every act and he has carried on this fight, and I am going to as sume for the purpose of argument that he is the man that brought John F. Cowan here, if he is all honor to Dan V. Brennan and I want to say to you that Dan V. Brennan's name, if he is the head and front of this movement will go down in the history of the state of North Dakota as one of the benefactors of the state, who has by his activity thrown out of office a man unfit, absolutely unfit to sit as a judicial officer. John F. Cowan appeared and spoke of this chairman of the house com mittee over here, and spoke of him in laudatory terms what a difference between.the two men. The one trying fb suppress, the one trying to hide, the one trying to shield, the one trying to defend the guilty, the one trying to save a man from his unlawful actions, and from a public violation of duty, and the other coming forward alone. Isn't that a sufficient recognition? I say to you no, a thousand times no. I say to you that the evidence in this case discloses, and I am going to consider it when I get down to the delayed cases, that John F. Cowan has used his judicial position for the purpose of punishing his enemies and re warding his friends. I say to you that if a man on the judicial bench does ought in injustice against the most insignificant citizen of that second judicial district, that the rights of that individual are more important than the demands of all of the rest of the citizens of that district and if one man has been unjustly treated, has been denied justice in the courts of that district by this man here accused, he is the more and more sacred and more and more to be considered than all these other people upon whom favors have been heaped, who have reaped the benefits of his friendship out there. The people again in the state have an interest. It isn't only the people of the second judicial district that are Interested, no, no, but you and I who didn't live there may go into that district as it appears from the evidence of the delayed cases has been done and have litigation there if we can't get justice there what shall we do? Not only that, but you are interested, and the rest of the people of the Btate are interested, in maintaining the fair name of the state of North Dakota. You are interested in letting the world know that you will not consent at least to the perpetuation in office of a man of the calibre that evidence shows John F. Cowan to be. The people of the second judicial district may vote unanimously, I don't know how they will vote, I do not care. I don't care, the very reason, gentle men, that impeachment proceedings of a judge of the district court are brought in this high court of impeachment, the very reason he is not tried in his home district is because a judge on account of his po sition naturally makes friends, naturally gets stronger when he is elected once if he uses his office properly, if he does what is right it is almost impossible to defeat him at all, and therefore a man may punish enemies and reward friends, make enough votes in that district to perpetuate himself in office forever and what about the poor suffering people up there who are not his friends, who don't come under his wing for protection. What about them, shall they continue there and suffer? Shall their litigation go unheeded? Shall they be held up when they «apt justice for this condition? Shall the spite of John F. Cowan be wielded from the bench upon his enemies? I say to you it don't make any difference what the votes of those people in that district decide. The question is, is he a fit man for tfiat judicial position, and when they appeal to you upon that proposition which they sought to inject into the record, and you will remember the question was asked, and I know it will be argued. Tracy Bangs never forgets anything, he injected into the record the question, how many majority, I think that was practically the question, but in substance it was how many majority did he get over the other man in the last election. I think the question was objected and the honorable president sustained the objection because he knew qnd every one of you senators knew, that the number of votes he obtained at the tolls was immaterial. But let me tell you something right in line with the argument I am making. Judge Cowan was elected two years ago to that position. John F. Cowan for years has been a hard drinker, we were excluded, and did not dare and were not permitted to offer testimony as to drunkenness prior to January 1st, 1909 but let me say to you that we have only offered evidence of drunkenness since. Some gentlemen who drink and are hard drinkers can go on for years, and for years you can fill yourself full of liquor and you won't show the effects of it, but the time is coming gentlemen, when you undermine Senator Bessesen: It says three years. BISMABCE BA31Y TRIBUNE your constitution and you become more susceptible to the use of intoxi cating liquor. Through many years John F. Cowan has been a heavy drinker, as the evidence shows, and now in late years when he imbibes too much he staggers as he walks along. He becomes intoxicated and shows it. You say he has offered him self as an exhibit here, exhibit 1. He does not show it now. Ben Brad ford testified in this case that John Cowan had aged wonderfully in 'the last four years I saw him four years ago and I hardly knew the man, he having aged so much between that time and the last time I saw him. It must necessarily follow. Even though John F. Cowan did get the votes in the last election which'elected him to that position, there i3 no man can tell what the effects of his debauches may have been upon the voting people of that district at this time. Mr. Tracy R. Bangs: As a matter of fact Mr. Bradford testified it was eight years instead of four. Mr. Sinkler: Your memory is wrong—it was three years instead of four years, I know what it was. Senator Simpson: I wish to call your attention to this testimony. Mr. Sinkler: Senator Simpson has called my attention to the testi mony of Martin Hoghauge. This question was asked. Do you remember Cowan saying, "Dan, now Dan, what you want to do is for you and me to get together, and you control the young people and I will control the old ones, I have been in the game and we will show them a game here." Now there Is no doubt but that Hoghauge testified to that. Mr. Hog hauge did not pretend to detail all he saw and heard, he detailed enough of the conversation to corroborate Dan V. Brennan and show that Dan Brennan was telling the truth. He said he heard Cowan say to Dan, lets get together—I didn't care about the whole conversation, all I wanted was enough to show that a part of it occurred. I do not know what was said there, it was for the purpose of establishing the fact that a part of that conversation occurred. I want to now take up specification 12. Mr. Sinkler: That is what I thought it did. Mr. Bangs is correct also because you remember on the cross examination after Bradford got on the stand asked him something like this, has he changed much since you saw him eight years ago, Mr. Bangs interjected the word eight, but Mr. Bradford said he had seen btm three years prior to that. Now both Bangs and I are correct. Mr. Bradford stated in his testimony as fol lows: "Q. How was his appearance with respect to the time you had seen him about three years previous? A. Well, he looked a great deal more—now at this time he looked mors as he did eight years ago than he did at that time. Q. Did you notice any marked change in his ap pearance three years previous? A. I did." The Incident which occurred in the post office between Rev. Burr and Judge Cowan on the occasion whicb has been testified to by Mr. Snow and Mr. Scott, two of the employees of the government, is only another indication of the attitude which John F. Cowan maintains in that city with respect to the enforcement of the law, and his whole conversation tends to show the he was in favor of, well I wouldn't make it that strong, but he was supporting to a certain extent the violators of the law in the city of Devils Lake. Whether he was drunk or not I do not care Rev. Burr testified to it, and you can take it for what it is worth. He is a minister of the Gospel, as the accused stated when he was referring to Scott Rex, Paul Campbell, Godward and Burr, a good drink might do them good. It is a nice speech to come from the lips of a judge, a nice talk to be heard from a man sitting on the judicial bench, "a drink might make the milk of human kindness run a little more freely through their veins," and in that very connection he spoke of the fact, and I want to call your attention to it here, do you remember when you used the words, you and I gentlemen live much the same kind of lives, our lives are not much apart. I want to say to you that I do hope, I do hope, gentle men, that there are none here, none here against whom such a mess of dis graceful testimony could be brought as has been brought into this court room and hurled into the face of Judge Cowan. He did that, and why? Why did he say that? I know that you are all good fellows here, no question about it, you are good fellows the bunch of you. I have been,with you here for a long while and I got acquainted with you, and I tell you one thing when I go back to my home, no matter what the outcome of this trial may be, in my heart I will have a warm feeling 'for every single man in this Senate. I know when I look into the faces of men what they are made of. I have had some experience in the judgment of human nature, and 1 can say and say truthfully, that when I leave here I will always remember the members of thiB high court of impeachment with the kindest regard, but John F. Cowan appealed to you on the score of good fellowship. Some of you like John, some of you love him. One man's life in thiB senate I understand, or as claimed by that man, was saved by John F. Cowan, but when they appeal to good fellowship, and ask you in the name of good, fellowship to violate your oaths as jurors and sacrifice your honest manhood, I say then that good fellow ship ceases to be a .virtue among men and it should be cast aside as un worthy of consideration. True you are good fellows, true you would like to see it that way so you could conscientiously vote a verdict of not guilty. I do not believe we are built that way, we do not like to see men suffer, we do not like to see persecution, but when it comes to a question of showing your good fellowship by a vote of not guilty in the face of the evidence that has been offered in this case, you cannot help but pause and say, there is a line beyond which good fellowship cannot take me, there are some acts I cannot do, even to assist my own brother, even to assist the dearest friend I may have there are some things I cannot do and that is to violate my oatb, and you are not going to do that. Specification 13. If there is any one thing that I admire more than anything else in the American citizen, it is chivalry toward women. Our mothers and daughters and our sisters when Insulted or ridiculed by any man whether he be a judge or an ordinary citizen raises in our breasts and heart that which we cannot control, and I say to you, gentle men, that one of the most disgraceful acts of this judge when he was sitting upon the bench occurred in tbe court room at the city of Devils Lake on the 31st day of October, 1910. A body of noble women whose purpose was the enforcement of law and the desire to see the brothels and blind pigs eradicated from the city of Devils Lake, had from time to time gone to that court room where these drag permits were coming on for hearing, and from time to time this Judge had continued, continued the hearing on these applications, until on the 31st day of October these women had made life a burden for John F. Cowan in their persistent effort to bring on a hearing while they were there in order that they might object to the granting of the permits. They came into the court room and waited there a couple of hours. They expected these hearings to take place. Cowan said in his opening statement that they had been notified that they had been continued, but the women came, stuck there. Why? It is only an indication to a man, all reasonable men that there existed, where it came from I do not say, but there existed,in the public mind of the city of Devils Lake the idea that unless be was closely watched a snap Judgment would be taken, and tbe inference from his own statement is that tbe women hung there in the court room day after day for the purpose of watching because they were afraid that perhaps something would occur which they would object to he says. These poor women were so worked up that they remained in the court room day after day when there was something to come up, and they seemed to think that by some hook or crook the whole thing would be spirited away and these druggists turned loose. When a man or woman has an idea there is always some reason why that idea is entertained', and if these women did have in their mind the idea that these druggists' permits would be granted while they were away, they must certainly have had some reason for their suspicion, and tbe entire evidence in this case shows to every fair-minded man that they had good grounds for the suspicions they entertained against Judge Cowan at that time. Suffice it to say that on tbe 31st day of October they came Into the court room, sat there In plain sight he came into the court room, went upon the bench and saw them there, asked tbe states attorney if there was any business. There was business, a blind plgger was to be sentenced, be had been in Jail over a week, and he could have been sentenced some other time. Two blind plggers were in Jail, two men they claimed who were suffering from some loathsome disease. What was done? Dr. Cuthbert was telephoned for, these women sat there. What would a gentleman have done, what would gentlemen who have some respect for woman's modesty, some respect for his own honor,' what would he have done, he would have politely informed these ladies that there was going to be a proceeding take place in that court room which would be improper for them to hear. Did he do it? Not so. But he called the doctor, the blindpigger had been senj from the room, and again I am going to throw tbe mantle of drunkenness over him rather than believe he would stoop so low as he did in that case for the purpose of getting rid of these women, I am going to assume it was the act of a drunken man rather than the act of a man in the full pos session of'his senses using that means for the purpose of getting rid ofj these objectionable characters, the ladies of tbe W. C. T. U. of Devils Lake. Mrs. Godward, Mrs. Hopkins, Mr. Godward, all of them testified that he came upon the bench, he sat there, the doctor was placed upon the right side of the judge's bench—they were sitting in front, and he conducted the examination and went through all the filthy details-of that disease that these men were suffering from, and when he would ask the question they say he would turn and leer at tb-am. What a spectacle in an American court. What a condition to view by men who have an interest in the honor of womanhood to see a condition like this exist, and a judge of the district court a party to the proceeding. I do not care for the women, thrust them out of the case, but I want to say to you that there is not any law between the covers of this book which says the proceeding that was conducted there on that occasion was lawful. He called up one blind pigger there and examined him. First he was sentenced and then sent out of the room and after he went out of the room he goes to work and examined this doctor respecting a disease which the man was afflicted with at that time without any authority of law, and he knew he had no author ity. True, Dr. Cuthbert said the patient had given him permission to disclose, but there is not any evidence in this case that the permission was communicated to John F. Cowan because Cowan was on the bench at the time Dr. Cuthbert came, and Dr. Cuthbert testified he had never had a talk with Cowan but that he had talked with Duell. Let me call your attention to the statute. A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases: "A physician or surgeon cannot, with out the consent of his patient, be examined as to any information ac quired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." It is a fundamental principle of law that no physician can come into a court room and say you have a dis ease, if you haye a disease and disclose the nature of that disease without the full consent of that patient. What was the purpose of it? What was the purpose of this investigation? Is there any reason for it? Why was it done? Can you find any other reason in the evidence in this case for the disgraceful action that was perpetrated there except the fact that he wanted to insult these ladies who were unfortunate enough in his estimation to desire the enforcement of the prohibition laws in the city of Devils Lake. There isn't any other reason that can be assigned. Why? Because if there wa3 good faith on tbe part of Judge Cowan in the investigation of that matter at that time, he would have, as a gentleman would have done, called the doctor into a private room and held a consultation with him there where only his ears would have heard the loathsome condition in which these men were alleged to be. Hasn't a prisoner got some rights? Because a man is sentenced for blind pigging hasn't he some rights? Because he is confined to jail under sentence for ninety days does he lose his right as a man? Has any judge, any person the right, even though a man be a criminal, to bring him up before the public and expose to the public the unfortunate condition that that man was in? I say to you that that in my estimation and in the estimation of all honorable men, was a disgraceful one. Cowan goes on in his opening statement and says, in speaking of Hrs. Hopkins' testimony there wasn't any thunder, Mrs. Hopkins didn't hear me thunder, that thunder is a drift of the imagination, that is all. Gentlemen, you know that he thundered, and you know from the tone of the speech that was delivered here that had charge 8 not been stricken from this record, this speech in "itself would have substantiated every feature of that charge as to his domineering and bull-dozing tactics upon the bench. You have ueen the attitude of the man here in this court room, yoa know what he does, you know his disposition and his manner, you know bis character, I say to you that there never has occurred in the course of this state a more disgraceful scene than was enacted there in Devils Lake on tint occasion. Our feelings rise up against the nan who was instrumental in insulting these ladies. And I say to you that you can eliminate the testimony of these three witnesses as to his drunkenness, eliminate that, but the very act itself shows either a drunken man or a condition of mind which is altogether incompatible with that which should be possessed by a person who is a judge of the district court. These ladies testified with respect to his intoxication, not only on that date, not. only on October 31st, but on other days, and as to this particular day they are positive. Now there was a little incident that occurred here when Charles Taylor was upon the witness stand which probably ought to be taken into consideration here and discussed at this particular moment. Mr. Taylor says that he took the testimony of the doctor when he was examined. I say to you that if that testimony is extant, and if it was in the polite language that Dr. Cuthbert said it was in, do not think for one single moment it wouldn't be here, because it would have been here, written out in longhand and every question propounded by the judge to the doctor, and very answer given would have been here before you. True, they asked us If we wanted it Mr. Bangs says it does not make any dif ference, we do not care whether they produce it or not, but I say to you that if there was in that testimony anything which would show Judge Cowan or make his actions appear in a kindlier light it would have been here in evidence in this case. From October 31st these druggists' permits were again continued until the 10th day of No vember, and on tbe 10th day of November they came back again. Once, more they are there. Oh, they must have pestered the very life out of the judge. Afraid? They had reason to be, the whole attitude of the man shows they had reason to be afraid that he would do what he bad no right to do under the circumstances. On the 10th day of November, two of these ladies testified, and Godward testified that he was intoxicated on that occasion. Now these three persons are not altogether unworthy of belief. True, the judge says Mrs. Godward ap parently hasn't bad much experience with drunken men, and a little drunk might do him a little good, but Mrs! Godward hasn't had any ex perience with drunken men, and because Godward isn't a drunkard him self, is that any reason why their testimony should be disregarded? That Is what the Judge would have you do, disregard them -because they did not take a friendly drink once in a while. I say to you that these women appeared to be honest, appeared to be fair, appeared to tell tbe truth, and you know that they were telling tbe truth wben you take into consideration all of their testimony that you have listened to here. Then again on November 19th a number of women with Mrs. Godward came there again and the judge was in the chambers of the court room and they were seated in the front seats, and he came stag gering across the floor toward them, anad be placed his hands on the seat and stunk of whiskey, commenced to scold them on account of the Interest they were taking in the proceedings, told them that they had no business hanging around the court room, and they testified that on that occasion he was intoxicated. These are the three occasions that were testified to by Mrs. Godward two of the occasions were testified to by Mrs. Godward, Mr. Godward and Mrs. Hopkins. Now, gentlemen, I want to take up the various matters that occurred on November 7 and 8, 1910, being tbe night preceding election and election day In the auditor's office during the evening of the 8th day of November, 1910. The first witness that was produced upon the condition of the Judge on the evening of the 7th day of November In John Gordon's barn was James Fitzgerald concerning whom Judge Cowan spoke in his opening address to some considerable extent and criticized Mr. Fitzgerald and finally wound up by stating that Jim would probably be a colonel after this thing was over. Now, Fitzgerald is a drinking man, Fitzgerald is a fellow that hangs around the livery bams, (Continued on page 5.) Monday, May 1, 1911. Do You Know A Grocer doing strictly casli business can sell for less With a smaller stock and less money tied up sells or. small er margins. That the smaller stock turns quick so goods are always fresh. COME AND SEE Here's two items. We've many others. COLUMBIA MILK, Per can, each 10c STRING BEANS. Pewaukee Lake Pick of the Pack Old Abe, Regular 15c seller, but here at per can 10c DAWSON'S CASH GROCERY DAKOTA BLOCK NEW HOTEL IS NOW ASSURE!) AT BEACH Beach, N. D., May 1.—Beach is at least to have a first-class hotel in ev ery particular, and work on it is be ing rushed so that it can be opened to the public by May 15. E. E. Pinkham and wife, experi enced hotel people from Maddock, N. -D., have taken over the manage ment of the new hotel, being erected by H. C. Callender, which has been under construction in the east part of town for the past six or eight months. M'CUMBER TO RESCUE OF STATE FARMERS Washington, D. C, -May 1.—Attor-• ney General Wickersham probably will shortly approve as legal a plan whereby thousands of sellers in the Buford-Trenton irrigation project in North Dakota and Montana will not be forced to pay tor their land at the rate of $55 per acre this spring, but $45 payable in eleven years. The plan was evolved by Thomas Cooper of St. Paul, a prominent Northern Pacific railway official, and Senator McCumber. It provides for for the payment of $4.50 per acre fory) nine years and a $7 payment per acre* for the last payment in 1922. The ar rangement also provides that pay ments on building charges .shall not be due until 1912. The operating charges of $2.50 per acre, however, are to be paid beginning December 1, 1911. According to Senator McCumber, there is ample authority for the in terior department to approve the Cooper plan. The recent Curtis act is eked in this. Secretary Fisher of the interior department, however, to make sure of his ground, referred the matter ti the department of justice for a final decision. The Grand Forks volley ball team took the Gate City team into camp. Hygienic Kalsomine and Decorative Colors The Sanitary Wall Finish for Everybody at the French & Welch Hardware Co. 306-308 Main Phone 141 We do all kinds of Laundry work. Dry cleaning and pressing attended to. Your patronage solicited. Wagons will call. mnist.