T  IAL
OF
CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
COMMISSIONER OF TIlE LAND OFFICE
OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
BEFORE THE
SENATE OF SAID STATE,
ON AN
IMPEACHMENT,
PREFERRED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM, FOI0
CORRUPT CONDUCT IN OFFICE, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
VOL.  II.
BY AUTHORITY.
LANSING:
W. S. GEORGE & CO., STATE PRINTERS AND BINDERS.
1872.




G. F. HITCHCOCK AND
HENRY F. WALCH,
Official Reporters.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 913
TESTIMONY OF S. C. ALDERMAN.
S. C. Alderman, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In the village of Ionia.
Q. How long have you resided there?
A. About twenty-five years.
Q. What is your principal business and occupation?
A. Land surveyor, civil engineer, land selector, and dealer
in lands.
Q. State whether you ever made an application for land on
section 16,-school lands,-town 24 north, range 3 west?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Two fractions, 5 and 6, lying upon the lake?
A. Yes, sir. I didn't make any written application.
Q. Did you apply for them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. It was about the last of December, 1871.
Q. About the last?
A. Yes, sir; near the last.
Q. State what you said and did at the office, with reference
to purchasing those lands.
A. I asked Mr. Robinson if I could have those lands a quarter down? He said I could have them at a quarter down, if I
would make an affidavit that they were not valuable for timber.
Q. Did he give you the form of an affidavit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you that form with you?
A. I may have it with me.
Q. Just look and see whether you have it in your memorandum.
[Witness produces an affidavit]
115




914      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was it a printed form?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn't you make the affidavit?
A. I could not make it conscientiously.
Q. What was the character of that land? Has it pine or
valuable timber upon it?
A. Part of it is pine.
Q. Did you have any talk, at that time, with Mr. Barnard
about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. This was with Mr. Robinson, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We offer this affidavit to show the
rule of the office,-this printed form with the instructions at
the bottom.
The following is the printed affidavit referred to:
[EXHIBIT HH.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, } S
County of  ~, s
and -  of the township of -    in said county, being
duly sworn, depose and say, that they are well acquainted with
the following described land, to wit: - in the county of
and State of Michigan, and know that the same is valuable mainly for agricultural purposes. And deponents further
say that the timber standing and growing on said land is not
pine, cedar, or hemlock, making said land valuable for lumber
purposes, but that the timber growing thereon is principally
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this -    day ofA. D. 18-.
NOTE.-This affidavit to be made by the supervisor of the
township, or by two responsible persons. residents of the town
in which the land is situated.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went to Saginaw.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 915
Q. What further in reference to getting this land?
A. Mr. Goddard asked me if I had any minutes of good pine
lands?
Q. Did you give him any?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you give him these minutes?
A. I gave him  some minutes on the S. E. ~ of Sec. 16, 24
north, 3 west.
Q. Just state whether they were those two fractions, and
what number they are [showing witness a book],-whether
they were numbers five and six?
A. Lots No. 5 and G.
Q. Did you give him these?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As shown on this book as primary school lands?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate will take an informal
recess for ten minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed.
Question. You stated you gave the minutes of this land to
Mr. Goddard; is it E. G. Goddard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you to have any interest in the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state whether Mr. Goddard made application for
that land, immediately?
A. Yes, he wrote a letter.
Q. Making application?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are the contents of the letter?
Mr. Shipman-We object. We object to the question because it calls for secondary evidence, and there is better evidence of the fact. If they claim the letter was destroyed, let




916      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
them say so, and then the next evidence would be either the
man who wrote it or the man who read it. If the letter was
sent to the Commissioner's office, a request should be made to
produce it; and if it is not produced, possibly then secondary
evidence might be produced. But it seems to me, at this time
the evidence is inadmissible.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We have attempted to show, by a
clerk in the office, that after a careful deposit of that paper in
a depository in the office, the only two places it can be found
in the office-the letter-book and the boxes-and they are not
there, I submit that, if we went to the proper repository in the
office, it is equivalent to examining the whole office. No court
would require every paper in the office to be examined, before
it would say that it was not there. We think we have made a
primafacie case, and we have asked them to produce it. We
ask from the witness the contents of this paper,-that was the
paper Griswold was interrogated about,-and we have asked
them to produce it; and I understand they don't require any
written notice.
The Presiding Officer-At any other time than just the
present, has there been any request?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Not formally, but this morning
there was an hour's time expended with one of the witnesses
on the stand, to find the paper.
Mr. McGowan-The proof of the loss of this letter was
only made by the clerk Griswold, and it will be borne in
mind that Griswold testifies that with that department of
the office, he had no knowledge of, and was not familiar with
it, and that he made the search where he supposed it was.
The Presiding Officer-It is the opinion of the Chair that
there has not been sufficient showing to entitle you to go into
that. The witness never saw the letter.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Yes, he said he saw the letter.
The Presiding officer-Very well, I will sustain the objection on the other ground. I will take a vote of the Senate, if
desired.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 917
Senator Ball-I would like a vote of the Senate upon it.
Mr. McGowan:
Question. Did you read the letter?
Witness-I did not read the letter; Mr. Goddard read it.
Q. To you?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-The question is, Shall the question
asked by Mr. Manager Grosvenor be put to the witness?
Those of you in favor will, as your names are called, respond
Aye; those opposed, No.
Senator Wheeler-Do the gentlemen ask time?
Mr. McGowan-We do.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-If there is any probability ot the
letter being found, I will not ask him now. I will ask that
the search may be made. I made a search this morning, and
I demanded of the chief clerk this paper, and he contemptuously told me that there was no affidavit, and he would take
the responsibility. I got this clerk and brought him in, and
this clerk was asked to give me these papers from the repository for them. I then ask the clerk to come in and testify.
The Presiding Officer-The question is, Shall the question
be put to the witness? The Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary called the roll, and the question was ordered
put to.the witness, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
MAr. Ball,        Mr. Moffatt,       Mr. Stockbridge,
Begole,           Neasmith,          Storrs,
Cawley,           Prutzman,          Waterbury,
Dexter,           Putnam,            Wheeler,
Gay,              Randall,           Wilcox,
Hannahs,          Romeyn,            Wood,
Mann,             Sheley,                         20
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Price,         Mr. President
Barber,                                pro tem.,   4
The Presiding Officer-The yeas being 20 and the nays 4,
the question will be put to the witness.




918    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Question. That letter was read to you, I believe you said, after
it was written?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were interested in the subject-matter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you state what were the contents of that letter,
as near as you can?
A. I don't know as I can, every word of it.
Q. The substance?
A. The description was put in, but it was not put in by the
number of the lot, but all the vacant land in that section. I
hadn't the number of the lot with me, but I had the number
of acres, he wrote. The way he read the letter to me, he wrote
to Mr. Barnard, and applied for that land, saying here is a fivedollar bill-do you want I should give the exact language?
Q. Give the exact language if you can?
A. "For God's sake, do something for a poor fellow."
Q. Was there any money sent besides that?
A. There was a draft.
Q. For how much?
A. I think it was $60.80,-a dollar per acre at all events.
Q. Was there any affidavit enclosed that it was not valuable
for pine?
A. No, sir; not that I saw.
Q. That letter was sent off and mailed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, can you tell me what the result of the application
was in that form to get the land?
A. I got a letter in two or three days after I got home to
Ionia, that he had got the land, and it was all right.
Q. Was that application of yours before the application of
Mr. Goddard?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't you inform  Mr. Goddard that you had been
refused the land?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    919
Q. I believe you stated that it Was valuable for timber?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it valuable for farming purposes? Is it not valuable
only for timber?
A. I think it will make good farming lands.
CROSS-EXAMIINATION OF S. C. ALDERMAN.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. You say you have looked this land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q.  How much pine was there on it?
A. I do not recollect exactly my estimates. I have not got
my book with me.
Q. How many acres are there in lots 5 and 6 together, do
you think?
A. There are almost 60 acres,-59 and 80-100ths, to the best
of my recollection.
Q. Where does it lie,-not the numbers of the locality of
the land, but with reference to the bounds,-by lakes, or any
thing of that kind?
A. It is situated on the east side of Hagan's Lake.
Q. How near to the lake?
A. It is on the lake shore.
Q. How is the land near the shore of the lake, of these
pieces?
A. There is a little strip along there of small pine; some of
it has not got any timber on it.
Q. How wide is it?
A. It varies from 10 to 15 rods.
Q. Do both pieces lie on the shore?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the extent, in rods, should you say of land on
the shore of the lake? You have seen it?
A. I have been on the land.
Q. You may not get it right, but give your estimate?
A. It may be 160 rods.




920    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How far back from  the margin of the lake should you
say the average would be that this strip of small pine extended?
A. Oh, not but a few rods.
Q. Can you give the number of the rods more definitely
than that?
A. I think I could mark it out,-the east side of it is pine,
back from the lake a little.
Q. How much of the east side?
A. Well, the belt of timber varies over its course.
Q. How many acres of it should you say was valuable pine?
A. Well, there is about 40 acres,-nearly that.
Q. Of the sixty?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Forty acres of pine?
Answer. Yes, sir; nearly that.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. Now, will you state how many acres of it is
valuable principally for timber?
Answer. Well, there is about 30 acres of it well pined.
Q. How many acres of it is valuable chiefly or principally
for other purposes than timber?
A. For farming purposes?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, I should think it was pretty much all.
Q. The balance of it?
A. It is lightish soil. I think it would answer for farming
land.
Q. What kind of soil?
A. Sandy, gravelly soil.
Q. This timber you speak of, is it on one lot principally, or
scattered, reaching across both lots?
A. It is not scattered a great deal; it is in one belt, mostly.
Q. Crossing both lots?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    921
Q. This thirty acres,-would you say it was worth most for
timber, or worth most for farming purposes?
A. Worth most for timber.
Q. What kind of timber is it besides pine.
A. Well, there is occasionally a small oak.
Q. Any other hard wood?
A. A little maple; some call it " soft maple," we call it
i maple" in field-notes.
Q. State the surroundings of this land,-what the timber is
around it?
A. It is mostly pine.
Q. Mostly pine?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there farming lands joining it on either side.
A. No, sir.
Q. Not valuable for timber?
A. No, sir.
The Presiding Officer-What is the answer?
Answer. No, sir, not very close to it; not on the adjoining
sections.
Q. How near do they come?
A. Well, there are plains within ten miles.
Q. Well, land that is not valuable, principally for timber,
-are there such lands adjoining it?
A. The lot on the south, the east part of it is pine, and near
the lake it is not valuable for timber, close to the border; and
the section on the east and south part of it is valuable for pine.
Q. Is not the lake on the south of it?
A. Well, the lake takes a southeast direction,-there is a
curve in the lake,-it makes a point east.
Q. Is not the lake entirely south of both pieces,-nothing but
the lake south of one of the pieces?
A. Well, it is nearly all lake, I think.
Q. Is it not quite.
A. I think not.
116




922      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Which piece is that?
A. The south piece of the section corner is some little distance from the lake; I do not recollect the distance.
Q. Do the pieces lie north and south of each other,-5 and 6?
A. I will have to correct up there. I guess they corner.
Q. The pieces corner, do they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which corners, now, come together of the pieces?
A. The southwest corner of the south piece corners on the
southeast corner of the north piece.
Q. The southwest corner of the south piece corners on the
southeast corner of the north piece?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, is that possible?
A. WellQ. I wish your recollection of the matter.
A. That is my recollection. That map there does not correspond.
Q. That that corner was not the southeast corner of the
north piece,-it was the southeast corner of the south piece?
A. That is what I mean, but I think according to that
book, they join. I know there is some confliction between
this book and the book at Grand Traverse, —the shape of the
lake and the lay of the land.
Q. Now, in the west piece, or the north piece, whichever
you choose to call it, does the lake touch that?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How wide a strip is there of it?
A. It touches both pieces.
Q. How wide is that?
A. Well sir, I do not recollect exactly the width. The north
end is wider than the south end.
Q. It lies on the north side of the lake, does it not?
A. The north and east.
Q. Can you tell me how the north end can be wider than
the south end, if it lies on the north side of the lake?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                     923
A. The lake runs in a northwesterly direction through the
section.
Q. Is that piece of land longer north and south than it is
east and west,-what you call the north lot or the west lot.
A. It is longer on the north side than it is on theQ. South side?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The north side is a straight line?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The south side is a meandering line?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the shore of the lake?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The east line is straight?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the west line is straight?
A. It is not parallel with the east line.
Q. How wide is it on the west side, from the lake to the
north line?
A. Which piece do you mean?
Q. We will call it lot five,-the west or north lot. You
have called it the north lot sometimes?
A. It would be over 80 rods.
Q. On the west line of lot five?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then how far would it be on the east line?
A. Eighty rods, or thereabouts.
Q. The same distance?
A. No, sir.
Q. How  far from  the north line of lot five, to the lake,measuring at the east line of the lot?
A. I understood you to ask me what length the west line
was?
Q. I did ask you, and you said it was 80 rods.
A. Over 80 rods.




924      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Now, the east line there that runs north and south on
the east side of the lot,-how long is that?
A. It is 80 rods, more or less, according to the government
survey.
Q. How many acres are there in that piece?
A. Thirty odd acres in the north lot.  I do not recollect
exactly the number, but it is over thirty acres.
Q. There is no north lot; they lie east and west. That is
the fact upon the plat.
A. The land does not lie that way, sir.
Q. Might you not have been on the wrong land?
A. I think not, sir. When I go to a section corner, I know
where I am generally.
Q. Mistakes will happen in the best families. These are the
lands [showing the plat to the witness]. The lots lie east and
west there, do they not?
A. They lie east and west. I have got the thing mixed a
little.
Q. So they do not corner at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you get your plats about these lands?
A. I got my township plats at Grand Traverse.
Q. Will you state which of those lots are numbers five and
six on your plat?
A. I was mistaken as to the location of the land. I have it
platted here on my plat-book, that the west one is five and the
east one six.
Q. The lands do not corner?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you say it is 80 rods from the north line of the west
lot to the lake, measuring on the west line of the lot?
A. No, sir; it does not appear so here.
Q. After looking over the plats, what do you say about the
distance?
A. About 30 rods.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  925
Q. How much pine timber do you think there is on those
lands?
A. From my best recollection, about 300,000.
Q. How many acres on those lots five and six?
A. Thirty acres are pined all over, and about ten acres more
scattering.
Q. Is there the same amount on this land that there is on
those lots that you were speaking about,-that corner?
A. This is the same land that I examined. I told you
I was mistaken as to the lots lying north and south.
Q. The lands you looked at cornered?
Q. No sir; those are the lands I looked.
Q. Did you not say a little while ago that if they did not
corner they were wrong?
A. I was thinking the map showed them cornering at the
Traverse office. I know there was a conflict between that map
and these; that is where I got mixed.
Q. Whereabouts now does that pine lie? Look right on the
plat and state where the pine lies.
A. On the east and north side.
Q. Of lot five, or six?
A. On both of them,-mostly on the north side.
Q. Is there as much on five as there is on six?
A. No, sir, not quite.
Q. How did you find the corners there?
A. I found the section line and traced it up; found the
meandering post and traced it east to the section corner.
Q. Could you find the land-lines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Find the stakes?
A. I found the witness-trees and the stakes.
Q. You could find the corners?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you run the lands?
A. I followed from the section corner, north to the quarter
post; traced it through, and the witness-trees were standing.




926      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. That was 160 rods?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you find the half-way post between the two,
and the N. W. corner of six?
A. There is no post there.
Q. How did you find the corner of that lot?
A. I did it by pacing, sir.
Q. How did you find the northwest corner?
A. There is no corner there, sir; I did it by compass and
pacing.
Q. There is a corner lot somewhere; it may not be established to a corner. How did you find when you arrived at
the N. W. corner of the land?
A. I did it by pacing.
Q. Found no corner established?
A. There is no corner established.
Q. What do you say about the lands,-of it being valuable for
pine? What do you think now, about it?
A. There is a fraction right south of it on the next section.
Q. Is it not valuable mostly for water-right, back of lot 5?
A. That small fraction is; yes, sir.
Q. When you were at the office there, who did you say you
did your business with?
A. At the State office?
Q. Yes, sir,-when you applied, as you say, for this land?
A. Mr. Robinson.
Q. Wholly with him, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it in the old office or in the new?
A. In the new office.
Q. Did you make any written application?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you deposit any money?
A. No, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 927
RE-EXAMINATION OF S. C. ALDERMAN.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Why didn't you file a written application and
deposit the money?
A. I was told I could not get it without-I hadn't the money
to spare $400 down at the time.
Q. What is it?
A. I did not want to spare the money to pay the four dollars
an acre.
Q. You began to answer, and you have gone off on to another
subject. Why did you not make the application in writing
and deposit the money?
A. I was told I could not without making an affidavit.
Q. You could not make the affidavit, as you said before?
A. No, sir.
Q. State whether they demanded more than a quarter down
of you, or did they demand the whole sum?
A. They said if I could not make the affidavit, that I would
have to pay it all down,-four dollars an acre.
Q. If you did not make an affidavit, you would have to pay
it all down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had not money enough to pay for it at that rate?
A. No, sir. Do you understand that I wish to be corrected
upon that land lying east and west?
Q. Yes, sir; I was just going to ask you about that. When
you were looking that land out, was you looking for pine lands
or for farming lands?
A. I was looking for pine lands.
Q. You said you were a surveyor, I believe, and a land-looker?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been engaged in that business?
A. Surveying?
Q. Yes, sir.
A  Something over twenty years.




928      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. In Michigan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, if you desire to make any explanation about your
having said north for eastA. I know there is a confliction in the maps,-between these
maps and at Grand Traverse. That is the way I got mixed.
Q. You were thinking of its appearance on the map at Grand
Traverse?
A. Yes, sir. I had a map here, on my plat-book, the same
as it is there.
Q. How are you now?  Is' your' mind clear about it, that
you have seen that land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As indicated upon the plat-book here?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And upon your own plat?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What is that land worth?
A. It is worth from ten to fifteen dollars an acre, I think.
Q. For timber?
A. For timber and other purposes.
Q. Is it not that class of lands commonly designated as
timbered lands,-as pine lands,-and valuable mostly for its
timber?
A. It is valuable for pine.
Q. Among the land and lumber men, is it not known as pine
lands; would it not be understood as pine lands?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF S. C. ALDERMAN.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. These plats, you say, that you got from the Traverse office were different from the plat here?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it get these sections cornering,-these lots cornering?
A. I think it did. I am not positive. I know the clerk in




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 929
the office there at Grand Traverse, and I had considerable talk
about it. They were not the same.
Q. The lands that you showed Goddard the minutes of,-were
they cornering?
A. No, sir, they were the same as they are on this book,
here.
Q. Did you look the lands under your Traverse plats?
A. I think I had a copy of these. I took the minutes of
these lands before I got my-I had a small plat, I think I
had,-took the minutes of these school lands before I got my
plats from Traverse.
Q. You think you did?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you get the minutes of these?
A. Along in October.
Q. When did you get the Traverse plats?
A. About October.
Q. About the same time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where in the world did you get the idea, Mr. Alderman,
that these lots were cornering, if you did not get it from actual
observation on the lots?
A. Well, when I was on the land, I looked the land as it is
represented on this plat. I had a small plat, I think, as it was
represented on this plat, and then I had a larger one from
Traverse, and I think there is a confliction in the shape of the
lake.
Q. Where did you get the idea that the lots cornered, if not
from walking over them?
A. I did not have any such idea when I was walking over
them at all, because I paced from the section corner to the
quarter post.
Q. Well, you did when you were testifying here. Where did
you get that idea?
A. I must have got it from the plats,-the Traverse plats
117




930      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you know how long you had that idea that they were
cornering?
A. I think I had the idea when I was at Traverse City.
Q. You speak of the value of this land as worth from $10
to $15 per acre,-will you state whether the lands are selling
there for that price?
A. I know there are men that ask that for the lands.
Q. What makes these lots valuable?
A. This pine; and I should think it would be valuable for
something else.
Q. What else?
A. I think there will be a large town there some day.
Q. It is a prospective value, then, is it; some railroad. going
to run up there?
A. Near there.
Q. Is that a pretty handsome lake?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A nice location for a town?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You figure, then, the value, some, on what you expect is
going to be there in the future?
A. The pine on the land is worthQ. I merely ask you if that enters into your estimate of
value; whether you take into consideration the probability of
there being a town or village located there in the future?
A. I think the land is worth *for the pine about $10 an
acre.
Q. Is that the pine part of them you mean?
A. Yes, sir; that is the pine on the lands.
Q. State whether, in your opinion, the principal value of the
land is for pine.
A. It is, as far as I know yet.
Q. You put the value at from $10 to $15?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  931
A. I should think it was worth about $15 an acre,-the laud
and timber,-figuring it together.
Q. You were interested in these lands, you say, when Mr.
Goddard entered them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You could not file the affidavit at the office here, that
they were not valuable chiefly or principally for timber, as
required by the rule?
A. No, sir.
Q. You took an interest in them, didn't you, after Mr. Goddard entered them?
A. There was an agreement between Mr. Goddard and me
that he would pay for the lands, and I was to have a half
interest in them.
Q. You were willing to accept them?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF S. C. ALDERMAN.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Mr. Godard is a heavy dealer in land,-deals considerable?
A. He deals considerably, I believe.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. WATERBURY.
John C. Waterbury, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives,
testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
[Senator Waterbury was examined standing in his place.]
Question. You have heard the testimony of the last witness
upon the stand?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the land to which he refers?
A. I do.
Q. Have you ever been upon the land?
A. Yes, sir.




932      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Can you state what that land is chiefly valuable for?
A. My opinion is, for timber.
Q. Do you own land in the vicinity, or have you?
A. I did. Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SENATOR WATERBURY.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. How many times have you been on the land?
Answer. I was there once, and we camped on that section,
on lot 4, the first lot west of that. We were there three or
four days, looking land. We were across this piece frequently,
going to and from camp, and looked that section up.
Q. Does lot four lay west, or northwest?
A. It lays west.
Q. Straight west?
A. It lays west and reaches up north, past other forties. It
lays right west of two forties that lay directly north of 5 and 6,
but runs down past five to the lake. They are larger instead
of being smaller,-they are larger than the forties.
Q. What are the shores, along there, of the lake? What
kind of soil?
A. Sand.
Q. Bluff?
A. No, not on that fraction, if I recollect right; it is low.
The formation of the land is something like this: From the
shore you go back a little ways and go up over a ridge, and go
down from  that and there is a low place, and then there
is another ridge,-something like waves. The formation of
wind in an early day.
Q. Any springs there?
A. I did not see any springs there.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Mr. President: I offer to introduce
now the official oath of the respondent, a copy of which is here,
duly authenticated.
[ To counsel for the respondent.]
You do not deny that?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                933
Mr. McGowan-We will admit we swore.
The following is a copy of the paper offered in evidence:
[EXHIBIT II.]
OATH OF OFFFICE.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  s
County of Ingham,
I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that
I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Commissioner of the State Land Office of the State of Michigan,
according to the best of my ability.
CHAS. A. EDMONDS.
Sworn and subscribed before me, this third day of January,
1871.
DANIEL STRIKER,
Secretary of State.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,   S
Office of the Secretary of State, s.
I, Daniel Striker, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy
of oath of office, with the original, filed in this office January
3, 1871, and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom,
and of the whole of such original.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the Great Seal of the State of Michigan, at Lan[SEAL.]  sing, this second day of May, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventytwo.
G. M. HASTY,
Dep. Secretary of State.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I next offer the official oath of
William A. Barnard, to show that he is the Deputy, and has
taken the oath, and filed it in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
Mr. Shipman-We have no objection, although we do not
know what it has to do with the case.




934      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The following is a copy of the paper referred to:
[EXHIBITS II.]
OATH OF OFFICE.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  s.
County of Iftgham, 
I do solemnly swear that I will support, the Constitution of
the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that
I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Deputy
Commissioner of the State Land Office according to the best
of my ability.
WM. A. BARNARD.
Sworn and subscribed before me, this first day of June, 1871
HENRY N. LAWRENCE,
Notary Public in and for Branch County.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,             SS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 
I, Daniel Striker, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, do hereby certify, that I have compared the annexed copy
of the oath of office of Wm. A. Barnard, as Deputy Commissioner of the State Land Office, with the original filed in this
office June 1st, 1871, and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of such original.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed the Great Seal of the State of Michigan,
[SEAL.] at Lansing, this 11th day of May, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two.
G. M. HASTY,
Deputy Secretary of State.
TESTIMONY OF G. W. FREEMAN.
G. W. Freeman, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    935
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a clerk in the Secretary of State's office.
Q. How long have you been there?
A. About fifteen months.
Q. Have you got the certificate of purchase of Hoyt &
Draper, of certain land in Sanilac county?
A. I have. [Produces it.]
Q. State whose handwriting the signature is?
A. The certificate is filled out by Mr. Robinson, of the Land
Office.
Q. The signature to the certificate?
A. William A. Barnard, Deputy Commissioner.
Q. Where did you procure that paper?
A. It was sent to our department from the Land Office.
Q. Where did you procure it when you brought it here?
A. From the Secretary of State's Office.
Mr. Manager Huston-Mr. President, I wish to produce this
certificate in evidence.
Mr. McGowan-I would like to see it.
[Paper handed to respondent's counsel by the Manager.]
Question. Let me call your attention to the date on the
back of it,-the " 22d,"-and ask you what that means?
Answer. That signifies the date of the patent.
Q. Will you read the description of the land that is in the
certificate?
A. The S. fl. i bf S. W. i sec. 6, and the S. E. { of N. W. i
sec. 7, 10 N. 12 E.
Q. What is the date of the-certificate?  When was the certificate issued?
A. Twentieth day of December, 1871.
Q. I will offer this in evidence.
[ The following is a copy of the certificate referred to: ]




936      TRIAL OF ECHARLES A. EDMONDS.
[EXHIBIT JJ.]
No. 9985.
W. A. BARNARD & CO.-CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE-SWAMP
LAND.
In the name of the People of the State of Michigon, I
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office,
agreeably to the provisions of law, hereby certify, that at a
private sale on the 20th day of December, one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-one, Herbert H. Hoyt and C. Stuart
Draper, of Saginaw county, State of Michigan, for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred fifty-four and 05-100
dollars, purchased the land described as follows, that is to say:
the S. fr'l i of S. W. i Sec. 6, and N. E. i of N. W. i of section
No. 7, in township No. 10 N. of range No. 12 E., containing
123.24 acres, according to the returns of the Surveyor General,
at one and 25-100 dollars per acre.
And I do further certify, That the consideration received
therefor is the sum of one hundred fifty-four and 5-100 dollars,
to be paid at the office of the State Treasurer: Provided,
And this certificate is issued upon the express condition, that
said purchaser shall have no claim against the State for drainage, reclamation, or other improvement of said land, but
said sale is made subject to drainage and reclamation by the purchaser, in accordance with the Act
of Congress granting said land to the State: And
I further certify, that upon the presentation of this
[L. s.] certificate, duly signed by the State Treasurer, and
countersigned by the Auditor General, as required
by law, to the Secretary of State, and surrender of
the same, the purchaser therein named, or his assigns, will be entitled to receive a patent for said
land, to be executed by the Governor.
Given under my hand, and the Seal of the State Land Office,
this 20th day of December, 1871.
WM. A. BARNARD,
Dep. Commissioner.




PROMCIEDINGS OF TlHE COURT.               937
[The following appears on the back of the certificate:]
~$~ —-   ~       STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE, 
Lansing, December 21, 1871.
Received the within mentioned payment ofD-ollars.
[Countersigned:]               --     State Treasurer.
Auditor General.
Examined and entered.
V. P. COLLIER, State Treasurer.
F. X. H.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-That is all.
Mr. Shipman-We have no questions.
L. S. HUDSON, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. When you were upon the stand, the other day, you
did not tell us all about that land transaction you had with
Mr. Barnard, did you.
Answer. No, sir.
Q. When did you have another transaction that you did not
tell us about?
A. Last spring, I think.
Q. Last spring?
A. A year ago now.
Q. Was it after the first transaction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before the second?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you get any land from him at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you pay him for it?
A. I traded a dog for it.
Q. You traded a dog for it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember where the land was,-the description
of it?
A. No, sir, I do not.
118




938      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you own it now?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the patent taken out to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From the Government.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who selected the land, Barnard?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. You got it of him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The deed came directly from the State to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have sold that, have you?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We propose to follow the sale of
this land until Mr. Barnard strikes in again.
Mr. McGowan-We reserve the right to object to any questions that are objectionable.
Question-You did not sell the land back to Barnard?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. You traded for some other property?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Barnard get any of that other property?
A. No, sir.
Q. You traded that "dog forty" off for a horse?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You gave Barnard the horse for the next " eighty?"
A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn't it the same horse?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't it grow from that in the same way-just explain?
A. It was a colt that I traded with him after that.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF L. S. HUDSON.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. What did you get from Mr. Barnard on thistrade?
Answer. Forty acres. I got a patent for it, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 939
Q. Did you get any scrip from him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you get no papers at all but the patent you speak of?
A. That is all.
Q. In whose name was the patent?
A. Mine, sir.
Q. Do you know where the State got the pay for this land?
A. I do not.
Q  Do you know  whether it came from  Mr. Edmund
Hall's reserve, or not?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. The dog didn't go into the Treasury, did it?
A. I guess not.
Q. Was that swamp land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that dog a water spaniel?
A. Sir?
Q. What kind of a dog was that?
A. It was a coach dog.
Q. What was the land called worth in this trade?
A. $100.
Q. What was the dog worth?
A. The same price, $100.
Q. State the value of that dog aside from the transaction
with Barnard,-whether you had been offered any amount for
him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what?
A. $100.
Q. You had been offered $100.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In money?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shipman-That is all.




940      TRIAL OF CHARLES A, EDMONDS.
M. O. ROBINSON, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. I will call your attention to the application:
What is the date? When was it made?
Answer. On or about the 21st of August, 1871.
Q. Will you read the application?
{Witness read as follows:]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE LAND OFFICE, 
Lansing,,187 -.
"Lester S. Hudson, Ingham county:
S. i of S. E. — 13-4 N. —13 W. —80 acres."
"Martin Hudson:
W. fr. ~ of N. W.  — 19-2 N.-15  W.-54 20-00ths
acres."
Q. What is that below?
Witness-" W. A. Barnard says make the above up and
charge to him,-no proofs ever filed."
Filing on the back:' L. S. Hudson, Aug. 21,'71, 9572 and
9573, for pat."
Question. In whose handwriting is that?
Answer. It is mine.
Q. Have you any recollection now, after reading your own
entry there, what Mr. Barnard said to you in regard to making
up the patents for that land?
A. I seem to have written down what he said.
Q. Have you no recollection outside of that?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. What does he mean by charging to him?
A. Charged to his scrip account.
Q. Charged to his scrip account, or charged to the scrip
account of W. A. Barnard & Co?
A. W. A. Barnard & Co., I suppose.
Q. Who is Martin Hudson?
A. I believe he is the proprietor of the Lansing House.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 941
Q, Did you understand that that was the same land that
Mr. Barnard was selling to Martin Hudson?
A. I did not know anything about it.
Q. Upon looking at that paper, will you tell me to whom the
patent was issued upon the description opposite to Martin
Hudson's name.
A. I am pretty well convinced that the certificate was issued
to the parties designated.
Q. To whom?
A. Lester S. Hudson and Martin Hudson.
Q. One description was either a certificate or a patent issued
to Martin Hudson?
A. I see I have marked the number of the certificates on
the back of the correspondence here, " for patent."
Q. There are two certificates, then.
A. Yes, sir; two purchases.
Q. Will you state whether or not you are interested in the
purchase of any land?
A. I was not.
Q. Have you been interested in selling minutes of land to
parties?
A. I have sold some. Yes, sir.
Q. Any since the first of January, 1871?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What amount of minutes have you sold?
A. I do not remember how many. I have sold one or two
little lots.
Q. Did you not sell one lot of over 900 acres to one party?
A. I think I did,-960 acres and some fractions.
Q. Have you not sold other lots?
A. I think I have.
Q. How much did you make on the 960 acres for selling?
A. I purchased them for $60, the batch, and sold them for
$480.
Q. How much have you made upon the other minutes that




942      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
you have sold during the year 1871 and 1872 up to the present
time?
A. I could not say.
Q. Can you state the amount you have received for any
other lot except the one you have named?
A. I could not; no sir.
Q. How frequently have you sold minutes;
A. Very seldom, I think.
Q. How much did Langdon Hubbard of Huron county pay
you for services?
A. I do not know whether it was Langdon Hubbard or not.
One of the Hubbards gave me $50.
Q What was it for,-looking up land and entering them
in the office?
A. I do not know what it was for.
Q. Do you remember the fact that he gave you $50?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much do David Preston & Co. pay you a year?
A. They do not pay me anything.
Q. I understood you to testify before the investigating committee that Preston & Co. paid you a certain amount a year for
looking after their matters,-keeping their account.
A. If I remember rightly I testified that it was paid to the
Commissioner, or sent to the Commissioner, and he gave it to
me.
Q. Then it is paid to Mr. Edmonds, and he gives it to you?
A. He has done so; yes, sir.
Q. What is that for?
A. For rendering him a monthly statement of his account
Q. Is there a book in the office, where you keep the private
accounts of these large dealers?
A. Yes, sir, some two or three of them.
Q. How many are there for whom you keep accounts in that
book?
A. Some five or six, I think.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 943
Q. Mr. Edmonds is aware of that book being in the office, is
he not?
A. I presume he is.
Q. I don't know as I asked you the amount that Preston
pays.
A. Fifty dollars a year.
Q. What amount do any of the others pay to the Commissioner?
A. Not anything, that I am aware of.
Q. Do you know whether Edmund Hall pays anything?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. What other parties are there that pay you money for
services, that you have not named?
A. I do not think of any names, now.
Q. Cannot you think of any one else except Hubbard or
Preston?
A. I think Mr. Medbury gave me something once.
Q. What did Mr. Medbury give you?
A. I think he gave me $50.
Q. Cannot you think of somebody else during the last year
and a half, that has paid you for services?
A. I cannot.
Q. You cannot think of any other person?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any interest in Mr. Hewitt's reservation?
A. I have none, sir.
Q. Does he pay you anything for your services?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you expect he will pay you for your services in reserving lands for him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had lands reserved for yourself, or, that you
were interested in, upon Hewitt's scrip?
A. I never have.
Q. Or upon the Bathay order?
A. I never have.




944      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Who composes the firm of William Barnard & Co.?
A. I see by yesterday's journal that Edmonds claims to be
the Co.
Q. Have they got a book in the office in which their Company account is kept?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who keeps that book?
A. I do.
Q. What is entered in the book?
A. Debit and credit of scrip.
Q. Scrip account?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean by the scrip account-just explain 
A. I mean the scrip account; that is the most I can say
about it.
Q. How do they manage that scrip account; how is the
business conducted?
A. Buying and selling.
Q. Who does the buying?
A. I guess Mr. Barnard, generally.
Q. Do you ever buy any for them?
A. I think I have, some.
Q. Do you know of Edmonds' buying any?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Who does the selling of the scrip?
A. Just as it happens.
Q. What do you mean by " Just as it happens?"
A. Whoever happens to be waiting on the party wishing to
purchase.
Q. Who do you mean by that,-Edmonds, Barnard, or yourself?
A. Either one of us.
Q. Any of the other clerks?
A. They have received money for scrip, I believe.
Q. Do you allow all the clerks of the office-any clerks in
the office-to receive money?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   945
A. I do not know of any rule against it.
Q. How many clerks are there in there?
A. Fifteen or sixteen, I think.
Q. Is it permitted for any clerk in that office, to receive
appplications, and receive money by mail, or upon personal
application for lands?
A. By personal applications, it is not very common for more
than either of two or three of us.
Q. Is it allowable for the clerks to receive application by
mail for lands?
A. I think there is a rule against it; though there are a great
many sent, for all that.
Q. That is frequently done with outside parties,-instead of
corresponding with the Commissioner, or with the Deputy
Commissioner, correspond directly with some of the clerks?
A. Sometimes do.
Q. Do you not frequently get letters of that kind, directed
to you, with regard to purchasing lands?
A. I think not, with regard to purchasing lands.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, will take a recess until two o'clock this afternoon.
Lansing, Saturday, P. M., May 11, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Senator Wheeler-I ask leave of absence until Wednesday
morning for Senator Jenks; he has gone to take his wife
home, who is now sick.
Leave of absence was granted.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the First [Mr. Ro119




946      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
meyn] sends up the following motion for an order. The Secretary will read the same.
The Secretary read as finlows:
" Ordered, That in place of the usual adjournment at four
o'clock, the Senate at that hour take a recess until seven
o'clock P. M., for the purpose of proceeding with the trial
pending."
The question being put, the motion did not prevail.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed with the testimony in support of the articles of impeachment.
TESTIMONY OF M. 0. ROBINSON, RESUMED.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You were stating, at the time the Court adjourned,
in regard to the custom of the clerks to correspond with customers in regard to the sale of lands. Will you state now,
whether such is the custom in the office, for different clerks to
correspond with the parties who desire to purchase State
lands?
Answer. I can answer for myself. To some extent, it is.
Q. Has that been so during Mr. Edmonds' administration?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Edmonds has knowledge of that fact, has he not?
A. I don't know whether he has or not.
Q. Don't you know?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you not know, as far as you were corresponding with
parties in the office, in your own name, whether Mr. Edmonds
had knowledge?
A. I do not.
Q. What did you do with your letters you received from
customers?
A. Filed them in the office.
Q. Are they bound with the other letters?
A. I presume they are.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  947
Q. They were kept in the files?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the fact in regard to all the clerks that do that
kind of business, that the letters are filed with the other letters
in the office?
A. I do not know as to that. I think it is, to some extent.
So far as comes under my observation, it is.
Q. Is it a fact that all the applications that are received are
filed.
A. Supposed to be.
Q. Do you know whether that is so, or not?
A. I cannot say, positively, about that.
Q. Do you not know that frequently there are letters and
applications for land, that are not filed in the usual place for
filing applications and letters?
A. I do not.
Q. Now, in regard to these boxes. Are the applications of
these parties, that have boxes in the office, bound with the
others,-applications that you usually have bound at the close
of the year?
A. They are not.
Q. Then the application of those large dealers, who had
boxes in the office, are not bound with the other communicatiols received on that subject?
A. It is owing to the nature of the application.
Q. The applications received during the year 1871, that were
kept in the one hundred boxes as has been testified to,-have
they been bound?
A. I think not.
Q. They are not contained in any of those books?
A. I think not.
Q. Do you know anything about any applications that are
left in those boxes there, being taken out?
A. I do not.
Q Do you know anything about taking any out of Mr.
Hewitt's boxes, night before last?




948      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not.
Q. Have you no knowledge of that kind?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you not in there examining with another party
those books, night before last,-Mr. Hewitt's applications?
A. I was in there with you, showing you a box.
Q. After I went away?
A. No, sir.
Q And didn't you select them out with another party that
was in there?
A. No, sir.
Q. How many of the clerks are there in the office that are
in the habit of corresponding directly with parties that desire
to purchase lands?
A. I could not say.
Q. You cannot say whether it is general with all the clerks,
or not?
A. I could not say.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Barnard is in the habit of corresponding with outside parties that desire to purchase lands,
in his name,-not as Deputy Commissioner?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. You cannot say about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long has he been Deputy Commissioner?
A. Since the first of June, 1871.
Q. What was the rule in the office in regard to proving up
claims, or, rather, filing proofs, when application is made in
regard to purchasing licensed lands?  What was the rule a
year ago this spring?
A. In regard to the sale of lands?
Q. The rule in regard to proofs. Suppose I apply to buy a
piece of land that has been licensed: what proof would have
been required a year ago?
A. A proof of non-settlement, or abandonment, as the case
would require.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   949
Q. Was that an universal rule?
A. I think it was.
Q. Has that rule been changed since?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it,-in October?
A. I cannot say positively when it was. Last year sometime.
Q. It was last fall?
A. Sometime last year; I cannot say whether fall or
summer.
Q. Was it since Barnard has been Deputy?
A. I cannot say as to that, whether it was or not.
Q. What is the change you referred to,-that of not requi ring
proofs where there had been no proof of settlement?
A. To require proof where no proof had been filed.
Q. The three months' proof is proof of settlement or
occupancy?
A. One of them, sir.
Q. Now, do you not know that, almost immediately after
Edmonds decided that where there was no proof of settlement
and occupancy, that it was not necessary to have any proof of
non-settlement in order that a party might purchase those
lands, that Mr. Cornell bought some of those lands?
A. I do not remember about that.
Q. What is your best recollection about it?
A. Nothing; I have no recollection about it.
Q. Is not it your best recollection that Van Dunham and
Cornell entered into this speculation in buying swamp lands
almost immediately after Edmonds changed  the rule and
decided that in that kind of a case no proof was necessary?
A. It is not my recollection that they did.
Q. What is your recollection?
A. I have no recollection about it.
Q. You are chief clerk in the office?
A. I am so called.




950      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. And have a pretty general knowledge of what is going on?
A. In my department.
Q. You remember the occasion of the rule being changed?
A. I do.
Q. But you cannot fix the time?
A. Not positively.
Q. You remember the occasion of the first purchase being
made, after the rule was changed?
A. I cannot remember the first purchase. I remember some
purchases since that was changed.
Q. I would like to have you stretch your recollection all you
can, and fix the time that rule was changed,-as near as you
can?
A. I fixed it before as near as I could; it was sometime last
summer or fall, I could not say which.
Q. Do you remember when I called at the office in February
last, with regard to the licensed land that was sold to Cornell,
in Tuscola county?
A. I think I remember seeing you there.
Q. Do you not remember of having a talk with me at that
time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you not remember that you said in the conversation
that was held there, in the presence of Mr. Edmonds, and in
the presence of Mr. Barnard, that you would return the proofs
that were sent in by Mr. Woolover, to Mr. Wilder, the county
clerk of Tuscola county?
A. I do not remember any such thing.
Q. You do not remember anything about it?
A. I remember that I did not return it.
Q. Do you not remember that you said then that you would
return them?
A. I do not remember any such conversation.
Q. Do you not remember the fact that after I returned home,
I wrote you to the office, and notified Mr. Edmonds that Wilder said those papers were not returned, as you said?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   951
A. I remember now Barnard calling my attention to the
fact, and wished I would look and see if I could find that fiveyear proof.
Q. Did you not look for it?
A. I did.
Q. Did not Edmonds pretend to look for it?
A. I do not know as to that.
Q. Was he not there with us at that time?
A. I do not remember that he was.
Q. Did not Barnard look?
A. I think I did.
Q. Did you not all say that this proof had been returned?
A. I do not know what we all said.
Q. Did I not say to you, and say to Barnard, and Edmonds,
that the deed, as it appeared from the records there, was issued
to Cornell on the 27th day of October; the letter notifying
Wilder that Woolover's land was sold was dated the first day of
November, and I wanted to find those first proofs for the purpose of determining the question whether the proofs were
received before the patent was issued?
A. I remember your desiring to see those affidavits,-those
proofs; now I remember it.
Q. And you all looked and said you could not find them?
A. I know I looked.
Q. Did you not afterwards find it in the office?
A. They were found in the office.
Q. Where were they?
A. I think they were in the safe.
Q. What was the reason you could not find them that day?
A. The fact of their being out of their place,-in the safe.
Q. You said the other day that it was the rule, when a paper
was received in the office, to stamp it with the official seal the
day it was received?
A. That has been the rule since the stamp was procured.
Q. You had the stamp last October?
A. I think so.




B62      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Why did you not stamp those proofs when they were
received?
A. It is not my business.
Q. Do you know why Barnard did not stamp them?
A. I do not.
Q. After I had this conversation with you and you could
not find those papers, do you remember my saying to Edmonds that Woolover was a poor man, and I was desirous of
compromising the matter in some way if I could, for him,-do
you remember anything of that kind?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you remember the fact of Edmonds taking me to his
back office?
A. I do not.
Q. You do not remember my going there at all?
A. I do not remember distinctly the fact.
Q. What is your best recollection?
A. I presume you may have gone there,-you know it.
Q. Do you not remember that I went there, and he returned
and took one of the clerks from the office, and brought him in
and introduced him?
A. I do not.
Q. No recollection with regard to that?
A. No.
Q. Do not remember that he took Van Dunham into the
back room?
A. I did not know that he did it at all.
Q. You were not there at that time?
A. I helped look for the affidavit.
Q. Is it a rule in the office to send those kind of papers
back,-those five-year proofs?
A. It used to be the rule.
Q. Why did you say you sent those back that day?
A.'I presumed that, in accordance with the previous usage.
Q. You stated, positively, you returned them,-you knew
they were not in the office?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  953
A. I could not swear that I said positively.
Q. What would you swear, with regard to that?
A. I would swear that we might have said they were returned.
Q. Do you not know that you said you had sent them back?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you say on the subject?
A. I remember saying I could not find them.
Q. What did you say about sending them back to Wilder?
A. I had very little to say in the matter.
Q. What did you say on that subject?
A. I told Barnard I could not find them.
Q. What did you say about sending them back?
A. I told Barnard I presumed he had sent them back.
Q. That he or you?
A. That he did, I presume.
Q. Did you not say, " I have sent them back?"
A. I would not say that I did.
Q. Would you say you did not?
A. I will not.
Q. How many clerks were there employed in the office at
that time?
A. About the same number as now.
Q. How many is that?
A. I think some 15 or 16.
Q. Will you look at that book and tell me what is the average
number of applications that have the date stamped upon them
when they are received. Do you not find so far as you have
gone, that there are as many not stamped as that are?
A. I would say not.
Q. Was not there a large number of those you looked over
unstamped?
A. There was.
Q. You stated this forenoon that you kept the scrip account
of Wm. A. Barnard & Co.?
A. Yes, sir.
120




954      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have you got that book here?
A. I have not.
Q. Is this it?
A. No, sir. I don't see it here.
Q. Have you examined the book so that you can state the
amount of profits that are made from the transaction in scrip?
Let me call your attention to a statement, I think made by
yourself. What date does that account commence?
A. June 1, 1871.
Q. What time does it end?
A. March 23, 1872.
Q. What do you find the profits to be?
A. $8,384.14.
Q. Is that statement correct?
A. Very nearly. It may vary a little.
Q. In what respect do you want to correct it, if it is
incorrect?
A. I discovered, after making this, that there had been a
$190 check received in payment for $200 of scrip, which check
had been sent forward for collection at the time of making
this up, but the scrip had not been charged to this account,
hence the amount of scrip on hand should appear here $200
less than it does.
Q. That would make the profits more?
A. A trifle.
Q. When land is entered with scrip, what do you deliver to
the State Treasurer?
A. Tell him how to charge it.
Q. When lands are entered upon the scrip of Wm. A. Barnard & Co., how is the record kept in the Treasurer's Office?
A. Charged to their account.
Q. Charged to the account of Wm. A. Barnard & Co.?
A. It is.
Q. What means have they of knowing whether Wm. Barnard & Co. have credits in the Treasurer's office?
A. They have a book that shows the balance.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   955
Q. There is a scrip account kept in the Treasurer's office?
A. There is.
Q. When you give credit on your book for a thousand
dollars, for instance, to any party for scrip, does he receive the
same credit in the Treasurer's office?
A. He does.
Q. Who keeps this scrip account?
A. I keep it.
Q. Is that a part of your duty as clerk?
A. It is.
Q. Connected with the State business?
A. It is.
Q. This is a private account of Wm. A. Barnard & Co.?
A. It is a personal account.
Q. The State has no interest in it?
A. Interested to get the scrip used up.
Q. That is your idea with regard to their interest?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I understood you to say this forenoon that you were not
agent for any party in buying and selling lands,-that you
were not interested in the buying of lands?
A. I am not interested.
Q. Are you interested as agent?
A. I am not.
Q. Either directly or indirectly as agent with any party?
A. No.
Q. I notice in this application for Martin Hudson and one
of the other Hudsons, that there is minuted on the application in your handwriting, "No proofs filed." Was that licensed
land, or what do you mean by that?
A. I concluded it was licensed land.
Q. What do you mean by no proofs filed?
A. No proofs of settlement and abandonment, or three
months' proof.
Q. Then, at Barnard's request, that land was conveyed, one




956      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
piece to Lester Hudson and the other to Martin Hudson, of
that licensed land without proofs?
A. It would seem so by the minutes.
Q. Is that your recollection?
A. Without seeing the record, it would be my recollection.
Q. Do you remember how long ago that was?
A. I think the letter was dated in August, 1871; or, at least,
filed in 1871.
Q. Why did you make that minute there, "No proof filed,"
if it had been the rule to require proofs,-if you did not understand that it was the rule that proofs should be filed?
A. It was a custom I have, of making minutes of everything
I have been directed to do.
Q. Did n't you make those minutes to draw Barnard's attention to the fact that the proofs had not been filed?
A. No, sir; I made no minute as a matter of record.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question-You stated you had sold some minutes while you
were in the office?
Answer-Yes, sir.
Q. What are minutes?
A. They are descriptions of land, describing the quality of
soil, the timber that is on it, the kind of timber, and the
amount of timber.
Q. Who makes minutes?
A. Land-lookers generally do it.
Q. Where do they get their material to make the minutes?
A. From vacant plats and examination.
Q. Where do they get their information, to estimate the
amount of timber?
A. From examination.
A. Personal examination of the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And determine the soil?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                957
Q. Where were those minutes made; in the office, or outside?
A. Outside.
Q. Are those estimates ever made by parties in the office,attached to the office?
A. They are not.
Q. Where did you get the minutes that you sold?
A. I got them of Mr. Crapo.
Q. What Mr. Crapo?
A. David Crapo.
Q. Will you state something of the description of those
minutes?
A. A description of those lands, giving the estimate of timber on the land, the kind of soil, and the general character of
the land.
Q. How did you come to get those minutes of those lands?
Did you solicit them?
A. I did not.
Q. How did you get them into your hands?
A. He left them with me; he wanted I should sell them.
Q. Left them with you to sell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. He left them on Memorial Day last year, whatever day
that was.
Mr. McGowan-The thirtieth day of May.
Question. You have stated that a man by the name of Hubbard gave you fifty dollars at one time; state when that was.
Answer. He had been corresponding with me for some time,
-a year or two. He had kept up a correspondence with me
for some time. I would answer his correspondence. He came
here some time ago. During his business, he threw over a little
roll of bills on my desk. He said: " There, take those and put
them in your pocket." I told him I did not wish them; there
was no charge for anything I had done. He said: "Good
day," and that is the last I have seen of him.




958       TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you know how much there was in the package?
A. I did not at the time he threw them over.
Q, State whether you had an arrangement with Hubbard,
previously, that he should pay you anything?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you ever had any understanding about paying anying before that?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you say about that labor being public or
private labor, you had performed?
A. I told him it was information or labor he would be entitled to from the office without charge.
Q. You have spoken about Mr. Hubbard's writing to you.
What is the fact about outside parties writing to the clerks?
A. It is very frequently done.
Q. Take your own correspondence.-let me ask you if you
have correspondence with other parties outside, about official
matters?
A; I generally answer the letters they write to mne.
Q. Have you solicited their correspondence?
A. No, sir.
Q. How did he come to write to you?
A. I cannot say.
Q. What parties are they that generally write you?
A. Friends and acquaintances.
Q. You say when they write in regard to official matters
their letters are filed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have spoken of $50 received through the Commissioner from  David Preston & Co. Will you explain in
regard to that?
A. How it comes?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. In 1867, I think, Mr. Preston was out here,-he or his
book-keeper,-and he made an arrangement with the then




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  959
Deputy, if he would render him a monthly statement of his
business of his account, he would give him $50 a year.
Q. What is this monthly statement?
A. A statement of their transactions, that have been paid by
the office and received.
Q. For the month?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the further history of that bargain?
A. It was continued right along.
Q. They have paid $50 a year ever since?
A. I think they have.
Q. Since 1867?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who took the money the first year?
A. Mr. Porter did, I think.
Q. Who made up the statement?
A. I did.
Q. Has that been your business ever since 1867, to make
that statement?
A. Yes, sir; ever since I was in the office.
Q. What time or times have you occupied in making that
statement for Preston & Co.?
A. Usually in the office, after the office is closed.
Q. Now, since Edmonds' administration, do you know what
has become of the $50?
A. I have got it.
Q. Paid to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How is the $50 paid?
A. He usually sends a check for the payment of the current
year's statement.
Q. A check, drawn in whose favor?
A. Those two that I have received have been to the order of
Charles A. Edmonds, personally.
Q. You spoke, before dinner, of a payment of $50 to you,




960      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
by a man by the name of Medbury. State how that came to
be,-how the circumstances were.
A. Last June Messrs. Medbury & Mills had a large contract which had been completed.
Q. How many acres?
A. Some 80,000 acres reserved on the books, for which he
was entitled to patents. He came there in a great hurry, to
get the patents for those lands. I was otherwise employed. I
didn't see to it. I came back to do my other work. I think
I got the Commissioner to set some other clerk at it, to help
me. Mr. Medbury thought, probably, I could do it as well, or
better than any of them, and he requested me to go to work
and do this work right straight along, and I did so. I worked
mornings, noons, and nights, and all day.
Q. Out of office hours?
A. Out of office hours.
Q. About how long?
A. He got them made into certificates, getting the patents
issued; he came out and received the patents in person, and
carried them home and checked them all over, and found they
were correct, and sat down and inclosed a check for $50 to
me, to my order.
Q. Was there any arrangement between you and Mr. Medbury that you should receive anything, before he went away?
A. There was not.
Q At any time previous to you receiving the check?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you any intimation that he was going to send you
money?
A. There was not.
Q. At any time previous to your receiving the check, how is
it. Had you any intimation that he was going to send you the
money?
A. I had not.
Q. Did he write anything, when he sent the check, inclosed
in the letter?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   961
A. I think he told me I had earned that over and above my
salary.
Q. Do you know why he was in a hurry about this 80,000
acres? What was said to you about that, if anything?
A. He told me he had very nearly consummated in New York
for the entire list, and he was very anxious to get them immediately, or as soon as possible.
Q. How many days were you occupied at that business at
that time?
A. I could not say, positive, about the days; it was some
time, because I had to check the lands over, I think, three
times. In fact, I first took the books, and made a list of all
these reservations, from the books, paid no attention to his
lists filed, but everything that was marked to him on their contracts, I drew into a list, arranged the list in town, range, and
sectional order, made them into certificates by counties. The
patents were issued by counties.
Q. Can you give some estimate of the time consumed?
A. I should think it was three or four weeks. I would not
say positive.
Q. Three or four weeks' time occupied on that?
A. I should say it was.
Q. And during all this time did you work out of office
hours?
A. I did.
Q. Every day?
A. I think pretty much every day.
Q. There has been something said here about private accounts kept with these scrip dealers. Will you explain about
that matter, if there is anything further to be explained?
A. Well, it is not a private account, they are personal
accounts.
Q. Are they kept upon the books of the office,-these personal accounts?
A. They are.
121




962      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Well, sir, are they public or private accounts?
A. They are public-appear to be.
Q. State what those accounts are made up of?
A. I do not quite understand what you wish to get at.
Q. Out of what are those accounts made,-these scrip
accounts that you keep. For instance, take David Preston &
Co.; what constitute the items of that account?
A. They are constituted on one side, the credit side, the
amount which he purchases and sends orders to the office; on
the other side they consist of the payment of his checks or
orders; the balance-the difference between the debit and credit
side-shows the amount on hand that he has.
Q. One side shows the amount of credit that he has from
the State?
A. From parties of whom he purchases.
Q. Well, it would be a credit from the State, would it not,.
then, on the contract?
A. Yes, sir; on the contract.
Q. The State owes him so much land on these credits?
A. They do.
Q. And when he purchases land he sends an order for the
amount, and that is charged up to him on the other side of the
book?
A. If he purchases land, it is.
Q. Now, sir, is it necessary, I ask you again, to the conduct
of the office,-the business of the office,-that these accounts
be kept with these various parties?
A. It is a matter of convenience with these personal accounts,
being large dealers; and we, as I term it, "pool the account,"
-bring it together.
Q. A convenience to who,-the parties themselves, or to the
office?
A. To the office.
Q. Are those accounts kept at the solicitation of the individual parties?
A. I think not altogether.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 963
Q. Are they not, otherwise, a necessity in your office?
A. They are.
Q. Referring back to the minutes which you obtained of
Crapo and sold, state whether you had any interest in the
lands which were described in these minutes.
A. I had none.
Q. Whether you ever procured any interest in them.
A. I did not.
Q. Whether you incumbered the lands, or held them in any
way.
A. I did not.
Q. How long did you keep these minutes before you sold
them?
A. I kept them from the 30th of May until Mr. Medbury
was out making up his patents, the latter part of June.
Q. With regard to applications for school lands, whether it
is an invariable rule to require of the applicant an affidavit
concerning the quality of the land, as to whether it is timber
land or farming land?
A. Whether it is an imperative order?
Q. Whether it is an invariable rule to require an affidavit of
the applicant as to the land being chiefly valuable for timber
and so forth?
A. It is not an invariable rule; no, sir.
Q. What proportion of the entries are made without this
affidavit, would you think?
A. There is quite a proportion. I could not say.
Q. An eighth, or a quarter, or a third?
A. An eighth or a quarter,-somewhere along there.
Q. Well, how much?
A. There is quite a proportion; an eighth or a quarter, I
should say.
Q. Will you state what you understand to be the rule of the
office with reference to that matter?
A. It is a rule of the office that the office must be satisfied




964      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
that they are not pine lands in some shape before they are sold
on quarter payment.
Q. In these cases where an affidavit is not required, and has
not been required, how has the office obtained this information that they were not pine lands,-not chiefly valuable for
timber?
A. They can obtain the information from field-notes, or they
can conclude it from the lands having been entered all around
it, and these identical descriptions left. When these lands
have been entered by pine-land men, most all of whom we
know, it is fair to suppose that the balance are not pine
lands.
Q. Does this information ever come to the office from these
land-lookers themselves, when they are entering other lands,
with regard to the quality of the timber and the amount of
timber on the lands,-ever come to your knowledge or Barnard's or Edmonds', from these land-lookers themselves when
they come there to enter other lands. Do you ever find out
from them whether this is pine land or not, as you call it?
A. No, not particularly. Frequently, in purchasing a piece
of land, after they have got their deed, they say there is 600,000 on that "forty," or 300,000.
Q. Isn't it frequently the case that reference is made to lands
surrounding the lands which they have purchased; and they
are asked whether they are pine lands or not?
A. I presume they are.
Q. Do you know whether there is any information reaches
the office in that way with reference to these lands, at any
time?
A. I should say there was.
Q. Now, Mr. Robinson, in making application for the lands
at the office, has it been the invariable rule to require written
applications?
A. It has for some time.
Q. Since when has that-been'the rule?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    965
A. I think it has been a positive rule since we moved into
the new office.
Q. How was it previous to that?
A. Act our pleasure about that.
Q. Were there entries made upon verbal applications?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What proportion of the entries were made previous to
that time on verbal applications?
A. Well, sir, there were pretty nearly all of them where they
were personal applications made on verbal orders.
Q. At whose direction was that rule changed?
A. Mr. Edmonds I think, or by his Deputy, I do not know
which.
Q. Then, if I understand you, a large proportion of the
applications made, previous to moving into the new office,
were simply verbal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You will find no written statement with regard to it?
A. No, sir.
Q. In these verbal applications for lands, previous to your
moving into the new office, did you ever, at the direction of
the Deputy, make any minute with reference to them?
A. I do not quite understand your question.
Q. Take the case in hand, of the Hudsons. I see that that
application, or whatever the record shows there, is simply a
minute of yours.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I want you to state whether that was a custom of
yours, or not, to make a minute of that kind at the direction
of the Deputy, or whether that is an exceptional case.
A. It is my custom.
Q. Then was it the custom  where a verbal application was
made, to make some such minute?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What became of that minute, usually?




966    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I sometimes filed it and sometimes threw it into the
waste-paper box.
Q. This was one that got on the files?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the minute at the bottom of that application where
you speak of proofs being filed,-do you say that you refer to
the three months' proof there?
A. I should suppose I did, from the minute.
Q. There were no three months' proofs filed.
A. I should say not, from the minute.
Q. And you also state that you think the minute refers to
the proof of abandonment,-that there were no proofs of
abandonment filed?
A. Yes, sir; or non-settlement.
Q. I think thatyou made reference to a rule of the office to
prevent clerks acting as agents. Is there such a rule?
A. Yes, sir; there are printed rules on that subject.
Q. Who issued those rules?
A. They were signed by Commissioner Edmonds.
Q. Is there more than one rule for the conduct of clerks in
the office?
A. Yes, sir; there is a series of them.
Q. And this one rule with reference to agency is one of that
series?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were those rules issued?
A. I think along in June or July; it may have been earlier.
Q. Of last year?
A. Yes, sir; some of them  I know  were made earlier,
verbally.
Q. Referring back again to the Hudson lands, where the
applicaticn is simply in the form of a minute of yours,-if I
recollect, you said that was licensed land?
A. I conclude it was.
Q. Do you know when it was licensed?
A. I do not.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 967
Q. Had that land been reserved at any time?
A. I could not say whether it had or not.
Q. You do not know'the fact with regard to it?
A. No, sir.
Q. When letters are sent containing an application for lands,
do they ever contain any other matters in the same letter?
A. They do.
Q. Where the letter is a mixed letter, referring to an application and other matters, are they filed with the applications?
A. I do not always file them  when they come to me
personally.
Q. You were asked with regard to taking any applications
from the boxes there; whether you took any applications from
Mr. Hewitt's box night before last?
A. I did not.
Q. Do you know of anybody taking any applications from
Mr. Hewitt's box night before last?
A. I do not.
Q. Or any other time?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you remember the occasion of changing that rule of
the former Commissioner, requiring proof of abandonmont or
non-settlement in, or that these licensed lands might be sold.
Do you remember the occasion of changing that rule?
A. I do; yes, sir.
Q. When was it changed?
A. As I said on the direct examination, I know it was last
summer or fall,-what month I cannot say.
Q. Will you give the occasion?
A. I could not.
Q. Whose lands were in question, or what lands,-do you
know?
A. I could not tell.
Q. Mr. Robinson, do a good many people come to your office
to do business?
A. They do.




968      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. About how many would come there each day, probably,
on an average?
A. Oh, there may be a number,-average two or three.
Q. Two or three people come there a day?
A. Probably, take the year around, it will average more than
that.
Q. What do you mean by that,-only two or three people
who come there to do business with the office?
A. I mean that there will be an average of two or threeprobably more-during the year, of parties come in to do business with the office.
Q. Is it an infrequent thing for parties, coming there to do
business with the office, to go into the back office?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do not people come there, of all grades and stations in
life, to do business?
Q. They do.
Q. Do you know every man that comes and goes into the
back office?
A. I do not.
Q. Do not men frequently go into the back office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would your business in the office be such, that you would
necessarily notice men when they went into the back office?
A. I would not.
Q. Where is your place of work?
A. I am near the front end of the office,-the last end.
Q. If they had passed in that little alley, and passed back
of you, would you see them without turning, if they went into
the back office?
A. I would not.
Q. You have spoken of a certain kind of proof being sent
back to parties. What kind of proofs were those?
A. Proofs with regard to licensed lands.
Q. When are they sent back to parties?
A. When occasion requires.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    969
Q. What would they be sent back for?
A. They are frequently sent back because they are imperfect.
Q. For any other reason?
A. We usually sent them  back when the lands had been
sold.
Q. I think you spoke of five-year proofs. What are they?
A. They are the proof or affidavit, substantiated by a witness's affidavit, that the licensee has lived on the land for the
last five years past,-giving date when he settled, describing
improvements, the drainage,-all to be made under oath.
Q. With reference to stamping the date of papers, or the
back of papers, when received,-is it a fact that many of these
applications are simply handed in there to the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't it a fact that many of them  are handed to you as
chief clerk, across the counter there.
A. They are.
Q. Are these applications that are made up there in the office
by a waiting clerk or others, or passed through to the desk-are
they stamped?
A. Sometimes are and sometimes not.
Q. Is this stamping the date of the application upon the
application necessary to its validity in any way.
A. No, sir.
Mr. Manager Cochranc:
You needn't ask that.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. What is it made for?
Answer. It is a matter of record.
Q. Is there any other way of ascertaining the date of the
application, or of its filing, aside from the stamp on the back
of it.
A. There is none, beside the application as written up in the
office. Those we can generally tell.
Q. If the application is rejected and not: stamped upon the
122




970       TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
back, then there would be no way of tracing the date when it
was received.
A. There would not.
Q. Is there any difference between the account which you
keep with Preston, or Mr. Hewitt, or Mr. Smith, or any parties
dealing in scrip, and the account which you keep with Wm.
A. Barnard & Co?
A. There is none, only that Preston's account is balanced at
the end of every month.
Q. You spoke of the Treasurer keeping a similar book?
A. He does.
Q. A similar book to what book?
A. Personal accounts; in fact, all the accounts of scrip that
were kept, except where orders are transferred on the warrantbook, as we call them,-which transfers the Treasurer knows
nothing of.
Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. As I understand your explanation to counsel for
the respondent, these stamps upon the back of the letter are
put on either at your own discretion or discretion of different
parties?
Answer. It is the business of the party opening the correspondence to stamp them.
Q. A good many of these are not stamped, as a matter of
fact?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why are they not stamped?
A. A simple omission.
Q. Omissions are frequent, are they,-quite frequent, from
your examination?
A. They are quite frequent in my own case.
Q. With regard to letters containing application, and which
also contain private matters,-you said those, sometimes, are
not filed?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   971
Q. You received such letters?
A. Frequently.
Q. Do you know whether the other clerks do, or not?
A. I do not.
Q. Then you exercise your own discretion with regard to
filing applications?
A. I do.
Q. What records are there in the office to show when the
applications are made?
A. I keep a regular file of my personal records.
Q. What official record is there?
A. There is none.
Q. You do not claim that, as a matter of law, you are bound
to expose your personal correspondence?
A. I do not know what I am bound to expose. I am not a
lawyer nor the son of a lawyer.
Q. Then this filing of letters containing private communications is also a matter of discretion with you?
A. I have used my own discretion.
Q. Is it the rule of the office that all applications shall be
filed?
A. I have never heard of such a rule,-not since the rule
was to receive an application. It must be fixed in some
shape so that it can be traced.
Q. It is an impossible thing that applications may be made
where no record appears?
A. It is not an impossible thing.
Q. How frequently are applications made to you, through
letters which contain personal matters, which are not filed?
A. Not very frequently; I do not receive a great many letters; my correspondence is very limited, indeed.
Q. Did you attempt to tell the Court what proportion of
school lands are sold from the office, without the affidavit as
to their quality?
A. I did not undertake to say positively,-I simply gave my
opinion.




972      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You stated, the means of knowledge which the office
used as to the deciding of that question was received from
land dealers, from the fact that surrounding lands had been
purchased, and other sources of that nature?
A. Field-notes on file.
Q. Is there anything upon the records of the office to show,
or is any record made when you discover the quality of land,
showing the character of the land?
A. There is frequently such a record made.
Q. I ask you if that is the rule in the office?
A. It is a rule with myself.
Q. Where is that record made?
A. I have made it on the plat-book. For instance, a man
makes an affidavit on the entire section, that the entire section
is valuable for agricultural purposes, and not for the timber
thereon. He purchases one or two forties, and files the application on the entire section, and I frequently make a minute
of such an application having been filed.
Q. That is only in occasional instances?
A. Occasionally.
Q. From  your method of doing business in the office, is it
not possible for Mr. A to come in to-day, and the proper
clerk to answer him, that he must make an affidavit, and Mr.
B to come in to-morrow, and no affidavit required of him?
Now, is there any means by which Mr. A  can protect himself
from impositions of that kind that can be practiced?
A. Do you wish to find out if there is any way that he can
get the land away from second applicant?
Q. No, sir. I want to know if there is any way to protect
himself against imposition in that office, if he chooses to make
an examination of that nature?  Take the case of Mr. Alderman, as an illustration.  Mr. Alderman applied for land. It
was said that he must make an affidavit. It appears from his
testimony that another party applied for the land, and did not
make the affidavit. What is there to prevent business being
done in that way, in the office, and no opportunity to trace it?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   973
A. I do not know of any way.
Q. So that it is discretionary, in fact, with the clerks of that
office, to demand the affidavit, or otherwise, as they choose?
A. It is discretionary, with the Deputy or Commissioner, to
demand it. I use no discretion.
Q. You require an affidavit, or inform the parties that an
affidavit must be made?
A. Except on the general rules.
Q. You seem to exercise snme discretion?
A. There are some rules on which we sell school lands on
quarter payment, without any affidavit.
Q. Is this Hubbard, of which you received the money, a
member of the firm of Hubbard & Co. of Huron City?
A. I do not know whether he is or not.
Q. Do you know where he resides?
A. I think he resides in Sandusky City.
Q. Are you acquainted with the firm of Hubbard & Co.?
A. Only the one member of it, if he is a member. He
represents the firm.
Q. Did you, a short time prior to September 18, 1871, send
any plats to the firm of Hubbard & Co.?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Did you, about that time, receive a letter from Hubbard
& Co., directed to you, stating that plats had been received?
A. I could not say.
Q. Do you recollect receiving a letter from  Hubbard & Co.
stating that they would compensate you for your trouble?
A. I may have received a letter.
Q. Was the $50 which you received from  Hubbard & Co.,
and which he flung so loosely upon your table, that compensation?
A. I do not understand it so,-that there was any such transaction.
Q. Did you ever receive any compensation from Hubbard &
Co.?
A. I do not know whether I ever did or not.




974      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You stated how you got the minutes from Mr. Crapo,have you ever received any other minutes for sale?
A. I think I have.
Q. How did you get hold of those?
A. They were volunteered to me.
Q. In the same way.
A. Very much.
Q. How, different?
A. I do not know of any difference.
Q. Then, precisely, you mean?
A. I would not say precisely. In the same language,-words
to that effect.
Q. Answers of letters relative to land matters, which you
received, you said were filed?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Letters pertaining to the business of the office,-do I
understand those are always filed?
A. I think they are, most generally.
Q. Is it your rule to file the letters pertaining to the business of the office which come to you?
A. I intend to file them all.
Q. Did you file them all?
A. I cannot say positively about that
Q. Do you recollect of ever having any that you didn't file?
A. I cannot cite an instance.
Q. The answers which you send,-are those copied on the
books of the office?
A. Just as I please about that.
Q. That is a matter of discretion?
A. I use that discretion.
Q. You have copy-books in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the rule of the office as to copying letters referring to the official business of the office?
A. It is a general rule to copy letters?
Q. What is the rule?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   975
A. The rule is pretty generally to copy letters.
Q. What is the rule with Mr. Edmonds?
A. The rule has been, recently, to copy the letters pretty
universally.
Q. The rules are printed or written, are they not?
A. He has a series of printed rules.
Q. It is his rule in the office?  So his clerks must copy the
letters generally or uniformly?
A. I think it says nothing about that.
Q. Then this copying is a matter of discretion?
A. It is a request, or direction.
Q. Are the requests of Mr. Edmonds equivalent to directions?
A. I endeavor to follow his directions.
Q. Then there are directions to copy these letters?
A. Yes, I should say there were.
Q. You say that letters from these large land-dealers were
not bound up with other letters, on account of the nature?
A. I intended to state, applications were not, on account of
the nature.
Q. What is that nature?
A. All applications to reserve go in the applicants' boxes.
Q. What finally becomes of them, after the contract has
expired?
A. I never traced one out to see.
Q. Are the contracts ever in and determined?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not know what finally does become of them?
A. I do not know; there are boxes, though, that contain
applications five or six years old.
Q. Mr. Edmonds promulgated a new rule in regard to proofs
last summer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did he promulgate or make public that rule? How
came you to be aware of it?
A. I presume



976      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Can you not tell us?
A. I cannot tell you positively.
Q. Then tell us what you presume, and why you presume it;
how was that rule promulgated, according to your best knowledge, and made public in the office?
A. I think it was a ruling in some one instance. That may
have been,-it might not have been.
Q. And extended from these through the office?
A. Yes, through the departments where such applications
would come up.
Q. Do you know how it became public outside?
A. No, sir.
Q. You cannot tell how it extended with such rapidity to
Coldwater unless Van Dunham was the telegraphic means?
A. I have no means of knowing.
Q. You said you were not interested in the purchase of land;
that you have been interested in lands after the purchase?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you been interested in either sale or purchase;
either or both?
A. I have not.
Q. When a party came to you to buy school lands, as I
understand, you exercise no discretion as to requiring an affidavit, but you require it?
A. It has been the custom when I have been in the office,
excepting under the general rule.
Q. What is that rule?
A. Where lands have been previously sold and forfeited, we
require no affidavit.
Q. In all other cases you require affidavit?
A. I do.
Q. Do parties ever come here and wish to purchase without
making an affidavit?
A. They have frequently said they would like to purchase
them.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 977
Q. They come there with that intention, as far as you can
judge from their actions?
A. They come with that desire, I suppose.
Q. What do you do in such cases? Do you refer them to the
Commissioner?
A. I refer them to the affidavit.
Q. You decided it would require an affidavit, if it were your
rule?
A.. use no discretion.
Q. If they insisted upon purchasing without an affidavit,
did you refer them to the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner? You were well aware there was a discretionary power
there?
A. I sometimes referred them. If I was satisfied the lands
might be farming lands, I referred it to the Commissioner to
have it looked up, or looked it up myself.
Q. How were you to be satisfied?
A. By his discretions.
Q. I do not know his directions can satisfy you.
A. If he directs me to make up the lands in quarter payments, that was all I needed.
Q. That satisfied you they were farming lands?
A. Yes, sir. I promulgated no opinion in regard to it.
Q. These were applications not made to you, then?
A. They may have been.
Q. Then you referred them to the Commissioner, or the
party to the Commissioner, and he ordered you to make them
up into quarterly payments?
A. There may be such instances.
Q. I want to know, when a party comes to you and insists
on purchasing land without an affidavit, you claiming under
your invariable rule there must be an affidavit, do you send
him to the Commissioner or to the Deputy Commissioner?
A. I sometimes do.
Q. Or do you take it to him yourself,-take the application?
A. I may have done either way.
123




978      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. A little further about the business of this office; we seem
to be investigating that now. You made a memoranda on
some of these letters?
A. I frequently did.
Q. Like that in the Hudson case?
A. Frequently.
Q. What was the object of that memoranda?
A. I do it to protect myself.
Q. When you throw them away in the waste-basket, how do
you protect yourself?
A. I do not have very much protection.
Q. Then what was the object in making a memoranda of
that character, if you immediately threw them away?
A. I cannot say that I used to make such memoranda. I
may have done, and I may not have done. If I said positively
that I did make such memoranda, on those thrown away, I
wish to correct it.
Q. Then it was only a supposition that you had made such.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me ask you, at the time Mr. Edmonds changed the
rules requiring proofs, that it was a fact well known in the
office that many of the lands were occupied, although proofs
had not been filed?
A. I cannot say as to that fact.
Q. Do you know it was so?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you ever hear any of the official corps say it was so?
A. I do not, that I remember of.
Q. Did you testify to that effect before the investigating
committee, that they did not do it.
A. Did not what?
Q. Did not at the promulgation of that rule withhold the
decision that many of these lands were occupied by settlers,
although no proof had been filed in the office,-three months'
proof?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  979
A. I don't remember whether I testified to any such thing,
or not.
Mr. McGowan-The  evidence was taken  in writing, I
believe.
Question. How long had you been in the office before last
June, or before that rule was made?
Answer. I went into the office Nov. 1, 1868.
Q. And during that time, had you not learned, Mr. Robinson,
that many of these licensed lands were occupied, and that no
proof had been filed all this time?
A. I have noticed the occurrences where five years' proofs
would come in where the three months' proofs had never
been filed.
Q. Then you did have some knowledge?
A. We had their affidavits that they were on them.
Q. Didn't you know, as a matter of fact? I don't mean that
you have actually seen such cases; but was it not well known
that such was the case?
A. I think it was,-a general surmise, perhaps.
Q. A mere surmise?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. R. OBINSON.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Your attention has been called to other minutes
that you sold, other than the Crapo minutes. State whether
you received any minutes, the Crapo minutes included, and
sold them, with a previous arrangement with parties who letyou have the minutes?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. Now, when an application is made for lands verbally, has
there been any way of tracing the date of that application?
A. There has been none, except where applications were
filed.
Q. To illustrate, suppose Mr. Alderman came there and




980      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
made an application for lands; would there ever be any way
in cases of that kind in tracing the application?
A. There would not, unless he actually purchased the land.
There may be an application, even in such cases, filed.
Q. Did you state in your testimony anywhere that the
ruling of Mr. Edmonds with reference to this " three months "
extended rapidly to Coldwater?
A. I did not intend to make any such statement.
Q. Do you know whether it did extend rapidly to Coldwater?
A. I do not.
Q. You do not know why I did?
A. I do not.
Q. You spoke of some department in the office,-is the
work divided into departments?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what departments there are in the Land Office?
A. Current Business Department, Book-keeping Department, Draughtsman Department, Field-notes Department, Abstract Department, and a porter.
Q. What is the last?
A. I don't know but he is what is called a Janitor.
Q. How about the reserves and contracts,-is there a separate department?
A. Yes, sir. I omitted to state those.
Q. What was the fact in regard to those parties working in
one department, having an opportunity to know  what was
going on in the other departments?
A. Very little, except as they see it on the records.
Q. For instance, parties working on those abstracts,-have
they an opportunity, by reason of their work in their own departments, to know what is going on in the draughtsman's
department?
A. No, sir.
Q. And know what is going on in any other department but
their own?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 981
A. In that department they can notice the sales of land that
are going on from day to day.
Q. Such as they learn from the books?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that true of other departments?
A. It is true of the book-keepers' department.
Q. Something has been said about the mails. About how
many letters are you receiving each day, in your office?
A. From five to fifty or one hundred.
Q. Can you give a more specific idea of the correspondence
of the office?
A. It varies somewhat. Some seasons of the year it is very
heavy.
Q. When it is very heavy, how many would you receive in a
day?
A. I never counted them, but I should say it numbered up
to a hundred, perhaps.
Q. What would be a small number for you to receive, should
you say?
A. I should think one was pretty small.
Q. What are the facts?
A. I have known of no more than one letter being received.
Q. Can you state what you think was the average number of
letters received each day in the office during the year?
A. I should say from twenty-five to fifty, and maybe a little
less than twenty-five. I would not say very definitely.
Q. Isn't it a fact that parties who have applied to purchase
school lands, on quarter or half-payments, usually applied
without affidavit?
A. They do, usually.
The Presiding Officer-If a stranger should come to the
office and make an application for information or assistance,
and should apply to a clerk of the wrong department, would
he be directed to another clerk, of the department to which
that business belonged?




982      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Answer. It is fair to suppose that the clerk to whom a party
applies would refer him to the other department.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor:
Question. Why did you wish to protect yourself in the case
of the application for Hudson's land, referred to here?
Answer —My general rule isQ. I ask you why you wish to protect yourself in that case?
A. I presume in answering the rest would answer that.
Q. Why did you wish to protect yourself in this case?
A. That I would not be blamed for making any such sale.
Q. Had you any expectation of being blamed?
A. No, sir.
Q. You had the orders from Mr. Barnard?
A. To make that record?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir.
Q. You had orders to make that sale?
A. Verbal orders, probably.
Q. This was to protect you from Mr. Barnard?
A. That was to protect me in making a memorandum, for I
did not assume the responsibility of the sale.
Q. Without the proof?
A. Whatever was to be recorded.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the Twenty-fifth
(Mr. Waterbury) sends up the following question, which the
Secretary will read.
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
" When a land-looker applies for school lands and refuses to
make an affidavit that such land is valuable principally for
agricultural purposes, is it not considered quite certain the
land is valuable for timber?"
A. I make no conclusions about it; it does not apply to me.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  983
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. The counsel asked you if you made that minute
to show that the application had been made without " proofs,"
putting the word "proofs" in?
Answer. I presume I did, from the record.
Q. Was the minute made with reference to the written application at all.
A. I presume it was.
Q. So that it was not one of the proofs, but the written
application?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether that application was made after
the Commissioner had required that written application should
be made for lands?
A. I could not say. I should suppose it was, from the fact of
its being filed.
TESTIMONY OF MARTIN HUDSON.
Martin Hudson, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified
follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Do you reside in this city?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. Thirteen years.
Q. Do you know William A. Barnard, Deputy Land Commissioner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Been acquainted with him some time?
A. Since he has been in town.
Q. How long?
A. Thirteen years, I should think.
Q. State whether you purchased any land from him about
August, 1871?




984      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I did sir.
Q. Was it a fractional piece?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the number of acres?
A. I think it was 54 and someQ. 54.20?
A. I think that is it.
Q. Do you remember the description?
A. I do not.
Q. You would if you were to hear it stated?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you the patent for them?
A. Yes, sir.
A. In whose name is that?
A. In my own.
Q. Patented to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who selected that land?
A. Barnard.
Q. Who paid for it to the State?
A. I suppose he did.
Q. Did you?
A. I did not.
Q. How did you come to purchase that of him?
A. It was about the time I was trading land with the boys, I
think, and he said he had a fractional piece that he would trade
with me, for an account I had.
Q. An account against him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the amount of the account?
A. A little over $100. I told him I would see. I inquired
about the land.
Q. Did you inform him you would take the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what was done?
A. He brought me a patent for the land.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                985
Q. You receipted your account?
A. Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MARTIN HUDSON.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. Where is your patent?
A. It is in the house.
Q. Will you produce the patent here and leave it with the
Secretary?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember now, the description of the land?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know where he got the land?
A. I do not know anything about it.
Q. Do not know whether it was reserved on anybody's contract?
A. I do not, sir.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. What was the account principally for?
Answer. Board.
Q. His own board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Anybody's else?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the Commissioner boarding there at the time?
A. I do not know whether he was or not. I think not,
though.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did the Commissioner pay any board bills in that
way?
Answer. I do not know that he ever did.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. TURNER.
James M. Turner, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives,
testified as follows:
124




986      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Lansing.
Q. What is your business?
A, Land and loan business.
Q. Are you acquainted with Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever had any business in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Acquainted with Clarke?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I want to call your attention to some lands in 22 N., 10
W.,-do you know anything about any lands there?
A. I never owned any lands there.
Q. You know the lands I refer to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what you know with regard to their being
purchased?
A. I sent a man to look some State lands there and the
man came out of the woods and reported what the lands were,
and I think the next afternoon Mr. Clarke came into our office
and asked me what I knew about lands in that town. I told
him I knew something about them,-we had a man in there
just coming out, and there was some there we were going to
take; and he told me that there were some that had been
reserved, the application to reserve had been withdrawn, and
they would be subject to entry. I told him they were the
same lands we were going to locate, and he asked for my plat
on it.  He had the minutes of the land I was going to
locate, and called to see if they were the same,-asked if
he could take the plat and go to the office with it. I told
him that he might, and he took the plat and went to the office.
He asked us when we were going to locate the land, and I told
him I was going to locate them the next morning, after the
train came up from the east; and he said the application to




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 987
reserve had been withdrawn, and they were subject to entry. I
said then, "We will go over and locate to-night."  He recommended that we need not do that,-nobody would be after
lands like them. I let it go, and the next morning I went up
there to locate them, and the patent had been made up to Mr.
Dodge, I believe. The lands were lands that I had no claim
on whatever. I considered it simply a breach of trust with
Mr. Clarke.
Q. Mr. Clarke was a clerk in the office'?
A. Yes, sir. I did not consider that I had a claim on the
land. I had none. They were subject to entry. It was all
right that Dodge or any one else would locate.
Q. You have been at the expense of having them looked?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did it cost you?
A. One hundred and twenty-eight dollars and something.
Q. What time did you go over to the office in the morning?
A. Right after the arrival of the noon train. I do not know
but it was right after the office opened after dinher, I think it
was.
Q. What time of the day before did you lend Mr. Clarke
your plats?
A. I think it was after office hours.
Q. You informed Mr. Clarke that you was going to enter
the lands?
A. Yes, sir. I do not know that he got his information from
me. He might not, but I told him I thought he was the man.
Q. You think so yet, do you not?
A. Yes, sir; but then he may have taken them because they
were reserved by somebody else, and he may have thought,
before I said anything to him about them, that they were good
lands.
Q. When was it you had these lands looked?
A. I think it was in March.




988      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JAMES M. TURNER.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Do you recollect, Mr. Turner, what the lands
were,-the description of them?
Answer. No, sir; I have got the minutes of them over across
the road, in the office. I don't recollect them.
Q. What did Clarke get from you,did you say?
A. He got the plats. I had just a cross mark on the lots I
was going to locate. That is what he borrowed from me.
Q. What time did you go over in the morning?
A. I think now, that it was right after the office opened,
after dinner; about one o'clock, I think, or between one and
two.
Q. The next day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Dodge had dodged in and got them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Dodge got the minutes?
A. Mr. Clarke told me, when I asked him about it, that he
did not give them to Mr. Dodge.
Q. Have you any information yourself, as to how Mr. Dodge
got them?
A. No, sir, nothing only surmise. I do not know that he
got them of Mr. Clarke.
Q. Let me ask you this, if you have any information as to
whether Dodge got them  from Clarke without his knowing
of it,-without Clarke's knowledge?
A. No, I do not know whether he did or not.
Q. Whether it was so claimed by any of the parties?
A. Clarke claimed to me that he did not give them to
Dodge.
Q. Did Clarke come back with the plats?
A. Yes, sir,-brought them back in a few minutes, and said.
they were the same.
Q. The same as what?
A. The same lands that had been reserved.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  989
Q. He took them over there for the purpose of comparing,
to see whether they were the same?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect whether that is entered,-whether the
day you went to look, or not?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You went there in the afternoon?
A. I think it was right away after dinner; it was early in
the afternoon, if it was in the afternoon.
Q. Whether they had been entered that same day that you
went in.
A. Yes, sir; I know that.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Can you bring up those descriptions so we can get
them; then there would be a way of tracing the date.
The witness-Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Huston-If you will bring them on Monday
morning it will do just as well.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. Is there any question but what they are the same
descriptions mentioned in the testimony of Mr Dodge?
Mr. Manager Husto —They are the same descriptions, butI
suppose Mr. Turner did not know what AMr. Dodge swore to.
Mr. Shipman-He can look at them.
Mr. Manager Huston-[To the witness.] Would you look at
these descriptions? It may be that you can settle it right here.
See whether those descriptions, as given by Mr. Dodge, are the
same?
The Witness-I think I can tell.
Mr. Manager Huston-It is on page 261 [showing witness
Impeachment Proceedings].
The Witness-They are the same, except one "forty," I had
one "forty " more than that.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. What became of the other forty?
Answer. That might not have been located.




990      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you get that land?
A. No sir,-if there was but one "forty" left I should not
have taken it anyway, that being the only "forty" in the
town.
Q. You did not want a single forty?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not have some words with Dodge, about it?
A. Yes, sir. I asked Mr. Dodge where he got the minutes
from; tried to get the information from him, to find out who
bad furnished him with the information he had.
Q. Let me ask you, Mr. Turner, whether he did not say that
he got them of Clarke and Clarke did not know it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did not say that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Anything like that?
A. Nothing of the kind. He told me that it Tas not Mr.
Clarke; and I mentioned two parties that I thought got the
minutes, either one or the other; and he told me that, to satisfy
me, he would say that it was neither one of them. Mr. Clarke
was one of them. He would say positively that it was neither
of them.
TESTIMONY OF W. S. GEORGE.
W. S. George, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified
as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. You reside in this city?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Been here a number of years?
A. Nearly three and a half.
Q. Are you acquainted with the respondent?
A. Iam.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have known him since he came to Lausing, January 1,
1871.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 991
Q. When did first make his acquaintance?
A. Within a very few days after he came here.
Q. How were you introduced?
A. I think I introduced myself.
Q. Did you have a talk with him at that time?
A. I had some conversation with him.
Q. State that conversation, or the substance of it?
A. I told him I was glad to welcome him to Lansing, and I
hoped my relations with him would be as pleasant as they had
been with all the other State Officers I had known. I told
him I was sorry, for his sake, that the salary of the office, like
the salaries of the other State Officers, was so paltry, but I told
him I thought he would find society pleasant in Lansing, and
I invited him to meet me and my family with some friends at
my house. He declined. He said he did not visit much, and
I told him at some future time he might meet us, and I referred again to the salary. I said it seemed a shame that a State
like this should not pay its officers a better salary, and he made
the remark that he had understood there was money in these
State Offices, and he meant to find out whether there was or
not, and have some of it, if there was any.
Q. Is that the substance of the conversation?
A. That was very nearly the conversation that took place.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF W. S. GEORGE.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. This was the first time you met him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you talk with him?
A. A very few minutes indeed, at that time.
Q. You introduced yourself to him?
A. Yes, sir, I believe so.
Q. Where was the conversation?
A. In Edmonds' office.
Q. At the old office?
A. Yes, sir.




992      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was there any one else in there
A. I think not.
Q. What time in the day was it?
A. It was in business hours.
Q. Did he speak in his ordinary tone?
A. He seemed to.
Q. It did not seem to be any great secret?
A. No, sir. If you do not ask me the question, I shall feel
bound to say that I took it to be a joke, at the time. I always
considered it a joke.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Do you know what Edmonds considered it?
Answer. I cannot tell you what his thoughts were.
The Presiding Officer-It is now four o'clock. The Senate,
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, stands adjourned until
Monday, at 9 A. M.
Lansing, Monday, May 13, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President'
Hon. Morgan Bates.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Absent without leave: Senators Barber, Dexter, Gay,
Wheeler, and Wood.
The President pro tern., Senator Emerson, resumed the
chair.
GEORGE B. GRISWOLD RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Were you with Capt. Edmonds, Mr. Clarke, and
another of your fellow-clerks at the Lansing House sometime
last winter at a champagne and card supper?
Answer. I was not.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 993
Q. Were you ever there with them, upon an occasion of
that kind?
A. Never.
Q. I will ask you whether you know anything of Captain
Edmonds being intoxicated, during his official term?
A. I do not
Q. Have you never seen him?
A. Never.
Q. Have you never seen him under the influence of ardent
spirits?
A. I have never seen him when I could detect, by any action,
that he was under the influence of liquor.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Mr. President, when I come to
look at the testimony taken before the committee, I find that
this gentleman was not one of the party.
Senator Storrs-I was informed, Saturday evening, by our
Sergeant-at-Arms, that it would be impossible for him to report
here for duty; and he wishes me to write and send in his resignation to the Senate.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator will send to the Secretary the resignation.
Senator Storrs-I have just commenced to write it.  I
thought I would take this opportunity to give notice to the
Senate.
Senator Moffatt —offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That Chas. T. Dickey be, and he is hereby appointed Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment.
The resolution was adopted, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Ball,         Mr. Price,         Mr. Stockbridge,
Begole,           Prutzman,          Storrs,
Cawley,           Putnani,           Waterbury,
Hannahs,          Randall,           Wilcox,
Mann,             Romeyn,            President
Moffatt,          Sheley,              pro tern., 18
Neasmith,
NAYS.                         0
12a




994      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
H. C. CLARKEE, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Were you at the Lansing House in August or September last, in company with the respondent and other clerks
in the office, at a social sitting?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. What were you doing?
A. We were in my room playing a game of pitch.
Q. Who was there?
A. I could not say who was there, all of them. I think the
Commissioner was there a portion of the time.
Q. Was he not there all the time?
A. I think he was there all the time we were in the room.
Q. What were you doing besides playing pitch?
A. Having a kind of a visit.
Q. Have any refreshments?
A. There was some wine there, sir.
Q. Had you not indulged in the use of wine pretty freely?
A. I do not know. I think perhaps I had.
Q. How was it with the balance of the party?
A. I think they all drank some wine. I do not know how
much.
Q. Do you know how many bottles you drank?
A. I do not know how many bottles they drank.
Q. Had they not all drank pretty freely?
A. I did not see that they had drank freely.
Q. What did you see?
A. I could not say.
Q. Whose party was it?
A. I guess it was my party as much as anybody's,-it was in
my room.
Q. Did you invite the other persons to come?
A. I think it was rather an informal matter,-they came in
acidentally.
Q Who called for the wine?
A. I could not say whether I did, or not.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                99
Q. Who paid for the wine?
A. Whoever called for it, paid for it. I could not say who
it was.
Q. Was not that a pretty gay party?
A. I do not know. All seemed to enjoy themselves very
well.
Q. Had they not been drinking to excess?
A. I could not say that they all had. I could not say that
any portion of them had been drinking to excess.
Q. Had they been drinking so as to be under the influence
of the wine, or whatever they drank?
A. That is what we drank.
Q. Were you under the influence, more or less, of the wine?
A. I do not know whether we were or not. I think I was
under the influence more or less.
Q. Was it more or less?
A. I think it was less.
Q. Less than the others?
A. No. I think I was fully as much under the influence of
it as anybody in the party.
Q. What time did that party break up?
A. Ten or eleven o'clock, I guess.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I think we went down stairs, and then I guess we went
down street and got some cigars, and came back to the house
and sat down in front of the house.
Q. Captain Edmonds with you?
A. I think he was.
Q. How long did you remain there?
A. I could not say.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I do not know,-I think I went to my own room.
Q. Did you not go to any other place in town?
A. Not that I remember of, sir.
Q. Did you not go up and make Alice a cal?




996      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not remember of it, sir. I do not know that we
did.
Q. What is your best recollection about your going and
seeing Alice that night?
A. My best recollection is that we did not. I do not remember of it, and I think I should if we had.
Q. Will you please state who composed that party P
A. I think Mr. Bowen, Mr. Dunham, the Commissioner,
and myself. I don't know but what there was another party,
-that is, I do not remember; I think there was.
Q. Do you remember who came with the Commissioner?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you krfow whether he was there among the first, or
whether he came in after?
A. I think they all went up together; I do not recollect
very distinctly.
Q. Where did you assemble there?
A. Either there or in the hall below; I do not recollect
very distinctly about it.
Q. You did not go from the Land Office?
A. No; I do not think we did.
Q. What time in the evening when you went in?
A. Perhaps eight o'clock; I do not recollect about the
matter.
Q. You remained there how long?
A. Two or three hours.
Q. Do you recollect testifying in this case before the Committee of Inquiry of the House of Representatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect your testimony upon the subject of
going to see Alice McCabe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you say?
A. I think the question was asked me if I recollected of
being there, and I answered, "No, that I did not;"ad Iadlso




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  997
answered that from what I understood since that I presumed
I was there. From what I have understood since then, I now
think I was not there.
Q. Why cannot you recollect distinctly the transactions of
that evening?
A. The principal reason is, that there was no reason why I
should remember it any more than any other occurrence. It
was some time ago, and I never expected to have to testify about
it.
Q. Were those occurrences so frequent that they made no
impression upon your mind?
A. What do you allude to?
Q. Your parties of that character,-were the occurrences so
frequent?
A. It was very often the case, that gentlemen were in my
room playing pitch.
Q. And drinking socially?
A. Yes, sir. The Commissioner was not always with them,
and it was not frequent that he was with them.
Q. What was the number of that room?
A. 47.
Q. That is your room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it not true that you were so under the influence of
liquor yourself, that you cannot remember? Is not that the
reason you cannot remember more distinctly?
A. I presume if I had drank nothing at all that night, my
recollection would have been better on the subject, perhaps.
Q. Do you think your recollection was dimmed any by the
champagne that you drank?
A. It is possible, sir.
Q. Is it not probable?
A. It is possible.
Q. What reason did you give the Committee for not remembering?
A. I do not recollect what it was.




998      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. When did you read this testimony over, last?
A. It was after the Investigation Committee had made their
report, some time.
Q. Let me read you a few lines of that testimony, subscribed
to by you, to refresh your recollection. "I do not remember
who was intoxicated. I was intoxicated. I don't know what bebecame of Captain Edmonds. We were drinking in the fore
part of the evening, in my room. We walked there, if we went.
The last recollection was at the Lansing House. Bowen, Van
Dunham, Johnson, and Captain Edmonds were drinking in my
room. I recollect of ten, or half-past ten, but I did not recollect
anything from that time until morning. I have a faint recollection of something that occurred on the street, and Captain
Edmonds was with me until I lost my consciousness. We
were playing cards, when not drinking,-playing pitch." Is
that your recollection, now?
A. Well, you might make such a statement from my recollection, or what I now think. You might make such a statement, and not make the whole of it.
Q. This is signed by you, I think?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that your recollection, now?
A. That alone?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir; and it was not then.
Q. So far as it goes?
A. So far as it goes, with no other circumstance, no explanation, or anything. It is mine now, just as I testified, and
just as I testified then.
Q. Then it is true you were intoxicated then, to the extent
you lost your consciousness?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you lose your consciousness from liquor?
A. I lost my recollection, not from liquor, but as I said, my
recollection might have been better, if I had not taken any
wine.




PROCEEDINGS OF THEE COURT. 
Q. When did your consciousness forsake you?
A. I can't say that it forsook me at all.
Q. Did you not say that your consciousness left you, or forsook you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you say that Mr. Edmonds was with you until
you lost your consciousness, and that was half-past ten that
night?
A. He was with me until half-past ten that night. The last
I remember he was with me, and that was when I went to my
room, or when I left him and the rest of the party.
Q. The rest were in the same condition as yourself?
A. The rest of the party were there when I left to go to my
room?
Q. Who were with you?
A. They were all in the room when I went down stairs.
They went down with me. I mean, when I left them in front
of the hotel to go to my room, they were all there.
Q. Did you not state that you lost your recollection about
half-past ten that evening?
A. I stated that I recollected nothing after half-past ten.
Q. How do you know that it was at that point of time you
lost your consciousness?
A. That was my opinion, only,-understand me, I do not say
I lost my consciousness. That was the last I remember from
half-past ten. It is my opinion it was about that time.
Q. When did you recover your consciousness?
A. I recollect what transpired in the morning,-no, I do not.
I do not recollect what transpired the whole day; still it is not
probable that I was intoxicated the next day. I do not recollect anything that transpired the next day, or the next day
after that.
Q. Were you about your business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Attended to your duties in the office?
A. Yes, sir.




1000     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You are sure you knew yourself that day?
A. I presume I did; I do now.
Q. And that you attended to your business that day?
A. I presume I did.
Q. Wouldn't you call that drinking to excess to produce that
effect?
A. That effect was not produced by drinking.
Q. What produced that extraordinary state of things?
A. I knew then what I was about; but do not know now
what I was about then.
Q. You do not know now what you were then about?
A. No, sir, I do not. I do not recollect.
Q. Have you tried to forget?
A. No, sir.
A. Did your testimony before the examining committee tend
to keep the matter in your memory any?
A. I do not think it did; I do not know that it did or did
not.
Q. You have never tried particularly to forget anything
since that?
A. No, sir.
Q. How was Van Dunham that night? How was it with
him?
A. I think he was well.
Q. Was be pretty well drunk, or sober?
A. No, sir; I think he was all right.
Q. How would he compare with yourself?
A. I think the comparison would be favorable to Van
Dunham.
Q. Do you recollect of you and him going off together?
A. I think he went up street and got some cigars,-the
whole party.
Q. Did you not, after your return to the hotel with the
cigars, go with him?
A. I do not think I did.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1001
Q. Do you know of Van Dunham being intoxicated before
that or after?
A. I think I've seen Mr. Van Dunham intoxicated.
Q. Has he not been in the habit of getting intoxicated
quite frequently the last year, or since he has been in the
office?
A. I could not swear how frequently, nor could I swear
that he has been in such a habit, for I do not know.
Q. Do you not know of his being taken up and fined for
that one time in this city?
A. I heard of it.
Q. Do you not know?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you not present at the examination?
A. No, sir; I heard the report sometime afterwards.
Q. About what time was that transaction?
A. I heard of it two or three weeks after it occurred.
Q. When was that?
A. Sometime last winter.
Q. Was that generally known in the office among the
clerks?
A. I guess not; for I know I did not hear of it for two or
three weeks after it occurred, myself.
Q. Has it not been quite common and notorious among the
clerks that Van Dunham was a drinking man, and drank more
or less,-drank to excess sometimes?
A. I think that has been the understanding.
Q. Has he been very constantly at his post?
A. Not constantly.
Q. Has he not been away a great deal?
A. He has been out of the office considerably.
Q. Has he not, in consequence of his drinking, been unfit
for his duties in the office?
A. I think not.
Q. Has he not some of the time?
A. I think not.
126




1002     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have you not seen him under the influence of liquor so
that he was unfit for his duties in the office?
A. I never saw him under the influence of liquor in office
hours.
Q. That is not the question. I asked you the general question, whether you have seen him, during his term of clerkship,
under the influence of liquor so as to be unfitted for his duties?
A. Well, if he was called upon at that time, he could not
have performed them; no, sir.
Q. You have seen him so?
A. I have seen him intoxicated.
Q. So that he could not have discharged his duties if he had
been called upon to do it?
A. I think he could not.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF H. C. CLARKE.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. At such times was it in office hours?
Answer. It was not.
Q. What time of the day was it that you have seen Van
Dunham drunk, if at all?
A. In the evening, if ever.
Q. What were Van Dunham's duties in the office?
A. Draughtsman.
Q. What do you say about his being under the influence of
liquor or incapacitated for labor during office hours?
A. I never have seen him so.
Q. Do you know whether he has or has not done his work
well in the office?
A. I think he has done it well.
Q. Is he not particularly well fitted for the place of
draughtsman?
A. He is, in my judgment.
Q. You speak of his being out of the office; do you know
how much time is allowed each clerk out of the office in a
year?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1003
A. Thirty days, I think.
Q, Do you know whether Van Dunham has been out more
than thirty days?
A. I don't know how much he has been out.
Q. What was the fact, when the clerks are out more than
thirty days, with regard to their pay?
A. They are charged at the rate they are paid, for the time
they are out; it is deducted from their salary.
RE-EXAMINATION OF H. C. CLARKE.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What is the distinction that you make between
unconsciousness and losing of recollection; I want to understand that, and one member of the Senate would like to understand it. You say that you were conscious, but you lost your
recollection, about half-past ten; now, will you explain that so
we will know precisely what it means?
A. Yes, sir, I will do so.
Q. We would like to have you.
A. If I was to say I was unconscious, I would say I was
unconscious at the time; but if I was to say I lost my recollection, I mean that I recollect nothing that transpired after that
time, although I was not unconscious at the time it transpired.
Q. Now, if you lost all recollection of what transpired after
half-past ten o'clock that evening, how do you recollect that
you were conscious?
A. I do not say that I lost all recollection then. If you had
asked me about it that evening, I might have recollected perfectly, or the next day, perhaps.
Q. How do you know that you would have recollected it
then, or the next day? How could you have told at the time
you were examined before the committee?  How could you
have told the week before that? How could you have recollected what transpired?  It appears that you recollect very
well what transpired up to ten o'clock,-up to the time you
left your room,-then there seems to come a sudden cloud over




1004     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
your memory. Now, how do you know that the next day you
would have been able to have told what transpired after halfpast ten o'clock?
A. Because the period of time was so short that I do not
think I should have forgotten.
Q. Then, let me ask you, why the liquor so affected you, if
you recollect, from the time of this occurrence up to the present
time, what transpired in your room, but that it shortened your
memory as to other transactions?
A. I do not recollect everything that transpired. I only
recollect the general fact that we were there.
Q. Do you recollect anything that transpired after half-past
ten, —where you went,-what you did,-whether you drank
any more?
A. No; the occurrence, as it transpired, I do not think wa
sufficiently marked or striking that I have any reason to recollect,-like undressing, and going to bed, and getting up in the
morning, as I do every night and every morning.
Q. Because that is ordinary business with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it common business with you to go out after ten
o'clock, around town, in a state of hilarity, so that you recollect so little about it,-is that a common occurrence with you?
A. I do not think it is a common occurrence. I have done
it frequently.
Q. Was it a striking occurrence,-an unusual occurrence in
your life, or since you have been here in this office?
A. I do not think there was anything remarkable about it
that I could remember that occurrence, any more than any
other.
Q. Had these occurrences been frequent before, when you
had been in that condition, or bordering upon it?
A. I had parties in my room, frequently.
Q. No; when you had been in a condition of obliviousness?
A. No, I was not in a condition of obliviousness at that
time, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1003
Q, Werevyou playing for money that;night?
A. I was not, sir.
Q. Have nothing on the corner?
A. No, sir.
Mr. McGowan-I do not understand the Manager's question.
Mr. Maiager Cochrane-I asked him if he had nothing on
the corner?  [To the witness.] You understand thequestion, do you?
The Witness-I think there was a bottle on the corner.
The Presiding Officer-I presume the Senators do not understand.
Several Senators-We desire an explanation.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I think, perhaps, Mr. Clarke can
inform you if you go to his room this evening. I am  not
aware whether he can or not; but men that play pitch generally know what it means.
Question. You do not recollect how many bottles you drank
that night?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Q. You paid the bill?
A. I do not know that I did or that I didn't.
Q. I thought you said you did?
A. I said whoever ordered it paid for it.
Q. Did you pay any bill,-or portion of it?
A. I do not recollect whether I did or did not.
Q. Do you owe for it yet, if you owe anything?
A. I do not owe anything, sir.
Q. Did you pay for it that night?
A. If I owed for it, I paid for it.
Q. You have forgotten that fact, whether you paid for it or
not?
A. I forget whether I ordered it or not. I do not remember
whether I ordered. If I ordered it I paid for it at the time I
got it. Whoever got it paid for it.




1006    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Were you playing for the wine?
A. No.
Q. You stated before the committee something about going
to this house of ill-fame referred to, but that since you had
reason to think that you went there. Will you state the facts
that led you to think that you went there? I want facts now,
if any have come to your knowledge?
A. Yes, sir. I will state how I came to make the answer
that I did, and why I make this answer now. One of the committee asked me if I went down there, and I told him I could
not say, and they wanted to know of me if, from anything that
had come to my knowledge since, I thought that I went. I
answered that from something I had heard since, that I presumed I might have been there. From what I have heard
since from a young man in the office, who said that he thought
that I went there, and since upon talking with him he is quite
clear that I did not go there; consequently I think that I did
not.
Q. Then, in fact, you do not know whether you went there
not? That is what you mean to say?
A. I do not swear, positively, that I did go there, or not.
But I don't think I did. That is my recollection on the subject and it was then, and the reason I made the reply was
fromQ. Do I understand your room is at the Lansing House, or
Chapman House?
A. At the Lansing House it was. I do not board there now.
Q. You attended to your business the next day, you say?
A. Well, I think I did.
Q. You presume you did?
A. I presume I did.
Q. Why.
A. Why, do I presume I did?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Because it was my usual eustom'to attend to my busineu
every day.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                107
Q. Then what is your usual custom you don't recollect very
well; what comes in the ordinary routine of duty does not
impress itself on your mind.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Cornell there with van Dunham?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know him, do you?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you know that Cornell and Van Dunham  were
dealing in licensed lands?
A. I had no knowledge on the subject.
Q. Did you ever see them go off together?
A. No, only on the street. I have seen them walk off
together on the street.
Q. Did you ever know of their being absent from the office,
or out of town together, examining lands?
A. No, sir.
Q Do you know whether Van Dunham was absent during
that year more than his thirty days or that proportion?
A. I do not.
Q. What is your opinion with regard to it, so far as your
recollection now goes?
A. I don't think he was absent any more-much more, if
any-than his allowance.
Q. You say Van Dunham was out of the office considerably.
Why did you make that expression?
A. He used to go out frequently,-out of the office. His
work did not require him there all the time during the winter.
The draughtsman has, perhaps, two or three hours work in
the morning, or, perhaps, a half day, and then the balance of
the day there would be nothing particular for him to do, and
portions of that time he was in and portions of that time he
was out.
Q. Then, when you say he was out of the office considerably,
you meant he was around town, —not absent from town?
A. Not absent from town.




1008     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Can you tell the amount which you can drink before
you lose your memory? Have you ever gauged it?
A. I never have.
Q. A bottle of wine, do you think, will bring you?
A. I should think it would.
Q. Did you drink a bottle of wine that night?
A. I do not think I did,-in fact I think not.
Q. Nothing else but wine there?
A. That is all.
Q. Mix anything with the wine, in the shape of liquors?
A. We did not mix.
Q. You do not recollect the condition of Edmonds, that
night, as to whether he was intoxicated or not, do you?
A. If he had been intoxicated, that would have been an
occurrence so marked that I think I would have recollected it.
Consequently, I think he was not.
Q. How about the other young men,-what was their condition?
A. I could not say, sir.
Q. That occurrence was not very marked with them,-nothing peculiar in being drunk or sober?
A. They were not of sufficient importance for me to have
noticed, particularly.
Q. How was it with Bowen?
A. I think he was quite hilarious.
Q. What do you mean by that, anyway?
A. Perhaps as much under the influence of liquor as I was,
and perhaps more. I think more.
Q. You have not any means of knowing the state of his
memory?
A. No, sir.
Q. You presume that he was conscious?
A. I do not know whether he recollects.
Q. Fully conscious, but mighty forgetful — that is the condition of a Lansing drunk, is it?.& I could not say with regard to that, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1009
Q. Van Danham,-how was he?
A. I guess he was all right.
Q. I understand you that Dunham is particularly apt to get
in that condition. Did he not take advantage of it that night
and let himself out?
A. I do not think he did.
Q. Do you recollect how he was?
A. I do not recollect distinctly.
Q. Johnson,-how was he?
A. I guess he was all righl,-I do not recollect about it.
Q. Then there was but one dranken man in the party, and
that was Clarke?
A. I did not say so.
Q. You recollect all those other men were not, but you do
not recollect precisely whether Mr. Clarke was?
A. I did not say that I recollected they were not.
Q. You recollect about the Commissioner, —hat he was not*
A. Yes, sir; pretty straight, I think he was.
Q. Talkative, or reticent as he generally is?
A. I do not think he is very reticent generally.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Were you at the Chapman House, at that party?
Auswer. No, sir. I was not there.
Q. I believe you had a photograph of Mr. Porter?
A. No, sir. I never had.
Q. Did you ever see one in the office?
A. I think I have seen one; I think I have seen Griswold
have one.
The Senator from the Second (Mr. Sheley) sent up the fol
lowing question, which the Secretary read:
"Did the clerks take the thirty days allowed them just as
they wished, or did the Commissioner inform them when they
could take the time?"
Answer. I think the practice has been to ask the Commissioner if they could be absent at that time. They did not take
127




1010     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
it as they wished.  With the Commissioner's consent they
took such times as they wanted.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We wish to consider, as read, the
oath of office required by the Constitution and laws of the
State, of Paddack, the book-keeper in the office. The oath is
in the usual form and duly certified.
OATH OF OFFICE.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, 1 
County of Ingham, f
I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and
that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of bookkeeper in the State Land Office, according to the best of my
ability.
HEDGES L. PADDACK.
Sworn and subscribed before me, this third day of January,
1871.
CHAS. A. EDMONDS,
Notary Public for Branch County, Mich.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Office of the Secretary of State,   s
I, Daniel Striker, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy
of oath of office of Hedges L. Paddack, as book-keeper in the
State Land Office, with the original filed in this office January
3d, 1871; and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of such original.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed the Great Seal of the State of Michi[L. ]  gan, at Lansing, this 12th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-two.
G. M. HASTY,
Deputy Secretary of State.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1011
STATE OF MICHIGAN, SECRETARY'S OFFICE, 
Lansing, May 12, 1872. f
I, Daniel Striker, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, do hereby certify that after diligent and careful search
among the files of this office, I find oaths of office of the
following named officers and clerks of the State Land Office
on file, viz.: Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner; Wm. A.
Barnard, Deputy Com'r; Hedges L. Paddack, bookkeeper;
and further, that I cannot find the oaths of office of any other
clerk of said State Land Office on file in this office.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed
the Great Seal of the State of Michigan, at Lan[L. s.]  sing, the day and date first above written.
G. M. HASTY,
Dep. Sec. of State.
TESTIMONY OF A. L. BOURS.
A. L. Bours, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified
as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Iuston:
Question. What is your business?
Answer. Book-keeper in the State Treasurer's office.
Q. How long have you been there?
A. Over four years.
Q. Can you state the number of clerks in the Land Office
the 1st of January, 1871?
A. I think I can tell nearly. There were eight besides the
Deputy and book-keeper.
Q. How many have there been since Edmonds came in?
A. The last records we have is about the close of the last
fiscal year in September. We have adopted a different system
since that time. There seem to be about fourteen, besides the
Deputy and book-keeper.
Q. What was Clarke paid when he first went there?
A. $1,000 a year.




1012     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have any of the clerks in the Land Office been employed
in any of the other offices prior to their going into the Land
Office.
A. Some four or five of them, if not more.
Q. Will you state how the salaries paid to clerks in the Land
Office compare relatively to the salaries paid to the clerks in
the other State offices?
A. Those in the Land Office are 25 per cent higher than
those in the Secretary of State's Office, and 15 or 20 per cent
higher than those in the Auditor General's Office.
Q. How much higher are those paid that were in the Secretary of State's Office who are now in the Land Office, than
they were when they were in the Secretary of State's Office?
A. I should say about 25 per cent. Clerks that were paid
$60 in the Secretary of State's Office, receive $75 to $85, and
upwards, in the Land Office.
Q. What are the clerks who have been in the Secretary of
State's Office a year to a year and a-half, receiving now, —say
Mr. Freeman?
A. He receives $65 a month.
Q. How long has he been in the office of the Secretary of
State?
A. Two years and upwards.
Q. What is his position there?
A. I do not know. He seems to be one of the regularly
employed clerks in the front office.
Q. You say Clarke was paid $1,000 a year from the start?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long was it before MIr. Dunham was paid $1,000
a year after he went there?
A. Mr. Dunham  was employed at $900 a year. It was all
that he could be paid at the time he was employed. The salary
law has been amended since that time, so that any extra clerk
may be paid in the discretion of the Commissioner a thousand
dollars a year. He was paid $75 a month, and this salary of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1013
$1,000 a year commenced at the time he was appointed
draughtsman.
Q. How long was that after he first commenced working in
the office?
A. He commenced working in the office shortly after Edmonds became Commissioner, and held that position until Barnard resigned the position of draughtsman. I think the 1st
of June,-at the time Porter left the office.
Q. When Barnard became Deputy, Mr. Dunham took his place
as draughtsman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state how you keep the book that has " Wm. A.
Barnard & Co.'s scrip account" on it,-whether there is such
a book kept in the Treasurer's offiee?
A. We have a book called the swamp land journal, on which
an account is opened on every swamp land warrant that is
issued. There are several accounts opened with parties who
deal largely in scrip, for accommodation; among others is Wm
A. Barnard & Co. We receive our directions from the Land
Office, that a certain warrant has been assigned to Wm. A.
Barnard & Co., or to any other dealer in scrip. In that case
we close up the account with the warrant, and credit it to the
person having the scrip account.  We have such an account
with Wm. A. Barnard & Co.
Q. What is the amount of icrip that you have charged
againat them for land sold since the first of June, 1871?
A. $45,805.76.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A..BOURS.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. That was the amount charged against Wm. A.
Barnard & Co?
Answer-Yes, sir.
Q. I understand you, you have a number of other such
accounts?
A. Yes, sir.




1014     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. About how many?
A. Perhaps a dozen. I think not to exceed a dozen.
Q. Of parties who deal largely in scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they kept as private accounts, or on the public
books?
A. They are kept on the same books that we keep the accounts of their warrants. It is simply a check to see that the
warrant is not overdrawn, or that the particular credit was
overdrawn.
Q. A matter of convenience to the office, to keep a trace of
this matter?
A. Yes, sir. The original method was by charging each
month the amount drawn on the warrant, but as the business
increased it was found very inconvenient, and this book is kept
as much for our own convenience as anything else.
Q, Name a few of the parties that have each accounts, as
well as Barnard & Co.
A. The most important one, I suppose, is David Preston &
Co. of Detroit. There is also an account with Hewitt & Co.,
and there is one with Fisher, Booth & Co.
Q. Where do they reside,-Fisher, Booth & Co.?
A. In Detroit, I think: They are bankers there.
Q. What other one?
A. Merrill & Palmer.
Q. From where?
A. I don't know. There has been an account of this class
with E. H. Porter, but that is closed now since his connection
with the office ceased. I don't remember any other now.
Q. In speaking of the number of clerks at the close of the
fiscal year of 1871, you said there were about fourteen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does not your book give it definitely?
A. Well, it seems to vary at different months.  Sometimes
one cannot tell exactly from this book, because frequently clerks




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1015
were not present at the time they were paid off, and were subsequently paid. [Witness refers to book.] In August there
were thirteen, besides the regular clerk, the book-keeper, the
draughtsman, and Deputy. The regular clerk,-that position
had been formed since the commencement of the office, or
since the first of January, 1871.  The salary law as it stood
the first of January, 1871, did not provide for a regular clerk.
Q. I understood you to state that Mr. Clark's salary was
$1,000 from the start?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. I think so, sir. The reason I am so positive is this: At
the time he came in to receive his pay, I paid him myself, and
the remark was made that it was a little singular that he should
be paid $1,000 to commence with. It was quite unusual in the
office for clerks to commence on the highest rate of salary that
the law provided for.
Q. Will you state what month that was?
A. I think I can tell, sir, by examining the books.
Q. I will assist you by directing you to June or July, 1871.
He says that is about the time he came into the office?
A. [Witness examines book.] In July he was paid for part
of a month,-paid $37.50. It is possible that may have been a
half month. I do not know, sir.
Q. At what rate would that be a year?
A. That would be at $900.
Q. Will you look at the next month?
A. I acknowledge that I had an error. The next month was
$75.00.
Q, That is at the rate of $900 a year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He commenced, then, at the rate of $900 a year, did he
not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not a fact that the number of clerks change?




1016      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. There are more or less at various seasons of the year as
business is more or less urgent.
Q. Do you know the average number of clerks in the office
during the fiscal year of 1871?
A. The year just closed?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I should think it was not less than that. Twelve aside
from the principal clerks, the regular clerk, book-keeper, etc.
Q. The book-keeper?
A. Deputy book-keeper, and deputy clerk.
Q. I will call your attention to this, and ask you if you can
state about the number of clerks on the average that were
employed during the calendar year 1870, and running to January 1st, 1871?
A. I find here [looking at paper] that the number was
from nine to ten every month, excepting one month it reached
eleven, besides the Deputy.
Q. Look and see if one month it did not reach twelve?
A. Including the Deputy, it did.
Q. Nine to ten exclusive of the Deputy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ten to twelve, including the Deputy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was during the calendar year 1870?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you ascertain that from looking at that; what is
the statement you have there?
A. It is an official statement from the Auditor General of
the number of clerks employed in the office during the year
1871.
[The counsel here requested the witness to make a detailed
statement of 1870 and'71, at some convenient time, of the
number of clerks in the office, and hand it to the Secretary.]
Question. You have stated that the salary of the clerks in
the Auditor General's office was fifteen per cent lower than
that in the Commissioner's office?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1011
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. What time do you refer to,-simply since Mr. Edmonds'
administration?
A. They have always been higher in the Land Office, but
more particularly since Mr. Edmonds' administration.
Q. Is it not a fact that during the year 1870, or previous to
Mr. Edmonds' administration, that the clerks in the Land
Office were paid the full amount allowed by law.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without any reference to the time they had been in the
office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there clerks employed in the Treasurer's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are the facts in reference to their pay, as compared
to the Land Office?
A. There are no clerks in the Treasurer's office that are paid
more than $900, currency, this year or last, although the law
allows them to be paid $1,000.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF A. L. BOURS.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. I would like to ask you at what time the increase
in that clerk's salary took place?
Answer. He received $75 a month, as appears here, for
one and a-half months.
Q. When?
A. The last half of July, and August.
Q. 1871?
A. Yes, sir; in September he was paid $83.33.
Q. Do you know what time the law of 1871 went into effect
which authorized the pay of $1,000?
A. The last clause of the law was, that the law should take
immediate effect, but in regard to those whose salaries were increased by it, it took effect the firs t of January preceding.
128




1018     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. The law of 1867 did take immediate effect?
A. Yes, sir. I remember the law took immediate effect, and
it was published with the " immediate-effect laws." The previous law provides only for the salaries of the two previous
years. It made no provision for the salaries of 1871. This
act was made to take effect the first of January, 1871, —back
of its passage.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A. L. BOURS.
Cross-examined bp Mr. McGowan:
Question. You stated, during the year 1870 all the clerks in
the office had all the salary allowed by law. Now, is it not a
fact that, during the year 1871, a part of the clerks through
the year received a less salary than was provided by law?
A. There were; yes, sir. For the statement of the salaries of
1871, I will be obliged to refer to the Auditor General's
records, for in many instances we have not preserved full lists.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF A. L. BOURS.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. I do not quite understand the answer to the last
question, that the salaries of the previous years were less than in
1871. Was that in consequence of the law. in any particular?
Was not the rate less under the law?
Answer. The law that was in force, previous to 1871, provides that the extra clerks might be paid less than $900. In
the Land Office, they were paid up to that amount in 1871.
The extra clerks might be paid $1,000 a year, but they were
not all paid $1,000 a year in the Land Office.
The Presiding Officer-What do you mean by extra clerks?
Answer. They are all denominated extra clerks, except those
defined by the law.
Q. All the clerks would be extra clerks then, excepting the
Deputy, book-keeper, and draughtsman?
A. The Deputy, book-keeper, and draughtsman, and one
clerk in the Auditor's office. There are four extra clerks in
the office.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1019
Q. They are confined by the statute?
A. No, sir; they have a book-keeper and draughtsman; that
is confined to two different persons,-their duties are entirely
distinct.
The Senate here took an informal recess.
AFTER RECESS.
MR. G. F. GILLAM, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You have looked up the amounts of land that
were reserved on scrip that is matured, where the patents
ought to have been issued under the law. State the amount
you found.
Answer. Where the scrip is matured and still unpatented,
33,868 17-100 acres.
Q. To whom should the patents be issued?
A. There are fifteen different parties. Shall I read them
over?
Q, Yes. sir.
A. E. P. Barras, A. Pack & Co. (on two different matters),
J. G. Owen, E. Hall, L. M. Lapree, A. M. Green, T. Bathay,
Green Pack, Charles Decker, O. R. Johnson, Elias Steele,
G. Pack, E. R. Royce, Geo. French, and John L. Wood.
Q. How long has it been since this scrip has matured?
A. There is some as far back as 1869, as I stated before, and
some as late as 1872.
Q. Certificates have not been issued, either, for them?
A. The certificates of purchase?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Not that I know of.
Q. I want to call your attention to the contracts that have
been overloaded, or rather loaded, unloaded, and loaded again.
A. As to Mr. Hall's contract, No. 27, there has been re-reserved 6,714.13 acres. That was the amount reserved on the
contract more than the amount of the contract.




1020     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Any other contract?
A. Contract No. 28, 914.21 acres.
Q. Any other?
A. I have figured up no others. There has been some of
the same reserves on the contract of T. Bathay, A. C. Maxwell,
J. G. Owen, H. W. Sage & Co., and Green Pack. I have not
figured up the amounts of those. The exact amount I cannot
say.
Q. Then what I understand you to mean is, that reserves are
made upon these contracts, and then these lands are disposed
of, and taken in the same way and reserved again?
A. Yes, sir. That is it.
Q. Don't you think that in some of these cases where reserves
are made, the first reserves are dropped after they are held for
some time, and new reserves are made?
A. Well, I don't know of any such case now.
Q. Can you tell from the books, whether these re-reserves
have been made,-whether the first reserves have all been patented or not?
A. No, not always. There has been some taken, from some
cause or another.
Q. Can you tell what the cause is?
A. I cannot tell now, whether there has been any taken out
of the market or transferred to some other credit, without
looking it up. I think there has been some taken off and not
transferred to some other credit.
Q. And not patented?
A. No, sir.
Q. Simply dropped?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the accommodation of the man that reserved it?
A. No, sir. I know in certain cases there has been a conflict about the land, and it was decided that the contractor
could not hold the land, and it was erased from his contract
and held on some other.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  102L
Q. What case?
A. I could not cite you to any particular case.
Q. You are not fully advised as to how, or why, this reserve
is brought about,-what becomes of the first reserve?
A. No, sir. There are some cases I cannot tell what the
reason was. I was simply ordered to throw them off, or something of that kind.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CG. F. GILLAM.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mc Gowan:
Question. Was it not a fact that, on the Hall contract, there
were certain reservations made, that had appeared before that
as reserved lands, on Obed Smith's contract?
Answer. Well, I should think quite likely that that might
be the case. I do not recollect, now, about that.
Q. Do you not recollect there was a long list of lands that
Obed Smith claimed he had a right to have reserved, and that
Hall claimed and had reserved to him,-those he applied for
last fall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In a case of that kind, in the settlement of a disputed
claim between Hall and Smith, for instance, if Hall gave up
the lands what would be the result as to his reserves, as appear
upon his contract?
A. If Mr. Hall had to give up the land, it would relieve his
contract.
Q. To the amount he had given up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would not appear on the books as being patented?
A. No, sir, erased,-simply thrown out of his contract.
Q. Do you know of any land reserved on the contract that
is simply erased and dropped for the accommodation of the
contractor?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Where they are erased or dropped without being patented,
what are the usual causes of that?




1022     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Some conflicting claim, sometimes. I know a man will
apply for a lot of lands in a town, and he will not get all the
land he applies for, and then he will write back, in the course
of a week, that he would not like any of the land in the town
if he cannot have the whole, and in those cases it is regarded
that where he applies for 1,000 acres, and he can only get 500,
and he does not want any of it unless he can have all,-in such
a case there might be such cause.
Q. Do parties ever apply for land which turn out to be government lands, never patented to the State?
A. Yes. sir. Some have to be erased on that account.
Q. Now of this land that was held on matured scrip, —this
33,688 acres. You say a part of it was matured back as far as
1869?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state why it was not patented up?
A. I see one to A. Pack & Co., for 240 acres. That was scrip
matured August 10th, 1869, and it is still unpatented, and the
land is not marked as being applied for, and S. M. Shurtleff
previously had the descriptions.
Q. When did the most of that scrip mature,-within what
time?
A. A great portion of it has matured since the first of last
September.
Q. How long since the last of it matured?
A. The last I noticed is February 3, 1872.
Q. What amount matured at that time.
A. It says on F. Bathay's contract, it matured between
December 29, 1871, and February 3, 1872,-the amount on the
contract.
Q. Was it 33,868 acres, or dollars' worth?
A. It was acres. I will state, also, that I have known of
parties writing and claiming there was a wrong description, or
something of that kind,-some error; it was some other land
they wanted, and not the particular land that the application
called for. There have been some such cases as that.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1023
Q. In those cases there would be an erasure, and other lands
reserved, on another patent?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With regard to these lands that are held on matured
scrip,-you may state if you can what proportion of lands are
held on matured scrip?
A. There would be a great deal more than this amount. I
could not approximate very near it, without figuring it up.
Q. Do you know whether there are any contracts, where
there is unmatured scrip, and no reservations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has Mr. Hall any contracts, where there is unmatured
scrip and no reservations on the contracts?
A. I think not.
Q. You think he has reserved to the full amount of his contracts?
A. Not to the full amount. I think there is a little due
him on one contract, that is still unmatured. He has reserved
some on the contract.
Q. I did not mean to ask you whether he had not reserved
any,-whether there is not a large amount due him on contracts where he has made no reservations?
A. There is not a very large amount. He has only one
contract now but what is matured, and there is a little due
him.
Q. Upon that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there ether parties who have contracts, and are
entitled to reserve lands there, who have not reserved them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To what amount, would you think?
A. I could not give any kind of estimate.
Q. Could you ascertain from the books?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You would think that there was enough on this unmatured scrip on which no reservations had been made, to




1024     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
cover all the matured scrip there is there in favor of any
parties?
A. I do not know that I understand you exactly.
Q. Let me ask you the question in this way,-do you think
there is unmatured scrip where there are no reservations, to the
amount of 33,868 acres?
A. Yes, sir; I think there is a good deal more than that.
Q. Is it not a fact that those parties themselves, who held
this land upon matured scrip, have unmatured scrip, where
there has been no reservation as much as there is land there
that they should patent?
A. I think not.
Q. Have they some unmatured scrip?
A. Many of them have.
Q. But you think the unmatured scrip, where there is no
reservation made upon it, and no land held upon it, would be
considerably more than the land stated there that is overdue?
Q. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether there is any unmatured scrip in
the Bathay contract where there are no reservations?
A. Yes, sir, there is now a credit on the Bathay contract in
favor of Mr. Smith.
Q. Do you know whether there is any unmatured scrip and
no reservations on Johnson's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Johnson is that?
A. O. R. Johnson of Saugatuck; he has a large numatured
credit,-considerable anyway.
Q. Do you know to what amount?
A. I could not give the amount.
Q. You would think there was enough to hold this 33,000
acres.
A. Oh no, he cannot have any such credit as that.
Q. Is there enough to hold what is charged against him
there as matured?
A. No, sir, there is not.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1025
Q. How much is there on his matured that should be patented up 
A. It is 1,783.96 acres.
Q. You think there is not enough of the balance of his contract to hold that?
A. No, sir.
Q. How much should you think there was?
A. That I could not state.
Q. You could ascertain by looking the matter up?
A. If all his matured scrip was used to patent his lands, it
would then leave the unmatured balance, of course. In figuring up the amount that he should patent, of course I filled up
his unmatured balance, and this 1,793 acres is what we apply
on the matured part, leaving his unmatured. Of course he
has a right to have the unmatured part of his contract full, I
suppose; I figured it in that way.
Q. Then this 1,700 and odd acres is all the land that Johnson has reserved?
A. No, sir; he has his unmatured credit full and this much
over. He has more matured credit than enough to patent this
number of acres. If he used all this matured credit and balanced up the land it would leave a large balance in his favor.
Q. He has sufficient matured balance to patent up all those
lands?
A. Yes, sir; all this and more too.
Q. And has an unmatured balance, and has made no reservations?
A. No, sir; I did not figure it in that way. I figured the
unmatured balance full. The unmatured part of his contract
would be full and this much over.
Q. How many contracts had Johnson?
A. He has had some others besides this one that he is now
at work at. How many more I cannot state.
Q. Do you know whether there are any contracts that have
129




1026     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
been made that are not copied into your book from the files in
the Road Commissioner's,ffice.
A. There are some.
Q. Do you know to what extent?
A. I could not state how many. There are not a great
many. I have looked up a good many and put on since I came
in.
Q. I wish you would look that matter up.
A. I will
lLE-EXAMINATION OF G. F. GILLAM.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Is it the practice in the office, where a party has a
contract on unmatured scrip, as you call it, and has land
reserved upon scrip that is matured, to allow him to change
over his reservations that he has made upon matured scrip, to
unmatured scrip, and sell his matured scrip?
A. I think that is the practice,-if a man has scrip matured
to let him sell it, provided he has unmatured scrip enough.
Q. Suppose I have two contracts, and I have reservations on
one of them, and the contract is completed,-I have reserved
the contract full, and it is completed,-then it is matured scrip.
Would I be permitted to sell that matured scrip, and change
my reservations from that contract to the other one?
A. I don't recollect of any such case as that taking place
while Edmonds has been Commissioner.  A  man reserves
land on his contract, and it does not state what part of the
contract. If he has scrip matured, as well as unmatured scrip
enough to hold the land that he has reserved, my understanding of the custom is that he has leave to sell that matured
scrip.
Q. Then he can have matured scrip and unmatured scrip on
the same contract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As I understand it?
A. Yes, sir; the contract is paid in parcels, you know.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 107
Q. Well then, it is the rule of the office, when he has reserved
lands upon that part of his contract that he is to complete
first, and he has completed it and his scrip has matured, to
allow him to sell his scrip and change his reservation upon
the balance of the contract that is unmatured?
A. I don't know whether I could tell you that a reservation
is on any particular part of the contract. He reserves land on
his contract, and it might be a question. I don't care to decide.
Q. He is allowed to share off his reservation on his contract
for several years, in completing his contract?
A.. Yes, sir; that is the way I understand it.
Q. Now, I understand you to say, if a man applies for a
thousand acres of land, and he cannot get but five hundred of
it, that you usually release him upon his application if he does
not want the five hundred?
A. I have seen it done so; yes, sir.
Q. Now, when those applications are made, do you enter it
upon your reservation-book,-when he applies for a thousand
acres, do you enter that upon your reservation-book, or do you
wait until he finds out whether he can get the lands, or not.
A. Well, I think it has been done.
Q. To wait?
A. Yes, sir, I think it has been done. I think there will
be some such cases, where they have been put on the book,reserved what he could get.
Q. Then men are permitted to apply for lands, and go to
work and investigate and see whether they can get them or
not, before they are entered upon the reservation book?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if they cannot get the full amount they apply for,
then you release them upon the application?
A. Yes, sir. As a general thing, where there is any conflict,
or any probability that they cannot hold the lands, they will
not enter it upon the book until the parties are written to, or
until it is stated to them that somebody else claimed them.




1028     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Why can you not tell at the time the application is made
whether he could get the lands or not?
A. You could tell.
Q. Could you not tell whether they were reserved upon other
contracts?
A. Why, yes. I say that, for instance, a man who lived
in Detroit writes here for a certain thousand acres of
land in a certain township, and perhaps five hundred of it has
been sold; the five hundred would be reserved that was not
sold, and he would be notified that the remainder was sold and
he could not get it.
Q. Suppose there was eight hundred acres that he could get,
and two hundred sold?
A. Well, it would be the same.
Q. If he could not get the whole amount you took off, you
did not hold him to the contract.
A. He would write right back in a few days that he wanted
a thousand acres if he had any. There are some of these parties that live up here at Houghton and Ontonagon, and correspondence is a good while getting back and forth, especially
in the winter.
Q. You say something about some of this amount of over,
or re-reservations, arising from dropping the first reservation,
and counsel called your attention to the application of Hall,
made last fall upon the Bathay contract, or Smith. Now, is
there any part of that 1,600 acres that Hall applied for last
November, included in this overloading of his contract?
A. My recollection is that that application was not put on,
it being a question.
Q. That is what I want to find out; is it not a fact, that
although it was claimed that Mr. Hall applied on the 24th day
of November for this land of Smith, and is it not a fact that
it never was entered upon the reservation-book against Mr.
Hall?
A. I think not.
Q. You think it was not entered?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1029
A. No. It was in doubt whether he could hold them, and
the order was held until the matter was decided.
Q. Is it not a fact that the claim which was set up in the
office to Mr. Ripley's reservation of Smith's lands, was never
entered upon the reservation books?
A. No; there was some of it entered.
Q. What proportion of it?
A. There was a few descriptions that he finally insisted upon
holding. He released some, and wrote down a second letter
that he would release all but certain descriptions. They were
put on to the book. I think the book will show.
Q. I wish you would look and see.
A. When he finally insisted on the land, we put it on the
book.
Q. Then you say the reason that Mr. Edmonds did not have
the reservation of Mr. Hall, on the 24th of November, put
upon the reservation-book, that they were in doubt whether he
could hold the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the date?
A. Smith claimed the land and wanted a hearing.
Q. Yes, sir; but the 24th of November was before the 29th,
when Mr. Smith came here, according to the testimony which
shows that Mr. Smith was here the 29th, and it was claimed
that they were reserved to Mr. Hall the 24th?
A. Well, the application was not put on the books, at all
events. I do not know whether it was handed to me or not,
up to that date. Mr. Barnard hands him the applications.
Q. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that that was an
attempt, on the part of Mr. Barnard, to get those lands from
Mr. Smith, when he knew that Mr. Smith was entitled to
them.
A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. You do not know how that was?
A. No, sir; I do not know anything about it. I could not
State.




I030     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF G. F. GILLAM.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you know how  Mr. Ripley got his list of
Smith's over-reservations?
Answer. Yes, sir; I furnished it to him.
Q. You furnished it to him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he there at the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you come to furnish him that list?
A. He was in the office one day inquiring about the lands
in a certain town, and some lands in that town were reserved
to Mr. Smith. I spoke and said that I thought Smith was
trying to hold more lands than he could cover, that is, his
contracts appeared that way, and he wanted to know right
away how it did stand, and what the apparent over-reservation
was, and I showed him  and gave him  a statement of the
amount, that appeared to be, I think, about $2,200 of over-reservation. I gave him a list of land of some 1,600 acres at the
last end of the reservation, and he said he should, perhaps,
apply for them; he would make some further inquiries, and
he went off home, and in a few days he sent back an application for these same lands.
Q. Counsel has asked you with regard to a contract being
overloaded, —what do you mean by that?
A. Well, being re-reservations.
Q. These re-reservations you refer to, the same as has
been before?
A. The land has been abandoned or taken off, from some
cause, and then other lands reserved.
Q. You do not mean by that that Mr. Hall had more
reserved on his contract than the contract allowed him?
A. No, sir.
Q. He had made reservations until the contract was full,
and then these lands had been abandoned or dropped for some
reason, as you explained before?




PROOIEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1031
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then he can reserve up to the amount of his contract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But he never held, under that contract, more lands than
the contract called for?
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the Twenty-fifth
(Mr. Waterbury) sends up the following question:
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"Can a man apply for all the lands in a township, and have
them reserved, and then go and look the land and take what
he finds good, and then have the rest dropped or rubbed off
the book?"
A. He cannot.
Q. You illustrated the principle involved in the question,
by a man writing you from Detroit, applying for a thousand
acres of land, and you find that five hundred of it is vacant,
and you mark the five hundred and inform him. If he should
then write back, and inform you that he only applied simply
for the thousand, and if he could not have that he did not
want any, you would rub out those marks?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that what you mean, and all you mean, when you say
that lands are applied for in that way, and then dropped when
the party don't want them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said something about single contracts maturing in
parts or parcels,-what are the facts in regard to that?
A. When a board meets,-they meet every month,-these
contractors come in with certain allowances, that they have
had allowed them on their contracts, and they get a credit
allowed them, called a warrant in the Land Office.
Q. Then that warrant represents so much matured scrip on
that contract?
A. On that contract; yes, sir.




1032     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Counsel asked you if his reservations were shoved off
until the last of the contract?
A. Well, it is usual. For instance, a man has, we will say,
a ten-thousand-dollar contract, and a payment of two thousand dollars, and he has got six thousand acres of land. He is
allowed to sell that two-thousand-dollar warrant, and the lands
would be reserved on the balance.
Q. The lands remain reserved on the unmatured part of the
contract? In that case he must have enough of unmatured
scrip to hold the land, must he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you state that that is a custom in the office, or
as a matter of law?
A. I state that I think that is a custom. I think that
would be the way it would be done.
Q. Do you not understand that the law allows him  to
reserve as long as he has any unmatured scrip?
A. I think it is right, myself.
Q. To the amount of his unmatured scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does not the law provide for partial acceptances of these
contracts?
A. I don't know as I can state how the law does read.
Q. You take these acceptances and warrants when they
come?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Consider them  so much matured scrip on that contract?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF G. F. GILLAM.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. When it was claimed that Ripley applied for the
Smith lands, did he have any unmatured scrip?
Answer. Yes, sir, he did.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1033
Q. Did he have sufficient to cover the amount of land applied
for?
A. No, sir, he did not.
Q. Then he had the purpose to have this land held for him,
if he did not have the scrip?
A. The order states something about their being held a few
days.
Q. State how he came to make that arrangement.
A. The order is on file, I suppose.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. What is the fact,-were they held by him?
Answer. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. I would like to ask one question. I want to ask
if this rule, with reference to applications,-where a party
applies for more land than he receives,-is generally known;
whether it is a rule of the office?
A. I do not know whether it is generally known or not.
Q. Under the application of the rule, let me ask whether it
is not possible for land-dealers to apply for all the lands in a
township which are for sale in the office, and by putting in a
few descriptions which he knows he cannot get, obtain time
until he can go and look at that land and see what he does
want, whether he wants to buy that,-whether by that rule
that cannot be done?
A. If that was known to be the custom, it might be abused
somewhat. A man would be pretty apt to be detected if he
undertook to abuse it.
Q. Do you know of any custom of this office that these landdealers do not abuse, if they can?
A. They are pretty sharp,-some of them.
Q, It would be possible for a man to make an application
for his own benefit in that way.
A. Yes, I think it would be.
130




1034     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How do you treat a man who abuses a rule of the office,
when you catch him at it. Have you any rule about that?
A. I do not know about that.
Q. Do you rely upon him afterwards?
A. Well, I should think not; no sir, as near as I canMr. Manager Cochrane-That is all.
Mr. McGowan —Finish your sentence if you choose to?
Answer. I do not know of anybody being shown any favors
after they are abused.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Do you show any peculiar favors
before they are abused?
A. No, sir; I do not know of any being shown any.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF G. F. GILLAM.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Either the Manager or myself has misunderstood
you, in reference to a man applying for a certain quantity of
land and having it held, until he could examine it?
Answer. I did not mean to be understood in that way.
Q. Suppose the man called for one thousand acres of land,
and five hundred are vacant, you mark that and notify him,
and before he responds as to that five hundred acres, suppose
somebody else applies for that five hundred, what would be
the practice of the office then?
A. If he did not hold the land, it would be the other
party's, I suppose. When the question was asked, I recollected
one instance. I do not recollect of but one instance. Mr.
Pond of Detroit, applied for a great portion of land in the
Upper Peninsula, and a part was held by Mr. Preston, and he
wrote back in a few days that he did not want the land unless
he could have the whole. I think there were three or four
days intervening.
Q. He applied for a specific amount?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You only found a part vacant?
A. Yes, sir.




PROOEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1035
Q. He wrote back, if he could not have what he applied for
he did not want it?
4. Yes, sir.
Q. Any other instance?
A. I don't recollect of any other.
Q. The vacant part was applied to him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How?
A. Marked as being applied to him on a certain credit in the
office.
Q. In the case you mentioned, and the only one you recollect of,-that of Francis Pond,-was there any record made of
the reservation excepting checking them on the plat-books?
A. I cannot tell whether it was on the reservation-book or
not. When Mr. Barnard handed me an application, it was
usual to put it on the book, unless he would make some statement that perhaps the reservation would not be good,-to hold
it until something was determined. I do not recollect whether,
in this case, it was put on the book or not.
Q. Do you know enough about it to say what the rule of the
office was?-whether there is any such rule?
A. I have no knowledge of any others now. I do not mind
any others now. There might be others I might remember, if
my attention was called to it.
VAN DUNHAM, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Did you go with the Commissioner to Grand Ledge,
to that party?
Answer. I went to Grand Ledge, but not exactly with the
Commissioner.
Q. But with the party?
A. Yes, I was with the party.
Q. When was that?
A. I could not give you the time; I paid no attention to it.
Q. About the time?
A. It was last fall,-during the past fall.




1036     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Who were of the party?
A. I don't know that I can give you all the names. I can
name a portion:-The Commissioner, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Bowen,
Mr. Turner, Mr. Griswold, Mr. Burdick, Mr. Stimpson, and,
I presume, others, besides a number of ladies.
Q. Was there any drinking while you were there?
A. I think there was some drinking; yes, sir.
Q. What were they drinking?
A. I don't know as I could tell you. I think water, principally.
Q. Was there not something else drank,-wine?
A. I think I drank something else.
Q. Do you know whether the Commissioner drank anything
else?
A. I don't know that he did.
Q. Did you see him drink Water?
A. I think I saw him drink water.
Q. Did he drink anything else?
A. I don't know that he did.
Q. Did he drink anything with the water?
A. I don't know that he did.
Q. What makes you sure that he drank water?
A. Well, I would not swear that he drank water, but I think
very likely that he did. It was a very warm day, and I am
quite sure we all drank water.
Q. You don't state that from recollection?
A. I think it would be very strange if we did not.
The Presiding Officer-The question the Honorable Manager asked you, is what you recollect, not what you think.
Answer. I don't recollect of our drinking anything but
water.
Q. Did he drink water?
A. I cannot say positive that I saw him drink water.
Q. Had any of the parties been drinking spirits or liquor, to
excess?
A. I don't know that I know what you would call excess.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE' COURT.               1037
Q. Drinking so as to be under the influence of liquor?
A. I don't think they were.
Q. Were you?
A. I don't think I was.
Q. Are you in the habit of being so?
A. I don't know that I am in the habit of being so.
Q. Are you not frequently in that condition?
A. Perhaps not frequently; no.
Q. Have you not been fined in this city for being drunk
publicly on the streets?
A. No, sir; I don't know that I have.
Q. Were you fined under the ordinance of the city?
A. I think I was; yes, sir.
Q. What for?
Mr. Shipman-We object to that question, also to this line
of questioning. It does not seem to us to be proper. This
witness has the right to the ordinary protection of a witness
upon the stand, and to go into his private life outside of any
time when the Commissioner was with him, I think is not
material. It may be, but I don't think it is.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-It is one of the charges, that he
employed such clerks.
Mr. Shipman-That "he did it for the purposes of gain."
I submit, if you wish to show anything of that kind, whether it
should not be shown by some other witness; that the witness
himself has a right to personal protection on the stand; and
that you cannot ask the witness a question that will either
criminate or bring him into reproach.
The Presiding Officer-I will ask the counsel if the witness
should not ask for that protection himself?
Mr. Shipman-He has right to; but what I say is this:
These things that took place when the Commissioner was not
present, are things which he ought not to be held answerable
for.
Mr. Manager Coehran —You do not deny but that he can




1038     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
answer the question as to whether he has been convicted of
drunkenness.
Mr. Shipman-We may do so. We may impeach the witness, but you cannot impeach your own witnesses.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We do not propose to impeach
him, but suppose we would ask him if he has been convicted
of larceny,-could we not ask that?
Mr. Shipman-I ask for what purpose it is done,-to discredit the witness?
Mr. Manager Cochrane-To show that he is a dissolute witness. We shall leave it to the Court to say whether or not he
is a dissolute witness.
Mr. Shipman-If he is a dissolute witness they should not
have put him upon the stand.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-A dissolute clerk.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-A dissolute man,-a man of dissolute habits, is the charge.
Mr. Shipman-If he is a dissolute witness it is one thing;
if he is a dissolute clerk, that is another, The case should be
such as the Commissioner had notice of, or such as transpired
in his presence, —when he was a party; but acts outside,
remote from him, that he did not know of,-unless they propose to bring it directly to his notice, —I submit ought not to
be given in evidence.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We propose, of course, to bring it
to his knowledge.
The Presiding Officer-Under the rules already established
by the Senate, I will allow the question to be put.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Will you state whether you were fined for misconduct?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it for?
A. You stated; for misconduct; disorderly conduct, I
believe it was.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1039
Q. What was the charge?
A. I don't know that I can tell you exactly what it was.
Q. What was the particular offense?
A. The particular offense, I believe, was for tearing up a
fen9e.
Q. In the day-time?
A. No, sir, I think it was in the night.
Q. Were you in a state of intoxication when you did it?
A. I presume likely. I had been drinking some.
Q. Had you not been drinking to such an extent as not to
know very well what you were about?
A. I think I had a distinct recollection of doing it, afterwards.
Q. Did you know at the time you were doing it?
A. I think I did. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was with you when you did it?
A. I would prefer not to answer the question?
Q. Who was with you at the time?
A. Am I obliged to answer the question.
The Presiding Officer-Unless it will form a link in the
chain of evidence that would convict you of some crime.
Witness —  don't care to bring up the party that is not any
way interested in the matter.
The Presiding Officer-That is not a privilege which you
can claim the advantage of. If the testimony would form a
link in a chain of evidence that would tend to convict you of
some crime, you can claim your privilege, otherwise not.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. I would inquire whether it was any man employed
in the Land Office?
Answer. No, sir, it was not.
The Presiding Officer-Then it would be immaterial.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Was it anybody engaged in the Land Office?
Answer. A person, I think, who never was engaged in the
Land Office.




1040     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have you been under the influence of liquor at any other
time since you have been a clerk in the Land Office?
A. I do not know that I remember of any other occasion.
Q. Were you at the Lansing House with the Commmissioner
and Mr. Clarke in the Land Office?
A. I think I been have there on several occasions with the
Commissioner.
Q. Engaged in drinking and playing cards?
A. I remember one occasion of playing cards.
Q. And drinking?
A. Drinking.
Q. When was that?
A. I don't remember the time.
Q. Last August or September?
A. I cannot say as to the month; I presume it was about
that time.
Q, Who were present, forming that party?
A. The Commissioner, Mr. Clarke, and, I think, Mr. Robinson.
Q. In whose room?
A. I could not tell in whose room it was.
Q. Can you tell whether it was the Commissioner's room, or
Mr. Clarke's room?
A. I could not state. My impression is, that it was in Mr.
Clarke's room.
Q. Who invited you there?
A. I think Mr. Clark.
Q. What was the object in going there?
A. To spend the evening, perhaps to play cards, — do not
remember.
Q. Was there any drinking done there?
A. I think there was some wine drank.
Q. How many bottles?
A. I could not sav,-I do not know that there was more than
one..




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1041
Q. Was not there more than one apiece drank?
A. I do not think there was.
Q. Did you pay for any?
A. I do not remember. I presume very likely I did.
Q. Do you know whether the Commissioner did?
A. I do not know.
Q. Did the Commissioner drink any?
A. I think he did.
Q. Take his share with the rest of you?
A. I think he drank occasionally.
Q. What time did you leave there?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Why cannot you tell?
A. Because I do not remember; I do not know that T
noticed at the time.
Q. Did you all go away at the same time?
A. I do not know that I remember that  My impression is
that we did, though.
Q. Do you remember being in the street together?
A. I remember going down to the office together. I
think we separated when we went out of the office.
Q. The office of the hotel, do you mean?
A. The hotel office.
Q. Where did you leave the Commissioner that night?
A. I would not be positive, but my impression is that we
left him there.
Q. Had he not been drinking to excess that night?
A. I do not think he had.
Q. Had Mr. Clarke?
A. I do not remember that he had.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson?
A. I think not.
Q. You say you drank but one bottle?
A. I did not say so. I did not intend to be understood so.
131




1042     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
I meant to have said, how many bottles were drunk. I could
not say as to that,
Q. You said about one bottle.
A. I know we had a bottle there, and drank.
Q. Do you not remember that you had more than one?
A. I think we had only one.
Q. Upon that occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you there upon any other occasion with the same
persons?
A. I think not.
Q. Or with the Commissioner?
A. I do not remember any occasion of being with the Commissioner in any rooms of the house. I perhaps have met him
in the office of the hotel.
Q. Do you remember going away with Clarke to get some.
cigars after you came down from the room?
A. No, sir, I do not remember it now. I might have done
so.
By the Presiding Officer:
Question. Was that one bottle filled more than once?
Answer. I would not be certain about that. It might have
been.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. How large a bottle was it?
Answer. I think, perhaps, it would hold a quart.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. What was it filled with?
Answer. I think they called it wine.
Q. What kind of wine?
A. I would not be positive; my remembrance is that it was
Catawba.
Q. Not champagne?
A. I think not.
Q. Where did you go after you left the Lansing House that
night?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1043
A. I think I went home and went to bed.
Q. Who went with you?
A. I could not say whether I went alone or not. I do not
remember. Mr. Bowen, I think, was rooming with me at that
time. I presume we went together.
Q. Did you go away with Mr. Clarke that evening, on a
walk?
A. I am not positive; I could not say for certain that I
did go.
Q. Were you at the Chapman House at any time when Captain Edmonds was there?
A. Yes, sir, I was there frequently with him. I think I was
boarding there at the time he was boarding there.
Q. Were you there at one time upon the occasion of a wedding party?
A. Upon an occasion shortly after a wedding.
Q. You remember distinctly being there?
A. I do.
Q. Was the respondent there?
A. I think he was there.
Q. Any other persons connected with the Land Office there,
besides yourself and Edmonds?
A. I think so.
Q. Who?
A. I think Mr. Bowen was there, and Mr. Griswold,-perhaps
others.
Q. Do you rember whether Clarke was there?
A. My impression is that Clarke was not there.
Q. Was there any drinking there that night?
A. I think there was some drinking there.
Q. Had you been drinking yourself?
A. I think I had.
Q. What did you drink?
A. I think nothing but champagne.
Q. Did you drink to excess?
A. I drank a number of times.




1044     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you become intoxicated with drinking-?
A. My impression is that I got to feeling pretty good, that
night.
Q. How was it with the Commissioner,-did he drink?
A. I think the Commissioner drank.
Q. Did he drink to excess that night?
A. I do not think that he did.
Q. You knew he was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see him drink more than once?
A. Yes, sir, I think I saw him drink more than once.
Q. How often?
A. I could not tell you how many times,-only a few times,
though.
Q. Were you, with the Commissioner, at any other time,
engaged in drinking, except at the Lansing House and the
Chapman House,-these two instances you have named?
A. I do not remember any other occasions.
Q. Do you say there were no other occasions you were with
him?
A. I say I do not remember of any other occasions where we
were drinking.
Q. What is your best recollection,-that these are the only
two instances that you were drinking with him?
A. I think, perhaps, I might have done so; I do not recollect
the occasions now.
Q. Was it a matter of frequent occurrence?
A. Not a very frequent occurrence.
Q. Can you remember being with him and drinking at the
Lansing House but once?
A. I remember meeting him a number of times at the Lansing House, and perhaps I might have drank with him?
Q. Play cards and drink in the room?
A. I only remember of it on one occasion.
Q. You board at the Lansing House?
A. I never boarded there.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1045
Q. You had a room at that time?
A. I think I was boarding at the private house of Mr.
Moore.
Q. Did you board at the Chapman House, ever?
A. Previous to that.
Q. Did you not drink rum and molasses with the Commissioner?
A. I do not remember. I think very likely we did not. I
am not in the habit of drinking rum and molasses.
Q. Did you not state so, in your testimony before the committee?
A. No, sir, I did not,-I am positive I did not.
Q. Do you say you were not drinking rum and molasses in
your room, and playing pitch, when the Commissioner was
there, until a very late hour?
A. I say I think it very likely we were not. I do not
remember of ever drinking any rum and molasses.
Q. Drinking any intoxicating drink, and playing pitch
there?
A. If we were drinking anything, it was probably wine.
Q. Do you remember of being with him until a late hour in
your room, playing pitch and drinking something besides
water?
A. I think I do remember of his being in our room playing
pitch and drinking.
Q. At another time, then, than the two you have named?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was not that a frequent occurrence between you and the
Commissioner?
A. I don't think it was a frequent occurrence; no, sir.
Q. Did it not occur as often as once a week?
A. I don't think it did.
Q. Once a month?
A. I hardly think it occurred as often as once a month.
Q. Once in six months?
A. I don't think it has occurred in the past six months.




1046     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF VAN DUNHAM.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Were you fined more than once?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. Can you fix about the time?
A. I don't know that I can without refreshing my memory.
Q. Somewhere near?
A. I think it was during the past winter.
Q. Was it on a trial or on a plea?
A. It was on a plea, no trial.
JAMES H. BAKER, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Will you state where you have seen Commissioner
Edmonds under the influence of liquor, since July last, in
this city?
Answer. I could not say positive as to July.
Q. Since that time?
A. I understand you. I say, I could not say positive; I
can't remember the date at the Chapman House,-whether it
was the first of July or after. It was sometime last season.
Q. Well, at the Chapman House, then?
A. I saw him at the Chapman House occurrence,-the occasion spoken of,-there.
Q. What occasion was that?
A. It was the occasion of Mr. Conkling returning from a
wedding tour.
Q. What do you say in regard to his drinking?
A. I was requested by the mayor to require places to shut
up at ten o'clock, and I went down to the Chapman House
and found a party in a room drinking.
Q. Who were they?
A. Commissioner Edmonds was one, Mr. Bowen was one, I
think Mr. Van Dunham, and I think Mr. Quigley was there.
Mr. Conkling was behind the counter with the clerk. Mr.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1047
Hotaling was one of the parties, and some others whose names
I can't remember.
Q. Was Griswold there?
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Griswold was there. I went into the room
and was introduced to the Commissioner. He took me by the
collar and says. "Never mind the preliminaries," or something
of that kind; " Come up and take a drink." I first revolted,
by saying that I didn't want anything, or something of that
kind. He insisted upon my drinking, and I went with him
to the bar and drank some champagne. I left the Chapman
House a few minutes after, and returned again soon afterwards;
they were still there, and I think at that time there were two
or three who insisted upon my drinking, and I took some
champagne again, and I turned and went away from  the
Chapman House, and returned the third time; and as I
stepped in, I think it was Mr. Thomas Marshall came up to
me and tapped me in a familiar sort of a way on my left
shoulder and called me by my given name, saying, " It is all
right now, we have got Mr. Edmonds' to bed," and intimated
to me that the noise was all quiet. It was then quite late,nearly twelve o'clock.
Q. What was his condition, as to being under the influence
of liquor, at the time you first went there?
A. Well, sir, he was so he could walk around. He was very
much excited,-under a good deal of excitement, caused, in
my opinion, from the influence of the champagne they had
been drinking, or was drinking.
Q. How was it the second time?
A. Still more so.
Q. How was it the third time?
A. I can't say that I got my eyes on him  the third time.
He was there. I saw a party that had his appearance, and
some one with him at the head of the stairs, going up stairs.
I stepped into the hall. I could not swear, positively, that it
was Capt. Edmonds, but I believe it was.




1048     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. The second time you saw him,-state what was his conduct as to being boisterous or noisy, or stupid and still?
A. He was noisy and boisterous, with the others. He was
not alone; there were others in the same way.
Q. How was it with his clerks?
A. There were two of them that I should say were in about
the same condition he was.
Q. Van Dunham one of them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the other?
A. Mr. Griswold.
Q. What do you mean by'" condition?"
A. I mean to say, that in my best judgment they were under
the influence of liquor; so much so that they were almost
uncontrollable. I took Mr. Griswold into the hall and talked
with him. He wanted to know if I wa3 going to lock him up.
I told him, "No; I don't want to lock any of you up, but
we must have less noise."  And says he, " If you are not going
to lock me up, let me go,-let me alone."  I talked to him a
few minutes and let him go, and as he got away from me he
rushed back into the other room again.
Q. Were they making much noise there?
A. You could hear it out in the middle of the street,across the street, I presume.
Q. What were they engaged in besides drinking?
A. Drinking, smoking, talking, and laughing.
Q. How late was it when you went back the second time?
A. Well. sir, it was between ten and twelve,-I could not
say.
Q. How late was it when you went the last time?
A. Very near twelve o'clock.
Q. Did you- see the Commissioner at any other time when
he was under the influence of liquor?
A. I never did.
A. Have you seen Van Dunham drunk at any other time?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1049
Q. When, and where?
A. I could not state the time and place particularly. I have
seen him under the influence of liquor at other times.
Q. In the daytime?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has it been a habit, a matter of common occurrence, or
not?
A. Well, it is a frequent occurrence for him to drink and
get soliiewhat excited, under the influence; but it is not frequent fr him to get drunk,-what I would term drunk.
Q. Dih you ever see Mr. Clarke.
A. On one occasion.
Q. When?
A. One night sometime last fall.
Q. Where was it?
A. It was on the corner of Washington and Michigan avenues.
Q. In this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was with him;
A. Two strangers.
Q. What was his condition then?
A. He, in company with one of the strangers, was taking
grindstones from the front of one of the hardware stores and
rolling them out into the street.
Q. Ever seen Griswold drunk?
A. I can't say as I ever did, except at the Chapman House,
-that is, what I would call drunk.
Q. Well, seen him when he has been drinking so as to be
noisy and troublesome?
A. He don't get noisy. I have seen him when I thought he
was under the influence of liquor. He is not a noisy man.
Q. Do you know Alice McCabe of this city.
A. I do; yes, sir.
132




1050     TRIAL OF CHARLES A.:EDMONDS.
Q, What is her character,-what kind of a house does she
keep?
A. The reputation of it is bad.
Q. A house of ill-fame?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Notoriously so?
A. It is; yes, sir.
Q. Will you state whether you have ever seen the respondent
or his clerks at that house, or going and coming, or either?
A. Sometime, I think, in the early part of September last,
I saw a party whom I call the respondent, accompanied by another gentleman, leaving the house. I saw him when he came
out of the house, as he passed out of the gate up the sidewalk.
Q. Have you any doubt of its being the respondent?
A. I had not any doubt at the time; no, sir.
Q. Have you now?
A. I have not, in my own mind. A gentleman was with me
at the time, and I told himQ. Who was with you when you saw him?
A. The under-sheriff of Eaton county.
Q. At what time in the night was that?
A. It was before 12 o'clock, but I could not state what time;
it might have been half-past 10, and might have been as late
as 11.
Q. How came you to be there at that time of night?
A. The under-sheriff was here looking for a party whom he
had a warrant for, and I was with him. We had been to other
places and were about loking through that part of the city.
Q. Had you been watching that house?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you any suspicion that the party you desired to find
was there?
A. We calculated to visit there to find out whether he was
thereor not.
Q. Was the person that was with the Commissioner at that
time a person employed in the Land Office?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1051
A. I supposed it was. I then stated to the officer who was
with meMr. McGowan-We don't care what you said to him.
Question. Who did you believe that to be at the time?
Answer. I believed it to be Mr. Griswold.
Q. Do you believe so now?
A. I do.
Q. Did you ever see him in the house yourself,-see the
Commissioner?
A. I never did.
Q. Did you ever see the Commissioner on any other occasion
-except at the Chapman House, when you thought he was
under the influence of liquor?
A. I never did.
The Presiding Officer-It is nearly twelve o'clock. The
Senate sitting under a Court of Impeachment, will take a
recess until two o'clock this afternoon.
Lansing, Monday P. M., April 13, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed with the testimony in support of the articles of impeachment.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF J. H. BAKER, RESUMED.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you live in Lansing?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived here?
A. Twenty-two or twenty-three years?
Q. What is your business?
A. I am deputy sheriff.




1052     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. When were you made deputy sheriff?
A. January, 1871.
Q. Are you policeman also?
A. I have acted as such.
Q. Are you regular policeman?
A. I am not, any further than by virtue of the office.
Q. Virtue of being deputy sheriff?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you constable?
A. No further than by virtue of the office.
Q. What was your employment previous to your being made
depuy sheriff.
A. Just previous to that I was in the manufacture of chairs.
Q. How long were you in that business?
A I have been connected with it, directly and indirectly, for
a number of years. My father was a chair man.
Q. Were you, during the late war, in the service?
A. I was.
Q. How long were you in the service?
A. Between two and three years.
Q. When did you leave the service?
A. I cannot tell you exactly without going home.
Q. About when,-along in 1864?
A. I was thinking what the date of the engagement was. I
will tell you in a minute. I am not positive,-I think it was
in 1864. I think I left the service and came to Lansing sometime in June, 1864.
Q. What did you go into then?
A. I went into manufacturing chairs.
Q. Continued off and on until you were made deputy?
A. No, sir. I was in the Reform School as an overseer, and
as assistant superintendent, and acting superintendent.
Q. When did you leave the service of the Reform School?
A. In the fall of 1866.
Q. Now, when was it that you were present at the Chapman
House, that you refer to in your testimony?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1053
A. I cannut-.tell the month. It was sometime last season.
Q. What was the occasion.
A. It was the occasion, as near as I could understand, of
Jesse Conkling having got married, and returned home,-a sort
of jubilee.
Q. Did you say it was on or about the month of July?
A. I did not. I said I could not say positively, to place it;
and I said I could not state it. It was sometime last season.
Q. Do you not remember it was last spring, instead of last
summer?
A. I do not remember it.
Q. Was it not as early as last May?
A. My best recollection would say not,-it might have been.
Q. Is not it your best recollection that it was previous to
July?
A. My own judgment is that it was not.
Q. It was after the first of July?
A. I am not positive. It was sometime during the summer,
or sometime during warm weather,-it was sometime when the
warmest was over.
Q. You were requested by the mayor to see that places were
shut up?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was the request?
A. The mayor requested me to look after certain violations
of ordinances, and report to him.
Q. Requested you?
A. Violation of the ordinance of keeping open saloons and
such things, after ten o'clock at night.
Q. The ordinance forbidding saloons and such places being
open after ten o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the Chapman House one of such places?
A. The Chapman House bar was a place of that kind.
Q. You were looking after that?
A. I was looking for what I happened to ee.




1054     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMON)S.
Q. You were not specially following the orders of the mayor
at that time?
A. Not any more than any other evening.
Q. Were you following the directions of the mayor during
the evening, right along at that time?
A. I was, right along; not directions exactly, but requests.
Q. Who was the mayor?
A. John Robson.
Q. When did he make that request to you?
A. Sometime last spring,-I cannot state when.
Q. During the spring?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you been in that business from that time up to the
time you were at the Chapman House, referred to?
A. I had been acting as deputy sheriff.
Q. Had you been watching this place concerning the violation of that ordinance?
A. I cannot say that I watched them  particularly; but
whenever I was about in the evening, and saw anything of
that kind,-carousing and noise,-my attention was called to it.
I acted by his request, and by virtue of my office as deputysheriff, and policeman, looking after that kind of disturbance.
Q. What action did you take whenever you found any one
making sufficient noise to cause their arrest?
A. I arrested them.
Q. You did not shut up the place?
A. I notified the parties that it was after ten o'clock.
Q. Did you notify the parties at the Chapman House?
A. They notified themselves,-they spoke to me about it.
Q. Who do you mean by they?
A. Jesse Conkling; and Marshall also was there,-he boarded
there,-interested themselves in their behalf.
Q. Was that the first time you were there, that Conkling told
you they were going to shut up?
A. I cannot say whether it was the first or second time.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1055
Q. What is your best recollection with regard to that?
A. It is hard to tell.
Q. Why is it hard to tell?
A. Because the conversation happened the first, and might
have happened the second time.
Q. It might have happened the third?
A. No, sir; I did not see him the third time.
Q. Where was Conkling, when he told you that?
A. In the bar-room.
Q. Was he back of the bar?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any one else back of the bar at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. The bar-tender.
Q. Was there any one else in the bar-room when he told
you that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you standing when Jesse Conkling told you
he was going to shut up pretty soon?
A. Near the water-tank.
Q. How far from the bar?
A. The water-tank sat on the bar.
Q. Any one else near the bar?
A. There was a crowd in the bar-room. They could not have
been a great ways from it.
Q. Do you recollect if any one else was near the bar, and if
so, who?
A. I do not recollect, specially, who stood by me.
Q. Who was in the room at that time?
A. There were a number.  I think Van Dunham, Mr.
Edmonds, Mr. Conkling, Mr. Hotaling, and Mr. Griswold. I
could not say positively whether these gentlemen were all in the
room, exactly. I met those gentlemen there during the
evening.




1056     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was Tom Marshall there at that time Marshall told you
that?
A. I cannot say whether he was in the room or not. I met
him in the hall.
Q. Was Mr. Daniels there at that time?
A. I saw him there during the evening.
Q. You do not know whether he was there at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. What were you doing at the bar?
A. Taking a glass of water.
Q. Had you been taking a glass of anything else?
A. When I first went into the room I took a part of a glass
of champagne.
Q. How long after drinking the champagne was it Conkling
told you this?
A. It could not have been but a moment.
Q. You took the water immediately after the champagne?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect now, whether that was the first or second
time you were there that night?
A. I cannot recollect positively. I took a little champagne
both times,-the first and second.
Q. You took a little each time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it champagne?
A. I am not a judge of liquors; they called it champagne.
Q. Did they have any other liquors there that night?
A. I did not see anything else.
Q. Do you know whether they had?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know Gottlieb Straub?
A. I do.
Q. Did you see him there?
A. I have no recollection of it.
Q. Did you drink more than once the first time you were
there.?




PRQOERBDINGS OF THE COURT.              1057
A. No, sir.
Q. What time was it you were there the first time?
A. To the best of my recollection it was about ten. o'clock.
Q. Was that the time Conkling told you he was going to
close up pretty soon?
A. I am not positive.
Q. Where did you go when you went away that time.?
A. I walked up the street,-up near the corner.
Q. Where else?
A. I am not positive whether I went to the lock-up or not.
I went up the street, and soon after I walked back.
Q. Did you go away alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you do this walking about alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you went to the lock-up, did you go there alone?
A. I did.
Q. You do not know whether you went to the lock-up, or
not?
A. I am not positive that I walked around that way.
Q. How long did you stay there the first time you were
there?
A. A few minutes.
Q. How long?
A. It may have been ten minutes.
Q. May it not have been fifteen or twenty?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long were you away before you returned?
A. Half to three-quarters of an hour.
Q. When you came back you took another drink?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which time did Edmonds take you up to the bar?
A. The first time.
Q. You say you kind of protested at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
133




1058    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Revolted, as you call it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How hard did you revolt?
A. He had hold of me on one side and some one else on the
other side and they proposed to pour it down me; I told them
I would drink it if they would let me alone, and I drank part
of it and poured the rest out on the floor.
Q. You only drank once at that time?
A. That is all.
Q. When you came back, whom did you drink with?
A. With the crowd.
Q. Nobody dragged you up?
A. They brought it to me,-some one of the crowd.
Q. The second time?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they going to pour it down you then?
A. They proposed to pour it down then.
Q. They proposed to make you drink it? You proposed to
do the pouring yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you drink at any other time than that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you at one time take a glass and go to Griswold
and ask him to touch glasses?
A. At the time I was called to the bar-I recollect that instance, at the time they brought this liquor to me, I recollect
of some one — think, Griswold-got his, and brought it to me.
I had had a little talk with him, and he wanted to know if I
meant what I said, and touched his glass with me. That was
the second time I was in there.
Q. When you returned the third time, did you drink?
A. No, Sir; only drank twice that night.
Q. How long did you stay there, that night.
A. A few moments.
Q. About how long?
A. I might have been talking with Griswold, in the hall,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1059
three minutes. I might have been in the bar-room  five
minutes.
Q. About eight minutes?
A. It might have been ten or twenty minutes that I stopped
in- the house the second time.
Q. Then did you go away alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Straub there the second time?
A. I am not positive.
Q. No recollection of seeing him during the evening.
A. No, sir; I saw him so often, I would not place him that
night.
Q. How long were you gone the second time?
A. I think half an hour, or probably more.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I went across the street and sat down.
Q. Alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you stay there all the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. To the postoffice.
Q, What did you go across the street and sit down for?
A. I didn't propose to go away until the crowd shut up.
Q. Were you not a little tired?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. To the Chapman House.
Q. From where you was seated?
A. I went to the postoffice, then across to the sidewalk, and
then down to the hotel.
Q. Directly to the hotel, that way?
A. Yes,' sir.
Q. Then you sat on the opposite side of the street half an
hour?




1060     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. No, sir; all the time i was out, I was on Michigan avenue, and between the hotel and Washington avenue.
Q. When you came back there, the last time, who was present at the Chapman House?
A. I didn't see any one. Thomas Marshall, I think, met
me at the door. I didn't go in then; the thing had quieted
down then, and the parties had gone away.
Q. What time was that?
A. Between eleven and twelve o'clock at night.
Q. Can you not fix the time more particularly than that?
A. No, sir; I would not judge within half an hour at that
time of night, without looking at my watch.
Q. What is your best judgment of the time of night you
returned there the last time?
A. Between eleven and twelve.
Q. You saw no one but Marshall, first?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was the talk you had with Marshall?
A. I met him in the hall, and he put hlis hand on my
shoulder and said, "Jim, it is all quiet now; we have got Edmonds to bed; things are all right;" and I said "I am glad of
it," and went out.
Q. Do you say you did not go into the building?
A. Into the door-way.
Q. Over the threshold?
A. I can't say whether over the threshold.
Q. Does that door open directly into the saloon?
A. No, sir; it opened into the hall going up stairs.
Q. You saw no one but Marshall?
A. I think not. Not in the hall.
Q. In the house?
A. That is what I mean.
Q. How long were you there with Marshall?
A. Just a moment.
Q. He told you they had got Edmonds to bed, and things
were quiet?




PROOEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1061
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you play billiards anywhere that night?
A. Not there, I might have played billiards early in the
evening.
Q. Do you know whether you did or not?
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Didn't you play billiards at the Chapman House that
night?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Didn't you ask Griswold to play a game of billiards
with you?
A. No, sir.  Griswold was in the billiard-room  when I
went into the Chapman House the second time.
Q. Did you and he commence a game of billiards'?
A. No, sir; he and somebody else did.
Q. I did not ask you that. Didn't you ask him to play a
game of billiards, and you and he went into the billiard-room
and commenced playing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you play awhile and you got so drunk you
couldn't count the billiards?
A. No, sir. I never was drunk in my life.
Q. Didn't you dance the "juba " that night 
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not spat your knees for somebody else?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you spat your knees in the presence of those you
have named, for some one to dance,-in the presence of Straub
and Daniels?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Your mind is clear on that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You testified before the committee in regard to this
matter?
A. I was before the committee.




1062     TRIAL OF CHARLES A, EDMONDS.
Q. Didn't you there testify positively that Mr. Edmonds
was so drunk that he had to be carried to bed?
A. I used the term " assisted."
Q. What do you say about it now? That he was so drunk
that he had to be assisted to bed?
A. I said I so understood it.
Q. Was that what you stated before the committee?
A. I did. I said he was so drunk he had to be assisted to
bed, I thought.
Q. Did you not swear positively before the committee, that
he was so drunk that he had to be carried to bed?
A. I did not.
Q. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. The question was asked you " Have you knowledge enough of him,the Commissioner,-to speak of his habits of temperance or
intemperance," and the answer, "I have seen him frequently.
I saw him at one time so much intoxicated that he had to be.
carried to bed." Did you say that?
A. I used the word " assisted." I understood it so at the
time.
Q. Did you say at the time, you were speaking from hearsay
evidence?
A. I stated the circumstance,-related it as I understood it.
Q. Did you state to the committee you were speaking from
hearsay?
A. I so understood it.
Q. Did you give your testimony in under oath then?
A. Yes, sir, I was sworn.
Q. You say, now, you did not see him carried to bed?
A. I did not.
Q. You had no personal knowledge of his being carried to
bed?
A. I say now, and said before, he was not carried to bed, bu t
assisted.
Q. Who took the testimony before the committee?
A. I cannot say.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1063
Q. He was a reporter?
A. He was. Yes, sir.
Q. A short-hand writer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said, before the committee, he was assisted to bed?
A. That was the way I understood it.
Q. How did you then understand he was assisted to bed?
A. By Thomas Marshall.
Q. You understood that Thomas Marshall assisted him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you understand that Thomas had assisted him
to bed?
A. From the fact that Thomas Marshall told me so. He
said, " I have just got Edmonds to bed."
Q. Did he say he had assisted him to bed?
A. He had just come down stairs, and I saw what I took to
be such.
Q. What did you see?
A. I saw some one at the head of the stairs that I supposed
to be Edmonds, and I saw some one with him.
Q. Did you see any one other than that?
A. No, sir.
Q. You waited there until Marshall came down stairs?
A. I went in there.
Q. Which time was it you were at the Chapman House you
saw these people at the top of the stairs?
A. The last time.
Q. When you opened the door you saw some one at the top
of the stairs?
A. No, sir.
Q. How was it?
A. I was outside.
Q. The door open?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who opened the door?
A. There did not anybody open it.




1064     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. iEDMONDS.
Q. How did you see him at the top of the stairs?
A. The door stood ajar.
Q. A little way open?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you could see these parties?
A. I saw some parties there.
Q. When you came along and looked up, you saw some parties on the stairs?
A. Yes, sir, going up.
Q. How long did you stay?
A. Until this party came down.
Q. Did you stand there until this party came down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this party was Thomas Marshalll?
A. Yes, sir, I understand it to be Thomas Marshall.
Q. Is there any doubt about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then it was Thomas Mashall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then do you say you saw Thomas Marshall on the stairs
going up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You waited until he came down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long was he gone?
A. Probably three minutes.
Q. What did he say to you?
A. He tapped me on the shoulder,-ho called me Jim,-he
said';Jim, we have got Edmonds to bed now; it is all right."
Said I to him, in a familiar way, " I am glad of it."
Q. When you were testifying before the investigating committee was that all the knowledge you had of Edmonds being
carried to bed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say he was quite intoxicated that night?
A. Yes, sir,-I so understood it.




PROUEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1ts
Q. What did he do that indicated intoxication?
A. Oh, his noise and talk.
Q. Did he talk very loud?
A. Above the usual tone of voice.
Q. Anything else?
A. One other thing,-he took me by the collar and wanted
to force me to drink. He was a stranger to me,-I had never
spoken to him before.
Q. Anything else?
A. General appearance and general actions.
Q. What are those general appearances and general actions?
Describe them.
Q. He acted as though he was very much excited; he was
bound this one should drink, or that one should drink, and
pulling, and hauling, and shoving about.
Q. Did he pull anybody else up to drink?
A. I cannot say that he pulled anybody else up, but I saw
him take hold and pull around in a sort of pow-wow, I should
term it.
Q. Do you mean that Mr. Edmonds was then pushing and
scuffling?
A. I mean that Captain Edmonds was intoxicated then, —
an intoxicated man, by his actions.
Q. What were those actions?
A. I have explained that.
Q. Did you see him take hold of any one beside yourself?
A. I cannot say that he did, but I think he did.
Q. Who did he take hold of?
A. I could not pick out any.
Q. Didn't you meet Griswold that night?-he came up
to you and asked you what you were doing there, and you told
him you were a little " on it," in answer to that question?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't he ask you why you didn't arrest some of them?
A. No, sir, he asked me if I was going to.
134




1066     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Didn't you tell him in answer to that, that you were not
in a condition to arrest any one,-you thought that you would
not do that?
A. I did not tell him any such thing. I told him I did not
want to arrest any of that party.
Q. You think you saw Edmonds and one of his clerks come
out of Alice's?
A. I think I did.
Q. When was it?
A. To the best of my recollection it was about the first of
last September. I cannot give the date.
Q. Who was with you?
A. Miles Bosworth, the under sheriff of Eaton county.
Q Where were you when you saw him go into the house?
A. Just below the house,-east.
Q. On the sidewalk?
A. I cannot state positive whether we were on the sidewalk
or not. We were just below the house; we had been west of
the town, and had driven down there.
Q. In a buggy?
A  I think we were still in the buggy; we had just driven
down. I know just how the horse stood, but I think we were
yet in the buggy; I don't think we had got out.
Q. Did you get out of the buggy afterwards?
A. I am  not positive whether we got out of the buggy
then, or after we went to another place on the flats.
Q. You went to another place?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. To a widow woman's.
Q. You were looking for somebody?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To arrest him?
A. Yes, sir; we could not find him.
Q. Who was it.
A. His name was Clark Sloan, if I recollectright.




PROCEEDINGS OF THiE COURT.,              10.67
Q Had you a warrant for him?
A. The under-sheriff had.
Q. Who issued that warrant?
A. Somebody in Charlotte.
Q. Do you know who?
A. I did not look to see.
Q. Do you know what the date was.?
A. It was dated the day before, I think. I am not positive,
although I have seen the warrant.
Q. Now, you say the man named in the warrant was Clark
Sloan?
A. I think so.
Q. What was he charged with?
A. Bigamy.
Q. And you were looking around Alice's for him?
A. We were trying to find him.
Q. You say you were going in there to see if you could find
him,-was it usual to look in such places for bigamists?
A. Any criminal that we have a warrant for, if a man, and
he wants to get away, he generally goes to places of that character.
Q. How as to women that commit offenses,-do they go
there too?
A. I don't know that I ever had a warrant for a woman but
once.
Q. Do you know whether they go there to hide?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not take one there yourself and hide her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn't there one kept there for you some time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not take a woman from the Lansing House last
winter and ask Alice to keep her?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you and this officer go in there to find your man?




1068     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I am not positive whether we did that night or the next
night.
Q. You went in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are not positive whether you went in there that
night or the next night?
A. I am not positive whether we went in that night or the
next night. I was looking for him two days.
Q. Did you find him?
A. No, sir; I have not found him yet.
Q. You are not positive whether you was in the buggy or
out of it when Edmonds came out?
A. I am not positive.
Q. Which way was your horse headed?
A. I think a little southeast. He was going east, and we
halted and turned him a little round sideways.
Q. Then your best recollection is that you were sitting in
the buggy?
A. Yes, sir, that is my best recollection.
Q. If you had driven past there and was sitting in the buggy,
you would have to turn round to see?
A. We turned the horse in a little southeast direction.
Q. Were you in an open buggy, or covered carriage?
A. An open buggy.
Q. Was this man with you disfigured in any way. Had he
lost a limb?
A. He is a one-armed man,-the officer is.
Q. You say you saw Capt. Edmonds and one of his clerks
come out of there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you think that clerk was Griswold?
A. I so stated to him at the time.
Q. Are you pretty positive about it?
A. Quite positive.
Q. Are you just as positive now that that was Griswold as
you were when you testified before that committee?




PROCOEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1069
A. Yes, sir, just the same.
Q. Did you have any talk with Griswold on the steps of the
depot, the next day after the Legislature adjourned, after this
impeachment was ordered?
A. I am not positive.
Q. You do not recollect?
A. Not positively.
Q You are not positive whether you had?
A. I have had several conversations with him.
Q. Did'nt he there talk with you about your testimony?
A. He has talked with me about my testimony.
Q. Did'nt you then and there tell him you did not know
whether it was him or not?
A. I did not ever tell him that. I told him I was positive
that night it was him, so much so that I told this officer that
was with me, that it was Griswold.
Q. You told Griswold that you told the officer so?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the talk at the depot?
A. I cannot tell whether there, or somewhere else. I have
told him that, somewhere.
Q. You said at the depot the next day after the adjournment of the Legislature, that you did not say to Griswold in a
conversation that you were not sure that he was the man that
came out of there.
A. I never said to Mr. Griswold I was not sure.
Q. Where had you been that night,-you and this one-armed
officer?
A. We had been out to Mr. Sloan's house, west of town.
Q. Where else had you been?
A. Had not been anywhere.  We had driven to the livery stable, to Mr. Sloan's house, and back into town. At the
time we saw him we were just in front of Alice's.
Q. Was there any moonlight that night.?
A. I think it was starlight.
Q. Was there any moonlight?




1070     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I think not; I think it was starlight, although it may
not have been. I am not positive it was; we could see to drive
easy enough.
Q. What time in the night was it?
A. My best recollection is, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of ten o'clock. We left town, I think, a little after eight,
and drove out here, two or three miles, and halted long enough
to satisfy ourselves that the party was not there, and came
back, and it was on our return.
Q. You think it was between ten and eleven?
A. I think it was in the neighborhood of that,-must have
been half-past ten or eleven, or from ten to eleven,-somewhere
along there, I could not tell positive.
Q. What made you think it was Mr. Edmonds?
A. Why, from his appearance.
Q. What about his appearance?
A. Well, I know him when I see him.
Q. Anything about his walk, or manner, or dress?
A. There was something about his manner and dress, yes,
sir.
Q. Anything else?
A. Nothing special.
Q. Nothing special?
A. Only manner and dress; we understand he is a onearmed man.
Q. Did you notice that this man, coming out of there, was a
one-armed, man?
A. I could not tell, the sleeve hanging, whether there was an
arm in it or not.
Q. Do you recollect whether your attention was called to
that or not?
A. Not to that particularly; no, sir.
Q. If you should be mistaken about it being Edmonds; it
might have been a man with two arms.
A. I am not mistaken about itsbeing..Mr. Edmonds.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1071
Q. You are very positive, are you?
A. I am quite positive.
Q. Are you equally positive about Griswold?
A. I am.
Q. Had you been to any saloons that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you drank any champagne?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, was it not you and the one-armed man, with you,
that you saw come out of there?
A. No, sir. You might have seen us coming out ot there,
if you had been there.
Q. You are not sure whether you went in that night, or not?
A. Notpositive; no, sir.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. We went down to a widow woman's.
Q. How long did you stay?
A. A few moments.
Q. Did you go in?
A. We did.
Q. Both of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Probably fifteeen or twenty minutes.
Q. Were you looking for your prisoner there?
A. We were.
Q. For a man charged with crime?  You didn't find him?
A. One of his wives was there.
Q. One of them-?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from there, where did you go?
A. I am not positive, as I said, whether we drove back and
went into Alice's, that night, or whether we went to the livery
stable and put out our horses.
Q. Then you either went to Alice's or to the livery stable.




1072     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDM-ONDS.
If you did not go to Alice's from the widows, you took your
horses directly back to the livery stable?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the next night you drove again?
A. No, sir. The next night we did not drive. We walked.
I recollect now.
Q. Now that night you went to Alice's?
A. No, sir. I recollect all about it now. We footed it,walked.
Q. Then you think now, that you did not go to Alice's that
night?
A. We didn't go in, that night.
Q. Did you go there to go in?
A. We was calculating to go in there when we drove down.
I know that, and we drove up in front of the house, and the
doors opened. We were driving by.
Q. You were driving by?
A. Yes, sir. We should have hitched and gone in if there
had not been some one coming out.
Q. What difference did that make,-somebody coming out?
A. We was pretty well satisfied our man was not there, if
such parties were in there.
Q. Now, sir, was not it the fact, that you was afraid of being
seen there?
A. No, sir; I am not afraid of being seen there. If I want
to go there, I go there in the day-time.
Q. You do go there nights?
A. I have been there nights.
Q. Down to the Chapman House, you had a talk with Griswold in the hall, about arresting him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where was it?
A. I had a talk with him, and he wanted to know if I wanted to arrest him.
Q. There was some talk about arresting him?
A. I did:nottalkiabout arrestingihit;-he did.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1073
Q. Was there any one present when you were talking with
Griswold about that?
A. I don't think there was.
Q. Were you ever wounded in any engagement in the army?
A. I was.
Q. Drawing a pension?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you not dishonorably dismissed?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it not so reported in the Adjutant Genera's reports?
A. I was discharged for being absent, under Order No. One
Hundred and -; I can't tell the number now. There Was
o many officers absent at that time, and I was unable to return, and they were discharged.
Q. Were you absent on account of wounds?
A. I was absent on account of wounds; yes, sir.
Q. You have seen Van Dunham drunk?
A. I have.
Q. Any other time than at the Chapman House?
A. I have seen Van Dunham drinking-what I call intoxicated-on the streets; not drinking on the streets, of course,
don't understand me,-but I have seen him under the influence of liquor.
Q. While on the street?
A. While on the street.
Q. How drunk have you seen him,-so he staggered?
A. I have seen him so he could not walk straight; yes, sir. I
have seen him so he would get.hold of parties and talk to
them, and hang on to them, and do as you see other drunken
men do.
Q. How frequently?
A. Oh, a good many times; I don't know.
Q. In the day-time?
A. I have seen him intoxicated in the day-time.
Q. In your direct examination before dinner, did you not say
m:s




1074     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
that he frequently drank, but did not frequently get drunk in
the day-time?
A. I state now that he frequently drinks and gets tight, but
then he don't get tight in the day-time as often as he does in
the evening. I have seen him under the influence of liquor in
the day time.
Q. How often do you think you ever saw Van Dunham
drunk?
A. Oh, I could not state.
Q. Ten or twelve times?
A. Oh, I don't know anything about it  Van Dunham is a
man that drinks a great deal.
Q. Well, we will accept that. You have seen him drunk a
number of times; about how often?
A. I could not tell; a good many times.
Q. Well, have you twenty-five times?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you remember of testifying before the Committee in
regard to Van Dunham's being drunk?
A. I remember some talk in regard to his being drunk, there.
Q. Didn't you tell the committee you had seen him drunk a
hundred times?
A. No, sir, I don't think I did. There was considerable of
that testimony there, that is in there, that was conversation
between the committee and I, that Mr. Reporter wrote down,
and a good deal in there that ain't just as it was, according to
my idea of things.
Q. Do you suppose that is so of other witnesses who testified before the Committee?
A. I don't know. I never had an opportunity to read and
sign mine; never had an opportunity to see it at all.
Q. Let me read a little of it, and refresh your memory.
A. Well, go ahead.
[Counsel reads.] " Q. Do you know what capacity he is in?"
(referring to Van Dunham.) "A. I know  nothing only a
clerk. I have seen Van Dunham drunk a good many times.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1075
I have seen him, perhaps, a hundred times." Q. Did you
make such a statement as that?
A. I don't know whether I did so or not,-I don't think I
did. I may have said so,-I presume I have if I should put it
right down to every time I have seen him out,-I presume I
have seen him that number of times.
Q. So, if you said so, you are going to stick to it, now?
A. No, sir, that ain't the idea; but I say, in a casual way of
speaking, I should say I had seen him under the influence of
liquor, a hundred times, if any one should ask me that question fair and square.
Q. Now, don't you rather think you said that before the
committee?
A. I don't think I said so in any examination.
Q. Don't think you did?
A. No, sir, I think not.
Q. You don't think you said anything about a hundred
times?
A. I don't know anything about how many times I said. I
believe whatever I said to the committee.
Q. Do you know an old gentleman in this town who drives
a dray and carries the name of Asa Shattuck?
A. I do.
Q, Have you had any talk with him about this case?
A. I have, a little.
Q. When did you talk with him?
A. I had one conversation with him,-that is, I had one
when he done an errand for me, and then the answer, I can't
tell exactly what it was; if I recollect right, it was before the
impeachment was commenced; it was not directly in regard
to this case.
Q. Have you not had a talk with him directly in regard to
this case, after the impeachment was ordered, and since the
adjournment of the Legislature?
A. I don't think it was since the adjournment of the Legislature; I know the conversation I had with him.




1076    TRIAL OF CHARILES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you not ask him to find out by Alice, if she ever
knew of Edmonds being drunk?
A. Not directly that question.
Q. How direct was it?
A. I asked him to get me the names of parties, if any, that
had been to Alice's on drunken sprees with Mr. Edmonds.
Q, Did you not tell him you would give him ten dollars for
the information.
A. I did not. I told him I would pay him for all the trouble I made him. I did not say ten dollars.
Q. Did you say anything about ten dollars to him?
A. I did not. I told him I would make it pay him well.
Q. Did you not tell him that you was making money out of
the Edmonds impeachment case, and that he might just as
well make some as you?
A. I did not, in that language.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told him I got my pay for it, and I would pay him.
Q. You did Diot tell him you was making money out of the
Edmonds case?
A. No, sir; it was before the case commenced.
Q. I asked you if you did not have a conversation with him
since the adjournment of the Legislature.
A. This conversation, sir, was before the adjournment of the
Legislature. It was while I was at work for Mr. Porter.
Q. You are one of the Assistant Sergeants-at-Arms here?
A. Iam.
Q. Working in the employ of the State?
A. I am.
Q. Have you not also been working up this case in the
employ of an individual?
A. Not since the trial commenced.
Q, How long previous to the trial did you cease your employment with that individual?
A. [Referring to memoranida,] It was on or about the 22d
of March.




PRCBBC INGS OF TH1  COIOURT    1Q
Q. About the 22d of;March?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was this conversation that you had with the old
man Shattuck?
A. On the corner of the street down here.
Q. Here in Lansing?
A. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF MILES L. BOSWORTH.
Miles L. Bosworth, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives,
testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Charlotte, Eaton County.
Q. Your occupation?
A. I am under-sheriff there.
Q. What was your occupation in 1871, in September, or
about that time?
A. Under-sheriff.
Q. Have you heard the testimony of Mr. Baker, just given?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect being present with him on that occasion?
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. What was the occasion of your presence with him,-what
were you doing with him?
A. He had a warrant for a man, and he was with me.
Q. What was he doing with you?
A. We were looking for the man.
Q. Where did you go on that night that he speaks of?
A. We went from here, west of town.
Q. Did you have a buggy?
A. Yes, sir-a horse and buggy,-went out there, and
returned.
Q. What time did you go out there?




1078     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. We did not start until after dark from here. It must have
been near eight o'clock.
Q. When you started?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were you gone?
A. I do not know just how long, probablyQ. Nearly how long?
A. An hour and a half or two hours.
Q. What time did you get back to town?
A. It must have been half-past nine, I should think?
Q. When you came back, what road did you come in on?
A. On what is called the Lansing and Battle Creek State
road.
Q. Where did you go when you left that road?
A. We went directly east.
Q. On what street?
A. I do not know the name of it,-east of Alice's house.
Q. Do you know where Alice McCabe lives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it in the street where she lives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know her house?
A. I do.
Q. When you arrived in front of her house whom did you
see?
A. We were driving along slowly. We were going to stop.
Mr. Baker says, "There is some one coming out;" and we
drove by a little west, or east, and there was two gentlemen
came out; and he made the remark to me, " There is our Land
Commissioner and Mr. Griswold."
Q. Did you observe them particularly?
A. I did not very closely; I was watching for this man.
Q. For a man you were after?
A. Yes, sir; if it had been he, I would have known him.
Q. Was it light enough for you to have known Edmonds?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1079
A. I would have known a person that I was well acquainted
with.
Q. Do you know Commissioner Edmonds?
A. I never saw him, unless I saw him then, until this trial
began.
Q. You did not know personally whether that was the Commissioner?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you know Griswold?
A. I used to meet Griswold when he was attending school in
Olivet. I did not recognize him that night.
Q. Did you recognize the appearance of the men that night?
A. Yes, sir; I looked pretty close.  I did not know but it
might be the man I was looking for.
Q. Did you observe whether either one of them had but one
arm, or anything of that kind?
A. I could not say positively whether I observed anything
like that or not.
Q. Was it a clear night?
A. It was a starlight night. I do not think there was any
moon at all. A person could recognize any one they were
acquainted with.
Q. At this moment you were in search of the man named
in that warrant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You could see well enough to satisfy yourselves that the
party coming out was not your man?
A. I knew they were not my men.
Q. How did you know,-from the height or build of your
man?
A. This man I was looking for had a very peculiar motion
in his walk. I was well acquainted with him and had been
for years.
Q. Would you have been able to have detected that man,
that time of night?
A. Oh, yes; readily.




1080     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. BDMOn1 S.
Q. Where did you go when you left this place?
A. My recollection is, here, we drove to his second wife's
aunt,-nearly north of where we were, a short distance,-went
there, and then returned there.
Q. Returned where?
A. To Alice McCabe's.
Q. Did you go in that night?
A. I think it was that night we went in. I know I never
was there but once, and I am quite positive that was the night.
Q. If you were there that night you were not there the next
night?
A. No, sir; I never was inside of her house but once.
Q. You have since seen Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not know that the man that now appears to be
Edmonds was the man you saw coming out of the house that
night? Have you any reason to think so, and if so, state it?
A. I do not know that I have any particular reason for thinking so,-enough that I would like to be positive on.
Q. So that your knowledge was derived from the statement
of Baker, on that occasion?
A. Yes, sir. I simply state what he said the gentlemen's
names were.
Q. What was the size of the men that came out?
A. I should call them ordinary-sized men, to the best of my
recollection.
Q. One of them taller than the other?
A. I do not know that I could say positively, now.
Q. Did you not notice them sufficiently for that purpose,to distinguish whether there was any particular difference?
A. My impression is, now, that there was a difference in their
height.
Q. Mr. Griswold is not so tall as the Commissioner, I believe?
A. I think not.




PROGEDINGS OF THIE  -COURT.               1081
CROSS-EXAbtINATION O.F 1 MIES jL. BOSWOTH.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan;
Question. Had your attention been called to that fact before,
-of there being one taller than the other?
A. No, sir.
Q. You simply estimated when the question was asked yo.u
Are you clear now?
A. I was trying to think.
Q. Are you clear now, that one man was taller than the
other.
A. I would not swear positively that there was.
Q. You say first they were medium sized.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If they  were both medium sized, they would.be one
height. Is there a difference in mediums?
A. There is.
Q. If there was a little margin in the medium-sized man,
would you have noticed it that night?
A. I would not have noticed it unless there was quite a discrepancy.
Q. If there was quite a discrepancy, would you say they were
both medium sized?
A. Perhaps not, in height.
Q. Will you say that one was taller than the other, or simply
that it was a mere impression?
A. I say, as I did before, I had an impression that one was
taller than the other.
Q. Did you not get the impression from the question?
A. Perhaps I did.
Q. When did you come to Lansing at that time?
A. I came that afternoon.
Q. When was the warrant issued?
A. The warrant, I see, is issued the sixth of September.
Q. Was it issued the same day that you came up here?
A. I think it was issued the day before.
186




1082     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What day of the week were you here?
A. I cannot recollect now.
Q. What makes you think that warrant was issued the day
before?
A. I wrote a letter to the complaining witness, over at Olivet, and she came here,and I went with her, to the justice's, to
get the warrant.
Q. It was a case you were working up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You think you did not start with the warrant until the
next day after it was issued?
A. That is my impression now. I might possibly have come
that day, but I do not think I did?
Q. Have you got the warrant with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you please let me see it?
[The witness produces the warrant.]
Q. Your best impression is that you came up the day after
the warrant was issued?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether the warrant was issued the same
day the complaint was made?
A. It was.
Q. And have you that date?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You think you came here the next day?
A. I think I did.
Q. You were here that night?
A. All night.
Q. Were you here the next day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the next night?
A. I think I left here about eight o'clock the next evening.
Q. Did not you and Baker go around some, the next
night, looking for this man?
A. I think we did.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1083
Q. Where did you go?
A. I think we went to this widow woman's.
Q. The one you have spoken of already?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where else, if any place?
A. We went to a Mrs. Northrop, I think her name is, that
lives on Capitol avenue.
Q. Anywhere else?
A. Not that evening.
Q. Did you go down to these two places after dark?
A. Yes, sir; in the forepart of the evening.
Q. You went away from here about eight o'clock?
A. I do not recollect now just what time the train did leave.
It used to go over to our place a little after nine.
Q. Where did you go from here?
A. Charlotte.
Q. What did you do the next day?
A. After I went to Charlotte?
Q. Exactly.
A. The next day I came back within five miles of this place.
Q. Driving?
A. I came up in the morning, about five miles, to what is
called Millets.
Q. You drove?
A. I came on the cars.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. I remained there until the next train returned. The
next train went down about half-past ten, I think, in the forenoon.
Q. What did you do the next day?
A. I cannot tell you, sir; I do not recollect.
Q. Can you fix the day of the week any way?
A. I do not think I can now; it is possible I may be mistaken about coming back up to Millet's?
Q. The evening you saw this man come out of Alice's, you




1084     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
drove, from where you were standing when they come out, to
this widow woman's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. From fifteen to twenty minutes,-perhaps a little longer.
Q. Then you went to Alice's?
A, That is my recollection of it.
Q. You are pretty clear with regard to that?
A. I am quite clear we went to Alice's that night. We had
a horse and buggy.
Q. Did you drive from the widow woman's back to Alice's
with the horse?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you hitch your horse?
A. In front of her cottage.
Q. Was there a hitching-post there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you ever been there before?
A. Not before that evening I had been up there.
Q. You knew where she lived, previous?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are sure you drove back and hitched in front of her
cottage?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You went in there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time do you think it was, you went in there, that
night?
A. It might have been between ten and eleven.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Probably stood there fifteen minutes.
Q. Make any search of the house.
A. Not in particular.
Q. In general?
A.-Mr. Baker inquired, and she told him  "No, that there




PROoE:EmTNGS 0f  THE COURT.               1085
wts nothing of the kind there;" and says: " It is Ml right, she
would not prevaricate about it."
Q. tou trusted her?
A. He did; I did to him.
Q. You were looking for your man?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You made no search there more than simply to aik her?
A. That is about all.
Q. Did it take fifteen minutes to ask that question?
A. No.
Q. Was there not some other conversation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Stood there awhile?
A. Yes, sir; a few minutes.
Q. I think, in your answer to the Honorable Manager, you
istted you came back here from out of town, at half-past nine'clock?
A, I think it was about that time.
Q. And near Alice's you saw somebody come out of the
door. Where were you when they came out?
A. We were driving along slowly, and we heard the door
rattle,-the lattice, perhaps,-and says he, " Some one is coming
out," and we drove on just past,-probably went ten feet from
thie walk. It goes out from her door perhaps further,-I do
not recollect how far.
Q. How far were you from the man who came up, when you
saw them?
A. I should say from thirty to forty feet. I do not know
just the distance.
Q. Which way were you driving?
A. We were driving east; the horse was hitched a little to
the south. The main direction, however, was east.
Q. Do you remember that you turned the horse to the
south?
A. Yes, sir, we were partially out,-we  had  partially




1086    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
turned up, and stopped there. We were out of the track, like'
-near the ditch.
Q. Didn't you get out of your buggy and follow the men
who came out?
A. We did not.
Q. All you knew about them was what you observed from
sitting in thebuggy?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Open buggy, or closed?
A. Open.
Q. You think it was between ten and eleven that you were
there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see anybody in the street when you and Baker
came out?
A. I do not recollect seeing any one now, after we saw them
the first time. There were two or three men sitting along the
fence, further north from there. After we had turned around,
and went north to this widow woman's, there were some men,
and we recognized them,-called them by name. They seemed
to be hanging around.
Q. On the fence?
A. Sitting on the walk, and around there?
Q. You say you did not notice that one of the men who
came out was a one-armed man?
A. I did not, particularly.
Q. But, half an hour later, a one-armed man and another
man did come out, that you know of?
A. Yes, sir; I was there.
Q. Who made the complaint?
A. I did.
Q When did you make it?
A. I made it, I suppose, the day of the date.
Q. Have there been any errasures of the dates?
A. Yes




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1087
Q. Who made them?
A. Mr. Hooker.
Q. When?
A. He made them the same day the warrant was issued.
Q. He first put it July?
A. I cannot state how it was put. I recollect the erasures.
I recollect going to him and having it changed. I saw there
was a mistake.
Q. Did he first write down August, upon that paper?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. Did you go back and have it erased?
A. No, sir; he wrote in the first place, September.
Q. Did you have it erased?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I understood you to say it was Septeniber?
A. I said the warrant was in September.
Q. Is not that the date of the warrant?
A. It is not, sir.
Q. What is that date that has been erased?
A. It reads the 6th of July, 1868.
Q. What is that,-the date of the warrant?
A. It is not, sir; that is the date of the complaint.
Q. July 6th, 1868?
A. The act was committedQ. What is the date as appears by the warrant?
A. 6th July.
Q. What year?
A. 1868.
Q. The date of the complaint was the 6th July, 1868,-do
you mean to be understood so?
A. No, I don't. You have got me mixed a little.
Q. Unmix yourself.
A. The date of the issuing of the warrant was on the 6th
of September, 1871, and when this act was commited-his marriage to one Miss Olin-was the 6th of July, 1868.




1088      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you so understand the man when you drew the
warrant?
A. She was by,-I did not instruct her, —she was by,-and
was not prepared to go bail for costs. I said I could make the
complaint just as well. I was knowing to the circumstance,
and I was sworn to the complaint.
Q. Did you take it back for erasures more than once?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you say that evening when you were at Alice's was a
starlight evening.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That there were no clouds?
A. I did not say; there might have been clouds.
Q. That there was no moon?
A. I think there was no moon.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. You stated that after passing Alice's house there
were some men hanging around, on the sidewalk; that Mr.
Baker addressed them?
Answer. Recognized them, I said.
Q. Did he speak to them?
A. No, he did not speak to them.
Q. I understood you to say he spoke to them.
A. Recognized them.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE FOWLER.
George Fowler, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Lansing.
Q. What is your business?
A. Mechanic.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A Since 1865.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1089
Q. Are you acquainted with the respondent in this case,Captain Edmonds?
A. I know him when I see him, and I know him by reputation.
Q. Will you state whether you ever saw him at the Chapman
House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Baker?
A. Yes, sir; since dinner, I have.
Q. You didn't hear his testimony before?
A. No, sir.
Q. Upon what occasion did you see Mr. Edmonds at the
Chapman House?
A. I saw him there several times,-well, universally, almost,the forepart of last summer, between six and seven o'clock.
Q. Do you remember of seeing him there?
A. I have seen him there, twice or three times, drunk.
Q. Can you mention any one time?
A. I cannot mention any date.
Q. Were you there on the evening of the wedding party?
A. No, sir, I was not.
Q. Different occasions?
A. Different occasions.
Q. About how long ago?
A. After the first of June, 1871, for-oh, one, two, or three
months.
Q. Two or three months after the first of June?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On several occasions?
A. A great many times,-I presume every evening for two
or three months.
Q. How many times did you see him drunk there?
A. Not less than twice, nor more than ten times.
Q. Did you ever see him  drunk at any other place in this
city?
A. No, sir.
137




1090     TRIAL OF -IHAI LES A. EtDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATIOt O  GEORGBE FOWLER.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You say you are a mechanic. How long have you
worked at the business?
Answer. Since 1867.
Q. Previous to that, what was your business?
A. Previous to my going into the army, I was a farmer, and
while I was in the army, I was a soldier.
Q. And after you went out of the army?
A. I went to work for Allen & Wise.
Q. You think you have seen him drunk three or four times?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No less than twice?
A. No, sir.
Q. You are sure it does not exceed ten?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All at the Chapman House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the first time?
A. After the first of June.
Q. How long after?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. A month?
A. No, sir.
Q. Three weeks?
A. I don't know whether it was or not.
Q. It was not a month?
A. No, sir.
Q. It might have been three weeks?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of day?
A. Between six and seven o'clock in the evening.
Q. Whereabouts in the Chapman House when you first saw
him-the first time-confine yourself to that?
A. I don't know whether I shall, the first time or second
time.




PBOGBDINGS:o0  TiE OOUBT.               1091
Q, We will confine ourselves to the first time till youget
through. If you remember the first time, state.
A. I don't remember whether the first time or the sebnd
time.
Q. Do you khow where you were the first time you saw him
drunk?
A. At the Chapman House.
Q. Where?
A. Either in the office, or in the saloon,-or in the sittingroom, or reception room, or sales-room-whatever it is.
Q. He was in that room, or on the steps?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was with him?
A. Mr. Griswold was in the sitting-room  with him, and
when he was on the steps, sitting in a chair, Mr. Bowen, —I
have been told it was Bowen. I know Mr. Bowen, but I did
not know it was Mr. Bowen at the time; but I know it was
Mr. Bowen since.
Q. Who else?
A. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Marshall, and several others, were
there in the party.
Q. Had you been acquainted with Mr. Edmonds previous to
that?
A. No, sir. I never spoke a word with Mr. Edmonds in my
life.
Q. How frequently had you ieen him previous lo seeing him
drunk?
A. Every evening.
Q. For how long?
A. From the time he commenced boarding at the Chapman
House until he went way.
Q. Was he boarding at the Chapman House when you saw
him there drunk?
A. Yes, sir; so I was told.
Q. How long had you seen him previous to the first time
you saw him drunk?




1092     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Ever since he commenced boarding at the Chapman
House.
Q. When was it?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have you no idea how long you had known him by sight?
A. A good while.
Q. More than a month?
A. Yes, sir, I think perhaps it was two months. I don't
know as it was that. I used to be in the habit of seeing Mr.
Edmonds.
Q. You have told us that a month previous to your first seeing him drunk, you saw him every evening pass the Chapman
House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you usually see him?
A. Between the corner of Washington avenue and the Chapman House, on Michigan avenue, and sometimes he would be
at the Chapman House.
Q. Usually you met him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q Sometimes he would be at the Chapman House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you remember of any occasion, or remember of anything, to fix the time when you first saw him drunk?
A. I cannot fix the date, but after the first of June.
Q. The first time you saw him drunk, what was he doing?
A. Talking and carousing.
Q. What do you mean by carousing?
A. Indecent actions and talking impolitely.
Q. To whom?
A. To his party.
Q. Did you talk with him?
A. No, sir. I never spoke a word with him in my life.
Q. How long did you stay there the first time to see him?
A. Perhaps twenty minutes.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1093
Q. What else did he do, except talk impolitely to his party?
A. Yes, sir, about all.
Q. Was it on account of the impolite talk that you thought
he was drunk?
A. His general appearance.
Q. What was that appearance'?
A. Drunken men vary.
Q. What was the fact in the case?
A. The fact was, I supposed him to be drunk. I know he
was? No, I don't know he was.
Q. Are you going to admit that it is possible you were mistaken?
A. I think I can tell a drunken man.
Q. The second time you saw him  drunk, what was he
doing?
A. He went on to-I don't know whether it was the first or
second time.
Q. The next time, the time in the room?
A. The next time it was in the sitting-room,-what was
then sitting-room and the saloon was where the office is now.
He was going from that room into the hall, and passing into
the saloon.
Q. What did he do to make you think he was drunk?
A. He was pulling somebody around that was with him.
A. Did you ever see a man pull and haul a man around that
was not drunk?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the only thing that made you think Edmonds
was drunk at that time?
A. Yes, sir; his general appearance.
Q. Do you know anything about his habits?
A. I know nothing about him at all.
Q. Did you know anything about him before he came here?
A. I have heardQ. Did you know him personally?
A. I don't know him now.




1094    TRIAL OF CQHIALES A. BIDiOEiDS.
Q. Do you know anything about his being drunk, now,
except what you saw of him at the Chapman House?
A. No, sir; only what I have heard.
Q. From personal knowledge,all you know of his drunkeness is what occurred at the Chapman House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he do the third time you thought he was
drunk?
A. Something similar.
Q. Pulling the boys around?
A. Oh, acting as a drunken man does  You know how a
drunken man does.
The Presiding Officer-The witness will answer the question.
Question. Do you recollect any other time excepting the two
times you have spoken of,-once outside and once in the
room?
Answer. No, sir; not particular.
Q. You do not particularly recollect any other time?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were not there at the time spoken of, when Conkling was married?
A. No, sir.
Q. How did you come to be passing there every evening?
A. Going home from my work.
Q. Did you stop frequently?
A. Every night.
Q. Take a drink?
A. Every night.
Q. Did you stop in the morning?
A. No, sir.
Q. At noon?
A. No, sir.
Q. Only took your drinks at night?
A. That is all.
Q. You took your drink regular every night?
A. Every night.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1095
Q. Did you take more than one?
A. No, sir.
Q. At this time when Edmonds was drunk, wasn't it possible that you were a little drunk?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not possible?
A. No, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF GEO. FOWLER.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Was the conduct of Mr. Edmonds at this time
you speak of,-at the time you supposed he was drunk,different from other times when you saw him?
Answer. Yes, sir. Different from other times I met him. I
have seen him several times in his office.
Q. Was it different from what it was in the case of a man
you supposed to be sober?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it very similar to the case of a man you supposed
to be drunk, or had good reason to believe was drunk?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GEO. FOWLER.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Did you ever see Mr. Edmonds drink?
Answer. No, sir, never in my life.
By the Presiding Officer-The Senate will now take an
informal recess of five minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
TESTIMONY OF SARAH MARSHALL.
Sarah Marshall, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Lansing.




1096     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Are you the wife of Thomas Marshall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you board in February last?
A. I lived at the Chapman House.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Edmonds, Capt. Edmonds,
who sits there at the table?
A. I have met Mr. Edmonds at the Chapman House.
Q. Did you see him there in February last any time, or last
winter?
A. I think he boarded there inl February.
Q. Did you ever see him there in a state of intoxication, or
under the influence of liquor, according to your judgment?
A. I have seen him when I thought he had been drinking
some.
Q. When was it?
A. While he was boarding there.
Q. During the last winter;
A. I believe it was then he was boarding there.
Q. In February last?
A. I could not say whether it was in February, —it was while
he was boarding there.
Q. State where it was; wherabouts in the house.
A. I never saw him anywhere only in the dining-room.
Q. Was this in the dining-room, that you observed him. Did
you observe him in the dining-room when he had been drinking,-the time you refer to? [Witness hesitates.]  You stated
that you saw him when you thought he had been drinking.
Now, I would like to know what place that was in the house,whether it was in the house or some other place?
A. Why, it was in the house.
Q. In what room?
A. In the dining-room.
Q. Who was with him?
A. I don't know.
Q. Were there others at the table?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1097
Q. It was at meal time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What meal?
A. Supper.
Q. Do you know whether he and those that were with him
continued there that night and had a drinking party after
supper?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember of hearing your husband say anything
about it,-in which he had his shirt torn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On that occasion did they that night remain, and have a
drinking party?
A. The night his shirt was torn, I guess they did.
Q. Was this the same night that you observed him  at the
supper table as having been drinking?
A. I could not say.
Q. Could not say whether it was that or another time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Will you state who was sitting at the table with him? I
want to know whether any of his clerks were with him?
A. They were most always at their meals together.
Q. The night that your husband had his shirt torn, did you
see Edmonds,-know anything about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. How did you learn that fact.
A. Not until the next morning.
q. How did you learn it?
A. The porter told me first.
Q. The porter of the hotel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his name 
A. I can't remember who was there at the time.
Q. Was your husband with that party the night they drank?
A. Yes, sir; I suppose so.
138




1098     TRIAL OF CIHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What time did he come to his room?
A. I could not say.
Q. Do you know about what time it was?
A. No, sir.
Q. Whether it was after midnight?
A. We were not  married then.
Q. Excuse me. I thought you were; I had got the impression that you had been married some time. When were you
married?
A. Last September. It was a year ago; it was not this last
February.
Q. Excuse me; I had forgotten; I thought you were married last season; and you had spoken it was last February; —
thought it would be very naturalA. I did not mean the last February.
Q. You made a mistake then; it was a year ago, February?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-If it was a year ago, February, we
will not make any further inquiry about it. I supposed it
was last February.
CROSS-EXAMI1NATIOX OF SARAH MARSHALL.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Were either of these times you have mentioned,
the time of the wedding party of Conkling's?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Which one. The time Mr. Marshall had his shirt torn?
A. No, sir.
Q. The time you thought Mr. Edmonds was intoxicated at
the supper table,-was that the time of the wedding party?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you have tea that night?
A. Six o'clock; it was after six when they came in to supper.
Q. It was after six?
A. Yes, sir.




REOO PINGS OP TBE  COURT.               1099
Q Who came in with Mr. Edmonds that night to the tea
table?
A. I don't remember; the boys always came in together.
Q. You cannot recollect what ones of his olerksa came in
with him?
A. No, sir.
Q. IQ you recollect that Mr. Bowen and Mr. Griswold were
with him?
A. I do not remember that night. They most always came
in together.
Q. You are sure the night you think he was under the influence of liquor was the same night that Conkling treated on
account of his wedding?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What made you think when he came in to the supper
table that he was under the influence of liquor?
A. They were laughing and talking, and speaking of Conkling coming home.
Q. Were the rest laughing and talking also?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were all talking about Conkling coming home?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was all?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that all you know of Edmonds being intoxicated.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know, then, of your own personal knowledge,
whether he was there at the time Mr. Marshall's shirt was
torn?
A. I did not see him. I do not remember whether he was,
that night, or not, only I heard them say he was. I did not
see Edmonds.
Q. You do not know whether he was in town that night?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember the day of the week?
A. Saturday night.




1100     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you not know that he usually went home, Saturdays,
to Coldwater?
A. I do not remember. I know he went home. I do not
know whether he went home every Saturday.
Q. When he went home he went on Saturday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This time, when Marshall's shirt was torn, was Saturday
night?
A. I think it was.
Q. You have no personal knowledge of Edmonds being
there at that time?
A. No, sir.
Qa Neither saw or heard anything yourself?
A. Nothing, only the whole of them,-the noise.
Q. Nothing directly from him?
A. No, sir.
TESTIMONY OF REBECCA HIOTALING.
Rebecca Hotaling, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. You reside in this city?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you the wife of Thomas Marshall?
A. No, sir.
Q. Hotaling?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Proprietor of Chapman House?
A. He is not proprietor now.
Q. Was he last year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In August or September last?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the occasion of a wedding party at your
place?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.              1101
Q. Whose wedding was it?
A. Mr. Conkling's.
Q. Mr. Edmonds there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether he had been drinking that night
to excess?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know whether he was intoxicated, or not?
A. He was not, the last time I saw him.
Q. What time was that?
A. Half-past nine in the evening.
Q, Where did you see him then?
A. In the hall.
Q. Who was with you when you saw him?
A. My husband.
Q. Did he have the appearance of having been drinking?
A. I could not say.
Q. What was he saying to your husband, if anything?
A. He was about going into the bar-room.
Q. State the conversation there, between yourself, the
respondent, and your husband.
A. I was getting my husband up stairs with me. I do not
remember anything that Edmonds said, only that a wedding
did not happen every day, and they had better go back and
have some fun.
Q. He desired your husband to go back and have some fun?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You wanted him to leave the crowd?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he go with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you return again to the hall?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see Edmonds again that night?
A. No, sir.




1102     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you know whether there wad any drinking thete after
that?
A. I do not know. I did not go out of my room after that
time.
Q. Was there any noise or disturbance?
A. Considerable noise.
Q. Was it within hearing of your room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear the voice of Edmonds?
A. I did not hear any voice particularly.
Q. Do you know who was there besides Edmonds?
A. I could not say.
Q. Do you know whether Griswold was there?
A. I saw him there in the evening.
Q. Van Dunham?
A. I think I saw him. I could not say. They were boarding there at the time. I presume likely they were.
Q. Did Marshall board there?
Q. Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REBECCA HOTALING.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Will you state, as near as you can, when that was?
A. I could not tell, to save me, when it was.
Q. Was it previous to July. Possibly you can fix it by the
fourth of July, recollecting what was done there, if you can?
A. I think it was before July; I would not say for sure.
Q. When did Mr. Conkling and Mr. Hotaling commence
keeping that hotel.
A. About the 1st of December.
Q. December previous?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long do you think they had been running that
house before this occasion that you speak of; was not Conkling
married in the spring?
A. I think he was; I could not say as to that.




PRtOOEfIDINGS OFTIE1   CO1MRTT.          1103
Q. Your best recolection is that it was previous to the fourth
of July?
A. I think so.
Q. You say you saw Edmonds?
A. About half-past nine that evening.
Q. Was there anyone else in the hall besides your husband
and Mr. Edmonds at the time you had the talk?
A. Mr. Conkling was there.
Q. You say he was not intoxicated at that time?
A. I do not think he was.
Q From that time your husband went up stairs, and did
not return again to the company below?
A. He was not down again until morning.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MARSHALL.
Thomas Marshall, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Are you acquainted with Edmonds?
Answer. I am not personally acquainted with him. I know
him by sight.
Q. Did you know him last February?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know him a year ago last February?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you present at any time, when he was, with his
clerks, engaged in drinking?
A. I never saw them but once together.
Q. When was that?
A. I think it was the night when Mr. Conkling was married.
Q. Did you see him in February, before that?
A. No, sir. I was not acquainted with him until he came
there to board; and I was not much acquainted with him
then. I knew him by sight.
Q. Had you never seen him intoxicated, before that time?
A. I did not see him intoxicated then.




1104     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Whether you had ever seen him intoxicated, before that
time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you at that time?
A. We drank two or three times; and I went up stairs to
get out of the crowd, and stayed their until morning.
Q. State whether he was under the influence of liquor at the
time you left.
A. I think they were all feeling pretty well.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THOMAS MARSHALL
Examined by Mr. McGowan.
Question. What time did you go up stairs?
Answer. I went up at half-past eight; went up with my
wife. She was not my wife then.
Q. Did you return to the bar-room below?
A. Not until morning. I stayed with her until about halfpast eleven, and I went into another room; and she was afraid
I would go down stairs, and she took the key and locked me
in the room until morning.
Q. What did you say at the foot of the stairs to Deputy
Sheriff Baker?
A. I do not remember seeing him that night.
Q. You recollect you stayed with the lady who is now your
wife, until about half-past eleven?
A. Yes, sir; and then I thought I would go to my room,and
she told me I had not better go there, they would come there
after me, and I heard some one go to my room. So I went into Jesse Conkling's room, and she locked me in and put the
key in he; pocket. I probably would have gone down if l
had got out.
Q. Did you that night say to Baker, "It is all right, Jim;
we have got Edmonds to bed?"
A. I don't remember seeing him that night at all. I saw
him at another spree, a week after,-not at the time Edmonds
was there.




PRO  DMN(S OFTRHE lOa  R.
Q. You saw BAketr otii anthri —peeP
A. No.
Q. You: saw hi  at another spree?
A. Not 1Bker, —mysetf cntd homie of the bog.
Q. YoA saw Baker at that time?
1. Yes, ir.
Q. Do yoa tate now yu te. not ot ht;t  e t fot oe f tohe -^ait
bteee-n ten and *levera?
A. I "was net down after half-past eigh4.
Q. You say you did not know Edmonds a year ago *til 1st
February?
A. I did not know him until he came there to board.
Q. Did you have your shirt torn?
A. Not at that time. Another time, a week after that, a lot
of the boys were there.
Q. Did Edmonds have anything to do with it?
A. Edmonds was not there at all.
Q. Can you give the time that you had that spree or wedding?
A. I think it was in the spring sometime; I could not say.
Q. Did you help Edmonds up stairs that night?
A. I told you I went up stairs at half-past eight.
Q. Did you help him up stairs at all?
A. No, sir; I can prove by a dozen men I did not.
RE-EXAAINATIONW OF THOMAS MARSHALL.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Had the gentlemen who were down below got a
pretty good start at half-past eight oclock?
Answer. They had a pretty good start. I thought I would
get out of the way as quick as I could, and I stole away and
creeped off.
Q. Did the noise continue until late?
A. It continued until I went into the room at half-past
eleven or twelve.
139




1106     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you "hoist" in any more after you left?
A. No, sir.
Q. At any subsequent itime when there was a spree at that
house, did you say anything to Mr. Baker similar to what he
stated here on the stand?
A. I do not remember as to that. I know that the State
House boys came upstairs once, and got me out of bed one
night, about a week after that, and got me down, and got to
drinking, and tore my shirt part off, and I got away from them
that night.
Q. What boys were they?
A. The State House boys.
Q. Who were they?
A. Mr. Griswold, Mr.. Dunham, and three or four others —
cannot remember which —came there.
Q. Any other clerks at the Land Office?
A. I do not remember the rest.
Q. Clarke there?
A. I do not think he was. I was not acquainted with him.
Q. Did you see Baker the night you got your shirt torn.?
A. I shall not be sure that I saw him that night, or not.
Q. What is your impression?
A. I might have seen him-I cannot tell.
Q. Do you know under what circumstances, if you saw him?
Have you any recollection about it-any impression?
A. I have not got any impression; if I saw him at all, it
was not that night. This night I did not see Baker at all; I
was not down.
Q. Have you any impression of saying any such thing to him
as he stated?
A. I do not. I might have said it that night. I know there
was sombody carried up stairs that night. This was on Saturday night. Edmonds was not there that night.
Q. Who was it that was carried up stairs?
A. I cannot tell, I was pretty tight myself. I know I got




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1107
up stairs, and knew enough to lock my room, so that they
could not get in again.
Q. Was it one-only one-that was carried up stairs?
A. I cannot tell.
Q. Your best recollection about it.
A. I cannot tell.
Q. Was there any one else drinking there, except the clerks
and the others?
A. Six, eight, or ten.
Q. Were you in a pretty fair condition to recollect what took
place that first night?
A. Oh, yes.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, will adjourn until to-morrow morning, at nine
o'clock.
Lansing, Tuesday, May 14, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President,
Hon. Morgan Bates.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Senator Sheley-Mr. President, I see Senator Mortou in his
seat. He has not been sworn in.
Senator Morton came forward and took the oath.
The President called the President pro tern. to the chair.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers on the
part of the House of Representatives will proceed in support
of their articles of impeachment. Senators will please give
their attention.
S. V. CORNELL, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. On your testimony, when upon the stand last, I
139




10s8  TRIAL OF CAOHLES A. TEMODS.
understood you to -saythat you received the descriptions ofte
lands you entered from Van Dunham?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Before you looked at those lands, did you have them
reserved for you on the plats in the office?
A. I think some of them were. I don't know whether they
were all or not.
Q. How did you have that done, and by whom?
A. I think it was some man by the name of Hewitt.
Q. Cyrus Hewitt?
A. Yes, sir, I think that was the name.
Q. What was the agreement, if any, between you -and Mr.
Hew att about reserving those lands?
A. Well, I don't remember the length of time they were
reserved, now.
Q. What was the agreement between you and Mr. Hewitt
about reserving the lands?
A. The agreement was that I was to give him ten dollars.
Q. How long was he to reserve it for you?
A. Well, as I said before, I don't know as I could state the
time, but I think thirty days.
Q. You paid Mr. Hewitt.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before or after you entered the lands?
A. Before, I think.
Q. Before you looked at them?
A. Well, I think I went to look at some of the lands before
I saw Mr. Hewitt.
Q. Do you know which ones?
A. I think it was the piece at Eaton Rapids, and a piece I
went to look at near Charlotte.
Q. Did you enter that piece?
A. At Charlotte?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir.




PROCaRDINGSI OF THE COURT.   1109
Q. How did yon know that-it was? necessary to hare them
reserved?
A. I think Mr. Van Dunham told me.
Q. Why did you not buy them alone without having them
reserved?
A. Because I would rather see them; IQ. Who directed you to Mr. Hewitt?
A. I think it was Van Dunham.
Q. Was Mr. Hewitt a stranger to you at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you call upon him alone, or did Van Dunham go
with you when you called upon Hewitt?
A. I am not certain whether I went alone or whether Mr.
VanDunham was with me.
Q. Do you remember whether you were introduced to Mr.
Hewitt by any one?
A. It is my impression that I introduced myself to him.
Q. In whose name where those lands reserved?
A. They were issued in my name.
Q. Reserved in your name?
A. Yes, sir; that is, I suppose so.
Q. Do you know how they were marked upon the plats?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Did you not look upon the plats, in the office, after they
were reserved to you?
A. I do not remember whether I did or not.
Q. How did you know they were reserved,-Van Dunham
say anything to you about it?
A. No. I think Mr. Hewitt gave me a paper. This was in
the bank,-he had business done. He gave me a paper, and I
carried it to Mr. Robinson, I think his name is.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF S. V. CORNELL.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Was that paper what they denominated scrip?
Answer. Yes, sir.




1110     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. It was on that you had your reservations made?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say you had the land at Eaton Rapids reserved
on that scrip?
A. I do not think I did. I think I went to see the land, and
some other pieces near Charlotte, before I saw Hewitt.
Q. The other land you purchased you had reserved on this
scrip, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any reserved that you did not purchase?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what became of that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what the paper was that Hewitt gave you?
Did you read it?
A. I do not think I read it over at all.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES CUMMIN.
James Cummin, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part of the House of Representatives, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Corunna, Shiawasee county.
Q. How long have you resided there?
A. Thirty years.
Q. What is your business now in that county?
A. County treasurer, sir.
Q. How long have you been county treasurer of that county?
A. Over thirteen years.
Q. Are you acquainted with a person in that county, by the
name of Bouck?
A. Not much; I have seen the man two or three times.
Q. You know him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know where he resides?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1111
A. In the town of Venice.
Q. Do you know how long he has resided there?
A, I do not, sir.
Q. What is his business?
A. He is trying to get a living, upon a small scale, farming.
Q. Are you acquainted with the description of land, upon
which he resides?
A. No, sir.
Q. You would know it, if you should hear it stated?
A. It is in section 36.
Q. 7N.,4E.?
A. That is the town.
Q. N. W. of the S. W. L?
A. I could not say, positively, sir.
Q. Do you know whether he had any trouble with the title
to the land he lives upon?
A. Yes, sir; he came to my officeQ. Did you assist him any in relation to that?
A. A little, sir.
Q. At his request?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any conversation with the Commissioner of
the State Land Office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do any business with him in relation to that?
A. I brought Bouck out here; told him he had better go,
last November, and see the Commissioner himself. He made
some excuse that he could not very well. I inquired into it
and he said he could not come until he should mortgage his
cattle; he had no money. I told him he need not do that,-I
would lend him  five dollars. I lent him  five dollars; he
claimed to be a very poor man. He came out and I got an
introduction to Commissioner Edmonds; took this gentleman
and introduced him to him, and he told his own story. I went
about a month or two after to see Mr. Edmonds about this




1112     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
matter. I wanted him to intercede for Bouck and get the
land,-get the gentleman to cancel it.
Q. Do you remember who had the land?
A. I think it was Cornell.
Q. Of Coldwater?
A. Yes, sir. Mr. Edmonds said the gentleman lived in Coldwater-he said he knew him. He said he would see him and
see if he could not make some arrangement to get the land
back for Bouck.
Q. What follows? Before you begin to talk about another
transaction, I will ask you whether you made any offers to pay
anything?
A. I told Edmonds if there was. any expenses, $20 or $30, I
would pay it myself if it could be fixed up.
Q, What did Edmonds say?
A. I think he said he felt sorry for the man; he would do
the best he could for him; or spmething of that import.
Q. What did he say about his trying to persuade him to
accept the money?
A. I do not know that he said anything about that, particularly. He said he would see him, and see what he could do.
Q. What did he say about your proposition to pay him
twenty or thirty dollars for his trouble?
A. I do not know that he said anything.
Q. Do not remember any reply?
A. I do not, sir.
Q. If you had another conversation with himMr. Shipman-Did he mean to say he was to pay Edmonds
twenty or thirty dollars for his trouble, or Mr. Cornell?
Mr. Manager Huston-That was his proposition to Edmonds;
he would pay Edmonds for his trouble, and Edmonds said he
would see Cornell.
The Witness-I want to say that it was to be paid to
Edmonds. I supposed, of course, that it would be necessary to
grease the wheel a little, and I would willingly pay that much




IPWB      IJGSI  0 F' T, COURT.         m'a3:
expenses. I do.iot know that it waap.arieularly to be given
to Edmonds or anybody else.  I supposed probably Cornell,
morethan any one else, was the inference I drew- from it.
Q. Did you have another conversation with Edmonds upon
the subject?
A. No, sir; never had but two.
Q. Did you have any correspondence with Edmonds-abont
it?
A. I received a letter sometime after that from Edmonds —
at least, I supposed it was from him. It was under his signatnre.
Q. State whether that is the letter?
A. Yes, sir.
[Letter introduced in evidence, as follows:]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE LAND OFFICe,.
Lansing, January 16, 1872. 
4' Mr. James rCmmin, Corunna:
DEAR SIR-I saw Cornell, the purchaser of the N. W. j of S.
W. i, Sec. 36, T. 7 N., R. 4 E. (licensed by Bouck), and he will
relinquish his claim and surrender his papers on the payment
of one hundred and sixty-five dollars,-says he has had better
offers by a party owning adjoining land.
"By his surrendering his papers, I could cancel the sale and
give Bouck the benefit of the purchase money, $50, which
would leave $115 to pay.
" I tried to persuade Cornell to do a little better, but that
was the best proposition he would make.
"His address is S. V. Cornell, Coldwater, Mich.
Very truly yours,'CHAS. A. EDNONDS,
" Commissioner.,
Question. Does Mr. Bouck reside on that land now?
Answer. He said, the last time I saw him,-ten days ago,that he did.
Q. Have you any personal knowledge of the trade between
Cornell and Bouck?
A. Nothing only what Bouck told me.
140




1114     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JAMES CUMMIN.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. What time in November did you come down
here?
Answer. The forepart.
Q. Is that the time you brought Bouck with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had a talk with Edmonds in the presence of Bouck?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did I understand you to say that you came again, a
month afterwards, and talked with Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir. I happened to be here in Lansing, and I called
to see the Commissioner.
Q. It was the last talk when you made the proposition of
$20 or $30?
A. I think it was.
Q. Did Edmonds. show any reluctance in assisting you in
getting the land back?
A. No, sir, I do not think he did.
Q. You did not understand that it was necessary to pay Edmonds the money, at that time, to get him to act for you? He
promised, readily enough, to assist what he could in getting
the land back?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether he said anything about his considering the
land a valid sale to Cornell.
A. I do not know that he did.
Q. Was there anything said, in either of these conversations,
about Bouck having forfeited his right to hold the land?
A. I think not.
Q. Not in the presence of Bouck,-was not that explained
to Bouck,-that he had not filedA. I understood the thing a little different. I always told
Bouck to stay there.
Q. I am speaking, now, of the conversation.
A. I do not know what there was. There might have been.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1115
Q. Was there anything said in the conversation, when Bouck
was present, about the three months' proof.
A. I do not know but there was. I could not say positively.
Q. Did Bouck ask you for an explanation of how his land
was sold away from him? He had settled upon it as a homestead.
A. I do not know that he did. He seemed to be a man that
did not understand those things.
Q. You say now in neither of these conversations with the
Commissioner that either you or he talked about Bouck forfeiting the land on failure of filing his three months' proof?
A. It might have been said, and it might not have been;
I could not say distinctly.
Q. Did you understand how it was claimed, on the part of
the Commissioner of the Land Office, that he had forfeited?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You understood it, for want of three months' proof?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether you indicated, to Mr. Bouck, the contents
of this letter?
A. I did not, sir; I thought it was too big.
Q. More than the man could stand?
A. Yes, sir; he could not pay it; it was no use.
Q. Did you see Mr. Bouck along in January, after you
received this letter?
A. No, sir; I never sent him word. I had a letter to tell
him to stay there.
Q. Did you not see him at one time and tell him  that
Edmonds had not written you as he promised you?
A. I did.
Q. When was that?
A. Prior to my receiving that letter.
Q. About how long was it after you were here the second
time before you received this letter from Edmonds?
A. I cannot say. It might have been two or three months,
and it might not have been so long. I did not keep particular
track of the thing.




1116     TRIAL OF CHA ARLES A. BIDMONDS.
Q. What is the date of that letter?
A. I don't recollect the date now.
Q, You first came here in November with Mr. Bouck?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what time in November?
A. The forepart of November. It might be the 8th, 10th,
or 12th. I came out here to make my returns.
Q, What was the occasion of your coming here the second
time?
A. There was an insurance company called the Lansing
State Insurance-Company, and I had a little stock in it, and I
received a letter from the directors that it was necessary to be
here.
Q. Can you fix it by that?
A. I cannot. That was the reason I came here.
Q. Where did you stop,-at the Lansing House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you register your name there?
A. Yes; I generally do.
Q. You think it might have been two or three months after
you received this letter?
A. No, not so long: probably a month or five weeks,-maybe six weeks. I think it could not have been more than that
I would rather not fix the time. I could not say within a
week or ten days. I did not think it was of any account, and
I let the thing pass.
RE-EXAMINATION OF JAMES CUMMINW.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. In that conversation between Mr. Edmonds and
yourself, and Mr. Bouck, state whether Mr. Edmonds was
informed of the time that Bouck had lived upon the land,
and the improvements he had made upon it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. All those circumstances were related?
A. Yes, I think it was. I think it was talked over how long
he had been there and what he had done.




AodiMaINGS oF    E  <nT. T1UISi
-i. D. BARTHOILOMEW  EBBALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Qunegtion. I want to call your attention to a sale to S. V.
Cornell, of a piece of swamp land, in town 7 north, 4 eat.
Look at the book and see whether you find anything in regard
to:tht sale.'That is one of the books of the State easurer's
ffice, you have there.?
Answer. Yes, sir. I find, Oct. 18th, 1871, the N. W.  of the
S. W. 4, section S6, town 7 N., 4 E., sold to Samuel V. Cornell.'What was paid for it?
A. Rt was forty acres,-fifty dollars. It was paid in scrip.
Q. UWarged to whom?
A. Charged to Win. A. Barnard.
Q. Do you find any entry in the first book you looked at in
regard to these lands, made after the date you referred to?
A. I find it entered in red ink, " Surrendered and canceled
Feb. 27, 1872."
Q. For what reason was that sale to Cornell canceled?
What was the reason assigned in the Land Office for canceling
that sale.
A. The only reason that has been assigned in such a case,
and the reason I always insist upon, is that it was sold in error,
-a mistake of the Land Office in this case. Mr. Robinson, I
think, in every instance, —I remember in every instance,-he came
and said it was licensed or sold in error, and canceled. They
wanted it canceled, claiming it to be an error in the Land
Office. For that reason, the hammer was struck through the
signature of the State Treasurer, and the certificate canceled,
and this entry made.
Q. And the amount of scrip credited back to Cornell?
A. I will see as to that. At the same time, directions are
always given. Yes, it is credited back to Barnard & Co.
Q. What did you understand about being sold in error? If
they did not know at the time of the sale that it was licensed?
A. Nothing specific as to that; but it was licensed by some
mistake. I inquired what kind of a mistake, and it was sold
to another party.




1118     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMlATION OF H. D. BARTHOLOMEW.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You say you were instructed by Barnard as to the
cancelation?
Answer. No, sir; by Mr. Robinson.
Q. Was there anything different in the statement of Robinson in this instance from other instances where cancelations
were asked?
A. There has been two or three cases similar to this, where
licenses run, and there have been other instances where the
lands were not licensed, and he would say that it had been previously sold,-that there was a mistake in the description,claiming it to be an entire erior of the Land Office.
Q. Did he, in each case, say it was their entire error?
A. Yes,
Q. Whether this case struck you as peculiar, in the way
Robinson stated it, or whether it was the usual way?
A. No; that was the usual way.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I offer in evidence a certificate
from the Auditor General of this State, as to the cancelation
of certain lands that have been referred to.
Mr. McGowan-There is no objection.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We claim that this testimony is
one link in the chain which we claim tends to show knowledge on the part of the respondent of certain transactions in
the office.
The following are the papers referred to:
[EXHIBIT MM.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, 
Lansing, May 13, 1872. 
I hereby certify that the accompanying abstracts, marked
respectively " A " and " B," set forth correctly the amount of
taxes assessed against the several descriptions of land therein
contained, and for the years designated; and also the amount
of such taxes rejected and charged back for each of such
years.
WM. HUMPHREY,
Auditor General of the State of Michigan.




ABSTRACT A.
STATEMIENT  of taxes of 1869 assessed against the several descriptions of Lands as stated  belowo, and returned  to the Office of
the Auditor  General;  alo  the amount of sich1 ftaxes rejected as assessed upon  State Swamp  Land?.
- 3.n 0                             EQ  1     REA -            E 
S w    of 8 w, Sec. 4,12      e...                           $  2.2   $  86    1 OT   $- 80   $1 20        2  -----   $4 4t Rejected State Swamp Land. 
W  X  of n iw, Sec. 4,12 n 6 e                                       2     1 08    188    1 00    1 50          83....    551. *
N    of s w i  Sec. 4,12 n G2    10    160    1 20    1 80                                                      89              661
Entire Sec. 5, 12 n 6 e.203 —-                                            8 10   10 00    7 50    1 50    244.     81 5T  
Se3Xof   e, Sec. 6, 12 n 6e          --------           ---       14               67       50      10       16.        211  
E 3  of n e Y, Sec. 7,12 n 6 e-             -------- ----             2    1 80    160    1 20         24.       5 0                        -
S w  4 of nw K, Sec. 7,12 n    e        ----       -----              6  -     5      80       60      1 2      20.....    2 53
S w  of s w, Sec., 12 n 6 e —                                     22    8 - 1 07   80   16   26                             8 887'-    
Sw     of sw,  Sec. 8,12n6e................ ——.      22       86    11          80    1 20      26.....        41  
N e   ofs e, Sec. 8,12n6e.........              22       86    107        80    1 20       26.....    441 
N w     of n w, Sec. 9,12 n 6 e...-..... -..... — -- -          16       65      8u       60      90       20...        381 
N           w  efl  s, Sec.18, 12 n 6 e....86    846    4 2T    8 20                                 64    104....    134T 1  
W  Xof s w,Sec.18, 12 n6e..-68..              -.,-.                       2T70    388 -2 50 080.50   81...  1052' 
S e X of n e 3, Secc. 17, 18I n 6 e-...... -....                20    2 61    2 40.       1             $  01    6 8   Charged County. C
8 e j  of nw 3, Sec 22,18 n 6e-                                      16      65       80       6         2      20.12         2 5   Rejected State Swamp Land.               C
N e Y3 of s e 4. Sec. 27. 13 n 6 e-...-18                    54.     6        50      10       16.          2 10         
E      of s w, Sec. 2, 1 n 6 e...........................   1 80    160    1 20           24   4T98....        5264  
Se    ofne, Sec.81,1  n 6 e..............         --------       16       65      80       60    192   28 00...   2 82S 
E     f  of  e Y, Sec. 81.13n6e........................-             108    1        1 00       20   2T 79...    84 6
W       of s w r, Sec.82, 1 n 6 e................... —-----         2     1 08              100    8 20   2T 79......    4 6T
N w o, Sec. 84,13 n 6 e.2.5..                           9 2       82  240        48  111 63...        120 95
Nw     of n e, Sec. 4,18n 6e............-..        14 54             0T      50      10       16......          
Amount of tax discharged  1..........-....$8 12  $84 26  $41 48  $29 80  $22 08  250  1 T              o01   850 1 
S e 34 ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ofnw},S.2,1n6e.............16 5 806




ABSTRACT B.
STATE (MENT of taxes of 1870 assessed against the several dew'tioit                    qf W:    t    s r vww, &*d returned to the off   of  the
Auditor General; also, of the amount of suck taxes reject   as aisewssJ Upon,at Swamp  Lands.
StUBDIVISION OF SECTIONS.                    g             ~  1REMARKS.
8w:~ ofn g  S iR 3~(ec. 18,12n  6                               of........  60                                  q
w i of nw. Sec. 18,12 n6c................- $0 19         $098      ~0 46    $0181    $0n82 6... $2786 sold State, October, 18TI, for$4 90.
W3 of s w  M, Sec. 18,12 n 6 e..................      60      800       140       2 50      1..         850   faid, April 6,1871.
W      of s w, Sec. 82, 13 n 6 e..................  24     120         86      100       800......       6 00   old8State, October,1871,for$870.
$1t03     $518    $2.42    $4_81    $4                     $. 17 2
S w    of sw, Sec. 4,12 n6c -.-.-..-..... —-     $0 19     $096    $045    $0 80    $1.                   $365    ejetedStateSwampLand.
W j4 ofu w X, Sec. 4,12 n,6 e —-----------—.-         24      120         56      1o00      I                   45 5 
of s w,Sec. 4,12 n 6 e................ —-----     29      144         67      10         1.4.     
fntlre Sec. 5,2 n 6 e-............-.........-..     180       9 00      420       960       8 q                25 50.
S e     of s e, Sec. 6, 12 n 6 e... —-..... —-----—.. —  12  60        28        50        20                170...... 
E 3 of n e M, Sec. 7,12 n 6 e....................      29      1 44        67      120         48   4.08.....   4
Sw of nw,Sec. 7,12n 6 e.................-.           14        72        84        60        24....          04.. 
S w  of  w, Sec. 7, 12 n 6e... —-------------      19        96        45        80        82                2 72
of s w, Sec. 8,12 n 6 e..-.............      19        96        45        80      125                 8 65. 
Ne e   of n e,Sec. 8,12 n 6 e..................      19        96        45        80      125                  8 65
N w      of nw, Sec.9, 12n6e —....... —....-        14        72        84        60        94                274  
E3      ofnwfl,Sec.18,12 n6e e... —...-..      88      1 96        92      1 68        64                58 53
Nw    of nwfl, Sec. 18, 12 n 6 e..............     19        98        46        81        82.          2 76
S e  of n e4, Sec. 17, 1       n 6 e.................  19      390       148       120       2 58     $0 01      986  Charged County.
8e   of n w, Sec. 22, 18n6e.................        14        98        34        60        24......      205  Rejected State SwampLand.
Ne  of s e M. Sec. 27, 18 n 6 e..-..............     12        60        28        50        20......      1 70                       
EXof  w, Sec.27,13 n6e....................          29      1 44        67      1 20        48......    4 08 
S e M of n e M, Sec. 81,-18 n6 e.................     14        72        84        60      1- 80.....        60  
E   of  e. Sec.81,18n6 e....................          24      1 20        56      1 00      8 00......      600..
N w M, Sec. 84,18 n 6 e..........................      58      2 88      1 84      2 40        96......      8 16
N w M of n e, Sec. 84,18 n 6 e.................     12        69         8         0        20                1 70...
Amount of tax dicharged..-...........        $617    $897        15 68   $26 24    $22 78      $0 91  $104 70




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1121
O. B. QUIGLEY, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. I think you have stated that you are acquainted
with Mr. Edmonds?
Answer. I believe so; yes, sir.
Q. A number of years?
A. Yes, sir. I said two years, I think.
Q. Are you acquainted enough with his habits, seen enough
of him, during the past two years, to state as to his conduct,
touching his temperance and sobriety?
Mr. McGowan-Does the question go back?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-During the past two years, since
1871. [To witness:] State whether you have been intimate
enough with him to learn anything of his transactions,-that
is, his general habits of drinking. I am not asking you what
they are, but whether you have been familiarly acquainted
enough to state?
Answer. Yes, sir, I have been familiar with him, and
acquainted, so far as that matter is concerned.
Q. Will you state whether you have seen him intoxicated,
from the too free use of ardent spirits, since January, 1871?
A. What do you mean, when you ask me "intoxicated?"
Q. Well, under the influence of spirituous liquors?
A. I think I have seen him under the influence of spirituous
liquors, so he felt them.
Q. When?
A. Well, on one particular occasion, along about last April,
-a year ago this last April, —] 871.
Q. Where was it?
A. At the Chapman House?
Q. To what extent, was he under the influence of liquor;
enough to incapacitate him for business, or otherwise?
A. No, I don't think he was so but what he could do
business?
Q. To what extent was he under the influence of liquor?
141




1122     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Well, he was there w-ith a general crowd, and they were
generally drunk, thatis, what I call pretty full,-the crowd; and
he with the rest. I could not see any particular difference in
any of them.
Q. Who was there of persons connected with the Land Office,
if any?
A. Mr. Bowen, Mr. Edmonds, and I don't know that I could
mention anybody else particularly, of the Land Office, that
was there.
Q. Do you know Van Dunham?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember whether he was there?
A. I could not state whether he was there or not; I am
inclined to think that he was there, but positively, I could not
say.
Q. What time of the day or night was it?
A. I should think it was about nine o'clock in the evening
that I saw him; perhaps half-past nine.
Q. Do you know of his being engaged in similar conduct at
any other time?
A. No, sir; not in that shape.
Q. In any other shape when he has been drinking?
A. I never saw him under the influence of liquor-that is,
like that-before or since that time. I have seen him taking
a drink now and then occasionally, like a great many others.
Q. State whether you have ever been in the rooms of his
clerks in the Chapman House.
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Engaged in drinking?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With whom?
A. With myself, and all his clerks;-that is, not all his
clerks, but myself, Mr. Van Dunham, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Griswold, and I don't know as I can name the balance of them.
Q. To what extent were they drinking?
A. Well, drinking when they wanted it.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1123
O. Well, were they drinking freely?
A. Yes, sir, I think so; I was.
Q. Were they drinking to excess, any of them,-any of his
clerks, or himself?
A. Yes, sir, I think they were.
Q. So as to impair their faculties?
A. I thought so.
Q. Do you remember of any occasion any of them attempting to get out of the house through the scuttle?
A. I heard other parties talking that.
Q. Don't know it yourself?
A. I don't know it myself.
Q. How often have you known of that,-those transactions?
A. I could not enumerate them; but quite a number of
times.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF O. B. QUIGLEY.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You have been acquainted with Mr. Edmonds
about two years?
Answer. Yes, sir; personally acquainted with him, I think,
about that time.
Q. How long have you lived in Coldwater; about twelve or
thirteen years, have you not?
A. I moved to Coldwater in 1859.
Q. You were there steadily until a couple of years ago, were
you not?
A. No; not all the time. Two or three years after I went
to Coldwater I was away considerable, and for the past three
years-it will be four years the 29th day of January-I was
away considerable.
Q. From 1865 to 1870, you were there constantly, were you
not?
A. I think I was.
Q. You were in business there?
A. Yes, sir.




1124     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Livery business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Pretty well acquainted, were you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Edmonds was there at that
time?
A. The first I ever heard of Mr. Edmonds being in Coldwater,-the first I ever heard particularly of Mr. Edmonds, was
when he first run for register.
Q. Register of deeds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that he was an an officer there,-register
of deeds, for four years?
A I don't know how long he was register of deeds, —  don't
remember.
Q. You don't remember?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have any acquaintance with him while he was
register of deeds?
A. I think I did.
Q. You were in business during the whole time he was register of deeds?
A. In Coldwater?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I presume I was there, if I was there at the time you
speak of.
Q. You have had no particular acquaintance with him, until
within the last two years?
A. No, sir, not personal acquaintance; I have heard of him.
Q. You knew the man, by sight, previous to that?
A. Previous to what?
Q. Previous to two years ago.
A. I think I did; I think I probably may have seen him,
but not enough to recognize him.
Q. Do you say it was a year ago last April, that you were at
the Chapman House?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1125
A. I think it was in April. It was last year; a year ago
last April, I think it was.
Q. Was that the occasion of Conkling's marriage, soon after
his marriage?
A. That was the ratification of his marriage.
Q. How do you fix the time of its being in April?.
A. Well, from the time I was there myself.
Q. Have you any memorandum?
A. I think I have bills. I was boarding a lot of men there,
and I think I could go to my bills and tell nearly the exact
date, with a little trouble, but I did not take pains to do it.
Q. Was it as late as July?
A. It was not, I don't think.
Q. You say you saw Mr. Edmonds as late as half-past nine
that night?
A. I think I did, because I retired at about ten, and he was
there when I went away.
Q. You went upstairs a while before you retired?
A. To my room?
Q. To your room?
A. I don't think I came back after I went to my room. My
wife was there at the time. I don't think I came back. A lot
of them came to the door and banged away at the door to try
to get me out of the room.
Q. Did you not run away from them, and did not they come
up after you?
A. I think that was the case.
Q. Did not you go up a little earlier than that?
A. I don't think I did. I was appointed as a committee of
three to go up and get Mr. Conkling.
Q. You got him?
A. Yes, sir; he said he would come down, and he did come
down.
Q. And then the ratification commenced?
A. Well, I should say so, from the sounds about two o'clock
in the morning.




1126     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you help to ratify?
A. Not that I know of, sir.
Q. Did not you drink any?
A. I think I drank once; perhaps twice.
Q. Is it not possible that you drank three times?
A. I do not think I did, not on that occasion.
Q., What were they drinking?
A. I do not know that I could tell.
Q. What did you drink?
A. I drank whisky.
Q. Probably drank twice?
A. I think I drank twice; I think that is all I did drink.
Q. You think Edmonds was under the influence of liquor?
A. I think he acted like I do when I am under the influence
of liquor, or any other man. He was drinking often enough.
Q. Were you ever there at any other time when they had a
kind of spree at the Chapman House?
A. I have been there when I have seen the clerks have
sprees; but not Edmonds.
Q. Do you remember one occasion when a man by the name
of Tom Marshall had his shirt torn.
A. I do not remember that time. I heard of the occasion;
I do not know the time.
Q. Were you there one time when they carried you up
stairs?
A. I never was there when they carried me up stairs, that I
remember of.
Q. Were you ever carried up stairs at the Chapman House?
A. I do not think I ever was.
Q. What is your best recollection?
A. My recollection is that I was not. I might have been.
though, —most every man was carried up that ever stopped
there.
Q. That is a fact, is it?
A. A good many have, at least.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1127
Q. They were somewhat in the habit of carrying men upstairs at the Chapman House?
A. They were. to say the least; there was a great deal of
drinking and carousing; a bad place for a man to stop.
Q. Is that the reason why you stopped there?
A. No, sir; I stopped there because I could not stop at the
Lansing House. The Legislature was in session.
Q. You were in Edmonds' room, I understood you to say.
A. No, sir, I did not say I was in Edmonds' room. I was in
his clerks' room. I have just stepped into Edmonds' room,
but not for the purpose of playing cards and drinking.
Q. All this drinking and pla:ying cards was in some of the
clerks' rooms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Edmonds always present when you were present?
A. I would not say always. I-e was present a great many
times.
Q. What do you mean by a great many times?
A. When I came in, we made it a practice of going up there
and playing cards, and having something to drink.
Q. About how often were you ever in the clerks' rooms when
Edmonds was present?
A. I could not enumerate the times.
Q. As frequently as once a week?
A. Sometimes I would be there. a week, and sometimes I
would not be there in two weeks again.
Q. How much time did you stop there?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Cannot you give us some idea of how much time vyo
spent at the Chapman House?
A. I do not think I could give you any idea. I was there
as occasion required.
Q. When did you first go there?
A. I think when I first went there I came here in February
or January. I came here when the Legislature was in session,
-before this last time,-and they were full at the Lansing




1128   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
House, and I went there and stopped there until the 4th of
July following, when I paid my bills and went to the Lansing
House?
Q. From January to July you were at the Chapman House
when you were in Lansing?
A. I think it was.
Q. How frequently were you in Lansing during that time?
A. I could not tell you. I came and went as occasion required.
Q. You can tell something about it?
A. No, sir. I cannot tell. I was here once and more tfha
once.
Q. Were you here half your time?
A. No, sir.
Q. A quarter of your time?
A. I cannot tell.
Q. Would you average once a week?
A. I would come and stay a week or three or four days, and
then I would not be here for several weeks.
Q. What was the longest time at any one time between January and July?
A. I cannot tell you.
Q. What is your best recollection?
A. I have no recollection.
Q. You might have stayed a fortniglht?
A. No, sir.
(Q. Did you stay a week?
A. Yes, sir.
~Q. More than one time did you stay a week?
A. I would not say that I stayed a week at any one time. I
was a frequenter of the house right along.
Q. Did you not come in, usually, thle latter part of the week?
A. That is our custom.
Q. To come to your stopping-place Saturday?
A. Yes. After the first of April, I did not stop here a week
at.any one time. I was off making collections, and would




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1129
come back and make this a kind of stopping-place. After the
month of April my teams were out through the country and I
was off with them.
Q. Was Edmonds at the Chapman I-ouse all the time you
were there?
A. I could not tell you that.
Q. Do you not know that he left there two or three months
before you did?
A. I remember one thing,-that he had left when I came
back the Fourth of July, and some of his clerks had left the
Chapman House.
Q. Can you give us some idea about the time you first met
Edmonds at the Chapman House?
A. Not the dates. I think the first time I met him  in
Lansing was at the Chapman House, but I cannot tell you the
dates, because I take no memorandum of such things.
Q. Do you think you saw him there in January?
A. It might have been possible I saw him  there.  I could
not tell you the dates.
Q. Do you think you saw him there as late as Febru:ary?
A. You may say February was one of the months when I
met him there.
Q. When you had your good time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ile was boarding there?
A. I would not say that he was boarding there, —his clerks
were boarding there.
Q. At any of these times that you speak of, when you were
in the clerks' rooms, and Edmonds was present,-was he
boarding at any other place than the Chapman House?
A. I could not tell you where he was boarding.
Q. You know that he did board at the Chapman House,
some?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know where  lls -room was?
14i 




1130     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I think I was in his room once. I do not know that I
can tell where his room was.
Q. Did you use to drink considerable at the Chapman
House?
A. I did, sir. I drank when I wanted to.
Q. At the time of the ratification, did you see Edmonds just
before you went up stairs?
A. I could not say that I saw him just before I went up
stairs. I saw him during the time I was in the house.
Q. Did you have any talk with Edmonds that evening, that
you recollect of?
A. I do not remember any conversation with Edmonds. My
attention was first called to Edmonds, and another gentleman'
They were getting into a fight. He was talking about licking
somebody for stealing some shirts.  Mr. Edmonds had not
much to say.
Q. Edmonds was talking of getting into a fight?
A. No, sir. I said another gentleman, whom first my attention was called to.  A man, boarding at the house, it seems,
had stolen some shirts from some other parties, and I saw the
parties, and they were talking about fighting.
Q. Was Edmonds mixed up with that matter?
A. He was present with the party. IHe did not say anything.
Q. What was it that attracted your attention to Edmonds
so?
A. Because I was well acquainted with the party. I was
well acquainted with Mr. Edmonds, and the other party that
was talking about fighting. If they had been strangers, I
might not have noticed it particularly.
Q. You say on that occasion Edmonds did not say anything?
A. Not a word. I do not remember his saying anything,
My attention was particularly on the other man; but I noticed
Edmonds.
Q. How long was that before you went up stairs?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1131
A. It might have been a few minutes; I could not tell you
exactly how long.
Q. Did Edmonds show any degree of intoxication at that
time?
A. I should think he did.
Q. What was there about him indicated his intoxication?
A. His general appearance and manner when he was sober.
Q. What was his general appearance?
A. He was in for a great deal of fun and drinking.
Q. You were all in for fun that night?
A. I was not in for fun that night.
Q. You had your drink?
A. I had two of them; I was very fortunate to get out of it.
Q. The others were in for fun, besides Edmonds.
A. I think they were. If you had been there you would
have thought so about two o'clock in the morning.
Q. You say that is the only time you ever saw him under
the influence of liquor?
A. I never saw him as bad as that. I have seen him in the
room when I thought he had a little too much down.
Q. Did you not get so intoxicated that you were arrested
and locked up?
A. I was arrested at that house.
Q. And locked up?
A. Yes, sir; and I can explain to you the reason of that,
too, if you wish.
Q. I do not care anything about it.
TESTIMONY OF G. IE. COLE.
G. H. Cole, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the Honse of Representatives, testified
as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. I reside in this city.
Q. How long have you resided here?




1132     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Eight or nine years.
Q. What is your business?
A. I am a dentist.
Q. Are you acquainted with the respondent, Captain Edmonds?
A. No, sir, I am  not acquainted with him. I know him
when I see him.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Since he has been Commissioner of the State Land Office,
-for nearly that length of time.
Q. Were you acquainted with him last June or July?  Did
you know him well enough last June or July to recognize him
on the street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know a place in this city kept by Alice McCabe?
A. I suppose I do. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that in the neighborhood where you live?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The house in sight from your house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of a house does she keep?
A. It is reputed to be a house of ill-fame.
Q. Will you state whether you have ever seen Mr. Edmonds
going there or coming away?
A. I have seen him go from there?
Q. When?
A. I think it was the twelfth day of September, last.
Q. At what hour in the evening?
A. Between six and seven o'clock,-perhaps half-past six, —
the sun was up about about half-an-hour.
Q. Half-past six o'clock in the morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you remember so distinctly that day?
A. It was the day that the excursion took place on the
Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan Railway.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1133
Q. Were you one of the excursionists?
A. I was.
Q. You stated, upon your former examination, that this
was in October. Have you had any occasion to refresh your
recollection about it?
A. Yes, sir; I have examined a diary that I carry, and I
find it was the twelfth day of September. I thought it was
the forepart of October. I did not swear positively at that
time, I think.
Q. Under what circumstances did you see him go away from
the house?
A. It was very nearly in front of the house, and I looked up
and saw him come out, that was all.
Q. Did you hear any noise that called your attention to the
house?
A. I heard the rattling of the blinds that shut over the
door, and I looked up, and he was stepping over the fence.
Q. Do you know of his being there at any other time?
A. No, sir; I do not.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF G-. I. COLE.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did you go on that excursion?
Answer. I did.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I went to Detroit.
Q. Did you get your breakfast before you went?
A. Yes, sir, I had something to eat.
Q. What time did the train start?
A. I could not tell you. We went over and waited some
time. Excursion trains do not go, ever, on time.
Q. Which way did you go from your house to the depot?
A. I went the most direct way.
Q. What street?
A. I went down Cherry street.
Q. Which direction?




1134     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. It was north.
Q. Then to what street?
A. We struck River street.
Q. And then where?
A. We came up to Grand street and went to the bridge, and
down Michigan avenue to the depot.
Q. You live on Cherry street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which way does that street run?
A. It runs north and south.
Q. How far is it from your house to the depot?
A. I could not tell. I should think it was a mile and a
half or a mile.
Q. A mile, or a mile and a half.
A. I should think it was a mile certain.
Q. Do you live on the corner of any streets?
A. Yes, sir. I live at the corner of St. Joseph and Cherry.
Q. St. Joseph, then, would run east and west?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On which side of St. Joseph street do you live?
A. I live on the north side.
Q. On the north side of St. Joseph, and which side of
Cherry?
A. The east side.
Q. You came out, then, in front, and went straight north on
Cherry?
A. I did, when I went to the depot, but I went elsewhere
before I started to the depot.
Q. Where elsewhere did you go?
A. I went down on Main street, down to a neighbor of this
Miss McCabe, that lives a few feet to the east.
Q. What street does this Miss McCabe, as you call her, live
on?
A. She lives on Main street, I think.
Q. Which way did you go from your house to that neighbors?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                   1135
A. I went the only way there was to go,-I went south.
Q. On what street?
A. On Cherry street.
Q. How far; to what street?
A. To the street she lives on, Main street.
Q. How many streets does she live from you. I mean now,
east and west streets?
A. There is the width of two streets and a block, she lives
from me, across St. Joseph street, and across Main street. I
live on the north side of St. Joseph street, and she lives on the
south side of Main street.
Q. This neighbor you speak of, lives east, or west of you.
A. Lives east.
Q. How far?
A. It is just the width of a block; four rods, I think.
Q. You went up there before you went to the depot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then which way did you go?
A. I went past Miss McCabe's, until I struck about the middle of the street, and came on home.
Q. Came back the same way?
A. Yes, sir, very near.
Q. Does this neighbor live on the same side with Miss
McCabe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Same side of Main street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Mr. Edmonds coming out of there when you
were going up, or coming back?
A. Well, sir, when I was coming back.
Q. When you was coming back?
A. Yes, sir; I was hesitating. I went to call a man up to
take care of a horse for me while I went to Detroit, and he
was not up, and I was walking leisurely along, and stopping,
until I got opposite, and I heard these blinds rattle and Mr.
Edmonds came out.




1136     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was you in front of the house then?
A. Very near. I was not in front of the door. I guess, perhaps, I was thirty feet from the door.
Q. Which way?
A. East. IHe did not pass me, but went on up west.
Q. Which way were you facing?
A. I was facing west?
Q. Which way did Edmonds go?
A. He went west.
Q. You say he stepped over the fence 
A. Yes, sir; it is a low fence. He did not stop to open the
gate, but stepped right over from the door-step.
Q. Did you see anybody else on the street?
A. At that time?  I don't know as I saw anybody just at
that time. Other people were moving around.
Q. Did you see anybody on the street, going down or coming back from this neighbor's?
A. I don't remember as I did.
Q. No other individual at all?
A. I don't remember, at the time; mly neighbor was moving
around, next door to me, —went out with me on the train.
He was moving around on the street, in the house, and around.
Q. Did you see anybody coming down that street?
A. I don't remember as I did.
Q. Going east on Main street?
A. I don't remember as I did.
Q. How far did you go up,-to Cherry only?
A. That is all; she lives at the head of Cherry street. Cherry street runs right down to her house.
Q. She lives at the head of Cherry street?
A. Yes, sir, just where Cherry street strikes the river.
Q. She lives on the corner?
A. Yes, sir. The house lias the appearance of being in
the street, almost, as you are going up to it.
Q. What was it about rattling the blinds, —ere the blinds
open?




PROCEDINGS OF THE -OURT.                  1137
A. Yes, sir. The blinds swing open fromthe doorl  They
hide the door when it is shut.
Q. Did'you see anybody besides -Mr. Edmonds around the
house?
A. I did not.
Q. See anybody looking out of the blinds?
A. I did not.
Q. How close were you to him when he struck the walk?
A. Perhaps thirty feet, as near as I can tell; might have
been a little more;-a very short distance, and within speaking
distance, certainly.
Q. Did you notice how he was dressed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state?
A. He had on a slouch hat, something like that [pointing to a black, soft hat], perhaps a larger brim, something the
fashion of that, and he had on a blue cape.
Q. A blue cape?
A. A bluish cape, as near as I can remember now. It was
not a coat; it was a sort of cape flung over the shoulder;-I
have seen him wear it since.
Q. Did he go down Cherry street, or straight up Main street?
A. He went straight up Main street.
Q. Paid no attention to you?
A. No; he did not stop to speak to me.
Q. You had no conversation with him?
A. Not at all. He turned his head right around to the west,
as I went on east.
Q. Did you ever speak with him before that time?
A. I never did; never spoke with him at all.
Q Did you ever meet him before this?
A. I have met him on the street a great many times, I presume.
Q. That was all the acquaintance you had with him?
A. Yes, sir.
143




1138     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What time should ysi say it was that you saw him come
out of there?
A. I did not look at my watch; but, judging from the height
of the sun, which I distinctly remember, and by the time it
would rise at that time of the year, I should think it was
about half-past six o'clock.
Q. Some people don't know when the sun rises,-or, at
least, from actual observation; will you give the time, by the
clock, as near as you can?
A. Well, sir, I should have to judge.
Q. Would you say it was after six?
A. Yes, sir; I should judge it was half after six.
Q. Will you say it was half after six?
A. Yes, sir; I think I would be willing to say it was half
after six.
Q. Was it before you had your breakfast?
A. No, sir; I was up in the morning,-that morning,-as it
happened.
Q. How long did you stop at the house?
A. At what house?
Q. At your own house?
A. I went back to this house after Mr. Shattuck, where I
went to get him to take care of my horse. I hesitated to call
him up. My neighbor came down, and we went down together
and called them up, and arranged our business, and went right
up to the house, and got my overcoat and went over to the
depot.
Q. Did you get over there any length of time before the
train started?
A. I think we were there some minutes.
Q. Fifteen?
A. I don't know but it might have been; I should think,
perhaps, it was. We were waiting there some time. The
Jackson train came in and went out.
Q. How long do you think you were about your business
there at the house?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1139
A. Oh, but a very few minutes.
Q. Five minutes?
A. No. I had no business at all at the house except to get
my overcoat, and we started right away.
Q. How long do you think you were going to the depot?
A. I could not tell you. Just as fast as I could walk.
Q. Probably fifteen minutes, or such a matter.
A. No, sir; I don't think I was fifteen minutes. I am like
most everybody else,-anxious to get to the train,-and I
walked rapidly.
Q. That would make it about half-past six, then, that you
saw him?
A. I should think it was half-past six. Might have been a
little before, and might have been a little later.
VAN DUNIHAM, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. You stated, yesterday, that they allowed clerks in
the office thirty days' leave of absence a year?
Answer. I believe I stated something to that effect.
Q. Was that the rule?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you understood to be the rule?
A. I understood that to be the rule all the time I was in the
office.
Q. When do you say you went into the office?
A. In February, 1871.
Q. When did you leave?
A. I think it was the 15th or 16th of April,-about the middle of April.
Q. During the time you were there, you understood that to
be the rule?
A. I did.
Q. You also stated, substantially, that where clerks were
absent over that time, their pay was deducted, or a proportionate amount.
A. Yes, sir.




1140     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How much of your pay was deducted, for over absence,
during the time you were there?
A, I could not tell you.
Q. Can you give some estimate of it?
A. I remember of only one instance where there was anything deducted from the pay, on account of absence, and that
was when I finally left the office.
Q  How much was deducted then?
A. I do not remember the exact amount. it was only a few
days.
Q. Five days, or ten days?
A. I think it was only three or four; it is mere guess-work
though.
Q. Do you think it was not ten days?
A. I say I think it was only three or four days.
Q. Is it your impression it was not as much as ten days?
A. It is my impression it was not as much as ten days.
Q. Is it your impression it was not as much as five days?
A. My impression is it was only three or four days.
Q. Do you remember when that absence occurred?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Was anything said to you on your settlement of the
account, when it occurred?
A. No, sir; I do not remember that it was.
Q. When you took those thirty days, was it the custom of
the office to give thirty days all at once, or along, as the clerks
requested it?
A. I think it was the custom to give it along, as the clerks
requested it, provided the business of the office would permit
of it.
Q. When did you take your thirty days?
A. I took mine at odd times.
Q. Have you any idea how much of the time you were
absent in March, 1871. I believe you stated you were appointed in February?
A. No, sir; I do not know that I have.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1141
Q. In the month of April, have you any idea?
A. I do not remember particularly any one month in which
I was absent apy extra length of time more than another.
Q. You think it would average about one month with
another,-your absence?
A. No, sir; I was absent sometimes longer than others.
The number of months I do not remember.
Q. Were you ever absent three days at a time?
A. Yes, I think I have been.
Q. Were you ever absent six days at a time?
A. I think I was absent at one time when I was in the
office, just six days. I think that was the only case.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I went to Coldwater.
Q. That was the only occasion.
A. That is the only occasion I think I was absent that
length of time.
Q. When was that?
A. I don't remember the month that was in.
Q. Spring, or summer, or winter?
A. It is my impression that it was during the present year.
It must have been this spring.
Q. As a matter of fact, were you not absent more than your
thirty days during the year?
A. I do not think I was?
Q. It is your impression you were not?
A. It is my impression I was not absent more than thirty
days.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate will take an informal
recess for ten minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
TESTIMONY OF F. T. MOORE.
F. T. Moore, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:




1142     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Lansing.
Q. Where did you reside in 1871?
A. Lansing.
Q. What was your business in July, and for some months
subsequent, in 1871?
A. Carriage painter.
Q. Did you also keep a boarding-house, connected with your
business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or Mrs. Moore?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Van Dunham board with you?
A. He did.
Q. Do you recollect when he commenced?
A. He commenced the 15th day of June.
Q. Do you recollect at what time he ceased?
A. It was in October. The date I do not remember.
Q. About four months?
A. About four months.
Q. During that period, what proportion of the time was he
absent?
A. I should think he was absent about one-third of the time.
Q. Do you know whether he was absent from town or not,
during that time?
A. Well, he was, some of the time; how much, I am not
certain, but considerable of the time he was absent from town.
Q. During those absences, that he was absent from your
house, did you see him around town anywhere?
A. I did not.
Q. What was the conduct of Mr. Van Dunham, as to sobriety, while there at your house?
A. Well, I saw nothing in particular that would be against
him-against his character,-no further than he made



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1143
Q. I am speaking now with reference to the use of intoxicating liquors.
A. I do not think I ever saw him under the influence of
liquor, at my house.
A. Did you, while he was away from your house?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know, while he was at your house, there was a
disturbance there in which Mr. Van Dunham was engaged, on
any occasion?
A. Any disturbance at my place?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir.
Q. I understood you to say there was.
A. Well, nothing in particular, he made casual remarks that
was not veryQ. I do not ask you about that. I want to know what his
habits were in regard to drinking,-whether you knew anything about that while he was there; whether he was drunk.
Do you know?
A. I do not know whether it was Mr. Van Dunham or one
of the other boarders that showed appearances of intoxication,
from the looks of his room in the morning. My wifeMr. McGowan-If the witness does not know this of his own
knowledge, it is not fair to ask it.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-That is all.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF F. T. MOORE.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. How do you fix the time he was absent as being
one third of the time? How do you determine that?
Answer. I judged from his being absent about one third of
the time, at different times.
Q. How long would he be absent at any time?
A. Well, usually, about four or five days.
Q. You do not know, at those times, whether he was out of
town or not?




1144     TRIAL OF CHAMLES A. EDMOn)S.
A. Some of the time I knew he was out of town. From
remarks I would hear him  make I knew he had been out of
town.
Q. You mean he was absent from your house one thirdot
the time,-from his boarding-place?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you include Sundays in that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are not sure it was one-third of the time?
A. Well, I am pretty sure, as near as I can judge.
Q. Did you make any deductions from the board bill?
A. My wife kept account of the board. I do not know how
that is. I have not ascertained.
Q. You only spoke of it from a general impression of his
absence?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from  the Twentyseventh (Senator Wheeler) sends up the following question:
"What year did Van Dunham board with you? 
Witness —187.
RE-EXAMINATIO-N OF F. T. MOORE.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. I want to ask you what is the longest time you
recollect of Van Dunham being absent?
Answer. He was gone, at one time, five days, I think.
Q. During that period?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there frequent absences of three and four days?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any idea how many, or whether it was frequent?
A. Quite a number of different times,-he was away three
or four different times.
Q. In the middle of the week?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1145
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF F. T. MOORE.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you know where he was at these times?
Answer. I only know from what he said: that he came back
from a trip away from here. Most every time, I myself asked
him where he had been, and he said he had been on a little
speculation.
Q. Was he gone three or four days?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was he when he was gone the five days?
A. I think he was gone north, some place.
Q. One of those days Sunday?
A. I am not certain about that; I do not know; I think-not.
I think he went away in the forepart of the week, and came
back the latter part of the week.
Q. When he was away three or four days at a time, would
he not usually go Friday or Saturday, and come back the
first of the next week?
A. I think not.
Q. Did he sometimes?
A. I am not certain about it.
Q. You have no recollection that he did at any time?
A. Yes, sir, I have one recollection of one particular time.
Q. That he went away the last of the week, and came back
the first of the next week?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Friday or Saturday, did he go?
A. I am not certain whether it was Thursday or Friday.
Q. Came back what day?
A. Monday.
nE-EXAMINATIOW OF F. T.  MOOR.E.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. From any information which you gathered from
him, or from any remarks that he made, did you obtain any
idea, and if so, what, as to what these little speculations were?




1146     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. McGowan-We hardly think that is fair. If there was
anything said, you may give what was said.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I asked him particularly if, from
any information which he derived from him, he obtained any
idea, what it was. Let us know what that idea was?
The Presiding Officer-The witness need not convey the
idea; he can state what was said.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What was said as to the speculations?
Answer. I believe at one time, at the table, he told me that
he had some land in the north part of the State, that he had
been to see to.
Q. Did he state where?
A. No, sir.
Q. On these occasions that he went off Saturday and came
back Monday, counting the three days perhaps, did he go off
Saturday night and come back Monday morning, or Saturday
morning and come back Monday night?
A. I am not certain what day it was he went away. It was
either Friday or Saturday. He would most usually go away
in the morning.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I would like to inquire of counsel
what the rule is. It has been drawn out that there is a rule of
the office, that clerks may be absent thirty days in the year.
That, I suppose, from your method of questioning him, does
not include Sundays.
Mr. McGowan —Certainly not.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Would it include the time of distant clerks going home every week?
Mr. Shipman-I understand that it does. It includes actual
absence from the office.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-During week days,-no matter
what the cause is?
Mr. Shipman-No matter what the cause is, as I understand
it. I have not inquired sufficiently.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1147
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I desire to make a motion for an
order.
The Presiding Officer-Let the Secretary read the order.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I don't know whether he can read
it.
The Presiding Officer-The gentleman may read it.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor read the order as follows:
Ordered, That the remaining proofs on the part of the Managers, in support of the 11th article, shall be taken before the
Secretary of the Senate, in the presence of the Managers, and
the respondent and his counsel, if they see fit to attend, on
notice of time and place, and the proofs shall be reduced to
writing and returned to the Senate and filed, and the same
may be read in evidence on this trial, with the same force
and effect as if the witnesses had testified in person before the
Senate.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor —  make that motion to avoid placing with the evidence in this case, that which, perhaps, we can
avoid doing, —the testimony in support of the Eleventh Article.
If it is taken under the form of a deposition outside, it may be
filed with the Secretary, and read, upon the hearing, wi;h the
same force and effect as though it was spread out in the book
which we are making.  It is for the purpose of avoiding
having it placed there, that I make this motion; and  I
shall make a similar motion with regard to that paper already
filed with the Secretary, called' Every Wednesday Night,"to avoid that being spread out in detail upon our records,that we may have the use of it before the Senate without having it republished in full, to be retained for all future time.
There are many things connected with the testimony in support of the Eleventh Article,-that perhaps it is not necessary
for the Senate to be informed what they are,-which need not
be retained as evidence in the case. I make that motion, because, in the first place, we are not ready to proceed with our
witnesses in support of the Eleventh Article. One of our witnesses ].has, disappeared. We hope to secure her attendance




1148     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
within a day or two; and we thought that it would be a saving
of time to take this testimony outside,-out of the hours of
the Senate,-and present it here to be read. It would save
giving an unnecessary publicity to a matter which is not
necessary. The public good does not require it.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: If it is proper that the Senate should pass upon the Eleventh Article, it is proper that
they should hear the testimony.  Furthermore, they are
incompetent to pass upon it until they do hear the testimony.
There are many witnesses, whose testimony should be heard
by the persons who are to try the case, to enable them to
determine what force and effect they should give it.  We
object to this motion. We have the right, in all cases of this
kind, to have the witnesses produced before us, and produced
before the men who are to decide as to the weight to be given
to the evidence that they may choose to give.
We object to this motion, further, because it is an unheard-of
proceeding. It would not give the Senate a fair understanding
of the credibility of the witnesses. There have been witnesses
upon the stand, whose presence was material, for the Senate to
see what weight should be given to their testimony. When
the testimony of witnesses is written down upon paper, it all
reads alike. It reads very smoothly. The hesitation, the halting, the confusion of the witness is not photographed. His
words, only, are presented; and whatever effect that language
may have as it stands alone, the appearance of the witness may
destroy or heighten that effect. There are a thousand and
one things about the manner of a witness, which we all know
tend to strengthen or weaken the testimony he is called upon
to give. Therefore we object to this testimony being taken
outside of the hearing of the Senate.
So far as this paper is concerned, we have considered it in
evidence. I do not know that it was formally introduced; but
we have considered it in evidence. Our impression of this
matter was, that it was a matter which should be tried by the
Senate. If I may be allowed the expression, we did not sup



PROCEEDINGS 01O  THE COURT.               1149
pose thatt we were going to engage in police business,-we did
not suppose that this tribunal was established for that purpose; but we are forbidden by the respondent to raise the
objection.
So far as publicity is concerned, we need only say, that it
has been scattered through the country by the newspapers.
The testimony has been published, and not the most favorable
side of it at that. The Honorable Managers have stated here,
and it has gone upon the record, what they intended to prove.
The committee of the House have made their report, and that
has been scattered broadcast. It has been spread upon the
records of the House. I do not see how any additional publicity can be given to this matter, nor can I see that there is any
reason at all that the witnesses should not be produced here.
If they are necessarily absent, you can take their depositions,
but if you can produce the witnesses, we have a right to have
them here.
We furthermore object to taking the case until the Managers have got through with it. We ask them to give us all the
testimony they propose to introduce in this case in support of
the charges, fairly and squarely. They have done so thus far,
and, after they get through, let us take the case; but we do not
wish to take the case before that, nor do we wish to take it
upon depositions.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I was not proposing to submit the
case now, but that the testimony upon this article should be
taken as I proposed.  The details which would be given of
particular facts tending to prove or disprove the charge, I suppose might be suppressed, and the suppression of those details
is certainly within the control of the Senate; and it is not
necessary that they should be spread out upon the record, to
be printed and retained for all future time,-like this paper,
which is already in evidence.  The same rule will apply in
regard to that  The gentleman would not insist upon that
being detailed in the minutes that are taken by the reporters,
who preserve every word that is said.




1150     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
It is not, as the gentleman says, an extraordinary proceeding. We know that in all chancery proceedings, in matters
of divorce, if you please, the testimony is taken before a commissioner, and is brought in and read to the court, or read to
the jury, if the case is to be tried by a jury. And, in civil
proceedings, it is not an uncommon thing to send out and
take testimony, under the order of the court, under circumstances that seem to make it necessary. Our idea was, that
this would avoid giving the details of all the testimony tending to prove or disprove the charge, that might be offensive if
placed upon the records. The courts recognize that rule, when
they say that you are not obliged to spread, in an indictment for
libel, matters that are obscene and offensive to the public eye.
The courts will not allow it to be spread upon the record. The
court will judge of the propriety or impropriety of having
placed upon the record, prominently, testimony, the details of
which will be revolting.
The Managers have not published to the world the details of
this testimony. There is a general declaration in the article,
of what the offense is, and that has gone to the world, and
nothing else. There is no testimony, bearing upon that, that
has been given yet at all. There are the reporters of the
different papers, who have given their own version of it.
Mr. Shipman-I do not intend to charge the Managers with
doing anything wrong in the matter.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I presume not. I appreciate that,
because the respondent would forbid it. In investigating this,
there is a great deal of testimony, that I think quite unnecessary, and I think this Court will come to the conclusion it
is quite unnecessary to spread it in detail upon the records.
Mr. Manager Huston-Would it not answer the purpose
just as well, if the testimony was taken here and not reported
by the stenographers,-not printed?
Mr. Shipman-Precisely; you may suppress it. I do not
care what becomes of it. When the Senate gets the testimony,
if they think best to suppress it, we will not object.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1151
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Anything to accomplish that purpose. It seems to me that it would be a saving of time if we
could take that testimony out of business hours, and not
interfere with the doings of the Court. However, I am not
tenacious about it. I submit it to the consideration of the
Senate. I ask for the order.
Mr. Shipman —ay I call attention to just one thing? The
Honorable Manager has mentioned the practice in chancery
about taking testimony out of court. He must be aware that
now it becomes a matter of right in chancery cases for a party
to have witnesses examined in open court. We have no objection to the testimony being expunged finally, when the witnesses have been produced.
The Presiding Officer-The question is upon the granting
of the order asked by the Honorable Manager.
The roll was called and the motion was denied, by yeas and
nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Wilcox,                                             1
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Moffatt,        Mr. Sheley,
Barber,            Morton,            Stock bridge,
Begole,            Neasmith,          Storrs,
Briggs,            Price,             Waterbury,
Cawley,            Prutzman,          Wheeler,
Dexter,            Putnanl,           Wood,
Gay,               Randall,           President
Hannahs,           Romeyn,                   pro tem.,
Mann,                                              24
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We have no further witnesses now
ready to introduce, and we would ask the indulgence of the
Senate until two o'clock.
Mr. Wheeler-I move we take a recess until two o'clock.
Mr. Moffatt-Mr. President, I do not understand this
arrangement,
The Presiding Officer-The motion is to take a recess until
two o'clock.




1152     TRIAL OF CHARLEBS A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Moffatt-For what reason?
The Presiding Officer-The Managers are not ready with
witnesses iust at this moment, and they wish to have a little
time to arrange the balance of their proofs.
Mr. Moffatt-I would like to know how many more witnesses
they have to offer?
The Presiding Officer-The Chair is not informed. Perhaps the Managers do not know.
Mr. Grosvenor-All the testimony in support of the Eleventh Article we have yet, and a very material witness has disappeared, as I said yesterday, and we hope to capture
her; we have several persons on the look-out for her,
and hope to obtain her and get her here in the afternoon.
If we succeed in obtaining that witness, we shall then
produce all the testimony bearing upon that; if not, we do
not want to produce a part and leave that link out.  I
was unwilling, myself, to present any portion of it, without
there was some certainty that we could procure that witness.
If we should proceed with the testimony of three or four witnesses, and then fail in getting this witness, it would be a
failure.
Mr. Moffatt-Does the Honorable Manager wish to suspend
the proceedings until the witness is hunted up?
The Presiding Officer-Only until two o'clock.
Mr. Moffatt-I do not see why this matter should not be
closed up now. It seems to me we ought not to lose time in
this wav.
The question being put, the motion to take a recess prevailed, and the President pro tem. declared the Senate adjourned
until two o'clock P. M.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1153
Lansing, Tuesday, P. M., May 14, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-The Gentlemen Managers upon the
part of the House of Representatives will proceed with their
evidence in support of the articles of Impeachment. Senators
will please give their attention.
TESTIMONY OF BEN. B. BAKER.
Ben. B. Baker, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Mr. Manager Cochrane-This testimony which we propose
to introduce at present, is a small item, pertaining to the circulation through the postoffice of a paper known as "Every
Wednesday Night," and is the only remaining evidence we
have, pertaining to that paper.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Where were you engaged in the ionth of last
April,-the first of it, I believe?
Answer. I was engaged by Richmond & Backus.
Q. Whereabouts.?
A. At the State House.
Q. Doing what?
A. Supplying the Legislature with stationery.
Q. Was the postoffice of the Legislature situated in the same
room?
A. It was.
Q. Do you know anything about a paper being received, or
copies of the paper being received, through that postoffice, the
paper being called "Every Wednesday Night?"
A. Yes, sir.
145




1154     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did you see any such received?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any envelop s in which those papers arrived
here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you produce them?
[The witness produces them.]
Q. Where do they appear to be mailed?
A. Toledo, Ohio.
Q. Did you see any of those papers taken out of those
envelopes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know what the paper referred to is,-you have seen
it, have you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those all mailed at Toledo?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give a list of the persons to whom  those papers
were mailed?  State, if you please, what time these arrived
here,-about what time.
A. I think, on the twenty-first of April.
Q. Was the Legislature then in session?
A. It was.
Q. These are mostly, or all of them, mailed to members of
the Legislature, are they?
A. These are all, with the exception of one mailed to Jones,
the Clerk of the House.
Q. Was the Legislature in session at that time?
A. It was during the session of the Legislature. Whether
the Legislature was actually in session at the time the mail
arrived, I could not say.
Q. I mean during the period of the last session?
A. Yes, sir. I would like to correct the date. It was the
twenty-first of March instead of April.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 lt55
Q. Do you say you have the list of persons to whom the
papers were mailed?
A. I have a list,-those that were received at this offie —
the Legislative office.
Q. Will you read the list?
IThe witness read the list as follows:]
Senators Wilcox, White, Waterbury, Stockbridge, Emerson,
Ca^vath, Begole; Representatives Hill, Williams, Swineford,
Montgomery, Minne, Millington, P. Mitchell, Little, Harf,
Hoyt, Holt, Knapp, J. Haynes, H. Haynes, Hurlbut, Gay, Fenton, Gorman, Clements, Cameron, Cochrane, Adam; Clerk
Jones.
Q. Do you know in whose handwriting these indorsements
ou these envelopes are?
A. No, sir.
Q. They seem to be different handwritings?
A. I selected them on account of their being different.
Q. Is the handwriting the same, in your opinion?
A. My opinion is that it is not.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-The paper filed here, indicated as
"Every Wednesday Night," it is agreed may be considered in
evidence, as I understand it.
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary may mark it as an
exhibit.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We propose to introduce, as soon
as the witnesses arrive, testimony relating to the last article,
so far as we are able to introduce it now. Under the circumstances, we shall have to ask permission of the Senate to introduce the testimony of a single witness,-Jane Bolton,-if
we shall be able to produce her hereafter. The introduction
of this testimony will operate as no surprise upon the counsel
of the respondent, for they have before them what we suppose
she will swear to. She was regularly subpoenaed, was here until
after the trial of the case commenced, and ever since her absence we have been in hot pursuit of her with all the appli



1156     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ances that could be obtained from  the Court. And, under
the circumstances, we shall ask the indulgence of this Court,
so far as permission is concerned, to introduce her testimony.
I may say here that cases of this kind not unfrequently happen in other courts, where witnesses cannot be produced in
the regular order, and where the court is convinced that the
parties requiring the evidence are acting in good faith,-where
the right of producing them afterwards, with, of course, the
right of cross-examining the witness, is frequently given to
the parties who require such evidence.
We certainly, in this case, have acted in the utmost good
faith, for the witness escaped without our knowledge, and we
have had parties in search of her ever since her escape, which
was sometime last Friday. We were put off the track; I know,
for myself, I was. I would state that we received notice that
she was going to leave town, and that she would be at Delhi,
only five miles from here, and would return next day. So far
as we have been able to discover, she was not going to Delhi
and did not go there.
TESTIMONY OF H. T. CARPENTER.
H. T. Carpenter, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. What is your business?
Answer. Banking business.
Q. Whom are you associated with in the banking business?
A. I am an employe only.
Q. In whose bank are you employed?
A. Cyrus Hewitt & Co.'s.
Q. What are your duties in that bank?
A. To attend to business generally.
Q. Are you acquainted with Charles A. Edmonds?
A. Not personally. I have seen him on the street and at the
hotel.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1157
Q. Do you know the "Company" of William A. Barnard &
Co.?
A. I do not.
Q. Is there such a company as that doing business with that
bank?
A. There is such an account there.
Q. Will you state the amount of that account, both debit
and credit, of deposits of Wm. A. Barnard & Co.
A. I should think it would be about $50,000.
Q. Have you figured up so you can tell?
A. I have not.
Q. What amounts have been drawn out?
A. I cannot say; various sums.
Q. The sum total?
A. About the same as deposited.
Q. Have you got a minute of the larger amounts of deposit,
-the amount of deposits above $2,000,-at different times?
A. Yes, sir.
The counsel here requested the witness to prepare a detailed
statement of the deposits made by W. A. Barnard & Co., at
Hewitt's Bank; and the witness retired from the stand for that
purpose.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES ANDERSON (COLORED).
Charles Anderson, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. I live here in Lansing.
Q. What is your business,-where are you working?
A. I am porter at the Lansing House,-working for Mr.
Hudson.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Edmonds?
A. Well, I am not particularly acquainted with Mr. Edmonds.




1158     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Know him when you see him?
A. I think I do.
Q. How long have you been at the Lansing House?
A. It will be seven years the first day of next October.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Edmonds at the Lansing House?
A. I think I have.
Q. Was Mr. Edmonds boarding at the Lansing House a year
ago last spring?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If at any time when he was there boarding you saw him
with a strange womanA. [Interrupting.]  No, sir.
Q. [Continuing.] Come out of a room? State what you know
about it.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State?
A. When I was agoing round the hall picking up my
lamps, as I usually do every morning-I think it was room
97-I didn't see Mr. Edmonds come out of the room, but as I
came round the hall, taking hold of the banister, I saw Mr.
Edmonds pull the door to; whether he went in or came out I
can't say. He went down stairs, and I passed on about my
business, as I always do, and I went on down to several other
rooms, gathered up the lamps, and rapped on the door as I
do on all doors, for fear there was some one in, and coming back to room No. 97 I rapped on the door as I always
do. A lady came to the door and I told her my errand. She
handed me the lamp and I passed on.
Q. Did you see any one else?
A. Round the room?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Hudson, in the hall, or her niece?
A. I can't say whether it was Mrs. Hudson or her niece; it
is so long ago I have most forgotten whether it was Mrs. Hud



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1159
son, or her niece, or the chambermaid. At any rate, it was
one of these three.  She said, "Did he come out of that
room? " And I said, right back, " I didn't know whether he
came out of that room, or not,-I can't say." She said " H'm!
h'm!" and I passed on; I could not say any more.
Q. Mrs. Hudson, or her niece, or the chambermaid asked
you, as I understand, whether he came out of that room that
this woman was in. What did you say you told them?
A. I told them I didn't know whether he came out of that
room, or not. I didn't see him come out of there. I told
them Mr.-Edmonds, when I came round the stairs, had hold
of the door-knob, just as I was coming down stairs, and pulled
the door to, after him; but whether he wai coming out, or
not, I can't say.
Q. What did they say?
A. They asked me if he came out of that room.
Q. What did they say?
A. When I told them  I didn't know whether he came out
of there, they said "H'm! h'm!"  They didn't say "Yes."
Q. What transpired after that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did he go down stairs?
A. The girl-I am pretty certain it was the chambermaidshe went down stairs, but whether she reported anything or
not, I can't tell. I didn't hear her.
Q. What became ot the woman that was in the room?
A. I left her in there.
Q. Do you know whether she was turned away from the
house?
A. I cannot say whether she was or not, but she went away.
In a few minutes after, I came down stairs, and saw her going
away. I don't know whether she was turned away, or went
away herself.
Q. Do you know where she lived?
A. No, sir.




1160     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Or who she was?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it Mrs. Edmonds?
A. I don't know that I have ever seen Mrs Edmonds to
know her.
Q. Did she go away alone?
A. Yes, sir, she did go away alone. She went off on the
"buss,"-it was about " buss" time.
Q. Which way? To the Saginaw cars?
A. I can't tell. It has been so long, I cannot tell whether
Saginaw or anywhere else. I cannot say,-I paid so little attention to it.
Q. Did you ever see that woman there before?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Or since?
A. Not that I know of,-not to know of.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Hudson or any one went up
to her room after the time you saw her, to collect her bill?
A. No, sir, not that I know of.
Q. Do you know whether she went to the office to pay her
bill?
A. I don't know whether she went to the office to pay her
bill, or how. I don't know anything about it.
Q. Did she have any baggage there?
Q. Well, I declare, I forgot all about it. I don't know
whether she had any baggage or not, it has been so long.
Q. Don't know whether any was carried down?
A. There was not any carried down that I know of.
Q. You usually attend to that part, of the business, do you
not?
A. Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You say you paid but little attention to this?
Answer. Yes, sir.




PBOGEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1161
Q. Was it an unusual occurrence about the house, or was it
usual?
A. Well, I did not see anything unusual, as I know of,-did
not seem to be any disturbance, nobody raising any rows:
nothing of that kind,-everything seemed to be quiet.
Q. If the woman you saw in the hall was the chambermaid,
what was her name?
A. Well, of course it was Jane Bolton. She was chambermaid then at that time.
Q. Then if it was the chambermaid, it was Jane Bolton?
A. Yes, sir; it must have been.
Q. Do you know how long that woman had been there that
was in 97?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you seen her previous to that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Know anything about her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Know when she came?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where was Mr. Edmonds' room at that time?
A. Well, I could not say; it has been so long, I forget all
about it. I did not pay much attention to it. I had been
away for a while, for four months, over to the Springs, and
when I came back, Mr. Edmonds was at the house boarding?
Q. Which floor is No. 97 on?
A. On the third.
Q. Do you go up two flights of stairs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it in the hall running north and south, or the one running east and west?
A. Well, I don't know what you call it; it is the hall running so [pointing east and west].
Q. About how far was 97 from the corner of where that hall
comes into the other hall running the other way?
146




1162     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I don't know, exactly.
Q. It was not next to the corner?
A. Yes, sir; the corner back that way; it was the second
door, right-hand side, going the hall that way [west].
Q. Where were you when you saw Mr. Edmonds?
A. I was coming around the hall, and had hold of the banisters walking along.
Q. Hold of the banisters, walking around the hall?
A. Yes, sir; coming right around the banisters. The banisters, you know, come right around the stair-way.
Q. That circular stair-way?
A. No, sir; the side-stairs.
Q. Then when you saw him, you were in the same hall he
was?
A. Exactly.
Q. How far were you from him?
A. I don't know.  I was not a great ways; I could not
say how far; I was not a great ways from him.
Q. Might you not have been mistaken about seeing his hand
on the knob?
A. Why, I don't know. He pulled the door to, I think, if I
am not mistaken; but whether he went into the room, or
came out, I could not say.  He was outside, in the hall,
when I see him.
Q. Entirely outside of the room?
A. Yes, sir, clear outside. I think he had hold of the knob;
anyway the door was shut to, right behind me. I could not
say for certain that he had hold of the knob.
Q. When was that?
A. Oh, I could not tell you exactly, it has been so long.
Q. You said it was a year ago last spring, did you not?
A. A year ago this spring past.
Q. Do you know what time in the spring?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it before the leaves came out on the trees?
A. Well, sir, I could not say; I paid so little attention to




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1163
such things. I was going on attending to my business. I
don't know anything about it.
Q. Was it before the Fourth of July?
A. I don't know, sir, whether it was before or after.
Q. It may have been after the Fourth?
A. It may have been, but I forget all about it.
Q. What time of the day was it?
A. I think it was in the morning, of course.
Q. Why do you think it was in the morning?
A. Oh, I guess I know, when I gather up my lamps in the
morning.
Q, That is in the morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About what time in the morning do you think it was.
A. I could not say for certain what time it was.
Q. Eight or nine o'clock?
A. I could not be positive about it. I don't know exactly
what time it was.
Q. Do you usually gather your lamps before breakfast or
after?
A. After my breakfast.
Q. Don't you usually have your breakfast after the guests of
the house have theirs?
A. No, sir.
Q. Before?
A. I have mine before.
Q. Before they commence?
A. Well, I don't know, sir; sometimes they commence before
I do, and sometimes I before them.
Q. Well, it was after you had had your breakfast?
A. It was after my breakfast hour. I don't know. Sometimes I have breakfast at nine o'clock, and sometimes I don't
have it until ten o'clock,-just as I can get my business
around to get my breakfast. If my business is urging, so I
can't get my breakfast before nine o'clock, it is nine o'clock
before I get it.




1164     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What I want to get at is, to have you fix the hour when
it was you say you saw Mr. Edmonds?
A. It was in the morning.
Q. I want to get at as near the hour as possible?
A. Well, I don't know exactly. I want to tell the truth as
near as I can; I don't want to put anything to it, nor take
nothing from it.
Q. Do you think it was as late as eight o'clock?
A. I think it was near eight o'clock; something near that
time; I could not say.
Q. When did you first tell of this?
A. I never said a word about it to nobody, before this gentleman over here asked me about it, because I didn't pay
enough attention to such things. I never bother my head
after such things. I never said nothing to nobody about it.
RE-EXAMIINATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Was that Mr. Edmonds' room?
Answer. I could not say, sir, whether it was his room or not.
Q. You don't know, then?
A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Do you know how this woman came to make the inquiry
-this lady that you met in the hall-do you know how she
came to make the inquiry whether Mr. Edmonds came out of
that room?
A. No, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXA3MINATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you know where 75 is?
Answer. I think I do.
Q. Where is it?
A. it is on the same floor 97 is, only it is around in the
other hall.
Q. Don't you remember that Mr. Edmonds occupied room
75?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1165
A. Well, he did; yes, I know he occupied room 75 some
time this spring; but whether he was in 75 last spring or not
I couldn't say.
Q. If you were in 75, and were coming out into this hall,
and down this way, you would have to pass the stair-way before
you came to 97?
A. Yes, sir. You would have to go clear round the hall to
do it, though.
Q. Have to go clear around the hall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would there be any way of getting down stairs before
you came to 97, coming from 75?
A. Yes, sir. There is a stair-way comes right down from
Mr. Hudson's room.
Q. That is the straight stair-way?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, if Edmonds was in 75, and came out of that hall
into this long hall where 97 is, he would pass that straight
stairway to get to 97?
A. He would pass it.
Q. After leaving 97, which stairs did he go down,-did you
notice?
A. 97 was right at the edge of the stairs. He went right
down the straight stairs. He was not near 75 at all.
MR. 11. T. CARPENTER RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Can you give us the amount of the deposits?
Answer. $59,559, or thereabouts.
Q. The amount of drafts that have been drawn upon that
amount?
A. There were numerous drafts that I did not attempt to
give, but can get them.
Q. The same total?
A. About the same as credit.




1166     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have you figured up the amount that has been drawn
out?
A. Not accurately.
Q. So that you could not state actually about it?
A. I simply know that the account is very nearly balanced,
and I judge that it has been drawn out.
Q. Will you give us the dates and amounts of those several
deposits that you referred to when you were here before?
A. October 2, $2,591; November 22, $5,520; December 28,
$4,359; January 17, $5,195; March 2, $2,550.
Q. How long since the account has been balanced,-you
spoke about its being about even now?
A. I could not say, sir.
Q. As near as you can state?
A. I could not make any estimation. I did not pay any attention to it. We have a book-keeper. I simply know that it
has not been overdrawn.
Q. Who draws the drafts upon the bank?
A. W. A. Barnard.
Q. Do you know whether it is in his handwriting usually?
A. I do not, sir-sometimes.
Q. Are they all in the same handwriting?
A. I could not say, sir.
Q. You do not remember about that?
A. I do not. I suppose they have been drawn by different
parties.
Q. Who is his clerk?
A. Mr. Robinson.
Q. Do you think Robinson and Barnard have drawn all the
drafts?
A. I think they have, sir.
Q. That is money,-not scrip?
A. It is money, sir. I know nothing about scrip.
Q. Who deposited that money,-who generally brings it to
the bank?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1167
A. Sometimes Mr. Robinson, and sometimes Barnard.
Q. Any one else?
A. No, sir; it has been sent down by the porter sometimes.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. You do not keep those books?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. How do you know when there are overdrafts,-simply
inspection?
A. The simple fact that the book-keeper advises us every
night.
TESTIMONY OF M. R. TAYLOR.
M. R. Taylor, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified
as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Lansing.
Q. How long have you been here?
A. About three years.
Q. Are you acquainted with Captain Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?
A. One year; perhaps a little more; about a year, I should
think.
Q, Have you ever been in the employ of Mr. Hudson, at
the Lansing House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were you there?
A. I was there for three years, or three years and a half,
previous to the first of January last.
Q. You were there, then, last July?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Captain Edmonds was boarding
there last year?
A. I do, sir.




1168     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you remember the occasion of a couple of women
being there, that were said to be from Saginaw?
A. I remember a circumstance that took place, of two
women being there, but where they were from I do not know,
nor their names.
Q. Will you state the circumstance, and what you know
about it?
A. Mr. Hudson, if I remember right, was absent,-not at
home; and one afternoon, I think it was soon after dinner, I
was called upon by Mrs. Hudson, and requested to put two
ladies, in 128, out of the house, or have them leave, and I
inquired to know what was the matter, and it appeared at that
time that a chambermaid had reported some misconduct to
her. And I did as she requested me,-had them leave.
Q. They were turned out on account of their misconduct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About what time was that, did you say, any way?
A. I could not remember, sir.
Q. About how long ago?
A. I cannot say, sir. It was sometime in the summer months,
I should judge. It was a thing that I did not charge my mind
with.
Q. What was the misconduct,-if you know?
A. It is all hearsay that I do know with regard to it.
Q. What was the alleged misconduct?
Mr. McGowan-We object to it.
Mr. Manager Huston-We propose to show the last transaction.
The Presiding Officer-Do you propose to have this witness
state what Mrs. Hudson told him?
Mr. Manager Huston-Yes, sir, in order to fix the transaction, and then we propose to put Mrs. Hudson on the stand.
Mr. Shipman-Would not she be better evidence of the fact.
Mr Manager Huston-She will be here in a short time.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair will sustain the objection.
I will take a vote if it is required.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1169
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Did you ever turn out two ladies at any other
time?
Answer. I do not remember doing so.
Q. At the request of Mrs. Hudson?
A. No, sir; I do not remember doing so.
Q. That is the only time when you did anything of that
kind?
A. I think so, sir.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD A. WILDER.
Edward A. Wilder, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane.
Question. What was the total amount of the deposits in the
bank, of the firm  of Hewitt & Co., in favor of William A.
Barnard & Co.?
Answer. The total deposits are $59,559.
Q. What is the total amount of charges against that?
A. $56,741.
Q, When did this account commence?
A. I could not say.
Q. Up to what time does it go?
A. Up to to-day.
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH HUDSON.
Elizabeth Hudson, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives,
testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You are the wife of the proprietor of the Lansing
House?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Edmonds?
A. No; I am not.
147




1170     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You know him when you see him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the occasion when two ladies —to
women-were turned away from  your house, sometime last
year?
A. Yes, sir,. I do.
Q. They were turned away by Mr. Taylor, in the absence of
your husband?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state when that was?
A. I do not know that I remember just the time.
Q. About how long ago?
A. I should think it must be four or five months.
Q. Will you state all of the facts, so far as you know them,
in connection with their being turned away?
A. I was called up stairs by the girl. I did not see Mr.
Edmonds at all. She told me she saw him come out of the
roomThe Presiding Officer-You are simply to state what comes
within your personal knowledge.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Go on and state what called your attention to
them being there?
Answer. The girl called my attention to it.
Q. Go on and state what occurred after that?
A. After she called me there I went and sat down on the
sofa, and she went up stairs, and after that I saw Mr. Clarke
come down, and a lady come down the other way. I did not
see Mr. Edmonds.
Q. Where were you when the girl called you?
A. Down in the pastry-room. I did not go up right away.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I came up in the hall and sat down on a sofa.
Q. In which hall was the sofa?
A. In the front hall.




PROOEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1171
Q. Where did the girl go that you saw coming down stairs?
A. In 128.
Q. Was there another girl in 128?
A. Yes, sir; there was.
Q. What occurred after this one came down, and Mr. Clarke
came down stairs?
A. I then rang the bell and called for Mr. Taylor, to order
them out of the house.
Q. Was that done?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of day was it?
A, That was about one o'clock.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir,-about dinner time.
Q. Do you remember the time that your son spoke to you
with reference to Mr. Edmonds' room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what you know with regard to that. State
in your own language what you know about that matter?
A. My son called me up to the room, and I went up and
tended to it,-that was all.
Q. Whose room was it?
A. Mr. Edmonds.
Q. Who called your attention to it?
A. My son.
Q. What was there about the room that your attention was
called to; anything in reference to the bed?
A. I guess I will not say anything about that.
The Presiding Officer-You must answer the question.
Answer. It did not look very neat. That is all I wish to say
about that.
Question. What was the cause of the bed not looking very
neat?
Mr. Shipman —You may ask leading questions on that.
Question. Was the cause of the bed's not looking very neat




1172     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
as you term it, because there had been a lady in the bed,-a
woman?
Answer. I cannot say as to that.
Q. Did it have, to your judgment, the appearance of being
caused by that?
A. It looked something like that.
Q. Is that your judgment?
A. I should think it was.
Q. From  a woman having what is termed her monthly
periods, should you? You can answer that by yes, or no?
A. I should think so.
Q, Mr. Edmonds was boarding at your house at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the bed appear to have been occupied by two
persons?
A. Really, I could not tell about that.
Q. Who was with you when you went to the room?
A. The chamber-girl went with me.
Q. What was her name?
A. Jane Bolton.
Q. Was this the same woman that notified you in regard to
the two women that were turned away from the house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this before or after the two women were turned
away?
A. I don't remember, now.
Q. Do you remember any women having been turned away
upon any other occasion, excepting the time the two were
turned away, since Mr. Edmonds has been boarding there?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. You did not have knowledge of the other transaction?
When did Jane Bolton leave your house?
A. Friday.
Q. Do you know where she is now?
A, No, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT,                1173
Q. Where did she say she was going, when she went away?
Q. She said she was going home to her mother's.
Q. To Delhi?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Did she leave your employment permanently or
temporarily?
Answer. She said she would be back this week Saturday.
Q. Not leave the service permanently?
A. No, sir; I'did not understand it so.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. These two women that were turned away from
your house,-did you know them?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. Did you know where they came from?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know when they came to your house?
A. Yes, sir. They came there after ten o'clock.
Q. That same day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you judge them to be from their appearance?
I wish you would state, in regard to them, what kind of women
were they?
A. Not very good.
Q. If you formed any conclusion?
A. I didn't see anything done.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ELIZABETH HUDSON.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. When did this last occurrence-about the bedoccur?
Answer. I don't know that I can just remember the time.
Q. Give me somewhere near the time, so we can fix it. In
the summer, or winter?
A. In the winter.
Q. Last winter?
A. Yes, sir.




1174     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Could you say what the time was, with reference to New
Year's Day,-whether before or after?
A. No, I could not.
Q. Was it before or after the holidays?
A. I don't recollect.
Q. Were you the first one that went to the room that morning, do you think?
A. I was called there by my son, or I would not have gone.
Q. Did you understand that your son had been there?
A. No, sir; I don't think he had. He told me he wanted
me to go up into the room.
Q. Did you understand any one had been there before you?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. When you came to the room did you find that the sheets,
or any part of the bed-clothes had been removed?
A. No, sir, I think not.
Q. Did not the lower sheet look as if it had been removed
from the bed?
A. No, sir, I don't think it had.
Q. It was bloody, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not give it as anything more than your opinion
about how it came to be so?
A. No, sir.
Q. You would not be positive that it was from the cause you
have spoken of?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, about how large a place in the bed, or clothing, was
discolored?
A. I don't know as I could really tell that.
Q. Can you give us some idea from this sheet of paper?
Was it as large as this sheet of paper I have in my hand?
[Showing witness a paper.]
A. I didn't notice much, for I just took the clothes right
off. I did not pay much attention.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 117o
Q. Was there anything soiled but the sheet?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was any sheet soiled but the under one?
A. I didn't notice but the one.
Q. You say you didn't see the two girls that were sent from
the house do anything wrong?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Had you seen them previous to your going up into the
hall?  Had you seen them about the house?
A. No, sir; I never saw them before I saw them when I had
Taylor order them out of the house. I saw them going out..
Q. You say when Clarke come down, you saw one of the
girls come down?
A. She came down the other stairs.
Q. Mr. Clarke came down the winding stairs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. She came down the straight stairs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q' She went into No. 128?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that the other girl was in there when she
went in?
A. Yes, sir; I saw them both come out after that; I sat on
the sofa until they both came out.
Q. Can you give us some idea how long that was after the
bed was soiled, or was it before the bed was soiled? How far
apart were these two occurrences?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. They were some distance apart, in time?
A. I don't remember; I paid so little attention to it. I
don't remember what time.
Q. Do you remember that this occurrence about the girls
being sent away was after the bed had been soiled?
A. I cannot tell that.
Q. Let me refresh your recollection. Was it in the summer
time the girls were sent away,-wasn't it warm weather?




1176     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. No, sir; I think not.
Q. Was it in the winter time?
A. I think so.
Q. Both occurrences in the winter time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you think there was a week or two intervening?
A. I should think there was, but I could not tell for certain
I don't recollect the time.
Q. What time in the day was it you saw the girl and Clarke?
A. About one o'clock.
Q. After your dinner hour?
A. Yes, sir; about dinner-time.
Q. Do you recollect whether you had taken dinner or not?
A. No, sir; I had not,-I was called up before I ate anything.
Q. Had any part of the guests of the house been at dinner
that day?
A. They were eating then.;Q. All you know of the character of those girls is what you
heard?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF ELIZABETH HUDSON.
Re-examined by Mr. Manager iuston:
Question. I want to read you a little of your testimony before
the investigating committee, and have you say how it is. You
say, " I found the bed looking bad; it was filthy and bad;
bloody and dirty; and I called the girl, and she scrubbed the
mattress."  Was the mattress also soiled?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. So it was necessary to have that cleaned?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ELIZABETH HUDSON-.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Was there any covering on the bed, between the
sheet and the mattress?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1177
Answer. No, sir, there was none.
Q. Did you have occasion to notice the mattress, and how
much space was covered by this discoloration?
A. I do not know as I could tell exactly.
Q. You did not notice it?
A. No, sir; I did not.
The Presiding Officer —The Senator from  the Twentyninth sends up the following question:
" Could you not judge of the character of these girls, also,
from their appearance?"
Answer. I did not see them, only'for a few monents-only
when they came out of this room; but I do not think they
were very good girls.
By the Presiding Officer:
Question. You judged that from their appearance?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. McGowan:'Question. You say you did judge that from theirappearance?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was there in their appearance that made you judge
they were bad girls,-was it in their dress?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it in their actions?
A. Why, yes, it was.
Q. What did they do?
A. Well, they acted kind of as though they did not care.
Q. Give us the last part of your answer again.
A. I said that they acted kind of rude,-as though they
were not good girls.
Q. Bold?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-I am requested to suggest, whether
it would not be proper to have the testimony of the last witness excluded from the printed proceedings. If a motion is
made to that effeet, the Chair will entertain it.
148




1178     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Manager iHuston-Mr. President: I believe that concludes our testimony, with the exception of the witness Jane
Bolton; and if we can have the privilege of having her sworn,
should we succeed in producing her attendance before the proceedings are closed, we will now rest the case. If that cannot
be done, we would prefer to have the case adjourned until
to-morrow morning. But it seems to me there will not be
any objection to proceeding. We have sent an officer after
the witness and we expect to procure her attendance.
The Presiding Officer-So far as the Chair is concerned, I
will grant the privilege, unless the Senate shall otherwise
order.
Mr. Manager Huston-We do not think of anything at present that we desire to present. It may be possible, however,
that something has been inadvertently omitted.
Mr. Shipman-We are convinced that so far as the Managers
are concerned they have acted in all good faith in the matter,
and would have had the witness here if they could have done
so, and we desire to accommodate them in every way in our
power; only we ask this favor in return,-if it should happen
that we are delayed in presenting our witnesses, that we may
be granted a little time.
The Presiding Officer-I have no doubt but that the Senate will grant a like favor to the counsel.
Mr. Manager Huston-Then with that understanding we
rest."
Mr. Manager Cochrane —Perhaps it might be well enough to
reduce it to a motion, and I have reduced it to writing for that
purpose.
Mr. Shipman —I understand it is only this one witness, Jane
Bolton, that you desire.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We confine it to this one witness.
Mr. Cochrane read his motion, as follows:
Ordered, That Jane Bolton may be sworn in this case, on
the part of the State, at any time before the evidence is closed;




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1179
and her testimony received as if given in regular order; subject to the right of cross-examination on the part of the
respondent, and to produce testimony in answer thereto.
Senator Romeyn-Mr. President, I move that the proposition
made by the Manager be entered upon the records as an order
of the Court.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Morton-Was there a motion made that the testimony of Mrs. Hudson be excluded from the published proceedings?
The Presiding Officer-There was simply a suggestion made
by the Chair.
Senator Morton-How does the matter now stand?
The Presiding Officer-The testimony will be printed, unless
otherwise ordered.
Senator Morton-Would it be retained if not published?
The Presiding Officer —The reporters would copy it off into
longhand.
Senator Morton-:I move that it be withheld from the proceedings.
Mr. Shipman-We prefer that it should be as it is. We will
endeavor to wash that sheet as white as snow before we get
through. We are not afraid of it, and do not see why it should
be expunged.
Mr. McGowan-I think that everything that Mrs. Hudson
has said before the court to-day was said before the committee
on the examination. That testimony was read before the
Lower  House  in  the  presence of the  reporters; was
taken up by them and sent all over the country. Everybody
knows the story of that bloody sheet. They have read it.
They have talked it over. They have prejudged the case with
regard to it. We desire that the statement which she has
made should go upon these records as she has made it,
and that the defense, which we feel quite able to make, with
regard to it, may go along with it, that the people may read
both stories. I think it is due to the respondent that it should




1180     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
be published. There has nothing been said so very indelicate,
here; nothing that anybody-unless they are very squeamish
-could not read with propriety; and it seems to me that it is
nothing more than just to this respondent, that the whole of
this thing should go upon the record, and let everybody have
a chance to see what there is of the bloody sheet.
The roll was called, and the motion to expunge did not
prevail, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Morton,            Price,             Sheley,      3
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Storrs,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Waterbury,
Barber,           Neasmith,          Wheeler,
Begole,           Prutzman,          Wilcox,
Briggs,           Putnam,            Wood,
Cawley,           Randall,           President
Dexter,            Romeyn,               pro tern.,
Gay,              Stockbridge,                    23
Hannahs,
Mr. McGowan said:
Mr. President, There is a wilderness of testimony to go
through in order that we may present to the Court a statement
of our defense in consecutive order and in a brief time. It is
now almost the hour of adjournment. We have been very
busy taking care of the cross-examination and looking after
the case as it has come along, and we would ask the indulgence of the Court until the usual hour of assembling
to-morrow morning, before we open the case, promising that
we shall be sufficiently brief at that time to pay for any delay
that has been caused this afternoon. We shall occupy but a
very short time in opening the case, if we can have this evening to put matters in order, as we shall have nothing but our
memory to rely upon, if we attempt it now.
Senator Romeyn-I move the Senate do now adjourn until
to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
The motion prevailed.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1181
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, stands adjourned until to-morrow morning at
nine o'clock.
Lansing, Wednesday, May 15, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tem.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Absent without leave-Senator Jenks.
Mr. Manager Cochrane —There was one thing that perhaps
ought to be stated now. I do not know but the oath of office
would be sufficient proof of the official character of the respondent. I suppose that perhaps the counsel will have no
objections to admit that he is a civil officer under the Constitution, and one that may be liable to impeacllhment for proper
cause.
Mr. McGowan-We admit that he is Commissioner of the
Land Office of the State of Michigan.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Duly qualified.
Mr. McGowan-Duly elected and qualified.
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President: We find that the few hours
of preparation we have been able to give to the opening of this
case, have been quite too short for any careful investigation of
the testimony, to put it in such a shape as we desired it should
have been, for presentation to the Senate. And yet we have
done the best we could.
After dragging through this wilderness of testimony for
these ten or twelve days, we have, at last, come to an open
space, where we may have the privilege of a breathing spell,
and of looking about us, to take our bearings.
The respondent is, at last, to be heard in his own defense.




1182     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
This is the first opportunity which he has had; and now, in
opening the case, on behalf of the respondent, before the Senate, we should first ask a few minutes attention to the
inherent difficulties of the case itself.
At the suggestion of my brother, Mr. Shipman, I want to
make this proposition to the Senate, before I proceed with the
opening of this case:
Governor Baldwin is here, and we desire to use him as a
witness on behalf of the respondent. His duties are such that
he wishes to leave on the next train, at ten o'clock. We propose to examine him only in regard to a single point; and
would ask the privilege of examining him, even before we open
the case to the Senate.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent can
have that privilege, unless it is objected to.
TESTIMONY OF GOVERNOR HENRY P. BALDWIN.
Henry P. Baldwin, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You are the Governor of the State of Michigan?
Answer. I am, sir.
Q. Do you know Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
Land Office?
A. I do, sir.
Q. State whether at any time you had a talk with him concerning the work in his office, and the necessity for further
help?
A. Early at the commencement of the official term of Mr.
Edmonds, I called his attention to the fact, that the patents
of lands that had been received from the General Government from  time to time, and that the lists of railroad
lands furnished by the Commissioner of the Land Office at
Washington had never been bound,-that they had been kept
in the shape in which they were originally received. No lists




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1183
had been made of them. There were no proofs containing the
lists of patents or descriptions of lands patented, or description of
lists of the railroad lands furnished by the General Government.
I had had occasion, frequently, to refer to them, and I had
always found them in drawers, in a loose shape, without any
record of them whatever, and I stated to him that it seemed to
me they should be bound up, and books opened, in which they
would be regularly described, containing lists of all the lands
that had been received, both by patents and lists. Some of the
lands are patented, and lists of others are simply furnished.
The Captain, in reply, stated that the number of clerks in his
office was hardly sufficient; that he found a good many such
things in the office, and it would require A larger force. I
stated that I considered the matter of much importance to
the people of the State, from the fact that patents were liable
to be mislaid. I called his attention to the fact that one list
of the lands, which I had been called upon to release to the
General Government, I found missing, two or three months
before the commencement of his term; and I was very anxious
they should be bound up, and a general list made of them.
The Captain stated that it would require some additional force
in his office. I stated, if that was the fact, it seemed to me to
be of sufficient importance to the people of the State, and the
general interest of the State, that if it was necessary for him
to employ additional force, he must do so, so as to have the
work done. I believe that is the substance of the conversation.
Q. Do you know whether he did employ additional force?
A. My remembrance is that he subsequently told me he had
done so.
Q. Do you know whether these lists that you speak of,
which you suggested that he should  make,-is what he
now calls his abstract-books?
A. I suppose it is. I do not know what he may call the title
of the book. I have had occasion since then to make some inquiries with regard to these several classes of lands, and the Cap



1184     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
tain has shown me the books in which he was having it done.
As to title of them, I do not know.
Q. Then you know this work is being done?
A. I know the work is being done.
Q. You have been a member of the State Board with the
Land Commissioner, have you not, during his term?
A. I believe all of them except the Board of Auditors.
Q. How frequently have you met with Commissioner Edmonds?
A. The State Boards meet on the last Wednesday of each
month, I believe. I have been present at all the meetings with
the exception of a single one last summer, when I was out of
the State, and I think Captain Edmonds has been present at
certainly most of them, and perhaps all of them.
Q. Have you had occasion, aside from meeting the Commissioner on these Boards, to examine into or know with regard to the conduct and management of his office, to some
extent?
A. Not specially. I know very little of the details. I know
a little of it, and not very much either. Occasionally, from
time to time, my attention has been called by letter, from
people in different portions of the State, to some matters connected with the office, and upon such occasions, I have gone to
the office to make inquiries of the Commissioner, and he has
on such occasions usually taken me to the proper book, and
made such explanations as at that time seemed to be satisfactory.
Q. From the examination which you have made in this way,
and from your general observation of the office, what would
you say as to the general conduct and management of the
office since Mr. Edmonds has been Commissioner of the Land
Office?
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We object. Although, of course
we recognize, in the Governor, the high official of the State,
yet it does not appear here, he is able to judge of the way this




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1185
work is conducted,-whether it is conducted entirely for the
benefit of the people of the State.
Those who deal in the office-those who deal with lands
might, perhaps, be competent; but I submit that the opinion
of the Governor is hardly conpetent, in the way that they propose to introduce it here. He has been there, but says he does
not know much about it,-been there to make inquiries with
regard to business, which was brought to his attention,-but.
they ask him, now, the general question, what is his opinion
about the method of business of that office.
The Presiding Officer-The  round of the objection is, that
there is not sufficient foundation made, for asking his opinion
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Certainly. He does not appear to
be an expert. Of course the Governor's opinion, whether he
is an expert or not, may, perhaps, have some effect, both here
and elsewhere. But we would like to have the testimony of
the Governor confined by the legal rules.
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President, the Senate have already heard
what Governor Baldwin has said, with regard to his observation of the workings of the office, and of his meeting with the
Commissioner upon the State Boards. Of course, it is well
known, that these Boards have more or less to do with all
of the State offices, and particularly with the Land Office. I
only ask for the fact, as he derived it from his observation of
the general conduct and management of the office. He has
already stated that he did not understand the detail, only so
far as his examination went in these special cases. It seems to
me, that the evidence already shows that he had a general
knowledge of the conduct of the Office. The objection, at all
events, only goes to the weight of the evidence, and the Senate
may judge of that from what has already been stated, as to his
familiarity.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Mr. President, it goes a little
farther; it opens the door as to this question, whether the
general reputation of that office is a matter about which we
149




1186      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
can inquire. No charges of that kind have been made here,
and there has been no atte ipt to make proof upon that. We
have given proof of particular acts,-what we claim to be corrupt conduct in office; will a question of opinion of any one,
two, or three or more men, detract any from  that?  The
opinion of His Excellency here would be of some weight if
that was the question which we were to inquire into.
Supposing it was true that the general reputation of the
State officers in regard to that office was, that it was well conducted, then we could introduce witnesses to show that in
the general opinion of the people it was not well conducted.
Is that a matter of inquiry under the issue before the Senate?
In other words, can you show general reputation to overcome
the preponderance of proof of specific facts proven and
charged in a case? If this door is opened, if this subject is to
be inquired into, of course on the reply, or rebutting testimony, we may call all who  have been disaffected, who
have had  occasion to  do business particularly, and are
dissatisfied with the workings of the office. Now, whether
the office has been as well conducted under this administration as any other is not the question here,-is not
here nor there,-it has no bearing upon the case. It seems to
me, it is a question here of opinion of one who is well capable
of judging so far as his knowledge goes. The presumption is,
that had His Excellency had knowledge of corrupt conduct in
office he would have exercised that wholesome discretion fixed
by the Constitution, and have made inquiry into it before.
That he has not done so, the presumption is as strong in favor
of the Commissioner as the proof of His Excellency can be
here.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair will overrule the objection. Shall I take a vote of the Senate?
A Senator-I call for a vote of the Senate.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: I do not think that the question has the scope that the Honorable Manager seems to think.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1187
The real intent of the question was, to get at the knowledge
of the Governor of the personal management and ability, and
competency of the Commissioner,-not the general reputation
of the office. Possibly the question may have been broader
than we intended; we did not intend to inquire as to the
reputation, in any degree or way.
The Presiding Officer —The Chair would simply state, that
the opinion of the Chair was based somewhat upon the official
position, and standing, and relation of the witness to the
respondent and the office. The Chair might rule differently,
were the witness of a different character.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Do we understand the Chair, that
if we undertake to put on witnesses hereafter, to rebut any
testimony that may be given by the Governor, if we shall see
fit, that, even though they are unofficial, we shall be debarred
from showing it?
The Presiding Officer-The Chair will not state in advance
what the position will be here.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We understood the Chair to be stating a principle here; that it was admitted because he was an
official, and the argument might be that it would be rejected
because he was not an official.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair was not stating a principle,
but the reason of the decision of the Chair.
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"From the examination which you have made in this way,
and from your general observation of the office, what would
you say as to the general conduct and management of the
office since Mr. Edmonds has been Land Commissioner?"
Mr. Shipman-Permit us to shape the question a little differently, and we think we can obviate the objection. We will
withdraw that question, and ask another, and we will state the
question in this way:
Question. From your personal and official observation, will
you state what has been Mr. Edmonds' conduct and management of the office?




1188     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We make the same objection to
that. It is only stating the same question in other words.
The Presiding Officer-The question just read by the counsel
is the question proposed to be put to the witness. The question before the Senate is, " Shall the question be put?"  The
Secretary will call the roll.
The roll was called, and the objection sustained, by yeas and
nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Cawley,         Mr. Randall,
Ball,              Hannahs,           Wood,
Barber,            Morton,            President
Begole,            Price,                    pro tern.,
Briggs,            Prutzman,                       13
NAYS.
Mr. Dexter,        Mr. Putnam,        Mr. Storrs,
Gay,               Romeyn,            Waterbury,
Mann,              Sheley,            Wheeler,
Moffatt,           Stockbridge,       Wilcox,
Neasmith,          Stoddard,                       14
The Presiding Officer-The yeas being 13, and the nays 14,
the question will not be asked the witness.
Question. State whether you have any knowledge of the
habits of Commissioner Edmonds, of temperance or intemperance?
Answer. I have no knowlege whatever except from his general appearance, when I have met him officially.
Q. Did you ever observe, at any time you have met him,
that he was under the influence of intoxicating drinks?
A. I have not.
Q. Was he in any other condition than the proper one
for the transaction of business?
A. I don't remember of ever having met him, when I had
occasion to suppose he was not in a condition to transact
business,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1189
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNOR HEIBRY P. BALDWIN.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. These lists that you have referred to,-are they
the lists received from the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir; from the United States.
Q. When you advised him to have them put in order, was
that advice to have what has been called abstracts bound
together?
A. I stated to him I thought they should be bound together,
and that an abstract should be made to each, so that they could
easily be referred to.
Q. These lists are official documents of the United States?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Evidence of the title of the State?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The abstract that you advised him to get up, then, is a
mere brief statement of what is contained in those lists?
A. I so understand it.
Q. A copy?
A. No, sir; my advice was they should be bound up separately and an abstract made, so they could be readily referred
to in case of loss. I don't know that I mentioned in case of
loss; but my idea was, in case of loss we could refer to Washington and have them refurnished.
Q. They could not be evidence without the law?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have examined those United States lists?
A. I cannot say that I have examined every one, although I
have looked them over and examined some of them.
Q. Have you a knowledge of the general amount of labor
bestowed upon them to get them up?
A. I have no specific idea of the amount; yet I think it
would be attended, however, by a considerable labor,-no
great amount of labor,-but more or less labor to make those
abstracts.




11.9.0    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Would that require four or five clerks over a year, in
your opinion?
A. Really, I have no-if you want an opinion, simply, I can
give it, although it would be simply an opinion.
Q. I suppose so; but knowing something about the lists,
every man can judge how much work would be required.
A. I would not suppose that the particular duties to which
I alluded would take that number of clerks.
Q. For that length of time?
A. I would not suppose that that particular duty would take
that number of clerks that length of time.
Q. When you are out here on business, you generally come
at stated periods?
A. I am here at stated periods, and at other times.
Q. But, as a general thing, at stated periods?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that Mr. Edmonds has knowledge at what time he is
to meet you?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNOR HENRY P. BALDWIN.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Can you state how many acres of land there was
requiring that abstract?
Answer. I could not, but it must be a good many millions.
Q. Would it not have to be put on the books in small parcels and subdivisions?
A. If careful abstracts were made of each description, I suppose some of them  would require more labor than others.
Some of the conveyances from the government are in large
and some in small quantities.
Q. Upon an examination of the books, did you observe any
such information as you suggested to Mr. Edmonds ought to
be there.
A. I have not examined the books recently, but I should say
from the manner in which the work was being done, it seemed
to me it would be satisfactory when completed.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                   1191
BE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNOR HENRY P. BALDWIN.
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question.. Would this labor cover anything more than the
swamp and agricultural lands, so called?
Answer. Yes, sir. My request, if I remember right, included,
also, the lists furnished by the General Government,-by' the
Commissioner of the General Land Office,-of lands for railroads.
You are aware that a large proportion of land granted to the
State, by the Government, has been in aid of railroads; and
of those, instead of being patented, lists only are furnished;
and those lists were kept in the same loose manner, and I
requested Capt. Edmonds to have these lists also bound, and
an abstract made, the same as the others.
By Mr. Manager Iuston:
Question. Were the primary school lands included?
Answer. All the lands of the State.
Mr. Manager Huston-That is all.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent will
now proceed with his argument.
Mr. McGowan-When interrupted, I was stating some of the
causes we had had to contend with in this case, and I was
about to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that we
were dealing with the Commissioner of the State Land Office,
an office which is probably the most difficult to fill properly
of any within the gift of the people of this State; and that
from the very necessity of the case, from the peculiar nature
of the duties to be performed by the Commissioner, that necessarily complaints would arise. Charges of malfeasance, misfeasance, and corrupt conduct in office have always been made since
the establishment of this office, against the ofice, and against
the officer. That is not only true of Michigan, but it is true of
every State in the Union that is blest, or cursed, with a Land
Office. Such complaints come from Illinois, Wisconsin, aud
Nebraska, and from every United States Land Office in the
whole country. Every Governor of every State that has a




l19i      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Land Office in it, is always annoyed with these complaints,
and when we come to consider the duties which devolve upon
the Commissioner of the Land Office, we cease to wonder that
there  should  be such  complaints.  When  we come to
remember the multiplicity of things he has to do; the class
of men with whom he has to deal; the kind of work that has
to be done in his office, I say, we cease to wonder that there
are complaints, and that there are charges of this kind.
In Michigan, the Commissioner of the Land Office has sole
charge of all public lands, including the primary school lands,
the Agricultural College lands, asset lands, public building
lands, and half a dozen other divisions, including this great
grant from the United States of swamp land.
As early as 1845, I think it was, (long before there was any
grant of swamp land to Michigan, to make this confusion
worse confounded), the Legislature thought best to have a
board for the settlement of difficulties and contested claims
which arose on the sale of lands owned by the State at that
time,-other lands than swamp lands,-and a special board
was organized under the law passed, having the power to examine witnesses, and sitting as a sort of court to decide claims
which arose,-the difficulties were so great at that time.
During the first ten months of the administration of the
present Commissioner, he patented upon road contracts out of
the swamp land grant 350,000 acres alone. He is selling, and
has been selling, on the average, every day since he has been
Commissioner. 1,000 acres of land. In his dealings in these
swamp-land matters, he has to deal with hundreds and hundreds of contractors, sub-contractors, and assignees of contractors in these roads, ditches, and public improvements; and
in the wake of this army of contractors and assignees of contractors follow a horde of bummers, worse by an hundred-fold
than  those  that followed  the  army  of Sherman from
Atlanta to the sea. These land-sharks and speculators have
been ready not only to prey upon the contractors and homesteaders, but, when out of any other employment, to prey upon,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1193
in addition, the ditch-diggers and railroad builders. He has
also had to deal with homesteaders. Now, sir, it is no wonder,
in all this clashing and overlapping of interests, that there
should be some complaints,-that there should be loud complaints.  These sharp-eyed, keen fellows swarm the northern counties, with a plat in one hand and a pencil in the
other, noting down the value of every forty acres of land, as
to its timber, its soil, and its value in the market. Is it a
wonder, then, that these men, all of whose interests center in the
Land Office, should make some complaint, and that there
should be some confusion?  These are some of the difficulties
which surround this case, to which I ask the attention of this
Honorable Court before we proceed with the defense.
From the first inception of this case,-from the time of the
presentation to the Lower House of the Legislature of the petition asking for an investigation of the official conduct-or,
rather, the personal conduct-of this Commissioner, to this
moment, his mouth has been sealed. Not a word could he say
in his own defense. An investigation was made,-an ex parte
investigation was taken before the committee; testimony was
taken upon the high-pressure system. It was caught up and
scattered all over the country in the newspaper reports; and
to a certain extent by the people and press his case has been
prejudged.
We do not believe that it has been prejudged by the Senate,
but we know very well that every man who sits here and hears
the case is nothing more than human.  We know very
well* the  force which  first impressions make upon the
mind. We feel that this  is a  difficulty  under  which
we have to labor; and, before we state our defense on the part
of the respondent, we desire to ask this Court to withhold
judgment. We want to ask them, so far as possible, to banish
from their minds all first impressions that this case has made,
on the part of the People. We ask only to be heard, and you
will bear me witness when I say, that at no time has the
respondent shrunk from a thorough investigation of his case.




1194   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
When offered an opportunity, before the committee, to say a
word, he asked for an investigation. He courted it then,-he
courts it still. I think you will bear me witness, also, that in
the progress of this case, as it has been on trial before you, for
the past fortnight, that there has been no attempt to keep
from the Senate anything which bore upon the issue joined,
or which would allow the Senators a thorough knowledge of
all the conduct of this official.
We cannot believe, Mr. President, that this Court is, in any
sense, a town meeting with its rabble and noise, and want of
thoughtful action, but on the contrary we feel that it is a high
and dignified Court,-the highest Court in the State, organized out of the highest branch of the Legislature, provided for
in the very Constitution itself,-sitting only upon rare occasions, and upon causes of gravity and concern to the State.
We cannot feel that any partisan feeling comes within this
Court. We realize that here all party lines must vanish from
sight; all party differences must be forgotten. We believe
that no clamor fiom the outside, that no denland from constituents, shall come in and crowd Senators to hasty or unjust
conclusions. We rest perfectly confident in the belief that
this Court will be led only by the voice of duty in the investigation of this matter, and, with that view  of the case, we
come before you cheerfully to present our defense.
Before we state specifically the facts that we wish to rely
upon in defense of specific things which they have attempted
to prove, we shall ask to make a statement of what we shall
prove as to the general history of the Commissioner, from the
time he assumed the duties of his office.
As the matter of his nomination has been referred to, we
wish to state that at that time he made no bargains, as we shall
prove; that he entered into no contracts with any individuals,
or any set of individuals, as to what he should do if he was
elected Commissioner; that his nomination was a perfect surprise to himself; that but a very few minutes before his name
was sprung upon the Convention, he had not the most distant




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1195:
thought that he should ever be proposed as the nominee for
Commissioner of the Land Office of the State of Michigan;
that he had no talk whatever, either with his friends, or with
opposing candidates, or friends of opposing candidates, until
they were counting the last ballot, which declared him the
nominee of that Republican Convention.
While they were so counting the last ballot, some of the
friends of the then Deputy in the Land Office came to
him  and mentioned the fact of Porter's wish to be retained
as Deputy and he simply said to him, in the bustle and
hurry  of the occasion, that if elected  to the office he
should be new in the duties that would devolve upon him;
that it would be necessary for him to have some experienced
help, and that so far as he then knew, he would need the help
of the then Deputy; and that alone was all the bargain which
he made previous to going into the Land Office. We shall
show that the Deputy did not himself understand, at that time,
that he had made any contract with the Commissioner to be
Deputy; but on the contrary, that he was very anxious about
his appointment up to the very time that the Commissioner
came here to take his place and assume his official duties.
That he talked abor:t it; that he understood that some other
man would be appointed as Deputy, and wrote about it to
friends of Mr. Edmonds, asking them  to intercede in his
behalf.
On the first of January, 1871, Mr. Edmonds came here to
assume his duties. Of course, those duties were entirely new
to him. From  what we have been able to learn during the
progress of this trial, I think that no member of this Court
will expect that he, or any other person, should  have
ascertained what his duties were in a brief space of time in
that Commissioner's office, with all that was there to be done,
-with all the duties of that work and the conduct of it,and the laws bearing upon it. He commenced his duties as every
intelligent officer would,by studying up the laws which bore upon
them, in order to ascertain what the limits of his official duty




1196     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
were, and what was required of him by the various enactments
of the Legislature, leaving the details of the office to the Deputy and the clerks, who were familiar with that business. He
gradually worked into a knowledge of the office, and, as he did
so, one thing after another presented itself to him, which he
thought necessary to correct, and he corrected them. He
commenced systematizing the work. He commenced doing
away with  various abuses which he found existing, and
from  time  to time  made  changes in the office.  We
shall show you that these changes were met by a resistance
on the part of his then Deputy,-every one of them as they
then came up,-until it finally became necessary, in order that
the office might be conducted with decency, and care, and system, that the Deputy be discharged, and then there was a
change made in that office.
Now, sir, we shall not claim, neither do we wish to be understood at all, that in making this line of proof, that we are casting
imputation upon the former administration of that office. It
is a fact within  the knowledge of any one  who has
given any examination to the matter, that the office has run
itself for years. Of the last five or six, Commissioners, in fact
Mr. President, every Commissioner who has conducted the
administration of this office ever since it has been located in
Lansing, only one beside the present Commissioner has given
any personal attention whatever-I will not say any personal
attention whatever-but only one who has given it his undivided attention, only one who has been present to administer
the office himself. All former Commissioners, with  the
exception of Mr. Hewitt, have had their business away from
here, and have attended to their business, only coming here
once a month to meet with the various State Boards of which
they were members, or upon special occasions, when summoned
here to attend special things in the office. Is it any wonder
that under such a state of affairs, with no responsible head of
that office present to superintend and supervise its conduct,
that many abuses should grow up there?  We cannot, we shall




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1197
not stop.here or, anywhere ito censure former Commissioners
because they did not come here and attend to their dutes.
The State has virtually said to them, You had better stay at
home; you cannot afford to come.  We only ask you to go
there and sit upon the Boards, and be a kind of a figurehead in this department of the State. But from necessity,
the absence of these former Cormmissioners,-from the fact
that the office has been run by a Deputy, and by clerks who
were not responsible to the State, who had no particular official
responsibility resting upon them, these abuses have from time
to time been inaugurated, and have formed precedents and have
acquired such a force, that to correct them has produced this
confusion, this conflict, these charges, and, eventually, this
impeachment trial.
Now, sir, I propose to enumerate what we shall show to have
been the changes or some of the changes that the present
Commissioner has made since he has had charge of the office.
One of the first things that forced itself upon his attention,
was the fact that moneys were received in the office, and no
account made of them,-moneys to the amounts of hundreds
of dollars a year,-yes, of thousands of dollars a year; moneys
from plats, diagrams, field-notes, and various other work that
was done in the office, which was received and put into envelopes, pushed into a drawer, left in the safe, and no account
whatever made of them. He saw the necessity of having an
account made of those moneys, not only for the protection of
the interests of the State, bat to remove from his subordinates,
-clerks, Deputy, and others who had charge of these matters,
-any temptation to defraud the State; and the change was
made. Now every dollar, that is paid into the office, is immediately entered upon an account-book, and at the end of every
month this money is paid over.
Another thing which attracted the attention of the Commissioner, was the fact that no account was then kept with these
contractors,-these men who were building roads and digging
ditches through the State, and who had contracts for thousands




1198     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and thousands of acres of land, who were giving orders to A, B,
and C, for reservations, and for matured and unmatured scrip.
One had been commenced and allowed to fall into disuse,had not been brought up. He put that matter into system,ordered that the account with the contractor be brought up,
and found it necessary to employ extra help to do that, and he
did employ an extra clerk for that purpose.
Whatever accounts had been formerly kept with the contractors, had been kept, as lawyers might say, in hodge-podge.
To illustrate: The Obed Smith matter, which has been before
the Senate. Four or five contracts all put into one general account,-orders drawn upon Smith's account, and charged up
to the whole of them,-some of them falling due at one time,
and some at another,-having matured scrip on some and unmatured scrip on others,-a perfect confusion existed there,
and the Commissioner determined that these contracts should
be kept separate, and that the reservations should be kept upon
the contracts where they properly belonged; and this reform
was made.
Again he found all moneys that were paid into the office
from time to time, from office-plats and field-notes, were kept
from the Treasury, allowed to accumulate along, and were used
for the purpose of buying scrip for personal advantage,advantage to the Deputy and the Commissioner.
As soon as this came to the knowledge of the Commissioner,
he ordered it stopped, and ordered the money to be paid into
the Treasury regularly at the end of every month, and that
this account of field-notes, plats, and fees should be balanced.
He also found that affidavits of abandonment were allowed,
under the law of 1865, to be made solely by the applicant,
while the law required that they should be made by two responsible parties, or by the supervisor of the township. He
corrected that. It was a loose way of doing business, under
which abuses had grown up which were very detrimental, not
only to the interest of the State, but to the homesteaders.
These men who speculate in wild lands and Government




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   11999
lands, are not, all of them, as Caesar desired his wife to be,above suspicion; on the contrary, the facts prove that many of
them  were ready to make these affidavits without sufficient
knowledge of the facts. In other words, they would willingly
perjure themselves for the sake of getting that land.
We shall show you that, in a single instance, one man, who
has been a witness on the part of the prosecution, came to
this office with an old form of affidavit of abandonment, with his
own name attached, sworn to by himself, and that he was refused
a reservation on those affidavits,-the Commissioner refused
to allow him to enter up those lands on this affidavit,-and that
he then and there confessed that he could not get any other
affidavits than his own.
The Commissioner also, after becoming more familiar with
his office, ascertained that the clerks had sometimes been in
the habit of acting as agents for outside parties in the purchase
and sale of land, and other irregular practices which have been
shown in the office; that as soon as that matter came to his
knowledge, he immediately instituted some rules, among them
a rule forbidding his clerks to act as such agents.
Again, he  found  that  there  was  no  regularity  in
the form  of the orders that were sent to the office by these
contractors, a mere slip of paper,-a corner of an envelope,anything on which a few words could be penciled, was considered sufficient to give A, B, and C credit on the order of the
contractor. These  orders  did  not carry  with them  the
matured scrip.  In other words, they did not allow or provide that the man who held the order might have the land
patented to him when the scrip did mature; but it had been
the practice of the office to patent these lands up, whether the
order required it or not. The Commissioner found it necessary
to change the practice in that regard, and now requires that
where orders are sent by contractors to the office they
must state specifically that when the credit or the scrip
matures, that the  land  may  be  patented  up  to  the
party holding the order, or else the charge is made directly to




1200     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the contractor himself on that order, thus avoiding much of
the confusion that has arisen heretofore in this matter. And
out of this regulation has arisen a part of the ill-feeling, and
a part of the confusion that it is attempted to charge on us, by
the prosecution of this case, as corrupt conduct in office.
The Commissioner also found that when moneys were sent
here for the purchase 6f land, that the Deputy was in the
habit of putting that money into his pocket, and entering
that land with scrip. As soon as that matter came to the notice of the Commissioner, he ordered it stopped, and ordered
the money paid directly into the Treasury, and the land entered as a money purchase; and that that has been the invariable rule since this knowledge came to the Commissioner, with
this single exception: that where money was sent for fractional pieces, and not enough money sent, the land has been entered up in scrip, and the margin of the money sent back to
the party entering it. I think, however, only one such instance is in evidence.
A man, by the name of Coifron, sent down $50, and it
appeared that the piece he desired was a fractional piece,-over
forty acres. Not enough money was sent, and it was entered
with scrip by Wm. A. Barnard, and the balance of the money,
$17.25, was returned to the party.
Now, Mr. President, we have not attempted to put into
order what we have had to say in the opening of this case, nor
to follow the order of the articles of impeachment, but to follow the testimony. Under the two general provisions embodied in the case, the respondent is charged with official
misconduct, and with personal misconduct.
We shall first give our attention to the charges of official
misconduct, and shall follow the proof, and not the order of
the charges in the articles.
The first thing to which we ask your attention, is the charge
of buying and selling scrip.
We have admitted, in our answer to the articles of impeachment, that we did buy and sell scrip; we have never denied it.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1201
We now, freely and frankly, admit that Wm. A. Barnard & Co.
is Wm. A. Barnard and Charles A. Edmonds, and that Wm.
A. Barnard and Charles A. Edmonds have dealt in what is
called scrip to the extent and the amount as stated by the witnesses who came here from the bank. And we shall not put
in anything, in evidence, as explanatory of that matter. The
question is already before the Court. We shall simply claim
this: that we did as we had the legal right to do, and that in
doing it we have not defrauded the State, that we have not defrauded anybody, and that there is no injury to come to any person by reason of that transaction. We shall claim that we have
the same right, here in Lansing, to deal in scrip, as if we lived in
Detroit, Battle Creek, Marshall, or Saginaw. We shall claim
that we have the same right, if we came here to give personal
superintendence in this office, to transact other business here,
as we should have had if we had staid at home, and come only
once a month to meet on this Board, and transact business
there. In other words, if, when we were elected Commissioner of
the Land Office, we had been engaged in banking at home, and
we had been engaged in buying and selling scrip, or land warrants, that we might continue the business of buying and selling in Coldwater, and nobody could have said aught against
it. I think we have the same rights in Lansing that we should
have had  there, for the  school fund, the counties, nor
individuals have not, in any way, or in the slightest degree,
been defrauded or injured.  I do not know that it is
claimed, or will be claimed, or can be claimed, on the part of
Managers, now, under the proof before the Court, that that is
possible. It seems to me, the only claim that could be made,
would be where we had practiced entering up the land with
scrip, when money was sent here.
We shall insist before this Court, and we shall prove to you
from the records in the office, and from the officials in the
office, that the State has received every dollar of pay for every
particle of scrip that we have handled or dealt in, and thereby
151




1202     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the State could not have been defrauded. We shall claim that
every dollar of money tha' has been sent here for the purchase of
land, excepting where thi land is fractional,-that every dollar
that has been sent has been paid into the Treasury, and the
land entered up, and thereby the counties received their per
centum and the school fund its quota.
The next thing we shall call the attention of the Court to,
is the selling of licensed land without the three months' proof.
We have no additional evidence to introduce on that charge.
We admit it in our answer, and we admit it now. We claim,
in our answer, that we not only had no discretion, but it was
imperative; but if this land was for sale, the Commissioner
should put it into market, if this three montls' proof was not
not filed. We admit that abuses have grown up under this
decision. We are not here to palliate or excuse these things at
all, that have been put in proof; we have not one word of explanation of the conduct of these outside parties, who have
robbed these homesteaders of their land,-who have taken
their oxen, or their last dollar, and relieved them of their homesteads, but we deny that we had any interest in this matter.
We shall claim, so far as that is concerned, that that was a
bonafide sale in each of the three instances mentioned. It'was
a bonafide sale,-it was all right. The money or the scrip was
paid into the Treasury, and that there is not anything in the
records of the office, from  which the Commissioner could
ascertain that there was anything wrong in this matter; and,
even if he could, there was no discretion.
We stand fairly upon the law, and say, that if we did wrong,
it is the law that made us do wrong.
We claim the same thing in regard to what has been charged
here as overloading contracts, or reserving on contracts twice,
and we shall simply put in this testimony to explain that
matter. All that is meant by overloading contracts,-all that
the Managers could mean by the use of that word in the
examination of a witness,-is simply this: That the law allows




PROOEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1203
every contractor to reserve lands up to the full amount of his
contract.
When the contract is completed-not when the job is completed, but when the contract is completed-the law allows
the contractor to reserve land to the amount of his contract.
iNo, when the contract is reserved full, and it is not claimed
on  the part of the Managers that more has been put
upon it, then the contractor may have part patented up
to him  on matured  scrip. Thus  the  contract is unloaded, as they call it, and then the contractor reserves
again to the amount of his contract. We admit that practice,
We claim  that that is perfectly  legitimate  and  right.
We claim  that the Commissioner could use no discretion
in this matter. If Obed Smith has a contract which allows
him to reserve ten thousand acres of land, he may reserve that
ten thousand acres; if at any time after that contract is
reserved full, he wishes to patent up five thousand acres of that
land, he may do so, where that land is reserved on that tenthousand acre contract; when five thousand is patented up
by the State, and the contract only shows five thousand reserved, what is there to prevent him from reserving the five
thousand acres again?  Is the State defrauded by it? are
other parties defrauded by it? If by the ingenuity of counsel, or of any other party that has investigated it, it can be
shown, we submit to it, otherwise we shall claim that no possible injury could have occurred. It was entirely legitimate
and proper.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate will now take an informal recess of ten minutes.
After the recess, Mr. McGowan proceeded as follows:
Mr. President: I wish  to correct a misapprehension in
regard to a statement I made'previous to the recess. I did not
mean to be understood that if Obed Smith had a contract for
a thousand acres of land, and he reserved his contract full,
and then five hundred acres of his land should mature, and
hie patent it up on that contract, that he could then reserve




1204      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
five hundred acres more. I meant this: that, if Obed Smith
has a contract for a thousand acres of land, that he might
reserve that thousand acres, and that if he then had from
other parties, or from other contracts, five hundred acres of
matured scrip, that he might go to the Land Office and say to
the Commissioner, "I propose to patent up five hundred
acres of land that is reserved on that contract, and thus
relieve the contract of one-half of its reservations."  That
was all that I meant, and that we shall claim; and that alone
has been the practice of the office; not that contractors have
had the privilege, as portions of their contracts matured, of
patenting up the reservations made on that contract, to the
amount that was matured, and then reserving as much more.
We shall claim and show, Mr. President, that no such practice
as that has ever been allowed in the office during the administration of Mr. Edmonds, and I shall explain that point more
fully when I reach the case of the Obed Smith and Bathay
contract.
Now, I ask the attention of the Senate a moment, to the
charge made against us here, in the evidence, of holding lands
upon quarter payment, on check. We do not deny that lands
have been held here for parties, on their depositing their check,
for quarter payment,-school lands. The law specifically provides, that lands may be sold to parties on their paying twentyfive per centumn of the purchase price of that land,-in certain event,-with certain conditions; and we shall claim, and
show, that wherever lands have been held upon check, upon
quarter payment, that they were of that class of lands that the
law allowed to be sold upon quarter payment, and that in
every case where we have taken a check or draft, we have only
done so when we had the assurance that the check or draft
was equivalent to the State to the amount of money that was
represented by it. And we shall be able to show, by a decision
of the Supreme Court, that that discretion was vested in the
Commissioner; that he had a right to take a check or draft of
that kind, if he chose to do so,-and his, and his alone, was




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1205
the risk, if the check was not paid; that the lands coald not,
in any event, be thrown back upon the market, and that the
party for whom they were held must take them. And we shall
show that this alone has been the practice of the office with
regard to quarter payment and holding land upon check, and
that, in no case, where a check or draft has been deposited in
quarter payment on that class of lands, has payment been refused, but in every instance has the State been paid in full.
Now, Mr. President, we have also been charged here with
defrauding the contractors, by allowing others to reserve their
lands,-that is, the contractor's lands; and the case, and the
only case, is that of Obed Smith, where he was an original
contractor and the assignee of several other contracts,-among
them, a contract from Bathay. We shall show, Mr. President,
that the facts in that case are about these: That, several years
ago, Mr. Smith became a contractor, and that, with his original
contracts, and the contracts assigned to him, he eventually
held five different contracts; that under this system of throwing contracts together, in the accounts of the office, that all
of these contracts were put together, and reservations made on
any, each, or all of them, as the case might be,-that that was
the condition of his account with the office, as a contractor
and assignee of contractors, when Mr. Edmonds came into
office. That, after Mr. Edmonds came in, Mr. Smith became
the  assignee of Mr. Bathay, in a large contract.  That
the clerk in the office who had charge of those books, and who
was at that time making up accounts of the contractors, was
instructed to make up this Bathay contract by itself, under the
general instructions that hereafter all contracts should be kept
separate.
Mr. Ripley came to the office, and had a consultation with
Mr. Gillam, the clerk  in  charge of this department of
the office, about,lands. They were looking over the books,
and he (Ripley) asked after the lands of Obed Smith. Gillam
told him that he thought that Obed Smith was over-reservod.
Be asked him to make an examination of the books and ascer



1206     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
tain the fact, and if it was so, to give him a list of lands, commencing at the bottom of the list. Mr. Gillam did it, made an
examination of the account of Mr. Smith, and from his examination, determined that he had over-reserved the amount that
was due him upon his various contracts, and gave Mr. Ripley a
list of those lands; that Mr. Ripley went away, saying that
possibly he might make an application for them, and if he did,
that he would do so within a short time. That a short time
after that he sent an application to the office for those lands,
and, upon an examination of Mr. Ripley's account, it was then
ascertained that he had not credit enough upon his accounts
to reserve all the lands in the list which he had sent, which
included all the lands that were over-reserved on Obed Smith's
account. He then  telegraphed that the lands should be
reserved to him as far as his credit would go, taking the land
the farthest north. [To the respondent] Am I right, Mr.
Commissioner?
The Respondent-Rejecting the lands farthest north?
Mr. McGowan-Rejectiug the lands farthest north, and
reserving to him  the full account of his credits in  the
office at that time; that was done; and his mark  was
put upon the land, and they were reserved up to him, to
the amount of his credit, rejecting the lands farthest north
that he had sent. That the balance of these lands were then
handed over to Elder Potter, who has been a witness here, as
agent for Edmund Hall, and were reserved up to Edmund
Hall upon his contract; that afterwards Mr. Smith came
down here to make a settlement with the Land Office, and in
looking over the account, he claimed that these reservations
should not have been made in behalf of Ripley and Hall,-that
he had not over-reserved his various contracts. Upon investigation it was found that there were seventeen hundred and
some odd dollars, or acres of land, charged to him in David
Preston & Co.'s matter; that a thousand dollars' worth was
charged to him on the reservation of Bathay, the time he made
the assignment; that a portion of his credit which he was en



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1207
titled  to by reason of building the  road  longer than
the  contract called for, had not reached  the  Commissioner's office, but was still in  the hands of the clerk
of the  Road Commissioners.  Also, that  he had  given
orders to various parties to reserve lands upon his contracts.
That these orders had been charged up to him in full, but that
these parties to whom  he had given the orders had not
reserved to the full amount of their orders. For instance, he
had given one man an order of a thousand acres of land, to
reserve upon his contracts to the amount of that thousand acres
of land. That man had only reserved up, say, three hundred
acres. Smith claimed that he was entitled to be credited with
the balance of that order, seven hundred acres, while the Commissioner claimed that he was responsible to the man to whom
the order had been given for the seven hundred acres, and that
it was properly charged to Smith's contract; that out of these
various differences grew the conflict between  the  Commissioner and Obed Smith, and these alone, and that they
were corrected in the various ways that have been stated here in
evidence. He rescinded some of the orders. He procured
other orders returned to him. He settled up with Mr. Bathay
and gave him an order for matured scrip, and got him to release
the order for the thousand dollars. He went to the Road Commissioner's office and got his credits from there, and brought
them into the Commissioner's office, and in various other ways
the amount was corrected; and then, although Mr. Ripley had
very properly reserved those lands, and Mr. Hall also, yet, at the
solicitation of the Commissioner, they released them in favor of
Smith, from the fact that he, Smith, claimed that some of the
lands had already been sold, and he had agreed to give patents
or deeds for them himself, and from the further fact that he
had reserved them, as he supposed, legitimately upon his contract, and that he was entitled to them by reason of that, and
from the fact that these other things were mistakes. We shall
be able to show to the Senate that there was no possibility of
any fraud or corruption in the matter; that Mr. Ripley never




1208     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
offered to pay a cent to the clerk who furnished him that list;
and that, under the rules and practices of the office, had anybody else applied for such a list they would have received it.
We shall admit, and show in evidence, that if any man comes
into that office and asks for a statement of the account of any
contractor he gets it. If the contractor has reserved, by accident or otherwise, more than his contract allows, whoever
makes an  application for those lands, they  will be reserved to him, and in that matter the Commissioner would
have no discretion. When Obed Smith has reserved to the
full amount of his contract, if any other lands are marked up
to him, those marks are void; and if Ripley makes an applicacation for those lands, he is entitled to them, and the Commissioner must reserve them for him if he has the proper credits.
That is the history of this Obed Smith case.
The next thing that we shall ask the attention of the Court
to, is the charge that the clerks have bought and sold land.
The clerks that are charged with these irregular practices, or,
if you choose to call it, these criminal practices, are Barnard,
Van Dunham, Clark and Griswold. We shall introduce evidence that will clearly show to the Court, in the case of Mr.
Barnard, that he has never bought and never sold one acre of
land that belonged to the State of Michigan during Mr.
Edmond's administration. He has never dealt in any public
lands in any sense of the term. Whatever lands he has ever
traded or sold have been lands that were entirely out of the
market lands over which neither the Commissioner nor the
State of Michigan had the least control. They were lands
which they could not touch, and he traded and sold those
lands by an arrangement with the parties who did control
them, and who owned them.
We shall show to you that the arrangement made with Mr.
Bush, as he claims, was made simply for the purpose of procuring minutes of the land, and not for the purpose of procuring titles.  The Court will remember that Bush, in
his testimony, stated  that whenever he  went out to




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1209
look for lands, under an arrangement with Barnard, at each
time a special arrangement was made, whatever it was. The
Court will also remember that Bush testified that when he
talked of selling lands, he meant selling minutes of lands.
When he sold lands to Ripley, he simply sold him those papers
on which he had scratched down the amount of timber, the
kind of soil, the descriptions of the lands he made while upon
them, and entirely outside of the office. We shall be able to
show to you, that of all those minutes, made by Mr. Bush during Edmonds' administration, which were handled by Barnard,
not one acre of land was reserved, either for the benefit of Mr.
Bush or Mr. Barnard; but thai every acre of it, that was
described in those minutes, was turned over to Edmund Hall,
and by him reserved upon his contract, as we admit, and as
Bush stated, to the number of 1,900 acres and upwards, and
that Mr. Edmund Hall agreed to take those minutes, and settle
with Bush for his trouble in procuring them.
We shall show you that, in the lands traded to the Hudson boy
and to the old gentleman, and the lands traded to Munroe, that
they were already out of the market; they were lands that
had been reserved up upon Hall's contract, and they were
traded under an arrangement with Hall himself. They were
virtually leased lands, and did not belong to the State.
The only way that they could ever have come back into the
hands of the State, would have been by this reprehensible
practice, which the Managers have shown to exist in the office
previous to Edmonds' administration, whereby a lot of lands
were reserved to some one, and then thrown back upon the
market. There has been no testimony that brings that home
to this Commissioner,-that ever an acre of land was taken
from the market on a reservation,or by any other means, while
he was in office, and then allowed to go back upon the market. We shall show that when a party reserves lands upon his
own contract, he must patent them, either with the matured
152




1210     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
scrip of that contract, or the matured scrip of some other
contract, or by cash purchase.
Now, sir, we shall show and claim that this land was all
taken out of the market by Hall, and had been properly reserved upon his contract, that he alone had control of it, and
that he gave Barnard permission to sell this land, directly and
specifically, and. that it was this land and this alone in which
he dealt.
As to the dealings of Mr. Van Dunham. we shall offer no
evidence. We shall make no excuses, no explanation. We
shall simply claim in that matter that we knew nothing at all
about it; that we had no reason to know anything about it;
that it never came to the knowledge of the respondent, either
directly or indirectly, that any of his clerks ever had any
interest in  any  State  lands or that they were in any
way violating the law of 1861, which prohibited employees in  the Land Office, as well as those in the Auditor  General's  Office, from   dealing  in  State  land.
Van Dunham and Clarke are both in the same category
They have done what they did. They have testified to it. It
is before the Court, and I say we shall make no explanation of
it.
Now, with regard to Mr. Griswold. There is no evidence to
show that Griswold ever bought any land. All the evidence, I
think, is that he simply sold lands that had been already purchased, and that he had no knowledge of them at the time the
purchase was made, and that he had no interest in the lands
previous to their reservation, but only an interest after they
were reserved and taken out of the market to sell them, or act
as agent for the sale of the land and not for the purchase of
them from the State. The same with Mr. Barnard.
In looking over this matter, the Court will be surprised at
the number of witnesses that have been sworn upon this
point. There is Busch, Bouck, and Long, and Woolover, and
Wing, Conley, and Munroe, White, Cornell, and the two Hud



PROCEEDINGS OF THE.COURT.                 1211
sons, and others,-in all some fifteen witnesses, I think, have
been sworn on this. one point in the case, and we ask the attention of the Court directly to the evidence of one or two
of these witnesses.
First, the matter of Mr. Hoyt. The prosecution have sought
to show that Hoyt bought a piece of land, on which Conley
lived, and which he had licensed. We shall show this state of
facts, in connection with the case, that on December 14th Mr.
Hoyt made a formal and proper application for that land. That
on an examination of the land it proved to have been licensed
land, which had been licensed many years before, as you will
remember by the statement of Conley himself,-I think some
six or seven years; that there was no proof of settlement; that
the three months' proof had not been filed; that the land was
in the market, and under the rule of the Commissioner, which
he had adopted before that time, he sold the land to Hoyt. The
application was made on the fourteenth of December. On the
ninth of December Mr. Conley wrote to this office, asking what
was necessary to be done, that his land might be patented up
to him, or that he might get a full title to it. That letter was
received here on the nineteenth, five days after the application
was made by Mr. Hoyt.
On the twentieth, the land was made up on the certificate to
Hoyt, on his application.  On the twenty-first, the entry was
made in the Treasury department, and the patent issued. On
the thirteenth of December, we shall show to the Court,
that the  Commissioner commenced  moving  his  office,
from  the  old  offices  to  his  present place  of  business, and  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  nineteenth  of
December, but very little business was done in his office. The
books were simply kept open for application, and the applications marked and filed, and that was all that was done to
them. For three or four days before that, no letter was opened
in the office. During the whole of that time no business was
transacted, as we recollect now, with the Treasurer's office.




1212     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
This application was made on the fourteenth of December,
the next day after they commenced moving the office. I say
the applications were received and filed, simply. On the nineteenth the letter reached here asking what should be done.
There is no reason to believe,-and the chief clerk has no recollection that he ever knew anything of this letter of Conley's.
It reached the hands of the Deputy Commissioner.  He
went and looked up the land, and found an application had
been made by Ioyt for the land. He wrote back to Conley
to that effect, although Conley has stated in evidence that
he never received the letter, and properly so, for he never
did. But we shall show you, that on the twenty-first of
December, the second day after receiving that letter,-even in
the midst of the whirl of business,-in the midst of the confusion of that bundle of letters that had not been opened for
several days,-the Deputy did write to Conley that his land had
been purchased by Hoyt, of Saginaw, on the fourteenth of that
month. The letter of Conley's was written at North Branch;
was headed at the top of the letter North Branch. It is a long
straggling letter, filling a whole page of commercial note, and
just at the foot of the page, as you will see when the letter is
introduced in evidence, is a statement to direct the reply to
Clifford postoffice. The letter that was written to Conley
was directed to North Branch, instead of Clifford, by mistake.
It was put into one of the official envelopes with the return
card upon it. It went to North Branch and was returned with
dozens of other letters which came back to the Commissioner's
office, and thrown into a box where those letters are kept. Since
this testimony was offered by Conley, search has been made, as
the recollection of the Deputy was that he had written such a
letter, and the letter was found, with the post-mark, and the
dates, and everything to correspond with the statements that I
have made, showing that the office did its duty in that matter,
so far as it was possible. Hoyt had made his application five
days previous to the receipt of the letter from Conley, and the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1213
land was made up to him the next day after the receipt of that
letter from Conley on the twentieth, and before the chief
clerk or any one else in the office knew of this letter being
there except the Deputy himself.
We shall, however, claim  this: that even though  this
letter had reached the office, and reached the attention
of the Commissioner, yet, if Mr. Hoyt insisted upon his
application, he  could  have had  the land  in  spite of
the Commissioner. We claim that that land was in the market, and had been for years in the market for want of the
filing of this three months' proof, and that the Commissioner
had no discretion with regard to it. I say, even if these facts
which I have stated, that did not reach the Commissioner, had
reached him, Hoyt could have had the land. If that letter had
come directly through and reached here before Mr. Hoyt made
the application, and Hoyt had come before the three months'
proof was filed, he could have had theland. The Commissioner
could not have helped himself, and had he undertaken to have
used any discretion and refused Hoyt that land, it being land
which was for sale in the market, by the laws of the State he
could have been forced to do so by a proper writ from the
courts.
We ask your attention in this connection to the charge of the
clerks receiving gratuities. It is claimed on the part of the
prosecution that this purchase and sale of lands on the part of
clerks, and also this charge of taking gratuities on the part of
clerks, was brought home to the knowledge of the Commissioner, and that he knowingly and corruptly allowed these
practices. That we shall deny. We shall put in evidence that
he had no knowledge of these transactions, be they what they
may,-either of Mr. Barnard selling these lands of Mr. Hall's,
or of Van Dunham, or Clarke, or Griswold; but that his direct
instructions, as contained in the rules submitted to the clerks,
and laid upon the table of each one of them, were that none of
them should act as agents for outside parties.




1214     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Now, with regard to the clerks taking gratuities. There are
Barnard, and Robinson, and Van Dunham, and Clarke, and
Griswold. Mr. Robinson has been upon the stand, and has
explained how, and why, and when, and where he took gratuities. You remember the $50 payments. We shall offer no further explanation of that. Van Dunham has also stated how he
took gratuities, and so have Clarke and Griswold. They, each
and all of them, have solemnly sworn that the Commissioner
knew nothing about it, whatever it was,-whether the practice
was regular or irregular,-whether it was commendable or to be
condemned. In any event they had kept it entirely secret from
him, and he knew nothing about it.
We shall show, in addition to that, that another clerk in the
office, who, at least, is far above suspicion in any regard, and
whose word is entirely reliable, and will be accepted by this
Court,-that he had some such proffer made to him, one time
specially, by an individual asking him to enter into an arrangement to give him some extra help in his application for land;
whenever his application was for licensed land, to look them
up and mark them, whether the three months' proof was filed,
whether under the rule of the Commissioner they were considered in the market; or, when his application was for land
that was upon the plats as reserved, whether they were
over-reserved.  For such extra help as this, this clerk was
approached by a certain party and told that he would pay him
for it,-he would make it all right for his trouble. He went
to the Commissioner with that application, stating to him
what the application was, and asking him whether the scope
of his rule was such as to bar him from doing a thing of that
kind, if he did it outside of office hours, if he did it when
there was no injury or damage to the office, or to his duties as
a clerk, and the Commissioner peremptorily refused him any
such privilege or right.  That is the only time that it ever
came to the notice of the Commissioner that any of his clerks
had been solicited in that manner, as has been claimed by the
Managers in this case.




PBOCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1215
Now, we shall only introduce testimony to explain in regard
to one gratuity.  Griswold, Robinson, Van Dunham, and
Clarke have explained their own. The one I refer to is with
reference to Barnard. It is not claimed that Barnard has had
fees passed him over the counter. It is not claimed that he
has had money sent to him by outside parties to pay him for
certain things, except on one occasion, and to that we now
invite your attention. The Court will remember that it is in
testimony that Mr. Goddard wrote a letter to Barnard, at one
time, and inclosed $5 to him; that Mr. Alderman testified
that he heard that letter read, and that Goddard said in that
letter,-after hesitating and asking the Court if he should use
the exact language that was used by Goddard-" for God's
sake do something for a poor fellow; there is $5," inclosing
$5 as a bribe, expecting that Barnard would hold the land
for him-certain school lands-on quarter payment.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Mr. McGowan, I think the testimony does not show that there was any statement in the
letter, or any reference in the letter to money. It says, "Do
something for a poor fellow, for God's sake."
Mr. McGowan-If you have the files I will refer you to the
pages; you may look on pages 328 and 329. I think the counsel will find that Alderman stated that the letter contained a
description of the land; that it also stated that there was
inclosed a draft for the quarter-payment of that land, and then
afterwards, that it stated, "I inclose $5 herewith, and, for
God's sake, do something for a poor fellow."
Mr. Manager Cochrane —He  did inclose $5, and said
"for God's sake, do something for a poor fellow."
Mr. McGowan-Whatever it may be, it will be remembered
by the Court that we applied for time until we could make
search for that letter; it will also be remembered that we were
not allowed the time, but that it was promised that if we
found the letter, we would produce it. It was also apparent, I
think, from  the testimony of Mr. Alderman, that that letter
contained something else besides the mere application for that




1216      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
land,-that there were other things in the letter,-and we have
also already put in testimony, that frequently where letters
were of a personal or social description, or contained other
things that were not purely official, that they were not always filed with the official letters. I state it as a fact that we
have searched since, and that the letter is found, and when
that letter comes to be produced in evidence, it will be found
by  the  Court that Mr. Alderman's memory has misled
him  as regards its contents, as bad as his old compass
misled  him  with  regard  to  the  location  of these  two
fractional  pieces  of land  down  on  Clam   Lake;  that
he  has  either  willfully  misstated  the  facts  in  this
case, or that he has a wonderfully treacherous memory.
The letter will speak for itself. We shall introduce with that
letter another letter, which came but a short time ago from
the same party, which will be explanatory.  We shall show
this Court that it was no uncommon thing for Mr. Goddard to
send money here to this office more than was necessary; that
he sent money at other times, when he had no possible reason
to ask for any accommodation. He sent money here, when he
was simply paying his taxes upon his lands, and gave the
description of the lands themselves; and when it could be of
no possible benefit to him, in any such way, to pay a gratuity,
to bribe a clerk, to pay a Deputy for extra work,-when he
must have known that it was something that the otice must
do, as their official duty,-yet that he sent money.  We shall
show that he was a familiar friend of the Deputy; that at one
time in paying his taxes (which were some fifty-six dollars),
he says: "Inclosed find a draft for sixty dollars. It is a
little more than my tax; but give the balance to the poor, and,
when you give, feel, and eventually we shall all be saved from
damnation;" or something of that kind —" Buy a cigar." And
that in this case, which was claimed by Mr. Alderman as the
one on which the application was made in favor of Stoddard,
that Stoddard said nothing about reserving the lands for him,
as an extra favor; that he simply said this: "Inclosed find




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1217
draft for the quarter payment," on such and such lauds, giving
the description, "which please hold for me;" also that he said
further along in the letter, after asking that none of his reservations be rubbed out, after asking that the deed, which he
inclosed in the same letter, be corrected with regard to the
initial of his own name, which had been improperly put
in, he says: "I inclose five dollars to buy a cigar,-a New
Year's present."  He wrote this letter between Christmas
and New Year. We shall show you, also, by two good witnesses, right in that connection, that the land that was thus
reserved up, or held by Mr. Goddard on this application, was
not pine land; we shall show it by men who went over every
foot of it, almost; who examined those two fractional pieces
expressly for the purpose of entering them. We shall show
to you, also, that that knowledge had reached the Deputy Commissioner before he received the application from Mr. Goddard;
and we shall claim that the law gives the Commissioner the
discretion to sell these lands upon quarter payment, whenever
he, in his judgment, shall consider the lands not mainly valuable for timber. The law does not specify how he shall get
this knowledge; he may get it from actual observation of
the land; he may get it from any source he has a mind
to; the law  does not specify. When he gets it from no
other  source, we  admit-we  claim-that  the  custom,
the practice of the office is, to require an affidavit; but when
he has that knowledge, he does not ask the affidavit. Upon
this, we shall claim that it had reached the Deputy Commissioner by a man who had these two fractional pieces looked
over especially with reference to entering them for pine lands;
that they were not pine lands; that they were not chiefly valuable for timber; that Mr. Ortman, from Saginaw, a man who
deals chiefly or wholly in pine lands, as they are understood
by the northern men,-lands that are chiefly or wholly valuable for the timber that is on them,-had sent a man out, who
had examined these lands for the  purpose of entering
153




1218     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
all vacant pines on  the  section,-that school section
of land; and that the man had returned and reported
some  lots  of  that  land  good  for  pine,  and  in
looking over the balance  Mr. Ortman said, "But what
is the matter with these two fractional pieces down by
the lake." He says: "They are not worth paying for; there is
not enough pine on them to pay you to buy them at ten shillings
an acre;" and Ortman was not yet satisfied, and he sent
another man down there and told him to look these fractions,
especially, he having bought other lands on that section, and
he wanted those lots if they were worth anything; and he
sent his second man,-a discreet man, a man who had been
looking lands for Mr. Ortman for years, a man who had been
in the woods for nearly twenty years; he examined these
lands, and returned, and reported to Mr. Ortman that they
were virtually worthless for timber. Then Mr. Ortman came
to the office, and the Depaty Commissioner, in talking with
him says, "Why did you not take those fractional pieces?"
and he says, "They are not good for anything; I do not
want them; I would not pay for them  what the law
requires, if I could have them, because I have had them
looked by two of my best men, and they are not good for anything."  We shall put these " two best men" upon the witness
stand and they will make the statement to you, that they
examined these lands, and that they were worthless. We shall
show you that this knowledge had reached the Deputy Commissioner, and, using the discretion which the law allowed him,
he made up these lands to Goddard on his application, upon
quarter payment; that Goddard sent a draft, which was honored, the money was paid and put into the Treasury, and that
thelands were made up to him as lands which were not valuable chiefly for timber. So much, then, Mr. President, for the
corruption of the Deputy in taking gratuities or bribes. If we
did not have this explanation of this matter; if we were not
able to present to the Court this testimony entirely clearing the
Deputy Commissioner of any charge of malfeasance or misfeas



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1219
ance, we should yet claim that it could be no charge brought
home to this Commissioner. There is not a scintilla of evidence
to show that he knew one thing about it; that he had any reason to know anything about it; that there is anything in the
record that should have directed his attention to it, to show
that it was corrupt,-if corrupt,-unless he had found this letter; and the letter you may examine for yourselves, and see
how far that would have directed it. The application was
made by Goddard; the lands were patented up or made up to
him, as they say,-because there are no patents issued from the
Commissioner's office,-the lands were made up to him, on
quarter payment, as lands that were not valuable chiefly for
timber, and he had the evidence of the statement of Mr. Ortman, that he had had them looked, and that they were not so
valuable; and, in addition to that, if the Commissioner had
gone to the record and examined it with reference to that, he
would have found this state of facts: that every other lot of
land on that section had been reserved or bought by men who
were dealing in pine lands. The inference was that those
men would have had them if simply for lake-shore privileges,
if for nothing else; it would have paid if they had paid the
government price for these two pieces; so that take either
horn of the dilema, we shall claim that the Commissioner
could not have committed corrupt conduct in office in this
manner.
Mr. President: We have also been charged with having
increased the number of clerks. We shall show you that
when the Commissioner came into the office he found the
office-work in a very bad condition; that he found that very
many of the records were far behind; that he found that these
accounts with the contractors were in a perfect state of confusion, and that the contractors were pressing for settlement of their claims; and that it was necessary, to settle
the claims with contractors, that there should be some account carefully made of their dealings with the office. We
can show that since Mr. Edmonds' administration, he settled




1220     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
with a single contractor where it took two weeks to make the
settlement, and in that settlement he patented to that one contractor 63,000 acres of land, in all sizes and descriptions; in
pieces from forty acres up. That it became necessary that
these contracts be put into shape, but that with the number of
clerks then in the office it could not have been done, and that
for the very safety of the State itself, in the careful conduct
and system of the office, it was necessary that the clerk be
employed at once and put on that duty; and that he employed a trustworthy and able man, and he has been at it
ever since.
He also found that parties, heretofore, were allowed to
go into the office, and, from the condition of the books, they
were allowed to go through the office, and take this book and
that,-whatever they chose,-giving them  the fullest opportunity to make false entries on the book, etc., leaving the affairs
at loose ends. That papers were mislaid, and that even some
of the patents were lost, as the Governor has told you this
morning, and they could not be found,-because they were handled by every body; that the public property, in that office,
was absolutely endangered by this loose method; but there was
no clerk there to do that, and he employed one in his own discretion,-and I think the Court will say properly,-to hand
out these books and see that there are no improper marks put
on them; and to hunt up the files, and do anything he is
required, in order to facilitate the business of the office,that makes two. He found that almost daily applications
were made to the office for abstracts of the land, and they
were referred to these clerks,-the one that had the most
leisure at the time. In order to make an abstract, he had to
go to four or five books, and get his data from those, and that
it was a work of trouble to make an abstract of the land.
He also found that the platman, when plats were asked for,
had to go to half a dozen different books to make up the plats.
For the purpose of facilitating this business, he put these abstracts into a shape that they might be found at a glance; and




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1221
to systematize the business, as spoken of by the Governor, he
determined that it was necessary that an abstract be made of
all the public lands in the State. He commenced that abstract,
and is now putting upon one book what was before found
in four or five books, and, in some cases, six books. When
this abstract is made, one man can do more in one hour than,
previous to making that, he could do in four hours. These
abstracts are paid for, by the parties getting them, at the rate
of fifteen cents per folio.
After the evidence is in, I think it will take but little calculation on the part of the Senate to show that all the expense
made by this Commissioner in this matter will soon be refunded
by that one item by paying for the abstracts by parties outside
of the office. The Commissioner put four men upon that
work. We shall show you that that work has been efficiently
and thoroughly done; that all the Lower Peninsula, with the
exception of a small quantity of land, has been abstracted,-an
immense work, that four men have labored at faithfully since
it was commenced; that the books are made correctly; and we
shall show by the men who made these abstracts that they have
corrected hundreds and hundreds of errors. This single item
is itself sufficient to pay for every dollar of work put into
these books. Government lands had been sold by the State,
and government lands had been marked sold which never were
sold, and lands marked-vacant had been patented up for years
and years. By an examination of the books of the office these
errors have been corrected, and I say that for this correction of
errors alone the Commissioner would have been justified in
making the books. We shall show that the increase of force
in his office has not been as great as six additional men; but
that there was an average of eleven clerks in the office in 1870,
and that during his administration the average has not been
above sixteen.
Mr. President: We have been charged by the prosecution
in this. case, of withholding lands from  the  market for
the benefit of large dealers; that when small men-small




1222     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
men with spectacles-send here for a small portion of land,
they could not get it; but when a man applied for land, who
had a large deal with the office, he got it. There was more
implied by the statement of Kershner, than what he really
said. IHe says he went to David Preston and asked him if he
could get it patented, and he came down and had it patented
up in a few moments. But when poor Kershner applied, he
could not get it. We shall show this state of facts. Kershner testified that he applied for the N. E. 1 of the N. E. i  and
the S. i of the N. E. -4 of section 35, making 120 acres,-an
"eighty" and a "forty" [page 189 of the Impeachment Proceedings]. That he applied for this 120 acres of land, through Theodore Day, of Detroit, and almost immediately afterwards he received a reply that the eighty acres had been sold; the forty acres
were vacant, and he might have it. That the eighty acres was
sold to a man by the name of Forrest, or some such name.
He made some inquiry, and came to the conclusion that the
land was vacant; that he then went to David Preston & Co.,
and had them make application for the same eighty, and without any delay the Land Commissioner responded that it was vacant, and that Mr. Preston got it. Now, we shall show to the
Court this state of facts in this case: That on the 26th day
of May, 1871, Mr. Day wrote to this office to hold for a week
or ten  days, the N. E. of N. E. of 35, T. 35  N.,
R. 1 E.  We have  his letter showing  this  application.
We shall produce that letter in testimony, and that that is the
whole description; not one word was said about the north half
of the southwest quarter,-the other eighty spoken of by
Kershner. It is on file and bound in the letter-book. We
shall show you, by the letter-book of the office, that the Deputy
Commissioner responded that that was vacant, and that he
could have it; and that in answer Theodore Day again sent to
the office, sending $50 to pay for the forty,-the N. E. I of the
N. E., —and it was made up to him. He got it in the name
of Kershner, or Kershner & Co. But in that second letter,the letter in which he sent the scrip, and took the forty men



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1223
tioned,-he said nothing about the S. ~ of the N. E. 4. We
shall show, by the letter-book, that David Preston & Co. wrote
a letter, asking that the S. J of the N.. E.  of Sec. 35, be made
up to them; and it was made up to them at once. There is
nothing to show that the S. i of the N. E. s was ever sold.
The name of this man Frost nowhere appears on the office
records. There is nothing to show that Day or Kershner ever
applied for it. There are the letters, and thev will be presented
to you.
We have also been charged with selling information,
-that the Commissioner knew  it, and that he corruptly
allowed it. Van Dunham and Robinson are the only clerks
charged with these irregularities.
Robinson explained his own matter,-that he sold minutes
that were given him by a man by the name of Crapo. I think
we have said sufficient in regard to these minutes,-that they
are nothing that are procured from the records of the office;
that they are simply matters that are made up by individuals
outside and upon the land itself, and that a clerk would have
just as good a right to sell minutes of a Mr. Crapo as he would
have to sell Mr. Crapo's horse. We shall claim that Robinson
had the same right to take these slips of paper upon which
were these minutes,-the description of the timber on this land
-and sell them to some party, as to take Mr. Crapo's horse
and drive it through  the city and  sell it, unless he
used time belonging to the State. This information was
procured outside of the office.  The articles charge us with
selling information procured in the office.
As to Van Dunham's selling information to Hoyt, we shall
offer no further proof. You have Hoyt's statement that he
paid him a hundred and twenty-five dollars, and what he paid
him for. You have Hoyt's statement that he said nothing to
the Commissioner concerning it, and he has no knowledge that
it ever reached the ear of the Commissioner. You have Van
Dunham's statement to the same effect.




1224     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Among other things we are charged with, is that of getting
off jokes, and we plead guilty.
In addition to these, are specific facts that are charged upon
us, and upon which we shall give testimony.
We shall also give testimony  that will relate to the
reliability of several witnesses that have been upon the
stand here on the part of the prosecution. For instance,
we shall show, by the Treasurer's books, that Mr. E. H.
Porter, former Deputy, at the end of the fiscal year of
1870, paid into the Treasury over $1,900 at one time,
and that he stated at that time that it was from field-notes,
which had accumulated during the year, and that in contradiction to the statement which he has made upon the witness
stand under oath, with his own individual check, drawn upon
his own individual account at the bank; showing conclusively,
I think, to the minds of this Court, that the man willfully
falsified when he said that he never put that money into his
own private account, that he never dealt with it, and that
when the Commissioner found it out, he made him pay it over
to the Treasury,-showing that he willfully undertook to fix
upon this Commissioner the corruption of which he knew at
the time he alone was guilty.
He did take money that belonged to the State, that was paid
into the office by parties who got field-notes and plats, which
should have gone into the Treasury, at least at the end of each
month, and put it into his own private account.  His
check can be shown here. It will be proven by the Treasurer
and parties who know that he paid that $1,900 out of his own
fund. Is it not a little strange?  It is something that you
cannot harmonize with his statement that he kept that money
in an envelope in a drawer, at his office; and the only conclusion you can come to is that the man is unreliable. We
shall show that he received a postoffice order for sixteen
dollars for plat money, eleven days after he was ordered
to open an  account and did open  an account between
the Commissioners Office  and  parties  sending  moneys




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1225
there to the  office.  He  resisted  the  request of the
Commissioner to open that account on the first day of
April, and it was not until the fifteenth of April that the
Commissioner discovered that the account had not been commenced and the itens of money already on hand entered upon
it, and he then changed his request to a command.  le
opened it on the fifteenth day of April, and put down the
items of moneys already on hand, at that time; entered the
various items as they came along, up to the 26th day of April,
and on the 26th day of April there came this postoffice order,
and he took it to the postoffice and drew the money on it and
put it into his pocket and did not enter it upon the account,
but kept it until he went out of the office, and until along in
June, when his attention was called to it, and then he became
angry and refused to pay it back until lie chose to do so, after
all the facts were ascertained and the thing fastened upon
him, showing unmistakably the bias and utter untrustworthiness of the witness upon whose testimony they have to a
large degree relied to fix corruption upon this officer.
We shall also show that he had, previous to this time, threatened this officer with political vengeance; that he would see that
he was ousted from his office, or, at least, that he would never
be elected to the office again. We shall show that he took a
deaf boy, an employe in the office,-a one-legged soldier, as the
Comminsioner is a one-armed soldier,-that he took that boy
to his store, and offered him money, or said he would give money, to ascertain facts whereby he could charge this Commissioner with corruption; that he asked him to intercede in his
behalf to procure the office for himself. That he has made
haste in this matter, and has shown himself more than a willing witness, will appear by the testimony in this case.
We shall show, with regard to the man James H. Baker,
that at the Chapman House, on the occasion concerning which
he has testified, that he himself was the drunken man, and not
the Commissioner; that he tried to bribe a man by the name
154




1226    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
of Shattuck, here in town, by offering him ten dollars, to ascertain certain facts from a questionable source, and told him that
he (Baker) was making money out of the impeachment case, and
that Shattuck might as well make some as anybody else; that
he has been something more than what he has exhibited himself on the stand, namely, a willing witness; that he has more
than made haste to testify against this Commissioner; that he
has used all his influence as a deputy sheriff and an Assistant
Sergeant-at-Arms for this House, to bring testimony to bear
against this Commissioner, right or wrong. We shall show
you that at that house, on that night, he did play billiards,
although he has denied it here,-not by witnesses who were
intoxicated, not alone by boys who played with him, but by
sober, quiet, reliable citizens who went in and saw him play.
We shall show you that he was excited and intoxicated that
night; that he spatted his knees and danced what they call
the juba, and he spatted his knees for others to dance; and
that it was utterly impossible for him to have personal knowledge of the facts which he has claimed  he saw  and
knew.  We will show  that Edmonds retired from  the
lower room, and went to bed before Baker left the house; that
Mr. Baker was still there playing billiards and drinking champagne, and offering to protect the boys from arrest by a policeman who came in after Edmonds had gone to bed that night.
In other words, we shall show you that he is utterly upworthy
of belief, so far as his testimony has touched upon the case.
We shall also introduce some testimony touching the credibility of the witness Bush, the witness on whom they rely
wholly, or almost wholly, to fix corruption upon Mr. Barnard.
The management have introduced into the prosecution of
this case three instances where homesteaders have lost their
homes by reason of failure to file their three months' proofs.
Some of them are very hard cases. Some of them have very
properly appealed to the sympathies of this Court, and, as I
have said before of those cases, we have no excuse to make for
the parties who have taken advantage of the law to rob the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1227
poor man,but in our defense we feel bound to show one more case.
We shall be able to show this state of facts: That this same
man, Bush, who has testified so glibly and readily against the
office and against the Deputy, has not been free from the stain
which this Court has fixed, if it has fixed it at all, upon Van
Dunham and Cornell. We shall show, by the records in the
office, that in the month of March, 1867, a man by the name
of Diamond licensed a piece of land. That on May 24, of the
same year, he filed his three months' proof. That on January,
18th, 1871, this man Bush came to the office, and, under the
law of 1865, filed an affidavit of his own, on the form prescribed by the office,-that the man Diamond had abandoned
the land, and that he was entitled to enter it.
Under that affidavit the land was sold to Ripley, for whom
he was acting as agent at the time. The affidavit was the form
then in use, allowing the oath to be made by the applicant.
He filed this affidavit, stating that the man had abandoned the
land, and it was sold to Ripley. We shall show you that on the
15th of September, 1871, James A. Markle, supervisor of the
township in which Diamond lived, and in which the land was
located, made an affidavit that Diamond was living on the land,
cultivating it, and had been in possession of the land and
had it under cultivation ever since 1867,-for four years.
True, Diamond had already filed his three months' proof, but the
Court will remember that under  the  laws  of 1865,
although  the three months' proof be filed, yet if there
is sufficient proof of  abandonment, or of non-settlement, then  the land may  be put in the market and
sold again. Markle's affidavit will be exhibited here as a
part of the files of the office, and as a paper that has already
been identified in this case, by Bush, himself. On the 13th of
October, Deputy Barnard wrote a letter to Ripley, who had
purchased the land, stating these facts set forth in the affidavit of Markle, made a copy of the affidavit, and sent it with
his letter. Ripley referred the matter to Bush, sending Mr.
Barnard's letter and a copy of the affidavit to him. Bush, of




1228     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
course, proposed to stand by his affidavit, and wrote a letter
back to Mr. Barnard, that he still believed that Diamond was
not on the land. That affidavit and the letter of Barnard's
are already in evidence. We shall show you that on the 22d
of February, of this year, 1872, that there was further filed, as
proof in this case, in the office, the solemn affidavit of four
men, including the occupant of the land himself, that
he was still upon the land; that he never had abandoned it;
that he had occupied it constantly from the time he received
it, and that he had cultivated it, showing that this man Bush
is in no way to be credited in his statements. A man that will
deliberately do that, is no more to be relied upon than the man
who would take his neighbor's money, or do any other corrupt
thing; and I imagine that the Court will " make haste slowly,"
when it is proposed to convict an officer of this State upon
such testimony. We shall show, also, that Bush brought to
the office, the latter part of April, 1871, a handful of affidavits. This, you will mark, was soon after Mr. Edmonds came
into office,-in April, after he came in,-before he was familiar
with the business of the office, and about the time he
changed the form of these affidavits of abandonment, under
the law of 1865. Possibly I should, right here, explain a little
with regard to that. Although Mr. Edmonds has ruled, as
Commissioner, that if these homesteaders do not file their
three months' proof, the land is in the market; yet under the
law of 1865, if they have filed their three months' proof, the
land may still be put back on to the market by filing with the
Commissioner certain testimony,-the affidavit of two reliable
witnesses, or of the supervisor of the township,-that the land
has been abandoned-wholly abandoned-by the licensee who
went upon it; or that the land never was occupied by the
licensee; that the original application and the three months'
proof were perjuries, for instance, or procured by fraud or
some other illegal means. By making these affidavits, the
land may be again put in the market, and again sold.
These are the affidavits of which he has changed  the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1229
form; that -after he had changed the form, Mr. Bush
came to  the office with a handful of the  old  form
of affidavits, signed by himself, and sworn to by himself,
claiming  that the  lands described  in them  had  been
abandoned by the parties, or had never been settled upon; that
Mr. Edmonds then told him that he thought that that form
of affidavit did not conform to the law, that he had changed
the form, that the law required that there should be two responsible parties, and that he had changed it, so that two parties must swear to the affidavit, and that their responsibility
must be certified to by the supervisor of the township, but
told him that he would allow some discretion in this matter,
and would allow them to be certified to, by the town clerk, or
by the county clerk, or by some other officer who would know,
or ought to know, by reason of his position, with regard to the
responsibility of the parties, but in no event would he receive
those then offered to him, and on which Bush desired the land to
be patented up to Mr. Ripley; and that then and there, and to his
shame, he admitted that he could not get any supervisor in
these townships to swear to them or make the necessary certificate; that his only resource on those descriptions was to get
them upon his own affidavit and nobody's else: showing, conclusively, that he intended to act corruptly in the case, if he
had not committed willful perjury.
Now, as to the question of drunkenness, we shall not spend
very much time upon that. Mr. President, I do not know but
we shall spend less time in the proof than I shall spend in the.
explanation; but we shall show thisThe Presiding Officer-Let me ask how much longer time
you desire in the opening.
Mr. McGowan-I think I shall only be ten minutes longer.
Mr. Romeyn-I move that the order be suspended, and that
the counsel have ten minutes.
The Presiding Officer-It will be so considered unless there
is objection.




1230     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. McGowan-On the question of drunkenness, we shall
show that at the Chapman House, at the time he was charged
with being drunk, that he was entirely sober. We shall show
that he had the oversight and supervision of his clerks there,
at the time that two of his clerks became intoxicated, or partially so; that he went to the bar-tender and told him that he
should not let them have any more liquor; that the clerks went
for more (champagne, rather, as that was all that was drunk
there that night); they went for more, and it was refused
them; that one of them became angry and demanded it; that
the Commissioner was firm, and would not let him have any
more, and gave them fairly to understand that unless they conducted themselves properly in that matter, that there would
be a couple of vacancies in the Land Office the next morning; and that on this they cooled down; that they staid
up until they were somewhat sober, and went to his bed
late at night to make their apologies and make the thing
straight that they might keep their places in the office,-they
knowing that he was a man of his word. That is all there
was of that spree. It was confined to the boarders and guests
of the house, with the exception of Mr. Baker. He was the
only outsider. The Commissioner was entirely sober. At bedtime he took his lamp and went to bed alone, the only time he
went up-stairs that night.  No parties went up with him.
The story that he was carried to bed that night is an utter fabrication, made out of whole cloth; not a word of truth in it.
We shall show by men who have known him for years and
who have been intimately acquainted with him, officially and
socially, that he was never known to be drunk; that he seldom touches a glass of anything that can intoxicate; that he
has no such reputation, and no such habit, and that they
cannot successfully fasten upon him a single instance of
drunkenness.
Now, in regard to this charge of adultery, we shall not, of
course, go into any statement of what we shall do in defense
of what Jane Bolton may say here; and so all we have to do




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1231
is to wash that sheet. There is the adultery, if anywhere. Mr.
President, we shall show to this court a state of facts something
like this: That, from a boy, this respondent has been affected
to a greater or less degree with a malady, over which he had
no control, and for which he is not in the least responsible,
namely, bleeding from the urethra; show by his family physician that it is not an uncommon occurrence; that it comes on
unexpectedly, without reference  to  time; we  shall be
able to  show  by physicians of position and  eminence,
not only at home but throughout this State,-physicians
whose  skill and  integrity  will  carry  convictions  of
their perfect truthfulness of statement.  In one instance,
at his own home, in  his own  bed, with his own  wife,
there was such a bleeding, from that source, that he and his
wife both became alarmed, and sent for the family physician,
and he not being at home, the messenger ran for Dr. Cutter;
that the physicians met there,-the family physician happening to come home in the meantime; that, that night, Mr.
Edmonds bled as much as half a pint, until his clothes were
all bloody, until the bed was bloody, until all about him was
bloody, and they had some difficulty in stopping the blood.
On  the night alluded to, by the  witness, we do not
deny that the bed was soiled; but we claim  that it was
soiled for no such reason as claimed here by the witness
We shall show here, by medical testimony, that no woman
or man can tell the difference  between the menses of
a woman and such discharges of blood, as I have mentioned,
flowing from a man, when it is mixed upon the sheets of a bed,
without a chemical analysis; and that, at least, from a casual
observation, no one can tell. This lady who has testified here
is simply mistaken.
It is possible, if this Jane Bolton is called, that she may
swear to other instances where she discovered drops of blood
in that bed; and this explains the adultery,-and this is all
of it,-this is the whole of it.




1232     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Now a word with regard to Alice McCabe. And first with
regard to Cole.  Cole saw the Commissioner come out of
Alice's. We admit it,-he came out of there in the morning,the morning of the railroad excursion to Detroit. The day
previous to that had been a show day here.  The Commissioner with some of his clerks, or, at least, some of
his clerks, were at the show.  The next morning, one of
the clerks said to the Commissioner,-one that was boarding with him at the Lansing House, —"Let us go over to the
mineral spring before breakfast."  They were up early and
went down to the river,-to the crossing below this house.
The boat was on the other side and it was early in the morning and nobody to bring it over. They staid there a while
and no one came out to bring the boat over, and the Commissioner turned about and said,-"I am going back to my
breakfast."  The clerk said,-"I am  going to stay here
till I get a drink of that water, if it takes me until
office hours." The clerk staid and eventually got the boat and
went over and got the water and came back. The Commissioner turned back. As he was going past that door somebody
rapped and asked him  to come in. It was not Alice. He
stepped into the hall and talked there with the individual in
the hall,-asked him what he wanted, and had a conversation
with him. When it was over he stepped out of the house and
went up the street and about his business,-went to his office
and went to work; and that is that story, and the whole of it.
We shall show you that Baker falsified when he said that
Griswold and Edmonds came out of Alice's that night, if you
are not already convinced of it by what the man that was with
him that night said. In every material point Baker is already
contradicted with regard to that statement, by the man (Bosworth) who rode with him, and who, evidently, upon the witness stand, intended to testify only to such things as he knew.
He states that the men who came out of Alice's that night
were about medium size, and neither of them noticed that an
empty sleeve was swinging there. The man who was with




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1233
Baker that night knew Griswold,-knew him at school,-he
did not recognize him  as one of the men who walked away
from that house. We shall show you by sworn testimony that
Mr. Griswold and Mr. Edmonds were never at Alice's together
-that they never went there together, and never came away
from there together.
Mr. President, and Senators: We claim that when we have
shown these facts, as we shall show them, to the satisfaction of
this Court, we must be acquitted of these charges that are preferred here against us. That the miserable record that has
been made, first, by the ex parte examination on the part of
the committee in this case, and then by the prosecution, here,
up to this date, must be wiped out; and that the Commissioner must stand, not only as legally acquitted before this
Court, but as morally and wholly acquitted before the people
of this State.
We shall claim, from the evidence which we shall introduce
here, that he has performed his duty faithfully and well; that
he has executed, to the letter, and in the spirit of the law, the
great trust that was put into his hands by the people of the
State of Michigan, when they elected him to this responsible
office;'and we shall ask, and expect, a verdict of not guilty at
the hands of this Court.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, will take a recess until two o'clock this afternoon.
Wednesday., P.  My 15, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President,
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present
155




I234     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
TESTIMONY OF tHON. DANIEL STRIKER.
Daniel Striker, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Are you the Secretary of State?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with the Commissioner of the Land
Office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I met him first at the convention.
( You have known him diuirng his official term:?
A. Yes, sir.
(. How often have you seen him during that time?
Q, Every few weeks,-sometimes as often as once in two
weeks, and every four weeks we have met the last WednesLday
of each month.
Q. You met him there officially?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Been in his office frequently?
A. Quite frequently, in the other building,-not So frequently
here.
Q. Have you seen him in places out of the office?
A. I have seen him at the hotel.
Q. Will you state whether during that time you have seen
any indications about him of drinking liquor?
A. No, sir; I never have.
Q. Ever know him to drink?
A. Never saw him drink a glass of liquor that I know of.
Q. Have you everseen him when you had reason to suspect
that-he had been drinking?
A. No, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINIATION OF HON. DANIEL STRIKER.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Did you ever frequent those places with him
where drinking is done?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  23S
Answer. I have never been in any place where drinking was
dme that I know of in this city.
Q. You are not in the habit of resorting to those places
yourself, are you?
A. No, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH LAWRENCE.
Joseph Lawrence, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. In Saginaw.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. About twenty years. I have lived in the Valley about
twenty-five years.
Q. What business are you engaged in?
A. Looking land and surveying.
Q. How long have you been in that business?
A. About twenty years.
Q. Do you know Charles L. Ortman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to look any land for him, up
by Higgins' Lake?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I refer now to lots five and six, section 16, 24 N., 3 W i
A. Yes, sir; I looked the lands on that section the first of
last June.
Q. For whom?
A. For Mr. Ortman.
Q. Did you locate any land up there?
A. I selected for him the W. frl. part of the S. W.,  the E. R
of N. E. 4, and N. E. i of S. E. 4. The rest were taken a  the
time, I believe, and I also looked the S. frl. i of the S. E.,
being fraction of five and six.
Q. Would you state now about fractions five and six, what
kind of land they are, as to timber and so forth?




1236     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I count it worthless for timber. I looked it very close,
because I wanted every piece I could get.  Those were the
instructions I received.  There was not timber enough on it
to pay for taking it at any price.
Q. What would you say that land was worth per acre?
A. I would not give a dollar an acre for it to-day, and have
a deed,-not for timber purposes, and it would be of no value
for anything else.
Q. Will you state what kind of timber there is on it?
A. There is what we call pitch pine and some Norways, a
short scrubby pine which I did not consider of any value,small scrubby stuff of no value for sawing purposes.
Q. State whether there is any good pine on it.
A. I did not see anything that I called good merchantable
pine on it.
Q. Did you make a report of this to any one?
A. Yes, sir; I reported it to Ortman, as he wanted every
piece on the lake that he could get,-State or school land.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH LAWRENCE,
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. What kind of land is it?
Answer. Sandy land along the shore, and along the lake
there is a strip, I think, fifteen rods wide that has hardly anything on it.
Q. The land is of no particular value?
A. I should not count it so.
Q. Whatever the land is worth, it is for timber if it has
value at all?
A. I should count it so.
Q. You speak of Norway pine,-what do you mean by Norway pine?
A. That is the name of the pine, —we call it Norway.
Q. Is it not a fact that Norway pine is more valuable than
any other kind of pine, where it is of such a character that it
can be used, at the present time?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1237
A. Good Norway pine is valuable,
Q. Is it not the most valuable pine, at the present day, we
have?
A. Not considered so by our lumbermen. They prefer cork
and timber pines —the large class of white pine.
Q. Do you not know that, recently, white pine is being used
for purposes that it had not been used for before, and that, at
the present time, these small Norway pines are very valuable?
A. I do not know it. Large Norway is valuable, and has
been.
Q. Is not the small valuable?
A. A small-size thrifty pine is nice; short, scrubby pine is
accounted of no value.
Q. What other kind of pine is there on it, except Norway?
A. Nothing but this black pitch pine.
Q. That is of no value?
A. That is of no value that I know of.
Q. Did you make an estimate of the amount of Norway
pijie on these two fractions?
A. I did not count it worth estimating. It was not good
merchantable timber.
Q. Did you go over the land to investigate that matter?
A. Yes, sir. I went over to ascertain, because I was interested. I got so much for every forty I could get.
Q. What part of the section did you say this was on?
A. The S. E. fraction of the S. E. i, being fractions 5 and 6,
Sec. 16, 24 north, 3 west.
Q. What lake was that?
A. Higgins' Lake.
Q. Which side of the lake was it on?
A. On the east side.
Q. You have not got that plat here?
A. No.
Q. What was on the south side of the land?
A. The lake lies south of it, with the exception of a portion
of about 60 rods on the S. E. J.




1238     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How did these two lots lie as to the lake?
A. The lake cuts in about sixty rods west from the S. E. i of
section, and runs in a northwesterly direction through both
the fractions.
Q. The lake runs through both the fractions?
A. Cutting off a portion of both fractions.
Q. When did you ascertain that fact?
A. Last-spring, when I was there.
Q. Have you looked at the plat since you have been in
town?
A. I have seen the plat.
Q. Have you been at the Land Office to look this matter up
since you have been in town?
A. I will state first what I did.
Q. Have you been and examined it since you have been in
town?
A. Yes, sir. I have looked at the plat.
Q. What did you look at it for?
A. I looked at it to decide a question about the land. I said
it was sixty rods, before looking at the plat, from  the lake to
the section corner. Some one said it was not.
Q. Who said it was not?
A. I think it was a land-looker that was with me. He said
he thought it was not quite so far. I said I should refer to the
plat. We referred to the plat, and I was the nearest correct,
as it was laid down on the plat. That was all I referred to it
for.
Q. Do you know Mr. Goddard of Saginaw?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his business?
A. Professional engineer. He is dealing some in lands now.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr Alderman?
A. I know him.
Q. What is his business?
A. He is a surveyor and land-looker.
Q. He is dealing in pine lands, is he not?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1239
A. I suppose he is. I know he is a surveyor and is looking
lands a good deal; that is all I know about it.
Q. What part of the section was it that you looked at last
June?
A. I looked the west fractional part of the N. W..
Q. Section 16?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For whom?
A. Charles L. Ortman, —the E. a of the N. E. 4, and the S. E..of section 16.
Q. Did you apply to the Land Office for this land?
A. No, sir; I gave him the minutes and he located them.
Q Do you know whether he located them on quarter or full
payments?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Do you know whether there was an affidavit made with
reference to this land?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you not know anything about that?
A. No, sir. I know he located them; I saw it on the books;
I did not see how they were located.
Q. Who was with you when you were looking at those
lands?
A. A son of mine.
Q. Where is Higgins' Lake?
A. In the northern part of Michigan, town 24 north, range
3 west.
Q. How far from any settlement?
A. I do not know. I think there was a- settlement off to
the southwest, toward Muskegon. I could not tell the exact
distance. It is a good ways east of any settlement.
Q. What stream do they run their pine out?
A. The Muskegon; it is at the head of Muskegon river.
Q. You did not estimate the timber?
A. I did not find anything worth estimating.
Q. Did you estimate it?




1240      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I looked the land for timber and I found no timber of
any value; I looked it close.
Q. Did you say whether you estimated the timber or not?
A. I looked all the timber.
Q. You can say yes, or no, whether you estimated the timber?
A. Yes, sir; I estimated it.
Q. What amount did you find on it?
A. I believe I thought there might be, of very poor timber,
15,000 or 20,000 feet, but it was very poor, and scarce at that.
Q. Then you did make an estimate?
A. Yes, sir; I looked all the timber there was-a little strip
on the north side,-a few scarce trees.
RE-EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH LAWRENCE.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. State whether you mapped this before looking at
the official plats?
Answer. I did, and the reason why I referred to the plat
was on account of the distance.
Q. State whether it was not I who sent you to get the plats?
A. Yes, sir; it was you who sent me to get the plats so as
to see who was the nearest right on the distance, from the lake
shore to the S. E. corner.
Q. How had you got it?
A. I got it nearest right. I said it was sixty rods, and some
land-looker said it was not so far. You went or sent and got a
plat, and I was nearest right.
Q. That was on the south side of the S. E. corner?
A. It was the south line of the section.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH LAWRENCE.
Examined by 1r. Manager Huston:
Question. Have you any memoranda by which you can fix
the date when you were there?
Answer. No, sir; it was very near the first days of June.
I am within three days of the correct time, too.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1241
Q. You did not come to this office here with your report?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q, Did you report to the Commissioner that there was no
timber on that land?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you report to Edmonds that there was any timber
on that land last year?
A. No, sir, I never had any conversation with Edmonds until yesterday.
Q. To whom did you report?
A. Charles L. Ortman, East Saginaw.
TESTIMONY OF M. E. HITCHINGS.
M. E. Hitchings, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. Saginaw.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. About seven years.
Q. Do you know Charles L. Ortman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear Lawrence testify just now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember looking those lands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state how, when, and why you looked them?
A. I looked them about the last of last July. Mr. Ortmau
had had them looked by Mr. Lawrence, and IMr. Lawrence had
located some in some sections, and left this piece out, and Ortman thought he would like to have this piece if there was any
timber on it of any value, to go with the rest of the land;
and so he thought probably Lawrence might be a little too
particular, and he sent me on to look after him, to see if they
were of any value.
Q. Have you been in that business before that?
156




122      TRIAL OF GCHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Yes, sir..
Q. How long?
A. About nine years.
Q. What did you do with regard to looking this piece.of
land?
A. I went on and looked over the land.
Q. Did you go specially for that purpose?
A. No, sir, I was looking other land.
Q. State how carefully you looked, and what was the result?
A. First I went and found the meandering corner on the
lake, and run it out to the S. E. corner of the section. From
then I paced it 80 rods, as we always do, and then I paced off
160 rods west, and I didn't see timber of any value as pine
land.
Q. Did you go all over the land?
A. I went very nearly all over. I had a man with me, and
he would take a circle off from me as I was pacing through, to
see if there was any timber on it or not.
Q. State whether there was or was not valuable timber on it?
A. I saw some small Norway and some small sapling pine,
but I did not think there was enough of any value to take the
land as pine land. I thought probably it would cut somewhere
about 20,000. It was small Norway and sapling pine.
Q. On both pieces?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What should you say the land was worth an acre?
A. For pine land I should not think it would be worth
hardly  anything. For farming land I should say it was
not worth anything, because it was mostly all sandy. I could
not say what it would be worth an acre.
Q. Did you report this to any one?
A. I reported this to Ortman?
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. E. HITCHINGS.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. How long did you say you had been in the business of looking pine?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1243
Answer. About nine years.
Q. In whose employ have you been?
A. I have been in almost everybody's employ; looking for
different parties.
Q. Different parties in Saginaw?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Name some of the parties.
A. I have looked for Mr. Ortman, Rust, Owen, King, Brockway, and several more parties. I have looked for parties in
Detroit.
Q. How long have you been in Ortman's employ?
A. I have looked land for him off and on for the last two or
three years.
Q. Who were you looking land for when you went up to
Higgins' Lake?
A. I was looking land for myself, calculating to sell to
Ortman.
Q. Were you in the employ of Ortman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How was it you were looking around for yourself?
A. I was looking land to sell to him.
Q. Did you sell minutes to any one else?
A. No, sir.
Q. About what time was it you were there?
A. About the last of July.
Q. Any one else with you?
Q. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. A gentleman by the name of Larabee.
Q. Where does he live?
A. In Saginaw.
Q. Did you make any estimate of the timber,-count the
trees?
A. I didn't make any estimate,-I didn't see anything to
estimate.




1244     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You didn't count the trees?
A. No, sir.
Q. I understood you to say you went 80 rods in one direction,-what direction was that?
A. North.
Q. Then you went 160 rods west?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is all the examination you made?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then all you know about it is what you learned by going
80 rods north and 160 rods west, and what Larabee reported
to you?
A. Yes, sir; but in doing that you could see pretty nearly
the whole lot.
Q. What kind of timber was there on that lot?
A. Small timber-this small jack-pine, as some people call
it. Some few small scrubby black oak, and there might be
some few soft maples, and a few small sappy Norways near the
north end.
Q. Any small trees.
A. Yes, sir, some small undergrowth.
Q. What distance could you see in the woods?
A. Twenty rods.
Q. You say you are a professional land-looker.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you not known in your experience that it will frequently occur that one man will look a piece of land and
report that it is not valuable for timber, and afterwards another party look up the land and buy it for him, and actually
get a large amount of pine that was not discovered by the first
looker?
A. Yes, sir; I have heard of such occurrences.
Q. Does that not frequently occur?
A. I don't know; I never had it occur with me. I have
heard of such occurrences.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    1245
Q, Have you not known of several hundred dollars worth of
pine being on a few acres of land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Might not a man go across a piece of land as you did,
and not discover any pine?
A. Not on such a piece as that.
Q. You didn't see the whole land?
A. I saw nearly the whole of it.
Q. Have you not frequently seen an 80 acres of land that
was worth five or six hundred dollars for pine, and perhaps
the pine be all on one corner, or a small part of the lot?
A. I don't know that I ever saw a lot that was worth as.much as that, unless the person that went to find it could see
it somewhere on the lot.
Q. Does not that frequently occur?
A. Such things might occur.
Q. The piece might be valuable for pine, and yet the greater
part have no pine on it at all?
A. I do not think that possibly could be so.
Q. Answer my question.  I say a piece of land might be*
valuable for the pine timber, and still the greater part of the
piece not have any pine timber on it at all?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not pretend to say that this pine which was on
this land that you saw was not worth anything at all?
A. No, sir. I do not pretend to say that.
Q. There was some value in the timber?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the main value of that land, if it has any value at
all, is for the timber that is on it. Is not that so?
A. I do not know. I would not consent to pay the tax on
the land for it.
Q. Its chief value is for the timber upon it, is it not, if it
has any value at:all.
A. I don't know that it would be.




1246     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Will you answer my question? Does not the chief value
of the land consist in the timber that is growing upon it,-the
oak, pine, and the various kinds of timber that are upon it,
whether it is more or less.
A. The timber, I should not think, was of any value.
Q. Then the land is of no value in your judgment, at all?
A. I should not call it of any value.
Q. A moment ago you said the timber was of some value
Was not the twenty feet he spoke of some value?
A. If it had been pine of aty size.
Q. Then I understand:ou to say that the land is of no valus
at all?
A. I- should not call it of any value to me, at all.
Q. That is not the question. You might not want it;  but
as a land-looker, I ask you to say whether it is of any value;
as a man that claims to be a judge of pine lands.
A. It is of the value, I should think, of 20,000 feet of common, coarse timber.
Q. What would that 20,000 feet of common, coarse timber
be worth, in your judgment?
A. Well, probably, it would be worth a dollar a thousand.
Q. That is all the value there is to the land?
A. I should think that was all the value of the land.
RE-EXAMINATION OF M. E. HITCHINGS.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. How were you to be paid?
Answer. I was to be paid by the loft
Q. Explain that.
A. I was to have so much a lot, of each forty-acre lot of
land which I would locate to Mr. Ortman.
Q. Suppose you did not locate the lot?
A. I was not to get any pay.
JOSEPH LAWRENCE, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. How were you to be paid for looking this land?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1247
Answer. Paid by the forty-acre lot.
Q. On what conditions, or how?
A. Those I should have got ten dollars a piece for. F:t
those two fractions, twenty dollars.
Q. When would you have got it?
A. Just as quick as located.
4. If you did not locate the land, then what?
A. I did not get anything.
TESTIMONY OF LUCAS JOSEPH.
Lucas Joseph, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
hbe part and" behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman.
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. Quincy, Mich.
Q. Branch county?
A  Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived there?
Q. Thirty-two years.
Q. What is your occupation?
A,. A farmer: I raise some fruit trees, —I used to a good
many, a few years ago.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Some twenty-five years.
Q. You have met him since he has been the Commissioner,
have you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect the transaction with the Commissioner
about a piece of land in Manistee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State the circumstances. of that transaction?
A. I located a piece of land up there, five or six years ago,
with College scrip. A little west of it was a white cedar
swamp, and I was always anxious to get some of it for rail




1248     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
timber,-mine was all hard,-and I met Edmonds, and asked
if they were locating swamp land with scrip. He said they
were. I told him I would like to have him make me out a
plat  He said he would do so; and I saw a young man that
was going up there, by the name of Golding,-up to Manistee,
-and I got him to look over a section, or such a matter. He
told me he would do it. He located it and marked it on my
plat, and sent it back by mail, and I sent it to Mr. Edmonds.
I did not want to come here, and I told him I wanted to locate
such a piece. I wanted him to buy scrip; I saw in the Post
that scrip was selling'at so much; I wanted to locate it with
scrip. He sent me the deed, and I wanted to know of him
how much money I should send him, and, instead of that, he
sent me the deed. He said he had entered it with his own
money. He said he had run a little risk in doing so, but he
would take his chances.
Q Did you send the money?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the amount?
A. Thirty-five dollars.
Q. Do you recollect the description?
A. The S. W. i of S. W. I of Sec. 29, T. 24 N., 13 W.
Q. Had Mr. Edmonds any'interest in that land?
A. No, sir.
Q. Has he now?
A. No, sir.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. I would like to inquire of the counsel for the respondent, whether that refers to any thing we have proven?
Mr. Shipman-It refers to Mr. Porter's testimony, page 138.
Mr. Manager Huston-That was in Monroe county.
Mr. Shipman —Ie said either Monroe or Branch. Mr. Edmonds entered one piece so. It is in Mr. Porter's testimony,
page 138.
Mr. Manager Huston-Mr. Porter could not know that fact.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                1249
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF LUCAS JOSEPH.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. How long ago was this?
Answer. I did not look at the deed. It was dated May 30,
1871.
Q. You state that the Commissioner had no interest in this
land prior to your purchase?
A. No, sir.
Q. How do you know that?
A. All I knew was what I told him. I wanted him to do
that for me.
Q. You wanted him to enter the land and he so entered it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you do not know as a matter of fact whether he
had any interest in it?
A. No, sir, he had no interest
Q. Do you know as a matter of fact that he had no interest?
A. I think I do.
Q, How?
A. Why, he didn't charge me anything. I offered to pay
him,-he did not ask me anything.
RE-EXAMINATION OF LUCAS JOSEPH.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did you get a patent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. V. P. COLLIER.
V. P. Collier, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Are you the State Treasurer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you known Mr. Edmonds, the Commissioner of
the Land Office, during his official term, or about that?
A. Yes, sir.
157




1250     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How frequently have t ou met him during that time?
A. With a few exceptions, I have met him every week.
Q. How often would you meet him officially, upon Boards?
A. The last week in every month; sometimes oftener,-some
months oftener than that.
Q. State whether you have seen him at different times of
day or evening?
A. Usually, one week in every month I have seen him
from breakfast until, frequently, as late as eleven or half-past
eleven o'clock at night, for three days in a week, perhaps.
Q. At other times state how and when you met him,whether you have met him in and out of the Land Office.
A. I have met him at the office and at the hotel.
Q State whether during that time anything occurred from
which you suspected he had been drinking liquor?
A. I never noticed anything that would indicate it.
Q. Did you ever know him to drink any?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever know him to refuse?
A. On one occasion I heard him asked to drink in the evening and he declined.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HON. V. P. COLLIER.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Are your visits here regular?
Answer. They are not regular, excepting the last week in
the month, and then they are regular.
Q. You have a regular meeting of some Board of State officers?
A. Yes, sir.  The reason of the meeting being the last
Wednesday in the month, it was the regular meeting of the
State Board.
Q. How often are you here at other times?
A. I am generally here once in each week.
Q. Is your appearance here, once in each week, generally
periodical?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1261
A. There is no stated time. I come here from advice,-or
from the letters I receive in the office.
Q. How long do you stay here?
A. Sometimes one day, and sometimes two.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Edmonds?
A. My first acquaintance with him was the first week in
January, 1871.
Q. Have you ever seen him drink?
A. No, sir.
Q. But you have known him to refuse?
A. On one occasion I was present when he was asked to
drink, and he declined.
Q. I don't know whether it is fair, but I will ask you whether
you are much of a drinking man?
A. Well, I am not a hard drinker.
Q. Do you frequent places where drinks are procurable?
A. Not very much, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Edmonds does?
A. Not to my knowledge; I do not know that he does.
Q. Where have you always stopped here?
A. At the Lansing House.
Q. Not at the Chapman House?
A. No, sir; I never stopped there.
TBSTIMOY OF JESSE CONKLING.
Jesse Conklin, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Do you know Mr. Edmonds, the Commissioner of
the Land Office?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Where do you live?
A. I live in Delhi, Ingham county.
Q. Where did you live a year ago this spring,-in April or
May?
A. Here, in town, at the Chapman House.




1252     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. I suppose you have a recollection of the time when yo 
were married?
A. Slightly; yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the occasion of there being something
going on there when you came home from your marriage trip?
A. I do.
Q. Were you in the bar-room there at the Chapman House
at eleven o'clock that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you go down?
A. I think it was between seven and eight o'clock in the
evening.
Q. How long were you there?
A. It was between ten and eleven when we closed up, I
think.
Q. I want you to state what took place there, so far as you
observed, with regard to drinking. Did you see Mr. Edmonds
there?
A. I did.
Q. Now state.
A. Well, they got all they called for while I was there.
Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. How was that?
Answer. They all got all they called for while I was there,
and maybe more.
Q. Who was there?
A. The room was fall; I don't know as I could name them.
Q. Did you see Mr. Edmonds there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Baker there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Griswold there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State Mr. Edmonds' condition,-whether or not he was
under the influence of liquor or drink,-anything of that
kind?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1253
A. I should say he was not
Q. How late did you see him?
A. I saw him when he went up stairs. He took his light
I think it was about half-past ten,-between ten and eleven.
Q. Anybody help him up stairs?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did he go to when he went up stairs? For what
purpose did he go up? State whether he was going to bed?
A. I suppose he was going to bed. He had his lamp and
was going up the last pair of stairs. His room was at the head
of the stairs, and when he got to the head of the stairs I
closed my door, and went into my room; that is the last I saw
of him.
Q. What did he do, if anything, while below in regard to the
boys there,-the Land Office boys?
A. He was quieting those that were helping themselves a
little too freely, as much as he could.
Q. What did he do?
A. He was getting them to go to their rooms, to go to bed.
He was quite anxiousQ. Quite anxious you should what?
A. Go out of the room, so he could get one young man that
he had there to go to bed. He thought if I went he would.
Q. Was there anything said between him and the bar-tender
about letting them have anything more to drink?
A. I think he forbid my bar-tender letting one man have
anything more to drink. I have been informed that he did;
I did not hear him. That was whenMr. Manager Huston-We submit that the witness should
not be allowed to state that. We object to his testimony, what
his bar-tender told him.
The Presiding Officer-That is not competent.
Mr. Shipman —The question, of course, is intended to be
confined to his knowledge.
Question. Can you give the date of that transaction?




1254     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Answer. I could not be positive about it. I think it was the
24th, —would not be positive.
Q. 24th of what month?
A. April.
By the Presiding Officer:
Question. 1871?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. When did Mr. Edmonds come to the house to board?
A. Either in March or April, 1871.
Q. State how many months he was there in all?
A. I could not be positive without my books. I think
about two months.
Q. During the time he was there, state whether you ever saw
him under the influence of liquor.
A. I never did.
Q. You say you saw Mr. Baker there that night?
A. I did.
Q. See Mr. Straub there.
A. I don't know Mr. Straub, as I know of. I may know
him and not know his name; I do a great many men.
Q, Did you see 0. B. Quigley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was Quigley when Mr. Edmonds went up stairs?
A. I could not tell you,-he was not there. There were but
one or two there.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE B. CONKLING.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What time in the evening did you first see the
Commissioner there that evening?
Answer. About seven o'clock.
Q. Whereabouts?
A. He came to my room.
Q. What time did you first see him?-you were not drinking
in your room, were you?
A. No, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1255
Q. What did he come to your room for?
A. I suppose to give me a call. I had just come home.
Q. Did he ask you to go down to the bar?
A. Yes, sir; he asked me to go down stairs.
Q. What time did you and he go down stairs?
A. I didn't go down stairs with him.
Q. Did he go down first?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did he go down stairs?
A. A little while after, I suppose. He was not in my room
but a few minutes.
Q. You went between seven and eight, you say, and stayed
there until between ten and eleven?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you went down, how many clerks were there, and
what were they doing,-the Land Office clerks?
A. I could not tell you, sir.
Q. Were any of them there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Griswold there?
A. Yes,, sir.
Q. Clarke there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Van Dunham there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Bowen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any others that you recollect now of the clerks?
A. I could not say.
Q. Don't recollect any others there?
A. I could not call their names, I might recollect if they
were named.
Q. What were they doing, when you went down, between
seven and eight,-were they drinking?
A. No, sir.




1256     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What were they doing?
A. They was rather expecting me, I suppose.
Q. Waiting for the victim. Well, when did the sacrifice
commence? What time did the drinking commence?
A. I did not keep them waiting long.
Q. You were doing the treating, I suppose?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You must have commenced about eight o'clock, you
think?
A. Yes, sir; between seven and eight.
Q. Was Mr. Edmonds down there so as to be in at the commencement?
A. I think he was there.
Q. Did Mr. Edmonds commence with the rest of you, drinking?
A. I could not say.
Q. You recollect his refusing?
A. There was quite a crowd there, you know.
Q. Do you recollect of his refusing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When? In the early part of the evening, or subsequently?
A. I don't know as I could say when.
Q. Do you think it was in the early part of the evening, or
subsequently?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. You stated that all of the gentlemen there present got
what they called for; that is, as much as they called for, I
suppose you intended.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You drank only champagne?
A. Oh, yes, sir; drank anything they wanted.
Q. I had understood, from you or others, that there was only
champagne drank that night. Did you drink other liquors?
A. Yes, sir; they took their choice.
Q. How long after you arrived there, and the drinking commenced, before these boys became noisy,-these clerks?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1257
A. I think about twenty minutes.
Q. Was that on account of the potency of the liquor, or of
the number of drinks taken within that time?
A. I could not tell you. I presume they felt glad to see me.
Q. Were they very noisy in twenty minutes?
A. I could not tell you just how noisy they were. They did
not annoy me very much.
Q. Are your friends who are glad to see you generally noisy?
Is that the way you are generally received by your friends, who
are glad to see you?
A. Depends upon who they are, and what they are rejoicing
about, somewhat.
Q. You remarked that the Commissioner was not intoxicated, in your opinion?
A. I do.
Q. Do you know how much he drank that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there anybody there who staggered that night?
A. I think there was.
Q. Any of the clerks in the office?
A. I should not wonder if they were a little once in a while.
Q. Did not care so much about the length of the road
as the breadth, I suppose? Was the Commissioner in that
condition?
A. He was not.
Q. Was he noisy?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was he pulling any one around, inviting them up to
drink?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know that he was not?
A. I don't think he was; I think I should have seen it.
Q. Did it take from eight o'clock until between ten and
eleven for the Commissioner to quiet. those clerks?
A. They did not need quieting all the time from eight to
ten?
158




1258     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did he succeed in quieting them any time?
A. He got a number of them to their rooms, and some besides clerks.
Q. Which of his clerks did he get to their rooms before ten
o'clock?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Did he get any of them there?
A. I do not know whether he did or not, more than to get
them out into the hall. I staid inside.
Q. Did they stay out?
A. Sometimes they did and sometimes they did not.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from  the Twentyseventh (Mr. Wheeler) sends the following question:
How many of those clerks boarded at your place at that
time?"
Answer. I think there were five or six,-I am not positive.
Q. Were they all there that evening?
A. I guess they were.
Q. You have mentioned four;-were all these boarders at
your place,-Griswold and ClarkA. Clarke was not a boarder there.
Q. He was an extra one?
A. He was not there.
Q. When you retired that night had the drinking ceased?
A. There was no one in the room but Mr. Edmonds and Mr.
Dunham, and the bar-tender, when I went out of the room.
Q. Mr. Dunham still held out, did he?
A. Yes, sir, he is elastic.
Q. Was Mr. Edmonds drinking after those clerks went off?
A. No, sir.
Q. How was your condition that night?
A. I was able to be around; nobody carried me up-stairs.
Q. Were you pretty full that night?
A. Not as full as I have been in my time.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1259
Q. Were you in such a condition as to be perfectly cognizant and observant of what transpired?
A. I was.
Q. And you have a good recollection at the present time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From what you saw there that night, was the Commissioner under the influence of liquor, particularly, or so as to be
noticeable?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have no idea how much he drank?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was he what you would term a sober man at eleven
o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Perfectly straight?
A. Perfectly straight.
Q. Did he retire before you did?
A. I went out of the room as he requested. His room was
on the same floor as mine, and I went up and stood at the head
of the stairs until he came up the last stairs, and then I opened
my door and went in. I did not see him go into his room. I
just saw him go to the head of the stairs. His room was right
at the head of the stairs. And that was the last I saw of him.
Q. Who went up stairs with him, if anybody?
A. Nobody.
Q. I do not mean who carried him up stairs, but who went
up in company with him?
A. He was alone.
Q. Was that before or after you went up?
A. That was just after. I stood at the back side of the
head of the stairs and he was coming up the front side.
Q. Were you waiting for him?
A. I was waiting to see the closing up.
Q. Did the disappearance of Mr. Edmcnds close up the
drinking,-the arrangement that evening, whatever it was?
A. It was closed up long before he went.




1260     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How was Mr. Edmonds coming up stairs to close up the
matter?
A. Because he was trying to get Mr. Van Dunham to bed.
Q. Did Mr. Van Dunham go along with Mr. Edmonds?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how long he stayed?
A. No, sir; he did not stay in the bar-room.
Q. Do you know where he went?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he go up stairs with you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he board there at that time?
A. He did.
Q. You stated that these boys were making considerable
noise. What kind of a noise was it-singing, and such noise as
drunken persons generally make?
A. It was various,-they were having a good time.
Q. After the first noise and rejoicing at your return were
over,-what kind of a noise was that?
A. I don't know that I could tell you what kind of a noise
it was.
Q. Did this noise of rejoicing at your return continue until
ten o'clock?
A. It was pretty well got along with before ten o'clock.
Q. Did you say they were singing there that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Edmonds participate in those services?
A. No, sir; I did not hear him sing.
Q. I believe you answered that you did not see him pulling
any one around, did you?
A. I saw him have hold of a number of his clerks, trying to
get them to go to their rooms. I do not know whether you
would call it pulling around or dragging around. That was
his business for the last couple of hours.
Q. Did you see him pulling any one up to the bar or elsewhere to get a drink?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1261
A. No, sir. They did not need it.
Q. Do I understand you that you arrived at the Chapman
House between seven and eight,-that that was your first
appearance?
A. No, sir.
Q. What time did you get back there?
A. I think about six.
Q. That same evening?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you at supper that evening at the Chapman House 
A  I think I was. I know I was there.
Q. What was the condition of Van Dunham?
A. He was pretty drunk.
Q. And of Griswold?
A. He was rather jubilant
Q. Was he drunk?
A. I should call it so if I was in such a shape.
Q. How was Bowen?
A. He was straight.
Q. He was not drunk?
A. I do not think he was
Q. Was he singing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Dancing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Noisy in any way?
A. Not that I remember of. I do not think he was.
Q. How did his conduct differ from Mr. Dunham's?
A. I should think the answer would show. He was quiet,
and Van Dunham was not.
Q. Van Dunham was not quiet?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who was doing the dancing there that night?
A. I don't know that I could tell you. There were a number of them stepping around pretty lively.




1262     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Tell us some?
A. I do not know thatI could call any names. Some of
them were spatting and others dancing, and having various
kinds of sport.
RE-EXAMINATION OF JESSE B. CONKLING,
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did you see Thomas Marshall there?
Answer. I do not think I saw him there,  I don't think he
was in the room, unless it was very early; I don't think he
was in the room at all.
Q. Who was there that did not belong in the house?
A. I could not answer you. The room was full.
Q. Those who were not guests of the house,-were there any
there? If so, state who?
A. Yes, sir; the room was full.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE B. CONKLING.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What was the Commissioner doing to get the
boys quiet, and how did he go to work to keep them quiet?
Simply getting them to go to their rooms?  Was that the
attempt?
A. Yes, sir; that was what he was trying to do.
Q. But he did not succeed?
A. That was later in the evening. In the forepart he was
rather keeping them quiet; when it got later he was trying to
get them to go to their rooms.
Q. Did not succeed very well, as I understand you?
A. Not very well.
TESTIMONY OF GOTTLIEB STRAUB.
Gottlieb Straub, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Do you remember, in April, a year ago, being at
the Chapman House when there was some little fun there?
Answer. Yes, sir.




PROGCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1263
Q. State, at that time, whether you were an officer in this
city.
A. I was a police officer.
Q. State what time you went there.
A. I went there at eleven o'clock,-a little after eleven.
Q. Did you go in the bar-room?
A. My first step was right in the muddle there.
Q. What did you see there?
A. When I came in the door, there was the stairs, going up.
The first I saw was Edmonds, on the top of the stairs, with a
light in his hand.
Q. Anybody carrying him?
A. Not one was with him.
Q. Was he holding up anything, or anything holding him
up?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. I suppose I went along up to his room.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went into the bar.room, and I told Hotaling he must
stop selling his drinks, or I should make a complaint. It was
after the time fixed by the ordinance to close up.
Q. Was James H. Baker there?
A. I saw Mr. Baker in the billiard-room.
Q. What was he doing there?
A. Playing billiards.
Q. Won't you state his condition?
A. I thought he felt pretty good.
Q. State whether he was intoxicated?
A. Well, I should judge so. I thought he had a little too
much in. He would not play billiards after the time, according
to the ordinance.
Q. Did you have any talk with Baker there?
A. I did not say much to Baker. I spoke to Mr. Hotaling,
that he must close up, and Mr. Hotaling told me "the deputy
sheriff is in the other room and it will be all right." I said




1264     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
"I have nothing to do with Baker, my orders are that every
saloon or tavern has got to be shut up," and he wanted to
know if I would not go and take a drink of champaigne. I
said "That will just sell me; you will never catch me in my
life."
Q. Did you have any conversation with Baker there?
A. After I went out of the bar-room into the other room,
we had more or less talk about a certain man that I saw in
the room, and I saw he had a pin like I had, and I thought I
would get him to bed.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mr. Griswold.
Q. What was the pin?
A. Three links.
Q. Did you have any conversation with him?
A. I spoke to Griswold, and Baker stepped up and said "I
know my business, you let that man go." I said " I wanted
to get that man to go to bed if he boards in this house. If not,
I will take the law."  Says he, "I know my business, I have
been here all the evening. They have had a jolly good old
time."
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOTLIEB STRAUB.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Had you any other business at that time, besides
being a police officer?
Answer. I had not.
Q. What was your business prior to that time?
A. I was city sexton of Lansing.
Q. What has been your business, since?
A. Since that time, I have been working for the city,-building sidewalks, crosswalks, culverts, and so on.
Q. Any other business?
A. No, sir.
Q. You went into that place about eleven o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1265
Q. Had you been there before, that evening?
A. No, sir.
Q. Been in the neighborhood?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any noise?
A. That is what attracted my attention.
Q. Whom did you see there,-below?
A. I could not really mention, because I was not really
acquainted with all of them, but afterwards learned them. I
stepped into the door and told. Hotaling that lye must shut
the shop, because it was time to shut up, and every other one
of them was shut up; and he said, "Jim Baker is in the other
room, and he is all right."
Q. I ask you whom you saw there that you knew then, or
afterwards knew were there?
A. Mr. Hotaling, Mr. Griswold, Mr. Baker, and I believe,
if I am not mistaken, Van Dunham.
Q. How many more, should you say?
A. Probably about two more besides them.
Q. The others you do not know?
A. No.
Q. You saw Edmonds at the top of the stairs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was with him?
A. Nobody.
Q. Did you see him going up stairs?
A. No, sir; I saw him standing on the top of the stairs,
and, as I came in through the door, he turned around and
looked at us going in the door.
Q. Was he talking with anybody?
A. No.
Q. How long did you see him there?
A. I saw him there, probably, a half a minute before I went
into the other room.
Q. Did you see Mr. Conkling?
A. No.
159




1266     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. He was not going up stairs then, was he?
A. No.
Q. Was Conkling at the hlad of the stairs?
A. I did not see him.
Q. Where was Edmonds standing, with reference to the
stairs?
A. I do not know whether he was on the last step of the
stairs.
Q. Was he going up when you saw him, or was he standing
there?
A. He was about turning to look to see who was going in.
Q. Conkling, did you say, was going up?
A. I did not see him.
Q. Did you see Mr. Conkling at all that night?
A. No.
Q. Did you go right into the bar-room?
A. I did.
Q. You saw who were there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you step into the billiard-room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see who was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you see Baker that night in the billiardroom?
A. I presume it was half an hour before the thing was all
straightened, and they got them all to bed.
Q. Baker was in there during the half hour?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he most of the time playing billiards?
A. Most of the time.
Q. Have you ever seen him play billiards before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he a good player?
A. I do not know. I am not a player myself.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.              1267
Q. How did he play that evening, a good game or an ordinary game?
A. I do not know much about it.
Q. You say, you think he was pretty full. What makes you
think so?
A. Because I have known him sixteen years, and I generally
know by his countenance.
Q. How was his countenance?
A. He felt pretty good and lively. He said he was an officer
and we needn't be alarmed about the thing.
Q. Have you ever talked with him about this matter?
A. Not a word.
Q. When did you mention this matter first about seeing him
there?
A. I didn't mention it to any one that I know of.
Q. How did these gentlemen on the other side get a hold of
it, then?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Did you not tell somebody that you saw Baker playing
billiards there?
A. No.
Q. Did these gentlemen from the bar-room go into the billiard-room with you a
A. Not any.
Q. Did they come in while you were there?
A. Part of them were in the billiard-room and part of them
in the bar-room, all the while.
Q. Did the gentlemen who were in the bar-room come into
the billiard room while you were there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You never mentioned this fact before to any one?
A. No.
Q. This is the first time you have ever spoken of it?
A. This is the first time.




1268     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you know why you came to be subpoenaed or why
you were called here?
A. I do not.
Q. You say Baker's countenance was a little different from
what it had been the sixteen years you had known him?
Q. Yes, sir.
Q. Flushed?
A. He was pretty lively.
Q. His countenance I am speaking of?
A. I thought he was a little more excited than usual.
Q. How was Griswold? Was he in good condition?
A. He was pretty lively. I wanted to get him to bed as soon
as I could.
Q. Were you going to arrest Griswold.
A. If he had not been boarding there, I believe I should have
done it. I generally do.
Q. Does your ordinance require that billiard places should
be closed by ten o'clock.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As well as saloons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All amusements of that kind,-all saloons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where there is nothing but a billiard-table, it is not a
saloon?
A. They generally have a bar with them.
Q. I understood you to say that this was in a different room.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How was the billiard-room located, with reference to the
bar-room,-across the hall?
A. Across the hall.
Q. By the ordinance of this city, as you understand it, has
not a man a right to play billiards all night if he chooses?
A. No, sir.
Q. I do not wonder that this place does not grow faster, if




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1269
liberty is restricted to that extent. You thought of arresting
him because he was playing billiards there,-he was not drunk?
A. I would not arrest him unless he was drunk.
Q. Why did you not arrest Baker?
A. I thought he was deputy sheriff and he knew his business. He told me he was there all the evening.
Q. Is it your idea of justice to arrest a man that does not
know his own business, and let those off who do know their
own business?
A. I was under the direction of the marshal, and I had to
go according to his orders.
Q. The marshal had not ordered you to arrest any member
of the police force? I understand, probably, how that is. You
told Hotaling he must close up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Close up his bar?
A. And close up his house.
Q. Do you make a man close up his hotel, too?
A. If he keeps open the bar.
Q. Suppose he shuts his bar?
A. Of course, I would not close up the hotel.
Q. He may keep open his outside doors?
A. If he keeps a hotel, of course.
Q. What answer did Baker make to you when you proposed
to arrest Griswold?
A. He said he was there all the evening, and he knew his
business, and it would be all right.
Q. Said who had been there all the evening,-Baker, or
Griswold?
A. Baker said he had.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. I should judge about a half an hour; until the bar
closed; I made them shut it up. I told them I would make
a complaint to-morrow, if they did not do it.
Q. You staid there until the billiard-saloon closed up?
A. I did not, sir.




12;70    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You left Baker and Griswold there?
A. Griswold went to bed before I left.
Q. Where did you and Baker go then?
A. Baker stayed there in the billiard-room.
Q. Who was with him?
A. A stranger. I could not tell who.
Q. What were they doing?
A. Playing billiards.
Q. Baker and this stranger?
Q. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you been drinking any that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you a drinking man?
A. I drink once in a while something. I happened to be
at t e lodge that night, and I happened to walk along past
there.
RE-EXAMINATION OF GOTTLIEB STRAUB.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did you hear Mr. Edmonds say anything, and if
so, what?
Answer. I heard some voice, but I would not say positively
it was Edmonds or Mr.-I do not know his name, I know him
by sight. He said: "Boys, it is time for all of you to go to
bed. It would not look well, and Mr. Edmonds wants you to
go to bed." Something of that kind or other, at the time I
went into the hall.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOTTLIEB STRAUB.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. From what source did that voice come?  Where
was the voice?
Answer. That is a thing that is a kind of mystery to me,
for there were three doors open up-stairs, to the right and left.
Q. Who was in the bar room there?
A. Mr. Hotaling and his clerk.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1271
Q. Anybody else there?
A. Mr. Griswold, and one or two others.
Q. Do you know Mr. Hotaling?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know his voice?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it his voice?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know the bar-keeper?
A. It was not his; but I think, if I could see the man, I
could tell pretty near the voice.
Q. Did you see the man that made that remark?
A. I would not be positive.
Q. What makes you think, that if you saw the man that had
that voice, you could tell him?
A. Because I don't know his name. If I knew his name at
the present time I could tell.
Q. You say it was a mysterious voice. I want to get at,
how this voice which you heard from a man you did not see,
would enable you to tell who he is before you heard his name.
Was it Mr. Conkling?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it Mr. Edmonds?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it Baker?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was not this stranger?
A. No, sir.
Q. When were you subpoenaed in this case?
A. I was subpoeaned this noon.
Q. Who subpoenaed you?
A. Mr.-[hesitating.]
Q. One of the Sergeants-at-Arms?
A. Somebody.
Q. Who have you talked with since you were subpoenaed?
A. I have not talked with anybody that I know of.




1272     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Not since you were subpoenaed?
A. No, sir,
Q. Not a word?
A. No. sir.
Q. Had you talked before about any of these occurrences to
anybody?
A. Not at all.
Q. Never a word?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or never a word since?
A. No, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY N. LAWRENCE.
Henry N. Lawrence, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In this city.,Q. How long have you resided here?
A. I came here a year ago this month in my present employment. I moved here last September.
Q. What is your business?
A. Clerk in the Insurance Bureau.
Q. Where did you reside previous to coming to Lansing?
A Coldwater, Branch county.
Q. How long did you reside in Branch county?
A. I have resided in Branch from the year 1837.
Q. How long had you lived in Coldwater?
A. I moved to Coldwater in January, 1863.
Q. Are you acquainted with the respondent, Mr. Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?
A. I think my first acquaintance with him  was the commencement of his official term as register, in 1869.
Q. What was your business at that time?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1273
A. I was county clerk.
Q. Where was your office, with reference to his?
A. My office was in the southeast corner room, on the
ground floor of the court-house, and his was the southwest.
Q. They were adjoining offices?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were you county clerk, while he was register?
A. Two years; the last two years of my term, and the first
two of his.
Q. How frequently did you meet him during that time?
A. I saw him almost every day; that is, every week day.
Q. Did Mr. Edmonds serve as county register after you
ceased as clerk?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long?
A. Two years.
Q. During that two years where were you, and what were
you doing?
A..I was living in Coldwater a part of that time. I wrote
in his office a little.
Q. Were you, a part of that time, deputy county clerk, or
did you spend a part of your time in his office?
A. I worked a part of the time in the clerk's office. I think
I was Mr. Edmonds' deputy, but I can't say.
Q. How frequently did you meet Mr. Edmonds during the
last two years of that time?
A. I can't say how frequently. I was at the court-house
occasionally. I saw him as often as once a week, or more.
Q. A part of the time you worked in his office.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Since you came here has Mir. Edmonds been here?
A. Yes, sir.
160




1274     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You stated your family did not come here at the same
time you did?
A. No, sir.
Q. In going back and forth between here and Coldwater, did
you at any time meet with Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir. I did.
Q. How frequently?
A. I went home from. here the first of June; I had been
here one month in the employ of the Commissioner.
Q. About how  frequently did you go back and forth
together, if more than once?
A. I think we did two or three times?
Q And you met him frequently here, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state whether you have ever seen Mr. Edmonds
when you had reason to believe he was under the influence of
intoxicating drinks?
Mr. Manager Cochrane objected to the question and it was
withdrawn.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
George B. Griswold, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan;
Question. Were you present at the Chapman House on the
occasion spoken of by the witnesses that you have heard testify?
Answer. Yes sir.
Q. State whether Mr. Baker was there.
A. He was.
Q. Did you see any body play billiards there that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. I played a game with Mr. Baker that evening,-a part of
a game.
Q. Was there any spatting and dancing there?
A. There was some; yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1275
Q. State whether Mr. Baker engaged in that or not.
A. I saw him spatting for one or two to dance a jig, and I
saw him try to.
Q. What was the result of your game of billiards?
A. We went into the billiard-room to play the game, and
they were having a pretty good time out in the other room,
and Mr. Baker, and, perhaps, myself also, was —well, we wasn't
very much interested in the game.
Q. What became of the game?
A. We dropped it when we got it played about half out.
We could not make a shot.
Q. Did you have any talk with Baker about playing billiards
before you went in?
A. He asked me to play a game with him. The first I saw
of him he came to the bar and wanted to touch glasses with
me. I consented.
Q. And you drank together there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the talk about the billiards?
A. He asked me to go in and play a game with him; wanted
to know if I didn't want to go. I told him I would, and we
went in together and commenced to play the game, and it resulted as I have told you.
Q. Did you have any talk with him there about quitting the
game,-if so, what was it?
A. He proposed that we stop playing that. There was more
fun in the other room, he said, and there was n't any probability that we would finish the game that night, if we kept on
at the present rate.
Q. Do you recollect any talk with Baker that night, about
aresting parties? If so, what was it?
A. Yes, sir; I asked Mr. Baker; just before we went in,just as we were going in,-if it wasn't a little strange he
should be there?-he was the deputy sheriff. Well, he said,
he was a little "on it" that night, and I asked him if he




12t76    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
hadn't better arrest three or four of us. No, he said, he
wasn't in a condition for arresting people that night; he
guessed he wouldn't arrest anybody.
Q. Were you ever at Alice McCabe's with the Commissioner?
A. Never in the world.
Q. Did you ever go there with him?
A. Never; never saw him there.
Q. Did you ever come away from there with him?
A. Never.
Mr. McGowan-Take the witness,-we shall ask to recall
him on other matters.
The Presiding Officer-You can reserve that privilege.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I will ask Mr. Straub a question?
GOTTLIEB STRAUB, RECALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Can you give the date of this occurrence at the
Chapman House?
Answer. I could not, sir.
Q. Can you give the season of the year?
A. I think it was in April.
Q. What made you think it was in April?
A. Because my time has expired by the first of May. I
know it was during that time.
Q. How much before?
A. I think it must have been three weeks before the year
was out.
Q. Your time expired on the first of May?
A. Yes, sir; as near as I can recollect.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What time was this when Mr. Baker came in?
Answer. I could not say the exact time; I should have to
tell you what I think.
Q. According to your impression?
A. I should say it was as early as nine o'clock.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1277
Q. How long had you been drinking?
A. Well, we was thereQ. When did you begin,-what time?
A. When he first came in we hadn't been drinking a great
while.
Q. That was about three hours after supper. How much
between supper and that time had you drank?
A. I didn't commence to imbibe until half-past eight, I
should think, perhaps,-I couldn't say.
Q. Had you taken any before supper?
A. No, sir.
Q. None at all?
A. I can't remember distinctly; I never do. I don't presume I did that night.
Q. Between half-past eight and nine o'clock, how many
times did you drink?
A. One or two drinks of champagne.
Q. One or two only?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it champagne only?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you drink anything else that evening?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. What time was it when this game of billiards commenced?
A. It was some time after Mr. Baker came into the hotel.
I should think perhaps half-past nine o'clock.
A. About half-past nine when it commenced?
A. I cannot recollect the time,-I estimate it.
Q. How do you estimate it?
A. From the best of my recollection.
Q. Do you estimate it from the number of drinks you took
in? What is the basis of your estimation? You speak of estimation,-not particularly recollection, but estimation. Why
do you think it was half-past nine?
A. I think it was about half past eight when I came in.




1278     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Baker came, then, at nine?
A. Baker came there shortly after, and shortly after he came
in we commenced playing billiards.
Q. At half-past nine you commenced playing billiards.
A. I should say it was half-past nine or ten.
Q. How many games did you play that night with Baker.
A. We didn't play one.
Q. You commenced at half past nine,-how long did that
last?
A. It lasted some time.
Q. How long?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. An hour?
A. I don't think it did.
Q. How many points did you make?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Got about half through, did you?
A. I should presume we did; I think so.
Q. Did you make points very fast?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it a carom or a pocket table?
A. A carom table, I think.
Q. You made some shots, did you?
A. We did, with difficulty.
Q. Do you recollect who was ahead that night when you
stopped?
A. No. I should presume I was. I always do beat him.
Q. Would the amount of drinks that you had taken make
any difference in your facility in playing?
A. Yes, sir, it did, that night.
Q. Suppose you were a good deal more full than he, might
he not beat you?
A. I know that he did not.
The Presiding Officer-It is now four o'clock. The Senate,
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is now adjourned until
to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1279
Lansing, Thursday, A. M., May 16, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Senator Putman asked leave of absence for Senator Prutzman for the day, which was granted.
The Presiding Officer-When the Senate adjourned last
evening, the cross-examination of the witness Griswold was
pending. The Honorable Managers will proceed with the
cross-examination.
Mr. Manager Coohrane-Mr. President, the counsel for the
respondent propose to examine Mr. Griswold on some further
topics at this present time, so as to save calling the witness
hereafter. I will therefore suspend further cross-examination
for the present.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent will
proceed with the examination in chief.
RE-EXAMINATION OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
Re-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. What is your business in the office now?
Answer. I am waiting on customers now.
Q. What has been your business previous to waiting on customers?
A. Occupying the draughtsman's chair.
Q. How long had you been acting as draughtsman?
A. Two or three weeks.
Q. Previous to acting as draughtsman, what was your
employment?
A. I had charge of the field-note department.
Q. Tell us what you mean by the field-note department?
A. I mean, in the office are filed the old original government
surveys, and the field-notes of the surveyors in each township
in the State, and before these field-notes were transferred from
the Surveyor General's office to the Land Office there was a




1280     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
portion of the State had been copied,-of the Upper Peninsula
and a part of the Lower Peninsula. All these small parcels
and small fragments were scattered through different books,
and they were copied and put into one book, and the field-note
department has taken that up and completed it; and there
are also orders received in the office of county surveyors and
individuals for these field-notes to be used by the parties, and
the field-note department is doing all that.
Q. Will you state in what condition these old books containing the field-notes of the original survey are now?
A. They are in a very bad condition of course;-they are
the old notes taken in the field by the surveyors; a subdivision
would be in one book, a township line in another, and another
township line in another, and perhaps the survey of one township would be scattered through three or four books, and a
great many of them had become partially destroyed.
Q. Are those some of the field-notes there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those small books on the top?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say this work had been commenced by the Surveyor
General?
A. Yes, sir; the largest portion of them had been copied
when the Surveyor General's office found the field-notes.
Q. Do you know how long ago it was that this work was
suspended?
A. I do not know exactly,-between fifteen and twenty years
ago. It has been carried on to a certain extent through the
business of the office,-has had some done along, a little at a
time.
Q. In what kind of books are you writing up field-notes
that you get from those little books?
A. We take these little books, and take a township, and
search through the small books and get the subdivisions and
town lots, and copy into the large book, and these are in their
proper order.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT,                 1281
Q. That is one of the books?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many are there at work upon the field-notes in the
office?"
A. Generally four or five; has been for the last year about
four writing, and one to search through the books and arrange
them in proper order.
Q. How many worked at that business previous to Mr.
Edmonds' administration?
A. When I came into the office there were from three to
five that worked part of the time; perhaps some of the time
there would not be but two,-from two to five.
Q. Can you give us some idea of the amount of work done
during the last year of the former administration and the first
year of the present administration in that department?
A. Yes, sir; it is very easy to tell.
Q. Please do so.
A. In the year 1870 there was written up, for office records,
twenty-six or twenty-seven towns. I mean for transferring
these small books into the larger books.
Q. Put them into that permanent form for the office?
A. Yes, sir. I do not include the orders that were received
in the office.
Q. What was done in the year 1871 in writing up for the
office records?
A. There were about 127 towns written.
Q. About 100 more towns written in 1871 than in 1870?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give us an estimate of the work done for outside
parties in that department for those two years?
A. I cannot give it as accurately as I can the office records.
I have gone through with the report of the Board of Auditors,
in which is mentioned the account of W. S. George. Each account was bound. I find that in the year 1870 there was
about forty-five or fifty towns written, and in 1871 between
eighty and ninety.
161




1282     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. You say you have 1.!n acting as draughtsman part of
the time?
A. Part of the time; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that there are certain books in the office
called " abstract-books," on which clerks are to work now?
A. I do.
Q. Will you state whether or not those books are of any
value to the draughtsman, in facilitating his business, and if
so, how?
A. They are of great value. In receiving orders, as we do
a great many times from land men, to make plats with the
names of the purchaser of each description, with the date of
entry marked upon the plat, previous to making those plat
abstract-books, we would have to go to four or five sales-books,
-as many sales-books as there were different kinds of land,and search them  through, find the number and name. Now
each township is arranged in system, with the history of each
forty in order, so that by taking one of those books we have it
all before us on one page or two pages.
Q. Can you give us some idea of the difference in time in
making plats where you have the use of the abstract-books, and
where you do not use them?
A. In making these particular kind of plats?
Q. Yes.
A. A man could do as much in one day now as he could in
four before. I think that would be a fair estimate.
Q. About how many books would you have to look through
in order to make that kind of plat, previous to the abstracts
being made?
A. There would be the Agricultural College sales-book, Primary School sales-book, Swamp Land sales-book, Licensed
Land sales-book, Patent Book, University sales-book, Salt
Spring sales-book, Normal School sales-book, and one or two
others.
Q. From six to nine books, as the case required.
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1283
CROSS-EXAMINTATION OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. At the close of the session, last evening, you stated
that you were playing billiards, and you closed the game on
account of the inability of you and Baker?
Answer. I believe I did.
Q. This was about ten o'clock, you stated?
A. I think that it was about ten o'clock.
Q. Where did you go after that?
A. Went back into the bar-room.
Q. Were the persons there that had been there before you
went into the billiard-room,-the same persons generally,-the
same crowd?
A. It was diminished, somewhat.
Q. How long did you stay there, after that?
A. I could not say.
Q. Where did you go after leaving the bar-room?
A. I think Mr. Dunham and I stopped and took a ride. I
do not know what time it was.
Q. After ten o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ride with a horse and buggy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect what time you returned?
A. I do not.
Q. Did you return before morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before eleven o'clock that night?
A. I could not say about the time. I do not know what
time we started; it was pretty late when we started out.
A. Do you recollect where you went?
A. Rode around town,-might have walked around. Sobered
off.
Q. Have you any idea what time it was when you returned
to the Chapman House?
A. I could not give the time.




1284     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. The approximate time, as near as you can say, if you have
any recollection whatever. I do not mean the accurate time.
A. It would be all guess-work.
Q. I do not want it, if it is all guess-work.
A. It would be all guess-work with regard to the time that
we returned.
Q. Was it between eleven and twelve, or between twelve and
one?
A. It was later than that, because it was quite late when we
started.
Q. Later than twelve and one?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Between one and two?
A. I should presume that was about the time,-two o'clock,
perhaps.
Q. Did Mr. Straub, that night, propose to arrest you?
A. I don't know whether he called it proposing to arrest or
not. He came up to me. He found that I was an Odd Fellow,
and I suppose, wanted to keep a guardian hand over me, and
requested me to go to my room,-thought I was pretty lively.
Q. What time was that?
A. That was along about eleven or a little after.
Q. Where did he meet you?
A. In the hall. I think it was in the hall,-I would not
state positively.
Q. What were you doing?
A. We were having a good time around. I do not know
exactly what action I was doing then.
Q. That was iin the hall between the rooms on the main
floor?
A. I think it was, but I am not positive.
RE-EXAMINATION OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. I want to ask you if there was anything said that
night at the Chapman House by the Commissioner in regard




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1285
to you or any of the other boys not drinking any more; if so,
what it was, and who it was said it?
Answer. Capt. Edmonds told Mr. Dunham and myself that
he wanted we should go to bed, and we didn't want to go, and
he insisted upon our not drinking any more champagne, and
told the bar-tender that if he allowed Mr. Dunham to have any
more he did it at his peril. The bar-tender was quite angry
about it, but I don't think he let him have any more, and
Mr. Dunham was somewhat provoked.  The Commissioner
intimated that he must stop this and cool down, or perhaps
there would be trouble.
Q. Can you use the Commissioner's language? You say he
intimated?
A. He told him if he did not stop his carousing he might
lose his position.
Q. Do you know what time this was that this took place?
A. I should say it was about eleven o'clock, but I cannot fix
the time.
RE-CROSS-EXAMIINATION OF GEORGE B. GRISWOLD.
Examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. When did this book commence?
Answer. After Capt. Edmonds commenced, along about a
year ago this spring. There are fourteen or fifteen such books
as that.
Q. All as full as that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About the same size?
A. All full.
Q. How long does it take to write up a town?
A. Towns vary; some are longer and some are shorter.
Q. Well, on the average?
A. The old surveys are short: the re-surveys are much
longer. It takes to write up an old survey township, I should
think, about three days; I think that is about the time.
Q. A new survey township?
A. About five, I should say.




1286     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What proportion of the townships are old, and what
proportion new surveys?
A. Well, where we have written last year, it was in a section
where nearly all the townships had been resurveyed and the
old surveys canceled; nearly all of them were re-surveys, —
think all in that book are re-surveys.
Q. They would take about five days on an average?
A. I should think about five days; there is a difference in
clerks,-some write faster than others.
Q. Now, will you explain how this thing is done; explain
briefly how you arrange for transferring these from those small
books here?
A. Yes, sir; the subdivisions of a township are generally in
one book.
By the Presiding Officer:
Question. What do you mean by subdivisions,-the sections?
Answer. Yes, sir. Then the town lines were surveyed by
different surveyors-the south boundary, east, north, and west
boundary.
Q. Those are in other books?
A. Yes, sir. Those are in other books, and these books are
well scattered. I would go to work and search and find the
south boundary of the township, any particular section that
had been surveyed, and look that up, and then the east boundary, and the north and west boundaries the same; get the books
and give them to a man, and tell him to copy them just as I
had marked them  in the order; then give him  the book for
the subdivision and tell him to copy that; after that was completed, they were all compared with the originals; after that,
when there was a sufficient number of towns written to make
a volume, they were taken to the State Printers, Mr. George,
and bound, and they are called finished after indexing them.
Q. These field-notes or notes were only with respect to the
section lines and town lines, then?
A. All the lines that were ever run by a surveyor.
Q. That is the fact that there are no other lines?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1287
A. Yes, sir. Subdivided into sections and town lines.
Q. The quarter sections are merely imaginary quarter section lines; they are not actually surveyed?
A. No, sir; only around the exterior of each section.-generally about ten townships in a volume.
Q. Are the volumes all the size of that? [Referring to volume in evidence.]
A. No, sir. They are about the same size.
Q. Larger or smaller?
A. Some larger, and some smaller?
Q. That is a fair average?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many did you observe there were?
A. Do you mean all that are written? Fifty or sixty, or
seventy-five or a hundred volumes in all.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. That have been written up since you were writing
there?
Answer. I think fifteen volumes bound last year, and we
have enough for about a dozen volumes more now, that we are
about ready to take to the printing-office.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. Then I understand you that these sheets are first
written, and then printed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Not put into the book in the shape they are?
A. No, sir; written in pamphlet form and then bound.
Q. How many have you to bind now?
A. I could not say, exactly; I should think from seven to
twelve volumes.
Q. Fully written up, do you mean, that are entirely ready
for binding?
A. I think they are about ready. I don't know as they are
quite all compared yet,-I think they are, though; the comparing we keep right up with the writing generally. I would
like to make an explanation. The clerks that are writing for the




1288     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
office, part of the time are writing upon orders received from
counties and private sources.
Q. You stated that the Commissioner had never been to
Alice McCabe's?
A. Never.
Q. Are you in the habit of frequenting that place yourself?
Mr. Shipman-Mr. PresidentThe Witness-I am willing to answer any question in regard
to the Commissioner.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: We object. It is not proper
cross-examination; it is not a matter gone into by us, and
it is quite immaterial here; and it is a question that the witness has a right to refuse to answer.
The Presiding Officer-When the witness claims that privilege, will be time to raise that question.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-It may be something that would go
to the credibility of the witness, if the witness is in the habit
of frequenting such places, inasmuch as this examination, in
some respects, touches that very question. It strikes me that
it may go to his credibility.
The Witness-I am  willing to answer the question as I
understand it, whether I am in the habit of frequenting such
places. I am not in the habit of frequenting such places.
Question. The question is, are you in the habit of frequenting that place?
Answer. I am not.
Q. What do you call habit?
A. That is the answer, the only answer, that I shall give:
That I am not in the habit of frequenting that place.
Q. Do you intend to say that you never go there.
A. I didn't say so.
Q Do you say that?
A. I shan't say.
Mr. McGowan-We propose simply to make an exhibit of
these books that have been here; not to offer them in evidence,
but to leave them here, as an exhibit, for the present, those




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1289
three packages of the old field-notes, and the two volumes of
the new.
Mr. Manager Huston-Will you make an exhibit of the
record of licensed lands, also?
Mr. McGowan-Yes, sir; we will bring the license-book in
during the day.
Mr. Manager Huston-That will be satisfactory.
TESTIMONY OF C. L. KNIGHT.
C. L. Knight, a witness produced, sworn, and  examined
on  the part and  behalf of  the respondent, testified  as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You are a clerk in the Land Office?
Answer. I am.
Q. How long have you been connected with the Land Office,
ias an employe?
A. Oh, four years and a half.
Q. What is your present business in the office?
A. I am now working on swamp-land abstracts.
Q. How long have you been engaged in that work?
A. Since last June.
Q. When did that work commence?
A. About that time.
Q. The first of last June?
A. In June sometime, I think.
Q. Will you tell us what you call a swamp-land abstract?
A. We are copying the patents from the Government to the
State, and then writing the names of the party to whom the
lands have been sold, and making a full abstract of the description, from the patent from the United States, to the last sale.
Q. In how small divisions of land?
A. Where the land has been sold, we put the full description
in,-in quarter sections, if it is sold as large as that; if less, in
forties. All vacant lands are put in forties.
162




1290     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. The description is put in of the size that the land is sold?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you an abstract-book before you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which one?
A. No. 1, the first one we commenced.
Q. I ask you to refer to that book, on page 477,-will you
give the history of the N. W. of the S. W. of 36, 7 N., 4 E., as
appears by that abstract book?
A. " Subdivision N. W. of S. W. Sec. 36, patent vol. 2, p. 128."
That is recorded in this other book. I have here "Sold to
David White, Feb. 8th, 1860-or licensed rather No. 11th'69."
Q. What is that number,-the number of the license?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go on.
A. Canceled and sold to Orson Bouch, March, 1865.
Q. How do you spell the name?
A. B-o-u-c-h.
Q. Is that "h," or "k?"
A. " H."
Q. Probably there is no mistake about the description?
A. No, sir. It is dated March 14, 1865; 4285. That is the
number of the license.  Canceled again and sold to Samuel
V. Cornell, October 19th, 1871,-No. 9807 on roll-book; and
then there is a memorandum certificate: "Surrendered and
canceled Feb. 27th, 1872. See affidavit on file, 4285."  The
N. W. of S. W., 36; Orson Bouch, March 14th, 1865, 4285
L; patent, 1809, 4272. That last description shows the present situation.
Q. What is the final disposition of the lands, as shown by
the abstract?
A. Patented to Orson Bouch, March 2d, 1872, on a license.
Q. What is the amount of work done since the beginning of
making this abstract, in your department?
A. We have nearly completed the 4th volume, and are now
working on the- th,-all the same size as this.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1291
Q. How much territory have you gone over?
A. We have nearly completed the Lower Peninsula, of the
swamp land, not the "primary school" or "Agricultural College."
Q. How many of you have been at work on these abstracts
since the commencement of making them?
A. Two at first, from the first of June to August, and since
August we have had four.
Q. Who superintends that work?
A. I do.
Q. Have you from the beginning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether the clerks who have been employed in
making these abstracts have been faithful or not in the discharge of the work.
A. They have.
Q. How do you make these abstracts, from how many books,
and what books?
A. From  the recorded patents.  It is according to the
description; if it is a cash sale it is recorded in three other
volumes.
Q. If a scrip sale?
A. If it is a scrip sale it may have been, in the whole, a cash
license, and finally sold for scrip, or the license canceled. They
may purchase them for cash, and then forfeited several times,
more or less, and then sold.
Q. Do I understand that, in any event, you have to examine
the four volumes to get the history of a piece?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you ever have to examine more than that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many do you have to examine to get the history of
a transaction?
A. It varies from four to eight.
Q. In the progress of this work, have you found any errors
in the records of the office that is necessary to correct?




1292     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many?
A. A great many. I cannot say how many. There are a
great many descriptions patented in error, and marked up on
the old books. There are a great many pieces that have been
sold, that are marked up in error in the sales, and instead of
marking the right description, they have marked the wrong
description.
Q. Whether any of these sales referred to the United States
land lying within the boundary?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what regard?
A. We find a great many of the old surveys and the re-surveys that conflicted,-that had been patented up to the State
of Michigan under the old survey, and patented under the
new survey, located on different sections.
Q. How many of those errors would you correct in a day, on
the average?
A. It is according to the location. Up in Alpena we find a
great many. We work all day, sometimes, on mistakes, and
sometimes we find a number.
Q. In the Alpena district, how many mistakes would you
find in a day in your department?
A. Well, I could not tell exactly, they vary so. We have had
these old surveys trouble us for a week, but of course we would
not find all mistakes. Some would be patented up correctly,
and some would not.
Q. But when there are no mistakes, the matter is so confused
it took you some time to work it out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the practical value of these abstract-books in the
office?
A. It condenses in one book what you would have to look
through half a dozen books for. When we get the thing completed we will have a complete record in two books of two
kinds of land.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1293
Q. Are there frequent applications to the office for abstracts
of land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State how these books will facilitate the making of these
for parties applying?
A. As we have it here, one man can do it; otherwise it will
take two, and they would have to search all the other records
through.
Q. Do you know what the regular charge of the office is for
abstract records to send out,-was it fifteen cents a folio?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give some estimate of how much of this work
you have been doing would facilitate the work of making up
abstracts sent for from the office?
A. One can do the work that it would take three men to do
before.
Q. Then one man with those books can do three times as
much as he could do without them.  Is that what you mean?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there any more clerks employed than what was
necessary to make those abstracts?
A. No, sir.
Q. To facilitate the work and carry it on properly?
A. Not any more.
Q. Now, you were employed as a clerk in the office previous
to Edmonds' administration. Will you state whether or not
the employes of the office, since his administration, have done.
their work as well and efficiently as they had previously?
Mr. Manager Huston-We object. We cannot see how it
can be material whether they have done their work as well or
as efficiently as the clerks under the preceding administration.
We cannot see what difference it makes with the charges
against Mr. Edmonds, whether the clerks under the Pritchard
administration, or any former administration, did their work
well or not. Suppose they did not do anything. Suppose
they neglected their business generally. It seems to me, that




1294     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
would not be any excuse for the clerks in Mr. Edmonds' employ neglecting their duties. It seems to me, a comparison of
that kind is not competent. They may have neglected their
duties in each administration.
Mr. McGowan-To save further discussion, we will withdraw
the question in that form.
[Question withdrawn.]
Question. I will ask you this: whether, during Mr. Edmonds'
administration, the clerks have been busy in the office, or
whether they have been idle?
Answer. Why, I think they have been attending to their
business generally, as far as I have seen.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF C. L. KNIGHT.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huston:
Question. You said the clerks have generally been busy;
what do you mean by that?
Answer. As far as the clerks that have been laboring with
me are concerned, they have been very busy, and we have had
steady employment.
Q. Those that have been under you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you do not refer to all the clerks in the office when
you say " generally?"
A. As far as I have any knowledge. I do not pay much
attention to the business of the other clerks.
Q. What do you say about Van Dunham?
A. I presume he has attended to his business.
Q. How is it as to his being busy all the time during office
hours?
A. I think while he was there he was busy.
Q. Was he there during office hours at all times?
A. I presume not at all times.
Q. Don't you know he was not?
A. I think he has been absent.
Q. Don't you know he has been absent a great deal?
A. I can't say that he has.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1295
Q. Don't you know that he has been absent more than any
other clerk of the office during the time he was there?
A. I do not.
Q. What other clerk has been absent as much as Van Dunham? Has Clarke?
A. I presume he has.
Q. Has Griswold been absent as much as Van Dunham?
A. I think not.
Q. What other clerk has been absent as much as Mr. Van
Dunham?
A. I can't say.
Q. Now, don't you remember the fact of one of the clerks
keeping an account one month, of the number of days that
Van Dunham worked in the office; and that he was not there
but sixteen days, and still drew his full pay for the month?
A. No, sir; I don't remember anything about it.
Q. You never heard anything about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does the draughtsman do anything besides making the
plats?
A. No, sir; that is all he has to attend to.
Q. Is Mr. Van Dunham always there to wait upon people
that apply for plats?
A. He is not always there.
Q. What portion of his time did it take to made the plats?
A. I cannot say.
Q. Can you use those books, you have here, for the purpose
of making plats.
A. He has, a little.
Q. You have got nearly all the Lower Peninsula completed?
A. It is now ready for the platman.
Q. Is it not ready for use yet?
A. No, sir.
Q. I didn't know but you had them ready for use, so that
some of the clerks have been discharged on account of the reduction of labor.




1296      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. No, sir.
Q. There has been no discharge yet, on account of the work
being reduced?
A. Not from this department.
Q. How many conveyances do you put upon these abstractbooks?
A. Different sales?
Q. Yes. How many on patents and conveyances? How
many changes of title?
A. All the changes there are in the hands of the State.
Now, for instance, a piece of land is licensed and abandoned
and resold for cash, and perhaps forfeited again and resold,
and finally ends up with the sale upon the scrip.
Q. This book, that you have there, you intend to take the
place of the other records you have referred to,-that is the
intention, is it?
A. As far as the plat is concerned, and for general reference,
those other books will have to be retained; but a good many
of them are torn and worn out. The license-book and the
scrip-book are mutilated some. This is for ready reference.
Q. How many do you say work at that book?
A. Four.
Q. Besides yourself?
A. No, sir; with myself.
Q. And you have written up how many books?
A. There are four, nearly completed, and we are working on
the fifth.
Q. Will you turn to that piece of land in town 7 N., 4 E.,
that your attention was called to?
A. Yes, sir; I have it.
Q. I suppose your attention was called to that, for the purpose of illustrating the way that you could determine the title
of a piece of land, was it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when do you say that land was licensed?
A. The first license is 1169, February 8th, 1860.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1297
Q. To whom was it licensed?
A. David C. Weltse.
Q. Then it was licensed again?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To whom?
A. Orson Bouch.
Q. Now, you are not certain that is Bouck, are you?
A. Call it what you please. It is Bouch.
Q. You did not know what that name was, and could not
tell until the counsel suggested. Is not that the fact?
A. Bouch.
Q. Are you certain about that name?
A. I am certain it is W-e-l-t-s-e.
Q, How was the first license canceled,-for what reason?
A. I cannot say.
Q. Then your abstract is not proof in that respect? Can
you tell me why Mr. Weltse-if that is the name,-is not the
legal owner of that piece of land? Can you tell me from the
abstract?
A. Because the first license was canceled.
Q. For what purpose,-why was it canceled?
A. I presume he abandoned it.
Q. You presume,-does your book show that?
A. It does not,-that is what we understand, though.
Q. From what way do you understand it. If he had filed
his three months' proof, and, at the end of five years filed his
final proofs, that would make him the legal owner of the land
and he would be entitled to it?
A. Yes, sir, if he had done any such thing.
Q. How do you know whether he has or has not?
A. We take this from the records in the office, and I don't
think that shows any such thing. It did not where we found
this, certainly.
Q. Does the record show anything about whether his license
has been canceled?
A. It does.
163




1298      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. There is such a record as that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It does not show the reason?
A. I presume it does.
Q. Your abstract does not show?
A. Not here.
Q. Has the license of Mr. Bouch been canceled.
A. It was.
Q. When?
A. The license is dated March 14, 1865, and it was canceled
and sold to J. W. Cornell.
Q. What was it canceled for? Why was it canceled?
A. Under the sameQ. Why was it canceled?  Can you tell from  the abstract?
A. I cannot.
Q. Is it not a fact that if you want to find out for what
purpose the first license is canceled, you have to refer back to
those books?
A. Yes, sir; or to the file.
Q. If you want to find out why Bouch's license was canceled, have you not got to refer to the original records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You cannot tell from the abstract?
A. I cannot.
Q. It was canceled, and the land was sold to Cornell?
A. Yes, sir; Oct. 19,'71. The certificate has been surrendered since.
Q. Upon what certificate was it sold to Cornell? What is
the number of the certificate?
A. 9807.
Q. Was there a license subsequently issued to Mr. Bouch, as
second license?
A. Yes, sir; or perhaps the second license. It was patented
under the original license.
Q. Does your abstract show that a new license was issued to
him?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1299
A. It does not.
Q. Do you know whether it was licensed a second time to
Mr. Bouch?
A. I do not.
Q. Can you tell from your abstract?
A. It says the same number of license patented on that day.
Q. Then your abstract shows this state of facts, —that in 1865
that land was licensed to Mr. Bouch?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It shows that on the 19th of October the license was
canceled for some reason; you cannot tell what?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then at a subsequent date in March, 1872, it is licensed
again?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the license bears the same number as the old
license?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, are not the. licenses in consecutive order?
A. They are.
Q. What is the number?
A. 4285.
Q. Can you tell me how it is that license No. 4285, that was
canceled and set aside on October 19th, 1871, was restored
March, 1872?
A. Mr. Cornell surrendered his certificate.
Q. I am not speaking about the license. How was it that it
is the license of the old date that was issued to Cornell?
A. It was patented on that license.
Q. It was patented on a license that had been declared void,
because Mr. Bouch had not filed his three-months' proof?
A. It was patented on the same license.
Q. The same one that was canceled?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without any new license?
A. Yes, sir.




1300     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. It was the same old license?
A. The same number,-4285.
Q. For what reason was Mr. Cornell's certificate canceled?
A. The reference here says, "See affidavits on file, license
No. 4285."
Q. Is it not true, if I want to procure an abstract of the title of
that piece of land, before you could tell me just how it stood,
so that I would know whether I was going to get a good title,
if I was going to purchase it, that you would have to examine
the books to ascertain why Weltse's license was canceled, and
you would also'have to examine the old original books to ascertain why Bouch's license was canceled; and also examine the
original books to ascertain why Cornell's certificate was canceled; and also to ascertain why the patent was issued to
Bouch upon the old original license, number 4284. Would
you not have to go back to the books to get all that information?
A. We would refer to the files in such a case as that is.
Q. You would have to go to some source from which you
made that abstract, to get at the work of the office?
A. No. sir.
Q. I would like to have you explain it.
A. This we have taken from the books, and the affidavits
and the files we would get from the box filed in the safe.
Q. What you get from the files in the box?  You would
have to go to that for the purpose of getting that information?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you would go to the same sources from which you
made that abstract?
A. This we have taken from the books and records in the
office, and that is all we have to do with them. In relation to
this description, and for the proof of abandonment, and when
it was canceled, we would refer to the box.
Q. Does that book give you information on any points that
I asked you in my last question, with regard to the setting




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1301
aside of the first or second certificate of licenses, or the canceling of the certificate?
A. It does not tell the reason why.
Q. It does not show all the facts in the case then, does it?
A. No, sir.
Q. How often are abstracts applied for?
A: We have them quite often.
Q. Once a week?
A. Perhaps short ones for a few descriptions: but for whole
counties, not so often as that.
Q. Did you say it would average one a week,-an application for an abstract?
A. I do not think it will.
Q. What will the amount of money paid into the State for
these abstracts average each?
A. For a county, it costsQ. Individuals apply, do they not,-you say there are short
ones?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask you what the average fee would be?
A. We charge so much per folio.
Q. What would an abstract-that of Cornell's-amount to?
What would it be worth?
A. It would be so much a folio,-whatever it would count
up.
Q. It would be less than a folio?
A. About that, I should think.
Q. Do they average over two shillings a piece, these abstracts
of a single description?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The average conveyances will not be over two, from the
United States to the State, and from the State to some other
party, will it,-that is all the conveyance there usually is
about conveyances from  the United States to the State, and
that is in the list?
A. Yes, sir; bound volume.




1302     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONIDS.
Q. Those lists are bound?
A. The patents.
Q. Those lists of land from the United States to the State
are just as handy to refer to as these books here. They are
in bound books, similar to this?
A. We have an index to each patent-book.
Q. Then, as a general rule, so far as the conveyance are conveyances are concerned, you only reduce the number of books
from two to one. Is not that so, as far as the conveyances are
concerned?
A. No, sir, I think not.
Q. When, for instance, lands are conveyed from the United
States to the State, and by the State to some other party, the
record is all in two books, is it not?
A. Not in the Land Office. We must get it from several
books.
Q. How is it?
A. There is a cash sale and a ledger account that is part
paid. We have two scrip-books; simply one description, of
course; and then, in the license, we have two books,-the
license and the license patent book.
Q. Do you know  what the total amount received for
abstracts is, during the year?
A. I do not.
Q. Can you give us any estimate?
A. I cannot.
Q. Will it amount to a thousand dollars in a year?
A. I cannot say.
Q. Your best judgment; do you think it would amount to
five hundred dollars?
A. I have no way of telling.
Q. You have had charge of this abstracting?
A. I have since last June; there were a great many made
up before that.
Q. You have means of knowing how frequently these
abstracts are called for?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1303
A. I cannot say how much they do average.
Q. You have no opinion or judgment in regard to it?
A. I have not.
Q. Who had charge of that department of making and
selling the abstracts when they were applied for?
A. It came through Mr. Barnard's hands; application was
made to him.
Q. What clerk, I mean, makes them up?
A. Mr. De Viney and Burdick have worked on some, and
Mr. Turner and myself.
Q. The fees for abstracts are kept upon the same books that
the fees are for field-notes and plats?
A. I presume they are.
Q. You understand that to be the fact?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF C. L. KNIGHT.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Is the volume before you an abstract of reasons,
or an abstract of facts?
Answer. An abstract of facts, we understand it.
Q. Would it make any difference with regard to the efficiency
of that book whether you could pronounce the name, or could
not pronounce it?
A. It would not,-the spelling is here.
Q. If your abstract contained the original document at
length, would it be an abstract at all?
A. I don't know as it would.
Mr. McGowan-I ask to make an exhibit of these two
volumes, and I ask that the witness may state what the other
volume is that he has brought here?
The Witness-It is a volume of patents.
Mr. McGowan-It is a bound volume of patents spoken of
by the Governor in his evidence.
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will mark it.




1304     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
TESTIMONY OF DR. S. S. CUTTER.
S. S. Cutter, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. At Coldwater, Michigan.
Q. How long have you lived there.
A. Nearly thirty years-thirty years next August.
Q. What is your profession?
A. The practice of medicine.
Q. How long have you been in that?
A. Twenty-seven years.
Q. Are you acquainted with the Commissioner, Mr. Edmonds?
A. I have been, for a few years.
Q. Since his residence in Coldwater?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember of being called to attend upon him, I
think about in the fall of 1869, for any purpose. It may be it
was not that time?
A. Perhaps in December, 1869, if I recollect,-the latter
part of December,-I have no means of fixing the day or evening,-I was called to see Mr. Edmonds professionally.
Q. Were you his regular physician?
A. I was not. Dr. Bennett of Coldwater was, I understand,
his regular physician.
Q. Will you state the occasion of your being called?
A. Mrs. Edmonds came to my house in great haste after I
had retired, and desired me to go to see her husband, who, she
stated, was bleeding very badly.
Q. What time in the night was that?
A. I should think near midnight.  I don't know the exact
time; somewhere between ten and twelve.  If I remember
right, near midnight.
Q. Did you go to his house?
A. I went to his house.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1305
Q. During the time you were there did any other physician
come there?
A. I met Dr. Bennett at the house.  I am  not positive
whether he was.there when I got there, but I think he was.
Mrs. Edmonds, as I understood it, had gone for Dr. Bennett,
and he was out, and she immediately ran to my house, I living
near him, and called on me, and Dr. Bennett had returned, as
I understood it, and came in about the same time I did.
Q. State what the difficulty was, then?
A. The difficulty, as I understood it at the time, was a
hemorrhage from the urethra; at any rate, it was from the
penis, and he was pretty extensively covered with blood; his
shirt and legs and private parts were covered with blood, and
blood was dropping from  the end of the urethra. He was
better; it had somewhat ceased when I got there.
Q. Did you notice any on the bed,-on the sheets?
A. My impression is that I did; that is my remembrance. I
believe that Mr. Edmonds had got out of bed when I got
there; was on his feet, not dressed.
Q. Could it be determined from casual observation whether
a stain of that kind on a sheet was from that kind of hemorrhage, or from menses,-the flow?
A. I think not.
The Presiding Officer-Have the Honorable Managers any
questions?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We would like to be excused from
cross-examining at this moment. If we desire to cross-examine him, we will notify him within an hour or two.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN HI. BENNETT..
John H. Bennett, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. In Coldwater.
Q. How long have you lived there?
164




1306     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I have lived in the city of Coldwater at two different
times.
Q. How long have you been in the county?
A. I have been in the county, with the exception of about
three years, since 1839, the 10th day of May.
Q. Are you a practicing physician?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you practiced medicine?
A. I have practiced medicine since 1854, about the first of
October.
Q. You are acquainted with Commissioner Edmonds, are
you?
A. Iam.
Q. Have you attended upon him, as his physician, since he
has resided in Coldwater?
A. I think I have been Mr. Edmonds' family physician
during his residence in Goldwater.
Q. Do you recollect of being called to attend upon him, in
the fall of 1869, for any purpose?
A. I do so, sir.
Q. Did you hear Dr. Cutter testify?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Was you there upon that occasion?
A. I was, sir.
Q. Will you state what the difficulty was, as you ascertained
it from your observation, and what transpired there?
A. Well, the day was the 26th of December, and we called,
as Doctor Cutter has stated, somewhere between ten and
twelve o'clock. I arrived at the house first. I found Mr. Edmonds bleeding; he had bled very profusely; he was bleeding
from the penis; undoubtedly a hemorrhage from the urethra;
it was not mixed with other matter, so that was undoubtedly
the case.
Q. Did you ascertain whether he had been afflicted with that
before?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1307
A. I learned then, for the first time, that he had had such
hemorrhages.
Q. Did you notice any stain upon the bed?
A. I do not recollect in regard to the bed, but my impression
is, there was blood in the bed, but that I cannot be certain of.
There was a large amount of blood on his person, and the
night-clothes he had on,-which, I think, was his shirt; that
is, I mean, a large amount of blood flowing from the urethra.
Q. In your opinion, would an ordinary observer detect the
difference between the stain caused by that flow upon the
sheets, then, from the menstrual flow?
A. It would be impossible for an ordinary observer to do
that by ocular inspection.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We will make the same request in
regard to this witness, as in the other medical witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JOHN H. BENNETT.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. I would like to ask how long you have been the
family physician of the Commissioner?
Answer. I think, for nearly six years.
Q. Had you ever been called before, on an occasion of this
kind?
A. No, not with such a difficulty,-not for that difficulty.
Had been called for other difficulties in his family.
Q. In regard to this?
A. Nothing until that.
Q. Let me ask you what was said there in regard to its having occurred before?  You stated that you obtained some
information there at that time.
A. My recollection is, that I inquired, either on that evening
or on a visit which I made afterwards, as to the probable
origin or cause of the hemorrhage, and I learned then at that
visit, or on some subsequent visit, that he had some time previous to that,-I don't recollect the time,-had suffered some
injury to the genital organs. Since that he had had hemor



1308     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
hage from the urethra, but not to such an extent. They were
frightened because the hemorrhage exceeded anything they
seen before; it frightened his wife on this occasion.
Q. Have you been called to see him since that time for the
same difficulty?
A. I have not.
Q. In your practice that you have had, have you had many
cases or found many cases of this kind?
A. I think they are not very frequent. I have not had a
great many of them.
Q. You mean that you have had some or known of some?
A. I have had such cases under my care before.
Q. How is that produced, Doctor?
A. Well, sir, it may be produced in a variety of ways. The
hemorrhage may be produced from the urethra in a variety
of ways.
Q. I do not mean the original cause of it, perhaps. As I
understand you, in this case, the Commissioner said that he
had received some physical injury I do not refer to that;
but the immediate production of it at this time,-what was
the immediate cause of it,-how does it occur at a period long
subsequent to any physical injury?
A. Well, what the immediate cause might have been at that
time, we do not know; but we know anything that should
cause an unnatural fullness of the blood vessels might
cause a  hemorrhage.  Possibly  in this case, here may
have been a varicose state; that is, a dilated, enlarged
condition of those vessels which supplies blood to those
parts, and if so, on the occasion of any excitement, fatigue, long riding, journeys on horse-back, or anything of
this kind which would fill those blood vessels supplying that
membrane, it might result in rupture of the capillary vessels
and consequent increased hemorrhage,-consequent enlarged
hemorrhage,-and in proportion as those blood vessels were
filled, would be the extent, probably, of the hemorrhage.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1309
Q. In a case, Doctor, produced by fatigue, occasioned by
riding, or anything of that kind, would it occur probably at
midnight, instead of at the time, perhaps, when the fatigue of
the body was at the greatest?
A. It might; for this reason: Long riding, exciting circulation, and the want of rest would increase undoubtedly the
congestion of the genital organs; and even, furthermore, the
fullness of the bladder by the secretion of urine pressing upon
the veins might cause a preternatural fullness of the bloodvessels of the genital organs.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-This a matter, Mr. President, that
we are not prepared upon, and we will defer any further examination for the present.
The Presiding Officer-We will take the usual informal
recess of ten minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. PURINTON.
David B. Purinton, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Coldwater.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. Sixteen years.
Q. Are you acquainted with Commissioner Edmonds?
A. Iam.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?
A. Since 1848.
Q. State whether you were in the convention at Detroit, at
at the time of his nomination?
A. I was.
Q. State whether you have any knowledge of any bargains
made there, or any bargain, made by Mr. Edmonds with E. H.
Porter, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Land Office?




1310     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I have none.
Q. Did you make any bargain, as a friend of Mr. Edmonds,
with Mr. Porter?
A. I did not.
Q. Will you state what took place,-what was said with reference to this, if anything, and if so, when it was, during this
convention?
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Is this witness one of the persons
named by Mr. Porter?
Mr. McGowan-He is the friend of Edmonds, so called by
Porter.
Witness [ To Mr. McGowan.]-You mean with Mr. Porter?
Mr. McGowan-Yes, sir.
Answer. After Mr. Edmonds was nominated, Mr. Porter
came to me and said, "Under the circumstances, as you will
have some influence with Mr. Edmonds, I would like to have
you speak to him to retain me in the office as Deputy." I told
him I would mention the matter to Mr. Edmonds for him;
and that was the whole conversation between Porter and me.
Q. That was after the nomination?
A. After the nomination.
Q. State whether Judge Williams of Allegan, or any other
parties, came to you in behalf of Mr. Porter previous to that
time, and that you then made any arrangement in his behalf?
A. Judge Williams did not; Mr. Delos Phillips of Kalamazoo spoke to me about it before Mr. Porter, but after the
nomination, and said something like this: " That Mr. Porter
had expected, in case Gen. Pritchard's name was brought before
the convention, to be a candidate, and that under the circumstances he was feeling bad about it, and would like to be
retained as Deputy in the office, and wished I would speak to
Mr. Edmonds about it."
Q. State, then, whether you had any talk with any one about
Mr. Porter previous to the nomination.
A. No, sir.




PROCEEDINGS 0F THE COURT.              1311
Q. You say you made no bargain previous or subsequent to
the nomination?
A. That was all the time, previous or subsequent.
Q. Or any promises?
A. Or any promises.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DAVID B. PURINTON.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Hnston:
Question. When was it this gentleman from  Kalamazoo
spoke to you,-before or after the nomination?
A. It was before the nomination. It might have possibly
been before the last count of the ballot, when we knew Edmonds was nominated.
Q. You know of no conversation held on that subject prior
to the nomination?
A. I do not.
Q. There was none held with you?
A. There was none held with me.
Q. You do not know what talk there may have been with
other parties?
A. I do not know, but still I have good reason to believe
there was none.
Q. You do not know what conversation might have been
held with other individuals, in that convention, with regard
to the arrangement?
A. Of course I do not.
Q. It might have been held with other individuals, in that
convention, without your knowledge?
A. It might. I do not think it could have been held with
Edmonds.
Q. The talk you had with Porter was after the nomination?
A. After the nomination.
Q. That was the first you knew of any arrangement of that
kind?
A. When Col. Phillips spoke to me, was the first I knew that
Porter was to be a candidate at all, or thought of being a candidate.




1312     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that the delegates
in that convention, who went there expecting to present Porter's name and support him, did support Edmonds; that they,
for some reason, dropped the name of Porter and supported
Edmonds?
A. I do not know any further than Col. Phillips,-I think
he did.
Q. Do you not know that the Allegan delegation did the
same thing?
A. I think the Allegan delegation did, because I spoke to
Judge Williams before the nomination, and asked him, if
Edmonds' name was brought forward, if he would support him.
Q. What did he say about Porter in that conversation?
A. He was in hopes of nominating Gen. Pritchard. There
was not a word said about Porter.
RE-EXAMINATION OF DAVID B. PURINTONX.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Were you with Edmonds all the time there?
Answer. I was nearly all; I think all the time.
Q. Could there have been any conversation with him about
Porter, and you not have heard it?
A. I think not.
RE-CROSS-EXAMI-NATION OF DAVI) B. PURINTON.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Where were Edmonds' headquarters?
Answer. We stopped at the Biddle.
Q. Were you there during the nomination of the State
officers?
A. At the time of the nomination of the State officers, we
were in the convention. We were both delegates.
Q. You were each delegates and sat together?
A. Yes, sir; we sat in the front part of the hall.
Q. Were you together all the while at the Biddle House?
A. I could not say we were.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE   COURT.               1313
Q. Were you together all the while at the convention?
A. Except as I stepped back a little ways. We sat together,
and I do not think he walked around the hall. I did, a little.
Q. Were there many people at the Biddle House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was not the Biddle House crowded with people,-full?
A. I think not full.
Q. Were not there a good many people there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was not the convention crowded?
A. The convention was crowded.
TESTIMONY OF A. L. BOURS.
A. L. Bours, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You have been acting as book-keeper in the Treasurer's office?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. State in what capacity you were in the Treasurer's office
in 1870, at the end of the fiscal year?
A. I was book-keeper, sir.
Q. Whether you have any recollection of moneys from fieldnotes and plats being paid into the office at the end of that
year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much was paid in?
A. I can tell you exactly by referring to the book; it was
over $1,900,-$1,982.30.
Q. Who paid it?
A. Mr. Porter.
Q. When?
A. On the 30th of November, 1870.
Q. Did he make any statement with regard to where he got
that money?
160




1314     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. He stated to me that it was field-notes, principally, that
had been accumulated du I ring the year.
Q. How was it paid?
A. By his check on the Second National Bank at Lansing.
Q. His individual check?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect the occasion of his paying in the accumulations from that source at the end of April, 1871.
A. Yes, sir.
Q' How much did he pay them?
A. My recollection is, that it was over *400, —$473.76.
Q. What was said, if anything, by Porter with regard to
that?
A. Mr. Porter remarked that Edmonds now required that
he should make these payments at the end of each month
These seemed to be statements of the sales of State land he
made when the other payment was made. Those were unusually large payments, and these statements were made in
explanation of why they were so much.
Q. What was Porter's appearance and conduct at the time?
A. I do not know. I heard he said he had been having atalk
with the Commissioner,-seemed to be a little confused, a little
excited.
Q. Can you give the amount paid into the Treasury from
these sources,-field-notes, plats, and so forth,-during the
years 1869, 1870, and 1871?
A. I can do so in about fifteen or twenty minutes. It will
require a little time to make them up.
Mr. McGowan-I will ask, when the witness leaves the
stand, that he may be allowed to make a statement of the aggregate of each of those years, with the privilege of filing it as
evidence in the case.
The Presiding Officer-He may do so.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you recollect the occasion of moving the office,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1315
from the old office down into the new,-" from the old house
into the new?"
Answer. I do sir.
Q. When was it?
A. About the middle of December last.
Q. Do you know when the moving commenced?
A. The last transaction we had in the old Land Office was on
the 13th of December, one day subsequent to receiving any
money from the Auditor's office. The Auditor's office commenced moving sooner than the Land Office. My recollection
is that we resumed doing business for the Land Office on the
19th. The suspension was somewere about five or six days.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A. L. BOURS.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Can you tell from your books the particular things
that this money is for?
Answer. No, sir. The entry that we made is for fees, plats
etc.
Q. You cannot tell whether abstracts, etc., are included?
A. It is included in his amount, and the statement is madeQ. You cannot tell how much is for field-notes, how much
for plats, and how much for abstracts?
A. No, sir; no division.
Q. Simply one item?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have no means of telling from your books?
A. No, sir; we never have the information. The money is
brought in all at once, usually on the last day of the month,
with the statement that that is for fees received during the
month.
Q. How long were you moving down from the old office
into the new?
A. We were engaged perhaps two weeks, altogether; but
business was necessarily suspended about a week.




1316     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you know how long it was suspended in the Land
Office?
A. I think it was five or six days. I referred to the book yesterday, and I think our last receipt from the Land Office was on
the 13th of December; and no receipts from that time until
the 19th.
Q. There were receipts on the 19th?
A. I. think there was.
Q. Can you tell from the book you have here?
A. No.
Q. Will you look, so that when you come back you can tell
positively?
A. Yes, sir; I will do so.
TESTIMONY OF ELIAS SHAFER.
Elias Shafer, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You are one of the clerks in the Land Office?
Answer. I am.
Q. How long have you been employed in the Land Office?
A. Since the sixteenth of December, 1869.
Q. About what are you now employed?
A. At work on the field-notes.
Q. How long have you been at work on the field-notes?
A. It has been my work pretty much in there, with the
exception of about a month that I assisted in making up one
report.
Q. Who now superintends that work.
A. I have rather been for a few days past, since Griswold
left.
Q. How many are employed there since Griswold left, upon
the work?
A. There are four, including myself.
Q. What is the necessity of writing up these field-notes, if
you know?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1317
A. I should think it was a necessity, from the fact that
these small books are rather frail, and liable to be worn out
and destroyed, and it would leave them in a much more even
shape for reference, and more convenient for keeping.
Q. Are any of those small books now worn?
A. Some of them  are somewhat; many of the books have
quite poor covers, or covers entirely off; and in some cases
there were loose leaves liable to be lost.
Q. Were you ever employed in any of the other State
offices?
A. I was employed during the summer of 1869 in the
Auditor General's office, from  May until November seventeenth or eighteenth; and I was then employed from the seventeenth of November until the sixteenth of December, in the
Secretary of State's office.
Q. One month?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. In 1869.
Q. State what you received for that month's work in the
Secretary of State's office?
A. I received at the rate of seventy-five dollars a month.
Q. Nine hundred dollars a year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you previous to that time worked in the Secretary
of State's office?
A. I had not.
Q. State whether you, with the other clerks who have been
at work upon the field-notes, have been tending to your duties
while you have been at work?
A. I think we have. I have tried to do so, and I think I
can say the same of the rest.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ELIAS SHAFER.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. How many hours a day do you work?




1318     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Answer. Seven hours and a half.
Q. What time do you commence in the morning?
A. Eight o'clock, and work until twelve, and from half past
one until five, except on Saturday,-we quit at four o'clock
on Saturday.
Q. Who are the clerks that are working on field-notes?
A. Mr. Cherry is working on field notes, Mr. Hamilton, and
Mr. Lewis.
Q. There are three besides you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you say you had been at that work?
A. The greater part of the time,-nearly all of the time
since I commenced.
Q. That is the 16th of December, 1869?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About the same force working at it?
A. There is some more than have been during the past year.
Q. How many more are there working at that, than there
were during 1869 and 1870?
A. Part of the time in 1869 and 1870, there was nearly the
same force.
Q. How many were there in 1870,-you have got three besides yourself, now.  How many was there in 1870, besides
yourself?
A. Well, there was as many as three, part of the time; but
part of the time they were at work on other work.
Q. Wasn't there more than three some of the time in 1870?
A. I think there were as many as four, part of the time.
Q. Wasn't there.as many as three in 1869.
A. I guess there was, a portion of the time.
Q. Then the increase, in the Commissioner's office, of clerks,
since the present Commissioner has been in office, is not caused
by giving you additional force at that work, is it?
A. It has been, partially. Part of the clerks that were on
the field-notes were called off many times to work on abstracts.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1319
Q. Yes; but if you had no greater force than you had in
1870, why, there would be no additional clerks in the office,
would there?
A. No more than there was in 1870,-I would say 1871; I
was thinking of 1871, when I said 1870,-that there were not
so many in 1870; there were as many there a part of the time;
there were a portion of them at work on abstracts; the work
is now done by this abstract force.
Q. Then this abstract was commenced in 1870?
A. I did not say this abstract; the abstract orders that
came to the office from counties or townships.
Q. How often do these orders for abstracts come to the office?
A. I could not say anything about that., because I know
nothing about it, any more than I know that: at diffierent times
men were at work on them.
Q. They do not come very frequently, do they?
A. I could not say anything about it, because I never worked
on them. I know nothing about them.
Q. If there were enough to keep clerks to work at the
abstracts any reasonable proportion of the time, you would have
knowledge of it, would not you?
A. I may not, if field-note clerks wereQ. If there were any clerks in the office whose attention was
mainly taken up in making abstracts of title for parties applying for abstracts, you would know it, would you not?
A. I probably would; I would observe it casually.
Q. That is not the fact, is it, that it takes the time of a clerk
to make the abstracts for customers?
A. I should not say that it did, because, usually, when an
order of that kind comes in there are as many as two usually
at work on them. I never observe whether they are at work
on the book of abstracts; I know very frequently they are at
work on abstracts outside,-I could not say when.
Q. Do you know how generally these field-notes have been
furnished to the counties, that you are making abstracts of.




1320     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not. I know there has been quite a number of
counties furnished, but I could not name them.
Q. Have not nearly all the organized counties of the State
got the field-notes?
A. No; I should not say they had, nearly all; I should not
think they had more than half of them,-the organized counties.
Q. Can you not tell by making an examination in your office?
A. No, sir; I cannot tell. I do not know, up to within a
year or two past, that there has been any record kept of them.
I never gave it any particular attention, so that I cannot even
remember the names of the counties I worked on myself,
-although I worked on quite a number.
Q. You do not mean that it cannot be told from the Com-;missioner's office, what counties have been furnished with fieldnotes?
A. Well, I don't have any record; there may be a record
kept by the Deputies, or some others; I do not know of any.
I have had nothing to do with that part of it,-I have chiefly
worked on copying.
Q. What is the benefit that is proposed to be derived from
these field-notes,-the making this record of them?
A. I should suppose it was a matter of convenience. These
towns, as they now are in these small books, have been, a
great number of them, re-surveyed. Many of tie town lines
have been re-surveyed. Frequently find the boundaries of one
town where there have been two or three different surveys;
sometimes a survey of a re-survey; sometimes fractions of
land re-surveyed; and it would require three or four of these
small books to get that perfect; and it was thought that if
they were in a condensed form, and a correct form, that they
would be in a much more convenient form for reference, than
they would be in these small books.
Q. You spoke of a survey and a re-survey, and sometimes
another survey, making three surveys. Who decides which is




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                   1321
the correct survey? How do you get at it to know which is
the correct survey of the township?
A. We usually take the latest surveys. The others are
usually canceled, sometimes the  original survey, and it is
marked out, and it makes a reference to the re-survey.
Q. Who cancels them?
A. The surveyor who makes the re-survey, at the time of
making it.
Q. What authority has he for canceling the original survey?
A. I know nothing further than this, that a good many of
these surveys have been pronounced by the Surveyor General
-as spurious, and re-surveys ordered.
Q. Have you not heard it talked in the office, since you have
been making these re-surveys, that the Supreme Court of this
State has decided that the old original survey is the survey
that must be taken as the true survey in regard to all land
titles in this State?
A. I have heard nothing further than this: When sales
have been made by the United States, that the re-surveys must
be made to conform to the old surveys, as far as sales have
been made.
Q. Is not that understood to be the law in the office?
A. I supposeQ. That the first survey is the survey that binds?
A. Where sales have been made under it; further than that
I have not understood that it was.  Wherever descriptions
have been sold in these re-surveys, the re-survey is made to
conform to the old survey as far as the descriptions are sold.
Q. Then, in a township where there have been lands sold,
and there has been two surveys, which do you follow then,where there has been some land sold before the second survey?
A. We follow the second survey, from the fact that wherever
3ands have been soldQ. Would not you in those cases change the original survey,
166




1322     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and run against the decision of the Supreme Court upon that
question?
A. I don't think we would, because on those lands, as far as
it affected the sales that have been made, we follow the old
lines.
Q. Suppose you have two surveys of a township,-you have
the original survey, aud a subsequent survey,-and there has
been land sold under the first survey, a quarter-section say, and,
according to the lines made by the second survey, there is a
space left, between the description that has been sold and the
adjoining quarter-section, that has not yet been sold, and you
sell this second piece, what becomes of that intervening piece
of land?
A. I have never known of any instance of that kind.
Q. Might not that occur?
A. It might occur on town lines.
Q. You do not pretend to say that the lines of the new survey run exactly the same as the lines of the old survey?
A. I do, in those cases; the other descriptions would be
made fractional, and these lines would be made to conform
with the original survey, wherever the corners can be found;
and if they are not found, they are established according to
the old survey.
Q. Then the new survey conforms to the old survey?
A. Yes, sir, as far as affects those sales,-the descriptions of
land sold. That is the intention, and we have no means of
knowing anything to the contrary, because in these old subdivisions we have nothing but the old surveys, at least, from any
of them that were kept. When the re-surveys were made, the
old surveys were retained, or destroyed, or something; they
are not in the office, and we have to take the re-surveys entirely
as authority.
Q. Now, suppose,-to illustrate,-here is a piece of land
[showing witness diagrams] that has been sold under the old
survey. Making the new survey, the line runs here. Now, in




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1323
making your record, which section line would you follow, the
old one or the new one?
A. In the first place, when the re-survey is made, they find
from this description that the land has been sold; they find
those corners, and run on those corners and no others.
Q. Then, I understand that if the surveyor has knowledge
that the land has been sold, when he comes to a piece that has
been sold he runs upon the same line?
A. He runs upon the same line.
Q. Suppose he does not have the knowledge?
A. I suppose he receives this knowledge from the information
of the Land Office. I know that frequently that is done in
these re-surveys, from the description of the land that has
been sold in the township; unless, as one of those deputy surveyors in the office at one time, Mr. Van Dunham said their
orders were, if they could get permission and the consent of
those that had made purchases of all of them in a township,
they would then correct the surveys and have the surveys corrected throughout; but unless they could get the consent of
the parties purchasing, they made the re-survey'conform to
the old.
Q. Do you know anything about how constantly the other
clerks, Mr. Dunham, for instance, was at his work, while he
was in the office?
A. Nothing more than I would of any of the rest.
Q. Wasn't he frequently gone in office hours?
A. I thought that he was away more, perhaps, than some of
the rest; that is simply from observation.
Q. You observed that fact during the time that he was in
the office,-that he was away a good deal,-did you not?
A. I could say he had been; yes, sir.
Q. Did you observe the same in regard to Mr. Clarke?
A. Well, not so particularly in regard to Mr. Clarke. No, I
could not say that I had.
Q. Could not say as to Mr. Clarke?




1324     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. He has been away somewhat, but I should not want to
say how much, or anything in regard to that.
TESTIMONY OF HEDGES L. PADDACK.
Hedges L. Paddack, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Mr. Paddack, you are the book-keeper in the
Land Office?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President: We ask to withdraw this
witness for a few moments, and put on another one who is
very anxious to leave, and whose condition is such that he
ought to be allowed to testify and go away.
TESTIMONY OF ASA SHATTUCK.
Asa Shattuck, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
-the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman.
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. I live in Lansing, on Main street.
Q. How long have you lived here?
A. Thirty-two years this spring.
Q. What is your business?
A. I am draying.
Q. Do you know James H. Baker?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him, here in
this city, about getting any information against Mr. Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Won't you state what it was?
A. He came to me some four or five or six weeks ago,
I cannot tell the time exactly, and wanted to know if I had
just as lief go and ask Alice if she had ever seen Mr. Edmonds
to her house, or ever seen him drunk. I told him I would.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1325
"Well," says he, "if you will go and find out, you can have
ten dollars;" says he, "you might as well make ten dollars
out of it as not;" says he, " I am making money out of it, and
you might as well make some money out of it."
Q. Making money out of what? Did he say?
A. Well, that is what he said; I don't know  what. Well,
when I went home,-I live the next door to her,-I went over
thereQ. Never mind that. I am only after the conversation with
Mr. Baker,-that's all?
A. Well, that is all I had at that time. I saw him again just
at night.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ASA SHATTUCK.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. You saw him again at night; what then?
Answer. Then he asked me if I had asked her the question,
and I told him  I had; he wanted to know what she said; I
told him that she said he had never been there.
Q. Well, never mind  about that;-you performed your
duties then?
A. I did all that he asked me to do.
Q. Did you receive your reward?
A. I did not, sir; I never got anything.
Q. About what time was this?
A. I cannot tell whether it was five or six weeks ago. It
was soon after the paper came out they call "The Wednesday
Night."
Q. Was it while the Legislature was in session here?
A. I think it was while the Legislature was in session.
Q. How long had the Legislature been in session?
A. I could nol tell you, sir.
Q. Where were you at this time?
A. I was here on the streets, down near the corner where
my stand is,-where I stand for draying.




1326     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. I understand you that you reside there near Alice
McCabe's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever asked Mr. Baker for that ten dollars?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you do it as an act of friendship to him, or on
account of his request and promise of payment?
A. I did it because he requested me to, and said I could
make ten dollars out of it.
Q. What is the reason you haven't been after the money?
You have performed your duty, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what is the reason?  This was five or six weeks
ago?
A. I thought likely if I had done anything, any services for
him, if he was going to pay me he would pay it without asking.
Q. You saw him every day?
A. Not every day.
Q. Nearly every day?  He is a citizen here?
A. Yes; I have seen him occasionally.
Q. When you perform services for different individuals do
you wait until they choose to pay you, generally?
A. Some I do.
Q. Mr. Baker is one of them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How came he to go to you; do you know?
A. I do not know anything about it.
Q. You say he made that proposition to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the first that he said to you about it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the last that he said to you about it?
A. No; he spoke to me in the evening.
Q. Well, I mean the last at the time that this conversation
was had?
A. Yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1327
Q. He simply came to you and asked you to make an inquiry
of Alice with regard to those facts that you have mentioned?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anybody present?
A. No; there wasn't.
Q. When he said he was making money out of this matter,
and you might as well make some, what matter did he refer
to?
A. He referred to-well, I can't state exactly how he did
word it.
Q. Well, we would like to know precisely how he worded it;
because that is very material.
A. He didn't say exactly; but it was something concerning
him and Mr. Porter, I think. I could not tell you, now, the
words that he used.
Q. Did he say anything to you about finding out who got
up the paper?
A. No.
Q. Did he say anything to you about finding out from
whence certain letters were obtained?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or any photographs?
A. No, sir.
Q. What made you think that it was with regard to Mr
Edmonds and Mr. Porter? What makes you make that statement?
A. Well, I think he said it was the difficulty between Mr.
Porter and Mr. Edmonds,-the difficulty that they had.
Q. Well, then, you haven't stated quite all the conversation
Now let us have it?
A. Well, I can't tell how he worded it, or anything about it,
but it was something to that effect,-that it was a difficulty
between Mr. Porter and Mr. Edmonds.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I cannot state the words that was used,-anything about
it.




1328     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Did he say anything about its having anything to do
with this impeachment trial?
A. No, sir; I don't think he did; I don't recollect that he
did.
Q. Do you know whether any proceedings in regard to impeachment had taken place?
A, I don't, —  cannot say whether I had heard of it or not.
Q. Do you recollect the fact that the members of the Legislature were invited to a circus,-Warner's circus?
A. No, sir, I don't know that any invitation was given to
them.
Q. So you could not fix any time?
A. No. sir.
EXAMINATION OF HI. L. PADDACK, RESUMED.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You had stated that you are book-keeper in the
Land Commissioner's office?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. I would like to ask you whether you were sworn
before the Investigating Committee?
Answer. No, sir, I was not.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. How long have you been employed in the Commissioner's office?
Answer. Since February, 1869.
Q. State whether you were employed in any of the other
State offices, previous to that?
A. I was employed in the State Treasurers office.
Q. For how long?
A. I was in there about five and a half years previous to that.
Q. In all, then, you have been in the employ of the State, in
the State offices, about how many years?
A. About eight and a half years,-nearly nine years.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1329
Q. What do you now do, as book-keeper, in the Commissioner's office?
A. The duties are so numerous, I can hardly mention them.
Q. Then we will take them up separately. State whether
there has been any change in your duties since the present
administration?
A. There is considerable.
Q. Please state what your duties were, previous to the present administration, as book-keeper.
A. It was mostly in keeping the account of the part-paid
certificates; charging up the interest; receiving interest; giving credits. The work was mostly with those part-paid certificates that I had to do; not much more.
Q. Has your work, by the new arrangement, been decreased
or increased?
A. Very much increased.
Q. Give some of the sources of this increase of work since
the present administration?
A. Well, attending to the taxes; that has all been placed in
my hands, which I had nothing to do with before, and the
making up of lists to send to the county treasurers for taxes,
and also for their collecting interest, and their lists that pertain to fbrfeited land for non-payment of interest, and sending
those to the county tresurers; and also notices to supervisors,
and taking charge of the forfeited land sales under the law of
1869.
Q. State whether the requirements of that law  made it
necessary for any new books to be made.
A. Yes; there were new books opened for that purpose.
Q. Such books as had never before that time been kept in
the office?
A. No, sir, there was no occasion for it before that.
Q. State whether you now have anything to do with the
mail that is received.
A. I have all the letters sent in for interest and taxes to
167




1330     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
attend to and answer, and all letters that I reply to have to
be copied, and also the mail in the State Treasurer's office in
regard to taxes and interest, and of the Auditor General's
office,-all have to go through my hands.
Q. Was this any part of your duty previous to Mr. Edmonds'
administration?
A. It was not.
Q. State whether you have anything to do with personal
applications to pay interest upon penalties?
A. In these personal applications, I have to see that they
make their applications in writing before they pay the interest
on taxes.
Q. Do you wish to be understood that you have charge of
all the mail from the Auditor General's office concerning taxes?
A. Concerning taxes on part-paid lands.
Q. What do you have to do, if anything, in your department
as book-keeper, in reference to giving notices of shortage?
A. Whenever money is sent to pay interest, when there is
not enough of it, I have to notify the parties of the amount
that is still due.
Q. Did you, previous to the present administration?
A. I never wrote any letters.
Q. Can you state how many open accounts you have charge
of?
A. They number nearly 8,000, if not more. I cannot state
the exact number.
Q. How frequently during each year do you have to go over
those accounts?
A. I should judge it would average about once a month.
Q. Twelve times a year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much more labor, if any, is done now, in your
department, than was done previous to the present administration?
A. That comes under my supervision? About three times as
much.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1331
Q. How many assistants have you?
A. I have one.
Q. Only one?
A. One only.
Q. State whether or not, the labor of that department
requires all the time of yourself and assistant?
A. I have been employed there busily, ever since I have
been employed.
Q, Any out of office hours?
A. Yes; I have worked considerably out of office hours.
Q. Is that true of your assistant?
A. Yes sir; he has worked some with me.
Q. Who is your assistant?
A. Mr. Bowen.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF H. L. PADDACK.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You say you kept the books?
Answer. I kept the books pertaining to the part-paid lands,
interest and principal.
Q. You, with the aid of Mir. Bowen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. While you were book-keeper before MIr. Edmonds' administration, who assisted you?
A. Mr. Knight did that that I do now,-that of taking care
of the taxes and sending out the lists to the county treasurers
and supervisors.
Q. When you only kept the account of the certificates for
part payment, as I understand you, and the recovery of interest,
before 1871, did you have an assistant to help you in that particular labor?
A. I did not.
Q. Then while you was book-keeper in 1870 or 1869 you had
no assistant?  You did all the work that was put under your
immediate care?




1332      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I might say a week at the last end of April that I had
some assistance; that is the only particular.
Q. Since you have had these other duties placed upon you,
you have had Mr. Bowen to assist you. Is it not a fact that
some of the time you have had other aid than Mr. Bowen?
A. I have had a very little within the last two weeks.
Q. Did you not have some last spring?
A. No, sir.
Q. The only' assistance you have had, excepting Mr. Bowen,
has been the assistance you have had in the last two weeks?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are those certificates of part payment?
A. Where parties purchase lands on part payment.
Q. What kinds of lands?
A. Primary school, University, Agricultural College, and
salt springs.
Q. When is the interest to be paid?
A. March 3d.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from  the Nineteenth
(Mr. Neasmith) sends up the following question, which the
Secretary will read:
The Secretary read as follows:
"Why are parties desiring to pay interest on school lands
required to make application in writing, and what is done
with the application?"
Answer. The letters are filed with the letters in the office
so as to know who applies to pay the interest, and then the
application is filed with the other letters of the office.
Q. Is it bound with the bound volume of letters?
A. I suppose it will be,-they had not been bound yet.
Q. None of these applications have been bound?
A. No, sir, not since that rule has been established.
Q. How long has that been the rule?
A. I think we commenced that about February.
Q. Last February?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1333
A. Yes, sir; when this present year's interest was becoming
paid.
Q. You dii not do that, then, last year?
A. No, sir.
Q. Suppose one of those letters or applications, as you state,
that was sent to you by mail, referred to some matter besides
that of paying interest,-what would be done with the letter?
A. After I had paid the interest that the letter would indicate, I would pass it over to the proper clerk or officer, to take
charge of it.
Q. You say you have a good deal to do with the mails.
When a letter is received with regard to the business of the
office, and it refers to some other matter outside of the business matters, what is the practice with regard to the disposition of that letter?
A. I do not know that I can say. I hardly know what circumstances might come up.
Q. Supposing a man writes a letter and sends it to the office,
and the letter refers to the purchase of land, it is directed to
the Commissioner, and the letter is an application for land,
and in that letter he incidentally wishes the Commissioner " a
happy New Year," or inquires after his family, what disposido you make of that letter?
A. Such letters do not come under my supervision.
Q. Do you know whether there is any rule with regard to the
disposition of them?
A. I suppose they are filed the same as other letters.
Q. Do you not understand that the rule of the office is to
file and have bound all the letters with regard to the business of
the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Suppose a letter is received at the office, asking to purchase a piece of land upon part payment, and the money is
inclosed, and the party inclosing the letter sends along five
dollars additional, and says " that is to buy a cigar with," what
would they do with that letter?




1334      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not know, sir.
Q. Do you know what the rule is with regard to the disposition of those private letters,-whether they are filed with the
other letters and bound, or not?
A. I suppose they are.
Q. You never understood that it was the rule of the office,
if a letter referred to another matter, that it should be disposed
of in the samle way,-thrown into the waste-paper basket, or
put into some private drawer.
A. No, sir.
Q. You are pretty familiar with the business of the office?
A. As far as my business goes.
Q. The general business?
A. No, I cannot say that I am with the general business.
Q. You referred to notifying the Treasurer with regard to
taxes.  What do you mean by that?
A. Not taxes,-interest.
Q. Interest on what?
A. On the part-paid lands. The annual interest on partpaid lands.
Q. Do the county treasurers collect the interest?
A. They do.
Q. And forward it to the Commissioner, or to the State
Treasurer?
A. Their duty is to forward it to the State Treasurer. They
many times forward to the Commissioner.
Q. They forward to the Commissioner instead of the State
Treasurer?
A. Yes, sir.
A. I understand you to say that you furnish also, lists for
taxation,-lists of lands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what has been your instruction in regard to furnishing to county treasurers lists of lands that have not been
patented, and where no certificates have been issued, and the
lands have been held for several years upon matured scrip?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1335
A. I have nothing to do with that, sir.
Q. You furnish the lists of swamp lands when purchased,
to the county treasurers for taxes?
A. I furnish a list of lands that are part paid.
Q. You have nothing to do with lands that have been sold
and paid for in full?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who does furnish that?
A. I mistake. I do furnish that list.
Q. Can you tell me why these 23,000 acres that have been
paid for in full, of Edmund Hall's land, and have been so since
1869-you having been the book-keeper all that time, and it
was a part of your duty-why you did not notify the treasurers that that land was sold and paid for, that it might be taxed?
A. That department did not come under my supervision
until last July.
Q. Why have you not done it since last July?
A. I really cannot tell that I can answer that question now.
Q. The law requires you to send in these lists by the middle
of March, so that the treasurers can notify the supervisors of
the townships, so that the land can be assessed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why was not that done?
A. I do not know but it was.
Q. Why did you not certify those lists before the 15th of
March, 1872?
A. I do not know but they have been,-all fully paid land,
and all part paid.
Q. Would you say they have not been?
A. I do not know what his lands are. I take them from the
sales-book,-anything that is entered on the sales-book.
Q. It is in evidence that there is some thirty or forty
thousand acres of land that has been fully paid for some time.
Can you state whether you have not sent the descriptions of
those lands to the treasurers of the counties in which the
lands are situated?




1336     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not know but I have. I do not know as I have. If
they appear in the sales-book as part paid, or fully paid lands,
I have sent them. If they do not, I have not.
Q. Do you know whether it is the rule of the office, then,
when lands are held upon unmatured scrip, and the scrip has
matured, to place those lands upon the sales-book, as you call
it?
A. I do not know anything about it. That is a part of the
business I do not know anything about.
Q. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that it is not done?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you not know that, as a matter of fact, the land is
not placed upon the sales-book until the certificate is issued?
A. They are not entered until the certificate is issued.
Q. Then, if lands are paid for, and are allowed to lie, year
after year, after issuing a certificate, you do not notify the
treasurer?
A. I do not know anything about it until the certificate is
issued.
Q. What are these lands that yon refer to, under the law of
1869?
A. Land on which interest has not been paid when it became
due.
Q. What class of land?
A. On the part-paid lands.
Q. School and College and swamp lands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To whom are these letters, that you received and answered
usually addressed?
A. To the Commissioner of the Land Office, State Treasurer,
and Auditor General.
Q. Any of them addressed to you?
A. But a very few indeed.
Q. Do you hold correspondence with parties dealing with
the office, directly, in your own name?
A. But a few.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1337
Q. Did you indulge in that at all?
A. I have some correspondence.
Q. Do you know whether that is allowed with the other
clerks in the office?
A. I do not, sir.,Q. Yon can only answer for yourself?
A. I can only answer for myself.
Q. Why did you write and do the businsss in your own
name?
A. Pertaining to the office?
Q. Yes, the official business.
Mr. McGowan —I submit,. that is an assumption. He has
not said that he did official business in his own name.
Mr. Manager Huston-I misapprehend, or else the witness
misunderstood me. I mean with regard to the business of the
office. [To the witness.] Do you correspond with parties in
your own name, and not in the name of the Commissioner,
in relation to the office business?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Q. You never have indulged in that at all?
A. Not in official business.
Q. Do you get any gratuities in your berth?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never have received any?
A. No gratuities.
Q. What is your salary?
A. One thousand dollars.
Q. That is the only means you have of making'money out
of your position?
A. No, sir.
Q. In what way do you make any money outside of that?
A. I have correspondents who pay taxes in the Auditor
General's Office who do their business through me.
Q. I mean with regard to the business of the Commissioner of the Land Office, or in that office. Do you get any
pay from any source?
168




1338     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. No, sir; I have correspondence with some ones that I
do business for in the Auditor General's office-paying taxesthey occasionally wish me to locate land, and want me to attend
to the business for them, which I do.
Q. Who is that?
A. Mr. Charles W. Noble of Detroit.
Q. Who else?
A. R. C. Smith of Detroit.
Q. Who else?
A. R. C. Ludington & Co. of Chicago.
Q. Who else?
A. I do not remember any more now.
Q. Do they pay you per year?
A. One of the parties do.
Q. How much do they pay you?
A. He has never paid me anything, but he agreed to pay me
$100.
Q. What do the others pay?
A. A percentage on the amount of work done.
Q. What will it amount to, that Smith pays you per year?
A. I do not know that I could say.
Q. In your judgment?
A. I think it might amount to $100.
Q. What does it amount to that Ludington pays you per
year?
A. I think about four or five dollars I have received from
him.
Q. Noble?
A. About a hundred dollars from Noble, —no, I think more
than that; I don't know exactly.
Q. What is this percentage on?
A. On the amount of the transaction.
Q. Transaction in what?
A. In the sale of the land, whatever it may be, or amount
of interest, whatever it may be, or amount of taxes.
Q. In the sale of what kind of land?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1339
A. It has been sometimes swamp land, and sometimes school
lands.
Q. Will you explain how it is that you engage in selling this
swamp land for a percentage, so that the Court will understand
what you mean by that?
A. If he makes an application to buy land, at the amount
of $200, I get one and one-half per cent commission on the
$200.
Q. If he makes an application to do what?
A. If he makes an application, through me, to buy from the
State, land which would amount to $200, I get the commission on that $200.
Q. If who makes the application; either one of these
parties?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell why it is that these different parties apply
to the Land Office through you to buy lands, and pay you a
percentage, when they can apply directly to the Commissioner,
and have a right to apply to the Commissioner, and have their
land without paying a percentage. Why is it they do it?
A. I will state that the way I got this correspondence in the
first placeQ. No. Answer my question?
A. I could answer it by doing that.
Q. If you know why it is they apply to you and pay the
percentage when they can apply directly to the Commissioner,
and buy the land without paying the percentage, I want you
to state?
A. I don't know that I can state why they do it. I never
asked them, and they never told me.
Q. Do you have an understanding with these parties that
you are to watch the books there and make investigation, and
ascertain, if you can, if any one's lands were exposed, so that
they can apply for the land?
A. No, sir; I do not.




1340     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What arrangements, if any, do you have in regard to furnishing them lists of land?
A. I never have furnished them any lists of land.
Q. Do you have any arrangement with them in regard to it?
A. No, sir.
Q. How do you manage their business, then, as a matter of
fact?
A. If they wish to purchase any land, they send a description of the land they wish to purchase, and if that land is vacant I pass it to the proper officer to locate it.
Q. Who makes the application at the Commissioner's office?
A. I make the application for them to the Commissioner.
Q. You make the application?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you reserve any lands for them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are these applications for reservations, or patents?
A. For patents generally.
Q. Does not Mr. Smith ever have any lands reserved?
A. Not through me. I never have had any.
Q. Mr. Noble?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Ludington?
A. No, sir.
Q. The other gentleman you referred to?
A. I referred to no other, I think.
Q. Has not Mr. Smith been a large dealer in matured and
unmatured scrip?
A. Not since I have had a correspondence with him.
Q. Then you have never made any applications to have lands
reserved?
A. No, sir.
Q. For any of these parties?
A. Not any.
Q. Simply been an application for patents?
A. Simply an application for patents.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1341
Q. What do these parties usually send you? Scrip, or
money?
A. Sometimes scrip; most always money.
(. What directions did they give you in regard to the
money?
A. They directed me to buy the scrip and locate the land
for them.
Q. Now, do you say that those parties are the only ones you
are agent for?
A. That is all that I can remember that I have bought any
land for.
Q. That is the only source of profit you have, then, outside
of your salary in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever been interested in the purchase of any
lands, directly or indirectly?
A. I have not.
Q. Ever had anything to do with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Know anything about the clerks in the office being
interested, directly or indirectly?
A. I do not, sir.
Q. Wasn't it the common report in the office that the clerks
there were interested? Didn't you so understand it?
A. Oh, I have heard of such things.
Q. Was it not generally understood in the office, before
these proceedings began, that there were certain clerks in the
office there that were engaged in land transactions?
A. I could hardly say it was a general report.
Q. Didn't you so understand it?
A. I had heard such a thing.
Q. Heard it talked of in the office, hadn't you?
A. I can't say now how I got the information.
Q. Wasn't it also generally understood in the office that
there were various clerks that were acting as agents for outside
parties?




1342     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I never understood it so.
Q. Never beard anything about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. And that they had other ways of making money beside
that of their salaries in connection with the office?
A. I think I never heard anything of the kind.
Q. What clerks was it reported were engaged in land transactions?
A. I can't say that I heard of any names?
Q. You could not name them?
A. I conld not name them,-no, sir.
Q. Was not Mr. Barnard so reported,-so understood in the
office?
A. I have heard that, myself,-I do not know that other
people did.
Q. Didn't you understand it and know it as a matter of fact?
A. I did not know it; no, sir.
Q. What do you look over these 8,000 certificates or accounts
-what do you look them over every month for?
A. I do not look them  over every month. I gave that as
about the number of times I do look them over; that is to say,
twelve times, a year,-about that number of times.
Q. The interest is not payable except the first of March?
A. The interest is due the first of March.
Q. What is the reason you have to look them over so often?
A. I perhaps might give a detailed statement of how it is
done. Commencing in the fall I have to charge up the interest that is due on the first of March. I have to commence
that some time in January, and after I go through that, I have
to see to getting up a list of all those accounts and send to the
county treasurers; and then when the interest comes in and is
being paid, I have to give credit for that; and then after the
interest paying time is over, after the first of May, I have to go
through again and see what accounts have been paid and
what accounts have not been paid.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1343
Q. When land is purchased in the office of the Commissioner, who sees to passing the money or scrip into the Treasurer's
office. Who has charge of that duty?
A. That is done by the chief clerk, who makes tht sale.
Q. Don't you have anything to do with that, when the land
is purchased.
A. No, sir, I have nothing to do with that.
Q. I thought you had charge of that duty?
A. I don't have charge of that duty, sir, not in purchasing
land.
The Presiding Officer-The hour of twelve o'clock having
arrived, the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, will
take a recess until two o'clock this afternoon.
Wednesday, P., P ay 16, 1y872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tent.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-When the court took a recess, it was
pending the cross-examination of the witness Paddack. The
Managers will proceed with their cross-examination:
HEDGES L. PADDACK, RE-CALLED.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. I believe I asked you, just before the Court adjourned, whether if moneys were paid into the Commissioner's
Office, they do not pass through your hands when they are to
be paid into the Treasury?
Answer. They do generally, when they are entered upon
the cash-book.
Q. Then you were mistaken in your statement this forenoon?




1344     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMIONDS.
A. Yes, sir; I did not quite understand your question in
that regard.
Q. Do you keep a book in which you enter the amounts of
money which you pay into the State Treasury?
A. I do.
Q. How do you keep the account when you pay for the land
in scrip?
A. I have nothing to with that.
Q. There is no record, then, kept in the office, of the payments in scrip?
A. I suppose there it, but I have nothing to do with it.
Q. Do you know of any such book?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't the book you refer to simply a book where private
accounts of individuals are kept?
A. In the scrip-book, do you mean?
Q. Yes; the scrip-book that you have. Isn't that a book
where merely the personal accounts of individuals are kept,
such as Preston's and W. A. Barnard & Co.'s and others?
A. Yes, sir; that is one of the books.
Q. Is there a book kept in the office, that is one of the records of the office, in which you entered the amount paid for
lands as they are sold in scrip?
A. Yes, sir; there is such a book.
Q. Who keeps that book?
A. That is kept by the chief clerk.
Q. Then you only keep that in which the money is entered?
A. In which the cash transactions are made.
Q. State whether there is any money paid in at the present
time for swamp lands?
A. Yes, sir; there is some.
Q. Isn't there, where the land cannot be bought in any other
way except for cash?
A. I suppose it is.
Q. There is a certain quantity of swamp land that cannot
be bought for scrip?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1345
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If bought at all, they must be bought with cash?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those are the entries that you speak of as being
made with money?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know when the rule was changed from paying in
scrip, when money was sent for that class of lands that could
be entered in scrip?
A. I do not, sir.
Q. You do not know anything about that?
A. No, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION" OF HEDGES L. PADDACK.
Re-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you know that such a change has been made
the practice of the office?
Answer. I do not, sir, of my own knowledge.
Q. You say there are a certain class of swamp lands that
must be bought with money, if bought at all?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that these are the only lands that are now
bought with nmoney?
A. I do not, sir.
Q. There may be occasional instances, where other swamp
lands are purchased with money?
A. There may be. I am not very well versed in that department.
Q. When was the change made in the practice of the office,
with reference to these applications, to pay interest and penalty.
A. That was made, I think, in February,
Q. What was the necessity of making that regulation?
A. So as to have a perfect record of all the transactions of
the olice.
Q. Did any mistakes occur previous to that, for want of such
a record?
169




1346     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I do not call to mind any now; there may have been.
Q. In doing what you s, ii you did for these parties that you
corresponded with, did yot, (o anything more than your duties
would have required you to do, had you not made any arrangement with them?
A. No, sir.
Q. If they had sent the money with the descriptions of the
land, and asked you to enter it, would not it have been your
duty, as a clerk in the office, to have done so?
A. It would, sir.
Q. Where have you done the most labor under the arrangement with the correspondents of yours,-in the Commissioner's
office, or in the Auditor General's office?
A. In the Auditor General's office,-nearly the whole of it.
Q. It is a fact that you have only done a small portion of
the work in the Commissioner's office?
A. Very little of it.
Q. I believe you stated you had no interest there or in there,
in the purchase and sale of lands?
A. Not any, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HEDGES L. PADDACK.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You say you have no interest. You have an interest so far as your percentage goes, do you not?
Answer. I had that interest, certainly; none in the land.
Q. Did you have any interest in the profits, after the State
had sold the land to these parties?
A. No, sir, not any.
Q. Do you remember a draft being sent to the office, drawn
upon some bank in Port Huron, some time last fall, to purchase some swamp lands?
A. Not to my recollection. I do not remember any.
H. C. CLARKE, RECALLED FOR THE RESPONDENT.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you remember the occasion of a railroad excursion, last September?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1347
Answer. I remember there was one.
Q. To Detroit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you the day previous?
A. In Lansing.
Q. About your usual business in the office?
A. I think so.
Q. State whether there was anything unusual going on in
town, the day before the excursion.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What?
A. There was a circus.
Q. State whether you went to the mineral well the morning
of the excursion.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who went with you?
A. Capt. Edmonds, I think; I know he did.
Q. Where did you start from?
A. From the Lansing House.
Q. When did you start from the Lansing House?
A. In the morning.
Q. About what time?
A. Before breakfast. I think about six o'clock, or a little
after.
Q. State where you went to and what you did.
A. I went up to the mineral well, or rather to the bank of
the river this side of the mineral well, and he came back. I
waited there awhile and went over to the mineral well, and
then I came back.
Q. Why did you wait there a while?
A. I could not get across when I first went there.
Q. The boat was on the other side?
A. Yes, sir; the ferry-boat that crosses there was on the
other bank, and there was nobody to bring it over.
Q. He left you and returned back?
A. Yes, sir.




1348      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAIINATION  OF H. C. CLARKE.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. How came you to be up so early that morningcr
Answer. It was a habit that I got into. I got up early most;
every morning and went over to the mineral well quite frequently.
Q. How high was the sun when you started?
A. I do not recollect about that, sir.
Q. IHow came you to meet Capt. Edmonds that morning?
A. I think I met him on the stairs going down, — e was an
early riser, anyway.
Q. What time does he generally rise?
A. I guess soon after the sun rises. He is always up early.
Q. Is that his universal habit?
A. As far as I know.
Q. You were there with him, and I understand you are a
pretty early riser.
A. I did not board with him; I do not know that I am a
very early riser. I was taking the water, then, more particularly for my health.
Q. How often, during that month, do vou think you had
gone down to the spring?
A. I guess, two or three times a week.
Q. What times in the day did you generally go?
A. Generally before breakfast, and sometimes before dinner
and after tea.
Q. How many times did you go that month?
A. I do not know 1how many times; I went there frequently
Q. Were you boarding at the Lansing House?
A. I was at that time.
Q. Was it a cloudy, or clear day?
A. I do not recollect about the weather, particularly.
Q. Why do you recollect that this was the day?
A. MIy attention was called to it two or three days after the
occurrence took place.
Q. By whom?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1349
A. Well, I do not know that I could say. Some one. I
can state how it was called up.
Q. Well, how?
A. I heard the report in some way that the Commissioner
was seen to come out of this house in the morning, and the
report said that he staid there all night, and when I heard the
report I said at once it was false, for I saw him in the morning.
Q. Who did you tell so?
A. I don't know; it was somebody in the office,-some of
the boys in the office, that I heard tell about it.
Q. Do you recollect who?
A. I don't recollect who it was.
Q. Did the Commissioner say anything to you about it?
A. He never said anything to me about it until after this
investigation.
Q. What did he say then?
A. lie asked me if I remembered of the occurrence of going
up to the mineral well in the morning, and I told him I did.
Q. Will you state whether you went there frequently with
the Commissioner, or any number of times?
A. Oh, yes; very frequently.
Q. Had you ever gone with him at this time in the day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before breakfast?
A. Yes, sir.
Mir. McGowan-Does the Manager mean to the mineral well.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Yes, sir.
Mr. McGowan-They turned back; this time, they didn't go
to it.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I mean to the mineral well. or
towards it.
GEORGE F. GILLAM, RECALLED FOR THIE RESPONDENT.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. It was stated by Mr. Potter, the clerk in the Road




1350     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Commissioner's office, when he was a witness here, that you
had furnished him a list of some lands which he reserved upon
Edmund Hall's contract. What are the facts concerning it.
Answer. Well, I furnished such a list.
Q. How much?
A. Well, he said he reserved five "eighties" that I handed
him. Whether I handed him any more or not, I can't say; I
am not positive on that. Mr. Hall was in the office one day,
and told me if I found any forfeited lands, or came across any,
he would like to have me hand them in to ElderPotter-some
of them, and I told him  I should do so, and I handed him in
some descriptions, from  which  I think he reserved five
"eighties."
Q. State whether that was an exceptional case, or whether
you only furnished such information to Mr. Hall?
A. No, sir; I cannot say that it was an exceptional case. As
I have stated before, I furnished Mr. Ripley a list, and I furnished information to several parties, in fact, that would be
limited only by the number of inquiries. I always endeavor
to furnish information when I am requested to.
Q. Was there any special arrangements between you and
Hall that you should furnish a list of lands to Pottter for him?
A. Nothing more than I have stated. He said he would
esteem it a favor if I would hand in any such descriptions, and
I did so.
Q. Was there any arrangement by which you was to be
compensated from Hall for that business?
A. No, sir; I never asked anything,anyway.
Q. Did you ever agree to take anything from him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever take anything from him for your services?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, will you state how Ripley came to get the statement
from you of Obed Smith's reservation?
A. As I stated the other day, he was in the office one day,
inquiring about some lands in a town. There was some lands




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1351
marked up to Obed Smith. He asked for the lands, all not in
that town, and I told him I thought Owed Snaith was trying
to hold more lands than he could cover; and he went to work
and looked it up, and took a list of the lands and went home,
and in a few days he made an application for them.
Q. State whether, they were reserved up to him  on that
application.
A. Well, sir, he did not have credit enough to hold them all.
Q. Ripley had not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was any portion marked to hinm 
A. My impression is that Mr. Barnard marked a:tl the lands
in the first place,-put a mark on them. Ripley ha'ld upplied
for them simply, and told me to look up his a ccn)itlt; and I
went to work and looked it up, and found that Ripley had not
credit enough to hold all the land. That was the way of it, I
believe.
IMr. McGowan-I will ask the Honorable Managers for tlle
application of Ripley, and the telegrams attached, which we
handed to you.
Question. Mr. Gillam, Mr. Potter also stated, if I recollect
correctly, at the same time, that he was instructed by Mr. Hall
to allow you and one or two other clerks then named to have
lands from the list which he had reserved up. State whether
there was any such arrangement made between you and Mr.
Hall,-that you were to have any portion of his lands.
Answer. No, sir; there was not.
Q. Was there any talk between you and Hall to that effect
that you were ever to have any portion of his lands?
A. No, sir.
A. Did you ever get any of the land that you reserved up
on Hail's contract?
A. No, sir; never had any interest in any State lands, while
I have been in the office, at least; never bought or sold any, or
received anything for buying or selling any, or for reserving
any, or furnishing lists.




1352      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. State whether you ever had any talk with the Commissioner about this rule preventing clerks from  acting for outside parties, in official business, in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-That is not competent, it seems to
me.
Mr. McGowann-It is merely preliminary.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Let us know what the rule is, and
let the Senate judge.
M{r. McGowan —I am not going to prove the rule.
Mr. Manager Iluston-You want to prove the Commissioner's statement?
Mr. McGowan-~No; I do not propose to do that; I simply
propose to get at the circumstances that led him to have that
talk. The rule is already in evidence.
Mr. Manager HIuston-You are asking what the Commissioner said, in substance.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair understands the question
simply to be if the witness ever had any conversation.
3Mr. Me Gowan-Yes. I do nlot Iask him what the conversation was.
The Presiding Officer-Of course, it would be answered by
yes or no.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I fail to see, Mr. President, what
that has to do with the case, what private communications
the Commissioner has had with Mr. Gillam, or any other clerk,
or any other man as to what  has not been the rule. The
question is what the rule is.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent says
that it is simply preliminary to get at the facts that led to that
conversation, and not what the conversation was.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-It is no' very material.  I do not
feel like making objection and calling upon the Senate, or,
hardly, calling upon the President.
The Presiding Officer-It is preliminary.  The question may
be answered.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1353
Question. State whether you had any such conversation with
the Commissioner.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. It was the latter part of last summer, or the forepart of
fall.
Q. Now, will you state tie circumstances which led to that
conversation,-the facts?
A. Well, I asked the Commissioner, one day, what the scope
and purport of the rule, in regard to agencyr, waTs,-clerks acting as agents for other parties.
Q. What I want to get at, Mr. Gillam, is why you asked that
question,-what led you to ask it?
A. I don't know as I can state. any more than for information.  I wanted to know what the extent and scope of the rule
was, and so I asked the question.
Q. State whether you were aware of the fact that there had
been offers made to various clerks in the office to pay them for
work done in the office?
A. Well, it is not an uncommon thing at all, for contractors
or parties getting any information in the office to ask "What
is the damage?" or some such remark as that; and I recollect
that one man wanted I should furnish him, —make him  a
special favorite,-in furnishing information and he would pay
me for it.
Q. Now, I ask you what the Commissioner said to you when
you asked him with regard to the scope of the rule?
Mr. Manager Cochrane —-Now, I object.
Mr. McGowanl-We want to ascertain what the rule of the
Commissioner was as to that practice.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-It seems to me, the true way to
get at that is to know what the rule is.  We have not, as yet,
heard precisely what that rule is; and it is not before the Senate, precisely what it is.  Now, they propose to put in the
Commissioner's construction of the rule, without showing the
170




1354   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
rule. If the Commissioner adopted any general rule, which
was brought to the attention of the clerks, that may be a matter which is very material in this case. It seems there was
some conversation between the Commissioner and the witness.
The Commissioner may have said he would construe it one
way, and another person having as good a right to construe it
as he, might say he would construe it another way; what
materiality could that have to this case?  The question would
simply be, did he promulgate a theory there which the clerks
would fully understand; and it is for this Senate to judge
whether such a rule was promulgated and published there.
The Presiding Officer-Testimony has been given with reference to a rule,-whether to this particular point or not, the
Chair is unable to tell.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I wish to say one word further. It
ssems that the Commissioner has a series of printed or written rules placed in the office where they are open to the obs~rvation of all, and it may be this is one of those rules, and if so
we would like to see it.
Mr. McGowan-This is one of the rules.  It is upon the
records of this Court.  It was a part of the answer set hmc
verba, and it has been talked of in the examination of witnesses, more or less.  I do not know exactly now; but I propose to show by the witness what the practice of the Commissioner's office was, as dictated by the Commissioner himsel, —
not alone by the literal wording of the rule, but his construction of it in cases of this kind,-whether he did allow  the
clerks, in any form or shape, to do official business, and take
pay for it in any way.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair recollects that some evidence was given, that some witnesses testified, as to some rules
being laid upon the clerks' desk,-each of their desks.  The
Chair thinks it was in the testimony, but is not certain about
that. The Chair has no recollection that there has been any
rules offered in evidence.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1355
Mr. McGowan-The list of rules in my hand I can identify
by the witness, and offer them  in evidence now  if it will
save any talk with regard to as ing the witness the question.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We will not object to the rules
being offered in evidence.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Mr, Gillam, will you look upon that paper and
tell us what it is?
Answer. This is a printed list of rules, among which is the
rule I have referred to with reference to clerks acting as
agents for other parties.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from  the Twenty-fifth
sends to the Chair the following question, which the Secretary
will read:
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
" Is it the rule or the practice of the Land Office when it
apl'ears by the books of the office that there is more lands
reserved than the contractor has credit, to strike out a part of
his reservations without the knowledge of the contractor, or
do you give the contractor notice of the fact and allow him to
elect which he will retain? "
Answer. It is the usual practice to strike off the last of the
list, if we are positive th;rt he cannot hold it. It often happens that something may arise where a man may hold land
when it is not proper that he should; it is nsual to give him
some notice before reserving the land to the market absolutely
Mr. M;Langer Cchrane-In mtking the objection which
we do, to the introduction of this testimony, perhaps I may as
well read this portion of the rule.
The Presiding-Officer —The Chair understands that the
printer rules, all of them, are now offered in evidence, and
received.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Yes, sir; we have no objections to
that.
The following rules —exhibit NN-are received in evidence:.




1356      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
[EXHIBIT WN.]
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE LAND OEFICE —FOR
THE INFORBMATION OF EMPLOYES ONLY.
Office Hours from 8 A. M. to 12 M., and from 1- P. M. to 5
P. M.
Clerks will be at their posts promptly, and devote their time,
during office hours, exclusively to Office Business.
Any information sought will be cheerfully given, and all
business matters carefully attended to, by the Commissioner.or Deputy; but no employe in the office will be allowed to act
as agent for other parties, or transact any business in the office,.except in the regulai discharge of his duties.
Habitual and loud conversation must not be indulged iu.
Smoking in the office is prohibited.
Leave of absence, not to exceed four weeks in any one year,
will be granted to clerks, at such times as will least interfere
with the business of the office.
CHIAS. A. EDMONDS, Commnissioner.
Mr. Manager Cochrane —" But no employe in the office will'be allowed to act as agent for other parties, or transact any
business in the office except in the regular discharge of his
duties."  Now the language of that is perfectly plain, and it
would be an unheard-of practice to allow a party in any case
to create testimony in favor of himself as to what his construction of a rule of law might be. Supposing the question
arose as to the construction of an act of the Legislature,
would it be competent to call in parties who were present
when the Legislature was in session-even members of the
Legislature-and ask them what was intended by the passage
of that law, or what was to be the construction of that law?
It is a principle laid down, I believe, everywhere, that every
law must construe itself. Now, it may be possible in this case,
that Edmonds, in construing the section I have read, limited
it only to certain classes of business, and held that they might
4-o all other kinds of business.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1357
It would be competent for the respondent to show what the
practice of the office was, under this rule. That will give the
construction to it; but to admit that what the Commissioner
said, was to be the construction of this rule, is entirely another
thing. That is a matter which might be changed every day,
and it might be very inconsistent with the language here; but
what the practice was, under this rule, would be something
else. The practice itself might vary, and show that a new
rule had been introduced.
Mr. McGowan-One word with regard to the question under
discussion.  In point of time, as regards the conversation
between the Commissioner and the witness, the Commissioner
could not be charged with manufacturing evidence in his own
behalf, for any trial. It cannot be said that anything of that
kind was thought of:
In the next place, I suppose the practice of the office is determined very largely by the word of the Commissioner, who
is the legal and proper head of the office.
Now, we simply want to know  whether he insisted upon
that rule or not in its literal construction and in its full scope,
as the words would indicate in the rule. There has been some
evidence put in here tending to show at least that that rule
has been violated; and if it has not been the literal claim, on
the part of the Managers, that the Commissioner was knowing
to the violation of that rule, it has been implied that he knowingly allowed the violation of it in his office. And to rebut
that, is the purport and object of the examination on this
point.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Then put the direct question to
him, whether he knew of a violation of the rule.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President, I do not wish to be out of
order, but it seems to me that as a matter of justice and right,
this question ought to be allowed to be put. So far as I recollect. there is no evidence that brings to the notice of the Commissioner any violation of this rule. Now here was a case that
was brought directly to his attention, and we wished to know




1358     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
what he did in regard to it, and what he said, whether he forbade him to act as agent or not. It seems to me it is admissible testimony.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I have no objection at all to their
asking him that question. But that is not the question at all
that they propose to ask him. They propose to ask what his
construction of this rule was.
Mr. Shipman —That is the object of the question.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Well, then, ask it if that is the object of the question; ask him whether he forbid him to act as
agent.
Mr. McGowan-In that form, the question simply implies
that the witness asked permission to act as agent, which he
did not. He simply stated the case that came up, and they
then had a talk, and that the Commissioner at that time
insisted upon the rule being enforced, not only with the witness,
aut with all the employes in the office; and that was a case that
was brought home to the Commissioner, that a certain man had
made propositions, as the witness has already stated, and he
spoke to him of that instance, simply giving it as an instance,
and asked him  whether his rule would cover a case of that
kind. We do not wish to ask a question that will imply that
this witness had been negotiating a bargain with somebody else
to act as his agent for a compensation, because that was not
the fact.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair is not entirely certain
that, under strict rules, the question would be admissible; but,
under the broad scope that has been allowed by the Senate, I
will allow the question to be put, and take a vote of the Senate if it is required.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We will submit to the decision of
the Chair.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Will you state what the conversation was in regard
to the rule?
Answer. I asked him what the scope and purport of the rule




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1359
was, and he said that it was this, that he did not wish his
clerks, and he would not allow his clerks, to act as agent for
other parties for compensation; that they could furnish information, of course, and he desired them to, all the information
in their power, in their line of duty or business, but not for
pay. That was the substance.
Q. Did you say anything to him about any special case.
A. Yes, sir, I spoke to him of one man that offered to pay
me for a special information.
Q. The case you have mentioned?
A. Yes. sir.
The Presiding Officer —The SenaLor from the Twenty-fifth
(Mr. Waterbury) sends up another question in connection
with the question that he sent before, with regard to the contract. The Secretary will read:
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"Did you do so in the case of Obed Smith's reservations,
-that is, strike out his last reservations?"
Answer. Well, no, sir; they were never stricken off. It was
fully decided that he can hold them, and the matter was held
in abeyance, until the final decision. Never were stricken off,
because he insisted on holding them, and claimed he could,
and submitted the matter to the Attorney General, and of
course his name was left on.
Q. Then what did you do with Ripley's application?
A. The same way; his name was kept on also, until the
final decision, and then his name was taken off.
Q. Then there were two sets of marks upon those lands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Smith's and Ripley's at the same time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on a portion of them  Mr. Smith's and Mr. Hall's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do I understand that any of these lands, that Mr. Hall
had reserved, had already been reserved by both Ripley and
Smith?




1360    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONTI)S.
A. How is that, —I do not understand?
Q. Were any of these lands, that were marked reserved to
Smith, and also to Ripley, were any of those also marked to
Hall as reserved?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tile same lands'
A. Yes, sir.  Those that Hall:applied for were marked to
IHall.
Q. Did Hall apply for anly that w:as marked to Ripley?
A. No, sir, I think not.
Q. Then there were but two applications for any one piece
of land?
A. No, sir.
Mr. McGowan-lHave the Managers foiund the application.
that I asked for?
Mr. Manager Huston-If we have it, it must be at our room.
Mr. Manager Cochrane- Mr. MicGowan, my co-Managers
are not fit to keep a land office; they do not keeI) the papers
in order.
The Presiding Officer-[To counsel for respondent.] Do you
wish to have it here, gentlemen, at this point?
Mr. McGowan —I wish to introduce it with this witness, but
I have a further examination of him; I should h:av;e introduced it at this point had I had it.
Mr. Manager lIuston —   will go and look for it.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. It has been in evidence that soime contracts have
at different times be1e  over-reserved, —that is, more land
reserved upon a contract tlan what the contract called for,will you tell how that came to be donel   specifving any cases
that may be within your knowledge.
Answer. Obed Smnith's contracts, as has been said, were overreserved, or appeared to be,-that is, one of his contracts, or,
at least, one set of contracts.  All his contracts were figured
together, excepting the contract that he bought of Bathay, or
that Mr. Iatlay assigned to him, and lie sold some of his scrip




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1361
and that exposed his lands. I found, in first figuring up the
contracts when I went into the office, I found a few contracts
that were over-reserved, and the books showed that they had
been ever since Mr. Edmonds' administration commenced.
There were a few of those.
Q. Have there been any contracts over-reserved during Mr.
Edmonds' administration,-that is, where the over-reservations
had been made during his administration?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not any?
A. Not that I recollect of; never was intended to be. I
kept charge of that, and never intended to have any over-reserved, and I don't recollect of any being done so through any
mistake or error.
Q. I understand you to say that Smith had reserved his contracts full, —those first ones that were put together?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then had sold part of his scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thus leaving on the book more lands reserved than he
had contracts for after selling his scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manager Huston-I suggest that you let the witness
state.
Mr. McGowan-He did state, but I wanted to get it in shape
so there would be no misunderstanding about it.
Witness-He sold some of his matured scrip and that exposed
his land.
Q. State whether you have any recollection of any other contracts being so over-reserved?
Answer. I will state, also, when I first figured up Mr
Smith's contract I found it was a little more than full; that
there was a few descriptionsQ. How did that come?  Do you know?
A. It came, I suppose, the same as others that I might men171




1362     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
tion that I found in that (,unditiou. That is, they had been
so for some time. The l),;ks had not been kept up in shape
to tell much about it,-the reserve-book had not.
Q. You say that the Bathay contract, after it was assigned to
Smith, was kept separate from his other contracts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it to the last, kept separate?
A. It was, until he finally held his lands, and he held his
lands by uniting the two,-uniting the Bathay contract with
the other, finally.
Q. Explain how that was,-how, by uniting them, he could
hold the over-reservations?
A. He had a credit on the Bathay contract, enough to cover
what he lacked on the Duncan and Alpena contract, as it was
called, or contracts, so that by putting the two together, he
got his lands.
Q. When you took charge of the contract-books, were there
any contracts in existence that were not on those books?
A. Yes, sir, there were.
Q. How many?
A. I found forty-five different contracts that had never been
entered on the reserve-book.
Q. Did you put them on?
A. They were not completed when his term commenced;
the most of them were not completed when I went into the
office, and many of them had been reserved on; eighteen contracts had been reserved on,-yes, sir; I put them on.
Q. State whether these forty-five contracts were all in existence when Mr. Edmonds came into office?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the Twenty-fifth
(Mr. Waterbury) sends the following question:
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"Why did you accept his order for scrip when he had reserved to the full amount of his contract."




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1363
Answer. These acceptances of scrip I could not account for,
-anything about it. The scrip was sold, and exposed the land'
You will have to ask some one else that question.
Q. Do you know of any orders for scrip being accepted in
Mr. Edmonds' administration after the contracts were reserved
full?
A. I say that the scrip was sold on this Smith contract; and
for what reason, I don't know anything about it.
Q. Had the office been notified of that sale?
A. I could not say. The scrip sales I could not give any
information about.
Q. Have you the reservation-book there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before we go to that book: I think it was stated by Mr.
Smith, in his testimony, that the office had furnished him a
number of statements of his account, and they all conflicted.
Have you the accounts,-the statement of accounts furnished
Mr. Smith?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many are there?
A. There were several statements. They are not all of the
same character,-not all relating to exactly the same thing.
Q. How many are there that relate to the Bathay contract?
A. There are three that I have a copy of, that are statements
of the contract,-the full contract.
Q. State whether you have given those statements an examination?
A. Yes, sir; I have.
Q. And compared them with the records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you state whether there is any conflict in those
statements?
A. I cannot discover any. They seem to be, —I thiuk they
are,-correct.




1364     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Have you aly statement, then, that was furnished to Mr.
Smith?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are they?
A. I furnished him statements of the scrip account, showing how  each warrant that he had drawn in his favor, had
been paid, or that had no contract, altogether, but simply his
matured credit. He wanted a statement of credit, to show how
it was, and each order, and all about it.
Q. Have you compared that statement?
A. No, sir; I have not compared that since this trial commenced, but he looked it all over, and said it was all right.
Q. Did you make it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make it from the record?
A. Yes; from the warrant book.
Q. Is it correct?
A. Yes; I have no doubt but what it is.
Q. What other statement was furnished Mr. Smith?
A. One of the "Duncan, Alpena, and Sauble" contracts.
Q. Showing any over reservations?
A. It shows a deficit of $2,197.89.
Q. Do you mean by deficit, that he had overdrawn the contract to that amount?
A. Yes, I mean, the contract was behind to that amount.
Q. When was that statement made?
A. November 23d, 1871.
Q. That was the condition of the contract at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any other?
A: No, sir; I have no other, only these three on the Bathay
contract: one November 17th, another December 28th, and
another April 17th, last.
Mr. McGowan-I desire to state, Mr. President, that I
received these papers which I handed to Mr. Gillam, from the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1365
hands of Mr. Smith, in the presence of one or both of the
Managers present, he stating that they were the statements
made to him by the officers. I would prefer to have them intro.
duced in evidence here, rather than to identify them any
further, if there is no objection.
Mr. Manager IIuston-There is no objection, I believe.
The Presiding Officer-They are received as a part of the
evidence in the case, but not read.
The Secretary marked the papers offered "00."
The following are copies of the same:
OBED SMITH —DUNCAN, ALPENA AND SAUBLE ROA).
1871.                                 CB.
Cit.
Nov. 23. By balance unmatured on Contract No. 4........................   $1,250 00
on Warrant No. 840 -----------—. —----—.....4...          402 16
841..................................     125 00.8....42.......................  7........   7ST50
DR.
Nov. 23. To balance dle Wm. Jenney on order — $.....- -------       250 00
" lands received, 3,610.04 -..... —.................... 4,512 55
By balance —......................               $2,197 89
$4,762 55   $4,762 55
DR.
Nov. 28. To balance.................................... $2,197 89
Dec. 6.  "sold to J. W. H-.ill. —.........................  799
CR.
Dec. 28. By error found -........$.-..4................... $400 00
balance........................ —---------------           1,877 68
$2,277 68   $2,277 68
OBED SMITI, ASSIGNEE OF T. BATIIAY.-CONTRACT No. 4.
Midland, Houghton Lake, and Traverse City Road.
Amount of contract  —..................-...............  $42,062 50
Nov. 17.    "    paid on contract........................................    21,169 50
$20,898 00




1366   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CR.
Nov. 17. By balance unmatured-...........................................  $20,898 00
)R.
Nov. 17. To lands reserved, 720 acres-...........................   $900 00
i"'  "     by T. Bathay, 7,173.69 acres........  8,967 11
"   "  "      by C. Hewitt, 3,946.13 acres........  4,932 66
" balance due D. Preston & Co., on ordeJ.-...., 1,78  00
"order to A. Pack & Co.,...........................    750 00
"  E.S. Porter -........................._...  1,250 00
"     T. Bathay -.. —..-.. —-----. —............  1,000 00
T. Luce & Co..-...................  1,250 00
"balance -------..................................  55 23
$20,895 00  $20,895 00
CR.
By balance.....-.....,..................                            $55s 
Dec. 5.  "D. Preston & Co.,........- -.............................    1,788 00
" T. Bathay order-..                                         1,000 00
DR.
Dec. 2. To order to Wm. B. MeCreary, 1,200 acres-......  $1,500 00
-8.  "'      A. Pack & Co., —-..          --      -.          1,000 00
843 23
$2,843 23   $2,&84  28
OBED SMITH, ASSIGNEE OF T. BATHAY.-CONTRACT No. 4.
Mlidland,  loujhton Lake, and Traverse City Road.
1871.                                      DR.
Dec. 28. To lands reserved, 720 acres —......... —....-... —.....-......... $900 00
" T. Bathay, 6,909.86 acres —..-.....-.-.......-....... 8,637 83
"C. Hewitt, 3,832.24 acres ------........... —---- -- - -........    4,790 30' order to E. S. Porter -....-...-....-...-.....-....- --------    1,250 00
T. Lnce& Co., —...............    1,250 00
Wm. B. McCreary...............    1,500'00
A. Pack & Co.,................. —-......-...    1,000 00
$19,327 63
1871.                                      CR.
Dec. 28. By balance unmatured —.. ——......... —......... —.    $18,026 82
"    "     due on matured -...-............. —-...............            1,116 18.........-. —.-.-.-.-... —     —........................   184 63
$19,327 63
DR.
Dee. 28. To balance.......-.-..... —---..........................        $184 63
CR.
Dec. 28. By T. Bathay.........................................     $605 rT




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1367
OBED SMITH'S ACC'T, ASSIGNEE OF T. BATHAY.-CONTRACT No. 4.
Midtznd, Houghton Lake and Traverse Bay Road.
DR..
1872.
April 1T. To lands reserved by T. Bathay, 6,786.98 acres, 102s..........- -      $8,461 23
"         "         C. Hewitt, 2,596.97 acres, 10s.......      8,246 21
f" "f              by self, 838.90 acres, 10s -................    1,048 68
To order, A. P. & Co.-.............-.....................-.           1,000 00
W. B. McCreary ----- -.. —- ----—...... —                       1,500 00
E. S. Porter -.. —- -------—.. —-—........      400 00
"           T.Luce & Co.............. —-----..... -- ----— 8. —.    812 50
To balance. —    --          ----—.. ----------------.... —----  --    1,924 48
$17,893 00
C^tk
18'2.
Sept. 17. By amount unmatured -.. —--—. —--- --—.-.. — --—. —. —-—.  $15.276 82
"  17.    "         due on matured.........- -—. —--- ---- ----—.  -          2,616 1S
17.893 00
Cr. by balance-.. —------—.... —       ---------—.- -—... —-—. —--    1,924 49
OBED SMITH'S ACCOUNT-CONTRACT NO. 1.
Duncan, Alpena, and Sauble Road.
1809.                                 DR.       1869.                               CR.
Oct. 11-Paid Hewitt & Co-.....- $8,850 00  Oct. 9-By warrant. —---—.   $3,850 00
Oct. 27-To Hewitt & Co..........  $911 21  Dec. 1 —By warrant (508)               $1,750 00
Dec. 10-To W. A. Butler & Co..    838 79
S1,750 00                                   $1.750 10
1870.                                         1870.
To Cyrus Hewitt (order)    $10 00  Aug. 11-By warrant (608)-.... $2,250 00
Sept. 29-To Geo. N. Fletcher....    422 47
Oct. 81-To A. W. Comstock....           50 00
Nov. 1-To Cyrus Hewitt                  400 00
Nov. 1-To J. Ryan...............    877, 
$2,250 00                                    $2,250 00
Oct. 6-To D. Preston & Co.-... $1,000 00  Sept. 10-By warrant (621)...  $1,500 00
Oct. 21-To T. Luce & Co..-.. —.   484 90
Nov. 2-To J. Ryan-.......-...            4 17
Nov. 14-To S. L. Carpenter.....        10 98
$1,500 00                                    $1,500 00




1368   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
1871.                                   D)n.                                       C&.
Mar. 4-To Wm. Jenney -..-....-  $250 00  Dec. 9-By warrant (T00)-..-.... 983  50
Mar. 1-To Pack & Porter-...             150 00
May 18-To D. S. Wheelock....-    85 16
June 1-To D. Preston & Co...            452 84
$937 50                                      $93  50
June 1-To 1. Preston & Co.-...-  $375 00  Dec. 9-By warrant (01)......  $875 00
June 1-To D. Preston & Co.....  $821 66 Dec. 9-By warrant (702)....   $502 50
June 15-To H. R. Morse -—...- -   200 00
June 24-To J. A. Case-         ----      40 84
$562 50                                      $562 50
1869.                                           1S71.
XMay 2-To L. M. Mason -.... —..    $150 00  Oct. 2-By warrant (81) -....   $125 00
1871.
-Dec. 28-To Thos. Wood......-.. 50 00  Oct. 2-By warrant (S42)......              937 50
Dec. 28-To Obed Smith......             350 00
$550 00                                   $11,787 50
Due $513  0).
CONTRACT NO. 2.
1870.                                            18T0.
July 28-To Geo. N. Fletcher-           $721 71 July 18-By warrant (T).... -       $1,600 50
Aug. 8-To J. N. Spratt.... —-—.       50 00
Sept. — To S. L. Carpenter.....   188 69
Sept. 27-To A. R. Richard.......   481  0
Nov. 2-To A. W. Comstock..-..    150 00
Nov. 2-To John Ryan..........              880
1,600 00                                     $,600oo 00
Sept. 29-To Geo.'.. Fletcher...  $400 00  Aug, It-By warrant (802)..  $400 00
$2,000 00                                    $2,000 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1369
OBED SMITH, ASSIGNEE OF T. BATHAY.-CONTRACT No. 4.
Midland, Iloughton Lake and Traverse City Road.
DE.
1871.
)ec, 28. To lands reserved, 720 acres -.....-.........................,    $9 0000' 6,909.86 acres, by T. Bathay..................     8,687 83
by C. Hewitt, 8,832.24 acres -.................      4,790 80
To order to E. S. Porter.........................................     1,250 00
"  T. Luce & Co.......................                1,250 00'   Wm. B. McCreary.................................    1,50 00
i     i  A. APack & Co.........-.................-..........    1,000 00
$19,827 68
To balance.........................         184 68
Cal.
18t1.
Dec. 28. By balance unmatured...........................................  $18,026 82
balance matured.......1..........116.............,        18
balanc................................................       184 
$19,82T 63
B. T. BATHAY.
Due O. Smith, on Warrants:
No. 840.......................................   $72 87
841........................                         125 00
842-......-.-.....-.... —-......-.............. —-- --—......  887 51
"  888-      -.-............................-.......-...-...........           15184.  889-..............................-............. —-. —--------—.-...- -    964 84
902-.....            840 00
"  902 -—...-..-..... -------—. —-. —-   --—........................... 8.30 00;' 908-..-....-.........-....-....-..............-......-.-....    1,750O0
$4,291 12
Duncan, Alpena and Sauble Road.
CONTRACT No. 1.-Smith &  Cicero, dated July 28, 1869; approved July 29,1869.
Expired Dec. 1, 1869; extended to Sept. 1, 1870,-all paid.
CONTRACT No. 2.-P. Cicero, dated July 17,1869; approved July 29, 1869.  Expired
Dec. 1, 1869,-all paid.
CONTRACT No 8.-Obed Smith, dated April 1, 1870; approved July 6, 1870. Ex
pired Sept. 1, 1870,-all paid.
CONTRACT No. 4-Obed  Smith, dated June 29, 1870; approved July 7, 1870. Expired Oct. 1, 1871,-all paid.
CONTrACT No. 5.-Obed Smith, dated June 29, 1870; approved July 7, 1870. Expired Dec. 1, 1870,-all paid.
Midland, Houghton Lake and Grand Traverse Road.
CONTRAcr No. 4.-T. Bathay, Obed  Smith assignee; approved June 4, 1868. Expired Dec. 1,1869. Extended to Nov.. 1870. Assigned to O. Smith, Sept. 18, 1871
and extended to Nov. 1, 1872.
172




1370    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
OBED SMITH'S ACCOUNT.-CONTRACT NO. 5.
Duncan, A. and S. load.
1870.                                    DR.
Sept. 7. Cyrus Hewitt..-.................................................  $1.000 00
Oct. 6. D. Preston —.-....................................................    1,000 00
$2,000 00
C. W. Richardson -....-..................................    550 o0
1871.
Feb. 11. H. R. Morse.....-...                                     168 75
May18. D  S. Wheelock.................................................           81 25
Sept. 27. L. B. Potter..............-....................           1,000 00
Oct. 26. A. Dunheart-....................           -        100 00
Oct. 26. D. McArthur......... ——.......................-  -—.. —  —.....-     150 00
$2,000 00
Feb. 16. E. H. Porter......-...........................-................ 500 00
Feb. 16. E. H. Porter -..-...... —..............-.......-...-.-     50000
$5,000 00
1870.                                    CR.
Sept. 10. By warrant (620)$...........   $2,000 00
Nov. 2.           "    (675)..-.-..-................ —- - -   2,C00 00
Dec. 9.  "       "    (708)... —--- -......-..................... 500 00:    9.        "    (704)_....-.... —--- - - ---------—......-.....  500 00
$5,000 00
CONTRACT NO. 4.
aidland, Hoaghton Lake, and M. Road.
1871.                                   DR.
Oct. 26. L. B. Potter -.... — -----------------. —-------- ------—.-.   $2,000 00
Oct. 10. A. Pack & Co. —---       -------------------.        750 00
Nov. 29. W. A. Barnard & Co.-.... —....-........................ —-—.    1,000 00
1869.
Nov. 26. Henry R. Morse -..... —........................ 288 79
Dec. 10. W. A. Butler & Co............-.............................      961 21
$1,2o 00
1871.                                   CR..
Oct. 26. By warrant (860)...-......-................ —....... —  -..-   $2,000 00
Dec. 7.  "       "   (888)    -... —------- -             ---- - -9..0 —- -        901 84
7.  "          (889) —........................... —---—.  1,964 84
29.               (908)...................... — ~.......... 1,750 00
1869.
Nov. 26. "         " (457)................................................    1,250 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1371
OBED SMITH'S CONTRACT, No. 1.
Duncan, Alpena and Au Sauble Road.
DR.
1869.
Oct. 9. To paidwarrant 407 —...-.... —-...................... $3,850 0$
Dec. 10.      "  503...-......................                                        1,750 000
1870.
Aug. 11.   603 8-.-..... —............................... 2,250 00
Sept. 10.'  621.........................................    1,500 00
Dec.  9.    "           "    700-...........-................................           937 50
D"c.  9.    "           "    70.-. —-.. —------------------------------------—.......   937 50
9.                      701 —- -- ---------- 875 00
9.         "   "    702 -............-.......-....-............. 562 50
1871.
Oct.  2.                     841 -....................................-.....      125 00:    2.   "             842                                                        985..............  93750
1869.
Dec. 13. To orderto Wm. Jenny................                    500 00
May  28.    "           L. M. Mason.....-........... -....................    150 00
To balance.....-...........~...................-.............                 662 50
$13,100 00
CR.
1869.
July 29. By amount of contract-....................... $11,250 00
1871.
Oct. 2. Extra allowance -587......... -...........-........... -..    -        31 50
Nov.28. Due on warrant 841 -............. —.....-..................    125 00
"  23.      "      "    842......................                        787 50
Mar. 4. Paid W. Jenny, warrant 700             --      -        ------..-.................  250 00
" L. M. Mason, warrant 842..................... —-         -------        150 00
$18,100 00
By balance........-... -—........-............... —---    $662 50
CONTRACT No. 2.
DR.
1870.
July 13. To paid warrant No. 587-...........................             $1,600 00
Aug.11.      "'    No. 602....-............-...-.......... -       -       400 00
$2,000 00
1869.
Nov. 26. To paid by warrant No. 457...........-.. —........... —-         --         $1,250 00
Paid  on  contract No. 2, by mistake, and charged to contract
No. 4, Sept. 80, 1871.
Ca.
1869.
July 29. By amount of contract.................$..........- -........   $2,000 00
$2.000 00




1372   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CONTRACT NO. S.
1S70.                                     DR.
July 13. To paid warrant, No. 886          -...........-..                         $440 00
Aug. 11.  "    ~               "  604..................                            110 00
$550 00
IS70.                                     Ca.
July 6.  By amount of contract..-........................... ——.....         $550 00
CONTRACT NO. 4.
1870.                                    DR.
Oct. 14. To paid warrant No 642$,2......................,00 00
Nov. 2.  "   "          "6T4. —--—. —-..... -....-.....-..    2,50 00
1871.
Jane 8.  "   "'; 773 —. ——. —----   ------—. —------------—..           800 00..'; 774 —....... —.-..........................    2,560 00
Sept. 2.  "                        -'  "812. —0 —----—. ——.0 —---—.. —....- -    640 00.    ~                   -- " -818 —6.4....0... -..................    640 00
Oct. 2.'2...... 840..-. —----—. —................. 2,750 00
Sep. 30. To warrant 457 charged.. —--. —------ -—...... —         - ------—.   1,250 00
Dec. 27. To paid warrant No. 902-.............................            840 00
$15,240 00
1870                                        Ca.
July 7. By amount of contract — - - -... - -..             -.........      S. $14,400 00
1871Dec. 27. By extra --- -.. —--- _- -                         —...... —. —-—... —...-.  40 00
$15,240 00
1871.                                    Cr..
Nov..23. By balance on warrant 840 —-...-.....-...................-.-.        $402 16
Dec. 27.  "      "                 902.. —-.- —. ——........-.........-           840 00
CCNTRACT NO. 5.
1870.                                     DR.
Sep. 10. To paid warrant No. 620.. —-—... —---—..-.... —-- ----—... —-    $2,000 00
Nov. 2. "'                "  675.           —..-...-.... -..... 2,000 00
Dec. 9.'.' 703.-5........... ----         -—.-.....-..        500 00
Dec. 9.  ~                                                  "704.................  500 00
$5,000 00
1870.                                     C.
July 7. By amount of contractt.                                                 $..........-................ 5... $5,000 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1373
OBED SMITH'S ACC'T.-CONTRACT NO. 8.
Duncan, Alpena, and Au Sauble Road.
DR.
1870.
July 14    To  Byron  Matteson -..-. —-................-..............._..                                    $00 5
"               H,       Morse................................................                                  150
28.   "  Geo. W. Fletcher.............................................                                       2 40
$4 40
Sept. 17.  To Wm. H. Phelps --.................................                         1 00
Nov.  2.    "  J.Ryan..............................                                                                    10
$1 10
$5 50
CG.
$4 40
Aug. 11.          "           (604).....-1...........................-............                   10
$5 50
Dn.
1871.
Jane 6.  To Luce&  Co.................. —................-...........-...    $1,250 00. A. Case.....................................................                                                  9 1
"   28.        J. Ryan -.. ——..-....-.......-...-............ —---—........  150 00
28.       0. Smith —....... —-..................................-..... —                                850 00
July   8.        S. Leavett..       -....  -..         --—. — -  ----      ----------------—. —              200 00
"   12.       0. Smith -......-..-.-..... —---...                 -........-.....-............      50 00
"   14.       G. N. Fletcher —.......... —............................. —-----            350 00
15.   Jas. McElroy-... —..........-........ —.. —.-...    50 00
"  18.        T. Luce &  Co.... —-...-... —-   ---- -----------—. —-----            -          5000
"   21.       Chas. EmersonR ---—.-5 —-.- -----... —-                                   50 00
"   28.        T. Luce &  Co.................................... —- —..                                           850 84
$2.r50 00
1871.                                                  CR.
"8ne S.  By warrant (774) ---.... —-------.. —-----...........              $2.5-  0  0
$2,560 00




1374    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CONTRACT No. 2.
1870.                                      DE.
Oct. 21. To E. H. Porter-....... —--------------—..    -—... —-  ---------    $1,00  00
"   7.  "C. Hewitt ------------------—.. —------------------—. —----    1,000 00..   ------—...... —. —.... —... -. —...........-........  1,200  00
$3,200 00
CR.
Oct. 14. —By warrant (642)$.8.-.-.-....-......-.-......  $8,200 00
$3,200 00
1870.                                      DR.
Nov. 14. To S. L. Carpenter................. -.......................-.    $89 0T
Dec. 1.  "D. Preston & Co., — ---------------—... —-----------               -.    1,500 00
Dec. 21.  " W. R. Scott..........- -...-.... —-------—........... —------—...       84 80
Dec. 21.  " J. McArthur —................ —---—. —-—.-.. —. —----------    200 00
Dec. 21.  " 0. Smith...-...-.. —........ ——... —--------- -.... —------  100 00
Dec. 21.  "A. W. Comstock  —. —---—. —-- ---                   -----  --              53 04
1871.
Jan. 12.  "Alfred Watson -. —.-.. —......-...-................ —......... 150 00
"  22.  "J. W. Edwards ---—.                  -------— ~ —-—.. —--—.-             100 00
Feb. 2.       S. Doyle ---.....-................. —.. —-------—.. —---------  50 00
Feb. 24.       F. W. Gllchrist -... —------ --         --—. --.. —.. —        150 O(
Mar. 8.  "D. McArthur. —...-............... ——......-......- —..-..  50 00
May 18.  " D. S. Wheelock -.....-.......-......-........... —.......-....           83 59
$2560 00
1870.                                      CR,
Nov. 2. By warrant (674)-..-. ——..........-... —..-................ — ------   $2,560 00
$2,560 00
1871.                                      DR.
June 24. To A. Pack.........-.-. —....... —......-...-...-....-.........  $800 00
1871.                                      CR.
June 8. Bp warrant (773) —.-.... —. —-—........- -               ------—.............  $80 00
1871.                                     DR.
Sept. 4. To G. A. Butterfield          --- --............. —— 5.............. 0 00
2.  "A. R. Richardson-................-....                227 84
2. "L. Smith. —.................-...............................-  100 00
" 2. "E. Falkenburg-........... ~ —.-. - - - -..   100 00
"  21.  "Emil Walsh-........ -.....-....        100 00
Oct. 26.  " D. McArthur   -            -..........-..-...... —.-..........-..... —-..  162 16
$640 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1375
181.                                      CBr.
Sept. 2. By warrant (812)......................                      $6.  00
$640 00
1871.                                     I)I.
Oct. 26. To D. McArthur......................      $187 84
26        M. M.W.  orne.....................................  800 00
"26.  " Crazen & Davis —....-.. —..................50 00' 26.  "W. H. Johnssn   -..........................                                50 00
"26.  "T. Earls -.......-..................................-......... 100 00
Nov. 10.  "J. D. Wallington. —... —-.. ——.................. —- -—...                2 16
$60 00
1871.                                    Ciu.
Sept. 2. By warrant (8103)...............................-..........  $640 00
$640 00
1871.                                     )R.
Oct, 25. To T. Bathay...................................................         $1,00 00
9.' T. Luce& Co.,........................1,250 00
Nov. 10.    J. D. Willington..............................................  97 84
1871.                                    Ca.
Oct. 2. By warrant (8t0) —.....................            $.2,750 00
$2,750 00
1871..                                    Dr.
Dec. 1. O. Smith -.....-....................-.............                   -     $250 00
6.  "J. H, Hill -........................ ——.......-....-... —.. — -          79 79
1871.                                    CaR.
Dec. 29. By warrant (902)-......................................    $840 00
$840 00
The Presiding  Officer-The  Senate  will now  take an
informal recess of five minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
The Presiding Officer-Proceed with the examination.
The direct examination of Geo. F. Gillam resumed:
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. I will call your attention to page 276  of the book




1376      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
of reserves, to the N. E. A of the S. W. —, sec. 20, 10 N., 4 E
Do you find that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom was it reserved?
A. Reserved by Edmund Hall.
Q. When?
A. Dec. 14th, 1870.
Q. On the same page. The N. -. of the S. W., section 5,
8 N. and 1 W.
A. That is reserved at the same time?
Q. By Hall?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The S. I of the N. E. 4, and the N. W. I of the N. E. J,
section 13, town 12 N., range 10 W.
A. Reserved at the same time.
Q. By whom?
A. Edmund Hall.
Q. Please turn to page 257. I will call your attention to
the S. W. ~ of the S. W. ~, section 17, 2 S., 16 W.?
A. The "S. W. I of the S. W. I, section 17, 2 S., 16 W.
reserved by Edmund Hall December 14th, 1870."
Q. Do you know on what contract?
A. Contract No. 29. That was Edmund Hall's contract.
Q. Was not the contract in force at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it over-reserved?
A. It was not; no, sir.
Q. The Ionia, Houghton Lake, and Mackinaw  State road?
A. No, sir, it was not over reserved.
Q. I call your attention to page 276.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. [Reading:] Description, N. W. i of N. W. -j, and S. E. i
of N. E. 4, section 11, town 10 N., 4 E.
A. [Reading:] Thatjis S. E. - of N. E.:-, and N. W. i of
N. E. l, of section 11. That was reserved December 14, 1870.
Q. Reserved by Edmund Hall, December 14, 1870?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1377
A. Yes.
Q. On what contract?
A. Contract number 29.
Q. Was it properly reserved on that?
A. Yes, to all appearances.  It is all straight on the book.
Q. Yon have stated that that contract was not full on the
14th?
A. No, sir, it was not, according to the book.
Q. Turn to page 238.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention to the S. - of the S. E. ~, section 13,
town 4 N., 13 W.
A. Section 13?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. The S. W.   of S. E.  and S. E. - of S. E. l of section
13, town 4 N., 13 W., reserved December 5, 1870.
Q. That makes the south half?
A. Yes.
Q. Of the southeast quarter?
A. Yes, sir; makes the south half of the southeast.
Q. Reserved on whose contract; for whom?
A. Edmund Itall's contract number 27, —the contract he is
acting for.
Q. State whether that contract is over-reserved or not, —
at that time?
A. No, sir; it was not.
Q. [By Mr. Manager Grosvenor.]  You say that is the same
contract?
A. This is contract 27.
Q. [By Mr. Manager Grosvenor.]  Whlat is the date?
A. December 5th, 1870.
Q. On the same page, Mr. Gillam, the west fractional half of
the N  N. W., section 19, town 2 N., range 15 W.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By lwhom reserved and when?
173




1378   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Edmund Hall, Decemier 5, 1870.
Q. On what contract?
A. Contract No. 27.
Q, Mr. Gillam, will you look at that paper?  [Paper shown
witness.] State what it is.
A. Well, it is a list of lands.
Q. Look at the bottom of the list. Is there an application?
A. Yes. There is an application of John W. Van Riper, by
Edmund Hall, acting for him, to "reserve for me such land on
my contract No. 27,-Ionia, Houghton Lake, and Mackinaw
State Roads. "
Q. State whether it is one of the office files.
A. It looks like it; yes, sir.
Q. Any official stamp on the back of it,-anything of that
kind, or filing?
A. There is no stamp on it, as I see. The stamps were not
in vogue, I guess, in that day.
Q. Filed in the office when?
A. December 5, 1870.
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President: My proposition is to offer in
evidence that application, and it is simply for the purpose of
identifying two descriptions that are on it. It is a long list of
lands that are applied for by Edmund Hall, under the power
of attorney which he held, which has been already testified to
by Mr. Potter, and it is hardly worth while to spread it out
upon the records.
The Presiding Officer-Select those two descriptions, and
let the reporter take them down.
Mr. McGowan —I will call the attention of the Managers to
those two descriptions which I read; they are on the first
page. [Handing paper to Managers.]  You will see that the
descriptions, as I gave them to the witness, describe the pieces
in eighties, while in the application they are described in
forties, and I prefer to give them in the subdivision, as they
are in the application.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1379
If there is no objection to introducing that in evidence,
I propose to give the descriptions to the reporters. The paper
will be left on file.  [To the reporter]. They are the "S. W.
-j of S. E. 4, Sec. 13, town 4 north, range 14 west, forty acres,
S. E.  of S. E. i, Sec. 13, town 4 north, range 13 west, forty
acres. The west half of N. W. ~, Sec. 19, town 2 north, range
15 west, 54 21-100 acres."
The Presiding Officer-Do you want the application to go
with the descriptions?
Mr. McGowan-The application will be left on file for reference.
[Application marked by the Secretary, "Exhibit PP."]
Mr. McGowan-Will the Secretary give to the reporter the
date of that application?
The Secretary read as follows:
December 5th, 1870."
The Presiding Officer-Now proceed.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Mr. Gillam, when a contractor had reserved his
contract full, and sent orders for further reservations, what
was the practice of the office?
Answer. To refuse the reservations,-refuse to make them.
Q. State whether you had any instructions from the present
Commissioner, with regard to that matter.
A. Yes, sir; that was his strict order,-not to allow any
contract to be over-reserved.
CROSS-EXAMI-NATION OF GEORGE F. GILLAM.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. When was it that the Commissioner gave you that
order?
A. I think it was when I first commenced work at the book.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. I think it was the latter part of June or the first of July
that I commenced to work on this book. I think it was sometime in June.




1380     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How long had you been in the office?
A. I came here the first of June.
Q. How were these applications for reservations made,-to
you, or to the Commissioner?
A. They would write the Commissioner first, or his Deputy,
and after the reservation was madeQ. You did not have any control or influence in that office,
did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You do what you are directed to do by the Deputy and
Commissioner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has it not been your practice when the Deputy gave you
a list of lands, and directed you to reserve them upon any
contract, to do so?
A. If he had any doubts he would ask me.
Q. Has not that been your practice, if he directed you
to do so, that you would do so?
A. If the contract was full, I never reserved them,-had
orders not to. Ile never tried to force anything of that kind.
Q. This list of lands that you referred to here,-who made
that list?
A. I could not tell you; that is made in the year 1870, and
signed by Edmund IIall,-supposed to be.
Q. Do you know the handwriting?
A. Perhaps I do. It says "L. B. Potter," and it looks like
his writing.
Q. Do you not say that is Potter's writing?
A. I should say it was; it looks very much like it.
Q. The application was made by Potter for Hall?
A. That is the way it appears.
Q. J. W. Van Riper by Edmund Hall, per L. B. Potter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any means of knowing who furnished this list
of lands to Potter?
A. I have not.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    1381
Q. You do not know  whether he received it of Captain
Barnard, or not?
A. I do not.
Q. What does this mean in the margin here, "J. B. Barr
applies?"
A. That means that J. B. Barr had some time or other
applied for some land.
Q. Does that mean that lie applied for patents?
A. It simply means that J. B. Barr had applied for these
lands.
Q. What does that mean?
A. That one J. B. Barr had applied for that land sometime.
Q. Do you know whose writing that is?
A. I presume that is mine.
Q. What does this mean here?
A. That is the same. It means J. B. Barr had applied for
these lots.
Q. This one here?
A. J. Gridley's name on that lot.
Q. This is your handwriting,-the whole of it?
A. I think it is.
Q. Hewitt's name appears here frequently?
A. Yes, sir; his name was on the description.
Q. What do you mean, —his name was on the plats?
A. It was on that description of land as being applied for
by the party mentioned.
Q. How is it with this one?
A. Bacon and Goodrich?
Q. Yes.
A. Their names were on that description.
Q. This one?
A. That is Hewitt.
Q. These " do.'s" are Hewitt's also?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you see any on the ends of the page, in the same
shape?




1382     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Yes, sir; Bacon, the first three.
Q. Whose next?
A. Bacon, three more. And there is a name partly rubbed
out by another word-it looks like Grant, or Gront-down for
some seven or eight more; Mr. Leach for some; Bacon, Frost,
-that is the name I could not m ake out.
Q. Nearly that whole page is for Leach and Frost?
A. Yes, sir; different parties.
Q. Nearly the whole of that next page is Frost?
A. Frost, the first three; one for Bacon; two for Leach;
one for Bacon; two for Hewitt.
Q. You have a reservation-book there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do not you find, according to the minutes that you have
here, that most of these lands had been applied for or reserved
by some party?
A. Yes, sir, I find a good many of them.
Q. Are these reservations upon the reservation-book?
A. I could not say that they were. I think it is probable
that they were not.
Q. Were they ever on the reservation-book?
A. I found a good many that were not, that were marked.
Q. Do you not remember, as a matter of fact, that these
minutes you have made along here, showing these lands that
had been applied for, nearly all of them by other parties, that
they were applications that do not appear on the reservationbook?
A. I think they do not appear on the reservation-book.
Q. They merely appear by pencilling upon the plat-books?
A. I can say this much at least, that most of them are found
to have no claim, —no just claim for the land.
Q. How did you find out they had no claim?
A. Looked up their contracts and scrip accounts, and orders,
and everything of that kind.
Q. Then, do you say that Mr. Barr had overdrawn?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1383
A. Yes, sir; I think I found last summer several descriptions marked to Barr that I could not find any credit for.
Q. How large a number of these are for Hewitt? Do you
say that he has overdrawn?
A. I think any lands that are marked there for Hewitt he
has no just claim for.
Q. Had Hewitt overdrawn?
A. I do not know how the mark got on, —I found the
maik on the plat-book as being paid for by Hewitt; I do not
know whether Hewitt had any claim to the land.
Q. Hewitt has been holding land all the while you have
been t ere?
A. Yes, sir; he has had some lands that have been rightly
reserved.
Q. He has bad lands that were not rightly reserved?
A. I have seen Mr. Hewitt's name on the plats when he had
not anything to hold it; but whether he got it put on, or
whether some one else put it on, I could not say.
Q. Did you not find, from your observation, that there were
some lands being held by Hewitt, that he had no right to
hold?
A. I did not find them being held by any one.
Q. They were marked to him?
A. I found some with his name on.
Q. In whose handwriting?
A. I could not tell you now.
Q. Robinson's?
A. I could not say that it was.
Q. You cannot tell whose handwriting it was?
A. I could not.
Q. Do you think it was Hewitt's?
A. I do not know his hand-writing.
Q. When did the scrip become matured upon this Van Riper
contract?
A. It was sometime last fall,-I could not give the exact
dates. I got the number of the warrant.




1384   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. That is tle last warrant?
A. The last warrant was 82, —whicht was late last fall.
Q. The amount?
A. The amount of the last warrant was $4,800.
Q. What proportion of that had matured prior to that?
A. There is another,-No. 837,-that must have been last
fall, also, of $3,200.
Q. Have you not some book in the office that will tell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you the warrant-book?
A. No, sir.
Q. What is the date of the warrant, No. 862?
A. October 26.
Q. The job had been accepted and the work approved at:
that time?
A. Yes, sir. That is the last credit, the last payment.
Q. What is the amount still held upon that, that is not patented?
A. I gave Mr. Hall's lands in gross, if you recollect, the
other day. I couldn't state exactly.  There is considerable on
this contract scattered among these.  T can figure it up in a
little while, as it is on the book.
Q. The warrant is October?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The other warrant mus t 1be some time prior to that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long before?
A. As near as I can recollect, it must have been about the
2d of September,-warrant 822.
Q. Are those contracts on file in your office?
A. No, sir; in the Road Commissioner's office.
Q. Will you give us the number of those contracts?
The Presiding Officer-27 and 29.
Question. You may now turn to page 238. When did this
scrip mature upon which the lands you refer to were reserved?
Answer. I should say No. 27




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1385
Q. That is upon the same; is it No. 27?
A. Yes, sir.  Matured by three different warrants last fall,
you may say, from  the first of September until the first of
December.
Q. These are the lands that Barnard sold to Munroe and
Hudson?
A. I do not know anyything about it.
Q. You do not know anything about this transaction?
A. No, sir; I did not know as he ever sold them.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of that, at the time?
A. No, sir; I did not know as le had ever sold them  any
land.
Q. You knew nothing about it?
A. No, sir.
[ The witness retires f'ro  the stand ad a produces Nos. 27
and 29 of the contracts on the Tonia, Houghton Lake and
-Mackinaw State road.]
Question. Does the book show that the lands, that von have
given us a description of, have been patented?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. The   W. of the. W.  se.. 17,-let me get at this 232,the S. - of the S. E. -- sec. 13, 4 N., 13 W?
A. That is marked patented.
Q. In whose handwriting is that marked patented?
A. Mine.
Q. Do you know whhen it was patented?
A. I could not tell you without looking at the certificatebook.
Q. Do you know who called your attention to the fact that
it had been patented?
A. I called my own attention to it.  I ran over the book and
saw that the land had been patented.
Q. There is another book in which youn keep the lands that;
are patented?
174




1386      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. Yes, sir, I ran over the plat-book to see if these descriptions are patented, so as to make out a contract.
Q. What book?
A. The plat-book.
Q. Is not there another book except the plat-book, by which
you can tell that lands have been patented?
A. They are entered in the certificate-book.  A record is
kept of the certificates that are entered for the patents.
Q. Do you ascertain them from the plat-book.
A. I ascertained from the plat-book.
Q. You mean by the plat-book, simply the book that has
plats in it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is usually penciled upon the plats, that it has
been patented?
A. No, sir; where there has been a patent, it is marked in
ink, and crossed with red ink.
Q. The W. frl. I of the N. W. i of sec. 19, on the same page?
A. That is patented, also.
Q. You know no more about that than you do about the
other?
A. No, sir. There is no room here to enter all the particulars, and it is generally no object to do it.
Q. Then you don't remember any of these transactions, only
as you find them on the book?
A. No, sir.
Q. You speak about the contract of Mr. Smith's being
behind $2,197.89?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what contract was that?
A. It was really five contracts together,-all figured together.
They always had been.
Q. What five contracts? Will you give us the names of the
contracts?
A. I think they are numbered one two, three, four, and five,
Duncan, Alpena and Sauble road.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1387
Q. They were all on the same road?
A. All on the same road; yes, sir.
Q. Five different contracts on the same road?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they taken all at the same time?-the contracts
all made at the same time?
A. I can tell by looking,
Q. Look and see?
A. [Witness here referred to book.] They were not all made
at the same time, or at least not all approved at the same time.
They generally date from the time the contract was approved.
Q. What is the difference in dates?
A. I find two were approved July 29, 1869.
Q. Who had these contracts?  Who was the contract with?
A. The contract originally on No. 1 was with Smith &
Cicero, on No. 2 was Paulette Cicero.
Q. Now No. 3?
A. No. 3 was with Obed Smith.
Q. What is the date?
A. July 6th, 1870.
Q. What was the date of the others?
A. The 3d was July 6th. 1870, and the 4th Jnly 7th, 1870,
and the 5th was July 7th, 1870.
Q. Then they were all in July, 1870?
A. Yes, sir, the three last.
Q. The first two?
A. The first two are in 1869.
Q. When were the lands reserved upon the three last?
A. They were all reserved in gross.
Q. Will you tell me how it was you ascertained that upon
some of these c)ntrltct3, 8$,197.87 over rawa, if the lands
were all reserved in gross upon the contracts?
A. Oh, I figured them figures. If I stated on his contract I
should have said, perh:lps, on these five contracts.
Q. I understood you that one of his contracts was overdrawn that amount?




1388      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. That is not so; they were all figured together.
Q. What was the date which you find he had overdrawn
that amount?
A. Well, this was the 23d of November, I think, that I figured up his contract, —at least the 23d of Novembe)r, I think
that the deficiency occurred before that.
Mr. Monager lluston —Do the counsel desire to put in that
application of Ripley's?
Mr. McGowan-We will, by and by.
Mr. Manager Huston —I should like to have you put it in,
and we can then take it up on the cross-examination, if it is
necessary.
Mr. McGowan-I do not see any thing, particularly, that
you want to cross-examine on
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Why was it you made so many different statements
to Mr. Smith, if that has been all in gross?
Answer. In regard to his matured scrip account, he wanted
to know all about his matured scrip account, that is on these
whole five contracts; how each warrant had been paid, and to
whom.  Simply made out such an account for him, and designated them on the different contracts, simply to show to him,
clearly, how each warrant had been paid; that was all the
object of this statement. Still I made him out different statements on his contracts,-on the whole contracts, together, at
different times,-that is, I showed him how his contracts stood
at different times.
Q. Who directed you in the first place to look up Smith's
account?
A. I had a general order to look up all these.
Q. Did not Mr. Barnard direct you at that time to have
Smith's account looked up?
A. Not that I recollect of; I have no such recollection.
Q. You have no recollection about that?
A. No. Ihave not.  Oh, I usually run over these contracts
quite frequently, and of course, it was easy enough for any one




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1380
in the office to know how that stood, or out of the office, if
they wanted to know.
Q. Look at that and see whether that is the Ripley application you speak of?
[Paper shown witness.]
A. That is the Ripley application, I should say; itlooks like
it.
Q. What are those papers?
[Other papers shown witness.]
A. Well; it appears to be some telegraph dispatches.
Q. Those are copies of telegrams, are they not?  Those two
first ones from Barnard to Ripley?
A. They look like it. Yes, they purport to be.
Q. Will you read the application at the bottom of the description of the land?
A. [Reading.]  "William A. Barnard, Esq., Dear sir:  Will
you please reserve for me, on my contract, the above list of
lands for a few days, until my man returns from the woods. J
am not entirely satisfied about them until I get another report.
If you will do this I will make it all right for your trouble if
they are vacant.  If you will do as above requested, telegraph
me, without fail, to-morrow morning. Yours, &c., H. C. Ripley."
Mr. McGowan-What is the date of that?  What part, if
anything, of that application is underscored?
The Presiding Officer-The date is called for.
Mr. McGowan-The date of filing.
Witness-The date of filing was November 23d.
Question. November 23, 1871, isn't it?
Answer. November 23, 1871; yes.
MAr. McGowan [To Mr. Iluston.]-Put it right in evidence,
Major, and then it will show for itself whatever there is of it.
Witness-There is some underscored:  "Telegraph without
fail to-morrow morning."
The Presiding Officer-[To Mr. HIuston.] Do you wish the
whole of it in evidence?




1390      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Manager Hluston-Yes, sir.
Mr. McGowan-We are willing, as we want to get the explanation from another witness with regard to it.
The following is a copy of the paper received in evidence,
filed, and marked by the Secretary " Exhibit QQ."
[EXHIBIT QQ.]
STATE LAND OFFICE, 
Lansing, Nov. 23, 1871.
Henry C. Ripley, East Saginaw, Mich.:
The lands are Obed Smith's reservation. You have not
credit to hold all of them.
I am looking over Smith's account.
WM. A. BARNARD,
Dep. Corn.
STATE LAND OFFICE, Nov. 23, 1871.
f. C. Ripley, East Saginaw, Mich.:
Will reserve the amount of your credit, commencing south,
and report by letter.
WM. A. BARNARD,
Dep. Cornm
EAST SAGINAW, Nov. 23, 1871.
Win. A. Barnard:
I am waiting for telegraph from about lands ordered yesterday.
H. C. RIPLEY,
Ans. immediately.
EAST SAGINAW, 23 Nov., 1871.
Win. A. Brarnard, Dep. CoB'r:
If lands are in market furnish scrip for whatever I am
short, or reject from the list furtherest north enough so that
my credit will cover. Answer at once.
H... RIPLEY.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1391
SUBDIVISION.             ~    B    REMARKS.
o                     4 — O
Se    of n w  -... --—...... 1  30 N    7 E    40    Obed Smith (Erased).
Nw     ofs w. ------------  3  80  7  40         "      (Erased).
S e   of n w   and e  of s w   4  80          7    120            "      Erased.
Nw     ofsw M --—.. —-.. —- 5  87N    2W   40                          Erased.
N e X of s   c.. —........... 6  87           2     40  Erased.
3 w   oln e  and n w   of s e   8  87         2      80'     Erased.
S 3 of se M                       6  38       2      80  Erased.
Ne    of n e... —----—.. ---   7  37  2  40            Erased.
N     3ofne 4...... —......... 21  37           E    80                Erased,
S  w x of ne   -................. 18  37      1      40  Erased.
S83ofse  —...................27  82          8E    80 
WX of sw  —.. —-..........    4  81          8      80 
W. ofne c   —......-... —   2  81           8      8478
So of  e  -—... —----.. —-..  6  86 E    1E    80                 Erased.
8  ofne  -.. -----—. ——..- 9  86  1    80                  Erased.
W 3  of S W.. —--------- 5  36            1      80  Erased.
W    ofse  -------------     20  37           1W    80'      Erased.
NeWofnw   ---........... -. 10  31  8E    40
Ne e    of................-. — 24  86  2 W. 63 66               Erased.
E    ofs e    -.-. ——. —--—.-. —    9  86  1 E   80                  Erased.
WXofnw. —... —------—. —1   381           5      80 
S.ofneMande Xofnw34-  14  81                  5    160 
S e  ofs e 34 -. —--—, —. — I   81           5      40
Nw:  of ----—.. ——. —--—. 12  31           5    160
Ne  ofnw   ---. —........... 15  8t         5      40                  Erased
1,828 44
W. A. Barnard, Esq.:
DEAR SIR-Will you please reserve for me on my contract
the above  list of lands for a  few  days  until my  man  returns
from  the woods.   I anm  not entirely satisfied  about them  until
I get another report.   If you will do  this I  will make it all
right for your trouble.   If they are vacant  and  you will do  as
above requested, telegraph me without fail to-morrow  morning.
Yours,
H. C. RIPLEY.
Question. What do you understand Mr. Ripley to mean
there, by saying he would reward MIr. Barnard  for his trouble?
Answer. Well, I don't know as I could give you any idea
what he does really  mean, any  more  than  he  was willing to
pay for it.
Q. Will you read  that telegram, and  see  if that enlightens
you as to who was having Smith's account looked up?
A. The first telegram  says:
[The  witness  here  read  the  first  telegram   contained  in
"Exhibit QQ," as above.]
Q. What is the next telegram?




1392      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. McGowan-I would like to have the date of the first
one.
Witness-That is November 23d, 1871. The next one is the
same date, and reads:
[The witness here read the second telegram, contained in
" Exhibit QQ," as above.]
Question. Now, Mr. Gillam, I want to know  whether you
can remember that you looked up Smith's account before that
application came in of Mr. Ripley's.
A. Mr. Barnard told me to look up Ripley's account.
Q. Do you know whether he told you to look it up before
this application came from Ripley, or not?
A. No. I thinkQ. Which do you mean that Barnard told you to look up,Riplcy's account, or Smith's account?
A. Smith's.  It was after Ripley's application came in.
Q. Then Barnard told you to look it up?
A. Yes, sir; and I looked it up on that day.
Q. Ripley is an extensive land dealer with the office, is he
not?
A. He has had three or four contracts.  lie has one in force
now,-quite a large one.
Q. You did not find that he had credit at that time, did
you,-Ripley?
A. Yes. lie hadQ. What amount of credit dild le htv.e?
A. Iv recollection is, it was about $1,500, —fronm  1,200 to
81,500. IIe had some credit.  I am sure it was over $1,000.
Q. Was that application handed to you when it came to the
office by Barnard.
A. Well, I don't recollect as he Ihanded me the application.
He told me, at least, that Ripley had applied for a lot of
Smith's lands and wanted I should look up the accounts andt
see how it was.
Q. Why did you not put it on the reserve book?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                 1393
A. I went to work and looked up Smith's account, the first
thing, to see whether Ripley could hold the lands.
Q. You have testified that these lands in that list were
-marked to Ripley on the plat-book?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Now, is it the practice to mark lands on the plat-book as
held by parties, and not put them on the " reserved " book?
A. That is the way that was done.
Q. When Hall's application was sent it was marked the
same way to Hall, but not put on the reservation-book?
A. No, sir. They were not put on the reservation-book.
Q. Can you account for the reason it was not done,-or was
that the custom?
A. It was something of a question in my mind, whether Ripley or Hall could hold them. Smith claimed he could hold it.
Q. Smith did not go to the office until the 29th of November, and this was the 23d.
A. It was a question with me whether that application was
good for anything.
Q. Why was it a question with you whether it was good for
anything?
A. I did not know that a man could reserve lands for a few
days; it was a new idea to me, that a man could reserve land
a few days.
Q. You spoke about there being a question between Ripley
and Hall. How came there to be any question between them?
A. Between Ripley and Smith.
Q. Explain to me why it was that these lands were reserved
for Ripley, and he telegraphed that they were reserved for him
on the 23d, and then Hall was allowed to reserve the same
lands on the 24th of November.
A. Well, I can state to you all I know about it. I looked
up Ripley's account on the 23d, and found he could not hold
all these lands he applied for, and that was of course giving a
chance for Hall to apply.
175




1394     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. When you come in the morning, please bring in Hall's
application, and let us see whether they do not cover the same
lands?
A. Yes, sir; I will do so.
The Presiding Officer-It is now four o'clock. The Senate,
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, stands adjourned until
to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
Lansing, Friday, May 17, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Absent without leave, Senators Hannahs and Wilcox.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GEORGE F. GILLAM, RESUMED.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. I was asking you about Mr. Ripley's reservation
that was made upon the Hall lands, when the Court adjourned.
Answer-Yes, sir.
Q. I understood you to say that reservations were marked
upon the plat-books, but not upon the reservation books?
A. Yes, sir. I think that Mr. Barnard marked them all up
on the reserve-book when the plat was received.
Q. Did you find the application of Mr. Hall.
A. Yes, sir; that is here among the files of the Secretary. I
do not know that it is in evidence.
[The Secretary produces the paper,-Exhibit AA.]
Q. I understood you to say that the reason that these were
not marked upon the reservation-book, was that it was not
certain whether they could hold the lands or not?
A. That was one reason at the time; yes, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1395
Q. Will you look and see whether Hall's does not cover
some of the same land as there is in Mr. Ripley's?
A. Yes, sir; they do in part,-some are the same. There
are some lands in Hall's application that are not in the other
Q. If Ripley's reservation had been good, his being patented
on the 23d would have held the lands, would it not?
A. If it had been a good reservation, and put in previous to
this, it would hold the lands.
Q. Then why was Hall's marked also upon the same land?
A. I will state this much. In looking up Ripley's account
I found he had not unmatured scrip enough to hold it. I
informed Barnard of the fact.  How Barnard came to mark
this land to Hall, you will have to ask him.
Q. You do not know yourself?
A. No, sir; for some days after this was reserved, I did not
know that there had been any such reservations made.
Q. Can you tell when those lands were marked upon the
plats of Hall. It seems Mr. Smith says they were not marked
on the 29th, but found afterwards they were marked?
A. He claims that, but I could not tell. Mr. Smith was at
the office on the 29th, and I told him Ripley had applied for the
land. I did not know anything about this application then,it had not been handed to me.
Q. You say you found a deficiency on one of the contracts?
A. I found  a deficiency  on the Duncan, Alpena and
Au Sable contract.
Q. But the lands were all generally selected on the five contracts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you came to figure up the five contracts, did you
find a deficiency?
A. Yes, sir; I took the five together.
Q. Was that $25.70 a deficiency on all the contracts?
A. On all the contracts?
Q. Afterwards you ascertained there was no such thing,
when you came to get the true statement?




1396     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I found that another contract which he had, which was
allowed finally to run right along after this. That was some
time afterwards.
Q. You found, as a matter of fact, that he had a contract
exceeding his reservations, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I want to ask you how long it was before the time Ripley made his reservation, or asked to have a reservation made
for him, that Barnard & Co. bought a part of Smith's unmatured scrip, or matured scrip, whichever it was.
A. I could not say as Barnard & Co. bought any scrip. The
scrip was sold.
Q. Who sold it?
A. I suppose Smith did.
Q. Who bought it?
A. I think that Mr. Porter bought one thousand.
Q. Porter acted as agent for Hall, in reserving these lands,
did he not?
A. It appears so.
Q. Who bought the balance?
A. I could not say now. I do not recollect.
Q. What was the amount that was sold?
A. Two thousand dollars.
Q. How long was that before Ripley's reservation?
A. It was a month, I think.
Q. Could you not tell exactly, by examining the books?
A. I could by examining the books.
Q. What book is it in?
A. It is in the scrip-book.
Q. Have you got the scrip-book here?
A. No, sir.
Q. I want to ask you if Mr. Smith's reservations were not
made before this scrip was sold?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I understood you to say it was not the rule of the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  13'97
office to allow a party to sell his scrip after he had reserved
lands, and let the land go back to the State?
A. It was not the rule.
Q. How was it that it was permitted in this case?
A. I could not tell you. The first I knew about it, the scrip
was sold.
Q. If the Commissioner had not permitted this $2,000 of
scrip to have been sold, there would not have been but about
two eighties of land, according to your first statement, of
Smith's uncovered, saying nothing about the contract that you
did not discover in your statement?
A. If the matured scrip had not been sold, the land would
have been nearly all covered.
Q. Was the $2,000 matured scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you not know that that has been the practice of
the office, to allow a party, when his scrip is matured, although
he has held lands for'months and years, in fact, on his scrip
when it was unmatured-to allow him, when his scrip matured,
to sell his scrip, and allow the land to go back?
A. I do not recollect any other instance, while I have been
in the office, of such a case.
Q. Will you tell me who it is accepts the orders that are
drawn by these parties, when they sell scrip?
A. The Commissioner could, of course, and the Deputy; and
whether Robinson has any right to, or not, I do not know. It
is supposed to be the Commissioner or Deputy.
Q. This 82,000 worth of scrip, that Smith sold, was credited
to some one else upon the books, was it not?
A. It was credited to the party he sold to.
Q. After he had sold this, Barnard directed the account to
be booked up to see whether he had uncovered his land?
A. Yes, sir; when his application was made.
Q. And if that had not been done, the lands would not have
been uncovered, according to the first statement you made?
A. If the scrip had not been sold.




1398     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was it just $2,000 worth of scrip or 2,000 acres of land?
A. It is $2,000; that is my recollection.
Q. In these contracts of Mr. Hall's are any of them the Hall
& Upton contracts?
A. No, sir; that is another Hall. That is the Hall of Muskegon.
Q. What quantity of land is reserved upon that contract?
A. I know it is not full; I know he has a credit.
Q. Tell us why it is not full?
A. Well, it is. He has more unmatured credit than he
has land reserved.
Q. Will you look and see how it was July 10, 1871,-whether
it was full then or not.
A. I cannot tell, withoutQ. Do you know it was not reserved full at that time?
A. I can't say. I don't recollect.
Q. If it is not full now, could it have been full last July?
A. It might have been full. He might have sold the land
to some one and patented up some other land,-bought scrip
and patented it up.
Q. How long would it take you to see whether it was full?
A. It might take a day to look over and see to whom the
land was patented and where, at that time in July.
Q. Look and see whether any of that has been patented,
You can tell that in a moment?
A. Yes, sir; I can tell that. [The witness here referred to
a book.] There has been a good many descriptions patented
on the contract.
Q. Since July first?
A. The name of the parties I have not got. We don't mark
them on this book. It would cumber up the book to put on
all the items. We simply mark when they are patented.
Q. Will you state whether there was any lands improperly
withheld on that contract June 1, 1871,-whether it has ever
been over-reserved?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1399
A. It is my recollection that about the first time I looked
up his contract it appeared to be over reserved; that is, he had
applied for a good many lands of other parties, and, in looking
it over, it was decided he could not hold them. He applied
for a lot of lands of Wm. R. Rogers,-several hundred acres.
It has all been stricken out here. I recollect that Rogers could
hold the land; and, come to think of it, there was a time when
his contract was over-reserved. Ile had applied for a lot of
lands, which, when they were stricken out, left him a large
credit agan.
Q. When was it you went to Edmonds in regard to clerks
acting as agents?
A. I spoke to him about it last summer, or the forepart of
fall.
Q. Acting as agents for what purpose?
A. I asked him what he meant by that rule of clerks acting
as agents.  He said he did not want clerks to act for parties
for compensation.
Q. That was what he said to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have been there since last June?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with Van Dunham?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You was acquainted with him  before he came to the
office?
A. Slightly. I saw him a few times.
Q. What do you say in regard to his habits as to sobriety?
A. I could not tell you much about that.
Q. What can you say, what little you did know about it?
A. I understand he was a drinking young man, although I
never saw him drink.
Q. What do you say as to his being punctual at his post in
office hours?
A. He was absent some.




1400     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was he not absent a good deal?
A. He was absent considerable. I cannot say how much.
Q. Absent more than any other clerk in the office?
A. I could not say.
Q. Was Clarke absent as much as he was?
A. I think not.
Q. Was there any other clerk that was absent as much as
Van Dunham?  How is it with Griswold?
A. I don't think he was absent a great deal. I did not pay
nmuch attention to that one way nor the other.
Q. Did not you know or understand that some of the clerks
in the office were acting as agents for parties and receiving..gratuities, and so on?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Never had any knowledge of that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or that they were interested in buying lands?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Never heard it talked of?
A. Oh, I have heard them  talk about land or something of
that kind, but I never heard anyQ. You had heard that talked in the office, had you not?
A. Yes, sir. I had heard clerks make remarks about land
speculation, or something of that kind, but I never heard a
clerk tell me that he had bought any land.
Q. No? Never had one tell you out directly?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was the nature of the speculations you heard them,speak of?
A. I could not tell you, as I know of,-something I never
paid any particular attention to; sometimes I heard remarks
thrown out that there was a speculation in land, or you could
make money in land, or some land was good, and so on.
Q. You heard these things occasionally in the office?
A. Yes, sir, I heard remarks sometimes thrown out by.clerks, but whether they were joking or not, I don't know.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1401
Q. Do you remember, or have you seen, the testimony of
William Coffron of North Branch?
A. No, sir; I have not.
Q. I did not know but you knew the descriptions of land
that he testified in regard to?
A. No, sir, I don't know anything about it.
RE-EXAMINATION OF (. F.  GILLAM.
Re-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Have you heard any remarks in the office about
speculating in land, since the trial commenced?
Answer. I don't know whether I have or not. I may have
heard such remarks.
Mr. McGowan-I would ask the Secretary for the file of
Ripley's applications, and the telegrams attached. The Commissioner tells me that all the telegrams were printed in the
proceedings. If they are all considered in,-those four telegrams that are attached,-that is all we care for.
The Presiding Officer-There are four telegrams printed in
the proceedings.
Mr. McGowan-There were but two read, and I only want
the understanding that they are all considered in evidence.
The Presiding Officer-The understanding is, that they are
all considered in evidence.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. You say, in response to the Manager, that of
this list of land applied for by Ripley, that Mr. Hall applied
for the same lands, or a portion of them?
Answer. He applied for some of the same lands.
Q. Was it not a fact that the lands which he applied for,
that were on that list, were the lands which Riplev could not
hold by reason of not having credit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were asked with regard to marginal checks.
A. Well, Ripley, you know, wrote two letters. The last letter
he insisted on certain descriptions, that was not only a portion
176




1402     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
of his credit, finally; and Hall's application, I think, covered
the most of the balance.
Q. Covered the balance?
A. Yes, sir, it would be.
Q. I would ask you to explain, more fully, with regard to these
marginal checks on Mr. Hall's application,-the application
which was handed to you yesterday, and which is now on file.
A. I found marks on the plat-books to three different parties, on different contracts, and I went through with all the
different contracts in force, where there were conflicting applications, to look them up, so as to ascertain exactly how the
contracts stood.
Q. When were these marks on the books made, which you
found, and from which you checked Hall's application?
A. They were most of them dated back in 1868, 1869, and
1870.
Q. Were any of them  marks that were made within the
present administration?
A. I don't recollect of any now. I would not say that there
was not.
Q. You say most of them were 1868, 1869, and 1870?
A. Yes, sir; they were generally old marks, quite a. ways
back,-all these, J. B. Barr and J. H. Hill; and these applications were back in old times.
Q. Were you here at the time the office was removed from
the old office to the present piace?
A. I was; yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect the time?
A. Well, it was during the winter.
Q. How long was the office broken up and business suspended?
Q. Well, it was-I should think it was rather difficult getting along for about two weeks.
Q. When Mr. Smith was here, on the 29th of November,
state whether you and he examined the plat-books, or the book
of reserves, or whether you examined both of them.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1403
A. Well, we did in part. I showed him  one town, and I
on't know but more. I told him Ripley had applied for his
land, and I think we turned to a town, and I don't know but
to two.
Q. Did you examine the whole of the plat-books?
A. No, sir; I don't think I looked at only one town. I
don't know but he looked at all of them; I don't know how
that is.
Q. You were asked with regard to the Commissioner, or the
Deputy, accepting orders from contractors after the contract
was full. What is the present rule in regard to that, if any?
A. Well, the rule is, not to allow it.
Q. Do you know of any cases where that has been allowed
undtr the present Commissioner,-where the contract has been
reserved full and then the contractor gave a further order for
scrip,-whether that order was accepted?
A. No, sir; I don't know of any such instanee.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF G. F. GILLAM.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Don't you know that upon the order that Mr.
Hewitt had from Bathay which you say he did not carry the
scrip with, that he was allowed to reserve on that order the full
creuit that he had, and then unload it and reserve again?
Answer. Well, IQ. Isn't that so?
A. Well, Hewit was allowed to reserve land on his order,
certainly.
Q. He was allowed to reserve upon this order that did not
carry the scrip with it, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. To sell his land and then reserve again, was he not?
A. Yes, sir; that was allowed.
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President:  I hold in my hand the
statement made by Mr. Bours, in accordance with the request
the other day, of the amount received in the Treasurer's Office




1404   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONLDS.
from  plats, field-notes, and so forth, for the years 1869,'70-1-2.
I ask that it may be put in evidence without calling the wit-.
ness or detaining him over, if there is no objection.
Mr. Manager Huston-Let us see it.
Mr. McGowan-Yes, sir. I will state also that I have inadvertently put upon the bottom  of it some pencil notes, which
form no part of the statement.
Mr. Manager Huston-We have no objection, Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer-It will be received in evidence.
The following is a copy of the statement referred to:
[EXHIBIT RR.]
STATE TREASITRER'S OFFICE, (
Lanwsing, Mich., May 16, 1872. 
STA TEMENT of moneys received from  the State Land Office for Fees, Plats, FieldNotes, etc., for each of the Calendar Years 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872.
1869.      1870.       1871.        1872.
January... —.............. —-... —.   $71 50      $6 75        $54 25      $224 45
February-..-.....- -............ —-------     69 45        83 00      111 00       899 24
March....-......... ——........ —---.    57 45    67 00       88 85       274 50
April ------—. —-----—. ——. -.    75 00        105 75      47376        828 70
May -------------------------------            81 00       79 00      809 89
June -------—. —-. —----------—....    94 00             70 00      246 70
July.................. —-. -—.. —..   185 00        63 15      146 95
August ----------—.. —--------—.             64 35       41 35      899 50
September -............-......-........  82 00   88 00      252 45 
October...- -------------------------   106 25            68 25      178 45
November.... —----------------..    82 20    1,982 80        347 90
December... —.-..... —-..... —-.              64 45      100 20      128,75
$1,032 65   $2,S1l 75   $2,788 45    $1,223 89
TESTIMONY OF C. L. ORTMAN.
C. L. Ortman, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the  respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Mr. Ortman, where do you reside?
Answer. In the city of East Saginaw.
Q. What position do you hold there?
A. I am a lumberman.
Q. What official position, if any?
A. I am the mayor. of the city of East Saginaw.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1405
Q. Do you know Joseph Lawrence and M. E. Hitchings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever send either one of those men to look at lots
five and six, or any land upon section 16, town 24 north,
range 3 west, by Higgins' Lake?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Won't you state the facts in regard to that,-what you
did?
A. I sent Mr. Joseph Lawrence, with another man in my
employ, in May, 1871, to examine some land in town 25, 3 and
24, 3 west, and amongst them they examined those particular
lots in section 16, town 24, 3 west, and they returned at the
end of May and made their reports, and I noted those reports
and entered some land on their reports.
Q. On what section?
A. On different sections, in 25, 3 west, and some in 24, 3
west. I did not enter those two lots you mentioned. In the
month of July, in the latter part of July, I sent Mr. Hitchings-M. E. Iitchings-to examine some other lands, and
required of him to look at those particular lots on that section
-section 16-that joins Higgins' Lake. Mr. Hitchings came
back and reported to me what he had looked, and among them
were those lots on section 16.
Q. Let me ask you now what their reports were,-whether
they were for or against the land?
Mr. Manager Huston-Well, I object.
Mr. Shipman-What is your objection?
Mr. Manager Huston-My objection is that it is simply
hearsay testimony. The witnesses have sworn, nevertheless,
what their reports were; but I do not think it is competent
for them to come into court and show by this witness what
anybody may have said to him, and make testimony in that
way.
The Presiding Officer-I think the witness may answer the
simple question of whether they reported for or against. The
evidence has already been received as to what the fact was.




1406     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Question. State what the report was,-whether for or against
the land.
Answer. The report was that the land was not good, as far
as the southern part was concerned. I think there were two
lots south which were not good, while the northeastern and
northwestern parts were good.
Q. Of the section?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I mean as to lots five and six.
A. They were not good. It was so reported to me.
Q. Was there any particular reason why you wanted those
lands?
A. I am a lumberman, and I wanted them for the purpose
of having the pine lumber, if there was any on the land; and
they stated there was none.
Q. Why did you want lots five and six specially?
Mr. Manager Huston-We object to that. We cannot see
how that is competent. We do not see that it has any bearing
upon the question, one way or the other, for what purpose he
wanted them. He says that the report was unfavorable,-now
why he wanted them, it seems to me, is not competent.
Mr. Shipman-It is not very material, but I wish to show
that he wanted the lots, if they were worth having,-to show
where his interest was in the matter.
Mr. Manager Huston-He never saw the land, and he says
the report of those land-lookers was unfavorable, and that is
all he knows about it.
The Presiding Officer-It seems to the Chair, that it might
influence the directions given to his agents in regard to it,
somewhat.  I will allow the question to be answered. I will
ask a vote of the Senate, if desired.
Mr. Manager Huston-I do not desire any vote.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. Was there any particular reason why you wanted
those lots five and six?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1407
Answer. If you will allow me to show the plat-book, to see
what lots five and six are[The plat-book is shown to the witness.]
Witness. I did not know five and six, for the reasonThe Presiding Officer —He did not ask you why you did not
know them, but for what particular reason you wanted them.
A. I wanted them for the particular reason of pine timber.
Q. Had these men been looking land for you before?
A. Mr. Lawrence has looked land for me for a period of
seven years.
Q. Mr. Hitchings?
A. Mr. Hitchings has looked land for me only two years.
Q. You say you entered some laud upon that section, and
other sections adjoining?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it after that, and if so, what time after that?
A. I entered land in those two towns, or in a part in that
town where this section of land is, in the. month of May. I
entered those particular lots in the month of August, afterwards.
Q. What lots do you mean now?
A. I mean lot number 1, on section 16, and the E. ~ of the
N. W. I, and the N. E. of S. E. L, of section 16.
Q. Did you, at that time, say anything in the office to Mr.
Barnard, with regard to these lots, five and six, being valuable
for pine?
A. I said they were not valuable for pine.
Q. State what was said,-the conversation on that point.
A. Lots numbers five and six was open for entries, and Mr.
Barnard asked me why I did not take it, and I told him they
were not valuable enough to take them, so I did not take
them.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES L. ORTMAN.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. That was May 15th, 1871?
Answer. That was in the month of August.




1408     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. The entry shows that you entered these lands May 15,
does it not?
A. I entered some lands in that town in May, but these particular lands I entered in the month of August, after Mr.
Hitchings returned.
Q. When was it you had that conversation with Mr. Barnard?
A. It was when I entered the land in the month of August.
Q. You never saw those lands yourself?
A. No, I did not.
Q. All you know about the land is what these two landlookers stated to you?
A. On the representation of my land-lookers.
Q. That is all you know about the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you not known cases where land-lookers have
reported lands not worth taking, and afterwards they were
purchased, and found to be valuable for the timber that was
on the land, by other parties? Have not you known of such
cases occurring?
A. There will be such cases.
Q. Don't you know that there are numerous pieces of land
in the pine country that have been looked, and thought not
worth taking up, that were subsequently purchased and large
quantities of pine obtained from the land,-the land found to
be valuable?
A. Well, but Mr. Lawrence and Mr. HitchingsQ. I ask if you have not found in your experience, as a lumberman, that it was a fact that frequently lands that had been
looked up by one party would afterwards be looked up and
purchased by some other party, and found to be valuable?
A. I might be, but they were straightforward menQ. Have you not found that to occur in the judgment of
land-lookers? Has that not been in the Saginaw country a
matter of frequent occurrence,-that one man would not buy




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1409
because he thought there was not sufficient pine to warrant it,
and another lumberman buy it and find it was good.
A. It may be; some men lack judgment; but good landlookers understand pretty well what it is.
Q. Does it not occur from mistake?
By the Presiding Officer:
Question. Whether you know of such instances?
Answer. I do not know of any such instances, but it may
have happened.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Have you not heard it talked of that such mistakes
have happened?
Answer. I have heard of it in my experience, that men have
made misrepresentations.
Q. Have you not known of pieces of land, eighty or one
hundred and sixty acres, to be valuable for its timber, and only
valuable for the timber upon it, and the timber be upon only
fifteen acres of the piece; or all the valuable timber be on a
few acres?
A. Such things exist.
Q. Do they not frequently occur?
A. I would not say frequently, but it exists sometimes,-the
timber stands on fifteen or twenty acres of land.
Q. And sometimes on less than fifteen and still be worth
taking?
A. It depends on the timber and the location.
Q. How much pine timber did you ever know to stand upon
one acre of ground,-how many thousand feet?
A. You ask of my own knowledge?
Q. From your own knowledge;-yes.
A. I have seen acres of lands with only one, two, or three
trees on an acre.
Q. Have you not seen where there are more than that?
A. I have land with fifteen, twenty, or forty trees on one
acre.
177




1410     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What would such an acre of land, if it was on the river,
within a reasonable distance for banking-what would an acre
of land, where there were some forty pine trees on it, be worth?
A. Those are exceptions.
Q. I ask you what would such an acre be worth?
A. I have seen lands selling from $1 25 up to as high as
$30 an acre.
Q. Would not an acre of land that had forty trees upon it,
that was within three miles of a river that had capacity sufficient for running the logs-would it not be worth more than
$30 if it had forty pine trees such as would be fit for lumbering purposes?
A. Well, I have not heard of an instance yet where land has
been soldQ. Take an acre of land with forty good pine trees upon it,
it would be worth more than $30, would it not?
A. We are not in the habit of buying a single acre.
Q. I am asking you per acre?
A. It depends upon the quality of timber,-what it is.
Q. Good merchantable pine?
A. In parts of the country where the timber is sold by
stumpage, I should rather say it would, but in some parts it is
not usual to sell land for stumpage.
Q. What is it worth by stumpage?
A. We value the stumpage in the State of Michigan from.
fifty cents as high as three dollars per thousand, measured in
board measure,-measured in saw-logs.
Q. There is a stream that runs from Higgins' Lake into the
Muskegon river?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that logs can be banked in the lake?
A. Higgins' Lake has an outlet into the Muskegon river.
Q. It would be short hauling?
A. Yes, in this particular case the section joins the lake.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1411
Q. The banking ground would be upon the same section of
land?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES L. ORTMAT.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. I want to know what "stumpage" is?
Answer. It is an expression by lumbermen, which means
timber cut into saw-logs and measured by a board rule,-this
is called "stumpage."
Q. You speak of instances where you have known lookers
to make mistakes in land as to pine. Did you ever know these
mistakes to occur with Mr. Lawrence and Hitchings, in your
experience with them?
A. I do not know of any such mistakes with them in my
business.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES L. ORTMAN.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Did you ever go and look the land over after Lawrence and Hitchings had looked it over, to see if there was a
mistake?
Answer. I have.
Q. And you never found any mistake?
A. No, sir. We vary sometimes in our estimates.
Q. It generally varies, does it not?
A. Well, it is a matter of judgment.
The Presiding Officer-The following question, directed to
Senator Waterbury, has been sent to the Chair, and the Secretary will read it:
Question. " In your testimony on page 324, in regard to lots
five and six, Sec. 6, T. 24 N., 3 W., you stated that those lands
were chiefly valuable for timber. Will you please state what, in
your opinion, was the value of those lands for timber, when
seen by you?"
Senator Waterbury-I did not consider them very valuable,
and as to the exact value there was in them, I am not prepared




1412     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
to say, for I did not look close enough, but I looked over that
whole section and did not find an acre on the whole section
that I thought would pay me for the timber. I did not consider them of any value for anything else. I was getting
cheaper lands at that time.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You did not consider it valuable for anything else
except the timber that was on it?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. That was four dollars an acre?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. Four years ago this spring, if my memory serves me
right.
Q. What money you had to invest in lands, you could get
better lands in the same neighborhood for?
A. I could not hardly say that.
Q. You could get swamp land in that neighborhood at a
less price?
A. Yes. We had all the swamp we wanted to use; but we
did not think it was worth that money at that time.
Q. You could get other land in that place that was better.
at a less price?
A. I could have done it, but I did not consider it worth it
at that time, for timber.
Q. What did its value chiefly consist in?
A. My opinion is, that there was no value only for lumber.
Whatever lumber there was on it was worth so much.
By Mr. Shipman:
Question. That river there, running into theMuskegon, was
there, was it not?
Answer. Yes, sir.
M. 0. ROBINSON, RECALLED FOR THE RESPONDENT.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. How long have you been a clerk in the Commissioner's office?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1413
Answer. Since the first of November, 1868.
Q. How long have you been acting as chief clerk?
A. Since the first of May, 1869, I think.
Q. What form of order was allowed from contractors previous to Mr. Edmonds' administration?
A. A simple order to reserve would be accepted.
Q. What form of order is required now?
A. No order is, unless it carries what they call matured scrip
with it.
Mr. Manager Huston-I understand those orders are in
writing, and are a part of the records of the office. I submit
whether it is not the better evidence to produce the orders, and
let the Senate judge? I understand that they do not allow any
application to be made for the reservation of lands, —that has
been sworn to several times,-except in writing. Now, they
are asking this witness what the form and effect of the order
is. I submit, whether it would not be more satisfactory to this
Court to have the legal proof?
The Presiding Officer-The written testimony would be the
better testimony.
Mr. McGowan-I will explain, briefly, and I think the counsel will not object. We simply propose to show that the same
form of order is now sent to the office that formerly was sent,
a simple order that does not carry with it matured scrip, and
in that case the land on the order is charged up on the contractor, and not to the party holding the order. If the party
holding the order is to get any credit directly to himself, it is
now the rule to require that the order itself contains the request
to the Commissioner to patent the lands to the person holding
it when the contract matures.
The Presiding Officer-You wish to introduce the testimony
to show a change in the office?
Mr. McGowan-With regard to the practice, and not so particularly with regard to the form of the order.
Mr. Manager Huston-If they will introduce the order, I
cannot see why they will not show the change. Let each class




1414     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
of orders be introduced. They are under the control of the
respondent. He holds the best evidence on that question..
The Presiding Officer-Parole testimony would be admitted
to show the fact of the change, when the object of the testimony is not to show the contents of the order.
Mr. Manager Huston-The question goes further than that,
not only that there has been a change, but what the effect of
the change is.
Mr. McGowan-If the Honorable Manager so understands
it, I will withdraw the question.
Question. State what the instructions are with regard to
orders sent there by the contractors?
Answer. Receive no order unless it reads, "Patent the lands
out of matured scrip."
Q. When were these instructions given?
A. I think last fall, sometime.
Q. State whether there has been any change in the form of
the affidavit of abandonment, in the present administration?
A. There has.
Q. When was that change made?
A. It was made as early as April, 1871.
Mr. McGowan-I wish now to ask to identify some files
which I wish then to offer in evidence.
Question. Will you open these papers and state what they
are?
Answer. They are official letters to the office.
Q. Written by whom?
A. E. G. Goddard, in Saginaw.
Q. Will you look upon these files and state what they are?
A. They are the files of the office in Orson Bouch case.
Q. What is it you hold in your hand?
A. I hold the original letter to Charles Cornell, dated September 1, 1871, directed North Branch, Mich.
Q. In whose handwriting?
A. Deputy Commissioner Barnard's.
Q. I ask you if the letter is copied in the letter-book?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1415
A. By the looks of the writing, I should say it has been.
Mr. McGowan-If there is no objection, I will offer the
original letter.
Mr. Huston-I would rather see the letter-book.
Question. Will you look at the papers in that file?
Answer. With regard to the license to Henry Diamond,applications, and so forth.
Q. Those are the office files in what is known as the Diamond case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The letter which you have been shown, directed to Conley, which you say was in Barnard's handwriting,-how did
that letter get back to the office?
A. Returned, not called for by Mr Conley.
Q. When was the letter found?
A. A few days ago.
Q. Who found it?
A. I found it.
Q. Who opened it?
A. I opened it.
Q. State whether you made any examination  of the
envelope?
A. I did.
Q. Where is the envelope?
A. I could not say; it got lost somewhere.
Q. Have you made search for it?
A. I have.
Q. Was unable to find it?
A. Unable to find it.
Q. Did you notice the post-mark upon the envelope?
A. I did.
Q. State whether it corresponded with the date of the
letter?
A. It did.
Q. State whether that letter was in the office,-found in the




1416     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
office, and whether it was there examined, envelope and all,
since Mr. Alderman testified in this case?
A. Yes, sir; I think it was.
Mr. Manager Huston-I thought you asked him about the
Conley letter?
Mr. McGowan-The letter written by Barnard to Conley.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Found since Alderman testified?
Answer. Found since Alderman testified.
Q. Where did you find it?
A. I found it in a pigeon-hole which is left for returned
letters.
Q. Among other returned letters?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGowan-Now, if there is no objection, we offer in
evidence the files and papers which we have identified by this
witness.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Have you got the letter-book that has a copy of
this letter in it?
Answer. I do not see it here,-I can get it.
The Presiding Officer-[To Managers.]  Do you desire the
book at this time?
Mr. Manager Huston —Yes, sir.
[A messenger was here sent for the letter-book.]
Mr. McGowan-Mr. President, we now offer in evidence,
and will present to the Managers, the statement or opinion of
Attorney General May, which was referred to in the examination of Obed Smith.
Mr. Romeyn-Upon what subject?
The Presiding Officer-In regard to the Obed Smith contract.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We would like to understand the
object of offering Mr. May's opinion here.
Mr. McGowan-It is simply this: Mr. Smith testified that
the opinion was procured, and that Mr. Edmonds, after get



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1417
ting the opinion, settled with him in accordance with the statements contained in that opinion. We offer it to show that Mr.
Smith was somewhat mistaken.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-It is not offered for the purpose of
showing that the Attorney General's opinion is the law, I
suppose?
Mr. McGowan-Not at all; we would hardly claim that.
The Presiding Officer-Simply because it has been referred
to by the witness?
Mr. McGowan-Simply because it has been referred to
by the witness, and the Commissioner was caused to make a
settlement with him.
The Presiding Officer-Is there any objection?
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We have no objection if it is simply
for the purpose of showing that Mr. Smith may have been
mistaken; I suppose that is competent?
The following is a copy of the opinion referred to:
[EXHIBIT SS.]
ATTORNEY GENBRAL'S OFFICE,
Lansing, January 4, 1871.
Hon. Chas. A. Edmonds, Com'r State Land Office:
DEAR SIR: I have examined the question submitted to me
by you, in the matter of Obed Smith, Esq., and reply to your
interrogations as as follows:
1st. That if the orders given by Smith were for matured
scrip, they were properly chargeable to him on his contracts.
If they were given for land, then they should not be charged
to him, except for the amount of land actually taken on the
orders. That any order given by him could be revoked by
him as to the amounts not actually taken on the order.
2d. That scrip issued to him on any of his contracts should
be applied on the contract upon which issued, unless some
change of contract was made and motive of the change given
to the Commissioner, when all reservations on the entire contract, as amended, would be open for selection.
178




1418     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
3d. It seems to me to be reasonable that the Commissioner
should give notice to the contractor or his assignees, in case
he has overdrawn on his contract.
4th. I think Smith can hold his land on unmatured scrip,
which, when matured, would pay for such land. That is, he
can hold what is then his due, after deducting all payments.
5th. I think Smith can hold the lands charged to him, and
which have been allowed on his reservations, and that lands
reserved on the amended contract are governed by it, so far as
it is a new contract, except as modified by the second proposition above.
My answers to your questions are based upon what I understand has hitherto been the practice in your office, and what I
deem to be a reasonable construction of the relations and
duties of the parties to a swamp road contractor.
Respectfully yours,
DWIGHT MAY,
Attorney General.
Mr. McGowan-I will present to the reporter, consecutively,
those files, if there is no objection.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Wait until we see the letter-book.
The Presiding Officer-Mr. McGowan, will you offer them
separately, so that the Secretary may get them, and avoid confusion?
Mr. McGowan-Yes, sir.
[The letter-book referred to was here brought in, and handed
to the Managers.]
Mr. McGowan-The Managers ask a little more time to look
the files'over.
The Presiding Officer-Let them take sufficient time to look
them over.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Will the gentleman state what he
proposes to prove by this letter from Wm. A. Barnard to
Conley? We object to it, because it does not appear to have
been forwarded; the original is here with the copy; it does




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1419
not appear to have ever been forwarded to the address. The
witness testifies that he found the paper in the office. The
letter-book indicates that this is the identical paper there
copied.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair understood this witness
to testify that it was returned; that he examined the envelope
and found that it was returned, uncalled for, by Mr Conley.
[To the witness.] Did you so state?
The Witness-Yes, sir.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Was this in the envelope when it was found?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the envelope addressed to?
A. Charles Conley.
Q. Then what evidence have you that it was ever sent to
Charles Conley?  How do you know it was ever sent to
Charles Conley?
A. I noticed the post-mark of Lansing, December 21st.
Q. When did you notice that?
A. I noticed it the other evening, when I found it in the
office.
Q. Where is it?
A. As I said before, the envelope was mislaid or lost; I could
not find it.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. What other marks was there onl the envelope?
What other stamp?
A. I could not say with regard to the stamp. I noticed the
mark on the envelope, "Returned to the writer."
Q. Nothing else excepting that?
A. I think there was a stamp, but I cannot swear anything
about the stamp.
By Mr. Manager Cochrane:
Question. What are the marks on there?
Answer. " Returned to writer."




1420     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Was this an official envelope that had directions
to return in ten days if not called for?
Answer. I cannot say as to the number of days, but it was
an official envelope.
Q, What did it say about returning?
A. Return in ten or fifteen days. I cannot say; we had two
classes of envelopes.
Q. You say this letter had got back into the office, and had
not been opened at the time you found it?
A. That is what I said.
Q. Do you know when it came into the office?
A. I do not.
Q. Is it not the practice to open letters when they are returned, to know what they are about?
A. No, sir. I think not generally.
Q. Letters that are returned you do not open?
A. Where I have written letters they are thrown to me, and
I open them; but that being written to Mr. Barnard, he did
as he had a mind to with it.
Q. Did he not open the letter to see what was there,whether there was anything inclosed.
A. He did not seem to open that one.
Q. How came you to find this, at this time?
A. I went to look for it.
Q. When was that?
A. I think it was night before last. I found it in the evening.
Q. Whereabouts was it you found it?
A. I found it in the pigeon-hole containing other returned
letters.
Q. Is the pigeon-hole in Barnard's desk?
A. Over his desk.
Q. Were there other letters there, the same as this?
A. I cannot say.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1421
Q. Why did you not keep the envelope-when you found it?
A. I thought I was keeping it. I kept it with the letter, and
it seems it got detached from the letter.
Q. Who detached it?
A. I think I took it out first. I think I handed'the letter
and all to the attorneys for the respondent.
The Presiding Officer-How much further do you wish to
follow this?
Mr. Manager Huston-I want to find out about this letter.
Question. I want to know when it was you gave it to the
attorneys for the respondent, and which one you gave it to?
Answer. Which one, I cannot say, but I think it was night
before last that I found the letter and handed it to whichever
it was. I cannot designate which one I handed it to.
Q. Inclosed in the envelope?
A. I cannot say whether I handed it inclosed in the envelope,
or together.
Q. You gave them both papers?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. State whether there was not a mark drawn across
the words " North Branch."
Answer. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. Did I not give you especial instructions to keep that envelope at that time?
A. I think you did.
Q. State whether there has not been a great deal of search
for it since?
A. I have made a great deal. I have looked through the
waste-paper basket, and inquired of the janitor, and made diligent search.




1422    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. 0. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Huston:
Question. Why did you not keep it when he told you to
keep it?
Answer. I left it at the office.
Q. That is no explanation.
A. I left it there.
Q. Then it was not returned to you, but left with the counsel for the respondent?
A. Yes, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. You saw the letter after I had it, did you not,the envelope and the letter?
Answer. Yes, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. 0. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You have not seen it since Mr. Shipman had it?
Answer. I have not seen it since that evening. I saw it a
number of times that evening.
Q. In the counsel's possession?
A. Yes, sir.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from  the Sixteenth
sends up the following question:
The Secretary will read the question.
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"Is there a copy of the letter in the copy-book, in its regular order?"
Witness. There is, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION OF M. 0. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Shipman:
Question. Did you see that letter in the envelope after it was
in my possession, and after it left my possession?
Answer. I saw it that evening; all the evening we had it
there.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1423
Q. Did I put it in my pocket, or take charge of it in any
way?
A. I did not see you do any such thing.
Q. Was it not left in the office with instructions to be taken
care of?
A. I think it was.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Which part of the office was that?
Answer. The private office of the Commissioner of the
State Land Office.
Q. That has been the head-quarters of the respondent and
the attorneys during this trial?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have they not been there every evening?
A. I have been there some.
Q. Have they not been there?
The Presiding Officer-I think we will suspend this.
Mr. Manager Huston-I think it is important that they
should produce that envelope.
The Presiding Officer-I think this examination has gone
far enough for this purpose.
The Senate will now take an informal recess for ten minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
The Presiding Officer-What disposition was made of the
question that we had up just before recess?
Mr. Manager Huston-We have no objection to introduction of those two letters in evidence-those from Goddard.
The following is a copy of the letters offered and received in
evidence:
[EXHIBIT ss.]
EAST SAGINAW, MICII, 29th Dec., 1871.
W. A. Barnard, Esq.:
MY DEAR SIR:-I enclose $60 on New York, and want the
two fractions in S. E. corner of Sec. 16, T. 24 N., R. 3 W.




1424   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The fractions are 59.80 acres, I think. I enclose also $5 to
buy a cigar for New Year's, and desire you to not let any of my
reserved lands get rubbed out, and I further pray you to see
generally that no calamity befalls me.
Oh, I enclose, also, deed that was made out to E. J. Goddard.
I didn't notice the name until I sent it for record. My name
is Ezra G., and the J. got in by mistake. Can you change it?
With a merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and great
love, I am
Most respectfully yours,
E. G. GODDARD.
Indorsed on the back as follows:
"Received at State Land Office, Lansing, Mich, Dec. 30,
1871."
EAST SAGINAW, MICH., 27th April, 1872.
I. A. Barnard, Esq.:
DEAR SIR-Enclosed please find draft of $60 to pay interest on school lands, as follows:
S. E. of S. E., Sec. 16, T. 14 N., R. 1 W., 40 acres (10602);
N. i of N. W., and N. W. of N. E., T. 14 N., R. 1 E., 111
(10602). Sum due, $454.50. Date, 23d June. Time, 8 months
and 7 days. Interest to March 1, 1872, $21.87.
Lots 4, and 5, and 6, Sec. 16, T. 24 N., R. 3 W. (10,831);
Amount due, $179.40. Date, 30th Dec. Time, 2 months. Interest to March 1, 1872, $2.09.
N. E. of N. E., sec. 16, T. 15 N., R. 1 E. Amount due, $120.
Date, Sept. 26th. Time, 5 months, 4 days. Interest to 1st
March, 1872, $3.62. (10716.)
S. E. of N. W., S. ~ of N. E., the N. W. of S. W., and S. 1 of
S. W. i, sec. 16, T. 16 N., R. 15 W. Amount due, $700.80.
Date, August 14th, 1871. Time 6 months, and 16 days. Interest to March 1st, 1872, $26.56.
E. ~ of N. E. b, T. 16 N., R. 2 W. Date, 18th Jan. Amount
due, $240. Time, 1 month, 12 days. Interest to March 1, 1872,
$1.80.
Total amount $55.94.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1425
I enclose the $60, for you to use the balance for the poor;
and while you give, feel, and at last we shall all be saved from
damnation.                 Yours truly,
E. G. GODDARD.
Cannot I send the money to you to buy scrip for me, when
I conclude to take patents for my State land, reserved?
Indorsed on the back as follows:
"E. G. Goddard, April 27th, 1872. Draft of $60.00-$56.19$3.81 returned with receipt.
"Filed May 9,'72."
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I want to ask the witness one
question more.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON, RESUMED.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. In whose handwriting was the superscription
upon the back of that letter?  [Exhibit TT, found below.]
Answer. On the envelope?
Q. Yes, sir?
A. The same as that,-Deputy Commissioner Barnard's.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Now, the gentlemen are through
with the preliminary testimony as to the admissibility of
that letter. We wish to object to it, and we are ready to take it
up and state our reasons for objecting, if they have no further
preliminary proof upon it.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel will please state his
objection.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-This letter seems to have been
copied regularly in the letter-book, in harmony with the date
before and after, and in harmony with the pages in the book;
there is nothing in that letter-book that would cast any suspicion upon this transaction; but there is something, we
think, that is wanting to entitle this paper to come in as evidence. It is in testimony that this is in the handwriting of
Mr. Barnard, Deputy; it was superscribed and made,-it was
179




1426     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
superscribed on the outside by him, but there is not a particle
of testimony here to show that it was ever mailed; there is
nothing to inform  the C  i;rt but what that transaction may
have been of more recent date than what the counselThe Presiding Officer-[Interrupting.] Allow me to interrapt the gentleman. See if I am mistaken. I understood the
witness to say that the envelope bore the post-mark of Lansing?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Yes, sir; but I did not understand
that it was of the date and corresponded with this.  He
thought it bore the post-mark of Lansing.  Now, there is
something a little singular,-that Mr. Barnard has not been
put upon the stand to say that he mailed that letter. He
superscribed that letter, he inclosed it, and if it was mailed
by due course of mail by the party who wrote it, it will be
some indication that this was sent off in the ordinary course
of business. It seems to me very extraordinary that this
should appear just now when wanted; the envelope had never
been opened, its contents never examined, —a returned letter
to the office never had been examined until it was needed now,
-until its disappearance casts some suspicion upon the office,
then the letter appears. We think there should be something more than the testimony that has been given to warrant receiving that in  evidence  and inferring  that it
was sent and returned, particularly where the party  who
wrote the letter-who did all the business-has not been
called to indicate that he mailed the letter or caused it to be
mailed, or that he had any notice of its return. There is nothing here from which we can infer that there was any oversight or mistake about it. One would think, that a returned
letter needed attention as much as a letter addressed to the
office; and we say that, inasmuch as the writer of that letter
has not been called to make any explanation upon the subject,
is a suspicious circumstance; and then the losing of the envelope under the circumstances, which, if here, might indicate
that somebody was mistaken about the date of the mailing of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1427
that letter, if, in fact, it had ever passed through the office.
This witness may be mistaken.
I do not charge anything upon him reflecting upon his
truthfulness here. He found that, doubtless, as he states; but
it is possible that it may have been put there for a purpose,
and the envelope may have disappeared for a purpose. The
important matter fixing  this as proof is absent,-it is
gone; and the man who should have knowledge of it is not
put upon the stand to explain it in any way or shape. All
this witness testifies to may be true, that he found that in an
envelope in a pigeon-hole in the office; and it may be true that
Mr. Barnard knows something about that, which we are not
at liberty to inquire about, because he is not presented here.
We say where a paper is lost, has disappeared from  the
regular depository in the office, is not amongst its files, and
seems to be found incidentally in the office, under the circumstances that this paper appears, with the mysterious disappearance of the envelope,-which is the ear-mark to detect fraud, if
there is any,-the paper would detect nothing, nor the copy
here would detect nothing, unless we have something more.
That more is absent; we cannot find it. That envelope would
enable us to judge, at once, whether it was a spurious mark, or
not. The postmaster might be called in here, and indicate
whether that was the genuine postoffice mark, and when it was
put on. It is all left a presumption, unless there is positive
proof.
The Presiding Officer-Wouldn't that be argument upon
the sufficiency of the evidence, rather than upon its admissibility?'
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-The proposition  is upon the
admissibility of the paper.
The Presiding Officer-Certainly; but isn't your argument
really upon the sufficiency of the evidence,-not an argument
against its admissibility?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I suppose it would tend in that
direction. But if the proof sought here is insufficient, the




1428     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
preliminary proof not having been made accounting for the
absence of these  papers, the deduction is at once  clear
that is not admissible. If the preliminary proof has not been
made of the sufficiency of it, then of course it would not be
admissible. For these reasons we object to it.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair will overrule the objection. If a vote is required I will take it. The objection is
overruled.
The following is a copy of the paper offered and received in
evidence:
LEXHIBIT Tr.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE LAND OFFICE, 
Lansing, December 21, 1871. 
C6arle Coney, Esq., North Branch, M.
DEAR SIR: —In reply to yours of the 9th inst., I have to
say that it appears by the records of this office, that Sec. 2 of
your license, No. 4719, for S. fl. ~ of S. W. fl. i, Sec. 6, 10 N.,
12 E., has never been complied with, and in consequence the
license became void and of no effect after the expiration of the
three months allowed by law for that purpose. The land,
therefore, has been sold to Hoyt & Draper, of East Saginaw,
on their application of the 14th inst.
Yours truly,
W. A. BARNARD,
Dep. Commissioner.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We have no objection to the admissibility of these papers as to the Bouch matter.
The following is a copy of the papers offered and received in
evidence, marked by the Secretary as " Exhibit SS."
[EXHIBIT ss.]
APPLICATION FOR SETTLER'S LICENSE, UNDER THE ACT OF 1859.
To the Commissioner of thr State Land Office of the State of Michigan:
The application of Orson Bouck, of Vernon, in the county
of Shiawassee, in said State, respectfully shows that he is




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1429
twenty-one years old; that he is at the time of making this
present application, actually and in good faith, a resident of
Vernon in said county; that he is not the owner, in law or in
equity, and has no legal or equitable claim to the title or right
of possession of forty acres of land, situated in any State or
Territory of the United States; that he intends to reside in
this State, and to settle upon, and actually and personally to
occupy, cultivate, and improve the following described tract of
land, being parcel of the "Swamp Lands," belonging to the
State of Michigan, situated and lying in the Township of
Venice, in the County of Shiawassee, in said State, described
in the public surveys made under the authority of the United
States, as the N, W. I of S. W. -i of Sec. 36, town seven north,
of range four east, containing forty acres. He further shows
that he has not heretofore, upon the application of himself, or
of any person in his behalf, or for his benefit, directly or indirectly, obtained any license under the act hereinafter mentioned; and that he makes this application for the purpose of
obtaiining title to said tract under the act hereinafter mentioned.
And the said Orson Bouck presents to the Honorable the
Commissioner of the State Land Office, this his application
for a license to enter and settle upon, occupy, drain, and improve the above described tract or parcel of swamp land,
according to the provisions of the act of the State of Michigan, entitled "An act to provide for the settlement and drainage of swamp lands by actual settlers," being act number two
hundred and twenty-nine of the session laws of eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, and acts amendatory thereto; and the said
applicant, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators,
hereby agrees, to and with the State of Michigan, to observe
and be bound by all and singular the provisions of said act,
and of any other statute of the State, relating to said tract of
land, not impairing his rights under said act, and faithfully to
abide by, keep, and perform, and be subject to all the terms




1430     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and conditions of the license which may be obtained upon
this, his application.
ORSON BOUCK.
Witness:
THOMAS PARENT.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, 1.
County of Shiawassee,
Orson Bouck, the person named in the foregoing application, to me well known to be the person therein named, being
duly sworn by me, deposes and says that he has heard the
above application, by him subscribed, read, and well knows the
contents thereof, and that the facts therein stated are, to his
own personal knowledge, true.
Sworn and subscribed before me, this 4th day of March,
1865.
JOHN N. INGERSOLL,
Notary Public for said County.
[5 cent rev. stamp, canceled.]
Indorsed on the back as follows:
"Application for settler's license under act of 1859. No.
4285.
"Name, Orson Bouck. Date, 4th March, 1865. Description,-N. W. 1 of S. W. ~, of Sec. 36, T. 7 N., R. 4. E. When
license issued, Mar. 14, 1865.
" You may make another license for this."
No. 4285.
SETTLER'S LICENSE, UNDER ACT 108, APPROVED MARCH 7, 1861.
To all Whom these Presents shall Come:
Whereas, Orson Bouck, of Vernon, in the county of Shiawassee, has made application to the Commissioner of the State
Land Office of the State of Michigan, under the act entitled
" An act to amend an act entitled an act to provide for the settlement and drainage of swamp lands by actual settlers," approved March 7, 1861, and the acts amendatory thereto, for
the privilege of entering and settling upon, occupying, draining, and improving that certain tract or parcel of the swamp




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1431
lands of this State, situated and lying in the township of
Venice, in the county of Shiawasse, in this State, described in
the public surveys, made under the authority of the United
States, as the N. W. i of S. W. ~ of Sec. 36, T. 7 N., R. 4 E.,
containing 40 acres, and has made oath to said application, as
required by law, and agreed for himself, his heirs, executors,
and administrators, to observe and be bound by all and singular the provisions of said act and of any other statute
relating to said tract of land not impairing his rights under
said act, and faithfully to abide by, keep, and perform, and be
subject to all the terms and conditions of this present License,
which issues upon said application:
Now Know Ye, That I, the undersigned, Commissioner of'
the State Land Office, for and in behalf of the State of Michigan, do hereby license and authorize the said Orson Bouck to
enter and settle upon, occupy, drain, and improve the above
described tract or parcel of land, containing 40 acres, subject
to the terms and conditions following, that is to say:
First. That said applicant shall enter into immediate possession and occupancy of said tract of land, and shall continue
to reside upon, occupy, and improve the same for five continuous years.
Second. That said applicant shall, within three months
from the date of this instrument, file with the Commissioner
of the State Land Office a certificate from the supervisor of
the township in which the land is located, together with his
own affidavit, that he is in the actual possession and occupancy
of such land.
Third. That in case it shall appear that he was, at the date
of said application, the owner, in law or equity, of forty acres
of land, in any State or Territory of the United States, and
that his said application is, in this behalf, willfully and knowingly false, this license shall be deemed void from the beginning, and all his right, title, and claim  to said tract, shall
cease and become absolutely null.




1432       TRIAL OF CHIARLES A. EDMONDS.
Fourth. That said applicant has not heretofore, upon the
application of himself or of any person in his behalf, or for
his benefit, directly or indirectly, obtained any license under
said act, or any other law of this State.
Fifth. That said applicant shall not cut, take, and carry
away, upon or from said tract, any pine timber or other valuable timber, except for the sole purpose of clearing said land
for actual cultivation; and in that case so much as may be
necessary to improve said land, and no more. And, for the
violation of this condition, he shall be liable to all the forfeitures, penalties, and liabilities of a tresspasser upon the State
lands, as is now or as may hereafter be provided for by law.
On the breach of any one of which conditions, this license
is to be void and of no effect in favor of said applicant.
And it is further provided, That if said applicant or settler shall not file his certificate and oath of settlement and'occupancy, as above provided, or if the evidence of two withesses, under oath, is furnished to the Commissioner of the
State Land Office, that the clause above mentioned to prevent
waste has been violated, then his claim shall be deemed as void,
and the Commissioner of the State Land Office shall, from and
after said time, sell said land the same as other swamp lands.
The said applicant is not at liberty to assign or transfer the
present license; nor can he transfer his possession to another;
and no person taking possession under him, either with'or
without his consent, will acquire any right whatever to said
land; but in case of the death of said applicant before the expiration of this license, his heirs-at-law, if in the actual possession and occupancy of the tract, will be entitled to all his right,
interest, and estate therein.
And the said applicant also stipulates and agrees with the
State, that he will faithfully accupy the said tract of land, and
will drain the same conformably to the above mentioned act,.and to the provisions of the act of Congress therein referred to,
for the purpose of obtaining title to said tract, as provided by
law.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    1433
And in case the said applicant shall actually occupy and reside upon said tract for the period of five continuous years, and
shall in all things comply with the above recited act of 1861,
and keep and perform all and singular the provisions, terms,
and conditions contained in this present license, he will at the
end of that time be entitled to a certificate of purchase of said
tract.of land, and a patent therefor from the State.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal, at Lansing, this 14th day of March,
A.-. 1865.
CYRUS HEWITT,
Commnzissioner of the State Land Ofice.
PROOF OF SETTLEMENT AND OCCUPATION,
-7b Perfect Titler to Lands Licensed under the Provisions of Act No. I29,
Session Laws of 1859.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, 
County of Shiawassee,  ss
On this first day of March, 1872, personally appeared before
the undersigned, notary public for said county, Orson Bouck,
wvho being duly sworn, according to law, deposes and says, in
relation to land licensed to him on the fourteenth day of
March, 1865, as per License No. 4285, describing land as follows: The N. W. i of S. W. I-, of Sec. 36, T. 7 N., of R. 4 E;
that the same was for his own use, and for the purposes of
actual settlement and cultivation, under the provisions of the
act of the Legislature, approved February 15, 1859, "to provide for the settlement and drainage of swamp land, by actual
settlers;" that he is now in the occupancy of said land, and
has been residing thereon since the fourteenth day of March,
1865: That he has made the following improvements, to wit:
A good log house, a good log barn, seven acres improved on
said lot, well fenced, forty-five apple trees, and other shrubbery,,and a good well of water. That he has drained the same as
follows: A ditch forty rods on the low ground, north and
180




1434     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
south, straight through the improvements, so as to comply
with the provisions of said act No. 229.
ORSON BOUCK.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this first day of March,
1872.
ELISHA KINSMAN,
Notary Public.
NoTE.-The above affidavits of settlement may be taken
before a justice of the peace or notary public. The applicant
must give a full description of the improvements, and of the
manner in which the land is drained.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, 1
County of Shiawassee, 
Before the undersigned, a notary public in and for said
county, personally appeared A. F. Chalker, a resident of said
county, who being duly sworn, according to law, deposes and
says, that he is well acquainted with Orson Bouck, who subscribed to the foregoing deposition, and knows him to be the
identical person who obtained a license for the land described
therein, and that he is now, and has been residing upon said
land since the fourteenth day of March, 1865, and that his
statement in regard to the improvements on said land, and the
drainage thereof, is true.
A. F. CHALKER.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of March,
1872.
ELISHA KINSMAN,
Notary Public.
Indorsed on the back as follows:
"License No. 4285. Proof of settlement and occupation.
Received March 2, 1872. Orson Bouck, Vernon, Shiawassee
county. Patent handed to Van Dunham."
VENICE, Nov. 1, 1861.
The Commissioner State Land Office:
SIR-This is to certify that Orson Bouck made application to
me, sometime in July, 1865, for a certificate of residence, which I
gave him, I being at the time supervisor, and said Bouck hav



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1435
ing a license for the N. W. i of the S. W. ~ Sec. 36, Town 7,
4 E.; and I also certify that the said Orson Bouck has continUed to reside on said land up to the present time.
Yours, respectfully,
ASAHEL OWEN.
VERNON, Nov. 6, 1871.
We, the undersigned, do qualify and say that we are acquainted with Orson Bouck, and do know that he has lived on
the northwest quarter of section 36, in town 7 north, of 4 east,
and has lived on the same for the last six years or thereabouts,
and cleared and fenced from seven to ten acres, or thereabouts,
and built a comfortable log house, and log barn and stable,
and set out an orchard and other shrubbery, and has also got
a private road for half a mile, opened and traveled. All the
above in the town of Venice, county of Shiawassee, State of
Michigan. We and each of us do solemnly swear the within
statement to be correct and true.
WILLIAM BROWN,   A. W. SMITH,
GEORGE BROWN,    LEVI SMITH,
LESTER T. BRUNO, JAMES BAIRD,
C. BIERES.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, a Justice of the Peace,
Township of Vernon, Shiawassee County, State of Michigan.
Dated November 6, 1871.
C. C. CHALKER,
Justice of the Peace.
VENICE, Nov. 7, 1871.
I hereby certify that Orson Bouck has lived on the N. W. -
of S. W. -4 of Sec. 36, 7-4, for the last six years, or thereabouts,
and is now a resident of the above described land.
ALEX VNDER STEWART,
Supervisor of the Township of Venice.
Mr. McGowan-We have already presented, and identified as
a part of the files of the office, papers referring to the land occupied by a man by the name of Diamond, concerning whom and




1436      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
whose land Mr. Bush was cross-examined. An affidavit made
and signed by Bush was presented to him when he was on
the witness stand, on the cross-examination, and he identified
it as his affidavit.
There was also presented to him a letter which lie wrote to
Mr Barnard, a letter from Barnard to Ripley, and an affidavit
from the supervisor.
Those three papers were tacked together. They were presented to him and identified by him as papers that had been
in his possession.
The Presiding  Officer-What is their relevancy to  the
license?
Mr. McGowan-I will add that, in addition to these papers,
when I asked to present the whole file in the case, showing
that this man Bush made an affidavit that Diamond had abandoned his land, that there were no improvements on the land.
And by reason of that affidavit he secured the land to be sold
to Ripley.
The files show that Diamond licensed his amount; that,
within the three months required by law, he filed the necessary
proof. I hold in my hand the statement,-what is called three
months' proof; —and after Busch made this affidavit, there are
the affidavits of four men in these files which are sent here to
the office, and now form  a part of the files of the State, that
Diamond was still on the land,-the evidence all going to the
unreliability of the witness Bush.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-We object to the introduction of this
testimony, for the reason that there is nothing in these affidavits,
treating them  as affidavits, that go to impeach Mr. Bush. It
was stated by the counsel here that Mr. Bush had made an
affidavit setting forth that on  the 18th of January, 1871,
Diamond had abandoned this land, and that there were no improvements upon this land. The part to which the counsel
refers reads that Diamond has abandoned the same, he has not
resided npon State land for two years last past. That is all




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1437
there is of it. There is no statement in that affidavit that
there were no improvements on this land.
That affidavit, the Court will remember, was made on the
18th of January, 1871.
Now. for the impeachment, by those affidavits, of the affidavit of Bush. I hold in my hand an affidavit of Diamond,
that he is a settler upon this land, made in 1867. Of course
there is no objection to that, if the counsel desire to introduce
it. But let us look and see what these affidavits are. In the
first place the affidavit by the supervisor is, technically speaking, no affidavit at all; but I will not make any objection on
that ground. But it is an affidavit made nine months after, in
the month of September, 1871, and it does not state, —any
other day in the other affidavits is stated, or rather the other
affidavit, for there is but a single one, —it is an omnibus affidavit, signed by four parties. I say neither the affidavit of the
supervisor Markle, nor the omnibus affidavit, states that at the
time this affidavit of Bush was made, on the 17th of January,
1871, was it occupied by him.
There is a statement in all these affidavits that there were
improvements upon the land, but nothing further, except that
at the time this Markle affidavit was made, it was occupied by
Diamond. The other affidavit was made this year, in February,
some thirteen months after. Now, it is not at all improbable
that if Diamond, residing off this land, not occupying it as the
law requires him to do, heard that any movement was being
made for the purpose of taking away this land, either by Bush
or by any other parties, that he may have rushed on to the
land and occupied this little log house which is referred to in
these papers.
If the statement of the parties who signed this affidavit be
correct, this house was probably built prior to this time. Bush
did not swear that the land was occupied by Diamond at the
time this affidavit was made, nine months before the Markle
affidavit; he  simply  swore  that  the  land  had  been
abandoned. None of the parties swore that the land was




1438     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
occupied by Diamond at the time this affidavit was made,
nine months before the Markle affidavit, and thirteen months
before the omnibus affidavit.
The Presiding Officer-How can the Chair tell whether it
has the tendency to impeach Bush, without knowing the
contents?
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I suppose it cannot unless it takes
my statement. I will read to the Court these affidavits, so that
the Court can judge. The affidavit which I read is a copy of
the Markle affidavit, made probably in the Land Office, as it
has the Land Office stamp upon it. It has no name to it; no
statement where it was signed,-either county, town, or
State.
John Markle, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is
supervisor of the township of Sheridan, in which the following
described lands are situated, to wit: The S. i of N. E. ~ Sec
4, T. 15 N., of R. 7 W., and that Henry Diamond who obtained
license No. 4854, for said description, has not abandoned the
same, and has worked on the same for the past three years and
built a house before that time; it looks pretty old; and now occupies the same for his home.  He has about three acres
cleared, and about four acres cut down; making in all, about
seven acres, and a crop this year. His neighbors tell me that
he has had a crop on the place every year since he took the
land. This can be proved by good witnesses. His neighbors
also tells me that he has fulfilled, to the very letter of the law,
and I have no doubt of that statement.
JOHN H. MARKLE.
Dated this 15th day of September, A. D. 1871.
ALLEN E. CLEMENT,
Justice of the Peace.
There is no particular evidence that John Markle ever swore
to it; but we do not propose to object on any technical
ground; we admit that is an affidavit; but there is no evidence
that Bush ever occupied that land on the 18th of January,
1871.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1439
Here is another affidavit, which reads as follows:
STATE OF MICHIGAN, I
Mecosta County.  \  Sheridan Township, Feb. 22, 1871.
We, the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say,
that we are citizens of the township of Sheridan, in which the
following described land is situated, to wit: The S. - of N. E. 4
of Sec. 4, T. 15 N., R. 7 W., and that Henry Diamond, who
obtained license No. 4854 for said description, has not abandoned the same, and has complied with the terms of said
license and settled upon the land described therein as required
by law; also, that he has improved the same by chopping
about seven acres, and cle aring nearly three acres of the seven,
and raised crops thereon during the four years past, and by
building a house thereon which he occupies as a home.
HENRY DIAMOND,
ZACHARIAH ONERLA,
ABRAHAM N. REED,
WILLIAM McCOMBS.
JACOB ISANHART,
Justice of the Peace.
This does not purport to be sworn to except at the head.
Now, you will perceive if there was any intention on the
part of these parties, how craftily they have steered around the
point made by Bush in his affidavit, namely, as to the abandonment of this land. They simply state, as a conclusion of
law, that he had complied with the law. It was the business
of these parties, if thley wished to present an affidavit for the
purpose of impeachment, or wished to satisfy the Commissioner
that this land had not been abandoned to the State, to state the
facts, and let him judge as to the abandonment, for the law
makes him the officer who is to be such judge, to determine
whether the land is to be put into the market again or otherwise.
Mr. McGowan-The Honorable Manager has overlooked one
important paper in the file, to which I call the attention of
the Court, and that is, a letter written by Bush after the Mar



1440     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
kle affidavit was presented to him, still insisting upon the facts
contained in his affidavit.
Now, Markle's affidavit, the informality being waived on the
part of the counsel making the objection, states that he has
not abandoned the land, and states that he has complied with
the terms of his license. The Court well know what the terms
of the license are, and, if he has not abandoned it, the number
of the license is given, the date will be found upon the license
which has been admitted in evidence showing, that it was long
after the supervisor's affidavit. Then if the man swore that he
had complied with the terms of the license, Bush could have
done nothing less than commit perjury when he swore to that
affidavit.
I think the Manager can hardly charge these men, who can
hardly read and write, with being crafty, and slipping around
the formal part of the affidavit. The last affidavit says he has
complied with the terms of the license; that he has settled
upon the land in accordance with the terms of the license, if I
understood the reading of the affidavit correctly. There can
no other meaning be  drawn from the affidavit than that the,
man settled upon the land and cultivated it, and therefore
could not have abandoned it.
There is not only the evidence of the affidavit with regard
to that matter, but the letter also. We offer this evidence to
impeach the statement of Bush, contained not only in the
affidavit and in the letter, but reiterated upon the stand.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-So far as the affidavit is concerned,
there is no statement here that he complied with the terms of
the license, so far as the letter is concerned, and the statement
in the letter. We submit that it is not competent for this Court
to impeach a person simply on the ground that he has made a
misstatement in a letter. Still further: Is it not remarkable
to attempt to impeach a witness upon the stand without putting in the countervailing witness, —to impeach them by affidavits of this kind. The thing was never heard of before,
putting ex parte affidavits in evidence for the purpose of im



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1441
peaching witnesses; and I presume my friends will not claim
that that is a proper course of impeachment.
The Presiding Officer-Upon this question I will take a
vote of the Senate. The question is, " Shall the files offered
in evidence by the counsel be received in evidence?"
The roll was called by the Secretary, and the files were
allowed to be offered in evidence, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Jenks,          Mr. Randall,
Barber,            Mann,              Sheley,
Begole,            Price,             Storrs,
Briggs,           Prutzman,          Wheeler,
Gay,                                              13
NAYS.
Mr. Ball,         Mr. Putnam,       1Mr. Waterbury,
Cawley,           Romeyn,            Wood,
Dexter,            Stockbridge,       President
Moffatt,          Stoddard,                 pro tern.,
Neasmith,                                          12
[ EXHIBIT UU.]
PROOF OF ABANDONMENT, UNDER ACT 108, SESSION LAWS OF IS1I.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, I
County of Ingham, s
Wm. C. Bush, being duly sworn, depose and say that he is
a resident of the town of Saginaw, in the county of Michigan,
and State of Michigan, and that he is well acquainted with
the following description of land, to wit: S. i of N. W. i Section
14, town 15 north, range 7 west; and that Henry Dimon,
who obtained license No. 4854 for said description, has abandoned the same, and has not resided upon said land for the
two years last past.
W. C. BUSI.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of May,
A. D. 1871.
M. O. RoBINSoN,
Notary Public.
NOTE.-The affidavit to be made by the supervisor of the
township, or by the party applying for the land.
181




1442     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
[EXHIBIT UU.]
John A. Markle, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he
is supervisor of the township of Sheridan, in which the following described land is situated, to-wit: The S. A of N. E. ~,
sec. 4, town 15 N. of R. 7 W.; and that Henry Dimon, who
obtained license No. 4854, for said description, has not abandoned the same, and has worked on the same for the past three
years, and built a house before that time,-it looks pretty old, —and now occupies the same for his home. He has about three
acres cleared, and about four acres cut down, making in all
about seven acres, and a crop this year. His neighbors tell me
that he has had a crop on the place every year since he took
the land; this can be proven by good witnesses. His neighbors also tell me that he has fulfilled, to the very letter of the
law, and I have no doubt of that statement.
JOHN A. MARKLE.
Dated this 15th day of September A. D., 1871.
ALLEN E. CLEMENT,
Justice of the Peace.
SHERIDAN, OCt. 4, 1871.
Mr. Wn. A. Barnard, Esq:
I received the enclosed affidavit and returned to John A.
Markle, and he signed it without any hesitation whatever, and
if you give me my claim please let me know soon as you can
write, and please do not forget to write me, for whether you do
or not I shall keep right on at work on it, and I will soon fix
this thing all right through course of law if I can not get it
without.
Yours truly,
HENRY DIMON.
York, Mich.
Everybody says that I am foolish for going to so much
expense, for they say that I can hold it in spite of every thing.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1443
[EXHIBIT UU.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  I
Mecosta County.      Sheridan T'p, Feb. the 22d, 1872.
We, the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say that
we are citizens of the township of Sheridan, in which the following described land is situated, to wit: the S. I of N. E. i of
Sec. 4, T. 15 N., R. 7 W., and that Henry Dimon, who obtained
license No. 4854 for said description, has not abandoned the
same, and has complied with the terms of said license, and settled upon the land described therein as required by law; also
that he has improved the same by chopping about seven acres
and clearing nearly three acres of the seven, and raised crops
thereon during the four years past, and by building a house
thereon, which he occupies as his home.
HENRY DIMON,
ZACHARIAH ONERLA,
ABRAHAM N. REID,
JACOB ISANHART,             WILLIAM  McCOMBS.
Justice of the Peace.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  SS.
Mfecosta County. 
I, Charlie Gay, clerk of said county, and clerk of the circuit Court for the county of Mecosta, do hereby certify, that
Jacob R, Isanhart, whose name is subscribed to the certificate
or proof of acknowledgment of the annexed instrnment, and
therein written, was, at the time of taking such proof or acknowledgment, a justice of the peace in and for said county,
duly qualified and duly authorized to take the same; and further, that I am well acquainted with his handwriting and verily believe that the signature to the said certificate or proof of
acknowledgment is genuine.  I further certify that said instrument is executed and acknowledged according to the laws
of this State.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
[ L. s.]   and affixed the seal of said county, at the city of
Big Rapids, this 11th day of March, A. D, 1872.
CHARLIE GAY, Clerk.
By M. W. BARROWS, Deputy.




1444     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
[EX. uu.]
EAST SAGINAW, NOV. 7, 1871.
W. A. Barnard, Esq., Dep. Conmr, Lansing, Mich.:
SIR:-In relation to Henry Dimon's claim on the S. ~ N.
E. ~, Sec. 4, T. 15 N., 7 West. His home is on the N. I S. W. 4
of Sec. 4, a government homestead. And that there was up to
the time I filed proof, no improvement on the same. He has
since underbrushed about one acre, and has some sort of crop.
There is a log pen, 8x10 and 6 feet high, which until this
season has had neither door or roof; and where his crop was
raised last winter, there was a crop of second-growth of soft
maple and poplar so large that it would have taken at least
four years to have grown there; and that which they claim is a
clearing, would be called by a farmer a windfall burnt over
some.
These are the facts in the case. He has never lived on the
land according to law. He has a fair improvement on the N.
i S. W. ~, Sec. 4, where himself and family has always resided,
and where he claimed to own now, since he has lived in this
town. Until further, I remain
Yours respectfully,
W. C. BUSI.
[EXHIBIT UU.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE LAND OFFICE, )
Lansing, October 13, 1871.  i
H. C. Ripley, Esq., E. Saginaw, M. 
DEAR SIR-It appears, as the proofs come in, that the S. 2
of N. E. i, Sec. 4, 15 N., 7 W., patented to Emma A. Ripley,
Jan. 18, 1871, on proof of abandonment by W. C. Bush, has
been occupied and improved by Henry Dimon, since the date
of his license (March 2, 1867). I enclose a copy of an affidavit on file here, from  John A. Markle, Supervisor, and have
several letters here on file from Dimon, in which he claims to
have complied in every with the terms of his license, and that
the proof of abandonment by Bush is illegal. If so, the land




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1445
should be restored to Dimon, as he still occupies the land.
Please call Bush attention to the proof, so that the matter
can be arranged in some manner the next time you come to
Lansing.
Yours truly,
W. A. BARNARD,
Dep. Uonm'r.
[EXHIBIT uIT.]
[Copy.]
John H. Markle, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That
he is supervisor of the township of Sheridan, in which the
following described lands are situated, to wit: The S. i of N.
E. i, Sec. 4, T. 15 N., of R. 7 W., and that Henry Dimon, who
obtained License No. 4854, for said description, has not abandoned the same, and has worked on the same for the past three
years and built a house before that time; it looks pretty old;
and now occupies the same for his home. He has about three
acres cleared and about four acres cut down, making in all
about seven acres, and a crop this year. His neighbors tell
me that he has had a crop on the place every year since he
took the land. This can be proved by good witnesses. His
neighbors also tell me that he has fulfilled to the very letter of
the law, and I have no doubt of that statement.
JOHN H. MARKLE.
Dated this 15th day of September, A. D. 1871.
ALLEN E. CLEMENT,
Justice of the Peace.
[EXHIBIT UU.]
APPLICATION FOR SETTLER'S LICENSE, UNDER THE ACT OF 1861.
To the Commissioner of the State Land Office of the State of Michigan:
The application of Henry Dimon, of Leonard, in the county
of Mecosta, in said State, respectfully shows that he is twentyone years old; that he is at the time of making this present application, actually and in good faith, a resident of
Leonard, in said county; that he is not the owner, in law or




1446     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
in equity, and has no legal or equitable claim to the title or
right of possession of forty acres of land, situated in any State
or Territory of the United States; that he intends to reside in
this State, and to settle upon, and actually and personally
to occupy, cultivate, and improve the following described tract
of land, being parcel of the " Swamp Lands," belonging to the
State of Michigan, situated and lying in the township of
Leonard, in the county of Mecosta, in said State, described in
the public surveys made under the authority of the United
States, as the S. i of N. E. fr. i section 4 in T. 15 N. of R. 7
W., containing 80 acres. He further shows that he has not
heretofore, upon the application of himself, or of any person in
his behalf, or for his benefit, directly or indirectly, obtained
any license under the act hereinafter mentioned; and that he
makes this application for the purpose of obtaining title to
said tract under the act hereinafter mentioned.
And the said Henry Dimon presents to the Honorable
the Commissioner of the State Land Office, this his application for a license to enter and settle upon, occupy, drain, and
improve the above described tract or parcel of swamp land
according to the provisions of the act of the State of Michigan,
entitled " An act to amend an act entitled' An act to provide
for the settlement and drainage of swamp lands by actual settlers,' being act number two hundred and twenty-nine of the
session laws of eighteen hundred and fifty-nine," approved
March 7th, 1866. And the said applicant, for himself, his
heirs, executors, and administrators, hereby agrees, to and
with the State of Michigan, to observe and be bound by all
and singular the provisions of said act, and of any other
statute of the State, relating to said tract of land, not impairing his rights under said act, and faithfully to abide by, keep,
and perform, and be subject to all the terms and conditions
of the license which may be obtained upon this, his application
HENRY DIMON.
Witness: C. E. SHEPARD.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1447
STATE OF MICHIGAN, 
County of Montcalm. 
Henry Dimon, the person named in the foregoing application, to me well known to be the person therein named,
being duly sworn by me, deposes and says that he has heard
the above application, by him subscribed, read, and well knows
the contents thereof, and that the facts therein stated are, to
his own personal knowledge, true.
Subscribed and sworn before me this 27th day of February,
1867.
C. E. SHEPARD,
Notary Pubtic for said County.
Filed as follows:
"Application for Settler's License, under the act of 1861.
No. 4854.  Name: Henry Dimon.  Date: March 2d, 1867.
Description: S. I N. E. fl I sec. 4, T. 15 N., R. 7 W. When
license issued: March 2d, 1867.
"Please direct Henry Dimon's license to Stanton, Montcalm Co., Mich., and much oblige,'; Respectfully yours,
"C. E. SHEPARD."
[EXHIBIT UU.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, SS
County of Mecosta, 
Henry Dimon, of Big Rapids, in the county of Mecosta,
being duly sworn, doth depose and say that he is the identical
person named in Swamp Land License numbered 4854, issued
by virtue of act 108, approved March 7th, 1861; that he is
an actual resident upon, and in the possession and occupancy
of the S. i of N. E fr. 1 of Section 4, in township 15 N., R.
7 W., being the land described in said License, No. 4854, and
has made the following improvements thereon, to wit: That
he has built a log house and chopped one acre.
HENRY DIMON.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 20th day of May,
A. D. 1867.
E. 0. ROSE,
Notary Public.




1448     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
STATE OF MICHIGAN 1
County of Mecosta, s s
I, -, supervisor of the township of Leonard, county of
Mecosta, do hereby certify that I am  acquainted with the
above-named settler, Henry Dimon, and the land described
in the above affidavit, and that the said Henry Dimon is an
actual resident on said land, and is in the possession and occupancy thereof.
Witness my hand, at the township of Big Rapids, county of
Mecosta, this 20th day of May, A. D. 1867.
F. H. TODD,
Supervisor of said Township.
Filed as follows: "4854.  Henry Dimon.  Filed May
24, 1867."
Mr. Waterbury-Mr. President, I would like to correct an
answer that I made when I was upon the stand before. The
question was asked me if the Muskegon river was right by
this land; I was thinking of the lake at the time,-my answer
was "Yes."  The Muskegon river is not in that township at
all. My answer would be "N o." I was thinking of the lake,
and answered accordingly.
Mr. McGowan-What I wished to get at was, what water
connection existed there, then?
Mr. Waterbury-Yes, sir; that was what. I supposed; I
answered without reflection.
Mr. Manager Huston-Is not there an outlet of the lake
runs into the Muskegon?
Mr. Waterbury-Yes, sir-; but the Muskegon river proper is
not there,-it is the lake.
By Mr. McGowan: [To the witness.]
Question. What book do you hold in your hand?
Answer. The letter-book.
Q. For what year?
A. July 21st, 1871, to March 4th, 1272.
Q. State whether you find a copy of the Conley letter there




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1449
A. I find a copy of a letter directed to Charles Conley, December 21st, 1871; yes, sir.
Q. What is the date of the letter on the page preceding that?
A. The same date.
Q. The date preceding that?
A. December 20th, 1871.
Q. Now the page succeeding that letter?
A. December 21st, 1871.
Q. The next?
A. The same date.
Q. The next?
A. The same date.
Q. What is the next?
A. The same date.
Q. Look at that other letter-book. [Witness refers to book
designated.]  What book do you hold in your hand, now?
A. A bound volume of letters as received at the Land Office
in 1871.
Q. State whether you find in that book a letter written by
Theodore Day, from Detroit?
A. Yes, sir; there is one here,-several of them.
Mr. McGowan-Do the Managers wish to see the letter?  If
not, I shall ask the witness to read it in evidence.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I do not understand what bearing
it has upon the case.
Mr. McGowan-It is the Kershner matter.
[The letter-book was shown to the Managers.]
Mr. McGowan-[To the witness.]  Will you please read
that letter?
The witness read the letter, as follows:
"UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE, 
Detroit, January 26, 1871. 
"E. H. Porter, Esq:
"DEAR SIR-Please reserve for Kershner & Ramsay, of
182




1450     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
this place, for a week or ten days, if vacant, the N. E. i of the
N. W. 1 of sec. 35, T. 35 N., of R. 1 E.
"Please let me know the present status of that piece.
"Very respectfully,
"THEODORE S. DAY."
Question. Turn forward and see if you find another letter
relating to the same piece.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGowan-I offer this letter in evidence without presenting it to the Managers.  [To the witness.] Will you
please read it?
The witness read the letter, as follows:
" UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE,
Detroit, February 7th, 1871. 
"E. H. Porter, Esq.:
" DEAR SIR-Enclosed you will find fifty dollars in scrip to
pay for the N. E. i of the N. E. i of Sec. 35, T. 35 N., of range
1 E. Issue a patent to Philip Kershner and Charles S. Ramsay, and send the same to me, and oblige,
" Yours, etc.,
"THEODORE S. DAY."
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. State whether you have examined the records with
regard to the history of the S. 4 of the N. E. i of that same
section?
Answer. I have, somewhat; yes, sir.
Q. Whether you find the name of a man by the name of
Frost, in connection with it?
Mr. Manager Huston-Why don't you produce your record?
Mr. McGowan-We shall; we have sent for it.
The Witness-I could discover no such mark.
Mr. McGowan-The record?
Mr. Manager Huston-Yes.
Mr. McGowan-There are so many of the records to show
the absence of a name.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1451
Mr. Manager Huston-Produce your abstract, then. You
have got it all abstracted?
Mr. McGowan:
Question. What do you say with regard to it,-whether
you made any examination of the history of that lot of land ~
Answer. I did, somewhat; yes, sir.
Q. Did you find Mr. Frost's name in connection with it, at
all?
A. I could discover no such marks ever having been placed
on the book.
Q. You have before you the plat-book, there?
A. Yes, sir; one of them.
Q. Is the section, upon Higgins' Lake, before you?
A. Yes, sir; one section.
Q. Will you state who first entered any land on that section?
Give the number of the section and range, etc?
A. Sec. 16, T. 24 N., R. 3 W.
Q. Who first purchased any of that land?
A. N. Jerolaman.
Q. When?
A. Octobcr 23d, 1868.
Q. What kind of a purchase?
A. Cash purchase.
Q. Who entered the next piece, and when; and what kind
of a purchase?
A. I am not certain about that name. It is not my writing,
Grimes I should think,-J. A. Grimes; entered the same date,
-October 23d, 1868.
Q. What kind of a purchase?
A. Full paid,-cash.
Q. The next piece?
A. Entered by Theodore Jerolaman.
Q. What kind of a purchase, and the date?
A. March 21st, 1870. Full paid,-cash.
Q. The next?
A. Entered by Ortman & Rothschild, August 21st, 1871.




1452     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. What kind of a purchase?
A. It was a full-paid, cash purchase.
Q. The next?
A. E. G. Goddard, December 30th, 1871.
Q. What pieces?
A. Lots five and six.
Q. Do you know the men who purchased all that land, on
that section, with the exception of what Goddard got?
A. I don't know the man Grimes.
Q. Do you know the others?
A. I am acquainted with Jerolaman, somewhat.
Q. What kind of land does Jerolaman usually purchase?
A. Pine lands.
Mr. McGowan —We simply wish to identify the letters from
Mr. Preston & Co., concerning this eighty acres spoken of in
the Kershner case; then we shall be through with the witness.
If the Managers choose, they can go on with the cross-examination now.
Mr. Manager Huston —Have you got the letters here?
Mr. McGowan —We have sent for them.
Mr. Manager Huston-I have sent for a letter-book that I
would like to get before I commence the cross-examination.
Mr. McGowan-In that event, I will offer in evidence the
official oaths of the clerks in the various departments of State
here, as compiled by the Secretary of State, for the last three
years inclusive.
Mr. Manager Huston-What is the object?
Mr. McGowan-The clerks in the Land Office, Secretary of
State's office, Auditor General's office, and Treasurer's office.
The Presiding Officer-What is the object?
Mr. McGowan-To show what the practice has been with
regard to having these clerks take any oath of office. The
President and the Court will remember, that the prosecution
have offered in evidence the affidavits of Mr. Barnard and Mr.
Paddack, and the certificate of the  Secretary of State,
that there were no  other oaths filed in his office, of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1453
any clerks in the Commissioner's office, for Mr. Edmonds'
administration.  We  want to  show  what the practice
has been previous to his administration, in regard to that,that we, at least, are not out of the beaten track; and not only
so in the Land Office, but all the other offices. If there was
any strength in the point made by the prosecution, that we
had not sworn these clerks when we should, and filed their
oaths away, that we were simply following in the beaten track;
at least, that this was the practice not only in the Commissioner's office, but of the other offices, and has been for a term
of years.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I do not see any relevancy about
it, because these things are guided by statute. There is a particular statute guiding the filing of oaths by the officers in the
Commissioner's office, and another in another department, and
another in another. They are not under the same law; they
are all guided and governed by separate laws, enacted for each
particular office. Now, that they have not complied with another law bearing upon another office, will not tend to show
that they have complied with this, or that they are excused
for not complying with it. It does not tend to show anything.
You might just as well show that the sheriff of this county
had not taken the oath and filed his bond, it seems to me.
The Presiding Officer-All it might possibly show would be
a lack of intent, on the part of the respondent, to do anything
wrong.
Mr. McGowan —Mr. President, if that is the understanding
of the Honorable Managers concerning the law governing this
case, there will be some difference of opinion in regard to that.
All we ask is that this evidence be simply put upon file here.
The Presiding Officer —Is there any objection to their simply
being filed by the Secretary.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I will not object to that. I object
to their going in as evidence here.
The Presiding Officer —They will simply be filed.




1454     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. What became of that?
Answer. That is a volume of bound  letters  of 1871,
received at the State Land Office.
Q. What letter is before you?
A. A letter from David Preston and Co., dated Feb. 11,
1871.
Mr. McGowan-We offer this letter in evidence.
[The following is a copy of the letter:]
[EXHIBIT ww.]
BANKING HOUSE OF D. PRESTON & Co.,
CORNER WOODWARD AVE. AND LARNED ST.,
Detroit, Feb. 11, 1871.
Hon. E. H. Porter, Dep. Corn. S. L. 0.:
DEAR SIR: Please locate in the name of Philip Kershner,
of Detroit, the S. i of N. E. I of Sec. 35, T. 35 N., R. I E., and
charge our account, and send me the patent.
Yours truly,
DAVID PRESTON & CO.
Question. State whether that was patented to him in accordance with his request.
Answer. It was.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Re-cross examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. When was that letter received from Mr. Preston?
Has it got the stamp on it?
Answer. No, sir; there was no official stamp in the office at
that time.
Q. You cannot tell when it was received?
A. Not the date; no, sir. I can tell when the patent was
made.
Q. Look in the letter-book and find the answer to Day's
first letter, written January 26th, 1871.
A. [Refers to book.]  I find no copy of the letter directed




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1455
to Theodore S. Day, between the dates January 26th and February 1st.
Q. Look and see if you find any copies of the letters in
reply to Day's of February 27th, 1871.
A. I do not.
Q. You do not find any answer to either of them?
A. I do not.
Q. Was it a rule of the office to copy letters at that time?
A. Not of the nature of Mr. Day's letter.
Q. It was not the rule?
A. No, sir; at least it was not the habit.
Q. What was the peculiarity about Day's letter that the
answer should not be copied in the letter-book?
A. It was simply an inquiry which the records would show
at any time. You could infer what the answer naturally
would be without looking at any copy.
Q. Do you say there are no letters copied in that letterbook that are answers to inquiries?
A. I presume there are some; once in a while one.
Q. Do they not frequently occur there?
A. Well, yes, there is quite a good many of them; I have
not looked them over to see what the nature of the letters are
that are written,-they may be inquiries and they may not.
I will not say what they are. There are a good many copies.
Q. But you do not find either of those?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have been chief clerk since May 1st, 1869?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have been your duties?
A. I have made certificates of purchase, principally; attended to the "license department;" the issuing of licenses;
issuing of patents; issuing of certificates of purchase entitling licensees to patents on their lands.
Q. Look upon this record and turn to the piece of land of
Bouck's.  [Handing witness the record of licensed lands.]




1456     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
I refer to the piece in Gratiot county, sold to 0. B. Clarke,
I do not remember the date now.
A. I find the record.
Q. What is the number of the license?
A. 4611.
Q. What is th. description of the land?
A. The S. ~ of the S. E. ~, Section 32, T. 10 N., 1 W.
Q. Is there any writing, in pencil, on the first page?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you read the pencil writing?
A. As pertains to this license?
Q. Read it.
A. "Abandonment filed by O. B. Clarke, Oct. 2d, 1871.'
Q. Whose handwriting is that?
A. I am not sure whose it is.
Q. You are acquainted with Captain Edmonds' handwriting?
A. I am, somewhat.
Q. What do you say about that being his handwriting?
A. Well, I should say it resembled it, but, at the same time,
I could not swear that it is his handwriting, or that it was
not.
Q. Is it not your opinion that it is his handwriting?
A. I should say it looked very much like if.
Q. You are acquainted with his handwriting.  I want your
opinion as to whether it is his or not.
A. My opinion would be, it was his handwriting, from a
certain point I see.
Q. Do you when that entry was made?
A. It is dated April 2, 1871; that is all I know about it.
Q. Is that the time the land was sold?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Do you know who purchased the proof of abandonment
of that piece of land?
A. I do not remember now.
Q. Do you not remember that Clarke and Van Dunham




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT                  1457
went up to Gratiot county and brought those proof  and
presented them to the Commissioner?
A. I did not know anything about it. From the evidence, I
see that they went themselves to look at it,-that is all I know
about it. What I knew then and now are two different things.
Q. Have you got any order-books here,-orders for reserved
lands?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you produce some orders that you referred to in your
testimony, in which you said the instructions were, that no
orders should be received, except they provided for the patenting of land upon the maturity of the scrip?
A. You mean the whole class of orders?
Q. You say you had instructions to receive no orders to
reserve lands, except the order has in it a provision that the
land should be patented upon the maturity of the scrip?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, have you got any such orders in the office?
A. I presume there are.
Q. Do you know there are any such?
A. I have not charge of that business.
Q. Have you ever seen any of that kind?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. I could not tell you an instance, but my memory is that
I have seen them.
Q. You have seen the application that Hall made last November, to reserve Obed Smith's land?
A. I do not remember that I ever saw it in the world.
Q. You saw the application of Ripley, did you not?
A. I do not know whether I have ever read it over; I have
seen it.
Q. Do you not remember when I read that application over
in your presence in the office the other evening?
A. I guess I do, come to think of it.
183




1458     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was there any provision in that requiring that this land
should be patented, if res rved.
A. I think not; the order ran to no one but himself.
Q. Then I understand you that a party can reserve for hLimself without having this provision?
A. On his own contract he can.
Q. I understand you that this provision that you speak of
with regard to which Edmonds gave you instructions, applies
to contractors asking to have lands reserved to some third
party?
A. When he gives the order to another party, to allow them
to reserveland, giving the second or third party the benefit of
some particular land on their contract, the order must specify
that the patents must go with the reservations.
Q. What force is there in the party that draws the order,
stating that the patents are to go with the reservations? Is
not that entirely with the Commissioner?
A. The object, as I understand it, was to avoid large
amounts of reservations going on the books, and nothing to
warrant us to issue the patents to any one other than the
original contractors.
Q. When were these instructions given you?
A. I think they were along last fall, sometime. I could not
state.
Q. Did that apply to this general order that Hewitt had?
A. I think that order had not been received before these
orders were promulgated.
Q. Then you do not know of any orders of that kind having
been received since?
A. I say, I think I do,-I am quite positive I have seen
them.
Q. You cannot tell any particulars?
A. I could not designate any particular order.
Q. Would that apply to a case where a party sells his scrip?
Suppose a contractor sells a thousand dollars' worth of unmatured scrip?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1459
A. Yes, sir, it would apply in that case. He would have.the
privilege of reserving the lands on the order, and holding
them out of market until it should mature; and, on maturity,
he would be entitled to patents on that order.
Q. I understand that he would be entitled to patents; but
where unmatared scrip is sold in that way, do you require that
the proviso should be put into the order that you refer to?
A. We do now.
Q. Will you look upon that book which you have, of the
record of licensed land,-a few pages,-and see what proportion of licensed land the three months' proof were filed?
A. I should say half of them, probably,-maybe more, maybe less,-that the three months' proof had been filed:
Q. Will you look over a few pages and see how frequently
patents have been issued to the licensee where the first proofs
have not been filed?
A. I have no record that I can tell.
Q. But from what little examination you have made, you
should say that in one-half of the cases of licensed land, the
three months' proof were never filed?
A. Perhaps half,-maybe more or less.
Q. How many licenses have been issued in all?
A. 6,358 have been issued, or thereabouts.
Q. Can you tell me the first case where a piece of licensed
land was sold without the proof of abandonment or nonsettlement?
A. I could not.
Q. When did you have your first knowledge in regard to
sales of that kind?
A. I think it was last summer or fall, sometime.
Q. Was it not in October?
A. I could not say positively when it was. It was last year,
sometime.
Q. What is your best recollection about the time?
A. My recollection is that it was last year, sometime.




1460     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Was not the sale the 19th of October, of the Bouch land
in Shiawassee county, the first one that you had any knowledge
of?
A. I could not say that it was.
Q. What other one did you have knowledge of?
A. I could not state an instance.
Q. Did you ever have any knowledge of any case except
Bouch, Woolover, and Conley?
A. Yes, sir, they were frequently sold.
Q' Where they were sold without the proof of abandonment?
A. I sold a piece this morning.
Q. I am speaking of when you first commenced?
A. I have no recollection about it,-I could not designate
the price.
Q. Were not those the first you had any knowledge of?
A. No. I would not say; I do not know anything about it.
Q. Prior to these sales, was it not the practice in the office
to require proof of non-settlement or abandonment, before you
sold licensed land?
A. That was the former rule.
Without any reference to whether three months' proof was
filed, or not?
A. That used to be the practice.
Q. That was the rule?
A. Some sort of proof of abandonment or non-settlement.
Q. You required the same proof where the three months'
proof had been filed, as where it had not been filed?
A. If we found, by looking on this book, that the licensee
had filed his three months' proof, we certainly would not apply.
Q. That is not the question, —was there any difference in the
rule, whether the three months' proof had been filed, or had
not been filed?
A. There was no difference.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1461
RE-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. You say, at the time of Theodore Days letter, it
was not the practice to copy such letters as would answer that?
Answer. It was not.
Q. State what the practice of the office now is.
A. Copy every letter.
Q. What are the instructions of the Commissioner with regard to copying letters now?
A. Copy all letters.
Q. State whether patents were issued to licensee men, where
they did not file their three months' proof,-suppose they came
around at the end of three or four years, and no one had applied for their land,-they came for their patents?
A. My own idea is that there have been cases where patents
have been issued, where three months' proof has never been
filed, on the proof of settlement.
Q. What is the fact with regard to putting the land in the
market, now, immediately on the expiration of three months?
A. We do not sell them until about six months from the
date of license.
Q. Just three additional months?
A. We calculate to give them that length of time.
Q. Who takes the letters to the postoffice from the Land
Office?
A. The janitor.
RE-CROSS-EXAMIN1ATION OF 3f. O. ROBINSON.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. I want to call your attention to a letter of Mr.
Goddard, inclosing a draft of $60, for lots five and six, upon
section 16, up north of here, the one referred to. I will ask
you where you found that letter?
Answer. I never found it. I do not know anything about
it.




1462      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Do you know why it was not opened with the other letters for 1871?
A. I do not know anything about it.
Q. Did you not testify that there was a rule in the office not
to tie up the letters received at the office, with reference to
anything else except the business of the office?
A. I said it was discretionary with the party receiving them.
Q. It is discretionary, then, with the Deputy Commissioner,
or with any of the clerks receiving letters in the office, with
regard to the business of the office, to have the letters filed
and finally opened or not, as they choose?
A. I think I testified that I used that discretion, but could
not testify whether it was the fact with the other clerks or
not. That is what I will testify now, whether I testified so, or
not.
Q. Now, in that letter it states that there are five dollars
inclosed for the Commissioner or Deputy,-I am not certain
which it is,-directed to buy him a cigar?
A. You said so.
Q. I say that is the fact; the letter has been introduced in
evidence. I would not say it if it was not so. That was in
addition to the amount of money necessary to purchase the
land. Is it the rule where letters of that kind are received,
inclosing remittances in addition to the amount necessary to
pay on the land, to not put them with the office files?
A. I do not know what the rule is.
Q. Do you do that way when you receive that kind of
letters?
Mr. McGowan-It is rather an unfair assumption,-that is
the assumption that he received them. It is not in evidenee
that he has received such letters.
Mr. Manager Huston-He can say, I think I have got one
instance where he received two or three dollars more than was
necessary to pay interest, and it is subject to his order to-day.
Question. Well, did you put that letter with the other
letters?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1463
Answer. I think it is.
Q. You find that, will you, so that we can have it this
afternoon?
A. I will if I can.
Q. Now, I want to ask you if that is what you understand
by the rule pertaining to other matters, where remittances
in the way of gratuities are inclosed?
A. I think there is no rule about it.
Q. Well, I ask you whether that is what you mean by the
letters referring to other matters,-that they need not be filed
with the letters of the office?
A. I think there has never been anything said about it. I
said I always used my own discretion about filing those letters ~
and with regard to other clerks, Deputies, I couldn't say.
Q. You do not know what Mr. Barnard's rule is?
A, No; I do not know auything about it.
Q. You remember when Col. Grosvenor was in the office
looking for that Goddard letter, do you not, one morning here,
before the Court opened?
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. And that it could not be found?
A. I don't know anything about it. I requested Mr. Griswold
to look for it; I was very busy with something else; I didn't
look for it.
Q. Did you understand that they were unable to find it, that
time?
A. I noticed by the testimony that they were not able to.
Q. Did you not understand it there in the office?
A. I think I did not know anything about it.
Q. Do you know who found that letter?
A. I do not know anything about it.
Q. Nor where it was found?
A. Don't know anything about it.
Q. You say that the letter that you received to pay interest
inclosed more than was necessary, and that you held the
money subject to the order of the party?




1464     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. I have been trying to think whether it was in 1869 or
1870, but it was a good while ago.
Q. You sent the receipt-book, didn't you, to Parker?
A. I notified him.
Q. Why did you not inclose the money?
A. I might, as I had sent him the exact amount to send, and
he sent me two or three dollars more. I just simply remember
the instance, that he wrote to me for the amount of interest
due on lands. I gave him the exact amount. I think he sent a
dollar or two more; I would not say whether it was a dollar, or
tVwo dollars. It was some time ago, I think in 1869 or 1870.
Q. Why did you not return the balance?
A. I did not know what he sent it for.
Q. You used the money, did you not, or pocketed it?
A. Oh, it was in my account.
Q. Have you got that money yet?
A. I have not got that identical money that I received.
Q. Did you put it away for him?
A. No, sir; put it in my pocket,-but he can have it at any
time.
Q. Did you credit it to him on the books?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you notify him that he could draw upon you for the
amount?
A. I did.
RE-EXAMINATION OF M31.. OBINSON.
Re-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Do you know of certain swamp-lands being put
upon the market that are called graduated swamp-land scrip'?
Answer. I do.
Q. When was the first sale under that act?
A. The first sale was January 6, 1870.
Q. What were the lands sold for per acre at that time?
A. They were offered at eight dollars an acre.
Q. And what was the price graduated down to?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1465
A. The 6th of July in 1870 they would be six dollars an
acre.
Mr. Manager Huston-That is the statute.
Question. And were they offered for sale at that time?
Mr. McGowan-That statute gave discretion of time of sale
to the Commissioner.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor —He is simply repeating the language of the statute.
Question. The next sale was July 6th?
Answer. Six months from the date of the first sale.
Q. The time would graduate six months after reducing the
price of the land, according to law?
A. Yes.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF M. O. ROBINSON.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Manager -Iuston:
Question. Won't the books show when that sale was?
Answer. We have books that will show.
Q. You do not pretend to fix the day of the sale, do you?
A. I do.
Q. It was six months after what time, then?
A. Six months after the 6th day of January, 1870.
Q. The sale was six months after January?
A. January 6th, 1870.
Q. I wish yOll would look now and see whether you are correct; I think you are in error about that.
A. I can bring the books to show you.
Q. Well.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM HUMPHREY.
William Humphrey, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. General Humphrey, you are the Auditor Generrl?
Answer. I am.
184




1466     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. How long have you acted in that capacity?
A. Since January 1st, 1867.
Q. The various accounts of the State are kept in your office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask you to make a statement to the Court, generally, of
the nature of what is called scrip; its history, and whatever
may pertain to it, necessary for the explanation?
A. Where shall I commence with the explanation?
Q. I wish you would begin with the contracts.
A. The contracts are let by the local commissioners, and
approved by the -Swamp Land State Road Commissioner,-contracts for completing the State swamp land roads. After the
contract is made, and the contractor commences work, the
business comes under the control of the Board of Control of
State Swamp Land Roads. The work, and the matter pertaining to the contract, gets before the Board under what are
termed acceptances. The first acceptance, "A," is the acceptance by the local commissioner, under a form adopted by the
Board at a meeting held January 31st, 1867. Before that time,
there was no form of this kind, the work was done under the
management of a commissioner, or rather under the management of the Governor, or rather it was July 31st-I think I
stated January 31st-that this form  was adopted. It was
adopted July 31st, 1867.
Q. Have you the form?
A. I have the form adopted by the Board at that time. The
Board also at the same time adopted a form of certificate of
satisfaction, that was to be filed with the Auditor General as
the voucher on which he was to draw the swamp-land warrant.
The first voucher and first form is an acceptance by the local
commissioner. This form, when accepted by the local commissioner, was passed over to the General Commissioner, and
was a notification for him to appear and examine the road as
required by law. On his examination he made a certificate
under the form that I have marked here as "B," —the first




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1467
form I have marked "A"; his certificate is to the Auditor
General of the completion of a certain number of miles
of road under a certain  contract by a certain  party,
giving the name of the contractor, and is signed-now by
the  Board of Swamp Land State  Road  Commissioners.
Prior to 1871, was signed by the General Commissioner. Both
of these papers go before the Board of Control of State
Swamp Land Roads, and they are approved or disapproved by
the Board, as the Board sees fit. The form "A,"-the acceptance by the local commissioner,-is filed in the office of the
Commissioner of State Swamp Land Roads. Form " B"-the
certificate of satisfaction, as it is termed in the law-passes
into the hands of the contractor, after being approved by the
Board, and this paper-form  " B"-is brought by the contractor, to the Auditor General, and on this paper, properly approved, the Auditor General is required to draw his warrant.
Q. Have you the form of warrant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you lettered it or marked it?
A. I have marked it "C."
Q. "C?"
A. "C."  The form marked "C" is a warrant, termed a
swamp land warrant, and is drawn payable in swamp land,payable to the contractor so many dollars in swamp land, in
the Upper or Lower Peninsula, as the case may be,-signed
by the Auditor General, and this paper is passed in to the
State Treasurer. This warrant never goes out of the hands of
the State officers; goes directly into the hands of the State
Treasurer. On this warrant there is also a stub that is retained
in the Auditor General's office. The stub is marked"D."
When that paper passes into the State Treasurer's office, the
State Treasurer gives a receipt for the amount,-I have it here,
-marked " E."  This receipt is printed on the page of a book
that is kept in the Land Commissioner's office. The receipt is
signed by the Treasurer and entered on his books, and also




1468     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
countersigned by the Auditor General and entered on his
books; and below the receipt, on the same page of the book,
is a blank on which the lands entered under the receipt are
entered. These papers are numbered. The form "B" is the
voucher upon which the Auditor General draws his warant.
That is numbered also. Form " C" (the warrant) is numbered,
taking the same number of the form " B." The receipt is also
numbered, taking the same number of the other papers, so
that the refference from one to the other is complete.
The Presiding Officer-It is now twelve o'clock. The Senate
setting as a Court of Impeachment will take a recess until
two o'clock.
Friday, P. M., May 17, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Mr. McGowan-Before we proceed to further examine the
witness, I wish to call attention to page 373 of the Impeachment Proceedings,-the right hand column, 17th line from the
top. The record has done great injustice to a man, by bringing his name in a connection, that it could not possibly have
been brought. In the proof the question was asked as to who
was present in the room  with a certain party,-the question
was asked of Van Dunham, and in answer to the question, it
is made to appear that the Commissioner, Mr. Clark, and Mr.
Robinson was present. Now the last name should be " Johnson," instead of " Rbinson," and that was the statement of
the witness.
The Presiding Officer-The reporter will make the correction.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1469
EXAMINATION OF WM. HUMPHREY, RESUMED.
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You were explaining the matter of scrip. If you
know at what point you discontinued your testimony, please
begin from that place?
Answer. I think I recollect. I think I was stating that
the numbers on the "certificate of satisfaction," as approved
by the Board of Control, the number on the swamp land
warrant, and the number of the Treasurer's receipt corresponded. I will also add that this book on which these receipts
are entered is paged. That is the first book or first volume in
which these receipts were opened. On the first page was
page one, and that the several books opened since have
been paged consecutively with the first volume, in order
that the numbers of the warrants might be consecutive
and the number of receipt and the number of warrant correspond. I have here the last page of the 4th volume-it is No.
1169. To show the connection between the papers, I have
numbered the several papers as they would be in the transaction. The page is 1169; the receipt is No. 1169; the certificate of satisfaction is numbered 1169, and the warrant is
numbered 1169, and also the stub of the warrant; so that
there can be no mistake in referring to the papers, or
from  one paper to another.  The certificate of satisfaction is a paper approved by the Board of Control, that
goes into the hands of the party in whose favor it is drawn,the contractor or his assignee. As soon as approved by the
Board of Control, it becomes the property of the assignee;
it passes into his hands. When he sees fit, he brings it into the
Auditor General's office, and asks for a warrant to be drawn
for the amount of the certificate. A warrant is drawn and
passed to the State Treasurer. It never goes out of the hands
of the State officers,-the warrant does not. It is passed to
the State Treasurer; hr enters it on his book, under the head
of " warrants." This would be warrant 1169, and passes the




1470     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONIDS.
amount of the credit on his warrant-book, or the book on
which he keeps the amount of the warrant. He. would also
enter it in the swamp land. At the time this certificate of
satisfaction goes into the hands of the Auditor General, it is
entered up on his book, the amount charged against the proper
road. The only account kept there, is with the road, and
the voucher for the charge referred to placed on file.
After the warrant is entered by the Treasurer, he makes
a receipt; the receipt is kept on  the book that then
passes into the State Land Office, and is kept there.  He
acknowledges the receipt on the part of the State, and the
number of dollars payable in swamp land, in the Lower
Peninsula, or in the Upper Peninsula, or in some counties, as
the law may designate, under which the contract is made.
This receipt is signed by the State Treasurer, and countersigned by the Auditor General. It passes into the Land Office,
and this receipt is what is termed swamp-land scrip. This
receipt never goes into the hands of outside parties; it remains
in the hands of the Land Commissioner. Against this receipt,
outside parties draw orders in any amount they see fit.
The Presiding Officer-You mean it goes into the hands of
the Commissioner of the Land Office.
The Witness-This book, containing these receipts, goes into
the hands of the Commissioner of the State Land Office, and it
shows that the State is indebted to these parties in the amount
named. The State has received pay for the land to the amount
mentioned in the receipt.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor [To the witness.]-Allow me to look
at that last one.
The Witness-I did not have it before; I would like to leave
now. It is marked'" F."
Question. When this receipt of the Treasurer, which goes
in the hands of the Land Commissioner, is finally canceled, is
it always a fact that the road is then built; for the State has its
pay for the land or money that is indicated in that receipt?




PROCEEDINGS OF.THE COURT.                 1471
Answer. Yes, sir; the State had its pay by the amount of
road constructed.
Q. You say that these acceptances, when made out, are
handed over to the contractors.
A. As a matter of fact, I think they are sometimes passed
over to them, and sometimes handed to the clerk in Swamp
Land Road Commissioner's office, and he hands it to the Auditor General's office for the warrant;-sometimes one way and
sometimes the other.
Q. That passes into the hands of the contractor, and he is
not-limited in the time he may carry it or hold it in his discretion?
A. Hold it in his discretion, as far as I know.
Q. Now, until he returns that acceptance, can he have any
warrant for the land?
A. No, sir. No warrant, except upon this acceptance, than
his voucher, made by law, upon which this is drawn.
Q. The contract may be completed, the job finished, and
the contractor carrying in his pocket these acceptances?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And yet there can be no patents issued for the land?
A. Lands cannot be drawn until they are paid for, and
cannot be paid for until the warrant is drawn.
Q. Then in this way lands might be reserved a long time,
without being patented up on these contracts, if the contractor
got the patent and he carried it about without presenting it to
the Auditor General's for warrant?
A. I should say so. I have no special knowledge on that
point.
Q. I find that on page 490 of the proceedings of yesterday,
in the testimony, in the exhibits, that certain documents that
are put in there are called warrants. Will you state whether
there are any warrants filed in the Commissioner's office?
A. There could not.be.
Q. Then, if that testimony relates to the files in the Com



1472     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
missioner's' Office, what is there, then, that corresponds with
the warrants in the other office.
A. These receipts of the form of Exhibit E correspond in
number with the number of warrants drawn; and referring to a
warrant by numbers, would also refer to this receipt, and all
the papers connected with the issuing of the warrants.
Q. Do you know whether this book in the Commissioner's
office on which these receipts are printed and signed-whether
they, in that office, call it the warrant-book or not?
A. I do not.
Q. Was there ever, during your administration, any contracts for road building or other things on which the State
was to pay land, canceled?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. At different times.
Q. When were the first ones canceled, and what was there
about the cancelation of those?
A. I suppose it is in order with reference to the printed proceedings of the Board?
Q. Anything to refresh your memory.
A. I could not state, except the first, without looking very
carefully through this report; but I find at the meeting in
April, 1868, there was a general resolution introduced with
regard to the matter.
Q. Providing for what?
A. Shall I read the resolution? It is as short as my answer
would be: " Resolved, that all contracts, that by their terms
expire on and before December 31, 1867, be canceled, to take
effect July 1, 1868, unless evidence be furnished this Board, by
that time, that the work is being performed in accordance with
the late circular of the Swamp Land State Road Commissioner;
and that notice of this action be given to the contractors by
the Swamp Land State Road Commissioner."  The report
shows that that resolution was adopted.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1473
Q. And whether under the provision of that resolution, any
contracts were canceled, and if so, when, and about how many?
A. I  could  not tell you  how  many,  as at that
time these matters were brought to light only by considerable examination, and probably the whole matter has
not come to the surface yet; but I find, under July 8, on one
road,-Lexington and Flint River State road,-there were 17
contracts canceled; also, on the Midland and Au Sable State
road there were three contracts canceled; on the Muskegon
and Cedar Springs State road, one contract; Cass River
and Bay City State road, one contract; Sanilac and Bay
State road, four contracts; Almont and Cass River State
road, one contract;  Clio and Chesaning State road, two
contracts; Sanilac and Tuscola State road, one contract; Tuscola and Saginaw Bay State road, two contracts. So many
were canceled at one meeting. I found too, in turning over
here very hurriedly, at the meeting on the 9th day of July,
1868, there was canceled on the Akron ditch, built by appropriation of swamp lands,-also under the control of the Board,
-seven contracts. I have not looked any further for special
matters.
Q. On these contracts that were canceled at these various
times, had the lands been reserved in the Commissioner's
office, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, on a part of the contracts, there had
lands reserved; because the reservation was a part of the three
that were canceled. In other cases I have no personal knowledge of the matter.
Q. Will you explain what you mean by unmatured scrip?
A. Under the law, when a party takes a contract to build a
swamp land road, as soon as his contract is accepted and
placed on file, he has also to reserve lands to the full value of
his contract. Orders against lands reserved by him are called
unmatured scrip. This unmatured scrip has no value, except
that the contract be completed.
185




1474     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Has no value  o buy land with, you mean.
Answer. Has no value.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. What is that statement you hold in your hand?
Answer. It is a statement, giving an abstract of the names
and the amount paid to clerks in the Land Office, each, in the
year 1870, as shown by the vouchers on file in the Auditor
General's office.
Q. What is the other one?
A. The other one is a statement, or rather a list of names'
of clerks employed in the State Land Office during the year
1869, 1871, and for the first four months of 1872, with the
satement of the amount paid the several clerks for each
month.
Q. Were those lists and statements made up from the records
of your office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are correct?
A. They are correct, except that they are not cop;es. I
would like to make an explanation. I wish to state in what
manner. Until October, 1871, the pay account of each clerk
was made up on a separate voucher, and paid in the same
manner that any other claim against the State would be. At
that time I drew a form for a pay-roll in the form in which
these papers are made; and so far as they show the statements
with regard to the clerks and amounts paid since October,
1871, they are copies. So far as they show the names of the
clerks and the amount paid prior to that time, they are lists,
merely giving the names of the clerks, the grade, the amount
paid each month; they are not copies.
Mr. McGowan-I propose to offer them in evidence.
They are offered in evidence, and marked "Exhibit YY."




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1475
[EXHIBIT YY.]
STATE OF MICHIGAN, AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, 
Lansinq, May 2, 1872.
Son. Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office, Lansing,
Michigan:
SIR-In reply to your communication  of this date, I have
the honor to transmit herewith  an abstract, giving the names,
grade, and the amount paid clerks in the State Land Office for
each month in the year 1870, as shown by the vouchers on file
in this office.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. HUMPHREY,
Auditor General, Michigan.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JANUARY, 18T0.!     Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMES.            ~s        E a                  the am'ts oppo-    g
JNAM:ft.    ~                site oar respect-    F
o3          ^     ~-.          ive names.  
1. E. H. Porter... Deputy Cor. January.  $100 00 E. H. Porter-...-... $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.              83 33 H. L. Paddack-8..    3 33
3. M. 0. Robinson    Clerk.                   75 00 M. O. Robinson..    75 00
4. W. A. Barnard.5 00 W. A. r. Barnrd 75 00
5. Elias Shafer.....          "              75 00 Elias Shafer -..-..   75 00
6. M. B. Kent_.  75   M B. Kent ----  75 00
7. T. B. Jewell -..                          75 00 T. B. Jewell........   75 00
8. C. L. Knight...                         75 00 C. L. Knight........   75 00
9. Wm. Crosby -...                           75 00 Wm. Crosby -...-..   75 00
10. E. S. Porter.....                         42 00 E. S. Porter.......    42 00
11. A. S. Stimson...              7 days.    20 37 A. S. Stimson.....   20 87




1476   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE FOR THE MONTH!
OF FEBRUARY, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for 
AM       the am'ts oppo-:NA'I|ME        5lbS..                      |    t o:   site our respect-    ~
I         ive names.
1. E. H. Porter... Deputy Com. February.  $100 00 E.H. Porter.......  $100 03
i. H. L. Paddack., Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack.....    83 8
3. M. O. Robinson.       Clerk.                    75 00 M. O. Robinson....   75 00
4. T. B. Jewell...-                               75 00 T. B. Jewell.......    75 00
5. M. B. Kent....        "  75 00 M. B. Kent.........   75 00
6. William Crosby-                      i          75 00 William  Crosby..-    75 00
7. W. A. Barnard-.  75 00 W. A. Barnard-....    75 00
8. C. L. Knight,..                               75 00 C. L. Knight.....-      75 00
9. E. S. Porter -..             143 days.    42 00 E. S. Porter —-... 42 49 0)
10. Elias Shafer-..  February.    42 00
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MARCH, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for
NAMES.    o             E         ~ =      the am'ts oppo-       Xx
NAMES.   site our respect-. 
^. S..    ivenames. 
1. E. H. Porter -.- Deputy Cor.   March.    $100 00 E. H. Porter -..... $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack_- Book-keeper.  83 33 H. L. Paddack-..                           8 83 8
3. W. A. Barnard.-    Clerk..          75 00 W. A. Barnard. —--   75 00
4. M1.. Robinson.                "  75 00 M. O. Robinson.                       75 00
5. C. L. Knight...         "  75 00 C. L. Knight —.. —-    75 00
6. Elias Shafer..-         "       Feb. & Mar.  150 00 Elias Shafer —---..  150 00
7. William Crosby,         "          March.       75 00 William Crosby~.    75 00
8. T. B. Jewell..-.'         75 00 T. B. Jewell......   75 00
9. M. B. Kent --....         75 00 M. B. Kent-.....-.       75 00
10. E. S. Porter —-..  143 days.    42 00 E. S. Porter —-....   42 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1477
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF APRIL, 1870..      Rec'd Warrants for'.
NAMES.                                              the am'ts oppoNMS  0 g   site our respect- 
03     t          r -  <      ive names.         <
1. E. H. Porter..- Deputy Corn.   April.    $100 00 E. H. Porter....... $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper  83 33 H. L. Paddack...    83 33
3. M. 0. Robinson.    Clerk.                        75 00 M. O. Robinson -.  75 q0
4. Elias Shafer...-   "                       75 00 Elias Shafer...   75 00
5. C. L. Knight.. -        "                        7 5 00 C. L. Knight......   75 00
6. M. B. Kent —..-                "                  5 00 M. B. Kent-.. —-—.    75 00
7. W. A. Barnard.          "            "           75 00 W. A. Barnard-...   75 00
8. William Crosby-..          75 00 William Crosby -.-     75 00
9. T. B. Jewell-   75 00 T. B. Jewell.......    75 00
10. E. S Porter..-                   14. days.    4200 E. S. Porter —- -   42 00
10. A. S. Stimson_.          "       April 1 to 8.   20 37 A. S. Stimson..       20 87
PAYR-OLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MAY, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMES.               C:    the am'ts opposite 5
N E   our respective              s
~'S                 names.
1. E. H. Porter-... Deputy Corn.    May.          $100 00 E. H. Porter... —   $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.                     83.3 H. L. Paddack -....      83 33
8. M. 0. Robinson       Clerk.                      75 00 M. O. Robinson.. —       75 00
4. T. B. Jewell —.                                 75 00 T. B. Jewell. ---   75 00
5. C. L. Knight.. - -                               75 00 C. L. Knight.. —...   75 00
i. Elias Shafer.. - -                               75 00 Elias Shafer —.. — j  75 00
7. M. B. Kent —..                        "         75 00 M. B. Kent.. —.....   75 00
8. Wm. Crosby-...                                  75 00 Wm. Crosby —......   7500
9. W. A. Barnard.-         "  75 00 W. A. Barnard —..    75 00
10. E. S. Porter....        "         14S days.    42 00 E. L. Porter —...-   42 00




1478   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JUNE, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for 
~UAMES.'u             S            3<   the am'ts oppo-         A
site our respect-      P
Ho Fc        l< ive names..Q
1. E. H. Porter... Deputy Com.   June.    $100 00 E. H. Porter.......  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack_. Book-keeper.        8' 83  H. L. Paddack.....   83 33
3. M. O. Robinson    Clerk..         75 00 M. 0. Robinson.-.   75 00
4. Elias Shafer.....     "                      75 00 Elias Shafer. ——.   75 00
5. W.A. Barnard- -                      "4  &    75 00  W.A. Barnard —-..   75 00
6. Wm. Crosby.... ";        75 00  Wm. Crosby —.. —--   75 00
7. C. L. Knight... -                - 75 00 C. L. Knight....... 75 00
8. T. B. Jewell...                    i         75 00 T. B. Judd.....-..   75 00
9. E. S. Porter.. —     1 4  days..   42 00 E. S. Porter-......    43 00
10. A. S. Stimson._.               27 to 80 inc.  11 64
11. M. B. Kent.... -                  June.       75 00
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JULY, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for         -
NAME.                              ci        6    I  the am'ts oppo- 
Cs'  ~                          site our respect-    g
0            H E                   ive names.        < 
1. E. H. Porter.    Deputy Com.    July.    $100 00 E. H. Porter-.   $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.  83 33 H. L. Paddack —-    83 33
3. M. O. Robinson.    Clerk.                      75 00 M. O. Robinson-.-.   75 00
4. William Crosby   75 00 William Crosby -..-    75 00
5. M. B. Kent —.-       "         June & July   150 00 M. B. Kent........  150 00
6. C. L. Knight.          "  July.                75 00 C.L. Knight-.....       75 00
7. W. A. Barnard  "                               75 00 W. A. Barnard-.... 75 00
8. A. S. Stimson..                June 2  to    42 99 A. S. Stimson.....   42 99
July 12
9. E. S. Porter.. —                   July.       42 99 E. S. Porter -......   42 99
10. T. B. Jewell —..  1             to 12 inc.   29 03 T. B. Jewell —..-.-   29 03
11. Elias Shafer-...         13S  days    42 33 Elias Shafer -.....-    42 83




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1479
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF AUGUST, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for  +
NA     the am'ts oppo-        ro
N~AMES,         a0 0  site our respect-                                o
S [.9  [  ive names.
1. E. H. Porter...-Deputy Com.  August.   $100 00E. H. Porter. —.   $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack — Book-keeper.                    8.3 83 H. L. Paddack —        83 33
$. M      Robinson.    Cletk                             M.. Robinson. Cletk5 00
4. A. S. Stimson,..   75 00 A.S. Stimson —-    75 00
5. Wm. Crosby..  75 00 Wm. Crosb                  5 00
6. Elias Shafer...  75 00 Elias Shafer.  75 00
7. E. S. Porter-. —...         75 00 E. S. Porter..-... -   75 00
8. T. B. Jewell.... 5 00 T. B. Jewell...5 00
9. M. B. Kent...           *  75 00 M. B. Kent 5......'   5 00
10. C. L. Knight..-..                               5 00 C. L. Kmi Lht.....      5 700
11. G. B. Griswold..                Au.  to1   54     Geo. B. Griswold_.!  54 91
inclusivye.
12. W. A. Barnard_.'         August.       75 00 ---       ---.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE. FOR THE MONTH
OF SEPTEMBER, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for  
NME.    I  the am'ts oppo~~~~~~NAMES. ~  0        e              O |      site our respect-     1
o  I       4 ~ ive names.
1. E. H. Porter-... Deputy Corn. September.  $00 00 E. H  Porter                100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack -. —-   83 3.3
8. M. 0. Robinson       Clerk.                     75 00 M. O. Robinson..    75 00
4. Elias Shafer-...  "                             65 00 Elias Shafer....-..-    65 00
5. Geo. B. Griswold.                            75 00 Geo. B. Griswold..    75 00
6. M. B. Kent..          "             "         75 00 M. B. Kent. —-__   75 00
7. Wm. Crosby.... 75 00 Wm. Crosby.5 00
8. C. L. Knight..-.                                75 00 C. L. Knight..-          75 00
9. W. A. Barnard.-                 Aug. & Sept  150 00 W. A. Barnard. —    150 00
10. E. S. Porter —.-                 143 day.    42 00 E. S. Porter......    42 00
11. A. S Stimson...        "'       1 to 16, inc.   40 74 A. S. Stimson.....   40 74




1480   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER, 1870.
Rec'd Warrants for
WNAMES.               ^                        9       the am'ts oppoI NAMES    site our respect-    -c
B -5  9E^       ive names. 
1._ E. _.                                                    P.
1. E. H. Porter. —- Deputy Cor.  October.   $100 00 E. H. Porter.....-.- $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                      8 33 H. L. Paddack......   83 33
3. M. O. Robinson        Clerk.                     75 00 M. O. Robinson-...    75 00
4. Elias Shafer..-.-'                              7 5 00 Elias Shafer........   75 00
Z. Wm. Crosby....                                   75 00 Wm. Crosby —-....   75 00,6. Wm. A. Barnard.                       75 00 Wm. A. Barnard..    75 00
-7. E. S. Porter...  75 00 E. S. Porter......   75 00
8. M. B. Kent....   75 00 M. B. Kent........    75 00
0. C. L. Knight...-                                75 00 C. L. Knight......       75 00
-10. Geo. B. Griswold                                  5 00 Gco. B. Griswold...   75 00
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF NOVEMBER, 1870.
A MEa                                Rec'd Warrants for
iXAM^.~.  ~;.   the am'ts oppo-       =^
ENAM^^.  i'      site our respectNAMES'o      E  ive names.                            C;
1. E. H. Porter —- Deputy Com. November.  $100 00 E. H. Porter —-- - $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                     83 33 H. L. Paddack-.....  83 33
3. M. O. Robinson        Clerk                              M.. Robinson         75 00
4. Wm, Crosby-             -             -          75 00 Wm. Crosby.7. 75 00
5. M. B. Kent --'      l  75 00 M. B. Kent. —...   75 00
s. Geo. B. Griswold                                 75 00 Geo. B. Griswold..    75 00
7. C. L. Knight'                        75 00 C. L. Knight-..    7500
S. Elias Shafer-..        -                        75 00 Elias Shafer.......    75 00
9. W. A. Barnard. 75 00 W. A. Barnard                        75 00
10. E. S. Porter..                  Nov. 1- 6in    40 00 E. S. Porter.            40 00
I1. T. B. Jewell..  2130 in    25 96 T. B. Jewell. —-..-    25 96




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1481
PAY ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF DECEMBER, 18T0.
Rec'd Warrants for          ~
NAMES.''                             0 5   the am'ts oppoA~     site our respect-   1';.       E F                ive names.  ~
1. E. H. Porter.-  Deputy Corn. December. $100 00 E. II. Porter-....... $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack- Book-keeper.              83 33 H.L. Paddack —.. —  83 83
3. M. O. Robinson!   Clerk.                  75 00 M. O. Robinson --   75 00
4. T. B. Jewell.;   75 00 T.B. Jewell                            To- 75 00
5. W. A. Barnard.'                   75 00 W. A, Barnard..-  75 00
6. M. B. Kent -—..       75 00 M. B. Kent. —----  75 00
7. Elias Shafer —.                         75 00 Elias Shafer.. —---  75 00
8. G. B. Griswold-     -.                   75 00 Geo. B. Griswold_  75 00
9. Wm. Crosby-.., -      -                  75 00 Wm. Crosby-...        75 00
10. C. L. Knight —  75 00 C. L. Knight -—..-  75 00
11. A. S. Stimson___            S  days      20 00
STATE OF MICHIGAN, AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, I
Lansing May 17, 1872.
Messrs. Shipnma  and McGowan, Attorneys, Lansing, Mich. 
GENTLEMEN — In response to yours of the 15th inst, I herewith transmit lists of the names of the clerks employed in the
State Land Office during the years 1869 and 1871 and for the
first four months of 1872, with a statement of amount paid the
several clerks for each month.
Very respectfully,
WM. HUMPHREY.
186




1482   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JANUARY, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMES.     _ _ _                 6     ~        the am'ts oppo-    gu
0s    site our respect-    o
^.         ~ S^      ive names.        B
1. E. H. Porter —..- Deputy Corn, One Month. $100 0 E. H. Porter... —.. $100 00
2. D. M. Bagley..... Book-keeper.                    83 33 D. M. Bagley.. —-.    88 33
3. Wm. A. Barnard.    Clerk.             "          5 00 Wm. A. Barnard --    75 00
4. A. E. Young. —.  75 00 A. E. Young. —---    75 00
5. H. S. Boutell..,..                               5 00 H. S. Boutell. ——.     75 00
6, C. L. Knight..-                                75 00 C. L. Knight-......   75 00
7. M. O. Robinson..                                75 00 M. O. Robinson....   75 00
8. Wm. Crosby.....                 20th to 31st   20 00 Wm. Crosby-.......   20 00
9. B. Griswold..                  3  days.       8 68 G. B. Griswold-....    8 63
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF FEBRUARY, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for 
~w-NAME-u-pa.'0                               the am'ts oppoSNAMES.  E     E  site our respect-      Cs
o~~3~  t^       ^~~          ive names..Q
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Cor. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter —...... $100 00
2. D. M. Bagley... Book-keeper. Half  "          41 66 D. M. Bagley -.         41 66
8. H. L. Paddack..        "       Half  "         41 66H. L. Paddack -....   41 66
4. Wm. A. Barnard      Clerk.    One Month.   75 00 Wm. A. Barnard ---    75 00
5. A. E. Young....              "           75 00 A. E. Young --—..-   75 00
6. M. O. Robinson.                    "           75 Ou M. O. Robinson...   75 00
7. C. L. Knight....  ".                         75 00 C. L. Knight -..-...    75 00
8. William Crosby.  "                           75 00 William Crosby —.    75 00
9. Henry S. Boutell   75 00 Henry S. Boutell....   75 00
10. D. M. Bagley -.                  One day        3 12 D. M. Bagley..... 3 18
11. M. B. Kent —-.                  Four days.    11 50 M. B. Kent —.......   11 50
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1483
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MARCH, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMES.                             6.   the amounts oppo-: 
AMS.    site our respect-  o.
I.9  S^'         ive names.         S
1. E. H. Porter... Deputy Cor. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter-......  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack... Book-keeper.         "         83 8  H. L. Paddack -....    83 38
8. Wm. A. Barnard.    Clerk.             "         75 00 Wm. A. Barnard...    75 00
4. M. B Kent-..-  "                        75 00 M. B. Kent-_.......     75 00. Wm. Crosby......             "     j  75 00 Wm. Crosby-..-....   75 00. M. O. Robinson,..                                75 00 M. O. Robinson. —    75 00
7. A. E. Young...         75 00 A. E. Young —..         75 00
8.. S. Boutell....                              75 00 H. S. Boutell..-...  -    75 00
9. C. L. Knight.-...-.    T                       75 00 C. L. Knight...-.-   75 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF APRIL, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for
AMthe  am'ts oppo-    ~'NAMES.  |c a                site our respect-    O
IE.-.        5          ive names.  
1. E. H. Porter.    Deputy Corn. OneMonth. $100 00 E. H. Porter-..  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper                    83 3.          3 L. Paddack - 8. 3 83 3
8. Wm. A. Barnard.    Clerk.                        5     W     A.Barnad         75 00
4. M. O. Robinson.         "                       75 00 M. O. Robinson.    75 00
5. A. E. Young. -                                 75 00 A. E. Young -.....      75 00
6. C. L. Knight.......                            75 00 C. L. Knight —-         75 00
7. Henry S. Boutell.       "  75 00 Henry S. Boutell.                           75 00
8. M. B. Kent. —---   75 00 M. B. Kent -.......   75.00
9. William Crosby-.        "                       75 00 William  Crosby —..    75 00
Clerks certified to by H. E.Porter, Deputy Commissioner.




1484   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE FOR THE MONTH
OF MAY, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for
NAMES.-|Q. _         c     )         t   the am'ts oppoN  ti g   ^       site our respect-    II
c            [         ~-  V       ive names.  ~
1. E. H'. Porter..- Deputy Corn. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter               $100 00
H.                                                838  H. L. Paddack Boo-keeper,3.33
8. Wm. A. Barnard_    Clerk.                      15 00  Wm. A. Barnard-.   7'5 00
4. M. O. Robinson..                              75 00 M. O. Robinson...   75 00
5. C. L. Knight...-  75 00 C. L. Knight.    75 00
6. H. S. Boutell...._  75 00 H. S. Boutell.....   75 00
7. Wm. Crosby5 00........ Cros75 00
S. M. B. Kent......   75 00 M. B. Kent --—..-    75 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JUNE, 1869.
I     Rec'd Warrants for  "5
NAMES.                                         ~     the am'ts oppo-       g^
g  Qt g,site our respect-    E,
E          u Be      ive names.. 
1. E. H. Porter-.. Deputy Corn. One Month. $100 00 E. A. Porter-... $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                    83 833 H. L. Paddack —--    83 33
-3. Henry S. Boutell     Clerk.                    75 00 Henry S. Boutell...   75 00
4. M. O. Robinson_.                               75 00 M. O. Robinson -..   75 00
5. C. L. Knight-.                                75 00 C. L. Knight.-7-....   75 00
6. Wm. A. Barnard.                                 75 00 Wm. A. Barnard-...    75 00
7. Wm. Crosby-.                                    75 00 Wm. Crosby.75 00
8. M. B. Kent. -                                   75 00 M. B. Kent....   75 00
9. A. S. Stimson....  75 00 A. S. Stimson..-                                   5 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1485
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JULY, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMIES.              C             c.               the am'ts oppoM$Ma.  ^               on       site our resoect-    0 
ive names. 
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Cor. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter... —--  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack -. Book-keeper.                    83 83 H. L. Paddack-.....   88 00
3. Wm. A. Barnard-    Clerk.             "         75 00 Wm. A. Barnard....   75 00
4. A. S. Stimson..         "             "         75 00 A. S. Stimson....-    75 00
5. M. B. Kent -....                    75 00 M. B. Kent -...     7500
6. H. S. Boutell-..                                75 00 H. S. Boutell -...      75 00
7. M. O. Robinson_  75 00 M. O. Robinson ---   75 00
P. Wm. Crosby...-   75 00 Wm. Crosby —. —--   75 00
9. C. L. Knight.....                              75 00 C. L. Knight.......   75 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF AUGUST, 1869.
I     Rec'd Warrants for 
xTAT~i-'NAMES.                                     [ the am'ts oppo-    g
5...'w            ive names.. 
1. E. H. Porter-.. Deputy Con. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter-..    $100 00
2. I. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.                    83 83 83I. L. Paddack —...  88 83
3. Wm. A. Barnard        Clerk.                 |  75 00 Wm. A. Barnard -.   75 00
4. M. RobinsO.                                              Robinson. "-     75 00
5. H. S. Boutell__                                 75 00 H. S. Bontell.. — --   75 00
6. A. S. Stimson-.. -                              75 00 A. S. Stimson-....  75 00
7. M. B. Kent...           "         75 00 M. B. Kent.. —--        75 00
8. C. L. Knight                                    75 00 C. L. Knight —------ 75 00
9. Wm. Cros')y...                "         75 00 Wm. Crosby -...    75 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.




1486   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF SEPTEMBER, 1869.
l     Rec'd Warrants for  S
NAMES.'~             0        0      the am'ts opposite..
NAMES.                                0 g   E E5our respective as
E       -.4           names.
1. E. H. Porter.-.- Deputy Corn. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter -.... —  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack. Book-keeper.  83 33 H. L. Paddack.                         83 3
3. Wm. A. Barnard    Clerk..          75 00 Wm. A. Barnard. —   75 00
4. M. O. Robinson.   75 00 M. O. Robinson...    75 00
5. C. L. Knight... -,-                          75 00 C. L. Knight —          5 00
6. M. B. Kent ----                   "          75 00 E. B. Kent -..... —   75 00
7. William Crosby.       "                      75 00 William Crosby.        75 00
8.  enry S Bo ll                                 5   Henry S. Boutell  -    75 00
9. E. S. Porter.. —              11 days.    82 34 E. S. Porter-.. —--     2 84
10. A. S. Stimson.                 1s t to 18th.   52 88 A. S. Stimson -....   52 88
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE. FOR THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER, 1869..     Rec'd Warrants for        -
NAMES.                            ~              I
NAMES.,.     ~       theamn'ts oppo-       s
N  B g  ^   site our respect-    E
o            F..<         ive names..4
I.E. H. Porter-. Deputy Corn. OneMonth. $100 00 E. H. Porter —-  $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.                 88 83  H. L. Paddack..-      83 38
8. W. A. Barnard.   Clerk.                      75 00 W. A. Barnard.. —    75 00
4. M. B. Kent.. —-'  75 00 M. B. Kent —.-.   75 00
5. Wm. Crosby..                                75 00 Wm. Crosby —--         75 00
6. H. S. Boutell..-. 75 00 H. S. Boutell -..-    5 00
7. C. L. Knight -..-         75 00 C. L. Knight.....                       7500
S. M. O. Robinson                               75 00 M. 0. Robinson...    75 00
9. E. S. Porter --—.             14  days.    42 08 E. S. Porter ---        42 06
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Colimissioner.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1487
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF NOVEMBER, 1869.
i  -    Rec'd Warrants for 
~NTAME^S.              ~            ~               theam'ts opposite  i
~NAM-ESb.          \O =0   our respective                           o 
- ~ rt       names.
1. E. H. Porter-.- Deputy Com. OneMonth. $100 00 E. H. Porter —.....-   $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack — Book-keeper.        "          83 33 H. L. Paddack —....   83 83
3. M. O. Robinson.    Clerk.'          75 00 M. O. Robinson-..-   75 00
4. Henry S. Bontell                               75 00 Henry S. Boutell —   75 00
5. M.B.Kent.....     75 00 M. B. Kent —.... —.   75 00
6. Wm. A. Barnard                                75 00 Wm. A. Barnard-..   75 00
7. William Crosby_.                            75 00 William Crosby..    75 00
8. C. L. Knight.    - -                          75 00 C. L. Knight- -......    500
9. T. B. Jewell                   1th to 30th.   30 00 T. B. Jewell-...-...   30 00
10. E. S. Porter —        "         14, days.    42 00 E. S. Porter.........   42 00
Clerks certified to by E. H. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF DECEMBER, 1869.
Rec'd Warrants for   O
NAMES.        i;,O                 the am'ts opposite    ~
NAMES.  I     our respective                        5
0             -.e            names.          <
1. E. H. Porter.-.. Deputy Con. One Month. $100 00 E. H. Porter-..    $100 00
2. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.        "          83 83 H. L. Paddack.         83 38
3. M. O. Robinson       Clerk.                    75 00 M. 0. Robinson —.    75 00
4. H. S. Boutell..-'                 75 00 H. S. Boutell __ —.     75 00
5. T. B. Jewell....   75 00 T. B. Jewell-...   75 00
6. C. L. Knight....  75 00 C. L. Knight. —.....   75 00
7. M. B. Kent —..-   75 00 M. B. Kent...-...   75 00
8. Wm. Crosby. -'-         75 00 Wm. Crosby-...          75 00
9. Wm. A. Barnard                   75 00   m. A. Barnard-    7500
10. E. S. Porter..;  ".  42 00 E. S. Porter-....   42 00
11. Elias Shafer....-                3 month.    37 50 Elias Shafer.....   3 50
Clerks certified to by E. H[. Porter, Deputy Commissioner.




1488   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THLI MONTH
OF JANUARY, 1871.
Rec'd Warrants for 
NWAM-?ES.             ~              ~               the am'ts opposite    g 
1AVc.            0a Et ~~  our respective       o
names.
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 E. H. Porter-. —..-  $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack -—.-         88 8.3
3. M. O. Robinson.    Clerk.                       83 38 M.. Robinson. —-    88 88
4. Elias Shafer....       "                       75 00 Elias Shafer —-.....75 00
5. Wm. Crosby —.   75 00 Wm. Crosby ------                                       75 00
6. M. B. Kent..-.           75 00 M. B. Kent. —.. —    75 00
7. W. A, Barnard.   8 33 W. A. Barnard...-   83 8
8. G. B. Griswold-                                 75 00 G. B. Griswold          75 00
9. C. L. Knight....                               75 00 C. L. Knight ----        5 00
10. Merritt Lewis...                6th to 81st.   42 35 Merritt Lewis —...   42 85
11. W. H. Porter....       7th to 81st.   41 50 W. H. Porter —---    41 50
12. J. B. Hamilton..  16th to 81st.   26 88 J. B. Hamilton... 2 26 88
13. A. S. Stimson...                 4 days.      12 00 A. S. Stimson —.        2 01
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF FEBRUARY, 1871.
1 Rec'd Warrants for
NAMO'ES.                                            [ the am'ts opposite    gt
NAME.        o i.n our respective  o 
I      names. 
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 E. H. Porter-               $    6. —  $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.                    8.3 33 H. S. Paddack......   88 33
3. M. O. Robinson.    Clerk.                       83 33 M. O. Robinson..        83 88
4. Wm. A. Barnard                                  83 33 3 Wm. A. Barnard —--   88 33
5. Wm. Crosby...       "  5 00 Wm. Crosby. ——.    75 00
6. M. B. Kent......   75 00 M. B. Kent. —----    T5 00
7. Elias Shafer....  75 00 Elias Shafer....                                    5 00
8. G. B. Griswold.  75 00 Geo. B. Griswold —   75 00
9. O. A. Bowen....                 6th to 28th.   61 64 0. A. Bowen ----    61 64
10. Van Dunham..-          i        6th to 28th.   61 64 Van Dunham..-.   61 64
11. J. B. Hamilton..                One Month.   60 00 J. B. Hamilton             60 00
12. Merritt Lewis....                               50 00 Merritt Lewis..-.   50 00
13. W. H. Porter....  1st to 10th.   16 70 W. H. Porter-.....  16 70
14. C.. KL night...        One Month.   75 00 C. L. Knight..-.- -   75 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1489
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MARCH, 1871..      Rec'd Warrants for  
NAMES.                C$t           o                  the am'ts oppo-         
NAMES        ii g               site our respect-.i,
O.I Ei  Q    ive names.
1. E. H. Porter....- Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 E. H- Porter...... $116 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                    83 38 H. L. Paddack......   83 33
8. M. 0. Robinson       Clerk.                     83 83 M. O. Robinson....    83 33
4. Van Dunham-.-          "                        75 00 Van Dunham.......   75 00
5. O. A. Bowen...         "                        75 00 O.A. Bowen ------   75 00
6. G. B. Griswold..  75 00 G. B. Griswold..-                                      75 00
7. Elias Shafer...        "                        75 00 Elias Shafer..-.    75 00
S. Wm. Crosby...  "                    75 00 Wm. Crosby.......   75 00
9. M. B. Kent —.. —  75 00 M. B. Kent ------    75 00
10. Wm. A. Barnard                                        88 33W. A. Barnard....    83 3
11. C. L. Knight...  75 00 C. L. Knight-.....   75 00
12. J. B. Hamilton                                  60 0 J.B.Hamilton-..   60 00
13. Merritt Lewis...                                60 00 Merritt Lewis ----   60 00
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF APRIL, 1871.
"     Rec'd Warrants for 
TgNAMESX.                           o            the am'ts opposite E
NAES      E ^   ^   our respective
H.1 ~1         names.
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Corn. OneMonth. $116 66 E. H. Porter. —.-. — $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack- Book-keeper.          "  83 33 H. L. Paddack......   83 33
3. M. O. Robinson.    Clerk.         i             S93 M8. O.  Robinson ---    83 33
4. W. A. Barnard- Draughtsman          3"          S 83 W. A. Barnard.-_.    83 33
5. Elias Shafer-.-.    Clerk.  75 00 Elias Shafer..-.-.   75 00
6. O. A. Bowen-..   75 00 0. A. Bowen —-...-   75 00
7. Van Dunham_ —_                                  75 00 Van Dunham-...          75 00
8. Geo. B. Griswold                                75 00 Geo. B. Griswold —    75 00
9. J. B. Hamilton..                "               75 00 J. B. Hamilton -....   75 00
10. Merritt Lewis_         "'.         65 00 Merrit Lewis -....-   6500
11. William Crosby-.        1st to 19th.   48 82 William Crosby -          48 82
12. A. S. Stimson.-                 1st to 8th.    20 37 A. S. Stimson. —-       20 87
13. C. L. Knight..          OneMonth.   75 00 C. L. Knight-....   75 00
14. M. B. Kent-...-        "                        75 00 M. B. Kent.........    5 00
187




1490   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MAY, 1871..      Rec'd Warrants for 
NAMES.                              C  go      C      the am'ts opposite    g
ElAM^~I.    Pt gI  our respective       1E-4                ~             names.           ~ 4
1. E. H. Porter.... Deputy Corn. OneMonth. $116 66 E. H. Porter........ $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack_.....    83 33
3. M. O. Robinson       Clerk.  83 33 M. O. Robinson....  83 33
4. W. A. Barnard-_                                 83 33 W. A. Barnard......   83 35
5. C. L. Knight....                          75 00 C. L. Knight......    5 00
6. H. B. Turner...    50 00 H. B. Turner-..   50 00
7. (eo. B. Griswold                                75 00 Geo. B. Griswold.     75 00
8. M. B. Kent......       "                        75 00 M. B. Kent. —......   75 00
9. EliasShafer.....  75 00 Elias Shafer-....... 75 00
10. J. B. Hamilton..       " -                      75 00 J. B. Hamilton-...       75 00
11. Van Dnnham  --                                  75 00 Van Dunham —.    75 00
12. O. A. Bowen..-  "                              75 00 A. 0. Bowen...   75 00
13. Meritt Lewis...                      "          75 00 Merritt Lewis.....    75 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1491
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JUNE, 1871.
Rec'd Warrants for  *.
NAMES. p                            5 ~      ~0 6   the am'ts opposite      T
~~NA~~M~~ES.  0a                  o        our respective 
E1Z   names.
3. W. A. Barnard.- Deputy Corn. OneMonth. $116 66 W. A. Barnard —...  $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.        "          83 88 H. L. Paddack......   83 33
3. Van Dunham.. Draughtsmau           "          83 33 Van Dunham....   83 33
4. M. 0. Robinson-    Clerk.           "          83 33 M. O. Robinson-...  83 83
5. C. L. Knight —         "  75 00 C. L. Knight.......   75 00
6. G. B. Griswold..  75 00 G. B. Griswold. —                                    75 00
7. M. B. Kent -....                                   75 00 M. B. Kent -.......   75 00
8. 0. A. Bowen...   75 00 0. A. Bowen....   75 00
9. J. B. Hamilton..   75 00 J. B. Hamilton-...                                  75 00
10. Elias Shafer... i -                            75 00 Elias Shafer.....-   75 00
11. G. F. Gillman._        "  75 00 G. F. Gillman......   75 00
12. Merritt Lewis.._'-                            75 03 Merritt Lewis......   75 00
13. H. B. Turner..         "            "          60 00 H. B. Turner.....   60 00
14. W. H. Burdick..                19th to 30th    26 00 W. H. Burdick......   26 00
15. A. S, Stimson..        "       26th to 30th   12 50 A. S. Stimson..    12 50




1492   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JULY, 1871.
-     Rec'd Warrants for
NAMES.5. E  the am'ts opposite    a
our respective   op
ga           names.
1. W. A. Barnard.- Deputy Cor. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard.....  $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack - Book-keeper.                   83 33 H. L. Paddack......   83 33
3. M. O. Robinson. Reg. Clerk.          "         83 3 M. 0. Robinson. -.    83 3
4. Van Dunham... - Draug htsman                   83 83 Van Dunham..... 83 8
5. C. L. Knight-...    Clerk.                     75 00 C. L. Knight —......  75 00
6. Geo. F. Gillam..                75 00 Geo. F. Gillam          75 00
7. G. B. Griswold._  75 00 G. B. Griswold....   75 00
8. Elias Shafer.  75 00 Elias Shafer-... 75 0
9. Merritt Lewis...                               75 00 Merritt Lewis-.....    5 00
10. A. S. Stimson...  75 00 A. S. Stimson......   75 00
]1. O. A. Bowen.-  75 00 0. A. Bowen......   75 00
12. J. B. Hamilton-.              "  75 00 J. B. Hamilton —.-  75 00
13. H. C. Clarke -.-      15th to 81st.   37 50 H. C. Clarke -. —                3T 50
14. H. B. Turner —.'        One Month.   60 00 H. B. Turner-.....   60 00
15. M. B. Kent...-         "          5 days.      62 50 M. B. Kent-.......   62 50
16. W. H. Burdick -                                65 00 W. I. Burdick-          65 00
17. I. S. Lampman.                 17th to 81st.   25 00 I. S. Lampman ---      25 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1493
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF AUGUST, 1871.. Rec'd Warrants for.
the am'ts opposite
NAMES.                                         oJ
AMS;.  g  c  g  our respective        g
o  b         ~         names.           <,
1. W. A. Barnard.- Deputy Com. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard —                -
2. H. L. Paddack — Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack - W   —......-..
3. Van Dunham. — Draughtsman                        3 33 Van Dunham...- ---
4. M. O. Robinson  Reg. Clerk.                     8 33 M. O. Robinson —----
5. C.L. Knight —.      Clerk.                     83 83 33C. L. Knght. —---------
6. O. A. Bowen.. -                                  3 33 0. A Bowen. —---  - -
7. Geo. B. Griswold..  83 33 Geo. B. Griswold-.. —.. —--
8. Merritt Lewis..-..  00 Merritt Lewis-                   -
0. Ge  F Giam                                               eo. F. Gillam-. "5 00
10 J. H. IHamilton__                            T      00 J. H. Hamilton —.. —11. A. S. Stimson,.5 00 A. S. Stmson                                   ----
12. Henry C. Clark -                                   00 Henry C. Clark —--        ---
13. Eiias Shafer                                    75 00 Elis Shfer          ----
14. H. B. Turner.                                    0 00 H. B. Turner
13. W.. Burdick-                       "          70 00 W. H. Burdick... —-.. —. ---
16. I. S. Lampman                                   60 00 I. S. Lampman —..
17. M. B. Kent                           Month.    50 00M.B. Kent  -----—..         --




1494   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF SEPTEMBER, 1871.
"     f Rec'd Warrants for       -
T ~NAMES.  e; 6     the am'ts oppo-. S               site our respect-     l g
o         E         -  j       ive names.         Q
1, W. A. Barnard.. Deputy Com. One Month. $116 00 W. A. Barnard-... $116 00
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.."         83 33 H. L. Paddack -...-   83 83
3. M. O. Robinson Reg. Clerk...          "        83 33 M. O. Robinson -..   83 33
4. Van Dunham.  Draughtsman             "         83 33 Van Dunham...    83 38
5. Elias Shafer-....    Clerk.          "          5 00 Elias Shafer —..-.   T75 00
6. J. B. Hamilton.        **  75 00 J. B. Hamilton. —.   75 00
7. 0. A. Bowen            " "-                    83 33 0. A.  Bowen-.  8 A.   83 33
8. C. L. Knight..  "                             83 33 C. L. Knight —.-..    388
9. H. C. Clarke...        ".                     83 33H. C. Clarke -.....   83 88
10. Geo.B. Griswold        "             "         83 83 Geo. B. Griswold-.    83 8
11. 1. S. Lampman..        "  60 00 I. S. Lampman —                              60 00
12. H. B. Turner..   70 00 H. B. Turner —....  700
18. Geo. F. Gillam..  75 00 Geo. F. Gillam-....   75 00
14. A. S. Stimson...         "  75 00 A. S. Stimson..-..   75 00
15. W. H. Burdick.." 75 00 W. H. Burdick. 75 00
16. Merritt Lewis_.  "                             75 00 Merritt Lewis -....   15 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1495
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER, 1871.
Rec'd Warrants for
W~~NA^-QES.  w~*]   theam'ts opposite   E
NAM.  t  our respective      o'
~^  1-~  6names. 
1. W. A. Barnard.. Deputy Cor, One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard.....  $116 66
2. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                     3 83 83 H. L. Paddack-....  83 83
3. M. O. Robinson. Reg. Clerk.          "          83 33 M. O. Robinson..-  83 
4. Van Dunham... Draughtsman                       83 33 Van Dunham —-            8883
5. Henry C. Clarke      Clerk.                     83 83 Henry C. Clarke.-       83 83
6. O. A. Bowen-..                                  83  33 0. A. Bowen-           8.3 3
7. Geo. F. Gillam..   3 33 Geo. F. Gillam  83 83
8. C. L. Knight                                          C.. night...  "  "  -S. 3  83
9. G. B. Griswold..        "   83 33G. B. Griswoldc...   83 83
10. H. B. Turner...                      "          75 00 H. B. Turner-. —.-..   75 00
11. Elias Shafer....                                75 00 Elias Shafer. —-...   75 00
12. W. H. Burdick.   75 00 W. H. Burdick -.-..   75 00
13. R. B. DeViney..                 HalfMonth.   87 50 R.B. DeViney-.   87 50
14. J. B. Hamilton..        "       One Month.   75 00 J. B. Hamilton.-...  75 00
15. Merritt Lewis..."                            75 00 Merritt Lewis.....    7b 00
16. I. S. Lampman...               65 00 I. S. Lampman..    65 00
17. E. B. Wood.....                 16th to 31st.   81 46 E. B. Wood -.......      31 46
18. A. S. Stimson...        "        1st to 5th.    12 50 A. S. Stimson.....   12 50




1496   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE IMONTH
OF NOVEMBER, 1871.
9     Rec'd Warrants for   n
NAMES.                             Cd S             the am'ts opposite    ~
JJIES.  E  Ei    E n      our respective       gj
~. E                                names.
1. W. A. Barnard_ Deputy Cor. One MIonth. $116 66 W. A. Barnard-.   $116 66
2. M. 0. Robinson  Reg. Clerk.                    S3 83 M5. O. Robinson...        83 8
3. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                   83 38 H. L. Paddack -....      83 S3
4. Van Dunham... Draughtsman.         83 8 Van Dunham —--           83 83
3). H. C. Cark --    Clerk.                        83   H. C. Clark. -._-       83 83
6. O. A. Bowen-..-                                83 310.. A. Bowen-8 838.
7. Geo. F. Gillam._                                     83  8 Geo. F. Gillam    83 83
8. C. L. Knight.. -  83 38 C. L. Knight........   83 8.
9. G. B. Griswold..    83 33 G. B. Griswold -_                        83 83
10. H. B. Turner... 75 00 1. B. Turner.-             75 00:11. Elias Shafer...   83 33 Elias Shafer-.-....    83 8
12. W. H. Burdick.                                 75 00 W. H. Burdick-..        75 00
18. R. B. DeViney__                                75 00 R. B. DeViney-..-.   75 00
4. J. B. Hamiltom.                                 75 00 J. B. Hamilton...-.    75 00
15. Merritt Lewis.. -                              75 00 Merritt Lewis.....    75 00
16. I. S. Lampman__.  "                            75 00 I. S. Lampman —---   75 00
17. E. B. Wood --..  -"   00 E. B. Wood.......   55 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1497
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF DECEMBER, 1871.
Rec'd Warrants for
W~~~~NAMES.,        ~    the am'ts opposite  ~
our respective       gs
-a ~ E    E       ~names.   
1. W. A. Barnard.. Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard...- $116 66
2. M. 0. Robinson. Chief Clerk.                      83 83  33M. O. Robinson...         83
3. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.                       3 83 33 H. L. Paddack....    8  83
4. Van Dunham_.- Draughtsman                         83 83 Van Dunham-....          83 83
5. H. C. Clarke...     Clerk.                        83 33 H. C. Clarke.......      83 33
6. O. A. Bowen....  83 83 0.. Bowen -83 83
T7. Geo. F. Gillam.-        " -                      83 33 Geo. F. Gillam-..         83 83
-8. C. L. Knight...             83 3 C.. Knight —..-      83 83
9. G. B. Griswold.-                                  88 83 G. B. Griswold —---    83 83
I0, H. B. Turner....   75 00 I. B. Turner —.....    75 00
1I. Elias Shafer.            -                           3  3  8  Elias Shafer.-..    883 
12. W. H. Burdick_                          i   75 00 W. H. Burdick. —--              75 00
33. R. B. DcViney-.  75 00 R. B. DeVincy-...-    75 00
14. J. B. Hamiltonl';      I  75 00 J. B Hamilton.-.-    75 00
15. Merritt Lewis-..  75 00 Merritt Lewis-.    75 00
16. I. S. Lampman..'"  65 00 1. S. Lampman.....    65 00
188




1498   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF JANUARY, 1872.. Rec'd Warrants for  
NAMES.               e                        a   the am'ts opposite    Ed
NAMES.   0 g  ^    our respective      ~C
0                      c:           inames..
1. W. A. Barnard.. Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard —    $116 66
2. M. 0. Robinson. Reg. Clerk.                    8 S3 33 M. 0. Robinson..      83 33
8. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper.        "          83 33 H. L. Paddack.. —.    83 o
4. Van Danham..- Draughtsman                     83 83 Van Dunham —.. —    83 33
5. H. C. Clarke -..     Extra.                    83 38 H. C. Clarke —.. —-     83 83
6. 0. A. Bowen..                               83 33. A. Bowen   --    83 88
7. Geo. F. Gillam-..                       8  88  Geo. F. Gillam....    83 83
8. Chas. L. Knight. &             83 33Chas. L. Knight-...  83 83
9. Geo. B. Griswold  "                            83 3  Geo. B. Griswold_..    83 83
10.' Elias Shafer....                         88 33 Elias Shafer........  38 
11. H. B. Turner...                                75 00 H. B. Turner —....   75 00
12. W. H. Burdick.. l    75 00 W. H. Burdick....-   75 00
18. R. B. DeViney..  "                             88 38 R. B. DeViney.....   83 88
14. J. B. Hamilton.                               75 00 J. B. Hamilton-.....   75 00
15. Merritt Lewis..                                7  5 00 Merritt Lewis......   75 00
16. Ira S. Lampman..                      7 5 00 I. S. Lampman....   75 00
IT. E. B. Wood.....                 22% days.    56 66 E. B. Wood... —--   56 00
18. H. P. Cherry....               One Month.   75 00 H. P. Cherry.......   75 00




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1499
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF FEBRUARY, 1872.
"     Rec'd Warrants for
~~~~NAME~~~S.                        0u       the am'ts oppo-        d
^NAM3ES.                E l      ~g         site our respect-    1
P.          ive names..4
1. W. A. Barnard,. Deputy Com. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard-..... $116 66
2. M. O. Robinson  Reg. Clerk                      83 83 M. O. Robinson...    83 83
3. H. L. Paddack.- Book-keeper.                    83 33 H. L. Paddack.....    83 88
4. Van Dunham-... Draughtsman  83 33 Van Dunham-...    83 38
5. H. C. Clarke-...    Extra.                      83 33 H. C. Clarke —-----    88 83
6. 0. A. Bowen...         "  83 33 0. A. Bowen —-. —-                            83 33
7. Geo. F. Gillam..   83 33 Geo. F. Gillam......   83 33
8. G. B. Griswold..       "                        83 33 Geo. B. Griswold- -    83 33
9. R. B. De Viney.                 "  83 33 R. B. De Viney....   83 33
10. Chas. L. Knight               "  83 33 Chas. L. Knight....    83 33
I1. Elias Shafer...'        83 33Elias Shafer —.-....   83 33
12. H. B. Turner...   75 00 H. B. Turner-...-.                                    75 00
18. W. H. Burdick..'                       75 00 W. H. Burdick......   75 00
14. J.B. Hamilton..       "                        75 00 J. B. Hamilton..-        75 00
15. H. P. Cherry-...                      "         75 00 H. P. Cherry -......   75 00
16. Merritt Lewis...,                       75 00 Merritt Lewis....    75 00
17. E. B. Wood.....        "              "         50 00 E. B. Wood........   50 00




1500   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF MARCH, 1872.
Rec'd Warrants for
xTA.n-r.        P C     theam'ts opposite 
NAMEnf0S.                           d            n       our respective       0
NA  ES.                            names.
I. W. A. Barnard.- Deputy Cor. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Bnarnard                 $116 66
2. M. 0. Robinson. Reg. Clerk.                      83 38 M. 0. Robinson..         83 
3. H. L. Paddack. Book-keeper.           "          83 33 H. L. Paddack —...   83 83
4. Van Dunham..  Dranghtsman                       83 33 Van Dunham  --           8 33
5. H. C. Clarke —-    Extra...         83 33 H. C. Clarke —            3 33
6. O. A. Bowen --                                   83 33 0. A. Bowen-...        83 33.7. b. L. Knight. —.                       8   33 C. L. Knight...    83 33
8. G. B. Griswold..   83 33 Geo. B. Griswold....   83 33
9. R. B. DeViney..   8 33R. B. DeViney.   8333
10. Geo. F. Gillam..  12 days.                       33 25 Geo. F. Gillam-...  833 25
11. Elias Shafer...                   1 Month.      83 33 Elias Shafer -8.....         833
12. Merritt Lewis..                                  7 "   00 Merritt Lewis-....    75 00
13. J.B. Hamilton._                                  75i  00 J. B. Hamilton.....   75 00
14. H. P. Cherry... -                  12 days.      30 00 H. P. Cherry.-......     0 00
15. I1. B. Turner..-                1  Month.      75 00 H. B. Turner. —...   75 00
16. W. H. Bardick...         75 00 W. H. Burdick.....   75 00.1. E. B. Wood.               16clays.      4608 E. B. Wood....    46 08




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1501
PAY-ROLL OF EMPLOYES IN THE STATE LAND) OFFICE, FOR THE MONTH
OF APRIL, 1872.
Rec'd Warrants for
NAMES.                                                                0our respective     g
5..         __names..
1. W.A. Barnard. Deputy Corn. One Month. $116 66 W. A. Barnard -  $116 66
2. M. O. Robinson. Reg. Clerk                  8 8 318 M. 0. Robinson..-   88 88
8. H. L. Paddack.. Book-keeper. i               8 88 H. L. Paddack......   83 8
4. O. A. Bowen...  Extra Clerk.               83 83 O. A. Bowen-.-...-    88 38
5. H. C. Clarke....         4-5 Month.   66 67 H. C. Clarke -...- -    66 67
6. Van Dunham.. Draughtsman  3Y Month.    41 66 Van Dunham- -             41 66
7. Chas. L. Knight Extra Clerk. One Month.   88 33 Chas. L. Knight ---   83 88
8. R. B. De Viney. i                 "         83 3R. B. De Viney.        83 33
9. G. B. Griswold.                            83 88 Geo. B. Griswold —   8 83 
10. Geo. F. Gillam..   83 83 Geo. F. Gillam -...-                           83 8
11. H.B. Turner.         "            "         75 00 H. B. Turner-.....-   75 00
12. E. Shafer..-.                                "  88 33 Elias Shafer -.-..-    83 88
18. M. Lewis-...  75 00 MerrittLewis...-.   75 00
14. J. B. Hamilton... 75 00 J. B.Hamilto..   75 00
15. W. H. Burdick..                             75 00 W. H. Burdick......   75 00
16. H. P. Cherry —..  75 00 H. P. Cherry...-..    75 00
17. E. B. Wood.-..                 -..............
[EXHIBIT xx.]
This agreement, made the - day of        A. D. 18- between
local commissioner, upon  the                            swamp land
State road, acting as such commissioner in behalf of the State
of Michigan, pursuant to the statutes of said State authorizing
and providing for the construction of said road party of the
first part, and                            as principal, and
as suret-  of the second part:
Witnessetth, that whereas, The said  commissioner has given
due notice (as required by the act entitled " An act to provide
for the drainage and reclamation of swamp lands by means of
State roads and ditches," approved February 12th, 1859, being act No. 117, of 1859, and the acts amendatory thereof) of




1502      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the time and place of the letting of the contract for the work
hereinafter specified; and at the time and place specified in
such notice, the contract for such work was let by said commissioner to said principal, he being the lowest responsible
bidder therefor;
Now, therefore, The said parties covenant and agree as follows, to wit:
The parties of the second part, in consideration of the compensation to be made by the State of Michigan to the said
principal as hereinafter provided, covenant and agree that the
said principal, shall make, construct, and finish, in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, on or before the  ~  day
of-    A. D. 18- a road, four rods wide, between the following points, to wit:~
being a part of the               swamp land
State road, according to the said commissioner's survey thereof,
and being sections numbered               as shown by such
survey. The entire length of said road, so constructed, being
miles, more or less.
The following is a description of the land covered by the
road to be constructed by said principal, viz: From 
to           the land is. From
to             the land is
The distance said road is to be constructed over dry ground,
as nearly as can be ascertained, is ~ miles; over wet ground,
-  miles; and on swamp lands and marshes,    - miles.
The said work is to be done and completed by the said principal in accordance with the following specifications, to wit:
All the timber and brush within the limits (4 rods) of the
road shall be well cut down; except that, whenever any continuous half mile or more of said road shall be on sandy or
gravelly soil, so open or porous that water never stands thereon,
only the centre two rods need be cut out.
Said road shall be thoroughly cleared and grubbed, for a
width of fifteen feet on each side of the centre of the same;




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1503
and a road-bed twenty feet in width (ten feet on each side of
the centre line of the road) shall be made of solid earth, high
enough to be at least one foot above the level of the water at
its highest stage; and shall be rounded in the centre, with a
gradual slope, for carrying the water to the ditches on either
side. On each side of said road-bed, ditches shall be dug, at
least five feet in width at the top, and of an average depth of at
least twenty inches below the natural level of the ground, sufficient, in all places, to carry off the water freely from  side
roads: Provided, That whenever said road shall cross gravelly
or sandy land, as described in preceding paragraph, the said
road-bed shall be cleared and grubbed for the width of ten feet
on each side of the centre line, as above specified, and shall be
leveled to a smooth surface for the same width, without
ditches: And provided further, That wherever said road shall
cross swampy or marshy ground, with muck soil, after clearing
and grubbing the ground as aforesaid, the said ditches shall be
opened as aforesaid, and the earth removed therefrom, shall be
thrown into the road-bed, and then leveled off; and upon the
same shall be laid (crosswise of the road-bed) rails of sound,
durable timber, not less than four by six inches, and sixteen
feet in length; or poles of sound and durable timber, not less
than eight nor more than ten inches in diameter, and sixteen
feet in length; to be laid in the centre of the road-bed, and so
compactly as to cover the ground, and form a good, substantial,
and solid bed, which shall then be covered with sand, gravels
or other solid earth, free from muck, to the depth of at least
twelve inches; the grading to be in all cases of sufficient
height to form a dry road-bed. No timber shall be left within
two feet of the outside of the ditches on either side of said
road-bed.
There shall be all necessary culverts or sluices constructed,
of sizes sufficient, in width and depth, to carry off the surface
water freely, not less than eighteen feet in length, with sides of
sound and durable flatted timber, and covered with sound pine
or oak plank, or flatted timber, not less than three inches in




1504      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
thickness, placed on strong and substantial bearings, to sustain
the same. They shall be placed at such points as may be
necessary to carry off the water freely from said road, and as
said commissioner shall direct. The specific dimensions of said
sluices shall be as follows:
Ample lateral ditches shall be constructed
wherever the same shall be necessary to carry the water away
from said road, and at such points, and of such dimensions, as
said commissioner shall direct.
In the construction of the road, the grubbing shall be kept
n advance of the ditches and grading, at least eighty rods.
The grade of the road-bed, in ascending or descending, shall
not exceed one foot in fifteen feet.
The work of constructing said road shall be commenced by
said principal at such point, and prosecuted on such sections
of two consecutive miles each, as the Board of Swamp Land
State Road Commissioners of said State shall direct.
There shall be        bridge constructed, of the size and
dimensions, and according to the plans and specifications hereto
annexed, over- 
All the materials necessary for the construction of said road,
and the sluices and bridges, are to be good, and suitable for the
purpose, and furnished by said principal.
All of the work aforesaid is to be well done, to the satisfaction and acceptance of the said local commissioner, and of the
Board of Swamp Land State Road Commissioners of this
State, and to be approved by the State Board of Control.
And the said party of the first part covenants and agrees
that, upon the full completion of the work aforesaid, at the
time and in the manner above specified, and the acceptance
thereof, he will officially certify such acceptaice to the Board
of Swamp Land State Road Commissioners. And that, upon
the certificate of said Board of Swamp Land State Road Commissioners, that said work has been done in accordance with
the terms hereof, and the approval of such certificate by a




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1505
majority of the State Board of Control, the said principal shall
receive, as a compensation in full for said work and materials
furnished, the sum of $, payable in State swamp lands'
which shall be selected by the said principal, his heirs or
assigns, from any unsold swamp lands which may be in market
in the Lower Peninsula of the State of Michigan, and applicable to the construction of said road, at the minimum price
established by law at the time of such selection, and according
to. the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, and the rules and regulations of the Commissioner of the
State Land Office; and patents shall b3 issued by the State
for said lands, according to the laws thereto applicable.
And the said parties of the second part agree to b3 bound
by all the provisions of thle act first above nantioned, and the
acts amendatory thereof, and the act providing for the appointment of the Board of Swalmp Land State Road Commissioners,
as well as by all the conditions of this contract.
The following, from section three of said first named act, is
also hereby made a part of this contract:
"The Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor General, State
Treasurer, Attorney General, and Commissioner of the State
Land Office shall constitute a Board of Control, and shall
have power and it shall be their duty, whenever, in their judgment, the public interest shall require it, to suspend the surveys and operations on any of said roads, or that of any roads
to be hereafter constructed under the provisions of this act,
and to direct re-surveys, with the view to the selection of more
fit and convenient localities for the road; and to direct, from
time to time, what work shall be commenced, suspended, or
discontinued; and to extend the time for completing the work
on any contract; and to correct all errors in contracts, whether
of description or otherwise, and to allow interest on the unpaid
amount of any existing contract for the payment of money,
from and after the completion and acceptance of the work
189




1506    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
stipulated to be done in said contract; and this provision shall
be embodied in every contract under this act."
And the following, Sec. 14 of Act 177, Session Laws of 1871,
is also made a part of this contract, viz: "Every contract
made by said Board of Commissioners shall contain a provision, that no deficiency of swamp lands shall be so construed
as to create any lien, or establish any claim against the State,
except as to the lands above appropriated."
It is also understood that this contract is subject to the
approval of the said Board of Swamp Land State Road Commissioners, and shall only take effect upon such approval.
And it is further agreed and stipulated that if the said-       shall, from any cause, fail or neglect to complete
and finish said road at the time and in the manner provided
in this contract, that the said State Board of Control shall
have the right to declare this contract forfeited, and to direct
the aforesaid Commissioner to re-let the construction of said
road to some other responsible party; and it is also understood, between the parties hereto, that time shall be considered
and treated as of the essence of this contract. And in case
of the failure to complete said road as aforesaid, by the said
--     he, he, the said, hereby
authorize the said Board of Control to cancel this contract,
and also hereby relinquishes any right to compensation for
work and labor and materials expended under the same.
The stipulations and covenants herein contained shall apply
to and bind the assignees of the said party of the second part.
In witness whereof, the said parties have heretolo set their
hands, the day and year first above written.
[L. S.]
Local Coommissioner.
[L. S.]
[L. s.]
-~  ~  [L. s.]!-L. S. |




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1507
[A.]
ACCEPTANCE BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,  SS
County,, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Local Commissioner on 
Swamp Land State Road; and that he has personally examined the Job let to, as per contract No., on the
said Road from            to, being -  miles of
said Road, and that he has found    --    of said Job fully
completed in a good, workmanlike manner; that the materials
used, and all parts of the work, are in accordance with the
specifications of said contract; and that he has accepted the
same, subject to the approval of the Board of Swamp Land
State Road Commissioners and the Board of Control., Local Commissioner.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this  ~  day of
187-.
[The filing on the back is as follows:]
Road.    -    Contractor.  Accepted -- 187-.
Approved        187-.
-, Board of Commissioners.
Approved by Board of Control,        187-., ChIairman.
[B.]
IUnder Act 177, of 1STI.]
SWAMP LAND STATE ROAD CoIMIISSIONEn'S OFFICE, )
Lansing, Mich.,, 187-. 
To the Auditor General of the State of Michigan 
We hereby certify that        -    Contractor- on the
~-~- SSwamp Land State Road, ha- fully completed
miles of said Road, from    -    -       to
according to the specifications of      Contract, numbered
—, and that the work has been duly accepted and approved,
entitling      to your Warrant for $-, to be paid in State




1508    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Swamp Lands in the Lower Peninsula, according to the terms
of said Contract and the laws applicable to said Road.
Given under our Hands and Seal, at Lansing, on the day and
year above written.
Board of Commissioners.
8 -.  Received of the Auditor General a Warrant upon the
Treasurer of the State of Michigan, for the sum of 
Dollars and         Cents, in full of the above.
Lansing,, 187-.
[The filing on the back is as follows:]
No. 1169.   --, Contractor.  -         State Road
Act 117, of 1859, and Amendments. Also, Section 6, Act 76,
of 1867. $. Approved by Board of Control, —, 187-., Chairman.
[c.]
SWAMP LAND WARRA:NT.
[Land Warrant-Third Series.]
No. 1169.                  AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, 
Lansing,,18-.  i
Treasurer of the State of Michigan 
Pay to                or Bearer,         -      Dollars, in
Swamp Land, in the-, per Act No. 1 7, 1859, and
amendments, and Section 6, Act 76, 1867, on the         State
Road.
~$.          Auditor General of the State of Michigan.
[D.]
SWAMP LAND WARRANT, THIRD SERIES.
No. 1169.  To. Act 117, 1859, and Amendments, and Section 6, Act 76, 1867.              State Road.
Lansing,, 18-. $-.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1509
[E.]
No. 1169.       STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE,           $
Lansing, Mich., -, 18-.
Received of             the sum of               Dollars,
for Swamp Land in the             on contract No. 
State Road.
Treasurer of the State of Michigan.
[Countersigned:]
Auditor General of the State of Michigan.
DATE.  CERTIF.       NAME.             ACRES.  DOLLARS.
CROSS-EXA31INATION OF WM. HUMPHREY.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. This paper marked Schedule B seems to be a form
of certificate issued by the Board of Commissioners,-do they
not make a report to the Auditor General, or the Commissioner,
or the State Treasurer, of what contracts they have accepted
and certified?
Answer. No, sir; I think not. I have no knowledge of any
such paper. They make no report of that kind to the Auditor
General, except as a member of the Board of Control.
Q. He then has official knowledge?
A. He has knowledge as a member of the Board.
Q. And this certificate has to pass before that Board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the Commissioner of the Land Office has official
knowledge, in the capacity of one of that Board of Control, of
the acceptance and delivery of the certificate in each given
case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are the contracts for work,-the files?




1510      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. The contracts are kept in the office of the Swamp Land
State Road Commissioner, I think.
Q. They also have to come before the Board of Control?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. They come before the Swamp Land Commissioner?
A. Yes, sir. The contracts are made by the local commissioner, subject to the approval of the Swamp Land State Road
Commissioner, and do not necesarily come before the Board of
Control,-they may be as a matter of reference.
Q. Now, do you not understand that in the event of a party,
entitled to one of these certificates, taking it, and leaving no
report with you in order to get his order of the Treasurer,
does he not thereby forfeit his right to enter the reserved land
that he may have?
A. I could not answer as to that point.
The Presiding Officer-A  Senator sends up the following
question, which the Secretary will read.
The Secretary read as follows:
"Do you know of a contract known as the Bathay contract,
and if so, what is its date? "
Answer. My recollection is that it was a contract, dated, perhaps, in 1867 or 1868. I am not clear as to the date. I know
of the contract.
By Mr. Manager IHuston:
Question. When these warrants are given,-I do not remember whether you stated ornot,-isn't there a credit passed to
the party to whom the warrant is issued, in the Commissioner's
Office?
Answer. The receipt is the credit. The receipt passes into
his office, and that is evidence to him that the amount stated
on the face of the receipt is due the party in whose favor the
receipt is drawn.
Q. And there is a book in the Commissioner's office where
they keep those credits?
A. There is. This paper in here is a leaf from one of those
books.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1511
Q. Well, then, the party is allowed to sell that credit after
it is upon the book, just as he has a mind to?
A. I suppose so; and that is credit-matured scrip.
Q. That is transferred simply by orders from the parties?
A. By orders.
TESTIMONY OF EDMUND HALL.
Edmund Hall, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the respondent, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Mr. Hall, where do you reside?
Answer. In Detroit.
Q. How long have you lived there.
A. Fifteen years, more or less.
Q. You have had some dealings with the Land Commissioner's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are acquainted with Mr. Barnard, the Deputy Commissioner?
A. I am acquainted with him.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?
A. Perhaps four years,-three or four years.
Q. State whether you had any arrangement with Mr. Barnard to furnish you lists of land for your contracts, and if so
what the arrangement was?
A. I had no arrangement in form. I had no arrangement,
strictly, with Mr. Barnard.
Q. Had you any talk with Mr. Barnard, or anybody else in
the office, with regard to lists of land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what it was? You may commence at
any place that will be necessary to explain and give a full
understanding.
A. It was a brief statement; it was a request for any information that I could get from  the office, or from any person
that was in it.




1512     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. When and where was it made, and who was present?
A. Well, I don't know that I can give the date of it, with
any accuracy, and I don't know that I can give the transaction
with certainty. It was a sort of a growing arrangement. My
first business with the Land Office, I think, was in 1868, or
1867. I became acquainted with the clerks about that time.
My first business in getting lands, the reserved lands, in the
office, was after I took my first contract to build State roads.
I think it was in 1868 when I took my first contract, and when
I had my first business in the office. The lands that were taken
under our contract, we picked up by hunting lands that were
reported, from the Office, to be untaken, vacant swamp
lands. In process of time it became to be understood by
those that were looking for swamp lands that the most
available lands were "hung up "-covered up, more properly
speaking,-withdrawn in one form or another from market. It
became a point, then, to find what those lands were; and in
the effort to find out those lands, I came in contact with the
clerks in the office for the first time. Now, just when that
was, I cannot give the date, but it was under the old administration of Gen. Pritchard. I knew nothing about the office
until during the time that Gen. Pritchard was the Commissioner.
Q. Now, whatever the time was, then, under that statement
of the the facts which preceded this talk, will you state what
the talk was,-what you said?
A. Well, will you limit the question to any particular time
or particular transaction?
Q. Any time or times that you remember.
A. The first important event in dealing with the Land
Office was on a certain occasion where Thomas Palmer, and
Charles Merrill, and myself came in contact in a struggle for
some " hung-up " reserves.
By Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. When was that?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   15,13
Answer. That was, I think, in 1869,-it was as early as 1869
or'70.
Q. If there was any talk there with regard to assistingfurnishing you with information in getting lands, that you
might reserve them upon your contract, that is what I want
to get at?
A. Yes, sir; that is what I mean. I mean that there was a
large amount of lands held reserved from  market,-held by
the parties that I have named, by Merrill and Palmer. I applied to one of the clerks in the office for a copy of the list,
and it was refused. The application was urged pretty strongly
to the Deputy, who was then Mr. E. H. Porter, and he refused
it. I appealed to the Commissioner, and insisted upon having
all the information upon that subject that the office possessed;
and I demanded a list of all the lands that were held. It was
referred to the Commissioner; the Commissioner decided that
it was public paper and I had a right to it. There was quite a
warm discussion over it, and almost a quarrel in the office;
the clerk refused, and the Deputy refused, and the Commissioner finally ruled that we should have it. I took an application and that was the first information, I think, we ever got
from the Office. I took that list and applied on it some four
thousand acres, and others did the same thing,-took the same
position; and I again, finally, did the same thing, until it came
to be a sort of a system to watch the files and get every information we could as to lands that were abandoned or that had
once been held and were not now subject to entry. In that
way I came in contact with Mr. Barnard and the other clerks.
I don't think at that time I got any information voluntarily
from the clerks; I forced out what I got. But at a later date,
I took my second lot of contracts myself, and certain persons
whose contracts I had guarantied, or for whom I became security-it came to be an object to get land applied on those
contracts; and on a certain occasion in the office (Mr. Porter
I am sure was present, and I am sure Mr. Barnard was pres190




1514     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ent, but of other clerks I am not sure), I said that I had very
heavy contracts, and I did not know what to do to fill it,scrip was depreciating, and I made the remark, casually, that I
would pay handsome for any  minutes of swamp lands
out of which I could make par or more than par.  Responses were made in a casual way.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. What was the date that you made that remark?
Answer. Well, from entries on my land-book, the large list
that I took shortly afterwards, I should think it was in 1870,
in the fall of 1870. I could determine by reference to the
contracts, but I don't know just when they were approved;
but it was in that connection. It was at a time when I had
contracted to the amount of some twenty thousand acres, and
no scrip was put upon it, and prices of scrip were low. But
during the conversation the remark was made by some of the
clerks, and I should think by Mr. Barnard-indeed I think Elder Potter was present, because I remember remarks that he
made at that time-but I think Mr. Barnard remarked that
there would be no trouble in overloading my contract; that
there were any amount of lands that were good lands, that
were worth taking, and they could overload the contract if I
wanted it. That is about the substance of the conversation.
I made no arrangement whatever at that time. But my recollection is, and the entries that I have on my land-book-the
applications —show, that immediately after that I did get heavy
lists of land through the agent there. Some, I think, were
not held at all on contracts, and my impression is that some
one held them  on a contract or contracts that were overdrawn; but I got heavy lists along about that time, and
I had reason to think  that they  came principally  from
Mr. Barnard.  Mr. Barnard  may have given  me some
lists, some information personally to me, but as a general
thing I did not get it in that way at all, but I got it through
Elder Potter, who was acting for me there, and was authorized




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1515
to mark anything, in his judgment, he thought I could make
the price of scrip out of, and put it on my contract, signing
my name to it.  That is the substance of the transactions.
There are other details that Mr. BarnardQ. Will you explain, Mr. Hall, what scrip deal there has
been between you and Mr. Barnard, if any?
A. Mr. Barnard has had scrip from me, as I learned, to the
amount of five hundred dollars. I am not aware of any other.
I think that is the amount, all told, of the scrip that he has
had.
Q. State whether you have ever made an arrangement with
Gillam and Robinson, or either of them, to furnish lists to you
or your agent, for reserving lands, —if so, what was it?
A. Well, I never made any arrangement that I should call
an arrangement; but in looking up my scrip account,-in
looking up my scrip and reservation account, and talking over
the subject of abandoned lands, or lands that were subject to
be entered, I was aware that Mr. Gillam knew a good deal
about it,-knew of a great deal of land,-and I solicited him to
hand over to me, or let me or Elder Potter know of any lands
that he had reason to think were worth taking, and let me
take them  on my contract. I learned that Mr. Gillam did
hand over to Elder Potter some lists. Elder Potter has told
me what the amount was, but I could call it two or three
hundred acres.
Q. About Mr. Robinson?
A. I made the same request to Mr. Robinson, but I am not
aware that I ever got any of Mr. Robinson. I made the request,
but not in connection with Mr. Gillam, at all. As I have
stated, these conversations were happening at different times,
casually. I requested Mr. Robinson that he would let me have
any that he knew were subject to be taken; and, anticipating
that he might, I told Elder Potter to copy and sign any lists
that I might get, embodying any descriptions that he might
give me of that character.




1516     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. State whether you ever gave Elder Potter any instructions to allow Mr. Gillam or Mr. Robinson to have any of the
lands that were reserved on your contracts?
A. My recollection is that I never specifically ordered Elder
Potter to let either of these persons have, and I don't know but
I did, to let Mr. Barnard have. My impression is that I did
not specifically, but I gave him such instructions that he was
authorized to let him have, or other persons, in certain contingencies.
Q. You once applied for some lands that had formerly been
applied for by Obed Smith?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State how you came to release those lands.
A. Well, a good deal passed between the old gentleman and
myself,-some of it in sport and some of it in earnest,-but a
part of the list I gave up at once to Mr. Smith, directly between
himself and me. The lands were applied for by Elder Potter
in my name, but I sanctioned it, but I did not know about it
at the time. After it was made and reported to me, I said it
was all right, and just at that same time, which was the next
visit that I made to Lansing after the occurrence, I met Mr.
Smith here while I was here. He stated to me that he had
got into a row here with the Office, and they had stolen his
lands, or got them away from him, but I was one of the guilty
parties; and thereupon occurred a scene, and some hard words
passed,-good-naturedly on my part, and possibly on his. He
threatened me with a lawsuit; he said it was all a fraud, and
that they had been cheating him and stealing from him; but
he said he did not know as I was personally responsible,-he
did not think I was. I told him I had done it, individually,
and took the whole responsibility, and nobody was to blame
but myself. He told me who he had got as an attorney to take
the case into court, and I told him  to go in if he liked
that. That went on, I guess, more than one day, —I hink I
stayed over night here, —but he came to me, finally, while I was




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1517
here, in a sober sort of a mood,-understand, we were friends
all the time; a part of the time he would laugh about it and
joke, and part of the time he got pretty serious. He is a lawyer
himself, and talks as lawyers will when they get together; but,
finally, he told me squarely that he was in a tight place, that
he had agreed to sell some of these lands, and had got to
make a patent then, or fulfill his agreement in regard to it,
and it would accommodate him  if I would give up part
of them.  I told him  I was quite willing to do so, and
I told him to give me a list of the lands, and I made an
open order to release them. He made the remark at that time,
that there was plenty left for a lawsuit, and we both assented
to it; that there was plenty left for a lawsuit and we were
going to have it. A part of the conversation was in the
Land Office, and a part at the hotel, and a part on the walk as
we were going back and forth. But a portion of the conversation was overheard by the Commissioner, at all events, before
I left Lansing. In the office of the Commissioner, the Commissioner came to me and introduced the subject, spoke about
it, and as near as I can recollect the substance of it was this:
that if it came to a ruling, if I was entitled to the lands, he
should so rule in my favor; and I think he intimated that
very likely the legal right of the matter was in me; but,
says he, I am satisfied that old gentleman has been trusting in
good faith that he could hold these lands, that they had been
held for him, and it is a hard case on him, and says he, "I
wish you would give way." I told him he was at perfect liberty to strike my name off. Whether I instructed Elder Potter
to that effect I do not know, but I rather think I did. I
learned afterwards that Elder Potter had signed a release of
the lands. I went away badgering the old man, and telling
him that we would fight it out; but before I went away, I
made that arrangement with the Commissioner, —said that
to the Commissioner.




1'18     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EDMUND HALL.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. You say you were personally responsible for the reservation of Smith's land. Did you know anything about the
reservation at the time it was made?
Answer. I did not. I didn't know anything about it.
Q. Iow long was it after it was made, before you had any
knowledge of it?
A. I have heard since I came here that the application was
made in November. I don't think I was in Lansing until in
January. I think I was here early in January. I think that
is the date that I had my interview with Mr. Smith.
Q. That is the first knowledge you had of the reservation
being made?
A. That is the first I had, personally.
Q. This list was furnished by Barnard to Mr. Potter?
A. I have understood that it was.
Q. To make the reservation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You speak of getting some land that was once selected
by Palmer & Merril],-some four thousand acres; when did
you say that was?
A. I think it was in 1869. I cannot be sure as to the date.
Q. That was procured by the system of " raiding," as it is commonly termed?
A. That is what Palmer and I agreed to call it.
Q. And that is the term that is applied to it among land
dealers, isn't it?
A. Well, I don't know that it is. It is a cant expression
that is used by some.
Q. Raiding upon each other's reservations.  Whe ereere
these lands?
A. They were scattered pretty generally through the State.
Q. How is it that you got them through the pine district?
You say you got it from Palmer?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1519
A. Well, sir, as a matter of fact, I didn't get them. I should
explain that.
Q. I don't care anything about that.
A. They were reservedQ. I say I don't care anything about it. You say that after
you had taken a large number of contracts, you remarked casually in the office, in the presence of the clerks, that you would
pay well for lists of land. You made that remark, did you
not, for the purpose of directing the attention of the clerks to
that fact, expecting that they would furnish you a list of lands.
Wasn't that, Ir. Hall, your expectation?
A. MIy impression is, I made itQ. No. I ask you if you didn't make that remark for the
purpose of directing the attention of the clerks and alsoA. No, sir. I answer No.
Q. With the expectation of procuring lists of land in that
way?
A. I answer No, to that question.
Q. What is your explanation?
A. My impression is, the first remark was made casually,
merely as any man would speak about a business that he is
surveying in his own mind, without any definite intention;
but immediately upon the remark being made that they could
furnish lists, I seized upon that, as information that might
lead to results,-anid I cultivated my acquaintance with the
office, and pried into everything I could, and followed it up as
closely as I could.
Q. You said you would pay w.ll for lists if you could make
them pass on your scrip?
A. Yes, sir; or something to that effect.
Q. What did you mean by that,-where you can get ten
shillings an acre for the land?
A. Well, I don't know what I did mean by that.
Q. Now, that was in December, 1870, I think you said?
A. I could not say about that. I do not know certain about
t ha't.




1520     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. About what time was it?
A. It was in 1870, I should judge, from the fact of my making heavy reservations immediately after that, and knowing
that some of them I got in that way.
Q. I hold in my hand a letter dated Dec. 7, 1870, written by
Mr. Barnard, in which he sends to Mr. Bush to look up lands,
which he and Bush were to be interested in, and he states that
he has an arrangement with Mr. Hall, after referring to an
arrangement to hold lands. Do you know anything about
that?
A. I don't know about that. I think if he alludes to an
arrangement, he is mistaken about it.
Q. You think that Barnard was mistaken and that you did
not have any arrangement with him?
A. No. I mean this: I think it is an allusion to transactions
between myself and Barnard and Bush. If you wish, I will
explain in full, giving you the circumstances connected with
it.
Q. You say there was no arrangement?
A. I say I made an arrangement in connection wiitlh Mr.
Bush,-with Bush,-by Mr. Barnard.
Q. I have a letter in my hands, dated January 31, 1871, in
which IMr. Barnard refers to your name, and in which he says,
"You will hold the lands;" do you know anything about that?
A. I do not know anything about that, specifically.
Q. Did you have an arrangement, in January, 1871, by which
Bush and Barnard could hold lands upon your contract?
A. No, sir.
Q. In which Barnard and Bush were interested?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Barnard says, in this letter, that he wants 4,000 acres of
pine lands; and he wants the land looked in Lapeer and Tuscola. This is dated January 31, 1871. Now, let me ask youyou do not remember it-if it is not a matter of fact that there
are some 1,900 acres of land that were looked, after the date of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 152i
this letter, that you are holding for him, Bush, in the county
of Tuscola?
A. No, sir; I do not know it, and I do not think it is trad.
Q. What amount are you holding for Bush?
A. I do not speak about the amount.  I answered your
general questions.
Q. What land are you holding for Bush in those counties?
A. Considerable amount, I think, less than that. I do not
criticise the amount,-I criticise the fact. I answer No to the
fact.
Q, Do you say you are not holding any for Bush in Tuscola
county?
A. I do not say I am holding some for Bush in Tuscola
county; but I say that I am not holding any with Bush, after
we had it looked, in connection with any arrangement with
Barnard.
Q. Mr. Bush testifies, after he got this letter, that he looked the
land, and they were held,-I suppose that is a matter of record
here. I have a letter, dated April 17, 1871, that is also held in
the case, in which you are referred to, which reads like this,-I
will read the whole of it: "I send to-day plats of the Alpena
country, for all towns, I think, worth looking, with lands once
reserved and applied for, and checked in blue. I wish you
would look such towns carefully for scattering lots of pine. If
you can get 800 or 1,000 acres, I will reserve it on contract
until we can sell it and make something out of it. Don't sell
to anyone in Alpena. Report direct to me. Hall says he shall
probably see you again soon, in Saginaw City, and will talk
with you again about lands in 18-2."  Now, what do you say
about Mr. Barnard having a right to reserve lands upon your
contract, after or on the 17th day of April, 1871, or afterwards, that he and Bush might sell them and make something
out of them.
A. Had no such arrangement.
Q. What do you say about having a talk with Barnard at
191




1522     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
this time, in which you stated that you would see Bush and
talk with him in Saginaw City?
A. I had such a talk with him.
Q. What were you going to talk with him about?
A. About paying Bush's expenses to go and look lands.
Q. I have a lettter that is in evidence that is dated March 6,
1871, in which Barnard says: "Hall was here on Saturday,
and consented to hold the two forties in 18 N., 2 W., and a fraction in 19 N. 2 W., until he could see you and make some arrangement with you for that."  What do you say about that?
A. What do you want me to say?
Q. Do you say whether that is true or not, that you had an
arrangement by which Barnard might mark those lands up
against your contract and hold them?
A. No, sir, nothing of that kind; but substantially what he
says in that letter, is true.
Q. What is that?
A. As I understood you to read it,-that I would hold these
until I saw Bush.
Q. Were not those lands that Bush had looked, and that
Barnard and Bush were interested in, that Bush had looked
before the sixth of March?
A. They might have been interested, for all I know.
Q. They were lands he had looked before the sixth of March?
A. I did not know at that time that he had ever looked
them. He claimed that he had looked them.
Q. Did you not understand so from Barnard?
A. No, sir-well, I won't say. At some time I understood
from Barnard that Bush claimed to have. looked these lands
alluded to in the letter. I had no understanding of that kind
at the time those lands were held.
Q, You w.ere to furnish him  money in paying expenses, in
looking lands in Alpena, or Tuscola, or Lapeer?
A. I do not know who was to furnish them. I was applied
for.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1523
Q. I understood you to say that you were to see him about
funishing money to pay expenses?
A. I agreed to see him. I made no promise.
Q. Where was it you had the talk with Barnard, about doing
this?
A. That was in the Land office, here. I do not recollect ever
seeing him anywhere else.
Q. Who called your attention to the fact that Bush was
looking lands?
A. I think Barnard; and at some time, whether before or
after this, with Bush himself.
Q. Did Barnard give you to understand at that time that he
could get the lands from Bush?
A. No, I do not think he did.
Q. Did he say anything to you about Bush being in the
woods looking lands?
A. I think he did.
Q. And furnishing lists to him?
A. I think so.
Q. And he had a talk with you at that time, about reserving
them upon your contract, did he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, about what time was that conversation?
A. It was at different times. I should judge it was along
in ths winter of 1871, and the spring.
Q.'Was it as late as April 25th?
A. Very likely.
Q. As late as April 25thi, 18 1, you talked with him  upon
this same subject?
A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. You do not claim to have any interest in the land in Tus-cola county, which Bush looked, I believe,-do you?
A. I claim that I own them. I might own them absolutely.
Q. Because they are reserved upon your contract?
A. Yes, sir.




1524     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. But that is not the understanding that you have had
with Bush?
A. That was the understanding when I put them upon my
contract.
Q. Is that the understanding between you and Bush, now?
A. No, sir.
Q. The understanding between you and Bush is, that Bush
is to have the benefit of those lands,-to sell them?
A. He is to have those lands entire; that is, I understand,
a certain class of lands.
Q. Is not that a contract of lands that you hold in other
sections of the State?
A. True, with regard to whom?
Q. With Mr. Bush.
A. My impression is that Bush wants nothing and claims
nothing at the West, —although he did look some lands thereBut he does want those in Tnscola county.
Q. Those lands that you got out in Allegan,-you got some
there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those lands held for Mr. Bush and Barnard, or are~
they your own lands?
A. They are my own lands.
Q. Did you have any knowledge until these proceedings
commenced, that the land out in Allegan county had been
reserved on your contract?
A. I have been trying to sell them for a year.  SenatorStockbridge will tell you about that.
Q. They were lands looked by Mr. Bush, were they not?
A. I have since learned that they were. I was not aware of
it at the time.
Q. They were looked by Mr. Bush and returned to Mr. Barnard. Barnard had them reserved on your contract?
A. Well, I think so, but I am not sure of it. I know Bush
claims to have located it.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1525
Q. Have you no interest in lands in Mecosta county, in the
same way, that were looked by Bush?
A. I am not aware of any.
Q. Have you not got some in the Alpena country, that was
looked by Bush?
A. I don't know. I will not say positively that there is not.
Q. You say the lands that Bush claims are in Allegan, Tuscola, and Lapeer?
A. All the lands that Bush claims, and the information I got
from Bush, are the lands in Tuscola county,-it is in that
region around Tuscola county.
Q. What do you know about a piece of land that was sold to
John B. Dwinell,-I think your attention has been called to
that?
A. Well, I thought I owned the lot, but I didn't.
Q. Why didn't you own it; it was reserved on your scrip?
A. No, sir; I don't think it was. I suppose it should have
been, but it slipped through some way,-I did not get it.
Q. They were pieces that Van Dunham sold to Dwinell?
A. I do not know. Mr. Bush agreed to sell it to me, and I
supposed it was reserved on my contract.
Mr. Manager Huston-We will waive further cross-examination for the present.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the Second sends
up the following question, which the Secretary will read.
The Secretary read the question, as follows:
"Did you ever get lands reserved to you, in the Land Office,
that were reserved in the name of other parties on the books
of the office, as a favor to you?
Witness-I do not know how to answer that. Not any that
I understood as a special favor.
By a Senator-I call for the reading of the question again.
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will read the question.
The Secretary read the question as before.
Witness-In answering what I suppose to be the intent of




1526    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the question, I should say, squarely, No. I never got anything
that any other citizen could not get, that I know of. I certainly never supposed I could,-nor tried. That whole transaction with Mr. Bush I would be entirely willing to explain
in detail.
Mr. Manager HItston-I do not know as I care about that.
We are through.
RE-EXAMINATION OF EDMUND HALL.
Re-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You may explain that very matter?
Answer. At the time when the lands alluded  to  were
reserved to me, I had no understanding, nor suspicion, that
anybody else was interested in it; that was according to my
best understanding at the time it was reserved. I afterwards
learned, and I think for the first time, from Bush, that there
was a large amount of land reserved on my contract, that he
looked. I afterwards learned from other sources, that there
was a large amount of land that I held on my contract that
he had looked up,-as they say, "got the minutes of,"-and
Mr. Bush claimed that he had a right to a share in those lands,
and he came to me with that intent, and claimed it as a right.
I repudiated it. I told him I had made no arrangements to that
effect. Whatever land I had, I held clear, as I supposed I had got
that, as I got other minutes, and was holding them  as mine.
There was a good deal of discussion one way and the other. I
consulted Mr. Barnard and Mr. Porter about it, and the final
result was, I told Mr. Bush to mark out to me whatever land
I held in the State, that he had located, and, in equity, claimed
that he ought to have, and he marked out his share, and I told
him he might have it, exclusively; not only a share, but the
whole. He expressed considerable gratitude, and he then
marked out the land in Tuscola county, or surrounding,
somewhere, from 1,000 to 2,000 acres, more or less, that he
would like held, and wanted me to hold them until he could
make other arrangements, or get them patented, and I did so.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1527
Q. Do you remember that it was about 1,960 acres. Does
that number refresh your memory?
A. I almost think it was. I am not positive. In the same
conversation, he said to me he had looked other lands, and, I
presume, taken out what lands he had looked. I could not
give them. I know some of them were over in Senator Stockbridge's neighborhood, and there might be land in Mecosta
county; but I think he told me-I am quite positive-that he
did not want anything only those up in the Sanilac and Tuscola region.
Q. These are the lands that you mean when you say you
were to hold the lands on your contract for Bush?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether you are holding land on that contract for
Barnard.
A. No, sir, I am not. I will say that I am not sure that I
was holding for Bush. There was a great deal of conversation between Mr. Barnard, myself, and Mr. Bush, about his
going into the woods to look land. I obtained information
from Barnard that Bush was looking and contemplated going
into the woods again, under some arrangement. Well, Mr.
Barnard recommended him to me as a good land-looker, and
said that he was a good man to look land, and recommended
him pretty strongly, and a correspondence was had between
Bush and myself, and an interview.
Q. Do you know when that was?
A. I cannot give the date; but it was after I was aware that
I had this land that he claimed in regard to it. I should think
very likely in the spring. There was a lot of land, 9 north,
1 west,-I do not remember the county,-that I talked with
Barnard about sending to have examined, that I had reserved
for myself. Barnard also called my attention to that. I am
sure some of them were received, but not the whole. They
were called the Peacock land.
Q. What is the name?




1528     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. The Peacock land, held under the Peacock contract.
There was quite a large tract. I don't know but I may have
promised to send Bush to look at this land. I afterwards got
another man to look them, and then we talked about sending
Mr. Bush up to look it up, near where he was going to look for
other parties, and I think I gave him my list of lands that I
was then holding. I think, very likely, they may have looked
other lands. While this was going on, right in connection
with it, is the conversation alluded to, about my speaking of
paying his expenses; either Mr. Bush wrote to me about
expenses, or it came to my knowledge in some way, and without committing myself, agreeing to pay expenses, I postponed
it, intending to see Mr. Bush, and see what arrangement I
could make. Whether I wrote to Mr. Barnard to that effect,
or told him that-I think I told him that; because I am confident that I had no correspondence with him, except
in two instances, and that was not the subject then. That
is the explanation in regard to their looking lands. Now,
another matter: The three forties that I agreed to hold
for him. As I recollect, I applied for three forties on the Cedar.
I sent my own land-lookers to look at them. Mr. Bush did
not look at them; at least I was not aware of it, at that time.
But they were applied for by me, and I had not the slightest
idea that anybody else had any claim, I think, until Mr. Bush
turned up and claimed those as his lands. Mr. Barnard spoke
to me, and said Mr. Bush claimed it; and I learned, at the
same time, that he had agreed to sell,-he wanted to give up
those lands. My idea was, to hold them then as they were,
unless I could change them and get something else that would
satisfy me, as the holder, to let him have them. And that is
the explanation of my agreeing to hold those lands till I saw
Mr. Bush. That is all.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator from the Seventeenth
(Mr. Stockbridge) sends up the following question. The Secretary will read the question.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1529
The Secretary read as follows:
" Question. You say lands were held upon your contract for
Mr. Bush before you knew that such was the fact. Now, by
what authority was that done?"
Answer. Those applications were signed by Elder Potter, as
I understand, and under the directions that I had given him
before. And I, perhaps, should answer further, that I became
aware, and have no doubt about the fact now, that these
descriptions were got through Mr. Barnard,-those lands in
Tuscola county and Sanilac. But I state that from general
knowledge of the relations between Mr Bush and Mr. Barnard,
as Mr. Bush afterwards explained that to me.
Q. You have stated that you were not holding any lands,
and have not held any, for Mr. Barnard?
A. Not an acre.
Q. Will you state whether you hold now or ever have held
any lands for Barnard and Bush,-if any, what?
A. Not an acre in that way. I had no idea that Mr. Barnard
was interested in Bush's transaction, as I now recollect. I
should make another explanation there  with regard to
lands held for Mr. Barnard. It is this. It is an explanation
of the transaction, however it may be, or whether it is Mr.
Barnard or Bush, or whatever it may be. When I got these
descriptions, made these applications through Elder Potter, I
had no idea but I was holding these free from all embarrassment. I never expected to be called to an account for it to
anybody as holding other people's land, unless it might be
some man who possibly had a disputed contract, or with some
original holders. I never anticipated any such question as
this; but after these lists were put upon my contract-some
of them, at all events-I became aware, through Elder Potter,
that there were some descriptions that other people claimed,
or that they thought they ought to have; and Mr. Barnard
made representations to me that there were some lots that
were on my contract, and I ought to hold them  for the
192




1530     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
benefit of the original holders or somebody else. At any rate,
I became aware of a claim of that kind. I had taken those
lands with the expectation of making the price of scrip, or
more, out of them, as I could, and, not being aware of any such
claims as these, I told Mr. Potter that with regard to the lands
that I did not make a special claim of-lands that I had looked
up and had at a definite price-that I was quite willing to
have those lands taken off, if I could be indemnified,-alluding
to such explanations as these that he had given, or such suggestions; and I am aware that afterwards some lots were patented up
by other parties. The application was signed by Elder Potter,
as a substitute, under those representations. I look at some
of the testimony. and I should judge that those transactionsI cannot give the names nowQ. You refer to Hudson and Munroe?
A. Yes, sir. If he had the application, I presume that these
lands were taken in that way.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. And that was within the scope of your authority
and direction to Potter?
Answer. That was entirely so. There was another transaction that I have not seen alluded to at all. I had some three
or four thousand acres, I think, that I had sent to take, not
having a very good opinion of the locality, and not having very
definite information about it. I consented to have them put
on my contract. I was uneasy about them, and wanted them
off, and I told Elder Potter, if he could get rid of the whole
list of lands, and get a fair market price for scrip, to let them
go for it. I cannot give you the township, but I know there
have been three or four thousand acres of that kind patented
up and paid in scrip. The whole detail of that, Elder Potter
knows distinctly and definitely. All that I can give you is the
general idea.
Q. Now, Mr. Hall, in all these transactions with the office,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1531
state whether you had any arrangement with the Commissioner with reference to your matters?
A. Nothing at all.
Mr. McGowan-That is all, Mr. President.
The Witness-I scarcely came in contact with the Commissioner at all.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EDMUND HALL.
Examined by Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. When were these four or five thousand acres
patented up,-how long ago?
Answer. I should think sometime last summer or fall.
Q. You do not know to whom they were patented up?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know who sold the land,-whether it was Barnard?
A. I suppose I sold it myself. I suppose orders to patent
were signed in my name.
Q. Who negotiated the contract with the man,-bought the
land?  You mean, by saying you sold it when you were
present, Potter signed the necessary papers to have them
patented?
A. That is all I mean.
Q. You say Mr. Bush claimed an interest in the lands; what
reason did he assign for having an interest in the lands?
A. He said he had looked those lands up with the understanding that for furnishing the minutes he was to have a
share in the lands or pay for them.
Q. Looked them up with an understanding with whom?
A. I think he stated with Mr. Barnard.
Q. Let me ask you whether Mr. Bush looked up the N. E. ~
of the S. W. { of Sec. 20, T. 10 N., 4 E.?
A. I have no means of telling, here. I have no recollection
about it as a description.
Q. Will you tell whether he looked the N. - of the S. W. ~
of Sec. 5, T. 8 N. 1 W.?
A. I have no means of telling, here. The land-book that I




1532     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
-hold in my hand is not posted any later than a year ago this
last spring, except lots that I put on myself, individually. I
have not compared it with the entry-book, or with Potter's.
Q. This land was reserved before last spring, the evidence
shows.
A. I do not think I have the town in my plat. I have no
recollection about it.
Q. If you had had your own land-looker to look them up,
you would have had it on your plat?
A. I think I would.
Q. That is true with regard to the first piece I read?
A. I have no minutes that I can give you any information
from.
Q. Let me ask you if you have got the minutes of the S. ~ of
the N. E. i, and the N. W. i of the N. E. I of section 13, town
12 N., range 10 W.
A. I have no report of that.
Q. Will you look on your book and see if you have the S.
W. I of the S. W. i, section 17, 2 S., 16 W.?
A. I have nothing south of the meridian.
Q. Will you look to see if you have the N. W. ~ of the N.
W. i, and the S. W. ~ of the S. W. ~, town 10 N., 4 E.
A. That is the same town you called once before. I may
have answered you incorrectly. I was looking for 10 N., 4 W.
I have the description you gave me in Sec 20, in my land-book.
I have no report of that. It is in the general direction where
Bush looked lands, and I presume that he looked that. I have
no personal knowledge of it and have not got it minuted on my
book.
Q. I want to call your attention to the S. W. ~ of the S E. i
of section 13, town 4 north, range 13 west?
A. I have that on my book. I have not any reports here of
it; but it is merely marked down on the plat-book.
Q. That is the same land which Bush looked?
A. I am not aware that it is; it may be and it may not be.
I have it on my books.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1533
Q. The N. W. i of Sec. 19, town 2 north, 15 west,-have you
got that?
A. I have got two descriptions in that town,-19 and 20.
Q. What is the description on 19 and 20?
A. W. i of the N. W.
Q. Did you make any application for that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is not that the same that Bush looked also.?
A. It may be.
Q. And the application was made by Potter, if made at all?
A. I think so.
The Senator from the Twenty-fifth [Mr. Waterbury] sent
to the Chair the following question, which the Secretary read:
"Question. You say that you suppose the land which was
reserved on your contract by Barnard or Bush was yours to all
intents. What would you pay Barnard or Bush, as you suppose?"
Answer. Nothing.
The Senator from the Twenty-seventh (Mr. Stockbridge)
sent to the Chair the following question, which was read by
the Secretary:
"Question. Do you know anything about the Bathay contract-the date of it and if the road was well built?"
Answer. That is a professional question.  None of the
swamp angels, known as State-road contractors, admits that
anyone builds a good road except himself.
Q. Did you have any interest in the Obed Smith or Bathay
contract?
A. Not that I am aware of.
The Presiding Officer-I wish to say to the Senators that I.
have been requested to sign orders in favor of the clerks in the
Land Office, who have been here as witnesses. I have hitherto,
refused to do so, thinking they were in the employ of theState while they were here as witnesses, not knowing that they
lost their time. If some one will make a motion, the Chair
will entertain it.




1534     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Senator Romeyn-I will make the motion that the usual
allowance that is made to other witnesses in the caseSenator Ball-I would like to inquire if they have lost their
time?
The Presiding Officer-I have understood not. I have not
been informed definitely with regard to that.
By Mr. Manager Huston-They have not been in attendence but very little on our call. We called the witnesses here
only when they were needed.
Senator Waterbury-I would like to know if I can draw
pay as a witness?
The Presiding Officer-That question is hardly before the
Senate at the present time. The Senator from the First (Mr.
Romeyn) means that the usual per diem be allowed to the
clerks from the Land Office, who have been here as witnesses,
that have been allowed to other witnesses.
Senator Romeyn —I mean to all the clerks employed by the
State, provided they were summoned by the Managers.
Senator Alexander —I move that the motion lie upon the
table.
The Presiding Officer-Voting it down will have the same
effect. The Chair would like to know what to do. I simply
raise the question for my instruction. I would like to know
what the order of the Senate is to be. Does the gentleman
withdraw the motion, to lay on the table?
Senator Alexander — o, I do not.
The Presiding Officer-I wish you would do something with
regard to it.
Senator Alexander-If you will state the question I would
like to make some remarks.
The Presiding Oicer-Discussion is not in order. The
Chair takes it for granted that they are in the employ of the
State while here as witnesses.
Mr. McGowan-Possibly we can make a statement which
will throw some light upon the subject. I have just been




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                     1535
informed by the Commissioner of the Land Office, that this
matter was brought to his notice by the clerks, and he told
them if they received pay while acting as witnesses that he
would be compelled to cut their pay down on the pay-rolls.
It is as long as it is short.
Senator Alexander-I will withdraw the motion to lay upon
the table.
The Presiding Officer-The question is upon the motion of
the Senator from the First, Mr. Romeyn.
Senator Ball-I move that the room  may be cleared, in
order that we may discuss this matter and come to some conclusion.  [Cries of " Let us have a vote."]
Senator Ball-If I am in orderThe Presiding Officer-The Senator is in order.
Senator Ball-I move that the Senate room may be cleared,
in order that we may discuss this matter and come to some
conclusion, as it involves a large expense, and we wish to see
whether it is right or wrong.  I do, especially before I vote
upon it.
Senator Alexander-I cannot see anyThe Presiding Officer-The Senator is out of order. Is the
motion of the Senator from  the Twenty-ninth ( Mr. Ball)
supported?
Senator Briggs-I support the motion.
The question being on the motion of the Senator from the
Twenty-ninth ( Mr. Ball ), that the room be cleared for deliberation;
The motion did not prevail.'The Presiding Officer-The question is upon the motion of
the Senator from the First ( Mr. Romeyn.)
The roll was called, and the motion did not prevail, by yeas:and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Ball,           Mr. Briggs,         Mr. Romevn,        3




1536     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Moffatt,         Mr. Stoddard,
Barber,            Neasmith,           Storrs,
Begole,            Price,              Waterbury,
Cawley,            Prutzman,           Wheeler,
Dexter,            Putnam,             Wood,
Gay,               Randall,            President
Jenks,             Sheley,                  pro tem.,
Mann,              Stockbridge,                     2:
The Presiding Officer-The motion was lost.
Mr. Manager Huston-When Mr. Munroe testified in the
case, there were two patents that he did not have, that he
agreed to send here, and he handed them  to me.  Counsel
have seen them, and we desire to make them exhibits in the
case.
The patents are as follows:
[EXHIBIT Y.]
No. 22880.
In the Name of the People of the State of Michigan:-lo all whom these
Presents shall come, Greeting:
Whereas, James T. Munroe, of the county of Clinton, Mich.,
on the twentieth day of February, in the year one thousand
eight hundred and seventy-one, purchased from the State of
Michigan, the lands hereinafter described, pursuant to the laws
of said State, then in force, and in such cases made and provided:
And whereas, The said James T. Munroe has paid for said
lands, pursuant to the conditions of said sale, and the laws of
the State duly enacted in relation thereto, the sum of one
hundred and fifty dollars, and all legal interest thereon accrued,
as fully appears by the certificate of the proper officer, now on
file in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, being certificate No. 9075 for swamp land;
Now, therefore, I HENRY P. BALDWIN, Governor of said
State, in consideration of the premises, and by virtue of the
power and authority vested in me by the laws of the said State,
in such cases made and provided, do issue this Patent, in the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1531
name and by the authority of the People of the State of Michigan, hereby granting and confirming unto the said James T.
Munroe, and to his heirs and assigns forever, the following
piece or parcel of land, situate in the State aforesaid, to wit:
The south half of the northeast quarter, and northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section thirteen (13), in township twelve (12) north, of range ten (10) west, containing one
hundred and twenty (120) acres, according to the returns of
the Surveyor General: To have and to hold the above described
and granted premises unto the said James T. Munroe and to
his heirs and assigns, to his and their sole and only proper use,
benefit, and behoof, forever, as provided by the laws of said
State, against the lawful claim  or claims of all persons whatsoever.
In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to
[ L. s. ] be made patent, and the Great Seal of the State to
be hereunto affixed.
Given under my hand, at Lansing, this twenty-first day of
February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United States
of America the ninety-fifth.
By the Governor:                 HENRY  P. BALDWIN.
SAM'L H. Row,
Dep. Secretary of State.
Recorded Book 37, page 176.
[EXHIBIT z.]
No. 22881.
In the Name of the People of the State of Michigan — To all whon tlese
presents shall come, Greeting:
Whereas, James T. Munroe, of the county of Clinton,
Mich., on the twentieth day of February, in the year one
thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, purchased from the
State of Michigan, the lands hereinafter described, pursuant
to the laws of said State, then in force, and in such cases made
and provided;
193




1538     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
And whereas, The said James T. Munroe has paid for said
lands, pursuant to the conditions of said sale, and the laws of
the State duly enacted in relation thereto, the sum of one
hundred dollars, and all legal interest thereon accrued, as fully
appears by the certificate of the proper officer, now on file in
the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Michigan,
being certificate No. 9074 for swamp land;
Now, therefore, I HENRY P. BALDWIN, Governor of said
State, in consideration of the premises, and by virtue of the
power and authority vested in me by the laws of the said State,
in such cases made and provided, do issue this Patent, in the
name and by the authority of the People of the State of Michigan, hereby granting and confirming unto the said James T
Munroe, and to his heirs and assigns forever, the following
piece or parcel of land, situate in the State aforesaid, to wit:
The north half of the southwest quarter of section five (5), in
township eight (8) north, of range one (1) west, containing
eighty (80) acres, according to the returns of the Surveyor
General; to have and to hold the above described and granted
premises unto the said James T. Munroe, and to his heirs and
assigns, to his and their sole and only proper use, benefit, and
behoof, forever, as provided by the laws of said State, against
the lawful claim or claims of all persons whatsoever.
In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to
[ L. s. ]  be made patent, and the Great Seal of the State to
be hereunto affixed.
Given under my hand, at Lansing, this twenty-first day of
February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United States
of America the ninety-fifth.
By the Governor:                HENRY P. BALDWIN.
SAM'L H. Row,
Dep. Secretary of State.
Recorded Book 37, page 177.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1539
Mr. Manager Huston —   did say I wanted to ask Mr. Gillam
a few more questions, but I do not think I will do it, Mr.
President. I will waive that.Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: I wish to offer in evidence,
the  Legislative Journal in regard  to  the  Impeachment
Proceedings.
Mr. Manager Huston-That is a public record, and I suppose is in evidence already.
Mr. Shipman-We do it in order that there may be no question about it.
Mir. McGowan-We are very happy to state to the Senate,
that with this last witness, we close our case, by stipulating, as we have agreed to with the Managers, that on the 10th
day of October, 1871, that the respondent had a wife then living, to whom he was legally married as charged in the last
article.
Mr. Manager Huston-It is understood also, that the paper
"Every Wednesday Night," is in evidence.
Mr. Shipman-Yes, sir, that is in evidence.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair understands, then, that
the evidence on the part of the respondent is now closed?
Mr. McGowan-It is now closed.
The Presiding Officer-You rest your case?
Mr. McGowan-We do, sir.
Mr. Romeyn-Mr. President, as I believe the case is closed
so far as the taking of evidence is concerned, I desire information from the gentlemen who represent the People, and also
the counsel, for the respondent, as to whether they are prepared to go on with the case,-the argument of it,-or what their
desire is in regard to it, before making any motion to adjourn.
The hour of adjournment has nearly arrived.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We have no witnesses in the Senate
Chamber, and we have but two or three more; they are to a single point; it is to the point of sustaining the witness Baker as to
his general reputation; and perhaps if the Senate adjourn they




1540     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
will allow us to introduce these witnesses on the coming-in of
the Court, at an adjourned day. It is to his general reputation for truth and veracity that we propose to introduce three
or four prominent citizens of this city; we have a list of
twenty names here.
The Presiding Officer —as that been attacked?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-There has been conflicting testimony. The Senate will recollect that he swore that he did not
play billiards on a certain night, and they have brought two
witnesses to say that he did, and that he was drunk, and he
denied that he was drunk.
The Presiding Officer-For the purpose of settling that
question it may as well be raised here, and the offer made here
before the adjournment, and the Senate can then decide whether
they will hear testimony as to that.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Well, we make the offer.
Senator Romeyn-I do not know, Mr. President, whether I
was in error, or whether the Journal is. I find on page 66 of
the Journal the announcement was made by the Honorable
Manager that they had closed the evidence with the exception
heretofore noted, which was with reference to the testimony of
a female who had been subpoeaned and had escaped.
Mr. Manager Huston-I suppose that would refer to the direct testimony. We had no reference to rebutting.
The Presiding Officer-No doubt about that. Does the
Chair understand, then, that the Ionorable Manager proposes
to introduce testimony as to the general reputation of the witness Baker for truth and veracity.  I understand that you are
not prepared with your witnesses.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We are not prepared at this moment. We can get them in, in a very few moments. We may
as well decide the question: We make that offer.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President. We do not understand that
this testimony would be admissible if the witnesses were here
present. We have offered no testimony directly impeaching




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1541
Mr. Baker. We have given no testimony, nor offered any testimony, that he was a person whose general reputation for
truth and veracity was bad. I do not understand the rule to
be, that you can offer testimony that his general reputation is
good, until it has been attacked. I may be mistaken, on that;
but I do not recollect an instance of its being done. Perhaps
I am wrong.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I understand there are two methods of impeaching the credibility of a witness: One is, by
showing contradictory statements, or showing, by a preponderance of proof, that he had been' false upon a given point; another is, you may attack a witness by his general reputation,two ways. Now, when a witness is attacked in either manner,
you may reply in either way. I understand it to be the invariable rule in this State, that where a witness is attacked,where there is an attempt to impeach him, either by testimony
as to his general character, or testimony affecting the principal matter to which he testified,-thus, an impeaching question put to him, " Were you not intoxicated such a night," or,
"Did you not play billiards that night;" he denies that; two
witnesses are brought to contradict that;-it is a question of
veracity between the witnesses. Now, we have a right in rebutting testimony, to impeach these impeaching witnesses, and
to sustain our own witness. I understand that to be the rule
of the Circuit.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-The gentleman, I think, mistakes
the proposition of law, at least as I understand it. He says:
" That the general character of a witness for truth and veracity
cannot be sustained until his general character is attacked."
Take a case of perjury, where a man is accused of committing
perjury. He is accused of making a single statement which is
false. That statement is proved to be false. Certainly, testimony may be introduced as to the general character of the
witness. It is almost the universal way, and one of the means
of defending such cases as that.




1542     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The Presiding Officer-I will ask the Manager, if, then, that
question is not the issue to be tried, and not collateral.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-I do not understand that in a case
of perjury, that the question to be tried is whether the general
reputation is good or bad; but the question is whether his
reputation for truth and veracity is good. They have asked
certain questions here, evidently for the purpose of impeaching
the witness; and this Court may believe that this witness,
Baker, stands perjured before them. So far as it goes, we think
this is the only way to sustain the credibility of the witness.
We had no means of knowing whether his testimony would be
attacked, or not. To illustrate this position, we bring Baker
on the stand; we know not what course the defense will pursue; we might have substantiated his testimony by a dozen
men, but we did not think it necessary; and they bring on a
dozen witnesses to impeach the very statements made; and we
bring a dozen witnesses to reiterate that testimony; we are
then thrown back to the general character of the witness. It
seems to us, and we submit, that that is the rule which governs
in such cases.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair does not understand that
where the witness is brought upon the stand, and gives testimony tending to prove a certain state of facts, and other
witnesses are brought upon the stand to show that the facts
are not as stated by that witness, but something else, that it is
no part of the rebutting case, then, to bring witnesses to support the first state of facts, sworn to by the first witness.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-That is not the question, that these
are impeaching questions to the witness. It is quite immaterial
whether lie was playing billiards or what. That is not the part
of the res gestce, but that is a matter calculated to impeach
him, as being inconsistent with  his story. They do not
ask the general question, whether he was doing so and so,
but they were impeaching questions; and I grant that, under the
proposition stated by the President, you can introduce corrobo



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1543
rative testimony, and give the preponderance of the proof
between the witnesses.  But these were impeaching questions,
and there were other impeaching questions put at the same
time about other matters: Did you not do so and so at such a
time? tending to impeach his credibility. As. I said before, it
is immaterial whether he was playing billiards or drunk,-not
affecting his credibility as a witness on the stand. It is a
material fact, for the Senate to understand whether or not he
was drunk and playing billiards that night, as a fact in itself
but immaterial as bearing upon the question of credibility.
Senator Wheeler —I would like to know, before a vote is taken,
whether the Managers claim anything under the articles referring to drunkenness.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-Yes, sir; I suppose we are obliged
to submit that; we have no power to withdraw.
The Presiding Officer-The question is, shall the evidence
proposed on the part of the Managers be received. Are you
ready for the question? Senators, those of you in favor of the
evidence being received, will, as your names are called, say Aye;
those opposed, No. The Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary called the roll and the motion prevailed, by
yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Ball,          Mr. Jenks,          Mr. Stoddard,
Barber,            Moffatt,            Storrs,
Begole,            Neasmith,           Waterbury,
Cawley,            Putnam,             Wheeler,
Dexter,            Sheley,             Wood,        17
Gay,               Stockbridge,
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Price,           Mr. President
Briggs,            Prutzman,                pro tern., 7
Mann,              Romeyn,
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We will confine ourselves to the
number limited in the Circuits,-not to exceed four witnesses
We have not the witnesses present. I want to state that, per



1544     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
haps the absent witness will be here, and will be all the testimony we will offer.  We are not informed at present. The
Managers are also under the necessity of asking a little indulgence from the Senate in order to prepare for the opening of
this case. Should the argument be reached to-morrow morning, I apprehend we shall not be able to open this case on the
part of the People as fairly and as fully as its importance
demands. We ask that we may have a reasonable time to prepare the opening arguments. We have given our time and
attention to getting this testimony before the Senate, and we
have had hardly time to make any arrangement for presenting
the arguments. We ask that we be allowed a reasonable time
to prepare and present this case, and, also, on the coming in of
the Court, to present the four witnesses'which we shall have by
that time.
Mr. Shipman-I understand, Colonel, that the testimony of
the four witnesses are upon the question of truth and veracity?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor —Four witnesses, and if the absconding witness should be reached in the meantime, we shall ask
to produce her here.
Mr. Shipman —r. President: We cannot take the case in
that shape.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I do not apprehend there is anything else, unless we shall find that we have omitted something
which would be a matter of consideration for the Senate to
allow us to introduce it or not. We are not aware now of any
rebutting testimony, except what is now in.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: We do not like to take the
case in this shape; we do not know where we are. They propose now to offer four witnesses, but it may be something
beyond that; it may go on indefinitely, —how far we do not
know, and I ask for information now, so that we may know
what to prepare for.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-It is not indefinite. There is the
absconding witness that we sent for.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1545
The Presiding Officer-So far as that absconding witness is
concerned, of course it is provided for in the reservation that
was made at the time.
On motion of Mr. Alexander, the rule requiring the Senate,
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, to adjourn at four o'clock
was suspended.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-To  state definitely, we have
only to examine this absconding witness'and the four
witnesses spoken  of, the balance I make no reservation
about.  If we discover that we have by haste omitted
anything, we shall have to come before you and make
a case for your consideration;  we ask  no reservation,
however. It will be like any other case submitted to the courts
for consideration, for pur relief against accident and mistake, if
there should be some part, in looking over the case, we find we
have omitted to introduce. There are various kinds of testimony here, documentary evidence. I remember now that you
[the counsel for the respondent] called for the patent of Mr.
Hudson; and I remember that it has been brought in,-it has
not been produced,-and you may refuse us the weight of the
evidence if it is not in. Some little things of that kind,
we ask no reservation for, but we shall come to the Court, and
ask'that reasonable consideration, whether it may come in or
not, depending upon its importance, whatever it may be.
The Presiding Officer-Let me suggest that there is no motion before the Senate.
Mr. McGowan-I wish simply to inquire of the President as
to a suggestion which he himself has just made. If I mistake
not, he said that the absconding witness may be produced at
any time during the trial,-that under the reservation that
was made, after we had submitted our case, then she might be
brought in as a part of the case of the prosecution.
The Presiding Officer-I so understand it.
Mr. McGowan-We certainly submit that we did not so un194




1546     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
derstand it. After we had closed, we had reason to believe that
it only went to our portion of the case.
The Presiding Officer-I do not recollect the exact language.
Mr. Romeyn-I ask that the Secretary read from page 66
of the Journal.
The Secretary read as follows:
"Ordered, That Jane Bolton may be sworn, in the case, on the
part of the State;at any time before the evidence is closed, and her
testimony received as if in regular order, subject to the right
of cross-examination on the part of the respondent, and to
produce testimony in answer thereto."
Mr. Shipman-I understand the testimony to be closed now
with the exception of the privilege of calling four witnesses
upon the general reputation of James HI. Baker as to truth
and veracity. If not, we want to go on with the case and
finish it.
The Presiding Officer-I understand just this: That the
testimony on the part of the respondent is now closed; that no
testimony has yet been introduced of a rebutting nature. The
matter under discussion now is, when that shall be brought
forward. Of course, if the Honorable MIanagers should state
that they had no rebutting testimony, the testimony would
then be closed. I do not understand that it is now.
Mr. Manager Huston-Mr. President: We do not want to
say now that the rebutting testimony is closed. We have had
no opportunity to produce such testimony.
The Presiding Officer-It seems that this discussion will be
fruitless unless some motion is before the Senate.
Mr. Shipman-May I state, Mr. President, what I understood
the Honorable Managers to say? It is that they had closed,
with the exception of those four witnesses; perhaps I am
wrong?
Mr. Waterbury-I move that when the Senate adjourns, it
be until Tuesday morning at nine o'clock.
Mr. Alexander-I would inquire of the Honorable Managers




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1547
and the counsel for the respondent, if that will give them sufficient time to prepare for the arguments?
Mr. Shipman-It will give us sufficient.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor —I would prefer to have it on
Wednesday, but will submit to the voice of the Senate.
Mr. Romeyn-I will ask the Senator from the-Twenty-fifth,
if he will allow me to amend the motion by making it afternoon of that day, instead of nine o'clock.
The Presiding Officer-Does the Senator from the First
offer that as an amendment to the motion made by the Senator
from the Twenty-fifth?
Mr. Romeyn-Yes, sir. I offer an amendment simply as to
the hour,-making it Tuesday at two o'clock P. M., instead of
Tuesday morning at nine o'clock.
Mr. Waterbury-If the Managers and the counsel for the
respondent say they are ready to go on, I do not think it is
best to spend time when they are ready to go on.
The Presiding Officer-Did the Chair understand the Senator from the Twenty-fifth to accept the amendment offered by
the Senator from the Firt?
Mr. Waterbury-I do not accept it.
Mr. Wheeler-Mr. President, I wish counsel for the respecttive parties would state what time they desire if any, before I
vote on that question.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair understood the Honorable
Managers upon the part of the House, and the counsel for the
respondent to say that they would accept the time as mentioned in the motion of the Senator from the Twenty-fifth.
Mr. Shipman-Am I in order? I wish to state that we do
not know whether the testimony is closed, or whether it is not;
nor how much testimony we have got to take. We do not
know anything about it, from the shape this case is in at present. I do not want to get ready for an argument of the case,
until I have got the case. That is the way I feel about it; and
I do not suppose that anybody does. It will make a difference




1548     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
if further testimony is to be put in here. It will necessitate,
undoubtedly, more testimony on our part. I would like to get
through the testimony, and then we will talk about the argument. I know it will take several witnesses, at all events, if
certain testimony which they are talking about is introduced
here.
Mr. Briggs-I move that we adjourn until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
Mr. Wheeler-Would that be debatable if the Senate was
cleared?
The Presiding Officer-No, sir; not on the simple motion to
adjourn.
Mr. Waterbury-Do I understand that a motion to adjourn
is in order when there is a motion pending?
The Presiding Officer-Yes, sir. Does the Senator from the
Third insist upon his motion?
Mr. Briggs-I do, Mr. President.
The motion to adjourn did not prevail.
The Presiding Officer-The question is upon the motion
made by the Senator from the Twenty-fifth, that when the
Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, does adjourn that
it adjourn until Tuesday at nine o'clock.
Mr. Wheeler-Mr. President, I move that the Senate Chamber be cleared for deliberation upon that motion;
Which motion prevailed.
After some time spent in deliberation, the doors were again
opened.
The Presiding Officer-I will state to the Honorable Managers and counsel for the respondent, that the motion pending
at the time the Senate Chamber was cleared for deliberation,
was lost. The Senate, sitting at a Court of Impeachment,
stands adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1549
Lansing, Saturday, May 18, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tem.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Absent without leave: Senators Begole, Hannahs, Morton,
Sheley, and Stoddard.
Senator Romeyn-I ask leave of absence for Senator Begole
during the day.
Leave was granted.
Senator Briggs-I am requested by Senator Morton to ask
leave of absence for him indefinitely on account of sickness.
Leave was granted.
Senator Alexander-I wish to offer a resolution.
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns to-day, it be until
Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock."
Senator Moffatt-I move that the Senate chamber be cleared
for deliberation, unlesss the counsel wish to be heard on that
question.
Mr. Manager Cochrane-For one, I should desire to be heard
upon that motion. I hope the Senate will grant us the time
that is asked in this case. I believe that it has been claimed
here,-and perhaps truly claimed,-that in ordinary cases, at
the close of the evidence, no adjournment is asked for time,
for the purpose of preparation; but the Senate, of course,
understand that this is an unusual case, the like of which is
not often presented to the court; and the length and breadth
of the testimony is such, that it presents, necessarily, some new
points. I will say, that in this trial there will be some questions raised by the counsel for the respondent, and questions
raised on our side, which have never been raised on impeachment trials,-questions involving some examination of the law.
So far as the Managers are concerned, it is very well known
to the members of this Senate that they have not only been




1550     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Managers but have had to be plaintiffs here. We have had to
spend our time in procuring evidence, and a great deal of time
has been occupied in the procurement of this evidence, which
if we had had a party to attend to for us, we could have
devoted to preparation to argue the case.
There are here nearly four hundred pages of evidence. Every
attorney knows, that as a matter of practice, where reliance is
placed upon reporters, that attorneys themselves pay but little
attention to the evidence as it is given. They listen to it as a
matter of course, but they take no pains to treasure it up in
their minds,-to arrange it for the purpose of using it. I presume that is the position of the counsel for the respondent,
and it is certainly the position of our side,-at least, for myself
it is so. I have heard all the evidence, but I have made no
arrangement of it which would enable me to present it to this
Court in the way it ought to be presented.
It is probable that the same thing has happened with the
members of the Senate,-that they have made no arrangement
of it in their minds,-that they have not looked it over.
The Senate will also recollect, from the very commencement
of this case we have never asked one single moment of time,
with the exception of when the answer was put in we asked an
hour for the purpose of deciding upon the form of replication.
With that exception, we have not asked one single moment of
time.
The time that is proposed here is certainly short, and I
suppose it will involve a necessary labor upon the Sabbath.
Or, if it does not involve the necessity, some of us may feel, in
justice to ourselves and in justice to our case, that we ought to
labor upon the Sabbath. And that will give us, at the outside,
about two days and a half to look over this matter. If the
Sabbath is actually kept as a day of rest, it leaves us only
a day and a half to look over this immense amount of testimony,-to look up considerable law,-to see whether there is
any law upon the case,-to apply it upon precedent, if we can,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1551
and if we cannot, to apply it upon principle. And therefore,
I earnestly request that the Senate should give us that time.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President, I suppose I may be permitted
to state that the Managers intend to close their testimony this
morning before or by ten o'clock, so that the members of the
Senate can have an opportunity to go home on the early train,
and we simply ask time to prepare for the argument. It is
useless to say a word upon the necessity for this adjournment.
If the case is to be presented at all, it should be presented well;
and to make any kind of preparation for the presentment of
the case, we should have at least as much time as the resolution contemplates. We fully appreciate the position the Managers are placed in, for we know how it is ourselves,-we are in
the same situation. We therefore hope the time will be given
us.
Senator Alexander-Mr. President, I offer this resolutionThe Presiding Officer-Debate upon the resolution is not in
order under the rules.
Senator Moffatt-Mr. President, I move that the rule with
regard to debate be suspended, in order that we may discuss
this question without the Senate being cleared.
The Presiding Officer-The rule will be suspended, unless
objection is made, without a vote being taken.
Senator Alexander —Ir. President: I say I offer this resolution in anticipation of the conclusion of the testimony before
the next hour, when it will be necessary to proceed with
arguments or adjourn, and inasmuch as it is Saturday it
seems to me that it is very appropriate to make this the time
of adjournment, if we conclude to grant the request of the
Managers and of the attorneys for the respondent, in order
that they may have ample time to prepare for their arguments
and present the law of the case. It seems to me that it would
be very just and proper that we should do so, that we may be
able to go home-those of us that desire to-on the early




1552     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
train. It seems to me to be highly proper that this question
b3 now decided.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor —Mr President, I wish to say one
word, if I may be permitted.
The Presiding Officer-The Manager will proceed.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We look upon it, on the part of
the People, that we have some reasonable time for preparation.
I say, upon the part of the Managers, from the commencement,
before this Senate organized as a Court of Impeachment, as
soon as the impeachment was made and the Managers elected,
they have been continuously upon the strain to prepare this
case. In order to save the Senate any delay, they have worked
night and day,-Sundays not excepted,-however it may
appear upon the record. We ask no delay, now, for rest or
recreation; but we ask simply for a reasonable time in order
to prepare a proper and creditable presentation of this case. If
we are forced to proceed at once with the arguments, we will
do the best we can; but we sincerely hope, that the time
asked for in the resolution may be granted.
Senator Moffatt —Mr. President, as an individual, I should
be very glad to support the motion made by the gentleman
from Berrien (Mr. Alexander), to grant the Managers and
counsel for the respondent time to prepare a fine, nice, flowery
speech, to go upon the records of this State, to do themselves
honor and credit; but as a Senator, sir, I protest against it. I
protest against the time of this Senate being taken'up for the
accommodation of the Managers and counsel. I protest against
a large bill of expense being made here for no other reason
than to accommodate these gentlemen. I say, as an individual,
I should be very glad to do it, but as a Senator I never shall.
and this motion shall not be carried by my vote. These
gentleman can argue this case to the Senate and present the
points  to  it in  a shape  that we call understand;  I
have no doubt of it; I have too much respect for the
ability, both  of the Managers and the counsel for the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1553
respondent, to doubt it for a moment. I have no doubt
but what they could present it in better shape, if the time
asked for should be granted,-I have no doubt that they could
appear better upon the record; but, sir, will that justify this
Senate in losing so much time?  Will it compensate it for
the expense that will be incurred by this adjournment? I say,
sir, it will not justify me in supporting such a motion. I say
to those gentlemen that if they had been engaged a month or
six weeks in a court of record,-one of our circuit courts before
a jury,-that when the case was closed, it would go to the
jury at the drop of the hat. The court would not keep twelve
men three or four days to let counsel get ready to make an
argument before them, and yet they propose to keep this Senate here, of twenty-eight or twenty-nine men, and at a large
expense to the State, in order to put themselves in a little better shape upon the record. I say, I protest against it, and I
shall not vote for it, because, as far as I am concerned, as soon
as this testimony is in, I want to see them go on with the
argument.
Mr. Alexander-Mr. President, just one momentThe Presiding Officer-Under the rules the Senator cannot
discuss this question but once.
Mr. Moffatt-I ask for the ayes and nays.
The roll was called, and the resolution was adopted, by yeas
and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,      Mr. Price,          Mr. Wilcox,
Briggs,             Randall,            Wood,
Cawley,             Romeyn,             President
Gay,                Stockbridge,            pro tern.,
Jenks,              Waterbury,                        15
Neasmith,           Wheeler,
NAYS.
Mr. Ball,           Mr. Moffatt,        Mr. Putnam,
Barber,             Prutzman,           Storrs,
Dexter, 
195




1554      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Waterbury-I offer the following resolution:
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms be directed, from this
day, to discharge all of his assistants but one.
Mr. Wheeler-I move to amend the resolution, by adding the
words "that all messenger-boys, but one, be discharged by the
President."
The Presiding Officer-The question is upon the amendment. The Secretary will call the roll.
The roll was called, and the motion to amend did not prevail, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Barber,        Mr. Randall,       Mr. Waterbury,
Dexter,            Stockbridge,       Wheeler,
Neasmith,          Storrs,            Wood,
Price,                                             10
NAYS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Jenks,          Mr. Romeyn,
Ball,              Moffatt,           Wilcox,
Briggs,            Prutzman.           President
Cawley,            Putnam,                   pro tern.,
Gay,                                               12
The Presiding Officer-The amendment is lost. The question is upon the resolution as originally offered. The Secretary will call the roll.
Mr. Alexander-I would like to inquire how many assistants
the Sergeant-at-Arms has?
The Presiding Officer-Four, I think.
Mr. Alexander-I move, then, Mr. President, to amend the
resolution.
The Presiding Officer-The Senator is out of order. The
Secretary has been directed to call the roll. The Secretary
will proceed.
The roll was called, and the resolution was adopted, by yeas
and nays, as follows:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1555
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Moffatt,         Mr. Storrs,
Ball,              Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Barber,            Price,             Wheeler,
Briggs,            Prutzman,          Wilcox,
Cawley,            Putnam,            Wood,
Dexter,            Randall,           President
Gay,               Romeyn,                  pro tern.,
Jenks,             Stockbridge,                     22
NAYS.                         0
The Presiding Officer-The resolution is adopted.
Mr. Moffatt-Mr. President, I move the adoption of the following order.
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
" Ordered, That the argument in this case be opened on behalf
of the prosecution by, at least, two of the Managers; that they
be followed by the counsel for the respondent; and the final
argument made by one of the Managers."
The Presiding Officer-Do the Honorable Managers wish to
be heard?
Mr. Manager Iuston-Mr. President, I do not see any reason for making this order, changing the rule, as I understand
it, that was adopted by the Senate. For one, I have no objection to the proposition, as submitted by the Senator to counsel
last evening: that is, that the case be opened by one of the
Managers,-followed by one of the counsel for the respondent,
-he to be followed by one of the Managers,-then the other
counsel for the respondent,-the argument to be closed by one
of the Managers. I have no particular objection to that. It
seems to me that that would be better and fairer, and as it
ought to be, and, I submit, that is the ordinary way in court.
We are willing to open our case, and open it fully, by one of
the Managers; and then, if it is thought best to have one of
the counsel for the respondent, followed by one of the Managers, I have no objection to that.
The Presiding Officer-Do the counsel for the respondent
wish to be heard upon the motion?




1556     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. McGowan-Just a word. There are three Managers, and
but two counsel for the respondent. All that we ask, and all
that we claim, on the part of the respondent is, that the case
shall be fully opened on the part of the Managers. Not that
it be stated, Mr. President; not that the law points be argued,
and the facts left; but they, having the affirmative, shall present the case fairly and fully before the Senate, upon all the
points that they claim, before we present the case to the Senate;
and it seems to me that can only be done in this order.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Mr. President, I cannot see, as my
associate has said, any reason for taking this case out of the
ordinary rule. The ordinary rule would be just the reverse of
this stated. Suppose this was an indictment for murder, you
would compel the prosecution-in case there were three counsel-you would compel the prosecution to open the case fully;
would then give the case to the defendant, and he would say
all he had to say, and then you would allow the people the close,
either by two or more. I think that is the way.
The Presiding Officer-The scope of this order is simply
that all three Managers may open the case if they choose, as I
read it; that then the counsel for the respondent shall make
their argument, and then the final argument upon the part of
the Managers should be made by one Manager. That is the
scope of the order that lies before the Chair.
IMr. Manager Grosvenor-Yes, but it is not compulsory that
we shall,-that the case shall be opened and arguedThe Presiding Officer-By two.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-By two. Now I submit, whether
that is not an extraordinary rule in this State; whether the
rule as stated by Mr. Huston would not be a fairer rule for the
people,-to sandwich them in, first the' People, then the respondent, then the People, then the respondent, and close with the
People.
The Presiding Officer-I would call the attention of the
Honorable Manager to the rule that was adopted in the John



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1557
son case. I will not read the whole of the rule, but simply the
conclusion of it: "But the conclusion of the oral argument
shall be by one Manager."
Mr. Manager IHuston-That would be the fact if they were
sandwiched in.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-That would be the order which I
proposed. I suppose that there will be three arguments, and
there will be one to open, of course. We subiit to the Senate
that we will open the case fully and fairly; the application of
the testimony in detail, perhaps, will be left to another, and the
replication, the final reply, by the Manager who shall close the
case, will be but little more than answering the argument of
the counsel for the respondent. I think if they were sandwiched in, in that manner, it would be much better,-it seems
to me the better rule. There can be no advantage, one way or
the other, and we ask that the rule may be modified so as to
allow one counsel on a side,-allowing the People to open the
case, and to close it. We think that is a fairer and better rule.
The Presiding Officer-Senators: The question is upon the
motion made by the Senator from the Thirty-first; are you
ready for the question? The Secretary will call the roll.
The roll was called, and the motion did not prevail, by
yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Ball,          Mr. Moffatt,        Mr. Randall,
Barber,            Price,              President
Briggs,            Prutzman,              pro tern.,  8
NAYS.
Mr. Cawley,        Mr. Neasmith,       Mr. Waterbury,
Dexter,            Putnam,             Wheeler,
Gay,               Stockbridge,        Wood,
Jenks,             Storrs,                          11
The Presiding Officer-The motion is lost.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-We are ready to proceed with the
testimony.
The l'residing Officer-Counsel may proceed.




1558     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
TESTIMONY OF A. N. HART.
A. N. Hart, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as
follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Judge Hart, do you reside in the city of Lansing?
Answer. I do, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. I have resided here about twelve years, sir.
Q. Are you pretty well acquainted in the city?
A. Generally, I am.
Q. You are one of the Representatives from this county?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with James H. Baker?
A. I am, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Well, I have known him for ten or eleven years.
Q. Are you acquainted with his neighbors and associates?
A. Many of them, I am.
Q. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity, in
the neighborhood where he resides?
A. I think I do.
Q. What is that reputation for truth and veracity,-good,
or bad?
A. I think it good, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A.. N. HART.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. Judge, who did you ever hear say that his reputation for truth and veracity was good?
Answer. Well, I don't know as I ever heard that question
asked; but I know him personally as a business man, and I
think his general reputation has not been disputed.
Q. Ever heard it brought in question?
A. No, sir.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1559
Q. That is what you mean, then, when you say that it is
good?
A. Well, so far as other persons are concerned, I never heard
others express it. I have acquaintance in business with him
myself.
Q. Do you know of Mr. Baker once assisting as deputy sheriff, or in that capacity, in the Supreme Court room?
A. I have seen him in that capacity there.
Q. Do you know whether he ever presented a charge to the
Auditor General for services done there?
A. I do not.
Q. Judge Hart, have you not heard it said that he presented
such a charge, and that in that list of items there was an item
for taking care of the court-room, and that he then said to the
Auditor General that he had paid out the money to a certain
janitor for taking care of that room? Did you hear that
story?
A. I never heard that, sir.
Q. And that the charge proved to be utterly false?
A. I never heard anything of that.
Q. You have not heard that talked about?
A. Not that transaction; no, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES I. MEAD.
James I. Mead, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Do you reside in this city?
Answer. I do, sir.
Q. You are a merchant here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. Been engaged in business during that time?
A. Yes, sir.




1560     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. Active business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with James H. Baker?
A. Iam.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. Where ha hhe resided during that time?
A. In this city.
Q. Are you acquainted with his neighbors and acquaintances?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what his general reputation for truth and
veracity is in the neighborhood where he resides?
A. Never heard it called in question.
Q. From what you know of his general reputation, is his
reputation for truth and veracity good, or bad?
A. I should call it good, sir.
CROSS-EXAMITIATION OF JAMES r. MEAD.
Cross-examined by AMr. McGowan:
Question. You never heard it talked about?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear this story of his presenting the false
account to General Iumphrey for allowance?
A. I did not.
Q. Heard it talked in the street or anywhere?
A. Never heard of it before.
Q. Are you in any way related to Baker?
A. Not at all.
Q. Have you any business relations with him?
A. Business relations? Yes, sir; had a good deal of business with him.
TESTIMONY OF S. W.  RIGHT.
S. W. Wright, a witness produced, sworn, and examined
on the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified as follows:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1561
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. Do you reside in this city?
Answer. I do, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. Since 1850, the most of the time.
Q. Have you been an active business man during that time?
A. I have, a portion of the time, sir.
Q. Are you the treasurer of the city at this time?
A. I am not.
Q. Have you been?
A. I have not been treasurer of the city.
Q. Have you been mayor of the city?
A. I have been mayor of the city.
Q. Do you know Mr. James H. Baker?
A. I am acquainted with him.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have known him some sixteen or eighteen years.
Q. Where has he resided during that time?
A. He has resided here.
Q. Are you acquainted with his neighbors and associates?
A. I know the most of them.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general reputation for truth
and veracity, in the neighborhood where he resides?
A. I am acquainted with it, so far as general reputation is
concerned.
Q. Is that general reputation for truth and veracity good, or
bad?
A. I have not heard it doubted.
Q. You say it was good, then?
A. That it is good.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF S. W. WRIGHT.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan:
Question. You have never heard it called in question in any
event?
196




1562     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Answer. I have never heard it called in question in any
event.
Q. Let me call your attention to this: Did you ever hear of
a list of charges made in the service of the execution against
a Mr. Camp?
A. I never heard anything said about it that I now remember.
Q. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection,-whether
there was not a story circulated, and that it reached you, Mr.
Wright, that he, as deputy sheriff, had made some charges
against Mr. Camp in the service of an execution, and some of
the charges were false, and that he insisted upon them?
A. I do not remember of any such circumstance.
Q. Did you ever hear of this bill presented to the Auditor
General, which had a false charge in it?
A. I never had.
Q. Have you heard any intimation of this story since this
case came up?
A. I have not. I have not read the testimony.
TESTIMONY OF J. S. TOOKER.
J. S. Tooker, a witness, produced, sworn, and examined on
the part and behalf of the House of Representatives, testified
as follows:
Examined by Mr. Manager Grosvenor:
Question. You reside in this city, sir?
Answer. I do, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. Twenty-five years.
Q. Are you the present mayor of this city?
A. I am, sir.
Q. Do you know James H. Baker?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. About eighteen years, I think.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1563
Q. Where has he resided during that time?
A. In Lansing, most of the time.
Q. In this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know his neighbors and acquaintances.
A. Many of them.
Q. Do you know what his general reputation for truth and
veracity is, in the neighborhood where he resides.
A. I think it to be good. I never heard it questioned.
Q. Well, now, is that reputation for truth and veracity good
or bad?
A. I think it to be good. I never heard it questioned.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF J. S. TOOKER.
Cross-examined by Mr. McGowan.
Question. Did you ever hear his reputation for anything
questioned?
Answer. No, sir.
Q. For being a man addicted to strong drink, or anythinggoing after women or anything of that kind?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nothing of the kind,-never heard any of these stories?
A. I never have.
The Presiding Officer-Does the Chair understand now that
the evidence on the part of the Managers is closed?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I understand that it is closed; but
if the absconding witness should be brought to light between
now and the time of the argument that will be another thing.
We submit the case now. So far as we are concerned we have
no further testimony.
The Presiding Officer-That, of course, will be discretionary
with the Court at the time.
Mr. Manager Huston-This book, denominated the scrip-book
in the Commissioner's office, by the consent of the counsel for the
respondent, with whom I have consulted on the subject, may
be considered as one of the exhibits in the case.




1564     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Shipman-Any documents that have been used here,
you can have the original at any moment.
The Presiding Officer-Let me suggest, right here, that there
is no objection to all these exhibits being taken back to the
office, or to some place where they will be safe.
Mr. Huston —We have none.
Mr. Shipman-Do I understand that the case is now closed,
as far as the evidence is concerned?
The Presiding Officer-The Chair understands that it is
now closed, with the Managers making a single exception as
to the witness Jane Bolton, claiming that if she should be produced in the meantime, that they will appeal to the Court for
its decision as to whether the testimony should be admitted,if she is found in the meantime.
Mr. Shipman-I do not know that it would be in order to
offer this resolution, which meets the views of the Managers
on the other side, in regard to the argument of the case.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent
moves for an order, which the Secretary will read.
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
"  rdered-This cause be argued as follows:  First. By one
Manager. Second. By one of the respondent's counsel.  Thlird.
By another of the Mlanagers. Fourthl. By another of the
respondent's counsel.  Fifth. That the final argument be
made, and the case closed, by one Manager."
Senator Wheeler-I move the adoption of the order.
The roll was called, and the motion for the order prevailed,
by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Barber,         Mr. Price,          Mr. Waterbury,
Cawley,             Prutzman,           Wheeler,
Dexter,             Putnam,             Wilcox,
Gay,                Randall.            Wood,
Moffatt,            Stockbridge,        President
Neasmith,           Storrs,                 pro tern., 17
NAYS.
Mr. Briggs,                                                1




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1565
Senator Stockbridge-I move that we adjourn.
Which motion prevailed.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, is adjourned until Tuesday morning at nine
o'clock.
Lansing, Tuesday, May  1, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Absent without leave: Senators Ball, Barber, Wilcox, and
Stockbridge.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed with their argument.
Hon. Lyman Cochrane, one of the Managers on the part of
the House of Representatives, addressed the Senate as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND SENATORS-We now approach the close
of this tedious case. A few more hours and the trial which
has occupied your time during so many days will be among the
things that were. Your patience may have been wearied, but
your earnest attention to all the details of the proceedings
had before you, demands and receives our sincere thanks.
But gratified as we are for the indulgence you have shown,
our duty to the high authority by which we appear before you,
as well as to ourselves, requires that we make still further
drafts upon that indulgence already so largely drawn upon, to.
ask you to listen to our closing words; to survey with us the
ground which has been the scene of our legal strife, before we
leave the field to you for the judicial award which the highest
law of  our State calls upon you to make.




1566     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Ancient as is this form of proceeding,-necessary to the full
and complete administration of justice in all its parts, as experience has shown it; safe as it has been found in modern times
to the accused, if innocent, but effective to deal out retribution
to the guilty without opportunity of escape by legal technicalities, impeachments nevertheless have always been subject to a
popular prejudice, as being a mode of trial almost insufferably
protracted, unreasonably expensive, and above all as a means
of persecution or even oppression to attain ends not sanctioned
by law, or to strike down the accused regardless of ordinary
and time-honored forms.
Men forget that as courts of equity spontaneously arose
from  the confessed inadequacy of express enactments or
admitted precedents to deal with the ever-varied and evervarying affairs of life; that as different tribunals have been
erected, each acting in a mode peculiar to itself, and subject to
distinct rules and methods of procedure to meet the exigencies
of certain classes of cases, so courts of impeachments have
been established with their special jurisdiction, operating in a
way unknown to other courts, but adapted to a special code,
and so composed as to attain specific results, equally important
to the welfare of society, the rights of citizens, and perhaps
even to the stability of the state.
The fact, as derogatory to human nature as it is true, that
impeachments have been, and doubtless will hereafter be, employed as an instrument of political vengeance, or as a means
of accomplishing the ambitious designs of party or the aggrandizement of individuals, should not be permitted to weigh one
moment against this mode of proceeding when applied with
proper motives against him  who, by his own acts of negligence, or active misfeasance, or criminality, has placed himself
within the grasp of the law which controls its jurisdiction.
I have no inclination to rehearse, nor have you, Senators,
any desire to listen to an elaborate review of the origin and
history of impeachments in England. However interesting




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1567
the subject may be, it has no place here, and has little bearing
upon the theory of similar proceedings as practiced under the
Federal Constitution, and particularly under the constitutions
of the several States of the Union.
It is sufficient to say that, in England, from which our law
and practice of impeachments were derived, the state of society
was, and long remained such, that men high in office, powerful through their wealth, influence, or hereditary rank, were able
to bid defiance to the laws of the realm, indulge in the most
heinous crimes with impunity, and often to shake the very
foundations of the kingdom without fear of punishment in the
ordinary courts of justice.
Trial by impeachment, therefore, became a necessity. The
safety of the state demanded a new tribunal before whom
these high offenders might be brought; a tribunal unawed by
the social or political position of the criminal, for such he was,
and unlikely to be deterred in the performance of duty by
threats, or bought by money. Nowhere would this judicial
power be so safely lodged as with the House of Lords, in the
hands of the members of which was centered a large part of
the wealth of the kingdom, and whose position, being hereditary, was due to no person, or dependent for its duration upon
no single human will. The House of Lords, then, became the
Court of Impeachment.
The dignity of this court, and the eminent station of the
persons generally to be tried before it, as well as the class of
high crimes and misdemeanors upon which it was to act, and
the importance of the adjudication to the welfare of the state,
rendered it proper that the accuser should be some other than
a mere private individual, whose motives in instituting the
prosecution would not be investigated nor his means of knowledge and its probable accuracy fully inquired into before the
cumbrous machinery was brought into operation. The right
of accusation, as well as of prosecution, could not therefore be
placed elsewhere than in the Commons, who, representing and




1568     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
acting in the name of the entire people, could not be supposed
to be actuated by any sinister design in taking up the charge,
nor impelled by an unbecoming haste in bringing its weighty
accusation before the Lords, nor urged by any other feeling
than that of the welfare of the kingdom in carrying on the
trial either to an acquittal or a conviction.
The trials of impeachments were in all respects criminal
trials. The accused was arrested and closely confined by order
of the Lords, upon request of the Commons. The case could
not proceed unless in his presence, except in case of contumacious absence, where a sentence of outlawry had been first pronounced against him. All the harsh rules which then governed the practice of criminal courts were brought to bear
upon his trial. His witnesses were not permitted to be sworn,
but testified without oath.  Counsel were allowed him, but
could not interrogate either the King's witnesses or those of
the accused.  The defendant himself was only allowed to
question them, and he might not even be prompted by his own
attorneys. On the side of the accused, he alone could address
the court upon the facts, nor were his counsel allowed to raise
or even to suggest the points of law, but only to argue them
after they were presented by the defendant.
Such was the stern, and to our minds cruel practice, which
substantially governed the ordinary criminal trial, and the
trial of an impeachment in England, even later than the settlement of our own State. As any amelioration of this practice
was adopted in the criminal courts, it seems to have been introduced into the Courts of Impeachment.
Judgment, the only real test between civil and criminal
actions, reached to property, liberty, political status, and even
to life itself.
In the case of the Earl of Macclesfield, Lord High Chancellor, impeached and tried for the sale of offices within his
gift, the sentence was a fine of thirty thousand pounds, and
imprisonment until paid.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1569
Lord Bacon, also Chancellor of England, and stigmatized by
Pope as "the wisest, brightest, and meanest of mankind," was
impeached and convicted upon his own confession of the
acceptance of bribes, and sentenced to pay a fine of forty
thousand pounds, suffer imprisonment for two years, be deprived of his office, and be subject to political disfranchisement.
The sentence upon the Earl of Wintown, convicted of high
treason, was, of course, death. [6 IIargrave's State Trials,
p. 58.]
Lords and Commoners were alike amenable to impeachment and punishment upon conviction. Such was the English
law of impeachment, modified only in the practice of trials at
the time of its introduction into the United States. Here
no individual was found, whose elevated rank, whose family
alliances, whose extensive influence, or whose more than royal
wealth, raised him  so far above his fellow citizens that, if accused of crime, he could not be safely trusted to a jury of his
countrymen. Hereditary honors were unknown to the law,
and to society. No office descended from father to son. The
principal causes which had necessitated impeachments in the
mother country had disappeared in this, or rather had never
existed, and with them also disappeared, the criminal character
which had attached to trials of impeachments. Under our
form of government, offices were generally elective and official
terms were for short and stated periods.
Men, however, might be elected, and experience has shown
that such will be elected, who are totally incompetent to perform the duties which the law and their position imposes upon
them. Corruption, too, might creep into high places,-official
station never has and never will have any tendency to purify
the moral atmosphere of men's souls. The officer might be
guilty of serious misconduct affecting private rights or public
interests. Official investiture does not change human nature,
and crimes may be committed by those whom the people have
197




1570     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
delighted to honor. In every way, the confidence testified to
by a popular election might be betrayed in the most wanton
manner. To the trusts reposed in the office, he might prove
utterly recreant. The dignity and honor which ought to accompany official station might be derogated from by crime or
disgraceful personal conduct.
The right of removal was necessarily, therefore, reserved to
the People, both to protect themselves and to guard the purity
of, and preserve the respect due to the offices which they had
created, not for incumbents, but for the public good.
But how was this right to be exercised without risk of abuse,
or danger of creating evils equally as great as those to be remedied?
Stability of official tenure must be admitted to be not less
important in any form  of government than the power to
remove incompetent or criminal persons from office. Upon
the one hand this was to be guarded, while on the other,
removal for proper cause was not to be rendered impossible or
even too difficult.
Accusation, and a fair trial of the incumbent, if not his perfect right, would, at least, be justice to him. Yet, as they
were not to be placed beyond reach, so they were not to be
made too easy. The will of the majority, as expressed by an
election, or as presumed by his appointment, emenating from
some person or persons upon whom the power of such appointment had been conferred, was to be regarded as the suprema lex,
and yet the decision of the popular voice was not in all cases
and under all circumstances to be held irrevocable.
The right of absolutely removing incompetent, misdemeaning, or criminal officers, could not safely be vested in the
executive.
He might be subject to influences which would entirely prevent the exercise of a reasonable discretion in his decision. It
was not impossible that he might be overborne by corrupt inducements or solicitations on the one side or the other, by fear,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1571
or by the expectation of advantage, which would render him
forgetful of, or prevent his listening to, the demands of justice
and the public welfare. Natural timidity of character might
deter him from the performance of a disagreeable duty.
Besides, how was the executive to be reached?
The objections against leaving this power with the judiciary
were little less potent. Judges, like other men, are subject to
influences the effect of which they cannot avoid, and the very
existence of which would at all times be likely to render their
determination in this matter suspected. Their character for
purity and integrity could hardly escape unsullied. Their influence and the respect due to their position would not fail to
be lessened. The imposition upon them  of a duty so embarrassing would be fraught with evils to their judicial character
more than sufficient to counterbalance any benefits to be derived from it, so long as any other repository of the power existed. Still further, the inflexible rules which the ordinary
courts of law adopt; their devotion to precedents which would
insensibly but inevitably lead them to give a practical expression or definition of what constitutes an " impeachable offense,"
which, for reasons as wise as they are apparent, parliamentary
law has avoided; and would result in injustice, bearing upon
the accused as often as upon the accuser. And yet more,-how
was the judiciary itself to be removed in case of delinquency
or criminality?
But one other alternative was left, which was to place the
power of removal for misconduct or crime in the Legislature.
This body would always be sufficiently numerous to divide the
responsibility, and free it from any probabilty of being actuated by fear. Corrupt means were not likely to be practiced
upon it without speedy detection.
While as effectual as the ordinary courts of law, its machinery was too cumbrous to be put into operation until the occasion
had risen to the dignity of a State necessity. Composed, as
as it would be, of every class of society, it would naturally
refuse to be "cabined, cribbed, confined" in its proceedings




1572     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
by the narrow limits within which other judicial tribunals seem
so ready to restrict themselves. Precedents which constitute
the guiding star of other courts would lose much of their force.
Its adjudication, while having all the solemnity of a judgment,
would be the result of the aggregate good sense of all its
members, looking to the attainment of justice between the
parties, and the general welfare of all.
Above all, it would be the appeal of the People to itself,
either reversing its own prior decision, by declaring that its
chosen agent was incompetent to perform the duties assigned;
that by misconduct he had forfeited the confidence, and betrayed
the trusts reposed in him; or by crime had rendered himself
unworthy of the honor conferred upon him; or, upon the other
hand, it would affirm that decision, asserting, through its representatives, that its officer was competent, that he was honest, that he was free from the stain of crime.
The reasons for the removal of persons from official position
being equally potent under every form of government, or condition of society, the framers of our earliest constitutions
naturally placed this prerogative in the body corresponding
with that in which it had been found, under the English constitution, to which they had been accustomed.  Experience,
and the lapse of four hundred and fifty years, had discovered
no other or better depositary of this important power.
The forms of proceeding originally adopted, and substantially adhered to by the British Parliamentary law, were as
naturally followed. Hence, impeachment by one House, and
conviction had thereon by the other after due trial, became and
has since remained the basis of the sentence of removal, and
whatever other disqualifications the framers of such constitutions have seen fit to attach to delinquent officials.
We are not forgetful that a limited power of removal from
office has in most of the States of the Union been vested elsewhere than in the Legislature, to meet particular emergencies.
Its consideration, however, has no place in this branch of our
argument.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1573
For the first time in the history of impeachment trials in
this country, so far as we have been able to discover, we are
called upon to meet the question, whether criminal acts committed by a civil officer, and disconnected with his official
duties, are the subject of impeachment and a cause for removal
upon conviction.
The articles in this case distinctly charge such acts upon
the respondent; and evidence to substantiate them has been
offered and admitted, subject to the exception taken by the
learned counsel of the Commissioner at the commencement of
the trial. The issue has been fairly presented, and we have
been notified that we must meet it.
We ask the attention of the Senate to the history of the
impeachment clauses of the Federal Constitution, so far as we
are able to learn it from  the meager debates which have come
down to us.
It will be recollected that we have claimed that, by the law
of England, trials upon impeachment were purely criminal,
both in fact and in theory. They had a known definite signification, based upon an uninterrupted practice of nearly five
centuries. This signification and practice were well understood in America at the time of the formation of our constitution. There is not a syllable in the cotemporaneous history of
that period to imply or even to intimate that the definition of
the term imtpeachment had been in any respect changed by or
on being transported to this country.
In the early part of the convention, and on the same day,
Mr. Randolph of Virginia, and Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina, severally introduced plans of a constitution.
The plan of Mr. Randolph contemplated the establishment
of a "National Judiciary," to consist of "one or more supreme
tribunals, and of inferior tribunals, to be chosen by the National
Legislature." The jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals was to
hear and determine in the first instance, and of the supreme
tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort" (among




1574     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
other things), "impeachments of national officers." [5 Elliot's
Debates, p. 128.]
This is all that is found in this plan relative to the subject.
These remarkable differences will be observed between the
proposed method and that which had, from time immemorial,
been established in England: 1st. The trial was to be had by
a tribunal wholly judicial; 2d. the right of appeal was given;
3d. None but national officers could be impeached.
No provision was made for setting the impeachment in
motion. It may have been supposed that this power would
vest in "the first branch of the Legislature," as it was termed
in analogy with the English practice.
By Mr Pinckney's plan the " House of Delegates " possessed
the "sole power of impeachment." [5 Elliott's Debates, p.
129.]
All impeachments were to be tried in one superior court of
law, established by the general government, except where they
" affcted embassadors and other public ministers," in which case
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was to be original. [Idem
131.]  " Officers of the United States" alone, were to be held
liable to impeachment, and the President was to be removed
when impeached by the House, and convicted in the supreme
court "of treason, bribery, or corruption."  Appeals were also
allowed.
With the exception of the case of the President, in MIr.
Pinckney's plan; when removal upon conviction was imperative and merely cumulative in the cases specified, the term impeachment in both of these schemes seems to have the same
broad signification and to cover the same class of crimes or
misdemeanors, that it did under the English parliamentary
law, and in no respect to differ from it, as there defined by
usage. There was no limitation of causes of impeachment, but
only of persons liable to the proceeding.
The next time that impeachments appear in the proceedings
of the convention, was nearly a month later on an informal




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1575
proposition by Mr. Hamilton, to amend Mr. Randolph's plan,
as follows:
"IX. The Governor, Senators, and all officers of the United
States, to be liable to impeachment for mal and corrupt
conduct, and upon conviction to be removed from office, and
disqualified for holding any place of trust or profit. All impeachments to be tried by a court to consist of the chief-,
or judge of the superior court of law of each State, provided
such judge shall hold his place during good behavior and have
a permanent salary." [5 Elliott's Debates, p. 205.]
This proposition varied from those previously introduced, in
three essential particulars: 1st. Provided a special and exclusive court for the trial of impeachments without appeal;
2d. While not restricting the sentence to removal from office
and disqualification, it rendered it imperative in all cases upon
conviction; 3d. It expressly limited the grounds of impeachment to official misconduct, whether consisting of crimes or
other misfeasance. The language here employed was doubtless derived by Hamilton from the first Constitution of New
York, which had been adopted ten years previously.
It is perfectly evident that the aim and intent of this amendment was to limit impeachable offenses to negligence, crimes,
or misdemeanors purely official in their character. The terms
employed are too distinct to admit of doubt upon this point.
They are words of limitation, restricting the language of the
law from which impeachments were derived.
Subsequently, the committee of detail handed in its report,
containing the draft of the Constitution as revised by them.
This draft provided: 1st. That the House of Representatives
should have the sole power of impeachment; 2d. The Supreme
Court was to have original and exclusive jurisdiction of cases
of impeachment; 3d. Officers of the United States alone, were
liable to impeachment, and the judgment was not to extend
beyond removal and disqualification, except that in case of the
conviction of the President of treason, bribery, or corruption,
his removal simply was made obligatory.




1576      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Hamilton's restrictive clause seems to have failed of sufficient support in the committee; and, again, no limitation of
impeachable offenses is found.
We have not had time to trace tho history and various
phases through which this portion of the Federal Constitution passed before it took the form in which we now find it.
It is sufficient to say, that the most cursory examination of
the debates which took place in that convention will not fail
to convince any one that no word or expression is found in the
Constitution which was not fully weighed, and freed, so far as is
possible in human  language, from  ambiguity and double
meaning. As a consequence of this care, perhaps no constitution ever adopted has been a subject of so little dispute within
an equal period.
If it had been the intent of the framers of that instrument
to limit impeachment to "high crimes and misdemeanors"
connected with official duties, it is more than strange that they
should have chosen the well known but unlimiting phrase of
the English law to convey this idea of restriction. Still more
strange does it appear when it is recollected attention must
have been called to the subject by Hamilton's proposed amendment, and that nearly all of the States having constitutions at
the formation of the Federal Constitution expressly limited
impeachment to official misconduct or to offenses connected
with the discharge of official duty.
During the first impeachment trial which occurred under
the Constitution of the United States, that of Blount, in 1797
and 1798, the point was fully discussed.
Mr. Dallas, one of the counsel for the respondent, said:
" It is evident, however, from the description of persons and
offenses impeachable, and the qualified nature of the punishment to be inflicted on a conviction, that official offenders and
offenses were alone contemplated. This opinion is fortified by the
express provisions of the Constitutions of the individual States."
Here Mr. Dallas read extracts from the Constitutions of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, New  York, Pennsylvania, North




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1577
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Kentucky, and
Tennessee, all of which restricted the power of impeachment
to the case of offenses committed in office. And he remarked
that this being the sense of the States individually it may
fairly be presumed to be their sense collectively. In politics,
as well as in mathematics, all the parts are equal to the whole;
and when we find all the parts pursuing this policy, we must,
in order to be consistent, ascribe the same to the whole when
acting on the same subject.  [Wharton's State Trials, p. 277.]
It will be seen, from this extract which I have read, that
this question was fairly presented on that trial.
Mr. Ingersoll, on the same side, argued that, "The punishment is official, if I may be allowed the expression, and therefore peculiarly adapted as a punishment for malconduct in the
office; and surely a civil officer of the United States ought
not to be deprived of a trial by a jury of the vicinage in criminal cases, but by express words or necessary implication.
Whoever examines the Constitution of the United States with
critical attention and compares it with the State Constitutions,
will find that many principles of the latter are adopted and
introduced into the former, where the proceedings by impeachment were confined to crimes and misdemeanors alleged to
have been committed by officers in the execution of their
offices. Such, I conceive, was the general sense of the country
as to the proper limits of this proceeding, and that to give it a
greater extent was both dangerous and unnecessary. Offenses
not immediately connected with office, to obtain the purpose
of essential justice, are best decided in the courts of the States
of the United States, where party and witnesses and jurors
are known to each other.
Mr. Harper, in reply, said:
"It cannot then, I apprehend, be doubted that the term' impeachment,' in our Constitution, has, and was intended, by
the framers of the Constitution, to have precisely the same
meaning, force, and extent, as in the English law, and it being
198




1578     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
perfectly clear, that in the English law the power of impeachment is unlimited, and extends to every person and to every
offense, it follows, undeniably, that the position of my learned
colleague remains unshaken, and that the defendant, in the
present case, is liable to impeachment for the offenses charged
against him by the House of Representatives."
Again, on page 301, he remarks:
" The learned counsel for the defendant have adduced many
of the State Constitutions, to show that the States have, in
their own Constitutions, restricted the power of impeachment
to official persons and official offenses; from whence, according
to them, it ought to be inferred that the States, in ratifying
the Federal Constitution, intended that the power of impeachment, which it contains, should be restricted in the same
manner. But, Mr. President, I cannot descern how this inference is warranted. The very contrary, I should suppose, should
be inferred. It must be remembered that in the State Constitutions the power is expressly limited; and that terms are employed, very different from those to be found in the Federal
Constitution. This proves that where the States intended to
limit the power, as in their own Constitutions, they employed
express words for that purpose; from whence it may, surely,
be inferred that when they took the Federal Constitution,
without any such express words, they intended to take the
power of impeachment along with it, without any such limitation. It must also be remarked, that the convention which
framed the Federal Constitution was composed of members
from each State, who must have understood their own State
Constitutions, and the limitations, on this subject, which they
contain. Had they intended to limit the power of impeachment in a similar manner, they would, no doubt, have done it
by express words, as in their respective State Constitutions."
It is true that Blount was not convicted, but the decision
rested entirely upon the gound that a Senator of the United
States who had been expelled was not liable to impeachment
for any cause. So stated by Wharton in a note upon this case




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1579
p. 317; Story on the Constitution, 802, and Sergeant on the
Constitution, p. 376.
We admit that the same question has been a fruitful topic
of discussion in subsequent trials, and that Judge Story declares
that up to the writing of his commentaries, it had not been
decided. As usual upon disputed points, he declines to give an
opinion. [Vol. on the Constitution.]  It must be confessed
however, by the counsel for the respondent, that these arguments have rather been theoretical than practical, and that in
none of the cases underthe Federal Constitution, have charges
been made of positive, or rather, as they are technically called,
of true crimes. A learned author, disconnected with any impeachment trial, and consequently free from  any suspicious
bias, says:
"Although  an impeachment may  involve  an  inquiry
whether a crime against any positive law has been committed,
yet it is not necessarily a trial for crime; nor is there any
necessity, in the case of crimes committed by public officers,
for the institution of any special proceeding for the infliction
of the punishment prescribed by the laws, since they, like all
other persons, are amenable to the ordinary jurisdiction of the
courts of justice in respect of offense against positive law.
The purposes of an impeachment lie wholly beyond the penalties of the statute or the customary law. The object of the
proceeding is to ascertain whether cause exists for removing a
public officer from office. Such a cause may be found in the
fact, that either in the discharge of his office, or aside from its
functions, he has violated a law, or committed what is technically denominated a crime. But a cause for removal from
office may exist where no offense against positive law has been
committed, as where the individual has, from immorality or
imbecility, or mal-administration, become unfit to exercise
the office.
"The rules by which an impeachment is to be determined
are therefore peculiar, and are not fully embraced by those




1580      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
principles or provisions of law which courts of ordinary jurisdiction are required to administer." [2d Curtis' History, p. 60.]
In the opinions delivered in the Johnson case, it seems to
have been admitted, upon both sides, that the impeachment of
an officer might be had for any violation of law amounting to
criminality. I shall refer to but two of these opinions. I refer
to the opinion of Senator Sherman,-3d vol. Andrew Johnson
Trial, page 3,-which reads as follows:
"We are not bound to technical definitions of crimes and
misdemeanors.  A willful violation of the law, a gross and
palpable breach of moral obligations, and tending to unfit an
officer for the proper discharge of his office, or to bring the
office into public contempt and derision, is, when charged and
proven, an impeachable offense. And the nature and criminality of the offense may depend on the official character of
the accused. A judge would be held to higher official purity,
and an executive officer to a stricter observance of the letter
of the law. The President, bound as a citizen to obey the law,
and specially sworn to execute the law, may properly, in his
high office as Chief Magistrate, be held to a stricter responsibility than if his example was less dangerous to the public
safety. Still, to justify the conviction of the President, there
must be specific allegations of some crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, gross misconduct, or a willful violation of law, and the proof must be such as to satisfy the conscience of the truth of the charge."
It will be observed that this opinion of Senator Sherman
makes no reference to the connection between crime and office,
but is wholly general in its character.
Senator Davis, on page 157 of the same volume, says:
"One of the leading and inflexible laws which bind this
court is embodied in the Constitution in these words:'No
person shall be removed from office but on impeachment for,
and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.'  That is the category of all impeachable offenses, and they must be acts declared by the law of the Unit



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1581
ed States to be treason or bribery, or some other offense which
it denominates a'high crime or misdemeanor.'  The laws
which define impeachable offenses may be the Constitution, or
acts of Congress, or the common law, or some other code, if
adopted either by the Constitution or act of Congress."
Such, certainly, seems to have been the opinion of the Senate of the TUnited Sta.tes at the time of this celebrated trial.
In the opinion of Senator Davis in the same volume, page
157, is the following:
"One of the leading and inflexible laws which bind this
court is embodied in the Constitution in these words:
""No person shall be removed from office but on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.' That is the category of all impeachable offenses, and they must be acts declared by the law
of the United States to be treason or bribery, or some other
offense which it denominates a "high crime or misdemeanor."
The laws which define impeachable offenses may be the Constitution, or acts of Congress, or the common law, or some
other code, if adopted either by the Constitution or act of
Congress."
On page 159 he says again:
"Nor would any crime or offense whatever, against a State
or against religion or morality, be a cause for impeachment,
unless such an act had been previously declared by a law of
Congress to be a high crime or high misdemeanor, and was
in its character of deep turpitude.  It results from this view
of the law of impeachment, that as none of the articles against
the President charge him with treason or bribery, which are
made impeachable offenses by the Constitution, they, or some
one of them, must allege against him the doing of an act, or
acts, which a law of Congress has declared to be an offense
against the United States, and denominated it to be, and in
its vicious nature it must be a high crime or high misdemeanor, and that the President did that act with criminal intent
to violate the law."




1582     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
There is the only one limitation, according to Senator Davis,there must be a high crime or misdemeanor.
Although this opinion was in favor of the President, and
wrought out with great elaborateness, it nowhere intimates
that an impeachable crime must, under the Constitution of the
General Government, be connected with official action. The
silence of the Senator upon this point is as significant of
his idea as though it had been stated in the most positive
terms.
This somewhat lengthy examination of the Federal Constitution, and reference to the trials which have been had under
it, has been made for the reason that it is one among the few
Constitutions, in which impeachments have not been expressly
limited to misconduct or crimes and misdemeanors in office.
Whatever light may be derived from the history of that instrument, or from  writers and discussions, relative to impeachments under it, has a direct bearing upon the points raised by
the respondent's counsel. I shall not weary your patience, Senators, by a repetition of the provisions of the Constitutions of
the several States, relative to this power. From the formation
of the first State Constitution, down to the present time, but
six are found without a special and express limitation of impeachable offenses to those which are connected with official
duty. I do not here include those few in which impeachable
offenses are wholly left to the action of the Legislature,
and where the Constitution  confers simply the power of
impeachment, without any designation whatever of the
grounds or causes upon which it may be based. Prior to 1835,
when our first Constitution was adoped, twenty-six Constitutions had been in force, in which the power of impeachment
had been expressly restricted to official offenses, and but two
were found which authorized impeachments for crimes and
misdemeanors, without such limitation. In the former class of
Constitutions, the limiting expression had settled down to a
fixed phrase or formula. The terms generally employed were,
"misconduct in office," "maladministration or corrupt cou



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1583
duct in office," or "crimes and misdemeanors in office."  At
least two-thirds of the twenty-six Constitutions already referred
to, contained the latter expression; an expression evidently
adopted to avoid the ambiguity which, in the early days of the
Constitution, had been claimed to exist in that instrument.
Now it is remarkable that the framers of our Constitution of
1835, should have employed almost the precise expression
which, in the Federal Constitution, had been productive of
severe contests and protracted discussion, while they had before them  twenty-six Constitutions, in which the doubt, assumed or real, which had been expressed relative to a similar
expression in the Constitution of the General Government,
had been so completely, so simply, and so obviously dispelled
by the employment of words naturally tending to restrict the
meaning of the phrase, within the precise limits intended.
Between the Constitution of 1835 and the formation of our
present Constitution, two Constitutions in other States were
adopted containing express words of restriction on the power
to impeach officers for crimes and misdemeanors, and one
without such words. No term  of limitation is found in our
proposed Constitution of 1868. Between the time just mentioned and 1850, the year of the adoption of our present Constitution, at least thirteen State Constitutions had been formed
in which impeachments were restricted to official crimes and
misdemeanors, while but three were adopted without such
limitation in terms.
If the theory of the learned counsel for the respondent be
correct, then the insertion of the clause under consideration
would augur gross carelessness or an absolute ignorance of
proper language to express, fully and completely, the idea and
intention not only of the framers of our first Constitution, but
of the two which nave been since formed. Still further, we
shall be compelled to bring a like charge against those who
have drawn up similar Constitutions in five other States, and
now, or formerly, in force. Is it not more consonant with the
recognized canons of legal construction, to conclude that the




1584      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
authors of these instruments have said all that they intended;
that they have said precisely what they intended; that no interpolation is necessary, or will be permitted, unless to explain
a patent ambiguity or to carry out the letter of these fundamental laws?  The amendment of our Constitution, ratified
in 1862, relative to the removal of officers by the Executive,
points to a plain distinction between the causes of such removal and the grounds of impeachment contained in Section 1.,
Article XII.
This section declares (Sec 8, Art. XII., Manual 181l, p. 73) the
causes of removal to be "corrupt conduct in office," so far following the exact language of the impeachment clause. Why did it
not continue?  Evidently because the intent was to limit the
power of the Governor to misfeasance or malfeasance in office. It
is so expressed; but crimes and misdemeanors in office are either
misfeasance or malfeasance therein, and nothing more. Why,
then, did it not follow the terms employed in Section 1, or declare succinctly that such removal might be had for any cause
which shall be sufficient ground for an impeachment? Such
an expression would not have failed to have suggested itself; —
the language used in Section 6 would have forced it on the
authors of that amendment.
But the counsel for the respondent may say that there is a
distinction between their claim and terms of Section 8. If
so, we must patiently await further information from them.
We believe that we may firmly plant ourselves upon the
position that our Constitution confers the power of impeachment for crimes and misdemeanors wholly disconnected with
office. That it did not intend that our Governors might be
perjurers, our Secretaries of State might be embezzlers, our
State Treasurers might be highway robbers, and our Land
Commissioners horse-thieves, and thus disgrace not only the
offices to which they were elected, but the sovereign people
who elected them. We will not believe that this is the state
of our law, until the power of impeachment is wholly taken
away, or so restricted by express language as to leave no doubt.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1585
We will not believe that if you find the respondent guilty of
any of the crimes and misdemeanors charged in these Articles,
you will say to him, " Continue your course of shame and
crime;" that you will declare to the People of this State:
"Your Land Commissioner has disgraced you and the high
office you have conferred upon him; and yet, broad as is the
language of your Constitution, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to reach him."
We shall here leave the point of your jurisdiction as to the
Articles charging criminality disconnected with the official
action of the respondent. If you shall belieVe that we have
maintained any one of these charges, we shall confidently ask
the judgment of the Constitution. Your construction of that
instrument may not be binding upon your successors, but it
will largely influence their opinions on future cases of this:
character which may unfortunately arise.
If the charges we have made constitute crimes and are proven,
so far as we have been able to discover,-this Senate will be
the first body called upon to decide the question here presented
under any Constitution similar to our own. Your careful
examination of the matter is expected. Your patience heretofore, leads us to feel that a question so important, one which
may vitally affect the interests of the State, will receive your
earnest attention.
The counsel for the respondent will claim  that this is a
criminal proceeding. This we deny. If we be asked if it is
a civil action, as commonly understood, we answer as readily,
No.
This is a special court, originated for a special case. Its
judgment is sui generis, and touches neither life, liberty, nor
property. It does not even reach the political status of the
defendant, as do impeachments in several of our sister States.
Office is not property in this country, and though the object
of impeachment be to deprive the accused of office, it affects
no vested right, even where salaries or fees are annexed.
199




1586      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
I read from Smith vs. Major, New York State Reports, page
520, as follows:
"An office in this cou n' - is not property, nor are the prospective fees of an office th. property of the incumbent.  [Conner v. Mayor 1, Seld. 285.] The incumbent cannot sell his
office, or purchase it, or incumber it. It will not pass by an
assignment of all his property, nor will such assignment affect
his right to prospective fees. [Id. and cases cited, p. 290.] The
Legislature may diminish or abolish the fees at pleasure, or
may render it a salaried office. The corporation of the city of
New York may do the same when it fixes the rate of compensation. It is only in the cases of a few of the State offices,
that the Constitution prohibits such interference. [Id.] The
same authority holds, and it is conceded by the appellants here,
that the right to fees or compensation does not grow out of
any contract between the government and the officer; but
arises from the rendition of the services."
Where the right of removal for cause, whether by impeachment or otherwise, exists, the incumbent holds by his own
stipulation only until he misbehaves or misdemeans himself.
When that comes, the People may remove the office which
they have conferred; they may annul the agency which they
have created.
Hence, there is no punishment, which is the entire aim and
scope of a criminal proceding, viewed in a legal sense.
In 6 American Law Register, p. 644, I find the following:
"It is absurd to say that impeachment is here a mode of
procedure for the punishment of crime, when the Constitution
declares its object to be removal from  and disqualification to
hold office, and that' the party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law,' for his crimes."
I will also read from the opinion of Senator Sumner, in the
trial of Andrew Johnson, Vol. 3, page 249:
"There is another provision of the Constitution, which testifies still further, and, if possible, more completely. It is the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1587
limitation of the judgment in cases of impeachment, making
it political and nothing else. It is not in the nature of punishment; but in the nature of protection to the Republic. It
is confined to removal from office, and disqualification; but, as
if aware that this was no punishment, the Constitution further
provides that this judgment shall be no impediment to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment,'according to law.'
Thus, again, is the distinction declared between an impeachment and a proceeding'according to law.' The first, which
is political, belongs to the Senate, which is a political body;
the latter, which is judicial, belongs to the courts, which are
judicial bodies. The Senate removes from office; the courts
punish."
Nor is this any new doctrine. It was enunciated as early as
the Blount case, in 1797. I find it on page 263. Mr. Bayard
says:
"I have but one observation more to make on this point,
which is, that impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender
as to secure the State. It touches neither his person nor his
property; but simply divests him of his political capacity.
It would, therefore, seem, from the nature of this body, that
they were peculiarly and exclusively the proper tribunal to
try impeachments."
It is true that conviction upon impeachment may, and generally is followed by a greater or less degree of disgrace. But
disgrace is not the test of a criminal judgment,-men are neither
imprisoned nor fined for loss of character. It is but a mere incident, and often accompanies actions purely civil. Even Prof.
Dwight, in his article on trial by impeachment in 6 Am. Law
Reg. 257, does not go the length of asserting that impeachment
is a criminal proceeding.
"When the United States Constitution was formed," he remarks " trial by impeachment was fully developed. It was not,
however, adopted in that instrument as a regular mode of criminal procedure, to be employed in lieu of an indictment. It




1588    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
was made a means of trial of a crime so far as it had a political bearing. It is used as a means of depriving officers of their
offices, and of disqualifying them from holding such positions
in the future. Still, it is requisite that a crime should be committed as a basis for the accusation. The Constitution provides,
in substance, that the offense, so far as it has a purely criminal
aspect, shall be tried in the ordinary courts; while so far as it
affects the official character, it shall be the subject of impeachment."
You will be cited to authorities declaring that Courts of
Impeachment hold the same legal notions of crimes and misdemeanors as other judicial tribunals. This is nothing but
the assertion that they recognize the known definitions of
crimes; that they will not hold that larceny, robbery, or embezzlement, which has not been defined to be such either by
the common law or by statute. But the amount or character
of the evidence required to prove the charge of these or other
crimes, may be entirely different in the one court from that
required in the other. The record of conviction or acquittal
in the one tribunal is not conclusive upon the other. We insist, therefore, that we are not bound to prove the charges of
our articles beyond a reasonable doubt; that if these charges
are grounds of impeachment, you may and should decide in
accordance with the preponderance of the evidence. One,
whose opinion is entitled to great weight, has gone even further.
Mr. Sumner, in his opinion given on the Trial of Andrew
Johnson, Vol. 3, page 255, says:
"Primarily, it is for the expulsion of the President from
office. Its motive is not' punishment, not vengeance, but the
public safety. Nothing less than this could justify the ponderous proceeding. It will be for the criminal courts to award
the punishment due to his offenses. The Senate considers
only how the safety of the people, which is the supreme law,
can be best preserved; and to this the ordinary rule of evidence
is reversed. If on any point you entertain doubts, the benefit
of those doubts must be given to your country; and this is




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1589
the supreme law. When tried on an indictment in the criminal
courts, Andrew Johnson may justly claim the benefit of your
doubts; but at the bar of the Senate on the question of his
expulsion from office, his vindication must be in every respect
and on each charge beyond a doubt. He must show that his
longer continuance in office is not inconsistent with  the
public safety, —
"'Or, at least so prove it
That the probation bear no hinge or loop
To hang a doubt on.'
"' Anything short of this is to trifle with the Republic and
its transcendent fortunes. It is by insisting upon doubts that
the apologists of the President, at the bar and in the Senate,
seek to save him. For myself, I can see none such, but assuming that they exist, then should they be marshaled for our
country. This is not a criminal trial, where the rule prevails,'Better that many guilty men should escape than one innocent
man should suffer.' This rule, which is so proper in its place,
is not applicable to a proceeding for expulsion from office; and
who will undertake to say that any claim of office can be set
against the Public Safety?"
We shall now proceed to lay before you the several statutes
which we claim have been violated by the Commissioner, or
by his clerks, if not with his connivance, at least with his
knowledge. I read first from Compiled Laws of 1871:
"(423.) SECTION 1. The People of the State of Michigan
enact, That it shall be unlawful for any officer or clerk employed in the State Land Office, or in the office of the Auditor
General of this State, during the time of his service, or within
three months after the discontinuance of such service, to purchase, either directly or indirectly, from the State, at either of
said offices, any lands for sale at said offices, or either of them."
This is the act referred to in Article II. We say that the
evidence is conclusive, that Barnard the Deputy, and Clarke,
Van Dunham, and Griswold, have grossly violated this law.




1590     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The act to which we refer in Article III is as follows: [Comp.
Laws 1871, Sections 3978, 3979, and 3981.]
(3978,) SECTION 1. The People of the State of Michigan enact,
That the Commissioner of the Land Office is hereby required
to issue a certificate of purchase to every settler or occupant of
the swamp lands belonging to this State, in the proper legal
subdivison, for eighty acres of said land, whenever it shall be
made to appear to said Commissioner, that such settler or occupant has actually resided upon such eighty acres of land, for
the period of five continuous years, and that he has also
drained the same, so as to comply with the provisions of the
act of Congress approved September twenty-sixth, 1850, by
which said lands were conveyed to this State.
"(3979.) SEC. 2. Before any such settler or occupant shall
acquire the right to occupy, or drain, any of the swamp lands,
pursuant to the provisions of the preceding section, he shall
file, with said Commissioner, his application, under oath, for
the privilege of entering upon said land, specifying the same
for the purpose mentioned above, and obtain from the Commissioner a license to enter upon, and occupy, and drain said
lands, for the purpose of obtaining title thereto.
"(3980.) SEC. 3. No person shall be entitled to the benefit of
this act until he shall have made oath in such form as shall be
prescribed by the Commissioner of the State Land Office, that
he is not the owner of forty acres of land in any State or Territory of the United States.
" (3981.) SEC. 4. And it is further provided that the license
for settlement, granted under this act, shall contain a clause
which shall expressly provide that the settler or occupant
shall, within three months of the date of said license, file with
the Commissioner of the Land Office a certificate from the
supervisor of the township in  which the land is located,
together with the affidavit of such settler, and that he is in the
actual possession and occupancy of such land; and said license
shall also contain a clause providing that the settler or occupant shall not be authorized to cut, take, and carry away any




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    1591
pine, oak, or other valuable timber, unless it be to clear the
land for cultivation, and then only as much as may be necessary to improve the same."
This act was subsequently modified by act of March 18,
1865 [Laws of 1865, p. 558], intended to protect the ignorant
or careless but honest settler. I read from the Comp. Laws of
1871, Sections 3989, 3990:
"(3989.) SECTION 1. The People of the State of Mfichiqan
enact, That any swamp land licensed under and by virtue of
act number two hundred and fifty-nine, and all acts amendatory
thereto, from and after the expiration of five vy^ars from the
date of the license may be sold by the Commissioner of the
State Land Office the same as other swamp lands are now sold:
Provided, It shall appear from the affidavit of the supervisor
or two responsible citizens of the township in which the lands
are situated, that no settlement has been made by the original
licensee, as contemplated in the act licensing the same; that said
licensee has no valuable improvements thereon; also that such
licensee cannto claim exemption under the provisions of section eighty-seven of act number sixteen of the Session Laws
of eighteen hundred and sixty-two.
"(3990.) SEC. 2. Any person holding a license for the settlemont of State swamp lands under and by virtue of act number
one hundred and twenty-eight of the Session Laws of eighteen
hundred and sixty-one, who shall abandon and not reside upon
the lands described in his license, for two years, shall forfeit his
license; and upon the filing with said Commissioner the affidavit of the supervisor or two responsible citizens of the township in which said lands are situated, that any licensee has
abandoned said land and has not resided upon the same for
two years last past, said Commissioner shall declare said license
void, and may sell the said swamp lands the same as other
swamp lands are sold: Provided, That no licensee shall be
deemed to have abandoned his land by reason of being engaged
in the military or naval service of the United States."




1592   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The object of the latter act is too evident to need explananation. Both its letter and spirit are free from doubt. The
right of the licensee vested on the issuing of the license. We,admit that, prior to the act of 1865, if the licensee failed to file
proof of settlement his land might, at any time, be thrown into
market and resold; but where this had not been done, the law,cured all defects, unless proof of non-settlement was made as
required by the statute. But the ruling of the Commissioner
-almost entirely negatived the beneficent intention of the Legis-'lature.  It distorted the language and contravened the whole:spirit of the act. It was an invention, not weak, of the enemy,of the negligent licensee. It was more than a mistake on the
part of the Commissioner. It was a crime. No sooner was it
made in the recesses of his office, without any public notice of
a change which he knew must affect scores and perhaps hundreds of settlers, than the Van Dunhams, the Cornells, the
Hoyts, those harpies living on the sweat and toil of the poor
man and invading his rights, swarmed around the office of the
respondent. Bouck and Conley, and Heaven knows how many
others, had their lands swept away, only to be plunged into
litigation with some mythical Ferry in the United States
Court, a hundred miles distant, or to buy them back at a sacrifice
of all or nearly all their remaining property. An exhibition
of indignation at such scenes is possible, even in this high
presence.
It plainly appears that the Commissioner mailed certain
papers known as "Every Wednesday Night," at Laporte, Indiana. This fact must convince you that he was the author or
instigator of that document, and that he, either by himself or
by his agents, procured the mailing of the second installment
at Toledo, which reached Lansing and there circulated in the
public manner already too well known to you.
By such circulation the respondent violated Section 5868 of
the Compiled Laws, 1857:
"If any person shall import, print, publish, sell, or distribute
any book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, or other thing, con



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1593
taining obscene language, or obscene prints, pictures, figures
or descriptions, manifestly tending to the corruption of the
morals of youth, or shall introduce into any family, school, or
place of education, or shall buy, procure, receive, or have in his
possession, any such book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, or
other thing, either for the purpose of sale, exhibition, loan, or
circulation, or with intent to introduce the same into any
family, school, or place of education, shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or
by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars."
We have assumed that this publication comes within the
meaning of the statute. I believe there is not a person within
this room who has not already condemned it as infamously
obscene. It may not contain the broad language of the filthy
brothel or the stew  of the most degraded humanity, but
there is enough and more than enough, to brand its author
with lasting infamy, and cause the people of this State to
blush for the degrading exhibition which one of their chief
officers has made of himself.
But there is more in this crime than at first appears. This
paper is not the work of a moment of passion. Had it been
such, there might have been some palliation for the act. Its
production is the labor of days, perhaps even of weeks. Not
one pulsation of burning shame ever seems to have flashed
across him. With cool premeditation he carries out his scheme
to the end. Under a fictitious name the Land Commissioner
of Michigan carries his precious treasure to another State,
laboriously prepares it for mail, deposits it in the postoffice,
and returns to his duties to await the explosion. Foiled in
his first effort by the vigilance of the public authorities, by
himself or by his agents, he returns to the charge a second
time, and, unfortunately for his reputation, with success. The
evidences of his care to insure the completion of the dastardly
crime, are before you.
These envelopes tell their own story. Different in kind, and
200




1594     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
directed apparently by two, and not more than three, hands.
Blank paper on the inside of some of them, to conceal their
contents from prying eyes,-no more open envelopes, such as
had once betrayed him.
Shame on the man who would do such a deed.  Treble
shame on him who, holding the high position of the respondent, would stoop to an act so vile.
I will not anticipate the defense which the counsel may
make to the charge contained in the Eighth Article.
It is said in the answer, or was remarked by one of the
Commissioner's counsel, that there is no allegation in the
article that he had knowledge of the character of the paper.
No, there is none, nor is it anywhere alleged that he is
accountable for his own acts.
Under Article Nine, we charge a violation of a statute of
the United States, as follows-2 Brightley's Digest, 366,
Art. 23:
"No obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of a vulgar and indecent character, shall be admitted
into the mails of the United States. Any person or persons
who shall deposit, or cause to be deposited, in any postoffice or
branch postoffice of the United States, for mailing or for delivery, an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication, knowing the same to be of a vulgar and indecent character
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and, being duly
convicted thereof, shall, for every such offense, be fined not
more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both, according to the circumstances and aggravations of the offense."
If the paper in question was of an obscene character, then
the mailing of it at Laporte and Toledo for the purpose of circulation was a plain breach of the statute just cited. Even if
there were a definite meaning of the term " obscene publication," and this paper did not come within it, still the defenda t
is guilty if the paper is of an indecent or vulgar character.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1595
It is hardly possible to argue as to the character of the Commissioner's literary production, for the question is one which
appeals to the consciences of men, and which every man must
decide for himself. We may say, in this connection, that the
Commissioner stands here self-convicted as to the character of
this paper. It appears from the evidence, that he travels under
an assumed name. The papers, his property, were seized by
the United States authorities, aud for aught we know, and for
aught that appears in evidence, that property is in Washington.
There has been no evidence introduced to show that he has
ever made a demand for it, or that'he has ever made any attempt to recover it.
Now, if it was not the opinion of the Commissioner himself
that the mailing of this paper was a violation of the law of the
State, as well as a violation of the law of the United States, it
is extremely improbable that he would have waited all this
time and made no attempt to recover the production.
It may be said that you are bound to wait, untita proceeding
has been had in the United States Court, before you shall convict the Commissioner under the charge of mailing these papers.
We shall submit, and we shall insist, that in reference to
this matter you are to do for yourselves. It would make no
difference whatever, if the Commissioner had actually been
tried and had been acquitted in a Court of the United States.
It will be for you to determine whether this was an indecent
pub ication, whether it was of a vulgar character, whether it
was an obscene print; and if you should come to the conclusion
that such was the character of the paper, it would be your duty
to convict him, although he may have been acquitted of the
same crime in some other court.
We admit that we have failed to produce positive evidence
against the respondent, so as to bring him within the scope of
the law referred to in Article X.
Under the Eleventh Article we have brought forward what
evidence we have been able. The unexplained absence of an
important witness upon the charge of adultery compels us to




1596      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
leave this branch of our case far weaker than we expected.
Yet three distinct facts are shown, to which we call the attention of the Senate:
First. The appearance of the sheets are shown, to which
we call the attention of the Senate. The counsel for the
respondent said they would wash that sheet as white as snow.
They have attempted to do so. They introduced testimony to
show that upon a certain occasion the Commissioner, owing
to a disease which the physician has explained to you, was
placed in a similar situation; but they failed, it seemed to me,
to ask one important question, and that was whether a person could be placed in that situation, and continue in sleep.
It is evident that during the night that this occurrence took
place at the Lansing House, the Commissioner must have
remained the entire time in bed, and in all probability was
asleep;
Second. The occurrence related by Baker and Bosworth;
Third. The occurrence referred to by Cole.
I think it will be regarded that the excuse which was offered
by the respondent in this case, was somewhat thin and gauzy.
Clarke testifies that they both happened to rise early; that
they both happened to want to go to the springs; that they
both did go toward the springs; but, arriving on this side of
the river, found the boat upon the other side. Now, if it was
the intention of the Commissioner to go to the springs, and
he traveled the ordinary road, he must have certainly seen
before he arrived half way to the shore that the boat was on
the other side of the river; and yet we find that he traveled
entirely to the river.
It was promised on the part of the defense that they would
produce the man that rapped on the window of Alice McCabe's
house, and called the Commissioner in. That man has not
been forthcoming. That was the entire testimony in regard to
the Commissioner's conduct on that morning. His going to
the springs rests entirely upon the evidence of Clarke.
We have charged the Commissioner, in a former article, with




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1597
the employment and appointment of dissolute clerks for purposes of gain. The fact that these clerks are dissolute is
beyond dispute.  For what purpose he employed them, he
best knows.
If it is not for purposes of gain, it is impossible to show
what were his reasons. But I say the fact that they are
dissolute clerks, that they are disreputable clerks, that their
personal habits are such as to render them sources of suspicion, and to render their conduct suspicious, is something
about which there can be no dispute.
In reference to the personal habits of these clerks, we have
but two or three instances fully proven, where it is undoubted
that the Commissiner had knowledge of them. Van Dunham
certainly admits that he is a man given to the use of intoxicating drinks. But there are but two cases where the knowledge of the habits of these clerks is directly brought to the
notice of the Commissioner. One is in the Lansing House,
and the other in the Chapman House.
Now, it is said by Baker, in his testimony, that at the scene
in the Chapman House the Commissioner himself was in a
state of intoxication. On the other hand, the defense have
attempted to prove and show that Baker was entirely mistaken,
or, to speak more harshly, that he perjured himself; because
the story which Baker told and the story told by Straub cannot be made to correspond, and one or the other must have
committed downright perjury. We shall leave it to you to
say which of these two stories is true. Mr. Straub testifies
as to the transaction which took place that night, but you will
recollect, upon the close of his examination, when he was
asked if he had made any statement of the facts to which he
testified, he said positively he had not; when asked by whom
he had been subpoenaed, he said he did not know; when still
further inquired of as to any statements of the facts related
by him which he had made after the service of the subpoena
upon him, he denied that he had made any such statements.
Straub's testimony was annihilated by that assertion. There




1598     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
is no man who can place any belief in his stories,-ill anything
he said.
The defense here has not been conducted without a full and
careful examination of the witnesses, before they were brought
before you. This was apparent even in Straub's case. His
testimony was wholly given in response to direct questions.
Neither the counsel nor the witness traveled out of paths
previously marked out.
Poor Griswold was called upon to corroborate his testimony.
Griswold stands before you as a man whose integrity may be
well doubted. He himself was in a state of gross intoxication. It appears plainly, from subsequent observations, that
his testimony must be received with a great deal of suspicion.
Beside the facts to which I have already called the attention
of the Senate, there are other transactions conclusively proven
showing the total demoralization of the entire department.
Barnard is shown to have dealt extensively in lands reserved
on contracts, either with or without the consent of the contractors. Griswold, Clarke, and Van Dunham have had dealings of the same character.
The Deputy is a seller of information,-nmany of his subordinates deal in the same commodity.  Several of the clerks
have admitted that they act as agents of land-dealers, some at
stipulated salaries and others for occasional fees. Every one
of the clerks whom we have called, with the exception of one
Gillam, confesses to the reception of gratuities; showing a system of forced contributions as well understood and as thoroughly organized as that which prevails among the servants
at a first-class hotel. And even the immaculate Barnard, who
was appointed to supplant the dishonest Porter, charged with
embezzling $16, is not ashamed to receive $5 in return for a
certificate of land to one dealer, which had, through the system of transacting business, been virtually refused to another.
I wish in this case to call the attention of the Senate to a
proceeding which has lately taken place in New York, in
which  the Insurance  Commissioner was the respondent.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1599
Charges of precisely the same character were made there as
have been made here, and from  the report of the Legislative Committee, which I hold in my hand, it appeared:
Third. That he has allowed clerks in the department, who
are paid regular salaries by the State, to charge and receive
illegal and excessive fees for making special and other examinations.
Fourth. That he has appointed commissioners to make
examinations, who have received large and excessive fees, entailing great expense upon the companies.
Fifth. That the department has been so managed, that
many of the companies have believed it necessary to employ
brokers and attorneys, who were known to be on intimate
terms and favorites with the Superindendent, to obtain examinations and protect the interests of their companies, and the
payments of large sums for their personal influence in that
behalf.
As I understand,-though I do not have it before me now,the Legislature of New York passed a resolution of impeachment against the Commissioner, the trial of which he avoided
by resignation. But it will be seen from what I have read,
that the charges made against him are precisely of the same
character as those made in our articles. The mere fact that
these so-called gratuities are received from parties voluntarily,
is no excuse. The law provides a salary of $1,000 a year, "and
the clerks shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever."
But, as I have already stated, it is plain, from the evidence
that has been introduced in this case, that it is a well understood rule of that office that the man who pays receives the
benefits; and the man who does not pay can obtain only such
advantages from that office as the subordinates may be willing to give him  without trouble to themselves.  Plats for
which the law requires fees to be paid are distributed among
the favored ones without money and without price.  Lands
are reserved upon checks, the payment of which  is not
demanded until months after. The doors of fraud are thrown




1600     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
wide open, if not actually entered, by means of some Bathay
contract and a "general order."
If these things are true, and they are, beyond a doubt, for the
evidence of them has been wrested from the unwilling witnesses,
who are the subordinates of the Commissioner, what must be
the condition of that most important department of our State
government? What might we not expect if we could but obtain
the entire truth?
And shall the Commissioner excuse himself on the ground
of ignorance? Ignorance of these facts is culpable negligence,
-it is misconduct in office.  The State demands that he
should be held accountable for the conduct of his clerks.
It gives to him the selection of his clerks and an entire control over them. He is bound to exercise a vigilance and a
supervision which must speedily detect the irregularities-to
call them  by their mildest names-which  prevail in his
department.  He cannot shake off this responsibility.  It
attaches to his office, and he can only avoid the one when he
ceases to hold the other.  [City of Richmond v. Webbs Admr's,
17 Gratt. 366; Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 6 B. Monroe, 174,
176.]
This trial has developed the truth of one of two things,
either that the Commissioner is incompetent or that he is
corrupt.
Improvements in the method of transacting business in
the office have nothing to do with the decision you are to
render. We charge the respondent with irregularities and
misdemeanors in office, and with crimes. Upon these you are
to decide,-not upon the question whether former defects
in the management of this department have been remedied.
This may be true, and our accusation equally true. The guilt
or the innocence of the respondent upon the articles preferred
is the sole question before you.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1601
Mr. McGowan, on behalf of the respondent, addressed the
Senate as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND SENATORS-In the division of labor in
this case between my colleague and myself, it has fallen to my
lot to look more especially after the facts; and very naturally,
in the argument, have only prepared myself to talk in regard
to the facts involved, and the law more immediately concerning them.
We had certainly anticipated that the whole case would be
opened to the Senate before we were called upon to say anything; and not only all that was claimed under the law, but
all that was claimed under the evidence, would be fully and
fairly stated to the Court. May be I am wrong, but it seems to
me now that I am almost compelled to open the case on the
facts on the part of the defendant, to argue a negative, and if
some of my positions seem somewhat awkward, it may be to
some extent excused for that reason.
It is now nearly two months since there was presented to the
House of Representatives a petition, signed by some twentyseven citizens of Lansing, asking that this respondent be removed from office on account of drunkenness. Immediately on
the presentation of the petition, you will remember, a committee was appointed to examine into the conduct of this officer in
that regard, and to report to the House, if they found sufficient
reason to do so, the articles of impeachment and specifications
thereunder. Some five days after the presentation of that
petition, there was reported to the House by the committee, a
short resolution of impeachment and a general report, charging the respondent with all the crimes known in the calendar,
and many that were not known in the calendar. Then followed the preliminary steps of this trial. The evidence presented before that committee, which was taken, doubtless, in a
very hurried manner, was read before the House of Representatives, in the presence of reporters, and has been circulated
throughout the State.
201




1602     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
From that time to this, Honorable Senators, the'respondent
has been forced to silence; i:ut his silence should not be construed into indifference.'hat some of these accusations that
were contained in that report, and afterwards embodied in the
Articles of Impeachment, were unqualifiedly false we all now
acknowledge, and some that went directly to the personal and
moral character of this respondent. That he should have
remained, during those two months, entirely indifferent to
charges that so nearly and dearly affected him, would be to
give him a character of something, I should say, almost more
than human. On the day when the respondent was arraigned
here at the bar of the Senate, it will be remembered, we asked
for time to prepare the defense; and my brother Shipman, in
making some remarks in support of the motion, mentioned
that the Senate would not strike down an unarmed man. The
word was misunderstood, and fears were expressed that the empty sleeve that dangles by the side of the Commissioner, would
haunt this case during every step of its progress. I allude to
that fact now, to say to the Senate, we rest our case now, as we
rested it then, wholly and solely upon its merits. We ask no
sympathy, we ask no consideration for past suffering or
past services; we ask simply, in presenting the case to the
Senate, that it be judged upon its merits, and upon its merits
alone. Did we feel that our cause was at all weak, that our
claim upon the Senate to afavorable judgment was not, in and
of itself, a strong claim, then we might appeal to the sympathy
of the Senate; then we might ask you to remember the former
services of this respondent and his former suffering. But in
the thorough examination of this case for the last four weeks,
we find no such motive, and we shall make no such appeal.
The Land Office in the State of Michigan was first opened
in 1843. For nine months it was a bureau in the office of
the Auditor General. January 1st, 1844, it became an independent office and was located at Marshall. During 1850, for
two months it was wholly abolished. During the time of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1603
its establishment there have been nine Commissioners, seven
of whom have served since the office was removed to Lansing.
Of these seven, but one, so far as I can ascertain, with the
exception of the respondent, has given his time and attention
to the affairs of the office, and that one was Cyrus Hewitt.
They all had business away from here,-professional or otherwise. They were simply figure-heads.' The office was run by
Deputies or irresponsible clerks.
As I said, in opening this case on the part of the respondent, it can be no cause for wonder, that under this state of
things, abuses should grow up in the office, that they should
become crystalized into precedents that would be hard to break
up, and when the Commissioner came here with the honest
intention to do his duty as he saw it under the law, that there
would be some confusion,-that there would be some clashing
of interest. Men who were acting as real-estate agents, and
had formed relations with that office which were decidedly
beneficial to themselves, would let go their hold with great
reluctance; men who were building roads and digging ditches
through the northern part of the State, and had large contracts on which they were allowed to reserve and re-reserve,
and drop land back into the market, would be compelled to
give up the privilege with reluctance. Men who were allowed
to go into that office and upon their own affidavit oust the
homesteader and secure the little forty or eighty acres of land
which he had previously held, would very reluctantly give up
that privilege. Men who were in the office and had grown
suddenly rich, for some reason or other, who handled public
and private moneys for their own private ends, would give up
their privileges reluctantly.
It is no matter of wonder, then, that the disagreeable necessity is placed upon us to-day, to stand here and address you.
Had the Commissioner staid at home and let matters go on
as they were going; had he allowed these real-estate agents to
continue their arangement with the office; had he allowed scrip




1604     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
to be purchased with the money belonging to the State, and to
individuals, and speculations of that kind, to have gone on in
the office; had he allowed illegal affidavits of abandonment to
have been used there, and homesteaders deliberately to violate
the law with regard to these three months' proof; had he
allowed all these abuses to remain exactly as he found them, I
dare say that you will agree with me, that neither you nor I
would have been in this Senate chamber to-day, to have heard
what is now being said. With this view of the case, then, we
propose to go directly to the facts as they appear in evidence
before you, conceiving it to be, notwithstanding  what
has been said by the Managers, that the only question
is, whether  the  respondent is guilty  or not  guilty
under the charges which are preferred against him; and we
call your attention, then, directly to Article I.
He is charged in this article with withholding lands for certain land-dealers, and for pecuniary consideration to himself
and his clerks. The first witness which touches the charge
under this article, is E. H. Porter. On a cross-examination of
him it was elicited, that a firm in this city, by the name of
Jones & Porter, had reserved lands to themselves, where they
had no credit, as far back as 1869. At a public sale, these
lands were marked up to them, and those marks were upon
the books of the office when Porter went out. There is no
evidence that the Commissioner knew anything of this fact.
The marks were made long before he came into office; they
were made upon books that the Deputy had full control of,
and, as he admits himself, were made entirely by himself, or
by his direction.
The next testimony that at all touches this article is that
made  by Allison, relating to the Allison-Hewitt-Thomas
purchase. Before I proceed to comment upon that, I call your
attention to the law governing that class of cases, where it is
charged upon us that we have withheld lands from the market
on quarter payments upon a check. I hold in my hand the
Land Office laws, as compiled by Mr. Edmonds' predecessor




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1605
in 1870, and read from page 12, Sec. 2, which is 2445 of the
Compiled Laws of 1857:
"The terms of payment on the sale of University and
school lands shall be twenty-five per centum of the purchase
money, to be paid at the time of the purchase, the balance of
the principal at any time thereafter, at the option of the purchaser, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum
on the unpaid balance, payable on the first day of March or
within sixty days thereafter, in each and every year, at such
place or places as shall be specified in the certificate of
purchase."
On page 15, Sec. 7, which is 2480 of the Compiled Laws
it reads as follows:
" The said Commissioner shall, whenever it satisfactorily appears that the chief value of any parcel of land consists of pine
or other timber, and that in his opinion the interest of the
State will not be secured by a compliance with the terms of
payment prescribed in the second section of this act, require of
the purchaser fifty per centum of the purchase money to be
paid at the time of the purchase, and such security for the
payment of the balance of the principal, at any time thereafter
as in his judgment will secure the respective funds against loss,
or he may, in his discretion, require full payment for the same."
I also ask your attention to the 19th Michigan Report, page
470. The case is that of the People ex. rel. John S. Estabrook
vs. Benjamin D. Pritchard, Commissioner of the State Land
Office,
I will not detain you by reading the whole case, but will
simply read the head-note, which is as follows:
"Practice in the Supreme Court: Hearing in mandamus
cases: Effect of return. An  applicant for a mandamus,
bringing the case to argument upon the respondent's return
to the order to show cause, is entitled to the benefit of all the
admissions it contains; but he cannot insist upon facts
alleged in the petition or the accompanying affidavits, which
are not admitted.




1606     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
" State Land Office: Verbal regulations for the purchase of
Land: Payments for drafts received as money by the Commissioner: Who may object. A person applying at the office
of the Commissioner of the State Land Office to purchase
primary school land, the price of which was four dollars an
acre, on account of which, at the time of such application,
he paid two dollars an acre, but was told that he could not
have a certificate or patent until the full price was paid, has
no right to rely on the verbal assurance of the clerk with
whom  he transacted the business, that his payment would
secure to him the lands if, on notice, he should secure or pay
the balance.
" When two persons are contending for priority as applicants
for the purchase of primary school lands at the office of the
Commissioner, one has no right to object that the payment
made by the other was in a draft on New York, it having been
received by the Commissioner as money, and it not appearing
that it was of less value than currency."
The facts in that Estabrook case, as contained in the report,
are something like these: Estabrook made application for some
600 acres of land, and paid $2 an acre, or one-half the
purchase money, down,-$1,200. Afterwards a man by the
name of Hill made application for the same lands. The Commissioner notified Estabrook that he must select or elect
what lands he would take as payment for the money he had
deposited, the $1,200,-what portion of the 600 acres. Estabrook
declined to make such selection and offered to pay the whole
amount,-to pay the balance of the purchase money. The
Commissioner forced him to make the election without prejudice to the balance of it, and he elected to take a certain
portion of the land, 300 acres of it, and it was patented up to
him. The balance, the other 300 acres, stood as claimed by
the original applicant, and by the man Hill, who made the
application while Estabrook's application was pending; but
Hill made his application by depositing a draft on New York.
You see what the decision of the Supreme Court was in




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1607
regard to that. The Court held that the Commissioner did
right in making Estabrook make his selection, and also that
he was authorized to take a draft upon New York, or any
check or deposit, which he considered as money to himself,
and that he took at his own risk.
Now, in view of that, let us make a little examination of this
Allison and Hewitt case.
On the sixth day of July, 1871, an application was made by
Hewitt on quarter payment for five " forties " of land. That is
the testimony. On the second cay of Octob,.r. Allison wrote
here to the office to know if the land on that section was vacant,
and was answered promptly that only al part of it was vacant.
Two days later than that, Ar. Allison came here to the office,
and made a personal application for the land that we as vacant,
and at that time had patented up to him some 240 acres of
land on that same section, other than the land that was applied
for by Mr. Hewitt.
When he went away that time, he left some $300 or $400
deposited with the Commissioner, with the verbal application
for the lands that were held by Hewitt. The amount of money
left was not sufficient to pay for the land. There was more
than enough to pay the quarter payment, but not enough for
full payment. When the patents for the land, which he bought
on the 4th of October, were made out to him, this money was
returned to him, at his own request, and Hewitt still held the
land on the quarter payment, upon his check or draft. Now,
it was not until April 30th,-until after the commencement of
these proceedings,-that any formal application was made to
the Commissioner for those lands, on the part of Mr. Allison.
It was then made by his agent, Mr. Bush, and only for one
"forty." On that application, it is in evidence before you, that
the Commissioner notified Mr. Hewitt that he must make
his selection of what lands he would take in payment
of the amount represented by his check, then on deposit
with him. That Mr. Hewitt then and there selected a
certain "forty " of the five " forties."  The only one that was




1608     TRIAL OF CHAR.LES A. EDMONDS.
applied for by Allison, he selected, and it was patented up to
him. The other four "forties" he then applied for on quarter
payment, under this section of the law which I have read, and
filed an affidavit that they were not chiefly valuable for timber,
and had the necessary certificate of purchase issued to him,
and thus the matter stands to-day. No other application was
ever made. Now, that is the whole of the Allison-HewittThomas controversy, and you have it in view of the law which
is now  before  you.  There is another point  in  the'evidence that should probably be considered under this
article, and that is the case of Philip Kershner.  The
land in question is the N. E. of the N. E., and the
S. ~ of the N. E., of Sec. 35, town 35 N., range 1 E., namely,
120 acres. You will remember how positively Mr. Kershner
swore, upon the witness stand, with regard to his application
for that 120 acres of land. He said that he had a man by the
name of Theodore Day, who was an employe in the U. S. Land'Office at Detroit, write to the Commissioner here for the two
pieces of land, the 80 and the 40; that almost immediately he
got a response that the 80 had been sold to a man by the name
of Frost, but the 40 was vacant, and he could have it; that
Mr. Day then sent back the necessary funds, and the 40 was
purchased. He then made inquiries of Mr. Frost, who looked
over his books and accounts, and could not find that he had
any such land; he never had entered it, and never had purchased it; that he then made some other examination, in other
offices, of plats, and ascertained that the land was vacant. He
claims that he then went to Mr. David Preston, of the firm of
" David Preston and Co.," and applied for this other 80 through
them, and that immediately he got the 80. The inference was,
and the proof, if it means anything, meant this, that Mr. Kershner, being unknown, not being a large dealer in the office, when
he applied, this 80 being valuable probably to the Commissioner,
or to somebody else in the office, that they, for a corrupt
purpose, withheld it, and let him have only the 40. But the
facts on the defense show this state of things: That although




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1609
Mr. Kershner testified very positively, yet he was very positively mistaken; that Mr. Theodore Day never wrote to the office
for the 80 spoken of by Mr. Kershner. His entire letter is in
evidence and is on the files, and you will find it on page 518 of
the Impeachment Proceedings. That first letter, in which he
writes for the N. E. of the N. E. of that section and town, says
nothing about the 80 acres. Feb. 7th he wrote again, and sent
the scrip for the purchase of the 40, but said nothing about
the 80,-not a word; yet Mr. Kershner sat there and swore
positively that he saw the answer to that first letter and
read it, and that the Deputy or somebody in the office
wrote  positively that the 80 had been  sold, and sold
to Frost. He even went so far as to fix the date when it
was sold,-November 19th, or thereabouts; he remembered the
man's name, he had read the letter over five or six times,
he could not be mistaken. You will remember with what
tenacity he adhered to his first statement on the cross-examination: He had read it, he had had it in his hand, he knew
it to be so. There is the letter-book; there are the letters
with the dates; there is Theodore Day's signature, and there
is not an iota of truth in that whole statement. On page 519
you will find David Preston's letter in which he writes for the
80, and it was patented up to him because it was vacant. You
have heard the statement of Mr. Robinson that he had examined the records of the office, and that there was nothing in
the records, on the books, or among the files anywhere to show
that Mr. Frost's name was ever connected with that 80 acres
of land. You can come to no other conclusion than that this
man Kershner was either grossly mistaken or that he is willfully corrupt. Either horn of the dilemma you can have.
Another point of evidence, which, probably, the Managers
will claim as properly under this section, is that of Cyrus
Hewitt. We have been somewhat in doubt-it has been somewhat of a mystery to us-how the Commissioner could be
charged with the corruptions of former Commissioners. It was
202




1610     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
said by one of the Honorable Managers, when this evidence
was presented, that he hoped to connect it with this Commissioner; that he hoped, by some mysterious way which he did
not see fit to announce,-" for fear that it would be switched off
the track," to use his own language,-that, in some mysterious
way, the purchase of that 2,000 acres of land which Hewitt
held upon a certificate for a certain length of time, and which
was canceled long before this man came into office; that, in some
way, he would bring that knowledge home to this respondent.
If the Senate can find, in any way, that he did bring it home
to this respondent, then that testimony will properly come
under this article; then will Mr. Edmonds be properly charged
with withholding lands for the benefit of large dealers, and
afterwards throwing them back on the market by getting the
certificate canceled. We have been unable to find, that in
the slightest degree it has been brought home to this respondent, or if there has been anything in this transaction that
shows the respondent knew anything about it. In fact, the
whole thing was done before he came into office. The reservation was made, the land was sold to Hewitt upon the certificate, the cancelation was made, and the land put back upon
the market, long before this Commissioner's time. And, right
in this connection, I desire to call the attention of the Senate
to a portion of the evidence of General Humphrey. It will be
remembered that he stated to you, that sometime during 1868
or 1869 it became necessary for the Board of Control to cancel a whole batch of old contracts, where the lands had not
been patented up upon them, and where undoubtedly the land
had been reserved to the full amount of the contract. In fact
the witness himself knew that three contracts had been full,
and the cancelation of the contracts carried with it the cancelation of the reserves. At the time of the cancelation there
were nearly 39 of those contracts canceled, and the witness
stated that there may have been many more which he could
have found, if he had turned over his book, but as far as he
had gone there were 39, on not one of which had the land been




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1611
patented. Undoubtedly every one was reserved in full. That
was in 1868, or 1869. There can be no doubt but thousands
of marks were left upon the books and plats of the office, by
this action of the Board. Many of them are probably there
yet. It is an immense work to ferret them all out, to distinguish them from the legitimate reservations, and erase them
from the records.
That there are marks of reservation upon those books that
are not explainable, has been stated by Robinson, who has
examined them, and who is the chief clerk. He knows not
how they came to be on the book. Are we to be charged with
corruption because these men who made their contracts and
reservations in 1868 and 1869 failed to perform their contracts,
-because those marks are upon the books?  Has it been for
personal gain that we have allowed those marks to remain?
On the contrary, is it not in evidence that this Commissioner
has been most diligent in his efforts to remove them from the
books. There are still marks there that have been there for
years, which are not explained, and which the Commissioner
does not feel at liberty to remove, as yet, for there may be
some equities behind them.
So much for Article I.
Article II charges us with having engaged, directly or indirectly, in the purchase of State lands; first, the Commissioner,
by himself, and secondly, by his Deputy and clerks. The law
of 1861, prohibiting officers and the clerks from dealing in
State lands, has been read to you to-day.
Now, the first evidence that the Court heard under that article was from  this same Porter, the former Deputy. It was
with reference to the piece of land in Monroe county. He
said Edmonds paid for it. That is the evidence that the Commissioner has purchased lands himself. That is all the evidence,-the only case. He says he applied for it, and applied
but for one piece and paid but for one piece. He thinks it was
in Monroe county,-it may have been in Branch; and, upon
cross-examination, it may have been in Manistee county; but




1612     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
we have fixed it that he applied for but one piece during this
man Porter's occupancy of the office; and we have brought
the old farmer, Mr. Joseph, and he has sworn that through the
Commissioner he purchased one piece, and not only purchased
it through the Commissioner, but the Commissioner advanced
the money to pay for it. Is it possible for this Court to wring
out of that testimony any corruption on the part of this Commissioner? Is not the transaction straightforward and equitable? Does it not go to his credit, rather than against him,
that he accommodated this man, and advanced his money, and
refused to take a dime for compensation? So much, then, for
Porter.
Now as to the clerks violating this article. They are also
charged with the same thing under Article VI., and I will
leave the further discussion of that to the time that I shall
spend upon that article.
The next is Article III. That we may have a full understanding of what we are talking about, I ask permission to
read this article again, that it may be before the Court while I
am talking about it.
ARTICLE III.
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of said State
Land Office, unmindful of the duties of his office, and his oath
~of office, having knowledge that large numbers of actual settlers to whom license had been issued in pursuance of act
No. 108, Session Laws of 1861, being an act entitled' An act
to amend an act entitled An act to provide for the settlement
and drainage of the swamp lands by actual settlers, being act
No. 229, laws of 1859,' were in possession of their lands
under their said licenses, and had been in possession thereof
for a long time, and made valuable improvements thereon,
and complied with the laws of this State in regard to licensing lands to actual settlers fully, except filing with the Commissioner of the Land Office the proofs of settlement and
occupancy, required by section four of said act No. 108, laws




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1613
of 1861, and he, the said Edmonds, being acquainted with the
practice in said office ever since the passage of said act No.
108, laws of 1861, to withhold from sale such licensed lands,
except in cases where proofs by the affidavit of two credible
witnesses was filed, showing non-settlement and abandonment
by the licensee, did corruptly, and for the purpose of pecuniary
gain to himself, his Deputy and clerks, about the month of
October, 1871, decide that such lands were subject to sale
without such proof of non-settlement or abandonment, as had
been the practice of said office, and he, the said Charles A.
Edmonds, did then and there, by himself, his Deputy, and
clerks, corruptly, and for the purpose of securing gain as
aforesaid, furnish to divers persons the description of such
licensed lands, when the proofs of settlement and occupancy
had not been filed in accordance with said section four aforesaid, which said persons purchased said lands, and to whom
said Commissioner issued patents, whereby a gross fraud was
practiced upon such actual settlers, and large profits and gains
made, in which said Edmonds, his Deputy, and clerks were
interested.
"And said Edmonds, being so unmindful of his duty and oath
of office, and the policy of the State to protect the actual settlers, has corruptly furnished and permitted his Deputy and
clerks corruptly to furnish such descriptions of licensed lands
to divers persons, on divers days and times, since the decision
aforesaid, and before the passage of the resolution of impeachment by the House of Representatives, which said persons purchased said descriptions, to whom patents were issued by said
Commissioner, he, said Commissioner, his Deputy, and clerks
being indirectly interested therein.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then and there guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in office."
It seems to me, that a fair analysis of that article is about
this,-as derived from the article itself: That the law of 1861,
referred to in the article, provided that parties holding lands




1614    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
on license must within three months file proofs with the
Commissioner, that they are in actual possession and occupancy.
Second. These provisions of the law the settlers, in large
numbers, deliberately violated.
Third. The same law required that when the proofs of possession were not filed, then the Commissioner should sell said
lands, the same as other swamp lands.
Fourth. This provision of the law the former Commissioner
had knowingly and deliberately violated.
Therefore, Commissioner Edmonds, well knowing the practice of the settlers in violating this law, and well knowing the
practice of the former Commissioner, in violating this law, did
corruptly and wickedly, and for the purpose of pecuniary gain,
to himself and his clerks, decide that the law should be obeyed,
whereby he, was guilty of corrupt conduct in office and ought
to be impeached.
Before we proceed to discuss this article any further, I ask
to read to the Court a manuscript decision of the Supreme
Court of this State which was delivered within the last year,
and is not in the printed report. I have the certificate of the
State Reporter attached, that it is a true and correct report of
the decision:
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Louis REMEAN, Complainant,
vs.
THOMAS MILLS AND HENRY N. SMITH, Defendants.
This is an appeal from a decree allowing a demurrer and
dismissing the bill.
The complainant claims that in 1862 he became a settler on
a parcel of swamp land under the acts of 1859 and 1861
(Session Laws 1859, p. 862; L. 1861, p. 145), and that subsequently the land was sold by the State, in contravention of
his rights as settler, to Smith, who, shortly after, conveyed to
Mills, both having notice of his claim; and that Mills has
brought ejectment against him, which he asks to have




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1615
restrained.  He also represents that after his license was
obtained, and before the sale to Smith, he was informed that
he had been drafted to serve in the army, and supposing, notwithstanding he was an alien and had never voted that he
was subject to the draft, he fled to Canada to avoid the service,
leaving his family and brother-in-law to look after and protect
his rights. lie further represents that after the commencement of the ejectment suit he obtained a deed of the land
from the Governor, who was "duly authorized " to give it.
The objections to the bill are numerous. It is not only
defective for want of material matter, but it is likewise defective
for want of fullness, clearness, and directness of statement, in
respect to the matter it shadows forth. The law requires the
settler, as a condition upon which his right depends, to perform
certain acts, and refrain from others, and in case of disobedience
avoids his claim, and authorizes the Commissioner of the Land
Office to sell the land as other swamp lands are sold. It was
necessary, in any admissible view of the case, for the complainant to show in his bill, by statements of what he had done and
abstainedfrom doina, that he had substantially complied with
the requirements of the statutes under which  he claims,
the State having the right to prescribe the terms upon
which  it would allow  settlement, and  having prescribed
the terms.  This bill, however, contains no statement of
such facts, nor does it show, even in a general way, that the
provisions of the law have been observed. No details are given,
or conclusions even, having a legal tendency to show that complainant kept his claim good or saved it from becoming void.
On the contrary, he avows that he fled from the country, and by
so much furnishes evidence of failure to abide by the condition
of his license, and also of an actual abandonment of his claim.
Nothing is stated to indicate the nature of the deed from the
Governor to  complainant. Unless it was given pursuant
to some law, it is valueless, and the bill gives no information
on the subject. In the absence of something to explain the
ground and nature of this deed, the circumstance that it was




1616     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
made and delivered can have no force to prop up the bill.
The faults in this pleading are so obvious and serious, that we
suspect the bill must have been resorted to as a " forlorn hope."
We do not think it needful to examine it more in detail,
or to point out its objectionable  features with greater
particularity.
The decree below was correct and should be affirmed with
costs.
B. F. GRAVES,
I. P. CHRISTIANCY,
A true and perfect copy.          J. V. CAMPBELL,
HOYT POST,                      T. M. COOLEY.
State Reporter.
The bill was finally dismissed upon other points than those
which we claim here; but the law under which the Commissioner has acted in this case, with reference to the three months'
proof of these settlers, is distinctly referred to in the decision,
as a law binding upon the settlers. The court held that the
State has a right to prescribe terms under which these settlers
should go into the occupancy and possession of their land, and
it is also distinctly held, that if they violate those terms, the
contract between them  and the State is void, and the Commissioner shall put the land upon the market again, and it
shall be sold. The law referred to, will be found on page 81
of the Land Commissioner's laws, section 4, Laws of 1861:
"SEc. 4. And it is further provided, that the license for settlement, granted under this act, shall contain a clause which
shall expressly provide that the settler or occupant shall,
within three months after the date of said license, file, with
the Commissioner of the State Land Office, a certificate from
the supervisor of the township in which the land is located,
together with the affidavit of such settler, that he is in the
actual possession and occupancy of such land; and said license
shall also contain a clause providing that the settler or occupant shall not be authorized to cut, take, and carry away any
pine, oak, or other valuable timber, unless it be to clear the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1617
land for cultivation, and then only as much as may be necessary to-improve the same; and for a violation of the aforesaid
condition, he or they shall be liable to all the forfeitures, penalties, and liabilities of a trespasser upon State lands, as now
is or may hereafter be provided by law; and it is further provided, that if such settler shall not file his certificate and oath
of settlement, and occupancy, as above provided, or if evidence
of two witnesses, under oath, is furnished to the Commissioner
of the State Land Office, that the clause above mentioned, to
prevent waste of said land, has been violated, then his claim
shall be deemed as void, and the Commissioner of the Land
Office shall, from and after said time, sell said lands the same
as other swamp lands, and this provision shall be inserted in
the license for said lands."
Now what we claim under this section, and our defense to the
charges in this article, is simply this: That we executed the law
as we understood it, not only from the literal construction of
the law itself, but from the construction given it by the Supreme Court, which I have read.
But this is not the whole charge contained in this article.
It further states that we made the decision for corrupt purposes and for gain.
I ask the Senate to look over the testimony in this case, referring to that article. Two or three cases have been presented,
where men who had gone upon lands, holding them  under
license, had had them sold away for want of filing this three
months' proof. If they had failed to comply with the law,
their lands were put in the market and sold. We admitted, in
the answer in this case, that we had so decided with reference
to that law. We denied then, and we deny now, that that
decision was made for any corrupt purposes. We claim, that
whatever information was obtained in the office, and sent out
to these land-sharks who purchased the settlers' land, was entirely unknown to the Commissioner. There could be no possible object in bringing those men here, and presenting them
203




1618     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
before the Court, that we -ire able to divine, unless it'is to stir
up sympathy; and the st ry which they told did stir up the
sympathy of every man who listened to it; but it failed to
fasten the corruption upon this respondent.
On the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Cummings, the treasurer of Shiawassee county, as you will remember, shows that
the Commissioner was willing, so far as he could, to protect
these settlers; that he was entirely willing to assist in getting
this land back for the man Bouck; that he voluntarily went to
Cornell, and asked him to do it. It further appears in evidence
that he went so far himself as to see Mr. Cornell,-and, mark you,
that was long before there were any threats of impeachment even;
and, in the conversation about that Bouck land, he said that had
he known there was a settler upon that land, he never would
have allowed him the certificate which he got from the office.
There is not one of these cases that has been brought home to
the knowledge of the Commissioner, be they as bad as they
may. He had no knowledge of them whatever until they were
accomplished. The only charge that can be brought against
him, then, in answer, is, that he should have known these
things were done by his clerks in the office; and, in answer to
that, I say, the records would not show it; and if the clerks
did not tell of it, he could not know it.
We have had some book, or decision, or paper read here
to-day, showing that an officer of this character must know
what appears on the books of his office. Admit it,-admit
that this respondent is bound to know what appears there.
If he did know, there is no scrap, no record, there is not an
entry in that whole office that shows anything irregular in
any of those transactions in regard to these settlers,-not a
word. The Managers have had full sweep of that office; they
have searched the records from beginning to end, to see if
they might not bring to this respondent the knowledge that
his employes were taking advantage of this decision and
wronging the settlers, but they have searched in vain.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1619
The books in the Treasurer's office correspond with the
books in the Land Office, and show these transactions entirely
regular. Had he examined every iota, everything shows that
the transaction was strictly legitimate, so far as the record is
concerned. We make no apologies for this sort of thing, but
I do say, that had Van Dunham and Clarke-and they are the
only men charged with it (except Bush) —been outside of the
office, they could have done everything which they did, and
they could not have been charged with doing an illegal thing.
The fact that they were interested in the purchase of licensed
lands, does not make it any more corrupt than if they were
dealing in other lands. They had no right to purchase any
land, but they had as much right to purchase licensed land, as
if it had been any other land properly in the market.
This land was entirely vacant, and had been in the market
for years. The statute put it there, and all that they can say
is, that the clerks violated the law of 1861, which prohibits
them from dealing in land. Had Mr. Hoyt, or any other man,
came and claimed the land, and paid for it, the Commissioner
could not have withheld it. He could not have withheld it
from the purchaser, any more than he could any other land
-which had never had any mark upon it. Whatever testimony
there is in the case, that goes to the knowledge of this defendant, or to his want of knowledge, amounts to this: That he
knew nothing about it, and he could have known nothing
about it, until after the matter was completed.  The fact
existed that the land was sold, and it was then brought to his
attention by the settlers and their friends, being interested in
the case. So much for that.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, will now take a recess until two o'clock.




1620     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Tuesday, P. M., May 21, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Mr. President: Since our adjournment at twelve o'clock, the Managers have been able to obtain
the absconding witness. She is at the bar of the Senate. The
managers propose to offer her to the Senate as a witness upon
the Eleventh Article. The witness's name is Jane Bolton, about
whom we have heard so much talk, and who has caused so
much delay. I will state that the Managers caused her to be
subpoenaed early-some days before the Court convened-and
were assured that she would remain here; and on the day prior
to the day on which we expected to use her, we found, upon
inquiry, that she had gone,-found that she had left the day
before. We at once took process of attachment from the Court
for contempt, and have had officers on the alert, and only this
morning I received a dispatch from a detective in Detroit,
saying he had given up and could not find her; and, on going
to the hotel I found that she had returned. She is within the
bar, and we offer to put her upon the stand, and prove what
we may be able to, by her. Having had her testimony once,
we know, or have a right to know, what that testimony will be
again.
The Presiding Officer-I understand, then, the offer is made
to put this witness upon the stand, and have her testify as to
the matters charged in the Eleventh Article.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-The Eleventh Article.
The Presiding Officer-Have counsel for the respondent
anything to say?
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President: We object to this proceeding.
We object to the opening of the case now, at this stage, when
we are in the midst of argument, and letting in any more testimony. The special reason of the objection is, to the time.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COTTRT.               1621
It will necessitate our getting witnesses here who are not in
town. It will necessitate our getting more than six witnesses
here, some of whom are in town and some of whom are not,
and are scattered. It will take us some days even to get them
here, and will put us in a very awkward position indeed, if
she was to be allowed to be sworn now. Had she been offered
here in time, we should have been very happy indeed,-we
should have preferred to have had her testimony in with the
others; but with our witnesses gone, the difficulty of getting
them back, the time that it would take to do so, I do not
feel inclined to consent, and therefore object to her testimony
being offered.
The Presiding Officer-Have the Honorable Managers anything further to say upon the profert?
Mr. Wheeler-I would like to inquire of the respondent's
counsel about how long they think it will take to get these
witnesses in case this evidence is admitted?
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Only one word in addition. The
testimony of this witness has been before the respondent's
counsel from the commencement of this trial. It was taken
before the committee of inquiry, and the gentlemen know very
well the trouble that the People have been put to to obtain
this witness, and the question offered is no surprise upon the
respondent, because it has been understood  for the last
week that whenever we should produce that witness, we
should appeal to the discretion of the Court to admit
her, but it is only now  that we appeal to the discretion
of this Court to permit her to be sworn.  We have made
every effort to obtain her; there have been no laches
on the part of the People; she is an important and material
witness, well known to the Managers, well known to the respondent. The question of whether it will take an hour or
two hours more, I think is quite immaterial. I will say, in
regard to this witness, that she may be sworn at any time
during this trial; they may stop me in the midst of an argument, they may stop any one of the Managers, and put in




1622     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
their rebutting testimony if they please, and we will agree to
submit no testimony,-we will give none in reply, to that. At
whatever moment they may bring them in we will stop, and
they may present them. We want to treat this matter fairly,
and we think the interests of this case demand that she should
be heard. However, it is a matter of discretion, and we do
not know anything we can say further, than she is a very material witness in this case, and without her testimony we think
the Eleventh Article is not well sustained. With her testimony
we think it is.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President, permit me to say one other
thing. This order was entered closing the testimony on their
part, reserving simply the calling of this witness, at any time
before the evidence was closed. We, of course, expected to
meet this witness,-any testimony that might be produced. I
am informed, by my associate, that it will take nine witnesses,
some of whom are not here. It will be a very serious inconvenience to us, to have this testimony introduced at this time;
and if there is to be an end of the trial ever, it seems to me
that it ought to be considered at an end now, so far as testimony is concerned. If this rule is to be adopted, I do not
know when it is going to stop,-how much testimony else they
will try to get in. At all events, it will protract the trial so
that we cannot get through with it this week. It is not a question of an hour.
The Presiding Officer-This question being  one which
appeals to the discretion of the Court, the Chair will not
assume to exercise that discretion, but will take a vote upon
the subject. Senators, the question before you is, Shall the
evidence offered by the Honorable Managers be received?
Mr. Jenks-I move that the Senate Chamber be cleared for
the purpose of deliberation.
The motion prevailed, and the Senate Chamber was cleared
of all persons not officially connected with the Senate.
At twenty minutes past two o'clock the doors were again




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1623
opened, and the Managers and counsel for the respondent
entered and took their seats.
The Presiding Officer-The Chair will announce to the
Honorable Managers and the counsel for the respondent, that
upon the proposition submitted to the Court, when the Chamber was closed for the purpose of deliberation, the yeas are
7 and nays 16, so that the testimony will not be admitted at
this time. Counsel for the respondent will proceed with his
argument.
Mr. McGowan resumed his argument, as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND HONORABLE SENATORS-When interrupted by the noon recess, I had just reached the discussion of
Article V., in which the respondent is charged with having so
engaged in, and carried on, by himself and tis Deputy, the
purchase and sale of scrip in his office and in his official time,
to operate in fraud of, and to the damage of, the primary school
fund, of the several counties of this State, and of the Treasury.
The first thing, in all probability, that would strike the
reader of this article, is the implied admission, that the scrip
trade by the Commissioner and his Deputy might have been
carried on so that it would not have operated in fraud of the
school fund, of the several counties, and of the Treasury.
The charge is, that he so carried it on, that these funds were
defrauded.  If it might have been carried on so as not to
defraud the school fund, the several counties, and the Treasury,
then it might have been entirely legal. I say that is the
implied meaning of the article.
It will not be contended, on the part of the Managers,
that to deal in scrip is, of itself, per se, wrong. If Mr. Edmonds had lived in Detroit or Saginaw, he might have properly engaged in the scrip trade; he might have bought and sold
these credits of the State, as other parties have done,-at least
if he had not been Land Commissioner, he might properly
have done so. It will not be contended for a minute that David Preston & Co. are doing anything illegal and wrong in
dealing in scrip; and most especially is that true in view of




1624      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
General Humphrey's testimony, in which he told you that the
State had received every dollar of compensation for that scrip.
before it was issued. As well charge the Commissioner with
fraud in dealing in  U. S. land warrants, or U. S. bonds, for
that matter. Hence, the only essential charge in this article
is that he so engaged in it as to defraud the school fund.
Now, let me ask this Honorable Senate, how could this Com-,nissioner engage in this trade so as to defraud the school
fund?  There is but one possible way to do so, and that is to
take the moneys sent for lands, and put it to his own account,
-and make up the purchase with his own scrip, pocketing the
balance. That is all that can be claimed here, and that is all
that can be wrung out of this Article, —charging him and his
Deputy with robbing the school fund. Now, let me ask this,Senate to run back over this testimony, and see what there is
of that kind.
The first testimony is that of E. H. Porter.  You well
remember it. On the examination in chief, and afterwards
on cross-examination, he reluctantly, as it were, told us that
he had an arrangement with this Commissioner, which was
substantially the same that he had with the former Commissioner, that they were to buy and sell scrip. He thinks he
told him, that when money was sent here for the purchase of
lands, they use the money and enter up the land with scrip,
pocketing the balance. IHe is not sure he told him so. He
does state, on the direct examination, that he does not remember a single case, during the five months while he acted
as Deputy, in which any such thing happened,-no recollection of a man sending money here to purchase land,
and that money put into an  envelope, and  the land
entered up with scrip. He does not remember such a case;
yet, after a day's absence,-or an afternoon's recess,-the witness
comes back, and says that he does remember one or two cases,
and on sifting him, on the cross-examination, he remembers
one case, a case up north, with which Mr. Swineford was connected. The Commissioner thereupon went to the office and




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1625
got the files, and we presented them to him, and he was compelled to admit that it was' back of the time of this Commissioner; so that there is not a single case brought within Mr.
Edmonds' time where lands were purchased by scrip when
money was sent. Whatever he may have first stated, was
entirely upset by what he stated afterwards. You will find
his testimony on page 107, and this will show the prevarication and the utter unworthiness of the man, that he should
come here and attempt to convict the Commissioner for things
of which he alone was the guilty party. Let me read:
"Q. What did you tell him had been your practice in buying
lands where parties came to the office, that had not anything
but scrip?
A. I told him about the practice of the office, that where
money came in we used it the same as when parties came to
buy scrip.
Q. Suppose you received one hundred dollars for eighty
acres of swamp land, at ten shillings an acre; some one sends
you $100 by mail, what do you do with that one hundred
dollars?
A. Deposit it to the scrip account and pay scrip for it.
Q. Do you pay the money into the Treasury?
A. No, sir.
Q. What do you pay into the Treasury?
A. Pay scrip.
Q. What did you do, when you had occasion of this kind,
while you was Deputy for Mr. Edmonds?
A. I do not remember that such a case happened. There might
have been. I do not remember of any. If there had been any
such a case, I think I would have remembered it. I do not
remember of any such case happening, but then there might
have been.
Q. You don't remember any particular case?
A. No, sir; I don't. It is something that happens very seldom, anyway,-very seldom.
204




1626     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Q. It was very seldom that money came in in that way?
A. It is very seldom that a man sends $100 in that way to
buy 80 acres of land. Most men are aware, throughout the
State, that they can purchase scrip for swamp lands, but once
in a while they send in money in that way, but not often.
Q. What did you do with this money when received?
A. I usually kept an envelope in a private drawer in the
safe, and put it in there.
Q. At the end of the month what did you do with it?
A. Depositedit, generally. I used what belonged to myself
and the avails of it, from the profits of it, as my own.
Q. What did you do with the balance of it while with Mr.
Edmonds?
A. I divided one-half of the profits, the first three months I
was with Mr. Edmonds.
Q. What was the amount?
A. I cannot state the amount, I have not got the minutes
with me; it was somewhere near $100.
Q. Have you any memorandum that you kept at that time?
A. I have in my store, but I have not here with me.
Q. You have got a memorandum that you kept?
A. Yes, sir."
Now, on page 108:
"Q. Now in regard to this scrip, I don't know as I understood you fully about how you managed to take up lands with
it. Will you just explain again when a party has ordered
lands?
A. The only way I can explain it is, that if a man sends
money to the office to purchase scrip, we take the money, and
forward scrip to pay for the land with.
Q. State whether there was any occasion after you were in
there after the first of January, 1871, while you were in there,
in which money was sent for lands, and the money was kept
and the lands paid for in scrip?
A. My recollections are that one or two such occasions
occurred, but I cannot state when or at what time.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1627
Q. Didn't such occasions occur along occasionally?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And pursued the same course under Edmonds you had
before?
A. Yes, sir, always.
Q. Keeping the money?
A. Yes, sir, that was the invariable practice.
Q. By the direction of Mr. Edmonds?
A. Yes, sir."
Now let me call the attention of the Court to pages 120 and
122, of this same man's testimony.
" Q. When did you have theconversation with Mr. Edmonds,
in which you told him about the practice of the office when
money was sent to buy land?
A. The same time that I told him in regard to the purchase
and sale of scrip, I think.
Q. What did you say to him about that?
A. I related to him the practice of the office.
Q. What did you say to him?
A. I am not positive, sir, what I did say. I cannot give it
in words.
Q. Well, as near as you can?
A. I told him the general practice of the office in the purchase and sale of scrip.
Q. Then what was the general practice of the office with
regard to money sent for buying lands?
A. It was to receive the money that came into the office, and
use scrip in place of it,-that is, take scrip to enter the land
with, and use the money.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. How is that?
Witness-To receive the money, and to enter the land with
scrip; that was the practice.
Q. And keep the money?
A. Yes, sir.




1628     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. Now, you may explain a little more fully in regard
to that; take an instance and illustrate it, if you please?
Answer. Well, sir, if you was to send a hundred dollars to
the office to enter 80 acres of land, the practice would be to
put the money with your scrip money, and to enter it with
the hundred dollars of scrip.
By Mr. Manager Huston:
Question. Enter the land with scrip?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. McGowan:
Question. And to charge the land up to the account of the
Deputy Comniissioner,-his scrip account?
Answer. Yes, sir, to whatever scrip that you had to his credit,
whatever it might be.
Q. I understand you now that was the practice of the office
previous to Mr. Edmonds coming into office?
A. I think it was.
Q. How long had it been the practice of the office?
A. During my time there. I cannot say anything back of
that positively,-only from hearsay.
Q. You stated, yesterday, that you had no recollection of
any occurrence of that kind, during Mr. Edmonds's administration?
A. Well, sir, in thinking the matter over, I think I hare a
recollection of one instance in which a piece of land was
applied for in that way, and since proved to be government
land. I returned the money personally, myself. Understand,
I am not positive whether it came under his administration,
or whether it was before, but I think it was.
Q. What was the applicant's name?
A. That I could not tell you,-I do not know.
Q. Where was he living?
A. That I do not know,-I do not know where he lived.
Q. What are the facts, as you remember them?
A. The facts, as I remember them, are, that it was a frac



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1629
tional piece of land, I think in the Upper Peninsula. I think
the money sent was something between 17 and 18 dollars and
a fraction. Afterwards the land proved to be government
land, and the patent was returned, I presume, to the office. I,
from investigation, found that the land had been entered with
scrip. I returned the money in place of the scrip, and had
the scrip placed back to my credit again.
Q. When did you return the money?
A. During the last session of the Legislature.
Q. After you had left the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you send it?
A. I gave it, in person, to the party having the order for it.
Q. The party was here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not recollect the name?
A. The man that I gave it to was Mr. Swineford, I think.
Q. Do you recollect any other transaction while Mr. Edmonds was Commissioner?
A. I am not positive of any other transaction.
Q. Was Mr. Edmonds's attention called to this transaction,
at the time the money was sent?
A. I am not aware that it was.
Q. Do you know whether he had any personal knowledge of
this transaction at all or not?
A. I am not aware that he had.
Q. If the money was sent for the purchase of this land during Mr. Edmonds's administration, you took the money, and
made up the land to the man on the purchase, did you not?
A. I did.
Q. After the first conversation that you had with Commissioner Edmonds, concerning the practices of the office in purchasing lands where money was sent, state whether you ever
had any other conversation with him about that subject-matter.




1630     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
A. In regard to the purchasing of scrip?
Q. No, sir; the purchase of lands with money, entering it
up with scrip, against somebody's scrip account. Whether you
ever had any more than one talk with the Commissioner about
it?
A. Well, I am not positive. We had talks at different times.
but I could not say, particularly, whether that matter was
brought up again or not. I do not know.
Q. Mr. Porter, did not-Mr. Edmonds speak to you about it,
about three months after he came into the office,-in March
sometime?
A. I do not remember that he did; he may have done so.
Q. Did he not inquire of you if that was the practice of the
office?
A. He may have done so. I cannot remember positively in
regard to those questions.
Q. Did not you then tell him that it was and had been during the whole of Mr. Pritchard's administration?
A. If he asked me the question, I presume I did; I do not
remember of any such question being asked.
Q. Did he tell you then that if such cases occurred again
that the money should be paid into the Treasury and the land
entered as a cash purchase?
A. Well, my recollections are that he did not at that time;
but after I left the office, I think, he then spoke of it.
Q. Did he ever give you any such instructions while you
were in the office?
A. I am inclined to think he did; still I am not positive
that he did. I think, perhaps, he did at one time afterwards.
I do not remember what time it transpired, but my recollections
are that what was said in regard to placing of moneys in the
office, in the hands of the Treasurer, which was received by
parties in that way, transpired after I left the office; that is
my recollection now. I am not positive in regard to it. I
could not say."




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1631
The Senate will pardon me for reading so much of it. If there
is anything that brought home to the Commissioner this transaction of defrauding the Treasury in this way, it is what
appears in the testimony which I have just read. That was
the whole of it.
You will also remember that Robinson said in his testimony, that his instructions from the Commissioner were, that
whenever money was sent to purchase land the money should
be turned over to the Treasury, and the case entered as a cash
purchase. It seems to me that that is about all that can be
said under this charge of dealing in scrip. It will hardly be
claimed on the part of the Managers that Edmonds did anything wrong in simply dealing in scrip.
It may possibly be claimed in the argument, that he should not
have occupied his time in the office that way; but it will come
with a terribly poor grace, to thus charge this Commissioner,
who left his home when he was elected to the office, and who has
given his whole time and attention to the conduct of that
office, when all the Commissioners previous to him, with the
exception of Hewitt, remained at home, and transacted their
own business-I say it will come with poor grace, to charge
upon him, that he spent part of his time dealing in scrip in
Lansing, when the other Commissioners spent their whole time
at home, attending to their own concerns. I hardly think
that will be seriously claimed. He dealt in scrip, and supposed it to be proper and right that he should.
It was a great accommodation to people throughout the State,
that scrip was there for sale. The books were kept there openly. The account was kept upon the same books with Preston's
and Hewitt's, and Hall's, and a hundred others.
There was no attempt at secrecy; everybody throughout the
State knew that these men were dealing in scrip, and the men
themselves understood that they were doing a fair and legitimate business. It should not be allowed to prejudice this case,
the fact that these private accounts have been dragged in here;
that it has been shown by the clerks of the banks just how




1632     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
much money they used in the purchase of the scrip, and just
what the profits were.
With just about as much propriety, might the prosecution
have sent a Sergeant-at-Arms down to Detroit and brought up
Preston's books, in order to show what his profits were, and
how much money he had made, by such dealings,-at least it
would be so, after it was fairly determined, by an examination
of this man's property, that not one dollar of the money that
was ever sent here for the purchase of land, was used for the
purchase of scrip,-I mean by the present Commissioner. The
evidence in this case, under this article, shows that as soon as it
was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that such
things were going on his office, he immediately ordered
it stopped; and that is not only true, but it is also true that
he ordered it to be done, without any knowledge of any law
that prohibited it. The Court will remember that the management very kindly brought from up north somewhere, a man
by the name of Coffron. He had money sent back to him
that might as well have been pocketed by the Commissioner,
had he been, in any sense of the word, induced to be corrupt in
office. He sent the money down here for a fractional " forty,"
but did not send enough. The Commissioner entered it up
with scrip, and sent him back the difference, as the law did
not allow him to hold lands for other persons. There was
not enough money to buy that land. But following the precedent that had been set by his former Deputy, and by all his
predecessors in office, he would have entered the land up, and
put the $17 25 in his own pocket, instead of returning it.
On the contrary, he entered it up with scrip, and sent the
$17 25 back; and the witness has it now, and the records
show it.
The instructions were that all the money should be paid
into the Treasury, and the transaction goes to the credit of
the Commissioner. It was something that the management
should have praised this officer for, instead of dragging it in
to condemn him. We thank them for bringing that evidence.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1633
I refer now to Article VI., which is as follows:
"ARTICLE VI.
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, during his official term as such commissioner, to
wit: From about the first day of January, 1871, to the 28th
day of March, 1872, unmindful of the high and responsible
duties of his office, of his oath of office, and disregarding the
rights of the people of this State, and for the corrupt and unlawful purpose of personal benefit and gain, did appoint and
keep in his office, as clerks, certain men of dissolute habits
and character, and unworthy the high trust and confidence
necessarily required of men in their positions, and did, also,
allow his clerks in office, in violation of the laws of this State,
to purchase, directly and indirectly, from the State, lands for
sale in said Land Office, and to be interested in purchases
made in the name of others, directly and indirectly, and to
traffic, and corruptly sell and get unlawful gain, in the sale of
valuable information contained in such office, within their
knowledge as such clerks, and to act as the agents, for reward,
of certain land-dealers, in entering land, thus giving such
dealers an undue advantage over others seeking the entry of
lands at said office.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then and there, guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in office."
Now I suppose that the inference is, from the language contained in the first part of this article, that he employed clerks
who were addicted to drinking,-or drunken, if you may so
call it. This is intended toapply to Van Dunham, Clarke, and
Griswold.
It is not necessary, that men whose lives are not the
most exemplary in this regard, are corrupt in their dealings
with their fellow men. However we may deplore the habit,
however sorrowful we may be with regard to this, we all know
that great men, and I say good men do get drunk. Then
205




1634     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
further than that, men who do get drunk and are licentious
are often men scrupulously honest in their business relations
with their fellow men. The people recognize this when they
elect their officers. This Senate, with the other House of the
Legislature, themselves recognize it when they elect officers.
Lay down the broad rule, if you choose, that none but temperance men shall have office in these United States, and
nothing but the going out of the children of Israel can equal
the exodus that there will be of office-holders in this country.
The prosecution in this case, dare not follow that charge, or
any claim under that charge, to its logical conclusion. It does
not necessarily follow because a man gets drunk that he is not
a good clerk, that he is not a good Commissioner, that he is
not a good Senator, that he is not a good officer either under
the United States, or under the State government, and it cannot be maintained.
Personally, I deplore these things as much as any man can.
I know how many of our best young men go down under
these bad habits, and howi they frequently lead to crime.
But we have got to take the facts as they exist, and it is
making a fine point, to say that an official shall not employ for
his help in a State office, men that he might well and properly
employ in his individual capacity. I put this question square
home to every Senator, here, When you want a man to work in
your garden do you ask whether he gets drunk; after his work
is done? Not a word of it, you simply ask whether he can do
his work well, or not, and when it is done you pay him and he
goes about his business, and uses it in drink or for other purposes as he pleases, and you care nothing about it; and it is
true of you who hire clerks in your stores, in your banks, in your
offices, and everywhere. The question you ask is, Is he competent to do- the work?  Is he honest in his dealings. His
personal habit of drinking or not drinking, as a rule at least,
you claim is none of your business. Now, the only thing
that can be claimed against this Commissioner, successfully,
is, Did he believe or have reason to believe these clerks were




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1635
not competent to do their work?  But there is more than
that, found in this case. The clerks that have been charged
with being dissolute in their habits, were men of good social
standing before he appointed them; there is nothing to show
that they were dissolute previous to their coming to Lansing.
They had good positions where they were, both socially and
otherwise. They were trusted, they were employed in various
capacities, they did their work well there, and it is in evidence,
and all the evidence that goes to that point is, that they did
their work well here. They were particularly efficient in their
various capacities in the office. There is not a scintilla of evidence that they got drunk in the office, in official hours, or
that they were incapacitated for their work when they ought to
have been at their work; but that is not all the charge. It is
not claimed, on the part of the prosecution, that it is a matter
for which this Commissioner should be impeached, that he
employed, in his office, men who were drinking men, dissolute
in their habits; but they hitch on the other thing,-that he
did it for personal gain. But we challenge them to search this
testimony, for a bit of evidence to show that he ever got a
cent of gain out of the appointment of these men. Let me
say to the Senate, frankly, that I do not believe that it is the
presence or the absence of these vices that make men good
clerks. For instance, let us turn the shield; let Mr. Edmonds
appoint as Deputy, or in any other capacity, a man in his office
who prates about his family altar, who is horrified when an
oath is used in his presence; a man who is punctilious over
these things, who is particularly moral and pious, and what are
the results? Postoffice orders, Branch county field-notes; from
comparative poverty to, within  a few  years, comparative
wealth. All that we can ask, and all that you can ask of this
Commissioner, is, that the work shall be well done in the office,
and honestly done there.
But, second, he allowed these men to purchase land. Who?
Barnard, Van Dunham, Clarke, and Griswold. I call your
attention for a moment to the transaction of Mr. Barnard in




1636     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the Bush case. I think that upon a careful examination of it,
you will only find this: That during Mr. Edmonds' administration Mr. Barnard and Mr. Bush had an arrangement whereby
Mr. Bush should get minutes of lands, should go upon the
lands with the plats in his hands and examine them, and make
minutes of the timber, soil, and other things that he should
ascertain while upon the land. During this administration
Mr. Barnard never sold any lands for Mr. Bush, Neither Mr.
Barnard nor Mr. Bush sold any lands that belonged to the State.
Bush does not say so. He claims that of all the minutes that
he looked since January 1st, 1871, in which Mr. Barnard was
interested, and which he turned over to him, were all turned
over to Mr. Hall, some 1,900 acres. He claims that he found
them upon the reservation-book, upon the plats, reserved up
to Hall, even since this trial began. Mr. Hall has explained
that matter; he says they are reserved and are there yet, and
those are the lands which he said he was holding for Bush.
But he told you positively that Barnard had no interest whatever in those lands, and never had. Bat it is said on the part
of the People here, that Mr. Barnard sold lands to Munroe
and to the Hudson boys and to the old gentleman, and so he
did, but he did not sell one acre of State lands; he did not
sell any lands over which the Commissioner had control. He
only sold lands that were taken out of the market. That is
the language of the law. You will find it on pages 75 and
100 of the Commissioner's law, that where these contractors
enter into a contract for the building of a road, that they may
reserve land to the amount of their contract, "but that the lands
so selected shall be withdrawn from market,"-those are the
words,-" during the full time specified on the contract for the
completion thereof." The lands were not in the market; they
were under the control of Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall and Mr. Barnard had an arrangement with Mr. Potter (Hall's agent),
whereby Mr. Barnard was allowed to sell some of those lands.
Mr. Hall tells you that some of the lands he looked himself.
He had fixed a specific price upon them, and told Mr. Potter




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1637
that if Mr. Barnard wanted to sell any of the other lands, or
Mr. Robinson or Mr. Gillam, they might do so. The lands
were his. The Commissioner could not have controlled them
if he had desired to do so. The law does not say through
how many hands these lands shall pass, before clerks may deal
in them. Certainly the law of 1861 does not prevent clerks,
nor officers in the Land Office, nor Auditor General's Cffice,
from dealing in any lands. That is not the scope or meaning
of that law, but it says, distinctly, that they shall not purchase,
directly or indirectly, lands belonging to the State, and that
alone.
Let me ask the question square home to the Senate, whethel
those lands belonged to the State when Mr. Barnard dealt in
them. They did not, and could not, without some such fraud
as was practiced during Mr. Pritchard's administration in the
Ilewitt matter. They never could go back into the hands of
the State; they were reserved up and must be patented up
when the contract was completed. The State had no present
control over them and no prospective control. In the wording
of the statute itself they were " withdrawn from the market."
To say Mr. Barnard shall not deal in such land, and carry it
to its logical conclusion, means that Barnard shall not deal
in any lands. Suppose that the lands had been patented up to
Hall, and he had sold them to Hewitt, and Hewitt to Hoyt, and
Hoyt to somebody else, and they had passed through a half
dozen hands, could not Mr. Barnard have bought or sold them?
But Van Dunham  bought and sold land. He bought with
Cornell, and had an interest in the lands; but the Commissioner had no interest, and knew nothing about it. Van Dunham had no interest in the lands bought by Hoyt,-so says Mr.
Hoyt, and I am inclined to believe him; and so says Mr. Van
Dunham. He had no interest in those lands, and the arrangement between them was that Van Dunham should be paid for
extra work done in the office, for extra things put down on
these plats, which Hoyt sent here for. Hoyt says most positively that he never gave the clerk any, and that he has no in



1638     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS..
terest in his purchases; but that he simply paid him for the
extra work. Again, Clarke dealt in lands. Clarke bought one
piece under an arrangement with his father, and divided with
Van Dunham, under an arrangement with him. But in these
cases, the lands were for sale. They were not lands that belonged to somebody else. Nobody was defrauded by that action. All that can possibly be made out of that thing is that
these young men, the employes in the office, violated the law
of'61 by dealing in lands, directly or indirectly,-not that the
Commissioner did it. There is no evidence that he did or
knew about the clerks. No evidence to show that he was interested in it, or had any knowledge of it. This law of 1861
says nothing about the sale of lands;, but only prevents these
officers and their clerks from purchasing lands belonging to
the State. Griswold never bought lands. Griswold sold some
land; but did not know when it was purchased, and had no
knowledge whatever of the purchase.
The third point in this Article VI. charges the Commissioner with allowing the clerks to traffic in valuable information contained in the office.
I imagine that this charge was put in under a misapprehension. Possibly not. But I should judge, not only from the
testimony taken before the committee, but from the line of
examination of witnesses in the early part of this case, that
the Managers understood that the minutes which Robinson
sold of Crapo's, which Griswold sold of somebody's else, were
gathered from the records of the office. Of course that delusion, if there was any such, has been dispelled. These minutes
that Robinson sold, were things that were gathered entirely
outside of the office, and that he might as well sell as
to sell a man's horse,-exactly.  But there is one point
in the evidence that possibly, and probably should come
under that subdivision  of Article VI., and  that is the
one which I have already alluded to,-Van Dunham  and
Floyt. Here, I think, is solme evidence tending to show that
one of the clerks in the office did traffic in valuable informa



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1639
tion which was found there in the office. He made an arrangement with Hoyt to put upon' the plats certain things that
appeared in the office, to assist him in various ways, to make
his plats more full than what the strict regulations of the
office would require, and for that Hoyt paid him $125. That
is the only thing that I have found in the evidence here, going
to show that any of the clerks in the office trafficked in information found in the office, and Mr. Hoyt tells you plainly and
frankly that he never said one word to the Commissioner about
it; that he has no knowledge whatever that the Commissioner
ever knew it. Van Dunham  says that he did not know it
There was nothing in the records of the office that would point
him to it; unless told by the clerk, or by Hoyt, he would not,
know it.
It is possible that it will be claimed on the part of the
Honorable Managers, that these gratuities spoken of by the
clerks should come under this Article, and I think myself that
they should, if they go anywhere, and I ask the attention of
the Court for just a minute to that point. Robinson, Van
Dunham, Clarke, Griswold, and Barnard are charged with
taking gratuities; they have all explained those gratuities
with the exception of Mr. Barnard. There is this one point
which remains unexplained, where Barnard took five dollars
sent in the letter by Goddard.
Robinson has told you how he came to accept what was
paid him, and the other boys have told their own stories.
They all told you that they never asked any gratuities, and in
each case it was simply thrown to them or sent to them in a
letter, unexpected and unsolicited. They simply received it
and accepted it.
In the other case, Alderman swore that he came here and
made an application for two pieces of land on Higgins' Lake,
and that Robinson, the chief clerk, told him  he could not
have those two fractions, unless he filed an affidavit that they
were not chiefly valuable for timber, and this conscientious
witness could not make such an affidavit, and he went away,




1640      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and told Goddard about it. Goddard knew how to get this
land, and he wrote a letter, inclosing five dollars, and said,
"For God's sake, do something for a poor fellow," and he got
it. That is Alderman's story.
You will find Goddard's letters on pages 509 of the Daily
Impeachment Proceedings.  They are brief, and I will read
them.
They are marked Exhibit SS:
[EXHIBIT SS.]
EAST SAGINAW, MICH., 29th Dec., 1871.
W. A. Barnard, Esq.:
MY DEAR SIR: —I enclose $60 on New York, and want the
two fractions in S. E. corner of Sec. 16, T. 24 N., R. 3 W.
The fractions are 59.80 acres, I think. I enclose also $5 to
buy a cigar for New Year's, and desire you to not let any of
my reserved lands get rubbed out, and I further pray you to
see generally that no calamity befalls me.
Oh, I enclose, also, deed that was made out to E. J. Goddlard. I didn't notice the name until I sent it for record. My
name is Ezra G., and the J. got in by mistake. Can you
change it?
With a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and great
love, I am
Most respectfully yours,
E. G. GODDARD.
You will perceive that this letter is dated the 29th of December,-one day before New Year's. The letter on the next
page is somewhat explanatory; it is dated April 27th, 1872,
and was sent to Mr. Barnard:
EAST SAGINAW-, MIIcI., 27th April, 1872.
W.. B. Barnard, Esq.:
DEAR SIR: —Enclosed please find draft of $60 to pay interest on school lands, as follows:
S. E. of S. E., Sec. 16, T. 14 N., R. 1 W., 40 acres (10602);
N. ~ of N. W., and N. W. of N. E., T. 14 N., R. 1 E., 111




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1641
(10602). Sum due, $454.50. Date, 23d June. Time 8 months
and 7 days. Interest to March 1, 1872, *21.8T.
Lots 4, and 5, and 6, Sec. 16, T. 24 N., R. 3 W. (10831).
Amount due, $179.40. Date, 30th Dec. Time 2 months. In-terest to March 1, 1872, $2.09.
N. E. of N. E., Sec. 16, T. 15 N., R. 1 E. Amount due, $120.
Date, Sept. 26th. Time, 5 months, 4 days. Interest to 1st
March, 1872, $3.62. (10716.)
S. E. of N. W., S. i of N. E., the N. W. of S. W., and S. i of
S. W. ~, Sec. 16, T. 16 N., R. 15 W. Amount due, $700.80.
Date, August 14th, 1871. Time 6 months and 16 days. Interest to March 1st, 1872, $26.56.
E. I of N. E. i, T. 16 N., R. 2 W. Date, 18th Jan. Amount
due, $240. Time, 1 month, 12 days. Interest to March 1, 1872,
$1.80.
Total amount $55.94.
I enclose the $60, for you to use the balance for the poor;
and while you give, feel, and at last we shall all be saved from
damnation.                 Yours truly,
E. G. GODDARD.
Cannot I send the money to you to buy scrip for me, when
I conclude to take patents for my State land, reserved?
Indorsed on the back as follows:
"E. G. Goddard, April 27th, 1872. Draft of $60.00 —56.19
-381 returned with scrip.
" Filed May 9,'72."
This reads as printed'381."  It should be $3.81. If there
is any question about it, I will ask for the files. It was filed
May 9th, 1872.
Here an excess of money was sent the Deputy where Mr.
Goddard could not possibly have thought of bribery, as he was
simply paying his tax.
Now, the law only requires of the Commissioner, in case of
these school lands, where they are chiefly valuable for timber,
that he shall sell them on half payment, and take security for
206




1642     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the balance; or shall be satisfied that the lands are not chiefly
valuable for timber. The statute does not point out how the
Commissioner is to get that information. He gets it in any
way he chooses. If he personally knows the land is not valuable chiefly for timber, but only for farming purposes, he
sells these lands to parties on quarter payment, without any
affidavit; but if he does not know it, and they want to hold
the land, he requests an affidavit. If the land is valuable for
timber, he sells it on half or quarter payment and takes security for the balance. He sells it accordingly.
Now, you will remember that it was sought to be shown by
this man Alderman, that this was valuable for pine land,that there was some 300,000 feet of pine upon these two pieces,
-so valuable that the surveyor could not conscientiously make
an affidavit that they were not valuable for timber. You will
remember also that that gun has been most gloriously spiked.
James Lawrence, M. E. Hitchings, and Senator Waterbury,
witnesses who will not be disputed on this floor, have stated to
you, that the land is utterly worthless for pine. Mr. Ortman
has told you that he brought that knowledge home to the
Deputy Commissioner before the land was sold. Had he not
a right to sell it, and was it any great corruption in the office
for the Commissioner to have allowed that to be done? No,
that is not all; the charge is, that for those five dollars which
were put in to buy the New Year's cigars, this land was
entered up to Goddard, being land valuable for pine. Goddard
sent down a bribe in a letter under the guise of sending a New
Year's present, and when Alderman-that innocent man-that
conscientious man-was refused the land, then this Mr. Goddard greased the wheels with this paltry bribe, and got the
valuable fractions on Higgins' Lake.
If there is no worse corruption than that, brought home to
us, we shall certainly be well off.
Possibly, under this heading and in this connection, we
should refer to another bit of evidence which has straggled into
this case. I say straggled in, for I do not know what applica



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1643
tion it can have, unless it may be put in here; and that is
where the clerk, Clarke, is charged indirectly and insinuatingly
with stealing some minutes, obtained by one Mr. Turner, and
selling them to one Dodge. Mr. Clarke says he did not steal
them, and Dodge says he got them of Clarke but Clarke did
not know it. Turner himself makes no such claim.
The fourth subdivision of Article VI. charges the Commissioner and his Deputy and clerks with acting with certain
land-dealers, in entering lands. Now I hardly think that the
presumption should be against the Commissioner. It seems to
me but fair, in dealing with the respondent, whether this be a
civil or a criminal tribunal, to presume honesty and good faith
in the exercise of his official duties. Let us take that presumption. Has he allowed his clerks to act as agents?
Did he not have a printed slip placed upon the desk of each
one of them,-a rule forbidding them to do so? Will the
Managers tell us that is a mere ruse to cover up corruption?  Was he, away back at that time,-long before this
impeachment trial was thought of,-was he manufacturing evidence?  Was that rule simply buncombe, and did
he not mean anything? The presumption is not a fair
one, and I apprehend that the Honorable Senators will not
entertain it. They will say that the Commissioner must be
considered as acting in good faith until the contrary appears,
and you will believe the evidence of Mr. Gillam, one of his
most trustworthy clerks, that he went to Mr. Edmonds and
asked concerning this rule, and was told that no privileges
would be granted to anybody in the office. Would he not have
given them to Gillam, a man who has worked honestly and
industriously all his life, and yet laid up but little of this
world's goods, if there was anything to come from it? Was
he not as willing that Gillam should have privileges of that
kind as any one?  If there was anything to be covered up,
would not Gillam's position cover it up better than anybody
else's? Would he have allowed the drunken clerks-men who,
when the wine was in and the senses out, would tell all about




1644     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
it-these opportunities and kept them from Gillam? No, that
will not do. The only time when it was brought to the Commissioner's knowledge was when Mr. Gillam went to him about
it. You will remember what he said about it,-what he told Gillam. Unless the presumption is against the Commissionerunless it be presumed, simply from the fact that he has been
charged with crime, that he must be guilty-then you must
allow that he acted in good faith, and that he did not allow his
clerks to act as agents for personal gain. I now leave Article
VI., and ask your attention to Article VII.
By Article VII., he is charged with having violated Section
234 of the Compiled Laws of 1857, by not paying into the
Treasury moneys received. If there is any doubt resting in the
mind of the Court, in regard to our position under that article, I will ask that, before they pass upon it, they read the
answer:
First. We did not break the kettle.
Second. We took it home before it was broken.
ThYird. We never borrowed it.
If any such law existed, which was binding upon us, we did
not violate it. We paid into the Treasury every dollar of
money that came into our hands as Commissioner, so far as we
know. The law referred to, did not, and could not, apply to
the Commissioner. And again, the law, whatever it was, and
to whoever it applied, has been repealed; it does not exist as a
valid law; was repealed by the Revised Statute of 1846.
Next we come to Articles VIII. and IX.,-that part which
the learned Managers have doubtless considered the bete noir
of the whole case,-those in reference to "Every Wednesday
Night." I propose to leave the discussion of those to my worthy
colleague; but I ask you, as preliminary to what he may say,
to take that paper and read it. There is a story told of a man
who wandered about a section of the country, in the dark,
where there were many deep pits, and he fell, as he supposed,
into one of them, and caught hold of a stick that laid across
the top, from which he dangled in what he supposed to be a




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1645
bottomless cavern. He thought of his sins, his worldly affairs,
and his wife, and tried to prepare himself for death. His arms
grew weak as he held on, and, shutting his eyes in prayer, he
suddenly let go, and fell to the enormous depth of six inches.
So have the good people of this country held their breath, and
with closed eyes involuntarily prayed for deliverance whenever
this wonderful paper was mentioned. Read it for yourselves,
and you will find the shock quite as great from the exagerated
statements about the paper, as from any obscene matter in the
paper.
Now let me ask you to do this: Take your scissors and clip
this paper to pieces. Send one article to Bonner's Ledger,
that of "Beautiful Snow" to the Ladies' Repository, and
another article to Greeley's Tribune; send the boots and shoes
advertisement to the Lansing Republican, make a hash of the
balance and send it to the Sunday editor of the Chicago
Times, and all will come back to you double leaded; you will
read it, your wife will read it, and your children will read it,
and you will hardly guess that you have read anything unusually obscene.
We are not here to defend it; neither my colleague, the respondent,. or myself.  If, when that personal quarrel took
place in the front room of the Land Office, when it was brought
home to the Deputy Commissioner that all the facts in regard
to his taking that postoffice order had been ascertained and
brought fully to light,-if, when he hurled back his abuse
upon the Commissioner at that time, he had taken his one
good arm and struck him down, or his right foot and kicked
him into the street, it would not have been anything that we
should have commended, yet it would have been a thing for
which this Senate would not have said the Commissioner
should be impeached. In the heat of a personal quarrel,-in
the heat of a political campaign,-men say things and do
things which they are sorry for afterwards,-things that are
not to be commended; write things, even in the New York
Tribune, or the New York Independent, itself, that probably




1646     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
better be left out,-insinuations, innuendoes, things from which
a squeamish mind may wring something that would not be
exactly decorous; but after all, one would hardly say they
should be impeached for it.
Before passing from this, I wish to ask the Managers to
what part in that paper they point, on which to rest their
claim to obscenity? We are entitled to it. They certainly do
not claim that it was all so; and we claim they should be a
little more definite in that regard.
I now come to Article X. It is charged that at divers
times, since July 5, 1871, the Commissioner had been drunk,
or so affected by his drinking intoxicating liquors, etc., as to
disgrace his office, or be unfitted to discharge his official duties,
hence there was good cause for his removal under the law of
1871. My recollection is that the law has been read to you.
It refers simply to the removal of officials for drnnkenness.
Now, I understood the Honorable Manager, who has so ably
opened the case on the part of the People, to say that they
claim  nothing under Article X. But I understood him  to
go on and argue that the Commissioner had done things that
certainly could be brought under no other article, for which he
was to be condemned. He told of the Chapman House affair,
and of the Lansing House affair, and undertook to bolster up
the man Baker, who is the very heart of the testimony with
regard to this article. If they claim nothing, why load down
this case with the argument? If they claim anything, do they
claim it under that article? Under the article, if we were
drunk at all, it was after July 5. But under the evidence, if
Edmonds was drunk at all, it was long previous to July 5.
There is not a particle of proof before this Court that
the Commissioner was drunk after the 5th of July.  It
was in March and April that both the Chapman House
affair and the other affair occurred,-if I recollect right,-at
least the Chapman House affair. The spree, or the "ratification," at the Chapman House, was April 24. Conkling has told
you the Commissioner came there to board either in March or




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1647
April. Suppose it to be April. He was there two months,
and must have gone away in June,-which was the fact. Yet,
Baker tells you that the occasion at the Chapman House was,
he thinks, the 1st of July or later. Now they have sought to
fix upon us the charge of drunkenness,-if fixed upon us at
all,-by Porter, Baker, Quigley, and George Fowler. What an
array of witnesses to prove drunkenness. I had almost exclaimed, " Heaven save the mark!" if the Commissioner is to
be proved, as drunken, by such witnesses. Porter, for instance,
heard the Commissioner swear, saw his face flushed with anger,
and smelt his breath. On cross-examination it showed very
plainly, indeed, that it was not bad whisky, that affected the
Commissioner, but bad Porter.  Porter that had not only
soured, but absolutely spoiled, and should, at that time, have
been spewed out. In the language of the able gentleman who
preceded me, I will say, at least, of this thing, " that it is too
trivial for candid consideration."
What then of Baker? Baker did not know whether it was
the 1st of July, or later; but he did know, that when he
returned the third time to the Chapman House, that Tom
Marshall came and laid his hand upon his left shoulder. He
was sure about the shoulder,-on the left shoulder, Thomas
laid his hand very gently, and said, "It it all right, now, we
have got Edmonds to bed."  Did you not all then think
of the story of the three black crows?  Out of that
one statement which Tom Marshall made to Baker at midnight, with his hand upon his left shoulder, —while at the same
time Tom was locked in his room up stairs by his sweetheart
-I say out of that statement which Baker has detailed before
you has grown all this clamor and furor about the Land Commissioner of Michigan being so drunk and debauched that he
had to be carried to bed. It has been published in New York,
and even in California, that the Land Commissioner of Michigan had become so dissolute in his habits, that in a midnight
orgie with his employes, he got so beastly drunk he had to
be carried to bed.  Yet Baker does not remember seeing




1648    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Straub there that night.  He does not remember that he
played billiards there that night. He does remember that
at one time he saw the Commissioner at the head of the stairs
when he went back, and some person with him, and then again
he only remembers that he saw one man.
It hardly seems fair that any comparison should be drawn
between that wild man, who has so interested himself in this
case, as appears by his own testimony, —who has made haste
here to testify against the Commissioner,-I say it hardly seems
fair that any comparison should be drawn between him and
the honest Dutchman who  sat upon  that chair and
testified. What interest had  Straub in this case?  Why
was he  interested  to  clear the  Commissioner?   The
man, Baker, had interested himself from  the very start;
he had hunted up testimony, here, there, and everywhere,
even before the committee reported. He had told the old man
Shattuck certain things. He had gone all over, interesting
himself in this case. IHe anxiously desires a conviction. Was
there anything in the demeanor of the man Straub that showed
he was not telling the truth?  Was there anything in the
cross-examination that showed that the man was utterly unworthy of belief, as has been charged upon him? He told you
how he came to go there. He was an Odd Fellow, and had been
in his lodge that night, and after the meeting, was going by
the hotel, when he heard a noise. He went in. IHe saw
the Commissioner going up-stairs. Is he corroborated in
that? Conkling says the Commissioner went up-stairs about.
that time.  No  one  was with him, —no one carrying
him. Straub entered the billiard-room and found this man
Baker playing billiards, and, as he tells you, he was drunk.
Is there anything else in the testimony which makes this Court
believe that Baker was drunk? If he was not drunk, why has
he fixed the time on the first of July? If he was not drunk,
why has he forgotten that he played billiards, as has been testified to by Griswold and Straub? If he was not drunk, why
did he say before that committee that he saw this man carried




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 G149
up-stairs; or why has it been necessary to deny that he said so
before the committee, and charge it home,-either upon the
committee or the reporter,-that he did not say so? It will
uot do. He says, on page 375, that he was requested by the
Mayor to require places to be shut up at ten o'clock.
On page 378, on cross-examination, he is asked "You were
requested by the mayor to see that places were shut up? "Answer, No, sir."  Question, What was the request?  Answer,
The mayor requested me to look after certain violations of the
ordinance and to report to him."  On page 376, he says positively that he believes he saw Edmonds on the stairs the third
time he went in.  On page 380, he first says the door was
closed, then he says it was simply opened a little, and that he
saw no one but Tom Marshall. But did he see Tom Marshall
there that night?  What about this testimony?  Did not
Marshall tell you all the circumstances of his career that night;
how he went up-stairs at eight or at half past eight, and was
not down afterwards?  Is it possible that he could have forgotten about it? He has most willfully perjured himself here.
He has committed a perjury that might have been found out
by the Managers themselves, or by anybody who chose to investigate the case, if it was perjury. He went up-stairs and
stayed with the lady who was afterwards his wife, until ten or
eleven o'clock and then he went into Conkling's room, and she
locked the door, and kept the key, and he did not get out until
morning. Could there be any mistake about that? Ite remembers the occasion because it was the celebration  of the
wedding of Conkling.  Iie cannot be mistaken. He had
been down in the bar-room in the early part of the evening.
He cannot be mistaken about that. He has willfully lied, else
this man Baker was drunk. Put it in the most palliating form
you can. 5Marshall, Griswold, Conkling, and Straub all corroborate each other; and, if one witness can impeach a half-dozen,
then has the valiant Baker impeached the whole party.
Another witness that was employed by the prosecution to
207




1650      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
fix drunkenness upon this Commissioner was Orrin B. Quigley,
a man who had lived in Coldwater for ten or fifteen years, had
been in business there while the Commissioner was register of
deeds for four years,-while he was a resident of the county
for as many years probably as Quigley had lived in Coldwater,
and yet he had only been acquainted with him for the last two
years,-the man who, to his own shame, confessed upon the
witness stand that he himself, at the very house where he
charged this Commissioner with being drunk, was arrested and
taken to the lock-up for being drunk and disorderly.
Then comes the man Fowler. Now, I will not say that
Fowler, when he was upon the witness stand, was drunk, but I
will say that his testimony reads very much to me as if it, at
least, was drunk. Before he was asked anything about it, he
ran on to say that the Commissioner had been drunk three or
four times,-any number of times, from two to ten, and that
he himself took his drink every night. He says that he saw
the Commissioner these times he was drunk at the Chapman
House, and that it was after the first of June. He insisted
upon that; he recollects that clearly. It was while the Commissioner was boarding there, and it was after the first of
June. I think it is fairly in evidence here that after the first
of June the Commissioner was not at the Chapman House at
all. He left there as a boarding-place and went to the Lansing
House.
Taere are some other witnesses that bear upon this question
of drunkenness.  There was Mrs. Hotaling; she saw the
Commissioner at half-past nine, that night,-was near him
and talked to him. The Commissioner, her husband, and herself, were all in the hall together. They stood close together,
and had a talk. You need not be told that a woman can tell
when a man is drunk, — they know it every time; they know
it better than Baker; they know it better than Fowler. She
says he was not drunk at that hour of the night. And yet
Quigley had gone up stairs an hour previous to that, and he
knew he was drunk at that time.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1651
There are other things connected with that Chapman House
affair that seem to me go to the credit of the Commissioner,
instead of to his discredit; things for which he should be commended. It seems to me that it should be very evident to the
Senate that he was there for the purpose of taking care of his
clerks,-seeing that they did not go too far that night, and on
that occasion. He entreated them; he even went so far as to
threaten to displace them from his office if they did not stop;
he told the bar-keeper not to let them have any more liquor,
and insisted upon it, and they did not get any more.  He
worked with Conkling, as Conkling himself has told you, to get
those boys off to bed. Told Conkling, that if he (Conkling)
went away he thought the boys would go. And every man
and woman who saw the Commissioner there that night, except
those witnesses who have made haste to testify against him,
saw him sober.
There have been some other witnesses in this case who have
been questioned with regard to Mr. Edmonds' personal
habits, men who have met him every week here in Lansing,
who have met him upon the Boards at least every month since
his official term,-men who have met him at the hotel, in the
streets, and in his office,-everywhere except in the drinking
saloons, where neither he nor they went. They have no knowledge that he was ever incapacitated for doing his duty; they
have no knowledge that he ever drank any whisky, or anything else intoxicating. On the contrary, one of them had
knowledge that when he was asked to drink he refused. Now,
we do not claim that MIr. Edmonds is a temperance man; he
will not claim  it for himself. When he wants a drink of
champagne or wine he does not hesitate to take it, but there can
be no successful proof under the heavens, that he is a drunkard
or even gets drunk. It does not appear in this case; it cannot appear in any case. Those who know him best, know
that thing best.
The Senate here took an informal recess of five minutes.




1652     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
AFTER RECESS.
Mr. McGowan continued as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND HIONORABLE SENATORS-I had just
reached Article XI., which charges the respondent, that on or
about the tenth day of October, 1871, at the Lansing House,
he did commit adultery with a female unknown, and also that
he did commit other adulteries at divers other times and sundry
other places. Before proceeding to the discussion of that
article, I desire to read to you from page 164 of the Impeachment Proceedings, left-hand column, last paragraph. I will
have the credit of at least introducing some good authority in
this case. I quote from  one of the Honorable and learned
Managers:
" Now, so far as crimes are concerned, as far as misdemeanors
are concerned, especially those of a technical character, there
can be no doubt but that the question may be propounded
with a great deal of force; and the statute is, so far as relates
to that class of cases, that courts of impeachment act upon the
same basis exactly as in criminal jurisdictions; but if an officer
commits a murder, there is no question but what this Court,
it that question were before it, would decide upon the same
ground, and would define murder in the same way that a
court of jurisdiction would define it. If it was a highway robbery, or larceny, this Court would define it in the same way."
I also ask to read from the 2d Vol. of the Compiled Laws
of 1857, page 1541:
"(5858.) SEC. 3. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced but on the complaint of the husband or wife; and no
such prosecution shall be commenced after one year from the
time of committing the offense."
Now, with that good law and good common sense before
you, and the statute before you, I ask your attention but a
few moments to the testimony under this article. The first
witness is Charles Anderson, a man who revered the truth and
would neither take'from  nor add to. IHe saw the Commis



PRlOCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1653
sioner in the hall in the Lansing House, as he thinks,-he is
not certain,-with his hand upon the knob of the door, and
thinks the door was closed after him; that the room was 97.
Charles returned to that room sometime afterwards. The Commissioner went directly down stairs. When seen by Anderson
he was entirely outside the door, and in the hall. Charles,
the witness, returned to that door sometime later in the
morning, rapped, and a woman came to the door and gave
him the lamp. That is hardly conclusive of adultery. The next
witness is Mrs. Hudson. She testifies that her son notified her,
at one time, that the bed was soiled in Mtr. Edmonds' room.
She went there, with the chambermaid, and found the bed
soiled. I, of course, believe that she told what she considered
exactly the truth. Undoubtedly the bed was soiled. She simply
gives it as her opinion, that it was soiled from  the menstrual
flow of a woman. Dr. Cutter and Dr. Bennett testified that
the Commissioner has a disease which he cannot control, which
is a bleeding from the urethea. They told us of an instance where
they met at his house. The facts and circumstances of that occasion are fresh in your memories, and it not worth while for me
to go over them. Now, whatever this Commissioner has been
charged with, and whatever has been charged against him, it
has not been claimed, so far as I know, that he is wanting in
ordinary intelligence,-that he had not ordinary common
sense. Does it seem possible that any one should earnestly
claim that for the purpose of licentiousness he went to bed
there with a woman in that condition and soiled the bed?
There is nothing of it. The soiled bed must be explained on
the physician's testimony; it can be explained no other way.
The idea that the Commissioner took a woman into his room
in that condition, and lay there with her during the night and
soiled the bed, as he must, have known he was soiling it, is
supremely ridiculous, and cannot be characterized in any other
way.  You have Mrs. Hudson's testimony, and you have
Charles Andrews' testimony, and  that is the  adultery,
so far  as  it  is alleged  to have  been  committed  at




1654     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the  Lansing  House.  I should  not feel warranted  in
detaining you a moment longer on this part of the article.
The balance of this article is a drag-net, cast out to catch
whatever silly fish might be swimming along, whether they
should be bullheads or suckers, and it caught Cole, and Baker,
and Bosworth. Give them  full credit, and Mr. Edmonds has
been seen at two different times coming from the house of
Alice McCabe, a place of ill-repute,-once in the morning,
after sunrise, and once in the evening.
But Baker, it seems to us, is not the most trustworthy witness in the world, and what he said upon that point is not
without contradiction. He first claimed that he and Bosworth
went to Alice's the first night,-that they drove there. Upon
reflection, and having time to refresh his memory, he changes
that statement, and becomes quite positive they went the second night, and went on foot..  But Bosworth tells you that
they went there the same night they visited the house of the
widow woman; that they did not go there on foot, but that
they drove there in a buggy. These two officers were looking
for a man who had fled from justice; looking for a bigamist.
They had been out of town, they were going to Alice's, and
they were going to other places about town to look for the
criminal. They came to Alice's; two men walked out,-men
of medium  size, as Mr. Bosworth says,-and went away, and
they drove to the'widow  woman's. One of them says they
returned that night; the other one says they returned the next
night. In any event they went there some time, to look for
their man,-to look for the runaway bigamist, and went in and
stayed about fifteen minutes. Baker asked Alice if he was
there; she said he was not. Baker was sure she would not lie
about a little thing, and they went away,-made no search of
the house, made no further investigation. Baker had confidence
in Alice. It took them fifteen minutes to ask that question, or
else they had other conversation, and went away. Bosworth says
thatthe two men that came out of Alice's that night, were of medium height; on the sharp leading examination by the Honora



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                     1655
ble Managers, he said he was rather of the impression that one of
them was taller than the other. When asked, upon the crossexamination, if the question itself did not suggest that, he
admitted that it probably did. At least there was not sufficient difference in their height to attract attention. Neither
Bosworth nor Baker noticed a dangling sleeve hanging beside a
man who walked away. The whole thing, upon the statements
of these men, is misty and uncertain. They evidently were
looking for something besides a criminal; or, at best, intended
to mix laborious duty with illicit pleasure.
You have seen Griswold on the witness stand, and have
seen the Commissioner here in the Senate Chamber,-know
the marked difference between their height.   Would not
Bosworth notice it?  Bosworth was acquaint.edl with Griswold.
He met him  when he was at school at Olivet. There was
nothing  that attracted  the  particular attention of  the
men in the buggy.  But all this time they were looking for
the bigamist, —those sharp, keen-eyed fellows who were scouring the country, and looking in every house of ill-fame for a
fugitive from justice,-but did not notice the men sufficiently to
know that one was a tall and the other a short one, Griswold
swears positively that he never was there with the Commissioner,
he never went there with him nor went away with him, nor met
him there. I would beg leave to differ with my learned brother
who has stated that the testimony of Griswold has been impecahed by his conduct, by his own statetnents, and the statement of others. That is what I imply, at least, from  the
statement of the Honorable Manager who has opened the case.
I smw nothing in the boy's demeanor, or in his testimony, that
would lead me to suppose that he intended to tell anything
but the exact truth. He may have been reluctant in telling
what occurred outside of the office. He may have been reluctant in stating what he supposed to be a misdemeanor in office,
in the sale of land; or telling that he was down to that house
of ill-fame. He may be reluctant in regard to that, and not
be untruthful. There may be good reasons, and I put it down




1656      TRIAL OF CIIARLES A. EDMONDS.
to his credit and credibility, that the was ashamed to tell that
he was at such a house.  He may have a father or a mother,
whose memory le respects; or, if living, whose good will he
respects; and he does not wish to put himself so on the record.
Has he said anything to lead anybody to suppose that he was
falsifying under oath  You must search his face in vain for
any such thing.  -He is before you uncontradicted, except by
Baker; and, where their statements clash, Griswold is corroborated and Baker is not.
Mr. Cole testified that he saw the Commissioner come out of
Alice's house.. When we opened the case on the part of the
respondent we stated what we expected to prove concerning
this transaction, and stated it in good faith. Part of the proof
we have been able to make and part we have not. That Mr.
Edmonds went with one of his clerks that morning to the
river bank, below this house, and then turned back alone, for
"want of a boat to cross the river, is in evidence. Mr. Clarke
fixes the time the same as Cole, and also by the further fact of
a show being in town the day before. In this his statemrent
stands uncontradicted, and in no way conflicts with the testimony on the part of the People. It nmust be taken as true.
Of course, we would gladly have proven the balance of our
statement.  But it is not always that we can depend upon men
as witnesses, even after they have been talked with, as the
Honorable Managers well know. It is not always the case that
you can get a witness that will testify as you expect, as the
Honorable Managers also well know. And it is folly to put a
witness on the stand whose testimony as to the only point you
desire to use him will criminate himself, and who is familiar
with the  rule  of evidence in that regard. You have got
the  proof at least, that the Commissioner did not stay
there all night, and was there but a few moments.  Clarke
delineates the circumstances why he went to the river.  He
said he was then an invalid, which is a fact that all his
friends well know; and one of the purposes for which he
came here was to have the use of the mineral water.  He says




PROCEEDINGS OF TH1E COURT.                  t657
he was going there at that time, and he induced the Commissioner to go with him. But the Honorable Manager says they
should have looked across the river, and have seen that the
boat was on the other side. It may be that they would, and it
may be that they would not. Does the Honorable Manager
always look to see whether the boat is on the other side when
he goes down that way?  I am not clear that he can see until
he comes almost there, whether it is on this side or the other.
But suppose they did find it on the other side. The sun was
half an hour high, and it was about time for people to be
moving about. Is there not a boy there attending the boat?
Is that an uncommon occurrence? Do people ever turn back
when they see the boat on the other side? No, not if they
intend to cross,-not if they have any desire to cross.
It is, I believe, a very common occurrence to find the boat
on the opposite shore. The traveler, in that event, either waits
for some one to bring it over, or goes away. This morning,
Clarke waited and the Commissioner went back. The time
mentioned by Cole and that by the witness Clarke, are about
the same,-there could have been but a few minutes difference
in Edmonds turning back and the time Cole saw him come
out of the door.
It is possible that the Commissioner rushed in there and
committed adultery and rushed out again and up the street.
It may be possible, but it seems a little absurd.
I have now gone through with all the articles in this case.
There are some things in the case I could not mention under
these articles-some miscellaneous charges that cannot be
classified. ~ e are charged in the evidence with something on
general principles. For instance, that we have unnecessarily
increased the clerks in the office. I do not know  that the
claim is made that we did this with a corrupt purpose. There
is on file, from the Auditor General's office, a certified statement giving the average number of clerks for the past three
years. In 1869 the average was 9 5-12; in 1870, 10-; in 1871,
208




1658     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
151. Here it becomes apparent that the increase in 1871 over
1870 was less than five. This Commissioner has instituted
the abstract business, and it required four new clerks to carry
that on. He found the accounts with contractors far behind,
and in a state of confusion. It was the work of one man to
bring them up and take charge of them, and for this purpose
he employed another clerk. There are five clerks accounted
for. I think this Senate will say they were very properly
employed. Previous to that time, at least in 1870, they had a
Deputy, a chief clerk, a draughtsman, a book-keeper, and a
number of other clerks working on the field-notes, making, in
all, as many as employed by Mr. Edmonds, save the five I have
already mentioned. Simply from the fact that this Commissioner had systematized things in the office, he had more than
doubled the work they had done before. That is not a strong
assertion, and is proven by the testimony here. He put his
offlce into order, organized it into departments, and put an
man at the head of each department, and made him responsible for the success of it.
During the year 1870, they made field-notes for the office, to
the amount of twenty-six or twenty-seven towns. During 1871,
the same number of clerks made 127 towns. Why?  There
were no more clerks working in that department, —not one. It
was simply because the work was efficiently done. The whole
institution felt the presence of an active, honest chief, and the
work went steadily and rapidly forward.
In 1870 they copied for outside parties, of the field-notes,
from forty to fifty towns-during 1871 from eighty to ninety.
In addition to that, Governor Baldwin recommended that more
clerks be employed. As the Governor said, meeting the Commissioner upon the Board, at the very commencement of his
term, and knowing the wants of the office from his previous
business connection with it, and before the Commissioner had
a chance to know himself, he (the Governor) recommended
him to have more help if necessary, and to make this abstract.
Is there any evidence here before this Court that he has had




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1659
too much help in the office, and that the work has been too
well done? I think not!
Two witnesses have been introduced, who have testified with
regard to jokes gotten off by the Commissioner. If that testimony had any meaning, it was to show the intention of the
Commissioner,-that he went into the office with a specific
intent. It was not an intent with  which we have been
charged, however, in the articles of impeachment.  It was an
intent to steal.
Senator Romeyn-If the counsel will allow me,-as the
usual hour for adjournment has arrived,-I move that order be
suspended for this day. I do this with the understanding that
the counsel has nearly finished his argument.  Am  I right in
my understanding?
Mr. McGowan-I have nearly finished.
The Presiding Officer-The rule will be suspended unless
objection is made.
Mr. McGowan-I feel that I have wearied the Senate, and I
will hasten to the close.  But it seems to me that I should
remark just here, that it is a desperate case that requires such
remedies. It is what the physicians would call heroic treatment.
When it is sought to show that the Commissioner of the Land
Office was guilty of corruption in such a transaction as the
Bathay contract, I say it is a desperate case that requires sucll
propping.
Let me give you, very briefly, another exhibit of what has
been done in the office in  1871, as compared with 1869
or 1870.  In  1869, there was put in the Treasury from
field-notes and plats, fees that came into the office-fees which
it has been estimated here went into the pock ts of the clerks,
during the year 1871-there was put into the Treasury in
1869 from  those sources, $1,032.65, and in 1870, $2,811.75,
making a total for those two years of $3,844.40. In 1871
there was paid into the Treasury from  the same sources,
$2,733.45, and during the first four months of the present year,
$1,223.89, making for the sixteen months of Edmonds' admin



1660      TRIAL OF1 CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
istration paid into the Treasury, $3,957.24, —more than $100
more in sixteen months than was paid under the former in
twenty-four.  The average of these fees during 1871, was $225
a month.  At the  same rate  it would make for the two
years of 1871 and 1872, nearly $2,000 more than was paid in
for the same length of time previous to that.
Can the gentlemen account for it?  Ias there been any
greater demand upon this office in 1871 and 1872 than there
was in 1869 and 1870 for this outside business?  Have there
been any more plats required?  Have there been any more
field-notes furnished, and outside work done?  You can account for it in either way you desire, but there are only two
ways that gentlemen can possibly find to account for this difference. One is, that more work was done in the office in
1871 and 1872 than in 1869 and 1870, and the other is, that
that two thousand dollars belonging to the State permanently
lodged in that envelope which has figured so largely in the
trial of this case.
In November, the end of the fiscal year for 1870, just before
this present Commissioner came into office, there was paid
from this source into the Treasury at a single time nearly two
thousand dollars. The average monthly payment before that
was less than seventy-five dollars, and then the Deputy Commissioner admitted that it came from  fees for field-notes and
plats that he had gathered during two years. If he carried
that amount of money along for two years for his own benefit,
as he must have done, for he paid this money back from his,own personal fund at the bank, how much money did he use
that he never paid back?   Talk of comparing this administration with past administrations!  Talk of honesty or corruption in office, in view  of such facts which have been
dragged in here by the prosecution! At the end of April,.1871, Mr. Porter paid in $473 76, with a flushed face and a
chattering jaw. He had had trouble with the Commissioner,
who had told him  he must pay over the money at the end of
the month; that was what the law required; that was the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1661
meaning, the spirit and the gist of it, that it must be paid in
The records will show that the average has been $225 a month
paid in during Edmonds' administration. What will the Managers do with such a record as that?  Will they charge corruption on that department of the office, at least?
Now, here are a number of witnesses that have been brought
in the case, that I am going to simply name, because I do not
know why they are here. You will remember Canfield, that
came all the way from Niagara Falls, and who testified that he
purchased swamp land, with scrip, at $4 an acre at one time,
and $2 at another.  Cummings, the county treasurer, who
came here and told the piteous story of Mr. Bouck. Bouck,
and John Long, and Woolover, and Conley came and told their
own stories. Then the carriage-maker, who came in and told
about Van Dunham not being at his meals regularly,-he was
away from his boarding-house. We may hear something about
that hereafter, but for the present we know not what they claim
from it. We had intended to refer a little more in detail to
some witnesses, showing the evident bias of their statements,
and their personal desire for a conviction, but we shall not so
occupy your time. We simply call your attention to Porter,
to Bush, to Fowler, to Quigley, and to Baker.
Now, gentlemen, let me ask you if you can, on a calm view
of the whole case, put the brand of infamy upon this respondent? I do not believe that you will. No demand of political
necessity will be heard within the breasts of Senators to-day,
-no, not even the faintest echo. If Justice, who balances the
scale upon her fingers, is blind, she must also be deaf. If her
sightless balls do not discern the empty sleeve, her dull ears
must hear no clamor from without; and when each Senator, in
view of his solemn oath, with his right hand upon his heart,
shall announce his verdict, we shall be content.
The Presiding Officer —The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at nine
o'clock.




1662     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Lansing, Wednesday, A. M, May 22, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed with their argument.
The Honorable B. W. Huston, Jr., one of the Managers on
the part of the House of Representatives, addressed the Senate,
as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND SENATORS-I propose to express to you
my views of the case as briefly as I can, in justice to its importance; and I doubt not that while I may not be able to interest you as I would wish, you will yet give me your undivided
attention, on account of the importance of the case, not only
to the respondent but to the people of this State. I do not
propose, in the remarks I shall make upon this case, to enter
into the questions of law that have been raised, any further
than to state to the Court the views that I hold upon that
branch of the question, and upon which I shall base my argument, in reference to  the facts.  I take this position,
and I believe it is sound, in  regard to  the power of
a court of impeachment, that the court has jurisdiction
to try  any civil officer, any  Constitutional officer, not
only for corrupt conduct in  office, but for crimes and
misdemeanors outside of his office; and not only that,
but this jurisdiction extends to any immorality or cause that
would make it for the interest of the People of the State to
demand an officer's removal. We all understand that officers
that are appointed can, as a general rule, be removed at any
time; and we believe that the doctrine is sound, that when an
officer is elected to office by the People of the State, that the
People have a right to expect of him that he will be a moral
man, that he will be an upright citizen, that he will not dishonor his position or dishonor his State by any immoral practices outside of his office. I believe that when an officer is




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1663
elected to an office by the People, that it is only a proposition
on the part of the People when they cast their votes for him,
to receive him into their service for the compensation that the
law provides may be paid for that service; and that when he
takes the oath of office and enters upon the duties devolving
upon him as such officer, that he agrees implicitly that he will
be such a person as will not be a discredit to the State or a
discredit to the position that he occupies.
Now, the Commissioner of the Land Office is, as other State
officers are, elected for the term of two years. Suppose the
Commissioner was elected for ten years, and suppose that when
he comes to this city and enters upon the duties of his office,
that he should take it upon himself to publish a paper such as
the paper termed " Every Wednesday Night," and should see
fit to issue such a paper weekly; and suppose, in addition to
the publication of the paper I refer to, the Commissioner should
undertake the business of selling intoxicating drinks; and suppose he should add to his institution fifty courtesans, and to that
again add a gambling-house; suppose for a moment that he
should establish in the city of Lansing an institution that
would be notorious not only within  the  borders of the
State of Michigan, but throughout the United  States;
And suppose, also, that he was at his office at eight o'clock
in the morning and remained there until twelve o'clock at
noon, and from one until five o'clock in the afternoon,-that
he was punctual, that he was honest in his office,-would anybody claim, for the term of ten years the people of the State
of Michigan would have to submit to have an officer who was
conducting himself in that way, and that there are no means
by which he could be removed; and that the people of the
State that had elected him for ten years would have no right
to demand and insist that this Court should remove him?
The very proposition that an officer could disgrace a State in
that way, is monstrous.
If he could not do it for ten years, he would have no right




1664     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
to do it for two years; he would have no right to do it for
one year; he would have no right to do it at all.
So we insist that whenever the interests of the State, and
the honor and credit of the State, demand that all officer
should be removed, this Court have a right to remove him;
and we believe the authorities sustain us in assuming that
position.
Now, counsel say that you must not strike at a defenseless man
through your Constitution.  Counsel also say that you must not
depart from the old pathways and precedents; and we have heard
this cry of precedent ever since this Court commenced its sitting.
What is there in these precedents that need awe the people of
the State of Michigan, or this Court?  What would be the
effect of a precedent of this kind?  Simply this, may it please
this honorable body: It would be saying to a party when he
is elected to one of the offices of this State, we expect that you
will demean yourself as a citizen ought to demean himself; we
expect that you will maintain your standing in the community,
and we expect that you will not be a disgrace to the State; we
expect that you will be a law-abiding citizen; we expect that
you will be a chaste man, and we expect that you will be a
temperate man. We do not expect that you will be immoral;
we do not expect that you will be corrupt.  And I insist that
that would be the effect of the precedent. It would be a noble
precedent; and it is not a precedent that need frighten the
people of the State of Michigan.
Believing that the position I have taken, with regard to this
matter, is sound, and one that would be for the honor of this
State, and all others, to adopt, I will enter at once upon the
discussion of the testimony, and see whether tile evidence
establishes the fact that Mr. Edmonds has been guilty of corrupt conduct in olfice, or of any of the charges brought against
him in the articles of impeachment.
Now, I suppose that the fact, alluded to by counsel, that the
Commissioner is a one-armed man, and that the missing arm
was lost in the service of our common country, will have no




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1665
weight with the Court, in the determination of this case. The
counsel tells us that Justice is blind, and therefore I suppose
Justice does not see the one arm. And I am led to believe that
if there should by any difference in citizens, the man who has
been in the army, and has seen the evils arising from the violation of laws, ought, above all other men, to be a true lawabiding citizen. The fact that he has been in the army is certainly no excuse for dereliction to duty, immorality, and corruption.
The first article charges the Commissioner " that he did corruptly, unlawfully, and in direct violation of the laws of this
State, withhold from sale divers large tracts of land for the
particular benefit and advantage of certain land-dealers and
for private pecuniary consideration of himself, his Deputy, and
clerks, to the damage and inconvenience of actual settlers," etc.
That the reserving of lands is a damage to actual settlers,
you can readily conceive. The reserving of lands and keeping
them out of the market so that the actual settler cannot purchase them, when he desires to do so for the purpose of settlement, of course, is not only a damage to the settler, but a
damage to the State; because it prevents settlement, and prevents to a certain extent the prosperity of the commonwealth.
The counsel, in referring to Mr. Porter's testimony says, "it
was elicited from Porter, that there were large amounts of land
reserved for Jones & Porter." You will find, by an examination
of Porter's testimony, that there were not only lands reserved
for Jones & Porter, but Porter says there were large amounts
of land reserved without being placed upon the reservationbook at all; and that there were large amounts of lands that
were reserved simply by penciling upon the plat; that was the
way these lands were to a large extent reserved.
In referring to the application of Allison upon 32 North,
2 West, the counsel claims that the first application that
was  made  by  Allison  was  upon  the  30th  of April.
Now, you will remember, if you will refer to Allison's testi209




1666      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDIMONDS.
mony, that he says he applied for this land on the first of
October,-that he received patents for part of that section,
and that he deposited $320, which was returned  to him, and
that he expected to get lands for that. which he did not get;
so that, as you will observe, there was an application made for
these lands last fall.  Now, I have a suspicion that this is the
way that this business is done,-that it is notoriously so: That
when parties apply for lands, these other applications are put
in for parties that are interested and have a knowledge of the
internal workings of that office; and that they are often
dated back may indeed be true.  It seems that there was an
application made for these lands, by Hewitt, upon the sixth day
of July, and, as you will see by referring to that application,
he asked that those lands might be reserved until he could
ascertain the name of the party who wished to buy them.
Mr. Hewitt, it seems, did not know then for whom he wished
to buy those lands; but still he tells you, in his testimony,
that Mr. Thomas looked the lands, that he expected to get the
name from Mr. Thomas, and that he expected to sell the lands
to some one in Pennsylvania.  Hewitt tells you, in his testimony, that it was not only so in this case, but that it was so
in other cases, and that it was his general practice, when he
applied for lands, to apply for tleml and deposit his check.
That is the way these lands were purchased.
Mr. Robinson, the chief clerk of the Land Office, whom  no
one will pretend was not interested for the Commissioner, and
who, at least, could not be suspected of coloring his testimony
against the Commissioner-Robinson tells you, it was the
universal practice, when desired by parties, to deposit their
check, and have lands that could not be purchased with scrip,
held upon their check.
Now, I have made this remark, and I will make it here, that
I will buy all the school land in the State of Michigan to-day;
I will buy all the agricultural land in the State of Michigan
to-day, if my check will be taken in payment as Mr. HIewitt's
check has been, or as Mr. Palmer's, or Woodhouse & Butler's




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1667
checks have been taken for these lands, if I may be allowed to
hold them until I get an opportunity to sell them.  What was
Hewitt's check? It was simply an order drawn upon his own
bank, and lacked his indorsement, upon which only it was
payable.  The money could not have been obtained on it
until it was indorsed, and it could not go into the Treasury.
But what was the effect in this case? Just the same, indeed, as in
every like case, and it was this: This draft was deposited on the
6th day of July-so they claim, but I do not believe it-that,
however, is what the testimony shows. It was for 200 acres of
land at four dollars an acre, which would be eight hundred
dollars. Interest upon that at seven per cent, would be $56
a year.  Those lands were not patented until the first day of
May; that is, one "fortv" was patented and a certificate was
issued for the balance.  The law requires the Commissioner of
the Land Office to notify the treasurers of the counties by the
first of March, in each year, of the lands sold previous to that
time, so that they can be assessed.  Now those lands cannot
be assessed for 1872; there has been no notice to the treasurer
that the land was sold on the 6th of July.  That is not all:
the certificate will not draw  interest from  the 6th cf July
The certificate that was issued May first will not draw interest
from July first; consequently the Treasury of the State has been
defrauded, in one case at least, of what interest there would
have been due upon the part that Mr. Allison would have
bought on the first of October.  Not only that, but had the
Commissioner done his duty as the law prescribes, by issuing
his certificate on the first of July, the State would have received
the interest on the two hundred acre piece of land, which
would amount to eight hundred dollars from  July 6th to
May 1st.  The State has been defrauded, in that case, of over
forty-six dollars, as you will see by computation.  Now let
us see what the statute says upon that point:
"At the time of the sale of such lands the Commissioner
shall make out and deliver to the purchaser or purchasers
thereof, a certificate in which the said Commissioner shall, in




1668     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the name of the people of this State, certify the discription of
the land sold, the quantity thereof, the price per acre, the consideration paid and to be paid therefor, and the time and
terms of payment."
Why did he not do that? Why did he take Hewitt's check,
as Robinson testifies he did, and as Allison says the commissioner told him that he did? That is the evidence in the case.
Bush says the Commissioner told him that he took it as cash;
why did he not pay the cash into the Treasury on the sixth of
July last? Why did he not issue the certificates so that the
State of Michigan could have had the benefit of the interest in
those cases? Now this is only one case in which the certificate was not issued, the interest was lost, and the Treasury
was defrauded.
We called Hewitt's attention to the land that was sold to
John Charlton, and we found that was arranged in the same
way; we find that that is the universal practice in the office;
and the only defense of this practice, we have heard, was that
Mr. Pritchard had done the same thing, and that Porter, the
previous Deputy, had done the same thing.  Now, I don't
believe this is an excuse at all. If Pritchard did what he had
no right to do, that is no warrant for the present Commissioner
to do it. He has no right to do that, even if every other State
officer has done wrong; that is no reason why Mr. Edmonds
should do wrong.
It cannot be claimed for one moment that this has not been
the practice, and is not the practice up to this moment. The
evidence shows that one thousand acres of swamp land have
been held upon Mr. Hewitt's check, while this trial has been
progressing.
Why are not these lands patented up?  Why when Mr.
Hewitt deposited his check-if it was received as cash-was
not the money paid into the Treasury? And why was not the
treasurer of the county where these lands were situated, notified, in order that these lands might be assessed? If this Court
says that these lands were not held for the purpose of benefit



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1669
ing Mr. Hewitt, that he might speculate in these matters, they
virtually indorse this practice; and no one can say for a moment but that the practice is nefarious! No one can say for a
moment but that it is an injury to the State of Michigan. No
one can say but that it is a fraud upon those who seek to buy
these lands. When men go out and look up these lands, and
come in here and desire to buy them, and they are marked up
for Mr. Hewitt, or for somebody else, they are defrauded out of
the expense of looking the lands, the State is defrauded of the
interest; and all this is done so that Mr. Hewitt may make
some money. It makes no difference whether the Commissioner has profited out of it. It is one of the patent facts in
this case; one of the facts that is not denied, nor pretended to
be denied, but that the Commissioner has knowledge of
this transaction. How, then, is this Court going to say upon
this article, with this testimony in view, that the Commissioner
has not withheld lands corruptly, for the benefit of large dealers? I will read another section of this law.
i The said certificate shall further set forth, that in case of
the non-payment of the interest due, by the first day of March,
or within sixty days thereafter, in each and every year, by the
purchaser or purchasers, or by any person claiming under him
or them, then the said certificate shall, from the time of such
failure, be utterly void and of no effect, and the said Commissioner may take possession thereof, and resell the same as
is hereinafter provided."
So that, if this interest is not paid within sixty days after
the time it is due, the party forfeits the money that he has
paid to the State, when he made the quarter payment; and
of course, when no certificates are given, as in this case,
the State loses the benefit of the forfeiture which might
arise in many cases, and which is certainly nothing injurious
to the party. If he buys the land, he understands what the
law is when he pays his quarter payment; and if he sees fit to
forfeit that, and not to pay the other three dollars per acre,
that is a matter of his own.




1670   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
"In case of notl-payment, either of principal or interest,
when due, according to the provisions of the preceding section,
or according to the terms of the certificate of sale, as the case
may be, such certificate shall become void and of no effect from
the time of such failure, and the Commissioner may take immediate possession thereof and resell the same."
We understand,-may it please this honorable Court,-that
so far as school lands are concerned, that this was beyond any
controversy; that it is the practice in the office, as established
by witnesses from  that office, to withhold lands in that way,
and that they are withheld for the benefit of these dealers.
Whether the Commissioner has any interest in it, or not, I do
not know,-I do not pretend to say,-neither do I care, because
I do not consider it material in this case. But that Mr. Hewitt
received a benefit from  this transaction is patent, because he
says he received one hundred dollars from Charlton. Mr. Hewitt paid nothing in that case.  He did not pay a dollar into the
Treasury of the State at all. He had s)ldl the land to Chariton,
and he got one hundred dollars for simply drawing his check
and leaving it in the office there for several months.  In the
case of Allison's lands, ten or twelve dollars is all the evidence
shows he received fir allwing his check to lie there; and
they say it was for the use,f the monev..  What money? Was
there any money in his check, drawn inl tlhat way?  Counsel
has reid a decision ol, the Supreme Court. to show when there
is a controversy  betw.e-n two individlails, in regard to a piece
of school land, as the svll;tlus of that case that he read shows,
and it does not appetar  ut wht what the  heck is worth as much
as money, that is, between those two individuals, the party who
had deposited his chtcle  wau   entitled to the land.
Now, that is all th.r": is of that d cision.  That was a controversy as to which of those two indiv duals should have a
certain piece of land; Iun (t es. that piyve anything in regard
to fraud upon the State?  Does that prove anything in regard
to nt, paying!lie m  ney ilnto hthe Treasury?  Does that prove
anything in regard  (o thle  ss: the St-ae sustains    Not at all.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1671
That was simply a question as to whether the draft should
take precedence as against another party that applied. But it
does not show, neither will it be claimed, neither will it be
indorsed by the Court, that that authorized the Commissioner
to withhold land upon checks, until the parties who deposit
them  have an opportunity to make a sale of the lands. It
seems, by the testimony, that it is not only school lands, but
swamp lands as well.
Mr. Hewitt testifies that he has reserved three or four thousand acres, upon what is known as the Bathay order. We
have heard a great deal about this Bathay contract and this
Bathay order, and I believe Mr. Gillam  testified that it was
some eight thousand acres that was reserve d upon the Bathay
order. Now, what was this order?  It was an order, a general
order, not specifying any particular amount, but allowing Mr.
Hewitt to reserve upon it, all the lands that he saw fit, providing he did not exceed the Bathay contract, which the evidence
shows, I think, was thirty-three thousand dollars.  If he did
not exceed that amount, he could draw up to that amount,
and he could withhold them until he could get an opportunity
to sell them, and then unload the reserve and select again.
Now, that is the evidence in reference to this matter; and it appears that the Commiss ioner had knowledge of this transaction.
Mr. Gillam says to you that this order did not carry the scrip
with it. I wish to call the attention of the Court particularly
to the testimony upon this point, because it is not only
material here, but it is material in the investigation of this
case further on, when we come to the question of selling lands.
You will remember it has been claimed here that when Mil
Barnard sold land, that he did not sell land belonging to the
State, because when a party had a contract he had a right to
reserve land, and have the land withdrawn from market. Now,
I wish to call the Court's attention to the fact that the right
to select land and withhold it from the market does not transfer
the title at all, for the title of the land remains In the State.
The State provides that the fee shall remain in the State until




1672      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
the patent is issued; so that it cannot be claimed that when a
party reserves upon his contract in that way, that he takes
any rights any further than the reservation.
Whe other point I desire to call your attention to is this,-that
orders of this kind do not carry the scrip with them. That is
the testimony of Mr. Gillam. Mr. Robinson, you will remember, when he was testifying here for the defense, stated that
the Commissioner had given instructions not to receive any
orders of this kind for unmatured scrip, when they proposed
to reserve lands upon unmatured scrip;-not to receive any
orders except they provided that the reservation should.carry
the scrip with it. I asked him, as you will remember, if he
could refer me to any such orders. He could not. He thought
there had been such orders.  Why have not the counsel, who
have had access to that office, presented this court some order
of that kind? Why, if those were the instructions of the Com-'missioner, has there not been an order of that kind introduced
in evidence. It was not the fact in regard to the Ripley order,
for that did not provide anything of the kind. It was not the
fact in regard to the last order. That did not provide anything
of the kind, and that was in November. They say that is the
rule; why have they not introduced some proof?  Why have
not they brought in some of these orders for the reservation of
lands?  That would show that these orders have unmatured
scrip at the present time; that he had reformed the practiceas they claim-so that orders must carry the scrip with them. It
is an admitted fact, they say, that that was the rule of the office.
Mr. Gillam tells you, upon the stand, and he is the man who
has charge of this particular transaction, that this is the fact,
-that reservations on these orders for unmatured scrip did not
carry the matured scrip. What is the result, then?  I receive.an order from Mr. Bathay, or Obed Smith, or Mr. Hall, who
has a contract, and I reserve land on the orders, and when the,contract is completed, they sell their matured scrip. It is an,admitted fact, in the evidence, that that could be done; and,
although it is claimed that Mr. Edmonds had made a different




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1673
rule, yet there has been no evidence of that kind. That was
the practice up to last fall, at least, according to the testimony
in this case; so that we understand that this Bathay order
was made for the purpose of accommodating Mr. Hewitt, and
Mr. Hewitt only, in the holding of lands for Thomas, and for
any of the other dealers; for holding thousands of acres of
land, in order that he might make a profit in selling these
lands to different parties. That the Commissioner knew that
Mr. Hewitt had no interest in the Bathay contract, at all, and
that it cost him nothing, is not difficult to understand.
You will remember when we asked Hewitt what he paid for
that order, an objection was raised, and this Court decided that
the counsel could not ask the question because it was immaterial. If he had paid for that order they would have been
perfectly willing that he should testify. So that it shows
that it was only an arrangement made by which lands might
be held in that way.
There is another fact I desire to call your attention to, in
reference to this first Article. It appears, from the testimony,
that there is between thirty and forty thousand acres of land
where the scrip is matured, but that is still held in the office,
and unpatented.  Now we claim  that this is material upon
this article, because it is the duty of the Commissioner, under
the statute of 1869, to issue the patents, and it would seem
that he has had help enough to have had it done. He had the
authority of the Governor to bring in all the clerks that were
necessary. And it seems some of those lands have been paid
for; the scrip has been matured ever since he has been in the
office; and Mr. Robinson testifies that in one day's time he
could issue the patents for all those lands,-although I doubt
that seriously. But if he could, why has it not been done?
Mr. Edmonds is presumed to know the law. It is his duty to
know the law. He knew that the statute of the State required him
to issue these patents within thirty days from the time the scrip
matured. There is between thirty and forty thousand acres of
210




1674'TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
land, according to the testimony of the clerks in the office,
that is unpatented to-day; and over twenty thousand acres
of them are the lands of Edmund Hall, whom we have every
reason to believe is one of the favorites of that office; and
they have been paid for, for a long time. The fact is, Edmund
Hall escapes from paying taxes on those lands. He can keep
them without paying taxes until he has an opportunity to sell
them,-and that is the reason why the patents are not issued.
It is well understood in the northern part of the State why
men leave their land lying in that way. They leave them
because they avoid taxation. They are benefited by this transaction.
Now, we say it cannot be claimed that the Commissioner
has been ignorant of this matter. The books show him how
this is; and there are between thirty and forty thousand acres
that should have been patented long ago. And we claim that
le has violated this article in that respect.
You will see, if you have a desire to look at Iewitt's testimony, on pages 268 and 270, that when he applied for his own
land he usually deposited his check, showing that that was
the practice.
I desire to call you attention now to the Second Article;
that is, with regard to selling lands, and allowing his clerks to
sell lands.
I think you will see in a moment that the defense set up
here, with regard to the transactions by Mr. Barnard, and by
the clerks in the office, is a weak one; that it is no defense at
all, and that it shows the weakness of the evidence on the part
of the defense, with regard to this article.
The grounds upon which they claim they have not violated
the spirit and effect of this article, is that Barnard sold land that
did not belong to the State; that the lands sold by Griswold
did not belong to the State; and that Van Dunham was interested in lands that belonged to the State, but Edmonds did not
know anything about it;-but they do not deny that he knew
about Barnard's; they do not deny that he had a knowledge




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1675
of the sale of lands by Barnard to Munroe; they do not deny
that Edmonds knew that Barnard sold lands to Hudson. But
they say he did not sell lands belonging to the State.
Now, let us investigate that, and see whether it is so, or not.
The reason, they say, that he did not sell the lands of the State,
was because these lands were reserved upon the Hall contract,
and that Hall had a right to reserve them. Hall had a right,
under the statute, to reserve land upon his contract, that was
not computed up to the amount of his contract. I will admit
that. That is the statute of the State. He had a right to
reserve to the amount of his unmatured scrip; there is no
doubt about that. But what is the effect of that reservation?
Simply that the land should be withheld from market, until
the time Hall should have completed his contract; that is all.
If he does not complete his contract, the lands shall be restored
to the market. And the statute of this State says expressly,
as the gentlemen will see if they have any occasion to examine
the statute, that the fee of the lands of this State, shall remain
in the State until the patent is issued. Then I inquire, if the
fee remains in the State until the patent is issued, and the
patents were issued directly to Munroe and Hudson, whose
lands did BaInard sell?
Then, again: Hall could reserve upon his unmatured scrip,but suppose he never completed his contract; suppose he did
not do the work; suppose he became a contractor, and his
bondsmen were worthless; would anybody take any interest
in those lands? You can see in a moment how slim their defense is here,-it has no foundation at all.
Hall had no interest in those lands any further than he had
a right to have them reserved on his contract, and when he
had completed his contract, if he did not sell his scrip he was
entitled to have the lands patented up to him; but he had a right,
under the rules of this office,-he had a right according to all
the testimony in the case,-after his contract was completed, to
sell his scrip, when it became matured? And when he sold his
scrip, to whom did these lands belong. And that is not all.




1676    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Hall has been upon the stand, and he tells you in his testimony, when I called his attention to this very land, description
by description, that only two forties of it had ever been reported to him; that the balance he had never had any report
of, and they were not upon his land-book.
How was this?  He tells you they were lands that Bush
looked. Bush, as you will remember, was in the employ of Mr.
Barnard and he was looking the lands. Barnard wrote a letter
on the 7th of December, in which he tells Bush that he wants
a thousand acres of pine land and three or four thousand acres,
I think, of black ash land, and it seems from the testimony
that he got them, and these were reserved by Barnard, and no
doubt on Hall's contracts; in all, four thousand acres.
It seems that in 1871 there were five or six letters written,
in which Barnard required Bush to look certain lands, giving
him at one time over forty townships to look, and that Bush
reported to him, and the lands were reserved, and he looked
the very towns in which these lands were situated. They were
put upon Mr. Hall's contract, and Hall had a report of only
two forties of them. He had no knowledge they were there.
They were lands that were looked by Bush, under the contract
that Bush had with Barnard. They were looked under the
contract with reference to which Barnard says in his letter,
"Look these lands; I have an arrangement by which I can
hold them until we can sell them, and make something out of
them."  That was the arrangement, and will this Court say
under the testimony that Barnard was not dealing in State
lands? On the 25th of April, Barnard sends Bush forty or
fifty plats,-that is, forty or fifty townships which he desired
him to look, and he says in that letter that he wants to get.all the lands in the Alpena country. For whom? for Mr.
Barnard. They were for himself and Mr. Bush, under the
arrangement made between them.
It does not seem to me that it can be held for a moment that
Mr. Barnard was not dealing in State lands under this testimony; and that. he had an arrangement with Mr. Hall there




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1677
can be no doubt. Mr. Hall says he had frequent conversations
with Mr. Barnard. And I want to call your attention to a
particular point in the testimony, and that is this: Mr. Hall
says he had a talk with Barnard, he thinks, in December. He
was in the office, and had a talk with him in reference to
reserving lands. Now, if you will turn to the letters that Barnard writes to Bush after that time, commencing with the
letter of December 7, you will see that for every single letter
written by Barnard to Bush, out of five or six letters, except
one, he writes to Hall. He says, in the letter of December 7,
he has an engagement with Mr. Hall, and he writes other
letters to Bush. He saysin one of these letters that Hall will
see Bush at Saginaw City, and make some arrangement, and
that Hall will do something towards furnishing money to get
these lands. And I want to call your attention to another
significant fact in this testimony, and I challenge the attention of this Court to it, and that is this: Upon the crossexamination of Mr. Hall, he was compelled to say that the
nineteen hundred and sixty acres of land in Tuscola county
that was looked in 1871, was for Mr. Bush; he was to have
those lands entire.
Those lands, to-day, are worth six thousand dollars, at the
lowest estimate; so that Mr. Bush gets, as his share of the
plunder, since the 7th of December, in this transaction, lands
worth six thousand dollars. Hall says they are to be patented
up upon Mr. Hall's scrip. Now, I heard a man, who was well
acquainted with Mr. Hall,-a man of business and social standing,-say that if there was money to be made, Hall could digest
cobble-stones; and is it reasonable to suppose that he would
make Mr. Bush a present of $6,000, or was it because Mr. Bush
was entitled to those lands under the arrangement with Barnard? Is it reasonable for this Court to suppose for one moment
that Mr. Hall made Bush a present of nineteen hundred and
sixty acres of land as his share of the plunder; and is it reasonable to suppose that Mr. Barnard did not have any interest in
this transaction, when Mr. Hall says he had frequent talks




1678     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
with Mr. Barnard? Barnard's letters show that the land was
looked for him, for him and Bush together, and they were to
divide the plunder. We cannot come to any other conclusion
than this: that there was an arrangement made by which
these lands were to be held upon Hall's contract, and Barnard
was interested in them.  What arrangement he may have
made with him since,-whether he sold out to Hall or whether
the lands are being held on Hall's contract,-we do not know,
but it seems that nineteen hundred and sixty acres have been
set off as Bush's share.
Then, we say, that their claim here, that the lands that
Barnard sold were not the lands of the State, falls to the
ground; for the reason, first, that if they were reserved upon
Hall's contract, they could not be reserved except upon unmatured scrip, and that unmatured scrip cannot give any title.
The party has no interest in the land, any further than the
reservation, until he has completed his contract, and the title
of the land remains in the State until that completion. I
refer you to these things, to show you, conclusively, what the
arrangement was between Barnard and Bush, and what the
arrangement was between Hall and Barnard. So that the
lands that were patented to Mr. Iudson, and to these other
parties, were the lands of the State of Michigan, and Barnard
received pay for them, and Barnard has not, according to the
testimony, paid Hall anything for them. Potter does not say
that he has paid hinl anything; Hall was upon the stand, and
they dare not interrogate him  as to whether larnard was to
pay him for the scrip. There has been nothing paid to Hall
for any of these lands.
It would have been an easy matter, if Edmonds had not had
knowledge of these transactions-the transactions of Barnard
-to have gone upon the stand and so stated. It was a right
he had. It has been claimed, from the commencement of this
trial, that he wished to purge himself of these transactions.
Why did he not do it, then, instead of getting up this subterfuge, which you can see, amounts to nothing; which tacitly




PROCEEDINGS OF T-HE COURT.                  167
adriits the fact that we charge, that the lands belonged to the
State?
Now, I wish to call your attention to the land up in Gratiot
county, that Mr. Clarke bought; and I think there is conclusive testimony here that the Commissioner had knowledge of
this transaction. That they have no right to deal in lands is
an admitted fact, and that the Commissioner has no right to
allow them to deal in lands I suppose will not be denied. Now,
it seems that Clarke and Van Dunham  went up into Gratiot
county to look at a certain piece of licensed land. They were
gone several days. We think the Commissioner must have had
knowledge of their absence. That they returned and made an
application for this land, and upon that application we find
the indorsement of Mr. Edmonds, as shown by his chief clerk.
the indorsement being in his own handwriting, in which he
directs the land to be patented with the scrip, and charged to
WVm. A. Barnard & Co. N\ow, that shows that these clerks
made their application directly to the Commissioner.
That is not all. Turn to the record of licensed land, and you
will find that the entry is in Mr. Edmonds' handwriting, where
he has entered the filing of the proofs of non-settlement; so there
is, in that transaction, two entries in Edmonds' handwriting;
which show that he must have had knowledge of this transact;ion; and we claim that it would hardly seem reasonable to
suppose that these parties could go off and buy these lands and
he make these entries, and yet not know what they were about.
The piece of land that was sold to Dwinell, you will remember,
out of which Mr. Van Dunham made twenty-five dollars, was
a piece of land selected by Mr. Bush and reserved. Mr. Barnard
told him  it was all right. Mr. Van Dunham tells him, when
Marr comes after that, he could make some money out of it;
he told him it was worth one thousand dollars. He went over
to Mason, and got his wife's cousin to make an application,
and Mr. Barnard tells Mr. Marr, when he comes here, that Mr.
Van Dunham has gone to see the man, to see if he can get a
title; and I suppose, that at that very time, Van Dunham had




1680      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
gone over to Mason. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that Mr.
Edmonds had no knowledge of this? The application, in this
case, was made to Barnard, instead of to Van Dunham. It
seems to me, that this transaction could not have happened in
this office, without the Commissioner having knowledge of it.
We claim that the evidence shows conclusively that Barnard
was a large dealer in lands, and that many of the clerks were
dealing in lands, and that Edmonds must have had knowledge
of the fact.
I desire to call your attention to Article III., in regard to
these licensed lands, growing directly out of the scrip trade.
This selling of licensed land arises from, and I think I shall be
able to show this Court that Mr. Edmonds was interested in
the sale of all of these lands, and that he had knowledge ot'
all that was going on; that he made money out of every sale
that was made; that he made money out of the sale to Bouck;
that he made money out of the sale to Woolover; that he
made money out of the sale to Conley, because they all bought
their scrip of Wm. A. Barnard & Co. Now I wish to call your
attention first to the changing of the rule,-and we think that
is material in this case. We charge him with changing the
rule in October. He admits in his answer that he changed the
rule. It is an admitted fact that, prior to that time, licensed
land could not be located except upon the filing of proof of
non-settlement or abandonment; that is an admitted fact in
the case. The evidence of Porter, shows that up to the first of
June, it was the rule to require proofs in all cases, and we have
no reason to suppose that there was any different rule until
October; and we claim  that under the law of 1865, there
was no necessity at all of filing this three months' proof.
They have claimed in cases where the lands were licensed
after 1865 that the Commissioner had decided that no proof
was required, and is it not a little strange,-is it not a little
significant,-that when this rule was changed, that the very first
purchase that was made was on the 19th day of October, and
was made by Mr. Cornell, of Coldwater, in which Van Dun



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1681
ham had an interest,-the confidential clerk of the Commissioner. Is it not strange that Cornell, living down at Coldwater, should find out about this matter before anybody living
up in the northern part of the State should have any knowledge of it?
The records show the fact that there are not one quarter of
the cases, in which licenses have been issued, where proof has
been filed; while it was notorious that there are hundreds of
men living on the land that had their homes, orchards, and
improvements. Is it not a notorious fact that since the passage of this act of 1855, that these proofs of settlement and
occupancy were not required? It was known in the office.
Mr. Edmonds must have known it. Is it not a little significant that the rule should be changed in October, and that Cornell should pop down on poor Bouck the first thing,-that
Van Dunham  should have a half interest in the matter?
Is it not strange that he did not put a notice in the
newspaper to  look  out for  these  land-sharks, to the
men  that  were  living  away  back  fifty  or  sixty
miles in the wilderness, to beware, look out, and to file
their proofs, for he was going to sell that land, if they did not
do it, under the law of 1861? The very next sale is the 26th
of October. Down Cornell pops on poor Woolover! Dunham
has a half interest in this, also; and Edmonds and Barnard
have an interest in the scrip. A few days afterwards they pop
down on Conley; he had fifty acres chopped, fifteen acres improved, had built a frame house, and paid the balance, over and
above the eighty dollars, into the Treasury. After the scrip
was issued, and he came down here, Edmonds & Co. make ten
dollars out of that transaction. It is a little significant that
all these sales were made in the same way.
There is another thing I wish to call your attention to, right
here: After Mr. Woolover's land was sold, and I came, as the
evidence shows, to the office, to see if he could not get a title
to the lands, and talked with Edmonds, as the evidence also
211




1682     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
shows, when I desired to find out if there was not some one in
that office that represented Cornell, out of the seventeen
clerks in the office, he should escort me into the private office,
and then bring out of the seventeen clerks, Mr Van Dunham,
the very man that had a half interest in the Woolover land'
How came he to light upon Van Dunham, if Van Dunham
had no interest in the transaction?  Why did he bring Van
Dunham in there to consult with me in regard to compromising with poor Woolover, if he had no knowledge of this
transaction?
May it please this Court, we find that the statute of this
State provides that " In case of any sale made by mistake, or
not in accordance with law, or obtained by fraud, the same
shall be void; and no certificate of purchase issued thereon
shall be of any effect; but the holder of any such certificate
shall be required to surrender the same to the Commissioner,
who shall thereupon refund the amount paid, in the like funds
received by him  on such certificate."  Now, mark you, "In
case of any sale made by mistake, or not in accordance with
law, or obtained by fraud, the same shall be void."
By one of the Senators-Where is that?
Mr..Manager Huston-It is section 3871, 1st volume, Compiled Laws of 1871.
Now, I think there is a point, right here, upon which I can
satisfy this Court, in one moment, that there is something rotten here, if I may be permitted to make use of that expression,
and that Mr. Edmonds must have been interested in these transactions. You will remember that Mr. Bartholomew, the deputy
treasurer, testifies that this certificate to Bouck was canceled because it was an erroneous sale. It was canceled, I suppose, under
this statute I have read. If it was canceled under that statute,
under what authority did Mr. Edmonds sell it to Cornell?
He says he sold it because the three months' proof was not
filed. The counsel says he had no alternative; when a party
demanded those lands he must sell them. He had no discretion; the law of 1861 pressed upon him the imperative neces



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1683
sity of selling these lands. Then I ask, what authority he had
in buying those lands, and to take fifty dollars out of the
Treasury and give it to Cornell? If Bouck had forfeited his
claim under his license, then he had no rights under that
license; and I ask by what authority he took that money out of
the Treasury and gave it to Cornell, and by what authority
he gave Bouck that forty acres of land? Has he any right to
cancel a sale that was legal? If he assumes to cancel a sale,
I submit it to any lawyer in this Court, if that sale to Cornell
was legal, could he have canceled it and transferred that sale
from Cornell to Bouck? If poor Bouck ever had any title to
that land, he has it to-day. There can be no doubt about it.
If he has got the title to that land, then Edmonds has taken fifty
dollars out of the Treasury and made a present of it to
Cornell, which he had no right to do. Mr. Conley wrote
here to the Commissioner to know what he should do to keep
his little homestead in the woods, where he had been laboring
for five years. That letter was received the 19th day of December; it is officially stamped the 19th of December; on the
20th of December a certificate is issued to Hoyt for that land;
on the 21st of December it is paid for by Hoyt, or by Barnard
& Co., into the State Treasury, and upon the 22d day of December a patent is issued to Hoyt, Edmonds & Co. making ten
dollars and fifty cents on the scrip, it being over forty acres,
and Van Dunham gets a part of his one hundred and twentyfive dollars that he got of Hoyt. The patent is issued and delivered to Van Dunham  as agent. Now, why was it that he
could cancel Cornell's sale after the certificate was issued, after
Cornell had been up there after poor Bouck? And if lie could
cancel that certificate, why did he not have the power to refuse
in this case, before the certificate was issued? Why did he not
have the authority to say to Mr. Hoyt, There is a man on that
land; we have the notice in the office; we cannot sell this
land,-there is a settler upon it?  No, but when poor Bouck
and his oxen are gone, when he had acted as agent, and they
had taken Bouck's oxen away from him, he could cancel the




1684     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
sale and pay fifty dollars out of the Treasury back to Cornell;
but when Mr. Conley asks him " What shall I do to prove up
my claim?" they know  they can make their profit on their
scrip, and they say to themselves, they will sell the land to Hoyt.
They say nothing about that matter, although they claim there
was a little something mysterious about it. They say nothing
to Conley about it. There is something strange about that
transaction, very strange, indeed; and you will readily come to
the conclusion that if he had a right to cancel the Bouck certificate, he had certainly the right to withhold issuing a certificate
to Mr. Hoyt; but if he withheld the certificate to Mr. Hoyt, the
result would be, that they would not get their profit upon
their scrip. That is one of the evils of this scrip trade; they
would not get the profit that they were entitled to. Now, this
is a matter that the evidence shows clearly here; there cannot
be any doubt about it. It seems to me that the position of the
Bouck case illustrates just this fact: that this Court must
either come to the conclusion that he wrongfully sold the land
to Cornell and corruptly sold it to him, or he fraudulently
canceled the certificate and took the fifty dollars out of the
Treasury. There can be no escape from that conclusion.
I desire to call your attention to the decision of the Supreme
Court, that was read by the counsel for the respondent, in
which he claims that he gathers the authority that the three
months' proof in these cases must be filed: "The objections to
the bill are numerous. It is not only defective for want of
material matter, but is likewise defective for want of fullness, clearness, and directness of statement, in respect to
the matter it shadows forth; the law requires the settler, as a
condition upon which his right depends, to perform certain
acts and refrain from  others, and in case of disobedience,
avoids his claim and authorizes the Commissioner of the Land
Office to sell the land as other swamp lands are sold. It was
necessary in any admissible view of the case, for the complainant to show in the bill, by statements of what he had done
and abstained from doing, that he had substantially complied




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1685
with the requirements of the statutes under which he claims.
The State having the right to prescribe the terms upon which
it would allow settlement, and having prescribed the terms, it
is incumbent upon one who bases his claim upon the law of
settlement, to show that in all substantial particulars he has
complied with these terms. This bill, however, contains no
statement of such facts, nor does it show, even in a general
way, that the provisions of the law have been observed."
Now, this decision refers to a case where the license was is
sued before the statute of 1865. I think the bill shows that
the license was issued in 1862. The party became a settler
upon the land in 1862, and it shows further that this party fled
-it being in the time of the rebellion-that he fled to Canada,
and abandoned the land; and the question in regard to this
three months' proof is not raised in the case. It simply says,
that the party must have substantially complied with the statute, and I cannot believe for a moment that, after the party
had made his improvements and complied with the statute and
was on the land, and that, if another party bought the land,
knowing that the settler was upon the land, I do not believe
for a moment that the Supreme Court would have decided
that settler could not hold the land because he had not sent
in his three months' proof. And that is all there is of the case.
The point, as you will see, in regard to the three months' proof,
is not referred to in the case at all. Now, this statute of 1865
provides that "The People of the State of Michigan enact,
that any swamp land licensed under and by virtue of act number two hundred and twenty-nine of the Session Laws of eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, and all acts amendatory thereto,
from and after the expiration of five years from the date of the
license, may be sold by the Commissioner of the State Land
Office the same as other swamp lands are now sold: Provided,
It shall appear from the affidavit of the supervisor, or two responsible citizens of the township in which the lands are situated, that no settlement has been made by the original licensee,
as contemplated in the act licensing the same; that said li



1686      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
censee has no valuable improvements thereon; also, that such
licensee cannot claim exemption under the provisions of section eighty-seven of act number sixteen of the Session Laws
of eighteen hundred and sixty-two."
Now, this refers to all licensed land, that it may be sold,
-shall be sold. The word "may" means the same thing in
this act,-after five years, all licensed land, providing there
has been no settlement upon it. Now, we apprehend, that that
provision applies to every license issued after the act of 1865,
and that the proviso is, that it cannot be sold without this
proof,-the proof of non-settlement in this case; and where the
land had been settled, or where proof of settlement had been
filed, which would be the same thing to the office, then there
should be the evidence of abandonment; and it seems to me
that there can be no other construction upon this statute,
except that it applies to all cases of licensed land, at least where
lands have been licensed since the passage of this act, and that
there is no exception in it in regard to three months' proof at
all, as you will sec by examiining the statute.
The Court here took an informal recess for five minutes..AITER'  RECESS.
MIr. Manager luston resumed his argument as follows:
Mr. President and Senators: At the time the Court took a
recess, I was speaking with regard to this statute of 1865. I
do not think it worth while to spend any more time upon that
statute than to simply remark that I understand the rule to be
in court in reference to a matter of that kind, even if the law
of 1861 applied,-that if the law was substantially complied
with, as it was complied with in all these cases, and the parties
were in possession, and other parties purchased the land with
knowledge of the fact that they were in possession, that the
court would hold that the party in possession would be entitled
to the land.
The evidence shows, in this case, that Cornell went down to
Shiawassee, examined this land, found that Bouck was in pos



PROCEEDINGS OF TIHE COURT.                1687
session before he purchased the land. He went up to Tuscola
county, and he found Woolover was in possession before he
bought that land. Mr. Hoyt knew that Conley was in possession before he bought that land, and that these parties had
been on their land,-that they had gone on there in good faith;
that they had made these improvements under the law; that
they had put up their buildings; that they had complied with
the act of Congress in draining the land; that they had done
everything that was material to the State; that they had, so
far as it would cost them anything, so far as the interest of the
State was concerned, they complied substantially, by making
their improvements, and they had purchased their lands by
those improvements, and by living upon their lands over five
years,-all three of them; and that they were entitled to a
patent from the State.
But can it be claimed-will this Court, by their vote, saythat Conley was not entitled to a patent for his land after he
had been on there the five years, and after he had notified the
Commissioner of the Land Office before any sale was made to
Mr. Hoyt?  Now, it will be claimed that Hoyt applied for
these lands upon the fourteenth. His application seems to
have been dated on that day, and it is in the handwriting of Mr.
Van Dunham. So it shows that one of the clerks of the office
drew up and made the application, and the patent was issued and
delivered on the 22d, three days after Conley's letter was received.
The patent was made and delivered to Van Dunham for Hoyt.
Now, I say, will this Court say by their vote upon this Article,
that Conley, under these circumstances, was not entitled to his
patent after he had done what he had done upon that land,after he had made his land, as he swears, worth one thousand
dollars,-Mr. Woolover swears that his was worth one thousand
dollars,-that they were not under the law of 1865 or 1861
entitled to their patents from the State, and that these parties
were not fraudulent purchasers?  We claim that they purchased, knowing full well what the rights of these parties
were, and that they had spent their time and their labor there




1688     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
to make them homes, and they were entitled to their patents
for their lands, and they ought to have had them. And
especially when you take into consideration the fact that I have
called your attention to, that the Commissioner claimed and
exercised the right to cancel the sale to Cornell, after Bouck
had lost his oxen.
I understand, incidentally, that my brother Shipman has
taken Shakspeare, and all the other poets, out of the Library,
and I submit, whether he can prove by Shakspeare, that Mr.
Edmonds had a right to cancel, in one case, which was not his
duty in the other case,-to withhold the certificate from Hoyt,
and issue it to Conley. I do not think Shakspeare knew a
great deal about swamp land.
Mr. Cummings, you will remember, testified that he came
up here and saw the Commissioner. He applied to the Commissioner, to see if he could not get a title for Mr. Bouck's
land. He felt interested for Bouck, because he was a poor
man. Cornell says that there was one of Bouck's neighbors
desired to have him purchase the land, because Bouck was not
a very good neighbor,-he wanted to get him out of the neighborhood. Now, you will place just as much dependence on
Cornell's testimony as you choose; but whether that was so or
not, does not matter. I do not believe that this Court will
place a great deal of confidence in the testimony of any witness that would do what Cornell did in this case. A man that
would go into a party's house, as Cornell did into Bouck's
house, and there get Bouck's certificate of license, and get the
description, and see whether the minutes he had compared with
Bouck's to be sure that he was making no mistake, for the purpose of buying Bouck's home,-I say I do not believe that this
Court will place a great deal of stress upon the testimony of that
kind of a man. He shows that he had no compunctions of
conscience in robbing a poor man of his home. You will remember that Cummings testified when he called upon the
Commissioner, that he said to the Commissioner that he
would have no objection to paying thirty or forty dollars if this




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1689
matter could be arranged, and that the Commissioner made no
objection to the proposition. He said he thought it was necessary to "grease the wheels a little." And he made the proposition, and the Commissioner said he would see Cornell, and
see what arrangement could be made. And after he had seen
Cornell, he writes to Cummings that he had seen Cornell,
and that the certificate  would be canceled if the party
would pay $165, and he would refund the $50, making
it only $115 that Bouck would have to pay for his land.
But it seems it was not arranged in that way, and Bouck had
to give up the only team he had; and after he had done this,
Edmonds canceled the certificate. If their position is true, he
had no right to do it, and I submit to this Court that here is a
fraud that you cannot escape. You must hold, either the sale
was corrupt or the cancelation was corrupt.  He had no
authority and could not transfer the title from Cornell to the
State. He is an officer of the State to sell land. He is not an
officer of the State to buy land. He could not buy the title of
Cornell. He could not transfer it from Cornell to the State,
and from the State to Bouck, and Shakspeare will not help
Mr. Shipman out of that dilemma.
I do not know what the statement of Mr. Manager Cochrane
may have been with reference to the Fourth Article,-the conspiracy with Mr. Patrick,-but we make no claim under that
Article.
I desire to call your attention to Article V., with regard
to dealing in scrip; and my first proposition in regard to that
Article is,-I think the testimony shows it conclusively, as I
can show to the Court,-that the Commissioner, when he first
came to the office, in the first or second week of his term,
made a corrupt bargain with Mr. Porter; made a bargain that
he had no right to make; that he then and there agreed with
Porter that he should conduct the business in scrip, the same
as it had been conducted during the previous administration;
that Mr. Porter, according to his testimony, explained to him
212




1690     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
fully,-as you will see by an examination of his evidence,that it was the custom to receive money for lands, retain the
money, put it in an envelope, lay it one side, and enter up the
land with scrip. Now, if he made such a bargain, although
there may not have been any land entered under that contract
that he entered into with his Deputy, we claim that it was corruption; that he made a contract by which he authorized
Porter, if he received money for land, to enter the land with
scrip and keep the money. Now, I desire to call your attention to the statute upon that subject.  Section 3942 of the
Compiled Laws of 1871 is as follows:
" All moneys heretofore received, and all moneys hereafter
received, from the sales of said swamp lands donated by the
aforesaid act of Congress, after deducting the expenses of sales,
fifty per cent shall be denominated a primary school fund,
and the interest thereof, at five per centum  per annum, shall
be appropriated and distributed in like manner as the primary
school fund of this State; and fifty per cent shall be denominated a swamp land fund, and the interest thereof, at five per
centum, shall be paid over annually to the order of the board
of supervisors of the several counties, in the proportion in
which the same is received from the sales in suid counties respectively, to be used, as said board shall direct, in draining
and reclaiming swamp lands in said county; and all the moneys received on such sales as aforesaid, after deducting the
expenses as aforesaid, shall be used and applied to the payment of the outstanding indebtedness of the State, in the
order in which it shall fall due."
Now, we say he made a corrupt bargain, in violation of that
statute. If the evidence convinces you that he made any such
bargain as I have stated, in regard to scrip, it was in violation
of that statute; a violation by which, if money was sent here
to locate land, and the Commissioner paid for it in scrip,
he thus defrauded the funds referred to (the funds for drainage
and the primary school fund), out of the amount sent. If one
hundred dollars was sent here for the purpose of purchasing




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1691
land and he entered the land with scrip, he defrauded the primary school fund of fifty dollars, and he defrauded the drainage
fund of the other fifty dollars, thus taking so much money out'
of the Treasury that should have been applied upon the payment of the public debt. Now, he made such a bargain, —such
is the testimony. Counsel say that the Commissioner, according to Porter's own testimony, commanded Porter to desist
from that practice; but Porter says that, according to his recollection, the time they had that conversation was after the
first of June; it was after the time he ceased to be Deputy in
the office. But I wish to call your attention to the records in
the case, and if you will look on page 67, at the answer of the
Commissioner, you will find this significant fact, that he says
that he dismissed his Deputy and that this practice then ceased.
He seeks to justify himself. He admits by his own answer that
it was the practice, and that it ceased upon the dismissal of his
Deputy, so that it is an admitted fact, in this case, that that
was the practice up to the time that the Deputy was dismissed,
on the first of June. We then say that the contract was fraudulent; but we have the evidence of Porter that there were
cases of that kind, according to his own recollection, and we
have the admission of the Commissioner in his answer that the
practice did not cease until he dismissed his Deputy.
We have another piece of testimony that I desire to call your
attention to, in connection with this point,-that is, the testimony of Coffron. Counsel who presented the case for the
respondent, yesterday said that he was glad that Coffron was
here, and that they have his testimony, and he eulogizes the
honesty and integrity of the Commissioner because he sent the
seventeen dollars back to Mr. Coffron; that he only took out
of it his percentage upon the scrip.
Now, the evidence is, that Coffron sent to the Commissioner
after the time that Mr. Porter was discharged, when Mr. Barnard was the Deputy, and the fact that Mr. Edmonds had
knowledge of this, I submit the argument of counsel shows,
because he claims that Mr. Edmonds sent this money back,




1692     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and that it was to his credit; then we say this was after the
time that Mr. Barnard was Deputy, and that Mr. Edmonds
had knowledge of this fact; but they say that because this
forty acres was fractional, and as Coffron did not send money
enough, they assume to enter this land with scrip, and the money, over and above the par value of the scrip, was returned
him in a check for the amount. Now, under what authority did
the Commissioner do that? What right had he to do that? What
law authorizes him to do it? Was it his duty when he received
this $50, to buy forty acres, to enter it in scrip? Is there any
law of this State that gave him the right to change the money
into scrip? Why, they say that was fractional. What was
the fraction?  Thirty-hundredths. The fraction cost thirty
seven cents; thirty-seven cents the fraction cost. Now, how
easy a matter it would have been for the Commissioner to have
notified Mr. Coffron that he had not sent money enough, and
that he would have to send thirty-seven cents more. But,
whether he chose to do that, or not, if I, or any one of you, sent
forty dollars or fifty dollars, or five hundred dollars here, to
buy a tract of land, the Commissioner has no right, his
Deputy has no right, because the amount falls a few cents
short of the amount necessary to pay for the land we
want, to enter that land  with  scrip, and  retain  the
money. The Commissioner defrauds those funds, and there
is no escape from the conclusion. Suppose, for illustration,
that a person had sent ten thousand dollars to the Commissioner to buy a tract of land and the tract came to ten thousand dollars and ten cents. Would any one in this Court
claim that because he could make a thousand dollars, being
ten per cent on his scrip, that he would have a right to enter
the land, and pay in ten thousand dollars in scrip and pocket
the nine thousand dollars in money and send a thousand dollars back to the party that sent it, making his thousand dollars profit? If he could do it in the Coffron case, he could do
in the other. There can be no escape from the conclusion.
It makes no difference what the amount of money was,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1693
whether it was fifty dollars or fifty thousand,-the conclusion
is the same. Suppose the fraction had been instead of thirty
one-hundredths, five one-hundredths, which would have taken
six cents. Would not it have been the same? And suppose the
fraction, as it is in some cases, had been one-hundredth, and it had
taken a cent and one-eighth to have paid for it more than the
amount of money sent. Could he have done this thing?  If
he could have done it in this case he could have done it in the
case of a thousand dollars, and there is no escape from this
conclusion; and I say that he had no authority to do anything
of the kind. When he did that, he violated the law of the
State, and he defrauded the State under this statute, and there
is no escape from it; and we say that that evidence shows that
he violated this statute in this case. If I send money here to
buy land and do not send enough, that is a fault of mine. I
have not made the Commissioner of the Land Office my agent
to transact my business. The people of the State of Michigan
have not made him Mr. Coffron's agent to buy land for scrip,
when Coffron sends money. Not at all: nor when anybody
else sends money. Then we say, that under Coffron's testimony, independent of Porter's testimony, and independent of
his own admission, you cannot escape the conclusion that he
violated the law in regard to this matter, and that you must
hold him to be guilty of the charges brought against him in
this Fifth Article. I take the position, gentlemen, that it
is corrupt conduct in office for the Commissioner to deal
in scrip,-that he has no right to deal in scrip,-that no
public officer has a right to engage in any business, when
he assumes the duties of a public officer, that is injurious
to the public.  I know  that I am  touching a question
now, in regard to which, perhaps, some  Senators may
differ with me; for I am aware that the trade in scrip has been,
to a certain extent, indorsed, or considered allowable, by at
least a portion of the people of this State; but, that it is the
father of numerous evils, there can be no doubt. I claim that
no officer has a right to enter into any business in con



1694     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
nection with his office, that is injurious to the people,of
the State, and that the Commissioner, when he enters into
the practice of dealing in  scrip, enters into  a business
that he has no right to engage in, and the whole tendency
of which is bad. It is just like the fugitive slave law
in its tendencies. You all remember that the fugitive slave
law provided that if the justice remanded the fugitive to
service he was to have ten dollars, and if he did not, he was to
have but five dollars. If the Commissioner gave Mr. Conley
his land, he did not get anything; if he gave it to Mir. Hoyt
he got ten dollars and a half. That is one of the evils that
arise from this practice. Mr. B. applies for five thousand acres
of land, and the legal rights are in his favor. He applies for
five thousand dollars' worth of land. Mr. A. applies for the
same land. Mr. B. has the scrip to buy this land with. Mr.
A. when he gets land is going to buy the scrip of William A.
Barnard & Co. If they let Mr. A. have the land, William A.
Barnard & Co. make five thousand dollars. If they let Mr. B.
have the land, they do not make anything. That is a direct
bribe, and the arrangement has been to draw in all the scrip.
They say that the Land Office is the headquarters of all these
contractors. The Commissioner deals in scrip, and it is brought
in there; and the evils arising out of this dealing, as I say, are
numerous, and it must necessarily be so; because whenever
sales can  be made, whether it is licensed land or other
land, and paid for in their scrip, this is a direct inducement.
a direct bribe, for the Commissioner to decide, especially, where
there are contending parties, in favor of the party that will
buy the scrip of them; and the practice has become a nefarious one. It is against public interest, it is against the public
service, and ought not to be allowed for a moment; and I do
not believe to-day that Woolover's land would have been sold,
that Conley's land would have been sold, that Bouck's land
would have been sold, if it had not been for that practice.
It seems to me that the Court must come to this conclusion,
so far as this buying and selling of scrip is concerned, although




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1695
counsel claims that if he was a banker somewhere else, he
would have a right to engage in this business. It seems to me
that as regards the Commissioner, who has the control of the
selling of these lands, that you must come to the conclusion,
readily, that it is a practice that ought not to be allowed, and
it must necessarily lead to corruption.
There is another evil I wish to call your attention to, and
the evidence foreshadows it: This has been the means of taking thousands and tens of thousands of dollars out of the
school fund, and out of the drainage fund; and you can
accept no other conclusion, you can expect no other result, if
the Commissioner is allowed to deal in scrip, but that extra
pains will be taken to call the attention of everybody that is
buying land, to the fact that they can get their lands cheaper
by buying their scrip of them, or allowing them to enter it up
in scrip. The question has been asked here, Why was Mr.
Canfield brought here from Niagara Falls?  It was for the
very reason, he was a man residing out of this State; he did
not know that there was any such thing as swamp land scrip;
he never had any knowledge of it in his life, until he was told
by the Deputy Commissioner that he could get his land
cheaper by buying the scrip; and he buys his land at four dollars, and some at two dollars,-and he bought the scrip of
them. That is the direct tendency; and is it to be presumed
that if a man should come into that office, from another State,
that had no knowledge of this scrip, that they would not
notify him of this fact? And if they did notify him, I submit that it is wrong.  When a man comes into the Commissioner's office, as Mr. Canfield did, to buy land, and
he expects to pay the money for the land, it is just
the same as if he sent the money by mail. If he goes there to
buy a thousand dollars' worth of land, and expects to pay his
thousand dollars into the Treasury for it, the primary school
fund would hae ve five hundred dollars, and the drainage fund
five hundred dollars; and Mr. Edmonds says to him, Here, we
can sell you the scrip and you can take the land with that.




1696    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
He thus defrauds those funds. He gives him a notice that he
has no right to give him, and he violates his duty as a public
officer. So we say that the evidence shows that he should be
convicted under this Article V. The evidence of Porter is
that there were some cases of this kind. The evidence of Coffron is direct upon that point, and we say that the practice,
outside of the purchase of land with scrip when money is sent,
shows that this ought not to be allowed, and that it is a corrupt practice.
I call your attention to Article VI. I will read the article.
"ARTICLE VI.
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, during his official term as such Commissioner, to
wit: from about the first day of January, 1871, to the 28th
day of March, 1872, unmindful of the high and responsible
duties of his office, of his oath of office, and disregarding the
rights of the people of this State, and for the corrupt and unlawful purpose of personal benefit and gain, did appoint and
keep in his office, as clerks, certain men of dissolute habits and
character, and unworthy the high trust and confidence necessarily required of men in their positions, and did also allow
his clerks in office, in violation of the laws of this State, to
purchase, directly or indirectly, from the State, lands for sale
in said Land Office, and to be interested in purchases made in
the name of others, directly and indirectly, and to traffic, and
corruptly sell and get unlawful gain, in the sale of valuable
information contained in such office, within their knowledge
as such clerks, and to act as the agents, for reward, of certain
land-dealers, in entering land, thus giving such dealers an
undue advantage over others seeking the entry of lands at said
office.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then, and there guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in office."
Now, the counsel says, in speaking of this Article, that men




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1697
who get drunk very frequently, or generally, —   don't know as
I have the term exactly,-are the most scrupulous in regard
to their dealings in reference to honesty; and I must confess I
was a little surprised at the remarks of the counsel upon this
Article, and the eulogy he paid to that class of men. I do not
believe his position is correct.  It may be that there are
cases where parties are in the habit of drinking intoxicating
liquors to excess,-where men of dissolute habits as named in
this Article, in their dealing with their fellow men are honest;
but that that is the rule, and that the Commissioner had a
right to treat it as the rule, I deny. That men like Van Dunham, that he knew was away from his office day after day, as
the evidence shows,-that men who were before the courts for
being drunk and disorderly,-that a man who was in the habit
of visiting houses of ill-fame,-and if there is anything on the
face of God's earth that will make a man disregard his duties,
make him  untrustworthy, where he has to handle public
moneys, it is running to these places,-that men of this stamp
should be retained in the office, is an outrage upon the peeple
of this State. I deny the position, and I claim that, as a general rule, such men are not to be trusted, and that the Commissioner had knowledge of these facts. He says that the Legislature have been in the habit of electing men of that character.
I don't know whether that is so or not; but I say this, so far
as my knowledge goes, no man of that character ever got my
vote, or ever will. If that is the practice, if that is to be the
course commended, if this Court is to be asked to indorse the
doctrine of the gentleman, then I want to know it; and if that
is not to be the practice, if it is not for the interest of the
State, or if that has been the practice heretofore, I think it is
a good time for the Senate of the State of Michigan to make a
record on that question. I think it is a good time for the
people of the State of Michigan to say that they do not believe and do not indorse that doctrine. I do not believe that
this Court will endorse any such doctrine. I don't believe that
213




1698     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
any of you believe what he claims. He says that when a merchant,
or a banker, or any one of you, hire a man to work, you do not
ask the question. If the} is a banker in the Senate,-I don't
know whether there is or lnot,-I don't believe if he is a prudent man, and looks after his business, that he would, a single
day, trust Van Dunham or Clarke. A man that lives in daily
violation of the law, a man that would steal land from the
State of Michigan, would steal money from a bank, or from his
employer.  The idea that a man would keep in his office,
cashiers or clerks, handling other folks' money, that were in
the habit of becoming intoxicated, or visiting houses of illfame, is monstrous. I do not believe any of you would trust
them at all. I do not believe it is the duty of the Commissioner to trust any such men, and he must have knowledge of
such facts.
They say it was the twenty-fourth of April,-they were particular in fixing this time,-they had such a drunk at the
Chapman House, because they wanted to fix it before the act
took effect. They say it was in April, 1871. Some of their witnesses say he was not drunk, but he was there to get Van Dunham and Griswold to bed. Then we say he had knowledge of
their habits over a year ago, even if he did not have knowledge
of that fact before he put them in office at all. But that is
not all. Down here at the Lansing House, according to the
testimony, the Commissioner of the Land Office of the State
of Michigan was in a room  with Van Dunham, Clarke,
and Bowen, and there, in that room, they were drinking champagne until Bowen and Clarke were so drunk that
they did not know where they were going on the streets,
and could not tell what they did do. They were intoxicated
and yet there is no pretense that the Commissioner tried to
stop it. He was one of the party. Suppose the Governor of
the State of Michigan should come to Lansing, and take the
Auditor General-if he could-and the Secretary of State, and
various other officers to a room in the Lansing House, and
they should all get drunk there, the same as Mr. Edmonds did




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1699
with his clerks: Would that be considered a light matter?
Would it not be considered that the Governor was disgracing
his position as Governor of the State of Michigan? Would
you not all come to that conclusion at once? And the idea,
to me, is monstrous, for a State officer, having young men
under his control and in his employ, whose characters are not
yet fully formed,-that he should take them and be with them,
-they looking up to him as one of the trusted officers of this
noble State,-that he should drink with them until he got
them so drunk they did not know what they were about,until they became, as Clark testified, " unconscious." It seems
to me that the example is one that should be denounced and
branded by this Court as infamous.
That is not all. This Commissioner, according to the testi.
mony of Mr. Baker,-and this matter is not confined to the
Chapman House,-was seen to seen to come from that house
of ill-fame that has been mentioned here, with one of his
clerks-a clerk who dare not swear on the stand whether he
had been there or not. He claimed his right to not testify,
because it would disgrace him. If he had not been there, be
would have said, No. He said the Commissioner was not there;
Baker says he was there. Mr. McGowan says you cannot believe Mr. Baker. There have been four respectable witnesses
who swear that they have never heard his reputation questioned. Now, if a person's reputation is not questioned, the
presumption is that it is good. You may select the best men
in the community where you reside, and you will find that
they have never been questioned; and if you put a party on
the stand to testify that he never heard his character questioned, that is the best evidence that his reputation-that his
character-is good. That is the evidence we always get on
these questions. And how is it? Mr. Baker says he went
down there about ten o'clock. He had a man with him-the
under-sheriff of Eaton county. And when he saw the Commissioner and Griswold come out of the house, he said to that
man, "There goes our Land Commissioner, and one of his




1700     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
clerks, Mr. Griswold."  Now, how did this happen, if it was
not true?  That was nearly a year ago. Why should Baker
make such a statement? Did he expect that Edmonds was to
be put on trial at that time?  Did he expect that the Commissioner would be impeached? Was he preparing testimony?
Not at all. Bosworth says he made that statement. Here
Baker's testimony is corroborated. Then, I say, we have the
evidence, not only that he was with his clerks at the Lansing
House and the Chapman House, at the drunken carousals,
but we have the evidence of that one case, that he had frequented a house of ill-fame; and, I say, it is monstrous to say
that this Court would uphold one of the trusted officers of
this State under such a state of facts. He has no right to expect it at your hands.
I desire now to call your attention to the testimony of Mr.
Alderman, and to this article in reference to gratuities, and see
whether there was any violation of the law in that matter.
Section 3872, Compiled Laws'71, reads as follows:
" The said Commissioner shall, whenever it satisfactorily appears that the chief value of any parcel of land consists of
pine, or other timber, and that, in his opinion, the interest of
the State will not be secured by a compliance with the terms
of payment prescribed in the second section of this act, require
of the purchaser fifty per centum of the purchase money to be
paid at the time of purchase, and such security for the payment of the balance of the principal, at any time thereafter, as
in his judgment will secure the respective funds against loss;
or he may, in his discretion, require full payment for the same."
I wish, while I am right here, to call the attention of the
Court to one thing that I omitted in reference to lands on 22
N., 2 W. You will remember that Allison applied for those
lands, as I have stated, and that the evidence shows that he
applied on the 30th of April, and that there had been no affidavit filed with regard to those lands until the 1st of May;
that then Mr. Thomas filed an affidavit that those lands were




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1701
not chiefly valuable for timber, and a certificate was issued for
160 acres of land.
Now, gentlemen living in the northern part of the State
know that this is the fact, that it is very frequently so these,
that lands are purchased in that way that are valuable for
pine, and the pine is taken off, and nothing more is paid on
the land, and it is allowed to go back to the State, where they
can get it upon quarter payment; and that where lands are
purchased, as they frequently are, for the timber, unscrupulous
men, land-dealers, lumbermen, very frequently manage if they
can,-and the Commissioner must necessarily have knowledge
of that matter, that they purchase lands upon quarter payment for the purpose of getting the timber off, and let the
lands go back upon the State. They do not want the land.
They buy it for the purpose of timber, and if they can manage
in any way to get the land, they take off the timber and let
the land revert back to the State. They get it for a dollar an
acre, instead of paying four dollars.
Now, let me challenge your attention, for a moment, to the
testimony of Alderman, and also to the testimony of Lawrence
and Hitchings, and to those five dollars for a cigar, and let us
see what this testimony amounts to. Alderman says that he
applied at the Land Office sometime in the fall, I think, for this
land upon IIiggin's Lake, and that he was notified, he thinks,
by Robinson, that he could not have that land without filing
the affidavit. The counsel says that Alderman's testimony is
not to be relied upon, because he said that Goddard wrote up
here in his letter, " For God's sake do something for a poor
fellow!" There is a significant fact in Alderman's testimony.
If Alderman had not seen this land, or if he did not believe
this land to be mainly valuable for timber, why did he not
make that affidavit, if he wanted the land?  Why did he go
down and tell Goddard that he could not get this land without
making the affidavit. He says the timber was principally upon
15 acres of the land.




1702     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Every lumberman in this State knows, I know, and every man who has lived in the northern part of the State knows,
that, very frequently, land that is only valuable for its timber
has that timber perhaps on only fifteen acres of land, and it has
no other value at all. Now, if Alderman wanted this land,
and if he did not believe it valuable for timber, he would have
made an affidavit. If you will refer to the testimony of Lawrence, iitchings, and Waterbury, you will find this to be the
fact, that every one of them  swore that the only value of that
land was its timber. The counsel misstated the testimony. I
do not say he misstated it intentionally, but he said they
swore that it was not valuable for timber, —that there was
no value in it at all;-but every one of them  testified that
its only value was in its timber.  Now, what is the statute?- "If it is chiefly valuable for lumber."  It makes no
difference whether it is worth a hundred dollars or worth
five hundred, if it is chiefly valuable for lumber the Commissioner has no right to sell it. Did Waterbury say it was valuable for farming purposes?  He said it was not,-there was
no value in the land. Lawrence and Hitchings said the same
thing. Then, we say that the evidence shows that the certificate was issued for this land, in which the value consisted only
in its timber; and Mr. Hitchings only went on'one direct line
with reference to this land. He might not have seen the timber.
Lawrence might not have seen the timber. It is patent upon
the face of it, that Alderman supposed it was valuable for timber, or he would have made the affidavit. Now he goes down
to Saginaw, and tells Goddard that he cannot get this land.
Alderman considered the land worth $1,000, if I remember
rightly. Goddard said he could get the land, and he wrote
this letter that has been introduced in evidence. He inclosed
the amount for the quarter payment, and he inclosed the five
dollars to buy a cigar for New Year's, as the counsel says, and
that is what he says in the letter.
Now, I submit to this Court, whether, under this state of
facts, that in this case the Commissioner, or Mr. Barnard, as




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1703
the case may be, issued this certificate in consideration of this
bribe? It was only two or three days before that Alderman
was here. Why did he not give him the certificate then, without the affidavit?
So you see here it is proven; and if they will do it in one
case they will do it in a thousand. You have this fact staring
you right in the face, that for a small amount of money, these
lands that are mainly valuable for the timber, can b3 parclas3 d,
if there is a little gratuity goes into the pocket of the Deputy
or the Commissioner. Do you suppose there would have been
any difference, if that land had been worlth five thousand dollars for its timber?  What means did the Commissioner take
to ascertain the value of this land?  They say that Ortman
told them,-Ortman had never seen the A1ud; that he had had
somebody up to look at the land. Is that the kind of information that the Commissioner proposes to take with regard to
these matters?  Why, it is the easiest thing in the world, then,
for a man to show that he has no compunctions of conscience,
and he wants to get land upon a quarter payment,-that " A.
said that land was not valuable for tinmber, and I want to get
it, —and he gets it upon the quarter payment, by making
that statement to the Commissioner,-there is no proof of it.
There is another significant fact. Goddard is a lumberman,
Alderman is a lumberman, and they wanted this land for the
lumber,-nothing else.  What did Aldelrm:in and Go.ddard
want of this land? They were partners. Did they want it for
farming purposes?  For what pnrpose did they propose to
invest their money in it? Why did they send this fifty-nine
dollars here for this land, if it was of no value?  They showed
their faith in this transaction, by an investment of mon:y,not only for the quarter payment of the land, but for the fivedollar cigar that Barnard was to sm.)ke on New Year's day.
They say that Goddard sent money to B lraLrd another time
and he returned it. Who knows whether he returned it?
What proof have you of that?  There is no evidence given us
of that kind. There may be an indorsement in Barnard's




1704      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
handwriting that the price of these was returned; but that
would be no evidence. It was an indorsement he might have
made a day before that paper was brought in. A man who
will violate the laws of this State from day to day for a year,
would not scruple to make a false entry upon paper, any more
than when he receives such a letter as that received from Conley, asking him if he would inform him what it was necessary
for him to do in regard to his land. He would not scruple to
make a false entry if it was going to put a few dollars into
his pocket. We say that, if the evidence upon this matter is
-closely examined, we believe there is no gentlemen within
the hearing of my voice who is not satisfied that it was that
five dollars that convinced Barnard that there was no pine upon
that land, and that Goddard wanted it for a farm. They knew'Goddard was a lumberman. They knew all about that. They
knew he wanted it for the timber. They knew he was not
buying it for any other purpose. They knew he was dealing in
timber himself, and buying it solely for timber. But that five
dollars convinced them that there was no timber on it; and
they sold it without any affidavit, and took the quarter payment, and that is all the State of Michigan will ever get. No
matter whether it was worth five hundred, or a thousand, or
three dollars an acre, the State of Michigan will never receive
any more, as they scarcely ever do in any of these cases.
It is claimed that the Commissioner issued rules. Now, it
is a very easy matter, in order to make the thing appear fair,
to make rules and spread them upon the table. There is one
thing very evident, that if he did issue rules, if he did give
them to his clerks, and they did read them, that they disregarded them, and that they had no force or effect upon the
employes of that office; because that shows that Barnard acted
as the agent of Hall, and has acted as the agent of Hall ever
since 1870. It is conclusive.
And now I submit, whether this is not a nefarious practice
in this office,-the idea that a man should be allowed to employ
the Deputy of that office, to act as his agent, to look over re



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1705
serves, investigate the books, make up the lists of lands and
hand them over to his other agent, Potter,-who was in the
same office,-to have them reserved? And as he says, with regard
to the order he made on Smith's land, he had no knowledge of
it until January, and it was made in November. His attention was never called to it. These arrangements were entered
into, and Barnard has acted as his agent; and it cannot be believed that he was acting there without any special compensation. He was his agent right along, and is his agent, I suppose,
to-day, for the purpose of having lands reserved; and there
can be no question, but that he was agent for the purpose of
receiving pay. You see that he has had pay. Here has been
description after description of land that he has sold, that
Barnard has paid nothing for, and it is not, I suppose, expected that he will pay anything to Hall for them.  It
is claimed that he borrowed scrip of Hall, but he has never
settled with Hall for this scrip, and Hall does not expect that
he will settle with him.
I desire to call your attention to another point in the testimony, relative to this reception of gratuities: and that is the
testimony of Mr. Robinson, so far as it bears upon the Commissioner. It seems that Robinson acts as the agent or the
clerk, in keeping the books for Preston & Co.; and that Preston & Co. are in the habit of paying to the Commissioner fifty
dollars a year, and that he sends this in a draft to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner passes it over to Robinson. Now,
I submit that if the Commissioner allows this to be done,-if
he allows Preston & Co., or any other party to send him money
for services of that kind, and passes it over to the clerks,
whether he does not, by that act, say to the clerks, that you
are authorized to enter into these kind of speculations yourselves?  How can he expect that, if he permits Robinson to
receive fifty dollars a year from Preston, that Clarke, Griswold,
and Van Dunham, and all the other clerks, if they have an
opportunity to receive money in the same way, will not do it?
214




1706     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
And they will also receive money for the purpose of reserving
lands, as well as for other purposes. Here is a direct indorsement, by the Commissioner, of this transaction. He gives the
money to Robinson; it is sent to him. It cannot be claimed
that he does not have knowledge of the transaction, under
these circumstances.
With regard to the sale of valuable information under this
Article,-you know  what the testimony is. Counsel admit
that the one hundred and twenty-five dollars that Van Dunham received, might be classed as selling valuable information;
but they claim that the Commissioner had no knowledge of
this transaction. Now, I submit to this Court whether it is to
be presumed that the Commissioner had no knowledge of this
transaction, if these transactions were not very numerous, and
especially when you take into consideration that Van Dunham
was interested in the purchase of these licensed lands, for which
he furnished the information, and for which he received one
hundred and twenty-five dollars; and the Commissioner, as I
have stated here, when I called at the office introduced Van
Dunham to me,-the man that was selling this information in
regard to licensed land,-the man that issued these plats and
did not pay the money into the Treasury,-who furnished Cornell plats, who furnished Hoyt and Draper plats of a large
number of townships, yet did not pay the money over. If it
had been paid over, why have they not produced their books
and shown that fact to you? I say that the fact of Van Dunham's having these transactions, and his directing me to Van
Dunham, is to my mind conclusive evidence that he had
knowledge of this transaction.
Now, I wish to call your attention to another point of the
testimony, right here, and that is the evidence of Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush says that Barnard sent him forty or fifty plats in
May, 1871. They have a book in that office, they say, known
as the book of fees, upon which every item is entered, and the
name of the person who paid it. Why have they not introduced that book in evidence? Why have they not shown, as




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1707
they might have shown, either by the evidence of Mr. Barnard,
by putting him  upon  the stand, or by the evidence of
the Commissioner, by his going upon the stand, or by
producing  the  book  in  court, that that  money  has
not been paid into the Treasury.  Can it be possible,
gentlemen, that this Commissioner was ignorant of the character of Barnard when he made him his Deputy. Can it be
possible that over ten thousand acres of land, as you will see
by the figures, have been reserved from the seventh of December up to the first of June by Barnard, for his own interest,
-that that could be carried on without the Commissioner's
knowledge,-that he could have been ignorant of that fact
when he made him  his Deputy?  It seems to me utterly
impossible, if the Commissioner is a competent man and was
looking about him. The counsel claim that he was ignorant
of his duties. I know they claim that he lived in Cold water and
had no knowledge of Northern Michigan. I know they will put
in the plea of ignorance here, but the law tells me that ignorance is no plea at all; that every man is presumed to know the
law, and every public officer is presumed to know his duty,
and that he cannot come in and ask this Court to excuse him
on account of ignorance; and he can be excused on no other
ground. If he had his eyes about him, he must have known
what was going on; he must have known that Barnard was
buying dogs and horses; he must have known of these transactions, and I have no doubt he did know it when he m.,de
Barnard his Deputy.  He, perhaps, thought he could make
more money out of Barnard than he could out of Porter.
Porter did not divide with him along at the last.
In regard to these clerks, whom we claim were clerks of dissolute habits, as the testimony shows, the counsel say that they
were men of good standing in the community where thov live.
Is there any evidence of that kind? It seenls to me to be a
presumption. We have simply the counsel's word for it. But
I say this, gentlemen: If they were men of good st;lnditng
when they were made clerks in this office in January and Fel



1708     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ruary, they became demoralized very soon after they were under
the instructions of the Commissioner, because they had their
drunk down at the Chapman House on the 24th day of April.
If they were temperance men; if they were men of good
standing; if they were men of sobriety; if they were all the
counsel claims for them, they became demoralized very soon
after they came under the tuition of the Commissioner of the
State Land Office of the State of Michigan.
In regard to Article VII., I say simply this, that under the
statute, if you find, from the evidence, that the Commissioner
dealt in scrip, or, in other words, has purchased land with
scrip, when money has been sent, he is liable under the statute, under the Seventh Article, for receiving money, and changing it into scrip.
The Presiding Officer-The Senate, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment, will take a recess until two o'clock this afternoon.
Wednesday, P. M., May 22, 1872.
The Senate met and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Manager will proceed with the argument.
Mr. Manager Huston —Mr. President and Senators: I desire
at this time to thank the members of this Court for the undivided attention they seemed to give to the remarks I made
this forenoon; and if I can only crave your indulgence for a
little while longer, I will endeavor to be as brief as I possibly
can and do justice to the case.
I said at the time the Court adjourned that I had closed
what I desired to say in regard to dealing in lands, and to




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1709
matters pertaining to the Land Office. There is one thing I
omitted, to which I desire to call your attention at this time;
it is in regard to the reservation of certain lands that had been
previously reserved by Obed Smith of Alpena. These lands,
as you will remember, according to the testimony, had been
reserved upon several contracts; in other words, Mr. Smith
had five different contracts, and they had been reserved generally, as was the custom of the office, upon these contracts,upon this unmatured scrip that he was entitled  to by
virtue of these contracts, which scrip, of course, when
matured  would entitle him  to a patent for these lands.
If the contracts  were  not completed, as a matter of
course, the land reverted back to the State.  You will
remember that Mr. Smith testified that he came here, on
the 29th day of November, to procure some patents of a portion of these lands that he had reserved, to which he was
entitled to have patents upon scrip that had matured; that
when he got here he found that a portion of his land-sixteen
hundred acres-had been reserved, as it was claimed, by Mr.
Ripley. Now, we claim-and claim that the evidence in this
matter shows this to be the fact-that these reservations were
made with a view of defrauding Mr. Smith out of these lands,
when he had sufficient unmatured scrip to warrant him in
holding the lands. It is one of the evils which arise from the
practice of allowing the Deputy Commissioner to be the agent
of Ripley, to be the agent of Hall, or to be the agent of anybody. It seems from the testimony, that it turned out that
when the true statement of his account was procured by Smith,
that he had several thousand dollars more of unmatured scrip
than he had selected lands for. The application of Mr. Ripley
I have here, and it reads as follows:
"W. A. Barnard, Esq.:
" DEAR SIR-Will you please reserve for me on my contract
the above list of lands for a few days, until my man returns
from the woods? I am not entirely satisfied about them until




1710     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
I get another report. If you will do this, I will make it all
right for your trouble. If they are vacant, and you will do as
above requested, telegraph me without fail to-morrow morning.
"Yours,
" H. C. RIPLEY."
Now, there is the application for this list of lands. To reward Mr. Barnard, he proposes to pay him  for his trouble.
Mr. Smith swears that this tract of land of sixteen hundred
acres, was worth five dollars an acre, and that would be some
eight thousand dollars. He testifies, also, that when he got
here, he found this land marked to Ripley on the plat-books,
but not carried on to the reservation-book. Mr. Gillam has
been intrdduced, who has the immediate charge of the reservation-book, and they claim that these reservations are not.
placed in the reservation books when they are made; but it
turns out, according to his testimony, that this reservation was
not placed on the reservation-book, and the reason was because
it was not clear whether Ripley could hold the land or not
Why not clear? My theory is just this: They did not know
whether they could frighten or drive the old gentleman, Smith,
away from this reservation, or not, so that Ripley could hold
it; for it seems Smith had the scrip. And there is another
significant point, to which I desire to call your attention right
here,-that Smith sold, only a few days before this, some two
thousand dollars' worth of his scrip. They have introduced
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Gillam on the stand, who swore that
the Commissioner does not at the present, and for some time
past has not allowed a party who has reserved land, to sell his
scrip. They say that was the practice,-it has been the practice under Mr. Edmonds' administration,-but it is not now
the practice; that the orders are drawn in such a way. And,
you will remember, this forenoon I asked the question, why
they had not introduced some of those orders. But we take
them at their word. We say the office will not allow a party,
after he has reserved the land on unmatured scrip,-when his
contract has been approved,-they will not allow him to sell




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                    1711
his scrip so as to uncover his land. Then, I say, why do they
permit him to do it? They had knowledge of the fact. That
will not do. He was allowed to sell this scrip, and then Ripley makes this application. He was there in the office, and
Gillam  tells him  that he did not think Smith had sufficient  scrip  to  cover this  land.  He  sends  in  this
application afterwards, asking Barnard to reserve this land,
for a few days. For what purpose? That he might have them
looked. This was on the 23d of November. Smith comes five
or six days afterwards and wanted the patents to his land.
He wanted his account, and they told him this sixteen hundred acres was reserved for Ripley. Some of this has since
sold for six or seven dollars an acre. They told him he could
not have them; they were reserved for Ripley; but they were
not carried on the reserve-books at all.   They were not
entered up there at all. The Commissioner tells him he had
better go and see Ripley. He went to see Ripley, and Ripley
told him if he wanted some of these descriptions, it would be
as the Deputy said. Why as the Deputy said?  So it seems
that the Deputy must have been in some way connected with
these transactions. Now there is another thing very significant
in this matter. It seems it was ascertained, on the investigation, that Smith had scrip enough to hold his land, and that
Ripley finally abandoned the whole thing,-gave up his sixteen hundred acres of land, because he was not entitled to
them; and then he told him that Hall made reserve of the
same land on the 24th. Hall's reserve was not carried out on
the reserve-book at all; and if Hall reserved it on the 24th, why
did they not tell Smith, when he was here on the 29th, that this
was the case? Smith says, that on an examination of the
books, Ripley's initials were in the books, but Hall's were not.
Afterward, when he came back in December, Hall's name
appeared on the plat-books, but not on the reserve-book. Hall
tells you he knew nothing of this reservation, until along in
January,-he had no knowledge of it. He had no information
at all on this question, until he came here in January. Now,




1712     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
all there is about it is, Mr. Hall swears that Mr. Barnard furnished these lists of lands to Potter, and Potter had them reserved to Hall; that Potter, acting there in the office, had
these reserves made. There can be no doubt of the fact; and
taking this into consideration,-the fact that they allowed the
reserves to be made when it was not all uncovered,-it seems
to me you can come to no other conclusion than that Barnard was interested in this transaction.  They were to be
reserved by Ripley, and if Ripley could not hold them
they were to be reserved by Hall. It seems that Ripley had
not scrip enough to hold the lands. Then he telegraphed
Barnard to sell him scrip, and Barnard and Edmonds could
make ten per cent on the scrip. They could sell the scrip so
he could get lands. But Ripley did not want the lands until
he could look them. What right had they to allow Ripley to
hold the lands in that way? When Smith was there, did not
Commissioner Edmonds place himself squarely upon this reservation? I challenge the attention of the counsel that is to
reply to me, to this matter, and he will not find in "Venus
and Adonis" any answer to this question,-how it is that Mr.
Edmonds should tell Mr. Smith that he must go to Ripley when
they dare not carry the reservation upon the reservation books.
He tells them they are reserved for Ripley; he had knowledge
of this transaction, and Ripley says he does not know whether
he wants to reserve them or not; but if they reserve them he
will reward them for it. He wants them to hold them until
he can send a man up there, which would take him a month
or six weeks, to look this land over. It was in November. It
was the 29th of November that Mr. Smith was there. It was
the 23d of November that this paper came into the office.
These lands were in Cheboygan county,-the extreme northern county in the Lower Peninsula. It was when there was
no steamboat running, and there were no cars there. A man
had to go on foot. It would take him a month or six weeks,
at the shortest calculation, to inspect those lands, and they
knew it. He had to send a man there to inspect them. I




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1713
submit, if here is not conclusive evidence that the Commissioner proposed to hold lands against the law. He proposed
to hold them until Ripley could send some one up there and
inspect them and determine whether he wanted them or not.
For some reason or other, Ripley concluded that he did not
want to hold them or could not hold them. Then Hall came
in with an application that was made before the 29th. They
say nothing to Smith about it. Whether this was dated back
or not, I do not know; it was not carried upon the reservationbook. It would be a very easy matter for Barnard and Potter
to make the date of this application the 27th; of course. they
wanted to make. it after Ripley's. But it is a little strange
that Mr. Hall should have an application in there for the
same land, dated the 24th, and on the 29th they should be
insisting that they belonged to Ripley, and they should send
Smith down there to settle with Ripley,-to get the land from
him if he could. Then, when Smith comes back, they refer
him to Hall. They told him to go and see Hall; but it seems
that he did pot propose to do that. He took steps to put the
matter into court, hired his attorneys at a large expense, and
he finally, as he testifies, got the pay for all his lands.
It seems to me that there can be no doubt but that the
Commissioner had knowledge of this transaction, and the fact
that the lands were wrongfully held for the purpose of allowing Ripley time to have them looked. There can be no doubt
about it, as that is the written evidence in the case.
I wish to call your attention to just one other thing and only
one, in regard to these matters. That is, Mr. Bush's testimony
with regard to the Dimon land. The counsel, you will remember, spoke about Bush having procured for Ripley the
Ripley lands, and he says Bush is wholly unworthy of credit,
on account of an affidavit that he made at that time. The
affidavit that he made, was made sometime prior to the time
the affidavits were brought in here, and of course his affidavit
could be and no doubt was literally true,-still these other atfi
215




1714     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
davits may be true, or may be false. They are expart affidavits,
brought in here, without:ly benefit of a cross-examination;
and as to what this log house referred to is, I do not know; but
it does occur sometimes that these log houses are very slim
affairs. Many of us, who have been in the northern part of
the State, know how that is. There is nothing here to show
that he did anything to get this land away from Ripley. He
says Dimon was not on the land, and that he went back afterwards and inspected this land and ascertained,-and he tells
you what improvements there were at that time. This old
burning, from which timber had been got, had a few potatoes
planted upon it; that was all there was after these affidavits
had been filed, when he went and inspected this matter.
The counsel has also made some remarks about Bush going
to the office; and you remember he did testify that he came
here with all three cases of classes, and they were submitted
to Edmonds,-where proofs were not filed, on licensed land;
where proofs had been filed; and where land was abandoned.
They wanted to get the land without filing proofs in certain
cases, and it was decided that they could not get them; and
they raised this question because Mr. Bush desired to get these
lands without filing proofs. Mr. Bush tells you it was almost
impossible to get the proofs. He proposed to file his own affidavit, but it was almost impossible to get the affidavit of a
supervisor, or of two citizens residing in the township.
Now, anybody living in the northern part of the State knows
that that may be true in many cases. There is no doubt that
in many sections of licensed lands there is no supervisor in the
township, nor any supervisor within twenty-five or thirty miles
of where the land is; and it was that kind of cases in which
he proposed to file his own affidavit. It had been done in the
office, simply because that was the reason; simply because
there were many cases in which the affidavit of a supervisor
could not be got, because the law provided it should be a
supervisor of the township. If it was an unorganized county,
if there was no supervisor of the township, of course the affi



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1715
davit of the supervisor could not be got. If there was nobody
residing in the township, no responsible citizens of the township
could be procured, to make the affidavit. Now, that isall there
is of that matter.
I desire to call your attention now to Article Eight, in
reference to this paper. We claim that this paper is scandalous%
obscene, immoral, and libelous; and that independent of the
fact of its being obscene, the publication of it is a libel and
indictable; that it was a misdemeanor. May it please the
Court, I do not look upon this paper as a small matter. I do
not look upon it as the counsel for the defense look upon it; I
look upon it as a serious matter. I say that it is libelous, and
no one can doubt that proposition who has read it; and that a
libel is indictable no lawyer will deny; and that it is a libel,
that it was intended by Mr. Edmonds when he put it in circulation to ruin the character of Mr. Porter, the facts in
evidence all tend to show; while the direct tendency of this
paper is to injure the morals of those who may read it. to a
certain extent. While it is obscene, there can be no doubt
about the other proposition, that it was libelous. It is no
trifling matter when a State officer,-one, as I have said, of
the trusted  officers  of  the  State  of Michigan-takes
it upon himself to blacken the character of one of the
citizens  of this  State, that he  should  enter into an
arrangement to publish  and  circulate  a paper of this
character, and send it to the principal officials of the
State. The idea that it can be called but a trifling matter
for the Commissioner of the State Land Office to take it upon
himself, knowing and feeling, as he must have known and felt,
that he was doing what he had no right to do, traveling outside of the State for fear that he would be detected here, and
going to Laporte to mail these papers, is simply absurd. It is
no trifling matter, that the Commissioner of the State Land
Office of the State of Michigan should go down there, as I
have remarked in the opening of this case, like a criminal, in
the night-time, ariving at the hotel at four o'clock in the morn



1716     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ing, registering his name there as "Alexander Haynes" of " Menominee;" not daring to register himself as the Commissioner of
the State Land Office; and then depositing these papers in the
postoffice, that this vile slander might be spread all over the
State of Michigan. I am not one of the number who believe
that if a party attacks my character, if he studiously attempts
to place upon me a blot or a stain that cannot be wiped out, that
he does not do me a greater injury than he does when he robs
me of my property. There is no evidence here, there has
been no evidence sought to be introduced here, to show this
Court that Mr. Porter was guilty of any of these things
charged against him here.  Mr. Porter is presumed to be innocent of these charges; every man is presumed to be innocent
until he is shown to be guilty. Mr. Porter is not presumed to
be guilty of any of the charges brought against him here.
Now, what are the facts in regard to this paper? How would
any member of this Court feel, had a paper of this kind been
circulated in regard to him?-your picture and that of a notorious prostitute put together and circulated all over the
State of Michigan, as has been done in this case, for the purpose of blackening your character,-for the purpose of ruining your standing in society? It cannot be said that it is a
small matter,-that it is a light matter. I apprehend that if
any member of this Court was placed in the position that Mr.
Porter is placed in here, that he would feel that he had been
outraged more than he would had he been robbed of property
by the stealthy midnight marauder. The crime is greater,
because the injury is greater. And the injury inflicted on Mr.
Porter, in this case, cannot wash out, live as long as he may.
Innocent or guilty, this paper has laid a stain upon his character that he cannot wash out. A man's character is like a
snow-bank, that one day is white and pure; the next day, perchance, the winds have swept over the fields and have deposited some dust upon what had else been its unsullied whiteness.
That snow-bank may melt and vanish away beneath the sun's
bright rays, but as long as it remains, the marks of that pollu




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1717
tion are in full view. So the dirt flung upon Mr. Porter, by
the Commissioner of the Land Office of the noble State of
Michigan, will still remain a, stain upon his character. The
act was done for that purpose. Alexander Haynes of Menominee, alias Charles A. Edmonds of Coldwater, the Commissioner of the State Land Office of the State of Michigan, put
this stain upon him; and he did it knowingly, wickedly, intentionally, and from a sinister motive;-studying, for days
and nights, how he might accomplish his purpose and blacken
an otherwise fair reputation. How would you like such a
charge-any of you-upon your characters?  How  would
you like to have such a paper circulated in the community by
a trusted officer of the State of Michigan? Would you say it
was a light matter,-a trivial matter? I apprehend not.
In addition to the fact that this paper is libelous, we claim
that it is obscene. I desire to read the definition of the word,
"Offensive to chastity and delicacy; expressing to the mind
the view of something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed. Impure, immodest, indecent, unchaste."
Now I will call the attention of the CourtMr. Shipman-What book is that you are reading that definition from?
Mr. Huston-That is the definition of Webster's Dictionary.
I understand the counsel proposes to read something from
Shakespeare that he says is just as bad as this is. Perhaps he
will read the " Venus and Adonis," but I desire to say that it
makes no difference how many bad things or good things he
may read, it cannot change this matter. You are trying the
question, gentlemen, now upon this Article: whether this
paper is libelious, whether it is obscene, whether the character
of the paper is such that that he had no right to deposit it in
the mails, and whether even if he had a right to deposit it in
the mails, he had a right to circulate it, it being a libel and
injurious to the character of a citizen of this State.
I will read the following extract from this paper:' COMMUNlCANT.-In answer to your inquiry as to the pro



1718   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
priety of an expulsion from the church, on account of fornication and adultery, we would say:  We think it would be
highly proper further east, and nearer the vicinity of the landing of the Pilgrims' Who came to worship God,' but candor
compels us to admit that at present we have no precedent in
Mlchig;an that would seem to warrant such extreme measures."
Now, here, you see, the Commissioner of the State Land Office
maktes a direct thrust against the whole Christian community,
who placed him  in his present position by their votes. He
makes a direct thrust at them upon the matters of church discipline, as much as to say, the churches of Michigan would
not expel a licentious man, and would not turn from the communion-table a man who was guilty of adultery,-a man who
was a frequenter of houses of ill fame.
Mr. Manager Huston here read the following extracts from
" Every Wednesday Night:"
" SUFFERER.-Immediately upon discovering of the fact that
the cheese was poisoned, you should prepare and take the
following, internally: I oz. copavia (balsam), 1 oz. sweet spirits
nitre, I oz. distilled water.  A  good article of Holland gin
would be advisable for daily consumption."
" PEI:W-HOLDER.-You should at first ascertain if your pastor
meant to thrust at you in his sermon upon harlots. Yet, in
your present standing, perhaps it would be advisable for you
to keep shady for fear of another investigation."
Evidently referring to Porter.'"I USTICUs.-We are happy to know that your domestic
relations are pleasefter than with your first wife; but regret
that you are, as you state, g ven to plowing with other heifers.
Discovery by your wife would dash the fabric of happiness to
earth."
Now, are not those obscene?  Are they not unchaste? Can
there be ainy doubt about what is meant by the Commissioner
in these statements. How would you like to have such a paper
circulated with evident reference to you, either of you, mem



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1719
bers of this court? "Discovery by your wife would dash the
fabric of happiness to earth."
I will read another extract:
"IH. E. PETER.-Your case is sad, but not an isolated one.'And behold there met him a woman, with the attire of a
harlot, and subtle of heart. With much fair speech she caused
him to yield. With the flattering of her lips, she forced him.'
Persevere in the use of the lotion for which we sent you
the receipt, and tell your folks that you have eaten poisoned
cheese, if they notice your failing health."
Clearly charging that this party had not only been guilty
of adultery with the woman whose picture is placed in the
paper, but that he was suffering from  a loathsome disease.
This bold charge is made in this paper, and the paper is freely
circulated in the very city where this man resides. Now, will
gentlemen say that this is a matter of no consequence?
I also find the following in this paper:
"P. H. ETER.-Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in
secret is pleasant.  However, the state of the thermometer
affects this rule very much."
Now, you remember that there is a letter here that they
claim is written by Porter-it is signed John Gray-in which
they say Porter invited this Alice McCabe to go with him to
Detroit, and stop at the Biddle House, going by the way of
Jackson, if they did not make arrangements to go the other
way. They could go by the way of Jackson and stay over
night, as referred to in the letter. But there is no evidence
that Porter ever wrote this letter. You have no right to presume that he has ever been guilty of anything of this kind,
without any proof on the question.  I will only encroach on
your patience by reading a couple of extracts more:
" PROFESSIONAL HYPOCRITE.-The advice of your brother
to leave town was good, and the forbearance of your father-inlaw in not publishing your iniquity to your family was certainly an act you should long remember with  gratitude.




MI20   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Remember hereafter in your intercourse with harlots that
letters are dangerous."
Referring evidently to these letters. And again:
"EQUIRER.-We hardly think you should find any fault,
for even if the party you suspect did take the money, it was
not perverted from its destination; and inasmuch as Alice got
it, you will perceive it is no fraud upon her. You might, perhaps, maintain an action for the value of what was received
from her, if of any value."
Any one can see the allusion that is made in this letter. I'trust that no member of this Court would desire to have his
rname connected with that of a harlot in the way that Porter's
lhas been. We say that these articles that we have read here
are immoral and obscene, and we claim that of every original
article in the paper.  There are some extracts from  other
papers. But every letter and every original article in that
paper, as published by the Commissioner, is not only libeous,
but it is obscene. And that is the very question that this
Court is to pass upon. That is the very question submitted
to this Court, that you are to decide upon; and it seems to
me you cannot come to any other conclusion, excepting that
he is guilty of the charge that is made against him. The
counsel asks us to designate what we claim is obscene. We
claim the whole of it is.
Under Article IX., we simply say, that the argument we
have made in support of Article VIII. would apply to that.
If the paper was obscene it was a violation of the laws of the
United States, and I do not propose to take up any time on
that question. The counsel calls my attention to the wording,of the laws of the United States, which provides that it must be
mot only obscene, but that it must be vulgar and of an indecent character. Now, I submit to the Court that, unless you
decide that you have no right to try matters outside of official
misconduct, I submit to this Court whether you can say under
your oaths of office when you come to pass upon this question,
that.this paper is not obscene, that it is not indecent, that it is




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1721
not vulgar, that it is not of an indecent character? And I
ask the members of this Court, are you willing to say upon
your oaths and record your votes upon that question, that this
paper was a proper paper to be issued and put into circulation;
and that Mr. Edmonds was justified in doing what he has in
connection with it? I have too much confidence in the members of this Court to believe that you will do anything of the
kind.
I desire now to call your attention to the testimony under
Article X., which charges the Commissioner with being drunk;
and I desire to say right here, may it please the Court, that
-counsel for the defense seem to stand upon this position, that
it is no matter how often the Commissioner was drunk, provided it was before July, before the law of 1871 took effect. I
am inclined to think that that law does not apply to cases of
this kind at all,-that the law of 1871 was intended to apply
to cases where the Governor could remove them; for instance
in the case of county officers, where he could provide for the investigation, and have the testimony taken, as the law provides
he may have it done, and remove the party for drunkenness.
I don't think that statute goes any further than this; but I
say this, that under the power this Court has to remove an
officer, I don't think that is the law. When it is for the interest of the State that a Constitutional officer, or State officer,
should be removed, this Court has the power to remove that.
officer for drunkenness. It is not necessary that you should
have the statute at all. Some of the authorities go so far as to
say that an insane man may be impeached. It was claimed, in
the case of Pickering, that that was the mode by which an
insane man might be removed from  office. That is all this
Court has to do. That is all the power this Court has. If
they convict Mr. Edmonds, and remove him, it is to say that
they will not trust him any longer.
Now, I submit, if a man becomes an habitual drunkard, and
disgraces his office by strong drink or by visiting places of ill216




1722     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
repute, it places a stigma upon the State of Michigan. Who
can question your jurisdiction, or whether or not it be your
duty to remove such an officer?  So now, if Mr. Edmonds did,
at these times, what he ought not to have done, we say, independent of the law of 1871, this Court can convict him. It is
stated, in reply to the testimony of Mr. Baker, and for the purpose of having its effect on some other parts of the testimony,
that he is not entitled to credit; they say they called in the
honest Dutchman, and call your attention and say "Who
doubts his statement?"  I will tell him that I believe there is
not a member of this Court believes a word he said. You will
remember he swore positively and distinctly that he had not
talked with anybody. They brought him into impeach Baker,
and he swore that he saw Baker in the billiard-room playing
billiards with some one. He swore at the same time that he
had not spoken to anybody about this matter,-that he has not
spoken to anybody since the 24th of April, 1871; that he had
not spoken to Edmonds or his clerks, and had not talked with
the counsel. Do you believe anything of that kind? Do you
believe that my friends here are so injudicious as to put a
man on the stand without knowing what he was going to
swear to? If he was false then, is it not fair to suppose he was
false in other respects? You remember how squarely he denied
that he had said anything to anybody,-that the first time he
opened his mouth about Mr. Baker's being there was here upon
this witness stand. You do not believe anything of the kind.
This is the testimony that is introduced to impeach Baker.
Another witness is this Griswold. He fixes the time at
between twelve and one o'clock, and the other says eleven.
Straub says that he could not make a shot. I do not know
what that means; I never played a game of billiards in my
life. I suppose it means that he could not count, and that
they abandoned the game of billiards that they were playing.
Now, is it reasonable to suppose that he remembered much
at tbht time?  I apprehend not. Then, when you take into
consideration the fact that Baker's testimony has been cor



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1723
roborated by four of the best citizens of this town, it seems to
me you will believe what has been said.
Now, I submit whether it is not sufficient for you to say that
the Commissioner ought not to be intrusted in this office
longer, if he will enter into such carousals as that at the Chapman House, and the one at the Lansing House, with his clerks?
Now, I call your attention to the Eleventh Article. I have
no doubt you are glad that I have got so near through. This
Article is the one that charges the Commissioner of the State
Land Office of Michigan with having committed adultery at
the Lansing House and at other places. It seems to me that
the testimony upon this question is conclusive, so far as visiting the house of Alice McCabe. You will remember that the
counsel stated, in his opening, that they would show that Edmonds went down toward the river for the purpose of getting
some water at the mineral spring, and when he returned, not
having gone over the river, he was called in by some one who
rapped on the window.  He went in and was there a few
minutes, and they were going to bring the person here who
called him in? They have not done it,-I do not know why
they have not done it, but the person is not here and has not
been produced, and I presume cannot be produced. This
is but a mere pretext. The testimony upon this question,
so far as they have any testimony, is that Mr. Clarke
swore that he went down with Edmonds that morning,
and that he was in the habit of going down there three or
four or five times a week. He went down there with Edmonds,
and he was going to stay till office hours but what he would
get some of this water, and Edmonds returned. Now, I submit to your candid consideration whether Clarke would be
likely to remember, if he was going up there three or four
times a week, whether he would be likely to remember the particular morning that Edmonds went down there. You have a
right to take into consideration the interest that Clarke has in
this matter,-that he is a clerk in this office,-that he is interested in having Edmonds acquitted; and I do not believe one




1724     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
word of his testimony. I believe this is merely a put-up matter, without any good foundation, and I come to the conclusion
that if Edmonds was down there, and came out of that house
when the sun was half an hour high, the fair presumption is
that be had been there all night.
It has been claimed here by the counsel, that Edmonds
wanted to clear this matter up; that he sent a letter to the
Investigating Committee, saying that he was anxious to do it,
and when they opened the case they promised to explain all
these matters; that they would show to the people of this
State that the charges brought against Edmonds were not
true. Do you suppose anybody will be satisfied with this explanation? On the contrary, their truth is more conclusive
Why was not the party that called him in produced? There
is not a man in this Court, in my opinion, that believes one word
that Clarke says. It is the merest pretext. If Edmonds was there,
*and came away from that house with the sun half an hour high,
the reasonable and fair presumption is that he had been there
all night. It is not at all likely that he would go down there
in the morning; but he went there in the night, and came
out of the house in the morning. There is no doubt about it.
And I say, the weakness of the defense shows the more conclusively that it is true. He wishes to convince the people of
this State that it is a false accusation. The people of this
State would be glad to know who the man was that called him
in. The people of this State would be glad to know why the
Commissioner did not come upon the stand and swear that it
was false. I suppose the reason he did not do it, was because
he could not do it. And I say this, that if a man goes into a
house of ill-fame-and the Commissioner must have known
this was a house of ill-fame-leaves his boarding place and
stays all night, the presumption is that it is sufficient ground
under the law to procure divorce; that it is sufficient to convict the party of the charge of adultery; and if you come to
the conclusion that this was the fact, you must find that he




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1725
was guilty of tae, charges that.were<.brought against him in
reference to this matter.
The counsel has read the statute here, as much as to say
that the prosecution should be commenced by the wife. That
is true so far as the crime is concerned, and it should be commenced within one year. But that has nothing to do with
this investigation at all. Adultery, as a crime, exists just as
much after the year has elapsed, as it did before. The statute
has provided what adultery is. It provides that prosecution
for adultery should be commenced in one year. But after the
year has elapsed, the crime is not washed out; the man
is not pure; the skirts are not pure; the fact that he committed adultery is there just the same. He has not cleared
this up. The Commissioner of the State Land Office of the
State of Michigan, in the month of September last, was seen
coming out of a house of ill-fame in the morning. It is an
undisputed fact, and we submit to this honorable Court,
whether it is not a disgrace to this State; whether it does not
dishonor the men. that placed him  in the office that he
occupies?
Can it be said that the Senate of the State of Michigan will
disregard all these men? Can it be said that the Senate of the
State of Michigan will wink at transactions of this kind. You
are assumed to act upon this Article. This is not all the testimony there, is in regard to it. We have the testimony of Mr.
Anderson, this colored man, which shows that Edmonds occupied room number 75 at the Lansing House; that there was a
lady occupying room number 97,-not upon the same hall, but
in a different part of the house; that Edmonds, the Commissioner of the State Land Office of the State of Michigan, was
seen closing her door, or just about to open it,-he had his
hand upon the knob of the door. Now, I do not claim that
this proves adultery, but I claim, that it goes to corroborate the
other testimony; it goes to show the manner of the man; it
goes to show what kind of a man the Commissioner of the
Land Office is, What was he hanging around the door of this




1726     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
woman for? What was he at number 97 for? The answer
is in the mind of every one of you. What business had he
there?  Why has he not explained this? Why has he not
washed it out?  Why has he not made it white as snow?
We have the testimony of Mrs. Hudson, with regard to this
menstrual flow. They say that does not amount to anything,
because they show upon certain occasions, that this party had
bled from the urethra. How many occasions of that kind have
they shown? How often has he bled? Twice according to
the testimony, once when Dr. Cutler and Bennett were called,
and once over here at the Lansing House. That is all the
evidence they have introduced. If he had been troubled in
this way, as claimed, why did they not prove it by his family
physician? why did they not prove it by neighbors? why did not
Charles A. Edmonds, the Commissioner of the State Land
Office, swear to it himself? why did he not explain this matter.
It was because he dare not do it. They could have put him
upon the stand, and he could have washed himself of these
matters. If they were not true, why was he not sworn? Because they dare not swear him; they dare not trust him to
speak in reference to this subject.
The evidence shows that upon another occasion, that two
women were turned away from that house, and Clarke was
seen to come down stairs with one of them. We submit, when
you take all of these things into consideration, that it shows
the character of the man in this respect. And I claim that it
is a disgrace to the State of Michigan, it is a dishonor to the
people, to say that a man of this character, a man branded
with these marks, should be still retained in this office. You
have the power to remove him, and I believe that you will
exercise that power. The people of the State of Michigan
are waiting with confidence for the verdict of this Court.
We further say that when you take the whole volume of
this testimony into consideration; when you take into consideration the land contracts; when you take into consideration
the reservation of land; when you take into consideration the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1727
drinking and the frequenting of this house of ill-fame, which
we claim is a dishonor and a crime against this State; when
you take all these things into consideration,-the fact that the
office of the Commissioner of the State Land Office is one of
the most important in the State; one where there are large
interests involved; one where there are over three million
acres of land to be superintended; where moneys are paid in
daily,-I say, when you take all these things into consideration,
it seems to me that the Court can come to no other conclusion,
except that the Commissioner of the State Land Office is not a
proper person to be intrusted with the care of that office; and
that, if you believe with us, that you have the power to remove
an officer when it is for the public interest that he should no
longer be retained, we believe you will remove him.
He has no right to claim that because he has been connected
with this office he can hold it during his entire term. He has
no right to claim anything of that kind, unless he conducts
himself as a citizen ought; and we submit whether the testimony does not show that he has not done so?
Thanking you for the kind attention you have given me, I
will no longer infringe on your patience.
The Presiding Officer-The Court will take an informal
recess of five minutes.
AFTER RECESS.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent will
proceed with the argument.
Mr. Shipman, counsel on behalf of the respondent, addressed
the Senate as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT AND SENATORS: I congratulate you upon
nearing the close of this long and weary trial, and the prospect
of a speedy return to your homes, which you have left to
attend it. You will remember that when you assumed the
duties of Senators, you took upon yourselves an oath to perform those duties to the best of your ability. That is the only
test that is required of an officer of this State; not that you




1728     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
should not make mistakes,-all men will do that,-but simply
that you should perform your duties to the best of your ability.
You may decide the case right or wrong, for or against the
respondent, but there is no law upon earth, or above the earth,
that can hold you responsible for your decision. The measure
of your responsibility is that you shall do your duties to the
best of your ability. You are here in the performance of one
of those duties.' When you were formed into a Court for the
trial of this impeachment, you took upon yourselves another
oath, and that was, to decide this case according to the law
and the evidence. You may not do that; you may make a
mistake, for "to err is human."  These oaths together mean
simply this: That you will, to the best of your ability, decide
the case according to the law and the evidence. That is your
duty, and all your duty. I shall assume, in the outset, that no
Senator will be influenced by any outside pressure or clamor
in this matter; such things are very easily gotten up. There
is much less danger of them in this case than is usual in impeachment cases; still, of course, there will be more or less
here.
I come before you, Senators, with perfect confidence that
every gentleman in front of me intends to do just exactly his
duty in this matter,-no more and no less; and I shall present
the case upon that basis. In the brief time that I have left
me this evening, I shall call your attention to Articles numbered VIII and IX. So far as Article VII is concerned,
I shall have nothing to do with it. There is nothing in it.
There is nothing in Article X, and I do not propose to take
up the time of the Senate with it. There is no offense shown
under it, and I do not suppose that any one entertains a serious question about it. I shall first call your attention to
Article IX., as you will remember that that Article is for a
violation of a law of the United States. It is not alleged or
charged to be a violation of the laws of this State.' It is not
alleged or charged to be a violation of the Constitution of this
State, or a matter coming within the Constitutional provision




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1729
relating to the impeachment of officers. There is no such
claim; but simply this: that he committed a crime against
the laws of the United States. It is a strange proposition,
and a novel one, for there is no tribunal in this State that can
hear and determine a question under the United States laws.
The rule is settled, so far as impeachments in Congress are
concerned, that Congress can only impeach for offenses against
the TUnited States. Iow these offenses arise,-whether there
is a common law in regard to offenses against the United
States, the authorities do not agree upon; but all agree that it
must be an offense against the United States, in order to impeach an officer in Congress. And I will refer you, upon this
question, to the opinion of Senator Sherman, found in the 3d
Vol., Andrew Johnson Trial, at page 159, which the Manager
referred to yesterday, reading but two or three lines:
"Treason, bribery, and other offenses of the nature of high
crimes and misdemeanors, to be impeachable, must be crimes
against the general laws of the United States, and punishable
in their courts, in the localities where committed."
Again he says:
" Nor would any crime, or offense whatever, against a State,
or against religion, or morality, be a cause for impeachment,
unless such an act had been previously declared by a law of
Congress to be a high crime or a hiqh misdemeanor, and was
in its character of deep turpitude."
This is the language of Senator Sherman. I will now call
your attention, upon the same point, to 6 American Law Register, new series, pages 268 and 269:
"A basis for a very important conclusion has now been laid.
It is this: As there are, under the laws of the United States'
no common-law crimes, but only those which are contrary to
some positive statutory rule, there can be no impeachment except for a violation of a law of Congress, or for the commission
of a crime named in the Constitution. English precedents,
217




1730   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
concerning impeachable crimes, are consequently not applicable."
Again he says:
"The result is, that unless the crime is specifically named in
the Constitution, impeachments, like indictments, can only be
instituted for crimes committed against the statutory law of
the United States."
The rule, as I have stated, is not well settled, whether or not
there may be or there are common-law crimes against the
government of the United States. We will not stop to discuss
that question now; but all agree that it must be an offense
against the United States government to authorize an impeachment in Congress. Now, the rule is just as clear in regard to
State governments; that when you would impeach an officer
in a State Legislature, it must be for an offense against the
laws of the State,-either against the common law of the
State, or the statute law of the State; it is quite immaterial
which, so far as this question is concerned.
I, therefore, think that we need spend little time upon that
Article. It clearly has no business here.
In regard to Article V1II. It is charged here that he committed a crime against the statute laws of this State. The language
is this, that he " was guilty of a misdemeanor, contrary to the
form of the statute, against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of Michigan."  It is not claimed that that
offense is within the meaning of the Constitutional provision
relating to impeachments. It is not alleged that he violated
that Constitutional provision in regard to impeachment of
officers. You are aware that provision is, that "officers may
be impeached for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes or
misdemeanors."
It is not claimed that this is an offense within that provision.
It ought to have been charged, at all events, to have made it a
good Article, as an offense within that provision of the Constitution.  However, gentlemen, that question is, I admit,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE.COURT.               1731
rather technical, and it is one that I care very little about;
because the main point that I shall take up under that is,
whether or not this paper, called " Every Wednesday Night,"
is an obscene paper. The question of whether it is libelous
or scandalous, or anything of that kind, should have nothing
at all to do with the case.
In the first place, if you charge a libel, you must show who
the person libeled is. You must name him, and you must
state what that libel consisted of. In cases of recordal (which
is a civil proceeding) you must charge the same matters, and
aver that they were false, and then upon the proof of the publication of the libel or scandal, we would have a right to come
in and defend. We would have a right to show that the matter
which is alleged to be libelous is true. I do not know why
the Honorable Managers did not charge the publication to be
a libel. I do not know  that it was, because, if it was so
averred, we might prove it to be true.  I know nothing
of that.  I know  nothing  of the  reason  why  they
have not so charged it, but they have not seen fit to do
so; and they cannot, by a hurrah and a violent speech, make
even a thing which is libelous and scandalous obscene. All
you have to do with the paper, is to inquire whether it be
obscene. If it is not an obscene paper, then the respondent is
not guilty of the offense there charged, because you are to
find that he is guilty of that thing,-not something existing
outside of the Article.
You cannot go roaming around for offenses. Why are these
Articles brought here? Why do you have any Articles at all,
but to furnish the defendant with notice of the matter charged
against him, and something for you to find upon?  Besides,
the Honorable Manager tells us these Articles are found by the
House of Representatives. That is the only offense, therefore,
that the House charge against the respondent. They do not
ask you to convict him for anything else, and you cannot do
so. The only proposition and the only question is, whether
it is obscene. I am aware that they have sought to excite your




1732     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
prejudices, by asking, "How  would you like to have your
name connected with a harlot in that way?" and various
other methods have been resorted to to get up a kind of prejudice in the matter. I do not propose to pay any attention to
those efforts, because I do not suppose you will be influenced
by them in your judgment upon this case. Is that an obscene
document?-and what is an obscene paper?  We have had no
definition of it at all. None of the Managers have given us
one, except that one of them has quoted part of a definition
from Webster. Farther than that he has not gone. Webster
gives the definition thus:
"Obscene: Offensive to chastity and delicacy; expressing,
or presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy,
purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure, as obscene
language, obscene pictures."  The charge itself is made under
section 5868 of the second volume Compiled Laws of 1857.
That is the place they have put it, and, mark the language.
To come under that section, it must contain obscene language,
or obscene prints, pictures, figures, or descriptions, manifestly
tending, etc.
There are two statutes up-on this subject;-they are upon
the same-subject, rather. They are what the lawyers would
term in pari materia, and are, therefore, to be read together.
The first one is section 5861, 2d Vol. C. L. of 1857, in regard
to an "open and indecent, or obscene exposure of the person."
That is the first one. The second is in regard to prints, papers,
and publications. I will show  you, in a moment, what an
obscene exposure of the person is. Those statutes, read together, mean simply this: Section 5861 means the actual physical exposure of parts of the person. No lawyer will deny that.
Section 5868 means an exposure of the person by prints, pictures, or descriptions, and the other provision means an exposure of it by language or descriptions; but the obscene language
must name, in the language of the definition that I have read
to you from Webster, or in some way present to the mind or
view, those parts of the person, which, if physicially exposed,




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1733
would constitute an obscene exposure of it, under section 5861.
That is the meaning of this statute.
Now I will call your attention to 2 Bishop on Crimminal
Law, Sec. 811. Speaking of obscene books he gives the common-law definition, and then says:
"The law seems to stand on the same ground relating to
this subject as to the subject of the exposure of the person."
Now I will call your attention to what is an obscene exposeure of the person. 2 Bish. Grim. Law, Sec. 224, says:
"How large a part and what part, other than the privates,
of a person must be exposed in order to constitute the offense,
the cases do not disclose. Ordinarily the exposure is merely
of the private members, and there is no question of this being
sufficient.  The same follows, as a consequence, where the
exposure is of the entire naked body.  In an old case, an
indictment, says the report,'for running in the common way,
naked down to the waist, the defendant being a woman,' was
quashed; and the observation recorded as expressing the reason is, that'nothing appears immodest or unlawful.' But we
should hesitate to say that a common woman could go thus
through a principal street in one of our cities, without subjecting herself to this prosecution."
You have as clear a definition in that book as I can give, of
what is an obscene exposure of the person, and this printed
paper must present to the mind those parts of the person
which, if physically exposed, would amount to an obscene
exposure under section 5861 of the statute.
I will call your attention to the case of Bell vs. The State,
in Swan's Tennessee Reports, pps. 46 and 47:
"It would be tedious to enumerate the cases in which
offenses have been held indicable as contra bonos mores; a few
will suffice for the present purpose."
He, then cites some cases and proceeds:
"These adjudications, without citing others, we think furnish analogies sufficiently strong to sustain the present prosecution. Are the outrageously vulgar and obscene words found




1734     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
in this record, if uttered in the ear of the public, less likely to
shock any one's sense of decency and to corrupt the morals of
society-not to speak of their inevitable tendency to provoke
violence and bloodshed-than the offenses charged in the several adjuicated cases above cited? It does not so appear to us."
Thus the courts place the two upon the same ground, although the words that were used are not set out in that case.
Hence we say that under no view of the case that possibly can
be taken, can you call this an obscene paper. There is not an
obscene article in it, within the definition I have given you,
and no other has been furnished us, and I can find no other rule
than that. The parts of the paper that have been read by the
Manager present nothing to my mind at all, that comes within
the range of obscene lituature,-that comes within the
language of the statute.  There was one passage which the
Manager read that is a quotation from  the Bible, word for
word, I am told. That was also pronounced obscene by the
Manager. There is nothing in the whole paper, if it were not
in the shape it is, if it were not all in one paper, or if it were
not local in its character, and in a small place, that any attention would be paid to whatever. If that paper had been
published in Chicago, nobody would have thought of calling
it an obscene paper. There are poems here that are clipped from
other papers. There are various things in it taken from other
papers. I will read from an article I find, not a poem and not
clipped from any other paper.
"And our moral is easily discovered: which is, that it is not
safe for business men in good standing and church members,
to forsake the embraces of a tender and loving wife,-forgetul
of the vows made to her and his God,-and seek the'bosom
of a stranger,' in illicit and clandestine love affairs. That'All-seeing Eye,' beneath whose watchful care the sun, moon,
and stars perform their stupendous evolutions, is ever vigilantly watching transactions of this nature, and by an agency
of His own selection, reveals them to the gaze of the world;
at the same time, the recording angel is writing in a book that




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1735
will be opened in that great day, and spread before the gaze of
assembled nations, John Gray's sins."
Now, I am not here to defend this mode of warfare. It is
not a question that we can get before you, how this paper happened to be published. It would be very difficult now, looking
back, to get all of the circumstances before you, that goaded
the respondent on to the publication of this paper. Although
he committed an error in doing it, and one which, undoubtedly, he will regret to the last day of his life, (he has not said
a word to me as to whether he did or did not publish it), it
is not a crime, and that is all you have to deal with here.
Mistakes are not crimes.
As a matter of fact, I have no doubt if that paper had never
been published this impeachment proceeding had never been
begun. As a matter of fact, this suit should be entitled: " The
State, for the use of E. H. Porter, vs. The Commissioner of the
State Land Office." I do not pretend to say here but that MIr.
Porter, if he is not guilty of the matters charged in the paper,
has not been wronged or injured. I pretend to say nothing of
the kind; but there is something strange about this whole
thing. Porter has not a word to say about the truth or falsity
of the paper. No action for damages is commenced by him.
He urged the matter on fiercely for some days, crowding it up
with the United States authorities, attempting to have them
take hold of and prosecute it, and all at once he stopped; he
could not get them to do it. He has made no complaint in
the State courts. Dare he commence a private action for damages? I do not know. I only know he has not. It looks to
me as if he came in here to inflict a vengeance upon the Commissioner which he dare not attempt personally. I may be all
wrong in this. I do not wish to injure Mr. Porter here or
elsewhere; but do you remember the testimony of Quigley in
reference to obtaining those letters? They look genuine. The
respondent paid for them; Mr. Quigley says he bought them
of Alice McCabe. I do not know whether they are or are not
genuine.  I know this, however, that they are matters that




1736     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
should never have been brought into this tribunal; but they
are in here, and you must pass upon them. Whether Porter did
right or wrong, be he inocent or guilty in this matter, is a
question with which you have nothing to do. The simple and
only question is, whether the paper is obscene.
Now, gentlemen, I propose to call your attention, very briefly,
to some familiar standard works, to show what kind of literature is allowed. You all have undoubtedly, read the works
that I am about to read to you, and I beg and hope that the
Honorabe Managers will not be shocked at them. This whole
matter has been most artistically handled by them. They have
taken up this paper with gloves on, and a pair of tongs, and
held it out at arms' length) as though it were a terrible, nasty,
dirty thing. They have not read it, but have kept it out of
sight. Many Senators, I presume, have never seen it at all,
and I fear I may produce something from these books that will
be very much more shocking to their delicacy, than anything
the Managers can find in that paper. I will first call your
attention to Byron.
[The counsel here read from Byron, pages 599, 611, 613, 615,
705, and 706.]
Now, I will call your attention to Pope,-pages 252, 260,
261, 269, 270, 273, 274, 278, and 283. I will not read them all
to you. I will simply call your attention to them, that you
may know where to find them, if you wish to investigate this
matter. Not a word can be found in that newspaper that
would' in any degree compare with the articles I have here
cited from the pages of Pope.
I will call your attention to the State Library's Edition of
Shakspeare,-pages 765, 884, and 885. I will not read it.
Also to Burns, the Scotch poet,-pages 79 and 80,-to be found
in the State Library.
I will also read, from Homer's Odyssey, the scene between
Mars and Goddess of Love.
[After reading which, Mr. Shipman read from "Knicker



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1737
bocker's History of New York," pages 47, 49, 95, 383, and also
from "Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly" of January 6th, 1872.]
There is another article in this paper (Woodhull & Clafflin's),
in which the question is asked, " What is seduction," which I
will not read. I only read the other as a sample. It is a letter
addressed to Tenny C. Claflin, and the answer fills two columns
and a half of the paper, and if there is any man in the world
who thinks that " Every Wednesday Night," is unchaste in
any degree, I would advise him to read that, and get the notion
out of his head. This is a paper that circulates every day
through the mails; nobody ever thought of calling it an obscene
document, within the meaning of these statutes, so far as I
know. -There is one other thing in this connection that I
would call the attention of the Senate to and that is, the* large
number of newspapers in circulation, and with which " Every
Wednesday Night" bears no comparison, like " The Day's Doings," " Police Gazette," and hundreds of that class that you find
scattered through the trains on the cars, and in the news rooms.
It is useless for me to say anything about them; you have
all seen them and' I do not'suppose you are any the worse for
having seen them; neither do I believe that the people are so
easily hurt as the Honorable Managers seem to imagine; by
reading such newspapers. I do not believe that at all. And
the rule is growing broader, instead of narrower, every day, in
regard to.what you may, and may not publish. The laws are
not being drawn closer, but they are becoming more extended.
In view of this, can you call that paper obscene?  Is there
anything in it that is obscene? I regret, gentlemen, to have
to bring this matter to your attention; I regret that it is here.
I regret, in the first place, that Mr. Edmonds was guilty of circulating this paper,-and it stands admitted, so far as the
evidence is concerned, that he did do so; but we stand here
making a straight legal defense to it. Whether or not an officer ought, or ought not to do so, is not a question for you to
determine. The Constitution of this State says that you can
218




1738     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
only impeach for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and
misdemeanors. We have the admission of one of the Honorable Managers that the words " crime or misdemeanor," means
the same as when used in the statute. The same definition,
the same legal notice of crimes obtain, without regard to what
the crime is, or the court that it may be tried in. I submit
this matter to you, gentlemen, with the confident assurance
that there is nothing whatever in the paper that can be called
obscene in any degree.
The Presiding Officer-The hour of adjournment has nearly
arrived, and as I understand that one of the Senators has a
resolution that he desires to offer at this time, counsel will not
proceed further.
Mr. Wheeler-Mr. President, I deem this a very fitting occasion to offer the following resolution.
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows;
Resolved, That the proceedings of this Court of Impeachment, with all the preliminary proceedings in the House of
Representatives, be corrected from the daily record, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and that an index to
the testimony and arguments be added, and that eight hundred copies of the same be printed and bound in book form,five hundred copies to be disposed of as the official journals of
the House and Senate are now disposed of, and three hundred
copies to be deposited with the State Librarian for exchange
with other States, or for sale at cost.
The resolution was adopted, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Moffatt,        Mr. Stoddard,
Begole,            Price,             Storrs,
Briggs,            Prutzman,          Wheeler,
Cawley,            Putnam,            Wood,
Dexter,            Randall,           President
Gay,               Romeyn,                pro tern.,
Jenks,             Stockbridge,                    19




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1739
NAYS.
Mr. Ball,          Mr. Mann,          Mr. Sheley,
Barber,            Neasmith,         Wilcox,
Hannahs,                                           7
Mr. Sheley-Mr. President, I would move that the rules be
suspended, if the attorneys for the defense will consent to it,
and proceed with the argument, for an hour,-I would move
that the rule be extended for one hour.
Mr. Romeyn-I would like to hear from counsel for the
respondent, in regard to it.
Mr. Shipman-Mr. President, it is somewhat a matter of
indifference to me, whether I go on or not.
The motion to extend the time for one hour prevailed.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel will proceed with his
argument.
Mr. Alexander-Mr. President, I move that the vote by
which counsel was permitted to proceed with his argument be
reconsidered. I understand from the reporters that it is very
laborious for them, and I think it must be.
The Presiding Officer-A motion to adjourn would accomplsih the object that the Senator wishes.
Mr. Ball-I move that we now adjourn.
Mr. Moffatt demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. Alexander moved that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. Moffatt demanded the yeas and nays.
The roll was called, and the motion prevailed, by yeas and
nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Wheeler,
Ball,             Putnam,            Wilcox,
Briggs,           Stockbridge,       President
Dexter,           Stoddard,                 pro tern.
Gay,              Storrs,                         13
NAYS.
Mr. Barber,        Mr. Moffatt,       Mr. Randall,
Begole,           Neasmith,           Romeyn,,




1740     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Mr. Cawley,       Mr. Price,         Mr. Sheley,
Hannahs,          Prutzman,          Wood,
Jenks,                                            13
Mr. Shipman —Mr. President: Can I be permitted to give
the casting vote in this case? I make this request, as there are
some' Senators who do not wish to sit longer, and I should not
like to detain them.
The Presiding Officer-I was about to suggest to Senators,
that I should insist upon the enforcement of the rule, that
Senators remain in their seats. It is a very easy matter for
them; they get relief by getting up and moving about.
Mr. Shipman-I do not wish to proceed, Mr. President, if I
can be excused from doing so, as there are so many Senators
who do not wish to remain.
The, Presiding Officer-The motion to adjourn is lost.
Mr. Jenks —Mr. President, I desire to change my vote to aye.
Mr. Neasmith-Mr. President, I will change my vote to
aye.
The Presiding Officer-The motion to adjourn is carried.
The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, stands adjourned until to-ntorrow morning at nine o'clock.
Lansing, Thursday, A. M., May 23, 1872.
The Senate met, and was called to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-Counsel for the respondent will proceed with their argument.
Mr. Shipman, on behalf of the respondent. resumed his
argument, as follows:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE -COURT.               1741
MR. PRESIDENT AND SENATORS: —I shall endeavor, in view
of your anxiety to reach an adjournment at as early a moment
as possible, to present this case as rapidly as I may, and do my
duty to the respondent, It has already been long protracted,
and I am aware of your anxiety to get home; and, sympathizing with that, I shall endeavor to get it together as closely
as I can, and to scatter as little as possible.
However much I am tempted' to wander about, or stop in
spots to scan some remarks which have been made here, which
I conceive are outside of the case, I shall endeavor not to do
so, but to confine myself as closely as possible to the material
matters in the case. There is an immense mass 6f testimony
here, and there are really eleven different suits to try. Under
the ancient English practice, I believe, each Article'was taken
up separately, and a judgment thereon rendered separately, and
it would be much better if it were the practice here, because,
as you will see, when the testimony is all in hearing upon each
Article, one Article and the evidence upon it is used to help
out the others.  The Managers have marshaled all their
forces for each attack. First they skirmish with single Articles; then they brigade them, and then they put them in
column, and mass the whole upon each individual Article
separately. Where the testimony would not directly bear upon
it, the Manager who preceded me has sought to influence your
prejudices, if nothing else, upon that Article, and yet I beg to
remind you, when you come to vote upon these Articles, you
must vote upon each one separately. You must be able to lay
down on each Article- the testimony, and say, "Is respondent
guilty in manner and form as therein charged?" You cannot
take the whole together,-you cannot impeach upon general
principles, nor can you find him guilty of anything except
those offenses charged in the Articles. You will remember
the House has power to pardon all offenses committed by
officials. If they do not choose to accuse an official, there is
no power in the StRte that can do it. There is no power in




1742     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
England except the House of Commons. The king cannot do
it. The Managers cannot do it, with all their power.
You must, therefore, find the specific offense charged in each
Article. If there be evidence which you cannot find a place
for under any Article, throw it aside.
I shall not go over all of these Articles separately. I shall
leave that to your own good sense; because I shall take it for
granted that you are able to distinguish and sift out of the
argument that has been advanced by the Manager, that which
is inside of the case, and that which is not. Still, the main
points I shall endeavor to touch upon. I shall first raise a
point in this case, that I have already argued, and discuss it
very briefly, and that is the question of jurisdiction,-a question of too much importance to be allowed to escape, whenever
an opportunity is presented to raise it.  This proceeding
comes down to us from the English law. From thence it was
derived from Germany. The practice has been settled for five
hundred years, and I cannot conceive it in any way but injurious to depart from the settled rule in these cases. It comes
down to us white with age,-with the dust of centuries upon
it, and it has been engrafted into our Constitution, as a proceeding having a known and definite meaning. It was no new
method incorporated in it, but an old one. The power to impeach officers or accuse them, is placed in the House of Representatives. It is dangerous to take it from the House, for it
becomes but a precedent for another lawless exercise of power,
if you do so. I consider it my duty to raise this question, not
only as. counsel, but as a citizen here. Whenever an attempt
is made to violate the Constitution, I consider it the duty of
all citizens at once to raise their voices against it. I do not,
therefore, apologize for insisting upon the point now, and yet
I shall do so very briefly. If the Articles of Impeachment
are not properly before the Senate, you have no jurisdiction of
the case. You cannot find the respondent guilty upon them
unless you have jurisdiction. You cannot pronounce against




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1743
the respondent in the case when you have no jurisdiction. He
can only be accused in the manner provided in the Constitution of this State. There is no Senator that can vote " Guilty"
upon any separate Article, nor altogether, unless they find
that those Articles are  properly  presented, and  properly
brought here.
The House of Representatives alone can accuse an officer or
prefer Article of Impeachment against him, and without reading I will cite you to a few authorities in support of this
position:
Constitution, Art. XII.
May's Parliamentary Practice, 645, 648.
Cushing's Legislative Assemblies, Secs. 2535, 2536, 2541, 25-42, 2556,
2557, 2563, 2564, 2568.
1 Story on the Constitution, Sec. 807.
Bayard on the Constitution, 116.
Rawl on the Constitution, 210 and 215.
Federalist, No. 65.
9th New American Encyclopedia, 407.
2 Woodesson, 353, 358, Note 344, Note S. 359.
6 Am. Law Register, new series, 259, 260.
I say this is the way impeachments have been presented in
England as well as in this country. Our Constitution in no
way changes the method except when you come to the trial of
the impeachment. It does not allow the Lower House to be
in session during the trial.  The reason of that rule is palpable, but I say they can and ought to be here until the issue is
formed.  In Tennessee the Constitution of the State forbids
a trial until after the adjournment of the Legislature, the
same as in this State, but the practice is the same,-the method
of proceedure is the same,-the House passing upon the
Articles and forming the issue before the adjournment. I
refer you to Frazer's Trial, 4 and 11, for the practice.  One of
the Managers seems to admit that if Articles of Impeachment
are necessary the House must find them, but he denies that
they are necessary. If that be so, I would ask why they file
Articles at all?  Why are they here?  Why have they ever




1744    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
been filed if they are not necessary? Have all countries been
in error in this matter, our own included? Besides, the
respondent can only be tried upon the facts, or for the acts
charged in the Articles. How can this be the rule if no Articles were necessary? And the evidence must be confined to
the charge contained in tha Articles. One word now from
May's Parliamentary Practice, p. 647:
"The Commons attend the trial sitting as a committee of
the whole House, when the Managers make their charges
and adduce evidence in support of them  but they are bound
to confine themselves to charges contained in- the Articles of
mlpeachment."
Now, if no Articles were necessary, why need they confine
themselves to anything? Why not roam at will and introduce
such evidence as they choose? One of the Managers seems to
doubt the position taken by his co-Manager, and admits that
if there be anything in the Article, —any offense not warranted
by the action of the House, -that the charge itself would be
bad. But it will be seen that the House did not adopt the
report of the committee, but only directed that the Commissioner be impeached for corrupt conduct in office and for
crimes and misdemeanors, without specifying what crimes or
misdemeanors. Under that, if the Managers could put in
anything, they could put in what they chose. There is no
specification of offenses at all. The acts constituting the
offense should be specified by the House as well as the offenses
themselves.  Perhaps the matters may not amount to an
offense. They should specify what he has done and for what
they wish him presented for trial at the bar of the SenateThe duty and power of the Managers is contained in the Constitution itself; that is, simply to prosecute such impeachment,
as you will see by section three of Article XII., and such is
also the rule as laid down in Cushing, in the sections which I
have cited; and this, I say, is the extent of their powers, and
they can have no other powers. Under the Constitution, the
House are to do two things; one is, to direct an impeachment.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1745
This can only be done by a majority of all the members elected,
and that was done in this case, the ayes and nays being called.
The other is, to find the articles of impeachment, —to specify in
form what the accused has done and for which they desire to
bring him to trial before the Senate; and this they have not
done. They may agree upon the Articles by a majority vote,
not of all the members, elect but the usual majority, the same
as in ordinary legislative business. An impeachment is defined
by the best authority we have (1st Bouvier's Law Dictionary,
608) to be "a written accusation by the House of Representatives to the Senate, against an officer." The passage of a resolution ordering him to be impeached, and a resolution saying
that the Commissioner of the State Land Office beimpeached
for corrupt conduct in office, and for crimes and misdemeanors,
is simply directing an impeachment. It is not an impeach.
ment. It is not the impeachment itself. I say, furthermore,
that this power belongs to the House separately, and cannot
be interfered with by the Senate. The Senate ought not to
join in the accusation, or interfere with its exercise in any way;
because they are to judge him, and to accuse and judge are
functions which should be kept distinct and separate. A judge
should not interfere in the trial of a case. If the Senate and
House act together, it has the appearance of a bill of attainder,
which is unknown in this country. Had this method been
followed, the respondent might have had an opportunity to
plead his cause, had he been called at the bar of the House. I
cannot but regret that that opportunity was not afforded him,
and while the committee in the House may have been warranted, by parliamentary rules, strictly, to have proceeded exactly
as they did, still I think they might have done the other thing.
I think it is proper to raise the question here and now, as
bearing upon the question of the policy of such a construction
as is insisted upon by the Managers here.
I will read from 2 Woodeson's Lectures, page 355:
"In the following reign of Edward III., the most usual
219




1746     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
course seems to have been for the Commons to present a
memorial to the King-in Parliament, stating such offenses as
they thought at the time peculiarly injurious to the public,
and praying that the delinquents (without naming them)
might meet the punishment of the law. After the petitioners
had received encouragement from the Crown, they exhibited
articles of impeachment specifying the particular culprits, and
attended the prosecution through its several stages, till, finally,
on conviction they demanded judgment."
I now refer to page 358:
" The accusation of the Commons is substituted in the place
of an indictment, which, as appeared in the last lecture, cannot
be supplied by articles exhibited by any pear or other person,
nor by the interposition of the king's authority and command."
And yet the Managers can do it, it is said.
"The resolution of impeaching is usually taken in the
party's absence. But there are instances where the objects of
the resentment of the Commons, understanding that a charge
was in agitation against them, have been permitted to plead
their cause at the bar of that House, and some have been so
successful as to ward off the formal accusation."
Now I submit to you, Senators, that is a far fitter practice
than the one adopted by the House. That it is more in
accordance with correct ideas of justice. This, which I have
read, is from the old English law. We have written in our
organic law, in our Constitution, that "no man shall be,
unheard, condemned."  That no tribunal shall pass upon a
person in any way, or in any degree censuring him, without
giving him an opportunity to be heard; and I submit that
that should be the rule always. Again, I say, that this form
cannot be delegated by the House or exercised by any other
body. I cite Sedgwick's Constitutional Law, 164 and 166;
Edwards on Statutes, 767; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 64, 115, 116; The People vs. Collins, Third Michigan,
343; First Wisconsin Reports, 522; First Story's Constitution,
688-9 and 743.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1747
I raise the question here, I say again, because it is a constitutional question.  When we once leave the constitutional
mooring, we are drifting upon an unknown sea, without compass or chart to guide us, and making a precedent for future
violations of that instrument.  More especially is this the
rule, and will this be the case, when it is done by the highest
tribunal in the State. An analogous question was raised in
the case of Hill vs. the People, in the 19th Mich. I shall
call your attention to it, a moment. In that case there had
been a trial before a jury, and one of the jurors was not properly qualified. I will simply call your attention to some
remarks on page 358:
"Let it once be settled that the defendant may thus waive
this constitutional right, and no one can foresee the extent of
the evils which might follow; but the whole judicial history
of the past must admonish us that very serious evils should be
apprehended, and that every step taken in that direction would
tend to increase the danger. One act of neglect might be recognized as a waiver in one case, and another in another, until
the constitutional safeguard might be substantially frittered
away. The only safe course is to meet the danger in lmine,
and prevent the first step in the wrong direction.
" It is the duty of courts to see that the constitutional rights
of a defendant in a criminal case shall not be violated, however negligent he may be in raising the objection."
I will not detain you longer upon that question. I will proceed now to the causes of impeachment.
It has been claimed by the Managers that you are bound by
no rules,-bound by no precedent,-that you may impeach for
what you will. I do not believe you have any such right. I
think you are as much bound by law as any other tribunal.
The one who preceded me instanced a case. He says, Suppose an officer should be elected for a term of ten years, whose
habits were bad, and he neglected his official duties, and yet
should not be guilty of the technical misconduct in office
named in the Constitution, what ought you to do? Now that




1748     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
is a much stronger case than we are called upon to decide.
The terms of office with us are short, new officers being elected
at stated periods. I doubt, if they had had the elective system
in England, that the system of impeachment would have been
resorted to at all.
In this State, the terms, instead of being ten years, are two
years, and the People have provided for what an officer may be
impeached, and specified the causes with reference to his term
of office. You will remember as to Judges, the power of removal is broader, the Governor having the power to remove
them  (with the concurrence of both Houses on a twothirds vote) for causes which would not be sufficient for their
impeachment. Why? Because their term of office is longer;
some being for four and some six years. But in the case of
officers that are elected every two years, the grounds upon
which they can be impeached are specified, and they cannot be
removed for any other cause. If the term had been ten years
instead of two, I do not know what provision they would have
put in, and possibly it might have been wiser to put in a
broader rule than they did; but we must take the instrument altogether and make it harmonious. Suppose an officer
should be insulted on the street, and in the heat Of the
moment strike a man.  The act could not be justified by
the law. It would be a crime, a misdemeanor, but would you
impeach him for it? I do not believe the Constitution intended
to include that class of misdemeanors, yet it would come within
the category of misdemeanors. I am very clear that the Constitution means that nothing less than what would amount to
a crime should be impeachable. And I also insist, the crime
must have reference to public character and official dutyThose offenses which may be committed equally by a private
person as a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment.
Murder, and all offenses not immediately connected with office,
are left to be dealt with by the ordinary courts. I will cite yon
to Rawle on the Constitution, page 215, section 5:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1749
"The legitimate causes of impeachment have been already
briefly noticed. They can only have reference to public character and official duty. The words of the text are treason,
bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
You will mark that the word "office" is not contained in
the article relating to impeachments in the Constitution of the
United States.
"The treason contemplated must be against the United
States."
So the crime contemplated in our Constitution must be
against the State.
" In general these offenses which may be committed equally
by a private person as a public officer, are not the subjects of
impeachment.  Murder, burglary, robbery, and indeed all
offenses not immediately connected with office, except the two
expressly mentioned, are left to the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings, and neither House can regularly inquire into
them, except for the purpose of expelling the member. But
the ordinary tribunals, as we shall see, are not precluded,
either before or after an impeachment, from taking cognizance
of the public and official delinquency."
Also 2 Wooddeson, 358,-a work written soon after the
Hastings Trial. It is an English work:
" Such kinds of misdeeds as peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust are the most proper and have been the most usual grounds for this kind of
prosecution."
And in the 6th Am. Law Reg., 263:
" When the United States Constitution was framed, trial by
impeachment was fully developed. It was not, however,
adopted in that instrument as a regular mode of criminal procedure, to be employed in lieu of an indictment. It was made
a means of trial of a crime, so far as it had political bearing.
It is used as a means of depriving officers of their offices, and
of disqualifying them  from  holding such positions in the
future. Still it is requisite that a crime should be committed




1750     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
as a basis for the accusation. The Constitution provides, in
substance, that the offonse, so far as it has a purely criminal
aspect, should be tried in the ordinary courts; while so far as
it affects the official character, it shall be the subject of
impeachment."
As I have stated, the Constitution of the United States does
not contain the word " office" at all.
Another proposition: The Senate are selected as a tribunal
to try impeachments, instead of the courts, because of their
greater and more enlarged knowledge of this class of duties,
than the Judges of the courts. 1st Story on the Constitution,
page 750.
This was the settled scope and object of impeachment, and
still is, unless our Constitution has changed it. Such a change
will not be presumed, but if a departure has been made, it
must clearly appear by the law-gauge used.
The following rules of construction are to be kept in view, in
reading the Constitution. The words used should be " restrained into the fitness of the matter or person."  The "matter"
is the conduct of the officers. The "person " is an officer,courts try the individual. The Senate cannot inflict a punishment upon the individual, but only upon the official, and
they ought not to try whom or what they cannot punish,
This tribunal was established only to try officers. The words
should therefore be limited to that "matter or person."
The meaning of an act is to be sought from the purview or
body of the act. The "purview or body " of Article XII., in
the Constitution, relates wholly to official acts and persons
holding office. The whole Constitution upon the subject is
to be taken and compared together. It should all be read
together. Every word should be given effect, and none should
be treated  as superfluous.  Words in one clause may be
restrained by words in a subsequent clause.
It is also a sound canon of construction that all acts in pari
materia are to be read together as if they were one law. They
are considered as framed upon one system  and having one




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1751
object in view; and this, although one act be subsequent.
So that the amendment to the Constitution in 1863, should be
read with the original law. Equitable construction is classed
as dangerous. Remembering also that penal statutes should
receive a strict interpretation, the general words of such laws
being restrained for the benefit of him against whom the
penalty is inflicted.
The Constitution provides that civil officers may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office, and for crimes and misdemeanors. He has to be convicted of an offense within these
provisions, or he cannot be impeached.  The judgment is
official death. It is decapitation, and takes off his official head.
It is penal in its nature; whether the penalty be great or small,
is immaterial. It is in no way, I say, a civil proceeding, —a proceeding of this kind being only a remedy for a private wrong.
The Honorable Manager who advanced the idea at the commencement of this trial, that this is a civil proceeding, has
come half way over to our side.  He now says that it is sui
generis. That is, it is neither civil nor criminal; it is of its own
kind; but the nature of the proceeding he does not state. It
is something different from everything else; but what it is, he
cannot name. I submit, that ground is rather too uncertain to
stand upon, and he would be in a far better and more secure
position if he would come the other half way and get where
the law places him,-namely, upon the settled platform that it
is a criminal proceeding. This section of the Constitution
relates only to acts in office,-official acts. Would it not be
absurd to impeach in one case only for corruption in office,
however rotten the individual might be outside, and yet impeach him for crimes and misdemeanors outside of his office?
Was it intended to make a division of offenses,-to make two
classes, one inside and the other outside of office, for which an
impeachment would lie? Yet it is certain that the corrupt
acts must be confined to his conduct in office, for the Constitution so expressly declares. It was never intended, by that




15i2     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
instrument, to include a different kind or class of offenses than
those enumerated, namely, acts in office.
It would have been idle and useless to have repeated the
words "in office" again, at the close of the sentence, for being
once in they are sufficient to denote the genus or class referred
to in the sentence; the rule being this, that all things, different
in genus or description from those enumerated, are excluded;
and the rule is founded upon this maxim, that the express
mention of one kind or class of things or offenses in the law,
implies the exclusion of all others.
You will remember the language of the Constitution: "for
corrupt conduct in office or crimes and misdemeanors."  If
you would put the words "in office" at the end of the words
"crimes and misdemeanors" in that sentence, you would make
a very lumbering sentence of it. I conceive it to be unnecessary. When it is once stated, it defines the class of the offenses,
and it would be useless to repeat the words. I think, in almost
all of the Constitutions enumerated in the opening of the
learned Manager, impeachable offenses are limited to crimes
or offenses in offices. Is our Constitution a departure from
that policy?
But it will be observed that the words "corrupt conduct in
office" are not in those constitutions. Except in one instance
the words used in those constitutions are *" crimes and misdemeanors in office," but the words "corrupt conduct" are not
there. Had they been, the words "in office" would probably have been located in the sentence just where it is in ours.
Again, why was not our Constitution made more specific and
definite, if a departure from the settled rule was intended, as
in the case of the North Carolina Constitution?
I will call your attention to a statement made by the Honorable Manager, upon page 70 of the Impeachment Proceedings, with regard to that Constitution.
They have six causes there, six specifications as to when an
officer may be impeached. The sixth is this: "Any criminal
matter, the conviction whereof would tend to bring his office




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1753
into public contempt."  Now, if our Constitution meant anything of that kind, why was it not stated. The Honorable
Manager was not able to see the meaning of that language, he
said in the opening. It is very plain to me.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-Will you allow me to interrupt
you right there?
Mr. Shipman-Certainly.
Mr. Manager Grosvenor-The North Carolina statute to
which you have alluded is a statute. The Constitution is a
general Constitution, giving power to impeach, and the statute
defines the offense.
Mr. Shipman-But we construe the statute and the Constition on precisely the same rule. Can it be claimed that these
words in our Constitution include ordinary misdemeanors,-for
instance, any kind of technical crime that may be committed
outside of office? Was it intended for any little mistake
which may amount technically to a crime committed by an
officer upon the street or in any place, that the ponderous
machinery of the Senate and the House should be put in
motion, and the officer should be punished for it? I cannot
believe any such thing. I think it is a bad precedent to
establish; and yet it must mean all, or only those which are
official offenses. You can nowhere draw the line between
grave and light offenses; you cannot separate one from the
other. The Constitution means the very slightest assault and
battery,-it means the act of simply putting a hand on a man
in anger, or it only means those matters or offenses which are
connected with office.
The case of Andrew Johnson has been cited as a precedent
of high standing; such it is not, and never will be. There are
few men in this country, whatever their political opinions may
be, who will give the case that eminence, or do otherwise than
rejoice at its failure. But Andrew Johnson was acquitted; as
a precedent, therefore, the case is against the Managers. Besides, the Articles charging him with making certain speeches
220




1754     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
at St. Louis and Cleveland, were charged as misdemeanors in
office. In other words, they were at least charged to be official
violations of the Constitution of the United States, whereas
in this case, the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Articles purport
to be a violation of nothing except the statute law, —the Ninth
being a law of Congress at that. It is not even alleged, or in
any way appears, that the acts charged are such offenses as are
contained in Article Twelve of the Constitution of this State.
It will also be observed that the Constitution of the United
States, Section 4, Article I, does not contain the words "in
office," at all, as stated. It simply provides that officers of the
United States shall be removed from office, or impeached for,
and convicted of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and
misdemeanors.  But the Articles of Impeachment against
Andrew Johnson charged him in terms with high crimes and
misdemeanors in office. If, therefore, the case is of any force,
it is on the other side of the question than where it has been
used by the Honorable Managers.
It will be further remarked, that the only Articles voted
upon in that case, were based upon the removal of Stanton as
Secretary of War, or appointing Thomas Secretary ad interim.
The other matters, including the stump speeches, not being
acts in office, were finally abandoned. I ask now, on which
side is the Andrew Johnson case?  The amendment submitted in 1861, and adopted in 1862, being in pari materia, is
to be read with Section 1, Article XII. Is was intended, by
that amendment, to give to the Governor, when the Legislature was not in session, the power of removing certain officers,
in the same case where the Legislature might impeach and
remove them  if they were in session; except that it also
includes gross neglect of official duty. No one will claim that
this provision applies to any other than official acts.
The next proposition is, that the proceeding is criminal. I
will cite you to Cushing, 2539, without reading, upon that
point; also, to 2 Wooddeson, 355, 364, and 371:
" In the last lecture two distinct modes of criminal prosecu



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1755
tion were reserved for future inquiry, namely, proceedings on
impeachments, and penal acts of parliament occasionally passed
against particular offenders.
"It is certain that magistrates, and officers intrusted with
the administration of public affairs, may abuse their delegated
powers to the injury or ruin of the community, and at the
same time in offenses not properly cognizable before the ordinary tribunals. The influence of such delinquents, and the
nature of such offenses, may not unsuitably engage the authority of the highest court, and the wisdom of the sagest assembly.
The Commons, therefore, as the great inquest of the nation,
become suitors for penal justice."
On page 364 he says:
"I have now mentioned, in their order, some of the more
important preliminaries. As to the trial itself, it must of
course vary in external ceremony, but differs not in essentials
from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts. The same
rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and punishments prevail; for impeachments are not framed to alter the
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution where it
might be obstructed by the influence of too powerful delinquents, or unascertained in the ordinary course of jurisdiction
by reason of the peculiar quality of the alleged crimes. The
judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by legal principles or precedents. In capital cases the stated sentence is to
be specifically pronounced."
On page 370 he says:
"Impeachments, as we have seen, are founded and proceed
upon the laws in being. A more extraordinary course is sometimes adopted. New and occasional laws have been passed for
the punishment of particular offenders. Such ordinances are
called bills of attainder, and bills of pains and penalties.
These are, according to the plan formerly delineated, the only
species of criminal prosecution remaining to be treated of, and
will be the subject of the next lecture."
The 6 American Law Register, 266, 267, and 268, I will not




1756     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
take up your time by reading what I have already read, but I
will read upon page 267, which is as follows:
"The trial differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts. The same rules of evidence, the
same legal notions of crimes and punishments prevail. For
impeachments are not framed to alter the law, but to carry it
into more effectual execution where it might be obstructed by
the influence of too powerful delinquents, or not easily discerned in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction, by reason of the
peculiar quality of the alleged crimes. The judgment thereof
is to be such as is warranted by legal principles or precedents."
Again on the next page:
"I have dwelt the longer on this point because many seem
to think that a public officer can be impeached for a mere act
of indecorum. On the contrary, he must have committed a
true crime, not against the law of England, but against the
law of the United States. As impeachment is nothing but a
mode of trial, the Constitution only adopts it as a mode of procedure, leaving the crimes to which it is to be applied to be
settled by the general rules of criminal law."
That is not a partisan brief.
The brief of Mr. Lawrence, that has been read from, and
which is found also in the American Law Register, was prepared for the use of Benjamin F. Butler upon the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, and it is the brief upon which
his argument is based; and if you will look at the first volume
of the proceedings there, at Mr. Butler's speech, you will find
that brief just as it is here, only, perhaps, a little more elaborate,
Mr. Lawrence being somewhat biased upon that side of the question; but against Mr. Lawrence I will read a very little from
another Manager in that case, Mr. Wilcox of Iowa, and no one
certainly can charge him with bias upon the other side of the
case. I will read from the reports of committees of the first
session of the 40th Congress, page 62. It is as follows:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose they shall be on oath




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1757
or affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside, and no person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. When the Senate is organized under this section
of the Constitution as a high court of impeachment, it is simply a court of special criminal jurisdiction,-nothing more,
nothing less. It is bound by the rules which bind other
courts. It is as much restrained by law as any other criminal
court. It is not a tribunal above the law and without rule to
guide it. If it were, it might well be addressed in the language
of Burke in one of his speeches in the Hastings case, when he
said,' This high court, * * * this highest court of criminal jurisdiction, exercised upon the requisition of the House
of Commons, if left without a rule, would be as lawless as the
wild savage and as unprincipled as the prisoner who stands at
your bar.' (Burke's works, vol. 8. p. 8.) No man would be
safe before such a court-a court that could make the crime,
determine its mode of proof, pronounce and execute judgment,
without restraint from the Constitution or laws of the land.
No such irresponsible engine of wrong and oppression has been
created by the Constitution. The British Constitution allows
no such unrestricted power to the House of Lords."
"An impeachment before the Lords by the Commons in
Great Britain, in Parliament, is a prosecution of the already
known and established law, and has been frequently put in
practice, being a presentment to the most high and supreme
court of criminal jurisdiction, by the most solemn, grand inquest of the whole kingdom [4 Blackstone, 259]; and when
this most high and supreme court of criminal jurisdiction is
assembled, for the trial of a person impeached for a violation
of the'already known and established law,' it must proceed
according to the known and established law, for although' the
trial must vary in external ceremony, it differs not in essentials
from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts. The same
rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and punishments prevail.' (Wooddesman, vol. 2, 611.) A doctrine which




1758     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
would assert for the Senate of the United States greater and
more despotic power in cases of impeachment, than is possessed
by the House of Lords, will never be accepted by the American people."
I will read one section upon page 54, which is as follows:
"It is claimed, by those who oppose the doctrine herein
advanced, that it is contrary to the current of the English and
American authorities. This is an error which a careful examination of the cases will not fail to expose. Comparatively
little attention has been devoted to the power of impeachment,
and to the laws and principles which govern it, in this country
Popular opinion is more at fault with respect to this subject,
than perhaps any other within the entire range of the Constitution. It is generally considered a kind of unlimited, undefined, and undefinable power; whose proper office it is to supply
all defects of law, and to provide all desired remedies respecting
civil officers and their official conduct,-a patent medicine for
the speedy cure of all cases which baffle the skill of the regular practice.  It seems strange that this idea should have
become so prevalent, for it has not a fair, impartial, well considered case, in either the United States or Great Britain, to
support it."
There is the opinion of one of the Managers in the Andrew
Johnson case. It cannot be said that he was prejudiced.
Now look at our Constitution just a moment, and see if it
does not mean the same thing. It says: " No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected."  The word " convict" is not used in a civil proceeding,.sui generis,-half fish and half fowl. Again: "Judgment, in case of impeachment shall not extend further than
removal from office; but the party convicted shall be liable to
punishment according to law."  Again, I will refer to page 55
of the manual,-you are all familiar with it,-as to the power
of the Governor to grant reprieves and pardons:
"He may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after
convictions, for all offenses except treason and cases of im



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1759
peachment."  Does our Constitution mean a criminal proceeding, or not? It seems to me, not only the settled rules are
that way, but the Constitution itself is. I furthermore say
that the offense must be one known to the Constitution and
the laws. It is a prosecution for the violation of existing laws,
and you, as a Court, cannot make a law; the power is not
given to you. The Articles must fully, plainly, substantially,
and formally describe the offense to the respondent.  The
charge must consist of the breach of some positive law. No
man shall, under any circumstances whatever, be tried upon
anything but a known law.
I shall now glance very briefly at'he facts, and at some
remarks that have been made by the Managers who have preceded me.
Are you aware of how much business there is in that Land
Office; of how much land is there handled; of the opportunities to make mistakes, and the confusion that has been
there, and might well be there under even the best management of it? I want to make a statement now, to give you
some idea of what the business of the office has been, that you
may see the difficulties in the way of the Commissioner. You
will remember that a very few isolated instances or transactions
have been brought out in evidence. You have had a contract
in evidence called the Bathay contract, or something has been
said about it, covering and containing about 63,000 acres of
land, in five contracts, all figured up together. Now, there are
1,409 townships in this State containing swamp land, or there
was at the commencement of the fiscal year of 1871, north
of the base line. The average number of acres in a township,
vacant, was 2,226. The total of acres in the State vacant was
3,136,889 44-100. The number of "forty-acre" tracts that this
would make would be over 75,000. The amount of contracts unfinished at that time, amount to $372,121.98. Contracts since that
date, $152,259. It will take over 420,000 acres of land to pay for
them,-it would take about 10,500 forty acre tracts to do it.
Have you any sort of an idea, how many marks that will make




1760     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
on the books to mark these all up? Would it be strange, if
in handling that amount of land, and figuring contracts altogether, as had been the practice of Gen. Pritchard, that occasionally mistakes should occur. More particularly by a person
who has not been familiar with the routine of the office,-to
whom the business is entirely new? "To err is human." The
amount of the largest contract is $97,710.87. The contracts
average $14,000 during the fiscal year. To Sept. 10th, 1871,
there were patented on road contracts, 307,203 acres of land,
while in the preceding year, only 195,173 acres were patented,
leaving a balance in favor of 1871 of 112,030 acres. The fiscal
year of 1870 contained twelve months, and the fiscal year of
1871 contained only ten months. So much for the business
of the office.
I will now call attention to some remarks of the Manager,
made yesterday.  First, he speaks of the Allison matter,-of
the Allison, Bush, and Hewitt matter. You will remember it.
You will remember that Hewitt made an application on the
Gth day of July, 1871, for five forties of school land, putting
up a quarter payment, telling the Commissioner to hold it a
few weeks, or a few days,-I forget which,-until he could get
the name of the party who lived out of the State, who wished
to buy the land. The Manager says: "I have a suspicion that
the application was put in, and dated back." I do not doubt
it, but you have no proof of it, and we are not responsible for
your suspicions. There is no evidence before this Senate that
the transaction was other than in good faith, and we are not
to answer for suspicions of the gentleman, emanating from an
imagination which has become heated and excited during the
progress of this trial. Such is not the proof. The evidence is
the other way.
It is said that Allison went into the office, and made his
application in October. It is a mistake; he did not make h;s
application in October. There is no such evidence. Mr. Allison did not know at that time that he wanted the lands; he
wrote to Mr. Barnard, to find out whether the land was vacant




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1761
or not. Mr. Barnard wrote him  back, that it had been
disposed of. Look upon pages 144 and 146 of " Impeachment
Proceedings," if you wish to, and you will see that he did
not know  then as he wanted the lands, when he talked
with Barnard. He went to the office, and was informed
by Barnard that Hewitt had the lands, but he had not
found out that he wanted them  at that time, nor had
he the money there to have paid for them, if he had. He
wrote after that, he wanted three forties; but he had not the
money for them. The truth of the transaction is this: That
he came here and found Hewitt's name on the land, and then
took it for granted that it was good land because he had reserved it, and he wanted it all at once and proposed to get it
away from Hewitt. In October, he did get some land,-about
the first of October, but no steps were taken in this matter
until the 30th of April or the 1st of May. Now I call your
attention to the fact that these proceedings were then pending.
He says that he talked with the Commissioner of the Land
Office,-in the back office of the Land Office,-the headquarters
of the respondent's counsel, as has been said. The respondent
was not in Court, but probably with his counsel.  It is to be
presumed, from the evidence, that the respondent's counsel was
advised of these facts. It may be inferred that Mr. Edmonds,
intending to do exactly right in the matter, consulted his counsel, knowing that whichever he ruled in favor of, the other would
be against him. I will not say that order was sent in for a purpose other than to buy the land. I do not know that to be
true; but let me say, it looked as though they were going to
make use of it as evidence in this case. He came into the
office then, on the 30th of April, or 1st of May, in reference
to that land, and the application of Mr. Hewitt was placed
there July 6th, 1871. You have got the whole case right
there. It is fair to presume that Mr. Edmonds' counsel turned
to the 19 Mich., to see what he should do in the matter, and
we will do so now, and see what we were to do in the premises.
221




11762    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The Honorable Manager has said that this case of Estabrook
vs. Pritchard, page 470, was a proceeding between two individuals. I beg pardon, but the gentleman is mistaken. It is not
a proceeding between two individuals. It is, The People on
the relation of John S. Estabrook vs. The Commissioner of the
State Land Office. The question raised in the case was, what
was the duty of the Commissioner in the matter? Not a controversy between two individuals. I read now from a statement of the case, upon pages 470 and 471:
"The relator, in this petition, states that on the third day of
July, 1867, he applied at the State Land Office, to purchase all
of a certain section of school lands, except one forty-acre lot,
being in all sit hundred acres; that he was informed by one
Nash, chief clerk and book-keeper in the office, that the said
lands would be secured to him on the payment of two dollars
per acre; that he paid into said office the sum of two dollars
per acre, being twelve hundred dollars; that his name was
written upon the plat of the said lands, in the tract-books of
said office, in his presence, and that he was informed by Abash
that this entry secured the lands to him, but that he could not
procure a certificate or patent, until the full amount of the
purchase money was paid, as the lands were chiefly valuable
for timber, and, under a recent ruling of the State Board, no
certificates or patents were issued on lands of this character,
until after full payment of the purchase money; that he then
stated he would pay the balance remaining due whenever he
should be called on, upon the shortest possible notice, but that
he had not, at that time, sufficient funds with him  to make
full payment; that he was informed that if anything further
was required of him he would be notified of the fact by the
Comtnissioner, and that the lands could not be sold to any
other person."
*    *      *    e:        *    *    *    *:            * 4:
I will not read all the facts, but I wish to give you an idea
of the case.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1763
It states also that on "the 13th or 14th day of October,
1868, when he received a letter from the Deputy informing
him that other parties had filed an application for a portion of
said lands, and that relator was only entitled to three hundred
Acres."  In other words, he was entitled to so much land as
the draft deposited would pay for; "whereupon he immediately went to Lansing, and on October 15, 1868, tendered to
the Deputy Commissioner the balance of the purchase money,
together with interest, which the Deputy received,-not admitting his right, but refused to issue a certificate on the ground
of a conflicting application; but the Commissioner allowed
the relator to select the east half of said section, and to receive
a certificate therefor, without waiving his right to insist upon
a certificate for the balance also."
*    *    *    e    *    *    *    *           C  *    *
"The answer of the Commissioner sets forth that it is a
rule of his office, established in the winter of 1867, that none
Of the primary school or other trust-fund lands which were
principally valuable for the timber thereon, and not for agriCultural purposes, should be sold, unless full payment of the
purchase money was made at the time, and that his Deputies
and all his employes have been thoroughly instructed to enforce said ruling strictly; that, in the disposition of cases
which have arisen under said rule, where parties have attempted
to purchase lands on part payment, he has adopted the practice
of allowing such party the privilege of selecting sufficient of
the lands applied for to meet the full amount of the money
deposited, at the minimum price, full payment; that sometime
in the month of October, 1868, his attention was called to an
application of Arthur Hill, which was as follows:"
I will not read that.
"That on examination he found the land mentioned in said
application was marked in pencil upon the books of the office,
t said Estabrook, and that he had deposited one-half payment against the same, and had given no additional security;




1764     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
that on learning the condition of the lands, he directed his
Deputy to notify Estabrook, at once, that he must make a selection of the amount of land he was entitled to under the
ruling above mentioned. That on receiving said notice, Estabrook refused to make such selection, and made verbal application to pay for the whole, but did afterwards, in January, 1869,
announce that the east half of said section was his choice if
he could not have the whole, and that the east half was patented to him without prejudice to his supposed rights. That
Hill, at different times, applied for a patent of the other half,
but though the Commissioner considered him entitled to it,
he declined to issue one until the conflicting claims were judicially determined."
The Court decided that he could hold the three hundred
acres, which was as much as his draft would pay for; and the
other party, they said, was entitled to the balance. You will
remember that another application had been made, in that case,
for the land, while in the case of Allison there was no application at all, except for the particular forty selected by Mr.
Hewitt and Thomas, and you will remember that they got the
imformation of what forty had been selected from Mr. Bush,
on the street, and that it was referred to Mr. Thomas, in the
office; so that nobody can say that they were informed, or got
information in the office, which could in any way prejudice the
application of Mr. Allison.
Judge Campbell delivered a dissenting opinion in that case;
but he not only agrees with the majority of the Court-with
Christiancy, Graves, and Cooley-upon the law, but he goes
further, and says that Mr. Estabrook was entitled to all of the
land upon that half payment, and could hold it all even without the money being paid in. It also appears, in this case
which I have read from, that the money was not paid into the
State Treasury at all; a draft for the money was simply left
with the Commissioner, and the land marked up. Another
question has been raised in this case, and that is, Why was not
that check or the money upon ir, paid into the State Treasury?




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1765
and the Manager has commented a great deal upon it, charging that the State lost the interest on the money. Let me tell
you, gentlemen, if you are not already aware of the fact, that
the State Treasurer would not receive it. He will not receive
money for land unil the land is sold, and I am surprised that
the Managers should even talk of it or raise a question about
it. The certificate has got to be issued before the money could
be paid to him, for he would not receive it before. The money
is, in fact, left in the office with the individual, really, more
than it is with the officer,-the Commissioner. He holds it or
not, as he has a mind to. The Commissioner is not a receiver,
technically speaking, and the question has been raised whether, if
you wanted to make a tender for land for sale in the Land Office,
the money should not be tendered at the State Treasury,whether or not he has any right,-whether the Commissioner has
any power, to receive it. He certainly takes it merely to pay it
over to the Treasurer, and for no other purpose; and as I look
upon it, it would make but little difference whether it was deposited with him or was deposited somewhere else subject to his
order,-it could not get into the Treasury in any case until the
and was sold. We are asked, Why was not the land sold and
patented up at that time? For this reason: that the Commissioner did not know whether he could sell the land on quarterpayment or not. You will remember the statute of 1863 provides
that if the land is chiefly valuable for timber, he is to sell it for
full payment or require some security for the balance unpaid.
Suppose a man comes into the office and applies for primary
school land, can he have it on quarter-payment? The Commissioner says, "I do not know." He has not the necessary information about its value aside from the timber upon it, to know
whether it will be safe for the State to sell it on quarter-payment.
The party puts down his money, his quarter-payment on the land,
or half of it if he chooses. The Commissioner cannot sell it
until he has got that information. He may get that information in a week; he may get it in six months; he may get it in
a year, and he may not get it in five years, for the law has pro



1766     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
vided no way for him to obtain it. He has no way of getting
this information inside the office. The law does not say how
he is to get it outside, but leaves him to his own resources.
There is no rule of law about it, as to where, how, or when he
shall get it. There is nothing in the law to drive him out into
the woods to get it; but until he does get it, and the land is
patented, there is not a dollar in his hands which belongs to
the Treasurer, and there is not a cent's worth of interest that
the State can lose. He may get this information from various
sources, but until he has got it he does not know what answer
to make to the applicant. He cannot sell him the land, and
consequently he must hold the money or pay it back to
the party, just as he chooses. Now suppose a third party
comes in, as in the case of Allison, and applies for a part of
the land, as he did on April 30th, and makes a written application for it. IHe merely talked about it before, but never
made an application in form until that day. What is he to do?
At once, it is apparent to the Commissioner that something
must be done in the matter. The new applicant offers to
make full payment for the land, and he cannot hold it longer.
It becomes his duty, to sell at once; but to whom? He notifies
the party first applying,-under the rule adopted by Gen.
Pritchard,-that an application has been made and he must
make a selection of such an amount of the land as will equal
the money he has deposited. Suppose that he selects the particular piece that the other party has applied for? The first
applicant would have the preference. In this case, Allison did
not apply for the balance of the land held by Hewitt on
his deposit of quarter-payment. He came in and applied
for- a specific forty and it was the identical forty that
Hewitt, or Thomas for him, selected an hour afterwards,
as soon as he got the information from Bush on the street, and
stepped into the office and applied for it, and then he also
applied for the balance of the land,-so that the money could
not have gone into the Treasury, when the check was left, even
if it had been cash. If it had been gold or greenbacks, depos



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1767
ited with the Commissioner, he could not have put it into the
Treasury,-could not have sold the land, I do not see what
the State had to do with the transaction, until a sale was
consummated. Now, would the Commissioner have a right to
receive a check? In the case which I have read, it is decided
that he may receive a draft as cash. He may receive paper
that he has reasonable cause to believe will be paid, that represents money. He therefore has a right to take a check. They
say this check would not be paid, as it was payable to Hewitt's
order and not indorsed by him. I cite you to the fact that it
was paid, and the money received on it on presentation; Mr.
Bush being informed, if my recollection of the evidence is
correct, that if the check was not paid he could have the land.
I know the question was asked him whether that was so, or
not; although I do not quite remember the answer. However
that may be, if it was the custom of that bank to pay Hewitt's
checks unindorsed, that is sufficient, for it would be a good
check. The check was payable to his own order; but I apprehend it would be transferable by a delivery sufficient to vest
the equitable title to it in the holder, even under the old common-law rule.
But suppose a man should write to the Land Office, and
request that a certain piece of land should be held a few
days until he could make arrangements about it, would
it be a crime for the Commissioner to do it?  That was
the practice of the office under General Pritchard. The
law is silent as to whether he may or may not do so; and if,
as a matter of accommodation, he should do that without pay,
can it be successfully maintained that the transaction would
amount to corruption in office?  Such cases you will find
scattered all along through the Supreme Court reports of this
State, and you cannot show me one where the courts have
given costs against the Commissioner for holding land in that
way.  Look at the case of General Parkhurst vs. General
Pritchard, in 17th Michigan, or this case that I have just cited
from the 19th Michigan Reports. The Court there say that




1768      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMIONDS.
the officer acted in good faith, and no costs should be awarded
against him. Can you find him guilty of corruption in the
same case? A practice of the office may obtain and become
a law of the office, almost, in the absence of a written law.
Where the law is silent, the Commissioner may follow the
practice; but where the law speaks, the practice must yield
to it.
The Bathay contract has been referred to by one of the
Honorable Managers,and something  said about the orders
given by contractors, and the directions of the Commissioner
in regard to them. He says: Why are they not produced here?
For the simple reason that the directions given by the Commissioner, as to what future orders drawn by contractors should
"contain, was a verbal instruction. It was a matter which rested
in parol. It was not in writing. He told them, after that,
that they should only take such orders as would carry the scrip.'The Manager says, also, the Bathay order was for Hewitt's
benefit. If you use the word in one sense, it was,-that is to
say, he was bound to let him have certain rights under his
contract. To that extent it was for Hewitt's benefit; but
what he paid for it I do not know and do not care. If he got
it for less than its face, it is none of my business. I do not
know that it is any of your business. If he paid three times as
much as it was worth, what is the difference? The only question is, the right it gave him in the contract. The testimony,
as to what was the consideration for it, was ruled out, and
because it was ruled out, the Manager seems to think it is a
very strong piece of evidence against us. It is quite as strong
as some he has called evidence.
Then again, there is a large amount of land, he says,-thirty
or forty thousand acres,-held on matured scrip which has not
been patented up; and he says this land should be patented
up by the first of March, or the patent should be issued within
thirty days after the scrip matures, the reason being that the
lists might go to the several counties and taxes be imposed by
the proper officers. You will remember that the directions




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1769
given by the Commissioner in regard to patenting up those
lands was, that all contractors be notified that they must take
their patents, or selections would be made and the patents for
the lands issued by the office, as required by the law of 1869.
You have had perhaps a suspicion why that has not been fully
complied with by the Commissioner. Part of it has been done;
but the Commissioner has been busy since that time, and if
I were going to charge this neglect upon any one, I should
charge part of it upon the action of the House committee
which has had a tendency to interrupt the work in the office,
and has taken the time and thoughts of the Commissioner,
for the preparation of this defense. Still, some of it has been
done, and the balance is being patented as rapidly as possible.
It is not very material that it should have been done on the
exact day, however,-such statutes being directory merely. It
is being done as rapidly as possible, and will be completed at
an early day. No corruption can be charged upon the Commissioner for this delay. He is not benefited a dollar by it;
hle does not receive a cent by reason of it.
With regard to selling lands, and allowing his clerks to do
so: The Manager says that Barnard and Griswold sold lands
belonging to the State. lie says also that the Commissioner
knew of the sales to Monroe and Hudson, and that we do not
deny it. If we have not denied that, I beg to deny it now. I
will repeat it: He knew nothing about it, and there is not a
particle of testimony in this case showing that the Commissioner knew of any of these transactions. There was not a
record in the office from which he could find them out. The
proceedings were all regular; there was nothing on the papers
or records to even excite suspicion. I care not how vigilant
he might have been, he could not have ascertained it. There
is not a witness who called his attention to it. The on us lies
upon the State to show this knowledge, not upon us to prove
our innocence. That hideous legal malformation of Charles
Sumner, that the State is entitled to the benefit of the doubt




1770     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
in an impeachment case, has never become a law, and never
will in a civilized country. At the time he announced it, the
assertion was received with an universal shout of indignation.
It has never been the rule in any court in Christendom, and it
never should. If the Commissioner must prove his innocence,
why offer any proof at all? Why not simply file the articles, and
say, Mr. Commissioner, prove your innocence? Why require any
proof, if not full proof? In this case there is not a particle of
testimony that he knew anything about those sales. On the
otherhand, the testimony is positive that he did not. When you
come to look at the act of 1861, you will observe that while it
prohibits any officer or clerk employed in the State Land
Office from purchasing land from the State for sale at such
office, it does not prevent their buying it from an individual.
They are only forbidden to purchase it from the State. Did
Mr. Barnard do that? I ask you, as a matter of fact, did he
purchase from the State?  The land was reserved; it therefore belonged to  Hall. Nobody else could control it. It
could not be patented up except on his scrip or order. No
one in the world could get it, or buy it of the State; the State
could not sell it, for it had already sold it, practically. Was it
land for sale at the State Land Office? I say it was not.
The Honorable Manager says the fee was yet in the State.
Is not the fee in the. State in the case of primary-school
lands, sold  on  quarter-payment, just the same?   You
pay a quarter-payment and get your certificate of purchase from the State; still the statute provides that the fee
shall remain in the State, until paid in full; but will it be
insisted for a moment, that any one might not trade in those
lands,-that a clerk, or officer in the Land Office, might not,
with the person who held the certificate,-just as much as
though a patent had been issued? The land may revert to the
State again if the interest be not paid, but that is all. This
land which Barnard traded, you could not buy, and I could
not buy, and the statute was intended only to apply to such
land as you, or I, or any one might buy for cash, at the office;




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 177
whereas these lands could only have been bought of Hall. It
applies only to lands in the market; and another law expressly
provides that where land is reserved on a contract it shall be
withdrawn from the market and cannot be sold. We therefore
claim that Barnard did not buy land that was for sale in the
State Land Office,-and at all events, if he did, the Commissioner had nothing to do with it, and knew nothing about it.
But Barnard did not pay anything for the land to Hall, the Manager says. You have Potter's testimony upon that point,whether be did or did not, I have not inquired. I don't care.
One thing is certain, however, that Hall can maintain an
action of assumpsit for the price of that scrip, if he got
it of Hall and has not paid for it, and I shall leave
the question to the adjustment of the parties. But the Manager also says that certain descriptions of land were reserved
to Hall, which he knew nothing about.  He is mistaken
in the testimony there.  Mr. Hall said that he only had
two of them on his book, and that was all he could testify
about the land reserved, from the memoranda he had. You
will remember the "arrangement " Mr. Hall had about getting
those lists of lands. It was an openly expresed wish or request
that.Mr. Potter should be informed of vacant lands. There
was no secrecy about it,-nothing hidden; but simply a request
made to a number of the clerks in the office, to furnish lists
of vacant lands to his agent, Mr. Potter, to be reserved on his
contract-a favor that any party or any contractor might
have got. The Commissioner had no interest in it, or even
knowledge of it.  There was not one dollar went into the
Commissioner's pocket for the information. He had no interest in the land at all; even Barnard, Mr. Hall tells you, had
no interest in it.
As to the 1,940 acres which Mr. Bush got, you will recollect
Mr. Hall's testimony about them is, that when the land was
reserved, he never supposed that Mr. Bush had any interest in
it at all. Afterwards, Mr. Bush claimed it, and Hall let him
have it, simply because he claimed he had looked the land,




1772     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
and therefore it was his, and he ought to have it,-and
so Mr. Hall let him have it. That is about all you can make
of that matter. So far as Barnard is concerned, it does not
appear he had anything to do with it; besides, it occurred
mostly before this Commissioner went into the office. It was
put in here, under the statement of the Managers that they
proposed to bring it to the knowledge of the present Commissioner. I do not propose to state, as one of the Managers
intimated about a statement made by my brother McGowan,
as to certain matters which we expected to but did not prove,
that they intentionally misstated their case. Honorable counsel do not do that. The Honorable Managers would not do
that. They may have been, and were mistaken, as to what they
could prove; but they did not willfully make a misstatement
about it. I suppose, of course, the Honorable Managers were
mistaken, because otherwise it would be getting in testimony
under false pretenses, and the Honorable Managers would not
do anything of the kind. There is no testimony connecting
Mr. Edmonds with that transaction; and my brother McGowan
has ventilated it sufficiently. It had more to do with the sale
of minutes obtained outside of the office than the selling of
land. I do not find that in 1871 there was any transaction
between Bush and Barnard; if there was, we do not know
anything about it.
Comment has been made by the Honorable Manager, upon
the non-production of the Commissioner upon the witness
stand, according to the practice in criminal cases in the courts.
The practice is altogether new' and unsettled in impeachment
cases as to whether the Commissioner could or could not make
his statement. It is clear, however, he could not be sworn.
It is possible that, in analogy to the practice in a criminal
court, he might make a statement, unless you make this a
proceeding, as the Honorable Manager claims, not criminal,
but sui generis,-neither criminal or civil, but half way between. If that be its true position, he would have to be half
sworn, I suppose, and if it is a criminal proceeding he could




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1773
not be sworn at all. But I call the attention of the Senate to
the fact that the courts of this State have held that counsel
may not comment upon  the absence of a respondent
statement in criminal cases, and that they commit an error
in so doing. And cases have been reversed on that ground.
The Commissioner was quite willing to make a statement in
this matter; but we did not wish to take up time fighting the
air, or explaining matters which were made clear enough by
the testimony already in. I state, therefore, that it is the
respondent's counsel and not the Commissioner who is to
blame for his not going on the stand. No inference against
him could in any case be drawn, even if he had a right to
make a statement and did not do so. The Managers in referring to it were entirely out of order, and in my opinion
ought to have been stopped.
Now, in regard to Mr. Clarke's matter: It is said that the
Commissioner must have known of that case, as he ordered
the land to be made up on Barnard & Co's scrip. The order
was signed by O. B. Clarke, a gentleman who lives in Cold
water, so the evidence shows; the money was paid by him,
and the direction on the bottom of the paper was to enter
with scrip. If there was anything on the face of that order
to inform the Commissioner that the clerk, Ienry C. Clarke,
was to be benefited by that transaction, I do not know where
the evidence is.
A word in regard to the Dwinell matter: You will remember that Mr. Bush had a piece of land marked up to him which
was afterwards marked to Dwinell. Bush went to the office
and wanted the matter explained, and it took a clerk an hour
to explain it to him. It appears the reason was this: that
Bush had not the neeessary credit and he could not hold the
land. Mr. Van Dunham, it is claimed, was interested in that
land. That may be so. He asked the Commissioner, however,
as though it was for another party, whether or not Bush could
hold the land. The Commissioner looked at his credit and
said he could not. Not a word was said to him that Van




1774     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Dunham had any interest in the land at all. The proof is,
that he did not tell him; and even under the rule sought to be
established by the Honorable Manager, I take it, that when proof
and presumption come together, presumption must go down.
In regard to the licensed land, mentioned by the Manager
yesterday, he said he would show that Edmonds was interested,
because the parties bought the scrip of Barnard & Co. That
is what the charge of corruption is now based upon. That is
the way it is claimed the Commissioner acted corruptly in the
matter. The Manager has abandoned the idea that he had any
interest in the land at all, or that there was no arrangement
between Hoyt and the Commissioner. He canceled the Cornell certificate, and thereby lost his profit on the scrip; and
refused to cancel the Hoyt certificate, because he wanted his
margin o(t that scrip. He did the ftrst, notwithstanding he
would lose his profit on the scrip; and yet, it is said, it was
the profit on the scrip sold to Hoyt that prevented his canceling the Hoyt certificate. His love for profit on scrip seems to
be somewhat fickle; but I will get to this license question
directly.
He also says it is strange when he (the Manager) went to the
office to inquire about the Woolover matter, the Commissioner
should take him into the back office, and the first clerk he should
bring to him was Van Dunham, the clerk that was interested
in it. I do not recollect that there is any such testimony in
the case; but even grant that it was so, it would have been
much more reasonable if the Commissioner should hate
brought to Mr. Huston, to talk with him about this transaction, the very clerk who was interested in it, who was the
party conspiring with somebody else outside the office to get
the land away from the settler, if the Commissioner had known
of it. I submit, that entirely the opposite of the inference
drawn by the Manager, is the true one. It is of itself evidence
that the Commissioner did not know that Van Dunham had
anything to do with it at all. "What authority," he says,
"had the Commissioner to take fifty dollars out of the Treasury




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1775
and cancel Cornell's purchase?  He did not do it in Hoyt's
case; he would not do it for Conley, but he did it in the Cornell case. What right had he to do it? Either he corruptly canceled that certificate, or corruptly refused to do
it in the other case."  Now gentlemen the Commissioner had
no power; there is no law, that I know of, giving him authority to cancel the certificate that was issued to Cornell. I do
not find any such law. He violated the law there, probably.
I should have been quite willing for him to have violated it in
the other cases if he could, and I would take pleasure in defending him for doing so. It took fifty dollars out of the State
Very well, Was that corruption in the Commissioner? Did a
dollar of it find its way into his pocket? Was he not trying
to help the settler get back his land?  Did he not act in the
utmost good faith, to help a poor man to get back land, which,
by his (the settler's) negligence, he was likely to loose? Did
he act willfully and corruptly, or with good motives? Do they
claim that because a man violates the law, he therefore commits
an impeachable offense without regard to his motive in doing
so?  Why, Mr. Lincoln declared martial law, and the courts
said that he had no right to do so,-that it was an illegal act.
Could he have been impeached?  Was the act an impeachable
offense?
His Excellency Governor Baldwin has called upon United
States troops to assist in quelling a riot in the mining region.
some people say he had no right to do so. It may be a violation of the law, possibly; shall he be impeached for it? Can
such an idea be entertained for a moment. Can you establish
one rule for one officer and another for another?  I think not.
But there is another question about canceling the certificate
and getting back the $50, and that is, there is no Article you
can bring it under. You may search these Articles from the
commencement clear through, and there is not a word, a line,
a sentence, an intimation, nor an insinuation in any of the
Articles, that the House-and these are the articles of the
House, it is claimed-deemed this an impeachable offense; they




1776    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
have not put it in any Article at all. They have not in any
degree referred to it, although the Committee knew of it.
Now, you will remember that the House have the power to
pardon offenses committed by an officer.  They have the
right to say what he shall be held for, and for what
he shall not. They evidently thought that the Commissioner
was doing what the law did not give him a right to do, but
what the parties were willing he should do; and they saw he
was acting with good motives, and for the benefit of the settler. They therefore concluded to overlook it. If the matter
had been brought directly to to the House, I have no doubt
they would have said so. This, at least, is the theory of the
case, since there is nothing in the Articles about it. Now, why
did he do it in one case and not in the other? Because Cornell consented in one case, and in the other Hoyt did not. It
certainly could not be done without the consent of the parties, nor even then if the Commissioner had followed the letter of the law. But the letter of the law sometimes kills.
Mr. Cummings came to the office, and wanted the Commissioner to intercede with Cornell, and get this matter fixed;
and he promised to do so, cheerfully, not reluctantly. He says
he is willing to pay; the Commissioner does not ask pay, and
he did not pay him anything. He saw Cornell at Coldwater,
and asked him to be as easy as he could with Bouck, because
Bouck was a poor man. Is there anything wrong about it, or
that shows corruption in the Commissioner? He also stated
to him, "If I had known there was a settler on the land, you
should not have had it."
That is good talk for a man, but poor talk for an officer. He
had no business to talk that way officially. The question for
the Commissioner was simply one of law,-what he must do
as an officer. As an individual he could sympathize, as an
officer he could not; but there is no Article the act eomes
under. The Commissioner, however, is but human, although
an officer, and the sympathies of the man were where yours are,
— with Mr. Bouck. He has told his story here; he has excited




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1777
the sympathy of every one that has heard it, including the
Gommissioner and his counsel. And, taking advantage of this,
the Managers have attempted to hitch these oxen upon the
Commissioner and drag him  into the matter, and in some
shape or in some way fasten the charge of corruption upon
him; but just exactly where, or how, they cannot tell; and,
finally, they come down to the cancelation of that certificate.
They cannot prove that he had a cent's interest in the land, one
way or the other. Upon the contrary, the proof is that he had
not.  Where is the corruption in office?  Where is the
crime or misdemeanor, specified in these Articles, about the
transaction? Even if it were specified I, refuse to believe,
gentlemen, that  you  would  convict  this  respondent,
upon  any evidence of that kind.  But there is another
settler: "Poor Conley,"  says the  Manager.  His letter
was received at the office the nineteenth of December.
The certificate was issued the twentieth of December, to Mr.
Hoyt, and the money paid into the Treasury on the twentyfirst. You will remember that Mr. Hoyt's application was made
on the fourteenth of December, but that the office was then
removing, and that everything was in confusion until the
nineteenth. That no business transactions were had with the
Treasury. at all, during that time, and after getting settled
this certificate was made out and dated on the twentieth of
December.  The practice of the office, of course, is to date
the certificate on the day the land is made up, wvithout
reference to the day it may have been applied for.  The
application may have been filed long before. They are then
taken as they come, as you happen to put your hand upon
them, and date the certificate the day that you make them up.
Now, one moment right here. Fraud is charged upon the
Commissioner.  Corruption is charged and these dates are
used to establish it.  They attempt to fix fraud by them in
this way: They say the certificate shows the land was not sold
until the 20th instead of the 14th, which was after the receipt
223




1778     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
of Conley's letter. But do you suppose that if there had been
any fraud or corruption, or anything wrong intended, that the
certificate would have gone out dated the twentieth day of December?  Why, gentlemen, do not call the Commissioner an
idiot. He is not that. He would have dated it back. An
ordinary animal would have done that. IHe would have dated
it back to the 14th day of December.
The Manager says he does not propose to spend any time on
the act of 1865, or the act of 1861, but still he says, It is a
rule that if the act of 1861 applies, and the law was substantially complied with, and the party purchasing had notice
of the settler being in possession of the land, that the
license would be good, and would hold the land, that possibly may be true, as between the parties to the transaction.
Whether Mr. Woolover, Bush, Conley, or the granters of the
State, could hold the land mentioned, is not now the question.
A  very strong argument could be made in favor of the
proposition advanced by the Honorable Manager. If Mr.
Cornell knew that these parties were on the land when
he purchased it, and he knew that they had substantially
complied with the law as to improvements, etc., a very strong
equity would exist in their favor, and the courts would go a
great way, undoubtedly, to construe the law in  accordance
with equity and right. But the question is not what are their
rights as between those parties. The question is as to the duty
of the Commissioner,-what should he have done?  If his
duty be laid down in the law,-if it was his duty to sell the
land, there is no margin left whatever for discretion, with
regard to the rights of the parties, and, as he then said in his
decision, written on the back of Mr. Woolovers proof, "Your
remedy is in the courts."  That was his view of the law, and
that is my view of the law.  I have not seen any lawyers
yet but that viewed it the same way. Even the Honorablo
Man:agers, I do not understand, dare to take the position
squarely, that under the act of 1861, in the absence of the three
months' proof, the Comnmissioner would not be authorized to




PROCEEDINGS OF THE CORT.                    1779
issue a certificate to the party applying for licensed land. I
shall take up that question in a moment. The question is not
one at all between the parties; it is a question as to the duty
of the Commissioner.
The Manager also mentions the practice of dealing in scrip.
Gentlemen, I do not propose to take up time upon that. This
practice of dealing in scrip may or may not be all right, but
it is a matter that the law says nothing about. It is not a
crime to deal in scrip; it is not an offense; and the practice
of the office has been to deal in it. Perhaps it ought to be
prohibited; that is a question that will address itself to you,
Senators, when you come here as legislators. It is not a question, however, for you to consider, as a Court, at all. However,
it is not claimed, as I understand, that there is any proof
showing that money was received for the land and the money
taken by the Commissioner, the land being entered with scrip,
and the money kept. I do not know that there is any proof
of that kind or claim  that there is; but the Manager says
that the Commissioner made a corrupt bargain with Mr. Porter to do this thing, and therefore he should be impeached.
It seems not to make any difference whether he knew anything
about the matter, according to the Manager's view  of it.
Within one or two weeks, you will remember, after the Commissioner went into the office, he had a talk with Porter. He
told Porter he wanted him  to carry on the office just the
same as he had done with his predecessor, —he was not familiar
with its duties,-and what otherwise could he have done?
And he says he authorized him to deal in scrip, just the same
as his predecessor had done, and, because he made that agreemnent, he made a corrupt bargain it is claimed, and therefore
you must convict him. A most extraordinary proposition.
When the Commissioner found out more about it, he concluded he would not have anything to do with it, and that is
just all there is of it,-no act done under it. Nothing but the
agreement with Porter, made after the representation by him
as to its correctness and under a state of circumstances when




1780     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
he had every reason to believe that he was acting perfectly
legal and legitimate. If that be an impeachable offense, impeachments are a very easy matter. The Manager says that
on page 67 of the answer, we admit that we did the very thing
complained of, and we dismissed Porter on account of it. The
Honorable Manager and myself do not agree, in regard to the
reading of the answer. The answer to Article V., and that is
the scrip article, is upon page 65. The answer referred to
on page 67 is upon another matter. And let me state the circumstances under which that Article was drawn, and the record shows the facts as I will state them: The testimony had
been taken before the committee, and we had supposed from
the noise that had been made about this matter, that Mr. Porter had done the act that they now charge the Commissioner
with doing, viz: that he had been in the habit, when money
was sent to the office, of taking the money, putting it in his
pocket, and entering the land with scrip. We supposed, really,
that Mr. Porter would swear to that fact, and we had unlimited confidence in Mr. Porter,-that is, in his ability to do that;
and the answer was drawn simply with reference to that and
without really knowing what he would swear to, and with an
entire absence on our part of any knowledge of the real transaction. And you will see now upon page 67 what is said about
it. This is in answer, however, to the Seventh Article, and not
to the Fifth.
He says that "for the first few months of his term, he was
compelled to and did trust to his Deputy to carry on the office;
the orders of the respondent to him being to conduct it as
though no change in the chief had been made; this respondent, in the mean time, studying the laws relating to his duties,
and gradually familiarizing himself with the work and detail
of the office.  *     *   *   *   *   That during these
investigations he kept careful watch of his Deputy and of his
management, and at different times suggested changes, but he
was always met with opposition and the assurance that such
had always been the practice of the office. That his Deputy




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1781
did not tell him, nor did this respondent discover, this practice
of retaining money sent for land, and entering the land with
swamp-land scrip, from actual transactions in the office by his
Deputy, but he heard of it outside the office."
He knew nothing about it,-did not profess to speak from
personal knowledge. " Upon investigation he ascertained that
such had been the practice of the office during all former
administrations of it so far back as he could get any information about it."
There is not an admission there that it was the practice
while he was in the office. lie did not profess to know anything about it.
" But this respondent did not approve of it, and thereupon
ordered it to be discontinued, and all moneys received for such
lands to be paid into the State Treasury, and the land entered
with cash and not with scrip; and, finally, to insure a change
in this as well in other practices which he deemed prejudicial
to the public interests, he changed his Deputy, and the practice
ceased."
So much for that. It is a pretty desperate stretch, it s3ems
to me, to attempt to get evidence out of that admission.
Now, in regard to Mr. Coffron: You will remember that he
sent some money, in November, to pay for the land, which
was thirty-seven cents short. Seventeen dollars and twentyfive cents was returned to Mr. Coffron, and the land entered
with scrip. "What right Lhad he to do that?" shouted the
Manager. "Why did not he hold it?"  Consistency, at all
events, is a commendable thing, if not a necessity with Managers. Just before this, under the First Article, and under other
Articles, he has been denouncing the Commissioner for holding
lands when they were not paid for in full. lie says he has no
business to do it. If you might hold land when there was
thirty-seven cents short, you might hold it when there was
thirty-seven thousand dollars short. There is no difference
in the rule. What right had we to hold in that case and not
in others?  He would have him  hold it, and send up to Mr.




1782      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EIDMONDS.
Coffron and get the balance of the money. There was no law
requiring him to do so. He does not claim so. But the man
wanted the land. He did not send money enough to get it
Now what could he do? He must either send back all the
money or hold the land, without law, until the balance of the
money is sent; or he must take so much of it as was necessary
to buy the scrip, enter the land, and send back the balance. But it is sufficient for nme here, gentlemen, to say
that he was  under  no  legal obligations  to do otherwise than  he dia.  It is claimed  that the practice  of
dealing in scrip is bad, because of its effect upon the rights
of parties who apply to the office for land. "For instance," he
says, "suppose Mr. A applies for five thousand acres, and Mr.
B applies for the same five thousand acres. Mr. A proposes
to enter his land with scrip, purchased of Barnard and Company, and Mr. B. does not.  Of course," he says, "Mr. A.
would have the preference."  But I say, of course he would
not. That proposition is drawn wholly and entirely from the
imagination of the Manager. There is no evidence of any
such a transaction at all. If you or I should go to the office
and apply for land, we would get it witlout reference to where
we got our scrip, or where we did not get it. There is not a
land-dealer in the State but knows that if he applies for land
and don't get it, and the land is not sold, that he can force
the Commissioner to sell to him. No such transaction ever
occurred, and although it las sprung entirely from the imagination of the Manager, yet it, really ought to have no
foundation, even there, because it could never occur. And
again: In regard to this scrip account, he cites you to the fact
that Canfield was told by Mr. Porter that he could buy his
land with scrip. Well, now, gentlemen, I think it rather hard
that they should attempt to impeach Mr. Edmonds because
Mr. Porter really once told the truth,-hard upon Porter, I
mean. A man came in the office, and he told him that he
could buy scrip. Whether he asked the question or not, or
whether Porter volunteered the information, does not appear;




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1783
but it will not be presumed, of course, that he told him a
thing that he did not inquire about; and Mr. Porter told him
the truth; and, therefore, they say the Commissioner should
be impeached. That information he might have got upon the
start, anywhere. I say it was his duty to tell him (Mr. Canfield) this, if he asked him. I do not know how it can be said
that Canfield would have remained in ignorance of this fact,
if Porter had not told him of it,-the statement is not credible; and it would look almost like fraud to have allowed him
to remain in ignorance of the fact.
In regard to dissolute clerks: Both Managers have spoken
upon that question. I have no defense to make of any clerks
or anybody else that choose to get drunk. I know what I
would do, if I had a man in a responsible position that was in
the habit of getting so drunk so as to neglect his business, or
if I knew that he drank at all; but that is not the question
here nor the charge set forth in these articles. The Article
says "for the corrupt purpose of gain,"-for money,-he employed these dissolute clerks. The House of Representatives
did not propose to call him to account for this matter, unless
he kept these dissolute clerks for the purpose of gain.
So far as the matters proven are concerned, they are limited
to two cases which were brought directly to his attention. It
may be inferred that he knew that Van Dunham had once
been convicted of being drunk; but the testimony shows that
no clerk ever appeared in the office except in a condition to do
his duty. However you may think, or I may think, or whatever we would or would not do as to a clerk who is in the
habit of getting intoxicated, it still becomes more a matter of
policy than a question of law. I do not know of any legal rule
about it. I do not know of any law that says the Commissioner shall keep only sober men in his office, or that makes
their tenure of office depend upon whether they ever get
drunk out of office hours.
It is true, if he should keep a dissolute or incompetent clerk
in the office for the purpose of gain, it would be corrupt con



1784     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
duct "' in office," in the meaning of the statute. But there is
an entire absence of testimony to show that fact. On the contrary, the evidence is the other way.
I do not propose to answer the general dissertation we have
heard upon the propriety of electing men to office, or putting
them into position of clerks, who have been guilty of drinking.
I will simply say that one swallow does not make a summer,
and that one spree or two sprees do not make a dissolute clerk.
The Manager calls attention to the Commissioner: " An high
officer of the Government-the Commissioner of the whole
State of Michigan-getting on a spree with his clerks! " And
he says: "Suppose the Lieutenant-Governor of the State
should get on a spree at some hotel, what would you say?"
Mr. Manager Huston-I said the Governor, not the Lieutenant Governor.
AMr. Shipman-I beg pardon; I will make the amendment.
But it is a delicate question to ask me what I would do. I am
not quite clear about it. Politics are in somewhat of an unsettled state.  Mr. Greeley is but just nominated; and my
political slate is not yet made up. But, speaking hastily, and
from my present view, I think I should probably vote for his
Democratic opponent at the next election. Any other gentleman can do as he chooses,-can answer the question for himself. I suppose the question is addressed to me, and one thing
I will say, and that is, I would not impeach him; it would
make the " spree " too expensive to the State.
We now come to the Alderman matter. When Alderman
was upon the witness stand he impressed every one very forcibly. He prejudiced me in his favor. I thought he intended
to tell the truth. And yet, there were some circumstances
attending his testimony, that you may look upon with some
suspicion. You will recollect that he went to the Land Office
and applied to Mr. Robinson for the land on Higgins' Lake,fractions five and six,-and that he did not get them. He did
not apply to the Commissioner. Remember that, because the
Manager has said'"Why did he not get this land when he




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1785
applied for it?" Goddard got it afterwards on his application.
The reason is plain enough; Robinson tells you he never exercises any discretion in these matters,-that his orders were
to go by one invariable rule, which was this: In cases where
the lands might be valuable chiefly for timber, to not allow
the party applying to enter them  without an affidavit that
they were not valuable for that purpose. The judgment of
the Commissioner or of the Deputy alone could be exercised
upon other proof, or dispense with an affidavit. Alderman
applied to Robinson and did not get the lands. He did not
apply to Barnard,-and then he went home. And as he says,
Goddard wrote to Barnard for them; and he tells you what
Goddard put in that letter.
Now, he may have intended to tell the exact truth, but I do
not know where he got the idea that Goddard put in the letter
the words "For God's sake do something for a poor fellow,"
because it is not there. He may have intended to testify fairly, but, if so, he made a very serious mistake. I do not consider it very material however, except as bearing upon his other
testimony in the case. He says that he (Alderman) could not
make the affidavit when he was here; and I will tell you the
reason that he could not. It is quite evident he made a mistake as to the location of tho land, and the amount of timber
upon it. You will remember he got the land cornering; he
got 300,000 feet on it, when we all know it does not contain
that amount. And when he attempted to run out the lines of
the land, he got the posts wrong, and you will remember he
said, if they were otherwise the plat-book was wrong. He had
them cornering, in his mind, and undoubtedly those were the
pieces he looked at, and when he went to the office he supposed that amount of pine was upon the land, and he could
not make the required affidavit. But it seems they had other
information in the office. Look at the act of 1863 and you
will find the word "affidavit," is not contained in it. Page
15 of the Land Office compilation of laws, reads as follows:
224




1786   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
"Whenever it satisfactorily appears that the chief value of
any parcel of land consists of pine or other timber."
" Whenever it appears " so to the Commissioner,-not when
it appears that it is not so. It is an affirmative fact, that must
appear. If it does so appear, then he is required to ask more
than a quarter-payment for the land. It has been the practice
in the office to require an affidavit of this fact, it is said. It
has been sometimes, and sometimes it has not.  That is the
testimony about it. Iie has a right to get his information from
any source, and it is even in his power, under a close reading
of the law, to sell the land on a quarter-payment, where he has
no information about it, because the law says that when this
affirmative fact "satisfactorily appears," namely: that its chief
value is for timber, he shall require full payment, or security
for the amount unpaid; implying that when it does not appear,
he may sell on quarter-payment. Now, in this case, the land
had been taken by pine men, all around the lake. He had a
right to infer, from that fact alone, that this was not valuable
for timber. Senator Waterbury did not like it; it was not good
enough for him.  Other parties looked, but did not take it,
although they took land all around it; and finally Goddard
sent forward and got it on quarter-payment, but not until after
the office was informed, by Mayor Ortman, that it was
worthless.  But what value  did  the  witness put upon
it?  Alderman  says  the  land  is  worth  815  an  acre.
For  farming  purposes?  No, for  a  town  site.  It is
quite immaterial whether it was valuable for a town site,
or farming purposes, the question being, Was it chiefly valuable for timber?  If not, it could be sold on quarter-payment
for the land. All the other testimony is that the timber, consisting of about twenty acres, is worth perhaps a dollar an
acre,-that anyway the value of the land is about twenty or
thirty dollars, according to the witnesses who saw it. As far
as the testimony goes, it appears that the State has already
received all the land is worth. Whether they ever got the
$3, or not, ought to be immaterial.  If Alderman's state



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1787
ment is true with regard to the land, the State of course
is safe enough for the balance, but that is all speculation,
I admit. However this may be, the matter is left entirely
to the discretion of the Commissioner, as to when he shall or
shall not sell, and there is no court in the world which can
control him. He cannot even be controlled by a mandanzmus;
nor can you impeach him for the exercise of this discretion,
unless it is done corruptly.
Five dollars were sent to Barnard to buy cigars. I will
venture the statement, that there are many five dollars sent to
public officers by different men who simply ask for what they
could legitimately get without pay.  I have done it myself
very frequently,-not to the Land Office of this State, however, but I have sent it to the offices of the General Government, and I presume you all have, more or less; but you had no
idea of bribing any one in doing so. They are mere gratuities.
The business would probably be attended to, just the same,
whether you sent the money or not. Is there any law that says
you shall not make a present to a clerk or Deputy in the Land
Office? He sent five dollars to Barnard to buy some cigars. I
submit, the worst thing there could be in that transaction, would
be the smoking of those cigars. The Commissioner did not
have any of them  to smoke, so far as appears from the evidence, and so you cannot impeach him for smoking. He did
not have any of the money,-he did not see the letter; it was
not kept in the files of the office. It was produced here afterwards, and we would have proved it at the time, if they had
given us time to hunt it up. We got it as soon as we could.
It is a letter simply asking for this land, and mentioning the
$5 as a present for cigars; at the same time he is asking only
for what he might have had without it, and which the evidence shows  the  Commisioner was justified  in  letting
him  have under the law.  He says he took Alderman's
word for the kind of land this was, as he had a right
to. I have said that he had a right to get his informa



1788     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
tion from any source he pleased. They have not shown me
any law to the contrary.
A word with regard to the rules of the office. The Manager
says they are not obeyed. Who is to blame for it if they are
not? The laws of this State are not all obeyed, I am informed,
and I believe it to be the fact.' And yet I do not suppose that
anybody expects to impeach our lawmakers because their laws
are not fully obeyed. The only thing the Commissioner could
do was to make rules, and to exercise reasonable diligence
to see that they were enforced. He could not compel obedience
to them. He is not to be held responsible if they are violated.
It is said here by the Honorable Managers that we are to be
held responsible for all acts of subordinates in the office; and
we are cited to the 7th of Grattan, 378, in support of that position. That was the case of the loss of a slave, an occasion of
gence; and undoubtedly the Commissioner would be liable
upon his bond for the acts of his employes in the office, if he
gave a bond. But he gives none. The law, as it originally
stood, when he gave a bond, provided that the sureties should
be liable for the acts of certain clerks in the office; but it
never extended beyond a civil remedy.
The case cited from the 6th of B. Monroe, Kentucky Reports,
171, was a proceeding to remove an officer,-first, for embezzlement; second, for extortion, and third, for false entries in
books. And the question came up, as to how far an officer was
to be held responsible for the acts of his subordinates. But
we need not go to that case to find the law on this subject.
We can look in our own courts and find a rule clearly laid
down, in the case of the People vs. McKenney, 10 Michigan,
page 97. Here the question was one of embezzlement, against
the State Treasurer. There was an omission to charge certain
moneys. It has always been held that an omission to charge
one thing, or one item, or several items even, will not, of itself,
amount to proof of an embezzlement by an officer; but that
a number of them, where it seems to have been done upon a




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1789
system, or anything of that kind, may amount to proof that it
was done intentionally. Now I will read from the case:
"We do not think the objection can be sustained. It was
the official duty of the Treasurer to keep such accounts in his
office; he might either make the entries himself or by his
Deputy or clerk; but in either case they were his official acts;
and if made by others for him, it was as much his duty to see
that they were properly made, and the accounts correctly kept,
as if all the entries had been made by himself. Of course the
books would not be conclusive against the defendant; but the
question is upon their competency. We think they were clearly
competent; and if it appeared by the evidence that any particular sum which ought to have been credited to the State
had not been so credited on the books, it was competentfor
the defendant to show that it was the error of the Deputy or
olerk, or that he had directed the entry and the clerk or Deputy
had neglected it, or any other fact which would show that the
omission was not intentional on the part of the defendant, or
for a corrupt or criminal purpose."
There you have the extent of the liability of the chief for the
acts of his subordinate, and the rule by which we are willing
to be governed. There is nothing here but that shows the
utmostgood faith on the part of the Commissioner, in adopting
proper rules for the government of the clerks in the office, and
due diligence in their enforcement. Everybody knows that a
clerk has the power to take advantage of his employer every day,
and if speculating in lands, he would take pains to hide it from
the Commissioner and erase everything on the record that would
show that he had any connection with such matter. I deny
that the Commissioner can be impeached for a wrong he did
not do; and you will remember we are not charged with negligence. "He must have known this," thunders the Manager.
That is, as I construe the expression, "It is a necessity for
our case that he must have known of it as a matter of fact."
It is not true, however, much less proven.  We are not
charged with negligence,-for acts of omission.  We are




1790     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
charged with positive acts of corruption. We are charged
with employing clerks for gain, who did rot do their
duty, and one of the Honorable Managers says, in' despair, "If not for gain, what did the Commissioner keep the
clerks there for? "  He was utterly unable to stop at any place
but that. He reminded me of a story in one of Irving's works,
about the first discovery of America, proving that it was not
discovered by Columbus. He says, that "the vessels sailed
from Norway and Sweden long before Columbus started, and
sailed direct for this country; and that they were never heard
of afterwards; and if they did not come to America, where
did they come to?" It seems to me the Honorable Manager
is in that very fix; "If he did not keep them for that purpose,
why did he keep them there?" That is poor talk,-with all due
respect for the Managers,-to base an impeachment upon. It
rests upon them to show that he kept them in there for that
purpose.
And now, the gratuity to Robinson,-the fifty dollars from
David Preston & Co., which was received for work done out of
office hours, and for work which they could not compel the
Commissioner, officially, to do, namely, picking out and stating
their account. They could not have made the demand officially, for this work, and of course the State is not entitled to
any fees for work which it is not the duty of the Commissioner to do. It is not an official act. The money was sent to
the Commissioner, and turned over by the Commissioner to
Robinson.
Mr. Van Dunham got one hundred and twenty-five dollars;
and the Manager asks, "Will it be presumed that the Commissioner had no knowledge of his receiving that one hundred
and twenty-five dollars?"  I answer, in the Yankee way, Will
it be presumed that he had? And that is the legal way to ask
it, also. Ite says that Barnard had ten thousand acres of land
reserved since 1870.  As there is no evidence of that, I
do not know  where he  gets his information  from.  I
have not been able to find that Mr. Barnard had an acre of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1791
land reserved for his benefit, since January 1, 1871. I care
but very little about it, however, as it is something the Commissioner had nothing to do with if he has. It is a matter he
did not know of. If it were true that Barnard was doing that
kind of business, the question might be asked: What will the
Commissioner do now,-will he keep him in office, or will he
discharge him?  But it could not be a crime until he found
it out. Mr. Barnard would not be likely to tell of it; and
the Commissioner cannot be presumed to have any information about it, even if true. He says, also, that the clerks became rapidly demoralized when  le went into the  office.
Whether rapidly or otherwise, I do not know as it is very material. I do not know what was going on in Lansing that
winter, for I was not here. Whether there was an extra occasion for their becoming demoralized, or not. I shall leave that
to the Honorable Senators and Managers. Associations sometimes have influenced people.
I call your attention for a moment to the Obed Smith reservations. He came to the office on the 29th of November,
1871, and found 1,600 acres of land had been reserved to
Ripley, and they claim that this reservation was made with the
intention of defrauding Mr. Smith; but Mr. Smith does not
claim so. He does not substantiate the Mianagers in that
claim, and they should not claim anything more than he does.
He says when he went into that office, "I thought they intended to beat me out of the land, but I came to the conclusion afterwards I probably might be mistaken; I probably
was."  Sixty-three thousand acres of land on five contracts all
in confusion by being figured up  together. IIe was in
the habit of giving  orders for land  to everyone  and
everybody in the woods, tearing out a leaf from his memorandum  book to do so, or writing the order on a piece
of a letter envelope in every shape and form, keeping no memorandum  of them. Is it any wonder that the accounts should
get confused in Smith's mind? H e got one thousand acres
allowed twice in the Road Commissioner's Office. Was that




1792     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
an intentional fraud practiced upon the State by him? Certainly not. It would have been the strangest thing in the
world if there had been no mistakes made in this matter.
Whether the Commissioner or iMr. Smith was right, I do not
care to inquire. But he sent him to Ripley. Why did he do
that? That was a very suspicions circumstance, the Managers
think. "He was in league with Ripley," they say. Now, would
he have sent him to Ripley, his confederate, if he had been in
league with him? Why, it is the commonest occurrence in the
world for men to apply to have land reserved on their contracts,
and where they have any reason to doubt about it, they will
ask to have it reserved until they can find out about it. A contractor has the right to claim that there has been an overreserve on another contract, and make an application for it,
and have it held until the matter is settled.
It is said the invention was to hold these lands until Mr.
Smith should become frightened into a settlement, wherebyhe
would lose some of his land. He does not appear to be a very
good man to frighten. In the first place, he is a lawyer, and
knows his rights, and, knowing, dares maintain them. I think
it is not necessary to spend more time upon this point. There
is one serious question, however, that I am called upon to
answer: Why he told him to go to Ripley?  I must answer
that question. Ripley had applied for Smith's over-reserves,
but he was short of credit. Mir. Hall had applied for the balance, and there was some confusion about it. The Commissioner sent him  to Ripley, because Ripley had made this
application. He sent him there because of the fact that there
was a difference between these two men,.which he wanted them
to adjust and settle. You will remember that Smith sold some
lands, or wanted to sell some; and you will remember that
the books showed that he had over-reserved on his contracted.
That is the way it appeared; whether right or wrong, is immaterial; and inasmuch as it was not settled who was right or
who was wrong, he sends him  to Ripley to have the matter
arranged. "Ah!" the Honorable Manager says, " it was done for




PROCEEDINGS OF TIIE COURT.                  1793
the purpose of giving Ripley time to investigate the lands."
This is an idea of his own invention. I think Mr. Ripley's
man was up in the woods, and he wrote here to reserve, to hold
thelands until he came down. Let me refer to the application,-it will speak for itself:
"Will you please reserve for me, on my contract, tle above
list of lands for a few days, until my man returns from the
woods. I am not entirely satisfied about them  until I get
another report. If you will do this I will make it all right for
your trouble if they are vacant. If you will do as above
requested, telegraph me without fail, to-morrow morning.
"Yours, &c.,
"HI. C. RIPLEY."
Here is the answer, dated November 23, 1871: " The lands
are Obed Smith's reservation. You have not credit to hold all
of them. I am looking over Smith's account."  Does that
look like fraud?
By a Senator-Who signed that?
ir. Shipman-William A. Barnard, Deputy Commissioner.
Now here is the telegram  in answer, as I take it, dated
November 23d:
"If lands are in market, furnish scrip for whatever I am
short, or reject from the list furtherest north enough so that
my credit will cover. Answer at once.
"H. C. RIPLEY."
It may be I do not get them  in order. Here is another of
Mr. Barnard's:
"   IL. Ripley, East Saginaw, Mic/.
"Will reserve the amount of vour credit, commencing south,
and report by letter.
WM. A. BARNARD,
"Dep. Com."
Now, it is said that we furnished scrip for Ripley's lands.
Where is the evidence of it?  We did nothing of the kind.
Here is another telegram from Ripley:
225




1794      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
"I am waiting for telegraph from  about lands ordered yesterday.
H. C. RIPLEY.
"Ans. immediately."
The telegram  I read before must have been in answer to
that. There is nothing in the world to show that the Commissioner or Barnard ever sold him aQy scrip, but the evidence
shows Barnard refused to do so-the telegrams show that.
Mr. Manager Cochrane [interrupting]-Do not all of those
telegrams show they were dated Nov. 23d:
~Mr. Shipman-They are all dated Nov. 23d.  Two to Mr.
Barnard, and the two from him. Now, this application is not
dated at all; it is filed in the office Nov. 23d, 1871. Undoubtedly, when he says "The land ordered yesterday," he refers to
the fact that he had sent this by letter the day before. I should
so construe it.
Senators, I have gone over the ground as rapidly as I well
could, and have trespassed upon your patience, somewhat, in
doing so, but I desired to investigate and examine some of the
positions taken by the Managers in this case, and consider it
my duty to do so.
I now desire to call your attention to the Conley, Bouck
and Woolover transactions.  Conley's license was under the
act of 1861; in fact, they were all under that act. The transactions are very similar, and I need not go over the facts in
regard to each separately. The Bouck land was a forty obtained
by Cornell. The money was sent to the office to buy the scrip
and enter it. You will see the statement of it in his application. You will see also that he received his change, being
$4 50, as he states twice in his testimony. The amount of
money lie sent was fifty dollars. The money was used as
directed by him; the scrip was bought and the land was
entered. It was a very hard case upon Mr. Bouck, and it is
dealing in a class and kind of land that few will want. No
one should wish such lands; and this is true, whether you look
at Bouck's, Conley's, or Woolover's case. But that is not the




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1795
question here; the question here is, What is the duty of the Commissioner in such cases? and that is the only question that you
have to deal with. These acts of 1859,1861, and 1865 are all in
the Compiled Laws. The Honorable Manager who opened this
case says, that the act of 1861 was modified by the act of 1865,
to protect the careless, negligent, but honest settler. He did not
argue the proposition any further than that, and I apprehend
that he did not consider it safe to do so; but if the Legislature
passed that law to protect a careless and negligent class of men
it is the first instance I ever knew of. They do not usually
legislate for that class. They usually require people not to be
careless, and not to be negligent; and to take care of themselves. I think there was a system in the passage of these
laws. I think that the system is correctly stated in our answer.
It is this: first, if a man applied for land under the act of 1859,
he was required to file an affidavit of what he intended to do;
that is, that he intended to drain the land, etc., as required by
the act of Congress. Upon doing this, he was entitled to a
license for the lands. That was deemed a sufficient guaranty
that the land would be settled upon.  Then I think that
experience taught the State that that was not sufficient;
that people would apply for lands that they did not go upon,
and did not drain, nor in any way comply with the law in
regard to them; that speculators would hire men to go upon
lands and license them; that lumbermen would do so, and
others interested in lands would get their lands, nominally to
settle upon the lands, and really hold them for the purpose Vf
speculation,-and that thereupon the act of 1861 was passed,
specially, specifically, and directly providing that the settler
should, within three months after the date of his license, file
a certain kind of proof with the Commissioner of the Land
Office, to which I will call your attention in a moment. If he
did not file this proof within the three months, the license was
declared to be void, and the Commissioner was required to
sell the land the same as other swamp land. The law does
not say he may do it,-You shall have authority to do it, but




1796     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
it says, You shall; the words are mandatory,-peremptory.
Now, it is said that the practice of the office was to not allow
these lands to be sold, unless an affidavit had been filed
showing that they had been abandoned, or something of
that kind, and it is urged very strongly by the Managers
that if that was the practice, the present Commissioner ought
to have followed it.  We differ right there.  We differ at
the outset. Where there is no law, the Commissioner has a
right to abide by an established practice of the office; but
where there is a law about it, the practice must be changed to
comply with the law. I care not whether the practice is good
or bad; it is simply a question of law. If the statute is peremptory, mandatory, he has no right to set it aside, although
he may himself dislike the law. It is a virtue in the citizen,
not a crime, to obey the law. The Commissioner did not
make this law; he made none of these laws. The Legislature
made them, and if they are not made right, let them change
them,-not impeach the officer who obeys them.
I desire to call your attention to the license: Mr. Bouck's is
dated the 14th day of March, 1865. The law of 1865 was
passed the 18th day of March, 1865, and ordered to take immediate effect.  His license was dated, therefore, four days
before that became a law; it therefore would come within the
ruling of the Court, in the case that has been read in manuscript. The Woolover license was dated nearly a year after
that. I call your attention to both of them, to show that you
have a case arising both before and after the act of 1865.
There is no difference in the rule, however, as I shall claim,
whether the license be dated before or after that law. Upon
page 511 of the Impeachment Proceedings, you will find the
application of Mr. Bouck, to go upon the lands in question, and
you will also find the license issued under "An act to amend an
act entitled'An act to provide for the settlement and drainage
of swamp lands  by actual settlers,' approved March 7th,
1861," referring directly to the act, and the acts amendatory
thereto. The act had not been amended at that date; and




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1797
thatiis put in, as I suppose, as a matter of form; still, it would
have been taken, subject to all amendments to the law, without those words being in the license. He asked for the privilege of going upon and draining the land. It was said by one
of the Managers that the license gave him  a vested right in
the land when it was issued. I beg pardon; but it does nothing of the kind. It simply gives him a right or license to
go upon the land, and do certain things, and to have a title in
the future, if he does them; but, if he fails to do them, the
land reverts. Now, the conditions are:' First. That said applicant shall enter into immediate possession and occupancy of said tract of land, and shall continue
to reside upon, occupy, and improve the same for five continuous years.
"Second. That said applicant shall, within three months
from the date of this instrument, file with the Commissioner
of the State Land Office, a certificate from  the supervisor of
the township in which the land is located, together with his
own affidavit, that he is in the actual possession and occupancy
of such land."
That is what he must do, and it is written right in his
license, and then it is declared"And it is further provided, That if said applicant or settler shall not file his certificate and oath of settlement and
occupancy, as above provided, or if the evidence of two witnesses, under oath, is furnished to the Commissioner of the
State Land Office, that the clause above mentioned, to prevent
waste, has been violated, then his claim shall be deemed as void.
and the Commissioner of the State Land Office shall, from and
after said time, sell said land the same as other swamp lands."
This is in Woolover's license and in the licenses of all these
parties:
"And the said applicant also stipulates and agrees with the
State, that he will faithfully occupy the said tract of land, and
will drain the same conformably to the above mentioned act,
and to the provisions of the act of Congress therein referred to,




1798      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
for the purpose of obtaining title to said tract, as provided by
law.
"And in case the said applicant shall actually occupy and
reside upon said tract for the period of five continuous years,
and shall in all things comply with the above recited act of
1861, and keep and perform all and singular the provisions,
terms, and conditions contained in this present license, he will
at the end of that time be entitled to a certificate of purchase
of said tract of land, and a patent therefor from the State."
Referring directly to it, and telling him  plainly and distinctly what he was to do.
It is asked, Why could not the Commissioner have got a
notice to these parties as to what the law was in regard to
this matter, notifying them by publishing the notice in the
newspapers, so that it would come home to them, that he proposed to enforce the law?  Who would have paid for it if he
had? There is no provision in the law authorizing him to do
so,-much more requiring him to. I suppose that all parties
are bound to take notice of what the law is, and when an
application is brought to.the attention of the Commissioner,
he must act upon the law as it is written.
The Presiding Officer-It is now twelve o'clock. The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, will take a recess until
two o'clock this afternoon.
Thursday, P. M., May 23, 1872.
The Senate met and was called "to order by the President
pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
Roll called: quorum present.
The Presiding Officer-The counsel for the respondent will
proceed with their argument.
Mr. Shipman resumed his argument, as follows:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1799
SENATORS: I call your attention to the report of the StateSwamp Land Road Commissioner, for 1871. With regard to
settlers, homesteads, etc., he says:
"By reference to the reports of the Commissioners of the
State Land Office, from  the time the Homestead Acts first
took effect until December Ist, 1870, it will be found that 290,934.33 acres have been licensed for homesteads; and yet the'
tabular statement in said Commissioner's report, just issued,
shows that only 61,663.70 acres had been patented as homesteads up to December 1st, 1870, and but 97,925.65 acres remained licensed at that date, or a total of only 159,589.35
acres, which, deducted from  the  amount that have been
licensed, leaves no less than 131,344.98 acres that have already
reverted to the State on' proof of non-settlement or abandonment;' and there can be no doubt that still quite a large
amount of that now standing on licenses will revert in the
same manner, proving conclusively that more than half of all
the lands licensed for homesteads will not be settled as such.
It is also true that a large amount that has been sold for onefourth pay down, has been forfeited to the State for'nonpayment of interest.' I am therefore obliged to repeat what I
said in my former report:'From extensive observation, and
information gathered from reliable sources, I am satisfied that
a very large majority of the lands taken under these laws are
not for actual settlement, but to be stripped of valuable timber,
a practice very general in many parts of the State, and carried
on by irresponsible parties.'"
With these facts in view, I call your attention to the law of
1861 and the act of 1865. I need not read to you the law of
1859; I can state it to you. The party applying for the license
was required to file with the Commissioner his application under
oath for the privilege of entering on certain land, specifying the
same for the purpose mentioned above, and obttain from the
Commissioner a license to enter upon and occupy and drain
the land for the purpose of obtaining a title thereto. Section
four provided that he should not, under his license, be author



1800     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ised to cut or carry away any pine or valuable timber; and for
the violation of the aforesaid provisions they might be prosecuted, etc. Now, the act of 1861, found on page 81 of the
Land Office compilation of laws, amends section one and section four of that act. Section one is so amended that he may
license eighty acres instead of forty. Section four is amended
so as to require further proofs, as follows:
" SEC. 4. And it is further provided that the license for settlement granted under this act, shall contain a clause which
shall expressly provide that the settler or occupant shall,
within three months after the date of said license, file with
the Commissioner of the Land Office a certificate from  the
supervisor of the township in which the land is located,
together with the affidavit of such settler, that he is in the
actual possession and occupancy of such land.    * 
And it is further provided, that if such settler shall not
file his certificate and oath of settlement and occupancy, as
above provided, or if evidence of two witnesses, under oath, is
furnished to the Commissioner of the State Land Office, that
the clause above mentioned, to prevent waste of said land, has
been violated, then his claim shall be deemed as void, and the
Commissioner of the State Land Office shall, from and after
said time, sell said lands the same as other swanm   lands; and
this provision shall be inserted in the license for said lands."
There is a plain law. It is not like the United States Homestead law. It is somewhat like the United States Homestead
law passed in 1841, but does not contain the amendments
passed since, materially changing the rule when a man has
pre-empted land, by providing that he should have notice, etc.,
before he could forfeit his claim.
But that is the law that the Legislature made, and that
is the one that the Commissioner had  before him  when
he decided these cases. Then comes the act of 1865, found
upon page 160. It in no way refers to the act of 1861, at all.
It does not purport to change the law of 1861. There is no
repealing clause in it, and you have provided-the People of




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1801
this State have provided-that when a law is repealed or
amended that it shall be re-enacted and set out at length.
What guide had the Commissioner to go by, but this? I do
not believe that it was ever intended by any one to, in any
way, change the law of 1861, by the law of 1865,-I cannot so
read it. Repeals may take place by implication, but they are
not favored in courts; but they cannot take place by implication, when both laws can stand, when there is not a necessary
conflict between them. There is no such conflict between the
acts of 1861 and 1865. They are upon different subjects.
The act of 1861, undoubtedly, until the passage of the act of
1865, allowed tlie land taken by the settler, in the absence of
this proof, to be sold to any one,-not only allowed it, but it
compelled the Commissioner to sell it the same as other swamp
lands. Tell me where he had any discretion in the matter?
I call upon the Managers and ask where under the law he had
a right to exercise discretion and hold land for this class of
land-dealers? There were many lands held, I doubt not, in
this State, from the information I have received, for merely
the purpose of speculation, under the act of 1861; certainly
under the act of 1859. Then came in the act of 1865, and that
act provides that after two years from the date of the license,
upon proof of abandonment, these licenses should be forfeited
after two years from the date of the license. What was to happen between the date of the license and that time? What was
the law a year after the date of the license? The law of 1861 says,
that if the settler did not file three months' proof the land
should be subject to sale. Any one could have it by applying
for it, in the absence of this proof. The act of 1865 does not
allow an affidavit of abandonment to be filed until after two
years from the date of the license. A hundred affidavits could
not get it before that time,-affidavits could not change the
law. Supposing that the three months' proof had been filed, as
required by law. A year after the date of the license a man
comes into the Land Office and files a ton of affidavits,-I care
226




1802   TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
not how many,-could he get the land?  He could not. But
if he waits for two years, he might then, upon filing the proof
of abandonment, provided for by this section, get the land. At
the end of five years, also, upon filing the proof of non-settlement, required by the act of 1865, he might get the land. But he
could get it, notwithstanding that the three months' proof had
been filed. There is no conflict between these laws,-neither one
interferes with the other. First the three months' proof; second,
notwithstanding the three months' proof, after two years of
abandonment, and then the affidavit of non-settlement at
the end of five years. I am  quite unable to see how  there
is any conflict in the acts or the policy adopted by them.
Again, you will remember that the practice of Mr. General
Pritchard, the prior Commissioner, and which it is alleged we
have violated, was, for an affidavit to be made by one person of
abandonment. His name might be Bush, for instance; an affidavit by such a person was sufficient to get the land; and yet
this act of 1865, if it is of any force at all, requires the affidavit of two responsible persons, to be certified to by the supervisor and two responsible citizens of the township in which said
lands are situated. How the Commissioner is to ascertain as
to their responsibility, is not settled by the law. But the present Commissioner has provided a method of having their
reliability certified to by the supervisor. Article III. charges
us, not with violating the act of 1865, but of violating the
practice of the office. It is a new idea invented by the Honorable Managers, it seems to me, since these Articles were filed,
that the act of 1865 in any way interfered with the act of 1861;
because if they had claimed we had violated the act of 1861,
they would have so stated in the Article. But as it is, it reads:
"And he, the said Edmonds, being acquainted with the
practice in said office ever since the passage of said act No.
108, laws of 1861, to withhold from  sale such licensed lands,
except in cases where proofs by the affidavit of two credible
witnesses was filed."




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1803
There was no such practice in the office, however, at any
time, even during General Pritchard's time. Besides, this Article implies that the act of 1861 is obligatory and in fall force,
and in no way repealed or changed by the act of 1865, and I
ask Senators to read that through carefully and see whether
or not it does interfere with the act of 1861. The Commissoner has acted in the utmost good faith in this matter. He has
construed a law which he believed to be peremptory in the way
he did, believing no other construction possible, and I submit
that there is no other possible construction to be placed upon it.
Some of these Articles are multifarious; that is, they contain several distinct offenses and charges. Take, for instance,
Article VI. It charges four specific things. Suppose that six
members of the Senate should find that the respondent was
guilty of one of the matters charged in that article, and should
find him not guilty of the other three. Then suppose six
other Senators should find him guilty of the second offense
charged, and not guilty of all the others; and then suppose,
again, six members should still find him guilty of the third
and not guilty of the others; and upon the fourth, six other
members still should find him  guilty of that charge, but
not guilty of any of the other matters charged in the Article.
The result on the whole would be that there would be
twenty-four Senators voting on the article entire, that would
find him guilty upon the whole article, and yet, as a matter of
fact, there would be only six who would find him guilty upon
any one of charges contained in it. The requisite number to
convict upon any one of the charges, standing alone, could not
be obtained. These remarks will apply to other Articles also.
They will apply to Article III. as well. There is great difficulty in presenting a case properly, when it is lumbered up
and mixed up in this confused and unlawyer-like way. The
Articles should have presented each offense distinctly and separately, and only one offense should have been put in an Article. But I apprehend, Senators, that the main point, -and
the only one that I care anything about,-under Article




1804     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
III, is the rule  under the act of 1861, and  that I
have  stated  as  the  law  reads  to  us.  I  will  also
refer you, gentlemen, to  the answer upon  pages 63 and
64 of the Impeachment Proceedings, in which we have stated
our construction of the acts. We cannot put any other construction upon them than we have here given. It is admitted,
I understand, that if the act of 1865 had not been passed, that
our construction would be right; and yet no Manager has
told us how, or when, or where that act touches the act of
1861 or purports to do it. Again, you must get a rule for the
first two years, after the date of the license, and before the
proof of abandonment under the act of 1865 can be filed. In
that interim no affidavit is required in order to get the land;
it can be sold without it, if it appears the three months' proof
has not been filed,-that is very clear. The act is peremptory,
and makes it so. All of these applications, however, are under
the act of 1861, whether made before or after the law of 1865
was passed. Bouck's license is also, and they all covenant that
they will obey the conditions and provisions of the act
of  1861.  That  is  the  contract  between  them   and
the  State.  We have nothing  to do; we cannot hear
or consider the question  of whether  this  is  a hardship upon settlers, or whether it is not. That is not a
question which should address itself to the Senate. It is a
question to address itself to you if you were sitting as a legislative body. I call your attention to the fact, that men may
lose land in other cases than in the case of licensed lands: in
the case of primary school lands, where, from sickness or other
misfortune, the parties may fail to pay their interest, yet the
land will go back to the State, and no one can prevent it. All
these laws are written plainly, and is the duty of officers to
obey them. The Commissioner is bound to obey the law. He
is not to inquire whether he likes it or whether he does not
like it. Said a great English Judge, "Whatever doubts I
might have in my own breast with respect to the policy
or expediency of this law, as long as it continues in




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1805
force I am  bound  to see it executed according  to its
meaning."  Obedience to the law  is the highest virtue in
an  officer.  The respondent simply intended to obey that
law. If the law is wrong, it is the Legislature that is to
blame; it is not the Commisioner. If it is a hardship and
cruel to the settler, who is to blame?  Not the Commmissioner. It is a hardship in some respects; but yet, primarily, it is
owing to the settler's own negligence. The State must make
some provision to guard against this system of licensing land
and holding it for speculative purposes by nominal settlers.
They must make some provision to guard the right of the
State in the matter, and the settler owes the loss of his
land in such cases really to his own negligence. It is his
own fault if he loses it. It is a misfortune that he, perhaps, did not know more; but it is one that the State cannot
guard against. I see no way in the world unless the State
send agents around to tell the settler his duty; yet it is plainly
printed in each license. In this State, to-day, I have no doubt
but there are thousands of acres of land that under the law
might be forced from settlers if one had the descriptions and
chose to go into the office and apply for them. But what can
be done? Must the Commissioner refuse to sell these lands if
applied for, as provided by law, and thus use up his eight hundred dollars a year in paying costs on mandamuses? I can go
in the office to-morow morning, or you can go in there tomorrow morning, with a description of land, and you may
know that the settler is upon it; you may have lived neighbor
to him for five years,-I care not how long; you may apply
for information in  the office, and if you find the threemonths' proof is not filed, if you put down your money
and  make  your application  for the  land, there  is no
power in the world to  keep  that land from  you under
the law as it now stands. I regret that the law is so,-the
Commissioner regrets that the law is so, but he does not see
that he can alter or suspend it,-that he has any discretion o r
right to refuse to obey it because it may be wrong, or not




1806     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
agree with his wishes or views of what the law should be. The
policy of the law may be wrong, but I submit, Senators, that
you cannot hold him responsible for that or for anything but
disobedience to the law. If you listen to the Managers, however, you are to impeach h)im for obeying the law, not for
violating it. I submit that he had a right, and not only had
he a right, but it was his duty, to depart from Gen. Pritchard's practice if it was a violation of the law. A Roman
emperor once attained eternal infamy by writing his laws
on the top of a monument, where the people could not
read them, and then punishing their violation as a crime.
But you are asked to do worse than that. Here is a law by
which you have not only stamped the act done by the Commissioner as innocent, but you have said he should do it.
Now you are asked to stamp obedience to that law as a crime.
No, Senators; I cannot believe you will do it. Bat, if it must
be,-if the Commissioner must be sacrificed,-write on his
political monument, "Impeached by the Senate of the State
of Michigan for obeying the law."
A question has been raised in regard to gratuities, and a
remark dropped in regard to them, that it was a system  of
forced contributions in the office. There is no evidence to
sustain any assertion of that kind, in any way, shape, or manner, or by or from which you can infer it. No one has had a
favor in the office which he might not have obtained without
paying for it. Our attention has been called to the proceedings of the New York Legislature, in a case against the Commissioner of Insurance,-Miller, I think, is the name. The
third provision of the report of the committee contains this:
" That he has allowed clerks in the department, who are paid
regular salaries by the State, to charge and receive illegal and
excessive fees for making special and other examinations."
That is, that he has allowed them to charge extortionate fees.
It would be an offense, a crime, if he had allowed them to do
it,-if he was a party to it. Also:
"That he has appointed Commissioners to make examina



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1807
tions, who have received large and excessive fees, entailing great
expense upon the companies."
I will not read all of it. He is charged, in the report of the
committee, with having committed several violations of law.
And they conclude in this way:
"Whether the Superintendent has been guilty of intentional
violation of law, and. whether or not he should be removed
from office, are questions which we leave to the consideration
and wisdom of the House."
They would not even make a recommendation upon those
grave charges that were made there, because he might have
acted in good faith, in construing the law. They were more
considerate than the committee who acted in this case, and,
perhaps, their precedent could be studied to advantage by our
Legislative committees.  To impeach the Commissioner, he
must be guilty of corrupt conduct in office, or of crimes and
misdemeanors. Nothing less than that. You cannot impeach
him  upon general principles, nor for any outside matters.  I
cannot, in any degree, acquiesce with the claim of the Honorable Manager yesterday, that you might impeach for some undefined cause, outside of the Articles, if, in your judgment,
it is for the interest of the State to do so. I do not believe in
any such rule; and I could not help but think, when the MIanager was expounding the law, that he did it as though he would
like to be its executioner. The State has no higher interest than to extend to each citizen the protection of its laws.
Before you can convict, you must put your finger on the law
the Commissioner has violated; for it is for that, and only for
that, you can impeach him.  You are not to listen to the
demand to impeach anyway. But the cry is not a new one.
When Pilate asked, " What evil hath this man done?" the cry
was, "Crucify him! crucify him!"  What cared they for law?
They used it only that they might under its form kill Him
they hated. When we ask, What law has the Commissioner
violated? the shout is, "Impeach him! impeach him!"  It is
not the language of the law; it is the wild cry of the mob.




1808     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
It is a cry that the walls of this chamber should never echo.
It soundel to me more like the war-whoop of the Tuscolas, than
the language to be addressed to a judicial tribunal: Impeach
anyway, law or no law! I cannot consent to that, and I do not
believe you will. I submit, Honorable Senators, that it would
be a disgrace to the State of Michigan to listen to such a
demand. No; the Commissioner is to be tried on specific
charges and known laws; he is entitled to the same privileges
that a respondent has in other trials.
Let me call your attention to the American Law Register,
pages 260 and 261. It speaks of the trials of impeachments,
after proceedings are commenced and the articles are filed. It
says:
"The law still presumes his innocence, and can do no more
than to take such steps as may be necessary to render his attendance at the trial certain."
In other words, the same rule obtains, as in all other cases,
that the prosecution must prove their case. If there is any
doubt as to his guilt, the respondent, I submit, is, within reasonable limits, entitled to it;-at all events, it is not to be
given to the State. So far as the proof is concerned, I think
it is quite clear, however, he is shown to be not guilty; and
this appears not only from the absence of proof, but from the
direct proof itself. It appears he had no knowledge of anything that was wrong in the office whereby you can fasten, in
any degree, corruption upon him. Not a dollar has gone into
the Commissioner's pocket. Not an acre of land has he had.
Where is the corruption? Can you put your finger upon it?
Can you state it?
I have said that a demand has been made for conviction
anyway. Are you by any means certain that you are going
to get, a better Commissioner for his successor?  Of the nine
Commissioners that have been in the Land Office,-without
saying anything against the others,-have you had a better one?
Has past experience told you that you are going to get a better one in the future?  I do not know who his successor is,



PROCEEDINGS OF TIlE COURT.                 1809
I do not know that anybody has an interest in creating a vacancy in that office at this time, but judging the future by the
past, it is at least a step of doubtful wisdom. Is he to be impeached because he has done his duty, and somebody don't like
it? No violations of law are proven. In impeachment cases
the Managers are usually urged on by extraordinary influences to produce a conviction of the accused,-they have a
greater interest in effecting that result than is felt by prosecutors in ordinary cases. This case furnishes no exception to
the rule; on the contrary, it substantiates it, so far as some of
them are concerned.
Permit me to read again, from pages 282 and 283, of the 6
Am. Law Register, as to what some of these influences may be,
as well as showing the results which sometimes follow inconsiderate convictions:
"It is clear, however, that the process of impeachment often
greatly disappoints those who resort to it. At the outset the'pomp and circumstance' of the trial flatter the vanity of the
Managers, by attracting to them  the attention of the public.
But the tediousness of the proceeding soon dissipates the interest which depends upon the novelty of the occasion. Unexpected difficulties are met with; new events amuse or excite
the public. The Court is bound by precedents, and must proceed in accordance with law. At the end, the few are convicted
and the many acquitted.
" It has been noticed that many of those who have employed
this means to ruin their enemies have themselves, in the mutations of politics, been the victims of similar proceedings.
This point was so forcibly stated by Lord Carnarvon, in the
only speach which he ever made in Parliament (A. D. 1678),
that I cannot forbear a quotation. The Earl of Danby (Sir
Thomas Osborne) was then before the Court:'My Lords:
I understand but little of Latin, but a good deal of English,
and not a little of English history, from which I have learned
the mischiefs of such kind of prosecutions as these, and the
22 




1810     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
ill-fate of the prosecutioners. I could bring many instances,
and those ancient; but, my Lords, I shall go no further than
the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, at which time the
Earl of Essex was run down by Sir Walter Raleigh. My Lord
Bacon, he ran down Sir Walter Raleigh, and your lordships
know what became of My Lord Bacon. The Duke of Buckingham, he ran down My Lord Bacon, and you know what
happened to the Duke of Buckingham. Sir Thomas Wentworth,
afterwards Earl of Stafford, ran down the Duke of Buckingham, and you all know what became of him. Sir Harry Vane,
he ran down the Earl of Stafford, and your Lordships know
what became of Sir Harry Vane.  Chancellor Hyde (Lord
Clarendon) ran down Sir Harry Vane, and your Lordships
know what became of the Chancellor. Sir Thomas Osborne,
now Earl of Danby, ran down Chancellor Hyde, but what will
become of the Earl of Danby your Lordships best can tell.
But let me see that man that dare run the Earl of Danby
down, and we shall soon see what will become of him."'
It is not desirable that impeachments should become a common thing in this or any State. It is not desirable that they
should become precedents for everyday use. The State will be
more benefited in the end by the failure of an attempt of this
kind than in its success, more particularly when it is instituted,
as I believe this is, for the purpose of effecting a private and personal revenge upon the Commissioner. As stated yesterday, if
Mr. Porter had had no wrongs to redress, this impeachment
would not have been instituted. There are, undoubtedly, other
men who are interested also, but he especially has urged this on,
and used the machinery of the State to fight out his individual
quarrel with Mr. Edmonds. If this is to become a precedent,
then when one gets a political or other grudge against an
officer, he has but to come to the Legislature and work it up,
and get up another impeachment, and have the State fight it
out for him. I call your attention a moment, in closing, to
the circumstances under which the Commissioner came into
this office. He came with no experience at all. He had been




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1811
a carpenter, living in the little village of Quincey; from there
he went into the army, which is not a place to learn the arts
of the drawing-room at least; and from there he went into
the county register's office, and then he came into this office.
He is but a man! There are many better and many worse
men than he; but he is a man who intends to do his duty.  He
may not always do it. He will fail sometimes, like the rest of
us, but he came here with the honest intention of improving
that office. There are other improvements that are needed in
the office, and if he is permitted to remain he will make them.
The necessity for some, has been developed upon this trial.
He took a pride in doing so, and he would like to carry out
the work he has begun. He had no other interest but that in
the changes he has effected. Coming from his home to Lansing, freed from its restraints, associated with a class of people
that were strangers to him, unused to the ways of public men,
and perhaps the flattery that might be bestowed upon an officer,
he may have done something at times that he ought not to
have done. He may have erred, but he has committed no
crimes,-none at all. Looking at all the Articles together, you
can find no crimes, no corruption in office; you cannot trace
a dollar into his pocket, except what he has made out of scrip,
and that he fairly and squarely owns here. If it is wrong, the
law does not say it is wrong. You may say it is wrong, but
you ought to have said it before, that he might have had an
opportunity to stop the practice. You ought not to punish
him for it now, nor can you find him guilty of but one kind
of corruption, and that is the form stated in the Articles,
namely, of bribery,-of doing the acts charged for personal
gain. For nothing else can you hold him liable. These are
the charges presented by the House, and the ones you must
vote upon. Anything else you cannot pass upon. They do
not ask you to impeach him for negligence,-for anything but
this kind of corruption.
Again: I submit that the sins of an officer cannot be visited
upon his successor. General Pritchard is not on trial here




1812     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
We will not be severe upon him, but still there were mistakes
in his office; there were things that ought to have been
righted. These were somewhat entailed upon the office, and
are not all corrected yet; but I submit that they ought not to
be visited upon this respondent. It is said this is a half civil
and half criminal proceeding. Look at the effects of the punishment. They tell us it only ousts him from office. I tell
you it makes him  an outcast; it sends him from here, disgraced.  It is a brand placed upon him  that will remain
through life. You can never wash off the stain; its effect is
lasting; and it not only reaches him but reaches his family,
his wife and children. Those must suffer with him if he has
to suffer. Better far that he had never left that field of South
Mountain, than to go from  this Senate with your verdict
against him! Better that he had lain along the battery wall,
below the smoking cannon! Better an honorable death, than
a life dishonored! If he goes from here convicted, he is disgraced forever. He is branded as a dishonest man and as an
incompetent official; and, to the last day of his life, it will be
a stain that he cannot efface.
Mr. Shipman closed his argument at three o'clock and Mr.
Manager Grosvenor, on the part of the House of Representatives, addressed the Senate until nearly four o'clock, when he
announced that he was unable to proceed further on account
of serious indisposition, and asked the Senate to adjourn,
whereupon, on motion of Mr. Sheley, the Senate took a recess
until seven o'clock P. M.
EVENING SESSION.
The President pro ter. called the Senate to order at ten
minutes past seven o'clock.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
The Secretary called the roll, and a quorum of the Senate
answered to their names.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1813
The Presiding Officer-The Honorable Managers will proceed with the argument.
Mr. Manager Huston —Mr. President and Senators, Colonel
Grosvenor, one of the Managers, is so ill that he is unable to
proceed with his argument, and we are well aware of the anxiety
that this Court has that this case should be closed as soonas
possible. We regret very much that Mr. Grosvenor is not
able to reply to the argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent; and still, we do not know as it would make any
material difference with what the decision of this Court might
be. The case has been fully presented on each side, and the
different positions in regard to the law have been fully presented, and the evidence has been pretty fully argued, and my
brother Cochrane and myself have concluded that perhaps it
would be just as well if we submitted the case here, as it would
be if I went on and referred to the argument of the respondent's counsel who last addressed you, because it must necessarily, as you will see, be traveling over pretty much the sames
ground already traversed in the arguments that have been
made; and I am satisfied there is no Senator here who desires
me to re-hash the argument I made to you yesterday. You
heard me at least, if you did not understand me.
The counsel for the respondent who last addressed you,
misquoted some of the testimony, I think, during his argument; I do not think it was intentional at all, and in some of
the remarks which he made this afternoon, he seemed to think,
that when I referred to a remark of the other counsel of that
character, that I had said what I ought not to. I certainly
had no intention of doing anything of the kind, and I have
no intention now of reflecting upon counsel; but I wish, if
you have occasion, when you come to consult upon this case,
that you would refer to pages 142 and 143 of Mr. Allison's
testimony, and see whether there was not an application for
one hundred and twenty acres of that land, made last October,
as I claimed in my argument, and as Mr. Allison's testimony
shows.  The counsel for the respondent, in his argument,




1814      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONNDS.
*claimed that there was nD application made for any of the
land, until the 30th of April or the 1st of May.
Mr. President and Senators:  We submit this case, regretting of course, that Col. Grosvenor is unable to make his argument, but in perfect confidence in the judgment of this Court,
and having no doubt bu'l that you will come to a correct con-:clusion in the matter.
The Senate here took an informal recess.
AFTER RECESS.
Senator Moffatt-I offer the following resolution:
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That Barnhardt Rice be allowed two dollars per
diem  as night-watch, in addition to his per diem  as fireman
during the session of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment.
The resolution vwas adopted.
The Presiding Officer-Mr. Manager Cochrane sends up the
following order, which the Secretary will read.
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
Ordcered, That Manager Grosvenor have leave, if he see fit,
to file a written argument, in this cause, and that the same be
printed with the proceedings herein.
Senator Jenks-I move its adoption as one of the orders of
the Senate, sitting as a Court.
The order was adopted.
Senator Romeyn-Mr. President, I send an order to the
Chair.
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
Ordered, That leave be granted to such members of the
Senate as may choose to avail themselves of it, to file their
written opinions upon matters either of law or fact, connected
with the pending trial, such opinions to be printed with the
Impeachment Proceedings.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1815
The order was adopted.
Senator Briggs-Mr. President, I have an order which I
wish to submit for the consideration of the Senate, and I hope
it will be adopted.
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
Ordered, That when the Journal and Proceedings of the
Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, are printed, bound,
and ready for delivery, that the Secretary of the Senate forward,
by express, to each member and officer, the number they are
each entitled to.
The order was adopted.
Mr. Romeyn-Mr. President, I have an order which I desire
to submit, and which I will read. The order is as follows:
IN THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN:
In the matter of the Impeachment and Trial of Charles A.
Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office:
The evidence on the part of the People, and on that of the
respondent, having been taken and duly considered, by and
before the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, and
argument by the Managers representing the House of Representatives and the People of the State, and by counsel for the
respondent, having been heard, and such evidence and argument having now concluded; it is
Ordered, That the question upon the Articles of Impeachment shall be taklen as follows:
The Presiding Officer shall direct the Secretary to read the
several Articles, and, after the reading of each Article in its
numerical order, shall put the question of guilty, or not guilty,
to each Senator, rising in his place, as follows:
Mr. Senator   ~, how say you? Is the respondent, Charles
A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office of the
State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in this
Article?
And each Senator shall rise in his place, and answer, Guilty,
or Not guilty, only.




1816     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Senator Briggs-Mr. President, I would like to inquire
whether that precludes any expression of opinion among Senators upon any question?
Senator Romeyn-That is the intent of it.
Senator Briggs-Very well, Mr. President.
The order was adopted.
Senator Wood-Mr. President, I offer the following resolution:
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to
compile the trial of Hon. Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner
of the State Land Office, upon the impeachment before the
Senate of Michigan; to add an appendix to the same with the
exhibits filed in the case; to procure an index to the testimony
and arguments, and to furnish copy of the same, with all convenient dispatch, to the State Printer, and that for performing
this duty he be paid the sum of    - dollars.
The Presiding Officer-The first question is upon the filling
of the blank.
Senator Wood-I move that it filled with one hundred and
fifty dollars;
Which motion prevailed, and the resolution was adopted, by
yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Stoddard,
Barber,           Price,             Waterbury,
Begole,           Prutzman,          Wheeler,
Briggs,           Putnam,            Wilcox,
Dexter,           Randall,           Wood,
Gay,              Romeyn,            President
Hannahs,          Sheley,                 pro ter.,
Jenks,                                            24
NAYS.                        0
Senator Randall-I offer the following resolution:
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate, sitting as a Court
of Impeachment, be tendered to Hon. P. H. Emerson, Presi



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1817
dent pro tern., for the ability, fairness, and uniform courtesy
with which he has discharged his important and responsible
duties.
The motion to adopt was put by the Secretary, and the resolution adopted unanimously.
The Presiding Officer-I think the best speech that I can
make is, to remain silent, and tender you my thanks for the
compliment.
Senator Romeyn-Mr. President, I offer the following order:
The Secretary read the order, as follows:
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to
forward to the members and officers, the remaining Journals
and Impeachment Proceedings of the Senate, sitting as a Court
of Impeachment;
Which motion prevailed, by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Stoddard,
Barber,           Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Begole,           Price,             Wheeler,
Briggs,           Prutzman,          Wilcox,
Dexter,           Putnam,            Wood,
Gay,              Randall,           President
Hannahs,          Romeyn,                   pro tem.,
Jenks,            Sheley,                         25
NAYS.                         0
Senator Wheeler-I move that the Senate Chamber be
cleared for the purpose of deliberation upon the Articles of
Impeachment.
The motion prevailed, and the Senate went into secret session upon the Articles of Impeachment.
After the doors of the Senate were opened,
Mr. Wheeler offered the following resolution, which was
adopted:
Resolved, That an order on the State Treasurer be drawn
for the sum of forty-seven dollars and eighty-five cents, for
228




1818     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
incidental expenses, advanced by the Secretary of the Senate;
also, for additional assistance engaged by him  at the opening
proceedings of this Court; also, in favor of the postmaster at
Lansing, for such sum as may be necessary to pay postage on
Journals and Impeachment Proceedings ordered mailed to the
members of the Senate.
On motion of Mr. Jenks,
The Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned
until to-morrow morning at eight o'clock.
Lansing, Friday, A. I., May 24, 1872.
The Senate met at eight o'clock and was called to order
by the President pro tern.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
The Secretary called the roll, and a quorum of the Senate
answered to their names.
Senator Barber —Mr. President, I offer the following resolution.
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the President and Secretary be allowed until
Saturday, the second day of June, to complete the business of
the Senate, and that they haveper-diem allowance to that date.
Senator Barber-Mr. President, in explanation of this
resolution I will say, that I understand it will require, in order
to close up the business of the President and Secretary, nearly
the whole of next week, as they are obliged to estimate and
measure the work of the reporters, and other business, and
thero is no provision for paying them unless this resolution is
passed.
The resolution was adopted.
Senator Barber-Mr. President, I offer  the  following
resolution:




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.    1819
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate be extended to the
Secretary, to the Sergeant-at-Arms and his assistants, and to
the reporters, for their uniform  courtesy and ability, exercised
in the discharge of their duties during the progress of this
impeachment trial.
Senator Barber-Mr. President, in explanation of this resolution, I desire to say, that a resolution was introduced and
adopted yesterday, thanking some of the officers of the Senate,
and I introduce this for the purpose of extending the same
courtesy to other officers.
The resolution was adopted.
Senator Wheele —Mr, President, I offer the following resolution:
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the per diem of Charles T. Dickey, Sergeantat-Arms, be fixed at the sum of five dollars per day instead of
four dollars per day.
The resolution was adopted.
Senator Romeyn-Mr. President,'in accordance with the
provisions of the order adopted last evening, I desire to place
on file a short opinion upon the preliminary question, raised
at the commencement of the trial.
The Presiding Officer-The opinion will be received, filed,
and printed with the record.
Senator BriggsA-Mr. President, I have a resolution which I
desire to submit for the consideration of the Senate, and move
its adoption.
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the per diem of the Assistant Sergeant-atArms be increased to five dollars per day.
Senator Jenks-Mr. President, I would inquire if the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms and othors do not receive pay when
they go after witnesses, for traveling?
The Presiding Officer-Nothing but a per diem and actualr
expenses,-no mileage.




1820     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
Senator Prntzman-Mr. President, there is some inquiry as
to whether it is to extend during the whole time the Court has
been in session, to all the Assistant Sergeants-at-Arms.
The Presiding Officer-There is only one mentioned in the
resolution.
Senator Prutzman-Is it the Sergeant-at-Arms, or is it the
present assistant, or prior assistant?
The Presiding Officer-It is the assistant of the present
Sergeant-at-Arms. The resolution reaches only one.
The yeas and nays were called and the resolution adopted,
by the following vote:
YEAS.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Gay,            Mr. Wheeler,
Barber,            Hannahs,           Wilcox,
Begole,            Putnam,            Wood,
Briggs,            Romeyn,            President,
Cawley,            Stockbridge,           pro ter.,
Dexter,                                            15
NAYS.
Mr. Jenks,         Mr. Price,         Mr. Stoddard,
Mann,              Prutzman,          Storrs,
Moffatt,           Randall,           Waterbury,
Neasmith,          Sheley,                         11
Senator Jenks-Mr. President, I move that the Senate
Chamber be cleared for the purpose of consultation upon the
Articles of Impeachment.
The motion prevailed, and the Senate went into secret session upon the Articles of Impeachment.
At nine o'clock the doors were again opened, and the Managers on the part of the House, and the respondent and his
counsel, entered the Chamber and took their seats.
Senator Wheeler-Mr. President, I move we proceed to
vote upon the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office;
Which motion prevailed.
The Presiding Officer-Mr. Secretary, you will read the First
Article.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1821
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
" That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the Land
Office of the State of Michigan, on the fourth day of January,
1871, and on diverse other days and times, between that day
and the time when said House of Representatives passed the
resolution of impeachment against him, to wit: the 28th day
of March, 1872, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of
his oath of office, and of the requirements of the Constitution
and the laws of this State, did corruptly, unlawfully, and in
violation of the Constitution and laws of this State, withhold
from sale divers large tracts of land for the particular benefit
and advantage of certain land-dealers, and for a private pecuniary consideration to himself, his Deputy, and clerks, to the
damage and inconvenience of the actual settlers, other dealers,
and the people of the State generally; and the said Charles A.
Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office, was in this
manner then and there guilty of corrupt conduct in office, and
did commit a misdemeanor in office."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary called the name of Mr. Alexander, and he
arose in his place.
The Presiding Officer-Mr. Senator Alexander, how say
you? Is the respondent, Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner
of the State Land Office of the State of Michigan, guilty, or
not guilty, as charged in this Article.
Senator Alexander-Not guilty.
As the calling of the roll proceeded, each Senator arose in
his place, when the name was called, and the Presiding Officer
put the same question, as above.
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Ball,         Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stoddard,
Begole,           Moffatt,            Storrs,
Cawley,           Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Dexter,           Romeyn,            Wheeler,
Gay,               Sheley,           Wilcox,
Jenks.,                                           16




1822     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Price,           Mr. Stockbridge,
Barber,            Prutzmam,           Wood,
Briggs,            Putnam,             President
Hannahs,           Randall,                pro tent., 11
The Presiding Officer-Upon Article I., sixteen Senators
have pronounced "Guilty," and eleven "Not guilty."  Twothirds of the Senators elect not having pronounced "Guilty,"
the Commissioner of the Land Office is acquitted upon this
Article.
The Secretary will read Article II.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
" That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of said State
Land Office, on divers days and times, between the time of
assuming the duties of his office, to wit: about the fourth day
of January, 1871, and the day of the passage of the said resolution of impeachment, the basis of these articles, unmindful
of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan,
and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act to
prevent officers and clerks in the State Land Office, and in
Auditor General's Office, from purchasing lands while in the
employ of the State," approved March 16, 1861, did corruptly,
unlawfully, by himself, and with his Deputy, and also with his
clerks in said office, directly and indirectly engage in the purchase of lands from the State, and for sale in the Land Office
of this State, of which he was chief.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then, and there guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a high misdemeanor in
office."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro tern. proposed to him the following question 
"M3r. Senator, how say you?  Is the respondent
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                  1823
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
Before the vote was announced, Mfr. Alexander said: Mr.
President, I ask permission of this Court to change my vote to
"Not guilty."
The Presiding Officer-The Chair is not aware that the vote
can be changed; when it is once recorded, it is recorded for all
time.
The following is the vote upon Article II.:
GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Jenks,          Mr. Stoddard,
Briggs,                                              4
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Ball,          Mr. Moffatt,       Mr. Stockbridge,
Barber,            Neasmith,          Storrs,
Begole,            Price,              Waterbury,
Cawley,            Prutzman,          Wheeler.
Dexter,            Putnam,             Wilcox,
Gay,               Randall,           Wood,
Hannahs,           Romeyn,            President
Mann,              Sheley,               pro ter., 23
The Presiding Officer-Upon Article II., four Senators
have pronounced "Guilty," and twenty-three "Not guilty."
The Commissioner of the State Land Office is therefore acquitted upon this Article, two-thirds of the Senate elect not
having pronounced  "Guilty."
The Secretary will read Article III.
The Secretary read the Article, ae follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of said State
Land Office, unmindful of the duties of his office, and his oath
of office, having knowledge that large numbers of actual settlers to whom license had been issued in pursuance of act
No. 108, Session Laws of 1861, being an act entitled "An act
to amend an act entitled' An act to provide for the settlement
and drainage of the swamp lands by actual settlers,' being act
No. 229, laws of 1859," were in possession of their lands
under their said licenses, and had been in possession thereof




1824     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
for a long time, and made valuable improvements thereon,
and complied with the laws of this State in regard to licensing lands to actual settlers fully, except filing with the Commissioner of the Land Office the proofs of settlement and
occupancy, required by section four of said act No. 108, laws
of 1861, and he, the said Edmonds, being acquainted with the
practice in said office ever since the passage of said act No.
108, laws of 1861, to withhold from sale such licensed lands,
except in cases where proofs by the affidavit of two credible
witnesses was filed, showing non-settlement and abandonment
by the licensee, did corruptly, and for the purpose of pecuniary
gain to himself, his Deputy, and clerks, about the month of
October, 1871, decide that such lands were subject to sale
without such proof of non-settlement or abandonment, as had
been the practice of said office, and he, the said Charles A.
Edmonds, did then and there, by himself, his Deputy, and
clerks, corruptly, and for the purpose of securing gain as
aforesaid, furnish to divers persons the description of such
licensed lands, when the proofs of settlement and occupancy
had not been filed in accordance with said section four aforesaid, which said persons purchased said lands, and to whom
said Commissioner issued patents, whereby a gross fraud was
practiced upon such actual settlers, and large profits and gains
made, in which said Edmonds, his Deputy, and clerks were
interested.
"And said Edmonds, being so unmindful of his duty and oath
of office, and the policy of the State to protect the actual settlers, has corruptly furnished and permitted his Deputy and
clerks corruptly to furnish such descriptions of licensed lands
to divers persons, on divers days and times, since the decision
aforesaid, and before the passage of the resolution of impeachment by the House of Representatives, which said persons purchased said descriptions, to whom patents were issued by said
Commissioner, he, said Commissioner, his Deputy, and clerks
being indirectly interested therein.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1825
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then, and there guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in office."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro tern. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator, how say you?  Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office,
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
The following is the vote upon Article PII.
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,        Mr. Jenks,         Mr. Stoddard,
Cawley,            Mann,              Storrs,
Dexter,            Putnam,            Waterbury,
Gay,               Sheley,            Wheeler,    12
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Neasmith,       Mr. Wilcox,
Ball,              Price,             Wood,
Barber,            Prutzman,          President
Briggs,            Randall,               pro ter.,
Hannahs,           Romeyn,                         15
Moffatt,           Stockbridge,
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, twelve Senators
vote " Guilty," and fifteen Senators, "Not guilty."  Two-thirds
of the Senators elect not having pronounced "Guilty," the
Commissioner of the Land Office is acquitted upon this
Article.
The Secretary will read Article IV.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, unmindful of the high and responsible duties of
his office, and of his oath of office, on the first day of June,
1871, in the said Land Office, at Lansing, in the county of
Ingham, and on divers other days and times during his official
term at Lansing, aforesaid, did unlawfully conspire with one
229




1826    TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
William G. Patrick, and divers other persons unknown, fraudulently to withhold from sale, and mark, or cause to be marked,
as sold, large quantities of State lands, for the benefit of said
conspirators, in fraud of other bonafide purchasers and settlers,
with the intent to cheat and defraud such bona fide purchasers
and actual settlers, and all others who might wish to purchase
the same.
"And in pursuance of said conspiracy the said Charles A.
Edmonds did mark, or cause to be marked, in said office, on
the plat-books thereof, as sold, large tracts of land that were
not sold, by which Edmonds, his Deputy, and clerks in office
corruptly received large sums of money; and said Charles A.
Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office, was guilty
of corrupt conduct in office, a violation of his oath of office,
and a great fraud upon the people of this State."
The Presiding Office-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro tem. proposed to him the following question:
" Mr. Senator, how say you? Is the respondent, Charles
A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office of the
State of Michigan, Guilty, or Not guilty, as charged in this
Article?"
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.                         0
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Stoddard,
Barber,           Neasmith,          Storrs,
Begole,           Price,             Waterbury,
Briggs,           Prutzman,          Wheeler,
Cawley,           Putnam,            Wilcox,
Dexter,            Randall,          Wood,
Gay,              Romeyn,            President
Hannahs,           Sheley,                   pro tern.,
Jenks,                                            27
The Presiding Officer-The Commissioner of the State Land
Office is unanimously acquitted upon Article IV.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                 1827
The Secretary will read Article V.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the said
State Land Office, from time to time, from the commencement
of his official term in January, 1871, to the time of the passage
of the resolution of impeachment in this case, to wit: the
28th of March, 1872, unmindful of the high duties of his
office, in violation of his official duties, his oath of office, and
the laws of this State, did, in his office, and with his Deputy
in office, and in his official time, so engage in, and carry on,
the purchase and sale of swamp land "scrip " (so-called), as to
operate in fraud of, and to the damage of the primary school
fund, the several counties of this State, and of the Treasury of
the State.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was in this manner then and there guilty of
corrupt conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in
office."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro ter. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator, how  say you? Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article."
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,        Mr. Mann,           Mr. Storrs,
Cawley,            Romeyn,            Waterbury,
Jenks,             Sheley,                           8
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Moffatt,         Mr. Stoddard,
Ball,              Neasmith,           Wheeler,
Barber,            Price,             Wilcox,
Briggs,            Prutzman,          Wood,
Dexter,            Putnam,            President
Gay,               Randall,                  pro tern.,
Hannahs,           Stockbridge,                     19




1828      TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
The Presiding  Officer —Upon  Article V., eight Senators
vote "Guilty," and nineteen Senators vote " Not guilty."  The
Commissioner of the State Land Office is therefore acquitted upon Article V., two-thirds of the Senators elect not
having pronounced "Gnilty."
The Secretary will read Article VI.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, during his official term as such Commissioner, to
wit: from about the first day of January, 1871, to the 28th
day of March, 1872, unmindful of the high and responsible
duties of his office, of his oath of office, and disregarding the
rights of the people of this State, and for the corrupt and unlawful purpose of personal benefit and gain, did appoint and
keep in his office, as clerks, certain men of dissolute habits
and character, and unworthy the high trust and confidence
necessarily required of men in their positions, and did, also,
allow his clerks in office, in violation of the laws of this State,
to purchase, directly and indirectly, from the State, lands for
sale in said Land Office, and to be interested in purchases
made in the name of others, directly and indirectly, and to
traffie, and corruptly sell and get unlawful gain, in the sale of
valuable information contained in such office, within their
knowledge as such clerks, and to act as the agents, for reward,
of certain land-dealers, in entering land, thus giving such
dealers an undue advantage over others seeking the entry of
lands at said office.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, was thus, then, and there, guilty of corrupt
conduct in office, and did commit a misdemeanor in office."
[Senator Waterbury being in feeble health, the Presiding
Officer informed him that if he desired, he need not rise when
his name was called, and upon the remaining Articles the
Senator gave his vote sitting in his place.]
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                   1829
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro ter. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator -, how say you?  Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,        Mr. Moffatt,       Mr. Storrs,
Cawley,            Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Dexter,            Putnam,            Wheeler,
Hannahs,           Romeyn,            Wood,        16
Jenks,             Sheley,
Mann,             Stoddard,
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Gay,            Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,              Price,             Wilcox,
Barber,            Prutzman,          President
Briggs,            Randall,               pro tern., 11
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, sixteen Senators
vote "Guilty," and eleven Senators vote "Not guilty."  Twothirds of the Senators elect not having pronounced " Guilty,"
the Commissioner of the Land Office is acquitted upon Article VI.
The Secretary will read Article VII.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"The said Charles A. Edmonds, being a public officer of the
State of Michigan, through whose hands public moneys pass,
to wit: the Commissioner of the Land Office aforesaid, has at
divers times during the present term of his said office, and as
such officer, received moneys current by the laws of the United
States as moneys in payment for certain lands belonging to
the State of Michigan, and has corruptly, and in violation of
the laws of this State, and especially in violation of section
two hundred and thirty-four of the Compiled Laws of eighteen
hundred and fifty-seven, converted or changed said moneys
into swamp land scrip, so called, retaining said moneys for his




1830     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
own use and benefit, in whole or in part, and entering said
lands, in payment for which he had received said moneys, as
purchased and paid for by said scrip, and has not deposited or
turned over to the proper officer of the State said moneys, so
received in purchase of said lands.
"By reason whereof the said Charles A. Edmonds has committed a crime against the laws of this State, and is guilty of
misconduct in office."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro tern. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator, how say you? Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
After the Secretary had called the roll, Senator Alexander
said: Mr. President, I do not wish to change my vote, but I
wish to correct it; I wish to vote "Not guilty." I voted
"Guilty " under a misapprehension as to the Article.
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will correct the mistake.
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Sheley,                                             1
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Jenks,          Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,              Mann,              Stoddard,
Barber,            Moffatt,           Storrs,
Begole,            Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Briggs,            Price,             Wheeler,
Cawley,            Prutzman,          Wilcox,
Dexter,            Putnam,            Wood,
Gay,               Randall,           President
Hannahs,           Romeyn,                 pro ter., 26
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, one Senator votes
"Guilty," and twenty-six Senators vote "Not guilty." Twothirds of the Senators elect, not having pronounced "Guilty,"




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1831
the Commissioner of the State Land Office is acquitted upon.
Article VII.
The Secretary will read Article VIII.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, unmindful of the dignity and high duties of this
office, and of the wholesome requirements of the laws of the
State, on or about the first day of March, 1872, at the city of
Lansing, the Capital of this State, contriving and intending
to debauch and corrupt the morals, as well of youth as of
others, good citizens of this State, did, at the time and place
aforesaid, and at other times and in other places in this State,
unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and scandalously publish,
circulate, and distribute, or cause to be published, circulated,
and distributed, a certain anonymous and obscene printed
paper entitled'Every Wednesday Night,' containing impure,
scandalous, and obscene matters, language, and description,
manifestly unbecoming the dignity of his office, a scandal in
the community, and tending to the corruption of the morals
of youth, and other good citizens of this State, and to the evil
example of all others, and in violation of the laws of the State,
and against the peace and dignity of the people of this State.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land office, did thus, then, and there commit and was
guilty of a misdemeanor, contrary to the form of the statute,
and against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of
Michigan."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro ter. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator, how say you?  Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office
of the State of Michigan, guilty or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
The following is the vote:




1832     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,       Mr. Putnam,        Mr. Storrs,
Cawley,           Romeyn,            Waterbury,
Dexter,           Sheley,            Wilcox,
Mann,             Stockbridge,       Wood,
Price,            Stoddard,                       14
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Hannahs,'Mr. Randall,
Ball,             Jenks,             Wheeler
Barber,           Moffatt,           President
Briggs,           Neasmith,               pro tern.,
Gay,              Prutzman,                       13
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, fourteen Senators
vote "Guilty," and thirteen Senators "Not guilty."  Twothirds of the Senators elect not having pronounced " Guilty,"
the Commissioner of the State Land Office is acquitted
upon Article VIII.
The Secretary with read Article IX.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That the said Charles A. Edmonds did during the months
of March or April last past, and while he was such Commissioner of said Land Office, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously,
at Laporte, in the State of Indiana, and elsewhere in the United States, deposit, or cause to be deposited, in the postoffice at
said Laporte, and in the several postoffices at other places in
the United States, for mailing, or for delivery from said postoffice or postoffices, a certain obscene print or publication, in
the form  of newspapers, and entitled'Every Wednesday
Night,' knowing the same to be of a vulgar and indecent character, in violation of the laws of the United States, and
especially of a statute of the United States entitled' An act
relating to the postal laws,' approved March 3, 1865.
"By which act of depositing, or causing to be deposited, said
print or publication, in said postoffice at said Laporte and
elsewhere, he, the said Charles A. Edmonds, did commit a
crime against the laws of the United States."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.




PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.                1833
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro tem. proposed to him the following question:
" Mr. Senator —, how say you:? Is the respondent, Charles
A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office of the
State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in this
Article?"
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,       Mr. Price,         Mr. Storrs,
Cawley,           Putnam,            Waterbury,
Dexter,           Sheley,                         8
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stoddard,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Wheeler,
Barber,           Neasmith,          Wilcox,
Briggs,           Prutzman,          Wood,
Gay,              Randall,           President
Hannahs,          Romeyn,                 pro tern.,
Jenks,            Stockbridge,                    19
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, eight Senators
vote " Guilty," and nineteen Senators vote " Not guilty." Twothirds of the Senators elect not having pronounced " Guilty,"
the Commissioner of the State Land Office is acquitted upon
Article IX.
The Secretary will read Article X.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, unmindful of the dignity of his office, his duties,
his oath of office, and the requirements of the laws of this
State, at divers times during his official term as such Commissioner, since the fifth day of July, 1871, at the city of Lansing
and in other places within this State, has been drunk, or so
affected by his drinking of intoxicating liquors, as to disgrace
his office and unfit him for the discharge of his official duties;
and the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land office, did thus and then and there show good cause for
230




1834     TRIAL OF CHARLES A. EDMONDS.
his removal from office, under the provisions of an act entitled' An act to subject all persons holding office under the government of the State of Michigan to removal from  office for
drunkenness,' approved April 5, 1871."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro ter. proposed to him the following question:
" Mr. Senator, how say you? Is the respondent, Charles
A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office of the
State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in this
Article? "
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.                         0
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,     Mr. Mann,          Mr. Stoddard,
Ball,              Moffatt,           Storrs,
Barber,            Neasmith,          Waterbury,
Begole,            Price,             Wheeler,
Briggs,            Prutzman,          Wilcox,
Cawley,            Putnam,            Wood,
Dexter,            Randall,           President
Gay,               Romeyn,                 pro ter.,
Hannahs,           Sheley,                         27
Jenks,             Stockbridge,
The Presiding Officer-Upon Article X., the Commissioner
of the State Land Office is unanimously acquitted.
The Secretary will read Article XI.
The Secretary read the Article, as follows:
"That said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State
Land Office, unmindful of the dignity, high duties, and position of his office, and of the laws of this State, and the
wholesome requirements of the laws of decency and morality,
did, on or about the tenth day of October, 1871, at the city of
Lansing, situated in the county of Ingham, at the Lansing
House, commit adultery with a female whose name is unknown,
he, the said Edmonds, then and there being a married man;
and did also, since he entered upon the duties of his said office,
at divers other times and places in said Lansing, commit fur



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.               1835
ther and other adulteries, against the form of the statute in
such case made and provided, and against the peace and
dignity of the people of this State.
"And the said Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, did thus, then, and there commit and was
guilty of a crime, contrary to the statute in such case made
and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people
of the State of Michigan."
The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will call the roll.
Each Senator, as his name was called, rose in his place, and
the President pro ter. proposed to him the following question:
"Mr. Senator, how say you?  Is the respondent,
Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the State Land Office
of the State of Michigan, guilty, or not guilty, as charged in
this Article?"
The following is the vote:
GUILTY.
Mr. Begole,                                           1
NOT GUILTY.
Mr. Alexander,    Mr. Mann,         Mr. Stockbridge,
Ball,             Moffatt,           Stoddard,
Barber,           Neasmith,          Storrs,
Briggs,           Price,            Waterbury,
Cawley,           Prutzman,         Wheeler,
Dexter,           Putnam,           Wilcox,
Gay,              Randall,          Wood,
Hannahs,          Romeyn,            President
Jenks,            Sheley,               pro ter., 26
The Presiding Officer-Upon this Article, one Senator votes
"Guilty," and twenty-six Senators vote " Not guilty." Twothirds of the Senators elect not having pronounced " Guilty,"
the Commissioner of the State Land Office is acquitted upon
Article XI.
By a vote of the Senate, the Commissioner of the State
Land Office stands acquitted upon all the Articles presented
against him.
What is the pleasure of the Senate?




1836    TRIAL OF CIHALES A. EDMONDS.
Senator Briggs-Mr. President, under the rule adopted last
evening, I beg leave to forward to the Secretary's desk an
opinion.
The Presiding  Officer-The Senator from  the Third,
under leave of the Senate, files an opinion in the case, which
the Secretary will receive, file, and have printed with the Proceedings.
Mr. Alexander moved that the Secretary be authorized to
draw an order for the amounts advanced by the several Managers for their expenses incurred in the trial of this impeachment;
Which motion prevailed.
Mr. Ball offered the following resolution, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate is hereby authorized and required to forward to each member of the Senate, to
each Manager, and to the respondent and his counsel, three
copies of the Impeachment Record, as prepared and bound by
the State Printer.
On motion of Mr. Romeyn,
The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned
without day.




APPENDIX.








APPENDIX.
ARGUMENT OF HON. IRA R. GROSVENOR,
IN SUPPORT OF THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE: By an
arrangement among the Managers on the part of the House of
Representatives, the duty devolves on me of closing the argument on behalf of the people. The patient and watchful attention the Honorable Senators have given to the protracted proceedings of the trial; their ripe experience as men representing
so well all classes of industry, and the wealth of all people; their
appreciation of the principles involved, and the importance of
this case to the people of this State and the respondent at the
bar, with my own consciousness of the able manner in which
my associate Managers have presented the cause, would seem
to excuse any protracted effort from me in this concluding
duty of a trust in part confided to me.
I can scarcely hope to present the case in any new and
stronger light, or suggest a thought that will aid you in coming
at a conclusion upon any point about which you may now be
in doubt; yet a sense of obligation I cannot escape if I would,
compels me to give you my views upon the law and the facts
bearing upon this case, and respectfully solicit your further
attention, for a short time, in behalf of the prosecution.




1840                  APPENDIX.
For the first time in the history of our State has it been
necessary to organize this high and peculiar tribunal of the
people for the trial of all impeachment. The necessity that
convened it will find in it ample power for the purpose of
trying the accusation, and, if true, of dismissing from office
and power one who is accused of corruption in office, of abusing
his official trust, of violating the penal and moral statute of the
State, to such an extent as to disgrace his office and render
him a reproach to the people. The jurisdiction of this Court
to try all impeachments made by the House of Representatives,
is original and exclusive. Its action is without control, review,
or appeal, and its judgment is conclusive. With no power
over the life, liberty, or property of the citizen, it was designed
to furnish a plain, simple and adequate remedy, by removal
from office of the unfaithful, corrupt, and dissolute officeholder, and thus protect the State from abuse of power by its
civil officers.
The several courts of our State have, in their limitations,
the exclusive jurisdiction to hear, try and determine all matters
affecting life, liberty, or property, according to the known and
established rules of the statute and the common laws, but have
no power to displace from office one whom the people have
elevated. That power, in the fundamental law, is reserved for
the representatives of the people in the two branches of the
Legislature.
" The House of Representatives shall have the sole power to
impeach, and the Senate to try all civil officers of the State for
corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors"
-Article XII., Sections 1 and 2, Con.
"The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, in circuit courts, in probate courts, and in justices of the peace," and
in certain municipal courts in cities-Article VI., Section 1,
Con.
" Circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters
civil and criminal," etc.-Article VI., Section 8.




APPENDIX.                       1841
The power of probate court and courts of justice are equally
well defined by the Constitution and laws. Thus plainly has
this organic law marked the lines of jurisdiction of the several
courts of this State, including that of this tribunal.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for respondent,
throughout this trial, that this is a criminal proceeding, and
that the rules of practice governing trials in criminal cases
shall be the governing rule here. If criminal, the respondent
is entitled to a constitutional jury, the right of challenge for
favor or other causes, and the benefit of all doubts upon law
or fact. Can it be criminal?
If you convict, he is still liable for the offense, if a crime, in
the State courts.-Article XII., Section 3. And no person shall
be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. —Article VI.
Section 29.
The Constitution in the plainest manner has thus indicated
that this proceeding cannot be held as criminal. It is important to determine in the outset the question, whether this proceeding be civil or criminal. If civil, you will determine the
case as in civil actions in the courts, upon the preponderance
of proof. If criminal, then the respondent will be entitled to
the benefit of all doubts.
The early cases of impeachment in England, where the judgment affected the life, liberty, and property, and all the sacred
rights of the citizen, and where the guilty were often led from
the House of Lords to prison or the scaffold, then it was
beyond all question, in cases affecting life or liberty, a criminal
proceeding. While we borrowed from  the mother country
our notions of the right to impeach civil officers, we have, by
the same fundamental law declaring the power to impeach,
taken from it its former terror, in limiting the judgment to a
simple removal from office.  I claim that no precedent or
practice in. this country can be produced, establishing the proceeding as criminal, though this has uniformly been claimed
by the respondent, and denied by the prosecution in this case.
231




1842                   APPENDIX.'The sole object of this proceeding to impeach is to remove
from office the respondent, a civil officer of the State, accused of
corrupt conduct in office, and also of crime and misdemeanors.
The question to be determined is, whether Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the Land Office, a constitutional
civil officer of this State, is guilty as charged, and if so, shall
he longer hold the office to the injury of the State and the
disgrace of the official position? In other words, has he violated the express or implied obligation of his compact with
the people, to discharge with fidelity the duties of his office,
and so demeaned himself in office as to disgrace it, and render
himself less useful and beneficial to the interests of the State
than was reasonable to have been expected?
The nature of the obligation he assumed when he took the
office, confirmed by an oath, was that of a compact with the
people to serve faithfully for the price stipulated, having reference to the Constitution and laws of the State, as to his duties
and obligations.
Among other things agreeing, that if convicted of crime,
or of any offense involving a violation of his oath of office,
his office should be deemed vacant. —C. L. 1871, Sec. 227.
Officers, in their official character, voluntarily surrender a
part of the rights they enjoy as citizens, in return for the
honor and emoluments of office. They voluntarily submit to
this tribunal to test the fidelity of their official acts, and their
character and conduct while serving the people. This is a
part of the implied compact between the people and the officer. This compact is somewhat similar to an agreement between
master and servant. The employer may discharge his hired
servant, for gross vice and immorality, as well as for neglect
or refusal to perform the duties of his situation. If the servant was discharged for misconducting his employer's business,
or for crime, before the end of his term, and he should bring
an action for wages for his entire time, and the question was
whether the servant had violated his agreement and forfeited




APPENDIX.                      1843
his place, no sound lawyer would contend that the case was
one of crime, in which he should have the benefit of doubts.
The proceedings in this case have no analogy to a trial for
crime, either in form or substance. It is more in the nature
of a civil action to inquire into the official conduct of one who,
for a consideration, has undertaken to perform certain duties
for the public in a prescribed manner.
The statute defining the Commissioners' powers and duties.
among other things gives him the sole power to appoint his
Deputy and clerks, and remove them at pleasure, and declare
"he shall be responsible for their official acts."
The nature of his duties, the specific manner in which they
are declared in the law governing the land department, as well
as the plain obligations of his oath of office to discharge faithfully all the duties of his office, indicate that his obligations to
the people are in the nature of a compact, and that his right
to continue in office depends upon his fidelity to the trust
assumed by him after being elected by the people.
There is a principle of mutuality in the nature of his office,
his duties, and his obligations to the people. In testing his
right to remain, involves an inquiry into his official fidelity
and the manner in which he has discharged these obligations.
The respondent may have been guilty of corrupt conduct in
office by an abuse of discretionary power, as in his act with
homesteader Bouch, and yet not have violated any statute of
the State. He may have worked a forfeiture of his office by
non-performance of his express or implied compact with the
people, in violation of his oath.
Mr. Curtiss, in his Commentary on the Constitution, declares
"impeachment is not necessarily a trial for crime," but a proceeding to ascertain whether cause exists for removal of a
public officer from.office.
The object of this trial is to expel from office the Commissioner of the State Land Office. The motive is, the honor,
safety, and- security of the public in the land department of




1844                  APPENDIX.
the State; the protection of the citizen, homesteader, settler,
and purchaser; the preservation of the large land inheritance
of the State for educational and internal-improvement purposes, and securing the aim and object of the land grants.
Nothing less would have justified these proceedings.
If punishment was the object, then the aid of the criminal
courts would be sought, where the ordinary rules of evidence
as to doubts could be applied. The safety of the people and
preservation of their rights being the supreme law, the people
in these proceedings should have the benefit of all doubts, and
the respondent at this bar should convince you beyond reasonable doubt that he is not guilty bf the several acts charged,
which the testimony of the people strongly sustains, and that
his remaining longer in office is consistent with the public
good and safety.
The learned counsel for the respondent, insisting that' these
proceedings are criminal, seek to save him  by claiming his
ignorance of the acts proven to have been committed by his
clerks, and also the benefit of doubts.
Senator Sumner, in his opinion of the Johnson impeachment, in speaking of the application of this rule of evidence,
says:
"This is not a criminal trial where the rule prevails, Better
that many guilty men should escape than that one innocent
man should suffer. This rule, which is so proper in its place,
is not applicable to a proceeding for expulsion from office."
On principle and authority, it would seem, these proceedings
are of a civil character, and ought to be determined upon the
preponderance of proof.
It is important in another point to determine whether the
proceedings are civil or criminal. If civil, the proofs, considered in connection with certain presumptionls of law and fact,
are exceedingly damaging to the respondent, while, if criminal,
these presumptions will not aid certain circumstantial evidence
adduced to render certain that which may be deemed doubtful.




APPENDIX.                       1845
What I have further to say upon the presumptions arising
upon the evidence or absence of evidence I shall reserve until
I come to speak of the facts proven upon which the Managers
urge a conviction; and, before entering upon the discussion of
facts, I beg leave to call attention to our Constitution, considered solely from its history, its language construed by the wellestablished rules of the statutes and common law.
Of all the authority presented in this case upon the subject
of impeachable offenses, not one of them has defined what is
proper matter for impeachment. Neither American precedents
nor writers on the Constitution have established what are and
what are not proper subjects of impeachments.
Rawle on the Constitution, page 19, on this subject says:
"The delegation of important trusts affecting the higher
interests of society is always from various causes liable to abuse.
The fondness frequently felt for inordinate power, the influence
of party and of prejudice, the seduction of foreign states, or the
baser appetite for illegitimate emolument are sometimes productive of what are not inaptly termed political offenses, which
it would be difficult to take cognizance of in the ordinary course
of judicial proceedings.
"The involutions and varieties of vice are too many and too
artful to be anticipated by positive law, and sometimes too
subtle and mysterious to be fully detected in the limited period
of ordinary investigation.
"As progress is made in the inquiry, new facts are discovered
which may be properly connected with others already known,
but would not form sufficient subjects for separate prosecutions. On these accounts a peculiar tribunal seems both useful and necessary; a tribunal of liberal and comprehensive
character, confined as little as possible to strict forms, enabled
to continue its sessions as long as the nature of the case may
require, qualified to view the charge in all its bearings and
dependencies, and to appreciate on sound principles of public
policy the defense of the accused."




1846                    APPENDIX.
The base appetite of the Commissioner "for illegitimate
emolument" is fully manifest in his transactions in land scrip
(a mere representative of land) in his office, carried on with
the connivance and assistance of his Deputy and chief clerk,
and also in his corrupt silence in allowing Cornell, in connection with Van Dunham, to swindle the homesteader Bouch
out of his only team.
Again, "Story," Sec. 746 and 7, says:
"Impeachment is intended to reach personal misconduct, or
gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public
interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." And
Mr. Curtiss, a later commentator, on page 360, says: "Impeachment is not necessarily a trial for crime; its purposes lie wholly
beyond the penalty of the statute of the customary law."  It is
a proceeding "to ascertain whether cause exists for removing a
public officer from office."  "As where the individual has, from
immorality, or imbecility, or mal-administration, become unfit
to exercise the office."
If the publishing of the infamously vile  sheet entitled
"iEvery Wednesday Night," (which he admits),-his publicly
and unblushingly, by himself and with certain of his clerks,
visiting a house of notorious ill-fame,-his repeated drunken
carousals with certain of his dissolute clerks in public places,if these are not acts of such "gross immorality" in a public
officer as to disgrace his office, render him  less useful, and
destroy all confidence in his official integrity, and thus bring
the offense within the definition given by "Curtiss" of impeachable offenses, it is difficult to immagine acts that would.
From  the authorities, it would seem  that the power to
impeach is as broad as the Constitution, and that is as broad
as the evil.  All evil acts, examples, or influence committed by
a civil officer of the State to the detriment of the public interests and welfare, are impeachable offenses.  Neither the
State nor the people must suffer any detriment by the acts of
its officers.




APPENDIX.                       184?
Impeachment is one of the powers to remedy the evil of
corrupt and dissolute officers, and maintain the honor and
welfare of the State.
There is a peculiarity about the language of our Constitution:  "The House of Representatives" shall have "the sole
power of impeaching civil officers for corrupt conduct in office,
or for crimes and misdemeanors."  " Corrupt conduct in office "
includes one branch or class of offenses, and "crimes and
misdemeanors" another. Language cannot be plainer, broader,
or more emphatic. The disjunctive "or" forbids a doubt as
to the meaning of the phrases. That " all words and phrases
shall be construed and understood according to the common
usage of the language," is a statute and common-law rule of
construction.
What is "corrupt conduct in office?"  This term stands by
itself, and is to have its own meaning. What does it mean?
"Mal-conduct "-omitting to do duty, or doing that which is
contrary to duty. It includes abuse of power, whether by
overt acts or neglect,
The term " corrupt conduct in office" is broad enough and
was intended to include all official acts, and must necessarily
embrace crimes and misdemeanors connected with his office,
such as fraud, embezzlement, etc.
The  convention  that framed our Constitution  in  this
language did not stultify themselves. By the disjunctive, we
must presume they meant different things by the different
terms "for corrupt conduct in office," or for "crimes and misdemeanors,"-not in office, but crimes and misdemeanors by the
law of the land.
One subject of impeachment is for "corrupt conduct in
office."  If he depart from  duty, no matter howv little, by
willful act or omission, he is guilty.
Another matter of impeachment is' crime and misdemeanors."  Crimes and misdemeanors are technical words and
phrases which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate mean



1848                 APPENDIX.
ing in the law, and must be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.
From time immemorial, crimes and misdemeanors have in
the law been defined as "acts committed or omitted in violation of public law either forbidding it or commanding it."4th Blacks. Con., 5, and Bishop's Criminal Law, 1 Vol., 43.
The statute of the State in force when the Constitution was
framed and adopted, recognized offenses, and divided them
into crimes and misdemeanors. Crimes, by our statute, are
those offenses punishable by death or imprisonment in the
State Prison.-C. L. 1857, Sections 59, 54, and 55. Misdemeanors are offenses of a lesser grade, and punishable by fine
or imprisonment in the county jail, or both.-C. L. 1857,
Sections 51, 21, and 58, 45, and 46. Under these general definitions, the Revised Statutes of 1838 and 1846 have particularly defined the offenses under each of these terms. Surely,
the gentlemen composing the convention that framed the Constitution must be presumed to have had reference in the use
of these terms and phrases, "crimes and misdemeanors," to
what was then known and understood in the law as "crimes
and misdemeanors."  These terms have had a legal and technical meaning by statute and common law from the earliest
history of the State, and a convention must be presumed to
have used them in their well defined and understood sense.
The Revised Statutes of 1846, in force when this Constitution was adopted and now in force, Sec. 217, C. L, 1871,
declare, "every office shall become vacant when the officer shall
be convicted of an infamous crime, or of any offense involving
a violation of his oath of office."  In this act, we have upon
the subject a legislative construction of this clause of the Constitution of 1835, which is the same language as the present
Constitution upon the subject of impeachment.
If the office be declared vacant on conviction of the officer
of crime or misdemeanors before a court of criminal jurisdiction; why may not the House accuse, and the Senate try, a




APPENDIX.                      1849
civil officer for offenses within the definition, committed while
in office, without waiting the delay of a proceeding in the
court of criminal jurisdiction? Before the offending officer
could be brought to trial in the criminal courts, his term of
office. might expire.
Must the people endure in office one who, by crime, has disgraced his office, and become a reproach and a burden to the
State, until the criminal court shall finally determine his guilt,
or may he be removed by impeachment?
It seems to me it was the plain intention of the Constitution
that the House of Representatives plight, in its representative
capacity, inquire into the official conduct and character of any
civil officer of the State, and for "corrupt conduct in office,"
or for "crimes and misdemeanors" against the laws of the State,
impeach him, if in their judgment the public good demands.
Here I may respectfully suggest, that if the House have the
sole power to impeach civil officers of the State for corrupt
conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors, and in the
exercise of this exclusive power they do impeach an officer for
any of these matters, it is as exclusively the constitutional
power and duty of the Senate, on oath, truly and impartially,
to try and determine the same, according to the evidence.
The subject-matter of impeachment being, as I have before
attempted to show, utterly undefined when the Conatitution
was framed, the discretion as to what is matter of impeachment must vest somewhere. It was, I contend, by our Constitution, given to the House of Representatives to say, in every
case, what shall be deemed matter of impeachment.
The Senate cannot, in the first instance, call the offending
officer to an account. It has no power to limit or declare his
crime. It stands above and beyond, with only the power "on
oath to truly and impartially try the impeachment according
to the evidence,"
I cannot see, in the constitutional provision governing the
action of the Senate in the trial "according to the evidence," any
232




1850                  APPENDIX.
power to dismiss any article from their consideration, or refuse
to hear proof upon any article presented.
Notice the distinction between the language of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State
upon that subject. That of the United States has the Senate
sworn as a,court, to try the impeachment. That of our State
is to truly and impartially try the impeachment according to
the evidence.
What are you to find?  Simply whether the charges are
sustained by the proofs. That is your oath. You are to say
whether you -find evidence to sustain the charges made by the
House against the respondent, to which he has pleaded, and
produced proof. Can you excuse your conscience by saying
the facts sustain the charge in any Article, but the matter is
~not impeachable, therefore you find not guilty? I apprehend
not. It seems to me that your oath in this case precludes the
power to decide what is or what is not matter of impeachment.
The simple oath, to well and truly try the impeachment, as in
the Constitution of the United States, may well leave the power
to say whether the matter charged be matter of impeachment;
but the oath to try "according to the evidence" is a mere
jury's oath, and leaves no discretion in the court. There is no
grant of power in our State Constitution given to the Senate
to define what is matter of impeachment. The oath prescribed
is inconsistent with such power.
The change in the language from the Constitution of the
United States is too marked to be accidental, and indicates that
the framers of our Constitution refused to leave that power
in this body. That power was solely vested in the House of
Representatives, and the power to try in the Senate. The facts
of prosecution and defense are a check upon the House, and
seem to be a division of the power and responsibility of impeachment between the House and the Senate, and each independent of the other. The House must act when the Legislature is in session, and the Senate cannot act until it has
adjourned. The power of the House to impeach is a judicial




APPENDIX.                       1851
one, because it can only be exercised on judicial inquiry. It is
judicial here, for you can act only upon proofs presented. The
House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the sole
power of conviction according to the evidence. The House
accuse, and the Senate try. The people are both prosecutors
and judges, and the power is divided between both bodies of
the Legislature. The power to impeach is exercised by the
House upon the known, undefined, and undefinable nature of
the matter of impeachment, restricted to the person of civil
officers, and to matter within the definition of the terms and
phrases used in the Constitution, "corrupt conduct in office
or crimes and misdemeanors."  The power to impeach is the
power to investigate the official conduct of every civil officer,
and to say upon what facts and for what offenses he shall be
impeached, to define and present the articles of impeachment
and prosecute the same, leaving this court the sole power to
pass upon the weight of evidence and pronounce the judgment..
Neither House nor Senate can impeach alone. It begins with
the House and ends with the Senate in its judgment.
It is no forced construction to find in the right to impeach,
the power to define what conduct and offenses are impeachable,
under the tenure and phrases of our Constitution, "corrupt
conduct in office," or for "crime and misdemeanors."  It seems
consistent with the sole discretion to impeach, given to the
House. It seems a fit and proper distribution of the power of
the two Houses, to give to one branch of the Legislature the
sole right, in each particular case, to decide for what acts the
officer shall be impeached, and to the other, the power to hear
proofs and decide upon the preponderance of evidence and
pronounce judgment in the case, as neither body separately nor
together represents all the people in impeachment, but between
them to be exercised severally.
If the House has not the sole power of impeachment, I
cannot see where the power is lodged in the Constitution.
Upon this principle, the Managers on the part and in the
name of the House of Representatives, ask the judgment of




1852                  APPENDIX.
this Court of Impeachment, whether the several Articles
charged are sustained by the evidence. The House has made
the accusations against the respondent, and you are to determine whether they are true according to the evidence adduced
on the part of the people and the respondent.
I have taken the liberty to present this view of the law in
support of the Articles, and also in a reply to that portion of
the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, in
which he claims that the charges contained in the 8th, 9th,
10th, and 11th Articles, are mere crimes, official crimes, and
not impeachable offenses, and shall leave for the present that
branch of the subject.
The Commissioner of the State Land Office is an important
constitutional and executive civil officer of the State. In
order to have a correct understanding of the proofs in support
of the charges, and for the defense, it is proper to consider the
nature and duties of his office. We are at great expense in
inviting foreign emigration to purchase our lands and settle
within our borders. Our people are putting forth extraordinary efforts to settle and improve the unimproved portions of
our Peninsula. Immense quantities of land have been appropriated by the State, to open roads in the newer portions, and
for other works of internal improvement, with a view to the
more speedy development of the resources of the State. Various inducements are offered to the actual settler and others, to
settle upon and purchase the various grades of land held in
trust by the State for purposes of education, agriculture, and
internal improvement. A Commissioner of the Land Office
has extraordinary power in the sale and disposition of State
lands, with but few checks upon his official conduct. There
are, in fact, no checks about his office that would tend to
restrain the covetous or unscrupulous man.  Many of his
important acts are discretionary, and all are independent of
any other officer. He acts by himself, or the persons he
appoints, and these he may dismiss at will. He may, by collusion with dishonest persons in and out of his office, in




APPENDIX.                       1853
innumerable ways, without fear of detection, defraud the honest and confiding settler of his landed rights; the homesteader from his home and improvements, and affect, injuriously,
the title to all lands under his control. lIe may, in like manner, to personal friends or for reward, give valuable privileges:
and information to some, and deny them to others, and there
is no power to expose or punish the corrupt action, whether
done by himself or his clerks. He may aid one purchaser to
the inconvenience and damage of another. He may damage
or detroy the rights of one settler to the benefit of himself, a
favored clerk, or friend, with a consciousness that there is no
reasonable chance of detection. He can withhold large quantities of land from  sale, under various false pretenses and
exeuses, ii the name of a friend, for his own private benefit,
until it can be bargained or sold at a profit. In that office, the
opportunities for private gain and speculation are so abundant,
and the temptation to violate or evade the law for the benefit
of thie fficers or their friends is so great, and the checks upon
official;ondnet so few and uncertain, as to demand that its
chief offioer shall possess the highest order of integrity, shall
be one in whose moral character and incorruptible fidelity the
people can, with safety, confide. He should be a kind of guardian for the ignorant and confiding settler as to his landed
intirest to the State. He should be not only just and impartial, but above suspicion. A reckless, vile, and immoral man
cannot command the confidence of the people in this important office, be he ever so competent. IHe will not discharge the
duties of his office as well as the virtuous, All the presumptions are against his fidelity. He who is known to be vile,
false, and corrupt in some things, is presumed to be deceitful
in all, and unworthy of confidence. You cannot separate private character and conduct from the official acts and influence.
The character, conduct, and influence of the man affect, for
good or evil, his whole life in or out of office. He is more or
less useful in his public life as he is competent, virtuous, and'
exemplary. The respondent is accused both of corrupt con



1854                   APPENDIX.
duct in office and of crimes infamous in character, felonies, of
which, if convicted in a criminal court, he would by statute
forfeit his office. Sec. 617, C. L. 1871. Upon what principle?
Simply that he has disgraced his office, is a reproach to the
State, and presumed to be unfaithful in official duties and
trusts. If the proofs in this case reasonably sustain the
charges contained in the Articles, I apprehend that neither
sympathy nor a suggestion of doubts will excuse him  from
the just and constitutional judgment of expulsion from office.
Before entering upon the discussion of the facts in proof,
applicable to the several Articles under consideration, it is but
just to the innocent to say that no proofs were offered under
Article IV., charging conspiracy with William G. Patrick, Esq.,
for the reason that none existed. It is due to Mr. Patrick to
say that this Article was inserted under a misapprehension of
facts communicated to the Managers, and when thoroughly
examined, found to have been based upon a statement publicly
made by a brother of Mr. Patrick, without foundation in truth
or in fact, and which he refused to verify on oath when called
at the trial.  The Managers regret that the Article was
inserted. It was done in good faith, believing it true and susceptible of proof.
The respondent, in the argument of his counsel, concedes the
facts charged in the 5th, 8th, and 9th Articles, but denies that
the several matters charged therein are subjects of impeachment.
The 8th Article charges the respondent, in substance, that,
4' with the intent of debauching and corrupting the morals of
the youth and other good citizens of the State, he did, on or
about the 1st of March, 1872, at the city of Lansing and
other places in this State, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously,
and scandalously, publish, circulate, and distribute a certain anonymous and obscene printed paper entitled'Every
Wednesday  Night,' containing  impure, scandalous, and
obscene matters, language, and description, manifestly unbecoming the dignity of his office, a scandal in the community,




APPENDIX.                        1855
and tending to the corruption of the morals of youth and
other good citizens of the State, and in violation of the laws
of chastity and morality."  In defense of this Article, and
in excuse for publishing the vile print, the learned counsel for
respondent claim, in effect, that it was but an innoceht, harmless piece of folly ("the cause of the impeachment"), which
they do not approve, and which the Commissioner regrets.
They also claim that it is not more obscene than certain passages which standard authors have written and published.
The selections read in support of this position well sustained
it, and with a little more research they might have added
much other similar testimony. Hence, no offense! No violation of the statutes of the State! This defense was ingenious
and original, and not confined entirely to this Article. It was
a theory of defense as to all Articles sustained by proof. What
is or what is not obscene, depends somewhat upon the standard
and person by which it is judged. That which a virtuous and
respectable community would condemn as too vile for admission into their families oi for circulation among the people,
the vicious and immoral might deem quite innocent and harmless. What is obscene is more a question of fact to be determined in each particular. case, than defined by positive law.
The statutes of our State defining. offenses against chastity,
morality, and decency, among other things, declare in Sec.
5868, C. L. 1857, that if any person shall print, publish, or distribute any book, printed paper, or other thing containing
obscene language, prints, pictures, figures, or descriptions,
manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth,
for the purpose of loan, circulation, or introduction in any
family, school, or public place, shall be punished, etc. This
Article charges a violation of this statute. The proof is the
printed paper before you, printed and circulated by the respondent, beyond all question of a doubt. What is the character
and tendency-of the publication as discovered from the reading of the paper and the proofs concerning the persons and




1856                   APPENDIX.
matter alluded to? Bishop, in his Treatise on Criminal Law,
Sec. 379, declares:
"Every act the common law  deems sufficiently evil and
directly tending to impair the public morals, it punishes as
a crime; such as keeping a bawdy-house, publishing obscene
prints and writings, the utterance of obscene words in public
places, indecent exposure of person, etc., etc."
The statute of our State is but a legislative declaration and
recognition of this principle of the common law. If the reading of this paper, with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding it and the persons referred to in it, will
warrant honorable Senators in saying, on their oath, the paper
is not obscene, has no immoral tendency, is not calculated to
corrupt the morals of youth, and is no violation of this statute of our State, nothing I can urge will convince them to the
contrary. If the appointment of place and details of assignation between a public and notorious harlot and the professedly
moral and religious man, the disgusting allusion to the danger
of contracting a nameless and loathsome disease by illicit intercourse with this lewd woman, and the necessity of caution by
the man in consequence of his having a wife; the vile parody
upon " Poe's Raven," the numberless dirty allusions upon the
subject of illicit intercourse of the sexes with which the paper
is filled, tending in the same immoral direction, Will not condemn the paper as obscene, it is difficult to imagine anything
that would. Would any member of this high tribunal, the
learned counsel for the respondent, or any other respectable
gentleman, take this paper to his home, sit down with his family, read and explain it with the surroundings, so that it may
be understood as it is in this Court? Would any one of you
be willing to allow it in your homes unexplained? Did not
every member of the Senate and the House, that received a
copy of it through the postoffice, feel outraged and insulted?
Even the respondent understood and intended it as a vile and
disreputable affair, and a violation of law, or he would not,
under an assumed name, and in so stealthy a manner, have




APPENDIX.                      1857
matter, printing, publishing, and circulating this scurrilous
paper, indicates that its guilty author must have been morally
depraved to such a degree that no good man could have confidence in him. If nothing more was known of the man than
what you may learn by the reading of this print, and the proof
uunder this Article, no man of ordinary caution would dare
put him in a place of honor or trust  He would naturally
argue, if one is so vile, malicious, and depraved as to deliberately do what the Commissioner planned and executed in
regard to this paper, he is capable of the highest crime, and
cannot be trusted anywhere. Not one of you, and no sensible
man, would give such a one room or employment. No one is
safe within his reach. It is disgraceful to countenance or associate with such a man. You would not invite him to your
home or introduce him  to your family. Public sentiment
alone would deter you if your own sense of danger did not.
The well established facts proven under the 10th and 11th
Articles, considered in connection with issuing and circulating
this print, show the Commissioner to be not only low and
depraved, but an unscrupulous, plotting, and dangerous man.
The proofs in this case, the honor and safety of the State, seem
to demand your judgment of guilty upon this Article.
The next Article I call your attention to, is Article V., in
regard to the sale and purchase of "scrip," so called. The
Commissioner, at the very commencement of his official term,
entered upon the purchase and sale of scrip, pretending to
believe he had a lawful right to do so.
The term  "scrip" gives no true indication of the transactions. " Scrip," it is claimed by the respondent, means "land
money," or simply some kind of obligation of the State, payable in lands, which is sold in the market at a discount, like
uncurrent money, and yet will buy certain kind of land from
the State, at its face. The Managers claim it is land, that it
represents land, and nothing more or less. It seems to have a
certaim money value in market, and is transferred in sums
233




1858                   APPENDIX.
represented in form of money. Yet it is not money, nor the
representative of money, nor does it purport to be, and there
is no propriety in calling it money. It is land, or a contract
for land, and nothirfg more. The contractor, for constructing
certain roads, obligates himself to take pay for his work in land.
After taking his contract, he is entitled at once to select, from
certain unsold lands of the State, to the amount of his contract,
and have the same withheld from  sale for him or his assigns,
until his contract is completed. When his contract is completed, the land so selected must be patented to the contractor or
his assigns, in satisfaction of his contract; and for any balance
due him, he may select and purchase any other unlocated
lands. This right to select and enter other lands, he may
assign, and the assignee is entitled to the same rights as the
contractor. The right to select, reserve, and enter these lands,
grows out of the contract to construct roads, and originally
was confined to the contractor, but is now assignable by law,
and remits to the assignee the same rights the contractor had.
The contractor had a contract for a certain amount of land,
and might demand a patent from the State for the same at any
time. The assignee has the same right and nothing more.
" Scrip " is simply an assignment of the contract, or so much
or such part thereof as the order indicates. If the Land Commissioner, or any of his clerks, held one of these contracts for
land, it would not be contended that he did not hold or have,
indirectly, an interest in the State lands represented by his
contract. The holder of one hundred dollars worth of scrip
has inchoate right to eight acres of swamp land and nothing
more. It is as much an interest in land as if an actual paper
scrip was issued, certifying the holder entitled to a certain
quantity of land. The surrender of the " scrip," and selecting
the land, are the only requisites to entitle the holder to his
patent. This is an "indirect interest in land," forbidden by
the statute. The use of the name of another, in which to
enter land to be held in trust or for the benefit of.the Com



APPENDIX.                       1859
missioner or his clerks, is also, we claim, a violation of this
statute.
The testimony fully sustains the fact that it was the uniform
practice of this Commissioner, until about the first of June,
1871, to purchase scrip with trust funds under his control,
and with the same to enter the lands in all cases where money
was sent for the purpose. The extent of the practice is not
stated, nor is it necessary, in order to find the respondent guilty
under the Article. This practice continued after the first of
June,'to some extent, as is evident from the testimony of Mr.
Coffin, who sent fifty dollars in'money to buy forty acres and
a fraction of land, and received his patent and some seventeen
dollars in money. This land was entered with Barnard & Co.'s
"scrip," to their benefit, to the amount of profit on the scrip,
perhaps, say $5.00, and to the damage of the school fund,
$25.00. This was the only case, after June, 1871, which the
Managers were able to produce and prove; yet it is fair to
presume the practice continued in all cases where the Commissioner and his Deputy could make by the operation. Certainly, the Commissioner ought not to complain of this presumption, when both the Commissioner and Deputy refuse, on
oath, to deny it. It is of no consequence to the question of
guilt or innocence, whether there was much or little taken
from the school fund, by this kind of financiering, for the
benefit and advantage of the Commissioner. The evils growing out of the practice, the evasions of the law, and the
temptations to evade it to the damage of the State are so
numerous, as brought to light by the evidence, that I think
the Senate warranted in finding the respondent guilty of the
charges contained in this Article.
In regard to the proofs sustaining the First Article, which
charges the Commissioner with "corruptly withholding from
sale diverse large tracts of land for the particular benefit and
advantage of certain land dealers, for a private pecuniary consideration to himself, his Deputy, and clerks," to the damage
and inconvenience of actual settlers, and of the people gen



1850                   APPENDIX.
erally; and also to the Second Article, which charges that
the respondent, "by himself and clerks in office, had directly
and indirectly engaged in the purchase of lands from the
State," I shall rely mainly on the facts in proof, so ably presented and implied by Manager Huston, and shall only answer
the objections made by the learned counsel for the respondent,
who last addressed you.
The substance and theory of the defense is, that the several
acts of unlawfully withholding lands from sale, and the dealing in lands by his Deputy and clerks, have not been brought
home to his knowledge, and t6hat he is not personally responsible for the acts of his clerks, if they act contrary to the rules
he has established for their guidance. Section 3796, C. L.
1871, gives the power to the Commissioner to appoint his Deputy and clerks and to dismiss them  at pleasure, and declares
he shall be responsible for their acts. This statute declaration
of accountability ought to be sufficient. The Supreme Court,
in the case of The People vs. McKinney, 10th Mich., in speaking upon the subject of responsibility, say: "The acts of the
Deputy or clerk in office, in the business of the office, are the
official acts of the treasurer (officer), and it is his duty to see
they were properly made and the books correctly kept as if
made by himself." I think there is no escaping this responsibility for the acts of the deputy and clerks. The chief of the
department is its only responsible head; he has entire control
and management of the office. The acts of his Deputy and
clerks are his acts. If he is not bound by their acts, there is
no responsibility for them. He appoints, controls, and dismisses his clerks in office at pleasure; and there is no power
elsewhere to control or dismiss them. Without this responsibility in the official head of the department, there would be
no accountability or safety to the State. The Commissioner
need be but ignorant of the acts of his' clerks, and gross frauds
may be perpetrated by them in office, and there is no remedy
for the evil. The Deputy and clerks cannot be removed by
the Governor, nor reached by impeachment. If the Commis



APPENDIX.                      1861
sioner is not responsible for their acts, there is no responsibility.
Is this true?  No government can be sustained upon this
theory. Dismissing the Commissioner for the acts of his Deputy and clerks is the only remedy for unfaithful and dissolute
clerks in office.
Aside from this, there is evidence to convince a reasonable
mind that the Commissioner must have had knowledge'of
their acts and approved the same, if he did not participate in
the profits thereof. It is scarcely possible that his clerks would
have dared to engage in these unlawful and corrupt practices
without the expressed or implied consent of their chief, who,
it seems, was quite constantly in attendance at his office. If
not, why did he not take the witness stand himself, or put his
Deputy on, and inform  the people of this State who of his
clerks were untrustworthy, and had violated the rules of his
office and the laws of this State, and brought him to answer
this impeachment? It was due to himself, to his friends, and
to the party that placed him in power, to show up this whole
transaction as it is. If not guilty, he had the power within
his own reach to make his innocence appear beyond all question of a doubt.
In civil cases the most important presumptions are continually founded upon the conduct of parties. I Stark. Ev. p. 54,
says:
"The conduct of parties in omitting to produce that evidence in elucidation of the subject-matter in dispute, which is
within his power, and which rests peculiarly within his
own knowledge, affords occasion for presumption against him,
since it raises a strong suspicion that such evidence, if produced,
would operate to his prejudice."  "If circumstances induce
a strong suspicion of guilt, and where the accused might, if he
were innocent, explain those circumstances consistently with
his innocence, and yet does not offer such explanation as he is
known to possess, a strong presumption arises that he is guilty."
2 Stark. Ev. 688:  "And where a party has in his power the
means of rebutting and explaining the evidence adduced




1862                  APPENDIX.
against him, the omission to do so furnishes a forcible inference against him.'
"Every man, it is persumed, will do that which is for his
obvious advantage; thus, if a party be pressed by circumstantial proof, having it obviously in his power to destroy its
apparent force by testimony on his side, but which he omits to
do; the very omission supplies a presumption against him.
Imperfect proofs, of which the accused, if innocent, might
clear himself, become perfect."-1 Phil. Ev. 511.
If the Commissioner had no knowledge of the land transactions of his Deputy and clerks in dealing in State lands, and
was not interested with them and others in the sale and profits,
as the proofs and presumptions would indicate he might have
been, why did he not call upon his Deputy, Barnard, to testify
in the matter? Why did he not himself deny it on oath, and
affirm his own innocence? It was competent for him to testify
in his own behalf, and to call his Deputy as a witness. He
doubtless did that which was obviously for his advantage;
had he and his Deputy been sworn in the defense, they would no
doubt have testified that the Commissioner was cognizant of
all these transactions of the clerks and Deputy, approved them,
and participated in the benefits arising therefrom. He was an
equal partner with his Deputy in the scrip deal carried on in
his office under the name of W. A. Barnard & Co. In the
absence of proof to the contrary he is presumed to have been
equally interested with him in his other transactions in the
purchase of lands from the State, and general "dicker" in
land, horses, and dogs. They were partners in the scrip deal,
which is an indirect interest in land, and must be presumed to
have been equally interested in other similar extra-official
transactions. What is known to exist is presumed to continue;
partnership once known to exist is presumed to continue, and
to include all similar transactions in the same place. The
dealing in scrip is a part of the business of land agents, with
which is usually connected the purchase and sale of lands.
The Commissioner and his Deputy were known to deal largely




APPENDIX.                     1863
in scrip and jointly interested, and yet the Commissioner did
nothing of the detail in that matter. The Deputy dealt largely
in lands, under cover and through others, and it must be presumed to have been well known between them. This is the
fair presumption of the law upon the facts proved.  The
Deputy, Barnard, dealt quite largely in land and "minutes,"
using the name of others.  If these acts were unknown to
the Commissioner, it would have been an easy matter for the
Deputy and Commissioner to have so statedon oath, and thus
destroyed the effect of the presumption against him of participation in the profit. These two officials were. present during
all the proofs, and knew and understood the damaging effects
to the Commissioner. Why did they not testify, and clear up
the suspicions and presumptions that the Commissioner had
knowledge of and was interested in these land transactions?
The only answer that can be given is the one presumed in the
law,-" that such evidence, if adduced, would be to his prejudice."  We must presume that if these parties went upon the
stand, they must convict the Commissioner of these charges,
or themselves of perjury. But the counsel for the respondent
contends that the action is criminal and he cannot testify.
Surely they will not contend it is so in relation to the charges
for dealing in land; and if it were so, this would not have precluded the Deputy.
There was a copartnership firm of W. A. Barnard & Co., in
the office, composed of the respondent and his Deputy Barnard,
the profits of which, in the scrip business alone, was at the
rate of $10,000 a year, as shown by the books in the Land
Office, kept by the chief clerk. There was also a bank account
of the same firm kept with Hewitt & Co., bankers at Lansing,
showing transactions involving about $60,000. It is conceded
by the respondent's counsel, that this firm is composed of the
Commissioner and his Deputy. Now what transactions were
covered by and included in this bank account of $60,000?
Did it include Barnard & Co.'s land transactions operated with
money, or purely money transactions?  Mr. Barnard could




1864                  APPENDIX.
tell us; the Commissioner, Mr. Co., could tell; yet both are
silent and we are left to presume from the testimony of the
people, that the Deputy Barnaxd did deal in lands aside from
"scrip," and in complicity with his chief. The strong cireamstantial evidence of intimacy and more than ordinary friendship between them, and their joint interest as copartners in
some matters, tend to show that the Commisioner must have had
knowledge of all Barnard's land transactions and was interested
therein. If it were not so, they had the knowledge and should
have informed us. From the facts and circumstances proved
in support of these two Articles, and the evident presumption
against the Commissioner, arising from his neglect to contradict or explain by proof, so certainly within his reach, the
Honorable Senators must conclude he had guilty knowledge
of, and participation in, these land transactions with his Deputy and clerks; and if so, the finding of this Court must be
guilty, on each of these Articles.
The Third Article, charging fraud upon the licensed settler
on lands, called in this trial the homesteader, seems fully sustained by the direct, positive, and uncontradicted testimony of
many witnesses.  Transactions with Bouch, Woolover, and
Conley show distinctly that these men had been defrauded
of their homesteads and improvements by the official act of
the Commissioner, in allowing parties to enter the licensed
lands and oust the settler, without proof of abandonment, or
that the same was not occupied and improved. These acts
were carried on in the office by certain of his clerks with outside parties, and in the case of Bouch and Woolover, the Commissioner had actual knowledge of the hardship and fraud
upon the settlers. He had full knowldge of the power vested
in him to cancel any sale made by mistake or fraud, and
refused to exercise it in behalf of these defrauded settlers, yet
he gladly used this canceling power when he could thereby
restore $50 in scrip to his friend Cornell, though to the
damage of the State to the same amount. If he would not correct the sale for Bouch and other settlers, why should he for




APPENDIX.                      1865
Cornell in the case of Bouch? He has not informed us by his
own testimony. Why did he not, on oath, give the facts and
reasons for this strange conduct in office?  Simply because
his testimony would have damaged him. He must be presumed to have been interested with Cornell and his clerk, or
he would not have acted adversely to the interests of the State
and settlers. He must not complain at the conclusions of law
against him, when he had the power, if innocent, to show such
facts as would have explained the mystery of his pretended
ignorance. If he had knowledge of the transactions of Cornell and his clerks in defrauding these settlers, Bouch, Woolover, and Conley, and refused to exercise his discretionary
power for their relief, or if he was in complicity with the
conspirators, he is unworthy to be at the head of this important department of the State, and ought at once to be deposed.
The Managers believe the proof applicable to this Article is
sufficiently full and positive to warrant a finding of guilty
under your oath.
In regard to the 10th and 11th Articles, the proofs are not
as full and satisfactory as the Managers knew to exist and
hoped to have presented.  It was much less than was given
before the committee of inquiry, and read in the House. There
was such an outside pressure in certain directions in favor of
the Commissioner, that the Managers found great diffiulty in
obtaining any proofs, yet enough was dragged before you to
convince reasonable men on oath that the Commissioner was
not entirely guiltless.
If not sufficient proof to warrant a conviction, there was
enough, in connection with other testimony in the case, to
show him  immoral and dissolute.  For the evidence tends
strongly to prove that the respondent, upon several occasions,
was intoxicated, and carousing in public places with certain
of his clerks and others, within sight of the Land Office, and to
such an extent as to call the attention of the respectable people
at Lansing to his conduct, resulting in the memorial presented
234




1866                  APPENDIX.
to the House, which was the cause of this impeachment. He
is shown to have been a frequenter at a house of notorious
ill-fame in this city, at such times and under such circumstances as to induce no other belief but vile and dissolute conduct, degrading to his office and character. The proof was
sufficient in a State court to have warranted a divorce, if asked
for by his wife. If the evidence under these Articles is not
sufficient to satisfy you of his guilt, the facts proven in the
case may be considered in connection with other charges, and
may aid you in arriving at a conclusion upon other Articles of
similar character.
Before closing my argument, I ought, perhaps, to reply to
that'portion of my brother Shipman's article, touching his
favorite subject, "jurisdiction." The importance he has given
to it throughout the trial, would indicate it to be the point in
the case. In candor I must admit, that were it not for the impeachment made in due form  by the House (possessed of all
the facts) to the Senate, when the Legislature was in session,
and the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating impeachment and providing for the expenses thereof," approved
March 30th, 1872, his argument would have been conclusive
against the prosecution. This point was taken before the
respondent answered, and was the subject of an able and
exhaustive argument by brother Shipman; briefly replied to
by the Managers, citing the formal impeachment by the House,
before adjournment, as shown by the journals of both branches
of the Legislature; and also Sec. 3 of the act of March 30th,
last, "empowering the House to authorize the Managers to
prepare and present Articles of Impeachment in accordance
with the resolutions of impeachment by the House."  It will
be noticed that this act was passed, approved, and took effect
the day after the formal impeachment of the respondent by
the House, at the bar of the Senate. The authorities presented
by my associate, Mr. Cochrane, in his preliminary argument,
fully sustain the position that the impeachment was complete
when the House in form accused the respondent, at the bar of




APPENDIX.                      1867
the Senate, of corrupt conduct in office and also of crimes and
misdemeanors. The preparing of papers and presenting the
Articles in accordance with the report, resolution, and act
of impeachment, it is claimed by the Managers, were merely
formal and clerical. That question, and the arguments upon
it, were fully considered by the Senate at considerable length,
and with closed doors; and the jurisdiction of the Senate was
sustained by a'vote of twenty-five to two, overruling the
motion to dismiss. Now, after receiving the entire testimony
in this case, occupying some three weeks, involving great
expense to the State, the learned counsel for the respondent,
with apparent sincerity, presents the subject anew upon the
same authorities, and, with lengthy argument, urges the Senate
to overrule its former and well considered decision.
The case was, indeed, desperate, to deny jurisdiction so tenaciously when the respondent was so exceedingly anxious to
meet this case upon its merits. The Managers now answer
that part of the argument denying jurisdiction, by saying that
point has been once adjudicated by this tribunal, and until it
indicates a dissatisfaction with its decision and desires a re-argument, I ought not to weary Senators and delay the Court
further upon that subject.
It is not a little noticeable that the respondent, so anxious
for a speedy hearing of the accusations upon the merits, as
professed by his letter to the committee of the House, to be
found on the journals, and so frequently brought to view by
his zealous counsel, should expend the great force of his
defense upon the trial, in earnest and extraordinary endeavors
to dismiss the case upon technical grounds, without trial; and
also, in refusing to meet the damaging effect of the testimony
and presumptions of law by his own testimony or that of his.
deputy. The theory of the defense " upon the merits" seems
to be, that you have no power to try me; and if you attempt
it, you must prove the charges by the technical rules of evidence in criminal cases, and give me the benefit of all doubts.
When damaging and suspicious evidence has been brought




1868                   APPENDIX.
against him which, if false or erroneous, it lay within his
power to explain or destroy its force, and he declines to do so,
the conclusion to my mind is that he is guilty as charged;
aye, even more guilty and corrupt than even the charges
indicate.
His strange and extraordinary course in this trial cannot be
reconciled upon any other theory. An innocent man desires
to be considered innocent. This is the law of life. If innocent, he had the power, by his own oath and that of his Deputy (the active manager and confederate), to show his integrity
to the people, and that he was the victim of corrupt and dissolute clerks. But instead of this, like a guilty criminal, he
denies the power of the Court to try him, refuses to explain
suspicious transactions in his office, and clamors most loudly
for the benefit of doubts. The office to him hasbeen a lucrative one. From all the evidence, he must have gotten therein
at least $10,000 a year, besides his salary.  The honest settlers
and land purchasers have suffered by his acts in office. The
office has been disgraced by his infamous extra-official conduct.
The State has been damaged by the general distrust and loss
of confidence in the management of the office, and by the
necessary expense of the investigation of the office at the
demand of the people. IIe has, by corrupt and vile practices,
become a reproach and burden to the State, and ought to be
removed from office and power. The times, the office, its present importance, the good name and welfare of the State,
demand it. It is no case for sympathy, forgiveness, excuse, or
doubts. It demands the firm, unflinching judgment of guilty.
If there ever was a time when faithfulness and unfaltering
courage was the plain duty of all in official stations, that time
is now.
"The land wants such
As dare with vigor execute the laws;
Her festered members must be lanced and tended.
He's a bad surgeon that for pity spares
The part corrupted, till the gangrene spread,
And all the body perish. He that's merciful
TUnto the bad is cruel to the good."




APPENDIX.                      1869
I trust, naught but the spirit of justice, which dwells in the
soul of the people of this State, will be represented here; that
you will do nothing in hate, nothing in favor, all in honor, as
the proofs show the truth to be. This I believe you will do.
I will believe the integrity and sense of justice of the people are
in this court. On them I rely. The House of Representatives
of the State of Michigan rely upon the justice and integrity
of this Court. If the respondent be innocent, by the evidence,
injure no hair of his head. If guilty, in the name of the people,, I urge you not to disgrace the fair name of the State by
allowing him to longer exercise the functions of this important
office. Say to the respondent, You have abused and dishonored
the trust of the people; you shall no longer disgrace the office
of Land Commissioner; go from it.
The House of Representatives, by its Managers at your bar,
ask for justice; nothing more, nothing less. The people have
closed their case and demand the judgment of this Honorable
Court.
OPINION OF SENATOR ROMEYN.
The want of a precedent in this State for the proceedings
connected with this case, has left open up to the present
instance the question which was urged at the beginning of the
trial by the counsel for the respondent, whether the Senate
had acquired jurisdiction in the matter, and would entertain
the Articles presented by the Managers.
The motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment is found
on page 13 of the journal, April 30, and is as follows:
" Whereas, The House of Representatives have the sole
power of impeaching civil officers; and
" Whereas, It does not appear that the Articles of Impeachment presented against the respondent in this case have been
agreed to or adopted by the House; but it does appear they
were not; therefore,




1870                  APPENDIX.
"On motion of counsel for respondent, it is
"Ordered, That the said Articles and these proceedings be
dismissed, and the Senate take no further jurisdiction of
the case."
After mature consideration by the Senate, the motion was
denied, by the decisive vote of 22 to 2.
The position taken by the counsel for Edmonds was, in brief,
that the House of Representatives undertook to delegate powers
to certain individuals, conferred upon them as a body by the
Constitution (Art. XII., Sec. 1) in the following words: " The
House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil officers for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and
misdemeanors; but a majority of the members elected shall be
necessary to direct an impeachment." In other words, that
the impeachment was undertaken to be perfected by the
Managers elected by the House, and not by the House itself,
for the reason that the Articles of Impeachment were never
submitted to nor approved by the House.
The proceedings in the House appear from the official journal of the last Extra Session.
Upon a petition presented by citizens of Lansing, for the impeachment of Edmonds, the matter was referred to a select
committee of five of that body, with power to examine into
the charges and report their conclusions.  The committee,
having completed their investigation, reported to the House
the evidence taken by them, in writing, at great length, together
with a resolution "That Charles A Edmonds, Commissioner
of the State Land Office, be impeached, for misconduct in office
and for crimes and misdemeanors; " of which resolution they
unanimously recommended the adoption.
The consideration of this, together with that of the evidence
upon which it was founded, was made the special order; and
after careful investigation, and part of the time with closed
doors, the resolution was adopted by the House by a vote of 79
to 5. Immediately following this, a committee was appointed
to go to the Senate, and at the bar thereof, in the name of




APPENDIX.                     1871
the House of Representatives and of the People of the State of
Michigan, impeach Charles A. Edmonds," etc.; " and acquaint
the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time,
exhibit particular Articles of Impeachment against him,
through its Managers to be elected, and make good the same, and
demand that the Senate take order," etc. Which committee
performed the duty intrusted to them, informing the Senate
that they appeared in obedience to the order of the House, and
in their name and that of the People, did impeach Charles A.
Edmonds, etc. The report of this committee was made formally to their own body, duly accepted, and the committee
discharged. The Iouse thereupon, under the constitutional
provision, elected three Managers deliberately by ballot, "to
prosecute the impeachment," i. e. the impeachment of which
the Senate had been notified; and the Governor forthwith
officially communicated with both branches of the Legislature,
suggesting the necessary provision for the trial of the accused,
"having received official notice of the impeachment of a State
officer."-Journal, p. 164.
These proceedings were all of the most deliberate and
solemn character, and the only question is, whether they were
such as are contemplated by the Constitution. It is certain
that the Legislative construction sustains the action of the
Senate in asserting jurisdiction, and reference need be had
only to the act providing for the trial passed by both Houses and
approved by the Governor, to ascertain what the intent and
understanding of the co-ordinate branches of the government
was.
Now, the theory of our form of government will forbid the
delegation of the powers of the House, and the clause of
reservation contained in the Constitution must be strictly
observed; so if the impeachment in this case was not effected
by the House itself, acting in its collective and constitutional
capacity, the filing by the Managers of Articles drawn by them
could not operate in itself as an impeachment, and the question must turn on the meaning of the word "impeachment,"




1872                 APPENDIX.
as employed in our Constitution; and only with its meaning in
that instrument have we to deal.
That the power to impeach is an extraordinary power, and to
be exercised with caution and strictness of construction, is apparent; but after careful attention to the argument of counsel
for the respondent on the motion to dismiss, I am well satisfied
in my own mind as to the correctness of the view taken by
the Senate.
The House did, "by a majority of the members elected,
direct an impeachment." Was not this impeachment completed when the resolution to impeach had been adopted, and
the House Committee "impeached" the accused at the bar of
the Senate?
The House then "elected from their own body three members whose duty it should be to prosecute such impeachment"
(Constitution, Art. XII.), and these Managers, elected for the
purpose, prepared the articles, founding them exclusively, as
was their duty, upon the evidence which had been previously
submitted to and maturely considered by the House, and upon
which the whole action of the House was based.
It is not necessary to inquire what might have been the
course of the Senate as to entertaining or refusing to entertain these Articles had they been in such form or contained
such charges as not to be justified by the evidence taken before
the Committee and acted upon by the House,-in other words,
if they had not been merely a formal statement of the charges
laid before the House. This was not the case here; and the
Senate had a right to take judicial notice from the journals of
that fact,-that the action of the House was founded upon the
evidence produced, which they believed to be such as justified
their impeachment of respondent upon the charges made.
I am of opinion that while the Articles framed by the Managers might well have been submitted to the House for approval,
had that body continued in session, no necessity for so submitting them existed, and that no delegation of the general




APPENDIX.                     1873
constitutional power of the House was attempted, the "im —
peachment" consisting in the adoption by the House of the
resolution of impeachment and the notification to the Senate..
The Managers performed a merely ministerial function, and
were properly clothed by the House with the necessary authority to condense into proper limits and set forth in the proper
form the facts charged by the House against the respondent, as
appears of record. Our Constitution provides that the trial
shall not proceed until after the final adjournment of the Legislature, and hence plainly does not contemplate the attendance of the members of the Lower House in committee of the
whole at the trial, which has been the practice in the absence
of such provision, nor the active participation of the House,
even as a matter of form.
As to the point raised, that the Articles should have been
signed by the Speaker of the House,-it is of no importance, if
the view I have expressed be correct. The signatures of the
authorized Managers authenticate them, and the filing makes
of them a formal and permanent record.
In conclusion, I refer to the meaning attached to the word
"impeachment" by the Congress of the United States in the
proceedings connected with the trial of Andrew Johnson.
Vol. 1, p. 2 (Feb. 22, 1868):
Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in
office."
Feb. 24, 1868:
Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to
the Senate, and at the bar thereof, in the name," etc., "to
impeach Andrew Johnson," etc., "and that the committee do
demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of said
Andrew Johnson to answer to said impeachment."
In the Senate (same volume, p. 5) Senator Howard from the
select committee reported on 26 February, 1868, a resolution
commencing as follows:
235




1874                   APPENDIX.
"Whereas, The House of Representatives, on the 25th day of
the present month, by two of their members," etc., "at the bar
of the Senate, impeached Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States," etc.
Which resolution was adopted.
The meaning thus attached to the word "impeachment" in
this leading case in our own country, will fully justify the
action of this Senate upon the question considered and decided
at the commencement of the trial.
JAMES W. ROMIEYN,
Senator First Dsttrict.
OPINION OF SENATOR BRIGGS.
The respondent, Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the
State Land Office, stands impeached by the House of Representatives, and on trial before the Senate, charged with eleven
distinct offenses, impugning both his official and personal character, "for corrupt conduct in office and for crimes and misdemeanors."  The importance of the case, the magnitude of
the interests involved, affecting not only the efficient and honest
management of the State Department of our own State Government, as well as the official and personal character of the
accused, are considerations which make it the most important
inquest which ever convened in this State.
At the commencement of these proceedings, the question of
jurisdiction was raised by the council for respondent. It is a
question of law, and involves the legal right and power of this
Senate to hearl try, and decide the case, in the manner and form
presented by the House of Representatives, through its Managers. Upon this point I have deemed it proper to state my
views, and file them  as a part of the official records of the
case. While the reasons here stated, and which determined




APPENDIX.                      1875
my vote on the motion, may not convince others more learned
and skilled in the interpretations of constitutions, the conclusions reached are honestly entertained, and the duty discharged
under a consciousness that it was right.
A brief statement of the motion and the reasons urged in
support of it by respondent's counsel, together with the objections offered against it on the part of the Managers, will be
necessary to a clear and full understanding of the question.
The following is the motion which was submitted, and which
raised the point of jurisdiction of the Senate, not only as to
the respondent, but the subject-matter of the case.
Whereas, The House of Representatives have the sole power
of impeaching civil officers; and
" Whereas, It does not appear that the Articles of Impeachment presented against the respondent in this case have been
agreed to or adopted by the House; but it does appear they
were not; therefore,
"On motion of counsel for respondent, it is
"Ordered, That the said Articles and these proceedings be
dismissed, and the Senate take no further jurisdiction of the
case."
On the argument, it was claimed by counsel for the respondent that the House of Representatives, under the Constitution,
possessed the sole power to impeach civil officers; that to constitute an impeachment the Articles must be settled and
adopted by the House in its legislative capacity. Until this
was done, no impeachment was effected.  The words "sole
power," used in the first section of Article XII., exclude every
other authority. Hence, the power could not be delegated by
law  to the Managers on the part of the House, to prepare
and present articles against the accused, to the Senate, when
organized as a court.
It is admitted, by the Managers, that the House has never
concurred in or passed upon the Articles; but they were prepared by them in pursuance of its action in the passage of the
report and resolution of the select committee, March 27th,




1876                   APPENDIX.
1872, and by authority of the law  approved March 30th,
1872.
It must be conceded that if the law and practice both in
England and under the Federal Constitution, as well as the
States, were to govern trials of impeachment under our Constitution and laws, the objection would be well taken, and it
would be the duty of this Court to acquit the respondent. By
the Constitution, Article XII., "Section 1, The House of
Representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil
officers."  By "Section 2, Every impeachment shall be tried
by the Senate;" and by " Section 3, No impeachment shall be
tried until the final adjournment of the Legislature, when the
Senate shall proceed to try the same."
It is clear to my mind from the language here quoted that
the makers intended a new and different mode of procedure
in trials of impeachment. It must be presumed that they
knew what the law and practice in such cases were at the time
they formed it. In view of that, they had especial reference
when they placed the last clause of the third section in the instrument. The time when the trial is to be held changes
former practice for the reason that all the proceedings (after
the impeachment) of the trial are required to take place after
the adjournment, and not during the actual session of the
Legislature. Nor can the Senate organize into a court, until
such final a adjournment. For the Senate to act as court while
sitting and acting in its legislative capacity would require the
exercise of different powers than such as are legislative. The
functions of the Senate, as a branch of the Legislature, and as
a court for the trial of an impeachment, are essentially distinct. It acts under the Constitution, from which it derives its
power, and which limits its duties to the performance of specific acts. It cannot act in conjunction with the House in the
impeachment, or in the trial. It possesses no power to arrest the
action of the House in the impeachment. It must entertain
the impeachment when preferred. But it can only act authoritatively when organized as a court.




APPENDIX.                       1877
The power to impeach, by the first section of Article XII., is
solely vested in the House of Representatives. When it is
done, it has exercised its exclusive constitutional power. It
becomes important to inquire what constitutes an impeachment under that Article. In technical language it is evident
to me that all the term "impeachment" implies or requires is
some formal action on the part of the House expressive of will.
This may be expressed by resolution. In the present instance,
the House of Representatives having adopted the report and
resolution reported by its select committee on the 27th day of
March, 1872, was such formal action. And thereby the respondent was impeached. Its further action in the matter, as by
passing upon the Articles, it could relinquish or retain, as it
saw proper. It is not required for the House to pass upon
and settle the Articles. They constitute no part of the impeachment. They are useful, for the reason that they apprise
both the Court and the accused with what offenses he is
charged, and determine the character and admissibility of
the evidence to sustain them. Settling the Articles on the
part of the impeaching branch of the Legislature is purely a
matter of practice. Under our Constitution the Legislature,
in my judgment, can transfer to the Managers this power, unless
prohibited by the Constitution. Has it imposed any restrictions on the Legislature in this regard?  If it has not, then
upon every principle of law applicable in the construction of
written constitutions, the power of the Legislature is omnipotent over the subject.
I find no language in that instrument prohibiting the
Legislature from regulating by law the practice in such cases.
I take it for granted that the power does exist. Let us see if
this conclusion is correct upon principle. A written constitution of a State under our system of government is not a
grant of power, but, a limitation of power where it would
otherwise  be  too  general or unlimited, as well as  to
impose certain duties on  the Legislature.  These restrictions and  duties are defined under general terms.  The




1878                    APPENDIX.
Legislature is vested with the sole power of enacting laws,
"and an  act of the  State  Legislature, not prohibited
by the express words of the Constitution or by necessary implication, cannot be declared void." In all cases they must be presumed to be Constitutional, and only when the law manifestly
infringes some provision of the instrument can it be declared
void. " In cases of doubt, every possible presumption," is to be
made in favor of the act.
I am  satisfied in my own mind that the "Act approved
March 30th, 1872," is within the power of the Legislature, and,
tested by the rules of law just stated, is constitutional. By
sections 3, 5, and 15 of the act, the Managers are vested with
all the power which the House could have possessed in the absence of law, and acting under the authority of common law.
It transfers the details of the proceeding from the point of impeachment, to the Managers, who conduct the same before the
court of inquest, fulfilling in such capacity the ordinary duties
of attorneys in courts of law. It is necessary that some law
should provide for trials of this character, other than the
usual course practiced in all other States, or no trial could
ever be held under our Constitution. No other tribunal can
provide the necessary wants, but the Legislature; to whose
wisdom, and sound discretion the matter is confided, whose
decision in any case must be final, and from which there can
be no appeal.
It seems to me that this conclusion is irresistibly drawn
from the whole tenor of Art. XII. of the Constitution. Former practices, the relics of barbarous ages, can furnish no precedent to govern this Court. They may be instructive, useful
to aid us in construing our own written law. Beyond that
they possess no binding force, when palpably contrary to the
letter and spirit of the instrument. The nature, object, scope,
and design of the whole instrument is to.be considered. Each
point must be made to harmonize, so as to conform, and carry
out the intent of its makers. Each clause must be construed
with that which precedes and follows it. Words are to be




APPENDIX.                     1879
understood in their common usage. When they admit of two
senses, that sense must prevail which best conforms and carries
out the object and purposes of the instrument. Guided and
governed by these principles, our conclusions will be correct
and just.
I do not wish to be understood, nor do I claim, that the Constitution absolutely prohibits the House from passing upon
and settling the Articles, but that it may or may not, as in its
wisdom and discretion it sees proper.. Nor will these proceedings furnish a precedent which future Legislatures will be
bound to follow in this regard. The law can be repealed and
the House resume the right to pass upon and adopt the Articles, but there it must stop.  It cannot act further.  The
question is not whether it can, but must, to complete the
impeachment. I am clearly of the opinion it is not necessary.
Entertaining these views upon the question raised by respondent's counsel, the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction
was properly overruled.








INDEX.








INDEX.
A.
PAGE.
ALEXANDER, L. P.,
sworn as member of court —----------------—. —--- -----    33
motion by, for payment of expenses of Managers —----                1836
ALDERMAN, S. C.,
testimony of —-. —----------------------—. —----------  913
ALLISON, D. W.,
testimony of ------------- -------                            410,  429
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT —------------------------------
against C. A. Edmonds, presented —------------------------   36
answer to —---------------                                           189
replication to answer to —------------------------—. -----  213
final vote on —------------------------— 1821, 1835
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
opinion of, as to Obed Smith's reservations —--------------   1417
B.
BALL, BYRON D.,
sworn as member of court -------—. —----- --. —----—..-   33
resolution, fixing time for trial of impeachment —-----------   71
resolution, fixing compensation of reporters ---------------  185
remarks by, on death of Hon. I. M. Cravath —-------------  438
resolutions of respect to memory of Hon. I. M. Cravath —----  439
resolution directing Secretary of the Senate to forward copies
of impeachment record —------------------ 1836
BARBER, HOMER G.,
sworn as member of court ------------------------------   33
resolution allowing time to President and Secretary to close
business —-----------------------— 1818
resolution of thanks to officers and reporters      ----------- 1819
BEGOLE, J. W.,
sworn as member of court —--------------------------------   33
BENNETT, T. G.,
sworn as member of court -------------------------------              84
resignation of —---------------------------—.- --------  337
BRIGGS, R. V.,
sworn as member of court —-------------------------------   33
resolution relative to printing journals, etc. ------------------   77
resolution relative to forwarding journals, etc. -------------— 1815
resolution giving extra compensation to asst. sergeant-at-arms- 1819
written opinion of. —----- ----------- ---------—.                1874
BROWNELL, SEYMOUR,
sworn as member of court —-------------------- --------   33
resignation of ---------------- -------------------—.   337




1884                                  INDEX.
PAGE.
BAKER, JAMES H.,
testimony of ----------—... ——._.- -.... —301, 1046
BAKER, BEN. B.,
testimony of -------------------—.... —----— _...___. 1153
BALDWIN, HENRY P.,
testimony of-.. —---------------—......___..._ _...     1182
BARNARD, W. A.,
letters from, to W. C. Bush  -----—.. -—.... _ 461,  468
letters from, to J. J. Wilder ——. —......_._........... 573
letters from, to Chas. Conley. —-----—...-.. — --— __........ 1428
BARTHOLOMEW, I. D.,
testimony of --------------------—, —-------... —.. —_ 639, 1117
BATHAY, THEODORE S.,
order of, to Cyrus Hewitt ---------------------------—.-_ -  694
letter from. —---------             - -------  719
order of, to C. Hewitt for reservation  --------------— _              ---   796
BENNETT, J. H.,
testimony of ------------------—. —--—... —--— __..__. 1305
BOLTON, JANE,
called as witness and rejected —------------------------—.. 1620
BOSWORTH, MILES L.,
testimony of ------------------------------------------— _ 1077
BOUCH, ORSON,
testimony of ---------------------------------                      - _  532,  551
license, and proofs of same ----------            —. ——.                   1428
BoURS, A. L.
testimony of ---------------------------------—.. ——.1011, 1313
BRINGHURST, T. H.,
testimony of ----------------------------------------— 288,  303
BusiJ, W. C.,
testimony of ------------------------                 428, 430, 459, 478,  509
letters from  W. A. Barnard to ------------------------— 461,  468
C.
CAWLEY, J. P.,
sworn as member of court. —---------             --- --------.    33
CRAVATH, I. M.,
sworn as member of court —-----. —------------------------    33
announcement of death of —---------------------------                         438
resolutions of respect to —---------------------------------   439
CANFIELD, D. G.,
testimony of -----------------------    683
CARPENTER, IH. T.,
testimony of -------------------------------—.... - -— 1156, 1165
CLARKE, H. C.,
testimony of ---------------------------------— 736, 994, 1346
CLARKE, O. B.,
application of, to purchase land ----------------------------  656
COCHRANE, LYMAN,
appointment of, as Manager -------------------------------    14
appearance of, as Manager, entered -----                ------— 35
argument by, on motion for continuance ----                -----           -    58
argument by, on motion to quash proceedings ------                         -  147
opening argument of --------                  ----------  216
motion by, for order relative to Jane Bolton -------                       - 1178
final argument of —-----------             ---------—.  1565
motion by, for order to allow Manager Grosvenor to file written argument. ------—. —-------------------—. —----- 1814




INDEX.                                   1885
PAGE.
COFFRON, W. W.,
testimony of —---------    --------- -. —----    680
COLE, GEO. H.,
testimony of —-- -------------------------------------— 1131
COLLIER, V. P.,
testimony of ----------------------------------             -.-      --   1249
CONKLING, J. B.,
testimony of -----------------------—.. —-—.- ------- ---- 1251
CONLEY, CHARLES,
testimony of          -576
license to —------------------— 77,  588
letter from, to C. A. Edmonds —-----                                       640
CORBUS, H. J.,
testimony of  -----------       --------------------------- -   530
CORNELL, S. V.,
testimony of —-------                                          798, 819, 1107
letter from, to Mr. Wolston —----—. —-- -—.-    814
application by, to purchase land   ------------------------                820
CUMMIN, JAMES,
testimony of —------------          ----          ---               -     1110
letter to, from  C. A. Edmonds- - ---—. -                     ----       1113
CUTTER, S. S.,
testimony of —-----------------------------------—. —----  1304
D.
DEXTER, J. C.,
sworn as member of court -----------------..- -  ------—.._  33
DAY, THEODORE S.,
application of, for patents. —----         --—. —-. —-  -1449, 1450
DICKEY, CHAS. T.,
appointed sergeant-at-arms ---------. --—.- ---      --  993
DIMON LANDS,
proofs of settlement and abandonment ------------- 1438
DODGE, C. C.,
testimony of. —--- ------------------------- ---—. —---  729
DUNHAM, VAN,
testimony of. ——. —. —-----            ---------—. 821, 840, 1035, 1139
DWINELL, J. B.,
testimony of —---------------------------------------------  521
E.
EMERSON, P. H.,
sworn as member of court —------------------- -----------   33
EDMONDS, CHAS. A.,
petition for impeachment of -3 —- -----------------------                     3
report on impeachment of -------              --                              6
resolution for impeachment of ---             -----------               -   10
communication from --.. —----—.       --------------        --   10
adoption of resolution for impeachment of —-----                     ---   12
impeachment of (in Senate) ----------------- ----   16
act to provide for expenses of impeachment of —---                    ---   24
summons directed to be issued to —----                   -------- -   45
appearance of, entered —-----------------------------------    47
affidavit by —----------------------------------------------   49
decision of, as to licensed lands —---------          ---------      ---  565
letter from, to Jas. Cummin ------------------             ----         - 1113
acquittal of, on all articles ----—.. -    ----—...           ---- - 1835




1886                              INDEX.
F.
PAGE.'
FOWLER, GEORGE,
testimony of-.. ——. —--------------------—. —-----—.- -- 1088
FRAZER, J. G.,
testimony of —----------------------------------------    284
FREEMAN, G. W,
testimony of —- ---------------------------. ----                  -  934
CT.
GAY, MILO L.,
sworn as member of court -------------------------------    33
GEORGE. W. S.,
testimony of —---------------------------------------------  990:
GILLAM, GEO. F.,
testimony of -----   --------—.. —------ 688, 1019, 1349, 1394
GODDARD, E  G.,
application of, to purchase land --------—.. —-------— 1423, 1424
GRISWOLD, G. B.,
testimony of —------------------— 895, 99, 1274, 1276
GROSVENOR, I. R.,
appointment of, as Manager -------------------—, ——.-: 14
appearance of, as Manager, entered ----------- ----                     35
argument of, on motion for continuance —--------                  -    61
motion for order for depositions by                                     75
motion for order relative to proofs on 11th Article                   1147
leave granted to file written argument —-----                -------  814
argument of ------------------------------------------— __1839
H.
HANNAHS, GEORGE,
sworn as member of court --------—. —-. —-----—.- -------   33
HALL, EDMOND,
applications of, to reserve land -----------------               661,  885
order of, to patent lands ---------                   ----      869,  876
testimony of -----------------------------------— 1511
HART, A. N.,
testimony of. —----------—,. —-------—. —-----------.   1558
HEWITT, CYRUS,
applications of, to purchase land _642, 777, 779, 780, 783,784,
785, 786,787.
order of, to patent land ---------—... —-. —---------------  643
order of Bathay to —-------------— 694,  796
testimony of -------------— 751,  774
HITCHCOCK, GEO. F.,
elected reporter -------------------------            ------------   44
HITCHINGS, M. E.,
testimony of —-------------—. —. ----—. —           ----------- 1241
HOTALING, REBECCA,
testimony of ------------------------------------------ 1100
HOYT & DRAPER,
certificate of purchase to ----------------. —--------  936
HOYT, H. H.,
testimony of. - —. —------- ----—. —--- ---------  672
HUDSON, L. S.,
testimony of_ ---------------------—. —--                      726,  937
HUDSON, MARTIN,
testimony of.. —--- -----------—. —- ---- - -- ---—.  983
HUDSON, ELIZABETH,
testimony of -------.... — --                   --—... —--  --- 1169




INDEX.                                       1887
PAGE.
HUMPHREY, WILLIAM,
testimony of —.. - ---- ---------------------------— 1465, 1469
HUSTON, B. W., JR.,
appointment of, as Manager -. —---------------------                       --      14
appearance of, as Manager, entered -----                  ------             -    35
argument of, on motion for continuance -----------------    56
opening argument of --------                    -------       ----  238
final argument of --------------------------------------                        1662
I.
IMPEACHMENT,
of Chas. A. Edmonds, preliminary proceedings (see EDMONDS,
C. A.) —-------------------------- -------- 3,    21
message from  Governor relative to —----------------------                   -    18
act regulating trials of ---------------                                           21
rules regulating trials of —----------------                                       25
organization of court of ---------------------- ---------    34
articles of, presented ----—. —-------------.    36
answer to articles of —---------                                                 189
replication to answer to articles of —-             ---       --------           213
questions relative to certain articles of —------------------    214
final vote on ----------------------------------------— 1821, 1835
J,
JENKS, B. W.,
sworn as member of court --------------------—. —--------    33
JOSEPH, LUCAS,
testimony of —---------------—. —---------------------- 1247
K.
KEERSHNER, PHILIP,
testimony of —-------------------—. —-------------------   524
patent from  State to -------------------------------—.. —-  526
KIRK, FRANCIS H.,
testimony of -------------------—. —~ —-----------------  277
KNIGHT, C. L.,
testimony of -----------------—. —-~ —-. —-. —--—. —— __  1289
L.
LAWRENCE, JOSEPH,
testimony of ------------------— 1235, 1246
LAWRENCE, H. N.,
testimony of —----— __ —  ------- 1272
LEWIS, SETH,
testimony of              _ ---------—.    ----------    304
LONG, JOHN,
testimony of —-----— ~. —----—. —- -. —--... --- ---    553
M.
MANN, EMANUEL,
sworn as member of court ----------—. —..... —---------  33
MOFFATT, S. C.,
sworn as member of court --—.- --------—. —- -----                               33
resolution  offered by, directing  printing of journals and proceedings —--------------                                                       185
resolution offered by, appointing C. T. Dickey sergeant-at-arms-  993
resolution offered by, as to order of arguments —------------- 1555
resolution offered by, allowing extra compensation to fireman- 1814




1888                               INDEX.
PAGE,
MORTON, E. G.,
sworn as member of court.. -. -. —---------. —.   1107
MARR, W. M.,
testimony of -— 721
MARSHALL, SARAH,
testimony of        __ -  1095
MARSHALL, THOMAS,
testimony of. —------------------ 1103
MCGOWAN, JONAS H.,
appearance of, as counsel, entered. —---------------—. —--   48
argument by, in favor of continuance —----------   64
opening argument of ------               -----------— 1181
final argument of -------------------------—.. —-. —                 -   1601
MEAD, JAMES I.,
testimony of --------—.. —----------—.. —---------------- 1559
MERRILL, ADDISON,
testimony of. —-------—. —----—. —----—. —-. —----— ~-  281
MOORE, F. T.,
testimony of -------------------------------... —--—.. —.-   1141
MmNROE, J. T.,
testimony of ----------------------------—. —-                   - 617,  679
patents from  State to. —--------------—..-...-        --- 619,1586, 1537
N.
NEASMITH, J. M.,
sworn as member of court --—. —--------------------—. —--   34
0.
ORTMAN, C. L.,
testimony of ------—.. —-.. —-_ -—. —_ —----—..... —-—..  1404
P.
PRICE, L. B.,
sworn as member of court ---------------------------------    33
PRUTZMAN, A. C.
sworn as member of court ------------------------—. —----   33
PUTNAM, UZZIEL, JR.,
sworn as member of court -------------— 8 —----—. —..3 —-                 33
PADDACK, HEDGES L.,
testimony of -----------------------------—. —.1324, 1328, 1343
PORTER, E. Hi.
testimony of -------—. —--------------— 306, 340, 369, 391,  395
POTTER, L. B.,
testimony of ----------------------------------—.- --- 863,  882
PRESTON, DAVIr  & Co.,
letter from  to C. A. Edmonds -------------. —-----         718
applicatioz of, for patent for lands -.....                               1454
PROTEST,
against filing replication.. —--------------------—. —------  210
PURINTON, DAVID B.,
testimony of... —---—. —-----------— 1... —-..3 —---—. —--  1309
Q
QUIGLEY, O. B.,
testimony of —...........-...-........... -—..  295, 1121




INDEX.                                  1889
R.
PAGE.
RANDALL, C. D.,
sworn as member of court ----------------------------- -   33
resolution of thanks to President pro tern. offered by —------- 1816
ROMEYN, JAMES W.,
sworn as member of court —----------------                                33
resolution offered by, directing issue of summons ------—. —-   45
resolution offered by, relative to printing rules, etc ----------   45
resolution offered by, relative to evidence —. —----—. —----  257
resolution offered by, relative to hour of meeting -------- --  338
resolution offered by, granting leave to Senators to file opinions_ 1814
resolution offered by, as to manner of taking final vote —, --- 1815
opinion of --------------   ---- ---------------------------- 1869
REPLICATION,
to answer to articles of impeachment ----------------------  213
REPORTERS,
election of ---------------------------------------------   44
compensation of —------------- --—. —----------------                   185
RESOLUTIONS,
directing summons to be issued ---------—. —---------------   45
directing printing of rules and articles of impeachment ------   45
fixing time for trial ----------------------------------   71
relative to taking depositions --  -----------— 75,   76
directing printing of journals and proceedings ----— 7 —-----    77
authorizing appointment of messengers ---------------------   78
authorizing appointment of assistant sergeants-at-arms and
fixing their compensation —--—..-           ----- ------------   79
appointing fireman and fixing his compensation —------------   80
fixing compensation of Secretary —-------------------------   80
directing printing of extra number of journals and proceedings_.  185
fixing compensation of reporters ----------------------------  185
relative to admission of testimony -------------------------  257
directing mailing of journals and proceedings -- ------              -  270
fixing hour of meeting —----------------.. —----  ------                338
of respect to memory of Hon. I. M. Cravath ---------------  439
appointing C. T. Dickey sergeant-at-arms -----—. —--—..-  993
relative to testimony of Jane Bolton —---------------------- 1178
directing discharge of assistant sergeants-at-arms. —---------  1554
as to precedence of arguments -------------—. —------ 51555, 1564
relative to publishing impeachment proceedings -.. —-------- 1738
giving extra compensation to fireman —--------------------- 1814
granting leave to Manager Grosvenor to file written argument_ 1814
granting leave to Senators to file written opinions -. —------- 1814
relative to distributing journals and proceedings —----------- 1815
relative to manner of taking final vote —--------------------- 1815
directing compilation and indexing proceedings... —-                --  1816
of thanks to President pro te rn —... —---------—.                    1816
directing Secretary to mail journals and proceedings —------  1817
directing payment of incidental expenses. —-------------—.. 1817
of thanks to officers and reporters —------------------------- 1819
giving extra compensation to C. T. Dickey —----------------- 1819
giving extra compensasion to Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms ——. 1819
directing Secretary to send copies of record —---------------- 1836
RIPLEY, H. C.,
application of, to reserve land --------—. —----------------- 1391
ROBINSON, M. O.,
testimony of ------------------. --- -- —. —— 640, 940, 1412
237




1890                                  INDEX.
PAGE.
RULES AND REGULATIONS,
of Land Office —.- ---------------------------------------- 1356
RULES OF SENATE,
sitting as a court ----—. —--------------------------—.-...  25
S.
SHELEY, ALANSON,
sworn as member of court-. —.-... —  33
remarks by, on death of Hon. I. M. Cravath.... —-----   440
STOCKBRIDGE, F. B.,
sworn as member of court --------------—. —-. -..                             185
STODDARD, WILLIAM,
sworn as member of court -----—. —--. —--.. ------------    33
STORES, W. F.,
sworn as member of court -—..-.... —--------                         ----      46
SALARIES OF CLERKS,
statement of —-----------------------------------. —-----  1475
SCRIP, SWAMP LAND,
explanation of —---------------           ----         -- ---------  1501
SHAFER, ELIAS,
testimony of —------------- --------------                    --------       1316
SHATTUCK, ASA,
testimony of -----------------------------------------                    - 1324
SHIPMAN, JOHN B.,
appearance of, as counsel, entered  -----------------—. —-                     48
motion for continuance by --------------------------                       -    48
affidavit submitted by —---------------- ----------------                       49
argument of, in favor of continuance —------------— 50, 67,   71
motion by, to quash proceedings —--------------------------                     86
argument of, in support of motion to quash ---—.                        87,  169
questions submitted by ---------                  —. —---------—.    214
motion for order as to precedence of arguments ---------                   - 1564
final argument of -------------—. ---------— 1 —--                    1727, 1741
SMITH, OBED,
testimony of ------------------------—. —-----—. 590, 668,  856
reservations of —---. —-------------------                  -----------    614
account of, with contracts —------------------------------ 1365
STATEMENT,
of moneys received for plats, etc. -------------------- ---   1404
STRAUB, GOTTLIEB,
testimony of -----------------— 120 —---                 —. —. —- 1262, 1276
STRIKER, DANIEL,
testimony of ----------------------- 1234
SUMMONS,
directed to be issued to C. A. Edmonds ----------------                   --   45
return of ----------         -------------------      ----------------    47
SWAMP LAND ROAD CONTRACT,
blank form  of —-----------------------------------------  1501
T.
TAYLOR, M. t.,
testimony of -----------------------------                   --- --------- 1167
THOMAS, R. S.,
testimony of. —---—. —-------—. —-------------- 626, 631,  671
TOOKER, J. S.,
testimony of --------—. —-------------------. —-----—.       1563
TURNER, J. M.,
testimony of            -        ---- ------- ------. —--—.. —--------  985




INDEX.                                1891
W.
PAGr.
WATERBURY, J. C.,
sworn as member of court ------------------—. —---—.__ —.   S3
remarks by, on death of Hon. I. M. Cravath -------------—._  440
testimony of ——. ——.._-_-. —----—..931, 1411
resolution by, relative to discharge of Asst. Sergeants-at-Aims 1554
WHEELER, H. H.,
sworn as member of court --------—. ——. —-. —. —--------   S 3
resolution by, authorizing appointment of messengers —------   78
resolution by, fixing compensation of Sergeant-at-Arms and
assistants ------------------------—. —------------------   79
resolution by, fixing compensation of fireman- -. —----- -            80
resolution by, fixing compensation of Secretary —----             -   80
resolution by, directing publication of impeachment proceedings ------------------------—. —-. —-----------------  1738
resolution by, giving extra compensation to Sergeant-at-Arms- 1819
WHITE, F. G.,
sworn as member Gf court ----------------—. —---------— _   84
WILCOX, W. S.
sworn as member of court ----—. —-------.._...... —---—.  84
WOOD, A. B.,
sworn as member of court-. 33
sworn as member of court- --------------------------------   33
resolution by, directing compiling and indexing of journal and
proceedings ------------------------—.-_ —---—. —— _- 1816
WALCH, H. F.,
elected reporter -----------. —---—... —-_ —---—. —-_ —   44
WILDER, E. A.,
testimony of -----------------------          --------- 1169
WING, L. M.,
testimony of —------------------------------------            - 575, 615
WOOLOVER, ADAM,
testimony of -------------------------------— 557, 559, 573,  590
license of -------—. —--—. —-----------------------—. —-  560
proof of settlement by ------------------ -.-  564
WRIGHT, S. W.,
testimony of    ---------------------------- 1560
WITNESSES,
list of, sworn during trial:  Francis H. Kirk, Addison Merrill, J.
G. Frazer, T. H. Bringhurst, O. B. Quigley, J. H. Baker, Seth
Lewis, E. H. Porter, D. W. Allison, W. C. Bush, J. B. Dwynell,
Philip Kershner, H. J. Corbus, Orson Bouch, John Long, Adam
Woolover, L. M Wing, Charles Conley, Obed Smith, J. T. Munroe, R. S. Thomas, H. D. Bartholomew, M. O. Robinson, H. H.
Hoyt, Wm. Coffron, D. G. Canfield, G. F. Gillam, W. M. Marr,
L. S. Hudson, C. C. Dodge, Cyrus Hewitt, S. V. Cornell, Van
Dunham, L. B. Potter, G. B. Griswold, S. C. Alderman, G. W.
Freeman, Martin Hudson, J. M. Turner, W. S. George, A. L.
Bours, M. L. Bosworth, George Fowler, Sarah Marshall, Rebecca
Hotaling, Thomas Marshall, James Cummin, G. H. Cole, F. T.
Moore, B. B. Baker, H. T. Carpenter, Charles Anderson, M. R.
Taylor, E. A. Wilder, Elizabeth Hudson, H. C. Clarke, A. N.
Hart, J. I. Mead, S. W. Wright, J. S. Tooker, H. P. Baldwin,
Daniel Striker, Joseph Lawrence, M. E. Hitchings, Lucas Joseph,
V. P. Collier, J. B. Conkling, Gottlieb Straub, Henry N. Lawrence, C. L. Knight, J. H. Bennett, S. S. Cutter, D. B. Purinton,
Elias Shafer, Asa Shattuck, Hedges L. Paddack. C. L. Ortman,
Wm. Humphrey, E. Hall.