The Arkansas advocate., 1833-07-24

i9 "ioiis5s VI h. II. koeVief IS wrong. IhiS record was signed and certified to be true. by that enlightened and popular Judge, lately complmented for his social virtues. johnson. The clerk has again authenti- cated It. Now, whatever might have hap- pened to the Judge afterwards, or to A. II. Sewer, thIs record could net have been drunk, kept nIne-pin-alley, gambled, or Epeen a taylor. or laborer, which might, ac- cording to l. II. Seyier, have weakened its testimony; but is admitted to be the very best ot authority every where, although not 6 pubic officer, and extensively known through the world, yeti IS good evidence et truth, and not to be contradicted. If this IS true, A. Il. Seyier stated In his speech what is not il'ue. But what Is most re- markable in this matter Is, that this same record was before Sevier at the time he made his speech; and one of the charges against Judge Johnson was, that although he would not oyerrule this count in the in- dlctment, yet he refused to bring the de- tendant to trial on 1t, thereby emitting to enforce the law against Dunlop. Thus seyier was denying both the record and the charges. This is a fine specimen of vera city and fairness of purpose, in the repre- sentative of the people of Arkansas. is 1t possible they need such an individual to represent theml It might do for Judge Johnson's representative, but not for the people.
 SevIer in his publication, endeayors to impress the public with belief, that the charges against Johnson were futile and 1t191 {haf of l.. :k lons matter with the people of Arkansas, that he who Is judging their dearest rights to lite, liberty, fortune and honor, should be an incorporate man, and many times drunk and excited when sitting on the bench!-i To assert this, which indeed Sovier has sis- serted, as from the President, would be a mockery of the public intelligence. He says In his publication much about my pre- terng charges against public officers. l have censured none but himself. All oth- CTS done right in taking his word. IL was the abuse of that confidence, which have eensured, by making misrepresentations He has said much-about the fuli inyestiga- ton before the committee. The report of the committee IS but the echo of his own speech, and ln making up the report, the tes- tInony was treated just as Mir. Sevier treat- ed the witnesses. Little credit was given to 1t, and If he had drawn the report, he could not have been better suited. He says the whole House of Representatives concurred in the report of the committee, without dissenting voice. The last mo- tee have ever seen of the impeachment, as it progressed in the House, was, that the report of the committee was laid Oil the table. am informed that 1t never was concurred in by the House. MT. Seyier, perhaps, can show that 1t was concuured in must, however, doubt 1t until l have bet ter proof than his word. If 1t has not been concHred ln, the horse may not yet be out of the stable. The most important matter contained in the report of the committee, IS their doubt whether an officer of 3 terri tolal government Is subject to impeach- ment under the constitution of the United States. This subject, too, was referred 10 by Sewer in his speech, and he seemed 10 doubt the policy of impeaehing mere ter ritorial officer. would ask what territo- rial officer isl Is he not charged with the administration of the laws and the security of the rights of the citizens! Are those rights safe in the hands of officers who can not be made liable for misconduct by any certain legal course! It is a leading prin- ciple of our constitution that every man, both public and private, should be responsi- ble for his conduct. If public man does wrong, he, according to that principle, should be punished. Right and law are not safe unless it Is so. Leave those rights to irresponsible officer,exempt that officer from punishment for misconduct, and you leave right and law at his will--and apiH is but the rule of a tyrant; all right is then hazarded. If the doctrines contended for by Mir. Sever, and this committee, are true, the people of Arkansas depend on the will of their public officers for their rights, and have no means of compelling them to act according to law or right. If a public officer does wrong, there Is no tribunal to araign and punish him. It is remarkable that the representative of the people should have been the first to urge this exemption for public officers, or at least to suggest 1t.
 Sevier has given an inventory of his es- tate, and my own. think hepublic haveno- thing to do with that matter, and shall leave the subject to his entire management. He may make such inventory of my estate as best suits his purpose. l shall not object. He asserts that spoke of pecuniary aid from father-in-law. He knows that IS palpably false. made no such allusion. My statements are before the public--they can judge for themselves.
 Yours, Sc.
 VIM. CUMMINS.