The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1849-11-23

4
man claiming to DC elected a member
OF the Legislature conferred upon him an
advantagei but if Legislators we're dis.
posed TO act uprghtly, il they would
throw aside everything but an honest pur.
pose to adjqdicate npon legal right,
then that certificate would be worth com.
parativeIy nothing; because the momen,
they were notified as judicial body that
the individual claiming seat had no
fright to it hls claim being contested, the
| poll books Of Hamilton county would be
despatched to that body as the facts on
which their judgment should be predica-
ied-the man entitled ohis seat wouldob-
tain itand all would be made right again
Though not deprived ofbis right, how
ever, he was subjected to an incOnven.
fence by having certificate refused 10
him, and had right of private action.
He had too. an uudoubted right to apply
to the Supreme Court for mandamus;
and ifthat Court decided tba, the Clerk
had committed mistake, they would or
der him to deliver the certificates to the
parties entitled 10 them s.t ..-
Assuming shat the responder Mt had
been judicial officer. on what principle
was the court called To remove, him, until,
| a; least, evidence was offered that he had
acted from dishonest or corrupt motives?
Could they act upon any private conyic-
lions they might have as individuals on
the evidence which the clerk had no op.
portunily 10 meetl He should be sorry
to pass a Judgment upon any such pre-.
sumption, or any such evidence, no mat.
ter how slight might be the consequences.
Keeping in view these principles, let them
now look into the facts. There were no
dispositions taken in the case, no witness
es examined, but the case was submitted
OH an agreed state of facts. (The court
then read the statement) 1t was on
this document the judgment of the court
was to be pronounced, The learned
Counsel who opened the case for the re-
Iators, stated that he did not charge the
clerk with any dishonest or corrupt pur
poses--the learned Counsel who closed
the case for the relatnrs did not repeat
that statement; but both admitted in ev-
cry other respect than this one transac,
tion, was he phe respondent both hon
est faithful aud capable. s.. y -a
The Counsel who closed the case, al
lodged that Mr. Rolls partisan feelings
mad swayed his judgments: but was it
competent for that Court, because the
learned Counsel had so supposed, to pro.
nounce this Judgment against the clerk! 7!
Would ii be competent, even 1.-THE mem,
bers of the Court believed, individually,
that he was swayed by partisan feelings,
to render such Judgment. He hesia-
ted not to say it would not, and if any
memberof that Court holding a different
view, and satisfied from other sources
than the evidence presented. that there
were dishonest or corrupt principles, that
member of the Court should present.
himselfpending the impeachment, as Q
witness ofthe facts, and give to the ac.
cused an opportunity to meet the evi-
dence upon which he was to be con-
demned.
In the opinion ofthe cnnrt. then, there
was not particle Of evidence she wing
that the clerk acted dishonesty or cor.
ruptly. There was distinct admission
that he vas NOT governed by corrupt mo-
tives. 1t was, therefore, a mere mistake
of Judgment, for wbicn no officer under
the Constitution Of the State Of OHIO
could be removed. 1t was not "misbeha,
vior" for man to err. 1t did not APP
proach the meaning of the term Ref
erence. had been made to what transpired
last fall-what had occurred then did not
lay the foundation for this impeachment,
and the court we're not at liberty to trav-
el out of the record, lfhe had done any
thing wrong. then, there was, as there is
now variety of modes by which he could
be reached.-But nothing was done; al
though. as known to be matter of pub,
lie history, connected with that transac-
ton, was lawyer of great emiuence, as
well as an honest man-who, if anything
would have enabled him to present a
complaint to the court, would, it was to
be presumed have done so. A decision
had been made, growing out ofthat trans
action; and if the Legislature were made
judges upon questions of election, upon
what principle were there adiudications
to be disregarded, no matter what private
opinions might be as to the weight of
such decisions! If the legislature acted
as partisans and not as judges, it was a
matter deeply to be regretted. But was
this court responsible for III The peo-
pie themselves were responsible in send
ing men to the legislature of Ohio, who as
Judges had not the honesty or the firm
ness to do justice. t.,..-.er .s. s.....-i| +
The majority fthis court did not think
the charge had been sustained, aud the
| jnd gment, therefore, was, that the com
plant should be dismissed. '' 4
OPINION OF JUDGE SAFFIN,
In Tie matter Of Edaoard c. Roll, Clerk
0fMe Court Of Common Pleas.
| am constrained to dissent from the
opinion of the majority of the Court,
which has been delivered. cannot con.
cur in their reasoning or in their conclu-
sions. If do not answer the various
points which the President Judge has
advanced, | can only say, that have had
no opportunity offally understanding the
ground upon which his opinions would
be placed. | am aware the disadvan,
tages under which shall attempt to ex-