Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1853-03-18
70 .,.e-ras.orx OF Kenosha Teleerarh'

To kfse.Edat0rx OF KenOsha TeIeeSaFh'
GEsrLEMEs i=-7As there is considerable
CONTROVERSY rs to the most proper mode OK
proceeding by the Legslatu- e, in the case OF
Judge Hubbell, / thought it might be mat
ter Of sema little interest to your readers to
know the intention of the convention which
first adopted the provision of removal by ad-
d.e5s, and how far and With what modifca-
tons, a similar provision is contained in the
constitutions Of other states. ..,,
Having been member of the judiciary
committee of the FIRST constitutional conven-
tion, am enabled to state that the original
draft of the 18th Sec. of the present judici-
AIRY article as reported by the committee, read
as follows: ..e
Amy Judge of the Supreme or circuit Court
may be removed from office by concurret re; o'ution
Of both houses of the Legislature, if two thirds OF
all the members elected to each house concur
therein. but removal shall be made by virtue of
this section unless the party complained of shall
have been served with copy of the complaint
against him. aud shall have had opportunity of
being heard in his defence, and judge shall be
oVed for any cause for chich he might hare been i'm
psached. On the question of removal the ayes
and noes shall be entered on the journals"
The words in Italics were struck out in
committee of the whole, and address" SUBJ
stituted for concurrent resolutions" The
appointments thus made were concurred in
by the convention, and this section adopted,
being the same with that contained in our
present constitution. Indeed with the excep-
ton of four or five sections, the judiciary ar
ticle adopted by the second convention, is
identical with that passed by the first eonyen-
ton, 30 that its history in the first would
throw at least as much light on the subject,
as its history in the second convention.
The intention of the committee who re-
ported this Article is plain,-that the reno
val should be by concurrent resolution, and
that no judge should be removed for any
cause which he might have been impeached
BY striking out the latter clause, it is obvious
the convention intended to authorize a reno
val by address for any sufficient cause, wheth
er authorizing an impeachment or not. Such
was clearly the intent of the convention. but
the sound policy of the amendment is,
think, questionable. Nor do conceive the
convention were more happy in substituting
the word address" for concurrent resolution.
The latter phrase expresses the mode of pro-
eeedurs clearly, the former naturally implies
an application to the Governor TO carry into
effect the expressed will of the Legislature
Removal on the address of the two houses is
authorized by the constitutions of only three
states in the Uuion and in each case by the
Governor upon address to him. But as no
such power is vested in the governor Of this
state, the term address" in our constitution,
must be construed as meaning concurrent re
luton" and nothing more.
In most Of the states, the mode Of reno
val by address or concurrent vote or resolu
ton has not been adopted. In Mississippi,
Missouri and Michigan, in addition to i'm
parchment, it is BY address of the two hou
ses to the governor, when he removes. In
New Work, Virginia and Tennessee, it is by
concurrent resolution or vote, without any &C
ton on the part of the Governor. In Mis-
souri, and Michigan, it is limited to cases
where impeachment will not lie. In New
York, Tennessee, Virginia and Mississippi, it
is allowed, as here, without limit,
An impeachment will be only in case Of
corrupt conduct in Office, or for some crime
or misdemeanor. Yet as good cause might
exist for the removal of Judge, where there
was no moral delinquency, or such as would
sustain an impeachment, the above states and
Wisconsin have prudently adopted the pro
vision of removal by address or concurrent
resolution. But where impeachment will lie,
it should be a lopted, both out of a sense Of
propriety in the Legislature, and of justice to
the accused.
The reasons appear to me to be too obyi-
GUS to require that should state Them and
our Legislature have acted wisely in adopting
this method of trial in the case of Judge
Hubbell. Very truly yours,
C. NJ. BAKER.