Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1853-07-22
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

We gave in our last general opinion upon the
result and merits of this case. We will give now
II very brief history of the matter that it may be
seen whercOn the opinion is founded.
A committee Of the Assembly, not one of whom
TO our knowledge had the least prejudice against
the Judge and not of whom lived i'll his Judi
cal district took testimony and examined the ge-
neral charge of untitncss for Office made against
him. The testimony was, of course, on one side
onlv and as may be supposed, bore heavily upon
the accused. But the committee knew, or suppo-
sed Mt least, that counter testimony might explain
much and change the aspect of much that had been
taken, and that very possibly an impeachment could
not be sustained. But they felt also quite sure
that the general unfness of the Judge for the place
was shown clearly that it could not be dlspro-
we'd; and therefore in their report they recommcn-
dcd action by Z" Joint address of both houses.
This is mode of removal provided by our consti-
tution--a mode which provides Joint and common
action by the two branches of the Legislature
which can take cognizance of all impeachablc mat
ter and in addition adudge generally upon the me-
rits of the casc III short, mode which holds about
the same relation to the mode by impeachment
that the equity court holds to the law court-and
at the same time is mode by which the accused
could have as full and thorough defence as by the
other course. The object Of the committee was to
avoid those legal tcchnicalities which general
" fatal to justce-to have the adjudged on It's
merits less out of consideration for the accused
than that the interests of the important party
he peoplc-might be guarded and preserved.
No sooner, however, had the committee made
the recommendation than the friends of the Judge
nterposed every possible objection to its adoption
and insisted upon trial by impeachment, and 50
pcrtinacious they that the house finally yle-
ded and voted the impeachment. This, of courie,
involved trial by the Senate alone. The Senate
is composed of only % members, and 1t needed but
nine to vote against conviction TO secure acquttal,
IL. - Tho lt11a
suit under Joint action, but how far these facts IN
nuenced these men is mere conjecture. But mark
the result i'll the matters which the committee de
sired to avoid, and which, so far as right and JUS
ticc were concerned should have been avoided.
No sooner had the trial before the Senate COM
menccd, than the counsel for the accused lnterpo-
sed the objection that the court had right 10 con-
slider acts committed before his reelection as Judge
perhaps in a strictly legal sense and before that
court valid plea, but certainly at war with justice
and the interests OF the people, and the very course
the committee III their recommcndatior sought to
guard against. Again the counsel took strong
ground and insisted en- it, and to many minds pro-
we'd it, thatit mattered not how many objcctiona-
bic, illegal, and even wicked acts were proven, it
was necessary TO show and prove corrupt motive
in them TO make them impcachable. Thus Il
Judge might be the greatest fool that walks OF the
greatest knavc unhung, rs long as his acts might
proceed from imhcCItty or mere wantonncSS, un-
ms ICtEI GOulu DC LuTlCu USltc out anu fef
rUpt motives be shown, that court had nothing to
do with the acts Now the recommendation eft the
committee had i'll view the uuhtncsS ct the accnscG
for his place, whether from his constitutional pecu-
laritics, celingiy alluded to by his counsel, or
from what cause, they did not state or care, and
recommended action to reach the case action which
this view of the prerogatlveS of the Impeachment
court entirely nulied. And still again, the coun-
sci took the ground that many of the alleged,
if proven, were not properly subjects OF lmpeacll-
ment For instance, although the Judge might
approach and make insulting proposals to females
who had matters in his court depending on his de
cison, unless it could be shown that he had been
fool enough to connect the proposal with direct
promise OF judicial favor, it not a matt + tor
the consideration OF the court: plea perhaps as
the Others technically correct, but at war with JUS
ticc and the rights of the people.
This is a history of the manner in which the ina
parchment against address, was brought about
and the manner in which it was conducted. Io
find then the grounds of acquittal, ask each and
all the Senators who composed that court, If under
that testimony they considered Hubbe proper
man for Judge. They would answer, probably
without a dissenting voice, No. Why then! in
quirc, did yon vote, not guilty! Because, says one
we had no right TO consider matters occurring be
fore his late election because SAYS another thi;
and that we're not improbable matter; because
SAYS third the guilty motive was not shown; and
so on to the end of the chapter. And thus the ap
parent object from the start of the friends of tht
accused, was secured. The number necessary tC
acouit was narrowed down to the smallest possible
limits all consideration of the case on its meri
was precludcd, aud legal technicalities and lega
doubts, usurped the place which right and justice
alone should have occupied.
Yet in this court, under these circumstances
one one important count, IL voted guilty and OF
another, ten. We said we considered it in th'
worst for the friends of the Judge TO ioniz,
hun on this occasion, or in him TO permit it; ant
that as little his friends could do would be to in
wife him TO resign, and as little as he could d.
would be 10 quietly obey. And we think the fact;
justify the opinion. We have not particle o
personal feeling in the matter The sacredness o
the Judiciary is matter of common interest, anC
only for that common interest do we speak 5.