The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-05-11

provide for impeachment and trial by the two branches
unoer the solemn forms prescribed IL an address from
these two Branches without confronting the culprt
With his sccuLers, without alleged culptit, or
any accusers, or any crime may astity judicial re-
movaR
Is It not proper then to inquire If there is any inter.
probation which will make these seeming discrepancies
harmonious-these indications of justice unfounded-
these apparent contradictions homogeneous whole?
Such station may be found BY constituting our
constitution as declaring that our Judges shall hold office
during good behavior snail be removed by impeachment
for crime and by ADDRESS for any dspensaton of Prov
dence that makes them, without crminality, incompe-
tent to perform properly the duties Of their Office
This has often been affirmed TO be it's true intent By
wisest statesmen Fer instance In the debates Of the
Convention of 1920, Mr. Pickman, of Salem, said-"t
proper to have provision of q similar nature to
meet such cases rs were not proper subject OF
ment, such as incsp,city rom natural n6rmities.o
Mr. James Savage, of Boston, said he hoped 1--WE should
have the advantage OF both modes OF removal from Of
fce BY impeachment and upon address OF the Legs
lature as to meet the moral qualifications and the
natural osquslifcations for offce.o
Mr.. emuel Shaw, present Chief Justcs, said,
"The general principle that they should be ndepend
ent Of other perons during good behavior The faithful
discharge Of the duties OF their Office IL not faithful
they were liable to trial by impeachment. But
might arise when It might be desirable to judge
Of performing the duties Of bis Office without fault he
may lose his reason or be otherwise incapsctated 1t
stneory OF our government that man shall receee
ne OF Office without perfo rmng the sevices
though be by the providence Of God II
unnecessary therefore that there should be provision
well know that in the same debate distinguished and
able c,nsatut onal lawyers assumed that this proviso
might authorize any all judicial removals in their
arguments favor OF its modification and that ia con
sequence Of these arguments that proposed
its amendment. But the fact that this alteration was
rejected by the popular vote, may he deemed pregnant
indication that the people OF state did not believe
that so unlimited power OF remova, was intended by
that pfoyso or that would ever be so construed by
the Legislature.
am fully sensible that the letter Of the proviso,
without reference TO the context seems to authorize the
removal of any and OF all judges by the Executive,
with the consent OF the Council on an address BY the
Legislature. But ] constrained 10 believe that,
judging by the rule that any instrument must be taken
whole and all Its provisions be scanned In the light
Of au ito other provisions, this provsc was intended
BY It's trainers to apply only to those cases where
Judge Is ncapactsed by the Providence OF God, and
having committed crime, cannot be reached by i'm
peadhment.
This power has been exercised but twice in Massachu
petts; hrst In the OF Paul Dudley Sargent and
wilism vinal justices OF the Court Of Common Pleas
10 The county Of Hancock. who the address states,
shave been duly convicted before the Supreme Judicial
Court holden within and for the sad county Of Hancock
AZ the crime Of wful and corrupt extorton In their
6ses OF Justices OF the Court OF Sessions by mea as OF
hitch con vicion the confidence Of the people be
"a great ess ss miL.shsd IN the SAID Sargent and gi