Eastern times., 1856-04-24

They were at liberty 70 tsst their rights in such
manner as the laws had provided, with the
newly appointed oiicers, who slBo had right to
be heard upon the subject. Judge Davis was ap-
pointed in October last. and in January he pre-
pared a written opinion upon the subject of the
amendments to the constitution and read il in
court at that time.
This was done when the sheriff of the county
of Cumberland notified. him that he had COM
mission, as such, and claimed the right to per
form the duties of the Office. But the judge re.
fused to acknowledge his right to act under
his commission. and recognized the former
sheriff the legitimate one. Acting in ac-
cordance with the opinion promulgated BY
Judge Davis. most of the sherifTs and registers
OIL probate throughout the state refused to sur
render their Offices. As the new sheriffs were
responsible for the custody Of prisoners, ana
needed the prisons to hold in safe keeping those
whom they were commanded 10 commit and
were required by law to occupy by themselves
or their deputies the houses connected Win ,he
jails, in some cases it became necessary n hreak
open the doors of the jails and houses anner-
tanning to the jails to obtain possession Of them
Judge Davis continued to entertain the opinion
upon which he first acted, and his conduct in
in direct conflict with the government. He
refuses to recognize its officers. and into what
ever county he may go, he will doubtless rec
ognize the former officers and thus encourage
and sustain INSTRUMENTATION and opposition 10
the regularly constituted authorities.
According to his views, the new sheriffs have
no right to hold the jails. or TO arrest and con-
fine any person. And if one Of them should
undertake to make an arrest by virtue Of a pre-
cept in his hands. the person. attempted to be
arrested might kill the officer, and the act would
be justi6able, if necessary to prevent the deten-
ton OF his person and restraint of his liberties.
If his doctrine is correct, it would be his duty
TO uphold the former incumbents in the en-
.ployment of force TO retain their Offices and the
lails and houses appertaning to them. His
conclusion would lead practically to an open
and forcible resistance TO the existing govern
ment, and incite to civil war and revolution.
The different departments of the government
are bound to respect the acts Of each other
When person has commission from the Ex-
ecutive of the State, granted in pursuance of
the ordinarily exercised authority, it is the dI.
ty of all citizens to submit to il, and if it has
been enormously issued. the remedy to be
sought by those who object to it, is to bring
the question before the legal tribunal provided
for its decision, when a final determination Of
those appointed to decide has been made, the
Executive and the people are bound to conform
to it.
But an opinion by single Judge against the
power Of appointment even in case properly
tance to the appointment. To produce such
result, there must be an adjudication of a tri-
bunal empowered to render a final judgment,
as in ordinary cases between parties, who bring
their suits before it, One judge does not con-
stitute the judicial department The opinion
Of Judge Davis was not given in case pend
ing in court. 1t had no more authority in the
contemplation of the law, than if it had been
read by him il the street. No exception could
be taken to it, so as to bring the matter before
the full court The law does not provide for
exceptions in such a proceeding. Hence it
was clearly his duty for the time being to re-
ceive the new sheriff until his opinion in a case
/ properly entered on the docket of the court in
| concurrence with the other members of il,
could have eventuated in final Judgment
Upon any other principle of action the govern
ment would be thrown into complete confu-
sion. Tie people would be acting in opposi.
ton to each other, and so also the officers
The sheriff would have as much right to chal-
lenge the validity and authenticity of the
Judges commission, as the judge that of the
sheriff. They both derive their commissions
from the same source. Other subordinate off,
GERS could pursue the same course, and thus
an end would be put to civil government. A
Judge should not be removed for an expression
of an honest opinion merely, unless it indicates
such want OF judgment, knowledge and dis
position, as shows him unit TO discharge the
high and responsible duties Of the judicial Of
fee. But when his opinion is perseveringiy
carried int practical operation TO the destruc-
ton of all order and authority, what can be
done but to take away the power thus improp-
erly exercised:
The constitution makes ample provision for
such remedy. and the question submits itself
to the sound Judgment of those who are 20 act
in reference to it. The people have retained
the power through their Representatives, not
only TO impeach judges ..for misdemeanor in
Office" but "every person holding any office.
may be removed by the Governor, with the ad-
vice of the Council, on The address of both
branches Of the Legislature" The Constitu-
ton does not prescribe the grounds of the ad.
d ess, but leaves it to the Judgment, sense Of
propriety, and justice of the Legislature. Par
, ty consider arons should never enter into such
measures, but the true motive should be the
promotion of the public good by sustaining the
institutions Of the State, and the preservation
; of pure and wise administration of justice,
i We have no reason to suppose that the disor-
S der caused by Judge Davis will not continue
TO the end of the present year. at least. And
it cosld hardly be expected that direct opposi'
: ton between two different sets Of officers, one
sustained by the Executive and the other by
the Judge, could continue without violence anC
breaches of the peace of the most serious char
acter. The condition of affairs requires, thai
!, either the Legislature and the Executive mus
yield to Judge Davis, and permit him to deter
mine who shall act as sherifs, or remove hin
from office The necessity of the case, TeQuir-
; ing the address, must have pressed itself upoI
E the legislature. 1t could not feel justified il
. returning to its constituents and leaving mar
4 in power, who was a-raying himself against the
whole government of the State.
Both the legislature and the executive are
under a solemn obligation to the faithful dis
f charge of their duty. They could not justify
TO themselves wilful neglect, TO correct known
and dangerous errors, on the part of public
: functlonary, especially such as actually dis
f turbed the peace and tranquility of the State
} By the Constitution Of this State, Art. 9
Sect. 3, it is provided that livery person hold
ing any civil office under this State may be re
| moved by impeachment, for mis6emeanor il
Office and every person holding any Office
may be removed by the Governor, with the ad
/ vice of the Council. on the address of botl
4 branches of the Legislature" 1t is provided
$ in Art. 4, part second, Sect. Z, that the Senat,
E shall have power to try impeachments, "bu
e the party, whether convicted or acquitted, shal
nevertheless be liable to indictment trial, judg
/ ment and punishment, according to law" Ar
3 impeachment would therefore imply som,
| crime or offence against the law, for which thu
| accused might be indicted. But there is M