Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-05-25
VOL. XVIII.

Insisting before this honorable court that
the illegal judgment of the Judge, how
ever honestly entertained is sufficient, re-
gardless of the motive and intent OF the
Judge who delivered it. Who dare say
that ifa Judge acting under the best lights
Of his mind, actuated by an honest desire
to attain the law Of the case, without
wicked or bad motive, should arrive at and
announce an illegal and wrongful judg-
ment, that such a man is TO be ousted in
disgrace from his Office, and his name to
cast ont among men as a by word and re-
proach. In the organization OF all gov
ernments, Supreme Courts are ordained and
established to review and correct the judg-
ments Of the inferior courts; aye, and these
courts not unfreqnently revise their own
previous judgments, and announce to the
world that decision Of the previous year
is no longer the law; that it
has been reconsidered, reversed and
set aside. What State reports do not
abound with oyerruled cases. Are you
prepared TO say that all these men--these
judges, who have built up system of law
in our own State, upon which rests the
liberty Of every citizen, and the title to
every vestige Of property, real or personal,
because of errcr in judgmentiare criminals.
/ appeal to every member Of this court,
that he may not by any act Of his, either
by intention or construction committed in
the proceedings, seek 10 throw odium and
disgrace upon the graves and names of
those judges who have filled the various
judicial positiOn5-with honor 10 them
selves their names and the State. Cor
IN, nfiiaa 10 n moral ,1f
legal one, and implies bad moral intent;
a ricked design is far beyond an erroneous
Judgment, or mistake Of the law. The
respondent denies the unlawful act or the
guilty intention, and the burden is on the
managers to make good before the coun-
try, both the unlawful act and the guilty
and corrupt intent The gentlemen who
prepared these articles Of impeachment,
were perfectly aware of this, and have
therefore changed the intention in express
terms. "Wilnlly, malicously and feloni-
onsly.' are the words selected, and
which they must make good, a. an
indication of theintent and motive which
prompted the Judge in the decision he gave;
and since the managers have selected these
words, and are now bound by them ! am
willing for the argument, to concede that
it was but their way Of charging a corrupt
Intent bad heart; and that they mean
10 say that in the decision given by Judge
Frazier upon the habels corpus he was
guilty of corruption IN office.
Now, sirs, what il corruption in Office q?
There il no statute defining it. There ia no
reported case Of which / know anything,
that undertakes to give its height and
l.,gtl. a,I b.,..ifb 4
again, has it been involved in impeach-
ment cases. But Impeachment Courts have
uniformly given no better opinion upon
| either the law OF the facts, but have voted
guilty and not guilty" upon isolated pro-
positions. We are therefore left at sea,
upon the great question of corruption IN
| office and the necessary guilty intent
Ia the case of Judge Peck, who was tried
| before the Senate of the United State
| these questions were argued most impress
| 5ively by Mr.. Writ and the managers on
the part Of the House Of Representatives.
| And although the proof was Oyerwhelm.
| ing, that Judge Peck was guilty OF
oppression and wrongful and unlaw.
! ful conduct, and the nation be.
| lieyed he ought to have been punished
| yet, because there was not satisfactory
proof Of a wrongful intent, Of bad and
! wicked heart ia the official acts charged
| against him, the Senate of the United State.
! acquitted him, and acquitted him upon
that ground alone. ] propoee 10 read to
10 the court portion Of the argument OF
| Mr.. Writ, and which was affirmed to be The
law 10y the finding Of the Senate
| Here the learn, counsel read at length
/ a. ~.
| Peck case, aud also from Lord Erskine and
other authorities on the point involved
am now DONE may it please the court,
| with reference 10 authorities upon the ques,
| ton of guilty intent, and what it is neces.
sary 10 allege and prove, and have conclu-
ded that the intention is the main point and
| gist Of the action, and that the intention
must be an irresistible inference from the
acts or testimony in the cause, and if there
be a doubt reconcilable with an innocent
intention, then you cannot convict.
now come, may it please the court, ia
the question Of law on the charges
The charges involved in the first article
! Of impeachment are:
lt That he, the said Thomas y. Fra.
zier, Judge as aforesaid, did corruptly,
willnlly, maliciously, feloniously, and
with the intent Of committing breach OF
| the privileges Of said House. and with in
! tent, corruptly, willfully, maliciously and
! ielOniously, of defeating the presence of a
quorum Of said House and to disrupt and
! break up the same, issue a writ of habeds
corpus
"2d. That said Frazier, as Judge afore-
| said, did refuse 10 accept said return of
/ a III
| willfully, maliciously and leloniOusly, issue
an attachment against said Heydt, Ser
geant-at-arms as aforesaid, aud order the
tSherih Of Davidson county TO release said
| Williams from the lawful custody of the
House of Representatives, and thereby the
said Thomas n. Frazier, as Judge, was
guilty Of a high misdemeanor 10 his
| Office
The charges involved in the the second
article of impeachment are:
He, the said Frazier, as Judge alore
said. did willfullv, maliciously aud cor.
uptly cause said Heydt, Sergeant-at,arms
(he well knowing that the said Heydt wa
| Sergeant alarms of the said Housed TO be
arrested and brought before him, the sait
Frazier, Judge as aforesaid, by the Sheriff
Of Davidson county, and did adiudge him
the said Heydt, guilty, and di,
punish the said Heydt, Sergeant al
arms as aforesaid, for an alleged contemp
of the court, of him, the said Frazier
Judge a. aforesaid, in making the return
20 said writ Of hdbt1s corpus, mentioned Il
article first of the impeachment, in th
manner directed by the said House, by IA
ficting npon the said lIeydt sergeant-at
arms ~ aforesaid, a fine OF ten dollar
more or less, and 10 be committed unit
paid, a. though he was guilty of a hig
crime and misdemelnor in his office q
Judge, az aforesaid.
The court will see that both these charge
involve both law and facts.
The first question and really the oui
question Of law preaented-is, whetht
Judge Frazier had the legal right TO issu
+ the writ of baJras corpus, and release Oh
prisoner. Williams If he did, then b
could not have done it "corruPtly, willtull
and feloniouslv,' for in order to have don
it with these intents, he must have done
against law and knowingly in violation
the law
Now. this brings us 10 a consideration (,
, the question Of law. the question whethC
p the prisoner. Williams, was illegally or M
t / lawfully restrained Of his liberties becau'
If his arrest snd imprisonment were III
y lawful and Illegal, then it will be admitte
, 81 was the duty Of any Judge to whom !
might have applied to release him.
Be- Can less than a quorum Of the House
! Representative order the arrest and IN
- Pri@'nmeut of one of the members becau.
j. such member refuses 90 attend the session