New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-13


dence, which, in another court, would
have been thrown out, on motion for a
new trial, you will now reject it, on deter
mining the merits of the case; SO that, If
you have come to any erroneous Judg-
ment as to what was necessary to allege
in framing the articles of impeachment as
to indictment, say nothing; you can now,
in coming to your final conclusion, revise
that judgment. This is the last and only
opportunity for you to do justice; and,
therefore, you approach the case just as If
no judgment had ever been rendered;
just as ii the questions were originally and
for the first time submitted to you, and l
shall argue the case on that principle. be-
cause this is the time 20 revise your Judg-
ment, and there is DO future time allowed
you to do so.
The first proposition to which direct
ed your attention. If l remember cor
rectIy, was this: This morning l called
your attention TO the fact that there can
be no crime unless accompanied oy lnleh-
ton; that that was the essence OF the
crime; that so far as mzrder is concerned,
it is necessary to allege and pro e malice
afore hought; that so far as larceny is
concerned, it was necessary to aiiege anu
pIove the dninlus fugdndt; that SO lar as
forgery was concerned, 1t is necessary 70
allege and prove the intention to delraud:
and so throughout the whole catalogue OF
crime. That a man may do an act IN VI
olation OF the law, yet. II there Is no III
tention to violate the law. there is no
crime. Now, then, bearing that principle
in mind. | invite your attention TO every
article contained in these articles OF IN
parchment. There is not solitary ar
ticle charging George NJ. Wicklitfe with
having done any ACT charged III these ar
ticles eorruptly, or with intent TO violate
the law-read them all.
Let Us take the first one as an example,
and it approaches the nearest to any allie
CATION Of intent, and you will perceive that
what l. have said Is correct. Read the
first article:
ARTICLE ].
That the said George NJ. Wicklifie, Audi
tor of Public Accounts Tor the State OF
Louisiana, at New Orleans. Louisiana, on
or about the sixth day Of October, A. d. one
thousand eight hundred and siXty-nlne. TN,
Mindful of the 1igh duties OF his office, aid
Of his oath of Office, having been summoned
10 appear at the Sixth District Court, in aud
for the parish Of Orleans. TO show cause why
a writ of mandamus should not issue
against him the said George m. Wlck!lte,
in lis capacity OF Auditor OF Public Ac-
counts. to compel the issue OF warrants
upon the State Treasury IN favor OF John
3. Howard, for the sum OF eleven thousand
and six dollars and seventy cents, as the as
siguee of one j. c. & .thman, OF an appro-
prlation made 10 said Kathmau by the Cen
eral Assembly Of Louisiana, III act NO. rs
of acts of 1865 did neglect 10 answer said
summons OF the Sixth District Court OF the
parish Of Orleans, aud allowed the cause to
go by default, and the mandamus to oe
made peremptory, he, the sad George III.
Wickiffe, we'll knowing that the prayer OF
the petitioner was gr0untless, and not
founded upon fact or law, all TO the injury Of
the State in the sum Of eleven thousand
and six dollars and seventy cents; WHEREBY
the said George ". Wicklihe. Auditor OF
Public Accounts for the state of Louisiana,
did commit and was guilty O. high INSIDE
meanor in Office.
What is the qrauamen of the charge
here? The charge is, lot that he knew
that the claim was gronndless, 1or man
might know claim 10 BE- grourdless, and
yet, j. he by accident, or by any combl-
nation of circumstances over which ne
had no control. neglected 10 answer,
although be knew 1t to be gtoUndless,
It can not be a crime. The grGCanen OF
the charge ought to have beeB, il ought to
have stated, that it was his duty to appear
in court, TO defend this cause; that ne
knew the claim to be groundless, and thai
he willlully, Icorruptly. and Intentionally
neglected to appear aud defend the cause;
because the crime is not that the claim Was
croundless. but that he neglected to
AZ IT, -r4H.a "a
suppose that he..had appeared in the Sixth
District Court, as he did IN the fourtn
District Court, and that the judgment Of
the Fourth District Court had BEEN differ
rnt from what it was in the Sixth District
Court; in both cases he failed to appear,
and you allege the claim to be sroundless
| but the judgment in one case You say i
! lawful. aad in the other case unlawful; II
order to charge any crime, or II be
is guilty of anything, it mnst
be = alleged, that he williully
and corruptly neglected to appear
in court from corrupt motives, III order tC
allow party to commit fraud on the
treasury Of the State by his non-appear
ance, and there is not q single allegation
in this charge that his neglect to appea
arose from any corrupt or dishonest mo
tive, so that all that may have been as
serted may be admitted to be true, an
sunless you allege, and charge, AM
prove that it was from corrupt mo
| tiyes tina. he withheld his appear
ance, he is guilty Of 10 violation O
law-if the doctrine be correct that III
| intention constitutes the crime. and thai
the nearest approach to any allegation O
| intent.
Let rs take as an example anything TIA
| 7 omen here take article twelve, which
ind by accident {:
| ARTICLE XII.
That said George NJ. Wicklitfe, Auditor
Public Accounts for the State OF Louisiana
| upmindfu! of the high duties Of mis- office
and of his oath of office, and in violation 9
the constitution and laws Of the State, did
on or about the month of March or April
A. D. one thousand eight hundred al
| sfxty-niue, refuse to audit an accoun
against the State in favor OF one .. W
| Menard. editor of the Radical Standard,
newspaper published in the parish OF Jefer
SOD, for public printing by him, the sGl
J. ". Menard done, without the said j. "
Menard would pay him, the said George u
Wickliffe, Auditor Of Public Accounts 70
the State of Louisiana; and the said Wlcb
life did then and there exact, eXtort all
take from the said J. W. Menard a five hun
dred dollar certificate of indebtedness, t
the use and benefit of him, the said Wick
life, and did then audit the said account
and deliver warrants and certificates 10
same to the said J. W. Menard, whereby ia
said George NJ. Wickliffe, auditor of Publ
Accounts, did then and there commit an
was guilty of high crime III office.
There is no allegation Of corrupt reiusa
| IL a.
NIT crime. Did l say that all Indictment
rennire that il should be stated that the a