New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-15
papers Of the Office? Who had charge

papers of the Office? Who had charge
of it for months?
The Governor of the State, according to
the testimony of the clerks, while the
office was in The hands of the police. came
in there and examined the papers himself
In the office. and refused to allow the
Auditor. whose responsibility is governed
nv the law, to enter. He excluded him by
orders through his Metropolitan police.
THE police had charge of the Office, and
as one of the witnesses testifes, Governor
Warmoth went searching through the
Office, taking away from the lawful Gus
todian the books and papers of the office
and went rumbling and rumbling throngn
them; for what purpose As the witness
says, he was hunting for evidence. Is this
fair Aud then, after having thus done,
he comes forward and makes 1t a crime
on the part of this man that he could
not furnish the information. There is no
question or doubt but that he collected in
formation, as far as, be was able to do, in
the confusion that prevailed, according TO
the testimony OF the clerks he had, and
these very clerks are still retained by the
Auditor appointed by the Governor.
They positively say that the confusion was
great, especially at the time that the
Governor and the police were in posses
sion of the Office. How far and to
what extent has the Governor the
right TO interfere with the AUDITOR The
Auditor is the Judge to whom the people
of the State conveyed the duty to say what
debts to pay and what warrants to draw
on the Treasury. If the Governor is to be
the Judge and can take possession, by his
police;if he can place irresponsible persons
in charge of the Office; if he can produce
confusion, and then allege as ground for
charges against this officer that very con-
fusion, is this just? Is this fair? Is this
right?
The Governor might as well take pos
session Of the Supreme Court; as well take
possession of all the money in the Treas
airy. He might as well prevent any civil
officer in the city from discharging the
functions of his Office, just as well. / do
not suppose that the Governor was actu-
ated By any improper motive; do not
suppose he was; but l do know that he
was guilty of an illegal act,
and that he was guilty OF dereliction
Of duty. Yet do not pretend to say that
the Governor has done anything for which
he can be impeached, for the law protects
him, and the same law that protects him
! invoke for my unfortunate client. This
political court, as you term it, is system
borrowed from Great Britain and kept up
without reasoning. in Great Britain they
had Court of Impeachment, but who i'm
peached? Parliament and the. Parliament
has unlimited powers; but in this country
we have sought to establish government
for the purpose of maintaining the purity
of the administration of justice, and it was
thought that when members of a General
Assembly sat as a court, they can not di-
vest themselves of the fact that they are
not judges, and that, to some extent, po-
litical considerations have always in
fuenced them more than human vir-
tue is sufficient TO resist. Here
you set on this court, each man,
perhaps, within the sound of my
voice having made up his mind. 1
hear many things. I see by the
confidence displayed by the mana
gers, that they consider it forgone con-
clusion that my client is to be convicted.
l presume that that was the idea with
which they entered the prosecution. Hence
it is that they say that we want to shield
ourselves under the technicalities of the
law. May it please the court, technicali-
ties are the essence of the law-techni-
nicality is law, and is strictly what is JUS
tice. A law is that which the State
declares to be so, and every right, whether
it be technical or not, is right. But we
do not stand on technicalities. / seek
to throw no shield of techudcality around
my client. The only shield that I have
sought to throw before my client is the
shield of the law. Mlnerva's shield was
one side beautiful, and the other side hide
Gus, and so it is with the shield present
the shield of the law. But, if my client
is to suffer, he will be but one sufferer
among others, for the example that you
set to-day will react upon you in the future.
If you do violate the principles of law; if
you insist upon this olitical,expediency aud
convict my client, if you do this, remem-
Der that be will not be the only sufferer.
The very degradation of the example will
reflect on the whole community. The law
which protects one man should protect
another. 1t is not excusable; it is not
it is not right; it is not useful
even to violate this law. But sitting as
you.do, as a court of intelligent judges, it
seems to me that the plain principles that |
govern courts of justice should govern |
you and your decision here. And, if an
bet bears double Interpretation, the law |
never presumes guilt, and, when the law |
ia at all doubtful, the court is bound to |
acquit.
If the Senators are disposed to make a |
victim of my client, they can do so, but |
have endeavored, in my feeble way, to |
throw around him the protection of the law |
applicable to his case we are willing to |
stand or fall by the law. If the law de-
nounces these acts, and if they are proven |
TO your satisfaction, you may convict him,
but we do ask you not to make an example |
Of him for political expediency. l have |
beard it said, that this officer that my client !
was to be offered up q victim for certain |
Ihave heard it said that this |
matter was prejudged. l hope not, feel |
sure that no right-minded judge, ! hope |
no Senator has at all prejudged the case.
We can not challenge a Senator, and the |
learned manager set out with the PROPOSE
ton that personal enemies might sit on |
trials of Impeachment. So it is, we do not |
deny, but there is higher law-the law
Of self-respect, voice which speaks in |
par own heart, and Gays it is not right |
70 Judge an enemy. Under these circum-
stances we invoke fair, and impartial |
rial; we have had everything SO far con-
Quoted with fairness and inparliality; we
have had the courtesy and attention of
The. Senate, and anything further that I
might say would be only repetition
Uuder these circumstances, we claim as
The only action at the hands Of the Senate
, fair and impartial vote.