New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-06

ZION OI the COnet1tutlOnallty OF the act Oy
which attorneys were required to take wha
is termed the iron clad" oath in order K
be admitted to practice, in the case Of -
and others-when that matter was before
that court it was considered that forfeiture
OF the right to practice law was penal for
felture, which could not pc inflicted by re-
curing party to take an oath OF that de-
scriptiOn.
| And wherever penalty. or any matter in
| the nature of a forfeiture, is to be adJudged
| against party, that has always in the his
tory of common law-and it is by the prln'
| ciples of that we are to be guided IN the
| consideration of this case-been regarded
as punishment for offenses. What con-
| stitutes the character of this proceeding !!
Now, sir, how is this to be characterized
| under the constitution of this state? The
| Judges of all the courts, under article eighty.
one of the constitution of this State, shall
be liable to impeachment for crimes and mis-
demeanors. That is article eigh,y-one of the
constitution of this State. The constitution
Of the United States says that the officers
therein described shall De liable to i'm
parchment for treason, bribery or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. The con-
stitution of this State nowhere defines,
unlike the constitution of the United States,
it nowhere defines what shall be subject
matter OF impeachment, except in the case
ofJudges. 1t is only IN this article, eighty
one, that the words "Crimes and misde-
meanorS" are used. For when you refer to
title tive-the title of impeachment in the
constitutiOn-you find it vests the power of
impeachment in the House Of Representa-
tives, and goes on to say that Impeachment
OF the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, ETC..
shall be tried by the Senate. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, or the senior
judge thereof, shall preside during the
trial of such impeachments Impeach-
ments of the Judges of the Supreme
Court shall be tried by the Senate.
When sitting as Court of Impeachment
the Senators shall be upon oath or afirma-
ton; and no person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two.thirds of
the Senators present"
1t does not define the subject matter OF
lmpeachments, except AS to judges; it
leaves it an open question for what man
may be impeached, except as to judges, in
which case it is to be confined to crimes
and misdemeanors. That throws US back,
therefore, of course, to ascertain what i'm
parchment means, and for what an i'm
parchment can be sustained. Now, sir,
what is the language used in criminal pros.
ecution? When suit is entered to re-
cover sum OF money, or in other civil pro-
ceediDgs, the term "convictedo is not used;
the language of the judgment is: SIS is Or
dered. adjudged aud decreed," or shat he
shall do SO and so. But when you proceed
against party for al offense, or any matter
in the nature OF a crime, and the party is
brought before the court he is not "ordered,
adjudged and decreed," but he is convicted.
And the term conviction" always applies
to matters criminal in their nature, and no
can take place except in courts |
of criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, as the |
language OF the constitution is, that "no |
person ehall be cOnUicted without concur
renee of twothirds Of the Senators present." |
this must be q criminal proceeding. The |
constitution OF the United States differs also |
from the constitution of the State in this, |
that it nowhere declares that the Senate, |
when sitting to try an Impeachment, is a |
court.
One of the most important questions |
raised in impeachment before Senate, has |
been, whether or not that tribunal was or |
lot a court. 1t is well known, that when l
he Senate of the United States was sitting
or the trial Of the Impeachment of Presi-
lent johnson, it was claimed that the Senate
Was sitting simply as a Senate, and the |
managers on behalf of the prosecution took |
he precaution throughout the entire trial to
object to the use of the word court aud
Always called 1t "Senate;" whereas the
counsel for President Johnson, from the
7ery commencement to the end of the trial,
,alled it court. Now, what was the object
lie one side, the prosecution, or the mana
,ers, maintained that the Senate was not
ourt of justice, but a political tribunal
lot governed by the rules OF courts of JUS
ice; whereas the counsel for President John.
on insisted on the other theory, and ap-
,ealed to the constitution of the United
states. We, sir, are free from this diff
ulty. because we use the language of the
constitution of the State, when We say. that
G SITTING 81 !
for the very article which l
quoted provides that "when sitting as a
jourt of impeachment, Senators shall be
lpon oath or affirmation y Therefore, in this
Investigation we'are entirely rid of that diff
ulty which existed in the trial of President
ohnson, and which divided the opinion of
he Senators, as to whether or not this is
q establishing that this is court, and
curt within!the meaning of the constitution,
Dvested with judicial functions.
The Chief Justice: The Chief Justice
-ould state that, at no time, has he said
lat this is not court. The Chief Justice
as ruled that this proceeding is not Grim
lal, but civil.
ware of that, and the reason that dwell
pom that u.s. that cannot conceive, if you
rant that, of the possibility, unless you
AXE this merely political court, of maxi
* this other than court of criminal iuris-
ction. Therefore, in President Johnson's
Use, it became important to establish that !
was a court under the constitution; if
lat fact is determined, it follows as q
consequence that there must be |
,me ofense known to the law, for which !
lie party can be tried and convicted. ,
therefore,, if 1t is conceded, aud it can not T
, denied, that this is court, then what :
nd of court is il? What civil rights are !
III called upon to enforce? What is this '
'isoner at the bar here for? For what do :
III pronounce judgment against him? !
hat is the language OF the charges? We I
e called upon to answer for what! Crimes +
ID misdemeanOrs. What are criOes and i
isdemeanors but criminal offenses? If 4
is be a civil tribunal what jurisdiction :
I've you to try crimes and misdemeanors? 4
Jne. +
Because the sole purpose and object of this a
oceeding is to fix upon the party arraigned t
fore you the imputatiOn OF criminal con v
ict, growing out of the acts charged | t
anst him in the articles of impeachment; b
i'd these acts are characterized as crimes il
ID nlisdeameanOrs; and We are called upon t.
answer for these acts, thus characterized, Il
ID for nothing. Does civil court ever III Il
CT punishment? Does a civil court ever Fl
onounca forfeiture for the criminal acts of c.
o party? l understand. viz: that property "
ay be forfeited for acts done by the prop Y
ty itself regardless OF the ownership, and h
al, to a certain extent. But this forfeit. n
e arises cut Of the use of the property; and c.
1862 was passed an act of Congress, the b
OF which has not yet been a.
onounced upon. In 1861, regardless of the n
cnership, if the property was doing, or if Il
ed for a prohibited purpose the property h
as forfeited as being the guilty thing; like fc
vessel running the blockade, il Is forfeited, fl
cause the vessel is the guilty thing, SUBJ CT
ct to coniscation. But when you proceed a.