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

straints or limitations laid down else
where in the constitution which rendered
the exercise of the power in this particu-
lar case null and vOid?"
1st Article ninety-seven of the consti-
tuition is in these words: ''All civil officers,
except the Governor and Judges of the
Supreme and inferior courts, shall be re-
moved by an address OF majority of
both houses, except those the removal OF
whom has teen otherwise provided by
this constitution It is conceded that
the sheriff is civil officer, and that the
power of removing him by address Is ex-
pressly granted under this article, unless
he comes within the last exception, to-wit:
those officers the removal of whom has
been otherwise provided by this constitu-
ton. Accurately speaking, the consttu-
ton nowhere else provides mode OF re-
moving sheriffs. But it is contended that
article eighty-nine, under the title OF I'm
peachnent," brings sherifs within the
exception of article ninety-seven, by de-
claring that 5" the Legislature shall pro-
vide by law for the trial, punishment and
removal from office of all other officers of
the State Except those enumerated in the
preceding artleles) by impeachment or
otherwise"
The power of impeachment or proseeu-
ton for misdemeanor in office, which In
case OF conviction involves a removal
from office as an incident, and the power
of removal without impeachment or pros
ecution, are concurrent powers, both of
which are clearly recognized by the con-
stitution, and neither of which excludes
the other.
Then the court goes on and discusses
the question at large. l cited the case
merely Tor the purpose Of establishing
what l asserted, that the power of I'M
parchment, and removal as an Incident OF
impeachment is a distinct power from the
power of removal by address; that the
two are concurrent powers not inconsis-
tent in their nature; that the exercise OF
the one is the exercise of criminal juris-
diction by which you punish party for
his personal delinquency; the exercise
| of the other is not the exercise of Judicial
power, nut political power, and exercised
Irrespective of the guilt or innocence of
the party whom you desire to remove
| from Office. Am I mistaken as to that?
Take the acts OF 1856 upon the subject OF
impeachment, and you will find that
they establish the construction l contend
for, and this construction was placed
upon the constitution Years ago by the
Legislature, and it is contemporaneous
construct on of It, because the act relative
to Impeachment was passed years ago, and
was only re-enacted IN 1866.
whenever any person shall wish to
prosecute public officer before the Legs
lature, he shall address the House of
Representatives a memorial containing
brief exposition of the acts of such public
officer which are supposed to be contrary
to law not which are supposed to be con-
trary to the opinion of the pubic, not
what are supposed to be contrary to ones
opinion of right or wrong, but accusing
him of those acts which are supposed to
be contrary to law, going to show that the
impeachment was for acts contrary to law
and not acts contrary to the
opinion of each particular Senator or
the community at large, for those
opinions had not been enacted into law,
to violate which was an otfense. The act,
goes on to declare that this matter shall
be referred to a committee, aud the COM
mittee shall examine the case and decide
whether. it shall be expedient to proceed
spy means of impeachment or by address,
| recognizing the two powers as concurrent,
one political and the other criminal, one
| primitive and the other mere right to get
| rid of an officer without involving him in
any moral guilt. 1t seems to me that
have demonstrated the proposition that
| the two powers are concurrent and 1t is
no use for you to go to England or to the
constitution of the United States, or
| to consult authors who write IN
regard to the laws of other States.
because it so happens that your constiu-
tional history is an original history, IS
peculiar IN its nature. and hence, although
| the constitution of 1912 uses the language
| of the constitution of the United States,
| that impeachments would lie only for high
| crimes and misdemeanors, treason and
bribery, that clause was dropped in the
| constitution of 1915, in regard to all other
officers except judges, and dropped in the
| constitution Of 1868, leaving merely i'm
peachments to be tried by the Senate,
without saying for what cause. The law
| in regard to impeachment declares that
| the accusation must be made to the Legis-
| lature of those acts which he who makes
the accusation supposes to be contrary to
| law. He is not authorized to make an
/ accusation before the House of Represent
| atives except for those acts which are con-
trary to law, implying that any act which
| is not contrary to law can not be prosecuted
| by impeachment; but you must resort to
| the other constitutional remedy by adj
| dress. Now then l say if reason amounts
to anything, if authority amounts to any
thing, If history, the legal history of our
State, fortified by the decisions Of the
| Supreme Court of our State amount to any
thing, every honest man must come to the
conclusion that this is court, that 1t is
criminal court, that you are to be gov
erned by law, that you are to administer
the law Of the land; not that you are to be
governed by your caprices or prejudices:
that the accused stands here at the bar OF
a criminal court, limited in its jurisdiction
SO far as the powert to inf1ict punishment IS
concerned; but when he is convicted here
and partial punishment is inflicted, you
are to hand him over to an
other tribunal, to exercise the
power of further punishment,
by deprivation of liberty or by fine or de-
privation Of property. You are but the
commencement Of criminal jurisdiction.
So far as this accused is concerned, you
are to institute the inquiry and il you find
him guilty you are to deprive him of the
robes of office and send him, without the
power or influence of Office of which you
have stripped him. before the criminal
tribunals, there, as any other citizen, to be
punished according to the laws OF the land;
if you desire any further infiction of pun
ishment beyond that already decreed here.
That being the case, the next PROPOSE