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

10 DISCUSS THIS Questl0n IN ADVANCE, WlCnOu
that due preparation which I should have
given It, butt will be better prepared upon
the final argument. I have been, as it were
taken aback by your decision: it astounded
me, as authors Leber and others, declare
: though you are political court, they all
seem to regard that, although the Offense
may be political, vet the court itself has
criminal jurisdiction. That has always
been the controversy in cases Of impeach-
ment, not as to the character of the proceed
ing, but as to whether or not the court could
say what is and what is not evidence, and
that it was not bound by the law of the
land. For these reasons 1 humbly submit
that this witness is not competent, because
he is interested in the result, and the change
in the legislation applies only to the civil
code, and this is not civil action, but
criminal in its nature.
Mr.. Manager Lowell: Mr.. Chief Justice,
in reply to the arguments adduced by the
counsel for respondent, have but very few
words to say. AS to the definition of civil
and criminal suits, do not propose to differ
with the learned counsel. But l take the
criminal proceeding in the legal accepta.
ton of the term. I take the ground that
this body is political body under
the constitution, not to try civil
suit as between man and man.
Not to try criminal suit. as between
the State and an individual, but to ascer-
tain by facts before you, whether this pub
lie officer is fit for the position which he
holds. The counsel for the accused, because
| we, in the articles of impeachment, use the
| terms, high crimes and misdemeanors, un-
dertakes to take for granted shat we mean
only such crimes and offenses which may be
indicted before the courts. Now, if we study
the law on impeachment, we find that the
| words high crimes, as used in the court on
/ w hat I yvi1
| thorities.
When the words high crimes and misde-
| meanOr are used in prosecution by impeach.
ment, the words high crimes and INSIDE
meanors have no definite meaning, but are
used merely to give greater solemnity to the
charges. Now. We say that impeachment is
| purely political proceeding. It is neither
criminal proceeding nor civil suit, and
that the rules of evidence, which apply in
| civil and criminal proceedings, are not the
rules to be applied here, but the rules we
adopt in the trial of an impeachment as in
| England and in this country, are entirely
| different Gentlemen, as l said in the
| opening argument, this is not court of
justice, neither criminal court, nor q
civil court of justice, but you are sitting
| here as the grand inquest of the nation to
determine whether this officer, having
been placed in his high position by
the suffrages of the people, is competent Tor
| that position, or whether it is for the bene.
fit of the State to remove him therefrom.
In criminal suit, the party is either impris.
oned or fine imposed. In this case, neither
is done, but he is simply deprived of po-
litical office, and forever disqualified from
holding any Office. The question is not as
to his personal rights, therefore this is
neither criminal prosecution nor civil
suit. | wish the Senators would distinctly
understand and study this, and not be ca
al Ire Of col
into the belief. that this is something else
than Senate sitting as Court of Impeach-
ment. If the trainers of the constitution
had intended this to be tried according
to the rules of Justice, then they would
have said, take the party before a
court of justice. But you are simply to
determine whether he is tit to hold his Office
and then the courts can take charge of the
criminal matter atterward; and. if he has
embeZzled any money or stolen any property
from the State, he is not only amensble to the
criminal law, but may be under certain cir.
cumstances amenable to the civil law, under
his bond. do not desire, Senators to discuss
this question at length, because do not in.
tend to take up the time OF the Senate in in.
vestigating these questions. The whole
thing is merely matter of fact, whether
upon the testimony as produced, this party
is unfit to hold his Office; and we do not
propose to contradict these points or techni-
cal objections or to discuss them, for it
seems that it is simply on tech
nicalities tnat the defense relies. We do not
propose to discuss these technicalities, and
have already intruded much further on the |
time of the Senate than l shall do hereafter.
Mr.. Gray, of counsel for the accused Mr.. |
Chief Justice, l do not intend
The Chief Justice: The Senate has |
adopted rule that all preliminary |
questions shall be argued not exceed.
ing one hour. The Chief Justice desires |
to know whether that discussion shall be con-
Quoted by one counsel on one side or more?
Mr.. Foute: Mr.. Chief Justice, l think |
that when there are three or four managers |
there may be two counsel.
The Chief Justice The question that the |
Chief Justice put was whether more than |
one counsel on each side should conduct the |
argument.
Mr.. Ray: understand very clearly that
under this rule one hour in allowed for each |
side. the question propounded then is
whether two counsel shall be allowed to |
participate in the discussion.
The Chief Justice: The question is
whether more than one counsel on either
side shall be allowed to discuss preliminary
questions.
Mr.. Pinchback: Mr.. Chief Justice, as 1
understand the proposition, if we vote for
more than one counsel we extend the time.
The Chief Justice The Chief Justice is of
opinion that the discussion is limited to one
hour on each side. The question then is
within the hour allowed, more than
one counsel on either side may discuss the
question.
Mr.. Ogden move that further time be
given to counsel for the defense to answer
Mr.. Blackman Let me understand the
motion. Is 1t for the purpose Of arguing
the question now before us?
The Chief Justice /: | understand the mo.
ton to be general-in other words, to
change rule twenty.
Mr.. Ogden's motion was put to the Senate
and lost.
The question then REQUIRED on the propo.
sition to allow more than one counsel with.
n the hour to discuss preliminary or in
questions.
The motion was carried by the following
votes:
Yeas: Anderson. Antoine, Bacon, Black.
man, Braughn, Campbell, COPELAND, Oar
-all, Day, Egan, Foute, jerks, Jewell,
kelso. Lynch Otfutt, Ogden, O'Hara, Pack.
ard, Pinchback, Poindexter, Pollard, Ray,
smith, Thompson, Todd, Whitney, Williams,
Wittgenstein-29.
Nay: Monette-l.
Mr.. Gray, Of counsel, for accused: Mr..
Chief Justice and Senators, l should not
nave consumed AS much time if | had been | {
allowed to speak as that which the Senate
las consumed in discussing whether | shall
lave the right. As far as 1 am concerned | |
ay that there does seem to exist some I'M
leIstandlng. Yesterday, objection was made | s
o the Introduction of the testimony of (
witness on the ground Of interest. The
ourt announced that in criminal law the i
objection was well taken, and if this was
rininal proceeding the point was well I
AIKEN. Now, sir, differ with the learned
manager who spoke. | do not conceive how !