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

single allegation In the articles that dOet
not conclude that he is guilty of crimes Of
mlsdemeanors. As far rs / understand the
law, there is no such thing as misde
meanor-there is under the common law
but the common law is not in force here-ir
the criminal jurisprudence of louisiana
there Is no such thing as misdemeanOrs
which, under the common law, subjects the
party to fine and imprisonment.
But as far as the law of Louisiana is con
cerned there is nothing here that we under.
STAND as mlsdemeanors, and no decision O1
the Supreme Court establishing such an
effense. But suppose there were. what
would be the definition! and how would il
deprive him of his office? Howis that to be
ascertained? And here 1 must insist upon
the attention of the Senate to the distiuc
ton drawn by my colleague between civil
a man demands his land, his horse or his
money, that is merely matter of private
rights or civil proceeding but whenever
| the proceeding is for breach Of the law, a
man does not proceed against him. Has he
the right to proceed against person because
he, does not do his duty? Not so; the State
has to do that, and no private individual.
And that which is a violation Of the law; that
which works punishment; that which de-
prives man of life and liberty, is criminal
proceeding, and do not care what garb you
place it in. Here, it is the House of Repre-
sentatives that comes and says:
| "You were fairly elected, but we say,
having been fairly elected to Office, we still
have the right to take it away, even if you
are guilty of no offense.'
| Such l understand to be the extraordinary
position taken by the managers; that, though
fairly and duly elected, and holding his
office and discharging the duties thereof,
| yet that Office can be taken away from
him without his having been guilty of
| any otfense. In other words, can enc branch
of the Legislature deprive man of his Of
| fee, to which he was elected by the public,
| simply upon the vote of tWo-thirds of the
members of one branch of the Legislature !,
| l admit that if this was a political proceed
| ing, that two-thirds of the members of
both branches of the Legislature could
| address the man out OF office; and they are
not compelled in that capacity to assign any
reason whatever tor the act which they do
But, sir, when it comes to impeachment
l understand, in the first instance, that the
Chief Justice decided that we were to be
governed by the rules of evidence under.
stand, therefore, that, if Mr.. WickliIfe is to
be turned out OF office, 1t is not because any
other man has better right to that Office,
but simply because, by some crimes or mis-
demeanors, he has forfeited his right to that
Office. What ia forfeiture? What are crimes
and offenses? And what is the penalty !?
upon it, but whenever man is once elected
and conducted into office, if you take that
away from him, and declare him ineligi-
Bile to office, what is that but q punishment
Legislation may address him out of office,
and that is all; but the judgment of this
court is criminal; it not only invalidates his
vested rights in that Office, but declares
that he shall be ineligible. If that is not
punishment, do not know what it is, and
such is the decision OF the Supreme Court
of the Unitad States. There is very wide
distinction as to the question, rs to whether
or not this is a criminal or civil proceeding.
Do understand that the Chief Justice re-
CARDS this as civil proceeding? If SO,
who are the parties? Has the House of
Representatives any right to the Office of
the Auditor, or any title IN the offices? Are
they the proper persons to indict? Ger
tainly they are, but when they do, and
when this court is sworn, and should they
pronounce him guilty, deprive him of his
right to vote, and his right to hold Office in
the State, the deprivation of it is punish
ment, and l do not care in what language
they choose to define it. am much obliged
to the Senate for the time they have given
me for my argument.
The Chief Justice: The Chief Justice feels
some embarrassment as to the course he has
to pursue in rendering his decision. If he
does it without giving any reasons, it might
place him in false position; and to give the
reasons at length, might seem to be de.
Tending or prosecuting. But he feels it his
duty succinctly to give the reasons why he
says that he regards this as civil, and not
criminal proceeding, and he will do so
briefly by answering few questions of the
counsel, and by referring 10 a point made
by the prosecution.
The counsel in the first place asks, "Why
are we here?' The Chief Justice answers:
To determine whether or not the Auditor is
worthy OF holding his office. or any offices.
1t is an inquest of office. The proceeding,
said the counsel for the defense, is either
civil or criminal if it is not civil, ii is GRIM
inal, but the converse is equally true. If it
is not criminal it is civil; AMI | will refer to
the article of the constitution which salts
fes me that this is not criminal proceed |
ing. l refer to article six of the constitu |
ton, which declares that prosecutions shall |
be by indictment or information, and the |
accused shall be tried byjury. The counsel |
also says that the distinction between i'm |
parchment and address out of Office is, that |
the latter is for incompetency, and the |
former on account of crime or m isdemeanOr, |
and for otfenses other than incapacity and |
he refers to the case of Hufty to sus-
tain his position. The Chief Justice, in |
answer to this, says that the contest was for |
the Office of Sheriff. and under the constitu. |
ton of 1852 the Sheriff might be addressed |
out of office, but he was not impeachable. |
Under the constitution of 1868 those officers
subject to be impeached can not, in the /
opinion of the Chief Justice, be addressed |
out of office, and if it be true that these
officers cannot be addressed out of |
office, the converse of the proposition |
ofthe counsel for the defense is true that
they may be impeached for insanity, |
drunkenness. incapacity and other
~ oh, 4
office. These are the views of the
Chief Justice, and he feels it his duty to
state them.
Mr.. Blackman Mr.. Chief Justice, send |
to the Secretary's desk motion that the |
Senate retire to the Hall of House of Repre-
'entatives for consultation on the question
now before the court.
This motion was put by the Chief Justice
and lost.
MIR. Ogden: Mr.. Chief Justice, 1 desire
now that the sense of the Senate be taken
IN the decision Of the Chair.
The question being put, the decision of
he Chief Justice was sustained by the fol-
owing vote
Yeas Anderson, Antoine Bacon, Beares,
Campbell, COPELAND, Darrall, Day, Foute,
Aelso, Lewis, Lynch, Monette, Offutt,
'ackard, Plnchback, Poindexter, Pollard,
Ray, Todd. Wilcox, Williams, Wittgen-
tein-23
Nays: Blackman, Braughn, Egan, jerks,
ewel, Ogden, OHara, Smith, Thomp.
on-9.
The name of James Graham, the witness
worn yesterday, was called, and he was
ound not present.
Mr.. Manager Lowell: AS Mr.. Graham
} not present, would call Mr.. Lagroue.
The name of Mr.. Lagroue was called, and
e failed to respond.
Mr.. Manager Lowell Mr.. Chief Justice.