New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-12

State, Auditor OF Public Accounts, State
Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Edu-
cation and of the Judges Of the inferior
courts-Justice Of the Peace excepted
shall be tried by the Senate. The Chie1
Justice of the Supreme Court, Or the Sc.
nior Associate Justice, shall preside during
the trial. These, then, are the officers OF
our State who are alone removal from
office on trial by impeachment Article
LOG Of the constitution defines another
mode by which other civil officers Of the
government can be removed from office.
1t says that ''all civil officers shall be re,
movable by an address Of two-thlrds OF the
members elect to each House OF the General
Assembly, except those whose removal Is
otherwise provided for by the constltu-
ton. That exception clearly refers &c
article ninety-six, where it is expressly pro.
yided that the Governor, Lieutenant Gov
ernor Secretary of State, Auditor Of Pub.
lie Accounts, ETC., shall be tried by the
Senate: and when the learned counsel fol
the defense argued, some days since, that
the degree of crime was the rule to deter.
mine whether an officer should be re.
moved by impeachment or by address,
think he was in error, for the reason that
it is plainly stated in our constitution
what officers, and what officers alone, shall
be removed by impeachment. Further
more, in article 100, there is provision
which is clear and distinct, that al
civil officers, except those whose removal
is otherwise provided for in the cOnstitJl.
ton, shall be removable by address.
Neither article ninety-six, nor any othe,
article in the constitution, defines the
crimes for which these officers shall be
impeached. The constitution OF oul
State is unlike the constitution OF the
United States in that'particular.
You will remember that the latter pro.
vides, that civil officers Of the general
government shall be removable for treason,
bribery and other crime and misdemean-
ors, but the, constitution Of our State
nowhere provides for the nature Of the
crimes, which will render an officer i'm.
peachable by the House of Representa-
tives. We have seen, in article ninety-six,
what officers Of the State government can
be removed by impeachment, and IN ar
ticle one hundred and six, how the Legisla-
ture of the State, in conjunction with the
Governor, can remove other civil officers
of the State, namely: By address.
think the language of articles ninety-siz
and LOG make it clear that the only officers
who are exclusively amenable to the Senate,
sitting as Court of Impeachment, are
those named in article ninety-six, to wit
the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, At
torney General Secretary of State, Audi.
tor of Public Accounts, State Treasurer,
Superintendent Of Public Education, and
Judge of the interiors courts.
I do not wish to be understood as stating
that these are the only officers liable to be
impeached, but I undertake to say, that
under the constitution Of the State, i'm
parchment is the only means by which
those officers named in article ninety-siX
can be removed.
!Second-What are improbable offenses
We have head it repeatedly argued, dur
ing this trial, by the learned counsel fol-
the defense, that an improbable otfense
must, necessarily, be an indictable otfense,
and do not know, Mr. Chief Justice and
Senators that I can do better than to refer
briefly to the opinion Of Senator Sumner.
of Massachusetts,, upon this subject. l
read from the Impeachment OF Andrew
johnson, vol. 3, page $50:
w IldS dLC lIllpCdCllftUlC O4C--oCo Las
been much considered in this trial, and
sometimes with very little appreciation OF
the question. Next to the mystiication
from calling the Senate a court, has been
that other mystifcation from not calling
the transgressions of Andrew Johnson, i'm
peachable questions,
at is sometimes boldly argued that
there can be no impeachment under the
constitution of the United States, unless for
an offense defined and made indictable by
an act Of Congress; and, therefore, An
drew johnson must go free, unless it can
be shown that he is such an offender.
But this argument mistakes the constitu-
ton. and also mistakes the whole theory Of
impeachment.
According to the Federalist, says the
same Senator, Impeachment is for those
effenses which proceed from the miscon-
duct of public men, or in other words,
from the abuse or violation of some public
trust; and they may, with peculiar pro-
priety, be deemed political, as they relate
to injury done Immediately to society
itself.
"The Federalist has been echoed ever
since by all who have spoken with knowl-
edge and without prejudice. First came
the suspected commentator, Rawle, who
specifies, among causes Of impeachment,
the baser appetite for lllegitimate emolu-
ment,' and the involutions and varieties
of vice, too many and too artful to be an
ticipated by positive law all resulting in
what the commentator says are not inaptly
termed political ofenses. "And thus
Rawle unites with the Federalist in stamp
ing upon Improbable ofenses the epithet
political x
"Then comes Story, who, writing
with the combined testimony Of English
and American history before him, and
moved only by desire of truth, records
his opinion with all the original emphasis
of the Federalistt. His words are like
a Judgment. According to him the pro-
cess of impeachment is intended to
reach personal misconduct or gross neg
lect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard
of the public interests, in the discharge of
the duties of political office; and the COM
mentator adds that it is TO be exercised
over offenses committed by public men in
violation Of their public trust and duties;
that the offenses to which it is ordinarily
applied are Of a political character, and
that, strictly speaking, the power par
takes of political character. ,"
"The late commentator, Curtis, is, if
possible, more explicit even than Story.
According to him an Impeachment is
not necessarily trial for crime its pur-
poses lie wholly beyond the penalties of
the statute or customary law ; and this
does not hesitate to say that
it is "a proceeding to ascertain whether
cause exists for removing public officer
from Office and he adds that such cause
Of removal may exist when no ofense
against public law has been committed, as,
@I,o hoo f,ox,>