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

constitution OF the STATE 1tseiI mas pIOVluce
means for renewing person occupying OF
by address, which provision does not ex
ist in the constitution of the United States
This provision was introduced in England
during the reign of William and Mary, ate
the revolution, in order to provide means o
getting rid of incompetent or improper Off
| GERS.
That was the first time it was introduced
in the constitution of England, a provi-
| sion which has been copied in the constitu
| lions OF the various States of the Union
The object was to get rid of the difficulty Of
| lmpeachlng for lncOmpetency or other rea
SONS that do not amount to crimes. The
very fact of incorporating this clause in the
| constitution, that all civil officers may be re-
moved, and the causes are not to be stated
except in the case of judges in regard tC
judges the cause of removal must be spread
upon the journal. But in regard to every
other officer you may remove with or with
out cause, provided you have q t~O.thirds
vote.
And on this subject will call the attention
Of the Senate to the argument made by
learned manager, and read by the Secretary,
that this clause Of the constitution which
provides for removal by address, does not
apply where provision is made for officers
being impeached. The learned gentleman
who prepared that brief is not certainly
aware of the history of that very clause OF
the constitution to which he refers. Had he
been, be would have known that it was ad-
judged by the Supreme Court of the State
IN a celebrated case. Every one knows of
the excitement in the elections of 1855 and
1856, and the violence practiced at the polls !;
every one knows of the destruction of the
ballot box that took place then. A cele-
brsted individual named HUMPHREYS was
the candidate put up against the Demo-
cratic candidate for the Office of Sheriff !:
and when It was ascertained that the Demo-
cratic candidate was elected, the mob de-
stroyed a ballot-box, thereby destroying
thirteen hundred votes, and HUMPHREYS
was returned as elected, thereby defeating
the Democratic candidate. Suit was in.
stituted under the Law, contesting the cleo.
ton of HUMPHREYS, and the court decided
the case in his favor. In this state of things
Democratic Legislature assembled. The
case had been contested between these two
officers, and decided by the civil courts.
The Democratic party, then in the ascend
ancy. felt the outrage perpetrated upon the
people, or on them as representing the peo-
pie. They felt that it was required by the
people that nobody should hold Office by
any violence of that nature. When it came
up for consideration before the Legislature,
it was admitted that HUMPHREYS could not
be charged personally with the offense COM
mitted; he, therefore. must be regarded as
innocent. The question then arose as to the
power of removal by address, and it was
found that it was unnecessary to declare the
reason for removal, except where you at.
tempt to remove Judge. 1t then became
question whether to exercise this power
without giving any reason, and it was de-
cided to proclaim it openly, and it was
thought best as matter of policy, that the
reason reason SHOULD OF be SO proclaimed; Those
who raised the hue and d. cry on
the ground that the civil courts had de-
cided the contest, and that the matter was
res ddjudicdtG contended that the Legis-
lature had no right to revise the action of
the courts, and therefore that it was an in.
friction on the constitution to exercise this
power of removal. This argument had no
weight upon the ground that this was no
contest for Office. 1t Was true that the case
had been decided in the courts, but under
the then state of affairs, the public de.
manded the removal, and therefore the
Legislature announced that they would re-
move him, not because he was guilty of any
crime, but to vindicate the purity of the
Dallot-box, and prevent the repetition in
future of such crimes. Upon that public
and high ground he was removed from office.
There never was case presented better cal
,ulated to give validity to this argument,
iOr he was removed, not on account of any
personal offense, but on high public consid-
grafton, irrespective of the individual. The
supreme Court then decided that they had
40 right to revise the action of the Legisla.
,ure; that the Legislature had the right to
'emove for any cause they saw fit; and al
though the right to remove by impeachment
existed, they interpreted this clause of the
constitution as distinctive from the right
Of removal on impeachment, one
lot being in contest with the
attempts to say that the right of removal |
~ address does not apply to officers whose |
'emoval is provided for by Impeachment.
But the constitutions of 1864 and 1868 have |
ldopted the exact language of 1852. |
SoW, then, I say that here you have means |
provided by the constitution OF the State to |
yet rid of any unpopular officer; to get rid |
If any insane officer; any incompetent per-
on for political reasons, or personal rea-
ons; because he is not gentleman; because
he is not faithful officer, or for any cause
ou please, whether criminal or not, and
our right to do SO is not questioned, and |
he means is afforded you by the Constitu.
ion to get rid of them in that way. But |
When you come to impeachment, then 1t
ecomes personal TO the individual. You
barge him with something known to the
aw of the land; you arraign him before the
curt; you put him upon trial; you charge
i'm with crimes and misdemeanors, and he
5 placed before this tribunal. You are put
n your oath to say whether you will con-
let or acquit; you are here, not as jury,
ut as judges. This court is composed of |
be Senate and the Chief Justice; you
re the judges, and with your votes you
ronounce sentence, which the jury
oes not. For after you shall have con.
lcted, after your judgment is rendered, it
executed through the nstrumentalty of
our executive officer. You have not the
over to confine the party, nor to put him
the Penitentiary; but you would have
lat power but for the fact that the consti-
ltion reserves that for other tribunals; but
says: 1.-The convicted parties shall, new
'theless, be subject to indictment, trial and
lnishment according to law" When a
an was lmpeached in England. he could
e punished to any extent which the law
lowed. But it is not so in America. In
as framed, it was considered that that
ibunal, which was to try such cases, would
:, to certain extent, governed by political
cas- and feelings, and therefore, it was that |
is right was given to some other
ibunal and that you were merely to have
e power to remove and disquaIify him
ON ever holding office. If this is not
lmlnal or penal, l would like to know
hat you characterize as criminal or penal? |
hat are we here for? Are you suing
IRE to recover office? If this was
erely suit against Wickliffe to re-
yer back his office which WAS given him
: the votes Of the people, it might be char.
teSzed as a civil suit; but you are here
1t having any rights to that office under I
e constitution. You are here not to test
) rights to that Office, but to declare his
rteiture of it and to further disqualify him {
om ever holding office, in consequence of {
ines and emisdemeanors alleged in these I
ticles of impeachment. Now, then, if that I