New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-15
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE
WHEN SETTEsG AS "A COURT OF
laIPEACH KENT.
THURSDAY, March 3, 1870.

AEI hoDay nal CI y, loio'
At the hour OF eleven o'clock A. NJ, the
Chief Justice entered the Senate Chamber
and took the chair.
The roll Of the Senate being called, the
following members answered to their
names:
Messrs. Anderson, Antoine, Bacon, Beares,
Blackman, Braughn. Campbell, CouDland.
Day, Egau, Foute, Futch, jerks, Jewell,
Kelso, Lewis, Lynch, MOnette, OfUtt, Og-
den, O'Hara, Packard, Pinchback, P0index-
ter, Ray, Smith, Thompson, Todd, Whitney,
Wilcox, Williams, Wittgenstein-32.
By direction of the Chief Justice. the
Sergeant-at-Arms opened the court with
the usual proclamation.
On motion OF Mr.. Wittgenstein, the
reading Of the proceedings OF the previous
sitting OF the court was dispensed with.
By direction of the Chief Justice, the
Secretary proceeded to inform the mana
gers on the part of the House of Repre-
sent .tives that the Senate, sitting as a
Court Of Impeachment, was ready to pro-
coed with the trial Of G. NJ. Wickliffe,
Aucitor OF Public Accounts of the state OF
Louisiana.
The managers, on the part of the House
Of Representatives, having appeared and
taken the seats provided for them
T. J. Semmes, Esq, and Henry Gray
Esq appeared as counsel tor respondent.
Argument of Bar. Gray.
The Chief Justice: The Senators will
please give rAeir attention to the counsel
| while making the argument for the de-
| tense.
Mr Gray, of counsel for respondent:
Mr.. Chief Justice and the Court-Al-
! though from early life l have had occa-
sion to exercise my profession and to ap-
pear in courts, I confess that | have never
appeared with so much difidence as on
| this occasion. Heretofore, it has been my
province to appear before courts gov
erned BY certain fixed and definite
rules of law. The judgment Of an
advocate, as matter Of course,
NAV be at fault but be that as it may, he
Processes to approximate the truth By
| resorting to certain fixed and definite
principles of law. When We commenced
! this cause in the defense, we had reason
10 believe, and did believe, that we were to
| be governed by the fixed rules of evidence
| in this case. In presenting my argument
/ now, I beg leave to say to the court that
| claim some charity at their hands ii
am compelled to travel over ground
already occupied by my associate counsel
in his argument. simply do this for the
purpose of bringing it to the mind OF
| those members of the court who did not
hear the argument of my colleague and
! character of the defense which he made.
The learned managers tell us that we DO
| not appear before court governed by
any fixed rules of law or any fixed rules OF
evidence but they draw the distinction
between what they call political court
and criminal court. l call attention to
! this because we have asserted this from
! the beginning. The gentlemen may con-
suit their own fancy and depart from the
constitution; that is their right-a right
which they exclusively possess, if they
choose, to call this political court; but
! it is our right to insist. and we do in
! sist that we are to be tried according to
the rules OF law, and, if convictec, we are
| to be convicted according to the rules OF
law. and the general rules of evidence.
| Now. may it please the court, it Is glo-
| fious spectacle undoubtedly, and most
| encouraging sign, when the House OF Rep
| reseotatives OF the State, takes upon Itself
| to inpeach an officer when the Legislature
rising above party prejudice and above
political considerations, comes before this
| Senate and indicts high officer for crimes
| and tnisdemeanors.
It is an encouraging spectacle indeed
| but while I grant that, while am free to
give them credit for that do insist that
| they shall allow, at least, that in the de-
| termination of this question, they are to
be governed by the rules of evidence and
! fine PRINCIPLES of law.
Now, may it please the court, what is an
impeachment The gentleman who read
from Cushing's Parliamentary law, said
that Impeachment was resorted to IN Or
der to reach high crimes and misdemean.
ors not otherwise to be reached. We do
not contest Mr.. Cushing's authority, but
he was writing the parliamentary law OF
England. In England, the parliament IS
supreme, and there is nothing to prevent
them from impeaching Lord Clarendon
there is 70 constitutional provision there
in reference to impeachment; hence, When
Mr.. Cushing treated the subject OF I'M
parchment, be stated what was the law IN
| England, and as far as England is con
cerned, it may be well, but we have dif-
ferent form of government here. Did ne
| not say that all power should be vested IN
the Parliament of England?
We say that all power is vested no
where; we say that, for certain great prin-
} ciples, governments are instituted; that GER