New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-17

trial. and voted as they did in the House.
"a yery remarkable and instructive case
was that OF Judge Addison. OF Fennsyi-
vania. in 1904. There, after the articles
of impeachment were framed, the trlai was
postponed to another session OF the Legis-
lature. Meanwhile, three members OF me
House of representatives, who had voted
for the articles of impeachment were
elected to the Senate and became the
triers of the articles of impeachment OF
which they had solemnly voted the res
poudent to be guilty. To their sitting on
| the trial Judge Addison objected, but
after an exhaustive argument his obJec-
ton was overruled, II to 6. Two OF the
minority were the gentlemen who had
voted him guilty, aud who themselves
objected to sitting on the trial.
| THUS stands the case upon authority.
How does it stand upon principle?
"Tn conference held in 1851, between
the Lords and Commons, on q PROPOSE
| ton to limit the number of judges, the
Lords made answer:
THAT in the case of impeachments.
which are the groans of the people, ana
for the highest crimes, and carry with
them @ greater supposition OF guilt toau
any other accusation, there all the LORDS
must Judge.
..There have been many instances IN
England where this necessity that no peer
be excused from sittiog on such trials, mas
produced curious results. Brothers have
SAT- upon the trials of brothers, fathers
upon the trials of sons and daughters.
uncles upon the trials Of pephews and
neices, no excuse being admitted. One.
, and most peculiar and painful Instance.
will suffice upon this point to illustrate the
strength of the rule. In the trial OF Anne
Boleyn, the wife Of one sovereign of Eng
land, and the mother OF another, ner
J father. Lord Rochefort, and her uncle,
| the Duke of Norfolk, sat as judges, aud
voted guilty, although one of the charges
, AGAINST the daughter and niece was O
, criminal intimacy with her brother, the
: son and nephew of the judges.
1T would seem impossible that in q
| proceeding before such tribunal 80
a constituted there could be a challenge,
J because as the number of triers is limited
t by law, and as there are not now, and
g never have been, any provisions, either IN
/. | Epcland or in this country, for substl-
i tutiug another for the challenged party,
a as taesman is substituted in jury, the
4 accused might escape punishment alto
:. | oether by challenging sufficient number
to prevent quorum, or the accuser
Q might Cypress the respondent by chal-
:, | longing all persons favorable to him until
y the necessary unanimity for convlction
o was secured"
n Ihave cited English authority, and I have
e cited American authority enough, l
II think to satisfy you as to that most UNJUST
II and, as l conceive it, brutal attack upon
g one OF your members. which said that II
d he had any sense of justice and right, no
! 4 .;.hl ri SanAf0F
,e Lynch can not withdraw from the trlal,
n unless be is coward and runs away,
if aud / believe he possesses none OF
ls the attributes of q coward or
l. knave, but Aather principles strong and
% pure enough to stand up in the Senate
N honestly and perform his duty as he con-
N ceives it, faithfully and we'll.
r. It is, perhaps. unnecessary to discuss
Dr.. what are impeachable otfenses. think
IN have discussed it sufficiently. I undertake
OF 10 say that you can try any case, or any
Sc conduct of your public officers, which, by
or the constitution, you can impeach, and, Il
H. in your opinion, sitting here as the grand
h inquest Of the State, sitting here as the high
Oh court of impeachment, representing TN
Sc people, and for the purpose OF aseertaininl
a whether public officer has performed Oh
q duty, you can inquire into anything he ma
id, done, and, if you feel on your cath that n
I'd is Incompetent, unworthy, or unit Tor IN
las position delegated 10 him, you have tn
ie- power-yes, it is your right,
Ial is your sworn duty 10 iemov
he him. and to impose upon him the turtle
n nenalty of disqualification from ever afte
his holding public office. Because a man VIII
tie, is a citizen of a free republic, having az
| cepted tie obligation of men
of Der of that republic, who degrades the pc
ted s;tion of public Office. never shout
his hold ary other office within he gift
Sc; the selection of that republic. What ha
nal this officer done? How has this Officer
tie, elected to fill one OF the highest position
vas in the State, performed the trust Whs
cal do the facts show? First, we have show
,se, to YOU that that officer, having been serve
the with a summons to appear before the Sixt
to District Court, in this city, to answer to
hat netition for mandamus to compel him
the Issue a warrant for claim which we 80
it'll, was wrong, failed to appear, and we ga
for that the Auditor knew that the claim wa
hen wrong. aud he failed to respond. he
re- lowed Judgment to issne because the ca
Mr.. went by default. The mandamus was
sme sued. ahd within two days after, perem
use tory mandamus was issued, the party
ent whose favor it was issued appears in q
ted Office of the Auditor, and the Auoitor
that sues the warrant without question, We
his knowing, as he ought to have Known
nc, / understand that he has been practlcii
her lavyer-that he could have appeare
the either by himself or by counsel,
ght notified the Attorney General, and
t to could have appeared and applied for
ken nullity of Judgment on the ground II
de- under the law it was res ddjudicdt,T,
and cause the case had been determined on
e is and decided adverse to the applicant.
ator the Auditor does not do it, aud what
, he cuse does he give? He says 1t was
d in accident. An accident Do you want
low man in q high public Office, managing. I
lim- finances of the State, controlling the whit
sew financial interests of the whole State,
| set up plea before this grand tribunal
sen- the people that he allowed the State TO
lent cheated out of large sum of money
accident? And he says he thought 1t
'sOn a continuation of the other case, when
the well knew that the other case bad be
,nge decided. and that at that time il could not
, de- reopened; that if there was any case at
9 in it was a new process, whether In that
Y Of anv other CONT. 1t looks TO me- VI
SEED strange that this officer should nndera
10 in reduce this plea. Another thi
rned ia at looks strange to me is that gentlen
any so learned in tue law, so skilled In
TO q construction of the language OF the IL
ftnIr ny