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

| the position which has been taken Dy the
| managers on the part of the House OF Re
representatives. in this case, that an lmpeacn-
able otfense isnot necessarily an indlctable
offense, that it is not necessary to estab-
| lish before YOU. as Court of 1mpeach-
| ment, that the prisoner at your bar IS guilty
| of offenses which are indictable under the
statutes of our State, but that OF mis-
demeanors in Office, for NAL administra-
ton in office, for imbecility, for insanity,
for immorality. Even this, officers ac-
cording to these authorities, may be az
raigned before you, and if the charges
| against him are sustained. he is liable to
| be removed from Office, for he is no longer
| fit to discharge his Office. This is the
ground we take in appearing before you
and arraigning the Auditor OF Public Ac-
| counts.
AS the House of Representatives. We
| charge that he is guilty OF certain acts
| call them crimes, misdemeanors or what
you please-as State official which rem
| der him no longer fit to act in that capa-
| city We do not charge him with crime
| which should be punished by intiicting
upon him penalty affecting his person or
| his property, but that he is guilty OF NAL
administration in the affairs Of his Office,
| Of eXtortion, malversaton, and other
| crimes and misdemeanOrs. In using the
terms crimes and misdemeanors. we apply
| it in its parliamentary sense-the broadcast
and most comprehensive. We have au-
| thority for stating that this term means
| nothing actually, but is merely used to
give greater dignity and weight to the
charge. Call then, these official misdeeds,
what you please, crimes or misdemeanols,
Manifestations IN Office, maladminlstratlon
Or extortion, we arraign before you George
| NJ. Wickliffe, for certain acts in his official
| capacity, which, we think, have been estab-
| lished by the testimony offered, and TASK
you, because he has been proven guilty of
these criminal acts, to declare him no
longer worthy to hold office under the
| State of Louisiana, and that he has so far
| abused the trust imposed IN him by the
| people of Louisiana, that in their interest
he should be removed from office and
should be declared forever incapable Of
| again holding Office in this State.
IhId-What is the nature of the pro-
ceedings in impeachment trials Is 1t
criminal, civil or political? Article SIX OF
! the constitution declares 'that prosecu-
| tons shall be by indictment or lntorma-
ton. The accused shall be entitled to a
speedy public trial by an impartial jury OF
the parish in which the offense was COM
mitted, unless the venue be changed. He
shall not be. compelled to give evidence
against himself; he shall have the right of
being heard by himself or counsel; he shall
have the right of meeting the witnesses
SEES face to face, and shall have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses In his favor.
He shall not be tried twice for the same
offense." If it is criminal proceeding 1t
is q prosecution, and therefore,. under
article six OF the constitution it should be
| by Indictment or information, and the ac-
cused, if it were a criminal prosecution IS
entitled to speedy trial, by an impartial
jury of the parish where the offense Is COM
mitted, unless the venue is changed. The
article makes no exception, and we are not
permitted to make any under it. Article
ninety-six provides for the trial by impeach-
ment of the Auditor of Public Accounts,
together with other officers Of the State
government, and this article, which l have
already read declares that the Auditor OF
Public Accounts. ETC., shall be tried by the
Senate-the Senate is not the jury OF the
| parish where the crime was committed, 1t
is not an impartial jury. If it were a jury
it could not be regarded as an impartial
Jury for whatever may be the hostility OF
Senator, or however prejudlced against
the accused, they are competent to try the
issue as presented by the accusations OF the
House of Representatives THERE'S, there
fore, an irreconcilable antagonism between
articles SIX and ninety-slx, II the tr1al OF
an impeachment be a criminal trial. A
universal rule OF Interpretation is, that ar
| ticles of the constitution, like sections,
| are clauses of law, and must be so con-
strued as to make them harmonious, if pos
sible. We will observe that rule Of inter-
| probation, byholding that an impeachment
trial is not a prosecution-not criminal
| trial-and this Interpretation IS supported
by reason. A proceeding is said to be
criminal when the object of it is to punish
the offender for crime or misdemeanor. In
cases of Impeachment, the person or prop
erty of the accused is beyond the reach of
the court. A removal from Office is not a
punishment-itis not penalty denounced
by the law against an offense-it is only an
incident resulting from the guilt Of the
offender. When the President of the
United States removes an incumbent from
office, that is not punishment-it is not
inal proceeding when the courts, under the
intrusion act remove an, officer from office ;
nor is it a criminal proceeding when the
courts remove an executor or admlnlstra-
tor from his Office of trust, for nlalversa-
ton or culpable. negligence in office. In
support of this position, l desire to refer
the Senate to the twenty-frst Louisiana
Annual Reports The State ex rel. ETC., VS..
j. D. Watkins, and Rogers VS.. Morrison.
"It may be well to observe that the
constitution does not declare for 1ohot cause
any officer may be impeached except Judges
OF courts.
Article ninety-fve seems to vest the House
of Representatives with the power, without
limiting it, and leaving the matter to the
final Judgment of the Senate. Article
eighty-one restricts the impeachment OF
Judges to 90 crimes and misdemeanors, and
the same article authorizes the removal of
judges by an address. An Auditor can be
removed only by impeachment, but the cause
not limited in the constitution. See articles
ninety-fve and 100. 1t will be noticed,
therefore, that the constitution of Louisiana
differs from that Of the United States IN
this, that it does not use the term
treason, bribery or other high crimes
and misdemeanors."
These, Senators, are the reasons, and
these the authorities, which I propose to
adduce at this time to sustain the position
which 1 take, namely, that this is not
criminal procedure. If it is not criminal
procedure, it necessarily follows that it
must be civil procedure Of some kind.
And for the sake Of argument, l am willing
to admit that it is civil in its nature. But in