Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1871-04-14

and the Constitution arrested, detained.
| imprisoned and otherwise ma'treated
peaceable and law abiding cItlzsns OF SAID
counties.
| Third. That he unlawfuily anil without
warrant arrested the Hon. josiah Iurn+r +,
Jr.
Fourth. That he unlawfully and IN sub
version of law and the Constitution tus-
pended the privilege Of the writ OF hH6edS
corpus.
Fifth. That be uniawfully recruited an
army of desperate and lswles' characters
and armed and equipped them a. an army
of soldiers. and un'awfuily made hl+ war
rants upon the Treasurer of the State Tor
large sums of money for it's support ana
| maintenance.
Sixth. That he, wickedly Intending to
suspend and subvert the laws of the State,
inclted. ordered, procured and commanded
A. d. Jenkins to defy and disregard writ
OF Injunction Issued 10y one Of the Superior
Court Judges of the State.
The foregoing. think, are the material
charges, under the different specifications,
against the respondent. My purpose Is 10
examine into the truth of these charges
candidly and according to the solemn OBJ
legations Of the oath l have taken
to try the respondent impartially. 1 have
no revenge to crafty in this matter. and
no uDkind personal feeling to promote L
enter upon the discharge of the high,
solemn and important duty with feelings
of pain and modification. That North
Carolina, nay 2tutire State, should be the
first State in the Union to prefer articles
Of impeachment against her Gov ernor, is
matter of pain and modification to the
good citizens of the Commonwealth. With
every disposition to judge cbaritably and
at the same time justly L approach the
investigation. Did the respondent falsely,
corruptly and Wickedly proclaim and
declare the said counties of Alamance
and Casweu III Instruction The
answer of the respondent admits that
he proclaimed and declared the said cOun-
ties in insurreltiCn, and the only question
on this branch of the Investigation, there
fore, Is as to whether he did II falsely cor
rupty and wickedly. In other words, were
the said counties in instruction when so
declared by tho respondent, Tor take 1t
that the corrupt and wicked purpose nee
essarily follows if it appears that the
proclamations are untrue, unless the con
trary appears from the evidence, and the
burden of proof is on the respondent to
show this. As [ understand the position
of the respondent, it is not pretended by
him that these counties were in insurrec-
ton according to the general leg under
standing of that term, but it IS lnsistt d
that the ''civil authorities" III these cOun-
ties were ''unable TO protect the citizens
| in the enjoyment Of life and property, "
and that, therefore, the respondent was
authorized by the Act of the General As
sembly, ordinarily known as the 'Shoff
ner" Act, to proclaim and declare said
| counties in resurrection. Did this act SO
authorize the respondent Every act of
| the Legislature must be construed to be
consistent with the Constitution, unless
the contrary clearly appears. In usb 6
the term g insutrection in this
| called, ! suppose, therefore, that the Leg
islature used 1T in the same sense
in which it is used in the Constitution,
and as there is nothing in the Constitu-
ton indicating that the trainers of that
instrument intended to give the word lin
surrectiOn" any ether than the ordinary
Specification. 1t seems clear TO my mind
that the term 'InsurrectiOn, q, used i'll
the Act of the Legislature. was intended
to mean an ''inGnrrection" in its usual
sense. If these propositions are correct it
will follow that the inquiry Is whether
these counties were i'll ''insurrection" in
point of fact according to the usual legal
meaning of that term l have already
said that, as l understood the position
taken by the respondent, he does not pre-
| tend that snch was the case. The act of
the Legislature under which the respond
ent undertakes to justify, recites ''That
the Governor is hereby authorized and
empowered. whenever in his judgment the
civil authorities IN any county are unable
to protect its citizens in the enjoyment OF
life and property, to declare such county
to be in state of instruction" Sc. The
commission Of a great number of crimes
in q county will not I submit, under the
wording Of eren this statute. Justify the
declaration of ''insu:rcction" while the
''civil authorities" are unmolested and I'M
interrupted in the administration Of the
public justice. and the execution OF
the laws is unresisted. This view to
my mind is irresistible For to con
cude that the civil authorities'' are un-
able to project its citizens ''In the enjoy
mant OF life and property" while they are
uninterrupted, and unreslsted in The e1tr
else of their power, 10 TO Gdi.tlt 6 Wea kneSb
In the administration CT The laws lncon-
ceivable, and such conclusion could OILY
have the effect to bring Into c)utempt he
ADMINISTRATIONS of tie laws by civil au-
thority, ana would justify either the aboli-
ton of tue sy sten, or the l9mOyai OF the
weak and imbecile authorities, as it might
appear that the one Or the other was al
fault. [ conclude that state of insurree
ton cannot exist where the ''ciVil authosi-
ties" IRE in the full, free and uurestrained
exercise Of power. The proof IL this sse
is full that there was no resistance to the
execution of the laws in Alamanco and
Caswell. The courts were regularly held,
and the officers say that they could execute
any process or warrant in their hands
There was 10 Resistance to the execution
of the laws. A!amance a4d q swell were
not, therefore, in sEins4freetion" in point
of fact, and If this be go Eheu it follows
from the premises herein laid down thai
the respondents proclamation was false
as charged, and that he knew il to be so
Secondly. Did tb~ respondent unlaw
fully arrest, detai; hold, imprison ant
otherwise maltrcat -.e4y Of the peaceabIt
and law abiding cit lions OF said counties
The respondent in his answer admits thu
arrest and detention Of the persons nance
in the Articles of impeachment. Werl
those arrests mad unlawfully and without
warrant, is. therefore. the question for in
vestgation =? If there was no insurrectio1
existing in the territory in which the ar
rests were made it must most certainl,
follow that they were unlawfully made
unless made by peace officers in the ordi
nary discharge OF their duties, or by du,
Dr0ceSS iSSuad nv aoma MAGISTRATE TIL.