The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1871-08-31
Further Executive InterGer-
ence with judicial Author

tions of Judicial functions and powers
are illustrated in the case of Thomas
E. Hogg, erpdrte, now pending in the
Supreme Court of Texas, the record Of
which case has been kindly shown us
by an attorney Of Hogg, the appellant.
This case, if not monstrosity, is at
least legal curiosity.
The appellant, HOgg, was at the
general election held in December,
1869, elected a Justice of the Peace
of Cherokee county, who qualified and
entered upon the discharge of his Off
cial duties. Subsequent to his cleo
tion and qualification, one Thomas
Sheriff, Lieutenant of State Police,
by letter communicated to the Execu-
tive, in substance as follows
That Justice Hogg was partisan in
the exercise of his functions; that he
imposed heavy fines and large cost
bills upon colored vioIators of the law,
and small fines and light cost-bills
on Democrats for similar offenses that
he had,refused to approve the official
bond of the County Treasurer of CherO-
kee county, an appointee of Davis ;
that he had instructed the Sheriff of
said county not to pay over money in
his hands belonging to the county, to
this Davis appointee, until his bond
had been approved by said Justice
Hogg; and lastly, that said Hogg was
opposed to the State Police, and would
not permit the State Police to execute
process in criminal cases issued from
his court.
Upon these charges, Davis sat in
solemn judgment at the city of Austin,
without any notice to Justice HOgg,
and at distance of over three hun
dred miles from him, and on the er-
porte evidence furnished by Lieutenant
Sheriff, of the State Police, totally un-
known 10 Justice Hogg, proceeded to
find Justice Hogg guilty of these
charges, and at once addressed a COM
munication to NJ. Priest, Judge of the
Fourth District, including Cherokee
county, ADVISING the Judge of his ac-
ton, and SUGGESTING to the Judge to
Immediately remove Justice Hogg from
his Office and order an election to fill
the vacancy. Judge Priest without
delay, in vacation and not in term
time of his court, on the 18th of May,
1871, without notice to Justice Hogg,
and without testimony, but acting on
the SUGGESTION of Davis alone, made an
order removing Justice Hogg from his
Office and directing an election to fill
the vacancy, and caused this order to
be entered on the minutes of tie Dis
trict Court of Cherokee county, and
enforc ed the same against Justice
Hogg. The facts herein stated
are all the facts disclosed in the record
on file in the Supreme Court which
throw light upon this transaction !;
and these facts appear over the official
signature of Judge Priest being recitals
in his order of removal, and intended
by him as the justification of his ac-
ton. The most prominent reason
gwen by this Judge, SO called, for his
order is, that Davis had found Justice
Hogg guilty, and had SUGGESTED his
immediate removal by the Judge.
Thus we have, in addition to the
most blatant usurpation of judicial
powers and functions and inexcusable
intermedling with a Judicial official,
a great outrage upon the sacred rights
of citizen and public officer, by Ex-
ecutive Davis. Besides this, we are
here furnished an index to the charac-
ter and qualities of Priest as man,
as well as an instance of the want of
fitness and qualification of the Davis
Judiciary.
This man Priest, in this case, has
proven himself unworthy of the title
of Judge, wanting in legal intelligence,
integrity and independence, and that
he is a mere tool, to be used by his
master, Davis, for base party purposes.
The emoluments of the Office of JUS
tice Hogg were as much property be-
longing to him during his term of office,
as is land the property of the owner.
Of these he has been deprived, by the
iawless conduct of Davis and one Of
his. judicial tools. There can be no
pretense of authority in the Executive
to remove Justices of the Peace from
office. The District Courts of the
State, during the terms of those courts,
and not in vacation, can remove JUS
tices of the Peace; and the District
Courts can remove only on complaint
being made, in those courts, of neglect
of duty or misconduct in office, and
after ten days notice to the Justice, OF
such complaint and then only after a
regular trial, according to the rules OF
law.
In this proceeding, Davis and his
plant Judge, without color OF law
have violated the organic law OF the
State, which they have both sworn to
respect and observe, some of the pro-
visions of which may be referred to
: One secures to the citizen "a speedy
and public trial by jury" another
: declares that ''the right of trial by jury
shall remain inviolate;" another Sc