New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-26
TIE CORRUPT JUDGES.
TIE REMEDY AGAINST THEM--REMoVAL OR IN
PLACEMENT

THE REMEDY AGAINST TIIEI-REMOVAL OK lh-
PLACEMENT
Two remedies are provided by law Tor diS-
posug OF unirst judges ono is by impeachment, i1e
other by removal, by concurrent resolution OF DOM
branches OF the Legislature.
In the first the articles OF impeachment are preferred
by n majority mot two-,hrds) OF the Assembly; and
when so preferred TO the Senate the accused Judge IL
instantly suspended from all exercise OF his ohcai iuhc
tons until tried and acquitted No matter now long tho
trial may last how tedious the deiay-whetberSo days
six months or two tho accused Judge Is bound
hand and foot till he acquitted. The Court to try tho
Impeachment composed Of the Senate with us pre-
siding Ccer and tho Judges OF the Court OF Appeals
These Their. when full would make the High Court
consist OF 40 membcrs 81 in full court would DO heces
sary to conviction. Should political matters
enter into consideration tho trial. the Court womb
have In It % Renublcans two Reform Democrats ana
"a ocular Democrats Chat is six Senator'S five Judges
md tho Should Tweed be oused
or decline taking his seat 80 members would form the
court; % would be twohrds and could convict That
would he Just the number Of Republican members to
VII: scnators and two judges II TO these DO added
tic two Reform Senators, thcro would Do 23
The other remedy that of removal by joint resolution
on 81 the oW Sh Article Of the Constitution provides
that Judges of the Court OF Appeals and Justices OF
the suprrInc Court may lie removed by concurrent reso
In ion both Houses of the Legislature twOthirts OF
all the members elected to each House concur theren
II dos not say for what cause c reoYai my 10 %
whether or personal or political reasons IL leaves hc
AsseInbyJncn and 20 senators are sufficient to make tho
REMOVAL Under similar provision other states have
Oftsn removed for political reasons alone But that
cOurse would neither he proper nor necessary. me
cause" he spread upon the journals. copy OF
the "chargc8 10 be served tho accused and he Is
10 "haye the opportunity of being heard" Inc two
~ ne ius" and OF tho evidence to sustain It. and
higher power can override their Judgment; ..,...
Ihcse remedies cumulative, and not antagonistc
They may both be taken and pursued simultaneously.
Articles impeachment could be preferred suspendn2
concurrent resolution and after that judgment might
s be rendered the impeachment rs the Judgment in
that case may he not only for the removal from ONCE
but fer disqualification ever to hold any once under
mdependont OF The now article Of the Constitution inst
ced that article relates solely to The Judeiary the
s,G% a BY the al eE O gS "a l saas
for NAL and corrupt conduct in office: and nd, Tor
Eianes p 49, section &C. ercry officer inpeached shall
be suspended from the exerc of his office until his ae
Quit ~" these provisions have never been repealed,
and under every civil Officer whether Mayor Con
S GS@ cfch G Sd ii for en be-
impea he'd by the Assembly and thus thcr functions
The comedies abundant and the subjects for their
application not wanting.
PROTEST AND A REPLY.
10 the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: Your issue Of this morning. under the
oh0vo CAPTION contained reference to Tire Of Shep
herd ast. Thompson T1ghe DuIf Inspired doubtless
ny tLt atSORcy doI tle p, III LIN a' f t t
papers on Tile In the suip are these:
bs To- he Tor te benefit OF his creditors The
va!t aud bona fdes of that assignment have been
tabshed ~ Judgements in number OF teations in the
Supreme and Superior Courts. at General Term, and by
tho Court OF Appeals. An accounting by Tghe as az
paang long lime in Brooklyn, and kept open to al
lew the creditors ovory possible opportunity to question
TIE conduct Of III CHE These facts well known 10 the
attorney for Shepherd when this action was brough and
yet 1t commenced in behalf OF Shepherd and all the
OTHER creditors OF Thompson who might como In, (none
@ ~ s a SoG f%S , OF
receiver TO take POSSESSION OF properly amounting IN
lc, charged IN the complaint to sl5o0 and that
So the extent of 5000 Upon the trial the plaintiffs at
tOTncy asked to disc0inue to Duff, he was Sats
sustained. The Court dismissed the complaint, with an
allowance to Duff of $500 and dismissed the complaint
ne TO other defendants but held the question OF al
owancc to them open until the following morning when.
all the facts appearing upon alhays, he gave Tighe.
% 81 SS'ar'1 'Of i'0n anu 1HO'On al 'O" 'N'0
The Code provides 6 300, subdivision q "The Court
may ALSO In lis discretion, make further allowance TO
party not exceeding yc per cent room the amount
Of the recovery or claim or subject ma ter involved"
motion Is now pending before Judge Barnard TO
duco the allowance based upon affidavit or the plain
l VINO states that he brought the action In good faith
upon the representation Of his attorney Mr. Compton,
that 1t would not cost hln anything So that the record
bringing action, charging fraud upon the defendants,
in the face Of the Judgments referred TO above; his attor
seeking to settle with the defendants because they
could better afford that than the pense OF litigation the
fact thai The Court had the right to grant Duff allow
Of $1,000 and the other defendants an allowance Of
$3.50. And although the provision OF the Code above
cited was lnancsty intended for just such this
the Court instead OF granting per cent as per cent
stated In your article gave the defendants, a told,
rte beyond one per cent on tho subject matter in
VOWED"
Now, am obscure attorney md "a llto known TO
Judge Barnard as tn THE TRIBUNE but may that
previous to reading your article, this morning. mem
Der OF the bar entertained greater contempt for judge
Barnard than |, and that opinion was engenderod
very largely by THE TRIBUNE / have changed my
mind be, ase see that iu the only instance where tho
facts are known to me your statements altogether
unreliable.
"Falsa, IN uno J1siU IN omnibus"
Judging from my ule experience with newspapers.
have idea that you viii publish this letter; yet
deem 1t proper TO send 1t to In tho first instance
Respectfully, &C., EDWIN u. DAVIS,
OF counsel for Tigne & Thompson.
Ne,c- York. Jan. 20, 1872.
GUS paragraph has been omitted, really contains no
reutaIion OF the previous statement in The TRIBUNE
But its publication will TO show TO what straits the
Ring judges and their friends driven sustain the
characters which they to fancy worth sustaining
well the weakness OF the defense they make when
they do speak. As Mr. Davis seems by his confcs
have facility for changing his position which Ia
rvaled only by weahervane 1t may be that, when no
secs himself actually In print, he will AJAX himself |
whether after ALL ID would not have been respect
full TO him 10 have thrown his letter In tho wascbasket
than to publish It, 1t sa little singular say the least
that he changed his mind In regard 10 Judge Barnards
corruption only when he fanced himself reflected on,
though 1t Is scarcely necessary to say that no such re-
Election was intended made, thesonly object OF tho
article being stated 10 expose judicial corruption
illustrated by the peouniay value OF judicial friendships
Every who reads this letter. however, will perceive
that The phrase all 0thor creditors" which was part OF