New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-01

to law" MIR. Sustlto CIoiJ
menting on similar provision IN the t .If
n.;.''t;n1 of the United States, says III
tbara mnst he A Judgment of removal from
o4ice If would seem to follow that the con
stitn,ion contemplated that the party was
et;n in office at the time OF the lmpeacni,
ment IT he was not his ofenSe was SUI
I;aiJt tn be tried and punished IN the orul-
nary tribunals of Justice. And II mignt 10
arrned with some force that II "ouu "C
vain exercise of authority TO Try uoI ~
nuent for an impeachabie onense' " "on
was piven was no longer necessary
mr. attainable. And although
;ndgment of disqualification might sui DC
pronounced, the language OF the consult
zion nav Greats some doubt Whether IL c"n
he nronouuced without being coupled WIN
a ramnval from office. There is much fcFcb
in the remark that an lmpeachiiient Is
proceeding purely of poiltlea! nature ~
g moi so much designed TO punish an omen
L. 90 TO secure the State against gross
"tJ;o;al misdemeanCr." Story Con. sec. 4Oo'
When an officer commits an otense ne
NAV he amenablo to three court6-to
court of imreachment, to criminal court
and to q civil court The proceeding against
hin, in the first named court Is solely as an
officer. in the other two courts the proceed
ipps are against him as an individual.
The object OF the Impeachment Is hot 10
Dunish the offender, but TO protect tno
rights of the people from aouse' aHu ~
rescua their liberties tr0m violation ny an
unfaithful officer. There seems a peculiar
proprietv. in a republican government, al
Ieast in confirming the impeachInS power 70
persons holding Office Story, pd86 ~.
Indeed" saws Judge Story, 1.-THE moment
if was decided that the Judgment upon ftll
paachment should be limited 10 removal
and disqualification from Othce, III lollo"ou'
"a a natural result, that it ought not 10
reacb any but officers of the United States
# secms TO have been the original ooJecb
of the friends of the national government
to confine 1t to these limits, Tor IN inc
original resolutions proposed to the con
vention, aud in all the subsequent proceed
inns, tie power was expressly hmlteA 10
national officers" Sec. 237.
The weight of authority and OF reasrn
seems to preponderate IN laNol u. ont
oniuiou that trial on an Impeachment
ahouId rermiL ata with the term OF the
officer. ~, 49,
The expiration of his official life, like the
Natural death of the accused, during the
progress of his trial, hOuld put an end 20
the trial. ,,.-
In the case of Wicklffr. Auditor of Public
Accounts, I was asked whether the senate
could proceed to vote ON the question OF
a letter to the Senate announcing that he
had resigned his office under the following
circumstances:
Wickliffe had stood his trial. The cvi
dqnce had been closed the arguments had
been made, and the court was about TO vote
on the question of guilty or not guilty, When
q letter WAS read by the counsel tor the ac-
cused, stating that the accused had reslGneS'
I stated that under the circumstances The
Senate ought TO proceed to decide the case
and to pass jud Iment, because there was no
evidence before the court that he had re
signed His resignation had to be MADE TO the
Governor. There was no official evidence OF
that fact, even if his letter to the Senate
could be considered at all, having been pro
duced after the evidence and the arguments
had been closed. .
did not think then that a party should
he permitted to stand his trial and take the
chances of an acquittal, and at the last mo
,uent whpn the Senate was in the act OF
his guilt, to defeat the trla ny
sending letter OF resignation to the Sen
ate; / AIN still Of that opinion. But the
question presented in this case IS different;
The term of the officer accused has expired
by law, and with il, think, the prosecution
should end.
This is clearly the opinion of Mr., Justice
Story. On the contrary. Mr.. Rawlo seems
20 have entertained d. tfcrent opinion.
,. AS to the policy of proceeding with the
trial, give an opinion with great dillidence
AS that is not a OUTRIGHT question, but "a it
seems 10 oc ofsit"u ny the 2th"tt, VII
nosed mon me,
1t Is my deliberate opinion that the mere
Acknowledgement Of an individual is not
woItH ''i0 'i'"o anu "a '''iSo Va ''-' -'-
A' ..Ia ;o,, No ,,o,,, mas 10 cbarIaIIe" and
t,a ,,nJia%. If icI,;n,r daat lion
l, therefore, ans ,ger the questions EN-
braced III the order OF the Senate IN the
nosa''E7'
A''oi Vn' Ni"0i ''''','' ''"" o''''
op'nion, '''' ''iI' ''iss 0''l'' a. e'' ~
Mr.. Anderson:
Ordered, That fha OPINION OF the t!iH1