New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-31

cessOr had been indicted into ofnce pelore
the time allowed him for answering had ar
| rived. The court of impeachment then
asked the oprion of its presiding otlcer'
Chief Justice Ludeling, whether the case
should be prosecuted any further, and adj
journed until the twenty-seventh instant 10
receive his opinion. At the time appointed,
the Chief Justice delivered the following
| opinion:
| The Chief Justices majors, in obedience
to your order, Ihave prepared the following
opinion cu
In the matter of the impeachment OF IL.
G.. Warmoth, Governor of the State OF
Louisiana, in obedience to the order OF the
| Senate, requesting the Chief Justice ITO
advise the Senate whether, in his opinion,
this case should be prosecuted after the
term of office of the accused has expired,
have the honor to present the following
opinion:
The order seems to present two questions,
| one of law and one OF policy.
The law question does not appear TO nave
been iudicially sealed by the court having
| cognizance of it. Mr.. Justice Story says 1t
| is still sub judce. the final decision Of which
may be reasonably left to the high tribunal
constituting the court of impeachment,
| when the occasion shall arise. Article
ninety-eeven of the constitution OF this
| State provides that Judgments in cases OF
Impeachment shall extend only to
removal from office and disqualification
| from holding any Office of honor trust or
| profit in the State, bat the convicted par
| ties shall nevertheless he subject to lndIct-
ment, trial and punishment according 10
| law" Mr.. Justice Story, commenting on a
similar provision in the constitution OF the
United States, says: IF there must De
| Judgment of removal from office, 1t would
| seem to follow that the constitution con
| taYnDlota1 fhat tha still Ottlpe
| at the time of the impeachment. It he was
mob, his offense was still liable to be tried
| and punished in the ordinary tribunals OF
| Justice. And it might by argued with some
| force that it would be vain exercise OF
| authority to try a delinquent for an I'M
| peachable offense, when the most import
| ant object for which the remedy was given
was no longer necessary or attanable. And
| although ID Judgment of disqualification
| might still be pronounced, the language OF
| che constitution may create some dOuoe
| whether it can be pronounced without being
| coupled with % removal from office. Dhere
| is snuch force in the remark that an lm-
parchment is proceeding purely OF "a pc,
| litical nature. Vt is not SO much designed
| to punish an offender as to secure the State
| against gross official misdemeanOr." Story
| Guns, sec. 406.
When an officer commits an offense he
| NAV be amenable to three cOurtS-t0
| court of impeachment, % a criminal court
and 60 a civil court. 9he proceeding
| against him in the first named court is sole
/ Ip ae an officer in the other two courts the
I proceadings are agSnst hing as an dndiSi-
| dual.
She object of the impeachment is not 70
! punish the offender, but 90 protect the
rights of the people Prom abuse, and to
rescue their liberties from violation by All
untaithful officer. There seems peculiar
propriety, in a republican government, at
| least, in combining the impeaching power to
persons holding office" Story. page 256.
! Indeed" says Judge Story, ''the mo-
ment ii was decided that the judgment up
! on impeachment should be limited to re-
moval and disqualification from office, it
| followed, as a natural result, that it ought
| not to reach any but officers OF the United
| States. 1t seems to have been the original
| object of the friends of the national gov
| eminent to contne it to these limits, for in
! the original resolutions proposed to the con
| venti0n, and i'll all the subsequent proceed
| ings, the power was expressly limited 20
national officers" Sec 257.
! The weight of authority and of reason
| seems to prrp0nderate in favor of the opin-
ion that trial on an impeachment should
| terminate with the term of the officer
The expiration of his official life, like the
| na@iral death of the accused, during the
progress of his trial should put an end to
| the tr@al.
| In the case of WickIifft Auditor of Pub
lie Accounts, was asked whether the Sen
ate could proceed to vote on the question
of guilt or innocence after Nlrkllf8 mad
sent a letter to the Senate announcing that
he had resigned his office under the follow
ing circumstances:
N;ckitfe had stood his trial. The evil
Gbpnop lad been closed the arguments had
besSt lmat1a4 and the court was about to vote
! ou ti,a. question: qg gtgitty 0S aqaDt gully,
whem % letter was fGasg boy Chs Gs9oaGae9 g3P
the accused. sfaiing that the BGeOHseN9 Sis0
resigned. 3 stated that. UNDER Che, Gs'cW'N
| STANCES, che Senate VG2hs sN proceed @" de.
eide the ease and t"pa.e us'.aU"li. because
there wac no evidence before the cou:; hat
be- had res; .nesl. His resignation had Ia ts
EiA,.e t. the Governor. There WAS To 9th
a,ai evidence OF that fact even Il HE letter
TO sle Senate could l,e considered at all,
having been produced after the sVidsnre
and the argument. 6a! been closed.
did hos tiink then that - party shoUis.
b. permitted to stand his trial an'! take the
chances Gt IN acIa'ttal. Hpd as the last
moment. when the Senate WAS IN tie act Of
pioii.uncins his guilt. to s;eieaf the 'ris: lay
sru,iing letter Of resisnaiinn &" shr seh-
ase. ..s,, s::;l Ue ;nas opinion. Bus she
question psssenss,t in g;.;s ease is efficient.
The fern Of the sst;sr&r acG'Isoa! bias expired
si"n si,onl1 end.
Sh:s is clearly she Ogsigioa of MF. Justice
Story. ftn Che contrary, Mr.. Rawla seems
60 have entertained % ditfe nRt opinion.
2. As 70 the policy of proceeding with
Che trial, give an opinion with greaS diff
dence, as that is not Il judicial question;
but as it seems to be desired by the Senate,
| will not shrink from the responsibility
thus imposed upon me. 1t is my deliberate
baf the m dis IA SpDpIt ff
an individual is not worth the time and
expense OF an impeachment :" lie ieu ne
vaut pas la chandel!e." and question the
policy of - kicking dead lion"
3, therefore, answer the questions en-
braced in the order of the Senate, in the
negative.
The managers can not but express a
doubt as to the sOundness OF the view pre-
sented by the Chief Justice on the cOnst-
tutional question.
The opinion of Mr.. Justice Story does not
appear to them as clear and decided "a it
does to the mind of the Chief Justice.
The opinion of Mr.. Rawe in his admira-
BILE work on the constitution of the United
States edition of 1926, p. 203I. is decidedly
against the position taken by the Chief
Justice. Mr. Rawle says for the reasons
given by him 1T is obvious" that the per
cons liable to Impeachment ARE those who
are or have been in public office"
The opinion of the Chief Justice on the
question of policy viii probably commend
itself to the popular judgment.
The court adopted the opinion of the
CheI Justice as its own by the following
vote:
Yeas-Anderson, Barber, Blackburn,
Brewster, Butler, Burch, Greene, Harper,
X. f. Herwig, p E. Rerwig, Ingraham,
kelsO, Aasicot, Sypher, Twitchell-I5.
Nays-Alexander, Blunt, Pollard. Whar-
tom.
Thereupon the court of impeachment ad
ourned sine die.
Respectfully submitted,