The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-04-02
REMOVAL OF JUDGES ON ADDRE ESS
AND BY ImPEACHmENT.

REMOVAL OF JUDGES ON ADDR ESS
AND BY ImPEACHmENT.
The removal of judges of the district
courts, on the address of two-thirds of the
members elected to each House of the Legis-
lature, has given rise to very erroneous
opinions. There is a very great difference
between the removal by address and i'm
peachment. For better illustration, it
may be said that the judges may be re-
moved by address for a misdemeanor, but
by impeachment, only for crime. In the
one of address, the Constitution holds that
they may be removed "for incompetency,
neglect of duty, or other reasonable causes,
which are not sufficient grounds for I'M
peachment." 1t will be seen that no crimi-
nal intent is necessary to be proved IN the
removal by address. A man might be per-
fectly honest, upright and honorable in all
his dealings and associations; he might be
a model citizen, good neighbor, devoted
and affectionate father. loved and respected
by all, and yet, might, if judge, be sub
ject to removal by address. And why?
Because, he might be incompetent He
might know but little of the civil and Grim
inal laws; might not be able to comprehend
the difference between murder and homi-
cide,. between positive and circumstantial
evidence; between an action of eiectment
and unlawful detainer; between the chal-
lenge of a juror for cause and peremptorily; !;
between an action of assumpsit and writ
of Gd quOd dGDa1l1m. And, yet, such igno-
rance would be no reflection upon his
honesty, or disposition to render to every
man his just dues. But, on the question of
address, would be sufficient cause for re-
moval. Again, being all that the most
scrupulous could require in his daily walk
and conversation he might for good cause
neglect his duties as a judge. Let us sup
pose that he was wealthy and very charita-
BILE, and that for the amelioration of the
condition of some unfortunate beings who
were suffering from disease, or hunger, or
any other cause, he should neglect to hold
his courts at the time required by law, and
instead, leave his home with his pockets
filed with money to be distributed for their
benefit. Yet he would be liable to removal
on address for neglect of duty. Could any
one say that he was bad man Such a
charge would be repelled as monstrous. He
would be called, and would be, philanthro-
pist. But while he was doing a very praise
worthy deed, the wheels of justice would
be clogged, and important legal questions,
involving the rights of others, would remain
unsolved and, perhaps, parties charged
with grave crimes and misdemeanors could
not be brought TO justice. Again, by his
mild and charitable nature, and on account
of sympathy for the family of some crimi-
nal, he might exercise undue forbearanee,
and fail to have the stern mandates of the
law enforced. Under our Constitution such
forbearance and leniency would be cause
for removal by address. But such removal
does not deprive him of any right or priv
ilege as a citizen of the State.
| Now, let us examine into the causes of
and effects of removal by impeachment.
The House of Representatives act in the
capacity of our grand jury. The repre-
sentatives draw up the bill of indict-
ment, and present it to the Senate. The
Senators while sitting as a court of i'm
peachment shall be upon oath. Mark the
difference. In the trial on address, the
members of the two Houses are not put
upon their oaths. The question then is SIM
ply presented for them to determine wheth-
er or not the judge is suitable and qualified
to discharge his duties. But when on trial
by impeachment, the case becomes very
serious one, and may work immense damage
to the accused; for upon judgment, he is
disqualified from holding any Office of honor,
trust or profit, under this State, and shall
be subject to indictment, trial and punish
ment, according to law. In other words,
judgment against him on the indictment of
the House of Representatives disqualifes
him from holding office afterwards in the
State; and after he leaves the Senate Cham
Der the grand jurors Of the different coun-
ties IN which the offenses were committed,
may indict him, and he may be tried, con-
victed, and even sent to the penitentiary.
Thus it viii be seen that the proceedings
in the two cases, and the results are totally
dissimilar. A man might be tried on mn
peachment and acquitted, and yet be one
of the most fit subjects in the State for re-
moval by address. We do not propose to
discuss the prOpriety Of proceeding against
q judge on address, after he has been ac-
quilted on impeachment. ItwOuld be well
for the dignity Of the State, and economy
Of the finances, to look well to the charges
preferred against the judges before pro-
ceeding. It is customary with lawyers to
examine the witnesses in their cases before
going to trial, so that they may know how
to proceed.
Without rejecting upon the Legislature,
would Il not be wen before proceeding
against judge in either Of the modes, to
examine the principal witnesses and ascer-
tain the character Of his ofIendingl Much
Is involved, and thorough examination
should be instituted before commencing
proceedings. We know that it is often
times very difficult for the various com
mittees to get the witnesses before them;
and that proCeedings arc actually begun
before any witness is examined. Parties
who are supposed to know all about the
charges and guilt Of the Judge draw up the
address or present ths bin Of impeachmeni
to the Senate. Vow. it does appcar that
che better plan would Be TO have every case
thoroughly looked into by the appropEinte
committees first and let them draw up sneh