New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-17

VISION according to the command of the Constitutional
Convention, should be made for all.
Mr.. Woodin said the Senator from the IIId mista
ken He had admitted that the bin improved by the
amendment Of the Senator, but he said nothing about
distinction between officers.
Mr.. Jacobs said that 1t not his intention to exempt
any official from punishment for malversaton II the
majority adopted his present substitute amended he
proposed that should also be taken to provide
for the removal OF the others.
The question was then upon Mr. Jacobss substitute,
when Mr.. Parmcnter said:
Mr.. Chairman. I desire briefly TO express my views
upon the very important brought before 1t
seems to be generally conceded that there Is constu
uonal obligation imposed upon the Lcgislaturea obi
cation too long deferredo provide for the removal Of
State officers who may be guilty Of misconduct There
does not appear to be difference OF opinion as to the
fact that there is such obligation The precise question
Is to the method OF removals. to the composition OF
the tribunal before which such State officers should be
called to account Two methods have been suggested In
the two bills before the Senate and third has been sng
gested by the Senator from the XVIII. Let consider
these several modes. In the first place, would
consider the proposition in Senate bill No 211,
reported from the Judiciary Committee In place
Of its original report, and which provides
for removal the Senate the recommendation of the
Governor by the Of twohrds Of the men,
be In session when such officer is suspended, IL shall
proceed without delay trial. II it is not In session.
the Governor shall convene 1t in extra session within 80
days There s Mr. Chairman, serious objection to that
mode The Senator from the XVIII threw out one,
that the dominant party In the Senate wonld screen
political friend but hardly think that would prove to
be the IL the Governor should deem It his duty to
recommend the removal Of offending Official But
there are forcble objections. Suppose the other
branch of this Legislature. equally vgilant In
tho performance Of its duties, should
while the trial Of offender was pending
In the Senate conclude 70 mpeach the same official on
the saIno grounds, and should order it, What would
then ensue The would be placed twice in peril for
the oense which trial would have precedence Or
suppose the two Courts differed in their conclusions
woud the man be removed retanedi Or II proper
for removal occurred and the Governor should con-
vene Senate would that exclude the Assembly from
right of impeachment This mode Mr. Chairman, Is
clearly out Of the question Let sec what the mcde
proposed by the Senator from the XVIII is. II i
understand him correctly, he proposes that
tribunal be provided to consist Of the presiding
judges OF the four departments Of the Supreme Court
end the ChefJustice Of the Court OF Appeals But IN
case the latter officer member OF the Court The same
objection will apply in the previous case FOR he would
be called TO preside in Of Impeachment OF an
officer and would be called 10 aid the other Judges IN
another trial of the same man. The question recurs
then Can this mode desirable Does not inaugurae
practice which absolutely changes or modhes the
law Of trial by impeachment and thus nvades the Con
st.uton And again, We give this trial to the judi
ciary tribunal alone, another question arises,
What are the powers Of the COURT 1t Is
a subordinate court. Is the thai then
fni Does the accused have right Of appeals Where
tried by a subordinate court there is always the
right appeal the court Of last resort Ia there to be
none in this case when is trial where his char
acter and position at stakei We cannot do that.
And should there be right of appeal Is not the pro-
posed remedy stn unprecedented II, too, invoves
double trial The right OF removal must be lodged Ia the
Governor There Ia other such power liz not
likely to be abused The characters of the Governors OF
the State Of NevYorh for the last half century have
such insure that not would abuse the trust
repOscd 10 him Besides there are strong reasons why
proper that this high power should be lodged the Exec
tive He is charged by the Constitution with the on
fcrcement of the laws This extra power proposed i'm
poses high responsibility, but 1t is necessary, because
men very high in Office have deserved removal No
Governor would abuse the trust He may err In judg
mcnt but he would not Intentionally abuse the trust
He would know that 1t would be the deahknell OF bis
political life to exercise the power Improperly or
tyranncaly. II is certain that We are living in evil
days Official trusts betrayed IN every section Of the
continent The good old times when men holding high OH
c.a trusts would have sacrificed life before they woudha
betrayed their public trusts have passed away would
not say what this change is owing but am sure that
since the Inauguration Of the Of the Rebellion there
have strange notifications in the public mind to
the duty Of public There is cancer upon the body
polite The scat of it ia in Washington and infects the
great arteries of the nation in every direction We must
remove that or decay will pervade the Constitu-
ton. Official accountability must be placed some
where and enforced. The offender deserves
demnatiOn. Frauds are peTpetrated OF such gross
character such gigantic robberies are perpctrated
upon the Treasury that something be done speedily
AZ leh hold cd The
heads of all officials ask Senator's to forget party feel
ings Notwithstanding have Democratic Governor,
and trust him far enough put this power in his hands
for execution he will faithfully exercise It, No Senator
will regret it, With this power in his hands, this sword
of Dam0ces suspended by single thread hanging
the heads all officials there will be rObberies
no unbalanced bids allowed canvassed but the several
departments will perform their duties properly, and ali
will rise up to rejoice that Gov THden had inaugurated
and the Senate had seconded the measure.
Mr. Lanng said that as a member OF the Judiciary
Committee which reported this bill he desired TO speak
upon It, and would move that the Committee report
progress upon and make IL specla order or tuesday
morning.
Mr. Raw inquired OF the Senator from the lid if he pro
posed to press this bill IN the Senate II
important measure and he would not consent 10 having
q vote pressed upon the Senate without due notice.
Mr. Jacobs said he had desired to urge the matter 10
vote but as number OF Senators objected he would not
do So
Progress then reported, and in the Senate on
ton of Mr.. Jacobs, Ii made special order for Tues
day morning, Immediately after the reading OF the
Journal.
THE CANAL INVESTIGATION.
TESTIMONY OF EXCANAL COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN,
wM 3. COOPER AND CHARLES A. SWEET BEFORE
TUE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.