The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1875-03-13
isSiss sf Proceed sfs n 'S6s' 6x:Ss; q

sSiss 81 n a.; 6x:ss q
tn !Trsasurer- Oardeso. 80. tetp.a.
During the evening eession OF the
House oi Representatives., on the 1lth,,
Mr. Barker introduced the, following
! report ,sud roles OF procedure in the
General Assembly. sitting at che hear.
ing Of the defence OF Hon. F. L. Car.
dozo, State Treasurer:
The committee to whom was re-,
ferred the preparation OF an address to
his Excellenoy the Governor, asking
the removal from Office of Hon. f. l..
| Cardozo. State Treasurer, have felt it
their 'tnty farther to report for the
consideration Of the General Assembly
such rules OF procedure to govern the
vote upon the said address, as appear
to them necessary and consistent will,
the provisions of Section 4, Article
VII Of the Constitution. Tho rules
which they recon- m end ore simpl. aud
scarcely need any commentary on
their part. For framing these rules Of
| procedure, the anxious desire of yuur
committee hus been to secure to the
respondent that bearing i'll bis ,lefenot,
! which j" guaranteed By the ccns.!.n
] tional provision under authority OF
which this address has been moved.
and yet to recognize. as they are
bound to do, tho broad and inteu-
! tional difference which the same CON
stitutional provision draws between q
trial by impeachment and proceed
| ing under its special committee.
The intention of the Con Stitntion
appears to your committee to be he
yond doubt. When au executive of.
| tioer has been guilty of grave crimes
| and mlsdemeanors, where both the uct
and tue motive to tho act have been
criminal, where due regard to the
safety and character of the State re-
quires not only his conviction but his
signal punishment, then the Constitu-
tion on the one hand arms the Legis-
lature with the powerful weapon of
impeachment, aud Oh The other gives
to the accused the protection of a legal
trial, with all its dilatory and evasive
forms. places him upon that trial on a
precise and technical issue, aud pro-
| nounces his acquittal, unless two.
thirds OF the whole representation
elect ehall be convinced of his guilt,
| and shall 40 declare upon their oaths.
But taught by all political experience
that the interests Of the State might
be dangerously imperilled by offences
scarcely criminal, by Incompetence,
by loose and careless habits of bust.
| ness, by feeble sense of RESPONSE
bility on the part of executive officers,
! fro NF
provided that where two-thirds Of both
houses of the General Assembly tiud
in the official character of snch an Of.
| 6cer sufficient evidence of his incom-
petency, or his unfituess for the dis
| charge of his duties, aud where they
believe that the interests or character
OF tho State are endangered by his
continuation in Office, it shall be their
duty so to declare. and to require his
removal from Office. In brlefer and
simpler words. the Constitution has
given two-thirds of both houses of the
General Assembly the right to remove
an executive officer By vote of wan:
Of confidence. It is great privilege.
1t IL very great and grave duty, bat
surely it is not too violent presump.
tion to assume that such power may
safely and wisely be entrusted to the
Legislature of sovereign State, that
they can aud will exercise this privi-
lege and discharge this duty fearlessly,
impurtialIy and honestly.
1t seems clear, therefore,, to your
committee that in voting upon tho ad.
dress for the removal of tho State
Treasurer, the General Assembly is
acting, not in judicial but in an ad-
ministrative character, that they are
not sitting in Judgment upon a crimi-
nal, but that they are simply taking
care that the republic shall suffer no
wrong from the incompeten ,e of its
officers, the natural exercise of a very
important, but normal function Of
their organization. It will be observed
that the address carefully abstains
from charging upon the State Trea-
surer any criminal intent as far as its
allegations GO; it is not impossible
that the acts, both o: commission and
omission, charged. nay have been the
result of Ignorance, cal ,!sssness, or
were OF mistaken and opinionnted
Interpretation of law, aud tha. consc-
luontIy the proceedings neither re.
quire nor contemplate from the Gene
raj Assembly, or.any member thereof,
a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Iu-
deed, every fact charged might Le
proved beyond doubt. and yet the
General Assembly would be perfectly