The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-01-27
r,IEIMPEACIiMENT.

AR JAMES MORROW. of the counsel
c,r Treasurer BuRDETT, continued his
argument of the day before on the re-
s..ambling of the Senate as High Court
IF Impeschment Yesterday. He took
,be Ground that it was n settled principle
Tho, person in charge of public moneys
MIGHT Use i. for his own private ad-
r.n,sce until it WAS called for the public
use TO which it was designated, provided,
-, course that in so doing no
rsw WAS violated. and no fraud
committed. He alluded as proof, to the
custom which existed and was generally
recognized, of sheriiis doing the same
thing. lie cited the Impeachment trial
If Lord MELVILLE, Lord Admiral of
England, impeached for using public
funds to his private advantage, and who
even admitted that he did so, but VINO
sbwoed ,ha, he violated no statute,and was
therefore acquitted, to substantiate his
position. He then alluded to the point
made Il conspiracy. The only conspira-
- attempted to be proven was by the
purchase of $4,000 worth of stock IN
the Kanawha Valley Bank, by WM. 1.
ByRpETT for the purchase Of which
his father endorsed tor him. Counsel
,lsimei that this was simply an act of
father impc!.ei by II laudab!e desire to
aid Li, son. and there was nothing In 1t
to Justify the charge of conspiracy.
He then treated the charge of bribery,
and showed tina: bribery, being money
offered or received 20 lo an unlawful act.
never had been committed and as cor
rup,.oa involved the same offence, no
charge of either had been proven.
Mr.. MuKnow thea alluded to the only
charge OF Any consequence yet remain
ing, which WAS that respondent had been
guilty Of gross neglect of duty in not
making his regular reports. He claimed
that such charge was very Aimsy; that
bad such reports not been made, it was
simply sa oversight, and not an offence
worthy of such csnsideration'as to Justify
impeachment.
The real question and the one to be Sc
.iousy considered was whether in the
absence OF any fraud or any loss to the
State Of uinc, ;hc Senators were will
ing, merely tosa;i,fy Il clamor, to vote for
cenvic;ion. He appealed to them to d.
vest themselves Of all prejudice and have
the courage t. protect the respondent IN
A's right, urdrr ,h" Constitution.
Mr.. MoEK,w ;hark ked the court for its
sltcntion 10 li- remarks, and took his
seat. He VI, followed in the afternoon
By Col. W. W. ARSETT, also of counse!
Tor respondent. He confined his remarks
10 the point that impeachable offences
must be iniictsbe. He claimed that the
term "high crimes and misdemeanors'
Wa. taken from the Federal Constitution.
and ~ time when 1t was we'll under
stood that no ohence was impeachable
but such as was subject to indictment;
:ha: all our impeachment proceedings
were derived from, and based upon
English precedents. and there it had
been established, that impeachment was
not bar 20 indictment; but that the
ls:ter naturally followed the former. He
Claimed that the Senators should examine
the case with = legal eve, and if the law
plainly did not justify conviction, they
should not vote for it simply because in
their individual capacities, they wished
IT. ltthis precedent was TO be established
there would be no rule for the guidance
oi impeachment. What Senator would
regard sS impeschablc today. he might
not tomorrow, and so ali would be in
anarchy and confusion In short, the
scunsel took the ground that the law
must be REGARDED: that there should be
c,rs7.y understood rule; that impesch-
mrAt Proceedings should b. reduced to
science, snd that this being done no
conviction could beSecured.
lie continued in this strain at some
engib, and pending his argument the
Court adjourned.