The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-03-22
fCOMMUNICATED.
The BNHVts Refrigeration.

EDITORS CLARION: An article signed Re
publican" in the Times of the 18th contends
that Lieutenant Governor Davis had right
TO resign, because he says, lit is too late in
the day to say that a man may not resign
any Office and yet the same writer con-
tends that after verdict of guilty by the
Senate, that "the Office OF Davis as Lieuten-
| ant-Governor was in 60 Instant vacated, 'and
| that he had nothing to resign These ar
guments involve an absurd contradiction.
and are both incorrect. The Senate of the
| United States have determined IN the BiOunt
ease that no one cut ga civil officer can he
| impeached; and hence it follows thaC one
who has been a civil officer. but who, by
| resignation, has become a private individual
cannot be impeached. If the argument of
| Republican" is correct, that any officer can
resign ut any time, il follows that any Off
CIR, who has been impeached, may, at any
time, prevent the trial of his impeachment
| by resignation. To escape this obvious
| dilemma, 4" Kepq tlioan" gays, 1T is true
! it prevents ne farce Of q reD.ncaI by the SEN
! tence OF the Court, but does nos dcbar the
| Senate from declaring his disqualification,
| according to law The absurdity of Ibis
proposition is manifested by the admission
that the Senate would be enacting solemn
farce il it proceeded to pronounce the judg
meut of removal. which tic Constitution
fequires, when there was no civil officer 10 be
r. moved. The civil officer, and not the
man, is on trial in cases of imprachm ent.
and when the civil officer ceases to exist
the cause must stop. Ii would b. a absurd
TO speak Of proceeding to final iudg
mtnr in a capital case, when the d.
tendant had died pending the trial, as it
il 20 speak OF going on with an impcach-
mynt trial when the civil officer AS civil
officer is no more. The Constitution re-
qures judgment of removal from office
aud therefore when an officer has been i'm
peached, II he is guilty the pubic have "a
right to his disgracefu removal from office,
aud he has right to escape that disgrace
by voluntary esignatiOn any more than a
murderer no has been found guilty and
Salt 10 Jail 10 await his sentence can cheat
the gaIows and escape an ignominious
death by taking his own life.
The second proposition asserting that the
office of Davis was vacated by the verdict o.
guilty with a sentence and judgment is
equally faIlacious. Republican" cites soc.
ton 392 of the Revised Code OF 1871, and re-
lies upon the words ''fouhd guilty of any fell
ony." The quotation "eo tnstnidt'' reminds
us forcibly of the sly lie OF certain ju
dicial writer of the State that we take it for
granted "Republican" is lawyer aud we
ask him whether the words "found guilty
in section 392 are not of the same import as
conviction in other parts OF the Co le.
And we ask him further whether he. as a
judge, would pronounce any sentence Of
expulsion from office for any cause meI -
toned in article 1872 upon the mere verdict
OF the jury before IA judgment Of guilty had
been entered by the court. There nigh be
error in the finding of the jury and the
court mi ght. for many causes, lake the mat
ter under Amusement and not cnter iude-
ment until the next tern of e. urt and then
others might grant new trial aud vet ac
cording 10 the argument OF "R epublican,'
the defendants office would be vacated by
the verdict of the jury and the vacancy
might be filled be ore any final judgment
was reached in the ease. LEX.