The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-01-11
THE cAsE or JuDGE vAw BRUSr.
Reasons why lie should Not be Allowed TO
Occupy the Bench.

To THE EDITOR or THE SUN-Sir: adj
miro your fcarcssncss and fidelity in calling
pu tic attention to the improprIety Of judge
Van Brunt continuing to occupy the bench after
recent events. That hc had committed adult
terry and been divorced from his VITO for that
cause, might not make a case FOR public action
In the matter, as 1t could bc claimed taat this
affair which concerned his private
morals and his domestic relations only, though
a cproach to the man.
but there is much more and worse Of his case.
D. the statute Of the State, a person divorced
for adultery Is prohibited from marrying again
during the life Of the party procuring such d.
vorce, and any marriage IN violation Of this pro-
vision Is declared absolutely void. Moreover,
the decree Of divorce in such case ls required
to contain, aud the decree against Judge Van
Brunt does contain, such prohibitions In the
face and violation of this statute and decree
Judge Van Brunt and the lady whom he has
since married both residents OF this state, and
sui ject to our laws-eft their homes here, and
went TO England, and were there married, and
undoubtedly left here Tor the purpose Of being
married..
Now. what have we before US for public con-
sdetatlon ana actiony a gentleman, while
occupying high Judicial position, openly viO-
llting statute Of the State, and decree Of one
OF It's highest courts. For the former IL IL not
pretended that he can be indicted as for the
commission Of a criminal offence. But for the
latter he Ia liable to I've proceeded against for
to be married, while resident here, in attempt
ed evasion of our laws, Is just "a much viola
ton Of the statute aud decree, as II the mar
riagc was soemnzed here. so recently held
by the General Term OF the supreme Court In
this district, IN which Judge WestbrOok de-
lNored a learned and conclusive opinion.
Tuen, how unit Is this man to occupy
the bench. lie sits there "a living example Of
the open defiance Of law. Nay. ia the discharge
Of hi functions, he viii often have To pass SINH
lar DEGREES to tnat which was entered against
him, ana which he has SO Il GRAVITY aud shame
lcs-lV violated. What l. the moral Of III That
his example Is license to every other divorced
auultcrcr to 20 and 90 likewise. is this such
an administration ct Justice ~ the public should
demand i tins sample OF the reformed ana
purified Judiciary when we 80 much uccdY Is
It seemly that the judicial ermne should be
thus dctlcdY
1t seems to be the impression OF those who
have taken part In tho discussion Of Judge Van
Bruut'. case that a conviction under impeaCh-
ment IS necessary to hts removal, and that he
cannot be convicted m such proceeding unless
charged with an indictable offence. This ques-
ton docs not neCess rily arise There are many
causes for wuIcn a Judge should be removed
watch would not probably be the subject Of
impeachment. Hence the Constitution provides.
article q, section II, that Judges Of the Court
Of AppcIis and Justices OF the supreme Court
may be removed by concurrent resolution Of
both Houses OF the Legislature, II twO.thirds Of
all the members elected to each House concur
therein. All judicial officers, except those mem
toned in this section, and except Justices OF
the Pc 4cc aud Judges and Justices Of inferior
courts not Of record, may be removed hy the
Senate, on the recommendation OF the Governor,
Il twu-thifd- OF all the members elected 10 the
Senate concur therein"
This provision WAS undoubtedly intended to
meet cases not impcachahlc as drunkenness,
Ignorance, tyrannicM conduct, aud any other
cause of unhtness for the bench Certainly none
with which Judge Van Brunt stand. chargeable.
EA-JlDJE.