The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-01-28
IMPEACHMENT YESTERDAY.

The Senate having assembled rs Il
High Court of Impeachment, at the usu-
al hour proceeded with the trial Of State
Treasurer BURDErT. w. w. ARNETT
for the defense continued his argument
as follows:
He treated quite extensively the ques-
tim OF bribery claiming that to substan-
tiate such charge, they must be either
actual or supposed injury to the prlncl-
nal for whom the bribed man was acting.
The managers had asked the senators to
convict on the charge that the respon-
dent had kept an average deposit OF
1000 in the Merchants National Bank
of Charleston solely because that was
case of bribery. Counsel proceeded to
show that tn, re had been no injury done to
respondents rrincipal-the Sta,e-in this
transaction; that he had only agreed to
leave such disposit in the bank if it did
not cause q violation OF duty, or bring
damage to the State. He had never re-
fused 10 check on the bank as occasion
demanded, and had shown no intention of
doing anything wrong. He was therefore
guilty of no bribery nor of any
crime. Had he received money paid him
for the purpose of inducing him to fail in
the performance OF any duty, then he
would have heen guilty, and would have
been visited with the severe penalty OF
contir ement in the penitentiary for
several wears; but he had not done any
thing of the sort His duty to the State
had been faithfully performed, and he
had been guilty OF no wrong.
The counsel then turned his attention
to the charge of failing to make reports.
This was denounced as tlimsy and child
ish. and no doubt when making it, the
Managers thought there was more IN 1t
than there actually was.
As to the charge of conspiracy between
respondent and his son, WILLIAM L.
BURpETT, the Managers claiming that
the money received by the latter in his
transactions with the banks went INTO
the pockets of the former, there was
nothing to show that the father
knew anything of the sons transactions,
and in the absence of testimony, no such
knowledge could be inferred. All that
had been proven was that the son had
borrowed $1,000 from the Shepherds
town bank, on the fathers endorsement.
That was the only transaction IN which
i, WAS shown that the two were connect.
ed and there was nothing like bribery or
corruption In 1t.
The counsel then took up the question
of whether an officer could be impeached
for An offence committed in previous
term of office. He claimed that such
could not be done. In the BARNARD
trial at New York, it had been permit
ted il is true, but that was not fair pre-
cedent. The Senators there were
exc;ted and governed BY a
.whirlwind of passion, and were
determined to convict. de READ from
the Merritt case to show that notn,
inc done before the term of office could
| be considered. Could man, he asked,
he impeached for an offence committed
while holding the same office, twenty
wears before his present election! Ii
not, neither could he be impeached Tor
an offence committed one minute be:ore
said present election. Such WAS the de-
cision of the New York Investigating
Committee, composed of gentlemen OF
high standing in the legal profession.
At this point the Court took recess.
Mr.. ARNErr upon the convehing OF
the court at 2 P. NJ. proceeded with his
argument that no offences are impeachs-
ble tha, are not ut the same time indicta-
bile: that Is that only those acts are cog
uizsble in a Court of Impeachment that
have heretofore been declared and denn-
ed TO be offences against the sovereign
mower of the State. Reference was MADE
10 the provisions of the Constitution 10
prove that the Senators are sworn IN ac-
cordsnce with the law and the
evidence, and further inherent PROOF
ia found in our Constitution thai
indictments may be still prosecuted Tor
the same acts which have been used rs a
basis of impeachment That the words
..crimes and misdemeanors' used IN the
article of the Constitution authorizing
impeachment are used in the same Con-
stitution with reference to the powers Oh
the Executive to pardoa-that ne Is per
mi,tet to pardon all ofenses by whicn
convictions have been had IN
an ordinary Court whereas ne
is inhibited the power to repris!e
| .tHoo., chat hava haen connected ~