The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-01-25
vuEInpEACHMENT.

THE
Tpon assembling yesterday morning,
cha sapate resolved itself into a high
Cour, of Impeachment for trying the
charge. AGAINST Auditor BENNETT, whose
c.,e wss adjourned over until Friday
next.
Having done this, it proceeded with
III. trial of State Treasurer BURDETT,
,rd Manager STUART resumed his argu-
u.t He first considered the point
m.i4 by respondents counsel that no
offence was impeachable which was
not indictable. He took the ground
that impeachment was offered as
remedy against officers who
had committed acts unworthy OF
their Officers. but which were not within
the province of oIdiuary courts. de
claimed ,h4. that wss the only way OF
puni.hing such offenders, and quoted ex-
tracts from the impeachment trial OF
Judge CuAsE-subsequently Chief jus
,ce of the United States-to substantiate
hi. position. He further contended that
j. WAS not alone crime which made
public officer liable to impeachment, but
gross immorallty-a neglect Of duty
WAS sufficient to convict him, and remove
him from office.
Next, the honorable Manager pro
ceeded to discuss the question whether a
man should be tried for an offence COM
mi,ted during previous term of office.
he contended that an official might be
tried and convicted and rendered ineligi-
tle 10 hold any office long after the term
Of office had expired in which the crimes
were committed. lie alluded TO the
BARNARD tIIsi w NtW loiN, o" hSh
thirteen out OF the thirty.eight articles
charged Judge BARNARD with offences
committed during previous terms OF
Office on which articles the accused was
finally found guilty and removed from
office. lie dwelt at great length on the
BARNARD trial to substantiate his POSI-
ton.
Next'he referred to another point raised
by respondents counsel-that the
same offence could not be cited in diter-
ent articles. He read again from the
BARNARD trial, showing that in that
case certsin charges, to meet all the tech
ulcsltie, Of evidence which might arise,
had been reiterated in ten different arti-
ces. This concluded his answer to the
Argument Of Mr.. DAVENPORT, in open
ing the case for respondent The
honorable Manager then proceeded to
examine the first article against the
Treasurer alleging that he had corruptly
received 81 900 from Mr.. CABELL Of the
Merchants Bank at Charleston, on con-
d'ilon that he would keep therein an
average deposit of $4,000. 1t was al
legged that as Treasurer he had nothing to
DO with the depositing of the State
iund', but, asked the Manager, was that
$1,000 acknowledged to have been re-
ce'ved) paid to respondent simply be-
cause he was JOHN S. BURpETT, or be-
cause ne was State Treasurer2 The
Manager claimed that the formation
OF Mr.. CABELL's head, phrenologicsly
considered, showed that he was
not man to give away 81 900 without q
consideration, and the consideration in
This case was that BURpKrT, as State
treasurer, controlled the State deposits of
winch ne (CABEIL) was anxious to have
ap'oportion. At this point the Court
took a recess.
After recess, Manager STUART resumed
oy apologizing for the length Of his ar
gument, which he said he was compelled
10 make wholly from a sense of duty.
lie continued with his review OF the frst
article against BURDETT, and
eon'ended that tie offering by
'ne bank officials of the $1,000,
ana the acceptance OF the same by the
treasurer was clear case of bribery and
corruption, for, asked he. what is
of'oery3 As the managers de6ned it
tue giving to, or receiving by, any person
whose business is the administration OF
!us'lce' anything Of value that he might
0e influenced by in the discharge Of hi,
0a'c'al conduct, was bribery. This 1000
Was given to BuRDErr BY the bank Off
Gals to influence him in a certain direc.