The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-01-11
THE HAWKINS IMPEACHMENT
Testimony Of Hon. T. J. Semmes.
The Superior District Court A
Burlesque.

We publish below the testimony of Hor.
II. J. Semmes before the Investigating Com
mittee of the House.
Mr.. Semmes, after stating how long he had
been prac,icing law here, was asked:
@. will read you the testimony Of Major
New. [Tnis testimony was read.
A. don't think that my knowledge is such
as to venture to give any other opinion than
this: That Judge Hawkins-andI can not even
now specify the cases, but my opinion is very
adecided-,hat Judge Hawkins is arbitrary.
and that he il even incompetent to preside
over that court intellectually I have never
seen anything which induced me to believe
that he was corrupt. have heard a great
deal, which. if true, would produce that i'm
preston, but know of nothing which would
induce me TO believe him to be corrupt: bnt
1 have heard great deal.
Q. From your information, is not his general
reputation that OF being amenable to corrupt
influences
A. His reputation is such, or rather. the
suspicion exists that he is
@ That suspicion is general in the COM
munlty, as far as yeur association with the
citizens here is concerned?
A. l think 1t Is, with those who have been
brought In contact with his court-both law
yers and citizens.
The worst can say against him is, that
the universal opinion of the bar is that be
is incompetent for his position; that he is
arbitrary, and that great many entertain
suspicious of his integrity. That is about
the substance of what know.
O. From your intercourse with him as a
lawyer and your observation. is he qualified,
intellectually or by education, for the posi-.
ton he holds
A. done think he is. I think that is a
very important court, and don't think that
he is a competent Judge for that court. He
has not the education, nor do think he has
the natural ability.
Q. If he had the natural ability he would
get the education?
A. Yes Then he is a man who does not
stufy at all; don't improve himself
e. Is not his conduct in court and his aG-
administration of law such as to impair the con.
hdence OF the community in the Justice and
equity OF the same?
A. l think it is.
Q And to paralyze the functions of the
court as court Of justice?
A. Well l agree with NJ jor New in this; l
think he expresses the idea better when
he says it is burlesque of court of Justice;
and people have no confden il such court.
@. Have you ever known him to be rude to
members OF the bar?
A. Yes, in that Clinton case, as far as Mr.
Mari was concerned, l am positively of the
opinion that his conduct was very rude and
uncalled for, and arbitrary. The Attorney
General may have deserved it, and probably
got as good as he sent; but Mr.. Mari certainly
did not deserve the treatment he got
c. Do you know of any other case?
A. l can tell you case which think was
perfect outrage in law, now l come to think
OF it. There was no appropriation whatever
to provide fer the payment Of the militia in
1874, or the appropriation had been ex-
hausted-one or the other and when they de-
sired to raise money. or procure money, for
the purpose Of equippiug the militia or metro
poiitan police, don't know which, Mr.. Long
street drew a warrant on the Auditor and the
Auditor refused to audit it. They then ap-
piled to Judge wilkins for q mandamus, and
he issued an order to compel the Auditor to
issue to Longstreet warrant for large
amount of money, which you will find in the
case of the State VS.. Clinton. think the war
rant was for fifty or sixty thousand dollars.
And then he issued mandamus on the
Treasurer compelling him to pay it; and thus
the money was obtained out Of other funds in
the treasury without any appropriation, or in
excess of the appropriation. and it was per-
feet outrage upon the Constitution and the
Eaw. The defense of Clinton WAS that the
decree of the court protected him, from which
decree no appeal ever was taken by the legal
officers of the State.
@. Clinton had refused to issue the war
rant?
A. Yes. There is an instance of Hawkins's
direct violation of law, and he must have
known better. 1t was impossible for him not
to have known better; if he did not know bet
ter he was an IDIOT. The remarkable fact con-
nected with the order directing the issuance
Of 10 fhot IL oil dOno
within day or two, and think, done in
vacation. 1t was done in vacation, when q
valid judgment-if the doctrines ap-
plies to his court, which he disputes
could not be rendered in vacation at all He
contends what propriety | have not in
vestigated-,hat he has the right to hold
court the entire summer. l think, he says
and possibly he may be right-that the law
organizing his court makes it an exception in
that respect. I never looked into that ques-
ton.
1 want you to understand that l am not at
all untriendly towards Judge Hawkins. He
has been uniformly courteous to me and to
my partner Mr. Mott. We have had very
little business before him; but in al we have
had with him he has been uniformly cour-
teous.
I have had suit against the Levee Com
pany on behalf Of the jackson Railroad Com
pany 10 recover Ohmh8oS III coAecquoAco VI
the neglect of the Lsvee Company to keep up
the Bonnet Care levee. after notice from the
company. 1t amounted to very large sum
of money! The road was washed away, and
the damages were very heavy.
An exception was fled in that case. that my
petition disclosed no cause of action, on the
ground that the Legislature had repealed the
section Of the original Levee Incorporation
Act, which fixed the responsibility upon the
Levee Company for not keeping up the levees.
My own vie~ was that the responsibility |
fixed by the act Of incorporation was OF .
peculiar and specific character, and that the
repeal of that section left in full operation the
liability of the company, under the general