The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-01-27
The Burdett Trial.

the case OF the respondent, John 3. Bur.
dctt. Lord Melville was the Lord Ad-
miral and his business was to disbnrse
the funds appropriated for naval pur-
poses. The law concerning the disburse-
ment Of money ,ioFi die navy provided
that after proper auditing the money
should be paid out from the Bank Of
England, !, The depository Of the naval
funds, and that none Of & should be paid
into The hands OF the Treasurer Of tho
navy, and that it should not be paid out
for any other than naval purposes. The
specific object Of the law seems to have
been 10 prevent the dioBl 3 Admiral from
using the money for his own profit or ag.
randlzement. Notwithstanding this pro.
vision Of law Lord Melvill's own testi.
mony showed that be had used large sums
Of the public money for his own lpfiyate
emolulnent and had even risked the sc.
curity Of the money itself. In his trial,
the answer Of the Judges 10 the question
whether the money might be law
fully Withdrawn and put into 4
private bank prior to the iime hthat'it
was needed afors navy purposes without
6iIense against the law, was that itmight
be so withdrawn and lodged for the pur.
pose OF greater convenience or supposed
greater convenience in it's application to
naval purposes, but ifly withdrawn
merely for the purposs al putting
it in a private bank then itwas unlawful.
10 another question, as 10 whether it was
lawful to apply the naval money to other
purposes, without express authority to
do 20, and whether that was subject for
indictment or information, the answer
was that il was unlawful for him 70 ap-
ply the money to either private or pub
lie uses.
Lord Melville'ssalary was augmented,
and il was distinctly stated that the ang-
nlentation was TO be in lieu OF all fees,
perqusites, &C., and yet lie was acquitted.
This case, said the counsel for the re-
spondent, clearly settles the principle
that person in charge OF public moneys
may use them for his own private emol-
ument until they are called for for pub
lie uses, and such was tho practice OF the
shcriils OF the counties. He (the connsel)
oot's y, .su ..n III - oI - " . L.aa'' IL ,ro.o
?tohioi'cu ny law no' oecatse inuy meIe
VIOLATIONS OF law, ou! oecause !"ey "ete ere
light OF this case, asked the counsel for
the respondent, how can the Senate ex-
pect to convict the respondent Will it
do 10 in obedience 10 an organized public
clamoF' oF WIZ .ne SEufs na'e tne Io",
age 10 uca! .nIs p"U,iS a an"a,;,",;anol at ol
1ce' 'ue iesPonueIhs Ph ~ "'O 80, vVsi Ls oi,".n"I
s,a,eeSi %I T"scr;b,hI" ~ % "nJ ~ IN % S;sIa
wv" aonle"'nH ue''' ''"''' "''" ~ '"
''Tr u SUM N,aar.,r ,"" o,;nu oono,r,oa III,
ann. SounsS U" ,ho Sono,a % nd;ersnad mil o.
"iiL' s,i9i"nL n ,"e "' "eN '
o'''" = "' ,,o,,. ,,,,,.,,
AFTERNOON staSioH'
The afternoon session was occupied by
Counsel Arhets who commenced the clos
ing argument for the respondent!
lie said that he was conscious that tile
Senators must be growing iaugued, ana
that lie would endeayor 70 confne his
remarks to rs short time as justice to
the respondent and the magnitude OF the
case would admit. The burden Of the
speech OF the manager IRON Doddrldgc,
and the whole theory OF his argument had
been that the Senate, without respect to
law, may say whether any lmpeachaDle
oilense had been committed. The Senate
must 20 beyond the fact that the charges
have been proven, and must consider
whether the ofFenscs are such as have been
declared indictablc under the Law and
punishment provided therefor. The crime
must be similar at least 10 some other
already provided for by law, but he did
moi wish TO be understood as contending
lint The Senate must ignore the common
law, The conclusion cannot be escaped
that the Constitution contemplatcs q
crime that il indictable because il cx.
pressly provides that no impeachment
shall be a bar to an Indictment, therefore
| impeachment must imply that crime
hns been committed.
lie was aware that il was claimed that
the Senate had a right to declare what
crimes were impcachablc as well rs 10
try The charges,as has beer. .practised 10
lEngland. lie would admit that there
lhad been punishmcntS BY Impeachment
in England for oflenses not iniictable at
law, hut such cases had been determined
in tiuies Of nigh political excitement, but
| in the light Of calm, well considered, well
dirested cases il had been conceded in
England that no crimes were impeachable
that were not indietable, and the incor'
poration Of English law into our consti'
tulion must carry with it the intepreta'
tion given TO that law; there can be in
justice and in accordance with law no
other Interpretation put upon II. As TO
whether indictment could follow impeacti'
ment, being an unsett,ea law, .neo9as.l, ~
tuition Oh the p, p.gSSiu'SS W. S. '.'as ~
an lmPeacnmenI SioVI; ;l no' ,u .; Daf II II
an mdielulen'' anu II uau ~ ~ w. m.'T rna,;ah @
khowieuse " T,as, tne oeaF'"s VI '"' t|s'''"
law upon lnc suOJes'. .o,o.;,;,n ,l,o
ihe enofmty oi Lne prTpoS''.O" Ip.o ,s". '"as anH
IN 1his country VI ,.oe;! ."'t" ,,' "So sot'.: "
one ao9ve INC Jaw eNrties H. ,S,"o, H. M te ,"sa
uoh, lne DTas. ''ias t t,e Nv, na'I". Ln o.,"."J "
ment IN Iie .a," .,.", U" 1a;n @ ,no Son',o
except Dy Jaw was =" va" Co., s"u "enaSo
Of Mest virginia VI a"y H'"se ,n"se,. m tO !,
vlct man tor 'ng .,'aSTn %n S nin,';!,oJ % r. y
thought S ougn' 20 pe rITaot, ho ~ c..sh
SstaOl'Sn sueH o"st , "o"" "e "e,Sua w Ue." "nS
llsh . cour. az ia.iess ,ia" ~ H. .asnds1""t "
WIN less pEiGsSlPIe .ns" VI ~ ~ Sko s.a"