The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-11-13


fed in article 196, Judges of tue Courts
Of Appeal, of the District Courts through
out the State aud of the City Courts O
the parish Of Orleans, may be removed
from office by judgment Of the Supreme
Court of this State, in suit instituted
by the Attorney General or District
Attorney, in the name of the State on Iii.
relation. The Supreme Court is hereby
vested with original jurisdiction to try
sucl, cases and it is hereby made the dnt;
Of the Attorney General or Of any Dis
trict Attorney to institute such suit on
the written request and information oi
fifty citizens ara tax payers residing
within the territorial limits of the dis.
tiict or circuit over which the Judge
against whom the suit is brought exer-
cises the functions Of lis office. Such
suits shall be tried after citation and ten
days delay for answering, i'll preference
to all other suits and wherever the court
may be sitting, but the pendency of suci
suit shall not operate u suspension from
Office. In all cases where the officer sued
as above directed shall he acquitted
judgment shall be rendered jointly and
in solido against the citizens signing the
request for all costs of the suit.
ART. 1876. Tho Governor, Lieutenant
Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor
Treasurer, Attorney General, Superin-
tendent of Public Education and the
Judges of the courts of record shall be
liable to impeachment for high crimes
and misden,eanors, for nonfeasance Oh
ma!teasa,lce in office, for incompetency
for corruption, favoritism, extortion o,
oppression in Office, for gross misconduct
or habitual drunkenness
These articles are found under the
heading, Impeachments and Removals
from Office" 1t is patent that by article
200 this court (for the first timc), was
clothed with riginal Jurisdiction owe,
cases tending to the removal of judicial
officers for breach of official duties or in
ability to perform tile same. The causes
for which such removal can be provoked
are enumerated in article 1876, to which
article 200 expressly refers aud which
therefore forms Il vital part of it. Powers
which prior to 1890 were vested in the
Senate alone, but which have not row
ever been withdrawn from that body,
were thus formally conferred upon this
court, which has therefore authority to
exercise them for the same purposes and
to the same extent that the Senate itself
can, but only in the cases specified.
Among the causes set forth in article
1876 as justifying the removal of a District
Judge is that of incompetency, which
means his inability to perform the duties
of his office, resulting from physical or
intellectual disqualifications charged
t since his induction into and during bis
term Of office. It's not possible to con-
ccive how that original jurisdiction can
by any reasonable inteutmcnt of the con
st;tutional jurisdiction quoted, be made
to extend to cases Of exclusion from office,
based upon causes mentioned in article
Ill in existence prior to the election and
induction into office Of the officer pro-
cccdcd against. The convention which
| framed the constitution could have i'll
cludcd those causes as it has done Others
in article 1876, but it has not done so. 1t
contemplated that the suits in whcI, this
court was to have such jurisdiction were
to be suits brought uA.icr article 1876,
while the Judge sought to be removed
would be in the exercise" Of the func-
tious of his office. Tie jurisdiction o!
this court was to attach only for cause,
enumerated III that article, III suits
brought after the Induction of the Officer
whose displacement is asked and was to
be exercised exclusively upon charges oi
some of the wrongful acts embodied in
article 1856, and alleged T., have been
committed otciafiy. and also upon charges
Of incompetcncy, toi causes originating
since suci, Induction. OF Tor causes exist
i ing previous thereto and continuing
| thereafter.
A removal from office irresistibly i'm
plies Il previous induction into and actll-
| al tenure of the office. There can be no
escape from this proposition. The de
! tentlaut. however, StrtnuousIy contends
/ that the facts upon which the State relies
to establish his ineliyibilify would if
verified, justify the charge OF incoinpc-
| tcncy provided for i'll article 1876, and
consequently bring the case as instituted
| within the original jurisdiction of this
/ court. We can not assent to that prOpo-
sition. The suit was brought before the
defendant entered upon the office in
question, and upon causes then known
and which are to the effect that he coul,l
not have been and was not legally eli.j
Bile to the office. They do not affect his
competency. They refer to his character
or status ut the time, under article Ill,
but not to any physical, moral or intel
| lectual disqualification OF illcapacty uli-
der article 1856, occurring after his induc-
ton into office. The defendant may well
be Ineligible and still be competent to dis
charge the duties of the Office which he
claims. He may also we'll be eligible and
yet be incompetent. The words Ineligible
ity and incoinpetency are not synony-
nous or convertible, but are generic
terms. Causes of iasligibility are not
causes of incompetency, and ricc rrrsn. i'll
the sense Of the constitution, for it views
them differently and contains two dis
tinct articles, providing separately for
both. Ineliyibility refers to certain dis
qualifications existing previous to the
election. A person elected to the Office
Of District Judge may be ineligible for
many reasons, either because not male
not u citizen, not of lawful age, not a
licensed practicing attorney, or because
excluded by Judgment on impeachment
from holding office, OF because defanlteI
or an undscilarged collector of taxes OIL
trustee Of public money, would be ineli-
gible and still be very competent to dis
charge the functions of the office. In
com,,at ..,,ce refers venprajly tf, ,tI..r II g.