The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-10-09
Judges Disagree.

4 cuuSCS D1Sx1$sICCs
Decision Of District Judge Knobloch ii
/ the Echeyerria Case-Judge Hahn's
| Reasoning in the Cheevers Case
/ Contrayened.
| In the Twentieth Judicial Distric
Court for the parish of Assumption, a,
action has been instituted against Arthn
~. Echeverria, Sheriff of that parish
similar to that pending against Judg.
Cheevers Of Ascension, based upon al
legged ine1igibility under Article III o
| the Constitution of 1879.
| An exception was fled by defendant:
counsel denying the jurisdiction Of The
| District Court rGtioae materiae, and claim
| ing that the Supreme Court is vested
| with original Jurisdiction of the case
under Articles 1876 and 200 of the new
Constitution. Judge Michael Hahn sus
| tanned similar exception i'll the Cheev.
er's suit, taking the ground that tht
incompetency specified in Article 19f
as one of causes for impeachment and
removal from Office, comprehends and
includes the ineligibiiity defined by
Article III. .g.. z-
Judge Knoblocb, however, takes oppo-
site ground, as vii! appear from the fol-
lowing extract from his Judgment over
ruling the exception filed by Mr.. Eclle-
yerria's counsel:
State Of Louisiana er rel. w. T., Howell,
Dist. ATTY. pro tens., Is. Arthur j. Eche-
serria. No. 1893, Fifteenth (now Tween
tieth) Judicial District Court, parish
OF Assumption.
The other reasons claimed by the de-
PENDANTS counsel for the maintenance of
the exception are: that the intrusion act
is no longer in force, and that the only
mode Of procedure in the present case is
that provided by act No. 135 Of the Acts
Of 1880. It is further urged that the
word 9 incolupetency as used in Article
1876 of the Constitution of 1879 is general
and comprehensive, and by necessary
implication brings within it's operation
the ineligibilty arising from the causes
specified in Article III, and that it mnst
have been III contemplation Of the franz
ers Of the Constitution to include the
want of eligibility.
The causes enumerated in Article 1876
are causes for Impeachment 1t is so dis
tinctly stated. Impeachment is for the
purpose of furnishing misconduct in Of
flee. 1t is a penal proceeding, be-
cause it not only removes an officer, but
inflicts a penalty by disqualifying him
from ever afterwards holding any office
of honor, trust or profit under the State.
As it provides d punishment, it is eyi-
dent, therefore, that any law which
would make one liable to impeachment
fer acts committed before an election to
an office would be &c post .fucto. Now,
Article POI refers to no other causes than
those enumerated in Article 1876 which
are all expressly and distinctly stated to
be causes which render All officer liable
to impeachment. It is not a crime merely
to have failed to obtain the discharge
mentioned in Article III. Hence, any
law which would make this failure a
canse Of impeachment and Which would
subject one to punishment which did
not exist at the time, or which is pre-
scribed, would he ec post .facto, and con-
selnent!y obnoxious to the provisions of
the Constitution Of the United States
The use of the word incompetency in
Article 1856 is unfortunate. A Judge of
one of our superior courts might be i'm
peached for ineompetency and the con-
sequence Of the impeachment would be
to debar him from the privilege of hold
ing even the Office of Justice Of the Peace
in one Of our country parishes. Again,
owing to temporary insanity he might
be impeached for ineompetency, after
wards fully recover his reason, and yet
be absolutely disqualified from holding
tie most insignificant office Of TRISTAN
ahsurdity which it must be presumed
failed to suggest itself to the trainers of
our Constitution.
I am Of opinion, as have attempted
to show, that Article Ill is not in con-
hict with the provisions Of the National
Constitution, which inhibits the enact
ment of er post facto laws; and also
think, aaI have already intimated, that
if ths1d incompetency" in Article
1876 is made to include the ineligiblity
Of Article I'll, the Constitutional Con-
vention transcended its power.
But, be this as it may, Article 2O1 re-
fers to no other causes than those men
toned in Article 1876. The expressions
used are restrictive and intended to ex-
clude any other cause. Erpressio Sc.
A person exercising the duties of an
Office for which he is disqualified by Ar
ticle III is ineligible, but not necessarily
incompetent. He is an intruder, subject
to be ousted, but not liable to impeach-
ment, for that naturally presupposes the
valid holding of an Office, and the viola
ton of duties as office holder. A man is
incompetent when he is mentally or
physically or morally unfit to discharge
the duties Of his office-mentaliy, when
his intellectual faculties are disordered,
or when they do not attain the standard
essential for proper discharge Of his
duties; morally, when he is Intentionally
guilty of malfeasance or nonfeasanee,