The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-11-06

l,y any reasonable intendment OF the con
stitntlonal jurisdiction quoted, be made
to extend to cases of exclusion from office,
based upon causes mentioned IN article
III in existence prior to the election and
induction into office of the officer pro-
ceedsd against. The convention which
| framed the constitution could have in
| Guided those causes as it has done others
! in article 1876, bat it has not done so. It
contemplated that lie suits i'll which this
court was to have such jurisdiction were
TO be suits brought under article l96,
while the Judge sought to be removed
would be in ths "eaercise' OF the func-
tions of bis office. The jurisdiction of
this court was to attach only for causes
| enumerated in that article, in suits
| brought after the induction of the officer
| whose displacement is asked and was to
| be exercised exclusively upon charges Of
some of the wrongful acts embodied Ill
! article 1876, and alleged to have beef,
| committed officially, and also upon charges
Of iRcompftency, for causes originating
since sucl, Induction, or for causes exist
ing previous thereto and continuing
thereafter.
A removal from office iTrcsistibly i'm
plies n previous induction into and aetn
al tenure Of the office. There can be no
escape from this proposition. The de-
PENDANT, however, strsnuoUslV contends
that the facts upon which the State relies
tc establish his iueligibility would, il
verified, justify the charge Of incompe
tcncy provided for III article 1876, and
consequently bring til: case as instituted
within the original jurisdiction of this
court We can not assent to that propo-
sltion. The suit was brought before tile
defendant entered upon the office in
question, and upon causes then known
ard which are to the effect that iae could
not have been and was not legally elisi-
BILE to the office They do not affect his
competency. They refer to his character
or status at the time, under article III,
but not 10 any physical, moral or intel
lectual disqualification or incaracity n5l-
der article 1876, occurring after his Undue
ton into office. The defendant may we'll
be ineligible and still be- competent to dis
charge the duties IF the office which he
claims. He may also well bo eligible and
yet be incompetent. Tie words ineligible
i5y and tncompetency are not synony
NOUS. or convertible, but are generic
terms. Causes Of ine'igibiiity are not
causes Of iFcompetfgcy. and r;ee rarsa, i'll
the sense of the constitution, for it views
them differently and contains two dis
tinct articles, providing separately for
both. IHeligihility refers to certain dis
qualifications existing previous to the
election. 4 person elected to the Office
Of District Judge may be ineligible for
ma 1itftt.r oil
not q citizen, not of lawful age, not a
licensed praeticing attorney, OF because
excluded by Judgment on impeachment
from holding office, or because tdef,:licr |
or an undischaIged collector Of taxes or
trustee of public money, would he ineli-
gible and still hc very competent to dis
charge the functions OF the office. In
competence refers generally to other dis
qualifications occurring after Induction
into office. Such crimes ls nnnfeasanee
mallcasance. corruption, tavnritisnl, ex-
toltlon or oppression, grass official mis-
conduct in the exercise of official powers,
and sncil disqualification az llabit1,al |
drunkenness and inability arising from
intellectual or physical intirnty existing
before induction and continuing there
after, or happening during tenure Of of
flee, arc causes Of removal within the
riginal jurisdiction of this court. A per
son may be incompetent to fulfill the hu-
ties 81 the office Of District Jntlge-for |
instance, Il qualified citizen and attorney
learned III the law, not chargeahe with
any otfense under article Ill, but afflicted.
with annsbntss, flealn,tSa, blindness, gen
eral paralysis, surely would he incompe-
tent and yet he eligible to the office.
Inelisibilty and incnnpetency are not, /
however, causes exclusive the one Of the |
other. They may exist simultaneously |
OF separately. person may he both in |
eligible and incompetent ut lie same |!
time. When the eligibility o, comptt.n- /
cy OF a judicial officer is questioned. the
matter must be tested upon proper
charges IF either the one Or the other, |
before d.Ncrfnt forums. Where tia law, /
whether embodied in the constitution or /
found in the statute book, or in both, las !
made Il distinction between otfnuses cori-
mittch prior tn those committed after in
duction iIlto office and rAiir in office, |
and has Disseminated between causes Of |
lnciiglb:ilty ana causes Of iucnnipetency !
it is the duty Of tie court to inquire and |
determine whether the distinction was |
made, and if il exists to rive it force and |
effect. |
We take the rule to he, particularly in |
questions like that now before us, in |
which we are called upon to exponn,l tile /
language contained in tile paramount /
law OF the State, that the affirmative de
serlptiof OF the cases in which original /
jurisdiction was conferred on this court,
implies necessarily a ncgation DC its jnris-
dictIon over cases net C,nmsratnd
We have inquired to assertion whether
snrh distinction aud description had been
made, and we find that they have The
has left the law as it stood
at IFS adoption relative to cases Of ineli-
.lhi'ity 70 office, but it has delegated to
this court powers for the REMOVAL Of I'LL
'lIcIa! officers rs comprehensive and Of
i.ctaSe As those vested i'll the Senate, sit
ting - 9 court cf impeachment for the
ts!a! OF sHsh officers, upon proper charges
aud i'll proper eases
This s'''t can not, under any aspect, he
treated as one to rt9Nore the defendant
from Office, as its avowed object was to
prevent him from entering upon it alto
-tther. Under :, final Judgment in favor
y IT, plaintiff, the defendant, il III office
wnn'a HAY" 10 vacate il. or subject lli,t.-
self to tpTel'alc expulsion from il.
III" disqualification of Il judicial office
entrusted with high powers and ,.rarnya-
fiNes, Is matter which is NOT to be
lightly dealt with and which should
command the fullest consideration of
'naitS Of Justice.
Where the original jurisdiction of This
court Is expressly restrained; by the or
game law to .lven causes Of removal. We
Ii. po"efles> to expand it 10 rs 70 COM
nri5c other cases Intentionally omitted,
II which the exclusion of officers is TO he
t4:ianted ~ proceedings To be insrit.,-
Ell before a competent court Of inferior
nilsdlct:on. IN l. Cal. leo, views SINH
az to those expressed in the BODY of this
opinion were entertained in an analogous
-