New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-12

il would certainly appear rom INC noio
wording Of those sections OF the judiciary
article which relate TO impeachments and re-
movals, that the latter section was framed with
an express view to just such cases as that OF
Judge Sanford. The former obviously was
meant to cover cases of wilful misconduct The
Assembly impeaches; the Senate and the Court
of Appeals try; and while Judgment IN case OF
conviction is not TO extend beyond removal ana
disqualification TO hold Office, the person I'M
prached is liable also to indictment and pun
ishment according TO law" A judicial officer,
under impeachment, is suspended until acqnit-
tal. The idea of moral delinquency is apparent
throughout, and as there is no limit placed ON
the discretion of the Legislature there is no
shade of misconduct which could not be pun
islcd under this section No other provisions
were needed except perhaps To cover instances
of mental and physical disability which couId
not be treated rs crimes, and tile remedy mere
was provided in Section / Of the same article:
This reads as follows:
Judges Of the Court Of Appeals ard Justices OF the
Supreme Court may be rcmoyedby concurrent resolution
OF both houses Of the Legislature, twOhrds 81 oil the
members elected 10 each House therein All Ju-
dcia officers except those mentioned in this section ana
EXCEPT Justices Of the Peace Judges and Justices OF
inferior courts not OF record may be removed by the
Senate on the recommendation Of the Governor II TWO
thirds of oil the members elected 10 the senate concur
therein But no removal shall be made by virtue OF TINS
section unless the cause thereof be entered on the jour
nails nor unless the party complained Of shall nave Dee
served with copy OF the charges against him. ana shat
have had an opportunity OF being heard On the ques
ton Of removal the yeas and nays shall be entered on
the journal
Neither the procedure set MP here nor the
terms used have any necessary relation to moral
offences They may have been intended to
cover such Offences hut the very character OF
the words seems to show that causes OF removal
involving no personal reproach were chiefly
undcrconsidcration. While the power of the Leg
islaturc and Governor to remove has been IN the
Constitution since sol, The provision giving the
person complained of a hearing was not put IN
until lSlG. II seems incredible that such an Oms-
sion should have been made. il the trainers oi the
Constitution had had only moral delinquencics in
mind. But while il is of interest to show the
Obvious meaning of the two sections the qucs-
ton is fortunately decided 10y fact and prece-
dent and need not be regarded n one of inter
probation. Ia the first place, the debates in the
90. ,titutonal Conventions show that il was the
plain intention 10 remove under tie lmp"ach-
mrnt section for viful misconduct, and under
the removal section for physical or mental Dis
! ability" These precise words are u-cd IN the
| discussions In the second place, the removal
/ erection has already been made the basis of ac-
ton In % ease analogous to that of Judge San
! ford. ln>l s57, James Nullctt supreme Court
| Justice ;n the Western District. WAS physically
/ disabled Judge Samuel :. Fnote, OF Geneva.
| who had been . judge Of the Court of Appeals
was chairman Of the Senate Judiciary Commit
! tee. and prepared the report of the Committee
recommending Judge Mullrus removal under
/ thi, ll;h section. His counecl hearing OF II,
/ handed in r'-isnaiion
! Again the lawyers who have raised the qncs-
/ ton lhat the claim might hc made that Judge
+ Slnfnrd, salary should continue. If Tie
/ LEGALITY If hi, removal were disputed, do not
seem to know that th' present Legislature has
+ passed % law providing for the payment Ia any
/ judge removed under section " for any 'auS'
not involving moral delinquency" of pen
/ sion fo- rhc remainder of ihr term for which h"
! wa. elected. equal To ouc-hal his s-inry. pro-
+ >iI,d the amount would not exceed T3,oo"
/ Under tli. act, Judge Sanford would receive
/ $1,000 a year tor thr remainder of his term.
/ lie hl, hrru disabled since the summer Of
/ 1873. and hi- received nearly $4,000 for
which 800 service h.l, been rendered. y" one
/ psnpo,,- 90 complain OF thi,. But the ease hl-
certainly rc,u treated With great consideration
/ and d,icac,. and tlc time hi. come 3" take into
| account ih, ut,r..j, ol the Court.and the pull
} lc r. j. 20 he hoped thlt ID, senate ''ill act
promptly i,r The sake of judges .tnj -uItois
/ ALIKE.