Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-11

to inquire into the official conduct of F L. Hatch,
the Superior Judge of Colusa State OF California,
and to report their opinion whether the said F. l..
Hatch has so acted in his judicial capacity as to re-
quire the inteEpositon Of the constitutional power
OF this House.
Mr.. BRANCH stated that he had aitidavits signed
by responsible parties in his possession which
formed a sufficient basis for investigation.
Mr.. BAKER OF Yolo said that it seemed to him
that 1t would be improper for the House to tai e
cognZanee OF the resolution unless charges were
preferred to the houses by some responsible par
ties. If the persons who have signed the atfdavits
would make petition to the House he would favor
the resolution. Ii was not the investigation to
which he objected, but to the manner of holding it.
Mr.. VAN FLEET said that while he was sorry, for
the sake OF the judiciary OF the State, that the
have been deemed necessary. he was still in
favor OF a full investigation, and ii the Off
cial should then be found guilty, OF impeachment.
Messrs. JACKSON and HOITr advocated the adop-
ton OF the resolution.
Mr. ARlcK opposed it for reasons similar to the
ones expressed by Mr. Baker Of Yoo, saying that it
was u ot within the province of any member OF the
House to constitute himself the prosecuting attor-
ney of any official.
Mr.. BRANCH offered to introduce the afore.men.
toned affidavits in support of his resolution
Mr. DEL VALE claimed that they We're not IN or
der He favored the Investigation, but objected to
the manner in which it brought before the
Assembly.
Mr.. JACKSON said he had just been informed that
Judge Hatch was a Democrat. He, too, was Demo-
crat but so good one that he desired an inyestl-
CATION and if it should be proved that an official
was guilty. then it would be proper to impeach
him. even though he were Democrat.
Mr.. GRFFITH was Of the opinion that Mr.. Branch
had taken the proper course in the premises by the
introduction of the resolution, and argued against
the reading of the afldavits To the House.
MIR. WHIPPLE held that the only way in which
charges OF the character under discussion could be
preferred to the House must be in the form Of pc
It'll n or remonstrance. Some person or person;
must appear as accusers. 1t would be well to refer
the resolution ID the Judiciary Committee for 1t tc
indicate the course to be pursued He would 50
move
Mr.. JACKSON said it was not an issue OF law, but
simply an issue of innocence or guilt, which could
best be determined by special committee.
Mr.. BRANCH remarked that according to all pre-
cedent the mode tlken by him was the proper mode
and cited the case Of the impeachment case OF sam
uel Chase, of the Supreme Court of the United
States. in the House Of Representatives in January
1904 He had no personal interest in the issue, anc
had introduced the resolution at the request of ci
zens of COlusa county.
The motion to refer the resolution to the judicial
Committee was carried-ayes 80, noes 32.
Mr. JACKSON moved that the committee be di
rected report back the resolution next saturday
forenoon Carried.
The atfdavits upon which the resolution is based
are three in number, and are in substance as fol
lows
f. A. Bridgeford an attorney at law residing il
Colusa atfirms that several occasions Judge
Hatch was so drunk as to be incompetent to tr4ns
act any business within the line o his official duties
John T. Harrington, also an attorney Of Colusa
deposes to the same effect relative to drunkenness
and also charges divers corrupt practices by Judge
Hatch
JF. Wharton, also a lawyer of Colusa, deposei
relative to the intoX;cation OF Judge Hatch while OF
| the bench.
The affidavit Of Harrington does not SPECIFY as t,
! what constituted the above mentioned coTup
| practices"
| action on A. B. 81, was next announced.
The bill referred to is the one relating TO III
| Board of Bank Commissioners introduced by Mr.
| MAY, who moved call OF the House prior to it
| consideration. Carried-ayes II, moss Sc.
| Mr.. LANE then moved to dispense with the furthe
enforcement of the call. Carried-ayes &C. noes 80
| Mr.. DEL VALE made an impassloned plea agains
the reconsideration of the BILL reading from edi
torial in the RECoRDUNlOy TO show that the greedi
ness of the a. Stalwarts - was not indorsed by tn
| Republican party. He held that men should not b,
legisated out of Office merely for political reasons
| aud said that if such had been the course of tn
Democrats in the past, it gave the Republicans NJ
| sound reason for following such an example.
| Mr.. GRIFFITH also delivered an argument agains
the BILL saying that its admitted object was to legis
| late the Democratic Bank Commissioners out o
office Ii the Republican party could ever afford Il
| be magnanimous it should be so during its reign o
| power.
| Mr. KILBURN next arose and exclaimed Mr.
Speaker |, for one, am plumb scared to death anC
| hereafter shall vote the Democratic ticket.
| Mr. MAY, replying to Mr.. Del Vale, said ihat th
| RECORD UNION was not recognized as Republican
| paper it was an independent paper like the Sal
! Francisco Bulletin. He continued an elaborate
| argument in advocacy of his BILL claiming that TIL
Bank Commissioners had not properly fulfilled thei
| duties, etc.
| Mr. WIIPPLE followed in an extended speecl
| against reconsideration.
| Mr.. LEAKE said that while he had greet confidence
| in the irresistible smIler from the Tenth District
| still he could not be wheedled into voting for HI
| bill.
| Mr.. HARRISON said that the Democrats did not sin!
their saintlike songs of brothery love- etc whel
they were in power Everybody knew that Mr
White was unfit for the Office OF Bank Commission
| err and given it for purely political reasons.
! Mr. HALE did mt believe Ill removing men from
| office except for other cause than politics.
| The motion to reconsider was carried-ayes 40
| noes 80.
The bill was then refused passage ayes 10
noes 80.
Adinurned at h.lh z. 81