Evening journal., 1891-11-07
SENATORS HEAR HENSEL
The Attorney General Sums
Up at Harrisburg.
HIS REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY

HARRISBURG, Nov. I-Attorney General
Hensei entertained the state senate for
four hours and a half in meeting the
points raised by counsel for State Treas
urer Boyer, claiming that the extra session
had been called under misinterpretation Of
the constitution as to the meaning OF
executive business, and that that body had
no jurisdiction to inquire into the charges
made by the governor against the state
treasurer and the auditor general After
citing precedents to show that the senate
had taken jurisdiction az certain times,
and maintaining that it had practically
assumed jurisdiction at this session, the
attorney general said that the defendants
lawyers virtually said % the senate;
His View Of Their Argument.
First-You are not rghtfully and law
fully assembled here. Second But, being
here, you have no right to prosecute an in
quiry Third-But, having prosecuted and
concluded an inquiry, you have no right
to pronounce Judgment.
He denied Attorney Shipley's allegation
that the present session had disclosed no
evidence which was not known when the
legislature was in regular session and
when the house Of representatives could
have exercised vs. constitutional preroga-
tive to impeach, and added:
Tho premature and unwnrranted payment
Of Sl50000 ont Of the state treasury by the col.
lusion Of the treasury authorities with the au.
ditor general was only ia sight; the fact that
Philadelphia or the commonwealth had loet
S2000O by the untimely payment TO John
bardsley Of its share Of the school appropria
ton for the year 1891 had not even been limited
at, and the shocking confession Of the state
treasurer that this payment had been made by
him solely for the purpose Of defeating and
avoiding the sinking fund law had not yet
startled the commonwealth.
The utter failure OF the auditor general and
the state treasurer 70 enforce the law of May
z. 1899 had not been publicly admitted. the
comparison u the periodical payments by John
Bardsley OF large sums Of money 20 some un
known and undiscovered persons with the pc
riodical return Of thanks frOm the auditor
general 10 John Bardsley had not been made
and am, in justice 20 all concerned, bound TO
say that the explanation subsequently made
that these letters Of thanks related 70 the pnr
chase of neekties the remittance of magazines
the receipt OF peaches and other fruits IN sea
son, had not yet been furnished to a charitable
and conhding public
Sarcasm for the Press.
The memorandk exhibiting the despoIiing of
the ward conBtahles and the division OF the
( profits had, mp 70 that time, bcen withheld
the sublime spectacle Of the dignined editors oi
| the public press paying John Bardsley's agent
~ per cent. of the money paid them fof mer
camille advertising had not yet edited the com
munity, and no chapter OF the long story d
confessed public plunder through the medium
| Of the mercantile taxes had yet been printed
| William Livsev had not vet fed the jurisdic
\ tion OF the state, whether 10 escape account
ability for his malfeasance or to avoid appear
4 ance as a witness against others Ruiltier than
himself John Bardsley had not yet refused "a
/ inphcato or vindicate those associated with his
I criminal transactions The state treasurer
himself, whose cashier was the object OF intense
/ public suspicion during four months, had never
/ deemed II necessary To open a communication
/ with him. He even seems 20 have bcen sur
prised 70 receive Livsey's resignation upon his
own return from Canada where he had been
( soiuurning for a month, not, he gives us "a
understand, 10 meet Liysey but simply to spear
the sportive salmon and TO track the restless
eaIibau.
The Governors Proclamation.
Meantime John Bardsley, upon his own plea
I Of guilty, had been sentenced and incarcerated
Not another official or person Of all who were
! associated with the transactions which blazoned
his shame had been brought 70 punishment OF
removed from Office.
II was not until Sept Ia nearly four months
after the adjournment Of the legislature, and a
fortnight before the governors proclamation,
that the court and district attorney Of Phila.
delphia practically declared that in the absence
OF Livsey and upon the refusal Of Bardaley to
testify, warrants and commitments could not
ensue, indictments could not be sustained con
! victions in a criminal court could not be 80
cured and impeachment proceedings would
doubtless fail. With single official defaulting
by over 81, $4,000, Of which he could not have
been permitted 10 retain or receive more than
auditing and fiscal departments Of the state
| government with the responsible head Of the
| treasury department Absenting himself until
| suspicion daTkened into certainty Of guilt;
| with the process Of the criminal law exhausted
and the technical evidence necessary to secure
! impeachment not at hand, leave 10 your con.
siderate judgment to determine whether OF
not in view Of the duties deyolving upon the
executive and the authority reposed in You, be
| transcribed his powers, or chose an in0ppor-
tune season in summoning you in extraordinary
session and 10 presenting In clear dispassionate
terms his reasons for doing So
Concerning Removal by Address.
The third division Of the attorney gen
erals argument was addressed to the con
tention that the business before the senate
was not executive business upon the con
struction Of the other side that removal by
address was legislative business, and could
DuA1 ut bEhuhullthcA 70 buc hthdtt IN rcKu-
lar session, and that the governor could
not call the senate to consider such busi-
ness Mr. Hensel said that such a con-
struction would paTalyze and make null
the constitutional prerogative Of the sen
ate for nineteen months, as the senate was
in regular session only about five months
In every two years. He declared there was
no decision Of any court in this or in any
other state tnat removal by address was
not such executive business as should be
considered at an extraordinary session OF
the senate
New York CompIimented.
Mr.. Hensel controverted the defendants
claim that this proceeding was essentially
judicial proceeding in the nature Of an
impeachment, and. therefore, must be re-
| ferred TO a judicial tribunal, and could
not be determined by a senatorial inquiry
nor referred to executive session by claim
ing that the proceedings were proper under
section 4, article o, Of the constitution OF
Pennsylvania. In reply to the declaration
Of Mr.. Shapley that such proceeding as
this would not "be legally possible in any
other state in the Union, aud il attempted
| would subject the governor himself to in
| stant and certain impeachment y Mr. Hen
sci quoted at length from the constitu-
tion and statutes of New York state to
show that in that great state, which he
declared to be Imperial in name and Ia
fact a leader Of political thought and pole
star in the development of American juris-
prudence" it has been provided that the
- Il.