Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-26
THE OTHER SIDE
Did the Talking in the lmpeach.
ment Case.
HOUSE MANAGERS QUOTE LAW
10 Show That an Officer May Be lmpeached
for No Indiclable OTeuse.
Questions Pat 60 tho Prosecution Taken
Undsr Advisemsnt --Connrmationa
The Senate AaIourns In Respect
20 John rempletou's Mem.
orX-No House Session.

hiier Tor the transaction Of other business
than the impeachment trial. the sessions
60 last from s p. M, to 10 y. m.; lost
Senator Crawford offered a, resolution
providing for the printing In a separate
Journal the proceedings IN the McGau-
ghcy impeachment trial; adopted
Az 10 o'clock the court Of impeachment
convened
Judge Arhtfoot stated that he desired
TO cite some additional authorities IN
behalf Of the respondent. which he did
TO sustain the doctrine. which he main
talned In ihsargumcnt Of yesterday. He
accordingly cited the san Jacinto case
l25 United States reports. and the eases
Of Blum vs. Looncy, Bacon vs.. the
State, Gillespie vs.. the State aud the Day
Land company and others TO show that
lands can be recovered unless the pur-
chasers have fully complied with the
terms Of the law In the Bacon case
100000 acres IN the railroad siding suit
about half million ocres. and iu an over
100000 acres had been thus recovered
20 the state, and yet IN OH these trans
land commissioner had signed the papers
and no man had Thought of impcachiug
these high officers for their official action.
ARGUMENT or MIR SMITH.
Mr. Smith Of Hin after rcmarl,ing that
he did not desire 10 weary the court
explained that he occupied peculiar
position as n member Of the board OF
managers for the house IN the matter
Of the impeachment of an officer who was
his personal as wen as political friend;
bm L was proper TO lay aside personal
feelings and consider the matter from
the standpoint Of duty. The ease was
one OF importance. not only 10 the pco-
pie Of this state, but as a precedent for
the whole country, IL had been con-
tended that an impeachment cannot be
maintained except for violations Of some
written or statutory criminal law, This
he couteudcd was no new question and
was raised by Webster Ia the Pickering
case and oyer-ruled and the accused CON
victcd The counsel for the respondent
refer MS TO the provision Of our code
that no man can be convicted unless
for something made penal by some en-
actment. but we answer that impench-
ment proceedings may. but do not neces'
sarily, involve criminal accusations; nor
Is Il necessary that every act be specih-
cally set forth, as in other defences.
while just as In indictment one good
count holds so one good article may
hold IN impeachment, Referring To
Storey on the constitution Mr.. smith
argued that our state constitution was
almost word for word the same as that
of the federal constitution, and provided
for removal OF disqualification, aud In
the Pomeroy case IL was held that re-
moval could be voted without disquall-
fication.
In fact. Mr. Smith argued, It was
never intended 60 deprive the people OF
their rights 10 protect their Interests
from official misconduct and 80 It was
a wise provision to leave matters open
10 impeachment proceedings without re-
curing that the articles should be exc
clusively set out and maintained only
under some statutory act or written
law. He cited the constitution on this
subject
Mr. Smith, continuing, said we charge
that Commissioner McGhugEey knowing
ly and wilully put lands on the mar
ket and sold them TO parties who he must
have known We're not actual settlers
alone entitled TO purchase them. The
ia - vas ismitted, lat they shy you can
not impeach him because he was eXer-
cising his discretion But IL Is further
charged that ho procured false entries
and receipts to be made and filed In the
Office with fraudulent purpose. To this
they answer, Il was simply a mistake.
Is that legitimate argumcntf 10 is al
legged that he tried 10 procure the ellef
clerk 10 make false certificate lhey
ridicue that as something preposteFOus.
i say that any officer VINO Wolld hlteMPA
10 get another 10 DO such thing y UNI
worthy the high trust imposed upoh nam
by the people, and that it II d. true
IN iustihes his impeachment ana so iaf
as the demurrer Is concerned u seems 10
be- admitted.
They point the big guns Of their argu-
monts So high they shoot above inc |
horizon and 80 back and say TINS morn
ing that these lands can be recoferei'
And therefore you can't impeaeh because
the supreme court says the land can ne
recovered unless the purchasers nave
complied fully with the terms OF the law;
But the law says they shall be sold
only 10 actual settlers and II an officer
puts that law under his feet ana says
he can aud does sell them i hold you
would be recreant not TO remove such
an agent There Is no question OF ne e4-
ercise Of any discretion In lL IT u
simply a wlful abuse of his authority.
Tie Prescott case was cited 70 show
that AL Offense need not be indicfable
under any required statute 70 DC I'M
peachable matter The remedy Of nd
dance from Improper official conduct y
based on the high ground Of the right OF
tory provisions There Is no authority