Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-25

known 10 the law for which the respop-
Gent can be called 60 answer, fixing a
penalty therefor and that the charges
C3nlanled no matter which is impcach-
Npie' m other words they charge no
99iiehse known to the laws of Texas.
lhese were the two leading propositions,
independent Of the special exceptions
one OF which was that an officer cannot
De held responsible for certain acts re-
referred TO- antedating his election, be-
ttuse that Is question settled by the
people, a tribunal higher than any court
OF even the constitution. Mr.. lightf00t
next reviewed the history of the Euqlish
law. What would be the result III oih-
GERS We're 20 be subjected TO no fixed
RUE OF settled policy, how long would it
lhe some new political faction 70 keen
the administration urraiEncd for alleged
hlgh crimes and misdemeanoiSY
The American trials of Blunt Chase
Pickering. Peck, Humphreys. President
johnson and Secretary BelknHp were oil
cited TO show that there could be no inn
parchment except for some well-dehned
otense under some positive enactment
In the Humphrey case the charge was
treason for making secession speeches
IN tennessee, and under such charges
every officer I'm the South might be ar
ruigned, for the whole South favored SCI
cession I'm the case OF president john
son. who presented one of the grandest
arguments IN political history, lac maiu-
tanned the point that as the executive
be had the right to- determine and inter
pref what he believed to be- the law aud
the United States senate had the man
hood TO stand by him iu a conservative
manner amid great political excitement.
He and Belknap were both executive Of.
hcers and were not convicted. Out Of
seven such trials only Humphreys and
Pickering were convicted. What has
been thc result Of impeachment trials In
TCNust
They failed IN the cases OF Judge Rus
sell and Judge Chambers and Judge Scott
died before the trial was concluded.
Tho case Of Judge Willis failed ON an
attempt Go address him ont of office,
Mr.. LightfoOt cited numerous authorities
IN maintenance OF his arguments. As
10 the discretionary powers OF the senate
many seemed 20 imagine that as q court
the senate had higher authority than an
ordinary tribunal. but II rs not your onths
as senator's but as a higher tribunal rs
q court that inds you the same oath
That binds you. the same oath that binds
any court TO do nothing but enforce tho
written law.
n You undertake to leave such things
90 the discretion of any court ON earth
you cnn make &c lawful 10 do today what
yesterday was not lawful Coming hnck
w Ilt fNNllNuN OF ItANNt NNF MllNl
crimes can you impeuch? II rs required
article 10, section z, that the legislature
shall provide by law for the trial aud re-
moval Of all state officers tho modes
for which have not been provided IN this
constitution.
The mode OF address has been pro-
vidcd In eases Of judges but no mode has
been provided for removal Of the gov
crnOr or any ohiccr of the state depart
mcnt The constitution Of the United
States itself is one Of grants and pow
cra. that Of Texas Is one of limitations
and the legislature can pass any law
not In conflict with the laws Of the state
or The United States. 40 II the legislature
had defined nu ofcuge for which inn
parchment of the executive or other de-
plftmcnt officers might lie there could
be- no difficulty. Not having done so.
how can this court boz called 90 make a
law, something beyond the written law,
which would be higher than The consti-
tuition or az the story Expresses some
thing infamous when then ! ask you 10
point 20 any section Of law 90 warrant "a
conviction and YOU can't find IL you
must sustain the demurrer. Nou have no
precedent % impeaoh any member Of the
executive heads of the state department
VIII you insist urat you can do so with
out any written law Ia Justify such nc
tion2
Adjourned I'm 3 o'clock.