The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-05-04

| CeedlDgs. me lanQ commissioner Is
charged with violating his oath of Of
tice in selling lands to others that
ought to have been sold TO actual set
tlers. The demurrers confess that all
the CHARGES are true, yet If is contend
ed that this court has no right to hear
the case. He read from Pomeroy in
the constitution TO show that an
ticer may he impeached for violation
of the oath of office or the violation of
the common law. His speech was a
strong one. His arguments and au-
thOrities necessarily were cumulative,
the entire ground having been already
covered.
His speech was interrupted at
O'Clock by adjournment o2:30 O'Clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The senate met at $50 p. m.
Senator Jester called up the resolu.
ton to rescind the concurrent resolu-
ton providing that each house shall
consider bills of the other on Thurs
days and Fridays, which was
adopted.
The senate then resolved itself into
court OF impeachment and Mr..
Fegan resumed his argument for the
state
At o'clock representative Hender-
son began mis- argument in behalf of
the state. The occasions have been
rare when the powers of this court
have been invoked by the people.
Demurrers are presented which go to
the very foundation of the jurisdiction
of Thu court and the foundation of
our system of government. The de-
murrers are grouped.
First-The court has no jurisdiction
because neither the constitution nor
the written laws prescribe what shall
constitute cause for impeachment.
SecOnd-The. articles contain no
Improbable matter, they ailege no
corruption or wiltul wrong.
Third-Some of the acts occurred
prior to the present Term of office end
therefore are not impeachable matter.
He prefaced his speech with a his
tory of impeachment trial as disclosed
by English history. The impeacn.
ment trial in the United States has
its origin in the trials by the English
parliament. He contended that i'm
parchment is simply method of re-
moving an officer, which is fully
authorized and described by the con
stitution. The senate as court il
competent under the constitution tn
hear the case and determine whether
or not sufficient cause has been
shown to warrant removal.
The only difference between the fed
eral and state constitution is that the
60 fpnn hrih
and high crimes and misdemeanors as
causes for impeachment, whereas the
latter does not prescribe any causes.
He quoted from an English lecturer
who said that the common law did
not prescribe what shall constitute
the cause of impeachment. No law
writer has undertaken to define the
limits of court OF chancery, nor have
they in the case of a court of impeach
ment. The court is expected to re-
lieve the people from unexpected and
unforeseen violations of some duty Of
officeholders. The object of the pro.
vision in the constitution is merely
for the purpose of giving jurisdiction
to the court and to place certain limi-
tations upon it, and not for the pur'
pose of creating the right of impeach.
meut, which already existed.
John Adams maintained that IL was
inherent in the colonies to remove
judges from office by impeachment.
He quoted from Curtis, Stanford,
Meecham and number of other au-
thorities to show that the power of
impeachment is over and above any
positive statuary enactment, when
the conduct of officers imperils the
public safety and renders them unfit
to occupy the office. The systems of
impeachment are to be governed by
the great principles If right.
The purposes of the constitution are:
Frst-To name the tribunal.
Second-To modify and limit the
right.
Third-To prescribe that if the acts
be crimes there may be criminal
prosecution also.
He explained the fact that bribery,
treason and his h crimes and INSIDE
meanOrs are givon in the article in the
federal constitution because the fede-
raj constitution is an instrument
of delegated powers, whereas
the state constitution being an instru.
ment of limitations there was no ne.
cessity to prescribe what offenses
shall constitute grounds for impeach.
ment, as it was fully provided for in
that instrument, and quoted the Sec
ton of the constitution which says:
1.-THE legislature sh al provide by law
for the trial and removal from office of
all officers OF this state, the modes OF
which have not been provided for in
this constitution"
He quoted number of state consti-
tutions in which no causes of impeach-
ment are set out in that instrument,
and amcng them Georgia.
No less than nine states have ac'
cepted and adopted impeachment in
its full import, as in Texas. In these
states nothing is necessary in the con-
stitution except to give jurisdiction
and to place such limitation as may be
found necessary.
He reviewed the history of trials by
address. in this state and cited as a
precedent the case of Chambers in the
Fourteenth legislature where the de-
murrers were overruled by vote of
q to 2. Many of the members of that
legislature were members of the con-
stitutiOnal convention which made
the present constitution, and yet they
y 81 - fhiY,Iy 70 tNracori N