The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-04-26
TUESDAY,

Following are the proceedings of
yesterdays session of the legislature:
THE HOUSE
There was no session of the house
yesterday for want of a quorum.
THE SENATE.
The senate met yesterday morning
at $50 o'clock with President Pro
Tenn. Kearby in the chair.
After prayer by Chaplain Briggs
the senate proceeded to business.
Senator Presler offered resolution
providing for an evening session here
after for the transac ion of other bust
ness than the impeachment trial, the
sessions to last from p. m. to 10 p. M.
Lost.
Senator Crawford offered resolu-
ton provi ling tor the printing in a
separate journal of the proceedings in
the McGaughey trial. Adopted.
At 10 o'clock the court of impeach-
ment convened.
Prior to the argument of Mr.. Smith
of Hill, as one OF the house managers
for the prosecution, Judge Lighttoot
stated that he desired to cite some adj
ditional authority in behalf of the
respondent, which he did to sustain
the doctrine which he maintained in
his argument of yesterday. He &C.
cordingly cited the San Jacinto case
| 125 United States reports) and the
cases of Bum vs.. Looney, Bacon VS..
The State, Gillespie vs The State, and
the Day Land company and others
to show that lands can be recovered
unless the purchasers have fully com.
piled with the terms of the law. In
the Bacon case 100000 acres, in the
railroad siding suit about half mil
| lion acres, and in all over million
acres mad been thds recovered to the
state and yet in all these transactions
every governor but one and every
land commissioner had signed the
papers and no man had thought OF
impeaching these high officers for
their official actions.
Mr.. Smith of Hill, after remarking
that he did not desire to weary the
court, explained that he occupied a
peculiar position as member of the
board of managers for the house in
the matter of the impeachment of an
officer who was his personal as we'll
as political friend. But it was proper
to lay aside personal feeling and con-
slider the matter from the standpoint
of duty. The case was one OF impor-
lance not only to the people of this
state, but as precedent to the whole
country.
1t had been c)ntended that an i'm
parchment cannot be maintained ex-
cept for violation OF some written or
statutory law. This he commended
was no new question and was raised
by Webster in the Pickering case and
overruled and the accused convicted
The counsel for the respondent re-
fer us to the provision of our code,
that no man can be convicted unless
for omethipg made penal by some
enactment. But we answer
that impeachment proceedings
may but do not necessarily
involve criminal accusations. Nor is
it necessary that every act be specifi.
Cdlly EOU lOllh Ill uOlOuCCD,
while just as in indictments one good
count holds, so one good article may
hold in impeachment.
Referring to Story on the coEstitu-
ton Mr.. Smith argued that our state
constitution was almost word for
word the same as that Of the federal
constitution, and provided for re-.
moval or disqualification, and in the
Pomeroy case it was held that re-
moval would be valid without dis.
qualification. In fact Mr.. Smith
argued it was never intended to de-
prive the people of their rights to pro.
feet their interests from official mis-.
conduct and so it was a wise provi.
sion to leave matters open to i'm
parchment proceedings, without re-.
quiring that The articles SHOULD be
exclusively set out and maintained
only under some statutory act, or
written law. He cited the constitu.
ton on this subject.
Mr.. Smith continuing said: We
charge that Commissioner cGaughey
knowingly and wilfulIy put lands on
the market and cold them to parties