Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-28
IMPEACHMENT.
The Oemurrers Argued by Wal.
ton for Respondent.
THE LACK OF POWER TO TRY
The Main Point Made by the Speaker
Yesterday
THE LACK OF POWER TO TRY
senators swayne and Atiee ASK some
0uestions-The Governors Power
from the Leglsiature-rhe House
Transaots some business

| Cuuir.
Prayer by Chaplain Briggs.
senator BOrcn sent 20 tile secretary
uSsh me resignation Of Assistant Journ-
az Oierk a. y Thweatt who has been
appointed deputy clcrk Of the court of
cAii appeals at Galveston Accepted
Inc report Of the committee on the
liquor tax bill was postponed till tomor-
j. T. Poole committee clerk. was OK
euse9 from duty on account of import.
aht business which. it is said. was TO
get married
The election of clerk In place of Mr.
Ihweatt was postponed I'm tomorrow.
AZ lU;[U the senate resolved itself into
court of Impeachment.
Colonel Wm, Walton spoke In behalf
OF respondent, State Land Commissioner
Nicupughey lie commenced by allud-
ing TO the responsibility he assumed la
having to defend one whose acts had
been endorsed by the people who elected
ilitn To his high office and In whose de
tense was involved, Ia fact. the reputa.
non ana happiness OF his family, which
were placed in his hands as counsel in
the case. While the managers OH the
part OF the house had. he said. fairly
aud nObly discharged their duty, they
had not he cmtcuded. presented the
law as it had been reached by long pruc.
tlre aud authorities III / fall this old
man + case goes down, his children and
family VIII Doe stricken with sorrow and
he VIII Doe disgraced aud ruined man
In the state be- hus So long served The
Prosecution has been able and courte-
Gus, but / hope ] shall be able 90 show
you that they have failed to present such
q case h law as viii sustain the articles
Of Impeachment. and that therefore, the
dCmurrers should be sustained and the
respondent restored 10 his Office. The
question has been stated By a member of
the court, HAT where tenant violates
his contract with u landlord there Us a
remedy nc law, and u Is asked is there
amy mode 10y which q state officer can
be- oustcd who breaks his contract. or
oath. with the stutcE | answer, that
under the supposablc case presented,
there h. a remedy In this. that an of
hcer WHO would 10 such things us
governor pnrlOuing every criminal in the
state. would either be- crazy or else hc
would be- subject under the constitution
and laws TO mandatory injunction and
Dee compelled Co comply with the law. He
could not Dc inlpclchel. simply because
be would be- considered insane. aud no
law. civil or criminal, could reach him
such q case b too far removed from
probability 10 De reached by law
The question, can an officer after his
recollection and re-installntion In office or
induction therein be- called upon by im-
penchmeuH to respond for acts prior 10
his election. was sustained iu the mega
tive by numerous eases cited, showing
that recollection was q conformation by
the highest authority that Of the people
The question had come up whether or
not the president of the United States
could he impeached In such eases. and
10 was answered that his reelection
would be- sufficient proof Of his limo,
ccuce. In case in New Jersey whore
a city couucilmaE was expelled for brib.
cry and went home and was reelected
aud came bucl, 10 take his seat, and the
council refused 10 recognize him. as un-
worthy % act IN public matters, aud be-
appealed to the supreme court, the court
decided that though he was unworthy
his reelection was conformation - y.
j. reports, 300.
The case of Judge Breckenridge Of
this county was cited, iu which Judge
II, was charged with receiving Illegal
fees As his counsel | based his de-
Tense oa the fact that the Interim between
his election aud second induction into
office was a cintinuation of his old term;
that under the law and constitution When
the day of election came lac held over
until he was re-induCted by the oath of
Office The court did not agree with me.
but stated that the olfense Ia the interim
belonged 10 q new term. and therefore
ne WIS llNNlt 10 lNNlfiIltNl anu ItllNNuls
81 Texas court Of appeals, $50. so
The question was not presented, but there
Is no doubt under the laws quoted and
previous decisions. that II the acts had
been committed prior 10 his election such
acts would Ice no legal ground for re-.
m0val. and that his election would bee a
conformation. Other eases cited were I0r
don vs.. State, 43 Texas; rngg Va Texas
the decision OF Judge Roberts in the case
frt ln Uf ia
StuytOn aud others.
Referring 10 the general demurrers Col
0nel Walton said he proposed 90 show
that under the articles In substance and
as presented ON the part Of the house
the respondent could not be impeachndr
His first proposition would be- whether
this b. criminal proceeding and whether
high court sitting as this court Is,
constituted q criminal court.
Secondlf IL be a criminal court then
has the constitution OF the state, which
mikes Won court. enabled yOu or the
house to arrnign a man for trial.
Third-lf the constitution executes u. |
self what 0ncnse can be indlcinblef II
Won decide that you are a criminal court |
and thai Won can Inquire into other |
crimes and misdcmeanOrs moi laid down |
in the written law aud the constitution |
where do You 90 10 reach out for or |
lenses against oficcrsi Will You go 10 |
the English common ana parliamentary |
law and 10 the constitution aud laws Of |
the United Statesf III 30, where Is the /
hmitg WIN you say that in this court |
I'm the nineteenth century, In Texas you |
can prosecute any citizen Of this state |
for crimes unknown 90 parliamentary |
law and decide yon cant then ! CONS /
down to the position occupied by the /
house managers and stand win them /
and ON their own ground Admitting even /
the truth of what they say, / shall now
that they have no impeachable oueiise
chareed against the respondent
Continuing. he said Ia the ease OF
Belknap, the resignation Of The ONCE.
deprived the semitic Of jurisdiction anu
the Impeachment zen He was not re-
elected aud il proves nothing IN TINS
case. The articles Of impeachment are /
substituted for Indictment which would /
describe the crime il the defendant were /
10 be tried Ia any court. The theory OF
the house managers in this case y that /
the word Impeachment is one Of technical i
meaning and that It has the meaning |
thar was given Il Ia England. There
fore anything that would have been i
impeachable IN England would be SO ia
Texas. blackstone says il Is pfosecn.
zion Of the known and already established Il
law and has been put In force by me
highest known criminal court lhe brl-
tanica encyclopedia says; Impeachment \
r..-..fa.a.Iinlr a tgfifucf rrifuiuuNa i