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


known to the law for which the re-
spondent can be called to answer, fix
| ing penalty therefor, and that the
charges contained no matter which is
| impeachable. In other words, they
charge no offense known to the laws
of Texas. These were the two leading
: propositions Independent of the spec
ial exceptions, one of which was that
an officer can not be held responsible
for certain acts referred to antedating
his election, because that is question
settled by tribunal higher thay any
court, or even the constitution.
Mr.. Lightfoot next reviewed the his
tory of the English law; how, from
crude consideration of such questions
as impeachment, it had settled into
fixed legal requirements for such pro-
ceedings and definition of impeach-
able otfenses, and what was meant by
treason and malv ersion and malad-
ministration in office.
What would be the result if officers
were to be subjected to no fixed rule
or settled policy? How long would it
take some new political faction to keep
the administration arraigned for lille
gal high crimes and misdemeanors?
The trials of Lord Mackelfeld, Hast
ing and other great English cases
were cited to show how the English
government has to get down to some
definite status for impeachment trials,
and that impeachment can only be
maintained under some positive law.
The American trials of Blunt, Chase,
Pickering, Peck, Humphrey, Presi-
dent Johnson and Secretary Belknap
were all cited to show that there could
be no impeachment except for some
well defined offense under some posi-
tive law. In the Humphrey case the
charge was taken for making secession
speeches in Tennessee, and under such
charges every officer in the South
might he arraigned, for the whole
South favored secession.
In the case of President Johnson
who presented one of the grandest ar.
guments in political history he main.
tanned the point that as the executive
he had the right to determine and in
terpret what he believedto he the law
and the United States senate had the
manhood to stand by him in con-
sentative manner amid great political
excitement. He and Belknap were
both executive officers and were not
convicted. Out CT seven such trials
only Humphreys and PICKERING were
convicted and the latter exparte.
What has been the result Of i'm.
parchment trials in Texas? They
failed in the cases of Judge Russell
and Judge Chambers and Judge Scott
| nnc l. 10 al I1l
The case of Judge Willis failed on ar
attempt to address him out of office.
Mr.. LightfoOt cited numerous au.
thorities in maintenance of argu.
ments.
AS to the discretionary powers o.
the senate many seemed to imagine
that as court the senate had higher
authority than an ordinary tribunal
but it is not your oaths as senators
but as higher tribunal as court
that binds you-the same oath thai
binds any court to do nothing but en-
force the written law. Any othel
proposition as Judge Story states il
would be monstrous. If you under
take to leave such things TO the dis
erection of any court on earth you car
make it lawful to do today what yes
terday was not lawful.
Coming back to the Constitution o
Texas. For what crimes can you i'm
peach? 1t is required (Art. Is, Sec. 7
that the Legislature shall provide by
law for the trial and removal of al
state officers, the modes for which
have not been provided in this copsti
tuition. The mode of address ha
been provided in cases of judges, bu
no mode has been provided for re
moval of the governor or any office
of the state department.
The constitution of the United
States itselfis one of grants and pow
ers. That of Texas is one of lemta
tions and the legislature can pass an.
aw MT in conf, ct,with the laws of h
state or the United States. So if tn,
, Legislature had defined an offense fol
f which Impeachment of the eXecutiv,
or other department officers might b.
there would be no difficulty. No
having done SO how can this court b.
called upon to make law, something
beyond the written law, which would
be higher than the constitution, or al
: Story expresses, something infamous
When, then, L ask you to point to any
+ section Of law to warrant conviction
r and you can't find it you must sustain
the demurrer. You have no prece
} dent to i'm oeach any member of tn
, executive heads of the state depart
: ments. Will you insist that you cal
do so without any written law to jus
tify such action?
! Adjourned till o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The senate met at p. m. and imme
diately resolved itself into a court o
impeachment.
II. w. Lightfoot resumed his speech
which was interrupted by adjourn
mept of the morning session. Tit
senate as court of impeachment, hi
said, was here to determine the writ
ten law in this case. The law under
, which you determine must be cleal
and we'll defined. The constitution
, does not say for which you may try
the governor by impeachment pro
ceedings. 1t is a fact that under the
constitution there is no offense hy
: which you may impeach the governor
. aud the lieutenant governor. The at
torney general and the land commits
sioner are exactly IN the same atti
tude. The constitutions of Virgins
opd Nassanh1entta hpinp tha first