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

yOu 90 10 the English common ant
parllal eutary law, and to the consti
tntion aud laws of the Uniteo States
If so, where IL the limit? Will you ga,
that IN this court. in this Nineteenth
century, IN Texas, you can prosecut
anV citizen of this state for crimes un
known to parliamentary law and de
eide you can, then come down to tn
position occupied by the house man
ayers and stand with them, and OF
then own ground admitting even thu
truth OF what they say, ! shall show
that they have no impeachable offenst
ch srgod against the respondent
Continuing, he said in the case o
Belknap the resignation Of the officer
deprived the senate of jurisdiction
and the impeachment fell. He was
not reelected and it proves nothing
in this case. The articles of impeach.
ment are substituted for indictment
which would describe the crime if the
defendant were to be tried in any
court. The theory Of the house man
ayers i'm this case is that the word i'm
| peachment is one of technical mean
ing aud it has the meaning that was
given it in England. Therefore any
thing that would have been i'm
peachable in England would be so in
Texas. Blackstone says it is a prose-
cution of the known and already es-
tablished law and has been put in
force by the highest known criminal
court. The Britannia Encyclopedia
saws impeachment is form OF pro.
ceeding against criminals IL England.
Blacks definition is criminal pro-
ceeding against public officer.
rhe sta,e had no remedy in cases OF
this kind, and the fault was with
those who made the constitution. The
power of impeachment is Vested in
the house of representatives., but what
are they going to impeach for ? To
impeach is to slope a corrupt officer
before he goes too far, but does the
constitution tell the house under what
circumstances they can stop an officer?
You are compelled to 90 outside of
your constitution and the criminal
code to impeach. The constitution
says the senate shall try, hut it does
not say for what Otfenses you shall
try. You are here but you are with
out power.
You are constituted as court all
right, and you are waiting for matter
to be brought that you may try.
Senator Swayne asked if this were
not a criminal proceeding why was is
that the respondent was still liable to
indictment and trial, and various
other questions were asked, but the
speaker continued his argument, not
at that time to answe them.
This he declared the highest GRIM
inal court known to tAe constitution.
Article l, section 10 of the constitu-
ton, which provides that no person
shall be held to answer for criminal
)ffense except in cases of mpeachment |
and when the punishment is by fine,
)r imprisonment other than by peni-
entiary, unless by indictment of
grand jury.
He here 0welt upon the fact that
his was a court of final resort, and
hat the governor could not pardon in
his case. This proceeding ha- as its
objects punishment on the one side
md forfeiture of property OH the
'ther, which the speaker thought was
efficient to give il the color of
riminal proceeding. If this is
court then does the cOnstitu.
ion of lhe state execute itself on the
ntire article so far as it relates to i'm
Does it tell what offenses
'ou shall take cOgnizance of? The ar
iclo institutes high court, but what
an you try, where can you get
to try anything? What Of
enses? You have no authority unless
ou get it from the constitution or
ONE statute. There is no offense
which this court can try, because the
constitution does not provide what Of
enses you shall try. The court is es-
but you have been given
OF no crimes.
The constitution says a party inn
cached "shall also be subject to in
ictment trial. This means that the
arty can only he impeached for mat
nrs which are indictable by the writ
EN- law of the state. 1t has always
cen q mOOted question as to whether
party convicted on parchment
Ould not plead it as bar to indict-
lent and trials. The provision in the
means that an impeach-
BILE crime is an indictable crime and
hat conviction on mpeachment
hall not be a bar to indictment and
rial in the courts. The section in the
on removal from office by
ddress for wilful neglect of duty, IN
drunkenness, oppression
4 office and other reasonable cause,
lhich shall not he sufficient ground
)r impeachment, the speaker con-
inued to mean that the causes enum-
rated are not sufficient ground for
The speaker read ar
iCle I section of the constitution i'm
egard to the perpetual school fund.
he question came up whether this
ection was selt-eXecuting and The
upreme court held that the express
ion zone half of the public domain"
vas not self.eXecuting. The free
chool fund thereby lost millions of
ores of Land.
This is one rlace where the consti-
utioaal convention failed. The SUI.
rene court decided this in II Texas.
he court held that this provision
lust he read with reference TO all
ognate subjects and we held that the
article must be read in
with the bill of rights.
rom 100, there have never been i'm.
in England, which were
Ot founded upon indictable offenses.
The constitution saws tha distript