New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-12-01
SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT
EX-JUDGE COUNTRYMAN'S ANALYSIS OF
THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE
CANAL COMMISSION.

Albany. Nov. 30--Thc report of Judge Coun-
tryman is volumrous Ia detail. containing more
than tweHty-four thousand words. and as soon
as Il was received by the Governor from the
Attorney General II was made public. Concern
ing the State Engineer the report says
Without going into further detail. OF referring
10 many other instances Of irregularity or pro.
cedure on the part Of the state Engineer ana
his subordinates il is sufficient to say that II is
q fair and reasonable inference from all factS
and circumstances given in evidence that most
II not all. OF the improper acts and proceedings
OF his subordinates we're either directly or indl-
rectly authorized and approved by him. ana
that his own methods and practices In violation
OF the statute were purposely adopted and FOL
lowed 10 accomplish the results which have
proved so pernicious and derim, ntGl to the pub
lie interests.
IMPEACHMENT NO. PRACTICABLE.
have therefore. TO hesitation in reaching the
conclusion that the case as proven against the
State Engineer is sufficient to warrant proceed
ings by Impeachment for his removal from Of
fee But such proceeding in view OF the
situation and circumstances Is ineXpedieh'' II
not imrracticahle as the time is too short ana
the method too GU nbersome and expensive 10
prove effective either as PUNISHMENT TO 'he ui,
ficer or rep&ration TO the State. Such course
Of procedure would Involve special session ol
the legislature. with all the delay attendant
upon Il vote OF impca 'hNent ia ne AsseinD'H'
and 4 subsequent trial before the court OF I'M
peachmcnt and in the ordinary course or the
proceeding his term Of Office would expire ue-
fore the close of his trial The SAM remarks
apply 10 a proc ,eding before the Senate on 'he
recommendation cf the Governor FOR 'ie renoN ..
OF the State Engineer under The Public OiilCcrs
law This course would also involve a pubnc
trial before the senate In extra session. ana al
best only result in his removal Few days De-
fore the expiration Of his once.
The only course Is a criminal prosecution by
Indictment. 1t is proper 10 say In TINS cohhec-
ton that there is no precedent III inns state lI'
the Indictment AMI prosecution 81 Sta'e o.
;icer g. an officer at the head OF one OF the
departments If the state Government 1t may
Therefore be- claimed that The STATE Engineer
is not liable at least at common law. To such
prosecution to any penalty for malfeasahce
in Office which may be imposed by the ordinary
judicial tribunals. I have found rc judicial au-
thoritV which sustans this View, but there are
many expressions Of elementary W".iers. rounded
on the monarchica maxim that the King, me
executive power can 90 no wrong, when ma!
he cited in It's support. That rule however, mas
no proper application 10 our FORM oil govern
mcnt l. fully recognized, II would prevent me
q Impeachment Of such officers. especially me
highest executive officers. the President OF Inc
United State ana the Governor of the state
But an Impeachment IS expressly sanctioned and
enforced even against the President ana the
Governor as well as other public officers In the
Federal and stat Constitutions, with the addi,
tional provision that the party impeached snail
be liable 10 Indictment and punishment accord
ing to law" Estate Constitution Article VI, Sec
lion l3: Federal Constitution. Article l. Section
3. Sub. -
PROPER CASE FOR THE GRAND JURY
The report then cites sections Of the Penal
Code relating to the administration Of affairs
by public officers from which ex-Judge Coun-
trvman reaches the conclusion that the state
Engineers case is proper case to present to
the Grand Jury
After reviewing the duties and acts Of the
Superintendent Of Public Works in connection
TN his auditing OF bills for work that was not
authorized. and concerning mis- connection with
the work. the report says:
The singular suggestion is made in answer to
these and similar instances of the mlsappllca-
ton Of money that. if unauthorized IL Is or IT.
tie Concc quencc. as the State has received the
bereft 90 the expenditure But II IS or the
greatest consequence. 1t took several centuries
to establish the rule. which has remained I'M
questioned in the h-speaking world since
the Revolution Of 1GSS that the Legislature
alone appropriate money and designate the
purpose for which it shall be used 1t is there
fore as unjustifabe To apply public money to
a purpose not designated by the Legislature as
IL is to make any use Of It without an act or
appropriation Other Instances might be given
OF plain violations of the statute in the pro-
ceedings taken by the Department Of Public
Works hut IL is unnecessary 10 pursue these de-
tails further. have reached the conclusion
that this also rs a proper case 70 be presented'
TO the Grand jury
\ civil action may also be brought against the
Superintendent and his sureties upon his OFF,
cial bond filed with the Controller to recover
damages TO the extent II $4,000. But an action
Of this character has heretofore rarely resulted
in replenishinC the treasury on account Of the
losses sustained from the acts or omissions OF
public officers. ana II IS believed that the best
security 10 the people for the proper admnstra-
ton Of public affairs and the strongest pre-
ventive against recurrence Of similar miscon-
duct. is a criminal prosecution against all such
offenders and then subsection TO personal dis
cipline and punishment
There doubtless Instances among the
subordinates Of both the state Engineer and
Superintendent Of Publ, Works who have been
voluntary and willing assistants in the COM
mission Of the Illegal practices which have been
brought TO Fight in the course Of the invcstiga-
ton made by the Commission. ! have not
deemed II desirable or eXpcdient. however in
this preliminary report To- single them out. as
the public prosecutor should be left at liberty