Omaha daily bee., 1899-04-01

they we're signed. Not only that. but the
Law charges him with notice Of what these
checks contained. as We learn from his own
opinion in the case OF BARLEY against the
State.
In that case the warrant in question had
written upon its face the words "For-To
reimburse the sinking fund" That warrant
ran to J. $. BARLEY. not ls state treasurer,
but in his individual CauaCitv There was
nothing on its face 10 notify the Chemical
National bank OF New York. which pur-
chased 1t. that BARLEY did not have the
right to sell II except the statement that II
was drawn 10 reimburse the sinking fund
Yet. regarding that Judge Noryal used the
following language in his opinion, which
stands as the opinion of the court: Nor
was the bank an innocent purchaser with
the meaning OF that term as applied to COM
mercal paper. isasmuch as the warrant dis
closed on its face the purpose and object for
which IL was drawn. and the bank was
bound to know, at its peril. that ne de-
fendant had no title to the instrument
The same must hold true with reference %
the present case. where the check Is ad-
mitted by Judge Norval to show on as face
that IL drawn against state iulls ana
he was bound to know at his peril that
he was receiving state funds II he chose TO
accept 1t. Following this line Of reasoning,
the conclusion must be that Judge Norval
did see the signature did know that the
check was drawn against state ilntS unl
knew that the money he received thereon
was state funds. H. therefore. the trausaC-
tion by which he received the checN tCl
SCI on the 3lst dav OF December. iS9i. is
to be treated as loan. as he saws it was
he is guilty of knowingly receiving loan
Of state funds from the state treasurer for
his own use and benefit. and thus he aided
and abetted in converting the sum of SG25
and under his own decision in the case ct
Mills against the State became himself an
embezZler OF state funds.
IT, however we are to treat the trHnsac-
tion wherein he received the S625 as pay
ment OF the warrant. then he was not cnti-
tied to receive anv interest on the Narrans
and the payment to and receipt by him
OF the check for S34 SO as interest on the war
rant were Illegal and constituted embezzle-
ment on his part.
regret that / must come to this con-
clusion but under the evidence and the de-
csons OF the supreme court of this state
there can be no escape. People may lCok
with some indulgence on violations CT the
plain letter of the law bv men not versed in
legal matters and unfamiliar with the pro-
visions of the statutes. but when these vio-
latons are met with on the part of members
of the highest court of the state, that fact
in itself is sufficient to call for speedy re-
buke and impartial justice. Judge Norval
has been chief Justice of the supreme court
and for more than nine years a member OF
that court. His conduct has been ineXcusa-
Bile and there can be no palliation. This
house should have no hesitancy in applying
the constitutional remedy
From the evidence adduCed before the
committee it appears that Judge Norval IS
guilty Of felony But it is not necessary
that this house find him so guilty in order
to impeach him. The constitution provides
that 'all civil officers of this state shall be
liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor
in office" That Judge Norval has been
guilty of misdemeanor is clear and tho
minority OF your committee therefore recon-
mends that the house entertain the follow
| ing resolution:
Resolved, That articles OF Impeachment
be prepared and presented to the district
| judges of this state, sitting as court OF i'm
peachment as provided by law for misde-
meanor in Office against 7. L. Norval, as
| sociate Justice OF the supreme court.