The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-02-19

people, through their representatives,
is the question:. Iney have committed
four distinct violations o. Jaw. In sio-
lation of the direct provision of the
constitution they have directed and
compelled one to be pald out of tie
treasury, when the constitution and
legislature have expressly LorDiuden A..
1nS power 10 lnpeach was put soIely
in the hands of the house, because the
founderS OF the government wanted
this power as near the people as pos
sible. The court of Impeachment is
not TO PUNISH criminals DuI Ior INQUIRY
into the conduct OF pubic officers; If
they have not done their duty, and to
see il the public service is being hurt
or damaged. 1t il political only in the
sense that IL is a puoI1c inquiry inUO the
conduct of public officers We have
taken an oath TO obey the constitution
and cannot escape the responsibility
OF making investigation into the con-
duct OF these judges High crimes and
misdemeanOrs in office are simply
words thrown in a charge Of impeach-
ment for the purposes Of greater So
lemnity. Just as formerly in indict-
ments for murder moved and instigat-
ed by devil were put in to give greater
dignity and seriousness to the charge.
The question of intent has nothing to
do with this inquiry. InSnorant vioia-
ton of our constitution can damage as
much as wiHul violation of it; but il
you the evidence you will see these
judges Shilling on the bench as 10 now
they shall act; you will hear a lawyer
in a newspaper article saying they
were lodging and he would bring them
to time; and he did bring them TO time.
What humiliating spectacle! Read the
report of the committee: Manner in
which this order was issued indicates
to our minds the judges who directed
il to issue did not think they had the
power L do not wish to say anything
harsh about these men. l shall not do
so. | only occupy the position L do
| because / have taken an oath to obey
the constitution and protect it from in
fringement and annulment. 1 am sorry
to see a resolution Of Impeachment
passed against an old man, or any man,
but neither age nor position should
| arouse sympathy alone sufficient to JUS
tify me in Sinking a straight course of
duty.
There is no disagreement as to the
fact that these judges nave violated
the constitution. l cannot agree with
the proposition of Mr.. Common, whom
1 50 highly regard and rave SO often
followed. If these me1 were guilty
they should be impeached. Otherwise
they should be completely e~Xonerated.
We have no right to excuse them if
they are guilty. The higher the posi-
ton, the greater responsibility. l nave
spoken only as a representative of the
people ana with a strict sense of OBJ
legations such a position imposes upon
me-"
Mr.. Stubbbs, of Martin, opposed the
Impeachment, saying We shOuld ap-
proach the matter dispasSionately, de-
iiberGtely. 1t was the greatest queS-
ton We will ever be called upon to on
SIQer. What il is that has brought
49, f.~~, 4 nnr-
ners of the state, n women are here
20 counsel and aid? To the committee
| is due thanks for their IaboTS. Iney
have presented a series of facts which
no man disputes, but L differ with them
as to their conclusions of laW and OF
fact. To justify these proceedings We
must find that they not only omTnltte
error of judgment, but that they did
it Willfuily and cOrruptly. h Tesolu-
ton relates to issuing Of a mandamus
and that is a tacit admission that the
decisions in Hill VS.. White and other
cases is the law of the land. We have
.Aen a Spectacle of gentlemen holding
office under highest legislative and ju
dicial authority and Legislature saying
ne snail have to pay for it. The man
damus simply gave a remedy TO a clti-
zen and an officer of the state who.
otherwise. was ~remediless. Whites
claim was not Il claim against the
state, as contemplated in the constlCu.
ton; for the constitution says claims
against the state can only be brought
before the supreme court by petition.
Whites claim was brought in the SUI
perior court and a mandamuS ordered
by Judge Starbuck. The supreme court
conquered in its opinion that Starbuck
had jurisdiction in the case. 1t was
known of all men hat the act of 1899
was intended to circumvent the decls-
ion of Hoke VS.. Henderson. No lawyer
disputes the proposition that every sec
ton of an act can be construed on tn,
principle of in par materia- The only
difference in the act of 1899 and the
populiSts and fusionistS was we tried
to clothe the purpose in little more le-
gal phraseology. 1 believe the court
could have said White was entitled to
81, 500. We talk about subverting the
rights of a coordinate branch of the
state government when we have pass
ed an act Intended to Subvert the prin-
ciples of our highest court. You re
Quire a man to perform duties and at
tempt to make it impossible for him to
do SO unless he starve. 1t is claimed
hat the supreme court waited until
members of the session of 1899 were
out of office before they ordered the is
suance of this order. You know they
knew the election of 1900 would send
back a democratic legislature that was
equally powerful to impeach. We ought
to be anxious. in the investigation OF
so grave a matter, to put the fairest
conclusion possible on the motives OF
otherwise good and conscientiou men.
Why say they shufffed on the bench
when the evidenc shows the court was
divided in opinion and why should We
not rather conclude that in not acting
hastily they were honestly seeking the
line of duty. If the opinions of this
court in the last two years were efforts
to thwart the will Of the Legislature.
then the court has been guilty Of that
offense for the last fifty years. In tn
case of Burton against Furman n
money had been set apar TO a him
and decision was based upon that fact.
In the case of White there were tvs
judgments setting out the amounts due
him and his right to same. d
Starbuck not only ordered the issuance
Of the writ. but went further than the