The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-19
always rejoicing, while the condemnation

| tion of this State provides that "the judi
| cial power of the State shall be vested in
court for the trial of Impeachments,
the Supreme Court. Superior Courts,
| Courts of Justices of the Peace, and such
/ other courts inferior to the Supreme Court
as may be established by law"
Section 8 of the same article provides
/ that, "The Court for the trial of I'M
/ peachments shall be the Senate"
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
For the purpose of this trial, therefore,
| the Senate is a court, organized as such
| under the Judicial power of the State, and
| so styled in the provisions of the Consti-
| tuition which | have read. 1t is the high
| est court of the State. It's powers and
| Jurisdiction are clearly prescribed and
| defined by Statute. 1t has power ito
compel the attendance of parties and wit
nesses, to enforce obedience to its orders,
mandates, writs, precepts and judgments,
| to preserve order, punish in a summary
| way contempts of it's authority, to make
| all legal rules and regulations which it
may deem essential or conducive to the
ends of Justice" Before entering upon
his duty as a member of this court, every
Senator is required to take an oath or
make affirmation that he will truly and
impartially try and determine the charge
in question under the Constitution and
laws according to the evidence, and no
member of the court shall sit or give his
vote upon the trial until he shall have
taken such oath or affirmation"
After the articles have been exhibited
by the House of Representatives they be-
come the Impeachment, Just as after the
finding of bill in a Criminal court it be-
comes an indictment.
"Of this impeachment you are the triers
just as a jury are the triers of an indict
| ment except that you are judges as we'll
as jurors. You sit together hear the
law and the evidence and render your YER
dict of guilty or not guilty upon every
article II your verdict be guilty, there
may follow greater ignominy, severer
punishment than ever attends the COM
mission of any crime or misdemeanor not
a felony under the laws of this State,
Here then is high criminal court
brought into existence by the Constitu-
tion, with jurisdiction prescribed by Stat
ute. 1t is composed of the Senators of
North Carolina, sworn to impartiality;
and the question given them in charge is
the Impeachment of the respondents at
the bar.
VI lilESS SIX lillp6dCHdDiG OllCIoSo uC-
nounced by the status, the respondents
! are charged with the commission Of only
one, that is corruption or other miscon-
duct in their official capacity" Indeed
they are not charged with all of that, for
it is not contcnded that they have been
guilty of corruption, but of 'other mis-
conduct in their official capacity" What
is meant by these words? 1t is fami-
4;o,, oy,I
declared in State VS.. VasburgA111 N c..
721, that when there are general words
following particular and specific words
the former must be confined in their
meaning to things of the same kind And
that when particular words are followed
by general words, as after the cnumera-
ton of classes of persons or things it is
added "and all Others" the general words
are restricted in meaning to objects of
like kind with those specified. f Another
well settled rule of construction is, that
criminal statutes must be strictly con-
strued Applying these well settled
principles to our present inquiry,
we are forced to conclude% that
the words cor other misconduct in their
official capacity mean misconduct of
the same kind and character as corrup-
tion in Office
MEANING OF CORRUPTION.
The meaning of the word corruption"
as used in this statute was then discussed
and Mr.. Bynum declared that the words
"or other misconduct in his official ca
pacty," following Immediately the parti-
cular word corruption relates to, and are
intended to define an offence of a nature
similar to that of corruption in office.
1T is meant not only to define the of
fence of wilful misconduct in office. which
may be punished by the laws of this
State, but such misconduct as neces-
sarily involves the element of corruption
No mere omission or neglect Of duty, no
error of judgment alone is meant by these
words It must be an unlawful act pro-
ceeding from corrupt or bad motive
They mean something more than tech
nical violation of the law; they imply
that such an act must be the result of
an evil, dishonest purpose deliberately
formed and carried out.
But passing by the question which con-
fronts us at the very threshold of this
argument as to whether or not the i'm
peachment in this case charges in any of
it's articles such an offense as is con-
templ7ted and included in the statute
OF IHlS state QSHnluS lHpedCudDlS VI
ences, let us see what the honorable
managers are required to prove before
they can be warranted in asking con-
viction upon the impeachment as it
stands.
Without reciting at length the allega-
tions il the several articles, they may be
summed up in the general statement that
the Respondents are charged with hav
ing in their official capacity as Associate
Justices of the Supreme court and con-
trary to the course and practice OF the
courts, wilfuIly rendered erroneous decis
ions and caused to be issued certain writs
with a deliberate intent to violate tho
Constitution and nullfy and destroy the
laws of the Statee. The charge involves
an unlawful act coupled with a specific
guilty intent.
Before the honorable managers can
consistently ask for a conviction they
| must satisfy the court beyond all reason
| able question not only that the Respond
| ents committed the acts charged in the
| Impeachment, but that they committed
them with the specific purpose and intent
| therein alleged, namely, to violate the
! Constitution and laws of the State. 1t is
as imperative to prove the one as it is the
| cthor and thore can hp no conviction nm