The news & observer., 1901-03-27
CLOSING SCENES Of
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
1cnnt.nned from Second Page.

branches OF the government is paramount.
They arc cor-ordinate, equal, independent
and separate. If 1t is so great an offense
to ask that the judiciary remain within
it's proper sphere, what must be the act
of the judiciary when it has usurped
powers belonging only to the General
Assembly? Our government is not one of
an executive, nor yet is it legislative, nor
judicial. 1t is a government of the people
administered under forms of written law.
The policy of the Supreme court for the
last two years seems to have for it's pur-
rose to make the judiciary supreme, and
TO dwarf the legislative department Mr.
President and Senators, be not deceived
by the charge that the dignity or inde-
pendence of the judiciary is at stake
That is not the question. No person at
tacks their independence; no person has
attacked their dignity, but the dignity
and the rights of the General Assembly
arc at issue in this trial The people are
determined that their judiciary shall be
independent of every restraint save one;
but of one restraint it shall not be inde-
pendent. and that is the obligation upon
the court to regard and obey and enforce
the laws. Let the courts know that so
long as they obey the Constitution and
laws of the land and their oaths of office
they shall not he amenable to any power,
but let them know also that no man nor
thing, no officer, no Governor and no
judge in this State is or shall ba above
the law.
HOKE v. HENDERSON NOT ATTACKED
The defendants charge that we are
attacking the doctrine of Hoke against
Henderson. We do no such thing. For
the purposes of this argument we admit
it to have been good law when delivered,
and good law, now. What we do contend
is that the recent office decisions of the
Supreme court are not justified by that
decision, they are not in line with 1t, and
in many respects they are totally repug-
nant to this reasoning. Be not disturbed
by the contention that we are attacking
Hoke VS.. Henderson. such is not the case;
We are attacking the peryersion OF that
doctrine.
RIGHT TO DECLARE LAWS UNCONSTI-
TUTIONAL NOT DENIED.
THE defence alleges that this prosecu-
tion is, in effect, an assertion that the
Supreme court has not the power to de-
clare acts of the General Assembly un
constitutional. Such contention has
never entered into our minds. We assert
one of the highest duties of the courts
is to pass upon the constitutionality of
the acts of the General Assembly and
when such acts are antagonistic to the
Constitution, it is their duty to so de-
clare If that were not true, the very
proposition that we contend for would
fail The theory of this prosecution is
that the three coordinate branches of the
icfiy ind Of
each other and equal in authority in the
proper sphere of each. Now if the courts
must take and enforce every act which
the Legislature enacts it is manifest that
the Legislature becomes supreme, and
the theory that the three departments
are equal, independent and coordinate
falls to the ground
POLITICAL INFLUENCE.
MIR. Busbee charged that the prosecu-
tion was Influenced by political motives
and political necessity and was being
pressed by political influence. This is a
grave charge, if true. In a sense, every
impeachment trial is a political meas
ure. The proceeding is essentially politi-
cal in its nature. It's purpose is to re-
move from the body polite a public and
political evil In that sense, every inn
cal. If this is the sense in which Mr..
Busbee used that language, there is no
objection to it; it would be mere state
ment of an elementary fact, and it would
indicate that he wished to point out the
difference between an impeachment trial,
intending to remedy political evil from
an ordinary trial at law where private
rights arc litigated But | apprehend that
Mr.. Busbee, forgetting the proprieties of
the occasion, did not intend his language
to have this meaning, but he intended to
say that the members of the House of
Representatives, acting in their official
capacities, and bound by their oathS of
office had preferred this charge against
the Respondents, not because they be-
cause they believed the charges to be
true but because they thought they and
their party might gain political advant
age thereby, and that the prosecution is
now being pressed by somebody, not
from good motives, but for the purpose
of gaining political advantage. Such a
charge has not been brought publicly, to
my knowledge in this State, since the
trial of Governor Holden. 1t was urged
there almost in the language of Mr.. Bus
bee uses now. May we ask Mr.. Busbee
for the proofs whereupon he makes this
charge? On Saturday you, Mr.. President,
admonished Mr. Busbee to keep within the
record arguing. May | ask you Sena-
tors now to name scintilla of evidence
which will justify Mr.. Busbee's remarks? :?
I see men of the same political party,
here and elsewhere, differing upon this
question, and if | know the purposes of
the managers and of their counsel, it is
to present the evidence and the law be-
fore you as we would in the ordinary
courts of justice. When he says that
party influence is being brought to bear
to secure the conviction of these Re-
spondents, he states what he ought to
have proven during the trial if it existed,
and having failed to prove which, he
must not now aliege. | venture this pre-
diction, Mr.. President and Senators, that
the only political party which will show
a division of sentiment on this question
vii be the party With which the managers
affiliate, and that the other two parties
will vote on political lines. Mr.. Busbee
makes too low an estimate of humanity
when he charges that the House of Repre-
sentatiyes was actuated by sinister mo-
tiveS in accepting these articles Of inn