The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-02-22
Ole Messengrr.
SOME ABLE

044oPC III IHO HOSl AllSldClOEE
and forceful arguments made for i'm
parchment 50 far as we have been able
to determine from the extracts of de-
bate in N Raleigh papers were those
of Messrs. Allen. of Wayne. and Roun-
tree, Of New Hanover. The Messenger
does not propose to give any opinion as
to how members of the house should
vote on this very important matter. The
senate is to try the two Judges, and a
newspaper need not be too swift to de-
eide in advance as to the guilt or n
OF the accused. Beyond this the
Messenger will not go at this stage of
the proceedings-to say that the speak
ers for impeachment make out what ap-
pears to be a strong case for action.
The senate, the court TO cry. after hear
ing arguments on both sides. may de-
eide otherwise as it has a igh to do
if c-onscientiously satisfied that the two
judges are innocent in the eyes OF the
law. and that they nave not violated
the spirit and letter of the constitution
which they have solemnly sworn to
Il was only on yesterday we saw the
OF inc report of Mr.. Rountree's lucid
al ument. 1t is a legal argument in
the main. He spoke for an hour and
three-quarters. and the Raleigh Post
says it was IAN exhaustive and strong
argument in support of the report of
the majority" We purpose to note an
opinion here and there. He to
auditors that 1.-THE plea for moderation
and mercy was so strongly made that
I feel that while the Judges ought to
be impeached, / would to heaven that
the duty devolved pon some one else
9th han myself.
- appears that we have received a
gocG deal of advice on this subject.
I will not say that there has been
an fort to manufacture sentiment
against Impeachment. but it looks hat
way. Many of us have been approach
ed on the streets. in the Hobbies, some
OF the newspapers have tried to create
sentiment, and the applause in the gal
lery has not been without purpose. All
of this looks factious.
After all this advice It is the duty
To- US to decide this question. There
was no escape after the resolution was
introduced. We have TO decide as our
&C. sciences dictate and no else can de-
cide for us. No one here desires simply
TO convict"
Speaking of the right of impeach-
ment after d~isposing of some objec-
tions to what it is. he said that 'it is
a matter devised in constitutional gov
eminent whereby the representatives of
the people may remove corrupt or I'M
faithful officials or officials whose con-
duct may be prejudicial to the public
welfare" He then plainly stated this,
and Is worth attention:
"There IS no necessity in the law for
proving that there was on
h part of the judges before they can
he impeached. 1t was aid down in the
constitution prior to 1868 that O judge
might be impeached for wilful violation
of the constitution. That is not in the
constitution now. Practically it is. The
present constitution does not say h
offenses are Improbable crimes. 1t
leaves that to the Judgment of the leg
isla ture."
As 10 the absurd statement that
Judge Furches could not be impeached
for his own deliberate acts. Mr.. Roun-
tree said: Il don't see it in that a
Impeachment in North Carolina is an
act Of removing unfa1thfuI officers and
not punish lg private citizens. Tha
question has been decided in the Louisi-
ana Forty-ninth Annual"
1t strikes us that he is not too severe
when referring to some judicial doings
and sayings of recent times that IF
the old judges who sat On the bench
years ago could come BACK and see re-
cent opinions of this court they would
be as much surprised as the lawyers OF
the state were when the cases were de
cided. | stand here and say that Hoke
VS.. Henderson was sound law. The
case vas decided that if Brother Allen
was elected clerk of the court for four
years. he could not be removed and
some one put in his place. That's all
Hoke VS.. Henderson decided"
Mr.. Rountree evidently favors i'm
parchment with exceeding reluctance.
He is simply compelled by facts and
evidence to act as he does. speaking for
the exercise of an important legislative
function and duty. He said impressive
iy. answering another:
II would not vote for Impeachment if
this is all the judges had done. But
they made the fatal plunge and violated
the constitution. The constitution says
in substance that no writ of andamus
shall issue against the state.
They could nave rendered these de-
cisions relating to offices as long as
they pleased. but when they plunged
their hands into the public treasury
they violated the constitution. We are
not impeaching for the partisan deci-
sions of the court. but for a fiat VIOLA
ton of the constitution. And / want to
say here that the opinions of the court
were most fippant-"
His arraignment Of the action of the
two judges is strong and pointed. We
take a few extracts taken here and
there: