The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-03-26
The Impeachment.
MONDAY, MARCH Is.

Court OF 6dCuL III OHO
Judges David NJ. Furches and Robert
M. Douglas. of the North Carolina Su
preme Court, Judge w. P. Bynum,
Jr., on Monday, 18th, delivered a
mastery argument in behalf of the
respondents. For two hours and ff-
tv minutes he held the attention of
his audience as point by point he met
the charges against the accused judg-
es and cited decision after decision to
sustain their course. Judge Bynum
is a pleasing speaker, and he made a
great argument, so logical that his
arguments and conclusions seemed
bound together like links in a chain.
He said that two questions were
involved. First, have the Judges vi
olated the law ? Second, was it done
wilfully?
Answering the first question, he as
serted that the judges had merely
followed a long line of ]precedents IN
their decisions in the office holding
cases. To show the weakness of this
charge against the judges he asked
why, if it was an Improbable offence,
was not Judge Montgomery, who had
concurred in the opinions, also pre-
scented ?
"In every one of these office hold
ing cases the opinion of the court
was cOncurred in by four justices
and one is as much responsible for
the decisions as the other. One OF
them, the venerable Chief Justice,
suddenly stricken by the hand of
death, has gone to a higher court,
before a greater judge. Two Of the
others are here, passing without COM
plaint through this, the greatest
ordeal of their lives. The fourth sits
upon yonder bench unscathed and
uncriticised in the faithful and unln-
terrupted performance of his official
duties. Are we not forced to the
conclusion from this, that the mem
bers of the House of Representatives,
in exhibiting through their manag-
ers, the impeachment against these
respondents, alone, were satisfied
that in those decisions
THERE WAS COMMITTED NO WRONG
or if any, at most but an erro of
Judgment :"
As to the mandumus, he asserted
that in issuing it the judges acted le-
gally as it vas
IN NO SENSE a CLAIM AGAINST H
STATE.
When the case was before Judge
Starbuck, it was never suggested by
attorneys on either side that White
held a claim against the State. The
Auditor and Treasurer appealed to
the Supreme Court, nor was it
charged then that this was a claim
against the State.
Judge Bynum then stated that a
judge
COULD NOT BE MPEACHED FOR AN Err
ROR OF JUDGMENT
but corrupt motive must be shown.
Gin thus stating our position on
this point, l do not overlook the con-
tentiOn of the learned counsel who
opened for the managers, that the
Respondents would be guilty event
if they did no more than make a mis-
take of Judgment. But surely, Mr..
President, the honorable manager
did not intend to be taken seriously.
If the law was as it is claimed to be
by the managers the judiciary of the
State would Don give way to u per
petual court of impeachment. From
the greatest to the least, there has
never yet been a judge in this or any
other land who did not commit mis-
takes-grievOus mistakes-Of judg-
ment. l might, if permitted, cite in
stances in which the honorable mana
ger himself while upon the bench of
this State committed mistakes of
Judgment which were declared to be
such by a unanimous court compos
ed of his own political friends. Yet
no one ever thought of impeaching
Ruffin or Nash or the aimable gen
tlemen who opened for the managers.
RECORD OF THE JUDGES.
81 invite you to look back upon
the record of their official lives and
discover if you can anything so dark
and criminal as to Justify the inlic-
ton of the terrible punishment
which would be involved in a con-
viction upon this impeachment.
Where is the crime, where is the
wrong they have committed?