The news & observer., 1901-03-15
THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL BEGINS IN
The SENATE
Continued from Third Page.)

of knowledge of the affao+ os their CON
duct? | am not prepared however. to
admit that it is neceseer,, +o show that
'he leSponuents knew that they were do
ihs an liiesaI act' As l have shown, this
oelehse was not allowed upon the trial
OIL Anure" Johnson, and l believe that a
proper conception of the reasons which
put IN motion the powers of a court of
impeachment will show that il ought not
to be recognized anywhere The primary
object OF court of impeachment is not
to punish, but to purge the public SER
vice; to get rid of an unworthy official :;
to remove from office one whose conduct
is dangerous to the public welfare. The
court has ample powers to carry into
enect this purpose. There can be no
DOUBT that the acts of public official that
are dangerous to the public do as much
harm 10 the public service, if done
through ignorance or even from honest
motives, as II done from corrupt mo-
tlVes, and II the purpose of impeachment
is for the public good, it would seem
that both should be treated alike
WHAT KNOWINGLY, MEANS.
But If it is necessary to show knowledge
and intentional wrong doing upon the part
OF the respondents, we expect to furnish
evidence to the court which we will insist
will amply justify the court in finding that
the respondents are guilty. We will point
the court to the conduct of the respon-
dents in causing the writ of mandamus
to issue, and will insist that their hesita-
tion that their attempts to shift the re-
sponsibility from themselves to the
clerk of the Supreme court; their denial
OF the right to member of the court to
put upon record his protest against the
issuing of the writ, in connection with the
fact that the Legislature had announced
its purpose to assert its rights and that
their attention was directly called to the
provisions of the Constitution and to the
law which they are charged with viola
ting, and that the writ was then issued
and they knew Worth would pay, shows
that they knew that they were doing
wrong. The opinion in White VS.. the
Auditor was filed on MAY 22 1900 No
writ of mandamus was then issued to
enforce the Judgment in the action. At
the September term of the court the
counsel for White applied in open court
for the writ of mandamus. The court
asked il notice had been given, and upon
it being stated that no notice had been
given, declined to issue the writ. In
few days another application was made,
and the court then inquired if an affidavit
had been filed, and upon it's being stated
that there was no affidavit, again declined
to consider the application. They then
told the clerk privately that in their opin
ion he ought to issue the writ. But
Judges Montgomery and Clark having
told him that he had no power to issue
the writ, he declined to do SO. The coun-
sci for White being persistent the clerk
went to the judges in conference and
asked for instructions. They declined to
give him instructions as court, but the
respondents expressed it as their individ-
ual opinions that it was his duty to issue
the writ The clerk not being satisfied
with this direction, went to them a second
time in conference, and they then direct
ed the writ to issue; and it was issued.
1t was not. however. issued until the
respondents had information that Worth.
the Treasurer of the State. wouli Otey
the writ. And after having directed it
to issue, they refused to member of the
court the right to file his dissenting opin-
ion and his protest against the action
of the court Why should they have been
guilty of such conduct if their motives
were good2 If they believed that they
had the power to issue the writ, and that
they were not violating any provision of
the Constitution or of the law, and if they
believed that the opinion filed on the 23
of May authorized the issuing of the
writ, why was it that when the first ap-
plication was made they did not then say
to the counsel, go to thetclerk and have
him to issue the writ? This was in open
court, in the face of the public. Why
did they refuse the second time to issue
the writ in open court, and why is it, il
it was the individual opinion of these
respondents, that it was the duty OF the
clerk to issue it, that they not direct
him to do SO when he came to them at
their first conference? Their whole con-
duct, as we shall insist shows that they
knew that they did not have this power;
that they were undertaking to shift the
responsibility from themselves to the
clerk of the Supreme court, and they
were unwilling, for the reasons urged
against the issuing of the writ, as con-
tanned in the dissenting opinion of Judge
Clark, to be placed upon the records. we
ask you, Senator'S, to judge of this con-
duet as you would of the conduct Of any
other man, and say if it is the conduct OF
men acting honestly in the discharge of
official duty.
The answer which they have filed IN TINS
case, to our minds confirms this view, be-
cause of it's evasiveness and it's lack OF
candor IIOon this material DOint. They
undertake to create the impression IN the
answer that no order was ever made ana
no directions given for issuing the writ OF
mandamus except such as are contained
in the opinion filed on May p, 1900. III
they intend to stand by this answer ana
to ask the Senate to reach such conclu-
sion, we expect to prove that the answer,
in this respect at least, is aosolutey
false.
In asking you to find the respondents
guilty upon the articles of Impeachment
it is not necessary that we should attack
the case of Hoke VS.. Henderson. me
doctrine there announced, kept Wltnln
proper bounds, is dangerous to the pup
lie service. But for the purposes OF thls
trial we may admit that it IS souhu law
No one knows better than the respondents
that the doctrine of that case is danger
Gus, and that it must not be EXTENDED. III
ho of 20 wilson III n. u,