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

0uSIlG2@.
From the Raleigh News n Observer
Of yesterday, we TAX the following
speech Of Hon. George Rountree, made
in the house of representatives the day
before in favor of the adoption Of the
impeachment resolution.
Mr.. ountre declared that ne had
never approached a duty that gave
him so much concern. and hat If he
could nave an honorable way out of it,
he would have escaped its performance.
He continued:
From the evidence as / have been
able to see it. and from the argument
of those preceding me. I am constrain-
ed to the conclusion that these judges
have committed a willful breach of the
constitution and are liable TO impeach-
ment-"
Referring to the earnest appeals for
mercy by the opponents to lmpeach-
ment. Mr.. said:
IT have found myself 8 moved by
them that while ! felt hat the judges
ought to be ~impeached. l have found
myself wishing to God some one else
had it 70 do.
Then he turned his attention to GER
tain attorneys and others who ave
been posing before members as "disin-
terested patriots" dispensing free ad-
vice. He said:
We have received a great deal of ad-
vice, some wise and some otherwise,
some from people who are disinterested
n some from people influenced by
other motives. / will not say that there
has been a concerted attempt to manu-
facture sentiment in favor of these
judges, but the counsel so freely given
on the streets and in newspapers, the
demonstrations here in galleries and
lnhhfoc Indicate that tha advice ia Ut
least Fictitious.
True and disinterested advice 1
would like to have. for 1 have been
anxious to find the right in this matter;
but after all is said n done, 1T is evil
dent that we alone must decide. There
is no escape for us from the duty. Fac
must deal with it in the light of hi
own individual judgment and con-
science. There is no other way"
With this Introductory Mr.. ROuntree
proceeded to give the reasons that had
impelled him to his conclusion in
of Impeachment, first defining the ma
ture of impeachment and the punish
ment prescribed. He went on to say:
Som have taken the ground that it
is a criminal proceeding whose punish
ment is of such awful SOlemnity that it
ought never to be invoked. Others
hold that it is a mere inquest of office.
/ will not discuss these views. but will
AAI ~ ~ @L- NAA1N III my CBAAhACA
1t ia a method devised IN constitutional
governments by which the representa-
JiVes of the people may remove unfaith-
full officials when their conduct is pref
judicial to the public welfare.
1T las been argued to you hat these
judges must not only be guilty of inten-
tional violation of the constitution, but
that such violation must have been
committed with a corrupt motive.
Without stopping to inquire what is
meant by corrupt motive in this con-
nectiOD, / will say that if what is Ordi-
narily termed corruption is meant,
that position is u~nsustained by author
ity.
"A distinguished writer in the Amer
lean Law Review. writing of impeach-
ment, says:
""There is one class of cases in re-
gard to which it is much more difficult
to lay down a rule, that is. where the
acts of the judge are discretionary, or
where he must act on his own interpre-
tatioR Of the law. In these cases it
must be shown that the Judge inten-
tionally acted contrary to the law;
that he knowingly violated :he rights
of the parties. but it is not necessary,
we think, to show a partial or corrupt
i've motive. If his motive be merely
spite against a party or his attorney,
an Intentionally erroneous decision is
equally criminal; so a number of ruF
ings contrary to law. which had the
community to believe that the judge
acts contrary to law. that he considers
only his own will, is dangerous to so
ciety, by diminishing respect for JUS
tice and mischievOusly affecting the
rights OF the parties and should render
him liable to impeachment.
There is no necessity in law for
proving corruption on the part of the
judges before Impeachment. In a for
mer constitution of the state it is Spe-
officially laid Down that a Judge may be
~impeached for wilful violation of the
constitution. Our present constitution.
like the constitution of the United
States, does not define what are i'm
Peachable crimes. but leaves it to the
common law which we derived from
England. In the code. however, it is
expressly DECEASED that impeachment
lies for corruption or misconduct in
office This c~onclusively shows that
corruption is not necessary.
Still another objection referred to by
Mr.. Rodntree was that Judges Furches
could not be impeached because he
had resigned the office he held when the
act was committed and accepted an
other. This objection Mr.. Rountree
considered hardly worth serious refuta-
ton. In his connection he cited the
Belknap case, and added:
THAT would be a bad form of gov
m in which an unfaithful officer
oOuid escape responsibility for his mis-
deeds by running away from the
charges against him
After reading this Mr.. Rountree con-
tinued:
1T is also said with great confidence
that a judge canno be impeaShed fol
merely declaring an act unconstitu-
tional, while this IS at least doubtful
Foster, the latest and an admirable
writer On the constitution. says, citing
many authorities:
1T does not consist in an error in
judgment made in good faith in thed de-
cision of a doubtful question of law, ex-
cept perhaps in the case of a violation
of the constitution.
III a ease decided by the Supreme
court of Louisiana, reported in As Louis
ana Annual at page 1855, state W
Sheriff, it is said:
THE great weight Of authority II
that an officer may be impeached while
in office for acts committed in a priol