The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-19
OPENING SPEECH
FOR THE DEFENSE
Continued from First Page.

are required to go further and establish
beyond question the guilty intent. This
is the very essence Of the charges con-
tanned in the impeachment for certainly
the Respondents are not impeachable for
an error OF Judgment.
I'm thus stating our position on this
point l do not overlook the contention of
the learned counsel who opened for the
managers, that the Respondents would
be guilty even If they did no more than
make mistake of judgment. But surely
MIR. President. the honorable manager
did not intend that to be taken seriously.
He is too good a lawyer and too just a
ihan for that. He would not imDute to
on officer, high or low, guilt and shame
for mistakes made in an honest endeavor
to discharge his duty YETI, that is the
whole drift of his argument. In the
progress of this trial we shall attempt to
show the fallacy Of that argument, as
applied to this case.
QUESTION OF GOOD FAITH.
I'm State VS.. McNich. 80 N. c., $685. it
Is declared that even a policeman is ex-
cmpt from the operation Of SO harsh a
rule and that on an indictment for using
excessive force in making an arrest he is
entitled to have the question of his good
faith submitted to the jury. And in State
VS., Massey, Sc N. c., $50, it is so held.
This doctrine, Mr.. President is but an
affirmation Of settled principle of law
as we'll as cherished maxim of religion.
1t is nowhere more clearly expressed that
by Mr. Bishop in his excellent treatise
on Criminal Law, Vol. l., Secs. 2S7, 2SS
and 2S9.
eff the law were as it is claimed to be
by the managers the judiciary of the
State would soon give way to perpetual
court of impeachment From the greatest
to the least there has never yet been
Judge in this or any other land who did
not commit Neutrality-suspicious. mistakes
of Judgment As an instance l may cite
the case of Spruill vs.. Leary. 10 Iredell's
Law 225 and 4OS where Chief Justice Ruff
fin and Judge Pearson differed widely a
to an important principle involving right
of property The opinion of the court was
written by the Chief Justice and concufr-
ed in by Justice Nash and an able dis
sonting opinion was filed by Justice Pear
son. Within twelve months thereafter
the court acknowledged its error, revers-
ed it's opinion and in Myers VS.. Craig, "A
N. c., 1859 adopted the dissenting opinion
of Justice Pearson as embodying the
law en- that question But the property
sought in Spruill VS.. Leary had gone in
accordance with the erroneous judgment
in that case, and the party injured by
that decision was without remedy or re-
lief.
Il might if permitted, cite instance in
which the honorable manager himself
while upon the bench of this State COM
mitted mistakes of judgment which were
declared to be such by a unanimous court
composed of his own political friends.
Yet no one ever thought of impeaching
Ruffin or Nash or the amiable gentleman
who opened for the managers.
NO INFALLIBLE JUDGE.
where is the inerrant judge or the
infallible human being? From what ideal
realm does he comes, or in what delight
full cline has he ever dwelt?
mo. Mr. President the condition con-
templated by the rule of the managers
is a utopian dream-a bright vision Of
perfection never yet realized on earth.
The great Master saw into the very
depths of human nature and prescribed
the utmost bounds of human capability
when He declared that there is none good
save One; and until we are capable of be-
coming perfect, we cannot escape from
the rule Of error.
The issues raised by the impeachment
and the answer and plea thereto are,
therefore,
1st Have the respondents by causing
tho wrts of mandamus to be issued, vio
lated the Constitution and laws of the
state?
end. II so was such violation wilful and
intentional?
1--WE maintain that in respect of the mat
tors with which they are charged, the re-
spcndents committed no error; that under
the Constitution and laws of the State and
in conformity with the practice and pre-
cedents of the courts of this and other
States, they are amply warranted and
sustained in their judicial conduct and de-
cisons; that even if in this, there should
be difference of opinion, there is no room
whatever for the conclusion that they
were influenced by any improper motive
or that they acted with an evil or corrupt
intent. An examination of their decisions
from the time they first came upon the
s.aMzznnzszuzu1auAzR