The news & observer., 1901-03-27
Diqests what YOU eat.

| DlgeStS what you eat.
Itartifcially digests the food and aids
Nature in strengthening and recon
StruCtiug the exhausted digestive OF
gals. 1t Is the latest discovereddigest-
ant and tonic. No other preparation
can approach 1t in efficiency. 1t in
stantly relieves and permanently cures
I Dyspepsia, Indigestion, Heartburn
Flatulence, Sour Stomach, Nausea
Sick Headache, Gastralgia Cramps anc
all other results Of imperfect digestion
Price5oc. and 81. Large size contains 21s time.
small size. Book all aboutd dyspepsia Eaailederc
Prepared by {. c. tscWiTT AGO.. cbIc7~~-
I when it says that every officer in thi:
| State shall be liable to impeachment fol
| corruption or other misconduct 4. mis- Of
| fetal capacity to mean that corruption
was something which savored Of bribery
or personal dishonesty, and that the
words 'or other misconduct in their Off
cial capacity meant offences in the same
nature as bribery orrpersonal dishonesty
l respectfully submit that the statute
cannot possibly have this meaning. II
it has this meaning then the conviction
of Governor Holden in 1871 was manifest
ly unjust, yet voice has not been raised
in generation to contend that this
impeachment was unjustiied, or un-
necessary. There have been very few
imreachments in this country where either
bribery or offences partakng in their
nature Of personal corruption or
dishonesty have played a part.
The reason for this is plain. For these
offences the ordinary courts of law fur
nish a complete and adequate remedy,
and resort is had to them. They can
award punishments which will protect the
public and deter the evil in a simpler
and more regular manner than the Court
of Impeachment. The Courts of Impeach-
ment, the text writers tell us, are of a
political nature, and their purpose is
to relieve the people from unfaithful
officers whose unfaithfulness constitutes
source of public 1anger. This public
danger is present when man vino is
personally honest and who WoulG noc
touch a dollar of the public funds is gull
ty of a violation of his oath Of Office
or his duty to the State. Therefore, the
jurisdiction of Court of impeachment
has never been, nor ever can be, limited
to the punishment of public officers whose
misconduct Savors Of peCsonll corruption.
In fact the punishment OF such factors
is not the primary or priEcipa! province
of the Court of Impeachment. Its prov
ince has ever been in the nature of an
inquest of office, to scrutinize the con-
duct of public officers, and if they have
been unfathful in any respect, and if the
public needs require it, remove them
from office All Of the authorities tell
us that if public officers do acts which
are subversive Of the constitution of
their country they are impeachable.
THE House of Representatives, in the
fifth of the Articles Of Impeachment, has
charged the Respondents, in effect, with
an attempt to usurp and exercise func-
tions which, by the constitution, belong
to the General Assembly, and to deny
to the Legislature its rightful authority
If the House of Representatives can
make good these charges. then, no mat
ter hcw honest may be these judges, in
private life, or how scrupulous their sense
of personal honesty may be, il they have
done the acts charged, they are impeach-
able, and if the House of Representatives
have proven these acts, it bcomes the
duty of this court to convict and pro-
nounce judgment.
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE JUDICIARY.
Let us see Ecw, Mr.. President and
Senator's whether the Respondents in
their judicial capacity have encroached
upon the province of the General Assem-
bly,, and have exceeded tier own proper
jurisdiction. All the acts charged against
the Respondents are alleged to have been
committed since the adjournment of the
Legislature in March, 1S99 That General
Assembly met, after an election which
marked a political revolution in this
State After having been in accord for
four years, after the meeting of the Gen
eral Assembly of 1899 the Legislative and
Judicial departments of this State repre-
sented antagoristic political ideas. The
legislation done by the General Assem-
bly, Of 1899 was in accordance with politi-
cal ideas not in common With those held
by a majority of the Supreme court. 1t
was the purpose of that General Assem-
bly, to reorganize, as far as in its power
lay, all those departments of the State
government which were the subject Of
legislative enactment. 1t is not our
province nor desire to discuss the rea-
sons for this legislation, it is sufficient to
say that it had afways been the prov
ince, as it was supposed to be the duty,
of the General Assembly to regulate and
to change from time to time all those
departments of State Government not es-
tablished by the constitution. Measures of
great Importance, not only regulating
these affairs, but also having for their
purpose the permanent welfare of the
State, we're enacted or proposed by that
General Assembly. During the month of
March, 1S99 that General Assembly ad
journed Shortly thereafter there be-
came manifest through decisions of a
mapority of the Supreme court, which ma
iority included these Respondents, pur-
pose to restrict the powers of the Legis
Iature into narrower limits than had
heretofore been known. Soon this ten
dency developed into an apparently set
tied purpose to nullify much of the most
important legislation effected by that Leg
slature. Act after act was made to be
of non effect, and act after act was per-
verted as the General Assembly had not
dreamed Of Here were subjects of leg
islation, admittedly within the province OF
the QRneral Assembly, and about which
there was no constitutional inhibition
upon the General Assembly, and upon
which the Legislature had expressed its
intention in unmistakable terms, and IN
the manner prescribed in the constitu-
tion, but tho hand of the court paralyzed
the work of the Legislature, and it fell
IN bo md thing