The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-14
GOV. JARVIS ON IMPEACHMENT.
He Discusses the Legal Questions Iayolved in
the Matter

There is a. great question before the
House of Representatives, which COMES
up for considera ton next THURSDAY,
which is full of danger to that party
and / write to beg those who are press
ing it to hesitate, and, if possible, re-
trace their steps before they commit
the party to this perilous venture.
know the men who are leading the
movement to impeach Judges Furches
and Douglas. They are able. wise pa
triotic, courageous men, ready TO do or
not TO do what their conscience tells
them to be their duty but like myself.
they are but human and liable to err.
In the thirty years and more in which
| have taken part, as a public Official
or private citizen, in the discussion or
settlement of the important questions
which have arisen / have sometimes
had doubts as to where the path Of
duty for myself and loyalty to my State
lay. But in this proposed impeach-
ment of two of the judges of our Su-
preme court l have had no doubts. ]
have strong conviction and have had
from the first start, to begin it was a
mistake and to continue it is worse
one. In saying this | do not wish 70
be understood as rejecting upon tie
gentlemen who are pressing it. l con-
coed to them the same honest conV.c-
ton / claim for myself
There are many legal questions 70 be
encountered and overcome before the
impeachment can be consummated.
will suggest a few. | cannot argUe
them in this communication. Is ;udga
Improbable for mistake in law: is
it not necessary to go further ana
charge and prove something more?
Conceedine. that Chief Justice Fairclotl
and Associate Judges Furches anil
Douglas were wrong in their rulings,
then is it not necessary to charge ana
prove that they deliberately, wilfull!'
and knowingly violated the Constitl
ton or disobeyed the law? Where is
the evidence of this? If they acted
conscientiously and believed they We're
making lawful rulings, are they inn
peachable? Where is the evidence mat
they did not so act? Can it be argued
that having shown they acted illegally,
it is for them to show that they acted
honestly? What man who knows any
thing about law and the responsibilities
and trials OF high public station would
dare make such an argument? Is l.
not the true and better rule that al
men charged with high public duties
are presumed to act honestly in the dis
charge of their duties?. Ii this be the
true rule, then where is the evidence
to rebuff this presumption and to SHOW
that these judges did not SO act?
II Judge Furches is to be impeache1,
shall he be impeached as chief justice,
or as associate Justice? Are not the
offices of chief justice and associate
justice separate and distinct offices uE-
der our state Constitution? Judge
Furches was elected, (appointed) to the
office of chief justice long since the
alleged offence was committed. When
that was committed another person,
now dead, was chief justice. Can Chief
Justice Furches be impeached and r"-
moved from office for something Asec-
ciate Justice Furches did? Is not the
office of associate justice as separate
and distinct from that Of chief ju5uc"
as is the office of Superior court judge
from that of chief justice? If the Gov
ernor had taken a judge from the SUI
preme court bench and made him CHIEF
Justice, could he be impeached ana re
moved from the office of chief Justt,@
for something he did as a Superior
court Judge? If not, then how cam
Judge Furches he impeached and 1e-
moved from the office Of chief justice
for something Associate Justice Furclles
did? If he cannot be impeached and
removed from the office of chief justice.
then what is to be gained by impeach-
ing him as associate justice? He does
not hold that office now, and how can
he be removed from it? 1t is poss'bie
that ANYBODY in North Carolina wants
To see enacted the ridiculous farce that
the Diplomats at Pekin are insisting
that the Chinese shall go through
that of beheading men who are admit
ed to be dead? Would it not be quite
as ridiculous for the House to go
through the form of impeaching and
the Senate trying and removing man
from an office he has long before va
Gated?
But, Mr.: Editor, apart from these le-
gal considerations | am opposed to the
impeachment of these Judges for otne.
reasons While / differ with them IN
the ruling they made, and agree with
Justice Clark and Montgomery, still l
believe they thought they were rSht
and that they acted honestly. | have
known them Tor many years and while
] have never agreed with them in Doii-
ties, | have always regarded them as
honest upright men. My opinion of
them has not changed, although I have
often differed with them in their decis-
ions.
There is no public demand for their
impeachment even among Democrats.
On the contrary public sentiment, 50
far as | have been able to learn and
interpret it, is against it. There are
thousands of Democrats who are oppos-
ed - it and who win never endorse il.
If it is pressed and consummated there
is danger that it will divide the part%,
and that, too, at a time when we need
harmony and unity to carry to sue
cessful conclusion the great reforms
and progressive movements We have IN
dertaken.
If I have interpreted Alright. the re-
Spouse the people have made to the
noble, generous sentiment expressed
by Governor Aycock in his magnificent
inaugural address they demand that
the bitterness of the past shall be al
Inaugural address, they demand that
n spirit of federation and justice shall