The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-03
WHAT THE WEST SAYS
Willing to Trust the Senate S
Conscience.
If the Judges Are Guilty, The Senators Need
Not Fear 10 Vote FOR the
Impeachment.
Especial to News and Observer

respondent has had reasonably good OPP
portunity for learning the sentiment OF
the Democratic masses OF Burke county
upon the subject Of impeachment, and has
taken pains TO make diligent inquiry and
verify his information. All Republicans as
a rule, view every question that presents
itself. whether Of a legal religious or
polit character, from a partisan stand
point. Naturally they decide without
reading the evidence that no Republican
office holder has been guilty of improper,
much less criminal conduct. The Demo-
Gratis OF this countrv, on the other hand,
universally express a desire, that there
should be a full and fair investigation and
are willing TO trust the Senate of North
Carolina TO render true verdict upon
hearing the evidence. majority Of in
telligent lavmen think they deserve pun
ishment. OF the minority the greater
number are simply awaiting the finding.
But with ver.r few exceptions all classes
are willing to trust the Senate to render
Just decision and not only will be con-
tent with it. but will defend their action.
Public opinion in the West in not in favor
of any attempt to drive the Senate OF
North Carolina, either by threatening
Senator'S or the party, from following the
dictates of their own consciences. II they
find that these men have. in their oDin-
ion. been guilty of the high crimes and
misdemeanors with which they are charg-
ed, they need not fear to say 50. The
people of North Carolina believe they are
honest. and so believing are willing to
To tha
grave duty, which the laws of North Caro-
lima devolves upon them
| have heard gentlemen of the legal
profession say, that one or two strong
points against the accused judges had not
yet been fully elaborated. The authority
chiefly relied upon by the friends of Jus
tees Furches and Douglas is Cotton vs.
Ellis. The argument is that Chief JUS
tice Pearson granted a mandamus against
the governor, whose duty it then was to
issue a warrant and that therefore the
court as then constituted would, in a
similar case. have issued warrant
against an executive officer like the Au-
ditor for similar reasons. The answer
suggested BY the lawyers referred to is
that Gotten VS.. Ellis is not an authority
in this case for two reasons
First, it will be remembered that Chief
Justice Pearson based the opinion of the
court upon the ground that the office
of Adjutant- General was created by an
act Of Congress in pursuance of the Con-
stitutson of the United States" and that
1t followed that the LEGISLATURE had no
power to abolish the office" Upon this
conclusion Of law the court ordered only
an alternative mandamus, and said 1--WE
~.
writ Will be enforced" SUPPOSE Gov.
Ellis had answered IN that case. or the
Auditor had answered in the White case,
that for reasons given he would not obey
it, We know what Chief Justice Pearson
would have done, if Gov. Ellis had refused
TO obey because. when Holden refused
obedience to the great writ of right, the
writ of habeas corpus his comment upon
the return was that the nower OF the
! judiciary was exhausted. His position
was, that to concede the right of the SUI
preme Court to imprison the Governor
for contempt was TO give the judicial de-
| p2rtment the power, contrary to the Con-
stituton. to destrcv the efficiency of
coordinate branch of the government.
The same reasoning would make ii uncon-
stitutional to imrriscn the head OF one
| OF the executive departments of the gov
eminent, such as the Auditor.
/ Col. Edward Cantwell appeared for Cen
J eral Gotten and argued his appeal before
the Supreme Court. He used to tell his
friends of a colloouy between the Chief
Justice and himself. which was about as
| follows:
Mr. Cantwell, suppose the court should
grant Il peremptory mandamus in this
case, and the Governor should refuse to
obey it, what would you do if you occupied
the place of Chief Justice, speaking for
/ the conrt?''
Col. Cantwell answered Il would put
him in jail for contempt, sir"
Then if you were Governor. Mr.. Can't
| we'll, what would you do?"
/ Il would send for the Secretary" said
Col Cantwell, land pardon myself out"
| But only the alternative writ was grant
ed. and if Judge Clark's suggestion had
been followed. and the same process had
been issued in this case, a deal of trouble
/ and anxiety might have been avoided
| A second position suggested is that the
case of Gotten VS.. Ellis came before the
court, and the decision was rendered be-
| fore section TX. article Nv was embodied
| in the Constitution, giving the Supreme
Court exclusive original jurisdiction of
claims against the State and forbidding
! that court to issue process in the nature
of execution thereon. A layman looking
at Webster's Dictionary. finds that execu-
/ ton, in a legal sense, is defined to be "A
| judicial writ by which an officer is en-
/ powered to carry a judgment into effect"
| II a writ, which is intended as notice to
an officer. that if he does not pay a GER
| tain sum of money he will be landed in
| jail till he gets into a different frame
of mind, is not designed to carry into eff
| feet Judgment that he ought 10 pay that
| same sum of monev, then in the name of
common sense what was it issued? If the
| meaning OF that this new provision in
serted in the Constitution since Gotten
VS.. Ellis was decided. is so plain to a
| layman, how can two lawyers selected for
their learning be heard to say that they
did not intend to violate the Constitution?
Improving Rapidly.
HISS Gov