The news & observer., 1901-03-15
: He IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL BEGINS IN
THE SENATE
(cOntinued from LIST page.)

We then began the consideration of the
inferences and conclusions that we would
draw from these facts. After unanimously
agreeing upon report to the effect that
the respondents were guilty of conduct
which made them liable to impeachment,
we refused to recommend to the full
committee the course the committee
should take upon the resolution of i'm
peachment, feeling that the full commit
tee should be free to take such action as
1t thought best, and that it should not be
in the situation of having, to reject our
recommendation or to adopt the resolu-
tion. The report of this subcommittee
was considered by the Judiciary Commit
tee at three meetings. 1t was discussed
fully, calmly and deliberately, and in the
course of the discussion there was mani
tested no spirit except that of arriving at
the truth There were no impassioned
speeches, and there was no effort to in
fluence any member on account of any
political consideration The committee
reported the resolution to the House, and
it was there considered for four days, full
opportunity for debate being given to all.
We point to these facts as evidence that
the charge is false that any consideration
has Influenced the House except that of
the public good. There were Republicans
upon the committee who participated in
all the deliberations.
NOT A SMALL MATTER.
Again. it has been said that
this is small matter; that
only the sum of $S31.0O is in
volved, and that this does not justify
the organization of a Court of Impeach
ment. The amount is not large, but l hope
to show that the principle in
volved is vital and that 1t is one placed
in the Constitution by the people for the
preservation of their liberties, and upon
which perhaps more depends than upon
any other In the Constitution The amount
involved, however, is important, but
all know that if judges can compel the
payment of s831.00 out of the Treasury
contrary to the Legislative will, they can
compel the payment of any amount
claimed by any pretended creditor of the
State. 1t seems that this is fully appre-
ciated elsewhere, as the holders of claims
against the State, long since repudiated,
are renewing their demands upon the
Treasurer and the Legislature.
l have said this much because of mat
ters which have come under the observa-
tion of all, and now proceed to a discus
sion of the Articles of Impeachment. the
facts we expect to prove, and our views
OF the law. 9
1t may be well here to determine the
oIigin and purposes of a Court of I'm
peachment, because if we see clearly how
this Court originated and why it is form
ed, we will have clearer conception of
the duties tC be performed Foster, in his
Work on the Constitution, Sec. 81, says that
Impeachment trials are a survival of the
earliest times OF Jurisprudence, when all
cases were tried before an assembly of
the citizens of the tribe or State. Later,
ordinary cases, both civil and criminal,
were assigned to courts created for that
purpose, but matters Of great public i'm
Lortance were still reserved for a decis-
ion of the whole body of citizens, or sub
seQuently, of the council of elders, heads
of families or holders of fiefs. This was
due partly because in cases of this charac-
ter there was danger of undue influence
in the decisions of ordinary courts, and of
resistance to the execution of their de-
crees, and partly because they affected
public as well as private interests In
the earlier times. when the population
was not large and when trade and busi-
ness were in their infancy. when the af-
fairs of human life had not become COM
plicated and intricate the people reserved
to themselves the decisions of many ques-
tions in their popular assemblages; but
as population and trade increased they
began to distribute to different officers
the right to decide these questions. This
continued until practically all judicial
power had been distributed to the diff
ferent courts. and the people reserved to
themselves the one power Of supervising
the conduct of the officials that they them
selves had created and appointed. AS pop
ulation continued to increase it became
impractieable to exercise this power in
popular Gssemblages, and SO they reposed
it in those who are the direct representa-
tives of the people, and it is in this capacity
that this court sits today to INQUIRE into
the official conduct OF the respondents.
It's purpose is to inquire into official con-
duct. and Is in the nature of an inquest
of Court of Impeachment is to carry
What, 1t may be asked, is the true spirit
of the institution itself? Is it not de-
signed as a method of national inquest
into the conduct of public men? IF then
the people have reserved to them
selves the right to Inquire into the con-
duct of their officials. and IL the purpose
of Court Of Impeachment is to carry
into effect this right, we may expect the
powers of the court to be broad. strong
and elastic. so that all official conduct
may be investigated and the public SER
vice purified. The people of the State
knew of the Importance of this power, and
in framing their Constitution provided in
the Constitution for Court of Impeach-
ment in order that the right might never
lie taken from them except by their con-
sent. And they were wise in not at
tempting to define the powers OF the
court in the Constitution in order that no
official misconduct might escaIe SIS just
punishment The Constitution, Article 4,
Sec. 2. simply provides the judicial pow
er Of the State shall be vested in court
for the trial of impeachment; Ca Supreme
Court. etc''J Section 8, THE Court for
the trial of impeachment shall be the Sen
ate" Section 4, THE House of Repre-
sentatives solely shall have the power OF
impeaching."
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
1t was not by inadyertence that the
&c not 60