The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1901-02-28

(Raleigh Letter. February
At the hour appointed for the con-
sideration of the resolution relating
to the action of the auditor, the
treasurer and two judges nf the Su-
preme Court in the case of Theophilus
White against Hal w. Aver. Audit
or, and w. H. Worth, Treasurer,
Ebbs. Republican. of the judiciary
com mittee, sent forward a minority
report as follows:
W. have considered the evidence sub
rnitt-d uud-r tn. resolution of enquiry
aud have car, fully considered he. law III
relation thereto. Without entering into
a detained statement, We are OF tl,-
opinion that nothing appears in the evil
d-nre or in tn. .aw relating thereto which
ju>tIfi.> any resolution either of luipeach-
| r,rnt or c-uSnrp We therefore r+coml-
| mend that the House take no further
| action in rg,rd thereto.
After the reading of the report
made by the sub-com mittee, w. K.
Allen, A. w. Graham, Locke Craig, j.
T. Spainhour and H. G.. Connor, to
the committee and the favorable re-
port of the committee thereon, the
minority report was read. signed by
Ebbs. Blythe and Benbnw, reciting
that there were no grounds for i'm
peach hment.
Judge Aliens resolution of i'm
, parchment was as follows:
That said judges. David NJ. Furrh.s,
Formerly a~st"'nfe lnStire and nov chi.f
ju~tic- # t he Suprr,ur Court, aud Robert
VI Douglas, an as~O"ihte nstice "f tn"
Su,rern- Court, be in,l,r;,rh"d of high
| rri'nr1 and mi~dpmeannrs in office
Judge C"nnor offered a substitute
for the resolution reported by the
COMMITTEES. simply providing for the
| r-pronf of JuIyes Furchrs and Doug
las. Following is the substitute:
That in issuing a mandamu- to the
| State Auditor aud State TREASURER in the
! ',,s'. of IIlenphiiu- WnIte Hg ,in.t II W.
AVER. State audltor, aud W. H. Worth.
State Treasurer, thu Supreme Court, II
| ma inrity thereof cnncurring, assumed
n'hority aud power not conferred by
| rhr Con-titntinn aud laas of the STATE
but in ierO1aiion thereof.
Speaking on the resolution Judge
Allen said: 1t has now been two
| weeks since the investigation was be-
| gun. 1t has been u burden that all
men would shrink from assuming. 1t
| is step that would not have been
| taken but from sense Of imperative
duty. Lawyers above all men re-
.pect and regard the high station of
the members of the judiciary. The
subcommittee met and the first re-
solve was that they would not dis
cuss any conclusion until they have
ascertained the facts. We agreed To
make no recommendation to the
whole committee as to their action.
| When this report was made the COM
mittee took it up. In that committee
( there was no attempt made to force a
conclusion on any member Of the
committee. We met three times and
carefully deliberated over these
matters. Not an impa>sioned speech
WAS made Not Democratic mem
bsr Of that committee has questioned
the conclusion of fact and of law.
| The only suggestion of politics in
that question came from Washington
City and from a Republican mem ber of
| etSA htiCu hClV
recited the history of the oyster legis-
lation that led up to the mandamus
issued.) If the Supreme Court can
compel the Treasurer Of North Caro-
lima to pay $50 what can prevent
them from ordering the payment of
5000, 900? The insigniticance of the
sum in question is not the issue. The
great principle of the preservation Of
the reser> ed rights of the people,
through their representatives is the
question. They have committed four
distinct violations Of the law. One
violation Of the direct provision Of
the Constitution they have directed
and compelled money to be paid out
of the Treasury when the Cnnstitu-
tion and Legislature have expressly
forbid it. The power to impeach was
put solelyin the hands of the House
of Representatives because the found
power as near the people as possible.
A court of Impeachment is not to
punish criminal, but an inquiry
into the conduct of public officers. II
they have not done their duty, and
see if the public service is being hurt
or damaged. 1t is p"litica! only in
the sense that it is pubic enquiry
into the conduct Of public officers.
We have taken our oath to obey
the Constitution and we cannot
escape the responsibility OF making
an investigation into the conduct OF
thes- Judges. H gh crimes and mis-
demeapors in office" are simply
words thrown into charge of i'm
parchment for the purposes of greater
solemnity. just as formerly in in
dictments for murder "mnved and
instigsled bv the desire. ETC." were
put in to give greater dignity and
seriousness to the charge. The qnes-
tiou of intent has nothing to do with
this inquiry. The ignorant violation
Of our Constitution can damage as
much as the willful violation of it.
But if YOU read the evidence you will
see these Judges shuffling on the
bench as to how they shall act. Hear
: the LAWYER in a newspaper article
saying they were dodying and he
would bring them to time. And he
will bring them to time. What q
humiliating spectacle. Read the re-
port OF the committee: the manner
in which this order was issued indi
Gates to our minds that the judges
who directed it TO issue did not think
they had the power" etc. | do no
, wish to say one thing harsh abou
: these men. l should not do so.
80. H. bn