The news & observer., 1901-03-15


law, with knowledge of the dangerous
tendencies of Hoke VS.. Henderson, and
have extended it's doctrines they have
practically made it impossible to abolish
a public office, because they have held
that an office is not abolished as long as
the duties of the office remain.
1t is not my purpose to go into any dis
cussion of what is known as the "office
holding cases." but we expect to show
from them a partisan spirit running
through all, and an attempt to prevent
the people from controlling the exercise
of their public offices, and to weaken the
power of the General Assembly.
We might go further and admit that
the respondents are not liable to i'm
peachment for anything that they have
said or done in the office holding cases,
and still we insist that they would be
guilty, because they have gone beyond
all this when they put their hands in the
Treasury of the State.
This is not the first time in the history
of our country in which judges have been
held to account for their conduct in
office. and convictions have been sustained
upon charges far less grave than those
made against the respondents. About
1860, Judge Humphreys, judge of the
United States District court was convict
ed, and the fifth charge against him was
for neglecting and refusing to hold the
District Court of the United States.
This conviction was by the Senate of
the United States. In 1902, Judge Addi-
son was impeached in Pennsylvania, and
two of the charges against him were.
first: Directing the jury that the ad-
dress of an Associate Judge to them had
nothing to do with the question before
them; and second, preventing the Asso-
ciate Judge from addressing the grand
jury concerning their duties, and by de-
nying the right and by leaving the bench,
and thus irregularly adjourning the court.
In 1904, Judge Pickering was convicted by
the United States Senate for ordering
ship to be restored to a claimant without
producing a certificate for the payment
of duty: for refusing to hear testimony
of witnesses produced to sustain the
claim Of the United States, and for re-
fusing to allow an appeal from the de-
cree which he rendered. In this last case,
Judge Pickering was tried and con-
demned. although the first three charges
COnIdlnGQ
than that of making decisions contrary to
law in a cause involving the mere ques-
tion of property, and then refusing to
grant the party injured an appeal from
his decision. to which he was entitled.
Under these precedents we might rest
our case upon the charge that these
judges had rendered decisions contrary to
law and against the plain letter of the
law or that they had rendered these de-
cisions for partisan purposes. But we
go further and say that they are not only
guilty of these things, but that they have
been guilty of violating two express pro-
visions of the Constitution and two plain
statutes which the Legislature had the
power TO pass Hsta
1t is a great case which you have to
try. Upon the one hand it is important
that the judiciary should be independent
and that their decision should not be
rendered under the fear Of impeachment.
No one appreciates this more than 1 do,
and l wish all of the rights of the respon
dents to be protected. On the other hand,
we have the rights of the people to
guard and protect In this controversy is
embraced that right which is a source of
their power upon which the sovereignty
of the people depends, and without which
they cannot prevent usurpations by the
execution of judicial departments. In
this case the law is also upon trial, and
the question is to be decided as to
whether Judges in high places are to be
held to account as private individuals;
whether the same rules are to be ap
piled to their conduct; or shall they have
exemption from the rules which guide
and control the conduct of other men. We
are to see if place, power, position can
influence the verdict of a Senate. For
our part, representing the House OF Rep
resentatives here as we do, we ask no
conviction of these respondents unless it
is justified by the facts and by the law.
We ask no conviction because they do not
belong to the same political party that
we do; but simply that they be tried and
dealt with as other men.
In conclusion, we commend to you the
words of the great Law Giver to the
Judges of Israel eye shall do no un-
in judgment; thou shalt not
respect the person of the poor, nor hon
or the person of the mighty, but in
righteousness shalt thou Judge thy
neighbor"