The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-05-07
lZzz2a:1agzAA,
\d1z1s 3 z0z5 5 Z

ceeding before the House committee in
| this case. He charged that the McIl-
| waine reports alleged only technical err
rors. and quoted Professor Lille and other
| writer's on the insuff1clcncy OF more tech
meal objections and plea 10 defeat the
ends Of Justice. Let tho Legislature de-
eide this question on the real issues In
the case and not be withheld from action
by an allegation OF dry, barren, technical
error. In closing, Mr. Clayton said II
the NrcT1walne report be adopted this
case will never be heard OF again and me
ends OF justice will be effectually de-
feated."
Don't Know Q Campbell.
Mr.. Harvey, Of Patrick, a member OF
the Committee for Courts of Justice. and
one Of the signers Of the McIlwalne re-
port, was the next speaker.
II have absolutely no interest IN Judge
Campbell" said Mr.. Harvey, In opening
his address: .'and. indeed, scarcely know
him. 1 care not what becomes Of his
case, but L am Interested in this proce-
dure In the case and in the legality and
regularity OF It,
with this by way Of prelude, Mr.. Har-
yey addressed himself directly to the
defects In the procedure In this case thus
far, he contended. The Constitution re-
quires that the causes Of removal shall
be spread upon the journal of each house.
The House has passed the removal rtso-
luton, but hns not complied VIII the
Constitution In that 1t had not entered
the causes Of removal upon Its Journal
This defect, however. can DO cured: N
nv opinion, very easily by amending
the House resolution OF removal. as pro
posed by the Senator from Richmond
(Mr. Anderson), 80 as to add the Causes
OF removal. :.
1.-THE second point to which would call
attention. said tho speaker, rs as 10
whether there is any legal evidence be-
nical question. but vital one Which
radically affects the decision Of the case.
It Is not contended by any one so far
except by the Senator from Bedford that
the procedure in the case has been con-
stitutionnl, but merely that precedents
have been followed, I DO not consider
the Stephens and Shumatc cases. which
he cites, presidents in this case. for the
reason that they were not under tho pres
ent Constitution, and the last Conshtu-
tional Convention materially changed the
provision for removal OF a Judge by In
sorting tho words for cause.
Ancient History
The speaker then briefly reviewed the
history Of the constitutional provision ap-
pllcable to the case, stating that the au-
thority to remove a Judge was first In
serted by the convention OF 1928 to
provide means of getting rid of Judges
who Heretofore had held office during
good behavior or by life tenure, but who
had become unit for the bench by reason
| Of extreme age. This provision permitted
| them to be removed without cause. but
| REQUIRED a two-thirds vote to remove.
| Tho insertion OF tho words 'ior cause
certainly meant something or they would
| not have been inserted by the convention
OF 1902. Prior to that time n man
| might have been removed from office Al
the will OF the General Assembly, but the
words "for cause no longer permitted
| this.
| II lay down this proposition of law
II man may be removed from office
without cause, the service OF notice IS
unnecessary. but II cause Is required Il
be shown then notice Is absolutely re.
CURED" In suppor; OF this dlctum the
speaker quoted Mencham on Public OF.
fce,'' and contendcd that the House pro.
cedure did not meet the requirements
laid down by that writer. Speaking o.
the House procedure, Mr.. Harvey sale
they had reversed the usual procedure
taking the evidence and formulating the
charges. He quoted Throop on Public
Officer and procedure for removal there.
from, and quoted him as saying tln-
where cause Is required removal withou'
notice and hearing thereafter is void.n
Not Precedents.
Tho alleged presidents quoted were no
| precedents in this case now for the rea
son that the Constitution under which
this procedure ia had IL not tho same
as that under which those cases referred
. A.to
correctness OF Judge 'kelth's position lr
the Shumate case, but made the poin-
that the conditions were 80 different tina
! that and this were not parallel cases
In removals for cause the charges mus
be formulated before tho taking OF evi
dence and not after. Even II the evi
dence In this case were admitted to III
legal evidence the Senate cannot con.
slider ali the alleged charges, ono OF
which was actually formulated after thu
evidence had been taken and not befora
The only charge against Campbell wher
he was first cited to appear was that o.
striking DIR. Crawford with whip, Tn,
charge OF improperly procuring Judg'
| Wood to try the case In the County Cour
was never made until every sentence o
evidence had been taken, The speake
stated as his conclusion on this point tina
the cause must appear atiir1natlvely mn,
by evidence legally taken.
II nan Decn coNlended Dy inc Senate
from Chesterfield that Judge Campbell
had admitted cowhiding DIR, Crawford
and that this confession alone was SUI
fclent to warrant his removal Much a
deplore this incident, ana no man mol
deplores It'll would not vote to remoy
him for that act alone.
In concluding his argument Mr. Ifarve,
said: II am so thoroughly convinced tina
the position taken In the McIlwaine &c
port, which signed is right and llayin
taken an oath to support this Constltu
ton that now feel that II took an
other position than the one am takin
would per5ure myself, have simpl
attempted to state my resaons impellin
me to my vote In this matter"
: Is Disinterested,
Mr.. Watkins. OF Prince Edward, ar
other of the six signsrs OF the McIlwain
report. was the next speaker. ~ hav
no feeling In this matter whatever" h
said. "other than that impellIns me TO d