The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-04-14
klP'B|E.L'||..,|L|..,''S''''
CASE AGAIN ! \ !.
twin BE Taken ''l UP by the the.
Senate at Noon To-Day. 8
WILL RAISE MANY POINTS.
Viii Likely &c Contended That He
Should Have Twenty Days, Notice
Before the Senate Proceeds
III to Take Action.

> u. Il
Action on the Joint resolution propos-
Ing to remove Judge Clarence ]. Campbell
ofAtnhefst Will Berthe topic Of greatest
Interest In the General Assembly to-day
\ The House having passed BY an over
!. wheln1ing vote the Joint resolution to re-
move Judge Campbell, It Will now be In
order for the Senate to take such action
4 as It secs lit In the case.
The matter will come before the Sen!
ute as Il special order for 1916 =. Nj, this
disposition having been made OF the mat
tcrSwhen the Senate had been officially in
formed Of the action OF the House. Just
what the procedure In the Sena to will be
cannot BIZ n hsolutely foreseen, and there
were too few members OF ithatibody in the
q city yesterday to enable one to ASCERTAIN
what would probably be done. $t 81 y
3h It can be positively stated. however
II that there will be some discussion as to
4 tho proper course OF tho Joint resolution,
\ but Just what course will be ultimately
adopted and when. are yet probcmaticai.5
Y Several senators have expressed the i, view
that the action of4the Senate at this time
upon the Joint resolution passed by the
House would be "lrregular,''Bbut precisely
wherein the irreguiarity consists has not
y been made clear. a
MR.. A1'ILWAINE's VIEWS.
When the subject The joint resolution
nrst came up the senator from Peters
burg, Mr.. Mcilwaine, took, the ground
that the procedure proposed was lrregu-
a lar. and that the Senate was not ready to
vote upon the case. Other senators are
opposed to action on the resolution as
presented on technical grounds.
e. The principal point on which action by
the Senate will be opposed at this time
Is that the constltutlonalty OF the pro-
cedure Is doubtful and that toproceed in
ansgirreglilar manner would be to pave
the way for court proceedings. Tho Con-
\ stitution requires that "the Judge against
whom tho General Assembly may be
( about to proceed shall have notice there,
4 OF, accomphnied by5a copy Of the ca uSes
y alleged for his removal, at least twenty
3 days before tho day on which either house
4 of tho General Assembly shall act there
on.s The whole matter In the opinion OF
some senator's hinges on whether the
Joint notice served upon Judge Camp
bell before the House took action ia sufri-
Gent for the Senate to act. In other
y words, Ia 1T now necessa ~ * for ~ Judge
CampbellEto to- be notified anew OF the In
Stention3 OF the SenateEt proceed against
him under the joint resolution? There
are some who contend that, the twenty
4 days having expired without procedure
n BY the Senate. 1t Is nov necessary for
that body TO serve notice anew at least
twenty days before 1t acts. A few con-
strue the Constitution to mean merely
that neither house may proceed against
fudge without giving him the required
"a 88f5s5 WAT IT MEANS.
on the other hand, the service OF notice
the Judge was by the General Assem-
3 bly,, acting through the sergeant alarms
G OF both houses and not on the part OF the
House alone. The expression either
house, is construed by some merely to
forbid action by either house until fter
I such; twenty days notice. In line with
the contention that tho notice served Is
4 sum cent,S :t may DO noted that Judge
Campbell In his answer addresses the
General Assembly and not the House OF
Delegates merely. t55s "a
n Certainly tho construction OF this Ian
euage will form the subject OF Mt least
pne OF the preliminary sklrnishes In the
6enate. The proposition to refer the
matter to committee will probably elicit
discussion, II such a suggestion Is made.
There To- good reason for believing IT WILL.
The matter mary SO to the courts OF JUS
+ tlce Committee for a Recommendation as
to what Testimony shall be accepted as
the basis Of action or 1t may got to a
succial committed The committee may
recommend that the evidence adduced
before the House Committee and printed
an the record of the case be accepted by
the Senate as the basis OF action or 1t may
recommend that the testimony, be gone
Into anew. sl. N 3 @
5 MERELY TECHNICAL.
All the questions raised are technical
4 merely, and do not touch the question Of
the guilt or innocence of tho defendant
of the charges filed against him. TO go
into tho case anew and hear testimony
would be an expensive proceeding and
one that would consume n great deal of
time. II will hardly be entertained by the
Eenate, some of whose members are now
4 ready 10 vote. Others, however. take the
position that they are unwilling to vote
4 Without hearing tho evidence In the case
pr5tImo TO- read thefrecord, which covers
more than eight hundred printed pages
i Ehe question OF the admission of addition
> pltevidence will almost surely come up,
/ Nit 1t is hardly considered likely that any
t,rther testimony WILDE heard. E
1t has been rumored that In the event