The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1908-10-15

iNleH4 leu loi S@oiS NHCn, Impeachment
does not cover, as unofficial misconduct
CT M ntal, moral, or physical incapaclty
Under this head he objected that the sen.
ate, who would be the judges of this
cause, on an impeachment, We're making
dress.
! Second That the grounds assigned
were no cause for removal, either by ad.
dress or impeachment No allegation
was made Of incapacity of any kind.
That he simply admitted the claim of one
/ man and denied that of another, upon his
own view Of the law. That he was COM
PEELED to decide the question of which one
should act for his court as sheriff. That
he limited his decision within the narrow
est bounds and did all he properly. could
to avoid a decision. That he could not
be removed merely for wrong decision,
granting it to be one. Even decisions en-
banc, made deliberately after consulta-
ton, are sometimes wrong, and often
thought So An incidental decision of
one judge at nisi prius may well be So
To remove for that cause, would simply
be making the legislature and the exec
utive, the supreme judiciary.
Third. Judge Davis simply obeyed the
constitution, and decided according to his
judgment of it, as supreme law. He
acted contrary to the opinion of the Gov
ernor, upon his conviction in his official
capacity. The case is but conflict be-
tween coordinate departments, each act
ing in its sphere Judge Davis had no
decision of the Supreme Court to guide
him-the question not having been
brought before full bench. Neither the
legislature nor executive had called for a
judicial Interpretation of the constitution.
Fourth Mr.. Paine reviewed the con-
duct of Judge Davis on both occasions, to
show that he acted with candor, discre-
ton, and moderation, and insisted that his
course at the March term-regardlng the
prisoners-was necessary, and strictly IN
accordance with law.
Fifth Mr.. Paine submitted that, If
the proposed address was adopted, 1t
would result in the worst consequences
to the people, leading inevitably to retail
iation, and probably ending in converting
the right of removal by address into an
engine for putting the Judicial office into
the gift of the party in power each year,
in violation Of the principles OF the con-
stitution.
Sixth. He made learned and power
full argument to show that the decision Of
Jul
it as his professional opinion that 1t was
so, although not necessarily an issue with
the legislature in deciding the principal
question.
Francis 0. J. Smith followed in a
speech that has only to be read to be ap-
preciated for it's brilliancy. 1t was a
powerful presentation of the political
side of the case, and bristled from open
ing to close with strong points, bright
and pertinent sentences. He hit the
mark with the first broadside, as he said:
'All must feel sensible, as we do, and all
must confess, that this proceeding is OF a
most novel character! and, | mean no
disrespect to you, gentlemen, when say,
that it is a proceeding invented for the
specific occasion We look in vain for
precedents to govern this hearing! and
we look in vain, through the constitution
of this State, to find where the authority
is there given in language for an assem-
blage like this. We have provisions for
a Joint convention of the two houses Of
the legislature for other and certain pur-
poses! but, respectfully submit to you,
gentlemen, that there is no provision
found in that document, for convention
like this one.
Thus well may we doubt-well may we
be excused for doubling whether we
are here before judicial, or political
tribunal. daughter and applause.) Well
NAV we be excused for doubling.
Whether this case is to be tried and de-
cided upon by any known rules and prln-
ciples of jurisprudence, or whether 1T IS
to be decided by that standard which is
to be found only in the conscience of
every man who is called to act upon 1t.
| saw, gentlemen, | am in doubt, and
hence. if in cropping my way through the
proper treatment Of this matter, should
chance to transcend the boundaries OF
that Jurisdiction which you alone who
have instigated this tribunal can best
understand, if | should in any manner Of
fend it, | beg you to consider that |
have an apology in the unprecedented
character of the tribunal itself. L beg
here to remark; that it will be my most
studious purpose to avoid aught that can
be offensive to the mind. And yet, l
feel myself called upon to defend an ac-
cused man, man who, but few weeks
SINCE in the acknowledged estimation OF
even rejudiced profession, was admit
ted to have promise of high usefulness
to the State. And called upon, under such
novel circumstances, to defend such
man, l must not HdZdlu, HUH me- Z
delicacy of feelings, and the uncertainty
of the character Of the tribunal | am OBJ
liged to address, must not hazard what
| conceive to be proper protection OF
his just rights.
must confess, gentlemen, that there
are but few Of the forms of judicial
tribunal, which, in this proceeding, JUST
fies me in supposing it is to be regarded
as such. There is no special oath of Of
| flee imposed upon you to return verdict
according to testimony before you. |
look around and see that the same in
/ dividuals who are the accusers of this
man are also the judges who are to try
him. And the witnesses who testify
against him are the jury, whose verdict
is to save or damn him. look in vain for
| that which properly appertains to judi
cial tribunal. If it be not Judicial what
else is it? Political? l mean not political
in the obnoxious sense of the term. Let
me be not understood as meaning mere
party politics. l mean, when l speak OF
a political tribunal, of tribunal that is
constituted above the ordinary rules Of
Jurisprudence, and yet which looks, and
must look, to the spirit of the constitu-
ton for it's rules of procedure and not to
it's FORMS
! If then this be political tribunal OF
| that high and elevated character, my ap-
peal is to be made, not to the oaths