Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-07

orally tie claim for specifications Is up
held. In the case of Whittemore VS..
storey, a New York case, it is stated
that impeachment proceedings. and this
resembles impeachment, are like an in
dictment and are in the nature of judie
ial proceedings 1t seems To us that 1t
necessarily follows that If the present
proceedings are like unto an indictment.
the procedure may be carried out along
constitutional lines and an indictment
must aver all material facts In the
Fifth Maine page 4a9 the court. citing
a Massachusetts case said. lit is neces-
sary that every material fact CONSTITUTE
ing the guilt of the defendant should be
definitely alleged
This Legislature has the power sitting
here to act both as jury and as a
court; it decides questions of faet it has
within itself the right also to decide
questions of law; and we claim that the
Legislature has not the right to dele
gate that authority either to its presiding
officer or to amy other person or body.
BY the rules adopted by this convention
the convention has robbed itself of the
right to decide certain questions of law
and has given TO its presiding officer
greater power than any judge of any
court on earth possesses today; it has
said that the ruling of the presiding
officer, right or wrong, fair or unfair,
arbitrary Well reasoned shall be abb
solutely binding upon it's conscience; no
Judge on earth has that power. In the
wisdom of legislatures, in the wisdom
of drawers of constitutions there has al
ways been granted, and probably always
WILL right of appeal from the judge
presiding over any court to some body of
men to decide the question as to whether
his decision is right or wrong. We say
that the legislature has no right TO dele
gate its authority to decide matters of
law to its presiding officer.
We would go further than that, and
say that it has no right to delegate that
authority to anybody, and that when it
adopts Rules No. = and No. and robbed
itself of the power to decide certain
questions of law that arose here. that it
placed this respondent, Lewis W. Moul-
ton, outside of the pale of the constitu-
ton and took away from him certain
rights that belonged to him. Hence,
without amending Rule No or Rule
No. 4. we object and protest against
and desire to nave our motion made a
part of the record, and that it shall he
ruled upon.
The SPEAKER: The presiding officers
have considered the matter of the motion
of the gentlemen representing Mr..
Moulton, and desire to call the attention
of counsel and of the convention to the
fact that Section of Article TX of the
Constitution is the one under which this
proceeding is taken. 1t is clear upon eX-
animation of that section that this pro-
ceeding is for the purpose of determin-
ing whether or not the two Houses or
two branches of the Legislature will
proceed to make an address to the Gov
ernor asking for the removal of an otn-
Ger. 1t is in the nature of an investiga-
ton for the purpose of informing itself,
that is, the body, as to whether or not
it will take certain action. At the same
time it is provided that causes alleged
for this action shall be entered upon the
journal and copy of the same shall be
furnished to the person Interested. so
that he may appear in his defense, in the
language of the section referred to. In
that way he is a party, and anly In that
way.
This is not a criminal prosecution UNI
der an indictment, he is not being tried
upon an indictment or upon warrant;
he is not here as party to civil suit;
he is admitted here because the Legisla-
ture is celebrating upon removing him
from office, and he has under the con-
stitution the right to appear and be
heard We consider that so far as the
rules referred to are mentioned In the
motion of the gentlemen representing
Mr.. Moulton, that they should be consid-
cred with reference to the nature of the
proceedings; that they should not be APP
piled as they would In the case of a
criminal prosecution, a trial on indict-
ment or warrant, or even civil action;
and that when so applied and modified
by the nature of this proceeding, they
appear to us perfectly proper and not
Illegal nor do they controvene the Con-
stitution: and the presiding officers over
rule the motion of the gentlemen repre-