New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-17
The Impeachment.


voting Governor Sulzer guilty on three counts Oh
the indictment against him may be reasonably
taken as assuring his election from office to-day
There may be a remote chance that some Vi 'io'e
who sustained the charge that he had msconducted
himself before taking office by filing RAISE state
ment Of campaign receipts will hold that such de-
linouency does not dlsqualify him from continuing
Ias Governor Yet 1t would look like foolish
sptting Of hairs to find an official guilty on
icharge serious enough to warrant impeachment pro-
ceedipgs and then vote to let him off without pun
hshment We have no desire, however, to PREJUDICE
1.-THE courts final action.
The crucial vote yesterday was on Article l.. Ihe
eyhole attack of the prosecution centred on the
charge that Mr.. Sulzer had collected large sums
before election and had failed account for them
THE defence could not challenge the testimony piled
Eup to show that the Governor was one of the most
tsuccessfu mendicants who ever broke into politics.
It contented itself with holding that the collection
and diversion to personal use of those contributions
did not constitute a crime and that even If de-
lceptiye campaign statement was filed the offence
was one committed by Mr.. Sulzer as a private
tcitizen.
In treating the offence as Improbable the court
undoubtedly greatly widened the scope Of the i'm
ipeaching power. The four judges Of the Court OF
Appeals Of longest experience and highest standing
opposed such action as setting dangerous prece-
dent It fs in fact q clear departure from const-
ltutonal usages to hold that official may be re-
moved from Office because Of acts antedatng his
official term It seems like an inevitable common
sense distinction that the power Of impeachment
should be used to rebuke official derelictions and
misdemeanors and that offences committed outside
office should be left to be dealt with by the ordinary
courts II Governor can be removed for doing
something as a candidate for Office is he not liable
to removal for something he has done as candi-
date for nomination, or even years earlier in his
business or professional career? Is the impeach-
ment process to be made a dragnet for moral de-
hnquencies running away back to early youth? II
this is good law it conflicts with practical sense.
If the charge in Article had not been sustained
the case against the Governor would have fallen to
pieces. 1t is cause for regret, therefore, that on
constitutional and legal question of such Importance
the judges of the Court of Appeals should have d.
vided as they did-hve to four-and that the less
instructed part Of the High Court should really
have been responsible for the verdict. Public conn.,
dence in the court rested chiefly upon the leader
shin which II was supposed the nine judges Of the
Court Of Appeals would assert. Their united
opinion would have stood with the public against
the united opinion of the fortyeight Senators. Yet
on the crucial in the the court failed to
guide-the minority Of four practically offsettng by
their weight Of authority the majority of fve-and
the Senate whose judicial capacity has been In
eclipse ever since the Stilwell whtewash, divided
in the proportion Of IA to a. Had the Senate fol-
lowed the court division more closely there would
have been an entirely different tale to tell.
The public is little interested in the fate of Gov
ernor Sulzer as an individual. His course is run.
But It is greatly interested in protecting legal in
sttutions from overstraining and abuse for tempo
rary purposes, and the circumstances Of the vote
on Article j, altogether apart from the effect on
Governor Suffers personal fortunes, are cause for
both disappointment and regret.