The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1921-03-25
Justice Harrison In
terpretS Law Governing
Impeachment of Officers
Continued from Page One)

Continued from Page One)
cluding one by Morton Rutherford of
Muskogee, to the effect that the court
agreed the chief justice HAD stated the
law and the court accepted il as final.
Horace Durant of Miami Republi-
can, moved the vote be deferred until
each senator had copy of the chief
Justices statement of the law, but on
motion of Pete Coyne, the Durant mo-
ton was tabled Finally, in the midst
of the parliamentary confusion, Charles
McPherren Of Durant moved as 4 sub
stitute for all pending motions, that
the presiding officer make application
Of the law as stated to the motion TO
quash the articles Of impeachment. The
motion carried, and Harrison then told
what he would do If he were 4 senator
sitting in the case
Wallace Votes With Republicans
The vote on the motion to quash was
27 ayes and 16 noes. One Democrat.
Bob Wallace Of Pauls Valley, voted
no. Two Republicans, NJ f. In
graham of Sapulpa and Mike Lynch
Of Stroud, voted yes" With these
exceptions, the vote showed party di
vision. Rutherford refused to vote,
saying something about there being no
rules.
Case Dismissed
When the court sustained the motion.
the prosecution was left with but one
Article on which to base its caSe-Ar-
ticle S, which charges Trapp with
wrQngfully granting a pardon. APP
parently realizing it had no case on
this ground, the board Of managers,
Though its chairman r. II. Matthews.
dismissed the case. The court then re.
cessed to Saturday afternoon, when the
journal OF the proceedings will be APP
proved.
Asked whether there would be any
funher attempt TO prosecute Trapp,
Porter Newman, vice-chairman of the
house investigating committee, said the
committee had no authority to take
further steps in the matter--,t was
without power to institute proceedings
IN the regular courts. He said, how
ever, that the outcome Of this case
would not prevent the investigating
committee continuing its work and
bringing similar proceedings against
any other state officer it thought
should be impeached.
Justice Harrisons Statements
Here are Justice Harrson's state
ment and application of the law. The
first is the copy prepared by himself
for the record; it carries a ruling. At.
tention is called to the fact he did
not announce ruling, but merely stat
ed the law, and later applied the law
to the case.
CHIEF JUSTICE; Whatever this
plea may be denominated, whether it be
called motion to dismiss for want OF
jurisdiction or a demurrer to the juris-
diction, it is a plea which challenges
the sufficiency of the charge to give
this court jurisdiction of the subject
matter
Constitutional Provisions
ITO determine the question raised by
this plea we should bear in mind that
under Section a. Article s, Of the Con-
sttution, judgment Of Impeachment
goes no further nor has any further eff
feet than removal from office. Judg-
ment Of guilt and decree of dismissal
Is the fulfllment OF the courts mis-
sion. 1t is not contemplated in the
constitution that 4 court Of lmpeach
ment may extend its powers TO an eX
tent which would constitute friction
or conflict with other machinery in
our state government.
1T may determine what constitutes
wiiful neglect Of (offciaD duty; cor
ruption in office Gin official capacity,
habitual drunkenness during official
term); incompetency las to Official du-
ties); and may determine what "offen-
ses" constitute moral turpitude, and It's
jurisdiction is exclusive and decree fin
al as to any OF said grounds, hut il is
not vested with authority to determine
and adjudge what acts Of an individual
in private capacity may constitute an
offense against the laws of the state.
To do so would constitute friction and
conflict with the proper functions OF
other machinery in the state govern
ment. To extend its powers to the
: