The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1921-03-25


extent of trying an Individual for acts
done in private capacity and adJudg-
ing whether such acts constitute an
offense' against the laws Of the state
would be an unwarranted invasion into
the province Of the other courts of
our state.
AS 10 the constitutional grounds
for which a state officer shall b. liable
and subject to impeachment. we OBJ
serve that they are: lst-Wilful neg
lect of duty. 2nd-Corruptior in Of
flee. Srd-Habitual drunkenness. 4th
-lncompetency. 5th-'Offenses' involv-
ing moral turpitude.
The first two grounds relate to Of
fetal acts. The third relates to acts
while in office or during term of Of
flee. The fourth relates to official
capacity incompetency But the fifth
relates, not to acts but to offenses
against the law; whether such 'offens'
es' be committed in either private or
official capacity we must bear in mind
that private acts of an individual do not
constitute offenses against the law un-
til so adjudged by court of compe
tent jurisdiction. This court is with
out jurisdiction to determine such mat
ters. The other courts of the state
have exclusive jurisdiction in such
matters. Besides. the accused has the
fundamental right Of due process OF
law and a trial by jury before he may
be adjudged guilty Of committing ar
offense against the laws Of the state,
as distinguished from an offensN
against state office.
Acts as an Individual
Whatever acts may have been done
by an individual in his private capa"
city, he is presumed TO be innocent OF
an offense again the laws until he
is proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt But if a person be found gull
ty of an offense and convicted Of SAINT
under due process Of law, then wheth
er such offense be committed in pri-
vate or official capacity this court has
power to determine whether they in
volve moral turpitude and may remove
him from office If such be the Judg'
ment
Immaginery Dangers
Counsel on both sides of the ques'
tion refer to and comment upon the
grave danger to society in this courts
assuming jurisdiction over certain
things, or declining to exercise jurisdic-
ton over certain things. but the dang
ers apprehended from either Of their
respective viewpoints are not real. q
graver danger, both to society and tc
the proper operation of the machinery
Of state government, would be Incurred
by one exclusive function Of state gov
ernment invading the exclusive pro
vince Of another function. 1t Is not
contemplated, and cannot be presumed,
the one branch Of state government
to wit; the peace officers of the state,
the prosecuting officers of the state,
and the courts of the state, will so will
fully and persistently neglect their du-
ties as to menace society and endanger
our state government. Such presump'
ton will not be indulged. A graVei
danger lies in the very advocacy OF
such things, than in the probabilities
Of the various officers refusing to dc
their duties.
NltEOut JurlSufStlOH
This court is without jurisdiction
to determine any Of the matters alleged
in Articles l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. and Q; tax
ing into consideration the fact that
although in paragraph Of the artioles
Of impeachment II is alleged that dur
ing certain days, and during the ab-
sence Of the governor, the respondent
became and was the Acting Governor
of the state, and, as such governor, re-
fused to execute the laws Of the state
BY prosecuting certain acts which he
knew he'd been done, the acts referred
tc being acts alleged to have been done
by NJ. T.. Tfapp in private capacity
and which, If committed at all, had
never been adjudged to be 'offenses
against the laws of the state by court
of competent jurisdiction in which said
NJ +. Trapp had been given the right
Of trial by jury.
And the plea of respondent is sus-
tanned as to said paragraphs in the
articles Of Impeachment, and the charg-
cs therein made are hereby dismissed.
Application OF the Law
CHIEF JUSTICE Now, ] am moi
r,trr D., ,.,,Ia nm thic ctupefion In the