Year: 1867

| tuuEc Dl tEc COURT BAb hhA Ilbut 10
object to his trying this particular case. So
in the present case, We do not object to 3
/ party on the ground that he is not Senator,
but we object TO his competency to sit on
) this cause. Until this court see fit to exclude
I one Of ita members, we had held that the
constitution having fixed that every mem
Der of the Senate was a competent trier Of
| the question before the Senate, all were en-
\ titled to sit. And if a new rule had not
! been made in the case Of DR.. Frazier, We
/ should have made no objections to any other
member in this court. Then | ask again,
whether it woHld not be competent for
man arraigned before the Supreme Court to
object to Judge who had a direct personal
interest in having him convicted of the
charge alleged against him


Mr.. Trimble / admitted he could make
a personal objection to the Judge.


Mr., Ewing ! say We can object to the
competency Of a judge, not on the ground
that he was incompetent to try other cases,
but that he is incompetent TO try this par
ticular case. Objections can be made in
! special cases in the Supreme Court, as we
make objections in the present case. The
validity Of these objections must be tried
by the statutes, ed / say this court has
virtually adopts1 this same rule of proce-
] duTe. With general qualifications we have
| nothing TO do, but we conceive that we
have an indubitable right TO urge those
disqualifcations which the statutes specify.
| We have this right, we mean, in virtue
of the decision come to by this court in
! rejecting member of the Senate on
statutory, not on constitutional grounds
| We stand charged with an ofense We
ask whether our triers are competent to the
office they have assumed. Now can we not
inquire, though man be admitted to be COM
petent for the duties of Senator, whether
he is qualified to adjudicate in this particu-
lar case? Ifthis objection could not be made,
we should be in very awkward position.
Let Us suppose case, an extreme case,
if you please, but not the less fitted on that
account to test the operation of this princi-
pie we are endeavoring to unfold. Let US
suppose that the Governor of this State
calls on the Legislature to assemble in
extraordinary session on a certain day,
and then a number of persons present them
selves at the capitol not qualified to sit
as Legislators for the people of the State.
There are British, Hindoos and men
from all parts of the world, and of diverse
nationalities, but none of them citizens of
this State, or even of the United States.
They assemble at the capitol and proceed
to pass upon one anothers qualifications,
and they confirm each others rights to the
offices they have usurped. Will we main
tain that the people are bound to submit
to this usurpation, and to admit the validi-
ty Of their acts?


Mr.. Maynard Does not his illustration
sustain the position taken by my associate,
that the objection taken goes to invalidate
the whole body of the Senate and declares
that they are not a Senate?


Mr.. Ewing: If the gentleman had
waited few minutes he would have learned
whether it does or not, as | make il point
in my own lame way TO anticipate every
objection which can be made to my argu-
ment | ask then, Mr.. President, taking
up my argument where Mr.. Maynard in
terrupted me, that if certain number of
persons were to assemble at the capitol at
the regular time of meeting, and were to
claim TO be Senators and Representatives
of the people of Tennessee, and were to
adiudge each others qualifications, and to
vote themselves the Legislature of the
| State of Tennessee, what would be the
remedy? How would you prevent these
men from being the Senators, prima fdcis,
at least, of the State of Tennessee? Is it
not startling that citizens of Kentucky,
men foreign to us, so far as cur State is
concerned, can sit on the trial of case in
the State Of Tennessee? The facts are
admitted that Mr.. Hall is a resident and
citizen of Kentucky. Now let us see what
an anomalous position We may be placed
in by allowing such a case. Suppose Mr.
Hall returning to Kentucky after discharg-
ing his senatorial functions here, he may
then be elected Senator Of that State,
and so be Senator of Kentucky and Ten
nessee at the SEINE time He may be sitting
on an impeachment at Frankfort and
Nashville. Does not the statement of the
proposition show that citizenship is neces-
say to holding any position of trust in
any State by an individual? But if
that were the fact, and the Senate
choose to accept him, | do not see
any mode by which the evil could be
reached. l do see a mode by which we
can avail ourselves of the facts of the case
Notwithstanding they may have been ignored
by the Senate in his admission as a Sem
ator When the Senate becomes merged
in Court of Impeachment, in which the
rights both of the people of the State and
the party impeaChed are pending then
new element is introduced which brings
with it wider range Of responsibility, and
we have a right to demand that the tribu-
nal which assumes to itself judicial func-
tions shall be composed of the material that
the constitution provides. And | say in
regard to our rights in the present case,
that no citizen of Kentucky can sit in a
trial of impeachment in Tennessee. There
is such thing as death, as resignation, as
removal, but whether q vacancy shall be
declared when any Of these events occur,
the constitution does not declare But what
is n vacancy in Office, is clearly stated by
the statutes. will SUPPOSE We could not
object to Mr.. Hall.


Mr.. Trimble: We deny that you can call
in question his being Senator.


Mr. Ewing Mr. Carter, 6 member of
the other House, removed from this State
to New York, and thereupon the House,
when this fact was presented to it, voted
his place vacant, as am informed.


Mr. Trimbe We admit no such Conciu-
sion. A gentleman who was then . mems
Der Of the House saws that no election was
held to supply HE place until after he had
resigned his seat, ! was stating this a. 4
precedent as being thought TO be law in an
other branch Of this Assembly.


Mr.. Trimble will state case in point.
In 1861, a gentleman from Chattanooga
removed TO Memphis, ana came from Mem
phis to the called session of January, 1861,
and took his seat in the Senate unChal-
lenged.


Mr.. Ewing: Il is possible that the gen
tieman stating a fact as precedent on
which this court is 10 act, can adduce an
instance like this. | should have supposed
that he would have stated something that
might be made to wear the semblance of a
precedent, bat really this does not. A fact
transporting SUD SilentiS, and without encoun-
tering opposition or provoking discussion,
is no precedent at all, because no case is
made A matter-of-fact must then be pre-
sented in some shape 10 the Legislature, the
Sen9te or the court, for their action and
adjudication before it can become prece-
dent for our guidance. We come here and
allege that if Mr. Hall was a Senator at q
former time he is no longer a Senator, and
that we have the unquestionable right to
object to his adiudicating on the question
now under adjudication in the court.
Suppose I gentleman, subsequently TO
| his becoming a Senator of Tennessee,
! should have sworn allegiance 10 Queen
I | Victoria or Napoleon the third. wonder
( --ba.bcr s,,rb n n, IN wOnId he oualifRd qs