Year: 1871

NIGHT SESSION, March 20.


On the assembling Of the High Court
of Impeachment, Judge Yonley on be-
half Of the defendant continued the ar
gument in support of demurrer to the ar
ticles OF impeachment. Judge Yonley
based his argument mainly upon the pro-
position that . judge is not liable to i'm
peachment for any act performed within
the province of his jurisdiction, however
erroneous, unless the act be done with
a malicious or corrupt intent. He con
tended that in the case at bar Judge Nc
Clure had the right to issue the writ Of
mandamus, and no malicious or corrupt
motive or purpose can be presumed
against him. The learned counsel thought
that the judiciary was hedged IN with so
mucn sanctity as to be almost entirely
beyond the reach of those penalties that
apply to ordinary mortals. The judge
spoke eloquently though not exactly cor
rect of "ths judicial ermine with all its
gaudy colors," and thought the court
ought to sustain the demurrer, and not
to allow the "gaudy colors" of the er-
mined robes of Judge Mcclure to be tar
nished or dimmed by the sacrilegious ap
plication ora trial Of the grave charges
alleged against him. The counsel re.
marked that the present managers had
designedly left out, in the present articles
of Impeachment, the allegations OF ma
licious or corrupt motive and intent
which were alleged by the former board
of managers and that by this omission
or letting down the bottom had beer
knocked out Of the case. and that it was
thereby virtually surrendered and given
up, and tho continuation Of the prosecu
ton was mere farce.


Judge Yonley concluded his argument
at 81 O'Clock, when Mr.. Neal took the
floor in behalf of the State. Mr.. Nsa
tased his argument in support of the lie
gal sufficiency of the articles Of impeach
ment upon the following grounds, to
wit: that Judge Mcclure, in issuing q
mandamus against 1t Gov. Johnson
violated the constitution and his oath OF
office by infringing upon the rights,prv-
ileges and franchises Of the Executive
department Of the Government. He ad
mitted that Judge of the Supreme Court
has the right to issue mandamus but
denied his right to issue mandamus to
restrain the Governor or any Member OF
the General Assembly in the exercise OF
their official rights or duties. He con-
tended that the three departments rthe
government were separate and distinct
| from each other; and that neither had the
right to interfere in any manner with the
rights or duties Of the other But tina,
the defendant had not only illegally is.
sued mandamus against the second ex
ecutive officer of the government, but
that if he had had the right to issue
mandamus in the premises, at all, he had
no right to issue it, except after ten days
notice to defendant, which was not al.
lowed in this case. The counsel then
read numerous authorite going to show
that Judge is liable to impeachment fol
violation Of the constitution, the law
or his oath of efice, whether there be 9
malicious or corrupt intent or not. He
enforced the application of this principle
of the law by showing that defendant
had violated the constitution, the law
and his oath of Office in issuing the man
damus against the Lieutenant Governor
and was liable to impeachment. At I tc
IL clock the court adjourned till TO-
morrow evening at " O'Clock.


March 2l.-The court convened las
night, when Gen. CAN'T closed the argu.
ment for respondent, and we presume
this will close the trial, as no one doubts
but the demurrer will be sustained by the
Senate.