Year: 1876

1


State, that all crimes are triable by jury


except such as are cognizable in Courts sl


Impeachment. And if the question be


still in doubt it must be fully


settled by the consideration of the words


"high crimes and misdemeanors," en-.


grated into our Constitution; they are


taken from the Federal Constitution,


which was in turn transcribed from the
English Constitution, and in that were


well known and understood at the time
of the formation of the Federal Constltu-
tion to contemplate impeachments solely
for otfenses which were defined
and designated as indictable crimes; and
the conclusive proof is seen in the fact
that if the Senate is to be the judge as
well Of the offences as of the evidence by
which the crimes are proved, the result
would be law to one man in one case
which would not be law TO another man
in different case. That is, that one
Senate would congAer an act impeach
able that another would declare other
w.se


Mr.. ARNErr then proceeded to an in
vestigation of the evidence to elicit what
facts were established thereby, with u
view to determine whether or not any of
the acts proven were acts that were In
dictable; as means OF determining
whether theywere impeachable. He men
toned that allowing the broadest latitude
to the evidence, and considering as pro-
ven all that was claimed, there was not a
single act having any resemblance what
ever to an indictable otiense, except that
the respondent received eight hundred
or one thousand dollars from the Mer-
chants Bank of Charleston, IN consldera.
tion of his allowing a de-
posit of fifty thousand dollars
10 remain in the vaults OF the bank,
which bore any analogy to the thing of
evil constituting one OF the essential ele-
ments IN the crime of bribery. But out
side of that there was no similarity; not
the slightest analogy between the acts
proven and otlenseS cognizable in Court
of fImpeachment. Mr.. ARNETT closed by
thanking the court for the kind at
tentlon given him; that he had not
thought of occupying so much time, but
that he had hot dwelt upon the case any
longer than he thought its great interest
a, d his duty to his client demanded.


MIR. GcoD commenced by speaking of
the anomalous character OF the
defence set up in this case.
When the case was taken up
for the purpose of having it determined
according to its merits and. according to
the guilt or innocercs of the party, the
managers were confronted by all man
ner of exceptions that could be taken ad-
vantage of by the learned and a'tute
counsel who represented the Respondent.
We were first met by the objection that
this Senate as u Court
had no jurisdiction. We were
again met by the proposition emanating
on the part of the respondents counsel
that one of the members of this Court,
whose character is irrcproachable, was
not legal member of this body, and an
effort was made by them to expel him
from this Court, because, forsooth, they
imagined that he would decide impair
TALLY between the people and the respon-
dent. The character of Mr.. BUR-
pgrr was referred to by the gen.
t!eman who opened this case for
respondent, wherein it was stated that
the expression imputed TO Mr.. BURDETT
At the time he was candidate for Con-
gress, that "rebels should dangle at the
end of rope was denied. 1t comes in
n bad time ut the time of this impeach-
ment, twelve years after the date OF the
letter purporting TO have been written by
himself. Had he never written
this letter or approved its sentl-
ments he would have denied that 1t
contained his sentiments upon its publi-
cation. The counsel for the respondent
have stated that the animus Of this prose.
cution was personal spleen and spite OF
those who desired 10 tear down Others IN
order TO build up themselves; 1t has been
charged on the street and in the House
Of Delegates, that the Treasury had been
oyerdrawn forty thousand dollars. The
only motive that has animated the mana
gers has been conviction OF
duty tha, they owed to Themselves under
their oaths 1t is true that l stated IN
the House of Delegates and do now state
that there was n deficiency as appears
upon the reports of the Treasurer for the
ve,r. 1871, - and '73. And this Is ar.
rived II, by comparing those reports
showing the quarterly statements OF the
Merchants Bank of Charleston and by
the testimony given BY n. b. Cabell, Its
cashier.


So far as the jurisdiction of the court
is concerned, the Constitution is specific
in its terms and ample in its provisions.
II executes itself without requiring any
enabling act; il an act were enacted 1t
would be in the exact language ot the
Constitution itself. Legislative enact
ments are only required to carry those
provisions of the Constitution into effect
that do not passes that specific character
that would enable them to execute them
selves.


II has been said that the replication to
the articles is insufficient by one counsel;
by another we are told they are sutti-
cient. Be ths,as it may, the replication
states that all allegations made IN the ar.
ticles whether such charges consist OF
bribery, of embez 'lement, or of perjury,
sre true. but the mode or character OF
the charges embraced in the article are
included under the genera! term used in
the replication of high crimes and
n,isdemesnors;" and that is safe rep.
licstion to put all the matters contained
at issue.


There is little technicality in i'm
peachments as is stated by Judge STORY
IN his treatise on the constitution, the
sres, object being TO protect the people
and the interests Of the State. There
should be a sufficient charge to enable the
Senate to arrive at q correct and just
conclusion upon the evidence which may
be given. They are for the protection OF
the public and not for the punishment OF
the individual. All punishment which
NAV be inflicted is reserved for the ordi.
nsry Courts; the Senate, as Court
of Impeachment reseryinS the
right only to protect the public and peo-
pie ofthe State against official crimes
and misdemeanors.


In answer to another portion of coun-