Year: 1876

could not be entertained, because the
offences charged had been committed
during a previous term of office 1t was
contended per contra by one of the man.
ayers Of that impeachment, that at the
last New York assembly, it had been
voted in three different cases that man
could be impeached for offences done in
! previous terms of Office. He-the
said Manager-said that he had great re-
gard for the popular vote, but he asked,
If man had committed an offence in
October and was elected to Office in No
yember, would lis offence be purged
away? When the Constitution had
stated specifically what were impeachable
offences, and had authorized the Assem-
bly, TO Impeach, where was there any au-
thority to take that power at any time
from the Assembly? If by.mistake the
people had been so far imposed on as to
elect a man guilty Of misdeeds to office
did that mistake clear the man from the
the guilt which, under the Constitution,
he had committed2 The New York
Senate had by large ma
jority rejected such plea, and
this decision said the manager, had been
arrived at without any political bias.
He further claimed that there was no
limitation TO a felony and he claimed
that nearly every charge brought
against the Treasurer was an indictable
offence.


Next, he treated of the question Of
bribery. He admitted that bribery
meant US much the offering of, as the
receiving of, a sum of money for Sc
ductive purposes. He read
the law which said that il any person
gave an officer money for the non per-
tormance of his duty, he was guilty of
felony. But he claimed that il every
bank officer alluded to was particeps
criminals and therefore guilty himself, it
did not exonorate the Treasurer. Mr..
Good then alluded to the fact that the
Treasurer had not made proper reports,
and claimed that he did not because il
he bad made actual reports under oath,
he would have been guilty OF perjury,
and he had still too much se,f respect TO
commit such crime, and he also claim
ed that upon a review Of the evidence,
the respondent had been proven guilty
OF both conspiracy and corruption.


In the afternoon, Mr. Good continued
his argument. He dwelt upon the fact
that the respondent had admitted that ne
had received rate of interest on depos-
its greater than the minimum prescribed
by law; but stated that he (respondent)
had not received more than the maximum
allowed by law, and that every cent he
had so received was interest which was at
t4ched to the States money, and there
tore belonged to the State. The re-
spendent was the Trustee, and the State
Was the cestUi g,te trust, and it was set
tlei principle of law that no Trustee
could be allowed to make money out OF
funds placed in his hanGs belonging to
said ccst~i qwe trust.


lie then read fran the Treasurer re-
ports to show that only those banks
which, being State repositories, had Of
fered inducements TO the Treasurer,
had been the recipients of a large amount
OF funds, thus showing at the same time,
that the Treasurer controlled .he State
deposits, and made money out OF the
same. This was the gist of Mr.. Goods
argument. A little after Z, NJ, he con-
cluded, and submitted the case to the
Senate. A decision will probably be
reached to-day.