|
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON : Chairman
Boyer, you said one of the reasons for
having a special tribunal was to remove
the partisan atmosphere which might sur-
round a trial in the Senate. In that line,
how does one remove the political conno-
tations of the removal from office of the
governor?
DELEGATE BOYER: We would cer-
tainly hope that if unfortunately a gov-
ernor should be so impetuous as to be
guilty of some violation, it would not make
any difference whether he were a Demo-
crat or Republican or vegetarian, he would
be tried on the merits of his case and not
on the political party.
DELEGATE HANSON: Is not removing
a governor from office an act of the great-
est political magnitude, regardless of his
party?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes. When I am
talking about politics, I am talking about
partisan politics.
DELEGATE HANSON: Would you
agree with me that there is a political con-
notation of the highest order in a trial for
impeachment and in a conviction of im-
peachment?
DELEGATE BOYER: I am always glad
to agree with you, Delegate Hanson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Why should
those who are in power remove a governor
from office for such a vague offense as a
serious crime or serious misconduct in
office, why should this group not have to
stand before the people of the State to ac-
count for the action that it took?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I think President
Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck
stops here." The tribunal would be the
place where the buck must stop. They
would be the sole arbiters to decide whether
or not John Brown is guilty or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I do not think
you quite answered my question. What I
am getting at is why should a court which
will not stand for election in the next two
or four years and perhaps some of whose
members will not stand for reelection for
|
eight years following a trial for impeach-
ment be the appropriate body to undertake
an act of such great political magnitude
as the removal from office of the incumbent
governor? Why should the people not be
able to hold accountable those who remove
the chief executive of the State from office?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I think this is one
of the healthy aspects of the situation. I
cannot help but divorce myself completely
from any partisan implications involving
whether or not a man is guilty. I think it
is healthy, that someone who does not
stand for election in either two or four
years, would be the appropriate one to hear
the proceeding. They are not under any
political pressure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson, I
think you would probably know better than
the Chair that this question of leaving im-
peachment to the Senate was probably the
most heated debate in the federal Consti-
tutional Convention of 1787. The vote
passed by one. You would probably recall
whether that was true.
DELEGATE HANSON: I do not recall
it directly, Mr. Chairman, but I would only
say that the one who made up that ma-
jority must have been one of the wisest
men at the Convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps by the name
of Hanson.
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: That was the
comment I was about to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: The political action
is taken care of in the bill of impeachment.
Whether or not the bill is true is some-
thing that the entire body has to determine.
Are there any further questions of the
Committee Chairman?
Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. Chairman,
why should not the Senate have some say
in the impeachment proceedings?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: We have consid-
ered this and as I have indicated, the
theory or the origin of impeachment has
evolved to us from the English parliamen-
tary system where the House of Lords was
the tryer and the House of Commons de-
cided whether the cause for impeachment
existed. Your Committee has desired that
|
