|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1492 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Apl. 1,
more City, in regard to their appointment of officers for the
conduct of the late elections of said city. No such authority
was given the Committee to compel the attendance of wit-
nesses or the production of papers as usually belongs or is
given to any lawful body making investigations of this na-
ture, aiid though the necessity for such authority became ap-
parent very early in the course of the investigation, and was
repeatedly urged by those gentlemen who undertook to assist
the Committee in getting evidence before it, yet no applica-
tion was made to this House for such authority by the Com-
mittee, and the investigation limped on in its course, the wit-
nesses who had been notified to appear coming or not as they
pleased, and most of them staying away. Under such cir-
cumstances we do not think it possible that any free, fair,
full and impartial investigation of the charges can be said to
have taken place, as the only course by which it could have
been reached was not pursued. Again, aside from the re-
sponsibility for this state of things, we think the plan of pro-
ceedings adopted by the Committee, and the rulings of its
Chairman, were calculated to produce anything rather than
a proper examination of the charges. In the first place, al-
though the order of the House was adopted January 13th,
1876, the first meeting of the Committee was not held until
February 10th, 1876, and the reception cf evidence against
the Commissioners was peremptorily stopped March 7th,
1876, as it was alleged, for want of time.
In the second place, instead of giving all the time, as is
usual in preliminary investigations of this character, whether
made by Grand Juries, Courts of Inquiry, or Legislative Com-
mittees, to the evidence in support of the charges, the Com-
mittee gave a large part of their time to the defence of the
Commissioners. The impropriety of this course is manifest,
both in reason and custom. If there be no evidence, after a
proper investigation, to sustain the charges, the Committee
undoubtedly ought so to report; but they should enter into no
trial of the case in the Committee room; they should give
their time and attention solely to the evidence to sustain the
charges, and let the defence be made, not when the charges
are being investigated, but when they come Up for trial.
This is a plain principle of reason and established law; were
it otherwise, a party could be twice put on trial and in jeop-
ardy, the Bill of Rights would be violated, and frequently, as
in this case, the opportunity for the reception of proper evi-
dence would be lost. The Committee, after losing nearly a
mouth without any meeting, entered upon the investigation
on this improper plan. They held twelve meetings in all;
the first February 10th, 1876, the last March 16, 1876; of
these twelve meetings, seven only were given to the witnesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
