584 



NEW YORK. 



vote at the election in November, at which 

 time it was ratified. 



A bill was passed near the end of the ses- 

 sion directing the Governor to designate 

 thirty-two persons, four from each judicial 

 district, " who shall constitute a commission 

 for the purpose of proposing to the Legisla- 

 ture, at its next session, amendments to the 

 constitution, provided that no amendments 

 shall be proposed to the sixth article thereof." 

 This commission was duly appointed, and met 

 at Albany, to perform the work assigned to it, 

 soon after the meeting of the Legislature in 

 January, 1873. 



Several investigations were set on foot by 

 the Legislature, which were carried on both 

 before and after the adjournment. The In- 

 surance Commissioner, George W. Miller, hav- 

 ing been charged with receiving fees and per- 

 quisities for his own personal use, which 

 should be paid into the State Treasury, the 

 Assembly Committee on Insurance was in- 

 structed to inquire into the matter. A large 

 amount of testimony was taken, and two re- 

 ports were made, one of which recommended 

 the removal of the commissioner, and the 

 other of which vindicated his conduct. A 

 resolution effecting his removal was passed by 

 the Assembly, and was pending in the Senate 

 when Mr. Miller, on the 13th of May, sent his 

 resignation to the Governor, " having become 

 convinced," as he said, " that partisan designs 

 and personal malice have so conspired and 

 combined as to secure the concurrence of the 

 Senate " in the resolution of removal, although 

 every charge against him had been " emphati- 

 cally disproved, and no cause for such a course 

 can be shown, except a deliberate, foregone 

 conclusion by the exercise of the power of 

 an overwhelming party majority to seize" his 

 place. 



The Bar Association of the city of New 

 York having made specific charges against 

 Judges George G. Barnard and Albert Car- 

 dozo, of the Supreme Court, in the First Ju- 

 dicial District, and asked for their impeach- 

 ment and removal, the matter was promptly 

 taken up in the Assembly, and it was decided 

 to bring them to trial before the Senate. 

 While the resolution ordering the impeach- 

 ment of Judge Cardozo was still pending, he 

 resigned his position, and the proceedings 

 against him were abandoned. Articles of im- 

 peachment, thirty-nine in number, were pre- 

 sented against Judge Barnard before the ad- 

 journment of the Legislature. They charged 

 him with corrupt conduct in granting injunc- 

 tions and appointing receivers in various suits, 

 in most of which railroad companies were 

 concerned. He was accused of exercising his 

 judicial functions corruptly, receiving presents 

 or other personal benefits, and of unseemly 

 and indecorous conduct in open court. After 

 the organization of the Court of Impeach- 

 ment at Albany, it was adjourned to meet at 

 Saratoga on the 17th of July for the trial. 



This lasted for several days, and resulted in 

 the conviction of the accused, and his removal 

 and disqualification to hold office in the State 

 in future. 



Charges had also been brought against 

 Judge John II. McCunn, of the Superior 

 Court of the City of New York, for misde- 

 meanor and corrupt conduct in office, which 

 charges were referred to the Judiciary Com- 

 mittee of the Assembly for investigation. 

 This investigation having been made in the 

 city of New York, the committee reported the 

 following preamble and resolution, which were 

 unanimously adopted : 



Whereas, The Judiciary Committee of this House 

 has made an investigation in the city of New York, 

 relative to charges of official misconduct against 

 Justice John H. McCunn, and has submitted the 

 testimony there taken to this House ; and whereas, 

 in the opinion of this House, said testimony sustains 

 said charges to an extent showing mal and corrupt 

 conduct in office ; and whereas, the constitution, by 

 the llth section of Article VI., provides that 1 all ju- 

 dicial officers except judges of the Court of Appeals 

 and justices of the Supreme Court, and except jus- 

 tices of the peace and judges and justices of inferior 

 courts, not of record, may be removed by the Senate, 

 on the recommendation of the Governor, if two-thirds 

 of all the members elected to the Senate concur 

 therein : therefore 



Resolved, That the charges and testimony taken in 

 connection therewith, reported to the House by the 

 Judiciary Committee, be transmitted to his Excel- 

 lency the Governor, with the request on the part of 

 the llouse, that he recommend to the Senate to take 

 proceedings for the removal of said John H. McCunn 

 from his office of Justice of the Superior Court of 

 the City of New York. 



The Governor accordingly transmitted to 

 the Senate a printed copy of the charges and 

 specifications against Judge McCunn, and of 

 the testimony taken by the Judiciary Com- 

 mittees, and recommended that inquiry be 

 made into the truth of the charges, and that, 

 if they should be established, " the said John 

 H. McOunn be then removed from office." 

 An extra session of the Senate was called to 

 consider the case, and met on the 17th of 

 June. The counsel of Judge McCunn claimed 

 that, as the Governor had not directly recom- 

 mended his removal, the Senate had no juris- 

 diction in the case, the provision of the consti- 

 tution being that " all judicial officers, except 

 those mentioned in this section (judges of the 

 Court of Appeals and justices of the Supreme 

 Court), and except justices of the peace, and 

 judges and justices of inferior courts, not of 

 record, may be removed by the Senate, on the 

 recommendation of tbe Governor, if two-thirds 

 of all the members elected to the Senate con- 

 cur therein." This point was overruled, and 

 on the 26th of June Mr. McCunn's counsel 

 withdrew from the case, and advised him to 

 pursue his defence no further. In so doing 

 they declared that they were satisfied of his 

 innocence, but believed the Senate had no ju- 

 risdiction in the case. They furthermore said : 



The determination of the Senate to investigate 

 charges for acts alleged to have been done by you 

 prior to the time of the election under which you 



