NEW YORK. 



603 



A minority of the committee, consisting of 

 Alfred 0. Chapin, of Brooklyn, and James E. 

 Morrison, of New York, recommended im- 

 peachment "for mal and corrupt conduct in 

 office." In their brief report they said : 



The undersigned do not consider that, on all the 

 evidence, a resolution of removal would be justifiable. 

 It seems to us clear, however, that a prima facie case 

 has been established, and that upon all the evidence 

 adduced the said justice should be put upon his trial. 

 Until the charges made before your Judiciary Com- 

 mittee are met by better and clearer explanations than 

 have been offered thus far, the said justice should not 

 continue to exercise the duties of his office. 



In our judgment the committee's duty is limited to 

 ascertaining and declaring whether or no Justice West- 

 brook is liable to removal or impeachment. Censure 

 by implication or by direct resolution is not among 

 the powers of the Assembly. Morally, such censure 

 may perhaps carry the same weight as would similar 

 declarations from any other body of equal numbers. 

 Legally no such right exists. These are not censur- 

 able offenses. The different departments of govern- 

 ment are not subject to each other's control or suspen- 

 sion, unless by virtue of some express enactment. 

 We shall, therefore, refrain from addressing any di- 

 dactic remarks to this justice or to the judiciary of 

 our State. We desire to correct a wide-spread and dan- 

 gerous misapprehension prevailing as to the scope and 

 nature of the iudical misbehavior which justifies im- 

 peachment. A Justice of the Supreme Court is cho- 

 sen for fourteen years. The office is one of emolu- 

 ment and high honor. He may be impeached for high 

 crimes and misdemeanors, and also for mal and cor- 

 rupt conduct in office. We must exclude both high 

 crimes and misdemeanors, and in defining mal-con- 

 duct we must attend solely to such offenses as are 

 neither high crimes nor misdemeanors, and which do 

 not necessarily constitute corrupt conduct. 



Mr. Robert A. Livingston, of the commit- 

 tee, concurred in the minority report, but rec- 

 ommended impeachment for " mal-conduct " 

 only, the evidence in his opinion not showing 

 " corrupt or dishonest motives." Messrs.Worth, 

 Chamberlain, and Robert Armstrong, Jr., unit- 

 ed in a statement of dissent from many of the 

 "statements and conclusions of fact" in the 

 majority report, but of concurrence in the rec- 

 ommendation that the judge be not impeached. 

 Action on the reports excited warm discussion 

 in the Assembly. Mr. Roosevelt moved the 

 adoption of the minority report of Messrs. 

 Ohapin and Morrison, but the motion was de- 

 featedyeas 27, nays 84, not voting 17. The 

 majority report was adopted by a vote of 77 

 to 35, 11 members not voting. Charges were 

 not wanting to the effect that the railroad 

 power and influence were instrumental in se- 

 curing this result of the investigation. 



The veto-power of the Governor was very 

 freely exercised during the session, and a large 

 number of measures which passed both Houses 

 were defeated after adjournment by a failure 

 to receive the Executive approval. Among 

 the acts vetoed after the adjournment was the 

 Civil Code, one of a series of codifications of the 

 laws of the State prepared under the direc- 

 tion of Mr. D. D. Field ; the Military Code; the 

 Sharpe Receivership Bill ; and the acts already 

 mentioned regarding the taxation of elevated 

 railroads and the chartering of surface street- 



railways. Items in the annual " Supply Bill," 

 amounting in the aggregate to $326,863.84, 

 were also vetoed on a variety of grounds. 



The political canvass of the year may be said 

 to have begun early in the session of the Le- 

 gislature. The charge that the Governor had 

 a political understanding with the Tammany 

 forces in that body, through which the "dead- 

 lock " upon the organization of the two Houses 

 was broken, whether true or not, was not with- 

 out influence. The election of a Democrat to 

 succeed Senator Wagner from the Saratoga 

 District was generally interpreted as indicating 

 Republican dissatisfaction. About the same 

 time Isaac V. Baker, Jr., was appointed Super- 

 intendent of State-Prisons, to succeed Louis 

 F. Pilsbury. The appointment was at the 

 time very generally regarded as a political one, 

 intended to promote the renomination of Gov- 

 ernor Cornell. It was confirmed by the Sen- 

 ate with the aid of Tammany votes. It was 

 this incident which largely influenced the op- 

 position afterward made to giving Governor 

 Cornell the power to appoint the members of 

 the proposed Railroad Commission, and led to 

 restrictions upon the appointing power in the 

 act establishing the commission, and the post- 

 ponement of its operation until 1883. The 

 vetoing of the bill regarding the taxation of 

 elevated railroads in opposition to the argu- 

 ments of ex-Senator Conkling, who acted as 

 counsel for the companies, was also believed 

 to have an effect on the Governor's chances 

 for a renomination, which he was avowedly 

 seeking. Mr. Conkling was credited with hav- 

 ing great influence with the national Admin- 

 istration and with some of the political man- 

 agers of his party in the State, and it soon 

 became evident that that influence would be 

 exerted against Governor Cornell's renomina- 

 tion. As early as the month of March the 

 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the na- 

 tional Treasury, began to be talked of as an 

 "Administration candidate" for Governor of 

 New York. During the summer it became 

 evident that the Governor's canvass for a re- 

 nomination and the efforts to defeat it by his 

 enemies, represented by the Conkling faction, 

 were threatening the Republican party with a 

 serious division. On the 20th of August a Re- 

 publican newspaper published at Albany dis- 

 tinctly declared, on what was afterward avowed 

 to be the Governor's authority, that Mr. Conk- 

 ling was working to defeat Mr. Cornell's re- 

 nomination, chiefly from resentment at his 

 action in vetoing measures in which the ex- 

 Senator was interested as the representative 

 of great corporations. From that time the 

 contest in the party was clearly defined. The 

 supporters of the Governor labored openly for 

 his renomination, and it soon became apparent 

 that the so-called "Stalwarts" and "machine 

 Republicans" were against him, and had the 

 sympathy of the Administration at Washing- 

 ton. It was also the avowed purpose of the 

 latter to make Secretary Folger the candidate 



