[165] Mar. 14.
[166] Comm. Bull., Mar. 17.
[167] April 14, 1873.
[168] 10 Wallace, 36, 298.
CHAPTER III
The Climax of Warmothism
The question of the governor’s power of appointment[169] involved two serious conflicts with municipalities during 1869, from one of which, at least, Warmoth emerged victoriously. A law of 1868 provided for the filling of all vacancies of State or parish offices by appointment for the remainder of the term by the governor with the consent of the Senate, but by the Governor alone, if the Senate were not in session, the appointment to expire the third Monday after the next session of the Assembly.[170] Governor Warmoth chose to interpret this as giving him the appointment even when the vacancy occurred by the expiration of the term of office. In 1868 the legislature had amended the charter of Jefferson City, requiring an election on the first Monday of January, 1869, and every two years thereafter for mayor, treasurer, comptroller, and aldermen.[171] Section 4 also provided that the governor should remove the existing aldermen and officers and appoint others until new incumbents should be elected. Warmoth did not execute this portion of the law but allowed matters to remain as they were until January, 1869, when an election should have been held. But none was ordered, instead of which the governor proceeded the following May to appoint, as in case of a vacancy. The original mayor, Kreider, refused to yield office, and so the appointee applied to the district judge for a mandamus to require the delivery of the books, which was granted. The new board was installed May 19, by aid of the metropolitan police. This action called out some violent demonstrations on the part of the citizens but no serious disturbance resulted and it was decided to leave the matter to the courts. Kreider carried an appeal to the Supreme Court, which held that the term of the occupants in office had not expired, for the failure to hold an election did not vacate the office.[172]
The case of New Orleans was analogous. The term of office of one-half of the Council had expired; and a special election was held May 19 to fill the vacancies. But the governor under his unique interpretation of the law made appointments to fill them. The old board claimed that there were no vacancies, as, according to law, they were to hold their offices until their successors were duly elected and qualified; namely, until the next regular election. In this form it went to the courts on July 19. A three-cornered comedy of injunctions took place; one, granted by Judge Collins, admitted the newly elected members to their seats; a second, by Judge Leaumont, placed the governor’s appointees in office and a Democratic howl went up; a third, from Judge Cooley, restored the elected members, and a Republican howl went up,[173] but this latter injunction was dissolved December 25. Appeal was taken from the decision of Judge Leaumont to the Supreme Court by the city of New Orleans, but was dismissed November 19, because of a technicality.[174] At the close of the year, the Governor decided to use the “mailed fist.” December 28 the sheriff of the Fifth District Court read an order before the council to exclude certain members and install the appointees of Warmoth. The approaches to the council-room were crowded. The board decided to obey under protest and the governor’s protégés were seated and proceeded to organize. One old member stayed in his seat, but as he made himself somewhat troublesome, he was ejected and another with a commission seated. In the other chamber of the city council that same evening one of the appointees appeared within the bar. President Wiltz ordered him put out. After adjournment the sheriff entered the chamber and read the above-mentioned order of Judge Leaumont.[175] On December 30 the sheriff of the Sixth District Court called the names of the appointees and served a paper upon each from the elected members. But the attorney advised obedience to the orders of the Fifth District Court and with this action the governor remained triumphant.
The wrangle between the governor and Wickliffe, the auditor of public accounts, which extended during most of 1869 and up until March of the new year, resulted in a victory for the former. He accused Wickliffe of extortion and corruption and had him arrested on several specific charges. Fourteen indictments for malfeasance to the amount of $1800 were found by the grand jury. While awaiting the trial, the governor suspended Wickliffe and appointed L. T. Delassize, a wealthy negro, auditor ad interim, installing him by the aid of the metropolitan police. But Wickliffe, nothing daunted, gave notice through the papers that he had opened his office at No. 53 Conti Street, “opposite where the Auditor’s office formerly was,” and warned the public not to pay taxes or transact any business with the bureau until the auditor could retake possession of his office.[176] A war of injunctions followed: a writ from the Seventh District Court prohibited Delassize from performing his duties on the ground that the governor had no power to make the appointment; a counter injunction from the Fifth District Court, March 29, restrained Wickliffe from acting. This conflict in jurisdiction went before the Supreme Court,[177] but before a decision could be rendered, two of the criminal cases came up for trial, in both of which Wickliffe was acquitted, but in the one case the judge considered it necessary to dismiss the jury with a reprimand.[178] The remainder of the charges were dismissed by the attorney-general on the ground that the auditor could not be tried until after impeachment. Party feeling ran high in the press concerning the controversy, some Democratic papers coming out emphatically for Wickliffe, due possibly to mere opposition to the governor.[179] The governor withdrew his opposition and allowed Wickliffe to resume office. In December the auditor decided to move his archives at night into the building used as a state house, but the governor on the 30th had his effects removed from Mechanics Institute to the sidewalk.[180] But this fact created no excitement in the city, as the affair seems still to have been regarded as a petty, personal squabble.
In this shape the matter came before the General Assembly in 1870. Rumors of impeachment had been rife,[181] and even before the governor’s message was sent in, a resolution had been adopted by the House for a joint committee to examine into the affairs of the auditor’s office and the action of the governor in suspending the auditor.[182] In the special message promised by the governor in his annual address, he charged that the auditor’s offenses had seriously embarrassed the government and rendered it difficult to pay the interest on the State bonds. He specifically accused him of extortion against individuals and the charitable institutions of the State, and of fraud against the Commonwealth and collusion with evil-minded persons.[183] The special committee of the House, to which the message was referred, offered on January 31 a resolution of impeachment which was debated at some length and adopted on the evening of February 1 with but five dissenting votes.[184] The seriousness of the question sobered the Assembly so that the proceedings were marked throughout the trial by a dignity and decorum sadly wanting in their other discussions. Articles of impeachment were ordered prepared and the act suspending him from office became effective by the prompt concurrence of the Senate on February 4.[185]