DOCUMENTS.

(No. 1.)

Report of the Committee to investigate the official conduct of Judge George Morell.

The committee appointed by the House of Representatives, to inquire into the official conduct of George Morell, one of the associate justices of the supreme court, and presiding judge of the first circuit, and to report their opinion whether the said George Morell has so acted in his judicial capacity, as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House, respectfully submit the following

REPORT:

Agreeably to a resolution of the House, your committee, soon after their appointment, by resolution, directed their chairman to furnish to the respondent a list of the charges and specifications which were made the subject of complaint against him, to the proof of which testimony would be adduced. These charges and specifications having been furnished, and the respondent duly notified, your committee met at the capitol in the city of Detroit, for the purpose of hearing testimony thereon, on the twenty-eighth day of August last, and at that and several successive meetings, at all of which the respondent or his counsel was present, the testimony herewith reported, was received and reduced to writing.

Your committee deem it advisable to report herewith the charges preferred, (which are twelve in number,) the proof adduced in support of them, the testimony offered by the respondent, and all documents which were laid before them, together with a full journal of the proceedings of the committee, rather than to attempt any abbreviation of the same, or to present the arguments by which their opinion is formed.

After a careful examination of all the facts, your committee

have come to the conclusion that the charges are not sustained by the proofs, and that no further action of the House, founded upon them, is advisable.

66

The constitutional provision on the subject, contemplates two methods for the removal of officers in the judiciary department. The first is by impeachment; the second is by the Governor, on the address of two-thirds of each branch of the legislature, for any cause which shall not be a sufficient ground for impeachment." Corrupt conduct in office, crimes and misdemeanors, are the usual charges by which impeachments are sustained. Offences of a milder complexion, gross neglect of duty, loss of intellect, intemperate habits, and many other causes, would afford grounds for a removal by the latter method. But in either case, the charges should be specifically made, and undergo a distinct examination, and the accused should be heard in his defence upon each. The attention of your committee has consequently been directed to the charges furnished the respondent, and their opinion formed exclusively upon them.

In the first ten charges, neglect of duty in failing to hold the several terms of the court therein specified, are the subject of complaint. A reference to the testimony will show that upon some of them no proof was adduced; others have reference to a time previous to the respondent's qualification as a judge. Some were excused by indisposition, and others by the bad state of the roads and the closing of all water communication.

It cannot be denied that in many of the counties, particularly in those lately organized and where little business has arisen, much inconvenience has been experienced in the failure of their courts. Previous to the admission of Michigan into the Union, by formal act of Congress, a doubtful jurisdiction hung around our state tribunals. In the northern circuit, many circumstances which are developed in the testimony, have conspired to produce a succession of failures. In one or two of the cases complained of, a more vigorous effort might perhaps have overcome all obstacles; but, under all the circumstances, your committee cannot see that heedless or willful neglect of duty in the cases specified, which would warrant the interference of the legislature.

The proof offered to sustain the eleventh and twelfth charges, relates to the conduct and decisions of Judge Morell at the last May term of the court in Oakland, and also at the October term in St. Clair.

In matters which come properly before a judge upon the bench for his decision, and in the general proceedings in court, much is necessarily left to the discretion of the judge. Indeed, it is to this discretion and the confidence which we have in the integrity and learning by which it is supposed to be in some degree directed, that we commit the important interests depending

upon judicial decisions. It is not enough, therefore, to warrant the interference of the legislature to effect his removal, merely to show that in certain decisions, the opinion of the judge differed from that of certain other individuals. Sound minds from the same premises will sometimes arrive at different conclusions. Is there anything in the decision or the conduct made the subject of complaint, which exhibits a palpable want of reasoning powers, or which, from its premises, makes deductions evidently absurd or erroneous? Is the decision or conduct characterized by corruption? Is it influenced by passion? Is it affected by prejudice? Is it affected by any thing other than a candid and anxious endeavor to arrive at those conclusions which are the legitimate result of the facts or the law in the case? Has discredit, from any of these causes, been brought upon the court, justly impairing its influence and destroying the confidence of community in its judgments? Have the rights of parties been sacrificed by such decisions, or by the remarks or the conduct of the judge?

To these questions as a test, rather than to the complaints of individuals who may have felt themselves aggrieved in specific cases, your committee have directed their attention in this examination. And in the application of the principles involved, they are of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent has not been such as to require the interposition of the power of the House, to effect his removal by either of the methods contemplated by the constitutional provision.

The attention of your committee has been particularly directed to an allegation made under one of the last mentioned charges, that upon a day specified, during the sitting at the May term of the court in Oakland county, the respondent was under the influence of intoxication, and took his seat upon the bench while under that influence. Upon this subject your committee have carefully compared and examined the testimony, and are fully of opinion that the weight of evidence is with the respondent, and that the allegation is not sustained by the proof.

It is due, perhaps, from the committee to themselves, to say that the utmost liberality has been extended in receiving evidence and hearing the arguments of parties and of counsel, during this laborious investigation. They have been cautioned on the one hand, not to withhold, from any feelings of sympathy, policy or interest, strict scrutiny into the charges involving the purity, the integrity, the impartiality of our courts, and the official reputation of the respondent; nor on the other hand, to allow any unjust aspersion of character, any temporary and unfounded excitement, any improper feelings arising from fancied grievances, to jeo-pardize the fair fame of a judicial officer, or reflect discredit upon the highest tribunal of justice.

Your committee would further remark, that on some of the

matters in question, the testimony is of a vague and unsatisfactory kind; on others, it is of so contradictory a character, as to give rise, perhaps, to different deductions of fact in the minds of dif ferent individuals. Upon these facts the evidence herewith reported, will enable each individual to form his own opinion.

Your committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the charges preferred against the honorable George Morell, one of the associate justices of the supreme court, and presiding judge of the first circuit, in accordance with certain resolutions of this House, passed on the fifteenth and sixteenth days of June last, are not sustained by the testimony taken and returned to this House by the committee of investigation, appointed under said resolutions; and that said Morell's official conduct, so far as the same has been developed on said examination, is not such as to require any interference of the constitutional power of this House.

(No. 2.)

Protest of George W. Wisner, against the adoption of the Report of the Select Committee to investigate the official conduct of Judge George Morell. The undersigned, member of the House of Representatives, from the county of Oakland, and chairman of the committee of investigation, appointed under a resolution of the House, the fifteenth of June last, protests against the adoption of the report of the majority of said committee.

And for reasons of his protest, he submits the following, to wit: 1st. The fourth, sixth, eleventh, and twelfth charges which where preferred against George Morell, one of the associate justices of the supreme court, and presiding judge of the first circuit, in his place, on the floor of this House, by the undersigned, have been fully sustained by the evidence before the com

mittee.

2d. In the opinion which the majority of the committee have thought proper to express, in their report, that in failing to hold the terms of the circuit court, as the law peremptorily requires, they cannot see that willful neglect of duty, on the part of the respondent, which would warrant the interference of the legislature, the undersigned cannot for a moment coincide. A neglect and refusal to hold a court in the county of Lapeer, on the third Tuesday of April, 1837, constitutes one of the specific charges

preferred against the respondent. That his neglect to hold a court in this county was willful-that a knowledge of the abso lute want of a court in the county, was conveyed to the respondent several weeks previous to the time upon which the law directed the court to be held; and that he received inducements sufficiently weighty to overbalance the obligations which his duty and his oath of office imposed upon him, by an interested individual, is in the opinion of the undersigned, clearly manifested by the following extract from the testimony upon the journal of the committee:

"Minor Y. Turrill sworn-testified that he came to Detroit about the time spoken of by Mr. Hart, (a witness who had previously testified,) saw Mr. McKeen, who said he had advised Judge Morell not to come. Witness remonstrated, and told him he (witness) had a deep interest in the court, as he had suits. Came to Detroit to induce the judge to go out and hold the court. Judge said McKeen had stated that the holding the term was not necessary. Witness told him (the judge) that McKeen had something to fear from the grand jury, himself, if the court was held, and that his (McKeen's) friends were in the same situation. Witness stated (to the judge) that he had two suits, and wanted to commence others. Stated to judge Morell that we ought to have courts; that McKeen misrepresented, and that persons in that county felt aggrieved by it. Judge regretted that he had not arranged his business so as to come; said he was preparing to keep house, and was sorry he could not arrange his business so as to go. Conversed with the judge several weeks before the time for holding court. Has heard several complaints owing to the court not being held. Cannot say whether McKeen has any civil suits."

The principle once admitted that a judge may refrain from holding his court, because of any information respecting the amount of business to come before him, other than such as he may derive from the legal records of the county, and there is an end to public and private protection. The safeguards which the laws have thrown around the property, the lives and reputation of citizens, are at once placed at the mercy of suspected criminals and fraudulent debtors. The very object for which our circuit courts were organized is defeated. No matter what may be the legal rights of the community, or of private citizens, "offence's gilded hand" will never be wanting "to shove by jus

tice."

3d. The conclusions to which the majority of the committee have arrived from the evidence that was adduced in support of the eleventh and twelfth charges, is, in the opinion of the undersigned, erroneous, That, at the May term of the circuit court in the county of Oakland, of the present year, the respondent's