Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-08-21
From the (pHlLA.) REGISTER.


tons which, IN SoVeFntsCHtS uihe 'Siily
constituted. do not occur. Our legislatures
from their subordinatln to,deEnite consti-
! tn,;ons. are circumseribed In their powers,
! and obliged TO &C, with q conatantreference
TO the sources from which they enanate.
Language, however precise II may be, can
never reach that perfection which shuts
ont ali uncertainty; IN the interpretation
s of our constitutions, difference OF opinion
will arise, and ambiguous or. eguivocal
clauses too often afford colour for opposite
constructions. 1t would be dimeult to say,
what lapse of time will be necessary, to
place beyond controversy, aud FIX with GER
tainty, the meaning Of ali the parts ofithose
! charters. which are equally the rule of po-
litical conduct to cur Legislators, our ma
-gistrates, and our private citizens.
The law Of impeachment is one which
ishas not, as. yet been of very frequent use
in oar country. The provisions -four DIFF.
ferent constitutions upon this subject, have
not, therefore, been much tried by public
argument, orJudicial exposition. Il IS still
question, and certainly very important
one, whether under the constltutono the
| United States, acivil officer can be punish
! ed by Impeachment, for an offence COM
United in his private capacity; cor crime
which shas no relation to his official cha
racter. In the case of Blount, three ex-
ceptions, were taken to dismiss the I'M
parchment from the cognizance OF the Sc
nate. 1st. That the defendant although a
! Senator, was not acvil officer, of the u
nited States. 2,ily. That although hewas
Senator at the time the offences with
which he was charged, were said to have
i been committed, vet, that he was not so
when arraigned for trial, having been pre-
yiously expelled. And, 3dly,, That the
|, crimes charged had no connexion with his
senatorial capacity. The impeachment
was dismissed on the first of these pleas.
| No determination was had on the last. 1t
is therefore still open for discussion. a
portion of time may not be unpro6tably
employed in attempting some investigation
of this important question.
That civil officer of the United States,
is improbable Tor crimes committed IN
| his private capacity, I think may be shewn
from considering 1st. The nature and OBJ
ject of this mode of prosecution. 2ndly.
From the constitution itself. And 3rdly,
From the mischievous consequences that
| wouldfollow from an opposite doctrine.
fst. Impeachment IS a mode of prosecu-
ton intended altogether for the benefit Of
| the state. 1t holds. out as a consequence Of
offence in public magistrates, the high Pc
| nalty of political disqualification. The good
| or bad administration of a government,
| must ever depend upon the characters Of
| those who are selected to administer it.
Its therefore, wisely provided by our con-
| stitution, that where an officer has shewn
his unhtness for apnbiic trust, he shall be
deprived OF the present enjoyment OF Ii,
| and, by perpetual disqualification to hold
again thator any other public trust, be cut
of from the power Of future transgression.
The motives which concur to make ii pro-
per that man should be. displaced from
.oiicefor offences strictly political, although
OF a different kind, are not stronger than
those which call for his removal for the
commissioned offences in his private capa-
CITY. Under democratical governments,
| where political elevation generally is, and
ought always to be, the reward not only of
| public services, but, of private worth and
integrity, the proprierv Of removing for
| personal crimes, strikes US with peculiar
force. In such states, departure from
private virtue, BY taking away one OF the
original claims to Office, strongly points to
the justice of the removal Of the officer.
The interest of the state demands from the
| public officer more than fidelity to his pub
| lie trust. 1t requires in him the virtues of
man. and a careful observance of the du.
ties of the citizen. II this be not the case,