Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-04-19

Ill.
character and effect. The act thus condemn
ed. necessarily implies volition and design in
the individual to whom it is imputed, and being
nnlawful in its character, the legal conclusion
is. that il was prompted by improper motives,
and committed with an unlawful intent Inc
charge is not of mistake in the exercise OF sup
nosed movers, but of the assumption of powers
mt conferred by the constitution and laws. but
in derogation of BOTH and nothing is suggested
TO excuse or paiate the turpitude of the act
In the absence of any such excuse, or pallatloh,
there is only room for one inference; and that
is. that the intent was unlawful and corrupt
Besides, the resolution not only contains no
mitigating suggestion, but on the contrary, II
holds up the act complained of, as justly obnox-
ious to censure and Reproduction: and thus as
distinctly stamps it with impurlty OF mOtVe, DIS
if the strongest epithets had been used.
The President of the United States, there
fore. has been, by majority of his constltu-
tional triers, accused and found guilty OF an Inn
peachabe offence; but in no part of this pro-
ceeding have the directions of the constitution
been observed.
The impeachment. instead of being preferred
and prosecuted by the House Of Representa-
tives, originated in the Senate, and was prose
cuted without the aid or concurrence OF the
other House. The oath or affirmation prescrl-
bed by the constitution, was not taken by the
Senators; the Chief Justice did not preside; no
notice of the charge was given to the accused;
and no opportunity afforded him to respond TO
the accusation, to meet his accusers lace to lace
to cross examine the witnesses, to procure
counteractng testimony, or to be heard IN ms
defence The safeguards and formalities which
the constitution has connected with the power
ofimpeachment, were doubtless supposed by
the trainers of that instrument, to be essential to
the protection of the public servant, to the at
tainment ofjustice, and to the order impartial
ity, and dignity ofthe procedure. These safe
guards and formal ties were not only practical
ly disregarded, in the commencement and con-
duct of these proceedings but in their result,
find myself convicted by less than two thirds OF
the members present, Of an impeachable Of
fence.
In vain may it be alledged in defence Of this
proceeding, that the form of the resolution is
not that of an impeachment or of judgment
! thereupon; that the punishment prescribed IN the
constitution does not follow its adoption or that
in this case no impeachment is to be expected
| from the House of Representatives. 1t is be-
! cause it did not assume the form OF an lmpeach-
ment, that it is the more palpably repugnant to
the constitutions; for it is through that form on
| ly that the President is judicially responsible to
| the Senate; and though neither removal from
! Office nor future disqualification ensues, yet 1t
| is not to be presumed, that the trainers OF the
constitution considered either or both of those
| U.s..
ment they prescribed The judgment Of guilty
by the highest tribunal in the Union; the stigma
| it would infict on the offender, his family and
| fame; and the perpetual record on the journal,
handing down to future generations the story
| of his disgrace were doubtless regarded, by
| them as the bitterest portions if not the very
essence of that punishment. So far therefore,
as some of its most material parts are concern
ed, the passage, recording, and PRONUNCIATION
l<,fth hoy nlI,fin n aft n hrl
on the President in a manner unauthorized by
| the constitution. To shield him and other Off
GERS who are liable to impeachment, from con-
sequences so momentous except when really
merted by official delinquencies, the constitution
has most carefully guarded the whole process
| of impeachment A majority of the House OF
Representatives, must think the officer guilty,
before he can be charged. Two-thirds Of the
Senate must pronounce him guilty or he is deem
ed to be innocent Forty-siX Senators appear
by the journal to have been present when the
vote on the resolution was taken. IT, after all
the soemnities Of an impeachment, thirty of
those Senators had voted that the President was
guilty, yet would he have been acquitted; but
by the mode of proceeding adopted in the pre-
sent case, a lasting record of conviction has
been entered up by the votes of twenty-siX Sen
ators, without an impeachment or trial, whilst
the constitution expressly declares that to the
entry of such judgment, an accusation by the
House of Representatives, trial by the Senate,
and concurrence of two.thirds in the vote of
guilty, shall be indispensable Prerequisites.
Whether or not an impeachment was to be
expected from the House of Representatives,
was point on which the Senate had no consti-
tutional right to speculate, and in respect to
which, even had it possessed the spirit of pro-
phecy, its anticipations would have furnished no
just grounds for this procedure. Admitting
that there was reason to believe that violation
of the constitution and laws had been actually
committed by the President, still it was the duty
of the Senate, as his sole constitutional judges,
to wait for an impeachment until the other House
should think proper to prefer it. The members
of the Senate could have no right to infer that
no impeachment was intended. On the contra
ry, every legal and rational presumption on
their part ought to have been, that if there was
good reason to belive him guilty of an impeacha-
bic offence the House Of Representatives would
perform its constitutional duty by arraigning the
offender before the justice of his country. The
contrary presumption would involve an impli-
cation derogatory to the integrity and honor of
the Representatives of the People. But sup
pose the suspicion thus implied were actually
entertained, and for good cause, how can it JUS
tify the assumption by the Senate of powers not
conferred by the constitution?