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

only the function which belongs exclusively to
that BODY, but convert themselves into accusers,
witnesses, counsel, and judges, and PREJUDICE the
whole Case. Thus presenting the appalling
spectacle, in free state, ofjudges going through
a labored preparation for an impartial hearing
and decision, by previous er parte investlga-
ton and sentence against the supposed offender.
There is no more settled axiom in that go
yernment whence We derived the model OF THIS
mart of our constitution than, that the Lords
cannot impeach any to themselves, nor JOIN IN
the accusation, because they are Judges" indie
pendently Of the general reasons on which thls
rule is founded, its proprety and importance
are greatly increased by the nature of the inn
peaching power. The power of arraigning the
high officers of government before a tribunal
whose sentence may expel them from their seats
and brand them as infamous, is eminently po-
pular remedy-a remedy designed to De en-
ployed for the protection of private Ilgnt ana
public liberty, against the abuses OF lnuslce
and the encroachments of arbitrary power. But
the trainers of the constitution were also UNI
doubleday aware, that this formidable lnstru-
ment had been, and might be abused: and that
| from its very nature, an impeachment TOR nigh
crimes and misdemeanors, whatever might be
its result, would in most cases be accompanied
by so much of dishonor and reproach, solicit
tude and suffering, as to make the power or pre-
ferring it, one of the highest solemnlty and I'M
portance. 1t was due to both these considera-
! tons, that the impeaching power should be
| lodged in the hands of those who, from the mode
of their election and the tenure OF their oflces,
would most accurately express the popular VIII,
and at the same time be most directly and spec
| Oily amenable to the People. The theory OF
these wise and benignant intentions is, in the
present case effectually defeated by the proceed
| ings of the Senate. The members Of that body
represent not the People, but the States; and
though they are undoubtedly responsible to the
States, yet from their extended term of service,
the effect of that responsibility, during the whole
period OF that term, must very much depend
upon their own impressions of its obligatory
| force When body, thus constituted, express
es beforehand, its opinion in particular case,
! and thus indirectly invites prosecution; it not
| only assumes a power intended for wise reasons
to be confined to others, but it shields the latter
! from that exclusive and personal responsibility
! under which it was intended to be exercised,
and reverses the whole scheme OF this part OF
| the constitution.
Such would be some of the objections to this
procedure even if it were admitted that there
| is just ground for imputng to the President the
offences charged in the resolution. Buff, on the
other hand, the House of Representatives shall
| be opinion that there is no reason for charging
| them upon him, and shall therefore deem it
| improper to prefer an impeachment, then will
the violation Of privilege asitrepects that House,
the constitution, as it relates to both, be only
the more conspicuous and impressive.
The constitutional mode of procedure on an
| Impeachment has not only been wholly disre-
garded but some Of the first principles Of ma
tural right and enlightened Jurisprudence, have
been violated in the very form OF the resolution.
1t carefully abstains from averflng IN a1hich OF
! " the late proceedings in relation to the puphc
"revenue the President has assumed upon him.
.cal a n conferred
constitution and laws" 1t carefully abstains
from specifying lrhat lars or what parts OF the
constitution have been violated. Why was not
the certainty of the offence" the nature and
cause of the usatiOn"-Set out in the manner
required in the constitution, before even the
humblest individual, for the smallest crime, can
he exposed to condemnation2 Such a speclfi-
cation was due to the accused, that he might
direct his defence to the real points OF attack;
to the People that they might clearly understand
in what particulars their institutions had been
violated; and to the truth and certainty of our
public annals. AS the record now stands, whilst
the resolution charges upon the President at
least one act of usurpaton in "the late EXecu
tive proceedings in relation to the public reve-
nue." and is so framed that those Senators who
believed that one such act, and only one had
been committed, could assent to it; its language
is yet broad enough to include several such acts;
and so it may have been regarded by some of
those who voted for it. But though the accuse
ton is thus comprehensive in the censures it i'm
plies, there is no such certainty of time, place
or circumstance, as to exhibit the particular
conclusion of fact or law, which induced any
one Senator to vote for it. And it may well
have happened, that whilst one Senator beev-
ed that some particular act embraced in the re-
solution was an arbitrary and unconstitutional
assumption of power, others Of the majority
may have deemed that very act both constitu-
tional and expedient, or if not expedient yet
still within the pale Of the constitution. And
thus majority of the Senators may have been
enabled to concur, in vague and underlined &C
cusaton that the President, in the course Of
4" the late Executive proceedings in relation to
the public revenue" had violated the constitu-
ton and laws; whilst, if a separate vote had
been taken in respect to each particular act, in
Guided within the general terms, the accusers
of the President might on any such vote, have
been found in the minority.
Still further to exemplify this feature Of the
proceeding, it is important to be remarked, that
| the resolution as originally offered to the Sc
nate, specified, with adequate precision certain
acts of the President, which it denounced as
violation of the constitution and laws; and that
it was not until the very close of the debate and