Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1836-05-09


votes with him on an, question which he debates
enters into all the feelings, motives. and senti-
ments adopts all arguments that influence lis inip-
mcnt and conduct, and makes them his own But
recall the attention Of the Senate 10 tins singular
method nj detecting offence in the resolution of
March 1891, chiefly for the purpose of showing
the manner in which il affects lG1fcedom of
speech IN that body, and the reverb yd ave with
winch II snpposcs we ongh To examine the official
acts of the President. All proper decorum and
respect ought To be preserved towards him, a..
grer--tor his sake, ior sake, out Of respect to
the public, oui Of just of the dignity of
the Government hul s'nll those strong (f ,ou
please loo >lrono) expressions oldisapprobaion or
tehNurc, "hlc til Ifoni gentlemen in the ardor of
eNieh'rnfatN debate, Which perhaps, in cooler mo-
mcnis, they would have lri nnsaid--snll these be-
! treasured mp IN memory, AL ueed as eersnre,
not only against licm, bu, all tint vote with them,
upon the question IN debate VI Int j. this sane
1T, IN the Office ol President of the United States.
which all men shouldl have forever be their eyes,
presen, in tlcir thoughts nviolabe III their speech
No such sanctits hedges the mpcachahc ministers
| oi the British Government. Lord Chatham once
sald, IN the House of Lords. that the minister fthe
PRIME minister bad advised the King To tell a de-
llberatc lllsrhood. HE gentleman from Missouri,
says, "ne h We borrowed largely from our Eng
lish ancestors, AMI, because We lave So borrowed,
results the precious aud proud qualification th,t our
America nov tlnkN nmong ll4r GREAT and liberal
Powers ol the world - aud In. traces our dearest
institutions To tnal,l oricn. hope we have not
forgot 10 borro" lrum them freedom at parliament
tar, debate. The hieh euconiun Which the een-
tlcmcn pronounced eppn our tgelish ancestors is
Just and true, and therefore, was pleased to hear
it fall from hi, lips but, il II had come from me,
it would have been regarded as proof Of my ar
istocmcs; tori has often been imputed as ari>-
toeracy III me-, that make frequent reference 10
English history, tNIfeh, IN truth, have read more
OF lhan any other hut only hetau>cii has been more
accessible To M J ihal 1--we studied the history
OF the English Government and lnWs, aud imaeiue
thai instruction may he found ia them applicable
To our own. | am content TO bear The impuiaiion
II the fact, without any criminal intent, constitutes
guilt, must be convicted ! know no method Of
acquiring thorough knowledge of uur own insti-
tuition, bnt by outvaiinc knowledge of English
institutions.
In al mprachmcnls til have ever seen, the
llctSo of misconduct aio specifically alleged, and
some criminal intent, more or les hcinous, cx-
presNlN imputed 10 the accused. We have seen
that, IN the articles of Impeachment against Sir
Robert Berkeley, for his r-ndcbl opinions,
aud hIS concurrence indie Judgment against MIR.
Iianplcn, in the case Of ,hip-moncy, the opinions
and the judgments are ST ON at hree the i1c' that
They gave them, and the gross Ieeay ol them,
are distinctly allrecd and lhen il IS CHARGED that
III tho@c " words, opinions, and actions were so
lone and spoken BY the said Sit Robert Berk-
ley, iraorou>ls and uckelly, II alternate tho
hearts Of His Marstl's Iiree people from him,
aud 10 sol division betaiM them, anl 10 snbvert
the fundamental laws and established Government
of Ills Malrs', : realm Of England" And wIlos
over VIII scar Oh the numerous ne,rdcns Of an-
clcS of impeachment in England, viii answer
Tor II thai he " Ill find dis precedent substantially
complied with, IN CHARGING the facts and LAYING
the criminal intent. The gentleman from Mis-
sour SAYS that no criminal intent is charged in
three OF the articles Of impeachment against Judge
Chase, and CAS- understood him) in ono of the
articles again,, JUDGE Pickering. The gentleman
is certainly mistaken. The criminal intent is
distinct, charged in all the eight articles agains,
JUDGE Chase, except one that, namely, in which
it is aPeerd TIM, in { lcndoi's case, lie did not
conform with the statute If Virginia I, cuatng tho
process III prosecutions for mrdemranor That
article all. gcS the departure from the law, but o.
mls to allrgo that he did 50 wluv or even that
he was aware Of the provisions of the statute e;
and upon that charge he WIS, Of course, unani-
mon>y acquitted. The article of impeachment
against judge Pickering, in Which the gentleman
Nuppo,rs criminal nru, was laid, impucs to
he Judge the grosscst ntcmperance and indccency
IN the judgment scat tor could tie crimnality of
such conduct (than which hardly any official mis-
conduct could be more cieariy criminal, however
it might be more hcinous.) have BE- en- more strong
" and expressly Charge. He was convicted up
on this charge. The gentleman says that, in fact,
the indgc was insane, and was incapable of crime
How the gentleman got his inform .ton, do not
Know; he certainly did not get it from the record
| liere MI. LEIGn referred to the record of the inl-
prachmcnt MS and trials If Judge Pickering and
Judge Chase, IN the journals of the Senate and
| showed the exact state oitho facts.
The resolution of the 28tl, March, 1884 de-
clare, that the prosident's conduct in relation to the
revenue was Illegal and unconstitutional, without
more. Gentlemen say that the fdet Hfeed implies
crins that it implies u violation of his official
oath " TO preserve, protect, and defend the Con-
>tnton o. the United States" Now in the first
place, let us advert to the proceedings
IN the ship-noney case, which my colleague has
! quoted with 50 much appreciation, where the House
OF Lords declared the extra judicial opinions of the
Judges, and the judgment against Nj lIampd n,
Illegal aud unconstitutional, in the strongest terms,
without ina lining iiut that declaration was IA pre-
Indication Of the impeachment against one of the
Judges tlen pending, which the Lords as the high
court of Impeachment, w,re to try; in other
words, that il did not occur to them that the fact
of extra judicial Illegal conduct implied crime. In
The next place, let me ask gentlemen whether
they suppose la in maintaining that this expunc-
inc process they are intent upon is unconstitu-
'ional in declaring my opinion (as | do most con,
'cieaOus, that il is plain violation of the Cons,i