Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-03-26

c'nsccncr, trusi,
the people, and destruction u that which he bound
preserve, protect, aud defend Can such things be-
and not imply criie. th,t high crime for !ich not only
impeach,nentirs under our tnnsiitoton butudicment
and punishment asb iaw Surely the point in
too plain Tor arguen aud must be permitted to repeat
that cannot figure 60 my ,ginat,ii any thing so
strange and wonderful that gentlemen who pushed the
condemnation of President Jackson with such fury la
1884 should now deprive Themselves of all instifcaion
for what they then dad by special pleading upon the
baty of the accusation winch they themselves drew up
and pointing TO the careful omission of imputed bad
motive, declare that his intentions not i'm
pngned! and defend themselves iion the consequences
OF pronouncing hun criminal then by cntrenching
themselves behind his innocency ROtc. Far from it,
Inc Justhcaon c gentlemcn Tor what they did TO ag
tate the country upon the conscentousness of their
belief that the President in reality the awess and
dangerous criminal which they described him To be; and
the moment they gave up rhat,-the moment they adj
init that innocency of motive, without which crime
not exist,that moment they condemn themselves and
admit that they iactious agators, unjust Judges
and relentless prosecutors OF innocent Instead
of this they and should now act together both main
tanning that high crime charged upon the Prcsi
dent; but as have not conferred with gentlemen aud do
not know upon which horn of this dilemma they prefer
to hang themselves, must proceed in my way, and
make out my case upon its own strength without
reference to their weakness
The great position which take is, that mpeacha.
Die offence has been charged upon the President and that
he has been adjudged guilty of that offence without the
forms of impeachment and without the benefits of
a trial
Suppose gentlemen undertake TO arrest me at the
threshold aud say we did moi impugn his motives;
did not attribute bad in,entions merely charged the
fact.
To this answer:
l.. fthere was no allegation, there no denial of
bad motive; and the charge of the crime implies the
wicked intent:
2. That the speeches of gentlemen supplied wha, the
form OF their charge omitted and that the mpuation
withheld from the record proclaimed from the
mouth, and incorporated into every speech:
s. That the criminal agerment, " dangerous TO the H.
oerfeS ne people, was inserted in the first, and
tanned in the second form of Ike charge and only drop
ped from the third and last form after having been re-
peatediy pointed out and fully relied showing the
criminal and mpeachabe character Of the accusation:
A. That no legislative made of the condem-
natory resolve after it passed. and that no such use
could then, or can be made of it, because in its
nature IT is criminal accusaton and presents u case
not for legislation but for punishment:
D. The gentlemen in the opposition drew the charge
themselves, and altered themselves; and may have had
reason, not yet explained for emitting those inpua-
tons OF crminality in the record which were so prouse-
ly and consPcuousy used in their speeches:
D. That even regular aud formal impeachment re-
quires no allegation OF corrupt motive
a. That the osencc being stated in the article of inn
Peachment, the convection will be valid; aud the only
sentence known under our Constitution will be pro-
hounced without reference TO The quo amino
g. That this is not of regular impeachment but
oil irregular condemnation without impeacin Ient and
charge which the House of Representatives ,ngbt
frame an impeachment in FORM and send il for trial
III is precisely the preliminary resolution the general
charS "Itnout specification aud technical averiaents
which Is the incpient step and opening the pre-
ferment oil an impeachment ia torn. 1t is the initiative
toimPcachnent So say thehcoks. Listen Jefferson
IN his Manual of Parliamentary practice drawn an by
INN Tor especial gudaRce, and printed by ourselves
our convenient and constant reference. lie says '7ho
general course as TO pass resolution containing criinai
@h9Fge against nc supposed delinquent, anil Htn d.
Tect some member TO tPeaoh ham by 0ruL The
oar Of tc House Of Lords" This the way TO begin an
Impeachment in the House of REPRESENTATIVES, and this
Is the precise in which we began il in the Sc.
nate we passed the resolution the book directs and
we passed II with the criminal charge in it, We began
the impeachment regularly, but we began it in The
wrong place, and proceedings ended where those of
the House OF Representatives begin; ended with the
adoption of general resolution, containing cri,ni
nal charge against The supposed delinquent.
These brlef answers hold 10 be sufficient, MIR. Pre-
sden to set aside any defence which could be bultomed
on inc omiss'o accidental or designed of formal aver
ments OF bad motives in the pronounced agns
the President They show that the npeachabe nature
OF the charge is affected by that omission; on the
contrary, the very circumstance of the omission may ar-
gravate the conduct of the Senate BY showing an xtcn
SION oil the nonconnial policy the high aud sacred
functions OF Senators and Judges, and exhibiting a sub
tie continuance for condemnng the victim without com
hitting the Judges. They show not a case
tor common law averments-not for setting out
with legal verboslty that the aforesaid Andrew Jackson
yeoman, not having the fear Of God before his eyes
being moved and seduced by the of the devil
he first dismissed Mr. Duane from the Treasury and
after that, appointed Mr. fancy the Treasury; and
after that, he took upon himself the responsibility Of re-
moving The deposiles and Enaly he performed certain
late proceeding in relation the public revenue. All
this though emneny picturesque, and quite dra
matte in a law indictment happens TO have no
place in an mpeachnent and might safely rest my
case where it now slands; but i choose 10 go fur
Their, to rise higher and TO place my upon olier
and nober grounds take the true position, that the
parchment of magistrate differs from the indictment of
citizen; and that magistrate may be mpeached under
OUT constitution, Ued convicted, and subjected to every
penalty known TO an impeachment, not only without the
allegation of bad notices. but without fact of such inen-
tons even the possibility of possessing intentions of
any kind, either good or bad. And first 1 show what
the Judgment on impeachment and for that purpose
refer TO article /, section 3, Of the Constitution:
Judgment ~ cases Impeachment shall further ihoa to
honor, tT pratt under the United patg eoSrd
saH neSstlIss be liable Indictment trial. aad SamsEMe
according 10 iaw."
Upon this provision in the Constitution / have To re-
marx that impeachment lies against nobody but an Off
cer and In ITS Judgment, official aud personal IL
affects Tue oihcer, not the The object of the Judy
ment is preventive, not penal Justice IL IS not punish
ment for past offences but prevention Of future fniscon
duct, that IS intended Removal and Gisna
hcaon to hold office is The ultimate penalty which
be inflicted under ii. II tIc oHeuce for which the inn
parchment was made should amoont a crime at com.
mon law, by statute then criminal trial
and the punishment provided by law for that offence
might be inflicted The difference between indictment
and Impeachment lies in the difference between proven.
tive aud penal justice The impeachment prevent the
officer from doing further mischief; e indictment is to
punish the man Tor the nischeth he tas done A
only be punished for crime and wicked intention is ne
cesSary to constitute crime; bat the officer NAV be de.
prived OF ms Office of acts not amounting for
want OF the corrupt intenon for these acts may be
detrimental 10 the community and the welfare Of tile
community may require that these should cease
whether they proceed from u wicked heart or weak
head, or even mistaken principle Of action. Hence |
impeachment lies for the act, without regard 10 lie cr
mIDel intention; and indictment lies for The crime of
which criminal uieaon is the essence and the touch.
stone. From this faif analysis Of the impeachment pro-
cess and judgment, la standardization Indictment
results the inference that crminaty intention is no
way essential 10 the validity Of impeacncns under lie
Constitution So distinct Is he tria BY impeachment
from that upon indictment for the same offence Thai ne
the Constitution which protects the citizen from two
prosecutions for the same offence