The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-04-06

precaution ado pied by the constitution to
secure fair trial. On such trial it de-
clares that the Chief Justice shall preside.
This was doubtless because the trainers of
the constitution believed it to be possible
that the Vice President might be biased by
the fact that, in case of the removal of the
President from Office, the same shall devolve
upon the Vice President. The preliminary
proceedings in the House, in case of charges
which may involve impeachment, have been
we'll and wisely settled by long practice upon
the principles of equal justice both to the
accused and to the people. The precedent
established in the case of Judge Peck, of
Missouri, in 1889, after a careful review of
all the former precedents, will, venture to
predict, stand the test of time. In that
case, Luke Edward Lawless, the accuser,
presented petition to the House, in which
be set forth minutely and specifically his
causes of complaint. He prayed "that the
conduct and proceedings and the behavior of
the said Judge Peck may be inquired into
by your honorable body, and such decision
made thereof as to your wisdom and justice
shall seem proper" This petition was re-
ferred to the judiciary Committee. Such
has ever been deemed the appropriate COM
mittee to make a similar Investigation. 1t
is standing committee, supposed to be
appointed without reference to any special
case, and at all times is presumed to be COM
posed of the most eminent lawyers in the
House, from different portions Of the Union,
whose acquaintance with judicial proceed
ings and whose habits of Investigation
qualify them particularly for the task. No
tribunal, from their position and character,
could, in the nature of things, be more
impartial. In the case of Judge Peck, the
witnesses were selected by the committee
itself, with view to ascertain the truth of
the charge. They were cross-examined by
him, and everything was conducted in such
a manner as to afford him no reasonable
cause for complaint. In view of this prece
dent, and, what is Of far greater Importance,
in view of the constitution and the principles
of eternal justice, in what manner has the
President of the United States been treated
by the House of Representatives? Hon.
John Covode, Representative from Penn
sylvania, is an accuser of the President.
Instead of following the wise precedents of
former times, and especially that in the case
of Judge Peck, and referring the accusation
to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
House has made my accuser one of my judges.
TO make the accuser the judge is a violation
of the principles of universal justice, and is
condemned by the practice of all civilized
nations. Every freeman must revolt at such
a spectacle. l am to appear before Mr..
Covode, either personally or by substitute,
to cross examine the witnesses which he may
produce before himself to sustain his own
accusation against me, and perhaps even this
poor boon may be denied to the President.
And what is the nature of the investigation
which his resolution proposes to institute
1t is as vague and general as the English
language affords words with which to make
it. The committee is to inquire, not into
any specific charges, but whether the Presi-
dent has, by money, patronage, or other
improper means, sought to influence, not the
action of any individual member or men,
bers Of Congress, but the action OF the
eDtire body of Congress itself, or any COM
mittee thereof The President might have
had some glimmering of the nature of the
offence to be investigated had his accuser
pointed to the act or acts of Congress which
he sought to pass or defeat by the employ
ment Of money, patronage or other impro-
per means; but the occasion is bounded by
no such limits. 1t extends to the whole
circle of legislation-to interference for or
against the passage of any law appertaining
to the rights of any State or Territory; and
what law does not appertain to the rights
of some State or Territory, and what law or
laws has the President failed to execute?
These might easily have been pointed out
had any such existed. Had Mr.. Lawless
asked an inquiry to be made by the House
whether Judge Peck, in general terms,
had not violated his judicial duty, without
specifying any particular act, do not be-
lieve there would have been a single vote
in that body in favor of the inquiry. Since
the time of the Star Chamber and of gen.
eral warrants, there has been no such pro.
ceedings in England. The House of Rep
resentatives, the high impeaching power of
the country, without conserving to hear
word of explanation, have endorsed this
accusation against the President, and made
it their own act. They even refuse to per-
NIT member to inquire of the Presidents
accuser what were the specific charges
against him,-thus, in this preliminary accu-
sation of high crimes and misdemeanors
against a coordinate branch of the govern
ment under the impeaching power of the
House, refusing to hear a single suggestion
even in regard to the correct mode Of pro.
ceeding,-but, without moments delay,
passed accusatory resolutions under the
pressure of the previous question. In the
institution of a prosecution for any offence
against the most humble citizen-and
l claim for myself no greater rights
than be enjoys-the constitution of the
United States and Of the several States re-
quire that he shall he informed, in the very
beginning, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, in order to prepare