Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-04-19

elections, such charge, II credited By the
House, would not only Justify but require
the adoption, on the part of the House, of
proper measures to secure a thorough and
searching investigation into its truth.
And how would such an investigation have
been gone into on this charge il it bad been
the intention Of Q majority of the House to
enter upon il in good faith? The first step
taken would necessarily have b en- to call
upon the President for information as to the
facts on which the Charge made by him was
founded, and for the names Of the witnesses
by whose testimony these facts could have
been substantiaied. This would have neces-
sarily been the first step taken by the House
if it really designed basing any serious pro-
ceedings On this alleged charge with view
to the exposure of the corrupt influences
heretofore brought to bear upon our cleo
lions, and applying remedy to them for
the future. But it was not taken. On the
contrary. whilst this charge, said tn have
been made by the President. is the only
avowed ground for any action on the subject
on the part of the House, the first step taken
by the House is to adopt a resolution, to do
what? Why to raise a select committee of
five, with authority to send for persons and
papers, .'for the purpose of investigating
whether the President of the United States
has, by money, patronage, or other improper
means, sought TO influence the action Of Con-
gress, or any committee thereof, for or again
tie passage OF any law &c.
The only reason assigned for raising the
committee was, that the President had made
a charge that money had been improperly
used in elections; and the first instruction
given TO the committee is 10 Investigate"
The conduct of the President throughout his
whole official life. That is. the first step ia
ken by the Judge, on the preteDce of acting
upon I'm accusation, is TO accuse the accuser,
and make extraordinary provision for raking
up every ep, cies of testimony against him.
will here venture to assert that parallel
to this proceeding of the House cannot be
found in the whole range OF history. Aud
why was this done Who has charged the
President with the corrupt use of money. or
the patronage of his office, to influence the
action of Congress? What are the facts
which justify the imputation, implied in the
adoption of the first resolution, upon a man
whose character, during a long life spent 10
the service of bis country, has been unsuIlied
by a single stain ? No such facts have been
communicated 10 the House. The mover of
the resolution did not even pretend at the
time of moving il that any such facts existed.
Why then, we would ask has an inquisirion
into the whole official life of the President
been authorized without any foundation for
il on legal or constitutional grounds and in
mon justicef 1t certainly cannot be for any
constitutional object. And then may it not
with propriety be said that il throws Ohio
guy on the Chief Magistrate of the nation,
with view to secure some advantage to
political party in the great contest which is
now approaching?
If the authority given in the first clause of
the resolution, for the purpose of inv estiga-
ting whether the President of the United
States has, by money. patronage. or other
improper means, sought 10 influence the ac-
ton of Congress, &c was given by the House
on the ground that there was good reason TO
believe that he has employed money or the
patronage of bis office TO influence the action
of Congress, then the House has failed to dis
charge its duty to the people under the Con-
stitution. IL the House acted ON that opn-
ion, in place of the action takea, il was its
imperative duty to have instituted proceed
ings with a view to the removal of the Presi-
dent; for the employment of money and of
official patronage to influence the action of
Congress is bribery. and that is one of the
very offences enumerated in the Constitution.
for the commission OF which il is declared the
President shall be removed from Office. And
how is this to he donef In the manner pro-
vided for in the resolution against which the
President has made his protest? Not at all.
To find any precedent for that We mus. go
back to the arbitrary proceedings of an Eng
lish Star Chamber or to the secret inquisilion
of a Venetian Council OF Ten. No. IL is
to be by proceedings worthy of the age in
which we live-in conformity with the set
tied practice of the country in which 1t is to
he carried on. and in accordance with the
immutable principles of justice.
The President of the United States, as well
as all other civil officers, can be removed
from Office only on conviction of treason,
bribery. or o'her high crimes and misdemean-
ors upon trial before the Senate on an inn
parchment preferred by the House of Repre-
sentatives. Aud what ought to be the basis
of proceedings by the House of Representa-
tives when il is called on to act as the grand
inquest OF the nation? We have had such
number OF inst ances in our history, in which
public officers have been impeached by the
House of Representatives, that this can no
longer be regarded as an open question. In
no one instance, since the foundation of the
government, has the House of Representa-
tives instituted any preliminary proceeding
with a view to the impeachment OF public
officer, unless 1t was based upon mrmorial
or petition presented by some credible per-
son, or by resolution presented by a mem
Der, who set forth the specific facts charged
on which the impeachment was demanded,
with reasonable miuuteness and cision.
and youcbed for their truth; aud this is a rule
accused. 1t is just to the public. because it
enables the representatives OF the people 10
decide whether the charges set forth are of
such q nature as to justify an investigation.
and it is just to the accused, because IL gives
him an opportunity to meet the charges
against him and prove them false.
But the course adopted in the proceeding
against the President violates this rule in both
particulars. BY dispensing with a statement
H. ..afo On~
President, no representative is in position
to decide whether there are or are not any
charges actually made against him which re-
quire looking into; whilst, on the other hand.
this very circumstance. that there is no par
iicular fact alleged against him. renders it
absolutely impossible for the President to
meet the charge OF bribery, which the adOp-
ton of the resolution necessarily Implies is
now made against him, OF TO provoke the
judgment of the constitutional tribunal upon
il 80 as to obtain an acquittal from the charge
Can another case like this be tonnd in the
whole history Of the United States? Il there
any court, State or federal, preside over by
any fair-mindcd man. that would tolerate, for
q single instant, the application OF such q
measure of Justice 10 the humblest person
under its jurisdiction as that already meas
ured out by the House Of Representatives 10
he chief magistrate of the nation? And
what, now ask, VIII ne tue judgments OF the
world upon this whole proceeding, when the
animosilies and bitterness of contending par
ties shall have passed awayi Can any one
doubt that Judgment Will it not be believ
ed that the desire 10 do something, any thing
which would be likely To advance party in
tcrest, had made majority of the represent
a,ives of the American people so far fnrgetful
Of the right that they were made willing in
strumen.s to throw discredit on distinguish
ed opponent by casting on him an unjas, i'm
patation, and that, too, by the adoption of
coarse unknown To the constitution and 90
principles of law. and which was Of such a