Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1860-04-27

l
| he cannot, and the executive or lag-executIne
| power must always be inferior TO the Legislative
or law making power. The latter is omnipoteni
within the limits of the Constitution the for
| mer is subject, not only to the Constitution
but to the determinations of the latter also
To repeat the point, the President is not. in
any respect, superior to the citizen, merely be-
cause he is bound to discharge more numerous
duties; and he is not oo-equal with that branch
OF the Government which helps to impose aud
define those duties. The fact that be holds a
limited veto over the legislation of Congress
cannot affect the soundness Of the views here
briefly presented. His claims to Legislative
capacity" 10 other words 20 possess legislative
power, will scarcely be conceded in view of
article /, section l, Of Constitution, declaring
that "Ali legislative powers herein [thereinl
granted, shall be vested 10 a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of Senate
and House of Representatives"
The President, it will be observed, through
cut his message, assumes that the resolution to
which be makes reference, charges him with
the commission of high crimes and mIsdemoan-
ors. THIS was necessary to the argument he
has advanced. 1t is for such charges only the
House, has the power of impeachment. The
graUdnsen of his complaint is, that the accusa-
tions are of such nature, if true, as would
subject him TO an impeachment, and that the
House has proceeded to pass upou them, or is
moving to pass upon them, through form of
proceedings not authorized By the Constitution.
Herein lies the fallacy, and that winch unex-
posed, might operate as the deception of the
plea. Ii this were in truth charge against
the President, calling for the form of trial
prescribed by the Constitution, then the deter
mination of this House might possibly be open
to animadversion. Unfortunately for the at
tempted defence of that officer, there is no
charge made of any grave offence calling for
trial of any kind. 1t is mere inquiry that
is proposed. The language Of the resolution
may be cited as the best proof The Commit
tee raised is s'for the purpose of Investigating
whether the President of the United States,
or any other officer of Government, has, by
money, patronage, or other improper means,
sought to influence the action of Congress, or
any O0nsnittee tasreoI, 49,, tsso zHguiSe ss.s&s
Investigate whether any officer or officers of the
Government have, by combination or other
wise, prevented and defeated, or attempted to
prevent and defeat, the execution of any law
or laws,' &c.; aud 'swhcther the President has
iaAiCu VI IGlusUA w GuiBpGA Tue bAtCutlUD Oh
any laws" &C. If no crimnaity is alleged.
but on the contrary, an Investigation or inquiry
alone is proposed, the question may be asked,
with ruling force and emphasis, what has the
House to do With the law of impeachment p
The resolutions do not contemplate judgment,
and therefore there can be no formal trial an-
der them. But, admit that charges proper for
impeachment were made, would the House be
bound to submit the matter to any particular
Committee, and allow the accused cross-ex-
animation, as the President seems to suppose?
By no means. The Constitution prescribes no
rGles for the House, but it is left perfectly free
to adopt its own. 1t may refer the charges
to standing Committee, or a select Commit
tee, or may proceed without the Intervention Of
either. 1t may allow cross-examination, or
deny it, as to members may seem most proper
at the time. The precedent set in the case of
Judge Peck, upon which great stress is laid,
cannot take away the full discretion allowed
by the Constitution, nor make the law either
shorter or narrower than it is written In such
a case, each House of Representatives viii de-
termine for itself its mode of procedure with
out suggestions from "co-OrdiDate," and rely
upon the highest law as its charter. There is
no Judge presiding over the Representatives,
of the sovereign people of the sovereign States
10 teach aud inculcate legal proprieties. When
they shall permit even the President to do so,
then will there be law superior to the Con-
stitntion, and discretion locked in chains.
The resolution of the Senate of March %,
1884, upon which the President seemingly had
his eye in the preparation of his protest, pre-
sents case very different from the present one.
That body resolved as follows
ssThat the President, in his late executive pro-
ceedings in relation to the public revenue, has S
sumed upon himself authority and power not con-
ferred by the Constitution and laws but in deroga-
tion Of BOTH
The complaints made by President Jackson
TO this proceeding were, that the acts charged
upon him constituted one of the very highest
crimes which that officer can commit, inpeach-
able from its very nature; that the Senate, as
his constitutional judges in such case, not
only accused, but found him guilty of the
charge, without any opportunity on his part to
defend hiulsef. And MIR. Buchanan, Jan. 16,
1887, speaking on the subject, declared that
the Senate had transcribed its constitutional
power, because the resolution charged an i'm
peachable offence against the President; that
criminal intent was involved in the charge, as
il was to be presumed from an illegal or Grim
inal act.
The resolutions of the House, on the con-
trary, do not even imply eensure, much less
pass judgment. They propose an examination
merely such as may be instituted by any mems
Der of society against any other member Of
society, to test informally either honesty or re-
spectability. Aud has it ever been conceived
before, that such priviege--that of inquiry
does not pertain to every human being s-
The fact that such investigation may lead to
the conclusion that the party against whom it
is brought TO bear is guilty of nefarious prac-