Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1866-10-25

40. The person inpeached shall then be called
to appear and answer the articles of impeachment
exhibited against him. III he appears, or any per-
son for him, the appearance shall be recorded
stating particularly if by himsel if by agent OF
capacity in which he appears. II he does not APP
pear, either personally or by agent or attorney,
the same shall be recorded"
tits clear from this weighty and authorita-
tive precedent, thatth accusers of the Presi
dent are wholly wrong in their views OF
the law Instead of the President being
taken into custody and imprisoned, it de-
ponds on his voluntary choice whether he
will appear before the court at all. If he APP
pears he is just as free to appear by attor-
ney as in person.
Judge Story, in his commentaries on the
Constitution, describes at length the for
malities observed i'll trials for impeach-
ment We cite the following passage as
corroborating the differences We have drawn
from the rule of the court in Judge Chase S
case. If he (the person impeached) does
not appear in person Or by attorney his de-
fault is recorded, and the Senate proceeds
erpnfc to the trial of impeachment : If he
does appear, in person Or by attorney, his
appearance is recorded"
There have been in all five cases of I'M
parchment since the beginning of our gov
eminent. namely, that of VIM. Blount,
1899 John Pickering, 1903 Samuel Chase,
1905 James FL. Peck, 1881 and West II.
Humphreys, 1862 The law of impeach-
ment trials, as stated by Judge Story, is
founded on the precedents furnished by
these five cases The argument in support
of the position, that the President must
necessarily be suspended from office dur
ing the trial, falls to the ground in the face
of this uniform usage. But, even If the eN-
ploded assumption of the Presidents accu
sers were correct, the taking of the Presi-
dent into temporary custody would
not operate as a suspension from office. Ii
he should be totally disabled for six weeks
by typhus fever, we suppose nobody is alb
surd enough to say that he would cease to be
President during his illness, and that the
President of the Senate would be indicted
into the executive chair. The government
would, in that case, be administered by the
heads of departments, and papers requir-
ing the Presidents name would remain I'M
signed until his recovery. That his Office
could not be filed by another person dur
ing his transient disability may be shown
by conclusive analogy. Suppose Chief
Justice Chase should be impeach ed would
his Office be vacant during the trial 4? If
so, the President could send to the Senate
a nomination to fill the vacancy. The idea
of his doing SO is utterly preposterous.
The Office can be vacated only after a
conviction, and in consequence Of SEN
tence. To make the Office vacant is the
only penalty which the Constitution allows
against an officer impeached; and it is alb
surd to suppose the punishment can date
from the ACQUISITION instead of from the
judgment.
If the President is acquitted, the filling
his Office by another person during the trial
would produce strange confusion. The
new President might appoint new cabi-
net. He might break off negotiations in pro
gress with foreign powers. He might rev.
olutionize all the Offices of the country by
a sweeping prescription and new appoint
ments. When the acquitted President re-
turned to his station he might find it i'm
possible to re-instate his deposed subordi-
mates by refusal of a hostile Senate to
confirm his appointments. The assumption
that the Presidential Office is vacated during
the trial, is therefore as absurd III its con-
sequences as it is untenable i'll law.