The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-10
Impeachment of the President.

kr0m the WOTtd
The extract from General Buffers speech
which was telegIaphed from Cincinnati, and
published by the city papers on Monday mora
ing, puts the point made by Wendell Phillips in
a recent number of the AnttStdUe7y Standard
in the most plausible shape that can be given it
by an expert and ingenious lawyer. Philips
contended that an impeachment would amount
to nothing unless the President is suspended from
from office while it is pending. Butler describes
method by which this suspension is to be accom-
plished. The President, says Butler, from the
moment the articles Of impeachment are pre-
sented to the Senate, becomes subject to arrest
and if the Senate so direct, to imprisonment, by
their SeIgeant-at Arms. While thus in custody,
the President is incapable OF dlscharging the
duties of his office, which becomes temporarily
vacant. 1t would be filled by the Vice-Presi-
dent il there we're one, but there being none, by
the President pro tempoTe of the Senate.
This ingenious fallacy rests upon an assump-
ton which a little scrutiny will easily explode.
The assumHtion is. that an officer under I'M
parchment stands in the same relation 10 the
tribunal appointed to try him that an ordinary
criminal does to an ordinary court. Because a
court of Justice never tries criminal unless it
has custody of his person. it is inferred that the
| same rule holds in the trial OF an lmpeached
officer by the Senate. The analogy fails in con-
sequence OF total difference in the liability OF
| the persons accused, The Constitution declares
| that ''iudgment in. cases of impeachment shall
| not extend further than removal from
office" and disqualification to hold any future
| office 1t is not necessary for the Senate to
| have the custody OF the accused in order to
| inhlct this punishment. But an ordinary
| criminal, on trial for theft, murder, or other
| crime, is liable to be punished by positive in
Aictions on his person. 1t would be an idle
/ folly TO go through the form OF passing SEN
| tence of death or imprisonment If the culprlt
was beyond the reach of the officers of the law.
| A person impeaChed of q crime otherwise pun
| ishable than by deposition from office, Is also
liable to the ordinary penalues of the same
| CRIME by the judgment OF the ordinary tribunals.
The impeachment, having no other aim than
simply to vacate his office, can accomplish its
purpose lust as well without the custody OF his
person as with, He is summoned to appear Oh
the same principle that the defendant IN civi
suit is summoned 10 appear. Ii he stays away
he only valves his opportunity of defense. Al
officer summoned to appear and answer to al
impeachment has these three alternatives, Will
perfect freedom Of selection, namely-he ma!
appear In person; he may appear only by coun
1 sci; or he may decline to appear at all. In tn
+ case of Justice Samuel Chase, of the Unite,
e States Supreme Court, fmpeached in 1905, tn
Senate after organizing as a high court Of im
peachment adopted the following as one OF it
rules OF proceeding .---r
40. The person impeached shall then b
. | called to appear and answer the articles of i'm
y parchment exhibited against him. If he appears
e or any person for him, the appearance shall
70 recorded stating particularly Ii by himself q
70 | il by agent or attorney; naming the perso
- appearing, and the capacity in which he appear
er II he does not appear, either personally or b
le agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded
re- II is clear, from this weighty and authorit,
"A tive precedent, that General Butler is who'll
III wrong in his law. Instead of the Presldel
being taken into custody and imurisoned
st depends on his voluntary choice whether
a will appear before the court at all. II /
ID appears he is Just as free to appear by attornC
g. | as In person. '''', '''tir e.fti t.Tf.I
an Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Co
lv atitution desSfibes AT length the f0rmalites a
at served in trials for impeachment. We, cite b
following passage as cOrr0b0rating the in
IT, rences we have drawn from the rule OF the oOu
N. In Judge Chase's case; eff he" (the person