Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-10-11

Dy WeuuCil IHtillpo III y icCCIe numuS
OF the Slavery Standard In th'
most plausible shape thar can b'
given It by an expert and ingenious
lawyer. Phillips contended that an i'm
peachment would amount to nothing nn
less the President is suspended from ofiic'
while 1t is pending. Butler describes thu
method by which this suspension Is TO Dt
accomplished. The President, says But
ler, from the moment the articles OF im
peachment are presented to the Senate, be-
comes subject to arrest, and II the SENATE
so direct, to imprisonment, by their Ser
geant-at-A Arms. While thus In custody
the President is incapable OF discharglns
the duties of his Office, which becomes
temporarily vacant. 1t would be hlled Dy
the Vice President il there were one, Du
there being none, by the President pro tenn
pore OF the Senate. a
This ingenious fallacy rests ugon an as
sumption which little scrutiny will easily
explode. The assumption is, that an Officer
under impeachment stands In the same re-
lation to the tribunal appointed to try him
that an ordinary criminal does to an ordina'
ry court. Because a court of justice never
tries criminal unless f0 has custody of his
person, 1t is inferred that the same rule
holds In the trial of an impeached officer by
the Senate. The analogy fails In conse-
quence of total difference In the liability
of the persons accused. The Constitution
declares that judgment in cases Of inn
peachment shall not extend further than
removal from office" and disqualification
to hold any future Office. 1t Is not necessa-
ry for the Senate to have the custody OF the
accused in order to inflict this punishment
But an ordinary criminal, on trial tor
theft, murder, or other crime, is liable to
be punished by positive intiictions on his
person. 1t would be an idle folly to go
through the form of passing sentence OF
death or Imprisonment ifthe culprit was
beyond the reach of the officers or the law.
A person impeached of crime otherwise
punishable than by deposition from office,
Is also liable to the ordinary penalties
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 just as
well without the custody OF his person as
with. He is summoned to appear on the
same principle that the defendant in civil
suit is summond to appear II he stays
away, he only valves his opportunity OF
defense. An officer summoned 10 appear
and answer to an impeachment has these
three alternatives, with perfect freedom of
selection, namely :he may appear in person;
he may appear only by counsel; or he may
decline to appear at all. In the case of JUS
tice Samuel Chase, of the United States
Supreme Court, impeached in 1906, the
Senate, after organizing as high court OF
impeachment, adopted the following as one
of its rules of proceeding:
40. The person impeached shall then be
called to appear and answer the articles OF
Impeachment exhibited against him. Hhe
appears, OR ANY PERSON FOR HIM, the appear
dnce shall be recorded, stating particularly y
by himself OR IF BY AGENT OR ATTORNEY;
nanaing the person appearing, and the capacity
in schich he appears. II he does not appear,
either personally OR BY AGENT OR ATTORNEY,
the same shall berecOrded."
1t is clear, from this weighty and author
itative precedent, that General Butler is
wholly wrong in his law. Instead OF the
President being taken into custody and
imprisoned, it depends on his voluntary
choice whether he will appear before the
court at all. If he appears, he is just as
free to appear by attorney as in person.
Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the
Constitution, describes at length the for
malities observed in trials for impeach-
ment. We cite the following passage as
corroborating the inferences we have drawn
from the rule of the court in Judge Chase's
case Ifhen THE person impeachedl docs
not appear, in person or by attorney, has default
is recorded, AND THE SENATE MAY PROCEED
ExPARTE TO THE TRIAL OF THE IMPEACH-
MENT. If he does appear in person or by
attorney. his appearance is recorded"
There have been, in all, four cases Of
Impeachment. since the beginning of our
government, namely, that of William
Blount, 1899; John Pickering, 1903; Sam
uel Chase, 1906; and James IL. Peck, 1881.
The law governing such trials, as stated by
Judge Story, is founded on the precedents
furnished by these four cases. The argu-
ment OF General Butler, in support of the
position of Wendell Phillips, that the Pres
ident must necessarily be suspended from
office during the trial, falls to the ground in
the face of this uniform usage. But, even
if the exploded assumption of Butler were
correct, the taking of the President into
temporary custody would not operate as
suspension from office. If he should be to-
tally disabled for six weeks by typhus fe-
yer, we suppose nobody Is absurd enough
to say that he would cease to be President
during his illness, and that the President of
the Senate would be inducted into the eX-
ecutive chair. The Government would,
in that case, be administered by the
heads of departments, and papers
recurring the Presidents name would
remain unsigned until his recovery. That
his office could not be filled by another
person during his transient disability may
be shown by conclusive analogy. Sup
pose Chief Justice Chase should be i'm
peached, would his Office be vacant during
the trial? If so, the President could send
to the Senate nomination to fill the va
eancy, The idea OF his doing so is utterly
preposterous. The office can be vacated
only after a conviction, and in consequence
of a sentence. To make the Office vacant
is the only penalty which the Constitution
allows against an officer impeached; and
it is absurd to suppose the punishment can
date from the accusation 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
Cabinet. He might break OFF negotiations
in progress with foreign powers. He
might Tevolutionize all the offices of the
country by sweeping prescription and
new appointments. When the acquitted
President returned to his station, he might
find it impossible to reinstate his depOsed
subordinates by the refusal OF hostile Sem
ate to confirm his appointments. General
Buffers assumption Is, therefore, as absurd
in its consequences as 1t is untenable. In
law. T.
If we were to hazard a conjecture as to
the course Of the President, in case he
should be impeaehed, it would be that he
will object to the competency of the court
and refuse to appear. II, when the law
gives man the benefit of twelve jurymen,
an iniquitous court should attempt to try
him before seven, he would refuse TO plead.
The Constitution gives an impeached OFF,
nn,. thn ,-inrht To he tried hv savantu-twn