The New York herald., 1867-01-15
impeachment of the sdents in
the Case.


impeachment of the ePrcsident-Precsdentsi in
the Case.
There is great confusion in the public mind
as to whether the functions Of the President
would surcease Immediately upon his impeach-
ment. These functions cannot cease at that
point, for this would anticipate the only SEN
tence within the constitutional power Of the
Senate to infict-to wit, removal from ONCE,
which cannot precede trial and conviction. But
it is said that they may surcease-that is, they
may be temporarily suspended, to be fully re-
stored in the event of acquittal or wholly
withdrawn in the event of conviction This, ct
least, may be held requisite in order to prevent
the complications, not to say the collisions.
that might be inevitable were the President to
retain his entire authority, including that which
he possesses as Commander-in-Chie of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and exert
it to the utmost in opposition to the authority
Of Congress. 1t is thought by some that to
avoid any difficulty of this kind Congress will
deem itself competent to pass, if necessary, .
special act temporarily suspending the func.
tons Of the President However this may be,
there is little doubt that if the facts broXght to
light by the impeachment investigation, which
is now slowly progressing at Washington,
prove to be overwhelming, Congress will not
hesitate to do whatever can consttutionally be
done to remove every obstacle which may pos
sibly stand in the way Of the trial.
Naturally enough great interest is felt in any
precedents which may bear upon this extra
ordinary case. American history furnishes but
few precedents that throw any light whatever
upon it. The impeachment and trial of Judge
Samuel Chase, Of Maryland, ended in his
acquittal and did not prevent him from eyer
cisng his judicial functions during the progress
of the trial. His trial commenced on January
2, 1905, and he was acquitted on March in the
same year. According to 2 Cranch's Reports,
containing judgments in 1904 and 1905, Judge
Chase was absent from few of the sessions Of
| the February term, 1906, and at one of them, in
| the case of the United States VS.. Fisher, Mr..
| Harper, one Of the counsel, apologized for
| closing his argument, being engaged Sin an
| impeachment then pending before the United
States"- the impeachment Of Chase. But ON
February s, 1906, when the case Of Reilly vs..
Lamar was argued, Judge Chase was sitting on
the bench and put questions to counsel. He
was also one of the court present at the sessions
during the same February term, when the case
of the United States vs. Moore was argued, q
well as when 1t was decided, on March 2, the
day after his acquittal Judge Peck also csu-
tinued to exercise his judicial fukciions, 66Is.
withstanding his impeachment But in the case
of Hon. William Blount, Of Tennessee, United
States Senator, the Senate first ordered that be
should be impesched then that he should be
'sequestered from his seat and, thirdly, that no
should be expelled. His hssty expulsion, how
ever, brought the whole case to aconclusion; fox
| it placed him at once beyond the jurisdiction
| of the Senate.
English history offers, Of course, many moro
cases Of impeachment than our own. But thess
precedens illustrate less the point under
present consideration than the fact recorded
| by Montesquieu and Blackstone and tho other
eminent writer's on the subject, that the abuse
Of high Offices Of trust is the most proper and
the most usual ground for impeachment. Thus
the Duke Of Suffolk was impeached for neglect
Of duty a. an ambassador; the Earl Of Bristol
because he gave counsel against q war with
Spain, whose king had affr0nted the English
nation; Michael de Ia Pole, because he had
acted contrary to his duty ~ Chancellor; the
Duke Of Buckingham, for having . plurality
of offices. and Lord Bacon, whom Pope d..
scribed as ''the greatest, wisest, meanest st
mankind" for bribery in the Office Of LORD
Chancellor; Lord Finch, for unlawful methods
Of enlarging the forest in his Office of Assistant
to the Justices in Eyre, and the Earl Of Oxford,
for selling goods to his own use, captured by
him as Admiral, without accounting for tenth
due to Others In all these cases abuse OF high
Offices Of trust was the ground for impeaeh-
| ment The same charge was preferred In tho
impeachment of Lord yiscount Melville, whs
was finally acquitted. In his case the motion
| for impeachment was Immediately followed bys
petition to the King thai his name might bs
erased from the Privy Council, and this no
forestalled only by resignation previous to his
impeachment and trial.
We presume that the trials Of Charles L and
Of Louis XVI are altogether too exceptional
to be cited in this connection. They belong
peculiarly to times more revolutionary than
our own.
REPORTED RETURN or UNITED STATES SECUHf-
TIES FROM EURoPE-It is lntimated In Wash
ington that advices have been received
from Europe to the effect that there
will be large amount OF United States
securities returned to- this country and
that the proposed impeachment Of the Presl-
dent has weakened confidence in those securi-
ties. We do not believe this will occur. Capi-
talists in Europe appreciate our securities too
much for that, and they are now sufficiently