Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-12-03
r.sE 1npnAcmMExr auEsTIoS.


TsE InPEACHHEsT QUESTION.
From the New York Trfbuhe.l
The question ofimpeaehment came uI
before the House OF Representatives
yesterday in the reports from the Com
mittee Of the Judiciary. The COMMITTEES
does not occupy the position held In the
report Of the July session, AT that time
msjority Of the members were opposed
to impeachment; now, 3 majority eX-
press themselves in favor of the meas
I ire. Mr.. Churchill has changed bis
miDd.r Mr.. Wilson, Of lowe, the Chair
man of the Committee, and one Of the
ablest members Of the House, Is earnest
IN the conviction that the evidence does
not warrant articles Of impeachment.
! Mr.. Woodbridge Ia Republican, and
Messrs. Marshall and Eldridge unite in
this conviction, which is ably argued in
the minority report. --t OK
The House postponed the reports until
next week. This will enable the mem
bers to study the testimony and vote
| intelligently. We choose to claim the
same privilege. Impeachment is now
only a subject calmly under cOnsidera-
| ton, and some days must eiapse before
we know thoroughly the nature of the
/ evidenca.- Mr. Kelssy's bill, however,
declaring the effect Of an impeachment,
and defining the meaning of the words
ahigh crimes and misdemeanors," as
used in the Constitution clause relative
to the power Of impeachment, may be
viewed either IS e partisan expedient
to meet an exigency, or a general Law
to bear on the case OF Andrew John
soB, or as provisions the necessity of
which has been suggested by the sup
-T4s. -. .s.R
ment Of the present President, but which
are designed for Use only on other and
future occasions. If they are intended
TO bear on the case Of President johnson,
we think they are clearly er post f0ct0,
and as such will offend the moral sense
Of the HeoDIe as well as the legal sense
Of our lawyers and juFists. It is not
merely a new remedy for q grievance
that existed before, or a new
mode of applying q remedy that
existed before, that Mr. Keisey's bill
aims to supply. It establishes a new
mode Of prosecution, which is neither
trial before the Senate nor an impeach-
meRt by the House, but which results in
q Joint resolution IF both Houses, a
mode Of prosecution wholly unknown to
the Constitution, and therefore void It
establishes, also, 3 new sentence, which
is neither one of guilty" nor OF "inuO-
cent" of any particular crime, but is
simply a sentence that the officer be sus-
pended. Itwould be an anomaly in ju-
risprudence to allow tribunal TO sus-
pend an officer whom they had not first
pronounced to be guilty of crime. We
are not certain, indeed, that the act de-
fning impeachabie Offenses does not ere
ate into crimes, for the first time, the
acts which it aims TO punish. For If the
acts which il declares to be criminal are
already criminal then the new defini-
milton is unnecessary and superfiu-
been criminal, then they are made
so by the operation Of this bill. We
will not do Mr. Kelsey the injustice to
suppose that ne intends to pass q general
law for President JohusOn's special pun
ishmeAt, which will at once make
criminal acts which, when committed,
were not so, try the charge for these
crimiusiiEed scs before tribunal which,
when they were committed, had no ex-
istenCe, authorize punishment in ad-
vance of any verdict Of guilt, and provide
a sentence which at the time Of the
commission of the acts sought to be
punished WIS wholly unknown in the
history of Jurisprudence either in this
country or in England. Such an act, if
attempted to be applied to the case of
President Johnson, would be so clearly
er post fdctO and unconstitutional that
we assume that Mr.. Kelsey designs it
merely as q general act, for use in future
similar cases.
And, while we DO not see the fitness of /
Mr.. Keisey's bill TO meet ali the emer-
gepeies demanded in a general law, it
must be conceded that some law ought
to be passed defining st what period the
power to arrest attaches in impeachment I
cases, and what tribunal may exercise il. /
In England, in the cases Of the Earl of
Archbishop Laud, and most, if /
not all, the others, the official was ar
rested as soon as impeached, was sent to /
the Tower, and was brought before the /
brr Of the House of Lords under arrest, like |
an ordinary prisoner before q court. |
Every analogy from English practice I
would indicate that the power
of arrest attaches as soon as the fnlpeach- /
ment is found. As the impeachment (
to Indictment, analogy /
would infer the same from the ordinary /
pTsctice in courts. Whether 4
the power of arrest should inheTe in the I
House or the Senate, and in what mode .
it should be exercised, should also be .
clearly defined. There are serious obs I
jections to any attempt to define in ad- /
vance the OfIenses for which any official .
may be impeached. Mr. kelsey's def /
milton merely covers the cases Of usurpa-
ton Of power and obstruction to the 4
due execution Of law. But this
definition would be by no means broad 4
enough. IG this country, as In Eng
land, doubtless, for an error of Judgment .
or craftsmanship, an officer might be
impeRched if the conssq uences were
disastrous, even where there
were none but patriotic intent. This
would be far more justifisble under our
Constitution, under which impeachment
and conviction by Congress are designed
for the protection Of the nation, rather
than the punishment Of the crime, which
is left to courts Of justice. As legislators
have never been able to define what
acts amount to fraud so we doubt If
they can possibly define in advance
what official acts shall be deemed misde-
meanOrs.
The whole question Of impeachment
must be considered, not as party policy
but as National duty. Congress must
enter this investigation, determined to
shrink from none of its responsibilities
There is no law more plainly written
han that which provides impeachment,
and il is the only law thai stands be-
.ween the country aud q dictatorship.
We ecannOtinpesch Mr.. johnson because
be has left the Republican party. II he
las been merely such President IS Me-
Jlellan or PendletOn would have been,
hen impeachment is a political men
zee, and amounts to nothing On the
,ther hand, il the evidence warrants il,
we must not refuse to proceed, because,
we may lessen our majorities
1t the next election. Let there be no
passion in the matter. The precedent we
make will last for al time The Federal
Executive Office is necessary to the har-
nony of our system, ami must not be
udely assaiied. We have not yet seen
.vidence enough TO make up our mind
n favor Of impeachment, and we shall
gsit and see what new evidence has
)een obtained.
ROMANCE AND A WEDDING.
/ Belgian Baron Marries q Treasury
Clerk.