New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-11-26

dict of guilt, and provide sentence winch aI
the time of the commission OF the acts soughG
TO be punished was wholly unknown IN the
history of jurisprudence either IN tnis country
or in England. Such an act II attempted 10
be applied to the case of President johnson,
would be so clearly er post tdCto ana unconstl-
tutional that we assume that Mr.. Kelsey de-
signs If merely as general act, tor use IN
future similar eases 4n .a.I .,s.
And. while we do not see the fitness of Mr..
Kelsey's bill TO meet all the emergencies de-
manded in a general law, it must be conceded
that some law ought to be passed defining at
what period the power to arrest attaches IN
mpeachment cases, and what tribunal may ex-
ercise it. In England, in the cases of the Earl
Of STAFFORD, Archbishop Laud, and most, if
not all. the others, the official was arrested as
soon as impeached, was sent to the Tower,
and was brought before the bar of the House
of Lords under arrest. like an ordinary pris-
oner before court. Every analogy from En-
glish practice would indicate that the power
of arrest attaches as soon as the impeachment
is found AS the impeachment corresponds to
indictment, analogy would infer the same
from the ordinary criminal practice in courts.
Whether the power of arrest should inhere
in the House or the Senate, and IN
what mode it should be exercised should
also be clearly defined. There are serious OBJ
iections to any attempt to define In advance
the ofienses for which any official may be inn
peached. Mr. Kelsey's definition merely covers
the cases of usurpation of power and Obstruc-
ton to the due execution of law. But this
definition would be by no means broad enough.
In this country, as in England, doubtless, Tor
an error of Judgment or statesmanship, an OF
ficer might be impeaohed if the consequences
were sufficiently disastrous, even where there
were none but patriotic intent. This would
be far more justifable 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, 50 we doubt if they can pos
sibly define in advance what official acts shall
be deemed msdemean0rs.
The whole question of impeachment must be
considered not "a party policy, but rs National
duty. Congress must enter into this investi-
CATION, determined 20 shrink from none of ITS
responsibilities There is no law more plainly
written than that which provides impeach-
| ment and it is the only law that stands be-
| tween the country and a dictatorship. We can
not impeach Mr.. Johnson because he has left
| the Republican party. If he has been merely
| such a President az Mcclellan or Pendeton
would have been. then Impeachment * poiiti'
| cal menace. and amounts TO nothing. On the
| other hand. if the evidence warrants H. we
| must not refuse to proceed, because, perchance
VIC NAV lessen our majorities at the next cleo
ton. Let there be no passion IN the matter
The precedent We make VIII last Tor all time
The Federal Executive office IL necessary tC
| the harmony OF our system, and it must not Dt
rudely assailed We have not yet seen eyi
dence enough 20 make up our mind in favor
Of Impeachment. and We shall wait and see
| what nov evidence has been obtained