The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1868-04-02
What are ImpeachabIe Of
GnmRnerp

What are ImpeachabIe Of
Ecmces2
A great deal is being said by the
Democratic press on the score Of the
President not being liable to impeaeh-
ment except fyq an indictable offence
To as, the question seems too plain to-
admit of argument, but for the infor-
nation Of those who have doubts upon
the subject, we give below a few argu-
ments and preCedents in the case;
At the trial Of Samuel Chase, a
Judge Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States, he was charged with
tyranny in Office, and not with any
breach oflaw. Joh6 Randolph was
the leader of the prosecution on the
part Of the House, and, in his argu-
ment, said; .er'-
But, sir, we are told that tfTfs high
Court is not court of error and APP
peals, but a court of impeachment,
and that however incorrectly the re-
spOndent may have conducted him
self, proof must be adduced of crimi-
nal intent, OfwillfuI error, to cOnsti-
tute guilt. The qltO amino is to be
no other mode by which, in any case,
it can be determined; and even the
respondent admits that there are acts
Of nature 50 fragrant that guilt must
be inferred from them. But this con-
cessiOn is qualified by the mOnstrOus
Pretension that an act, to be iInpeach-
able, must be indictable. Where? In
the Federal Courts? There not even
a robbery and murder are indictable,
except in few places under our ex-
elusive Jurisdiction. It'll not an in-
dictable offence, under the laws of the
United States, for a Judge to go on
the bench in a state of intoxication; it
may not be in all the State courts; and
it is indictable nowhere for him to
omit to do his duty, to refuse to hold
a court. But who can doubt that both
are impeachable offences, and ought
to subject the offender to removal from
Office?
In his concluding argument, Mr..
Randolph said:
Suffer me to say a few words on
the general doctrine of impeachment,
on which the widest opinions have
been advanced, unsupported by the
@ Institution, inconsistent with reason,
and at war with each other. 1t has
been contended that an offence to be
imPeachable, must be indietable
For what then, pray you, was 1t
that the provision of impeachment
found its way into the Constitution
COGid it not have been said at once,
that any civil officer of the Uuited
States, convicted on an indictment,
shall (ip80 f1ctO) be removed from Of
fee? This would be coming at the thing
by short and obvious way. If the Con-
stitution did not contemplate a dis
tinetiOn between an impeachable and
an indictable offence, whence this
cumbrOus and expensive process,
which has cost so much labor and anx-
iety to the nation? Whence this
idle parade, this wanton waste of time
and treasure, when the ready inter
ventiOn of court and jury alone was
wanting to rectify the evil?
A general review of all the impeach-
ment trials that have taken place in
this country shows that:
The Impeachment of Blount was
for intriguing in the affairs Of two
foreign powers. It was no breach Of
law. The impeachment of Judge
Pickering, Of New Hampshire, was for
drunkenness-nO breach oflaw. That
Of Judge Chase was for tyranny in
Office. The articles charged no breach
Of law. The impeachment of Judge
Peck Of Missouri, was for tyranny in
Office, in imprisOning a man for con-
tempt of Court. No breach Of law or
indictable offence was charged. AS
rebellion is the sum of all other crimes,
we may assume that Judge Humph-
reys was guilty Of breach of law,
we suppose, our charitable
Democratic friends will deny it.
This is the sum Of the impeachment
trials, and in none of them, save of
the rebel Judge, was there a case of
breach OF law. Thus it win be seen
that this rule, which requires that the
articles shall pharUa a sDecific viola
tiOn Of the law, is contrary to all the
Precedents the citations we have
made show also that it is contrary to
right reason; and a little examina-
tiOn shows as we have done near the
of this article, that the doc
trine which makes it strictly a matter
of written law, limits the penalty to
that laid down in the statute and actu-
ally makes the removal from Office for
that offence illegal.-[Cincinnati Ga
zette.