The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-05-15
I.rocccuings on impeachment

NEOEctulukN SNA
In the discussion on the impeaeh-
Inent Of the President, it Is assumed
that the Senate is Court exercising
criminal Jurisdiction, and that the
President is arraigned at its bar for
trial and punishment. This is nottrue
in tho sense, and to the extent claimed.
All criminal prosecutions result, on
conviction, in the inniction of certain
pains and penalties on.the party con-
yIcied. Whether 1t be death, imprison-
ment or fine, the result OF conviction is
IA penalty inflicted personally on the
party. Not so with impeachment.
The party convicted is not hanged, i'm
prisoued or fined. True he may be de
clared incapable of holding any Office
after conviction. But this Is not IA
necessary result of conviction. The only
inevitable result OF conviction is remov-
ri from Office. And when he is removed
he is no worEe oil, 80 far as life, liberty
or property ia concerned, than lie
would have been II be had never been
elected.
1t is true that the Constitution pro-
vides that the President shall only be
inpeached for "high crimes and mis-
demennOrs. But it is we'll settled that
tho thigh crimes and misdemeanors"
for which President may be impeach-
cd, are not such Thigh crimes and mis-
demeanors" as are punishable by in
dictrnent at common law.
The primary object of this constitu-
lionsl provision was not the punish
ment oil the President, but the protec-
ton of the public. The President may
he impeache,l and removed from Office,
not because he deserves punishment,
but because the public safety and the
public welfare require his removal
from Office. Proceedings forimpeach-
ment therefore are instituted, not for the
punishment of the President but TO pro
tect the public against the evils of mall
administration.
Important results grow out of this
difference between impenchments, and
ordinary criminal proceedings. on
indictments for felonIes and indicta.
Gle misdemeanors all doubts must be
resolved in favor of the defendant, up
ON the humane maxim that II is better
that niuety-nine guilty men should
escape punishment than that even one
innocent man shall be punished. But
it would bo utterly ruinous to adopt
amy such rule on the trial of impeach-
ments. II corrupt public officer
should succeed in throwing some reas-
enable doubts upon the case made by
the prosecution, although the evidence
might prepOnderRto strongly in its
favor it will not do to expose the nation
to theperilsOF acorrupt and ambitious
ruler who may be seeking to destroy the
liberties OF the people.
The safety OF the State il tho SUI
preme law, and 1t must not DO periled
upon such crotche,s as an Old Baily
lawyer might urge before jury On n
criminal trial.
Considerations connected with the
public safety aud public welfare must,
therefore, to greater or less extent,
influence the triors in impeachment
cases. 1t is impossible to avoid 1t, and
It would be criminal in Senators to dis.
regard the consequences that may grow
out of the result OF their deliberations.
II the evidence has satisfied them that
the President has usurped powers not
conferred upon him by the Constitu.
ton, that he has persistently sought tC
defeat and prevent the execution of the
laws, that he cannot be trusted witt
the exercise of the power of the Execu
tive Department. of the Government
that the public safety requires his con
viction and removal from office, then 4
is their sworn and solemn duty to con
vict him.