Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1868-03-13
Suspension and Impeaohment

Suspension and Impeachment,
If the opinions Of such competent ex-
Founders Of the constitution as Madi-
son and Randolph are worth anything,
Andrew johnson can hold the Office Of
President, during the impeachment
trial, only by sufFerance. The opinions
of these two eminent men which we
find very appropriately cited by the
Cincinnati Gazette, are pointed and di-
rect upon this subject. For instance
Mr.. Madison when advocating the ad-
doption of the National Constitution
before the Virginia Convention and an
swering arguments to show danger in
the Executive power, said:
There is one security in this case to
which gentlemen may not have avert
ed if the President be connected in
any suspicious manner with any per-
sons, and there be grounds to believe
be will shelter himself the House of
Representative can 1mpeaCh him /;
they can remove him If found guilty /;
they can suspend him when suspected,
and the power viii devOlVe on the Vice
President. Should he be suspected also,
he may likewise be suspended till he
I o.
Legislature may make 6emp0rY ap-
pointment.--VO Vol. 2, page 367.
Here are the views Of one the trainers
of the Constitution, on the power of
Congress to suspend the President as
the first movement in the Impeachment
prosecution and these views were
given in argument in favor of the rati-
fcation Of the Constitution. He held
that an impeachment trial implied sus-
pension from Office.
The opinions of John Randolph, OF
Roanoke, were still more emphatic to
the same effect.
In. the iupeaehrnenkn at EannuaI- Chase
a -zIadaa Of the Suprenae Court the
charge made ouG tyranny In Office, but
charged no breach Of law. John Ran
/ dO1ph, who was the leader of the prose
IN his opening argument, this pern1-
ciOus doctrine in these words:
| But, sir, we are told that this high
] Court is not a Court Of error and APP
I pea1s, but 8 Court Of Impeachment
! and that however, incorrectly the re-
spondent may have conducted himself
I proof must be abducted of criminal in
4 tent, of Willful error, to oc0nstitute guilt
/ The q1gO G7lj8l0 is to be inferred from the
I facts themselves; there is no other
mode by which, in any case, it can be
determined and even the respondent
D
/ so dagrant that guilt must be inferred
! from them. But this concession is quail
/ lied by the monstrOus pre5entiOn thai
an act, TO be impeachable, must be in
diotable. Where In the Federal
Courts There not even a robbery and
/ murder are indictable, except in a few
places under our exclusive Jurisdiction
It is not an indictable Offense, under
I the laws Of the United States, for q
| Judge to go on the bench in a state Ot
! intoxicatiOn; it may not be in all the
Il State COURTS and it IS indictable no.
where for him to omit to do his duty
/ to refuse to hold a court. But who car
doubt that both ara impeachable of.
| fenses, and ought to subject the offend,
/ er to removal from Office.
In his concluding argument, Mr.. Ran.
| dOlph argued-this question more gener.
ally. He said:
Suffer me to say few words on the
I general doctrine of impeachment, on
| Tvhichlthe widest opinions have beer
advanced, unsupported by. the Consti.
| tuition, inconsistent with reason. and al
| war with each other. It has been con.
tended that an Ofense, to be impeach.
able, must be indicta'ble. For what
| then, pray you, was it that the pro,
/ vision of impeachment found its way
i into the Constitution Gould it q OF have
/ been said at once, that any civil of1cel
4 of the United States, convicted on an
]
moved from Office This would be com.
/ ing at the thing by q short and Dbvious
/ way. If the Constitution did not con-
/ template q distinction between an i'm
I peachable and an indictable Ohense
] whence this cum brOus and expensive
| process, which has cost so much labor
I and anxiety to the nation? Whence
/ this idle parade, this WantOn waste oil
1 time and treasure, when the ready in
tervention of a court and jury alone
was wanting to Tectify-th the eEiI7
4 In addition to the instances adduced
| by my right worthy friend (lTrs Nlchol-
| sony, who first addressed the Court
! yesterday, permit me to cite few 9TH
/ ers by way of illustration. The Presi-
/ dent of the United States has q quail
/ fed negative on all bills passed by the
/ two Houses of Congress, that he may
| arrest a law passed in q moment of leg
| islative delirium. Let Us suppose ii
| exercised indiscTiminately on every act
presented for his acceptance. This sure
| iy would be an abuse Of his constitu-
/ tional power, richly deserving of inn
parchment and yet no man viii pre-
/ tend to say that it is an indictable Of
| tense.
The President is authorized by the
! Constitution to return any bill present
1 ed for his appreciation, not exceeding
ten days, Sundays excepted, within
which period he may return it to the
House wherein it originated stating his
/ reasons for disappearing ii. Now let
US suppose that at session like the
present, which must necessarily termin-
| ate on the Sd of March land that day
| falls this year on Sunday, the Prssi-
! dent should keep back until the last
hour of an expiring Congress every bill
offered him for signature during the
next preceding ten days (Rnd these are
! always the greater part of the laws
passed at any session of the Legisla-
| ture), and should then return them,
stating his objections, whether good or
| bad is altogether immaterial. IL is true
/ that a vote of two-tnirds Of each branch
may enact law in despite of Execu-
/ tive opposition ; but in the case I stated
! it would be physically impossible for
Congress to exercise its constitutional
power.
Indeed, over the bills presented to the
| President within nine days proceeding
its dissolution, the Legislature might be
deprived. Of even a shadow of control,
since the Executive is not bound to
make any return of them whatever
Now, ask whether such misconduct
of the President be an indictable Of
fense7 And yet, is there any man who
hears me who viii deny that it would
be hagrant abuse, under pretense Of
exercise Of his constitutional authority,
for which he ought TO be impeached,
removed and disquadhed2 Sir, this
doctrine, that impeachable and indicta-
bic are convertible terms, Is almost too
absurd for argUments Nothing but the
high authority by which it Is urged, and
the dignthed theater where Il is RdYan-