The New York herald., 1868-03-31

exercise the right cf challenge, although Senators
q q as
the articles were found and had there voted steadily
which was tried in 1881, anOrds another instance in
point The conduct Of Judge Peck had been the sub
naa Se oe snn
before the Congress Of the United States be.
fore s finally came to trial. II was NOT
Rad both formed and expressed opinions upon Pecka
%ss SsSR s1as s WEBSTER Nor o Ma s
House OF Representatives, to whom the petition for
impeachment was referred, and which, after eXami
nation, reported thereon ''eave to Withdraw" and
Sprague Of Maine. voted against the proceedings IN
them. Ali of these gentlemen sat upon the trial and
voted as they did In the House. very remarkable
Pennsylvsna, in 1904. There, after the articles OF
| impeachment were framed the trial was postponed
tSree members OF the House Of Representatives who
| had voted for the articles OF impeachment were
| elected TO the Senate and became the triers
4 OF the articles OF impeachment Of which they
had solemnly voted the respondent to be guilty.
To their sitting the trial Judge Addison objected
overruled, seventeen to six: Two Of the minority
were the gentlemen who had voted him guilty, and
who themselves objected to sitting on the trial.
Thus stands the case upon authority. How does it
stand upon prncipleS In conference, held In l69l
between the lords and commons proposition to
limit the number OF Judges the lords made answer
THAT in the case of Impeachment which are the
gr;Gans r;mns Of the people, and md for the highest
an the lords must judge, There have been
that no peer be excused from sitting on such trials
has produced curious results. Brothers have sat
sons and daughters, uncles upon the trials Of
nephews and nieces; excuse being admitted. One,
and most peculiar and painful instance, win suffice
upon this point to Illustrate the strength OF the rule.
In the trial OF Anne Boleyn the wife Of one sovereign
OF England and the mother Of another, her father,
Lord Rochefort and her uncle the Duke of Norfolk,
sat as Judges and voted guilty, although
one OF the charges against the daughter and
the son ana nephew Of the judges. 1t would seem
| impossible that In proceeding before such trt-
bunal SO constituted there could be challenge, be;
as there are not now end never have been any pro-
Visions either in England or in this country, for sub
stituting another for the challenged party tails
man Is substituted in jury, the accused might es-
cape punishment altogether by challenging . sutii-
might oppress the respondent by challenging all per-
sons favorable to him until the necessary unanlmity
but an inquest of Office and, except in few rare in
stances, almost paraking, more or less of political
considerations, and required to be discussed before
presentation to the trlers by the coordinate branch
OF the Legislature, 1t Is impossible that Senators
should not have opinions and convictions upon the
subject matter more less decidedly formed before
the reaches them. IT, therefore, challenges could
be allowed because Of such opinions, in the
OF jurors trial could 90 forward, because every
intelligent Senator could be objected to on one side
or the other. should have hardly dared to trouble
the Senate with such nnuteness Of citation and argu
ment upon this point were 1t not that certain
persons and papers outside OF this D0dy, by
sophistries drawn from the anaogies Of the
eendeavored, in advance, to prejudice the
public mind, but little instructed In this topic be-
the legal validity and proprety of the proceedings
upon this trial. may be permitted, without offence,
prevented the Managers from obecting by challenge
or otherwise to the competency Of one OF the trers
OF near affinity TO The accused. We believe 1t is his
rght-nay sduty 10 the state herepresents-to sit
upon the trial as he would upon any other matter
winch should come before the Senate His seat and
vote belong to his constituents and not 10 himself
be used according to his best judgment upon every
grave matter that comes before the Senate
Aar IA as political osnps are IN
interest TO the constituents OF every Senator,
1t is hts right and duty to express himself fully
and freely upon such question as upon any other;
TO express belief in the guilt or innocence OF
the accused. or 10 say he will sustain him in the
tlon brought Lei me illustrate. suppose that after
this impeachment had been voted by the House of
Representatives the constituents Of any Senator had
called public meeting to sustain the President
against what they were pleased TO term the "tyran-
him. and should cali upon their Senator 70 attend
1 and take part In such meeting, do not conceive
that IL would or ought 70 be legally objected against
/ him as disqualification to sit upon this trial upon
the principles have stated, If he should attend the
meeting or favor the object or 4 his eng engagements
able to find any legal objection In the books to his
writing letter 10 such meeting, containing, among
other things statements like the f0owing:-
SENATE CHAMBER, February a, 1868
vii s 6s M Pas March hal usa
PEELED decline your be present the
Rss Preas F. s s Il %
these free Institutions from violation have
differences epnion between hia and Congress sustained
Ss sn + be shsa
done me by your invitation and rretting that s not In
EsS accept with 'Y TsVkST F ,SsSsos
We should have as much right to expect his vote
on clearly proven case OF guilty as had King Henry
VIII. 10 hope for the vote OF her father against his
wife: he got II. King Henry knew the strength OF
this respondent. II he said that this IL infccity,
1t is sufficient ana decisive answer that it Is the in
felicity of precise constitutional provision, which
provides that the Senate shall have the sole power to
try impeachmens, and the only security against bias
or prejudice on the part OF any Senator Is tnat two
conviction. To this rule there Is but one pos
| slble exception, founded both reason
and authority, that Senator may not he Judge
MS own case. have thought il necessary to deter.
mine the nature and attributes OF the tribunal before
| we attend TO the scope and meaning OF the
ton before It. The rs eight articles set out In
raj distinct forms the acts Of the respondent in
| moving Mr.. stanton from Office and appointing Mr..
Thomas al interim. differ In legal effect IN the pur-
poses Tor which and the intent with which either or
both of the acts were DONE and the legal duties and
rights nfringed and the acts Of congrese violated In
| so doing All the articles allege these acts
to be In contrayen0n OF his oath Of ONCE and In dis
| regard OF the duties thereof II they are so however
! the President might have the power to do them
der the law; s being so done, they are acts OF ON
| cal misconduct and, rs we have seen impeachable
1 The President has the legal power to do many acts
which, If done In disregard of his duty, for i'm
proper purposes then the exercise OF that power Is
4 an official misdemeanor. Er. m'.:-He has the
power OF pardon. II exercised In given case for
corrupt motve-as for the payment OF money or
| wantonly pardoning all criminals-it would be q
misdemeanor. Examples might be multiplied
indefinitely. Article first stripped Of legal verbagc
alleges that having suspended Mr.. Stanton and re-
ported the same to the senate, which refused to con-
eur In the suspension, and stanton having rightfuly
resumed the duties OF his 0fce the respondent, with
knowledge OF the facts issued an order, which Is re-
cited, for Stanton's removal with intent to violate
the act OF March g 1857 20 regulate the tenure OF
certain civil Offices, and with the further intent to
remove Stanton from the Office OF Secretary OF War,
then In the lawful discharge Of its duties In contra
vention OF said act without the advice and consent OF
the Senate and against the constitution OF the United
| without authority Of law on the 21st Of FcD-