New-York tribune., 1868-03-31
PRICE FOUR CENTS.

power OF the United States Is vested In one supreme
gress may ordain and establish" We suggest therefore.
we are IN h q e the nas 81 ss
and determine whether Andrew Johnson. because OF
President Of the United States or hereafter 70 hold any
Office Of honor profit ] respectfully submit that TINS
S Yoa give the nocs
OF pending against him. You do not sequester
even you proceed against him and VIII 90 20 deter
mine his n his and %ame ne % orn
airy criminal procedure. CONSTITUTIONAL tribunal solely
which may Ii@. y your constitutional rerosative You
consult precedents those OF the Law and OK
bound only BY the natural principle equity and Justice
and that ds pOpui sTead est ir Upon these prinepes
IN anS S s O II yaS
peachment declined to speak to question Of raramen-
though they attended them in their robes Of Office
n Sea5 e S sg m a1S ie eeg ~ THAT
matters, when brought before them shall be discussed
civil law, nor by the common law Of the land used IA
other inferior courts" And that resolution, which was
gland. and against the re@onstrancs Of Richard H., re-
mains the unquestoned law OF England to this DAY
Ing from court and the anaiosies Of ordinary legal
proceedings and showing that 1t s Senate only s that
Of its members for favor malice, ainy, interest
This has been held from the earliest tunes IN @
realm sitting to punish all crimes against the peace In
Sort1omberlaHd and the Marquis Of Northampton and
Somerset trial. should SIT In Judgment upon him
against the objection OF accused because "a peer 81 the
Northumberland dbLd LIST State Trials p resi- Marquis
Of Northampton and Earl of Warwick being on trial for
Steward Of England, OF the prisoners inquired
whether any such persons as were equally capsee n
Inens he directed In all bls dongs might be his
ahd PAS sny we're as deeply 70 be touched as
himself In that case yet as long as no OF
in tho law to pass upon any trial. and not be challenged
therefor but at the princes pleasure Again on the fai
isss Tor high treason before al the justices Of England
A. D. 1900 the Earl Of Essex Of my Lord
Or S9'e nS the he St
No." Again in Lord Audleys csse aSd state Trials
might challenge his peer as IN a. the s s0se S ap
ssonsatatoD, sSras IL he might not This case Is OF
moro value because y was an indictment for ,bDeing
influence in il wiatever The same pont ruled in
the coantsss of e1 $ case e. on trial iS ec
fbd State trials page 2 the Commons mon oseIaa anae
who I had been mpeached by the commons before the
House Of Lords for being concerned IN the same acts Tor
acted with the House Of Lords in the preliminary pro
oeedings OF said trial. and were upon committee OF con-
soe soempy resoved hat no lerd Of Parliament I'M
peached Of high crimes and misdemeanors can ne pre-
tris In the trial Of LOd viscount MevilIeA. D. ,sos
qbd % state Trials ss some ooservagns 1, ns'hs ~ &
peer y tbe counsel for Defendant Mr. whtebread one
OF the managers on the part OF the Commons answered
| as follows: VIZ
y IOras your something b been thrown eu ,oeaa
.y s S 80 sts 81 . sass'Es & s Hss s Sss bee.
e the Aoass q Gsg.Gss ~, % % .O r. ro
What dd The BY q Que Of h. .nst
successful moiou hat Hsafy Y.eOni Melville Lspebeioi
high cr aud @isae%ea.Or a.. SS I sS oS IN s.as. ,
yoar cf3sps Is srery individual peer tie guardian of A'sv'
In the trfs, Of Warren Hastings the same point was
ruled, properly speskpg taken for granted fSs
sat and pronounced verdict at the close and some of
peers created since the trial began and haa
not heard either the opening much OF the evidence and
during trial there had been by DEATH ana
creation than iSc changes IN The House q Pesr s
this point In our own country IL the &c case ot ygoss
RSsses Il o SoSsn yet ho
his rights preserved This trial being pestP9oneI
land. israel Smith Of vermont and John smith Of New
Yorkwho had all been members OF 6ee Monss 15
Pickering were Senators when his trial came on mr.
s%is saeasss q 1SR M
he would not be influenced from his dpty 6y any isise
subject; the vote had given the other Hoosc to i'm
peach Judge Pickering wosid have influence upon him
he would by any Of deprive, consent 10 do
prve them of that right, but would claim and exercise
t upon this upon every other question that might he
submitted TO the Senate while he had the honor or
ssa sss Sseg s the
trial This passed I'm the affirmative by vote OF ls
during the trial ON the trial Of Samuel Chase before the
Senate United states challenge was attempted.
in high party times aud doubtless many OF the Senators
had formed and expressed opinions upon his eondacI
attempt any such futile movement as chailengetos
Senator Certain It Z tnas the pr9press 81 the oSsa
ceeding of the challenge OF one Senator 70
S before ns aefssda f nsa S esens aonfn Sr
smith and Mitchell OF New York were members OF
Gle who had beon members OF the House whrn the arti,
ees found, and had there voted steadily against
srsd IL s Affords aoter Instance in point The con-
duet Judge Peek had been the subject q much and
years pending before the Congress OF the United
States before i' fnaiy came to o fia -. s4n.as w
had both formed and expressed opinions upon Peeks
Yer to make objection his trers Nor did the
gers challenge although Webster Of Masaehusets was
ferred and which after examInaiios reporfed thereon
the proceeding in the House. while ivibsston Of IoIs
ana voted for them All these gentlemen sa. upon the
markabe and Instructive case was that or Judge Audit
SON Of Pennsylvania IN l h dhsss ere, a,!er tne
another session OF the legislature heanwhie, three
for ts articles OF Impeac6inen were elected TO the
senate and the trers OF the articles Vt mpeach
IN M9' ~ % ns sGs%n ON s 0tre @ judge
objected but after an exhaustive argument hs objection
was Oyerruled, II TO Two of the minority were the
gentlemen who had voted him guilty. aud who them.
selves objected 10 sitting tue trial Thus stands tbe
case upon authority How stand upon principe
conference held 1881, between the Lords and Coin
proposition 20 limit the number OF JndgeS
tho Lords made answer: lI'.
That the case Which toe Of ne
r the aud With them greater saos
ton ethsr seeuen there al the Lords dsc
There have been many INSTANCES ~ Entiaoa whefe 81
this necessity that peer bo excused nom sitting on
such trials has produced curious results Brothers have
sat upon the trials of brothers fathers upon the trials OK
sons and unces upon the trials of nephews
and neces no excuse being admitted One, and most
pecular anful Instance Will suffice this point Ia
slrate the ktranath OF the rule. IN The rel OF Ammo