Des Arc weekly citizen., 1868-03-21
Tne Ympeacment Trial.


 That there are some Republicans who have not lost all sanity is proven by the following opinion, of the N. II. Times:
 The Senate will try Mir. Johnson solely on his recent action concerning the War Department. In order to find warrant for convicting him they must be of opinion, not only that his action in that particular matter was in viola ton of law, but that it was done with criminal purpose and intent. For he is to be convicted of a thigh crime and misdemeanor'-and the question Of intention enters necessarily into the case. There can be no such thing as a crime where the intent to commit n crime is wanting. MT. Lawrence, of Ohio, said in debate on Saturday that he ssdid not consider the question of motive at all material, 'S---but that, ''if for any cause he was unfit for the office, it was the right and duty of the Grand Inquest of the nation to eject him from the office.' But in the broad sense in which Mr. Lawrence uses the words, the people are the only grand inquest of the nation" for electing and dismissing public officers. They, and they alone. can eject from office Presi- dent for general unfitness. Congress has jurisdiction of the matter only in a restricted sense, aud in certain specified cases. It has no shadow of jurisdic- ton except what is conferred upon it by the express terms of the Constitu- tion. Even Mr, Stevens does not pre- tend that the impeachment and remov- 4 4 T hno Hi h. ed "outside" of that instrument. The House has power to impeach, and the Senate has power to try, the President only for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdcmeanors.' To this extent, and no further, may the two Houses become the grand inquest of the nation." In these cases, and no others, have they the right, or does it become their duty, to ''eject him from ofiice." The idea that they may and must do this, as Mir. Lawrence holds, '.tor any cause" which in their judg- ment may involve ''unfitness,' is the offspring of MT. Lawrence's feelings as a partisan-not at all of his judgment as lawyer.
 The Senate will scarcely feelempow- cred, under the Constitution and under the specific oath of office which they take before entering upon the trial. to entertain the question o the Presidents general "unfitncss" for the office he holds; nor will they feel at liberty to decide that he is guilty of the specific ofienses charged in the articles of im- peachment, because they think him unfit for the place. He is not impeach- ed for ''unfitness y he is impeached for certain acts, which are distinctly speci- fled, and alleged to be "high crimes and misdemeanors' in the articles of Impeachment. And the Senate is to decide, under oath upon evidence, whether he had been guilty of those acts, and whether those acts were, as alleged, '.high crimes and misde- meanors." And this necessarily in- wolves the further question of the intent with which those acts were per formed.
 The addition which Mir. Jenckes pro- poses to make to the articles of im- peachment as reported by the select committee. shows a consciousness on his part and on the part of the more moderate Republicans, of the necessity of establishing criminal intent on the part of the President. This, the essen tial point of the case, is only infcren- tially indicated in the articles as they stand The allegation that the Presi- dent has beon ''unmindtul ot the high duties of his office, ofhis oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constit- ution," is reiterated in each succeeding count Of the indictment; but there is no where distinct charge of that wrongfulness of intention which is the real point in issue. Ah"st the facts there is no dispute. But unless the amendment suggested by Mir. Jenckes be adopted, the indictment will lack the specific accusation on which the guilt of the President wholly turns. Nothing could be more absurd than to exclude the intention from the ques- tioa of guilt. The President may make mistake in the construction ol the law; but no one supposes that d mistake is an impcachable. If it so in his case, itmust be equally so in the case of every other officer of the government. If the President may be impeached for mistaking the meaning of n law, and for removing q subordi- nate officer under that mistaken con- struction, so may Collector Smythe. For all such mistakes the law provides remedy; his action can be reviewed and reversed, if found to be without warrant of law, by the judiciai tribu- nals created for that purpose. If he should violate law, and then resist such an appeal, TO refuse to abide by the decision of the proper court if it should be against him, these facts would render it certain that his intent was bad, and that his act was therefore 'crime." But if, on the other hand, 1t should appear that his acts, although really in violation of the law, were in conformity with his honest opinion of its meaning-that he had sought in stead of avoiding or resi1ting the revicwal and judgment of the courts of law upon it, and that he had evinced no purpose or thought of resisting such Judgment, whatever it might be, but had declared his intention at all times to abide by and obey it-it would be somewhat diffitut to come honestly to the belief that the acts in question were criminal, or that they fell within any proper definition of thigh crimes and misdemeanors." ,a ,at,.l