The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1868-05-14
TIFFIN, ONO, THURSDAY MORNING. MAY IA, 1865

tuition and laws which are not aud
cannot be enforced are dead. The
vital principle Of Constitution aud
laws consist in their being Scknowl.
edged and obeyed orenforced as the
supreme law Of the land.
have dwelt thus long upon this
point because il underlies the whole
question at issue here between the
President aud the people, and upon
its determination the decision Of the
whole issue depends. IL am fight
in the position that the acts Of Con-
gress are law, binding upon tho Presi.
dent and to be executed by him, until
repealed by Congress or actually re-
vorsed by the courts, il results that
tho willful violation Of such acts of
Congress by the President and tho
persistent refusal TO execute them is
a high crime OF misdemeanor, within
the terms of the Constitution, for
which he is impeachable and Of which,
if he be guilty, he ought to be con-
yicted.
In the case before us II is not nc.
cessary to inquire whether only crimes
or misdemoanors indictable by our
own laws are Improbable, because,
by the statutes of tho United States
all crimes or misdemeanors at com
mon law, when committed in the Dis
trict of Columbia, are indictable
That common law ofFenses are indicta.
bic in the District Of Columbia is set
tied beyond controversy. BY the
act of Congress concerning the Dis
trict of Columbia, passed February
%, 1901. Statutes. at. Large, vol 2
PIP. l03, l04,) it is provided in the
first section
THAT the laws of the State ot
Maryland, as they now exist, shall b,
and continue in force in that part o.
tho said District which was ceded by
that State to the United States"
BY the act of March, 2, 1881, fol
the punishment of crime in the Dis
trict of Columbia, G Statutes. at
Large, P. AGO, sec. l5,) it is provi-
ded-
"That every other felony, miSde
a,cauor or offense not provided for BY
| this act may and shall be punished
as heretofore"
BY the ao. Of July T., 1888, Z
Statutes at.Lnrge, p. SEQ, J the Crimi
nal Court of the District is invested
with the jurisdiction of all offense
made indictable by the foregoing
laws and by the act Of March 3
1868. section three, az Statutes, p
1853, the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict has the same jurisdiction.
That common.laW ofTenses are in
dictable in this District has been set
tied by the Court Of the District and
has never been challenged. l read
from the opinion Of the court in tn,
case of the United States W. Wat
kins, g Cranch, 452:)
sin regard to offenses committed
within this part of the District, the
United States have a criminal com
mon law, and this court has a crimi
nal common law jurisdiction"
And it has also been ruled by the
Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Kendall VS.. the United
States, the court in that case declar
ing that
"The common law, as it was il
force in Maryland when the cessior
was made, remained in force in thil
District. ."-S2 Peters, GA.
Assuming that common law offens
es we're iudictable under the laws o
Maryland in 1901, aud which, there
fore, by the statutes cited, when com
mitted within this District, are in
dictable by the laws of the United
States, it is clear that the offensei
charged in these articles, if commit
ted in this District, would be indicta
BILE, for it is established that at com
mon law
"All misdemeauors whatever Of
public and evil example against tn,
common law may be indicted as fo
neglect of duties imposed by the Law
for offenses against common deceucy
and the likc."-[4 BacOn's AJridg
u'cnt, p. 4O2, letter L.
This is all that / deem it impor-
tant to say in this stage of the argu-
ment upon the impeachable characte
Of the offenses specified in the arti