The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1873-03-21

: lax = case, to establish principal which
would equally protect his client Oakes
Ames.. Such a. report from such q
source, cannot ascape, scrutiny and crit.
iGsm.
The first point to be made against
Gen. Buffers report is, that the action
OF the committee does not conform 10
the instructions Of the House. The CON-
mittec were required to form q judg-
ment as tn the suficiency of festinony !:
and. shrinking this duty, they have pre-
scented an elaborated argument on a
question of iasb. II their opinion ON
the legal question is correct, the testi-
mony is of ho sort Of consequence. The
committee hold that "a public officer is
not impeachable for infamous crimes or
misdemeanors perpetrated before the
commencement of his term of Office. II
this be sound legal doctrine, no proofs
u vilalny, however damning, could
have the weight Of feather in deter
mining their recommendation. But
what was referred to the committee was
not question of law, but question Of
evidence ; and they have violated their
duty in reporting on a different subject
from the one committed to them. The
resolution Of the House was to this
effect :" That the testimony taken by
the select committee of which Mr.. Po-
land is chairman, be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, with in
structions to inquire phether there is
ANYTHING IN SAID TESTIMONY that warrants
the Impeachment Of any officer of the
United States not member of the
House."
The committee have manifestly evaded
the only subject matter referred to them.
and gone off into the discussion of
legal question on which their opinion
was not asked. ii their Judgment on
the legal question be correct, all con-
sideration of the testimony is irrelevant,
inasmuch as no testimony establishing
the guilt of an officer before the Begin
ming of his term can have any bearing
on the question of his impeachment, if
he can be impeached only for things
done AFTER he was sworn in. What the
Judiciary Committee were required to
report upon was simply whether the
facts against Mr.. Colfax amounted to an
impeachable offense. Instead Of this. |
they have discussed question of juris-
diction on which their opinion was not |
asked 1t was not for them, it is not |
even for the House, to decide whether |
the date Of the crimes Is bar to con-
victlon. This is n question for the court |
that tries the Impeachment. Had Mr.. |
Colfax been impeached, he, or his coun-
sci, could have pleaded before the Sen
ate that the date of the crime was a bar
70 conviction; and if the plea is valid.
the vx-.uI1 hava
But the sole authority to determine this
point Is vested in the Senate The Ju-
dietary Committee have not only disre-
garded their instructions, but have
nsurped n prerogative of the court for
the trial of impeachments, in assuming
to decide that Mr. Colfax is not AN.
swerable for bribes taken before he en-
tered on his present Office. 1t was the
duty of the committee, under their in
to say whether the facts
amounted to an impeachable offense,
and to leave the point of law to the only
tribunal competent to decide it, namely,
the Senate acting as a court of impeach-
ment
The reasoning of Gen. Buffers report
would have been in place in an argument
BY Mr.. Colfax's counsel on his trial be-
lore the Senate. Until the court for the !,
nal of impeachments decides that the
of the crime is q bar to con-
Tictio0, the House much less n commit. {
zee of the House to whom the question {
vas not referred) has no right to assume /,
hat this point Of law is settled. It is
he duty Of the House to present an in
lictment founded ON the facts if the
'arly date Of the crime is to be offered
IS bar to convicticu, that is the appro-
,riate duty of the counsel for the defense 4
shen the case comes to trial. What Mr..
5utier has done IN his report is to
ssurae the role Of Mr.. Collars counsel a
'efore the court of Impeachment, which 3
an alone decide the question which he h
discusses
The public press might excuse itself =
rom refuting an argument which is SO
relevant; but it can be disposed of
E1thln 50 brief compass that we will G
'oint out its fallacy. 1t is not necessary N
0 seek any other premises for our rea- 4
oning than the language of the Consti- :.
ntlon- We rely upon this provision :"
Judgment In cases of impeachment N
hall not extend further than removal IA
rom Office, and disqualification to hold 8,
nd enjoy any office Of honor, trust or -
s'cft under the United States" The :.
.ope and spirit Of impeachment juris- u
teton is very clearly exhibited in the m
lause which We have printed In italics, o,
hich bears so closely on the limitation a,
punishment by the date of the crime. =
he trainers of the Constitution thought -
e public interest might require that an
icer who had committed an impeach- n.
Die offense should forever be excluded "
ON holding any Office. This proves, A.
ost conclusively, that, in their opinion, ~
J impeachable crime taints the whole le