Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-25
HOUSE.

Some bills were presented for reference
but there is no possibility of their being
acted upon.
On motion Of Mr.. McCreary resolution
was adopted to pay $500 to Mr.. Scott for
bis expenses in contesting the seat from
the fourth district of Louisiana.
New EngIand's Fisheries.
The Speaker presented a message from
the President, urging legislation to bring
into operation the articles of the treaty of
Washington of May s, 1876, relative to the
fisheries and other matters touC hing the
relations of the United States with the
British North American possessions.
Mr.. Banks, Chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, asked to have the mes
sage considered now, and the Fishery bill
taken up.
Mr.. Sawyer, who has charge of the River
and Harbor Appropriation bill, declined to
yield, and insisted on going on with that
bill.
COlfsx's Case-TOO Old Sinner to be
Impencbed.
Mr.. Butler, of Massachusetts, interrupt
ed the consideration of the bill, and as a
question of privilege presented the report of
the Judiciary Committee In the matter of
impeachment arising out of the report of
the Credit Mobilier Committee. The Clerk
proceeded to read the report in full. The
only two impeachable officers involved in
the natter, the report says, are the Vice
President of the United States and James
Brooks, in his capacity of Government Di-
rector of the Union Pacific Railroad Com
pany. The latter having long since ceased
to be such officer, the case against him had
been considered no further. The report
then cites the facts and circumstances in
the case of Mr. Colfax. Assuming the facts
as alleged to he all proved, several questions
of law presented themselves to the Com
mittee, among them whether al officer can
be impeached except for acts done or al
legged to be done while in Office. The Com
mittee bad not been able to find any in
stance of impeachment where the accusa-
ton was not in relation to an act done or
alleged to be done while the officer was in
Office. 1t had always been consid-
cred material that the arti-
cles should allege in substance
that being such an officer and while in the
exercise of the duties of the Office. the ac-
cused committed the acts alleged in the
inculpation 1t appeared. 1t is evident to
the committee that proceedings of impeach-
meDt were intended by the constitution 10
be wholly remedial and not preventive
just so far as the penalty of deprivation of
office, ETC., remedial. Proceedings Of i'm
parchment should only be applied to high
crimes and misdemeanors committed while
in Office and which affect the officer in the
discharge of bis duty as such, whatever
might be the effect of these acts on the Off
Ger as man. Proceedings of impeach-
ment touched the office only and the
qualifications for Office, and not the man
himself. The report
Crificises.
the view enunciated kby rthe Poland
Committee drawing an analogy between
the proceedings of impeachment and that
Of expulsion, and asserts that no au-
thority can be found for such doctrine.
An expelled member may be reelected,
but an impeached officer can never be re-
turned 10 office. But even the power of
expulsion for an act committed before the
election of q member was not within the
constitutional power of the House; less
still cnn.11 an officer be impeached for
something done by him before he was in
Office. The English case Of John Wilkes
cited by the Credit Mobilier Committee as
authority for the proposition that q member