The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1873-02-25

eLiueu 70 yieid and insisted ON going on with
The House then proceeded with tho bor,,o,
ana river appropriation bill. An item of go i
900 was inserted for the harbor of Wasbin%% to,
andGeorgeteWn, u. Z. An item of S25. OOo1 was vas
inserted for the Great Kanawha river W. Tas
Virginia.
Mr.. Butler interrupted the consideration of
the bill and, as question of privilege, present.
ed the report of the Judiciary Committee in the
matter Of impeachment arising out of the re-
port of the Credit Moblier Committee. The
Clerk proceeded to read the report in full. The
only two improbable officers involved in the
matter, the report says, are the Vice President
of the United States and James Brooks, in the
capacity of government director of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company. The latter having
lorg since ceased to be such officer, the case
against him has been considered no further.
The report then cites the facts and circumstan-
ces in the case of Mr.. Colfax, assuming the
facts as alleged to be all proved. Several cues
lions of law presented themselves to the Com
ihlttee, among them whether an officer can be
impeached except for acts done or alleged to be
zone while in office. The Committee has not
peen ape to lind any instance OF impeachment
Mne1e the accusation was not in relation to an
act done or alleged TO be done while an officer
was in office. 1t has ALWAYS been considered
that the articles should alege in substance
that, being such an officer. and wbile in tbc
exercise OF the duties of the office, the accused
committed acts of alleged incubation, n an
peared evident to the committee that the nrp
ceedings of impeachment were intended nv the
constitution to be wholly remedial, and not pre-
tentative, except so far as the penalty of depri-
walton of office, &c. The remedial PROCEEDINGS
of impeachment should only be applied to high
crimes and misdemeanors committed while in
Office, and which affect the officer in charge of
his duty. Whatever might be the effect of
these acts upon the officer as a man, the pro-
and the qualification for the office, not the man
himself. The report criticses the view. taken
by the Poland Committee, drawing an analogy
between the proceedings of impeachment and
that of expulsion, and asserts that no authOrl-
ty can be found for such a doctrine An ex-
PEELED member may be reelected, but an i'm
peached officer can never be restored to office.
Even the power of expulsion for an act COM
mitted before the election of o member was
within the constitutional power of the House.
Less still could an officer be impeached for
something done by him before he was in the
Office.
The English precedent of John Wilkes, cited
by the Credit Mobilier Committee as Authority
for the proposition that member could be ex
PEELED for acts done before he was a member
could not properly be cited for that purpose;
for if anything was settled in Wilkes case, it
was that such an act of expulsion was contrary
to the liberties of the commons of England and
the offensive record was afterwards expunged
from the journal of the House of Commons
Besides, the several acts for which Wilkes was
expelled, were done after the election to that
same session of Parliament.
The case of G. B. Matteson, of New York,
cited by the Credit Mobilier report in the same
connection, furnished no precedent whatever
because the resolution of expulsion was for acts
done by him in the preceding Congress and
had been laid on the table. The Committee is
of the opinion, therefore, that the right of rep
resentation is right of constituency, not of
representatives, and so long as he did nothing
disorderly or which rendered him unfit to be
in the House, the House had no right or legal
constitutional jurisdiction or power to expel.
| The Committee argues, therefore, that both
the impeaching power and the power of expuI-
sion are remedial and not preventative, and
comes to the conclusion that so far as receiving
and holding an interest in the Credit MobilIer
stock is concerned, there is nothing in the tes-
timony submitted which would warrant the
| impeachment of the Vice President. The
Committee therefore, asks to be discharged
| from further consideration of the subjec.
| The report is signed by all the members of
| the Committee except Messrs. Potter, Wilson
and Goodrich all of whom, however, concur in
| charged
Mr.. Potter, of New Hampshire, presented
the minority report, which was also read
He does not admit the correctness of the
committees finding that man cannot be i'm
| peached or expelled for acts done before he was
| in Office. He does not regard the question as
unsettled or doubtful, but concludes that under
existing circumstances, where impeachment
could not be followed by trial, the decision of
the House in support of the power to impeach
and expel would be only the determination of
an abstract question. He did not Sc feel justi-
that Congress had the power of impeachment,
as to make him feel willing to recommend i'm
parchment at a time when impeachment could
| not be tried. He thought the matter conld now
only be left to public opinion.
Mr.. Goodrich, of New York submitted his
views as to why he dissented from the report of
of the majority. He denied the doctrine that
an officer cannot be impeached or expelled for
| acts done before he was in office He believed
that presidents for his position could be found,
but even if they could not, he was prepared to
make one and plant it broad and deep in his
tory, for its purity and safety in the future.
The reading of reports occupied an hour and a
half, closing at haf-past two, and was listened
to with great attention.
Mr. Butler of Mass. then moved the resolu-
ton offering the matter to the committee to be
laid on the table,
INITIAL to the Judiciary Committee.
| After passage between Messrs. Butler and
| Banks the report was assigned to Wednesday
for consideration.
Mr.. Hoar then desired as question of priv
| iege, to offer resolution on the subject of the
| Congressional printer having declined and re
fused to obey an order Of the House made last
Saturday for a reprint of the testimony taken
by the Wilson Committee, but Mr. Banks made
the point of order that that was not question
of privilege which could take the precedence of
other important questions awaiting action like
the Presidents message on the fishery question
and the Speaker ruled that although it was
a privileged question it was nota privilege of
| question.
The House, therefore, resumed the considera-
ton of the river and harbor bill.
On motion of Mr.. Sawyer the rules were sus-
pended and the bill passed., 145 to As, except
the third section, which provides for surveys
| and examinations.
Mr.. Banks of Massachusetts,. moved to sus-
pend the rules and take up the President S
message of to-day on the fishery bill to carry
out the provisions of the treaty of Washington.
Agreed to, 105 to "A.
Mr.. Dawes, from the Committee on Ways
and Means, reported bill making the duty on
moraconi OF vermicelle 35 per cent ad vaorem
Mr.. Banks accepted the amendment offered
| by Mr.. Buffinton, providing that the act shall
not take effect until the first of January, and
shall not apply to any articles therein mention
| ed which shall be held in bond on that day by
the custom officials of the United States. The
motion was agreed to and the previous question
| seconded
The House at half-past five took a recess till
| EVENING SESSION.
The House then took up the fishery bill and
Mr.. Banks, who reported it, opened the debate
in its favor. He gave history of the fishery
| question from the colonial to the present time
and said that as part Of England and the do
mnion of Canada everything incumbent upon
them under the treaty had been performed, it
was now the duty of the United States to carry
out its part of the agreement.
Mr.. Conger opposed the bill in the interest of
the carrying trade of the great lakes and of the
St Lawrence river, which, he said, would be
| all swept away by this law.
| Mr.. Willard of VT, also opposed the bill and
| said it struck death blow at American fisher
| les.
Mr.. Butler Of Massachusetts, also oppos ed
the bill. 1t seemed to him mere mockery of
legislation that at night, after hard days
work, one hour was given to a discussion of
bill involving more money than the river and
harbor appropriation bill, and which threw OPP
en- all the great lakes to the competing rivalry