Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-02-27
THE RUTLAND HERALD.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 90, 1878.
shall mr. CoIfax DO 1mpeached

tiration committee to the committee on
judiciary, with instructions to report
articles of impeachment against Schuy-
Ter Colfax, Vice President of the United
States, if, in its judgment, there is evil
dence duplicating that officer warranting
impeachment. We cannot, however,
see any benefit that is to accrue from
the passage Of the resolution, subse-
quently adopted, referring the testimony
to the same committee, with instruc-
lions to inquire whether anything IN
such testimony warrants articles of inn
parchment of any officer in the United
States not a member of the House, and
that, if so, further investigation be or
dercd in his case. We have not single
word that we have uttered in condemna-
ton of Mr. Colfax to take back. He is,
to place it in no worse light, in a very
unfortunate position He stands before
the American people, charged with one
of the gravest and most heinous Of
lenses. He is either the most unfortu-
nate man in the country, or else is guilty
of wilful and deliberate perjury. There
Is no escaping from one or the other OF
these conclusions. While we would
hesitate to decide the question of ver-
acity between him and Cakes Amcs,
while it is apparent that one of them
has not only been guilty Of repeated
falsehoods, but of direct perjury, yet
we are constrained to say, as we have
said before, that the defense of Mr..
Colfax, as presented by him. does not
20 to the bottom Of the matter. 1t is
not tull, ample and free from suspicion
and complication. We had right to
expect such defense from him, especi-
ally after he had announced that he was
willing and prepared to meet and dis
prove every statement of Ames that con-
ficted with his own testimony, and to
make ample and satisfactory explana-
ton of every and all circumstances that
were unfayorable. His explanation in
reference to the one thousand dollar
bank bill, received from Nesbitt, as well
as his subsequent explanation, published
by US yesterday, that he had received
further remittances from Gesbitt, and
his reasons for not disclosing the fact,
may be all true. We trust and hope
that they are. Whether true or false,
they have a bad look. 1t has very much
the appearance that they were after
thoughts, manufactured for the purpose
OF meeting the facts and circumstances
developed against him. We do not pro-
pose, however, to discuss again the posi-
ton of Mr. ColfaX, we have heretofore
considered his case fully and, as the
case now stands, we see no grounds for
altering our judgment as then expressed.
When we say, therefore, that it was
wise for the House to reject the resolu
tion instructiDg the judiciary committee
10 bring In articles of impeachment
against Mr. Colfax We do it without
regard to the question of his guilt or in
nocence. For the same reason, which
we win state, it seems to us that the
adoption of the subsequent resolution,
If it was intended to reach Mr.. COlfax,
was a piece Of foolishness. The present
Congress closes on the fourth day of
March, one week from next Tuesday,
and with it closes their power as well as
Mr.. Colfax's term Of Office as Nice-Presi-
dent of the United States He then
ceases to be an "officer Of the United
States" and becomes a private citizen
With the utmost dispatch that could
possibly be used, it would be impossible
to take the necessary testimony, prepare
and present articles of impeachment,
have the articles adopted by the House,
managers appointed for their prosecu-
ton, TO say nothing in reference to clos
ing, or even commencing, a trial by the
Senate, prior to that date No person
can be impeached by the House and tried
thereon by the Senate except the Presi.
dent, the Vice-P President and civil Of
fcers of the United States The moment
person ceases, by the limitation of his
term of Office, to hold either Of the of
fees mentioned, that moment the liabil
AiJ ~ lliBNtANAIli4G4bt. dlSOs NtitSto. Ii
articles of impeachment have been pre-
sented, and the trial thereon commenced,
the termination of the term Of Office of
the person so impeached would neces-
sarily terminate all proceedings thereon.
This is evident from the very terms of
the constitution providing for impeach-
ment. The object to be attained is not
punishment, but removal from office
This must, of necessity, be a part of the
judgment in case of conviction on arti-
cles of impeachment. This, we take it,
Is generally conceded by lawyers, jurists
and statesmen. The subject was thor
oughly discussed and investigated at the
time of the impeachment Of President
johnson. The nature of impeachment
was correctly and concisely stated by
Mr.. Bayard, in the Biount trial, in these
words; Impeachment is a proceeding
of purely political nature. 1t is not so
much designed to punish the offender
as to secure the State. 1t touches Meth
or bis person nor his property, but sim
ply diycsls him Of his political capacity"
The removal from office" being imper
alive, as part Of the judgment in case
of conviction on articles of impeach-
ment, would of itself, determine the
question. The precedents, too, are, if
we understand correctly, all the same
way. That punishment is not the OBJ
ject aimed at in these proceedings is
evident from the limitation of the pen
atty as well as the further provision Of
the constitution, that the party shall,
Notwithstanding his conviction on the
articles OF impeachment, "be liable and
subject to Indictment, trial, judgment
and punishment, according to law"
Here then is the whole case. The only
charge mado against Mr.. Colfax is that
Of perjury. 1t is manifest that he can
not be so impeached as to be removed
from Office, and the courts of the Unit