The weekly clarion., 1876-01-19

n bers of the Legislature to offices Of prof
created by themselves. His application
for Federal troops to control tn,
elections in this State, on false pre-
lenses of lawlessness on the part of he
citizens, in violation of the Constitution
both of the State and of the United
States. His defamation of the people o
the State. His seandalous message sent Il
the Legislature, for the two-fold purpose
) of bringing reproach upon the people
: and overawing and intimidating .co-or
dinate department of the State govern.
} ment. These are all acts appealing.
trumpet-tongued, tor his prompt dismissal
from office
Are these impeachable offenses? We
can best answer this question by citing
and applying the authorities, which are
cited to our hand in the trial of other
impeachment cases which have become
historic. r....4F
Under the head ''Whdt are impeacl,qBEe
ofenses," Manager Logan, in the trial of
President johnson, said o1
T = z - x =
The next question which it is proper to
ask is, For what crimes and misdemeanors
may an officer be impeaehed? Can he be
impeached for any other than an indictable
| offense? The authorities certainly sustain
the managers in asserting that ne may be.
We cannot search through all the cases, as
they are too numerous, but will call the at
| tention of the Senate to some that should
be regarded as good authority, and the opin-
| ions of those who should be regarded as
| learned in the law.
Mr.. Madison, in discussing the power of
the President, used the following language:
What will be the motives which the Pres
ident can feel for the abuse of his power
and the restraints that operate to prevent
it? In the first place, ile will be impeacha-
bic by this House before the Senate for such
an act of al-administration; for I contend
that the wanton removal SOf meritorious
officers would subject him to i'm peachment
and removal from his own high trust An
nails OF Congress, 1o04-'5, vol. i, page 5l7)
The trial of Blount, 17SS-'89. Story, in
speaking of that case, says:
In the argument upon BIount's impeach-
ment, it was pressed with great earnestness
that there is NOT syllable in the Gonstitu-
tion which confines impeachment to official
acts, and it is against the plaine-t dictates
Of common sense that such a restraint
should be i'm posed. (Story, Sec SO2.)
Trial of Judge Chase, February 26, 1905.
Mr.. Manager Nicholson says
IT, therefore, the Presidents of the United
States should accept bribe. he certainly
cannot be indicted for it, and yet no man
can doubt THAT he might be impeached. If
one of the heads of departments should un-
dertake 20 recommend to office for pay, he
certainly might be impeached for 1t, and
vet | would ask under what law and in
what court could he be Indicted. (Judge
Chase's Trial, page 564.)
In the trial of Judge Chase, Mr. Manager
Randolph says:
It has been contended that an offense to
be impeachable must be lndIctable. For
what, then, pray yon, was 1t that this
provision of impeachm found its way
into the Constitution? If the
Constitution did not contemplate distinc-
ton between an impeachable and an IN
dictable otftnSe, whence this cumbrous and
expensive process, which has cost us so much
labor and so much anxiety TO the nation!
Whence this idle parade-this wantoD waste
of time and treasure-when the ready in
tervention of a court and jury alone was
wanting to rsctify the evil: (Annals of
Congress, 1S04-'5, page 642)
On the trial of Judge Peck, Mr.. Manager
Buchanan says:
a gross abuse of granted potcer, and
usatgpdtioR Of p0lCer not granted, are oGeRSeS
equally tc0rthy Of and liable TO Impeachment.
page 42S
Mr.. Story, in discussing what are the func-
tions to be performed in impeachment, says:
The offenses TO which the power of i'm
peachment has been and is ordinarily ap-
plied as a remedy, are of political charac-
Ter. what are aptly termed po-
litical ottenses, growing out OF personal
misconduct gross neglect, or usaGpdtfoas,
or HdblttaE disregard Of the public interests.
in the discharge Of duties OF political 0Dice
These are so curious IN their CHARACTER, and so
ipdetnable In their actual iaroluttoRS, that il
is almost impossible to provide systematic
allv for them by positive law. They must De
examined up0R Gerry broad and comprehensive
principles Of lHbItc policy and dHty. They
must be judged of by the habits, and rules,
and principles of diplomacy, OF depart
mental operations and arrangements; III
short, by a great variety of circumstances,
as well those which aggrayate as those
which eXtenuate or justify the offensive
acts; qrhicA do not properly belong to the Judi
cidE character iR the ordinary administration
of justice, and are far removed from the
reach of municipal Jurisprudence.
| (Story on Const., sec. 1922
In further reasoning upon the same sub
| iect, he says:
There are naaay otenses. purely political,
,chich hare been held 10 be actthiH the reach OF
parliamentary inH)edchRents, not one of which
! is in the slightest manner alluded TO IN our
statute books. And, indeed, political of
! fenses are of so various and complex a
| character, so utterly incapable of being de-
! fined or classified. that the task OF positive
| legislation would be impracticable, II not
| almost absurd, to attempt it. The
! only safe guide, in such cases, must be the
common law, which is the guardian at once
| of private rights and public liberties iEand
however much it may fall in with the pOllt-
/ ical theories of certain statesmen and Jurlsts
to deny the existence ef common law be-
! longing to and applicable TO the nation in
ordinary cases, no one yet has been Dold
enough TO assert that the power OF impeach-
ment is limited to offenses positively defined
/ in the statute book of the MON as lmpeaeh-
able high crimes and misdemeanors. (Sec-
| 1881
Also. same authority:
/ In examining the parliamentary history
| of i'm peachmentS, it will be found that many
otfenses not easily definable by law, and
many of purely political character, have
been deemed high crimes and misdemean-
ors arorthg OF this ertrd0rdiadry remedy. fhus
/ lord chancellors and judges, and other mag
| istrates, have not only been impeached for
bribery. and acting grossly contrary TO the
duties of their Office, but for misleading
their sovereign by unconstitutional opln-
ions, and for attempts to subyert the funda-
| mental laws, and Introduce arbitrary power.
So. where 4 lord chancellor has been thought
to have put the great seal to au lgnomtnlouS
treaty: a lord admiral to have neglected
| the safeguard OF the sea; an am baSSador to
have. betrayed his trust; privy counsellor
TO have propounded or supported pernicious
and dishonorable measures; or cGnflden-
tial adviser of his sovereign TO have oo-
tainad exorhitaGt grants, or lne9mpatlole
employmentS-these have been all deemed
imneachabIe bffenses. (Story's Com, book
I-3 chap TO- sec. E9S