The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-04-14
Belknap's ImpeachabiIity.


The Commercial Of yesterday elabo-
rates at some length the question OF
Belknap's impeaohability. In his case
no question arises concerning the nature
Of the offense charged as constituting a
ground for impeachment, as "bribery"
ls specifically mentioned in the impeach-
ment clause Of the Constitution itself.
The only point in doubt is, whether an
officer is liable to impeachment for acts
none while in office, after his resignation
has been accepted, and he has ceased to
be an officer of the Government.
On this point we are absolutely with
Dut special law or parliamentary prece-
dent. We have had no case like 1t. The
Commercial cites the case OF U. S. SEN
Rtor BLoUNT, the first case of impeaeh-
ment ever prosecuted before the United
States Senate, and states that he was
lmpeaohed for treason. But this case
has no bearing upon the point at issue.
Blount was not impeached for treason,
but for "misdemeanor" in attempting
to bribe an Indian interpreter in the
service OF the Government. The i'm
peachment was dismissed by the Senate
for want Of jurisdiction, because Sem
ator was not scivil officer" Of the
United States within the meaning of
the Constitution. The Commercial ar
gues that, because the Senate enter
tained the proceeding for impeachment
against Blount after his expulsion from
the Senate, IL must therefore have had
Jurisdiction. This is erroneous. The
Senate can not refuse to entertain pro-
ceedings in impeachment whenever ten.
dered by the House in regular form.
The question Of Jurisdiction can be set
tled only on hearing, and not
in advance OF the hearing. The
Senate has no discretion; it mast
hear the impeachment when presented.
But Blount's case decides that, under
no circumstances, could the Senate have
had jurisdiction of proceedings for the
impeachment Of him as Senator, even
though. he were then member; because
he was under no circumstances impeacb.
able. That lie not Belknap's case. He
certainly was at one time impeachable
Blount never was. So, the point re.
mains, whether Belknap's liability to
impeachment ceases by reason of his
having ceased to be a civil officer. a.
But the Commercial appeals to "the
equities OF the case" and claims that a
guilty officer should not, by oeasing to
be an officer, ''escape the punishment of
impeachment" Our learned confrere
should bear in mind that the process OF
impeachment is not intended for punish.
ment. In his .History OF the Constitu.
tionv (page 26O) MIR. Curtis Gays: elm.
peachment here fs not for the punish.
ment OF crime" In his opinion given on
the impeachment trial of President. J ohm
son. Senator .EDMUNDs, now Chairman
of the Senate's Judiciary Committee,
said. "The Constitution did not estab-
iish this procedure for the. punishment
Of crime. but tor the secure and faithful
administration Of the law.n Senator
BAYARD, on trial OF Blounts case, said
"With us, Impeachment is proceeding
Of d purely political nature. 1t is. pre-.
scribed, npt to punish an offender, but
60 secure the Commonwealth against
gross official misdemeanors.D
Such appeal to, the "equities OF the
rass," is therefore going greatly beyond
the province and intent of impeachment
In any case. But the Commercial argues
that, BY thus resigning, guilty officer
may escape all punishment. This does
not follow,-because the offender is
amenable to criminaT prosecution and
punishment on conviction Of the offense
whether he be impeaohed or not. And
in this case Belknap 10 liable to be in.
dicted and tried for the crime of bribery
and on conviction may be sentenced to
6ne and imprisonment In the pemten-
tiary; and such conviction carries with
it, by the statute, Disqualification for
holding Office precisely as sentence un.
der an impeachment would. -
But then comes the objection chat, by
possibility. the convicted offender tried