The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-06
ARGUMENT OF MR.. CARPENTER.
Does the Power Of the Court Extend
to a Private Citizen?
REPLY OF Mr.. MANAGER KNOTT.
The Constitution and It's Refer
ence to Such Cases.
WASHINGTON, May 5, 1876.

articles OF impeachment against w. W. Belknap late
Secretary OF War.
The respondent, with his counsel Mcssrs. Carpenter,
Black and Blair and the managers on the part OF the
House OF Representatives being present proclamation
made by the Sergeant-at- Arms, after which the
minutes of yesterdays session were read
ARGUMENT CARPENTER
Mr. Carpenter, OF counsel for the respondent, after
referring the argument OF Manager Lord Of yestcr
day and to the pleadngs in the case from which he
quoted, said he would cndeavor to prove TWO PROPOSE
uo.s-
First-That articles Of impeachment cannot be en-
tcraned against any private citizen in any case what
ever. and
Second-whcrc articles of impeachment exhibited
they forth every essential TO constitute
crime mpeaehablc; or, in other words the crime and
every allegation necessary to give this Court
jurisdiction to hear and determine the impeachment
He would conine his argument to legal questions,
would be as brief possible and as "dry as STICK
There two things possible in reference to the pro-
visions in the const tuition relating to impeachment
One that the power Of impeachment was given at
large and qualified restricted defined; the other
theory that the power of impeachment was
confined 10 officers Of the United States and that the
impeachment ran against tho crime. but against
the person VINO happened TO commit the crime The
Importance of judging accurately on this subject could
not DO exaggerated II the former theory main
tanned then every inhabtant OF the United States c
alien, malc female might be mpcached mt the
bar the Senate for whatever the Senate for the time
being might 1T 10 hold high and
misdcmeanor. Surely Jurisdiction which
would bring forth millions of people to the
bar Of this court not to DO exercised
without the clcarcst warrant Of tho constitution
Certain principles always to be borne IN mind In
al accusations on constitutional questions Chief
among these that the government OF the United
States nil It's branches and departments. of
limited. though not Of inferior power. II any power
claimed not granted power, either by express
words necessary implication, II was not power OF
this government. Now, under the constitution,
IMPEACHMENT
10 officers of the federal government Under tho claim
Of the managers, President Jackson, II he still
living could be impcacncd by tho senate for removing
The deposits OF the United States Bank and brought to
The bar OF the Senate. Would that be impeachment
Of the Presidcns The purpose the constitution
not that certain conduct should be subject impeach
mcnt, but that certain persons were, and those
persons described and designated by the do
scription Of their Office liable 10 impeachment.
Z said the President should be mpcached and
moved. In the of Jackson would that be an i'm
hment OF the Presidents II would be an impcach-
ment OF private citizen for conduct at former
period of his lie in public Office Mr. Carpenter then
showed that he conceived the trainers Of the constr
tuiion intended, had been England, to
fine impeachment 10 certain crimes and for
the punishment OF certain exceptional criminals
great power ana stepped in wckcincss that they
could not DO handled by ordinary tribunal Of Law.
In the present case. however the matters charged
the articles clearly under statute and OF
crimes great that they had grown and swollen be-
yond tho power OF court OF law. Mr. Carpenter pro-
ceeded to read at length from the debates in the Con-
yention which framed the constitution to show that
the opinion of large portion OF that body mpcach-
mcnt unnecessary, since in land such this
where officers only held short terms, the
people could easily them by adverse vote at
The polls Tho whole debate he said, clearly by mpli-
cation had reference only TO the removal by mpcach-
OF actual officers OF the government For exam.
pie, IL time proposed that the impeachment
should DO tried by the Supreme Court but IL was
sgrced that the President being in Office and
Ing The power OF the Executive and having appointed
tue judi who would in that try him IL was
salcr u leave 70 the Senate twas 10 DC noted Also
that the words .'hgh crimes and misdemeanors''
substitute Tor the word "mnlndm nstraton," which
MI Madison thought was TOO ambiguous; and Mr..
Madison SAID II the word 'inala.
len would make tho President the nero ser.
want oil Congress- since they could impcach him
for anything they chose This showed that the
contemplated as TT subjects OF Impeachment were to
up 10 the standard of n definite crime He
submitted that after examination OF the whole
debates IL was clear beyond all controversy that the
men who framed the constitution and submitted 1t TO
The people Tor adoption never had the slightest idea
that any one but public officer to be
pcachod. The whole discussion showed that impeach-
ment intended as
cuRn vrox POWER
to he exercised who the power was in existence. An
Individual who should enter conspiracy against
the government would be bcy ond the power OF the
courts OF aw. The grand jury might be dispersed by
company OF regulars, ana, therefore, II was ncccs
sary lodge this power OF impeachment III the Senate,
VINO had power enough from the people To hold any
check and thus and protect tho people
IRON maadul lnislration
Mr. McDoSALp OF Indiana asked IL the term OF Office
TRIAL would that operate TO discontinue or abate tho
causcy
Mr. CARPENTER said that IL he rieht in his argu.
nent the only purpose oil an Impeachment to
non Office When the out Of
Dlcc the suit would That was the only object
Tor which the power OF impeachment was gwen. Sup
pose the man committed suicide while the trial was
progressing, would not that stop uf SO ~ he
united official suicide by rcsgnug the Office the prose-
ru,ion la gained lis end The disqualiying clause
penalty, put in to make impeachment cficctual
anu to prevent the President after officer has been
removed by impeachment from restoring HIM TO power
Convention only In regard TO the Executive, and
The check upon hm would not DO cncctual
Impeachment had taken place the President returned
The offender to power Judge story said that the dis
Was this court TO 60 a enoe MAN a,ar he
was oically or physically dcady What farce TO re-
move a mon from ohce when he not IN Office
alter he had died and passed beyond the jurisdiction
81 this Court 80 far as The effect upon The was
soncerncd he saw no difference between n Official
his natural de III. The abaicd because there
vas no further motive to prosecute IT. There not
Single VINO ou not naintln that Impeachment
INTENDED Tor punishment, simply Ms a pro,cc-
ton the people against aigh dangerous powerful
offenders Amer this senate got through with him the
handed TO tho Grand Jury 10 meet the
appropriate punishment Tor his crime whatever was.
Me- CoSKLiSc. 81 New York asked ir tho gentleman
made distinction the point OF jurisdiction 10 try
impeachment between the OF gnation before
srticles found and resignation articles had
been ioundy
Mr. CARPENTER said there might be distinction be-
tween the cases but he maintained that In both
The proceedings ie 10 the ground o. course he might
be able establish proposition and yet tail
Isbiish the other n did not follow, because man
was and clear out Of Office 10y removal by the
expiration oil his term aud could not bc mrcscLed Tor
that that therefore, resignation OF the Office
alter articles OF impeachment had been found would
end the prosecution. They different questions
Nc maintained the Affirmative IN both, aud he thought
that II the resignation took place even 10 the midst OF
liz aLal a