The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-07
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
..rrprSTIyG ARGUMENTS ON THE
sENtTE'S JURTSDICTION.

,,.umcd the con sideration of the articles Of i'm
,tecpt against W. W. Bclknap, late Sccre-
,.,y,fwar. Hat few Senators being present.
A.. r,rtfnar moved % call Of the Senate. Forty
s.n.tors responded to their names, and the
rnir announced that a Quorum was present.
n, Conkline submitted the following ques-
lions tn the Board Of Managers;
r',., tttwo persons guilty Of crime in once cease
,obe orcer- at ihc same ,ime one 10y removal ana t4e
c6,r b Ira ds,me, e9a between I've Sn sae Two
ease. ,isI. c,i,,er ,,,,e ~ ,r,,e.c,,ner,
unr he ,o sa or on M c cnS MIN "rs
sc5 20 mr. ciau.c Of the Constitution or to the prn-
Mr. MITCHELL dlep., oregon submitted the fol-
lowing question:
The Constitution provides that when the President Of
thc nii,d states tricd on impeachment NE Cnle,
mrcschcd Tor high crimes and misdemeSnors commit.
spa, G Tor trail VINO Would ptesidcihe Chief Justice
rthe PRECEDENT VI the senator
Manager Knott informed the Senate that he
was in no better condition OF health this morn
ing than he was at the time Of adjournment yes
!erday. and that an arrangement had been made
between his colleagues and the counsel for the
defendant that his colleagues who desired to adj
dress the Senate would proceed now, and that
would make his remarks on Monday. No OBJ
lection was made and Manager jerks addressed
tie Senate.
THE sESATEs JURISDICTION.
The points. he said, that were mado on the
part Of the defence were: First, could the Sem
feudant. take jurisdiction? aud, second wheth-
erthe facts surrounding the resignation are per-
effect Of the resignation. As a general answer
10 these points. he would say that every case
should be always judged on Its own standing,
because two cases were seldom, II ever strictly
ANALOGOUS. The main and material question IN
the case was. whether the Senate, sitting rs q
Court of Impeachment, had Jurisdiction over
the defendant, aud whether by his resignation
beyond its jurisdictional power. Jurisdiction
was limited In one or more OF three ways. 1t
was limited territorially, limited as to subject
natter and limited as to person. Territorially
the senate had Jurisdiction coextenslve with
the earth. Whether the offence was committed
IN ashington. London, Rome or Pekin II did
not affect the right to judge the offender. As
to the subject matter, the senate could take
c0euizaucc OF the iinpeachablo offences. Tho
plea IN this case did not deny the offence
charged to be impoachable, and therefore 1t was
unnecessary to discuss what constituted an i'm
peacnable offence. He quoted authorities In
support Of his position that the Senate had iu-
occiAl could escape the penalty of impeachmen t
by resignation before trial. he could also do so
had been observed. but before judgment had
been rendered, which would be in opposition
to every recognized principle OF law. He asked
whether the rule WAS that The criminal must be
al officer ~ the time lie committed the crime,
or at the time he Is convicted. and said that I'M
ltion To all the course Of procedure Of criminal
law. It was the status Of the criminal at the time
nike his guilt and the jurisdiction to which he
should be held amenable.
WHAT GEN. JACKSON ESCAPED.
In reply to the suggestion by the defence as
g. tr,ing Gen. jackson az lie were now alivc)
for the removal Of the United states deposits,
he asserted that, If Gen. Jackson were now
alive. and had committed crime while in office,
aud II the House Of Representatives, endowed
a. II is Win the right to Judge who shall be i'm
redched the Senate would have power to try
Mr.. Jcnb. then argued from the analogy Of
courts martial that the senate had jurisdiction,
since a court martial Tad Jurisdiction over a
discharged soldier for offences committed while
Mr.. Logan rep, nlJ said, under Rule 81 Of tue
Articles of War, any officer who was guilty OF
conduct unbecomng an oflicer and a gent man
should he dismissed from the service, and he
asked TIE Managers. IN case where an officer
SHOULD be tried under this arucle, what would
be the judgment of the CourtY
Mr. jerks said tbe judgment would be moth
y Z. but tho court martial would have jurisdic-
huu. neveriheies Is. Want Of capacity 10 enforce
iltsmen, uid not destroy jurisdiction. Halt
Of tie Judgments now rendered in ordinary
courts were perhaps defeated by failure In exc
cuton. besides, IN the case suggested BY the
service while n this case there was the furth Ell
penalty Of disqualification. 1t was also to be
borne in mind mat defendant could not take
advantage Of his incompetency II he had
brought II about 10y his own act. For example
man sentenced to capital punishment could
n.tcs,ap. tae penalty by drinking himself into
Estate % mau Hin ms nity and pleading that az
insane person could not he executed. He would
s'il have 10 suffer the decree OF the law, because
81, weakness was artificial and made by himself
In the pr,4ent case there was no doubt abou
the ttrt That the incompetency OF the defend
ant, " he were incompetent, was the result d
his own act
THL wARREN HASTINGS CASE AS PRECEDENT
MIR JenAS then refe FRED to the case Of Warner
Hastings. who was impeached as late Coy
rrult-Gvneral Of India" just as In this case Mr.
Be ku4p h.d been impeached as late Secretary
~ T. The counsel On the other side mac
lsked II tnt House claimed that the Senate haC
ilr-dction TO try any one OF tue forty mlllioni
90 iuHabitlnt, Of the United States. The House
Gained 10 sucll thing. They simply claimed
tha' tue II use had power to impeacn. and the
arAll object 1t was IA the discretion of the
cute al, onlcial ofenc.s before the Senate Of
not, ard 10 was undoubtedly the purpose OF th'
frlmeis " lie Constitution that this proceeding
should be- connned TO such conspicuous cases
thN Is rom their character deserved judgment
" tonklnp asked II the respondent wer
ch'l igd on the indictment now said to b'
ienGiu. against him in a judicial court, unde
s~.H l,sl Of the Revised statutes, which pro
Ndcd taat my officer convicted should be dis
y Alhcl fon hoiuing otiice hereafter. coulC
t.a' 'uf tronounce that judgment agains
nm u meautime the senate pronounced TIT
,ehe Judgment, or, should the court first pro
I-n'e Judgment. what would be the effect o
u, az determination Of the senator
~ JeLhs sad he regarded that TACT in eithe
case o. - ii't.- or no weight The power to tr'
sia - houn,e judgment was distinct from th'
I0"vrt execute Judgment. Jurisdiction wa
s.inlI' t4e nght to iry and to decide It did no
Gee tsallf lnp'v to execute. The question II
u i. r's- Was whether the purpose OF the Con
s'Iui 100 sA ud be defeated by the will Of IL,
'N iier The senate mad full power to try al
',t rnNtHi,. Shout. Oihcial corruption main
"h Nseli as superior l. the great organic law o
N"i 4t..ct lie Jeaks made no charge agains
l-A- 4iNr ia reference to the res. natiOn
hr u0tit ,aiued that b. was the perndy Of tn
osleD-.u, that induced the acceptance Of tina
resign !. o.. aud IL was a greater infamy than hi
4 -InN. cnue FIR hini Qie.&ua,J to deceive hi
.-.' ".'IID ding lects. Could this defend
y. i} Letting crime upon cline, re1eV
"''''' il-' a! l4nlshu
Wn,T THE HOUSE DEMANDS.
Mr VI na-'f lloir said the House Of Repre-
si 10 through their Manager
tI-' W ~. 49, .Nai, for high crimes and mis-
u'' c'''.., lr t.rtver di.quelned from mold
'.' }lut slY Office Of honor, trust, O
lr '' uHIor tue | nlted States For the pur
lnc nr,-tul Argument the guilt Of In
tI'Hi n. was dui.ted. lie met the demand
n> GENIAL Of tnu authority Of the House q
.l'. -.l' ana the authority OF the Senate L
tl'l I tacr Whatever circumstances tn
l'.' ''ei. ed u4d ~ down his oihcc, the i.su
i.'rH' Hi' Was "a slup pie and narrow one. Nv
le' rci'e.cca ~ the Constitution and NV
lf-e Amcucln prccedents made up every
,'I'3 NAT spoke TO the senate with absolut
"..'"l'N 1ppu tli- question. The ATTEMPT nov
"N, 70 "' Ill.e hy much more than one-half IN
~. 81 ~ Tue IL - august judicial proceed