The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-03-04
BclIznap's impeachment

[ We see it stated in some papers that
the impeachment proceedings against
Ex-Secretary Belknap will BIZ prose-
cuted Notwithstanding his resignation;
and that, ON the trial, Cbiet Justice
Waite will preside in the Senate.
AS to the functions Of the Chief Justice
in this regard, thestatement is certainly
erroneous. The Constitution prescribes
that the Chief Justice shall preside only
''when the President of the United States
is tried" That there ,is now no "Yice
I'resideuW to preside in the Senate, on
-,.lcount of the death of Vice President
Wilson, can not alter the case in this re-
:,ard. The person chosen to act as the
presiding officer Of the Senate in the
ylace of the Vice President is clothed
with all the functions incident to that
office; and thereis no authority warrant
ing the Chief Justice to sit as the pre-
siding officer of that body. except in the
single instance OF the impeachment of
the President OF the United States.
The question Of fimpeachability on the
ground that Belknaps resignation and
the Presidents acceptance thereof nave
rendered him merely private citizen
and no longer "ciyil officer" Of the Coy
ernment, is one of more doubt. The 4th
Section of Article 2 Of the Constitution
provides that, "Tne President, Vice
President, and all civil officers OF the
United States, shall be removed from
Office on impeachment for, and conyic-
tion Of, treason, bribery. or other high
crimes and misdemeanorsY How tar
the fact Of a voluntary resignation and
the acceptance thereof may 60 to shield
an officer from the process of impeach-
ment. nresents new question in this
branch OF jurisprudence.
In this country, impeachment is not a
criminal trial. 1t is a proceeding Of a
purely political nature. 1t is prescribed,
not SO much to punish an offcnder
against the law, as to secure the Com
monwealth against gross official misde'
meanors. 1t touches neither the person
nor the property OF the officer accused.
1t can 60 only to removal from office,
and disqualification for holding office
thereafter. In England the process OF
Impeachment goes much further. There,
the House of Lords, by mere majority,
though not less than twelve concurring,
on conviction, may not only pronounce
Judgment of custer from office, but may
likewise decree punishment in conform
ity with their criminal law, even to the
iptliction of the death penalty. Here
Impeachment is limited to judgment o
custer and disqualification, leaving
the offender liable to Indictment and
punishment according to law, as in the
case OF any other person.
In our parliamentary history, only six
cases of impeachment have ever beer
tried before the United States Senate
and not one OF these for any statutor!
crime. The first Of these was the case o
WILLIAM BLoUNT, United States Sen
ator from Tennessee, In 1877, which pre-
sented some features similar to the cas-
OF Belknap. Biount was impeache
for the bribery Of an Indian Interpreter
with the view OF exciting the Greeks AM
Chsrokees to acts Of hostility, for tn
purpose Of Wrestling Louisiana and tn
Floridas from Spain. He sent In hi
resignation from the Senate. The i'm
peachment nevertheless proceeded t
final Judgment, notwithstanding his res
ignation. But the judgment was fnall
against the impeachment, not on th
grounds OF want Of jurisdiction by rel
son Of the resignation, button the groun
that Senator was not "civH ofiicer
within the meaning Of the Constitution
and therefore was not impeachable,
In Belknaps case, there 10 no questio
as to impeachability, except on. tt
merely technical ground Of his resign
,tion. That already secures remoyi
from Office, as matter OF course; bi
does not disquaiiiy him for holdir
future Office, II any constituency sh9ou
hereafter 30 tQgpa fools enough