New-York tribune., 1876-03-10

SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENGLISH ASD AMERI-
CAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IMPEACHMENT A
REMEDY AND MOI A PUNISIMESr-A CARD FROM
GEN. COMFY.
10 the RdltOr Of The Tribune.
SIR; 1t would be mOnslrous thing if our Consti-
tuition OF laws framed as to allow an accused
person to eyade the consequences OF his alleged
crime by the simple process of resignlng an Office
would like to suggest a few reasons for believing
that they do nothing Of the kind do not find these
reasons quite in the line where l expected to find
them and therefore venture to present them. L
hoped to find English precedens to sustain the right
Of Impeachment after resignation / do not find
them applicable and do not find them necessary In
American impcaChments.
English impeachments are for punishment; Amer
lean impeachments are for remedy. English i'm
peachments are not confined TO officials but are the
criminal process against all private citizens like
wise for certain crimes American Impeachment Is
simply a means of dIspOssesslng OF dlsplacng cor
ript officials and preventing them from ever hold
ing Office again. An English sentence under I'M
peachment may punish the criminal whether he
holds OF has resgaed his office whether no is an
officer has always been private citizen; whether
he is living OF dead. An American sentence can only
deprive an official of Office and prevent him from
ever holding office again il does not punish him
for his crime it simply removes him from office and
remands him to the law and the courts for his pun
shment See Const.. Art. X, sec. 5. cl. q. Also,
Art H., sec. 4, cl. ~
Now, take the case of Secretary Belknap The
acceptance of his resignation does not change his
status whit for the courts have held that the mere
act of resignng civil Office is sufficient without
acceptance This would place it in the power OF
any criminal official TO escape punishment ny the
mere tender of his resignation if the sentence under
impeachment were q punishment But 1t is not 1t
is simply remedy by means Of which the Govern
nent may rid itself of corrupt officer and send hlIn
to the courts for punishment. If he resign, he is
still subject to punishment in the courts III the same
mode and degree as if he had been displaced by im-
peachment The sentence of the court will not only
prevent him from holding Office but will disfran-
chise him as a citizen, unless he be pardoned
before the expiration of his term of sentence.
The one single cumulative advantage OF SEN
tence under impeachment is that the convict can
not be pardoned. If | am right, Secretary Beiknap
has only anticipated the sentence under Inpeach-
ment by resigning he has escaped none OF the pans
or penalties of his act and has made the single gam
of having his disabilities removed 10y pardon, if he
can secure pardon after sentence by court He
is still liable to the full punishment of his crime, the
same as if he had been already impeached. lie has
escaped nothing aud gained nothing by resignation
beyond the possibility of pardon before the expra
ton of senteIsPc if heis convicted. What advantage
them is there in the tedious aud expensive process
of Impeachment, even if it were important to take
from him an office he no longer holds'
WashipgtoH, March S, 1876. JAMES NJ. CoMLr.