Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1876-08-04


trial.
Third. That William W. Belknap,
OF the time of the presentment OF
these articles of impeachment by
the House OF Representatives, was
not in the enjoyment of any civil Of
fee under the United States, but
was private citizen of the State Of
Iowa.
Fourth. Therefore these articles
of impeachment should be dismissed
by the Senate
Senator Mcmillan said: Removal
from Office, then, must be the judg-
ment in all cases of impeachment;
but removal from Office cannot take
place where the person impeached
and convicted is not in Office; there
fore person not in Office cannot be
impeached."
Said Senator Cameron of Wiscon-
sin: "Belknap has been indicted by
the Supreme Court Of the District
of Columbia. Let him there be
tried, and, if found guilty by a jury
of his peers, let him be punished as
the statute provides, by fine, impris-
onment and disqualification. The
ends of justice will thus be be fully
subserve6 without any strained,
doubtful, and consequently danger
Gus construction of the Constitu-
ton"
Sustained by this very simple but
very strong course Of reasoning, the
twenty-five Senators who declined
to find Belnap guilty took no other
ground than that they had no power,
however guilty Belknap might be,
to declare him guilty,-because,
such a verdict would carry with it
the Consequence of the removal from
office" of man who was not in Of
flee when he was impeached. They
did not acquit him; they merely
said that they had no power to reach
conclusion of guilt, whatever the
evidence, for the reason that the
Senate could not pass Judgment upon
the acts of a private citizen. Is this
an acquittal of Mr.. Belknap? Are
his skirts made clean? Has any Sen
ator declared him an innocent man?
No. The fact is, when the Senate
in secret session determined that it
had jurisdiction over Belknaps case,
the said case was lost to the defense;
for the testimony which was certain
to convict him lin the public mind
was sure to be brought out-a re-
suit full of disgrace and disaster to
the respondent.
But let us suppose that Mr.. Bel
KNAPP had been found guilty by the
Senate. What then? He certainly
could not be removed from office;
for he has not held any Office since
he resigned his place as Secretary of
War. But he misi be disqualified
from holding Office. How much
would he be disqualified? Why,
from holding any civil office under
the United States. He might be
found guilty, removed from office
and "disqualifed" 10y a hundred Sen
ates and yet never once be disquall-
red from being elected the Cover
nor of State, member OF Con
gress, or q Senator, even; for moth
ing in the consequences of an i'm
save the moral effect of
the same, could prevent the people of
Iowa or any other State from electing
him to any office within their gift.
The States, in the matter of choos
ing their officers and representatives,
are Sovereign" save with refer
ence to age and length of acquired
as prescribed for Sena-
tors and members Of Congress by
the Constitution.
SO far as all necessary results are
then, Belknap has been
quite as effectively disqualified as if
the Senate had taken upon itself the
doubtful power of pro-
nouncing judgment upon "the late
of War; and it seems to
us that the avalanche of Indignation
poured forth upon the minority OF
the Court of Impeachment by the
virtuous press might well have been
withheld-unless, as Governor Nye
used to say, it needs to be shown
that there is punishment after |
DEATH"