New-York tribune., 1876-03-14
AN IMPEACHMENT FARCE.
HIGH COURT VS.. GRAND JURY

HIGH COURT VS.. GRAND JURY.
BROOKS ADAMS on Mr.. BrIKNAP--NOT A CIVIL
OFFICER, AND HENCE NOT TO DE IMPEACHED--
CANNOT RE REMOVED, AND HENCE CANNOT DE
DISQUALIFIED.
To the HdttOr Of The TrtbHse.
SIR: There has been much loose talk Of late Of
the moral and political necessity of conviction Of
Mr. Belknap by tho Senate. Nothing could be moro
mischeyous. Impeachment is not a moral or a
political question, but question Of constitutional
law, and should be dealt with legal principles. II
the provisions OF the Constitution prove inadequate
for their purpose, tho Constitution should bo
amended, but the law should never be wrenchod
with view to individual cases. Now, as legal
propostion there seems little doubt that the Senate
has no jurisdiction in this
A century ago the unlimited power of Parliament
to punish political oenses by bill of attainder or by
Impeachment, was considered one Of the most fruit
ful sources Of oppression under the English Govern
mept The trainers Of the Constitution OF the United
States therefore provided full safeguards against tho
possibility of such abuses here The principle on
which they proceeded was that criminal jurisdiction
should be lodged altogether in tho courts, which
must follow known and existing laws and that
political assemblies should be az little trusted, In
that respect as possible But as no popular govern
ment could probably be administered without some
means Of removing improper persons from Office, tho
general theory of the Constitution was so far de-
parted from as 10 invest the Senate with the powers
" court for the purpose OF taking cognlzance OF
sucb cases. The court 80 established Is the only
court of impeachment known 20 our law, and OF all
criminal courts in existence it has probably the most
limited jurisdiction both as TO the persons liable
TO its process and to the punishment 1t may iniict
There are but two clauses in the Constitution
which have anything to do with the question now
before the country. Tie jurisdiction OF the court is
fixed by See. OF Art. H. which provides that "the
President Yce-Presdent, and all civil officers or
the United States, shall be removed from othce on
impeachment for, and conviction Of. treason brl-
berry," &c. Sec 3, Art. l., fixes the limit oi punish
mont: Judgment in cases Of impeachment shal
not extend further than to removal from ONCE, ana
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office OF
honor" &c under the United States, but the party
convicted shall be liable to indictment according
to law.
Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than that the
ONLY class Of persons over whom the Court OF I'M
peacbment has jurisdiction is civil officers of tho
United States. and over them only in regard to their
official relations. Beyond that limit they are left to
the courts to deal with. Thus private citizen can
he impeacbed. Cabinet Minister whose resigna-
t;on has been accepted is surely private citizen
and not civil officer.
Nor il this all Much has been said about iuris-
diction being given by the second penalty" as t
is called or the sentence Of disqualification which
the court may pronounce. But on consideration. the
wording of the Constitution leads inperatiYely to
an opposite conclusion. Sec. 4, Art. H., provides
that "ciyil officers of the United States shail
be removed from office on impeachment" sec
Q Art. l.. provides that Judgment in cases of i'm
ra,cbmept shall not xtend further than TO removal
from Office and disqualification TO hold ana ENJOY
.nv offce of HONOR &c. Thus a discretionary
mower is vested in the court 10 pronounce sentence
of removal al0ne or sentence OF removal anu us
qualification But it is a familiar principle OF crlnl-
inal law that when statute provides double pen
atty connected by the word anu Doth peh"''l''
must be inflicted as part of the sentence mus
statute enacts that crime be punished Oy nh'' VI
by fine and imprisonment the court may sentence u
fine alone but if il goes further, 1t must seh'eV"
TO both 1t cannot inhict Imprisonment Wltno"'
fine. So In this case, Mr.. Belknap cannot oe IT,
moved, the argument approaches oen'ous''"'''" ''
he cannot be disqualified.
Asa matter Of common sense il seems prepO''eIou'
that because man has once held Office he should ne
liable to impeachment for the rest OF his me- Inv
| theory of this pant Of the Law of impeachment S
plain. Ii n civil officer commit an acton fof VIII"
La is removed from Office by sentence OF the senate
the question arises whether he has commuveu
crime for which lie can be indicted; II he hs', w
comes the duty of thecOurts Of justice to pni'h "'
if he has not, the Constitution shields hlili Hon'
further punishment and protects him from tho -
sentiment Of political enemies. The diSqial'no'''V1
clause simply permits the Senate TO Jndge
whether civil officer over whom they have Juri'u'
ton and whom they have determined to remove nS'
80 behaved AZ to disqualify himself from ever '''
| ing the Government again.
We must not allow ourselves 20 he bhndeo =! F",
sion. Mr Belknap is no longer civil oni'er, -, ~
private citizen and the court Of Impeachment ~
! jurisdiction over him. Neither could he Oo rs'"y
sentenced should ho be found guilty, for 'no i'r
provides no senteuco to meet his case Inc W. III
sentence must be pronounced OF none But INC
has none tho less its remedy. Mr. BelknaP n'"'
| indicted, and on being found guilty OF ha'ins ,
cepted bribe he may bo sentenced TO nne SnT ta,,
prisonment, and no may be forever disqnaiin'" In
holding office az thoroughly as he could nave ,.
Iv the Senate itself sitting RS High Conrs o' =.
" 'ne -. BRooXs ADAMS
| Po,fq. March II. 1879
| ---------------