The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-05
Proceedings Before the High Court
Of Impeachment.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
Argument of Mr.. Blair, Of Counsel fol
the Respondent
AN INVASION ON MAGMA CHARTA.
Response of Mr.. Lord on the Part Of the
Managers Of the House.

Managers of the House.
WASHINGTON, May T. 1875
The Senate resumed to-day the consideration OF the
articles OF impeachment against W. W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War
The respondent with his counsel Messra Carpenter,
Black and Blair and the managers the part OF the
House Of Representatives being present proclamation
in tho usual form made by the Sergeant Aims.
and tho minutes of the Senate sitting court OF i'm
parchment on Monday last were read and approved
Senator Johnston, OF Virginia, who absent when
the other Senators sworn beng present to-day
called, and the oath was administered to him by
Mr.. Ferry, President pro tenn.
Tho order recently adopted SHAT the Senate proceed
first TO hear and determine the question whether W.
W. Beknap, the respondent, amenabe to trial by
impeachment for acts done Secretary Of War. not
outstanding his resignation Of said Office and that the
managers aud counsel In such argument discuss the
question whether the issues of TACT material and
whether the matters In support OF the jurisdiction
alleged by tho House of Representatives in the plead
ings subsequent to the articles OF impeachment be
thus alleged II the not avcrred in said arti-
Giles, !" was read by the Secretary
Mr. CARPENTER. of counsel for the accused, said he
wished to suggest that II It the intention OF the
10 the counsel and he had no doubt 10 the Board of
Managers also, TO have tho adjournment take place
now SO that arguments could take place after
sembling without interruption. II the argument
should be proceeded with now the adjournment next
week would come In the middle OF it. Nobody sup
posed that the arguments could be finished by Monday
next
Mr. Manager LORD said the managers preferred to go
on with the argument II there could be consecutive
hearing but II II was to DO broken by an adjournment
nav mr. far not m
experience here had taught him that in session OF
Saturday and Monday little could be done On behalf
OF the managers he desired TO say that unless 1t
certain thai the Court would sit from day to day until
tho arguments all in they preferred to have them
postponed until after the reassembliug OF the Senate
Mr. CARPENTER submitted an order that the further
trial OF the cause be postponed until Monday, the 18Th
OF Nay
Mr. SHERMAN. Of Ohio submitted an order that this
Court adjourn until hafpast twelve O'Clock p NJ Mon
day. May 5 and that the arguments on the question Of
jurisdiction be confined to eight hours each side
M SARGENT OF California, moved to strike out the
clause limiting the time for argument Agreed 10.
The order was then rejoctsd--yeas q, nays 40
The question then being on the motion submitted by
Mr. Carpenter to adjourn to tho 18th inst II with
drawn, being the Same az the proposition of Mr. Sher
man.
Mr.. BLACK, Of counsel for the respondent. said he
requested by counsel for the respondent and the
managers 70 say that INC extension o. time until the
18th inst asked for should be granted the arguments
would then be concluded as II they 20
on now as counsel would have more time 10 prepare
and could make their argument more concise
Mr.. SHERMAN OF Ohio, then renewed his motion that
the Senate sitting AZ a court Of impeachment adjourn
until tho 18th inst, and that arguments the ques-
ton OF Jurisdiction be confined 70 nine hours on zach
side. Rejected-yeas %, nays s.
The argument on tho question Of Jurisdiction vas
then commenced.
ARGUMENT OF Mr.. BLAIR
Mr. BLAIR or counsel for tho respondent. said The
citizen was liable TO impeachment, either without
gard TO the time or manner OF hia leaving Office,
ne nsvs sesS n q %
cutting committee that he would In such case not be
prosecuted and second, whether the allegations OF
power necessary TO maintain Jursdct,on must be al
legged IN the articles, whether they could be sup
Piled in subsequent proceedings. Upon the nrst ques-
ton he thought The managers could only msintan the
jursaicon Of the Senate upon The same principle as
serted by the prosecution In the 6iount in 1897
which was that all persons wero liable to impeachment
because IN England the country from which were b0r
rowed the proceedings, and whose laws and usagcs
must be looked to discover The extent Of applca-
ton, all persons were liable But the Court that
overrued that doctrine and alter that deci
sion had been acquiesced IN for seventy eight
years DO thought the managers ought not to
it. In the Blount II was pleaded
by the prosecution, rs il this case, that
although the defendant WAS Senator at the various
periods referred to IN the articles OF impeachment yet
that he was not NJ the time OF impeachment Senator
officer OF tho United States, and the Court upon
demurrer, held that plea 10 be sufficient In his
(Biairs) opinion, therefore, this question had been
finally adudlcalcd and was not open question I'm
parchment, ss proceeding against private citizen
was opposed TO the policy OF the English government
II was also opposed to the policy Of our own
tive letter of tho law which regulated
tho proceeding. All the bcs, writer's aud
accepted authorities who spoke OF this proceeding in
England said that ITS proper sphere against great
offenders who the power OF the government
and whom It was necessary u bring to bay by the
ganzed power OF tho people in thor Houses Of Commons
and Representatives Impeachment as mode OF en-
forcing penal law, stood very different footing
from trial by jury II was an invasion upon the Magma
Charta, which lad provided that should be ad-
judged except by his peers by the laws Of tho land
Impeachment was introduced long after tho Magma
and fors ha
great offenders Blackstone expressly said that Il
not Tor ordinary cases.
Mr.. BLAIR quoted sew eral cases In New York. includ-
Ing tho Fuller Barnard aud Cardozo cases, wherc
judges and others had gned to avoid impeachment
ana where II had been held that impeachment would
only be against persons actually holding oincc. All
the constitutions OF all the States with The exception
OF Vermont and Georgia. correspond with the national
constitution. Mr. BLAIR then nj length IRON the
debates of the Convention which framed the consttu-
ton, and showed that Governor Morris and Pnckney
and othc opposed 10 the incorporation OF I'M
pcachment IN the constitution Ut ALL and thar II
Incorporated only us means Of punshing great offend
crs He did not think. therefore. that this vas
JUICY of the House. with It's seven managers aud 24O
able and violent behind them, that they should
he permitted TO drag in this way helpless indivd
ual to aishonor Was this reasonable, when tnis pro-
cccdng, by the very terms OF tho great authorities who
had sustained IL IN Eug.and, when was government
OF unlimited power, was Justnaoie there only
in cases where one power of the government was in
iact TO DO arrayed against the other The Of i'm
parchment was place which u controversy took
place between the high powers OF the government and
this was the only theory which could be justified
IL was 10 be reserved Tor where the people a.
sailed their oppressors. armed with the power OF the
Executive and with tho patronage and prestige which
that power gave them Was this the time place
when II would be tolerated that such proceeding
should be sunk and prosttued the oppression OF an
individual, AMI TO the wasting away oil the means he
had Where was this proceeding Of impcachm,n nj to
supy II was one OF the saddest commentaries on hu.
man nature to see how ready the subservicnt syco-
plant who bsssed IN the smiles OF power rush
10 the enemies OF his patron and PROSTATE himself be-
fore them and make terms for himself BY betrayal and
fasehood. How eagerly such creatures come here
now These who had any grievances against the
fallen man, how they pressed forward to make
themselves glory OF HE lalL IL this nruso-