The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1876-06-15

which your most unrclenting vengeance
could exclude him.
No, Mr.. President, removal is not pun.
ishment; disqualification is not punish
ment. In the nature Of things they canno,
be punishment; and the proceeding in
which they are incidents is political pro
cess designed to relieve the public service
Of an official delinquent.
j pass, then, TO a review Of section 4, ar
ticle ., and inquire if the language here
employed sustains the view that the pro.
ceeding is political exclusively, and if the
words President, Vice President, and all
civil officers of the United States," is de.
signed as an Affirmative designation of the
persons to whom Impeachment can apply
The Technology of the section is peculiar
1t authorizes the removal of the persons
named upon conviction 1t does not declare
that no other officers than those named, OF
that those only, shall be removed. And
yet unless the words used are held to be
descriptive, then the power conferred in the
Constitution must be regarded, as to official
acts and official persons at least, as broad
and comprehensive as that known to the
parliamentary law of England. There il
no language which forbids The impeach.
ndent of the admiral who neglects the safe.
guard of the sea the commodore who sinks
his squadron; the general who surrenders
his army to an inferior foe the commander
who corruptly caPitulates his post. And
yet it is sale to say that the exercise of such
a power by Congress has never for an in
slant been considered. The words "civil
officers" have always been held to exclude
naval and militars officers, and therefore
culprits in those arms Of the public service
are relega ed to courts-martial and Other
modes Of punishment The stale can be as
much harmed by their delinquency; in
time OF war perhaps TO a much higher de-
gree than by the misconduct of a civil off.
Ger, but they have never been considered
subjects Of Impeachment, because the Ian
guage Of the fourth section has been re,
garded as an exclusion, as if the word
"only" had been inserted after the words
Omitted States"
Why? The occasion has not been alb
sent in our hi-tory, but the reason for the
abstinence is clear. 1t has been the appli
cation of the old legal maxim: EJpressi,
unius, erciusio diteriis The specification o.
particulars is the exclusion Of generals
Lord Bacon says, and his observation il
quoted in this connection by Judge Story
with approval, "As exception strengthen.
the force of law in cases not excepted, SC
enumeration weakens it in cases not emu
merated." 1t is true that this rule is no
absolute, and that it may he susceptible O
wrong application but it is one OF those
maxims which are founded in reason, anC
have found their way into the affairs Of
daily life as into the decision of judicial
questions. To ascertain how far an afiir
native provision excludes others, We must
look to the nature of the provision, the
subject, the object, and the scope of the in
strument. There can be no doubt that ir
most ,ses Al affirmative declaration ex
cludes every thing or person not specified
and the reason is obvious. An affirmative
grant or specification would be superfuou:
and absurd if general authority were in
tended. (See Story on the Constitution
section 44S) In the case before us, if the
broad, unrestricted power of Impeachment
was conferred by article l, section 2. clause
3, it would include "the President, Vice
President, and all civil officers of the Uni
ted States" and thus article 2, section 4
would be superfous and illogical, consider
cred either in relation to the persons, The
ofienses, or the penalty. The greater al
ways includes the less; and if the fourth
article of section be not limitation, a
restrictive. affirm alive declaration, ther
the words Of which it is composed are in
effectual They are as idle and empty a,
the wandering air.
The man who resigns his office become,
at once a citizen. That he has held offic,
makes him no less and no more than a citi
zen. When the President resigns he is .
cilizen. When the Vice-President resigns
he is citizen. When all civil officers re
sign they are citizens. And if they are nc
longer "civil officers" they are no more Ii
able to impeach ment than military Oh
naval officers Unless this construction i
correct, then there is no Limitation, and tn,
law Of Impeachment in America is as unre
stricted as in England.
In the case at bar, therefore, the respon
dent, having resigned his Office before the
proceedings were commenced, was not liable
to impeachment. He was citizen. He
was not civil officer. The motive with
which he resigned Is not material. 1t i.
the fact alene with which We are to deal
Nor do regard the legal fiction in relation
TO the fractions OF day as having any
sinificsnce in the case. Were the hour OF
the resignation and OF the Impeachment
both uncertain, and impossible to be ascer.
tanned, it might be just to apply such a
rule as would sustain the jurisdiction; but
it has no application here.
Should resignation occur after the re-
spondent was legally before the Senate and
on trial, l should have no doubt that the
proceedings could continue and judgment
Of disqualification be properly pronounced.
The conclusions which have thus reach
ed appear to me to be not only consonant
with the plain intent Of the trainers of the
Constitution, but also in accordance with
the spirit of popular institutions and the
spirit of the age in which We live. When
the offender can no longer endanger the
state he should be consigned to the courts
for punishment; and in all cases of doubt
full Interpretation in the organic law of the
popular government it ia always safe to
construe the power in favor of the liberty
of the citizen, rather than in favor of the
prerogatives of the State.