The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-07
IMPEACHMENT.
Able Arguments by Managers
jerks and Hoar.
STRONG PRECEDENTS AND ANAL0GIES.
A Weighy and Pertinent Opinion OF
John Quincy Adams.
THE MODEL OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WASHINGTON. Nay ., 1915

WASHINGTON. May q. 1875
The Senate resumed the consideration of the articles
of impeachment against ". Belknap, late Secretary
of War;
The respondent with Mcssrs Black and Blair, OF his
counsel and the managers the part Of the House Of
Representatives being present proclamation was made
by the Scrgeatat.Arms, alter which the journal Of yes
tcrday read and approved.
But few Senators being present Mr. Thurman moved
a call OF the Senate, when ortywo Senators responded
10 their and the CHAIR ANNOUNCED that quorum
present
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED
Mr. CoSKILSa, of New York submitted the following
questions to tho Board Of Managers
Fivsf-lf two persons guilty OF crime in Office
10 be officers at tho time, by removal and the
other by resignation Is rather than tho other sub
ject to impeachment II a distinction between tho
two cases exists please state It.
Seco~d-Is a private citizen liable to impeachment
under the constitution OF tho United States? II his
having previously hold Office distinguishes him in
this respect from other citizens please trace the dis
tncon the clause of the constitution to the prin
ciple In which II is found.
Mr.. MITCHELL OF Oregon, submitted tho following
question -
The constitution provides that when the President OF
the United States is tried impeachment the Chief
Justice shall preside Suppose a late President
impeached for high and misdcmeanors com
mittcd while President and presented ut the bar OF the
Senate Tor trial who would preside the Chief Justice
the President of the Senate?
Manager KNOTT informed the Senate that he was In
no better condition of health this morning than no
tho time Of adjournment yesterday. and that
arrangement had been made between his colleagues
and counsel tor tho defendant that his colleagues
who desired to address the Senate out proceed now
IA
asked tie Senate to concur in that arrangement.
ARGUMENT MANAGER JESKs.
No objection was made and Manager jerks pro-
seeded To address the Senate.
The points no said that were made the part Of
he defence WERE first, could the Senate, notwith-
standing tho resignation of the defendant take juris
dic,on sand second, whether tho facts surrounding
The resignation pertinent to be considered with
reference the effect OF the resignation. As
\ general answer to these points he would
say that every should be always
judged its standing because two
seldom, II ever, strictly analogous The main and
tcrial question the whether the Senate,
sitting as a court OF Impeachment had Jurisdiction
tho defendant, and whether by his resignation,
alter the crime committed, he placed beyond
the jurisdictonai power. Jurisdiction limited
OF three Ways IL limited terrific
rally limited subject matter and limited TO
person. Territoraiiy tho Senate had jurisdiction
extensive with the earth. Whether the offence was
committed IN Washington, London, Rome or rckln
dad affect the right Judge the offender. As
the subject matter the senate could take coenzanec or
NIL mpcachabc offences. The plea in this did not
deny the offence charged to be npeachabe and there
tore It unnecessary to discuss what constituted
impcachable offence.
lie proceeded TO quote authorities In support OF his
position that the senate had jurisdiction this case,
and agreed that II Official could the penalty
OF Impeachment by resignation before trial he could
also do 80 resignation alter all the ormaltcs OF
trial mad been observed, but before Judgment had been
rendered, winch would be IA opposition 10 every rec
ognizcd principle vi law Ho asked whether the rule
that the criminal must be an officer al the time no
committed the crime or ut the time he Is convicted,
SAID that unless that question TO
be answered in opposition TO all the
course of the procedure OF criminal law 1t
tho status OF the criminal the kline OF the
sion OF the that established alike his uilt and
the Jurisdiction TO which he should be held ancnabe
In reply the suggestion by Trying
Genera Jackson pf he were now avc) Tor IN, removal
Of the United states deposits, he Asserted that, II Gen
erat jackson alive and had committed
crime while IN oi.lce aud II The House OF Representa-
tves, endowed as 1t with the right 10 Judge who
shalt be impcacLed not, said that he should be i'm
peacied the Senate would nave power 10 Try HIM.
ANALOGOUS REASONING.
Mr.. JExks proceeded argue from the analogy OF
courts marital that the Senate had Jur sdicton since
martial had jurisdiction discharged soldier
Tor offences committed while lac was IN service
Mr.. LOGAN OF Illinois, SAID. under rule I'll OF the
Articles OF War, any officer who guilty OF conduct
unbecoming an officer and gentleman should be DIS
missed the service, and he asked the managers
d where officer Of the army after becoming
private citizen should be tried under lhis article,
what would DC the judgment OF the Courty
Mr.. JENRs said the judgment would be nothing; but
bhc court martial would nave jurisdiction. Neycrtic
less want Of capacity to enforce Judgment did not
testroy jurisdiction. Hail OF tho judgments how
rendered ordinary courts were perhaps, defeated by
failure in execution Besides In the suggested by
Me Senator the whole remedy was removal IRON
vcc, while this there the further penalty
81 disqualification Ii also To DO borne IN
Of his incompetency lac mad brought u
about by his own act For example, man
sentenced TO capital punishment could escape the
penalty W drinking himself into state OF maudlin
sanity pleading that person could not be
lie would sill have 10 suer the decree OF
the law because his weakness artificial and made
by himself la the present there doubt
about fact that the incompcency Of The acendani
no Incompetent, Was the result OF his own act.
HASTINGS
Mr.. jerks then alluded TO the OF Warren
Hastings who WAS impcached as ''iatc Governor Gen.
cral OF india,n just this Mr. Belknap had
bcen impeachcd a late Secretary OF War; The coun-
sci ON other side had asked II the house claimed
that the Senate mad jurisdiction to try any ono of
the 4O0o0.ooo OF Inhabitants Of the United
States Tho House claimed no such thing.
they simply claimed that the House had power TO
lmpcach and the Senate to try every Official
committed by civil officer ~ was IN the discretion
OF thc House. OF course. whether they would prose
all Official offences before the Senate not, aud
was undoubtedly the purpose OF the trainers OF the
constitution that tins proceeding should DO confined
sucn spicuous cases only their character
deserved Judgment from lsh tribunal
Mr.. CoSkLiSG OF New York, asked II tho respondent
convicted the indictment row said TO be pend
Isl OF the Revised Statutes, which pro-
yided tina. any officer convicted should be dis
qualified from holding Office hereafter, could
that Court pronounce that Judgment against hun u
meantime the senate pronounced the same judgment;
or should the Court ursl pronounce judgment, what
would be the effect oi that ON the determination o tho
Senator
JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION DISTINCT.
Mr.. jerks said ho regarded that fact either
OF little weight The power to try and pronounce
Judgment distinct from tho power to
Judgment Jurisdiction SIMPLY the right to try
and d
The question this whether tue purpose Of
the constitution should defeated by the VIII the
oncnucr The senate had full power 10 Try all i'm
pcachmcnts. should Official corruption maintain itself
a. superior the great organic law Of the Republic
He Jenks made no charge against the Executive
In reference the resignation, for he main
tanned that the perhdy o. the defendant that IN
duccd acceptance Of that resignation, and II
greater nfnmy than his original Tor him lliei-
i..sua aic.:cixc bis natInn by withholding