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

the rulers the nectssiiy anu tne CCCa,iOn
Tor Impeachment are greatly diminished.
Where neither wealth nor power is heI d.
tary, there need be no corruption Of hood !;
and where the tenure Of Office is brief-and
depends upon the will OF the people, i'm
parchment is generally conducted at the
baliot-boX.
1t must therefore he apparent Il at when
the founders Of the Republic eoDfe-i d upon
the House the power of impeachment, they
did not mean Impeachment as Understood
BY the laws of England. There was not
only no necessity for it, but the idea would
be repugnant TO their experience and with
out foundation in Ieason.
We must then insr t the other provis-
ions OF the Constitu- ion tn discern their
purposes and ascertain the limitations they
intended to prescribe.
These relate to the subjects, the objects,
and the penalties of impeachment; and,
when considered in connection with the
uniform practice OF Congress, seem to indi-
cate conclusively that the sub ects of i'm
parchment are the President, Vice-P resi-
dent, and all civil officers of the United
States, and that the sole objects OK the pro-
cess are TO dIvest the offender OF certain po-
litical attributes and iurc. ions, not for the
punishment of the individual, but for the
protection OF the State.
Articles We and six of the amendments
to the Constitution are explicit, and by If
resistible inference exclude any other con-
clusion. They are in the following lam
guage:
AETICLEy.
No person shall be he d TO answer for a capI.
tai, or Otherwise infamous crime, unless on q
q fNnrt- So
arisi < N the land OF naval forces. or in the
militia, when in actual service in time of war
or public danger; nor nall aay person be sub
Ject Tor the same Tense 10 be twice put In JED
pardy OF life or Limb.
hLr.oLEy VI.
IN oil criminal prosecute MS. the accused
shall enjoy the right to sp edy and pu lie
trlaI, by an impartial jury OF the State anu DIS
trict wher IN Inc crime shall hag been COM
mittei which dist it shall have been pr, vious-
~ eertaIned By law.
For the sake of illustration, let us SUD.
pose that the laie Secretary of War had
deliberately and with malice aforethought
murdered post-trader-a capital of. nse,
the punishment for which would be death
by hanging. This wodld also be an i'm
peachable offense, for which he might be
removed and disqualified; but if such pro-
| ceedings should be had, would il be consid-
tlCd Vi muIutI.
Or let it be supposed that. having been tried
and convicted for murder in the courts of
the District and lying in prison waiting
execution, he should refuse to resign and
should be impeached. Would his removal
be regarded as punishment for his ofiense !?
No one would seriously make such pretense
The application of the provisions of arti-
| cles 3 and 6 is too obvious to need further
comment. Impeachment cannot be a GRIM
inal prosecution.
The determination of the scope and pur-
pose Of impeachment is materially aided by
consideration of the nature of the pen
| atty affixed to conviction. The punishment
is in no sense always the measure of the
offense. The penalty defines the grade to
which the crime belongs.
The judgment in impeachment is con-
fined ty the political relations of the re-
spondent to the State. L; does not affect
his citizenship, The right to hold Office,
either actual or potential, is not one of the
rights of citizenship. Like suffrage, it ia
a privilege or franchise granted by the So
ciety to the citizen.
The rights of citizenship are three: the
right to live, the right to personal security
or liberty, and the right TO hold property.
| The judgment upon conviction on i'm
parchment does not affect either OF these.
In England it was otherwise. If the ac-
cused were found guilty, he could be de-
prived not alone of his political rights, but
of the rights of citizenship. His life could
be taken at the block, his liberty could be
destroyed by exile or incarceration, his
property could be appropriated by fine or
sequestratlon.
But under the Constitution, the charac-
| ter of the proceeding is radically chanSed
1t is no longer AIMED at the citizen as such.
| The punishment for crime, which abrogaies
citizenship bp execution. by imprisonment,
by fine, is RENTED exclusively TO the
courts, and impeachment is restricted to
| the political relations of the accused, and
these are only partially rescinded in case
OF guilt. He may be impeached for muir
der, arson, robbery, or any crime whose pen
can be removed from Office and Gis9uali-
fed.
His citizenship is unimpaired and many
of his political rights still remain. He
can still vote. He can serve in the militia
and upon juries. His relations to the
State are changed, but he is still entitled to
the protection of its avs and to the full
benefit OF all the guarantees and immuni-
ties Of the Constitution.
This vast modification could not have
been accidental 1t must have had a pur-
pose, ard it serves still further TO accentu-
ate and emphasize the position that, as the
penalty is political purely, so the proceed
ing was intended TO be political purely, and
was devised for protection, and not for
punishment. Unless it he so, the many in
ferences OF the Constitution are controvert-
ed and several of its plain declarations
are rendered Intellectual and abortive.
While upon the subject of punishment
pause TO consider an argument which has
been strenuously put forward by the mana
gers and their associates in the prosecution.
1t is their strong fertilization and tower of
defense. After inspecting the Constitution
with the telescope and the microscope;
after distilling it in the alembic of verbal
criticism; after analy zing it as a chemist
resolves the waters OF a mineral spring till
his agents cea-e TO testify and he reports Of
this or that constituent a trace only, the
combined efforts of all these doctors have
adduced the convincing argument that un-
less the right If Impeachment for official
eAlst-
ence has terminated the jurisdiction de-
ponds not upon the court but upon the |
criminal. 1t is insisted that, if by resigna-
ton he can defeat the judgment of disguali- |
fication, he renders nugatory the great de. |
sign Of the process, which is not only to put |
man out but to keep him out; that, un-
less he is di qualified, perverse or corrupt |
Executive can re-appoint him after his re-
signation and thus defy and thwart and |
trifie with the moral sense and will of the |
nation. They contend that he must not
only be banIshed from the Eden Of Office,
but that the angel of vengeance with the
flaming sword of disqualification must be
at the gate TO prevent his return,
and that unless this is done the public ser
vice may be stained, corrupted, and pol
luted by the invasion of dissolute and I'M
seemly reprobates who will thus be superior
to law. The necessary corollary is that if
they are so disqualified the nation is safe,
and that they can then endanger the coun-
ellis OF the nation no more. Aside from the
TACT that such conduct would be impeach-
able in the Executive and that he could |
not resign and re-appoint himself, there is
the further consideration that The security
Of the people from corrupt officials lies in
public virtue and intelligence, and not in
statutory prohibitions.
But let us Tor a moment examine this
pretext and see how far the protection
would extend were the sentence of disquali-
ication in all cases pronounced. What ad-
litional guarantee, not based in the moral
ty of the people, would be derived from
he strictest application of this part of the
Should the respondent in the case at bar
De convicted and disqualified, how could