The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-04
BELKNAP's IMPEACHMENT.

llO"tNNi NioN' BipPei oho
the action of the house committee, in re-
commending,the impeachment of William
w. Belknap, for "high crimes and INSIDE
" meanors," may have been when it was
agreed to, yet we think that the action of
Mr.. Hoar and his republican colleagues, in
opposing the passage of the resolution for
his impeachment, was equally wise, proper
and commendabe. Indeed, 1t was more
so. We say This. firmly believing the late
secretary of war to he guilty of the crimes
alleged against him, and that his guilt was
easily susceptible of proof. 1t was no
small thing for these republican congress
men to stand up in their places and seem
to defend Il man whom they believed to be
guilty, to seem to be endeavoring to shield
one Of their own political faith from just
punishment for his crimes, to run the risk
ofincurring odium by seeming to stand be-
tween a guilty republican official and the
judgment Of Il court of impeachment. But
they were right, aud they dared to do all
this because the president, by his unseemly
haste 10 accepting Belknaps resignation,
had placed bar between him and impeach-
ment.
The whole power of congress in matters
of Impeachment is derived from the con-
stitution. The house has the sole power of
impeachment. The sole judgment in case
of impeachment is ''removal from office
and disqualification to hold Office there
after, and the constitution provides that
the president, vice-president and "all civil
officers of the United States may be so
impeached and removed. These are the
only persons who, by the constitution, can
be impeached. When William W. Belk-
nap resigned his Office of secretary of war,
he ceased to be ''ciyil officer of the
United States" and from that time his
liability to impeachment, and the power of
the house to impesch him, also, ceased.
Had he been already impeached, 1t is more
than probable that his accepted resignation
would have put an end to the proceedings
hereunder, and that his trial. If entered
upon, would have been abandoned. This
seems to follow from the very terms of the
constitution providing for this class of pro-
ceedings.
The object of impeachment is not pun
ishment, but ''removal from Office" BY
the very terms of the constitution, this
must be the judgment where conviction
Is had on articles of impeachment. This,
if we understand it, is conceded by jurists,
statesmen and lawyers. 1t was the sub
ject of exhaustive discussion and investiga-
ton at the time of the impeachment of
President johnson, and such was the con-
cluslon arrived at. Such, too, have been
the precedents in this country all along
down, no matter what they may have been
in Great Britain or elsewhere. The whole
question, as it seems to us, was concisely
and correctly stated by Mr.. Bayard, in the
Blount impeachment trial, more than
,hree-quarters of century ago, in these
words : Impeachment is proceeding of
ga purely political nature. 1t is not so
"much designed to punish the offender as
{" to secure the state. 1t touches neither
"his person nor his property, but simply
"divests him of his political capacity. u
This, then, b;ing SO, why press an impeach-
ment What possible end can be sub
served thereby? Belknap is out of office ;
he can, otherwise, be disqualified all the
objects of conviction on an impeachment
have been, or may be, secured and only a
little political capital remains to be made.
We admire and commend the firmness OF
Mr.. Hoar and his republican colleagues
all except for backing down.