The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-06
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
CONTINUING ARGUMENTS UPON THE
SEN1TE'S JURISDICTION.

SENtfE'S OtKfSDItIION.
Matt Carpenter's Interpretation Of the Con-
neutrality-suspicious. Confined to Those
Holding Omce-Manaser Knott's Reply.
WASHINGTON, May 5.-Thc Senate sitting
as a Court OF Impeachment to-day listened to
an argument by Mr.. Carpenter, OF counsel for
Gen. Belknap. on the question Of Jurisdiction.
lie said he would endeavor TO prove two propo-
sitons First, that articles OF impeach ment
cannot be entertained against any private clti-
zen In any case whatever; and second, where
articles OF impeachment were exhibited, they
must set forth every fact essential to constitute
crime impoachable; or in other words, the
orimo and every allegation of fact necessary to
give this court jurisdiction to hear and deter
mine the I'm parchment.
There were two things possible In reference to
tho provisions In the Constitution relating to
impeachment. One was that the power OF i'm =
peachment was given at large, and not quall1 cd /,
restricted, or defined; the other theory was
that the power or impeachment was conn ned to
| officers OF tho United States, aud that the i'm
peachmeDt ran not against tho crime, but
against the person who happened to commit
| the crime. Under the Constitution mpeaoh-
ment was confined to officers OF the Federal
| Government under the claim OF the Managers.
Andre W Jackson, II he was still living, could DO
| I'm peacned by the Senate for removing the
| United st atos Bank. and brought to the bar OF
the Senate. Would that he nn impeachment OF
| the President2 The purpose In the Constitu-
| ton was not that certain conduct should be
| subject to impeachment, but that certain per-
sons were, and those persons were described
and designated by the description OF their of1ce,
| as liable to impeachment.
| Mr.: Carpenter then showed that as he conceived
| the trainers OF the Constitution intended as had
| been done in England. to connne i'm pc ac hment
| to certain enormous crimes and for the punish
ment Of certain exceptional criminals so great
| I'm mower and staeDpd In wick adnags that they
| could not be handled by an ordinary tribunal Of
law: 10 the present case. however. the matters
| statute. and were not crimes 81 great that they
bad grown and swollen beyond the power
senator Mcdonald Of Indlanl asked II the
term OF ONCE Of the accused should terminate
| or expire pending the trial would that operate
MIR. CARPENTER said II he was right In bis argu-
to remove man from oflce. When the man
was out OF ONCE the suit would cease.
| Senator Conkling Of New York asked n the
gcntleman made no distinction on the point OF
jurisdiction to try an impeachment between the
and resignation after articles had been found2
Mr.. Carpenter said there might he distinction
between the cases, olt he n mhintained thai IN
because the object sought to be accom- pi hed
by the sdit was accomplished.
PRESIDENT JoHNsoN's TRIAL.
Mr.. Carpenter next referred to the impeach-
ment trial OF ex-President johnson, pre-
facing his remarks by saving that this
| court more tDan any Otner was DOuUd by It's
previous decisions. In that case the counsel for
the House Of Representatives claimed, as was
claimed oy the counsel for the defence now,
| that impeachment was not intended "a means
OF Furnishing criminal, but OF removing from
ONCE an unit or corrupt official. Such also was
tue uniform argument In the opinions OF such
Senators 5 had ned them In support Of this
statement Mr. CARPENTER, quoted from the opin-
Sumner, and Edmunds. In conclusion he
said he had endeavored to show that
the debates OF the Convention which fra med it.
from the writings Of all those men most famil.
the commentators accepted as authority In
every court Of law. and from the nature and
ment was confined to those boding oiice at the
time when tho impeachment was commenced.
lie believed settlement OF this question was
vastly important to the tranquility OF this great
Land. II 1t were held that VICTORIOUS party,
rldIug into power on the hot and norcely rolling
waves OF popular discomfort, could not only
carry the administration out of power, but
could also impeach them efter they were out
how long would 1t be before these trials, instead
OF being, as they sh puld, the rare remedy pro-
yded by the Constitution for enormous crimes
sucn as no other court could handle and deal
With, were degraded into a mere partsan M
cninery, and the blood OF Il party be made tc
trickle on the block rs soon as popular dlscon
tent had driven them from ofice. lhe response
blity laid upon the Senate by the decision OF
decision could not be avoided, and II woulC
stand IS long as the Government Itself.
MANAGER KNOTS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Manager Knott followed ia behalf Of tbs
Managers. He said the real question before tho
court was whether they exercised the functions
deyolyed upon them as the highest court know
power or merely at the will and pleasure OF tn,
accused. He admitted that the Blount case cul
no figure as an authority in this case, for IL WA
not in many respects parallel IN its conditions
The only case, In his judgment, from which |
legitimate analogy TO the case under discussion
could be drawn was the case Of Judge Barnard
In New York, and that, he claimed, supported
the position taken by the MANAGERS, for the
cour. had there held that Barnard could b,
tried for acts done In former term OF office
lie contended that the meaning OF The Constitu
tion not to be judged fiom what some o
the framers OF 1t might have said IN the COnven
ton. but 10y what they did. There was not
solitary syllable in any Of the provisions OF th'
! | House Of Representatives to prefer, or OF thI
. Senate to Try articles OF impeachment, as to the
main IN ONCE or to any other time whatever
The Managers might concede, IL they saw
+ | proper, tnat person could be inpeached - n,
offence unless II WAS committed while IN ONCE
r | or they might even admit that the oifence must
: be under the color Of The oilce OF in some man
ner connected with the discharge Of ofhciA
duty. The very momeDl the impeachanle Of
fence was committed the guilty party became
liable to impeachment. There was not IA wore
tion relieving him from that liability upon tn,
= termination OF his office, whether by resigna
tion or otherwise. The other side had attempt
| ed to prove that you could not disqualify unless
e | you could remove, 1t was true that when ol
I Impeachment an offender In office was convicted
. | the Senate was bound to remove HIM, bu
nothing In the Constitution took away from IN
0 Senate the power to disqualfy, although
the power TO remove might have beel
. taken away by the resignation OF the party. l
the only or the most important object OF an im
q. | peachment was simply the removal Of al
oficiai criminal from otiice, the argument Of TIA
: | other side would have some weight, but thi
I the Managers denied.
1 fering such physical pain that he must ASK 10
| Adjournment.
IN EL1BORITE BURGL1RY.
n |