The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-06

niles TO Senators Mcdonald and Conkling. Hc then
quoted from the Fderatiu and Judge STRONG 10 show
that the Jurisdiction Of the Senate applied 10 the once
ana not 10 the person. He next referred to the m-
parchment
TRIAL or Ex-pREsIDENr JOHNSON,
preacng his remarks by saying that this Court more
than any other bound by It's previous decisions
Ia that case the counsel Tor the House OF Representa-
tyes claimed, AS was claimed BY the counsel Tor the
defence now, that impeachment not intended as
means OF Furnishing criminal, but OF removing from
Office unnt corrupt Official Such also, was the
uniform argument IN the opinions OF such Senators as
had nled them. In support OF this statement Mr. Car
penier quoted from the opinions OF Senators Howe,
Garrett Davis, Sumner and Edmunds, and, continuing
his argument said he had searched In vain for single
instance IN any State of the Union where impeach-
ment had been commenced against man not IN Office
MI Carpenter quoted from numerous authorities 70
show that fractions Of day could be noticed and said
he certainly had not supposed tnat would be sought
TO convict the defendant that the Senate would be
asked to hold jurisdiction legal fiction According 10
the managers present claim, II man was sentenced
by martial be shot two o'clock In the day
and tho President pardoned him ten o'clock in the
morning he must still DO shot because the law rccog
nized no fractions OF day. Mr. Carpenter also read
authorities to show that the motive OF act was not
material II the act itself which the making
II had right to make. In conclusion, he said he had
cndcavorcd TO show that from the text OF the consitu
ton from the debates OF Convention which framed
1t, from the writings OF all those most familiar
with The times IN which was adopted, from the COM
mentators accepted as authority in every court OF law
and from the nature and reason OF the thing, the
proceeding Of impeachment confined 10 those
holding oiicc at the time when the impeachment
commenced. lie believed a settlement OF
this question was vastly important TO the
tranquility OF this great land II would
avol tho scenes and Commissions which shook the
South American States should let this proceeding
stop where the constitution lett IT, II It were held
that victorious party riding into power on the not and
nercely rolling OF popular discomfort could not
only carry the administration out OF power but could
It be before these trials instead OF beng as they
Should tho rare remedy provided by the constitution
for enormous crimes, such as no other court could
handle and deal wth we're degraded into mere
partisan machinery and tho blood OF party be adc
to trckle on the block soon popular discomfort
had driven them from oiccy The responsibility laid
upon the senate by the decision OF this question could
be exaggerated THAT decision could not be avodod
and IL would stand us long The government itself
ARGUMENT OF MANAGER KNOTT.
Mr.. Manager KNOTT followed in behalf OF the man.
ayers He said tho real question before the Court was
them tho highest court known TO our government by
virtue of a constitutional power or merely at
tho will aud pleasure OF the accused He
admitted that tho BIount case cut no figure
authority this case, for It was not
many respects parallel IN it's conditions. The only
case, in his Judgment, from which legitimate
be drawn, was the case Of Judge Barnard in Now
York, and that, he claimed, supported the position
that Barnard could be tried for acts done IN former
term Office He contcndcd that tho meaning OF tho
constitution not to be judged from what some OF
the framers Of II might have said in the Convention,
but by what they did. There was not solitary syl-
liable IN any OF the provisions Of the constitution which
limited tho power of tho House OF Representatives TO
prefer oil the Senate 10 try articles Of impeachment
as the timo during which the party accused shall
remain In Office to any other timo whatever. Tho
managers might concede, II they saw proper, that
person could impcachcd for no oiencc unless was
committed while IN office, or they might even admit
that the offence must be under color VI the office
or in manner connected with the
discharge OF Official duty. The very mo
ment the impcachable offence was committed
the guilty party, TOO became liable 10 impeachment.
There not word in any o the provisions Of the
constitution relieving him from that liability upon the
termination OF his Office, whether by resignation or
otherwise The otter side had attempted to prove that
you could dsqusliiy unless you could remove. IL
true that when on impeachment an offender in
office convicted the Senate was bound to remove
him, but nothing in tho constitution took away from
the Senate the power 10 disquafy although tho power
to might have been taken away by the resgna
ton party II the only or tho most important
object OF an impeachment simply the removal OF
IN ofcinl criminal nom Office the argument OF the
other side would have some weight, but this the man
ayers denied. .a
AT this point Mr. KNOTT said that he dsliked ex-
trcmely asking ut the hands of tho Sonate but
no suffering such physical pain that he must ask
for adjournment
On motion OF Mr.. EpMuSps OF Vermont, the Senate
sitting court for the trial of articles Of impeach-
mcnt, adjourned until tomorrow.