The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-17
WHERE THE BLAME RESTS.

Friday. March IL. 1875
WHERE THE BLAME RESTS.
President Grant Alone Responsible for
the Escape Of Bslknap from Impsach-
msnt--No Punishment Provided by
the Criminal Code for 0Hcial Malfea-
sanos. e-EI -
Mr.. Brooks Adams, of Boston, writes as
follows to the New York Tribune. There
has been much loose talk of late of the
moral and political necessity Of q convic-
ton Of Mr.. Belknap by the senate.
Nothing could be more mischjeyous. In
parchment is not a moral or a political
question, but question of constitutional
law, and should be. dealt with on legal
principles. If the provisions of the con-
stitution prove inadequate for their pur-
pose, the constitution should be amended,
but the law should meyer be wrenched with
q view to individual cases. Now, as q
legal proposition, there seems little doubt
that the senate has no jurisdiction in this
case.
A century ago the unlimited power of
parliament to punish political offenses, by
bill of attainder or by impeachment, was
considered one of the most fruitful sources
of oppression under the English govern
ment. The trainers of the constitution of
the United States therefore provided full
safeguards against the possibility Of such
abuses here. The principle on which they
proceeded was that criminal jurisdiction
should be lodged altogether in the courts
which must follow known and existing
laws, and that political assemblies should
be as little trusted, In that respect, as pos
sible. But as no popular government
could probably DO administered without
some means of removing improper persons
from Office, the general theory of the con-
stitution was so far departed from as to
invest the senate with the powers of a
court for the purpose of taking cognizance
of such cases. The court so established is
the only court of impeachment known to
our law, and of all criminal courts in exist
ence it has probably the most limited
jurisdiction both as to the persons liable to
its process and to the punishment it may
infict. Na aaF
There are but two clauses in the con.
stitution which have anything to do with
the questBon before the country. The
jurisdiction Of the court is fixed by sec.
Of Art. IL, which provides that ''the pre-
sident, vice president, and all civil officers
of the United States shall be removed
from Office on impeachment for, and con-
viction of treason, bribery" &c. Sec. 8,
Art. l., fixes the limit of punishment:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall
not extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and en-.
Joy any Office of honor" &C., under the
United States, but the party convicted
shall be liable to Indictment according to
law.
Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than
that the only class of persons over whom
the court of impeachment has jurisdiction
is civil officers Of the United States, and
over them only in regard to their official
relations. Beyond that limit they are left
TO the courts 20 deal with. Thus no pri-
vate citizen can be impeached. A cabinet
minister whose resignation has been ac-
cepted is surely private citizen and not a
civil officer.
Nor is this all. Much has been :.
about jurisdiction being giver sal'
second penalty" as it is -; by tn
sentence of disquahfcsf oaheu, OF IN
nerativeI VI the constitution leads i'm
4. ~ to an opposite conclusion. Sci
art IL, provides that civ
officers Of the United States shall be RI
removed from Office on impeachment
Sec. 3, Art. l, provided tn;
Judgment in cases Of impeachment sha
not extend further than to removal fro
Office and disqualification to hold and epjC
eny office or honor" etc. Thus discr
tionary power is vested in the court
pronounce sentence of removal alone,
sentence Of removal and disqualiGcatio
But il is familiar principle of Grimm
law that when a statute provides doub
penalty connected by the word land
both penalties must be inflicted as part
the sentence. Thus, If statute enac
that crime be punished by fine, or
fine and imprisonment, the court may Sc
tence to fine alone; but if it goes furtht
it must sentence to both. 1t cannot inf
imprisonment without fine. So in Il
case, as Mr.. Belknap cannot be remove
the argument approaches demonstrate
that he cannot be disqualified.
AS matter of common sense it seel
preposterops that because nan has on
neIu OIIlCC lac SUUulu Dt ndUit u lu pCdS
tneut for The rest of his life. TIE thee
Of this part of the law of impeachment
plain, If a civil officer commit an acti
for which nc is removed from Office
sentence Of the senate, the question ari:
whether he has committed crime
which he can be indicted; If he has it
comes the duty of the courts of justice
punish him; if he has not, the CONSTITUTE
shields him from further punishment, a
protects him from the resentment of po
ical enemies. The disqualification clal
simply permits the senate to judge as
whether civil officer oyer whom til
have Jurisdiction, and whom they ha
determined to remove, has so behaved
to disqualify himself from ever serving
government again.
We must not allow ourselves to
blinded by passion. Mr.. Belknap is
longer civil officer; he is private C
zen, and the court of impeachment has
jurisdiction over him. Neither could
be legally sentenced should he be fou
guilty. for the law provides no sentence
meet his case. The whole, sentence IN
be pronounced or none. But the repul
has none the less its remedy. Mr.. b
nap may be indicted, and on being fou
guilty of having accepted bride, be n
be sentenced to fine and imprisonme
and he may be forever disqualified fir
holding office as thoroughly as no co
have been by the senate itself sitting a
high court OF impeachment.