Year: 1876

length Of supporting the claim contendec for In trutn
however the President gay do no such thing Inc
acceptance by the President of the resignation
officer guilty Of high crimes or msdemeanors pre-
alternative Ho either accepts 1t innoceny or
he does not II he does not accept innocenty the an
swer plain. II he being Of the fact that Min
taken brbcs for instance accepts his resgna
ton with intent TO remove him from the JURISDICTION OF


the Senate or with intent to shelter him from process OF
impeachment there DO little doubt that he violates
his oath OF Office guilty OF corrupt conspiracy and OF
a high crime, and may himself be impeached aud re-
moved Thus the public has full protection the same
protection exactly which 1t has against any violation OF
the Constitution by the President. IT, however, the
President has evil intent nor any knowledge OF the
guilt OF the officer whose aOn he accepts, he clearly
commits oense, does he In effect pardon. The
case Ia the pardon obtained through fratd
which in law is 10 pardon at ALL 1t Is void Unluekiy
here there is OF cancelng resignation. or 0f
forcing against his will to take office again after he
has once left t. Against such combination OF circm-
stances II must be frankly admitted the existing law
provides remedy, Is it surprising that 1t should
not. since itcould hardly have been fOreseen


This, however, is far from admitting that any portion
of the Constitution is rendered nugatory Legally speak
ing the President cannot pardon in cases OF npeach-
ment can do any act equivalent TO pardonDg for
legally pardon he must act knowingly and here, II he
removes guilty knowingly from the jurisdiction OF
the court lie violates the law, and becomes himself aDe
to impeachment Nor does the predcament furnish any
solid for argument in favor of an extension or
the jurisdiction of the Senate The facts simply show
that sufficiently ingenious man may devise way OF
eluling the law; this Is very different thing from
showing that the law the case, every Judge
knows The worst OF all legal reasoning is that which,
taking given case proceeds TO show that 1t Is unpr0-
vded for that it ought to be provided for, and tha


therefore the law it, must be made to cover It,
The scandaous eases Of constructive treason nave
been supported on other ground.


That there is difficulty IL clear; that II might have
been better had the Constitution been differently worried
may DO admitted for the sake OF argument; hut the
whole Is beside question. The question what Is the
law! On a former occasion an attempt was made to
show First: That under the Constitution none bur
civil officer while holding Office could be impcaehed
Second That private citizen, even n convicted OF acts
done while holding office, could not be legally sentenced
Thiyd That this view Is ia accordance with the Whole
theory on which this Government Is framed IL may now
be added that the tendency OF the decided cases and OF
the commentators il in the direction To-day


has been coutended that the construction here Dan'
tanned conflict with the restriction on the par
dOng power and that English plecedents In support of
the Jurisdiction have weight Should these PROPOSE
tions be jus clearly no argument founded on cOn'eh-
,nce or even apparent necessity avail. Should the
law be deemed detective an amendment 10 the Const-
tuition Is ths proper remedy, short cut through
judicial legislation Penal statutes are always strictly
construed and penal provisions in the Constitution
more strictly STILL ana argument be correct which,
by going backward present necessity to the inten-
lion of the Conyenton would lead the Senate to take
upon itself Jurisdiction unwlrranted by tho words OF
the Constitution AMI contrary to the well understood
and long established principles Of judicial interpretations


Ios,oD March 90 Is7G BROOKS ADAMS.