•., , ; i . . "
. - • .
, .
• . .
. .
. . • .
. . .
.• : i , - ..:, ,I::: : !
• • . ..
- .: t
_ ..
• • .
. .
. T.
. '
: • ....: Tf ' ...
.o. T •
1.
T
. . .
,t. 1 ..
.. • ,
....
.
.
.. •.::: .
.
_ .
.4..: • - . • :-. 7 ; - j=. L' , •"-' - ' i
...
-A.,: .• H .
, •,,,,.. ,y,
....: .
-,...., ...
• . , 'cri
• , % 7', ,
.. • . . -
. .
... .
1 ...—, .
4 - ;,7 , , 1 •t -7 ,',* -",.', FiT, „•., ~ ,J 4 ,
. .. .
..:_ „.. .....,-
,
...: , .4
• . ..{
. dat i V F. , ..• „ ~ 11
" .f . .. '.- 'e l".. - ~,...
' • .. .
. . ....
~. .
4.% - A • . 1, .' • :s2: _
i ..A.,.. .
A. J. GEARRITSON,
Jos TUB MONISM! DENOCRAT.
A. ME X teogra icrist "ir
of as Great Straggle 'between , Liberty
and Despotism for the last
Hundred tears.
A party in the Northern states of A
merica calling themselves Republicans,
have formed a political alliance with the
African race of the South, recently the
slaves and servants of the white race. Ev
ery negro in the ten conquered States
of the Union bas been armed with a bal
lot who bas arrived at the age of 21 years.
Every black man hi the Northern states
would have been endowed with the same
high privilege, if the leaders of that party
could have forced it upon them . , in the
same manner as at the South—which was
at the point of the sword. The whole ne
gro race in America have been courted
and solicited by this party to become
their allies. And for what purpose? The
avowed object of these negro votes is
crush out Democracy from the nation.
Fifty years ago this same party formed
an alliance with all the Indians in Ameri
ca, and this alliance was for the same ob
ject—the overthrow of Democracy, and
the establishment of British monarchy.—
The author of the Life of Gen. Harrison
says:
"Iv! the year 1806 Tecumseh had ma
tured a plan which the great. Pontiac had
attempted in vain.;-to unite all the West
ern tribes in a league agairist the whites,
under the expectation that the combined
Indian force would be sufficient to destroy
all the western settlements, and drive the
whites out of the great valley of the Mis
sissippi. He possessed an intuitive hatred
toward tho white man, against whom he
Lad sworn eternal vengeance. His bro
ther was a celebrated prophet among the
tribes, and prophecied , a speedy-downfall
of the whites, the restoration Of the In
dians to all their hunting grounds, and flee
resumption of the customs of their ances
tors.
" lip to the year 1811, Tecumseh and
his brother were engaged in consiant in
trigues against the United States. A 'thou
sand young warriors had rallied around
Lim, sallying forth in greater or smaller
parties to commit the most atrocious
deeds of depredation and murder along
the whole western frontier. In'" the fol
lowing year the British government form
ed an aldanee with him and his tribes—
promoted him to the rank of Brigadier
General, and gave him command of all
the Indians who co-operated with the
British armies in the campaigns of 1812-
13."
What a beautiful illustration is here giv
en of the sublime doctrine now taught by
the Republican party of the " brother.
hood of the human race !" the " equality
of mankind!" The white aristocrats of
Great Britain, " at one
,bound," elevated
the savage Indian race upon a platform of
equality with themselves, and Brigadier
General Tecumseh was ordered to main
tain this equality with the tomahawk and
scalping knife. These instruments took
the place of the ballot, bow in the hands
of the Degrees, to maintain their equality
with the white people of the South.
But how was it with the white-race in
America, descended from the same race
in Great Britain ? Mr Cr_aik, an English
author, says If there was a brother-
hood between us,,it, had become a broth
hood of C - ain I" Yes! These white bro
thers in England could hire their red bro
thers in America to murder and exterm
inate all their white brothers who refused
to submit to their tyranny and oppress
ion. They had a great affection for their
dear 'lndian and negro brothers, but a des
perate hatred toward their white ones.
Color was .a mark of ' distinction _with
those British aristocrats, as it. is now with
the same party in America. Would you
not rather assobiate with a negro than a
Democrat? ask the Republicans. And
why? Because the negroes will help
them build up a monarchy and an aristoc
racy, both of which Democrats abhor.—
Many of the leaders of the Republican
party, promised the negroes of the South
the lands of the white people there,if they
would vote for them, and sustain their
grit' It party of " moral ideas." This was
the same promise the British govern
ment made to their Indian allies. In one
of "Brigadier Gen. Tecumseh's" speech
es, he says to Gen. Proctor:
"Listen! When war was .declared, our
father,;the king of England, stood ukt and
gave US the tomahaw k; and told ',o34ttley
were now ready to strike the Americans;
that he wanted our ;assistance; and that
he certainly would get,ns our lands back
which the Americans had taken us. The
WV beton thipour „British fatbertay.e
the hatchet to Elie red children, *ben tar
old chiefs were , alive; they are ail now
dead. In that war our father was thrown
on hie back by the Americans, and oar
father took them by the hand without our
knowledge, and we are afraid he will do
so again at this time.
"Our ships are gone away, and we are
very much astonished to see our father
tying up everything and preparing to run
away the other, without letting his red
children know what his intentions are.—
Yon always told us that you would never
draw your foot off the British ground ; but
now, father, ,we see you drawing back,
and we are sorry. We must compare our
father's conduct to an animal that carries
its tail upon its back, but when affrighted
it drops it bet Ween its legs and runs off."
"In the war before this," Gen. WaA
ington and his . brave armies "threw our
British father on his back," and in the war
where Brigadier General Tecumseh led
the red children of the British father, the
Democrats, who are now put under the
negroes, astonished poor Tecumseh by
compelling his father to " tie up every
thing and run away" off' American soil,
and they are now receiving their punish
ment therefor by having the black race
arrayed in deadly hatred against them,
with the ballots in their hands of which
the Republicans have robbed them, in or
der to trample them in the dust.
It remains to be seen whether the party
that conquered Indianr, negroes and white
tyrants in two bloody wars, will tamely
submit to be ruled now by negroes, who
have been not only their own slaves,
but
the slaves of the party who have placed
them above their own white brothers,
while proclaiming " all men are created
equal,"
The number will show how hard Dem
ocrats had to fight against Indians, Brit
ish and Federalists in 1812, to preserve
the liberties bequeathed to America by
Washington.
General Hancock.
An interesting interview between Gen
eral Hancock and the Chief of Police of
NeW Orleans is described in the Picayune
of that city. The latter official, it appears,
had certain prisoners in his custody, and
had deteintined to disobey a writ, of ha
beas corpus issued from a civil court. The
account in the Picayune thus refers to the
interview :
General Hancock stated to Major Will
iamson' Chief of Police, that he had learn
ed that a writ' of habeas corpus had been
issued, and that owing to some illegality
it was probable that it, would not be
obeyed. That writ, Mr. Chief of Police,
(remarked General H) must be obeyed.
I will hold you responsible in this matter.
Those prisoners must be produced. Ibe
lieve you will produce them, but I will
mysall take the necessary precaution that
they be produced. I have issued an or
der that the writ of habeas corpus is to be
observed, and it shall be. I am here to
protect the dignity of the government,
and the rights of the people as to lite, lib
erty, and property, must be preserved.
So long as I am in power here, the law
shall be respected.
I know nothing, Mr. Chief of Police,
about this case, do not know what these
mew are charged with, but it is sufficient
for me to.know, and you to know that a
writ ohabeas corpus has been issuediand
that writ shall be respected. I will sink
the boat in the• middle of the river with
'cannon that takes these men on board,
and intercept any train of cars that car
rieszihem. If the law is not observed,
Wheind what is safe ? I may be taken
sway, you may be, any of us may be. Jus
tice Junin be upheld. I hold you, there
fore; Mr. Chief of Police, responsible for
the delivery of these men before Judge
Theard, in obedience to that writ.
A Warning.
An -affair occurred in a neighboring
town a few nights ago which should serve
as a'warning to all housekeepers.
FOur persons were nearly suffocated to
death by tilling a stove with coal before
retiring for the night, and leaving the
damper closed. The family slept up stairs
and some of them were .awakened about
four o'clock in the morning by violent
headaches and smothering sensations.—
' Two.young ladies who slept together in
one room became entirely insensible. For
tunately the father and mother entered
1 the room before it was too late, and mau
-1 aged to get the window open, but, the
I rush of fresh air reacted upon them and
they fell prostrate to the floor. Luckily
one of the young ladies revived sufficient
ly to call in the assistaniie of a neighbor,
i and a physician was summoned who ad
ministered restoratives. The parties fin
nally recovered, after suffering intensely
from the gas they inhaled.
Housekeepers should be careful to leave
their stoves in proper condition at night,
and especially when used in sleeping
rooms.—{Ex.
—Some three years ago a man was ar
restedin New York and incarcerated in a
foul and loathsome cell of a dungeon by
military edict, his only crime being that,
he ltq , d spOken disrespectfully of ?dm.
Lincoln"—but she was the wife of the
goveFement Oen- The Radical -papers
are bow; saying worse things about her
than were ow dreamed of by any Demo
crat..
MONTROSE, PA., TUESDAY, JAN. 7, 1868.
piiii44:tootiloovA
Speech of lion. G. TV. Woodward, of
Pennsylvania,
in the House of Representa
tives, December 13th 1867, in the Com
mittee of the Whole on the state of the Un
ion, on the law of impeachment.
Mit. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman, Ido
not wish it to be supposed that my re
marks will be in reply to my friend on
the right [Mr. Van Trump] as to the gen
eral views which he has taken of this
question. I consider them both whole
some and timely; and I have nothing to
sky in reply to them. What! wish to say
has reference to the legal question to
which he has alluded; and in respect to
that I believe he has presented the argu
ment as well as it can be presented.
It seems to me that in the circumstan
ces in which we stand we are in great
danger of making a bad precedent. A
preposterous proposition to impeach the
President of United States is brought for
ward, and in the zeal of gentlemen to
condemn it and get rid of it, I think there
is danger of our marring the face of the
law. I entirely concur with those gentle
man who voted against that proposition ;
but I do not concur with very many mem
bers of the political party with which I
act in regard to the law of impeachment.
I find this impeaching power in the
Constitution to be a popular power—a
power designed for the protection of the
rights of the people against their rulers,
and one that should be liberally construed
and in proper cases freely used. The
Constitution was made by the people and
for the people, and not for the rulers.
Now, sir, it is provided in the Constitu
tion that all civil officers may be im
peached for " treason bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors." As I
understand the argument of the gentle
man from Ohio, [Mr. Van Trump,] he
would cut out from that provision the
words " and other high crimes and mis
demeanors," and maintain that the Presi
dent or any other civil officer of the Gov•
eminent is impeachable only lOr the crimes
of treason and bribery. I think we have
not the right to thus emasculate the funda
mental law. We are to take it as it is
written, and we are to hold the Presider.t
of the United States and all other civil
officers impeachable for "treason, bribery,
or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
—taking the meaning of those words not
merely in their common law sense, nor in
the sense of the parliamentary law, but in
the sense of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. The whole question is, what
do those words mean in our Constitution?
Mr. Van Trump. With the gentle
man's permission I would remark that
what I meant to say was that., in the ab
sence of any legislative enactment speci
fying what particular acts come under
the general terms " high crimes and mis
demeanors," an officer cannot be impeach
ed for such acts.
Mr. Woodward. I entirely concur
with the gentleman that the courts of the
United States have no common law crim
inal jurisdiction; that the only crimes
punished by Federal law are those which
the Federal law has defined to be crimes;
but I do not agree that the words
and niisdeineanors" as used in this con
stitutional provision are to be limited to
such statutory offenses.
Mr. Van Trump. The gentleman will
permit me to inquire how he would go
about framing an indictment upon the.
general terms " high crimes and misde
meanors."
Mr. Woodward. I would observe, sir,
that this provision is not a provision for
indictments, but a provision for impeach
ment. That is the answer to the gentle
man. There is no indictment to be fram
ed for " high crimes and misdemeanors."
The question is, for what offenses may a
civil officer be impeached ?
Now, let us try to get at the meaning
of this word " misdemeanor," because af
ter all the discusssion must comedown to
that. I submit that the constitution of
Pennsylvania, formked in 17e0, soon after
the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States, defined that word, "mis
demeanor" as employed in the provision
fur impeachment. The constitution of
Pennsylvania defines it to mean a " mis
demeanor in office." It says :
" The Goyernor and all civil officers
under this Commonwealth shall be liable
to impeachment for any misdemeanor in
office."
I submit, sir, that that is an interpre
tation of the word "misdemeanor" as us
ed in the Federal Constitution, and that
we should understand by that word a
misdemeanor in office, a violation of any
of the tacit or express conditions upon
which the office is held, whether or not
that violation be indictable under the
criminal law of England or the criminal
law - of the United States. It may be such
an offense or it may be something which
is not indictable under either of those
codes.
I am very happy to end, Mi. Chairman,
that this opinion has the most respectable
authority. I have before me Curtis's,bis
tory of the Constitution, from whiCh
will rpka s -'l3b aft, 'eitrnit•-hfilegc - nrie this
impeaching power:
"Among the separate functions assign•
ed by the.-Coastitutiirm 10.-timAlonses of
Congress are those.of prsenringond
leg hipeszehment. Ao nopeaobriebt,
the report of the committee of detail, was !
treated as an ordinary judicial proceed-1
ing, and was-placed jurisdic
tion of the :Supreme Court. That this
was not in all respects a suitable provis
ion will appear from the following consid
erations : Although an impeachment may
involve an inquiry whether a crime
against any positive law has been commit
ted, yet it is not necessarily a trial for
crime; nor is there any necessity in the
case of crimes committed by public of '
curs for the institution of any special pro
ceeding for the infliction of the punish
ment prescribed by the laws, since they,
like all other persons, are amenable to the
ordinary jurisdiction of the courts of jus
tice in respect of offenses against positive
law. The purposes of an impeachment
lie wholly beyond the penalties of a stat
ute or the customary law. The object of
the proceeding is to ascertain whether
cause exists for removing a public officer
from office. Such a cause may be found
in the fact that either in the discharge of
his office or aside from its functions he
has violated a law or committed what is
technically denominated a crime. But a
cause for removal from office may exist
where no offense against positive law has
been committed, as where an individual
has from immorality or imbecility or mal
administration become unfit to exercise
the office."
Now, I suppose that to be a fair con
struction bf the Constitution and law in
regard to impeachment ; and I cannot
help thinking that if the lawyers of this
House would apply their minds to a true
analysis of this subject' they would come
to this conclusion. For an office bears in
the law a very striking analogy to a fran-
Chise. They are both ranked by all the
elementary writers as incorporeal heredit
ments. They both . proceed from the
grant. of the sovereign power. They both
exist in the hands of -the subject or citi
zen for the limited purposes for which
they are granted. They are both gov
erned by very much the same principles
of law. And in regard to franchises
(which are generally held in this conutry
by corporations, but which may be held
by individuals) the law is well settled
that they are always held upon the - tacit
condition that there be no misuse or
abuse; and for misuse or abuse they are
forfeitable.
It is well settled that it is a tacit con
dition of a grant to a corporation( that the
grantees shall act up to the end or design
for which they were incorporated; and
hence throng!' neglect or abuse of its
franchises,-a corporation may forfeit its
charter as for conditions broken or a
breach of trust. It must be willful abuse
or improper neglect, something more than
accidental negligence, excess of power, or
mistake in the mode of exercising an ac
kno‘idedged power. It is said a single
act of abuse or willful nonfeasance may
he insisted on as a ground of total for
feiture; bnt a specific 'act of nonfeasance
not committed willfully or negligently,
nor producing mischievous consequences
to any one, and not contrary to any par
ticular requisition, slight, deviations from
'the provisions of a''cliarter would not ne
cessarily be either-an abuse or misuse.
Such is the lava of franchiies. Now, of.
flees which are similar in their elementa
ry nature to franchises are held, I submit,
'by a similar tenure; and inhering necessa
ri:y in that tenure is the tacit condition
t hat there shall be no "maladministration,"
as Mr. Curtis calls it—no misuse or
abuse, as we would say in the case of a
franchise.
Now, impeachtifent under our constitu
tion is the means by which the people en
force this remedy against a defaulting of
ficer, just as a scire fades or quo Warrant()
is the remedy for enforcing their rights
against a defaulting corporation. If a
corporation or an individual holding a
franchise from the Legislature may forfeit
that franchise for misuse or abuse, so, I
hold, may any individual holding an office
forfeit it for misuse or abuse or misde
meanor, which the constitution of Penn
sylvania says means misdemeanor in of
fice—doing that which should not be done,
or leaving undone that which should be
done. This, it seems to me, is the true
exposition of the meaning of the word
" misdemeanor" as employed bytour con
stitution.
It will be objected to this view—it has
been already objected to on this floor--
that that does not
. sufficiently confine the
power of impeachment, and that in times
of high party excitement, as an honorable
gentleman says, Congress would be en
gaged in nothing but impeachments.
Mr. Dawes. I would ask the gentle•
man if he holds that the word " high" in
the Constitution is applicable to misde
meanors as well as crimes ?
Mr. Woodward. Itbink it is. - Ithink
it applies to both crinaes and misdemean
ors and is employed to designate crimes
or misdemeanors in office. The word
" high" is used because the offence is one
committed in office.
Mr. Dawes. Then, does . it S not,follow
that every misdemeanor comna' iited in o'f
-000..s::a 4jgh,tnirdeneanor 7 : Does the
gentleman mean to gay that eti'eryintisde
raeanorinsAcq tlligh.,Talsdernepor?"
Mr. Woodw.ard. .I.,lnean to say that
ever y_wisdepieangrin.otilr.o:is a high-pis
demeanor defined and limited a$ we define
and lima tho laws of corporation is re-1
gard to 'franchises.
Mr. Broomal. Will the gentleman al
low me ?
Mr. Woodward. My time is limited.
I hold the . floor by the courtesy of the
gentleman from Ohio, [Ur. Lawrence.]
Mr. Broomal. I was going to move
that the gentleman's time be extended.
Mr. Dawes. I hope there will be no
objection to the gentlemen occupying as
much time as he wants.
The Chairman. If there is no objec
tion the time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania will be extended.
No objection was made.
Mr. Van Trump. As I differ from the
honorable gentleman, for whose opinion
I have the highest regard, I wish to in
quire whether, if the word "high" applies
to misdemeanors as well as to crimes, it
is not left to the court to measure and
decide how high the misdemeanor should
be.
Mr. Woodward. We talk about the
"high sheriff," and I believe the common
law uses that term in regard to the first
sheriff while there are a series of under
sheriffs. Perhaps the word "high" here
does not mean much more than in that
case. I think that as a matter of con
struction the . word " high" would un
doubtedly apply to misdemeanors as well
as crimes, and I have no objection to call
ing any misdemeanor by a man in office
high in the meaning of the Constitution.
It is a high crime and misdemeanor to
violate the condition upon which any man
holds a public office. That is my propo
sition. Of course, sir, it must be a wil
ful violation, knowingly done, and it must
be to the prejudice of somebody, either
the public or an individual; but where a
public officer, of whatever grade, does
willfully pervert his office to the preju
dice of the public or of an individual, I
hold that be has committed a high misde
meanor.
Mr. Dawes. Will the gentleman allow
me to put au inquiry ?
Mr. Woodward. Yea, sir.
Mr. Dawes. I would ask the gentle
man how he reconciles that last position
with the citation from Curtis which he
has read, to the effect that a man may be
impeached for imbecility in office ? If it
must be a willful departure from the du
ties of the office bow can it be possible
that a man may be impeached for imbe
cility in office?.
Mr. Woodward. Well sir, Mr. Curtis
was speaking there of the condition upon
which offices are held. 116 enumerates
perhaps more fully and accurately than I
have done the modes in which offices shall
he forfeited, and he mentions imbecility.
I certainly do not mean to argue that im
becility is either a high crime or a mis
demeanor, though Mr. Curtis treats it as
within the impeaching power. lam lim
iting my observations to the very words
of the Constitution.
And now, sir, I proceed to notice the
only objection to this interpretation of the
Constitution which has impressed me—
the danger of the abuse of impeachments
in times of high - party excitement. (lea;
tiemen fear we- would be occupied with
impeachments most of our, time, and that
through prejudice and passion there would
be danger of great wrong to faithful of
ficials. Sir, Ido not share those fears.
I think we dan safely trust our political
institutions, and that we have no occasion
to cramp and confine them lest they hurt
somebody.
I think what we have seen in this house
and in this country in the last week shows
that we have no occasion to emasculate
the Constitution in order to protect a
worthy officer from partisan feeling. Not
withstanding the great prejudice against
the President of the United States,a large
majority of this House, upon the best ex
position and showing the Committee on
the Judiciary could make, resolved not to
go into the matter of impeachment. And
had he been brought before the Senate,
composed of a majority of the same polit
ical complexion of this House, no mar,
doubts that upon that showing he would
not have been convicted. Most assured
ly no impeaching body would have con
victed any officer upon a mass of evidence
so irrelevant and inconclusive as that.
The circumstances of this very case show
that there is no such danger as gentlemen
suppose.
Suppose a public officer has been guilty
of crimes and misdemeanors, or of a fail
ure to perform properly all the duties of
his office. He has been brought before
the constitutional judges of his country;
he has had a fair trial with all the forme
of common laW; he has been defended by
counsel, and has been fully beard. Now,
are we to assume that the constitutional
tribunal for the trial of official offenders
would be any more corrupt or .incompe
tent or any more likely to be swayed by
partisan considerations than the courts of
the country would be ? It seems to me
that it is an impeachment of our institu
tions to hold any such doctrine. But if
we admit that a majority of this house
would wantonly impeach an innocent man
from partisan considerations, and that tWo
thirds of the, Senate would convict an in-
L necent Man under the influence of part'.
sen-passion, then let me remind
,gentle
lien that there,is a corrective that Lies
-
I entirely beyond, the house of represehta
tives and the Senate, and the Supreme
iVOLUIVIE XXV, NUMBER 2.
Court of tho United States, and: all the
other tribunals and departmet►ts of the
Government; and that is the people them
selves. If such an ongrage
,as gentlemen,
fear should occur, there is a power in this ,
country who would impeach the impeach
ers and reverse their decree.
That has already been done Fiore than,
once. Mr. Van Buren was reje,eted by
the Senate, when nominated to a foreign
mission, from political and partisan con
siderations, and the people made him
President. The Senate of the United ,
States condemned General Jackson} the
people came forward and expunged that
resolution. The people are always
watchful of their pulic officers, and notip
ing more surely meets their disapproba
tion than the prosecution of a faithful of
ficer. rho cannot get justice of the Sen.
ate and the House of Representatives, be
can surely obtain justice from the people.
Now believing, as I do believe,, that
this proposition to impeach president
Johnson was, as I have, already said, ut
terly preposterous, I neverthelesssay the,t,
if the fury of party passion bad carried, a
majority of this House and two thirds of
the Senate to the result of convicting Fret'
ident Johnson, you would have seen how
the people would haVe pronounced their
verdict upon such action.
Mr. Eldridge. Will the gentleman al ,
low me to ask him a question ?
Mr. Woodward. Certainly.
Mr. Eldridge. The gentleman suggests
that there is a remedy in the people.
wish to know, it' the President had been
impeached and removed from office, hoW
the wrong to him could ever have been
redeemed ?
31r. Woodward. Beyond all contro
versy. The people would have reelected
President Johnson if be had been im
peached.
Mr. Eldridge. But the Constitution
prohibits him under such circumstances
from ever bolding office again. '
Mr. Woodward, The' people would
have re elected him, nevertheless ; they
would have reversed that decision.
Mr. Eldridge. But bow could they t&
verse that decision ?
Mr. Woodward. The title ottbe man
whom they should elect to office may be
questioned; he may not be competent to
enter upon the duties of his office. But I
am speaking of the popular judgment in
opposition to a wrong constitutional tri
banal of the Government. I say the
people would have reversed that judg
mem; whether they could have conferred
the office of President upon him again is
a question for the lawyers.
I think we are not to be frightened
from a true construction of the Constittr
tion of the United States by an improba
ble or remote contingency. What have
we heard in answer to this ? 1 confess I
do not understand any argument drawn
from the common law of England or the
parliamentary law of impeachment to be
applicable to this question under our
Constitution. Then what is the result ?
The result must be that we must construe
the Constitution more liberally—liberally
enough to secure ,a„faithful administra.
Lion of the offices which the people liave
established, not for the" . officers, but: for,
themselves, and which they bave,hedged
around and guarded by constitutional
provisions and guarantees. 0
Mr. Dawes. If the gentleman isnot , an
noyed by these interruptions, as I,am
seeking light and listening with profound
attention and respect, I desire to ask, in
view•of his remarks just made, whetber
there are not many provisions of the con
stitution of the Uunited Sites inopera
tive until there has been legislation in
reference to the measure of their opera
tion ? And may not the same thing be
true of this provision for impeachment,
that while the power is lodged in the
Constitution, yet it is so lodged that%
maybe comparatively inoperative with
out legislation under it; and may itnot be
so designed by the framers of the Con
stitution that the full scope and effect of
this provision of the Constitution, like
that in reference to naturalization and
other kindred provisions of the Constitu
tion, are to be defined and measured
within the limits of the Constitution by
such legislation from time to time as may
be deemed wise and necessary ? • ,
Mr. Woodward. Undoubtedly . . the
gentleman is right as to many provisions
of the Constitution. The Constitition
can do no more than outline the powers
which the legislative department carry
into effect. lint I do not think this is
one of those. It seems ti me this pro.
vision, so to speak, executes itself; gist it
is capable of being executed withapt leg
islation. The action on the part,ef the
house of Representatives strictly tes#M
bles the action of
. a grand jury in present
ing bills of indictment, and the
the Senate resembles the ..actibn, Of
,tho
dieial body under the criril.iiifil,code."
general statute having d4ned'impetiebii
ble offences, and from thteir 'nii(oro being
incapable of 'antecedent deflnition,it must
be left to some judging power to clitelte
what are high crimes andliiiideniestipti?,
and whether, in given case, ttier r lmye
been proyed, and' this pOWer,,wlth;tikis
the Senate. Stich I:subnilteis
tar of thii provision of ilk, Constuutipb.
'All tWtis . 'pecciiiry ter be' 064 fiefolvd,te
grandjUry, to 'present
'tor the cotit of last rOdrtt9 filßy 1t