The New York Herald Newspaper, January 29, 1867, Page 4

4 IMPEACHMENT. Origin and History of the ‘Trial of Tigh Crimes and Misdemeanors by Partinmentary ents fr the Reign Bodies— English of Edward Hil. to the Present Century. The action jately taken in Congress by the honorable representative from Obio, Mr, Ashley, in presenting a peiition praying for the impeachment of the President of the United States, 18 of such an important nature and go little known to our laws that for the benetit of our readers we propose to give some brief remarks and observations upon the origin of trial by impeachment as derived from English precedents, which, owing to the absence of precedents under our own laws, must neces- sardy govern any trials that we may have in this country. We shall also give a synopsis of some of the most celebrated cases that have occurred under the English laws, from the earliest records down to the present ¢_ntury. In England, about five hundred years ago, towards the end of the reign of Edward III., the Lords claimed it to be their acknowledged frauchise “That matters moved in Parliament shail be managed, adjudged and discussed by the course of Parliament; and im no sort by the civil law or by the common law of the land used in other lower courts of this kingdom.” Sir Edward Coke says:—‘‘As every court of justice hath laws and customs for its direction, some by the common law, some by the civil and canon law, so the High Court ot Parliament suis propriis legibus et consueudinibus con- sistit, It is by the lex et comsvetudo Parliamenti, that all weighty matters conceraing the peers of the realm or commons in Parliament assembled ought to be dis- cussed, adjudged and determined.”” Indeed, all the wisest statesmen and greatest lawyers through a long succession, from Sir Edward Coke and Mr, Seldon to the Karl of Hardwicke, have, whenever an opportunity has been offered to them, constantly repeated this doctrine. Nor ig the authority of the judges in Westminster Hall wanting in its support—it will be found in the records of the English Parliament that these venerable magis- ‘trates, when application has been made to them for their opinion on questions relating to judicial proceedings in Parhament, have modestly desired to be excused from delivering any such opinion, ‘for that of these subjects the lords are only the judges.” Aad if at any time some of them have presumed to disregard these rales, and to declare the law of Parliament, they bave been told “That such judgment belongeth only to the lords, and that it is the franchise and liberty of the lords by the ancient custom of the Parliament to be the sole judges in such cases’? The best legal minds have often declared that where the courts of criminal judicature are equal to the trial of any offence, and can, by the subsisting laws, inficta punishment adequate to the crime, resource should never be had to extraordinary modes of proceeding. But if the crime be of a nature and magnitade deserving &@ punishment in the particular case far beyond what has by the law been deemed sufficient in similar but less atrocious misdemeanors—or if the rules of admitting evidence or other forms, to which the judges in a court ot law are bound to adhere, would preclude the execution of justice upon offenders whose imprisonment or banish- ment from the country was become a necessary sacri- fice to the order and well being of the public at larze— it has been held, even in the best times of the English government, that such circumstances would ,reasonably justify a departure from the common forms of proceed- igs, and would entitle the Legislature itself to take coz- nizance of the case; and, asin the case of the English bill of Pains and Penalties,.avenge the mischief offered to the State, thereby fo hold out an example which might prevent similar offences in future. Ina pamphlet published in 1791, entitied “A Review ‘of the Arguments in Favor of the Continuance of Im- peachments,” there may be found the following judi- ‘cious observations, very applicable to this subject:— “The advantage which impeachment affords as acheck ‘apd terror to bad ministers is 90 obvious and 80 great that it almost solely engrosses the attention and is con- sidered as the principal, if not the only recommendation of that mode of prosecution; bat there is an additional reason why it should be cherished, which is that it fur- uighed the most effectual presétvative against the cér- rupt administration of justice, amd it ought, perhaps, ‘upon experience, to be dearer upon this ground than upon any other, as it has been employed with less mix- ture of vindictive or unwarrantable motives when Mireoted to this ebject than when its terrors have been levelled against favorites and ministers of the govern- ment.’” “That ministers are not now violating the prin- eiples of the Constitution, or that the administration of justice is now free from the lightest stain or suspicion of corruption, furnishes mo reason for abolishing this mode of trial, for it is impos- sible to know how much of the security with which we gow enjoy our constitution and liberties, and how much of tho satisfaction with which we now confide in those unsuspected characters that now grace the seats of jus- tice, may be derived from the existence of this very institution; the benefit of which (since prevention is more desirable than punishment) cannot be more con- clusively proved by any means than by the few occa- sions there have Leen of Jate for exerting it.” The jariediction which in ancient times was exercised by the High Court of Parli: , as well in civil as in criminal matters, is very weil explained and illustrated in Reeves’ History of the Eng'ish Law, Vol. 2, part 2, chap. 10, from which we quote the following :— In the reigns of Edward 1. IT. and IIL we find no records of proceedings in Parliament which incontestably verify what has been before observed on the judicial character of the High Court of Parliement, and furnish materials for forming an accurate judgmeut of its judi- catare (whether civil or criminal), not only during this peried, but, as we conjecture, through all the pre- ceding reigns up to the origin of the Norman constitu- tion. ‘the great extent of their authority in judicial matiors scems owing to the ideas of superintendence and sapremacy attributed to the Parliament by the peo- ple; it was thoucht that this assembly was to redress all wrong, to remedy all aluses and to remove all difti- calties with which any man was pressed cither in bis person or property.” In consequence of this opinion at every meeting of Parliament petitions poured in from all quarters, no only upon subjects of publ!ie and national concern, bu for teller in private matters; and it appears from the rolis of Parliament that shese petitions were exbibited dy all sorts of persons, upon all sorts of matters and to obtain every species of relief which tle petitioners thought most desirabte in their situation, To distinguish between those which were properly within the cognizance of the Parlinment and those that were not, and in order that those which belonged prop- erly to ciber courts might be duiy remitted thither, cer- taib prelates, earls, barons and others were appointed in every Parliament to be “receivers and tryers of peti- tions,” whose duties were to examine all petitions, and, upon full consideration, to endorse upon them what course was to be pursued to redress the petitioner, and to direct him, according to the nature of the case, either to the full Partiament or to the Council, the Chancery or to some of the other courts. But criminal prosecations were also instituted Io Par- Hament by another way than by petition. They were frequently brought forward by articles exhibited; but who were the persons appointed to exhibit such articles, or to stand forth as prosecutors, does not in every in- ance Towards the latier end of the reign of Kdward Iff., the Commons took this burden upon them- eelvos, and among their othor petitions began to exhibit accusations for crimoa and misdemeanors against offen- ders who were thought to be ont of the reach of the Jaw, and in these prosecutions the king and lords were considered as the judges. It was always, or test commonly, the couree, that when the Commons accused or :mpeached and the Lords wore ready for judgment, the Commons wore notified and then came up with their Speaker and demanded judgment, which the Lords gave by the mouth of their Ll or; 80 that this might be said to be done in pleno tarliamento (fall Parliament), both houses being pre- sent; and yet the judgment iteelf was given ¥ the Lords, though in the presence of the Commons, and thas for by their tacit consent, as being the accusers and Present at the judgmont Thus, with the alterations and improvements in the state of the jadicature ot the country which in the lapse of time tas taken place, may be deduced hat jurisdic. tion which in England the House of Lords exercise in Civil Causes, upon appoals or writs of error from the in- ferior courts, and in criminal questions whou brovgbt before them by presontmente of the House of Commons fa the form of an impenchinent. When this ins Apnatmnng oither for treason or for high nd misdemeanors, was directed against a peer ever been a donbt but that the exclusive jurisdiction to hear be tried in the y in courts below, but the fudictment mast be removed by certiorari, and the Loris most pronounce judgmont of eal, or not guilty. But where a person not a peer has a impeached by the Commons before the Lords, for Any capital offence, there a doubt bas somd- entertained whether, by the law of Parlin- Lords have competent’ juttsdiction thie and in one instance—that of Fitz ia Lords actwally refused to proceed apon a trial though in several other cases, both before admitted their competency and 'y. have, however, at ail Limes asserted jt be their legal right to impeach any person, whether Poor of Commouer, for any crime against the State, whethor cap. ital or fiot, end jn the instance where their right was dis. pated’the Commons resolved ‘That it ie the andoubted right of the Commons, in Parliament assembled, to im- peach before the Lords any Poer or Commoner for trea. son or any other crime or misdemeanor; and tbat the re- fusal of the Lords to procved in Parlisment apon such impeachment is a denial of justice, aud a violation of the Oonstitution of Parliament.’ This resolution on the part of the House of Commons jm the year 1681, grounded ypon and supported by the great variety of instances iu which the Lords have exer- NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1867.—TRIPLE SHEST, ied.ction in impeachment against Commoners noe, Lorether with the @roceedings of the upou ® suumtiar question brought before on the unpeachment of Sir Adam Blair overs (in which, after consulting pre to be a fuil and com- ruipation what the iaw of Parliament is apen b, and their right to try a peer of the realm was also setiled 1m 1388, in the case of proceedin.s be- fore the House of Lords against the Arevbisbop 0! York and other great officers, and against several of the judges for having given extra judicial opinions apd misinter- preting the law, and upou which, after a long and acea- raie examination, judgment of treason was given against them as traitors to the king and kingdom. In tho course of this proceeding the judgee, sergeants and other sages of the jaw of the realm and of the civil law were charged bg the King to give their faithful advice to the Lords of Parliament how they ought to proceed tn this matter, whereupon they deliberated and answered to the i nt, “That ba’ seen and well under- stood the tenor of the said ap) they declared it was neither brought nor affirmed according to the order, which either the one law or the other required.” To which the Lords, after taking deliberation and advice, answered:—“That in so high a crime as is laid in the said appeal touching the person of the King and the estate of the realm, perpetrated by persons who are peers of the realm, with others, the cause cannot be tried elee- where mor by any other I Paniament; and that belongs to the Lords of Par- hament, by ancient custom of Parliament, \®be judges 1m such cases, for thet the realm of England is not, nor ever was (nor is it the interest of the ing or Lords of Parliament that it ever shall be) ruled or governed by the civil law. And therefore ir intention is not to rule or govern so high a cause as this appeal is by the course, process or order used in any inferior court or place, whieh courts or places are only the executors of the ancient law of the realm and of the ordinances and establishments of Parliament, but it must be tried and terminated in Parliament iteelf.”’ As it was not till towards the end of the reign of that the House upon Lords, of perse crimes ee taisdemeanors against the Stats, though there are several instances u the rolls of Parliament pre- vious to the case of Richard Lyons, in ot of judg- ments pronounced by the Lone, aa both Peers and Commoners, for great public offeuces; yet these ings appear to bave been instituted either from the crown itself or at the prayer of private persons who found themselves aggrieved by the officers of the crown in high trust and power, and against whom they had no by application to Parliament. From the time the Commons became parties in these pemnsices the instances were frequent in which they found themselves obliged by their duty to carry up com- plaints to the Lords against persons of the highest rank and favor with the crown; or against those in judicial or executive offices, whose elevated situation placed them above the reach of complaint from private individuals, weet they failed in obtaiming redress, might after- wards become the objects of resentment of those whose tyrannical oppreasions they had presumed to call in question. is circumstance, therefore, of the Com- mons assuming this inviduous office, and, as the repre- sentatives of epee at large, standing forward as the prosecutors the highest and most powerful of- ornede rg the State, forms a remarkable era in the history of the criminal jurisprudence of the country; it has certainly very much contributed to control and re- Press those acts of injustice and oppression which in most despotic governments, ministers, protected by their great rank and overbearing power, are but too apt to exercise against persons who presume to offend them, and has been the means of bringing to condign punish- ment those ‘great tea to the commonwealth” who by their actions or counsels have endeavored to subvert the fundamental laws of their country, and to introduce an arbitrary and nical ernment, The crimes for which, during the period from 1376 to belle Commons oes 3 iba ae cuner a mitted by 8 em) y the crown, él ‘home or in its forei veh ; Maladmiaiatration of file digtal g g i that no of Edward IV., Henry een n Queen Mary cont beth, nor till the seventeenth year of James I. Nor can this be accounted for in any other maoner than’that during this period bills of attainder and tutions in po agg of Star Chamber were substituted in their at jen Seemann guid tak tho, eepplenisoeery ie fear re! 1e Su) Mattne of the twenty-firee Henry VIIL, chapter twenty, transferred ied during th ie ref Vil Raward a to this court the trial of all those mi eens which would otherwise th become the ob- tof jiamentary prosecution impeachment ; and, en expressed by a learned writer on the subject (Reove's history of English law), ‘This court became the happiest instrument of arbitrary power that ever fell under the management of an absolute sovereign. The Star Chamber exercised a criminal jurisdiction al- most without yr = fein eae} without appeal, taking upon it to judge and animadvert upon everything in which government felt itself fabareniegs, It became, in truth, as much a court of State—if the expression may be allowed—as a court of la Upon the same subject that great statesman, Lord Somors, says, ‘‘We had a privy council in England with great and mixed Powers; we suffered under it long and much, All the rolis of Parliament are full of com- plaints and remedies, but none of them effectual until Charles the First’s time. The Star Chamber was but a spawn of our privy council, and was so called only be- cause it sat in the usual Council Chamber. It wasset up as ‘a formal court 19 the third year of Henry VII, in vei soft words—‘ To punish great riots; to restrain offend: ere too big for ordinary justice, or, in the modern phrase, topreserve the public peace.’ But in a little time it made the nation tremble. The Privy Council Saat Jast to make laws by proclamation, and the Star Cham! rumed those that. would not obey. At last they gether, but not without endangoring the nation. Lord Bacon, in his history of Heury VII, says of the Star Chamber—‘This court is one of the sagest and noblest institations of the kingdom, and im causes tuat might in example or consequence concern the state of the commonwealth, would, if they were p moran es in the chamber called the Star Chamber (from-which it derived its name), but m civil would sit in the White Chamber, or White Hall.” ‘Lord Glarendon, speaking of the abolition of this court in 1641, says—‘‘ Thus fell this high court, a great branch of the prerogative. having rather been extended and contirmed than founded by the statute of the third year of King Henry Vil. For no doubt it had both» being and jurisdiction before that time, though ralgarly dated from thence, and, while it was gravely and m erately governed, was an excellent expedient to preserve the dignity of the king, the honor of his Council and the peace and security of his kingdom.’" By the extension of its jurisdiction and severity of its penalties it fora time sv the exercise of the More legal proceedings in Parliament against similar cases by impeachment for bigh crimes and miade- meanors. The more atrocious offences of treason and treasonable practices against the State, were, during this period, prosecuted and punished by bitls of attain. der, which, though very rare till the reign of Edward IV., became, during that reign and those of his succes. gors (Queen’ Elizabeth excepted) the common mede of proceeding against persons accused ot such crimes. Blackstone, in treating of the subject of Partiamen- tary proceedings (bills of attainder), says:—‘‘Aa for acts ©: Parliament to attaint persons gf treason or felony, or to inflict pains or penalties beyond oF contrary to the common law, to serve a special purpose, I sprak not of them, being to all intents and purposes new laws made pro re nata (to serve a apecial purpose) and by no means ‘an execution of such as are already in being; whereas ‘an impeachmont before the Lords by the Commons of Great Britain in Partiament is a prosecution of the already known and established Jaw, and has beon fre- quently pat im practice, Demg a presentment to the most high and superior court of criminal jurisdiction by the moet solemn grand inquest of the whole kingdom.”’ If by this mode of expression that learned Judge could be understood to insinuate an opinion that this proceed- ing by bill of attainder is m no case expedient or proper; or that it would be more benedicial that the bigheat and Moet daring criminals ay the State sl Loe ol with impanity, on account of a defect of evidence, or the want of some particular form which would be necessary for their conviction in a court of law, rather than that their crimes should be brought to the consideration of Parliament and that there should be amonablo to though by a law lo pro re naia,”’ if this was irs to establish doctrine from to, the public might receive much ‘detriment. Altboug! it is true se: aor ved boy used a8 an engine of power, and, in the reign nces, bave been frequently abused to the oppression Cw inno- cence, it is not therefore just to conclude that no in- staioes can occur in which it ought to be put in prac- tice, Cases have arisen, more particularly since the true inciples of liberty have been understood and carried into e' Sane anaae an core teenie SE which is the first object of all governments, has call for this exttaordivary wterference; and, in such in- fiances, where can the exerciso of an extmordinary vested with more security than in the branches logisiature? It should, however, be borne in this deviation from tho saore ordinary form of ht never to be adopted in cases ye “on y, and in those instances only whero from the itude of the oritne or the imminent danger to the Siate it would be a greater public mischief to suifer the offence to pass unpanished than even to overstep the common boundaries of law, and, for the sake of sub- stantial justice and the seourity of posterity, by an ex emplary, though extraordinary proceeding, to mark with intamy and dt perhaps to punish witt death, even the highest and most powerful offenders. Lord Somers says:—"The power of impsachment au ee like Gotiah's sword, hung up in the temple, ought mot to be used but Om great Ooonsions, security Of your constitution is lost whon you lose this om po CASKS OF MMPRAOHMENT—RICHARD 1YONS AND OTHERS. The oldest case of impeachment of which we find any authentic record is that im 1376 of Ricbard Lyons and others, merchants of London, who were complained of by the Commons for certain misdemeanors, in removing the engine wool and other merchagdise from Calais, and in loading money to the King spon enarious con- tracts, bargaining with tue King's creditors to take off the aie ong them upon a small advance; and for bey Other extortions, decetts and oppressions, Lyons, as farmer of the subsidies and customs, To which accusation Lyons plead vot +4 aif sEieee that shou! heirs disinherited, and their lands, tenements, chattels forfeited to the King, wl Su wards changed to banishment. ‘SIMON DE BEVERLY AND BEAUCHAMP. On the 12th of March, 1388, Simon de Beverly, John Beauchamp and several other persone were impeached for high treason, adjudged guilty and executed. . In September, 1507, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of in , 1397, E op Canterbury, was accused and impeached in full Parlia- ment of high treason, for baving traitorously aided Pod e themseives regai power,’ upon which be submitted self'to the sre od mercy, and etn to be guilty banished the realm, bis tem ities seized and his good and chattels forteited to the King. g % § Hf : i i iT Lh eer iy i 12. Squandering away the public treasure. a pong pe ef the Earidom of Pem- grea and marnages. 14. Embezzitng several obligations for sums due to the King from the Duke of Orteans. = Delaying of Sone Procuring a pardon for a murderer. 11, Making of sheritfs for moet, that might be favor- able to his purposes in the counties, 18. the Dauphin of France with soldiers ’s allies in a he pleaded not gui " mitted to the Tower, but upon the 17th of March the King sent for ali the lords, und also for the Duke, who kneeling, the Chancellor, by the King’s command, asked “ What he would now say unto the cl t” to which the Duke answered, ‘ That he submi himself e King’s rule and governance to do as to himshouid seem proper. When the Chancellor, by the King's command, replied, ‘‘That the to accusation of treason in the bill comprised, the King heid him neither de- ctared or charged; but as to the charge of misprisions, the King, by his own advice, and not reporting him to the advice of tho lords, nor by way of judgment—for he is not in the way of judgment— declares that he shall himself out of the realm, and sbali so continue absent for five years.’ The Duke left the country full of hopes of being recailed ‘ag soon as the fary of the nation or the beats of Parlia- ment were over; but being taken at sea the after he sailed from Ipswich by a ship-of-war cailed “rhe St. Nicholas of the Tower,”’ the ‘ain put into Dover Road, cut off bis head oa the 2d of May, and threw it with his body on the eand; whence they were conveyed to the fee gy church of Wingfield, in Suffolk, and there yar STAR CHAMBER TRIALS TAKR TUM PLACE OF IMPRACHMENT. From 1450 to 1620 there appears to have been no cases of impeachment, the bills of Attainder, star Chamber, and. ba of eo Sa are having oe aad instead. e acts, during period, appear princt| to have bad for their object persons concerned in raising traitor- ous and tumultuous insurrections, and became dering the civil wars between the houses of York and Lancas- ter, alternately the engine of the prevailing party, to wreak vengance against such Of thelr enemies as bad taken part with their competitors for the crown. ‘The cases of Empson and Dudley in 1509, charged with having, duriog the King’s iilness, summoned cer- tain of their friends to be in arms at an Lour’s warning, and upon the King’s decease to haste to London; and that of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, and the King’s vicegorent in spiritual matters, in 1540, are instances in which the parties accused would have been the proper objects of Parliamentary impeachment for bigh crimes and misdemeanors in their conduct as ministers, or off- cers employed by the crown; but the impatient and over- bearing spirit of the and that arbitrary power which Henry VIIL, from @ variety of concurring cir- cumstances, was enabled to exercise against every of the constitution, rendered the summary ing by biil of attainder the more proper for his parposes. CASES OF IMPEACHMENT SINCE THR COMMENCEMENT OF THE the commencement of the seventeenth century to thé year 1750 we find the trials by impeachment of Sir Giles Toompson in 1620 for having procured ill patents; Lord Chancellor Bagon, in the a ee lor corruption in his office; Sir John Bennett, in 1621, for corruption as a staster in Chancery; sir Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex, Lord Treasurer, in 1624, for. bribes, and the Bishop of Norwich ox rT (reason; Judge Berkley conduct ia relation to the ship money for endeavoring to subvert the law; for yee the Lord son; Sir George Radcliffe, ‘and others, for misdemean: for high | treason; making of new canons ,and others, high treason; Lord Kim! of the House of Gomi Drak “llr; aiigcteie a3 1667, the Karl of Claren Mennors; Commissioner officer of the navy; Lord Chief Justice Reet 1! lew a arbitrary proceedings as a judge; Si William Penn, for embeazling prise goods; Mr. Brunk ard, for misdemeanor im the soa, ment of 1665; in 1669, the Earl of Orrery, for high treason; 1678, the Earl of Arlington, for and other misdemoan- ors; 1676, the Rarl of oMice of High Treasurer; for¢ and the Popish Popish gm, the Earl of the Ambassador at Paris; 1 ching eedi: Kdward ‘reaguror of the ; Lord yising the proclamation against Lord Chief j for high treason; 1 treason; 1669, sir Adam Ligh treason; Bi and the ough, for high treason; Charlos,Porter, for high for bigh crimes and mai otf hy ihers, ¢ fo inane Ly Li Pe, charge; 1715, the Baris of Oriora high treasoa, Bari domeanors; Duke of Ormond, for bigh treason; Earl of Derwentwoter, for high treason; 1724, the Earl of Mac- ciesteld, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and in 1746, lors Lovat, for high ‘treneon. 9 reports a@great many of these cases contain much matter (hat would be of interest to our bat which oar limited space will not permit us to pub- lish. PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT UNDER U, 8 CONSTITUTION, As before stated, in this country trials by im " ment are comparatively unknown; ‘but the pilin carened of the United States, article 2, section 4, provides that ‘the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shali be removed from oilice on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Speech of Bean Butier in Boston. A special correspondent sends to the Hxraup a ver- batim report of a speech delivered by Benjamin F. But- ler in Boston on the evening of the 23d inst, In the early portion of his speech he discoursed upon tho strength of republics in general and of the United States im particular, handling such other kindred subjects as were necessary to invigorate his foundations, and then launched forward in a bold and trenchant style on the matter of an impeachment of President Johnson. The first portion is similar to that delivered a few months ago at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, which was fully reported in the Hera». Hia reference to impeach. ment, however, 1s different, comprehending the recent developments of the case since the meeting of Congress. On this point he spoke as follows :— The question has been asked whether it would be statesmanship to resort at present to that shall not aitempt al this time to bring before charges which may be alleged against the Vice President of the United States, who now discharges the duties of the office devolving upon him by the death of the Prosi- because they are before a committeo of the House of tatives undergoing judicial mveatigation, and with that investigation we ail shall be satisfied, what- ever may-be.jts result. But the other question—whether if the Vice President of the United states, acting as Premdent (whom for convenience hereafter I with call President, although in my jadgment that is pot his constitutional title)—which comes to every man’s mind is why, if he hay done anythin, worthy of impeachment, should he not be impeached |. We have seen that drunkenness 1s cause for impeach- ment, making political speeches and do.ng illegal and unconstitutional acts are causes for impeachment. Com- mon fame and common rumor charge all of those things upon the person who is Chief Magistrate. Every- body says that is true. We all fell and know that. But ‘is it expedient, is it statesmanlike, is it poli bim by impeachment?” The first qi is, i right? use nothing is politic, nothing is expedient, nothing is statesmanlike except it is right, and every- thing-that is right in itself is at once expedient and pol- itic and statesmanlike. (Great applause.) A leading journal says we shall thereby disturb “public order and public credit’’—that is to say, it is understood by those who quote the President that in case he is im- be will bring to bear the and navy of the United States agai law making power of the le of the United States. Well, a he will havefadded treason to the other high crimes misdemeanors. Let the timid quake not and the powerful shrink not; the army and navy will obey no such treasonable order. (Loud and continued ap- plause.) And if it were ible for them to do a0, they would be swept away like mist before the sun by the uprising of the people, as in 1861, to save the nation’s life—(appiause)—because if this government cannot, the earl <7 by the constitution through the courts ished by the constitution, try, emo punish any criminal, however the caaperryrs is not worth preserving, Indeed, I have told that ‘State has said that whatever es you the of the tinkler. rey the 80 recreant to his trust as to fail to vote im iment under such an Executive threat, Hie int} children’s shame, is cou! apie enrae, his 8 sh: jue, peace and and three hi ipl ni i i i He u i 5 & i i hi f $2 sf ii use of seventy-two cents now, sixty or fifty and forty cents. made to us in the hour of our calamiiy, although at shave such #5 uo nation ought to id been quite contented to have paid them dollar for dollar. But let me call your atten- tion once more, fellow citizens, to the fact that these men in Europe never loaned us a dollar until the war was substantially : And then our bave gone abroad for what? What do we want this credit few abroad? Why, to import seventy-six million dollars’ worth of woollen goods at least last year, against twenty- six millions the year before. The seoner we can stop thus selling our bonds abroad the better, so far as my Poor opinion is concerned, both as to statesmanship and finances. (Applause.) It is ‘these positions and with these views that if anvthing short of a breach be devised that could peachment to do it. Therefore if it were trae, as it is that impeachment would bring back our bonds im) which we are pay cont against us, I think it wou be well to i Andrew Johnson, even to accom- plish that—nay, I think, as a patriot, he who hasso often in his tour West asserted that he was ready to lay hol Phe ieapeashed to plish to 80 great I utterly repudiate the idea that his it could do any harm to our credit abroad. / we to borrow money; but borrow money at seventy-two cents on abroad? have we any occasion for it? I for ist FEE 5 i i] sesaede, Hi Bee i # a } A A Z 2 i i any i H <= £ 3 iL iz ui ;: i = hi g) i i i 3 i f = Z z andertook by have hi “ lyzed ‘because we him para! ; eve here head him off One leg of the government is ; and wi leg paralyzed will tue government may pass all manner of laws, but who will execu! thém! There are three propositions before Congress the reconstruction of the Svuthern States. Mr. Julian, of Indiana, proposed to get along with the Presiden! President appointing governors for the terri! ab South on his territorial plan; but the ‘will not appoint any governor whom the Senate will con- firm, nor will the Senate confirm any one whom the President will appoint, If auch gov- erpors a8 be did before, what eng o> weybut legal ter- Titorial governmenis by act of on place of illegal Btate governments by act the President, Asain, Mr. Stevens comes forward seeing this difficulty, that the court for the District of Oolumbia shall Appoint commissioners, But that would pot do, fora district court having jurisdiction over @ territory of Seven miles 6q.1are to appoint rulers over all the territory of the South, which is an empire. What says Mr. Ash- ley? He has devised a very ingenions and well arranged scheme to got along in reconstruction without the Presi- dent; but if under bis bill the loval biack and white loyal government and what hapj gets Logether in Ni Carolina Gov- ernor Worth will say we caunot have you meet here, we shall arrest you (If they are not murdered as in New Orleans). calls on Mr. Johnson aid, and Mr. Johnson aays I must give you aid because you are a'de facto government. We call upon whom decide that question? The Supreme Court? or , then, what do you propose? Do you propose to leave our Union friends, black and white, to be whipped and murdered and burned two years longer because you are afraid the Jews abroad won't take your bonds, even at seventy-two cents on the dol- lar? I trust not, Are you to state of chromic anarchy? I trust not. and above all, to throw this whole ple, sickened and disgusted at given Congress all the power aay tical resait? Are question into the turbulent, cauldron of with this certainty, question whether those ot, shall vote or shall not vote for President mm which one side re) ing those men), should be impeached. alow him to stand there to throw this whole into anarchy, you bring upon yourselves the very ‘mit les goes bray e path of the people will sustain it, Tbe je love and he § favors brave actions. If Congress halts now, they send mén there who will not. F rte of miners, therefor, Capereyl such mine, together follow such vein or lode witu its dips, angies and varia- Uions to any a although it may enter the land ad- Joining, which land adjoining shall be sold subject to this conditiun.”” Mining claims my! b> entered at any district land office in the Untied States, under this law, by any per- son or association of persons. corporate or incorporate. In making the entry, however, such a description of the tract must be filed as will indicate the vein or 1ode, or part or portion thereo! claimed, together with a dta- gram representing by reference to some natural or ar! ficial monument the position and locazion of the claim and the boundaries wnereof, so far as such boundaries can be ascertained. First—Jn ali cases tho pumber of ‘eet in length clatmed in the vein or lode shall bo stated in the applica. tion filed as aforesaid, and the tines limiting tho lencth of the claim shal! also, in all cases, be exhibited in the diagram, and (he course or direction of such end lines when not fixed by agreement with the adjoining claim. ants, or by the local Customs or rules of the minors of the district, shall be drawn at right angies to the ascer- tained or a] nt general course of the vein or lade, Second-—| by the focal laws, customs rales of E eread of district 20 — e ground erect’ to occupied for mini rposes except the surface of the vein or lode, and walls of such vein or lode are ‘unascortained, and the lateral extent of such voin or lode unknowa, it shall be sufficient, after giving the description and diagram aforesaid, to state the fact that the extent of such vein or lode cannot be ascertained by actual measurement, but that the said vein or lode is bounded on each side by the wali of the game, and to estimate the amount of ground contained between the given end lines and the unascertained wall of the vein or lode, and in suoh caso the patent will issue for all the land contained between such end lines and side wall: Tight to follow such vein or lode, with all angles aud variations to any ae, although it may enter the land adjoining, pro- ‘the estimated quantity shall be equal to a horizon- tal plane bounded by the ‘aren end lines and the walls on the sides of such vein or lode. Thrd— the local laws, customs or(rales of miners of the district, no surface, ground is permitted to be occupied for mining pw ‘except the surface of the vein or lode, and the walls of such vein or lode aro ascertait 8 shall be named in the description and marked diagram, in con- nection with the end lines of such claim. Fourth—Where by the laws, customs or rules of miners of the district, @ given quantity of suriact ground ig fixed for the ‘of mining or milling the ore, the aforesaid diagram and description in the entry shail ootrespond with and include #0 muoh of the suriace as shall be allowed by such laws, customs or rules the aforesnid. fh—In the absence of uniform rules in any mining istrict, limiting the amount of surface to be used for mining purposes, actual and peaceable use and occupa- tion for mining or mil! sball be regai as evidence of a custom Tiners, authorizing the same, and used in connection with mas Where the ciaimant or within their entry and diagram id the surface of the vein, it furnish th the usage, law or custom, under claim sach surface ground, and such which he or thi onal elther of the written rules of the ovia jon, by his official certificate i vaiue of thé labor and improvements and charac the testimony of two oF cognizant of the facts on which bi the vein ith toe Xposed, w' approval of ings sball be stayed until a final settlement cation are had such mit, in the courts of the rights of claim, except where the parties agree ® portion of the premises is not when « patent may issue as in other cases. So tion 7 provides for such additional land may be necessary; rection 8 for the right o tion 9 for the protection of rights to the for mining, for the and canals, and makes parties constructing a‘ter the passage of this act to tl lable in damaves, ec. 10. Homesteads made he inj prior to the p y citizens of the United States, or per red their intention to become citizen<, bu de lands no valuable mines of gold, copper have been are discovered, settlers or owners of such homesteads uantity jl 25 s of the homestead act and act} right of pre-emption thereto in ndred and sixty acres at avail themsel tory thereof. Section 11 stipulates that si the cultural, manofacturing or it of way for the construc! lands in question, the Secretary of the Interi ¢ aach portions as are cl agricultural alter snbjects such apicsinnta tena to pre-e sale as other public lands. Ta order to enable the department p oflect to this section of the law you will Doputy Surveyors to describe fn their fleid reve in addition to the data required to be printed manna! of surveying instructions, q ‘and 18, the agricultural lands, and represent township plats by Jands.”” Tt is to be understood that there is noth the designation of « on claimants to proceet andor this statu where they {ail to do so, there being no ad they hold the sane to the promi be working; act with the which they did before the additional guarantee that they t of oecupancy under the siatuta ° foregoing presents snch views aa have this office im considering the prominent statute, and will be followed by further in the rulings in actual cases and experience) mipisiration of the statute may from time gest. To the United States veyor’s General. Very al iF obediont es WILSON, Registers and serve: Comq Receiv: A transcript embracing a liat of lands so! State of California for internal improvem Stockton distil, including 449 separate covering in the aggregate an areca of 74,78 been approved vesting the fee simple in| Certified traneeripts of the approval list b: mitted by the Commissioner of the Genots to the Governor of California and to the oifices at Stockton, ‘Toe Commissioner bas just received trom General of Now Mexico, returns of survey ton Mexican claims in that territory known Pedro grant, ae grant, dontaining 3, querue aod santa Fé. 35,911 acres, acres. These east of Albuquerque about midway bot) The Commissi tranamitted to the Commissioner of Ind delivery to the parties entitied to receive t) dred and seventeen embracing an area lente for Winneb 16,008 acres tn Bine Minnesota. These lands were sold under] Cand ry Congress Ry ee February 21, 1863, for ti Winnebago Indians. x inti Thirty cases of the serien under the pro act of Congress ay nat for the rehef ex-miasion of San Jose, in the State ved March 3, been adjudicated by the late Commiasionor| SS 2% e 27,598 oral Land Office, cases, embracing in the 1865, the occupants of the f Cali Commissioner of the Gent Land Office i pared for submission to the Secretary of th ists of the sixty sections of lan: rt the Moves ofce under: the graa Michigan and Wisconsin for a mili Governor of Wisconsin bavit tion of tén continuous miles it of Mr certified to} the road ag grant. rovisions of an aot of Cong) ce ee empton t all the uncontested cases of the series, o bomber over one hundred cases. Rolecti saurogate to 1,001,011 acres of publ La Bel reel caer ‘The Ii ‘A patont carry! of Michigan for land pm Ira ant St See he i as 6 io I during December nt the ng Wisconsin, 4,601 acres of whi @avtlora under the lands ta now in simp wore: ns, the Gonoral Land