673 



PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



vantageously or injuriously affected by (emulative 

 action. 



The Credit Mobilier of America and its connection 

 with the Union Pacific Soilroad, and tlio conjoint 

 interest of the itockbolders of both, bare become so 

 far matters of public notoriety that your committee 

 do Dot deem it necessary to go into any recital of its 

 history in order to an understanding of their report. 

 It may, however, be convenient to have on record, 

 if thin report should ever be drawn into prec 

 that the Credit Mobilier was a State corporation, or- 

 ganized by the principal stockholders of the Union 

 Pacific road to receive from themselves the contract 

 of building that road, which had obtained by legis- 

 lative grant large endowments of lands and bonds of 

 the United Status to be held in trust only fur the 

 construction and equipment of the road, large 

 amounts of which, to a considerable number of mill- 

 ions of dollars, the stockholders of the Pacific road, 

 through the intervention of the Credit Mobilier and 

 other devices had divided, among themselves and 

 confederates, aa pretended profits of building the 

 road, while, in fact, they took to their own indi- 

 vidual profit and use these very large sums belonging 

 to the Government of the United States, and in- 

 trusted to them for a specific use only, in violation 

 of that trust. 



Drawing such inference as a jury might from the 

 evidence if unexplained, it may be claimed that the 

 stock was sold to Mr. Colfaz to influence him as a 

 member and Speaker of the House, and that it did so 

 influence his action in favor of the Union Pacific 

 road, and incidentally in his own favor as a stock 

 and bondholder in both companies. 



Your committee lay aside for the purposes of this 

 report any tiling which might be presented by the 

 accused by way of mitigatiun of the facts, or winch 

 might extenuate in any degree the supposed guilt of 

 the transaction, because we have desired, in exam- 

 ining the question submitted to us, to assume the 

 facts as clearly and broadly against the accused as 

 any inference from the evidence could possibly 

 juitify. 



Assuming, then, for this purpose, the facts above 

 stated to be proved, several questions of law meet 

 your committee upon the threshold of the inquiry 

 with which they are charged, " whether any tiling in 

 such testimony warrants articles of impeachment 

 against" Mr. Colfax as a civil officer. 



It is not in dispute that Mr. Colfax became inter- 

 ested in the Credit Mobilier stock before he was 

 looted Vice-President, and whatever were the mo- 

 Urea that impelled the transaction they were ex- 

 pected to operate upon him only as a member of the 

 House. 



Upon this question whether a bribe given n civil 

 officer to influence his conduct as such officer is an 

 Iropeacbable offense your committee can have no 

 doubt, as it is made such by the express words of t he 

 Constitution. But we are to consider, taking the 

 harshest oonstmctinn of the evidence, whether tin' 

 receipt of a bribe by a person who afterward be- 

 coraea a civil officer of the I'nited States, even while 

 hoMinir another official position, is an act upon which 

 an impeachment can be grounded to subject him to 

 removal from an office which he afterward holds. 



To elucidate this we first turn to the precedents. 



Your committee find that in all the cases of m, | 

 mcnt. or attempted impeachment, under our i '011- 

 titution. there is no instance where the accusation 

 was not in regard to an act done or omitted to be 

 done while the officer waa in office. In every case it 

 has been heretofore considered material that the ar- 

 tielcii of impeachment should allege in substance thnt, 

 Ix'ing Midi officer, and while in the exercise of the 

 dntie* of his office, the accused committed the acts of 

 alkgml inculpation. 



In tho earliest case of Impeachment by the House, 

 that of Judge Pickering, of New Hampshire, the ac- 

 cusation was not even for official act* or misconduct, 

 but be waa held impeachable by both House and 



Senate because of his habits of intoxication while in 

 office. But the gravamen of complaint in that case 

 was that those habits, and their effect, wer.t with l.iu,, 

 and kil'ected him in the performance of his official 

 duties. 



'Hie case of Judge Chase, which brought out i 



ution and defense all the legal learning and 

 ability of the most brilliant bar of our count!-. 

 founded wholly upon alleged acts of malfeasaiu 

 misfeasance while actually sitting as a judge. 



The case of Judge Peck was for an alleged im- 



R roper order upon the bench to imprison Mr. Law- 

 tss for contempt of ceurt. 



In the more recent case of the judge of the Eastern 

 District of Tennessee, the accusation was tl 

 abandoned bis duties and took part in the rebellion 

 w hile he was judge, and that official act alone was 

 imputed to him as the offense. 



In the still more recent case of a late President of 

 ited States, the acts were all imputed to him 

 as such officer ot the United States, and the 

 inittee who prepared the articles of impeachment 

 were careful to allege each act charged upon him as 

 being done in the exercise of his ot: 



Your committee have looked with some cure to 

 the precedents of impeachment under State constitu- 

 tions, which are generally fronted upon tin i 

 of the Constitution of the United States in tl.i- r. - 

 gard, and they are not aware of any case wherein on 

 act has been held to be impeuchable,orimpeacl>mi it 

 even attempted because of it, unless that act f<> ul- 

 leged to have been done was in the course of < f 

 duty iu the oilice held by the accused, to remove Mm 

 from which the constitutional remedy was proposed 

 to be applied. 



The verv recent cases of Judges Barnard and Mc- 

 Cunn, of New York, may be claimed to be an ex- 

 ception to this statement In some of the specifier 

 under the articles presented; and if so, they are the 

 only cases of even limited exception thereto, and > f 

 the legal value of that action, taken under the 

 of high political excitement in which t 

 were conducted, as precedents, the House will judge. 

 To your committee they would seem t 

 warnings, not as guides. 



Going back to the Parliament of England, from 

 whose system of parliamentary and common law we 

 have drawn all the principles which hiive heretofore 

 governed the House ana Senate in matters of im- 

 peachment, wo find no case, since the rights of tho 

 subject and principles of law and justice have 

 established, wherein a like rule is not follow < d. 



Your committee are not unmindful that, uml< 

 claim of omnipotent power by the Parliament of 

 England to make lnws without any substantial : 

 live on the part of the executive, in times of high 

 party feeling, the power of impeachment residing in 

 the Commons has been used as a punitive power as 

 well as a remedial one, and, in some instances, has 

 been extended to offenses alleged to have 

 mitted while the officer was holding anothir . !>v, . 

 But your committee would also cull attention to the 

 fuel thnt in some cases impeiichmei 1 \MIS medal n 

 method of punishing a subject ho held no oilier nt all. 



In short, vl . n Hi. Commons of England held the 

 power as against the executive, tin v rirn-i,. 

 King's favorites by impeachment. Wblle the Stu- 

 arts held the power as against the Commons, tin v 

 punished the favorites of tho people by the Stnr 

 Chamber. Our Constitution, in the judgment of the 

 committee, has furnished a safeguard against both 

 of these sources of oppression. Both were well 

 known and considered by our fathers in framing the 

 Constitution. Turning to the debates, meagre as 

 they are, It will appear that apprehension was f. It 

 that impeachment might be used ngnint-t the citizen 

 as a punitive power, and therefore words strictly 

 guarding the extent to which the judgment might 

 operate find place in that charter, enacting that the, 

 punishment of crime should be left to the ordinary 

 tribunals of justice. 



