PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



677 



Your committee do not feel themselves called 

 upon to discuss in this connection the legal conse- 

 quences following from the doctrine of continuation 

 of the offense in a man once receiving a bribe, be- 

 cause, if it may be laid with a continuando at all, the 

 offense must continue to attect him ever after, and, 

 therefore, having once taken a bribe, he is always 

 deemed to be under the effect of it, for the reason 

 that we are inclined to believe that at some time the 

 effect of the bribe might have spent its force, and it 

 would hardly be a safe rule for legal action to under- 

 take to determine whether that would not happen 

 in five years and might happen in ten. Certainly 

 such considerations would not apply to one who 

 had given a bribe, because the virtue thereof all 

 went out of him when he parted with his money, 

 and there was nothing left continuing in him save 

 tho lo.-ss of it. 



For the reasons so hastily stated, and many more 

 which might be adduced, your committee conclude 

 that both the impeaching power bestowed upon the 

 two Houses by the Constitution and the power of 

 expulsion are remedial only and not punitive so as 

 to extend to all crimes at all times, and are not to bo 

 in any constitutional sense or right for the pur- 

 pose of punishing any man for a crime committed 

 before he becomes a member of the House or in case 

 of a civil officer as just cause of impeachment : but 

 we agree to the analogy stated by the learned Com- 

 mittee on Credit Mobilier is in o far perfect. Both 

 are alike remedial, neither punitive. 



We have, therefore, come to the opnion that so 

 far as receiving and holding an interest in the Credit 

 Mobilier stock in concerned there is nothinz in the 

 testimony submitted to us which would warrant im- 

 peachment in the oae of the Viee-President. 



In view of all tho circumstances, your committee 

 do not deem that we arc now required to make any 

 further inquiry under tho resolution referred to us, 

 and therefore report bock the same and ask to be 

 discharged from the further consideration thereof, 

 and that the same do lie upon the table. 



JNO. A. BINGHAM. 



B. F. BUTLKK. 



CHAS. A. ELDREDGE. 



J. W. PETERS. 



L. D. SHOEMAKER. 



D. W. VOORHEES. 



I dissent from the report, but I concur in the rec- 

 ommendation to discharge the committee for want 

 of time to make further investigation, and for the 

 reason expressed in views submitted herewith. 



CLAKKSON N. POTTER. 

 February, 24, 1873. 



I concur in the conclusions of the foregoing re- 

 port so far as the same has reference to the question 

 of impeachment. I do not feel called upon by the 

 resolution submitted by the House to this commit- 

 tee to express any opinion in regard to the i>owcr 

 of the House to expel for acts committed before 

 election, and express no opinion in relation thereto. 



J. M. WILSON. 



Mr. Bntler, of Massachusetts, rose. 



Mr. Potter: "I desire to submit a report 

 from a minority of the committe." 



The Speaker: "That is reserved. The re- 

 port presenting the views of the minority will 

 now be read." 



The Clerk read as follows: 



I dissent from much of the committee's report, 

 alhonifh I am constrained to consent to the recom- 

 mendation that at this stage of the session they be 

 discharged from the subject, but that is for the fol- 

 lowing reasons: 



The resolution of the House expressly excluded 

 11 members of the House from tne action of the 

 committee. In effect, therefore, it in a direction to 

 the committee to inquire whether, upon the testi- 



mony referred to them, the impeachment or further 

 investigation concerning Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Vice- 

 President of the United States, is demanded of the 

 House. 



It would be manifestly unjust to impeach any man 

 for false statements in giving the testimony thus re- 

 ferred to us without hearing him or further investi- 

 gation. And at this stage of the session, with fivo 

 other grave and pressing impeachment cases before 

 the committee, such investigation is impossible. 



So far, however, as the testimony referred to us 

 charges Mr. Colfax with corruptionj this is other- 

 wise, that being the matter in issue in that investi- 

 gation, and as to which Mr. Colfax both testified and 

 adduced testimony and was heard. 



But for the House of Representatives to impeach 

 Mr. Colfax for that offense would be to impeach 

 him without the possibility of trial. Within five 

 days, during which the Senate will bt necessarily 

 engrossed by the most pressing legislation, Mr. Col- 

 fax's term of office will expire, and he will thereby 

 cease to bo liable to impeachment and to removal 

 from office. 



Nevertheless, while the impeachment would thus 

 be necessarily futile, I might be disposed to insist 

 upon it, but that, in recommending the House to im- 

 peach, the committee would necessarily assert the 

 power of impeachment of a civil officer for crime 

 committed before he entered upon his office. 



That question is one of exceeding gravity, involv- 

 ing the most important considerations of the power 

 of the Legislature and of the public good ; and if 

 now asserted, must be asserted without any prece- 

 dent or settled authority for there is absolutely no 

 precedent upon the subject and must be asserted 

 on an occasion where no trial can result. 



The difficulty of this question is not one of juris- 

 diction. The House has the jurisdiction in express 

 terms. The Constitution declares the House of Rep- 

 resentatives shall have tho sole power of impeach- 

 ment ; and that removal from office shall follow im- 

 peachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or 

 other high crimes and misdemeanors. Just so either 

 House may expel a member with a concurrence of 

 two-thirds of the body. And these powers the House 

 has jurisdiction to exercise absolutely and without 

 qualification, no matter how remote the offense, or 

 now repented of, or how condoned. But for the 

 House to impeach a high officer because, years before 

 he entered such office, he had been an inebriate ; or 

 to expel a member because he could not write, would 

 be a wanton and wrongful exercise of power ; would 

 be an exercise of power within its jurisdiotion but 

 without right. 



The question then recurs : Can the House by any 

 rightful exercise of its power impeach a civil officer 

 for a crime committed before his induction into the 

 office he holds? 



Upon this most grave question I repeat there is 

 absolutely no precedent either for or against the 

 action. 



The case of Blount, impeached in 1798, and ot 

 Peck, Chase, Johnson, and the other cases of im- 

 peachment, were for offenses committed during the 

 term of office then still existing. 



So the cases of expulsion a power which in this 

 respect I concede to be analogous to that of im- 

 peachment furnish us no precedent. For the coses 

 of expulsions from the Senate, like those of Blount, 

 and Smith, and Bright; and the various cases of ex- 

 pulsions from the House, were all cases of expulsion 

 for offenses committed during tho existing term of 

 office of the person expelled. 



Even the practices of Parliament furnish in this 

 respect no precedent. Wilkes's offense was com- 

 mitted after his election ; and had it been otherwise, 

 the subsequent action of Parliament in declaring 

 their course in his case to bo subversive of the rights 

 of electors would make that ease an authority against 

 rather than a precedent for the power. I am aware 

 that Blackstone says that by custom of Parliament 



