and, what is of far greater importance, in view of the Constitution and the principles of eternal justice, in what manner has the President of the United States been treated by the House of Representatives?  Mr. John Covode, a Representative from Pennsylvania, is the accuser of the President.  Instead of following the wise precedents of former times, and especially that in the case of Judge Peck, and referring the accusation to the Committee on the Judiciary, the House have made my accuser one of my judges.

To make the accuser the judge is a violation of the principles of universal justice, and is condemned by the practice of all civilized nations.  Every freeman must revolt at such a spectacle.  I am to appear before Mr. Covode, either personally or by a substitute, to cross-examine the witnesses which he may produce before himself to sustain his own accusations against me; and perhaps even this poor boon may be denied to the President.

And what is the nature of the investigation which his resolution proposes to institute?  It is as vague and general as the English language affords words in which to make it.  The committee is to inquire, not into any specific charge or charges, but whether the President has, by “money, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence,” not the action of any individual member or members of Congress, but “the action” of the entire body “of Congress” itself “or any committee thereof.”  The President might have had some glimmering of the nature of the offense to be investigated had his accuser pointed to the act or acts of Congress which he sought to pass or to defeat by the employment of “money, patronage, or other improper means.”  But the accusation is bounded by no such limits.  It extends to the whole circle of legislation—­to interference “for or against the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of any State or Territory.”  And what law does not appertain to the rights of some State or Territory?  And what law or laws has the President failed to execute?  These might easily have been pointed out had any such existed.

Had Mr. Lawless asked an inquiry to be made by the House whether Judge Peck, in general terms, had not violated his judicial duties, without the specification of any particular act, I do not believe there would have been a single vote in that body in favor of the inquiry.

Since the time of the star-chamber and of general warrants there has been no such proceeding in England.

The House of Representatives, the high impeaching power of the country, without consenting to hear a word of explanation, have indorsed this accusation against the President and made it their own act.  They even refused to permit a Member to inquire of the President’s accuser what were the specific charges against him.  Thus, in this preliminary accusation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against a coordinate branch of the Government, under the impeaching power, the House refused to hear a single suggestion, even in regard to the correct mode of proceeding, but without a moment’s delay passed the accusatory resolutions under the pressure of the previous question.