instances occur in the history of that kingdom. Lord Strafford in the reign of Charles I. and Lord. Stafford in the reign of Charles II. were beheaded on the sentences of the court which decided without the aid of a jury, and both of them have been considered rather as victims to the spirit of the times, than as merited oblations to justice. But with us, although the party accused may be found guilty of the highest crime, his life is not in danger before this tribunal, and in no cases are his liberty and property affected: indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, still await him according to the usual course of law. Why then it may be asked, has this system been introduced, and why if the firmness and integrity of the ordinary tribunals cannot be overpowered by any supposed influence of character, wealth, or office, have we deemed it expedient to copy from a foreign nation an institution for which there is not the same necessity, and which we do not allow altogether to produce the same effects? One answer is, that the sentence which this court is authorized to impose cannot regularly be pronounced by the courts of law. They can neither remove por disqualify the person convicted, and therefore the obnoxious officer might be continued in power and the injury sustained by the nation be renewed or increased, if the executive authority were perverse, tyrannical, or corrupt: but by the sentence which may be given by the senate, not only the appointment made by the executive is superseded and rendered void, but the same individual is rendered incapable of again abusing an office to the injury of the public. It is therefore right and proper that the president should be disabled from granting a pardon and restoring the offender to his former competency, but there is no restraint on his pardoning when a conviction in the common course ensues, for such

par

be presumed, that a fair and full administration of justice would be wanting. Of great public delinquencies the people do not long remain in ignorance. If the offences of a member of the house of representatives were culpably passed over by his brethren, the people by the recurrence of the periodical election would soon be enabled to substitute others to prefer the accusation, and, being sensible of this, the house would be slow to expose themselves to the reproach of their constituents, and the loss of public confidence by omitting to do their duty. The senate is obliged to receive and decide on the charge, and to the strongest moral obligations is added that of an oath or affirmation. It is not probable that the effect of these united impulsions would be counteracted by other considerations, which would in themselves be criminal.

5. The legitimate causes of impeachment have been already briefly noticed. They can only have reference to public character and official duty. The words of the text are treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The treason contemplated must be against the United States. In general those offences which may be committed equally by a private person as a public officer, are not the subjects of impeachment. Murder, burglary, robbery, and indeed all offences not immediately connected with office, except the two expressly mentioned, are left to the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, and neither house can regularly inquire into them except for the purpose of expelling the member. But the ordinary tribunals, as we shall see, are not precluded, either before or after an impeachment, from taking cognizance of the public and official delinquency.

We have hitherto had but three instances of impeachment, the first of which has already been noticed. As no

decision was given on the merits, it is impossible to say whether the charges, which were chiefly founded on a conspiracy to invade the territories of the king of Spain, with whom the United States were at peace, and to excite the Creek and Cherokee Indians to concur in the outrage, would have been deemed by the senate sufficient, if proved, to support the impeachment. The second, on which a constitutional conviction took place, was against a judge of a district court, and purely for official misconduct. The third was against a judge of the Supreme Court, and was also a charge of official misconduct. It terminated in an acquittal, there not being a constitutional majority against him on any one article.

As articles of impeachment can only be exhibited by the house of representatives, if it should happen that the senate in the course of their executive functions or otherwise, became apprized of unlawful acts committed by a public officer, and in their opinions, meriting at least a public inquiry, it would be their duty to communicate the evidence they possessed, whether actual or presumptive, to the house of representatives, but the bare communication is all that would be consistent with their duty. They would cautiously avoid to recommend or suggest an impeachment, and the same would be the course pursued by the president.

Articles of impeachment need not to be drawn up with the precision and strictness of indictments. They must however be distinct and intelligible. No one is bound to answer to a charge so obscure and ambiguous that it cannot be understood. Additional articles may be exhibited, perhaps at any stage of the prosecution, certainly before the defendant has put in his answer or plea.

No precise number of senators is required to constitute the court, but no person can be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. The vice president being the president of the senate, presides on the trial, except when the president of the United States is tried. As the vice president succeeds to the functions and emoluments of the president of the United States whenever a vacancy happens in the latter office, it would be inconsistent with the implied purity of a judge that a person under a probable bias of such a nature, should participate in the trial-and it would follow that he should wholly retire from the court. It is not stated in the constitution whether the president of the senate is on the trial of an impeachment restricted, as in legislative cases, to the casting vote. As he is constituted one of the judges by being appointed to preside without any restriction, the fair inference would be, that he is entitled to vote like the other judges, but on the trial last mentioned of a judge of the Supreme Court, his vote does not appear in the printed journal.

The defendant is entitled to the benefit of counselbut it is not necessary that he should be personally present; the trial may proceed in his absence if he has had due notice to appear. The consultations of the senate, as well upon incidental points as on the main questions, are conducted in private, but the judgment is rendered in public. The judgment is of a limited and peculiar nature-it extends no further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust, or profit, under the United States.

Herein we may perceive the importance and utility of this system under our regulations. In England impeachments may be prosecuted for capital crimes, and the court may award capital punishment, of which many

instances occur in the history of that kingdom. Lord Strafford in the reign of Charles I. and Lord. Stafford in the reign of Charles II. were beheaded on the sentences of the court which decided without the aid of a jury, and both of them have been considered rather as victims to the spirit of the times, than as merited oblations to justice. But with us, although the party accused may be found guilty of the highest crime, his life is not in danger before this tribunal, and in no cases are his liberty and property affected: indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, still await him according to the usual course of law. Why then it may be asked, has this system been introduced, and why if the firmness and integrity of the ordinary tribunals cannot be overpowered by any supposed influence of character, wealth, or office, have we deemed it expedient to copy from a foreign nation an institution for which there is not the same necessity, and which we do not allow altogether to produce the same effects? One answer is, that the sentence which this court is authorized to impose cannot regularly be pronounced by the courts of law. They can neither remove nor disqualify the person convicted, and therefore the obnoxious officer might be continued in power and the injury sustained · by the nation be renewed or increased, if the executive authority were perverse, tyrannical, or corrupt: but by the sentence which may be given by the senate, not only the appointment made by the executive is superseded and rendered void, but the same individual is rendered incapable of again abusing an office to the injury of the public. It is therefore right and proper that the president should be disabled from granting a pardon and restoring the offender to his former competency, but there is no restraint on his pardoning when a conviction in the common course ensues, for such par