officer has been charged with offenses of a grave character, such as corrupt conduct in office, should not allow such a trivial consideration as three dollars a day to weigh at all in the balance of their duty to stay.

I submit, furthermore, Mr. President, that they should have staid, and if they could not, it is no reason why the Constitution should be violated. In other cases where the Legislature have adjourned, the matter has gone over to the next Legislature; and if you will take the trouble to examine Cushing upon that question, you will find that an adjournment of the Legislature does not in any way interfere with the proceedings. Section 2552 says:

"When an impeachment is once pending in the House of Lords, it is not discontinued by a prorogation, or even by a dissolution of Parliament, but continues from session to session, until the proceedings are terminated. Each succeeding House of Commons may, therefore, take up and proceed with an impeachment which has been commenced or prosecuted by their predecessors. But this is not the case with the preliminary steps in the House of Commons, which precede an impeachment, which, like all other unfinished business, are discontinued by a prorogation or dissolution, and therefore require to be revived in a succeeding session."

It has been said by one of the Managers very frankly that these are not the articles of the House. He says, "They are ours." I thank him for this candid admission; they are not the articles of the House. "The House shall have the sole power of impeaching-accusing." That is precisely what I have complained of—that it is done by the Managers, and not by the House, because the House are the only ones that can accuse. It is the high inquest of the State-the grand jury of the State-who alone can impeach an officer.

Then, in remarking upon the power reserved to file additional articles, he says, "that is our business." I suppose the Manager means that the reason why they reserved that power was to provide for matters that they thought might afterwards arise,

but which it was not for me to question. I do not wish to enter into or meddle with the private business of the Managers, and I only cite it for this purpose: to show that the theory was that the Managers claimed the whole power of impeaching and to define the offenses, to prescribe and say what offenses the party should be held to trial upon,-claiming in this the right to present additional articles by amendment,-only that and nothing more.

Mr. Manager Cochrane (interrupting)-Mr. Shipman, the only meaning I had was, that so far as that is concerned,—the closing part of the articles,—that being no part of the impeachment whatever, and a mere formal part, of course we are responsible for that language, and you may strike that out and the articles still remain. That is our language, simply, and whether we put that in or leave it out, makes no difference.

Mr. Shipman-I do not care to differ with the gentleman about a mere matter of form; I only cite it to bring before the Senate their theory of the case. If it were stricken out, I admit, the articles would be just as good as they are now; but I only cited it to show that they claimed this power, and that their theory was wrong; that they had usurped the powers given to to the House; and that it was a usurpation of power on their part.

It is asked again, if counsel for the respondent supposes that the Senate will declare that the law passed by them is unconstitutional. I will answer it as squarely and fairly as it is asked:-I do! They would be unworthy to sit here, if they would hesitate, a moment, to do it.

It is said that the Senators and the members of the House understood these authorities when the bill was before them, as well as now; I am unable to answer as to that; I know not whether it be true or not; but it would be very remarkable if the Senators or the Members of the House have been over the books that I have presented here; yet, it may be true; but I have not looked upon it that way; I had supposed that this

bill was the result of hasty legislation in the House; that they were anxious to get away, and the Senate was anxious to get away, and so did not stop to scrutinize it very closely, and had not the time to look up the practice in such cases. I will venture the assertion, at all events, that not one Senator in ten had really given more than a general cursory glance at the practice in such cases. If the Honorable Managers of the House were aware of these books and the authorities and the practice in such cases, how do they expect to answer for the manner in which they have discharged their duty in this matter? The articles should have been presented to the House. I supposed that the Honorable Managers, through inadvertence, or in the haste of legislation, and in the hurry to get home to their families, did not carefully look up the practice, and supposed that this power might be delegated. Inasmuch as the articles were not ready, and it would take some little time to prepare them, they thought it might be delegated to the Managers, and they be empowered to present them to the Senate. I do not suppose that they were so fully aware of the practice in such cases as is claimed. But this is not a question of practice. It is deeper than that.

It has been stated that the article cited from the cyclopedia recognizes the right to change, by the Constitution and statutes of the States, this English practice. Is it true that this is so? I admit that a mere practice may be changed, and that the common-law may be changed; but where a method of trial is incorporated into a Constitution, it becomes a constitutional law, and is beyond and above the reach of all legislative action. Why cannot gentlemen look at this matter in its constitutional light, and see that the power cannot be conferred in any way, shape, nor manner, upon any other body than that in which it is lodged by the Constitution? If so, there is no safety for us, for there is no power that rests firmly in the Constitution; or that cannot be wrested therefrom by the Legislature if they choose to do it.

Here is the report of the committee. I shall take it for granted that in that, as in other cases, parties are influenced,biased somewhat on the side which they represent. They are an ex parte committee. The Senate will observe that we were unable to get any proof before them. We could not do so, and yet with their friendliness to that side of the case, and with this ex parte testimony, they are to proceed and determine for the House the crimes and offenses for which an officer shall be held to answer at the bar of the Senate. Nothing is left to the judgment of the House. I do not believe such powers can be conferred upon a committee. I do not believe that a committee can any more find articles of impeachment than they can pass a law. I deny it! I deny it not only as counsel in this matter, but as a citizen of the State. I protest against their unlawful assumption of power in this case.

Mr. Manager Grosvenor-One question I wish to answer. The Presiding Officer-Counsel for the respondent have the right to close. No further discussion will be in order.

Mr. Manager Grosvenor-I would like to answer that one question.

The Presiding Officer-If there be no objection, you may proceed.

Mr. Manager Grosvenor-He asks me where the power for drawing Article VII. is, or where the subject matter is referred to in the report. I answer him, that articles V. and VII. refer to the same matter, only charging it in a little different language. The report says "that he had been guilty of, from time to time during his official term, being engaged or interested in private speculation connected with the purchase and sale of land scrip," etc. The two articles are covered by that general statement. One refers to the particular law violated in one, and the particular law violated in another. You see both are covered.

Mr. Shipman-I would call the attention of the Managers. to this seventh article; that is, for not paying it over.

Mr. Manager Grosvenor.-Converting the money and issuing the scrip.

The Presiding Officer-The question is upon adopting the motion made by counsel for the respondent.

Mr. Moffatt.-I move that the Senate chamber be cleared for the purpose of deliberation;

Which motion prevailed, and the chamber was cleared.

After deliberating for some time, the doors were again opened, and the Managers on the part of the House and the respondent's counsel entered the chamber and took the seats assigned them.

The Presiding Officer-I would inform the Honorable Managers, and the counsel for the respondent, that the Senate wish further time to consider the motion made by the respondent's counsel, and the further consideration of it is postponed until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Wheeler-I move that we now adjourn.

Mr. Grosvenor-Mr. President

The Presiding Officer-Does the Senator from the Twentyseventh withdraw his motion to adjourn.

Mr. Wheeler-Certainly.

Mr. Grosvenor-I have been asked by one of the Managers to inquire whether the Managers could be heard further upon the authorities.

The Presiding Officer-It would be subject to the order of the Senate, I suppose, in the morning.

Mr. Sheley-I move we now adjourn until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.

Mr. Moffatt-I move to amend that by making it ten o'clock. Mr. Moffatt withdrew his amendment, and the Presiding Officer declared the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.