The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-30

him, was looked upon rs an oflencc of 70 Eeinous
a natare, that it was fometimes puni.hed rs high
treafon, before the 25th Ed. III. and at this day
It certainly is a very high offence, and puni!la-
BILE. not only with ths forfeiture of the offenders
Office of juGice, bu. alto with fine and imprfon-
ment, &C."
Mr.. PRECEDENT, the principle I have endea-
voured to efah!h, is, that no judge or other of
ticer can, under the contribution of the United
States, be removed from Office but by impcach-
ment and for the violation Of /onae Iasv, which
violation muf be, not imply crime or mifde-
meanor, but k;gb crime or mifdemeanor.
But an honorable manager MIR. Rodney
who has this morning referred to iomc aathori-
ties, as to other parts of the CAFE has alto
telted the correelnefs of the foregoing princi-
pie, and has introduced the contribution Of the
fate of Pennsylvania, by which he hath told US
Il l;,dge may by the governor be removed from
office, without the coinmiilion of any offence,
upon the vote oftwo thirds Of the two Houfes
for his removal notwithstanding that confi-
tuition hath 4 Gmilar provilion for removal by
| impeachment as hath the contribution of the u
rited States. To this anfwer as we have no
Gteb bropiFon in the contribution of the United
States, the ,ea,ere is to be inferred, to witt that
the people of the United States, from whom
the contribution emanatcd, did not intend their
judges fhou,d be removed, however obnoxious
they might he to any part, or to the qUboie, OF
The legislature, unleis they were guilty of fome
| high CRIME or mifiemeanor, and then only by
impeachment, it is ALTO well known, that the
governor of Pennsylvania, hath not conidered
thotc words in the contribution of that fate
that he may remove the judges on fuch adj
drefs," as being Imperative. For in 4 recent
initance, where he did receive fuch addrcis, in
itead of admitting the contribution to be, as
was commended, +" yon mu9' he determined it
TO he +" svN nor" and have had the pleafure
OF feeling that judge, fon,etirne iince that tranf
action. on the bench with his brethren difpen-
ling juftice. again repeat that rs the trainers
or the contribution efthe United States, did not
iniert in their contribution fuch ciaufe as is in
ferted in the contribution of Penrtylvania, it is
the arongea proof, that they did not mean I
judge or other officer fhoud be diplaced by an
addrefs of any portion of the Legislature, but
only according to the constitutional proviiions.
The fame gentleman (Mr. Rodney has told
us, that the tenure by whicf,.a Judge holds ms
office, is good behaviour, therefore that he is
removable for mifhehaviour, and furth n, that
miibehavIoUr and mi!aemcanor are anonymous
and co-eXteniive. Here perfectly agree with
the honorable gentleman, and join iIue with
him. Miibehaviour and mifdemeanor are
words equally extenfve and correlative to
mii5ehave or to mifdemean is precifely the
fame and as I have fhewn that to mifdemean.
or in other words to be guilty of mifdemean-
or, is violation of fome law punilhabIe, 70 of
! courie miibehaviour mutt be the violation of
| fimilar law.
! The fame honorable gentleman has mention,
ed the impeachment and conviction of Judge
Addition, and hath told us that he was not i'm
peached for The breach of any law, but only
| FOR rude or unpolite conduct to his brother
judge ;-that this objet7iOn was made with much
energy on his defence, but that the Senate were
convinced by the great talents and eloquence of
Mr.. Dallas, and fome other gentleman, that
the objection was groundlefs they therefore
convicted and removed him. have not here
the proceedings againf Judge Addition, and
therefore IT rs bebfbIe the Senate of Pennfylvana
erected themtelyes into court of honor TO
puniffl what they might conGder breaches of
politenefs; but doth this honorable court fit
here TO take its precedents from the fate of
Pennsylvania or any other flate, however ref
peetable ! illould rather hope that this ho-
norable court fhould fi,rnih presidents which
might be reipeeted and adopted by the differ
ent ftates. l would alto ak, when was that
precedent eftablifhed Was it not at time
when there is too much reafon to believe THAI
the warmth and violence of party had more in
snence in IT than uitice and, that the Senate
of Pennfylvania overleaped their constitutional
limits but if we are TO 60 to Pennfylvania for
! precedent why fhould we not be guided by
that, which the fame fate has 70 recently given
us in trial in which that gentleman bore 70
confpicuous part precedent of ac1uittal;
a precedent which we are perfectly willing
ihould be adopted, and which we truft will be
adopted on the prefent location.
ITO be eOnfiuued.