The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-11-24


United State: During good BY impeachment by the H.
behaviour iof Rep. before the Senate.
~ tamp!hiTe During good BY impeachment, and by
behaviour aodreis OF the legils-
ljn.tices peace ture the Governor
years
Mahachuietts During good BY Impeachment, and by
behaviour the Governor & Coun-
Iluttices peacel Gil, addrels Of both
years Houies
Connecticut Annual APP lUiually appointed during
pointmeht capacity TO lerve, unles
guilty of mjIshaviOar.
r. Iland Ditto Ditto.
Vermont Annually, &IlmpeachmeDt by sfIembly;
oitener i. tried by the Governor &
Reed be Council
New-York During good Disqualified, when ixty
behaviour years old.
n. Jeriey I5uP court 7limpsaehmsnt by the az
|Infe. years iealbly tried by the
eligible council.
PENNY ivania iDaring good Gov. may ad. of Z
behaviour of each Houfe, &c.
Delaware Ditto 1T. by the preceding me-
thod & Cd by imp. by
the r Z of all agreeing
Maryland Ditto For milbehayiour, IN con-
vietion in court of law 3,
by the gov. on add. An
I each homie concurring
Kentucky Ditto Impeachment; or by JOINT
address of Of both hou-
f.s of the Legislature.
Virginia Ditto impeachment by H. of ID.
Judges Of gen court tried
by g App. * vice verla.
Carolina Ditto Imp. by alemby or g.jury
* tried by peeisl court.
s. Carolina Ditto Imp. by aiiembIy, tried by
ienate.
Georgia 8 years, re- On imp. or movable by
eligible gov. on add. Of of both
houles Of the silemby
Tenneaee During good On impeachH,ent.
behaviour
Ohio years, dur IOn imp. by maj Of aHthe
ling good be members Il decided by
haylour Z Of all the lenators.
Thus il appears that in 8 ftates, igdge nav
he removed by the governor, on addreGs of both
Houfes of the Legislature in two of theft
10 Mdntchuietts and Eew-Hampfbire, that
bare majority Of both houfes 10 fuiiicient.--
There is another RiII more Griking fact that
in Connecticut by far the mon federal Rate in
the union, Judge Is 70 far from holding his feat
during good brbaviomr, that he is liable to be
turned out every year.
But it is frequently sked, why fhould we
multiply barriers againft the corruptions of the
bench Is not the prefent constitutional right
OF Impeachment an adequate reiource againft
all poflible emergencies
NBut how does this argument Rand the ten of
experience, even within few years pat and in
our own country? rhe follies and the pafions
of Chaie the wide range of politicel pcrfecu-
tons which ftained his administration, and his
lawefs efforts to irample down the flcred right
of jury trial, are all upon record; add 70 too
are the circumstances of his impeachment and
acquittal. Aud where is the judge who after
fuch fceuc as this is, can pof5Iy fear to he
brought to jaaice Or where is he man, who
can behold fuch a mockery Of in.ulied iunice,
without procIaiming the trial by impeachment
to be an Idle and expeaGUe pageantry, and the
preisnt Responsibility of our judgcsto be al emp
ty fogud
1t is not the mere circumstance of his acquit.
tai alone hut the principles which were adj.
vanced on that trial and partly formed the
grounds OF his aCquiital, thai arc calculated to-
thake our faith IN the efficiency Of this nodc ct
trial. II tine fphere Of impeachment is TO be H.
miied to- tboie cafes only, which we're marked