The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-21


can only be asccrtained by referring to the
clause already quoted, which marks out the
acts for which, and the mode by which his
removal may bc Accomplished Far differ
ent, however, is the case of the President
We know that it is not by the article res
pecting impeachment that the responsibility
of the President is secured: the Quadrennial
election of that officer, the constitutional ex-
piration OF his term of Office, the opportuni-
ty gwen to the people of tlisplaciny him by
the exercise of the elective franchise, consti-
tutc the efficient check upon him. II then,
the President abuses his trust, if he makes
improper and ridiculous appointments if he
recommends unwholcsomc laws, if by the VIZ
client passions which agitate his soul, he in
suits the understanding Of the people, and
provokes foreign nations to war, the remedy
for these evils is to be found not in impeach-
ment before the Senate, but in the steady *
determined resolution of the people to assert
their rights, and maintain their dignity by
the election of a more useful officer. The "a
.berrations of his mind may produce infinite
mischief, but the silent operation of the
right of suffrage, will afford a complete an
tidote to the poison. If the people relied
solely on the trial by impeachment, to recti-
fy such deviatons, the President might hold
his Office for life. For what acts then, can
the President be impeached The Consti-
tuition answers the question not for miscon-
duct, or misbehayior in office, but for high
crimes and mfsdemeanors ? If then, the
President can only be impeached for some
offence, for which he may be punished accor-
ding to law, does it not follow as necessary
consequence that the impeachment of the
judges must be confined within the same Ii
mits, since the same language is applied to
both without the variation of a word, and the
whole provision is contained within the same
sentence? This conclusion seems to be con-
frnled by paragraph in the Federalist, vol.
2p. 2Il.-The writer after endeavoring to
prove that the Senate is the most proper
court for the trial of all impeachments pro-
Cceds thus "Thc punishment which may
g be the consequence of conviction upon i'm
/" parchment is rot to terminate the chas-
.. tisement of the offender. After having
as been sentenced to perpetual ostracism
t' from the esteem and confidence, and ho-
Is nors, and cmolumcnt of his countrvmen,
q he will still be liable 10 prosecution and
" punishment in the oSliinary course of law"
The trial OF Judge Chase, Mr.. Chairman,
affords in many respects an instructive lesson
both as it regards the independence of the
Judiciary, and The efficacy of the trial by
Impeachment. the great argument urged
b. his counsel, is precisely that which have
used. twas commended tnRt Judge was not
not iudictable, and i'll proving this point, they
have certainly shewn that the constitution
was very defective. ] will not fatigue the
committee by making elaborate quotations
from their speeches, but viii refer them &C.
morally to the speeches OF MI. iopkinson, &
My Martin: l beg leave however, to read
an extract from the able and eloquent obser-
rations of Mr.. Harper on this subject, as he
enfoIces the opinion which | have adopted,
OF language. Hiere MIR. Is. read an extract
from the speech OF Mr. Harper, vol @ p, 257
6 Chase's IIial) But we are asked by the
gentleman from Frederick (N1r. Tucker)
whether we arc to take the arguments of the
lawyers as solemn truths, and how we are to
ascertain upon what grounds the Senate dec-
dcd that case. 1t is true, sir, that the Sen
ate did not Condescend to inform the public
what were the reasons Of their decision, hut
1t IS possible that Judge Chase could have
been acquitted on amy other ground9 How
else cogtd he have been acquitted! There
were manifold proofs that he had attempted
to.prejudice jury against an unfortunate
man, who was arraigned on criminal charge,
that he had acteda political preacher, tina.
he had even descended to the Office OF pub
lie prosecutor; and was guilty OF the grossest
misbchayiour on the bench OF justice 1t APP
pears then, to me, that he could not have been
acquitted on any other ground than defect
IN the constitution, unless we are to consider,
with the gentleman from Frederick, the
whole trial as judicial jugglc, in which case
still farther amendment ought to be propo-
scd, and the power of impeachment totally
taken away from the Senate
Ought there then to be no other cause of
removal than the commission Of q punishable
offence | conceive there are many, and
will recitc few Of them Ii appears to me,
sir, that lunatic cannot be removed under
the present constitution, for lunacy is neither
ahgh crime, nor n1isdemeanor, it is a misfor-
tune only. You can only remove by impeach-
Ine.t, and you can only impcach for pun
ishabe offence. Would it not seem strange
Tor che House of Representatives to appear
before the Senate and impeach Judge for
high crimes and misdemeanors, and as an
instance of his criminality to charge him
with the loss f his senses To enlarge the
principle, a judge may be totally incapable
OF discharging the duties of his Office. Inca
Pacity is no crime. Shall Judge in that ST
tuation hold bis Office in spite of the public
wishes In vain may it de proved that his
judgment is impaired, that the public conf
cencc in him is gone, that individuals are in
Jnrcd or ruined by the weakness of his intel
Ject, he remains OH the Judgment seat per-
verting, misconstruing the law, and bring
ing It's decisions into contempt and odium
The absurditv of retaining incapable judges
was foresccn blythe Federalist, who attempts
-