The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-02-04

=
superior and inferior courts. shall hold their
ofices during good behaviour" BY the eth
section of the ID article of the same i:.stru-
nient 1t Is declared that "the President, V.
President and all civil officers ofthe u. States
shall be removed from office on impeachment
tor, and conviction of treason, bribery, or o.
Their high crimes and msdemeanors" Now
SIR, there arc f7vo great principles which may
aid us in the calculation of this question:
The one is, that in the construction or expo
sition OF any writing, it should not be consi-
dered IN disjointed parts, but the whole ought
to be taken together. The otheris, that the
positive expression of one thing operates the
erctuSton ofanother not erhressed.-Let us
apply these principles to the sections of the
constitution which have referred to.-Had
the constitution after enumerating the causes
for which judge should be removed, been
Silent on the subject, there would have re-
named no doubt. The mind of the most seem
tical would have been satisfied that for no
other than treason, bribery, or other high
crimes or. misdemeanor, could, because no
other was expressed, judgebc removed
And the idea of suspension for any other of
fence would have been an obvious extension
OF the application of the section, which have
last mentioned beyond it, plain import and
meaning. But the other section first rccited
our as the duration of Office, must also be ia
Ken into consideration. What influence has
TINS section on the others Does it Contain a
ny positive express conditioned Forfeiture not
contained IN the other section, or. does it Ell
ther contradict or enlarge the other section !?
IL seems to me it does not. For the section
concerning good behaviour extends the privi-
tege OF the Judge, but does not saw that for a.
ny nusoehaUiour, he shall be displaced -
whilst by the other section it is positively sta
ted Tor what causes he shall be removed IF
the convention had intended Judge should
be removed for any lesser offence than q mis-
demeanori it would have been easy to have said
so IN express terms. They have made no
such provision. 1t is therefore faircst to pre-
sumo they intended none. This corstructi-
on is still further fortified by the last clause
ofthe Sd section of the 1st article of the con-
st'tutIoD, which states in substance that judp-
ment IN cases ofimpeaChment shall only eX-
tend to removal from and disqualification TO
hold any office under the u States. but the
party concerned shall nevertheless be sub-
Ject to indictment at law. This is an admis
sion that every improbable offence is Iihe
wise indictable Now it is well known by
gentlemen coversant in the law, that no Of
fence below Enisdenieanor is indictable.
hence 1T can be demonstrated that a INSIDE
meanor is the least offence for which any CT
WI officer of the Z. States can be impeach.
ed.
This positionis moreover corroborated nv.
the caution used in this respect, by all the
states which have made the federal constitn-
ton their model, ard particularly by the state
OF pennsylvania. In ascertainine the tenure
OF the judicial office they have expressly
declared by their constitutions that a iudre
snail be displaced for any misconduct or MS
behaviour. The constitution of Pennsylvania
upon this subject, is in these words.
The Judge OF the supreme conrt, and of
the several courts OF common pleas shall hold
their ofhces during good behaviour But for
any reasonable cause, which shall NOT be 81, f.
.fcient ground Of Impeachment, the govern
or may remove any of them, on the address
OF two thirds OF each branch of the Iegisla-
ture."
From whence we may infer that the con
stltution OF this state (and it contained manv
enlightened characters) understood the fede
raj constitution as have explained it.
The case ofChase and Pickering before the
Senate of the u. States, have been relied or
! by gentlemen, in opposition to the doctrine fo,
which have contended. The latter case i.
asserted to be in point. The very mode a.
greed on by the Senate for propounding the
question of guilt or innocence, in the trial q,
Chase, proves that they conceived thew were
trying him for misdemeanor. The question
put to each senator was whether he though,
him guilty or not of a high crime or misde.
meanor as charged in the impeachment
chickering's case is equally clear. As well as
recollecr, the grounds of his Impeachment,
were, habitual intoxication, and non-fea-
sance of official duty.
Do gentlemen seriously assert that these
offences ars not misdemeanors Are they
not violatory, (the one by commission. the O.
Their by omssion) of positive law They un.
questionably are, and come thus within tn,
proper definition of misbehavior. These ad
publications, therefore, instead of cobtrave
ming, tend to confirm the opinion, that a f.
deral Judge cannot be constitutionally reno
we'd from Office, for any offence not arnount
| ing in magnitude to at least a misdemean.
Or
This, then, being the smallest offence fo,
which judge is removable let us exa.
mine into its definition, and see whether
there are not innumerable other offences mr.,
included within its limits, but for which =
Judge ought most certainly to be displaced
A misdemeanor is explained by Blacks stone
to be 6 Al act committed or omitted in viola.
tion OF public law, either forbiddinp O,
commanding it" Christian in his notes nm.
on Lord Coke, defines misdemeanor. q,
compromising all ihdictable offences
| which do not amount to felony" Now.
will refer it 20 the wisdom of the commit
tee, whether there be not an in6nity of can.
ses, OF acts, OF moral turpitude, and of trans