The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-10-22
THE Law OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE LAW OF IMPEACHMENT.
A writer in tho National IntelGgencer, who sign
himself ga Member Of the Baltimore Bar" hal
published Q most interesting article on "Arres
and Suspension, from Office in case of tho I'm
parchment OF the President from which We OK
tract the following lengthy quotation from Profes
sor Theo. W. Dwight, prepared as a lecture to til,
students Of the Columbia College Law School, New
York. and published at length in the American
Law Register, March, 1867: &
sl@Resehmeqts are 3 "a method Of trying
is a course Of proceeding for treason, the same o.
in case Of grand jury, which is another method.
10 Id. 795. '.'Phey (impeachment and indictment
a. a, in TIM I'M point potmr OF e FORM r m ~; $50. sMImpsaehmen
a sufficient statement to bring the accused 70 plead
and not to demm." per Finch, 16 ii. 354. such il
the language OF many authorities.
Upon this topic it is important to make two in.
4uiries First. What were the subjects under the
English law, which could be tried by impeach-
ment: second, what cases under our systom can
ne trled IN this manner. In examining tho first
question. it must be conceded that tho Judgments
or the courts are not absolutely uniform. This
could hardly DO expected both because there is no
system or appeal, by means Of which authoritative
precedents could be established, and because the
House OF Lords has been ut times impelled by fac
ton, or overborne by importantly, or overawed by
followed" So said the great Seiden, in q speech
which he mado as ono Of the Committoe 81 tho
House in, the impeachment Of Radcliffe. 1T were
rules and foundations of this House than to rest
upon scattered instances" IA How. 8. r.. Az
me decided weight Of authority is, that no inn
other words, for a breach Of the common or statute
law, which, If Committed within any county Of
ENGLAND, wenld be the subject Of indictment or in
Rom the doctrine already establlshed,y th h1e' i'm.
presupposes tie e%xhistenoe Of the crime, for tho re- 9.
have been TIE check upon The most a MhIs woM sc1
ton OF the House of Lords, II It might decide The
existence OF 3 common law crime, without refer
ence to already settled rules? This tribunal was
only rarely called to act. During the reign Of the
Tudor family its functions were entirely suspended.
The rules OF the common law courts wore in daily
discussion and exercise. The fundamental dis
tinction between ,felonies and WAS
fully recognized by 1.-THE House Of Lords in cases Of
impeachment.
dlotion, both upon authority and principle. not
wlthstandinR q few isolated instances apparently
TO the contrary, that no impeachment can be had
q crime had been committed, had the case been
properly before it. There are, no doubt, extreme
cases fayorl19g an opposite view. Thus the, Duke
frivolous charges, on the ground that he had pro-
posed an adjournment while a member of tho
House of Lords. The Commons were 80 offended
o bill which they had mSuch.at heart, that thew ao 9.
companled the impeachment with q petition 10 the
King 70 remove the Duke from oil Offices ot pablo
r. 49,, IN which Tic petition IN the Lords refused to Join.
lower House, resolved that no obstacle shall stand
the way ofits shortest path to its destined goal.
IN ano cary u. tines . quarrel between great noblemen
that the matter was brought up for disposition in
Parliament. In such o feud between the Bishop
or Winchester, and the Duke Of Gloucester, A. D..
the party accused, and the Lords "enjoineds them
TO be firm friends for tho future, and BY such IN
Gem wrought upon them that they shook
and aEresment, which gave q mighty satisfaction
TO all people" 4 How, s. n, 1879 PerIaps no
ingenious Ss plan. has been devised to esttlt the
A strong instance 81 the exercise Of a Lro.d
OF impeachment is found in the last CHARGE
the worthless judges Of Charles us reign. ICS.
=. Scroggs. = Its words are: ''Whereas said W,
sscroggs beng advanced to be Chief Justice Of tho
OF Kings. Bench, ought, by q sober, grave
example to the Kihg's liege people, and to dennean
% ssssx' Il ,y y,;s 80; a, ssia g. VI: soSoges, on the or 7
|dehaancIserles, shd liz 70 eranda tS SeSesses ana
co1rses, dqth.daily affront Almighty God, dishon-
or MS majesty, give conntenauce and encourage
htrlng ths highest scandal on the public Justice cf
! Inns was an article in an impeachment for HIGH
treason! The articles were never tried. so that
they only serve to show how far the doctrine of
fonstrgctYe treason" may be pushed by inoe-
MONS !Th. committees: lls Lords Journals; 1915
Inc Danger Of q loose construction Of tie ju-
dlcial power OF q legislative body was most strik-
ilngiy shown when the House of Commons, during
she revolution, IN consequence of the abolition Of
the House OF Lords, had ,centered within It both
At the trial Of james Haylop, an insane ranter. Who
wonid now be semitic lunatio asylum there was
2 large minority voting to put him TO death for
to whip hin, set him in the pillory. bore hss
through with o hot iron, and to con8ne
hi1n IN Hridewe4 at hard labor. ~ lll1.,
Wv VINE ahe sne Irregular oasss Npon th!a subject are
Jew, tne RUG tnat 9 true. crime must haVb boon
sSnmitted is settled beyond. dispute. This is
COMMONS Per whom flushed with power or .ohafsd wlth
Ehey assert that the great statute Of 25 Edw.o III,
aenning treason, is not applicable totrlal by i'm.
Theyfpl$Sasiblya maintained thatAth LII me H.
only Tor the courts Of ordinary criminal Justice.
p and d. that the statute itself applied . different rule
s sassio oatsf IL sh 'fs7 %ss T. e. Sssss Ssstaiia se az gsg9sIks s ssSs ;s' s.
impeachment must administer the same law as
U.s. sas Sr! a%hsa tt ssa Tssr 81 d RSw; 81 {; :. ~ a2ls as:|sa 81 /,
s !; a1s'; c z ms Ssssea sr ssasssa ia Hse sS seaasss T ass
directed to be heard in a court OF law. &c How.
2. Il, SII.I, 4nJhe case OF lingo Jones, against
Ehom 2 ehsfas mas naadlA Of tzpulltag, down q
church, the Commons refused to impeach, on the
ground That i yes q matter, Of, private right.
n Hatselps Precedents, 1873. ~ A.1 ~
j str!4genoy. Of tAes9 rules often led the
Houses, when under excitement, 10 pass bills OF
They could enact that an Obnoxious
person was guilty. y they could not prove his Of
toiseet; !, J, .in.s 0osrss J, was fssortea to- I'm tths well
Fas Hill q oarsnd st. ri X ' thaSiss az az, W. Seso mais
time, could not be successfully impeaohedT tie
King intended to bring him before the Court OF
thes borq Htigh StewaFlls whiah spnldba oYganisea
& Esa e 4 a@ae slgssl' s yH3ssa' a., a ssas I gssaG a ae' y
I,a The j Itch s,';s s yaSl %ost q ep.AS s ls.ys decisions, ore
Earl D afsosiss did, wild ii Mss nsessssn isSys 3! s Ina
BIT one time Lord Chancellor, the case was put e.
c on ;r%;sy,S e. saeR3 ssiminality "a y Ahsss6jeot Of
ted the statute Of = d.:VL, 4. 30. concerning the
administration Of Justice, while he rested his de-
fence on the, fact That 1T, WAS not criminal for o
Judge to receive presents, either ~ common or
statute low. The decision OF this case against
Macclesfield is criticised by Lord Mahon and 9TH
ers, but is defended byiCampbell, opshea rouitd
that the statute Of Ed! 9Th was violatedi ID How
ST.. S28; 4Csmpy,f Lord Chan. 586. q this is ono
bf the best-considared cases on the subject, and
preceded the formation Of our Constitution sabyy
only Few years. The last case Of impeachmeht
In England, that Of Lord Melville, In 1906, for
malvorsation in Office, 10 very instructive. The
Question was put to the judges whether the acts
With which he was charged were unlawful. so
As to bA the subject OF information. or indictyHent.
1t having heanS decided that they were mot. Lord