Daily globe., 1878-07-15
THE PAGE IMPEACHMENT

THE PAGE IMPEACHMENT
Senator Waite, of Mankato, Gives the
Reasons for His Vote of Acquittal-An
Able Argument in Support of the Doc
trine That Impeachment Courts Must be
Governed by the Rules of Law.
The following is the opinion of Senator
Waite, of Mankato, and gives his reasons IN
ertenso for his vote. Coming from so ripe
legal mind, and SO worthy citizen as
Judge Waite it will be read with interest by
thousands, and will go far toward convincing
all fair-minded men that the decision of the
court of impeachment was based upon law
and evidence. 1t was filed with Clerk John
son in this city on Saturday:
Our constitution provides that certain of
icers may be i'm peached for corrupt conduct
in office and for crimes and misdemeanors.' It
is claimed by the prosecution that the words
''crimes and misdemeanors'' do not mean what
we would understand at first blush, to-wit:
legal crimes, but extend to all sorts of NAL
administration, misbehavior or misconduct in
or out of office, whether criminal or not, there
by leaving the question ito the arbitrary dis
cretion of the Senate" SO that it could make
that a crime at one time or on one
person, which would be deemed innocent at
| another time in another persons" which, in
! word, would invest this court with powers
| underlined by law. Such authority is the
sence of despotism, and is not entrusted to any
other court or department in this country. 1t
| is to regulate the powers of the courts, the de-
partments and public officers that we frame
constitutions, enact statutes, and adopt the
common law, which latter contains the accumu-
nod
to circumstances; and is SO multifarious in its
provisions, that it is impossible to
codify it. 1t is to be found IN
| legal elementary works, in the
arguments of counsel, and chiefly in the decis-
ions of courts. 1t is against the policy of this
law and of all enlightened modern government
| to endow courts with underlined powers.
Impeachment was used in England in early
times, and was sometimes perverted to con-
demn those whom the government desired to
put out of the way. Not being sufficiently
available for this purpose, attainder was instl-
tuted. By this the government could by mere
| legislative enactment without granting hear
ing to the accused, confiscate his property and
attaint the blood of himself and his descend
ants. Impeachment gave the right OF de-
! fense to the accused. 1t became obsolete
after the introduction of attainder. But in
progress of time the barbarous use of attalnder
| became odious, fell into disuse, and lmpeach-
ment was revived. 1t was again used to some
extent for unjust political purposes, wherefore
''crimes and misdemeanors" were held to cover
every kind of misconduct. 1t was the exercise
of this underlined power that formerly consti-
tuted the main feature of the ''law parliament
ary" technically so-called, and it is claimed to
be the law in this country for the same lati-
tudinarian purpose. The supreme court OF the
United States has decided that the common law
forms no part of the criminal law
of the national government, and hence the
question has frequently arisen whether the of
fenses charged by impeachment under that
government are in fact impeachable 1t seems
to me that the efficiency of this remedy has
powerfully stimulated, if it has not actually
given rise to, the claim that the law parlla
mentary" exists in this country. In impeach
ments under uhe State governments no sucf
ineficiency is felt; because in all of them The
common law applies to criminal offenses
1t has never been clearly explained how th'
} s'law parliamentary" has been introduced int
this country. The English common Law
was adopted by enactments of th'
! colonial legislatures, and by con
t stitutions created during the revolution, pro
viding that it, together with the British
statutes as they existed at periods therein pre-
scribed, though not entirely uniform, shoult
be the law so far as they applicable to th
Y situation a'e0 circumstances; but in none o
s them was the law parliamentary mentioned
nor was it adapted to the situation and circum
that impeachment was not used in them. L
n all the new States the common law, as it exist
ed in this country at the time they were organ
!, ized has been adopted by statute or by tn
courts. Our supreme court has recognized
: as the law Of this State.
Some have claimed that the adoption of tn
writ of Impeachment in the constitutions {
: this country has brought with it the Claw pa
e liamentary." But it seems clear. as Professt
Z Dwight says in his sixth Am. Law Reg, p. 25
Impeachment is simply mode Of procedur
l. It presupposes the existence of the crime II
/ the redress of which the trial is instituted
+, In word. it relates to the remedy only.
- Congress may apply the rules of common La
: to crimes, and the nauion can exercise a mo
u enlightened and undisputed power in tryi1
IL ip4peachments. 1t will not then need the a
g of this extraordinary law. But it appears th
n in England it is now held that no otfense
- improbable unless it is lndlctable. 1t
~ claimed by Professor Dwight and others tn
y this was the settled law of England before t
s. adoption of our national constitution Is
le Melville's case, 2Jth Hornells State trials,
le l.47O, decided in 1906 said to be the last il
ye parchment case in EnglandD In that case t
n house of lords required the opinion OF t
y judges, who decided that none of the chars
> > constituted an indictable offense; for viii
. reasons the lords refused to convict. 1t shou
is be particularly noted that while the theory t1
Up courts of Impeachment have unlimited powt
y. over the o1enSeS TO be trled IN England, wpl
to they quote for authority, has d
e carded the dangerous doctrine
ev peatedly, that the ''law parliamentar
~ would not establish what is claimed for it. \
- a decision of any court has been made in Il
hg country that the law parliamentary has be
introduced here President Johnson's a
other impeachment trials, were cited by
prosecution to establish the doctrine. II
only show the individual opinion of the me
bers of the court usually divided. No decis
m has been made by the court on this questi
rs, wherefore the cases are of no authority.
80 1t seems to be the settled law of this count
Nc that criminal and penal statutes should
he plain meaning to the language of con
oh tuition. l have been moved
'rn write out this opinion mainly to
If what little could to put down what I deem
- be latitudinarian and dangerous doctrine.
Ioo think the members of the court should
tfo bound by the rules of law.
the In our State, crimes and misdemeanors C,
inc mitted out of Office are impeachable, beca
rk. the language makes them so. and becaus
les shows mind equally depraved whether c.
,ilt mitted in out of Office. Our constitut
N provides also that corrupt conduct in office
w. impeachable. This suppose to be always
ins dictable. 1t is a very comprehensive cla
INK and will cover all, or nearly
the cases cited in the notes to p;
665 and 666 of vol. vi, Auer. Law Reg. of Jr
Lawrences article impeachment. II
cases are cited by managers in impeachn
arv trials, to illustrate the necessity of the :
parliamentary" or, at any rate, of latit
ays marian construction. If a judge does an az
ant injustice to another, with criminal intent,
his a corrupt act in Office, though he profits not
,ere by it.
90 In order to impeach the respondent it sh
~: ~ clearly appear in proof that he did the
'aln with criminal intent. A mistake in a j
goes for nothing.