The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1913-01-11
Impeachment Trials
1.-The Archibald Case.
BY Frederic j. Haskin

Whatever the outcome of the i'm
parchment proceedings in the United
States senate against Judge w. Arch
bald of The commerce court, it seems
certain that their conclusion will mark
an important epoch in American juris-
prudence. If the verdict of the senate,
sitting as a tribunal of Impeachment,
is against Archibald, the opponents of
the growing sentiment in favor OF the
recall Of judges will be heartened, and
they will begin with renewed vigor
their argument against the recall. On
the other hand, if it's findings fail to
Dust Judge Archibald, this will be
taken by the proponents of the recall
as proof positive that the present i'm
parchment system affords no remedy
against the corrupt judge, and they
will make the most of the case in their
propaganda in favor of the recall.
Not only is the Archibald case
epochal in it's bearings, but there are
unique IN the history of impeachment
proceedings. In the first place, the
Boland charges, which set the whole
proceedings into motion, were not in
themselves, of a nature to justify inn
parchment. 1t was only when these
charges were being investigated that
the real evidence upon which the pro-
ceedings were based was found. Again,
it is unique in that it is the first time
in the history of impeachments in the
United States hat the very admins
tration that appointed the judge, pro-
duced the evidence upon which inn
parchment proceedings against him
were based.
When the house decided to impeach
Archibald it took a step unprecedented
in the history of impeachments by the
federal government. 1t authorized the
ings to employ counsel, the expense
involved to be paid out of the con-
tingent fund of the house. There vas
no limit fixed as to the fee, n the
managers We're given carte blanche in
the choice of legal talent. But so
impressed were they with the work
that twenty nine-year-old- Wrisley
Brown had one in investigating the
case for the department of justice,
that they unanimously agreed to ask
the attorney general to allow Brown
to act as their counsel.
1t was the first time in the history
of the senate that a lawyer for the
nous managers had ever appeared in
a case, and Browns right to be there
was quickly questioned by Senator
Bailey n others. The theory upon
which they objected to his having any
part in the procedure was that the
power of Impeachment was supposed
to lie wholly outside Of the executive
branch, and that Browns coming in
to the case violated this theory, since
he was an assistant to the attorney
general. The upshot of the matter
vas that Brown was permitted to APP
pear on condition that he should not
be permitted to address the senate in
the final summing up.
One point has been raised in the
case of Judge Archibald that never has
been raised heretofore. Six of the
articles of impeachment relate to acts
that he is charged with having com
mitted before he was elevated to a
circuit %judgeship, and while he was a
district judge. The question arises
whether he can be impeached for ACT.
committed in another office. His at.
torneys say that he cannot In sup
port of this contention they assert tina