El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-01-13
Origin of Impeachments
Constitution Prohibits Reprieves or
PardOns to Impeached
Officials.
BY Frederic J. Haskin

closely related are the American and
English systems that the average brief
1 in an impeachment case before the
| senate deals almost as much with Eng
! lish as with American pFecedents-
COnstrue Phrase Differently.
The main contention in the major
lty of the impeachment trials that
have taken place before the senate
has been the construction of the
phrase, high crimes and miSdemean-
Ors." The defence usually claims that
these crimes and mlSdemeanOrS are
only those that are indictable IN
courts of law. The contention of judge
Archibald is developed along that line.
On the other hand, the house mana
gers always, or nearly always, have
cOntended that they do not refer eX-
clusively to acts that are crimes and
misdemeanOrs at law. And they have
pointed 10 English precedent to prove
this. They cite the case OF lord
chancellor who was impeached for af-
fixing the great seal to what was re-
garded as an ignOminious treaty; of a
lord admiral impeached for neg1ecting
the safeguard of the sea; of a cOun-
cillor who gave a king bad advice, and
dozens of other cases where the rem
edy could not have been applied by
the ordinary courts.
Varying Opinions by Lawmakers.
The debates of the constitutional
convention reveal many widely varying
opinions concerning impeachments.
Some members advocated a court of
impeachment composed of the chief
justices of all the state supreme
courts. Mr.. Madison of Virginia OBJ
jected to a trial of the president by
the senate, especially in view of the
fact that the power of Impeachment
was to be reposed in the house. He
thought that this would give congress
control over the president and keep
him in fear of it He wanted the
supreme court to try impeachments,
nane - - s-E -
bunal that should do so. 1t is evil
dent that Mr.. Madison did not realize
how party spirit was destined to
prove a practical insurance against the
successful impeachment of the presi-
dent
Mr.. Morris insisted that the senate
was the only proper tribunal He
4 thought the supreme court too few
IN numbers and too likely to be
warped and corrupted. He thought
the greatest danger that could come
to the country would be legislative
tyranny, but that to vest the trial OF
impeachment cases in the senate
would not augment that danger. Mr..
Pinkney opposed giving the power CT
trying impeachments of the president
to the senate. He thought congress
might combine against him-fears that
were destined TO be realized when
president Johnson was impeached.
Impeachment for Presidents.
The question of whether the presi-
dent should be impeachable at all was
one that excited no little debate in
the constitutional convention. Mr..
Pinkney and Mr. Morris held that ne
ought not to be- ME- Davie said that
if he were not he would go to any
length to secure his reelection. Mr.
Morris asserted that he could commit
no criminal act without cOadjutOrs,
and that they could be punished. Col.
Mason replied that he did not think
any man ought to be above Justice.
x OH
the right of impeachment was not
recognized, assassination had been the
alternative. Mr.. King observed that
the reason impeachment for judges
had been established was the fact that
they were to hold office during good
behavior, and that there must be some
tribunal to determine whether or not
their behavior had terminated their
right 10 continue in office. He could
see no like reason for Impeachment
of the president
Gouverneur Morris then remarked
that he had been converted by the
arguments that had been produced,
and that he could now see the neces-
sity of providing a method of impeach-
ing the president When the vote was
taken only Massachusetts, and South
Carolina voted against impeaching
presidents.
Senate as Impeachment Court.
When the constitution finally was
adopted II contained a number of pro-
hlSlO4S WIN reference 10 lmDeacn-
ments and impeachment proceedings.
It gives to the house the sole power
or trying the impeached, with the
exception that where the impeached
official is the president of the United
States, the presiding officer shall not
be the vice president or the president
pro tempore, but the chief justice of
the supreme court No person cam be
convicted except with the concurrence
Of W5-thirds of the members present.
a nj rrTT y
in an impeachment trial can have is
to Gust the impeached official from
office and to disqualify him to hold
any office Of honor. profit or trust
under the United States. But this does
not preclude his being tried and pun
1shed for these offenSes in the courts
of the land While the president IS
vested with power to grant reprieves
and pardons for all Offenses against
the United States upon which convic-
tons are secured, the constitution ex-
pressly inhibits his granting reprieves
and pardons in cases Of impeachment.
Novel Questions Arise.
When congress has come to eXer-
else its powers as the organ of i'm
parchment, the house acting as grand
jury and prosecuting attorney and the
senate as the trial court, many con-
stitutional questions have been raised.
For instance, when the senate was
sitting in the case of president John
son, there was some question whether
II was sitting as a court or not. Inc
chief justice declared that the senate,
sitting in an impeachment trial, was a
different body from the senate sit
ting as a legislative body. But the
senate. accepting that statement as
true, still was unwilling to admit that
it was in any sense a court, and passed
a resolution declaring that it was sit
ting as the senate and not as a court.
In the Belknap case the question
was raised whether an impeachment
trial could be conducted by the senate
in special session. After the matter
was put to the senate in various forms
it finally decided that while the pres
ence of the house is not necessary to
an impeachment trial, proceedings can
go on only while congress Is in ses-
sion. When the time for voting came
in the Belknap case there was much
controversy concerning the form 1t
should take. The senators who want
ed to vote for his acquittal did not
want to do so on the ground that he
was innocent Of the charges brought
against him, but rather upon the
ground that he, having resigned before
the house voted to impeach him. was
no longer a civil officer of the United
States and therefore not improbable
Senator'S Explain Their Votes.
A straight vote Of guilty or not
guilty. as is the rule in impeachment
proceedings. would not record the
views Of senator's. so they decided that
when the presiding officer should call