Impeachment

A written accusation Usually by the house of representatives of a state or of the United States to the senate of the state or of the United States against an officer. The United States constitution declares that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment; art.

1, s. 2, cl.

6; and that the senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments; art.

3, s. 3, cl. 6.

The persons liable to impeachment are the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States; art.

2, s. 4.

A question arose upon an impeachment before the senate, in 1799, whether a senator was a civil officer of the United States within the purview of thl.s section of the constitution; and it was decided by the senate, by a vote of fourteen against eleven, that he was not; Senate Jour. Jan. 10, 1799; Story, Const. § 791; Rawle, Const. 213; Von Holst Const. Hist. 160. See United States Courts. The offences for which a guilty officer may be impeached are treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors; art.

2, s. 4.

The constitution defines the crime of treason; art 3, s.

3.

Recourse must be had to the common law for a definition of bribery. Not having particularly mentioned what is to be understood by “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” resort, it is presumed, must be had to parliameittary practice and the common law in order to ascertain what they are; Story, Const § 795. It is said that impeachment may be brought to bear on any offense against the constitution or the laws which is deserving of punishment in this manner or is of such a character as to render the officer unfit to hold his office. It is primarily directed against official misconduct, and is not rekrlcted to political crimes alone. The decision rests really with the senate; Black, Con^t L. 121. The guilt of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt; State v. Hastings, 37 Neb. 96, 65 N. W. 774. The mode of propeedlng in the Institution ed has been gnllty, or is supposed to have been guilty, of some malversation in office, a resolution Is generally brought' for ward by a member of the house of representatives, either to accuse the party, or for a committee of inquiry. If the committee report adversely to the party accused, they give a statement of the charges and recommend that he be Impeached. When the resolution is adopted by the house, a committee Is appointed to impeach the party at the bar of the senate, and to state that the articles of Impeachment against him will be exhibited in due time and made good before the senate, and to demand that the senate take order for the appearance of the party to answer to the Impeachment. The house then agree upon the articles of impeachment, and they are presented to the senate by a committee appointed by the house to prosecute the impeachment The senate then issues process, summoning the party to appear at a given day before them, to answer to the articles. The process is served by the sergeant-at-arms of the senate, and a return is made of it to the senate under oath. On the return-day of the process, the senate resolves itself into a court of impeachment, and the senators are sworn to do justice according to the constitution and laws. The person impeached is called to answer, and either appears or does not appear. If he does not appear, his default is recorded, and the senate may proceed parte. If he does appear, either by himself or attorney, the parties are required to form an issue, and a time is then assigned for the trial. The final decision is given by yeas and nays; but no person can be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present; Const, art.

1,. s. 2, d. 6.

See “Chase’s Trial,” and “Trial of Judge Peck also proceedings against Judge Humphreys, June 26, 1862, Congress. Globe, pt.

4, 3d sess., 32d Congress, pp. 2942-2953; and Trial of President Johnson, March 5, 1868, Congress.

Globe, pt. 6, supplement, 40th Congress, 2d sess.; Lecture by Prof. Theo. W. Dwight, before Columbia Coll. Law School, 6 Am. Law Reg. 257; Article by Judge Lawrence, of Ohio, same volume, p.

641.

When the president is tried, the chief Justice presides. The Judgment, in cases of impeachment, does not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Disqualification, as a punishment, is discretionary with the senate; Black, Const. L. 122. The party impeached remains liable to trial and punishment according to law. See Uimro States Coxtbts. Proceedings on Impeachments under the state constitutions are somewhat similar. In England, the articles of impeachment are a kind of Indictment found by the, house of commons, and tried by the house of lords. It has always been settled that a peer could be impeached for any crime. There has been none since (1806) 29 St Tr. 549. It was formerly believed that a commoner could only be impeached for high misdemeanors, not for capital offences; 4 Bla. Com. 260; but It seems now settled they may be Impeached for high treason; May’s Pari. Prac. Ch. 23. Impeachments have been very rare in England in modem times. In Evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit Every witness is liable to be Impeached as to his reputation for truth and veracity; and, if his general character is good, he is presumed at all times to be ready to support It; Baker v. Robinson, 49 111.

299. See Mc Daniel v. State, 97 Ala. 14, 12 South. 241.

Negative evidence is admissible to establish a good reputation; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, 12 Ann. Cas. 745; Day v. Ross, 164 Mass. 13, 27 N. E. 676. See Ohaeacteb; Reputation. It is not admissible to Impeach a defendant’s testimony by showing that at a former trial for a like offence, he raised a similar issue and was contradicted; Com. v. Lannan, 155 Mass. 168, 29 N. B. 467. An accused person who testifies in his own behalf, is subject to Impeachment, as other witnesses, by evidence of previous contradictory statements; Com. v. Racco, 225 Pa. 113, 73 Atl. 1067, 133 Am. St. Rep. 872; Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259, 6 S. W. 389. A witness cannot be impeached by the contradiction of immaterial statements; Jones v. Lumber Co., 58 Ark. 125, 23 S. W. 679; nor can he be as to collateral and irrelevant matter on which he was cross-examined; Garman v. State, 66 Miss. 196, 6 South. 385; People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 108, 16 Pac. 537; Kuhns v. Ry. Co., 76 la.

67, 40 N. W. 92; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. V. Townsend, 39 Kan. 115, 17 Pac. 804; Gulf, 0. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. Coon, 69 Tex. 730, 7 S. W. 492; Alger v. Castle, 61 Vt. 63, 17 Atl. 727; State v. Goodwin, 32 W. Va. 177, 9 S. E. 85.

On cross examination an accused person may be questioned as to other offenses in order to Impeach his credibility; State v. Manuel (La.) 63 South. 174. Statements out/ of court inconsistent with those made by a witness in court are admissible to impeach him, where the proper foundation has been laid; Leahey v. Ry. Co., 97 Mo. 106, 10 S. W. 68, 10 Am. St. Rep. 300; Milligan & Co. v. Butcher, 23 Neb. 683, 87 W. 696; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65, 77, App. 686, 8 S. W. 929. See Cboss-Examiwa-