Impeachment

In English Law. 'The prosecution of a peer or commoner by the house of commons at the bar of the house of lords for treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors. 6 Enc. Laws Eng. 318. In American Law. A proceeding against a public civil ofl Bcer, ordinarily prosecuted by the more numerous body of the legislature at the bar of the other, for the removal of such of Qcer from office. In Practice. An attack on the testimo Hy of a witness by showing his lack of timony by showing that the facts at issue are other than as testified to.

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-

A criminal proceeding agfiinst a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" for example, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer. In England, a prosecution by the house of commons before the house of lords of a commoner for treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or of a peer for any crime. In evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has bcen examined is unworthy of credit.

— Articles of impeachment. The formal written allegation of the causes for an impeachment, answering the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.

— Collateral impeachment. The collateral impeachment of a judgment or decree is an attempt made to destroy or evade its effect as an estoppel, by reopening the merits of the cause or showing reasons why the judgment should not have been given or should not have a conclusive effect, in any collateral proceeding, that is, in any action or proceeding other than that in which the judgment was given, or other than an appeal, certiorari, or other direct proceeding to review it.

— Impeachment of annuity. A term sometimes used in English law to denote anything that operates as a hindrance, impediment or obstruction of the making of the profits out of which the annuity is to arise. Pitt v. Williams, 4 Adol. & EL 885.

— Impeachment of waste. Liability for waste committed ; or a demand or suit for compensation for waste committed upon lands or tenements by a tenant thereof who, having only a leasehold or particular estate, had no right to commit waste. See 2 Bl. Comm. 283 ; Sanderson v. Jones, 6 Fla. 480, 63 Am. Dec. 217.

— Impeachment of witness. Proof that a witness who has testified in a cause is unworthy of credit. White v. Railroad Co., 142 Ind. 648, 42 N. E. 456; Com. v. Welch, 111 Ky. 530, 63 S. W. 984; Smith y. State, 109 Ga. 479. 35 S. E. 59.

A criminal! proceeding against a public olficer, before a guust politica] court, instituted by a written aceusation called “articles of impeachment;” for exainple, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an olficer. In England, a prosecution by the house of commons before the house of lords of a commoner for treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or of a peer for any crime. In evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit.

const. law, punishments. Under the constitution and laws of the United States, an impeachment may be described to be a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States, to the senate of the United States, against an officer. " The presentment or written accusation is called articles of impeachment. The constitution declares that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, art. 1, s. 2, cl. 5; and that the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, art. 1, s. 3, cl. 6. The persons liable toimpeachmentare 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 wasacivil officer of the United States within the purview of this section of the constitution, and it was decided by the senate, by a vote of fourteen against eleven, that he was not: Senate Journ. 10th January, 1799; Story on Const. § 791; Rawle on Const. 213, 214; Serg. Const. Law, 376. The offences for ‘which a guilty officer may be impeached are treason, bribery, and fines the crime of treason, art. 8, 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 parliamentary practice and the common law in order to ascertain what they are. Story, § 795. The mode of proceeding in the institution and trical of impeachments is as follows. When a person who may be legally impeached has been guilty, or is supposed to have been guilty, of some malversation inoffice, a resolution is generally brought forward by a member of the house of representatives, either to accuse the party, or for a committee of inquiry. Ifthe 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 issue process summoning the party to appear at a given day before them, to answer to the articles. The process is served by the sergeant-atarms of the senate, and a return is made of it to the senate under oath. On the return day of the process the senate resolve themselves into a court of impeachment, and the senators are then sworn to do justice acanswer, and either appears or does not appear. If he does not appear his default is recorded and the senate may proceed ez parte. If he does appear, either by himself or attorney, the parties are required to form an issue, anda time is then assigned for the trial, ‘The proceedings on the trial are conducted substantially as they are upon common judicial trials. If any debates arise among the senators they are con-. ducted in secret and 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, cl. 6. When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside. ‘The judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States. Proceedings on impeachments under the state constitutions are somewhat similar. Vide Courts of the United States..