FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330  
331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   >>   >|  
. Eaton of Connecticut. The following Republicans voted for conviction: Booth, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Dawes, Edmunds, Hitchcock, Mitchell, Morrill, Oglesby, Robertson, Sargent, Sherman, and Wadleigh. It is difficult to believe that the Senators who voted for acquittal were not, perhaps unconsciously, influenced by the desire to shield a political associate from punishment. The power to impeach public officers after leaving office had been exercised in England from time immemorial. It is well settled that when in the Constitution or legislation of the United States a term of English law is used, that the meaning customarily given to the term in English jurisprudence is to ascribed to it here. The history of this clause as found in the proceedings of the Convention that framed the Constitution, makes very clear the understanding of that body. They first inserted the words: "The Senate of the United States shall have power to try all impeachments, but no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present, which in case of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of trust and profit under the United States." The framers of the Constitution regarded the power of impeachment as absolutely essential to the working of the Government. That clearly gave the two Houses of Congress the common law powers of impeachment, as exercised by Parliament. At a later time there was added: "The Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment and conviction." That was added as a limitation on the tenure of office. It seems incredible that they should have intended, without debate or division, to wholly change and so greatly limit and narrow the clause previously adopted. It is obvious that impeachment and removal from office will be in many cases an insignificant and unimportant part of the remedy as compared with perpetual disqualification from holding office. It seems incredible that it could ever have been intended that this judgment of perpetual disqualification to hold office could only be rendered when the defendant is willing, and can be avoided by his voluntary resignation. The framers of the Constitution were very skilful Constitutional mechanics. I am satisfied that the opinion of the majority of the Senate will prevail hereafter, unless the cas
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330  
331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

office

 

impeachment

 

United

 

States

 

Constitution

 

disqualification

 
officers
 

Senate

 
conviction
 
removal

exercised

 
clause
 
incredible
 

intended

 
perpetual
 

English

 
framers
 

absolutely

 
regarded
 

tenure


powers

 
Government
 

Houses

 

common

 

Congress

 

Parliament

 

President

 

removed

 

essential

 

working


limitation

 

previously

 

voluntary

 
resignation
 
skilful
 

avoided

 

rendered

 

defendant

 

Constitutional

 

mechanics


prevail

 

majority

 
opinion
 

satisfied

 
judgment
 
narrow
 

adopted

 
greatly
 
division
 

wholly