State the ment of the minority? 143. 212. 49. ana Convention; and conspiracies with and pardons of prominent rebels, and appointing them to office. See Report, 1-47, 55-59. It is urged by the minority of the committee, that an impeachlegal argument will only lie for offenses which are indictable; that the house is to impeach for offenses, not to create them; that nothing is penal except crimes (13 Encyc. Brit. 275); that Blackstone's definition of municipal law (1 Bl. Com. 44) is to be observed; that no ex post facto law shall be passed; that the definitions of crime (the same stated in this note) are to control; that, in the trial, the Senate, like the House of Lords, is a high criminal court, governed by the same rules of law and evidence as other criminal ́ courts; that the fact that the party can be convicted in another court proves this (2 Chase's Trial, 137); that they must be "crimes," such as are entitled to jury-trial (Art. III. Sec. 2); that Blount's trial was for crimes (but against what criminal law is not shown); that while Pickering's offense may not have been criminal, the plea of insanity was ignored, and the case is a disreputable precedent; that Chase must have been acquitted because mere misconduct as a judge was not a crime or misdemeanor. In Blount's case, several of the charges were proved. They were; "With intending to carry into effect a hostile expedition in favor of the English against the Spanish possessions of Louisiana and Florida; with attempts to engage the Creek and Cherokee Indians in the same expedition; with having alienated the affections of the said Indians from Ben. Hawkins, an agent of the United States among the Indians, the better to answer his said purposes; with having seduced James Cary, an interpreter of the United States among the Indians, for the purpose of assisting in his criminal intentions; and with having attempted to diminish the confidence of the Cherokee Indians in relation to the boundary line, which had been run in consequence of the treaty which had been held between the United States and the said Indians." (1 Annals of 5 Cong. 499, 919.) That the plea to the jurisdiction was sustained, on the ground that Biount was not a civil officer. (Id. 2318, 2319.) That while Peck was only arraigned for misconduct, or official misbehavior, he did not demur to the charge, but affirmed the justice of his action; that if the point, that a judge may be tried for want of "good behavior," may be admitted, it cannot apply to the President, whose tenure is for four years; that the charges against Humphries were of treason, because they were words and acts after the levying of war by South Carolina; that a fair review of the English cases shows that Parliament rested all cases upon some indictable offense, though it is admitted that definitions have been strained; fifty-five cases given by Hatsell are named (p. 71); where the effort to explain fails, the precedents are boldly attacked; the current of precedents is cited to show that the federal courts can only entertain jurisdiction of crimes, defined and made penal by Congress (United States v. Hudson, 7 Cr. 32; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415; Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cr. 95; United States v. Lancaster, 2 McLean, 33, and various others, 77, 78); that the same principle should apply to the high court of impeachment; that "other high crimes and misdemeanors," means such as may be declared by the law-making power of the United 197. 217. States, (Rawle's Const. 265); and the rest of the report is principally devoted to the facts. Report upon Impeachment of the President, 64-78. The whole argument is, that the impeachment must be for treason within the constitutional definition; for bribery within the then common-law definition; or if for other high crimes and misdemeanors, then they must be such as are created by some penal enactment of Congress; and not such as existed at, and were impeachable by, the common law. The majority of the committee assume that high crimes and misdemeanors may consist in oppressive, unjust, corrupt, and unauthorized official misconduct, although not indictable. It is not within the plan of this work to give the conclusions of the author, derived from the same class of reading. This hour of the country's history is not fortunate for a calm investigation. If we admit the conclusions of the minority report, the difficulty is only removed; for still the question would remain-which of the statute offenses would be the subject of impeachment ? Shall they be piracy, homicide, larceny, forgery, counterfeiting, robbery, defalcations, or any one of the hundred felonies and misdemeanors spread over the statutes? And shall they be confined to offenses committed within the criminal jurisdiction of the United States? Such only are indictable. Or may an impeachment be for an infamous crime against the laws of a foreign country? The question being now afloat upon the sea of public opinion, he can only hope that future writers may have more satisfactory guides. The house by a large majority sustained the minority report and refused to impeach, but still it can hardly be regarded as settling the principle, that nothing is impeachable except what is indictable as an offense against the United States. ARTICLE III. judicial SEC. 1.-The judicial power of the United States, Define the shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such in- power? ferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme Tenure of and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during 194. good behavior; and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be compensa diminished during their continuance in office. office? tion? 195. "THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES."-Ju- Define judidicialis, judex, a judge, or judicium, a judgment. Burrill's Law cial power? Dic., JUDICIAL. It is the power to hear and determine controver-8, 210, 218. sies between litigants, upon proper cases of law and fact presented for adjudication. The object was to establish a judiciary for the United States, a What was necessary department, which did not exist under the Confedera- the object? tion. (Federalist, Nos. 22, 28, 80, 81; 2 Wilson's Law Lect. ch. 3, . p. 2013 Elliot's Debates, 142, 143; Osborn v. United States How is the power contradistinguished from the law? 238. On what does the depend? 210, 211. Bank, 9 Wheat. 818, 819; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 14, pp. 290-297.) Story's Const. § 1574; Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, b. 11, ch. 6; Rawle's Const. ch. 21, p. 199. Chisholm v. Georgia, Dall. 419, 474. For the great necessity and duties of a national judiciary, also see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 384-390; Id. 402-404, 415; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; Curtis' Commentaries, § 2. With jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 819; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 328. JUDICIAL POWER, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law and can will nothing. Their discretion is a mere legal discretion. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; but always of the legislature or will of the law. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 818, 819, 866; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 14, p. 277; 3 Story's Const. § 1574, note 3 of 3d edition. But must regard the Constitution as paramount. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 178; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 20, pp. 448, 460; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 414. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends exclusively on the Constitution and laws of the United States. jurisdiction Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203; American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; 1 Curtis' Com. § 1; United States v. Drenner, Hemp. 320; United States v. Alberti, Id. 444. The federal courts have the right to determine their own jurisdiction. (The United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 1.15; The United States v. Booth, 21 How. 506.) Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 459-461. Define 211. State the power? 141, 165. 199. "SHALL BE VESTED" is mandatory upon the legislature. Its obligatory force is so imperative, that Congress could not, without a violation of its duty, have refused to carry it into operation. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 328-337; Kent's Com. Lect. 14, pp. 290-293. Congress can only VEST the power in courts created by itself. Id.; Story's Const. § 1501-1503. The words afford an absolute grant of judicial power. Id.; Story's Const. § 1594. All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress; all executive divisions of power in a President; all judicial power shall be (not may be) vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts, &c. These powers are thus absolutely vested, and it is the duty of Congress to vest the whole judicial power. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 337.) Story's Const. 1590, 1591; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 11, p. 221. And yet it cannot be denied that the duty of Congress to vest the whole judicial power, by proper legislation, is one thing; and the power to enforce that duty through any other department of the government, or to exercise it until distributed by legislation, is another.-[EDITOR. 275. 109. What is the 210, 211. "IN ONE SUPREME COURT."-SUPREME, here means the highest national tribuual, with both original and appellate jurisdiction. But this can only have original jurisdiction in two classes of cases; those affecting ambassadors, &c.; and where a State is a party. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304, 337.) Story's Const. § 1593. Congress cannot vest any portion of the power in State courts, only in courts established by itself. inferior 196. "SUCH INFERIOR COURTS."-Congress, having the power State the to establish inferior courts, must, as a necessary consequence, have power over the right to define their respective jurisdictions. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 courts? How. 448-9; 'Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 738; Turner 194, 195. v. Bank of North America, 4 Dallas, 10; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cr. 506; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 616; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 245. Therefore, "INFERIOR COURTS" HAVE TO BE ORDAINED AND Why ESTABLISHED in order that the whole "judicial power" may be inferior exercised. (Martin v. Hunter, 3 Cr. 316.) Story's Const. § 1593. courts? Congress has the exclusive power of legislating over the terri- 231, 232. tories, and consequently the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the courts established therein. (Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 236.) Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 173. And see American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 214, as to the character of territorial courts. sioners? The commissioners of the Circuit Courts of the United States are What are officers exercising functions of justices of the peace under the commislaws of the commonwealth. Sim's Case, 7 Cush. 731. Congress 224, 225. might appoint justices, without commissioning them as judges, 197, 198. during good behavior, or giving them fixed salaries. Id. 194. 197. "THE JUDGES BOTH OF THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR Define good COURTS SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.". behavior? The meaning of this is for life or until impeachment, unless, 191-194. indeed, there be power to abolish circuits and districts, and thus to dispense with supernumerary or objectionable incumbents. For a full note of the State Constitutions, as to tenure, see 1 40. Kent's Com. 11th edition, p. 295, note (a.) The territorial judges are not of this class, as they only hold four years. (American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 546.) Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 244. tional JUDGES FOR A TERM OF YEARS.-Courts in which the judges hold What are their offices for a specific, number of years, are not constitutional constitucourts, in which the judicial powers conferred by the Constitution courts? can be deposited. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546. The Supreme Court of the United States was last organized Give the as follows:-Allotment, &c., of the Judges of the Supreme Court of allotment? the United States, as made April 8, 1867, under the Acts of Con gress of July 23, 1866, and March 2, 1867. |