[301]

600601
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
cordi ngl y the process adopted i n the case of
France i n 1798.
Noti ce to a forei gn government of the abrogati on of a treaty i s authori zed
by a joi nt resol uti on (V, 6270).
I t has been the usage for the Executi ve, when
i t communi cates a treaty to the
Senate for thei r rati fi cati on, to com-
muni cate al so the correspondence of the nego-
ti ators. Thi s havi ng been omi tted i n the case of
the Prussi an treaty, was asked by a vote of the
House of February 12, 1800, and was obtai ned.
And i n December, 1800, the conventi on of that
year between the Uni ted States and France,
wi th the report of the negoti ati ons by the en-
voys, but not thei r i nstructi ons, bei ng l ai d before
the Senate, the i nstructi ons were asked for and
communi cated by the Presi dent.
The mode of voti ng on questi ons of rati fi cati on
i s by nomi nal cal l .
The Senate now has rul es governi ng i ts procedure on treati es.
SEC. LI I I . I MPEACHMENT.
* * * * *
These are the provi si ons of the Consti tuti on of
the Uni ted States on the subject of
i mpeachments. The fol l owi ng i s a
sketch of some of the pri nci pl es and
practi ces of Engl and on the same subject:
Juri sdi cti on. The Lords can not i mpeach any
to themsel ves, nor joi n i n the accusati on, be-
cause they are the judges. Seld. J udic. in Parl.,
12, 63. Nor can they proceed agai nst a com-
moner but on compl ai nt of the Commons. I b., 84.
601. J urisdiction of
Lords and Commons
as to impeachments.
600. Procedure of the
Senate as to treaties.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[302]
602
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
The Lords may not, by the l aw, try a commoner
for a capi tal offense, on the i nformati on of the
Ki ng or a pri vate person, because the accused i s
enti tl ed to a tri al by hi s peers general l y; but on
accusati on by the House of Commons, they may
proceed agai nst the del i nquent, of whatsoever
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the of-
fense; for there they do not assume to them-
sel ves tri al at common l aw. The Commons are
then i nstead of a jury, and the judgment i s gi ven
on thei r demand, whi ch i s i nstead of a verdi ct.
So the Lords do onl y judge, but not try the del i n-
quent. I b., 6, 7. But Wooddeson deni es that a
commoner can now be charged capi tal l y before
the Lords, even by the Commons; and ci tes
Fi tzharri ss case, 1681, i mpeached of hi gh trea-
son, where the Lords remi tted the prosecuti on to
the i nferi or court. 8 Greys Deb., 3257; 2
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618,
1619, 1641; 4 Blackst., 25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73
Seld., 160418.
Accusati on. The Commons, as the grand i n-
quest of the nati on, becomes sui tors
for penal justi ce. 2 Wood., 597; 6
Grey, 356. The general course i s to
pass a resol uti on contai ni ng a cri mi nal charge
agai nst the supposed del i nquent, and then to di -
rect some member to i mpeach hi m by oral accu-
sati on, at the bar of the House of Lords, i n the
name of the Commons. The person si gni fi es that
the arti cl es wi l l be exhi bi ted, and desi res that
the del i nquent may be sequestered from hi s
seat, or be commi tted, or that the peers wi l l take
602. Parliamentary
law as to accusation
in impeachment.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[303]
603604
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
order for hi s appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2
Wood., 602, 605; Lords J ourn., 3 J une, 1701; 1
Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.
I n the House of Representati ves there are vari ous methods of setti ng
an i mpeachment i n moti on: by charges made on the
fl oor on the responsi bi l i ty of a Member or Del egate (I I ,
1303; I I I , 2342, 2400, 2469; VI , 525, 526, 528, 535, 536);
by charges preferred by a memori al , whi ch i s usual l y
referred to a commi ttee for exami nati on (I I I , 2364,
2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI , 543); or by a resol uti on dropped i n the
hopper by a Member and referred to a commi ttee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941
42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the Presi dent (I I I , 2294,
2319; VI , 498); by charges transmi tted from the l egi sl ature of a State (I I I ,
2469) or Terri tory (I I I , 2487) or from a grand jury (I I I , 2488); or from
facts devel oped and reported by an i nvesti gati ng commi ttee of the House
(I I I , 2399, 2444). I n the 93d Congress, the Vi ce Presi dent sought to i ni ti ate
an i nvesti gati on by the House of charges agai nst hi m of possi bl y i mpeach-
abl e offenses; the Speaker and the House took no acti on on the request
si nce the matter was pendi ng i n the courts and the offenses di d not rel ate
to acti vi ti es duri ng the Vi ce Presi dents term of offi ce (Sept. 25, 1973, p.
31368); see I I I , 2510, wherei n the Commi ttee on the Judi ci ary (to whi ch
the matter had been referred by pri vi l eged resol uti on) reported that a ci vi l
offi cer (the Vi ce Presi dent) coul d not be i mpeached for acts or omi ssi ons
commi tted pri or to hi s term of offi ce; but see I I I , 1736, however, the Vi ce
Presi dents request that the House i nvesti gate charges agai nst hi s pri or
offi cal conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on moti on, to a sel ect
commi ttee.
A di rect proposi ti on to i mpeach i s a questi on of hi gh pri vi l ege i n the
House and at once supersedes busi ness otherwi se i n
order under the rul es governi ng the order of busi ness
(I I I , 20452048; VI , 468, 469; Jul y 22, 1986, p. 17294;
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; see Proce-
dure, ch. 14, sec. 15). I t may not even be superseded by an el ecti on case,
whi ch i s al so a matter of hi gh pri vi l ege (I I I , 2581). I t does not l ose i ts
pri vi l ege from the fact that a si mi l ar proposi ti on has been made at a pre-
vi ous ti me duri ng the same sessi on of Congress (I I I , 2408), previ ous acti on
of the House not affecti ng i t (I I I , 2053). So, al so, proposi ti ons rel ati ng to
an i mpeachment al ready made are pri vi l eged (I I I , 2400, 2402, 2410; Jul y
22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resol uti ons provi di ng
for sel ecti on of managers of an i mpeachment (VI , 517), proposi ng abate-
ment of i mpeachment proceedi ngs (VI , 514), reappoi nti ng managers for
i mpeachment proceedi ngs conti nued i n the Senate from the previ ous Con-
gress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84), empoweri ng managers to hi re speci al l egal and
cl eri cal personnel and provi di ng money for thei r payment (Jan. 3, 1989,
p. 84), and repl aci ng an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a
604. A proposition to
impeach a question of
privilege.
603. Inception of
impeachment
proceedings in the
House.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[304]
605606
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
resol uti on si mpl y proposi ng an i nvesti gati on, even though i mpeachment
may be a possi bl e consequence, i s not pri vi l eged (I I I , 2050, 2546; VI , 463).
But where a resol uti on of i nvesti gati on posi ti vel y proposes i mpeachment
or suggests that end, i t has been admi tted as of pri vi l ege (I I I , 2051, 2052,
2401, 2402). A commi ttee to whi ch has been referred pri vi l eged resol uti ons
for the i mpeachment of a federal ci vi l offi cer may cal l up as pri vi l eged
resol uti ons i nci dental to consi derati on of the i mpeachment questi on, i n-
cl udi ng conferral of subpoena authori ty and fundi ng of the i nvesti gati on
from the conti ngent fund (now referred to as appl i cabl e accounts of the
House descri bed i n cl ause 1(h)(1) of rul e X) (VI , 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p.
2349). A resol uti on authori zi ng deposi ti ons by commi ttee counsel i n an
i mpeachment i nqui ry i s pri vi l eged under rul e I X and the Consti tuti on as
i nci dental to i mpeachment (Speaker Wri ght, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).
The i mpeachment havi ng been made on the fl oor by a Member (I I I , 2342,
2400; VI , 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesti ng
i mpeachment havi ng been made by memori al (I I I , 2495,
2516; 2520, VI , 552), or even appeari ng through com-
mon fame (I I I , 2385, 2506), the House has at ti mes ordered an i nvesti gati on
at once. At other ti mes i t has refrai ned from orderi ng i nvesti gati on unti l
the charges had been exami ned by a commi ttee (I I I , 2364, 2488, 2491,
2492, 2494, 2504, 2513). Under the l ater practi ce, resol uti ons i ntroduced
through the hopper under cl ause 4 of rul e XXI I that di rectl y cal l for the
i mpeachment of a federal ci vi l offi cer have been referred to the Commi ttee
on the Judi ci ary, whi l e resol uti ons cal l i ng for an i nvesti gati on by that com-
mi ttee or by a sel ect commi ttee wi th a vi ew toward i mpeachment have
been referred to the Commi ttee on Rul es (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873).
The House has al ways exami ned the charges by i ts own commi ttee before
i t has voted to i mpeach (I I I , 2294, 2487, 2501). Thi s
commi ttee has someti mes been a sel ect commi ttee (I I I ,
2342, 2487, 2494), someti mes a standi ng commi ttee
(I I I , 2400, 2409). I n some i nstances the commi ttee has
made i ts i nqui ry ex parte (I I I , 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 2511);
but i n the l ater practi ce the senti ment of commi ttees has been i n favor
of permi tti ng the accused to expl ai n, present wi tnesses, cross-exami ne (I I I ,
2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (I I I , 2470, 2501, 2511,
2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219). The Commi ttee on the Judi ci ary
havi ng been di rected by the House to i nvesti gate whether suffi ci ent
grounds exi sted for the i mpeachment of Presi dent Ni xon, and the Presi dent
havi ng resi gned fol l owi ng the deci si on of that commi ttee to recommend
hi s i mpeachment to the House, the chai rman of the commi ttee submi tted
from the fl oor as pri vi l eged the commi ttees report contai ni ng the arti cl es
of i mpeachment approved by the commi ttee but wi thout an accompanyi ng
resol uti on of i mpeachment. The House thereupon adopted a resol uti on (1)
taki ng noti ce of the commi ttees acti on on a resol uti on and Arti cl es of I m-
peachment and of the Presi dents resi gnati on; (2) accepti ng the report and
authori zi ng i ts pri nti ng, wi th addi ti onal vi ews; and (3) commendi ng the
606. Procedure of
committee in
investigating.
605. Investigation of
impeachment charges.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[305]
607608
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
chai rman and members of the commi ttee for thei r efforts (Aug. 20, 1974,
p. 29361).
I ts commi ttee on i nvesti gati on havi ng reported, the House may vote the
i mpeachment (I I I , 2367, 2412; VI , 500, 514; Mar. 2,
1936, p. 306791), and, after havi ng noti fi ed the Senate
by message (I I I , 2413, 2446), may di rect the i mpeach-
ment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a si ngl e Member (I I I ,
2294), or by two (I I I , 2319, 2343, 2367), or fi ve Members (I I I , 2445) or
ni ne (Jul y 22, 1986, p. 17306). These Members i n one notabl e case rep-
resented the majori ty party al one, but ordi nari l y i ncl ude representati on
of the mi nori ty party (I I I , 2445, 2472, 2505). The chai rman of the commi ttee
i mpeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral accusati on (I I I , 2413, 2446,
2473), and requests that the Senate take order as to appearance; but i n
onl y one case has the parl i amentary l aw as to sequestrati on and commi ttal
been fol l owed (I I I , 2118, 2296), l ater i nqui ry resul ti ng i n the concl usi on
that the Senate had no power to take i nto custody the body of the accused
(I I I , 2324, 2367). Havi ng del i vered the i mpeachment, the commi ttee re-
turns to the House and reports verbal l y (I I I , 2413, 2446; VI , 501). I n the
l ater practi ce the House consi ders together the resol uti on and arti cl es of
i mpeachment (VI , 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 306791) and fol l owi ng
thei r adopti on adopts resol uti ons el ecti ng managers to present the arti cl es
before the Senate, noti fyi ng the Senate of the adopti on of arti cl es and el ec-
ti on of managers, and authori zi ng the managers to prepare for and to con-
duct the tri al i n the Senate (VI , 500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393,
3394; Jul y 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206).
Process. I f the party do not appear, procl ama-
ti ons are to be i ssued, gi vi ng hi m a
day to appear. On thei r return they
are stri ctl y exami ned. I f any error
be found i n them, a new procl amati on i ssues,
gi vi ng a short day. I f he appear not, hi s goods
may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld.
J ud. 98, 99.
The managers for the House of Representati ves attend i n the Senate
after the arti cl es have been exhi bi ted and demand that process i ssue for
the attendance of respondent (I I I , 2451, 2478), after whi ch they return
and report verbal l y to the House (I I I , 2423, 2451; VI , 501). The Senate
thereupon i ssue a wri t of summons, fi xi ng the day of return (I I I , 2423,
2451); and i n a case wherei n the respondent di d not appear by person
or attorney the Senate publ i shed a procl amati on for hi m to appear (I I I ,
2393). But the respondents goods were not attached.
608. The writ of
summons for
appearance of
respondent.
607. Impeachment
carried to the Senate.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[306]
609610
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
Arti cl es. The accusati on (arti cl es) of the Com-
mons i s substi tuted i n pl ace of an
i ndi ctment. Thus, by the usage of
Parl i ament, i n i mpeachment for wri ti ng or
speaki ng, the parti cul ar words need not be spec-
i fi ed. Sach. Tr., 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords
J ourn., 3 J une, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.
Formerl y, the House exhi bi ted i ts arti cl es after the i mpeachment had
been carri ed to the bar of the Senate; i n the l ater practi ce, the resol uti on
and arti cl es of i mpeachment have been consi dered together and exhi bi ted
si mul taneousl y i n the Senate by the managers (VI , 501, 515; Mar. 10,
1936, pp. 348588; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126). The managers, who are el ected
by the House (I I I , 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI , 500, 514, 517; Mar. 2, 1936,
pp. 3393, 3394) or appoi nted by the Speaker (I I I , 2388, 2475), carry the
arti cl es i n obedi ence to a resol uti on of the House (I I I , 2417, 2419, 2448)
to the bar of the Senate (I I I , 2420, 2449, 2476), the House havi ng previ ousl y
i nformed the Senate (I I I , 2419, 2448) and recei ved a message i nformi ng
them of the readi ness of the l atter body to recei ve the arti cl es (I I I , 2078,
2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 19335). Havi ng exhi bi ted the arti cl es the man-
agers return and report verbal l y to the House (I I I , 2449, 2476). The arti cl es
i n the Bel knap i mpeachment were hel d suffi ci ent, al though attacked for
not descri bi ng the respondent as one subject to i mpeachment (I I I , 2123).
I n the proceedi ngs agai nst Judge Ri tter, objecti ons to the arti cl es of i m-
peachment, on the ground that they dupl i cated and accumul ated separate
offenses, were overrul ed (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606).
These arti cl es are si gned by the Speaker and attested by the Cl erk (I I I ,
2302, 2449), and i n form approved by the practi ce of the House (I I I , 2420,
2449, 2476).
Arti cl es of i mpeachment whi ch have been exhi bi ted to the Senate may
be subsequentl y modi fi ed or amended by the House (VI , 520; Mar. 30,
1936, pp. 459799), and a resol uti on proposi ng to amend arti cl es of i m-
peachment previ ousl y adopted by the House i s pri vi l eged for consi derati on
when reported by the managers on the part of the House (VI , 520; Mar.
30, 1936, p. 4597).
For di scussi on of substanti ve charges contai ned i n arti cl es of i mpeach-
ment and the consti tuti onal grounds for i mpeachment, see 175, supra
(accompanyi ng Const., art. I I , sec. 4).
Appearance. I f he appear, and the case be cap-
i tal , he answers i n custody; though
not i f the accusati on be general . He
i s not to be commi tted but on spe-
610. Parliamentary
law as to appearance
of respondent.
609. Exhibition and
form of articles.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[307]
611
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
ci al accusati ons. I f i t be for a mi sdemeanor onl y,
he answers, a l ord i n hi s pl ace, a commoner at
the bar, and not i n custody, unl ess, on the an-
swer, the Lords fi nd cause to commi t hi m, ti l l he
fi nds sureti es to attend, and l est he shoul d fl y.
Seld. J ud., 98, 99. A copy of the arti cl es i s gi ven
hi m, and a day fi xed for hi s answer. T. Ray.; 1
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb.,
379. On a mi sdemeanor, hi s appearance may be
i n person, or he may answer i n wri ti ng, or by at-
torney. Seld. J ud., 100. The general rul e on ac-
cusati on for a mi sdemeanor i s, that i n such a
state of l i berty or restrai nt as the party i s when
the Commons compl ai n of hi m, i n such he i s to
answer. I b., 101. I f previ ousl y commi tted by the
commons, he answers as a pri soner. But thi s
may be cal l ed i n some sort judi ci um pari um
suorum. I b. I n mi sdemeanors the party has a
ri ght to counsel by the common l aw, but not i n
capi tal cases. Seld. J ud., 102, 105.
Thi s paragraph of the parl i amentary l aw i s l argel y obsol ete so far as
the practi ce of the House of Representati ves and the
Senate are concerned. The accused may appear i n per-
son or by attorney (I I I , 2127, 2349, 2424), and take the
stand i n hi s own behal f (VI , 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936,
pp. 537086; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29149), or he may not
appear at al l (I I I , 2307, 2333, 2393). I n case he does not appear the House
does not ask that he be compel l ed to appear (I I I , 2308), but the tri al pro-
ceeds as on a pl ea of not gui l ty. I t has been deci ded that the Senate
has no power to take i nto custody the body of the accused (I I I , 2324, 2367).
The wri t of summons to the accused reci tes the arti cl es and noti fi es hi m
to appear at a fi xed ti me and pl ace and fi l e hi s answer (I I I , 2127). I n
al l cases respondent may appear by counsel (I I I , 2129), and i n one tri al ,
when a peti ti on set forth that respondent was i nsane, the counsel of hi s
son was admi tted to be heard and present evi dence i n support of the peti -
ti on, but not to make argument (I I I , 2333).
611. Requirements of
the Senate as to
appearance of
respondent.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[308]
612613
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
Answer. The answer need not observe great
stri ctness of the form. He may
pl ead gui l ty as to part, and defend
as to the resi due; or, savi ng al l excepti ons, deny
the whol e or gi ve a parti cul ar answer to each ar-
ti cl e separatel y. 1 Rush., 274; 2 Rush., 1374; 12
Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords J ourn., 13 Nov., 1643;
2 Wood., 607. But he cannot pl ead a pardon i n
bar to the i mpeachment. 2 Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr.,
735.
I n the proceedi ngs fol l owi ng the i mpeachment of Presi dent Andrew John-
son, the answer of the Presi dent took up the arti cl es one by one, denyi ng
some of the charges, admi tti ng others but denyi ng that they set forth i m-
peachabl e offenses, and excepti ng to the suffi ci ency of others (I I I , 2428).
The form of thi s answer was commented on duri ng preparati on of the rep-
l i cati on i n the House (I I I , 2431). Bl ount and Bel knap demurred to the
charges on the ground that they were not ci vi l offi cers wi thi n the meani ng
of the Consti tuti on (I I I , 2310, 2453), and Swanye al so rai sed questi ons
as to the juri sdi cti on of the Senate (I I I , 2481). The answer i s part of the
pl eadi ngs, and exhi bi ts i n the nature of evi dence may not properl y be at-
tached thereto (I I I , 2124). The answer of the respondent i n i mpeachment
proceedi ngs i s messaged to the House and subsequentl y referred to the
managers on the part of the House (VI , 506; Apr. 6, 1936, p. 5020; Sept.
9, 1986, p. 22317).
Repl i cati on, rejoi nder, &c. There may be a rep-
l i cati on, rejoi nder, &c. Sel. J ud.,
114; 8 Greys Deb., 233; Sach. Tr.,
15; J ourn. H. of Commons, 6 March, 16401.
A repl i cati on i s al ways fi l ed (for the form of repl i cati on i n modern prac-
ti ce, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and i n one i nstance the pl eadi ngs pro-
ceeded to a rejoi nder, surrejoi nder, and si mi l i ter (I I I , 2455). A respondent
has al so fi l ed a protest i nstead of pl eadi ng on the meri ts (I I I , 2461), but
there was objecti on to thi s and the Senate barel y permi tted i t. I n another
case respondent i nterposed a pl ea as to juri sdi cti on of offenses charged
i n certai n arti cl es, but decl i ned to admi t that i t was a demurrer wi th the
admi ssi ons perti nent thereto (I I I , 2125, 2431). I n the Bel knap tri al the
House was sustai ned i n averri ng i n pl eadi ngs as to juri sdi cti on matters
not averred i n the arti cl es (I I I , 2123). The ri ght of the House to al l ege
i n the repl i cati on matters not touched i n the arti cl es has been di scussed
613. Other pleadings.
612. Answer of
respondent.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[309]
614615
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
(I I I , 2457). I n the Louderback (VI , 522) and Ri tter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971)
i mpeachment proceedi ngs, the managers on the part of the House prepared
and submi tted the repl i cati on to the Senate wi thout i ts consi derati on by
the House, contrary to former practi ce (VI , 506). The Senate may consi der
i n cl osed sessi on vari ous prel i mi nary moti ons made by respondent (e.g.,
to decl are the Senate rul e on appoi ntment of a commi ttee to recei ve evi -
dence to be unconsti tuti onal , to decl are beyond a reasonabl e doubt as the
standard of proof i n an i mpeachment tri al , and to postpone the i mpeach-
ment tri al ) pri or to voti ng i n open sessi on to di spose of those moti ons (Oct.
7 and 8, 1986, pp. 29151 and 29412).
Wi tnesses. The practi ce i s to swear the wi t-
nesses i n open House, and then ex-
ami ne them there; or a commi ttee
may be named, who shal l exami ne them i n com-
mi ttee, ei ther on i nterrogatori es agreed on i n the
House, or such as the commi ttee i n thei r di scre-
ti on shal l demand. Seld. J ud., 120, 123.
I n tri al s before the Senate wi tnesses have al ways been exami ned i n open
Senate, al though exami nati on by a commi ttee has been suggested (I I I ,
2217) and uti l i zed (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 4533). I n
the 74th Congress, the Senate amended i ts rul es for i mpeachment tri al s
to al l ow the Presi di ng Offi cer, upon the order of the Senate, to appoi nt
a commi ttee to recei ve evi dence and take testi mony i n the tri al of any
i mpeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). I n the tri al of Judge Cl ai borne the
Senate di rected the appoi ntment of a commi ttee of twel ve Senators to take
evi dence and testi mony pursuant to rul e XI of the Rul es of Procedure and
Practi ce i n the Senate when Si tti ng on I mpeachment Tri al s (S. Res. 481,
Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and i n Ni xon v. Uni ted States, 113 S. Ct. 732
(1993), the Supreme Court refused to decl are unconsti tuti onal the appoi nt-
ment of such a commi ttee to take evi dence and testi mony.
Jury. I n the case of Al i ce Pi erce, 1 R., 2, a jury
was i mpanel ed for her tri al before a
commi ttee. Seld. J ud., 123. But thi s
was on a compl ai nt, not on i mpeachment by the
Commons. Seld. J ud., 163. I t must al so have
been for a mi sdemeanor onl y, as the Lords spi r-
i tual sat i n the case, whi ch they do on mi s-
demeanors, but not i n capi tal cases. I d., 148.
The judgment was a forfei ture of al l her l ands
615. Relation of jury
trial to impeachment.
614. Examination of
witnesses.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[310]
616
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
and goods. I d., 188. Thi s, Sel den says, i s the
onl y jury he fi nds recorded i n Parl i ament for
mi sdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, i f the de-
l i nquent doth put hi msel f on the tri al of hi s
country, a jury ought to be i mpanel ed, and he
adds that i t i s not so on i mpeachment by the
Commons, for they are i n l oco propri o, and there
no jury ought to be i mpanel ed. I d., 124. The Ld.
Berkel ey, 6 E., 3, was arrai gned for the murder
of L. 2, on an i nformati on on the part of the
Ki ng, and not on i mpeachment of the Commons;
for then they had been patri a sua. He wai ved
hi s peerage, and was tri ed by a jury of
Gl oucestershi re and Warwi ckshi re. I d., 126. I n 1
H., 7, the Commons protest that they are not to
be consi dered as parti es to any judgment gi ven,
or hereafter to be gi ven i n Parl i ament. I d., 133.
They have been general l y and more justl y con-
si dered, as i s before stated, as the grand jury;
for the concei t of Sel den i s certai nl y not accu-
rate, that they are the patri a sua of the accused,
and that the Lords do onl y judge, but not try. I t
i s undeni abl e that they do try; for they exami ne
wi tnesses as to the facts, and acqui t or condemn,
accordi ng to thei r own bel i ef of them. And Lord
Hal e says, the peers are judges of l aw as wel l
as of fact; 2 Hale, P. C., 275; Consequentl y of
fact as wel l as of l aw.
No jury i s possi bl e as part of an i mpeachment tri al under the Consti tu-
ti on (I I I , 2313).
Presence of Commons. The Commons are to be
present at the exami nati on of wi t-
nesses. Seld. J ud., 124. I ndeed,
616. Attendance of
the Commons.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[311]
617618
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
they are to attend throughout, ei ther as a com-
mi ttee of the whol e House, or otherwi se, at di s-
creti on, appoi nt managers to conduct the proofs.
Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. J ourn., 4 Feb.,
170910; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment i s not to
be gi ven ti l l they demand i t. Seld. J ud., 124. But
they are not to be present on i mpeachment when
the Lords consi der of the answer or proofs and
determi ne of thei r judgment. Thei r presence,
however, i s necessary at the answer and judg-
ment i n case capi tal I d., 58, 158, as wel l as not
capi tal ; 162. * * *.
The House of Representati ves has consul ted i ts own i ncl i nati on and con-
veni ence about attendi ng i ts managers at an i mpeach-
ment. I t di d not attend at al l i n the tri al s of Bl ount,
Swayne, Archbal d. Louderback and Ri tter (I I I , 2318,
2483; VI , 504, 516); and after attendi ng at the answer
of Bel knap, deci ded that i t woul d be represented for the remai nder of the
tri al by i ts managers al one (I I I , 2453). At the tri al of the Presi dent the
House, i n Commi ttee of the Whol e, attended throughout the tri al (I I I ,
2427), but thi s i s excepti onal . I n the Peck tri al the House di scussed the
subject (I I I , 2377) and reconsi dered i ts deci si on to attend the tri al dai l y
(I I I , 2028). Whi l e the Senate i s del i berati ng the House does not attend
(I I I , 2435); but when the Senate votes on the charges, as at the other
open proceedi ngs of the tri al , i t may attend (I I I , 2388, 2383, 2440). Whi l e
i t has frequentl y attended i n Commi ttee of the Whol e, i t may attend as
a House (I I I , 2338).
* * * The Lords debate the judgment among
themsel ves. Then the vote i s fi rst
taken on the questi on of gui l ty or
not gui l ty; and i f they convi ct, the
questi on, or parti cul ar sentence, i s out of that
whi ch seemeth to be most general l y agreed on.
Seld. J ud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.
The questi on i n judgment i n an i mpeachment tri al has occasi oned con-
tenti on i n the Senate (I I I , 2339, 2340), and i n the tri al of the Presi dent
the form was l eft to the Chi ef Justi ce (I I I , 2438, 2439). I n the Bel knap
618. Voting on the
articles in an
impeachment trial.
617. Attendance of
the House of
Representatives.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[312]
619
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
tri al there was much del i berati on over thi s subject (I I I , 2466). I n the Chase
tri al the Senate modi fi ed i ts former rul e as to form of fi nal questi on (I I I ,
2363). The yeas and nays are taken on each arti cl e separatel y (I I I , 2098,
2339) i n the form Senators, how say you? i s the respondent gui l ty or not
gui l ty? (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29871). But i n the tri al of the Presi dent the Senate,
by order, voted on the arti cl es i n an order di fferi ng from the numeri cal
order (I I I , 2440), adjourned after voti ng on one arti cl e (I I I , 2441), and ad-
journed wi thout day after voti ng on three of the el even arti cl es (I I I , 2443).
I n other i mpeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to provi de the
method of voti ng and putti ng the questi on separatel y and successi vel y on
each arti cl e (VI , 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558).
Judgment. Judgments i n Parl i ament, for
death have been stri ctl y gui ded per
l egem terrae, whi ch they can not
al ter; and not at al l accordi ng to thei r di screti on.
They can nei ther omi t any part of the l egal judg-
ment nor add to i t. Thei r sentence must be
secundum non ul tra l egem. Seld. J ud., 168, 171.
Thi s tri al , though i t vari es i n external ceremony,
yet di ffers not i n essenti al s from cri mi nal pros-
ecuti ons before i nferi or courts. The same rul es of
evi dence, the same l egal noti ons of cri mes and
puni shments, prevai l ed; for i mpeachments are
not framed to al ter the l aw, but to carry i t i nto
more effectual executi on agai nst too powerful
del i nquents. The judgment, therefore, i s to be
such as i s warranted by l egal pri nci pl es or prec-
edents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The Chan-
cel l or gi ves judgment i n mi sdemeanors; the Lord
Hi gh Steward formerl y i n cases of l i fe and
death. Seld. J ud., 180. But now the Steward i s
deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613.
I n mi sdemeanors the greatest corporal puni sh-
ment hath been i mpri sonment. Seld. J ud., 184.
The Ki ngs assent i s necessary to capi tal judg-
619. J udgment in
impeachments.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004
[313]
620
JEFFERSONS MANUAL
ments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not i n mi s-
demeanors, Seld. J ud., 136.
The Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States (art. I , sec. 3, cl . 7) l i mi ts the
judgment to removal and di squal i fi cati on.
The order of judgment fol l owi ng convi cti on i n an i mpeachment tri al i s
di vi si bl e for a separate vote i f i t contai ns both removal and di squal i fi cati on
(I I I , 2397; VI , 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment re-
qui res a majori ty vote (VI , 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). Under earl i er
practi ce, after a convi cti on the Senate voted separatel y on the questi on
of puni shment (I I I , 2339, 2397), but under a recent rul i ng, no vote i s re-
qui red by the Senate on judgment of removal from offi ce fol l owi ng convi c-
ti on, si nce removal fol l ows automati cal l y from convi cti on under arti cl e I I ,
secti on 4 of the Consti tuti on (Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). Thus, the Presi di ng
Offi cer di rects judgment of removal from offi ce to be entered and the re-
spondent removed from offi ce wi thout separate acti on by the Senate on
the questi on of puni shment where di squal i fi cati on i s not contempl ated
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873).
Conti nuance. An i mpeachment i s not di scon-
ti nued by the di ssol uti on of Par-
l i ament, but may be resumed by the
new Parl i ament. T. Ray 383; 4
Com.
J ourn., 23 Dec., 1790; Lords J our., May 15,
1791; 2 Wood., 618.
I n Congress i mpeachment proceedi ngs are not di sconti nued by a recess
(I I I , 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505); and the Pi ckeri ng i mpeachment
was presented i n the Senate on the l ast day of the Seventh Congress (I I I ,
2320); and at the begi nni ng of the Ei ghth Congress the proceedi ngs went
on from that poi nt (I I I , 2321). The resol uti on and arti cl es of i mpeachment
agai nst Judge Louderback were presented i n the Senate on the l ast day
of the 72d Congress (VI , 515) and the Senate organi zed for and conducted
the tri al i n the 73d Congress (VI , 516). The resol uti on and arti cl es of i m-
peachment agai nst Judge Hasti ngs were presented i n the Senate duri ng
the second sessi on of the 100th Congress (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) but were
sti l l pendi ng tri al by the Senate i n the 101st Congress, for whi ch the House
reappoi nted managers (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84). But an i mpeachment may pro-
ceed onl y when Congress i s i n sessi on (I I I , 2006, 2462).
620. Impeachment
not interrupted by
adjournments.
VerDate 14-MAR-97 11:22 Oct 14, 1997 Jkt 375000 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 C:\XY3\MANUAL\M-105.004