if he, or any of his advisers or agents, were on trial, the judges might be biased in favour of the interests of him to whom they owed their elevation to office. A judge of the Supreme Court is himself liable to impeachment, and in such case the other judges would be likely to feel some partiality toward him.

§ 117. In England, when the House of Lords try an impeachment, the lords are not sworn, but give their verdict upon their honour. With us, the senators are required to act under oath or affirmation, just as jurymen are. An affirmation is a solemn declaration made by those who have scruples of conscience against taking an oath. The House of Lords decide the question of guilt or innocence by a simple majority. In the Senate, a majority of twothirds is requisite for conviction, so that the accused is in less danger of being sacrificed to the excitement usually attending an impeachment.

§ 118. Upon the removal of the President from office, his powers and duties devolve upon the Vice-President of the United States, who is the presiding officer in the Senate. If he presided in the Senate at the trial of an impeachment against the President, he might be inclined to favour his conviction, in order to succeed him in office. It is, therefore, provided that in such case the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside.

§ 119. Since the adoption of the Constitution, there have been four trials for impeachment, namely:

(1.) That of William Blount, commenced in 1799. He was then a senator of the United States, and was charged with conspiring, while a senator, to carry on a military expedition against the Spanish territories, and with other misdemeanors. But the Senate decided that he was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of a clause in the Con

stitution, to be considered hereafter, and therefore not liable to impeachment.

(2.) That of John Pickering in 1803. He was judge of the District Court of the United States for the New Hampshire District, and was charged with various acts of misdemeanor as a judge, found guilty and sentenced to removal from office.

(3.) That of Samuel Chase, commenced November 30, 1804. He was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and was charged with official misconduct, but acquitted.

(4.) That of James H. Peck, commenced in 1830. He was judge of the District Court of the United States for the Missouri District, and charged with exercising unlawful authority as a judge, but acquitted.

§ 120. In England, when the person impeached is found guilty, he is sentenced to suffer the whole punishment prescribed by law for the offence. As impeachments are frequently connected with political considerations, and urged on with much zeal, there is danger that the successful party, unless restrained by law, will make an improper use of its triumph, and impose excessive punishments. This is prevented in the United States by the provision that the judgment in cases of impeachment shall extend only to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office under the United States. The accused still remains liable, nevertheless, to trial and punishment in a court of law, if his offence be such as is punishable by law.

§ 121. Thus, if one were impeached for treason, the judgment pronounced by the Senate, upon conviction, would extend only to removal from office, and future disqualification to hold any office under the United States. He would still be subject to an indictment for treason in a court of law,

and if found guilty, would be sentenced to death, the punishment provided by law; if acquitted, the judgment of the Senate upon the impeachment would still stand.

§ 122. When it is proposed to impeach an officer, some member of the House of Representatives moves for the appointment of a committee to report charges against the accused. If the committee report in favour of impeachment, they present a statement of the charges, and a committee is appointed to impeach the offender before the Senate. Then the Senate, by its sergeant-at-arms, summons the accused to appear and answer. When the day for his appearance has arrived, he is furnished with a copy of the charges, and is allowed time to answer them. The House of Representatives replies to the answer when it is put in, declares its readiness to prove its charges, and generally appoints managers to conduct the impeachment.

§ 123. A time is then determined for trial, legal advisers are allowed to the accused, and his witnesses are compelled to attend. The trial proceeds according to the usual rules of courts of justice, and, after it is concluded, the Senate consider the subject. Then each member being called on by name, says whether, in his opinion, the accused is guilty or not guilty. If two-thirds declare him guilty of any or all of the charges, the Senate concludes the proceedings by declaring its judgment.

A subsequent part of the Constitution designates the persons and the offences which may be the subjects of impeachment.

CHAPTER V.

PROVISIONS APPLICABLE BOTH TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SECTION 4. [Clause 1.] "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators."

§ 124. The circumstances of the different States were so various, and so liable to change, that it was not deemed practicable to establish, by the Constitution, a general election law. The regulation of the time, place, and manner of congressional elections is, therefore, intrusted to the State legislatures, reserving to Congress the power to make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators. Such power in Congress would be useful and absolutely necessary, in case a State should refuse or neglect to provide for the election of members of Congress, or in case it should be deemed expedient to establish a uniform time and manner of holding the elections.

Congress cannot alter the place of choosing senators, because senators are chosen by the State legislatures at the seat of government or capital of the State.

§ 125. Congress has not, as yet, (except as mentioned in the next section,) made any regulations relative to the time,

place, or manner of choosing senators or representatives. The States have control of the subject at present, and the modes that have been established in the different States are various. In some States all the representatives from the State were formerly chosen together on one general ticket; in others, they were chosen separately in districts. In some States the successful candidate must have a majority of all the votes; in others, it is sufficient if he have a larger number of votes than any other candidate. In some States the votes have been viva voce, (that is, by the living voice;) in others, they are by ballot, that is, by printed or written ticket. Differences in the mode of choosing senators by the State legislatures have already been referred to. (§101.)

§ 126. By an act of Congress, passed June 25, 1842, it is provided that the representatives from a State shall be elected by districts, equal in number to the number of representatives to which the State is entitled, and each of thesc congressional districts shall elect one representative.

[Clause 2.] "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."

§ 127. In England, Parliament assembles at the call of the king, and at such time as he designates. This clause requires Congress to assemble at least once a year, on the first Monday of December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day, and it will appear from the table on page 58 that a different day for assembling has frequently been appointed.

§ 128. It seems that, by the ancient statutes and practice