1804.

JUDGE CHASE IMPEACHED.

171

bate on the Judiciary Bill. Observing that Judge Chase had been assigned to the circuit in which Pennsylvania lay, he protested and begged to have the judge put on some other circuit, alleging that Chase was obnoxious to the people of that commonwealth. He was asked why Chase was obnoxious to the people of Pennsylvania, and told the story of the trial of Fries; how the counsel for the defendant were insulted, and browbeaten, and driven from the Court; how the prisoner was tried without counsel, convicted, and sentenced to be hung; and how, when Adams heard of the conduct of the judge, he pardoned Fries. When this statement was made the session, Randolph said, was too far gone to take up the charges. But he had since looked into them; he believed them to be true, and, so believing, moved for a committee of investigation. The Republicans were delighted; those who came from Pennsylvania were particularly so, and the next day secured an amendment coupling Judge Peters with Chase, for Richard Peters was the district judge who sat with Chase at the trials. As thus amended, the motion was stoutly opposed by the Federalists, and by some who were not Federalists, as wholly irregular. Not a charge, they said, has been made. Not a complaint has been heard. Yet we are called on to order a committee to investigate the conduct of innocent men, with a view to impeachment. This is most unparliamentary. Specific charges must go before investigation. Such has always been the custom, both in England and the United States. Before Blount was impeached the President sent documents to the House. When Pickering was to be impeached the same course was taken.

The Republicans asserted that the method of procedure proposed by Randolph was parliamentary. Precedents being demanded, they cited the case of Strafford, in the reign of Charles I; of Bolingbroke, of Oxford, of Ormond, in the reign of George I; of Sir Robert Eyres, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, in 1730; of Warren Hastings, in 1786; of St. Clair, in 1792; and asserted that, as the House of Representatives was the Grand Inquest of the nation, it had power to act after the manner of a Grand Jury or the Legislature of a State.

It mattered little, however, what they said. Neither side convinced the other. The resolution passed; a committee reported in favor of impeaching Chase, but not Peters; and two members of the House were despatched to the bar of the Senate, where, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, they impeached Samuel Chase of high crimes and misdemeanors. A better time could not have been chosen, for on the preceding day the Senate, sitting as a High Court of Impeachment, had pronounced sentence on John Pickering.

That shameful piece of business which passes by the name of Pickering's trial began early in January, 1804, by the House exhibiting four articles against him. The first and second charged him with having on two separate occasions, and in open violation of law, delivered the ship Eliza to her owners after she had been seized for smuggling. The third accused him with refusing to allow an appeal to the Circuit Court, thereby wickedly meaning and intending to injure the revenue of the United States. The fourth declared that he was on both these occasions drunk, blasphemous, and in his behavior a disgrace to the bench. Some weeks were now consumed by the Senate in examining precedents, preparing oaths for officers and witnesses, drawing up forms of subpoenas, and arranging the chamber for the use of the Court. By March second all was ready, and on that day the Court was opened and the name of John Pickering three times called; but there was no answer. The judge did not appear either in person or by counsel. In his place came a petition from his son, and a letter from Robert Goodloe Harper. The petitioner alleged that when the crimes charged were done, Judge Pickering was insane, and had been insane for two years; that he was physically unable to attend the Court, and asked that the trial be put off, and an order issued to take depositions to be received in evidence of insanity. The letter stated that the petitioner was too poor to come to Washington, and requested that Harper be allowed to appear and support the petition. Mr. Harper was then invited within the bar, and addressed the Court. He assured it that he acted in no sense as the attorney of Judge Pickering, who was too insane to select an

1804.

JUDGE PICKERING REMOVED.

173

attorney. He came, as the friend of the son, to ask for a postponement of the trial. The question now before the Court was, Will the Court hear evidence and counsel respecting the insanity of John Pickering? The day being Saturday, and the question of much importance, the Court adjourned till Monday. On Monday, late in the afternoon, the decision was reached to grant the prayer and hear the evidence. But on Tuesday the managers for the House announced that they would go on with the trial, but would not listen to the evidence. They would support the articles of impeachment, but they would not discuss a question raised by a third party unauthorized by the accused. Thereupon the whole body of managers, with attorneys and witnesses, marched out of the chamber and left the Court to itself. Having listened to the evidence in support of insanity, the Court rose, sent word the next day to the House that it was ready to go on with the articles of impeachment, and spent the day following in listening to the testimony of the prosecution. The testimony all in, the managers rested their case and withdrew. After a delay of another twenty-four hours John Pickering was declared guilty, as charged, and removed from office.

No act so arbitrary, so illegal, so infamous had yet been done by the Senate of the United States. Without a hearing, without counsel, an insane man had been tried and, on ex parte evidence, had been found guilty and punished. It was on the twelfth of March that this verdict was rendered; and that same afternoon the House voted to impeach Samuel Chase. John Randolph and Peter Early were then sent to inform the Senate, and the Senate took order accordingly. But, the close of the session being near at hand, the exhibition of articles of impeachment went over to the next winter. At last, on December sixth, all was ready. The articles were then approved, the managers were then chosen, the clerk was then sent to tell the Senate that the House was ready to exhibit the articles, and the House was then informed by the Senate that the next day at one o'clock would be the time. The ceremony gone through with on that day was thought most imposing. Precisely at one the managers presented themselves at the door of the Senate chamber, were admitted,

and sat down within the bar. The sergeant at arms then pro claimed silence. John Randolph then rose and read the articles through. Burr, in behalf of the Senate, declared that due order would be taken, and the managers, having delivered the paper at the table, withdrew.

A month now passed before the trial began, for notice had to be served on the judge, rules drawn up for the guidance of the Court, and, what greatly pleased the Federal newsmongers, the Senate chamber had to be draped in feeble imitation of that splendid hall in which Warren Hastings had been tried and acquitted Can these Democrats who are fitting up the court of impeachment with red hangings and green hangings, with crimson boxes for the triers, and with blue boxes for the managers, all in the latest English style, can these, it was asked, be the men who, a few years since, found fault with our judges for wearing gowns, with our President for his receptions, his levees, his speeches to Congress from the throne, nay, with Congress for marching through the street with an answer to the speech, and for sitting on chairs made of mahogany from the British colonies? Nor were such scoffs undeserved. In a city in a desert; in a city without houses, without people; in a building not yet half erected men, avowedly the simplest of republicans, were imitating the finest piece of ceremonial witnessed in England in the course of the eighteenth century.

On the right and on the left of the chair of the Vice-Presi dent were two rows of benches covered with crimson cloth. On these the senators were to sit in judgment. Before them was a temporary simicircular gallery, raised on pillars and covered, front and seats, with green cloth. To this the women came in crowds. Under the gallery were three rows of benches rising one above the other, likewise covered with green cloth, and set apart for the heads of departments, foreign ministers, and the members of the House of Representatives. In front of this amphitheatre, and facing the right and left of the Vice-President, were two boxes covered with blue cloth. One was occupied by the managers, the other by the accused and his counsel.

Neither of these boxes was occupied on the opening day.

1805.

TRIAL OF CHASE.

175

The proceedings were merely formal. The Senate attended. The Secretary read the return of the summons. The name of Samuel Chase was called. So closely had English precedent been followed that no seat had been provided for the culprit, but notice had been given that, if he requested it, a chair would be brought to him. The judge was told the Senate was ready to hear his answer. His answer was short and temperate. He denied that he had committed any crime or misdemeanor whatever; denied, with a few exceptions, every act with which he was charged; spoke of the importance of the impeachment not only to himself, but to the cause of free government, and asked till the next session of Congress to put in his answer and secure counsel for trial. He was given till the fourth of February.

The time was not given grudgingly. The prosecutors were quite as eager for delay as the accused, for the prospect of success was poor indeed. Thirty-four men had seats in the Senate. Of the thirty-four, nine were Federalists, twentyfive were Republicans, and the votes of twenty-three were needed to convict. But the votes of no more than twenty could be counted as sure. Over the Court presided Aaron Burr, the implacable hater of Jefferson and all his ways. Below, on the crimson benches, sat Stephen Bradley, of Vermont, who in private had denounced the impeachment of Pickering, and had never been heard to approve of that of Chase; and Israel Smith, who followed where Bradley led. There, too, sat Samuel Mitchill and John Smith, of New York, who, as members of the House of Representatives, had voted against the motion for a committee to inquire into the conduct of Justice Chase. It was feared that the blandishments of Burr would draw away the vote of John Smith, of Ohio. To win over these malcontents was most important, and in the attempt to do this the month of January was spent.

To Jefferson fell the task of mollifying Burr, and the task was well performed. In a few weeks the treatment of the man so lately denounced as a trickster and a renegade underwent a marked change. The National Intelligencer ceased to abuse him. Madison became gracious, Gallatin grew