2 Car., that he counselled against a war with Spain, when that king affronted us, to the dishonour and detriment of the realm. Art. 3. 1 Rush, 250.

That he advised a toleration of the papists. 1 Rush, 251.

That he enticed the king to popery. 1 Rush, 252, 262.

Michael de la Poole was impeached, that he incited the king to act against the advice of Parliament. Seld. Jud. Parl., 25 (3 vol. 2 P. 1596). The Spencers, that they gave bad counsel to the king. 4 Inst. 54.

The Earl of Orford, that he advised a prejudical peace. 8 May, 1701. Lord Finch, that he, being speaker of the commons, refused proceedings in the house.

The Duke of Buckingham was impeached, for that he, being admiral, neglected the safeguards of the sea. Rush, 308.

The Earl of Orford, that he hazarded the navy, and had neglected to take ships of the enemy. 8 May, 1701.

Michael de la Poole was impeached that he being chancellor acted contrary to his duty. Seld. Jud. Parl., 26 (3 vol. 2 P. 1596).

Lord Somers that he ratified a peace, not approved by the parties concerned, under the great seal. 16 May, 1701.

That he put the great seal without warrant. Ibid.

And to a blank commission. Ibid. Michael de la Poole was impeached, that he purchased lands of the king, which he had procured to be surveyed under their value. Seld. Jud. Parl. 24 (3 vol. 2 P. 1596).

For a fraudulent purchase from the king. Seld. Jud. Parl., 26 (3 vol. 2 P. 1596.)

Sir John, Lord Somers. 16 May, 1701.

The Duke of Buckingham was impeached for plurality of offices. 2 Car. Rush 306.

The Earl of Orford, for exercising incompatible offices. 8 May, 1701.

So the Lord Halifax. 9 June, 1701. The Duke of Buckingham was impeached for giving a medicine to the king without the advice of the physicians. Rush, 351.

So the Spencers, father and son, were impeached for that they prevented the great men of the realm from giving their counsel to the king except in their presence. 4 Inst. 53.

That they put good magistrates out of office and advanced bad. Ibid. The Earl of Orford was impeached that he encouraged pirates. 8 May, 1701.

Sir G. Mompesson was impeached for the procurement of patents of monopoly. 18 Jac. Rush, 24, 27. Seld. Jud. Parl. 31 (3 vol. 2 P. 1598.)

Lord Chancellor Bacon was impeached for bribery. 18 Jac. Rush, 28. Seld. Jud. Parl. 31 (3 vol. 2 P. 1599).

The Duke of Buckingham, for the sale and purchase of offices. Rush, 334.

The Lord Finch, for unlawful methods of enlarging the forest, when assistant to the justices in eyre. Art. 3, vide Rush, part 3, vol. 1, 137.

For threatening other judges to subscribe to his opinion. Ibid., Art. 4, 5, 6.

For delivering opinions which he knew to be contrary to law. Art. 7. Ibid.

For drawing the business of the court to his chamber. Art. 8. Ibid.

So an impeachment was exhibited for several extortions and deceits to the public. Seld. Jud. Parl. 19 (3 vol. 2 P. 1594, 1595).

An Article was exhibited against

Cardinal Wolsey for exercising legative authority to the prejudice of the authority and oppression of ordinaries and houses of religion. 4 Inst. 89.

So against the Earl of Orford, for converting the public money to his own use, without account. 8 May, 1701.

So an impeachment was against the Earl of Orford, that he procured from the king to himself exorbitant grants in lands and money. 8 May, 1701.

So against Lord Somers. 16 May, 1701.

For taking money, &c., from a foreign prince without giving an account for it. 8 May, 1701.

For selling goods, taken as admiral, for his own use, without accounting for a tenth to others. 8 May, 1701.

Lord Halifax, for obtaining grants of estates forfeited for rebellion. 9 June, 1701.

For obtaining grants of money when there was a war and heavy taxes. Ibid. And grants out of the king's woods. Ibid." Comyn's Digest, Parliament L., 28-39.

Dr. Sacheverell was impeached for preaching a seditious sermon. Howell's State Trials, vol. xv, p. i.

The Earl of Clarendon, for falsely affirming that Charles II was a papist, for introducing an arbitrary government into the king's plantations, and for giving bad advice concerning the manœuvres of the fleet. Ibid., vol. vi, pp. 346-393.

The Earl of Orrery, for raising money by his own authority from the king's subjects in Ireland. Ibid., p. 915.

Sir Adam Blair and others with him, for dispersing a seditious and treasonable paper. Ibid., vol. xii, p. 1207.

Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, for selling his appointments to mastership in chancery. Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 767.

Warren Hastings, for oppressive government in India, and extortion upon the natives there. (Burke's Works.)

Viscount Melville, for depositing the public funds with a private banker, where it was suspected that he used them in speculation. Howell's State Trials, vol. xxix, p. 949.

20 The constitution of Alabama authorizes impeachment "for willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude while in office, or committed under color thereof, or connected therewith" (Art. VII, Sec. 1). That of Arkansas, "for high crimes and misdemeanors and gross misconduct in office" (Art. XV, Sec. 1). That of Colorado, "for high crimes or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office" (Art. XIII, Sec. 2). That of Iowa for any misdemeanor or malfeasance in office" (Art. III, Sec. 20). That of Kentucky, "for any misdemeanors in office" (Art. LXVIII). That of Louisiana, "for high crimes and misdemeanors, for nonfeasance or malfeasance in office, for incompetency, for corruption, favoritism, extortion or oppression in office, or for gross misconduct, or habitual drunkenness" (Art. 196). That of Michigan, "for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors" (Art. XII, Sec. 1). That of Minnesota, the same (Art. XIII, Sec. 1). That of North Dakota, "for habitual drunkenness, crimes, corrupt conduct, or malfeasance or misdemeanor in office" (Art. XIV, Sec. 196). That of South Dakota, "for drunkenness, crimes, corrupt conduct,

or malfeasance, or misdemeanor in office" (XVI, Sec. 3). That of West Virginia, "for mal-administration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime, or misdemeanor" (Art. IV, Sec. 9). The other State constitutions present in this respect substantial similarity to the Constitution of the United States. In Chili, cabinet officers may be impeached for "treason, corruption in office, misappropriation of public funds, subornation, violation of the constitution, impeding the execution of the laws or failure to execute the same, and for gravely compromising the safety and honor of the Nation" (Art. 92).

21 Constitution, Article II, Section 4. 22 Ibid.

23 Pickering's Impeachment Trial, supra, § 90, infra, § 94. Cox' Impeachment Trial, infra, § 94, and Appendix to this volume; Botkin's Impeachment Trial, Appendix to this volume. In Botkin's Impeachment Trial, demurrers to the following Articles were overruled:

"That the said Theodosius Botkin was, on the 13th day of January, 1890, ever since has been and still is judge of the thirty-second judicial district of the state of Kansas, and that the said Theodosius Botkin, while occupying the official position as judge of said judicial district, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the 'dignity and proprieties thereof, has been repeatedly intoxicated in public places throughout said judicial district, to the manifest scandal of the administration of justice, by means whereof the said Theodosius Botkin has brought his high office as judge as aforesaid, into contempt, ridicule

and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens; whereby said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of high misdemeanors in office, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that is to say:

"Specification First: In this, that on the streets and in public places in the city of Springfield, in the county of Seward, in said district, the said Theodosius Botkin was, on or about the first day of April, 1890, intoxicated, and under the influence of intoxicating liquors"; with nine similar specifications. (Botkin's Impeachment Trial, Art. I, pp. 31-32.)

"That the said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, while engaged in holding throughout his said district, in the various counties thereof, the terms of his court, as required by law, and during the times of holding the same, has been repeatedly intoxicated and under the influence of intoxicating liquors, by means whereof the said Theodosius Botkin has brought his high office as judge as aforesaid into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the manifest scandal and danger of justice, and to the scandal of all good citizens; whereby the said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of high misdemeanors in office, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that is to say:

24

24 In Cox' impeachment trial in Minnesota, a demurrer to the following article was overruled:

"That E. St. Julien Cox, being a Judge of the District Court of the State of Minnesota, in and for the ninth judicial district, unmindful of his duties as such judge, and of the dignity of his office, and in violation of the Constitution and the State of Minnesota, did, at the County of Ramsey, in said State, to wit: On the 14th day of October, A. D. 1881, demean himself in a lewd and disgraceful manner, in this, that he did then and there resort to a house of ill-fame, kept for the purposes of prostitution, in company with a prostitute, whose name is unknown to the House of Representatives, and did then and there lewdly, lasciviously cohabit and associate with said woman, whereby he, the said E. St. Julien Cox, was guilty of a misbehavior in office, and of crimes and misdemeanors in office" (pp. 24, 160).

In the same case a demurrer to the following article was at first also overruled:

"That E. St. Julien Cox, being a Judge of the District Court of the State of Minnesota, and for the ninth judicial district, unmindful of his

under the influence of intoxicating liquors.

"Specification Second: In this, that the said Theodosius Botkin, while holding, during the first week in March, 1890, an adjourned term of the January, 1890, term of the district court of said Seward county, was intoxicated, and under the influence of intoxicating liquors"; with nine similar specifications. (Botkin's Impeachment Trial, Article II, pp. 33-34.)

"That the said Theodosius Botkin,

duties as such judge, and of the dignity and proprieties of his said office, and in violation of the laws of the State of Minnesota, did at divers times since the 4th day of January, A. D. 1878, at sundry places in the said State, demean himself in a lewd and disgraceful manner in this, that he, the said E. St. Julien Cox, did then and there frequent houses of illfame, and consort with harlots, whereby he, the said E. St. Julien Cox, has brought himself and his high office into disrepute to the manifest injury of the morals of the youth and good citizens of the State of Minnesota, and disgrace of the administration of justice, and is thereby guilty of misbehavior in office; and of misdemeanors in office." (Ibid., pp. 24, 161, 164, 174, 527.) Upon the decision of the demurrer to this article specifications of the times and places where the offenses were committed were ordered by the Senate and furnished by the managers. It was further ordered that should no such specifications be furnished no testimony in support of the article should be received. After the specifications were furnished the Senate voted "that the objections of the respondent be sustained as to the twentieth article." (Ibid., p. 527.)

judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, while engaged in holding, throughout his said district, in the various counties thereof, the terms of his court, as required by law, and while sitting on the bench as judge, has been repeatedly intoxicated, and under the influence of intoxicating liquors, by means whereof the said Theodosius Botkin has brought his high office as judge as aforesaid into contempt,