fenses or misconduct as grounds for
impeachment, it is immaterial that
there is an absence of a constitutional or
statutory definition of impeachable of-
fenses."12 Furthermore, as stated in
Moulton v. Scully, "after the legislature
has properly observed the jurisdictional
facts and thereby acquired jurisdiction
of the case, . . . beyond this, all matters
of procedure, specification, and detail
are left necessarily to the discretion of
the legislature, as acts of sovereign
power, as no other way has been pre-
scribed by the constitution."13 How-
ever, as pointed out in Corpus Juris
Secundum the legislature "should pro-
ceed according to law as ascertained
from the constitution, legal treatises,
the common law, and parliamentary
precedents."14
The question becomes more difficult
when it relates to what officials are sub-
ject to a constitutionally granted im-
peachment power. Justice Story states
that "all officers of the United States
. . . who hold their appointments under
the national government, whether their
duties are executive or judicial, in the
highest or in the lowest departments of
the government, with the exception of
officers in the army and navy, are prop-
erly civil officers within the meaning of
the Constitution, and liable to impeach-
ment."15 Naturally, at the state level
this question would usually turn upon
the wording of the constitutional grant
of the impeachment power. It is gen-
erally recognized, however, that consti-
tutional officers are subject to impeach-
ment. As stated in American Juris-
prudence :
12 67 C.J.S. Officers § 68 (b) (1950).
13 Moulton v. Scully, 89 A. 944 (Maine,
1914).
14 C.J.S., supra note 12, § 68 (c).
15 story, supra note 3, at 577.
336
|
"It is well settled that all high con-
stitutional officers may be removed by
impeachment, especially those elected
by the people at large. Indeed it has
been held that a constitutional pro-
vision respecting impeachment of offi-
cers of the commonwealth relates
only to officers provided for in the
constitution or elected by the people
at large."16
On the other hand, it has been held
that county officers are not subject to
impeachment by the state legislature17
and it is generally recognized that im-
peachment powers of state legislatures
are not applicable to members of the
legislature nor to members of the United
States Congress.18
While general constitutional provi-
sions relating to impeachment may be
sufficient for some purposes, they have
caused a number of problems and have
resulted in widely conflicting decisions
by the courts. Thus the cases are split
almost evenly on the question of
whether public officers can be removed
during a subsequent term for miscon-
duct during a previous term.19 Like-
wise, there are conflicting decisions on
whether a legislature has the inherent
power to convene itself for purposes of
impeachment, after adjournment of its
regular session. Some cases hold that
a legislature, being clothed with the
power of impeachment, thereby has the
inherent power to convene itself for
such purpose, while other cases deny
such power.20 Another problem that
awaits precise resolution concerns the
status of an officeholder pending the
16 43 am. jur. Public Officers § 176 (1942).
17Newsom v. Cocke, 44 Miss. 352 (1870).
18 43 am. jur. Public Offiers § 176.
19 See Annot, 17 A.L.R. 279 (1922);
Annot., 138 A.L.R. 753 (1942).
20 See Annot., 56 A.L.R. 721 (1928).
|
