    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 299-311]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                            SEC. LIII.--IMPEACHMENT.

             *            *            *            *            *

    Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as
    to impeachments.

      These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States
    on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the
    principles and practices of England on the same subject:

    [[Page 300]]
    The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on
    the information of the King or a private person, because the accused is
    entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the
    House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever
    degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do
    not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then
    instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is
    instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the
    delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be
    charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
    Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords
    remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2
    Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst.,
    25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
      Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in
    the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12,
    63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the
    Commons. Ib., 84.

    [[Page 301]]
    order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords'
    Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.

    Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation
    in impeachment.

      Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes
    suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course
    is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the
    supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by
    oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the
    Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and
    desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be
    committed, or that the peers will take

    Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
    House.

      In the  House of Representatives there are various methods of setting
    an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the
    responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469;
    VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which
    is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491,
    2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the
    hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-
    42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III,
    2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a
    State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III,
    2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating
    committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice
    President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges
    against him of possibly impeachable offenses; the Speaker and the House
    took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts
    and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice
    President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368); see III, 2510,
    wherein the Committee on the Judiciary (to which the matter had been
    referred by privileged resolution) reported that a civil officer (the
    Vice President) could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed
    prior to his term of office; but see III, 1736, however, the Vice
    President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior
    offical conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select
    committee.

    [[Page 302]]
    resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment
    may be a possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI,
    463). But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes
    impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege
    (III, 2051, 2052, 2401, 2402). A committee to which has been referred
    privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer
    may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to consideration of the
    impeachment question, including conferral of subpoena authority and
    funding of the investigation from the contingent fund (VI, 549; Feb. 6,
    1974, p. 2349). A resolution authorizing depositions by committee
    counsel in an impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX and the
    Constitution as incidental to impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988,
    p. 27781).

    Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of
    privilege.

      A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in
    the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the
    rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048; VI, 468, 469;
    July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814;
    see Procedure, ch. 14, sec. 1-5). It may not even be superseded by an
    election case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It
    does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has
    been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III,
    2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). So,
    also, propositions relating to an impeachment already made are
    privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3,
    1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing for selection of managers
    of an impeachment (VI, 517), proposing abatement of impeachment
    proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers for impeachment proceedings
    continued in the Senate from the previous Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p.
    84), empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel
    and providing money for their payment (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84), and
    replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a

    Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment
    charges.

      The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400;
    VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having
    been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516; 2520, VI, 552), or even
    appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times
    ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from
    ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a
    committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513). Under the
    later practice, resolutions introduced through the hopper under clause 4
    of rule XXII that directly call for the impeachment of a federal civil
    officer have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, while
    resolutions calling for an investigation by that committee or by a
    select committee with a view toward impeachment have been referred to
    the Committee on Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873).

    [[Page 303]]
    chairman and members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974,
    p. 29361).

    Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in
    investigating.

      The House has  always examined the charges by its own committee before
    it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee has
    sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes a
    standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee
    has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496,
    2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in
    favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
    examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III,
    2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219). The
    Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to
    investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of
    President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the
    decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House,
    the chairman of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the
    committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by
    the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The
    House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the
    committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of
    the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing
    its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the

    Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the
    Senate.

      Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the
    impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, p. 3067-91),
    and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may
    direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a
    single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), or five
    Members (III, 2445) or nine (July 22, 1986, p. 17306). These Members in
    one notable case represented the majority party alone, but ordinarily
    include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505).
    The chairman of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral
    accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and requests that the Senate take
    order as to appearance; but in only one case has the parliamentary law
    as to sequestration and committal been followed (III, 2118, 2296), later
    inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate had no power to take
    into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 2367). Having delivered
    the impeachment, the committee returns to the House and reports verbally
    (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). In the later practice the House considers
    together the resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514;
    Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts
    resolutions electing managers to present the articles before the Senate,
    notifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and election of
    managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct the
    trial in the Senate (VI, 500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394;
    July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206).

    Sec. 608. The writ of summons for appearance
    of respondent.

      Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued,
    giving him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined.
    If any error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short
    day. If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed.
    Seld. Jud. 98, 99.

    [[Page 304]]

      The managers for the House of Representatives attend in the Senate
    after the articles have been exhibited and demand that process issue for
    the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), after which they return
    and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 2451; VI, 501). The Senate
    thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the day of return (III, 2423,
    2451); and in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or
    attorney the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III,
    2393). But the respondent's goods were not attached.

    Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of
    articles.

      Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an
    indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing
    or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325;
    2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.

      Formerly, the House exhibited its articles after the impeachment had
    been carried to the bar of the Senate; in the later practice, the
    resolution and articles of impeachment have been considered together and
    exhibited simultaneously in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515;
    Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126). The managers, who
    are elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514,
    517; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III,
    2388, 2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the
    House (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449,
    2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448)
    and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter
    body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p.
    19335). Having exhibited the articles the managers return and report
    verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476). The articles in the Belknap
    impeachment were held sufficient, although attacked for not describing
    the respondent as one subject to impeachment (III, 2123). In the
    proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the articles of
    impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and accumulated separate
    offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; Apr. 17, 1936, p.
    5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and attested by the
    Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the practice of the
    House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

      Articles of impeachment which have been exhibited to the Senate may be
    subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936,
    pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of
    impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for
    consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House
    (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).

      For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of
    impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see
    Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4).

    [[Page 305]]
    cial accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a lord
    in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on the
    answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties to
    attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the
    articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1
    Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a
    misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in
    writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation
    for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as
    the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer.
    Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a
    prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum.
    Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law,
    but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.

    Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance
    of respondent.

      Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody;
    though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but
    on spe

    [[Page 306]]

    Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to
    appearance of respondent.

      This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete
    so far as the practice of the House of Representatives and the Senate
    are concerned. The accused may appear in person or by attorney (III,
    2127, 2349, 2424), and take the stand in his own behalf (VI, 511, 524;
    Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29149), or he may not
    appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case he does not appear the
    House does not ask that he be compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the
    trial proceeds as on a plea of ``not guilty.'' It has been decided that
    the Senate has no power to take into custody the body of the accused
    (III, 2324, 2367). The writ of summons to the accused recites the
    articles and notifies him to appear at a fixed time and place and file
    his answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel
    (III, 2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent
    was insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present
    evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III,
    2333).

    Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

      Answer. The  answer need not
    observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part,
    and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole
    or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2
    Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2
    Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2
    Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.

      In the proceedings following the impeachment of President Andrew
    Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one,
    denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set
    forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others
    (III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation
    of the replication in the House (III, 2431). Blount and Belknap demurred
    to the charges on the ground that they were not civil officers within
    the meaning of the Constitution (III, 2310, 2453), and Swanye also
    raised questions as to the jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The
    answer is part of the pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence
    may not properly be attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the
    respondent in impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and
    subsequently referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506;
    Apr. 6, 1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).

    Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

      Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There
    may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233;
    Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.

    [[Page 307]]
    (III, 2457). In the Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p.
    4971) impeachment proceedings, the managers on the part of the House
    prepared and submitted the replication to the Senate without its
    consideration by the House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The
    Senate may consider in closed session various preliminary motions made
    by respondent (e.g., to declare the Senate rule on appointment of a
    committee to receive evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond
    a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and
    to postpone the impeachment trial) prior to voting in open session to
    dispose of those motions (Oct. 7 and 8, 1986, pp. 29151 and 29412).

      A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern
    practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the
    pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III,
    2455). A respondent has also filed a protest instead of pleading on the
    merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate
    barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to
    jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to
    admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III,
    2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in
    pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III,
    2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not
    touched in the articles has been discussed

    Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

      Witnesses. The  practice
    is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or
    a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on
    interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in
    their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.

      In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in
    open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested
    (III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p.
    4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for
    impeachment trials to allow the Presiding Officer, upon the order of the
    Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in
    the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of
    Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of
    twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of
    the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on
    Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon
    v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to
    declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take
    evidence and testimony.

    [[Page 308]]
    and goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds
    recorded in Parliament for misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the
    delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to
    be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the
    Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be
    impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the
    murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on
    impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived
    his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and
    Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are
    not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to
    be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more
    justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the
    conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria
    sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is
    undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts,
    and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord
    Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale,
    P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.

    Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to
    impeachment.

      Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for
    her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a
    complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must
    also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the
    case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148.
    The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands

      No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the
    Constitution (III, 2313).

    [[Page 309]]
    they are to attend throughout, either as a committee of the whole
    House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to conduct the
    proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb., 1709-10; 2
    Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand it. Seld.
    Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when the Lords
    consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their judgment. Their
    presence, however, is necessary at the answer and judgment in case
    capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * *.

    Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

      Presence of  Commons.
    The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld.
    Jud., 124. Indeed,

    Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of
    Representatives.

      The  House of Representatives has consulted its own
    inclination and convenience about attending its managers at an
    impeachment. It did not attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne,
    Archbald. Louderback and Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and
    after attending at the answer of Belknap, decided that it would be
    represented for the remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III,
    2453). At the trial of the President the House, in Committee of the
    Whole, attended throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is
    exceptional. In the Peck trial the House discussed the subject (III,
    2377) and reconsidered its decision to attend the trial daily (III,
    2028). While the Senate is deliberating the House does not attend (III,
    2435); but when the Senate votes on the charges, as at the other open
    proceedings of the trial, it may attend (III, 2388, 2383, 2440). While
    it has frequently attended in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a
    House (III, 2338).

    Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment
    trial.

      * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is
    first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they
    convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which
    seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.

    [[Page 310]]
    trial there was much deliberation over this subject (III, 2466). In the
    Chase trial the Senate modified its former rule as to form of final
    question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are taken on each article
    separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form ``Senators, how say you? is the
    respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the
    trial of the President the Senate, by order, voted on the articles in an
    order differing from the numerical order (III, 2440), adjourned after
    voting on one article (III, 2441), and adjourned without day after
    voting on three of the eleven articles (III, 2443). In other
    impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to provide the method of
    voting and putting the question separately and successively on each
    article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558).

      The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned
    contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of the
    President the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 2439). In
    the Belknap

    [[Page 311]]
    ments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud.,
    136.

    Sec. 619. Judgment in
    impeachments.

      Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per
    legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to
    their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment
    nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld.
    Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet
    differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior
    courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and
    punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the
    law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful
    delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by
    legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The
    Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward
    formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the
    Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In
    misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment.
    Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judg

      The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits
    the judgment to removal and disqualification.

      The order of judgment following conviction in an impeachment trial is
    divisible for a separate vote if it contains both removal and
    disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an
    order of judgment requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p.
    5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted
    separately on the question of punishment (III, 2339, 2397), but under a
    recent ruling, no vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal
    from office following conviction, since removal follows automatically
    from conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr.
    17, 1936, p. 5607). Thus, the Presiding Officer directs judgment of
    removal from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office
    without separate action by the Senate on the question of punishment
    where disqualification is not contemplated (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873).

    Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by
    adjournments.

      Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of
    Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
    Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.

      In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess
    (III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505); and the Pickering impeachment
    was presented in the Senate on the last day of the Seventh Congress
    (III, 2320); and at the beginning of the Eighth Congress the proceedings
    went on from that point (III, 2321). The resolution and articles of
    impeachment against Judge Louderback were presented in the Senate on the
    last day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515) and the Senate organized for and
    conducted the trial in the 73d Congress (VI, 516). The resolution and
    articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings were presented in the
    Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress (Aug. 3, 1988, p.
    20223) but were still pending trial by the Senate in the 101st Congress,
    for which the House reappointed managers (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84). But an
    impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session (III, 2006,
    2462).