Impeachment of Samuel Chase

His impeachment trial before the United States Senate delivered an acquittal on March 1, 1805, with none of the eight articles receiving the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction.

[5] The impeachment was also, in part, a reaction to the increase in the power of the Supreme Court in the previous years under Chief Justice John Marshall, including the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision.

[6] President Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through their claim of exclusive judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, led his party's efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench.

[2][4][9] Jefferson's allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments.

In May 1803, two years after this repeal, Chase denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would "take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy.

"[14][15] In 1803, Federal District Judge John Pickering, whose mental state had declined, was impeached and removed on charges of habitual drunkenness.

[19] On January 5, 1804, Randolph introduced a resolution to appoint a special committee "to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States".

During debate, Federalist Roger Griswold laid-out a preemptive defense for Chase, arguing that even if he may have erred in his interpretation of a matter of law during the Fries trial, it would not be a grounds for impeachment since it would be an error in judgment and not an act of malice.

[26]After the adoption of the resolution, Congressmen John Randolph of Roanoke and Peter Early were appointed to a committee to go before the Senate and inform them of the impeachment vote.

[27] Seven articles of impeachment were reported to the House by Randolph on March 26, 1804, but were ordered to lie on the table and no action was taken on them before the congress entered a recess.

[31] The fifth article alleged that his issuing of a warrant instead of a summons during the Callender trial was not in keeping with the statutory language of "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States".

[31] The sixth article alleged that his refusal of a continuance during the Callender trial was not in keeping with the statutory language of "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States".

Speaker Nathaniel Macon opined that, per a House standing rule related to such a situation on a second ballot that he believed was applicable, the individual with the greatest plurality should be considered duly elected.

On a similar note, Senator William Branch Giles, a chief proponent of impeaching and removing Chase, distributed a petition urging Governor George Clinton of New York to see that the murder indictment against Burr be withdrawn.

Chase was defended by his counsel: Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Hopkinson, Charles Lee Philip Barton Key, and Luther Martin.

[4] Former congressman James A. Bayard of Delaware (who had recently been unseated in a congressional election) declined a request to act as counsel to Chase.

The Senate then voted to extend the date by which they were to receive an answer and proceed with the trial to February 4, 1805 and to notify the House of Representatives and Samuel Chase of this extension.

Before the start of the pleading phase, Vice President Burr had had the Senate chamber decorated for the trial in what was described by reporters Thomas Lloyd and Samuel Harrison Smith as "a style of appropriate elegance".

The residue of the floor was occupied with chairs for the accommodation of the members of the House of Representatives; and with boxes for representation of foreign ministers, and civil and military officers of the United States.

[52]The thirty-four senators sat in two rows of crimson-cloth covered benches, oriented to look towards the galleries and the area set aside for the defense and prosecution.

However, Burr ordered that this chair be removed, believing that the chamber should mimic the English criminal trial practice in which prisoners were made to stand "in the dock".

They alternatively, for those unconvinced by this, presented other argument aimed at proving that Chase had committed content that constituted a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removal from office.

Campbell discussed the legal theories championed by the prosecution and also argued that it was important there be an apolitical judiciary, charging Chase with misusing his judicial position to advance his own political beliefs.

[62] In the defense's presentation, which took four days,[4] it was argued that the constitution only intended impeachment to be for charges related to accusations of a civil officer having committed an indictable crime.

He outlined an argument for the value of an independent judiciary, and further argued that removal for the circumstances that Chase was being impeached for would undermine judicial independence,[4] asking, [I]f a judge is forever to be exposed to prosecutions and impeachment for his official conduct, on mere suggestions of caprice, and to be condemned by the mere voice of prejudice...can he hold that firm and steady hand his high functions required?

[4] Randolph argued, "[Chase] stands charged with having sinned against his law and against his sacred oath, by acting in his judicial capacity unfaithfully, partially, and with respect to persons.

Joseph Hopper Nicholson proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow for state legislatures to recall (remove) senators for any reason.

As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal.

It set the unofficial limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence.

[80] While the impeachment was a major event at the time it took place,[2] it has since been relegated to relative historical obscurity in both the general public consciousness and even in terms of scholarly coverage.