fact remained that the House had on four occasions construed its power of impeachment to extend to offences not indictable, and in one case had secured the Senate's ratification of its construction by a conviction.
But it was not alone in precedent that the prosecution had a strong case. Substantial grounds were not wanting on which to base the claim that a misdemeanor in office was not distinct from misbehavior in office. On any narrower interpretation of the term misdemeanor, the constitution affords no method by which an insane judge may during his lifetime be divested of his official functions. The fact that the penalty in case of impeachment is limited to disqualification for holding office was declared to indicate a purpose rather to protect the people from bad officials than to establish a jurisdiction for the punishment of crimes. It was in the development of this view that General Butler brought forward the further proposition of his school, namely, that the Senate, when acting on impeachment cases, was not a court, nor its procedure a trial. Such being the case, the ordinary restrictions of judicial process, it was argued, have no application. The guaranties accorded to the accused in jury trials need not be granted here. There is no right of challenge to any member of the Senate for any cause whatever, and no appeal to any law save the constitution. In short, the body sitting to determine the accusa-
