say that there was no other manner of giving redress—that it was very certain and clear that, if any man was injured by an officer of the United States, he could get redress by a suit at law.
Mr. MACLAINE. Mr. Chairman, I confess I never heard before that a tax-gatherer was worthy of impeachment. It is one of the meanest and least offices. Impeachments are only for high crimes and misdemeanors. If any one is injured in his person or property, he can get redress by a suit at law. Why does the gentleman talk in this manner? It shows what wretched shifts gentlemen are driven to. I never heard, in my life, of such a silly objection. A poor, insignificant, petty officer amenable to impeachment!
Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, the objection would be right if there was no other mode of punishing. But it is evident that an officer may be tried by a court of common law. He may be tried in such a court for common-law offences, whether impeached or not. As it is to be presumed that inferior tribunals will be constituted, there will be no occasion for going always to the Supreme Court, even in cases where the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Where this exclusive cognizance is not given them, redress may be had in the common-law courts in the state: and. I have no doubt such regulations will be made as will put it out of the power of officers to distress the people with impunity.
Gov. JOHNSTON observed, that men who were in very high offices could not be come at by the ordinary course of justice; but when called before this high tribunal and convicted, they would be stripped of their dignity, and reduced to the rank of their fellow-citizens, and then the courts of common law might proceed against them.
The Convention met according to adjournment.
Mr. BATTLE in the chair. 1st article of the 3d section read.
Mr. CABARRUS wished to be informed of the reason why the senators were to be elected for so long a time.
Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, I have waited for some time in hopes that a gentleman better qualified than myself
4
