in the history of the United States, the House of Representatives was required to vote upon the direct question of impeaching the highest officer of the nation.
The consideration of the resolution was taken up at the opening of the second session of the Fortieth Congress, in December of 1867. It appeared from the committee's report and from the debate, that the points of variance between the Republican factions were two in number. The first was as to what constituted impeachable offences in our system. The constitution provides that the House may impeach any civil officer for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Treason and bribery were sufficiently accurate terms, but what should be regarded as the scope of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? By the radicals it was held that these words were employed in the widest and most extended sense known to jurisprudence, and included all cases of misbehavior in office, whether known to common or statute law or not. The moderate Republicans pretty generally adopted the view that these words limited the list of impeachable offences to such as were indictable either at common or by statute law. Otherwise, it was said, it would be in the competence of the Senate to define an offence as it proceeded with the trial, and the accused would have no legal certainty on which to base his defence. Another theory, maintained in this in-
