session is considered in law but as one day, and has relation to the first day thereof.—Bro. Abr. Parliament, 86.

Committees may be appointed to sit during a recess by adjournment, but not by prorogation.-5 Grey, 374-9 Grey, 350-1 Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion of itself in any Parliamentary function, beyond the end of the session, without the consent of the two other branches. When done, it is by a bill constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.

Congress separate in two ways only, to wit, by adjournment or dissolution, by the efflux of their time. What then constitutes a session with them? A dissolution certainly closes one session, and the meeting of a new Congress begins another. The Constitution authorizes the President, "On extraordinary occasions, to convene both Houses or either of them."-Art. I., Sec. 1. If convened by the President's proclamation, this must begin a new session, and of course determine the preceding one to have been a session. So, if it meets under the clause of the Constitution which says, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday of December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."-I. 4-this must begin a new session. For even if the last adjournment was to this day, the act of adjourn ment is merged in the higher authority of the Constitution, and the meeting will be under that, and not under their adjournment. So far we have fixed landmarks for determining sessions. In other cases, it is declared by the joint vote authorizing the President of the Senate and the Speaker, to close the session on a fixed day, which is usually in the following form, "Resolved, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on the day of

When it was said above, that all matters depending before Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it was not meant for judiciary cases, depending before the House of Lords, such as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These stand continued of course to the next session.-Raym. 120, 381— Ruffh. Jac. L. D. Parliament.

Impeachments stand in like manner continued before the Senate of the United

States.

* It was held in the case of Hastings, that a dissolution did not work the discontinuance of an impeachment.

SECTION LII.

TREATIES.

The President of the United States has power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.-Const. U. S., Art. II., Sec. 2.

All confidential communications, made by the President of the United States to the Senate, shall be, by the members thereof, kept inviolably secret; and that all treaties, which may hereafter be laid before the Senate, shall also be kept secret until the Senate shall by their resolution take off the injunction of se crecy.-Rule 38.

Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land, they must be approved by Parliament. Ware vs. Hylton.-3 Dallas' Rep. 199. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great Britain cannot, by a treaty, make a citizen of an alien.-Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec. 214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the American treaty of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be cited. In the case of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was rejected. France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the treaty.-4 Russell's Hist. Mod. Europe, 457-2 Smollett, 242, 246.

By the Constitution of the United States, this department of legislation is confined in two branches only, of the ordinary legislature; the President originating, and Senate having a negative. To what subjects this power extends, has not been defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation, party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity res inter alias acta.-2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.-3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.-4. And also to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the House of Representatives. This last exception is denied by some, on the ground that it would leave very little matter for the treaty to work on. The less the better, say others. The Constitution thought it wise to restrain the Executive and Senate from en

tangling and embroiling our affairs with those of Europe. Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the Executive alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the Representatives such articles as are within their participation, is no more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the ground of this exemption is denied as unfounded. For example, e. g. the treaty of commerce with France; and it will be found that out of thirty-one articles, there are not more than small portions of two or three of them which would not still remain as subjects of treaties, untouched by these exceptions.

Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the Legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was accordingly the process adopted in the case of France, in 1798.

It has been the usage of the Executive, when it communicates a treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the correspondence of the negotiations. This having been omitted in the case of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House, of February 12, 1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the Convention of that year between the United States and France, with the report of the negotiations with the Envoys, but not their instructions, being laid before the Senate, the instructions were asked for, and communicated by the President.

The mode of voting on questions of ratification, is by nominal call.

Whenever a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification, it shall be read a first time for information only; when no motion to reject, ratify, or modify the whole or any part, shall be received.

Its second reading shall be for consideration; and on a subsequent day, when it shall be taken up as in a committee of the whole, and every one shall be free to move a question on any particular article in this form: "Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this article," or propose amendments thereto, either by inserting or leaving out words, in which last case the question shall be, "Shall the words stand part of the article ?" And in every of the said cases, the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be required to decide affirmatively. And when through the whole, the proceedings shall be stated to the House, and questions be again severally put thereon for confirmation, or new ones proposed, requiring in like manner a concurrence of two-thirds for whatever is retained or inserted.

The votes so confirmed shall, by the House or a committee thereof, be reduced into the form of a ratification with or without modifications, as may have been decided, and shall be proposed on a subsequent day, when every one shall again be free to move amendments, either by inserting or leaving out words; in which last case the question shall be, "Shall the words stand part of the resolution ?" And in both cases the concurrence of two-thirds shall be requisite to carry the affirmative, as well as on the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to.-Rule 37.

When any question may have been decided by the Senate, in which two-thirds of the members present are necessary to carry the affirmative, any member who voted on that side which prevailed in the question, may be at liberty to move for a reconsideration; and a motion for reconsideration shall be decided by a majority of votes.-Rule 42.

SECTION LIII.

IMPEACHMENT.

The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.Const. U. S., Art. I., Sec. 3.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment, shall not extend farther than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.— Const. U. S., Art. I., Sec. 3.

The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.-Const. U. S., Art. II., Sec. 4.

The trial of crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.—Const. U. S., Art. III., Sec. 2.

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.

JURISDICTION.

The Lords cannot impeach any to themselves, nor join in the accusation, because they are judges.-Seld. Judic. in Parl. 12, 63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner, but on complaint of the Commons. Id. 84. The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for capital offence, 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 offence; 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.-Id. 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can 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, 6, 7-2 Wooddeson, 601, 576. 3 Seld. 1610, 1619, 1641-4 Black. 257—3 Seld. 1604, 1618, 9, 1656.

ACCUSATION.

The

The Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, become suitors for penal justice.-2 Woodd. 597-6 Grey, 356. 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 order for his appearance.-Sachev. Trial, 325-2 Woodd. 602, 605-Lord's Jour. 3 June, 1701-1 Wms. 616-6 Grey, 324.

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.

ARTICLES.

The accusation (article) 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-Woodd. 602, 605-Lord's Jour. 3 June, 1701-1 Wms. 616.

APPEARANCE.

If he appears, and the case be capital, he answers in custody, though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but on special 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.