parallel Jefferson’s understanding of prerogative. But did Jefferson say so?
But, since the object of this paper is to cast light on the Chase impeachment, there
is more to do than determining Jefferson’s understanding of the impeachment power.
Specifically, we must try to sort out how Jefferson resolved theory with action. In doing
so, we test whether one important actor in the episode believed that there more than two
paths to choose between. As considering Jefferson will show, the Chase impeachment
involved four paths, not two. But, first, we need to consider the two most obvious paths.
The Meaning of the Pickering Removal
To understand the Chase impeachment, it is necessary to first consider the
impeachment and removal of Pickering. Because Pickering was merely incapacitated by
his afflictions, and because the Constitution did not list inability to carry out one’s office
as grounds for removal, Republicans had to resort to a broad interpretation of high crimes
and misdemeanors to impeach and remove Pickering. The vote was especially close in
the Senate, and might have gone differently. During the debates, a group of Republicans
joined Federalists to admit testimony that Chase was in fact insane. To meet the
objections that Chase had not committed a high crime or misdemeanor, Republicans had
to blur the meaning of the vote by changing to being guilty “as charged.” This form of
the question, according to John Quincy Adams (F-MA), “put at ease a few of the weak
brethern who scrupled on the law, and a few who doubted on the facts” “by blending all
the law and facts together under the shelter of general terms.”
But the arrangement
under general terms did not solve everyone’s scruples, for five Republicans did not vote:
David Stone (NC), John Brown (KY), Stephen Bradley (VT), John Armstrong (NY), and
7
As cited on 504 in Lynn W. Turner, “The Impeachment of John Pickering,” American Historical Review
54 (1949): 485-507.
9
Convention