By the constitution of England, Parliament exercises some restraint on the power of the king by means of the impeachment of the king's ministers, the officers appointed by him to discharge important functions of government. This power is said to have been exercised by Parliament as early as the year 1376, and has been recognized throughout the subsequent constitutional history of Great Britain down to the present time, the charge being presented by the House of Commons to the House of Lords, in which the trial for the offence is conducted. In the Act of Settlement (1700), the king was expressly prohibited from exercising the power of pardon with reference to a charge made or punishment imposed by way of impeachment.

This power of Parliament no doubt furnished to the framers of state and federal constitutions the suggestion of a means by which the legislative department might exercise a legitimate restraint on executive power, and provision is made in many, if not all the state constitutions, as well as in the constitution of the United States, for the removal of officers by the higher branch of the legislative body on complaint of the lower branch. It is to be noticed, however, that the power is circumscribed by our written constitutions as to (1) the persons who may be impeached, (2) the misconduct which may be made the ground of impeachment, (3) the method of procedure, and (4) the punishment to be imposed.

By the federal constitution (Art. II, § 4), it is provided that "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," and it is now generally conceded that only one who is in office can be thus proceeded against, and that the punishment can only extend to his removal from office and disqualification for holding office in the future. But he may be tried and punished by the courts in accordance with law for any crime he may have committed, notwithstanding the impeachment (Art. I, § 3, ¶ 7). The president's power of pardon cannot be exercised in cases of impeachment (Art. II, § 2, ¶ 1).

There has been much uncertainty as to the grounds for removal by impeachment. Those specified in the federal constitution are, no doubt, exclusive so far as federal officers are concerned; but it may now be regarded as settled by practice that " high crimes and misdemeanors " may include misconduct in office which does not in itself constitute a crime.

The impeachment, that is, the accusation against the officer, is formulated by the lower branch of the state legislature or of Congress and presented to the higher branch, which acts as a court for the trial of the officer on the charges presented, and in the case of the United States Senate there is a special provision that when the president of the United States is to be thus tried, the chief justice of the supreme court of the United States shall preside, and that a conviction can be had only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present (Art. I, § 3, ¶ 6).

Any attempt on the part of the legislative department to interfere with the executive department by removal of the president or other executive officer on accusations not involving breach of duty, as distinct from the exercise of a legitimate discretion, would be wholly unwarranted by the spirit of our constitutional system, and fortunately no such effort, if it can properly be said to have been made, has ever been successful.

But final authority in determining the sufficiency of the grounds presented is with the legislative body before which the officer is put on trial, and the courts have no power to interfere with the proceedings or pass upon the validity of the action taken.