This participation in the performance of legislative duties between the coordinate branches of the Government ought to inspire the conduct of all of them in their relations toward each other with mutual forbearance and respect.  At least each has a right to demand justice from the other.  The cause of complaint is that the constitutional rights and immunities of the Executive have been violated in the person of the President.

The trial of an impeachment of the President before the Senate on charges preferred and prosecuted against him by the House of Representatives would be an imposing spectacle for the world.  In the result not only his removal from the Presidential office would be involved, but, what is of infinitely greater importance to himself, his character, both in the eyes of the present and of future generations, might possibly be tarnished.  The disgrace cast upon him would in some degree be reflected upon the character of the American people, who elected him.  Hence the precautions adopted by the Constitution to secure a fair trial.  On such a trial it declares that “the Chief Justice shall preside.”  This was doubtless because the framers of the Constitution believed it to be possible that the Vice-President might be biased by the fact that “in case of the removal of the President from office ... the same shall devolve on the Vice-President.”

The preliminary proceedings in the House in the case of charges which may involve impeachment have been well and wisely settled by long practice upon principles of equal justice both to the accused and to the people.  The precedent established in the case of Judge Peck, of Missouri, in 1831, after a careful review of all former precedents, will, I venture to predict, stand the test of time.

In that case Luke Edward Lawless, the accuser, presented a petition to the House, in which he set forth minutely and specifically his causes of complaint.  He prayed “that the conduct and proceedings in this behalf of said Judge Peck may be inquired into by your honorable body, and such decision made thereon as to your wisdom and justice shall seem proper.”  This petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee; such has ever been deemed the appropriate committee to make similar investigations.  It is a standing committee, supposed to be appointed without reference to any special case, and at all times is presumed to be composed of the most eminent lawyers in the House from different portions of the Union, whose acquaintance with judicial proceedings and whose habits of investigation qualify them peculiarly for the task.  No tribunal, from their position and character, could in the nature of things be more impartial.  In the case of Judge Peck the witnesses were selected by the committee itself, with a view to ascertain the truth of the charge.  They were cross-examined by him, and everything was conducted in such a manner as to afford him no reasonable cause of complaint.  In view of this precedent,