When the president is tried, the chief jus tice presides. The judgment, in cases of im peachment, does not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Disqualifi cation, as a punishment, is discretionary with the senate; Black, Const. L. 122. The party impeached remains liable to trial and punishment according to law. See UNITED STATES COURTS.
Proceedings on impeachments under the state constitutions are somewhat similar.
As to the impeachment of a judge, see JUDGE.
In England, the articles of impeachment are a kind of indictment found by the house of commons, and tried by the house of lords. It has always been settled that a peer could be impeached for any crime. There has been none since (1806) 29 St. Tr. 549. It was for merly believed that a commoner could only be impeached for high misdemeanors, not for capital offences ; 4 Bla. Com. 260; but it seems now settled they may be impeached for high treason ; May's Parl. Prac. Ch. 23. Impeachments have been very rare in Eng land in modern times.
In Evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit.
Every witness is liable to be impeached as to his reputation for truth and veracity; and, if his general character is he is presumed at all times to be ready to sup port it; Baker v. Robinson, 49 Ill. 299. See McDaniel v. State, 97 Ala. 14, 12 South. 241.
Negative evidence is admissible to estab lish a good reputation; People v. Van Gaas beck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, 12 Ann. Cas. 745; Day v. Ross, 154 Mass. 13, 27 N. E. 676. See CHARACTER; REPUTATION.
It is not admissible to impeach a defend ant's testimony by showing that at a former trial for a like offence, he raised a similar issue and was contradicted ; Corn. v. Lanuan,
155 Mass. 168, 29 N. E. 467. An accused per son who testifies in his own behalf, is sub ject to impeachment, as other witnesses, by evidence of previous contradictory state ments ; Corn. v. Racco, 225 Pa. 113, 73 Atl. 1067, 133 Am. St. Rep. 872 ; Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259, 6 S. W. 389. A witness cannot be impeached by the contradiction of imma terial statements ; Jones v. Lumber Co., 58 Ark. 125, 23 S. W. 679 ; nor can he be as to collateral and irrelevant matter on which he was cross-examined ; Garman v. State, 66 Miss. 196, 5 South. 385; People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 108, 16 Pac. 537; Kuhns v. Ry. Co., 76 Ia. 67, 40 N. W. 92; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Townsend, 39 Kan. 115, 17 Pac. 804; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Coon, 69 Tex. 730, 7 S. W. 492; Alger v. Castle, 61 Vt. 53, 17 Atl. 727; State v. Goodwin, 32 W. Va. 177, 9 S. E. 85.
On cross examination an accused person may be questioned as to other offenses in , order to impeach his credibility ; State v. Manuel (La.) 63 South. 174. Statements out of court inconsistent with those made by a witness in court are admissible to impeach him, where the proper foundation has been laid ; Leahey v. Ry. Co., 97 Mo. • 165, 10 S. W. 58, 10 Am. St. Rep. 300; Milligan & Co. v. Butcher, 23 Neb. 683, 37 N. W. 596; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65, 77, 41 N. W. 459, 463; State v. Porter, 74 Ia. 623, 38 N. W. 514; Howard v. State, 25 Tex, App. 686, 8 S. W. 929. See TION.
See ARTICLES OF One who has called a witness and is sur prised by his adverse testimony may, In the discretion of the trial court, be allowed to cross-examine him and show that he had previously made statements contrary to his testimony ; Lindquist v. Dickson, 98 Minn. 369, 107 N. W. 958, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 727, 8 Ann. Cas. 1024. See DISCREDIT ; EVIDENCE ; WITNESS.