The  paper  complained  that  the  Senate  had
passed  a  sentence  against  the  President,  in  its
patore  and  character  judicial,  while  the  provis-
ions of  the  constitution  had  not  been  observed
in  the  proceeding.  It  complained  that  the
Senate  had  virtuafiy  constituted  itself  the  im-
peaching body,  by  the  course  it  had  taken,
whereas  the  constitution  had  conferred  the
sole  power  of  impeachment  upon  the  House  of
Representatives ;  ^t  it  had  proceeded  to  final
JQdgment  and  sentence  against  the  accused,
withoat  allowing  him  a  trial  upon  the  accusa-
tion, or  the  privilege  of  being  heard  in  his  de-
fence ;  that  the  laws  for  the  organization  of  the
Senate  in  such  cases  had  not  been  observed,
inasmnch  as  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme
Court  had  not  been  called  to  preside  over  its
deliberations,  and  as  no  "  oath  or  affirmation  "
had  been  administered  to  the  individual  Sena-
tors—a qualification  which  the  constitution
expressly  required  to  enable  them  to  sit  in  the
high  court  for  the  trial  of  impeachments :  and
it  farther  complained  that  the  sentence  of  the
Senate  had  been  pronounced  and  made  a  per-
petual record,  by  entry  upon  its  Journal,  with-
out having  received  the  vote  of  two-thirds,
reqnbed  by  the  constitution  to  authorize  the
Senate  to  enter  a  judgment  of  guilty  against  any
public  officer.
Mr.  W.  said  it  was  not  his  purpose,  at  this
^me,  to  examine  the  justice  of  these  complaints.
