A Case of Judicial Misconduct. The Impeachment and Trial of Robert W. Archibald
IT is A regrettable affair whenever it becomes necessary to remove a federal judge from office. The position of trust inherent in a judicial post is self-evident. The guarantees of the Constitution are worthless when a corrupt jurist is at hand. Indeed, the Constitution allows federal judges to sit only as long as no misconduct is discerned. Impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate is necessary when proof of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes to the fore. The mere fact that the framers of the Constitution required Congress to devote time to the removal of recalcitrant judges shows how much trust is placed in them. By the second decade of the twentieth century congressional impeachment had not been common practice but sufficient precedent had been established. Representative cases were on hand from all three branches of the federal government. Members of Congress debated the vague phrases of the Constitution dealing with impeachment from the first case in 1797. To the question, "what is misconduct?," all shades of answers have been given. In the spring of 1912 the House, under a resolution advanced by George Norris of Nebraska, began to seek information about the conduct of Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald, an associate judge of the Commerce Court. Commissioner Eugene Meyer of the Interstate Commerce Commission had informed President Taft in February of suspected wrong doing by Archbald. Taft asked the