Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/695

 638

ruled that when the militia had been mus tered into the service of the United States, the control of the State and the power to punish ceased. The plaintiff, therefore, recovere'd a verdict. Then followed the im peachment of Judge Franklin. A gentle man who was present at the trial, and who watched the proceedings with great atten tion, said that Mr. Buchanan's argument was conducted with great ingenuity, elo quence, and address, and the effect of the impression produced by the argument was so strong that the managers of the impeach ment asked for an adjournment before they replied to it. Judge Franklin was acquitted. In reference to this case, Mr. Buchanan afterwards wrote: "I alone defended Judge Franklin and his associates. I never felt the responsibility of my position more sensibly than when, a young man between twentyfive and twenty-six years of age, I under took alone to defend Judge Franklin." When James Buchanan had reached the age of thirty he showed that he possessed a legal mind of the first order, and it is said that, even at that early age he commanded a practice more enviable and more extens ive than that of any other lawyer in the State. It should be remembered that he came to the bar when Pennsylvania was dis tinguished through the United States for the ability and high standing of its mem bers. It included such great names as the Gibsons, the Dallasses, the Duncans, the Semples, and others, who were not only an honor to their State, but whose fame ex tended through the country. With such eminent lawyers James Buchanan was obliged to cope in the struggle for success at the bar. His rise was rapid and brilliant. Triumph followed triumph, from the time of his admission until, at the early age of forty, he retired from the legal profession. Elected to Congress in 1820, Mr. Buchan an was appointed Chairman of the Ju

diciary Committee of the House of Repre' sr-ntatives, and, in the performance of the important duties of the position, displayed remarkable ability, especially in introducing and advocating a bill to amend and extend the judiciary system of the United States. Daniel Webster had been the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when he was a member of the House. While Mr. Buchanan held the position, a matter came before it which was regarded as one of the most important that can fall to the consideration of a legislative body. This was the celebrated impeachment case of James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District oí Missouri. To impeach a judge is one of the most solemn duties that a legislative body is ever called upon to perform, em bracing as it does points of constitutional law of the most delicate character. Mr. Buchanan was the chairman of the manag ers; the others were George McDuffie of South Carolina, Ambrose Spencer of New York, Charles Wickliffe of Kentucky, and Henry R. Storrs of New York. The case involved the liberty of the press, and has been briefly stated as follows: In Decem ber, 1825, Judge Peck decided against the claims of the widow and children of one An toine Soulard to certain lands in the State of Missouri and the then territory of Ar kansas. Luke E. Lawless, of St. Louis, had been one of the counsel for prosecuting the claim, and when the decision was rendered, he published an article in a newspaper, cit ing, in respectful language, certain errors into which Judge Peck had fallen. Upon this the judge had him summoned, and not only deprived him of the right to act in his profession, but actually committed him to prison. Mr. Lawless made complaint to the House of Representatives, and the im peachment of Judge Peck followed. William Wirt and Jonathan Meredith of Baltimore