Attempt to Impeach Justices Yeates, Shippen and Smith Fails, December 13, 1803

Thomas McKean became Governor of Pennsylvania December 17, 1799.

With the election of McKean there was at once a lively commotion concerning the disposition of offices, and for the first time in the history of the State the Governor found himself confronted with this new and perplexing problem.

There never had been any radical change in the offices during the long period of the Provincial Government, while the party of the Revolution, after the war, with the single exception of Dickinson’s term, had been in power until this time. But now the political ax was to be swung. McKean knew how to swing it and the work suited his strong nature. His course was sharply criticized, and party feeling during his entire administration was exceedingly warm and bitter.

The Federalists in the Legislature made an attack upon the Governor for holding the principles he enunciated, and the address of the Senate was one of accusation instead of congratulation.

Governor McKean made a long reply, declaring that the objectionable expressions were uttered before he assumed office, and that as regards the removals from office he relied upon his right to make such changes as he deemed proper, without accountability to any person or party.

In the address of the Democratic nominee for 1803 is used the following language: “As Pennsylvania is the keystone of the Democratic arch, every engine will be used to sever it from its place”—being probably the first instance in which the comparison of the Commonwealth to the keystone of an arch was used, and the origin of a figure of speech since very common.

During the session of the Legislature, December 13, 1803, a memorial was presented from Thomas Passmore, of Philadelphia, charging Justices Jasper Yeates, Edward Shippen and Thomas Smith of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with oppression and false imprisonment, the complainant having been committed for contempt of court.

The matter was considered in General Assembly and the House recommended that the court be impeached for high misdemeanors. Articles of complaint were prepared and the impeachment sent to the Senate. It was not until the subsequent session that proceedings were had when upon the final vote in the Senate, 13 voted guilty and 11 not guilty. The constitutional majority of two-thirds not being obtained the accused were acquitted.

875In this proceeding the chief point in connection was the extent to which the common law of England was applicable or in force in Pennsylvania; whether the justices had exceeded their authority in construing its provisions and harmonizing them with the statutes then in force, and also with peculiar exigencies of the case out of which the impeachment had grown.

As an element of State history the affair of the impeachment of the justices was of minor importance. In its relation to the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth, it was a subject of great moment, and was discussed and commented upon in all the populous States of the country, as the beginning of a movement to set aside the strict teachings of English common law and to establish precedents applicable to our own necessities without especial regard to those which originally had been imported from the Mother Country.

The time had come when an independent judicial system in this State was made necessary, and this was one of the beginnings.

It can hardly be questioned but that partisan politics played some part in the impeachment proceedings, as Justices Yeates, Shippen and Smith belonged to the Federalist Party, and their impeachment would have made three fine places for their opponents. It was ever thus.

A movement was started in 1805 by a faction of the Democratic Party for revision of the Constitution. It grew out of the impeachment proceedings, and the advocates of the measure proposed to make the election of Senators annual, to reduce the patronage of the Governor and to limit the tenure of the judiciary.

This new party assumed the name of “Constitutionalists,” while those opposed styled themselves “Friends of the People.” The controversy for some reason was carried on with much bitterness.

Governor McKean strongly opposed another constitutional convention, and in a message expressed his views as follows:

“The organization of the judicial power of Pennsylvania has been long and fairly condemned. But there is not a defect suggested from any quarter which the Legislature is not competent to remedy. The authority of the Judges may be restricted or enlarged. The law they dispense, whether statute law or common law, may be annulled or modified. The delay of justice may be obviated by increasing the number of judges in proportion to the obvious increase of judicial business or by instituting local tribunals, where local cases demand a more constant exercise of jurisdiction.”

Although the constitutional convention was not held, the proposition found many supporters in all parties. Under the changed conditions McKean’s friends knew that Editor Duane’s influence would seek to defeat his renomination for Governor if possible. The nomination for Governor was then made by a legislative caucus.

The legislative nominating caucus at Lancaster dissolved in confusion. 876Some were for McKean, while others equally enthusiastic were for Simon Snyder, the speaker of the House. The “Freeman’s Journal” characterized Snyder as a “Pennsylvania Dutchman” and intimated that even Duane in the “Aurora” did not give him a very hearty support. The campaign was spirited. Numerous societies were formed and addresses in German broadcast.

Governor McKean was elected by 5601 majority and once more found himself supported by those from whom he had broken away only a few years before. The Constitutionalists soon disappeared from the political stage.

The re-election of the Governor was not without its losses, however, for soon afterward he became involved in libel suits with Duane, Dr. Leib and others, while they in the spirit of retaliation presented the Governor for impeachment on charges of abuse of the executive power.

The impeachment proceedings were hardly more than a revival of the old political troubles in which envy and jealousy played the leading roles. The committee of the House investigated the charges and reported to the House, when a vote was taken which resulted in a tie. The division was strictly on party lines, and the matter was therefore indefinitely postponed. The Governor’s reputation was in no wise injured in the unfortunate action.

The Governor, in a message to the General Assembly, reminded the members that “libeling had become the crying sin of the Nation and the times.” He strongly denounced a condition which permitted the prostitution of the liberty of the press, the overwhelming torrent of political dissension, the indiscriminate demolition of public characters, and the barbarous inroads upon the peace and happiness of individuals, etc.