Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-40

Opinion No. 40. Legislative Assembly-Impeachment, Powers Regarding. HELD: The actions of the Legis- lative Assembly regarding impeach- ment are not subject to review or re- versal by any court. February 7, 1935. Hon. W. M. Cusick Chairman, Special Investigating Committee House of Representatives The Capitol Several questions have been sub- mitted by your committee. You have already been advised by your Judiciary Committee that you have full au- thority to investigate as fully as you deem necessary into the conduct of Tom Carey. With this opinion of your own Judiciary Committee we fully concur. ~ this investigation you would not be guilty of a contempt of court as you would be merely fulfilling the duties of your office in the case you deem it proper to conduct such ex- amination. Relative to the question of a pos- sible impeachment you may also well be guided by your own Judiciary Com- mittee. While acting in impeachment proceedings the legislature exercises the full authority of a court which de- termines the extent of its own juris- diction. Your actions in such mat- ter are not subject to review by any court and we are unable to find any authority in a textbook, decision or elsewhere, which remotely suggests that in determining your right to im- peach, or who may be impeached, that you are subject to supervision or reversal by any court whatsoever. The legislature itself, acting as a court, interprets the constitution as to who may be impeached. That au- thority exists with you. You are the judge of the law, as well as the facts. A list containing some authorities or references which have been exam- ined is appended hereto. List of Authorities. Who May Be Impeached: In the case of William Blount, a United States Senator, impeachment proceedings in 1798. Question in- volved was whether a United States Senator was subject to impeachment. It was assumed by all parties that the right to determine this question existed in Congress. Trial of Wil- liam Blount, Wharton's State Trials, 200, 266-317. 1 Story on the Constitution, 577. 12 St. Louis Law Review 16. Advisory Opinion-Opinion of Jus- tices, 167 Mass. 599. Cases which do not purport to limit the powers of a state legislature as to the extent of its powers in im- peachment but which interpret con- stitutional provisions under other conditions. State v. Mayor, 43 Mont. 61. State ex reI. Ayers v. Kipp, 74 N. W. 440. Roberts v. People, 235 Pac. 1069, 77 Colo. 281. Maben v. Rosser, 103 Pac. 674. State v. Smith, 33 Pac. 974. People v. Shawver, 222 Pac. 11. Decision of Legislature in regard to Impeachment not subject to review by the Courts. State ex reI. Trapp v. Chambers, 30 A. L. R. 1144. It has been urged that State ex reI. Cutts v. Hart, 56 Mont. 571, in- OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL a7 dicates that the Supreme Court will review questions of jurisdiction de- termined by legislature. That case went no further than to hold that the court will not entertain mandamus to compel payment of fees to an of- ficer improperly seated~