DOCSLIB.ORG

1905.- Congressional Record-Sen Ate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1905.- Congressional Record-Sen Ate 1905.- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 2223 mffit or railwrry rates-to the Committee ori Interstate and that State; wbicb were referred 'to the Committee on Coin- Foreign Oommerce. meree. · ' Also, petiti<m -of the Philadelphia Board of Trade, fav.oring 1\!r. FULTON presented a. petition of ·sundry allotted Indians amendment .Of the interstate-commerce law r-elative to freight of too Siletz Indian Reser-vation, praying that an a-ppropriati.on rates-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. of .$3,000 be made to rebuild a sawmi11 recently burned on that Also, petition of G. W. Perkins, of the Cigar l\1akel'S' Inter­ reservation ; which was referred to the Committee .on Indian national Union, Chicago~ IlL, against tariff reduction on tobacco Affairs. - and cigars from the Philippines-to the Comm:ittee on Ways and Mr. PLATT of ·... :rew York presented sundry telegrams, in tile U eans. nature .of petiti<>ns, fmm eitizens of Albany, Randolph, -James­ AI o, petition of tile Manufacturers' Association of New York, town, Fredonia, Gowanda, Cattaraugus, and Little ValJey, alt relative to law for punishment for fi:>rg-ery of trade-marks-to in the State of New YOTk, praying for the eimctment of legisla­ the Committee on Patents_. tion p-roviding that rmy all(:}tments which may be made of the Al o, petition of the Southern Branch of the National Dental Osage Reservation in Qk1aborna Territory shall be made subject Assoeiution, favoring pending bill for reorganization tOf the to the terms and conditions of a certain lease dated March l6, army dental corps on a commissioned basis-to the Committee 1896; which were referred to the Committee on Indian Affa±rs. on Military A.ffuirs. He also presented a statement· of facts 1n relation to the so­ AI o, petition of Order 9f Railway Conductors, Divisi-On No. called n Foster .Qil and gas lease " of the O~ge Reservation, 54, -of New Yo1•k City, favoring bill H. R. '704:1-to the Commit­ showing the development under the lease and subleases and the tee on the Judiciary. reasons why in equity, taking into consideration the rights .of Also, petition of Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, State the Indians and the whites, the lease sbould be renewed; which legislative hoard, meeting at Alhany~ N. Y., favoring bill H. R. was referred to the Committee ()n Indian Aft'airs. 7041-to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. lf10STER of Washington presented a petition of the leg­ Al. o, petition of the Merchants' Association of New Y.ork islative committee of the American Federati-On <Of Labor, of Cit~r, favoring material reduction of tariff on Philippine prod­ Washington, D. -C., praying for the enactment of legislation ucts-to the Committee on Ways and Means. providing for free lectures to the people of the District of Co­ By Mr. WACHTER: Petition of the Baltimore Women's lumbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District Christian TempeTance Union, against sale of liquor on Govern­ · of Columbia. ment premises-to the Committee on Military Mairs. M~. WET:M-QRE presented a resolution of the general assem­ Also, petition .of the East Washington Citizens' Association, bly of Rhode Island, re!ative to the· improvement of the postal relative to improvement of Pennsylvania avenue-to the Com­ service; which was read, and referred to the Committee on mittee on the District of Columbia. PQst-Qffiees rrnd Pqst-Road£;, as follows : State of Rhode Island, etc: In general assembly, January session, A. D. 1905. Resolution recommending to Congress th.e prussage ot " House of Representatives bill No. 15083," now pending before SENATE. Congress. Whereas the eltlzens .or the State of Rhode Island are deeply in· terested in eyerything that relates to the improvement of the postal FRIDaY, Februa:ry 10, 1905. service; 1:t11d Whereas the proposition embodied in House of Representatives bHl Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. EuwARD E. HALE. No. 15-983, now pending befo~:e Congress, .consolidating third and fourth Tbe Secretary pro.ceeded to read the Journal of yesterday's class ma1'1 matter (the book and merch.andlse post) at the third-class rate, 1 cent per eaeh :! ounces, or 8 .cents per pound, which is ou.e-halt proceedings, when, on the .request of Mr. GALLINGER, and by the present merchandise rate, has been urgently Tecommended by the unanimous consent, the further reading was dispe-nsed with. Po t-OJfiee Department in the interest both of the post-offi.ce and the 'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Journal will stand ap- public: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the gene-ral assembly of Rhode Island, by Its con­ prored. current >rE$-Olution, .asks 1ts Se-nators ruui Representatives in Congress READING OF WASHINGTON'S FABEWELL ADDRESS. to do all they justly can to secure the passage of " House of Repre­ sentatives Bil No. 15983," and the secretary of state is hereby in· Tile PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. PERKINS to structed to send a eopy of this rcsQlution to the Senators and Repre- read Washington's Farewell Address February 22, under the sentatives In Congr~s from Rhode Isiaud. , resolution of the Senate of Deceniber 20, .1898, providing that - · STATE _OF RHODE ISLAND, 0FFIC.E OF THE SECRET..utY OF STATE,. the address shall be read on Washington"s Birthday, immedi~ Providen-ce, Fe1Jruarv 8, 19rJ5. n tely after the reu.ding of the J ou.rnal. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a: true copy of a resolution passed by the ~eneral assembly of said State on the 3d day of' Febru- VISITORS TO WEST POINT. ary, A. D. 190o. , . The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. DEPEW and Mr. In testiJ;nony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the State aforesaid, the date and year first above w1·itten. CULBERSON members of the Board of Visitors on the part of the [SEAL.] . CHARLES P. BENNETT, Senate to attend the next annual examination of cadets at the .Secretary of· State. Military Academy at West Point, N. Y., under the requirements Mr. WETMORE presented a resolution of the general as­ of section 1327 ot the Revised Statutes of the United States. sembly of Rhode Island, relative to the ena-ctment of legisla­ . VISITORS TO ANNAPOLIS. tion providing for a more efficient inspection of steamships The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. Drc-K and 1\Ir. and :Other vessels ; which was refer-red to the Committee on l\IcG'REARY member of the Board of Visitors on the part of the Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows : Senate to .attend the next annual examination of cadets at the State of Rhode Island, etc. In general assembly, January session, A .. -D. 1905. Resolution recomm.ending to Congr~ss the passage of an Naval Academy at Annapolis, 1\ld. ., under the requirements of act providing for a more efficient inspection of steamships and other the act Qf February 14, 1879. vessels. Whereas the unfortunate " Slocum disaster," and the investigation MESSAGE ;FROM l"HE HOUSE. which followed, publicly revealed the faet of the manifest inefficiency A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. C. R. of the Governm1lnt inspection laws relating to steamships, steamers, and vessels of all kinds ; and • McKENNEY, itS enrolling clerk, announced that the House bad Whereas Rhode Island is deeply interested in reguJar lines of pas ed the following bills; in which it requested the concur­ 'Steamship and steamboat travel, together with -excursion steamers ren-ce of the Senate : that yearly carry more than seven times the entire population of our State, the most rigid inspection of all floating craft and examina­ H. R.. 17331. An act relating to a dam across Rainy River; tion of applicants for positions, uuder adequate laws to be enacted. H. R. 18279. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Inte-­ should be enforced, humanely so, for the protection of life, limb, and rior to accept the conveyance from the State of Nebraska of cer­ property : Therefore be it Reso,ved, That the general assembly of Rhode Island,- by its con­ tain described lands and granting to .said State other lands in current resolution, ask its Senators and Representativ~s in Congress lieu the-reof, and for other purposes ; to do all they justly can to secure the passage of "resolution recom­ - H. R. 1858S. An act to supplement and amend the act entitled mending to Congress the passage of an ~ct providing for a more effi..cient inspection -of ·steamships and other yessels," and the secre­ ·"An .act to regulate commerce," apl)ro>ed February 4. 1887; and tary of state is hereby instructed to send a copy of this resolution - H. R. 18728. An act ·to authorize the board of supervisors of to the Senators and Representatives in Congress frQm Rhode IslaM Berrien County, Mich., to construct a bridge . across the St. ' STATE OF RHODE ISLAl\'D, Josepll River, near its mouth, in said county. 'OFFICE QF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, Providence, February 4, 1905. PETITION3 AND. Mln!ORIALS. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a resolution passed by the general assembly of ~ State on the 1st day ot 1\lr. BERRY presented petitions of sundry citizens of Devero, February, A. -D. 19-05. Batesville, :Mount Olive, Buffalo, Calico Rock, and Cushman, all In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed in the State of Arkansas, · praying that nn appro_priatibn be the seal of the State aforesa1d the date a:nd year first above written.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impeachment and Removal
    Impeachment and Removal Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney October 29, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44260 Impeachment and Removal Summary The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other “civil Officers of the United States” found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach an individual in the hands of the House of Representatives. Should a simple majority of the House approve articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which the impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate, to which the Constitution provides the sole power to try an impeachment. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the support of a simple majority. Key Takeaways of This Report The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device
    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment Since 1903 Jacobus Tenbroek
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1939 Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment since 1903 Jacobus TenBroek Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation TenBroek, Jacobus, "Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment since 1903" (1939). Minnesota Law Review. 1544. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1544 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES PARTISAN POLITICS AND FEDERAL JUDGESHIP IMPEACHMENT SINCE 1903 By JACOBUS TEN BROEK "A DECLINE of public morals in the United States will probably "Abe marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office." de Tocqueville, 1835. Recent proposals to inject new blood into the federal judi- ciary have raised anew the question of the available methods by which politically undesired federal judges can be removed from their offices and replaced by men whose social and economic views better accord with the attitudes and purposes of those in control of the executive and legislative branches of the national government. Early in the history of the country, faced by an antagonistic judi- ciary into which the Federalists had retired, Jefferson evolved the idea of using impeachment as an instrument of persuasion and, if need be, control by expulsion.' His success was qualified, to say the very least.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment of Federal Judges: an Historical Overview Frank Thompson Jr
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 49 | Number 1 Article 9 12-1-1970 Impeachment of Federal Judges: An Historical Overview Frank Thompson Jr. Daniel H. Pollitt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frank Thompson Jr. & Daniel H. Pollitt, Impeachment of Federal Judges: An Historical Overview, 49 N.C. L. Rev. 87 (1970). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol49/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW FRANK THOMPSON, JR.* AND DANIEL H. POLLITTr "The Place of Justice is an hallowed place, and therefore ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption." These were the words of Francis Bacon, philosopher, scientist, and the most gifted of the English Renaissance men. But in his capacity as Lord Chancellor, he came a cropper. In 1621, the highest judicial officer in England was impeached for accepting bribes from litigants-sometimes from litigants on both sides of the case-and his only defense was that he never gave the briber his due unless he deserved it on the merits. Bacon was charged by the House of Commons, found guilty by the House of Lords, and sentenced to im- prisonment in the Tower "during the King's pleasure." King James liberated him from the prison within a few days and gave him a full pardon.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter LXVI. PROCEDURE of the SENATE in IMPEACHMENT
    Chapter LXVI. PROCEDURE OF THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT. 1. Hour of meeting for trial. Sections 2069–2070. 2. Sittings and adjournments. Sections 2071–2078. 3. Administration of the oath. Sections 2079, 2081.1 4. Functions and powers of Presiding Officer. Sections 2082–2089.2 5. Duties of the Secretary. Section 2090. 6. Arguments on preliminary or interlocutory questions. Sections 2091–2093. 7. Voting and debate. Section 2094.3 8. Secret session. Sections 2095–2097. 9. Voting in judgment. Section 2098.4 10. Rules, practice, etc. Sections 2099–2115.5 2069. Unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, sitting for an impeach- ment trial, begins its proceedings at 12 m. daily. The Presiding Officer of the Senate announces the hour for sitting in an impeachment trial and the Presiding Officer on the trial directs proclamation to be made and the trial to proceed. 1 As to administration of the oath, see, also, Blount’s trial (sec. 2303 of this volume), Peck’s (secs. 2369, 2375), Humphreys’s (sec. 2389), Johnson’s (sec. 2422), Belknap’s (sec. 2450), Swayne’s (sec. 2477). 2 See, also, sections 2065–2067, 2082–2089. The president pro tempore presides during absence of the Vice-President. Sections 2309, 2337, 2394. Medium for putting questions to witnesses and motions to the Senate. Section 2176. Rulings of, as to evidence. Sections 2193, 2195, 2208. Does not decide as to attachment of witnesses. Section 2152. Calls counsel to order for improper utterances. Sections 2140, 2169. Calls respondent to order. Section 2349. Admonishes managers and counsel not to delay. Section 2151. 3 A majority vote only is required on incidental questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record- House
    1905.. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. ~ 1021 M. P: Westbrook to be postmaster at Bent-on, in. the county of very- able arguments that have been made in this proceeding, Saline and State of Arkansas. and: without assuming·to ha\e read· the-entire reclJrd I will give l)iDIA..."i TERRITORY. some impressions that I have recei\ed concerning the case. Willlam T: Brooks to be postmaster at BTOken Arrow, in Dfs­ The gentleman from New York [Mr. CocKRAN] yesterday very trict 7, Ind. T. eloquently presented to the House a- noble- ideal of a judge, an John P. Bradley to be postmaster at Wetumka, in District 13, ideal that was as unattainable as it was sublime. If we were Ind. T. to impeach all judges who· do not attain to it and impeach them ILLINOIS. at once, I do not think we should have a single judge upon the AJpheus K. Campbell to be I>Ostmaster at Sullivan, in the benclL at the· end of the week. I am not sure we want just that county of Moultrie and State of Illinois. sort of judge, because I think it would give us the regime of an Ml)i:'-IJJSOTA. intellectual and moral monster, unde1· whom mankind would be John P. Lundin to be postmaste1· at Stephen, Minn. crucified, and we woul<f soon long for a judge with some taint of the frailties of poor humanity upDn him: I am unable to ac­ cept the contention of the gentleman. from Pennsylvania, pre­ / TRE1ATIES WITH Th1HANS IN CALIFORNIA. sented in the \ery full argument in which he introduced the res­ The injunction of ecrecy was removed J"anuary 18, 1905, olution, before the holidays, a.s to the character of an impeach­ from the eighteen treaties with Indian tribes in California, sent able {)ffense.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the United States Senate: an Institutional Bibliography 1789
    The United States Senate: An Institutional Bibliography 1789-present Introduction I. Reference II. Constitutional Structure III. Constitutional Powers IV. Rules and Practice V. Leadership and Parties VI. Committees VII. Administration VIII. External Relations IX. Elections X. Contemporary Accounts XI. Seniority and Influence XII. Archiving the Senate XIII. A Guide to Sources Introduction This selective bibliography, compiled by the United States Senate Historical Office, is designed to provide general readers and scholars with a guide to articles, documents, and books on the institutional development of the Senate. In addition to covering the fundamental powers of the Senate, the bibliography includes sources on Senate practices, customs, and rules of procedure. While illustrative case studies are listed, the bibliography's emphasis is on the historical evolution of the institution, not isolated occurrences. Studies on individuals and the current status of the Senate have, for the most part, been excluded. For a comprehensive list of sources on U.S. senators, consult the congressional document, Senators of the United States: A Historical Bibliography (1995), which is listed under the Bibliographies subheading of the Reference section of this bibliography. Also see the on-line Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress (http://bioguide.congress.gov/). The bibliography contains over six hundred sources arranged by subject headings and subheadings. The sources may be listed under multiple headings if they cover more than one subject. Under each heading, the sources are further divided by the time period of their first publication. The publication time periods are 1789-1889, 1890-1939, 1940-1989, and 1990 to the present. The chronological divisions are meant to reveal trends in Senate scholarship as well as to aid researchers interested in sources published during a particular period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Impeachment As a Partisan Political Weapon Richard K
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 34 Article 1 Number 2 Winter 2007 1-1-2007 The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon Richard K. Neumann Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon, 34 Hastings Const. L.Q. 161 (2007). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol34/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon by RICHARD K. NEUMANN JR Contents 1. Introduction II. The Adoption and Meaning of Constitutional Provisions on Impeachment III. The Evolution of Impeachment Practice A. The First Two Impeachments: Blount and Pickering B. The Chase Impeachment, Its Context, and Its Aftermath C. Between Chase and Johnson D. Johnson E. The Era of Nonpartisanship and Bipartisanship 1. Bellknap to Hoover 2. 1937 3. Ritter 4. Judicial Impeachments After Ritter 5. Nixon and Agnew F. The Revival of Impeachment As a Partisan Political Weapon 1. The Fortas and Douglas Investigations: The Beginning of the Struggle for the Supreme Court 2. Clinton IV. The Future of Partisan Impeachments and Threats of Impeachment A. Thomas B. Evidentiary Burdens in the House and Senate C. The Effect of Party Insecurity on the Partisan Use of Impeachment V.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Grounds for Presidential'impeachment
    93d Congress HOUSE COMMITTEE PRINT 2d Session I CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL'IMPEACHMENT REPORT BY THE STAFF OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 1974 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28--9 WASHINGTON : 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Offce Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents '~nva' - COMMITTEE ON TIHE JUDICIARY PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman HAR')LD D. DONOIIUB, Massachusetts EDWARD IIUTCIIINSON, Michigan JACK .BROOKS, Texas ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois ROBERTU W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin HENRY P. SMITH III, New York DON EDWARDS, California CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., New Jersey WILLIAM ;.. IIUNGATE, Missouri TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois JOIN CONYERS, JR., Michigan CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California JOSHUA EILBr;R(•, Pennsyivania DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana JEROME It. WALDIE, California HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama WILEY MAYNE, Iowa JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina, LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia JOHN F. SIEBERLING, Ohio WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine GEORGE B. DANIELSON, California TRENT LOTT, Mississippi ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin CHARLES B. RANGEL. New York CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California BARBARA JORDAN, Texas JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, New Jersey RAY THORNTON, Arkansas DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York WAYNE OWENS, Utah EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Iowa JzEoRM M. ZwurMAi, General Counsel GARNER J. CLINE, Associate General Counsel HERBER, FuerIs, Counsel HERBERT E. HOFPHA., Counsel WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel H. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE, Counsel ALAN A. PARKER, Counsel JAMES F. FALCO, Counsel MAURICE A. BARBOZA, Counsel FRANKLIN 0. POLK, Counes"I THOMAS E.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment Powers
    CHAPTER 14 Impeachment Powers A. Generally § 1. Constitutional Provisions; House and Senate Func- tions § 2. Who May Be Impeached; Effect of Resignation § 3. Grounds for Impeachment; Form of Articles § 4. Effect of Adjournment B. Investigation and Impeachment § 5. Introduction and Referral of Charges § 6. Committee Investigations § 7. Committee Consideration; Reports § 8. Consideration and Debate in the House § 9. Presentation to Senate; Managers § 10. Replication; Amending Adopted Articles C. Trial in the Senate § 11. Organization and Rules § 12. Conduct of Trial § 13. Voting; Deliberation and Judgment D. History of Proceedings § 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment § 15. Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon § 16. Impeachment of Judge English § 17. Impeachment of Judge Louderback § 18. Impeachment of Judge Ritter Appendix Commentary and editing by Peter D. Robinson. J.D. 1939 Ch. 14 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS INDEX TO PRECEDENTS Adjournment sine die, effect on im- Charges not resulting in impeach- peachment proceedings ment—Cont. authority of managers following expi- Perkins, Frances, Secretary of Labor, ration of Congress, § 4.2 adverse report by committee, § 14.9 impeachment in one Congress and trial Truman, Harry, President, charges not in the next, § 4.1 acted on, §§ 14.11, 14.12 investigation in one Congress and im- Watson, Albert, judge, charges not peachment in the next, §§ 4.3, 4.4 acted on, § 14.10 Amending articles of impeachment Committee consideration and report privilege of resolution reported by broadcast of committee
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter LXIX. RULES of EVIDENCE in an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
    Chapter LXIX. RULES OF EVIDENCE IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 1. Strict rules of the courts followed. Sections 2218, 2219.1 2. Must be relevant to the pleadings. Sections 2220–2225. 3. Best evidence required. Sections 2226–2229. 4. Hearsay testimony. Sections 2230–2237. 5. Testimony as to declarations of respondent. Sections 2238—2245. 6. As to acts of the respondent after the fact. Sections 2246–2247. 7. As to opinions of witnesses. Sections 2248–2257. 8. Public, documents as evidence. Sections 2258–2274. 9. General decisions as to evidence. Sections 2275–2293. 2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled deci- sively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied. Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions. Decision as to the limits within which expert testimony may be admitted in an impeachment trial. On January 7, 1831,2 in the high court of impeachment during the trial of the case of The United States v. James H. Peck, a witness, Robert Walsh, was examined on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. William Wirt, counsel for the respondent, asked this question: When you read the strictures signed ‘‘A Citizen,’’ did they strike you as misrepresenting the opinion of the court in a manner calculated to awaken the contempt and indignation of the people of Missouri, and to impair the confidence of the suitors in that court in the intelligence and integrity of the tribunal? Judge Peck was impeached for punishing for contempt the author of a letter signed ‘‘A Citizen’’ and published in a St.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter LXXVIII. the IMPEACHMENT and TRIAL of CHARLES SWAYNE
    Chapter LXXVIII. THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF CHARLES SWAYNE. 1. Charges by a State legislature. Section 2469. 2. Investigation by House committee. Sections 2470, 2471, 3. Impeachment at the bar of the Senate and preparation of articles. Sections 2472– 2474. 4. Appointment of managers and exhibition of articles. Sections 2475, 2476. 5. Organization of Senate for trial. Section 2477. 6. Process issued. Section 2478. 7. Return on summons and appearance of respondent. Section 2479. 8. Respondent’s answer. Sections 2480, 2481. 9. Replication of the House. Section 2482. 10. Presentation of testimony. Section 2483. 11. Final arguments. Section 2484. 12. Decision of the Senate. Section 2485. 2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the northern district of Florida. A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial. Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to jus- tify the House in ordering an investigation. The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne consid- ered by a committee before ordering an investigation. Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the charges against Judge Swayne. On December 10, 1903,1 Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by this House is a question of privi- lege. I have made a joint resolution adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption.
    [Show full text]