The Origins and Significance of Impeachment in the Career of Governor Huey P Long A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Diane Smith Department of Social and Political Sciences Abstract “I never held a public office in my life during which I was not under some kind of threat of removal or impeachment from the day I went into politics until the present day. I have never held one, and I do not expect to hold one.” Huey P Long, American Progress, 8 February 1934 When, in March 1929, just ten months after he was inaugurated as governor of Louisiana, Huey P Long had been impeached by the state’s Legislature, he was one of only a handful of state governors to have been censured in this way in United States history. Despite the rarity of impeachment, the action against Long has been under-examined by academics and historians, with previous work focussing solely on a recitation of events and speculation that the action may have wrought a possible alteration in his personality. However, the impeachment had a more profound and transformational impact on Long and his subsequent career, leading as it did to actions which, without this tipping point, may not have occurred in quite the same way. Therefore to dismiss the impeachment as a simple vignette in the sometimes controversial career of Long, is to under-estimate the importance of the action and its subsequent impact. To redress this omission, it is necessary to examine the genesis of the impeachment in 1929 and to determine whether the action was a predictable event based on a broad view of Long, his character and his techniques, his personal and political belief systems, his position within the state of Louisiana and the South, and the environment in which he emerged to prominence. Through this wider approach, it has been possible to trace the origins of the 1929 impeachment to its roots in Long’s early political career. 1 Acknowledgements The completion of this study is due in no small part to the guidance, support and assistance of a number of people. First, thanks are due to Dr Niall Palmer and Dr Martin Folly who have supervised this project throughout its development, from the troublesome early and mid- stages and, when things began to make sense, through to completion. The encouragement of other members of the Division of Politics and History, the academic staff, the administrative team, and my fellow PhD candidates has been greatly appreciated. My thanks and appreciation to the archivists and staff in Louisiana, in the Special Collections at the Hill-Memorial Library, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; at Howard-Tilton Memorial Library, Tulane University, New Orleans and the Special Collections Department, Earl K Long Library, University of New Orleans. Without their expertise and assistance, this research could not have been undertaken. My thanks also go to my colleagues at Brunel University London without whom the balancing act of full-time employment and a part-time PhD would have been even more difficult. Finally, but most importantly, I am grateful for the support of my friends and particularly my family who have borne with me during this process and tolerated my absences. This thesis is dedicated, with love, to my parents, Rod and Cecily Smith. 2 Index INTRODUCTION 4 1 HISTORIANS AND THE IMPEACHMENT OF HUEY P LONG 32 2 AN EXCEPTIONAL SOUTHERN GOVERNOR? 74 3 STEPS TO POWER 111 4 MOTIVATIONS 165 5 ENEMIES, ENMITY AND IMPEACHMENT 210 CONCLUSIONS 282 APPENDICES 298 BIBLIOGRAPHY 311 3 Introduction Historically, impeachment has always been a potential threat to the career of any US politician, whether it is triggered in response to alleged criminal activity or misdemeanours or as a result of partisan hostility. For Louisiana Governor Huey Pierce Long, investigation and impeachment were recurring threats overhanging his entire political career. As a Public Service Commissioner, he faced removal after accusing the incumbent state governor of being in thrall to Standard Oil and claiming his fellow commissioners had taken bribes from the Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company. As governor, he faced impeachment early in his term of office and, as US Senator, he was the target of two US Senate investigations, the first by the Special Committee on Investigation of Presidential and Senatorial Campaign Expenditure into corruption during the 1932 Overton-Broussard US Senate campaign, and the second by the Judiciary committee into a petition by Governor John M Parker that Long was “personally dishonest, corrupt, and immoral, and his continuance in office [was] repulsive to the respectable and law abiding citizens of Louisiana and the nation” and should be incarcerated as a “dangerous paranoiac” as a matter of public safety.1 Such was the prevalence of impeachment and censure efforts during Long’s career that he became more and more preoccupied with the threat, particularly after his impeachment as governor in March 1929. Increasingly, he began to perceive such investigations as validating of his political programmes and activities. 1 “Seek Removal Of Huey Long From Senate – Home Citizens File Charge of Graft” Chicago Tribune 14 April 1933 p1 4 The Impeachment of Governor Huey P Long On 15 March 1929, Long issued a call for the Louisiana Legislature to meet in special session, for no more than six days from 18 March, to pass legislation on six subjects, including an occupational tax on oil refining.2 When it became evident to Long that his oil tax would not be approved, he adjourned the session and called for a second special session to commence on 20 March lasting no more than eighteen days, ending on 6 April 1929. The bills for discussion at this session again included an occupational oil tax.3 The opposition was more organised during this second session, causing Long to seek to adjourn this session too. However, the anti-Longs were determined that the governor should accept the defeat of his programme. On Monday, 25 March, John Fournet, the speaker of the house, recognised the motion of J Cleveland Fruge, a Long supporter, over that of Cecil Morgan. Where Fruge’s motion called for an adjournment, Morgan’s sought an investigation into an accusation made by Harry ‘Battling’ Bozeman, Long’s former bodyguard, that the governor had asked him to murder J Y Sanders Jr. A vote on the adjournment motion was called. However, despite a number of anti-Longs objecting that their vote had been recorded incorrectly, Fournet ruled that the vote had been in favour of the motion. He declared the session adjourned sine die and left the chamber. The subsequent scuffle between pro- and anti-Long legislators was brought to an end when Representative Mason Spencer called for calm, took the speaker’s chair and, in Fournet’s absence, held a voice vote on the adjournment motion. The resulting vote was 71 to 9 against adjournment sine die. Spencer then moved that the House adjourn until 11am the following morning.4 When the session continued, Fournet apologised for mis-calling the adjournment, blaming the error on a “mechanical difficulty” with the voting machinery which had failed to clear the 2 “Special Session Aims Detailed – Official Call For Legislative Gathering Monday Promulgated By Governor” Crowley Daily Signal (Louisiana) 16 March 1929 p1 3 Official Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the Fifth Extra Session of the Legislature, Under the Adoption of the Constitution of 1921: Begun and Held in the City of Baton Rouge, March 20, 1929 pp3-4 4 Ibid, pp26-27 5 results of the previous vote.5 Led by Morgan, the anti-Long opposition forces demanded Long’s impeachment, citing 19 separate charges.6 Testimony on the charges was heard in the House from 3 April, with the first charge put to the vote on 6 April. Listed as article 14 in the impeachment charges, the Manship charge, as it was commonly known, claimed that Long had sought to silence Charles Manship, the publisher of two daily newspapers in Baton Rouge, by threatening to reveal publicly that Manship’s brother, Douglas, was a resident of an insane asylum. Since it required the fewest witnesses, the Manship charge was voted on first. In a farcical incident, Representative George Delesdernier attempted to prevent the vote with a speech which compared Long to Jesus of Nazareth, “Today we have a creature relieving the sick and the blind, aiding the lame and the halt, and trying to drive illiteracy from the State, and he is being shackeled [sic] with paper to a cross.” When Lester Lautenschlaeger suggested that Delesdernier’s statement was irrelevant to the case, he responded “Take my life but give me my character,” fainted and was carried from the chamber.7 Subsequently the House voted by 58 to 40 to impeach Long on this charge, with Delesdernier’s vote recorded as nay.8 Six members of the House, Charles B Roberts, L Mason Spencer, J Y Sanders Jr, George J Ginsberg, Cecil Morgan, George K Perrault, A P Frymire, Paul A Chasez, Lavinius L Williams, were selected as managers to prosecute the impeachment of the governor, to present to the Senate the adopted article of impeachment (the Manship charge) and the pledge that the House “will in due time exhibit other and particular articles of impeachment against him, the said Huey P. Long, Governor, and make good the same; and that the managers do demand that the said Senate take order and 5 Ibid, p28 6 See Appendix 1p299 7 Official Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, p292 8 Ibid, p294 6 require the appearance of said Huey P.