§ 18. Impeachment of Judge Ritter

IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

§ 18. Impeachment of On June 1, 1933, the Committee Judge Ritter on the Judiciary reported House Resolution 163 (H. Rept. No. 191) Authorization of Investigation with committee amendments; the resolution was referred to the § 18.1 The Committee on the Committee of the Whole House on Judiciary reported in the 73d the state of the Union, since the Congress a resolution au- original resolution contained an thorizing an investigation appropriation.(21) into the conduct of Halsted On the same day, Hatton W. Ritter, a U.S. District Court Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of judge; the resolution was re- the Committee on the Judiciary, ferred to the Union Calendar asked unanimous consent to con- and considered and adopted sider House Resolution 163 in the in the House as in the Com- House as in the Committee of the mittee of the Whole by unani- Whole. The resolution and com- mous consent. mittee amendments read as fol- On May 29, 1933, Mr. J. Mark lows: Wilcox, of Florida, placed in the HOUSE RESOLUTION 163 hopper a resolution (H. Res. 163) authorizing the Committee on the Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and directed, Judiciary to investigate the con- as a whole or by subcommittee, to in- duct of Halsted Ritter, District quire into and investigate the official Judge for the U.S. District Court conduct of Halsted L. Ritter, a district for the Southern District of Flor- judge for the United States District ida, to determine whether in the Court for the Southern District of Flor- opinion of the committee he had ida, to determine whether in the opin- been guilty of any high crime or ion of said committee he has been guilty of any high crime or mis- misdemeanor. The resolution was demeanor which in the contemplation referred to the Committee on the of the Constitution requires the inter- ( ) Judiciary. 20 position of the Constitutional powers of the House. Said committee shall report gress, see H. JOUR. 3, 73d Cong. 1st its findings to the House, together with Sess., Mar. 9, 1933. such resolution of impeachment or On May 24, 1933, the Senate ac- other recommendation as it deems quitted Judge Louderback on all ar- proper. ticles. See 6 Cannon’s Precedents Sec. 2. For the purpose of this reso- § 524. lution, the committee is authorized to 20. 77 CONG. REC. 4575, 73d Cong. 1st Sess. 21. Id. at p. 4796.

2205 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

sit and act during the present Con- against Judge Ritter, but a sub- gress at such times and places in the committee of the committee inves- District of Columbia and elsewhere, tigated the charges and gathered whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold testimony and evidence pursuant such hearing, to employ such clerical, to House Resolution 163. stenographic, and other assistance, to The evidence gathered was the require the attendance of such wit- basis for House Resolution 422 in nesses and the production of such the 74th Congress, impeaching books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, to have such Judge Ritter, and both that reso- printing and binding done, and to lution and the report of the Com- make such expenditures not exceeding mittee on the Judiciary in the $5,000, as it deems necessary. 74th Congress (H. Rept. No. 2025) With the following committee referred to the investigation con- amendments: ducted under House Resolution Page 2, line 5, strike out the words 163, 73d Congress. ‘‘to employ such clerical, stenographic, and other assistance’’; and in line 9, on The Chairman of the sub- page 2, strike out ‘‘to have such print- committee, Malcolm C. Tarver, of ing and binding done, and to make Georgia, made a report recom- such expenditures, not exceeding mending impeachment to the full $5,000.’’ committee; the report was printed After brief debate, the House as in the Record in the 74th Con- in the Committee of the Whole gress.(2) adopted the resolution as amended by the committee amend- Presentation of Charges ments.(1) The Committee on the Judiciary § 18.2 In the 74th Congress, a made no report to the House, Member rose to a question of prior to the expiration of the 73d constitutional privilege and Congress, in the matter of charges presented charges against Judge Ritter, which were re- 1. Id. at pp. 4784, 4785. ferred to the Committee on The House adopted a resolution, the Judiciary. reported by the Committee on Ac- counts, authorizing payment out of On Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. the contingent fund for expenses of Green, of Florida, a member of the the Committee on the Judiciary in Committee on the Judiciary, rose conducting its investigation under H. to a question of constitutional Res. 163; see H. Res. 172, 77 CONG. REC. 5429, 5430, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., 2. 80 CONG. REC. 408–10, 74th Cong. June 9. 1933. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1936.

2206 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18 privilege and on his own responsi- MR. BLANTON: What action was bility impeached Judge Halsted taken on the Tarver report? If this offi- Ritter for high crimes and mis- cial is the kind of judge the Tarver report indicates, why was he not then demeanors. Although he pre- impeached and tried by the Senate? sented no resolution, he delivered MR. GREEN: That is the question lengthy and specific charges that is now foremost in my mind. Since against the accused. He indicated Judge Tarver’s service as chairman of his intention to read, as part of the Judiciary Subcommittee he has his speech, a report submitted to been transferred from the House Judi- ciary Committee to the House Com- the Committee on the Judiciary mittee on Appropriations. He is not by Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, now a member of the Judiciary Com- past Chairman of a subcommittee mittee. of the Committee on the Judici- I firmly believe that when our col- ary, which subcommittee had in- leagues understand the situation thor- vestigated the charges against oughly, there will be no hesitancy in Judge Ritter pursuant to House bringing about Ritter’s impeachment by a direct vote on the floor of the Resolution 163, adopted by the House. My purpose in this is to get it House in the 73d Congress. in concrete form, in compliance with In response to inquiries, Mr. the rules of the House, so that the di- Green summarized the status of rect impeachment will be handled by the investigation and his reason the Committee on the Judiciary. At present impeachment is not before the for rising to a question of constitu- committee. This will give the Judiciary tional privilege: something to act upon. MR. [JOHN J.] O’CONNOR [of New MR. BLANTON: Was he not im- York]: Of course, ordinarily the matter peached in the House before when the would be referred to the Committee on Tarver investigation was made? the Judiciary. Does the gentleman Mr. Green: No. He was never im- think he must proceed longer in the peached. There was a resolution matter at this time? passed by the House directing an in- MR. GREEN: My understanding is, I vestigation to be made by the Judiciary may say to the chairman of the Rules Committee. Committee, that the articles of im- MR. BLANTON: Was that not a reso- peachment will be referred to the Com- lution that followed just such impeach- mittee on the Judiciary for its further ment charges in the House as the gen- consideration and action. I do not in- tleman from Florida is now making? tend to consume any more time than is MR. GREEN: I understand that arti- absolutely necessary. cles of impeachment have not been MR. [THOMAS L.] BLANTON [of heretofore filed in this case. Texas]: Will the gentleman yield? MR. BLANTON: Was the Tarver re- Mr. Green: I yield. port, to which the gentleman has re-

2207 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

ferred, filed with the Judiciary Com- conduct against Judge Ritter (H. mittee? Rept. No. 2025). The report, which MR. GREEN: It is my understanding was referred to the House Cal- that it is now in their hands.(3) endar and ordered printed, read Mr. Green inserted the text of as follows: the Tarver report, which rec- ommended impeachment, in his The Committee on the Judiciary, remarks.(4) having had under consideration charges of official misconduct against At the conclusion of Mr. Green’s Halsted L. Ritter, a district judge of remarks, Mr. O’Connor moved the United States for the Southern that ‘‘the proceedings be referred District of Florida, and having taken to the Committee on the Judici- testimony with regard to the official ary.’’ The motion was agreed to.(5) conduct of said judge under the authority of House Resolution 163 of the Sev- § 18.3 The Committee on the enty-third Congress, report the accom- Judiciary reported in the panying resolution of impeachment 74th Congress a resolution and articles of impeachment against Halsted L. Ritter to the House of Rep- impeaching Judge Halsted resentatives with the recommendation Ritter on four articles of im- that the same be adopted by the House peachment; the resolution re- and presented to the Senate.(7) ferred to the investigation The resolving clause of the reso- undertaken pursuant to au- lution recited that the evidence thorizing resolution in the taken by a subcommittee of the 73d Congress. Committee on the Judiciary under On Feb. 20, 1936, Mr. Hatton House Resolution 163 of the 73d W. Sumners, of Texas, introduced Congress sustained impeach- House Resolution 422, impeaching ment.(8) Judge Ritter; the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Consideration and Adoption of Judiciary.(6) On the same day, Mr. Articles of Impeachment Sumners, Chairman of the committee, submitted a privileged re- § 18.4 The House considered port on the charges of official mis- and adopted a resolution and articles of impeachment 3. 80 CONG. REC. 404, 405, 74th Cong. against Judge Halsted Ritter, 2d Sess. 4. Id. at pp. 408–410. 7. Id. at p. 2528. 5. Id. at p. 410. 8. For the text of the resolution and ar- 6. 80 CONG. REC. 2534, 74th Cong. 2d ticles of impeachment, see § 18.7, Sess. infra.

2208 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

pursuant to a unanimous- the subcommittee of the Committee on consent agreement fixing the the Judiciary of the House of Rep- time for and control of de- resentatives under House Resolution 163 of the Seventy-third Congress sus- bate. tains articles of impeachment, which On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. are hereinafter set out; and that the Sumners, of Texas, called up for said articles be, and they are hereby, immediate consideration a resolu- adopted by the House of Representa- tives, and that the same shall be ex- tion (H. Res. 422), which the hibited to the Senate in the following Clerk read at the direction of words and figures, to wit: . . . (10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Ten- The House then discussed the nessee. Mr. Sumners indicated his maintenance of order during de- intention to conclude the pro- bate on the resolution: ceedings and have a vote on the resolution before adjournment. MR. [WILLIAM B.] BANKHEAD [of Ala- The House agreed to his unani- bama]: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is a full membership of the mous-consent request for consider- House here today, and properly so, be- ( ) ation of the resolution: 9 cause impeachment proceedings are a matter of grave importance. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent that de- The proceedings are inquisitorial, bate on this resolution be continued for and in order that we may arrive at a 41⁄2 hours, 21⁄2 hours to be controlled correct judgment with reference to the by himself and 2 hours by the gen- matter and form an intelligent opinion tleman from New York [Mr. Hancock]; as to how we shall vote, it is absolutely and at the expiration of the time the necessary and essential that we have previous question shall be considered order in the Chamber during the pro- as ordered. Is there objection? ceedings. There was no objection. I know it is difficult at all times to get gentlemen to refrain from con- The resolving clause to the arti- versation, but I make a special appeal cles read as follows: to the membership of the House on this occasion, in view of the serious im- RESOLUTION portance of the proceedings, that they Resolved, That Halsted L. Ritter, will be quiet and listen to the speakers who is a United States district judge so that we may vote intelligently on for the southern district of Florida, be this matter. [Applause.] impeached for misbehavior, and for THE SPEAKER: The Chair wishes to high crimes and misdemeanors; and emphasize what the gentleman from that the evidence heretofore taken by 10. Id. at p. 3066. For the full text of the 9. 80 CONG. REC. 3066–69, 74th Cong. resolution and articles, see § 18.7, 2d Sess. infra.

2209 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Alabama has said. There is but one lated to impeachment proceedings way to maintain order, and that is for against Judge Ritter: Members to cease conversation, because a little conversation here and a IMPEACHMENT OF HALSTED L. RITTER little there creates confusion that MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, makes it difficult for speakers to be I send to the desk the three resolutions heard.(11) which are the usual resolutions offered when an impeachment has been voted Time for debate having expired, by the House, and I ask unanimous Speaker Byrns stated that pursu- consent that they may be read and ant to the order of the House the considered en bloc. previous question was ordered. By MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New the yeas and nays, the House York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not know that I under- agreed to the resolution of im- stand the situation we are in at the peachment—yeas 181, nays 146, present time. Will the gentleman represent 7, not voting 96.(12) state his request? THE SPEAKER: (14) The request is to Election of Managers have read the three resolutions and have them considered en bloc. § 18.5 The House adopted reso- MR. SUMNERS of Texas: I may say to the gentleman from New York, they lutions appointing managers are the three resolutions usually of- to conduct the impeachment fered and they are in the language trial, empowering the man- used when the House has voted an im- agers to employ staff and to peachment. prepare and conduct im- MR. SNELL: And the gentleman from peachment proceedings, and Texas wants them considered at one time? notifying the Senate that the MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Yes. House had adopted articles There being no objection, the Clerk and appointed managers. read the resolutions, as follows: (13) On Mar. 6, 1936, following HOUSE RESOLUTION 439 the adoption of articles of im- Resolved, That Hatton W. Sum- peachment on Mar. 2, Mr. Hatton ners, Randolph Perkins, and Sam W. Sumners, of Texas, offered res- Hobbs, Members of this House, be, and they are hereby, appointed man- olutions of a privileged nature re- agers to conduct the impeachment against Halsted L. Ritter, United 11. Id. at p. 3069. States district judge for the southern district of Florida; that said man- 12. Id. at p. 3091. agers are hereby instructed to ap- 13. 80 CONG. REC. 3393, 3394, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. 14. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).

2210 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18 pear before the Senate of the United with the Secretary of the Senate, on States and at the bar thereof in the the part of the House of Representa- name of the House of Representa- tives, any subsequent pleadings tives and of all the people of the which they shall deem necessary: United States to impeach the said Provided, That the total expendi- Halsted L. Ritter of high crimes and tures authorized by this resolution misdemeanors in office and to ex- shall not exceed $2,500. hibit to the Senate of the United States the articles of impeachment MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask against said judge which have been the gentleman from Texas one further agreed upon by this House; and that question? Is this exactly the procedure the said managers do demand that that has always been followed by the the Senate take order for the appearance of said Halsted L. Ritter to an- House under similar conditions? swer said impeachment, and demand MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Insofar as I his impeachment, conviction, and re- know, it does not vary from the proce- moval from office. dure that has been followed since the beginning of the Government. HOUSE RESOLUTION 440 Resolved, That a message be sent The resolutions were agreed to. to the Senate to inform them that this House has impeached for high House-Senate Communications crimes and misdemeanors Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida, § 18.6 The House having noti- and that the House adopted articles fied the Senate of its im- of impeachment against said Halsted peachment of Judge Halsted L. Ritter, judge as aforesaid, which the managers on the part of the Ritter, the Senate commu- House have been directed to carry to nicated its readiness to re- the Senate, and that Hatton W. Sumners, Randolph Perkins, and ceive the House managers Sam Hobbs, Members of this House, and discussed the Senate have been appointed such managers. rules for impeachment trials. HOUSE RESOLUTION 441 On Mar. 9, 1936, Vice President Resolved, That the managers on John N. Garner laid before the the part of the House in the matter Senate a communication from the of the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge House of Representatives: for the southern district of Florida, HOUSE RESOLUTION 440 be, and they are hereby, authorized IN THE HOUSE to employ legal, clerical, and other OF REPRESENTATIVES, necessary assistants and to incur United States, March 6, 1936. such expenses as may be necessary in the preparation and conduct of Resolved, That a message be sent to the case, to be paid out of the contin- the Senate to inform them that this gent fund of the House on vouchers House has impeached for high crimes approved by the managers, and the managers have power to send for and misdemeanors Halsted L. Ritter, persons and papers, and also that United States district judge for the the managers have authority to file southern district of Florida, and that

2211 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

the House adopted articles of impeach- Senator Henry F. Ashurst, of ment against said Halsted L. Ritter, Arizona, responded that the Sen- judge as aforesaid, which the man- ate Committee on the Judiciary agers on the part of the House have been directed to carry to the Senate, had considered the rules and cited and that Hatton W. Sumners, Ran- a change recently made in the dolph Perkins, and Sam Hobbs, Mem- rules for impeachment trials: bers of this House, have been ap- It will be remembered that in the pointed such managers. trial of the Louderback case it was The Senate adopted the fol- suggested that the trial was dreary, in- lowing order: volved, and protracted, and that it was not according to public policy to have Ordered, That the Secretary inform 96 Senators sit and take testimony. the House of Representatives that the Subsequently, not a dozen, not 20, but Senate is ready to receive the man- at least 40 Senators urged that the agers appointed by the House for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary purpose of exhibiting articles of im- give its attention to the question peachment against Halsted L. Ritter, whether or not a committee appointed United States district judge for the by the Presiding Officer could take the southern district of Florida, agreeably testimony in impeachment trials, to the notice communicated to the Sen- whereupon a resolution was introduced ate, and that at the hour of 1 o’clock by the chairman of the Senate Com- p.m. on Tuesday, March 10, 1936, the mittee on the Judiciary and was adopt- Senate will receive the honorable man- ed. I ask that that resolution be incor- agers on the part of the House of Rep- porated in my remarks at this point. resentatives, in order that they may THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE:(16) present and exhibit the said articles of Without objection, it is so ordered. impeachment against the said Halsted The resolution is as follows (Sub- L. Ritter, United States district judge mitted by Mr. Ashurst): for the southern district of Florida. THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Secretary Resolved, That in the trial of any will carry out the order of the sen- impeachment the Presiding Officer ( ) of the Senate, upon the order of the ate 15 Senate, shall appoint a committee of 12 Senators to receive evidence and Senator Elbert D. Thomas, of take testimony at such times and Utah, discussed the function of places as the committee may deter- the Senate in sitting as a court of mine, and for such purpose the committee so appointed and the chair- impeachment and inquired wheth- man thereof, to be elected by the er any review was being under- committee, shall (unless otherwise taken of the Senate rules for im- ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and functions conferred peachment trials. upon the Senate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respectively, 15. 80 CONG. REC. 3423, 3424, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. 16. Key Pittman (Nev.).

2212 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

under the rules of procedure and quently decline to defend it, but I am practice in the Senate when sitting not defending it more than to say that, on impeachment trials. in my opinion, it is perfectly constitu- Unless otherwise ordered by the tional to do what the resolution pro- Senate, the rules of procedure and vides. If the Senate so desired, it could practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern appoint a committee to take the testi- the procedure and practice of the mony, which would be reduced to writ- committee so appointed. The com- ing, and be laid before the Senators mittee so appointed shall report to the next morning in the Congressional the Senate in writing a certified copy Record. If a Senator were absent dur- of the transcript of the proceedings ing one day of the trial, he could read and testimony had and given before the testimony as printed the next such committee, and such report ( ) shall be received by the Senate and morning. 17 the evidence so received and the tes- Senator Warren R. Austin, of timony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject Vermont, of the Committee on the to the right of the Senate to deter- Judiciary, asked unanimous con- mine competency, relevancy, and sent to have printed in the Record materiality, as having been received and taken before the Senate, but a ruling, cited in 3 Hinds’ Prece- nothing herein shall prevent the dents section 2006, that an im- Senate from sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open peachment trial could only pro- Senate, or by order of the Senate ceed when Congress was in ses- having the entire trial in open Sen- sion.(18) ate.

MR. ASHURST: The resolution was Initiation of Impeachment agreed to by the Senate. It does not Trial provide for a trial by 12 Senators. It simply provides that a committee of § 18.7 The managers on the 12, appointed by the Presiding Officer part of the House appeared of the Senate, may take the testimony, the Senate declaring and determining in the Senate, read the arti- in advance whether it desires that pro- cles, reserved their right to cedure, or otherwise, and that after amend them, and demanded such evidence is taken by this com- that Judge Halsted Ritter be mittee of 12, the Senate reviews the testimony in its printed form, and the put to answer the charges; Senate may take additional testimony the Senate organized for or may then rehear the testimony of any of the witnesses heard by the com- 17. 80 CONG. REC. 3424, 3425, 74th mittee. The Senate reserves to itself Cong. 2d Sess. For the adoption of every power and every authority it has the change referred to by Senator under the Constitution. Ashurst, see 79 CONG. REC. 8309, It could not be expected that I would 8310, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., May 28, draw, present, and urge the Senate to 1935. pass such resolution and then subse- 18. Id. at p. 3426.

2213 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

trial as a Court of Impeach- stand at the desk in front of the ment. Chair: (20) On Mar. 10, 1936, pursuant to Mr. Manager Hobbs, from the place the Senate’s order of Mar. 9, the suggested by the Vice President, said: managers on the part of the Mr. President and gentlemen of the House appeared before the bar of Senate: the Senate and were announced ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST by the Secretary to the majority, HALSTED L. RITTER who escorted them to their as- House Resolution 422, Seventy- signed seats. fourth Congress, second session Vice President John N. Garner Congress of the United States of directed the Sergeant at Arms to America make proclamation: IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The Sergeant at Arms, Chesley W. UNITED STATES Jurney, made proclamation, as follows: March 2, 1936. Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All per- Resolved, That Halsted L. Ritter, sons are commanded to keep silent, on who is a United States district judge pain of imprisonment, while the House for the southern district of Florida, of Representatives is exhibiting to the be impeached for misbehavior and Senate of the United States articles of for high crimes and misdemeanors; impeachment against Halsted L. Rit- and that the evidence heretofore taken by the subcommittee of the ter, United States district judge in and Committee on the Judiciary of the for the southern district of Florida.(19) House of Representatives under House Resolution 163 of the Sev- Representative Hatton W. Sum- enty-third Congress sustains articles ners, of Texas, read the resolution of impeachment, which are herein- adopted by the House (H. Res. after set out; and that the said articles be, and they are hereby, adopted 439) which directed the managers by the House of Representatives, and to appear before the bar of the that the same shall be exhibited to the Senate in the following words Senate. Representative Sam and figures, to wit: Hobbs, of Alabama, read the arti- Articles of impeachment of the cles of impeachment, the Vice House of Representatives of the President requesting that he United States of America in the name of themselves and of all of 19. 80 CONG. REC. 3485, 74th Cong. 2d the people of the United States of Sess. America against Halsted L. Ritter, who was appointed, duly qualified, For the text of the proceedings in and commissioned to serve, during the Senate upon the appearance of good behavior in office, as United the managers to present the articles of impeachment against Judge Rit- 20. 80 CONG. REC. 3486–88, 74th Cong. ter, see § 11.4, supra. 2d Sess.

2214 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

States district judge for the south- Thereafterward, notwithstanding ern district of Florida, on February the said Judge Akerman, in compli- 15, 1929. ance with Judge Ritter’s request, allowed the said Rankin a fee of ARTICLE I $15,000 for his services in said case, from which sum the said $2,500 That the said Halsted L. Ritter, theretofore allowed the said Rankin having been nominated by the Presi- by Judge Ritter as an advance on his dent of the United States, confirmed fee was deducted, the said Judge Rit- by the Senate of the United States, ter, well knowing that at his request duly qualified and commissioned, compensation had been fixed by and while acting as a United States Judge Akerman for the said Rankin’s district judge for the southern dis- services in said case, and notwith- trict of Florida, was and is guilty of standing the restraint of propriety misbehavior and of a high crime and expressed in his said letter to Judge misdemeanor in office in manner Akerman, and ignoring the danger of and form as follows, to wit: On or embarrassment mentioned in said about October 11, 1929, A. L. Rankin letter, did fix an additional and exor- (who had been a law partner of said bitant fee for the said Rankin in said judge immediately before said case. On or about December 24, judge’s appointment as judge), as so- 1930, when the final decree in said licitor for the plaintiff, filed in the case was signed, the said Judge Rit- court of the said Judge Ritter a cer- ter allowed the said Rankin, addi- tain foreclosure suit and receivership tional to the total allowance of proceeding, the same being styled $15,000 theretofore allowed by Judge ‘‘Bert E. Holland and others against Akerman, a fee of $75,000 for his Whitehall Building and Operating services in said case, out of which al- Company and others’’ (No. 678–M– lowance the said Judge Ritter di- Eq.). On or about May 15, 1930, the rectly profited. On the same day, De- said Judge Ritter allowed the said cember 24, 1930, the receiver in said Rankin an advance of $2,500 on his case paid the said Rankin, as part of fee for his services in said case. On his said additional fee, the sum of or about July 2, 1930, the said Judge $25,000, and the said Rankin on the Ritter by letter requested another same day privately paid and deliv- judge of the United States District ered to the said Judge Ritter the Court for the Southern District of sum of $2,500 in cash; $2,000 of said Florida, to wit, Hon. Alexander $2,500 was deposited in bank by Akerman, to fix and determine the Judge Ritter on, to wit, December total allowance for the said Rankin 29, 1930, the remaining $500 being for his services in said case for the kept by Judge Ritter and not depos- reason as stated by Judge Ritter in ited in bank until, to wit, July 10, said letter, that the said Rankin had 1931. Between the time of such ini- formerly been the law partner of the tial payment on said additional fee said Judge Ritter, and he did not feel and April 6, 1931, the said receiver that he should pass upon the total paid said Rankin thereon $5,000. On allowance made said Rankin in that or about April 6, 1931, the said case, and that if Judge Akerman Rankin received the balance of the would fix the allowance it would re- said additional fee allowed him by lieve the writer, Judge Ritter, from Judge Ritter, said balance amount- any embarrassment if thereafter any ing to $45,000. Shortly thereafter, on question should arise as to his, or about April 14, 1931, the said Judge Ritter’s favoring said Rankin Rankin paid and delivered to the with an exorbitant fee. said Judge Ritter, privately, in cash,

2215 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

an additional sum of $2,000. The said appointment until its sale on said Judge Halsted L. Ritter cor- the 3d of January 1929, under the ruptly and unlawfully accepted and foreclosure of a third mortgage received for his own use and benefit thereon. On the 1st of November and from the said A. L. Rankin the afore- the 13th of December 1929, the said said sums of money, amounting to Judge Ritter made orders in said $4,500. bankruptcy proceedings allowing the Wherefore the said Judge Halsted said Walter S. Richardson as trustee L. Ritter was and is guilty of mis- the sum of $16,500 as compensation behavior and was and is guilty of a for his services as trustee. That be- high crime and misdemeanor. fore the discharge of said Walter S. Richardson as such trustee, said ARTICLE II Richardson, together with said A. L. That the said Halsted L. Ritter, Rankin, one Ernest Metcalf, one while holding the office of United Martin Sweeney, and the said Hal- States district judge for the southern sted L. Ritter, entered into an ar- district of Florida, having been nomi- rangement to secure permission of nated by the President of the United the holder or holders of at least States, confirmed by the Senate of $50,000 of first-mortgage bonds on the United States, duly qualified and said hotel property for the purpose of commissioned, and while acting as a filing a bill to foreclose the first United States district judge for the mortgage on said premises in the southern district of Florida, was and court of said Halsted L. Ritter, by is guilty of misbehavior and of high which means the said Richardson, crimes and misdemeanors in office in Rankin, Metcalf, Sweeney, and Rit- manner and form as follows, to wit: ter were to continue said property in On the 15th day of February 1929 litigation before said Ritter. On the the said Halsted L. Ritter, having 30th day of August 1929, the said been appointed as United States dis- Walter S. Richardson, in furtherance trict judge for the southern district of said arrangement and under- of Florida, was duly qualified and standing, wrote a letter to the said commissioned to serve as such dur- Martin Sweeney, in New York, sug- ing good behavior in office. Imme- gesting the desirability of contacting diately prior thereto and for several as many first mortgage bondholders years the said Halsted L. Ritter had as possible in order that their co- practiced law in said district in part- operation might be secured, directing nership with one A. L. Rankin, special attention to Mr. Bert E. Hol- which partnership was dissolved land, an attorney, whose address upon the appointment of said Ritter was in the Tremont Building in Bos- as said United States district judge. ton, and who, as cotrustee, was the On the 18th day of July 1928 one holder of $50,000 of first-mortgage Walter S. Richardson was elected bonds, the amount of bonds required trustee in bankruptcy of the White- to institute the contemplated pro- hall Building & Operating Co., which ceedings in Judge Ritter’s court. company had been adjudicated in On October 3, 1929, the said Bert said district as a bankrupt, and as E. Holland, being solicited by the such trustee took charge of the as- said Sweeney, requested the said sets of said Whitehall Building & Rankin and Metcalf to prepare a Operating Co., which consisted of a complaint to file in said Judge Rit- hotel property located in Palm Beach ter’s court for foreclosure of said first in said district. That the said Rich- mortgage and the appointment of a ardson as such trustee operated said receiver. At this time Judge Ritter hotel property from the time of his was holding court in Brooklyn, N.Y.,

2216 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18 and the said Rankin and Richardson hereinbefore recited, wrongfully and went from West Palm Beach, Fla., to oppressively exercised the powers of Brooklyn, N.Y., and called upon said his office to carry into execution said Judge Ritter a short time previous to plan and agreement theretofore ar- filing the bill for foreclosure and ap- rived at, and refused to grant the re- pointment of a receiver of said hotel quest of the said Holland and made property. effective the champertous under- On October 10, 1929, and before taking of the said Richardson and the filing of said bill for foreclosure Rankin and appointed the said Rich- and receiver, the said Holland with- ardson receiver of the said hotel drew his authority to said Rankin property, notwithstanding that objec- and Metcalf to file said bill and noti- tion was made to Judge Ritter that fied the said Rankin not to file the said Richardson had been active in said bill. Notwithstanding the said fomenting this litigation and was not instructions to said Rankin not to a proper person to act as receiver. file said bill, said Rankin, on the On October 15, 1929, said Rankin 11th day of October, 1929, filed said made oath to each of the bills for in- bill with the clerk of the United tervenors which were filed the next States District Court for the South- day. ern District of Florida, but with the On October 16, 1929, bills for specific request to said clerk to lock intervention in said foreclosure suit up the said bill as soon as it was were filed by said Rankin and filed and hold until Judge Ritter’s re- Metcalf in the names of holders of turn so that there would be no news- approximately $5,000 of said first- paper publicity before the matter mortgage bonds, which intervenors was heard by Judge Ritter for the did not possess the said requisite appointment of a receiver, which re- $50,000 in bonds required by said quest on the part of the said Rankin first mortgage to bring foreclosure was complied with by the said clerk. proceedings on the part of the bond- On October 16, 1929, the said Hol- holders. land telegraphed to the said Rankin, The said Rankin and Metcalf ap- referring to his previous wire re- peared as attorneys for complainants questing him to refrain from filing and intervenors, and in response to a the bill and insisting that the matter suggestion of the said Judge Ritter, remain in its then status until fur- the said Metcalf withdrew as attor- ther instruction was given; and on ney for complainants and interve- October 17, 1929, the said Rankin nors and said Judge Ritter there- wired to Holland that he would not upon appointed said Metcalf as at- make an application on his behalf for torney for the said Richardson, the the appointment of a receiver. On receiver. October 28, 1929, a hearing on the And in the further carrying out of complaint and petition for receiver- said arrangement and under- ship was heard before Judge Halsted standing, the said Richardson em- L. Ritter at Miami, at which hearing ployed the said Martin Sweeney and the said Bert E. Holland appeared in one Bemis, together with Ed person before said Judge Ritter and Sweeney, as managers of said prop- advised the judge that he wished to erty, for which they were paid the withdraw the suit and asked for dis- sum of $60,000 for the management missal of the bill of complaint on the of said hotel for the two seasons the ground that the bill was filed with- property remained in the custody of out his authority. said Richardson as receiver. But the said Judge Ritter, fully ad- On or about the 15th of May 1930 vised of the facts and circumstances the said Judge Ritter allowed the

2217 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

said Rankin an advance on his fee of the $2,500 theretofore allowed by $2,500 for his services in said case. Judge Ritter, making a total of On or about July 2, 1930, the said $15,000 as the fee of the said Rankin Judge Ritter requested Judge Alex- in the said case. ander Akerman, also a judge of the But notwithstanding the said re- United States District Court for the quest on the part of said Ritter and Southern District of Florida, to fix the compliance by the said Judge the total allowance for the said Akerman and the reasons for the Rankin for his services in said case, making of said request by said Judge said request and the reasons there- Ritter of Judge Akerman, the said for being set forth in a letter by the Judge Ritter, on the 24th day of De- said Judge Ritter, in words and fig- cember 1930, allowed the said ures as follows, to wit: Rankin an additional fee of $75,000. JULY 2, 1930. And on the same date when the Hon. ALEXANDER AKERMAN, receiver in said case paid to the said United States District Judge, Rankin as a part of said additional Tampa, Fla. fee the sum of $25,000, said Rankin privately paid and delivered to said MY DEAR JUDGE: In the case of Judge Ritter out of the said $25,000 Holland et al. v. Whitehall Building the sum of $2,500 in cash, $2,000 of & Operating Co. (No. 678–M–Eq.), which the said Judge Ritter depos- pending in my division, my former ited in a bank and $500 of which law partner, Judge A. L. Rankin, of was put in a tin box and not depos- West Palm Beach, has filed a peti- ited until the 10th day of July 1931, tion for an order allowing compensa- when it was deposited in a bank tion for his services on behalf of the with an additional sum of $600. plaintiff. On or about the 6th day of April I do not feel that I should pass, 1931, the said Rankin received as a under the circumstances, upon the part of the $75,000 additional fee the total allowance to be made Judge sum of $45,000, and shortly there- Rankin in this matter. I did issue an after, on or before the 14th day of order, which Judge Rankin will ex- April 1931, the said Rankin paid and hibit to you, approving an advance of delivered to said Judge Ritter, pri- $2,500 on his claim, which was ap- vately and in cash, out of said proved by all attorneys. $45,000 the sum of $2,000. You will appreciate my position in The said Judge Halsted L. Ritter the matter, and I request you to pass corruptly and unlawfully accepted upon the total allowance which and received for his own use and should be made Judge Rankin in the benefit from the said Rankin the premises as an accommodation to aforesaid sums of $2,500 in cash and me. This will relieve me from any $2,000 in cash, amounting in all to embarrassment hereafter if the ques- $4,500. tion should arise as to my favoring Judge Rankin in this matter by an Of the total allowance made to exorbitant allowance. said A. L. Rankin in said foreclosure suit, amounting in all to $90,000, the Appreciating very much your kind- ness in this matter, I am, following sums were paid out by said Rankin with the knowledge and con- Yours sincerely, sent of said Judge Ritter, to wit, to HALSTED L. RITTER. said Walter S. Richardson, the sum In compliance with said request of $5,000; to said Metcalf, the sum of the said Judge Akerman allowed the $10,000; to Shutts and Bowen, also said Rankin $12,500 in addition to attorneys for the receiver, the sum of

2218 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

$25,000; and to said Halsted L. Rit- tion of its assets, to the loss and ter, the sum of $4,500. damage of the creditors of said cor- In addition to the said sum of poration, and was a party to the $5,000 received by the said Richard- waste and dissipation of such assets son, as aforesaid, said Ritter by while under the control of his said order in said proceedings allowed court, and personally profited there- said Richardson a fee of $30,000 for by, in the manner and form herein- services as such receiver. above specifically set out. The said fees allowed by said Wherefore the said Judge Halsted Judge Ritter to A. L. Rankin (who L. Ritter was and is guilty of mis- had been a law partner of said judge behavior and was and is guilty of a immediately before said judge’s ap- high crime and misdemeanor in of- pointment as judge) as solicitor for fice. the plaintiff in said case were exces- sive and unwarranted, and said ARTICLE III judge profited personally thereby in That the said Halsted L. Ritter, that out of the money so allowed having been nominated by the Presi- said solicitor he received personally, dent of the United States, confirmed privately, and in cash $4,500 for his by the Senate of the United States, own use and benefit. duly qualified and commissioned, While the Whitehall Hotel was and while acting as a United States being operated in receivership under district judge for the southern dis- said proceeding pending in said court trict of Florida, was and is guilty of (and in which proceeding the re- a high crime and misdemeanor in of- ceiver in charge of said hotel by ap- fice in manner and form as follows, pointment of said judge was allowed to wit: large compensation by said judge) That the said Halsted L. Ritter, the said judge stayed at said hotel while such judge, was guilty of a vio- from time to time without cost to lation of section 258 of the Judicial himself and received free rooms, free Code of the United States of America meals, and free valet service, and, (U.S.C. Annotated, title 28, sec. 373), with the knowledge and consent of making it unlawful for any judge ap- said judge, members of his family, pointed under the authority of the including his wife, his son, Thurston United States to exercise the profes- Ritter, his daughter, Mrs. M. R. sion or employment of counsel or at- Walker, his secretary, Mrs. Lloyd C. torney, or to be engaged in the prac- Hooks, and her husband, Lloyd C. tice of the law, in that after the em- Hooks, each likewise on various oc- ployment of the law firm of Ritter & casions stayed at said hotel without Rankin (which, at the time of the ap- cost to themselves or to said judge, pointment of Halsted L. Ritter to be and received free rooms, and some or judge of the United States District all of them received from said hotel Court for the Southern District of free meals and free valet service; all Florida, was composed of Halsted L. of which expenses were borne by the Ritter and A. L. Rankin) in the case said receivership to the loss and of Trust Co. of Georgia and Robert damage of the creditors whose inter- G. Stephens, trustees, against Bra- ests were involved therein. zilian Court Building Corporation The said judge willfully failed and and others, No. 5704 in the Circuit neglected to perform his duty to con- Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Cir- serve the assets of the Whitehall cuit of Florida, and after the final Building & Operating Co. in receiv- decree had been entered in said ership in his court, but to the con- cause, and after the fee of $4,000 trary, permitted waste and dissipa- which had been agreed upon at the

2219 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

outset of said employment had been ter’’ for $2,000, and which was duly fully paid to the firm of Ritter & endorsed ‘‘Hon. Halsted L. Ritter. H. Rankin, and after Halsted L. Ritter L. Ritter’’ and was paid on, to wit, had on, to wit, February 15, 1929, April 4, 1929, and the proceeds become judge of the United States thereof were received and appro- District Court for the Southern Dis- priated by Judge Ritter to his own trict of Florida, Judge Ritter on, to individual use and benefit, without wit, March 11, 1929, wrote a letter advising his said former partner that to Charles A. Brodek, of counsel for said $2,000 had been received, with- Mulford Realty Corporation (the cli- out consulting with his said former ent which his former law firm had partner thereabout, and without the been representing in said litigation), knowledge or consent of his said stating that there had been much former partner, appropriated the en- extra and unanticipated work in the tire amount thus solicited and re- case; that he was then a Federal ceived to the use and benefit of him- judge; that his partner, A. L. self, the said Judge Ritter. Rankin, would carry through further At the time said letter was written proceedings in the case, but that he, by Judge Ritter and said $2,000 re- Judge Ritter, would be consulted ceived by him, Mulford Realty Cor- about the matter until the case was poration held and owned large inter- all closed up; and that ‘‘this matter ests in Florida real estate and citrus is one among very few which I am groves, and a large amount of securi- assuming to continue my interest in ties of the Olympia Improvement until finally closed up’’; and stating Corporation, which was a company specifically in said letter: organized to develop and promote ‘‘I do not know whether any appeal Olympia, Fla., said holdings being will be taken in the case or not; but within the territorial jurisdiction of if so, we hope to get Mr. Howard the United States district court, of Paschal or some other person as re- which Judge Ritter was a judge from ceiver who will be amenable to our February 15, 1929. directions, and the hotel can be oper- Which acts of said judge were cal- ated at a profit, of course, pending culated to bring his office into disre- the appeal. We shall demand a very pute, constitute a violation of section heavy supersedeas bond, which I 258 of the Judicial Code of the doubt whether D’Esterre can give.’’ United States of America (U.S.C., And further that he was ‘‘of Annotated, title 28, sec. 373), and course, primarily interested in get- constitute a high crime and mis- ting some money in the case,’’ and demeanor within the meaning and that he thought ‘‘$2,000 more by way intent of section 4 of article II of the of attorneys’ fees should be allowed’’; Constitution of the United States. and asked that he be communicated Wherefore, the said Judge Halsted with direct about the matter, giving L. Ritter was and is guilty of a high his post-office box number. On, to misdemeanor in office. wit, March 13, 1929, said Brodek re- ARTICLE IV plied favorably, and on March 30, 1929, a check of Brodek, Raphael & That the said Halsted L. Ritter, Eisner, a law firm of New York City, while holding the office of United representing Mulford Realty Cor- States district judge for the southern poration, in which Charles A. district of Florida, having been nomi- Brodek, senior member of the firm of nated by the President of the United Brodek, Raphael & Eisner, was one States, confirmed by the Senate of of the directors, was drawn, payable the United States, duly qualified and to the order of ‘‘Hon. Halsted L. Rit- commissioned, and while acting as a

2220 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

United States district judge for the ment was carried out by the parties southern district of Florida, was and thereto, and said judge, after the is guilty of misbehavior and of high passage of such resolution, recused crimes and misdemeanors in office in himself from sitting as judge in said manner and form as follows, to wit: power suit, thereby bartering his ju- The said Judge Ritter by his ac- dicial authority in said case for a tions and conduct, as an individual vote of confidence. Nevertheless, the and as such judge, has brought his succeeding judge allowed said court into scandal and disrepute, to Hutchinson as special master in the prejudice of said court and public chancery in said case a fee of $5,000, confidence in the administration of although he performed little, if any, justice in his said court, and to the service as such, and in the order prejudice of public respect for and making such allowance recited: ‘‘And confidence in the Federal judiciary: it appearing to the court that a min- 1. In that in the Florida Power Co. imum fee of $5,000 was approved by case (Florida Power & Light Co. the court for the said Cary T. Hutch- against City of Miami and others, inson, special master in this cause.’’ No. 1183–M–Eq.), which was a case 2. In that in the Trust Co. of Flor- wherein said judge had granted the ida cases (Illick against Trust Co. of complainant power company a tem- Florida et al., No. 1043–M–Eq., and porary injunction restraining the en- Edmunds Committee et al. against forcement of an ordinance of the city Marlon Mortgage Co. et al., No. of Miami, which ordinance pre- 1124–M–Eq.) after the State banking scribed a reduction in the rates for department of Florida, through its electric current being charged in said comptroller, Honorable Ernest Amos, city, said judge improperly appointed had closed the doors of the Trust Co. one Cary T. Hutchinson, who had of Florida and appointed J. H. long been associated with and em- Therrell liquidator for said trust ployed by power and utility interests, company, and had interviewed in the special master in chancery in said said Illick case, said Judge Ritter suit, and refused to revoke his order wrongfully and erroneously refused so appointing said Hutchinson. to recognize the right of said State Thereafter, when criticism of such authority to administer the affairs of action had become current in the city the said trust company, and ap- of Miami, and within 2 weeks after a pointed Julian S. Eaton and Clark resolution (H. Res. 163, 73d Cong.) D. Stearns as receivers of the prop- had been agreed to in the House of erty of said trust company. On ap- Representatives of the Congress of peal, the United States Circuit Court the United States authorizing and of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re- directing the Judiciary Committee versed the said order or decree of thereof to investigate the official con- Judge Ritter, and ordered the said duct of said judge and to make a re- property surrendered to the State port concerning said conduct to said liquidator. Thereafter, on, to wit, House of Representatives, an ar- September 12, 1932, there was filed rangement was entered into with the in the United States District Court city commissioners of the city of for the Southern District of Florida Miami or with the city attorney of the Edmunds Committee case, said city by which the said city com- supra. Marion Mortgage Co. was a missioners were to pass a resolution subsidiary of the Trust Co. of Flor- expressing faith and confidence in ida. Judge Ritter being absent from the integrity of said judge, and the his district at the time of the filing of said judge recuse himself as judge said case, an application for the ap- [in] said power suit. The said agree- pointment of receivers therein was

2221 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

presented to another judge of said to wit, January ], 1933, Honorable J. district, namely, Honorable Alex- M. Lee succeeded Honorable Ernest ander Akerman. Judge Ritter, how- Amos as comptroller of the State of ever, prior to the appointment of Florida and appointed M. A. Smith such receivers, telegraphed Judge liquidator in said Trust Co. of Flor- Akerman, requesting him to appoint ida cases to succeed J. H. Therrell. the aforesaid Eaton and Stearns as An appeal was again taken to the receivers in said case, which appoint- United States Circuit Court of Ap- ments were made by Judge peals for the Fifth Circuit from the Akerman. Thereafter the United then latest order or decree of Judge States Circuit Court of Appeals for Ritter, and again the order or decree the Fifth Circuit reversed the order of Judge Ritter appealed from was of Judge Akerman, appointing said reversed by the said circuit court of Eaton and Stearns as receivers in appeals, which held that Judge Rit- said case. In November 1932 J. H. ter, or the court in which he pre- Therrell, as liquidator, filed a bill of sided, had been without jurisdiction complaint in the Circuit Court of in the matter of the appointment of Dade County, Fla.—a court of the said Eaton and Stearns as receivers. State of Florida—alleging that the Thereafter, and with the knowledge various trust properties of the Trust of the decision of the said circuit Co. of Florida were burdensome to court of appeals, Judge Ritter wrong- the liquidator to keep, and asking fully and improperly allowed said that the court appoint a succeeding Eaton and Stearns and their attor- trustee. Upon petition for removal of neys some $26,000 as fees out of said said cause from said State court into trust-estate properties, and endeav- the United States District Court for ored to require, as a condition prece- the Southern District of Florida, dent to releasing said trust prop- Judge Ritter took jurisdiction, not- erties from the control of his court, a withstanding the previous rulings of promise from counsel for the said the United States Circuit Court of State liquidator not to appeal from Appeals above referred to, and again his order allowing the said fees to appointed the said Eaton and said Eaton and Stearns and their at- Stearns as the receivers of the said torneys. trust properties. In December 1932 3. In that the said Halsted L. Rit- the said Therrell surrendered all of ter, while such Federal judge, accept- the trust properties to said Eaton ed, in addition to $4,500 from his and Stearns as receivers, together former law partner as alleged in ar- with all records of the Trust Co. of ticle I hereof, other large fees or gra- Florida pertaining thereto. During tuities, to wit, $7,500 from J. R. the time said Eaton and Stearns, as Francis, on or about April 19, 1929, such receivers, were in control of J. R. Francis at this said time hav- said trust properties, Judge Ritter ing large property interests within wrongfully and improperly approved the territorial jurisdiction of the their accounts without notice or op- court of which Judge Ritter was a portunity for objection thereto to be judge. On, to wit, the 4th day of heard. With the knowledge of Judge April 1929 the said Judge Ritter ac- Ritter, said receivers appointed the cepted the sum of $2,000 from said sister-in-law of Judge Ritter, namely, Brodek, Raphael & Eisner, rep- Mrs. G. M. Wickard, who had had no resenting Mulford Realty Corpora- previous hotel-management experi- tion, through his attorney, Charles ence, to be manager of the Julia A. Brodek, as a fee or gratuity, at Tuttle Hotel and Apartment Build- which time the said Mulford Realty ing, one of said trust properties. On, Corporation held and owned large

2222 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

interests in Florida real estate and the misdemeanors in office which have citrus groves, and a large amount of been charged against him in the arti- securities of the Olympia Improve- cles which have been exhibited to the ment Corporation, which was a com- Senate, and that such proceedings, ex- pany organized to develop and pro- aminations, trials, and judgments may mote Olympia, Fla., said holdings being within the territorial jurisdic- be thereupon had and given as may be tion of the United States District agreeable to law and justice. Court of which Judge Ritter was a Mr. President, the managers on the judge from February 15, 1929. part of the House of Representatives, 4. By his conduct as detailed in ar- in pursuance of the action of the House ticles I and II hereof. of Representatives by the adoption of Wherefore, the said Judge Halsted the articles of impeachment which L. Ritter was and is guilty of mis- have just been read to the Senate, do behavior, and was and is guilty of now demand that the Senate take high crimes and misdemeanors in of- order for the appearance of the said fice. Halsted L. Ritter to answer said im- Attest: peachment, and do now demand his JOSEPH W. BYRNS, Speaker of the impeachment, conviction, and removal House of Representatives. from office. SOUTH TRIMBLE, THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Senate Clerk. wild take proper order and notify the ( ) Representative Sumners en- House of Representatives. 1 tered a reservation of the right of The most senior Member of the the House to amend or supple- Senate, Senator William E. Borah, ment the articles and demanded of Idaho, then administered the that the respondent be put to oath to Vice President Garner, trial: who administered the oath to the other Senators present. MR. MANAGER SUMNERS: Mr. Presi- The Sergeant at Arms made dent, the House of Representatives, by proclamation that the Senate was protestation, saving themselves the lib- then sitting as a Court of Im- erty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles of accusation or peachment. Orders were adopted impeachment against the said Halsted notifying the House of the organi- L. Ritter, district judge of the United zation of the court and issuing a ( ) States for the southern district of Flor- summons to the respondent. 2 ida, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the articles § 18.8 In response to a sum- preferred against him, and of offering mons, Judge Halsted Ritter proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article of 1. Id. at p. 3488. accusation or impeachment which shall 2. Id. at pp. 3488, 3489. For the text of be exhibited by them as the case shall the proceedings whereby the Senate require, do demand that the said Hal- organized for the Ritter impeach- sted L. Ritter may be put to answer ment trial, see § 11.5, supra.

2223 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

appeared before the Senate Senate of the United States against Halsted L. Ritter, United States dis- sitting as a Court of Im- trict judge for the southern district peachment. of Florida, is truly made, and that you have performed such service as On Mar. 12, 1936, respondent therein described. So help you God. Halsted Ritter appeared before THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Sergeant the Court of Impeachment pursu- at Arms will make proclamation. ant to the summons previously The Sergeant at Arms made procla- issued, and filed an entry of ap- mation as follows: pearance: (3) Halsted L. Ritter! Halsted L. Ritter! Halsted L. Ritter! United States dis- (4) THE VICE PRESIDENT: ... The trict judge for the southern district of Secretary will read the return of the Florida, appear and answer to the arti- Sergeant at Arms. cles of impeachment exhibited by the The Chief Clerk read as follows: House of Representatives against you. The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. and his counsel, Frank P. Walsh, Esq., of New York City, N.Y., and Carl T. The foregoing writ of summons ad- Hoffman, Esq., of Miami, Fla., entered dressed to Halsted L. Ritter, and the foregoing precept, addressed to me, the Chamber and were conducted to were duly served upon the said Hal- the seats assigned them in the space in sted L. Ritter by me by delivering front of the Secretary’s desk, on the true and attested copies of the same right of the Chair. to the said Halsted L. Ritter at the THE VICE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Carlton Hotel, Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the 12th day of March the respondent are advised that the 1936, at 11 o’clock in the forenoon of Senate is now sitting for the trial of ar- that day. ticles of impeachment exhibited by the CHESLEY W. JURNEY, House of Representatives against Hal- Sergeant at Arms, sted L. Ritter, United States district United States Senate. judge for the southern district of Flor- THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Secretary ida. of the Senate will administer the oath MR. WALSH (of counsel): May it to the Sergeant at Arms. please you, Mr. President, and honor- The Secretary of the Senate, Edwin able Members of the Senate, I beg to A. Halsey, administered the oath to inform you that, in response to your the Sergeant at Arms, as follows: summons, the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, is now present with his counsel You, Chesley W. Jurney, do sol- emnly swear that the return made and asks leave to file a formal entry of by you upon the process issued on appearance. the 10th day of March 1936 by the THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the 3. 80 CONG. REC. 3646, 3647, 74th appearance will be filed with the Sec- Cong. 2d Sess. retary, and will be read. 4. John N. Garner (Tex.). The Chief Clerk read as follows:

2224 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES caused to be printed in the Record OF AMERICA SITTING AS A COURT OF the reasons for his request, based IMPEACHMENT on a long personal acquaintance MARCH 12, 1936. with the respondent.(5) The United States of America v. The Senate ratified an agree- Halsted L. Ritter ment, between the managers and The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, having this day been served with a counsel for the respondent, as to summons requiring him to appear the time permitted the respondent before the Senate of the United to file his answer with the Court States of America in the city of Washington, D.C., on March 12, of Impeachment: 1936, at 1 o’clock afternoon to an- MR. [JOSEPH T.] ROBINSON [of Ar- swer certain articles of impeachment presented against him by the House kansas]: Mr. President, I think there is of Representatives of the United not a clear understanding as to the ar- States of America, now appears in rangement which has been entered his proper person and also by his into between the managers and the counsel, who are instructed by this counsel for the respondent. It is my respondent to inform the Senate that understanding, and if I am in error respondent stands ready to file his pleadings to such articles of im- someone who is better informed will peachment within such reasonable please correct me, that the agreement period of time as may be fixed. is that counsel for the respondent will Dated March 12, 1936. place their response in the possession of the managers on the part of the § 18.9 The Senate, sitting as a House not later than the 26th instant, Court of Impeachment, ex- and that the Court may reconvene cused a Senator from service again on the 30th when the response at his request, fixed a trial will be filed in the Senate. THE VICE PRESIDENT: (6) Is there ob- date, allowed respondent 18 jection to that agreement? days to file his answer, and (7) adopted supplemental rules There was no objection. for trial. The Court of Impeachment adopted a motion fixing the trial On Mar. 12, 1936, the Senate date at Apr. 6, 1936.(8) convened as a Court of Impeach- The court adopted supplemental ment in the Halsted Ritter case. rules, which Senator Henry F. Preceding the administration of the oath to members not thereto- 5. 80 CONG. REC. 3646, 74th Cong. 2d fore sworn, the court granted the Sess. request of Senator Edward P. 6. John N. Garner (Tex.). Costigan, of Colorado, that he be 7. 80 CONG. REC. 3647, 74th Cong. 2d excused from service on the Court Sess. of Impeachment. Senator Costigan 8. Id. at p. 3648.

2225 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Ashurst, of Arizona, stated to be 4. The parties may, by stipulation in the same as those adopted in the writing filed with the Secretary of the Senate and by him laid before the Sen- trial of Judge Harold Louderback: ate or presented at the trial, agree Ordered, That in addition to the upon any facts involved in the trial; rules of procedure and practice in the and such stipulation shall be received Senate when sitting on impeachment by the Senate for all intents and pur- trials, heretofore adopted, and supple- poses as though the facts therein mentary to such rules, the following agreed upon had been established by rules shall be applicable in the trial of legal evidence adduced at the trial. the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, 5. The parties or their counsel may United States judge for the southern interpose objection to witnesses an- district of Florida: swering questions propounded at the 1. In all matters relating to the pro- request of any Senator, and the merits cedure of the Senate, whether as to of any such objection may be argued by form or otherwise, the managers on the parties or their counsel; and the the part of the House or the counsel Presiding Officer may rule on any such representing the respondent may sub- objection, which ruling shall stand as mit a request or application orally to the judgment of the Senate, unless the Presiding Officer, or, if required by some Member of the Senate shall ask him or requested by any Senator, shall that a formal vote be taken thereon, in submit the same in writing. which case it shall be submitted to the 2. In all matters relating imme- Senate for decision; or he may, at his diately to the trial, such as the admis- option, in the first instance submit any sion, rejection, or striking out of evi- such question to a vote of the Members dence, or other questions usually aris- of the Senate. Upon all such questions ing in the trial of causes in courts of the vote shall be without debate and justice, if the managers on the part of without a division, unless the ayes and the House or counsel representing the nays be demanded by one-fifth of the respondent desire to make any applica- Members present when the same shall (9) tion, request, or objection, the same be taken. shall be addressed directly to the Pre- siding Officer and not otherwise. Amendment of Articles of Im- 3. It shall not be in order for any peachment Senator, except as provided in the rules of procedure and practice in the § 18.10 The House adopted a Senate when sitting on impeachment resolution, reported as privi- trials, to engage in colloquy or to ad- leged by the managers on the dress questions either to the managers part of the House in the Hal- on the part of the House or to counsel for the respondent, nor shall it be in sted Ritter impeachment, order for Senators to address each amending the articles pre- other; but they shall address their re- viously voted by the House. marks directly to the Presiding Officer and not otherwise. 9. Id.

2226 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

On Mar. 30, 1936,(10) Mr. Hat- case of Trust Co. of Georgia and Robert G. Stephens, Trustee v. Bra- ton W. Sumners, of Texas, called zilian Court Building Corporation et up the following privileged resolu- al., no. 5704, in the Circuit Court of tion (H. Res. 471) amending the the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Flor- ida, and after the fee of $4,000 which articles of impeachment against had been agreed upon at the outset Judge Ritter: of said employment had been fully paid to the firm of Ritter & Rankin, Resolved, That the articles of im- and after Halsted L. Ritter had, on, peachment heretofore adopted by the to wit, February 15, 1929, become House of Representatives in and by judge of the United States District House Resolution 422, House Calendar Court for the Southern District of No. 279, be, and they are hereby, Florida, Judge Ritter on, to wit, March 11, 1929, wrote a letter to amended as follows: Charles A. Brodek, of counsel for Article III is amended so as to read Mulford Realty Corporation (the cli- as follows: ent which his former law firm had been representing in said litigation), ARTICLE II stating that there had been much That the said Halsted L. Ritter, extra and unanticipated work in the having been nominated by the Presi- case, that he was then a Federal dent of the United States, confirmed judge; that his partner, A. L. by the Senate of the United States, Rankin, would carry through further duly qualified and commissioned, proceedings in the case, but that he, and, while acting as a United States Judge Ritter, would be consulted district judge for the southern dis- about the matter until the case was trict of Florida, was and is guilty of all closed up; and that ‘‘this matter a high crime and misdemeanor in of- is one among very few which I am fice in manner and form as follows, assuming to continue my interest in to wit: until finally closed up’’; and stating specifically in said letter: That the said Halsted L. Ritter, while such judge, was guilty of a vio- ‘‘I do not know whether any appeal lation of section 258 of the Judicial will be taken in the case or not, but, Code of the United States of America if so, we hope to get Mr. Howard (U.S.C., Annotated, title 28, sec. Paschal or some other person as re- 373), making it unlawful for any ceiver who will be amenable to our judge appointed under the authority directions, and the hotel can be oper- of the United States to exercise the ated at a profit, of course, pending profession or employment of counsel the appeal. We shall demand a very or attorney, or to be engaged in the heavy supersedeas bond, which I practice of the law, in that after the doubt whether D’Esterre can give’’; employment of the law firm of Ritter and further that he was ‘‘of course & Rankin (which at the time of the primarily interested in getting some appointment of Halsted L. Ritter to money in the case’’, and that he be judge of the United States Dis- thought ‘‘$2,000 more by way of at- trict Court for the Southern District torney’s fees should be allowed’’; and of Florida, was composed of Halsted asked that he be communicated with L. Ritter and A. L. Rankin) in the direct about the matter, giving his post-office box number. On, to wit, March 13, 1929, said Brodek replied 10. 80 CONG. REC. 4597–99. 74th Cong. favorably, and on March 30, 1929, a 2d Sess. check of Brodek, Raphael & Eisner,

2227 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

a law firm of New York City, rep- Wherefore, the said Judge Halsted resenting Mulford Realty Corpora- L. Ritter was and is guilty of a high tion, in which Charles A. Brodek, misdemeanor in office. senior member of the firm of Brodek, Raphael & Eisner, was one of the di- By adding the following articles im- rectors, was drawn, payable to the mediately after article III as amended: order of ‘‘Hon. Halsted L. Ritter’’ for $2,000 and which was duly endorsed ARTICLE IV ‘‘Hon. Halsted L. Ritter. H. L. Ritter’’ That the said Halsted L. Ritter, and was paid on, to wit, April 4, having been nominated by the Presi- 1929, and the proceeds thereof were dent of the United States, confirmed received and appropriated by Judge by the Senate of the United States, Ritter to his own individual use and duly qualified and commissioned, benefit, without advising his said and, while acting as a United States former partner that said $2,000 had district judge for the southern dis- been received, without consulting trict of Florida, was and is guilty of with his former partner thereabout, a high crime and misdemeanor in of- and without the knowledge or con- fice in manner and form as follows, sent of his said former partner, ap- to wit: propriated the entire amount thus That the said Halsted L. Ritter, solicited and received to the use and while such judge, was guilty of a vio- benefit of himself, the said Judge lation of section 258 of the Judicial Ritter. Code of the United States of America At the time said letter was written (U.S.C., Annotated, title 28, sec. by Judge Ritter and said $2,000 re- 373), making it unlawful for any ceived by him, Mulford Realty Cor- judge appointed under the authority poration held and owned large inter- of the United States to exercise the ests in Florida real estate and citrus profession or employment of counsel groves, and a large amount of securi- or attorney, or to be engaged in the ties of the Olympia Improvement practice of the law, in that Judge Corporation, which was a company Ritter did exercise the profession or organized to develop and promote employment of counsel or attorney, Olympia, Fla., said holdings being or engaged in the practice of the law, within the territorial jurisdiction of representing J. R. Francis, with rela- the United States district court, of tion to the Boca Raton matter and which Judge Ritter was a judge the segregation and saving of the in- from, to wit, February 15, 1929. terest of J. R. Francis therein, or in After writing said letter of March obtaining a deed or deeds to J. R. 11, 1929, Judge Ritter further exer- Francis from the Spanish River cised the profession or employment Land Co. to certain pieces of realty, of counsel or attorney, or engaged in and in the Edgewater Ocean Beach the practice of the law, with relation Development Co. matter, for which to said case. services the said Judge Ritter re- Which acts of said judge were cal- ceived from the said J. R. Francis culated to bring his office into disre- the sum of $7,500. pute, constitute a violation of section Which acts of said judge were cal- 258 of the Judicial Code of the culated to bring his office into disre- United States of America (U.S.C., pute, constitute a violation of the Annotated, title 28, sec. 373), and law above recited, and constitute a constitute a high crime and mis- high crime and misdemeanor within demeanor within the meaning and the meaning and intent of section 4 intent of section 4 of article II of the of article II of the Constitution of the Constitution of the United States. United States.

2228 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

Wherefore the said Judge Halsted fice in manner and form as follows, L. Ritter was and is guilty of a high to wit: misdemeanor in office. That the said Halsted L. Ritter, while such judge, was guilty of viola- ARTICLE V tion of section 146(b) of the Revenue That the said Halsted L. Ritter, Act of 1928, making it unlawful for having been nominated by the Presi- any person willfully to attempt in dent of the United States, confirmed any manner to evade or defeat the by the Senate of the United States, payment of the income tax levied in duly qualified and commissioned, and by said Revenue Act of 1928, in and, while acting as a United States that during the year 1930 the said district judge for the southern dis- Judge Ritter received gross taxable trict of Florida, was and is guilty of income—over and above his salary a high crime and misdemeanor in of- as judge—to the amount of, to wit, fice in manner and form as follows, $5,300, yet failed to report any part to wit: thereof in his income-tax return for That the said Halsted L. Ritter, the year 1930, and paid no income while such judge, was guilty of viola- tax thereon. tion of section 146(b) of the Revenue Two thousand five hundred dollars Act of 1928, making it unlawful for of said gross taxable income for 1930 any person willfully to attempt in was that amount of cash paid Judge any manner to evade or defeat the Ritter by A. L. Rankin on December payment of the income tax levied in 24, 1930, as described in article I. and by said Revenue Act of 1928, in Wherefore the said Judge Halsted that during the year 1929 said Judge L. Ritter was and is guilty of a high Ritter received gross taxable in- misdemeanor in office. come—over and above his salary as Original article IV is amended so judge—to the amount of some as to read as follows: $12,000, yet paid no income tax thereon. ‘‘ARTICLE VII Among the fees included in said ‘‘That the said Halsted L. Ritter, gross taxable income for 1929 were while holding the office of United the extra fee of $2,000 solicited and States district judge for the southern received by Judge Ritter in the Bra- district of Florida, having been nomi- zilian Court case, as described in ar- nated by the President of the United ticle III, and the fee of $7,500 re- States, confirmed by the Senate of ceived by Judge Ritter from J. R. the United States, duly qualified and Francis. commissioned, and, while acting as a Wherefore the said Judge Halsted United States district judge for the L. Ritter was and is guilty of a high southern district of Florida, was and misdemeanor in office. is guilty of misbehavior and of high crimes and misdemeanors in office in ARTICLE VI manner and form as follows, to wit: That the said Halsted L. Ritter, ‘‘The reasonable and probable con- having been nominated by the Presi- sequence of the actions or conduct of dent of the United States, confirmed Halsted L. Ritter, hereunder speci- by the Senate of the United States, fied or indicated in this article, since duly qualified and commissioned, he became judge of said court, as an and, while acting as a United States individual or as such judge, is to district judge for the southern dis- bring his court into scandal and district of Florida, was and is guilty of repute, to the prejudice of said court a high crime and misdemeanor in of- and public confidence in the admin-

2229 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

istration of justice therein, and to in said case a fee of $5,000, although the prejudice of public respect for he performed little, if any, service as and confidence in the Federal judici- such, and in the order making such ary, and to render him unfit to con- allowance recited: ‘And it appearing tinue to serve as such judge: to the court that a minimum fee of ‘‘1. In that in the Florida Power $5,000 was approved by the court for Co. case (Florida Power & Light Co. the said Cary T. Hutchinson, special v. City of Miami et al., no. 1183–M– master in this cause.’ Eq.), which was a case wherein said ‘‘2. In that in the Trust Co. of Flor- judge had granted the complainant ida cases (Illick v. Trust Co. of Flor- power company a temporary injunc- ida et al., no. 1043–M–Eq., and tion restraining the enforcement of Edmunds Committee et al. v. Marion an ordinance of the city of Miami, Mortgage Co. et al., no. 1124–M– which ordinance prescribed a reduc- Eq.), after the State Banking De- tion in the rates for electric current partment of Florida, through its being charged in said city, said judge comptroller, Hon. Ernest Amos, had improperly appointed one Cary T. closed the doors of the Trust Co. of Hutchinson, who had long been asso- Florida and appointed J. H. Therrell ciated with and employed by power liquidator for said trust company, and utility interests, special master and had intervened in the said Illick in chancery in said suit, and refused case, said Judge Ritter wrongfully to revoke his order so appointing and erroneously refused to recognize said Hutchinson. Thereafter, when the right of said State authority to criticism of such action had become administer the affairs of the said current in the city of Miami, and trust company and appointed Julian within 2 weeks after a resolution (H. S. Eaton and Clark D. Stearns as re- Res. 163, 73d Cong.) had been ceivers of the property of said trust agreed to in the House of Represent- company. On appeal the United atives of the Congress of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for States, authorizing and directing the the Fifth Circuit reversed the said Judiciary Committee thereof to in- order or decree of Judge Ritter and vestigate the official conduct of said ordered the said property surren- judge and to make a report con- dered to the State liquidator. There- cerning said conduct to said House of after, on, to wit, September 12, 1932, Representatives, an arrangement there was filed in the United States was entered into with the city com- District Court for the Southern Dis- missioners of the city of Miami or trict of Florida the Edmunds Com- with the city attorney of said city by mittee case, supra. Marion Mortgage which the said city commissioners Co. was a subsidiary of the Trust Co. were to pass a resolution expressing of Florida. Judge Ritter being absent faith and confidence in the integrity from his district at the time of the of said judge, and the said judge filing of said case, an application for recuse himself as judge in said the appointment of receivers therein power suit. The said agreement was was presented to another judge of carried out by the parties thereto, said district, namely, Hon. Alex- and said judge; after the passage of ander Akerman. Judge Ritter, how- such resolution, recused himself ever, prior to the appointment of from sitting as judge in said power such receivers, telegraphed Judge suit, thereby bartering his judicial Akerman, requesting him to appoint authority in said case for a vote of the aforesaid Eaton and Stearns as confidence. Nevertheless, the suc- receivers in said case, which appoint- ceeding judge allowed said Hutch- ments were made by Judge inson as special master in chancery Akerman. Thereafter the United

2230 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

States Circuit Court of Appeals for Ritter, and again the order or decree the Fifth Circuit reversed the order of Judge Ritter appealed from was of Judge Akerman, appointing said reversed by the said circuit court of Eaton and Stearns as receivers in appeals which held that the State of- said case. In November 1932 J. H. ficer was entitled to the custody of Therrell, as liquidator, filed a bill of the property involved and that said complaint in the Circuit Court of Eaton and Stearns as receivers were Dade County, Fla.—a court of the not entitled to such custody. There- State of Florida—alleging that the after, and with the knowledge of the various trust properties of the Trust decision of the-said circuit court of Co. of Florida were burdensome to appeals, Judge Ritter wrongfully and the liquidator to keep, and asking improperly allowed said Eaton and that the court appoint a succeeding Stearns and their attorneys some trustee. Upon petition for removal of $26,000 as fees out of said trust-es- said cause from said State court into tate properties and endeavored to re- the United States District Court for quire, as a condition precedent to re- the Southern District of Florida, leasing said trust properties from Judge Ritter took jurisdiction, not- the control of his court, a promise withstanding the previous rulings of from counsel for the said State liqui- the United States Circuit Court of dator not to appeal from his order al- Appeals above referred to, and again lowing the said fees to said Eaton appointed the said Eaton and and Stearns and their attorneys. Stearns as the receivers of the said trust properties. In December 1932 ‘‘3. In that the said Halsted L. Rit- the said Therrell surrendered all of ter, while such Federal judge, accept- the trust properties to said Eaton ed, in addition to $4,500 from his and Stearns as receivers, together former law partner, as alleged in ar- with all records of the Trust Co. of ticle I hereof, other large fees or gra- Florida pertaining thereto. During tuities, to wit, $7,500 from J. R. the time said Eaton and Stearns, as Francis, on or about April 19, 1929, such receivers, were in control of J. R. Francis at this said time hav- said trust properties. Judge Ritter ing large property interests within wrongfully and improperly approved the territorial jurisdiction of the their accounts without notice or op- court of which Judge Ritter was a portunity for objection thereto to be judge; and on, to wit, the 4th day of heard. With the knowledge of Judge April 1929 the said Judge Ritter ac- Ritter, said receivers appointed the cepted the sum of $2,000 from sister-in-law of Judge Ritter, namely, Brodek, Raphael & Eisner, rep- Mrs. G. M. Wickard, who had had no resenting Mulford Realty Corpora- previous hotel-management experi- tion as its attorneys, through ence, to be manager of the Julia Charles A. Brodek, senior member of Tuttle Hotel and Apartment Build- said firm and a director of said cor- ing, one of said trust properties. On, poration, as a fee or gratuity, at to wit, January 1, 1933, Hon. J. M. which time the said Mulford Realty Lee succeeded Hon. Ernest Amos as Corporation held and owned large comptroller of the State of Florida interests in Florida real estate and and appointed M. A. Smith liqui- citrus groves and a large amount of dator in said Trust Co. of Florida securities of the Olympia Improve- cases to succeed J. H. Therrell. An ment Corporation, which was a com- appeal was again taken to the pany organized to develop and pro- United States Circuit Court of Ap- mote Olympia, Florida, said holdings peals for the Fifth Circuit from the being within the territorial jurisdic- then latest order or decree of Judge tion of the United States District

2231 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Court of which Ritter was a judge these new charges. There is a change from, to wit, February 15, 1929. in the tense used with reference to the ‘‘4. By his conduct as detailed in effect of the conduct alleged. It is articles I, II, III, and IV hereof, and charged, in the resolution pending at by his income-tax evasions as set forth in articles V and VI hereof. the desk, that the reasonable and prob- ‘‘Wherefore the said Judge Halsted able consequence of the alleged con- L. Ritter was and is guilty of mis- duct is to injure the confidence of the behavior, and was and is guilty of people in the courts—I am not at- high crimes and misdemeanors in of- tempting to quote the exact language— fice.’’ which is a matter of form, I think, The House adopted the resolu- more than a matter of substance. tion amending the articles after MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New Mr. Sumners discussed its provi- York]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman sions and stated his opinion that yield? MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Yes. the managers had the power to re- MR. SNELL: I may not be entirely fa- port amendments to the articles: miliar with all this procedure, but as I MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, understand, what the gentleman is the resolution which has just been doing here today, is to amend the origi- read proposes three new articles. The nal articles of impeachment passed by change is not as important as that the House. statement would indicate. Two of the MR. SUMNERS of Texas: That is cor- new articles deal with income taxes, rect. and one with practicing law by Judge MR. SNELL: The original articles of Ritter, after he went on the bench. In impeachment came to the House as a the original resolution, the charge is result of the evidence before the gen- made that Judge Ritter received cer- tleman’s committee. Has the gentle- tain fees or gratuities and had written man’s committee had anything to do a letter, and so forth. No change is pro- with the change or amendment of posed in articles 1 and 2. In article 3, these charges? as stated, Judge Ritter is charged with MR. SUMNERS of Texas: No; just the practicing law after he went on the managers. bench. That same thing, in effect, was MR. SNELL: As a matter of proce- charged, as members of the committee dure, would not that be the proper will remember, in the original resolu- thing to do? tion, but the form of the charge, in the MR. SUMNERS of Texas: I do not judgment of the managers, could be think it is at all necessary, for this rea- improved. These charges go further son: The managers are now acting as and charge that in the matter con- the agents of the House, and not as the nected with J. R. Francis, the judge agents of the Committee on the Judici- acted as counsel in two transactions ary. Mr. Manager Perkins and Mr. after he went on the bench, and re- Manager Hobbs have recently ex- ceived $7,500 in compensation. Article tended the investigation made by the 7 is amended to include a reference to committee.

2232 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, will the was informed by resolution there- gentleman yield further? of: MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Yes. MR. [HATTON W.] SUMNERS of Texas: MR. SNELL: Do I understand that the Mr. Speaker, I offer the following privi- amendments come because of new in- leged resolution. formation that has come to you as The Clerk read as follows: managers that never was presented to the Committee on the Judiciary? HOUSE RESOLUTION 472 MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Perhaps it Resolved, That a message be sent would not be true to answer that en- to the Senate by the Clerk of the tirely in the affirmative, but the House informing the Senate that the changes are made largely by reason of House of Representatives has adopt- new evidence which has come to the ed an amendment to the articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited attention of the committee, and some against Halsted L. Ritter, United of these changes, more or less changes States district judge for the southern in form, have resulted from further ex- district of Florida, and that the same amination of the question. This is will be presented to the Senate by somewhat as lawyers do in their plead- the managers on the part of the House. ings. They often ask the privilege of And also, that the managers have making an amendment. authority to file with the Secretary MR. SNELL: And the gentleman’s po- of the Senate, on the part of the sition is that as agents of the House it House any subsequent pleadings is not necessary to have the approval they shall deem necessary. of his committee, which made the The resolution was agreed to. original impeachment charges? A motion to reconsider was laid on MR. SUMNERS of Texas: I have no the table. doubt about that; I have no doubt about the accuracy of that statement. On Mar. 31, the amendments to the articles were presented to the § 18.11 Following the amend- Court of Impeachment and print- ment of the articles of im- ed in the Record; (12) counsel for peachment against Judge the respondent was granted 48 Halsted Ritter, the House hours to file his response to the adopted a resolution to in- new articles. form the Senate thereof. Motions to Strike Articles On Mar. 30, 1936,(11) following the amendment by the House of § 18.12 During the impeach- the articles in the impeachment ment trial of Judge Halsted against Judge Ritter, the Senate Ritter, the respondent moved to strike Article I or, in the 11. 80 CONG. REC. 4601, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. 12. Id. at pp. 4654–56.

2233 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

alternative, to require elec- oppress the respondent in that the ar- tion as to Articles I and II, ticles are so framed as to collect, or ac- and moved to strike Article cumulate upon the second article, the adverse votes, if any, upon the first ar- VII. ticle. On Mar. 31, 1936,(13) the re- 3. The Constitution of the United spondent, Judge Ritter, filed the States contemplates but one vote of the following motion: Senate upon the charge contained in each article of impeachment, whereas In the Senate of the United States of articles I and II are constructed and America sitting as a Court of Im- arranged in such form and manner as peachment. The United States of to require and exact of the Senate a America v. Halsted L. Ritter, re- second vote upon the subject matter of spondent article I.

MOTION TO STRIKE ARTICLE I, OR, IN MOTION TO STRIKE ARTICLE VII THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE ELECTION AS TO ARTICLES I AND II; And the respondent further moves AND MOTION TO STRIKE ARTICLE VII the honorable Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, for an order The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, striking and dismissing article VII, moves the honorable Senate, sitting as and for grounds of such motion, re- a Court of Impeachment, for an order spondent says: striking and dismissing article I of the 1. Article VII includes and embraces articles of impeachment, or, in the al- all the charges set forth in articles I, ternative, to require the honorable II, III, IV, V, and VI. managers on the part of the House of Representatives to elect as to whether 2. Article VII constitutes an accumu- they will proceed upon article I or lation and massing of all charges in upon article II, and for grounds of such preceding articles upon which the motion respondent says: Court is to pass judgment prior to the vote on article VII, and the prosecution 1. Article II reiterates and embraces all the charges and allegations of arti- should be required to abide by the cle I, and the respondent is thus and judgment of the Senate rendered upon thereby twice charged in separate arti- such prior articles and the Senate cles with the same and identical of- ought not to countenance the arrange- fense, and twice required to defend ment of pleading designed to procure a against the charge presented in article second vote and the collection or accu- I. mulation of adverse votes, if any, upon 2. The presentation of the same and such matters. identical charge in the two articles in 3. The presentation in article VII of question tends to prejudice the re- more than one subject and the charges spondent in his defense, and tends to arising out of a single subject is unjust and prejudicial to respondent. 13. 80 CONG. REC. 4656, 4657, 74th 4. In fairness and justice to respond- Cong. 2d Sess. ent, the Court ought to require separa-

2234 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

tion and singleness of the subject mat- At the suggestion of the Chair, ter of the charges in separate and dis- decision on the motions of re- tinct articles, upon which a single and spondent were reserved for inves- final vote of the Senate upon each article and charge can be had. tigation and deliberation: (Signed) FRANK P. WALSH, MR. [HENRY F.] ASHURST [of Ari- CARL T. HOFFMAN, zona]: Mr. President, I assume that the Of Counsel for Respondent. Presiding Officer will desire to take Mr. Hoffman, counsel for re- some time to examine all the pleadings spondent, argued that Article II and will not be prepared to announce a decision on this point until the next duplicated charges set forth in Ar- session of the Court? ticle I. He also contended that the THE PRESIDING OFFICER [NATHAN L. rule of duplicity, or the principle BACHMAN (Tenn.)]: It is the opinion of of civil and criminal pleading that the present occupant of the chair that one count should contain no more while the necessity for early decision is than one charge or cause of ac- apparent, the importance of the matter would justify the occupant of the chair tion, was violated by Article VII. in saying that no decision should be Mr. Sumners argued in re- made until the proceedings are printed sponse that Article II was clearly and every member of the Court has an not a duplication of Article I, two opportunity to investigate and consider distinct charges being presented. them. Is there objection to that suggestion of the Chair? The Chair hears As to Article VII, Mr. Sumners none.(15) contended that impeachment was essentially an ouster proceeding § 18.13 On the respondent’s as opposed to a criminal pro- motion to strike, the Chair ceeding. He referred to the fact overruled that part of the that the articles of impeachment motion which sought to against Judge Harold Louderback strike Article I or to require had contained a similar article election between Articles I charging that ‘‘by specifically al- and II; the Chair submitted leged conduct’’ the respondent that part of the motion ‘‘has done those things the reason- which sought to strike Arti- able and probable consequences of cle VII to the Court of Im- which are to arouse a substantial peachment, which overruled doubt as to his judicial integ- that part of the motion. rity.(14) such conduct as to destroy public 14. Id. at p. 4658. confidence in the court, see 6 Can- For Article V, as amended, in the non’s Precedents § 520. Louderback impeachment, charging 15. Id. at p. 4659.

2235 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

On Apr. 3, 1936,(16) the fol- What is the judgment of the Court lowing disposition was made of with reference to that particular phase the motion of the respondent, of the motion to strike? Judge Halsted Ritter, to strike MR. [WILLIAM H.] KING [of Utah]: Mr. President, if it be necessary, I certain articles: move that the ruling of the honorable THE PRESIDING OFFICER [NATHAN L. Presiding Officer be considered as and BACHMAN (Tenn.)]: On the motion of stand for the judgment of the Senate the honorable counsel for the respond- sitting as a Court of Impeachment. ent to strike article I of the articles of THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there ob- impeachment or, in the alternative, to jection? The Chair hears none, and the require the honorable managers on the ruling of the Chair is sustained, by the part of the House to make an election Senate. as to whether they will stand upon ar- With reference to article VII of the ticle I or upon article II, the Chair is articles of impeachment, formerly arti- ready to rule. cle IV, the Chair desires to exercise his The Chair is clearly of the opinion prerogative of calling on the Court for that the motion to strike article I or to a determination of this question. require an election is not well taken His reason for so doing is that an and should be overruled. impeachment proceeding before the His reason for such opinion is that Senate sitting as a Court is sui ge- articles I and II present entirely dif- neris, partaking neither of the harsh- ferent bases for impeachment. ness and rigidity of the criminal law Article I alleges the illegal and cor- nor of the civil proceedings requiring rupt receipt by the respondent of less particularity. $4,500 from his former law partner, The question of duplicity in impeach- Mr. Rankin. ment proceedings presented by the Article II sets out as a basis for im- honorable counsel for the respondent is peachment an alleged conspiracy be- a controversial one, and the Chair feels tween Judge Ritter; his former part- that it is the right and duty of each ner, Mr. Rankin; one Richardson, Member of the Senate, sitting as a Metcalf & Sweeny; and goes into detail Court, to express his views thereon. as to the means and manner employed whereby the respondent is alleged to Precedents in proceedings of this have corruptly received the $4,500 character are rare and not binding above mentioned. upon this Court in any course that it The two allegations, one of corrupt might desire to pursue. and illegal receipt and the other of con- The question presented in the mo- spiracy to effectuate the purpose, are, tion to strike article VII on account of in the judgment of the Chair, wholly duplicity has not, so far as the Chair is distinct, and the respondent should be advised, been presented in any im- called to answer each of the articles. peachment proceeding heretofore had before this body. 16. 80 CONG. REC. 4898, 74th Cong. 2d The Chair therefore submits the Sess. question to the Court.

2236 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

MR. [HENRY F.] ASHURST [of Ari- and 2 of article VII. These two speci- zona]: Mr. President, under the rules fications have reference to what I as- of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Im- sume counsel for respondent and the peachment, all such questions, when managers as well, recognize are rather submitted by the Presiding Officer, involved matters, which would possibly shall be decided without debate and require as much time to develop and to without division, unless the yeas and argue as would be required on the re- nays are demanded by one-fifth of the mainder of the case. Members present, when the yeas and The managers respectfully move that nays shall be taken. those two counts be stricken. If that THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair motion shall be sustained, the man- therefore, will put the motion. All agers will stand upon the other speci- those in favor of the motion of counsel fications in article VII to establish arti- for the respondent to strike article VII cle VII. The suggestion on the part of will say ‘‘aye.’’ Those opposed will say the managers is that those two speci- ‘‘no.’’ fications in article VII be stricken from The noes have it, and the motion in the article. its entirety is overruled. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: (18) What is the response of counsel for the re- § 18.14 During the impeach- spondent? ment trial of Judge Halsted MR. [CHARLES L.] MCNARY [of Or- Ritter, the managers on the egon]: Mr. President, there was so part of the House made and much rumbling and noise in the Cham- ber that I did not hear the position the Senate granted a motion taken by the managers on the part of to strike certain specifica- the House. tions from an article of im- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The man- peachment. agers on the part of the House have suggested that specifications 1 and 2 of (17) On Apr. 3, 1936, during the article VII be stricken on their motion. impeachment trial of Judge Rit- ... ter, the managers on the part of MR. HOFFMAN [of counsel]: Mr. the House moved that two counts President, the respondent is ready to be stricken. The motion was file his answer to article I, to articles granted by the Senate: II and III as amended, and to articles IV, V, and VI. In view of the announce- MR. MANAGER [HATTON W.] SUM- ment just made asking that specifica- NERS [of Texas] (speaking from the tions 1 and 2 of article VII be stricken, desk in front of the Vice President): it will be necessary for us to revise our Mr. President, the suggestion which answer to article VII and to eliminate the managers desire to make at this paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof. That can time has reference to specifications 1 be very speedily done with 15 or 20 minutes if it can be arranged for the 17. 80 CONG. REC. 4899, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. 18. Nathan L. Bachman (Tenn.).

2237 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Senate to indulge us for that length of On Apr. 6, the respondent’s an- time. swer was laid before the House THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there ob- and referred to the managers on jection to the motion submitted on the (20) part of the managers? the part of the House. On the MR. HOFFMAN: We have no objection. same day, the managers filed a THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The motion replication in the Senate, sitting is made. Is there objection? The Chair as a Court of Impeachment, to the hears none, and the motion to strike is answer of the respondent Judge granted. Ritter. The replication was pre- MR. [JOSEPH T.] ROBINSON [of Ar- pared and submitted by the man- kansas]: Mr. President, it would seem agers on their own initiative, the that in the interest of the conservation ( ) of time and for the convenience of the House not having voted thereon: 1 Court, the motion should have been REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REP- made prior to the decision on the question involved in the motion of counsel RESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED to strike certain articles. I merely STATES OF AMERICA TO THE ANSWER make that observation for the consider- OF HALSTED L. RITTER, DISTRICT ation of the Court. JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOR- Answer and Replication IDA, TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACH- MENT, AS AMENDED, EXHIBITED § 18.15 In the Ritter impeach- AGAINST HIM BY THE HOUSE OF REP- ment trial, an answer to the RESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA charges was filed by the respondent, and a replication The House of Representatives of the United States of America, having con- thereto was submitted by the sidered the several answers of Halsted managers. L. Ritter, district judge of the United On Apr. 3, 1936, the answer of States for the southern district of Flor- ida, to the several articles of impeach- the respondent in the Ritter im- ment, as amended, against him by peachment was read in the Sen- them exhibited in the name of them- ate, ordered printed, and mes- selves and of all the people of the saged to the House. The answer United States, and reserving to them- stated that the facts set forth selves all advantages of exception to therein did not constitute im- the insufficiency, irrelevancy, and im- pertinency of his answer to each and peachable high crimes and mis- all of the several articles of impeach- demeanors and that the respond- ment, as amended, so exhibited against ent was not guilty of the offenses the said Halsted L. Ritter, judge as charged.(19) aforesaid, do say:

19. 80 CONG. REC. 4899–4906, 74th 20. Id. at p. 5020. Cong. 2d Sess. 1. Id. at pp. 4971, 4972.

2238 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

(1) That the said articles, as amend- Ritter, opening statements were ed do severally set forth impeachable made in the Senate by the man- offenses, misbehaviors, and misdemeanors as defined in the Constitu- agers on the part of the House tion of the United States, and that the and by counsel for the accused.(3) same are proper to be answered unto The respondent himself testified by the said Halsted L. Ritter, judge as before the Court of Impeach- aforesaid, and sufficient to be enter- (4) tained and adjudicated by the Senate ment. Final arguments were sitting as a Court of Impeachment. made on Apr. 13 and 14 first by (2) That the said House of Rep- Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, for resentatives of the United States of the managers, then by Mr. Walsh America do deny each and every aver- for the respondent, and finally by ment in said several answers, or either of them, which denies or traverses the Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, acts, intents, misbehaviors, or mis- for the managers, the arguments demeanors charged against the said being limited by an order adopted Halsted L. Ritter in said articles of im- on Apr. 13: peachment, as amended, or either of them, and for replication to said an- Ordered, That the time for final ar- swers do say that Halsted L. Ritter, gument of the case of Halsted L. Ritter district judge of the United States for shall be limited to 4 hours, which said the southern district of Florida, is time shall be divided equally between guilty of the impeachable offenses, mis- the managers on the part of the House behaviors, and misdemeanors charged of Representatives and the counsel for in said articles, as amended, and that the respondent, and the time thus as- the House of Representatives are ready signed to each side shall be divided as to prove the same. (5) HATTON W. SUMNERS, each side for itself may determine. On behalf of the Managers. Mr. Hobbs argued three prin- The Trial; Arguments ciples bearing on the weight of evidence and burden of proof in § 18.16 Opening statements an impeachment trial: and closing arguments in an The statement of the law of the case, impeachment trial may con- as we see it, will largely be left to the sist of statements by the distinguished chairman of the Judici- managers on the part of the House and statements by 3. For precedents during the trial as to the evidence, see §§ 12.7–12.9, supra. counsel for the accused. 4. 80 CONG. REC. 5370–86, 74th Cong. On Apr. 6, 1936,(2) in the im- 2d Sess., Apr. 11 and Apr. 13, 1936. peachment trial of Judge Halsted 5. Id. at p. 5401. For final arguments on Apr. 13, 2. 80 CONG. REC. 4972–82, 74th Cong. 1936, see id. at pp. 5401–10; for Apr. 2d Sess. 14, 1936, see id. at pp. 5464–73.

2239 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

ary Committee of the House [Mr. Man- Mr. Walsh concluded his argu- ager Sumners], the chairman of the ment based on the lack of evi- managers on the part of the House in this case, and I will not attempt to go dence of charges and on the good into that, save to observe these three character and reputation of the points which, to my mind, should be in respondent: the minds of the Members of this high Court of Impeachment at all times in Gentlemen, all I can say to you is weighing this evidence: that if this case were being tried in an First, that impeachment trials are ordinary court a demurrer to the evi- not criminal trials in any sense of the dence would be sustained. The law is word. that those bringing these charges must Second, that the burden of proof in prove the receipt of income; they must this case is not ‘‘beyond a reasonable prove the amount that was paid out doubt’’, as it is in criminal cases. against that income; they must prove Third, that the presumption of inno- what his exemptions were; they must cence, which attends a defendant in a prove what his allowances were; they criminal case, is not to be indulged in must prove a tax liability. Those mat- behalf of the respondent in an im- ters would all have been looked into, peachment trial. Those three principles and as we look into them in this case of law, I believe, are well recognized, there is no tax liability. When Judge and we respectfully ask the Members Ritter swears he did not defraud the of this high Court of Impeachment to Government of a dollar, when he says bear them in mind. that the $6.25 tax was not due because The present distinguished senior his exemptions exceeded that sum, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Norris], court would direct a verdict in his when acting as one of the managers on favor. the part of the House in the impeach- In 1930 Judge Ritter had a loss ment trial of Judge Robert W. which, added to his taxes and other ex- Archbald, made as clear and cogent a penditures, gave him a leeway of statement as has ever been made upon the subject of impeachable conduct. $4,600 over and above the income that With his kind permission, I should like he could be charged with having re- to take that as my text, so to speak, for ceived. He testified to this, and you the remarks that will follow: ought to believe that he testified to the truth, for a charge must be supported If judges can hold their offices only by something greater, I say, than the during good behavior, then it nec- essarily and logically follows that mere assertion of counsel, and nothing they cannot hold their offices when else has been introduced in this case in they have been convicted of any be- support of that charge. If Judge Ritter havior that is not good. If good be- were found guilty upon that charge, havior is an essential of holding the which was filed in this Court on March office, then misbehavior is a sufficient reason for removal from of- 30, 1936—after he came here to defend fice.(6) himself against the other charges— that would be a monstrous thing. 6. Id. at p. 5401. Those bringing the charge did not, nor

2240 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18

could they, make proof that Judge Rit- is known to criminal jurisprudence. We ter owed his Government a cent of in- do assume the responsibility of bring- come taxes or that Judge Ritter did ing before you a case, proven facts, the anything improper in the filing of his reasonable and probable consequences return. It ought to be the pleasure of of which are to cause the people to this body to acquit him of the charges doubt the integrity of the respondent with respect to income taxes, because presiding as a judge among a free peo- the law protects him, because he is in- ple. nocent of any offense in that regard. We take the position, first, that jus- Take this whole case in its entirety, tice must be done to the respondent. gentlemen. I have tried to argue it on The respondent must be protected the facts. I have drawn no conclusions against those who would make him which I did not honestly believe came afraid. But we take the position also from these facts. My argument is that when a judge on the bench, by his backed up by the belief that you must own conduct, does that which makes recognize and accept his innocence as an ordinary person doubt his integrity, he stood here, a brave and manly man, doubt whether his court is a fair place to go, doubt whether he, that ordinary testifying in opposition to these person, will get a square deal there; charges which have been made against doubt whether the judge will be influ- him. It will not do to say that he un- enced by something other than the dermined the dignity or the honor of sworn testimony, that judge must go. the court. He did nothing in his whole This august body writes the code of career in Florida, according to the wit- judicial ethics. This Court fixes the nesses, which would belittle that dig- standard of permissible judicial con- nity or besmirch his honor. duct. It will not be, it cannot be, that There is another thing I wish to call someone on the street corner will de- to your attention. I know and you stroy the confidence of the American know that a judge ought to have a people in the courts of this country. good reputation. In this case, however, That cannot happen if the courts are where a charge is made against his in- kept clean. If confidence in the courts tegrity, where a charge of corruption is of this country is destroyed it is going made against him, he put his reputa- to be destroyed from within by the tion in that community in evidence be- judges themselves. I declare to you, ( ) fore this body. 7 standing in my place of responsibility, Mr. Sumners began and con- that that is one thing which neither cluded his argument, the final ar- the House nor the Senate can permit to be tampered with or which they can gument in the case, as follows: be easy about. . . . We do not assume the responsibility, Now, let us look at this case. I do not Members of this distinguished Court, know anything about what happened of proving that the respondent in this in Colorado, but when we see this re- case is guilty of a crime as that term spondent in this record he is down there in Florida as the secretary of a 7. Id. at p. 5468. real-estate concern. After that he forms

2241 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

a copartnership with Mr. Rankin. Two dalusia, Ala.’’ Why did he do that? Be- years and three months after that time cause the job Rankin was trying to get he occupies a position on the Federal was in Alabama. Just think of that, bench, and when the Government put and weigh it. him there, when the people put him In another letter he said: there, they said to him, ‘‘All we ask of I want to say that Judge Rankin is you is to behave yourself.’’ Good behav- a man of the highest character and ior! What does that mean? It means integrity. He is one of the ablest obey the law, keep yourself free from common-law lawyers in the South. questionable conduct, free from embar- That is a statement made by a judge rassing entanglements, free from acts upon his responsibility. which justify suspicion; hold in clean hands the scales of justice. That means We were partners in the practice that he shall not take chances that of law in West Palm Beach before would tend to cause the people to ques- my appointment on the bench. I know of no man better qualified from tion the integrity of the court, because the standpoint of experience, ability, where doubt enters confidence departs. and character for the position. Is not that sound? When a judge on the bench, by his own conduct, arouses And so forth. Then he writes again a substantial doubt as to his judicial in another letter that if he is appointed integrity he commits the highest crime he will raise the bench to a high place. that a judge can commit under the I say a man who will not speak the Constitution. It is not essential to truth above his signed name will not prove guilt. There is nothing in the swear it, and a man who will not state Constitution and nothing in the philos- the truth, and who does those things ophy of a free government that holds which arouse doubt as to his integrity that a man shall continue to occupy of- must go from the bench. fice until it can be established beyond I appreciate profoundly the attention a reasonable doubt that he is not fit for which the Members of this honorable the office. It is the other way. When Court have given the case. there is resulting from the judge’s con- There ought to be a unanimous judg- duct a reasonable doubt as to his integ- ment in this case, and let it ring out rity he has no right to stay longer. He from this Chamber all over the Nation has forfeited his right. It is the high that from now on men who hold posi- duty of this Court to write the judg- tions in the Federal judiciary must be ment and make effective the terms of obedient to the high principles which that contract....(8) in the nature of things it is essential MR. MANAGER SUMNERS: I do not for a judge to manifest. want to be tedious, but this is very im- A few Federal judges can reflect portant, because these things go down upon the great body of honorable men to the depths of this man’s character. who hold these high positions. When he wrote this letter he re- There is another thing I was about ferred to him as ‘‘A. L. Rankin, of An- to forget. Of course, the bondholders in Chicago did not protest the $90,000 fee 8. Id. at p. 5469. to Rankin. The attorneys for the bond-

2242 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18 holders and Mr. Holland were in the I thank this honorable Court for the respondent’s court at the same time. courtesy and consideration which have They came to represent 93 percent of been shown to my colleagues and to the $2,500,000 of the first-mortgage me as we have tried to discharge our bonds. They heard the respondent ad- constitutional duty in this matter.(9) vised of the champertous conduct of Richardson, Rankin et al., and they Deliberation and Judgment saw the respondent approve. They were virtually kicked out of the court. § 18.17 Deliberation was fol- They wanted the case out of that court and away from Rankin and the re- lowed by conviction on a spondent just as quickly as they could general article of impeach- get it out, and they would have stood ment and by judgment of re- not only for that fee of $90,000 but for moval from office in the trial more; and any of you practicing law of Judge Halsted Ritter. would have done the same thing under the circumstances. You remember Final arguments in the Ritter McPherson said respondent was posi- trial having been concluded on tive, very positive, about Mr. Holland. Apr. 14, 1936, the Court of Im- Respondent was a great deal stronger peachment adjourned until Apr. with regard to the attorney for the bondholders. Remember the judge 15, when the doors of the Senate asked Holland, ‘‘Who bought you off?’’ were closed for deliberation on of course they were glad to get out at motion of Senator Henry F. almost any price. Ashurst, of Arizona. The Senate Members of the Court, there is a deliberated with closed doors for 4 great deal more which ought to be said, but you have the record and my hours and 37 minutes. A unani- time has about expired. I have a duty mous-consent agreement entered to perform and you have yours. Mine is into while the Senate was delib- finished. erating with closed doors was The House has done all the House printed in the Record; the order can do toward protecting the judiciary provided for a vote on the articles of the country. The people have trusted in you. Counsel for the respondent of impeachment on Friday, Apr. ( ) kept emphasizing the fact that this re- 17. 10 spondent stood and swore, stood and Deliberation with closed doors swore, stood and swore. I remember was continued on Apr. 16, 1936, that I saw the Members of this honor- for 5 hours and 48 minutes. When able Court lift their hands to God Al- mighty, and, in that oath which they the doors were opened, the Senate took, pledge themselves to rise above adopted orders to return evidence section and party entanglements and to be true to the people of the Nation 9. Id. at pp. 5472, 5473. in the exercise of this high power. I 10. 80 CONG. REC. 5505, 74th Cong. 2d have no doubt you will do it. Sess.

2243 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS to proper persons, to allow each was insufficient to convict on the Senator to file written opinions first six articles: Article I: 55 within four days after the final ‘‘guilty’’;—29 ‘‘not guilty’’; Article vote, and to provide a method of II: 52 ‘‘guilty’’—32 ‘‘not guilty’’; vote. The latter order read as fol- Article III: 44 ‘‘guilty’’—39 ‘‘not lows: guilty’’; Article IV: 36 ‘‘guilty’’—48 Ordered, That upon the final vote in ‘‘not guilty’’; Article V: 36 the pending impeachment of Halsted ‘‘guilty’’—48 ‘‘not guilty’’; Article L. Ritter, the Secretary shall read the VI: 46 ‘‘guilty’’—37 ‘‘not guilty.’’ articles of impeachment separately and But on the final Article, Article successively, and when the reading of VII, the vote was: 56 ‘‘guilty’’—28 each article shall have been concluded ‘‘not guilty.’’ So the Senate con- the Presiding Officer shall state the victed Judge Ritter on the seventh question thereon as follows: article of impeachment, charging ‘‘Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, guilty or general misbehavior and conduct not guilty?’’ that brought his court into scan- Thereupon the roll of the Senate dal and disrepute. shall be called, and each Senator as his Senator Warren R. Austin, of name is called, unless excused, shall Vermont, made a point of order arise in his place and answer ‘‘guilty’’ against the vote on the ground or ‘‘not guilty.’’ (11) that two-thirds had not voted to On Apr. 17, 1936, the Senate convict, Article VII being an accu- convened as a Court of Impeach- mulation of facts and cir- ment to vote on the articles cumstances. The President pro against Judge Ritter. Senator Jo- tempore sustained a point of order seph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, that Senator Austin was indulging announced those Senators absent in argument rather than stating and excused and announced that the grounds for his point of order, pairs would not be recognized in and overruled Senator Austin’s the proceedings. Eighty-four Sen- point of order.(12) ators answered to their names on Senator Ashurst submitted an the quorum call. order both removing Judge Ritter President pro tempore Key Pitt- from office and disqualifying him man, of Nevada, proceeded to put from holding and enjoying any of- the vote on the articles of im- fice of honor, trust, or profit under peachment, a two-thirds vote the United States. Senator Robert being required to convict. The vote M. La Follette, Jr., of Wisconsin,

11. Id. at pp. 5558, 5559. 12. Id. at p. 5606.

2244 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 18 asked for a division of the ques- The order for disqualification tion, but Senator George W. Nor- failed on a yea and nay vote— ris, of Nebraska, suggested that yeas 0, nays 76. Senator Ashurst should submit The Senate adopted an order two orders, since removal followed communicating the order and from conviction but disqualifica- judgment to the House, and the tion did not. Senator Ashurst Senate adjourned sine die from ( ) thereupon withdrew the original the Court of Impeachment. 13 order and submitted an order re- Subsequent to his conviction moving Judge Ritter from office. and removal from office, the re- The President pro tempore ruled spondent brought an action in the that no vote was required on the U.S. Court of Claims for back sal- order, removal automatically fol- ary, claiming that the Senate had exceeded its jurisdiction in trying lowing conviction for high crimes him for nonimpeachable charges. and misdemeanors under section The Court of Claims dismissed the 4 of article II of the U.S. Constitu- claim for want of jurisdiction on tion. The President pro tempore the ground that the impeachment then pronounced judgment: power was vested in Congress and JUDGMENT was not subject to judicial review.(14) The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for § 18.18 The order and judg- the southern district of Florida, upon seven several articles of impeachment ment of the Senate in the exhibited against him by the House of Ritter impeachment trial Representatives, and two-thirds of the were messaged to the House. Senators present having found him On Apr. 20, 1936,(15) the order guilty of charges contained therein: It and judgment in the Halsted Rit- is therefore Ordered and adjudged, That the said 13. Id. at pp. 5606, 5607. Halsted L. Ritter be, and he is hereby, 14. Ritter v United States, 84 Ct. Cl 293 removed from office. (1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668 Senator Ashurst submitted a (1937). The opinion of the Court of second order disqualifying the re- Claims cited dicta in the case of Mis- spondent from holding an office of sissippi v Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 honor, trust, or profit under the (1866), to support the conclusion that the impeachment power was po- United States. It was agreed, in litical in nature and not subject to reliance on the Robert Archbald judicial review. proceedings, that only a majority 15. 80 CONG. REC. 5703, 5704, 74th vote was required for passage. Cong. 2d Sess.

2245 Ch. 14 § 18 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS ter impeachment trial were re- America, this the 18th day of April, ceived in the House: A.D. 1936. EDWIN A. HALSEY, MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE Secretary of the Senate of the United States. A message from the Senate, by Mr. In the Senate of the United States of Home, its enrolling clerk, announced America, sitting for the trial of the that the Senate had ordered that the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, Secretary be directed to communicate United States district judge for the to the President of the United States southern district of Florida and the House of Representatives the order and judgment of the Senate in JUDGMENT the case of Halsted L. Ritter, and APRIL 17, 1936. transmit a certified copy of same to The Senate having tried Halsted each, as follows: L. Ritter, United States district I, Edwin A. Halsey, Secretary of judge for the southern district of the Senate of the United States of Florida, upon seven several articles America, do hereby certify that the of impeachment exhibited against hereto attached document is a true him by the House of Representa- and correct copy of the order and tives, and two-thirds of the Senators judgment of the Senate, sitting for present having found him guilty of the trial of the impeachment of Hal- charges contained therein: It is sted L. Ritter, United States district therefore judge for the southern district of Ordered and adjudged, That the Florida, entered in the said trial on said Halsted L. Ritter be, and he is April 17, 1936. hereby, removed from office. In testimony whereof, I hereunto Attest: subscribe my name and affix the seal EDWIN A. HALSEY of the Senate of the United States of Secretary.

2246