DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record- House

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1905.. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. ~ 1021 M. P: Westbrook to be postmaster at Bent-on, in. the county of very- able arguments that have been made in this proceeding, Saline and State of Arkansas. and: without assuming·to ha\e read· the-entire reclJrd I will give l)iDIA..."i TERRITORY. some impressions that I have recei\ed concerning the case. Willlam T: Brooks to be postmaster at BTOken Arrow, in Dfs­ The gentleman from New York [Mr. CocKRAN] yesterday very trict 7, Ind. T. eloquently presented to the House a- noble- ideal of a judge, an John P. Bradley to be postmaster at Wetumka, in District 13, ideal that was as unattainable as it was sublime. If we were Ind. T. to impeach all judges who· do not attain to it and impeach them ILLINOIS. at once, I do not think we should have a single judge upon the AJpheus K. Campbell to be I>Ostmaster at Sullivan, in the benclL at the· end of the week. I am not sure we want just that county of Moultrie and State of Illinois. sort of judge, because I think it would give us the regime of an Ml)i:'-IJJSOTA. intellectual and moral monster, unde1· whom mankind would be John P. Lundin to be postmaste1· at Stephen, Minn. crucified, and we woul<f soon long for a judge with some taint of the frailties of poor humanity upDn him: I am unable to ac­ cept the contention of the gentleman. from Pennsylvania, pre­ / TRE1ATIES WITH Th1HANS IN CALIFORNIA. sented in the \ery full argument in which he introduced the res­ The injunction of ecrecy was removed J"anuary 18, 1905, olution, before the holidays, a.s to the character of an impeach­ from the eighteen treaties with Indian tribes in California, sent able {)ffense. 1.'he gentleman (and I ha\e since read his- speech to the Senate by President Fillmore June 7, 1852. as reported) said in substance that. we either comiftended Judge Sw::ryne or we did not commend him. If_ we believed that what he had done WaS' right, we should send him forth with our ap­ probation, but if w-e did not so believe, theu we should send him HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. to the constitntional· trjer-to. the Senate. I do not think, sir, that the proce s of impeachment is any such light affair. The '' ED~DAY, January 18, 1905. Constitution gi\es to this Hou e the power: to impeach public The House met at 12 o'clock noon. officers for trea on, felony, and other hlgh crimes and misde­ Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. liENBY N. CounEN, D. D. meanors. Noscitur a sociis. A crime is known by the company The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and it keeps, and whether the oilier "high crime and misdemean­ approved. ors" must be indictable offense per se or not, it is e\ident that MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. the framers of the Constitution, in as ociating. them with trea­ son and felony, contemplated very grave offenses against so­ ARKI~SON, A message from the Senate, by Mr. P its reading ciety. Now.- a,s. to the specific charges. clerk, announced that the Senate had passed without amend­ l\fr. WILLIAMS of l\.fjssiNsippi. Will the gentleman yield for ment bill of tho following title: a question? H. R. 169!:>2. An act to authorize the county of Sunflower to l\Ir. McCALL. L ha\e only se,en· minutes. construct a bridge across the Sunflower River, Mississippi. l\Ir. WILLiiliS of Mis.si sippi. Then it is not reasonable to The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills expect you to yield? of the following titles; in which the concurrence of the House l\Ir. McCALL. I shall be very glad to submit to the gentle­ of Representatives was reque ted: man question. S. 3168. An act making an appropriation for the improve­ l\fr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. No; I would rather not ment of the grounds within the Presidio Military Reservation. under those circumstance . at San Francisco, Cal. ; Mr. McCALL. The article based upon the false· certificates S. 2654. An act to amend chaQter 55 of an act entitled "An of expenses, r think, was completely de troyed by the gentleman act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia ; from New York [Mr~ CocKRA-N] in. the argument whlch he made S. 1422. An act for the relief of the Omaha National Bank; yesterday; which imparted a tempo~y appearance of dignity S. 1456. An act to carry out the findings of the Court of to this case, a dignity which speedily disappears the moment Claims in the case of James H. Dennis; one looks into the re·co:OO. The first charge I will consider is S. 5209. An act for the relief of Edward H. Ozmun ; the railroad charge. It is a-lleged that this judge accepted free S. 4306. An act relating_ to the comi?etency of witnesses in the transportation and free subsistence while being transported, United States courts; from the receiver of a railroad, whlch receiver had been . ap­ S. 4196. An act to provide fur the distribution of the reports pointed by bim. The· gentleman from Maine [Mr. LITTLEFIELD] of the United States circuit courts of appeals and of the United e timates the cost to the railroad at twenty or thirty dollars, States circuit and district courts to certain officers of the or some similar small amount. It seems to me that this charge United States, and for other pm·poses; should be reverenced, if for no other. reason thun because of its S. 4162. An act providing for the appointment of a solicitor antiquity. This offense occurred some dozen years ago, at a for the Post-Office Department and abolishing tbe office of As­ time when I think it was quite the custom for public officers to sistant Attorney-GeneraL for the Post-Office Department; and receive what are eupheinistically called "favors" at the hands S. 3532. An act to provide foe tba :Qayment of certain. claims­ of railroad corporations. I am willing. to assert, however, that again t the District of Columbia in accordance with the acts of if the ruie were applied, even in the e virtuous times, that a pub­ Congres apnro\ed January 26, 1807, and as amended July 19, lic officer having authority either to make or execute laws 1897. against railroad corporations should be adjudged as having The message also announced that the Senate had passed with committed a high crime and misdemeanor because he- ac­ amendment bill of the following title; in which the concur­ cepted a -favor from a railroad, then that rule would cause an rence of the House of Representatives was requested: amount of mortality among our contemporary state men which H. n. 84:60. An act providing for the transfer of forest re­ it is frightful to contemplate. [Laughter and applause.] serves from the Department of the Interior to the Department The exhuming of this indiscreet act of Judge Swayne ~fter of Agriculture. the dust of a dozen years bas- gathered upon it, this act which ENROLLED Bll.LS SIG~ED. I believe was a thoughtless act, but which it is not alleged Mr. WACHTER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, re­ caused any injury to anyone or corrupted bim in any way-1 ported that they had examined and found truly enroliM bills say that the exhuming of this· offense at thi late day is not so of the following titles; when the Speaker igned the same: much a witness for his impeachment as it is to the diligence of H. R. 15225. An act to amend the act relating to the printing the hostility with which he had been pursued. and distribution of public documents, and for oth~ purpo es; Now, as to· the contempt charges- and his action in the con­ and tempt cases. It appears- that he had been negotiating for the H. R.16720. An act permitting the building of a· raili·oad purchase of a piece of land in Florida for his wife. A deed was bridge across the Red River of the North from a point on· sec­ sent to him or tendered him for that land. He noticed_that it tion 6, township 154 north, range 50 west, Marshall C-ounty, was· a quitclaim deed instead of a warranty, and he asked the l\1inn., to a point on section 36, township 155 north, range 51 question:. Why is not this a warranty deed? They then told west, Walsh County, N. Dak. him that it was· because of a cloud in tbe title which was being tried in his court, and he at once ordered the deed to be· re­ JMPEACHliE:s-~ OF JUDGE CHARLES SWAYNE. turned, and the transaction, so far aS" he was concerned, was Mr. PALMER. Will the gentleman from California use some terminated and was never taken up again. A. motion was made of his time now? tho. t he should " recuse·" himself on the ground that he had an Mr. GILLETT of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield seven min­ interest in the land. As a matter of fact, he could not declare utes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL]. that he had the remotest interest in it He decided that ques­ Mr. :McCALL. Mr. Speaker,, L have listened to most of. the tion I?l.!esented to him j_udicially on the· gl'ound that he did not I • 1022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE.
Recommended publications
  • Impeachment and Removal

    Impeachment and Removal

    Impeachment and Removal Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney October 29, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44260 Impeachment and Removal Summary The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other “civil Officers of the United States” found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach an individual in the hands of the House of Representatives. Should a simple majority of the House approve articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which the impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate, to which the Constitution provides the sole power to try an impeachment. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the support of a simple majority. Key Takeaways of This Report The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device

    Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device

    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
  • Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment Since 1903 Jacobus Tenbroek

    Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment Since 1903 Jacobus Tenbroek

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1939 Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment since 1903 Jacobus TenBroek Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation TenBroek, Jacobus, "Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachment since 1903" (1939). Minnesota Law Review. 1544. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1544 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES PARTISAN POLITICS AND FEDERAL JUDGESHIP IMPEACHMENT SINCE 1903 By JACOBUS TEN BROEK "A DECLINE of public morals in the United States will probably "Abe marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office." de Tocqueville, 1835. Recent proposals to inject new blood into the federal judi- ciary have raised anew the question of the available methods by which politically undesired federal judges can be removed from their offices and replaced by men whose social and economic views better accord with the attitudes and purposes of those in control of the executive and legislative branches of the national government. Early in the history of the country, faced by an antagonistic judi- ciary into which the Federalists had retired, Jefferson evolved the idea of using impeachment as an instrument of persuasion and, if need be, control by expulsion.' His success was qualified, to say the very least.
  • Impeachment of Federal Judges: an Historical Overview Frank Thompson Jr

    Impeachment of Federal Judges: an Historical Overview Frank Thompson Jr

    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 49 | Number 1 Article 9 12-1-1970 Impeachment of Federal Judges: An Historical Overview Frank Thompson Jr. Daniel H. Pollitt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frank Thompson Jr. & Daniel H. Pollitt, Impeachment of Federal Judges: An Historical Overview, 49 N.C. L. Rev. 87 (1970). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol49/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW FRANK THOMPSON, JR.* AND DANIEL H. POLLITTr "The Place of Justice is an hallowed place, and therefore ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption." These were the words of Francis Bacon, philosopher, scientist, and the most gifted of the English Renaissance men. But in his capacity as Lord Chancellor, he came a cropper. In 1621, the highest judicial officer in England was impeached for accepting bribes from litigants-sometimes from litigants on both sides of the case-and his only defense was that he never gave the briber his due unless he deserved it on the merits. Bacon was charged by the House of Commons, found guilty by the House of Lords, and sentenced to im- prisonment in the Tower "during the King's pleasure." King James liberated him from the prison within a few days and gave him a full pardon.
  • Chapter LXVI. PROCEDURE of the SENATE in IMPEACHMENT

    Chapter LXVI. PROCEDURE of the SENATE in IMPEACHMENT

    Chapter LXVI. PROCEDURE OF THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT. 1. Hour of meeting for trial. Sections 2069–2070. 2. Sittings and adjournments. Sections 2071–2078. 3. Administration of the oath. Sections 2079, 2081.1 4. Functions and powers of Presiding Officer. Sections 2082–2089.2 5. Duties of the Secretary. Section 2090. 6. Arguments on preliminary or interlocutory questions. Sections 2091–2093. 7. Voting and debate. Section 2094.3 8. Secret session. Sections 2095–2097. 9. Voting in judgment. Section 2098.4 10. Rules, practice, etc. Sections 2099–2115.5 2069. Unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, sitting for an impeach- ment trial, begins its proceedings at 12 m. daily. The Presiding Officer of the Senate announces the hour for sitting in an impeachment trial and the Presiding Officer on the trial directs proclamation to be made and the trial to proceed. 1 As to administration of the oath, see, also, Blount’s trial (sec. 2303 of this volume), Peck’s (secs. 2369, 2375), Humphreys’s (sec. 2389), Johnson’s (sec. 2422), Belknap’s (sec. 2450), Swayne’s (sec. 2477). 2 See, also, sections 2065–2067, 2082–2089. The president pro tempore presides during absence of the Vice-President. Sections 2309, 2337, 2394. Medium for putting questions to witnesses and motions to the Senate. Section 2176. Rulings of, as to evidence. Sections 2193, 2195, 2208. Does not decide as to attachment of witnesses. Section 2152. Calls counsel to order for improper utterances. Sections 2140, 2169. Calls respondent to order. Section 2349. Admonishes managers and counsel not to delay. Section 2151. 3 A majority vote only is required on incidental questions.
  • 1 the United States Senate: an Institutional Bibliography 1789

    1 the United States Senate: an Institutional Bibliography 1789

    The United States Senate: An Institutional Bibliography 1789-present Introduction I. Reference II. Constitutional Structure III. Constitutional Powers IV. Rules and Practice V. Leadership and Parties VI. Committees VII. Administration VIII. External Relations IX. Elections X. Contemporary Accounts XI. Seniority and Influence XII. Archiving the Senate XIII. A Guide to Sources Introduction This selective bibliography, compiled by the United States Senate Historical Office, is designed to provide general readers and scholars with a guide to articles, documents, and books on the institutional development of the Senate. In addition to covering the fundamental powers of the Senate, the bibliography includes sources on Senate practices, customs, and rules of procedure. While illustrative case studies are listed, the bibliography's emphasis is on the historical evolution of the institution, not isolated occurrences. Studies on individuals and the current status of the Senate have, for the most part, been excluded. For a comprehensive list of sources on U.S. senators, consult the congressional document, Senators of the United States: A Historical Bibliography (1995), which is listed under the Bibliographies subheading of the Reference section of this bibliography. Also see the on-line Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress (http://bioguide.congress.gov/). The bibliography contains over six hundred sources arranged by subject headings and subheadings. The sources may be listed under multiple headings if they cover more than one subject. Under each heading, the sources are further divided by the time period of their first publication. The publication time periods are 1789-1889, 1890-1939, 1940-1989, and 1990 to the present. The chronological divisions are meant to reveal trends in Senate scholarship as well as to aid researchers interested in sources published during a particular period.
  • The Revival of Impeachment As a Partisan Political Weapon Richard K

    The Revival of Impeachment As a Partisan Political Weapon Richard K

    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 34 Article 1 Number 2 Winter 2007 1-1-2007 The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon Richard K. Neumann Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon, 34 Hastings Const. L.Q. 161 (2007). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol34/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon by RICHARD K. NEUMANN JR Contents 1. Introduction II. The Adoption and Meaning of Constitutional Provisions on Impeachment III. The Evolution of Impeachment Practice A. The First Two Impeachments: Blount and Pickering B. The Chase Impeachment, Its Context, and Its Aftermath C. Between Chase and Johnson D. Johnson E. The Era of Nonpartisanship and Bipartisanship 1. Bellknap to Hoover 2. 1937 3. Ritter 4. Judicial Impeachments After Ritter 5. Nixon and Agnew F. The Revival of Impeachment As a Partisan Political Weapon 1. The Fortas and Douglas Investigations: The Beginning of the Struggle for the Supreme Court 2. Clinton IV. The Future of Partisan Impeachments and Threats of Impeachment A. Thomas B. Evidentiary Burdens in the House and Senate C. The Effect of Party Insecurity on the Partisan Use of Impeachment V.

  • Constitutional Grounds for Presidential'impeachment

    93d Congress HOUSE COMMITTEE PRINT 2d Session I CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL'IMPEACHMENT REPORT BY THE STAFF OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 1974 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28--9 WASHINGTON : 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Offce Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents '~nva' - COMMITTEE ON TIHE JUDICIARY PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman HAR')LD D. DONOIIUB, Massachusetts EDWARD IIUTCIIINSON, Michigan JACK .BROOKS, Texas ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois ROBERTU W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin HENRY P. SMITH III, New York DON EDWARDS, California CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., New Jersey WILLIAM ;.. IIUNGATE, Missouri TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois JOIN CONYERS, JR., Michigan CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California JOSHUA EILBr;R(•, Pennsyivania DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana JEROME It. WALDIE, California HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama WILEY MAYNE, Iowa JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina, LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia JOHN F. SIEBERLING, Ohio WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine GEORGE B. DANIELSON, California TRENT LOTT, Mississippi ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin CHARLES B. RANGEL. New York CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California BARBARA JORDAN, Texas JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, New Jersey RAY THORNTON, Arkansas DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York WAYNE OWENS, Utah EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Iowa JzEoRM M. ZwurMAi, General Counsel GARNER J. CLINE, Associate General Counsel HERBER, FuerIs, Counsel HERBERT E. HOFPHA., Counsel WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel H. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE, Counsel ALAN A. PARKER, Counsel JAMES F. FALCO, Counsel MAURICE A. BARBOZA, Counsel FRANKLIN 0. POLK, Counes"I THOMAS E.

  • Impeachment Powers

    CHAPTER 14 Impeachment Powers A. Generally § 1. Constitutional Provisions; House and Senate Func- tions § 2. Who May Be Impeached; Effect of Resignation § 3. Grounds for Impeachment; Form of Articles § 4. Effect of Adjournment B. Investigation and Impeachment § 5. Introduction and Referral of Charges § 6. Committee Investigations § 7. Committee Consideration; Reports § 8. Consideration and Debate in the House § 9. Presentation to Senate; Managers § 10. Replication; Amending Adopted Articles C. Trial in the Senate § 11. Organization and Rules § 12. Conduct of Trial § 13. Voting; Deliberation and Judgment D. History of Proceedings § 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment § 15. Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon § 16. Impeachment of Judge English § 17. Impeachment of Judge Louderback § 18. Impeachment of Judge Ritter Appendix Commentary and editing by Peter D. Robinson. J.D. 1939 Ch. 14 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS INDEX TO PRECEDENTS Adjournment sine die, effect on im- Charges not resulting in impeach- peachment proceedings ment—Cont. authority of managers following expi- Perkins, Frances, Secretary of Labor, ration of Congress, § 4.2 adverse report by committee, § 14.9 impeachment in one Congress and trial Truman, Harry, President, charges not in the next, § 4.1 acted on, §§ 14.11, 14.12 investigation in one Congress and im- Watson, Albert, judge, charges not peachment in the next, §§ 4.3, 4.4 acted on, § 14.10 Amending articles of impeachment Committee consideration and report privilege of resolution reported by broadcast of committee
  • Chapter LXIX. RULES of EVIDENCE in an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

    Chapter LXIX. RULES of EVIDENCE in an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

    Chapter LXIX. RULES OF EVIDENCE IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 1. Strict rules of the courts followed. Sections 2218, 2219.1 2. Must be relevant to the pleadings. Sections 2220–2225. 3. Best evidence required. Sections 2226–2229. 4. Hearsay testimony. Sections 2230–2237. 5. Testimony as to declarations of respondent. Sections 2238—2245. 6. As to acts of the respondent after the fact. Sections 2246–2247. 7. As to opinions of witnesses. Sections 2248–2257. 8. Public, documents as evidence. Sections 2258–2274. 9. General decisions as to evidence. Sections 2275–2293. 2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled deci- sively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied. Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions. Decision as to the limits within which expert testimony may be admitted in an impeachment trial. On January 7, 1831,2 in the high court of impeachment during the trial of the case of The United States v. James H. Peck, a witness, Robert Walsh, was examined on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. William Wirt, counsel for the respondent, asked this question: When you read the strictures signed ‘‘A Citizen,’’ did they strike you as misrepresenting the opinion of the court in a manner calculated to awaken the contempt and indignation of the people of Missouri, and to impair the confidence of the suitors in that court in the intelligence and integrity of the tribunal? Judge Peck was impeached for punishing for contempt the author of a letter signed ‘‘A Citizen’’ and published in a St.

  • Chapter LXXVIII. the IMPEACHMENT and TRIAL of CHARLES SWAYNE

    Chapter LXXVIII. THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF CHARLES SWAYNE. 1. Charges by a State legislature. Section 2469. 2. Investigation by House committee. Sections 2470, 2471, 3. Impeachment at the bar of the Senate and preparation of articles. Sections 2472– 2474. 4. Appointment of managers and exhibition of articles. Sections 2475, 2476. 5. Organization of Senate for trial. Section 2477. 6. Process issued. Section 2478. 7. Return on summons and appearance of respondent. Section 2479. 8. Respondent’s answer. Sections 2480, 2481. 9. Replication of the House. Section 2482. 10. Presentation of testimony. Section 2483. 11. Final arguments. Section 2484. 12. Decision of the Senate. Section 2485. 2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the northern district of Florida. A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial. Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to jus- tify the House in ordering an investigation. The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne consid- ered by a committee before ordering an investigation. Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the charges against Judge Swayne. On December 10, 1903,1 Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by this House is a question of privi- lege. I have made a joint resolution adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption.
  • Impeaching Federal Judges: a Study of the Constitutional Provisions

    Impeaching Federal Judges: a Study of the Constitutional Provisions

    Fordham Law Review Volume 39 Issue 1 Article 1 1970 Impeaching Federal Judges: A Study of the Constitutional Provisions John D. Feerick Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John D. Feerick, Impeaching Federal Judges: A Study of the Constitutional Provisions, 39 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (1970). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol39/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Impeaching Federal Judges: A Study of the Constitutional Provisions Cover Page Footnote Member of the New York Bar. The author wishes to express his deep appreciation to Associate Editor Robert Quinn of the Fordham Law Review and to Edward Yodowitz, Esq. of his firm for their excellent research and drafting assistance, without which this article would not have been possible. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol39/iss1/1 IMPEACHING FEDERAL JUDGES: A STUDY OF TUE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS JOHN D. FEERICK* I. INTRODUCTION ON April 15, 1970, Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan reported to the House of Representatives on a study he had made concerning the law of impeachment and the behavior of Associate Justice William 0. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court.' His report contained, in substance, five charges against Justice Douglas which, he said, would justify his removal from office.