§ 16. Censure; Reprimand Cial Duties

CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16

Albert, of Oklahoma, promising to considering the matter is at lib- refrain from voting on the floor or erty to act on his sound discretion in committee and from partici- and vote according to the dictates pating in committee business of his own judgment and con- pending an appeal of his convic- science. tion.(6) The conduct for which censure may be imposed is not limited to acts relating to the Member’s offi- § 16. Censure; Reprimand cial duties. See In re Chapman (166 U.S. 661 [1897]). The com- In the House, the underlying mittee considering censure of Sen- concept governing the censure of a ator Joseph McCarthy stated (S. Member for misconduct is that of Rept. No. 2508, 83d Cong., p. 22): breach of the rights and privileges ‘‘It seems clear that if a Senator (7) of the House. As indicated in a should be guilty of reprehensible report of a select committee of the conduct unconnected with his offi- House,(8) the power of each House cial duties and position, but which to censure its Members ‘‘for dis- conduct brings the Senate into orderly behavior’’ is found in arti- disrepute, the Senate has the cle I section 5 clause 2 of the U.S. power to censure.’’ Constitution. It is discretionary in character, and upon a resolution During its history, through the for censure of a Member for mis- 94th Congress, the House of Rep- conduct each individual Member resentatives has censured 17 Members and one Delegate and 6. See Congressional Quarterly Weekly has reprimanded one Member in Report, July 8, 1972, p. 1167. the 94th Congress. All but one of See also 6 Cannon’s Precedents the instances of censure occurred §§ 402, 403, wherein a select com- during the 19th century, 13 Mem- mittee assumed that a Member in- dicted under federal law would take bers being censured between 1864 no part whatever in any of the busi- and 1875. The last censure in the ness of the House or its committees House was imposed in 1921. In until final disposition of the case was the Senate, there are four in- made. stances of censure, including the 7. 2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1644. censure of Senator Joseph McCar- 8. H. REPT. NO. 90–27, 90th Cong. 1st thy in 1954. Sess., Feb. 23, 1967, ‘‘In Re Adam Clayton Powell, Report of the Select Most cases of censure have in- Committee Pursuant to H. Res. 1,’’ volved the use of unparliamentary pp. 24–30. language, assaults upon a Mem-

1743 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS ber or insults to the House by in- In 1873, during the 42d Con- troduction of offensive resolu- gress, a special investigating com- tions,(9) but in five cases in the mittee was appointed to inquire House and one in the Senate cen- into charges that Representatives sure was based on corrupt acts by Oakes Ames and James Brooks had been bribed in connection a Member, and in another Senate with the Credit Mobilier Co. and case censure was based upon non- the Union Pacific Railroad.(11) Al- cooperation with and abuse of Senate committees.(10) placed on the Senate payroll, and used as a consultant on a pending 9. See 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1246– tariff bill, one Charles L. Eyanson, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1305, 1621, 1656; who was simultaneously in the em- 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 236. ploy of the Manufacturers Associa- 10. See 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1239, tion of Connecticut. The Senate 1273, 1274, 1286; 6 Cannon’s Prece- adopted a resolution of censure pro- dents § 239; ‘‘Senate Election, Expul- viding that Senator Bingham’s con- sion and Censure Cases,’’ S. Doc. No. duct regarding Eyanson ‘‘while not 71, 87th Cong., pp. 125–27, 152–54. the result of corrupt motives on the In 1870, during the 41st Congress, part of the Senator from Con- the House censured John T. necticut, is contrary to good morals DeWeese, B. F. Whittemore, and and senatorial ethics and tends to Roderick R. Butler for the sale of ap- bring the Senate into dishonor and pointments to the U. S. Military and disrepute, and such conduct is here- Naval Academies. In Butler’s case, by condemned.’’ 6 Cannon’s Prece- the Member had appointed to the dents § 239. Military Academy a person not a 11. The committee reported that Rep- resident of his district and subse- resentative Oakes Ames ‘‘has been quently received a political contribu- guilty of selling to Members of Con- tion from the cadet’s father. Censure gress shares of stock in the Credit of DeWeese and Whittemore was Mobilier of America for prices much voted notwithstanding that each had below the true value of such stock, previously resigned. A resolution to with intent thereby to influence the expel Butler was defeated upon fail- votes and decisions of such Members ure to obtain a two-thirds vote, in matters to be brought before Con- whereupon a resolution of censure gress for action.’’ With regard to was voted in which the House Representative James Brooks, the ‘‘declare[d] its condemnation’’ of his committee found that he ‘‘did pro- conduct, which it characterized as cure the Credit Mobilier Co. to issue ‘‘an unauthorized and dangerous and deliver to Charles H. Neilson, practice’’ (2 Hinds’ Precedents for the use and benefit of said §§ 1239, 1273, 1274). Brooks, 50 shares of the stock of said In 1929 Senator Hiram Bingham company at a price much below its (Conn.) was censured for having real value, well knowing that the

1744 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16 though the committee rec- the electorate at the previous elec- ommended that both Members be tion and to the prior House, and expelled, the House adopted sub- the extent to which they directly stitute censure resolutions in involve the authority, integrity, which it ‘‘absolutely condemn[ed]’’ dignity, or reputation of the the conduct of Ames and Brooks House.(12) (2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1286). Censure, like other forms of dis- Although there has been a di- cipline except expulsion, is by a vergence of views concerning the majority of those voting, a quorum power of a House to expel a Mem- being present. (6 Cannon’s Prece- ber for acts committed during a dents § 236.) The House itself preceding Congress, the right of a must order the censure. The Speaker cannot, of his own au- House to censure a Member for thority, censure a Member.(13) such prior acts is supported by clear precedent in both Houses of A censure resolution may call for direct and immediate action by Congress—namely, the case of the House; (14) or it may rec- Ames and Brooks in the House of ommend that a committee be ap- Representatives and the case of pointed to investigate and report Senator McCarthy in the Senate. to the House.l5 A House select In Ames and Brooks the acts for committee may recommend cen- which censure was voted occurred sure of a Member along with more than five years prior to cen- other forms of punishment in re- sure and two congressional elec- sponse to a resolution to inves- tions had intervened. tigate and recommend as to the Thus, the broad power of the initial and final right to a seat.(16) House to censure Members ex- tends to acts occurring during a 12. H. REPT. No. 90–27, 90th Cong. 1st prior Congress. Whether such Sess., Feb. 23, 1967. See also § 8.4, supra. powers should be invoked in such 13. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1344, 1345; 6 circumstances is a matter com- Cannon’s Precedents § 237. mitted to the discretion and judg- 14. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1246–1251, ment of the House upon consider- 1254–1258; 6 Cannon’s Precedents ation of the nature of the prior §§ 236, 239. acts, whether they were known to 15. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1649–1651, 1655 1656. same was so issued and delivered 16. 113 CONG. REC. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st with intent to influence the votes Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; see 113 CONG. and decisions of said Brooks as a REC. 24, 26, 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Member of the House.’’ Jan. 10, 1967.

1745 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Floor debate on a resolution of House, whereas a reprimand is censure is under the hour rule.(17) administered to the Member The House has permitted the ‘‘standing in his place’’ (23) or Member to be heard in debate as merely by way of the adoption of a matter of course without per- a committee report. Thus in mission being asked or given,(18) 1976,(24) the House administered a or by unanimous consent.(19) And reprimand to Mr. Robert L. F. the Member controlling debate Sikes, of Florida, by adopting by a under the hour rule can yield time vote of 381 yeas to 3 nays a reso- to the Member being censured. In lution (H. Res. 1421) which pro- one instance, after a Member had vided that the House adopt the re- explained, the House reconsidered port of the Committee on Stand- its vote of censure and reversed ards of Official Conduct on the in- it.(20) In some situations where vestigation of a complaint against Members have apologized fol- Mr. Sikes. The Speaker adminis- lowing the initiation of censure tered no oral reprimand. The re- proceedings, the House has ac- port (1) declared that (a) failure of cepted the apology and terminated Mr. Sikes to report certain the proceedings.(21) stockholdngs as required by After the House has ordered House Rule XLIV was deserving censure, it is normally adminis- of a reprimand, and (b) that the tered by the Speaker to the Mem- investment by him in the stock of ber at the bar of the House.(22) a bank at a naval base in Florida The House has on occasion and activities in promoting its es- made a distinction between cen- tablishment was deserving of a sure and reprimand, the latter reprimand. The report provided being a somewhat lesser punitive that in each instance, ‘‘the adop- measure than censure. A censure tion of this report by the House is administered by the Speaker to shall constitute such rep- the Member at the bar of the rimand.’’ (2)

17. See 5 Hinds’ Precedents § 4990. 23. Luther Sterns Cushing, Elements of 18. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1246, 1253. the Law and Practice of Legislative 19. 2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1656. Assemblies in the United States of 20. 2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1653. America, 2d ed. (1866), § 682. 21. See, for instance, 2 Hinds’ Prece- 24. CONG. REC. (daily ed.), 94th Cong. 2d dents §§ 1250, 1257, 1258, 1652; 6 Sess., July 29, 1976. Cannon’s Precedents § 7006. 1. H. REPT. NO. 94–1364, 94th Cong. 2d 22. See 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1251, Sess., July 23. 1976. 1259; 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 236. 2. Id. at p. 4.

1746 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16

Censure of Adam Clayton Pow- maintained on his clerk-hire payroll Y. ell Marjorie Flores (Mrs. Adam C. Powell) from August 14, 1964, to December 31, § 16.1 A House select com- 1966, during which period either she mittee recommended cen- performed no official duties whatever or such duties were not performed in sure, along with other pen- Washington, D. C. or the State of New alties, against a Member- York as required by law. elect. Fourth, as Chairman of the Com- On Mar. 1, 1967,(3) the House mittee on Education and Labor, Adam considered a resolution censuring Clayton Powell permitted and partici- pated in improper expenditures of gov- Adam Clayton Powell, of New ernment funds for private purposes. York, for, INTER ALIA, ignoring the Fifth, the refusal of Adam Clayton processes and authority of the Powell to cooperate with the Select New York state courts and for im- Committee and the Special Sub- proper use of government funds. committee on Contracts of the House The resolution provided: Administration Committee in their lawful inquiries authorized by the Whereas, House of Representatives was con- The Select Committee appointed temptuous and was conduct unworthy pursuant to H. Res. 1 (90th Congress) has reached the following conclusions: of a Member; Now, therefore be it First, Adam Clayton Powell pos- Resolved, sesses the requisite qualifications of 1. That the Speaker administer the age, citizenship and inhabitancy for oath of office to the said Adam Clayton membership in the House of Rep- Powell, Member-elect from the Eight- resentatives and holds a Certificate of eenth District of the State of New Election from the State of New York. York. Second, Adam Clayton Powell has 2. That upon taking the oath as a repeatedly ignored the processes and Member of the 90th Congress the said authority of the courts in the State of Adam Clayton Powell be brought to New York in legal proceedings pending the bar of the House in the custody of therein to which he is a party, and his the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and contumacious conduct towards the be there publicly censured by the court of that State has caused him on Speaker in the name of the House. several occasions to be adjudicated in contempt thereof, thereby reflecting 3. That Adam Clayton Powell, as discredit upon and bringing into disre- punishment, pay to the Clerk of the pute the House of Representatives and House to be disposed of by him accord- its Members. ing to law, Forty Thousand Dollars Third, as a Member of this House, ($40,000.00). The Sergeant-at Arms of Adam Clayton Powell improperly the House is directed to deduct One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per 3. H. Res. 278, 113 CONG. REC. 4997, month from the salary otherwise due 90th Cong. 1st Sess. the said Adam Clayton Powell and pay

1747 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

the same to said Clerk, said deductions Senate committees during an to continue while any salary is due the investigation of his conduct said Adam Clayton Powell as a Mem- ber of the House of Representatives as a Senator. until said Forty Thousand Dollars In 1951, during the 82d Con- ($40,000.00) is fully paid. Said sums gress, a resolution had been intro- received by the Clerk shall offset to the duced calling for an investigation extent thereof any liability of the said Adam Clayton Powell to the United to determine whether expulsion States of America with respect to the proceedings should be instituted matters referred to in the above para- against Senator Joseph McCarthy, graphs Third and Fourth of the pre- of Wisconsin, by reason, inter alia, amble to this Resolution. of his activities in the 1950 Mary- 4. That the seniority of the said land senatorial election; the reso- Adam Clayton Powell in the House of Representatives commence as of the lution was referred to the Sub- date he takes the oath as a Member of committee on Privileges and Elec- the 90th Congress. tions, whose Chairman was Sen- 5. That if the said Adam Clayton ator Guy M. Gillette, of Iowa. Sen- Powell does not present himself to take ator McCarthy rejected invitations the oath of office on or before March to attend the hearings of the Gil- 13, 1967, the seat of the Eighteenth District of the State of New York shall lette subcommittee, termed the be deemed vacant and the Speaker charges against him a Communist shall notify the Governor of the State smear, and stated that the hear- of New York of the existing vacancy. ings were designed to expel him The House voted down the mo- ‘‘for having exposed Communists tion for the previous question on in Government.’’ In 1954, during the resolution and substituted an the succeeding 83d Congress, a amendment to exclude, which was censure resolution against Sen- adopted.(4) ator McCarthy was introduced and referred to a select committee Censure of Joseph R. McCarthy headed by Senator Arthur V. Wat- kins, of Utah. The Watkins com- § 16.2 The Senate, by resolu- mittee recommended censure in tion reported by a select part on the ground that Senator committee, censured a Sen- McCarthy’s conduct toward the ator for his noncooperation Gillette subcommittee, its mem- with and abuse of certain bers and the Senate ‘‘was con-

4. 113 CONG. REC. 5020, 5037, 90th temptuous, contumacious, and de- Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967. See nunciatory, without reason, or jus- also § 14.1, supra. tification, and was obstructive to

1748 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16 legislative processes.’’ (5) After de- vember 13, 1954, that the chairman of bate, the Senate adopted a resolu- the select committee (Mr. Watkins) tion (S. Res. 301, as amended) was guilty of ‘‘the most unusual, most cowardly thing I’ve heard of’’ and stat- censuring Senator McCarthy on ing further: ‘‘I expected he would be two counts: afraid to answer the questions, but Resolved, That the Senator from didn’t think he’d be stupid enough to Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to co- make a public statement’’; and in char- operate with the Subcommittee on acterizing the said committee as the Privileges and Elections of the Senate ‘‘unwitting handmaiden,’’ ‘‘involuntary Committee on Rules and Administra- agent,’’ and ‘‘attorneys in fact’’ of the tion in clearing up matters referred to Communist Party and in charging that that subcommittee which concerned his the said committee in writing its re- conduct as a Senator and affected the port ‘‘imitated Communist methods— honor of the Senate and, instead, re- that it distorted, misrepresented, and peatedly abused the subcommittee and omitted in its effort to manufacture a its members who were trying to carry plausible rationalization’’ in support of out assigned duties, thereby obstruct- its recommendations to the Senate, ing the constitutional processes of the which characterizations and charges Senate, and that this conduct of the were contained in a statement released Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCar- to the press and inserted in the Con- thy, is contrary to senatorial traditions gressional Record of November 10, and is hereby condemned. 1954, acted contrary to senatorial eth- Sec. 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, ics and tended to bring the Senate into Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chair- dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the man of the Select Committee To Study constitutional processes of the Senate, Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after and to impair its dignity; and such the select committee had issued its re- conduct is hereby condemned. port and before the report was pre- sented to the Senate charging three As noted above, one of the members of the select committee with counts on which censure was ‘‘deliberate deception’’ and ‘‘fraud’’ for voted in 1954 concerned his con- failure to disqualify themselves; in duct toward the Gillette sub- stating to the press on November 4, committee in 1952 during the pre- 1954, that the special Senate session ceding Congress. The report of the that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a ‘‘lynch party’’; in repeatedly de- select committee discussed at scribing this special Senate session as length the contention by Senator a ‘‘lynch bee’’ in a nationwide television McCarthy that since he was re- and radio show on November 7, 1954; elected in 1952, the committee in stating to the public press on No- lacked power to consider, as a

5. 100 CONG. REC. 16392, 83d Cong. 2d basis for censure, any conduct on Sess., Dec. 2, 1954 [S. Res. 301, his part occurring prior to Jan. 3, amended], S. REPT. No. 83–2508. 1953, when he took his seat for a

1749 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS new term (S. REPT. NO. 2508, 83d they cannot forgive an attack by a Sen- Cong., pp. 20–23, 30, 31). The ator upon the integrity of the Senate’s processes and its committees. That is committee stated (p. 22): the business of the Senate. While it may be the law that one who is not a Member of the Senate Censure of Thomas J. Dodd may not be punished for contempt of the Senate at a preceding session, this § 16.3 The Senate, by resolu- is no basis for declaring that the Sen- tion reported by its Select ate may not censure one of its own Committee on Standards and Members for conduct antedating that session, and no controlling authority or Conduct, censured a Senator precedent has been cited for such posi- for exercising the power and tion. influence of his office to ob- The particular charges against Sen- tain and use for his personal ator McCarthy, which are the basis of benefit funds from the public this category, involve his conduct to- raised through political ward an official committee and official committee members of the Senate. testimonials and a political The reelection of Senator McCarthy campaign. in 1952 was considered by the select The Senate, by resolution re- committee as a fact bearing on this ported by its Select Committee on proposition. This reelection is not (6) deemed controlling because only the Standards and Conduct, cen- Senate itself can pass judgment upon sured Senator Thomas J. Dodd, of conduct which is injurious to its proc- Connecticut, for exercising the esses, dignity, and official committees. power and influence of his office Elaborating on its view that to obtain and use for his personal only the Senate can pass judg- benefit funds from the public ment upon conduct adverse to its raised through political processes and committees, the se- testimonials and campaigns. lect committee added (pp. 30–31): The committee conducted hearings from June, 1966 through Nor do we believe that the reelection March, 1967 on allegations that of Senator McCarthy by the people of the Senator had misused cam- Wisconsin in the fall of 1952 pardons his conduct toward the Subcommittee paign funds for personal pur- ( ) on Privileges and Elections. The charge poses. 7 From its investigations is that Senator McCarthy was guilty of the committee concluded in its re- contempt of the Senate or a senatorial committee. Necessarily, this is a mat- 6. 113 CONG. REC. 17073, 90th Cong. ter for the Senate and the Senate 1st Sess., June 23, 1967 [S. Res. alone. The people of Wisconsin can 112], S. REPT. NO. 90–193. only pass upon issues before them; 7. S. REPT. NO. 90–193, p. 9.

1750 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16 port that seven fund-raising and the contributions to the 1964 polit- events were held for the Senator ical campaign, Senator Dodd or his for the period 1961 through 1965, representatives received funds totaling and that the receipts from these at least $450,273. From these funds, Senator Dodd authorized the payment totaled some $203,983. All but one of at least $116,083 for his personal of the events was represented as purposes. The payments included Fed- being held for political campaign eral income tax, improvements to his purposes, either to raise funds for Connecticut home, club expenses, the Senator’s 1964 campaign or to transfers to a member of his family, pay off debts from his 1958 and and certain other transportation, hotel, 1964 campaigns for a seat in the restaurant and other expenses in- Senate.(8) The report stated: curred by Senator Dodd outside of Con- necticut or by members of his family or From the circumstances of all the his representatives outside of the polit- fund-raising events, including the ex- ical campaign period. Senator Dodd clusive control of the funds by mem- further authorized the payment of an bers of Senator Dodd’s staff, the exten- additional amount of at least $45,233 sive participation by members of Sen- from these proceeds for purposes which ator Dodd’s staff, the close political re- are neither clearly personal nor polit- lationship between Senator Dodd and ical. These payments were for repay- the sponsors of the fund-raising events, the preoccupation of the organizers ment of his loans in the sum of with Senator Dodd’s apparently polit- $41,500 classified by Senator Dodd as ical indebtedness, and the partisan po- ‘‘political-personal’’ and $3,733 for bills litical nature of the printed programs, for food and beverages. Senator Dodd’s knowledge of the polit- In addition, after the 1964 cam- ical character of these events must be presumed.(9) paign, Senator Dodd received a campaign contribution of $8,000 In addition to the $203,983, from the International Latex Senator Dodd and the political Corp., and, for a period of 21 committees supporting his re-elec- months, he accepted as gifts the tion to the Senate in 1964 received campaign contributions of loans of three automobiles in suc- at least $246,290. The expendi- cession from a constituent and ture of these funds was summa- used them for personal transpor- ( ) rized by the committee, as fol- tation. 11 (10) lows: 11. On seven trips from 1961 through From the proceeds of the seven fund- 1965, Senator Dodd requested and raising events from 1961 through 1965 accepted reimbursement from both the Senate and private organizations 8. Id. at p. 24 for the same travel. Id. at p. 25. This 9. Id. at p. 24. was a charge which the committee 10. Id. at p. 25. included in its censure resolution,

1751 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

The committee found Senator Resolved, That it is the judgment of Dodd’s conduct censurable, as fol- the Senate that the Senator from Con- ( ) necticut, Thomas J. Dodd, for having lows: 12 engaged in a course of conduct over a Senator Dodd exercised the influence period of five years from 1961 to 1965 of exercising the influence and power and power of his office as a United of his office as a United States Sen- States Senator to directly or indirectly ator, as shown by the conclusions in obtain funds from the public through the investigation by the Select Com- testimonials which were political in mittee on Standards and Conduct character, over a period of five years (a) to obtain and use for his personal from 1961 to 1965. The notices of these benefit, funds from the public through fund-raising events received by the political testimonials and a political public either stated that the funds campaign, and were for campaign expenses or deficits (b) to request and accept reimburse- or failed to state for what purposes the ments for expenses from both the Sen- funds were to be used. Not one solicita- ate and private organizations for the same travel (13) deserved the censure of tion letter, invitation, ticket, program, the Senate; and he is so censured for or other written communication in- his conduct, which is contrary to ac- formed the public that the funds were cepted morals, derogates from the pub- to be used for personal purposes. Sen- lic trust expected of a Senator, and ator Dodd used part of the proceeds tends to bring the Senate into dishonor from these political testimonials and and disrepute.(14) part of the contributions from his polit- Debate on the resolution (15) ical campaign of 1964 for his personal began on June 13, 1967.(16) Sen- benefit. These acts, together with his requesting and accepting reimburse- ator John Stennis, of Mississippi, ments from 1961 through 1965 for ex- chairman of the committee, stated penses from both the Senate and pri- to the Senate that the censure vate organizations for the same travel, resolution was not bottomed upon comprise a course of conduct which de- any one specific action or viola- serves the censure of the Senate, is tion, nor on one expenditure or a contrary to accepted morals, derogates few expenditures and not on one from the public trust expected of a matter which could have been an Senator, and tends to bring the Senate error. He said: into dishonor and disrepute . . . It is based on the fact that the The committee reported a reso- practice happened over and over and lution of censure, as follows: 13. See footnote 11, supra. but which was deleted by an amend- 14. S. Res. 112, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. ment offered by Senator Allen J. 15. The resolution, S. Res. 112, was in- Ellender (La.). See 113 CONG. REC. troduced Apr. 27, 1967; see 113 17020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, CONG. REC. 10977. 1967. 16. 113 CONG. REC. 15663, 90th Cong. 12. S. REPT. NO. 90–193, p. 25. 1st Sess.

1752 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 17

over again, so much so, and over a long ant to its constitutional authority period of time, as to become a pattern to punish its Members (Art. I, § 5, of operation. (1) The words used in the charge itself clause 2). are ‘‘course of conduct.’’ It amounted to a course of conduct that was wrong on its face, and therefore brought the Sen- ate into disrepute.(17) Fine of Member For Acts Com- mitted in Prior Congress On June 22, Senator John Tower, of Texas, offered an § 17.1 The House agreed to a amendment to delete ‘‘censure’’ resolution providing for the and substitute therefor ‘‘rep- imposition of a fine against a (18) rimand.’’ He declared that: Member-elect charged with This proposal would give us the op- misuse of appropriated funds portunity to express our displeasure, in a prior Congress. our disapproval, and our disassocia- tion, but at the same time avoid the In 1967, the recommendation of severity of censure . . . inasmuch as a House committee that Member- there is no precedent for censure on the basis of means of raising funds for elect Adam Clayton Powell, of private political use, in the absence of New York, be fined was consid- an existing rule or code on the subject. ered and rejected in favor of a res- The amendment was defeated, 9 olution that he be excluded.(2) Two to 87.(19) 1. See H. REPT. NO. 90–27, 90th Cong. After debate, which continued 1st Sess. (1967), ‘‘In Re Adam Clay- until June 23, 1967, the Senate ton Powell, Report of Select Com- adopted the resolution, by a vote mittee Pursuant to H. Res. 1,’’ pp. of yeas 92, nays 5, after first 28, 29. striking the second charge relat- See also, 2 Hinds’ Precedents ing to double-billing for several 1665, p. 1142, for the Senate censure trips.(20) case of McLaurin and Tillman, both Senators from South Carolina, 57th Cong.; see also remarks of Senator Mills (Tex.) in debate on charges § 17. Imposition of Fine against Senator Roach (N.D.), 25 CONG. REC. 162, 53d Cong. 1st Sess., A fine may be levied by the Apr. 15, 1893. House against a Member pursu- 2. See H. REPT. NO. 90–27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967), ‘‘In Re Adam Clay- 17. Id. at p. 15664. ton Powell, Report of Select Com- 18. Id. at p. 16979. mittee Pursuant to H. Res. 1,’’ p. 33. 19. Id. at p. 16986. The committee recommended that 20. Id. at p. 17020. ‘‘(3) Adam Clayton Powell, as pun-

1753