[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[D. History of Proceedings]
[§ 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2134-2167]
CHAPTER 14
Impeachment Powers
D. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Sec. 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment
The following is a compilation of impeachment charges made from
1932 to the present which did not result in impeachment by the House.
Cross References
Committee reports adverse to impeachment, their privilege and
consideration, see Sec. Sec. 7.8-7.10, 8.2, supra.
House proceedings against Associate Justice Douglas, discussion in the
House, and portions of final subcommittee report relative to
grounds for impeachment of federal judges, see Sec. Sec. 3.9-3.13,
supra.
House proceedings on impeachment discontinued against President Nixon,
following his resignation, see Sec. 15, infra.
Resignations and effect on impeachment and trial, see Sec. 2, supra.
Trial of Judge English dismissed following his resignation, see
Sec. 16, infra. -------------------
Charges Against Secretary of the Treasury Mellon
Sec. 14.1 In the 72d Congress a Member rose to a question of
constitutional privilege, impeached Secretary of the Treasury
Andrew Mellon, and submitted a resolution authorizing the Committee
on the Judiciary to investigate the charges, which resolution was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On Jan. 6, 1932, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to impeach Mr.
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury:
Impeachment of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury
Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional
privilege. On my own responsibility as a Member of this House, I
impeach Andrew William Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, and offer the
following resolution:
Whereas the said Andrew William Mellon, of Pennsylvania,
was nominated Secretary of the Treasury of the United States by
the then Chief Executive of the Nation, Warren G. Harding,
March 4, 1921; his nomination was confirmed by the Senate of
the United States on March 4, 1921; he has held said office
since March 4, 1921, without further nominations or
confirmations.
Whereas section 243 of title 5 of the Code of Laws of the
United States provides:
``Sec. 243. Restrictions upon Secretary of Treasury: No
person appointed to the office of Secretary of the Treasury, or
Treasurer, or register, shall directly or indirectly be
concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or
commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea vessel, or
purchase by himself, of another in trust for him, any public
lands or other public property, or be concerned in the purchase
or disposal of any public secu
[[Page 2135]]
rities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply
to his own use any emolument or gain for negotiating or
transacting any business in the Treasury Department other than
what shall be allowed by law; and every person who offends
against any of the prohibitions of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a high misdemeanor and forfeit to the United States
the penalty of $3,000, and shall upon conviction be removed
from office, and forever thereafter be incapable of holding any
office under the United States; and if any other person than a
public prosecutor shall give information of any such offense,
upon which a prosecution and conviction shall be had, one-half
the aforesaid penalty of $3,000 when recovered shall be for the
use of the person giving such information.
Whereas the said Andrew William Mellon has not only been
indirectly concerned in carrying on the business of trade and
commerce in violation of the above-quoted section of the law
but has been directly interested in carrying on the business of
trade and commerce in that he is now and has been since taking
the oath of office as Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States the owner of a substantial interest in the form of
voting stock in more than 300 corporations with resources
aggregating more than $3,000,000,000, being some of the largest
corporations on earth, and he and his family and close business
associates in many instances own a majority of the stock of
said corporations and, in some instances, constitute ownership
of practically the entire outstanding capital stock; said
corporations are engaged in the business of trade and commerce
in every State, county, and village in the United States, every
country in the world, and upon the Seven Seas; said
corporations are extensively engaged in the following
businesses: Mining properties, bauxite, magnesium, carbon
electrodes, aluminum, sales, railroads, Pullman cars, gas,
electric light, street railways, copper, glass, brass, steel,
tar, banking, locomotives, water power, steamship,
shipbuilding, oil, coke, coal, and many other different
industries; said corporations are directly interested in the
tariff, in the levying and collections of Federal taxes, and in
the shipping of products upon the high seas; many of the
products of these corporations are protected by our tariff laws
and the Secretary of the Treasury has direct charge of the
enforcement of these laws.
Mellon's Ownership of Sea Vessels and Control of United States
Coast Guard
Whereas the Coast Guard (sec. 1, ch. 1, title 14, of the
United States Code) is a part of the military forces of the
United States and is operated under the Treasury Department in
time of peace; that the Secretary of the Treasury directs the
performance of the Coast Guard (sec. 51, ch. 1, title 14, of
the Code of Laws of the United States); that officers of the
Coast Guard are deemed officers of the customs (sec. 6, ch. 2,
title 14, United States Code), and it is their duty to go on
board the vessels which arrive within the United States, or
within 4 leagues of the coast thereof, and search and examine
the same, and every part thereof, and shall demand, receive,
and certify the manifests required to be on board certain
vessels shall affix and put proper fastenings on the hatches
and other communications with the hold of any vessel, and shall
remain on board such vessels until they arrive at the port of
their destination; that the said Andrew William Mellon is now,
and has been since becoming Secretary of the Treasury, the
owner in whole or in part of many sea vessels operating to and
from the United States, and in competition
[[Page 2136]]
with other steamship lines; that his interest in the sea
vessels and his control over the Coast Guard represent a
violation of section 243 of title 5 of the Code of Laws of the
United States.
Customs Officers
Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
superintends the collection of the duties on imports (sec. 3,
ch. 1, title 19, Code of Laws of the United States); he
establishes and promulgates rules and regulations for the
appraisement of imported merchandise and the classification and
assessment of duties thereon at various ports of entry (sec.
382, ch. 3, title 19, Code of Laws of United States); that the
present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, is now and
has been since becoming Secretary of the Treasury personally
interested in the importation of goods, wares, articles, and
merchandise in substantial quantities and large amounts; that
it is repugnant to American principles and a violation of the
laws of the United States for such an officer to hold the dual
position of serving two masters--himself and the United States.
Ownership of Sea Vessels
Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon is now, and has been
since becoming Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,
holding said office in violation of that part of section 243 of
title 5 of the Code of Laws of the United States, which
provides that ``no person appointed to the office of Secretary
of the Treasury . . . shall be the owner in whole or in part of
any sea vessel,'' in that he was and is now the owner in whole
or in part of the following sea vessels:
Registered in Norway: Austvangen, Nordvangen, Sorvangen,
Vestvangen.
Venezuelan flag: 14 tankers, of 36,654 gross tons.
United States flag: S. Haiti; 13 general cargo vessels,
Conemaugh, Gulf of Mexico, Gulfbird, Gulfcoast, Gulfgem,
Gulfking, Gulflight, Gulfoil, Gulfpoint, Gulfprince, Gulfstar,
Gulfstream, Gulfwax, Harmony, Ligonier, Ohio, Susquehanna,
Winifred, Currier, Gulf of Venezuela, Gulf breeze, Gulfcrest,
Gulfhawk, Gulfland, Gulfmaid, Gulfpenn, Gulfpride, Gulfqueen,
Gulfstate, Gulftrade, Gulfwing, Juniata, Monongahela, Supreme,
Trinidadian.
Income Taxes Paid by Mellon Companies and Refunds Made to
Them--by Himself
Whereas section 1 (2), chapter 1, title 26, of the Code of
laws of the United States, provides ``The Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall have general superintendence of the assessment
and collection of all duties and taxes imposed by any law
providing internal revenue. . . .'' The tax laws of the United
States, including the granting of refunds, credits, and
abatements, are administered in secret under the direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury; that income-tax returns and
evidence upon which refunds are made, or granted, to taxpayers
are not subject to public inspection; that under the direction
of the present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon,
many hundred corporations that are substantially owned by him
annually make settlement for their taxes and many such
corporations have been granted under his direction large tax
refunds amounting to tens of millions of dollars.
[[Page 2137]]
Ownership of Bank Stock
Whereas section 244, chapter 3, title 12, of the Code of
Laws of the United States, provides:
``Sec. 244. Chairman of the board; qualifications of
members; vacancies.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be ex
officio chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. No member of the
Federal Reserve Board shall be an officer or director of any
bank, banking institution, trust company, or Federal reserve
bank, nor hold stock in any bank, banking institution, or trust
company. . . .''
That the present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W.
Mellon, is now and has been since-becoming Secretary of the
Treasury the owner of stock in a bank, banking institution, and
trust company in violation of this law.
Whisky Business
Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon has held the office of
Secretary of the Treasury in violation of section 243 of title
5 of the Code of Laws of the United States, in that from March
4, 1921, to October 2, 1928, he was interested in and received
his share of the proceeds and profits from the sale of
distilled whisky, which said whisky was sold as a commodity in
trade and commerce.
Aluminum in Public Buildings
Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon has further violated the
law which prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from being
directly or indirectly interested or concerned in the carrying
on of business or trade or commerce, in that as Secretary of
the Treasury he controls the construction and maintenance of
public buildings; the Office of the Supervising Architect is
subject to the direction and approval of the Secretary of the
Treasury; the duties performed by the Supervising Architect
embrace the following: Preparation of drawings, estimates,
specifications, etc., for and the superintendence of the work
of constructing, rebuilding, extending, or repairing public
buildings; under the supervision of the Supervising Architect
and subject to the direction and approval of the Secretary of
the Treasury the Government of the United States has spent and
will soon spend several hundred million dollars in the
construction of public buildings. The said Andrew W. Mellon is
the principal owner and controls the Aluminum Co. of America,
which produces and markets practically all of the aluminum in
the United States used for all purposes. The said Andrew W.
Mellon has, while occupying the position as Secretary of the
Treasury, directly interested himself in the carrying on and
promotion of the business of the Aluminum Co. of America by
causing to be published in Room 410 of the Treasury Building of
the United States, located between the United States Capitol
and the White House, a magazine known as the Federal Architect,
published quarterly, which carries the pictures of public
buildings in which aluminum is used in their construction and
carries articles concerning the use of aluminum in architecture
which suggest how aluminum can be used for different purposes
in the construction of public buildings for the purpose of
convincing the architects who draw the plans and specifications
for public buildings that aluminum can and should be used for
certain construction work and ornamental purposes. The use of
aluminum in the construction of public buildings displaces
materials which can be purchased on competitive bids, whereas
the Aluminum Co. of America holds a monopoly and has no
competitors. Said magazine is published by employees of the
United States Government in the Office of the Supervising
[[Page 2138]]
Architect and distributed to the architects of the Nation, many
of whom have been or will be employed by the Supervising
Architect to draw plans and specifications for public buildings
in their local communities. More aluminum is now being used in
the construction of public buildings, under the direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury, than has ever before been used,
as a result of this advantage.
Mellon Interest in Soviet Union (Russia)
Whereas section 140 of title 19 of the Code of Laws of the
United States provides--
``Sec. 140. Goods manufactured by convict labor
prohibited.--All goods, wares, articles, and merchandise
manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by
convict labor shall not be entitled to entry at any of the
ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is
prohibited, and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and
directed to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for
the enforcement of this provision''--
charges are now being made that goods, wares, articles, and
merchandise are being transported to the United States from the
Soviet Union (Russia) in violation of this act; the present
Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, whose duty it is
to enforce this provision of the law, is one of the principal
owners of the Koppers Co., a company with resources amounting
to $143,379,352, which is carrying on trade and commerce in all
parts of the world; that said company during the year 1930 made
a contract with the Soviet Union whereby the Koppers Co.
obligated itself to build coke ovens and steel mills in the
Soviet Union aggregating in value $200,000,000, in furtherance
of the Soviet's 5-year plan; that said contract is now being
carried into effect, and the said Andrew W. Mellon is
financially interested in its success; that his interest in
this contract with the Soviet Union destroys his impartiality
as an officer of the United States to enforce the above-quoted
law; his interest in said company, which is engaged in the
business of carrying on trade and commerce, disqualifies him as
Secretary of the Treasury under section 243 of title 5 of the
Code of Laws of the United States and makes him guilty of a
high misdemeanor and subject to impeachment: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized
and directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the
official conduct of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the
Treasury, to determine whether, in its opinion, he has been
guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which, in the
contemplation of the Constitution, requires the interposition
of the constitutional powers of the House. Such committee shall
report its findings to the House together with such resolution
of impeachment or other recommendation as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this resolution, the committee
is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at
such times and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere,
whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has
adjourned, to hold such hearings, to employ such experts, and
such clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require
the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such
books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony, to have
such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures
not exceeding $5,000, as it deems necessary.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the articles just read be referred to the
[[Page 2139]]
Committee on the Judiciary, and upon that motion I demand the
previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: (2) The question is on the motion of
the gentleman from Tennessee, that the articles be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 75 Cong Rec. 1400 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.2 The House discontinued by resolution further proceedings of
impeachment against Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, after
he had been nominated and confirmed for another position and had
resigned his Cabinet post.
On Feb. 13, 1932, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, presented House
Report No. 444 and House Resolution 143, discontinuing proceedings
against Secretary of the Treasury Mellon:
Impeachment Charges--Report From Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a report from the
Committee on the Judiciary, and I would like to give notice that
immediately upon the reading of the report I shall move the
previous question.
The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Texas offers a
report, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the report, as follows:
House of Representatives--Relative to the Action of the
Committee on the Judiciary With Reference to House Resolution
92
Mr. Sumners of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following report (to accompany H. Res. 143):
I am directed by the Committee on the Judiciary to submit
to the House, as its report to the House, the following
resolution adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary indicating
its action with reference to House Resolution No. 92 heretofore
referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary:
Whereas Hon. Wright Patman, Member of the House of
Representatives, filed certain impeachment charges against Hon.
Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, which were
referred to this committee; and
Whereas pending the investigation of said charges by said
committee, and before said investigation had been completed,
the said Hon. Andrew W. Mellon was nominated by the President
of the United States for the post of ambassador to the Court of
St. James and the said nomination was duly confirmed by the
United States Senate pursuant to law, and the said Andrew W.
Mellon has resigned the position of Secretary of the Treasury:
Be it
Resolved by this committee, That the further consideration
of the said charges made against the said Andrew W. Mellon, as
Secretary of the Treasury, be, and the same are hereby,
discontinued.
Minority Views
We cannot join in the majority views and findings. While we
concur in the conclusions of the majority
[[Page 2140]]
that section 243 of the Revised Statutes, upon which the
proceedings herein were based, provides for action in the
nature of an ouster proceeding, it is our view that the Hon.
Andrew W. Mellon, the former Secretary of the Treasury, having
removed himself from that office, no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the investigation of the charges filed by
the Hon. Wright Patman. We desire to stress that the action of
the undersigned is based on that reason alone, particularly
when the prohibition contained in said section 243 is not
applicable to the office now held by Mr. Mellon.
Fiorello H. LaGuardia.
Gordon Browning.
M. C. Tarver.
Francis B. Condon.
Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I think the resolution is
fairly explanatory of the views held by the different members of
the committee. No useful purpose could be served by the consumption
of the usual 40 minutes, so I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 75 Cong. Rec. 3850, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
The House Journal (p. 382) for this date indicates that Mr.
Sumners called up H. Res. 143 which was debated prior to its
adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against President Hoover
Sec. 14.3 Impeachment of President Herbert Hoover was proposed but not
considered by the House or by committee in the 72d Congress.
On Jan. 17, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose and
on his own responsibility as a Member of the House impeached President
Hoover as follows:
Mr. McFadden: On my own responsibility, as a Member of the
House of Representatives, I impeach Herbert Hoover, President of
the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
He offered a resolution with a lengthy preamble, which concluded as
follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to
investigate the official conduct of Herbert Hoover, President of
the United States, and all matters related thereto, to determine
whether, in the opinion of the said committee, he has been guilty
of any high crime or misdemeanor which, in the contemplation of the
Constitution, requires the interposition of the constitutional
powers of the House. Such committee shall report its findings to
the House, together with such resolution of impeachment or other
recommendation as it deems proper, in order that the House of
Representatives may, if necessary, present its complaint to the
Senate, to the end that Herbert Hoover may be tried according to
the manner prescribed for the trial of the Executive by the
Constitution and the people be given their constitutional remedy
and be relieved of their present apprehension that a criminal may
be in office.
For the purposes of this resolution the committee is authorized
to sit and
[[Page 2141]]
act during the present Congress at such times and places in the
District of Columbia or elsewhere, whether or not the House is
sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to
employ such experts, and such clerical, stenographic, and other
assistants, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the
production of such books, papers, and documents, to take such
testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such
expenditures as it deems necessary.
Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, moved that the resolution be laid
on the table and the House adopted the motion, precluding any debate by
Mr. McFadden on his resolution of impeachment.
Pending a vote on the motion, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the language which
had transpired could not be expunged from the Congressional Record by
motion but must be done by unanimous consent since no unparliamentary
language was involved.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 18, 1933, Mr. McFadden rose to state a question of
privilege, with the intention of impeaching President Hoover. In
response to a point of order, Speaker Garner held that a question of
constitutional privilege or a question of privilege of the House, as
distinguished from a question of personal privilege, could not be
presented until a motion or resolution was submitted. He declined to
recognize Mr. McFadden since no resolution was presented.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at pp. 2041, 2042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against U.S. District Judge Lowell
Sec. 14.4 In the 73d Congress the Committee on the Judiciary conducted
an investigation into impeachment charges against District Judge
James Lowell and later recommended that further proceedings be
discontinued.
On Apr. 26, 1933, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a
question of constitutional privilege and impeached Mr. Lowell, a U.S.
District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. He specified the
following charges:
First. I charge that the said James A. Lowell, having been
nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by
the Senate of the United States, duly qualified and commissioned,
and while acting as district judge for the district of
Massachusetts, did on divers and various occasions so abuse the
powers of his high office and so misconduct himself as to be guilty
of favoritism, oppression, and judicial misconduct, whereby he has
brought the administration of justice in said
[[Page 2142]]
district in the court of which he is judge into disrepute by his
aforesaid misconduct and acts, and is guilty of misbehavior and
misconduct, falling under the constitutional provision as ground
for impeachment and removal from office.
Second. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did knowingly
and willfully violate his oath to support the Constitution in his
refusal to comply with the provisions of article IV, section 2,
clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, wherein it is
provided:
A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or
other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in
another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of
the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to
the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
Third. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did, on the 24th
day of April, 1933, unlawfully, willfully, and contrary to well-
established law, order the discharge from custody of one George
Crawford, who had been regularly indicted for first-degree murder
in Loudoun County, Va., had confessed his crime, and whose
extradition from the State of Massachusetts had, after full hearing
and investigation, been officially ordered by Joseph B. Ely,
Governor of the State of Massachusetts.
Fourth. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did deliberately
and willfully by ordering the release of said George Crawford,
unlawfully and contrary to the law in such cases made and provided,
seek to defeat the ends of justice and to prevent the said George
Crawford from being duly and regularly tried in the tribunal having
jurisdiction thereof for the crime with which he is charged, to
which he had confessed.
Fifth. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did on the said
24th day of April 1933 willfully, deliberately, and viciously
attempt to nullify the operation of the laws for the punishment of
crime of the State of Virginia and many other States in the Union,
notwithstanding numerous decisions directly to the contrary by the
Supreme Court of the United States, all of which decisions were
brought to the attention of the said judge by the attorney general
of Massachusetts and the Commonwealth's attorney of Loudoun County,
Va., at the time of said action.
Sixth. I further charge that the said James A. Lowell, on the
said 24th day of April 1933, in rendering said decision did use his
judicial position for the unlawful purpose of casting aspersions
upon and attempting to bring disrepute upon the administration of
law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and various other States in
this Union, and that in so doing he used the following language:
I say this whole thing is absolutely wrong. It goes against
my Yankee common sense to have a case go on trial for 2 or 3
years and then have the whole thing thrown out by the Supreme
Court.
They say justice is blind. Justice should not be as blind
as a bat. In this case it would be if a writ of habeas corpus
were denied.
Why should I send a negro back from Boston to Virginia,
when I know and everybody knows that the Supreme Court will say
that the trial is illegal? The only persons who would get any
good out of it would be the lawyers.
Governor Ely in signing the extradition papers was bound
only by the
[[Page 2143]]
question of whether the indictment from Virginia is in order.
But why shouldn't I, sitting here in this court, have a
different constitutional outlook from the governor who sits on
the case merely to see if the indictment satisfies the law in
Virginia?
I keep on good terms with Chief Justice Rugg, of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, but I don't have to keep on good
terms with the chief justice of Virginia, because I don't have
to see him.
I'd rather be wrong on my law than give my sanction to
legal nonsense.
Seventh. I further charge that the said James A. Lowell has
been arbitrary, capricious, and czarlike in the administration of
the duties of his high office and has been grossly and willfully
indifferent to the rights of litigants in his court, particularly
in the case of George Crawford against Frank G. Hale.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H. Jour. 205, 206, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charges were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr.
Smith then offered House Resolution 120, authorizing an investigation
of such charges, which resolution was adopted by the House:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and
directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to inquire into and
investigate the official conduct of James A. Lowell, a district
judge for the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to determine whether in the opinion of said
committee he has been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which
in the contemplation of the Constitution requires the interposition
of the constitutional powers of the House. Said committee shall
report its findings to the House, together with such resolution of
impeachment or other recommendation as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. For the purpose of this resolution the committee is
authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times
and places in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, whether or
not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold
such hearings, to employ such clerical, stenographic, and other
assistance, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the
production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such
testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such
expenditures, not exceeding $5,000, as it deems
necessary.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at p. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 1933, Mr. Smith offered House Resolution 132, providing
for payment out of the contingent fund for the expenses of the
Committee on the Judiciary incurred under House Resolution 120. The
resolution was referred to the Committee on Accounts and was called up
by that committee on May 8, when it was adopted by the
House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 233, 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 6, 1934, the House agreed to House Resolution 226, reported
by Mr. Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, of the Committee on
[[Page 2144]]
the Judiciary, providing that no further proceedings be had under House
Resolution 120:
Resolved, That no further proceedings be had under H. Res. 120,
agreed to April 26, 1933, providing for an investigation of the
official conduct of James A. Lowell, United States district judge
for the district of Massachusetts, and that the Committee on the
Judiciary be discharged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 137, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against Federal Reserve Board Members
Sec. 14.5 After a Member of the House offered a resolution to impeach
various members and former members of the Federal Reserve Board,
and Federal Reserve agents, his resolution was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and not acted upon.
On May 23, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose to a
question of constitutional privilege and impeached on his own
responsibility Eugene Meyer, former member of the Federal Reserve
Board, and a number of other former members, members, and Federal
Reserve agents. His resolution, House Resolution 1458, was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, pursuant to a motion to refer offered
by Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee. The committee took no action on
the resolution.
During debate on the resolution, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan,
rose to a point of order against the resolution, claiming it was not
privileged because it called for the impeachment of various persons who
were no longer U.S. civil officers. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, held that the issue presented was a constitutional question
upon which the House and not the Chair should pass.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Jour. 298-302, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against U.S. District Judge Molyneaux
Sec. 14.6 Impeachment of U.S. District Judge Joseph Molyneaux was
proposed in the 73d Congress but not acted upon by the House or the
Committee on the Judiciary, to which the charges were referred.
On Jan. 22, 1934, Mr. Francis H. Shoemaker, of Minnesota,
introduced House Resolution 233, authorizing an investigation by the
Committee on the Judiciary into the official conduct of Mr. Molyneaux,
a U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota, to determine
whether he was guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors
[[Page 2145]]
requiring the ``interposition of the constitutional powers of the
House.'' The resolution was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Jour. 87, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on the Judiciary having taken no action on his
resolution, Mr. Shoemaker rose to a question of constitutional
privilege on Apr. 20, 1934, and impeached Judge Molyneaux on his own
responsibility. He offered charges and a resolution (H. Res. 344)
impeaching the judge, which resolution was referred on motion to the
Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution charged corruption in the
appointment of receivers, in the disposal of estates, interference with
justice, and mental senility, and dishonesty. The committee took no
action thereon.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against U.S. Circuit Judge Alschuler
Sec. 14.7 A Member having impeached Judge Samuel Alschuler, a Circuit
Judge for the seventh circuit, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported adversely on the resolution authorizing an investigation,
and the resolution was laid on the table.
On May 7, 1935, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose to a
question of ``high constitutional privilege'' and impeached Samuel
Alschuler, U.S. Circuit Judge for the seventh circuit. He discussed his
charges (principally that the accused improperly favored a litigant
before his court) and offered House Resolution 214, authorizing an
investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution was
referred on motion of Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, to the Committee
on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Jour. 668-71, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 15, 1935, Mr. Sumners reported adversely (H. Rept. No.
1802) on House Resolution 214, by direction of the Committee on the
Judiciary. Mr. Sumners moved to lay the resolution on the table, and
the House agreed to the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against Secretary of Labor Perkins
Sec. 14.8 In the 76th Congress, a resolution was offered impeaching
Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins and two other officials of the
Department of Labor, and was referred on motion to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
On Jan. 24, 1939,(17) a Member impeached certain
officials of the
[[Page 2146]]
executive branch and introduced a resolution authorizing an
investigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 702-11, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeachment of Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; James L.
Houghteling; and Gerard D. Reilly
Mr. [J. Parnell] Thomas of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, on my own
responsibility as a Member of the House of Representatives, I
impeach Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor of the United States;
James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service of the Department of Labor; and Gerard D.
Reilly, Solicitor of the Department of Labor, as civil officers of
the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors in violation of
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and I charge that
the aforesaid Frances Perkins, James L. Houghteling, and Gerard D.
Reilly, as civil officers of the United States, were and are guilty
of high crimes and misdemeanors in office in manner and form as
follows, to wit: That they did willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously conspire, confederate, and agree together from on or
about September 1, 1937, to and including this date, to commit
offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States
by failing, neglecting, and refusing to enforce the immigration
laws of the United States, including to wit section 137, title 8,
United States Code, and section 156, title 8, United States Code,
against Alfred Renton Bryant Bridges, alias Harry Renton Bridges,
alias Harry Dorgan, alias Canfield, alias Rossi, an alien, who
advises, advocates, or teaches and is a member of or affiliated
with an organization, association, society, or group that advises,
advocates, or teaches the overthrow by force or violence of the
Government of the United States, or the unlawful damage, injury, or
destruction of property, or sabotage; and that the aforesaid
Frances Perkins, James L. Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly have
unlawfully conspired together to release said alien after his
arrest on his own recognizance, without requiring a bond of not
less than $500; and that said Frances Perkins, James L.
Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly and each of them have committed
many overt acts to effect the object of said conspiracy, all in
violation of the Constitution of the United States in such cases
made and provided.
And I further charge that Frances Perkins, James L.
Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly, as civil officers of the United
States, were and are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by
unlawfully conspiring together to commit offenses against the
United States and to defraud the United States by causing the
Strecker case to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and by failing, neglecting, and refusing to enforce section
137, United States Code, against other aliens illegally within the
United States contrary to the Constitution of the United States and
the statutes of the United States in such cases made and provided.
In support of the foregoing charges and impeachment, I now
present a resolution setting forth specifically, facts,
circumstances, and allegations with a view to their consideration
by a committee of the House and by the House itself to determine
their truth or falsity.
[[Page 2147]]
Mr. Speaker, I offer the following resolution and ask that it
be considered at this time.
The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 67
Whereas Frances Perkins, of New York, was nominated by the
President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate of the
United States, duly qualified and commissioned on March 4,
1933, and has since March 4, 1933, without further nominations
or confirmations, acted as Secretary of Labor and as a civil
officer of the United States.
Whereas James L. Houghteling, of Illinois, was nominated by
the President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate of
the United States, duly qualified and commissioned on August 4,
1937, as Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service of the Department of Labor and has since August 4,
1937, without further nominations or confirmations, acted as
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of
the Department of Labor and as a civil officer of the United
States.
Whereas Gerard D. Reilly, of Massachusetts, was nominated
by the President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate
of the United States, duly qualified and commissioned on August
10, 1937, as Solicitor of the Department of Labor, and has
since August 10, 1937, without further nominations or
confirmations, acted as Solicitor of the Department of Labor
and as a civil officer of the United States.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be and is
hereby authorized and directed, as a whole or by subcommittee,
to investigate the official conduct of Frances Perkins,
Secretary of Labor; James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Labor;
and Gerard D. Reilly, Solicitor, Department of Labor, to
determine whether, in its opinion, they have been guilty of any
high crimes or misdemeanors which, in the contemplation of the
Constitution, requires the interposition of the constitutional
powers of the House. Such committee shall report its findings
to the House, together with such articles of impeachment as the
facts may warrant.
For the purposes of this resolution the committee is
authorized and directed to sit and act, during the present
session of Congress, at such times and places in the District
of Columbia, or elsewhere, whether or not the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned; to hold hearings; to employ
such experts and such clerical, stenographic and other
assistance; and to require the attendance of such witnesses and
the production of such books, papers, and documents; and to
take such testimony and to have such printing and binding done;
and to make such expenditures not exceeding $10,000, as it
deems necessary.
The resolution was referred as follows:
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House and upon that I desire to say just a word. A great many
suggestions have been made as to what should be done with this
resolution, but I think this would be the orderly procedure so that
the facts may be developed. The resolution will come out of that
committee or remain in it according to the testimony adduced.
I therefore move the previous question on my motion to refer,
Mr. Speaker.
[[Page 2148]]
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 14.9 The Committee on the Judiciary agreed unanimously to report
adversely the resolution urging an investigation of Secretary of
Labor Frances Perkins and the House agreed to a motion to lay the
resolution on the table.
On Mar. 24, 1939,(19) charges of impeachment against
Secretary of Labor Perkins were finally and adversely disposed of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeachment Proceedings--Frances Perkins
Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on the Judiciary I present a privileged report upon House
Resolution 67, which I send to the desk.
The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read House Resolution 67.
Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, this is a unanimous report from the
Committee on the Judiciary adversing this resolution. I move to lay
the resolution on the table.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Alabama to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Charges Against U.S. District Judges Johnson and Watson
Sec. 14.10 The House authorized the Committee on the Judiciary to
investigate allegations of impeachable offenses charged against
U.S. District Court Judges Johnson and Watson but no final report
was submitted.
On Jan. 24, 1944, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, introduced House
Resolution 406 authorizing an investigation by the Committee on the
Judiciary into the conduct of U.S. District Court Judges Albert Johnson
and Albert Watson from Pennsylvania. The resolution was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 407, also introduced by
Mr. Sumners and providing for the expenses of the committee in
conducting such an investigation, was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H. Jour. 46, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 26, 1944, Mr. Sumners called up by direction of the
Committee on the Judiciary House Resolution 406, authorizing the
investigation and the House agreed thereto.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Extensive hearings, presided over by Mr.
Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee,
[[Page 2149]]
were held relative to the conduct of Judge Johnson. The subcommittee
report recommended impeachment based on evidence of corrupt practices
and acts including corrupt appointment to court offices. Judge Johnson
having resigned, the Committee on the Judiciary discontinued the
proceedings.
Charges Against President Truman
Sec. 14.11 In the 82d Congress, a resolution proposing an inquiry as to
whether President Harry Truman should be impeached was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, which took no action thereon.
On Apr. 23, 1952,(3) a resolution relating to
impeachment was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which took
no action thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 98 Cong. Rec. 4325, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr. [George H.] Bender [of Ohio]:
H. Res. 607. Resolution creating a select committee to inquire
and report to the House whether Harry S. Truman, President of the
United States, shall be impeached; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Sec. 14.12 A petition was filed to discharge the Committee on the
Judiciary from the further consideration of a resolution impeaching
President Harry Truman but did not gain the requisite number of
signatures.
On June 17, 1952, Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, announced that
he was filing a petition to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary
from the further consideration of House Resolution 614, impeaching
President Truman: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 98 Cong. Rec. 7424, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Schafer: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 of this year I introduced
House Resolution 614, to impeach Harry S. Truman, President of the
United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. This
resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which
committee has failed to take action thereon.
Thirty legislative days having now elapsed since introduction
of this resolution, I today have placed on the Clerk's desk a
petition to discharge the committee from further consideration of
the resolution.
In my judgment, developments since I introduced the Resolution
April 28 have immeasurably enlarged and strengthened the case for
impeachment and have added new urgency for such action by this
House.
First. Since the introduction of this resolution, the United
States Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 vote, has held that in his
seizure of the steel mills Harry S. Truman, President of the United
[[Page 2150]]
States, exceeded his authority and powers, violated the
Constitution of the United States, and flouted the expressed will
and intent of the Congress--and, in so finding, the Court gave
unprecedented warnings against the threat to freedom and
constitutional government implicit in his act.
Second. Despite the President's technical compliance with the
finding of the Court, prior to the Court decision he reasserted his
claim to the powers then in question, and subsequent to that
decision he has contemptuously called into question ``the intention
of the Court's majority'' and contemptuously attributed the limits
set on the President's powers not to Congress, or to the Court, or
to the Constitution, but to ``the Court's majority.''
Third. The Court, in its finding in the steel case, emphasized
not only the unconstitutionality of the Presidential seizure but
also stressed his failure to utilize and exhaust existing and
available legal resources for dealing with the situation, including
the Taft-Hartley law.
Fourth. The President's failure and refusal to utilize and
exhaust existing and available legal resources for dealing with the
emergency has persisted since the Court decision and in spite of
clear and unmistakable evidence of the will and intent of Congress
given in response to his latest request for special legislation
authorizing seizure or other special procedures.
The discharge petition, No. 14, was not signed by a majority of the
Members of the House and was therefore not eligible for consideration
in the House under Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908
(1973).
Charges Against Judges Murrah, Chandler, and Bohanon
Sec. 14.13 A resolution authorizing an investigation in the 89th
Congress into the conduct of three federal judges was referred to
the Committee on Rules but not acted on.
On Feb. 22, 1966, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, introduced House
Resolution 739, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire
into and investigate the conduct of Alfred Murrah, Chief Judge of the
10th Circuit, Stephen Chandler, District Judge, Western District of
Oklahoma, and Luther Bohanon, District Judge, Eastern, Northern, and
Western Districts of Oklahoma, in order to determine whether any of the
three judges had been guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. The
resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 112 Cong. Rec. 3665, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross stated the purpose of the resolution as follows:
Mr. Segal, Judge John Biggs, Jr., the chairman of the judicial
conference committee on court administration,
[[Page 2151]]
and Mr. Joseph Borkin, Washington attorney and author of the book,
``The Corrupt Judge,'' were in agreement that impeachment is the
only remedy available today for action against judicial misconduct.
Both Mr. Borkin and the chairman of the subcommittee emphasized
the serious problem that has arisen in Oklahoma where the Judicial
Council of the 10th Judicial Circuit made an attempt to bar Judge
Stephen S. Chandler from handling cases because it was stated he
was ``either unwilling or unable'' to perform his judicial
functions adequately.
Mr. Borkin, a man with an impressive background in the study of
the problems of corruption and misconduct in the judiciary, pointed
out that Judge Chandler, in return, has made serious charges of
attempted bribery and other misconduct against two other judges--
Alfred P. Murrah, chief judge, 10th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals,
and Luther Bohanon, district judge, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
Mr. Borkin stressed that this dispute in Oklahoma has been an
upsetting factor in the Federal courts in Oklahoma since 1962, and
he declared that these charges should not be permitted to stand. He
emphasized that there can be no compromise short of a full
investigation to clear the judges or to force their removal.
I agree with Mr. Borkin that great damage has been done because
the courts, the executive branch, and the Congress have taken no
effective steps to clear up this scandalous situation. I have
waited patiently for months, and I have hoped that the Justice
Department, the courts, or the Congress would initiate or suggest a
proper legal investigation to clear the air and put an end to this
outrageous situation in the judiciary in the 10th circuit.
There has been no effective action taken, or even started.
Therefore, I am today instituting the only action available to try
to get to the bottom of this.
I have introduced a House resolution authorizing and directing
the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the conduct of
the three Federal judges in Oklahoma involved in this controversy.
Upon its finding of fact, the House Judiciary Committee would be
empowered to institute impeachment proceedings or make any other
recommendations it deems proper.
The committee would also be empowered to require the attendance
of witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and
documents--including financial statements, contracts, and bank
accounts--as it deems necessary.
The resolution in no way establishes the guilt of the
principals involved. It is necessary to the launching of an
investigation for the purpose of determining the facts essential to
an intelligent conclusion and eliminating the cloud now hanging
over the Federal judiciary.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id. at p. 3653.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules took no action on the resolution.
Charges Against Associate Supreme Court Justice Douglas
Sec. 14.14 When the Minority Leader criticized the conduct
[[Page 2152]]
of Associate Justice William O. Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court
during a special order speech in the 91st Congress and suggested
the creation of a select committee to investigate such conduct to
determine whether impeachment was warranted, another Member
announced on the floor that he was introducing a resolution of
impeachment; the resolution was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On Apr. 15, 1970, Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, took
the floor for a special order speech in which he criticized the conduct
of Associate Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Ford
suggested that a select committee of the House be created to
investigate such conduct in order to determine whether impeachment
proceedings might be warranted.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 116 Cong. Rec. 11912-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Mr. Ford discussed the
standard for impeachable offenses and concluded in part that
such an offense was ``whatever a majority of the House of
Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in
history.'' Id. at p. 11913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, then took the floor under a
special order speech to discuss the same subject. He yielded time to
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, as follows:
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a three-
sentence statement?
Mr. Wyman: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has stated
publicly that he favors impeachment of Justice Douglas.
He, therefore, has a duty to this House and this country to
file a resolution of impeachment.
Since he refuses to do so and since he raises grave questions,
the answers to which I do not know, but every American is entitled
to know, I introduce at this time the resolution of impeachment in
order that a proper and dignified inquiry into this matter might be
held.
At this point Mr. Jacobs introduced the resolution by placing it in
the hopper at the Clerk's desk.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman from New
Hampshire has the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wyman: I did not yield for that purpose.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has
introduced a resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 116 Cong. Rec. 11920, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jacobs' resolution, House Resolution 920, which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary (10) declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 11942. For a similar resolution proposed in the 83d
Congress, but not acted upon, impeaching Justice Douglas, see
H. Res. 290, introduced June 17, 1953, 99 Cong. Rec. 6760, 83d
Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2153]]
Resolved, That William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States be impeached [for] high crimes
and misdemeanors and misbehavior in office.
Other resolutions, all of which called for the creation of a select
committee to conduct an investigation and to determine whether
impeachment proceedings were warranted, were referred to the Committee
on Rules. For example, House Resolution 922, introduced by Mr. Wyman,
with 24 cosponsors, read as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 922 was referred to the Committee on Rules. 116 Cong. Rec.
12130, 12131, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 16, 1970.
See also H. Res. 923, H. Res. 924, H. Res. 925, H. Res.
926, H. Res. 927, H. Res. 928, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States provides in
Article III, Section 1, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall
hold office only ``during good behavior'', and
Whereas, the Constitution also provides in Article II, Section
4, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and
Whereas the Constitution also provides in Article VI that
Justices of the Supreme Court shall be bound by ``Oath or
Affirmation to support this Constitution'' and the United States
Code (5 U.S.C. 16) prescribes the following form of oath which was
taken and sworn to by William Orville Douglas prior to his
accession to incumbency on the United States Supreme Court:
I, William Orville Douglas, do solemnly swear that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me
God.
and
Whereas, integrity and objectivity in respect to issues and
causes to be presented to the United States Supreme Court for final
determination make it mandatory that Members thereof refrain from
public advocacy of a position on any matter that may come before
the High Court lest public confidence in this constitutionally co-
equal judicial body be undermined, and
Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas has, on frequent
occasions in published writings, speeches, lectures and statements,
declared a personal position on issues to come before the United
States Supreme Court indicative of a prejudiced and nonjudicial
attitude incompatible with good behavior and contrary to the
requirements of judicial decorum obligatory upon the Federal
judiciary in general and members of the United States Supreme Court
in particular, and
Whereas, by the aforementioned conduct and writings, the said
William Orville Douglas has established himself before the public,
including liti
[[Page 2154]]
gants whose lives, rights and future are seriously affected by
decisions of the Court of which the said William Orville Douglas is
a member, as a partisan advocate and not as a judge, and
Whereas, by indicating in advance of Supreme Court decisions,
on the basis of declared, printed, or quoted convictions, how he
would decide matters in controversy pending and to become pending
before the Court of which he is a member, the said William Orville
Douglas has committed the high misdemeanor of undermining the
integrity of the highest constitutional Court in America, and has
willfully and deliberately undermined public confidence in the said
Court as an institution, and
Whereas, contrary to his Oath of Office as well as patently in
conflict with the Canons of Ethics for the Judiciary of the
American Bar Association, the said William Orville Douglas
nevertheless on February 19, 1970, did publish and publicly
distribute throughout the United States, statements encouraging,
aggravating and inciting violence, anarchy and civil unrest in the
form of a book entitled ``Points of Rebellion'' in which the said
William Orville Douglas, all the while an incumbent on the Highest
Court of last resort in the United States, stated, among other
things, that:
But where grievances pile high and most of the elected
spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only
effective response. (pp. 88-89, ``Points of Rebellion,'' Random
House, Inc., February 19, 1970, William O. Douglas.)
The special interests that control government use its
powers to favor themselves and to perpetuate regimes of
oppression, exploitation, and discrimination against the many
(ibid, p. 92).
People march and protest but they are not heard (ibid, p.
88).
Where there is a persistent sense of futility, there is
violence; and that is where we are today (ibid, p. 56).
The two parties have become almost indistinguishable; and
each is controlled by the Establishment. The modern day
dissenters and protesters are functioning as the loyal
opposition functions in England. They are the mounting voice of
political opposition to the status quo, calling for
revolutionary changes in our institutions. Yet the powers-that-
be faintly echo Adolph Hitler (ibid, p. 57).
Yet American protesters need not be submissive. A speaker
who resists arrest is acting as a free man (ibid, p. 6).
We must realize that today's Establishment is the new
George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics,
we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition,
is also revolution (ibid, p. 95).
and thus willfully and deliberately fanned the fires of unrest,
rebellion, and revolution in the United States, and
Whereas, in the April 1970 issue of Evergreen Magazine, the
said William Orville Douglas for pay did, while an incumbent on the
United States Supreme Court, publish an article entitled Redress
and Revolution, appearing on page 41 of said issue immediately
following a malicious caricature of the President of the United
States as George III, as well as photographs of nudes engaging in
various acts of sexual intercourse, in which article the said
William Orville Douglas again wrote for pay that:
George III was the symbol against which our Founders made a
revolution now considered bright and glorious. . . . We must
realize that to
[[Page 2155]]
day's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will
continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does,
the redress, honored in tradition, is also Revolution.
and
Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas, prepared, authored,
and received payment for an article which appeared in the March
1969 issue of the magazine, Avant Garde, published by Ralph
Ginzburg, previously convicted of sending obscene literature
through the United States Mails, (see 383 U.S. 463) at a time when
the said Ralph Ginzburg was actively pursuing an appeal from his
conviction upon a charge of malicious libel before the Supreme
Court of the United States, yet nevertheless the said William
Orville Douglas, as a sitting member of the Supreme Court of the
United States, knowing full well his own financial relationship
with this litigant before the Court, sat in judgment on the
Ginzburg appeal, all in clear violation and conflict with his Oath
of Office, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and Federal law (396 U.S.
1049), and
Whereas, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court
the said William Orville Douglas for hire has served and is
reported to still serve as a Director and as Chairman of the
Executive Committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions in Santa Barbara, California, a politically oriented
action organization which, among other things, has organized
national conferences designed to seek detente with the Soviet Union
and openly encouraged student radicalism, and
Whereas, the said Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions, in violation of the Logan Act, sponsored and financed
a ``Pacem in Terris II Convocation'' at Geneva, Switzerland, May
28-31, 1967, to discuss foreign affairs and U.S. foreign policy
including the ``Case of Vietnam'' and the ``Case of Germany'', to
which Ho Chi Minh was publicly invited, and all while the United
States was in the midst of war in which Communists directed by the
same Ho Chi Minh were killing American boys fighting to give South
Vietnam the independence and freedom from aggression we had
promised that Nation, and from this same Center there were paid to
the said William Orville Douglas fees of $500 per day for Seminars
and Articles, and
Whereas, paid activity of this type by a sitting Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States is contrary to his Oath of
Office to uphold the United States Constitution, violative the
Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Association and is believed to
constitute misdemeanors of the most fundamental type in the context
in which that term appears in the United States Constitution
(Article II, Section 4) as well as failing to constitute ``good
behavior'' as that term appears in the Constitution (Article III,
Section 1), upon which the tenure of all Federal judges is
expressly conditioned, and
Whereas, moneys paid to the said William Orville Douglas from
and by the aforementioned Center are at least as follows: 1962,
$900; 1963, $800; 1965, $1,000; 1966, $1,000; 1968, $1,100; 1969,
$2,000; all during tenure on the United States Supreme Court, and
all while a Director on a Board of Directors that meets (and met)
biannually to determine the general policies of the Center, and
[[Page 2156]]
Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas, contrary to his
sworn obligation to refrain therefrom and in violation of the
Canons of Ethics, has repeatedly engaged in political activity
while an incumbent of the High Court, evidenced in part by his
authorization for the use of his name in a recent political fund-
raising letter, has continued public advocacy of the recognition of
Red China by the United States, has publicly criticized the
military posture of the United States, has authored for pay several
articles on subjects patently related to causes pending or to be
pending before the United States Supreme Court in Playboy Magazine
on such subjects as invasions of privacy and civil liberties, and
most recently has expressed in Brazil public criticism of United
States foreign policy while on a visit to Brazil in 1969, plainly
designed to undermine public confidence in South and Latin American
countries in the motives and objectives of the foreign policy of
the United States in Latin America, and
Whereas, in addition to the foregoing, and while a sitting
Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, the said William
Orville Douglas has charged, been paid and received $12,000 per
annum as President and Director of the Parvin Foundation from 1960
to 1969, which Foundation received substantial income from gambling
interests in the Freemont Casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as
the Flamingo at the same location, accompanied by innumerable
conflicts of interest and overlapping financial maneuvers
frequently involved in litigation the ultimate appeal from which
could only be to the Supreme Court of which the said William
Orville Douglas was and is a member, the tenure of the said William
Orville Douglas with the Parvin Foundation being reported to have
existed since 1960 in the capacity of President, and resulting in
the receipt by the said William Orville Douglas from the Parvin
Foundation of fees aggregating at least $85,000, all while a member
of the United States Supreme Court, and all while referring to
Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Parvin Foundation
while a Justice of the United States Supreme Court as a
``manufactured case'' intended to force him to leave the bench all
while he was still President and Director of the said Foundation
and was earning a $12,000 annual salary in those posts, a patent
conflict of interest, and
Whereas, it has been repeatedly alleged that the said William
Orville Douglas in his position as President of the Parvin
Foundation did in fact give the said Foundation tax advice, with
particular reference to matters known by the said William Orville
Douglas at the time to have been under investigation by the United
States Internal Revenue Service, all contrary to the basic legal
and judicial requirement that a Supreme Court Justice may not give
legal advice, and particularly not for a fee, and
Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas has, from time to
time over the past ten years, had dealings with, involved himself
with, and may actually have received fees and travel expenses,
either directly or indirectly, from known criminals, gamblers, and
gangsters or their representatives and associates, for services,
both within the United States and abroad, and
Whereas, the foregoing conduct on the part of the said William
Orville
[[Page 2157]]
Douglas while a Justice of the Supreme Court is incompatible with
his constitutional obligation to refrain from non-judicial activity
of a patently unethical nature, and
Whereas, the foregoing conduct and other activities on the part
of the said William Orville Douglas while a sitting Justice on the
United States Supreme Court, establishes that the said William
Orville Douglas in the conduct of his solemn judicial
responsibilities has become a prejudiced advocate of predetermined
position on matters in controversy or to become in controversy
before the High Court to the demonstrated detriment of American
jurisprudence, and
Whereas, from the foregoing, and without reference to whatever
additional relevant information may be developed through
investigation under oath, it appears that the said William Orville
Douglas, among other things, has sat in judgment on a case
involving a party from whom the said William Orville Douglas to his
knowledge received financial gain, as well as that the said William
Orville Douglas for personal financial gain, while a member of the
United States Supreme Court, has encouraged violence to alter the
present form of government of the United States of America, and has
received and accepted substantial financial compensation from
various sources for various duties incompatible with his judicial
position and constitutional obligation, and has publicly and
repeatedly, both orally and in writings, declared himself a
partisan on issues pending or likely to become pending before the
Court of which he is a member: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) The Speaker of the House shall within fourteen days
hereafter appoint a select committee of six Members of the House,
equally divided between the majority and the minority parties and
shall designate one member to serve as chairman, which select
committee shall proceed to investigate and determine whether
Associate Justice William Orville Douglas has committed high crimes
and misdemeanors as that phrase appears in the Constitution,
Article II, Section 4, or has, while an incumbent, failed to be of
the good behavior upon which his Commission as said Justice is
conditioned by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The select
committee shall report to the House the results of its
investigation, together with its recommendations on this resolution
for impeachment of the said William Orville Douglas not later than
ninety days following the designation of its full membership by the
Speaker.
(2) For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the
committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and
act during the present Congress at such times and places within the
United States whether the House is sitting, has recessed, or has
adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require by subpena or
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums,
papers, and documents as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued
under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any member
of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any person
designated by such chairman or member.
[[Page 2158]]
Parliamentarian's Note: On Apr. 24, 1970, Chairman William M.
Colmer, of Mississippi, of the Committee on Rules stated that pursuant
to the statement of Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, that the latter committee would hold
hearings and take action on the impeachment within 60 days, he would
not program for consideration by the Committee on Rules the resolutions
creating a select committee to study the charges of impeachment.
Sec. 14.15 A subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
investigated charges of impeachable offenses against Associate
Justice William O. Douglas and issued an interim report.
On June 20, 1970, the special subcommittee of the Committee on the
Judiciary on House Resolution 920, impeaching Associate Justice
Douglas, issued an interim report on the progress of its investigation
of the charges.(12) The creation of the subcommittee and
scope of its authority was set out on the first page of the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. First report by the special subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the
Committee on the Judiciary, committee print, 91st Cong; 2d
Sess., June 20, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Authority
On April 21, 1970, the Committee on the Judiciary adopted a
resolution to authorize the appointment of a Special Subcommittee
on H. Res. 920, a resolution impeaching William O. Douglas,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, of
high crimes and misdemeanors in office. Pursuant to this
resolution, the following members were appointed: Emanuel Celler
(New York), Chairman; Byron G. Rogers (Colorado); Jack Brooks
(Texas); William M. McCulloch (Ohio); and Edward Hutchinson
(Michigan).
The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 is appointed and
operates under the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule XI,
13(f) empowers the Committee on the Judiciary to act on all
proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, or other
matters relating to ``. . . Federal courts and judges.'' In the
91st Congress, Rule XI has been implemented by H. Res. 93, February
5, 1969. H. Res. 93 authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary,
acting as a whole or by subcommittee, to conduct full and complete
investigations and studies on the matters coming within its
jurisdiction, specifically ``. . . (4) relating to judicial
proceedings and the administration of Federal courts and personnel
thereof, including local courts in territories and possessions''.
H. Res. 93 empowers the Committee to issue subpenas, over the
signature of the Chairman of the Committee or any Member of the
Committee designated by him. Subpenas issued by
[[Page 2159]]
the Committee may be served by any person designated by the
Chairman or such designated Member.
On April 28, 1970, the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 held
its organization meeting, appointed staff, and adopted procedures
to be applied during the investigation. Although the power to issue
subpenas is available, and the Subcommittee is prepared to use
subpenas if necessary to carry out this investigation, thus far all
potential witnesses have been cooperative and it has not been
necessary to employ this investigatory tool. The Special
Subcommittee operates under procedures established in paragraph 27,
Rules of Committee Procedure, of Rule XI of the House of
Representatives. These procedures will be followed until additional
rules are adopted, which, on the basis of precedent in other
impeachment proceedings, are determined by the Special Subcommittee
to be appropriate.
The subcommittee held no hearings but gathered information on the
various charges contained in House Resolution 922. As stated in the
report, the subcommittee requested inspection of tax returns of Justice
Douglas. Pursuant to advice by the Internal Revenue Service that a
special resolution of the full committee would be required, as well as
an executive order by the President, the committee adopted the
following resolution on May 26, 1970:
Resolution for Special Subcommittee to Consider House Resolution
920
Resolved, That the Special Subcommittee to consider H. Res.
920, a resolution impeaching William O. Douglas, Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States, of high crimes and
misdemeanors in office, hereby is authorized and directed to obtain
and inspect from the Internal Revenue Service any and all materials
and information relevant to its investigation in the files of the
Internal Revenue Service, including tax returns, investigative
reports, or other documents, that the Special Subcommittee to
consider H. Res. 920 determines to be within the scope of H. Res.
920 and the various related resolutions that have been introduced
into the House of Representatives.
The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 is authorized to make
such requests to the Internal Revenue Service as the Subcommittee
determines to be appropriate, and the Subcommittee is authorized to
amend its requests to designate such additional persons, taxpayers,
tax returns, investigative reports, and other documents as the
Subcommittee determines to be appropriate during the course of this
investigation.
The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 may designate agents to
examine and receive information from the Internal Revenue Service.
This resolution specifically authorizes and directs the Special
Subcommittee to obtain and inspect from the Internal Revenue
Service the documents and other file materials described in the
letter dated May 12, 1970, from Chairman Emanuel Celler to the
Honorable Randolph Thrower. The tax returns for the following
taxpayers, and the returns for such additional taxpayers as the
Subcommittee subsequently may request, are included in this
resolution:
[[Page 2160]]
Associate Justice William O. Douglas, Supreme Court of the
United States, Washington, D. C. 20036.
Albert Parvin, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1790,
Century City, Calif. 90067.
Albert Parvin Foundation, c/o Arnold & Porter, 1229-19th
Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Box
4068, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93103.
Fund for the Republic, 136 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y.
10022.
Parvin-Dohrmann Corp., (Now Recrion Corp.), 120 N.
Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif. 90048.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Subcommittee report at pp. 18, 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President subsequently issued the following executive order:
Inspection of Tax Returns by the Committee on the Judiciary, House
of Representatives
By virtue of the authority vested in me by sections 55(a) and
1604(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended (26 U.S.C.
(1952 ea.) 55(a), 1604(c)), and by sections 6103(a) and 6106 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6103(a),
6106), it is hereby ordered that any income, excess-profits,
estate, gift, unemployment, or excise tax return, including all
reports, documents, or other factual data relating thereto, shall,
during the Ninety-first Congress, be open to inspection by the
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, or any duly
authorized subcommittee thereof, in connection with its
consideration of House Resolution 920, a resolution impeaching
William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States. Whenever a return is open to inspection by such
Committee or subcommittee, a copy thereof shall, upon request, be
furnished to such Committee or subcommittee. Such inspection shall
be in accordance and upon compliance with the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in Treasury Decisions
6132 and 6133, relating to the inspection of returns by committees
of the Congress, approved by the President on May 3,
1955.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Exec. Order No. 11535, issued June 12, 1970, subcommittee report at
p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subcommittee recommended in its first report that the Committee
on the Judiciary authorize an additional 60 days for the subcommittee
to complete its investigation.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Subcommittee report at pp. 25, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.16 In its final report on its investigation into charges of
impeachment against Associate Justice William O. Douglas, a
subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary concluded that a
federal judge could be impeached (1) for judicial conduct which is
criminal or which is a serious dereliction from public duty, and
(2) for nonjudicial conduct which is criminal; the subcommittee
recommended that the evidence
[[Page 2161]]
against Justice Douglas did not warrant impeachment.
On Sept. 17, 1970, the Special Subcommittee on House Resolution 920
of the Committee on the Judiciary, which subcommittee had been created
by the committee to investigate and report on charges of impeachment
against Associate Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court, submitted its
final report to the committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Final report by the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the
Committee on the Judiciary, committee print, Committee on the
Judiciary, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report cited the 60-day extension granted the subcommittee by
the Committee on the Judiciary on June 24, 1970, to complete its
investigation. The report summarized the further investigation
undertaken during the 60-day period and the additional requests for
information from the Department of State, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and various individuals.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The subcommittee issued on Aug. 11, 1970, a special subcommittee
publication entitled ``Legal Materials on Impeachment,''
containing briefs on the impeachment of Justice Douglas,
information from the Library of Congress, and relevant extracts
from Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report discussed concepts of impeachment and grounds for
impeachment of federal civil officers and of federal judges in
particular. The report concluded as follows on the grounds for
impeachment of a federal judge:
Reconciliation of the differences between the concept that a
judge has a right to his office during ``good behavior'' and the
concept that the legislature has a duty to remove him if his
conduct constitutes a ``misdemeanor'' is facilitated by
distinguishing conduct that occurs in connection with the exercise
of his judicial office from conduct that is non-judicially
connected. Such a distinction permits recognition that the content
of the word ``misdemeanor'' for conduct that occurs in the course
of exercise of the power of the judicial office includes a broader
spectrum of action than is the case when nonjudicial activities are
involved.
When such a distinction is made, the two concepts on the
necessity for judicial conduct to be criminal in nature to be
subject to impeachment becomes defined and may be reconciled under
the overriding requirement that to be a ``misdemeanor,'' and hence
impeachable, conduct must amount to a serious dereliction of an
obligation owed to society.
To facilitate exposition, the two concepts may be summarized as
follows:
Both concepts must satisfy the requirements of Article II,
Section 4, that the challenged activity must constitute ``. . .
Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
Both concepts would allow a judge to be impeached for acts
which occur in the exercise of judicial office that
[[Page 2162]]
(1) involve criminal conduct in violation of law, or (2) that
involve serious dereliction from public duty, but not
necessarily in violation of positive statutory law or forbidden
by the common law. . . . When such misbehavior occurs in
connection with the federal office, actual criminal conduct
should not be a requisite to impeachment of a judge or any
other federal official. While such conduct need not be
criminal, it nonetheless must be sufficiently serious to be
offenses [sic] against good morals and injurious to the social
body.
Both concepts would allow a judge to be impeached for
conduct not connected with the duties and responsibilities of
the judicial office which involve criminal acts in violation of
law.
The two concepts differ only with respect to impeachability
of judicial behavior not connected with the duties and
responsibilities of the judicial office. Concept 2 would define
``misdemeanor'' to permit impeachment for serious derelictions
of public duty but not necessarily violations of statutory or
common law.
In summary, an outline of the two concepts would look this way:
A judge may be impeached for ``. . . Treason, Bribery, or High
Crimes or Misdemeanors.''
A. Behavior, connected with judicial office or exercise of
judicial power.
Concept I
1. Criminal conduct.
2. Serious dereliction from public duty.
Concept II
1. Criminal conduct.
2. Serious dereliction from public duty.
B. Behavior not connected with the duties and responsibilities
of the judicial office.
Concept I
1. Criminal conduct.
Concept II
1. Criminal conduct.
2. Serious dereliction from public duty.
Chapter III, Disposition of Charges sets forth the Special
Subcommittee's analysis of the charges that involve activities of
Associate Justice William O. Douglas. Under this analysis it is not
necessary for the members of the Judiciary Committee to choose
between Concept I and II.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Special subcommittee report at pp. 37-39. For the entire portion of
the subcommittee report entitled ``Concepts of Impeachment'',
see Sec. 3.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subcommittee's recommendation to the full committee read as
follows:
IV. Recommendations of Special Subcommittee to Judiciary Committee
1. It is not necessary for the members of the Judiciary
Committee to take a position on either of the concepts of
impeachment that are discussed in Chapter II.
2. Intensive investigation of the Special Subcommittee has not
disclosed creditable evidence that would warrant preparation of
charges on any acceptable concept of an impeachable
offense.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Special subcommittee report at p. 349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Celler,
Byron G. Rogers,
Jack Brooks.
[[Page 2163]]
The report included minority views of Mr. Edward Hutchinson, of
Michigan, stating (1) that the portion of the report on concepts of
impeachment was mere dicta under the circumstances and (2) that the
investigation was incomplete and should have been further pursued, not
only as to impeachment for improper conduct but also as to other action
such as censure or official rebuke:
The report contains a chapter on the Concepts of Impeachment.
At the same time, it takes the position that it is unnecessary to
choose among the concepts mentioned because it finds no impeachable
offense under any. It is evident, therefore, that while a
discussion of the theory of impeachment is interesting, it is
unnecessary to a resolution of the case as the Subcommittee views
it. This chapter on Concepts is nothing more than dicta under the
circumstances. Certainly the Subcommittee should not even
indirectly narrow the power of the House to impeach through a
recitation of two or three theories and a very apparent choice of
one over the others, while at the same time asserting that no
choice is necessary. The Subcommittee's report adopts the view that
a Federal judge cannot be impeached unless he is found to have
committed a crime, or a serious indiscretion in his judicially
connected activities. Although it is purely dicta, inclusion of
this chapter in the report may be mischievous since it might
unjustifiably restrict the scope of further investigation.
The Subcommittee's report, which is called a final report,
addresses itself only to the question of impeachment. Admittedly no
investigation has been undertaken to determine whether some of the
Justice's activities, if not impeachable, seem so improper as to
merit congressional censure or other official criticism by the
House. There is considerable precedent for censure or other
official rebuke even though a particular activity, while improper,
was found not impeachable. This Subcommittee, however, did not
investigate with the thoroughness requisite for judging
questionable activities short of impeachment. The majority
concludes that it finds no grounds for impeachment and stops there.
In my opinion, it should have pursued the matter further.
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 351, 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on the Judiciary discontinued further proceedings
against Justice Douglas, and the matter was not further considered by
the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For remarks on the final subcommittee report and the Judiciary
Committee's failure to act on the final report, see 116 Cong.
Rec. 43147, 43148, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 21, 1970 (remarks
of Mr. David W. Dennis [Ind.]). For the minority views on the
report of Mr. Hutchinson, printed in the Record, see 116 Cong.
Rec. 43486, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 22, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges Against Vice President Agnew
Sec. 14.17 The Speaker laid before the House in the 93d Con
[[Page 2164]]
gress a communication from Vice President Spiro Agnew requesting
the House to initiate an investigation of charges which might
``assume the character of impeachable offenses,'' made against him
during an investigation by a U.S. Attorney, and offering the House
full cooperation in such a House investigation. No action was taken
on the request.
On Sept. 25, 1973,(2) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
laid before the House a communication from Vice President Agnew
requesting that the House investigate certain charges brought against
him by a U.S. Attorney:
The Speaker laid before the House the following communication
from the Vice President of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 119 Cong. Rec. 31368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vice President,
Washington, September 25, 1973.
Hon. Carl Albert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I respectfully request that the House of
Representatives undertake a full inquiry into the charges which
have apparently been made against me in the course of an
investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of
Maryland.
This request is made in the dual interests of preserving
the Constitutional stature of my Office and accomplishing my
personal vindication.
After the most careful study, my counsel have advised me
that the Constitution bars a criminal proceeding of any kind--
federal or state, county or town--against a President or Vice
President while he holds office.
Accordingly, I cannot acquiesce in any criminal proceeding
being lodged against me in Maryland or elsewhere. And I cannot
look to any such proceeding for vindication.
In these circumstances, I believe, it is the right and duty
of the Vice President to turn to the House. A closely parallel
precedent so suggests.
Almost a century and a half ago, Vice President Calhoun was
beset with charges of improper participation in the profits of
an Army contract made while he had been Secretary of War. On
December 29, 1826, he addressed to your Body a communication
whose eloquent language I can better quote than rival:
``An imperious sense of duty, and a sacred regard to the
honor of the station which I occupy, compel me to approach your
body in its high character of grand inquest of the nation.
``Charges have been made against me of the most serious
nature, and which, if true ought to degrade me from the high
station in which I have been placed by the choice of my fellow-
citizens, and to consign my name to perpetual infamy.
``In claiming the investigation of the House, I am sensible
that, under our free and happy institutions, the conduct of
public servants is a fair subject of the closest scrutiny and
the freest remarks, and that a firm and faithful discharge of
duty affords, ordinarily, ample protection against political
attacks; but, when such attacks assume the character of
impeachable offenses, and become, in some degree, official, by
being placed among the public records, an officer thus
assailed, however base the instrument used, if conscious of
inno
[[Page 2165]]
cence, can look for refuge only to the Hall of the immediate
Representatives of the People.''
Vice President Calhoun concluded his communication with a
``challenge'' to ``the freest investigation of the House, as
the only means effectively to repel this premeditated attack.''
Your Body responded at once by establishing a select committee,
which subpoenaed witnesses and documents, held exhaustive
hearings, and submitted a Report on February 13, 1827. The
Report, exonerating the Vice President of any wrongdoing, was
laid on the table (together with minority views even more
strongly in his favor) and the accusations were thereby put to
rest.
Like my predecessor Calhoun I am the subject of public
attacks that may ``assume the character of impeachable
offenses,'' and thus require investigation by the House as the
repository of ``the sole Power of Impeachment'' and the ``grand
inquest of the nation.'' No investigation in any other forum
could either substitute for the investigation by the House
contemplated by Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the
Constitution or lay to rest in a timely and definitive manner
the unfounded charges whose currency unavoidably jeopardizes
the functions of my Office.
The wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution in making the
House the only proper agency to investigate the conduct of a
President or Vice President has been borne out by recent
events. Since the Maryland investigation became a matter of
public knowledge some seven weeks ago, there has been a
constant and ever-broadening stream of rumors, accusations and
speculations aimed at me. I regret to say that the source, in
many instances, can have been only the prosecutors themselves.
The result has been so to foul the atmosphere that no grand
or petit jury could fairly consider this matter on the merits.
I therefore respectfully call upon the House to discharge
its Constitutional obligation.
I shall, of course, cooperate fully. As I have said before,
I have nothing to hide. I have directed my counsel to deliver
forthwith to the Clerk of the House all of my original records
of which copies have previously been furnished to the United
States Attorney. If there is any other way in which I can be of
aid, I am wholly at the disposal of the House.
I am confident that, like Vice President Calhoun, I shall
be vindicated by the House.
Respectfully yours
Spiro T. Agnew.
On Sept. 26, 1973,(3) Majority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill,
Jr., of Massachusetts, made an announcement in relation to Vice
President Agnew's request for an investigation into possible
impeachable offenses against him:
(Mr. O'Neill asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Id. at p. 31453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time merely to make an
announcement to the House that in the press conference the Speaker
made the following statement:
The Vice President's letter relates to matters before the
courts. In view of that fact, I, as Speaker, will not take any
action on the letter at this time.
The House took no action on the Vice President's request, although
[[Page 2166]]
resolutions were introduced on Sept. 26, 1973, calling for
investigation of the charges referred to by the Vice President, such
charges to be investigated by the Committee on the Judiciary or by a
select committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See H. Res. 566, H. Res. 567, H. Res. 569, H. Res. 570, referred to
the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The request cited by the Vice President in
his letter was made by Vice President John Calhoun in 1826 and is
discussed at 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1736. On that occasion, the
alleged charges related to the Vice President's former tenure as
Secretary of War. The communication was referred on motion to a select
committee which investigated the charges and subsequently reported to
the House that no impropriety had been found in the Vice President's
former conduct as a civil officer under the United States. The report
of the select committee was ordered to lie on the table and the House
took no further action thereon.
In 1873, however, the Committee on the Judiciary reported that a
civil officer, in that case Vice President Schuyler Colfax, could not
be impeached for offenses allegedly committed prior to his term of
office as a civil officer under the United States. The committee had
investigated whether Vice President Colfax had, during his prior term
as Speaker of the House, been involved in bribes of Members. As
reported in 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2510, the committee concluded as
follows in its report to the House:
But we are to consider, taking the harshest construction of the
evidence, whether the receipt of a bribe by a person who afterwards
becomes a civil officer of the United States, even while holding
another official position, is an act upon which an impeachment can
be grounded to subject him to removal from an office which he
afterwards holds. To elucidate this we first turn to the
precedents.
Your committee find that in all cases of impeachment or
attempted impeachment under our Constitution there is no instance
where the accusation was not in regard to an act done or omitted to
be done while the officer was in office. In every case it has been
heretofore considered material that the articles of impeachment
should allege in substance that, being such officer, and while in
the exercise of the duties of his office, the accused committed the
acts of alleged inculpation.
Vice President Agnew resigned his office as Vice President on Oct.
10, 1973. A resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 572), referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary on Oct. 1, 1973, and directing the Attorney
General to inform the
[[Page 2167]]
House of facts relating to Vice President Agnew's conduct, was
discharged by unanimous consent on Oct. 10, 1973, and laid on the
table.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 33687, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------