[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 78 - The Impeachment and Trial of Charles Swayne]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


              THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF CHARLES SWAYNE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Charges by a State legislature. Section 2469.
    2. Investigation by House committee. Sections 2470, 2471,
    3. Impeachment at the bar of the Senate and preparation of 
     articles. Sections 2472-2474.
    4. Appointment of managers and exhibition of articles. 
     Sections 2475, 2476.
    5. Organization of Senate for trial. Section 2477.
    6. Process issued. Section 2478.
    7. Return on summons and appearance of respondent. Section 
     2479.
    8. Respondent's answer. Sections 2480, 2481.
    9. Replication of the House. Section 2482.
   10. Presentation of testimony. Section 2483.
   11. Final arguments. Section 2484.
   12. Decision of the Senate. Section 2485.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the 
northern district of Florida.
  A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own 
responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial.
  Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to 
justify the House in ordering an investigation.
  The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne considered 
by a committee before ordering an investigation.
  Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the 
charges against Judge Swayne.
  On December 10, 1903,\1\ Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming 
the floor for a question of privilege, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by 
this House is a question of privilege. I have made a joint resolution 
adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the 
resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption. In 
pursuance of this joint resolution of the legislature of the State 
which I have the honor in part to represent, I impeach Charles Swayne, 
judge of the northern district of the State of Florida, of high crimes 
and misdemeanors; and the resolution which I have prepared in 
accordance with former proceedings of this House in like cases:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 37-1 Record, 
pp. 95, 103.
Sec. 2469
  ``Whereas the following joint resolution was adopted by the 
legislature of the State of Florida:

``Senate joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the 
       United States court for the northern district of Florida.
  ``Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Florida:
  ``Whereas Charles Swayne, United States district judge of the 
northern district of Florida, has so conducted himself and his court as 
to cause the people of the State to doubt his integrity and to believe 
that his official actions as judge are susceptible to corrupt 
influences and have been so corruptly influenced;
  ``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is guilty of a 
violation of section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
in that he does not reside in the district for which he was appointed 
and of which he is judge, but resides out of the State of Florida and 
in the State of Delaware or State of Pennsylvania, in open and defiant 
violation of said statute, and has not resided in the northern district 
of Florida, for which he was appointed, in ten years, and is constantly 
absent from said district, only making temporary visits for a pretense 
of discharging his official duties;
  ``Whereas the reputation of Charles Swayne as a corrupt judge is very 
injurious to the interests of the entire State of Florida, and his 
constant absence from his supposed district causes great sacrifice of 
their rights and annoyance and expense to litigants in his court;
  ``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is not only a 
corrupt judge, but that he is ignorant and incompetent, and that his 
judicial opinions do not command the respect or confidence of the 
people;
  ``Whereas the administration of the United States bankruptcy act in 
the court of said Charles Swayne and by his appointed referee has 
resulted in every instance in the waste of the assets of the alleged 
bankrupt by being absorbed in unnecessary costs, expenses, and 
allowances, to the great wrong and injury of creditors and others, 
until such administration is, in effect, legalized robbery and a stench 
in the nostrils of all good people:
  ``Be it resolved by the house of representatives of the State of 
Florida (the senate concurring), That our Senators and Representatives 
in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to 
cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper 
proceedings for the investigation of the proceedings of the United 
States circuit and districts court for the northern district of Florida 
by Charles Swayne as United States judge for the northern district of 
Florida, and of his acts and doings as such judge, to the end that he 
may be impeached and removed from such office.
  ``Be it resolved further, That the secretary of state of the State of 
Florida be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and 
Representative in the Congress of the United States, under the great 
seal of the State of Florida, a copy of this resolution and its 
unanimous adoption by the legislature of the State of Florida.
             ``STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
``UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Florida, ss:
  ``I, H. Clay Crawford, secretary of state of the State of Florida, 
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of senate 
joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the United 
States court for the northern district of Florida, passed by the 
legislature of Florida, session of 1903, and on file in this office.
  ``Given under my hand and the great seal of the State of Florida at 
Tallahassee, the capital, this the 7th day of September, A. D. 1903.
 [l. s.]
                         `` `H. Clay Crawford, Secretary of State.

  ``Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to 
inquire and report whether the action of this House is requisite 
concerning the official misconduct of Charles Swayne, judge of the 
United States district court for the northern district of Florida, and 
say whether said judge has held terms of his court as required by law; 
whether he has continuously and persistently absented himself from the 
said State, and whether his acts and omissions in his office of judge 
have been such as in any degree to deprive the people of that district 
of the benefits of the court therein to amount to a denial of justice; 
whether the said judge has been guilty of corrupt conduct in office, 
and whether his administration of his office has resulted in injury and 
wrong to litigants of his court.
                                                            Sec. 2470
  ``And in reference to this investigation the said committee is hereby 
authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, administer 
oaths, take testimony, and to employ a clerk and stenographer, if 
necessary, to send a subcommittee whenever and wherever it may be 
necessary to take testimony for the use of said committee. And the said 
subcommittee while so employed shall have the same powers in respect to 
obtaining testimony as are herein given to said Committee on the 
Judiciary, with a sergeant-at-arms, by himself or deputy, who shall 
serve the processes of said committee and subcommittee and execute its 
orders, and shall attend the sittings of the same as ordered and 
directed thereby. And that the expense of such investigation shall be 
paid out of the contingent fund of the House.''

  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, raised the question that the 
specifications made by the Member from Florida were not sufficiently 
specific; and after debate Mr. Lamar said:

  I charge this judge, first, with continued, persistent, and, if you 
please, pernicious absenteeism from his district; second, with corrupt 
official conduct, based upon several matters. * * * Third, I charge 
Judge Swayne with maladministration of judicial matters in his court, 
so much so as to embarrass bankrupts and annihilate the assets of 
litigants and others appearing within his jurisdiction

  Renewed objection being made that charges should be more definite and 
better substantiated in order to initiate proceedings so important, Mr. 
John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved that the resolution be referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  After debate the motion of Mr. Lacey was disagreed to, ayes 53, noes 
129.
  The resolution was then agreed to without division.
  2470. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The resolution impeaching Judge Swayne was reported from a divided 
committee.
  The committee investigating Judge Swayne took testimony in the 
Judge's district as well as in Washington.
  In the investigation of the conduct of Judge Swayne the accused was 
present in person with counsel and argued his own case.
  In investigating the conduct of Judge Swayne both complainants and 
accused were permitted to introduce sworn testimony.
  On March 25, 1904, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, from the 
Committee on the Judiciary, presented the report \1\ of that committee. 
The report says:

  Testimony was taken in Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville, 
Fla., and in the city of Washington upon several days. At all the 
hearings the Hon. Charles Swayne was present himself and by counsel, 
except at the last hearings in Washington, when he appeared in propria 
persona and argued his case before the subcommittee. All the witnesses 
asked for by the complainants and the respondent were sworn. Their 
evidence was reduced to writing and is presented with this report.
  Specifications of the particular matters covered by the general 
charges were furnished the committee by the complainants. They were as 
follows:
  Specification 1.--That the said Charles Swayne, judge of the United 
States court in and for the northern district of Florida, for ten 
years, while he has been such judge, was a nonresident of the State of 
Florida, and resided in the State of Delaware. That he never pretended 
to reside in Florida until May, 1903. That during said time of his 
nonresidence, by such nonresidence, he has caused great inconvenience, 
annoyance, injury, and expense to litigants in his court, not so much 
by failure to hold terms of court as by failing to be in reach for the 
disposition of admiralty and chancery matters and other matters arising 
between terms of court needing disposition.
  Specification 2.--That said Charles Swayne, as such judge, appointed 
one B. C. Tunison as United States commissioner; that it was charged 
that it was an improper appointment, and that testimony was offered to 
such effect before said appointment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Report No. 1905.
Sec. 2470
  Specification 3.--That the said Charles Swayne, as such judge, 
appointed and maintains one John Thomas Porter as United States 
commissioner at Marianna, but that said Porter does not reside at 
Marianna, but at Grand Ridge, 16 miles away, and is never at Marianna 
or at his office except when notified of an arrest, necessitating 
people having business with the United States commissioner, often at 
expense and inconvenience, to go to Grand Ridge, and necessitating the 
holding of prisoners often for a day or two, at their inconvenience, 
and in imprisonment at the expense of the Government, until said Porter 
sees fit to come to Marianna.
  The said Swayne, although there is great necessity for a commissioner 
at Marianna, has refused to appoint such.
  Specification 4.--That said Swayne, in the administration of his 
court, has been guilty of great partiality and favoritism to one B. C. 
Tunison, mentioned in specification No. 2, and a practicing attorney in 
said court. That so great and well known has this partiality and 
favoritism become that it has created the general impression that to 
succeed in that court before the said Swayne it is necessary to retain 
the said Tunison.
  Specification 5.--That said Swayne has been guilty of oppression and 
tyranny in his office, incorrectly and oppressively and without just 
cause imprisoning one W. C. O'Neal, one E. T. Davis, and one Simeon 
Belding upon feigned, fictitious, and false charges of contempt of his 
said court.
  Specification 6.--That said Charles Swayne has willfully, 
negligently, and corruptly maladministered bankruptcy cases in his 
court, to the extent that the assets of bankrupts have, in all or 
nearly all cases, been squandered and dissipated in paying 
extraordinary fees and expenses, and never paying any dividends to 
creditors.
  Specification 7.--That said Charles Swayne was guilty of oppression 
and tyranny in his office to one Charles Hoskins, upon an alleged 
contempt resulting in the suicide of the said Hoskins, and said alleged 
contempt proceedings being brought for the purpose of breaking down and 
injuring one W. R. Hoskins, who was charged in said court with 
involuntary bankruptcy, but who was defending and resisting such 
charge.
  Specification 8.--That said Swayne corruptly purchased a house and 
lot in the city of Pensacola while the said house and lot was in 
litigation in his court.
  Specification 9.--Ignorance and incompetency to hold said position. 
Under this specification many illustrations could be given, among them 
a case in which he took jurisdiction in admiralty in violation of the 
treaty between the United States and Sweden and Norway; and in one 
case, that of Sweet v. Owl Commercial Company, in which he charged the 
jury to exactly and diametrically conflicting theories of law.
  Specification 11.--That said Swayne, by reason of his absence from 
the State, failed to hold the term of court which should have been held 
at Tallahassee in the fall of the year 1902, during the months of 
November or December.
  Specification 12.--That the said Charles Swayne has been guilty of 
conduct unbecoming an upright judge, in that he has procured as 
indorsers on his note, for the purpose of borrowing money, attorneys 
and litigants having cases pending in his court.
  Specification 13.--That the said Charles Swayne has been guilty of 
maladministration in the affairs of the conduct of his office; that he 
has discharged people convicted of crime in his court. Illustration, 
case of Alonzo Love, convicted in the year of 1902, of perjury.

  The committee found that the evidence sustained the first, fourth, 
fifth, and seventh specifications, and concluded:

  The charges and specifications not covered by the foregoing findings 
were not proved by sufficient evidence to warrant action upon them.
  Upon the whole case it is plain that Judge Swayne has forfeited the 
respect and confidence of the bar of his court and of the people of his 
district who do business there. He has so conducted himself as to earn 
the reputation of being susceptible to the malign influence of a man of 
notoriously bad character. He has shown himself to be harsh, 
tyrannical, and oppressive, unmindful of the common rule of a just and 
upright judge. He has continuously and persistently violated the plain 
words of a statute of the United States, and subjected himself to 
punishment for the commission of a high misdemeanor. He has fined and 
imprisoned members of his bar for a constructive contempt without the 
authority of law and without a decent show of reason, either through 
inexcusable ignorance, a malicious intent to injure,
                                                            Sec. 2471
or a wanton disposition to exercise arbitrary power. He has condemned 
to a term of imprisonment in the county jail a reputable citizen of the 
State of Florida over whom he had no jurisdiction, who was guilty of no 
thought of a contempt of his court, for no offense against him or in 
the presence of the court, or ``in obstruction of any order, rule, 
command, or decree,'' and after the accused had purged himself on oath.
  For all those reasons Charles Swayne has been guilty of misbehavior 
in his office of judge and grossly violated the condition upon which he 
holds this honorable appointment. The honor of the judiciary, the 
orderly and decent administration of public justice, and the welfare of 
the people of the United States demand his impeachment and removal from 
the high place which his conduct has degraded.
  It is vitally necessary to maintain the confidence of the people in 
the judiciary. A weak executive or an inefficient or even dishonest 
legislative branch may exist, for a time at least, without serious 
injury to the perpetuity of our free institutions, but if the people 
lose faith in the judicial branch, if they become convinced that 
justice can not be had at the hands of the judges, the next step will 
be to take the administration of the law into their own hands and do 
justice according to the rule of the mob, which is anarchy, with which 
freedom can not coexist.
  The Committee on the Judiciary recommend the adoption of the 
following resolution:
  ``Resolved, That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached 
of high misdemeanor.''

  A minority of the committee composed of Messrs. J. N. Gillett, of 
California, Robert M. Nevin, of Ohio, D. S. Alexander, of New York, 
George A. Pearre, of Maryland, Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, and 
Richard W. Parker, of New Jersey, joined in minority views dissenting 
from the conclusions of the committee, and holding that the evidence 
did not justify impeachment.
  2471. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The impeachment of Judge Swayne was postponed to the next session of 
Congress for further investigation.
  In the second investigation Judge Swayne testified on his own behalf 
and was cross-examined.
  The rule as to the pertinency of evidence to the charges was enforced 
in the investigation of Judge Swayne's conduct.
  The closing arguments in the Swayne investigation were heard before 
the subcommittee which had taken the evidence.
  On April 7, 1904,\1\ Mr. Palmer offered as a question of privilege 
the following, which was agreed to without division:

  Resolved, That the consideration of the resolution (No. 274) reported 
by the Committee on the Judiciary in the matter of the impeachment of 
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in the 
northern district of Florida, be postponed until the 13th day of 
December, 1904, and that the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is 
hereby, authorized to take such further testimony as may be offered by 
the complainants or the respondent, and report the same to the House, 
with its conclusions thereon. The said committee and subcommittee shall 
have all the authority conferred by the original resolution (No. 86), 
and the further authority to take testimony when Congress is not in 
session.

  In accordance with this resolution a subcommittee composed of Messrs. 
Palmer, Clayton, and Gillett took testimony at various times from 
February 13 to November 29, 1904.\2\ In the course of these proceedings 
\3\ Judge Swayne, besides having
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 4431.
  \2\ See published evidence, ``Washington: Government Printing Office, 
1904.''
  \3\ See page 211 of testimony.
Sec. 2471
counsel, also appeared for himself, offered evidence, and cross-
examined witnesses; and Hon. B. S. Liddon appeared for the 
complainants. In the course of the testimony Judge Swayne made ``a 
statement to the stenographer,'' which is published with the evidence, 
and later it appears that ``Charles Swayne, having been recalled, 
testified as follows.'' \1\ After he had concluded his direct statement 
he was cross-examined by Mr. Liddon at length.\2\
  As to the character of the testimony permitted in the examination 
before the subcommittee, the chairman, Mr. Palmer, stated \3\ that no 
testimony would be received on irrelevant questions or on charges 
which, if proven, would not be considered grounds of impeachment. 
Hearsay testimony was, on objection, ruled out.\4\ On the question of 
relevancy one notable ruling was made.\5\ Judge Swayne was charged with 
having certified as expenses sums greater than he had actually 
expended. His counsel attempted to introduce documents to show that 
other Federal judges did likewise. This evidence was excluded by the 
subcommittee on the ground that it was not relevant to Judge Swayne's 
case. In the course of the proceedings a question arose as to whether 
the briefs or arguments should be heard before the subcommittee or 
before the whole Judiciary Committee.\6\ In fact, they were heard 
before the subcommittee.
  On December 9, 1904,\7\ Mr. Palmer reported from the Judiciary 
Committee the testimony, with the following resolution, adopted by a 
majority of the committee:

  Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary respectfully report to 
the House the testimony taken in the case of Charles Swayne since 
Congress adjourned, with the conclusion that in their opinion said 
testimony strengthens the case against the said Charles Swayne.

  The minority views, submitted by Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New 
Jersey, and concurred in by Messrs. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin; D. 
S. Alexander, of New York; Vespasian Warner, of Illinois; Charles E. 
Littlefield, of Maine; Lot Thomas, of Iowa; J. N. Gillett, of 
California, and George A. Pearre, of Maryland, contended that the 
additional evidence weakened rather than strengthened the case, except 
as to the charge as to false certificates of expenses of travel. On 
this point the minority say:

  Evidence as to the alleged practice of other judges in this respect 
was offered and excluded, and we think properly. It would have been 
competent for him, when a witness in his own behalf, to have stated why 
he made those certificates. As a witness he answered and explained 
every other charge. This charge he made no effort as a witness to 
answer or explain. The inference from the record, on general 
principles, is that the charge is admitted to be true and that he has 
no answer or explanation thereto. Whether a satisfactory explanation 
can be made we do not say. We must take the record as it stands.
  Upon this record, unanswered and unexplained, we are of the opinion 
that in this particular an impeachable offense has been made out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Pages 240, 578.
  \2\ Page 591.
  \3\ Page 7 of testimony; also p. 240.
  \4\ Pages 8, 46.
  \5\ Pages 433-435.
  \6\ Pages 242, 243.
  \7\ House Report No. 3021, third session Fifty-eighth Congress.
                                                            Sec. 2472
  2472. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Form of resolutions impeaching Judge Swayne and directing that the 
impeachment be carried to the bar of the Senate.
  The House decided that the articles impeaching Judge Swayne should be 
prepared by a select committee.
  Constitution of the committee to carry the Swayne impeachment to the 
Senate.
  The Speaker, in the committee to draw the articles in the Swayne 
case, gave minority representation to those opposed generally to the 
impeachment.
  On December 13, 1904,\1\ the reports were considered in the House, 
the pending resolution being:

  Resolved, That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached 
of high misdemeanor.

  At the conclusion of the debate, on motion of Mr. Palmer, the House 
agreed to the following amendment:

  Amend by striking out all after the word ``Resolved'' and inserting 
``That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States 
in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached of high 
crimes and misdemeanors.''

  The previous question was then ordered on the amendment and original 
resolution by a vote of ayes 198, noes 61. The amendment was then 
agreed to, and then the resolution as amended was agreed to without 
division.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, it was--

  Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to go to the Senate 
and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives and 
of all the people of the United States, to impeach Charles Swayne, 
judge of the district court of the United States for the northern 
district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and to 
acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time 
exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good 
the same; and that the committee do demand that the Senate take order 
for the appearance of said Charles Swayne to answer said impeachment.

  Mr. Palmer then offered \2\ the following:

  Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and 
report articles of impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the 
district court of the United States for the northern district of 
Florida, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.

  Mr. Palmer explained that this resolution was in accordance with all 
the precedents except that of the Belknap case, wherein the Judiciary 
Committee had framed the articles.
  Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, proposed this amendment:

  Strike out ``a committee of seven is appointed'' and insert ``the 
Committee on the Judiciary be empowered.''

  The question being taken, the amendment was disagreed to, ayes 113, 
noes 140. Then the original resolution was agreed to without division.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress; Record, pp. 214-249.
  \2\ House Journal, p. 51; Record, p. 248.
Sec. 2473
  On the same day \1\ the Speaker \2\ appointed the following committee 
to carry the impeachment to the bar of the Senate: Messrs. Henry W. 
Palmer, of Pennsylvania; John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin; J. N. Gillett, 
of California; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and David H. Smith, of 
Kentucky. All of these were members of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
two of them belonged to the minority party in the House, and two had 
signed the minority views which accompanied the report from the 
Judiciary Committee.
  On December 14,\3\ the Speaker announced the appointment of the 
following committee to prepare articles of impeachment: Messrs. Henry 
W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; J. N. Gillett, of California; Richard Wayne 
Parker, of New Jersey; Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine; Samuel L. 
Powers, of Massachusetts; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and David A. De 
Armond, of Missouri. Three of these gentlemen had signed the minority 
views on the question of impeachment. The minority party in the House 
was also represented by three members of the committee.
  2473. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Forms and ceremonies of presenting the Swayne impeachment in the 
Senate.
  On December 14,\4\ in the Senate, a message from the House of 
Representatives by Mr. W. J. Browning, its Chief Clerk, was delivered, 
as follows:

  Mr. President, I am directed by the House of Representatives to 
communicate to the Senate the following resolution:
  ``Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to go to the 
Senate, and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of 
Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach 
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States, for 
the northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in 
office, and to acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives 
will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him 
and make good the same, and that the committee do demand that the 
Senate take order for the appearance of said Charles Swayne to answer 
said impeachment.
  ``The Speaker announced the appointment of Mr. Palmer of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Jenkins of Wisconsin, Mr. Gillett of California, Mr. 
Clayton of Alabama, and Mr. Smith of Kentucky, members of said 
committee.''

  The Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms (B. W. Layton) announced the presence 
of the committee from the House of Representatives.
  The President pro tempore \5\ said:

  The Senate will receive the committee from the House of 
Representatives.

  The committee from the House of Representatives was escorted by the 
Sergeant-at-Arms (D. M. Ransdell) to the area in front of the Vice-
President's desk, and its chairman, Mr. Palmer, said:

  Mr. President, in obedience to the order of the House of 
Representatives we appear before you, and in the name of the House of 
Representatives and of all the people of the United States of America 
we do impeach Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United 
States for the northern district of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 51; Record, p. 249.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ House Journal, p. 55; Record, p. 277.
  \4\ Senate Journal, p. 38; Record, p. 257.
  \5\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 2473
Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we do further 
inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time 
exhibit articles of impeachment against him and make good the same. And 
in their name we demand that the Senate shall take order for the 
appearance of the said Charles Swayne to answer the said impeachment.

  The President pro tempore said:

  Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee of the House of 
Representatives, the Chair begs to assure you that the Senate will take 
proper order in the premises, notice of which will be given to the 
House.

  The committee of the House of Representatives thereupon retired from 
the Chamber.
  On the same day, in the Senate,\1\ Mr. Orville H. Platt, of 
Connecticut, presented the following resolution, which was agreed to:

  Resolved, That the message of the House of Representatives relating 
to the impeachment of Charles Swayne be referred to a select committee 
to consist of five Senators to be appointed by the President pro 
tempore.

  The President pro tempore thereupon appointed Messrs. Platt, of 
Connecticut; Clarence D. Clark, of Wyoming; Charles W. Fairbanks, of 
Indiana; Augustus A. Bacon, of Georgia, and Edmund W. Pettus, of 
Alabama.
  In the House of Representatives, on the same day,\2\ the committee 
appointed to go to the Senate and at the bar thereof and, in the name 
of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United 
States, to impeach Judge Charles Swayne, appeared at the bar of the 
House.
  Mr. Palmer being recognized, reported verbally:

  Mr. Speaker, in obedience to the order of the House, we proceeded to 
the bar of the Senate, and, in the name of this body and of all the 
people of the United States, we impeached, as we were directed to do, 
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for 
the northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in 
office, and we demanded that the Senate should take order to make him 
appear before that body to answer for the same; and announced that the 
House would soon present articles of impeachment and make them good, to 
which the response was: ``Order shall be taken.''

  On December 15,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Platt, from the select 
committee, reported the following, which was agreed to by the Senate:

  Whereas the House of Representatives, on the 14th day of December, 
1904, by five of its Members (Mr. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Jenkins, 
of Wisconsin; Mr. Gillett, of California; Mr. Clayton, of Alabama, and 
Mr. Smith, of Kentucky), at the bar of the Senate impeached Charles 
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for the 
northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in 
office, and informed the Senate that the House of Representatives will 
in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and 
make good the same; and likewise demanded that the senate take order 
for the appearance of the said Charles Swayne to answer the said 
impeachment: Therefore,
  Ordered, That the Senate will, according to its standing rule and 
orders in such cases provided, take proper order thereon (upon the 
presentation of the articles of impeachment), of which due notice shall 
be given to the House of Representatives.
  Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives 
herewith.

  On the same day,\4\ in the House, the message was received, and 
having been read, was ordered to lie on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 39; Record, p. 265.
  \2\ House Journal, p. 56; Record, p. 281.
  \3\ Senate Journal, p. 40; Record, pp. 295, 296.
  \4\ House Journal, p. 69; Record, p. 321.
Sec. 2474
  2474. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The articles impeaching Judge Swayne were reported from a divided 
committee and agreed to by a divided House.
  On January 10, 1905,\1\ Mr. Palmer, from the select committee 
appointed to prepare articles of impeachment, presented the report of 
the majority of that committee as follows:

  The select committee appointed to prepare and report articles of 
impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the 
United States for the northern district of Florida, appointed December 
13, 1904, submit the following report:
  That the evidence heretofore taken in the matter of the impeachment 
of Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in 
and for the northern district of Florida, sustains twelve articles of 
impeachment, which are submitted herewith, with the recommendation that 
they be adopted by the House and exhibited to the Senate. [Here 
followed the articles.]

  Messrs. Littlefield, Parker, and Gillett filed minority views. 
Messrs. Littlefield and Parker in their views said:

  The House must establish the truth of these articles, by competent 
testimony, beyond reasonable doubt.
  The only articles which, in our judgment, the record as it now stands 
would sustain are based upon the certificates of expenses. As to these 
it was claimed in the hearings that other judges have construed the law 
as it was construed by Judge Swayne, and evidence was offered to 
establish that claim and excluded.
  We dissent from all the other articles, and especially as to those 
based upon the contempt proceedings in the Davis, Belden, and O'Neal 
cases. These cases clearly involved willful and marked contempt of 
court, and demanded exemplary and summary punishment from any self-
respecting court.
  The charge as to nonresidence is not supported by such evidence as 
warrants the adoption of articles in that regard.
  The use of the private car, which is the proper subject of adverse 
criticism, taking into account the fact that there is no intimation or 
claim that any judicial act was influenced, or attempted to be 
influenced thereby, is not of such gravity as to justify impeachment 
proceedings therefor.
  The car incident occurred more than ten years ago, and no residence 
question has existed for more than four years. No statute of 
limitations can apply, but the great proceeding of impeachment is not 
to be used as to stale charges not affecting the moral character or the 
present fitness of the officer to perform his duty.

  Mr. Gillett concurred in these views except as to the certificates of 
expenses, saying:

  I concur in all that is said in the foregoing ``Views of the 
minority'' except as to the certificates for expenses. At the hearing 
before the committee Judge Swayne offered to prove the custom and 
practice of the Federal judges in making certificates for their 
reasonable expenses for travel and attendance when holding court out of 
their district, the purpose being to show a judicial construction of 
the statute under which these expenses were allowed. This offer was 
denied by the committee and an inquiry upon this subject shut off.
  Therefore, for this reason, the record is silent upon matters which, 
in my judgment, should have been submitted to the consideration of this 
House. The record is silent as to the custom and practice of other 
judges in this particular, as to the construction which they placed 
upon the statute, and as to the construction which the disbursing and 
auditing officers of the Government gave it.
  The intent with which Judge Swayne made these certificates is of 
controlling importance, and all of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the matter, the practice and customs of other judges, and 
the construction placed upon the statute by them and by the Government, 
if any, are and were proper subjects of inquiry. While the record is 
silent on these questions, for the reason above stated, still it 
appears from official records, some of which have been furnished to me 
by the Treasury Depart-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 115; Record, pp. 665-667; House Report, No. 
3477.
                                                            Sec. 2475
ment, that a majority of the district and circuit judges in five 
circuits, selected at random, make out certificates for $10 a day, and 
in two of these districts every judge made out such certificates,
  I am inclined to believe that where a practice has been so general 
these judges acted in good faith with an honest belief that a fair 
construction of the statute gave them $10 a day for an allowance for 
travel and attendance while attending court out of their district, and 
I also feel that this House would with great reluctance pass a 
resolution impeaching them all; and if not all, why one?
  On this article my mind is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt 
that Judge Swayne, in following a practice so well established by so 
many honorable men, committed a criminal offense for which he should 
either be prosecuted or impeached, and giving him the benefit of this 
doubt I can not consent to any impeachment on that ground.

  On January 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18,\1\ the articles were debated at 
length, and on the latter day the question was taken first on a motion 
of Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, to lay the first three 
articles on the table. This motion was disagreed to,\2\ yeas 159, nays 
167.
  Then the question was taken on agreeing to the first three articles 
(relating to the false certificates), and they were agreed to-yeas 165, 
nays 160.
  The question was next taken on the fourth and fifth articles, a 
division of the question being demanded so as to vote on those two 
articles separated from the remaining articles.
  Then, by unanimous consent, it was permitted that the House, by a 
single vote, should pass on two similar amendments which Mr. Marlin E. 
Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, proposed, the one to article 4 and the other 
to article 5. Mr. Olmsted explained the amendments as follows:

  The change which I propose is perhaps not very material; but it may 
be. He is charged in article 4 and again in article 5, as they now 
stand, with having appropriated to his own use, under a claim of right, 
the car of a certain railroad company and the provisions therein under 
the claim that, being in the hands of a receiver, he had a right to use 
them. Now, the facts are, according to the testimony of Judge Swayne 
himself and of Mr. Axtell, attorney for the receiver, that Judge Swayne 
did not appropriate the car, nor demand it, nor claim it as a right. It 
was the receiver's own suggestion. The receiver tendered Judge Swayne 
the car and the provisions therein, and Judge Swayne accepted them.

  The question being taken, Mr. Olmsted's amendments were disagreed to 
without division.

  Then, by yeas 162, nays 138, articles 4 and 5 were agreed to.
  Articles 6 and 7 were then agreed to, yeas 159, nays 136.
  Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11, were agreed to, without division.
  Also articles 12 and 13 were agreed to without division.
  2475. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Forms of resolutions authorizing the appointment of managers of the 
Swayne impeachment and directing the articles to be exhibited in the 
Senate.
  Constitution of the managers of the Swayne impeachment.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, the following resolutions were 
severally agreed to: \3\

  Resolved, That seven managers be appointed by the Speaker of this 
House to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the 
district court of the United States in and for the northern district of 
Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, pp. 754-764, 806-822, 925-950, 972-993, 1021-1058.
  \2\ House Journal, pp. 158-163; Record, pp. 1053-1058.
  \3\ Home Journal, pp. 162, 163; Record, p. 1058.
Sec. 2476
  Resolved, That the articles agreed to by this House to be exhibited 
in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States 
against Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United 
States in and for the northern district of Florida, in maintenance of 
their impeachment against him of high crimes and misdemeanors in office 
be carried to the Senate by the managers appointed to conduct said 
impeachment.

  On January 21,\1\ the Speaker announced the appointment of the 
following managers:
  Messrs. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Samuel L. Powers, of 
Massachusetts; Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania; James B. Perkins, of 
New York; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama; David A. De Armond, of 
Missouri, and David H. Smith, of Kentucky.
  Four of the managers belonged to the majority party in the House and 
three to the minority. All but two were members of the Judiciary 
Committee. The entire number were favorable to the impeachment, and all 
had voted for all the articles of impeachment so far as appeared by 
record votes, except Mr. Powers, who was absent, and Mr. Olmsted, who 
answered present on the roll call on articles 4 and 5. He voted for the 
other articles. Mr. Powers was of the committee which framed the 
articles, and joined in the report favorable to them.
  The managers having been appointed, Mr. Palmer offered this 
resolution, which was agreed to:

  Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that 
this House has appointed Mr. Palmer, Mr. Powers, of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Olmsted, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Clayton, Mr. De Armond, and Mr. Smith, of 
Kentucky, managers to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne, 
judge of the district court of the United States in and for the 
northern district of Florida, and have directed the said managers to 
carry to the Senate the articles agreed upon by this House to be 
exhibited for maintenance of their impeachment against said Charles 
Swayne, and that the Clerk of the House do go with said message.

  On the same day \2\ the message was transmitted to the Senate and 
received there. Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, it 
was

  Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that 
the Senate is ready to receive the managers appointed by the House for 
the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment against Charles 
Swayne, judge of the distaict court of the United States for the 
northern district of Florida, agreeably to the notice communicated to 
the Senate.

  On January 23,\3\ Mr. Palmer, in the House, claiming the floor for a 
matter of privilege, offered the following resolution, which was agreed 
to by the House:

  Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House in the matter of 
the impeachment of Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States 
in and for the northern district of Florida, be, and they are hereby, 
authorized to employ a clerk, stenographer, and messenger, and to incur 
such expense as may be necessary in the preparation and conduct of the 
case, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.

  2476. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Ceremonies of the exhibition of the articles impeaching Judge Swayne.
  The articles of impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne.
  Having exhibited in the Senate the articles impeaching Judge Swayne, 
the managers reported verbally to the House.
  On January 24 \4\ in the Senate, at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m. 
the managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 183; Record, p. 1202.
  \2\ Senate Journal, p. 108; Record, p. 1176.
  \3\ House Journal, p. 186; Record, p. 1246.
  \4\ Senate Journal, p. 119; Record, pp. 1281-1283.
                                                            Sec. 2476
of the impeachment, on the part of the House of Representatives, of 
Judge Charles Swayne appeared below the bar of the Senate, and the 
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms (Alonzo H. Stewart) announced their presence 
as follows:

  I have the honor to announce the managers on the part of the House of 
Representatives to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne, 
judge of the United States district court for the northern district of 
Florida.
  The President pro tempore. The managers on the part of the House will 
be received, and the Sergeant-at-Arms will assign them their seats.

  The managers were thereupon escorted by the Assistant Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate to the seats assigned to them in the area in front 
of the Chair.

  The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make 
proclamation.

  The Sergeant-at-Arms (D. M. Ransdell) made proclamation as follows:

  Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons will keep silence, on pain of 
imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the 
Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Charles 
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for the 
northern district of Florida.
  Mr. Manager Palmer. Mr. President.
  The President pro tempore. Mr. Manager.
  Mr. Manager Palmer. The managers on the part of the House of 
Representatives are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against 
Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in and for the 
northern district of Florida, as directed by the House, in the words 
and figures following: \1\
Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States 
                  of America, in the name of themselves and of all the 
                       people of the United States of America, against 
                  Charles Swayne, a judge of the United States, in and 
                  for the northern district of Florida, in maintenance 
                  and Support of their impeachment against him for high 
                                      crimes and misdemeanor in office.
  Article 1. That the said Charles Swayne, at Waco, in the State of 
Texas, on the 20th day of April, 1897, being then and there a United 
States district judge in and for the northern district of Florida, did 
then and there, as said judge, make and present to R. M. Love, then and 
there being the United States marshal in and for the northern district 
of Texas, a false claim against the Government of the United States in 
the sum of $230, then and there knowing said claim to be false, and for 
the purpose of obtaining payment of said false claim, did then and 
there as said judge, make and use a certain false certificate then and 
there knowing said certificate to be false, said certificate being in 
the words and figures following:
``United States of America, Northern District of Texas, ss:
  ``I, Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States for the 
northern district of Florida, do hereby certify that I was directed to 
and held court at the city of Waco, in the northern district of Texas, 
twenty-three days, commencing on the 20th day of April, 1897; also, 
that the time engaged in holding said court, and in going to and 
returning from the same, was twenty-three days, and that my reasonable 
expenses for travel and attendance amounted to the sum of two hundred 
and thirty dollars and ------ cents, which sum is justly due me for 
such attendance and travel.
                                          Chas. Swayne, Judge.    
                                         ``Waco, May 15, 1897.    
  ``Received of R. M. Love, United States marshal for the northern 
district of Texas, the sum of 230 dollars and no cents in full payment 
of the above account.
``$230.
                                             ``Chas. Swayne.''    
when in truth and in fact, as the said Charles Swayne then and there 
well knew, there was then and there justly due the said Swayne from the 
Government of the United States, and from said United States marshal a 
far less sum, whereby he has been guilty of a high crime and 
misdemeanor in his said office.
  Art. 2. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed, 
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his 
office, and while in the exercise of his office as judge, as aforesaid, 
the said Charles Swayne was entitled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The articles were enrolled on parchment, following the practice 
of the early trials. In the later trials of Johnson and Belknap the 
articles had been engrossed on ordinary white paper.
Sec. 2476
by law to be paid his reasonable expenses for travel and attendance 
when lawfully directed to hold court outside of the northern district 
of Florida, not to exceed $10 per diem, to be paid upon his certificate 
by the United States marshal for the district in which the court was 
held, and was forbidden by law to receive compensation for such 
services. Yet the said Charles Swayne, well knowing these provisions, 
falsely certified that his reasonable expenses for travel and 
attendance were $10 per diem while holding court at Tyler, Tex., 
twenty-four days commencing December 3, 1900, and seven days going to 
and returning from said Tyler, Tex., and received therefor from the 
Treasury of the United States, by the hand of John Grant, the United 
States marshal for the eastern district of Texas, the sum of $310, when 
the reasonable expenses incurred and paid by the said Charles Swayne 
for travel and attendance did not amount to the sum of $10 per diem.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself and was and is guilty of a high crime, to wit, the crime of 
obtaining money from the United States by a false pretense, and of a 
high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 3. That the said Charles Swayne having been duly appointed, 
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his 
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge as aforesaid 
was, entitled by law to be paid his reasonable expenses for travel and 
attendance when lawfully directed to hold court outside of the 
northerns district of Florida, not to exceed $10 per diem, to be paid 
upon his certificate by the United States marshal of the district in 
which the court was held, and was forbidden by law to receive any 
compensation for such services. Yet the said Charles Swayne, well 
knowing these provisions, falsely certified that his reasonable 
expenses for travel in going to and coming from and attendance were $10 
per diem while holding court at Tyler, Tex., thirty-five days from 
January 12, 1903, and six days going to and returning from said Tyler, 
Tex., and received therefor from the Treasury of the United States, by 
the hand of A. J. Houston, the United States marshal for the eastern 
district of Texas, the sum of $410, when the reasonable expenses of the 
said Charles Swayne incurred and paid by him during said period were 
much less than said sum.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself and was and is guilty of a high crime, to wit, obtaining money 
from the United States by a false pretense, and of a high misdemeanor 
in office.
  Art. 4. That the said Charles Swayne having been duly appointed, 
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his 
office, and while in the exercise of his office as judge as aforesaid 
heretofore, to wit, A. D. 1893, did unlawfully appropriate to his own 
use, without making compensation to the owner, a certain railroad car, 
belonging to the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, for 
the purpose of transporting himself, his family, and friends from 
Guyencourt, in the State of Delaware, to Jacksonville, Fla., the said 
railroad company being at the time in the possession of a receiver 
appointed by said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, on the petition 
of creditors.
  The said car was supplied with provisions by the said receiver, which 
were consumed by said Swayne and his friends, and was provided with a 
conductor or porter at the cost and expense of said railroad company, 
and with transportation over connecting lines. The expenses of the trip 
were paid by the said receiver out of the funds of the said 
Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, and the said Charles 
Swayne, acting as judge, allowed the credit claimed by the said 
receiver for and on account of the said expenditure as a part of the 
necessary expenses of operating said road. The said Charles Swayne, 
judge as aforesaid, used the said property without making compensation 
to the owner, and under a claim of right, for the reason that the same 
was in the hands of a receiver appointed by him.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, was and is 
guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in 
office.
  Art. 5. That the said Charles Swayne was duly appointed, 
commissioned, and confirmed as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, and entered upon the duties of said 
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge as aforesaid 
heretofore, to wit, A. D. 1893, did unlawfully appropriate to his own 
use, without making compensation to the owner, a certain railroad car 
belonging to the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company for 
the purpose of transporting himself, his family, and friends from 
Jacksonville, Fla., to California, said railroad company being at the 
time in the possession of a receiver appointed by the said Charles 
Swaye, judge as aforesaid, on the petition of creditors.
                                                            Sec. 2476
  The car was supplied with some provisions by the said receiver, which 
were consumed by the said Swayne and his friends, and it was provided 
with a porter at the cost and expense of the railroad company and also 
with transportation over connecting lines. The wages of said porter and 
the cost of said provisions were paid by the said receiver out of the 
funds of the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, and the 
said Charles Swayne, acting as judge as aforesaid, allowed the credits 
claimed by the said receiver for and on account of the said 
expenditures as a part of the necessary expenses of operating the said 
railroad. The said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, used the said 
property without making compensation to the owner under a claim of 
right, alleging that the same was in the hands of a receiver appointed 
by him and he therefore had a right to use the same.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, was and is 
guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 6. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed and 
confirmed, was commissioned district judge of the United States in and 
for the northern district of Florida on the 1st day of April, A. D. 
1890, to serve during good behavior, and thereafter, to wit, on the 22d 
day of April, A. D. 1890, took the oath of office and assumed the 
duties of his appointment, and established his residence at the city of 
St. Augustine, in the State of Florida, which was at that time within 
the said northern district. That subsequently, by an act of Congress 
approved the 23d of July, A. D. 1894, the boundaries of the said 
northern district of Florida were changed, and the city of St. 
Augustine and contiguous territory were transferred to the southern 
district of Florida; whereupon it became and was the duty of the said 
Charles Swayne to change his residence and reside in the northern 
district of Florida and to comply with the five hundred and fifty-first 
section of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides 
that--
  ``A district judge shall be appointed for each district, except in 
cases hereinafter provided. Every judge shall reside in the district 
for which he is appointed, and for offending against this provision 
shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.''
  Nevertheless the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, did not 
acquire a residence, and did not, within the intent and meaning of said 
act, reside in his said district, to wit, the northern district of 
Florida, from the 23d day of July, A. D. 1894, to the 1st day of 
October, A. D. 1900, a period of about six years.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, willfully and 
knowingly violated the aforesaid law and was and is guilty of a high 
misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 7. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed and 
confirmed, was commissioned district judge of the United States in and 
for the northern district of Florida on the 1st day of April, A. D. 
1890, to serve during good behavior, and thereafter, to wit, on the 22d 
day of April, A. D. 1890, took the oath of office and assumed the 
duties of his appointment, and established his residence at the city of 
St. Augustine, in the State of Florida, which was at that time within 
the said northern district. That subsequently, by an act of Congress of 
the United States approved the 23d day of July, A. D. 1894, the 
boundaries of the said northern district of Florida were changed, and 
the city of St. Augustine, with the contiguous territory, was 
transferred to the southern district of Florida, whereupon it became 
and was the duty of the said Charles Swayne to change his residence and 
reside in the northern district of Florida, as defined by said act of 
Congress, and to comply with section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the 
United States, which provides that--
  ``A district judge shall be appointed for each district, except in 
cases hereinafter provided. Every judge shall reside in the district 
for which he is appointed, and for offending against this provision 
shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.''
  Nevertheless, the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, totally 
disregarding his duty as aforesaid, did not acquire a residence, and 
within the intent and meaning of said act did not reside in his said 
district, to wit, the northern district of Florida, from the 23d day of 
July, A. D. 1894, to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1903, a period of 
about nine years.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, willfully and 
knowingly violated the aforesaid law, and was and is guilty of a high 
misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 8. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed, 
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon 
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as 
judge, as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of 
a circuit court of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 12th 
day of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of 
Escambia, in the State of Florida,
Sec. 2476
did maliciously and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt of court 
and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit to prison for a period of ten 
days E. T. Davis, an attorney and counselor at law, for an alleged 
contempt of the circuit court of the United States.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself in his office of judge, and was and is guilty of an abuse of 
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 9. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed, 
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon 
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as 
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of a 
circuit court of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day 
of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of 
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge 
guilty of a contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit 
to prison for a period of ten days E. T. Davis, an attorney and 
counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit court of the 
United States.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself in his office of judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of 
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 10. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed, 
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon 
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as 
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of a 
circuit court of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day 
of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of 
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did maliciously and unlawfully 
adjudge guilty of a contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon 
and commit to prison for a period of ten days Simeon Belden, an 
attorney and counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit 
court of the United States.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself in his office of judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of 
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 11. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed, 
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon 
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as 
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a circuit 
judge of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12thdayof 
November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of 
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge 
guilty of contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit 
to prison for a period of ten days Simeon Belden, an attorney and 
counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit court of the 
United States.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swane, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself in his office as judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of 
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
  Art. 12. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed, 
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his 
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge heretofore, to 
wit, on the 9th day of December, A. D. 1902, at Pensacola, in the 
county of Escambia, in the State of Florida, did unlawfully and 
knowingly adjudge guilty of contempt and did commit to prison for the 
period of sixty days one W.C. O'Neal, for an alleged contempt of the 
district court of the United States for the northern district of 
Florida.
  Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved 
himself in his office of judge, as aforesaid, and was and is guilty of 
an abuse of judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
  And the House of Representatives by protestation, saving to 
themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further 
articles of accusation or impeachment against the said Charles Swayne, 
judge of the United States court for the northern district of Florida, 
and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the 
articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the 
same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article or 
accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case 
shall require, do demand that the said Charles Swayne may be put to 
answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged 
against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and 
judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and 
justice.
                                                J.G. Cannon,      
                       Speaker of the Home of Representatives.    
 Attest:
 A. McDowell, Clerk.
                                                            Sec. 2477
  The articles of impeachment were handed to the Secretary of the 
Senate.

  The President pro tempore. The Senate will take proper order in the 
matter of the impeachment of Judge Swayne, and communicate to the House 
of Representatives its action.

  The managers thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.
  Having returned to the House,\1\ the managers appeared at the bar, 
and Mr. Palmer reported orally:

  Mr. Speaker, the managers of impeachment beg leave to report to the 
House that the articles of impeachment prepared by the House of 
Representatives against Charles Swayne, district judge of the United 
States in and for the northern district of Florida, have been exhibited 
and read to the Senate, and the Presiding Officer of that body stated 
to the managers that the Senate would take order in the premises, due 
notice of which would be given to the House of Representatives.\2\

  2477. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The organization of the Senate for the Swayne impeachment trial.
  The oath to the Senators for the Swayne trial was administered by the 
Chief Justice.
  At the request of the President pro tempore the Senate elected a 
Presiding Officer for the Swayne impeachment trial.
  The Senate being organized for the Swayne impeachment, the House was 
notified by message.
  In the Senate, after the retirement of the managers, Mr. Platt, of 
Connecticut, offered the following resolutions, which were severally 
agreed to: \3\
  Ordered, That the articles of impeachment presented this day by the 
House of Representatives be printed for the use of the Senate.
  Ordered, That at 2 o'clock this afternoon the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the articles of impeachment of Charles Swayne, 
judge of the United States district court for the northern district of 
Florida, presented this day.
  Ordered, That a committee of two Senators be appointed by the Chair 
to wait upon the Chief Justice of the United States and invite him to 
attend in the Senate Chamber at 2 o'clock this day, to administer to 
Senators the oath required by the Constitution, in the matter of the 
impeachment of Charles Swayne, or in case of his inability to attend, 
any one of the associate justices.

  In accordance with the last resolution, Messrs. Charles W. Fairbanks, 
of Indiana, and Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, were appointed as the 
committee.
  Later, on the same day, in the Senate,\4\ the President pro tempore 
\5\ requested that he be relieved of the duty of presiding at the 
trial. Thereupon, Mr. John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, offered this 
resolution, which was agreed to:

  Resolved, That in view of the statement just made to the Senate by 
the President pro tempore of his inability, because of recent illness, 
to discharge the duties of his office, other than those involved in 
presiding over the Senate in legislative and executive session, the 
Hon. Orville H. Platt, Senator from the State of Connecticut, be, and 
he is hereby, appointed presiding officer on the trial of the 
impeachment of Charle Swayne, district judge of the United States for 
the northern district of Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 195; Record, p. 1310.
  \2\ The House itself did not attend its managers to the Senate on 
this occasion or at any other time during the trial.
  \3\ Senate Journal, p. 121; Record, p. 1283.
  \4\ Senate Journal, p. 121; Record, p. 1289.
  \5\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 2478
  A message announcing this action was transmitted to the House.\1\
  At 2 o'clock p.m., on motion of Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, Rule III 
of the Senate, sitting for impeachment trials, providing that the 
presiding officer should administer the oath, was suspended.\2\
  Then \3\ the presence of the Chief Justice of the United States, Hon. 
Melville W. Fuller, was announced by the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms.
  The Chief Justice entered the Senate Chamber, escorted by Mr. 
Fairbanks and Mr. Bacon, the committee appointed for the purpose, and 
was conducted by them to a seat by the side of the President pro 
tempore.

  Mr. Fairbanks. Mr. President, the committee appointed by the Senate 
to wait upon the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States and request him to administer to Senators the oath required by 
the Constitution in the matter of the impeachment of Judge Charles 
Swayne report that they have discharged that duty. The Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court, complying with the request of the Senate, is now 
present in the Senate and ready to administer the oath required to be 
administered to the members of the Senate sitting in the trial of 
impeachments.

  The Chief Justice administered the oath to the President pro tempore 
as follows:

  You do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of 
the impeachment of Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the 
United States for the northern district of Florida, now pending, you 
will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So 
help you God.
  The President pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut will please 
present himself as Presiding Officer of the Senate while in court and 
take the necessary oath.

  Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, advanced to the Vice-President's desk, and 
the oath was administered to him by the Chief Justice.

  The President pro tempore. The Secretary will call the roll, and as 
their names axe called Senators will present themselves at the desk in 
groups of ten, and the oath will be administered to them.

  The oath having been administered to all the Senators present, Mr. 
Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon took the chair, and announced:

  Senators, the Senate is now sitting for the trial of the impeachment 
of Charles Swayne, judge of the United States district court in and for 
the northern district of Florida.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, the 
following resolution was agreed to:

  Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that 
the Senate is now organized for the trial of articles of impeachment 
against Charles Swayne, judge of the United States district court for 
the northern district of Florida, and is ready to receive the managers 
on the part of the House at its bar.

  This message was delivered in the House soon after.\4\
  2478. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Ceremonies of demanding that process issue in the Swayne impeachment.
  The Senate having ordered, on demand of the managers, that process 
issue against Judge Swayne, the managers returned and reported verbally 
to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 195; Record, p. 1312.
  \2\ The Senate had overlooked the law relating to this subject.
  \3\ Senate Journal, pp. 122, 346; Record, pp. 1289-1290.
  \4\ House Journal, p. 185; Record, p. 1310.
                                                            Sec. 2479
  Then, on the same day,\1\ in the Senate, at 2 o'clock and 27 minutes 
p. m., the managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of 
Representatives appeared at the bar and their presence was announced by 
the Sergeant-at-Arms.

  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will conduct the managers 
to the seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.

  The managers were conducted to the seats assigned them within the 
space in front of the Secretary's desk.

  The Presiding Officer. Gentlemen managers, the Senate is now 
organized for the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, United 
States judge in and for the northern district of Florida.

  Mr. Manager Palmer rose and said:

  Mr. President, we are instructed by the House of Representatives, as 
its managers, to demand that the Senate shall issue process against 
Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in and for the 
northern district of Florida, that he answer at the bar of the Senate 
the articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited by the House of 
Representatives through its managers.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, the following resolutions were 
severally agreed to:

  Ordered, That a summons be issued, as required by the rules of 
procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting for the trial of 
impeachment of Charles Swayne, returnable on Friday, the 27th day of 
the present month, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.
  Ordered, That the Senate, sitting for the trial of impeachment of 
Charles Swayne, adjourn until Friday, the 27th instant, at 1 o'clock in 
the afternoon.

  The Presiding Officer then said:

  The order having been agreed to, the Senate, sitting for the trial of 
the impeachment, stands adjourned until 1 o'clock on Friday, the 27th 
instant. The Senate will resume its legislative session.

  Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon vacated the chair, which was 
resumed by the President pro tempore.
  On January 26,\2\ in the House, Mr. Palmer, on behalf of the 
managers, reported orally:

  Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to report on behalf of the managers in 
the matter of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, district judge of the 
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, that the 
Senate has organized for the trial of the impeachment; that in the name 
of the House of Representatives and in behalf of all the people of the 
United States, the managers have demanded of the Senate that process be 
issued against Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, to answer to the 
articles hereinbefore exhibited against him at the bar of the Senate; 
and that the Senate has advised us that process will be issued against 
him in that behalf returnable on the 27th instant, at 1 o'clock p.m.

  2479. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Proceedings on the return of the writ of summons in the Swayne 
impeachment.
  In response to the writ of summons, Judge Swayne entered appearance 
by his counsel.
  In the Swayne impeachment, in response to the motion of respondent's 
counsel, the Senate granted time after the appearance to present the 
answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 346; Record, p. 1290.
  \2\ House Journal, p. 205; Record, p. 1415.
Sec. 2479
  The managers and respondent in the Swayne case were directed to 
furnish a list of their witnesses to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the 
Senate.
  The oath to Senators in the Swayne impeachment trial was administered 
by the Presiding Officer after the organization was completed.
  On January 27,\1\ in the Senate, the President pro tempore said:

  The hour of 1 o'clock, to which the Senate sitting as a court in the 
impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne adjourned, has arrived. Will the 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] please take the chair?

  Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon took the chair as Presiding 
Officer.

  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make the opening 
proclamation.
  The Sergeant-at-Arms. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are 
commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of 
the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of 
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Charles 
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in and for the 
northern district of Florida.
  The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now call the names of those 
Senators who have not been sworn, and such of those Senators as are 
present in the Chamber will, as their names are called, advance to the 
desk and take the oath.

  The Secretary called the names of the Senators who had not been 
heretofore sworn, whereupon Senators Blackburn, Depew, Dryden, Knox, 
and McLaurin advanced to the area in front of the Secretary's desk, and 
the oath was administered to them by the Presiding Officer.\2\
  Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, then offered this resolution, 
which was agreed to, as follows:

  Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that 
the Senate is sitting in its Chamber and ready to proceed with the 
trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne.\3\
  At 1 o'clock and 7 minutes p. m. the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms 
announced the managers on the part of the House of Representatives.

  The Presiding Officer. The managers will be admitted and conducted to 
the seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.

  The managers were conducted to seats provided in the space in front 
of the Secretary's desk on the left of the Chair, namely: Hon. Henry W. 
Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania; Hon. 
James B. Perkins, of New York; Hon. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama; Hon. 
David A. De Armond, of Missouri, and Hon. David H. Smith, of Kentucky.
  At 1 o'clock and 14 minutes p. m. Hon. Anthony Higgins and Hon. John 
M. Thurston, counsel for the respondent, Charles Swayne, entered the 
Senate Chamber and were conducted to the seats assigned them in the 
space in front of the Secretary's desk on the right of the Chair.

  The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will read the minutes of the 
proceedings of the last session of the Senate while sitting in the 
trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne.

  The Secretary read the Journal of proceedings of the Senate, sitting 
for the trial of the impeachment, of Tuesday, January 24, 1905.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 346; Record, pp. 1449-1451.
  \2\ The House managers called the attention of the Senate to the law 
permitting the Presiding Officer to administer the oath.
  \3\ This message was duly received in the House, Record, p. 1479.
                                                            Sec. 2479
  The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now read the return of the 
Sergeant-at-Arms to the summons directed to be served.

  The Secretary read the following return appended to the writ of 
summons:

  The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to Charles Swayne, and the 
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the said 
Charles Swayne by delivery to and leaving with him true and attested 
copies of the same at 1215 Tatnall street, Wilmington, Del., the 
residence of Henry G. Swayne, on Tuesday, the 24th day of January, 
1905, at 7 o'clock and 45 minutes in the afternoon of that day.
                                     Daniel M. Ransdell,          
                        Sergeant-at-Arms United States Senate.    

  The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now administer to the 
Sergeant-at-Arms an oath in support of the truth of his return.

  The Secretary (Mr. Charles G. Bennett) administered the following 
oath to the Sergeant-at-Arms:

  You, Daniel M. Ransdell, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United 
States, do solemnly swear that the return made by you upon the process 
issued on the 24th day of January, 1905, by the Senate of the United 
States against Charles Swayne, is truly made, and that you have 
performed such service as therein described: So help you God.
  The Sergeant-at-Arms. I do so swear.
  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.
  The Sergeant-at-Arms. Charles Swayne, Charles Swayne, Charles Swayne, 
judge of the district court of the United States for the northern 
district of Florida: Appear and answer to the articles of impeachment 
exhibited by the House of Representatives against you.
  Mr. Higgins. Mr. President, on behalf of the respondent, Charles 
Swayne, I beg to enter the following appearance:
To the honorable the Senate of the United States, sitting as a Court of 
                                                           Impeachment:
  I, Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States 
in and for the northern district of Florida, now present in the city of 
Washington, having been served with a summons to be in the city of 
Washington on the 27th day of January, 1905, at 1 o'clock afternoon, to 
answer certain articles of impeachment presented against me by the 
honorable the House of Representatives of the United States, do hereby 
enter my appearance by my counsel, Anthony Higgins and John M. 
Thurston, who have my warrant and authority therefor, and who are 
instructed by me to ask this court for a reasonable time for the 
preparation of my answer to said articles.
                                               Charles Swayne.    
  Dated at Washington, D. C., this 27th day of January, A. D. 1905.
  I ask this be filed, and I submit a copy for the managers.
  The Presiding Officer. It will be placed on file.
  Mr. Thurston. On behalf of the respondent we make the following 
motion:

In the Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of impeachment. 
                  The United States of America v. Charles Swayne. Upon 
                     articles of impeachment presented by the House of 
                       Representatives of the United States of America.
  The respondent, by his counsel, now comes and moves the court to 
grant him the period of seven days in which to prepare and present his 
answer to the articles of impeachment presented against him herein.

                                              Anthony Higgins.    
                                             John M. Thurston.    
  Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, it was

  Ordered, That the respondent present his answer to the articles of 
impeachment at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes post meridian on the 3d day of 
February next.

  Also, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, at the suggestion of the managers, 
it was

  Ordered, That lists of witnesses be furnished the Sergeant-at-Arms by 
the managers and the respondent, who shall be subpoenaed by him to 
appear on the 10th day of February, at 1 o'ciock post meridian.
Sec. 2480
  A proposition of the managers that the trial proceed on the 13th of 
February was objected to by counsel for respondent, who suggested the 
10th of February instead, and it was not pressed.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, the Senate, sitting for the trial 
of the impeachment, adjourned until Friday, February 3, 1905, at 12.30 
o'clock p. m.
  The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the 
respondent withdrew from the Chamber.
  The President pro tempore resumed the Chair.
  2480. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Forms and ceremonies in the Senate at the session for receiving 
respondent's answer in the Swayne case.
  Proclamation of the Sergeant-at-Arms at opening of session of the 
Senate sitting for the Swayne impeachment trial.
  At the presentation of the answer in the Swayne case the respondent 
was represented by his counsel.
  Rule of the Senate in the Swayne trial for submitting of requests or 
applications by managers or counsel.
  Rule governing the Senators in the Swayne trial as to colloquys and 
questions.
  On February 3,\1\ in the Senate,

  The President pro tempore (at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.). The 
hour has arrived to which the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment 
adjourned, and the Senator from Connecticut will please take the chair.

  Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, assumed the chair.

  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Platt, of Connecticut). The Senate is now 
sitting for the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, a judge of 
the United States in and for the northern district of Florida. The 
Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.

  The Sergeant-at-Arms made proclamation as follows:

  Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silence, 
on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is 
sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the 
House of Representatives of the United States against Charles Swayne, 
judge of the district court of the United States in and for the 
northern district of Florida.

  The oath was then administered to certain Senators not previously 
sworn.

  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will notify the managers, 
if they are in waiting, that the Senate is ready to proceed.

  At 12 o'clock and 32 minutes p. m. the managers on the part of the 
House of Representatives were announced, and they were conducted by the 
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms to the seats assigned them in the area in 
front of the Secretary's desk.

  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will also notify the 
counsel for the respondent.

  Mr. Anthony Higgins and Mr. John M. Thurston, counsel for the 
respondent, entered the Chamber and were assigned to the seats provided 
for them in the area in front of the Secretary's desk.

  The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the proceedings of the last 
session of the Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of 
Charles Swayne will now be read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 347; Record, pp. 1818-1832.
                                                            Sec. 2481
  The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting as a court on 
Friday, January 27, 1905, was read and approved.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, it 
was--

  Ordered, That in all matters relating to the procedure of the Senate 
sitting in the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, judge of the 
district court of the United States in and for the northern district of 
Florida, whether as to form or otherwise, the managers on the part of 
the House, or the counsel representing the respondent, may submit a 
request or application orally to the Presiding Officer, or, if required 
by him or requested by any Senator, shall submit the same in writing.
  In all matters relating immediately to the trial, such as the 
admission, rejection, or striking out of evidence, or other questions 
usually arising in the trial of causes in courts of justice, if the 
managers or counsel for the respondent desire to make any application, 
request, or objection, the same shall be addressed directly to the 
Presiding Officer and not otherwise.
  It shall not be in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy, or to 
address questions either to the managers on the part of the House or 
the counsel for the respondent, nor shall it be in order for Senators 
to address each other, but they shall address their remarks directly to 
the Presiding Officer.

  2481. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The answer of Judge Swayne to the articles of impeachment.
  Judge Swayne's answer was signed by himself and his counsel.
  The answer of Judge Swayne as to the first seven articles raised a 
question as to the jurisdiction of the Senate to try the charges.
  Then Mr. Thurston, of counsel for the respondent, said:

  Mr. President, counsel for the respondent now come, and for answer of 
said Charles Swayne under impeachment herein say:
  And the said Charles Swayne, named in said articles of impeachment, 
comes before the honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a 
court of impeachment, and says that this honorable court ought not to 
have or take further cognizance of the first of said articles of 
impeachment so exhibited and presented against him, because, he says, 
the facts set forth in said first article do not, if true, constitute 
an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as defined in the 
Constitution of the United States.
  And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the 
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of 
impeachment, as to said first article, the said respondent, saving to 
himself all advantages of exception to said first article, for answer 
thereto saith:
  He admits that on the 20th day of April, 1897, at Waco, in the State 
of Texas, acting as United States judge in and for the northern 
district of Florida, he made and presented to R. N. Love, the United 
States marshal in and for the northern district of Texas, the 
certificate in writing as set forth in the said first article, and did 
then and there receive from the said R. N. Love, United States marshal 
as aforesaid, the sum of $230 in full payment of the account certified 
to as aforesaid, and the respondent says that he then and there 
believed, and still believes and insists, that, under the true meaning 
and intent of the statutes of the United States allowing the expenses 
of a district judge of the United States for travel and expenses while 
holding court outside of his own district, the said claim was just and 
in strict accordance with the provisions of the law of Congress in that 
respect enacted; and he denies that he then and there knew or believed 
said claim to be false, as set forth in said article; and he denies 
that he signed and presented the said certificate for the purpose of 
obtaining payment of any false claim; and he denies that he then and 
there made and used a false certificate knowing or believing said 
certificate to be false. [Etc., specifying at length.]
  * * * And respondent says that he attaches to this, his answer to the 
said article 1, copies of certificates of the honorable the Secretary 
of the Treasury, marked, respectively, Exhibits A et seq., and asks 
that the same be accepted and taken as a part of this his answer to the 
said article 1. * * *

  These exhibits were attached, not at the end of the answer, but at 
the end of article first.
  To articles second and third, which related to the offense set forth 
in article 1, answer was made in similar form.
Sec. 2481
  As to article 4, the answer says:

  And the said Charles Swayne, named in the articles of impeachment, 
says that this honorable court ought not to have or take further 
cognizance of the fourth of said articles of impeachment so exhibited 
and presented against him, because, he says, the facts set forth in the 
said fourth article do not, if true, constitute an impeachable high 
crime and misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United 
States.
  And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the 
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of 
impeachment, as to said fourth article, the said respondent, saving to 
himself all advantages of exception to said fourth article, for answer 
thereto saith:
  He admits that he was duly appointed, confirmed, and commissioned as 
a district judge of the United States in and for the northern district 
of Florida, and that he had entered upon the duties of his office prior 
to 1893 and had continued in the performance of the duties and in the 
exercise of his office of judge up to the present time.
  He denies that at the time specified in said article 4, to wit, A. D. 
1893, he did unlawfully appropriate to his own use, without making 
compensation to the owner, a certain railway car belonging to the 
Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, for the purposes 
stated in said article 4, or for any other purpose or purposes 
whatsoever; and as to the true facts of the transaction referred to in 
said article 4, he says, etc.

  To article 5, which related to the same offense as article 4, a 
similar answer was given.
  As to article 6 the answer was:

  And the said Charles Swayne, named in said articles of impeachment, 
says that this honorable court ought not to have or take further 
cognizance of the sixth of said articles of impeachment so exhibited 
and presented against him, because, he says, the facts set forth in 
said sixth article do not, if true, constitute an impeachable high 
crime and misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United 
States.
  And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the 
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of 
impeachment, as to said sixth article, the said respondent, saving to 
himself all advantages of exceptions to said sixth article, for answer 
thereto saith:
  He admits that prior to the year 1900 he had been duly appointed, 
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for 
the northern district of Florida, and had entered upon the duties of 
his office, and that he was in the exercise of his office as judge as 
aforesaid at all times in the said article specified and as therein 
alleged.
  The respondent denies that he did not acquire a residence in the 
northern district of Florida and did not, within the intent and meaning 
of the five hundred and fifty-first section of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States, reside in said district from the 23d day of July, 
1894, to the 1st day of October, 1900; and denies that he violated said 
section; and denies that he was and is guilty of a high misdemeanor in 
office as charged in said article 6.
  The respondent further says, etc.

  As to article 7, which related to the same offense as set forth in 
article 6, the answer is similar.
  As to the remaining articles, relating to the contempt cases, the 
answer begins as to each with a saving clause, and proceeds generally 
as follows:

  And the said respondent, saving to himself all advantages of 
exception or otherwise to article 8 of the said articles of 
impeachment, for answer thereto saith:
  He admits that prior to the 12th day of November, A. D. 1901, he had 
been duly appointed, confirmed, and commissioned as a district judge of 
the United States in and for the northern district of Florida, and had 
entered upon the duties of his office prior to said date, and continued 
in the performance of the duties and in the exercise of his office of 
judge up to the present time, and he says that at all the times 
mentioned in said article 8 he was exercising and performing the duties 
of a district judge in and for the northern district of Florida, and 
that on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1901, he was holding a session 
of the district and circuit court of said district at the city of 
Pensacola, in the State of Florida,
                                                            Sec. 2482
and he admits that on said date he did adjudge guilty of contempt of 
court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit to prison for a period 
of ten days one E. T. Davis, an attorney and counselor at law, as set 
forth in said article 8, but he denies that said judicial action on his 
part was malicious or unlawful, and, on the contrary, he insists and 
asserts that said judgment was rendered and said sentence imposed by 
him from a high sense of judicial and public duty, and that upon the 
proceedings then pending and heard before him he could not have done 
otherwise than to have adjudged the said E. T. Davis guilty of the 
contempt of court stated in said article 8.
  Respondent, further answering, says, etc.

  And in conclusion the form of the answer was:

  And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his 
answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, 
respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to 
time as may become necessary or proper and when said necessity and 
propriety shall appear.
                                                 Chas. Swayne.    
 Anthony Higgins,
 John M. Thurston,
     Of Counsel for Respondent.

  2482. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Forms of procedure of authorizing, preparing, and presenting the 
replication in the Swayne impeachment trial.
  Mr. Manager Palmer then asked \1\ that the following order be agreed 
to:

  Ordered, That the managers have time until Monday next, at 2 p. m., 
to consult the House of Representatives on the subject of filing 
exceptions, demurrer, or replication to the answer of the respondent, 
and that they be furnished with a copy of the said answer.

  Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana, proposed instead an 
order which, after a reference to the precedent of the Belknap trial, 
and some modification as to time, was agreed to as follows:

  Ordered, That the managers on the part of the House be allowed until 
the 6th day of February instant, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, to 
present a replication, or other pleading, of the House of 
Representatives to the answer of the respondent. That any subsequent 
pleadings, either on the part of the managers or of the respondent, 
shall be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, of which notice shall 
be given to the House of Representatives and the respondent 
respectively, so that all pleadings shall be closed on or before the 
9th day of February instant, and that the trial shall proceed on the 
10th day of February instant, at 2 o'clock p.m.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Manager Palmer, the following order was agreed 
to:

  Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate to the House of 
Representatives an attested copy of the answer of Charles Swayne, judge 
of the United States in and for the northern district of Florida, to 
the articles of impeachment, and also a copy of the foregoing order.

  After an order had been made for printing the articles and the answer 
as documents, the Senate, ``sitting as a court of impeachment,'' \2\ 
adjourned until Monday, February 6, 1905, at 2 o'clock p. m.
  The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the 
respondent retired from the Chamber.
  The President pro tempore resumed the chair.
  On February 4 \3\ a message from the Senate transmitted to the House 
an attested copy of the respondent's answer, which was referred to the 
managers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 359; Record, p. 1831.
  \2\ These words appear in the Record. The Senate Journal (p. 359) 
speaks of the ``Senate sitting for the trial.''
  \3\ House Journal, p. 259; Record, p. 1887.
Sec. 2482
  The message also transmitted the resolution of the Senate fixing a 
time for the filing of the replication and further pleadings.
  On February, 6,\1\ in the House, Mr. Palmer, from the managers, 
reported the following replication, which was agreed to without debate 
or division:

   Replication by the House of Representatives of the United States of 
                  America to the answer of Charles Swayne, judge of the 
                     United States in and for the northern district of 
                     Florida, to the articles of impeachment exhibited 
                           against him by the House of Representatives.
  The House of Representatives of the United States have considered the 
several answers of Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States 
in and for the northern district of Florida, to the several articles of 
impeachment against him by them exhibited in the name of themselves and 
of all the people of the United States, and reserving to themselves all 
advantage of exception to the insufficiency, irrelevancy, and 
impertinency of his answer to each and all of the several answers of 
impeachment exhibited against the said Charles Swayne, judge as 
aforesaid, do deny each and every averment in said several answers, or 
either of them, which denies or traverses the acts, intents, crimes, or 
misdemeanors charged against Charles Swayne in said articles of 
impeachment or either of them; and for replication to said answer, do 
say that said Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in 
and for the northern district of Florida, is guilty of the high crimes 
and misdemeanors mentioned in said articles, and that the House of 
Representatives are ready to prove the same.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, it was also--

  Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate by the Clerk of the 
House informing the Senate that the House of Representatives has 
adopted a replication to the answer of Charles Swayne, judge of the 
northern district of Florida, to the articles of impeachment exhibited 
against him and that the same will be presented to the Senate by the 
managers on the part of the House.
  And also, that the managers have authority to file with the Secretary 
of the Senate, on the part of the House, any subsequent pleadings they 
shall deem necessary.

  This message was communicated to the Senate very soon thereafter,\2\ 
and received during the legislative session.
  On the same day, at 2 p. m., the Senate \3\ went into session for the 
trial in the usual form, and after the reading of the Journal, the 
Presiding Officer laid before the Senate sitting for the trial the 
message which had been received during the legislative session.
  Thereupon Mr. Palmer, for the managers, who were in attendance, 
presented and read the replication.
  Thereupon the Presiding Officer asked:

  Have the managers anything further to offer?

  Mr. Manager Palmer replied:

  Nothing to offer to-day, sir.

  The Presiding Officer then said:

  Have counsel for the respondent anything to offer?

  Mr. Higgins replied:

  Should we be advised there is anything further to offer we assume it 
can be done without a formal meeting of the Senate. It would be merely 
to join issue, in technical phrase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 262; Record, p. 1939.
  \2\ Senate Journal, p. 174; Record, p. 1915.
  \3\ Senate Journal, p. 360; Record, p. 1922.
                                                            Sec. 2483
  The Presiding Officer rejoined:

  It may, under the order which bas already been adopted, be filed with 
the Secretary.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, it 
was--

  Ordered, That the Senate sitting in the trial of impeachment of 
Charles Swayne adjourn until Friday, the 10th instant, at 1 o'clock p. 
m.

  2483. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  Forms and ceremonies in the Swayne trial during the presentation of 
testimony.
  The House of Representatives, although invited by the Senate, did not 
at any time attend the Swayne trial.
  The respondent attended during the presentation of testimony and the 
arguments in the Swayne trial.
  Instance wherein a witness was examined on the question of issuing 
process for a witness in the Swayne trial.
  On February 10,\1\ in the Senate sitting for the trial, Mr. Augustus 
O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, presented the following resolution, 
which was agreed to:

  Ordered, That the pleadings in the matter of the impeachment of 
Charles Swayne having been closed, the Secretary inform the House of 
Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed with the trial of 
said impeachment according to the rule heretofore communicated to the 
House, and that provision has been made for the accommodation of the 
House of Representatives and its managers in the Senate Chamber.\2\

  At 1 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m. the managers on the part of the 
House of Representatives were announced, and they were conducted by the 
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms to the seats assigned them in the area in 
front of the Secretary's desk.
  The respondent, Charles Swayne, accompanied by his counsel, Mr. 
Anthony Higgins and Mr. John M. Thurston, entered the Chamber and took 
the seats provided for them in the area in front of the Secretary's 
desk.

  The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the proceedings of the last 
session of the Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of 
Charles Swayne will now be read.

  The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting as a court on 
Monday, February 6, 1905, was read and approved.

  The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will inquire of the 
Sergeant-at-Arms whether the names of the witnesses have been furnished 
him by the managers on the part of the House and by the counsel for the 
respondent, and whether those witnesses have been summoned for 
attendance at this time?
  The Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. President, the names of the witnesses for 
both the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the 
respondent have been furnished me and have been served, and many of the 
witnesses are now in the city.

  Then, on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana, 
the following orders were severally agreed to:

  Ordered, That the proceedings of the Senate sitting in the trial of 
impeachment of Charles Swayne be printed daily for the use of the 
Senate as a separate document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 360; Record, p. 2229.
  \2\ No action was taken by the House, and it did not attend the 
proceedings at any time.
Sec. 2484
  Ordered, That the daily sessions of the Senate sitting in the trial 
of impeachment of Charles Swayne, shall, unless otherwise ordered, 
commence at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and continue until 5 o'clock in 
the afternoon.

  Then, on suggestion of Mr. Manager Palmer, the names of the witnesses 
were called over to ascertain their presence.
  Then Mr. Manager Palmer stated:

  Mr. President, in the case of Joseph H. Durkee, of Jacksonville, 
Fla., we have a certificate of a physician stating that he is not able 
to attend. The certificate was sent to the Presiding Officer and by him 
handed to me, and it has been exhibited to counsel on the other side.
  Mr. Durkee is a witness who has been subpoenaed by both sides, and is 
a material and important witness. I have a witness present who will 
testify with respect to Mr. Durkee's present condition, and I ask that 
Mr. B. S. Liddon be summoned to testify what Mr. Durkee's present 
condition is, for the purpose of moving for an attachment.

  Thereupon Mr. Liddon was examined under oath; and then the Presiding 
Officer announced that the Senate would take into account the issuance 
of an attachment.
  Then Mr. Manager Palmer opened the case for the House of 
Representatives, setting forth what the managers expected to prove.
  Then the introduction of testimony on behalf of the managers began.
  This presentation of testimony continued until February 20,\1\ when 
Mr. Manager Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, announced that the case 
of the managers was in.
  Immediately thereafter Mr. Anthony Higgins, of counsel for the 
respondent, proceeded \2\ with the opening address in respondent's 
case. He not only outlined the defense, but entered somewhat into 
argument on the legal features of the case. Mr. Higgins consumed the 
remainder of the session on that day, and spoke some time the next 
day.\3\
  The introduction of testimony on behalf of the respondent then began 
and continued from day to day.
  On February 23 \4\ the Senate agreed to the following:

  Ordered, That the session of the Senate sitting this day in the trial 
of the impeachment of Charles Swayne shall continue until 6 o'clock, 
when a recess shall be taken until 8 o'clock, and the session shall be 
continued until 10 o'clock unless otherwise ordered.

  2484. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The Senate limited the time of the final arguments in the Swayne 
impeachment trial.
  The Senate, after deliberation, permitted written arguments to be 
filed in the Swayne case, but only in such way as would permit reply.
  Rebuttal evidence was offered by the managers in the Swayne trial.
  Order of final arguments in the Swayne case.
  On the same day,\5\ Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana, 
offered the following:

  Ordered, That the managers be allowed five hours for the argument of 
the case, the time to be divided between them as they may agree, but 
the concluding oral argument shall be by one manager and shall not 
exceed one hour.
  Ordered, That counsel for the respondent be allowed five hours for 
the argument of the case, the time to be divided between them as they 
may agree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 363; Record, p. 2909.
  \2\ Record, pp. 2909-2915.
  \3\ Record, pp. 2975-2979.
  \4\ Record, p. 3142.
  \5\ Record, pp. 3142-3145.
                                                            Sec. 2484
  These orders were agreed to, but presently the vote was reconsidered 
on suggestion that the managers would prefer a different division of 
their time, so that the closing argument might be longer than an hour. 
So an amendment was adopted to provide that the closing argument by the 
manager should not exceed one hour and forty minutes. As amended the 
order was then agreed to.
  Thereupon Mr. Manager Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, offered the 
following motion:

  That any of the managers or counsel for respondent having all or any 
portion of his argument in manuscript, may deliver a copy of the same 
to the reporter, and any portion thereof which for lack of time or to 
save the time of the Senate the managers or counsel shall omit to 
deliver or read shall be incorporated by the reporter as part of the 
argument delivered, and any manager who does not address the court may 
file an argument before the close of the discussion.

  Mr. Palmer explained the reasons for this motion:

  I wish to explain the reason why we ask for this privilege. We have 
made no objection to curtailing the time, though this is the first time 
in the history of impeachment trials where the time of the managers has 
been curtailed. To be sure, the rule of the Senate provides that a case 
shall be closed by two managers, but there has never been any limit of 
time. We have consented to curtail the time of the gentlemen who are to 
speak in this case so that some of them shall have forty-five, some 
fifty, and some sixty minutes. Of course they will not be able to go 
over the case and do themselves or the case justice in that length of 
time. Their arguments can be printed in the Record and can be read 
afterwards by anybody who desires to read them.
  Again, it was ordered by the Senate the other day that a brief on the 
part of the counsel for respondent should be printed, and a brief of 48 
pages was printed about ten days ago, but we never got a chance to look 
at it until this morning, when it was printed in the Record. That brief 
pertains to jurisdictional affairs, and it is particularly desired to 
print a brief of the law of the case to meet the brief on the part of 
the gentlemen on the other side.

  In the course of argument by Senators, Mr. John C. Spooner, of 
Wisconsin, said:

   I can see no objection to the publication or the printing in the 
Record of any argument on one side which the other side seasonably will 
have opportunity to peruse and to answer.
  This is a case which involves, of course, the interests of the 
people. It involves vitally the interests of the respondent. Whether 
technically this is a court or not, it pronounces a sentence or 
judgment. It is a court or a tribunal of first instance and of last 
resort. There is no appeal from its decision. If it commits an error, 
there is no reviewing tribunal.
  Nowhere in any judicial tribunal in the country, I think, in a matter 
involving not simply the right to hold an office, but the right ever to 
hold an office of honor, trust, or emolument, would it be tolerated 
that an argument should be made and communicated to the court without 
opportunity to counsel on the other side to reply to it as fully as 
they might be advised.
  Now, if the managers have some argument to submit in answer to the 
brief which is printed in the Record this morning, that, I should 
think, would be entirely proper to be printed, but that the managers 
shall be permitted to submit to the Senate, after the counsel for the 
respondent have finished their argument, further argument on any of 
these charges or these articles I think is against the justice of 
judicial procedure.

  Mr. John W. Daniel, of Virginia, said:

  Mr. President, my disposition would be to vote for any reasonable 
request made by the managers or by counsel for the respondent here, but 
I could under no circumstances vote affirmatively on that request. In 
my opinion it violates the fundamental principles of English and 
American law. Every accused person is entitled to be present with his 
counsel, to have an opportunity to hear every charge
Sec. 2485
and every word of argumentative speech that is made against him, and 
also to have opportunity to respond thereto. It seems to me that a 
statement of the case carries an enforcement of its justice. If that 
request were granted a most serious and grave argument might appear in 
print after this case was heard, presenting it in aspects which had not 
occurred either to the accused, to his counsel, or to any of his 
judges.

  In response to these suggestions the proposed order was modified and 
agreed to as follows:

  That any of the managers or counsel for respondent having all or any 
portion of his argument in manuscript may deliver a copy of the same to 
the reporter, and any portion thereof, which for lack of time or to 
save the time of the Senate, the managers or counsel shall omit to 
deliver or read, shall be incorporated by the reporter as part of the 
argument delivered, and any manager who does not address the court may 
file an argument before the close of the discussion: Provided, That all 
briefs and arguments shall be printed before the closing argument for 
the respondent begins.

  On February 23,\1\ at the evening session, counsel for the respondent 
announced that their case was closed.
  The managers then began the presentation of rebuttal evidence.
  The rebuttal evidence being concluded, and the managers having, in 
accordance with permission already given, submitted a brief to be 
printed, Mr. John M. Thurston, of counsel for the respondent, on this 
day (February 23) \2\ offered on behalf of the respondent, and by 
reason of the approaching end of the Congress with consequent pressure 
of legislative business, to submit the case without argument. This 
offer was declined by the managers.
  Mr. Manager Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, then began the 
arguments in closing.
  On February 24 \3\ Mr. Manager James B. Perkins, of New York. argued; 
and was followed by Messrs. Managers Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and 
Samuel L. Powers, of Massachusetts, and they were followed on the same 
day by Mr. Anthony Higgins, of counsel for the respondent.
  On February 25 \4\ Mr. John M. Thurston, of counsel for the 
respondent, argued; and then, on the same day, Mr. Manager David A. De 
Armond, of Missouri, closed the case for the House of Representatives 
and the people.
  2485. The Swayne impeachment continued.
  The Senate in secret session framed the rule for voting on the 
articles impeaching Judge Swayne.
  The respondent did not attend when the articles in the Swayne case 
were voted on in the Senate.
  Forms of voting on the articles and declaring the result in the 
Swayne impeachment.
  Judgment of acquittal entered in the Swayne case by direction of the 
Presiding Officer.
  The Swayne trial being concluded, the Senate, on motion, adjourned 
without day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 3178.
  \2\ Record, p. 3181.
  \3\ Record, pp. 3246-3265.
  \4\ Record, pp. 3365-3383.
                                                            Sec. 2485
  The Senate announced to the House by message the acquittal of Judge 
Swayne.
  Then, on the same day,\1\ on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a 
Senator from Indiana, it was ordered that the doors be closed for 
deliberation.
  The managers on the part of the House, the respondent, and counsel 
for the respondent retired from the Chamber.
  The Senate proceeded to deliberate with closed doors, and at the 
expiration of one hour and thirty-five minutes the doors were reopened.
  While the doors were closed,
  Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, submitted the following 
resolution, which was agreed to:

  Resolved, That on Monday next, the 27th day of February, at 10 
o'clock a.m., the Senate shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the 
several articles of impeachment. The Presiding Officer shall direct the 
Secretary to read the several articles of impeachment in their regular 
order. After the reading of each article the Presiding Officer shall 
put the question following: ``Senators, how say you, is the respondent, 
Charles Swayne, guilty or not guilty as charged in this article?'' The 
Secretary will proceed to call the roll for the response of Senators.
  Whereupon, when his name is called, each Senator shall arise in his 
place and give his response ``guilty'' or ``not guilty,'' and the 
Secretary shall record the same.
  Resolved, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives of 
the foregoing.

  On February 27,\2\ in the Senate, the following occurred:

  The President pro tempore. The hour of 10 o'clock having arrived, to 
which the Senate sitting in the impeachment trial adjourned, the 
Senator from Connecticut will please take the chair.
  Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, assumed the chair.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Platt, of Connecticut). The Senate is now 
sitting in the impeachment trial of Charles Swayne. The Sergeant-at-
Arms will make proclamation.
  The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will see if the managers 
on the part of the House are in attendance.
  The managers on the part of the House (with the exception of Mr. 
Powers, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Perkins) appeared and were conducted 
to the seats assigned them.
  The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will see if the 
respondent and his counsel are in attendance.
  Mr. Higgins and Mr. Thurston, the counsel for the respondent, entered 
the Chamber and took the seats assigned them.
  The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the last trial day will be 
read.
  The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting for the trial of 
the impeachment of Charles Swayne Friday, February 24, was read.
  The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will read the first article of 
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Charles 
Swayne.
  The Secretary read the first article of impeachment, as follows: * * 
*

  The article having been read, the Presiding Officer put the question:

  Senators, how say you, is the respondent, Charles Swayne, guilty or 
not guilty as charged in this article?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Senate Journal, p. 365; Record, p. 3383.
  \2\ Senate Journal, pp. 365-369; Record, pp. 3467-3472.
Sec. 2485
  The roll was then called, Senators answering ``guilty'' or ``not 
guilty.'' In the same manner the verdict was taken on each article, 
with result as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Guilty.    Not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I.............................................................................           33           49
Article II............................................................................           32           50
Article III...........................................................................           32           50
Article IV............................................................................           13           69
Article V.............................................................................           13           69
Article VI............................................................................           31           51
Article VII...........................................................................           19           63
Article VIII..........................................................................           31           51
Article IX............................................................................           31           51
Article X.............................................................................           31           51
Article XI............................................................................           31           51
Article XII...........................................................................           35           47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  After the vote on the first article the Presiding Officer announced:

  Senators, upon Article 1 of the impeachment of Charles Swayne 33 
Senators have voted ``guilty'' and 49 Senators have voted ``not 
guilty.'' Two-thirds of the Senators present not having voted 
``guilty,'' Charles Swayne, the respondent, stands acquitted of the 
charges contained in the first article.

  A similar announcement was made after the vote on each article.
  At the conclusion of the voting, after the result on the twelfth 
article had been recorded, the Presiding Officer said:

  The Presiding Officer, following the precedent in the Belknap 
impeachment case, calls the attention of the Senate to the twenty-
second rule of procedure and practice in the trial of impeachments, 
which provides:
  ``And if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles 
presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members 
present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person 
accused in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of 
said articles by the votes of two-thirds of the members present, the 
Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment, and a certified copy of 
such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of 
State.''
  If there is no objection, the Presiding Officer will direct the 
Secretary to enter a judgment of acquittal according to the rule. The 
Chair hears no objection. The Secretary will read it.

  The Secretary read as follows:

  The Senate having tried Charles Swayne, judge of the district court 
of the United States for the northern district of Florida, upon twelve 
several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of 
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having 
found him guilty of the charges contained therein: It is therefore
  Ordered and adjudged, That the said Charles Swayne be, and he is, 
acquitted of the changes in said articles made and set forth.

  Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, said:

  Mr. President, I move that the Senate sitting for the trial of the 
impeachment of Charles Swayne adjourn without day.

  The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes a. m.) 
the Senate sitting upon the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne 
adjourned without day.
                                                            Sec. 2485
  The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the 
respondent retired from the Chamber.
  The President pro tempore resumed the chair.
  On the same day,\1\ in the House, this message was received:

                       In the Senate of the United States,        
                                          February 27, 1905.      
  The Senate having tried Charles Swayne, judge of the district court 
of the United States for the northern district of Florida, upon twelve 
several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of 
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having 
found him guilty of the charges contained therein: It is therefore
  Ordered and adjudged, That the said Charles Swayne be, and he is, 
acquitted of the charges in said articles made and set forth.
 Attest:
                                Charles G. Bennett, Secretary.    
  The managers made no report to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Journal, p. 393; Record, p. 3593.