Page images
PDF
EPUB

50

his lust for private gain," when he "unlawfully and corruptly" continued his appointee in office, "to the great injury and damage of the officers and soldiers of the United States” stationed at the military post. The maintenance of the trader was also alleged to be "against public policy, and to the great disgrace and detriment of the public service. 59 54

Article IV alleged seventeen separate specifications relating to Belknap's appointment and continuance in office of the post trader. 55

Article V enumerated the instances in which Belknap or his wife had corruptly received "divert large sums of money." c. Proceedings in the Senate

The Senate failed to convict Belknap on any of the articles, with votes on the articles ranging from 35 guilty-25 not guilty to 37 guilty–25 not guilty. 57 d. Miscellaneous

In the Senate trial, it was argued that because Belknap had resigned prior to his impeachment the case should be dropped. The Senate, by a vote of 37 to 29, decided that Belknap was amenable to trial by impeachment.58 Twenty-two of the Senator voting not guilty on each article, nevertheless indicated that in their view the Senate had no jurisdiction.59

9. DISTRICT JUDGE CHARLES SWAYNE (1903-1905)

a. Proceedings in the II oude

The House adopted a resolution in 1903 directing an investigation by the Judiciary Committee of District Judge Swayne. The committee held hearings during the next year, and reported a resolution that Swayne be impeached "of high crimes and misdemeanors” in late 1904.81 The House agreed to the resolution unanimously. 6. Articles of Impeachment

After the vote to impeach, thirteen articles were drafted and approved by the House in 1905.62 However, only the first twelve articles were presented to the Senate. 63

Article I charged that Swayne had knowingly filed a false certificate and claim for travel expenses while serving as a visiting judge, “whereby he has been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor in said office.”

Articles II and III charged that Swayne, having claimed and received excess travel reimbursement for other trips, had “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.”

Articles IV and V charged that Swayne, having appropriated a private railroad car that was under the custody of a receiver of his court

54 Id. 58 10. 58 10. 2160. 67 19 CONG. REC. 343–57 (1876). 58 I. 76. 50 Id. 342-57. 60 38 CONG. REC. 103 (1903). a 39 CONG. Rec. 247-48 (1904). 82 H.R. REP. No. 3477, 58th Cong., 3d Sess. (1905). 63 39 CONG. REC. 1056-58 (1905).

51

and used the car, its provisions, and a porter without making compensation to the railroad, “was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.”

Articles VI and VII charged that for periods of six years and nine years, Judge Swayne had not been a bona fide resident of his judicial district, in violation of a statute requiring every federal judge to reside in his judicial district. The statute provided that "for offending against this provision [the judge] shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor." The articles charged that Swayne "willfully and knowingly violated" this law and "was and is guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."

Articles VIII, IX, X, XI and XII charged that Swayne improperly imprisoned two attorneys and a litigant for contempt of court. Articles VIII and X alleged that the imprisonment of the attorneys was done "maliciously and unlawfully” and Articles IX and XI charged that these imprisonments were done “knowingly and unlawfully." Article XI charged that the private person was imprisoned "unlawfully and knowingly.” Each of these five articles concluded by charging that by so acting, Swayne had “misbehaved himself in his office as judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial power and a high misdemeanor in office. c. Proceedings in the Senate

A majority of the Senate voted acquittal on all articles. 64

10. CIRCUIT JUDGE ROBERT W. ARCHIBALD (1912-1913)

a. Proceedings in the House

The House authorized an investigation by the Judiciary Committee on Circuit Judge Archbald of the Commerce Court in 1912.65 The Committee unanimously reported a resolution that Archbald be impeached for "misbehavior and for high crimes and misdemeanors." and the House adopted the resolution, 223 to 1.66 6. !rticles of Impeachment

Thirteen Articles of impeachment were presented and adopted simultaneously with the resolution for impeachment.

Article I charged that Archbald "willfully, unlawfully, and corruptly took advantage of his official position ... to induce and influence the officials” of a company with litigation pending before his court to enter into a contract with Archbald and his business partner to sell them assets of a subsidiary company. The contract was allegedly profitable to Archbald.67

Article II also charged Archbald with "willfully, unlawfully, and corruptly” using his position as judge to influence a litigant then before the Interstate Commerce Commission (who on appeal would be before the Commerce Court) to settle the case and purchase stock.68

Article III charged Archbald with using his official position to obtain a leasing agreement from a party with suits pending in the Commerce Court.89

[graphic]

52

71

Article IV alleged "gross and improper conduct" in that Archbald had (in another suit pending in the Commerce Court) “secretly, wrongfully, and unlawfully” requested an attorney to obtain an explanation of certain testimony from a witness in the case, and subsequently requested argument in support of certain contentions from the same attorney, all without the knowledge or consent” of the opposing party."

Article V charged Archbald with accepting "a gift, reward or present” from a person for whom Archbald had attempted to gain a favorable leasing agreement with a potential litigant in Archbald's court."

Article VI again charged improper use of Archbald's influence as a judge, this time with respect to a purchase of an interest in land.

Articles VII through XII referred to Archbald's conduct during his tenure as district court judge. These articles alleged improper and unbecoming conduct constituting “misbehavior” and “gross misconduct” in office stemming from the misuse of his position as judge to influence litigants before his court, resulting in personal gain to Archbald. He was also charged with accepting a "large sum of money" from people likely to be interested in litigation” in his court, and such conduct was alleged to "bring his ... office of district judge into disrepute.” 72 Archbald was also charged with accepting money "contributed ... by various attorneys who were practitioners in the said court”; and appointing and maintaining as jury commissioner an attorney whom he knew to be general counsel for a potential litigant.13

Article XIII summarized Archbald's conduct both as district court judge and commerce court judge, charging that Archbald had used these offices "wrongfully to obtain credit," and charging that he had used the latter office to affect “various and diverse contracts and agreements," in return for which he had received hidden interests in said contracts, agreements, and properties. c. Proceedings in the Senate

The Senate found Archbald guilty of the charges in five of the thirteen articles, including the catch-all thirteenth. Archbald was removed from office and disqualified from holding any future office.75

74

11. DISTRICT JUDGE GEORGE W. ENGLISH (1925-1926)

a. Proceedings in the House

The House adopted a resolution in 1925 directing an inquiry into the official conduct of District Judge English. A subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee took evidence in 1925 and recommended impeachment.76 In March 1926, the Judiciary Committee reported an impeachment resolution and five articles of impeachment. The House adopted the impeachment resolution and the articles by a vote of 306 to 62.78

70 Id. Ti Id. 79 Id. 8906. 78 Id. 74 Id. 76 S. Doc. No. 1140, 620 Cong., 3d Sess. 1620-49 (1913). 76 H.R. Doc. No. 145, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1925). 77 67 CONG. REC. 6280 (1926). 78 Id. 6735.

53

Judge English resigned six days before the date set for trial in the Senate. The House Managers stated that the resignation in no way affected the right of the Senate to try the charges, but recommended that the impeachment proceedings be discontinued.79 The recommendation was accepted by the House, 290 to 23.80 6. Articles of Impeachment

Article I charged that Judge English "did on divers and various occasions so abuse the powers of his high office that he is hereby charged with tyranny and oppression, whereby he has brought the administration of justice in Chis] court ... into disrepute, and ... is guilty of misbehavior falling under the constitutional provision as ground for impeachment and removal from office.” The article alleged that the judge had "willfully, tyrannically, oppressively and unlawfully" disbarred lawyers practicing before him, summoned state and local officials to his court in an imaginary case and denounced them with profane language, and without suficient cause summoned two newspapermen to his court and threatened them with imprisonment. It was also alleged that Judge English stated in open court that if he instructed a jury that a man was guilty and they did not find him guilty, he would send the jurors to jail.

Article II charged that Judge English knowingly entered into an “unlawful and improper combination" with a referee in bankruptcy, appointed by him, to control bankruptcy proceedings in his district for the benefit and profit of the judge and his relatives and friends, and amended the bankruptcy rules of his court to enlarge the authority of the bankruptcy receiver, with a view to his own benefit.

Article III charged that Judge English "corruptly extended favoritism in diverse matters," "with the intent to corruptly prefer” the referee in bankruptcy, to whom English was alleged to be "under great obligations, financial and otherwise."

Article IV charged that Judge English ordered bankruptcy funds within the jurisdiction of his court to be deposited in banks of which he was a stockholder, director and depositor, and that the judge entered into an agreement with each bank to designate the bank a depository of interest-free bankruptcy funds if the bank would employ the judge's son as a cashier. These actions were stated to have been taken “with the wrongful and unlawful intent to use the influence of his ... office as judge for the personal profit of himself” and his family and friends.

Article V alleged that Judge English's treatment of members of the bar and conduct in his court during his tenure had been oppressive to both members of the bar and their clients and had deprived the clients of their rights to be protected in liberty and property. It also alleged that Judge English "at diverse times and places, while acting as such judge, did disregard the authority of the laws, and ... did refuse to allow ... the benefit of trial by jury, contrary to his ... trust and duty as judge of said district court, against the laws of the United States and in violation of the solemn oath which he had taken to administer equal and impartial justice.” Judge English's conduct in making decisions and orders was alleged to be such as to excite fear and distrust and to inspire a widespread belief, in and beyond his judicial district

70 68 CONG. REC. 297 (1926). 80 Id. 302.

54

that causes were not decided in said court according to their merits,” “[a]ll to the scandal and disrepute” of his court and the administration of justice in it. This course of conduct” was alleged to be "misbehavior” and “a misdemeanor in office." c. Proceedings in the Senate

The Senate, being informed by the Managers for the House that the House desired to discontinue the proceedings in view of the resignation of Judge English, approved a resolution dismissing the proceedings by a vote of 70 to 9.81

12. DISTRICT JUDGE HAROLD LOUDERBACK (1932-1933)

a. Proceedings in the House

A resolution directing an inquiry into the official conduct of District Judge Louderback was adopted by the House

in 1932. A subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee took evidence. The full Judiciary Committee submitted a report in 1933, including a resolution that the evidence did not warrant impeachment, and a brief censure of the Judge for conduct prejudicial to the dignity of the judiciary.82 A minority consisting of

five Members recommended impeachment and moved five articles of impeachment from the floor of the House.83 The five articles were adopted as a group by a vote of 183 to 143.84 6. Articles of Impeachment

Article I charged that Louderback "did so abuse the power of his high office, that he is hereby charged with tyranny and oppression, favoritism and conspiracy, whereby he has brought the administration of justice in the court of which he is a judge into disrepute, and by his conduct is guilty of misbehavior.” It alleged that Louderback used "his office and power of district judge in his own personal interest” by causing an attorney to be appointed as a receiver in bankruptcy at the demand of a person to whom Louderback was under financial obligation. It was further alleged that the attorney had received “large and exorbitant fees” for his services; and that these fees had been passed on to the person whom Louderback was to reimburse for bills incurred on Louderback's behalf.

Article II charged that Louderback had allowed excessive fees to a receiver and an attorney, described as his "personal and political friends and associates," and had unlawfully made an order conditional upon the agreement of the parties not to appeal from the allowance of fees. This was described as “a course of improper and unlawful conduct as a Judge." It was further alleged that Louderback "did not give his fair, impartial, and judicial consideration” to certain objections; and that he "was and is guilty of a course of conduct oppressive and unjudicial.”

Article III charged the knowing apnointment of an unqualified person as a receiver, resulting in disadvantage to litigants in his court.

Article IV charged that “misusing the powers of his judical office for the sole purpose of enriching" the unqualified receiver mentioned in Article III, Louderback failed to give "fair, impartial, and judicial

81 d. 344, 348. 82 76 CONG. REC. 4913 (1933): H.R. REP. NO. 2065, 720 Cong., 20 Sess. 1 (1933). 83 76 CONG. RBC. 4914 (1933); H.R. REP. NO. 2065, 72d Cong., 20 Sess. 13 (1933). 84 76 CONG. RDC. 4928 (1988).

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »