[Senate Document 99-33]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


99th Congress                  SENATE                          Document
2d Session                                                      99-33
_______________________________________________________________________




 
                     PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR
                       IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE
                         UNITED STATES SENATE

                           (REVISED EDITION)

              PREPARED PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 439,
                       99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION

      SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD AND SENATOR ROBERT DOLE

                                   by

               FLOYD M. RIDDICK, PARLIAMENTARIAN EMERITUS
                      OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

                                  and

                 ROBERT B. DOVE, PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13


                August 15, 1986.--Ordered to be printed



99th Congress                                                  Document
 2d Session                       SENATE                        99-33
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



                     PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR
                       IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE
                         UNITED STATES SENATE

                           (REVISED EDITION)

              PREPARED PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 439,
                       99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION

      SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD AND SENATOR ROBERT DOLE

                                   by

               FLOYD M. RIDDICK, PARLIAMENTARIAN EMERITUS
                      OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

                                  and

                 ROBERT B. DOVE, PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13


                August 15, 1986.--Ordered to be printed



                 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

             CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland, Chairman
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon             WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho              CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina          ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas                  DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  PAUL SIMON, Illinois
E.J. (JAKE) GARN, Utah               ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee
                    John B. Childers, Staff Director
                        Ann B. Cook, Chief Clerk
          William McWhorter Cochrane, Minority Staff Director
                   Anthony L. Harvey, Senior Analyst


                         SENATE RESOLUTION 439

                June 26 (legislative day, June 23), 1986

Mr. Byrd (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following resolution; 
    which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

              August 12 (legislative day, August 11), 1986

  Reported by Mr. Mathias, with an amendment and an amendment to the 
                                 title

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]

              August 15 (legislative day, August 11), 1986

                   Considered, amended, and agreed to

                                In the Senate of the United States.
    Resolved, That there be printed a revised edition of Senate 
Document 93-102, 93d Congress, 2d Session, entitled ``Procedure 
and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States 
Senate,'' as a Senate document and that there be printed, in 
addition to the usual number of copies of such document, such 
additional copies as are allowed to be printed under the 
limitations imposed by section 703 of title 44, United States 
Code.
    Attest:
                                            Jo-Anne L. Coe,
                                                         Secretary.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
Chapter
                                                                   Page
 I.  Constitutional provisions........................................1
II.  Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on 
    Impeachment Trials................................................2
III. Senate Rules.....................................................8

IV.  Sequence of events at the beginning of a trial...................9
        1. First a message(s) from the House of Representatives 
          is received containing the information that the House 
          has voted impeachment, adopted articles, and appointed 
          managers. The Senate then adopts an order informing the 
          House when it is ready to receive the managers to 
          present the articles of impeachment....................     9
            Trial of--
              Halsted L. Ritter..................................     9
              Harold Louderback..................................    11
              Andrew Johnson.....................................    12
        2. In some of the recent trials, at this stage of the 
          proceedings, the Senate has adopted resolutions to 
          provide for the payment of expenses of the said trials.    17
        3. Managers on the part of the House of Representatives 
          appear in the Senate Chamber and are announced. The 
          Presiding Officer directs them to the seats provided 
          for them and the Sergeant at Arms makes his 
          proclamation. The Chair recognizes the managers to 
          present the articles of impeachment, following a quorum 
          call if one is called for..............................    18
            Trial of--
              Halsted L. Ritter..................................    18
              Harold Louderback..................................    19
              Andrew Johnson.....................................    19
        4. The managers, after presenting the articles of 
          impeachment, asked the Senate to take order for the 
          trial, and the Presiding Officer informs the managers 
          that the Senate will duly inform the House of 
          Representatives when ready for the trial. The managers 
          after delivering the articles of impeachment withdraw 
          from the Senate........................................    24
        5. After the articles of impeachment have been presented 
          to the Senate, the next step is for the Senate to 
          organize for the trial. The Presiding Officer takes his 
          oath for the trial and then, as in the Ritter trial, 
          administers the oath to the Senators standing at their 
          seats. In the case of the Johnson trial, this procedure 
          was somewhat different since the Chief Justice of the 
          Supreme Court presided.................................    25
        6. After the oaths are administered, the Chair directs 
          the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation for the 
          beginning of the trial and the order for a summons to 
          the respondent is adopted..............................    27
 V.  Precedents and practices for impeachment trial..................32
          Rules on...............................................    33
          Adjourn to time certain................................    33
          Legislative and executive business, unaffected by......    34
          Orders for meeting at different hours..................    34
          Precedence of motions..................................    34
        Amendments...............................................    35
        Appeals..................................................    35
        Arguments at the trial:
          Incidental and interlocutory questions.................    36
          Final arguments, limitation on.........................    36
        Articles of impeachment:
          Amendments to..........................................    37
          Form of putting question on............................    38
          Votes and procedures thereon...........................    38
        Attendance of Senators at impeachment trial..............    39
        Briefs, when submitted and printed.......................    40
        Chief Justice as Presiding Officer:
          Appeals................................................    40
          Form for putting the question on the articles of 
          impeachment............................................    40
          Vote by................................................    40
          Witnesses examined by..................................    42
        Closed doors.............................................    42
        Commission to take deposition of a witness...............    42
        Committees in impeachment trials:
          Use of committees by the Senate in impeachment trials..    42
          Committee appointed to receive evidence................    43
        Congress must be in session during trial.................    44
        Counsel for the respondent:
          Assistants for the counsel allowed on the Floor during 
          the trial..............................................    44
          Improper language by...................................    44
          Motion to strike various articles of impeachment made 
          by.....................................................    46
          Witness, counsel for the respondent summoned as........    47
        Debate:
          Orders at the trial....................................    47
          Organizational questions prior to trial and debate 
          thereof................................................    48
        Division of the question:
          Article not divisible..................................    49
          Articles of impeachment................................    50
          Final Judgment.........................................    50
        Evidence:
          Admissibility of.......................................    51
          Determination by presiding officer during impeachment 
          trial..................................................    52
          Leading questions ruled out............................    52
          Presentation of, during final arguments, out of order..    53
          Questions of, submitted to Senate......................    53
        Floor privileges granted to persons to sit with House 
          managers...............................................    53
        Galleries:
          Decorum, cleared to maintain...........................    54
          Tickets to during the trial of President Andrew Johnson    54
        House of Representatives:
          Attendance of Members at trial.........................    55
          Notification of each day's sitting by the Senate.......    55
        Journal..................................................    55
        Leave to print opinions granted..........................    55
        Legislative business permitted to interrupt trial........    56
        Lie over one day, orders.................................    56
        Managers and counsel:
          Appearance of..........................................    56
          Position in Senate Chamber during examination of 
          witnesses..............................................    57
          Proposals of, denied...................................    58
        Managers on the part of the House:
          Assistants allowed Floor privileges....................    58
          Decline to answer Senator's question...................    59
          Objections to Senators' questions......................    59
          Selection of by the House..............................    59
          Stand at desk in front of Chair to read articles of 
          impeachment............................................    60
        Motions and orders:
          Lie over one day.......................................    60
        Oaths to Senators:
          Form of, given each Senator............................    61
          Records kept of Senators taking oaths after trial 
          begins.................................................    61
          Senators appearing late, take oath.....................    61
          Senators taking oath after trial begins do not take it 
            in legislative session...............................    61
        Opening statements:
          Adoption of the usual order............................    61
          Limitations on.........................................    62
        Orders and decisions.....................................    63
        Papers filed as evidence returned to District Court......    63
        Points of order..........................................    63
        Presiding Officer:
          Decisions made by, during trial........................    63
          Duty to expedite trial.................................    64
          Forms of addressing, by managers and counsel...........    64
          Naming Presiding Officer...............................    65
          Putting the question to witnesses, to mangers and 
            counsel, and in writing..............................    65
          The present form and history of Rule X of the Senate 
            sitting for impeachments.............................    65
        Quorum:
          Calls of, in order during trial........................    68
          Quorum for an impeachment trial consists of a quorum of 
            the Senate, and not merely the Members sworn for the 
            trial................................................    68
        Respondent:
          Answer to articles of impeachment received by Senate...    68
          Appearance of and request of time to answer articles...    69
          Posted bond, as required...............................    70
          Resignation does not render moot the impeachment of the 
            respondent...........................................    71
          Witness at own trial, examined and cross-examined......    71
          Witnesses questioned by................................    71
        Secretary of the Senate:
          Informing the House....................................    71
          Issue orders, mandates, etc............................    72
          Oaths, administration of...............................    72
          Reading of motions.....................................    72
          Record of proceedings..................................    73
          Subpenas, ordering and serving.........................    73
        Senate rules:
          Senate legislative rules applicable when impeachment 
          rules silent...........................................    73
          Supplementary rule.....................................    74
        Senators:
          Disqualification of, in trials failed..................    76
          Excused from participation in trial or from voting.....    77
          Witnesses at trial.....................................    78
        Witnesses, questioned by Senators........................    78
        Subpenas:
          Enforcement of.........................................    78
          Form of................................................    79
          Signed by Presiding Officer............................    79
        Summons..................................................    79
        Table, motion to.........................................    80
        Testimony not limited to a single article................    80
        Vote:
          Reconsider not in order................................    80
          Two-thirds to convict..................................    81
          Vote required: Majority only, except for conviction....    81
          Use of standing rules..................................    81
          Yeas and nays:
            Rule XX..............................................    81
            Rule XXIII...........................................    81
            Rule XXIV............................................    81
          (Cross references)
        Witnesses:
          Attendance.............................................    82
          Examination of.........................................    82
          Limitation on number of................................    82
          Limited examination of.................................    83
          List to be called......................................    84
          Place occupied while testifying........................    84
          Stand while testifying.................................    84
          Subpena disregarded, witness admonished................    85
          Subpenas, summoned at public expense...................    85
VI.  Sequence of events at the close of a trial......................85
        1. Following the completion of the presentation of 
          witnesses and documents, orders were adopted by the 
          Senate setting the time for the final arguments........    85
        2. After the completion of final arguments, the Senate 
          went into closed session for deliberation of the 
          question...............................................    86
        3. Either during or after deliberation behind closed 
          doors in the trials cited below, the Senate adopted 
          orders setting a date and time, and the method, for 
          voting on the articles of impeachment..................    88
        4. Provision was also made for the filing of opinions 
          following the votes by individual Senators.............    92
        5. At the arrival of the time set by previous order, the 
          Secretary read the first article of impeachment to be 
          voted on, followed by the Clerk calling the roll.......    92
        6. Following the vote on each article, the Presiding 
          Officer pronounces the decision. Once the judgment of 
          the Senate has been pronounced on the articles of 
          impeachment, the trial might progress in two ways. If 
          the respondent was found not guilty on all charges, the 
          verdict of acquittal was announced and the Senate 
          sitting as a Court of Impeachment adjourned sine die. 
          If the respondent was found guilty of any of the 
          charges, the judgment of removal and possible 
          disqualification from ever holding an office of trust 
          or profit under the United States was presented........    93
          All articles need not be voted on......................    97
          Motion to reconsider not in order......................    97
        7. Following the verdict of guilty or not guilty, or the 
          pronouncement of judgment, and the disposition of the 
          disqualification from holding office of trust or 
          profit, if presented, the Senate sitting as a Court of 
          Impeachment adjourned Sine Die.........................    98



 PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES 
                                 SENATE

                      I. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

    The provisions of the United States Constitution which 
apply specifically to impeachment are as follows:

                     Article I; Section 2, Clause 5

          The House of Representatives . . . shall have the 
        sole Power of Impeachment.

                 Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

          The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
        Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall 
        be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the 
        United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall 
        preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the 
        Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
          Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend 
        further than to removal from Office, and 
        disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, 
        Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party 
        convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
        Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according 
        to Law.

                    Article II; Section 2, Clause 1

          The President . . . shall have Power to grant 
        Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United 
        States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

                         Article II; Section 4

          The President, Vice President and all civil Officers 
        of the United States, shall be removed from Office on 
        Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, 
        or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

                    Article III; Section 2, Clause 3

          The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of 
        Impeachment, shall be by Jury; . . .

   II. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON 
                           IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

    I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the 
House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their 
part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are 
directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the 
Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of 
Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the 
managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of 
impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
    II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced 
at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready 
to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making 
proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons 
are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while 
the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the 
United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ''; 
after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that 
the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the 
impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of 
Representatives.
    III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the 
Senate shall, at 1 o'clock after noon of the day (Sunday 
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by 
the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and 
shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) 
after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the 
Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much 
longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding 
to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the 
Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter 
provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the 
other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it 
shall be to take the same.
    IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice 
President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties 
of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be 
impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall 
preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to 
preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer 
of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration 
of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to 
attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the 
oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and shall preside 
over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and 
upon the trial of the person impeached therein.
    V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and 
issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all 
orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules 
or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other 
regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may 
authorize or provide.
    VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of 
witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, 
precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a 
summary waycontempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, 
orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful 
orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive 
to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction 
of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary 
to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, 
writs, and precepts of the Senate.
    VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all 
necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding 
Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings 
while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an 
impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise 
specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial 
may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not 
limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy 
of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand 
as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate 
shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it 
shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; 
or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such 
question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such 
questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.
    VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and 
the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ 
of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said 
articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a 
day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such 
writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and 
to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate 
thereon; which writ shall be served by such officer or person 
as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of days 
prior to the day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in 
such precept, either by the delivery of an attested copy 
thereof to the person impeached, or if that cannot conveniently 
be done, by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode 
of such person, or at his usual place of business in some 
conspicuous place therein; or if such service shall be, in the 
judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person 
impeached to appear shall be given in such other manner, by 
publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the 
writ aforesaid shall fail of service in the manner aforesaid, 
the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service 
may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct. If the 
person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either 
in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed thereof as 
aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such 
articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, 
as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be 
entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further 
proceedings.
    IX. At 12:30 o'clock afternoon of the day appointed for the 
return of the summons against the person impeached, the 
legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be 
suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer an 
oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: ``I, 
------ ------, do solemnly swear that the return made by me 
upon the process issued on the ------ ------ day of ------, by 
the Senate of the United States, against ------ ------ is truly 
made, and that I have performed such service as therein 
described: So help me God.'' Which oath shall be entered at 
large on the records.
    X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and 
answer the articles of impeachment against him. If he appears, 
or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, 
stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or attorney, 
naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he 
appears. If he do not appear, either personally or by agent or 
attorney, the same shall be recorded.
    XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding 
Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a 
committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at 
such times and places as the committee may determine, and for 
such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman 
thereof, to be elected by the committee, shall (unless 
otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and 
functions conferred upon the Senate and the Presiding Officer 
of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and 
practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials.
    Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of 
procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on 
impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of 
the committee so appointed. The committee so appointed shall 
report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the 
transcript of the proceedings and the testimony had and given 
before such committee, and such report shall be received by the 
Senate and the evidence so received and the testimony so taken 
shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to the 
right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and 
materiality, as having been received and taken before the 
Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from 
sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open 
Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in 
open Senate.
    XII. At 12:30 o'clock afternoon, or at such other hour as 
the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trial of an 
impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the 
Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary shall give notice 
to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to 
proceed upon the impeachment of ------ ------, in the Senate 
Chamber.
    XIII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit 
upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless otherwise 
ordered) 12 o'clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the 
Presiding Officer upon such trial shall cause proclamation to 
be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The 
adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall not 
operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such 
adjournment the Senate shall resume the consideration of its 
legislative and executive business.
    XIV. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the 
proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of 
legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the 
same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.
    XV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and 
be heard upon an impeachment.
    XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications 
whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating 
immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to 
admission of evidence or other questions arising during the 
trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed 
to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall 
require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the 
Secretary's table.
    XVII. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf 
of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one 
person on the other side.
    XVIII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be 
sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.
    XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, 
or to a manager, or to counsel of the person impeached, or to 
offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall 
be reduced to writing, and put by the Presiding Officer. The 
parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses 
answering questions propounded at the request of any Senator 
and the merits of any such objection may be argued by the 
parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be 
made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be in order for any 
Senator to engage in colloquy.
    XX. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial 
of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open, 
unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while 
deliberating upon its decisions. A motion to close the doors 
may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, 
the motion shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and 
nays, which shall be entered on the record.
    XXI. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all 
motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour (unless the 
Senate otherwise orders) on each side.
    XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one 
person. The final argument on the merits may be made by two 
persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate 
upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be 
opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.
    XXIII. An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for 
the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the trial. 
Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting 
shall be continued until voting has been completed on all 
articles of impeachment unless the Senate adjourns for a period 
not to exceed one day or adjourns sine die. On the final 
question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and 
nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; 
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 impeached shall be convicted upon any such 
article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the 
Senate may proceed to the consideration of such other matters 
as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing 
judgment. Upon pronouncing judgment, a certified copy of such 
judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of 
State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of 
impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

Form of putting the question on each article of impeachment

    The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; 
thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in 
his place and answer: guilty or not guilty.
    XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon 
without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and 
decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, 
which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the 
operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed 
for deliberation, and in that case no Member shall speak more 
than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on 
an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen 
minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, 
to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be 
decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by 
one-fifth of the Members present. The fifteen minutes herein 
allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final 
question, and not on the final question on each article of 
impeachment.
    XXV. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz: 
``You, ------ ------, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) 
that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending 
between the United States and ------ ------, shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: so help you 
God.'' Which oath shall be administered by the Secretary, or 
any other duly authorized person.

Form of a subpena to be issued on the application of the managers of 
        the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel

To ------ ------, greeting:
    You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate of the United States, on the ------ day of ------, 
at the Senate Chamber in the city of Washington, then and there 
to testify your knowledge in the cause which is before the 
Senate in which the House of Representatives have impeached --
---- ------.
    Fail not.
    Witness ------ ------, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, 
at the city of Washington, this ------ day of ------, in the 
year of our Lord ------, and of the Independence of the United 
States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                   Presiding Officer of the Senate.

           Form of direction for the service of said subpena

    The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, greeting:
    You are hereby commanded to serve and return the within 
subpena according to law.
    Dated at Washington, this ------ day of ------, in the year 
of our Lord ------, and of the Independence of the United 
States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                           Secretary of the Senate.

Form of oath to be administered to the Members of the Senate and the 
        Presiding Officer sitting in the trial of impeachments

    ``I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in 
all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ----
-- ------, now pending, I will do impartial justice according 
to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.''

Form of summons to be issued and served upon the person impeached

The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, greeting:
    Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States 
of America did, on the ------ day of ------, exhibit to the 
Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said ------ --
----, in the words following:

                       [Here insert the articles]

And demand that you, the said ------ ------, should be put to 
answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that 
such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be 
thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice.
    You, the said ------ ------, are therefore hereby summoned 
to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of 
America, at their Chamber in the city of Washington, on the --
---- day of ------, at o'clock ------, then and there to answer 
to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to 
abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions, and 
judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the 
premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United 
States.
    Hereof you are not to fail.
    Witness ------ ------, and Presiding Officer of the said 
Senate, at the city of Washington, this ------ day of ------, 
in the year of our Lord ------, and of the Independence of the 
United States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                   Presiding Officer of the Senate.

         Form of precept to be indorsed on said writ of summons

The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, greeting:
    You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with ----
-- ------, if conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave at 
his usual place of abode, or at his usual place of business in 
some conspicuous place, a true and attested copy of the within 
writ of summons, together with a like copy of this precept; and 
in whichsoever way you perform the service, let it be done at 
least ------ days before the appearance day mentioned in the 
said writ of summons.
    Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and 
precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before 
the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
    Witness ------ ------, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, 
at the city of Washington, this ------ day of ------ in the 
year of our Lord ------, and of the Independence of the United 
States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                   Presiding Officer of the Senate.
    All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the 
Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.
    XXVI. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the 
consideration of articles of impeachment on the day or hour 
fixed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be adopted 
without debate, fix a day and hour for resuming such 
consideration.

                           III. SENATE RULES

Senate Legislative Rules Applicable When Impeachment Rules Are Silent:

    On April 11, 1868, during the trial of President Johnson, 
objection was heard to a motion from the floor by a Senator and 
the Chief Justice ruled that objection forced a motion to lie 
over one day. At this point the following colloquy occurred:
          Mr. Trumbull. An objection does not carry it over, 
        does it?
          The Chief Justice. The Chair thinks it does.
          Mr. Trumbull. It does not change the rule. The rule 
        provides for this very thing being done, if the Senate 
        choose to allow it.
          Mr. Conkling. Mr. President, may I inquire under what 
        rule of the Senate thus organized it is that this 
        motion lies over upon the objection of a single 
        Senator?
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice in conducting 
        the business of the court adopts for his general 
        guidance the rules of the Senate sitting in legislative 
        session as far as they are applicable. That is the 
        ground of his decision.
Likewise, a few days later, an order was sent to the Chair and 
objection was heard to its immediate consideration. The Chief 
Justice stated:
          Objection is made. The order will lie over for one 
        day.
          Mr. Sumner. I beg leave most respectfully to inquire 
        under what rule such an objection can be made.
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice stated on 
        Saturday that in conducting the business of the court 
        he applied, as far as they were applicable, the general 
        rules of the Senate. This has been done upon several 
        occasions, and when objection has been made orders have 
        been laid over to the next day for consideration.

         IV. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF A TRIAL \1\

  1. First a Message(s) From the House of Representatives Is Received 
   Containing the Information that the House Has Voted Impeachment, 
  Adopted Articles, and Appointed Managers. The Senate Then Adopts an 
 Order Informing the House When It Is Ready To Receive the Managers To 
                  Present the Articles of Impeachment

    The procedures utilized by the House of Representatives in 
voting impeachment and adopting articles of impeachment have 
varied particularly as to time sequence,\1\ and this of 
necessity has forced the Senate to vary in its preliminaries to 
getting an impeachment trial underway. However, the general 
procedure utilized by the Senate is illustrated below from the 
selected cases of the trial of Judge Halsted L. Ritter, Judge 
Harold Louderback, and President Andrew Johnson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These steps basically follow the Ritter trial in 1936, but 
exceptions and collaborating information are also included in order to 
make it a general guide for any impeachment trial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [The various procedures utilized by the House of 
Representatives in voting impeachment are illustrated by the 
following:

                       Trial of Halsted L. Ritter

    On Monday, March 2, 1936, Mr. Sumners of Texas, by 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, called up the 
following privileged resolution (H. Res. 422):
          Resolved, That Halsted L. Ritter, who is a United 
        States district judge for the southern district of 
        Florida, be impeached for misbehavior, and for high 
        crimes and misdemeanors; and that the evidence 
        heretofore taken by the subcommittee of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives under 
        House Resolution 163 of the Seventy-third Congress 
        sustains articles of impeachment, which are hereinafter 
        set out; and that the said articles be, and they are 
        hereby, adopted by the House of Representatives, and 
        that the same shall be exhibited to the Senate in the 
        following words and figures, to wit:
          Articles of impeachment of the House of 
        Representatives of the United States of America in the 
        name of themselves and of all of the people of the 
        United States of America against Halsted L. Ritter, who 
        was appointed, duly qualified, and commissioned to 
        serve, during good behavior in office, as United States 
        district judge for the southern district of Florida, on 
        February 15, 1929. . . . (March 2, 1936, 74-2, House 
        Journal, p. 193.)
    The articles of impeachment followed in the body of the 
resolution, and a single vote was taken on the question of both 
impeachment and adoption of the articles.
    This procedure in the House of Representatives for 
impeaching and adopting the articles of impeachment in a single 
resolution has been used since 1904 (see the case of Harold 
Louderback, February 24, 1933, 72-2, House Journal, p. 303; the 
case of George W. English, March 30, 1926, 69-1, House Journal, 
p. 434, in which a separate vote on article 1 of the articles, 
of impeachment was obtained; and the case of Robert W. 
Archbald, July 11, 1912, 62-2, House Journal, p. 854).
    Prior to 1904, the impeachment process and their drafting 
of articles of impeachment and their adoption were all separate 
procedures.
    In the case of William Blount, the House voted a resolution 
of impeachment on July 7, 1797 (July 7, 1797, 5-1, House 
Journal, p. 72). The committee to draft articles of impeachment 
was appointed the following day, July 8, 1797 (July 8, 1797, 5-
1, House Journal, p. 96), and the articles of impeachment were 
agreed to January 29, 1798 (January 29, 1798, 5-2, House 
Journal, pp. 151-53). In the case of John Pickering, the House 
voted a resolution of impeachment on March 3, 1803 (March 3, 
1803, 7-2, House Journal, p. 383). The committee was appointed 
to prepare articles of impeachment on October 20, 1803 (October 
20, 1803, 8-1, House Journal, p. 411), and the articles of 
impeachment were agreed to December 30, 1803 (December 30, 
1803, 8-1, House Journal, pp. 507-09). In the case of Samuel 
Chase, the House voted its resolution of impeachment on March 
12, 1804 (March 12, 1804, 8-1, House Journal, p. 643). The 
committee was appointed to draft articles of impeachment on 
March 13, 1804 (March 13, 1804, 8-1, House Journal, p. 645), 
and the articles were agreed to December 4, 1804 (December 4, 
1804, 8-2, House Journal, pp. 34-43). The resolution of 
impeachment of James H. Peck was voted in the House of 
Representatives April 24, 1830, and on the same day a committee 
was appointed to draft articles of impeachment (April 24, 1830, 
21-1, House Journal, p. 565). The articles of impeachment were 
adopted May 1, 1830 (May 1, 1830, 21-1, House Journal, p. 592). 
The impeachment resolution of West H. Humphreys was agreed to 
May 6, 1862 (May 6, 1862, 37-2, House Journal, p. 646). The 
committee was appointed to prepare articles on May 14, 1862 
(May 14, 1862, 37-2, House Journal, p. 684), and the articles 
of impeachment were agreed to on May 19, 1862 (May 19, 1862, 
37-2, House Journal, p. 712). In the case of President Andrew 
Johnson, the House voted the resolution of impeachment February 
24, 1868 (February 24, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, p. 392). The 
committee to draft articles of impeachment was appointed the 
same day (February 24, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, p. 393). The 
articles of impeachment were agreed to on March 2, 1868 (March 
2, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, pp. 440-51). In the case of 
William W. Belknap, the resolution was voted in the House on 
March 2, 1876 (March 2, 1876, 44-1, House Journal, p. 496). The 
committee was appointed the same day (March 2, 1876, 44-1, 
House Journal, p. 496), and the articles of impeachment were 
agreed to April 3, 1876 (April 3, 1876, 44-1, House Journal, 
pp. 726-33). In the impeachment of Charles Swayne, a resolution 
of impeachment was agreed to in the House December 12, 1904 
(December 12, 1904, 58-3, House Journal, p. 51). The committee 
to draft the articles was appointed the same day (December 12, 
1904, 58-3, House Journal, p. 51). The articles of impeachment 
were agreed to January 18, 1905 (January 18, 1905, 58-3, House 
Journal, pp. 158-62).]
    On Monday, March 9, 1936 (Legislative day of Monday, 
February 24, 1936), following the approval of the Journal, a 
message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Haltigan, one 
of its readingclerks, informed the Senate that the House had 
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors Halsted L. Ritter, United 
States district judge for the southern district of Florida, and that 
the House had adopted articles of impeachment against said Halsted L. 
Ritter, judge as aforesaid, which the managers on the part of the House 
had been directed to carry to the Senate, and that Hatton W. Sumners, 
Randolph Perkins, and Sam Hobbs, Members of the House, had been 
appointed such managers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ March 9, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The message, subsequently that day, was laid before the 
Senate by the Presiding Officer and an order was immediately 
adopted to inform the House that the Senate would receive 
managers at 1:00 p.m. on the following day to exhibit the 
articles of impeachment as follows:
          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 Halsted L. 
        Ritter, United States district judge for the southern 
        district of Florida, agreeably to the notice 
        communicated to the Senate, and that at the hour of 1 
        o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, March 10, 1936, the Senate 
        will receive the honorable managers on the part of the 
        House of Representatives, in order that they may 
        present and exhibit the said articles of impeachment 
        against the said Halsted L. Ritter, United States 
        district judge for the southern district of Florida.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Senate Journal, 74-2, March 9, 1936, p. 473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Trial of Harold Louderback

    On Tuesday, February 28, 1933, during the consideration of 
a conference report, the following message from the House of 
Representatives was received:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution (H. Res. 403), which I 
        am directed to communicate to the Senate:
          Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to 
        inform them that this House has impeached Harold 
        Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California, for misdemeanors in 
        office, and that the House has adopted articles of 
        impeachment against said Harold Louderback, judge as a 
        foresaid, which the managers on the part of the House 
        have been directed to carry to the Senate, and that 
        Hatton W. Sumners, Gordon Browning, Malcolm C. Tarver, 
        Fiorello H. LaGuardia, and Charles I. Sparks, Members 
        of this House, have been appointed such managers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ February 28, 1933, 72-2, Journal, p. 299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shortly after the message was received, the matter being 
laid before the Senate, an order was adopted to inform the 
House of Representatives that the Senate was ready to receive 
the managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment as follows:
          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 Harold 
        Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California, agreeably to the 
        notice communicated to the Senate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ February 28, 1933, 72-2, Senate Journal, p. 299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Trial of Andrew Johnson

    On Tuesday, February 25, 1868, during the morning business, 
the Senate received the following message from the House of 
Representatives:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution, which I am directed to 
        communicate to the Senate:
          Resolved, That a committee of two 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 Andrew Johnson, President 
        of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors 
        in office, and 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 Andrew Johnson to 
        answer to said impeachment.
          Ordered, That Mr. Thaddeus Stevens and Mr. John A. 
        Bingham be appointed to such committee.5a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5a\ February 25, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this point the Senate continued with legislative 
business and while a Senator was addressing the Chair, the 
Sergeant at Arms announced a committee from the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens and Mr. John A. Bingham, 
who appeared at the bar of the Senate and delivered the 
following message:
          Mr. President: By order of the House of 
        Representatives we appear at the bar of the Senate, and 
        in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all 
        the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew 
        Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes 
        and misdemeanors in office; and we do further inform 
        the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in 
        due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment 
        against him, and make good the same; and in their name 
        we do demand that the Senate take order for the 
        appearance of the said Andrew Johnson to answer to said 
        impeachment.
The President of the Senate pro tempore replied that the Senate 
would take order in the premises, and the committee 
withdrew.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ February 25, 1868, 40-2, Journal, p. 217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The above message was referred to a select committee which 
made a report on the following day, immediately after which the 
Senate adopted the following order making ready for receiving 
the articles of impeachment:
          Whereas the House of Representatives on the twenty-
        fifth day of the present month, by two of their 
        members, Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, 
        at the bar of the Senate, impeached Andrew Johnson, 
        President of the United States, of high crimes and 
        misdemeanors in office; and informed the Senate that 
        the House of Representatives will, indue 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 
said Andrew Johnson to answer to the said impeachment: Therefore,
    Resolved, That the Senate will take proper order thereon, 
of which due notice shall be given to the House of 
Representatives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ February 26, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There were slight variations from the above procedures in 
some of the other impeachment trials held by the Senate as set 
forth below.
    [Briefly, the procedure for each of the other cases 
follows:

                       Trial of George W. English

    On Tuesday, April 6, 1926 (Legislative day of April 5, 
1926), during the consideration of a resolution declaring 
Daniel F. Steck to be the duly elected Senator from the State 
of Iowa, the following message from the House was received:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution, which I am directed to 
        communicate to the Senate:
          Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to 
        inform them that this House has impeached George W. 
        English, United States district judge for the Eastern 
        District of Illinois, for misdemeanors in office, and 
        that the House has adopted articles of impeachment 
        against said George W. English, judge as aforesaid, 
        which the managers on the part of the House have been 
        directed to carry to the Senate, and that Earl C. 
        Michener, W. D. Boies, Ira G. Gersey, C. Ellis Moore, 
        George R. Stobbs, Hatton W. Sumners, Andrew J. 
        Montague, John N. Tilman, and Fred H. Dominick, Members 
        of this House, have been appointed such managers.
                                (April 5, 1926, 69-1, Journal, p. 268.)

                      Trial of Robert W. Archbald

    On Saturday, July 13, 1912 (Legislative day of July 6, 
1912), during the morning business, the Senate received the 
following message from the Chief Clerk of the House:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution, which I am directed to 
        communicate to the Senate:
          Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to 
        inform them that this House has impeached, for high 
        crimes and misdemeanors, Robert W. Archbald, circuit 
        judge of the United States Commerce Court, and that the 
        House adopted articles of impeachment against said 
        Robert W. Archbald, judge as aforesaid, which the 
        managers on the part of the House have been directed to 
        carry to the Senate, and that Henry D. Clayton, of 
        Alabama; Edwin Y. Webb, of North Carolina, John C. 
        Floyd, of Arkansas; John W. Davis of West Virginia; 
        John A. Sterling, of Illinois; Paul Howland, of Ohio; 
        and George W. Norris, of Nebraska, Members of this 
        House, have been appointed such managers.
                                 (July 6, 1912, 62-2, Journal, p. 452.)

                        Trial of Charles Swayne

    On Wednesday, December 14, 1904, after consideration of 
bills on the Calendar under Rule VIII, the Senate received the 
following message from the House:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution, which I am directed to 
        communicate to the Senate:
          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 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 by the 
Speaker was announced.
    At this point the Sergeant at Arms announced the presence 
of the committee from the House of Representatives, and the 
following ensued:
          The President pro tempore. 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 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 stated that the Senate would take 
proper order in the premises, notice of which would be given to 
the House.
    The committee of the House of Representatives thereupon 
retired from the Chamber.
                         (December 14, 1904, 58-3, Journal, pp. 38-39.)

                      Trial of William W. Belknap

    On Friday, March 3, 1876, following the introduction of 
bills and resolution, the following message from the House was 
presented:
          Mr. President: The House of Representatives has 
        passed the following resolution, which I am directed to 
        communicate to the Senate:
          Resolved, That a committee of five members of this 
        House be appointed and instructed to proceed 
        immediately to the bar of the Senate, and there impeach 
        William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, in the name 
        of the House of Representatives and of all the people 
        of the United States of America, of high crimes and 
        misdemeanors while in office, and to inform that body 
        that formal articles of impeachment will in due time be 
        presented, and to request the Senate to take such order 
        in the premises as they deem appropriate.
          Ordered, That Mr. Heister Clymer, Mr. William M. 
        Robbins, Mr. Joseph C. S. Blackburn, Mr. Lyman K. Bass, 
        and Mr. Lorenzo Danford be the committee aforesaid.
The committee aforesaid then proceeded to the bar of the Senate 
and delivered the following message:
          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 
        William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War of the United 
        States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and 
        we 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 said William W. Belknap to answer 
        said impeachment.
The President pro tempore replied that the Senate would take 
order in the premises; and the committee withdrew.
                                (March 3, 1876, 44-1, Journal, p. 271.)

                       Trial of West H. Humphreys

    On Wednesday, May 7, 1862, during the consideration of 
legislative business, the following message from the House was 
announced:
          Resolved, That a committee of two 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 West H. Humphreys, judge 
        of the district court of the United States for the 
        several districts of Tennessee, of high crimes and 
        misdemeanors, and 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 West H. Humphreys 
        to answer to said impeachment.
The Speaker, in accordance with the foregoing resolution, 
appointed Mr. John A. Bingham and Mr. George H. Pendleton the 
said committee.
    The committee aforesaid then proceeded to the bar of the 
Senate to deliver the following message:
          Mr. President: By order of the House of 
        Representatives we appear at the bar of the Senate, and 
        in the name of the House of Representatives, and of the 
        people of the United States, we do impeach West H. 
        Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United 
        States for the several districts of Tennessee, of high 
        crimes and misdemeanors; and we do further inform the 
        Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due 
        time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment 
        against him, and make good the same; and in their name 
        we do demand that the Senate take order for the 
        appearance of said West H. Humphreys to answer to said 
        impeachment.
          The President of the Senate replied that the Senate 
        would take order in the premises, and the committee 
        withdrew.
                              (May 7, 1862, 37-2, Journal, pp. 454-55.)

                         Trial of James H. Peck

    On Monday, April 26, 1830, during the consideration of 
various legislation, the following message from the House of 
Representatives was announced by two of their members, Mr. 
Buchanan and Mr. Henry R. Storrs, as follows:
          Mr. President: We have been directed, in the name of 
        the House of Representatives, and of all the people of 
        the United States, to impeach James H. Peck, Judge of 
        the District Court of the United States for the 
        District of Missouri, of high 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.
          We have also been directed to demand that the Senate 
        take order for the appearance of said James H. Peck, to 
        answer to said impeachment.
And they withdrew.
                               (April 26, 1830, 21-1, Journal, p. 269.)

                         Trial of Samuel Chase

    On Tuesday, March 13, 1804, during the conduct of routine 
business, a message was received from the House of 
Representatives by Messrs. J. Randolph and Early, two of their 
members.
          Mr. President: We are ordered, in the name of the 
        House of Representatives and of all the People of the 
        United States, to impeach Samuel Chase, one of the 
        associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
        States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; 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.
          We are also ordered to demand that the Senate take 
        order for the appearance of the said Samuel Chase, to 
        answer to the said impeachment.
And they withdrew.
                                (March 13, 1804, 8-1, Journal, p. 374.)

                        Trial of John Pickering

    On Thursday, March 3, 1803, during the conduct of 
legislative business, a message was received from the House of 
Representatives by Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Randolph, two of the 
members of said House, in the words following:
          Mr. President: We are commanded in the name of the 
        House of Representatives and of all the people of the 
        United States, to impeach John Pickering, judge of the 
        district court of the district of New Hampshire, of 
        high crimes and misdemeanors; 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.
          We are further commanded, to demand that the Senate 
        take order for the appearance of the said John 
        Pickering to answer to the said impeachment.
And they withdrew.
                                 (March 3, 1803, 7-2, Journal, p. 284.)

                        Trial of William Blount

    On Friday, July 7, 1797, during the conduct of routine 
business, a message was received from the House of 
Representatives, by Mr. Sitgreaves, one of their members, in 
the words following:
          Mr. President: I am commanded, in the name of the 
        House of Representatives, and of all the people of the 
        United States, to impeach William Blount, a Senator of 
        the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and 
        to acquaint the Senate, that the House of 
        Representatives will in due time, exhibit particular 
        articles against him, and make good the same.
          I am further commanded, to demand, that the said 
        William Blount be sequestered from his seat in the 
        Senate; and that the Senate do take order for his 
        appearance, to answer the said impeachment.
And he withdrew.
                                 (July 7, 1797, 5-1, Journal, p. 388.)]

2. In Some of the Recent Trials, at This Stage of the Proceedings, the 
 Senate Has Adopted Resolutions To Provide for the Payment of Expenses 
                           of the Said Trials

    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter in 1936, the Senate 
adopted an initial resolution providing for $5,000,\8\ and 
later adopted a supplemental resolution providing an additional 
$15,000 for such expenses.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ March 9, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 473.
    \9\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The form of such resolution is as follows:
          Resolved, That not to exceed $5,000 is authorized to 
        be expended from the appropriation for miscellaneous 
        items, contingent expenses of the Senate, to defray the 
        expenses of the Senate in the impeachment trial of 
        Halsted L. Ritter.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ March 9, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Swayne in 1905, a joint resolution 
providing for direct appropriations from the Treasury was 
passed to defray the expenses of the Senate in the impeachment 
trial.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ January 24, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 1289; January 24, 1905, 53-
3, Journal, p. 119, signed by President Jan. 31, 1905; Feb. 7, 1905, 
58-3, Journal, p. 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 3. Managers on the Part of the House of Representatives Appear in the 
Senate Chamber and Are Announced. The Presiding Officer Directs Them to 
    the Seats Provided for Them and the Sergeant at Arms Makes His 
Proclamation. The Chair Recognizes the Managers To Present the Articles 
      of Impeachment, Following a Quorum Call if One is Called for

    In the trials of Judge Ritter, Judge Louderback, and 
President Johnson, this procedure was as follows:

                       Trial of Halsted L. Ritter

    On Monday, February 24 (Calendar day, Tuesday, March 10), 
1936, at 1 o'clock p.m., the secretary for the majority 
announced the presence in the Senate Chamber of the managers 
appointed by the House of Representatives, to wit, Mr. Hatton 
W. Sumners, Mr. Randolph Perkins, and Mr. Sam Hobbs, to conduct 
the impeachment against Halsted L. Ritter, United States 
district judge for the southern district of Florida, and they 
were assigned to seats provided for them.
    The Vice President directed the Sergeant at Arms to make 
proclamation; and the Sergeant at Arms thereupon made 
proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the 
        southern district of Florida.
    Mr. Robinson raised a question as to the presence of a 
quorum, whereupon the Vice President directed the roll to be 
called, when eighty-six Senators answered to their names.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    A quorum being present, Mr. Sumners, as chairman, announced 
that the managers on the part of the House were present and 
ready to exhibit articles of impeachment preferred by the House 
against Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the 
southern district of Florida, and he read the resolution 
received on yesterday from the House of Representatives, 
appointing the managers to conduct the impeachment against the 
said Halsted L. Ritter and instructing them to appear before 
the Senate and demand his impeachment and trial.
    Mr. Hobbs, one of the managers on the part of the House, 
then read the articles of impeachment:\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Trial of Harold Louderback

    On Friday, March 3, 1933, at 12 o'clock and 20 minutes 
p.m., the assistant doorkeeper announced the presence in the 
Senate Chamber of the managers appointed by the House of 
Representatives, to wit, Mr. Sumners, Mr. Browning, Mr. Tarver, 
Mr. LaGuardia, and Mr. Sparks, to conduct the impeachment 
against Harold Louderback, United States district judge for the 
northern district of California, and they were assigned to 
seats provided for them.
    Mr. Sumners announced that the managers on the part of the 
House were presented to exhibit articles of impeachment 
preferred by the House against Harold Louderback, United States 
district judge for the northern district of California.
    The Vice President then directed the Deputy Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation; and the Deputy Sergeant at Arms 
having made proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        Harold Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California.
    Mr. Sumners as chairman, read the resolution received from 
the House of Representatives on February 28, 1933, appointing 
the managers to conduct the impeachment against the said Harold 
Louderback, and instructing them to appear before the Senate 
and demand his impeachment and trial.
    Mr. Browning, one of the managers on the part of the House, 
read the articles of impeachment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ March 3, 1933, 72-2, Journal, pp. 283-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Trial of Andrew Johnson

    On Wednesday, March 4, 1868, at 1 o'clock p.m., the 
Sergeant at Arms announced the presence at the door of the 
Senate Chamber of the managers appointed by the House of 
Representatives, to wit: Mr. Bingham, Mr. Boutwell, Mr. James 
F. Wilson, Mr. Butler, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Logan, and Mr. 
Thaddeus Stevens, to conduct the impeachment against Andrew 
Johnson, President of the United States.
    The President pro tempore requested the managers to take 
the seats assigned them within the bar of the Senate.
    Mr. Bingham rose and announced, on the part of the 
managers, that they were ready to exhibit, on the part of the 
House of Representatives, articles of impeachment against 
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States.
    The President pro tempore then directed the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation; and the Sergeant at Arms having made 
proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        Andrew Johnson, President of the United States.
    The managers rose, and Mr. Bingham, their chairman, read 
the articles.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ March 4, 1868, 40-2, Journal, p. 800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There were slight variations in the above procedures in 
some of the other impeachment trials held by the Senate, set 
forth below. [Briefly, the procedure for each of the other 
cases follows:

                       Trial of George W. English

    On Monday, April 19, 1926, at 2 o'clock, the assistant 
doorkeeper announced the presence in the Senate Chamber of the 
managers appointed by the House of Representatives, to wit, Mr. 
Michener, Mr. Boies, Mr. Hersey, Mr. Moore, Mr. Stobbs, Mr. 
Sumners, Mr. Montague, Mr. Tilman, and Mr. Dominick, to conduct 
the impeachment against George W. English, United States 
district judge for the eastern district of Illinois, and they 
were assigned to seats provided for them.
    Mr. Michener announced that the managers on the part of the 
House were ready to exhibit the articles of impeachment adopted 
by the House against George W. English, United States district 
judge for the eastern district of Illinois.
    The Vice President then directed the Sergeant at Arms to 
make proclamation; and the Sergeant at Arms having made 
proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        George W. English, United States district judge for the 
        eastern district of Illinois.
    The managers arose, and Mr. Michener, their chairman, 
thereupon read the articles of impeachment.
                              (April 19, 1926, 691-1, Journal, p. 336.)

                      Trial of Robert W. Archbald

    On Monday, July 15, 1912, at 12 o'clock and 15 minutes 
p.m., the Sergeant at Arms announced the presence in the Senate 
Chamber of the managers appointed by the House of 
Representatives, to wit, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Webb, Mr. Floyd, Mr. 
Davis of West Virginia, Mr. Sterling, Mr. Howland, and Mr. 
Norris, to conduct the impeachment against Robert W. Archbald, 
circuit judge of the United States and designated as a judge of 
the United States Commerce Court.
    Mr. Clayton announced on the part of the managers that they 
were ready to exhibit, on the part of the House of 
Representatives, articles of impeachment against Robert W. 
Archbald, circuit judge of the United States and designated as 
a judge of the United States Commerce Court.
    The President pro tempore then directed the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation; and the Sergeant at Arms having made 
proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United Statesarticles of impeachment against Robert 
W. Archbald, circuit judge of the United States and designated as a 
judge of the United States Commerce Court.
    The managers arose, and Mr. Clayton, their chairman, read 
the articles of impeachment.
                                (July 15, 1912, 62-2, Journal, p. 454.)

                        Trial of Charles Swayne

    On Tuesday, January 24, 1905, at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes 
p.m., the Sergeant at Arms announced the presence in the Senate 
Chamber of the managers appointed by the House of 
Representatives, to wit, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Clayton, 
Mr. DeArmond, and Mr. Smith of Kentucky to conduct the 
impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the district court 
of the United States in and for the northern district of the 
State of Florida.
    The President pro tempore requested the managers to take 
the seats assigned them within the bar of the Senate.
    Mr. Palmer rose and announced on the part of the managers 
that they were ready to exhibit, on the part of the House of 
Representatives, articles of impeachment against Charles 
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in and 
for the northern district of the State of Florida
    The President pro tempore then directed the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation; and the Sergeant at Arms having made 
proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to 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 in and for the northern district of 
        Florida.
    The managers rose, and Mr. Palmer, their chairman, read the 
articles of impeachment.
                             (January 24, 1905, 58-3, Journal, p. 119.)

                      Trial of William W. Belknap

    On Tuesday, April 4, 1876, at 1 o'clock and 25 minutes 
p.m., the Sergeant at Arms announced the presence in the Senate 
Chamber of the managers appointed by the House of 
Representatives, to wit: Mr. Lord, Mr. Knott, Mr. Lynde, Mr. 
McMahon, Mr. Jenks, Mr. Lapham, and Mr. Hoar, to conduct the 
impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
    The President pro tempore requested the managers to take 
the seats assigned them within the bar of the Senate.
    Mr. Lord rose and announced, on the part of the managers, 
that they were ready to exhibit, on the part of the House of 
Representatives, articles of impeachment against William W. 
Belknap, late Secretary of War.
    The President pro tempore then directed the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation; and, the Sergeant at Arms having 
made proclamation in the following words:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
    The managers rose, and Mr. Lord, their chairman, read the 
articles of impeachment.
                            (April 4, 1876, 44-1, Journal, pp. 900-01.)

                       Trial of West H. Humphreys

    On Thursday, May 22, 1862, the managers appointed by the 
House of Representatives, to wit, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Pendleton, 
Mr. Train, and Mr. Dunlop, appeared and were admitted; and Mr. 
Bingham, their chairman, announced that they were instructed by 
the House of Representatives to exhibit certain articles of 
impeachment against West H. Humphreys, judge of the district 
court of the United States for the districts of Tennessee.
    The Vice President requested the managers to take the seats 
assigned them within the bar, and directed the Sergeant at Arms 
to make proclamation as follows:
          Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons are commanded to keep 
        silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the grand 
        inquest of the nation is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against West 
        H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United 
        States for the districts of Tennessee.
    After which, the managers rose, and Mr. Bingham, their 
chairman, read the articles of impeachment.
                                 (May 22, 1862, 37-2, Journal, p. 889.)

                         Trial of James H. Peck

    On Tuesday, May 4, 1830, the managers on the part of the 
House of Representatives, viz: Messrs. Buchanan, Storrs, of New 
York, McDuffie, Spencer, and Wickliffe, appeared, and were 
admitted; and Mr. Buchanan, their chairman, having announced 
that they were the managers instructed by the House of 
Representatives to exhibit a certain article of impeachment 
against James H. Peck, Judge of the district court of the 
United States for the district of Missouri.
    They were requested by the Vice President to take seats 
assigned them within the bar; and the Sergeant at Arms was 
directed to make proclamation in the words following:
          Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons are commanded to keep 
        silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the grand 
        inquest of the nation is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against James 
        H. Peck, Judge of the district court of the United 
        States for the district of Missouri.
    After which the managers rose, and Mr. Buchanan, their 
chairman, read the articles of impeachment.
                                  (May 4, 1830, 21-2, Journal, p. 240.)

                         Trial of Samuel Chase

    On Friday, December 7, 1804, the managers on the part of 
the House of Representatives, to wit: Messrs. John Randolph, 
Rodney, Nicholson, Early, Boyle, Nelson, and G.W. Campbell, 
were admitted;and Mr. Randolph, the chairman, announced ``that 
they were the managers instructed by the House of Representatives to 
exhibit certain articles of impeachment against Samuel Chase, one of 
the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.''
    The managers were requested by the President to take seats 
assigned them within the bar, and the Sergeant at Arms was 
directed to make proclamation in the words following:
          Oyes! Oyes! Oyes! All persons are commanded to keep 
        silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the grand 
        inquest of the nation is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against 
        Samuel Chase, one of the associate justices of the 
        Supreme Court of the United States.
    After which the managers rose, and Mr. Randolph, their 
chairman, read the articles.
                          (December 7, 1804, 8-1, Journal, pp. 509-10.)

                        Trial of John Pickering

    On Wednesday, January 4, 1804, the managers on the part of 
the House of Representatives, Messrs. Nicholson, Early, Rodney, 
Eustis, John Randolph, jun. Samuel L. Mitchill, George W. 
Campbell, Blackledge, Boyle, Joseph Clay, and Newton, were 
admitted; and Mr. Nicholson, the chairman, announced that they 
were the managers instructed by the House of Representatives to 
exhibit certain articles of impeachment against John Pickering, 
district judge of the district of New Hampshire.
    They were requested by the President to take seats assigned 
them within the bar. The Sergeant at Arms was directed to make 
proclamation, in the words following:
          Oyes! Oyes! Oyes! All persons are commanded to keep 
        silence on pain of imprisonment, while the grand 
        inquest of the Nation is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States, sitting as a court of impeachments, 
        articles of impeachment against John Pickering, judge 
        of the district court of the district of New Hampshire.
The managers then rose, and Mr. Nicholson, their chairman, read 
the articles.
                               (January 4, 1804, 8-1, Journal, p. 495.)

                        Trial of William Blount

    On Wednesday, February 7, 1798, a message was announced 
from the House of Representatives, by the managers on the part 
of the House of Representatives, Messrs. Sitgreaves, Bayard, 
Harper, Gordon, Pinckney, Dana, Sewall, Hosmer, Dennis, Evans, 
and Imlay, who, being introduced, Mr. Sitgreaves, their 
chairman, addressed the Senate as follows:
          Mr. Vice President: The House of Representatives 
        having agreed upon articles, in maintenance of their 
        impeachment against William Blount, for high crimes and 
        misdemeanors, and having appointed on their part 
        managers of the said impeachment, the managers have now 
        the honor to attend the Senate, for the purpose of 
        exhibiting the said articles.
    The Vice President then ordered the Sergeant at Arms to 
proclaim silence, after which he notified the managers that the 
Senate were ready to hear the articles of impeachment; 
whereupon, the chairman of the managers read the articles of 
impeachment, and they were received from him at the bar by the 
Sergeant at Arms, and laid on the table.
    The Vice President then informed the managers, that the 
Senate will take proper order on the subject of the 
impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of 
Representatives, and they withdrew. The Secretary then read the 
articles of impeachment. . . .
                             (February 7, 1798, 5-2, Journal, p. 435.)]

4. The Managers, After Presenting the Articles of Impeachment, Asks the 
 Senate To Take Order for the Trial, and the Presiding Officer Informs 
      the Managers That the Senate Will Duly Inform the House of 
Representatives When Ready for the Trial. The Managers After Delivering 
          the Articles of Impeachment Withdraw From the Senate

    In the trial of Judge Ritter and Judge Louderback, the 
Journal exhibits the procedure, as set forth below; but in the 
case of President Johnson, the President pro tempore merely 
announced ``that the Senate would take proper order. . . .'' 
15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ March 2, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The reading of the articles of impeachment having 
        been concluded, Mr. Sumners said:
          ``Mr. President, 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 Halsted 
        L. Ritter, a district judge of the United States for 
        the southern district of Florida, and also of replying 
        to his answers which he shall make unto the articles 
        preferred against him, and of offering proof to the 
        same and every part thereof, and to all and every other 
        article of accusation or impeachment which shall be 
        exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand 
        that the said Halsted L. Ritter may be put to answer 
        the misdemeanors in office which have been charged 
        against him in the articles which have been exhibited 
        to the Senate, and that such proceedings, examinations, 
        trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given as 
        may be agreeable to law and justice.
          ``Mr. President, the managers on the part of the 
        House of Representatives, in pursuance of the action of 
        the House of Representatives by the adoption of the 
        articles of impeachment which have just been read to 
        the Senate, do now demand that the Senate take order 
        for the appearance of said Halsted L. Ritter to answer 
        said impeachment, and do now demand his impeachment, 
        conviction, and removal from office.''
          The Vice President informed the managers that the 
        Senate would take proper order in the matter of the 
        impeachment, and that notice would be given to the 
        House of Representatives.
          The managers, by their chairman, Mr. Sumners, then 
        delivered the articles of impeachment at the 
        Secretary's desk, and withdrew from the 
        Chamber.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. After the Articles of Impeachment Have Been Presented to the Senate, 
    the Next Step Is for the Senate to Organize for the Trial. The 
  Presiding Officer Takes His Oath for the Trial and Then, as in the 
 Ritter Trial, Administers the Oath to the Senators Standing at Their 
 Seats. In the Case of the Johnson Trial, This Procedure Was Somewhat 
    Different Since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Presided

    In the recent trials some particular Senator is designated 
on motion to administer the oath to the President pro tempore 
of the Senate or the Presiding Officer,17 as the 
case may be, who then in turn administers the following oath to 
the rest of the membership of the Senate,18 on 
occasion en bloc,19 with the Senators standing at 
their respective seats:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 477, March 9, 1933, 
73-1, Senate Journal, p. 307; July 16, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, pp. 
628-29.
    \18\ Ibid.; this form of the oath is prescribed in Rule XXV, and 
was adopted in 1868, and is the same oath administered to both the 
entire membership of the Senate and the Chief Justice.
    \19\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          You do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining 
        to the trial of the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, 
        United States district judge for the southern district 
        of Florida, now pending, you will do impartial justice 
        according to the Constitution and laws. So help you 
        God.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 12, 1936, during the trial of Halsted Ritter, it 
was announced that it was the duty of the Journal Clerk to keep 
the names of Senators who had taken the oath subsequent to the 
time the other Senators took their oath en bloc, and that there 
would be no other record.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 3646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If the Senators are not present when the oath is 
administered to the entire membership, the oath will be 
administered to them subsequently when they show during the 
trial, but to participate in the trial they each must have 
taken the oath.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See Rule III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 12, 1936, during the conduct of regular 
legislative business and prior to the hour of 1 o'clock, at 
which time the Senate would resolve itself into a court of 
impeachment, the following occurred:
          Mr. McNary. Mr. President, I am advised that the 
        junior Senator from Vermont (Mr. Gibson) desires to 
        take the oath as a juror in the impeachment 
        proceedings.
          The Vice President. After a thorough survey of the 
        situation, the best judgment of the Chair is that 
        Senators who have not heretofore taken the oath as 
        jurors of the court should take it after the Senate 
        resolves itself into a court; all Senators who have not 
        as yet taken the oath as jurors will take the oath at 
        that time.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 3641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of an impeachment of the President of the 
United States or the Vice President of the United States, the 
Constitution and Rule IV provide for the Chief Justice of the 
United States Supreme Court to preside, and for the timing of 
the appearance of the Chief Justice. Rule IV of the Senate 
impeachment rules reads as follows:
          When the President of the United States, or the Vice-
        President of the United States, upon whom the powers 
        and duties of the office of President shall have 
        devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the 
        United States shall preside; and in a case requiring 
        the said Chief Justice to preside, notice shall be 
        given to him by the presiding officer of the Senate of 
        the time and place fixed for the consideration of the 
        articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request 
        to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be 
        administered the oath by the presiding officer of the 
        Senate and shall preside over the Senate during the 
        consideration of said articles, and upon the trial of 
        the person impeached therein.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ In the trial of President Johnson, there was some conflict 
between the Chief Justice and the Senate as to when the Chief Justice 
should begin to preside.
    On March 4, 1868, the Senate received a letter from Chief Justice 
Salmon P. Clase outlining his view of the timing of his appearance for 
the trial of Andrew Johnson which read in part:
    ``That when the Senate sits for the trial of an impeachment it sits 
as a court seems unquestionable.
    ``That for the trial of an impeachment of the President, this court 
must be constituted of the members of the Senate, with the Chief 
Justice presiding, seems equally unquestionable.
    . . . the organization of the Senate as a court of impeachment, 
under the Constitution, should precede the actual announcement of the 
impeachment on the part of the House.
    . . . articles of impeachment should only be presented to a court 
of impeachment that no summons or other process should issue except 
from the organized court, and that rules for the government of the 
proceedings of such a court should be framed only by the court 
itself.''
    The letter was read to the Senate and referred to the select 
committee appointed to consider the message on impeachment from the 
House of Representatives and no further action was taken. The Senate 
proceeded to receive the managers on the part of the House and to hear 
the articles of impeachment in the absence of the Chief Justice and at 
the conclusion of the day adopted an order to notify the Chief Justice. 
(March 4, 1868, 40-2, Journal, p. 799.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, the only 
precedent for a Chief Justice presiding during a trial of 
impeachment, a resolution was adopted following the reading to 
the articles of impeachment as follows:
    Resolved, That at 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon the Senate 
will proceed to consider the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, 
President of the United States, at which time the oath or 
affirmation required by the rules of the Senate sitting for the 
trial of an impeachment shall be administered by the Chief 
Justice of the United States, as the presiding officer of the 
Senate, sitting as aforesaid, to each member of the Senate, and 
that the Senate sitting as aforesaid will at the time aforesaid 
receive the managers appointed by the House of Representatives.
    Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the 
House of Representatives.
    Ordered, That the articles of impeachment exhibited against 
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be printed.
    Ordered, That a copy of the ``rules of procedure and 
practice in the Senate when sitting on the trial of 
impeachments'' be communicated by the Secretary to the House of 
Representatives,and a copy thereof delivered by him to each 
member of the House.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Senate Journal, 40-2, March 4, 1868, pp. 807-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This in turn was followed by the adoption of an order giving 
notice to the Chief Justice as follows:
          Ordered, That the notice to the Chief Justice of the 
        United States to meet the Senate in the trial of the 
        case of impeachment, and requesting his attendance as 
        presiding officer, be delivered to him by a committee 
        of three Senators, to be appointed by the Chair, who 
        shall wait upon the Chief Justice to the Senate Chamber 
        and conduct him to the Chair.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ March 4, 1868, 40-2, Journal, p. 808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day at the hour of 1 o'clock, the President pro 
tempore made the following statement and then vacated the 
Chair:
          The morning hour having expired, all legislative and 
        executive business of the Senate is ordered to cease 
        for the purpose of proceeding to business pertaining to 
        the impeachment of the President of the United States. 
        The chair as vacated for that purpose.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Congressional Globe, 40-2, March 5, 1868, p. 1671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this point the Chief Justice of the United States 
entered the Chamber accompanied by the ranking associate 
justice of the Supreme Court and escorted by a Senate committee 
of three appointed for that purpose. Upon taking the Chair, the 
Chief Justice made the following statement:
          Senators: I attend the Senate in obedience to your 
        notice, for the purpose of joining with you in forming 
        a court of impeachment for the trial of the President 
        of the United States, and I am now ready to take the 
        oath.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ March 5, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe, p. 1671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oath was then administered to the Chief Justice by the 
Associate Justice as follows:
          I do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining 
        to the trial of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, 
        President of the United States, I will do impartial 
        justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help 
        me God.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Ibid., p. 871; this form was agreed to in 1868, but as 
reported to the Senate, it provided that the form of the oath was to be 
administered to the Presiding Officer and members of the Senate. 
Senator Charles Drake of Missouri raises the point that the 
Constitution did not require that the Presiding Officer be sworn, only 
the Senators, and indeed that the Chief Justice was already sworn to 
perform his duties, and that presiding in an impeachment trial was part 
of those duties. (March 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe, pp. 1590-
93.) As a result, the Senate agreed to an amendment striking out the 
words ``Presiding Officer'' from the heading providing for the oath. In 
spite of this, when the Chief Justice arrived in the Senate for the 
trial of Andrew Johnson, he was accompanied by the senior Associate 
Justice of the Supreme Court who did administer the oath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereupon the Chief Justice administered the oath to the 
Senators individually and in alphabetical order. The oath is 
found in Rule XXV.
    During the trial of the President, as the Chief Justice 
entered the Senate Chamber, he was escorted to the Chair by the 
chairman of the Senate committee appointed for that 
purpose.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Congressional Globe Supplement, 40-2, March 23, 1868, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. After the Oaths are Administered, the Chair Directs the Sergeant At 
Arms To Make Proclamation for the Beginning of the Trial and the Order 
               for a Summons to the Respondent Is Adopted

    The proclamation is set forth under Rule II as follows:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded 
        to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the 
        House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of 
        the United States articles of impeachment against ----
        -- ------.
    The proclamation is repeated each new day of the trial by 
the Sergeant at Arms, when directed by the Presiding Officer to 
do so, which occurs each day when the trial begins.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ See Rule XII and Rule XIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this point the Senate proceeds to adopt an order to 
notify the House of Representatives that the Senate is 
organized for the trial.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ March 9, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once the House had been notified, the managers appear, 
enter the Senate Chamber, and take seats assigned to them. 
Again, the proclamation is made by the Sergeant at Arms and an 
order for a summons to the respondent is adopted, which, in the 
case of Judge Ritter's trial, took the following form:
          Ordered, That a summons to the accused be issued as 
        required by the rules of procedure and practice in the 
        Senate, when sitting for the trial of the impeachment 
        against Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge 
        for the southern district of Florida, returnable on 
        Thursday, the 12th of March 1936, at 1 o'clock in the 
        afternoon.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The form of the summons as set forth under Rule XXV is as 
follows:
        THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss:
        The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, 
        greeting:
          Whereas the House of Representatives of the United 
        States of America did, on the ------ ------ day of ----
        --, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment 
        against you, the said ------ ------, in the words 
        following:

                      (Here insert the articles.)

        And demand that you, the said ------ ------, should be 
        put to answer the accusations as set forth in said 
        articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, 
        trials, and judgments might be there upon had as are 
        agreeable to law and justice.
          You, the said ------ ------, are therefore hereby 
        summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the 
        United States of America, at their Chamber in the city 
        of Washington, on the ------ day of ------, at ------ 
        o'clock, then and there to answer to the said articles 
        of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, 
        and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as 
        the Senate of the United States shall make in the 
        premises according to the Constitution and laws of the 
        United States.
          Hereof you are not to fail.
          Witness ------ ------, and Presiding Officer of the 
        said Senate, at the city of Washington, this ------ day 
        of ------, in the year of our Lord ------, and of the 
        Independence of the United States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                   Presiding Officer of the Senate.
    The form of the precept to be endorsed on the said writ of 
summons as set forth under Rule XXV is as follows:
        THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss:
        The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, 
        greeting:
          You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with 
        ------ ------, if conveniently to be found, or if not, 
        to leave at his usual place of abode, or at his usual 
        place of business in some conspicuous place, a true and 
        attested copy of the within writ of summons, together 
        with a like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever 
        way you perform the service, let it be done at least --
        ---- days before the appearance day mentioned in the 
        said writ of summons.
          Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and 
        precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or 
        before the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of 
        summons.
          Witness ------ ------, and Presiding Officer of the 
        Senate, at the city of Washington, this ------ day of 
        ------, in the year of our Lord ------, and of the 
        Independence of the United States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                   Presiding Officer of the Senate.
    Subsequently, after the Sergeant at Arms makes his return 
on serving the summons, the Secretary reads it to the Senate:

                               SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
                                    OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS.
          The writ of summons addressed to ------ ------, and 
        the precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the 
        said ------ ------ by me by delivering true and 
        attested copies of the same to the said ------ ------ 
        at the ------, ------, on ------, the ------ of ------ 
        ------ 19------ , at ------ o'clock in the forenoon of 
        that day.
                                             ------ ------,
                        Sergeant at Arms, United States Senate.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ XXV, Impeachment Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the day appointed by the summons, the officer (the Sergeant 
at Arms) who served the process is then administered an oath by 
the Secretary of the Senate as to the truth of the return.
          ``You, ------ ------, do solemnly swear that the 
        return made by you upon the process issued on the ----
        --th day of ------ 19------, by the Senate of the 
        United States against ------ ------, is truly made, and 
        that you have performed such service therein described. 
        So help you God.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ March 12, 1936. 74-2, Journal, p. 478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oath taken by the Sergeant at Arms, attesting to the 
proper return used in the trial of Judge Pickering, follows:
          I, James Mathers, do solemnly swear that the return 
        made and subscribed by me, upon the process issued on 
        the 12th day of January last by the Senate of the 
        United States against John Pickering, is truly made, 
        and that I have performed said services as there 
        described, so help me God.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ March 2, 1804, 8-1, Annals of the Congress of the United 
States, p. 327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Sergeant at Arms, as directed by the Presiding Officer, 
then makes proclamation, which, in the case of Harold L. 
Ritter, was as follows:
          Halsted, L. Ritter! Halsted L. Ritter! Halsted L. 
        Ritter! United States district judge for the southern 
        district of Florida: Appear and answer to the articles 
        of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
        Representatives against you.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The form used in the first impeachment trial, that of 
William Blount, which takes much the same form as used today, 
is as follows:
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!
          William Blount, late a Senator from the State of 
        Tennessee, come forward and answer the articles of 
        impeachment exhibited against you by the House of 
        Representatives.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ December 17, 1798, 5-1 and 2, Annals of the Congress of the 
United States, p. 2245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of Judge Louderback, however, the respondent 
waived personal service and thus the oath was not administered 
to the Sergeant at Arms on the return of the writ. With this 
waiver the following resolution was adopted by the Senate:

 In the Senate of the United States, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment

          Whereas on March 13, 1933, John N. Garner, Vice 
        President and President of the Senate, acting under 
        authority of the Senate, sitting as a Court of 
        Impeachment, and in accordance with the Rules for 
        Impeachment Trials, issued a writ of summons to Harold 
        Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California, commanding him to 
        appear before the Senate of the United States of 
        America at their Chamber in the city of Washington on 
        the 11th day of April, 1933, at 12:30 o'clock 
        afternoon, to answer to articles of impeachment 
        exhibited against him by the House of Representatives 
        of the United States of America, and addressed to 
        Chesley W. Jurney, Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, a 
        precept commanding him to serve true and attested 
        copies of said writ of summons and precept upon the 
        said Harold Louderback personally or by leaving same at 
        his usual place of abode or at his usual place of 
        business; and
          Whereas since the recess of the Senate, sitting as a 
        Court of Impeachment, the said Chesley W. Jurney, as 
        Sergeant at Arms, acting upon a suggestion of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with a view 
        to securing a waiver of personal service of said writ 
        of summons as required by the precept, communicated by 
        telegraph with the said Harold Louderback, who 
        consented to such waiver, and who subsequently 
        forwarded to said Chesley W. Jurney, as Sergeant at 
        Arms, a waiver, in writing, of personal service of said 
        writ of summons, signed by him and witnessed on the 
        28th day of March, 1933, agreeing voluntarily to appear 
        in person before the Senate of the United States at the 
        time and place specified in said writ of summons and 
        acknowledging receipt of true and attested copies of 
        said writ of summons and precept, transmitted to him by 
        the said Chesley W. Jurney, Sergeant at Arms: Now, 
        therefore, be it
          Ordered, That the action of the said Chesley W. 
        Jurney, Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, in securing 
        waiver of personal service of said writ of summons upon 
        the said Harold Louderback be, and the same is hereby, 
        ratified and approved; that the delivery, by registered 
        mail, of true and attested copies of the said writ of 
        summons and precept to the said Harold Louderback and 
        his acceptance thereof, be deemed and taken to have 
        been a satisfactory and sufficient compliance by the 
        said Chesley W. Jurney, Sergeant at Arms, with the said 
        precept, and that the said Chesley W. Jurney, as 
        Sergeant at Arms, be, and he is hereby, authorized to 
        make return of said writ of summons and precept 
        accordingly.\39\

    \39\ April 11, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, pp. 308-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The return of the Sergeant at Arms was then read as follows:

                               Senate of the United States,
                                    Office of the Sergeant At Arms.
          The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to Harold 
        Louderback, and the foregoing precept, addressed to me, 
        were duly served upon the said Harold Louderback by the 
        transmittal, by registered mail, to the said Harold 
        Louderback of true and attested copies of the same, and 
        by his receipt thereof, as shown in the attached waiver 
        by the said Harold Louderback of personal service of 
        summons, said waiver being made a part of this return.
                                         Chesley W. Jurney,
                            Sergeant at Arms, United States Senate.

 In the Senate of the United States, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment 
in the Case of Harold Louderback, United States District Judge for the 
                    Northern District of California

    Waiver of personal service of Harold Louderback, United 
States district judge for the northern district of California.
    I, Harold Louderback, United States district judge for the 
northern district of California, do hereby waive personal 
service of summons issued on the 13th day of March, 1933, by 
Hon. John N. Garner, Vice President and President of the 
Senate,which commands me to appear before the Senate of the 
United States on April 11, 1933, at 12:30 p.m., to answer specific 
articles of impeachment exhibited to the Senate by the House of 
Representatives, and agree to voluntarily appear in person before the 
Senate of the United States at the aforesaid time.
    I acknowledge receipt of a true and attested copy of the 
writ of summons issued in this case, together with a like copy 
of the precept.
    Witness my signature this 28th day of March, 1933, at the 
city of San Francisco, State of California.
                                         Harold Louderback,
                                                        Respondent.
    Signature of witness:
        James M. Hanley.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ April 11, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 309.

The Vice President, who was the Presiding Officer, announced 
that in view of the waiver of summons, the oath normally 
administered to the Sergeant at Arms would be dispensed with, 
and he made the usual proclamation:
          Harold Louderback! Harold Louderback! Harold 
        Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California: Appear and answer to 
        the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
        Representatives against you. \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ April 11, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the oath, the Presiding Officer directs the 
Sergeant at Arms to make the following proclamation:
          ------ ------! ------ ------! ------ ------, appear 
        and answer the articles of impeachment exhibited 
        against you by the House of Representatives of the 
        United States.
    At this point the counsel for the respondent and the 
respondent (if he cares to appear) appear at the bar of the 
Senate and take the assigned seats (to the right of the Chair).
    Once the counsel for the respondent, and the respondent (if 
he cares to appear), and any accompanying lawyers, have 
appeared and taken their seats, then, if they wish to attend, 
the House of Representatives, as a committee of the whole 
House, preceded by its Chairman, and accompanied by the Speaker 
of the House and the Clerk, take the seats provided for them, 
and the trial gets underway. The counsel for the respondent is 
asked for a reply to the subpena issued and often a request for 
a delay in the trial is made, usually requesting a certain 
number of days to prepare and file answer to the articles of 
impeachment.
    In the case of President Johnson the Senate agreed to an 
order granting the President ten days to prepare his answer, 
and so the Senate sitting for the trial of the President 
adjourned for ten days.
    The first order of business upon reconvening is to hear 
from the counsel for the respondent the answer to the articles 
of impeachment. Once the answer of the respondent to the 
articles of impeachment has been completed, the managers on the 
part of the House present, a replication of the House, which is 
an answer by the House of Representatives to the respondent's 
answer to the articles of impeachment. Following another 
possible delay, if requested and granted, which in the Johnson 
case was granted for six days, the trial proceeds with the 
presentation of documentary evidence and the calling of 
witnesses.

           V. PRECEDENTS AND PRACTICES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

    The Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has 
established through its rules, practices, and precedents, 
various definite procedures for the conduct of an actual 
impeachment trial, as contrasted to the preliminaries and steps 
pursued to get the trial underway. Some of the basic and more 
common parliamentary usages utilized during a trial are set 
forth below in alphabetical order:

            Adjournment and Time of Daily Sessions of Trial

Rules on:

    Rule XII provides:
          At 12:30 o'clock afternoon, or at such other hour as 
        the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the 
        trial of an impeachment, the legislative and executive 
        business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the 
        Secretary shall give notice to the House of 
        Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed 
        upon the impeachment of ------ ------, in the Senate 
        Chamber.
    Rule XIII provides:
          The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit 
        upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless 
        otherwise ordered) 12 o'clock m., and when the hour 
        shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial 
        shall cause the proclamation to be made, and the 
        business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of 
        the Senate sitting in said trial shall not operate as 
        an adjournment of the Senate; but on such adjournment 
        the Senate shall resume the consideration of its 
        legislative and executive business.
    Rule XXVI provides:
          If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the 
        consideration of articles of impeachment on the day or 
        hour fixed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be 
        adopted without debate, fix a day and hour for resuming 
        such consideration.

Adjourn to Time Certain:

    A motion to adjourn to an hour certain other than 12 m. has 
on occasion been ruled not in order.
          On March 30, 1868,\42\ in the Senate, sitting for the 
        impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the 
        United States, Mr. John Sherman moved an adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ March 30, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, suggested that 
        the adjournment be to 10 o'clock on the morrow.
          The Chief Justice said:
          The hour of meeting is fixed by the rule, and the 
        motion of the Senator from Massachusetts is not in 
        order.
Again, in 1912, it was held that when the Senate was sitting 
for an impeachment trial and adopts an order setting a specific 
time to adjourn each day, a motion to adjourn at another hour 
is not in order.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ December 5, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later decisions and practices, however, do not conform to 
the above rulings. During the trial of William W. Belknap, the 
motion to adjourn to a certain time was admitted. On June 1, 
1876, Mr. George G. Wright, a Senator from Iowa, proposed this 
inquiry:
          Mr. President, I wish to inquire whether it would be 
        in order now to move to adjourn to a day certain, or 
        whether the order should be properly that when the 
        Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjourns, it 
        be to a definite time?
          The President pro tempore said:
         It would be in order to move to adjourn to a certain 
        time.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ June 1, 1876, 44-1, Congressional Record, p. 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On various other occasions the Senate sitting for 
impeachment trials had adjourned \45\ or recessed \46\ to an 
hour certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See June 6, 1876, 44-1, Journal, p. 949; Jan. 27, 1905, 58-3, 
Journal, p. 347; Feb. 3, 1905, 58-3, Journal, p. 359; Feb. 6, 1905, 58-
3, Journal, p. 360; Feb. 10, 1905, 58-3, Journal, p. 360; Dec. 5, 1912, 
62-3, Journal, p. 318; Dec. 6, 1912, 62-3, Journal, p. 319; April 11, 
1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 318, April 18, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 325, May 
15, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 328, May 16, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 329; 
April 3, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 494.
    \46\ April 14, 1936, 72-2, Journal, p. 505; April 15, 1936, 74-2, 
Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative and Executive Business, Unaffected by:

    The Senate, when sitting as a court of impeachment, may 
adjourn over without interfering with legislative sessions of 
the Senate. See the following provision of Rule XIII of the 
impeachment rules:
        The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial 
        shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but 
        on such adjournment the Senate shall resume the 
        consideration of its legislative and executive 
        business.

Orders for Meeting at Different Hours:

    The Senate has adopted general orders setting a different 
time to commence daily sessions of impeachment trials. In the 
1912 trial, Mr. Clark of Wyoming submitted the following order, 
which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to:
          Ordered, That the daily sessions of the Senate 
        sitting in the trial of impeachment of Robert W. 
        Archbald, additional circuit judge of the United 
        States, shall, unless otherwise ordered, commence at 2 
        o'clock in the afternoon.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ December 3, 1912, 62-3, Journal, p. 317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 6, 1936, the Senate adopted the following order 
regarding the hours of daily sessions:
          Ordered, That until or unless otherwise ordered, the 
        daily sessions of the Senate, sitting for the trial of 
        the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United States 
        district judge for the southern district of Florida, 
        shall be held as follows: From 12 o'clock noon until 
        1:30 p.m. and from 2:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ April 6, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Motions:

    During the trial of President Johnson in 1868, Senator 
Edmunds of Vermont moved that the Senate adjourn. At this point 
Senator Fessenden of Maine moved that when the Senate adjourn, 
it adjourn until Monday next. Senator Edmunds made the point of 
order that his simple motion to adjourn took precedence, and 
the Chief Justice ruled ``the motion to adjourn takes 
precedence over every other motion if it is not withdrawn.'' 
\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ April 3, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, pp. 110-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Amendments

    Any proposal of a Senator during an impeachment trial is 
only amendable upon the motion of other Senators, neither 
managers on the part of the House nor the counsel for the 
respondent may amend a Senator's proposal. The reverse is true 
of any proposal of managers on the part of the House of 
Representatives or counsel for the respondent. See the 
following statement by the President pro tempore in the Belknap 
trial:
          The Chair has ruled that a proposition made by 
        managers or counsel is not amendable by Senators; but 
        any proposition made by a Senator is amendable by a 
        Senator, nor can the proposition made by Senators be 
        amended by the counsel or managers. A motion made by a 
        Senator has priority of one offered by the managers or 
        the counsel.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ June 6, 1876, 44-1, Record, Vol. 4, pt. 7, p. 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If a Senator proposes a substitute for any motion made by 
the managers or counsel, such substitute would have 
priority.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ June 6, 1876, 44-1, Record, Vol. 4, pt. 7, p. 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Appeals

    Decisions of the Chair are subject to appeal by any 
Senator. Note the following portion of Rule VII:
          And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on 
        all questions of evidence including, but not limited 
        to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy 
        of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling 
        shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some 
        member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be 
        taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to 
        the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at 
        his option, in the first instance, submit any such 
        question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon 
        all such questions the vote shall be taken in 
        accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
    Only a Senator may appeal a decision of the Presiding 
Officer. See the following colloquy at the trial of Andrew 
Johnson in 1868: \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ June 7, 1876, 44-1, Record, Vol. 4, pt. 7, p. 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will state the 
        rule which he conceives to be applicable, once more. In 
        this body he is the presiding officer; he is so in 
        virtue of his high office under the Constitution. He is 
        Chief Justice of the United States, and therefore, when 
        the President of the United Statesis tried by the 
Senate, it is his duty to preside in that body; and, as he understands, 
he is therefore the President of the Senate sitting as a court of 
impeachment. The rule of the Senate which applies to this question is 
the seventh rule, which declares that ``the presiding officer may, in 
the first instance, submit to the Senate, without a division, all 
questions of evidence and incidental questions.'' He is not required by 
that rule so to submit those questions in the first instance; but for 
the dispatch of business, as is usual in the Supreme Court, he 
expresses his opinion in the first instance. If the Senate who 
constitute the court, or any member of it, desires the opinion of the 
Senate to be taken, it is his duty then to ask for the opinion of the 
court.
          Mr. Manager Butler. May I respectfully inquire 
        whether that would extend to a Manager; whether a 
        Manager would have the right to ask that a question of 
        law should be submitted to the Senate?
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice thinks not. It 
        must be by the action of the court or a member of 
        it.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ March 31, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Arguments at the trial

Incidental and Interlocutory Questions:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, there was an 
extended discussion precipitated by the managers on the part of 
the House over the right to open and close arguments on 
incidental questions. The position of the House was that the 
managers had the right to open and close arguments on any 
question regardless of who made the question. The Senate 
rejected this contention and allowed whichever side proposed 
the motion or made an objection to open and close the 
argument.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ April 1, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule XXI of the impeachment rules, as amended by S. Res. 
479, adopted August 16, 1986, concerning interlocutory 
questions reads as follows:
          All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all 
        motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour, 
        unless the Senate otherwise orders, on each side.
    When first adopting this rule in 1868, question was raised 
as to whether there should be a provision giving the opening 
and closing to the person making the motion or objection. This 
was answered to the effect that the committee drafting the 
rules had considered this question and had concluded that 
specific provisions would be unnecessary since it was habitual 
for the side making the motion or raising the objection to 
yield after argument and then to conclude the argument after 
the opponent had spoken. The committee thought this would 
continue to be the practice under this rule.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ March 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe, pp. 1568-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President pro tempore at the trial of Judge Archbald in 
1912 made the following statement to the managers and counsel:
          The Chair desires, in the interest of expedition and 
        orderly procedure, to suggest to both the managers on 
        the part of the House and counsel for the respondent 
        that hereafter when incidental questions are to be 
        discussed they be confined to an opening and a reply 
        and a conclusion. The Chair will not rule that 
        arbitrarily or positively, but trusts that counsel will 
        act upon its suggestion.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ December 4, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Arguments, Limitation on:

    Rule XXII provides that the ``final argument on the merits 
may be made by two persons on each side unless otherwise 
ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and 
the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the 
House of Representatives.''
    The Senate in different trials has adopted a special order 
to limit the final arguments by the managers and the counsel. 
For example, the following order was adopted in the trial of 
Halsted L. Ritter in 1936:
          Ordered, That the time for final argument of the case 
        of Halsted L. Ritter shall be limited to 4 hours, which 
        said time shall be divided equally between the managers 
        on the part of the House of Representatives and the 
        counsel for the respondent, and the time thus assigned 
        to each side shall be divided as each side for itself 
        may determine.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\April 13, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in the case of Judge Louderback in 1933, the time 
for final argument was limited to 4 hours, to be equally 
divided between the managers on the part of the House and the 
counsel for the respondent, that time to be subdivided as each 
side might determine.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ May 24, 1933. 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Archbald, however, the two sides were 
given three days, to be equally divided, to present their final 
arguments, and if they had portions of their final arguments 
which they wished to have printed as if delivered orally, they 
were allowed to file these with the Official Reporters of 
Debate.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ January 8, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, pp. 324-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Swayne in 1905, no specific provision 
was made for final arguments. They were begun on the 23rd of 
February and concluded the next day.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ February 23, 24, 1905, 58-3, Senate Journal, p. 305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Secretary of War Belknap, there was no 
limitation on the time for the final arguments but there was on 
the number. Three managers and three counsels for the 
respondent could be heard in the concluding arguments.\61\ 
These arguments lasted from July 20th to July 26, 1876.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ July 20-26, 1986, 44-1, Senate Journal, pp. 983-87.
    \62\ July 20-26, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, pp. 983-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, the Senate adopted 
an order that as many of the managers and of the counsels for 
the President as desired to do so be permitted to file argument 
or address the Senate orally.\63\ The final argument lasted 
from April 22 to May 6, 1868.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ April 22, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 919.
    \64\ April 22-May 6, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, pp. 919-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Articles of Impeachment

Amendments to:

    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the House of 
Representatives amended their original articles of impeachment. 
On March 30, 1936, they sent the following message to the 
Senate:
          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 an amendment to the 
        articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited against 
        Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the 
        southern district of Florida, 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.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ March 30, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The following day, March 31, the amendments to the 
articles were presented,\66\ by the managers on the part of the 
House, and the counsel for the respondent asked for 48 hours to 
file his response to the new articles.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 480.
    \67\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of Judge Harold Louderback in 1933, article V 
of the article of impeachment was amended by the House of 
Representatives. The following proceedings occurred:
          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 an amendment to article 
        V of the articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited 
        against Harold Louderback, United States district judge 
        for the northern district of California, 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 of file 
        with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the 
        House, any subsequent pleadings they shall deem 
        necessary.
          Mr. Sumners, on behalf of the managers on the part of 
        the House, presented article V of the articles of 
        impeachment, as amended, and proceeded to read the 
        same; when,
          On motion by Mr. Ashurst, and by unanimous consent,
          The reading of the said article, as amended, was 
        dispensed with, and it was ordered to be printed for 
        the use of the Senate.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ April 18, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Putting Question on:

    See ``Sequence of Events at the Close of a Trial,'' pages 
86-93, the form for putting question on the articles of 
impeachment.

Printing of:

          On March 10, 1936, following the swearing-in of the 
        Senators and the organization of the trial of Halsted 
        L. Ritter, an order was agreed to to print the articles 
        of impeachment for the use of the Senate.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 3489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Votes and Procedure Thereon:

    In the trial of Halsted Ritter in 1936, following the 
conclusion of the final arguments on the part of the counsel 
and the managers, the doors of the Senate were closed for 
deliberation which continued throughout the day and into the 
following day. At this closed session the following orders were 
adopted providing for a vote on each of the articles of 
impeachment, as well as giving each Senator opportunity to file 
a written opinion thereon:
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter each Senator may, 
        within 4 days after the final vote, file his opinion in 
        writing, to be published in the printed proceedings in 
        the case.
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Halsted R. Ritter, the Secretary shall 
        read the articles of impeachment separately and 
        successively, and when the reading of each article 
        shall have been concluded the Presiding Officer shall 
        state the question thereon as follows:
          Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Halsted L. 
        Ritter, guilty or not guilty?
          Thereupon the roll of the Senate shall be called, and 
        each Senator as his name is called, unless excused, 
        shall arise in his place and answer ``guilty'' or ``not 
        guilty.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ April 15, 16, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This resolution is the standard form now in use in 
impeachment trials, and indeed in all of the trials, save one, 
it has been the practice to secure the votes on each article in 
numerical order and pronounce judgment separately on each 
article.
    In the trial of President Johnson, however, an order was 
adopted that the Senate proceed first to article XI and then on 
the other ten articles successively.\71\ Pursuant to this 
order, the Chief Justice had the eleventh article read first 
and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the names of the Senators 
in alphabetical order. When the rollcall was finished and an 
insufficient number of Senators had voted to secure conviction, 
Senator George Williams of Oregon moved that the Senate adjourn 
from that day, May 16, 1868, until May 26th. Senator Hendricks 
of Indiana made the point of order that since the Senate was 
acting pursuant to a previous order providing for the 
successive votes on the articles of impeachment, this motion to 
adjourn to a day certain was not in order. The Chief Justice 
upheld the point of order but Senator John Conness of 
California appealed the decision of the Chair and the Chief 
Justice was overruled by 24 to 30. At this point the question 
recurred on the motion to adjourn to a day certain and the 
motion carried.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ May 16, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 942.
    \72\ May 16, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon reconvening on the 26th day of May, the Senate changed 
its previous order and voted to go to the second article of 
impeachment. Following the vote on that article, the third 
article was taken up and voted upon, at which point a motion to 
adjourn sinedie was moved and carried. The Chief Justice, 
before announcing the result of the vote, stated the judgment of the 
Senate that the President of the United States was acquitted of the 
charges.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ May 26, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, pp. 948-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Attendance of Senators at Impeachment Trial

    The Senate may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request and 
subsequently to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, a 
quorum not having appeared on a call.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ May 23, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 337, Record, p. 3971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Briefs, When Submitted and Printed

    Briefs are not submitted until after the managers and the 
counsels for the respondent have made their opening statements 
and have introduced witnesses. Once such briefs have been 
filed, they are printed in the Record for the immediate use of 
the Senators.
    In the trial of Robert W. Archbald, the following order was 
adopted for that purpose:
          Ordered, That such briefs and citations of 
        authorities as have already been prepared by the 
        managers on the part of the House and counsel for the 
        respondent be filed with the Secretary and printed in 
        the Record for the immediate use of Senators.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ December 5, 1912, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Chief Justice as Presiding Officer

Appeals:

    See appeals, pages 35-36.

Form for Putting the Question on the Articles of Impeachment:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson, the Senate was unable 
to agree on a form for putting the question on the articles of 
impeachment, and thus the Chief Justice was allowed to decide 
on the following form:
          Mr. Senator ------, how say you? Is the respondent, 
        Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty, 
        or not guilty, of a high misdemeanor, as charged in 
        this article of impeachment? \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ May 16, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Present day practice provides for the Presiding Officer to 
make the following statement: ``Senator, how say you? Is the 
respondent ------ ------, guilty or not guilty?'' Whereupon the 
Senate roll is called and each Senator answers simply 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty.''

Vote by:

    The Chief Justice has voted in the case of a tie in an 
impeachment trial on two occasions. On March 31, 1868, a motion 
was made that the Senate retire for consultation. The yeas were 
25 and the nays were 25, and the Chief Justice voted in the 
affirmative. At this point the Senate retired to its conference 
chamber.
    Various amendments to the impeachment rules were discussed 
in this conference. As a result of the vote by the Chief 
Justice, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts moved ``That 
the Chief Justice of the United States, presiding in the Senate 
on the trial of the President of the United States, is not a 
member of the Senate, and has no authority, under the 
Constitution, to vote on any question during the trial, and he 
can pronounce decision only as the organ of the Senate, with 
its assent.'' \77\ This was defeated by a vote of 22 yeas to 26 
nays. Senator Drake then proposed the following: ``It is the 
judgment of the Senate that under the Constitution the Chief 
Justice presiding over the Senate in the pending trial has no 
privilege of ruling questions of law arising thereon, but that 
all such questions should be submitted to a decision by the 
Senate alone.'' \78\ This was defeated by 20 yeas to 30 
nays.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ March 31, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 63.
    \78\ Ibid.
    \79\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the Senate agreed by a vote of 31 yeas to 19 nays 
to the following amendment to its rules of impeachment:
          The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all 
        necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the 
        presiding officer on the trial shall direct all the 
        forms of proceedings while the Senate are sitting for 
        the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms 
        during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. 
        And the presiding officer on the trial may rule all 
        questions of evidence and incidental questions, which 
        ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, 
        unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a 
        formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be 
        submitted to the Senate for decision: or he may, at his 
        option, in the first instance submit any such question 
        to a vote of the members of the Senate.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Ibid. Rule VII, which describes the duties of the Presiding 
Officer of the Senate in preparing the Chamber for trial, and the 
duties of the Presiding Officer on the trial regarding the conduct of 
proceedings and the ruling on questions of evidence and incidental 
questions, was amended in three parts by the adoption of S. Res. 479, 
99th Congress, 2d Session, on August 16, 1986. The first of these 
amendments enumerates and emphasizes the kinds of rulings the Presiding 
Officer is expected to make by adding to the words questions of 
evidence: ``including, but not limited to, questions of relevance, 
materiality, and redundancy.''
    The second change was the insertion of the phrase ``without 
debate'' in the second sentence. The intent of this change is to make 
it clear that a decision by the Senate to overrule or sustain a ruling 
of the Presiding Officer is not to be deliberated in open session. This 
change would conform Rule VII with the other impeachment rules, e.g. 
Rule XXIV, which provide that decisions on these and other matters 
shall be ``without debate, except when the doors shall be closed for 
deliberation.''
    The third change to Rule VII was the deletion of the last sentence 
which effectively required the Senate to arrive at its decisions by 
voice vote unless the yeas and nays were demanded. The new language 
allows the Senate to vote its decisions ``in accordance with the 
Standing Rules of the Senate,'' that is by voice vote or by a division, 
or, when requested by one-fifth of the members present, by the yeas and 
nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the end of the conference Senator Sumner raised the 
issue of the right of the Chief Justice to vote on any question 
during the trial, but objection was raised to the fact that 
this was not germane to the matter on which the Senate had 
retired to confer and a motion that the Senate return to the 
Chamber without acting on Senator Sumner's proposal was agreed 
to.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ March 31, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the next day's proceedings, Senator Sumner again 
raised the issue of the right of the Chief Justice to vote. 
During the reading of the Journal, he proposed an amendment to 
the Journal as follows: ``It appearing from the reading of the 
Journal of yesterday that on a question where the Senate were 
equally divided the ChiefJustice, presiding on the trial of the 
President, gave a casting vote, it is hereby declared that, in the 
judgment of the Senate, such vote was without authority under the 
Constitution of the United States.'' \82\ This was rejected by a vote 
of 21 yeas, 27 nays.\83\ Thus the Senate turned down each attempt to 
prevent the Chief Justice from voting, and in a subsequent action 
concerning a motion for adjournment, the vote being yeas 22, nays 22, 
the Chief Justice voted in the affirmative, deciding the issue. This 
vote was not challenged.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Ibid.
    \83\ Ibid.
    \84\ April 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the end of the trial of President Johnson, however, 
another occasion arose on a motion to adjourn to a date certain 
when the vote was tied 27 to 27 and the Chief Justice refrained 
from voting.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ May 26, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witnesses Examined by:

    On two occasions while the Senate was sitting for the 
impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the Chief Justice, who was 
presiding, examined witnesses on his own.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ April 1, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 72; 
April 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Closed Doors

    Senators do not debate in an impeachment trial unless the 
Senate is sitting in closed session when debate is allowed as 
provided in Rule XXIV.
    During the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, a Senator moved that 
the doors of the Senate be closed, which was agreed to. The 
galleries were cleared and the respondent and his counsel 
withdrew from the Chamber,\87\ and debate was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ April 15,1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Commission to Take Deposition of a Witness

    The Senate, and not the Presiding Officer, should determine 
any matter on the issuance of a commission to take the 
deposition of a witness in an impeachment trial.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 328, Record, p. 3397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Committees in Impeachment Trials

Use of Committees by the Senate in Impeachment Trials:

    Rule XI provides that the Presiding Officer, if the Senate 
so orders, shall appoint a committee of Senators to receive 
evidence and take testimony before an impeachment trial in the 
Senate, if the entire trial is not held in the Senate.
    During the trial of Judge Pickering, a committee was 
appointed:
          . . . to search the Journals and report precedents in 
        cases of impeachments; and that Messrs. Tracy, Bradley, 
        Baldwin, Wright, and Cocke, to whom it was referred on 
        the 14th of November last, to consider and report, if 
        any, what further proceedings ought to be held by the 
        Senate, respecting the impeachment of John Pickering, 
        by this committee.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ January 3, 1804, 8-1, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Peck in 1830, following the 
impeachment at the bar of the Senate by two members of the 
House of Representatives, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
message from the House and resolved:
          That it be referred to a select committee, to consist 
        of three members, to consider and report thereon.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ April 26, 1830, 21-1, Senate Journal, p. 269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, in the case of Judge Archbald in 1912, following 
the reading of the articles of impeachment and in order that 
they be printed by the Senate, the articles were referred to a 
special committee appointed by the President pro tempore, 
pursuant to a resolution as follows:
          Resolved, That the message of the House of 
        Representatives relating to the impeachment of Robert 
        W. Archbald be referred to a select committee, to 
        consist of five Senators, to be appointed by the 
        President pro tempore.
          The President pro tempore appointed as the committee 
        Mr. Clark of Wyoming, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Dillingham, Mr. 
        Bacon, and Mr. Culberson.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ July 15, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, p. 628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Appointed to Receive Evidence:

    In 1935, a resolution was adopted by the Senate to 
authorize the appointment by the Presiding Officer of a 
committee of 12 Senators to receive evidence and take testimony 
in the trial of an impeachment.
    On August 14, 1986, the Senate agrreed to Senate Resolution 
481, ``to provide for the appointment of a committee to receive 
and to report with respect to articles of impeachment against 
Harry E. Claiborne.''
    This measure states:
          ``Resolved, Pursuant to rule XI of the Rules of 
        Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on 
        Impeachment Trials, the Presiding Officer shall appoint 
        a committee of twelve Senators to perform the duties 
        and to exercise the powers provided for in the rule.
          ``Sec. 2. The Majority and Minority Leader shall each 
        recommend six Members to the Presiding Officer for 
        appointment to the committee.
          ``Sec. 3. Necessary expenses of the committee shall 
        be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate from the 
        appropriation account `Miscellaneous Items' upon 
        vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee.
          ``Sec. 4. The committee shall be deemed to be a 
        standing committee of the Senate for the purpose of 
        printing reports, hearings, and other documents for 
        submission to the Senate under rule XI.
          ``Sec. 5. The Secretary shall notify the House of 
        Representatives of this resolution.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ August 14, 1986, Congressional Record, p. S11673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 16, 1986, the Senate agreed to changes in the 
Senate Impeachment Rules. (S. Res. 479, 99th Cong., 2d 
Session.)
    The Committee report states:
          Rule XI, which provides for the appointment of a 
        committee of Senators to receive evidence and to take 
        testimony is amended in two relatively minor 
        particulars. First, the committee substitutes the 
        phrase ``if the Senate so orders'' for ``upon the order 
        of the Senate'' relating to the utilization of the 
        committee device which was added to the rules in 1935. 
        The reason for this language change is to make it 
        doubly clear that when the committee device authorized 
        by the rule is desired, it must be ordered by the 
        Senate.
          The Committee also removes the requirement that the 
        committee authorized by the rule be fixed at twelve 
        Senators. It was the consensus of the members that the 
        committee's composition should be left open and thus 
        allow the Senate to appoint members in accord with the 
        needs of the situation. (Senate Report 99-401: 99th 
        Cong., 2d Session.) \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ August 16, 1986, Congressional Record, (for August 15, 1986) 
pp. S11902-S11903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Congress Must be in Session During Trial

    During the trial of Secretary of War Belknap in 1876, the 
Senate considered the issue of whether an impeachment trial had 
to take place in the presence of the House of Representatives 
and after some discussion decided ``that the impeachment can 
only proceed while Congress is in session.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ June 19, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Counsel for the Respondent

    See also under ``Managers and Counsel.''

Assistants for the Counsel Allowed on the Floor During the Trial:

    During the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the counsel for the 
respondent asked unanimous consent to have an assistant sit 
with the counsel. There was no objection.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Apri1 8, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improper Language by:

    The presiding officer at an impeachment trial has exercised 
authority to call counsel to order for using improper language.
    On February 14, 1905, during the trial of Judge Charles 
Swayne, Mr. Manager Henry W. Palmer offered to prove that the 
respondent on the 28th of November, 1904, at the city of 
Washington, D.C. voluntarily appeared before a subcommittee of 
the House Judiciary Committee, not having been summoned as a 
witness or otherwise, and voluntarily made a statement.
    At this point Mr. John M. Thurston, of counsel for the 
respondent, objected to the reading of the statement, saying:
          Mr. President, standing here as objecting to this 
        offer, I repeat what I said a few days since about this 
        attempt to present to this court the statements made by 
        Judge Swayne while he was a witness before that 
        committee of the House of Representatives. The offer to 
        prove what he said before that committee is all that, 
        under any rule of practice that has ever prevailed in 
        any court, can be made. It has never been held that in 
        offering to prove what a witness had said somewhere 
        else a statement could be made in the offer of what he 
        had said somewhere else, because that would, by 
        indirection and by pettifogging, Mr. President, present 
        to the court, the judge, or the jury the statement of 
        what the evidence would show when it was really 
        admitted, if at all, and evidently in the expectation--
    At this point Senator Pettus, of Alabama, intervened and 
said:
          Mr. President, I object to the word ``pettifogging'' 
        being used in this court.
    The Presiding Officer (Orville H. Platt, of Connecticut) 
said:
          The Presiding Officer thinks that the word ought not 
        to have been used.
    Mr. Thurston then continued:
          I apologize for the use of that word. I was not using 
        it with reference to the offer. I was saying that it 
        was a common custom in some courts to attempt to show 
        by a statement of this kind what a witness had said 
        somewhere else, when the attorneys making the offer 
        knew and understood perfectly well that the statement 
        itself would not be proper evidence to be introduced in 
        the case, and that an offer of this kind was and is an 
        attempt to present to a court evidence known to be 
        improper, prohibited by the statutes of the United 
        States, and its reading to the court in an offer must 
        necessarily be, and can only be, an attempt by 
        indirection to place in the record and before the 
        judges testimony that they know is not legal testimony 
        and ought not to be considered.
          Now, Mr. President, I do not wish to reflect--and if 
        I have made any reflections upon these honorable 
        managers I withdraw them--I do not wish to reflect upon 
        them in this case, but I do say that in other cases and 
        in other courts where offers of this kind have been 
        made they have been necessarily made with the express 
        desire to place in the record before the court and the 
        jury a line of evidence that is prohibited by the law 
        of the land from being presented. We object both to the 
        offer to introduce the testimony and to the offer to 
        read the proposed testimony to this court. Mr. 
        President, we also protest against this manner of 
        presenting evidence by an offer to prove something.
          The only proper way, in our judgment, if the managers 
        wish to produce this statement and have this court pass 
        upon its competency, is to put a witness on the stand 
        or to offer the record, to ask the question, or let the 
        record be objected to, and pass upon that. I do not 
        think it is proper for us, Mr. President--and the 
        occasion may arise in this case where it would be most 
        desirable for us, if it were proper--to offer to prove 
        a certain statement of fact that we do not believe can 
        be introduced in evidence if objected to upon the other 
        side. But, sir, feeling our responsibility here, we 
        will not attempt to offer before this court a statement 
        of anything, nor will we attempt to offer in this court 
        to prove facts setting it forth. What factswe have to 
prove we will prove by records, or we will prove them by questions 
directed to the witnesses presented in the court, and let the 
objections, if any there be, be taken in the regular way and upon legal 
lines.
    Mr. Manager Palmer announced that he would hand the 
statement to the court and let the court pass upon it.
    Senator Bailey, of Texas, said:
          Mr. President, while the Presiding Officer passes on 
        such questions in the first instance, Senators must 
        pass upon it finally, and they must know what is 
        offered before they can vote intelligently upon the 
        question. It is unprecedented to say that the court 
        shall not be permitted to bear what is offered before 
        passing upon the admissibility of it. * * * for my own 
        guidance, I would like to know exactly the question 
        before the court.
    The Presiding Officer said:
          It is in writing. The managers offer to prove that 
        the respondent on the 28th of November, 1904, in the 
        city of Washington, D.C., voluntarily appeared before a 
        subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, not have 
        been summoned as a witness or otherwise, and 
        voluntarily made the following statement. Then the 
        statement is recited.
    No further demand was made for the reading of the 
statement, and it was not read.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ February 14, 1905 58-3, Record, pp. 2536, 2537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Strike Various Articles of Impeachment Made by:

    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter in 1936, following the 
presentation of articles of impeachment in their amended form, 
a motion was made by the counsel for the respondent to strike 
either article I or article II on the basis that article II 
contained all the charges and allegations of article I, and 
thus required the respondent to defend himself twice on the 
same issues.\97\ Note the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The counsel for the respondent presented a motion:
          To strike article I or, in the alternative. To 
        require election as to article I and II and motion to 
        strike article VII.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on the following grounds:
          1. Article VII includes and embraces all the charges 
        set forth in articles I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.
          2. Article VII constitutes an accumulation and 
        massing of all charges in preceding articles upon which 
        the Court is to pass judgment prior to the vote on 
        article VII, and the prosecution should be required to 
        abide by the judgment of the Senate rendered upon such 
        prior articles and the Senate ought not to countenance 
        the arrangement of pleading designed to procure a 
        second vote and the collection or accumulation of 
        adverse votes, if any, upon such matters.
          3. The presentation in article VII of more than one 
        subject and the charges arising out of a single subject 
        is unjust and prejudicial to respondent.
          4. In fairness and justice to respondent, the Court 
        ought to require separation and singleness of the 
        subject matter of the charges in separate and distinct 
        articles, upon which a single and final vote of the 
        Senate upon each article and charge can be had.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chair considered that motion for several days \100\ and 
then ruled that the motion was not well taken in that article I 
alleged illegal and corrupt receipt of money and article II 
alleged a conspiracy as to the means of receiving said money, 
and thus were two entirely different bases for impeachment. 
This ruling was submitted to the Senate for judgment and was 
upheld by the Senate.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ March 31-April 3, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 483.
    \101\ April 3, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The respondent also moved to strike article VII of the 
impeachment articles on the basis that it included all the 
charges set forth in articles I through VI, and that fairness 
required that the charges be distinct and separate.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several days later the Presiding Officer submitted that 
question to the Senate with the following statement:
          His reason for so doing is that an impeachment 
        proceeding before the Senate, sitting as a Court, is 
        sui generis. partaking neither of the harshness and 
        rigidity of the criminal law nor of the civil 
        proceedings requiring less particularity.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ April 3, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate denied the motion to strike article VII.

Witness, Counsel for the Respondent Summoned as:

    During the trial of Mr. Justice Chase in 1805, Luther 
Martin, counsel for the respondent, was sworn and examined as a 
witness on behalf of the respondent.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ February 15, 1805, 8-2, Senate Journal, p. 520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Debate

Orders at the Trial:

    A Senator may propose an order, but he may not explain or 
debate it. Any debate in open session would have to occur 
between the managers on the part of the House and the counsel 
for the respondent.
    During the trial of Secretary of War Belknap in 1876, a 
Senator proposed an order fixing the time for further pleadings 
on behalf of the respondent, which was discussed by the counsel 
for the respondent and a manager on the part of the House of 
Representatives. At this point, Senator Allen Thurman of Ohio 
attempted to also debate the order but was reminded by the 
President pro tempore that debate was not in order.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ June 1, 1876, 44-1. Record, vol. 4 pt. 7, p. 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Debate by Senators on any question is not allowed in open 
session. Rule XXIV provides that all ``the orders and decisions 
shall be voted on without debate.''
    Under the rules governing impeachment trials, Senators are 
not permitted to engage in colloquies,\106\ or to participate 
in any argument.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ April 11, 1933, 73-1, Record, p. 1470.
    \107\ May 16, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 329, Record, p. 3467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A request to abrogate the rule requiring questions by 
Members of the Senate during an impeachment trial to be in 
writing,\108\ or that a member of the San Francisco bar be 
permitted to sit with the House Managers to assist them in the 
development of the facts in an impeachment trial,\109\ were 
held not to be debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ See April 8, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5164.
    \109\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 326, Record, p. 3395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adoption of Senate Resolution 479, 99th Congress, 2d 
Session, further clarified Rules VII and XIX regarding debate 
and colloquy by Senators. Rule VII was changed by the insertion 
of the phrase ``without debate'' in the second sentence. The 
intent of this change is to make it clear that a decision by 
the Senate to overrule or sustain a ruling of the Presiding 
Officer is not to be deliberated in open session. This change 
would conform Rule VII with the other impeachment rules, e.g. 
Rule XXIV, which provide that decisions on these and other 
matters shall be ``without debate, except when the doors shall 
be closed for deliberation.'' The Senate added three new 
sentences to Rule XIX, which read as follows: The parties or 
their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering 
questions propounded at the request of any Senator and the 
merits of any such objection may be argued by the parties or 
their counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be made as 
provided in Rule VII. It shall not be in order for any Senator 
to engage in colloquy. August 16, 1986, Congressional Record 
(for August 15, 1986, pp. S11902-S11903.)

Organizational Questions Prior to Trial and Debate Thereof:

    When the articles of impeachment relating to Judge 
Louderback were presented in 1933, it was moved by Senator 
George Norris of Nebraska that further consideration of the 
impeachment charges be deferred until 2:00 o'clock on the first 
day of the first session of the 73rd Congress. Senator Henry 
Ashurst of Arizona asked for recognition to debate the motion, 
but the Vice President held that, inasmuch as the motion 
related to a question of the Senate sitting as a court of 
impeachment, it was not debatable.\110\ However, prior to the 
trial of Judge English in 1926, a motion was made that the 
trial commence on the 15th day of November. A point of order 
was raised that the matter was not debatable. The Vice 
President overruled the point of order with the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\ March 3, 1933, 72-2, Record, p. 5473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Chair will state that in impeachment trials had 
        heretofore such questions have been considered as 
        debatable, and that Rule XXII,\111\ which refers to the 
        decision of questions without debate, has been held to 
        apply after the trial has actually commenced. The 
        Senate has always debated the question of the time at 
        which the trial should start, and the Chair is inclined 
        to hold that debate is in order on a question of this 
        sort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ This is now Rule XXIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Chair will further state that in the future he 
        will regard Rule XXIII, in which it is stated that 
        ``orders, and decisions shall be made, and had by yeas 
        and nays,'' as relating to the actual trial. The yeas 
        and nays will be ordered on the pending question 
        without demand, but in former trials of impeachments 
        the yeas and nays have been ordered on questions upon 
        the request of Senators present. Much time will be 
        saved if the inconsequential questions which come up 
        shall be decided in the ordinary methods by a viva voce 
        vote. On a question of the importance of the pending 
        one, the Chair holds that a yea-and-nay vote is 
        required without a demand from one-fifth of the Members 
        present.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ May 5, 1926, 69-1, Senate Journal, pp. 594-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule XXIII \113\ on debate was held not to apply to a 
question arising during the organization for the trial of 
Andrew Johnson by a ruling of the Chief Justice.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Presently Rule XXIV.
    \114\ March 6, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe, p. 1697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Division of the Question

Article Not Divisible:

    Senate Resolution 479 (99th Congress, 2d Session), agreed 
to on August 16, 1986, changed Rule XXIII in several ways. The 
Committee Report (Senate Report 99-401) states, in part:
          ``Rule XXIII, which deals generally with voting the 
        final question, is amended in several important ways. A 
        pair of new restrictions is added at the beginning of 
        the rule. These read as follows:
                  ``An article of impeachment shall not be 
                divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at 
                any time during the trial. Once voting has 
                commenced on an article of impeachment, voting 
                shall be continued until voting has been 
                completed on all articles of impeachment unless 
                the Senate adjourns for a period not to exceed 
                one day or adjourns sine die.
          ``The portion of the amendment effectively enjoining 
        the division of an individual article into separate 
        specifications is proposed to permit the most judicious 
        and efficacious handling of the final question both as 
        a general matter and, in particular, with respect to 
        the form of the articles that proposed the impeachment 
        of President Richard M. Nixon. The latter did not 
        follow the more familiar pattern of embodying an 
        impeachable offense in an individual article but, in 
        respect to the first and second of those articles, set 
        out broadly based charges alleging constitutional 
        improprieties followed by a recital of transactions 
        illustrative or supportive of such charges. The wording 
        of Articles I and II expressly provided that a 
        conviction could be had thereunder if supported by 
        ``one or more of the'' enumerated specifications. The 
        general view of the Committee at that time was 
        expressed by Senators Byrd and Allen, both of whom felt 
        that division of the articles in question into 
        potentially 14 separately voted specifications might 
        ``be time consuming and confusing, and a matter which 
        could creategreat chaos and division, bitterness, and 
ill will * * *. '' Accordingly, it was agreed to write into the 
proposed rules language which would allow each Senator to vote to 
convict under either the first or second articles if he were convinced 
that the person impeached was ``guilty'' of one or more of the 
enumerated specifications.
          ``The provision requiring the Senate to dispose of 
        the final question once it has commenced voting the 
        articles of impeachment or, alternatively, either 
        adjourn for 24 hours or without day, is intended to 
        prevent a recurrence of the incident during the Johnson 
        trial when the Senate having failed to convict on the 
        first article to be voted (No. 11) proceeded to adjourn 
        for fourteen days before considering the other 
        articles. Thereafter, when the Senate again failed to 
        convict on two of the remaining 10 articles, it 
        adjourned without day. Committee members were agreed 
        that such a course of action could have unsettling 
        consequences which should be avoided at all costs.''

Articles Of Impeachment:

    The sixth article of impeachment was divided during the 
trial of West Humphreys in 1862. The Senate was about to vote 
on article VI of the articles of impeachment which read as 
follows:
          Article 6. That the said West H. Humphreys, in the 
        year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-
        one, within the State of Tennessee, and with intent to 
        subvert the authority of the government of the United 
        States, to hinder and delay the due execution of the 
        laws of the United States, and to oppress and injure 
        citizens of the United States, did unlawfully act as 
        judge of an illegally constituted tribunal within said 
        State, called the district court of the Confederate 
        States of America, and as judge of said tribunal last 
        named said West H. Humphreys, with the intent 
        aforesaid, then and there assumed and exercised powers 
        unlawful and unjust, to wit: In causing one Perez 
        Dickinson, a citizen of said State, to be unlawfully 
        arrested and brought before him, as judge of said 
        alleged court of said Confederate States of America, 
        and required him to swear allegiance to the pretended 
        government of said Confederate States of America; and 
        upon the refusal of said Dickinson so to do, the said 
        Humphreys, as judge of said illegal tribunal, did 
        unlawfully, and with the intent to oppress said 
        Dickinson, require and receive of him a bond, 
        conditioned that while he should remain within said 
        State he would keep the peace; and as such judge of 
        said illegal tribunal, and without authority of law, 
        said Humphreys then and there decreed that said 
        Dickinson should leave said State.
          2. In decreeing within a said State, and as judge of 
        said illegal tribunal, the confiscation to the use of 
        said Confederate States of America of property of 
        citizens of the United States, and especially of 
        property of one Andrew Johnson and one John Catron.
          3. In causing, as judge of said illegal tribunal, to 
        be unlawfully arrested and imprisoned within said State 
        citizens of the United States, because of their 
        fidelity to their obligations as citizens of the United 
        States, and because of their rejection of, and their 
        resistance to, the unjust and assumed authority of said 
        Confederate States of America.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ June 26, 1862, 37-2, Senate Journal, p. 900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this point a Senator requested a division of the 
question and the article was divided into three parts with 
separate votes being taken on each part. On the first section 
he was found ``not guilty,'' and was found ``not guilty'' on 
the second section, but on the third, two-thirds of the 
Senators present voted him ``guilty'' and the President pro 
tempore announced that he was therefore ``guilty'' as charged 
under the sixth article.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ June 26, 1862, 37-2, Senate Journal, pp. 901-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Judgment:

    In two trials, the question of final judgment was held to 
be divisible, and division was requested.
    In the trial of Robert W. Archbald, following a vote in 
which conviction was obtained on five of the thirteen articles, 
the following resolution was introduced, divided, and agreed 
to, the first part by voice vote, and the second by yeas and 
nays. The original text of the resolution was as follows:
          Ordered, That the respondent, Robert W. Archbald, 
        circuit judge of the United States from the third 
        judicial circuit and designated to serve in the 
        Commerce Court, be removed from office and be forever 
        disqualified from holding and enjoying any office of 
        honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
          On motion by Mr. Root, that the doors be closed.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ January 13, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first part as divided was as follows:
          Ordered, That the respondent, Robert W. Archbald, 
        circuit judge of the United States from the third 
        judicial circuit and designated to serve in the 
        Commerce Court, be removed from office.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Ibid., p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second part as divided was as follows:
          And be forever disqualified from holding and enjoying 
        any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
        States.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ January 13, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the following order for 
judgment was introduced:
          The Senate hereby orders and decrees and it is hereby 
        adjudged that the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, United 
        States district judge for the southern district of 
        Florida, be, and he is hereby, removed from office, and 
        that he be, and is hereby, forever disqualified to hold 
        and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under 
        the United States, and that the Secretary be directed 
        to communicate to the President of the United States 
        and to the House of Representatives the foregoing order 
        and judgment of the Senate, and transmit a copy of same 
        to each.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ April 17, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following its introduction, a division was requested, and 
while it was agreed that the order was subject to division, it 
was also agreed that once divided the Senate would be voting 
first on thequestion of removal from office, which had already 
been accomplished, and therefore the order was withdrawn.

                                Evidence

Admissibility of:

    The Presiding Officer can either rule on questions of 
evidence directly or can submit them to the Senate in the first 
instance for a decision, or once having ruled, his opinion is 
subject to appeal.
    When the judgment of the Senate is asked for, after the 
Presiding Officer has ruled on a question of evidence, the form 
is ``Is the evidence admissible?'' \121\ When the judgment of 
the Senate is asked for in the first instance, the form of the 
question is the same.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\ February 14, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 2540.
    \122\ February 14, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 2540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an argument over the admissibility of evidence, it is 
not in order to read the evidence which has been objected 
to.\123\ Furthermore, when evidence is being offered, its 
presentation may not be interrupted by legislative business or 
questions which are incidental to the progress of the 
trial.\124\ Once a document has been offered and read as 
evidence, there is still the possibility of raising an 
objection to its admissibility as evidence.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\ February 23, 1905, 58-3, Record, pp. 3165-66.
    \124\ April 3, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 99.
    \125\ April 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, pp. 81-
82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination By Presiding Officer During Impeachment Trial

    The role of the Presiding Officer during an impeachment 
trial was further emphasized by changes to Rule VII, adopted by 
the Senate on August 16, 1986 (S. Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d 
Session). The Committee Report states, in part:
          ``Rule VII, which describes the duties of the 
        Presiding Officer of the Senate in preparing the 
        Chamber for trial, and the duties of the Presiding 
        Officer on the trial regarding the conduct of 
        proceedings and the ruling on questions of evidence and 
        incidental questions, is amended in three parts. The 
        first of these amendments enumerates and emphasizes the 
        kinds of rulings the Presiding Officer is expected to 
        make by adding to the words questions of evidence: 
        `including, but not limited to, questions of relevance, 
        materiality, and redundancy.' '' (Senate Report 99-
        401.)

Leading Questions Ruled Out:

    Leading questions have been ruled out and witnesses were 
admonished to observe established procedure.
    On December 4, 1912, in the Senate trial of Judge Robert W. 
Archbald, during the direction examination of a witness on 
behalf of the House of Representatives, Mr. Worthington, a 
counsel for the respondent, objected to a question propounded 
by Mr. Manager Edwin Yates Webb and said:
          One moment. I submit, Mr. President, we had as well 
        try this case with some appearance of conformity to the 
        rules of a court. That was a leading question, which 
        ought never to have been asked and should not be 
        allowed to be answered.
    The President pro tempore ruled:
          Counsel, as far as possible, will avoid leading 
        questions.
    During the examination of the same witness, by Mr. Webb, 
Mr. Worthington objected to a question asked the witness by the 
manager as being a leading question. The witness, however, 
answered the question. Note the following:
    Mr. Worthington stated:
          As the witness has already answered the question, for 
        the present purposes it is futile to proceed. I think 
        the witness should be cautioned, when objection is 
        made, not to answer a question until the Presiding 
        Officer or the Senate has ruled upon it.
          The President Pro Tempore. That is a very proper 
        suggestion. The witness will be governed by that. 
        Hereafter when there is an objection to testimony the 
        witness will not reply until after the matter has been 
        passed upon.\125\a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\a December 4, 1912, 62-3, Record, pp. 98-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presentation of, During Final Arguments, Out of Order:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, one of the 
managers on the part of the House of Representatives wished to 
examine witnesses during his final arguments. The Chief Justice 
responding to an objection from a Senator, said that it would 
be necessary and proper to obtain an order of the Senate before 
allowing evidence to be presented during the final 
argument.\126\ Just such an order was obtained in 1805 in the 
trial of Mr. Justice Chase to allow the testimony of a witness 
during the final argument of the managers on the part of the 
House.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ April 20, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 239.
    \127\ February 25, 1805, 8-2, Senate Journal, p. 523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions of, Submitted to Senate:

    During the trial of Judge Archbald in 1912, the President 
pro tempore of the Senate made the following statement 
regarding the admissibility of evidence:
          Before taking action in regard to this question the 
        Chair desires to make a statement to the Senate. 
        Anticipating that questions of the admissibility of 
        evidence would arise, the present occupant of the Chair 
        has examined former impeachment cases in order to 
        ascertain what was the practice of Presiding Officers 
        themselves in regard to deciding questions of this 
        character or of submitting them to the Senate. Upon 
        examination it is found in former impeachment cases 
        that very liberally, to say the least, the Presiding 
        Officer had availed himself of the privilege of 
        submitting the matter to the Senate. In the Andrew 
        Johnson impeachment case in particular, which was 
        presided over by the highest judicial officer in the 
        land, Chief Justice Chase, almost invariably every 
        question as to the admissibility of evidence was 
        submitted by him to the Senate for its determination. 
        While the present occupant of the chair is not averse 
        to taking responsibility in a matter that is allegedby 
the counsel to be peculiarly vital to the case, he feels that the 
matter should be submitted to the Senate. He is more inclined to that 
course by the fact that if one single Senator differed from the 
conclusion of the Chair he would have the right to have the vote taken 
by the Senate. Therefore, in this case the present occupant of the 
chair will submit to the Senate the question as to the admissibility of 
the evidence.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ December 4, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Floor Privileges Granted to Persons to Sit with House Managers

    The Clerk of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives, by unanimous consent, was given permission to 
sit with the managers on the part of the House during the 
Louderback and the Ritter impeachment trials.\129\ Likewise, a 
special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and an 
assistant to the counsel for the respondent were granted floor 
privileges during the Ritter impeachment trial.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 326, Record, p. 3395; April 
8, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 497, Record, p. 5132.
    \130\ April 8, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 497, Record, p. 5132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Galleries

Decorum, Cleared to Maintain:

    At the conclusion of the address by the counsel for 
President Johnson, the following occurred:
          As Mr. Manager Bingham concluded there were 
        manifestations of applause in different portions of the 
        galleries, with cheers.
          The Chief Justice. Order! Order! If this be repeated 
        the Sergeant-at-Arms will clear the galleries.
          This announcement was received with laughter and 
        hisses by some persons in the galleries, while others 
        continued the cheering and clapping of hands.
          Mr. Grimes. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the order 
        of the court to clear the galleries be immediately 
        enforced.
          The motion was agreed to.
          The Chief Justice. The Sergeant-at-Arms will clear 
        the galleries. (Hisses and cheers and clapping of hands 
        in parts of the galleries.) If the offense be repeated 
        the Sergeant-at-Arms will arrest the offenders.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\ May 6, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tickets to, During the Trial of President Andrew Johnson:

    On March 10, 1869, the following order was adopted 
regarding the admission of persons to the Senate during the 
trial of President Johnson:
          Ordered, First. That during the trial of the 
        impeachment now pending no persons besides those who 
        now have the privilege of the floor, and clerks of the 
        standing committees of the Senate, shall be admitted to 
        that portion of the Capitol set apart for the use of 
        the Senate and its officers, except upon tickets to be 
        used (sic) [issued?] by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The 
        number of tickets shall not exceed one thousand. 
        Tickets shall be numbered and dated, and be good only 
        for the day on which they are dated.
          Second. The portion of the gallery set apart for the 
        diplomatic corps shall be exclusively appropriated to 
        it, and forty tickets of admission thereto shall be 
        issued to the Baron Gerolt for the foreign legations.
          Third. Four tickets shall be issued to each senator; 
        four tickets each to the Chief Justice of the United 
        States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; 
        two tickets to each member of the House of 
        Representatives; two tickets each to the associate 
        justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; two 
        tickets each to the chief justice and associate 
        justices of the supreme court of the District of 
        Columbia; two tickets to the chief justice and each 
        judge of the Court of Claims; two tickets to each 
        cabinet officer, two tickets to the General commanding 
        the army; twenty tickets to the private Secretary of 
        the President of the United States, for the use of the 
        President; and sixty tickets shall be issued by the 
        President pro tempore of the Senate to the reporters of 
        the press. The residue of the tickets to be issued 
        shall be distributed among the members of the Senate in 
        proportion to the representation of their respective 
        States in the House of Representatives, and the seats 
        now occupied by the senators shall be reserved for 
        them.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ March 10, 1868, 40-2, Journal, pp. 808-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

Attendance of Members at Trial:

    On March 20, 1868, the House of Representatives agreed to 
the following resolution:
          Resolved, That on the days when the Senate shall sit 
        for the trial of the President upon the articles of 
        impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives, 
        the House, in Committee of the Whole, will attend with 
        the managers at the bar of the Senate at the hour named 
        for the commencement of the proceedings.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ March 20, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, pp. 549-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This prompted the following message from the Senate:
          . . . the Senate is in its Chamber and ready to 
        proceed on the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of 
        the United States, and that seats are provided for the 
        accommodation of the Members.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ March 23, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, p. 561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Belknap case, however, the House was represented by its 
managers only.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ April 17, 1876, 44-1, House Journal, p. 814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification of Each Day's Sitting by the Senate:

    The Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has on 
occasion issued orders that each day the House of 
Representatives benotified that it is proceeding with the 
impeachment trial. For example, see the following order adopted during 
the trial of Judge Peck:
          Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of 
        Representatives, from day to day, that the Senate is 
        sitting as a high court of impeachment for the trial of 
        James H. Peck, judge of the district court of the 
        United States for the district of Missouri.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ March 24, 1830, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Journal

    Rule IV, paragraph 1, of the Legislative Rules of the 
Senate, provides for a separate Journal in impeachment trials 
as follows:
          The legislative, the executive, the confidential 
        legislative proceedings, and the proceedings when 
        sitting as a Court of Impeachment, shall each be 
        recorded in a separate book.

                    Leave To Print Opinions Granted

    Senators, by order to the Senate, were granted permission 
in the Louderback trial to file opinions in writing ``within 2 
days after the final vote,'' for publication in the printed 
proceedings of the case.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 339, Record, p. 4083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Legislative Business Permitted To Interrupt Trial

    On April 8, 1936, during the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, 
the Majority Leader, Senator Joseph Robinson, of Arkansas, 
asked unanimous consent to interrupt the impeachment 
proceedings in order that a message might be received from the 
House of Representatives and ``that the Senate proceed with the 
consideration of legislative business.'' There was no 
objection.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ April 8, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, on April 15, 1936, Senator Robinson, of Arkansas, 
obtained unanimous consent to temporarily suspend the 
impeachment proceedings to allow the Senate to receive a 
message from the House of Representatives.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ April 15, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Secretary of War William Belknap, the 
Senate interrupted its impeachment proceedings to receive a 
message from the House of Representatives.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ July 10, 1876, vol. 4, part 7, 44-1, Record, p. 230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the same trial, a Senator asked that the impeachment 
proceedings might be suspended in order to make a report from a 
committee of conference and unanimous consent was granted for 
that purpose.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ July 19, 1976, vol. 4, part 7, Record, p. 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Senator may not of right, however, call up legislative 
business during impeachment proceedings. During the trial of 
Andrew Johnson in 1868, Senator Henry Anthony of Rhode Island 
proposed to call up for consideration a matter of legislative 
business, whereupon the Chief Justice said:
          It is not in order to call up any business transacted 
        in legislative session.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\ April 3, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Lie Over One Day, Orders

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson, early in the trial, the 
Chief Justice ruled that a proposed order must lie over one day 
for consideration pursuant to the then existing Senate 
legislative rules.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\ April 11, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the close of the trial, however, when a motion was made 
to rescind the order of the Senate concerning the method of 
voting on the articles of impeachment, the Chief Justice again 
ruled that a single objection would force the resolution to lie 
over one day, and his ruling was overturned by a vote of 29 to 
25.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ May 26, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Managers and Counsel

Appearance of:

    After trial of an impeachment had proceeded for several 
days, the formality of announcement by the Doorkeeper of 
appearance in the Chamber of the managers and the respondent 
was by consent dispensed with.
    On July 29, 1912, at the opening of the trial of the 
impeachment of Robert W. Archbald, the Doorkeeper of the Senate 
announced formally the appearance of the respondent and the 
managers on the part of the House of Representatives.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\ July 29, 1912, 62-2, Record, p. 9795.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This ceremony continued to be observed each day until 
December 3, 1912, when Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of the managers on 
the part of the House of Representatives, suggested:
          Mr. President, if it is agreeable to the Senate 
        sitting as a Court of Impeachment, hereafter the 
        managers on the part of the House of Representatives 
        will appear without the formality of an announcement.
To which Mr. Worthington, of counsel, on behalf of the 
respondent, added:
          I presume that might apply. Mr. President, to the 
        counsel for the respondent and to the respondent 
        himself.
The President pro tempore said:
          The Chair will give proper direction in that regard. 
        Proper order will be given in the premises.
The appearance of the managers and the respondent was not 
thereafter announced.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ December 3, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position in Senate Chamber During Examination of Witnesses:

    The Senate prefers that managers and counsel, in examining 
witnesses in an impeachment trial, shall stand in the center 
aisle. But generally their posture and position have been left 
to their own judgment and preference.
    On February 15, 1905, in the trial of Judge Charles Swayne, 
the Chair suggested that the managers in examining witnesses 
should stand in the center aisle of the Senate Chamber, near 
the rear row of seats, so that the answers of witnesses might 
be heard readily by the Senators.
    Later in the trial, however, Mr. Anthony Higgins, a counsel 
for the respondent, insisted that he must stand by the table in 
examining witnesses, as he needed to consult certain 
documents.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\ February 15, 1905, 58-3, Record, pp. 2615, 2620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally speaking, however, the managers and counsel stood 
in the center aisle while conducting the examination of 
witnesses during that trial.
    On December 4, 1912, in the trial of Judge Archbald, Mr. 
Worthington, a counsel for the respondent, inquired:
          Mr. President, may I ask a question? The practice 
        differs. In some courts it is required that counsel 
        examining a witness shall stand: but it is not 
        customary where I have been; and I presume it is a 
        matter about which the examining counsel or manager may 
        use his judgment.
          The President Pro Tempore. Absolutely, on both sides. 
        The managers and counsel may assume such posture as 
        they prefer.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ December 4, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the following day, in concluding the examination of a 
witness, Mr. Edwin Yates Webb, a manager on the part of the 
House of Representatives, said:
          It has been suggested that the few remaining 
        questions which I am to ask this witness may be heard 
        more distinctly by standing at this point in the 
        Chamber.
    Mr. Webb then concluded the examination standing in the 
center aisle.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ December 5, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposals of, Denied:

    The Senate on various occasions had declined the managers 
and counsel for the respondent their proposals. Only two 
examples are cited below:
    In the Belknap trial, after a motion had been submitted by 
Mr. Manager Lor, Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, a counsel for the 
respondent offered this motion:
          That the further hearing and trial of this 
        impeachment of William W. Belknap be continued to the 
        first Monday of December next.
    In argument supporting the motion the counsel for the 
respondent urged that in the existing political excitement a 
fair trial was not likely to result. The precedents of the 
Blount and Peck impeachments were cited to justify the 
postponement.
    The Senate having retired in closed session for 
consultation (which debates were not public nor reported), 
Senator Edmunds moved that the motion for postponement be 
denied.
    Senator Sherman, of Ohio, moved to amend by substituting 
the following:
          That the President pro tempore ask the managers if 
        they desire to be heard on the pending motion of Mr. 
        Carpenter, of counsel for respondent.
This motion was rejected by 28 yeas to 31 nays.
    Senator Edmunds' motion, that the request for a 
postponement be not granted, was agreed to, 59 yeas to 0 nays.
    Thereupon the Senate returned to their Chamber and the 
President pro tempore said:
          The Presiding Officer is directed to state to the 
        counsel for the respondent that their motion is denied.
    On another occasion during the same trial, the Senate 
overruled the motion of the managers that the evidence on the 
question of the jurisdiction of the Senate in the Belknap case 
be given before the arguments relating thereto.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ April 27, 1976, 44-1, Senate Journal, pp. 920-23; Record of 
trial, pp. 10-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Managers on the Part of the House

    See also under ``Managers and Counsel.''

Assistants Allowed Floor Privileges:

    During the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the managers on the 
part of the House asked unanimous consent to have an assistant 
sit with the managers. There was no objection.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ April 8, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, the managers 
on the part of the House were granted permission by a vote of 
the Senate to have the Clerk of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary and a private member of the Bar to sit with them on 
the Senate floor.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Record, p. 3394; May 15, 1933, 73-1, 
Senate Journal, p. 326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decline to Answer Senator's Question:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson, in response to a broad 
question as to what was going to be proved and when, one of the 
House managers said it was not his duty to answer so general a 
question,\153\ and the question went unanswered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\ April 1, 1886, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, pp. 70-
71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections to Senators' Questions:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson, the Chief Justice 
upheld the right of the managers to object to a question 
propounded by a Senator with the following statement:
          When a member of the court propounds a question, it 
        seems to the Chief Justice that it is clearly within 
        the competency of the managers to object to the 
        question being put and state the grounds for that 
        objection, as a legal question. It is not competent for 
        the managers to object to a member of the court asking 
        a question; but after the question is asked, it seems 
        to the Chief Justice that it is clearly competent for 
        the managers to state their objections to the questions 
        being answered.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ April 13, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, pp. 
169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On another occasion the Senate decided that it might allow 
questions from a Senator to a witness even though both the 
managers and the counsel for the respondent objected.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ July 11, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of by House:

    The form for the selection of managers on the part of the 
House of Representatives in an impeachment trial has varied. 
For example,in the trial of West Humphreys the managers were 
appointed by the Speaker of the House and in his appointments all but 
one selected belonged to the majority party.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ May 20, 1862, 37-2, House Journal, pp. 717-718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Charles Swayne, the Speaker of the House 
was authorized to appoint seven managers, four of whom belonged 
to the majority party, and three to the minority. Five of seven 
were members of the Judiciary Committee.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\ January 21, 1905, 58-3, House Journal, p. 1202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In other cases, the managers have been chosen by ballot. 
This was done in the Belknap case,\158\ the Blount case,\159\ 
the Pickering case,\160\ the Chase case,\161\ the Peck 
case,\162\ and the Johnson case.\163\ The most recent practice 
has been to adopt a resolution in the House of Representatives 
naming the managers on the part of the House. For example, the 
following resolution was adopted in 1933 in the trial of Judge 
Louderback:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\ 30, 1876, 44-1, House Journal, pp. 696-703.
    \159\ January 30, 1798, 5-2, House Journal, p. 154.
    \160\ December 30, 1803, 7-2, House Journal, p. 507.
    \161\ December 5, 1804, 8-2, House Journal, pp. 44.
    \162\ May 1, 1830, 21-1, House Journal, pp. 591-96.
    \163\ March 2, 1868, 40-2, House Journal, pp. 450-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Resolved, That Hatton W. Sumners, Gordon Browning, 
        Malcolm C. Tarver, Fiorello H. LaGuardia, and Charles 
        I. Sparks, Members of this House, be, and they are 
        hereby, appointed managers to conduct the impeachment 
        against Harold Louderback, United States district judge 
        for the northe district of California; and said 
        managers are hereby instructed to appear before the 
        Senate of the United States and at the bar thereof in 
        the name of the House of Representatives and of all the 
        people of the United States to impeach the said Harold 
        Louderback of misdemeanors in office and to exhibit to 
        the Senate of the United States the articles of 
        impeachment against said judge which have been agreed 
        upon by the House; and that the said managers do demand 
        the Senate take order for the appearance of said Harold 
        Louderback to answer said impeachment, and demand his 
        impeachment, conviction, and removal from Office.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ February 27, 1933, 72-2, Record, p. 5177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the trial of Judge Ritter in 1936, the form of the 
resolution was as follows:
          Resolved, That Hatton W. Sumners, Randolph Perkins, 
        and Sam Hobbs, Members of this House, be, and they are 
        hereby, appointed managers to conduct the impeachment 
        against Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge 
        for the southern district of Florida; that said 
        managers are hereby instructed to appear before the 
        Senate of the United States and at the bar thereof in 
        the name of the House of Representatives and of all the 
        people of the United States to impeach the said nlcted 
        L. Ritter of high crimes and misdemeanors in office and 
        to exhih it to the Senate of the United States the 
        articles of impeachment against said judge which have 
        been agreed upon by this House; and that the said 
        managers do demand that the Senate take order for the 
        appearance of said Halsted L. Ritter to answer said 
        impeachment, and demand his impeachment, conviction, 
        and removal from office.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ House Resolution 439, 74-2, March 6, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand at Desk in Front of Chair to Read Articles of Impeachment:

    On March 10, 1936, following the first appearance of the 
managers in the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the Vice President, 
John Nance Garner, made the following statement:
          The Vice President. Mr. Manager Hobbs will proceed, 
        and the Chair will take the liberty of suggesting that 
        he stand at the desk in front of the Chair, as from 
        that position the Senate will probably be able to hear 
        him better.
The manager took the place suggested by the Vice 
President.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ March 10, 1936, 74-2, Record, pp. 34886.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Motions and Orders

Lie Over One Day:

    See ``Lie Over One Day, Orders.''

Reduced to Writing:

    Rule XIX of the Senate Rules of Impeachment provides that 
all motions and orders proposed by a Senator except to adjourn 
shall be reduced to writing.

                           Oaths to Senators

Form of, Given Each Senator:

    The form of oath administered to each Senator, as set forth 
under Rule XXV, is as follows:
          I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that 
        in all things appertaining to the trial of the 
        impeachment of ------ ------, now pending, I will do 
        impartial justice according to the Constitution and 
        laws: So help me God.

Records Kept of Senators Taking Oaths After Trial Begins:

    On March 12, 1936, during the trial of Halsted Ritter, it 
was announced that it was the duty of the Journal Clerk to keep 
the names of Senators who had taken the oath since Senators 
took the oath en bloc and there would be no other record.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 3646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators Appearing Late, Take Oath

    In the trial of Secretary of War Belknap in 1876, Senator 
James Alcorn of Mississippi appeared for the first time on May 
15th; the trial had begun on April 5th. Nevertheless, the 
Presiding Officer adminitered the oath to Senator Alcorn and he 
took his place in the Senate.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ May 15, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule III of the impeachment rules provides in part as 
follows:
          . . . the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath 
        hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then 
        present and to the other members of the Senate as they 
        appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

Senators Taking Oath After Trial Begins Do Not Take It in Legislative 
        Session:

    On March 12, 1936, during the conduct of regular 
legislative business and prior to the hour of 1 o'clock, at 
which time the Senate would resolve itself into a court of 
impeachment, the following occurred:
          Mr. McNary. Mr. President, I am advised that the 
        junior Senator from Vermont (Mr. Gibson) desires to 
        take the oath as a juror in the impeachment 
        proceedings.
          The Vice President. After a thorough survey of the 
        situation, the best judgment of the Chair is that 
        Senators who have not heretofore taken the oath as 
        jurors of the court should take it after the Senate 
        resolves itself into a court; all Senators who have not 
        as yet taken the oath as jurors will take the oath at 
        that time.169
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 3641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Opening Statements

Adoption of the Usual Order:

    On December 3, 1912, during the trial of Robert Archbald, 
the Senate adopted an order on opening statements, which form 
has been used in other trials, namely:
          Ordered, That the opening statement on behalf of the 
        managers shall be made by one person, to be immediately 
        followed by one person who shall make the opening 
        statement on behalf of the respondent.170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ December 3, l912, 62-3, Record, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An identical order with regard to opening statements was 
adopted during the trial of Halsted L. Ritter in 
1936.171
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\ April 6, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. Loan. I send to the desk an order and ask for its 
        adoption.
          The Vice President. The clerk will read the proposed 
        order.
          The legislative clerk read as follows:
          Ordered, That the opening statement on the part of 
        the managers shall be made by one person, to be 
        immediately followed by one person who shall make the 
        opening statement on behalf of the respondent.
          The Vice President. Is there objection to the order? 
        The Chair hears none, and the order is 
        entered.172
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ April 6, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 4971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, an order was 
adopted providing that the opening statement on behalf of the 
managers and on behalf of the respondent shall each be made by 
one person.173
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitations On:

    The opening address of an impeachment trial is for the 
purpose of outlining what is expected to be proved. It is not 
for the purpose of introducing evidence to substantiate the 
charges.
    During the trial of Judge Swayne in 1905, the managers on 
the part of the House twice had to be cautioned by the 
Presiding Officer upon objection of the counsel for the 
respondent to refrain from introducing evidence in their 
opening statements.174
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\ February 10, 1905, 58-3, Record, pp. 2232-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the same trial, while the counsel for the respondent 
was making his opening statement, he asked the Secretary to 
read extracts from a number of decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. During the reading of these extracts, the 
Presiding Officer interrupted to make the point that the 
opening address should be confined to a statement of the issues 
raised in the case and what the parties propose to prove. It 
should not include an extended argument on the whole case and 
should be concluded quickly.175
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\ February 21, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 2977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The trial of Robert Archbald in 1912 initiated a new 
procedure on opening statements in which the opening statement 
for the respondent was made at the beginning of the case 
instead of at the close of testimony on behalf of the managers. 
On December 3, 1912, Mr. Worthington, counsel for the 
respondent in the impeachment trial of Robert Archbald, made 
the following statement:
          Mr. President and Senators, for the first time in an 
        impeachment trail in this tribunal the opening 
        statement for the respondent is to be made at the 
        beginning of the case instead of at the close of the 
        testimony on behalf of the managers. We have desired to 
        do the testimony on behalf of the managers. We have 
        desired to do this and are doing it with the 
        acquiescence of the honorable managers for two reasons. 
        One is that the Members of the Senate may know when the 
        introduction of testimony is going on what are the 
        questions of fact in dispute. The other is that 
        Senators may know from the beginning what we rely upon 
        as the law of the case.176
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ December 3, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Orders and Decisions

    Rule XXIV, which deals with voting on orders and decisions 
and the procedure for going behind closed doors in order to 
deliberate these and other matters, was amended to incorporate 
the unanimous-consent procedure added to Rule XX by the 
adoption of Senate Resolution 479 (99th Congress, 2d Session) 
on August 16, 1986. The committee Report states: ``Since many 
orders and decisions are believed to involve noncontroversial 
matters, it is the Committee's belief that they may be 
dispensed with without objections. However, in the event of 
objection, the yeas and nays may be had.'' Under the present 
rule ``All orders and decision shall be made and had by yeas 
and nays.'' In place of this language the Committee substitutes 
``All orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, 
or if objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be 
voted on without debate `by yeas and nays' ''. (Senate Report 
99-401).
    See also: ``Motions and Orders,'' ``Reduced to Writing,'' 
and ``Lie Over One Day, Orders.''

          Papers Filed as Euidence Returned to District Court

    In the Louderback trial, the Senate, by order, directed 
certain original papers filed as evidence returned to the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California.177
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\ May 25, 1933, 73-1, Journal, p. 200, Record, p. 4142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Points of Order

    When one point of order is pending during an impeachment 
trial, a second point of order cannot be made until the first 
is disposed of.178
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\ March 6, 1868, 42, Senate Journal, pp. 810-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Presiding Officer

Decisions Made by, During Trial:

    During an impeachment trial the Presiding Officer decides 
on all forms not otherwise specifically provided for in Rule 
VII of the Rules of Procedure and Practices in an Impeachment:
          VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct 
        all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and 
        the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the 
        forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for 
        the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms 
        during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. 
        And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all 
        questions of evidence including but not limited to, 
        questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of 
        evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall 
        stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member 
        of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken 
        thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the 
        Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his 
        option, in the first instance, submit any such question 
        to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such 
        questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with 
        the Standing Rules of the Senate.
This rule is in substance similar to the original rule adopted 
in 1805 during the trial of Judge Samuel Chase. The principal 
change was in the elimination of the word ``court'' during the 
1868 trial of Andrew Johnson.
    Rule VII was amended in three parts by the adoption of 
Senate Resolution 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, on August 16, 
1986. The first of these amendments enumerates and emphasizes 
the kinds of rulings the Presiding Officer is expected to make 
by adding to the words ``questions of evidence'' ``including, 
but not limited to, questions of relevance, materiality, and 
redundancy.''
    The second change was the insertion of the phrase ``without 
debate'' in the second sentence. The intent of this change is 
to make it clear that a decision by the Senate to overrule or 
sustain a ruling of the Presiding Officer is not to be 
deliberated in open session. This change conforms Rule VII with 
the other impeachment rules, e.g. Rule XXIV, which provide that 
decisions on these and other matters shall be ``without debate, 
except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation.''
    The third change to Rule VII is the deletion of the last 
sentence which effectively required the Senate to arrive at its 
decisions by voice vote unless the yeas and nays were demanded. 
The new language allows the Senate to vote its decisions ``in 
accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate,'' that is, by 
voice vote or by a division, or, when requested by one-fifth of 
the members present, by the yeas and nays. (Senate Report 99-
401: 99th Congress, 2d Session.)

Duty to Expedite Trial:

    On one occasion the Presiding Officer felt it his duty to 
admonish the managers and counsel not to waste time. See the 
following:
          While the Presiding Officer makes no criticism on the 
        course of the examination and cross-examination, he 
        desires to say that the time of the Senate is very 
        precious, and he hopes that there will be as little 
        time taken by immaterial questions, either by the 
        managers or by counsel, as possible, and that we may 
        get along with this case.179
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\ February 11, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 2625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forms of Addressing, by Managers and Counsel:

    Both the managers and the counsel use the form of address 
``Mr. President and Senators,'' 180 or simply ``Mr. 
President.''181
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\ This was the form used in the Belknap trial.
    \181\ This form was used in the trial of Willian Blount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the Chief Justice is the Presiding Officer, he can be 
addressed either as Mr. President or Mr. Chief 
Justice.182
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\ These terms were used interchangeably in the trial of Andrew 
Johnson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both the managers on the part of the House and the counsel 
for the respondent are required to rise and address the Chair 
before speaking.183
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\ July 7, 1876, 44-1, Vol. 4, Part 7, Record, pp. 190-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naming of Presiding Officer:

    During the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, the following 
order was adopted to provide for a Presiding Officer in the 
absence of the Vice President or the President pro tempore:
          Ordered, That during the trial of the impeachment of 
        Harold Louderback, United States district judge for the 
        northern district of California, the Vice President, in 
        the absence of the President pro tempore, shall have 
        the right to name in open Senate, sitting for said 
        trial, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair.
          The President pro tempore shall likewise have the 
        right to name in open Senate, sitting for said trial, 
        or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the 
        duties of the Chair; but such substitution in the case 
        of either the Vice President or the President pro 
        tempore shall not extend beyond an adjournment or 
        recess, except by unanimous consent.184
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ May 15, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting the Question to Witnesses, to Managers and Counsel, and in 
        Writing:

    Orders and motions, except to adjourn, are reduced to 
writing when offered by Senators in impeachment trials, and the 
Presiding Officer in an impeachment trial is the medium for 
putting the questions to witnesses and motions and orders to 
the Senate, but questions asked by Senators in impeachment 
trials, whether of managers, counsel, or witnesses, must be in 
writing.

The present form and history of Rule XIX of the Senate sitting for 
        impeachments:

    Rule XIX of the ``Rules of procedure and practice for the 
Senate when sitting in impeachment trials'' is as follows:
          If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a 
        witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person 
        impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a 
        motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and 
        put by the Presiding Officer. The parties or their 
        counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering 
        questions propounded at the request of any Senator and 
        the merits of any such objection may be argued by the 
        parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection 
        shall be made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be 
        in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy.
    This rule dates from the Chase trial in 1805.\185\ In the 
revision of 1868,\186\ preparatory to the trial of President 
Johnson, the form was modified by the insertion of the 
parenthetical clause and the use of the words ``Presiding 
Officer'' for ``President.'' In 1986, the Rule was clarified 
and brought into conformance with the precedents by the 
adoption of S. Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\ Eighth Congress, second session, Senate Journal, pp. 511-13, 
Annals, pp. 89-92.
    \186\ Fortieth Congress, second session, Senate Report No. 59, 
Senate Journal, pp. 813, 814; Globe, p. 1568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contrary to old Rule XIX, for impeachment trials, the 
Senate had allowed Senators to interrogate the managers and 
counsel for the respondent.
    While the Senate was sitting for the Belknap trial, 
arguments, continuing from May 4 to May 8, 1876, were offered 
by the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and 
the counsel for the respondent on the question of the 
junsdiction of the Senate to try a citizen not in civil office 
at the time of the presentation of articles of impeachment. In 
the course of these arguments, members of the Senate frequently 
interrupted the managers and counsel for respondent with 
questions,\187\ relating to various points touched in the 
argument. These questions were generally presented in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ May 4-8, 1876, 44-1, Record of trial, pp. 33, 42, 43, 47, 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 20, 1876,\188\ in the same trial, Mr. Manager 
William P. Lynde was submitting an argument in the final 
summing up of the case, when Mr. Eaton, a Senator from 
Connecticut, interrupted by saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ July 20, 1876, 44-1, Record of trial, p. 296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. President, is it proper that I should ask the 
        manager a question?
    The President pro tempore (T. W. Ferry, of Michigan) said:
          It has been so ruled by the Senate.
Thereafter, both the managers and counsel for respondent were 
interrupted by questions.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\ Ibid., pp. 296, 297, 315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 12, 1876, in the trial of Belknap, Senator Edmunds, 
of Vermont, following the practice during that trial, proposed 
a question to counsel for the respondent.
    Senator Conkling, of New York, raised a question of order 
as to the right of a Senator to interrogate counsel.
    The President pro tempore (T. W. Ferry, of Michigan) said:
          The Senator from New York calls the attention of the 
        Chair to the fact that the rule does not authorize the 
        questioning of counsel, but of witnesses. * * * The 
        rule will be read.
          XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a 
        witness or to offer a motion or order (except a motion 
        to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing and put by 
        the Presiding Officer.
          * * * The Chair will state that in administering the 
        rule he would not feel authorized to permit a question 
        to be put to the counsel or the managers, for the rule 
        provides only for Senators to question witnesses, and 
        not counsel or managers to be questioned by them. * * * 
        The Senator from New York has stated the point of 
        order, and the Chair simply holds that under the rule 
        No. 18, and which is the only one bearing upon the 
        subject and upon which he rules, the Chair sustains the 
        point of order.
    Mr. Edmunds appealed, and on the question, ``Shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?'' 
there appeared 18 yeas, 21 nays. So the Chair was overruled, 
and the question proposed by Mr. Edmunds was put to 
counsel.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ July 12, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, pp. 976, 977; Record of 
trial, pp. 258, 259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 11, 1876, in that trial, several Senators had 
addressed verbal questions to the managers and to counsel for 
the respondent, Mr. Roscoe Conkling, a Senator from New York, 
having called attention to the rule, which he condemned as 
absurd, the President pro tempore (T. W. Ferry, of Michigan) 
said:
          As the Senator from New York has alluded to the fact 
        that the question was not put in writing, the Chair 
        will say that it has not been done in order to 
        facilitate business, and a moment ago one of the 
        Senators was about to reduce a question to writing and 
        the Senator from New York stated that the practice had 
        been otherwise. * * *
          The Chair to facilitate business has allowed 
        questions to be put without being reduced to writing by 
        the propounders.
    Later, colloquies and objection having arisen, the 
President pro tempore ruled:
          The Chair will enforce the rule. Colloquies must 
        cease. Objection has been made, and the Chair must 
        enforce the rule. He will state that on the part of 
        Senators, to guard against any breach of the rules and 
        unpleasantness, he will require all questions to be 
        reduced to writing; and then certainly there can be no 
        debate. The counsel will proceed.
    Mr. Richard J. Oglesby, a Senator from Illinois, asked:
          Does the decision of the Chair, that no questions can 
        be put hereafter without being reduced to writing, 
        cover questions put by the court to one of the counsel?
    The President pro tempore said:
          It covers all questions put by members of the Senate. 
        The rule does not require the questions on the part of 
        the parties to be reduced to writing unless so 
        requested by the Chair or a Senator; but all questions 
        put by members of the Senate the rule requires shall be 
        put in writing.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ July 11, 1876, 44-1, Record of Trial, pp. 248, 249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, on July 19, 1876, John S. Evans, a witness on behalf 
of the respondent, was on the stand, when Mr. Randolph, a 
Senator from New Jersey, proposed to ask orally a question. The 
suggestion being made that the question should be reduced to 
writing, Mr. Randolph urged that such had not been the 
practice.
    The President pro tempore (T. W. Ferry, of Michigan) said:
          The Chair will observe at this time that so far as 
        questions have been put to witnesses by Senators the 
        rule in the recollection of the Chair has been observed 
        until this time, and the Chair called the attention of 
        the Senator from California, who put a question just 
        now without reducing it to writing, to the fact that 
        the rule required it to be done. The question having 
        been put and it having been reduced to writing, by 
        calling the attention of the Senator to the rule the 
        Chair did his duty. Heretofore no questions have been 
        put to witnesses, as the Chair recollects, without 
        having been first reduced to writing.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\ July 19, 1876, 44-1, Record of Trial, p. 275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Quorum

Calls of, in Order During Trial:

    During the trial of Andrew Johnson,
          Mr. Sherman moved that there be a call of the Senate; 
        and
          The roll being called,
          It appeared that 44 senators were present and 
        answered to their names.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ April 22, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Secretary of War Belknap:
          . . . a question was raised by Mr. Edmunds whether a 
        quorum of the Senate was present, and
          The Presiding Officer directed the Secretary to count 
        the Senate; and upon counting the Senate it appeared 
        that a quorum was not present.
          Whereupon,
          On motion by Mr. Edmunds,
          The Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment 
        adjourned.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ June 16, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under recent practices, quorums are regularly called during 
a trial, but the Chair does not count to ascertain a quorum.

Quorum for an Impeachment Trial Consists of a Quorum of the Senate, and 
        not merely the Members Sworn for the Trial:

    On December 3, 1912, during the trial of Robert Archbald, 
following a quorum call, the President pro tempore made the 
following statement:
          On the call of the roll 65 Senators are present. A 
        quorum of the Senate is present.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ December 3, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Respondent

Answer to Articles of Impeachment Received by Senate:

    In the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, following the 
answer of the President, presented by his counsel, to the 
articles of impeachment, the Chief Justice submitted the 
following question to the Senate:
          Shall the answer of the respondent as read by his 
        counsel be received and filed? and
          It was determined in the affirmative.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ March 23, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Halsted Ritter in 1936, the following 
orders were considered and agreed to regarding the answer to 
the articles of impeachment:
          Ordered, That the answer of the respondent, Halsted 
        L. Ritter, to the articles of impeachment, as amended, 
        exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, 
        be printed for the use of the Senate sitting in the 
        trial of said impeachment.
          Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate 
        to the House of Representatives an attested copy of the 
        answer of Halsted L. Ritter, United States district 
        judge for the southern district of Florida, to the 
        articles of impeachment, and also a copy of the order 
        entered on the 12th ultimo prescribing supplemental 
        rules for the said impeachment trial.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\ April 3, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance of and Request of Time to Answer Articles:

    In an impeachment case, the writ of summons having been 
returned, the accused is called to appear to answer the 
articles.
    On March 12, 1936, Judge Halsted Ritter appeared personally 
with his counsel and filed a formal entry of appearance as 
follows:

  In the Senate of the United States of America Sitting as a Court of 
                              Impeachment

                                                    March 12, 1936.

           The United States of America v. Halsted L. Ritter

          The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, having this day 
        been served with a summons requiring him to appear 
        before the Senate of the United States of America in 
        the city of Washington, D.C., on March 12, 1936, at 1 
        o'clock in the afternoon to answer certain articles of 
        impeachment presented against him by the House of 
        Representatives of the United States of America, now 
        appears in his proper person and also by his counsel, 
        who are instructed by this respondent to inform the 
        Senate that respondent stands ready to file his 
        pleadings to such articles of impeachment within such 
        reasonable period of time as may be fixed.
          Dated March 12, 1936.
                                   Halsted L. Ritter, Respondent.
                                   Carl T. Hoffman,
                                   Frank P. Walsh,
                                       Counsel for Respondent.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \198\ March 12 1936, 74-2, Record, pp. 3646-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Archbald in 1912, on the motion of 
the counsel for the respondent, and over the protest of the 
managers for the House of Representatives, the Senate granted 
the respondent at his first appearance ten days in which to 
answer the articles of impeachment, based on the following 
request:

 In the Senate of the United States, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment

                  United States v. Robert W. Archbold

          The respondent, Robert W. Archbald, having been 
        served with a summons requiring him to appear before 
        the Senate of the United States at their Chamber in the 
        city of Washington, on Friday, July 19, 1912, at 12:20 
        o'clock in the afternoon, to answer certain articles of 
        impeachment presented against him by the House of 
        Representatives of the United States, now appears in 
        his proper person and also by his counsel, Robert W. 
        Archbald, Jr., and Augustus S. Worthington, who are 
        instructed by this respondent to apply to this court 
        for a reasonable time for the preparation of his answer 
        to said articles of impeachment.
                                               R. W. Archbaid.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\ July 19, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, p. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the above was read and placed on file, the counsel 
for the respondent then made the following motion:

 In the Senate of the United States, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment

                  United States v. Robert W. Archbald

          The respondent by his counsel, now comes and moves 
        the court to grant him the period of ------ days in 
        which to prepare and present his answer to the articles 
        of impeachment presented against him herein.
                                   R. W. Archbald, Jr.
                                   A. S. Worthington. \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\ Ibid., p. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was amended as follows and agreed to:
          Ordered, That the respondent present the answer to 
        the articles of impeachment at 12 o'clock and 30 
        minutes post meridian, on the 29th day of July, 
        1912.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ July 19, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, p. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There has been some variation in the appearance by 
respondents. Judge Ritter appeared in person, attended by 
counsel, to answer to the articles,\202\ as did Judge 
Louderback,\203\ Judge Archbald,\204\ and Mr. Justice 
Chase.\205\ Judge Humphreys, however, did not appear either in 
person or by attorney to answer the articles,\206\ and 
President Johnson did not appear, but was represented by 
counsel.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \202\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 478.
    \203\ April 11 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 309.
    \204\ July 19, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, p. 629.
    \205\ January 2, 1805, 8-2, Senate Journal, p. 514.
    \206\ Judge Humphreys, not appearing, the case was continued on 
motion of the managers to enable the production of testimony and the 
Senate directed publication of a proclamation for him to appear as 
follows:
    ``Ordered. That this high court of ``impeachment stand adjourned 
till the 26th day of June instant, at 12 o'clock, meridian, and as the 
said West H. Humphreys has failed to make his appearance to answer the 
said articles of impeachment, though duly summoned, it is further 
ordered that proclamation for his appearance on that day be made by 
publishing this order in the National Intelligencer, National 
Republican and Evening Star newspapers, printed in the city of 
Washington, for at least ten days successively before said 26th day of 
June, instant; and also in the Nashville Union, a newspaper printed in 
the city of Nashville, in the State of Tennessee, at least several days 
before said 26th day of June, instant, June 9, 1862, 37-2, Journal, p. 
894.
    \207\ March 13, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whether or not the respondent appears in person or by 
attorney ``on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, 
appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of 
impeachment, that trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a 
plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, 
judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.'' 
\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\ Rule VIII, Senate Impeachment Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted Bond, as Required:

    In one trial, namely that of William Blount, the respondent 
was required to post bond and enter into recognizance for his 
appearance to answer said impeachment. He personally appeared 
before the President pro tempore and the Senate of the United 
States, along with his sureties, two members of the House of 
Representatives, to post bond for his appearance.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\ July 7, 1797, 5.1, Senate Journal, p. 389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resignation Does not Render Moot the Impeachment of the Respondent:

    In the trail of William Belknap in 1876, Mr. Belknap 
resigned his office of Secretary of War and the question was 
raised
          . . . whether W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is 
        amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as 
        Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of 
        said office; . . .\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\ May 4 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Senate resolved the issue by agreeing to the following 
resolution:
          Resolved, That, in the opinion of the Senate, William 
        W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by 
        impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War 
        notwithstanding his resignation of said office before 
        he was impeached.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \211\ May 29, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of Judge English, the respondent having retired 
from office, the managers, while maintaining their right to 
prosecute the charges, recommended that impeachment proceedings 
be discontinued. As a result, the Senate dismissed the charges 
against Judge English on December 13, 1926.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ December 13, 1926, 60-2, Record, p. 344; December 13, 1926, 
69-2, Senate Journal, p. 287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witness at own Trial, Examined and Cross-examined:

    During the trial of Halsted L. Ritter, the respondent, 
Judge Ritter, was directly examined and then read a statement 
in his own defense. Following the statement, he was subject to 
cross-examination on the part of Senators, submitting their 
questions in writing, and on the part of the managers of the 
House of Representatives.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\ April 11, 1936, 74-2, Record, pp. 5370-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also, in the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, the 
respondent appeared and testified at length in his own behalf, 
and following his testimony, questions were propounded in 
writing and answered by the respondent.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \214\ May 23, 1933, 73-1, Record, pp. 3971-3991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first instance of a respondent taking the stand on his 
own behalf was Jude Robert Archbald in 1913.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ January 6, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witnesses Questioned by:

    The respondent, James Peck, acted in his own defense, 
giving evidence and questioning witnesses.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \216\ January 11, 1831, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Secretary of the Senate

Informing the House:

    Rule I of the impeachment rules provides that the Secretary 
of the Senate inform the House of Representatives of the 
Senate's readiness to receive the managers on the part of the 
House as follows:
          Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the 
        House of Representatives that managers are appointed on 
        their part to conduct an impeachment against any person 
        and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to 
        the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall 
        immediately inform the House of Representatives that 
        the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the 
        purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, 
        agreeably to such notice.
    On the day appointed for the trial, the Secretary also 
notifies the House of Representatives as follows:
          At 12:30 o'clock afternoon, or at such other hour as 
        the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the 
        trial of an impeachment, the legislative and executive 
        business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the 
        Secretary shall give notice to the House of 
        Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed 
        upon the impeachment of ------ ------, in the Senate 
        Chamber.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\ Rule XII, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues Orders, Mandates, etc.:

    When the Presiding Officer, who has the power to make and 
issue orders, mandates, writs, and precepts, makes use of this 
power, he has the option of utilizing the Secretary of the 
Senate as follows:
          The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and 
        issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, 
        all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by 
        these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce 
        such other regulations and orders in the premises as 
        the Senate may authorize or provide.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \218\ Rule V, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oaths, Administration of:

    When a summons is returned against the person impeached, 
the Secretary of the Senate administers an oath to the 
returning officer:
          I, ------ ------, do solemnly swear that the return 
        made by me upon the process issued on the ------ day of 
        ------, by the Senate of the United States, against --
        ---- ------, is truly made, and that I have performed 
        such service as therein described: So help me God.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\ Rule IX, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When witnesses are called, they are administered the 
following oath by the Secretary or any other duly authorized 
person as follows:
          You, ------ ------, do swear (or affirm, as the case 
        may be) that the evidence you shall give in the case 
        now pending between the United States and ------ ------
        , shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
        the truth: So help you God.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Rule XXV, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading of Motions:

    Rule XVI provides for the reading of motions at the 
Secretary's table as follows:
          All motions, objections, requests, or applications 
        whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or 
        relating immediately to the trial (including questions 
        with respect to admission of evidence or other 
        questions arising during the trial) made by the parties 
        or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding 
        Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require 
        it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the 
        Secretary's table.

Record of Proceedings:

    The Secretary is charged with keeping the record of 
proceedings as follows:
          The Secretary of the Senate shall record the 
        proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of 
        legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported 
        in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of 
        the Senate.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Rule XIV, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpenas, Ordering and Serving:

    Rule XXV provides for the following form of direction for 
the serving of a subpena to be filed by the Secretary of the 
Senate as follows:
          The Senate of the United States to ------ ------, 
        greeting:
          You are hereby commanded to serve and return the 
        within subpena according to law.
          Dated at Washington, this ------ day of ------, in 
        the year of our Lord ------, and of the Independence of 
        the United States the ------.
                                             ------ ------,
                                           Secretary of the Senate.

                              Senate Rules

Senate Legislative Rules Applicable When Impeachment Rules Are Silent:

    On April 11, 1868, during the trial of President Johnson, 
objection was heard to a motion from the floor by a Senator and 
the Chief Justice ruled that objection forced a motion to lie 
over one day. At this point the following colloquy occurred:
          Mr. Trumbull. An objection does not carry it over, 
        does it?
          The Chief Justice. The Chair think it does.
          Mr. Trumbull. It does not change the rule. The rule 
        provides for this very thing being done, if the Senate 
        choose to allow it.
          Mr. Conkling. Mr. President, may I inquire under what 
        rule of the Senate thus organized it is that this 
        motion lies over upon the objection of a single 
        Senator?
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice in conducting 
        the business of the court adopts for his general 
        guidance the rules of the Senate sitting in legislative 
        session as far as they are applicable. That is the 
        ground of his decision.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\ April 11, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, a few days later, an order was sent to the Chair and 
objection was heard to its immediate consideration. The Chief 
Justice stated:
          Objection is made. The order will lie over for one 
        day.
          Mr. Sumner. I beg leave most respectfully to inquire 
        under what rule such an objection can be made.
          The Chief Justice. The Chief Justice stated on 
        Saturday that in conducting the business of the court 
        he applied, as far as they were applicable, the general 
        rules of the Senate. This has been done upon several 
        occasions, and when objection has been made orders have 
        been laid over to the next day for consideration.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\ April 14, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplementary Rules:

    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter in 1936, the Senate 
adopted certain supplementary rules on impeachment only 
applicable during said trial which were as follows:
          1. In all matters relating to the procedure of the 
        Senate, 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.
          2. 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 
        on the part of the House or counsel representing the 
        respondent desire to make any application, request, or 
        objection, the same shall be addressed directly to the 
        Presiding Officer and not otherwise.
          3. It shall not be in order for any Senator, except 
        as provided in the rules of procedure and practice in 
        the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials, to 
        engage in colloquy or to address questions either to 
        the managers on the part of the House or to 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 and not 
        otherwise.
          4. The parties may, by stipulation in writing filed 
        with the Secretary of the Senate and by him laid before 
        the Senate or presented at the trial, agree upon any 
        facts involved in the trial; and such stipulation shall 
        be received by the Senate for all intents and purposes 
        as though the facts therein agreed upon had been 
        established by legal evidence adduced at the trial.
          5. The parties or their counsel may interpose 
        objection to witnesses answering questions propounded 
        at the request of any Senator, and the merits of any 
        such objection may be argued by the parties or their 
        counsel; and the Presiding Officer may rule on any such 
        objection, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of 
        the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask 
        that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it 
        shall be submitted to the Senate for decision; or he 
        may, at his option, in the first instance submit any 
        such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. 
        Upon all such questions the vote shall be without 
        debate and without a division, unless the ayes and nays 
        be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present, when 
        the same shall be taken.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\ March 12, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Judge Swayne in 1905, the Senate 
adopted the following supplementary rule applicable only during 
that trial:
          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 [lorida, 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 innmediately 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.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \225\ February 3, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 1819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Harold Louderback in 1933, the 
following supplementary rules were reported and adopted:
          Ordered, That in addition to the rules of procedure 
        and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment 
        trials, heretofore adopted, and supplementary to such 
        rules, the following rules will be applicable in the 
        trial of the impeachment of Harold Louderback, United 
        States judge for the northern district of California
          First. In all matters relating to the procedure of 
        the Senate, 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.
          Second. 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 on the part of the House or counsel 
        representing the respondent desire to make any 
        application, request, or objection, the same shall be 
        addressed directly to the Presiding Officer and not 
        otherwise.
          Third. It shall not be in order for any Senator, 
        except as provided in the rules of procedure and 
        practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment 
        trials, to engage in colloquy or to address questions 
        either to the managers on the part of the House or to 
        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 
        and not otherwise.
          Fourth. The parties may, by stipulation in writing 
        filed with the Secretary of the Senate and by him laid 
        before the Senate or presented at the trial, agree upon 
        any facts involved in the trial; and such stipulation 
        shall be received by the Senate for all intents and 
        purposes as though the facts therein agreed upon had 
        been established by legal evidence adduced at the 
        trial.
          Fifth. The parties or their counsel may interpose 
        objection to witnesses answering questions propounded 
        at the request of any Senator, and the merits of any 
        such objection may be argued by the parties or their 
        counsel; and the Presiding Officer may rule on any such 
        objection, which ruling shall stand asthe judgment of 
the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal 
vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the 
Senate for decision; or he may, at his option, in the first instance 
submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon 
all such questions the vote shall be without debate and without a 
division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one-fifth of the 
Members present, when the same shall be taken.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\ April 11, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Archbald in 1912, no new rules were 
adopted; the rules framed in former trials were considered as 
being operative. This was the same procedure as had been 
followed in the trials of Secretary of War Belknap and Judge 
Swayne.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ July 15, 1912, 62-2, Senate Journal, p. 454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Senators

Disqualification of, in Trials Failed:

    There have been two trials in which attempts were made to 
disqualify certain Senators, and in both instances the Senators 
involved were permitted to vote.
    In the trial of Judge Pickering, three Senators, Samual 
Smith, Israel Smith, and John Smith, who had been Members of 
the House of Representatives, and who had voted on the question 
of impeaching Judge Pickering, were members of the Senate 
during the trial. A resolution was introduced to provide that 
any Senator of the United States, having previously acted and 
voted, as a Member of the House on the question of impeachment, 
be disqualified, but this resolution was simply ordered to lie 
over for consideration, and all three Senators voted during the 
trial of Judge Pickering.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \228\ January 4, 1804, S-1, Senate Journal, pp. 382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of President Andrew Johnson, the issue of 
dis qualification arose prior to the administration of the oath 
to Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio. The arugment was raised by 
Senator Thomas Hendricks of Indiana that since Senator Wade had 
an interest in the outcome of the trial, inasmuch as he would 
succeed to the office of President if conviction had been 
obtained, that he was not competent to sit as a member of the 
court, Senator Oliver Morton of Indiana pointed out that under 
the Constitution the Senate has the sole power to try all 
impeachments and that Senator Wade, as a member of the Senate, 
had a constitutional right to sit there. After thorough 
discussion of the issue, Senator Hendricks withdrew his 
objection, stating that he thought that the question might more 
properly be raised when the Senate would be fully organized for 
a trial and when the accused party was present; the oath was 
administered to Senator Wade.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \229\ March 5, 6, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, pp. 809-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excused from Participation in Trial or from Voting:

    Senators from time to time have asked to be excused from 
participation in an impeachment trial. During the trial of 
Halsted L. Ritter, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Costigan) 
asked unanimous consent to stand aside from participation in 
the trial, with a statement of his reasons therefor entered in 
the Record, it was granted.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\ March 12, 1936 74-2, Record, p. 3646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also in the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, Senator John 
Overton of Louisiana and Senator Augustine Lonergan of 
Connecticut, who had been Members of the House of 
Representatives at the time of the impeachment of Judge 
Louderback, were excused from participation in the trial.\231\ 
In the trial of Secretar of War Belknap in 1876, Senator James 
Alcorn from Mississippi took the oath and was sworn for the 
impeachment trial, but because he had been absent from the 
sessions of the Senate prior to an incidental question being 
voted on, was excused from voting at his request.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \231\ March 9, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 307.
    \232\ March 15, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Charles Swayne in 1905, just before 
the vote was to be taken on the first article of impeachment, 
Senator P. C. Knox of Pennsylvania asked to be excused from 
voting as a result of his absence on account of illness. The 
Presiding Officer put the question and the Senator was 
excused.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\ February 27, 1905, 58-3, Record, p. 3468.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Halsted Ritter in 1936, Senator Millard 
Tydings of Maryland, for reasons assigned by him and by 
unanimous consent, was excused from participation in the 
trial.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\ March 31, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just prior to voting on the articles of impeachment in the 
trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, a number of Senators were 
excused from voting. Senator Carter Glass of Virginia asked 
that he be excused because of repeated absences, which request 
was granted by unanimous consent.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Record, p. 4082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A total of twenty-one requests by Senators to be excused 
from voting were granted during votes on the articles involving 
Judge Louderback.\236\ Two Senators had their positions 
announced as to whether they would vote ``guilty'' or ``not 
guilty'' in spite of their absence,\237\ but no pairs were 
allowed on these final votes.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Record, pp. 4082-87.
    \237\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Record, p. 4082.
    \238\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Record, p. 4083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Judge Peck, Senator Thomas Hart Benton 
of Missouri was twice excused from voting, once at the 
beginning of the trial,\239\ and again at the end of the trial 
subsequent to his being a witness in that trial.\240\ In the 
same trial Senator John Robinson of Illinois was excused just 
prior to the final vote on the article of impeachment.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \239\ April 26, 1830, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 238.
    \240\ January 31, 1831, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 341.
    \241\ January 31, 1831, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witnesses at Trial:

    When a Senator is called as a witness, he is sworn and 
testifies standing in his place.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\ Rule XVIII, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witnesses, Questioned by Senators:

    See also ``Putting the question . . .'' under Presiding 
officer, p. 66.
    Objecting may be raised to questioning by Senators, but in 
the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, the Chief Justice ruled 
that any objection to the putting of a question by a member of 
the Senate must come from another Senator.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \243\ April 13, 1968, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the trial of Judge Swayne in 1905, this ruling of the 
Chief Justice was effectively circumvented when the Presiding 
Officer agreed that Senators' questions could not be objected 
to by either managers or counsel, but the answer by the witness 
to such questions could be objected to.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \244\ February 11, 1905, 58-3, Record, pp. 2393, 2397, 2399.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule XIX governing the question put by Senators reads as 
follows:
          ``If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a 
        witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person 
        impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a 
        motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and 
        put by the Presiding Officer. The parties or their 
        counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering 
        questions propounded at the request of any Senator and 
        the merits of any such objection may be argued by the 
        parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection 
        shall be made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be 
        in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy.'' \245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \245\ August 16, 1986, Congressional Record (for August 15, 1986) 
pp. S11902-S11903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Subpenas

Enforcement of:

    In the trial of Secretary of War Belknap in 1876, a witness 
attempted to withhold certain evidence which he claimed was 
``privileged communications.'' The President pro tempore 
submitted the question to the Senate as to whether the witness 
should produce the evidence and it was decided in the 
affirmative.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \246\ July 8, 1876. 44-1, vol. 4, part 7, Record, p. 216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Senate discussed on an earlier occasion how the 
Sergeant at Arms might enforce its subpena. In 1868 during the 
trial of Andrew Johnson, there was a discussion of the power of 
the Sergeant at Arms to summon a posse comitatus \247\ and 
finally the following wording was adopted regarding the powers 
of the Sergeant at Arms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \247\ March 2, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe, pp. 1526-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          . . . And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction 
        of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as 
        may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into 
        effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts 
        of the Senate.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \248\ Rule VI, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of:

    For the form of subpenas see Rule XXV for Impeachment 
Trials.

Signed by Presiding Officer:

    Under a rule of the Senate subpenas or other writs are 
signed by the Presiding Officer, be he the Vice President or 
President pro tempore, during session of the Senate for the 
trial or while on vacation.
    On August 3, 1912, during the trial of Judge Robert W. 
Archbald, Senator Stone, of Missouri, Propounded the following 
inquiry:
          Mr. President, I should like to propound an inquiry. 
        The Presiding Officer, on other words, the Senator who 
        shall preside, I presume is to attach his signature to 
        the subpenas for witnesses. Is that correct?
    On response, the President pro tempore directed the 
Secretary to read the following rule of the Senate:
          V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and 
        issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, 
        all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by 
        these rules, or by the Senate and to make and enforce 
        such other regulations and orders in the premises as 
        the Senate may authorize or provide.
    Mr. Stone then inquired:
          Then under the rule the Vice President will be the 
        Presiding Officer who would sign all writs?
          Would the present occupant of the chair be clothed 
        with that power during the vacation? Application for 
        the issue of subpenas for witnesses will be made during 
        the vacation of the Senate, in all probability 
        probability in November. It puzzles me a little bit to 
        know who would sign those writs.
    The President pro tempore said:
          The Chair does not think there is any trouble at all 
        about it. Whoever is the presiding officer at the time 
        the writ is requires would, in the opinion of the 
        present occupant of the chair, be clothed with that 
        power. The Vice President, of course, will be during 
        the vacation the presiding officer of the Senate, and 
        if the Senate should indicate anyone else to be 
        President pro tempore during that time, the power would 
        be exercised in the first instance by the Vice 
        President, or, if he should be under disability, by the 
        President pro tempore, whoever he might be.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \249\ August 3, 1912, 66-2, Record, p. 10140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Summons

    For form of, see pages 28-30.

                            Table, Motion to

    On April 13, 1868, during the impeachment trial of 
President Andrew Johnson, while an order relating to the final 
argument in the trial was under consideration, the Chief 
Justice admitted a motion to lay a pending proposition on the 
table.
    Note the following:
    Senator Williams of Oregon, moved that the resolution lie 
on the table.
    Senator Drake, of Missouri, said:
          I raise a question of order, Mr. President, that in 
        this Senate sitting for the trial of an impeachment 
        there is no authority for moving to lay any proposition 
        on the table. We must come to a direct vote, I think, 
        one way or the other.
    The Chief Justice (Salmon P. Chase) said:
          The Chief Justice cannot undertake to limit the 
        Senate in respect to its mode of disposing of a 
        question; and as the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Williams) 
        announced his purpose to test the sense of the Senate 
        in regard to whether they will alter the rule at all 
        the Chief Justice conceives his motion to be in 
        order.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\ April 13, 1868, 40-2. Globe Supplement, p. 162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Testimony Not Limited to a Single Article

    On February 11, 1805, during the trial of Mr. Justice 
Samuel Chase, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, a 
challenge was raised against a witness based on the testimony 
which applied to articles to be considered subsequently. It was 
the sense of the Senate that witnesses should be allowed to 
support more than one article with their testimony.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \251\ February 11, 1805, 8-2, Annals of the Congress of the United 
States, p. 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Vote

Reconsider Not in Order:

    With the adoption by the Senate of S. Res. 479, 99th Cong., 
2d. Sess., on August 16, 1986, a new sentence was added at the 
end of Rule XXIII providing that ``A motion to reconsider the 
vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or 
rejected shall not be in order.'' The report accompanying S. 
Res. 479 (Senate Report 99-401) states: ``The purpose of this 
restriction is to obviate the confusion that would invariably 
attend a reversal of a vote to convict when, according to most 
authorities, such a vote operates automatically and 
instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the 
office. Under ordinary circumstances the Senate has two days 
for reconsideration. Since the trial rules are silent with 
respect to a motion to reconsider, the rules of Senate 
applicable to legislative matters would apply. Consequently, 
the effect of this change is to preclude the operation of the 
normal rule in the context of a vote on the final question, 
whether such vote is to convict or to acquit.''

Two-Thirds to Convict:

    Rule XXIII in part provides that ``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;'' . . .

Vote Required: Majority Only, Except for Conviction:

    During the trial of William Belknap in 1876, a question 
arose concerning the admission of evidence and Senator Allen 
Thurman of Ohio suggested that the two-thirds requirement for 
conviction should apply to objections to testimony. The 
proposal was not sustained.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \252\ July 21, 1876, 44-1, Record, Vol. 4, Part 7, p. 315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Standing Rules:

    Senate Resolution 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, adopted 
August 16, 1986, changed Rule VII by deletion of the last 
sentence which effectively required the Senate to arrive at its 
decisions by voice vote unless the yeas and nays were demanded. 
The new language allows the Senate to vote its decisions ``in 
accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate,'' that is, by 
voice vote or by a division, or, when requested by one-fifth of 
the members present, by the yeas and nays.

Yeas and Nays: Rule XX:

    Rule XX, which requires the doors of the Senate to be open 
upon trial of an impeachment unless ordered to be closed for 
purposes of deliberating any order or decision as provided in 
Impeachment Rule XXIV, was amended by S. Res. 479, 99th Cong., 
2d Session by adding the following new sentence:
          A motion to close the doors may be acted upon without 
        objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion shall 
        be voted on without debate by the yeas and nays, which 
        shall be entered on the record.

Yeas and Nays: Rule XXIII:

    Rule XXIII provides, in part, ``on the final question 
whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall 
be taken on each article separately;'' . . .

Yeas and Nays: Rule XXIV:

    Rule XXIV, which deals with voting on orders and decisions 
and the procedure for going behind closed doors in order to 
deliberate these and other matters, was amended by S. Res. 479, 
99th Cong. 2d Session, to incorporate the unanimous-consent 
procedure added to Rule XX. Since many orders and decisions are 
believed to involve noncontroversial matters, it was the 
Committee's and the Senate's belief that they may be dispensed 
with without objections. However, in the event of objection, 
the yeas and nays may be had. Under the previous rule ``All 
orders and decision shall be made and had by yeas and nays.'' 
In place of this language the Senate substitute ``All orders 
and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or if 
objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be voted on 
without debate `by yeas and nays' ''.

Yeas and Nays: (Cross References)

    See also ``Debate,'' pages 47-49.
    See also under ``Orders and Decisions.''

                               Witnesses

Attendance:

    The Senate has adjourned on occasion to await the 
attendance of witnesses.\253\ The Senate compels the attendance 
of witnesses\254\ and forces obedience to its orders.\255\ It 
can order witnesses to produce papers.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\ July 13, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, pp. 978-80.
    \254\ Rule VI in part states: ``The Senate shall have the power to 
compel the attendance of witnesses, . . .''.
    \255\ Rule Vl in part states: ``The Senate shall have power to . . 
. enforce obedience to its orders, . . .''.
    \256\ July 8, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examination of:

    When witnesses are summoned, they are examined first by one 
person on behalf of the party producing them and then by one 
person from the other side.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \257\ Rule XVII, Senate Rules of Impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The order in which witnesses are examined can be waived 
with the consent of both parties.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \258\ February 16, 1905, 58-3, Record, pp. 2719-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitation on Number:

    During the trial of Judge Archbald, the Senate adopted the 
following order
          Ordered, That the number of character witnesses shll 
        be limited to 15.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\ December 17, 1912, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 4, 1912,\260\ following the reading and 
approval of the Journal, the names of witnesses on behalf of 
the managers were read to ascertain their presence, and the 
introduction of testimony on behalf of the managers began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\ December 4, 1912, 62-3 Record, p. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This presentation of testimony continued on December 5, 6, 
7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and was concluded on December 14, when Mr. 
Manager Clayton announced that the examination in the main part 
had been concluded.
    The introduction of testimony on behalf of the respondent 
was begun on December 16 and continued until December 19, when 
adjournment was taken until January 3, 1913.
    On December 17, 1912, following the introduction of a 
number of witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the 
respondent to testify as to respondent's chracter, Mr. Manager 
Clayton said:
          Mr. President, the managers have offered no character 
        witnesses anywhere in these proceedings; it is not 
        their purpose to offer any character witnesises. Ten 
        character witnesses have been examined. The rule 
        adopted, or the practice I may say, to be more 
        accurate, in all the courts of justice so far as I know 
        is that the court has the discretionary power to limit 
        the number of witnesses as to character. I take it that 
        that power is an inseparable incident of the court to 
        regulate its proceedings and for the purpose, among 
        others, of bringing the trial to an end.
          In so far as I know, all courts permit a reasonable 
        number of witnesses to be examined on character; but 
        where the testimony of the character of the party is 
        not controverted, the court has always, after a 
        reasonable number of witnesses have been examined, held 
        that no more should be examined on that particular 
        matter. Some of the courts of the Union hold that four 
        character witnesses are sufficient where the testimony 
        of those witnesses is not controverted.
          So, Mr. President, I respectfully submit to you and 
        to the Senate that after these gentlemen have examined 
        10 witnesses on character and when the testimony of 
        those character witnesses is not disputed--is not 
        controverted--and when the managers tell the Senate it 
        will not be controverted, it seems to me that the 
        further examination of character witnesses might well 
        be dispensed with.
    The Presiding Officer said:
          The Chair recognizes, of course, that the practice is 
        such as the manager has indicated, and the necessity of 
        it is apparent. Otherwise the time of a court might be 
        indefinitely taken up through the introduction of 
        innumerable witnesses. At the same time the Chair 
        recognized that in this case the character of the 
        respondent is necessarily in issue, and on account of 
        the gravity of the case and the peculiar position which 
        the Presiding Officer holds, simply as the mouthpiece 
        of the Senate, the Chair does not feel authorized to 
        take the responsibility of shutting off the respondent 
        in the proof which he seeks to make upon this line. The 
        Senate has full control over the matter whenever it 
        sees proper to exercise it.
    Thereupon, on motion of Senator Reed, of Missouri, it was--
          Ordered, That the number of character witnesses shall 
        be limited to 15.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\ December 17, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 774, Senate Journal, p. 
322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Examination of:

    On December 18, 1912,\262\ on cross-examination, Mr. 
Manager Webb proposed to interrogate Miss Mary F. Boland, a 
witness called in behalf of the respondent, about certain 
matters relative to a conversation which has not been referred 
to in the main examination. Objection by counsel for the 
respondent was sustained by the presiding officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \262\ December 18, 1912, 62-3, Record, p. 841, Senate Journal, p. 
322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Presiding Officer. The rule is plain that the 
        counsel can only cross-examine the witness about 
        matters upon which the witness has been interrogated on 
        direct examination.
Whereupon, on motion of Mr. James R. Reed, of Missouri, it 
was--
          Ordered, That the witness now on the stand, Miss Mary 
        F. Boland, be at this time interrogated by the managers 
        relative to that part of the conversation sought to be 
        elicited.

List to be Called:

    During the trial of William W. Belknap in 1876, the counsel 
for the respondent moved that the managers on the part of the 
House furnish a list of the witnesses that they intend to call.
    Whereupon the Senate agreed to the following order:
          Resolved, That the managers furnish to the defendant, 
        or his counsel, within four days, a list of witnesses, 
        as far as at present known to them, that they intend to 
        call in this case; and that, within four days 
        thereafter, the respondent furnish to the managers a 
        list of witnesses as far as known, that he intends to 
        summon.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \263\ June 6, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Place Occupied While Testifying:

    The Senate assigns the place to be occupied by witnesses 
while testifying in an impeachment trial.
    On July 6, 1876,\264\ during the impeachment trial of 
William W. Belknap, the testimony was about to begin when the 
President pro tempore (T. W. Ferry, of Michigan) suggested that 
witnesses take a place at the right of the Chair, on a level 
with the Secretary's desk; but at the suggestion of the 
managers and several Senators a place on the floor in front of 
the Secretary desk was assigned to the witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \264\ July 6, 1876, 44-1, Record of trial, p. 179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later in the trial Senator Randolph, of New Jersey, said:
          Mr. President, is there any objection on the part of 
        the Senate and counsel to have the witness stand at 
        your right or left? So far as I am concerned, it is 
        utterly impossible for me to hear one word out of three 
        that is spoken. It has been so during the whole time. 
        If I take the seat of another Senator, it is at his 
        inconvenience. This is my seat. I have no right to 
        another, but I have a right to hear what is said.
    The President pro tempore said:
          The Chair will state to the Senator that he 
        designated a little higher place for the witnesses, but 
        the managers and counsel thought it would be preferable 
        to have the witness in front of the desk, and the Chair 
        submitted that to the Senate, and, as there was no 
        objection, the witnesses were placed there.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \265\ July 6, 1876, 44-1, Record of trial, p. 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President pro tempore then put the request to the 
Senate and it was ordered that the witnesses stand on the right 
of the Chair on a level with the Secretary's desk.

Stand While Testifying:

    On Monday, April 6, 1936 Legislative day of Monday, 
February 24, 1936), the following occurred:
          Mr. King. Pursuant to the practice heretofore 
        observed in impeachment cases, I send to the desk an 
        order, and ask for its adoption.
          The Vice President. The order will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
          Ordered, That the witnesses shall stand while giving 
        their testimony.
          The Vice President. Is there objection to the 
        adoption of the order? The Chair hears none, and the 
        order is entered.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \266\ April 6, 1936, 74-2, Record, of trial, p. 4971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpena Disregarded, Witness Admonished:

    A witness in the trial of Judge Robert Archbald in 1912 was 
subpenaed by the Senate but did note appear. Not the following:
          Ordered, That an attachment do issue in accordance 
        with the rules of the Senate of the United States for 
        one J. H. Rittenhouse, witness heretofore duly 
        subpenaed in this proceeding on behalf of the managers 
        of the House of Representatives.
Later on the same day Mr. Manager Clayton stated that the 
witness, James H. Rittenhouse, had appeared and was now in the 
corridor and asked that he be admonished to be present until 
discharged.
          The President pro tempore. The witness will be 
        brought into the presence of the Senate.
          James H. Rittenhouse appeared in the Chamber.
          The President pro tempore. Mr. Witness, you are 
        brought before the Senate to be admonished that you 
        must scrupulously obey the orders you have received in 
        the summons to appear here and not be absent yourself 
        without leave of the Senate. You may now retire.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \267\ December 5, 1912, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 318, Record, p. 
152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpenas, Summoned at Public Expense:

    In the trial of Secretary of War Belknap, the following 
order was adopted:
          Ordered, That the Secretary issue subpenas that may 
        be applied for by the respondent for such witnesses, to 
        be summoned at the expense of the United States, as 
        shall be allowed by a committee, to consist of Senators 
        Frelinghuysen, Thurman, and Christiancy; and that 
        subpenas for all other witnesses for the respondent 
        shall contain the statement that the witness therein 
        named are to attend upon the tender on behalf of the 
        respondent of their lawful fees.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \268\ June 17, 1876, 44-1, Senate Journal, p. 959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Vl. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT THE CLOSE OF A TRIAL

   1. Following the Completion of the Presentation of Witnesses and 
 Documents, Orders Were Adopted by the Senate Setting the Time for the 
                            Final Arguments

    This procedure has varied but the general outline can be 
seen below from the trials of Judge Halsted L. Ritter, Judge 
Harold Louderback, and President Andrew Johnson.
    In the Johnson case, as many managers or counsel for the 
President as desired to do so were permitted to present final 
arguments, the only limitation being that the conclusion should 
be by one manager.
          Ordered, That as many of the managers and of the 
        counsel for the President as desired to do so be 
        permitted to file arguments or to address the Senate 
        orally, but the conclusion of the oral argument shall 
        be by one manager, as provided in the 21st rule. (Now 
        Rule XXII.)
          Mr. Manager Logan, under the authority of the 
        foregoing order, filed a printed argument.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \269\ April 22, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 921
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In both the Louderback and Ritter cases, the final 
arguments were limited to 4 hours, equally divided between the 
managers and counsel with the time allocated as each side saw 
fit.
          Ordered, That the time for final argument of the case 
        of Harold Louderback shall be limited to 4 hours, which 
        said time shall he divided equally between the managers 
        on the part of the House of Representatives and the 
        counsel for the respondent, and the time thus assigned 
        to each side shall be divided as each side for itself 
        may determine.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \270\ May 23, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An order, identical in form, was adopted in the Ritter 
trial.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \271\ April 13, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. After the Completion of Final Arguments, the Senate Went into 
            Closed Session for Deliberation of the Question

    In the Johnson and Louderback trials, the Senate went into 
closed session almost immediately after the conclusion of the 
final arguments, and in the Ritter case the Senate adjourned 
until the next day following the final arguments, and upon 
reconvening went into closed session. Note the following 
excerpt from the Journal in the Johnson trial:
          The Chief Justice stated that the argument in behalf 
        of the House of Representatives and in behalf of the 
        President having been closed, the business now in order 
        was the motion submitted by Mr. Edmunds, on the 24th of 
        April, that when the arguments shall have been 
        concluded and the doors closed for deliberation upon 
        the final question, the official reporters of the 
        Senate shall take down the debate upon the final 
        question, to be published in the proceedings.
          The Senate resumed the consideration of the said 
        motion; and
          On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by 
        Mr. Williams on the 27th of April,
          On motion by Mr. Anthony to amend the amendment by 
        inserting at the end thereof the words except by leave 
        of the Senate, to be had without debate,
          Pending the consideration of the motion,
                  On motion by Mr. Trumbull,
          Ordered, That the doors of the galleries be reopened.
          On motion by Mr. Wilson, at 3 o'clock p.m., the 
        Senate took a recess for 15 minutes; at the expiration 
        of which,
          On motion by Mr. Edmunds that the doors of the Senate 
        be closed for deliberation,
          It was determined in the affirmative; and
          The doors having been closed,
          The Chief Justice stated the question before the 
        Senate.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\ May 6, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the case of the Louderback trial the Journal exhibits:
          Mr. Sumners, on behalf of the managers on the part of 
        the House of Representatives, delivered the closing 
        argument in support of the articles of impeachment.
          On motion by Mr. Ashurst, at 3 o'clock and 7 minutes 
        p.m., that the doors be closed for deliberation.
          It was determined in the affirmative.
          The Vice President thereupon ordered the Sergeant at 
        Arms to clear the galleries and close the doors; and 
        the order having been executed, and the managers on the 
        part of the House of Representatives, and the 
        respondent and his counsel, having retired from the 
        Chamber.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \273\ May 24, 1833, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An excerpt from the Journal of the Ritter trial is set 
forth below:
          Mr. Sumners having subsequently concluded his 
        argument,
          On motion by Mr. Robinson, at 1 o'clock and 56 
        minutes p.m.,
          The Senate, sitting for the impeachment trial 
        aforesaid, took a recess, under its order of yesterday, 
        until 12 o'clock m. tomorrow.

                       Wednesday, April 15, 1936

                    impeachment of halsted l. ritter

    The Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment of 
Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the 
southern district of Florida, resumed its session.
    The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, together with his 
counsel, appeared and they took the seats assigned to them.
    The Sergeant at Arms made the usual proclamation.
    On motion by Mr. Ashurst, and by unanimous consent, the 
Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was approved.

                         message from the house

          On motion by Mr. Robinson,
          The impeachment proceedings were temporarily 
        suspended to permit the Senate, in its legislative 
        capacity, to receive a message from the House of 
        Representatives; after which

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          The Senate, sitting for the impeachment trial 
        aforesaid, resumed its session.
          Mr. Robinson raised a question as to the presence of 
        a quorum;
          Whereupon
          The Vice President directed the roll to be called;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          A quorum being present,
          On motion by Mr. Ashurst, at 12 o'clock and 10 
        minutes p.m.,
          Ordered, That the doors of the Senate be closed for 
        deliberation.
          The respondent and his counsel withdrew from the 
        Chamber, and the doors having been closed,
          The Senate, sitting for the said trial, proceeded 
        with its deliberations.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \274\ April 14, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 505; April 15, 1936, 
74-2, Senate Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   3. Either During or After Deliberation Behind Closed Doors in the 
Trials Cited Below, the Senate Adopted Orders Setting a Date and Time, 
       and the Method, for Voting on the Articles of Impeachment

    In the Johnson trial several days were spent deliberating 
behind closed doors and eventually the Senate allowed the Chief 
Justice to determine the method of voting. Once in closed 
session a letter was read from the Speaker of the House asking 
that the House be notified when the doors of the Senate should 
be open. The Senate adopted the following order:
          Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of 
        Representatives that the Senate sitting for the trial 
        of the President upon articles of impeachment will 
        notify the House when it is ready to receive them again 
        at its bar.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \275\ May 6, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Senate then adjourned in closed session and upon 
reconvening the Chief Justice stated that the doors would again 
be closed unless there was some order to the contrary.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \276\ May 7, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During that day's closed session, and order was agreed to 
``that on Tuesday next following, at twelve o'clock m., the 
Senate shall proceed to vote without debate on the several 
articles of impeachment.''
    After several attempts had been made without success to 
prescribe the method of putting the question, the whole subject 
was ordered to lie upon the table.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \277\ May 7, 1868, 40-2, Congressional Globe Supplement, p. 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Senate adjourned in closed session again without taking 
further action and as a result the Chief Justice sought to 
resolve the situation with the following statement:
          Senators: In conformity with what seemed to be the 
        general wish of the Senate when it adjourned last 
        Thursday, the Chief Justice in taking the vote on the 
        articles of impeachment, will adopt the mode sanctioned 
        by the practice in the cases of Chase, Peck, and 
        Humphreys.
          He will direct the Secretary to read the several 
        articles successively, and after the reading of each 
        article will put the question of guilty or not guilty 
        to each senator, rising in his, place, in the form used 
        in the case of Judge Chase:
          Mr. Senator ------, how say you? Is the respondent, 
        Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty 
        or not guilty of a high misdemeanor, as charged in this 
        article?
          In putting the question on articles 4 and 6, each of 
        which charges a crime, the word ``crime'' will be 
        substituted for the word ``misdemeanor.''
          The Chief Justice has carefully considered the 
        suggestion of the senator from Indiana (Mr. Hendricks), 
        which appeared to meet the approval of the Senate, that 
        in taking the vote on the 11th article, the question 
        should be put on each clause, and has found himself 
        unable to divide the article as suggested. The article 
        charges several facts, but they are so connected that 
        they make but one allegation, and they are charged as 
        constituting one misdemeanor.
          The first fact charged is, in substance, that the 
        President publicly declared in August, 1866, that the 
        39th Congress was a Congress of only part of the States 
        and not a constitutional Congress, intending thereby to 
        deny its constitutional competency to enact laws or 
        propose amendments of the Constitution; and this charge 
        seems to have been made as introductory, and as 
        qualifying that which follows, namely, that the 
        President in pursuance of this declaration attempted to 
        prevent the execution of the tenure-of-office act by 
        contriving and attempting to contrive means to prevent 
        Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions of Secretary of 
        War after the refusal of the Senate to concur in his 
        suspension, and also by contriving and attempting to 
        contrive means to prevent the execution of the 
        appropriation act of March 2, 1867, and also to prevent 
        the execution of the rebel States governments act of 
        the same date.
          The gravamen of the article seems to be that the 
        President attempted to defeat the execution of the 
        tenure-of-office act, and that he did this in pursuance 
        of a declaration which was intended to deny the 
        constitutional competency of Congress to enact laws or 
        propose constitutional amendments, and by contriving 
        means to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming his office 
        of Secretary, and also to prevent the execution of the 
        appropriation act and the rebel States governments act.
    The single substantive matter charged is the attempt to 
prevent the execution of the tenure-of-office act; and the 
other facts are alleged either as introductory and exhibiting 
this general purpose, or as showing the means contrived in 
furtherance of that attempt.
    This single matter, connected with the other matters 
previously and subsequently alleged, is charged as the high 
misdemeanor of which the President is alleged to have been 
guility.
    The general question, guilty or not guilty of a high 
misdemeanor as charged, seems fully to cover the whole charge, 
and will be put as to this article as well as to the others, 
unless the Senate direct some mode of division.
    In the 10th article the division suggested by the senator 
from New York (Mr. Conkling) may be more easily made. It 
contains a general allegation to the effect that on the 18th of 
August, and on other days, the President, with intent to set 
aside the rightful authority of Congress and bring it into 
contempt, delivered certain scandalous harangues, and therein 
uttered loud threats and bitter menaces against Congress and 
the laws of the United States, enacted by Congress, thereby 
bringing the office of President into disgrace, to the great 
scandal of all good citizens, and sets forth, in three distinct 
specifications, the harangues, threats, and menaces complained 
of.
    In respect to this article, if the Senate sees fit so to 
direct, the question of guilty or not guilty of the facts 
charged may be taken in respect to the several specifications, 
and then the question ofguilty or not guilty of a high 
misdemeanor as charged in the article can also be taken.
    The Chief Justice, however, sees no objection to putting 
the general question on this article in the same manner as on 
the others, for, whether particular questions be put on the 
specifications or not, the answer to the final question must be 
determined by the judgment of the Senate, whether or not the 
facts alleged in the specifications have been sufficiently 
proved, and whether, if sufficiently proved, they amount to a 
high misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution.
          On the whole, therefore, the Chief Justice thinks 
        that the better practice will be to put the general 
        question on each article without attempting to make any 
        subdivision, and will pursue this course if no 
        objection is made. He will, however, be pleased to 
        conform to such directions as the Senate may see fit to 
        give in this respect.
          Whereupon
          Mr. Sumner submitted the following order; which was 
        considered by unanimous consent and agreed to:
          Ordered, That the questions be put as proposed by the 
        presiding officer of the Senate, and each senator shall 
        rise in his place and answer ``guilty,'' or ``not 
        guilty,'' only.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \278\ May 11, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, pp. 939-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proceeding further in closed session the order quoted below 
was adopted notifying the House that the Senate would receive 
them the next day
          Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to inform the 
        House of Representatives that the Senate, sitting for 
        the trial of the President of the United States upon 
        articles of impeachment, will be ready to receive the 
        House of Representatives in the Senate chamber on 
        Tuesday, the 12th of May, at 12 o'clock m.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \279\ May 11, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No further orders were adopted in closed session. The 
Senate convened the next day in open session, and due to the 
illness of a Senator, any vote on the articles of impeachment 
was postponed for four days. It was in open session that the 
following orders regarding the method of voting were adopted:
          Ordered, That the Chief Justice, in directing the 
        Secretary to read the several articles of impeachment, 
        shall direct him to read the 11th article first, and 
        the question shall then be taken on that article, and 
        thereafter on the other ten successively as they stand.
          The managers on the part of the House of 
        Representatives, to wit: Mr. Bingham, Mr. Boutwell, Mr. 
        James F. Wilson, Mr. Butler, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. 
        Logan, and Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, entered the Senate 
        chamber and took the seats assigned them.
          The Sergeant-at-arms announced the presence, at the 
        door of the Senate chamber, of the House of 
        Representatives; and
          The House of Representatives, as in Committee of the 
        Whole House, preceded by its chairman, Mr. Ellihu B. 
        Washburne, and accompanied by its Speaker and Clerk, 
        entered the Senate chamber and took the seats provided 
        for them.
          Mr. Stanbery, Mr. Evarts, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. 
        Groesbeck, of counsel for the President, appeared at 
        the bar of the Senate and took the seats assigned them.
          Mr. Edmunds submitted the following motion; which was 
        considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to:
          Ordered, That the Senate now proceed to vote upon the 
        articles according to the rules of the Senate.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \280\ May 16, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 942
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Louderback trial there is no record of any order 
being adopted in closed session, but immediately upon returning 
to open session, the following order concerning the method of 
voting was adopted:
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Harold Louderback, the Secretary shall 
        read the articles of impeachment separately and 
        successively, and when the reading of each article 
        shall have been concluded the Presiding Officer shall 
        state the question thereon as follows:
          Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Harold 
        Louder back, guilty or not guilty as charged in this 
        article?
          Thereupon the roll of the Senate shall be called, and 
        each Senator, as his name is called, unless excused, 
        shall arise in his place and answer ``Guilty'' or ``Not 
        guilty.'' \281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \281\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 339
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Ritter trial two orders were adopted, the first in 
closed session and the second immediately upon resuming open 
session:
          Ordered, That when the Senate, sitting as a court, 
        concludes its session on today it take a recess until 
        12 o'clock m. tomorrow, and that upon the convening of 
        the court on Friday it proceed to vote upon the various 
        articles of impeachment.
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, the Secretary shall 
        read the articles of impeachment separately and 
        successively, and when the reading of each article 
        shall have been concluded the Presiding Officer shall 
        state the question thereon as follows:
          ``Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Halsted 
        L. Ritter guilty or not guilty?''
          Thereupon the roll of the Senate shall be called, and 
        each Senator as his name is called, unless excused, 
        shall arise in his place and answer ``guilty'' or ``not 
        guilty.'' \282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \282\ April 16, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In adopting S. Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, 
        the Senate added a new paragraph to Rule XXIII whose 
        heading reads ``Form of putting the question on each 
        article of impeachment.'' This addition largely 
        formalizes the fairly simple practice in putting the 
        final question in the two most recent impeachment 
        trials, the Louderback and Ritter impeachment trials. 
        It provides that ``The Presiding Officer shall first 
        state the question: thereafter each Senator, as his 
        name is called, shall rise in his place and answer: 
        guilty or not guilty.'' This contrasts with the more 
        cumbersome and time consuming procedure used at an 
        earlier time, such as during the Johnsontrial, when the 
Chief Justice directed the Secretary of the Senate to call the names of 
the Senators, and as each rose in his place, the question was repeated 
anew to him as well as soliciting his position thereon. (Senate Report 
99-401: 99th Congress, 2d Session.)

  4. Provision Was Also Made for the Filing of Opinions Following the 
                      Votes by Individual Senators

    In the Johnson and Louderback cases, the Senators were 
given two days to file written opinions to be published with 
the Record of proceedings, as follows:
          Ordered, That when the Senate adjourns to-day it 
        adjourn to meet on Monday next, at 11 o'clock a.m., for 
        the purpose of deliberation under the rules of the 
        Senate sitting on the trial of impeachment, and that on 
        Tuesday next following, at 12 o'clock m., the Senate 
        shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the several 
        articles of impeachment, and each senator shall be 
        permitted to file, within two days after the vote shall 
        have been so taken, his written opinion to be printed 
        with the proceedings.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \283\ May 7, 1868, 42, Senate Journal, pp. 936-37.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Harold Louderback, each Senator may, 
        within 2 days after the final vote, file his opinion in 
        writing to be published in the printed proceedings in 
        the case.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Ritter trial, four days were allowed.
          Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending 
        impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter each Senator may, 
        within 4 days after the final vote, file his opinion in 
        writing, to be published in the printed proceedings in 
        the case.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \285\ April 16, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. At the Arrival of the Time Set by Previous Order, the Secretary Read 
the First Article of Impeachment To Be Voted On, Followed by the Clerk 
                            Calling the Roll

    In the Johnson trial, as each Senator's name was called, he 
rose in his place and the Chief Justice propounded the question 
whether or not the President was guilty as charged.
          The Chief Justice directed the Secretary to call the 
        names of the senators.
          Each senator, as his name was called, rose in his 
        place and the Chief Justice proposed to him the 
        following question:
                  Mr. Senator ------, how say you? Is the 
                respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the 
                United States, guilty, or not guilty, of high 
                misdemeanor, as charged in this article of 
                impeachment? \286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \286\ May 16, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Louderback and Ritter cases, however, the Presiding 
Officer simply stated the question before the roll was called, 
at which point each Senator rose in his place and answered 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty.'' \287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \287\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 339; April 17, 1936, 
74-2, Senate Journal, p. 507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the trial of Judge Ritter, the Majority Leader, 
Senator Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, announced that on 
these votes pairs would neither be arranged or recognized, but 
the Presiding Officer stated that a Senator could ask to be 
excused from voting on any article.
    In the trial of Secretary of War Belknap in 1876, an order 
was adopted to allow each Senator when his name was called to 
vote on each article of impeachment, and to state his reasons 
for his vote, with a time limit of one minute on such reasons. 
This provision was taken advantage of as numerous Senators not 
only voted on the articles of impeachment, but also explained 
their votes as they did so.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \288\ July 31, 1876, 44-1 Senate Journal, p. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule XXIII, which deals generally with voting the final 
question, was amended in several important ways by the adoption 
of S. Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, on August 16, 1986. 
A pair of new restrictions were added at the beginning of the 
rule. These read as follows:
          An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for 
        the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the 
        trial. Once voting has commenced on an article of 
        impeachment, voting shall be continued until voting has 
        been completed on all articles of impeachment unless 
        the Senate adjourns for a period not to exceed one day 
        or adjourns sine die.
    The portion of the amendment effectively enjoining the 
division of an individual article into separate specifications 
is proposed to permit the most judicious and efficacious 
handling of the final question both as a general matter and, in 
particular, with respect to the form of the articles that 
proposed the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon.
    The provision requiring the Senate to dispose of the final 
question once it has commenced voting the articles of 
impeachment or, alternatively, either adjourn for 24 hours or 
without day, is intended to prevent a recurrence of the 
incident during the President Andrew Johnson trial when the 
Senate having failed to convict on the first article to be 
voted (No. 11) proceeded to adjourn for fourteen days before 
considering the other articles. (Senate Report 99-401: 99th 
Congress, 2d Session.)

6. Following the Vote on Each Article, the Presiding Officer Pronounces 
 the Decision. Once the Judgment of the Senate has Been Pronounced on 
 the Articles of Impeachment, the Trial Might Progress in Two Ways. If 
  the Respondent Was Found Not Guilty on All Charges, the Verdict of 
     Acquittal Was Announced and the Senate Sitting as a Court of 
 Impeachment Adjourned Sine Die. If the Respondent Was Found Guilty of 
       Any of the Charges, the Judgment of Removal and Possible 
 Disqualification From Ever Holding an Office of Trust or Profit Under 
the United States Was Presented as Illustrated in the Three Cases Cited 
                                 Below:

    In the Archbald case, votes were taken on thirteen articles 
of impeachment. He was convicted on five of the thirteen, and 
each time, following the vote on the five articles on which he 
was convicted, the Presiding Officer made his announcement, as 
illustrated below:
          The President pro tempore announced that upon the 
        thirteenth article of impeachment 42 Senators had voted 
        ``guilty'' and 20 Senators had voted ``not guilty.'' 
        More than two-thirds of the Senators present having 
        voted ``guilty,'' the respondent, Robert W. Archbald, 
        stood convicted of the charges in said thirteenth 
        article.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \289\ January 13, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the vote on all thirteen articles of impeachment, 
Senator James A. O'Gorman of New York introduced the following 
resolution:
          Ordered, That the respondent, Robert W. Archbald, 
        circuit judge of the United States from the third 
        judicial circuit and designated to serve in the 
        Commerce Court, be removed from office and be forever 
        disqualified from holding and enjoying any office of 
        honor, trust, or profit under the United States.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \290\ January 13, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A division was demanded and the first part of the resolution, 
which simply pronounced the judgment that Judge Archbald be 
removed from office, was agreed to by voice vote. A yea and nay 
vote was ordered on the second portion providing that he be 
forever disqualified from holding office under the United 
States, and this was adopted also.
    At this point tbe President pro tempore pronounced the 
judgment of the Senate as follows:
          The Senate therefore do order and decree, and it is 
        hereby adjudged, that the respondent Robert W. 
        Archbald, circuit judge of the United States from the 
        third judicial circuit, and designated to serve in the 
        Commerce Court, be, and he is hereby, removed from 
        office; and that he be and is hereby forever 
        disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
        trust, or profit under the United States.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \291\ January 13, 1913, 62-3, Senate Journal, p. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it was further resolved that
          . . . the Secretary be directed to communicate to the 
        President of the United States and to the House of 
        Representatives the foregoing order and judgment of the 
        Senate and transmit a certified copy of the same to 
        each.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \292\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereupon the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adourned 
sine die.
    In the trial of Andrew Johnson, having voted on three 
articles without securing conviction on any, motion was made 
that the Senate sitting for the trial of the President adjourn 
sine die, and a yea and nay vote was taken. Before announcing 
the result, however, the Chief Justice reminded the Senate that 
the rule provides that ``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,'' \293\ and after an interruption by a Senator who 
suggested ``that that was done when the President of the Senate 
declared the acquittal upon each article,'' the Chief Justice 
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \293\ May 26, 1868, 402, Congressional Globe Supplemental, p. 415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          That is not the judgment of the Senate; but if there 
        be no objection, the judgment will be entered by the 
        Clerk.
    The Presiding Officer then stated:
          The Clerk will enter, if there be no objection, a 
        judgment according to the rules--a judgment of 
        acquittal.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal's description follows:
          The Senate having tried Andrew Johnson, President of 
        the United States, upon 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 in the second, 
        third, and eleventh articles of impeachment, it is 
        therefore
          Ordered and adjudged, That the said Andrew Johnson, 
        President of the United States, be, and he is, 
        acquitted of the charges in said articles made and set 
        forth.
          The Chief Justice then announced the vote on the 
        motion of Mr. Williams to be yeas 34, nays 16; And, 
        thereupon, declared the Senate, sitting as a court of 
        impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President 
        of the United States, upon articles of impeachment 
        exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, 
        adjourned without day.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \295\ May 26, 1868, 40-2, Senate Journal, p. 951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other cases of pronouncing judgment, see also June 26, 
1862, 37-2 Senate Journal, p. 904; July 31, 1876, 44-1, Senate 
Journal, p. 1012; January 31, 1831, 21-2, Senate Journal, p. 
341; February 27, 1905, 58-3, Senate Journal, p. 369.
    In the trial of Halsted L. Ritter in 1936, following the 
vote on the seventh and last article of impeachment, the only 
article on which he was convicted, the President pro tempore 
made the following statement:
          The President pro tempore. On the seventh article of 
        impeachment, 56 Senators have voted ``guilty'' and 28 
        Senators have voted ``not guilty.'' Two-thirds of the 
        members present having voted ``guilty,'' the Senate 
        adjudges the respondent guilty as charged in this 
        article.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \296\ April 17, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, Senator Henry Ashurst, of Arizona, sent to the 
desk an order for judgment, providing that:
          Ordered, That the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, 
        United States district judge for the southern district 
        of Florida, be removed from office.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \297\ April 17, 1936, 74-2, Record, p. 5607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following colloquy then occurred:
          The President pro tempore. Are the yeas and nays 
        desired on the question of agreeing to the order?
          Mr. Ashurst. The yeas and nays are not necessary.
          Mr. Johnson. Mr. President, how, affirmatively, do we 
        adopt the order, unless it is put before the Senate, 
        and unless the roll be called upon it or the Senate 
        otherwise votes?
          The President pro tempore. The Chair is of the 
        opinion that the order would follow the final vote as a 
        matter of course, and no vote is required.
          Mr. Ashurst. Mr. President, the vote of guilty, in 
        and of itself, is sufficient without the order, under 
        the Constitution, but to be precisely formal I have 
        presented the order, in accordance with established 
        precedent, and I ask for a vote on its adoption.
          Mr. Hastings. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
          Mr. Ashurst. I yield.
          Mr. Hastings. Just what is the language in the 
        Constitution as to what necessarily follows conviction 
        on an article of impeachment?
          Mr. McGill. It is found in section 4, article II, of 
        the Constitution.
          Mr. Hastings. What is the language of the 
        Constitution which makes removal from office necessary, 
        and to follow as a matter of course?
          Mr. McGill. Mr. President----
          Mr. Ashurst. If the Senator from Kansas has the 
        reference, I shall ask him to read it.
          Mr. McGill. Section 4 of article II of the 
        Constitution reads:
                  The President, Vice President, and all civil 
                officers of the United States shall be removed 
                from office on impeachment for, and conviction 
                of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
                misdemeanors.
          Mr. Hastings. I thank the Senator. Then may I suggest 
        was not the Chair correct in the first instance? Does 
        not the removal from office follow without any vote of 
        the Senate?
          The President pro tempore. That was the opinion of 
        the Chair.
          Mr. Hastings. I think the President pro tempore was 
        correct.
          The President pro tempore. The Chair will then direct 
        that the order be entered.
          Mr. Norris. Mr. President, upon the action of the 
        Senate why does not the Chair make the proper 
        declaration without anything further?
          The President pro tempore. The Chair was about to do 
        so. The Chair directs judgment to be entered in 
        accordance with the vote of the Senate as follows:

                                Judgment

                  The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, 
                United States district judge for the southern 
                district of Florida, upon seven separate 
                articles of impeachment exhibited against him 
                by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds 
                of the Senators present having found him guilty 
                of charges contained therein: It is therefore
                  Ordered and adjudged, That the said Halsted 
                L. Ritter be, and he is hereby, removed from 
                office.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \298\ April 17, 1936, 74-2, Journal, p. 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the final question as to whether an impeachment is 
sustained, the yeas and nays are taken on each article 
separately, and if an impeachment is not sustained by a two-
thirds vote on any article, a judgment of acquittal shall be 
entered. If on the other hand, the respondent be convicted by a 
two-thirds vote on any article, the Senate shall pronounce 
judgment and a certified copy of the judgment is deposited with 
the Secretary of State (Rule XXIII).
    At the conclusion of the trial of Judge Louderback in 1933, 
the Vice President made the following statement:
          The Senate having tried Harold Louderback, judge of 
        the District Court of the United States for the 
        Northern District of California, upon five 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 Harold Louderback 
        be, and he is acquitted of all the charges in said 
        articles made and set forth.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \299\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Articles Need Not Be Voted On:

    A previous provision in Rule XXIII reads:
          ``. . . 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.'' 
        The Senate substituted the following in adopting S. 
        Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, on August 16, 
        1986.
          ``. . . but if the person impeached shall be 
        convicted upon any such article by votes of two-thirds 
        of the members present the Senate may proceed to the 
        consideration of such other matters as may be 
        determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing 
        judgment. Upon pronouncing judgment, a certified copy 
        of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of 
        the Secretary of State.''
          The previous text of Impeachment Rule XXIII virtually 
        required the Senate to enter judgment if the person 
        impeached
        ``. . . be convicted upon . . . articles by the vote of 
        two-thirds of the members present.'' Under terms of the 
        new provision the Senate may take up such matters as 
        the desirability of voting on all of the articles after 
        conviction on one of them before entering a judgment 
        conviction. It is expected that flexibility allowed by 
        the change will expedite the proceedings. Since under 
        the prevailing view a two-thirds vote to convict on any 
        article operates as an automatic removal from office, 
        the Senate may not wish to vote the other articles. 
        Also, it is contemplated that the Senate, in the 
        interval allowed by this new version of the rule, may 
        wish to consider whether or not to vote the additional 
        consequence provided by the Constitution in the case of 
        an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: 
        permanent disqualification from elected or appointive 
        office. (Senate Report 99-401: 99th Congress, 2d 
        Session.)

Motion To Reconsider Not In Order:

    Senate adoption of S. Res. 479, 99th Congress, 2d Session, 
on August 16, 1986, added a new sentence at the end of Rule 
XXXIII providing that ``A motion to reconsider the vote by 
which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall 
not be in order.'' The purpose of this restriction is to 
obviate the confusion that would invariably attend a reversal 
of a vote to convict when, according to most authorities, such 
a vote operates automatically and instantaneously to separate 
the person impeached from the office. Under ordinary 
circumstances the Senate has two days for reconsideration. 
Since the trial rules are silent with respect to a motion to 
reconsider, the rules of the Senate applicable to legislative 
matters would apply. Consequently, the effect of this change is 
to preclude the operation of the normal rule in the context of 
a vote on the final question, whether such vote is to convict 
or to acquit. (Senate Report 99-401: 99th Congress, 2d 
Session.)

7. Following the Verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty, or the Pronouncement 
 of Judgment, and the Disposition of the Disqualification From Holding 
Office of Trust or Profit, If Presented, the Senate Sitting as a Court 
                   of Impeachment Adjourned Sine Die.

    In the Johnson trial, following the vote on three of the 
articles of impeachment, and without voting on the other eight, 
the Senate adjourned sine die. Note the following extract from 
the Journal:
          The Chief Justice announced that upon this article 
        thirty-five senators had voted ``guilty,'' and nineteen 
        senators had voted ``not guilty,'' and declared that 
        two-thirds of the senators present not having 
        pronounced him guilty, Andrew Johnson, President of the 
        United States, Stood acquitted of the charges contained 
        in the third article.
          Thereupon
          Mr. Williams moved that the Senate sitting for the 
        trial of the President upon articles of impeachment do 
        not adjourn without day.
          On the question to agree to the motion, Mr. Williams 
        asked that the question be taken by yeas and nays; and 
        the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the 
        senators present.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          The Chief Justice stated that before announcing the 
        result of the vote just taken, he desired to call the 
        attention of the Senate to the 22d rule, which provides 
        that ``if that impeachment shall not, upon any of the 
        article presented, be sustained by the votes of two-
        thirds of the members present,'' a judgement of 
        acquittal shall be entered; and that if not objected 
        to, he would direct the Secretary to enter a judgement 
        of acquittal according to this rule; and
          No objection being made, the Secretary, by direction 
        of the Chief Justice, entered the judgement of the 
        Senate upon the second, third, and eleventh articles, 
        as follows:
          The Senate having tried Andrew Johnson, President of 
        the United States, upon 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 in the second, 
        third, and eleventh articles of impeachment, it is 
        therefore
          Ordered and adjudged, That the said Andrew Johnson, 
        President of the United States be, and he is, acquitted 
        of the charges in said articles made and set forth.
          The Chief Justice then announced the vote on the 
        motion of Mr. Williams to be yeas 34, nays 16;
          And, thereupon,
          Declared the Senate, sitting as a court of 
        impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President 
        of the United States, upon articles of impeachment 
        exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, 
        adjourned without day.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \300\ May 26, 1868, 40 2, Senate Journal, pp. 950-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Louderback and Ritter trials, all of the articles of 
impeachment were voted on and the judgement of the Senate 
pronounced before a motion was made to adjourn sine die as 
follows. In the Louderback trial:
          No objection being made, the Vice President entered 
        the following judgment of acquittal:
          The Senate having tried Harold Louderback, judge of 
        the District Court of the United States for the 
        Northern District of California, upon five 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 Harold Louderback 
        be, and he is, acquitted of all the charges in said 
        articles made and set forth.
          On motion by Mr. Ashurst, at 6 o'clock and 5 minutes 
        p.m.,
          The Senate, sitting for the impeachment trial 
        aforesaid, adjourned sine die.\301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\ May 24, 1933, 73-1, Senate Journal, p. 344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Ritter trial, after agreeing to the seventh article by a 
two-thirds vote, the only article on which he was convicted, 
the following occurred:

                                JUDGMENT

          The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, United 
        States district judge for the southern district of 
        Florida, upon seven separate articles of impeachment 
        ehihited against him by the House of Representatives, 
        and two-thirds of the Senators present having found him 
        guilty of charges contained therein: It is therefore
          Ordered and adjudged, That the said Halsted L. Ritter 
        be, and he is hereby, removed from office.
          Mr. Ashurst submitted the following supplemental 
        order:
          Ordered further, That the respondent, Halsted L. 
        Ritter, United States district judge for the southern 
        district of Florida, be forever disqualified from 
        holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust, or 
        profit under the United States.
          The President pro tempore, in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Hastings if the question 
        were not debatable, held that the rules governing 
        impeachment proceedings required that all orders or 
        decisions should be determined without debate, but that 
        the yeas and nays might be ordered.
          Mr. Duffy submitted a parliamentary inqury whether a 
        majority or a two-thirds vote was required to adopt the 
        order.
          Mr. Ashurst thereupon said: ``Mr. President, in reply 
        to the inquiry, I may say that in the Archbald case 
        that very question arose. A Senator asked that a 
        question be divided, and on the second part of the 
        order, which was identical with the order now proposed, 
        the yeas and nays were ordered, and the result was yeas 
        39, nays 35, so the order further disqualifying 
        respondent from holding any office of honor, trust, or 
        profit under the United States was entered. It requires 
        only a majority vote.''
          The question then being taken on agreeing to the 
        proposed order,
          It was determined in the negative,
                                                 Yeas --------------  0
Nays -------------- 76

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          So the order was not agreed to.
          Mr. Ashurst submitted the following order, which was 
        considered and agreed to:
          Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to 
        communicate to the President of the United States and 
        to the House of Representatives the order and judgment 
        of the Senate in the case of Halsted L. Ritter and 
        transmit a certified copy of same to each.
          On motion by Mr. Ashurst, at 1 o'clock and 50 minutes 
        p.m.,
          The Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment 
        of Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for 
        the southern dis trict of Florida, adjourned sine 
        die.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \302\ April 17, 1936, 74-2, Senate Journal, p. 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------