[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[A. Generally]
[§ 4. Effect of Adjournment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2015-2019]
CHAPTER 14
Impeachment Powers
A. GENERALLY
Sec. 4. Effect of Adjournment
Under parliamentary law, as stated in Jefferson's Manual, ``an
impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of Parliament, but
may be resumed by the new Parliament.'' (8) Both Judge John
Pickering and Judge Harold Louderback were impeached by the House in
one Congress and tried by the Senate in the next.(9) The
practice at the time of the Pickering impeachment was to present a
resolution of impeachment to the Senate and then to prepare and adopt
articles of impeachment for presentation to the Senate. In that case,
impeachment proceedings begun in the 7th Congress were resumed by the
House in the 8th Congress.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 620 (Jefferson's Manual) (1973).
9. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2319, 2320, for the presentation
of the resolution impeaching Judge Pickering, and Sec. 4.1,
infra, for the presentation to the Senate of the resolution
impeaching Judge Louderback.
10. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2321. For the later practice of
presenting to the Senate a resolution together with articles of
impeachment, see Sec. 8.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question arose in the 73d Congress whether the appointment in
the 72d Congress of House managers to conduct impeachment proceedings
against Judge Louderback was such as to permit them to act in that
function in the 73d Congress without a further grant of authority. The
House adopted in the 73d Congress a resolution filling vacancies,
making reappointments, and vesting the managers with powers and
granting them funds.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 4.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of Judge Halsted L. Ritter, the House authorized and
the Committee on the Judiciary conducted an impeachment investigation
in the 73d Congress, with
[[Page 2016]]
the resolution and articles of impeachment being reported and adopted
in the 74th Congress. Charges of impeachment were offered and referred
anew to the Committee on the Judiciary in the 74th Congress, but the
resolution reported and adopted by the House specifically referred to
the evidence gathered during the 73d Congress as the basis for
impeachment.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 4.3, 4.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Adjournments generally and their effect on business, see Ch. 40, infra.
Resumption of business in a new Congress, see Ch. 1, supra.
Resumption of committee investigation into conduct of Judge Ritter, see
Sec. 18, infra.
Resumption of proceedings against Judge Louderback in succeeding
Congress, see Sec. 17,
infra. -------------------
Impeachment in One Congress and Trial in the Next
Sec. 4.1 The managers on the part of the House presented articles of
impeachment against Judge Harold Louderback on the final day of the
72d Congress, and the Senate organized for and conducted the trial
in the 73d Congress.
On Mar. 3, 1933, the last day of the 72d Congress, the managers on
the part of the House in the Louderback impeachment proceeding appeared
before the Senate and read the resolution and articles of impeachment.
The Senate adopted a motion that the proceedings be made a special
order of business on the first day of the first session of the 73d
Congress.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only other occasion where impeachment proceedings continued
into a new Congress occurred in 1803-04, the resolution of impeachment
of Judge John Pickering being carried to the Senate by a House
committee of two members on Mar. 3, 1803, the final day of the 7th
Congress. The Senate organized for and conducted the trial in the 8th
Congress.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2319, 2320. Managers had not been
appointed nor articles considered in the House by the end of
the 7th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that in neither the Louderback nor Pickering
impeachments did the trial in the Senate begin before the adjournment
sine die of the Congress. The issue whether the Senate could conduct a
bifurcated trial, part in one Congress and part in the next, has not
been presented.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For a memorandum as to whether an impeachment trial begun in one
Congress could be continued into the next, see 120 Cong. Rec.
31346-48, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 17, 1974 (insertion by
Michael J. Mansfield [Mont.], Majority Leader of the Senate).
Under parliamentary law, an impeachment is not discontinued
by the dissolution of Parliament but may be resumed by the new
Parliament. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 620 (Jefferson's
Manual) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2017]]
Authority of Managers Following Expiration of Congress
Sec. 4.2 Where the House had impeached Judge Louderback in the 72d
Congress but the Senate did not organize for or conduct the trial
until the 73d Congress, the House in the 73d Congress adopted
resolutions (1) appointing Members to fill vacancies for managers
not re-elected and reappointing managers elected in the 72d
Congress and (2) granting the managers powers and funds.
On Mar. 9, 1933, the first day of the 73d Congress, the Senate
sitting as a Court of Impeachment for the trial of Judge Harold
Louderback met at 2 p.m., articles of impeachment having been presented
in the Senate on the last day of the 72d Congress. On Mar. 13, the
managers on the part of the House, being those Members appointed in the
72d Congress to conduct the inquiry and re-elected to the 73d Congress,
appeared for the proceedings of the Senate sitting as a Court of
Impeachment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 22, the House adopted a resolution electing successors for
those managers elected in the 72d Congress who were no longer Members
of the House, and reappointing the former managers. The House discussed
the power of the House to appoint managers to continue in office in
that capacity after the expiration of the term to which elected to the
House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation in One Congress and Impeachment in the Next
Sec. 4.3 The Committee on the Judiciary determined in the 74th Congress
that its authority to report out a resolution impeaching a federal
judge expired with the termination of the Congress in which the
resolution containing charges was introduced and referred to the
committee.
On Mar. 2, 1936, in the 74th Congress, the House was considering a
resolution and articles of
[[Page 2018]]
impeachment, reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, against Judge
Halsted L. Ritter, an investigation of his conduct having been made in
the 73d Congress. Mr. William V. Gregory, of Kentucky, a member of the
committee, remarked on the effect, in the 74th Congress, of an
authorizing resolution passed in the 73d Congress: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3089, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Wilcox], and more recently by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hancock], with reference to what
happened in committee, I think it proper I should make a statement
at this time.
The first proceedings in this matter were instituted in the
Seventy-third Congress. A simple resolution of investigation was
introduced by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Wilcox]. No one
during that session of Congress attempted by resolution or upon his
own authority on the floor of the House to prefer impeachment
charges against the judge. The Seventy-third Congress died, and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Green] came before the Seventy-fourth
Congress and wanted some action taken upon the resolution which had
been introduced in the Seventy-third Congress. I took the position
before the Committee--and I think others agreed with me--that with
the passing of the Seventy-third Congress it had no power over the
resolution of investigation which had been introduced any more than
it did in connection with any other bill or resolution that might
have been introduced in a previous Congress. Therefore, when the
question came up as to voting impeachment charges upon a resolution
which was introduced in the Seventy-third Congress, I voted against
such action, and I think other Members voted the same way. But when
the matter was properly presented at this session of Congress and
impeachment charges were made on this floor on the responsibility
of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Green], the matter came before
the committee again in regular and proper form, and I then voted to
report out this resolution of impeachment.
I want the Members of the House to understand that the
Committee on the Judiciary has not changed its position on this
proposition at any time. These are the facts.
Sec. 4.4 Where the Committee on the Judiciary investigated charges of
impeachable offenses against a federal judge in one Congress and
reported to the House a resolution of impeachment in the next, the
resolution indicated that impeachment was warranted by the evidence
gathered in the investigation conducted in the preceding Congress.
On Feb. 20, 1936, the Committee on the Judiciary submitted a
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 74-2025) on the impeachment of
[[Page 2019]]
District Judge Halsted L. Ritter to the House. The report and the
accompanying resolution recited that the evidence taken by the
Committee on the Judiciary in the prior Congress, the 73d Congress,
pursuant to authorizing resolution, sustained articles of impeachment
(the charges of impeachable offenses had been presented anew in the
74th Congress and referred to the committee):
The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration
charges of official misconduct against Halsted L. Ritter, a
district judge of the United States for the Southern District of
Florida, and having taken testimony with regard to the official
conduct of said judge under the authority of House Resolution 163
of the Seventy-third Congress, report the accompanying resolution
of impeachment and articles of impeachment against Halsted L.
Ritter to the House of Representatives with the recommendation that
the same be adopted by the House and presented to the Senate.
[H. Res. 422, 74th Cong., 2d sess. (Rept. No. 2025)]
Resolution
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: . . .(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 2528, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. (report submitted); 80
Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 2, 1936 (report
considered in the House).
For detailed discussion of committee consideration and
report in the Ritter impeachment proceedings, see
Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: No resolution was adopted in the 74th
Congress to specifically authorize an investigation in that Congress by
the Committee on the Judiciary of charges of impeachment against Judge
Ritter, the investigation apparently having been completed in the 73d
Congress but not reported on to the House. Charges were introduced in
the 74th Congress against Judge Ritter and referred to the committee,
since the committee could not report resolutions and charges referred
in the 73d Congress, all business expiring in the House with a
Congress.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For introduction of charges and a resolution impeaching Judge
Ritter in the 74th Congress, see Sec. Sec. 18.2, 18.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2020]]