[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[B. Investigation and Impeachment]
[Â§ 5. Introduction and Referral of Charges]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2020-2036]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                    B. INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT
 
Sec. 5. Introduction and Referral of Charges


    In the majority of cases, impeachment proceedings in the House have 
been initiated either by introducing resolutions of impeachment by 
placing them in the hopper, or by offering charges on the floor of the 
House under a question of constitutional privilege. Resolutions dropped 
in the hopper were used to initiate impeachment proceedings against 
Associate Justice William O. Douglas and President Richard M. Nixon. 
Where such resolutions have directly impeached federal civil officers, 
they have been referred by the Speaker to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over federal judges and presidential 
succession; where they have called for an investigation into such 
charges by the Committee on the Judiciary or by a select committee they 
have been referred by the Speaker to the Committee on Rules, which has 
had jurisdiction over resolutions authorizing investigations by 
committees of the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11, infra. In the case of Justice Douglas, 
        the Committee on the Judiciary authorized a special 
        subcommittee to investigate the charges, without the adoption 
        by the House of a resolution specifically authorizing an 
        investigation (see Sec. 6.11, infra). In the case of President 
        Nixon, the Committee on the Judiciary reported a resolution 
        which was adopted by the House, specifically conferring on the 
        committee the power to investigate the charges (see Sec. 6.2, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a Member raises a question of constitutional privilege to 
present impeachment proceedings on the floor of the House, he must in 
the first instance offer a resolution, which resolution must directly 
call for impeachment, rather than call for an 
investigation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 5.4, infra. But see Sec. 18.2, infra, for one occasion 
        where a Member gained the floor under a question of privilege 
        and offered charges but not a resolution of impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impeachment proceedings in the House have been set in motion by 
memorial or petition, (3) and on one occasion by message 
from the President.(4) In the 93d Congress the Vice 
President sought to initiate an investigation by the House into charges 
pending

[[Page 2021]]

against him in the courts, but no action was taken on his request (by 
letter to the Speaker).(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2364, 2469 (memorial from state 
        legislature initiating proceedings against Judge Charles 
        Swayne, resulting in his impeachment), 2491, 2494, 2496; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 552.
 4. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2294 (Senator William Blount).
 5. See Sec. 5.14, infra, for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew's request 
        and for a discussion of other cases where federal civil 
        officers have sought to initiate investigations into charges 
        against them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Initiation of specific impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 15-18, 
    infra.
Jurisdiction of House committees generally, see Ch. 17, infra.
Privilege for consideration of amendments to articles of impeachment, 
    see Sec. 10, infra.
Privilege of reports on impeachment, see Sec. 8, infra.
Questions of privilege of the House, raising and substance of, see Ch. 
    11, supra.
Resolutions, petitions and memorials generally, see Ch. 24, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Privilege of Impeachment Charges and Resolutions

Sec. 5.1 A proposition impeaching a federal civil officer is privileged 
    when offered on the floor of the House.

    On Jan. 6, 1932,(6) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to 
a question of constitutional privilege, impeached Secretary of the 
Treasury Andrew W. Mellon, and offered a resolution authorizing an 
investigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 75 Cong. Rec. 1400, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Impeachment of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional 
    privilege. On my own responsibility as a Member of this House, I 
    impeach Andrew William Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury of the 
    United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and offer the 
    following resolution:

            Whereas . . .
            Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized 
        and directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the 
        official conduct of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the 
        Treasury, to determine whether, in its opinion, he has been 
        guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which, in the 
        contemplation of the Constitution, requires the interposition 
        of the constitutional powers of the House. Such committee shall 
        report its findings to the House, together with such resolution 
        of impeachment or other recommendation as it deems proper.

        Sec. 2. For the purposes of this resolution, the committee is 
    authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times 
    and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, whether or not 
    the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings, to employ such experts, and such clerical, stenographic, 
    and other assistants, to require the attendance of such witnesses 
    and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to take 
    such testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make 
    such expenditures not exceeding $5,000, as it deems necessary.

[[Page 2022]]

Sec. 5.2 Although a resolution of impeachment is privileged, it may not 
    be called up in the House while another Member has the floor and 
    does not yield for that purpose, but it may be introduced for 
    reference through the hopper at the Clerk's desk.

    On Apr. 15, 1970, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, had the 
floor for a special-order speech and yielded to Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., 
of Indiana:

        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a three-
    sentence statement?
        Mr. Wyman: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has stated 
    publicly that he favors impeachment of Justice Douglas.
        He, therefore, has a duty to this House and this country to 
    file a resolution of impeachment.
        Since he refuses to do so and since he raises grave questions, 
    the answers to which I do not know, but every American is entitled 
    to know, I introduce at this time the resolution of impeachment in 
    order that a proper and dignified inquiry into this matter might be 
    held.

    Mr. Jacobs then introduced his resolution (H. Res. 920) through the 
hopper and it was subsequently referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 11942, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman from New 
    Hampshire has the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wyman: I did not yield for that purpose.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has 
    introduced a resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 11920, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.3 The Speaker ruled that whether or not a resolution of 
    impeachment was privileged was a constitutional question for the 
    House and not the Chair to decide, where the resolution included 
    charges against former civil officers.

    On May 23, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and offered House Resolution 158, 
impeaching numerous members and former members of the Federal Reserve 
Board. During the reading of the resolution Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of 
Michigan, made a point of order against the resolution:

        I wish to submit the question to the Speaker as to whether or 
    not a person who is not now in office is subject to impeachment? 
    This resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania refers to 
    several people who are no longer holding any public office. They 
    are not now at least civil officers. The Constitution

[[Page 2023]]

    provides that the ``President, Vice President, and all civil 
    officers shall be removed from office on impeachment'', and so 
    forth. I have had no opportunity to examine the precedents since 
    this matter came up, but it occurs to me that the resolution takes 
    in too much territory to make it privileged.

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled as follows:

        That is a constitutional question which the Chair cannot pass 
    upon, but should be passed upon by the House.
        The resolution was referred on motion to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 77 Cong. Rec. 4055, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Impeachment Charges by Motion or Resolution

Sec. 5.4 In impeaching an officer of the United States as a matter of 
    constitutional privilege, a Member must in the first instance 
    present a motion or resolution.

    On Jan. 18, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, attempted 
to impeach President Herbert Hoover by presenting a question of 
constitutional privilege. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that 
a resolution or motion must first be presented: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 76 Cong. Rec. 2041, 2042, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Question of Privilege

        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
    constitutional privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 1932----
        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Luce: Mr. Speaker, the raising of a question of 
    constitutional privilege must be preceded by a resolution or motion
        The Speaker: As the Chair understands it, the gentleman is 
    stating his constitutional question. Has the gentleman a 
    resolution?
        Mr. McFadden: I am trying to communicate to the House what I 
    propose to do here, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Luce: I insist on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The rules of the House provide that the gentleman 
    must send a resolution to the Clerk's desk in raising a question of 
    constitutional privilege.
        Mr. McFadden: If the Speaker will permit, I am attempting to 
    make a privileged statement to the House, and I believe I am within 
    my rights in doing this.
        The Speaker: In order for the gentleman to have the right to 
    make such a statement to the House, he must send a resolution to 
    the Clerk's desk and have it read, on which the House may then act. 
    The gentleman would then have one hour in which to address the 
    House, if he presented a

[[Page 2024]]

    question of constitutional privilege. That is the only way the 
    gentleman can obtain the floor.
        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I believe under the rules I am 
    entitled to make a statement.
        The Speaker: Not prior to the submission of a resolution.
        Mr. McFadden: If the Speaker will pardon me, I have not offered 
    a resolution. I rise to a question of constitutional privilege, and 
    I believe I have the right to communicate to the House a 
    constitutional privilege.

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that if the integrity of the gentleman has been 
    impugned in any way by anyone, this would give him a constitutional 
    privilege, and he has the right to rise to that privilege and state 
    it without offering a resolution.
        The Speaker: That is true of a question of personal privilege, 
    but the gentleman rises to a question of constitutional privilege. 
    This can only be done, as the Chair understands it, by the 
    presentation of a resolution upon which the constitutional question 
    is based. A mere statement by the gentleman does not comply with 
    the rules of the House. If the gentleman has no resolution 
    involving a constitutional question, the Chair thinks he is not 
    entitled to recognition.
        Mr. McFadden: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that impeachment 
    proceedings are brought by other ways than formal whereases. It has 
    been done at times by a memorial. I insist, Mr. Speaker, I am 
    within my rights in communicating my statement to the House of 
    Representatives.
        The Speaker: The Chair wants to give the gentleman all the 
    privileges he is entitled to under the rules of the House, but at 
    the same time it is the duty of the Chair to maintain the rules, 
    and it is the impression of the Chair from observation during the 
    last 20 years that whenever a Member states a question of 
    constitutional privilege it must be done in the form of a 
    resolution. If a Member raises a question of personal privilege, 
    the Member may then state the question of personal privilege and is 
    entitled to an hour. Questions of personal privilege are on a 
    different footing from a constitutional question of privilege.
        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I am still of the opinion that I am 
    within my constitutional rights and am entitled to communicate a 
    statement to the House of Representatives.
        The Speaker: The Parliamentarian has just called the attention 
    of the Chair to a decision by Speaker Longworth, of February 16, 
    1929 (70th Cong., 2d sess., Record, p. 3602), in which he says:

            In presenting a question of the privilege of the House a 
        Member, in the first instance, must present a motion or 
        resolution. Of course, this rule does not apply to a Member 
        rising to a question of personal privilege.

        This is a decision of Speaker Longworth, rendered in 1929, 
    which is on all fours with this situation. The gentleman is not 
    presenting a question of personal privilege but a question of 
    constitutional privilege, and, in the instance referred to, 
    following a number of precedents, it was held that the Member must 
    present a resolution in the first instance on which to base his 
    statement to the House, and then would be entitled to one hour.

[[Page 2025]]

        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I again call attention to the fact 
    that impeachments may be brought by memorials and by other methods 
    than that which has been stated in the decision referred to.
        The Speaker: When such memorials and petitions are presented to 
    the House they are referred to the committee having jurisdiction of 
    the particular subject. If a Member of the House bases his question 
    of privilege on a memorial or petition, the memorial or petition 
    must first be reported by the Clerk, and then the House may take 
    such action as it sees fit.
        Mr. McFadden: May not a Member of the House, under the right 
    given him by the Constitution, present a communication to the House 
    of Representatives which might later result in an impeachment?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman has a communication of that 
    character, let him send it to the Clerk's desk and the Clerk will 
    report it. Then the House can take such action as it deems proper. 
    The Chair wants to be perfectly frank, and if the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is undertaking to address the House for one hour, the 
    Chair has no objection to that; but the Chair must maintain the 
    rules and precedents of the House as the Chair finds them, and the 
    gentleman can not get the floor under the proposition he has 
    presented at the present time unless he sends up a resolution or 
    motion.

Offering Articles of Impeachment

Sec. 5.5 In presenting impeachment charges as privileged, a Member need 
    not offer articles of impeachment, which are prepared by the 
    appropriate committee.

    On May 7, 1935,(12) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, 
rose to a question of constitutional privilege and impeached Judge 
Samuel Alschuler; he offered House Resolution 214, authorizing an 
investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary. During his remarks, 
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, upheld the privileged nature of 
the charges:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081-86, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald C.] Dobbins [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. I have heard no articles of impeachment read. As I have 
    listened to the matter presented by the gentleman from Illinois 
    [Mr. Dirksen], it is nothing more nor less than a resolution asking 
    for an inquiry, and not articles of impeachment. It seems to me 
    that it is not a privileged matter, and the gentleman is not 
    entitled to occupy the time of the House in this manner. The 
    gentleman has not offered any articles of impeachment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has offered no articles of 
    impeachment. He is simply making charges.
        Mr. Dobbins: I assumed he had finished. There have been no 
    articles of impeachment presented.
        The Speaker: Charges of impeachment; not articles of 
    impeachment.
        Mr. Dobbins: I have heard no articles of impeachment read.

[[Page 2026]]

        Mr. Dirksen: It seems to me this was in its entirety articles 
    of impeachment.
        Mr. Dobbins: It is nothing more that a resolution of inquiry.
        Mr. Dirksen: Perhaps the gentleman did not hear the first part 
    of my remarks. I will read the first paragraph of this report:

            Samuel Alschuler, justice of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 
        Seventh Circuit, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors 
        in said office upon the following specific charges.

        Mr. Dobbins: As I understand articles of impeachment, Mr. 
    Speaker, that does not amount to an impeachment at all.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not prepare articles of 
    impeachment. That is done by the committee.
        Mr. Dobbins: It is simply a resolution of inquiry such as we 
    have offered here every day, and is not a privileged matter.
        The Speaker: The Chair can only state what the gentleman said 
    when he took the floor; that is, that he was preferring charges of 
    impeachment against a certain United States circuit judge.
        Mr. Dobbins: But there have been no such charges; simply a 
    resolution of inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is making his charges now.

Debate on Question of Privilege to Present Impeachment Charges

Sec. 5.6 A Member recognized on a question of privilege to present 
    impeachment charges against an officer of the government is 
    entitled to an hour for debate.

    On Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and presented charges of 
impeachment against Judge Halsted L. Ritter. During the course of his 
remarks, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows on 
recognition and time for debate:

        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Carl E. Mapes] that the gentleman from Florida having 
    raised a question of privilege and having made these charges is 
    entitled to 1 hour on the charges. The gentleman has been 
    recognized and may use all or any portion of the hour he sees 
    fit.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 406, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.7 In presenting impeachment charges as privileged, a Member is 
    not necessarily confined to a bare statement of the facts but may 
    supplement them with argumentative statements.

    On May 7, 1935, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and impeached Circuit Judge Samuel 
Alschuler. He was recognized for an hour and during his remarks Speaker 
Joseph W. Byrns, of Ten

[[Page 2027]]

nessee, overruled a point of order against the content of his remarks: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081-86, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hatton W.] Sumners of Texas: I am not familiar with the 
    precedents, but I have the impression that in preferring charges of 
    impeachment, argumentative statements should be avoided as much as 
    possible. If I am wrong in that statement with reference to what 
    the precedents and custom have established, I of course withdraw 
    the observation.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to violate the 
    precedents, and if I have done so it is only because I have not had 
    an opportunity to examine them thoroughly, but if the objection is 
    well taken, I should prefer not to present argumentative matters to 
    the House.
        Mr. Sumners of Texas: I am sure the gentleman does not propose 
    to violate the precedents, and unfortunately I do not know about 
    the matter myself. I am not advised as to what the precedents 
    establish, but without looking them up, merely from the standpoint 
    of what would seem to be proper procedure, it occurs to me that all 
    argumentative statements be omitted in preferring impeachment 
    charges.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, there are two more pages of 
    explanatory matter which perhaps I should not present to the House 
    at this time if the point is well taken. I would, however, like to 
    put them into the Record as elaborating the statement of specific 
    charges that have been made.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is entirely up to the 
    gentleman from Illinois so far as the propriety of his statement is 
    concerned.
        Mr. Dirksen: I do not want to violate any of the proprieties of 
    the House, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Sumners of Texas: I do not know what they are myself.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is making his 
    statement on his own responsibility as a Member of the House.

    On Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and presented charges of 
impeachment against Judge Halsted L. Ritter. During the course of his 
remarks, Speaker Byrns overruled a point of order against the personal 
nature of Mr. Green's remarks: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 406, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, as I 
    understand, the gentleman has made his impeachment charges, and for 
    the last 10 minutes has been proceeding almost entirely with an 
    argument and a personal statement which I do not think are in order 
    under the circumstances. I think I will make the point of order, 
    Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan that the gentleman from Florida having raised a question 
    of privilege and having made these charges is entitled to 1 hour on 
    the charges. The gentleman has been recognized and may use all or 
    any portion of the hour he sees fit.
        Mr. Mapes: Is the gentleman entitled during that hour to engage 
    in a general discussion of the charges?

[[Page 2028]]

        The Speaker: He is, under all the precedents with which the 
    Chair is familiar.

Privilege of Questions Incidental to Impeachment

Sec. 5.8 Where privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal 
    civil officer have been referred to a committee, that committee may 
    report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to 
    consideration of the impeachment question, including those 
    pertaining to subpena authority and funding of an investigation.

    On Feb. 6, 1974, Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, Chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, called up as privileged House 
Resolution 803, authorizing that committee to investigate the 
sufficiency of grounds for impeachment of President Richard Nixon. 
Various resolutions of impeachment of the President had previously been 
referred to the committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 2349, 2350, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For the events 
        leading up to the presentation and adoption of H. Res. 803, and 
        the reasons for its presentation, see Sec. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions authorizing a committee to 
conduct investigations with subpena power and resolutions funding such 
investigations from the contingent fund of the House are normally only 
privileged when respectively reported and called up by the Committee on 
Rules or the Committee on House Administration.(17) But a 
committee to which resolutions of impeachment have been referred may 
report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to the 
consideration of the impeachment question. For example, charges of 
impeachable offenses were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in 
1927, in relation to the conduct of District Judge Frank Cooper. The 
Committee on the Judiciary subsequently called up as privileged a 
resolution authorizing an investigation by the committee and funding 
such investigation from the contingent fund of the House. In response 
to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, ruled 
that the resolution was privileged ``because it relates to impeachment 
proceedings.'' (18) If, however, such a

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973), 
        giving privileged status to reports of the Committee on House 
        Administration on matters of expenditure of the contingent 
        fund.
18. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 549. For other occasions where the 
        Committee on the Judiciary has reported and called up as 
        privileged resolutions authorizing the committee to conduct 
        impeachment investigations, see 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2029 
        and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 498, 528.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2029]]

resolution is offered on the floor by a Member on his own initiative 
and not reported from the committee to which the impeachment has been 
referred, it is not privileged for immediate consideration, since not 
directly calling for impeachment.(19)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 468.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.9 Resolutions proposing the discontinuation of impeachment 
    proceedings are privileged for immediate consideration when 
    reported from the committee charged with the investigation.

    On Feb. 13, 1932, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, offered House 
Report No. 444 and House Resolution 143, discontinuing impeachment 
proceedings against Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon. He 
offered the report as privileged and it was immediately considered and 
adopted by the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 3850, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 24, 1933, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, held that a 
resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, proposing the 
discontinuance of an impeachment proceeding, was privileged for 
immediate consideration: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. (also cited at 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 514).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              House Resolution 387

            Resolved, That the evidence submitted on the charges 
        against Hon. Harold Louderback, district judge for the northern 
        district of California, does not warrant the interposition of 
        the constitutional powers of impeachment of the House.

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when they 
    report back a resolution of that kind, is it a privileged matter?
        The Speaker: It is not only a privileged matter but a highly 
    privileged matter.
        Mr. [Leonidas C.] Dyer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, this is the 
    first instance to my knowledge, in my service here, where the 
    committee has reported adversely on an impeachment charge.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's memory should be refreshed. The 
    Mellon case was reported back from the committee, recommending that 
    impeachment proceedings be discontinued.
        Mr. Snell: Was that taken up on the floor as a privileged 
    matter?
        The Speaker: It was.

    On Mar. 24, 1939, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, called up a re

[[Page 2030]]

port of the Committee on the Judiciary on House Resolution 67, which 
report recommended against the impeachment of Secretary of Labor 
Frances Perkins. The report was called up as privileged and the House 
immediately agreed to Mr. Hobbs' motion to lay the report on the 
table.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referral of Resolutions Introduced Through Hopper

Sec. 5.10 Resolutions introduced through the hopper under Rule XXII 
    which directly called for the impeachment or censure of President 
    Richard Nixon in the 93d Congress were referred by the Speaker to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, while resolutions calling for an 
    investigation by that committee or by a select committee with a 
    view toward impeachment were referred to the Committee on Rules.

    On Oct. 23, 1973, resolutions relating to the impeachment of 
President Nixon were introduced (placed in the hopper pursuant to Rule 
XXII clause 4) and severally referred as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 34873, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        11941, 11942, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1970 (resolution 
        impeaching Associate Justice William O. Douglas of the Supreme 
        Court, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary). See also 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          By Mr. Long of Maryland:
        H. Con. Res. 365. Concurrent resolution of censureship without 
    prejudice to impeachment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
          By Ms. Abzug:
        H. Res. 625. Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President 
    of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors; to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.
          By Mr. Ashley:
        H. Res. 626. Resolution directing the Committee on the 
    Judiciary to investigate whether there are grounds for the 
    impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules.
          By Mr. Bingham:
        H. Res. 627. Resolution directing the Committee on the 
    Judiciary to inquire into and investigate whether grounds exist for 
    the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules.
            By Mr. Burton (for himself, Ms. Abzug, Mr. Anderson of 
                California, Mr. Aspin, Mr. Bergland, Mr. Bingham, Mr. 
                Brasco, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Boland, Mr. 
                Brademas, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Culver, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
                Dellums, Mr. Drinan, Mr. Eckhardt, Mr. Edwards of 
                California, Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Fascell, Mr. 
                Fauntroy, Mr. Foley, Mr. William D. Ford, Mr. Fraser, 
                Mr. Giaimo, and Ms. Grasso):

[[Page 2031]]

        H. Res. 628. Resolution directing the Committee on the 
    Judiciary to inquire into and investigate whether grounds exist for 
    the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules. . . 
    .
          By Mr. Hechler of West Virginia:
        H. Res. 631. Resolution that Richard M. Nixon, President of the 
    United States, is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors; to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.
          By Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts:
        H. Res. 632. Resolution to appoint a Special Prosecutor; to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
          By Mr. McCloskey:
        H. Res. 634. Resolution of inquiry; to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.
        H. Res. 635. Resolution for the impeachment of Richard M. 
    Nixon; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
          By Mr. Mazzoli:
        H. Res. 636. Resolution: an inquiry into the existence of 
    grounds for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the 
    United States; to the Committee on Rules.

          By Mr. Milford:
        H. Res. 637. Resolution providing for the establishment of an 
    Investigative Committee to investigate alleged Presidential 
    misconduct; to the Committee on Rules.
            By Mr. Mitchell of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Burton, and 
                Mr. Fauntroy):

        H. Res. 638. Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President 
    of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.

Sec. 5.11 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of resolutions 
    authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the 
    conduct of federal officials and directing said committee to report 
    its findings to the House ``together with such resolutions of 
    impeachment as it deems proper.''

    On Feb. 22, 1966,(4) a resolution (H. Res. 739) 
``authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct certain 
investigations'' was referred to the Committee on Rules. The resolution 
called for an investigation into the official conduct of Federal 
District Court Judges Alfred P. Murrah, Stephen S. Chandler, and Luther 
Bohannon, in Oklahoma, and directed the Committee on the Judiciary to 
report its findings to the House ``together with such resolutions of 
impeachment as it deems proper.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 3665, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Lay on the Table or to Refer

Sec. 5.12 The motion to lay on the table applies to resolutions 
    proposing impeachment and may deprive a Member who has offered such 
    a resolution of recognition for debate thereon.

[[Page 2032]]

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(5) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
held that the motion to table applied to resolutions of impeachment and 
could deprive the proponent of debate on such a resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis T.] McFadden [of Pennsylvania]: On my own 
    responsibility, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I 
    impeach Herbert Hoover, President of the United States, for high 
    crimes and misdemeanors.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolutions.
        Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFadden: Am I not entitled to an hour to discuss the 
    resolution?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to an hour, but first 
    the Clerk must report the resolution of impeachment.
        Mr. McFadden: I offer the following resolution.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts] (interrupting the reading 
    of the resolution): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Luce: On a previous occasion charges apparently of the same 
    purport were laid on the table by the House. Is it within the 
    province of any Member to evade the rules and to take a matter from 
    the table by proceeding with a second movement of the same sort?
        The Speaker: The Chair, of course, has not heard the resolution 
    read. Probably if it was identical with the resolution submitted 
    some time ago and laid on the table there would be some question 
    whether or not a second impeachment could be had. But the President 
    can be impeached, or any person provided for by the Constitution, a 
    second time, and the Chair thinks the better policy would be to 
    have the resolution read and determine whether or not it is the 
    same.
        Mr. [Fred A.] Britten [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Britten: Would a motion be in order at this time?
        The Speaker: No. The Chair would not recognize any Member to 
    make a motion until the resolution is read.
        Mr. Britten: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    resolution be considered as having been read.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks the resolution should be read.
        Mr. McFadden (again interrupting the reading of the 
    resolution): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFadden: I understand that at the completion of the 
    reading of this resolution it is planned----
        The Speaker: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    statement.
        Mr. McFadden: I am attempting to state a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 2033]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it. The Chair will hear 
    the gentleman.
        Mr. McFadden: During the opening I addressed the Speaker to 
    ascertain whether or not I would be protected in one hour time for 
    debate. I am prepared to debate. I understand a certain motion will 
    be made which will deprive me of that right.
        The Speaker: The Chair can not control 434 Members of the House 
    in the motions they will make. The Chair must recognize them and 
    interpret the rules as they are written. That is what the Chair 
    intends to do. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would have an 
    opportunity to discuss this matter for an hour under the rules of 
    the House, if some gentleman did not take him off his feet by a 
    proper motion. [Applause.]
        Mr. McFadden: That is what I was attempting to ascertain.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.
        Mr. [Henry T.] Rainey [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    the resolution of impeachment on the table.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois moves to lay the 
    resolution of impeachment on the table.
        May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference 
    to the rule applying to that motion? The Parliamentarian has 
    examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark 
    and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a 
    motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the 
    House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to 
    discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House. 
    Therefore the motion is in order.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XVI clause 4, the motion to lay 
on the table may be offered while a question is under debate, including 
a question of privilege, and is not debatable. The motion to refer is 
also in order under the rule and is debatable within narrow limits. The 
question of consideration may also be raised under Rule XVI clause 3; 
it is not debatable, but may be demanded before debate on the pending 
question, and may be raised against a question of the highest 
privilege.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XVI clauses 3, 4 and notes thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 778-787 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.13 Resolutions authorizing investigations into charges of 
    impeachment have been referred, on motion, to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Jan. 24, 1939,(7) a Member declared his impeachment 
of certain officials of the executive branch, including Secretary of 
Labor Frances Perkins:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 702-11, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Parnell] Thomas of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, on my own 
    responsibility as a Member of the House

[[Page 2034]]

    of Representatives, I impeach Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor 
    of the United States; James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of the 
    Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Labor; 
    and Gerard D. Reilly, Solicitor of the Department of Labor, as 
    civil officers of the United States, for high crimes and 
    misdemeanors in violation of the Constitution and laws of the 
    United States, and I charge that the aforesaid Frances Perkins, 
    James L. Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly, as civil officers of 
    the United States, were and are guilty of high crimes and 
    misdemeanors in office in manner and form as follows, to wit: . . .

    Mr. Thomas offered a resolution authorizing an investigation of 
charges, which resolution was referred, on motion, to the Committee on 
the Judiciary:

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be and is hereby 
    authorized and directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to 
    investigate the official conduct of Frances Perkins, Secretary of 
    Labor; James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of Immigration and 
    Naturalization Service, Department of Labor; and Gerard D. Reilly, 
    Solicitor, Department of Labor, to determine whether, in its 
    opinion, they have been guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors 
    which, in the contemplation of the Constitution, requires the 
    interposition of the constitutional powers of the House. Such 
    committee shall report its findings to the House together with such 
    articles of impeachment as the facts may warrant.
        For the purposes of this resolution the committee is authorized 
    and directed to sit and act, during the present session of 
    Congress, at such times and places in the District of Columbia, or 
    elsewhere, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or 
    has adjourned; to hold hearings; to employ such experts and such 
    clerical, stenographic and other assistance; and to require the 
    attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
    papers, and documents; and to take such testimony and to have such 
    printing and binding done; and to make such expenditures not 
    exceeding $10,000, as it deems necessary. . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
    House and upon that I desire to say just a word. A great many 
    suggestions have been made as to what should be done with this 
    resolution, but I think this would be the orderly procedure so that 
    the facts may be developed. The resolution will come out of that 
    committee or remain in it according to the testimony adduced.
        I therefore move the previous question on my motion to refer, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

    On Jan. 6, 1932,(8) a privileged resolution proposing an 
investigation directed towards impeachment, offered as privileged on 
the floor, was on motion referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 75 Cong. Rec. 1400, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Impeachment of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of

[[Page 2035]]

    constitutional privilege. On my own responsibility as a Member of 
    this House, I impeach Andrew William Mellon, Secretary of the 
    Treasury of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, and 
    offer the following resolution: . . .

            Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized 
        and directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the 
        official conduct of Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the 
        Treasury, to determine whether, in its opinion, he has been 
        guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which, in the 
        contemplation of the Constitution, requires the interposition 
        of the constitutional powers of the House. Such committee shall 
        report its findings to the House together with such resolution 
        of impeachment or other recommendation as it deems proper.
            Sec. 2. For the purposes of this resolution, the committee 
        is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at 
        such times and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, 
        whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has 
        adjourned, to hold such hearings, to employ such experts and 
        such clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require 
        the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such 
        books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony, to have 
        such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures 
        not exceeding $5,000, as it deems necessary.

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the articles just read be referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, and upon that motion I demand the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (9) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee, that the articles be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. The motion was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Investigation by Accused

Sec. 5.14 The Vice President sought to initiate an investigation by the 
    House of certain charges brought against him, but the House took no 
    action on the request.

    On Sept. 25, 1973,(10) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a communication from Vice President Spiro T. 
Agnew requesting that the House investigate charges which might 
``assume the character of impeachable offenses'' made against him by a 
U.S. Attorney in the course of a criminal investigation. The House took 
no action on the request by motion or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 31368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Several resolutions were introduced on 
Sept. 26, 1973, to authorize investigations into the charges referred 
to, both by the Committee on the Judiciary and by a select committee. 
The resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  See H. Res. 566 and H. Res. 567, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Vice President cited in his letter a request made by Vice

[[Page 2036]]

President John C. Calhoun in 1826 and discussed at 3 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 1736. On that occasion, the alleged charges related to the Vice 
President's former tenure as Secretary of War. The communication was 
referred on motion to a select committee which investigated the charges 
and subsequently reported to the House that no impropriety had been 
found in the Vice President's former conduct as a civil officer under 
the United States. The report of the select committee was ordered to 
lie on the table and the House took no further action thereon.
    Vice President Agnew did not cite a precedent occurring in 1873, 
however, where the Committee on the Judiciary reported that a civil 
officer--Vice President Schuyler Colfax--could not be impeached for 
offenses allegedly committed prior to his term of office as a civil 
officer under the United States. The committee had investigated at his 
request whether Vice President Colfax had, during his prior term as 
Speaker of the House, been involved in bribes of Members. As reported 
in 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2510, the committee concluded as follows in 
its report to the House:

        But we are to consider, taking the harshest construction of the 
    evidence, whether the receipt of a bribe by a person who afterwards 
    becomes a civil officer of the United States, even while holding 
    another official position, is an act upon which an impeachment can 
    be grounded to subject him to removal from an office which he 
    afterwards holds. To elucidate this we first turn to the 
    precedents.
        Your committee find that in all cases of impeachment or 
    attempted impeachment under our Constitution there is no instance 
    where the accusation was not in regard to an act done or omitted to 
    be done while the officer was in office. In every case it has been 
    heretofore considered material that the articles of impeachment 
    should allege in substance that, being such officer, and while in 
    the exercise of the duties of his office, the accused committed the 
    acts of alleged inculpation.

    The report was never finally acted upon by the House.