[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[B. Investigation and Impeachment]
[Â§ 10. Replication; Amending Adopted Articles]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2085-2089]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                    B. INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT
 
Sec. 10. Replication; Amending Adopted Articles

    The replication is the answer of the House to the respondents' 
answer to the articles of impeachment. In recent instances, the 
managers on the part of the House have submitted the replication to the 
Senate on their own initiative, without the House voting 
thereon.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 10.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has always reserved the right to amend the articles of 
impeachment presented to the Senate and has frequently so amended the 
articles pursuant to the recommendations of the managers on the part of 
the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 10.1, infra, for the reservation of the right to amend 
        articles and Sec. Sec. 10.4-10.6, infra, for the procedure in 
        so amending them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Managers and their powers generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
Motions to strike articles of impeachment in the Senate, see Sec. 12, 
    infra.
Respondent's answer filed in the Senate, see Sec. 11, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Reservation of Right to Amend Articles

Sec. 10.1 In the later practice, the reservation by the House of the 
    right to amend articles of impeachment presented to the Senate has 
    been delivered orally in the Senate by the House managers, and has

[[Page 2086]]

    not been included in the resolution of impeachment.

    On Mar. 10, 1936, the managers on the part of the House to conduct 
the trial of impeachment against Judge Halsted Ritter appeared in the 
Senate. After the articles of impeachment adopted by the House had been 
read to the Senate, Manager Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, orally 
reserved the right of the House to further amend or supplement them:

        Mr. Manager Sumners: Mr. President, the House of 
    Representatives, by protestation, saving themselves the liberty of 
    exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles of accusation 
    or impeachment against the said Halsted L. Ritter, 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 the said Halsted L. Ritter 
    to answer said impeachment, and do now demand his impeachment, 
    conviction, and removal from office.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 3488, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar procedure had been followed in the Robert Archbald and 
Harold Louderback impeachment proceedings, with the managers orally 
reserving in the Senate the right of the House to amend articles, 
without such reservation being included in the resolution and articles 
of impeachment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 501, 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Archbald impeachment, language reserving the right of 
the House to amend articles was voted on by the House and included at 
the end of the articles presented to the Senate. For example, the House 
in the Andrew Johnson impeachment agreed to a reservation-of-amendment 
clause by unanimous consent following the adoption of articles against 
the President, and it was included in the formal articles presented to 
the Senate.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer of Respondent and Replication of House

Sec. 10.2 The answer of the respondent in impeachment

[[Page 2087]]

    proceedings is messaged by the Senate to the House together with 
    any supplemental Senate rules therefore, and are referred to the 
    managers on the part of the House.

    On Apr. 6, 1936,(4) the answer of respondent Judge 
Halsted Ritter to the articles of impeachment against him and the 
supplemental rules adopted by the Senate for the trial were messaged to 
the House by the Senate and referred to the managers on the part of the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5020, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter

        The Speaker laid before the House the following order from the 
    Senate of the United States:
    In the Senate of the United States sitting for the trial of the 
    impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for 
    the southern district of Florida
                                                    April 3, 1936.

            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, as 
        amended, and also a copy of the order entered on the 12th 
        ultimo prescribing supplemental rules for the said impeachment 
        trial.

        The answer and the supplemental rules to govern the impeachment 
    trial were referred to the House managers and ordered printed.

Sec. 10.3 In the Halsted Ritter and Harold Louderback impeachments, the 
    managers on the part of the House prepared the replication of the 
    House to the respondent's answer; in contrast to earlier practice, 
    the replication was submitted to the Senate without being voted on 
    by the House.

    On Apr. 6, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, one of the 
managers on the part of the House in the impeachment trial of Judge 
Ritter, filed in the Senate the replication of the House to the answer 
filed by the respondent, the answer having been referred in the House 
to the managers. The replication had been prepared and submitted to the 
Senate by the managers alone, and it was not reported to or considered 
by the House for adoption.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 4971, 4972, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the replication in the impeachment of Judge Louderback 
was filed in the Senate by the managers without being reported to or 
considered by the House.(6) In the impeachment trial of 
Judge Robert Archbald in

[[Page 2088]]

1912, however, the replication was reported by the managers to the 
House where it was considered and adopted.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 522.
 7. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure in Amending Articles of Impeachment

Sec. 10.4 Articles of impeachment which have been exhibited to the 
    Senate may be subsequently modified or amended by the adoption of a 
    resolution in the House.

    On Mar. 30, 1936,(8) a resolution (H. Res. 471) was 
offered in the House by Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, a manager on 
the part of the House for the impeachment trial against Judge Halsted 
Ritter. The resolution amended the articles voted by the House against 
Judge Ritter on Mar. 2, 1936, by adding three new articles. The House 
agreed to the resolution after a discussion by Mr. Sumners of the 
nature of the changes and of the power of the managers to report 
amendments to the articles. Mr. Sumners summarized the changes as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 80 Cong. Rec. 4597-99, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has 
    just been read proposes three new articles. The change is not as 
    important as that statement would indicate. Two of the new articles 
    deal with income taxes, and one with practicing law by Judge 
    Ritter, after he went on the bench. In the original resolution, the 
    charge is made that Judge Ritter received certain fees or 
    gratuities and had written a letter, and so forth. No change is 
    proposed in articles 1 and 2. In article 3, as stated, Judge Ritter 
    is charged with practicing law after he went on the bench. That 
    same thing, in effect, was charged, as members of the committee 
    will remember, in the original resolution, but the form of the 
    charge, in the judgment of the managers, could be improved. These 
    charges go further and charge that in the matter connected with 
    G.R. Francis, the judge acted as counsel in two transactions after 
    he went on the bench, and received $7,500 in compensation. Article 
    7 is amended to include a reference to these new charges. There is 
    a change in the tense used with reference to the effect of the 
    conduct alleged. It is charged, in the resolution pending at the 
    desk, that the reasonable and probable consequence of the alleged 
    conduct is to injure the confidence of the people in the courts--I 
    am not attempting to quote the exact language--which is a matter of 
    form, I think, more than a matter of substance.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For discussion of the power of the managers on the part of the 
        House to prepare amendments to the articles and to report them 
        to the House, see Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.5 A resolution reported by the managers proposing amendments to 
    the articles of impeachment previously adopted by the House is 
    privileged.

[[Page 2089]]

    On Mar. 30, 1936,(10) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, 
one of the managers on the part of the House for the Halsted Ritter 
impeachment trial, offered as privileged a resolution amending the 
articles of impeachment that had been adopted by the 
House.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 4597, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. For a discussion of the power of the managers to prepare and report 
        to the House amendments to the articles of impeachment, see 
        Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.6 Where the House agrees to an amendment to articles of 
    impeachment it has adopted, the House directs the Clerk by 
    resolution to so inform the Senate.

    On Mar. 30, 1936,(12) the House adopted amendments to 
the articles previously adopted in the impeachment of Judge Halsted 
Ritter. Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, offered and the House adopted 
a privileged resolution informing the Senate of such action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 4601, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer the following 
    privileged resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 472

            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.

        The resolution was agreed to.