[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[C. Trial in the Senate]
[Â§ 13. Voting; Deliberation and Judgment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2121-2133]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                         C. TRIAL IN THE SENATE
 
Sec. 13. Voting; Deliberation and Judgment

    The applicable rules on impeachment trials provide for deliberation 
behind closed doors, for a vote on the articles of impeachment, and for 
pronouncement of judgment. (See Rules XXIII and XXIV.) (10) 
Except for organizational questions, debate is in order during an 
impeachment trial only while the Senate is deliberating behind closed 
doors, at which time the respondent, his counsel, and the managers are 
not present. Rule XXIV, of the rules for impeachment trials, provides 
that orders and decisions shall be determined by the yeas and nays 
without debate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Senate rules on impeachment are set out in Sec. 11, supra.
11. For debate on organizational questions before trial commences, see 
        Sec. 11.11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under article I, section 3, clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution, a 
two-thirds vote is required to convict the respondent on an article of 
impeachment, the articles being voted on separately under Rule XXIII of 
the rules for impeachment trials.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Overruled in the Ritter impeachment trial was a point of order that 
        the respondent was not properly convicted, a two-thirds vote 
        having been obtained on an article which cumulated offenses 
        (see Sec. Sec. 13.5, 13.6, infra).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2122]]

    Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides for removal from office 
upon conviction and also allows the further judgment of 
disqualification from holding and enjoying ``any office of honor, trust 
or profit under the United States.'' In the most recent conviction by 
the Senate, of Judge Ritter in 1936, it was held for the first time 
that no vote was required on removal following conviction, inasmuch as 
removal follows automatically from conviction under article II, section 
4.(13) But the further judgment of disqualification requires 
a majority vote.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 13.9, infra.
14. See Sec. 13.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Constitutional provisions governing judgment in impeachment trials, see 
    Sec. 1, supra.
Deliberation, vote and judgment in the Ritter impeachment trial, see 
    Sec. 18, infra.
Grounds for impeachment and conviction generally, see Sec. 3, supra.
Judicial review of impeachment convictions, see Sec. 1, supra.
Trial and judgment where person impeached has resigned, see Sec. 2, 
    supra.

                          Collateral Reference
Riddick, Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United 
    States Senate, S. Doc. No. 93-102, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. 
    (1974).                          -------------------

Deliberation Behind Closed Doors

Sec. 13.1 Final arguments having been presented to a Court of 
    Impeachment, the Senate closes the doors in order to deliberate in 
    closed session, and the respondent, his counsel, and the managers 
    withdraw.

    On Apr. 15, 1936, the Senate convened sitting as a Court of 
Impeachment in the trial of Judge Halsted Ritter. Final arguments had 
been completed on the preceding day. The following proceedings took 
place:

                      Impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter

        The Senate, sitting for the trial of the articles of 
    impeachment against Halsted L. Ritter, judge of the United States 
    District Court for the Southern District of Florida, met at 12 
    o'clock meridian.
        The respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, with his counsel, Frank P. 
    Walsh, Esq., and Carl T. Hoffman, Esq., appeared in the seats 
    assigned them.
        The Vice President: (15) The Sergeant at Arms by 
    proclamation will open the proceedings of the Senate sitting for 
    the trial of the articles of impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Sergeant at Arms made the usual proclamation.
        On request of Mr. Ashurst, and by unanimous consent, the 
    reading of the

[[Page 2123]]

    Journal of the proceedings of the Senate, sitting for the trial of 
    the articles of impeachment, for Tuesday, April 14, 1936, was 
    dispensed with, and the Journal was approved. . . .
        The Vice President: Eighty-six Senators have answered to their 
    names. A quorum is present.

                       Deliberation With Closed Doors

        Mr. [Henry F.] Ashurst [of Arizona]: I move that the doors of 
    the Senate be closed for deliberation.
        The Vice President: The question is on the motion of the 
    Senator from Arizona.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The respondent and his counsel withdrew from the Chamber.

        The galleries having been previously cleared, the Senate (at 12 
    o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.) proceeded to deliberate with closed 
    doors.
        At 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m. the doors were 
    opened.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 5505, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. In the Ritter case, the 
        managers on the part of the House were not present when the 
        Senate closed its doors. Where they are present, they withdraw. 
        See, for example, 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 524 (Harold 
        Louderback).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XX of the rules of the Senate on impeachment trials provides: 
``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.''
    Rule XXIV provides for debate, during impeachment trials, only when 
the Senate is deliberating in closed session, wherein ``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. . . . 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.''

Orders for Time and Method of Voting

Sec. 13.2 Following or during deliberation behind closed doors, the 
    Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment adopts orders to provide 
    the time and method of voting.

    On Apr. 15, 1936, the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment in 
the trial of Judge Halsted Ritter, opened its doors after having 
deliberated in closed session. By unanimous consent, the order setting 
a date for the taking of a vote was published in the Record:

        Ordered, by unanimous consent, That when the Senate, sitting as 
    a Court, concludes its session on today it take a recess until 12 
    o'clock tomorrow, and that upon the convening of the

[[Page 2124]]

    Court on Friday it proceed to vote upon the various articles of 
    impeachment.

    Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, explained 
the purpose of the agreement, which was to postpone the vote until 
Friday so that a number of Senators who wished to vote could be present 
for that purpose.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 5505, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 16, 1936, the Senate, after deliberating behind closed 
doors, agreed to an order providing a method of voting:

        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.'' (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 5558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This method of consideration--that of reading and voting on the 
articles separately and in sequence--has been used consistently in 
impeachment proceedings, though in the Andrew Johnson trial Article XI 
was first voted on.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2439-2443. 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The form of putting the question and calling the roll in the 
Johnson trial also differed from current practice, the Chief Justice in 
that case putting the question ``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?'' 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition of Pairs

Sec. 13.3 Pairs are not recognized during the vote by a Court of 
    Impeachment on articles of impeachment.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment in 
the trial of Judge Halsted Ritter convened to vote on the articles of 
impeachment. Preceding the vote, Senator Joseph T. Robinson, of 
Arkansas, the Majority Leader, announced as follows:

        I have been asked to announce also that pairs are not 
    recognized in this proceeding. (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 5602, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, it was announced on May 23, 1933, preceding the vote

[[Page 2125]]

on the articles impeaching Judge Harold Louderback, that pairs would 
not be recognized.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 77 Cong. Rec. 4083, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse or Disqualification From Voting

Sec. 13.4 Members of the House and Senate have been excused but not 
    disqualified from voting on articles of impeachment.

    On Mar. 12, 1936, preceding the appearance of respondent Judge 
Halsted Ritter before the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, 
Senator Edward P. Costigan, of Colorado, asked to be excused from 
participation in the impeachment proceedings. He inserted in the Record 
a statement assigning the reasons for his request, based on personal 
acquaintance with the respondent.(3) Similarly, on Mar. 31, 
Senator Millard E. Tydings, of Maryland, asked to be excused from 
participating in the proceedings and from voting on the ground of 
family illness.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 3646, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 4654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the consideration in the House of the resolution impeaching 
Senator William Blount, of Tennessee, his brother, Mr. Thomas Blount, 
of North Carolina, a Member of the House, asked to be excused from 
voting on any matter affecting his brother.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the impeachment of Judge Harold Louderback, two Members of the 
Senate were excused from voting thereon since they had been Members of 
the House when Judge Louderback was impeached.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue of disqualification from voting either in the House on 
impeachment or in the Senate on conviction has not been directly 
presented. During the trial of President Andrew Johnson, a Senator 
offered and then withdrew a challenge to the competency of the 
President pro tempore of the Senate, Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, to 
preside over or vote in the trial of the President. Before withdrawing 
his objection, Senator Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, argued that the 
President pro tempore was an interested party because of his possible 
succession to the Presidency. The President pro tempore voted on that 
occasion.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2061.
            During the Johnson impeachment, succession to the 
        Presidency was governed by an Act of 1792 providing that the 
        President pro tempore and then the Speaker of the House should 
        succeed to the Presidency, after the Vice President. 1 Stat. 
        239. Presently, 3 USC Sec. 19 provides for the Speaker and then 
        the President pro tempore to succeed to the Presidency after 
        the Vice President, but the 25th amendment to the U.S. 
        Constitution provides a mechanism for selection of a Vice 
        President upon vacancy in that office, by succession to the 
        Presidency or otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2126]]

    Speaker Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, chose to vote on the 
resolution impeaching President Johnson in 1868, and delivered the 
following explanatory statement:

        The Speaker said: The occupant of the Chair cannot consent that 
    his constituents should be silent on so grave a question, and 
    therefore, as a member of this House, he votes ``ay.'' On agreeing 
    to the resolution, there are--yeas 126, nays 47. So the resolution 
    is adopted.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 66 Cong. Globe 1400, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1868.
            In the Johnson impeachment, the minority party members 
        generally refrained from voting on the ballot for the choice of 
        managers following the adoption of articles, where a request to 
        excuse all who sought to be excused had been objected to. 3 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been generally determined in the House that the individual 
Member should decide the question whether he is disqualified from 
voting because of a personal interest in the vote.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule VIII clause 1 and comments thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 656-659 (1973).
            In Senate practice, no rule requires a Member of the Senate 
        to withdraw from voting because of personal interest, but a 
        Member may be excused from voting under Rule XII clause 2, 
        Senate Manual Sec. 12.2 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points of Order Against Vote

Sec. 13.5 In making a point of order against the result of a vote on an 
    article of impeachment, a Senator may state the grounds for his 
    point of order but debate or argument thereon is not in order.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, following a two-thirds vote for conviction by the 
Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment in the trial of Judge Halsted 
Ritter, Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont, made a point of order 
against the vote. The President pro tempore, Key Pittman, of Nevada, 
subsequently ruled against allowing debate or argument on that point of 
order: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5606, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Austin: Mr. President, a point of order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator will state the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Austin: I make the point of order that the respondent is 
    not guilty, not having been found guilty by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Senators present.
        Article VII is an omnibus article, the ingredients of which, as 
    stated on page 36, paragraph 4, are----

[[Page 2127]]

        Mr. [Robert M.] La Follette [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. President, 
    I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. La Follette: Is debate upon the point of order in order?
        The President Pro Tempore: It is not in order.

        Mr. La Follette: I ask for the regular order.
        Mr. Austin: Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Austin: In stating a point of order, is it not appropriate 
    to state the grounds of the point of order?
        The President Pro Tempore: Providing the statement is not 
    argument.
        Mr. Austin: That is what the Senator from Vermont is 
    undertaking to do, and no more.
        The President Pro Tempore: If the statement is argument, the 
    point of order may be made against the argument.
        Mr. Austin: The first reason for the point of order is that 
    here is a combination of facts in the indictment, the ingredients 
    of which are the several articles which precede article VII, as 
    seen by paragraph marked 4 on page 36. The second reason is 
    contained in the Constitution of the United States, which provides 
    that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
    thirds of the members present. The third reason is that this matter 
    has been passed upon judicially, and it has been held that an 
    attempt to convict upon a combination of circumstances----
        Mr. [George] McGill [of Kansas]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Austin: Of which the respondent has been found innocent 
    would be monstrous. I refer to the case of Andrews v. King (77 
    Maine, 235).
        Mr. [Joseph T.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I rise 
    to a point of order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Arkansas will state 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Robinson: The Senator from Vermont is not in order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained. The 
    Senator from Vermont is making an argument on the point of order he 
    has made.

Sec. 13.6 During the Halsted Ritter impeachment trial, the President 
    pro tempore overruled a point of order against a vote of conviction 
    on the seventh article (charging general misbehavior), where the 
    point of order was based on the contention that the article 
    repeated and combined facts, circumstances, and charges contained 
    in the preceding articles.

    On Apr. 17, 1936,(11) the President pro tempore, Key 
Pittman, of Nevada, stated that the Senate had by a two-thirds vote 
adjudged the respondent Judge Ritter guilty as charged in Article VII 
of the articles of impeachment. He over

[[Page 2128]]

ruled a point of order that had been raised against the vote, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 80 Cong. Rec. 5606, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Warren R.] Austin [of Vermont]: Mr. President, a point of 
    order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator will state the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Austin: I make the point of order that the respondent is 
    not guilty, not having been found guilty by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Senators present.
        Article VII is an omnibus article, the ingredients of which, as 
    stated on page 36, paragraph 4, are----

    A point of order was made against debate or argument on the point 
of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 13.5 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Austin: The first reason for the point of order is that 
    here is a combination of facts in the indictment, the ingredients 
    of which are the several articles which precede article VII, as 
    seen by paragraph marked 4 on page 36. The second reason is 
    contained in the Constitution of the United States, which provides 
    that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
    thirds of the members present. The third reason is that this matter 
    has been passed upon judicially, and it has been held that an 
    attempt to convict upon a combination of circumstances----
        Mr. [George] McGill [of Kansas]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Austin: Of which the respondent has been found innocent 
    would be monstrous. I refer to the case of Andrews v. King (77 
    Maine, 235).
        Mr. [Joseph T.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I rise 
    to a point of order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Arkansas will state 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Robinson: The Senator from Vermont is not in order.
        The President Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained. The 
    Senator from Vermont is making an argument on the point of order he 
    has made.
        Mr. Austin: Mr. President, I have concluded my motion.
        The President Pro Tempore: A point of order is made as to 
    article VII, in which the respondent is charged with general 
    misbehavior. It is a separate charge from any other charge, and the 
    point of order is overruled.

Judgment as Debatable

Sec. 13.7 An order of judgment in an impeachment trial is not 
    debatable.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, the President pro tempore, Key Pittman, of 
Nevada, answered a parliamentary inquiry relating to debate on an order 
of judgment in the impeachment trial of Halsted Ritter:

        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Arizona submits an 
    order, which will be read.
        The legislative clerk read as follows:

            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

[[Page 2129]]

        office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

        Mr. [Daniel O.] Hastings [of Delaware]: Mr. President, I 
    understand that matter is subject to debate.
        Mr. [Henry F.] Ashurst [of Arizona]: No, Mr. President. The 
    yeas and nays are in order, if Senators wish, but it is not subject 
    to debate.
        Mr. Hastings: Will the Chair state just why it is not subject 
    to debate?

        The President Pro Tempore: The Chair is of opinion that the 
    rules governing impeachment proceedings require that all orders or 
    decisions be determined without debate, but the yeas and nays may 
    be ordered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Divisibility of Order of Judgment

Sec. 13.8 An order of judgment on conviction in an impeachment trial is 
    divisible where it contains provisions for removal from office and 
    for disqualification of the respondent.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, Senator Henry F. Ashurst, of Arizona, offered an 
order of judgment following the conviction of Halsted Ritter on an 
article of impeachment. It was agreed, before the order was withdrawn, 
that it was divisible: (14~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 5606, 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
            In the trial of Judge Robert Archbald, a division was 
        demanded on the order of judgment, which both removed and 
        disqualified the respondent. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 512. A 
        division of the question was likewise demanded in the West 
        Humphreys impeachment. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2397. In 
        the John Pickering impeachment, the Court of Impeachment voted 
        on removal but did not consider disqualification. See 3 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 2341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        Mr. [Robert M.] La Follette [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. President, 
    I ask for a division of the question.
        Mr. Ashurst: Mr. President, to divide the question is perfectly 
    proper. Any Senator who desires that the order be divided is within 
    his rights in thus asking that it be divided. The judgment of 
    removal from office would ipso facto follow the vote of guilty.
        Mr. [William E.] Borah [of Idaho]: Mr. President, do I 
    understand there is to be a division of the question?
        Mr. La Follette: I have asked for a division of the question.

[[Page 2130]]

        Mr. [George W.] Norris [of Nebraska]: Mr. President, it seems 
    to me the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should submit 
    two orders. One follows from what we have done. The other does not 
    follow, but we ought to vote on it.
        Mr. Ashurst: I accept the suggestion. I believe the Senator 
    from Nebraska is correct. Therefore, I withdraw the order sent to 
    the desk.

Vote on Removal Following Conviction

Sec. 13.9 On conviction of the respondent on an article of impeachment, 
    no vote is required on judgment of removal, since removal follows 
    automatically after conviction under section 4, article II, of the 
    U.S. Constitution.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, following the conviction by the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, of Halsted Ritter on Article VII of the 
articles of impeachment, President pro tempore Key Pittman, of Nevada, 
ruled that no vote was required on judgment of removal: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Arizona, having 
    withdrawn the first order, submits another one, which the clerk 
    will read.
        The legislative clerk read as follows:

            Ordered, That the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, United 
        States district judge for the southern district of Florida, be 
        removed from office.

        The President Pro Tempore: Are the yeas and nays desired on the 
    question of agreeing to the order?
        Mr. [Henry F.] Ashurst [of Arizona]: The yeas and nays are not 
    necessary.
        Mr. [Hiram W.] Johnson [of California]: 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. [Daniel O.] Hastings [of Delaware]: 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. [George] McGill, [of Kansas]: 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.

[[Page 2131]]

        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. [George W.] Norris [of Nebraska]: 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 
        several 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure and ruling in the Ritter 
impeachment trial, for automatic removal on conviction of at least one 
article of impeachment, differs from the practice in three prior cases 
where the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment has voted to 
convict. In the John Pickering trial, the vote was taken, in the 
affirmative, on the question of removal, following the vote on the 
articles; the question of disqualification was apparently not 
considered.(16) In the West Humphreys impeachment, following 
conviction on five articles of impeachment, the Court of Impeachment 
proceeded to vote, under a division of the question, on removal and 
disqualification, both decided in the affirmative.(17) And 
in the Robert Archbald impeachment, the Court of Impeachment voted 
first on removal and then on disqualification, under a division of the 
question. Both orders were voted in the affirmative.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2341.
17. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2397.
18. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Required for Disqualification

Sec. 13.10 The question of disqualification from holding an office of 
    honor, trust, or profit under the United States, following 
    conviction and

[[Page 2132]]

    judgment of removal in an impeachment trial, requires only a 
    majority vote of the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment in 
the trial of Halsted Ritter proceeded to consider an order 
disqualifying the respondent from ever holding an office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States; the court had convicted the 
respondent and he had been ordered removed from office.
    A parliamentary inquiry was propounded as to the vote required on 
the question of disqualification:

        The President Pro Tempore: (19) The Senator from 
    Arizona submits an order, which will be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Key Pittman (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The legislative clerk read as follows:

            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. . . 
        .

        Mr. [F. Ryan] Duffy [of Wisconsin]: A parliamentary inquiry.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Duffy: Upon this question is a majority vote sufficient to 
    adopt the order, or must there be a two-thirds vote?
        Mr. [Henry F.] Ashurst [of Arizona]: 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 President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 
    order submitted by the Senator from Arizona.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the impeachment trial of Robert 
Archbald, a division of the question was demanded on an order removing 
and disqualifying the respondent. Removal was agreed to by voice vote 
and disqualification was agreed to by the yeas and nays--yeas 39, nays 
35.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing of Separate Opinions

Sec. 13.11 The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, may provide 
    by order at the conclusion of the trial for Senators to file 
    written opinions following the final vote.

    On Apr. 16, 1936, the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment in 
the trial of Judge Halsted Rit

[[Page 2133]]

ter adopted the following order at the conclusion of the trial:

        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.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 80 Cong. Rec. 5558, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Informed of Judgment

Sec. 13.12 The Senate informs the President and the House of the order 
    and judgment of the Senate in an impeachment trial.

    On Apr. 20, 1936,(1) a message from the Senate was 
received in the House informing the House of the order and judgment in 
the impeachment trial of Judge Halsted Ritter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 5703, 5704, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Message From the Senate

        A message from the Senate, by Mr. Horne, its enrolling clerk, 
    announced that the Senate had 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, as follows:

            I, Edwin A. Halsey, Secretary of the Senate of the United 
        States of America, do hereby certify that the hereto attached 
        document is a true and correct copy of the order and judgment 
        of the Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment of 
        Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the 
        southern district of Florida, entered in the said trial on 
        April 17, 1936.
            In testimony whereof, I hereunto subscribe my name and 
        affix the seal of the Senate of the United States of America, 
        this the 18th day of April, A. D. 1936.

                                              Edwin A. Halsey,
                                         Secretary of the Senate
                                             of the United States.

        In the Senate of the United States of America, sitting for the 
            trial of the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United 
            States district judge for the southern district of Florida

                                    Judgment
                                                   April 17, 1936.

            The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, United States 
        district judge for the southern district of Florida, upon seven 
        several 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.
            Attest:
                                                Edwin A. Halsey,
                                                        Secretary.

[[Page 2134]]