[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[D. History of Proceedings]
[Â§ 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2134-2167]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                       D. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Sec. 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment


    The following is a compilation of impeachment charges made from 
1932 to the present which did not result in impeachment by the House.

                            Cross References
Committee reports adverse to impeachment, their privilege and 
    consideration, see Sec. Sec. 7.8-7.10, 8.2, supra.
House proceedings against Associate Justice Douglas, discussion in the 
    House, and portions of final subcommittee report relative to 
    grounds for impeachment of federal judges, see Sec. Sec. 3.9-3.13, 
    supra.
House proceedings on impeachment discontinued against President Nixon, 
    following his resignation, see Sec. 15, infra.
Resignations and effect on impeachment and trial, see Sec. 2, supra.
Trial of Judge English dismissed following his resignation, see 
    Sec. 16, infra.                          -------------------

Charges Against Secretary of the Treasury Mellon

Sec. 14.1 In the 72d Congress a Member rose to a question of 
    constitutional privilege, impeached Secretary of the Treasury 
    Andrew Mellon, and submitted a resolution authorizing the Committee 
    on the Judiciary to investigate the charges, which resolution was 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Jan. 6, 1932, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to impeach Mr. 
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury:

         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 the said Andrew William Mellon, of Pennsylvania, 
        was nominated Secretary of the Treasury of the United States by 
        the then Chief Executive of the Nation, Warren G. Harding, 
        March 4, 1921; his nomination was confirmed by the Senate of 
        the United States on March 4, 1921; he has held said office 
        since March 4, 1921, without further nominations or 
        confirmations.
            Whereas section 243 of title 5 of the Code of Laws of the 
        United States provides:
            ``Sec. 243. Restrictions upon Secretary of Treasury: No 
        person appointed to the office of Secretary of the Treasury, or 
        Treasurer, or register, shall directly or indirectly be 
        concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or 
        commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea vessel, or 
        purchase by himself, of another in trust for him, any public 
        lands or other public property, or be concerned in the purchase 
        or disposal of any public secu

[[Page 2135]]

        rities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply 
        to his own use any emolument or gain for negotiating or 
        transacting any business in the Treasury Department other than 
        what shall be allowed by law; and every person who offends 
        against any of the prohibitions of this section shall be deemed 
        guilty of a high misdemeanor and forfeit to the United States 
        the penalty of $3,000, and shall upon conviction be removed 
        from office, and forever thereafter be incapable of holding any 
        office under the United States; and if any other person than a 
        public prosecutor shall give information of any such offense, 
        upon which a prosecution and conviction shall be had, one-half 
        the aforesaid penalty of $3,000 when recovered shall be for the 
        use of the person giving such information.

            Whereas the said Andrew William Mellon has not only been 
        indirectly concerned in carrying on the business of trade and 
        commerce in violation of the above-quoted section of the law 
        but has been directly interested in carrying on the business of 
        trade and commerce in that he is now and has been since taking 
        the oath of office as Secretary of the Treasury of the United 
        States the owner of a substantial interest in the form of 
        voting stock in more than 300 corporations with resources 
        aggregating more than $3,000,000,000, being some of the largest 
        corporations on earth, and he and his family and close business 
        associates in many instances own a majority of the stock of 
        said corporations and, in some instances, constitute ownership 
        of practically the entire outstanding capital stock; said 
        corporations are engaged in the business of trade and commerce 
        in every State, county, and village in the United States, every 
        country in the world, and upon the Seven Seas; said 
        corporations are extensively engaged in the following 
        businesses: Mining properties, bauxite, magnesium, carbon 
        electrodes, aluminum, sales, railroads, Pullman cars, gas, 
        electric light, street railways, copper, glass, brass, steel, 
        tar, banking, locomotives, water power, steamship, 
        shipbuilding, oil, coke, coal, and many other different 
        industries; said corporations are directly interested in the 
        tariff, in the levying and collections of Federal taxes, and in 
        the shipping of products upon the high seas; many of the 
        products of these corporations are protected by our tariff laws 
        and the Secretary of the Treasury has direct charge of the 
        enforcement of these laws.

        Mellon's Ownership of Sea Vessels and Control of United States 
                                  Coast Guard

            Whereas the Coast Guard (sec. 1, ch. 1, title 14, of the 
        United States Code) is a part of the military forces of the 
        United States and is operated under the Treasury Department in 
        time of peace; that the Secretary of the Treasury directs the 
        performance of the Coast Guard (sec. 51, ch. 1, title 14, of 
        the Code of Laws of the United States); that officers of the 
        Coast Guard are deemed officers of the customs (sec. 6, ch. 2, 
        title 14, United States Code), and it is their duty to go on 
        board the vessels which arrive within the United States, or 
        within 4 leagues of the coast thereof, and search and examine 
        the same, and every part thereof, and shall demand, receive, 
        and certify the manifests required to be on board certain 
        vessels shall affix and put proper fastenings on the hatches 
        and other communications with the hold of any vessel, and shall 
        remain on board such vessels until they arrive at the port of 
        their destination; that the said Andrew William Mellon is now, 
        and has been since becoming Secretary of the Treasury, the 
        owner in whole or in part of many sea vessels operating to and 
        from the United States, and in competition

[[Page 2136]]

        with other steamship lines; that his interest in the sea 
        vessels and his control over the Coast Guard represent a 
        violation of section 243 of title 5 of the Code of Laws of the 
        United States.

                                Customs Officers

            Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States 
        superintends the collection of the duties on imports (sec. 3, 
        ch. 1, title 19, Code of Laws of the United States); he 
        establishes and promulgates rules and regulations for the 
        appraisement of imported merchandise and the classification and 
        assessment of duties thereon at various ports of entry (sec. 
        382, ch. 3, title 19, Code of Laws of United States); that the 
        present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, is now and 
        has been since becoming Secretary of the Treasury personally 
        interested in the importation of goods, wares, articles, and 
        merchandise in substantial quantities and large amounts; that 
        it is repugnant to American principles and a violation of the 
        laws of the United States for such an officer to hold the dual 
        position of serving two masters--himself and the United States.

                            Ownership of Sea Vessels

            Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon is now, and has been 
        since becoming Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, 
        holding said office in violation of that part of section 243 of 
        title 5 of the Code of Laws of the United States, which 
        provides that ``no person appointed to the office of Secretary 
        of the Treasury . . . shall be the owner in whole or in part of 
        any sea vessel,'' in that he was and is now the owner in whole 
        or in part of the following sea vessels:
            Registered in Norway: Austvangen, Nordvangen, Sorvangen, 
        Vestvangen.
            Venezuelan flag: 14 tankers, of 36,654 gross tons.
            United States flag: S. Haiti; 13 general cargo vessels, 
        Conemaugh, Gulf of Mexico, Gulfbird, Gulfcoast, Gulfgem, 
        Gulfking, Gulflight, Gulfoil, Gulfpoint, Gulfprince, Gulfstar, 
        Gulfstream, Gulfwax, Harmony, Ligonier, Ohio, Susquehanna, 
        Winifred, Currier, Gulf of Venezuela, Gulf breeze, Gulfcrest, 
        Gulfhawk, Gulfland, Gulfmaid, Gulfpenn, Gulfpride, Gulfqueen, 
        Gulfstate, Gulftrade, Gulfwing, Juniata, Monongahela, Supreme, 
        Trinidadian.

           Income Taxes Paid by Mellon Companies and Refunds Made to 
                                Them--by Himself

            Whereas section 1 (2), chapter 1, title 26, of the Code of 
        laws of the United States, provides ``The Commissioner of 
        Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the 
        Treasury, shall have general superintendence of the assessment 
        and collection of all duties and taxes imposed by any law 
        providing internal revenue. . . .'' The tax laws of the United 
        States, including the granting of refunds, credits, and 
        abatements, are administered in secret under the direction of 
        the Secretary of the Treasury; that income-tax returns and 
        evidence upon which refunds are made, or granted, to taxpayers 
        are not subject to public inspection; that under the direction 
        of the present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, 
        many hundred corporations that are substantially owned by him 
        annually make settlement for their taxes and many such 
        corporations have been granted under his direction large tax 
        refunds amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

[[Page 2137]]

                            Ownership of Bank Stock

            Whereas section 244, chapter 3, title 12, of the Code of 
        Laws of the United States, provides:
            ``Sec. 244. Chairman of the board; qualifications of 
        members; vacancies.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be ex 
        officio chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. No member of the 
        Federal Reserve Board shall be an officer or director of any 
        bank, banking institution, trust company, or Federal reserve 
        bank, nor hold stock in any bank, banking institution, or trust 
        company. . . .''
            That the present Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. 
        Mellon, is now and has been since-becoming Secretary of the 
        Treasury the owner of stock in a bank, banking institution, and 
        trust company in violation of this law.

                                Whisky Business

            Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon has held the office of 
        Secretary of the Treasury in violation of section 243 of title 
        5 of the Code of Laws of the United States, in that from March 
        4, 1921, to October 2, 1928, he was interested in and received 
        his share of the proceeds and profits from the sale of 
        distilled whisky, which said whisky was sold as a commodity in 
        trade and commerce.

                          Aluminum in Public Buildings

            Whereas the said Andrew W. Mellon has further violated the 
        law which prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from being 
        directly or indirectly interested or concerned in the carrying 
        on of business or trade or commerce, in that as Secretary of 
        the Treasury he controls the construction and maintenance of 
        public buildings; the Office of the Supervising Architect is 
        subject to the direction and approval of the Secretary of the 
        Treasury; the duties performed by the Supervising Architect 
        embrace the following: Preparation of drawings, estimates, 
        specifications, etc., for and the superintendence of the work 
        of constructing, rebuilding, extending, or repairing public 
        buildings; under the supervision of the Supervising Architect 
        and subject to the direction and approval of the Secretary of 
        the Treasury the Government of the United States has spent and 
        will soon spend several hundred million dollars in the 
        construction of public buildings. The said Andrew W. Mellon is 
        the principal owner and controls the Aluminum Co. of America, 
        which produces and markets practically all of the aluminum in 
        the United States used for all purposes. The said Andrew W. 
        Mellon has, while occupying the position as Secretary of the 
        Treasury, directly interested himself in the carrying on and 
        promotion of the business of the Aluminum Co. of America by 
        causing to be published in Room 410 of the Treasury Building of 
        the United States, located between the United States Capitol 
        and the White House, a magazine known as the Federal Architect, 
        published quarterly, which carries the pictures of public 
        buildings in which aluminum is used in their construction and 
        carries articles concerning the use of aluminum in architecture 
        which suggest how aluminum can be used for different purposes 
        in the construction of public buildings for the purpose of 
        convincing the architects who draw the plans and specifications 
        for public buildings that aluminum can and should be used for 
        certain construction work and ornamental purposes. The use of 
        aluminum in the construction of public buildings displaces 
        materials which can be purchased on competitive bids, whereas 
        the Aluminum Co. of America holds a monopoly and has no 
        competitors. Said magazine is published by employees of the 
        United States Government in the Office of the Supervising

[[Page 2138]]

        Architect and distributed to the architects of the Nation, many 
        of whom have been or will be employed by the Supervising 
        Architect to draw plans and specifications for public buildings 
        in their local communities. More aluminum is now being used in 
        the construction of public buildings, under the direction of 
        the Secretary of the Treasury, than has ever before been used, 
        as a result of this advantage.

                    Mellon Interest in Soviet Union (Russia)

            Whereas section 140 of title 19 of the Code of Laws of the 
        United States provides--
            ``Sec. 140. Goods manufactured by convict labor 
        prohibited.--All goods, wares, articles, and merchandise 
        manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by 
        convict labor shall not be entitled to entry at any of the 
        ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is 
        prohibited, and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and 
        directed to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for 
        the enforcement of this provision''--
        charges are now being made that goods, wares, articles, and 
        merchandise are being transported to the United States from the 
        Soviet Union (Russia) in violation of this act; the present 
        Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon, whose duty it is 
        to enforce this provision of the law, is one of the principal 
        owners of the Koppers Co., a company with resources amounting 
        to $143,379,352, which is carrying on trade and commerce in all 
        parts of the world; that said company during the year 1930 made 
        a contract with the Soviet Union whereby the Koppers Co. 
        obligated itself to build coke ovens and steel mills in the 
        Soviet Union aggregating in value $200,000,000, in furtherance 
        of the Soviet's 5-year plan; that said contract is now being 
        carried into effect, and the said Andrew W. Mellon is 
        financially interested in its success; that his interest in 
        this contract with the Soviet Union destroys his impartiality 
        as an officer of the United States to enforce the above-quoted 
        law; his interest in said company, which is engaged in the 
        business of carrying on trade and commerce, disqualifies him as 
        Secretary of the Treasury under section 243 of title 5 of the 
        Code of Laws of the United States and makes him guilty of a 
        high misdemeanor and subject to impeachment: Therefore be it

            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

[[Page 2139]]

    Committee on the Judiciary, and upon that motion I demand the 
    previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (2) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee, that the articles be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 75 Cong Rec. 1400 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.2 The House discontinued by resolution further proceedings of 
    impeachment against Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, after 
    he had been nominated and confirmed for another position and had 
    resigned his Cabinet post.

    On Feb. 13, 1932, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, presented House 
Report No. 444 and House Resolution 143, discontinuing proceedings 
against Secretary of the Treasury Mellon:

        Impeachment Charges--Report From Committee on the Judiciary

        Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a report from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and I would like to give notice that 
    immediately upon the reading of the report I shall move the 
    previous question.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Texas offers a 
    report, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the report, as follows:

            House of Representatives--Relative to the Action of the 
         Committee on the Judiciary With Reference to House Resolution 
                                       92

            Mr. Sumners of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
        submitted the following report (to accompany H. Res. 143):
            I am directed by the Committee on the Judiciary to submit 
        to the House, as its report to the House, the following 
        resolution adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary indicating 
        its action with reference to House Resolution No. 92 heretofore 
        referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary:
            Whereas Hon. Wright Patman, Member of the House of 
        Representatives, filed certain impeachment charges against Hon. 
        Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, which were 
        referred to this committee; and
            Whereas pending the investigation of said charges by said 
        committee, and before said investigation had been completed, 
        the said Hon. Andrew W. Mellon was nominated by the President 
        of the United States for the post of ambassador to the Court of 
        St. James and the said nomination was duly confirmed by the 
        United States Senate pursuant to law, and the said Andrew W. 
        Mellon has resigned the position of Secretary of the Treasury: 
        Be it

            Resolved by this committee, That the further consideration 
        of the said charges made against the said Andrew W. Mellon, as 
        Secretary of the Treasury, be, and the same are hereby, 
        discontinued.

                                 Minority Views

            We cannot join in the majority views and findings. While we 
        concur in the conclusions of the majority

[[Page 2140]]

        that section 243 of the Revised Statutes, upon which the 
        proceedings herein were based, provides for action in the 
        nature of an ouster proceeding, it is our view that the Hon. 
        Andrew W. Mellon, the former Secretary of the Treasury, having 
        removed himself from that office, no useful purpose would be 
        served by continuing the investigation of the charges filed by 
        the Hon. Wright Patman. We desire to stress that the action of 
        the undersigned is based on that reason alone, particularly 
        when the prohibition contained in said section 243 is not 
        applicable to the office now held by Mr. Mellon.

                    Fiorello H. LaGuardia.
                    Gordon Browning.
                    M. C. Tarver.
                    Francis B. Condon.

        Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I think the resolution is 
    fairly explanatory of the views held by the different members of 
    the committee. No useful purpose could be served by the consumption 
    of the usual 40 minutes, so I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 75 Cong. Rec. 3850, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
            The House Journal (p. 382) for this date indicates that Mr. 
        Sumners called up H. Res. 143 which was debated prior to its 
        adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against President Hoover

Sec. 14.3 Impeachment of President Herbert Hoover was proposed but not 
    considered by the House or by committee in the 72d Congress.

    On Jan. 17, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose and 
on his own responsibility as a Member of the House impeached President 
Hoover as follows:

        Mr. McFadden: 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.

    He offered a resolution with a lengthy preamble, which concluded as 
follows:

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    investigate the official conduct of Herbert Hoover, President of 
    the United States, and all matters related thereto, to determine 
    whether, in the opinion of the said committee, 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, in order that the House of 
    Representatives may, if necessary, present its complaint to the 
    Senate, to the end that Herbert Hoover may be tried according to 
    the manner prescribed for the trial of the Executive by the 
    Constitution and the people be given their constitutional remedy 
    and be relieved of their present apprehension that a criminal may 
    be in office.
        For the purposes of this resolution the committee is authorized 
    to sit and

[[Page 2141]]

    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 as it deems necessary.

    Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, moved that the resolution be laid 
on the table and the House adopted the motion, precluding any debate by 
Mr. McFadden on his resolution of impeachment.
    Pending a vote on the motion, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the language which 
had transpired could not be expunged from the Congressional Record by 
motion but must be done by unanimous consent since no unparliamentary 
language was involved.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 18, 1933, Mr. McFadden rose to state a question of 
privilege, with the intention of impeaching President Hoover. In 
response to a point of order, Speaker Garner held that a question of 
constitutional privilege or a question of privilege of the House, as 
distinguished from a question of personal privilege, could not be 
presented until a motion or resolution was submitted. He declined to 
recognize Mr. McFadden since no resolution was presented.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 2041, 2042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against U.S. District Judge Lowell

Sec. 14.4 In the 73d Congress the Committee on the Judiciary conducted 
    an investigation into impeachment charges against District Judge 
    James Lowell and later recommended that further proceedings be 
    discontinued.

    On Apr. 26, 1933, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and impeached Mr. Lowell, a U.S. 
District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. He specified the 
following charges:

        First. I charge that the said James A. Lowell, having been 
    nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by 
    the Senate of the United States, duly qualified and commissioned, 
    and while acting as district judge for the district of 
    Massachusetts, did on divers and various occasions so abuse the 
    powers of his high office and so misconduct himself as to be guilty 
    of favoritism, oppression, and judicial misconduct, whereby he has 
    brought the administration of justice in said

[[Page 2142]]

    district in the court of which he is judge into disrepute by his 
    aforesaid misconduct and acts, and is guilty of misbehavior and 
    misconduct, falling under the constitutional provision as ground 
    for impeachment and removal from office.
        Second. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did knowingly 
    and willfully violate his oath to support the Constitution in his 
    refusal to comply with the provisions of article IV, section 2, 
    clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, wherein it is 
    provided:

            A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or 
        other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in 
        another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of 
        the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to 
        the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

        Third. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did, on the 24th 
    day of April, 1933, unlawfully, willfully, and contrary to well-
    established law, order the discharge from custody of one George 
    Crawford, who had been regularly indicted for first-degree murder 
    in Loudoun County, Va., had confessed his crime, and whose 
    extradition from the State of Massachusetts had, after full hearing 
    and investigation, been officially ordered by Joseph B. Ely, 
    Governor of the State of Massachusetts.
        Fourth. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did deliberately 
    and willfully by ordering the release of said George Crawford, 
    unlawfully and contrary to the law in such cases made and provided, 
    seek to defeat the ends of justice and to prevent the said George 
    Crawford from being duly and regularly tried in the tribunal having 
    jurisdiction thereof for the crime with which he is charged, to 
    which he had confessed.
        Fifth. I charge that the said James A. Lowell did on the said 
    24th day of April 1933 willfully, deliberately, and viciously 
    attempt to nullify the operation of the laws for the punishment of 
    crime of the State of Virginia and many other States in the Union, 
    notwithstanding numerous decisions directly to the contrary by the 
    Supreme Court of the United States, all of which decisions were 
    brought to the attention of the said judge by the attorney general 
    of Massachusetts and the Commonwealth's attorney of Loudoun County, 
    Va., at the time of said action.
        Sixth. I further charge that the said James A. Lowell, on the 
    said 24th day of April 1933, in rendering said decision did use his 
    judicial position for the unlawful purpose of casting aspersions 
    upon and attempting to bring disrepute upon the administration of 
    law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and various other States in 
    this Union, and that in so doing he used the following language:

            I say this whole thing is absolutely wrong. It goes against 
        my Yankee common sense to have a case go on trial for 2 or 3 
        years and then have the whole thing thrown out by the Supreme 
        Court.
            They say justice is blind. Justice should not be as blind 
        as a bat. In this case it would be if a writ of habeas corpus 
        were denied.
            Why should I send a negro back from Boston to Virginia, 
        when I know and everybody knows that the Supreme Court will say 
        that the trial is illegal? The only persons who would get any 
        good out of it would be the lawyers.
            Governor Ely in signing the extradition papers was bound 
        only by the

[[Page 2143]]

        question of whether the indictment from Virginia is in order. 
        But why shouldn't I, sitting here in this court, have a 
        different constitutional outlook from the governor who sits on 
        the case merely to see if the indictment satisfies the law in 
        Virginia?
            I keep on good terms with Chief Justice Rugg, of the 
        Massachusetts Supreme Court, but I don't have to keep on good 
        terms with the chief justice of Virginia, because I don't have 
        to see him.
            I'd rather be wrong on my law than give my sanction to 
        legal nonsense.

        Seventh. I further charge that the said James A. Lowell has 
    been arbitrary, capricious, and czarlike in the administration of 
    the duties of his high office and has been grossly and willfully 
    indifferent to the rights of litigants in his court, particularly 
    in the case of George Crawford against Frank G. Hale.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Jour. 205, 206, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The charges were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. 
Smith then offered House Resolution 120, authorizing an investigation 
of such charges, which resolution was adopted by the House:

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and 
    directed, as a whole or by subcommittee, to inquire into and 
    investigate the official conduct of James A. Lowell, a district 
    judge for the United States District Court for the District of 
    Massachusetts, to determine whether in the opinion of said 
    committee 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. Said 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 purpose 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 and elsewhere, whether or 
    not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold 
    such hearings, to employ such clerical, stenographic, and other 
    assistance, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such 
    testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such 
    expenditures, not exceeding $5,000, as it deems 
    necessary.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 1933, Mr. Smith offered House Resolution 132, providing 
for payment out of the contingent fund for the expenses of the 
Committee on the Judiciary incurred under House Resolution 120. The 
resolution was referred to the Committee on Accounts and was called up 
by that committee on May 8, when it was adopted by the 
House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 233, 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 6, 1934, the House agreed to House Resolution 226, reported 
by Mr. Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, of the Committee on

[[Page 2144]]

the Judiciary, providing that no further proceedings be had under House 
Resolution 120:

        Resolved, That no further proceedings be had under H. Res. 120, 
    agreed to April 26, 1933, providing for an investigation of the 
    official conduct of James A. Lowell, United States district judge 
    for the district of Massachusetts, and that the Committee on the 
    Judiciary be discharged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 137, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against Federal Reserve Board Members

Sec. 14.5 After a Member of the House offered a resolution to impeach 
    various members and former members of the Federal Reserve Board, 
    and Federal Reserve agents, his resolution was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and not acted upon.

    On May 23, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose to a 
question of constitutional privilege and impeached on his own 
responsibility Eugene Meyer, former member of the Federal Reserve 
Board, and a number of other former members, members, and Federal 
Reserve agents. His resolution, House Resolution 1458, was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary, pursuant to a motion to refer offered 
by Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee. The committee took no action on 
the resolution.
    During debate on the resolution, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, 
rose to a point of order against the resolution, claiming it was not 
privileged because it called for the impeachment of various persons who 
were no longer U.S. civil officers. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, held that the issue presented was a constitutional question 
upon which the House and not the Chair should pass.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Jour. 298-302, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against U.S. District Judge Molyneaux

Sec. 14.6 Impeachment of U.S. District Judge Joseph Molyneaux was 
    proposed in the 73d Congress but not acted upon by the House or the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, to which the charges were referred.

    On Jan. 22, 1934, Mr. Francis H. Shoemaker, of Minnesota, 
introduced House Resolution 233, authorizing an investigation by the 
Committee on the Judiciary into the official conduct of Mr. Molyneaux, 
a U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota, to determine 
whether he was guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

[[Page 2145]]

requiring the ``interposition of the constitutional powers of the 
House.'' The resolution was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Jour. 87, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on the Judiciary having taken no action on his 
resolution, Mr. Shoemaker rose to a question of constitutional 
privilege on Apr. 20, 1934, and impeached Judge Molyneaux on his own 
responsibility. He offered charges and a resolution (H. Res. 344) 
impeaching the judge, which resolution was referred on motion to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution charged corruption in the 
appointment of receivers, in the disposal of estates, interference with 
justice, and mental senility, and dishonesty. The committee took no 
action thereon.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against U.S. Circuit Judge Alschuler

Sec. 14.7 A Member having impeached Judge Samuel Alschuler, a Circuit 
    Judge for the seventh circuit, the Committee on the Judiciary 
    reported adversely on the resolution authorizing an investigation, 
    and the resolution was laid on the table.

    On May 7, 1935, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose to a 
question of ``high constitutional privilege'' and impeached Samuel 
Alschuler, U.S. Circuit Judge for the seventh circuit. He discussed his 
charges (principally that the accused improperly favored a litigant 
before his court) and offered House Resolution 214, authorizing an 
investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution was 
referred on motion of Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Jour. 668-71, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 15, 1935, Mr. Sumners reported adversely (H. Rept. No. 
1802) on House Resolution 214, by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. Mr. Sumners moved to lay the resolution on the table, and 
the House agreed to the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against Secretary of Labor Perkins

Sec. 14.8 In the 76th Congress, a resolution was offered impeaching 
    Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins and two other officials of the 
    Department of Labor, and was referred on motion to the Committee on 
    the Judiciary.

    On Jan. 24, 1939,(17) a Member impeached certain 
officials of the

[[Page 2146]]

executive branch and introduced a resolution authorizing an 
investigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 702-11, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Impeachment of Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; James L. 
                     Houghteling; and Gerard D. Reilly

        Mr. [J. Parnell] Thomas of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, on my own 
    responsibility as a Member of the House 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: That they did willfully, unlawfully, and 
    feloniously conspire, confederate, and agree together from on or 
    about September 1, 1937, to and including this date, to commit 
    offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States 
    by failing, neglecting, and refusing to enforce the immigration 
    laws of the United States, including to wit section 137, title 8, 
    United States Code, and section 156, title 8, United States Code, 
    against Alfred Renton Bryant Bridges, alias Harry Renton Bridges, 
    alias Harry Dorgan, alias Canfield, alias Rossi, an alien, who 
    advises, advocates, or teaches and is a member of or affiliated 
    with an organization, association, society, or group that advises, 
    advocates, or teaches the overthrow by force or violence of the 
    Government of the United States, or the unlawful damage, injury, or 
    destruction of property, or sabotage; and that the aforesaid 
    Frances Perkins, James L. Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly have 
    unlawfully conspired together to release said alien after his 
    arrest on his own recognizance, without requiring a bond of not 
    less than $500; and that said Frances Perkins, James L. 
    Houghteling, and Gerard D. Reilly and each of them have committed 
    many overt acts to effect the object of said conspiracy, all in 
    violation of the Constitution of the United States in such cases 
    made and provided.
        And I further charge that 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 by 
    unlawfully conspiring together to commit offenses against the 
    United States and to defraud the United States by causing the 
    Strecker case to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United 
    States, and by failing, neglecting, and refusing to enforce section 
    137, United States Code, against other aliens illegally within the 
    United States contrary to the Constitution of the United States and 
    the statutes of the United States in such cases made and provided.
        In support of the foregoing charges and impeachment, I now 
    present a resolution setting forth specifically, facts, 
    circumstances, and allegations with a view to their consideration 
    by a committee of the House and by the House itself to determine 
    their truth or falsity.

[[Page 2147]]

        Mr. Speaker, I offer the following resolution and ask that it 
    be considered at this time.
        The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 67

            Whereas Frances Perkins, of New York, was nominated by the 
        President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate of the 
        United States, duly qualified and commissioned on March 4, 
        1933, and has since March 4, 1933, without further nominations 
        or confirmations, acted as Secretary of Labor and as a civil 
        officer of the United States.

            Whereas James L. Houghteling, of Illinois, was nominated by 
        the President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate of 
        the United States, duly qualified and commissioned on August 4, 
        1937, as Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization 
        Service of the Department of Labor and has since August 4, 
        1937, without further nominations or confirmations, acted as 
        Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of 
        the Department of Labor and as a civil officer of the United 
        States.
            Whereas Gerard D. Reilly, of Massachusetts, was nominated 
        by the President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate 
        of the United States, duly qualified and commissioned on August 
        10, 1937, as Solicitor of the Department of Labor, and has 
        since August 10, 1937, without further nominations or 
        confirmations, acted as Solicitor of the Department of Labor 
        and as a civil officer of the United States.
            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.

    The resolution was referred as follows:

        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.

[[Page 2148]]

        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 14.9 The Committee on the Judiciary agreed unanimously to report 
    adversely the resolution urging an investigation of Secretary of 
    Labor Frances Perkins and the House agreed to a motion to lay the 
    resolution on the table.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(19) charges of impeachment against 
Secretary of Labor Perkins were finally and adversely disposed of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Impeachment Proceedings--Frances Perkins

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary I present a privileged report upon House 
    Resolution 67, which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read House Resolution 67.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, this is a unanimous report from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary adversing this resolution. I move to lay 
    the resolution on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Alabama to lay the resolution on the table.
        The motion was agreed to.

Charges Against U.S. District Judges Johnson and Watson

Sec. 14.10 The House authorized the Committee on the Judiciary to 
    investigate allegations of impeachable offenses charged against 
    U.S. District Court Judges Johnson and Watson but no final report 
    was submitted.

    On Jan. 24, 1944, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, introduced House 
Resolution 406 authorizing an investigation by the Committee on the 
Judiciary into the conduct of U.S. District Court Judges Albert Johnson 
and Albert Watson from Pennsylvania. The resolution was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 407, also introduced by 
Mr. Sumners and providing for the expenses of the committee in 
conducting such an investigation, was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Jour. 46, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 26, 1944, Mr. Sumners called up by direction of the 
Committee on the Judiciary House Resolution 406, authorizing the 
investigation and the House agreed thereto.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Extensive hearings, presided over by Mr. 
Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee,

[[Page 2149]]

were held relative to the conduct of Judge Johnson. The subcommittee 
report recommended impeachment based on evidence of corrupt practices 
and acts including corrupt appointment to court offices. Judge Johnson 
having resigned, the Committee on the Judiciary discontinued the 
proceedings.

Charges Against President Truman

Sec. 14.11 In the 82d Congress, a resolution proposing an inquiry as to 
    whether President Harry Truman should be impeached was referred to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, which took no action thereon.

    On Apr. 23, 1952,(3) a resolution relating to 
impeachment was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which took 
no action thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 4325, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            By Mr. [George H.] Bender [of Ohio]:

        H. Res. 607. Resolution creating a select committee to inquire 
    and report to the House whether Harry S. Truman, President of the 
    United States, shall be impeached; to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

Sec. 14.12 A petition was filed to discharge the Committee on the 
    Judiciary from the further consideration of a resolution impeaching 
    President Harry Truman but did not gain the requisite number of 
    signatures.

    On June 17, 1952, Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, announced that 
he was filing a petition to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary 
from the further consideration of House Resolution 614, impeaching 
President Truman: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 7424, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schafer: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 of this year I introduced 
    House Resolution 614, to impeach Harry S. Truman, President of the 
    United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. This 
    resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which 
    committee has failed to take action thereon.
        Thirty legislative days having now elapsed since introduction 
    of this resolution, I today have placed on the Clerk's desk a 
    petition to discharge the committee from further consideration of 
    the resolution.
        In my judgment, developments since I introduced the Resolution 
    April 28 have immeasurably enlarged and strengthened the case for 
    impeachment and have added new urgency for such action by this 
    House.
        First. Since the introduction of this resolution, the United 
    States Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 vote, has held that in his 
    seizure of the steel mills Harry S. Truman, President of the United

[[Page 2150]]

    States, exceeded his authority and powers, violated the 
    Constitution of the United States, and flouted the expressed will 
    and intent of the Congress--and, in so finding, the Court gave 
    unprecedented warnings against the threat to freedom and 
    constitutional government implicit in his act.
        Second. Despite the President's technical compliance with the 
    finding of the Court, prior to the Court decision he reasserted his 
    claim to the powers then in question, and subsequent to that 
    decision he has contemptuously called into question ``the intention 
    of the Court's majority'' and contemptuously attributed the limits 
    set on the President's powers not to Congress, or to the Court, or 
    to the Constitution, but to ``the Court's majority.''
        Third. The Court, in its finding in the steel case, emphasized 
    not only the unconstitutionality of the Presidential seizure but 
    also stressed his failure to utilize and exhaust existing and 
    available legal resources for dealing with the situation, including 
    the Taft-Hartley law.
        Fourth. The President's failure and refusal to utilize and 
    exhaust existing and available legal resources for dealing with the 
    emergency has persisted since the Court decision and in spite of 
    clear and unmistakable evidence of the will and intent of Congress 
    given in response to his latest request for special legislation 
    authorizing seizure or other special procedures.

    The discharge petition, No. 14, was not signed by a majority of the 
Members of the House and was therefore not eligible for consideration 
in the House under Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 
(1973).

Charges Against Judges Murrah, Chandler, and Bohanon

Sec. 14.13 A resolution authorizing an investigation in the 89th 
    Congress into the conduct of three federal judges was referred to 
    the Committee on Rules but not acted on.

    On Feb. 22, 1966, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, introduced House 
Resolution 739, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire 
into and investigate the conduct of Alfred Murrah, Chief Judge of the 
10th Circuit, Stephen Chandler, District Judge, Western District of 
Oklahoma, and Luther Bohanon, District Judge, Eastern, Northern, and 
Western Districts of Oklahoma, in order to determine whether any of the 
three judges had been guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. The 
resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 3665, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gross stated the purpose of the resolution as follows:

        Mr. Segal, Judge John Biggs, Jr., the chairman of the judicial 
    conference committee on court administration,

[[Page 2151]]

    and Mr. Joseph Borkin, Washington attorney and author of the book, 
    ``The Corrupt Judge,'' were in agreement that impeachment is the 
    only remedy available today for action against judicial misconduct.
        Both Mr. Borkin and the chairman of the subcommittee emphasized 
    the serious problem that has arisen in Oklahoma where the Judicial 
    Council of the 10th Judicial Circuit made an attempt to bar Judge 
    Stephen S. Chandler from handling cases because it was stated he 
    was ``either unwilling or unable'' to perform his judicial 
    functions adequately.
        Mr. Borkin, a man with an impressive background in the study of 
    the problems of corruption and misconduct in the judiciary, pointed 
    out that Judge Chandler, in return, has made serious charges of 
    attempted bribery and other misconduct against two other judges--
    Alfred P. Murrah, chief judge, 10th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, 
    and Luther Bohanon, district judge, U.S. District Court for the 
    Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
        Mr. Borkin stressed that this dispute in Oklahoma has been an 
    upsetting factor in the Federal courts in Oklahoma since 1962, and 
    he declared that these charges should not be permitted to stand. He 
    emphasized that there can be no compromise short of a full 
    investigation to clear the judges or to force their removal.
        I agree with Mr. Borkin that great damage has been done because 
    the courts, the executive branch, and the Congress have taken no 
    effective steps to clear up this scandalous situation. I have 
    waited patiently for months, and I have hoped that the Justice 
    Department, the courts, or the Congress would initiate or suggest a 
    proper legal investigation to clear the air and put an end to this 
    outrageous situation in the judiciary in the 10th circuit.
        There has been no effective action taken, or even started. 
    Therefore, I am today instituting the only action available to try 
    to get to the bottom of this.
        I have introduced a House resolution authorizing and directing 
    the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the conduct of 
    the three Federal judges in Oklahoma involved in this controversy. 
    Upon its finding of fact, the House Judiciary Committee would be 
    empowered to institute impeachment proceedings or make any other 
    recommendations it deems proper.
        The committee would also be empowered to require the attendance 
    of witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents--including financial statements, contracts, and bank 
    accounts--as it deems necessary.
        The resolution in no way establishes the guilt of the 
    principals involved. It is necessary to the launching of an 
    investigation for the purpose of determining the facts essential to 
    an intelligent conclusion and eliminating the cloud now hanging 
    over the Federal judiciary.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 3653.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules took no action on the resolution.

Charges Against Associate Supreme Court Justice Douglas

Sec. 14.14 When the Minority Leader criticized the conduct

[[Page 2152]]

    of Associate Justice William O. Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court 
    during a special order speech in the 91st Congress and suggested 
    the creation of a select committee to investigate such conduct to 
    determine whether impeachment was warranted, another Member 
    announced on the floor that he was introducing a resolution of 
    impeachment; the resolution was referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Apr. 15, 1970, Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, took 
the floor for a special order speech in which he criticized the conduct 
of Associate Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Ford 
suggested that a select committee of the House be created to 
investigate such conduct in order to determine whether impeachment 
proceedings might be warranted.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 11912-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Mr. Ford discussed the 
        standard for impeachable offenses and concluded in part that 
        such an offense was ``whatever a majority of the House of 
        Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in 
        history.'' Id. at p. 11913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, then took the floor under a 
special order speech to discuss the same subject. He yielded time to 
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, as follows:

        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.

    At this point Mr. Jacobs introduced the resolution by placing it in 
the hopper at the Clerk's desk.

        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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Jacobs' resolution, House Resolution 920, which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary (10) declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 11942. For a similar resolution proposed in the 83d 
        Congress, but not acted upon, impeaching Justice Douglas, see 
        H. Res. 290, introduced June 17, 1953, 99 Cong. Rec. 6760, 83d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 2153]]

        Resolved, That William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the 
    Supreme Court of the United States be impeached [for] high crimes 
    and misdemeanors and misbehavior in office.

    Other resolutions, all of which called for the creation of a select 
committee to conduct an investigation and to determine whether 
impeachment proceedings were warranted, were referred to the Committee 
on Rules. For example, House Resolution 922, introduced by Mr. Wyman, 
with 24 cosponsors, read as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 922 was referred to the Committee on Rules. 116 Cong. Rec. 
        12130, 12131, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 16, 1970.
            See also H. Res. 923, H. Res. 924, H. Res. 925, H. Res. 
        926, H. Res. 927, H. Res. 928, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas, the Constitution of the United States provides in 
    Article III, Section 1, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall 
    hold office only ``during good behavior'', and
        Whereas, the Constitution also provides in Article II, Section 
    4, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from Office 
    on Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and
        Whereas the Constitution also provides in Article VI that 
    Justices of the Supreme Court shall be bound by ``Oath or 
    Affirmation to support this Constitution'' and the United States 
    Code (5 U.S.C. 16) prescribes the following form of oath which was 
    taken and sworn to by William Orville Douglas prior to his 
    accession to incumbency on the United States Supreme Court:

            I, William Orville Douglas, do solemnly swear that I will 
        support and defend the Constitution of the United States 
        against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear 
        true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this 
        obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of 
        evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the 
        duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me 
        God.
    and

        Whereas, integrity and objectivity in respect to issues and 
    causes to be presented to the United States Supreme Court for final 
    determination make it mandatory that Members thereof refrain from 
    public advocacy of a position on any matter that may come before 
    the High Court lest public confidence in this constitutionally co-
    equal judicial body be undermined, and
        Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas has, on frequent 
    occasions in published writings, speeches, lectures and statements, 
    declared a personal position on issues to come before the United 
    States Supreme Court indicative of a prejudiced and nonjudicial 
    attitude incompatible with good behavior and contrary to the 
    requirements of judicial decorum obligatory upon the Federal 
    judiciary in general and members of the United States Supreme Court 
    in particular, and
        Whereas, by the aforementioned conduct and writings, the said 
    William Orville Douglas has established himself before the public, 
    including liti

[[Page 2154]]

    gants whose lives, rights and future are seriously affected by 
    decisions of the Court of which the said William Orville Douglas is 
    a member, as a partisan advocate and not as a judge, and
        Whereas, by indicating in advance of Supreme Court decisions, 
    on the basis of declared, printed, or quoted convictions, how he 
    would decide matters in controversy pending and to become pending 
    before the Court of which he is a member, the said William Orville 
    Douglas has committed the high misdemeanor of undermining the 
    integrity of the highest constitutional Court in America, and has 
    willfully and deliberately undermined public confidence in the said 
    Court as an institution, and
        Whereas, contrary to his Oath of Office as well as patently in 
    conflict with the Canons of Ethics for the Judiciary of the 
    American Bar Association, the said William Orville Douglas 
    nevertheless on February 19, 1970, did publish and publicly 
    distribute throughout the United States, statements encouraging, 
    aggravating and inciting violence, anarchy and civil unrest in the 
    form of a book entitled ``Points of Rebellion'' in which the said 
    William Orville Douglas, all the while an incumbent on the Highest 
    Court of last resort in the United States, stated, among other 
    things, that:

            But where grievances pile high and most of the elected 
        spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only 
        effective response. (pp. 88-89, ``Points of Rebellion,'' Random 
        House, Inc., February 19, 1970, William O. Douglas.)
            The special interests that control government use its 
        powers to favor themselves and to perpetuate regimes of 
        oppression, exploitation, and discrimination against the many 
        (ibid, p. 92).
            People march and protest but they are not heard (ibid, p. 
        88).
            Where there is a persistent sense of futility, there is 
        violence; and that is where we are today (ibid, p. 56).
            The two parties have become almost indistinguishable; and 
        each is controlled by the Establishment. The modern day 
        dissenters and protesters are functioning as the loyal 
        opposition functions in England. They are the mounting voice of 
        political opposition to the status quo, calling for 
        revolutionary changes in our institutions. Yet the powers-that-
        be faintly echo Adolph Hitler (ibid, p. 57).
            Yet American protesters need not be submissive. A speaker 
        who resists arrest is acting as a free man (ibid, p. 6).
            We must realize that today's Establishment is the new 
        George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, 
        we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, 
        is also revolution (ibid, p. 95).
and thus willfully and deliberately fanned the fires of unrest, 
rebellion, and revolution in the United States, and

        Whereas, in the April 1970 issue of Evergreen Magazine, the 
    said William Orville Douglas for pay did, while an incumbent on the 
    United States Supreme Court, publish an article entitled Redress 
    and Revolution, appearing on page 41 of said issue immediately 
    following a malicious caricature of the President of the United 
    States as George III, as well as photographs of nudes engaging in 
    various acts of sexual intercourse, in which article the said 
    William Orville Douglas again wrote for pay that:

            George III was the symbol against which our Founders made a 
        revolution now considered bright and glorious. . . . We must 
        realize that to

[[Page 2155]]

        day's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will 
        continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, 
        the redress, honored in tradition, is also Revolution.

    and

        Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas, prepared, authored, 
    and received payment for an article which appeared in the March 
    1969 issue of the magazine, Avant Garde, published by Ralph 
    Ginzburg, previously convicted of sending obscene literature 
    through the United States Mails, (see 383 U.S. 463) at a time when 
    the said Ralph Ginzburg was actively pursuing an appeal from his 
    conviction upon a charge of malicious libel before the Supreme 
    Court of the United States, yet nevertheless the said William 
    Orville Douglas, as a sitting member of the Supreme Court of the 
    United States, knowing full well his own financial relationship 
    with this litigant before the Court, sat in judgment on the 
    Ginzburg appeal, all in clear violation and conflict with his Oath 
    of Office, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and Federal law (396 U.S. 
    1049), and
        Whereas, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court 
    the said William Orville Douglas for hire has served and is 
    reported to still serve as a Director and as Chairman of the 
    Executive Committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic 
    Institutions in Santa Barbara, California, a politically oriented 
    action organization which, among other things, has organized 
    national conferences designed to seek detente with the Soviet Union 
    and openly encouraged student radicalism, and

        Whereas, the said Center for the Study of Democratic 
    Institutions, in violation of the Logan Act, sponsored and financed 
    a ``Pacem in Terris II Convocation'' at Geneva, Switzerland, May 
    28-31, 1967, to discuss foreign affairs and U.S. foreign policy 
    including the ``Case of Vietnam'' and the ``Case of Germany'', to 
    which Ho Chi Minh was publicly invited, and all while the United 
    States was in the midst of war in which Communists directed by the 
    same Ho Chi Minh were killing American boys fighting to give South 
    Vietnam the independence and freedom from aggression we had 
    promised that Nation, and from this same Center there were paid to 
    the said William Orville Douglas fees of $500 per day for Seminars 
    and Articles, and
        Whereas, paid activity of this type by a sitting Justice of the 
    Supreme Court of the United States is contrary to his Oath of 
    Office to uphold the United States Constitution, violative the 
    Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Association and is believed to 
    constitute misdemeanors of the most fundamental type in the context 
    in which that term appears in the United States Constitution 
    (Article II, Section 4) as well as failing to constitute ``good 
    behavior'' as that term appears in the Constitution (Article III, 
    Section 1), upon which the tenure of all Federal judges is 
    expressly conditioned, and
        Whereas, moneys paid to the said William Orville Douglas from 
    and by the aforementioned Center are at least as follows: 1962, 
    $900; 1963, $800; 1965, $1,000; 1966, $1,000; 1968, $1,100; 1969, 
    $2,000; all during tenure on the United States Supreme Court, and 
    all while a Director on a Board of Directors that meets (and met) 
    biannually to determine the general policies of the Center, and

[[Page 2156]]

        Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas, contrary to his 
    sworn obligation to refrain therefrom and in violation of the 
    Canons of Ethics, has repeatedly engaged in political activity 
    while an incumbent of the High Court, evidenced in part by his 
    authorization for the use of his name in a recent political fund-
    raising letter, has continued public advocacy of the recognition of 
    Red China by the United States, has publicly criticized the 
    military posture of the United States, has authored for pay several 
    articles on subjects patently related to causes pending or to be 
    pending before the United States Supreme Court in Playboy Magazine 
    on such subjects as invasions of privacy and civil liberties, and 
    most recently has expressed in Brazil public criticism of United 
    States foreign policy while on a visit to Brazil in 1969, plainly 
    designed to undermine public confidence in South and Latin American 
    countries in the motives and objectives of the foreign policy of 
    the United States in Latin America, and
        Whereas, in addition to the foregoing, and while a sitting 
    Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, the said William 
    Orville Douglas has charged, been paid and received $12,000 per 
    annum as President and Director of the Parvin Foundation from 1960 
    to 1969, which Foundation received substantial income from gambling 
    interests in the Freemont Casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as 
    the Flamingo at the same location, accompanied by innumerable 
    conflicts of interest and overlapping financial maneuvers 
    frequently involved in litigation the ultimate appeal from which 
    could only be to the Supreme Court of which the said William 
    Orville Douglas was and is a member, the tenure of the said William 
    Orville Douglas with the Parvin Foundation being reported to have 
    existed since 1960 in the capacity of President, and resulting in 
    the receipt by the said William Orville Douglas from the Parvin 
    Foundation of fees aggregating at least $85,000, all while a member 
    of the United States Supreme Court, and all while referring to 
    Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Parvin Foundation 
    while a Justice of the United States Supreme Court as a 
    ``manufactured case'' intended to force him to leave the bench all 
    while he was still President and Director of the said Foundation 
    and was earning a $12,000 annual salary in those posts, a patent 
    conflict of interest, and
        Whereas, it has been repeatedly alleged that the said William 
    Orville Douglas in his position as President of the Parvin 
    Foundation did in fact give the said Foundation tax advice, with 
    particular reference to matters known by the said William Orville 
    Douglas at the time to have been under investigation by the United 
    States Internal Revenue Service, all contrary to the basic legal 
    and judicial requirement that a Supreme Court Justice may not give 
    legal advice, and particularly not for a fee, and
        Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas has, from time to 
    time over the past ten years, had dealings with, involved himself 
    with, and may actually have received fees and travel expenses, 
    either directly or indirectly, from known criminals, gamblers, and 
    gangsters or their representatives and associates, for services, 
    both within the United States and abroad, and
        Whereas, the foregoing conduct on the part of the said William 
    Orville

[[Page 2157]]

    Douglas while a Justice of the Supreme Court is incompatible with 
    his constitutional obligation to refrain from non-judicial activity 
    of a patently unethical nature, and
        Whereas, the foregoing conduct and other activities on the part 
    of the said William Orville Douglas while a sitting Justice on the 
    United States Supreme Court, establishes that the said William 
    Orville Douglas in the conduct of his solemn judicial 
    responsibilities has become a prejudiced advocate of predetermined 
    position on matters in controversy or to become in controversy 
    before the High Court to the demonstrated detriment of American 
    jurisprudence, and
        Whereas, from the foregoing, and without reference to whatever 
    additional relevant information may be developed through 
    investigation under oath, it appears that the said William Orville 
    Douglas, among other things, has sat in judgment on a case 
    involving a party from whom the said William Orville Douglas to his 
    knowledge received financial gain, as well as that the said William 
    Orville Douglas for personal financial gain, while a member of the 
    United States Supreme Court, has encouraged violence to alter the 
    present form of government of the United States of America, and has 
    received and accepted substantial financial compensation from 
    various sources for various duties incompatible with his judicial 
    position and constitutional obligation, and has publicly and 
    repeatedly, both orally and in writings, declared himself a 
    partisan on issues pending or likely to become pending before the 
    Court of which he is a member: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, That--
        (1) The Speaker of the House shall within fourteen days 
    hereafter appoint a select committee of six Members of the House, 
    equally divided between the majority and the minority parties and 
    shall designate one member to serve as chairman, which select 
    committee shall proceed to investigate and determine whether 
    Associate Justice William Orville Douglas has committed high crimes 
    and misdemeanors as that phrase appears in the Constitution, 
    Article II, Section 4, or has, while an incumbent, failed to be of 
    the good behavior upon which his Commission as said Justice is 
    conditioned by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The select 
    committee shall report to the House the results of its 
    investigation, together with its recommendations on this resolution 
    for impeachment of the said William Orville Douglas not later than 
    ninety days following the designation of its full membership by the 
    Speaker.
        (2) For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the 
    committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and 
    act during the present Congress at such times and places within the 
    United States whether the House is sitting, has recessed, or has 
    adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require by subpena or 
    otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, 
    papers, and documents as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued 
    under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any member 
    of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any person 
    designated by such chairman or member.

[[Page 2158]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Apr. 24, 1970, Chairman William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, of the Committee on Rules stated that pursuant 
to the statement of Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, that the latter committee would hold 
hearings and take action on the impeachment within 60 days, he would 
not program for consideration by the Committee on Rules the resolutions 
creating a select committee to study the charges of impeachment.

Sec. 14.15 A subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary 
    investigated charges of impeachable offenses against Associate 
    Justice William O. Douglas and issued an interim report.

    On June 20, 1970, the special subcommittee of the Committee on the 
Judiciary on House Resolution 920, impeaching Associate Justice 
Douglas, issued an interim report on the progress of its investigation 
of the charges.(12) The creation of the subcommittee and 
scope of its authority was set out on the first page of the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. First report by the special subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, committee print, 91st Cong; 2d 
        Sess., June 20, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                I. Authority

        On April 21, 1970, the Committee on the Judiciary adopted a 
    resolution to authorize the appointment of a Special Subcommittee 
    on H. Res. 920, a resolution impeaching William O. Douglas, 
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, of 
    high crimes and misdemeanors in office. Pursuant to this 
    resolution, the following members were appointed: Emanuel Celler 
    (New York), Chairman; Byron G. Rogers (Colorado); Jack Brooks 
    (Texas); William M. McCulloch (Ohio); and Edward Hutchinson 
    (Michigan).
        The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 is appointed and 
    operates under the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule XI, 
    13(f) empowers the Committee on the Judiciary to act on all 
    proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, or other 
    matters relating to ``. . . Federal courts and judges.'' In the 
    91st Congress, Rule XI has been implemented by H. Res. 93, February 
    5, 1969. H. Res. 93 authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    acting as a whole or by subcommittee, to conduct full and complete 
    investigations and studies on the matters coming within its 
    jurisdiction, specifically ``. . . (4) relating to judicial 
    proceedings and the administration of Federal courts and personnel 
    thereof, including local courts in territories and possessions''.
        H. Res. 93 empowers the Committee to issue subpenas, over the 
    signature of the Chairman of the Committee or any Member of the 
    Committee designated by him. Subpenas issued by

[[Page 2159]]

    the Committee may be served by any person designated by the 
    Chairman or such designated Member.

        On April 28, 1970, the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 held 
    its organization meeting, appointed staff, and adopted procedures 
    to be applied during the investigation. Although the power to issue 
    subpenas is available, and the Subcommittee is prepared to use 
    subpenas if necessary to carry out this investigation, thus far all 
    potential witnesses have been cooperative and it has not been 
    necessary to employ this investigatory tool. The Special 
    Subcommittee operates under procedures established in paragraph 27, 
    Rules of Committee Procedure, of Rule XI of the House of 
    Representatives. These procedures will be followed until additional 
    rules are adopted, which, on the basis of precedent in other 
    impeachment proceedings, are determined by the Special Subcommittee 
    to be appropriate.

    The subcommittee held no hearings but gathered information on the 
various charges contained in House Resolution 922. As stated in the 
report, the subcommittee requested inspection of tax returns of Justice 
Douglas. Pursuant to advice by the Internal Revenue Service that a 
special resolution of the full committee would be required, as well as 
an executive order by the President, the committee adopted the 
following resolution on May 26, 1970:

     Resolution for Special Subcommittee to Consider House Resolution 
                                    920

        Resolved, That the Special Subcommittee to consider H. Res. 
    920, a resolution impeaching William O. Douglas, Associate Justice 
    of the Supreme Court of the United States, of high crimes and 
    misdemeanors in office, hereby is authorized and directed to obtain 
    and inspect from the Internal Revenue Service any and all materials 
    and information relevant to its investigation in the files of the 
    Internal Revenue Service, including tax returns, investigative 
    reports, or other documents, that the Special Subcommittee to 
    consider H. Res. 920 determines to be within the scope of H. Res. 
    920 and the various related resolutions that have been introduced 
    into the House of Representatives.
        The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 is authorized to make 
    such requests to the Internal Revenue Service as the Subcommittee 
    determines to be appropriate, and the Subcommittee is authorized to 
    amend its requests to designate such additional persons, taxpayers, 
    tax returns, investigative reports, and other documents as the 
    Subcommittee determines to be appropriate during the course of this 
    investigation.
        The Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 may designate agents to 
    examine and receive information from the Internal Revenue Service.
        This resolution specifically authorizes and directs the Special 
    Subcommittee to obtain and inspect from the Internal Revenue 
    Service the documents and other file materials described in the 
    letter dated May 12, 1970, from Chairman Emanuel Celler to the 
    Honorable Randolph Thrower. The tax returns for the following 
    taxpayers, and the returns for such additional taxpayers as the 
    Subcommittee subsequently may request, are included in this 
    resolution:

[[Page 2160]]

            Associate Justice William O. Douglas, Supreme Court of the 
        United States, Washington, D. C. 20036.
            Albert Parvin, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1790, 
        Century City, Calif. 90067.
            Albert Parvin Foundation, c/o Arnold & Porter, 1229-19th 
        Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
            The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Box 
        4068, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93103.
            Fund for the Republic, 136 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 
        10022.
            Parvin-Dohrmann Corp., (Now Recrion Corp.), 120 N. 
        Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif. 90048.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Subcommittee report at pp. 18, 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The President subsequently issued the following executive order:

    Inspection of Tax Returns by the Committee on the Judiciary, House 
                             of Representatives

        By virtue of the authority vested in me by sections 55(a) and 
    1604(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended (26 U.S.C. 
    (1952 ea.) 55(a), 1604(c)), and by sections 6103(a) and 6106 of the 
    Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6103(a), 
    6106), it is hereby ordered that any income, excess-profits, 
    estate, gift, unemployment, or excise tax return, including all 
    reports, documents, or other factual data relating thereto, shall, 
    during the Ninety-first Congress, be open to inspection by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, in connection with its 
    consideration of House Resolution 920, a resolution impeaching 
    William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
    United States. Whenever a return is open to inspection by such 
    Committee or subcommittee, a copy thereof shall, upon request, be 
    furnished to such Committee or subcommittee. Such inspection shall 
    be in accordance and upon compliance with the rules and regulations 
    prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in Treasury Decisions 
    6132 and 6133, relating to the inspection of returns by committees 
    of the Congress, approved by the President on May 3, 
    1955.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Exec. Order No. 11535, issued June 12, 1970, subcommittee report at 
        p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subcommittee recommended in its first report that the Committee 
on the Judiciary authorize an additional 60 days for the subcommittee 
to complete its investigation.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Subcommittee report at pp. 25, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.16 In its final report on its investigation into charges of 
    impeachment against Associate Justice William O. Douglas, a 
    subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary concluded that a 
    federal judge could be impeached (1) for judicial conduct which is 
    criminal or which is a serious dereliction from public duty, and 
    (2) for nonjudicial conduct which is criminal; the subcommittee 
    recommended that the evidence

[[Page 2161]]

    against Justice Douglas did not warrant impeachment.

    On Sept. 17, 1970, the Special Subcommittee on House Resolution 920 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, which subcommittee had been created 
by the committee to investigate and report on charges of impeachment 
against Associate Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court, submitted its 
final report to the committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Final report by the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, committee print, Committee on the 
        Judiciary, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report cited the 60-day extension granted the subcommittee by 
the Committee on the Judiciary on June 24, 1970, to complete its 
investigation. The report summarized the further investigation 
undertaken during the 60-day period and the additional requests for 
information from the Department of State, the Central Intelligence 
Agency, and various individuals.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The subcommittee issued on Aug. 11, 1970, a special subcommittee 
        publication entitled ``Legal Materials on Impeachment,'' 
        containing briefs on the impeachment of Justice Douglas, 
        information from the Library of Congress, and relevant extracts 
        from Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report discussed concepts of impeachment and grounds for 
impeachment of federal civil officers and of federal judges in 
particular. The report concluded as follows on the grounds for 
impeachment of a federal judge:

        Reconciliation of the differences between the concept that a 
    judge has a right to his office during ``good behavior'' and the 
    concept that the legislature has a duty to remove him if his 
    conduct constitutes a ``misdemeanor'' is facilitated by 
    distinguishing conduct that occurs in connection with the exercise 
    of his judicial office from conduct that is non-judicially 
    connected. Such a distinction permits recognition that the content 
    of the word ``misdemeanor'' for conduct that occurs in the course 
    of exercise of the power of the judicial office includes a broader 
    spectrum of action than is the case when nonjudicial activities are 
    involved.
        When such a distinction is made, the two concepts on the 
    necessity for judicial conduct to be criminal in nature to be 
    subject to impeachment becomes defined and may be reconciled under 
    the overriding requirement that to be a ``misdemeanor,'' and hence 
    impeachable, conduct must amount to a serious dereliction of an 
    obligation owed to society.

        To facilitate exposition, the two concepts may be summarized as 
    follows:

            Both concepts must satisfy the requirements of Article II, 
        Section 4, that the challenged activity must constitute ``. . . 
        Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
            Both concepts would allow a judge to be impeached for acts 
        which occur in the exercise of judicial office that

[[Page 2162]]

        (1) involve criminal conduct in violation of law, or (2) that 
        involve serious dereliction from public duty, but not 
        necessarily in violation of positive statutory law or forbidden 
        by the common law. . . . When such misbehavior occurs in 
        connection with the federal office, actual criminal conduct 
        should not be a requisite to impeachment of a judge or any 
        other federal official. While such conduct need not be 
        criminal, it nonetheless must be sufficiently serious to be 
        offenses [sic] against good morals and injurious to the social 
        body.
            Both concepts would allow a judge to be impeached for 
        conduct not connected with the duties and responsibilities of 
        the judicial office which involve criminal acts in violation of 
        law.
            The two concepts differ only with respect to impeachability 
        of judicial behavior not connected with the duties and 
        responsibilities of the judicial office. Concept 2 would define 
        ``misdemeanor'' to permit impeachment for serious derelictions 
        of public duty but not necessarily violations of statutory or 
        common law.

        In summary, an outline of the two concepts would look this way:
        A judge may be impeached for ``. . . Treason, Bribery, or High 
    Crimes or Misdemeanors.''
        A. Behavior, connected with judicial office or exercise of 
    judicial power.
        Concept I

            1. Criminal conduct.
            2. Serious dereliction from public duty.

        Concept II

            1. Criminal conduct.
            2. Serious dereliction from public duty.

        B. Behavior not connected with the duties and responsibilities 
    of the judicial office.
        Concept I

            1. Criminal conduct.

        Concept II

            1. Criminal conduct.
            2. Serious dereliction from public duty.

        Chapter III, Disposition of Charges sets forth the Special 
    Subcommittee's analysis of the charges that involve activities of 
    Associate Justice William O. Douglas. Under this analysis it is not 
    necessary for the members of the Judiciary Committee to choose 
    between Concept I and II.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Special subcommittee report at pp. 37-39. For the entire portion of 
        the subcommittee report entitled ``Concepts of Impeachment'', 
        see Sec. 3.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subcommittee's recommendation to the full committee read as 
follows:

     IV. Recommendations of Special Subcommittee to Judiciary Committee

        1. It is not necessary for the members of the Judiciary 
    Committee to take a position on either of the concepts of 
    impeachment that are discussed in Chapter II.
        2. Intensive investigation of the Special Subcommittee has not 
    disclosed creditable evidence that would warrant preparation of 
    charges on any acceptable concept of an impeachable 
    offense.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Special subcommittee report at p. 349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Emanuel Celler,
                          Byron G. Rogers,
                          Jack Brooks.

[[Page 2163]]

    The report included minority views of Mr. Edward Hutchinson, of 
Michigan, stating (1) that the portion of the report on concepts of 
impeachment was mere dicta under the circumstances and (2) that the 
investigation was incomplete and should have been further pursued, not 
only as to impeachment for improper conduct but also as to other action 
such as censure or official rebuke:

        The report contains a chapter on the Concepts of Impeachment. 
    At the same time, it takes the position that it is unnecessary to 
    choose among the concepts mentioned because it finds no impeachable 
    offense under any. It is evident, therefore, that while a 
    discussion of the theory of impeachment is interesting, it is 
    unnecessary to a resolution of the case as the Subcommittee views 
    it. This chapter on Concepts is nothing more than dicta under the 
    circumstances. Certainly the Subcommittee should not even 
    indirectly narrow the power of the House to impeach through a 
    recitation of two or three theories and a very apparent choice of 
    one over the others, while at the same time asserting that no 
    choice is necessary. The Subcommittee's report adopts the view that 
    a Federal judge cannot be impeached unless he is found to have 
    committed a crime, or a serious indiscretion in his judicially 
    connected activities. Although it is purely dicta, inclusion of 
    this chapter in the report may be mischievous since it might 
    unjustifiably restrict the scope of further investigation.
        The Subcommittee's report, which is called a final report, 
    addresses itself only to the question of impeachment. Admittedly no 
    investigation has been undertaken to determine whether some of the 
    Justice's activities, if not impeachable, seem so improper as to 
    merit congressional censure or other official criticism by the 
    House. There is considerable precedent for censure or other 
    official rebuke even though a particular activity, while improper, 
    was found not impeachable. This Subcommittee, however, did not 
    investigate with the thoroughness requisite for judging 
    questionable activities short of impeachment. The majority 
    concludes that it finds no grounds for impeachment and stops there. 
    In my opinion, it should have pursued the matter further. 
    (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 351, 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on the Judiciary discontinued further proceedings 
against Justice Douglas, and the matter was not further considered by 
the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For remarks on the final subcommittee report and the Judiciary 
        Committee's failure to act on the final report, see 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 43147, 43148, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 21, 1970 (remarks 
        of Mr. David W. Dennis [Ind.]). For the minority views on the 
        report of Mr. Hutchinson, printed in the Record, see 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 43486, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 22, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Against Vice President Agnew

Sec. 14.17 The Speaker laid before the House in the 93d Con

[[Page 2164]]

    gress a communication from Vice President Spiro Agnew requesting 
    the House to initiate an investigation of charges which might 
    ``assume the character of impeachable offenses,'' made against him 
    during an investigation by a U.S. Attorney, and offering the House 
    full cooperation in such a House investigation. No action was taken 
    on the request.

    On Sept. 25, 1973,(2) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a communication from Vice President Agnew 
requesting that the House investigate certain charges brought against 
him by a U.S. Attorney:

        The Speaker laid before the House the following communication 
    from the Vice President of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 31368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             The Vice President,
                                   Washington, September 25, 1973.
                                                   Hon. Carl Albert,
              Speaker of the House of Representatives, the House of 
                                   Representatives, Washington, D.C.

            Dear Mr. Speaker: I respectfully request that the House of 
        Representatives undertake a full inquiry into the charges which 
        have apparently been made against me in the course of an 
        investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of 
        Maryland.
            This request is made in the dual interests of preserving 
        the Constitutional stature of my Office and accomplishing my 
        personal vindication.
            After the most careful study, my counsel have advised me 
        that the Constitution bars a criminal proceeding of any kind--
        federal or state, county or town--against a President or Vice 
        President while he holds office.
            Accordingly, I cannot acquiesce in any criminal proceeding 
        being lodged against me in Maryland or elsewhere. And I cannot 
        look to any such proceeding for vindication.
            In these circumstances, I believe, it is the right and duty 
        of the Vice President to turn to the House. A closely parallel 
        precedent so suggests.
            Almost a century and a half ago, Vice President Calhoun was 
        beset with charges of improper participation in the profits of 
        an Army contract made while he had been Secretary of War. On 
        December 29, 1826, he addressed to your Body a communication 
        whose eloquent language I can better quote than rival:
            ``An imperious sense of duty, and a sacred regard to the 
        honor of the station which I occupy, compel me to approach your 
        body in its high character of grand inquest of the nation.
            ``Charges have been made against me of the most serious 
        nature, and which, if true ought to degrade me from the high 
        station in which I have been placed by the choice of my fellow-
        citizens, and to consign my name to perpetual infamy.
            ``In claiming the investigation of the House, I am sensible 
        that, under our free and happy institutions, the conduct of 
        public servants is a fair subject of the closest scrutiny and 
        the freest remarks, and that a firm and faithful discharge of 
        duty affords, ordinarily, ample protection against political 
        attacks; but, when such attacks assume the character of 
        impeachable offenses, and become, in some degree, official, by 
        being placed among the public records, an officer thus 
        assailed, however base the instrument used, if conscious of 
        inno

[[Page 2165]]

        cence, can look for refuge only to the Hall of the immediate 
        Representatives of the People.''
            Vice President Calhoun concluded his communication with a 
        ``challenge'' to ``the freest investigation of the House, as 
        the only means effectively to repel this premeditated attack.'' 
        Your Body responded at once by establishing a select committee, 
        which subpoenaed witnesses and documents, held exhaustive 
        hearings, and submitted a Report on February 13, 1827. The 
        Report, exonerating the Vice President of any wrongdoing, was 
        laid on the table (together with minority views even more 
        strongly in his favor) and the accusations were thereby put to 
        rest.
            Like my predecessor Calhoun I am the subject of public 
        attacks that may ``assume the character of impeachable 
        offenses,'' and thus require investigation by the House as the 
        repository of ``the sole Power of Impeachment'' and the ``grand 
        inquest of the nation.'' No investigation in any other forum 
        could either substitute for the investigation by the House 
        contemplated by Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the 
        Constitution or lay to rest in a timely and definitive manner 
        the unfounded charges whose currency unavoidably jeopardizes 
        the functions of my Office.
            The wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution in making the 
        House the only proper agency to investigate the conduct of a 
        President or Vice President has been borne out by recent 
        events. Since the Maryland investigation became a matter of 
        public knowledge some seven weeks ago, there has been a 
        constant and ever-broadening stream of rumors, accusations and 
        speculations aimed at me. I regret to say that the source, in 
        many instances, can have been only the prosecutors themselves.
            The result has been so to foul the atmosphere that no grand 
        or petit jury could fairly consider this matter on the merits.
            I therefore respectfully call upon the House to discharge 
        its Constitutional obligation.
            I shall, of course, cooperate fully. As I have said before, 
        I have nothing to hide. I have directed my counsel to deliver 
        forthwith to the Clerk of the House all of my original records 
        of which copies have previously been furnished to the United 
        States Attorney. If there is any other way in which I can be of 
        aid, I am wholly at the disposal of the House.
            I am confident that, like Vice President Calhoun, I shall 
        be vindicated by the House.
              Respectfully yours
                                                 Spiro T. Agnew.

    On Sept. 26, 1973,(3) Majority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill, 
Jr., of Massachusetts, made an announcement in relation to Vice 
President Agnew's request for an investigation into possible 
impeachable offenses against him:

        (Mr. O'Neill asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 31453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time merely to make an 
    announcement to the House that in the press conference the Speaker 
    made the following statement:

            The Vice President's letter relates to matters before the 
        courts. In view of that fact, I, as Speaker, will not take any 
        action on the letter at this time.

    The House took no action on the Vice President's request, although

[[Page 2166]]

resolutions were introduced on Sept. 26, 1973, calling for 
investigation of the charges referred to by the Vice President, such 
charges to be investigated by the Committee on the Judiciary or by a 
select committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See H. Res. 566, H. Res. 567, H. Res. 569, H. Res. 570, referred to 
        the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The request cited by the Vice President in 
his letter was made by Vice President John Calhoun in 1826 and is 
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.
    In 1873, however, the Committee on the Judiciary reported that a 
civil officer, in that case 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 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.

    Vice President Agnew resigned his office as Vice President on Oct. 
10, 1973. A resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 572), referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary on Oct. 1, 1973, and directing the Attorney 
General to inform the

[[Page 2167]]

House of facts relating to Vice President Agnew's conduct, was 
discharged by unanimous consent on Oct. 10, 1973, and laid on the 
table.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 33687, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------