Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 74 - The Impeachment and Trial of West H. Humphreys

[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 74 - The Impeachment and Trial of West H. Humphreys]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF WEST H. HUMPHREYS.

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

1. Preliminary investigation by the House. Section 2385.
2. Presentation of the impeachment at the bar of the Senate.
Section 2386.
3. Choice of managers and drawing and presentation of articles.
Sections 2387-2390.
4. Writ of summons and calling respondent to answer. Sections
2391, 2392.
5. Proclamation issued on respondent's failure to appear.
Section 2393.
6. Trial proceeds in absence of respondent. Section 2394.
7. Managers, without argument, demand judgment. Section 2395.
8. Questions arising in judgment. Sections 2396, 2397.

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

2385. The impeachment and trial of West H. Humphreys, United States
judge for the several districts of Tennessee.
It being declared by common fame that Judge Humphreys had joined the
foes of the Government the House voted to investigate his conduct.
After an ex parte investigation the House voted to impeach Judge
Humphreys.
Form of resolution providing for carrying the impeachment of Judge
Humphreys to the Senate.
The impeachment of Judge Humphreys was carried to the Senate by a
committee of two representing the two political parties.
On January 8, 1862,\1\ Mr. Horace Maynard, of Tennessee, presented
the following preamble and resolution, which were agreed to by the
House without debate or division:

Whereas it is alleged that West H. Humphreys, now holding a
commission as one of the judges of the district court of the United
States, has, for nearly twelve months, failed to hold the courts for
the districts of East, Middle, and West Tennessee, as by law he was
required to do, and that he has accepted a judicial commission in
hostility to the Government of the United States, and is assuming to
act under it,
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary inquire into the truth
of the said allegations, with power to send for persons and papers, and
report from time to time such action as they may deem proper.

On March 4, 1862,\2\ Mr. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, submitted the
report of the committee. This report showed that the committee examined
four witnesses,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 150; Globe,
p. 229.
\2\ Journal, p. 400; Globe, p. 1062; House Report No. 44.
Sec. 2386
Mr. Maynard, Member of the House, and Messrs. Trigg, McFall, and
Lellyet, citizens of Tennessee. It does not appear that anyone was
present to represent Judge Humphreys at the investigation, or that any
suggestion was made in his behalf. From the testimony it appeared that
Judge Humphreys, who still held and had not resigned his commission,
had publicly declared in favor of secession; that he had neglected his
duties as judge; that he had officiated as judge for the confederacy,
and in that capacity had entertained proceedings against loyal
citizens. Therefore the committee proposed this resolution:

Resolved, That West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the
United States for the several districts of Tennessee, be impeached of
high crimes and misdemeanors.

On May 6,\1\ after the reading of the report and very brief debate,
the House agreed to the resolution without division.
Thereupon, Mr. Bingham, stating that he followed the usual
precedents, offered the following resolution, which was agreed to
without division:

Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to the Senate,
and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives and
of all of the people of the United States, to impeach West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
several districts of Tennessee, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and to
acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time
exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good
the same, and that the committee do demand that the Senate take order
for the appearance of said West H. Humphreys to answer slid
impeachment.

The Speaker \2\ thereupon appointed Mr. Bingham and Mr. George H.
Pendleton, of Ohio, as the committee; both were members of the
Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Bingham represented the majority party in
the House and Mr. Pendleton the minority party.
2386. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
Forms and ceremonies of presenting the impeachment of Judge Humphreys
in the Senate.
Form of resolution adopted by the Senate in taking order for the
impeachment of Judge Humphreys.
On May 7,\3\ in the Senate, a message was received from the House by
its Clerk, announcing the passage of the resolution and the committee
appointed in accordance therewith.
Immediately thereafter the committee, Messrs. Bingham and Pendleton,
appeared at the bar of the Senate, and Mr. Bingham spoke as follows:

Mr. President, by order of the House of Representatives, we appear at
the bar of the Senate, and in the name of the House of Representatives
and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
several districts of Tennessee, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and we
do further inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will in
due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and
make good the same, and in their name we do demand that the Senate take
order for the appearance of said West H. Humphreys to answer to said
impeachment.

The Presiding Officer \4\ said:

The Senate will take order in the premises.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 646; Globe, pp. 1966, 1967.
\2\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 454; Globe, p. 1991.
\4\ Lafayette S. Foster, of Connecticut, in the chair.
Sec. 2387
It does not appear that the committee from the House reported to that
body on their return from the Senate.
In the Senate, on May 8,\1\ the message from the House was read, and
on motion of Mr. Lafayette S. Foster, of Connecticut, the subject was
referred to a select committee of three, to be appointed by the Chair.
Thereupon the President pro tempore \2\ appointed Messrs. Foster, James
R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, and Garrett Davis, of Kentucky.
On May 9,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Foster reported from the select
committee the following resolution, which was agreed to without
division or debate:

Whereas the House of Representatives, on the 7th day of the present
month, by two of their Members, Messrs. Bingham and Pendleton, at the
bar of the Senate impeached West H. Humphreys, judge of the district
court of the United States for the several districts of Tennessee, of
high crimes and misdemeanors, and informed the Senate that the House of
Representatives will in due time exhibit particular articles of
impeachment against him, and make good the same, and likewise demanded
that the Senate take order for the appearance of the said West H.
Humphreys to answer the said impeachment: Therefore,
Resolved, That the Senate will take proper order thereon, of which
due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

On the same day a message announcing the action of the Senate was
received in the House.\4\
2387. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
The committee to draw the articles in the Humphreys impeachment were
appointed by the Speaker, and all but one was of the majority party.
The articles of impeachment against Judge Humphreys were agreed to by
the House without debate.
On May 14,\5\ in the House, Mr. Bingham submitted the following
resolution, which was agreed to without debate or division:

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to prepare and report
articles of impeachment against West H. Humphreys, judge of the
district court of the United States for the several districts of
Tennessee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.

The Speaker thereupon appointed Messrs. Bingham, John Hickman, of
Pennsylvania, George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, Charles R. Train, of
Massachusetts, and Charles W. Walton, of Maine. All of this committee
but Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, appear to have been of the majority party
in the House. All but Messrs. Train and Walton were members of the
Judiciary Committee.
On May 19 \6\ Mr. Bingham, from the select committee, reported
articles of impeachment, which were read and at once, without debate or
division, were adopted by the House and ordered printed. They appear in
fall in the Journal of the House of this date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 456, 457; Globe, p. 2010.
\2\ Solomon Foot, of Vermont, President pro tempore.
\3\ Senate Journal, pp. 464, 465; Globe, p. 2039.
\4\ House Journal, p. 665.
\5\ House Journal, p. 684; Globe, p. 2134.
\6\ House Journal, pp. 709-712, Globe, pp. 2205, 2206.
Sec. 2388
2388. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
Form of resolutions providing for selection of managers and the
presentation of the articles to the Senate in the Humphreys
impeachment.
The managers of the Humphreys impeachment were appointed by the
Speaker, and all but one belonged to the majority party.
The message informing the Senate that articles impeaching Judge
Humphreys would be brought contained the names of the managers.
Mr. Bingham then offered the following resolutions, which were agreed
to without debate or division:

Resolved, That five managers be appointed by the Speaker of this
House to conduct the impeachment against West H. Humphreys, judge of
the district court of the United States for the several districts of
Tennessee.
Resolved, That the articles agreed to by this House, to be exhibited,
in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States,
against West H. Humphreys in maintenance of their impeachment against
him for high crimes and misdemeanors, be carried to the Senate by the
managers appointed to conduct the impeachment.
Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that
this House have appointed managers on their part to conduct the
impeachment against West H. Humphreys, and have directed the said
managers to carry to the Senate the articles of impeachment agreed upon
by the House to be exhibited in maintenance of their impeachment
against the said West H. Humphreys.

On May 20 \1\ the Speaker announced the appointment of the following
managers: Messrs. Bingham, Hickman, Pendleton, Train, and George W.
Dunlap, of Kentucky. All but Mr. Pendleton belonged to the majority
party in the House.
On May 21 \2\ the Clerk of the House delivered the message in the
Senate as follows:

Mr. President: I am directed to inform the Senate that the House of
Representatives has appointed Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, Mr. Hickman, of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, Mr. Train, of Massachusetts, and
Mr. Dunlap, of Kentucky, managers to conduct the impeachment against
West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for
the several districts of Tennessee, and has directed the said managers
to carry to the Senate the articles of impeachment agreed upon by the
House, to be exhibited in maintenance of their impeachment against the
said West H. Humphreys.

2389. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
The Senate followed the precedents in adopting rules prescribing
forms and ceremonies for receiving the articles in the Humphreys
impeachment.
Forms of oath taken and proclamations made in the court opened to
receive the articles impeaching Judge Humphreys.
The message having been delivered, the resolution of the House was
read, and thereupon Mr. Foster proposed the following:

Resolved, That at 1 o'clock to-morrow afternoon the Senate will
resolve itself into a court of impeachment, at which time the following
oath and affirmation shall be administered by the Secretary to the
President of the Senate, and by him to each Member of the Senate, to
wit: ``I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all
things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
districts of Tennessee, I will do impartial justice, according to
law;'' which court of impeachment, being thus formed, will, at the time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, pp. 717, 718; Globe, p. 2262.
\2\ Senate Journal, pp. 515-517; Globe, pp. 2247, 2248.
Sec. 2390
aforesaid, receive the managers appointed by the House of
Representatives to exhibit articles of impeachment in the name of
themselves and of all the people of the United States against West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
districts of Tennessee, pursuant to notice given to the Senate this day
by the House of Representatives that they had appointed managers for
the purpose aforesaid.
Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the House of
Representatives.

The resolution having been agreed to, Mr. Foster offered the
following, which was also agreed to:

Resolved, That after the managers of the impeachment shall be
introduced to the bar of the Senate, and shall have signified that they
are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against West H. Humphreys,
the President of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to make
proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the
following words: ``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain
of imprisonment, while the grand inquest of the nation is exhibiting to
the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
districts of Tennessee; ``after which the articles shall be exhibited,
and then the President of the Senate will take proper order on the
subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the
House of Representatives.

On the same day the first of the above resolutions was communicated
to the House by message.\1\
On May 22,\2\ in the Senate, the Vice-President \3\ announced:

The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, the Senate win now resolve
itself into a court of impeachment, in pursuance of its order of
yesterday, for the trial of West H. Humphreys, judge of the district
court of the United States for the State of Tennessee.

The following oath was administered to the Vice-President by the
Secretary of the Senate:

I, Hannibal Hamlin, do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining
to the trial of the impeachment of West H. Humphreys, judge of the
district court of the United States for the districts of Tennessee, I
will do impartial justice according to law. So help me God.

The Vice-President said:

The Secretary will now call the roll of Senators alphabetically,
calling them in numbers of four, and Senators will please to advance as
they are called.

The Secretary called the names of Senators, and they advanced by
fours to the desk, when the Vice-President administered the oath to
them.
2390. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
The House being notified that the Senate was ready to receive the
articles impeaching Judge Humphreys, the managers attended
unaccompanied.
The articles impeaching Judge Humphreys and their presentation.
The articles impeaching Judge Humphreys were signed by the Speaker
and attested by the Clerk.
The oath having been administered to the Senators, it was then--

Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate has resolved itself into a high court of impeachment, and is
now ready to receive the managers appointed by the House to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 723; Globe, p. 2271.
\2\ Senate Impeachment Journal, pp. 889-892; Globe, pp. 2277, 2278.
\3\ Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, Vice-President and President of the
Senate.
Sec. 2390
exhibit articles of impeachment against West H. Humphreys, judge of the
district court of the United States for the districts of Tennessee.

This message was duly delivered in the House, and presently four of
the managers appointed by the House of Representatives, namely, Mr.
Bingham, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Train, and Mr. Dunlap (Mr. Hickman not
being present), appeared below the bar.
Mr. Bingham advanced and said:

Mr. President, myself and associates are managers appointed by the
House of Representatives, and instructed in their name to appear at the
bar of the Senate, and present articles of impeachment against West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
several districts of Tennessee, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Vice-President. The managers on the part of the House of
Representatives will please be seated, at seats prepared for them
within the bar of the Senate.

The managers were conducted to the seats prepared for them in the
area between the Secretary's desk and the seats of the Senators.

The Vice-President. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate will now make
the usual proclamation,
The Sergeant-at-Arms, George T. Brown, Esq. Oyez! oyez! oyez! All
persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment, while
the grand inquest of the nation is exhibiting to the Senate of the
United States articles of impeachment against West H. Humphreys, judge
of the district court of the United States for the districts of
Tennessee.

Mr. Bingham (all the managers standing) read the articles of
impeachment, as follows:

Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the
United States in the name of themselves and of all the people
of the United States against West H. Humphreys, judge of the
district court of the United States for the several districts
of the State of Tennessee, in maintenance and support of their
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article 1. That, regardless of his duties as a citizen of the United
States, and unmindful of the duties of his said office, and in
violation of the sacred obligation of his official oath ``to administer
justice without respect to persons,'' ``and faithfully and impartially
discharge all the duties incumbent upon him as judge of the district
court of the United States for the several districts of the State of
Tennessee agreeable to the Constitution and laws of the United
States,'' the said West H. Humphreys, on the 29th day of December, A.
D. 1860, in the city of Nashville, in said State, the said West H.
Humphreys then being a citizen of the United States, and owing
allegiance thereto, and then and there being judge of the district
court of the United States for the several districts of said State, at
a public meeting, on the day and year last aforesaid, held in said city
of Nashville, and in the hearing of divers persons then there present,
did endeavor by public speech to incite revolt and rebellion within
said State against the Constitution and Government of the United
States, and did then and there publicly declare that it was the right
of the people of said State, by an ordinance of secession, to absolve
themselves from all allegiance to the Government of the United States,
the Constitution and laws thereof.
Art. 2. That, in further disregard of his duties as a citizen of the
United States, and unmindful of the solemn obligations of his office as
judge of the district court of the United States for the several
districts of the State of Tennessee, and that he held his said office,
by the Constitution of the United States, during good behavior only,
with intent to abuse the high trust reposed in him as such judge, and
to subvert the lawful authority and Government of the United States
within said State, the said West H. Humphreys, then being judge of the
district court of the United States, as aforesaid, to wit, in the year
of our Lord 1861, in said State of Tennessee, did, together with other
evil-minded persons within said State, openly and unlawfully support,
advocate, and agree to an act commonly called an ordinance of
secession, declaring the State of Tennessee independent of the
Government of the United States, and no longer within the jurisdiction
thereof.
Art. 3. That in the years of our Lord 1861 and 1862, within the United
States, and in said State of Tennessee, the said West H. Humphreys,
then owing allegiance to the United States of America, and
Sec. 2390
then being district judge of the United States, as aforesaid, did then
and there, to wit: within said State, unlawfully, and in conjunction
with other persons, organize armed rebellion against the United States
and levy war against them.
Art. 4. That on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1861, and on divers other
days since that time, within said State of Tennessee, the said West H.
Humphreys, then being judge of the district court of the United States,
as aforesaid, and J. C. Ramsay, and Jefferson Davis, and others, did
unlawfully conspire together ``to oppose by force the authority of the
Government of the United States,'' contrary to his duty as such judge
and to the laws of the United States.
Art. 5. That said West H. Humphreys, with intent to prevent the due
administration of the laws of the United States within said State of
Tennessee, and to aid and abet the overthrow of ``the authority of the
Government of the United States ``within said State, has, in gross
disregard of his duty as judge of the district court of the United
States, as aforesaid, and in violation of the laws of the United
States, neglected and refused to hold the district court of the United
States, as by law he was required to do, within the several districts
of the State of Tennessee, ever since the 18th day of July, A. D. 1861.
Art. 6. That the said West H. Humphreys, in the year of our Lord 1861,
within the State of Tennessee, and with intent to subvert the authority
of the Government of the United States, to hinder and delay the due
execution of the laws of the United States, and to oppress and injure
citizens of the United States, did unlawfully act as judge of an
illegally constituted tribunal within said State, called the district
court of the Confederate States of America, and as judge of said
tribunal last named said West H. Humphreys, with the intent aforesaid,
then and there assumed and exercised powers unlawful and unjust, to
wit, in causing one Perez Dickinson, a citizen of said State, to be
unlawfully arrested and brought before him, as judge of said alleged
court of said Confederate States of America, and required him to swear
allegiance to the pretended government of said Confederate States of
America; and upon the refusal of said Dickinson so to do, the said
Humphreys, as judge of said illegal tribunal, did unlawfully, and with
the intent to oppress said Dickinson, require and receive of him a
bond, conditioned that while he should remain within said State he
would keep the peace, and as such judge of said illegal tribunal, and
without authority of law, said Humphreys there and then decreed that
said Dickinson should leave said State.
2. In decreeing within said State, and as judge of said illegal
tribunal, the confiscation to the use of said Confederate States of
America of property of citizens of the United States, and especially of
property of one Andrew Johnson and one John Catron.
3. In causing, as judge of said illegal tribunal, to be unlawfully
arrested and imprisoned within said State citizens of the United States
because of their fidelity to their obligations as citizens of the
United States, and because of their rejection of, and their resistance
to, the unjust and assumed authority of said Confederate States of
America.
Art. 7. That said West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of
the United States as aforesaid, assuming to act as judge of said
tribunal known as the district court of the Confederate States of
America, did, in the year of our Lord 1861, without lawful authority,
and with intent to injure one William G. Brownlow, a citizen of the
United States, cause said Brownlow to be unlawfully arrested and
imprisoned within said State in violation of the rights of said
Brownlow as a citizen of the United States, and of the duties of said
Humphreys as a district judge of the United States.
And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to
themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further
articles, or other accusation or impeachment against the said West H.
Humphreys, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto
the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the
same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article,
accusation, or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case
shall require, do demand that the said West H. Humphreys may be put to
answer the high crimes and misdemeanors herein charged against him, and
that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments may be
thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.
Galusha A. Grow,
Speaker House of Representatives.
Attest:
Emerson Etheridge,
Clerk House of Representatives.
Sec. 2391
Mr. Bingham delivered the articles to the Secretary, who handed them
to the Vice-President.

The Vice-President. The Chair informs the managers on the part of the
House of Representatives that the Senate will take proper order upon
the impeachment preferred, of which notice will be furnished to the
House of Representatives.

The managers thereupon retired.
2391. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
Form of resolution directing the issue of a writ of summons to Judge
Humphreys, and fixing the return day.
The House was informed by message of the issuance of a writ of
summons to Judge Humphreys.
Mr. Foster then offered in the high court of impeachment the
following, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to issue a summons, in the
usual form, to West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the
United States for the districts of Tennessee, to answer a certain
article of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
Representatives on this day, and that the said summons be returnable
here on Monday, the 9th day of June next, and be served by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, or some person deputed by him, at least ten days
before the return day thereof.
Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the House of
Representatives.

Then the court, on motion of Mr. Foster, adjourned until Monday, June
9, at 1 o'clock p. m.
In the House it does not appear that the managers reported after they
had presented the articles of impeachment in the Senate.
On May 23 \1\ in the House a message from the Senate informed the
House that the issuance of a summon had been directed.
2392. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
On the day set for the appearance of Judge Humphreys the House in
Committee of the Whole House attended its managers.
Forms observed by the House attending the Humphreys trial as a
Committee of the Whole (footnote).
Forms of oath, proclamation, and ceremonies at the calling of Judge
Humphreys to appear and answer articles of impeachment.
On June 9,\2\ in the high court of impeachment, the Vice-President
having administered the prescribed oath to certain Senators, and the
court having been opened by proclamation, it was--

Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate is now sitting as a high court of impeachment for the trial
of West H. Humphreys, and that seats are provided for the accommodation
of the Members of the House in the Senate Chamber.

The message having been delivered, it was then resolved by the House
as follows: \3\

Resolved, That the House will this day, and at such hour as the
Senate shall appoint, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole
House, and attend in the Senate on the trial of the impeachment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 731.
\2\ Senate Impeachment Journal, pp. 893, 894; Globe, pp. 2617, 2618.
\3\ House Journal, p. 821; Globe, p. 2621.
Sec. 2392
of West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States
for the several districts of Tennessee.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole
House, Mr. E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, being chairman, and proceeded
to the Senate Chamber.\1\
Previous to the arrival of the House the Senators took seats on a
platform prepared on the right and left of the Vice-President, leaving
the body of the Hall for the House of Representatives.
The managers and Representatives having arrived, the following
occurred:

The Vice-President. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation
opening the court.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons are commanded to
keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United
States is sitting as a court of impeachment on the case of West H.
Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
several districts of Tennessee.

The Sergeant-at-Arms handed his return to the Vice-President.

The Vice-President. The return of the officer will be read by the
Secretary.

The Secretary read, as follows:

United States of America, City of Washington, ss:
I, George T. Brown, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United
States, in obedience to the within and foregoing writ of summons and
precept to me directed, did proceed to the usual place of residence of
the within-named West H. Humphreys, in the vicinity of Nashville, in
the State of Tennessee, on the 29th day of May, A. D. 1862, and then
and there made diligent inquiry for the said West H. Humphreys, but he
could not be found. I further certify, that on the same day and year,
and at the usual place of residence of the said West H. Humphreys, in
the vicinity of Nashville, in the State of Tennessee, I did then and
there leave true and attested copies of the within and foregoing writ
of summons and precept.
George T. Brown,
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
June 9, 1862.
The Vice-President. The Secretary will administer the oath to the
Sergeant-at-Arms touching the truth of his return.

The Secretary administered the oath to the Sergeant-at-Arms, as
follows:

``George T. Brown, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United
States, do solemnly swear that the return made and subscribed by me
upon the process issued on the 22d day of May last, by the Senate of
the United States against West H. Humphreys, judge of the district
court of the United States for the several districts of Tennessee, is
truly made, and that I have performed said services as therein
described. So help me God.
The Vice-President. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation for
the appearance of West H. Humphreys.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Globe (p. 2617) has the following as to the order: ``The form
in which it appears on such occasions displaces its high functionary,
the Speaker, its Sergeant-at-Arms, and the emblem of its authority--the
mace.
``The chairman, supported by Emerson Etheridge, esq., the Clerk, and
Ira Goodnow, esq., the Doorkeeper, were conducted to seats in the
center aisle, in front of the Vice-President; the managers on the part
of the House of Representatives, Messrs. Bingham, Pendleton, Dunlap,
and Train, took the seats which they previously occupied in the right
section of the central area; that on the left, with similar
accommodations, was provided for the judge impeached and his counsel,
if they should appear. The Members of the House occupied the body of
the Senate Chamber.''
Sec. 2393
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! West H. Humphreys, judge of
the district court of the United States for the several districts of
Tennessee, come forward and answer the articles of impeachment
exhibited against you by the House of Representatives of the United
States.

2393. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
Judge Humphreys did not appear, in person or by attorney, to answer
the articles of impeachment.
Judge Humphreys not appearing, the case was continued on motion of
the managers, to enable the production of testimony.
Judge Humphreys having failed to appear to answer the articles of
impeachment, the court directed publication of a proclamation for him
to appear.
In the Humphreys impeachment it was first provided that the subpoenas
should be served by the Sergeant-at-Arms or his deputy.
Form of report of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on returning
from the Humphreys trial.
Whereupon, West H. Humphreys not appearing in person, or by counsel,
to answer the said articles of impeachment, the following occurred:

Mr. Manager Bingham (after a pause). On behalf of the managers of the
House of Representatives, I move the continuance of this cause until
the 26th day of June, 1862, in order to obtain the attendance of
witnesses necessary to the prosecution of the impeachment.
The Vice-President. Senators, the following motion is submitted for
the decision of the court: On behalf of the managers of the House of
Representatives, Mr. Bingham moves that further proceedings in the
impeachment of West H. Humphreys, be postponed until Thursday, the 26th
day of June, 1862.

The roll being called, there appeared, yeas 35, nays 4. So the motion
was agreed to.
The Vice-President then informed the managers that of such other
proceedings as should be taken by the Senate in the case of the
impeachment of West H. Humphreys, the House of Representatives should
be duly notified.
Thereupon the managers, attended by the House of Representatives,
withdrew and having returned into their own Hall, the Committee of the
Whole House rose,\1\ and the Speaker having resumed the Chair, Mr.
Washburne reported--

that the committee had, according to order, attended the trial by the
Senate of the said impeachment, when the Senate postponed the further
consideration of the case until Thursday, the 26th instant.

Meanwhile, in the high court of impeachment, on motion of Mr. Foster,
and by a vote of yeas 36, nays 0, the following was agreed to: \2\

Ordered, That this high court of impeachment stand adjourned till the
26th day of June next, at 12 o'clock, meridian; and as the said West H.
Humphreys has failed to make his appearance to answer the said articles
of impeachment, though duly summoned, it is further ordered that
proclamation for his appearance on that day be made by publishing this
order in the National Intelligencer, National Republican, and Evening
Star, newspapers printed in the city of Washington, for at least ten
days successively, before said 26th day of June, instant, and also in
the Nashville Union, a newspaper published in the city of Nashville,
State of Tennessee, on at least five several days before said 26th day
of June, instant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 821; Globe, p. 2621.
\2\ Senate impeachment Journal, p. 894; Globe, pp. 2617, 2618.
Sec. 2394
And further, on motion of Mr. Foster, and in order to obviate the
difficulty which might arise from there being no marshal of the United
States in certain districts where it might be necessary to send
subpoenas, it was further

Ordered, That subpoenas may be issued by the Secretary of the Senate,
according to the rules \1\ of proceedings of the Senate, when acting as
a court of impeachment, and directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Senate, or his deputy, as well as to the marshal of the district of--
--.

The court then adjourned to Thursday, June 26, at 12 o'clock,
meridian.
On June 10 \2\ a message was received in the House giving information
of the resolutions adopted by the court after the House had retired,
and of the date to which the court had adjourned.
2394. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
Judge Humphreys's having failed to appear in answer both to the
summons and proclamation, the Presiding Officer announced that the
managers might proceed in support of the articles.
Form of proclamation for appearance of Judge Humphreys, and the proof
thereof on the day set for appearance.
In the absence of the Vice-President the President pro tempore took
the oath and presided at the Humphreys trial.
At the beginning of the Humphreys trial the returns on the subpoenas
were read and the names of the witnesses called.
A witness unable to attend the Humphreys trial was excused by the
court.
On June 26,\3\ when the high court of impeachment again opened, the
Vice-President was absent and the President pro tempore \4\ of the
Senate was in the chair. At once the Secretary administered to him the
prescribed oath. The court was then opened by proclamation as follows
by the Sergeant-at-Arms:

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Silence is commanded on pain of imprisonment while
the Senate of the United States is sitting as a high court of
impeachment for the trial of West H. Humphreys, judge of the district
court of the United States for the several districts of Tennessee.

On motion of Mr. Foster--

Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate is in its Chamber and ready to proceed on the trial of the
impeachment of West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the
United States for the several districts of Tennessee, and that seats
are provided for the accommodation of the Members.

This message being received in the House \5\ that body resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole House and proceeded to the Senate.
When they arrived the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate appeared before
the bar and announced: \6\

The honorable the House of Representatives of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rules governing impeachments, adopted at the trial of Judge
Chase and followed without readoption in the trial of Judge Peck and in
this trial, provided that subpoenas should in every case be directed to
the marshal of the districts wherein the witnesses might reside.
\2\ House Journal, p. 832.
\3\ Senate Impeachment Journal, p. 895; Globe, p. 2942.
\4\ Solomon Foot, of Vermont, President pro tempore.
\5\ House Journal, p. 940.
\6\ Senate Impeachment Journal, p. 895; Globe, p. 2942.
Sec. 2394
The Members then entered and took the seats assigned them, the
chairman of the Committee of the Whole House occupying a seat in the
aisle in front of the President pro tempore, and the Clerk of the House
having a seat near him. The managers on the part of the House were
conducted to seats assigned to them in the area in front of the
Secretary's desk.
By direction of the President pro tempore, the Secretary read the
return made by the Sergeant-at-Arms on the 9th instant and already read
in the high court on that day. The Secretary also read the proclamation
made by order of the court on the 9th and published in certain
newspapers. This proclamation \1\ was as follows:

The Senate of the United States of America, as the court of
impeachment, sitting on the case of West H. Humphreys, judge of the
district court of the United States for the several districts of the
State of Tennessee.

Monday, June 9, 1862.
Ordered, That this high court of impeachment stands adjourned till
the 26th day of June, instant, at 12 o'clock meridian; and, as the said
West H. Humphreys has failed to make his appearance to answer the said
articles of impeachment, though duly summoned, it is further ordered
that proclamation for his appearance on that day be made by publishing
this order in the National Intelligencer, National Republican, and
Evening Star newspapers, printed in the city of Washington, for at
least ten days, successively, before said 26th day of June, instant,
and also in the Nashville Union newspaper, printed in the city of
Nashville, in the State of Tennessee, at least five several days before
said 26th day of June, instant.
Attest:
J. W. Forney,
Secretary of the Senate.
A question being raised as to the proof of the proclamation, the
production of copies of the several papers in which it was published
was considered sufficient.
Then the following proceedings occurred:

The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make
proclamation for the appearance of the accused.
The Sergeant-at-Arms! Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! West H. Humphreys, judge of
the district court of the United States for the several districts of
Tennessee, come forward and answer the articles of impeachment
exhibited against you by the House of Representatives of the United
States.

No response being made,

The President pro tempore. The accused West H. Humphreys being in
default, not appearing in pursuance of the summons or proclamation, the
managers on the part of the United States House of Representatives are
now at liberty to proceed in support of the articles of impeachment
exhibited against him.
Mr. Bingham. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers for the House
of Representatives, I ask that the returns of the Sergeant-at-Arms to
the subpoenas issued for witnesses in support of this impeachment may
be reported, and the names of the witnesses called over and those
present recorded.

The Secretary then read the returns on the subpoenas, and the names
of the witnesses were called on motion of Mr. Manager Bingham. The
witnesses were assigned seats on the left of the chair, in the rear of
the seats usually occupied by Senators.
Among the witnesses called was Andrew Johnson, who failed to respond.
Mr. Bingham, of the managers, stated that Mr. Johnson was detained by
his duties as governor of Tennessee, and moved that he be excused from
obeying the process of the court. This motion was unanimously agreed
to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 895, 896; Globe, p. 2943.
Sec. 2395
2395. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
In the Humphreys trial, with no representative for the respondent,
witnesses were not cross-examined.
The respondent not being represented in the Humphreys trial, the
managers, without argument, demanded judgment.
In the absence of representation of respondent in the Humphreys
trial, the Senator insisted on the rules of evidence.
Mr. Train then opened the case for the managers, outlining at not
great length what it was proposed to prove.
Mr. Bingham, for the managers, then proceeded to offer evidence,
documentary and oral, witnesses being sworn, in accordance with the
rule, by the Secretary.
The witnesses were then examined by the managers.\1\ There was no
cross-examination, as there was no appearance for Judge Humphreys. At
the close of each witness's testimony the President pro tempore
announced that any Senator might propose a question by reducing it to
writing and having it read by the Secretary. But no questions were
proposed.
Twice objection was made by Senators to questions put by the
managers, as eliciting testimony inadmissible as evidence, but either
the question or the objection was withdrawn without a decision by the
court.\2\
At the conclusion of the testimony Mr. Bingham stated that the
managers did not deem it necessary to introduce further testimony or to
submit argument; and he respectfully demanded of the court, in the name
of all the people of the United States, a judgment of guilty, in manner
and form as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.
2396. Humphreys's impeachment continued.
The decision of the court on the articles in the Humphreys case was
guilty as to a portion of the articles.
Form of question on verdict of the court in the Humphreys trial.
Various Senators were excused from voting on the judgment in the
Humphreys case.
The presiding officer ruled that testimony might not be read during
the voting on the articles impeaching Judge Humphreys.
By unanimous consent, in the Humphreys trial a Senator was permitted
to vote after the decision on the articles had been declared.
Then, by direction of the President pro tempore, the articles of
impeachment were read one by one, and at the conclusion of the reading
of each article the President pro tempore took the opinion of the
members of the court,\3\ respectively, in the form following:

Mr. Senator ----, how say you? Is the accused, West H. Humphreys,
guilty or not guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors as charged in
this article of impeachment?

And the Senators having answered, the President declared West H.
Humphreys guilty or not guilty of the charge, according as two-thirds
voted him guilty or failed to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Globe, pp. 2944-2949.
\2\ Globe, p. 2946.
\3\ Senate Impeachment Journal, pp. 897-903; Globe, pp. 2949, 2950.
Sec. 2397
Very frequently a Senator would give a brief explanation of his
reason for his vote, and several Senators were by vote excused from
voting on a particular article, reasons in each case being assigned as
absence when the testimony was given or inability to hear the
testimony.
In voting on the second specification of the sixth article Mr.
Preston King, of New York, asked that the testimony in support of the
specification be referred to.
The President pro tempore \1\ said:

That proceeding is entirely out of order at this stage.

The sixth article containing several specifications, a vote was taken
separately on each one at the suggestion of a Senator and by direction
of the President pro tempore.
The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not
Guilty. guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1 ............................................................................ 39 0
Article 2............................................................................. 36 1
Article 3............................................................................. 33 4
Article 4............................................................................. 28 10
Article 5............................................................................. 39 0
Article 6, specification 1............................................................ 36 1
Article 6, specification 2............................................................ 12 24
Article 6, specification 3............................................................ 35 1
Article 7............................................................................. 35 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. James H. Lane, of Kansas, was by unanimous consent permitted to
record his vote after the results had been announced and declared.\2\
On motion of Mr. Foster it was--

Ordered, That the court take a recess until 4 o'clock p.m., at which
hour the court will proceed to pronounce judgment in the case of West
H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the United States for the
eastern, middle, and western districts of Tennessee.

2397. Humphreys's impeachment, continued.
The court declined to consider in secret session the question of
final judgment in the Humphreys case.
Having found Judge Humphreys guilty, the court proceeded to pronounce
judgment of removal and disqualification.
The presiding officer held that the question on removal and
disqualification was divisible.
Debate as to whether or not the Constitution requires both removal
and disqualification on conviction by impeachment.
Form of judgment pronounced by the presiding officer in the Humphreys
trial.
Judgment being pronounced in the Humphreys case, the court adjourned
without day.
The judgment of the court in the Humphreys trial was communicated to
the House by the report of the chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Solomon Foot, of Vermont, President pro tempore.
\2\ Globe, p. 2951.
Sec. 2397
The Senate ordered an attested copy of the court's decision in the
Humphreys case to be sent to the President of the United States.
The high court met again at 4 p.m., and the House was informed by
message that the court was ready to pronounce judgment and requested
the attendance of the House of Representatives.\1\
Before the arrival of the Members of the House Mr. Edgar Cowan, of
Pennsylvania, suggested \2\ a short secret session; but Mr. John P.
Hale, of New Hampshire, suggested that the rule required the doors to
be kept open. Mr. Cowan suggested that the rule referred only to the
trial and not to proceedings relating to the verdict.
The President pro tempore said he would entertain a motion for a
secret session, but Mr. Cowan did not insist on it.
The House of Representatives having entered the Chamber, Mr. Foster
offered \3\ the following as an interrogation to be put to each member
of the court in order that judgment might be perfected.

Is the court of the opinion that West H. Humphreys be removed from
the office of judge of the district court of the United States for the
districts of Tennessee?

To this Mr. Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, offered an amendment as
follows:

Add thereto: ``and be disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of
honor, trust, or profit under the United States.''

Mr. Trumbull quoted the Constitution to show that both removal from
office and disqualification should be the punishment.
Mr. Foster explained that the question proposed was in exactly the
form used in the case of Judge Pickering, and that it was the only
question propounded in rendering that judgment.
After debate, Mr. Trumbull's amendment was agreed to, yeas 27, nays
10.
Thereupon, Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, asked for a division of
the question.
Upon this demand there was debate. Mr. Trumbull said:

I have very serious doubts whether it is a double question; whether
the whole is not one judgment. ``Judgment in cases of impeachment shall
not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.'' I am not sure but that when the Constitution says it shall
not extend further than that, it necessarily follows that it shall
extend that far. It is not in the alternative, and I am by no means
satisfied that that consequence does not necessarily follow the
conviction. It is a limitation. As is well suggested by my friend from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Wilmot], could you impose that latter part without
the former? Could you decide that he should be disqualified to hold and
enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit? If each proposition is
independent, it must be able to stand by itself without affecting any
other. I am by no means satisfied that these are independent
propositions. It seems to me that altogether the safer way is to take
the question on them together.

Mr. Jacob Collamer, of Vermont, said:

Mr. President, I take it the test of the divisibility of a question
depends upon whether there can be a vote left after it is divided, let
the first be decided as it may. That is the criterion; that, if after
you have voted ``yea'' or ``nay'' upon the first article of division,
there is still a question to be decided
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 943.
\2\ Globe, p. 2951.
\3\ Senate Impeachment Journal, pp. 903, 904; Globe, pp. 2951-2953.
Sec. 2397
if the decision be either way. Now, in this case, suppose the
proposition to be that this man be deprived of office, and that he be
rendered ineligible, and it is divided, and the vote shall be that he
be not deprived of his office; is there anything left? There would be
nothing left to vote on, because the rendering him ineligible hereafter
is only a consequence of the first, and rests in judicial discretion
whether we put it on or not. It is not, in my apprehension, divisible,
because a vote in one way on the first branch would render it
impossible to get along with the second.

Mr. O. H. Browning, of Illinois, said:

We have the authority of an adjudicated case of the action of the
Senate, in which they found a judge guilty upon impeachment and entered
against him a judgment of ouster from his office; going no further. I
apprehend it was competent for them to do that. They were not bound to
attach to it the other consequence that may be attached to it under the
Constitution, of disqualification forever thereafter to hold office. It
may frequently occur--it occurred in that case, it may occur again--
that a majority of the Senators would feel it their duty to vote for
his ouster from office, and would not feel it their duty to vote for
his disqualification forever thereafter to hold any other office under
the Government, however unimportant. If you are compelled to put the
question, and the whole question, as one question--to put it all
together--men who are unwilling to vote to disqualify him forever,
disfranchise him forever, will be constrained to vote that he be ousted
from office, and also to vote for another proposition, which in their
judgments would be unjust. That would follow inevitably; and after you
had taken the question on them jointly, I apprehend you could not
return and divide them, and take the propositions separately, so as to
say whether he should be ousted from office.

The President pro tempore \1\ said:

In the judgment of the Chair these are separate and divisible
propositions. * * * From the authority of the Pickering case the Chair
is obliged to say that it is a divisible proposition.

The question was then taken on the first proposition, and it was
determined in the affirmative, yeas 38, nays 0.
On the second branch of the question there appeared, yeas 36, nays 0.
The President pro tempore thereupon pronounced the judgment of the
court, as follows:

This court, therefore, do order and decree, and it is hereby
adjudged: That West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court of the
United States for the eastern, middle, and western districts of
Tennessee, be and he is removed from his said office; and that he be
and is disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
profit under the United States.

Then, on motion of Mr. Foster, the court adjourned without day.
On the same day, the Committee of the Whole House having returned to
Representatives Hall, the Committee of the Whole rose, and the Speaker
having resumed the chair, Mr. E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, the
Chairman, reported--

that the committee had, according to order, attended the trial by the
Senate of the said impeachment; and that the said West H. Humphreys,
judge of the district court of the United States for the several
districts of Tennessee, had been found guilty by the Senate of the
matter whereof he stood charged by the House of Representatives, as
contained in its articles of impeachment exhibited against him.\2\

In the Senate, on June 27,\3\ on motion of Mr. Foster, it was,

Ordered, That the Secretary lay before the President of the United
States an attested copy of the judgment of the Senate as the high court
of impeachment in the case of West H. Humphreys.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Solomon Foot, of Vermont, President pro tempore.
\2\ House Journal, pp. 943, 944.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 718; Globe, p. 2957.