[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 325-349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



* * * * *
                         sec. liii--impeachment



Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as 
to impeachments.

  These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the 
principles and practices of England on the same subject:


  Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in 
the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 
63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the 
Commons. Ib., 84. The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a 
capital offense, on the information of the King or a private person, 
because the accused is entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but 
on accusation by the House of Commons, they may proceed against the 
delinquent, of whatsoever degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the 
offense; for there they do not assume to themselves trial at common law. 
The Commons are then instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on 
their demand, which is instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, 
but not try the delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a 
commoner can now be charged capitally before the Lords, even by the 
Commons; and cites Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, 
where the Lords remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's 
Deb., 325-7; 2 Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 
1641; 4 Blackst., 25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.




Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation 
in impeachment.

  Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes 
suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course 
is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the 
supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by 
oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the 
Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and 
desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be 
committed, or that the peers will take order for his appearance. Sachev. 
Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 
6 Grey, 324.




Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the 
House.

  In the  House various events have been credited with setting an 
impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility 
of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 
528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually 
referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 
2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred 
to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a 
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges 
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory 
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and 
reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). 
In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an 
investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly 
impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the 
request because the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses 
did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office 
(Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the 
Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged 
resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for 
acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other 
hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate 
charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was 
referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9, 
1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C. 
595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable 
offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution 
reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the 
communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings 
on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the 
House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 
581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). In the first impeachment of President 
Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing 
investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for 
impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second 
impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported 
resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursuant to a 
special order of business only several days after the underlying conduct 
occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).


  A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect 
to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the 
privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).



Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of 
privilege.

  A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in 
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the 
rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 
468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, 
p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10, 
2008, p. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892; 
Dec. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _; see 
Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 8). It may not even be superseded by an election 
case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not 
lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been 
made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408; 
July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008, p. 12053)), previous 
action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of 
the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is 
filed as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). A 
proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 
27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business reported by 
the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). The 
addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not 
reported by committee is also privileged (III, 2418), as is a 
proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an 
impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After having recognized 
an impeachment resolution as a question of the privileges of the House, 
the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry regarding the substance of 
the resolution, that being a matter for the House by its disposition of 
the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, pp. 15892-93). To a privileged resolution of 
impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not 
privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107). On several 
occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been referred a 
question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that impeachment was 
not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a question of 
privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired provision of 
law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the President was 
subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A resolution 
impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (July 13, 
1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
(Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892) constitutes a question of the privileges of the 
House under rule IX.


  Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are 
privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2, 
1987, p. 33720; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing 
for selection of managers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 
28112), proposing abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514), 
reappointing managers for impeachment proceedings continued in the 
Senate from the previous Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), empowering managers to hire special legal 
and clerical personnel and providing for their pay, and to carry out 
other responsibilities (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, 
p. 1726); but a resolution simply proposing an investigation, even 
though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged 
(III, 2050, 2546; VI, 468). The House has adopted special orders of 
business: (1) providing for the consideration of a specified proposition 
relating to an impeachment once made and denying privilege to any other 
such proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) 
providing for the adoption of a specified proposition relating to an 
impeachment upon adoption of an article of impeachment and denying 
privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 
2021, p. _).

  Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or 
suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051, 
2052, 2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and 
investing the committee with special investigative authorities to 
facilitate the inquiry (III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14, 
Sec. Sec. 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to 
which has been referred privileged resolutions for the impeachment of an 
officer may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to 
consideration of the impeachment question, including conferral of 
subpoena authority and funding of the investigation from the contingent 
fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in 
clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349). Similarly, 
a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel in an 
impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to 
impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).



Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment 
charges.

  The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having 
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even 
appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times 
ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from 
ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a 
committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has 
referred to committee an impeachment resolution raised as a question of 
privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11, 
2008, p. 12218). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced 
through the hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer 
have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions 
calling for an investigation by that committee or by a select committee 
with a view toward impeachment have been referred to the Committee on 
Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon receipt of a communication from an 
independent counsel transmitting to the House under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a 
communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the 
President, the House adopted a resolution reported by the Committee on 
Rules referring the communication to the Committee on the Judiciary to 
conduct a review (H. Res. 525, 106th Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). 
Later, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the 
Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that 
committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, pp. 24679, 24735) The House has 
adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
directing sundry committees to continue ``ongoing investigations'' as 
part of an ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, 
p. _). In the second impeachment of President Trump, the House did not 
pursue any formal committee investigation or impeachment inquiry.




Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in 
investigating.

  The House has  almost always examined the charges by its own committee 
before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee 
has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes 
a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee 
has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 
2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in 
favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 
2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept. 
105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). The 
Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to 
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of 
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the 
decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House, 
the chair of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the 
committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by 
the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The 
House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the 
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of 
the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing 
its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the chair and 
members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). In 
the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged 
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry 
committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified 
investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to 
the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the 
impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 606a. Procedure of House in 
considering.

  During the  pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate 
may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the 
President but may not include language generally abusive toward the 
President and may not include comparisons to the personal conduct of 
sitting Members of the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A 
resolution setting forth separate articles of impeachment may be divided 
among the articles (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 
3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the 
Senate.

  Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the 
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91), 
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may 
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a 
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III, 
2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22, 
1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323), or 13 (Dec. 
19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several notable cases represented 
the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112), but ordinarily 
include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505). 
Under early practice the House elected managers by ballot (III, 2300, 
2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the Speaker appointed the 
managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an order of the House (III, 
2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a resolution appointing 
managers. In the later practice the House considers together the 
resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, 
pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts resolutions electing 
managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate 
of the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing 
the managers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate (VI, 
500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; July 22, 1986, p. 17306; 
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). These privileged incidental resolutions may be 
merged into a single, indivisible privileged resolution (H. Res. 614, 
Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res. 
798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).





Sec. 608. Impeachment process in the 
Senate.

  Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving 
him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any 
error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day. 
If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld. 
Jud. 98, 99.




Sec. 608a. First Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive 
the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment 
against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers 
presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as 
follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p. 
_); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020, 
p. _).


  The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment 
trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple 
amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The 
resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2) 
a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers 
and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the 
parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the 
Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for 
deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should 
testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief 
Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for 
breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905 
impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging'' 
(Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief 
Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified 
document identified by House managers was made available at the trial 
but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate 
trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from 
the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President 
Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27, 
2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and 
argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had 
adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020, 
p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question 
from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the 
impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion 
to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).


  The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining 
impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such 
resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final 
arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment; 
and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief 
Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after 
reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief 
Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to 
break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of 
the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing 
arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated 
the rules of the House in not providing for a minority day of hearing 
(Feb. 3, 2020, p. _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read 
each article and each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not 
guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5, 
2020, p. _).



Sec. 608b. Second Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for 
the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former 
President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented 
the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1) 
the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2) 
the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).


  The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment 
trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of 
order that the impeachment trial of a former President was 
unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question 
directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a 
resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 
16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the 
impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various 
trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed 
that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the 
Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the 
trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4) 
directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at 
the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial, 
the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings 
(S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the 
composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the 
question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President, 
with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate 
dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by 
majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no 
jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations 
by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor 
of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties; 
(5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would 
subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed 
witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7) 
a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the 
evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening 
on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the 
provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.

  By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to 
sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump 
following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the 
precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President 
pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). 
The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack 
on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial 
presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the 
House managers invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to 
a sitting Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the 
remarks of the managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p. 
_). The President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers' 
presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided, 
which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). 
Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House 
managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation 
without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p. 
_).


  Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous 
consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p. 
_). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the 
initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts 
from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility 
in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the 
question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a 
current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone 
call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was 
purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). 
Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a 
call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to 
allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of 
impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate 
returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement 
from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in 
question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena 
witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13, 
2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call 
involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to 
engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro 
tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He 
eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed 
that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the 
evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised 
during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing 
arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate 
adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of 
insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 
13, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 608c. Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Clinton.

  In the  impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate 
adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first 
article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p. 
2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).



  See S. Doc. 93-102, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials 
in the United States Senate,'' for precedents relating to the conduct of 
Senate impeachments.




Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of 
articles.

  Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an 
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing 
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325; 
2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.


  Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House 
and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House 
exhibited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar 
of the Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of 
impeachment have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously 
in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88; 
Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are 
elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517; 
Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388, 
2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the House 
(III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449, 
2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448) 
and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter 
body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 
19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited the articles the managers 
return and report verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476).

  The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although 
attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment 
(III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the 
articles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and 
accumulated separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; 
Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and 
attested by the Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the 
practice of the House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

  Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may be 
subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, 
pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of 
impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for 
consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House 
(VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).


  For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of 
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see 
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion 
of the presentation of the House managers in support of the impeachments 
of President Trump, and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. 
For a discussion of the same with respect to the impeachment of 
President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 
116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance 
of respondent.

  Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; 
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but 
on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a 
lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on 
the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties 
to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the 
articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1 
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a 
misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in 
writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation 
for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as 
the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer. 
Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a 
prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum. 
Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law, 
but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.




Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to 
appearance of respondent.

  This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete 
so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The 
accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and 
take the stand (VI, 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986, 
p. 29149), or may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case the 
accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be 
compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of 
``not guilty.'' The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles 
and notifies the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an 
answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III, 
2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was 
insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present 
evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III, 
2333). For a discussion of answers, arguments, and presentations of the 
respondent in the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton 
impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for 
the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).



  The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral 
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House 
attend in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand 
that process issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), 
after which they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 
2451; VI, 501). The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the 
day of return (III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and 
in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or attorney 
the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But 
the respondent's goods were not attached. In only one case has the 
parliamentary law as to sequestration and committal been followed (III, 
2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate 
had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 
2367).




Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

  Answer. The  answer need not 
observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part, 
and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole 
or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 
Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2 
Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 
Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.


  In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew 
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one, 
denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set 
forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others 
(III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation 
of the replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings 
on the impeachment of President Clinton, the answer of the President 
also took up the articles one by one, denying some of the charges and 
admitting others but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses 
(Jan. 14, 1999, pp. 359-361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges 
on the ground that they were not civil officers within the meaning of 
the Constitution (III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as 
to the jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the 
pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence may not properly be 
attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the respondent in 
impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and subsequently 
referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6, 
1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).


  For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in 
the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a 
chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment 
proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th 
Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

  Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There 
may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233; 
Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.


  A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern 
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the 
pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III, 
2455). A respondent also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the 
merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate 
barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to 
jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to 
admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III, 
2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in 
pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III, 
2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not 
touched in the articles has been discussed (III, 2457). In the 
Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971) impeachment 
proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared and 
submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by the 
House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider in 
closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g., to 
declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive 
evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as 
the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the 
impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those 
motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).


  For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its 
impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see 
Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to 
the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

  Witnesses. The  practice 
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or 
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on 
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in 
their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.


  In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in 
open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested 
(III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 
4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for 
impeachment trials to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the 
Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in 
the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of 
Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of 
twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of 
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on 
Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon 
v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to 
declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take 
evidence and testimony.


  For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to 
impeachment.

  Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for 
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a 
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must 
also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the 
case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148. 
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and goods. Id., 188. 
This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for 
misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the delinquent doth put himself 
on the trial of his country, a jury ought to be impaneled, and he adds 
that it is not so on impeachment by the Commons, for they are in loco 
proprio, and there no jury ought to be impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. 
Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the murder of L. 2, on an 
information on the part of the King, and not on impeachment of the 
Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived his peerage, and 
was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 
H., 7, the Commons protest that they are not to be considered as parties 
to any judgment given, or hereafter to be given in Parliament. Id., 133. 
They have been generally and more justly considered, as is before 
stated, as the grand jury; for the conceit of Selden is certainly not 
accurate, that they are the patria sua of the accused, and that the 
Lords do only judge, but not try. It is undeniable that they do try; for 
they examine witnesses as to the facts, and acquit or condemn, according 
to their own belief of them. And Lord Hale says, ``the peers are judges 
of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale, P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as 
well as of law.


  No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the 
Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the 
Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided 
that it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court 
(III, 2057), and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself as a 
``high court of impeachment'' (III, 2079, 2082). However, the modern 
view of the Senate as a court was evident during the impeachment trial 
of President Clinton. There the Senate convened as a ``Court of 
Impeachment'' (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In response to an 
objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that the Senate 
was not sitting as a ``jury'' but was sitting as a ``court'' during the 
impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers were 
directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ``jurors'' (Jan. 
15, 1999, p. 580).



Sec. 615a. The presiding officer.

  An anxiety lest  the Chief 
Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President 
seems to have prompted this earlier action (III, 2057). There was 
examination of the question of the Chief Justice's power to vote (III, 
2098); but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he 
did in fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067) 
though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not 
believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would 
change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Under 
the earlier practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief 
Justice be sworn when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief 
Justice had the oath administered by an associate justice (III, 2422). 
The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of 
the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the 
Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President 
Clinton (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).


  In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United 
States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice 
President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337, 
2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial 
only (III, 2089, 2477). The President pro tempore presided over the 
impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the 
time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 615b. Oath and quorum.

  Senators elected after  the 
beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other 
Senators (III, 2375). The quorum of the Senate sitting for an 
impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a 
quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote 
required for conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and 
voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were 
without representation, the Senate declined to question its competency 
to try an impeachment case (III, 2060). The President pro tempore of the 
Senate administered the oath to the Chief Justice presiding over the 
impeachment trial of President Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn 
administered the oath to the Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).





Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

  Presence of  Commons. 
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. 
Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee 
of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to 
conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb., 
1709-10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand 
it. Seld. Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when 
the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their 
judgment. Their presence, however, is necessary at the answer and 
judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * 
*.





Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of 
Representatives.

  The  House has consulted its own inclination and 
convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not 
attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and 
Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the 
answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the 
remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial 
of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended 
throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. In the Peck 
trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and reconsidered its 
decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the Senate is 
deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when the Senate 
votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the trial, it 
may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently attended 
in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).





Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment 
trial.

  * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is 
first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they 
convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which 
seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.



  The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned 
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of 
President Johnson the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 
2439). In the Belknap trial there was much deliberation over this 
subject (III, 2466). In the Chase trial the Senate modified its former 
rule as to form of final question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are 
taken on each article separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form 
``Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct. 
9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson the Senate, by 
order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the numerical 
order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441), 
and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles 
(III, 2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to 
provide the method of voting and putting the question separately and 
successively on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a 
discussion of the vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment with 
respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, 
supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of 
impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 619. Judgment in 
impeachments.

  Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per 
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to 
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment 
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld. 
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet 
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior 
courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and 
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the 
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful 
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by 
legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The 
Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward 
formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the 
Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In 
misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. 
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judgments 
(but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.



  The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits 
the judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment 
following conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate 
vote if it contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 
512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as 
disqualification) requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted 
separately on the question of disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no 
vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office 
following conviction, because removal follows automatically from 
conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 17, 
1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of removal 
from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office without 
separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not contemplated 
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may 
provide for only removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 
1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding 
any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828; H. 
Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong., 
Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by 
adjournments.

  Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of 
Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.



[[Page 347]]
========================================================================

  In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess 
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The 
following impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the 
next: (1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate 
on the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate 
conducted the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the 
impeachment of Judge Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last 
day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in 
the 73d Congress (VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was 
presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress 
(Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the 
101st Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President 
Clinton was presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine 
die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), and 
the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 
272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge Porteous was authorized in 
the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and continued in the next Congress 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment 
proceedings may continue from one Congress to the next, the authority of 
the managers appointed by the House expires at the end of a Congress; 
and the managers must be reappointed when a new Congress convenes 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2).


========================================================================
[[Page 349]]
                  RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WITH NOTES AND ANNOTATIONS



                               __________