« ZurückWeiter »
The impeachment trials in the United States have been fow. The following is believed to be a correct list, viz:
1st. William Blount, a Senator of the United States from Tennessee. Violation of the neutrality laws of the United States. (See Journals of Congress.)
20. John Pickering, district judge, New Hampshire, 1803–4. Imprisonment of an attorney for an alleged contempt of court, in this : reviewing in a newspaper a decision of the judge. Malfeasance in office. (See Journals of Congress.)
3d. Samuel Chase, associate justice of Supreme Court United States, 1804–5. Malfeasance in office. (See Journals of Con. gress, 1804–5, Chase's Trial.)
4th. James Peck, United States district judge for Missouri, 1826–31. Peck's Trial. (See Journals of Congress.)
5th. West W. Humphreys, United States district judge for Tennessee. Advocating secession, and giving aid and comfort to the rebellion. December 29, 1860. (See Congressional Globe, 2, 37, vol. 3, No. 44.)
6th. Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. High crimes and misdemeanors. (For proceedings see Congressional Globe, Fortieth Congress, and Journals of Congress, 1868.)
7th. William W. Belknap, Secretary of War. Malfeasance and accepting bribes. First session Forty-fonrth Congress. (See Journals and Congressional Record.)
Among the number of trials in the British Parliament, the following most prominent may be cited :
Articles of impeachment for high treason against Lord Lovat. (13 Parl. Hist., 1438; answer of Lord Lovat, Ibid., 1443.)
Articles of impeachment against Earl of Clarendon. (4 Parl. Hist., 378; 1 Grey Deb., 15; 4 Hats., 136.)
Articles of impeachment against Earl of Oxford. (5 Parl. Hist., 1258; 7 Ibid., 75, 114; Hats., 237, 242; answer of Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer to articles, 7 Parl. Hist., 151; Commons' replication to answer of Earl Mortimer, 7 Ibid., 213; proceedings in, and rules governing trial of Earl of Oxford, 6 Ibid., 466 et seq., 493 et seq. See 4 Hats., 287.)
Articles of impeachment against Lord Somers. (5 Parl. Hist., 1226; rules in trial, 3 Parl. Deb., 207 et seq.)
Articles of impeachmeut against Dr. Sacheverel, January 12, 1710. (6 Parl. Hist., 809.)
Articles of impeachment against Henry, Viscount Boling. broke, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (7 Parl. Hist., 129; 4 Hats., 237, 242.)
Articles of impeachment against James, Duke of Ormond, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (7 Parl. Hist., 138.)
Articles of impeachment against Earl of Strafford, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (7 Parl. Hist., 144; 4 Hats., 148, 161, 165, 218, 219, and note. Answer of Earl of Strafford, 7 Parl. Hist., 246.)
Articles of impeachment against Lord Danby, for high treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. (See 4 Hats., 180, 184.),
Articles of impeachment against Sir William Scroggs, for high treason and misdemeanors. (2 Parl. Deb., 22 et seq.; 4 Parl. Hist., 1274; 4 Hats., 117, note.)
Articles of impeachment against Lord Halifax, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (2 Parl. Deb., 204.)
Articles of impeachment against Earl of Macclesfield, whilst Lord High Chancellor, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (8 Parl. Hist., 419; 9 Parl. Deb., 112. See 4 Hats., 272, 289. Answer of Earl of Macclesfield, Ibid., 436. Replication of House of Commons to answer, Ibid., 462. Findings of the court, Ibid., 468. Judgment demanded by Speaker of House of Commons, and pronounced by Speaker of House of Lords, Ibid., 477.)
In the cases of Dr. Sacheverel and Earl of Macclesfield, the Commons carried a vote of thanks in the interval between the giving of the verdict and the pronouncing of the verdict openly in the court. (31 Parl. Hist., 946.)
Articles of impeachment against William Penn, in 1668, for taking prize goods out of an East India ship.
Articles of impeachment against Warren Hastings, May 11, 1787, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (4 Hats., 242, note; Ibid., 267, note.)
(See POSTPONE, MOTION TO.)
The Clerk shall, as soon after the close of each session as possible, complete the printing and distribution to Members and Delegates of the Journal of the House, together with an accurate index.”—RULE III, clause 3.
By the act of March 3, 1875 (Laws, 2, 43, p. 401), an index of the acts passed at each session of Congress is to be prepared under the direction of the Departinent of State.
On the 18th of June, 1878 (2d Sess. 45th Cong.), the House adopted the following preamble and resolution, viz:
Whereas the records of the proceedings of Congress have become so extensive that ready reference to any matter contained in them is almost impossible, and the want of uniformity in the method of indexing the various volumes renders inaccessible much information that is valuable; and
Whereas the business of legislation would be greatly aided and expedited by a proper index of the Journals: Therefore,
Be it resolved, That there shall be prepared, under the direction and supervision of the Committee on Rules, a general index of the Journals of Congress.
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules are authorized to select and employ a proper person to prepare such general index, at a compensation not to exceed $2,500 per annum, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House for the ensuing fiscal year, and to be under the direction of the Committee on Rules as the prosecution of the work proceeds.
Subsequently an assistant was provided in the legislative bill, and the act of February 26, 1880 (Statutes, vol. 25, p. 709), contains the following provision, viz: For clerk to prepare the general index to the Journals of Congress, under resolution of June eighteenth, eighteen hundred and seventyeight, two thousand five hundred dollars, and for the following assistants, under his direction to be appointed by the Committee on Rules, namely: two at one thousand two hundred dollars each ; four at one thousand dollars each ; and two at eight hundred dollars each ; in all, ten thousand five hundred dollars.
It also devolves upon the Clerk's office, under the usage, to prepare indexes to “Executive Documents," " Miscellaneous Documents," "Reports of Committees," " Reports of Court of Claims," " Bills and Joint Resolutions," etc.
INDIAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON.
When appointed, and number of members of.-RULE X.
This committee was created on the 18th of December, 1821 (1st sess. 17th Congress), but its duties were not defined until the revision of the rules in the second session of the Fortysixth Congress. On the 18th of December, 1885 (1st sess. 49th Congress), it was assigned the duty of preparing and reporting the Indian appropriation bill.
Under RULE XVII, clause 1, it is in order, pending the motion for or after the previous question is ordered, to move to commit with or without instructions to a standing or select committee. But it has been held that a division of the question is not in order on such a motion.—Journal, 1, 31, pp. 1307, 1395; 1, 32, p. 11. A conference committee (that is, the members on the part of the House) may be instructed like any other committee, but only in case of a previous disagreement, and when the subject is before the House.
(See CONFERENCE COMMITTEES.)
A resolution creating a select committee for a special purpose, or instructing a standing committee in certain respects, and authorizing such committee to send for persons and papers, is in order on a mution to commit or refer a subject.-Journal, 2, 44, p. 297.
A motion to commit or refer with instructions to report a certain amendment is not in order if the proposed amendment is not in order to the pending bill.—Journal, 1, 48, pp. 1217, 1248.
A motion to commit under clause 1, RULE XVII, with or without instructions, is subject to amendment under RULE XIX, unless precluded by ordering the previous question on the motion to commit.-Journal, 1, 48, p. 1430.
Where a committee has failed to report a résolution of inquiry within one week after its reference, as required by clause 5, RULE XXII, a motion instructing said committee to report the same within a given time is in order as a "privileged question."-Journal, 1, 49, p. 1420.
When the Committee on Appropriations has been instructed by the House to include a particular item in a general appropriation bill, the rule (RULE XXI, clause 2) as to provisions in or amendments to general appropriation bills is thereby waived.- Record, 1, 50, part 8, p. 7057.
No member shall vote on any question if "he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question." RULE VIII, clause 1.- Where proposed legislation affects a class as distinct from individuals, it has always been held that a member has a right to vote.—Journal, 1, 43, pp. 771, 772.
It is for the member himself and not for the Chair to decide as to the right of a member to vote in case the question arises.Cong. Rec., 2, 44, p. 2132.
Differences of opinion have arisen as to the kind of interest alluded to in this rule. It has been contended to apply to members who were merchants or manufactures, or engaged in other business to be affected by tariffs or other bills touching rates of duties, etc. This construction has never been sustained by the llouse. The original construction, and the only true one, is direct personal or pecuniary interest, as stated in clause 1, RULE VIII, which was incorporated in the revision of the rules in the second session Forty-sixth Congress.
A motion to adjourn can not be repeated unless there has been “intervening business.” Another motion submitted ; progress in debate; the reading of a paper by the clerk; an order for the yeas and nays; a motion to reconsider for a recess or for a call of the House, has been held to be intervening business. It has also been held that the motion to adjourn over