« PreviousContinue »
properly expunged, was that expulsion per though committed during a vacation of se rendered the expelled member legally Congress and in no way connected with ineligible, and that votes cast for him could his duties as a member. Upon what prinnot be counted. Wilkes's offense was of ciple is it that such a jurisdiction can be purely a political character, not involving maintained? It must be upon one or both imoral turpitude; he had attacked the of the following: that the offense shows ministry in the press, and the proceedings him to be an unworthy and improper man against him in Parliament were then to be a member, or that his conduct brings claimed to be a partisan political persecu- odium and reproach upon the body. But tion, subversive of the rights of the people suppose the offense has been committed and of the liberty of the press. These prior to his election, but comes to light proceedings in Wilkes's case took place afterward, is the effect upon his own during the appearance of the famous Juni- character, or the reproach and disgrace us letters, and several of them are devoted upon the body, if they allow him to remain to the discussion of them. The doctrine a member, any the less? We can see no that expulsion creates ineligibility was at- difference in principle in the two cases, and 1 tacked and exposed by him with great to attempt any would be to create a purely force. But he concedes that if the cause technical and arbitrary distinction, having of expulsion be one that renders a man no just foundation. In our judgment, the unit and unworthy to be a member, he time is not at all material, except it be may be expelled for that cause as often as coupled with the further fact that he was he shall be elected. re-elected with a knowledge on the part of his constituents of what he had been guilty, and in such event we have given our views of the effect.
The case of Matteson, in the House of Representatives, has also often been quoted, as a precedent for this limitation of jurisdiction. In the proceedings and debates of the House upon that case it will be seen | that this was one among many grounds taken in the debate; but as the whole subjeet was ended by being laid on the table, it is quite impossible to say what was decided by the House. It appeared, however, in that case that the charge against Matteson had become public, and his letter upon which the whole charge re-ted had been published and circulated through his district during the canvass preceding his election. This fact, we judge, had a most important influence in determining the action of the House in his case.
It seems to us absurd to say that an election has given a man political absolution for an offense which was unknown to his constituents. If it be urged again, as it has sometimes been, that this view of the power of the House, and the true ground of its proper exercise, may be laid hold of and used improperly, it may be answered that no rule, however narrow and limited, that may be adopted can prevent it. If two-thirds of the House shall see fit to expel a man because they do not like his political or religious principles, or without any reason at all, they have the power, and there is no remedy except by appeal to the people. Such exercise of the power would be wrongful, and violative of the principles of the Constitution, but we see no encouragement of such wrong in the views we hold.
The committee have no occasion in this report to discuss the question as to the power or duty of the House in a case where a constituency, with a full knowledge of the objectionable character of a man, have selected him to be their Representative. It is hardly a case to be supposed that any constituency, with a full knowledge that a man had been guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude, would elect him. The majority of the committee are not prepared to concede such a man could be forced upon the House, and would not consider the expulsion of such a man any violation of the rights of the electors, for while the electors have rights that should be respected, the House as a body has rights also that should be protected and preserved. we imagine that the people of the United But that in such case the judgment of the States will charge their servants with inconstituency would be entitled to the great-vading their privileges when they confine est consideration, and that this should form themselves to the preservation of a standan important element in its determination, ard of official integrity which the common is readily admitted. instincts of humanity recognize as essential to all social order and good govern. ment.
It is the duty of each House to exercise its rightful functions upon appropriate occasions, and to trust that those who come after them will be no less faithful to duty, and no less jealous for the rights of free popular representation than themselves. It will be quite time enough to square other cases with right reason and principle when they arise. Perhaps the best way to prevent them will be to maintain strictly public integrity and public honor in all cases as they present themselves. Nor do
It is universally conceded, as we believe, that the House has ample jurisdiction to punish or expel a member for an offense committed during his term as a member,
The foregoing are the views which we deem proper to submit upon the general
any official function under or in connection with any Department of the Government of the United States, or under the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, after the passage of this act, with intent to influence his vote or decision on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may then be pending, or may by law, or under the Constitution of the United States, be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of trust or profit, and shall thereof be convicted; such person or persons so offering, promising, or giving, or causing or procuring to be promised, offered, or given, any such money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or any promise, contract, undertaking, obligation, or security for the payment or delivery of any money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or other valuable thing whatever, and the member, officer, or person who shall in anywise accept or receive the same, or any part thereof, shall be liable to indictment as for a high crime and misdemeanor in any of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not exceeding three times the amount so offered, promised, or given, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding three years; and the person so convicted of so accepting or receiving the same, or any
In relation to Mr. Ames, he sold to several members of Congress stock of the Credit Mobilier Company, at par, when it was worth double that amount or more, with the purpose and intent thereby to in-part thereof, if an officer or person holding fluence their votes and decisions upon any such place of trust or profit as aforematters to come before Congress. said, shall forfeit his office or place; and any person so convicted under this section shall forever be disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
The facts found in the report as to Mr. Brooks, show that he used the influence of his official positions as member of Congress and Government director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, to get fifty shares of the stock of the Credit Mobilier Company, at par, when it was worth three or four times that sum, knowing that it was given to him with intent to influence his votes and decisions in Congress, and his action as a Government director.
question of the jurisdiction of the House over its members. But apart from these general views, the committee are of opinion that the facts found in the present case amply justify the taking jurisdiction over them, for the following reasons:
The subject-matter upon which the action of members was intended to be influenced was of a continuous character, and was as likely to be a subject of congressional action in future Congresses as in the Fortieth. The influences brought to bear on members were as likely to be operative upon them in the future as in the present, and were so intended. Mr. Ames and Mr. Brooks have both continued members of the House to the present time, and so have most of the members upon whom these influences were sought to be exerted. The committee are, therefore, of opinion that the acts of these men may properly be treated as offenses against the present House, and so within its jurisdiction upon the most limited rule.
Two members of the committee, Messrs. Niblack and McCrary, prefer to express no opinion on the general jurisdictional questions discussed in the report, and rest their judgment wholly on the ground last stated.
The sixth section of the act of February 26, 1853, 10 Stat. United States, 171, is in the following words:
"If any person or persons shall, directly or indirectly, promise, offer, or give, or cause or procure to be promised, offered, or given, any money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or any promise, contract, undertaking, obligation, or security for the payment or delivery of any money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or any other valuable thing whatever, to any member of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, after his election as such member, and either before or after he shall have qualified and taken his seat, or to any officer of the United States, or person holding any place of trust or profit, or discharging
In the judgment of the committee, the facts reported in regard to Mr. Ames and Mr. Brooks would have justified their conviction under the above-recited statute and subjected them to the penalties therein provided.
The committee need not enlarge npon the dangerous character of these offenses. The sense of Congress is shown by the severe penalty denounced by the statute itself. The offenses were not violations of private rights, but were against the very life of a constitutional Government by poisoning the fountain of legislation.
The duty devolved upon the committee has been of a most painful and delicate character. They have performed it to the best of their ability. They have proceeded with the greatest care and deliberation, for while they desired to do their full duty to the House and the country, they were most anxious not to do injustice to any man. In forming their conclusions they have intended to be entirely cool and dispassionate, not to allow themselves to be swerved by any popular fervor on the one
hand, or any feeling of personal favor and sympathy on the other.
The committee submit to the House and recommend the adoption of the following resolutions.
"1. Whereas Mr. Oakes Ames, a Representative in this House from the State of Massachusetts, has been guilty of selling to members of Congress shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America, for prices much below the true value of such stock, with intent thereby to influence the votes and decisions of such members in matters to be brought before Congress for action: Therefore,
Resolved, That Mr. Oakes Ames be, and he is hereby, expelled from his seat as a member of this House.
2. Whereas Mr. James Brooks, a Representative in this House from the State of New York, did procure the Credit Mobilier Company to issue and deliver to Charles H. Neilson, for the use and benefit of -aid Brooks, fifty shares of the stock of said company, at a price much below its real value, well knowing that the same was so issued and delivered with intent to influence the votes and decisions of said Brooks, as a member of the House, in matters to be brought before Congress for action, and also to influence the action of
said Brooks as a Government director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company: Therefore,
Resolved, That Mr. James Brooks be, and he is hereby, expelled from his scat as a member of this Hou-e.”
The House, after much discussion, modified the propositions of the committee of investigation, and subjected Oakes Ames. and James Brooks to the "absolute condemnation of the House." Both members die within three months thereafter.
The session was full of investigations, but all the others failed to develop any tangible scandals. The Democrats demanded and secured the investigation of the New York custom-house; the United States Treasury; the use of Seneca sandstone; the Chorpenning claim, and the Navy Department, etc. They were, as stated, fruitless.
Total net saving.................. ..$1,713,827 72 The House passed a bill for the abolition of mileage, but in the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, and not again heard from. So that the increased pay no longer obtains, the franking privilege only to the extent of mailing actual Congressional documents, and mileage remains.
The following curious facts relating to these questions we take from Hon. Edward McPherson's admirable compilation in his
The "Salary Grab."
At the same session-1871-'73, acts were
passed to abolish the franking privilege, to" Hand-Book of Politics" for 1874.
Statement of Compensation and Mileage.
Mr. Gorham, Secretary of the Senate, prepared, under date of January 3, 1874, a statement, in answer to a resolution of the Senate, covering these points:
I.—The several rates of compensation fixed | II.-Names of Senators who drew pay unby various laws, and the cases in which the same were retroactive, and for what length of time.
der the retroactive provisions of the several laws, amounts drawn, and dates of
1. By the act of September 22, 1789, the compensation of Senators and Representatives in Congress was fixed at six dollars a day, and thirty cents a mile for traveling to and from the seat of Government. This rate was to continue until March 4, 1795. The same act fixed the compensation from March 4, 1795, to March 4, 1793, which last-named date, by its terms, it expired,) at seven dollars a day, and thirtyfive cents a mile for travel. This act was retroactive, extending back six months and eighteen days, namely, to March 4,
ACT OF 1789.—The records of my office do not furnish the exact information desired under this under this head concerning the First Congress, the compensation of which was fixed by act of September 22, 1789. It appears, however, that the account of each Senator was made up, and that_each_re(atceived the amount allowed by law. The following is a copy from the record:
January 19, 1790.-That there is due to the Senators of the United States for attendance in Congress the present session, to the 31st of March inclusive, and exby law, as follows, to wit: penses of travel to Congress, as allowed
2. The act of March 10, 1796, fixed the compensation at six dollars a day, and thirty cents a mile for travel. (This act extended back over six days only.)
3. The act of March 19, 1816, fixed the compensation at $1,500 a year, "instead of the daily compensation," and left the mileage unchanged. This act was retroactive, extending back one year and fifteen days, namely to March 4, 1815. (This act was repealed by the act of February 6, 1817, but it was expressly declared that no former act was thereby revived.)
4. The act of January 22, 1818, fixed the compensation at eight dollars a day, and forty cents a mile for travel. This act was retroactive, extending back fifty-three days, namely, to the assembling of Congress, December 1, 1817.
5. The act of August 16, 1856, fixed the compensation at $3,000 a year, and left the mileage unchanged. This act was retroactive, extending back one year, five inonths, and twelve days, namely, to March 4, 1855. 6. The act of July 28, 1866, fixed the compensation at $5,000 a year, and twenty cents a mile for travel, (not to affect mileage accounts already accrued.) This act was retroactive, extending back one year, four months, and twenty-four days, namely, to March 4, 1865.
7. The act of March 3, 1873, fixed the compensation at $7,500 a year, and actual traveling expenses; the mileage already paid for the Forty-Second Congress to be deducted from the pay of those who had received it. This act was retroactive, extending back two years, namely, to March 4, 1871.
NOTE. Stationery was allowed to Senators and Representatives without any special limit until March 3, 1868, when the amount for stationery and newspapers for each Senator and Member was limited to $125 a session. This was changed by a subsequent act, taking effect July 1, 1869, to $125 a year. The act of 1873 abolished all allowance for stationery and news
Messrs. Richard Basset, $496.50; Pierce Butler, $796; Charles Carroll, $186; Tristram Dalton, $612; Oliver Ellsworth, $546.50; Jonathan Elmer, $414; William Few, $833.50; John Henry, $596.50; Benjamin Hawkins, 615; William S. Johnson, $544; Samuel Johnson, $534; Rufus King, $22; John Langdon, $618; William William Paterson, $514.50; George Read, Maclay, $585; Robert Morris, $430.50; $195; Caleb Strong, $575.50; Philip Schuyler, $571.50; Paine Wingate, $616.50.
ACT OF 1816.-The record contains no showing as to the amount paid to Senators under the retroactive provision of the act from the books, shows the amount of comof March 19, 1816. The following, taken pensation paid to each Senator for the entire Congress, exclusive of mileage:
Messrs. Eli P. Ashmun, $920; James Barbour, $2,850; William T. Barry, $2,080; William W. Bibb, $2,070; James Brown, $2,980; George W. Campbell, $2,950; Dudley Chace, $3,000; John Condit, $2,980; David Daggett, $3,000; Samuel W. Dana, $2,640; Elegius Fromentin, $3,000; John Gaillard, President, $6,000; Robert H. Goldsborough, $2,840; Christopher Gore, $1,940; Alexander Contee Hanson, $530; Martin D. Hardin, $900; Robert G. Harper, $1,450; Outerbridge Horsey, $3,000; Jeremiah B. Howell, $3,000; William Hunter, $2,930; Rufus King, $2,660; Abner Lacock, $3,000; Nathaniel Macon, $2,946; Jeremiah Mason of New Hampshire, $2,680; Armistead T. Mason of Virginia, 32,360; Jeremiah Morrow, $3,000; James Noble, $920; Jonathan Roberts, $3,000; Benjamin Ruggles, $3,000; Nathan Sanford, $2,720; William Smith, $540; Montfort Stokes, $810; Charles Tait, $3,000; Isham Talbot, $2,730; John Taylor of South Carolina, $1,990; Waller Taylor of Indiana, $920; Thomas W. Thompson, $2,850; Isaac Tichenor, $3,000; Georgo M. Troup, $830; James Turner, $2,060; Joseph B. Varnum, $3,000; William H.
Welle, $2,610; John Williams, $3,000; | J. B. Thompson, $2,235.57; John R. James J. Wilson, $3,000. Thomson, $2,022.46; Robert Toombs, $2,ACT OF 1818.-Under the retroactive 006.07; Isaac Toucey, $2,292.65; L. Trumprovision of the act of January 22, 1818, bull, $2,251.97; B. F. Wade, $2,202.79; J. the following named Senators drew the B. Weller, $2,251 97; H. Wilson, $2,178.amounts for compensation and mileage op- 20; W. Wright, $2,120.82; D. L. Yulee, posite their respective names : $2,194.59.
ACT OF 1866.-Under the retroactive
Messrs. Eli P. Ashmun, $668; James Barbour, $520; James Burril, $762; George provision of the act of July 28, 1866, the W. Campbell, $1,008; John J. Crittenden, following named Senators received the $1,007.20; David Daggett, $690.40; Samuel amounts opposite their respective names: W. Dana, 283.20; Mahlon Dickerson, Messrs. H. B. Anthony, $2.805 56; B. $628.80; John W. Eppes, $584; James | Gratz Brown, $2,805 56; C. R. Buckalew, Fisk, $848; Elegius Fromentin, $1,393.60;$2,805 56; Z. Chandler, $2,805 56; D John Gaillard, SS80; Robert H. Golds-Clark, $2,805 56; J. Collamer, $1,366 15; borough, $483.20; Outerbridge Horsey, J. Conness, $2,805 56; E. Cowan, $2,$485.60; William Hunter, $543.20; Henry 805 56; A. H. Cragin, $2,805 56; J. A. J. Johnson, $1,273.60; Rufus King, $627.20; Creswell, $2,805, 56; G. Davis, $2,805 56; Abner Lacock, $649.60; Walter Leake, J. Dixon, $2,805 56; J. R. Doolittle, $2,$1,384; Nathaniel Macon, $600; David L. 805 56; W. P. Fessenden, $2,805 56; S. Morril, $876; Jeremiah Morrow, $776;| Foot, $2,136 76; L. F. S. Foster, President James Noble, $918.40; Harrison Gray Otis, pro tempore, $261 93; J. W. Grimes, $2,$792.80; Jonathan Roberts, $564.80; Ben-805 56; J. Guthrie, $2,805 56; I. Harris, jamin Ruggles, $688; Nathan Sanford, $2,805 56; J. B. Henderson, $2,805 56; T. $616; William Smith, $774.40; Montfort A. Hendricks, $2,805.56; J. M. Howard, Stokes, $745.60; Clement Storer, $875.20; $2,805 56; T. Ó. Howe, $2,805 56; R. JohnCharles Tait, $952; Isham Talbot, $872; son, $2,805 56; H. S. Lane, $2,805 56; Waller Taylor, $1,080; Isaac Tichenor, J. H. Lane, $2,710 49; James A. Mc$784; George M. Troup, $952;-Van Dougall, $2,805 56; E. D. Morgan, $2,Dyke, $380.80; Thomas H. Williams of 805 56; L. M. Morrill, $2,805 56; J. W. Mississippi, $1,433.60; John Williams of Nesmith, $2,805 56; D. S. Norton, $2,Tennessee, $861.60; James J. Wilson, 805 56; J. W. Nye, $2,805 56; S. C. Pome$568. roy, $2, 805 56; A. Ramsey, $2,805 56; G. R. Riddle, $2,805 56; W. Saulsbury, $2,805 56; J. Sherman, $2,805 56; W. M. Stewart, $2,805 56; C. Sumner, $2,805 56; L. Trumbull, $2,805 56; P. G. Van Winkle, $2,805 56; B. Wade, $2,805 56; W. T. Willey, $2,805 56; G. H. Williams, $2,805 56; H. Wilson, $2,805 56; W. Wright, $2,805 56; R. Yates, $2,805 56; J. Harlan,
ACT OF 1856.-Under the retroactive provision of the act of August 16, 1856, the following named Senators drew the amounts opposite their respective names:
ACT OF 1873.-Under the retroactive provision of the act of March 3, 1873, the following named Senators received the sums set opposite their respective names:
Messrs. Stephen Adams, $2,243.77; Philip Allen, $2,202.79; James A. Bayard, $2,088.03; James Bell, $1,083.93; John Bell, 82,268,36; J. P. Benjamin, $2,210.99; Asa Biggs, 82.161.81; William Bigler, $1,- $350; L. P. Poland, $1,361; John P. Stock594.24; Jesse D. Bright, president proton, $2,131 20; S. J. Kirkwood, $2,361 10; tempore, $6,772.40; R. Brodhead, $2,251.- G. F. Edmunds, $666 66; E. G. Ross, 97; A. G. Brown, $2,251.97; A. P. Butler, $180 40. $2,202.70; Lewis Cass, $2,251.97; C. C. Clay, jr., $2,251.97; J. M. Clayton, $2,292.95; J. Collamer, $2.219.18; J. J. Crittenden, $2,243.79; H. Dodge, $2,292.95; S. A. Douglas, $2,268.36; C. Durkee, $2,235.56; J. J. Evans, $2,121.70; W. S. Fessenden, $2,276.56; H. Fish, $2,237.28; B. Fitzpatrick, $2,194.59; S. Foot, $2,292.94; L. F. S. Foster, $2,112.62; H. S. Geyer, $2,276.56; J. P. Hale, $887.10; H. Hamlin, $1,-penter, $3,887 60; E. Casserly, $970 40; 989.68; J. Harlan, $2,268.36; S. Houston, Chandler, $3,906 80; P. Clayton, $2,600; $2,292.95; R. M. T. Hunter, 2,210.99; A. C. Cole, $970 40; H. Cooper, $3,760; H. Iverson, $2,210.99; C. T. James, $2,210.99; G. Davis, $4,635 20; O. S. Ferry, $1,652; R. W. Johnson, $632.21; G. W. Jones, T. W. Ferry, $3,920; J. W. Flanagan, $2,$2,235.58; J. C. Jones, $2,047.05; S. R. 000; A. Gilbert, $3,680; George GoldthMallory, $2,276.56; J. M. Mason, $2,170; waite, $3,924 80; M. C. Hamilton, $2,480; J. A. Pearce, $2,194.59; T. G. Pratt, $2,- Joshua Hill, $4,083 20; P. W. Hitchcock, 129.02; G. E. Pugh, $2,096.21; D. S. Reid, $2,852 80; T. O. Howe, $3,689 60, J. W. $2,235.58; T. J. Rusk, $2,292.95; W. K. Johnston, $4,705 60; John T. Lewis, $4Sebastian, $2,137.22; W. H. Seward, $2,- 804 40; John A. Logan, $3,800; W. B. 292.95; John Slidell, $2,276.56; C. E. Machen, $552 98; L. M. Morrill, $4,190; Stuart, $2,292.95; C. Sumner, $2,292.95; J. S. Morrill, (draft in favor of the treas
Messrs. A. Ames, $2,840; J. L. Alcorn, $2,312 39; J. T. Bayard, $4,865 60; F. P. Blair, $3,761 60; A. I. Boreman, $4,514; W. G. Brownlow, $4,588; A. Caldwell, $2, 647 60; S. Cameron, $4,856; M. H. Ca