THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SWAYNE equal promptitude eight members of the committee voted to report a resolution rec ommending impeachment, six of whom could not have known by an examination of the case whether there was any justifica tion for such action. It is written, and still true, that "He that answereth a matter be fore he heareth it, it is a folly and a shame unto him." The charges relating to the certificate of expenses and use of the private car had not then been made. The commit tee consisted of seventeen lawyers and there is good reason for believing, that as the case then stood, if all the committee had been present and had had an opportunity to read the case, the resolution of impeach ment would not have been reported. Near the close of that session of Congress, the case was postponed until the next session and the Judiciary Committee were instructed to take additional testimony and report their conclusion thereon. The same sub committee proceeded to take additional testimony, completing their work November 28, 1904. During this taking, the charges based upon the certificates of expenses and the use of the private car appeared for the first time. The same eight reported that the "testimony strengthens the case against the said Charles Swayne." Judge Swayne at the last taking made an elaborate state ment explaining and answering all other charges against him, but did not answer or explain the charge of having made a false certificate of expenses. Minority views were filed in which it was stated, "As a witness he answered and explained every other charge. This charge he made no effort as a witness to answer or explain. The inference from the record on general principles is, that the charge is admitted to be true, and that he has no explanation or answer thereto. Whether a satisfactory answer can be made we do not say. We must take the record as it stands. Upon this record unanswered and unexplained, we are of the opinion that in this particular an impeachable offense has been made out." These views held
195
that in other respects the case had been materially weakened. This was the condi tion of the case when the resolution of im peachment was adopted by the House without a division. Afterward and before the adoption of the articles of impeachment, controlling and significant facts relating to these certificates were ascertained. In his original report in speaking of the Hoskins case, Mr. Palmer used this mild and conservative language: "The whole disgraceful perversion of law and justice was made possible by the complacency, stupidity or worse of Judge Swayne who lent himself to a conspiracy to ruin an honest man by aiding the conspirators in every way in his power." After making this report and while taking the additional testi mony, Mr. Palmer said, November 28, 1904, as to the Hoskins case, " There was no allega tion that Judge Swayne knew anything about this alleged conspiracy between Canhoun, Boone, and Tunison (the attorneys who were alleged to be pursuing Hoskins) at all. There is no testimony of that kind or finding based upon it." Yet on the i3th of December, 1904, he repeated the assertion made in the report in a speech on the floor of the House, urging the adoption of the resolution of impeachment. It should be stated as to the suicide of young Hoskins that the physician who at tended him testified that in his opinion he died of "acute alcoholism." Mr. Palmer was chairman of the committee to formu late the articles of impeachment and the fact that he reported no article on the Hos kins case is a demonstration that those charges had no valid foundation. They had probably served their purpose when they aided in the passage of the resolution of im peachment. The articles of impeachment were twelve. The first three were based upon the certifi cates for expenses made by Swayne under the following statute, which has been con tained in the several appropriation bills since 1896 and is not found in the general
