THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SWAYNE intended to. It appeared that the car was only used by the receiver and when not in use by him was standing in the yard. It was passed over the connecting lines. After having specifically charged that Judge Swayne "acting as judge allowed the credit claimed by the said receiver for and on account of the said expenditure," the man agers made special and strenuous effort to show that the "expense was not disclosed in any of the receiver's reports." They charged him with using the car without compensation "under a claim of right, for the reason that the same was in the hands of a receiver appointed by him" but pro duced nothing before the Senate to sustain the charge. They were apparently relying upon the testimony of Swayne before the sub-committee, which testimony the Senate promptly excluded under an act of Con gress which provided that "no testimony given by a witness before either House or before any Committee of either House of Congress shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony" (R. S. U. S. Sec. 859). It should be said, however, that if the testimony had been admitted it would have been only by segregating a question and answer from the context that they could have proved any admission tend ing to establish that charge. The transscript would have shown that in answer to the question, Q. "You thought that the railroad being in the hands of the court, you had the right to use the property of the railroad without rendering the railroad any compensation for it?" he said, A. "Yes sir, I had ten railroads in my hands as judge in six years." That he did not claim that he had the right to use it with out compensation appears from the answer to the next question which was propounded by Mr. Palmer, Q. "And you fancied you had the right to use the property of any of the railroads that were in the hands of the court whenever you pleased without ren
'97
dering any compensation to the railroads for it?" He said: "I would not say that." There was practically no evidence offered to sustain the third article which related to the use of the private car for a trip to Cali fornia. It is interesting to note that Mr. Manager Olmstead in an ineffective attempt to amend these articles in the House in sisted that they did not "conform to the facts as disclosed by the record." He said, "He, (Swayne), never did appropriate the car and the provisions under the claim of right as charged in articles 4 and 5, but he did improperly use them." While this man ager insisted before the Senate that these articles properly charged an impeachable offense, whether the charge had been made out he considerately left to the judgment of the Senate without any discussion or the expression of an inconsistent opinion on his part. Thirteen Senators were either not ad vised of the previously expressed opinion of the learned manager, or if advised thereof, did not give it determining weight as they voted guilty on both articles and 69 voted not guilty. Article 6 charged non-residence in the Northern District of Florida from July 23, 1894, to October i, 1900, and Article 7 non-residence from July 23, 1894, to January i, 1903, in violation of an ex press statute providing that "Every judge shall reside in the district for which he is appointed, and for offending against this provision shall be deemed guilty of a mis demeanor" (R. S. U. S. Sec. 551). Un doubtedly the most satisfactory method of establishing the fact that he did not reside in the district would have been to have shown that he did actually reside elsewhere, but the managers were not of course con fined to that. Substantially all of their testimony was directed to showing that from 1894 to 1900 he was not actually in the dis trict except when he was holding court, arriving there on the day before and leaving the day or the day after court enc'ei, and it was claimed that this averaged about
