THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SWAYNE When three able and disinterested judges held that he "unquestionably" had jurisdiction, it is preposterous to contend that Judge Swayne committed a crime in assert ing it. To be sure the learned managers vehemently contended in argument that, reproaching Greenhut with a lethal weapon "concerning chiefly" the bank suit, was an indictable offense, and if punished as for contempt, he would be twice punished, and therefore O'Neal could not be held for con tempt. Unfortunately for this contention the Supreme Court of the United States in In re Savin (131 U. S. 275) had held the other way, saying "undoubtedly the offense charged is embraced by that section and is punishable by indictment. But the statute does not make that mode exclusive." Strange as it may seem, this article received the largest vote of any, 35 voting guilty and 47 not guilty. There was no division on party lines. Thus ended the fifth impeachment of a United States Judge in our history. Judge Swayne was not a witness and at the con clusion of the evidence his counsel offered to submit the case without argument, which offer was declined by the managers. Of all impeachments it was the most ab ject and humiliating failure as none was ever tried that did not come nearer a favorable result, in no case failing to get at least a majority in favor of conviction on at least one article, while here the most favorable result was a majority of 12 against convic tion.
207
What there was in legitimate proof that would stand the test of impeachment pro ceedings, as indicated by the articles relied on, to justify the assertion of Mr. Palmer, made in the debate on the articles, January 19, 1905, that "The track of this man since the time he was appointed a judge in Florida down to this date, is spread all over with bankruptcies, scandals, and suicides," an in telligent and discriminating public must judge. The assertion, however, went broad cast throughout the country, as a summary of the charges against Judge Swayne. It is reasonably safe to assume that here after Congressional lawyers having any de sire for "the bubble reputation" will not be likely to seek it in impeachment proceed ings, unless the facts are such as to compel a favorable result, unaided by passion or prejudice. Hon. C. H. Grosvenor has something of a reputation as a political prognosticator, but he sometimes enters other fields. I conclude this article by quoting without comment, approving or otherwise, a proph ecy with which he concluded a speech on this case in the House of Representatives. He said: "We shall see what we shall see, and when our managers come back from the Senate trailing the flag of partisanship and persecution in the dust of overwhelming defeat, we shall understand then better than we understand now the principles of law governing this case and the elements of hate that have entered into it." ROCKLAND, MAINE, March, 1905.
