into the federal courts. A notable example of the exercise of the power of Congress over our federal judicial system is afforded by the Judiciary Act of 1789, providing, among other things, the way in which state statutes could be brought into the federal courts, and their validity tested.'

Another important power vested in Congress is that of providing the precise manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be given full faith and credit in every other state.?

3

X. In addition to controlling, to a limited extent, the federal judicial system, Congress itself enjoys the power of removing the civil officers of the United States by the process of impeachment, but in practice this power is cf slight importance. In trying cases of impeachment, the Senate acts as the high court." When the President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It requires a two-thirds vote of the members present to convict.

The power of preferring and prosecuting charges against offenders is vested in the House of Representatives. In practice, whenever the House decides to bring any federal officer before the bar of the Senate, it adopts, by resolution, articles of impeachment charging the particular offender with certain high crimes and misdemeanors and enumerating with more or less detail his particular offences. It thereupon chooses leaders to direct the prosecution before the Senate, and the case is then conducted very much in the form of a trial in an ordinary court. The prosecution states its case; witnesses for and against the accused are heard; and attorneys on both sides make their arguments. When the case is fully presented the Senators vote, and if twothirds of the members present concur in holding the accused guilty, he stands convicted; but in case of failure to secure the requisite two-thirds, he is acquitted.

The penalty which the Senate can impose upon any person

'On the power of Congress over the judiciary, see below, p. 294. 2 See above, p. 158.

On this subject see the careful survey, "The Law of Impeachment in the United States," by Professor D. Y. Thomas, Political Science Review for May, 1908, pp. 378 ff.

4 Technically, however, it only sits as the Senate. In 1868 it ceased to call itself "a high court of impeachment."

convicted in case of impeachment is strictly limited to the removal of the offender from office and the imposition of a disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Any person convicted, however, is still liable, after his removal from office, to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment for his offence according to law. It is not obligatory upon the Senate to disqualify the convicted person from entering the federal service in the future, but in any case he must be immediately removed from office.

The jurisdiction of the Senate as a court of impeachment extends only over the President, Vice-President, and the civil officers of the United States, and over the offences of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason is, of course, defined in the Constitution; and the meaning of the term " bribery" is clear to all. The phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors," however, is somewhat vague, and Congress might give a loose interpretation to it, even going so far as to treat the neglect of official duty as a ground for impeachment. Nevertheless, a conservative interpretation has generally been placed upon this phrase, so as to limit the offences, which render an officer liable to impeachment, to crimes and misdemeanors as understood in the ordinary law of the land.'

1 The Senate has sat as a Court of Impeachment in the cases of the following accused officials, with the result stated and for the periods named: WILLIAM BLOUNT, a Senator of the United States from Tennessee; charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction, he having previously resigned; Monday, December 17, 1798, to Monday, January 14, 1799.

JOHN PICKERING, judge of the United States district court for the district of New Hampshire; removed from office; Thursday, March 3, 1803, to Monday, March 12, 1804.

SAMUEL CHASE, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; acquitted; Friday, November 30, 1804, to March 1, 1805.

JAMES H. PECK, judge of the United States district court for the district of Missouri; acquitted; Monday, April 26, 1830, to Monday, January 31, 1831.

WEST H. HUMPHREYS, judge of the United States district court for the middle, eastern, and western districts of Tennessee; removed from office; Wednesday, May 7, 1862, to Thursday, June 26, 1862.

ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States; acquitted; Tuesday, February 25, 1868, to Tuesday, May 26, 1868.

WILLIAM W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War; acquitted; Friday, March 3, 1876, to Tuesday, August 1, 1876.

CHARLES SWAYNE, judge of the United States district court for the

Federal military officers are exempt from this jurisdiction, being subject to courts-martial. Members of Congress are also exempt, for they are not technically "civil officers," and furthermore they are under the control of their respective houses — each house having the power to determine its rules and proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.

XI. In carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or office thereof, Congress may make all laws which shall be deemed "necessary and proper." The courts have, in general, given a liberal interpretation to this phrase. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that Congress possesses the right to use any means which it deems conducive to the exercise of any express power. Said the Court in the case of Juilliard v. Greenman:1 "The words 'necessary and proper' are not limited to such measures as are absolutely and indispensably necessary, without which the powers granted must fail of execution; but they include all the proper means which are conducive or adapted to the end to be accomplished and which, in the judgment of Congress, will most advantageously effect it."

northern district of Florida; acquitted; Wednesday, December 14, 1904, to Monday, February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, associate judge, United States Commerce Court, removed from office, Saturday, July 13, 1912, to Monday, January 13, 1913. Congressional Directory (1913), p. 160.

1 110 U. S. R., 421; Readings, p. 245.

CHAPTER XIV

CONGRESS AT WORK

To the average observer, Congress is a vast and complicated legislative organ, with rules, committees, and methods, beyond the ken of ordinary mortals; but a somewhat careful examination of the procedure of that body from day to day reveals certain principles and practices which, when properly grasped, make the working scheme of the organization fairly clear at least clear enough for the citizen who does not intend to become a legislator but merely wishes to watch the operations of the national lawmakers with a reasonable degree of understanding.

Party Organization and Leadership in Congress

I. The first fact to be grasped is that the working methods of Congress are largely determined by the existence of two political parties one, a majority in control of one or both houses and regarding itself as responsible for the principal legislative policies; the other, a minority, in opposition, bound under ordinary circumstances to criticise and often vote against the measures introduced and advanced by the majority. In England, the political party organization is carried frankly into the House of Commons, where the majority and minority sit facing each other, and where the government is avowedly that of the predominant party a government of men, not even theoretically of constitutional law. In the United States, the party rules none the less, but its organization and operations are, as we have seen,1 unknown to the formal law of the federal Constitution. It is true that the votes on measures in Congress are by no means always cast according to party divisions, but it is likewise true that the principal legislative work of a session is the work of the majority party, formulated by its leaders, and carried through under their direction.2

This is not all. Each party in the Senate and the House is

2 For the part of the President as political leader, see above, chap. ix.

organized into a congressional caucus,' in which is frequently determined the line of party action with regard to important legislative questions. It is in a party caucus before the opening of each Congress, that the majority in the House chooses the Speaker and the minority decides upon its leader whom it formally presents as a candidate for Speaker, knowing full well that he cannot by any chance be elected. It is in the caucus that the majority decides whether it will adopt the rules of the preceding Congress or modify them; and it is seldom that the decision of the caucus is overthrown. The caucus is definitely organized under rules by which party members are expected to abide, although there are often a few "insurgents" who insist on acting independently

on some matters.

The exact weight of the caucus in determining party policy is difficult to ascertain. At times in our history, undoubtedly, the caucus has settled fundamental matters of public interest before they were introduced into Congress, but there was reason for believing that, during the first decade of the twentieth century, its influence was declining on account of the rise to power in each house of a few men whose long service, shrewdness in legislative management, and effective leadership, had placed them in control of the speakership and the great committees.

How this was working out in the Senate is indicated by this passage from a speech made in that body in 1908, by Senator La Follette. "I attended a caucus at the beginning of this Congress. I happened to look at my watch when we went into that caucus. We were in session three minutes and a half. Do you know what happened? Well, I will tell you. A motion was made that somebody preside. Then a motion was made that whoever presided should appoint a committee on committees; and a motion was then made that we adjourn. Nobody said anything but the Senator who made the motion. Then and there the fate of all the legislation of this session was decided. . . . Mr. President, if you will scan the committees of this Senate, you will find that a little handful of men are in domination and control of the great legislative committees of this body, and that they are a very limited number." 2

'Readings, p. 247. The caucus is held behind closed doors, but its deliberations are seldom withheld from the public.

2 Reinsch, Readings, pp. 168-169.