POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN AMERICA

An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed

POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN AMERICA

An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed

Mark Grossman

Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England

Copyright © 2003 by Mark GrossmanAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, orotherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writingfrom the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataGrossman, Mark.

Political corruption in America : an encyclopedia of scandals, power,and greed / Mark Grossman.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-57607-060-3 (hardcover : alk. paper); ISBN 1-85109-492-X (eBook)1. Political corruption—United States—Encyclopedias. I. Title.

JK2249.G767 2003973'.03—dc21

200301312706050403 987654321

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.Visit abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, Inc.130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911Santa Barbara, California 93116–1911This book is printed on acid-free paper I.Manufactured in the United States of America

This book is dedicated to my good friends Paula Herbst andCarol Hoffman,whose friendship and inspiration continue to bemy guiding light; to my parents, who have always been my per-sonal heroes; and to my good friend Audrey Taylor in GreatBritain, who loves her pursuit of everything Thomas Paine andis a someone I am glad to have befriended.

Introduction, xi

POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN AMERICA

An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed

CONTENTS

vii

AABSCAM, 1Adams, Llewelyn Sherman

(1899–1986), 3Addonizio, Hugh Joseph

(1914–1981), 5Agnew, Spiro Theodore

(1918–1996), 7Ames, Adelbert (1835–1933), 10Ames, Oakes (1804–1873), 11Archbald, Robert Wodrow

(1848–1926), 13Archer, Stevenson (1827–1898), 14Austin v. Michigan Chamber of

Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 15Axtell, Samuel Beach (1819–1891),

16

BBaker, Robert Gene (1928– ), 19Barry v. United States ex rel.

Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 20Barstow, William Augustus

(1813–1865), 22Belknap, William Worth

(1829–1890), 23Biaggi, Mario (1917– ), 26Bilbo, Theodore Gilmore

(1877–1947), 27

Bingham, Hiram (1875–1956), 28Blaine, James Gillespie

(1830–1893), 30Blanton, Leonard Ray (1930–1996),

31Brehm, Walter Ellsworth

(1892–1971), 33Brewster, Daniel Baugh (1923– ),

34Brooks, James (1810–1873), 34Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 35Bullock, Rufus Brown (1834–1907),

36Bundling, 37Burton, Joseph Ralph (1852–1923),

37Burton v. United States, 202 U.S.

344, 39Bustamante, Albert Garza

(1935– ), 39Butler, David C. (1829–1891), 40Butler, Roderick Randum

(1827–1902), 41

CCaldwell, Alexander (1830–1917),

43Campaign Finance Scandal 1996,

45

Catron, Thomas Benton(1840–1921), 48

Censure, 49Chinagate, 51Choate, Joseph Hodges

(1832–1917), 53Cianci,Vincent A, Jr. (1941– ), 54Claiborne v. United States, 465 U.S.

1305, 55Clark, William Andrews

(1839–1925), 56Clayton, Powell (1833–1914), 57Clinton,William Jefferson (1946– ),

58Code of Official Conduct, 62Coelho, Anthony Lee (1942– ),

64Colfax, Schuyler, Jr. (1823–1885),

66Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee v. FederalElection Commission, 116 S. Ct.2309, 518 U.S. 604, 68

Colvin, Harvey Doolittle(1815–1892), 69

Coman, Thomas (1836–1909), 70Common Cause, 70Congressional Ethics Code, 71Connally, John Bowden, Jr.

(1917–1993), 71

Connelly, Matthew J. (1907–1976),73

Contempt of Congress, 74Corrupt Practices Act, 36 Stat. 822

(1910), 75Coughlin, John Joseph (1860–

1938), 76Covode, John (1808–1871), 77Cox, Charles Christopher (1952– ),

79Cox Report, 80Cranston, Alan MacGregor

(1914–2000), 82Crédit Mobilier Scandal, 83Croker, Richard (1841–1922), 85Curley, James Michael (1874–1958),

87Curtis, George William

(1824–1892), 88

DDaugherty, Harry Micajah

(1860–1941), 91Democracy: An American Novel,

93Denby, Edwin (1870–1929), 94Dever, William Emmett (1862–

1929), 95Deweese, John Thomas (1835–

1906), 96Dewey, Thomas Edmund (1902–

1971), 97Diggs, Charles Coleman, Jr. (1922–

1998), 99Dodd, Thomas Joseph (1907–

1971), 100Dorsey, Stephen Wallace (1842–

1916), 102Duer, William (1747–1799), 105Durenberger, David Ferdinand

(1934– ), 106Dwyer, R. Budd (1939–1987), 108

EEaton, Dorman Bridgman (1823–

1899), 109Edwards, Edwin Washington

(1927– ), 109Edwards, Francis Smith (1817–

1899), 112Eilberg, Joshua (1921– ), 112

English, George Washington(1868–1941), 113

Espy, Michael Albert (1953– ), 115Ethics in Government Act, Public

Law 95-521 (1978), 117Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Public

Law 101-194 (1989), 117Executive Privilege, 117Expulsion, 120

FFall, Albert Bacon (1861–1944), 123Fauntroy, Walter Edward (1933– ),

125Federal Corrupt Practices Act of

1925, 43 Stat. 1070; 2 U.S.C. §241 (1925), 126

Federal Election Campaign Act of1971, Public Law 92–225, 86Stat. 3, 2 USC § 431 et seq., 126

Federal Election Commission(FEC), 127

Federal Election Commission v.Massachusetts Citizens for Life,Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 128

Federal Election Commission v.National Conservative PoliticalAction Committee, 470 U.S. 480,129

Federal Election Commission v.National Right to WorkCommittee, 459 U.S. 197, 129

Ferguson, James Edward(1871–1944), 130

“Filegate,” 132Flood, Daniel John (1903–1994),

134Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Lamar,

233 F. 3d 1288 (11th Cir.), 135Fortas, Abraham (1919–1982), 135Foulke, William Dudley

(1848–1935), 137

GGarcia, Robert (1933– ), 139Garfield, James Abram

(1831–1881), 139Gaynor, William Jay (1848–1913),

141Gilbert, William Augustus

(1815–1875), 142

Goebel, William (1856–1900), 143Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr. (1948– ),

145Grover, La Fayette (1823–1911), 148

HHague, Frank (1876–1956), 151Hall, Abraham Oakey (1826–1898),

152Hanna, Richard Thomas (1914–

2001), 153Hastings, Alcee Lamar (1936– ),

154Hatch Act, 53 Stat. 1147 (1939),

156Hays, Wayne Levere (1911–1989),

157Hayt, Ezra Ayres (1823–1902), 158Helstoski, Henry (1925–1999), 159Henderson, John Brooks

(1826–1913), 160Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1946),

161Hoeppel, John Henry (1881–1976),

161Hoffman, Harold Giles (1896–

1954), 162Hoffman, John Thompson (1828–

1888), 163Holden, William Woods (1818–

1892), 164Honoraria, 166Hopkinson, Francis (1737–1791),

167House of Representatives Banking

Scandal, 168House of Representatives

Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct, 169

House of Representatives PostOffice Scandal, 170

Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Scandal, 171

Hubbard, Carroll, Jr. (1937– ), 173Hubbell, Levi (1808–1876), 174Hunt, (Harold) Guy (1933– ), 175

IImpeachment, 177Income Tax Scandal, Department of

Justice (1951–1952), 180

viii Contents

Independent Counsel Statute, 28U.S.C. 1826, 182

Independent Expenditures, 185Influence Peddling, 185Ingersoll, Robert Green

(1833–1899), 186Iran-Contra Affair, 188

JJackson, Edward Franklin (1873–

1954), 191Jackson, James (1757–1806), 192Jenckes, Thomas Allen (1818–

1875), 193Jerome, William Travers (1859–

1934), 194Johnson, Thomas Francis (1909–

1988), 195Judicial Conduct and Disability Act

of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 372(c), 196Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125

(1935), 196

KKeating Five, 199Kellogg, William Pitt (1830–1918),

201Kerner, Otto, Jr. (1908–1976), 203Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,

204Kim, Jay C. (1939– ), 205King, Cecil Rhodes (1898–1974),

206King, William Smith (1828–1900),

207Koreagate, 208

LLance, Thomas Bertram “Bert”

(1931– ), 209Langer, William (1886–1959), 211Leche, Richard Webster (1898–

1965), 212Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,

Public Law 104-65, 109 Stat.691, 2 U.S.C. § 1601, 213

Lorimer, William (1861–1934), 213Louderback, Harold (1881–1941),

215Lyon, Caleb (1822–1875), 216

MMandel, Marvin (1920– ), 217Manton, Martin Thomas

(1880–1946), 219Marshall, Humphrey (1760–1841),

220Matteson, Orsamus Benajah (1805–

1889), 221Mavroules, Nicholas James (1929– ),

222May, Andrew Jackson (1875–1959),

223McCray, Warren Terry (1865–1938),

224McDade, Joseph Michael (1931– ),

225McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135,

225Mecham, Evan (1924– ), 227Miller, Thomas Woodnutt

(1886–1973), 228Mills, Wilbur Daigh (1909–1992),

230Mitchell, John Hipple (1835–1905),

231Mitchell, John Newton

(1913–1988), 232Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654,

234Mugwumps, 236Myers, Michael Joseph (1943– ),

237

NNewberry v. United States, 256 U.S.

232, 239Nixon, Richard Milhous

(1913–1994), 240Nixon v. Missouri PAC, 528 U.S. 377,

244Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224,

245

OObstruction of Justice, 247Ordway, Nehemiah George

(1828–1907), 247

PPardongate, 251

Patterson, James Willis (1823–1893), 253

Peck, James Hawkins (1790–1836),255

Pendergast, Thomas Joseph(1872–1945), 256

Pendleton, George Hunt(1825–1889), 257

Pendleton Civil Service Act, 22 Stat.403, 259

Perkins, Carl Christopher (1954– ),260

Pickering, John (1737?–1805), 260Political Cartoons and Corruption,

262Political Corruption as Portrayed in

Films and on Television, 264Political Corruption as Portrayed in

Literature, 266Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke (1816–

1891), 267Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr. (1908–

1972), 269Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,

270Publicity Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 822,

271

RRecall, 275Reed, Harrison (1813–1899), 276Reeder, Andrew Horatio

(1807–1864), 278Reynolds, Melvin Jay (1952– ), 279Richmond, Frederick William

(1923– ), 279Ritter, Halsted Lockwood (1868–

1951), 280Roach, William Nathaniel (1840–

1902), 281Roberts, Owen Josephus (1875–

1955), 282Robinson, Charles (1818–1894), 284Ross, Robert Tripp (1903–1981),

285Rostenkowski, Daniel David

(1928– ), 286

SSchenck, Robert Cumming (1809–

1890), 289

Contents ix

Schmitz, Eugene Edward(1864–1928), 290

Schumaker, John Godfrey(1826–1905), 292

Seabury, Samuel (1873?–1958), 292Senate Finance Committee

Hearings (ThompsonCommittee), 293

Senate Select Committee on Ethics,296

Shepherd, Alexander Robey (1835–1902), 298

Shuster, Elmer Greinert “Bud”(1932– ), 298

Sikes, Robert Lee Fulton (1906–1994), 302

Simmons, James Fowler (1795–1864), 303

Small, Lennington “Len” (1862–1936), 303

Smith, Frank Leslie (1867–1950),304

Smith, John (1735?–1824), 305Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S.

Constitution, 306Star Route Frauds, 308Starr, Kenneth Winston (1946– ),

309Sullivan, Timothy Daniel (1862–

1913), 311Sulzer, William (1863–1941), 313Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal, 315Swayne, Charles Henry (1842–

1907), 316Symington, John Fife, III (1945– ),

317

TTalmadge, Herman Eugene (1913–

2002), 319

Tammany Hall, 320Tate, James Williams (1831–?), 322Teapot Dome Scandal, 323Thomas, John Parnell (1895–1970),

327Thompson, Fred Dalton (1942– ),

328Thompson, William Hale

(1869–1944), 329Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864

(1907), 330Torricelli, Robert Guy (1951– ), 331Traficant, James A., Jr. (1941– ),

332Tucker, James Guy, Jr. (1943– ), 333Tweed, William Magear (1823–

1878), 335Tyner, James Noble (1826–1904),

337

UUnited States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S.

503, 341United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S.

501, 342United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360,

343United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S.

477, 344United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S.

169, 345United States v. Shirey, 359 U.S. 255,

345United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2

Dall.) 384, 346

VVare, William Scott (1867–1934),

349

Vermont Right to Life Committee v.Sorrell, 19 F. Supp. 2d 204(1998), 216 F. 3d 264, 350

WWalker, James John (1881–1946),

353Walsh, Thomas James (1859–1933),

354Walton, John Callaway

(1881–1949), 356Warmoth, Henry Clay (1842–1931),

356Watergate, 358Welch, William Wickham (1818–

1892), 363Whiskey Ring Scandal, 364Whitewater, 365Whittemore, Benjamin Franklin

(1824–1894), 367Willett, William Forte, Jr. (1869–

1938), 368Williams, Harrison Arlington, Jr.

(1919–2001), 369Williams, John James (1904–1988),

371Williamson, John Newton (1855–

1943), 372Wilson, Charles Herbert (1917–

1984), 373Wright, James Claude, Jr. (1922– ),

373

ZZenger, John Peter (1697–1746),

377

x Contents

Appendix One. Cases of Expulsion, Censure, and Condemnation, 381Appendix Two. Senate Cases Involving Qualifications for Membership, 386

Appendix Three. Independent Counsel Investigations, 1978–2001, 387Appendix Four. House Cases Involving Qualifications for Membership, 389

Appendix Five. United States Senators Tried and Convicted and Tried and Acquitted, 1808–1981, 391Appendix Six. United States Governors in Ethical Trouble, 1862–Present, 392

Appendix Seven. Impeachments of Federal Officials, 1799–2000, 394Appendix Eight. Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, 395

Chronology, 401Bibliogaphy, 425

Index, 447

“Scandal: disgrace, shame, discredit, or other ig-nominy brought upon a person or persons due toillicit or corrupt wrongdoing.”

Oscar Wilde wrote that scandal is gossip madetedious by morality. In England, one form ofdefamation due to scandal or corruption wascalled scandalum magnatum, or “the slander ofgreat men,” usually reserved for the worst of all al-legations. It is the scandal of political corruption,corruption that is perpetrated by men andwomen in elected and appointed offices, that isthe focus of this work. Historian Edwin G. Bar-rows explained:

Corruption in government—the betrayal of an of-fice or duty for some consideration—is a familiarsubject among American historians, but for severalreasons the history of corruption as such is not. Forone thing, corruption has never denoted a specifickind or form of misconduct, much less a specificcrime. No one has ever gone to jail for it. It is essen-tially only an accusation that encompasses a largeand shifting ensemble of determinate abuses—bribery, fraud, graft, extortion, embezzlement, influ-ence peddling, ticket fixing, nepotism—not all ofwhich have always been recognized as improper;some of which continue to be regarded as moreconsequential than others; most of which have beendefined in different ways at different times; andeach of which, arguably, deserves a quite differenthistorical treatment.

Despite all this, a comprehensive history of thepervasiveness of corruption in American politicshas yet to be written—until now. Corruption, as astudy of history, deals also with ethics and howlaws and ethics clash. From the Greek ethika,

meaning “character,” ethics encompass the princi-ples or standards of human conduct, also some-times called morals. The laws discussed herein setthe boundaries of morality, both in the actual lawand in the letter of the law, and the violation ofthem is considered “unethical.” Historian NormanJohn Powell wrote:

Political corruption has four principal meanings.The first is patently illegal behavior in the sphere ofpolitics; bribery is a prime example. The second re-lates to government practices that, while legal, maybe improper or unethical. To some people, patron-age is such a practice—although, it should benoted, patronage can also serve democratic endsand can even be used to combat corruption. A thirdmeaning involves conflicts of interest on the part ofpublic officials—for example, the vote of a legisla-tor who owns oil stock and casts his vote in favor ofoil depletion allowances. James Madison made thispoint in Federalist No. 10: “No man is allowed to bea judge in his own cause, because his interest wouldcertainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably,corrupt his integrity.” The fourth meaning also hasan ethical, rather than a legal, basis: It related to po-litical behavior that is nonresponsive to the publicinterest. The Watergate scandals provide vivid ex-amples of such corrupt behavior, but the classic for-mulation of this view remains the one given by JohnE. E. Dalberg-Acton (Lord Acton): “Power tends tocorrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Writers from the beginning of America—evenbefore it became a nation, when it was merely a se-ries of colonies, firmly connected to Mother En-gland—have railed against corruption, with dis-parate results. William Livingston wrote in the

INTRODUCTION

xi

latter part of the eighteenth century:“No Man whohas projected the Subversion of his Country willemploy Force and Violence, till he has, by sowingthe Seeds of Corruption, ripen’d it for Servility andAcquiescence: He will conceal his Design, till hespies an Opportunity of accomplishing his Iniq-uity by a single Blow.” Englishman William Cob-bett came to America, where he used the art ofwriting bitterly satirical pamphlets to rail againstpolitical corruption and social injustice. The issueof political corruption was also folded into manyof the writings of some of America’s best politi-cians: Daniel Webster explained,“Justice is the lig-ament which holds civilized beings and civilizednations together.” Alexander Hamilton, writing inthe Federalist, No. 78, penned, “[T]here can be buta few men in the society who will have sufficientskill in the laws to qualify them for the stations ofjudges. And making proper deductions for the or-dinary depravity of human nature, the numbermust still be smaller of those who unite the requi-site integrity with the requisite knowledge.”

In the years since the end of the Second WorldWar, more than fifty members of Congress havebeen indicted for various criminal offenses, al-though many of these have been acquitted. At thesame time, however, Congress has imposedstricter and stricter ethics rules on its members,banning honoraria (monetary gifts for speeches)and other gift giving and instituting rigid report-ing standards for campaign contributions. In tworare instances since the end of the Civil War, twomembers have been expelled from the U.S. Houseof Representatives for corruption.

This is not a history of all corruption in Ameri-can political history—the sex scandals (whichhave been recently upon us in the form of the Mon-ica Lewinsky affair) are not included, as the authorbelieved from the outset that these were not scan-dals of corruption in the pure sense of the word. Bythe standards set up for use in this work,“politicalcorruption” is defined as “the dishonest use of aposition of elected power to gain a monetary ad-vantage.” Despite this clear definition, some scan-dals contained herein fall outside of this, but are in-cluded nonetheless: for instance, Watergate, orIran-Contra, which are considered “political scan-dals,” were used for gains or agendas other thanmonetary gain. It was also discovered that politicalcorruption is not owned by any one party—in-

cluded in the pages that follow are crooks who wereRepublicans, Democrats, and third-party mem-bers, and reformers who were Republicans, Demo-crats, and third-party members.

As well, this is not just a history of politicalcorruption in America—it is also the history ofreformers, and reform measures, and the lawsand court cases that have come down to shapelaws in this area. This work is also the history ofhow ethics has been treated in our nation’s his-tory. Senator Paul H. Douglas of Illinois, in dis-cussing the ethics in government, stated in 1951,“[W]hen I once asked a policeman how some ofhis colleagues got started on the downward path,he replied, ‘It generally began with a cigar.’” Thestate of ethics has radically changed: for instance,in 1832, Representative William Stanbery (D-OH) was censured by the entire House for sayingthat Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson’seyes might be “too frequently turned from thechair you occupy toward the White House.” How-ever, in 1872, Representative James A. Garfieldwas not censured, despite admitting that he hadillegally accepted stock in the Crédit Mobilierscandal; eight years later, Garfield was electedpresident of the United States. Mark Twain oncewrote that “[t]here is no distinctly native Ameri-can criminal class except Congress.” How a cen-tury later his words still have effect is why thiswork exists.

Historians have been warning about the acidiceffects of corruption upon the body politic formany years. In 1787 Scottish historian AlexanderTyler explained,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form ofgovernment. It can only exist until the voters dis-cover that they can vote themselves largesse fromthe public treasury. From that moment on, the ma-jority always votes for the candidates promising themost benefits from the public treasury, with the re-sult that a democracy always collapses over loosefiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. . . .The average age of the world’s greatest civilizationshas been two hundred years. These nations haveprogressed through this sequence: From bondage tospiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance;from abundance to complacency; from compla-cency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; fromdependence back again into bondage.

xii Introduction

Tyler was writing about the fall of Athens sometwo millennia prior, but his words shine a light onany democracy and the pitfalls of allowing scandaland corruption to go unpunished.

In The Federalist, No. 51, James Madison ex-plained, “If men were angels, no governmentwould be necessary. If angels were to govern men,neither external nor internal controls on govern-ment would be necessary. In framing a govern-ment which is to be administered by men overmen, the great difficulty lies in this: you must firstenable the government to control the governed;and in the next place oblige it to control itself. Adependence on the people is, no doubt, the pri-mary control on the government; but experiencehas taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary pre-cautions.” It is impossible to document every in-stance of political corruption in American his-tory—many were small cases, many were local,and some were recorded by contemporary histori-ans but soon forgotten and have faded from publicview. I have done my best to unearth as many ofthese scandals as possible, but, alas, all errors offact and spelling are mine and mine alone.

I would like to thank the following people andinstitutions, without whose collections and valu-able assistance this work would have remained anidea and not the completed form that it has be-

come: The Library of Congress, and all of the peo-ple who aided me during several trips there while Iresearched and wrote this work; The British Li-brary in London, where I was able to copy manyrare volumes dealing with British and Americanpolitical corruption; Roger Addison in the Legisla-tive Resource Center, Office of the Clerk of theHouse of Representatives, for his assistance infinding information on Representative “Bud”Shuster of Pennsylvania; The folks at the Okla-homa Department of Libraries, Archives andRecords Division, for allowing me access to theHenry S. Johnston Papers, including the record ofhis impeachment; and the many others who as-sisted me with information, with photocopies, andwith the guiding hand that any author tacklingsuch a diverse and complicated subject alwaysneeds.

References: Burrows, Edwin G.,“Corruption inGovernment” in Encyclopedia of American PoliticalHistory, 3 vols. Jack P. Greene, ed. (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1984), I:417; Douglas, Paul H., quotedin Ethical Standards in Government, U.S. Senate,Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Report of theSpecial Subcommittee on the Establishment of aCommission on Ethics in Government, 82d Cong., 1stSess. (1951), 44; Powell, Norman John,“Corruption,Political” in Dictionary of American Biography, 7 vols.(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976–1978),II:231.

Introduction xiii

POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN AMERICA

An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed

ABSCAMMajor political scandal of the 1970s, involvingcharges of bribe taking that drove several con-gressmen and a U.S. senator to resign from office.It all began with an investigation into allegationsthat organized crime figures were selling stolen se-curities and art objects. The investigation was di-rected by Neil J. Welch, head of the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) office in New York, andThomas P. Puccio, head of the Department of Jus-tice’s New York eastern district organized crimetask force, and cleared with the approval of Attor-ney General Benjamin Civiletti.

The operation grew when agents of the FBI dis-guised themselves as Arab sheikhs and offeredbribes to numerous congressmen and senators inexchange for allegedly getting the sheikhs easyentry into the United States to purchase casinos.Setting themselves up under the phony corpora-tion name of “Abdul Enterprises, Ltd.,” the FBIagents asked to see the congressmen and senatorsfrom Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, wheresuch casinos would be built and operated. Repre-sentative Raymond Lederer (D-PA) became inter-ested in helping the “sheikhs” and volunteered hisservices in exchange for a hefty bribe. All of thoseensnared were Democrats save for one, Represen-tative Richard Kelly (R-FL). All were congressmensave one, Senator Harrison Williams (D-NJ).

All of the men implicated were rising stars ormajor figures in their respective parties. Michael

Myers (D-PA) was in his second term when he be-came involved in ABSCAM. Born in Philadelphia,he had served in the Pennsylvania state House ofRepresentatives before going to the U.S. House inNovember 1976 to fill a vacancy caused by thedeath of Representative William A. Barrett. JohnM. Murphy (D-NY) had served with honor as anintelligence officer in Korea during the KoreanWar, winning the Distinguished Service Cross andBronze Star with V and Oak Leaf Cluster, afterwhich he was in private business before beingelected to the U.S. House of Representatives in1962. Representative John W. Jenrette Jr. (D-SC)had been a city attorney and judge in North MyrtleBeach, South Carolina, and was a member formany years of the South Carolina state House ofRepresentatives. Raymond Lederer had been aprobation officer in the Philadelphia ProbationDepartment and member of the Pennsylvaniastate House of Representatives before his electionto the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976. FrankThompson Jr. (D-NJ) was a decorated war heroduring World War II and was a member of the NewJersey state assembly before his election to the U.S.House of Representatives in 1954—among theABSCAM members, he was the longest serving.Richard Kelly, the sole Republican implicated inthe scandal, had served as the senior assistant U.S.attorney for the southern district of Florida(1956–1959) and as a circuit judge for the sixth ju-dicial circuit of Florida (1960–1974) prior to his

A

1

election to the U.S. House of Representatives in1974. Harrison Williams, the only U.S. senator in-volved, had served in World War II in the U.S.Naval Reserve, and had been a successful attorneyin New Hampshire and New Jersey before he waselected to the U.S. House of Representatives in1952 to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation ofRepresentative Clifford Case. In 1958 Williams waselected to the first of four terms in the U.S. Senate.

The “scam” began in 1978, when the FBI estab-lished a front. Using a New York contractor,Richard Muffaletto, who was given $6 million tocreate a phony business, the Olympic ConstructionCompany, it was alleged that phony sheikhs fromthe Middle East were trying to gain asylum in theUnited States and at the same time gain a businessfoothold in the country. One phony sheikh, con-victed con man Mel Weinberg, approached Mur-phy, chairman of the House Merchant Marine andFisheries Committee, to allow for a merger be-tween the company owned by the “sheikh” and thePuerto Rican Maritime Authority. At a meetingheld between the “sheikh” and Murphy at theHilton Inn at Kennedy International Airport in

New York, cameras videotaped Murphy agreeingto accept payoffs for himself and others of morethan $70 million, in exchange for Murphy’s sup-port for the merger. Myers was videotaped accept-ing a bribe in exchange for his introduction in theHouse of a bill or intervention with the Depart-ment of State to allow for the emigration of thephony sheikhs. Lederer was taped taking a paperbag with $50,000 in it (Myers asked for his in anenvelope), while Kelly, in one of the more amusingmoments of the scandal, asked the “sheikhs” if themoney he had shoved inside his suit jacket left no-ticeable “bulges.”

The scam lasted for two years, until the storybroke on 2 February 1980. On that day, all sevenlegislators were indicted on charges of bribery.Other officials, including Mayor Angelo Errichettiof Camden, New Jersey; Harry P. Jannotti, a formercouncilman in Philadelphia; and George Katz, abusinessman and Democratic Party fund-raiser,were also indicted. Murphy told a reporter indenying he had done anything wrong, “I didn’ttake any actions on behalf of anyone. I merely metwith some people who portrayed themselves in a

2 ABSCAM

Representative Michael Myers speaks to reporters at the Capitol after he was expelled from Congress by fellow house members fortaking a bribe in the FBI ABSCAM case. (Bettmann/Corbis)

certain light.” He called the allegations “lies, damnlies.” Frank Thompson used $24,000 of his cam-paign funds in his own defense, a practice that waslegal at the time but which raised serious ethicalissues. Jenrette, videotaped accepting a $50,000bribe from businessman—and FBI informant—John Stowe, said that he merely got a $10,000 loanfrom Stowe. Another congressman, John P. Murtha(D-PA), offered to push for the legislation, but re-fused the money, and thus was never charged. Sen-ator Larry Pressler (R-SD) charged out of theroom when the money was brought up, and he waslater hailed as a hero. Pressler was puzzled at theresponse: “I turned down an illegal contribution,”he said. “Where have we come to if that’s consid-ered heroic?”

Despite charges that the sting constituted ille-gal entrapment—that these officials would neverhave been involved in corruption had the FBI notoffered them bribes—the men went on trial, start-ing with Myers. In August 1980 he was convictedon all charges, and immediately the U.S. House ofRepresentatives set about having him expelledfrom that body. On 2 October 1980, Myers was ex-pelled by a vote of 376–30, with a two-thirds voteneeded for expulsion. Representatives Jenrette andThompson abstained in the vote. Myers thus be-came the first sitting member of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives to be expelled since the Civil War.Myers was not the first to either leave or be forcedto leave. After their convictions in court, Jenrette,Murphy, and Thompson all lost their reelection at-tempts. Kelly was not renominated by the Republi-cans in 1980 (his conviction was overturned in1982, but he was not reelected to his old seat), andLederer resigned his seat on 29 April 1981.Williams was threatened with expulsion from theSenate, and on 11 March 1982, he tearfully re-signed his seat.

ABSCAM brought down more members ofCongress than any other scandal. Congress estab-lished two select committees in 1982 to investigatethe allegations of entrapment, but in the endfound no wrongdoing by the FBI. ABSCAM re-mains the quintessential kickback scandal, one towhich all others are compared.

See also Myers, Michael Joseph; Williams, HarrisonArlington, Jr.

References: “ABSCAM,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopediaof American Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger

Case (New York: Facts on File, 1989), 1–2;Congressional Ethics (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1980), 1–9; Final Report of the Senate SelectCommittee to Study Undercover Activities ofComponents of the Department of Justice, SenateReport 682, 97th Congress, 2nd Session (1982);Garment, Suzanne, Scandal: The Crisis of Mistrust inAmerican Politics (New York: Times Books, 1991),225; In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette,Jr., House Report No. 96–1537, 96th Congress, 2ndSession (1980), 10; In the Matter of RepresentativeRaymond F. Lederer, House Report No. 97–110, 97thCongress, 1st Session, (1981), 16; Law EnforcementUndercover Activities: Hearings Before the SenateSelect Committee to Study Law EnforcementUndercover Activities of Components of theDepartment of Justice, 97th Congress, 2nd Session(1982); U.S. Congress, House, Committee onStandards of Official Conduct, In the Matter ofRepresentative Michael J. Myers, House Report No.96–1387, 96th Congress, 2nd Session (1980), 5; U.S.Congress, House, Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J.Myers: Report of Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct (to accompany H. Res. 794) (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1980).

Adams, Llewelyn Sherman (1899–1986)Governor of New Hampshire (1949–1953), chief ofstaff to President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1958), implicated in the famed “Vicuna Coat”scandal of 1958, which forced him from office.Adams was born at the home of his maternalgrandparents in East Dover,Vermont, on 8 January1899, the son of Clyde Adams, a grocer in the vil-lage of East Dover, and Winnie (née Sherman)Adams. As an infant he moved with his parents toProvidence, Rhode Island, where he attended pub-lic schools. Clyde Adams left the family homewhen his son was young, and Llewelyn was pri-marily raised by his mother and maternal uncle,Edwin Sherman. He went to Dartmouth Collegeand during World War I entered service in theUnited States Marine Corps. He returned to Dart-mouth and earned his degree in 1920. Adams con-sidered entering medical school and becoming asurgeon, but turned down that option and insteadentered private business, working for a series oflumber companies in the village of Healdville,Ver-mont, in 1921 and 1922 and then in the paper andlumber business in Lincoln, New Hampshire, from1922 until he entered national politics in 1944. Hewas also involved in banking concerns.

Adams, Llewelyn Sherman 3

In 1940 Adams was elected to the New Hamp-shire state House of Representatives, where heserved until 1944. In the 1943 and 1944 sessions,he served as Speaker of the House.According to bi-ographer Kenneth Pomeroy, “[He] helped frameand enact New Hampshire timber tax law, aided information of Northeast Forest Fire Compact, andimproved forest policy in New Hampshire.”Adams, a Republican, rose up the ranks of hisparty, serving as chairman of the Grafton CountyRepublican Committee (1942–1944) and as a del-egate to the party’s national conventions in 1944and 1952. In 1944 Adams was elected to a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives, defeating Dem-ocrat Harry Carlson to represent the New Hamp-shire 2nd District. He declined to run for a secondterm in 1946, instead unsuccessfully seeking theRepublican nomination for governor of NewHampshire against incumbent Charles M. Dale,who was ultimately reelected. Out of office, Adamswent to work as a representative of the AmericanPulpwood Industry in New York City for two years.

Governor Dale was ineligible to run in 1948after serving for two two-year terms, so Adamsran for his party’s gubernatorial nomination andwas successful; he went on to defeat DemocratHerbert W. Hill and, in 1950, Democrat Robert P.Bingham, to serve two terms as governor. Histori-ans Robert Sobel and John Raimo wrote, “Gover-nor Adams urged economy on both a public and apersonal basis; he also urged appropriations forstate aid to the aged, and requested legislation tomake New Hampshire citizens eligible for FederalOld Age and Survivors Insurance.” Adams alsoserved as chairman of the New England Gover-nors’ Conference (1951–1952).

During the 1952 presidential campaign, Adamslent his support to General Dwight D. Eisenhower,the Republican presidential nominee, and wasconsidered a leading candidate for U.S. ambassa-dor to Canada or even secretary of labor. WhenEisenhower offered the assistant to the presidentposition (now called the chief of staff) to cam-paign strategist and New York attorney HerbertBrownell, the New Yorker demurred and asked forthe attorney general position. Senator HenryCabot Lodge of Massachusetts was also consid-ered for chief of staff, but when Eisenhowernamed him as U.S. ambassador to the United Na-tions, the new president turned to Adams to fill the

most important position in the White House. Inhis memoirs, Adams later wrote that Eisenhowerwanted him to handle all White House businesswithout much nonsense and to “keep as muchwork of secondary importance as possible off[your] desk.” During his more than five years aschief of staff, Adams defined the modern power ofthat position, taking control of all aspects of thepresidential office. He was an important voice inthe advocacy of forest conservation, serving as aspeaker to the Fourth American Forest Congressin 1953, and at the Southern Forest Fire PreventionConference in 1956. Adams maintained controlover the White House’s daily schedule, decidingwho could and who could not meet the president.When Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955,Adams’s influence grew, and he became in effectthe president’s chief aide, more than Vice PresidentRichard M. Nixon. Following the 1956 election,Adams was retained in his position.

What got Adams in trouble was a policy he hadbeen following for some time, even when he wasgovernor of New Hampshire. To supplement hissalary, he accepted gifts and other emolumentsfrom rich friends. This was not uncommon in thedays before ethics rules were strictly enforced. Acongressional investigation by RepresentativeOren Harris of Arkansas turned up the fact thatAdams had assisted two wealthy New Englandbusinessmen—Bernard Goldfine and John Fox—with federal regulators after the two men hadgiven Adams gifts and money. When Fox wentbankrupt, he made a deal with the Internal Rev-enue Service to give damning testimony againstboth Goldfine and Adams. Extensive investigatingfound that Goldfine did not give money to any oneparty—he gave to those who could help him ad-vance his business causes. He had also givenmoney to numerous senators, congressmen, may-ors, and governors—among them Senator HenryStyles Bridges of New Hampshire—and Adams.Adams enjoyed being with Goldfine. In his mem-oirs, years after this relationship cost him his seatof power, Adams explained, “Goldfine was a manwith a lot of fun in him and we enjoyed his com-pany.” Goldfine had given gifts and money toAdams, contributing to his 1948 and 1950 guber-natorial campaigns. When Adams went to Wash-ington, Goldfine gave him more gifts—including acamel’s hair coat (which later was mislabeled in

4 Adams, Llewelyn Sherman

the press as a vicuna coat, giving a name to the en-tire affair). When Adams traveled, Goldfine pickedup the hotel bills. When Goldfine needed help withhis business, he called Adams, who intervenedwith Federal Trade Commissioner Edward F.Howrey to allow Goldfine to import certain woolenitems into the United States. In 1956, when thecontroversy arose again, Adams arranged forHowrey to meet Goldfine. When U.S. House inves-tigator Bernard Schwartz came across memosdealing with Adams’s intervention, he leaked themto the New York Times and was fired. Among thememos was one detailing how Adams had gottenan aide to call the Securities and Exchange Com-mission (SEC) to look into an SEC investigation re-garding alleged financial report irregularities byGoldfine.

The walls closed in on Adams. When ClarkMollenhoff, Washington correspondent for the DesMoines Register, asked Eisenhower at a press con-ference in April 1958 about the calls Adams hadmade, the president refused to answer. Fox thentestified before a grand jury and specified thatGoldfine had given Adams large sums of moneyand many gifts and had paid his hotel bills inmany cities. Facing a potential charge of influencepeddling, Adams went before a special Houseoversight committee on 17 June 1958. He deniedany improprieties, saying, “I never permitted anypersonal relationship to affect in any way any ac-tions of mine in matters relating to the conduct ofmy office.” He denied that he had done anythingfor Goldfine and also rejected the claim that he in-tervened with FTC Chairman Howrey, claiming,“The only thing I ever asked Mr. Howrey for wasinformation.” He admitted accepting gifts andmoney from Goldfine, but claimed that these werebased on friendship and were not an attempt toget Adams to intervene with state or federal agen-cies. However, Representative John Moss (D-CA)got Adams to admit that his call to the SEC was notlike a regular call from the chief of staff.

The situation for Adams, and by extensionEisenhower, went from bad to worse. ColumnistDrew Pearson presented evidence that Goldfinehad given money to the president to help refurbishhis Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, home. Vice Presi-dent Nixon, speaking with party leaders, intimatedthat Adams needed to resign for the good of theparty and the administration. Eisenhower agreed

and delegated Nixon to ask for Adams’s resigna-tion or fire him. Adams might well have been al-lowed to stay on but for the upcoming midtermelections. In August, at a meeting of the Republi-can National Committee, party chairman MeadeAlcorn was forced to quell a rebellion by party reg-ulars over Adams. Returning to Washington, Al-corn sat down with Adams and told him he mustgo for the good of the party and the administra-tion. Adams reluctantly agreed and in a nationallytelevised speech on 22 September 1958, he re-signed, steadfastly denying that he had done any-thing wrong.

Destroyed politically by the Goldfine scandal,Adams returned to New Hampshire, where hewrote and lectured, eventually penning his mem-oirs. His interest in conservation continued: in1986, he wrote The Weeks Act: A 75th AnniversaryAppraisal. He established a ski resort in 1966 andbecame president and chairman of the board ofthe Loon Mountain Corporation.

Adams died at his home in Hanover, NewHampshire, on 27 October 1986 at the age ofeighty-seven. With his passing, the famed “vicunacoat” scandal once more became front-page newsto a new generation.

References: “Adams, Llewelyn Sherman,” in Robert Sobeland John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), III:998–999;Adams, Sherman, Firsthand Report: The Story of theEisenhower Administration (New York: Harper, 1961);Pomeroy, Kenneth B.,“Adams, Sherman,” in RichardH. Stroud, ed., National Leaders of AmericanConservation (Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1985), 24–25.

Addonizio, Hugh Joseph (1914–1981)United States Representative from New Jersey(1949–1962), mayor of Newark, New Jersey(1962–1970), convicted of charges of taking kick-backs from Mafia figures who were then allowed tocontrol the city. Addonizio was born in Newark,New Jersey, on 31 January 1914. He attended thepublic schools of that city before graduating fromFordham University in New York in 1939. He thenwent to work for the A & C Clothing company inNewark, rising to become vice president of theconcern by 1946. In 1941, when the United Statesentered World War II, he volunteered for service in

Addonizio, Hugh Joseph 5

the U.S. Army with the rank of private. He at-tended Officers Candidate School at Fort Benning,Georgia, and after being commissioned a secondlieutenant was assigned to the Sixtieth Infantry ofthe Ninth Division of the U.S. Army. He saw actionin the European theater of operations before hewas discharged with the rank of captain in Febru-ary 1946. A Democrat, Addonizio was elected to aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives, servingin the Eighty-first through the Eighty-seventhCongresses. He resigned his seat on 30 June 1962to run for mayor of Newark. He defeated the in-cumbent, Leo Carlin, who had served since 1953,and was reelected to a second term in 1966.

During the early 1960s, the FBI planted wiresin the offices of many of New Jersey’s top crimefigures in an effort to break the hold of the Mafiaon that state. During one of the recorded conver-sations, known Mafia figure Angelo “Gyp” De-Carlo was heard telling an associate, Joseph DeBenedictis, “Hughie [a nickname for Addonizio]helped us all along. He gave us the city.” Thisopened the investigation into Addonizio. The FBIsoon discovered that in exchange for kickbacks

from the mob, Addonizio had allowed them tovirtually run the city unchallenged. The power ofthe mob’s grip on the city was evident when, in1966, one of Addonizio’s challengers was warnedby DeCarlo that he would come to harm if hepushed his candidacy.

In 1970 Addonizio and a dozen other stateand public officials, including Thomas J. Whelen,mayor of Jersey City; John R. Armellino, mayor ofWest New York City, New Jersey; and New JerseyDemocratic political boss John J. Kenny, were in-dicted by a federal grand jury. The indictmentalleged that Addonizio, as mayor of the nation’sthirteenth largest city, had shared $1.5 million inpayoffs from the Mafia with the other accusedmen. Federal prosecutor Frederick B. Lacey said,“The plunder was unmatched by anything in myexperience.” At the time, Addonizio was lookingat serving a third term. However, in the 1970elections Addonizio was opposed by DemocratKenneth A. Gibson, a black reformer who prom-ised to clean up city hall. Gibson’s election vic-tory must be noted with some irony, as Gibsonhimself was indicted in 2000 on charges of steal-ing thousands of dollars from the New Jerseyschool district. He pled guilty in 2002 and wasgiven five years probation.

On 22 September 1970, Addonizio was con-victed, and Judge George H. Barlow sentenced himto ten years in prison and fined him $25,000. Dur-ing sentencing, Judge Barlow said of Addonizio:

Weighed against these virtues [of Addonizio’s pub-lic service] . . . is his conviction by a jury in thiscourt of crimes of monumental proportion, theenormity of which can scarcely be exaggerated andthe commission of which create the gravest impli-cations for our form of government . . .

Mr. Addonizio, and the other defendants here,have been convicted of one count of conspiring toextort and 63 substantive counts of extorting hun-dreds of thousands of dollars from persons doingbusiness with the City of Newark. An intricate con-spiracy of this magnitude, I suggest to you, Mr.Hellring [Addonizio’s attorney], could have neversucceeded without the then-Mayor Addonizio’s ap-proval and participation . . .

These were no ordinary criminal acts . . . Thesecrimes for which Mr. Addonizio and the other de-fendants have been convicted represent a pattern ofcontinuous, highly organized, systematic criminal

6 Addonizio, Hugh Joseph

Hugh Joseph Addonizio, mayor of Newark, NJ (1962–1970). In1970, Addonizio was convicted of taking kickbacks from Mafiafigures. (Library of Congress)

extortion over a period of many years, claimingmany victims and touching many more lives . . .

Instances of corruption on the part of electedand appointed governmental officials are certainlynot novel to the law, but the corruption disclosedhere, it seems to the Court, is compounded by thefrightening alliance of criminal elements and publicofficials, and it is this very kind of totally destruc-tive conspiracy that was conceived, organized andexecuted by these defendants . . .

It is impossible to estimate the impact upon—and the cost of—these criminal acts to the decentcitizens of Newark, and, indeed, to the citizens ofthe State of New Jersey, in terms of their frustration,despair and disillusionment.

In 1972 the United States Supreme Court re-fused to hear Addonizio’s appeal (405 U.S. 936). In1973 the U.S. Parole Commission released newguidelines as to sentencing and ordered that Ad-donizio be held until the end of his ten-year sen-tence. The district judge who heard Addonizio’sappeal ruled that the Parole Commission’s actionwas illegal and in 1975 reduced Addonizio’s sen-tence to time served. The United States appealedthe decision, which was affirmed by a court of ap-peals, and in 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court grantedcertiorari (the right to hear the case) on this singleissue only. Argued on 27 March 1979, the case wasdecided on 4 June of that same year. Justice JohnPaul Stevens held for a unanimous court (JusticesWilliam Brennan and Lewis Powell did not partic-ipate) that Addonizio’s sentence could not be chal-lenged by a district judge. Justice Stevens wrote:

The import of this statutory scheme is clear: thejudge has no enforceable expectations with respectto the actual release of a sentenced defendant shortof his statutory term. The judge may well have ex-pectations as to when release is likely. But the actualdecision is not his to make, either at the time ofsentencing or later if his expectations are not met.To require the Parole Commission to act in accor-dance with judicial expectations, and to use collat-eral attack as a mechanism for ensuring that theseexpectations are carried out, would substantiallyundermine the congressional decision to entrust re-lease determinations to the Commission and notthe courts.

Addonizio was released from prison soon afterhis case was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He lived in Tinton Falls, New Jersey, until he diedin Red Bank, New Jersey, on 2 February 1981, atthe age of sixty-seven. He was buried in Gate ofHeaven Cemetery in Hanover, New Jersey.

References: Addonizio v. United States, 405 U.S. 936(1972); Anyon, Jean, Ghetto Schooling: A PoliticalEconomy of Urban Educational Reform (New York:Teachers College Press, 1997), 109; Nash, Jay Robert.Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), I:30–31; United States v.Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979).

Agnew, Spiro Theodore (1918–1996)Governor of Maryland (1967–1969), vice presi-dent of the United States (1969–1973), the secondvice president to resign from office and the firstbecause of criminal charges leveled against him.Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on 9 No-vember 1918, the son of Theodore Agnew, a Greek-born restaurateur who shortened his name fromAnagnostopoulos, and Margaret (née Akers)Agnew. Called “Ted” by his friends, Spiro Agnewattended the schools of Baltimore before he wentto Johns Hopkins University and studied the law atthe University of Baltimore Law School, fromwhich he graduated from in 1947. During WorldWar II, he served in the U.S. Army in France andwas decorated with the Bronze Star for heroism.After he graduated from law school, Agnew wasadmitted to the Maryland bar and opened a prac-tice in Baltimore.

Agnew entered the political realm in 1957when he won a seat on the Baltimore County Zon-ing Board. When the county council for Baltimore,dominated by Democrats, apportioned his seat outof existence, he ran instead for county executiveand was elected in 1962. He served in this officefor four years. In 1966, his political star rising,Agnew was nominated by the Republicans for gov-ernor. He defeated Democrat George P. Mahoney tobecome the governor of Maryland. Agnew’s elec-tion as governor marked a turn in Maryland poli-tics. Previously the cities had dominated the politi-cal agenda, but now the suburban areas, whereAgnew had won a majority of his votes and whichcontrolled both houses of the Maryland GeneralAssembly, dominated. Agnew reorganized stategovernment and revised the state tax code. He be-came the first “law and order” official, speaking

Agnew, Spiro Theodore 7

Political cartoon showing Spiro Agnew standing outside a jail cell, endowed with the features of theRepublican elephant. Agnew was the second vice president to resign from office and the first toresign because of criminal charges leveled against him. (Library of Congress)

out against protests by students and others againstthe Vietnam War. Nevertheless, he was considereda moderate politically, standing for strong lawsagainst pollution and signing the first open-hous-ing law south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

As the 1968 election approached, Agnew threwhis support behind New York Governor Nelson A.Rockefeller for the Republican presidential nomi-nation. However, when it appeared that formerVice President Richard M. Nixon would receive theparty nod, Agnew backed the Californian. In astunning political move, Nixon chose Agnew as hisrunning mate. Little known outside of Maryland,Agnew took to the stump and campaigned acrossthe nation and was rewarded for his efforts whenNixon won a close victory over Vice President Hu-bert Humphrey. In eight short years, Agnew wentfrom the Baltimore County Zoning Board to be-come the thirty-ninth vice president of the UnitedStates.

During his first four years in office, Agnewearned a reputation as the administration’s“hatchet man,” criticizing the press (as “natteringnabobs of negativism”) and Vietnam War protes-tors (“hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of his-tory”). In 1972, when Nixon and Agnew wererenominated for a second term, Time magazinewrote:

For much of Nixon’s first term, the vice president’sprincipal duty seemed to be to go after the Admin-istration’s enemies and critics with a spiked mace.In alliterative swings he denounced Democrats, lib-erals, the Eastern Establishment, even dissidentmembers of his own party, with an assiduousnessand acidity that would hardly have been becomingof the President. There were liberal Republicanswho though it unbecoming even in a vice president,and who saw in Agnew few qualities that wouldmake him a suitable President of the U.S., shouldthe need arise. They urged Nixon to choose a newrunning mate for his second term. But the Presi-dent, secure in the polls and mindful of Agnew’sloyal and noisy constituency on the right, decidednot to break up a winning combination.

The ticket was reelected in a landslide, and tomany it appeared that in 1976 Agnew would be theRepublican nominee for president.

Even as he was being reelected, however,Agnew was under investigation by the FBI and a

grand jury in Baltimore. Allegations had arisenthat Agnew, from his time as county executivethrough his time as governor and continuing evenas he sat a heartbeat away from the presidency,was taking kickbacks from milk producers andothers in Maryland. U.S. Attorney George Beallheaded up the investigation and ran the grandjury. In 1999 the FBI files on Agnew were releasedpursuant to a Freedom of Information Act re-quest. One contractor told the grand jury investi-gating the case, “I just paid off the vice presidentof the United States,” and described how he hadgiven Agnew $10,000 in cash in the White Housebasement. One person who paid Agnew a kick-back of $1,500 cash was allowed to fly on boardthe vice president’s jet to watch an Apollo moonlaunch. One FBI document reads,“The gist of thisbackground was that [missing information] priorto 1966, when Agnew was the County Executive(Mayor) of Baltimore, [missing information]began making payments to [missing informa-tion] of kickbacks from three to five percent of thetotal of the contracts he received.”

Beall traced the corruption to Agnew andcalled four men who had worked for him beforethe grand jury, among them Jerome Wolff, a for-mer staffer for Agnew who then headed the Mary-land Highway Administration, and Lester Matz,head of an engineering firm. Matz told Beall, “Youprobably don’t want to know about this, but I’vebeen paying off the vice president of the UnitedStates.” Beall was ready to indict Agnew, when TheWall Street Journal broke the story in August 1973.Agnew called Attorney General Elliot Richardson,demanding that leaks of such an investigation bestopped. Behind the scenes, Agnew knew he wasfinished and negotiated a deal in which he wouldresign his office and plead no contest to falsifyinghis tax returns and not reflecting the bribes. On 10October 1973, less than nine months after he wasinaugurated for his second term as vice president,Agnew resigned. That same day, in district court inBaltimore, he pled nolo contendere to the singlecharge and admitted that he had been takingbribes for many years. Agnew was fined $10,000and sentenced to three years’ probation.

In his final years, Agnew became a businessconsultant. He stayed out of the public eye, exceptfor penning his memoirs, Go Quietly . . . or Else(1980). He entered a hospital in September 1996

Agnew, Spiro Theodore 9

for heart surgery and died on 17 September at theage of seventy-seven. After his death, it was dis-covered that he had been suffering from incurableleukemia. His remains were cremated, and theashes were interred in Dulaney Valley MemorialGardens in Timonium, Maryland.

It is a common fallacy that Agnew was the firstvice president to resign or to face criminalcharges—those “honors” go to Aaron Burr, whowas charged with treason (and acquitted), and toJohn C. Calhoun, who resigned on 28 December1832 to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. Agnew isthe first vice president to resign because of chargesrelating to corruption.

References: Agnew, Spiro T., Go Quietly . . . Or Else (NewYork: Morrow, 1980); Albright, Joseph, What MakesSpiro Run: The Life and Times of Spiro Agnew (NewYork: Dodd, Mead, 1972); Cohen, Richard M., andJules Witcover, A Heartbeat Away: The Investigationand Resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew (NewYork: Viking Press, 1974); “The Coronation of KingRichard,” Time, 28 August 1972, 17; Hill, Janellen,Spiro T. Agnew: Tactics of Self-Defense, August 1 toOctober 15, 1974 (Master’s thesis, Arizona StateUniversity, 1974); Lucas, Jim Griffing, Agnew: Profilein Conflict (New York: Award Books, 1970); Marsh,Robert, Agnew: The Unexamined Man—A PoliticalProfile (New York: M. Evans, 1971); “Spiro Agnew:Dishonest Vice President Resigns,” in George C. Kohn,Encyclopedia of American Scandal: From ABSCAM tothe Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File, 1989), 3–4;Weil, Martin,“Former Vice President Spiro T. AgnewDies at 77,” Washington Post, 18 September 1996, A1.

Alexander, LamarSee Blanton, Leonard Ray

Ames, Adelbert (1835–1933)United States senator from Mississippi (1870–1873) and governor of that state (1868–1870,1874–1876), impeached and forced to resign be-cause of race riots and corruption of the carpetbaggovernment in the state. Ames was born in Rock-land, Maine, on 31 October 1835, the son of JesseAmes, a mill owner and former sailor, and Martha(née Tolman) Ames. His granddaughter, BlancheAmes, wrote in 1964, “His people were New Eng-landers descended from the early Pilgrims andPuritans, of English and Scottish descent. Theywere venturesome people, and many had fought inthe Colonial and Revolutionary wars. Some were

farmers and teachers and some were seafaringmen like Adelbert’s father.”

Adelbert Ames attended private schools atFarmington and Bucksport near his Maine homeand thereafter went to the U.S. Military Academyat West Point, from which he graduated in 1861.When the Civil War exploded in April 1861, Amesvolunteered for service, starting with the rank ofsecond lieutenant and rising to the rank of brevet-major general of volunteers in 1866 for bravery inbattle. He saw tremendous action and wasawarded the congressional Medal of Honor for gal-lantry at the Battle of Bull Run in 1861. With theend of the war, Ames was assigned as a lieutenantcolonel of the Twenty-fifth Infantry during the im-mediate reconstruction of Mississippi.

General Ulysses S. Grant, as military com-mander in charge of the region, appointed Amesas the military governor of Mississippi under theReconstruction Acts passed by Congress. On 15June 1868, Ames, a Republican, took over fromGovernor Benjamin Humphreys, a Democrat. Intotal control of the state, Ames resubmitted to thepeople of the state a new state constitution that al-lowed for black suffrage that had been defeatedpreviously. This time, the constitution was over-whelmingly accepted, despite the defeat of a provi-sion barring any person who had supported theConfederacy from holding elective office. In 1870,after just two years as governor, Ames was electedby the overwhelmingly Republican legislature to aseat in the United States Senate. These seatsopened up to the former Confederate states whenthey accepted the Thirteenth and FourteenthAmendments to the Constitution and were read-mitted to the Union. Ames served in the Senatefrom 23 February 1873 until 10 January 1874.During this short tenure, he served as the chair-man of the Committee on Enrolled Bills.

In the 1873 election for governor of Missis-sippi, Ames’s name was advanced, despite the factthat he had already served as governor and wasnow a U.S. senator in Washington. Despite this, hedefeated another Republican, James Lusk Alcorn,and resigned his Senate seat on 10 January 1874 tobecome governor a second time. It was during thissecond tenure as governor that Ames was im-peached. It is not clear from the history books justwhy. Ames had been fighting the power of the KuKlux Klan in the state, but for the first time Alcorn

10 Alexander, Lamar

(who had switched to the Democratic Party) andother whites did not assist Ames in battling theKlan. Ames even got mixed signals from Washing-ton and the administration of President Ulysses S.Grant, under whom Ames had once served. Blackswere being murdered, but when Democrats calledfor a truce until after the 1875 elections for thestate legislature, Ames backed down from callingfor federal troops to quell the violence. Then, onlyweeks before the election, the violence begananew, and Ames was powerless to stop it. WhiteDemocrats won the elections, having chased orfrightened black Republicans away from the polls.

Having endured this outrage, Ames now facedanother. Historian Richard N. Current wrote:

After a vacation in the North, Ames returned toJackson with his wife and children, to face the new,hostile Democratic legislature in January 1876.“Atnight in the town here,” [Ames’ wife Blanche] wrotehome,“the crack of the pistol or gun is as frequentas the barking of dogs,” and some shots were firedat the [governor’s] mansion itself. Undeterred bythis, Ames in his first message to the new legislaturedenounced it as an illegal body, a product of forceand fraud. Promptly the legislature responded withthe first steps toward an impeachment of the gover-nor. The impeachers had no difficulty in trumpingup charges against him—that he absented himselffrom the state, pardoned criminals, degraded thejudiciary, and the like. There was no charge of cor-ruption.“Nothing is charged beyond political sins,”Ames explained to a New York friend; “of course,with them that is a sin which to Republicans is ofthe highest virtue. Their object is to restore theConfederacy and reduce the colored people to astate of serfdom. I am in their way, consequentlythey impeach me.”

Ames struck a deal with the Democrats: hewould resign if the impeachment was dropped. Inthe end, the Democrats broke their promise—Ames did resign, but the Democrats published thecharges and hailed their getting rid of the gover-nor. Ames resigned on 29 March 1876 and movedto New York City. Lieutenant Governor A. K. Davis,an Ames ally, was also forced to resign. With theresignation of both men, State Senator John Mar-shall Stone (1830–1900), a Democrat, becamegovernor.

Ames eventually moved to Lowell, Massachu-setts, where he was engaged in the flour mill busi-

ness, with the mills in Minnesota. When the Span-ish-American War broke out in 1898, he was re-called to military duty and served as brigadiergeneral of volunteers until 1899. He then retired toLowell. Ames died at his winter home in Ormond,Florida, on 12 April 1933, at age ninety-seven. Heis one of only nineteen state governors in Ameri-can history to have been impeached.

References: “Ames, Adelbert,” in Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors ofthe United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:816–817; Ames, BlancheAmes, Adelbert Ames, 1835–1933: General, Senator,Governor (New York: Argosy-Antiquarian, 1964), 1;Benson, Harry King,“The Public Career of AdelbertAmes, 1861–1876” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofVirginia, 1975); Buice, S. David,“The Military Careerof Adelbert Ames,” Southern Quarterly, 2 (April 1964),236–246; “The Carpetbagger as Man of Conscience:Adelbert Ames,” in Richard N. Current, ThreeCarpetbag Governors (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1967), 91–92; Lord, Stuart B.,“Adelbert Ames, Soldier Politician: A Reevaluation,”Maine Historical Society Quarterly, 13 (Fall 1973),81–97; The Testimony in the Impeachment of AdelbertAmes, as Governor of Mississippi (Jackson: Power &Barksdale, 1877).

Ames, Oakes (1804–1873)Congressman from Massachusetts (1863–1873), aleading figure in the Crédit Mobilier scandal thatdisgraced the Grant administration and broughtdown Vice President Schuyler Colfax. Born in Eas-ton, Massachusetts, on 10 January 1804, Oakes wasthe eldest son of Oliver Ames Sr. and Susanna (néeAngier) Ames. The Ames family could trace theirancestry back to one William Ames, who left Bru-ton, England, in 1635 to flee religious persecution,arriving in Plymouth in the Massachusetts BayColony. Four Mayflower pilgrims are among Ames’sancestors, including John Alden. Oliver Ames Sr.founded the Oliver Ames and Sons Shovel Works inNorth Easton, turning it over to his sons Oliver Jr.and Oakes in 1844.Oakes, the subject of this biogra-phy, attended local public schools and the Dighton(Massachusetts) Academy. He worked in his father’scompany, taking control of the concern with hisbrother in 1844. In 1860 Oakes Ames entered thepolitical realm when he was elected as a member ofthe executive council of Massachusetts.

Two years later, Ames was elected as a Republi-can to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives,

Ames, Oakes 11

serving in the Thirty-eighth through Forty-secondCongresses (4 March 1863–3 March 1873). As amember of the House Railroad Committee, he im-mediately became a major lobbyist for the railroadconcerns that sought to construct a transcontinen-tal railroad. Oakes’s brother Oliver became thepresident of the Union Pacific Railroad, andthrough his influence in Congress Ames was ableto get appropriations directed to the Union Pacificfor the construction of the project. One of themajor towns through which the railroad passed inIowa was named Ames to honor Oakes’s assistancein the project. To assist in the construction, Amesand other stockholders of the Union Pacific Rail-road established the Crédit Mobilier of America asa shell corporation into which congressional ap-propriations could be sent. Thus, as head of theCrédit Mobilier, the stockholders, including Ames,were able to negotiate with Congress for moneywith which to pay themselves in stock options. In1867 Ames sold contracts to seven stockholders inCrédit Mobilier to build the last 667 miles of rail-road—these contracts were worth more than $7million each.

Ames was able to conceal these deals for years,but by 1869, when the Union Pacific was reportingheavy losses amid the huge appropriations Con-gress had bestowed on it, he needed more to coverhis tracks. He approached numerous members ofCongress and offered them stock in the Crédit Mo-bilier at reduced prices; he wrote to his friendHenry S. McComb that he had positioned the stock“where it will produce the most good to us.” Withthe correspondence, Ames forwarded a list of thecongressmen and senators who had receivedshares. This correspondence and list came back tohaunt Ames and his cohorts.

During the presidential campaign of 1872, Mc-Comb, incensed for some reason, released the im-portant Crédit Mobilier correspondence to CharlesA. Dana, editor of the New York Sun and avowedpolitical enemy of the Grant administration. In-cluded on the fateful list were the names of VicePresident Schuyler Colfax, who was not runningfor reelection, and Senator Henry Wilson, who wasGrant’s running mate in 1872, as well as otherhigh-ranking Republican congressmen and sena-tors. Dana blew the whistle on the scheme. Start-ing with the edition of 4 September 1872, in blaz-ing headlines, he called attention to “the King ofFrauds—How the Crédit Mobilier Bought Its WayThrough Congress.” Ames and the others namedby the Sun denied the entire affair. In December1872 when Congress assembled (as was the prac-tice during that time), Speaker of the House JamesG. Blaine, himself implicated, called upon Repre-sentative Samuel S. Cox of New York, who had rununsuccessfully in the 1872 election as a liberal Re-publican, to take the Speaker’s chair and name acongressional panel to investigate the allegations.Cox named Luke Poland of Vermont to head a five-man committee to investigate. On 18 February1873, the Poland Committee reported back to theHouse. It found that Ames and RepresentativeJames Brooks (D-NY) were indeed guilty andasked that both men be expelled from the House.However, some Democrats refused to go alongwith the recommendation, and in the end Amesand Brooks were merely censured. Ames, who hadnot been a candidate for reelection in 1872 be-cause of the allegations, left Congress under thisethical cloud.

Returning to Massachusetts,Ames felt the stingof the congressional censure. On 8 May 1873, two

12 Ames, Oakes

Oakes Ames (1804–1873), American financier and politicianinvolved in the Crédit Mobilier scandal. (Bettmann/Corbis)

months after he left Congress, Ames died in Eas-ton at the age of sixty-nine and was buried in theUnity Cemetery in North Easton. Despite the igno-minious manner in which he left the House, Amesis remembered more today for his work than hiscorruption. In 1883 the Massachusetts state legis-lature passed a resolution calling attention to hiswork and petitioned the U.S. Congress to do thesame. The previous year, in 1882, the Union PacificRailroad erected a pyramid near Laramie,Wyoming, in honor of Ames’s work in thetranscontinental railroad completion. Ames’s son,Oliver Ames (1831–1895), served as governor ofMassachusetts (1887–1890).

See also Brooks, James; Crédit Mobilier ScandalReferences: “Ames, Oakes,” in The National Cyclopaedia

of American Biography, 57 vols. and supplements A-N,(New York: James T. White & Company, 1897–1984),II:199–200; Crawford, J. B., The Crédit Mobilier ofAmerica—Its Origin and History, Its Work ofConstructing the Union Pacific Railroad and theRelation of Members of Congress Therewith (Boston:C. W. Calkins & Co. Publishers, 1880).

Archbald, Robert Wodrow (1848–1926)United States district judge, implicated in a scan-dal in which he “took advantage of his official” po-sition for profit, for which he was impeached bythe U.S. House of Representatives and convictedby the U.S. Senate. Little is known of Archbald. Hewas born in Carbondale, Pennsylvania, on 10 Sep-tember 1848, the son of James and Augusta (néeFrothingham) Archbald. He studied the law inScranton, Pennsylvania, in the offices of a local lawfirm, Hand & Post. He received his bachelor’s de-gree from Yale in 1871, was admitted to the bar in1873, and practiced law in Scranton. He served asa judge from 1885 to 1888, when he was named asthe presiding judge of the Forty-fifth Judicial Dis-trict of Pennsylvania, where he served until 1901.A Republican, Archbald was appointed as a U.S.district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylva-nia by President William McKinley on 29 March1901. In 1910 President William Howard Taftnamed him to be a judge of the Third Circuit Courtof Appeals and on 1 February 1911, additionally tothe U.S. Commerce Court, which heard commer-cial cases.

Following allegations that Archbald had beeninvolved in numerous acts of corruption, includ-

ing influence peddling, Attorney General GeorgeW. Wickersham appointed one Wrisley Brown aspecial investigator to examine the allegations.Among these were accusations that Archbald,while sitting as a member of the Commerce Court,“induced” the Erie Railroad Company to sell himcertain properties owned by a subsidiary corpora-tion at a cheap price, despite the fact that the rail-road had cases pending before the court on whichArchbald sat; that he influenced a litigant beforethe Commerce Court to lease him land with largecoal deposits on it; and that he purchased stock ina gold mining concern from a litigant who hadbusiness before his court, after which he ruled inthe litigant’s favor. Finding these allegations to betrue, Brown sent his report to the attorney general,who forwarded it to Congress for consideration.On 23 April 1912, Representative (later Senator)George Norris of Nebraska introduced a resolutioncalling for the House Judiciary Committee to ex-amine Brown’s findings and report back to the fullHouse. On 8 July 1912, the Judiciary Committeerecommended that the full House impeach JudgeArchbald and included thirteen articles of im-peachment. The articles were debated and all wereadopted by the House on 11 July 1912.

The Senate trial of Judge Archbald began on 16July, just five days after the House voted. Norriswas one of the House managers, along with HenryD. Clayton of Alabama, Edwin Y. Webb of NorthCarolina, John C. Floyd of Arkansas, John W. Davisof West Virginia, John A. Sterling of Illinois, andPaul Howland of Ohio. The managers argued thatArchbald “improperly argued his influence as ajudge to enter into business dealings with poten-tial litigants before his court . . . [used his influencein the] improper acceptance of gifts from litigants,[and used his influence in the] improper appoint-ment of a jury commissioner.” As in the impeach-ment trial of Judge Charles H. Swayne, none of thethirteen articles dealt with indictable offenses;Archbald’s counsel, Alexander Simpson Jr., made apoint of this detail in his arguments before theSenate. In fact, Archbald never denied the factscontained in the impeachment articles—his claimwas that such conduct was part of his duties as ajudge on a court hearing cases involving com-merce. Norris argued that the allegations added upto a usurpation of power and “the entering and en-forcement of orders beyond his jurisdiction.”

Archbald, Robert Wodrow 13

On 13 January 1913, the Senate voted to convictArchbald on articles 1, 3, 4, 5, and 13, the last beinga “super article” in which all of the charges wereconsolidated into one charge: “During his time asa district judge and as a judge assigned to theCommerce Court, Archbald wrongfully sought toobtain credit from and through persons who wereinterested in litigation over which he presided. Hespeculated for profit in the purchase and sale ofvarious coal properties, and unlawfully used hisposition as judge to influence officers of variousrailroad companies to enter into contracts inwhich he had a financial interest, which such com-panies had litigation pending in his court.” Simp-son, Archbald’s counsel, concluded that the mes-sage sent by the Senate in convicting Archbald wasthat it was “determined that a judge ought not onlyto be impartial, but he ought so to demean him-self, both in and out of the court, that litigants willhave no reason to suspect his impartiality; andthat repeatedly failing in that respect constituted a‘high misdemeanor.’” Simpson also charged thatmany senators did not sit through the trial testi-mony, instead relying on the Congressional Record.After the guilty verdict was announced, the Senatevoted to remove Judge Archbald from office. Then,by a vote of thirty-nine to thirty-five, it disquali-fied him from holding any office under the UnitedStates in the future. House manager Norris saidthat in convicting Archbald, the Senate hadadopted “a code of judicial ethics for the first timein American history.” Only months later, Congressabolished the Commerce Court. Justice FelixFrankfurter of the United States Supreme Courtlater wrote, “The impeachment of Judge Archbaldjustly cast no reflection against the Court as an in-stitution nor any of its other members. Hence wefind that during the final stage of the movementfor [the] abolition of the Court, the Archbald im-peachment does not figure in the debate. Yet themere fact of the impeachment was a weighty, evenif inarticulate, factor. For the conviction of one ofthe judges ( because it involved the use of his in-fluence to secure favors from carriers litigating be-fore him, confirmed the widespread claim of rail-road bias and partisanship deemed inevitable inthe very nature of so specialized and concentrateda tribunal as the Commerce Court.”

After being forced to leave the bench, Archbaldreturned to his home in Scranton. He died there on

19 August 1926, three weeks shy of his seventy-eighth birthday.

References: Biographical information on Archbald inHarold Chase, et al., comps., Biographical Dictionaryof the Federal Judiciary (Detroit, MI: Gale ResearchCompany, 1976), 9; Frankfurter, Felix, and JamesLandis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study inthe Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan,1928), 171; Hoogenboom, Ari, and OliveHoogenboom, A History of the ICC: From Panacea toPalliative (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976), 68; “RobertArchbald: Unworthy of Public Office,” in George C.Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case” (New York: Facts on File,1989), 12–13; Simpson, Alexander, Jr., A Treatise onFederal Impeachments, With an Appendix Containing,Inter Alia, an Abstract of the Articles of Impeachmentin all of the Federal Impeachments in this Country andin England (Philadelphia: Law Association ofPhiladelphia, 1916); United States Senate, Proceedingsof the United States Senate and the House ofRepresentatives in the Trial of Impeachment of RobertW. Archbald, Additional Circuit Judge of the UnitedStates from the Third Judicial Circuit and designated aJudge of the Commerce Court, 3 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1913.).

Archer, Stevenson (1827–1898)United States representative from Maryland(1867–1875), Maryland state treasurer (1886–1890), convicted and sent to prison for four yearsfor embezzling more than $132,000 in state funds.The son of Stevenson Archer Sr. (1786–1848), whoserved in Congress from 1811 to 1817 and 1819 to 1821, as well as serving as a justice on the Missis-sippi Territorial Supreme Court and the MarylandCourt of Appeals, Stevenson Archer Jr. was born at“Medical Hall”near the village of Churchville, Mary-land, on 28 February 1827. He attended the presti-gious Bel Air Academy in Maryland, then enteredPrinceton College (now Princeton University) inNew Jersey, graduating in 1848. He studied law andwas admitted to the Maryland state bar in 1850.

In 1854 Archer was elected to the Marylandstate house of delegates, where he served for a sin-gle one-year term. A Democrat, he was elected to aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives fromMaryland’s Second District in 1866 and served inthe Fortieth through the Forty-third Congresses,from 4 March 1867 until 3 March 1875. He was de-feated for the Democratic nomination in 1874 andretired from political life. However, in 1885 he waselected Maryland state treasurer, overseeing the

14 Archer, Stevenson

handling of public funds. Before this time therewas no hint of Archer being involved in corruptionof any kind. However, it is possible that a lifetimeof public service that had brought him little finan-cial comfort, coupled with having the financial ac-count of the entire state of Maryland within hispower, was too much of a temptation for Archer. Byearly 1890 serious allegations had arisen that statemoney had gone missing under Archer’s control.After an investigation, it was discovered that morethan $132,000 could not be accounted for. Archerwas arrested, removed from office by GovernorElihu E. Jackson, a fellow Democrat, and chargedwith embezzlement. Archer, apparently chagrinedat being caught, plead guilty before the court. Hetold the judge in a written statement, “No part ofthe State’s money or securities was ever used byme in gambling, stock speculation, or for politicalpurposes; nor have I at this time one dollar of itleft.” Archer was sentenced to five years in prison;however, he began to suffer from ill health soonafter the beginning of his sentence. In May 1894,after less than four years in prison, he was par-doned by Governor Frank Brown, also a fellow De-mocrat. Archer returned home in disgrace. Helived for four years following his release, dying inthe Baltimore City Hospital on 2 August 1898 atthe age of seventy-one. He was buried in the Pres-byterian Cemetery in Churchville, Maryland. De-spite his career of service, which ended in a jailterm, Archer’s name is virtually forgotten.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, 1996).

Austin v. Michigan Chamber ofCommerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)United States Supreme Court decision holding thatstate regulations banning the use of certain corpo-rate funds for campaign purposes are constitu-tional. In 1976 the Michigan legislature enactedSection 54(1) of the Michigan Campaign FinanceAct, which prohibited corporations from makingcontributions and/or independent expenditures tocandidates for election in the state. In this case, theonly question was whether the ban on indepen-dent expenditures was constitutional. The act de-fined an “expenditure” as “a payment, donation,loan, pledge, or promise of payment of money or

anything of ascertainable monetary value forgoods, materials, services, or facilities in assis-tance of, or in opposition to, the nomination orelection of a candidate.” In June 1985 Michiganscheduled a special election to fill a vacancy in thestate house of representatives. The MichiganChamber of Commerce, a nonprofit organizationin the state with more than 8,000 members, soughtto use contributions to fund an independent ad-vertising campaign during the election. State lawallowed for such expenditures if it came from aseparate campaign fund not connected with thecorporation’s general fund, but in this case theChamber desired to use monies from its generaltreasury to pay for the campaign. As such an actwas a felony, the Chamber challenged the law inthe federal district court for the Western District ofMichigan, arguing that restrictions on expendi-tures was an unconstitutional infringement underthe First and Fourteenth Amendments. The dis-trict court upheld the statute (643 F. Supp. 397(W.D. Mich. 1986)), and the Chamber of Com-merce appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSixth Circuit. This court struck down the statute,holding that because the Chamber was a nonprofitcorporation, the law could not be applied to itwithout infringing on the First Amendment rightsof its members (856 F. Supp. 783 (1988)). The U.S.Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which tookplace on 31 October 1989.

On 27 March 1990, Justice Thurgood Marshallwrote the opinion for a six-to-three majority (Jus-tices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and San-dra Day O’Connor dissented) that the limitationson corporate expenditures were constitutional:

The Chamber argues that this concern about cor-porate domination of the political process is insuf-ficient to justify a restriction on independent ex-penditures. Although this Court has distinguishedthese expenditures from direct contributions in thecontext of federal laws regulating individualdonors ( it has also recognized that a legislaturemight demonstrate a danger of real or apparentcorruption posed by such expenditures when madeby corporations to influence candidate elections . . .Regardless of whether this danger of “financialquid pro quo” corruption . . . may be sufficient tojustify a restriction on independent expenditures,Michigan’s regulation aims at a different type ofcorruption in the political arena: the corrosive and

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 15

distorting effects of immense aggregations ofwealth that are accumulated with the help of thecorporate form and that have little or no correla-tion to the public’s support for the corporation’spolitical ideas.

Marshall then addressed the concerns of thethree justices in the minority:

The Act does not attempt “to equalize the relativeinfluence of speakers on elections,” at 705(KENNEDY, J., dissenting); see also at 684 (SCALIA,J., dissenting); rather, it ensures that expendituresreflect actual public support for the political ideasespoused by corporations. We emphasize that themere fact that corporations may accumulate largeamounts of wealth is not the justification for 54;rather, the unique state-conferred corporate struc-ture that facilitates the amassing of large treasurieswarrants the limit on independent expenditures.Corporate wealth can unfairly influence electionswhen it is deployed in the form of independent ex-penditures, just as it can when it assumes the guiseof political contributions. We therefore hold that theState has articulated a sufficiently compelling ra-tionale to support its restriction on independent ex-penditures by corporations.

Axtell, Samuel Beach (1819–1891)Governor of Utah Territory (1874–1875) and NewMexico Territory (1875–1878), implicated in, butnever charged with, corruption that led to a rangewar. Axtell was born in Franklin County, Ohio, on14 October 1819, the son of a farmer and thegrandson of a veteran of the War of 1812. He at-tended local schools, then went to Western ReserveCollege (now Case Western University) in Oberlin,Ohio, after which he was admitted to the Ohio bar.In 1851 he left Ohio for California, where heworked in the gold mines that sprouted up in thatterritory. When California became a state in 1854,Axtell was elected as the district attorney forAmador County and served for three terms. In1860 he moved to San Francisco and for a timepracticed law there. In 1866 Axtell, a Democrat,was elected to a seat in the U.S. House of Represen-tatives, serving in the Fortieth and Forty-first Con-gresses from 4 March 1867 until 3 March 1871. Hisservice there was undistinguished, and he did notseek a third term in 1870. During his final term inCongress, he sided more with the Republican ad-

ministration of President Ulysses S. Grant than hisown Democratic Party.

In 1874, when Utah Territorial GovernorGeorge L. Woods was not reappointed, Axtell wasnamed in his stead. Axtell had had little adminis-trative experience, but nonetheless Grant placedhim in this position. His time in Utah was short,however: he was criticized by the anti-Mormonfaction in the territory for his closeness to theMormon Church. One of his most controversialacts was to deliver the certificate of election toGeorge Q. Cannon. Cannon had just been electedto the U.S. House of Representatives, but becausehe was a Mormon, Territorial Governor GeorgeWoods had refused to sanction his seating. Be-cause Axtell had sided with Cannon, he was nick-named “Bishop Axtell.” In 1875 Grant decided tomove him out of Utah. Following the death of NewMexico Territorial Governor Marsh Giddings on 3June 1875, Grant named Axtell as his replacement.

Starting soon after his appointment in 1875,Axtell got into trouble in New Mexico. The NewYork Times headlined a story on numerous unex-plained charges leveled against Axtell: “There havebeen published in this city for the last thirty daysincessant attacks upon Gov. Axtell, the newly ap-pointed Governor, who has been in the Territoryabout that length of time. Charges have also beentelegraphed to the press in regard to him, which,he asserts, are false in every particular. It is not be-lieved that there is any dissatisfaction among thepublic with regard to his course.” However, Axtellwas indeed involved with a gang of land thievesknown as the Santa Fe Ring. Working withlandowner (and future U.S. senator from NewMexico) Thomas B. Catron, the ring controlled ter-ritorial land affairs through intimidation that ex-ploded in the so-called Colfax County War. Therewere numerous shootings and vigilante killings. In1878, declaring the entire Colfax County to be ininsurrection, President Rutherford B. Hayes sent afederal investigator, Frank W. Angel, to look intothe matter. Angel concluded that Catron and Ax-tell, through massive corruption and intimidation,had allowed the war to go on unimpeded. Angelalso discovered that the local U.S. attorney and theterritorial surveyor general were also involved inthe corruption. However, because Axtell’s role wascloudy at best and little actual evidence existed ofhis corruption, Hayes decided to merely remove

16 Axtell, Samuel Beach

the governor from his post. In 1878 Hayes re-moved Axtell and replaced him with General LewWallace, famed for his book Ben Hur: A Tale of theChrist. However, Axtell remained in New MexicoTerritory, and just four years after Hayes removedhim he was appointed by Territorial Governor Li-onel Allen Sheldon as chief justice of the NewMexico Territorial Supreme Court. He served inthis position until he resigned in 1885.

Samuel Axtell remained a leading politician inNew Mexico, rising to be elected to the position ofchairman of the Territorial Republican Committeein 1890. He died while in Morristown, New Jersey,on 7 August 1891 at the age of seventy-one.

See also Catron, Thomas BentonReferences: “Axtell, Samuel Beach,” in McMullin, Thomas

A. and David Walker, Biographical Directory ofAmerican Territorial Governors (Westport, CT:Meckler Publishing, 1984); Biographical Directory ofthe American Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA:CQ Staff Directories, 1996); Duran, Tobias,“FranciscoChalvez, Thomas B. Catron, and Organized PoliticalViolence in Santa Fe in the 1890s,” New MexicoHistorical Review, 59 (July 1984), 291–310; Jacobsen,Joel K.,“An Excess of Law in Lincoln County: ThomasCatron, Samuel Axtell, and the Lincoln County War,”New Mexico Historical Review 68 (April 1993),133–151; “Malicious Attacks on Gov. Axtell. A Case ofContempt of Court. Another Escape of Prisoners fromthe Penitentiary,” New York Times, 9 March 1875, 7.

Axtell, Samuel Beach 17

Baker, Robert Gene (1928– )Secretary to the Senate majority leader (1955–1963),“Bobby” Baker was convicted of tax evasionand defrauding the government and was impli-cated in, but never charged with, corrupt use of hisoffice for personal financial gain. His case led tothe establishment of the Senate Committee onEthics and Standards. Although his case waswidely reported, little is known about Baker him-self. Born in Pickens, South Carolina, in 1928, theson of a mill worker, he attended local schools. In1942 Senator Burnet Maybank (D-SC) appointedthe fourteen-year-old Baker a page for the UnitedStates Senate. Two years later, he was named aschief page. He then became part of the Senate’sclerical staff.

It was there that Baker’s career took off. He be-came an assistant for Senator Robert S. Kerr (D-OK). However, he was noticed by another senator,Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas. When Johnsonbecame the minority whip in 1951, he named hisprotégé Baker as minority secretary. Johnson latertold people that Baker “is the first person I talk toin the morning and the last one at night.” WhenJohnson became minority leader in 1953, Bakerwas at his side. Two years later, when Johnson be-came the majority leader, Baker was there to reapthe rewards of his association with this up-and-coming political star and was named secretary tothe majority leader. He stuck by Johnson so muchthat he became known as “Little Lyndon.” As his

power grew, many referred to Baker as “the 101stsenator.” No one knew that as his boss advanced,Baker was using his position to buy and sell influ-ence. In 1960 Johnson was elected vice president,and when he took office in January 1961, SenatorMike Mansfield (D-MT) became Baker’s boss.Baker continued his backdoor deals, which werenot exposed for three years.

On 12 September 1963, allegations arose thatBaker had used his position for personal and fi-nancial gain. The Washington Post published astory that Baker had demanded payoffs of $5,000from a man to get the man’s vending machinesinto government offices. As the allegations piledup against him, Baker resigned his office on 7 Oc-tober 1963, although he faced no criminal charges.He had financed—with his own money (he wasmaking only $19,612 a year)—the purchase of ahotel in Ocean City, Maryland, where he wined anddined congressional friends and cronies. ThenBaker bought a home for his wife and children for$124,500. Senator John James Williams (R-DE)asked the Senate to conduct an investigation intohow Baker could afford these purchases. Becausethe Senate did not have a committee on ethics, thecharges were referred to the Rules Committee forhearings. A month after Baker resigned, PresidentJohn F. Kennedy was assassinated, and Johnsonwas elevated to the presidency. Over the next year,the Senate Rules Committee uncovered evidencethat became highly embarrassing for President

B

19

Johnson, as Baker’s use of his office for personalgain was exposed. Williams found witnesses wereunwilling to go public with stories about Baker’swild spending sprees.

Historian Jay Robert Nash explained:

At hearings held by the Senate committee in 1964,witnesses gave some damning testimony againstBaker, who was accused of helping a friend sellJohnson expensive life insurance policies (morethan $200,000 worth) in the 1950s, in return for thefriend’s agreement to buy advertising time on Mrs.Johnson’s Texas radio station. Baker was also ac-cused of giving an alleged $100,000 payoff to John-son for pushing through a $7 billion TFX plane con-tract for the Texas-based General DynamicsCorporation. Besides this, Baker was also accused ofreceiving an illegal $25,000 payment, allegedly fromDemocratic National Committee chairmanMatthew H. McCloskey, to be channeled into the1960 Kennedy-Johnson campaign fund. Membersof the committee were unable to get much out ofBaker when he appeared before them in February1964; he said nothing to hurt his friends in highplaces, and invoked the Fifth Amendment to theConstitution, against self-incrimination. The hear-ings ended on March 25, 1964.

Despite the pile of evidence against Baker, theRules Committee hesitated to find that one of theSenate’s own had committed any crimes, holdingthat he had merely committed “gross impropri-eties,” and closed the hearings without any actionbeing taken. Williams, outraged, took the investi-gation further, backed by public approval of his ac-tions. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), runningfor president against Johnson in 1964, called atten-tion to the Baker matter in some of his campaignspeeches.

Johnson was reelected in a landslide in Novem-ber 1964, and the Baker issue went away for a time.However, Department of Justice attorneys, investi-gating Baker’s role in the sale of influence, andwithout White House intervention, indicted Bakerin 1966 on charges of tax evasion and defraudingthe government. He was convicted in 1967 andafter a series of appeals went to prison in January1971. He was released in June 1972 after servingonly seventeen months.As of this writing he is a re-tired real estate developer in St.Augustine, Florida.

Baker’s case led to the establishment of theSenate Committee on Standards and Ethics and a

series of rules governing the behavior of membersand officers of Congress and their employees, mostnotably financial disclosure rules for all groupswho work or serve Congress.

See also Williams, John JamesReferences: Baker, Bobby, with Larry King, Wheeling and

Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1978); “Bobby Baker: Wheeler-Dealer with High-level Machinations,” in George C.Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File,1989), 18–19; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee onRules and Administration, Financial or BusinessInterests of Officers and Employees of the Senate.Hearings, 88th Congress, Pursuant to Senate Resolution212, Parts 1–27 (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1964), 20.

Barry v. United States ex rel.Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929)United States Supreme Court decision holding thatthe U.S. Senate was within its authority “to excludepersons asserting membership who either had notbeen elected, or, what amounts to the same thing,had been elected by resort to fraud, bribery, cor-ruption, or other sinister methods having the ef-fect of vitiating the election.” In November 1926Republican William S. Vare appeared to have de-feated Democrat William B. Wilson for the UnitedStates Senate seat from Pennsylvania. However,Wilson appealed to the Senate with charges that ir-regularities in the voting should disqualify Varefrom being seated.

The Senate opened an investigation into the al-legations. The Senate Committee on Privileges andElections went to Pennsylvania to question wit-nesses and examine documents. However, oneThomas Cunningham refused to testify. He hadserved as a member of an organization that sup-ported Vare in the Republican primary and thegeneral election and allegedly had given the chair-man of the group $50,000 in two installments tobe used for Vare’s election. In February 1927 Cun-ningham was called before the U.S. Senate com-mittee, but again refused to testify. In March 1928the Committee reported to the Senate, includingthe refusal of Cunningham to testify, and urgedthat he be found in contempt of the committeeand the Senate. The Senate, instead, enacted a res-olution instructing the president of the Senate toissue a warrant commanding the sergeant-at-

20 Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham

arms of the Senate, or his deputy, to take Cunning-ham into custody and bring him “before the bar ofthe Senate, then and there or elsewhere, as it maydirect, to answer such questions pertinent to thematter under inquiry as the Senate, through itssaid committee, or the President of the Senate,may propound, and to keep the said Thomas W.Cunningham in custody to await further order ofthe Senate.” Cunningham was taken into custody,whereupon he filed for a writ of habeas corpus inthe federal district court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania. He claimed that he was illegallyfound to be in contempt of the Senate and that ithad no authority to issue a warrant for his arrest.

The district court denied Cunningham’s writand ordered him into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Cunningham appealed to the U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This courtreversed the district court, holding that the infor-mation Cunningham was required to give—re-garding monetary donations to Vare’s campaignthat the Senate was not supposed to investigate—was not relevant, and thus his refusal to answercould not be the basis for a contempt charge. TheSenate appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Argu-ments were heard on 23 April 1929.

A month later, on 27 May 1929, Justice GeorgeSutherland spoke for a unanimous Court in rein-stating Cunningham’s arrest and holding that theSenate had a firm constitutional right to questionwitnesses before it and punish those who refusedto answer:

Generally, the Senate is a legislative body, exercisingin connection with the House only the power tomake laws. But it has had conferred upon it by theConstitution certain powers, which are not legisla-tive, but judicial, in character. Among these is thepower to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifi-cations of its own members. Article 1, 5, clause 1.“That power carries with it authority to take suchsteps as may be appropriate and necessary to se-cure information upon which to decide concerningelections.” Reed v. County Commissioners, 277 U.S.376, 388, 48 S. Ct. 531. Exercise of the power neces-sarily involves the ascertainment of facts, the atten-dance of witnesses, the examination of such wit-nesses, with the power to compel them to answerpertinent questions, to determine the facts andapply the appropriate rules of law, and, finally, torender a judgment that is beyond the authority of

any other tribunal to review. In exercising thispower, the Senate may, of course, devolve upon acommittee of its members the authority to investi-gate and report; and this is the general, if not theuniform, practice. When evidence is taken by acommittee, the pertinency of questions pro-pounded must be determined by reference to thescope of the authority vested in the committee bythe Senate. But undoubtedly the Senate, if it so de-termines, may in whole or in part dispense with theservices of a committee and itself take testimony,and, after conferring authority upon its committee,the Senate, for any reason satisfactory to it and atany stage of the proceeding, may resume charge ofthe inquiry and conduct it to a conclusion, or tosuch extent as it may see fit. In that event, the limi-tations put upon the committee obviously do notcontrol the Senate; but that body may deal with thematter, without regard to these limitations, subjectonly to the restraints imposed by or found in theimplications of the Constitution. We cannot as-sume, in advance of Cunningham’s interrogation atthe bar of the Senate, that these restraints will notfaithfully be observed. It sufficiently appears fromthe foregoing that the inquiry in which the Senatewas engaged, and in respect of which it required thearrest and production of Cunningham, was withinits constitutional authority . . .

It is said, however, that the power conferredupon the Senate is to judge of the elections, returns,and qualifications of its “members,” and, since theSenate had refused to admit Vare to a seat in theSenate, or permit him to take the oath of office, thathe was not a member. It is enough to say of this thatupon the face of the returns he had been elected,and had received a certificate from the Governor ofthe state to that effect. Upon these returns and withthis certificate, he presented himself to the Senate,claiming all the rights of membership. Thereby thejurisdiction of the Senate to determine the rightful-ness of the claim was invoked and its power to adju-dicate such right immediately attached by virtue ofsection 5 of article 1 of the Constitution. Whether,pending this adjudication, the credentials should beaccepted, the oath administered, and the full rightaccorded to participate in the business of the Sen-ate, was a matter within the discretion of the Sen-ate. This has been the practical construction of thepower by both houses of Congress; and we perceiveno reason why we should reach a different conclu-sion. When a candidate is elected to either house, heof course is elected a member of the body; andwhen that body determines, upon presentation ofhis credentials, without first giving him his seat,

Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham 21

that the election is void, there would seem to be noreal substance in a claim that the election of a“member” has not been adjudged. To hold other-wise would be to interpret the word “member” witha strictness in no way required by the obvious pur-pose of the constitutional provision, or necessary toits effective enforcement in accordance with suchpurpose, which, so far as the present case is con-cerned, was to vest the Senate with authority to ex-clude persons asserting membership, who eitherhad not been elected or, what amounts to the samething, had been elected by resort to fraud, bribery,corruption, or other sinister methods having the ef-fect of vitiating the election.

Barry is the controlling case in American lawwhen it comes to the power of the Senate to inves-tigate its own members. The U.S. Supreme Courthas not backed away at all from its decision in thiscase in more than seven decades.

See also Vare, William ScottReferences: Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham,

279 U.S. 597, at 614–615.

Barstow, William Augustus (1813–1865)Governor of Wisconsin (1854–1856), implicatedbut never charged in massive bribery during histenure, resigned due to possible election impropri-eties in the 1856 state election. Despite the numer-ous allegations against him, Barstow was nevertried, and he later served with distinction in theU.S. Civil War. Born in Plainfield, Connecticut, on13 September 1813, he was the son of a farmer,William Augustus Barstow, who served in theAmerican Revolution, and his second wife, Sally.William Barstow received only a limited educationin the common schools of Plainfield. He left schoolat age sixteen to become a clerk in a store run byhis older brother, Samuel Barstow, in Louisville,Connecticut. In 1834 William Barstow moved toCleveland, Ohio, where he became part of a flour-milling business with his brother Horatio Barstow.When the business failed in the depression of1837–1838, Barstow headed for Wisconsin, wherehe settled in the village of Prairieville, near Wauke-sha. There, Barstow went into a partnership withone John Gale of Milwaukee in another flourmill,this one on the Fox River. At the same time that hewas an active businessman, Barstow also becameinvolved in local politics, serving in a number of

local offices, including as a member of the Mil-waukee Count Board and as postmaster ofPrairieville.

In 1849, Barstow, a Whig, was nominated by thestate party for secretary of state, running on thesame ticket with Governor Nelson Dewey, who wasrunning for reelection. Barstow went on to victory.However, while serving as secretary of state, alle-gations of corruption in his office first surfaced.Asa member of the Public Lands Commission,Barstow approved the sale of tracts of land to cer-tain people—these were later found to be specula-tors who never bid for the land, as was establishedby law. Barstow was also a member of the board ofthe State Printing Commission, and here, too, alle-gations of the sale of state printing contracts tosome of Barstow’s friends came out, although nocharges were ever leveled in either case. However,the charges were serious enough to cause Barstowto lose his reelection bid in 1851.

Two years later, the Whig party dead, Barstowswitched to become a Democrat. Remarkably, de-spite the allegations that had been floating aroundhim, the Democrats named Barstow as their gu-bernatorial candidate that year. He went on to de-feat the Free Soil (antislavery) candidate, EdwardD. Holton, and the Whig candidate, Henry Baird.The corruption that had been hinted at whenBarstow was secretary of state followed him intothe governor’s office. As historians Robert Sobeland John Raimo explain:

While he was governor, Barstow, along with eightlegislators and A. T. Gray, the Secretary of State, or-ganized the St. Croix and Lake Superior RailroadCompany with Barstow as president. Barstow alsoowned stock in the Fox-Wisconsin River Improve-ment Group. He threatened to veto any bill callingfor an investigation of the latter company’s han-dling of its land grants. Barstow was also implicatedin bribery, and other maneuvers, involving the trad-ing of land grants between the St. Croix and LakeSuperior Railroad, and the La Cross and MilwaukeeRailroad Company. No investigation resulted and nocharges were ever brought, but Barstow’s reputationsuffered nonetheless.

In 1854, Barstow, under fire for his businesspractices, ran for a second term. He was opposedby Coles Bashford, the candidate of the new Re-publican Party, and a sitting Wisconsin state sena-

22 Barstow, William Augustus

tor. Barstow did not get full support from his ownparty, but he won the election, albeit barely, thatNovember. Almost from the start, allegations ofmassive vote rigging by Barstow and his croniesled Bashford to challenge the election results.However, after an investigation by the Democrati-cally controlled State Board of Canvassers,Barstow was declared the winner by 157 votes andallowed to take the oath of office for a secondterm. Even with this result, the state RepublicanParty took the case to the Wisconsin state supremecourt. Facing a potential challenge, Barstow re-signed on 21 March 1856. The state supreme courteventually upheld Bashford’s challenge, butBarstow’s resignation made the case moot.

Barstow returned to private business, includinghis flour mill. In 1861 when the Civil War ex-ploded, he volunteered for service in the ThirdWisconsin Cavalry, starting off as a colonel. Heserved as the provost marshal general for the stateof Kansas and saw action in one battle in 1863, butillness forced his retirement. He later served as anofficer in the military courts in St. Louis until theend of the war. Following his discharge, he movedto Leavenworth, Kansas, but succumbed to his ill-ness on 13 December 1865, two months after hisfifty-second birthday.

References: “Barstow, William Augustus,” in Robert Sobeland John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), IV:1719–1720;Martin, Jennie McKee,“The Administration ofGovernor Barstow” (Bachelor’s thesis, University ofWisconsin, 1921); The Trial in the Supreme Court, ofthe Information in the Nature of a Quo Warranto Filedby the Attorney General on the Relation of ColesBashford vs. Wm. A. Barstow, Contesting the Right tothe Office of Governor of Wisconsin (Madison, WI:Calkins & Proudfit, and Atwood and Rublee, 1856).

Belknap, William Worth (1829–1890)Secretary of war (1869–1876) in the administra-tion of President Ulysses S. Grant, implicated in abribery scandal and impeached, but found notguilty by the Senate because he had resigned, set-ting a precedent in impeachment law that remainsto this day. Born in Newburgh, New York, on 22September 1829, Belknap was the son of a militaryofficer who later gained fame in the Mexican War.He attended Princeton College (now Princeton

University) in New Jersey, then studied the law inWashington, D.C., and was admitted to the Districtbar in 1851. He then moved west, settling inKeokuk, Iowa, and opened a law practice in thatcity. In 1856, running as a “Douglas” Democrat—amember of the antislavery wing of the party—hewas elected to a single two-year term in the Iowastate legislature. When the Civil War broke out in1861, Belknap received a commission as a majorwith the Fifteenth Iowa Infantry and saw action atthe battles of Shiloh, Corinth, and Vicksburg. In1864 he was promoted to the rank of brigadiergeneral and put in charge of the Fourth Division ofthe XVII Corps, working to help General WilliamTecumseh Sherman battle the Confederates inGeorgia and the Carolinas. After leaving the ser-vice at the end of the conflict, Belknap served from1865 until 1869 as the collector of internal revenuefor the state of Iowa.

After becoming president in 1869, Ulysses S.Grant named one of his chief aides, John AaronRawlins, as secretary of war. Rawlins, however, wasdying of tuberculosis and succumbed to the dis-ease on 9 September 1869, less than six monthsinto his tenure. Grant wanted to name GeneralWilliam T. Sherman, a hero of the Civil War, Rawl-ins’s successor, but Sherman merely acted in acaretaker capacity until a permanent replacementfor Rawlins could be found. Grant then ap-proached Belknap, who offered to fill the vacantcabinet portfolio. After Senate confirmation, hetook office as the thirtieth secretary of war. Belk-nap’s tenure has been largely forgotten save for hisfinal few months in office, when the cloud of scan-dal erupted around him.

Belknap was not the only figure engulfed incorruption at that time—his was among a multi-tude of shameful episodes in American history atthat time. Crédit Mobilier, the Sanborn Contracts,the Whiskey Ring, the Indian Ring, “Boss”Tweed—all were in the news in the mid-to-late1870s. But Belknap became the first cabinet offi-cial directly implicated in corruption. The story ofthis scandal begins in 1870, when Congress en-acted a law authorizing the secretary of war “topermit one or more trading establishments to bemaintained at any military post on the frontier notin the vicinity of any city or town, when he be-lieves such an establishment is needed for the ac-commodation of emigrants, freighters, or other

Belknap, William Worth 23

Illustration showing wife of Secretary William Belknap, at the home of Mr. Blackburn, pleading to save her husband'shonor. During a period of abundant political scandals, Belknap became the first cabinet official directly implicated incorruption. (Library of Congress)

citizens. The persons to maintain such establish-ments shall be appointed by him, and shall beunder protection and control as camp-followers.”Historian George Kohn, writing about Belknap,explained:

Belknap’s annual salary of $8,000 as Secretary ofWar was evidently not enough for him and his wife,who desired to live and entertain in a grand style.She communicated with a wealthy friend of hers, aNew York contractor named Caleb P. Marsh, towhom she proposed a deal: she would secure forhim the lucrative Indian trading post at Fort Sill,Oklahoma, if he agreed to pass on to her some ofthe profits. At the time the post was held by oneJohn S. Evans, who refused to relinquish it becauseof the large investment and profitability to him, buthe agreed to pay Marsh $12,000 annually if he couldkeep the tradership. The agreement was made, andMarsh gave half of his yearly payments to the ac-quisitive Mrs. Belknap. After her death, the monieswere sent to Belknap himself, who subsequently re-ceived nearly $25,000 in “kickbacks” from the FortSill trader.

In 1875, with scandals exploding in all sectionsof the Grant administration, congressional investi-gators looking into corruption in trading postscame across the evidence that Belknap was on thetake. The investigators also found that, uncon-nected to Belknap’s corruption, the president’sbrother, Orville, was cashing in the same way. Thestory broke in the American press in February1876, when the New York Herald printed an exposéon the corrupt practices of one of Grant’s cabinetmembers. Other newspapers, such as the New YorkTimes, followed. Belknap’s career was finished. On2 March 1876, Belknap resigned from the cabinet.Grant wrote to his friend that he accepted the res-ignation “with great regret.”

Alas, Belknap was not free of responsibility justbecause he had resigned his office. On 14 January1876, Representative William Ralls Morrison (D-IL) introduced a resolution calling for the Com-mittee on Expenditures to investigate several cabi-net departments, including the Department ofWar. Citing the bribes, the Committee recom-mended on 2 March 1876 that Belknap be im-peached. The secretary resigned that same day.However, the House moved forward with the im-peachment inquiry, appointing the Judiciary Com-

mittee to draft articles of impeachment. On 3 April1876, the Committee reported to the whole Housefive articles of impeachment, which were thenadopted. Article 1 alleged that “on October 8, 1870,Belknap appointed Caleb P. Marsh to maintain atrading post at Fort Sill. On the same day, Marshcontracted with John S. Evans for Evans to fill thecommission as posttrader at Fort Sill in exchangefor a yearly payment to Marsh of $12,000. On Oc-tober 10th, at the request of Marsh, Belknap ap-pointed Evans to maintain the trading establish-ment at Fort Sill. On 2 November 1870, and on fourmore occasions over the next year, Belknap unlaw-fully received $1,500 payments from Marsh inconsideration of allowing Evans to maintain atrading establishment at Fort Sill.” The other arti-cles alleged the same improprieties, except for ar-ticle 4, which listed in 14 distinct sections, eachpayment made by Marsh to Belknap.

The first cabinet officer ever to be impeached,Belknap hired a coterie of experienced Washing-ton hands to defend him: Matthew Carpenter, anexperienced Washington lawyer; Jeremiah S.Black, former secretary of state and former attor-ney general, who had been turned down by theSenate for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court; andMontgomery Blair, former postmaster generalunder Abraham Lincoln. The Senate opened thetrial on 3 April 1876. The three attorneys repre-senting Belknap strangely did not argue Belknap’sinnocence—instead, they maintained that Bel-knap’s resignation made an impeachment trial,designed to remove a corrupt officer from office,moot. Belknap even refused to enter a plea. De-spite these moves, the trial opened on 5 April 1876,a month after his resignation. Interspersed in thetestimony on Belknap’s malfeasance were argu-ments that as a private citizen Belknap could notbe impeached. As time went on, this mere factoverrode any and all evidence against him. On 1August 1876, the Senate voted, with twenty-fivesenators holding out for acquittal. Lacking thetwo-thirds majority required to convict, the Senatefound Belknap not guilty. Afterwards, twenty-twoof the senators who voted to acquit reported thattheir vote was based on the fact that they had nojurisdiction over a private citizen.

Belknap was never tried criminally for takingbribes, and he became an attorney of some note inWashington, D.C. On 13 October 1890, after visiting

Belknap, William Worth 25

with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel FreemanMiller, Belknap collapsed at his home and died,presumably of a heart attack. He was sixty-oneyears old. Despite his corrupt activities and beingthe only cabinet officer up to that time to be im-peached, Belknap, for his wartime service, was laidto rest in Arlington National Cemetery. Needless tosay, his marker does not mention his ignominiousgovernmental career.

References: “Belknap’s Fall. Exposure of FlagrantCorruption and Malfeasance. Shameful Traffic in thePatronage of the War Department,” New York Herald, 3March 1876, 3; “Belknap Scandal: He Followed in hisWife’s Path,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 26–27; “Belknap,William Worth,” in The National Cyclopaedia ofAmerican Biography, 57 vols. and supplements A-N(New York: James T. White & Company, 1897–1984),IV:23–24; Bell, William Gardner, Secretaries of Warand Secretaries of the Army: Portraits and BiographicalSketches (Washington, DC: United States Army Centerof Military History, 1982), 78; “The Case of Gen.Belknap. Sentiment in Washington,” New York Times,4 March 1876, 1; “Death of General Belknap. The Ex-Secretary, Stricken Down Suddenly, Alone, in HisOffice,” Evening Star (Washington, DC), 13 October1890, 1; Ingersoll, Lurton D., A History of the WarDepartment of the United States, With BiographicalSketches of the Secretaries (Washington, DC: Francis B.Mohun, 1879), 566–571; Prickett, Robert C.,“TheMalfeasance of William Worth Belknap, Secretary ofWar, October 13, 1869 to March 2, 1876,” North DakotaHistory, 17:1 (January 1950), 5–51, and 17:2 (April1950), 97–134; United States Congress, Senate,Proceedings of the Senate Sitting for the Trial ofWilliam W. Belknap, Late Secretary of War, on theArticles of Impeachment Exhibited by the House ofRepresentatives, Forty-Fourth Congress, First Session, 4vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1876).

Biaggi, Mario (1917– )United States Representative from New York(1969–1988), resigned before he could be expelledafter he was implicated in a financial and kickbackscandal. Born in New York City on 26 October1917, Biaggi attended city schools before earninghis law degree from the New York Law School in1963, after which he was admitted to the New Yorkstate bar. He became a senior partner in the lawfirm of Biaggi, Ehrich & Lang in New York City.Leaving the practice of the law, he joined the NewYork state Division of Housing as a community re-

lations specialist and as an assistant to the secre-tary of state. Biaggi served in these positions from1961 to 1965.

Prior to entering law school, Biaggi had workedas a police officer with the New York City PoliceDepartment (NYPD). During a twenty-three yearcareer as a cop, Biaggi received multiple gunshotwounds, but was highly respected by his col-leagues. He retired in 1965 with full disability,holding the department’s medal of honor plustwenty-seven other commendations and decora-tions. Later elected to the National Police OfficersAssociation of America Hall of Fame, Biaggiserved as president of the association in 1967.

In 1968 Biaggi ran for and was elected to a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives as a Demo-crat, taking his seat on 3 January 1969 in theNinety-first Congress and serving until 1988. Bi-aggi was a staunch Democrat, siding with hisparty on many of the important issues of the day.He was highly popular in Congress and his districtand was reelected nine times.

Biaggi got into trouble when he tried to makemoney off the stock of Wedtech. Wedtech, a manu-facturer of equipment for the Department of De-fense, went public in 1983 with shares of its stock.At that time, 112,500 shares of stock were issued toRichard Biaggi, brother of Mario; an additional112,500 shares were issued to Bernard Ehrlich, aformer law partner of Mario Biaggi. Richard Bi-aggi was also a partner of this law firm. In 1987 itwas alleged that Richard Biaggi, Mario Biaggi, andothers conspired to use to stocks as a payoff to Bi-aggi in exchange for his influence to secure De-partment of Defense contracts for Wedtech usingSmall Business Administration (SBA) loans. MarioBiaggi was also accused of having the stock forhim from Wedtech placed under the names of hisbrother and law partner so that he could circum-vent the House of Representatives restrictions onoutside earnings by members. On 16 March 1987,Mario Biaggi, his brother, Ehrlich, and formerBrooklyn Democratic leader Meade Esposito wereindicted by a federal grand jury. Richard Biaggiwas also indicted for knowingly filing false tax re-turns for 1983, when he accepted the stocks, and1985, when he sold them at a profit. Esposito wasindicted for paying Biaggi’s expenses for tripsmade by the congressman to St. Maarten and aFlorida health spa. In August 1988 Biaggi was con-

26 Biaggi, Mario

victed of racketeering, extortion, bribery, mailfraud, filing a false tax return, and false financialdisclosure. (Richard Biaggi, Ehrlich, and Espositowere also convicted; Richard Biaggi’s convictionson bribery and fraud were reversed on appeal, butthose involving tax fraud were allowed to stand.)Mario Biaggi was sentenced to eight years inprison. On 5 August 1988, he resigned his seat,after it appeared that he faced almost certain ex-pulsion by the full House.

On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Ap-peals, Mario Biaggi’s conviction was upheld. Heeventually served twenty-six months in prison,but was able to draw a congressional pension of$44,000, outraging many. In 1992 he ran unsuc-cessfully for his old seat in Congress, but was noteven nominated by the Democrats. Fighting illhealth, he settled in the Bronx, New York.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 657; In the Matter ofRepresentative Mario Biaggi, House Report No. 100-506, 100th Congress, 2nd Session (1988); “MarioBiaggi: A Senior Congressman’s Sudden Comedown,”in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 32–33.

Bilbo, Theodore Gilmore (1877–1947)United States senator (1934–1947) from Missis-sippi, refused admittance to the Senate in 1947when allegations of bribery in the election of an-other senator arose. Bilbo was never cleared orcharged and died before his case could be adjudi-cated. Born on a farm in Juniper Grove, Missis-sippi, on 13 October 1877, Bilbo attended localschools before he received a secondary educationat Peabody College and Vanderbilt University inNashville, Tennessee, and the University of Michi-gan in Ann Arbor, after which he worked as ateacher in Mississippi. He became an active Bap-tist lay preacher when he was just nineteen yearsold. In 1908, after studying the law, he was admit-ted to the Mississippi bar. That same year, on aplatform that advocated white supremacy, Bilbowas elected to the Mississippi state senate. Twoyears later, allegations arose that Bilbo took a bribeto help elect a fellow Democrat to the U.S. Senate,but he dismissed the allegation by claiming that hehad taken the “gift” to trap the person offering the

bribe. The state senate attempted to oust him, butin running for reelection Bilbo went back to hisdistrict and told his constituents that he was thevictim of a vicious political smear. He was over-whelmingly reelected. In 1911 he ran for lieu-tenant governor and was elected with DemocratEarl L. Brewer.

In 1915 Brewer stepped aside, and Bilbo wasnominated by the Democrats for governor of Mis-sissippi. His opposition in a one-party state wastoken: Socialist J. T. Lester, who was defeated byBilbo by 46,000 votes out of some 50,000 cast.Bilbo served this single term (1916–1920), but in1927 he ran to succeed Governor Dennis Mur-phree and was again elected, serving from 1928 to1932.

In 1934 Bilbo was elected to the United StatesSenate, where he became one of the leadingspokesmen for the populist stand against civilrights for blacks. Bilbo was for more than denyingblacks the right to vote: he was a segregationist ofthe most extreme sort. In 1940, for instance, hetold a crowd during his reelection campaign, “Iwant to make it impossible for the Negro to voteand thus guarantee white supremacy.” In the Sen-ate, he was the chairman of the Committee on[the] District of Columbia, and, later, the chairmanof the Committee on Pensions.

In December 1946, following Bilbo’s reelectionto a third Senate term, Senator Glen H. Taylor,Democrat of Idaho, demanded that the Senate in-vestigate allegations of financial improprietyagainst Bilbo. Bilbo’s fellow Southern Democratsthreatened a filibuster if Bilbo were not allowed totake his seat. Bilbo, suffering from cancer, returnedhome to Mississippi and made a deal with SenateMajority Leader Alben Barkley that he would nottake his seat until he returned.A Senate panel thenopened an inquiry into allegations that Bilbo hadused his office for war contractors in return for fi-nancial favors. During the investigation, Bilbo ad-mitted that he had received “gifts” from certainpeople in exchange for promoting the candidacy ofDemocratic Senate candidate Wall Doxey, butBilbo claimed that these gifts were not improper.Another committee examined allegations thatBilbo had used his influence to block blacks fromvoting in Mississippi in the 1946 election. Thiscommittee found that while Bilbo did appeal toracist impulses, he did not commit any illegal acts.

Bilbo, Theodore Gilmore 27

The second committee, however, found that Bilbohad taken tens of thousands of dollars of cam-paign contributions from war contractors andconverted them to his private use. The Senateseemed on the verge of expelling Bilbo as soon ashe would return to the Senate.

Bilbo, however, would not return. In Missis-sippi, he discovered that stomach cancer had ad-vanced, and a series of operations in New Orleansin 1947 could not save his life. On 21 August 1947,he succumbed at the age of sixty-nine and wasburied in Poplarville, Mississippi. The reports ofthe two committees were tabled, and nothing fur-ther was done about the allegations.

References: “Bilbo, Theodore Gilmore,” in John A.Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., AmericanNational Biography (New York: Oxford UniversityPress; 24 vols., 1999); Biographical Directory of theAmerican Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQStaff Directories, Inc., 1996); “Death of a Demagogue,”American Heritage (July-August 1997), 99–100;Morgan, Chester, Redneck Liberal: Theodore G. Bilboand the New Deal (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1985); Smith, Charles P.,“TheodoreG. Bilbo’s Senatorial Career: The Final Years,1941–1947” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofSouthern Mississippi, 1983).

Bingham, Hiram (1875–1956)United States Senator from Connecticut (1924–1933), censured by the Senate in 1929 on chargesof placing a lobbyist on his payroll. Bingham wasbetter known for his famed explorations of theIncan ruins at Machu Picchu. Bingham was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, on 19 November 1875, theson of Hiram Bingham and Minerva Clarissa (néeBrewster). He was descended from DeaconThomas Bingham, who had emigrated to theAmerican colonies from England in 1650 and set-tled in Connecticut. Hiram Bingham (1789–1869),grandfather of the subject of this biography, wasthe first Protestant missionary to the Hawaiian Is-lands, and his son, also named Hiram (1831–1908), was a missionary to the Hawaiian Islandsand the Gilbert Islands. The young Hiram Binghamwas brought up in Hawaii and received his educa-tion at the Punahou School and at Oahu Collegefrom 1882 to 1892. He then moved to the UnitedStates, where he attended the prestigious PhillipsAndover Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, YaleUniversity, the University of California at Berkeley,

and Harvard University, graduating from the latterinstitution in 1905. After graduation, Bingham be-came a professor of history and politics, first atHarvard and then at Princeton University.

Gradually, Bingham became a leading scholarin the civilizations of Central and South America.Starting in 1906, he went to South America to fol-low the route that Simon Bolivar took in 1819. In1909, he published his notes from the journey inJournal of an Expedition across Venezuela andColombia. He was a delegate to the First Pan Amer-ican Scientific Congress at Santiago, Chile, in 1908.Three years later he served as the head of a YaleUniversity expedition to Peru, where he began thefirst intensive search for the ruins of the lost Incancities of Machu Picchu and Vitcos. On this journey,he became the first Westerner to ascend Mt.Coropuma, 21,763 feet high. The following year, ona return trip, Bingham did indeed find the ruins ofMachu Picchu. Many of his explorations are fa-mous, and many consider him the model for the

28 Bingham, Hiram

Hiram Bingham, U.S. senator from Connecticut (1924–1933),censured by the Senate in 1929 for hiring a lobbyist to writetariff legislation that would aid Bingham’s business. (Library ofCongress)

famous motion picture hero and explorer “Indi-ana” Jones.

Following these discoveries, Bingham enteredthe political and military realm. In 1916, duringWorld War I, he served as a captain in the Con-necticut National Guard. He became an aviatorand helped organize the United States Schools ofMilitary Aeronautics in May 1917. Bingham alsoserved in the Aviation Section of the U.S. SignalCorps and eventually moved up to the rank of lieu-tenant colonel. Near the end of the conflict, fromAugust to December 1918, he commanded the fly-ing school at Issoudun, France.

A Republican, Bingham attended the 1916 and1920 Republican National Conventions as an al-ternate delegate. In 1922 he was nominated by theDemocrats for Connecticut lieutenant governor,and was elected with Republican GovernorCharles A. Templeton. Bingham served loyallyunder Templeton for the two years of his term.When Templeton chose not to run for a secondterm, Bingham was nominated by the Republi-cans. He defeated Democrat Charles Morris andappeared ready to assume office. However, Sena-tor Frank B. Brandegee committed suicide on 14October 1924, and on 16 December 1924, Bing-ham was elected to fill the open seat for the termending on 3 March 1927. Bingham did serve asgovernor of Connecticut for a few days, until heresigned to go to Washington to take his seat inthe Senate. Reelected in 1926, he served as chair-man of the Committee on Printing (SeventiethCongress) and the Committee on Territories andInsular Possessions (Seventieth–Seventy-secondCongresses).

Bingham got into trouble with ethics when hehired Charles L. Eyanson, a secretary to the presi-dent of the Connecticut Manufacturers’ Associa-tion, as an assistant to help write tariff legislation.Placing a lobbyist to help write legislation thatcould aid his business sector brought repudiationto the explorer. Senator George W. Norris (R-NE)placed before the Senate a resolution:

The action of the Senator from Connecticut in plac-ing Charles L. Eyanson, then an officer in the Manu-facturers Association of Connecticut, on the officialrolls of the Senate, at the time and in the mannerset forth in the report of the subcommittee of theCommittee on the Judiciary, is contrary to good

morals and senatorial ethics and tends to bring theSenate into dishonor and disrepute, and such con-duct is hereby condemned.

The Senate then began debate on Bingham’spunishment, during which senators added lan-guage stating that Bingham’s hiring of Eyansonwas “not the result of corrupt motives.” Despite thelack of support, Bingham refused to see the errorof his ways and apologize to his Senate colleagues.His son, Alfred Bingham, wrote in a biography ofhis father:

Believing in his own moral rectitude he took thefloor in his own defense, insisting that what he haddone was neither immoral nor dishonorable.“Myonly desire,” he said,“was to secure the best possibleinformation on a difficult and intricate subject, par-ticularly as it related to the people who elected meto the United States Senate.”At most he acknowl-edged that “my judgment in the way in which I en-deavored to use this tariff expert may have been atfault.” He insisted on his purity of motive and re-fused to concede that appointing a lobbyist as apaid expert was improper.

On 4 November 1929, the Senate voted fifty-four to twenty-two to censure Bingham, makinghim one of only twelve senators to be the subject ofa censure motion and one of only ten to actuallybe censured. Eighteen senators, including Bing-ham, did not vote.

In 1932 Bingham lost a narrow reelection raceto Democrat Augustine Lonergan. As Bingham’sson Alfred explains, “[His election loss] was lessbecause of the lingering disgrace of having beencensured than as a consequence of the deepeningdepression.” Bingham remained in Washingtonand was engaged in banking and literary exploits.During World War II, he lectured at naval trainingschools and from 1951 to 1953 served as chairmanof the Civil Service Commission’s Loyalty ReviewBoard, ferreting out potential Communists. Bing-ham died in Washington on 6 June 1956 at the ageof eighty. Because of his service to his nation, hewas laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery inVirginia.

References: “Bingham Accuses Senators of Plot toBesmirch Him, Norris to Ask for Censure,”New YorkTimes, 29 October 1929, 1; Bingham,Alfred M.“Raidersof the Lost City,”American Heritage, 38 (July/August1987), 54–64; Bingham,Alfred M., Portrait of an

Bingham, Hiram 29

Explorer: Hiram Bingham, Discover of Machu Picchu(Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1989); Bingham,Hiram, An Explorer in the Air Service (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1920); Bingham,Woodbridge, HiramBingham: A Personal History (Boulder: Bin Lan ZhenPublishers, 1989); Biographical Directory of theAmerican Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQStaff Directories, Inc., 1996), 662; Congressional Ethics(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), 27;Miller, Frank L.,“Fathers and Sons: The Binghams andAmerican Reform, 1790–1970”(Ph.D. dissertation,Johns Hopkins University, 1970).

Blaine, James Gillespie (1830–1893)United States representative (1863–1876) and sen-ator (1876–1881) from Maine, accused, but nevertried or convicted, of corruption in the so-calledMulligan letters controversy, which probably costhim the presidency of the United States. Blaine wasborn in West Brownsville, Pennsylvania, on 31 Jan-uary 1830, and after attending local schools gradu-ated from Washington College in Washington,Pennsylvania, in 1847. He taught school for severalyears, including at the Western Military Institute inBlue Lick Springs, Kentucky, before he returned toPennsylvania and studied law. He finished histeaching career at the Pennsylvania Institution forthe Blind in Philadelphia from 1852 to 1854. In1854 Blaine relocated to Maine, a state with whichhe would be identified for the remainder of his life.There, he became the editor of the Portland Adver-tiser and the Kennebec Journal. In 1858 he enteredthe political realm, running for a seat in the Mainestate house of representatives, and serving from1859 to 1862, the last two years as Speaker of thatbody. In 1862 Blaine gave up this seat to run for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives from theThird Maine district. He defeated a Democratnamed Gould and took his seat in the Thirty-eighth Congress on 4 March 1863. Blaine wouldserve in this seat until his resignation on 10 July1876, through the Forty-fourth Congress. From 4March 1869 through 1 December 1873, Blaineserved as Speaker of the House, becoming one ofthe most powerful politicians in the United States.Because of his service as Speaker and his oratoricalskills, many Republicans considered him a poten-tial presidential candidate.

In 1876 Blaine was considered the leading Re-publican to succeed Ulysses S. Grant as president.

But an episode from his past came to light and ru-ined his chances that year. In 1876 the U.S. Housebegan to investigate a number of allegations ofcorruption in their midst. Rumors had swirledaround Blaine for a long time, but he was initiallycleared when no evidence was found. However, on31 May 1876, this all changed. James Mulligan, abookkeeper who worked for a businessman, War-ren Fisher Jr., testified before the House JudiciaryCommittee that Blaine, while Speaker, had usedhis position to profit financially. Working withFisher, Blaine had secured the renewal of a landgrant for the use of the Little Rock & Fort SmithRailroad of Arkansas, and in return Fisher soldthat railroad’s bonds to Blaine at a cut-rate price.When the railroad went bankrupt, Blaine sold theworthless bonds to the Union Pacific Railroad andearned a large commission. Blaine denied that thishappened, but Mulligan testified that he had in-criminating evidence—the letters Blaine had sentto Fisher regarding the transaction. Mulligan testi-fied that Blaine knew of the corruption he wascommitting; in his letters to Fisher, he had con-cluded each one with the phrase “Burn this letter.”Before Mulligan had a chance to present these let-ters, Blaine cajoled him into giving the Maine con-gressman a look at them and then claimed that hehad taken control of private correspondence. On 5June 1876, Blaine went before the whole Houseand in a moment of high drama read redactedportions of the letters. This move did not helpBlaine, but instead of bowing out he went toCincinnati to the Republican National Conventionwhere his name was put into nomination. How-ever, the Mulligan letters episode scared some ofBlaine’s allies, and the party nominated Ohio Gov-ernor Rutherford B. Hayes for president instead.Robert Ingersoll’s nominating speech for Blainewas best remembered for the nickname he be-stowed on Blaine: “The Plumed Knight.” In theend, because Blaine had all of the Mulligan letters,and no other evidence existed against him, theHouse Judiciary Committee did not accuse him ofany crime, and there the matter rested. Blaine waselected to the U.S. Senate.

In 1880 Blaine was once again a potential can-didate for the Republican presidential nomina-tion, but again he was denied. He threw his weightbehind a friend, Ohio Representative James A.Garfield, who went on to capture the nomination.

30 Blaine, James Gillespie

For his support, Blaine was named secretary ofstate by Garfield when he became president. Be-cause of the Mulligan letters controversy, Blaine’snomination was controversial, but he won Senateconfirmation. However, his term in office wasshort. On 2 July 1881, Blaine was at a train stationwith Garfield when an assassin shot the president.Garfield lingered a few months and died from hiswounds on 19 September 1881. Soon after Gar-field’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, took office,Blaine resigned as secretary of state and went intoprivate life. He wrote his memoirs, Twenty Years ofCongress (2 vols., 1884–1886).

In 1884 Blaine’s turn had come. Despite theMulligan letters and other rumors of corruptionby Blaine, the former Speaker and senator wasnominated by the Republicans for the presidentialrace. He selected General John A. Logan as his run-ning mate. Liberal Republicans and civil servicereformers were disgusted and stormed out of theparty, forming a group called the “Mugwumps”that supported the Democratic presidential candi-date, New York Governor Grover Cleveland. DespiteCleveland’s admission of having a child out ofwedlock with a young girl, these reformers stoodby Cleveland’s side. However, Blaine appeared tolead the race. It was not until a Presbyterian cler-gyman, the Reverend Samuel D. Burchard, spoke ata Blaine campaign stop in New York that he raninto trouble. Burchard said of the Democraticsthat theirs was “the party whose antecedents arerum, Romanism, and rebellion.” The reference to“Romanism” was aimed directly at Irish immi-grants in New York, all of whom were RomanCatholic. Blaine’s failure to disavow Burchard’s re-marks cost him dearly. On election day Clevelandcarried New York state by just 1,149 votes out ofmore than 1 million cast. Because Blaine lost NewYork, Cleveland won the electoral vote and waselected the twenty-second president. It was a stun-ning loss for Blaine, made all the worse by rumorsof his corruption and a badly timed remark.

In 1888 Cleveland was vulnerable, and the Re-publicans prepared to nominate Blaine a secondtime. However, Blaine’s heart was not in anotherrace, and he threw his support behind SenatorBenjamin Harrison of Indiana. Harrison lost thepopular vote, but a combination of wins in thewestern states threw the electoral vote to him, thesecond such election in the nineteenth century. For

a second time, because of his support, Blaine wasnamed secretary of state. Again, his nominationwas controversial, but he was confirmed. Duringhis tenure, 1889–1892, Blaine fostered closer rela-tions between the United States and Latin Amer-ica, leading the way to the first Pan-AmericanCongress. Blaine also concluded a treaty with theBritish over fur-sealing in Canadian waters nearAlaska.

Three days before the Republican NationalConvention in 1892, Blaine resigned as secretaryof state over policy differences with Harrison. Heunsuccessfully fought his former boss for the pres-idential nomination, but the party stuck with Har-rison, who was defeated by former PresidentCleveland that November. Blaine was sick anddying at the time. On 27 January 1893, he suc-cumbed to numerous ailments, four days beforehis sixty-third birthday. His remains were initiallyinterred in the Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington,D.C.; however, in 1920, at the request of the state ofMaine, they were removed to be reburied in theBlaine Memorial Park in Augusta, Maine.

References: “James G. Blaine, Republican,” in Lillian B.Miller, et al., “If Elected . . .” Unsuccessful Candidatesfor the Presidency, 1796–1968 (Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press, 1972), 247–249;“Mulligan Letters,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 236–237; Muzzey,David Saville, James G. Blaine: A Political Idol of OtherDays (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1935).

Blanton, Leonard Ray (1930–1996)United States Representative from Tennessee(1967–1973) and governor of Tennessee (1975–1979), removed from the governorship amidst al-legations that he sold pardons and that he and hiscronies profited, a crime for which he servednearly two years in prison. Blanton was born onhis family’s farm in Hardin County, Tennessee, on10 April 1930 and attended the public schools ofHardin County. He graduated with a Bachelor ofScience degree from the University of Tennessee atKnoxville in 1951 and three years later, with his fa-ther and his brother, established the B & B Con-struction Company in Knoxville.

In 1964 Blanton entered politics, running as aDemocrat and winning a seat in the TennesseeHouse of Representatives, representing McNairy

Blanton, Leonard Ray 31

and Chester Counties. Two years later, Blanton ranfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, rep-resenting the seventh congressional district, anddefeated Republican Julius Hurst. Blanton servedfrom the Ninetieth through the Ninety-secondCongresses. In 1972 he gave up his seat to run forthe U.S. Senate, but was defeated by RepublicanHoward Baker Jr.

Two years after his senatorial defeat, Blantonwas nominated for governor by the Democratsand defeated Republican Lamar Alexander to be-come the chief executive of the state of Tennessee.As governor, Blanton pushed for equality forblacks and women, and he established the Depart-ment of Tourism, making Tennessee the first stateto have a government-level department to capital-ize on the benefits of tourism.

During his campaign for office, Blanton hadrun on a law-and-order platform, particularlyagainst the excesses of the Watergate scandal.Once in office, though, Blanton felt he had a blankcheck to do as he pleased, and he did just that. Sixaides, including the governor’s legal counsel,Thomas Sisk, and a former Democratic commit-teeman from Hamilton County, Tennessee, Wil-liam Aubrey Thompson, came up with a plan todemand payoffs from people in prison in order toget pardons from the governor. Blanton and hiscronies rapidly collected huge sums from wealthymen in prison who could pay a price for their free-dom. What sunk Blanton and his scheme was awoman named Marie Ragghianti. Serving as chairof the state Parole Board, Ragghianti opposedsome of the pardons Blanton was granting (with-out her knowing that Blanton was being paid forthem) and, when she spoke out against them, wasfired. Outraged by Blanton’s use of raw power toget his way, Ragghianti hired Tennessee attorneyFred Dalton Thompson to represent her in courtagainst Blanton and the state government in a bidto get her job and good name back. Thompsonhelped expose the cash-for-pardons scheme thatBlanton had been conducting and won a legal vic-tory for Ragghianti. The FBI began an inquiry andsoon was secretly recording various Blanton ad-ministration figures offering pardons for cash.One, Charles Taylor, a former highway patrolmanon Blanton’s staff, told an undercover FBI agent,“These people I’m fronting for have a product tosell.”

A grand jury was convened, and on 18 Decem-ber 1978, Blanton was called before it. He had notbeen a candidate for reelection that year, and Re-publican Lamar Alexander had won a stunningvictory and was preparing to take office in just afew weeks’ time. Based on the grand jury hearings,it was discovered that Blanton was still selling par-dons, and it appeared he would do so until his lastday in office. Even the arrest of two of his aides oncharges of extortion and conspiracy to sell par-dons, paroles, and commutations did not deterBlanton from continuing to sell pardons up untilthe moment he left office. The U.S. attorney in-volved in the case told Governor-elect Alexanderthat illegal activities were continuing and sug-gested that he take office immediately. Alexanderwent to the state attorney general, who allowedAlexander to take office on 16 January 1979, threedays before his term legally began. That day, in asomber proceeding before a small crowd, Alexan-der was sworn in as governor by Tennessee statesupreme court chief justice Joe Henry. After theceremony, the state attorney general called Blantonto inform him that his term was over and that hemust vacate his office immediately. Alexander senta staff member to lock up the governor’s office,who found a Blanton aide trying to leave with astack of pardons to be signed by Blanton. Blanton,in the last hours of his term, had signed commuta-tions or pardons for twenty-four convicted mur-derers and twenty-eight others convicted of otherserious offenses. On 22 January 1979, the Washing-ton Post editorialized, “The year is young, but weare almost ready right now to give the 1979 Awardfor Last-Minute Abuse of Power by an OutgoingState Executive to Ray Blanton.” The editorial con-cluded, “Tennesseans . . . can at least count them-selves lucky that Tennessee law permits the mov-ing up of the inauguration date. And they can takeconsiderable comfort in the fact that the state’sother top Democratic officials were quick to recog-nize the need to limit the damage by cooperatingin the effort to replace their fellow Democrat withhis Republican successor as quickly as possible.”

In 1980 Blanton was indicted, not for illegallyselling pardons, but for selling liquor licenses andskimming 20 percent of the sales of the licensesfor himself and others. Blanton was indicted onnine counts of mail fraud, one count of violatingthe Hobbs Act, a federal law against extortion or

32 Blanton, Leonard Ray

conspiracy to commit extortion that interfereswith interstate commerce, and one count of con-spiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Because allof the circuit judges in the Middle District of Ten-nessee knew Blanton, they recused themselvesfrom the case.A Judge Peck was brought in, later tobe replaced by a Judge Brown. On 9 June 1981,Blanton was convicted of all of the counts againsthim, and his two aides were convicted of mailfraud and conspiracy. Blanton was sentenced tothree years in prison and a fine of $11,000.

Blanton appealed, but his conviction was sus-tained. However, in 1983, a three-judge panel ofthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over-turned the conviction, holding that the voir dire(juror questioning) process had been flawed(United States v. Blanton, 700 F.2d 298 (6th Cir.1983)). When the full court heard the appeal, itoverruled the three judges and reinstated the con-viction (United States v. Blanton, 719 F.2d 815 (6thCir. 1983)). The U.S. Supreme Court refused tohear the case in 1984.

In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed thestatutes under which Blanton and his aides hadbeen convicted in the case of McNally v. UnitedStates, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), so Blanton asked forhis conviction to be thrown out. A district judgegranted the motion in respect to the mail fraudconviction, but he allowed to remain in place theconviction for violation of the Hobbs Act. In 1991Blanton appealed, saying that his attorney was in-competent in allowing Blanton to testify when heknew the former governor was intoxicated. On 28August 1996, Blanton’s case before the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was decided: inBlanton v. United States (Case #95-6141), the courtheld that Blanton was denied effective counsel, butallowed his convictions to stand. At the time of thedecision, Blanton was dying of kidney disease. Hesuccumbed to the ailment on 22 November 1996,at the age of sixty-six, and was interred in theShiloh Church Cemetery in Shiloh, Tennessee.

Ray Blanton may well have been the most cor-rupt state governor in American history. His casegave rise to many stories, including those of MarieRagghianti and Fred Thompson. After she wascleared by a jury, Marie’s case became the subjectof the book Marie, a True Story, by Peter Maas.When it was to be made into a motion picture in1985, the producers were so impressed with

Marie’s attorney, Thompson, that they cast him inthe film as himself. This gave rise to a major mo-tion picture career for Thompson and, in 1994, tohis election to the United States Senate, where hebecame the chairman of the committee that inves-tigated the campaign finance violations of theClinton/Gore campaign in the 1996 campaign.

References: “Blanton, Ray,” in John Raimo, ed.,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1978–1983 (Westport, CT: Meckler Publishing,1985), 291–293; Hillin, Hank, FBI CodenameTENNPAR: Tennessee’s Ray Blanton Years (Nashville,TN: Pine Hall Press, 1985).

Brehm, Walter Ellsworth (1892–1971)United States representative from Ohio (1943–1953), convicted of unlawfully accepting a cam-paign contribution of $1,000 from one of hisclerks. Despite the conviction, Brehm’s sentencewas suspended, and he never served any time inprison. He was born in Somerset, Ohio, on 25 May1892, attending the public schools of that area. Helater went to Boston University in Massachusettsand Ohio Wesleyan University, a religious school,in Delaware, Ohio, before graduating from theOhio State University Dental School in Columbus,Ohio, in 1917. After graduating high school Brehmworked in a series of odd jobs and served for fiveyears (1908–1913) as a member of Company D ofthe Seventh Regiment of the Ohio Infantry. Start-ing in 1921 and continuing for the next twenty-two years, Brehm worked as a dentist in the townof Logan, Ohio.

A Republican, Brehm served as the treasurer ofthe Republican Executive Committee of HockingCounty, Ohio, and as a member of the Logan CityCouncil from 1936 to 1938. In the latter year hewas elected to a seat in the Ohio state house of rep-resentatives, serving until 1942. In 1942 Brehmran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives,representing the Eleventh Ohio congressional dis-trict. He defeated a Democrat, Harold Claypool,and entered the Seventy-eighth Congress on 3 Jan-uary 1943. Brehm was reelected in 1944, 1946,1948, and 1950. In 1951 Brehm was indicted by afederal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on chargesthat he willingly and unlawfully accepted a contri-bution of $1,000 from his own clerk, EmmaCraven, and the same amount from another clerk,

Brehm, Walter Ellsworth 33

Clara Soliday. On trial, Brehm told the jury that nomatter how he tried, “money just kept turning upno matter how often he refused it, appearing in fil-ing cabinets” where his wife found it, as crime his-torian Jay Robert Nash explained. Brehm was con-victed of taking the contribution from Craven, butacquitted of taking it from Soliday. On 11 June1951 he was sentenced to five to fifteen months inprison and fined $5,000. However, Judge BurnitaShelton Mathews suspended the sentence, explain-ing that Brehm had led an exemplary life beforethis incident. The U.S. Court of Appeals later up-held the conviction, but Brehm was undaunted,even though he did not run for reelection in 1952.He returned to Ohio and to work as a dentist. Afterhe retired he worked for a dental supply company.Brehm died in Columbus, Ohio, on 24 August 1971at the age of seventy-nine.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Nash, Jay Robert,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), I:484.

Brewster, Daniel Baugh (1923– )United States representative (1959–1963) and sen-ator (1963–1969) from Maryland, convicted of ac-cepting an illegal gratuity as senator, although theconviction was later reversed by a high court.Daniel Baugh Brewster was born in BaltimoreCounty, Maryland, on 23 November 1923, and waseducated at a public school in Baltimore. He at-tended St. Paul’s School in Concord, New Hamp-shire, before going to Princeton University andJohns Hopkins University, although he neverearned a degree from either institution. In 1942Brewster enlisted as a private in the United StatesMarine Corps, rising to be commissioned as a sec-ond lieutenant in 1943 and serving until 1946. Hesaw action in Europe during World War II. Afterreturning to the United States, he attended theUniversity of Maryland Law School and earned alaw degree from that institution in 1949. Thatsame year he was admitted to the Maryland barand opened a practice in the town of Towson,Maryland.

In 1950 Brewster ran for and won a seat in theMaryland House of Delegates, serving from 1950

to 1958. In the latter year, he ran for a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives, representing theSecond Maryland district. Brewster defeated hisRepublican rival to win the seat, and he took officeon 3 January 1959 in the Eighty-sixth Congress. Hewas reelected in 1960. However, in 1962 he refusedto run for a third term. Instead, he ran for the U.S.Senate to succeed the retiring Senator John Mar-shall Butler, a Republican. Brewster won the Dem-ocratic primary, then defeated his Republicanrival, Edward T. Miller, by nearly 200,000 votes.Brewster would serve only one term in the U.S.Senate.

In 1968 Brewster came under investigation forallegedly taking an “illegal gratuity” while servingin the Senate. The following year, he was indicted,tried, and convicted. However, this conviction wasreversed upon appeal; in 1975, Brewster decided toplead guilty to one charge of accepting an illegalgratuity. He had left the Senate in 1969, and, afterserving a short prison term, he returned to hishome in Maryland, where he continues to live as ofthis writing.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 706.

Brooks, James (1810–1873)United States representative (1849–1853, 1863–1866, 1867–1873) from New York, censured by theHouse for his role in the Crédit Mobilier scandal.Born in Portland, Maine, on 10 November 1810,the son of James and Elizabeth (née Folsom)Brooks, he attended the public schools in that cityand the academy at Monmouth, Maine. His fatherwas killed at sea during the War of 1812, leavingthe family in poverty and forcing Brooks to workas a storekeeper. He became a teacher at a schoolin Lewiston, Maine. He graduated from Waterville(Maine) College in 1831, after which he studiedlaw and edited the Portland Advertiser, becomingthat paper’s Washington, D.C., correspondent in1832.

In 1835 Brooks was elected to a seat in theMaine state house of representatives, where he satfor a single one-year term. The following year hewas the Whig nominee for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives, but was defeated by DemocratFrancis O. J. Smith. Brooks moved to New York

34 Brewster, Daniel Baugh

after his defeat and established the New York DailyExpress, serving as editor-in-chief of the paperuntil his death. He was elected to the New Yorkstate assembly in 1847.

In 1848 Brooks was elected as a Whig to theU.S. House of Representatives representing theSixth District. Serving in the Thirty-first andThirty-second Congresses, he was not a standoutpolitician, although he did support Senator HenryClay’s resolutions to head off civil war over slavery.In 1852 Brooks was redistricted into the EighthNew York District and lost reelection to DemocratFrancis B. Cutting. He resumed his newspaperwriting, flirting for a time with the American, or“Know Nothing,” Party, an alliance that advocatedlaws against immigrants and Catholics. As hisviews changed, Brooks moved from the Whigs tothe Democrats and in 1862 ran for a seat in theU.S. House. He won over a candidate with an un-known party backing and entered the Thirty-eighth Congress. In 1864 he beat RepublicanWilliam E. Dodge by 150 votes, but when he pre-sented his credentials, a House investigationhanded the seat to Dodge. In 1866 Dodge refusedto run for reelection, and Brooks ran again, beat-ing Republican Legrand B. Cannon to reclaim hisold seat. Brooks would hold this seat until hisdeath. He served on the Ways and Means Commit-tee, and twice was the Democrats’ candidate forSpeaker of the House.

In 1868 Brooks was a stern critic of the Con-gress’s attempts to impeach President AndrewJohnson and, in recognition of his loyalty toJohnson, was named by the president as the gov-ernment director of the Union Pacific Railroadon 1 October 1867. It was in this position thatBrooks used his influence to enrich himself withstock from the Crédit Mobilier corporation.When the scandal broke in 1872, revealing howpoliticians were bribed by Representative OakesAmes of Massachusetts, Brooks was caught in thetangled web of intrigue. An investigation uncov-ered Brooks’s role, and the committee investigat-ing the scandal recommended that Brooks be ex-pelled. Instead, Brooks and Ames were censuredby the House on 27 February 1873. The vote forcensure for Brooks was 174 yeas, 32 nays, and 34not voting.

Brooks was in poor health when he was cen-sured. A trip to India in 1872 had left him with a

serious fever, and the strain of the investigationand ultimate censure sapped his strength. On 30April 1873, just two months after he was formallydisgraced, Brooks died in Washington, D.C., at theage of sixty-two. He was buried in GreenwoodCemetery in Brooklyn, New York.

See also Ames, Oakes; Crédit Mobilier ScandalReferences: Crawford, J. B., The Crédit Mobilier of

America—Its Origin and History, Its Work ofConstructing the Union Pacific Railroad and theRelation of Members of Congress Therewith (Boston:C. W. Calkins & Co., 1880); “The King of Frauds. Howthe Crédit Mobilier Bought Its Way ThroughCongress. Colossal Bribery,” The Sun (New York), 4September 1872, 1, 2; Nevins, Allen,“Brooks, James,”in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds.,Dictionary of American Biography, 10 vols. and 10supplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995), II:77–79.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)Landmark Supreme Court decision holding thatthe expenditure provisions of the Federal Elec-tions Campaign Act of 1971 violated the FirstAmendment. The challenge to the law was broughtby James L. Buckley, a U.S. senator from New Yorkwho was running for reelection in 1976, and sev-eral other politicians. A three-judge panel of thefederal district court declined to find the act un-constitutional, but the case went up to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-cuit for review. A majority of that court also re-jected the plaintiffs’ arguments. As the SupremeCourt later noted:

The [appeals] court found “a clear and compellinginterest” . . . in preserving the integrity of the elec-toral process. On that basis, the court upheld, withone exception, the substantive provisions of the Actwith respect to contributions, expenditures, anddisclosure. It also sustained the constitutionality ofthe newly established Federal Election Commis-sion. The court concluded that, notwithstanding themanner of selection of its members and the breadthof its powers, which included nonlegislative func-tions, the Commission is a constitutionally author-ized agency created to perform primarily legislativefunctions. The provisions for public funding of thethree stages of the Presidential selection processwere upheld as a valid exercise of congressionalpower under the General Welfare Clause of the Con-stitution, Article I, Section 8.

Buckley v. Valeo 35

The United States Supreme Court agreed tohear the issues in the case, and arguments wereheard on 10 November 1975.

On 30 January 1976, the Court, in a unanimousper curiam opinion (having no identifiable au-thor—Justice John Paul Stevens did not partici-pate) that ran for ninety-four pages, upheld all ofthe provisions of the 1971 act except for the limita-tion on expenditures, which the Court said vio-lated the Constitution. The justices wrote:

In summary, we sustain the individual contribu-tion limits, the disclosure and reporting provisions,and the public financing scheme. We conclude,however, that the limitations on campaign expen-ditures, on independent expenditures by individu-als and groups, and on expenditures by a candidatefrom his personal funds are constitutionally in-firm. Finally, we hold that most of the powers con-ferred by the Act upon the Federal Election Com-mission can be exercised only by “Officers of theUnited States,” appointed in conformity with Arti-cle II, [Section] 2, [Clause] 2, of the Constitution,and therefore cannot be exercised by the Commis-sion as presently constituted.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley setthe stage for a question pointed straight at theheart of future campaign finance reform: becausethe Court equated money with speech, how couldthe asking of donations be curtailed? In FederalElection Commission v. National Conservative Po-litical Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), theCourt extended the holdings in Buckley to applyto “independent” expenditures made by politicalcommittees. Even as the present debate over thepassage of comprehensive and updated cam-paign reform measures takes place, the longshadow of Buckley v. Valeo is cast over it and tem-pers the ideas of many who advocate reform. TheCourt further upheld limits on contributions inNixon v. Missouri PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 145 L. Ed. 2d886 2000).

See also Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971; FederalElection Commission v. National Conservative PoliticalAction Committee; Nixon v. Missouri PAC

Bullock, Rufus Brown (1834–1907)Reconstruction era governor of Georgia (1868–1871), tried but acquitted on charges of political

corruption and embezzlement. Born in Bethle-hem, New York, on 28 March 1834, Bullock was theson of Volckert Veeder Bullock and Jane Eliza (néeBrown) Bullock. He attended local schools andgraduated from the Albion Academy in 1850. Bul-lock became an expert in the field of telegraphyand helped supervise the construction of tele-graph lines between New York state and Southernstates. In 1859 he became a representative of theAdams Express Company in Augusta, Georgia. Al-though he was a Republican and opposed to slav-ery and secession, Bullock offered his services tothe Confederate government when the Civil Warexploded in 1860. During the war, he was a lieu-tenant colonel in the Confederate army and at theend of the war was serving as acting assistantquartermaster general.

Bullock returned to Augusta, where he helpedorganize the First National Bank of Augusta and in1867 was elected president of the Macon and Au-gusta Railroad. Although he had served in theConfederate army, Bullock was a Republican andwas allowed to run for governor of Georgia, thenstill under martial law. In a popular vote in whichformer Confederates were not allowed to partici-pate, Bullock defeated Democrat John B. Gordonby 7,000 votes out some 160,000 cast. Followingthe removal of Governor Thomas Howard Rugerby General George C. Meade, military commanderof the Third Military District, Bullock was inaugu-rated governor on 21 July 1868. The state thencame under civilian control. Despite capturingcontrol of the majority of the Georgia state govern-ment, Bullock’s tenure was dogged by a series ofevents he could not control, including the siding ofmany moderate Republicans with Democrats toblock his legislative agenda. The legislature re-fused to elect his choice for the United States Sen-ate and against his wishes expelled all of the blackmembers of the legislature. After the nationalDemocratic ticket of New York Governor HoratioSeymour won Georgia in the 1868 election and theKu Klux Klan began operating in the state, Bullockappealed to Congress to “reconstruct” Georgia asecond time. With Bullock working to reinstitutemilitary rule, the legislature threatened to im-peach him. Despite the threat, Bullock went toWashington and, receiving the backing of numer-ous Republicans, had both houses pass the bill,which was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant.

36 Bullock, Rufus Brown

Contingent upon its ratification of the FifteenthAmendment, Georgia would not be allowed read-mittance to the Union and would remain undermilitary rule.

The legislature quickly ratified the Fourteenthand the Fifteenth Amendments, but the cost toBullock’s party and reputation was high: In thenext state elections, the Democrats took control ofthe state legislature and began investigations of al-leged corruption and wrongdoing by Bullock. Al-legedly, Bullock allowed his friends to buy stock inthe state-owned Western and Atlantic Railroadcheaply, and he profited as well. Democrats alsoaccused him of paying off newspapers to side withhim editorially, of selling pardons and takingfunds from the state prison account, and of en-couraging extravagance in every bureau of stategovernment that he controlled. With the likelihoodof impeachment and a criminal indictment pend-ing, Bullock resigned as governor on 23 October1871 and left the state, leaving the problems to hissuccessor, Benjamin F. Conley, the president of thestate senate. The Democrats continued theirvendetta against Bullock by targeting Conley andforcing a new election, which was won by Demo-crat James M. Smith. Conley, ironically, was the lastRepublican governor of Georgia before Sonny Per-due was elected in 2002.

The Democratic press had a field day with theBullock allegations. The Sun of New York wrote,“The committee appointed by the Legislature ofGeorgia to investigate the financial transactionsof Gov. Bullock have secured evidence confirmingthe worst reports of fraud and robbery whichhave gained currency. Bullock, it will be remem-bered, fled from the State to avoid prosecution,and has judiciously kept out of sight until thepresent time.” Bullock remained in exile until1876, when the Democrats in Georgia succeededin bringing an indictment against the formergovernor and ordering his arrest and forced re-turn to the state. Bullock was tried on numerouscounts of embezzlement, but the jury acquittedhim of all charges. Despite being hounded out ofoffice, Bullock then remained in Georgia, servingas president of the Atlanta Cotton Mills and thelocal chamber of commerce, as well as director ofthe Union Pacific Railroad. Bullock died on 27April 1907, one month past his seventy-thirdbirthday.

References: Abbott, Richard H.,“The Republican PartyPress in Reconstruction Georgia, 1867–1874,” TheJournal of Southern History, LXI:4 (November 1995),725–760; “Bullock, Rufus Brown,” in Robert Sobel andJohn Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport,CT: Meckler Books; 1978), I:301; Cook, James F., TheGovernors of Georgia, 1754–1995 (Macon, GA: MercerUniversity Press, 1995), 153; “[Editorial:] The GeorgiaFrauds,” The Sun (New York), 9 August 1872, 2; Smith,W. Calvin,“The Reconstruction ‘Triumph’ of Rufus B.Bullock,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LII:4(December 1968), 414–425.

BundlingCampaign donation practice in which small dona-tions are combined into a “bundle,” usually by asmall political action committee (PAC), and thendelivered to one or many campaigns, thus actingas one large, single contribution instead of numer-ous small contributions. The practice starts whena contributor directs his or her money to a specificpolitical party or candidate. This money is thenearmarked by the contributor for a political actioncommittee. Contributions are gathered togetherinto a bundle by a conduit, or intermediary, whodelivers or forwards the bundled contributions tothe candidate or political committee specified.These contributions are used to circumvent thecontribution limits, which are $1,000 to each can-didate per election cycle, $5,000 to each PAC, and$20,000 to each political party. Bundled funds areused as either “soft money,” given to parties in-stead of candidates, or as independent expendi-tures, which have no limits, as per the 1976 U.S.Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo.

The practice of bundling allows interest groupsand PACs to stay just within the legal limits of cam-paign finance laws, yet also demonstrate their politi-cal and money-raising power.The campaign financelegislation known as McCain-Feingold, sponsoredby Senator John McCain of Arizona and Russ Fein-gold of Wisconsin, bans most forms of bundling.

References: Utter, Glenn H., and Ruth Ann Strickland,Campaign and Election Reform: A ReferenceHandbook (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997).

Burton, Joseph Ralph (1852–1923)United States senator (1901–1906) from Kansas,convicted of illegally accepting compensation for

Burton, Joseph Ralph 37

services before a federal agency and forced to re-sign before he could be expelled from the Senate.Born on his father’s farm near the village ofMitchell, Indiana, on 16 November 1852, Burtonwas the son of Allen and Elizabeth (née Holmes)Burton. His great-grandfather, John P. Burton,came to America from England about 1750. JosephBurton gained an education in local districtschools and the Mitchell Academy, which had beenfounded by his father. After attending FranklinCollege in Franklin, Indiana, he entered DePauwUniversity, but due to illness left in his senior yearwithout receiving his degree. When he recovered,he read the law in an office in Indianapolis andwas admitted to the Indiana bar in July 1875.

Almost immediately, Burton entered the politi-cal arena, working for the Republican NationalCommittee during the election of 1876 as aspeaker in Indiana. However, two years later hemoved west, settling in Abilene, Kansas. There heformed, with local attorney John H. Mahan, thelaw firm of Mahan & Burton. Burton became aleading lawyer in Kansas, rising to such promi-nence that in 1882 he was elected to a seat in theKansas state legislature. He became interested inrailway legislation and, working with several otherlegislators, helped to form the first railway com-mission in Kansas history. He also served as amember of the House Judiciary Committee. In1886 he narrowly lost the Republican nominationfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in-stead winning his state house seat that year and in1888. In 1891 Burton took part in a series of de-bates on political issues with state Senator WilliamA. Peffer, which resulted in Burton’s nominationfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in1892. The Fifth District from which he ran was ahotbed of populism, and Burton was defeated byPeople’s Party candidate John Davis. In 1894 hewas considered for the Republican nomination forthe U.S. Senate, but was defeated by Lucien Baker.Two years later, when the other U.S. Senate seatopened up, Burton defeated incumbent SenatorJohn J. Ingalls for the Republican nomination, butas the legislature (which chose U.S. Senators priorto the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution) was controlled by the Dem-ocrats, William A. Smith was elected. It was notuntil 1900 that Burton was elected to the U.S. Sen-ate, defeating incumbent Senator Lucien Baker. In

the Senate, he was a consistent Republican, despitehis opposition to the allowance of Cuba joining theUnited States.

Burton’s troubles began two years after he waselected to the Senate. Burton was accused and con-victed of taking a bribe in the sum of $2,500 fromthe Rialto Grain & Securities Company of St.Louis, Missouri, in exchange for Burton’s work tohelp the company in a proceeding before the PostOffice Department. Burton intervened with thePost Office Department, although it is not knownif he was successful in his venture. The followingyear, in 1903, a grand jury in St. Louis indictedBurton for violating Section 1782 of the RevisedStatutes, that “no Senator, Representative, or Dele-gate, after his election and during his continuancein office, and no head of a department, or other of-ficer or clerk in the employ of the government,shall receive or agree to receive any compensationwhatever, directly or indirectly, for any servicesrendered, or to be rendered, to any person, eitherby himself or another, in relation to any proceed-ing, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusa-tion, arrest, or other matter or thing in which theUnited States is a party, or directly or indirectly in-terested, before any department, court-martial,bureau, officer, or any civil, military, or naval com-mission whatever.” He was tried in the EasternDistrict of Missouri and convicted of six counts.Burton appealed the conviction, and in 1905 theU.S. Supreme Court struck down the conviction asimproper. Burton was tried a second time on thecharge that Rialto merely paid Burton, without al-leging that he received the bribe. Again, Burtonwas convicted, and he again appealed. The U.S.Supreme Court heard arguments and on 21 May1906 upheld Burton’s conviction and the constitu-tionality of Section 1782, giving Congress the rightto ban the taking of bribes and other illegal solici-tations by its members. On 4 June 1906, faced withexpulsion by the Senate, Burton resigned. He re-turned to Abilene, where he worked in the newspa-per business for a number of years, rising to con-trol the Central Kansas Publishing Company withhis wife.

On 27 February 1923, Burton died while in LosAngeles, California, at the age of seventy. He wascremated, and his remains were for a time de-posited in the columbarium of the Los AngelesCrematory Association. In 1928 the ashes were re-

38 Burton, Joseph Ralph

moved, taken to Kansas, and buried in the Burtonfamily plot in the Abilene Cemetery in Abilene,Kansas.

See also Burton v. United StatesReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 752; Butler, Anne M., andWendy Wolff, United States Senate Election, Expulsionand Censure Cases, 1793–1990 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1995), 275–276; Byrd,Robert C., The Senate, 1789–1989: Historical Statistics,1789–1992, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1993), IV:667.

Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344(1906)Supreme Court decision holding that Congress hasthe right to enact legislation outlawing the takingof, or solicitation of, bribes. In 1903 Senator JosephRalph Burton of Missouri was indicted in the Dis-trict Court for the Eastern District of Missouri andfound guilty of violating Section 1782 of the Re-vised Statutes by agreeing “to receive compensa-tion ([in] the sum of $2,500, for services to be ren-dered by him for the Rialto Grain & SecuritiesCompany ( in relation to a proceeding, matter, andthing, in which the United States was interested,before the Post Office Department.” Section 1782proscribes that “no Senator, Representative, orDelegate, after his election and during his continu-ance in office, and no head of a department, orother officer or clerk in the employ of the govern-ment, shall receive or agree to receive any compen-sation whatever, directly or indirectly, for any ser-vices rendered, or to be rendered, to any person,either by himself or another, in relation to any pro-ceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accu-sation, arrest, or other matter or thing in which theUnited States is a party, or directly or indirectly in-terested, before any department, court-martial,bureau, officer, or any civil, military, or naval com-mission whatever.” Burton appealed the convictionon the grounds that the alleged crime did not takeplace in Missouri, where he was tried. In Burton v.United States, 196 U.S. 283 (1905), the SupremeCourt held that Burton was improperly tried inMissouri and remanded the case for another trial.Burton was again tried in Missouri, where the gov-ernment presented an indictment more generallywritten (for example, that Rialto had simply paid

Burton, and not stating where he received themoney). Burton was convicted a second time andappealed on the grounds that Section 1782 “wasrepugnant to the Constitution.” The United StatesSupreme Court agreed to hear the parties on a di-rect appeal, and arguments were heard on 3 and 4April 1906.

On 21 May 1906, Justice John Marshall Harlandelivered the six-to-three decision of the court(Justices David J. Brewer, Edward White, and RufusPeckham dissented) in upholding Burton’s secondconviction. Justice Harlan wrote, “We cannotdoubt the authority of Congress by legislation tomake it an offense against the United States for asenator, after his election and during his continu-ance in office, to agree to receive or to receive com-pensation for services to be rendered or renderedto any person, before a department of the govern-ment, in relation to a proceeding, matter, or thingin which the United States is a party or directly orindirectly interested.”

See also Burton, Joseph RalphReferences: Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (1905).

Bustamante, Albert Garza (1935– )United States representative from Texas (1985–1993), convicted and sentenced to three years inprison for influence peddling. Bustamante at onetime was one of the most powerful Hispanicpoliticians in the U.S. House. Born in Asherton,Texas, on 8 April 1935, he attended the publicschools of the area before entering the U.S. Armyas a paratrooper in 1954, where he served for twoyears. He returned to Texas, where he studied atSan Antonio College before receiving a degree insecondary education from Sul Ross State Collegein Alpine, Texas, in 1961. He then served as ateacher and coach from 1961 until 1968.

In 1968 Bustamante went to work as an assis-tant to Representative Henry Gonzalez (D-TX).Three years’ work with Gonzalez gave Bustamantethe experience to go into politics on his own. Bythis time, Hispanics were becoming a growingforce in Texas politics, and Bustamante waselected as a member of the Bexar County Com-mission in 1972, serving from 1973 to 1978. Inthat latter year, he was elected as a judge for Bexar(pronounced “Bear”) County and served until1984. At that time, he ran for a seat in the U.S.

Bustamante, Albert Garza 39

House of Representatives, representing the Twenti-eth District. He ran unopposed and took his seatin the Ninety-ninth Congress on 3 January 1985.He would serve through the 102nd Congress, until3 January 1993. He was a leading Hispanic voice inthe House.

In 1992 Bustamante was indicted by a federalgrand jury on federal bribery and racketeeringcharges, as well as influence peddling. Prosecutorsaccused him of engaging in a pattern of corrup-tion, including accepting a $35,000 bribe in ex-change for helping a friend’s company gain a foodservice contract with the air force, accepting illegalgifts, and using his office for personal gain, includ-ing obtaining an illegal loan to buy stock in a tele-vision station. In 1992 these allegations served todestroy Bustamante as a candidate: he was chal-lenged by Republican Henry Bonilla, a Hispanicreporter from San Antonio. Bustamante, angeredat his opponent, called the Republican a “eunuchfor the plantation owners” for failing to support aminimum wage increase. But Bustamante was thefocus of the campaign, and in November 1982Bonilla defeated him, by a vote of 59 to 38 percent.Bustamante went on trial in 1995, was convicted ofinfluence peddling, and was sentenced to forty-two months in prison. On 9 February 1998, afternearly three years in prison, Bustamante walkedout of federal prison to finish his sentence in ahalfway house in San Antonio. When he returnedto San Antonio, a mariachi band and his support-ers greeted him. “It feels good to be back with myfamily and friends,” he said.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 755.

Butler, David C. (1829–1891)Governor of Nebraska (1867–1871), impeachedand removed from office for taking state moneyfor his personal use. Despite his having been thegovernor of a state, little is known of Butler—infact, state sources do not even have a record of hismiddle name. He was born on his family’s farm inLincoln, Indiana, on 15 December 1829. His fatherdied when he was a youngster, and he was forcedto balance his education with the care of his fam-ily. He engaged in several areas of business, includ-ing farming, mercantile entrepreneurship, and cat-

tle dealing, and acquired a sizable fortune that helost in the financial panic of 1857. Two years laterhe moved from Indiana to Pawnee City, Nebraska,and after studying the law was admitted to the Ne-braska bar in 1861. He operated a mercantile busi-ness at the same time he practiced law.

The same year that he began his law practice,1861, Butler was elected to a seat in the Nebraskaterritorial legislature, and two years later to a seatin the Nebraska territorial senate. On 1 March1867, Nebraska was admitted into the Union, andthe legislature elected Butler as the first state gov-ernor over Democrat Julius Sterling Morton, theformer territorial secretary of Nebraska. Butlerwas reelected in 1868 and 1870, running unsuc-cessfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1870.

In 1870, after he won a third term, allegationsof financial improprieties surfaced against Butler.Historians believe that these emanated from hisassisting in the move of the territorial (and laterstate) capital from Omaha to Lincoln in 1867.However, the official historical record shows thatButler was impeached because he allegedlyloaned out state funds targeted for education “im-providently, recklessly, and without any authorityof law.”

In all, eleven articles were drawn up and ap-proved against Butler, alleging other improprietiesas well. On 1 March 1871, the house managers ap-peared before the state senate and announced thatGovernor Butler had been impeached and in a for-mal call asked that the charges be heard in an im-peachment trial. On 7 March, Butler appeared withhis counsel, Clinton Briggs, John I. Redick (wholater served as an associate justice on the NewMexico Supreme Court), and Turner Mastin Mar-quette (later a U.S. Representative [1867]), to an-swer the charges. The trial started one week later,on 14 March. It continued through the remainderof March, all of April, and all of May. On 2 June1871, the state senate voted: it acquitted Butler onevery article save the first one, which alleged thatButler had taken funds that came from the sale ofpublic lands in Nebraska and “corruptly and un-lawfully intermingle[d] the same with his ownprivate funds and used the same for his own per-sonal benefit.” Butler was removed from office, andSecretary of State William Hartford James, whohad been serving as governor until the dispositionof the impeachment could be concluded, was con-

40 Butler, David C.

firmed as acting governor. He would serve out theremainder of Butler’s term, giving way in 1873 tofellow Republican Robert W. Furnas.

Butler became a cattle farmer. On 15 February1877, the state senate voted to expunge his im-peachment from the official record, the only timesuch an occurrence had happened in Americanhistory. Just five years later, in 1882, Butler waselected as an Independent to the state senate thathad convicted him and in 1888 he ran as a mem-ber of the Union Labor Party for governor, butcame in a poor third place. Just three years later, on25 May 1891, Butler died on his farm near PawneeCity, Nebraska, at the age of sixty-one.

References: “Butler, David,” in The National Cyclopædiaof American Biography, 57 vols. and supplements A-N(New York: James T. White & Company, 1897–1984),XII:1; “Butler, David C.,” in Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors ofthe United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:1; Impeachment Trial ofDavid Butler, Governor of Nebraska, at Lincoln. Messrs.Bell, Hall and Brown, Official Reporters (Omaha, NE:Tribune Steam Book and Job Printing House, 1871).

Butler, Roderick Randum (1827–1902)U.S. representative from Tennessee (1867–1875,1887–1889), censured by the Congress in 1870 forcorruption. Butler was born in Wytheville, Vir-ginia, on 9 April 1827. It does not appear that hereceived any primary or secondary education. Hewas bound as an apprentice at an early age andlearned the trade of a tailor. At some unknowntime, he moved to Taylorsville (now MountainCity), Tennessee, where he attended night schooland studied the law. He was admitted to the bar in1853 and opened a practice in Taylorsville. Soonafter he was appointed postmaster of the town byPresident Millard Fillmore.

Butler rose to become a major in the First Bat-talion of the Tennessee militia. He served as amember of the Tennessee state senate from 1859to 1863. His militia training was put to use duringthe Civil War, when he served in the ThirteenthRegiment of the Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry, withthe rank of lieutenant colonel. Serving from 5 No-vember 1863 until 25 April 1864, he saw limitedaction and was honorably discharged. He servedas a delegate to the Republican National Conven-tion that same year and also attended the 1872

and 1876 conventions. He served as well as a dele-gate to the Tennessee state constitutional conven-tion in 1865 and that same year was named as acounty judge and then judge of the first judicialcircuit of Tennessee. After the war, Butler becamechairman of the first state Republican ExecutiveCommittee of Tennessee.

In 1866 Butler was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives, serving in the Fortiethand three succeeding Congresses, from 4 March1867 until 3 March 1875. During this tenure, heserved as chairman of the Committee on the Mili-tia (Forty-third Congress).

In 1870 Butler got caught up in a wide-rangingscandal that implicated several congressmen inselling appointments to the U.S. Military Academyat West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy at An-napolis in exchange for political favors or payoffs.Along with Butler, these men were John ThomasDeweese of Florida and Benjamin Franklin Whit-temore of South Carolina, all Republicans. De-weese and Whittemore, prior to any congressionalaction, resigned their seats, while Butler was sub-jected first to an expulsion motion, and then, whenthat failed, a censure motion, which passed.

Hind’s Precedents, a collection of rulings fromCongress, reported regarding the move first toexpel Butler, and then to censure him:

On March 16, 1870, Mr. William L. Stoughton, ofMichigan, as a question of privilege, submitted a re-port of the Committee on Military Affairs, recom-mending the adoption of the following resolution:“Resolved, That the House declares its condemna-tion of the action of Hon. Roderick R. Butler, Repre-sentative from the First district of Tennessee, innominating Augustus C. Tyler, who was not an ac-tual resident of his district, as a cadet at the Mili-tary Academy at West Point, and in subsequently re-ceiving money from the father of said cadet forpolitical purposes in Tennessee, as an unauthorizedand dangerous practice.” This report was signed by4 members only, but it was explained that 6 mem-bers had concurred in the vote on it, thus making itthe report of the majority of the committee. Theminority also presented views, signed by 4 Mem-bers, recommending the adoption of this resolutionas a substitute:

“Resolved, that Roderick R. Butler, a Representa-tive in Congress from the First Congressional dis-trict of Tennessee, be, and he is hereby, expelledfrom his seat as a Member of this House.”When the

Butler, Roderick Randum 41

resolution recommended by the majority came upfor consideration, Mr. John A. Logan, of Illinois,moved to amend by substituting the minority reso-lution. This amendment was agreed to, yeas 101,nays 68—a majority vote. The amendment havingbeen agreed to, the question recurred on agreeing tothe resolution as amended, which had thereby be-come a resolution of expulsion. The Speaker statedthat under the Constitution a two-thirds vote wouldbe required. There were yeas 102, nays 68—not atwo-thirds vote—and the resolution was rejected.Mr. Stoughton then offered a resolution which wasthe resolution originally reported by the majority ofthe committee, with the addition of these words:“and he is hereby censured therefor” . . . The resolu-tion of censure was then agreed to, yeas 158, nays 0.

Despite this censure, Butler was reelected in1870 and 1872, but lost his seat in 1874. He re-

turned to Tennessee, where he served as a memberof the state house of representatives from 1879 to1885. In 1886 he made a political comeback, get-ting elected again to a seat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives and serving a single term until 3March 1889. He did not run for reelection. He thenreturned to Tennessee, where he died in MountainCity on 18 August 1902 at the age of seventy-five.He was buried in the Mountain View Cemetery inMountain City.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria, VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 757; Hinds, Asher Crosby,Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives ofthe United States, Including References to Provisionsof the Constitution, the Laws, and Decisions of theUnited States Senate, 8 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1907–1908),II:832–833.

42 Butler, Roderick Randum

Caldwell, Alexander (1830–1917)United States senator (1871–1873) from Kansas,forced to resign from the Senate before he was ex-pelled for bribing legislators to vote for him in his1871 senatorial contest. Born in the town of Drake’sFerry, Pennsylvania, on 1 March 1830, Caldwell wasthe son of James Caldwell, the owner of an ironfoundry, and Jane Matilda (née Drake) Caldwell.James Caldwell’s father, Alexander, was a native ofCounty Donegal, Ireland, and he and his son Jamesimmigrated to America. Jane Drake Caldwell was adescendant of the noted English explorer Sir Fran-cis Drake. Alexander Caldwell, the subject of thisbiography, attended local public schools andworked as a store clerk and bank officer. His fatherenlisted in the United States Army to serve in theMexican War and was killed in the battle of Cha-pultec. Alexander Caldwell then joined his father’sunit, Company M of the Second Regiment of thePennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, and saw action atsuch battles as Contreras, Churubusco, Monterey,National Bridge, and the entry into Mexico City. Hereturned to Pennsylvania and worked in the FirstNational Bank of Columbia as a clerk.

In 1861 Caldwell moved west and settled inLeavenworth, Kansas, where he served for a timeas a contractor hired by the United States govern-ment to move army supplies to military posts westof the Monroe River. He formed A. Caldwell &Company and eventually employed some 5,000men in his efforts. When several railroads were

built that made his company’s work obsolete, hechanged his company’s emphasis and turned firstto supplying the railroads and then to construct-ing the roads themselves, assisting in the buildingof the Missouri Pacific Railroad from Kansas Cityto Leavenworth. He helped to form the KansasCentral Railroad Company and served as vicepresident of the company.

Caldwell did not seem destined for a politicalcareer, especially when in early 1870 he refused anomination from the Republican Party for a seatin Congress. However, in January 1871, when theKansas state legislature met to name a successorto U.S. Senator Edmund G. Ross, who had voted toacquit President Johnson of impeachable offensesin 1868 and was refused another nomination bythe Republicans, Caldwell was persuaded to throwhis hat into the ring. Caldwell was not the only po-tential candidate: many considered RepresentativeSidney Clarke, a Republican who had been de-feated for reelection in 1870, and Samuel J. Craw-ford, the thirty-six-year-old governor of Kansas tobe worthy of the nomination. Clarke was soonousted when the legislature met on 10 January1871, and he threw his support behind Caldwell.Another potential candidate, former GovernorThomas Carney, also threw his support behindCaldwell. Over the next fifteen days, a vicious fightbetween Democrats and Republicans ensued, buton 25 January Caldwell was elected with eighty-seven votes. Crawford received thirty-four votes

C

43

and Democrat Wilson Shannon Jr. received two. Inthe Senate, Caldwell was a devout Republican,speaking against Southern abuses against freedblacks and supporting the Enforcement Act of1871, which used the law against the Ku KluxKlan. He was named to the Senate committees onnaval affairs, the District of Columbia, and minesand mining.

Almost from the start, however, there were ru-mors that Caldwell and his backers had paid offstate legislators to win his election. In fact, therewere similar charges against the other U.S. senatorfrom Kansas, Samuel Clarke Pomeroy. After a yearof charges and countercharges, the Senate author-ized the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elec-tions to investigate and issue a report. FormerRepresentative Sidney Clarke, who had been Cald-well’s confidant and had assisted in his election,testified that he was told that Caldwell and hisclose friends would pay $250,000 to secure votesin the legislature for Caldwell. Former GovernorCarney, who had withdrawn from the race andbacked Caldwell, testified he was paid $15,000 todo just that. Several friends of Caldwell said thathe had admitted that the race had personally costhim $60,000.

An angry Caldwell confronted the Senate com-mittee, demanding to know what authority theyhad to investigate a state matter, and then dismiss-ing all of the evidence against him as coming frombitter foes and other politicians who were jealousof his election. Despite his attitude, on 17 February1873, the committee sent to the full Senate a reportasking either for Caldwell’s election to be voided orfor him to be expelled, reporting that he had notbeen “duly and legally elected” to his seat. A debatebroke out in the Senate. Caldwell hired Kansas at-torney Robert Crozier as his defense counsel.Many in the Senate felt that the U.S. Senate as abody could not invalidate the action of a state leg-islature, no matter how crooked it may have been.This had been the opinion of three of the reportingcommittee’s members: John Logan of Illinois,Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin, and Henry B.Anthony of Rhode Island. Even as Caldwell’s casewas being debated, that of Senator Powell Claytonof Arkansas was being discussed.

Senator Orris S. Ferry (R-CT) took to the flooron 21 March and declared in a moving speech thatCaldwell’s bribery for his seat forced the Senate to

expel him.“The crime of bribery,” Ferry explained,“goes down to the very foundations of the institu-tions under which we live. We all know it and . . .we shall stifle our own consciences if we do notvote to expel.” Senators Frederick T. Frelinghuysenof New Jersey and Timothy O. Howe of Wisconsinwere of the opinion that Caldwell should not be ex-pelled for a crime of which he had not been con-victed in a court of law. However, when these twomen surveyed the rest of the Senate, they foundthat ten to twelve senators were prepared to votewith Caldwell, while the rest would expel him. On23 March, a resolution to delay a vote on Ferry’smotion to expel was tabled. Later that day, seeingthe handwriting on the wall, Caldwell submittedhis resignation. It was Vice President Schuyler Col-fax (who himself was later implicated in politicalcorruption) who announced to a stunned Senatethe following morning that Caldwell had made anyattempt at expulsion moot. In a tremendous irony,attorney Robert Crozier, who had served as Cald-well’s counsel during the expulsion hearings, waselected by the Kansas legislature to fill the vacancyleft by Caldwell’s resignation.

Caldwell returned to Kansas to live out his lifein obscurity. He served as the head of a companythat manufactured wagons and carriages from1877 until 1897 and, in the latter year, became thepresident of the First National Bank of Leaven-worth, where he served until 1915. He died twoyears later, on 19 May 1917, at the age of eighty-seven, and was buried in the Mount Muncie Ceme-tery in Leavenworth.

Historian Robert S. Laforte wrote of Caldwelland his times, “Senator Caldwell deserves morecoverage than he has thus far received. His elec-tion, resignation, and activities as a senator re-veal a great deal about politics in the immediatepost–Civil War period in Kansas and the UnitedStates. Caldwell’s place in the Senate’s past con-firms the older, negative opinion of ‘progressivehistorians,’ not the current upbeat views ex-pressed by historical revisionists of the GildedAge. If nothing else, the senator’s experiencesbolster Henry Adams’s well-known lament that‘one might search the whole list of Congress, Ju-diciary, and Executive during the twenty-fiveyears [from] 1870–1895, and find little but dam-aged reputation.’”

See also Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke

44 Caldwell, Alexander

References: Butler, Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, UnitedStates Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases,1793–1990 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1995), 174–177; Harris, Thomas LeGrand,“Caldwell, Alexander,” in Allen Johnson and DumasMalone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography, X vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), II:405–406;LaForte, Robert S.,“Gilded Age Senator: TheElection, Investigation, and Resignation ofAlexander Caldwell, 1871–1873,” Kansas History,21:4 (Winter 1998–1999), 234–255; “S.C. Pomeroyand Alexander Caldwell,” in George S. Taft,Compilation of Senate Election Cases From 1789 to1885 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1885), 376.

Campaign Finance Scandal 1996Financial corruption, implicating the Clinton-Goreadministration in unethical and potentially illegalconduct in campaign fundraising during the 1996election cycle. In the final report of the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee’s investigationinto the scandal, it was noted:

In mid-1995, the President and his strategists de-cided that they needed to raise and spend manymillions of dollars over and above the permissiblelimits of the presidential campaign funding law ifthe President was going to be reelected. They de-vised a legal theory to support their needs and pro-ceeded to raise and spend $44 million in excess ofthe Presidential campaign spending limits.

The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaignand the White House–controlled Democratic Na-tional Committee were willing to go in order toraise this amount of money is essentially the storyof the 1996 Presidential campaign scandal. ThePresident and his aides demeaned the offices of thePresident and Vice President, took advantage of mi-nority groups, pulled down all the barriers thatwould normally be in place to keep out illegal con-tributions, pressured policy makers, and left them-selves open to strong suspicion that they were sell-ing not only access to high-ranking officials, butpolicy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in ille-gal contributions, much of it from foreign sources.When these abuses were discovered, the result wasnumerous Fifth Amendment claims, flights fromthe country, and stonewalling from the WhiteHouse and the DNC.

Following the election debacle in 1994, whenRepublicans took control of both houses of Con-

gress, President Bill Clinton, staring at low ap-proval ratings, a failed health care initiative, andnow the threat of his entire agenda stalled inCongress, looked to be an easy target when heran for re-election in 1996. Clinton, frightenedby the prospect, called in his old friend DickMorris, a political adviser when Clinton was thegovernor of Arkansas, to advise him on a courseto win re-election. Morris told Clinton that heneeded to raise millions of dollars in “softmoney” donations—those not covered by cam-paign finance laws—and outspend his opponentin the 1996 race. Clinton did just this, taking inmoney from “coffees” he held at the WhiteHouse, from entertaining contributors in theLincoln Bedroom in the White House, and col-lecting funds from overseas sources, such as theLippo Group, headed by an old Clinton friend,James Riady, an Indonesian businessman. HisVice President Al Gore also collected question-able donations, making calls from his office andvisiting a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles to col-lect funds.

When the 1996 campaign started in early1996, Clinton was on the air, utilizing his multi-million-dollar war chest to paint any potentialrival with a broad brush. As the Republican pri-maries moved forward, and Senate MajorityLeader Robert J. Dole of Kansas looked more andmore likely to be the Republican nominee, Clintonand the Democratic Party began to air advertise-ments on television castigating Dole as an ob-structionist who worked with House SpeakerNewt Gingrich to hurt Americans. Dole, fightinghard in the primaries, did not have the funds torespond, and the allegations went unchallenged.When the primaries had ended and Dole stood asthe nominee, his campaign was penniless, andClinton’s ads continued. It was not until the Re-publican convention in August, when Dole got afresh infusion of cash as the party nominee, thathe was able to go on television with his own ads.By then, however, it was too late—the impressionof him as an evil ogre (Clinton and the DNC airedcommercials of a threatening looking Dole inblack and white) had settled with the Americanpeople. Down in the polls, Dole could not rise tochallenge Clinton.

By October, as the campaign began to winddown, it became apparent that Clinton was sailing

Campaign Finance Scandal 1996 45

to a double-digit popular vote victory and a land-slide in the Electoral College. However, reportssoon began to appear that the Democratic Na-tional Committee had received some $425,000 indonations from an Indonesian couple, Arief andSoraya Wiriadinata, with ties to Riady’s LippoGroup. The Wiriadinatas were residents of Jakarta,Indonesia. As the reports spread, the DNC admit-ted that it had also accepted $260,000 from aSouth Korean company. Even though both dona-tions were returned, the story grew bigger as Clin-ton’s ties to Riady were fully explored. More dona-tions, from Asians or Asians in the United Stateswho were not legal citizens (and thus could notmake donations to campaigns), were uncovered.On 17 October, The Wall Street Journal reportedthat after a visit by Vice President Gore, membersof the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple (who were monksand had taken vows of poverty) had contributedsome $50,000 to the DNC. Five days later, Gore saidthat he was not aware that the temple event was afundraiser, a claim later contradicted by memossent to him. Another Clinton friend, John Huang(pronounced “Wong”), was found to have solicited

money from the Communist government in Bei-jing, money that ended up in DNC accounts. Whena subpoena was issued for Huang’s arrest, he fledthe country. He later appeared when JudicialWatch, a conservative legal group, handed him acourt order.

On 30 October, bowing to pressure from thepress (and with Clinton’s numbers sinking in thepolls), the DNC released a partial list of itsdonors. That same day, Huang testified that hemet numerous times with President Clinton andhis wife in the White House. White House logsshowed Huang being admitted 78 times in the 15months before the scandal was uncovered thatmonth. On 5 November, Clinton was re-elected, al-though by much smaller margins than he hadbeen leading by in the polls just a few weeks ear-lier; as well, the Democrats, leading in the race tocapture the House and Senate, again fell short,and the burgeoning scandal was blamed. In thetwo months after Clinton’s re-election, hundredsof news stories appeared, highlighting each in-stance of the massive fund-raising program Clin-ton and his administration had been involved in.

46 Campaign Finance Scandal 1996

Cartoon shows President Bill Clinton sitting on an altar in the lotus position and Vice President Al Gore holding a pot in which hecollects money from a line of visitors for the opportunity to whisper into the president's ear. (Library of Congress)

On 13 November, the Justice Department denied arequest by Senator John McCain, Republican ofArizona, to have the attorney general appoint anindependent counsel to investigate the chargesagainst Clinton. New terms entered the Americanlexicon: “coffees” and “Lincoln Bedroom stay-overs.” Clinton had used the White House as abase for his fundraising parties, in which heserved his guests coffee as he asked them to helphim raise more and more money. Clinton admit-ted in January 1997, shortly before his second in-auguration, that he rewarded donors with over-night stays in the Lincoln Bedroom.

On 11 March 1997, the Senate voted unani-mously to authorize the Senate Governmental Af-fairs Committee to conduct “an investigation of il-legal or improper activities in connection with1996 Federal election campaigns.”A deadline of 31December 1997 was imposed on the committee towrap up its work. During its hearings, over a totalof 33 days in July, September, and October 1997,the committee heard from 70 witnesses who testi-fied in public, with 200 witness interviews con-ducted and 196 depositions taken under oath. Thedelays encountered by the committee were ex-traordinary: after its authorization, Democrats ar-gued over jurisdiction, claiming that alleged cam-paign finance violations by the Dole campaignshould be investigated as well. Quarrels over thecommittee’s budget and how to approach potentialwitnesses who exerted their Fifth Amendmentrights to keep silent bogged the committee downin senseless minutiae. In the end, 23 witnesses,many of them key to the investigation, assertedthis right. Other witnesses demanded a grant ofimmunity, which either the panel’s Democrats orthe Justice Department did not support granting.10 witnesses who were called before the commit-tee fled the United States, including Yah Lin “Char-lie” Trie, another old friend of Clintons who hadraised money for the DNC, Ted Sioeng, and PaulineKanchanalak, all foreign money raisers for Clin-ton/Gore 1996 and for the Democratic NationalCommittee. In all, the committee collected morethan 1.5 million documents.

On 5 March 1998, the committee’s final reportwas released. In ten volumes, it dissected the 1996campaign, criticized both parties for fundraisingabuses, but singled out the Clinton/Gore campaignfor wanton violations. Eight members, all Republi-

cans, approved the majority report; seven Demo-crats angrily dissented in the minority report.

In the frenzied drive to raise such large amounts ofcampaign money, the Democratic Party dismantledits own internal vetting procedures, no longer car-ing, in effect, where its money came from and whowas supplying it. Worse, their campaign evisceratedfederal fundraising laws and reduced the WhiteHouse, key Administration offices, and the Presi-dency itself, to fundraising tools. For the U.S. politi-cal process as a whole, the DNC and White House’sreckless fundraising disregarded an obvious risk—the danger that powerful foreign nationals, or evengovernments, would attempt to buy influencethrough campaign contributions. The result of allthis was foreseeable, including: the erosion of safe-guards in U.S. election law designed to guardagainst political corruption, and unprecedentedamounts of illegal foreign contributions makingtheir way into Democratic coffers. The Committeeuncovered strong circumstantial evidence that theGovernment of the People’s Republic of China(PRC) was involved in funding, directing, or en-couraging some of these foreign contributions.

President Clinton has attempted to distancehimself from these scandals by trying to distin-guish his own “official” re-election campaign (Clin-ton/Gore ’96) from the abuses the DNC carried out.Based on the evidence compiled by the Committee,however, this distinction is untenable. Indeed, noone has done more to erode this very distinctionthan the President himself, who with his staff effec-tively seized control of DNC operations and ran allDemocratic party campaign and fundraising effortsout of the White House. During the 1996 campaign,the DNC was the alter ego of the White House.

In the end, nothing came from the entire affair.Attorney General Janet Reno refused to name anindependent counsel to investigate the Clinton/Gore campaign, and the Department of Justice se-cured a few indictments and convictions onlyagainst some of the lesser-known characters inthis scandal.

See also Clinton, William Jefferson; Gore, Albert Arnold,Jr.; Thompson, Fred Dalton

References: Bedard, Paul, and Donald Lambro,“Fund-Raising Woes Turn Off Many Democratic Donors;DNC Official Cites ‘Chilling Effect’ of Probes,” TheWashington Times, 11 June 1997, A4; Sandalow, Marc,“The Campaign Finance Controversy: Everything YouWanted to Know about the Fuss over Fundraising—But Were Afraid to Ask,” The San Francisco Chronicle,

Campaign Finance Scandal 1996 47

17 March 1997, A3; United States Senate, Committeeon Governmental Affairs, Final Report of theInvestigation of Illegal or Improper Activities inConnection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns,Together with Additional and Minority Views, 10vols.(Senate Report 105–167, 105th Congress, 2ndSession) (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1999).

Catron, Thomas Benton (1840–1921)Delegate (1895–1897) and U.S. senator (1912–1917) from New Mexico, implicated but nevercharged in the corruption and land fraud in theColfax County War in New Mexico in the 1870s.Despite being identified with New Mexico, Catronwas actually born near Lafayette, Missouri, on 6October 1840, and he attended the commonschools there. He attended and then graduatedfrom the University of Missouri at Columbia in1860, then joined the Confederate army and sawaction during the Civil War.At the close of the con-flict, he moved west to New Mexico, where he stud-ied the law, and was admitted to the bar in 1867.He opened a practice in Las Cruces. Before he hadearned his law degree, Catron was elected districtattorney of the third New Mexico district, servingfrom 1866 to 1868. In 1869 he was appointed at-torney general of New Mexico Territory; he re-signed when he was appointed U.S. attorney byPresident Ulysses S. Grant.

Although he was born and raised a Democrat,Catron saw that power lay in the hands of the Re-publican Party in New Mexico, and he switchedparty affiliations as a way to rise politically in theterritory. Catron served as a member of the NewMexico Territorial Council in 1884, 1888, 1890,1899, 1905, and 1909.

Starting in the 1870s, Catron invested heavily inland in Colfax County, New Mexico. The Universityof New Mexico, in introducing his papers, writes,“To his friends, he was a financial genius and agreat leader; to his enemies, he was a greedy land-grabber and a ruthless politician.” As an attorney,he was able to use a loophole in the law and re-quested that his legal fees be paid with land ratherthan money; by this method, Catron was able tostring together tracts of land to make himself amajor landowner in New Mexico. And as a leadinglandowner, Catron was also deeply involved in thepolitics of the territory. When he acted as counsel

to help certain area creditors collect debts againstanother landowner, John Chisum, the beginningsof what became the “Lincoln County War” wereshaped. A number of local businessmen andlandowners took sides, either with Chisum oragainst him. One of these men was Alexander Mc-Sween, who hired Billy the Kid, as well as otheroutlaws, for protection from Chisum’s men. Theterritorial government, led by Governor SamuelAxtell, allowed this situation to fester while mem-bers of Axtell’s administration were buying landand influence in Lincoln County. This situationmirrored what occurred in Colfax County from1875 to 1878. From 1878 to 1881 a shooting warexploded in Lincoln County, leaving many peopledead, but others wealthier from their land buyingand corruption. When the war first started, Presi-dent Rutherford B. Hayes declared Lincoln Countyto be in insurrection and sent Frank W. Angel, afederal investigator, to examine the state of affairsthere. Angel discovered that Axtell, Catron, andmany other high-ranking officials of the territorialgovernment were implicated in the war. These offi-cials were dubbed the “Santa Fe Ring.” Almost allof these men were also Republican Party officials.On Angel’s recommendation, Hayes removed Ax-tell and Catron from positions of power; GeneralLew Wallace (author of the famed Ben Hur: A Taleof the Christ) was named in Axtell’s place andhelped clean up the situation, so by 1881 calm hadsettled on both Lincoln and Colfax Counties.

Despite being implicated in corruption andfraud on a massive scale, Catron’s political careerwas barely dented. Although he was defeated in acongressional run in 1892, just two years later hewas elected as a delegate to Congress, serving inthe Fifty-fourth Congress from 4 March 1895 until3 March 1897. Defeated for reelection, he resumedthe practice of law in Santa Fe. When New Mexicowas admitted to the Union as the forty-sixth statein 1911, the legislature selected Catron as one ofthe first two senators it was entitled to send toWashington. Ironically, the other senator was Al-bert Bacon Fall, who later, as secretary of the inte-rior in the Harding administration, was convictedand sent to prison for his role in the Teapot Domescandal.

In 1916 Catron came up for reelection, but de-cided, at age seventy-six, not to be a candidate. Hereturned to Santa Fe, where he died on 15 May

48 Catron, Thomas Benton

1921 at the age of eighty. He was buried in theFairview Cemetery in that city. Although today heis barely known, Catron may have been one of themost corrupt politicians in the history of theUnited States.

See also Axtell, Samuel BeachReferences: Chamberlain, Kathleen Egan,“Catron,

Thomas Benton,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C.Carnes, eds., American National Biography, 24 vols.(New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 4:581–582;Duran, Tobias,“Francisco Chalvez, Thomas B. Catron,and Organized Political Violence in Santa Fe in the1890s.” New Mexico Historical Review 59 (July 1984),291–310; Jacobsen, Joel K.“An Excess of Law inLincoln County: Thomas Catron, Samuel Axtell, andthe Lincoln County War.” New Mexico HistoricalReview 68 (April 1993), 133–151; Westphall,Victor,Thomas Benton Catron and His Era (Tucson:University of Arizona Press, 1973).

Caudle, Theron LamarSee Income Tax Scandal, Department of Justice(1951–1952)

CensureAn act of a legislature defined as a move “to criti-cize severely; blame; to express official disap-proval of ” a certain government official. Censureis considered a lesser form of punishment thanimpeachment, and many historians and legal au-thorities consider this to be equal in status with a“rebuke.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines censureas “the formal resolution of a legislative, adminis-trative, or other body reprimanding a person,normally one of its own members, for specifiedconduct.”

Under the Constitution, the Senate or Housemay officially discipline any member for miscon-duct, and each chamber may specify that miscon-duct. The U.S. Supreme Court, in case after case,has held that the power to discipline members ofthe legislature is exclusive to the legislature andbeyond judicial review. In In re Chapman, 166 U.S.661 (1897), the Court held that the Senate had theauthority to demand subpoenaed testimony in itsinvestigative process. In United States v. Brewster,408 U.S. 501 (1972), the Court held that “[t]heprocess of disciplining a Member of Congress . . .is not surrounded with the panoply of protectiveshields that are present in a criminal case. An ac-

cused Member is judged by no specifically articu-lated standards, and is at the mercy of an almostunbridled discretion of the charging body . . .from whose decisions there is no established rightof review.”

Four times in American history, the Congresshas censured a sitting president: in 1834, AndrewJackson for illegally removing Bank of the UnitedStates deposits; in 1842, John Tyler for unknownreasons; in 1848, James K. Polk for refusing to dis-close a “secret” fund in the State Department; andin 1864, Abraham Lincoln for unknown reasons.In 1999 the Senate came close to censuring BillClinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky affair,but Republican opposition caused this punish-ment to fail of a majority. Jackson’s censure is per-haps the most famous: in 1834, the Senate, undercontrol of the opposition Whig party, censuredJackson for removing the deposits from the Bankof the United States, an authority that the Congresshad granted solely to the secretary of the treasury,at that time William J. Duane. When Duane re-fused to go along with Jackson’s plan, he was sum-marily fired; in his place, Jackson named Roger B.Taney, who acceded to the president’s plan of ac-tion against the bank. Enraged that the presidentwas defying the Congress and its original intentfor the bank’s deposits, the Senate enacted a reso-lution: “Resolved, that the President, in the late Ex-ecutive proceedings in relation to the public rev-enue, had assumed upon himself authority andpower not conferred by the Constitution and laws,but in derogation of both.” The word “censure” wasnever formally utilized, but the slap against thepresident was just as hard. Jackson condemned theaction; in a letter to the Senate he said:

Without notice, unheard and untried, I thus findmyself charged on the records of the Senate, and ina form hitherto unknown in our history, with thehigh crime of violating the laws and Constitution ofmy country . . . when the Chief Executive Magis-trate is, by one of the most important branches ofthe Government in its official capacity, in a publicmanner, and by its recorded sentence, but withoutprecedent, competent authority, or just cause, de-clared guilty of a breach of the laws and Constitu-tion, it is due to his station, to public opinion, and toa proper self-respect [to] promptly expose thewrong which has been done. . . . [I am] perfectlyconvinced that the discussion and passage of the

Censure 49

above-mentioned resolution were not only unau-thorized by the Constitution, but in many respectsrepugnant to its provisions and subversive of therights secured by it to other . . . departments, [Ishould] maintain the supremacy of that sacred in-strument and the immunities of the departmentintrusted to my care. . . . It is alike due to the sub-ject, the Senate, and the people that the viewswhich I have taken of the proceedings referred to,and which compel me to regard them in the lightthat has been mentioned should be exhibited atlength and with the freedom and firmness whichare required by an occasion so unprecedented andpeculiar. . . . In every other respect each of [thethree branches of government] is the coequal ofthe other two, and all are the servants of the Ameri-can people, without power or right to control orcensure each other in the service of their commonsuperior, save only in the manner and to the degreewhich that superior has prescribed. . . . The re-sponsibilities of the President are numerous andweighty. He is liable to impeachment for highcrimes and misdemeanors . . . the resolution of theSenate is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution,

and in derogation of its entire spirit. It assumesthat a single branch of the legislative departmentmay for the purposes of a public censure, and with-out any view to legislation or impeachment, takeup, consider, and decide upon the official acts ofthe Executive. But in no part of the Constitutionis . . . any such power conferred on either branch ofthe Legislature.

The Senate refused to accept Jackson’s protest,and it was only published in the Washington news-paper Niles’ Weekly Register. The response of Jack-son led just five years later to a stunning reversal offortune: when the Jacksonians took control of theSenate, they had the censure motion expungedfrom the Senate records, as if it never happened.Historians still debate whether Jackson was actu-ally censured, whether the Senate had the power tocensure him, and whether the Jacksonians had thepower to expunge the censure. The censure mo-tions against the three other presidents all stand.

The use of censure was specifically allowed forthe Congress to punish its own members. Con-

50 Censure

In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson for removing the deposits from the Bank of the United States. In thispolitical cartoon of the day, United States Bank officials run for cover as President Jackson overthrows the bank by vetoing therenewal of its charter. (Corbis)

gress also expanded the power to include mem-bers not in Congress but in the executive branchof the government. In 1822, Congress censuredMajor Christopher Van Devanter, the chief clerk ofthe War Department, for awarding a constructioncontract to his brother-in-law, Elijah Mix, who inturn sold a quarter interest in the contract back toVan Devanter. The so-called Mix Contract scandalresulted in the contract being revoked and VanDevanter fired. The move by Congress paved theway for the use of censure in future proceedings.Twenty-seven years later, the House censured Sec-retary of the Treasury William M. Meredith andAttorney General Reverdy Johnson for approvingthe paying out of interest on a loan by the War De-partment in which Secretary of War William H.Crawford had a direct financial interest. TheHouse also enacted three distinct resolutions call-ing the interest payment “improper.” In 1859, dur-ing a corruption investigation, the House cen-sured Isaac Toucey, secretary of the navy, forawarding contracts to cronies; a minority of theHouse committee investigating the frauds heldthat Toucey had acted with the approval of Presi-dent Buchanan, and they thus demanded thatBuchanan be censured also. This did not happen,however. In 1862 the House censured Secretary ofWar Simon Cameron over alleged corruption inthe awarding of contracts for army supplies onwhich Cameron’s cronies profited. A censure reso-lution was introduced in 1874 by RepresentativeCharles Foster (R-OH) against William A. Richard-son, secretary of the treasury, for his alleged fail-ure to supervise contracts handed out by a taxcollector, John Sanborn, leading to the so-calledSanborn Contracts scandal. However, Richardsonresigned his office and the censure resolution wasnever formally voted on. In 1892 a House Com-mittee ordered that President Benjamin Harri-son’s chief of the Bureau of Pensions, Green B.Raum, be removed for using his office for privategain. In the twentieth century, the censure motionhas been used only sparingly against noncongres-sional officials, most notably against members ofthe Harding and Coolidge administrations in rela-tion to the Teapot Dome scandal.

In the history of the Congress, very few mem-bers have faced censure: the total is nine in theSenate and twenty-two in the House. Of the ninesenators, four—Hiram Bingham, Thomas J. Dodd,

Herman E. Talmadge, and David F. Durenberger—were due to allegations of corruption. In theHouse, seven of the twenty-two censures of mem-bers were because of corruption. However, ruleshave changed regarding censure in the past cen-tury. In Congress today members may also be “de-nounced,” “condemned,” “reprimanded,” and “re-buked” for their violations of ethics. Historiansand legal scholars continue to debate whetherthese punishments rise to the level of “censure.”Aswell, both houses have held that a member may becensured for acts not related to his or her “official”duties. For example, Representative Adam ClaytonPowell was censured by the House, even though itheld that the ethics violations he was accused ofcommitting did not bear upon his official duties.

References: Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul, MN: WestPublishing Company, 1990), 224; Fisher, Louis,Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and thePresident (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,1997), 54–55; Richardson, James D., ed., ACompilation of the Messages and Papers of thePresidents, 1789–1907, 9 vols. and 1 appendix(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1896–1900), III:69–93; Schultz, Jeffrey D., PresidentialScandals (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000), 62–64;Speech of Mr. Black, of Georgia, on The Right ofMembers to Their Seats in the House ofRepresentatives. Delivered in the House ofRepresentatives, February 12, 1844 (Washington, DC:Printed at the Globe Office, 1844); Striking of Jacksoncensure in Register of Debates, 24th Congress, 2ndSession (1837), 379–418, 427–506; Woodward, C.Vann, The Responses of the Presidents to Charges ofMisconduct (New York: Delacorte Press, 1974), 41.

ChinagateFinancial scandal, concerning alleged payoffs tothe 1992 and 1996 election campaigns of Presi-dent Bill Clinton by corporations doing business inChina, which Clinton approved despite nationalsecurity concerns. The scandal in “Chinagate”grew out of the use of campaign finances to allowtechnology to be sent to China. In 1994 Bernard L.Schwartz, a longtime Democratic fund-raiser andchairman of the Loral Corporation, a major satel-lite technology company, wrote a check for$100,000 to the Democratic National Committee(DNC). At the same time, Schwartz asked to be in-cluded as a member of a trade mission coordi-nated by then-Secretary of Commerce Ronald H.

Chinagate 51

Brown to aid American businesses overseas.Brown’s intention on forming these trade missionswas to use American government wherewithal toopen markets overseas for American businesses.However, it was later discovered, Brown and theDNC made donations to the party a prerequisite togo on these junkets.

Schwartz’s desire to be included on the Browntrade mission to China grew out of Loral’s desire tobe a part of China’s expanding market for satellitedelivery services for its growing telecommunica-tions sector. China’s desire to have Loral make sureits satellites could be launched safely into orbitwas teamed with its further desire to gain Ameri-can expertise in launching rockets—those carry-ing satellites, as well as those carrying nuclearmissiles. A long-standing American policy had in-fringed on China’s ability to launch satellites. In1992 the United States discovered secret Chinesemissile sales to Pakistan, then under Americansanctions for their nuclear weapons program. Ayear later, the new administration of Bill Clintonordered that no American satellite with sophisti-cated technology could be launched on board aChinese rocket. However, the head of the HughesCompany’s satellite division, C. Michael Arm-strong, wrote two letters to Clinton outlining hispast and continued support for the DemocraticParty—some $2.5 million in contributions from1991 to 1993 alone. Armstrong told Clinton thatEuropean satellite launchers were profiting fromhaving the American firms excluded from the Chi-nese market. Two years later, Loral’s Schwartz wenton a junket with Commerce Secretary Brown. Onthe trip, Brown helped Schwartz meet with Chi-nese communications officials. Schwartz later saidthat the junket “helped open doors that were notopen before.”While in China, Schwartz signed a lu-crative deal with the Chinese government allowingfor Loral to provide China with a mobile telephonenetwork. Schwartz now told top Democrats thatmore contributions would flow into the party’scoffers in exchange for loosening the regulations.Within two years, the Clinton administrationended all sanctions on China relating to Americansatellites, and control over transfers of Americansatellite technology was moved from the Depart-ment of State, where support for keeping the sanc-tion was strong, to the Department of Commerce,where Brown, former head of the DNC, favored

ending the sanctions. Schwartz later called the do-nations and the waivers “coincidence.”

What exposed the so-called Chinagate scandalwas a rather unintentional rocket launch on 15February 1996. The Chinese launched a LongMarch 3B rocket carrying an American-built In-telsat 708 satellite from the Xichang launch centerin China. However, just twenty-two seconds afterlaunch, the rocket strayed off its course and, be-fore it could be destroyed, slammed into a nearbyneighborhood, killing unknown numbers of peo-ple. One witness later reported that “thousands ofcorpses were loaded in dozens of trucks andburied in mass graves.” The technicians for Loral,the company that made the rocket, examined theremains and found a glitch in the guidance con-trol system that could only be fixed by usingAmerican technology that had never been sanc-tioned for foreign use by the American govern-ment. Despite the restrictions, Loral went aheadand used the patch. What no one knew was thatChina used the Long March 3B not only for satel-lite launches, but also for their intercontinentalballistic missiles—many of them aimed at theUnited States. Thus, an American company hadassisted the Chinese in making sure their missilescould be aimed better at the American nation.The Cox Report, which later examined the scandalas part of its mandate to investigate Chinese do-nations to the Democratic Party and spying in theUnited States, concluded:

Although Loral and Hughes were well aware that aState Department license was required to provideassistance related to the guidance system of a PRC[People’s Republic of China] rocket, neither com-pany applied for or obtained the required license.Loral was warned of the need for a license at thetime it agreed to participate in the investigation, buttook no action.

Loral and Hughes also failed to properly briefparticipants in the failure investigation of U.S. ex-port requirements, failed to monitor the investiga-tion as it progressed, and failed to take adequatesteps to ensure that no prohibited information waspassed to the PRC.

When word began to leak out that Loral hadused its Chinese contract to fix the satellites withAmerican technology, the Pentagon launched aninvestigation. After a year, these investigators con-

52 Chinagate

cluded that U.S. national security had beenharmed. It was at this same time that allegations ofcampaign finance violations by the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign came to light and were being in-vestigated. The fact that Clinton had taken cam-paign donations from a company that aided theChinese in making their nuclear missiles more re-liable was a stunning development that rocked thenation’s capital. In February 1997, however, Clin-ton added insult to injury by signing an ordermaking wholly legal the transfer of technologythat Loral had done—without U.S. governmentapproval or waiver. A writer for the magazineHuman Events wrote, “The greatest scandal of theClinton administration is that the President of theUnited States has sold out the national security in-terests of our country to Communist China.”

As outrage in Congress grew, a resolution wasenacted on 18 June 1998 establishing the SelectCommittee on U.S. National Security and Mili-tary/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Re-public of China to investigate the claims againstLoral and Hughes and to ascertain whether thelaws were loosened because of campaign dona-tions. The final report was issued on 25 May 1999.In it the committee explained that because othercongressional committees—including the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen-ator Fred Thompson (R-TN)—were investigatingcampaign finance abuses by the Clinton cam-paign, they were limited in their investigativesphere. Every witness that the committee calledexerted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and no firm evidence could befound linking the donations with the waivers.

In the end, no one from Loral or Hughes wentto prison, and the ties between Clinton and the do-nations were never conclusively established.

See also Clinton, William Jefferson; Cox Report; Gore,Albert Arnold, Jr.

References: Chapman, Michael,“An Inside Job atCommerce? Satellite Secrets Left Department withOfficial,” Investor’s Business Daily, 19 June 1998, A1,A28; Gertz, Bill, Betrayal: How the ClintonAdministration Undermined American Security(Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1999);Marcus, Ruth, and John Mintz,“Big Donor CallsFavorable Treatment a ‘Coincidence,’” WashingtonPost, 25 May 1998, A1; Timperlake, Edward, andWilliam C. Triplett II, Year of the Rat: How Bill ClintonCompromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash(Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1998).

Choate, Joseph Hodges (1832–1917)American lawyer and diplomat, a leader againstthe Tweed Ring and corruption in Tammany Hallin New York City. The youngest son of Dr. GeorgeChoate and Margaret Manning (née Hodges),Joseph Choate was born in Salem, Massachusetts,on 24 January 1832. He was descended from along line of New England pioneers, his distant rel-ative John Choate emigrating from England in1643 and settling in Massachusetts. GeorgeChoate was a graduate of Harvard, so he sent hissons there, including Joseph, who graduated in1852. That same year, Joseph entered the HarvardLaw School and two years later earned a law de-gree. He spent time finishing his education in theBoston office of Hodges and Saltonstall (of whichhis cousin was a partner), and in October 1855 hewas admitted to the Massachusetts bar. He movedto New York City and joined the law firm of Butler,Evarts & Southmayd. Because of his legal acu-men, within three years he was invited to becomea partner in the firm, renamed Evarts, Choate,Sherman and Léon.

Choate, Joseph Hodges 53

Lawyer and diplomat Joseph Hodges Choate. Choate, amember of the Committee of Seventy, spoke out against theexcesses of the Tweed Ring and corruption in New York City’sTammany Hall. (Library of Congress)

A Republican, Choate became one of the firstpersons with influence to be heard to speak outagainst the excesses of the ring of politiciansaround William M. Tweed. At a meeting of lumi-naries at the city’s Cooper Union on 4 September1871, Choate called for the formation of a councilto oppose the Tweed Ring. Thus, Choate became amember of the so-called Committee of Seventy,formed by seventy major personalities from allwalks of life in New York City to call for an end tothe reign of Tweed and his cronies. Because of hiswork in helping to bring down Tweed and hisgang, Choate became not only a legal luminary buta political one as well. In 1894 when TammanyHall again reared its corrupt head in the form of“Boss” Richard Croker, Choate once again steppedforward when he acted as a member of the “Com-mittee of Thirty” in opposition to Croker’s rule.And although he was a Republican, he was notagainst speaking out against corruption in his ownparty. In 1903 when Senator Thomas C. Platt (R-NY) was up for reelection, Choate consented torun as a protest candidate in opposition to Plattand “bossism.” Choate knew that Platt wielded ab-solute authority in the party, and his reelectionwas a foregone conclusion—but Choate desired torun anyway. As his biographer, Theron GeorgeStrong, later wrote, Choate said, “I told them Iwould run if I only got one vote. In fact I got seven,and I regarded that as a real triumph.” Choatenever held an elective office, but because of hislong career, he was named by President WilliamMcKinley as the U.S. ambassador to the Court ofSt. James (now called the ambassador to GreatBritain) where he served from 1899 until 1905.

Choate is considered one of America’s finestlegal minds. He served as president of the Ameri-can Society for the Judicial Settlement of Interna-tional Disputes and vice president of the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace. He arguednumerous cases before the United States SupremeCourt, including that of In re Neagle (135 U.S. 1), inwhich the Court exonerated a man who had killeda judge to protect a justice of the Supreme Court,and the famed Income Tax Cases (57 U.S. Y29; 158U.S. 601) before the court in 1895. In 1907 he wasone of two American representatives at the SecondPeace Congress at The Hague, the Netherlands.When World War I broke out, he harshly criticizedPresident Wilson for refusing to enter the war, but

he later apologized. Choate worked right up untilhis death on 14 May 1917 at the age of eighty-five.

References: Martin, Edward Sandford, The Life of JosephHodges Choate, As Gathered Chiefly from His Letters, 2vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920);Strong, Theron George, Joseph Choate, New Englander,New Yorker, Lawyer, Ambassador (New York: Dodd,Mead & Company, 1917), 88.

Cianci, Vincent A, Jr. (1941– )Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, (1991–2002)indicted and convicted of racketeering conspiracyin 2002 for his role in corruption uncovered in citycontracts. Cianci, despite his conviction, remains apopular politician in Providence. Born in that cityon 30 April 1941, he is the son of Dr. Vincent A.Cianci. He was educated at the Moses BrownSchool in Providence and later earned a bachelor’sdegree in government at Fairfield University inFairfield, Connecticut, a master’s degree at Vil-lanova University, and a J.D. degree from the Mar-quette University School of Law. In 1966 Cianci en-tered the U.S. Army, serving in the Military PoliceCorps until 1969 and until 1972 served in the U.S.Army Reserves, Civil Affairs Branch.

In 1967, while serving in the army, Cianci wasadmitted to the Rhode Island bar. Two years later,he was named a special assistant attorney generaland in 1973, when he left the army, he became themain prosecutor of the Rhode Island attorney gen-eral’s Anti-Corruption Strike Force, investigatingpolitical corruption in the state. He was holdingthat position in 1974 when he ran for and waselected mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, at theage of thirty-three, defeating a very popular in-cumbent, Joe Doorley. He was reelected in 1978 fora second four-year term and in 1982 for a two-yearterm after the city constitution was changed. In1984, after three terms, Cianci did not run for re-election when he admitted to assaulting a contrac-tor after having had an affair with the man’s wife.Cianci returned to private life, resumed his lawpractice, and for a time hosted a popular radio talkshow in Providence. In 1990, however, after sixyears out of power, Cianci once again ran formayor and was elected. He was reelected in 1992,1994, 1996, and 1998.

During his tenure as mayor, disturbing allega-tions of political corruption against Cianci arose.

54 Cianci, Vincent A, Jr.

In 1998 the federal government initiated Opera-tion Plunder Dome to investigate corruption in theProvidence City Hall. In July 1999 Cianci’s formerchief of staff, Frank Corrente, was indicted oncharges of extortion. Cianci, denying any ties tothe charges, told reporters, “I’m saddened by it.Frank is a friend of mine—I have a tremendousamount of sympathy for him and his family. I justcan’t believe—I don’t want to believe he did any-thing wrong, because I’ve never known him to doanything wrong.”

The Operation Plunder Dome investigationclosed in on Cianci. On 2 April 2001, a federalgrand jury indicted Cianci on charges of extortion,conspiracy, racketeering, money laundering, andtampering with a witness. The indictment ran forninety-seven pages. Cianci took a devil-may-careattitude at a press conference: “It’s ninety-sevenpages,” he said.“It goes on and on. I’m not afraid ofthis. Ninety-seven plus zero still equals zero.”

On 17 April 2002, Cianci went on trial withtwo other defendants: Corrente, his former chiefof staff; and Richard Autiello, a member of theProvidence Towing Association and owner of anautomobile company in Providence, who hadbeen indicted the same day as Corrente oncharges of racketeering conspiracy. (Cianci’s at-torney, Richard Egbert, had also served as coun-sel for another politician indicted for politicalcorruption: Rhode Island Governor EdwardDiPrete.) In closing arguments, Assistant U.S. At-torney Richard W. Rose told the jury that Cianci,using a local businessman, sold entry to city hall.“The evidence shows that the price of admissionwas often $5,000. . . . Want a job? Five thousand.Want to be on the [city’s official] tow list? Fivethousand. Want to grease the chairman of the taxboard? Five thousand. It was a city for sale, whereanything could be had for a price.” On 24 June2002, after nine days of deliberations, the juryfound Cianci, Corrente, and Autiello guilty ofracketeering conspiracy. Cianci was acquitted oneleven additional charges. Corrente was con-victed of six of sixteen counts, while Autiello wasconvicted of three of seven counts. Following theverdict, Cianci maintained his usual attitude.“That stain [of corruption] hasn’t stuck on myjacket yet.”

Racketeering conspiracy carries a maximumpenalty of twenty years in prison and/or $250,000

in fines. In September 2002 Cianci was sentencedto 64 months in prison and fined $100,000.

References: The author wishes to thank journalist BrianMooney for his assistance in writing this entry;“Convicted Providence Mayor Won’t Run Again,” USAToday, 26 June 2002, A3; Ferdinand, Pamela,“Providence Mayor Is Found Guilty,” Washington Post,25 June 2002, A2; Mooney, Brian C.,“Cianci FoundGuilty of Conspiracy: R.I Mayor Says He Has No Planto Quit Office,” The Boston Globe, 25 June 2002, A1.

Civil Service ActSee Pendleton Civil Service Act

Civil Service ReformSee Curtis, George William; Eaton, Dorman Bridg-man; Pendleton, George Hunt; Pendleton Civil Ser-vice Act.

Claiborne, Harry EugeneSee Claiborne v. United States

Claiborne v. United States, 465 U.S.1305 (1984)Supreme Court ruling decided on the narrowgrounds of whether a “sitting federal judgemay . . . be criminally prosecuted before being re-moved from office by impeachment” by the U.S.Senate. Judge Harry E. Claiborne, a federal judgeon the District Court for the District of Nevada,was indicted in December 1983 for taking bribes(violations of 18 U.S.C. § 201[c] and 18 U.S.C. §1343). To forestall going to jail before impeach-ment proceedings could be brought against him,Claiborne sought a ruling from the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals “that a sitting federal judge maynot be criminally prosecuted before being re-moved from office by impeachment, and that thegovernment prosecuted him in order to punishhim for decisions made as a federal judge.” Thecourt denied his appeal. Chief Justice Rehnquist(who was serving in rotation on the Ninth Circuitas a circuit judge) denied the appeal, simply ex-plaining,“I do not believe that four Justices of thisCourt would vote to grant certiorari to review anyone of these claims at the present stage of this liti-gation, and I therefore deny the application.” After

Claiborne v. United States 55

Claiborne was impeached, the U.S. Supreme Courtheld that a sitting federal judge could be im-peached and removed for taking bribes.

References: “Claiborne, Harry E.,” in Jay Robert Nash,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), II:717; Geer, Carri,“Ex-Judge’s Trial Rings Familiar: The Trial of FormerDistrict Judge Gerard Bongiovanni Parallels the Plightof a Past U.S. District Court Jurist,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 30 November 1997, A1; United States v.Claiborne 727 F.2d 842 (1984).

Clark, William Andrews (1839–1925)United States senator (1899–1900, 1901–1907)from Montana, resigned from the Senate when ac-cused of electoral misconduct and bribery, butwas reelected the following year to the same seat.Born on his family’s farm near the town of Con-nellsville, Pennsylvania, on 8 January 1839, An-drews was the son of Scotch-Irish immigrantsJohn and Mary (née Andrews) Clark. He attendedthe common schools of the area, as well as theLaurel Hill Academy, but much of his educationwas interrupted to work on his family’s farm. In1856 the Clarks moved to Iowa, and William Clarkfurthered his education there at an academy inBirmingham and studied law at the Iowa WesleyanUniversity in Mount Pleasant. He never received adegree from either of these institutions, but he didteach while he studied the law.

In 1862 Clark moved to Central City, Colorado,where he worked in the quartz mines nearby. Ayear later, he moved again, this time settling inBannack, Montana, a state with which he would beidentified for the remainder of his life. He workedas a placer miner in that town for two years, laterengaging in business pursuits in the mercantiletrade in the cities of Blackfoot and Helena, and inbanking in Deer Lodge. In 1877 he was named to astate battalion with the rank of major, which pur-sued Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce Indians to theBear Paw Mountains. A Democrat, Clark served aspresident of the state constitutional convention in1884 and of another convention in 1889 that con-sidered amendments to the state constitution.

In 1898 Clark was elected to the U.S. Senate forthe term commencing on 4 March 1899. Soonthere were allegations that he had used his finan-cial wherewithal to assist in his election. The Sen-

ate Committee on Privileges and Elections took upthe case in 1899. The Literary Digest, a summaryof contemporary journalistic thinking and writingin America in the latter nineteenth century andearly twentieth century, editorialized, “The testi-mony now being given before the Senate Commit-tee on Privileges and Elections in the hotly con-tested case of Senator Clark of Montana ‘isrevealing the seamy and corrupt side of Montanapolitics,’ says the Chicago Evening Post, ‘in a man-ner calculated to produce general disgust.’ TheWashington correspondent of the Boston Tran-script says that it ‘shows what a war between twonot overscrupulous multimillionaires can accom-plish for the political degradation of a common-wealth.’” The Senate Committee’s decision to stripClark of his seat was leaked, and, on 15 May 1900,Clark resigned before this could formally occur.However, to express outrage at the Senate’s deci-sion to force Clark out, Montana Governor RobertBurns Smith, a Democrat, named Clark to fill thevacancy caused by his own resignation, and Clarkreturned to the Senate, the only time in Americanhistory in which this situation has occurred. How-ever, the Senate once again stated that Clark couldnot hold his seat and declared it vacant. In 1901the Montana legislature elected Clark to fill this“vacancy,” and this time he was seated, serving afull six-year term until 3 March 1907. He was not acandidate for reelection. This time, there were noallegations of impropriety, or perhaps the Senatewas tired to trying to strip Clark of the seat.

After leaving the Senate, Clark resumed hisbusiness interests, which included banking, cop-per mining, and railroading. He moved to NewYork, where he died on 2 March 1925 at the age ofeighty-six and was buried in Woodlawn Cemeterythere. The William Andrews Clark Memorial Li-brary, on the campus of the University of Califor-nia at Los Angeles, was named in his honor by hisson, a noted book collector of the early twentiethcentury.

References: Butler,Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, UnitedStates Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases,1793–1990 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1995), 170–173; Foot, Forrest L.,“The SenatorialAspirations of William A. Clark, 1898–1901: A Study inMontana Politics”(Ph.D. dissertation, University ofCalifornia, 1941); Malone, Michael P.,“Midas of theWest: The Incredible Career of William AndrewsClark.”Montana: The Magazine of Western History 33

56 Clark, William Andrews

(Autumn 1983), 2–17;“The Montana SenatorialScandal,”The Literary Digest, XX:3 (20 January 1900),74; Phillips, Paul Chrisler,“Clark,William Andrews,” inAllen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds.,Dictionary of American Biography, (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), II:144–146.

Clayton, Powell (1833–1914)Governor of Arkansas (1868–1871), United Statessenator (1871–1877) from Arkansas, investigatedfor, but cleared of charges of corruption while hewas governor. Born in Bethel, Pennsylvania, on 7August 1833, he was the son of John Clayton, a sur-veyor, and Ann (née Clark) Clayton. He receivedhis education in the common schools of the areaand at the Partridge Military Academy in Bristol,Pennsylvania. He studied civil engineering inWilmington, Delaware, and after he moved toKansas in 1855 he made that field his life’s work,being appointed as the city engineer for Leaven-worth, Kansas, in 1857. (Some sources list this as1859, but his official congressional biographygives the 1857 date.)

When the Civil War broke out, Clayton volun-teered for service as a captain in the First KansasInfantry, rising to the rank of colonel in the FifthKansas Cavalry. He was sent to Missouri andArkansas and saw action at Little Rock. For hiswork in Arkansas, he was given the rank ofbrigadier general and mustered out of the Unionarmy on 24 August 1865. He then settled inArkansas and became a gentleman cotton planterin the town of Pine Bluff.

When a new constitution was promulgated forArkansas, an election for governor was ordered.During the war, Governor Harris Flanigan, a Con-federate sympathizer, had been removed from of-fice by Union forces, and Isaac Murphy, a Demo-crat and Unionist, was installed as provisionalgovernor, serving from 20 January 1864. Under thenew election laws, former Confederates werebarred from voting. Clayton, a Republican, ran un-opposed because the entire Democratic party inthe state had been run by Confederates. Despitehaving no opposition, Clayton campaigned on the“doctrines of loyalty, freedom, Negro rights, eco-nomic development, and free public education forboth races alike.” With his election as governor,and with a Republican legislature, Arkansas was

readmitted to the Union after ratifying the Thir-teenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Consti-tution. Dubbed a “carpetbagger” by his opponents,Clayton went after them with a vengeance. He de-clared martial law in the state and called out amilitia, composed of freed slaves, to hunt down theKu Klux Klan.

It was while he was governor that allegationsarose against Clayton that he had used statebonds to finance railroads to be built in the stateand that he had fraudulently won the 1868 elec-tion. Clayton was able to blunt any impeachmentproceedings because his party controlled the statesenate, and conviction was out of the question.Clayton wrote in his 1915 memoirs, The After-math of the Civil War, in Arkansas, “The primaryobject of the impeachment proceedings was tocause my suspension from office, the induction ofLieutenant-Governor [J. M.] Johnson to the Gu-bernatorial chair, and such delay in the prosecu-tion of the impeachment that I would have re-mained indefinitely out of office, while myenemies worked out their ulterior purposes. Thedisastrous failure of this whole conspiracy greatlystrengthened me with my party, as is shown bythe results of my second election to the UnitedStates Senate, which occurred on March 15, 1871,when I received a two-thirds majority on [a] jointballot: all Republicans—18 votes in the Senate—and 42 in the House.” Despite the allegationsagainst him, it was never proved that Clayton everdid anything wrong.

Clayton served in the U.S. Senate from 4 March1871 until 3 March 1877, which is one full six-yearterm. There, he served as the chairman of theCommittee on Enrolled Bills (Forty-third Con-gress) and of the Committee on Civil Service Re-trenchment (Forty-fourth Congress). After refus-ing a second term, he left politics and served as amember of the Republican National Committee.In 1897 President William McKinley named himU.S. minister to Mexico, replacing Matt W. Ran-som, who had served in the previous administra-tion. Clayton was promoted to ambassador in1898 and remained in Mexico until 26 May 1905,when he was replaced by Edwin H. Conger. He re-turned to Arkansas, where he remained untilmoving to Washington, D.C., in 1912. He diedthere two years later, on 25 August 1914, less thanthree weeks after his eighty-first birthday. For his

Clayton, Powell 57

wartime service to his nation, Clayton was laid torest in Arlington National Cemetery in Fort Myer,Virginia.

References: Butler, Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, UnitedStates Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases,1793–1990 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1995), 170–173; Clayton, Powell, TheAftermath of the Civil War in Arkansas (New York:Neale Publishing, 1915), 319–328; Driggs, OrvalTruman, Jr.,“The Issues of the Powell ClaytonRegime, 1868–1871,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly, 8(Spring 1949), 1–75; “Powell Clayton,” in Timothy P.Donovan, Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., and Jeannie M.Whayne, eds., The Governors of Arkansas: Essays inPolitical Biography (Fayetteville: University ofArkansas Press, 1995), 46–57; Swinney, Everette.“United States v. Powell Clayton: Use of the FederalEnforcement Acts in Arkansas.” Arkansas HistoricalQuarterly 26 (Summer 1967): 143–154; Thomas,David Y.,“Clayton, Powell,” in Allen Johnson andDumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography, X vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), II:187–188;Westwood, Howard C.“The Federals’ Cold Shoulder toArkansas’ Powell Clayton.” Civil War History 26(September 1980): 240–256.

Clean Politics Act of 1939See Hatch Act

Clinton, William Jefferson (1946– )Forty-second president of the United States(1993–2001) and only the second president inAmerican history to be impeached, in this case forallegedly lying before a federal grand jury investi-gating charges of obstruction of justice. Investi-gated for much of his time in office for such scan-dals as Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate,and an affair with an aide, Monica Lewinsky,which led to his impeachment, Clinton left officestill popular with the American people. He fin-ished his scandal-ridden tenure by issuing numer-ous pardons, many of which became highly con-troversial, leading to the scandal known asPardongate. Clinton was born William JeffersonBlythe IV in Hope, Arkansas, on 19 August 1946,the son of William Jefferson Blythe III, a travelingsalesman who was killed in an automobile acci-dent three months before his son was born, andVirginia (née Cassidy) Blythe. Virginia Blythe lefther son with her parents in Hope while she went to

New Orleans to finish her training to become anurse anesthetist. In 1950 William joined her inHot Springs, Arkansas, where she had moved aftermarrying Roger Clinton. When he was fifteenyears old, William Blythe took the name of hisstepfather, despite the fact that Clinton was an al-coholic who regularly beat William’s mother.

From an early age, Bill Clinton was interested instudent government, and in 1963, at age seventeen,he was able to journey to Washington, D.C., as partof Boy’s Nation, a student government and publicaffairs organization, where he met Senator JamesWilliam Fulbright of Arkansas, and, in a momentcaught on film, shook the hand of President JohnF. Kennedy. The following year, Clinton went toGeorgetown University in Washington, D.C., and atthe same time earned tuition money working forSenator Fulbright. Clinton graduated from George-town in 1968 with a bachelor of science degree ininternational affairs. He won a Rhodes Scholarshipand went to Oxford University in England, wherehe studied government, but did not earn a degree.It was during his time at Oxford that he received adraft notice, but he decided to enter the ReserveOfficers’ Training Corps (ROTC) instead. He thenasked to be let out of ROTC. Charges that hedodged the draft in this fashion would later comeback to haunt Clinton. After two years at Oxfordand his chances of being drafted had ended, Clin-ton returned to the United States, where he beganlaw school at Yale University. While attending Yale,he worked for the election of Joseph I. Liebermanto the U.S. Senate and met a fellow student, HillaryRodham, whom he later married.

After receiving his law degree from Yale in1973, Clinton returned to Arkansas, where for atime he taught law at the University of Arkansas atFayetteville. In 1974 he decided to enter politicsand ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representa-tives from Arkansas’ Third District. His outlookseemed bright: the resignation of PresidentRichard M. Nixon, caught in the wake of the Water-gate scandal, made the country sour on Republi-cans. However, Clinton challenged a strong Repub-lican incumbent, Representative John PaulHammerschmidt, and lost that race. However,Clinton finished with 48.5 percent of the vote, los-ing by the narrowest margins ever against the pop-ular Hammerschmidt. The experience gave Clin-ton new impetus to continue in Arkansas politics.

58 Clean Politics Act of 1939

In 1975 he decided to run for state attorney gen-eral. Defeating a field of strong candidates andcapturing the Democratic nomination with 56percent of the vote, Clinton was able to avoid arunoff and, with no Republican opposition, waselected. In 1976 he served as the coordinator forJimmy Carter’s presidential campaign in Arkan-sas. Just two years later, Clinton decided to run forgovernor. Only thirty-two years old, he nonethelesscampaigned as a populist, opposing a tax cut. Hedefeated Republican State Chairman Lynn Lowe inthe general election and became, with the excep-tion of John Seldon Roane (1849–1852), theyoungest governor in Arkansas history. In his firstterm, Clinton set out an ambitious agenda of fixingroads, increasing teacher salaries, and instituting asystem of health care in Arkansas. However, a se-ries of events beyond his control, as well as onewithin his control, doomed his tenure. Riots byCuban refugees, housed by the U.S. government atFort Chafee, Arkansas, and a number of naturaldisasters plagued the state. But Clinton’s raising oftaxes on common goods, in the midst of a nationaleconomic slowdown, cost him support. In 1980,running for reelection, he was upset by Republicanbusinessman Frank White.

In 1982 Clinton decided to make a comeback.He aired television commercials in which he apol-ogized for the errors he made in his first term andasked for the forgiveness of the voters. The tacticworked: Clinton won the Democratic nomination,and, with 55 percent of the vote, defeated White tobecome the first governor in Arkansas history toreturn to office after being voted out. Havinglearned the lessons that led to his defeat in 1980,Clinton decided to push a more moderate and lessambitious agenda, this time emphasizing slowerbut more attainable goals in education, environ-mental protection, and siding against tax raises ongas and diesel fuel (his veto was overridden by thestate legislature). This slower, more moderate ap-proach won the voters over, and Clinton was re-elected to another two-year term in 1984. In 1986with the state constitution changed to allow for afour-year term, Clinton was reelected and becamea rising star in the Democratic Party. Despite hisdreadfully long speech (for which he was booed)at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in At-lanta, Clinton’s star continued to rise. After his re-election in 1990, many believed that Clinton would

run for president, despite his promise that hewould serve out his term as governor.

On 3 October 1991, Clinton announced that hewould seek the Democratic nomination for presi-dent. Many considered the move folly, mainly be-cause President George H. W. Bush, the incum-bent, stood at record high numbers in publicapproval polls after the Persian Gulf War.Nonetheless, Clinton entered the race. As theAmerican economy sputtered, and Bush’s num-bers dropped, the battle for the Democratic presi-dential nomination heated up between Clinton,former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachu-setts, and Senator Robert Kerrey of Nebraska.Clinton’s chances seemed to take a hit when twoscandals enveloped his campaign: the idea that hemay have dodged the draft during the VietnamWar, and allegations that he had been having along-time relationship with a lounge singer, Gen-nifer Flowers. Clinton denied both stories, butthey bit into his poll numbers. He slid into secondplace in New Hamsphire, a critical state, but he re-covered, went on to win a series of important pri-maries and in August 1992 accepted the nomina-tion of his party to be president. He selectedSenator Albert A. Gore Jr. of Tennessee as his run-ning mate, defying political wisdom by selectinganother Southerner to be on the ticket. Republi-can President Bush and billionaire businessmanH. Ross Perot, running on a third-party ticket, at-tacked Clinton and his handling of Arkansas dur-ing his tenure. They pointed to more than 120 taxincreases in ten years, with results showingArkansas at the bottom of every economic andeducational measurement scale in the nation.Bush characterized Clinton as a “failed governorof a small state.” Despite these charges Arkansashad made steady progress in many areas, withClinton’s initiatives in education and health lead-ing the way. The American economy was the keyissue of the 1992 campaign, and with the nationin recession, the voters looked for an alternative.On 3 November 1992, Clinton won the election,garnering 43 percent of the vote in a three-wayrace, besting Bush’s 38 percent and Perot’s 19 per-cent, the second largest vote for an independentcandidate in American history. Clinton, at forty-six years old, was one of the youngest men to be-come president. However, in order to win the elec-tion, Clinton had made several back room deals,

Clinton, William Jefferson 59

Editorial cartoon showing President Bill Clinton walking a tightrope by using the budget on one hand and Monica Lewinsky on theother. (Library of Congress)

particularly with foreign sources, and these wouldcome back to haunt his entire administration.

Soon after taking office, Clinton was forced todeal with allegations that he and his wife had prof-ited illegally from a series of investments in a landscheme called Whitewater. Although he resistedpressure to do so for a long time, in the end he re-lented and asked that Attorney General Janet Renoappoint an independent counsel to clear up thematter. Soon, another scandal hit, when PaulaCorbin Jones, a former Arkansas state employee,filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton, al-leging that as governor, Clinton had demandedsexual favors from her in exchange for better posi-tions in the state government. The case went to theU.S. Supreme Court, which eventually allowed thecase to proceed while Clinton was in office. Clintonwas also hit with the so-called Chinagate scandal.In 1994 allegations arose that Clinton’s adminis-tration was giving favorable treatment to compa-nies that had given his campaign financial supportin exchange for loosening regulations on shippingsensitive technology to Communist China. Thisscandal led to an independent counsel investiga-tion of Clinton’s secretary of commerce, RonBrown, and the congressional investigation thatculminated in the release of the Cox Report.

Dissatisfaction with Clinton’s efforts to solvethe nation’s health care crisis and tax hikes passedby Democrats in Congress led to the Republicanstaking control of both houses of Congress after themidterm elections in 1994. Clinton feared that hisreelection in 1996 was not at all assured.

Advised that he needed to raise as muchmoney as possible and go on the attack againsthis Republican opponents as early as possible,Clinton went on a crusade to collect campaign do-nations from every conceivable source. As laterdocumented in an investigation by the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee, Clinton andVice President Gore used fund-raising methodsthat even Clinton’s defenders called embarrassing:offering overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroomin the White House to big dollar donors; holdingmeetings (called “coffees”) in the White Houseduring which donations were solicited; makingcalls from government offices to ask for dona-tions; taking money from foreign sources, partic-ularly from the Chinese; allowing Secretary ofCommerce Ron Brown (who was killed in a plane

crash in 1995) to take donors on “trade missions”where they could get official American backingfor expanding their businesses overseas. At thesame time these events were occurring, Clintonwas carrying on a secret affair with a young WhiteHouse intern, Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton went on to a landslide reelection vic-tory in November 1996 and became the first Dem-ocrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win asecond term. Prior to this victory, however, storiesbegan to leak out about Chinese money making itsway into Clinton’s 1996 campaign. These storiesmay well have cost the Democrats control of theHouse of Representatives that year. Just after Clin-ton was inaugurated a second time, stories of theovernight stays, Chinese money, and other ques-tionable fund-raising tactics hit the press. Clintontold reporters that he had remained “within theletter of the law,” but questions persisted. In 1997the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, ledby Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, Republican ofTennessee, investigated the allegations that Clin-ton had funded his 1996 campaign with illegalChinese contributions. This investigation, as wellas that conducted by the Select Committee on U.S.National Security and Military/Commercial Con-cerns with the People’s Republic of China, alsoknown as the Cox Committee, demonstrated thatClinton had both solicited and accepted illegal for-eign funds for his 1996 race and was allowingAmerican firms to aid China with missile technol-ogy in exchange for campaign donations as well.The allegations also tarred Vice President Gore. Inthe end, neither man faced prosecution for the al-leged crimes. Critics contend this was because At-torney General Janet Reno, in charge of the investi-gations relating specifically to campaign financeabuses, refused to name a special counsel to lookinto the matter.

In January 1998 the Monica Lewinsky affairbroke in the press and nearly led to Clinton’s re-moval. Clinton had been carrying on an affair witha White House intern; however, when questionedabout it in relation to a lawsuit by former Arkansasworker Paula Jones, he denied it. Jones had ap-pealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to beable to continue her lawsuit for sexual harassmentduring Clinton’s term in office, and the SupremeCourt had agreed in a landmark decision. Clintonunderwent strict questioning by Jones’s attorneys,

Clinton, William Jefferson 61

and under oath he lied about matters relating toLewinsky and gifts he had given her.

Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel whowas investigating the Whitewater affair, wascharged by Attorney General Reno to investigatewhether Clinton had suborned perjury and ob-structed justice in the Lewinsky matter. At first,Clinton denied having an affair with Lewinsky,asking her to lie, or to cover up or obstruct any in-vestigation. Clinton’s supporters accused Starr, aRepublican who had served as solicitor general inthe George Bush administration, of conducting avendetta against Clinton. But during months of in-vestigation, Starr was able to ascertain that Clintonindeed did have an affair with Lewinsky, and hecharged Clinton with lying under oath and ob-structing justice.

As per the statute, when an independent coun-sel finds evidence of an impeachable offense, he orshe must make a report to the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives spelling out the charges in preparationfor an impeachment inquiry. Starr did just this,and for the first time since Andrew Johnson in1868, an impeachment inquiry was begun againsta sitting American president. The American publicbecame disenchanted with the investigation, andin November 1998 handed Democrats a largenumber of congressional seats in the midtermelections. Despite this, the Republican majoritywent forward with impeachment hearings and on19 December 1998, impeached Clinton on four ar-ticles alleging perjury and obstruction of justice.For the first time in American history, an electedpresident underwent an impeachment trial in theU.S. Senate, at that time led by Republicans by afifty-five to forty-five margin.

However, Democrats held firm in their beliefthat Clinton was not guilty of impeachable of-fenses, making conviction by the required two-thirds vote—or sixty-seven senators—an impos-sibility. On 12 February 1999, the Senate acquittedClinton on both charges. However, a federal judgehearing the Jones case found Clinton to be in con-tempt of court and fined him $90,000 for givingfalse testimony before a federal judge, makingClinton the first president to be so cited.

As Clinton prepared to leave office, a final scan-dal erupted that tainted him and First Lady HillaryRodham Clinton, who had been elected to a U.S.Senate seat from New York in 2000. Part of a presi-

dent’s power is that of granting pardons. On hisfinal day in office, 20 January 2001, Clinton par-doned numerous felons, including Marc Rich, a fin-ancier who had fled the country and was hiding inEurope from charges of illegal commodities trad-ing, as well as trading with enemies of the UnitedStates, and Carlos Vignali, a drug dealer who wasserving a long sentence in prison for importingdrugs.After Clinton left office, it was discovered thatRich’s wife, as well as Vignali’s father, had givenlarge amounts of cash both to the Democratic Partyand to the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.An uproar ensued, and further allegations that tiedin Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, andClinton’s brother, Roger Clinton, in taking kickbacksfor pardons, were uncovered. The Kansas City Starwas one of a number of American newspapers thateditorialized against the pardons, “Of all Bill Clin-ton’s questionable actions during his eight years inoffice, his last-minute pardon of fugitive commodi-ties trader Marc Rich stands as one of Clinton’smost abhorrent abuses of presidential power.”

In August 2001, after being out of the spotlightsince leaving office, Clinton signed a $10 millionbook deal with Alfred A. Knopf, the largest advancefor a nonfiction book. He remains one of the Demo-cratic Party’s luminaries and is expected in the com-ing years to speak out and write on many issues.

See also Campaign Finance Scandal; Chinagate; CoxReport; Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr.; “Filegate”;Pardongate; Starr, Kenneth Winston; Tucker, JamesGuy, Jr.; Whitewater

References: “[Editorial:] Marc Rich Deserved No Mercy,”Kansas City Star, 27 January 2001, C1; Gertz, Bill,Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration UnderminedAmerican Security (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1999);Timperlake, Edward, and William C. Triplett II, Year ofthe Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security forChinese Cash (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1998); U.S.Congress, Senate, Proceedings of the United StatesSenate in the Impeachment Trial of President WilliamJefferson Clinton, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1999), I:18–19;“William JeffersonClinton,” in Timothy P. Donovan,Willard B. GatewoodJr., and Jeannie M.Whayne, eds., The Governors ofArkansas: Essays in Political Biography (Fayetteville:University of Arkansas Press, 1995), 261–275.

Code of Official ConductSeries of rules, promulgated by Congress in 1999and published as Rule 23 of the House of Represen-

62 Code of Official Conduct

tatives Rules Manual (House Document 106-320).The code reads:

Rule XXIII—Code of Official ConductThere is hereby established by and for the House

the following code of conduct, to be known as the“Code of Official Conduct”:

1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House shall conduct him-self at all times in a manner that shall reflect cred-itably on the House.

2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to thespirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and tothe rules of duly constituted committees thereof.

3. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House may not receivecompensation and may not permit compensation toaccrue to his beneficial interest from any source, thereceipt of which would occur by virtue of influenceimproperly exerted from his position in Congress.

4. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House may not acceptgifts except as provided by clause 5 of rule XXV.

5. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House may not accept anhonorarium for a speech, a writing for publication,or other similar activity, except as otherwise pro-vided under rule XXV.

6. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-sioner–

(a) shall keep his campaign funds separate fromhis personal funds;

(b) may not convert campaign funds to personaluse in excess of an amount representing reimburse-ment for legitimate and verifiable campaign expen-ditures; and

(c) may not expend funds from his campaignaccount that are not attributable to bona fide cam-paign or political purposes.

7. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-sioner shall treat as campaign contributions all pro-ceeds from testimonial dinners or other fund-rais-ing events.

8. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-sioner, or officer of the House may not retain anemployee who does not perform duties for the of-fices of the employing authority commensuratewith the compensation he receives.

(b) In the case of a committee employee whoworks under the direct supervision of a member ofthe committee other than a chairman, the chairmanmay require that such member affirm in writingthat the employee has complied with clause 8(a)

(subject to clause 9 of rule X) as evidence of com-pliance by the chairman with this clause and withclause 9 of rule X.

(c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2) aMember, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner maynot retain his spouse in a paid position; and an em-ployee of the House may not accept compensationfor work for a committee on which his spouseserves as a member.

(2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply in the caseof a spouse whose pertinent employment predatesthe One Hundred Seventh Congress.

9. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,officer, or employee of the House may not dischargeand may not refuse to hire an individual, or other-wise discriminate against an individual with re-spect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privi-leges of employment, because of the race, color,religion, sex (including marital or parental status),disability, age, or national origin of such individual,but may take into consideration the domicile or po-litical affiliation of such individual.

10. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-sioner who has been convicted by a court of recordfor the commission of a crime for which a sentenceof two or more years’ imprisonment may be im-posed should refrain from participation in the busi-ness of each committee of which he is a member,and a Member should refrain from voting on anyquestion at a meeting of the House or of the Com-mittee of the Whole House on the state of theUnion, unless or until judicial or executive proceed-ings result in reinstatement of the presumption ofhis innocence or until he is reelected to the Houseafter the date of such conviction.

11. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-sioner may not authorize or otherwise allow anindividual, group, or organization not under thedirection and control of the House to use thewords “Congress of the United States,”“House ofRepresentatives,” or “Official Business,” or anycombination of words thereof, on any letterheador envelope.

12. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), anemployee of the House who is required to file a re-port under rule XXVI may not participate person-ally and substantially as an employee of the Housein a contact with an agency of the executive or judi-cial branches of Government with respect to non-legislative matters affecting any nongovernmentalperson in which the employee has a significant fi-nancial interest.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply if an em-ployee first advises his employing authority of a

Code of Official Conduct 63

significant financial interest described in para-graph (a) and obtains from his employing author-ity a written waiver stating that the participationof the employee in the activity described in para-graph (a) is necessary. A copy of each such waivershall be filed with the Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct.

13. Before a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-missioner, officer, or employee of the House mayhave access to classified information, the followingoath (or affirmation) shall be executed:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will notdisclose any classified information received in thecourse of my service with the House of Representa-tives, except as authorized by the House of Repre-sentatives or in accordance with its Rules.”

Copies of the executed oath (or affirmation)shall be retained by the Clerk as part of the recordsof the House. The Clerk shall make signatures amatter of public record, causing the names of eachMember, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner whohas signed the oath during a week (if any) to bepublished in a portion of the Congressional Recorddesignated for that purpose on the last legislativeday of the week and making cumulative lists ofsuch names available each day for public inspectionin an appropriate office of the House.

14. (a) In this Code of Official Conduct, the term“officer or employee of the House” means an indi-vidual whose compensation is disbursed by theChief Administrative Officer.

(b) An individual whose services are compen-sated by the House pursuant to a consultant con-tract shall be considered an employee of the Housefor purposes of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 13 of thisrule. An individual whose services are compensatedby the House pursuant to a consultant contract maynot lobby the contracting committee or the mem-bers or staff of the contracting committee on anymatter. Such an individual may lobby other Mem-bers, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner orstaff of the House on matters outside the jurisdic-tion of the contracting committee.

References: House Rules Manual (House Document No.106-320), 107th Congress (1999), 861–865.

Coelho, Anthony Lee (1942– )United States representative from California(1979–1989) implicated in potential ethics viola-tions involving campaign finance and a “junkbond” deal, who resigned his seat before an ethics

investigation could begin. Coelho was also in-volved in shady dealings that cast a shadow overhis short tenure as general chairman of the AlGore for President Campaign in 2000. Coelho wasborn in the town of Los Banos, California, on 15June 1942, the grandson of Portuguese immi-grants. He was raised on his parents’ dairy farm inthe central valley region of California. He attendedthe schools of another town, Dos Palos, before heentered Loyola University and received his bache-lor of arts degree in 1964, becoming the first mem-ber of his family to attend college. Out of college,he worked for the entertainer Bob Hope, who sawpromise in the young man and urged him to go towork for the local congressman. Coelho had beendiagnosed as an epileptic, and this affliction pre-vented him from entering the priesthood. (The1917 Code of Canon Law states,“Qui epileptici velamentes vel a daemone possessi sunt vel fuer-ent”—meaning that those with epilepsy or pos-sessed by the devil would not be subject to ordina-tion.) Thus politics seemed the best route for theyoung man. The following year, Coelho began ser-ving on the staff of Representative Bernie Sisk ofCalifornia, where he worked until 1978, rising tobecome Sisk’s administrative assistant in 1970.From 1971 to 1972, Coelho served as the staff di-rector of the House Agriculture Committee’s Sub-committee on Cotton. He also served as the staffcoordinator for the House Subcommittee onBroadcasting of the House Rules Committee andon the House Select Committee on ProfessionalSports. A Democrat, he served as a delegate to theDemocratic National Convention in 1976, 1980,1984, and 1988. Of his congressional staff work,Coelho said in a 1988 interview,“I fell in love with[it] . . . I fell in love with the fact that you could re-ally change people’s lives. I realized I could domuch more in this job that I could as a priest.”

In 1978 Sisk declined to run for reelection, andCoelho ran for and won the seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives, representing California’s Fif-teenth Congressional District. He served from 3January 1979 until his resignation on 15 June1989. He rose to become a star in his party, servingas head of the Democratic Congressional Cam-paign Committee (DCCC) from 1981 to 1986, andassisting his party in raising millions of dollars tohelp elect Democrats to Congress. He changed thefocus of fund-raising; despite being a liberal,

64 Coelho, Anthony Lee

Coelho appealed to business groups as opposed toonly labor groups. But as chairman of the DCCC,Coelho stretched the bounds of ethics. He becamethe first congressional campaign fundraiser to ac-cept “soft money”—that is, unregulated donationsfrom persons, corporations, or unions that do notfall under limits imposed by federal law. For assist-ing the Democrats to hold their majority in the1986 and 1988 elections, Coelho was chosen asMajority Whip in the 101st Congress (1989–1991).

Starting in 1987, questions about Coelho’s fi-nancial dealings began to surface. They culmi-nated in a story in Newsweek magazine allegingthat Coelho had violated House rules and federallaw in his dealings with a savings and loan bank inTexas. As head of the DCCC in 1986, Coelho usedthe bank’s yacht for DCCC fundraisers costing$25,184. House rules put a cap on such gifts at$100.As well, federal law prohibits a political com-mittee from receiving more than $15,000 from anyone source. Coelho refused to comment on theNewsweek story.Another allegation involved a pur-chase in 1986 of a $100,000 “junk bond” by Coelhofrom Thomas Spiegel, the chairman of the Colum-bia Savings & Loan Association, a California insti-tution that was in financial trouble. An investiga-tion revealed that Spiegel had purchased the bondin his own name and then offered it to Coelho atbelow-market rates and that Coelho then failed toreport the loan on his financial disclosure formthat was filed with the government. The Depart-ment of Justice started an investigation into the al-legations. Sensing that he was in trouble, Coelhoresigned from Congress on 15 June 1989, and theDepartment of Justice later ruled that it would notbring charges against the Californian. Coelho wasprivately destroyed by the allegations and his res-ignation, having been considered a leading candi-date to become Speaker of the House someday.Friends rallied around Coelho, and a few monthslater he went to work for Wertheim Schroder &Co., a New York investment bank.

For the next several years, Coelho worked in theprivate sector. One of his actions was to serve ashead of the American mission to the 1998 WorldExposition in Lisbon, Portugal. It was here thatCoelho came under additional fire: while servingas head of the mission, Coelho allegedly used hisposition to negotiate a loan for $300,000 that henever reported on his federal financial disclosure

report. The loan, obtained from the president ofBanco Espirito Santo, a bank in Lisbon, was tohelp Coehlo manage the work of the Luso-Ameri-can Wave Foundation, which Coelho formed inApril 1998. This foundation’s aims were to raisefunds to build “The Wave,” a huge blue-tiled andstainless-steel sculpture to be exhibited at the U.S.Pavilion at the World Exposition. Under the Ethicsin Government Act, Coelho was required to list theloan on his financial disclosure report. The law isclear that “failing to report required information”is a crime, committed by one “who knowingly andwillfully fails to file or report any information re-quired.” This information was not made publicuntil 1999, when Coelho was already serving asthe campaign manager for Vice President Al Gore’s2000 election campaign. In October 1999 the StateDepartment’s Office of Inspector General releaseda report criticizing not only the loan, but Coelho’smanagement of the world’s fair pavilion. It harshlycriticized the loan, which went unpaid; as well,Coelho had leased for himself (at government ex-pense), a four-bedroom, $18,000-a-month water-front condominium in Lisbon, the records forwhich were destroyed prior to the government ex-amination. The audit also discovered numerous“questionable payments” that Coelho had doledout to people working on the pavilion, includingairline tickets provided at government expenseand the hiring of Coelho’s niece by the pavilion at$2,500 a month to assist Coelho’s deputy.

On 11 May 1999, to assist his flagging presiden-tial campaign, Gore had selected Coelho to serveas his campaign manager. Coelho was known asthe “king of soft money donations” during hisreign from 1981 to 1986 as the chairman of theDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee.On 2 October 1999, the allegations by the State De-partment were leaked by the Center for Public In-tegrity, a political watchdog group. Gore, appear-ing on CBS’s Face the Nation the following day,reacted to the report by strongly backing Coelho.“Ihaven’t seen the report,” Gore said, “but I knowhim, and he is going to continue doing the terrificjob he’s been doing as my campaign chair.” How-ever, as Gore’s campaign continued to sag in thepolls, and the heat of the State Department investi-gation continued, Gore looked for an easy way tobe rid of his campaign manager. On 15 June 2000,after being hospitalized with stomach pains,

Coelho, Anthony Lee 65

Coelho announced that he was stepping down ascampaign manager, to be replaced by Secretary ofCommerce Bill Daley. “My doctors have told methat I need to slow down, eat better and travel lessfor a period of time,” Coelho said in a statement.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 839; Connolly, Ceci,“Daley toChair Gore Campaign, Commerce Secretary Steps inafter Coelho Quits, Citing Health,” Washington Post, 16June 2000, A1; Lavelle, Marianne, and Kenneth T.Walsh,“Al Gore’s Risky Asset: Tony Coelho’sControversial Business Life May Prove to be aLiability,” U.S. News & World Report 127:23 (13December 1999), 31–36; United States InformationAgency, Office of Inspector General, Report of Audit,Review of Planning and Management of Lisbon Expo98 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1999).

Colfax, Schuyler, Jr. (1823–1885)Vice president of the United States (1869–1873) im-plicated but never charged in the Crédit Mobilierscandal, although he lost the vice presidency be-cause of the allegations. Colfax was born in NewYork City on 23 March 1823, the son of SchuylerColfax Sr. and Hannah (née Stryker) Colfax.Schuyler Colfax Jr. (he was never called “Junior” byany of his contemporaries, and biographies of himdo not mention this addition to his name) camefrom a family of distinguished members. Hisgrandfather, a veteran of the American Revolutionand a friend of George Washington, married Han-nah Schuyler, the daughter of General PhilipSchuyler. They named one of their sons Washingtonand another Schuyler. Schuyler Colfax Sr. became abank teller in New York City and married HannahStryker, a widow who ran a boardinghouse. Whenshe was pregnant with their son, Schuyler Colfax Sr.developed tuberculosis and died, two months be-fore his son, named after him, was born. The juniorColfax attended public schools in New York City,quitting at age ten to go to work as a clerk in a retailstore to help support his mother and grandmother.In 1836 his mother married George W. Matthews,owner of a store in New Carlisle, Indiana, and thatyear Colfax and his mother joined her new husbandthere. Schuyler Colfax would be identified with In-diana for the remainder of his life.

In 1841 Colfax entered the political realm. Hisstepfather Matthews was elected county auditor

for Joseph County (South Bend), Indiana, and henamed Colfax as his deputy. The young Colfaxwatched the debates in the state legislature and be-came an expert in parliamentary matters. At thesame time, Colfax desired to become a journalistand he wrote to Horace Greeley, the famed editorof the New York Tribune, asking to become a corre-spondent for Greeley’s paper. Greeley decided toinclude Colfax’s writings on the Indiana legisla-ture, and the two men also began a friendship thatwould last until Greeley’s death in 1872. Colfaxalso reported on the doings in the state legislaturefor the Indiana State Journal and, when he wasnineteen, was asked to become the editor of theWhig journal The South Bend Free Press. In 1844Colfax married, purchased the Free Press outright,and renamed it the St. Joseph Valley Register. It es-poused Whig principles, particularly the beliefs ofSenator Henry Clay, Whig of Kentucky. In 1848Colfax served as a delegate to the National WhigConvention and as a representative to the stateconvention in 1849 that drafted a new state consti-tution for Indiana. In 1851 Colfax was nominatedby the Whigs for a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives from the Ninth Indiana District, but lostnarrowly to the incumbent, Democrat GrahamNewell Fitch. By 1852 Colfax was disenchantedwith the proslavery leanings of the Whig Party(particularly the party’s stand on forcing Nebraskainto the Union as a proslavery state). In 1854 heran for a seat in Congress under the “Anti-Nebraska” banner. (Some congressional historieslist Colfax as the Republican candidate in that par-ticular election.) Winning easily over the pro-Nebraska Democrat, Colfax took his seat in theThirty-fourth Congress (4 March 1855). He wouldwin reelection six more times, serving until 3March 1869. In Congress, Colfax was an amiableman; his colleagues dubbed him “Smiler” Colfax.Although some historians consider it a mark of af-fection, others consider it a gibe. He joined the Re-publican Party, and rose in that party’s hierarchy,serving as chairman of the Post Office Committee.In November 1863 Representative Galusha A.Grow (R-PA), who had been Speaker of the House,was defeated. The following month when theHouse convened, Colfax was elected Speaker. Hewould hold the position through the remainder ofthe Civil War and until the end of the first sessionof the Fortieth Congress.

66 Colfax, Schuyler, Jr.

During his more than five years as Speaker,Colfax was a Radical Republican, helping theHouse to pass a number of measures that im-posed strict Reconstruction on the postwarSouth. He clashed with President Andrew Johnsonover Reconstruction policy and presided over theimpeachment vote that led to the first impeach-ment of a president in the nation’s history. Colfaxwas a strong supporter of the railroads and led acongressional tour of the nation of the railroads atthe behest of President Abraham Lincoln shortlybefore Lincoln’s assassination. It was this interestthat led to Colfax’s downfall. He was a leader inpushing for massive congressional appropriationsto help construct a transcontinental railroad. Thecompany that was reaping the rewards from gov-ernment largesse, the Union Pacific Railroad, wasbeing funded by a company called the Crédit Mo-bilier of America. What few outside of govern-ment knew was that the Crédit Mobilier wasmerely a shell corporation, designed to funnel alarge amount of the government funds to richbenefactors. To keep the congressional leadersquiet, one of the members of the Crédit Mobilier,Representative Oakes Ames (R-MA), was offeringstock in the Union Pacific to these leaders. One ofthose who benefited was Colfax. Over the years, hebuilt up a tidy fortune in stock, which went up invalue as he voted for more congressional appro-priations for the railroad.

As the 1868 election drew near, Colfax consid-ered running for a seat in the U.S. Senate or forgovernor of Indiana, but decided to hold his con-gressional seat and remain Speaker. At the Repub-lican National Convention in Chicago, GeneralUlysses S. Grant was nominated unanimously onthe first ballot. Then the party turned to the vicepresidential nomination. Senator Benjamin Wadeof Ohio led in the balloting, followed by GovernorReuben E. Fenton of New York, Senator Henry Wil-son of Massachusetts, and Colfax last. Over thenext four ballots, Fenton and Wilson faded, leavingWade in a battle with Colfax. On the fifth ballot,Fenton and Wilson backers moved their support toColfax, and, on the sixth ballot, Colfax won thenomination overwhelmingly. The man who wasborn two months after the death of his father andwho had left school at age ten to work as a clerkhad been nominated for vice president of theUnited States. The election in November was a

landslide: Grant defeated Democrat Horatio Sey-mour, former Governor of New York, by 214 elec-toral votes to 80, and Colfax became the vice presi-dent of the United States. At that time, he marriedEllen Wade, niece of Senator Benjamin Wade.

During his four years as vice president, Colfaxserved as the Senate president pro tem in the silentrole given the vice president by law. A history ofthe office, written by the U.S. Senate Historical Of-fice, explains, “The first Speaker of the House everelected vice president (a previous former Speaker,James K. Polk, had won the presidency in 1844),Colfax moved easily to the Senate chamber as aman long familiar with the ways of Capitol Hill.The Senate proved an easier body to preside over,leaving him with time on his hands to travel, lec-ture, and write for the press. The IndianapolisJournal observed that ‘the Vice Presidency is an el-egant office whose occupant must find it is hisprincipal business to try and discover what is theuse of there being such an office at all.’” Despitethe lack of duties for Colfax, many inside and out-side the Republican Party believed that Grantwould step aside in 1872 and allow Colfax to benominated for president, with Senator CharlesSumner of Massachusetts as his running mate.

By 1871, however, rumbles about the CréditMobilier began to come back to haunt the vicepresident. Rumors that he had been one of thosewho had received stock in the Crédit Mobilier, atthat time ready to go bankrupt, caused many Re-publicans to rethink having him on a nationalticket. The Grant administration was mired in nu-merous scandals, but Grant decided he shouldrun for a second term and replace Colfax withSenator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts. To out-siders, it appeared when Wilson replaced theforty-nine-year-old Colfax that simple politicswas at play. Near the end of the campaign, a list ofthe senators and congressmen who received stockwas handed over to the New York Sun, a Demo-crat-leaning newspaper that published the listand correspondence from Representative Ames.On the list were Colfax and Senator Wilson, as wellas many other high-ranking Republicans. Amesand the others denied any role in the Crédit Mo-bilier affair. After the election, however, which waswon by Grant, an investigation was begun in bothhouses of Congress. Speaker of the House JamesG. Blaine, implicated himself, was forced to step

Colfax, Schuyler, Jr. 67

aside. A committee, chaired by RepresentativeLuke Poland of Vermont, investigated the allega-tions against the House members, including thoseagainst Colfax, which were alleged to have hap-pened while he was a member of the House. On 7January 1873, while still sitting as vice president,Colfax appeared before the Poland committee totestify. Despite the fact that the committee hadcorrespondence from Ames showing that Colfaxwas paid in stock, whose dividends he later usedto buy more stock, Colfax denied to the end thatany stock was not paid for from his own funds.Colfax, when shown a check with his signature onit, claimed that Ames had forged his signature.When the check, for $1,200, was correspondedwith a deposit in the same amount into Colfax’sbank account, he claimed that he had received$1,200 in funds from other people, including$1,000 from a contributor, George F. Nesbitt, whohad since died. This opened the way for the inves-tigation into how Nesbitt was able to get a lucra-tive contract for supplying the government withenvelopes—a contract that came from the HousePost Office Committee, chaired by Colfax. Imme-diately, plans were drawn up for the impeachmentof Colfax. However, as Colfax had just a few weeksremaining in his term, the House refused to im-peach him on a strict party-line vote. Colfax’s po-litical career was over.

Disgraced, Colfax became a writer and lecturerand in his last years made more money in thesepositions than he did as vice president. He was inMankato, Minnesota, on a lecture, when he sud-denly died, probably of heart failure, at the age ofsixty-one. His body was returned to Indiana, andhe was buried in the City Cemetery in South Bend.His gravestone reads: “Schuyler Colfax, Vice Presi-dent of the United States, 1869 to 1873. Statesmanand Beloved Citizen. South Bend Post 50, Ameri-can N. Legion Acknowledges the Service He Ren-dered His Country.” Colfax counties in Nebraskaand New Mexico are named in his honor.

References: Crawford, Jay Boyd, The Crédit Mobilier ofAmerica: Its Origin and History, Its Work ofConstructing the Union Pacific Railroad and theRelation of Members of Congress Therewith (Boston:C. W. Calkins, 1880), 148–185; “Schuyler Colfax,” inWolff, Wendy, ed. Vice Presidents of the United States,1789–1993 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1997), 227; Smith, Martin, and EdwardWinslow, The Life and Public Services of Schuyler

Colfax, Together with His Most Important Speeches(New York: United States Publishing Company,1868), 11–19; Willard, Harvey,“The Political Careerof Schuyler Colfax to His Election as Vice Presidentin 1868.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University,1939).

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 116 S. Ct. 2309,518 U.S. 604 (1996)Supreme Court case, in which the court held thatan independent expenditure not directed towardor for a particular candidate was not a violation ofthe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 andwas protected by the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution. In 1986 the ColoradoRepublican Federal Campaign Committee paid forradio advertisements that criticized Representa-tive Timothy Wirth, a Democrat who was seekinghis party’s nomination for the United States Sen-ate. The Republican Party, however, did not itselfhave a nominee for the seat. The Colorado Demo-cratic Party filed a complaint against the Republi-cans with the Federal Election Commission (FEC),which decided that the ad violated the “Party Ex-penditure Provision” of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. § 431, at § 441a[d][3]),which imposed limits on contributions to candi-dates for federal offices. The FEC said that the ex-penditure came from a “coordinated” party effortand thus violated the law. The agency filed suit infederal district court in Colorado; the RepublicanCommittee argued that the ad was not made inconjunction with any particular campaign andthus was not in violation of the law. The districtcourt agreed with the Republicans, but on appealthe United States Court of Appeals for the TenthCircuit reversed, holding that because the ad wasdirected at, and not necessarily for, a particularcandidate, it did violate the law and that banningsuch advertising did not violate the First Amend-ment. The Republican Committee appealed to theU.S. Supreme Court, and arguments were heard inthe case on 15 April 1996.

On 26 June 1996, the justices held seven to twothat the advertisement did not violate the FederalElection Campaign Act and that banning such ad-vertising violated the First Amendment. Justice

68 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Stephen Breyer announced the decision of thecourt, which was joined by Justice Sandra Day O’-Connor. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wasjoined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, AntoninScalia, and Clarence Thomas in concurring withpart of the majority opinion and dissenting onother parts. Justices John Paul Stevens and RuthBader Ginsburg dissented completely. JusticeBreyer wrote:

Because this expenditure is “independent,” theCourt need not reach the broader question arguedby the Colorado Party: whether, in the special caseof political parties, the First Amendment also for-bids congressional efforts to limit coordinated ex-penditures . . . Section 441a(d)(3) cannot with-stand a facial challenge under the frameworkestablished by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (per cu-riam). The anticorruption rationale that the Courthas relied on is inapplicable in the specific contextof campaign funding by political parties, sincethere is only a minimal threat of corruption when aparty spends to support its candidate or to opposehis competitor, whether or not that expenditure ismade in concert with the candidate. Parties andcandidates have traditionally worked together toachieve their common goals, and when they engagein that work, there is no risk to the Republic. To thecontrary, the danger to lies in Government suppres-sion of such activity.References: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign

Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 116 S. Ct.2309, 518 U.S. 604 (1996); “Colorado RepublicanFederal Campaign Committee v. Federal ElectionCommission,” in William C. Binning, Larry Esterly,and Paul A. Sracic, Encyclopedia of American Parties,Campaigns, and Elections (Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1999), 53.

Colvin, Harvey Doolittle (1815–1892)Mayor of Chicago (1873–1875, 1876), a reformerwho apparently tried to clean up the corruption inthe Windy City but lost his office because of his ef-forts. Little is known of Colvin. He was born inHerkimer County, New York, on 18 December1815, the son of two British immigrants. His fathermay have been a farmer. Harvey Colvin attendedlocal schools and, after marrying a girl from thetown of Little Falls in Herkimer County, he openeda boot factory there. He also held a series of localoffices, including town supervisor. In 1854, work-

ing as a resident agent for the U.S. Express Com-pany—later to be known as American Express—Colvin was transferred to Chicago, and he madethat town his adopted home. Despite being a Dem-ocrat, he supported the Northern cause during theCivil War, and in fact became a Republican in1864. However, by 1873, he had returned to theDemocratic Party.

Chicago in post–Civil War America was a roughtown, filled with saloons and houses of prostitu-tion. In 1873 Mayor Joseph E. Medill tried to closethe saloons on Sundays, igniting the ire of the Ger-man immigrants who ran them. These Germansjoined the Populist Party and the DemocraticParty, which named Colvin as their fusion candi-date for mayor. Colvin, opposing the saloon-closingattempt, did not realize that corrupt city officialsinvolved in the liquor business also backed him.However, Colvin himself was clean, and he defeatedRepublican and Union candidate Lester LegrandBond, who had served as interim mayor sinceMedill’s resignation because of the clash with theGermans. Taking office on 1 December 1973 asChicago’s twenty-second mayor, Colvin dropped allefforts to close saloons on Sundays, but instead wasfaced with more pressing problems. Just weeks intohis administration, the city treasurer defaulted onall city loans, throwing the entire city economicstructure into anarchy. When a new city charterthat centralized city control over the police and firedepartments was offered to the people, Colvin op-posed it. It narrowly passed, and Colvin becamehighly unpopular because of his opposition. Thefinal straw against Colvin came when Illinois stateofficials changed the length of the terms of city of-ficials; Colvin claimed that this extended his ownterm to 1877. However, elements of opposition inChicago nominated real estate magnate ThomasHoyne, and an election was held on 18 April 1875without Colvin participating. When Hoyne won,Colvin claimed that the election was illegal and herefused to relinquish his office. For two months,Chicago had two mayors and two sets of adminis-trations running city affairs. Finally, state courtsstruck down the 1875 election as illegal, and Colvinwas allowed to retain his office on 5 June 1876. Anelection was held on 7 July 1876, but Colvin did notrun and left office when his successor took over.

Despite all of this turmoil during his term ofoffice, many historians who have studied Colvin

Colvin, Harvey Doolittle 69

believe he was an honest administrator who triedto better the city. However, following his death on16 April 1892 in Jacksonville, Florida, Colvin wassoon forgotten by a city that went on to electWilliam Hale Thompson, acknowledged as one ofthe most crooked mayors in American history.

See also Thompson, William HaleReferences: Barrett, Paul,“Colvin, Harvey Doolittle,” in

Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’ A. Jones, BiographicalDictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980: Big CityMayors (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981),74–75.

Coman, Thomas (1836–1909)Mayor of New York City (1868), indicted and con-victed (the conviction was later dismissed) for hisrole in the Tweed frauds in city contracts. Comanhas been forgotten by historians, and little isknown about him. He was born in Ireland some-time in 1836 and immigrated to New York as asmall child with his parents. He earned a living byworking for James Gordon Bennett’s New YorkHerald and then with the Post Office. However, thatlast position ended when Coman was accused ofembezzlement. He then went to work as a fireman,serving with Eagle Engine Company No. 13. Dur-ing the draft riots in New York City in 1863, Comanled fireman in helping to quench fires and sup-press riots.

In 1865 Coman was elected an alderman fromNew York City’s second district, which encom-passed the fourth and sixth (“The Bloody Ould”)wards. He served in this position until 1869.A yearlater he was elected as alderman-at-large, servinguntil 1872. In 1868, when Mayor John T. Hoffmanleft office to go to Albany after being elected gover-nor of New York state, Coman stepped in andserved for a short time as acting mayor until Abra-ham Oakey Hall took over as the city’s chief execu-tive. Coman served as president of the New Yorkboard of aldermen from 1868 to 1870, becomingone of the most powerful politicians in the city.

As New York historian Leo Hershkowitz wrote,“Coman’s political world tumbled, along with thatof many others, after the denunciation of BossWilliam M. Tweed by the New York Times begin-ning in July 1871. In June 1872, the Times involvedComan on unprosecuted charges of having, as act-ing mayor, fraudulently signed several warrants.Coman insisted that such bills had been approved

by others and had only needed his official signa-ture; moreover, Mayor John T. Hoffman was neveraway from his office longer than six days, andunder the law Coman was never really actingmayor. He issued a statement of disgust with thenew ‘Tammany Hall Management’ in June 1872and lost a fight to become president of the alder-men again.” For a year, Coman staved off being im-plicated further in the Tweed frauds; however, inJune 1873 he was indicted on six counts of briberyand a warrant was issued for his arrest. Instead ofturning himself in, Coman fled to Canada. In Oc-tober 1874 he returned. In June 1875 the state ofNew York sued him and the other implicated offi-cials for some $400,000 in stolen funds. After alengthy trial, all of the men (except Tweed, whohad fled to Europe) were found guilty, but on ap-peal Coman’s conviction was tossed out, and hewas never retried. Coman then retired from poli-tics, instead going to work for the Equitable LifeInsurance Society selling insurance.

Coman died in New York on 22 October 1909.Among the Tweed defendants who stole untoldmillions from New York City, Coman’s name istoday almost wholly forgotten.

References: Hershkowitz, Leo,“Coman, Thomas,” inMelvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones, BiographicalDictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980: Big CityMayors (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 75;Hershkowitz, Leo, Tweed’s New York: Another Look(Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1977).

Common CauseAmerican political reform and public interestgroup, founded by John Gardner, a former secre-tary of health, education, and welfare in the cabinetof President Lyndon Baines Johnson, in 1970. Afterleaving office, Gardner desired to have a watchdoggroup oversee elections, campaign committees,and other election operations, and report to themedia and the American people on their findings.On 18 August 1970, he formed Common Cause, ex-plaining, “We are going to build a true ‘citizens’lobby—a lobby concerned not with the advance-ment of special interests but with the well-being ofthe nation. . . . We want public officials to have lit-erally millions of American citizens looking overtheir shoulders at every move they make. We wantphones to ring in Washington and state capitols

70 Coman, Thomas

and town halls. We want people watching and in-fluencing every move that government makes.”

As the organization explains, “Gardner envi-sioned a movement propelled by the focused andconcerted grassroots lobbying activities of Com-mon Cause members and reinforced with profes-sional lobbying on Capitol Hill.” In 2002 it had morethan 200,000 members and is financed completelyby the dues and donations of its members. It doesnot accept money from special interest groups orcorporations. In July 1999 Scott Harshbarger, a for-mer Democratic candidate for governor of Massa-chusetts, was elected president of the organization.

References: “Common Cause,” in William C. Binning,Larry Esterly, and Paul A. Sracic, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Parties, Campaigns, and Elections(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 54; theCommon Cause website at www.commoncause.org

Congressional Ethics CodeRules enacted by Congress on 11 July 1958,as part ofan ethics package that “should be adhered to by allGovernment employees, including officeholders.”

The code, as it was enacted, reads:

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICEAny person in Government service should:1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and

to country above loyalty to Government persons,party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regu-lations of the United States and of all governmentstherein and never be a party to their evasion.

3. Give a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay; giv-ing to the performance of his duties his earnest ef-fort and best thought.

4. Seek to find and employ more efficient andeconomical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensingof special favors or privileges to anyone, whether forremuneration or not; and never accept for himselfor his family, favors or benefits under circum-stances which might be construed by reasonablepersons as influencing the performance of his gov-ernmental duties.

6. Make no private promises of any kind bindingupon the duties of office, since a Government em-ployee has no private word which can be binding onpublic duty.

7. Engage in no business with the Government,either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent

with the conscientious performance of his govern-mental duties.

8. Never use any information coming to himconfidentially in the performance of governmentalduties as a means for making private profit.

9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that

public office is a public trust.

In 1977 Congress amended this code by settingstandards on all ethical conduct, as well as limitedcongressional honoraria (outside income) giftsand fees.

See also HonorariaReferences: United States Congress, House, Committee

on Post Office and Civil Service, Display of Code ofEthics for Government Service: Report to AccompanyH.R. 5997 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1980); United States Congress, Senate, SpecialCommittee on Official Conduct, Senate Code ofOfficial Conduct: Report of the Special Committee onOfficial Conduct, United States Senate, to Accompany S.Res. 110 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1977).

Connally, John Bowden, Jr.(1917–1993)Governor of Texas (1963–1969), secretary of thetreasury (1971–1972), implicated but acquitted ina milk price-fixing scandal that was alleged tohave occurred while he was the governor of Texas.Many considered Connally a potential president ofthe United States in the image of Lyndon B. John-son, but Connally’s star faded before he couldachieve that high office. He was born on his fam-ily’s farm near Floresville, Texas, on 27 February1917, one of eight children of John Bowden Con-nally Sr. and Lela (née Wright) Connally. Theyounger Connally attended local schools in SanAntonio, before he entered the University of Texasin 1933. He received his law degree from the Uni-versity of Texas Law School in 1921. He had passedhis bar exam in 1938 and, although he aimed tobecome an attorney, instead entered governmentservice, starting in 1939 as a legislative assistant toRepresentative Lyndon B. Johnson, then a risingstar in the Democratic Party. The two men wouldbecome close friends, and Johnson ultimately be-came Connally’s benefactor.

In 1941 Connally left government service toenter the U.S. Naval Reserve. Commissioned, he

Connally, John Bowden, Jr. 71

served as a fighter director aboard several aircraftcarriers during World War II and saw major actionin the Pacific theater of operations. At the end ofthe war, serving on the USS Essex, he overcamefifty-two hours of kamikaze attacks by Japaneseplanes. At the end of the conflict he was sent backto civilian life with the rank of lieutenant com-mander. Back in Texas, Connally joined a group ofwar veterans who purchased radio station KVET.Connally did not return to government service: in-stead, he joined a law firm in Austin. However, in1946 he returned to politics and served as thecampaign manager for Lyndon Johnson’s reelec-tion that year to Congress. Two years later, whenJohnson ran for a U.S. Senate seat, Connally onceagain served as his campaign manager. Despiterumors of suspicious activity by Connally—hewas alleged to have concocted late votes thatswung the narrow election to Johnson—the elec-tion results stood. Once Johnson was elected to theSenate, Connally went to Washington and servedas his aide until 1951. That year, he became thelegal counsel for Texas oilman Sid WilliamsRichardson (1891–1959), serving in this capacityuntil Richardson’s death in 1959.

In 1960 Johnson, now Senate majority leader,decided to run for the Democratic presidentialnomination. Once again, John Connally was thereto serve as his campaign manager. Although John-son did not win the party’s presidential nod, hedid come in a close second, and when he was of-fered the vice presidential slot on the ticket by Sen-ator John F. Kennedy, Johnson jumped at thechance. The ticket’s election in November 1960guaranteed Connally’s continued presence inWashington. To reward him for sticking with theticket, Connally was named as secretary of thenavy in January 1961. At one time this prestigiouspost had been a cabinet position, but now it wasone of four major positions under the secretary ofdefense. Connally took the post at the height of theCold War, and in his year in the job he improvednaval morale and garnered increased appropria-tions for the service. He resigned the office in 1962to run for governor of Texas. The field of Demo-crats vying for the office was large—it includedsitting Governor Price Daniel Sr., who had alreadyserved three terms. Despite low ratings in the pollswhen he began, Connally used his Texas connec-tions, his association with now-Vice President

Lyndon Johnson, and his charm to stage a come-back. He won the Democratic nomination, whichin those days was tantamount to winning the elec-tion. Connally took office as governor of Texas, andhis political star seemed to be on the rise. Thencame the events of 22 November 1963.

Politics in Texas had become rather nasty dur-ing Connally’s term. President Kennedy had be-come unpopular in the state aside from havingJohnson at his side, and the thought of losing theLone Star State to the Republicans in 1964 sentshivers up the Democrats’ spines. In November1963 Kennedy slated a major trip to Texas, withConnally at his side, to calm the fears of localDemocrats and try to repair the interparty splitthat was fracturing the state Democrat Party. On22 November, Connally rode next to Kennedy inDallas, as both men went to attend a luncheon.Shots rang out, and Kennedy was assassinated.Connally, sitting next to him, was seriouslywounded in the arm. Despite being nearly killed,Connally ran for a second term in 1964 and woneasily. He won in a similar style in 1966.

In 1969, when he left the governorship, Con-nally went to work for Vinson and Elkins, a presti-gious Houston law firm. He also became a closefriend of President Richard Nixon, a Republicanwho had succeeded Johnson as president thatsame year. Nixon named Connally in 1969 to thePresident’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board tocounsel the president on foreign policy matters. Assuch, Connally’s star rose in the Republican ad-ministration. When Secretary of Treasury DavidM. Kennedy resigned on 11 February 1971, Con-nally was named as his successor. A year later,Connally headed up Democrats for Nixon, andhelped the Republican carry Texas for the GOP. InApril 1973, three months after his mentor LyndonJohnson died, Connally switched parties, becom-ing a Republican. Later that year, when a briberyscandal forced Vice President Spiro Agnew to re-sign from office, many speculated that Nixonwould name Connally as his replacement. As itwas, Democrats objected and claimed they would“destroy” the Texan if he were named. Nixon wasforced to pass him over for Representative GeraldFord of Michigan.

Connally left office and returned to his law firmin Houston. That was when his world collapsed.Connally was indicted for allegedly taking bribes

72 Connally, John Bowden, Jr.

when he was governor, using his influence to fixmilk prices. The trial began and ended in April1975, with weak evidence tying Connally to anywrongdoing. On 17 April 1975, he was acquitted ofall charges. However, his good name was damaged,and he never recovered from the trial. He did notrun for president in 1976.

In 1980, however, Connally made one last runat the Republican presidential nomination. He wasthe only Republican who refused to take publicmoney, instead financing his campaign with pri-vate contributions only. He raised and spent $11million, but received only one delegate. When for-mer California Governor Ronald Reagan won thenomination, Connally was one of several names heconsidered for the second slot on the ticket beforehe went with former CIA chief George Bush.

In the 1980s Connally left law and politics anddecided to invest his money in real estate. For atime, he was a wealthy man, until the bottomdropped out of the Texas real estate market, and helost everything, eventually declaring bankruptcy.In his final years, he made a slight comeback,earning a living by serving on the corporateboards of several major American corporations.Connally died of pulmonary fibrosis while in theMethodist Hospital of Houston on 15 June 1993 atthe age of seventy-six. He was remembered morefor his few moments sitting next to PresidentKennedy as he was assassinated than for his yearsof government service or his alleged corruption.

References: Connally, John B., with Mickey Herskowitz,In History’s Shadow: An American Odyssey (New York:Hyperion, 1993); Reston, James, The Lone Star: TheLife of John Connally (New York: Harper and Row,1989).

Connelly, Matthew J. (1907–1976)Appointments secretary to President Harry S. Tru-man, indicted and convicted in 1956 of tax-fraudconspiracy during his time in the White House,spending two years in prison. Little is known ofConnelly—even his middle name remains a mys-tery to even his closest associates. He was born inClinton, Massachusetts, on 19 November 1907. Heattended local schools before entering FordhamUniversity in the Bronx, in New York, from whichhe earned a degree in 1930. For a time, he workedas a stockbroker in New York City, even as the

Great Depression was raging. However, in 1933,when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected presidentand began his New Deal programs to help end thedepression, Connelly went first to Boston and thenWashington, D.C., to aid federal work and food re-lief agencies. This service lasted from 1933 until1938.

In 1939 Connelly decided to leave relief workand enter government service. He took a post as amember of the Democratic staff of the U.S. Houseof Representatives Committee on Appropriations. Ayear later he became a staff member with the U.S.Senate Special Committee to Investigate [the] Na-tional Defense Program, headed by then-U.S. Sena-tor Harry S. Truman. This work would take Con-nelly to the upper reaches of power, culminating inhis working for Truman when the Missourian be-came president of the United States in 1945. AsConnelly later said in an oral history interview:

I did not meet the then-Senator Truman until theday I walked into his office. I was recommended bySenator Lister Hill of Alabama. I was purposely try-ing to establish another relationship which SenatorHill had suggested as a trouble-shooter for theWhite House. Senator Hill called me one afternoonand said he would like to see me and to call him offthe Senate floor. I made that appointment, and Sen-ator Hill took me back to his office in the Senate Of-fice Building and there he said,“We just had a meet-ing today of the Military Affairs Committee,” ofwhich he was a member and of which Senator Tru-man was a member. Senator Hill told me that Sena-tor Truman was going to have to have a very impor-tant investigation, and he wanted me to work on hiscommittee. I was not very happy about it because ofthe original understanding I had with Senator Hill,however, I kept the appointment with Senator Tru-man on the following morning. I walked into his of-fice; I had never met him, as I said before, so hesaid,“Come in.” He said,“I know all about you. Iknow what you did in Missouri, Chicago, and othercommittees you’ve been on. We have a very peculiarsituation here. I have been authorized to becomechairman of this committee, however, it has notbeen determined what our appropriations are goingto be. I do not know what I can pay you, but I willsay this to you, if you go along with me, you willnever have any reason to regret it.”

In 1945, when Truman became vice presidentof the United States, Connelly went to work as his

Connelly, Matthew J. 73

assistant. Just three months after becoming thenumber-two man in government, Truman was ad-vanced to president when Franklin D. Rooseveltdied suddenly. Matthew Connelly was named asthe new president’s appointments secretary. Con-nelly would serve in this position until the end ofTruman’s administration on 20 January 1953.

Connelly explained his role as appointmentssecretary to the president:

Officially, I was appointments secretary[;] I han-dled all the appointments for the President. Inaddition, I had to act as a sort of contact man forthe politicians from all over the states. Everypolitician who came into Washington could notget in to see him, it would be impossible, so thatjob fell on me with the result they could go homeand say,“Well, no I didn’t see the President, but Italked to his secretary and he’s going to get mesome help,” because it saves face for them in theirhome state, or have dinner with them or go to acocktail party for a state delegation and that wasall left to me just to keep politics a little bitsmooth. I handled all the politics in the WhiteHouse except for Truman and at his own leveland their level, he would handle it. And we main-tained a liaison with the national committee, tosee about political things—working together ispart of the game—it is a game.

While serving under Truman, Connelly ac-cepted illegal gifts from one Irvin Sachs, a St.Louis, Missouri, wholesaler, who was later foundguilty of evading $128,721 in income taxes andfined $40,000. After Connelly left government, heand T. Lamar Caudle, the general counsel to the In-ternal Revenue Service (IRS), were indicted in1955 for accepting gifts—such as oil royalties—from Sachs in exchange for pressuring the IRS andthe Justice Department not to prosecute Sachs,and, when he was prosecuted, for trying to limithis sentence. Connelly and Caudle were tried to-gether and in 1956 both were convicted of con-spiracy to defraud the government and commitbribery and perjury, of knowingly making falsestatements, and of violating the internal revenuecode. Both men were sentenced to two years inprison and both appealed their sentences. Finally,in May 1960, when his appeals ran out, Connellyentered prison, ultimately serving six months,being paroled in November 1960.

Connelly’s former boss, Harry Truman, felt thatthe prosecution of Connelly and Caudle was rail-roaded and he appealed for a pardon from Presi-dent John F. Kennedy. In January 1962 Trumanwrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy:

Some time ago I wrote you about Matthew Con-nelly, another Massachusetts Irishman who hasbeen abused and wofully [sic] mistreated by an oldJudge in my State. This old Judge threatened to per-secute me and Senator [Stuart] Symington [of Mis-souri] through the Grand Jury under his control.

Matt Connelly has been abused and mistreatedas told you in my original letter. I want him par-doned and his full rights restored.

I’ve never spoken to your brother about this andI don’t intend to—But if you think I enjoy mistreat-ment and injustice to one of my employees, you aremistaken.

So don’t smile at me any more unless you wantto do justice to Matt Connelly, which is the rightthing—a full pardon.

P.S.—This has nothing to do with my relationswith your brother.

On 22 November 1962, President Kennedy gaveConnelly a full pardon, restoring his citizenshipand voting rights in full. The move was applaudedby his old boss, now in retirement in Indepen-dence, Missouri.

Connelly lived for less than fourteen years fol-lowing his pardon, dying in Oak Park, Illinois, on10 July 1976 at the age of sixty-eight. He was one ofnine former Truman administration officials whoserved prison time for corrupt acts in office.

References: “Matt Connelly Is Given Pardon,” The KansasCity Times, 23 November 1962, 14; Matthew J.Connelly Official File, Harry S Truman Library,Independence, Missouri (including Truman to RobertKennedy, 24 January 1962); Matthew J. Connelly OralHistory Interview, 28 November 1967, Courtesy HarryS Truman Library, Independence, Missouri.

Contempt of CongressPower of Congress, used by that body to force a re-sponse to any action that may serve to obstruct thelegislative or investigative process of Congress.Contempt as it now stands is a federal crime andcan result in prison time. It can be invoked when aperson is called before Congress to respond to aninquiry or a hearing and either ignores the sub-

74 Contempt of Congress

poena or goes before Congress and refuses to an-swer questions.

However, the refusal to answer a question orprovide a document demanded by Congress is notnecessarily considered contempt. William HolmesBrown, the former House parliamentarian, wrote:

The statute which penalizes the refusal to answer inresponse to a congressional subpoena provides thatthe question must be “pertinent to the questionunder inquiry.” 2 U.S.C. 192. That is, the answers re-quested must (1) relate to a legislative purposewhich Congress may constitutionally entertain, and(2) fall within the grant of authority actually madeby Congress to the Committee. . . . In a prosecutionfor contempt of Congress, it must be establishedthat the committee or subcommittee was duly au-thorized and that its investigation was within thescope of delegated authority. (United States v. Seeger,C.A.N.Y. 303 F2d 478 [1962]). A clear chain of au-thority from the House to its committee is an essen-tial element of the offense. (Gojack v. United States,384 U.S. 702 [1966]). . . . In contempt proceedingsbrought under the statute, constitutional claims andother objections to House investigatory proceduresmay be raised as a defense. (United States v. Houseof Representatives (556 F. Supp. 150 [1983]). Thecourts must accord the defendant every right “guar-anteed to defendants in all other criminal cases.”

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). All ele-ments of the offense, including willfulness, must beproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Flaxer v. UnitedStates, 358 U.S. 147 (1958).References: Clarke, Mary Patterson, Parliamentary

Privilege in the American Colonies: Essays in ColonialHistory Presented to Charles McLean Andrews (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1943); Dimock,Marshall Edward, Congressional InvestigatingCommittees (Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1929); May, Thomas Erskine, LordFarnborough, A Treatise on the Law, Privileges,Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (London:Butterworths, 1873), 83–97; Rozell, Mark J., InContempt of Congress: Postwar Press Coverage onCapitol Hill (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1996);Shapansky, Jay R., Congress’ Contempt Power,Congressional Research Service Report No. 86–83A,28 February 1986.

Corrupt Practices Act, 36 Stat. 822(1910)Act of Congress, enacted 25 June 1910, which pro-vides:

No candidate for Representative in Congress or forSenator of the United States shall give, contribute,expend, use, or promise, or cause to be given, con-tributed, expended, used, or promised, in procur-

Corrupt Practices Act 75

Seven Hollywood writers and directors walk up the steps of federal court in Washington, D.C. (1950), to face trial charges ofcontempt of Congress for their defiance of the House Un-American Activities Committee. (Library of Congress)

ing his nomination and election any sum, in theaggregate, in excess of the amount which he maylawfully give, contribute, expend, or promise underthe laws of the state in which he resides: Provided,that no candidate for Representative in Congressshall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise anysum, in the aggregate, exceeding five thousand dol-lars in any campaign for his nomination and elec-tion; and no candidate for Senator of the UnitedStates shall give, contribute, expend, use, or prom-ise any sum, in the aggregate, exceeding ten thou-sand dollars in any campaign for his nominationand election:

Provided further, that money expended by anysuch candidate to meet and discharge any assess-ment, fee, or charge made or levied upon candidatesby the laws of the state in which he resides, or forhis necessary personal expenses, incurred for him-self alone, for travel and subsistence, stationery andpostage, writing or printing (other than in newspa-pers), and distributing letters, circulars, andposters, and for telegraph and telephone service,shall not be regarded as an expenditure within themeaning of this section, and shall not be consideredany part of the sum herein fixed as the limit of ex-pense and need not be shown in the statementsherein required to be filed.

The most notable case to which this law appliedwas that of Senator Truman H. Newberry, who losthis Senate seat but was ultimately acquitted of allcharges. The act, the first to reform campaign fi-nance laws, was overturned by the United StatesSupreme Court in 1925. At that time, it wasrepassed as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, butagain was weakened because it did not cover pri-mary elections. This 1925 act was the prevailingcongressional campaign finance law until 1971,when the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)was enacted.

See also: Newberry v. United StatesReferences: Baltimore Reform League, Special Report

of the Executive Committee of Baltimore ReformLeague as to the Statements of Candidates andOthers, Filed Under Provisions of the CorruptPractices Act Subsequently to the Primary Electionfor Representatives in Congress, Held August 30,1910 (Baltimore, MD: The League, 1910); “FederalCorrupt Practices Act of 1910 and 1911,” in WilliamC. Binning, Larry E. Esterly, and Paul A. Sracic,Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns, andElections (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999),169.

Corrupt Practices Acts (Congressional)See Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925; FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971; Hatch Act; Pendle-ton Civil Service Act; Publicity Act of 1910; Till-man Act of 1907

Coughlin, John Joseph (1860–1938)Chicago alderman, known as “Bathhouse John,” al-lied with fellow alderman Michael “Hinky Dink”Kenna to reign over a graft operation that lastedfor more than forty years. Coughlin was born inChicago on 15 August 1860, the son of Irish immi-grants Michael Coughlin, from County Roscom-mon, and Johanna (née Hanley), of County Limer-ick. Little is known of John Coughlin’s upbringingor education—only that his mother died in child-birth when he was a youngster, and he was raisedby a stepmother. He went to work as a “rubber,” orsomeone who rubbed items to a sheen, in thePalmer House Baths in the poorer area of Chicago.It was there that he got his nickname “BathhouseJohn.” He opened his own bathhouse in that samearea.

Bathhouse John Coughlin might have beenwholly forgotten by history had he not joined withMichael Kenna, an alderman of the First Ward ofChicago, known as “Hinky Dink” or “the Little Fel-low” in 1893. Coughlin and Kenna went on to formone of the most corrupt organizations in nine-teenth-century Chicago. Under the auspices ofKenna, who used his powerful office as a front, themen sold protection to gambling houses andhouses of prostitution in the First Ward, also called“The Levee” because southern gamblers populatedthe area, and in the South a “levee” was the worstpart of town. These two men thus became knownas the “Lords of the Levee.” In exchange for theirprotection, the two men employed lawyers who in-stantly appeared to defend bootleggers or prosti-tutes who had the ill fortune to be arrested.

In 1890, with the huge growth in Chicago’spopulation, Mayor Carter Harrison moved theLevee from the First Ward to the Second. Nor-mally, a politician needs merely to reach out to hisor her new constituents, but Kenna and Coughlinwere now losing the people they were being paidto protect. Kenna pushed a plan to redistrict theSecond Ward, to reinclude the Levee back into theFirst Ward. The Second Ward alderman, William

76 Corrupt Practices Acts

Hale Thompson (who later became mayor ofChicago and who himself was corrupt), did notwant the area in his district, so he supportedKenna’s plan. In exchange for this support,Thompson received Kenna and Coughlin’s back-ing to run for mayor. By the turn of the century,the “New Levee,” as it was designated by many inChicago, was populated by gambling houses andan extensive red light district. In the midst of thisdistrict, Coughlin, Kenna, and Thompson cen-tered their power.

The “New Levee” in fact gave birth to the move-ment that was its destruction. The Columbian Ex-position in 1893 gave Chicago its first major expo-sure as a large city, bringing thousands of peopleto that metropolis for the first time. One of thesewas William T. Stead, an English reformer and edi-tor of the magazine Review of Reviews, a collectionof contemporary editorial opinion in major jour-nals. Stead, wandering around the city, saw first-hand the conditions in the “New Levee,” and, ap-palled, returned to England, where in 1894 hepublished If Christ Came to Chicago, an exposé ofthe area that condemned the Democratic Party forits vise grip on the denizens of the poverty-stricken section. Stead’s tome flashed a light on theconditions of Coughlin and Kenna’s district, lead-ing to the founding of the Civic Federation (CF),the first major reformist organization in Chicago.The CF called for an improvement of conditions inthe “New Levee,” lessening Coughlin and Kenna’spower base. The changing political system and thecrackdown on widespread political corruption bya new mayor, Carter Harrison, led to Coughlin andKenna’s downfall. Under assault by Harrison,Coughlin stepped aside as alderman after forty-sixyears in power.

As Coughlin’s biographers, Lloyd Wendt andHerman Kogan, note, Coughlin died in poverty, be-sieged by piling debts in his last years. He died inChicago on 8 November 1938 at the age of seventy-eight, remembered for his power, but also for hisbrand of corruption that was rampant in manynineteenth-century urban centers.

References: Nash, Jay Robert. Encyclopedia of WorldCrime: Criminal Justice, Criminology, and LawEnforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc.,1989), I:798; Wendt, Lloyd, and Herman Kogan, Lordsof the Levee: The Story of Bathhouse John & HinkyDink (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company,1943).

Covode, John (1808–1871)United States representative from Pennsylvania(1855–1863, 1867–1869), responsible for the Cov-ode investigation of campaign finance practices ofthe James Buchanan administration and for intro-ducing the impeachment resolution against Presi-dent Andrew Johnson. Born on his father’s farmnear West Fairfield, Pennsylvania, on 17 March1808, John Covode was the son of Jacob Covodeand his wife, whose first name is unknown. He at-tended public schools in the area and then workedfor several years on his father’s farm and as an ap-prentice blacksmith, before going to work in awoolen mill as a laborer. He eventually purchasedthe mill and engaged in other business pursuits,such as owning outright or with partners thePennsylvania Canal, the Pennsylvania Railroad,and the Westmoreland Coal Company.

Covode was a product of the political machineof Pennsylvania Senator Thaddeus Stevens, and heran as a Whig for a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, representing the Nineteenth Congres-sional District of that state. Defeating a Democrat,Covode served in the Thirty-fifth, Thirty-sixth,and Thirty-seventh Congresses, during whichtime he served as chairman of the Committee onPublic Expenditures, on which he earned the so-briquet “Honest John.” An opponent of slavery,Covode joined the infant Republican Party in 1856and was elected to his third term in Congress thatyear. Gradually, he became identified with the Rad-ical Republicans, a group from that party who de-manded an end to slavery and complete emanci-pation and citizenship for blacks.

On 5 March 1860, amid allegations that Presi-dent James Buchanan had bribed two House mem-bers to vote for the so-called Lecompton Constitu-tion that had been passed by proslavery membersof the Kansas legislature, Buchanan charged thatCovode had won his 1858 race by bribing voters.Covode took to the floor of the House to condemnthe accusation and to ask for an investigation intothe Lecompton bribery allegations. Covode soonbecame Buchanan’s worst political enemy, goingafter the president on every ground possible. Histo-rian Edward Chester explained:

On Saturday, October 8, 1859, John Covode spoke toa gathering of some 400 to 500 people at LafayetteHall, in Pittsburgh. . . . In this speech, according to

Covode, John 77

an account printed in the Pittsburg Post, Covode at-tempted to implicate President Buchanan in certainprinting frauds which he had helped to uncoverwhile serving as a member of a Congressional com-mittee the previous winter. A letter which JamesBuchanan wrote to the President of the PittsburgCentenary Celebration of 1858 may have incitedCovode to make his attack. In this letter Buchanancharged that the Republicans had employed moneyin an illegal manner to carry certain districts inPennsylvania in the election of 1856. The exchangebetween Buchanan and Covode quickly began to at-tract the interest of other parties. A typical reactionwas the charge made on December 12, 1859, byCongressman John Hickman of Pennsylvania, a for-mer Douglas Democrat who ran as a Republican in1860, that President Buchanan had tried to bribehim.

With these allegations in hand, Covode intro-duced a resolution calling for the establishment ofa special House committee to investigate. Covodewas named chairman of this committee—othermembers included Republicans Abram B. Olin ofNew York and Charles Train of Massachusetts andDemocrats Warren Winslow of North Carolina andJames Robinson of Illinois. On 29 March 1860,seven days after the special committee convened,Buchanan sent a letter of protest, calling into ques-tion Covode’s judgment, and denouncing a “blan-ket inquiry.” Documents showing that Democratshad given immigrants naturalization papers sothat they could vote in state elections were intro-duced; when Representative Winslow looked intoallegations of Republican frauds in the state, hecould find no evidence. John Forney, a Pennsylva-nia Democrat who later turned Republican andwent to work for the Lincoln administration, wrotethe committee that Buchanan paid off people forgood press in the state.

On 17 June 1860, the committee’s majorityand minority reports were released. Writing forthe three Republican members, RepresentativeCharles Train charged that the president had de-liberately tried to enter Kansas as a slave state inviolation of the law and that he had bribed mem-bers of Congress to gain their votes to pass theLecompton Constitution allowing the state toenter the Union. In the minority report, Repre-sentative Warren Winslow wrote that evidencewas lacking, but he did not refute the allegation

that Buchanan had tried to bribe members in theKansas statehood question. Representative JamesRobinson, despite being a Democrat, later saidthat he concurred in the majority report althoughhe did not sign it.

The Covode Committee’s report became acampaign issue in the 1860 campaign; Republi-cans used it in their local pamphlets, whileDemocrats barely mentioned it. It may havehelped to gain Pennsylvania for the Republi-cans, won by Republican Abraham Lincoln inthe election that year. Covode himself won re-election in 1860 easily.

During the Civil War, Covode became a mem-ber of the wing of the Republican Party known asthe Radical Republicans—standing for a quickend to slavery, establishment of the Freedman’sBureau, and passage of the Reconstruction Actsimposing a harsh peace on the defeated Southernstates, as well as the Civil Rights bills that were ve-toed by President Andrew Johnson. Covode was achief voice in the House for the impeachment ofJohnson in 1868.

After a close election victory in 1868 in whichthe House ultimately sided with him over hisDemocratic opposition, Henry D. Foster, Covodedecided not to run for reelection in 1870. The deci-sion was perhaps based on his declining health.Covode never got a chance to live a life after his ca-reer ended: on 11 January 1871, before his termcould end, he died in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, atthe age of sixty-two and was buried in theMethodist Episcopal Cemetery in West Fairfield,Pennsylvania. Although his investigation into po-tential fraud and corruption never reached theheights of the ABSCAM investigation or the Keat-ing Five in the late twentieth century, his commit-tee’s work is still cited by historians for its inves-tigative thoroughness.

References: Chester, Edward W.,“The Impact of theCovode Congressional Investigation,” WesternPennsylvania Historical Magazine, 42 (December1959), 343–350; Cotterill, Robert Spencer,“Covode,John,” in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al.,eds., Dictionary of American Biography, X vols. and 10supplements, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995), II:470; Dodds, Archibald J.,“‘HonestJohn’ Covode” (Master’s thesis, University ofPittsburgh, 1933); Stanchak, John E.“Covode, John,” inFaust, Patricia L., ed., Historical Times IllustratedEncyclopedia of the Civil War (New York: Harper andRow, Publishers, 1986), 187–188.

78 Covode, John

Cox, Charles Christopher (1952– )United States representative from California(1989– ), chairman of the Select Committee onU.S. National Security and Military/CommercialConcerns with the People’s Republic of China, alsoknown as the Cox Committee. He was born in St.Paul, Minnesota, on 16 October 1952, and at-tended St. Gregory’s School and the St. ThomasAcademy, both in St. Paul, before he headed westand received his bachelor’s degree magna cumlaude after just three years of study from the Uni-versity of Southern California in 1973. He movedeast to earn his master’s of business administra-tion degree from Harvard Business School in 1977and his law degree from Harvard Law School thatsame year, both with honors. During his time atHarvard he had also served as the editor of theHarvard Law Review. Immediately out of lawschool Cox was hired as a law clerk to Judge Her-bert Y. C. Choy, a member of the U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Afterleaving that post in 1978, Cox returned home towork for his father, who had founded a publishingfirm that put out an English-language version ofPravda, the Soviet newspaper from Moscow. In1978 Cox went to work for the international lawfirm of Latham & Watkins, as a partner in chargeof their Orange County, California, office, special-izing in venture capital and corporate finance. Hetook time off in 1982 to spend two years teachingbusiness administration at Harvard BusinessSchool.

In 1986 Cox entered the political realm, whenhe was appointed senior associate counsel to Pres-ident Ronald Reagan. At just thirty-four years ofage, Cox was a bright young face among Reagan’sstaff. He assisted in advising the president on nu-merous policy matters and helped to write the taxlegislation for Reagan’s Budget Process ReformAct.

In 1988 Cox returned to California and ran for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Repre-sentative Robert Badham, Republican of Califor-nia’s Forty-seventh Congressional District, de-clined to run for a sixth term, and Cox entered afield of fourteen candidates. Despite this, and hisbeing little known in the district, he recruited Re-publican firebrands Representative Robert Dor-nan and former U.S. Supreme Court nomineeRobert Bork to campaign for him. Cox won the Re-

publican primary, and garnered 67 percent of thevote in the general election to win the House seat.In his first term, he was named a member of theHouse Budget Committee. In 2000 Cox introducedthe measure he had written for President Reagan,the Budget Process Reform Act, and it received itsfirst floor vote, although it was not enacted intolaw.

Following allegations that the Clinton adminis-tration had assisted the People’s Republic of Chinain obtaining missile technology in exchange forcampaign contributions from leading Americansatellite launchers, in addition to other allegationsrelating to China, the U.S. House of Representa-tives on 18 June 1998 established the Select Com-mittee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republicof China to examine the allegations and make rec-ommendations. Cox was a natural to serve as thechairman of the committee—the Los AngelesTimes called him “an expert in foreign affairs.”Starting from scratch, Cox was able to form a com-mittee that held thirty-four total meetings over a6-month period, including 22 separate meetingsand more than 200 hours of testimony heard fromover 75 different witnesses, as well as more than700 hours of interviews. On 25 May 1999, afterseveral delays, the Cox Committee report was re-leased. It alleged that China had used a systematiccampaign of intelligence gathering to assemble agrowing military machine. In releasing the report,Cox explained, “[China’s] targeting of sensitiveU.S. military technology is not limited to missilesand satellites, but covers other military technolo-gies. . . . Sensitive U.S. military technology hasbeen the subject of serious [Chinese] acquisitionefforts over the last two decades, and continuestoday. A significant reason for the creation of theSelect Committee was to determine whether SpaceSystems/Loral and Hughes were responsible forthe transfer of technology that damaged the na-tional security of the United States. Based on un-classified information, we have found that nationalsecurity harm did occur. We have investigatedthese questions more thoroughly than any otherpart of the U.S. Government.” He added, “Thesetransfers are not limited to satellite and missiletechnology, but cover other militarily significanttechnologies. . . . Rather quickly, our investigationled to even more serious problems of [Chinese]

Cox, Charles Christopher 79

technology acquisition efforts targeted at theUnited States. The seriousness of these findings,and their enormous significance to our nationalsecurity, led us to a unanimous report.”

Cox’s work on the committee, as well as the re-spect he has garnered from both sides of the po-litical aisle in the House, make him a leading can-didate to become Speaker of the House, if notanother high office, before his political career isfinished. In 2001 President George W. Bush con-sidered Cox for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, but Coxbegged off because the Senate was in Democraticcontrol and Cox did not want a bruising confirma-tion battle.

See also Chinagate; Cox ReportReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 871; Clines, Francis X.,“Republicans’ New Man in the Middle,” New YorkTimes, 21 May 1998, 26; “Cox, Christopher,” in CliffordThompson, ed., Current Biography 1999 (New York:H. W. Wilson & Co., 2000), 18–19; United StatesCongress, House, Select Committee on U.S. NationalSecurity and Military/Commercial Concerns with thePeople’s Republic of China, U.S. National Security andMilitary/Commercial Concerns with the People’sRepublic of China. Submitted by Mr. Cox of California,3 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1999).

Cox ReportNarration of the United States Congress, issued 25May 1999, which detailed the acquisition by thePeople’s Republic of China of American nuclear se-crets through espionage and other illicit means.Following a number of stories regarding Chinesemissile technology, missile tests in China, cam-paign donations to the campaigns of President BillClinton by American satellite companies that werethen allowed by the American administration tosell sensitive technology to China, and the story ofLos Alamos, New Mexico, scientist Wen Ho Lee,who was accused (but later cleared) of selling nu-clear secrets to China, the U.S. Congress estab-lished the Select Committee on U.S. National Secu-rity and Military/Commercial Concerns with thePeople’s Republic of China, pursuant to House Res-olution 462, which was adopted on 18 June 1998.The resolution, which explained the committee’sjurisdiction, stated that:

The Select Committee shall conduct a full and com-plete inquiry regarding the following matters andreport such findings and recommendations, includ-ing those concerning the amendment of existinglaw or the enactment of new law, to the House as itconsiders appropriate:

(1) The transfer of technology, information, ad-vice, goods, or services that may have contributedto the enhancement of the accuracy, reliability, orcapability of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballis-tic missiles or other weapons of the People’s Repub-lic of China, or that may have contributed to the en-hancement of the intelligence capabilities of thePeople’s Republic of China.

(2) The transfer of technology, information, ad-vice, goods, or services that may have contributedto the manufacture of weapons of mass destruc-tion, missiles, or other weapons or armaments bythe People’s Republic of China.

(3) The effect of any transfer or enhancementreferred to in paragraphs (1) or (2) on regional se-curity and the national security of the UnitedStates.

(4) The conduct of the executive branch of theUnited States Government with respect to the trans-fers or enhancements referred to in paragraphs (1)or (2), and the effect of that conduct on regional se-curity and the national security of the UnitedStates.

(5) The conduct of defense contractors, weaponsmanufacturers, satellite manufacturers, and otherprivate or government-owned commercial firmswith respect to the transfers or enhancements re-ferred to in paragraphs (1) or (2).

(6) The enforcement of United States law, in-cluding statutes, regulations, or executive orders,with respect to the transfers or enhancements re-ferred to in paragraphs (1) or (2).

(7) Any effort by the Government of the People’sRepublic of China or any other person or entity to in-fluence any of the foregoing matters through politicalcontributions, commercial arrangements, or bribery,influence-peddling, or other illegal activities.

(8) Decision-making within the executivebranch of the United States Government with re-spect to any of the foregoing matters.

(9) Any effort to conceal or withhold informa-tion or documents relevant to any of the foregoingmatters or to obstruct justice, or to obstruct thework of the Select Committee or any other commit-tee of the House of Representatives in connectionwith those matters.

(10) All matters relating directly or indirectly toany of the foregoing matters.

80 Cox Report

The committee was given the mandate to inves-tigate these concerns from July 1998, when theyfirst met in session, until December 1998. Repre-sentative Christopher Cox (R-CA) was namedcommittee chairman (hence the committee beingcalled the Cox Committee); Representative Nor-man Dicks (D-WA), was named as the rankingDemocrat. The other committee members were:Representative Porter Goss, vice chairman (R-FL);Representative Doug Bereuter (R-NE); Represen-tative James V. Hansen (R-UT); RepresentativeJohn M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC); Representative Curt Wel-don (R-FL); Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard(D-CA); and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA).

The committee focused on several narrow mat-ters: it started with the allegations that Loral andHughes, two major American satellite manufactur-ers, had given large campaign donations to theClinton campaigns in 1992 and 1996, and in ex-change U.S. government restrictions of the sale ofsatellite technology to China were relaxed. Severallaunch failures of Chinese rockets, which were thenfixed with American technology from Loral, high-lighted these concerns. Other matters investigatedincluded American government involvement in al-lowing high-performance computers to be legallyexported to China; the role of alleged Chinese espi-onage in American nuclear facilities; the role ofChinese-owned companies in the United Statesand the part they played in this alleged espionageand the transfer of technology from the UnitedStates to China; and U.S. government oversight (orlack thereof) regarding this transfer. One part of H.Res. 463 that was highly controversial was allowingan investigation into the role that alleged Chinesecampaign donations might have had on Clintonadministration responses to the relaxation of tech-nology restrictions. Given that other committeeswere investigating such campaign violations by the1992 and 1996 Clinton presidential campaigns, theCox Committee could not go far with the inquiryinto this area. Several witnesses were contacted bythe committee, but all of them exerted their FifthAmendment rights against self-incrimination, andin the end the Cox Committee Report did not gointo great depth on its findings regarding suchcampaign contribution violations and their role inthe whole Chinese matter.

The committee delved into the task quiteheavily: the members received numerous briefings

and met with various government officials, fromDepartment of Energy experts to Central Intelli-gence Agency (CIA) staffers. During their sixmonths of investigating, the committee met 34times to hear testimony and conduct committeebusiness, hearing more than 150 hours of testi-mony from 75 witnesses. Over 500,000 pages ofevidentiary material was reviewed, and, after issu-ing 21 subpoenas, the committee heard from 150additional individuals and conducted more than700 hours of interviews. In four instances, immu-nity was granted so that testimony could be heard.

The committee wrapped up its work by the endof 1998 as scheduled and prepared to release its re-port on 3 January 1999. However, several disputesand the redacting of sensitive material led to delaysthat pushed official public release to 25 May 1999.In the end, the three-volume, 900-page reportpainted a picture of an advancing nation, China,which sought by all means necessary to acquirenuclear secrets from the United States. The com-mittee report alleged that Chinese operatives,working in U.S. nuclear laboratories and other fa-cilities, gathered information starting in the 1970sand accelerating in the 1990s, of missile technologyand were able to steal the plans for the W-88 war-head, known better as the Trident II. The reportalso charged that these same Chinese spies hadgathered information on guidance systems forAmerican missiles and jet fighters and electromag-netic weapons technology that was being studiedfor use in the National Missile Defense (NMD) pro-gram, known better as “Star Wars.” It also allegedthat China was using its more than 3,000 commer-cial ventures in the United States as fronts to gatherinformation to use in China. The committee ex-plained that although the Clinton administrationhad relaxed restrictions on the sale of high-tech-nology computers to China in 1996, there was noway to learn if this had come about because ofcampaign donations, or if the computers were usedin China’s military or commercial sector. The com-mittee did allege that the Hughes Electronics Corp.and Loral Space and Electronics, Ltd. Did illegallyassist China with satellite and rocket technology,which was used in their own military missile pro-gram, and that the Clinton administration had re-laxed oversight standards on the two companies.

The Cox Committee report was a bombshellwhen released in May 1999 and was denounced by

Cox Report 81

the Chinese government as a propaganda tool. Thereport did force the U.S. Department of Energy totighten its regulations and security for the firsttime in many years.

References: Eilperin, Juliet, and Vernon Loeb,“Panel SaysChinese Arms Used U.S. Data,” Washington Post, 25May 1999, A1; Laris, Michael,“China Says It Can BuildNeutron Bomb, Beijing Attempts to Discredit CoxReport on Theft of U.S. Secrets,” Washington Post, 15July 1999, A1.; United States Congress, House, SelectCommittee on U.S. National Security andMilitary/Commercial Concerns with the People’sRepublic of China, U.S. National Security andMilitary/Commercial Concerns with the People’sRepublic of China. Submitted by Mr. Cox of California,3 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1999).

Cranston, Alan MacGregor (1914–2000)United States senator from California (1969–1993), implicated in the so-called Keating Five fi-nancial scandal and receiver of the harshest pun-ishment of the five U.S. senators so involved.Cranston was born in Palo Alto, California, on 19June 1914. He attended the public schools of LosAltos, California, before attending Pomona Col-lege (Pomona, California), the University of Mex-ico, and Stanford University, graduating from thelatter institution in 1936. Out of school, Cranstongot a job as a reporter with the InternationalNews Service (now part of UPI, the United PressInternational), covering the growing threat of warin England, Germany, Italy, and Ethiopia from1937 to 1938. Sensing the danger posed by Ger-man leader Adolf Hitler, Cranston, with a formereditor for Hearst newspapers, Amster Spiro, pub-lished a version of Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf(“My Struggle”) with explanatory notes that wereplainly anti-Nazi. Hitler sued Cranston to stoppublication of the work in the United States, butby the time he got a court injunction to cease,more than 500,000 copies had been sold.Cranston then became the chief of the foreignlanguage division of the Office of War Informa-tion in the U.S. Department of War, serving inthat position from 1940 to 1944. In 1944 he en-listed in the U.S. Army as a private and served inan infantry unit in the United States, finishingthe conflict as the editor of Army Talk Magazine.He was discharged in 1945. That year, he pub-lished The Killing of the Peace, his thoughts on

the U.S. Senate’s decision in 1919 not to join theLeague of Nations.

Cranston soon became involved in the politicalarena. He had worked in Washington in 1939 as amember of the Common Council for AmericanUnity, a left-leaning group that urged nondiscrim-ination in immigration and naturalization. Afterthe war, he served as national president of theUnited World Federalists, a group that advocatedone world government. But Cranston was also in-volved in business. In 1947 he became the head ofCranston Co., a real estate concern in Palo Alto thathad been established by his father. In 1958Cranston entered California politics with his elec-tion as state comptroller, and he was reelected in1962. In 1968 he ran for and was elected to theUnited States Senate, defeating Republican MaxRafferty. A member of the Senate Committee onVeterans, Cranston would rise to become chair-man of that panel in the 95th and 96th and 101stand 102nd Congresses. He would also advance tobecome Democratic whip, serving from 1977 to1991. In 1984 he ran a spirited but disastrous cam-paign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

One of the most far-reaching ethics cases inU.S. Senate history was exposed in 1990. Cranston,along with fellow Senators Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH),and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-MI), was revealed tohave given assistance to savings and loan operatorCharles H. Keating Jr. in his attempts to stave offgovernment oversight, in exchange for campaigncontributions. Keating had approached senatorsfrom California and Arizona, where his savingsand loans were located, in an effort to get theirhelp in stopping federal banking investigatorsfrom looking into the financial affairs of the insti-tutions, which were slowly going bankrupt. Severalother politicians were contacted, but refused tohelp: Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, afterlooking into the Keating matter, told Cranstonspecifically that Keating was “a crook.”Nonethelessthe Californian aided the thrift operator, to hisdetriment.

Hearings into the actions taken by these sena-tors opened on 15 November 1990 before the Sen-ate Select Committee on Ethics (it had changed itsname from the Select Committee on Standardsand Conduct in 1977). A special outside counsel,Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, who had

82 Cranston, Alan MacGregor

investigated Senator Harrison Williams in theABSCAM scandal and would be the committee’scounsel against Senator David F. Durenberger, wasretained. What followed were televised hearings(available to a startled nation for the first time inAmerican history) and thirty-three hours ofclosed-door deliberations over six weeks, culmi-nating on 27 February 1991. Bennett and the com-mittee found that of the five senators involved,Cranston was most culpable for committing themost egregious violations. In his final report to thecommittee, Bennett cited four specific occasionswhen Cranston worked to assist Keating, afterKeating had either delivered campaign donationsto Cranston, or had solicited donations for him.The committee report, released on 19 November1991, stated:

The Committee finds that in connection with hisconduct relating to Charles H. Keating, Jr., and Lin-coln Savings and Loan Association, Sen. AlanCranston of California engaged in an impermissiblepattern of conduct in which fundraising and officialactivities were substantially linked. . . . It is furtherresolved:

1. That Sen. Cranston’s impermissible pattern ofconduct violated established norms of behavior inthe Senate, and was improper conduct that reflectsupon the Senate.

2. That Sen. Cranston’s conduct was improperand repugnant.

3. In reviewing the evidence available to it, thecommittee finds that Sen. Cranston: violated no lawor specific Senate rule; acting without corrupt in-tent; and did receive nor intend to receive personalfinancial benefit from any of the funds raisedthrough Mr. Keating.

4. Further, the committee finds that extenuatingcircumstances exist, including the following:

a. That Sen. Cranston is in poor health.b. That Sen. Cranston has announced his inten-

tion not to seek reelection to the Senate.5. Sen. Cranston’s improper conduct deserves

the fullest, strongest, and most severe sanctionwhich the committee has the authority to impose.

Therefore, the Senate Select Committee onEthics, on behalf of and in the name of the Senate,does hereby and severely reprimand Sen. AlanCranston.

Prior to the hearings, Cranston announced thathe was suffering from prostate cancer and would

not be a candidate for reelection in 1992. He leftthe Senate on 3 January 1993, and returned to pri-vate business. He continued to speak out and writeon foreign policy matters and in 1996 became thechairman of the Gorbachev Foundation USA, athink-tank named after the former Soviet Com-munist Party chairman.

On 30 December 2000, Cranston died at hishome in Los Altos, California, at the age of eighty-six. He was remembered by his former colleaguesand intimates as a man of principle, but his obitu-aries were tinged with the words “Keating Five.”

See also Keating FiveReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 877; Congressional Ethics:History, Facts, and Controversy (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, 1992), 44–45; Fowle,Eleanor, Cranston, the Senator from California (SanRafael, CA: Presidio Press, 1980); United StatesCongress, Senate, Select Committee on Ethics,Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston: Report of theSelect Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, 2vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1991).

Crédit Mobilier ScandalOne of the most widespread cases of political cor-ruption in American history, implicating severalU.S. congressmen and senators, as well as the vicepresident of the United States, Schuyler Colfax, intaking monies from a railroad to get legislation fa-vorable to that railroad enacted.

The entire scandal started when Thomas Du-rant, vice president of the Union Pacific RailroadCompany, was able in 1864 to acquire the control-ling interest in the Pennsylvania Fiscal Agency,which was controlled by the Crédit Mobilier ofAmerica. The Crédit Mobilier was established inthe early 1860s to build a transcontinental rail-road. Things started out badly, as the heads of therailroad concern named their company after aFrench corporation that had defrauded French in-vestors of millions of French francs in the 1850s.When the Crédit Mobilier started building the rail-road at ridiculous cost, Durant and his friendsmade millions of dollars. To keep Congress frominvestigating their extravagant profit making, Du-rant showered certain congressmen with stockfrom the Crédit Mobilier. Utilizing the talents ofRepresentative Oakes Ames of Massachusetts as a

Crédit Mobilier Scandal 83

middleman, the company gave stock to Represen-tatives James Brooks of New York, James A.Garfield of Ohio, William D. Kelley of Pennsylva-nia, John Bingham of Ohio, and John A. Logan ofIllinois. Senators James W. Patterson of NewHampshire and Henry Wilson of Massachusetts,and Vice President Schuyler Colfax, among others,also received the gifts. These illicit payments wenton for many years. One of the men who was able toescape all accusations from the scandal was Rep-resentative William Almon Wheeler of New York,who was offered stock by Ames but refused on thegrounds that such stock offers were illegal.Wheeler, the chairman of the House Committee onPacific Railroads, even resigned his chairmanshipso as to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing. Forhis scruples, Wheeler was later rewarded with thesecond spot on the Republican ticket in 1876 andserved as vice president from 1877 to 1881 underRutherford B. Hayes.

By 1869, however, the Union Pacific Railroadwas reporting heavy financial losses, and congres-sional patience for covering these with increased

appropriations was growing thin. Ames pliedsome congressmen and senators with more stock.To a friend, Henry S. McComb, Ames sent a list ofthese politicians, almost bragging about how hehad covered himself. Three years passed and upcame a presidential election. The country hadbeen mired in the scandals of the first four years ofthe administration of President Ulysses S. Grant,and the time seemed ripe for Grant to lose theWhite House to the Democrats. However, nothingcould be pinned on Grant himself, until McCombcame forward with Ames’s list. Passing it along toCharles A. Dana, editor of the New York Sun and apolitical opponent of Grant, McComb let loose atorrent. On 4 September 1872, in the middle of thepresidential campaign, the charges against Ames,Brooks, Blaine, and Grant’s vice president (whohad been shoved aside for Senator Henry Wilson,who was also implicated in the scheme) were airedon the front pages of the Sun. Ames and the othersdenied the charges vehemently, and Grant was ableto coast to an easy reelection victory over NewYork journalist and newspaper editor Horace

84 Crédit Mobilier Scandal

These senators and congressmen denied taking railroad stock from Crédit Mobilier as bribes. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Greeley, nominated by the Democrats and a liberalfaction of the Republican Party.

In December 1872 Congress met in session (asthey did at that time), and the seriousness of thecharges were addressed. Speaker of the HouseJames G. Blaine, implicated in the scandal, in anextraordinary move selected Representative Sam-uel S. Cox of New York (who, running as a liberalRepublican, had lost his 1872 reelection effort) tochair the whole House and to assemble a congres-sional committee to investigate the allegations ofbribery. Cox then named Representative LukePoland (R-VT), who had lost his reelection at-tempt in 1872, to head a committee in the house.Members of this committee included Nathaniel P.Banks of Massachusetts, James B. Beck of Ken-tucky, William E. Niblack of Indiana, and GeorgeW. McCrary of Iowa. The Poland Committee re-ported back to the House on 18 February 1873,prior to the end of the congressional session, im-plicating Representatives Ames and James Brooks(D-NY), and asking that both men be expelledfrom the House. The others were exonerated, de-spite the evidence against them. Many believe thatAmes and Brooks were “sacrificial lambs,” thrownto the wolves to absolve the House as a whole ofthe massive corruption scandal. Many Democratsrefused to vote for expulsion for either man, and inthe end all they received was a censure. (Both menhad lost their seats in 1872, making either an ex-pulsion or censure measure rather moot.)

The House named a second committee, headedby Representative J. M.Wilson of Indiana, to inves-tigate whether any of the persons who boughtstock in the Crédit Mobilier or Union Pacific Rail-road could be held criminally liable. Members ofthis committee included Samuel Shellabarger ofOhio, George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, ThomasSwann of Maryland, and H. W. Slocum of NewYork. No charges ever came out of this committee’sfindings.

Representative James Garfield of Ohio, one ofthe largest purchasers of shares from Ames, es-caped unscathed and was elected simultaneouslyto the U.S. Senate and to the presidency in 1880, afeat not since repeated. Garfield was assassinatedin mid-1881. Blaine resumed the speakership andwas nominated for president by the Republicans in1884, but his ties to the Crédit Mobilier scandal, aswell as another dubbed the Mulligan Letters scan-

dal, caused many reformist Republicans to flee theparty to Democrat Grover Cleveland, who defeatedBlaine. Blaine later served twice as secretary ofstate.Vice President Schuyler Colfax, forced off theRepublican ticket in 1872 because of the CréditMobilier scandal, never recovered his good nameand died in 1885.

Historian George Kohn writes of this scandal,

The Crédit Mobilier scandal, with its almost incred-ible waste, crime, and corruption of basic princi-ples, shook the country, set many weak organiza-tions toppling, and made cynical the averageAmerican affected by it. The weak congressionaldiscipline in the affair hardly frightened financierJay Gould, who had fronted a similar holding-con-struction company while he controlled the buildingof the Northern Pacific Railroad (1870–73). In thePanic of 1873, that construction stopped, and thewily Gould escaped with his gains untouched byeven minor congressional concern.

See also Ames, Oakes; Brooks, James; Colfax, Schuyler,Jr.; Garfield, James Abram; Patterson, James Willis

References: Butler, Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, UnitedStates Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases,1793–1990 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1995), 189–195; Crawford, Jay Boyd, The CréditMobilier of America: Its Origin and History, Its Work ofConstructing the Union Pacific Railroad and theRelation of Members of Congress Therewith, by J. B.Crawford (Boston, C. W. Calkins, 1880); “CréditMobilier Scandal,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 77–78; Hazard,Rowland, The Crédit Mobilier of America: A PaperRead Before the Rhode Island Historical Society,Tuesday Evening, February 22, 1881, by RowlandHazard (Providence: S. S. Rider, 1881).

Croker, Richard (1841–1922)Known as the “Boss of New York politics” as headof the Tammany organization from 1886 to 1902,implicated in, but never convicted of, serious fi-nancial misconduct. In an era when immigrantsfound political power for the first time in Ameri-can history, Richard Croker was ably suited andsituated to rise to the top of the crooked and pow-erful Tammany organization in the last decades ofthe nineteenth century. He was born in Clogh-nakilty, Ireland, on 23 November 1841, the son andone of nine children of one Eyre Coote Croker.

Croker, Richard 85

When Richard was three, in 1844, the family emi-grated to America, settling in New York City, whereRichard Croker attended public school. However,when he was only thirteen, he began to work as amachinist, and from that time his educationended and his work history began. During histeens, Croker was also an amateur prizefighter.

By the time he was eighteen, Croker had joinedthe Tammany Hall society, a machine of politicalcronies that ran New York City. Initially appointedan attendant in the supreme court, he moved overto become an engineer in the New York fire depart-ment. By this time, about 1868, Tammany wassplitting into two factions: those led by WilliamMagear Tweed, known as “Boss” Tweed, leader ofTammany, and the “Young Democracy,” a reformistwing of the machine led by “Honest John” Kellyand opposed to the crookedness of Tweed and hiscronies. As a member of this latter group, Crokerran for a seat on the board of aldermen, and, afterbeing elected, on 20 March 1870, signed a mani-festo declaring that he, along with all the othermembers of the “Young Democracy,” would refuseto push any measure affecting the city without theexpress support of the group. Tweed disagreedwith Croker’s attitude against municipal corrup-tion and in 1870 helped to enact a law in the NewYork state legislature getting rid of Croker’s alder-manic seat. But Tweed’s power was limited in Al-bany, and he could not fight Croker’s subsequentappointment by the state comptroller to a post inthe city government in Manhattan. Tweed’s fallfrom power in 1871 following an investigation byseveral newspapers, including the New York Times,left Croker in a powerful position. “Honest John”Kelly succeeded Tweed, and Croker was named asNew York coroner. When a political opponent ofCroker’s was murdered on election day 1874, Cro-ker was initially charged with the crime and spentone month in jail, but the case was later dismisseddue to lack of evidence.Years later Croker admittedthat one of his friends was the real killer, havingcommitted the crime in self-defense when Crokerhimself was attacked by the victim.

Croker returned to his coroner’s position, laterpromoted to fire commissioner by Mayor FranklinEdison. In 1886 Croker, still a leader in the move-ment to bring reform to city politics, succeeded“Honest John” Kelly as head of Tammany Hall. Itwas at this point that Croker, emboldened by the

power of the Tammany organization, becamechairman of the Tammany Finance Committeeand became a virtual dictator over DemocraticParty politics until 1902. As the Tammany leader,Croker could elect a mayor, or help defeat a candi-date he did not support. This is shown in the elec-tions of Hugh Grant in 1888, Thomas F. Gilroy in1892, and Robert Van Wyck in 1897 to the may-oralty. In 1886 Croker helped to defeat the reformcandidate for mayor, Theodore Roosevelt, insteadhelping to install Abram S. Hewitt. Investigationsfailed to dislodge Croker, known (ironically) as“Boss” Croker: in 1893–1894, the Lexow Commit-tee, looking into police corruption and ties to Tam-many Hall, could not find evidence against Croker;in 1899 the Mazet Committee investigated politi-cal corruption in Tammany Hall, but again Crokerwas not charged with a crime.

In 1893 Croker’s hold on the Tammany organi-zation began to break. The election of William L.Strong as mayor came about because of the LexowCommittee investigation that caused clean elec-tions to be instituted and Croker’s role dimin-ished. The chief counsel of the Lexow Committee,Democratic attorney John Goff, ran as Strong’srunning mate. His leadership tarnished, Crokerleft the United States and went to England intoforced exile. The Tammany organization was takenover by John C. Sheehan, who could not stop Re-publican William McKinley from carrying the cityin 1896. Croker returned and pushed Robert C.Van Wyck for mayor in 1897; Van Wyck battled theanti-Tammany candidate, Seth Low. As soon asVan Wyck was inaugurated, Croker moved in andnamed all of the new mayor’s staff positions. This,and the news that Croker had paid hundreds ofthousands of dollars for property in the UnitedStates and England led to another run by Low in1901, this time successful. Croker’s hold over Tam-many and New York politics was broken. He againmoved to England, living for a time at Wantage, af-terwards transferring to an estate, Glencairn, nearDublin, Ireland. In these, his final years, Crokerspent his time as a dapper Englishman instead ofthe rough-and-tumble politico that he had beenfor years.

Croker’s contribution to American politics is infact large: prior to his leadership of TammanyHall, the organization was an anti-Catholic andanti-immigrant group. By the time Croker came to

86 Croker, Richard

head it up, he saw that Catholics and immigrants(mostly Irish) were populating the cities, and theirsupport was key to his and Tammany’s continuedpopularity. Croker later wrote, “Think of the hun-dreds of thousands of foreigners dumped into ourcity. . . . They are alone, ignorant strangers, a preyto all manner of anarchical and wild notions. . . .And Tammany looks after them for the sake oftheir votes, grafts them upon the Republic, makescitizens of them, in short. . . . If we go down intothe gutter it is because there are men in the gutter,and you have to go down where they are if you areto do anything with them.”

Many historians believe that Croker intendedone day to return to New York and take up themantle of leadership, but he never did. In early1922, as he lay dying in his bed in Ireland, some-one told him that he was going to a better place onthe “other side.” “I doubt it,” Croker said. After hisdeath, his children fought each other bitterly foryears for control of his property.

References: “Croker, Richard,” in Harold Zink, City Bossesin the United States (Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress, 1930), 128–146; “Croker, Richard,” in Jay RobertNash, Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989) II:827; Croker, Richard,“Tammany Hall and the Democracy,” North AmericanReview, 154:423 (February 1892), 225–230; Essays inthe History of New York City: A Memorial to SidneyPomerantz (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press,1978); Lewis, Alfred Henry, Richard Croker (New York:Life Publishing Company, 1901), 4–12; Stoddard,Lothrop, Master of Manhattan: The Life of RichardCroker (New York: Longmans, Green and Company,1931).

Crosby, William (c.1690–1736)See Zenger, John Peter

Curley, James Michael (1874–1958)Member of the Massachusetts State House of Rep-resentatives (1902–1903), U.S. representative fromMassachusetts (1911–1914, 1943–1947), mayor ofBoston (1914–1917, 1922–1925, 1930–1933, 1946–1949), governor of Massachusetts (1935–1937),head of the powerful Democratic machine in thatcity and the first to organize Irish immigrants intoa powerful political force in the United States.

Born in Boston on 20 November 1874, Curley wasthe son of Michael Curley and Sarah (née Clancy)Curley, both Irish immigrants. Michael Curley waskilled in an accident when his son James wastwelve, and James’s mother was forced to go towork as a maid. James Curley attended the publicschools of Boston, leaving school early to go towork for the baking and confectionery concern ofLogan, Johnston & Co. Later, Curley was involvedin the selling of real estate and insurance. How-ever, he soon found Boston Irish politics in hisblood. Despite the fact that his father had onceworked for P. J. “Peajacket” Maguire, ward boss ofthe Seventh Boston Ward, in 1898 James Curleyran for a seat on the Boston City Council against a“Peajacket”-endorsed candidate. Despite his loss,he ran again the next year and, employing thesame rough tactics of his opponents, he won, andtook his council seat at age twenty-six. In 1902, hedecided to run for a seat in the Massachusettsstate legislature. Elected, he served until 1903. Atthat time he returned to Boston and ran for a posi-tion on the Boston Board of Aldermen. When hewas caught taking a civil service examination for afriend, he was sent to jail for sixty days, fromwhich he campaigned. Despite this, he was elected,and served on the board from 1904 to 1909. Curleylater served as a member of the Boston City Coun-cil from 1910 to 1911.

In 1910 Curley ran for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives, representing Massachusetts’sTwelfth District. A Democrat, he served twoundistinguished terms, until his resignation on 4February 1914. In 1913 Curley ran for mayor ofBoston. Facing the political machine of “HoneyFitz” Fitzgerald—the maternal grandfather ofPresident John F. Kennedy—Curley defeatedFitzgerald’s candidate, Thomas J. Kenny. Curleythen threw out all the machine politicians whoran the city and instituted his own system ofcronyism. Opening up city coffers, he spent lav-ishly on city projects such as hospitals, parks, androads. However, he alienated many in the businesscommunity and when he ran for reelection in1917 he was defeated by a powerful ward boss,Martin Lomasney.

Despite this defeat, Curley plotted a comeback.In 1921, he defeated three candidates in the Dem-ocratic primary to win a second nonconsecutiveterm. Once again, he spent city funds, this time to

Curley, James Michael 87

create jobs and end unemployment. In 1924 he ranfor governor, but lost. In 1926 he was again de-feated as mayor, but four years later he again madea comeback and served in that same office from1930 to 1934. In 1934 Curley ran for governor ofMassachusetts, becoming the chief executive ofthat state. In 1936 he ran for the United States Sen-ate, but he lost to Republican Henry Cabot LodgeJr. He ran again unsuccessfully for mayor ofBoston in 1937, for governor in 1938, and formayor in 1940. He was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives in 1942 and reelected in1944, and served a fourth term as mayor of Bostonfrom 1945 to 1949. In 1957 he served in his finaloffice, that of appointed head of the MassachusettsState Labor Commission.

Curley’s career was marked by repeated allega-tions of corruption, and two times he was con-victed. As biographer Stanley Schultz explained, in1937 in his race for governor Curley accepted abribe for helping to settle an insurance claimagainst the city of Boston in exchange for politicalsupport. Found guilty, he was ordered to repay thecity the amount of $42,629. In 1941 Curley servedas the president of Engineers Corp., a military firmthat used Curley’s name to get war contracts priorto the American entry into World War II. AlthoughCurley only served in this capacity for six monthsand was never paid for his work, in 1945 he wasindicted by the U.S. Department of Justice andcharged with taking $60,000 through influencepeddling. Found guilty, he was sentenced to eigh-teen months in prison. Sickly, he served only fourmonths before President Harry S. Truman gavehim executive clemency. Out of prison, he recov-ered and once again served as mayor of Boston. In1950, Truman gave him an unconditional pardon.

James Michael Curley is considered one of themost unusual and colorful characters in the his-tory of Massachusetts politics. Author Edwin O’-Connor based his fictional political boss FrankSkeffington on Curley when he penned The LastHurrah (1956). Curley wrote his own memoirs, I’dDo It Again: A Record of All My Uproarious Years, in1957. Curley died in Boston on 12 November 1958and was laid to rest in Old Cavalry Cemetery inthat city.

References: Beatty, Jack, The Rascal King: The Life andTimes of James Michael Curley (Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1993); Biographical

Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1996(Alexandria,VA: CQ Staff Directories, Inc., 1996),892–893; Curley, James Michael, I’d Do It Again: ARecord of All My Uproarious Years (Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1957); Dinneen, Joseph F., ThePurple Shamrock: The Honorable James MichaelCurley of Boston (New York: Norton, 1949); “James M.Curley Dies in Boston, Colorful Democratic Boss was83,” New York Times, 13 November 1958, 1; Jones,Peter d’A.,“Curley, James Michael,” in Melvin G. Holliand Peter d’A. Jones, Biographical Dictionary ofAmerican Mayors, 1820–1980: Big City Mayors(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 86–88;Schultz, Stanley K.,“Curley, James Michael,” in AllenJohnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary ofAmerican Biography, X vols. and 10 supplements(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),6:138–141.

Curtis, George William (1824–1892)American writer and reformer, editor (1863–1892) of Harper’s Weekly, commissioner and advo-cate of civil service reform in the latter part of thenineteenth century. Born on 24 February 1824 inProvidence, Rhode Island, Curtis was the scion ofa wealthy family. In 1836, his father, George Curtis,a banker, took a position with Continental Bank;he moved his family and his wife, Mary ElizabethCurtis, to New York. There, George Curtis was edu-cated at a exemplary boarding school and by pri-vate tutors. He later moved with his brother Burrillto the Brook Farm commune in West Roxbury,Massachusetts, south of Boston. Curtis moved toBoston, becoming friends with such literary giantsas Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau,and Nathaniel Hawthorne. It was his associationwith these men, as well as a trip through Europewith his brother between 1846 and 1850 that ledhim on a path of writing and journalism. His timespent in Europe, particularly in Rome and Berlin,as well as in Egypt and Syria in the Middle East,led him to publish his first book, Nile-Notes ofHowadji, in 1850.

After his return to the United States in 1850,Curtis went to work as a travel writer for HoraceGreeley’s New York Tribune, at that time perhapsthe most influential newspaper in the UnitedStates. Soon after, however, in 1852 Curtis left theTribune to help start Putnam’s Monthly, a newmagazine that was, unfortunately, short-lived.Nonetheless, within a year Curtis went to work for

88 Curtis, George William

Harper’s Monthly Magazine as a contributor, com-mencing the highly successful column “The EasyChair,” and, after that, Harper’s Weekly, where hepenned “The Lounger,” another successful column.Harper’s was one of the most influential publica-tions in America at that time, and Curtis becamethe editor in chief of Harper’s Weekly in 1857.

Biographer Gordon Milne, in assessing Curtis’srise from mere columnist to political reformer, ex-plained Curtis’s work after 1873:

Curtis kept the attention of his Weekly readers fo-cused during the next decade principally on theproblem of civil service reform. If he had a favoritecause this was it, and almost all of his political ac-tivity in subsequent years revolved around his ef-forts in behalf of the reform. The Curtis householdwas strewn with civil service tokens, the Curtis li-brary was filled with books and pamphlets relatingto the cause, the Curtis-written editorial pages ofHarper’s Weekly were devoted time and time againto discussions of the question.

A staunch Republican, Curtis nonetheless was acritic of the scandals of the administration ofUlysses S. Grant, and in the pages of the Weekly hecalled for reform by Congress. He also used theWeekly to savage Democrats—he hired cartoonistThomas Nast to savage New York political bossWilliam M. “Boss” Tweed, leading to Tweed’sdownfall. However, in 1884, when the Republicansnominated Senator James G. Blaine for president,Curtis and Nast left the Republican Party and usedthe pages of their paper to lambaste Blaine. Curtisbecame one of the leaders of the so-called Mug-wump movement, consisting of disaffected Re-

publicans who refused to back Blaine and, in somecases, crossed over and voted for Democrat GroverCleveland for president.

In 1873 President Grant formed the UnitedStates Civil Service Commission and named Curtisas one of the commissioners. Although the paneldid not last long, lacking a congressional mandatefor reform, Curtis remained at the forefront of themovement. The scandals of the Grant administra-tion led to the passage in 1883 of the Civil ServiceReform Act, or the Pendleton Act after its sponsor,Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio. With the es-tablishment of a new Civil Service Commission,President Chester A. Arthur named Curtis as thechairman of the panel. He finished his life’s work inthis capacity, having also established the New YorkCivil Service Reform Association and the NationalCivil Service Reform League.

George Curtis died at his home on New York’sStaten Island on 31 August 1892 at the age of sixty-seven. Despite his work for the last twenty years ofhis life to enact civil service reform, he is better re-membered for his columns and editorials inHarper’s Weekly and his many pithy sayings.

See also Eaton, Dorman Bridgman; Pendleton CivilService Act

References: Cary, Edward, George William Curtis(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1894); Curtis, GeorgeWilliam, Orations and Addresses of George WilliamCurtis, ed. Charles Eliot Norton (New York: Harper &Brothers, 1894); Hellman, George S.,“Curtis, GeorgeWilliam,” in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al.,eds., Dictionary of American Biography, X vols. and 10supplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995), II:614–616; Milne, Gordon, GeorgeWilliam Curtis & the Genteel Tradition (Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1956), 150.

Curtis, George William 89

Daugherty, Harry Micajah (1860–1941)United States attorney general (1921–1924), thefirst of two attorneys general to get into ethicaltrouble while in office. Daugherty was also a well-known Ohio attorney who served as the campaignmanager for Senator Warren G. Harding at the1920 Republican National Convention. He wasborn in Washington Court House, Ohio, on 26 Jan-uary 1860. After attending local schools, he re-ceived his law degree from the University ofMichigan in 1881. He returned to the place of hisbirth and established himself as an importantlocal attorney. His hallmark was getting his clientsrelief through political connections—a means hewould use later to his own and to others’ politicaladvantage.

Daugherty, despite his political connections,served only briefly in local Ohio politics—first asthe township clerk, then for two terms in the Ohiostate legislature (1890–1894). A year before leav-ing the state legislature, Daugherty moved his lawpractice from Washington Court House to Colum-bus. Over the next several years he built up a clientbase, mainly of Ohio corporations, and became awealthy man. In 1895 he ran unsuccessfully forstate attorney general and two years later ran asimilar unsuccessful race for governor of Ohio.This final defeat led Daugherty to conclude that hewas better representing people than running theshow himself. This led him to a rising star in Ohiopolitics, Warren G. Harding. Harding was a news-

paper publisher in his hometown of Marion, Ohio.In 1902, after having served in the Ohio state sen-ate (1899–1903), Harding ran for lieutenant gover-nor—and Harry M. Daugherty served as his cam-paign manager. Because of his connections,Daugherty was able to secure a victory for thebashful Harding. Daugherty became his chiefbacker. The attorney used his influence in the Re-publican Party to get Harding plum speakingroles, including one at the 1912 Republican Na-tional Convention in which he introduced Presi-dent William Howard Taft. This led Daugherty tohelp Harding obtain the Republican nominationfor the U.S. Senate in 1914 and be elected to thatbody. In the Senate, Harding was a quiet man whospoke little and supported even less legislation.Despite this, he was personally popular, andDaugherty made friends with the right people tofurther advance his friend’s career.

In 1920 several candidates stepped forward tocompete for the Republican presidential nomina-tion. When the convention deadlocked over thesecandidates, Daugherty, sitting in a back room(later dubbed “the smoke-filled room”)jammedwith the influential leaders of the party, suggestedthe bland and wholly uncontroversial Harding as apotential nominee. This proposal seemed morethan intriguing, and Harding was nominated onthe next ballot. Governor Calvin Coolidge of Mass-achusetts, also a colorless figure with little in hisrecord to find controversial, was given the second

D

91

place on the ticket. Daugherty ran Harding’s cam-paign, keeping him away from contentious issuessuch as the League of Nations. In the end, Hardingwon a landslide victory against Ohio GovernorJames Cox—the first time two men from the samestate ran against each other—with 60 percent ofthe vote. Soon after his victory, Harding named hispolitical benefactor Harry M. Daugherty as thenext attorney general. Confirmed by the Senate,Daugherty took office on 5 March 1921.

During his tenure as the chief law enforcementofficer in the U.S. government, which ended on 28March 1924, Daugherty became the first of two at-torneys general to face criminal charges regardingactions he took in office. (The other, JohnMitchell, in fact went to prison.) Daugherty wasalleged to have been involved in the scandalknown as Teapot Dome, in which U.S. national oilreserves under the control of Secretary of theNavy Edwin Denby and Secretary of the InteriorAlbert B. Fall were sold off in exchange for bribes.What few historians write about is that Daughertyin fact did take a bribe—but not in connectionwith Teapot Dome. Instead, Daugherty accepted abribe from the American Metal Company, a con-cern confiscated from a German company whenAmerica entered World War I. The companybribed Daugherty so that action allowing the Ger-man parent company to reacquire its Americansubsidiary could be speeded up. As well, Daugh-erty was accused by Congress of failing to investi-gate several individuals accused of defrauding theU.S. government during the war. When Daughertyapparently did not move fast enough in these in-vestigations, Representative Oscar O. Keller (R-MN) introduced an impeachment resolution inCongress, but it did not go anywhere. Although hehad been a close friend of theirs, Harding was de-stroyed by his officials’ apparent corruption.Harding is alleged to have yelled, “My God, this isa hell of a job! I can take care of my enemies allright. But my friends—my God damn friends,they’re the ones that keep me walking the floornights!” In August 1923 Harding suddenly diedwhile on a trip to Alaska and California and wassucceeded by his vice president, Calvin Coolidge.

Daugherty was soon under fire for the Ameri-can Metal Company matter. On 25 January 1923,Representative Robert Young Thomas Jr. (D-KY)wrote part of the minority report on Daugherty

after a House committee investigation of the attor-ney general:

It was strongly intimated if not directly contendedby several members of the committee that the At-torney General could not be impeached except foran indictable offense. I think this view is absolutelyincorrect. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedyborn in the parliamentary procedure of England,and the principles which govern it have long beenenveloped in clouds of uncertainty . . . by usage ofthe English Parliament so far back that the memoryof man runneth not to the contrary, offenses wereimpeachable which were not indictable or punish-able as crimes at common law. Therefore the phrase“high crimes and misdemeanors” must be broadand extended as the offense against which theprocess of impeachment affords protection. Everycase of impeachment must stand alone, and whilecertain general principles control the judgementand conscience, the Senate alone must determinethe issue.

In 1924, when word spread of how the TeapotDome and Elk Hills reserves had been sold off, theUnited States Senate opened an investigation, es-tablishing the Senate Select Committee on Inves-tigation of the Attorney General, which lookedinto Daugherty’s conduct in running the Depart-ment of Justice. Through a number of hearings,the senators discovered that not only had Secre-tary of the Interior Albert Fall been heavily in-volved in the selling of the reserves in exchangefor bribes, but that Secretary of the Navy EdwinDenby had acquiesced to the scheme, and thatDaugherty had been aware of it but had donenothing to stop it, even though there was no evi-dence he himself had taken any bribes. The Sen-ate hired two special prosecutors—one Democratand one Republican—to oversee a more thoroughinvestigation. After a period, these men, DeputyAttorney General Owen J. Roberts and former U.S.Senator Atlee Pomerene of Ohio, concluded thatDaugherty had not been aware of the frauds andhad not taken any bribes. Despite being cleared bythe special investigations, Daugherty’s name wasstill tarnished within the context of the entireTeapot Dome scandal. On 28 March 1924, Presi-dent Coolidge, seeking to put an end to the scan-dal, asked for and received Daugherty’s resigna-tion. He quickly replaced him with Harlan Fiske

92 Daugherty, Harry Micajah

Stone, the dean of the Columbia Law School and aman of impeccable character.

Despite being cleared in the Teapot Dome mat-ter, Daugherty was still under an ethical cloud forhis role in the American Metal Company situation.Two different grand juries heard the evidence inthe case, but both times these juries failed to indictthe former attorney general. Although he neverformally faced criminal charges relating to any ofthe scandals in which he was allegedly involved,Daugherty’s good name was ruined, and he spentthe rest of his life trying to repair his damagedreputation. In 1932 he penned The Inside Story ofthe Harding Tragedy, in which he tried to claim in-nocence. In 1940, in declining health, Daughertygave an interview to a magazine in which he onceagain proclaimed his innocence. “What I did wasdone in the interest of the American people andmy action was sustained by the courts,” he wrote.“Notwithstanding the abuse I received, I can saynow that given the same circumstances I wouldnot change an official or personal act of minewhile I was Attorney General. That’s a clear con-science for you.” Daugherty died on 12 October1941 at the age of eighty-one, his name still tied tothe scandals that rocked his leadership of the Jus-tice Department and the Harding administrationas a whole.

See also McGrain v. DaughertyReferences: Cognac, Robert Earl,“The Senatorial Career

of Henry Fountain Ashurst” (Master’s thesis, ArizonaState University, 1953); Daugherty, Harry M., andThomas Dixon, The Inside Story of the HardingTragedy (New York: The Churchill Company, 1932);“Daugherty Is Denounced in the Senate as LettingFriends Sell Immunity; Name of a Senator onBrokers’ Books,” New York Times, 20 February 1924,1; Forth, William S.,“Wesley L. Jones: A PoliticalBiography” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofWashington, 1962); Giglio, James M.,“The PoliticalCareer of Harry M. Daugherty” (Ph.D. dissertation,Ohio State University, 1968); “Harry Daugherty: TheAppearance of Evil,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopediaof American Scandal: From ABSCAM to the ZengerCase (New York: Facts on File, 1989), 82–83; Remarksof Rep. Thomas in House Report 1372, 67thCongress, 4th Session (1923).

Delaney, Denis W.See Income Tax Scandal, Department of Justice(1951–1952)

Democracy: An American NovelPopular work of literature written in 1880, the firstmajor piece of fiction in American literature todeal with political corruption at the highest pointsin American government.

When Democracy appeared in 1880, HenryAdams, scion of the famed Adams family, was con-sidered to be its author. Set in Washington, it con-cerned the widow Madeleine Lee, a rich womanfrom New York who, as the author explained, cameto Washington “to see with her own eyes the actionof primary forces; to touch with her own hand themassive machinery of society; to measure withher own mind the capacity of motive power. Shewas bent upon getting to the heart of the greatAmerican mystery of democracy and govern-ment.” Mrs. Lee bought a house on LafayetteSquare and invited many of the city’s rich and fa-mous, including politicians, to come to her homeeach afternoon for tea and sandwiches. Historianswho have examined the book over the years haveconcluded that Adams based the character Mrs.Lee on his own wife, Clover Adams, who, with herhusband, lived on Lafayette Square and dined withWashington’s rich and powerful.

Mrs. Lee falls in love with the rich and powerfulSenator Ratcliffe, but just before she is to marryhim, another politician reveals that Ratcliffe is acorrupt and unethical scoundrel, and the weddingis canceled. Many believe that Adams based Rat-cliffe on Senator James Gillespie Blaine, a formerSpeaker of the U.S. House of Representatives andU.S senator implicated in a railroad scandal in1876 that would in 1884 cost him the presidency.The novel was a smash hit, the first such work tomix genteel politics with corruption in Washing-ton, broaching that subject for the very first time.

Over the years, some historians have ques-tioned whether Henry Adams penned this work atall. In 1923 Henry Holt, Adams’s publisher, wrotethat Henry Adams indeed was its author. However,some people believe that Adams’s wife, Clover, wasthe real author and that she based the novel on herown observations of Washington society. Despiteits questionable authorship, Democracy was thefirst work of fiction to portray Washington awashin corruption and power.

See also MugwumpsReferences: Conroy, Sarah Booth,“The Earlier D.C.

‘Anonymous’,” Washington Post, 5 February 1996, C3.

Democracy: An American Novel 93

Denby, Edwin (1870–1929)Secretary of the navy (1921–1924), implicated inthe Teapot Dome scandal but never charged, al-though his reputation was destroyed by the affair.Denby came from a family long involved in poli-tics. Born in Evansville, Indiana, on 18 February1870, Denby went to China with his father, CharlesDenby, a noted American diplomat to that Asiancountry. Edwin Denby received his education inChina, mostly from private tutors. From 1887 until1894 he served in the Chinese Maritime CustomsService. When he returned home, he entered theUniversity of Michigan, from which he earned alaw degree in 1896. After he passed the Michiganbar, Denby went to work with the Detroit law firmof Chamberlin, Denby, Webster and Kennedy. Twoyears later, when the Spanish-American War brokeout, Denby left the firm and volunteered for ser-vice in the United States Navy. He rose to the rankof gunner’s mate second class while serving on theUSS Yosemite. He saw action during the conflict atGuantanamo Bay in Cuba, in Puerto Rico, and atManila Bay when American forces under AdmiralDewey attacked Spanish warships. After the war,he returned to the practice of law.

In 1903 Denby ran for and was elected to a seatin the Michigan state house of representatives. Heserved in that seat for less than two years: in 1904,he ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representa-tives, representing the First Congressional District.He defeated Democrat Alfred Lucking and servedin the Fifty-ninth, Sixtieth, and Sixty-first Con-gresses from 4 March 1905 until 3 March 1911. Astaunch Republican, Denby supported his party invirtually all his votes. In 1910 he was defeated byDemocrat Frank Doremus. He then entered privatebusiness, serving in banking and other work. Hewas a founder of the Hupp Motor Company, as wellas the Federal Motor Truck Company and the De-troit Motor Bus Company. From 1916 until 1917, heserved as head of the Detroit Board of Commerce.In 1917, following the United States’ entry intoWorld War I, Denby again volunteered for serviceand, despite being nearly fifty years old, was ac-cepted for duty as a private in the United StatesMarines. Instead of serving in Europe, however,Denby served as a training officer at Parris Island,South Carolina. By the end of the war, he had ad-vanced to the rank of major and continued afterthe end of the conflict in the Marine Corps Reserve.

In 1920 Senator Warren G. Harding (R-OH) waselected president. In selecting his cabinet, Hardingreached out to all factions of the RepublicanParty—and in doing so called upon Edwin Denbyto serve as his secretary of the navy. Despite hislimited experience with the military, Denby waschosen on a recommendation of Senator JohnWingate Weeks of Massachusetts. He was easilyconfirmed by the U.S. Senate and took office on 6March 1921.

In his three years in office, Denby becameknown as perhaps one of the worst—and mostcorrupt—secretaries of the navy. From the start,he was intimately involved in the scandal that laterbecame known as Teapot Dome. On 4 June 1920,the U.S. Congress ordered that the national oil re-serves located at Elk Hills, California, and TeapotDome, Wyoming, were to be moved from the con-trol of the secretary of the interior to that of thesecretary of the navy. However, on 31 May 1921,President Harding signed an executive order thatplaced the administration of the reserves underSecretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall. Fall thenentered into secret deals with oilmen who wereable to buy the oil in exchange for bribes to Fall.However, because Congress had given the ultimateauthority over the reserves to Denby, Fall neededhis signature on all of the contracts, and it is im-possible to believe that Denby was not knowledge-able about what Fall was doing. The United StatesSupreme Court later catalogued exactly whatDenby’s involvement was: in a 1927 decision, PanAmerican Petroleum & Transport Co. v. UnitedStates, 273 U.S. 456 (1927), Justice Pierce Butlerexplained:

Denby was passive throughout, and signed the con-tracts and lease and the letter of April 25, 1922,under misapprehension and without full knowledgeof their contents. [On] July 8, 1921, Fall wrote [oil-man Edward] Doheny: “There will be no possibilityof any further conflict with Navy officials and thisdepartment, as I have notified Secretary Denby thatI should conduct the matter of naval leases underthe direction of the President, without calling any ofhis force in consultation unless I conferred withhimself personally upon a matter of policy. He un-derstands the situation and that I shall handle mat-ters exactly as I think best and will not consult withany officials of any bureau in his department, butonly with himself, and such consultation will be

94 Denby, Edwin

confined strictly and entirely to matters of generalpolicy.

Despite being implicated in the scandal thatcame to light in 1924, Denby was not criminallyimplicated; in other words, there was no evidencethat Denby had taken bribes. Perhaps his worstcrime was naivete and stupidity. No one will everknow—no records exist, and Denby never spokeabout it. He resigned his office on 10 March 1924after the Senate demanded that President CalvinCoolidge, who succeeded Harding upon the latter’sdeath in August 1923, remove Denby. He left Wash-ington and returned to private life in Detroit.

Edwin Denby died in his sleep on 8 February1929, having the Teapot Dome scandal still hang-ing over his head. Although Fall went to prison,Denby was never tried, but never really cleared,and historians tie him in with the corruption ofthe scandal.

References: “Criminal Prosecution of Fall Looms; DenbyScored as ‘Partner’; McAdoo Gives Up His DohenyRetainer,” New York Times, 8 February 1924, 2;Grossman, Mark, Encyclopedia of the United StatesCabinet, 3 vols. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000),II:496–498; Justice Butler’s remarks in Pan AmericanPetroleum & Transport Co. v. United States, 273 U.S.456, 509 (1927); “Oil Scandal Broadens as Senate VoteNears on the Ousting of Secretary Denby,” New YorkTimes, 9 February 1924, 2; Woods, John Kent,“Denby,Edwin,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen.eds., American National Biography, 24 vols. (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999), 6:429–430.

Dever, William Emmett (1862–1929)Mayor of Chicago (1923–1927), defeated by AlCapone’s organization, who helped to reinstall thecrooked “Big” Bill Thompson and end Dever’scleanup of city corruption. A Democrat, Dever wasborn in Woburn, Massachusetts, on 13 March

Dever, William Emmett 95

Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby surrounded by reporters at the White House as he announces he would not resign from theCabinet as a result of the Teapot Dome investigation. (Library of Congress)

1862, one of six children of Patrick Dever, a leathermanufacturer. William Dever attended publicschools in Woburn, before he graduated from highschool in 1870 and went to work in his father’sbusiness. Afterwards, he worked for a major tan-nery in the town of Olean, New York, and then inChicago. After attending law school at the ChicagoCollege of Law, he received his law degree in 1890.He also entered the political realm as a staunchDemocrat.

In 1902 Dever, pushed by numerous reformerswho desired a change of city government inChicago, ran for a seat as an alderman in Chicago’sSeventeenth Ward and won. He served until 1910,when he resigned to run for a judgeship on theCook County Superior Court. Reelected in 1916, heserved until 1923. He also served as a member ofthe Illinois Appellate Court.

In 1923 Dever ran for mayor of Chicago. Foryears governed by a weak mayorship and numer-ous aldermen who ran their wards like fiefdoms,Chicago had become a patchwork of weak and in-effective government. By 1923 the mayor,“Big” BillThompson, was seen as the corrupt arm of manyof the crooks in Chicago—including the crimeboss Al Capone. Selected by the Democrats in theirFebruary primary, Dever defeated RepublicanArthur C. Lueder and Socialist William A. Cunneaon 3 April 1923 to become the thirty-fourth mayorof Chicago. During his single four-year term,Dever was seen as being a mildly effective re-former whose plans were stymied by the en-trenched powers. Historian Andrew Prinz wrote,“Dever’s administration was characterized byhigh-quality appointments, plans, and programsfor physical growth, and a vigorous campaign forlaw and order. Chicago’s first zoning ordinance waspassed while he was mayor, and the double-deckWacker Drive was completed. In addition, theChicago River was straightened, Union Station wasfinished, traffic lights installed in the downtownLoop, and extensive paving of streets and alleystook place. Dever’s zeal to enforce Prohibition an-tagonized many voters and contributed to his de-feat” in 1927. Another factor that led to his defeatwas his strong crackdown on organized crime. Heshut down The Four Deuces, the gambling casinoowned by Johnny Torrio, and had the police raidsuspected alcohol establishments. As Dever statedon the issue of alcohol, “I am just as sure that this

miserable traffic with its toll of human life andmorals can be stamped out as I am that I ammayor, and I am not going to flinch for a minute.”

In 1927, with a strong record of accomplish-ment behind him, Dever ran for reelection on aplatform of “Dever and Decency.” Republicans putforward “Big” Bill Thompson, who had the backingof elements siding with Al Capone. Because ofCapone’s backing, and Dever’s strong Prohibitionrecord, Thompson defeated him by nearly 80,000votes out of some 1 million cast. Thompson im-mediately ordered that the crackdown on liquorestablishments end, helping Capone continue tobuild his empire.

Dever left office and became the vice presidentof the Bank of America (BOA). However, a yearlater, his health suddenly declined, and he retired.Suffering from cancer, he died on 3 September1929 at the age of sixty-seven.

See also: Thompson, William HaleReferences: Prinz, Andrew K.,“Dever, William Emmett,”

in Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones, BiographicalDictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980: Big CityMayors (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981),101–102; Schmidt, John R., The Mayor Who CleanedUp Chicago: A Political Biography of William E. Dever(DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989).

Deweese, John Thomas (1835–1906)United States representative from North Carolina(1868–1870), censured by the House for corrup-tion in appointments to the United States Militaryand Naval Academies. Born in Van Buren,Arkansas, on 4 June 1835, he was educated athome, where he read the law. He was admitted tothe state bar in 1856, but moved to Henderson,Kentucky, where he opened a practice. Deweesethen moved around, living in Denver, Colorado, forsome time before he settled in Pike County, Indi-ana, in 1860. When the Civil War broke out, he vol-unteered for service in the Union army and wascommissioned as a second lieutenant with Com-pany E of the Twenty-fourth Regiment of the Indi-ana Volunteer Infantry on 6 July 1861. He servedwith that unit until his resignation on 15 February1862; he was then moved to Company F of the In-diana Volunteer Infantry, with the rank of captain.He was eventually promoted to the rank of coloneland after the war, moved to North Carolina. Whenthe army was reorganized after the war, Deweese

96 Deweese, John Thomas

was appointed a second lieutenant to the EighthUnited States Infantry on 24 July 1866.

Deweese resigned his rank on 14 August 1869,after he had been elected to Congress. In 1868 heserved for a short time as register in bankruptcy(in effect, a bankruptcy judge) for North Carolina.When the state was readmitted to the Union underReconstruction, Deweese ran for and won a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives, representing theFourth North Carolina District. Running as a Re-publican, he defeated conservative candidate SionH. Rogers. Deweese entered the House in the Forti-eth Congress on 6 July 1868 and served until hisresignation on 28 February 1870. He served aschairman of the Committee on Expenditures inthe Department of the Interior and as chairman ofthe Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.

In 1870 Deweese came under fire after it wasalleged that he had sold appointments to theUnited States Military Academy at West Point andthe United States Naval Academy at Annapolis.Part of a congressman’s responsibility is to nomi-nate persons in his district for spots at theseacademies, but Deweese, along with several othercongressmen, were accused of selling these spotsfor money. An investigation ensued, and it wasdiscovered that the allegations against Deweesewere in fact true. Historian Hubert Bruce Fullerwrote in 1909, “John T. DeWeese [sic], a memberfrom North Carolina, sold cadetships to the navalacademy for five hundred dollars and was ‘foundout.’ To avoid expulsion he resigned. Even hisconfreres, his fellow carpet-baggers, bitterly de-nounced him, not because of his dishonesty; noteven because of his clumsiness in being detected;but because he had hurt the market. They hadbeen charging, and receiving too, from one to twothousand dollars for each cadetship. He had cutthe rate.”

On 1 March 1870, Representative John A. Loganof Illinois, a member of the Committee on MilitaryAffairs, reported the following resolution:

Resolved, That John T. Deweese, late a Representa-tive in Congress from the Third Congressional dis-trict of North Carolina, did make an appointment tothe United States Naval Academy in violation of law,and that such appointment was influenced by pecu-niary considerations, and that his conduct in thepremises has been such as to show him unworthy ofa seat in the House of Representatives, and is there-

fore condemned as conduct unworthy of a Repre-sentative of the people.

Hinds’ Precedents then reported that “Mr. Loganexplained that the committee would have reporteda resolution of expulsion had not the House by itsaction in a previous case decided against expellinga Member who had resigned. The resolution wasthen agreed to, yeas 170, nays 0.” Deweese thus be-came one of only a handful of congressmen in thehistory of the House who have been the subject ofexpulsion measures. In the end, he was merelycensured, but because he resigned his seat thispunishment had no substance.

Deweese returned to the practice of law, re-maining in Washington. He lived there for the re-mainder of his life, dying on 4 July 1906, onemonth past his seventy-first birthday. Because ofhis military service, he was buried in ArlingtonNational Cemetery.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 936; Fuller, Hubert Bruce, TheSpeakers of the House (Boston: Little, Brown, andCompany, 1909), 171; Hinds, Asher Crosby, Hinds’Precedents of the House of Representatives of theUnited States, Including References to Provisions of theConstitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the UnitedStates Senate, 8 vols.(Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1907–108), II:796.

Dewey, Thomas Edmund (1902–1971)Governor of New York (1943–1955), Republicanpresidential candidate (1944, 1948), known for hiswork as a prosecutor in New York in which hebroke the back of organized crime and prosecutedpolitical corruption cases. Born in Owosso, Michi-gan, on 24 March 1902, Dewey attended localschools before he entered the University of Michi-gan, graduating from that institution in 1923. Hemoved to New York, where he studied at the Co-lumbia University School of Law, earning a law de-gree in 1925. He was admitted to the New York barthe following year.

Practicing on his own for a short time, Deweywas named as chief assistant to the U.S. attorneyfor the Southern District of New York, GeorgeMedalie, in 1931. It was under Medalie’s tutelagethat Dewey grew in stature as a crime fighter. Fortwo years starting in 1935, Dewey, as a special

Dewey, Thomas Edmund 97

Thomas E. Dewey, speaking before microphones at a press conference in New York, following his upset loss to President Truman.(Library of Congress)

prosecutor fighting organized crime, obtained sev-enty-two convictions out of seventy-three casestried, a record yet to broken. At the end of his run,in 1937, Dewey ran for district attorney for NewYork County and was elected. (He was also the Re-publican candidate for governor against Herbert H.Lehman, but Lehman was easily reelected at thesame time Dewey was winning the district attor-ney position.) During his tenure in that positionfrom 1938 to 1943, Dewey earned the name “racketbuster” because of his work to break the organizedcrime families led by “Lucky” Luciano and “Dutch”Schultz. He also went after Tammany boss James J.Hines for running numbers rackets in Harlem, andsent Louis “Lepke”Buchalter to the electric chair. In1942, emboldened by his status as a crime fighterand honest politician, Dewey ran for governor ofNew York and was elected over Democrat John J.Bennett Jr. and several third-party candidates.During his tenure as governor, 1943–1955, Deweybecame the leading Republican in the nation. Onlya year after becoming governor, Dewey was nomi-nated by the Republicans for president at their na-tional nominating convention in Chicago. However,the country was in the midst of war, and PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt was easily reelected to afourth term. Roosevelt died soon after his fourthterm began, and immediately Dewey was onceagain the leading Republican candidate for presi-dent. In 1948 the Republicans at their conventionin Philadelphia once again nominated him forpresident, and though Dewey was heavily favoredto win, the nation narrowly gave the election to theincumbent, Harry S. Truman. Dewey never ran fornational office again, becoming one of the few mento twice be the nominee of his party for presidentin losing campaigns.

Dewey was still the leader of his party, however.In 1952 he led the group of eastern moderates inthe party that threw the presidential nominationnot to Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, a conservative,but to the more moderate General Dwight D.Eisenhower. Remaining as governor of New Yorkuntil 1955, Dewey was known for his steadfasthonesty, his reforms toward efficiency in state gov-ernment, and his establishment of the first stateagency in the United States to handle employmentdiscrimination cases. After he left state govern-ment, Dewey returned to the private practice oflaw, serving in an informal basis as an adviser to

Republican presidents Eisenhower and Nixon. In1969, when Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme CourtEarl Warren retired from the Court, Nixon offeredthe post to Dewey, but in declining health, the for-mer two-time presidential candidate refused.

Thomas Dewey died in Bal Harbour, Florida,on 16 March 1971, eight days shy of his sixty-ninth birthday. He was remembered for his hon-esty, integrity, and drive in prosecuting politicalcorruption and criminal figures both in and outof government.

References: Beyer, Barry K.,“Thomas E. Dewey,1937–1947: A Study in Political Leadership,” (Master’sthesis, University of Rochester [New York], 1962);“Dewey, Thomas Edmund,” in Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors ofthe United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:1103–1104; Dewey, ThomasE., Twenty against the Underworld (New York:Doubleday, 1974); Stolberg, Mary M., FightingOrganized Crime: Politics, Justice, and the Legacy ofThomas E. Dewey (Boston: Northeastern UniversityPress, 1995).

Diggs, Charles Coleman, Jr.(1922–1998)United States representative from Michigan(1955–1980), the first congressman censured bythe House of Representatives since 1921 becauseof a court conviction involving charges of mailfraud and falsifying payroll forms. Diggs was bornin Detroit, Michigan, on 2 December 1922, the sonof Charles Coleman Diggs Sr. The senior Diggs, amember of the Michigan state senate, was con-victed in 1944 of taking bribes and sent to prisonwhen his son was in his twenties. Charles Diggs Jr.was educated in the public schools of Detroit andstudied at the University of Michigan at Ann Arborbefore moving to Fisk University in Tennessee in1942. In 1943 he volunteered for service in the U.S.Army Air Forces, and entered the service as a pri-vate in February of that year. He rose to the rank ofsecond lieutenant before he wad discharged on 1June 1945. He entered the Wayne (Michigan) Col-lege of Mortuary Science in Detroit three monthsafter leaving the service, earning a degree in June1946 and becoming a licensed mortician. Heopened his own business, Diggs, Inc. He later stud-ied law and graduated from the Detroit College ofLaw in 1951.

Diggs, Charles Coleman, Jr. 99

While still a law student, Diggs ran for and waselected to a seat in the Michigan state senate,where he served from 1951 to 1954. In the latteryear, he challenged incumbent Democratic U.S.Representative George D. O’Brien, who had servedthree consecutive terms representing Michigan’sThirteenth Congressional District, which encom-passed Detroit and many of its surrounding poorneighborhoods. Diggs defeated O’Brien in theDemocratic primary and went on to score a vic-tory over Republican Landon Knight to win theseat. Taking his seat on 3 January 1955, Diggs saton the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee aswell as on the Veterans’ Committee. He was a con-sistent liberal, supporting increases in the mini-mum wage and advocating a federal agency to as-sist handicapped people obtain work much thesame way the Civilian Conservation Corps helpedthe jobless during the Great Depression. He backedpolicies that assisted in aiding nations in Africaexcept for South Africa, and he criticized the lat-ter’s apartheid government. In 1963 he became amember of the Committee on the District of Co-lumbia and advanced to become the committeechairman after Representative John L. McMillan ofSouth Carolina was defeated for reelection in 1972.Whereas McMillan had blocked home-rule mea-sures for the District, Diggs became a firm advo-cate of them. Because of Diggs’s work, on 24 De-cember 1973, President Richard M. Nixon signedthe District of Columbia Self-Government andGovernmental Reorganization Act, allowing theDistrict’s residents to elect a mayor and city coun-cil for the first time since 1874. Diggs rose to be-come the most senior and most respected blackmember of Congress. In 1969 he became the firstchairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, ser-ving until 1971.

Starting sometime in the 1970s, Diggs startedto file false payroll forms to the House. In 1978 hewas indicted on eleven counts of mail fraud andeighteen counts of filing the false forms. Evidencewas presented showing that between 1973 and1977 he had skimmed some $66,000 from the pay-checks of the people who worked in his congres-sional office, giving them large raises so that theincome would not be missed. During his trial,Diggs insisted that he had done nothing wrongand that his was a “selective prosecution” that wasbeing pursued only because of the color of his

skin. The jury, however, did not buy his racial ar-gument and on 7 October 1978 convicted him ofall twenty-nine counts. During his appeals, theU.S. House of Representatives heard chargesagainst Diggs in the Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct, which recommended in a reportin 1979 that Diggs be formally censured by theHouse. On 31 July 1979, the House voted to censureDiggs, marking the first time that punishment wasused since Thomas L. Blanton was censured in1921. He was also stripped of all of his committeeand subcommittee chairmanships. Diggs retainedhis seat, however, during his appeals. When theU.S. Supreme Court refused to his hear his appeal,Diggs resigned his seat on 3 June 1980, and beganserving his sentence of three years at the federalprison at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Heeventually served seven months before he wasparoled.

Diggs returned to the Washington, D.C., area,settling in Hillcrest Heights, in Maryland. Heearned a political science degree from HowardUniversity in Washington, D.C., and opened a fu-neral home. In 1998 Diggs suffered a stroke and on24 August 1998, he died in a hospital in Washing-ton, D.C., at the age of seventy-five.

References: “Charles Diggs: Censured Congressman,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 88–89; Congressional Ethics (Washington,DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), 29–30; Nash, JayRobert, Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), II:943; Pearson, Richard,“Charles Diggs Dies at 75,” Washington Post, 26August 1998, B6; U.S. Congress, House, Committee onStandards of Official Conduct, “In the Matter ofRepresentative Charles C. Diggs, Jr.: Report, Togetherwith Supplemental Views to Accompany H. Res. 378, 2vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1979).

Dodd, Thomas Joseph (1907–1971)United States representative (1953–1957) and sen-ator (1959–1971) from Connecticut, censured bythe U.S. Senate in 1967 for the misuse of campaignand office funds for personal use. Dodd was bornin Norwich, Connecticut, on 15 May 1907, the sonof Thomas Joseph Dodd, a contractor, and AbigailMargaret (née O’Sullivan) Dodd. He attended thepublic schools, including the Norwich Free Acad-

100 Dodd, Thomas Joseph

emy, and then graduated from the prestigious St.Anselm’s Preparatory School in 1926. To finish hiseducation, he attended Providence College in NewHampshire, graduating with a degree in philoso-phy in 1930, and Yale Law School, from which hereceived a law degree in 1933. After getting his lawdegree, he was hired by the Federal Bureau of In-vestigation (FBI) as a special agent and serveduntil 1934. His most notable work for the FBI washis service in setting a trap to capture outlaw andcriminal John Dillinger in Rhinelander, Wiscon-sin, from which Dillinger escaped by shooting hisway out.

After leaving the FBI, Dodd went to work as theConnecticut director of the New Deal’s NationalYouth Administration, serving until 1945. From1938 to 1945 he served as a special assistant to theOffice of the Attorney General in the U.S. JusticeDepartment, serving under five attorneys general:Homer S. Cummings, Frank Murphy, Robert H.Jackson, Francis Biddle, and Tom C. Clark. In hissphere of responsibility in the Justice Department,Dodd established the first civil rights division, andhelped to prosecute cases of Ku Klux Klan violencein South Carolina and, during World War II, casesof industrial espionage. In 1945, when former At-torney General Jackson, now an associate justiceon the U.S. Supreme Court, was named as the chiefU.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes trialof former Nazi leaders in Germany, Jackson re-quested that Dodd be named as his executive trialcounsel. For his work during the trial, Dodd wasawarded the Medal of Freedom from PresidentHarry S. Truman.

After the war, Dodd returned to Hartford, Con-necticut, and was engaged in the practice of thelaw until 1953. A Democrat, in 1952 he ran for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives, repre-senting the First Congressional District. DefeatingRepublican John Ashmead, Dodd took his seat inthe Eighty-third Congress. Reelected in 1954, hegave up this seat in 1956 to run for a seat in theU.S. Senate, but was defeated by RepublicanPrescott S. Bush, whose son and grandson later be-came president. Two years later, Dodd challengedincumbent Senator William Arthur Purtell, a Re-publican. Dodd won by 140,000 votes out of some960,000 cast, and took his seat in the Senate. A fa-mous story recounts that when he got to Washing-ton, Dodd made a deal with Senate Majority

Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) that, in ex-change for a seat on the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee, Dodd would vote to abolish SenateRule 22, which required a two-thirds vote to cut offa Senate filibuster. Despite Dodd’s keeping his endof the bargain, Johnson gave the Foreign Relationsseat to Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, breakinghis promise. Dodd eventually did make it to thatcommittee. In the Senate he had a mixed record,supporting liberal civil rights laws, but at the sametime delivering addresses for the American Secu-rity Council, a right-wing group that sought to ex-pose communists in American life.

In 1964, after the senate majority leader’s secre-tary, “Bobby” Baker, was exposed for having usedhis office for personal business interests, the U.S.Senate formed the Select Committee on Standardsand Conduct to investigate ethics questions in thatbody. Two years later, that committee’s first inquirywas into the conduct of Senator Thomas Dodd.Starting on 24 January 1966 and continuing forseveral weeks, journalists Drew Pearson and JackAnderson, in their hard-hitting newspapercolumns, alleged that Dodd had used his personalSenate expense fund to pay for his Senate reelec-tion campaign in 1964; that he had billed the gov-ernment twice for personal travel expenses; andthat he had done improper business with JuliusKlein, a representative of West German businessinterests. The investigation was based on some4,000 documents that four former Dodd aides hadstolen from his Senate office. On 26 February1966, Dodd asked the Committee on Standardsand Conduct to investigate the Klein allegation.However, based on the seriousness of the Pearson-Anderson allegations, the committee opened aninvestigation into all three accusations. Dodd tes-tified on the matters. He claimed that the money inhis Senate fund, which were proceeds from testi-monial dinners, he “truly believed” to be “giftsfrom friends.” As to the charge regarding doublebilling for travel expenses, he cited “sloppy book-keeping” and said that his aide, Michael O’Hare,who had assisted Pearson and Anderson, was “aliar.” On the third allegation, Dodd said that his re-lationship with Klein was as a mere friend. At thetime these allegations became public, PresidentLyndon Johnson, seeing the danger in aligninghimself with Dodd, was asked about the senator’spredicament at a news conference. “I have had no

Dodd, Thomas Joseph 101

information about any dinners held for anyone toobtain funds for personal use,” Johnson stated. “Ididn’t know that it was for personal, or political, orlocal campaign [sic], or national [campaigns].”

On 27 April 1967, the Senate Select Committeeon Standards and Conduct released its report onthe Dodd case. It recommended that Dodd becensured for spending campaign contributions onpersonal matters and for double billing the gov-ernment for travel expenses. As to the thirdcharge, the Senate called the relationship “dis-creet” and said there was no evidence of wrongdo-ing. After debate, on 23 June 1967, the Senatevoted forty-five to forty-one not to censure on thedouble-billing charge, but voted ninety-two to fiveto censure Dodd “for having engaged in a courseof conduct . . . from 1961 to 1965 of exercising theinfluence and favor of his office as a United StatesSenator . . . to obtain, and use for his personalbenefit, funds from the public through politicaltestimonials and a political campaign, deservesthe censure of the Senate; and he is so censuredfor his conduct, which is contrary to acceptedmorals, derogates from the public trust expectedof a Senator, and tends to bring the Senate intodishonor and disrepute.” Dodd, who was stunnedby the action, took to the floor after the vote andsaid that he held no bitterness toward any of theninety-two senators who voted to censure him.“They are all honorable men, decent men, and Ido not think they intended to visit any injusticeon me.” However, he added, “But I think a gravemistake has been made, and I am the one whomust bear the scar of that mistake for the rest ofmy life.”

Dodd, running for reelection in 1970, lost theDemocratic nomination to Joseph Duffey. Despitethis setback, Dodd ran as an Independent, and inthe general election came in a distant third behindDuffey and the victor, Republican Lowell Weicker.

Destroyed by his censure and defeat, Dodd re-turned home to Connecticut. On 24 May 1971, hesuffered a fatal heart attack and died. Only eightdays earlier he had celebrated his sixty-fourthbirthday. Dodd was buried in St. Michael’s NewCemetery in Pawcatuck, Connecticut. His son,Christopher Dodd, currently serves as a U.S. sen-ator from Connecticut and in 1997 was himselftainted by the campaign finance scandal sur-rounding the 1996 election because he had

served as cochairman of the Democratic NationalCommittee.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 950; “[Editorial]: Censure forMr. Dodd,” New York Times, 24 June 1967, 28; “Ex-Senator Dodd Is Dead at 64, Censured in 1967 byColleagues,” New York Times, 25 May 1971, 1, 43;Garment, Suzanne, Scandal: The Crisis of Mistrust inAmerican Politics (New York: Times Books, 1991), 32;Kenworthy, E. W.,“Dodd Censured by Senate, 92–5, onFund Count,” New York Times, 24 June 1967, 1, 14;“Thomas Dodd: Censured Senator,” in George C.Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File,1989), 90–92; United States Congress, Senate, SelectCommittee on Standards and Conduct, Investigationof Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Hearings, Eighty-NinthCongress, Second Session, on Allegations AgainstSenator Thomas J. Dodd, Pursuant to SenateResolution 338, 88th Congress, 2 vols. (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, 1966–1967).

Dorsey, Stephen Wallace (1842–1916)United States senator from Arkansas (1873–1879), implicated but acquitted for his role in theStar Route frauds of the 1880s. Despite his beinglinked with Arkansas, Dorsey was born in Benson,Vermont, on 28 February 1842. When Dorsey wasa teenager, he and his family moved to Oberlin,Ohio, where Dorsey went to work as a housepainter. He had attended local schools in Vermontand continued his education by attending OberlinCollege in Ohio.

In April 1861, with the outbreak of the CivilWar, Dorsey volunteered for the Union army, en-listing in the First Ohio Light Artillery. He caughtthe attention of some of his superiors and was as-signed to the staff of General James A. Garfield(who became president of the United States in1881). Dorsey saw action at Shiloh, Perryville,Stone River, Chattanooga, and Missionary Ridge.Near the end of the conflict he was transferred tothe Army of the Potomac, serving under GeneralUlysses S. Grant at the battles of Cold Harbor andthe Wilderness. In 1865, when Dorsey was mus-tered out of the service, he had attained the rank ofcaptain. In 1867 he was awarded a commissionwith the rank of lieutenant colonel—strictly anhonorary rank—for “meritorious service.” Dorseyreturned to Ohio, settling in the town of Sandusky.There he went to work for a local firm that manu-

102 Dorsey, Stephen Wallace

factured tools. The company, Allen, Tenny &Dorsey, later to become the Sandusky Tool Com-pany, became a large concern, and Dorsey rose tobecome company president. A Republican, Dorseybecame involved in local politics, serving as amember of the Sandusky city council. He served asa delegate to the 1868 Republican National Con-vention that nominated his former commander,General Ulysses S. Grant, for president.

In 1871 Dorsey became the president of theArkansas Central Railroad and soon after movedwith his wife and two children to Helena,Arkansas. Personally enriched by the sale of hisshare of the Sandusky Tool Company, Dorsey wasable to concentrate on helping to build up theArkansas Central Railroad. In 1871 he wrote Sta-tistical and Other Facts Relating to Narrow GaugeRailways, Compiled by S. W. Dorsey, which he tookwith him to London to sell railway bonds towealthy British investors. After his return, he washailed for aiding in the building of this importantrail link through the state. For this, he was electedby the state legislature in 1872 to a seat in theUnited States Senate. Dorsey served one term, 4March 1873 to 3 March 1879, and, not being a can-didate for reelection, returned to Arkansas. Duringhis time in the Senate, he served as the chairmanof the Committee on [the] District of Columbia.

While in the Senate, in 1876, Dorsey became amember of the Republican National Committee. Ayear later, he went to New Mexico, where he hadpurchased a large tract of land in the northeasternpart of the territory, called Uña de Gato. Dorseybecame good friends with the territorial governor,Samuel B. Axtell. It was at this time, however, thatDorsey got himself into ethical trouble in Wash-ington. He involved his brother, John Dorsey; hisbrother-in-law, John M. Peck; John Miner, a formercoowner of the Sandusky Tool Company; and JimBosler, a miner with land holdings in Texas andNebraska, in a scheme that had been introduced toDorsey by Thomas J. Brady, the second assistantpostmaster general. Brady had told Dorsey thatthere was money to be made in Star Routes. Theseroutes, so called because on official post office re-ports they were marked with an asterisk or a star,were mail routes that were not serviced officiallyby the U.S. Post Office because no train or shipcame near them, and thus private contractors de-livered the mail. These routes were quite lucrative,

but the whole system was open to abuse. Contrac-tors claimed increased population in uninhabitedareas cost them more and they asked for higherappropriations from the U.S. government, withoutany oversight. The firm of Miner, Peck and Com-pany, with backing from Stephen and John Dorsey,filed applications for some of these routes.

In 1878 charges arose that the firm was makingmoney illegally from the Star Routes they con-trolled, and the fact that Stephen Dorsey, a sittingUnited States senator, was involved in the corrup-tion came to light. Dorsey managed to convincecongressional investigators that his ties to the firmwere negligible at best and that he had no knowl-edge of illegalities. However, when his Senate termended in 1879, Dorsey in fact became more in-volved in the business of his brother and brother-in-law. In 1880 his old friend James A. Garfield wasnominated for president of the United States bythe Republicans, and Dorsey was named secretaryof the Republican National Committee in charge ofthe campaign. Dorsey concentrated on Indiana,spending what was later called illegal campaignfunds. Indiana went for Garfield, and he waselected president.

After Garfield was inaugurated, he namedThomas Lemuel James, a noted reformer, as post-master general. James came across the Star Routescheme and Dorsey’s role in it and brought thefacts of the matter to the attention of the new pres-ident. The New York Times got the story and pub-lished an article entitled “Star Route Corruption”that alleged, “The amount known to have beenpocketed by the Stephen W. Dorsey gang in excessof the amount called for by their original bids isnot less in round figures than $412,000.” It wasnow open season on Dorsey and his “gang.” Theformer senator was dubbed “Star Route Stephen.”

When a congressional investigation laterlooked into the Star Route frauds, Postmaster Gen-eral James stated:

In the early part of June [1881] ex-Senator PowellClayton of Arkansas, called on me at the Depart-ment and said that he had been visited by MontfortC. Rerdell, clerk and superintendent of the Dorseycombination, who, he said, desired to make a ‘cleanbreast’ of his relations to ex-Senator Dorsey and thestar-route contracts. I suggested that the Attorney-General was the proper person for Mr. Rerdell tosee, but was informed that Mr. Rerdell preferred to

Dorsey, Stephen Wallace 103

see me. [James then explained that Rerdell did notwish to be seen at the Department, and the two menarranged to meet in Arlington,Virginia, in theevening.] Many of his statements were substanti-ated by papers then produced. The following is sub-stantially the statement as Mr. Rerdell made it. Hesaid that he had come to the conclusion to make aclean breast of his connection with the star-routecontracts; that he was secretary to Mr. Dorsey, ofArkansas, while Mr. Dorsey was Senator; that heprepared the proposals; that they were sent in bulkto the West, and after being partially filled up werebrought back to be executed; that after the propos-als were accepted he attended to getting up influ-ence, petitions, etc., for expedition, and after thecontracts were expedited he managed the businessof the combination, which consisted of S. W. Dorsey,John W. Dorsey, Miner, Peck, and Boone, the lastnamed being frozen out to make room for [H. M.]Vaile. He showed me transcripts he made of thebooks, and said during the Congressional investiga-tion he shammed sickness for fear of being sum-moned before the Congressional committee. Duringthe time of his feigned sickness a book was copiedfrom the original, with the exception that themoney charged in that book to the petition namesof Smith and Jones were there entered under thehead of profit and loss. Smith represented Brady,and Jones Turner, of the Contract Office. Brady re-ceived 33 1/3 per cent, as his share of the expeditionfor one year, and 50 per cent, of the remissions ofthe fines and decorations.

Following the release of this surprising infor-mation, Dorsey threatened the Republicans that ifhe were targeted he would release information thatIndiana was carried for the party in 1880 by mem-bers of the Star Route “frauds” and that the Repub-lican National Committee was aware of this. ThenGarfield was shot and he later died from hiswounds. Vice President Chester A. Arthur becamepresident. Dorsey asked to meet with him, butArthur refused. On 4 March 1882, based on the in-formation from Rerdell and James, a grand juryhanded down indictments against all of the StarRoute suspects, including Thomas Brady andStephen Dorsey. The men were charged with con-spiracy to defraud the government through nine-teen mail routes.

Dorsey retained noted attorney Robert GreenIngersoll, who also defended Brady. The trial of allthe Star Route defendants began on 1 June 1882.Historian J. Martin Klotsche explained:

One hundred and fifteen witnesses were examinedand 3,600 exhibits were presented to the jury dur-ing the course of the trial. Witnesses for the govern-ment were for the most part people from the Westwho had intimate knowledge of the workings ofparticular routes—special agents, postmasters andsub-contractors. The defense, on the other hand, in-sisting that the postal irregularities were the inci-dents of a liberal postal policy, hoped to vindicatethe action of the department on the grounds thatthe western constituencies needed mail service.Hence, they offered the testimony of congressmenand other government officials. The court finallyhad to decide that “no offender against the law canscreen himself by producing [a] postmaster-gen-eral or Senators or Representatives who urge a cer-tain policy upon him.”

Ingersoll, in his closing argument, thundered,“That is the end of this route, as far as the indict-ment is concerned. Second, that Dorsey made andRerdell filed false petitions. There is no proof thatany of the petitions were false, no proof that anywere forged, and no proof that John W. Dorsey orM. C. Rerdell had anything to do with that routeone way or the other.” Despite the massive evi-dence against all the men, including Dorsey, on 11September 1882, Miner and Rerdell were foundguilty, and Peck and Turner acquitted. Regardingthe two Dorsey brothers, the jury could not agreeon a verdict, and the judge ordered a mistrial.There were allegations of bribery of the jurors, butno evidence of this was found. The judge set asidethe guilty verdicts, arguing that their “general un-reasonableness” demanded a second trial. Thissecond trial began on 1 December 1882, andstretched into 1883. Ingersoll tried to raise theissue that Dorsey was suffering from Bright’s dis-ease (a malady of the kidneys), but his pleas tohave Dorsey excluded from the courtroom wererefused. Right after the trial started, Dorsey re-signed as secretary of the Republican NationalCommittee. By this time, the public and the news-papers, which just two years earlier had demandedrepayment of the money fraudulently taken fromthe government, now drifted to other matters. On14 June 1883, all of the defendants were found notguilty. This was not the only Star Route case—oth-ers had been held in 1882 that also resulted in not-guilty verdicts—but the Dorsey trials were themost high profile. Under President Grover Cleve-

104 Dorsey, Stephen Wallace

land, additional charges were brought forward, butin the end, only two lower officials were convicted.The cases, however, were fodder for the reformers,who worked together to deny Republican James G.Blaine the presidency in 1884. That same year, acongressional investigation reopened the StarRoute controversy, and Dorsey’s role in the fraudwas raised. No further charges were ever pursued,however.

After his acquittal, Dorsey returned to NewMexico, engaging in cattle ranching and miningthere and in Colorado. He later moved to Los An-geles, California, where he resided until his deathon 20 March 1916, just a month past his seventy-fourth birthday. He was buried in the FairmontCemetery in Denver.

See also Ingersoll, Robert Green; Star Route FraudsReferences: Caperton, Thomas J., Rogue! Being an

Account of the Life and High Times of Stephen W.Dorsey, United States Senator and New Mexico CattleBaron (Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press,1978); Klotsche, J. Martin,“The Star Route Cases,” TheMississippi Valley Historical Review, XXII:3(December 1935), 415; Lowry, Sharon K.,“Mirrorsand Blue Smoke: Stephen Dorsey and the Santa FeRing in the 1880s,” New Mexico Historical Review, 59(October 1984), 395–409; Lowry, Sharon K.,“Portraitof an Age: The Political Career of Stephen W. Dorsey,1868–1889” (Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas StateUniversity, 1980); Proceeding in the Second Trial of theCase of the United States v. John W. Dorsey, John R.Miner, John M. Peck, Stephen W. Dorsey, Harvey M.Vaile, Montfort C. Rerdell, and Thomas J. Brady, forConspiracy, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1883); “[Obituary:] Stephen W.Dorsey,” Arkansas Gazette, 22 March 1916, 5.;Testimony of Postmaster General Thomas L. James inU.S. Congress, House, Testimony Relating toExpenditures in the Department of Justice: The StarRoute Cases, House Miscellaneous Document No. 38,Part II, 48th Congress, 1st Session (1884), 6.

Duer, William (1747–1799)Assistant secretary of the treasury (1789–1790),implicated in stealing more than $200,000 fromthe treasury to speculate wildly. Secretary of theTreasury Alexander Hamilton was likewise impli-cated in Duer’s scandal, but never faced prosecu-tion. Duer was born in Devonshire, England, on 18March 1747, the son of John Duer, a wealthylandowner, and Frances (née Frye) Duer. WilliamDuer, the third son of this union, underwentpreparatory studies, then attended Eton College in

England. In 1765, he became an aide-de-camp toLord Robert Clive, the Governor General of India.Unable to adapt to the harsh Indian climate, he re-turned to England. Three years later, however,when his father died, Duer, now the inheritor ofsome of his father’s land holdings in the NewWorld, moved to the West Indies. In 1768, he vis-ited New York to purchase some timber for theBritish navy, where he met Philip Schuyler, a mem-ber of the New York assembly and later a general inthe Revolutionary War. Schuyler convinced Duerto purchase a large tract of land near Saratoga,New York. In 1773, interested in making thecolonies his home, Duer returned to England, set-tled his financial affairs, and returned to New York,settling in the town of Fort Miller.

Duer made his presence known quite quicklyin his adopted home: in his first year in thecolonies, he was appointed a justice of the peacefor his town. In 1775 he served as a delegate to theProvincial Congress, being appointed at the sametime as deputy adjutant general of the troops ofNew York, with the rank of colonel. In June 1776Duer was named a delegate to the New York con-stitutional convention and in the early part of1777, served in the state senate. He was thenelected to a seat in the Continental Congress, butserved for only a short time. On 8 May 1777, hewas appointed a judge of common pleas of Char-lotte (now Washington) County, New York, a posi-tion he held until 1786. He was a signer of the Arti-cles of Confederation, the document that formedthe loose coalition of states into the earliest formof union.

In 1783 Duer moved to New York City, where hehelped to establish the Bank of New York the fol-lowing year. He had become a rich man helping tobuy and furnish supplies to the Continental Army,and he used his wealth to ingratiate himself intoNew York society. From this wealth in 1787 Duerand a group of investors sought to purchase mas-sive tracts of land in the areas of what would be-come the western United States. This scheme wascalled the Scioto Speculation after the area in Ohiothey sought to purchase.

In 1789, when the U.S. government was organ-ized and the Department of the Treasury estab-lished, Duer’s friend Alexander Hamilton wasnamed the first secretary of the treasury. Duer, inturn, was appointed assistant secretary. Whereas

Duer, William 105

Hamilton was honest and sought to work for thebetterment of his country, Duer took his usuallyspeculative ways to the Treasury Department,headquartered then in New York. Historian JeffreyD. Schultz wrote, “Using his power [at Treasury],Duer speculated with public money, and Hamiltonasked him to resign. However, Hamilton did not at-tempt to recover the money—more than$200,000—that Duer had stolen from the Trea-sury. The comptroller of the Treasury brought suitagainst Duer, and his downfall was one of the chiefcauses of the financial panic that struck the nationin 1792.” One of his speculations involved the na-tional debt. During the years prior to the foundingof the national government, individual states hadracked up tremendous debt, and Hamilton lookedfor a way to resolve this issue by having the na-tional government assume it. Duer decided tospeculate in this area as well. How the debt wouldbe refinanced and paid off could become lucrativeto the right investor—so when Henry Lee, a friendof Hamilton’s, asked about details of the plan, hewas told that nothing could be said. However,William Bingham, a close friend of Duer’s, bor-rowed some £60,000 to speculate on the federaldebt based on what Duer had told him. Duer hadresigned from the Treasury after just six months inoffice rather than adhere to strict standardsagainst speculation by Treasury employees, andwent into business with Alexander Macomb, oneof New York’s richest citizens. Duer used Macomb’smoney to speculate on stock from the Bank of NewYork on a rumor Duer heard at Treasury that thebank was to be taken over by the Bank of theUnited States. Duer used Macomb’s money to buythe stock, at the same time secretly selling thestock from his own account—thus, if the banksold, he and Macomb would profit, but if it did not,he would personally stand to profit. Hamilton, hisformer boss, became aware of what Duer was upto, and wrote to him on 2 March 1792, “’Tis time,there must be a line of separation between honestMen & knaves, between respectable Stockholdersand dealers in the funds, and mere unprincipledgamblers.”

Duer became seriously involved in speculation,and soon he was spending more than he couldcover, putting him into massive debt. He borrowed$203,000 from Walter Livingston, scion of thefamed Livingston family. The suit by the comptrol-

ler general to recover the funds Duer stole fromthe U.S. government also hurt. Duer’s end came on23 March 1792, when he was arrested for debt andsent to debtor’s prison. Because Duer had hishands in so many areas of selling and buyingstocks, a financial panic ensued, leaving manypeople broke. However, Hamilton stepped in and,with the aid of U.S. securities that he ordered to beprinted and sold, helped quickly end the panic andkeep solvent vital financial institutions.

Hamilton intervened for Duer and assisted ingetting him out of debtor’s prison for a time, butDuer’s speculation got him sent back again and hedied there on 7 May 1799 at the age of fifty-two. Hewas buried in the Duer family vault under the oldchurch of St. Thomas in New York City; later, hisremains were moved and reinterred in Jamaica, onLong Island.

References: Jones, Robert F.,“The Public Career ofWilliam Duer: Rebel, Federalist Politician,Entrepreneur and Speculator 1775–1792” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1967); Jones,Robert F.,“William Duer and the Business ofGovernment in the Era of the American Revolution,”William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 32:3 (July1975), 393–416; Knott, H. W. Howard,“William Duer,”in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds.,Dictionary of American Biography, X vols. and 10supplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995) III:486–487; Marshall, James V., TheUnited States Manual of Biography and History(Philadelphia: James B. Smith & Co., 1856), 136;Schultz, Jeffrey D., Presidential Scandals (Washington,DC: CQ Press, 2000), 7; “William Duer, Entrepreneur,1747–1799,” in Joseph Stancliffe Davis, Essays in theEarlier History of American Corporations (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1917).

Durenberger, David Ferdinand (1934– )United States senator from Minnesota (1978–1995), denounced by the Senate in 1990 for uneth-ical conduct, one of only nine senators ever cen-sured, condemned, or denounced in American his-tory. Durenberger was born in St. Cloud,Minnesota, on 19 August 1934. He attended publicschools in the nearby town of Collegeville, andgraduated from St. John’s Preparatory School inCollegeville. He later attended St. John’s Universityin Collegeville, graduated from that institution in1955, and received his law degree from the Univer-sity of Minnesota Law School four years later. Ad-mitted to the bar in 1959, he began a practice in St.

106 Durenberger, David Ferdinand

Paul. In 1956 Durenberger volunteered for servicein the U.S. Army and served in the military until1963. Afterwards, he returned to the practice oflaw.

Following the death of Senator (and formerVice President) Hubert H. Humphrey, a specialelection was held on 7 November 1978 to fill hisvacant seat. Durenberger entered the race andwon the Republican nomination; he then easilydefeated Democrat/Farmer Labor candidateRobert E. Short. Four years later, running for afull term of his own, Durenberger defeatedchain-store magnate Mark Dayton (who laterwon this seat in the 2000 election), also theDemocrat/Farmer Labor candidate. A memberof the Select Committee on Intelligence, Duren-berger rose to chair that committee in theNinety-ninth Congress (1985–1987).

Starting in 1983, a series of financial transac-tions in which Durenberger was involved led firstto his denouncement by the Senate and ultimatelythe loss of his Senate seat. From August 1983 untilNovember 1989, Durenberger appeared to be rent-ing a Minneapolis condominium from a friend. Infact, Durenberger owned this property. He ownedboth a home in McLean, Virginia, and the condo-minium and decided he could not afford both onhis Senate salary. He then sold the home in Vir-ginia and changed his official residence to his par-ents’ home in Avon, Minnesota. He was not al-lowed to charge the rent of the condominium heowned, so he transferred title to a friend, RogerScherer, a political backer, and then when hestayed in the residence, billed the U.S. governmentfor expenses. The second set of actions revolvedaround a book deal of questionable character. In1984 Durenberger collected a work of white pa-pers on foreign policy, Neither Madmen Nor Messi-ahs, which was published by an obscure house, Pi-ranha Press of Minneapolis. Piranha was ownedby Gary L. Diamond, a close friend of Duren-berger’s who published pieces for the restaurantand hospitality industries. In 1986 Piranha re-leased a second work by Durenberger, Prescriptionfor Change, which was a collection of the senator’sspeeches on health care issues. Starting in 1985,Piranha Press paid Durenberger $100,000 in quar-terly installments of $12,500. At the same time,Durenberger traveled across the country and pro-moted his books, making 113 appearances in all.

In 1989 the Senate Select Committee on Ethicsopened an investigation into allegations thatDurenberger had improperly billed the govern-ment for his travel expenses and had violated theSenate’s rules on honoraria. The committee hired,as special outside counsel, Washington attorneyRobert S. Bennett, who had been the committee’scounsel on the Harrison Williams (ABSCAM) in-vestigation and would later be famed for his simi-lar investigation of the Keating Five and his de-fense of President Bill Clinton during the PaulaJones sexual harassment case. Bennett issued 198subpoenas for documents and other evidence,conducted 240 interviews with witnesses, andpresided over 75 depositions. Durenberger’s attor-ney, Michael C. Mahoney, had asked the FederalElections Commission (FEC) if Durenberger’sarrangement with Piranha Press had broken anylaws, and the agency issued an opinion that thesenator was in the clear. However, Bennett con-cluded, Durenberger’s appearances to promote hisbook were to earn his honoraria outside the limitsof the Senate’s rules. In his report to the commit-tee, Bennett stated,“This very hungry fish, PiranhaPress, was allowed to engage in a feeding frenzy onresponsible organizations who thought they weresponsoring traditional events, and unfortunately,the evidence shows that Senator Durenberger . . .allowed himself and the stature of his office to beused as the bait, and he got $100,000 for his trou-ble.” (Ironically, Durenberger was prosecuted by alittle-known Justice Department employee namedJackie M. Bennett Jr.—no relation to Robert Ben-nett—who later served on the staff of Indepen-dent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in the Whitewa-ter/Monica Lewinsky investigation opposingRobert Bennett, who was serving as PresidentClinton’s personal counsel.)

Durenberger repaid the government $11,005 inreimbursement expenses; the committee orderedhim to repay an additional $29,050. He was alsoordered to give to charities the amount he hadearned from honoraria that broke Senate rules: ap-proximately $95,000. The committee also askedthe full Senate to denounce Durenberger for hisactions. On 25 July 1990, the Senate voted ninety-six to zero to do just this, the ninth time a senatorhad been so punished. (The others were censured,condemned, or denounced, but Senate historiansconsider all three punishments to be equal in

Durenberger, David Ferdinand 107

strength.) The only senator who rose in Duren-berger’s defense was fellow Minnesotan RudyBoschwitz. Both Boschwitz and Durenberger voted“present” during the denouncement vote, and twoother senators were absent.

Durenberger did not run for reelection in 1994.He became a senior counselor with APCO Associ-ates, a consulting firm in the District of Columbia,soon after leaving the Senate in 1995.

References: Berke, Richard L.,“Fellow Senators Vote toDenounce Durenberger, 96–0, Rare DisciplinaryMove,” New York Times, 26 July 1990, A1, A17;Biographical Directory of the American Congress,1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ Staff Directories, Inc.,1996), 973; Congressional Ethics: History, Facts, andControversy (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1992), 33–35; United States Congress,Senate, Senate Select Committee on Ethics,Investigation of Senator David F. Durenberger: Reportof the Select Committee on Ethics and the Report ofSpecial Counsel on S. Res. 311 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1990).

Dwyer, R. Budd (1939–1987)Pennsylvania politician, state senator (1970–1985), and state treasurer (1985–1987), who com-mitted suicide on television before he was to be in-dicted on bribery and other acts of malfeasance inoffice. The story of R. Budd Dwyer is known by fewpeople, but his death, carried out while cameraswere rolling on a near-psychotic press conferenceheld by Dwyer to condemn his treatment by thejustice system, became one of the leading newsstories of 1987. Born in St. Charles, Missouri, on 21November 1939, Dwyer was elected to a seat in thePennsylvania state house of representatives in1964 and served from 1965 until 1970. In that lat-ter year, he was elected to the state senate. In 1985

he was named as Pennsylvania state treasurer. Itappeared that Dwyer was doing a good job.

However, following an investigation, Dwyer andformer state Republican Party Chairman Robert B.Asher were indicted by a federal grand jury oncharges that Dwyer had offered a state contract toa California computer company without takingbids; the company’s officers testified that they hadreceived the contract after paying Dwyer a$300,000 bribe.Asher, the state party official, cameacross the scheme and instead of reporting it de-manded that a portion be given to the state party’sfund. The two men went on trial and in December1986 were both convicted on all charges. Theyboth faced sentencing on 23 January 1987. StateAttorney General Leroy Zimmerman announcedthat Dwyer would be removed from office.

On 22 January 1987, the day before he faced asentence of up to fifty-five years in prison, Dwyerheld a press conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylva-nia. In front of a barrage of reporters, Dwyer gave ashort speech condemning the verdict, declaringhis innocence, and calling the potential sentence“medieval.” He then spoke with some aides andmoved in front of the cameras with a manila enve-lope. He handed out a statement to the reporters,then pulled a .357 Magnum gun from the envelopeand stuck it into his mouth. To cries of “Budd,don’t do it!” Dwyer pulled the trigger on live tele-vision and blew his brains out. He was killed in-stantly. In his letter to reporters, he praised Gover-nor Bill Casey and asked that his wife be named ashis replacement as state treasurer.

References: “Dwyer, R. Budd,” in Jay Robert Nash,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), II:1049.

108 Dwyer, R. Budd

Eaton, Dorman Bridgman (1823–1899)Attorney and civil service reformer who drafted thePendleton Act (1883), which regulated certain gov-ernment finance laws for more than a century. Bornin Hardwick, Vermont, on 27 January 1823, Eatonwas educated in local schools before graduatingfrom the University of Vermont in 1848. He then en-tered Harvard University and graduated from thatinstitution in 1850. That same year, despite an ab-sence of any legal training, he was admitted to theNew York state bar, serving for a time as a law part-ner of one William Kent in New York City. Althoughhe was interested in running for a political office, henever did. During the 1860s and 1870s, Eaton spentseveral years traveling in Europe, most notablyspending his time studying the civil service systemsin European governments and writing about howsuch a system could be utilized in the United States.Eaton also was an expert in municipal government.He helped to draft the Metropolitan Health Law,which established the modern health system inNew York in 1866, and also aided in the formationof the New York Fire and Police Departments.

In 1873, when Eaton returned to the UnitedStates, President Ulysses S. Grant named him aschairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission inan effort to establish a civil service system. Work-ing with fellow commissioners Carl Schurz (latersecretary of the interior in the Rutherford B. Hayesadministration) and George W. Curtis, editor ofHarper’s Weekly, Eaton helped to push for reform

of the system under which government officialsand officers were hired. Eaton also assisted Sena-tor George Pendleton in drafting the legislationthat became the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883,also known as the Pendleton Act. This landmarkact, discussed elsewhere in this book, radicallyoverhauled the system of hiring workers for gov-ernment positions and ended much of the patron-age that had dominated American politics for thefirst century of its existence.

President Chester A. Arthur appointed Eatonchairman of the United States Civil Service Com-mission, an office he held from 1881 until 1886.Ever interested in studying foreign civil servicesystems, Eaton went to Europe in 1885. Two yearslater President Rutherford B. Hayes asked Eaton tobrief him personally on the British Civil Servicesystem. Eaton’s work, Civil Government in GreatBritain (1880), is considered one of the foremostnon-British works on that country’s government.

Dorman Eaton died in 1899, forgotten even atthe time of his death.

References: Dorman B. Eaton: 1823–1899 (New York:Privately Published, 1900); Ward, Sir AdolphusWilliam, et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Englishand American Literature, 18 vols. (New York: G. P.Putnam’s Sons, 1907–1921), 17:28–29.

Edwards, Edwin Washington (1927– )Governor of Louisiana (1972–1980, 1984–1988,1992–1996), convicted in 2000 of using his influ-

E

109

ence to sell boating licenses in exchange for kick-backs. A Cajun, Edwards was born near the villageof Marsville, Louisiana, on 7 August 1927, the sonof Clarence W. Edwards and Agnes (née Brouil-lette) Edwards, both sharecroppers. He attendedlocal schools before entering the Naval Air Corpsduring World War II. When he returned to theUnited States, Edwards entered the Louisiana StateUniversity Law School, from which he earned alaw degree in 1949. From that year until 1964, heserved in private law practice with a law firm inthe city of Crowley, Louisiana. In that city, he be-came successful by conducting business in bothEnglish and French.

In 1954 Edwards, a Democrat, entered the po-litical realm by winning election to the CrowleyCity Council, serving in this capacity for a decade.In 1963 he decided to run for a seat in theLouisiana state senate, taking on an opponent withtwenty years incumbency. However, Edwards wasable to defeat this senator and in the state senatebecame a leader in his party. On 1 July 1965, whenU.S. Representative Theo Ashton Thompson waskilled in an auto accident, Edwards threw his hatinto the ring for the nomination to succeed him.Defeating four other Democrats in the primary,which in those days was tantamount to winningelection outright. Edwards entered Congress in1965, representing the Seventh Louisiana District.Edwards remained in Congress for nearly sevenyears, winning reelection three times and servingas a member of the Public Works, Judiciary, andInternal Security Committees. Despite being froma fairly conservative state, Edwards compiled a lib-eral record in the House.

In 1971 Edwards decided to forego anotherterm in the House to run for governor ofLouisiana. In late 1971 he won the Democraticnomination by defeating state Senator—and fu-ture U.S. Senator—J. Bennett Johnston. He thendefeated Republican David Treen in the generalelection by 57 to 43 percent to become governor,winning a majority of the Cajun and black vote.This was the first of three separate terms for Ed-wards as governor. In his first term, he oversaw thewriting of a new state constitution and changedthe tax structure imposed on crude oil pumped inLouisiana, a change that brought in more revenueto the state. As governor, Edwards appointed moreblacks to high state offices than previous state ex-

ecutives. Although there were rumors of corrup-tion, much of it implicating Edwards himself, heavoided any culpability. One of these scandals wasthe Korean Gift Scandal. In 1976 Edwards wasquestioned on receiving gifts from former Koreangovernment agent Tongsun Park, but he was notindicted. Edwards became one of the most power-ful chief executives in Louisiana state history sinceHuey Long, who had served as governor before hisassassination in 1935.

After serving two terms, Edwards was constitu-tionally unable to run for a third and left the gov-ernor’s office in 1980. In 1983, however, he onceagain ran for the office and defeated his formeropponent Treen, who had succeeded him in 1980.Edwards took office for the second time in 1984.Promising to spend more time on state problemsthan his own, Edwards called for a state incometax increase to fund education. However, a de-pressed state economy led to low approval ratings,and his effectiveness was diminished.

In 1985 Edwards was indicted by a federalgrand jury on charges of conspiracy and racket-eering. Federal prosecutors alleged that Edwardsand a group of cronies had plotted to use his influ-ence as governor to sell hospital certificates in thestate, earning Edwards and his friends some $10million. In December 1985 Edwards’s first jurytrial ended in a mistrial; in May 1986 he was ac-quitted of all charges. But this vindication did notend the scrutiny of Edwards’s business practices.In October 1986 he was called before a federalgrand jury to answer questions relating to allega-tions that he had sold pardons to cronies. Edwardswas also investigated for allegedly selling land inLouisiana to the Texaco Corp. in exchange for cam-paign contributions. However, in all of these af-fairs, Edwards was never charged.

In 1987 Edwards sought an unprecedentedfourth term. However, the years of allegationsagainst him made him a prime target, not just ofRepublicans but of other Democrats. A number ofwell-known state and federal politicians lined up tooppose him, including Representative Billy Tauzin(a Democrat who later switched to the RepublicanParty) and Representative Bob Livingston (a Re-publican who nearly became Speaker of the Housein 2000). However, Edwards’s chief rival was Repre-sentative Charles “Buddy” Roemer, a conservativeDemocrat from northern Louisiana. Roemer, call-

110 Edwards, Edwin Washington

ing Edwards’s administration a “sinkhole of dirtycorrupt politics,” won the October 1987 primary,the first time Edwards had ever lost an election.Despite the possibility of a run-off, Edwards sawthe potential of Roemer’s victory and bowed out. Itappeared that his political career was over, and hereturned to his law practice.

Four years later, in 1991, Roemer had failed todeliver his reformist agenda and faced numerousopponents in his bid for reelection. One of thesewas former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard DavidDuke. When Duke entered the contest as a Repub-lican—despite being barred from running on hisparty’s ticket—Edwards threw his hat into thering. In October 1991 Edwards won a primary ofall candidates, with Duke coming in a close secondand Roemer a distant third. The election held inJanuary 1992 pitted the allegedly corrupt Edwardsagainst the racist Duke. A coalition of businessleaders, fearing that a Duke win could devastatethe Louisiana economy because of boycotts, reluc-tantly backed Edwards, who won by a 61 to 39 per-cent margin to a fourth term as governor. Duringthis term, 1992–1996, Edwards spent his timebacking casino gambling legislation for his state.However, this support proved to be the issue thateventually brought him down.

In 1999 Eddie DeBartolo, the owner of the SanFrancisco 49ers of the National Football League,testified before a grand jury in Louisiana that in1997 Edwards had demanded a bribe of approxi-mately $400,000 in exchange for getting DeBartoloa casino license in the state. Others, includingEcotry “Bobby” Guidry, who was a close friend ofEdwards’s and a member of the state gaming con-trol board, also testified that Edwards, as well asLouisiana state Senator Greg Tarver and four otherstate officials, had also demanded payoffs for agambling license. In all, as was later stated by fed-eral prosecutors, Edwards and his cronies shookpeople down for about $3 million. Edwards wasindicted on 6 November 1999, along with Guidry,Tarver, cattleman Cecil Brown, Edwards aideAndré Martin, Edwards’s friend Bobby Johnson,and Edwards’s own son Stephen. The indictmentalleged that the men violated the Racketeer Influ-enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act,committed extortion, mail fraud, wire fraud,money laundering, interstate travel and communi-cations in aid of racketeering, false statements, il-

legal wiretapping, and conspiracy. Edwards an-swered DeBartolo’s charge that he had extorted$400,000: “If I was in a position to extort a spoiledkid who’d inherited $600 million, do you think Iwould ask for $400,000? I’d have hit him up formaybe $40 million!”

Edwards’s trial began with jury selection start-ing on 11 January 2000. From the start, prosecu-tors, utilizing secretly made audiotapes and otherdocumentary evidence as well as the testimony ofDeBartolo and some other men who were askedfor payoffs, laid out a case that grew strongeragainst Edwards. Writer Ken Ringle of the Wash-ington Post later explained that “federal prosecu-tors unreeled hours of taped telephone and officeconversations detailing payoff and money-laun-dering schemes that Edwards sought unsuccess-fully to portray as harmless efforts to disguise hisrole as a legitimate if controversial consultant tocasino license seekers.”

On 9 May 2000, after two weeks of delibera-tions, the jury returned with guilty verdicts onseventeen of the twenty-six charges against Ed-wards (he was acquitted of nine charges) andeighteen counts against Stephen Edwards. Thejury found Brown and Martin guilty on all countsand Johnson on nine counts. Tarver and Guidrywere acquitted. On 10 May 2000, following Ed-wards’s conviction, the New York Times stated,“After a picturesque career lived at the edge of thelaw, the hayride ended for Edwin W. Edwardstoday as a federal court jury in Baton Rouge, La.,convicted the former Louisiana governor of rack-eteering, conspiracy and extortion charges relatedto the awarding of state riverboat casino licenses.”On 8 January 2001, Edwards was sentenced to tenyears in prison and fined $250,000. Although hecalled the decision a “death sentence,” his appealswere all denied.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 984; Bridges, Tyler, Bad Bet onthe Bayou: The Rise of Gambling in Louisiana and theFall of Governor Edwin Edwards (New York: Farrar,Straus & Giroux, 2001); Draper, Robert,“Elegy forEdwin Edwards, Man of the People,” GQ, (July 2000),160–167, 184–186; Duggan, Paul,“Ex-LouisianaGovernor Gets 10 Years, Fine,” Washington Post, 9January 2001, A11; “Edwin Washington Edwards,” inMarie Marmo Mullaney, Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1988–1994 (Westport,CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), 155–163; Ringle,

Edwards, Edwin Washington 111

Kentucky,“Former La. Governor Edwards FoundGuilty of Fraud; Louisiana Legend Faces PrisonTerm,” Washington Post, 10 May 2000, A1.

Edwards, Francis Smith (1817–1899)United States representative from New York(1855–1857), accused of corruption and the sub-ject of an expulsion hearing in the House in 1857.Born in Windsor, New York, on 28 May 1817, Ed-wards completed studies in preparation for highereducation, after which he attended Hamilton Col-lege in Hamilton, New York. However, he did notreceive a degree. Instead, he studied the law andwas admitted to the New York bar in 1840, openinga practice in the town of Sherburne, New York. In1842 Edwards was appointed master and exam-iner in chancery for Chenango County, New York.In 1851 he moved to the town of Fredonia, NewYork, and continued his law career there. Two yearslater he was appointed a special county surrogatefor Chautauqua County, New York, serving until 1November 1855.

Edwards became a member of the American, or“Know Nothing,” Party, so named because its plat-form of excluding Catholics and immigrants wasso controversial that its members claimed to“know nothing” if asked about it. He ran for a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives in 1854 andwon, representing the Thirty-third New York Dis-trict. Edwards served less than a full two-yearterm. Entering Congress on 4 March 1855, he re-signed his seat on 28 February 1857. The record tothis day remains hazy as to what crime Edwardswas charged with—contemporary sources do notreport on it, and Hinds’ Precedents merely explainsthat Edwards, along with Representatives WilliamAugustus Gilbert and William Welch were all ac-cused of the same crime, with Edwards andGilbert being targeted for the worst punishment.(See the entry on William Augustus Gilbert.) Be-cause he had been defeated the previous Novem-ber in his attempt at reelection, Edwards left Con-gress just a few days before his term was to endanyway. He never ran for national office again.

After leaving Congress, Edwards settled in thetown of Dunkirk, New York, and resumed the prac-tice of law. He served as that town’s city attorneyfor nine years, before retiring in 1892. However, inhis retirement he was elected a police justice and

served in this capacity until ten days before hisdeath. Edwards died in Dunkirk on 20 May 1899,eight days shy of his eighty-second birthday. Hewas buried in the Forest Hill Cemetery in Fredo-nia, New York.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 984–985; Hinds, AsherCrosby, Hinds’ Precedents of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States, IncludingReferences to Provisions of the Constitution, the Laws,and Decisions of the United States Senate, 8 vols.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1907–1908), II:833–836; United States Congress,House, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations,House of Representatives Exclusion, Censure andExpulsion Cases from 1789 to 1973, 93rd Congress, 1stSession (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1973).

Eilberg, Joshua (1921– )United States representative from Pennsylvania(1967–1978) who pled guilty in 1979 to chargesthat he illegally accepted a bribe to help a Philadel-phia hospital get a $14.5 million grant. Eilberg wasborn in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 12 Febru-ary 1921, and received his education in localschools. He graduated from the prestigious Whar-ton School at the University of Pennsylvania, andthen the Temple University School of Law, and wasadmitted to the Pennsylvania bar. During WorldWar II Eilberg served in the United States NavalReserve, after which he returned to Philadelphiaand practiced law. In 1952 he was named assistantdistrict attorney for the city of Philadelphia, ser-ving until 1954, when he was elected to a seat inthe Pennsylvania General Assembly, where heserved until 1966. From 1965 to 1966, he served asmajority leader in the assembly. A delegate to sev-eral Democratic national conventions, he servedas the Democratic ward leader for the Fifty-fourthWard of Philadelphia.

In 1966 Eilberg was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives from Pennsylvania’sFourth District, easily defeating RepublicanRobert Cohen. Eilberg would serve in the U.S.House of Representatives until 3 January 1979,from the Ninetieth through the Ninety-fifth Con-gresses. He is most remembered for serving on theHouse Judiciary Committee when that committeedrafted articles of impeachment against President

112 Edwards, Francis Smith

Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and for his introductionof a bill to reform the way grand juries work.

Eilberg may have remained an influential rep-resentative had it not been revealed in January1978 that he had used fraud to end an investiga-tion against him. In 1977 U.S. Attorney David W.Marston, a Republican holdover from the Nixonand Ford administrations, was investigating sev-eral allegations against two Pennsylvania De-mocrats—Dan Flood and Joshua Eilberg. Some-how Eilberg got wind of the investigation andpersonally phoned President Carter to ask thatthe president remove Marston and replace himwith a Democrat—without explaining thatMarston was investigating Eilberg. Carter, un-aware of the investigation, ordered his attorneygeneral, Griffin Bell, to remove Marston and re-place him. This was done in November 1977, butit was not until the following January that thestory leaked. The embarrassment for Carter camefrom his being unaware of Martson’s investiga-tion. The leaking of the story opened the flood-gates against Eilberg. In October 1978 he was in-dicted by a federal grand jury on several chargesof conflict of interest, including unlawful influ-ence in having Marston removed. The scandalcaused his political downfall—in November1978, Eilberg was defeated by Republican CharlesS. Dougherty in a landslide. Afterwards, Eilbergpled guilty and served some time in prison. Re-leased, he returned to his home state of Mary-land, where he lives as of this writing. Eilberg wasthe only member of the House Judiciary Commit-tee to vote for impeachment charges against Pres-ident Richard Nixon who was later implicated inpolitical corruption.

References: Burnham, David, Above the Law: SecretDeals, Political Fixes and Other Misadventures of theU.S. Department of Justice (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1996), 62–66; In re Grand JuryInvestigation Into Possible Violations of Title 18, 587F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Eilberg, 465Fed. Supp. 1080 (E.D. Pa. 1979); United States v.Eilberg, 507 Fed. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980); UnitedStates v. Eilberg, 536 Fed. Supp. 514 (E.D. Pa., 1982).

English, George Washington(1868–1941)District judge for the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Illinois, impeached by the

House of Representatives in 1925 on five articles,including charges of “abus[ing] his office throughtyranny and oppression, thereby bringing the ad-ministration of justice in his court into disrepute,”as well as misusing the power to appoint judges toappear before him in order to enrich himself. En-glish resigned before a Senate trial could takeplace. He was born in Johnson County, Illinois, on9 May 1868, the son of Manuel and Rebecca (néeSmith) English. He was educated at Ewing Collegein Illinois and studied law at Illinois WesleyanUniversity, graduating in 1891. Admitted to theIllinois bar, he practiced in the town of Viennawith fellow attorney H. M. Ridenhower until 1896.A Democrat, English was elected to the Illinoisstate legislature in 1906, 1908, and 1910. In 1913,when Democrat Woodrow Wilson became presi-dent, English went to Washington and served as anattorney in the Treasury Department. He servedthere until 1918, when Wilson appointed him adistrict judge for the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Illinois.

On 1 April 1926, the U.S. House of Representa-tives impeached Judge English on five articles. Foryears, complaints about the manner in whichJudge English ran his courtroom and allegationsabout his profiting from appointing certain attor-neys had made their way to the House. On 13 Janu-ary 1925, Representative Harry Bartow Hawes (D-MO) introduced a resolution calling on theJudiciary Committee to open an investigation intoJudge English’s conduct. Representative GeorgeScott Graham (R-PA), chairman of the JudiciaryCommittee, introduced a joint resolution on 10February 1925, calling for a similar investigationby three members of the Judiciary Committee,formed as a special committee. A report fromthese members was submitted on 19 December1925. On 12 January 1926, Judge English was al-lowed to testify before the committee. In the end,the special committee found truth to the allega-tions and drafted five articles of impeachment.The first article accused English of disbarring at-torneys who had appeared before him without anynotice or hearing and of using the power of thebench to summon certain state and local officialsbefore him in order to harass and threaten them,using “a loud and angry voice” and “profane andindecent language, denouncing them withoutnaming an act of misconduct and threatening to

English, George Washington 113

remove them from their office.” It was also allegedin this first article that English “intend[ed] to co-erce the minds of certain jurymen by telling themhe would send them to jail if they did not convict adefendant whom the judge said was guilty.” Thesecond article alleged that Judge English “engagedin a course of unlawful and improper conduct,‘filled with partiality and favoritism,’ in connec-tion with bankruptcy cases within [his] district.”English was charged with appointing a friend, at-torney Charles B. Thomas, as a referee for bank-ruptcy cases and “unlawfully changing the rules ofbankruptcy for the district to allow Thomas bothto appoint friends and relatives as receivers and tocharge the cost of expensive office space to theUnited States and the estates in bankruptcy,” and“allowing Thomas to hire English’s son at a largecompensation to be paid out of funds of the es-

tates in bankruptcy.” Article 3 alleged that Englishreceived an illegal gratuity of $1,435 from Thomasso that Thomas could be appointed the attorney ofa defendant before English, who was given a morelenient sentence when Thomas took over his case.Article 4 alleged simply that “in conjunction withThomas, English corruptly and improperly de-posited, transferred, and used bankruptcy fundsfor the pecuniary benefit of himself and Thomas.”Article 5 alleged that English “repeatedly treatedmembers of the bar in a course, indecent, arbi-trary, and tyrannical manner, so as to hinder themin their duties and deprive their clients of the ben-efits of counsel.”

In 1913 the Senate had impeached JudgeRobert Archbald; now the senators would behanded the case of another judge accused of abus-ing his authority. However, on 4 November 1926,

114 English, George Washington

Judge George English (second from left) appears before the U.S. Senate in impeachment proceedings. (Library of Congress)

Judge English suddenly resigned from the bench.The House managers, who had been selected andwere preparing their case, reported that Judge En-glish’s resignation “in no way affects the right ofthe Senate” to hear the evidence and come to aconclusion. Despite this, these same House man-agers recommended that the Senate not hold animpeachment trial. On 13 December 1926, theSenate voted seventy to nine to accept the recom-mendation, and all charges relating to the im-peachment were dropped.

English fell into a void of ignominy after hisforced resignation—so much so that when he diedin Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in July 1941, his deathwas unreported by almost every newspaper in theUnited States.

References: Chase, Harold, et al., comps., BiographicalDictionary of the Federal Judiciary (Detroit, MI: GaleResearch Company, 1976), 85; English, George W.(impeachment) File 69B-A1, in Records ofImpeachment Proceedings, 1st–90th Congress(1789–1968), General Records of the United StatesHouse of Representatives, 1789–1988, RG 233,National Archives, Washington, DC; Nash, Jay Robert,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), II:1097; Proceedings ofthe United States Senate in the Trial of Impeachment ofGeorge W. English, District Judge of the United Statesfor the Eastern District of Illinois (Senate DocumentNo. 177, 69th Congress, 2nd Session, 1926), 2, 78.; U.S.House of Representatives, Conduct of George W.English, United States District Judge, Eastern District ofIllinois: Hearing Before the Special Committee of theHouse of Representatives Pursuant to House JointResolution 347, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1925).

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)Scandal (1983)See Morrison v. Olson

Espy, Michael Albert (1953– )United States representative from Mississippi(1987–1993), secretary of agriculture (1993–1994), tried but acquitted of charges of influencepeddling and accepting illegal gifts while secretaryfrom companies doing business before the De-partment of Agriculture. Espy was born 30 No-vember 1953, in Yazoo City, Mississippi, the poor-est section of the state. After attending local

schools, he went to Howard University in Washing-ton, D.C., where he earned his bachelor’s degree in1975. Three years later, he earned his law degreefrom the University of Santa Clara Law School inCalifornia. Intending to give something back to thecommunity from whence he came, Espy returnedto his home state and became an attorney withCentral Mississippi Legal Services, an agency thatassists the poor to pay for legal assistance. Duringthis period, 1978 to 1980, Espy also served as as-sistant secretary of state and then chief of Missis-sippi Legal Services, the statewide organization. In1980 Espy was named by Governor William Win-ter, a Democrat, to be assistant secretary of thePublic Lands Division for the state of Mississippi.Four years later, Winter named Espy assistant at-torney general.

In 1986, with little experience in the politicalfield but with strong backing from the black com-munity, Espy ran for a seat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, representing Mississippi’s SecondDistrict. Espy was elected over Republican WebbFranklin, and he took his seat in the 100th Con-gress on 3 January 1987. Espy became a rising starin the Democratic Party, having been elected atage thirty-two as the first black representativefrom Mississippi since Reconstruction. He was aconservative voice in the Congressional Black Cau-cus, a member of the National Rifle Association(NRA), and a proponent of capital punishment.

In 1992 Espy supported the presidential cam-paign of Arkansas Governor William JeffersonClinton. When Clinton got into trouble for criticiz-ing the lyrics of a rap singer, Espy embraced Clin-ton and stood by his side. Espy saw Clinton as thenew moderate leader of a party swinging betweenthe northeastern liberal element and the moreconservative South. On 24 December 1992, Presi-dent-elect Clinton named Espy the first black andfirst southerner to serve as secretary of agricul-ture. At first, Espy was praised by watchers of thedepartment. He trimmed unneeded staff and cutwaste. He supported a plan pushed by his prede-cessor—a Republican—to cut some 1,100 de-partment field offices across the nation. He alsoexamined and oversaw closely investigations intocases of tainted foods.

After a little more than a year in office, Espy wasrocked by allegations that he had illegally acceptedgifts from the nation’s largest chicken producer,

Espy, Michael Albert 115

Tyson Foods of Arkansas, and that these gifts hadinterfered with his oversight responsibility regard-ing the company. These allegations were first airedin an article that appeared in the Wall Street Jour-nal, which questioned why Tyson had receivedpreferential treatment from the Department ofAgriculture under Espy’s watch. The paper out-lined how Tyson owner Don Tyson, who had closeties to Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas,had hosted Espy on several trips paid for at com-pany expense, giving him free air travel and ticketsto sporting events. Based on these allegations, theAgriculture Department’s inspector general inves-tigated Espy’s ties to Tyson, then reported on thecharges to the Justice Department. On 9 August1994, Attorney General Janet Reno asked the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia toname an independent counsel to investigate theseallegations. The news was a stunning blow, not onlyto Espy, who was considered a potential candidatefor governor of Mississippi once he left office, butto Clinton, then in the midst of his own ethicalproblems arising out of the Whitewater scandal. On9 September 1994, a panel from this court namedLos Angeles attorney Donald C. Smaltz as the inde-pendent counsel in the Espy investigation. Thecourt’s mandate gave Smaltz the authority to inves-tigate whether Espy “committed a violation of anyfederal law . . . relating in any way to the acceptanceof gifts by him from organizations or individualswith business pending before the Department ofAgriculture.” On 3 October 1994, less than a monthafter Smaltz was named, Espy announced his resig-nation. Smaltz continued his investigation.

In December 1994 Time magazine reportedthat Smaltz had uncovered what he believed to bemassive corruption. As part of his investigation ofEspy, Smaltz examined closely the fact that Espyhad delayed and suspended department regula-tions on poultry makers like Tyson and consideredwhether Espy had done this because of the gifts hehad received from the company. Smaltz asked forrecords regarding a meeting in 1993 between Espy,Espy’s chief of staff Ronald Blackley, and Tysonlobbyist Jack Williams. Smaltz desired to callBlackley before a grand jury. In addition to receiv-ing permission to do this, Smaltz was given thegreen light to investigate other areas involvingEspy previously off limits—including allegationsthat Espy had received donations from other com-

panies; that Espy’s brother Henry, who had run forEspy’s congressional seat after Espy was named assecretary of agriculture, was given illegal cam-paign contributions; and that Blackley, himself aformer lobbyist for agricultural concerns, had im-properly interceded in matters relating to theseconcerns.

Smaltz’s expansion of the Espy matter led himdown many trails—overall, he was able to getmore than a dozen criminal convictions or pleas ofguilty from numerous companies, including TysonFoods and Sun-Diamond Growers of California,also implicated in giving Espy illegal gratuities.(The Sun-Diamond conviction was later over-turned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, and that deci-sion was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in1999.) Tyson agreed to pay a $6 million fine forgiving Espy contributions; Blackley was foundguilty by a federal jury in the District of Columbiaand sentenced to twenty-seven months in prison.

On 27 August 1997 Espy was indicted by a fed-eral grand jury on thirty-eight separate chargesthat he accepted some $35,000 in gifts in exchangefor lessening the regulations on companies thatthe Department of Agriculture did business withor oversaw. Although the judge overseeing the trialinitially threw out three of the charges against theformer cabinet secretary, a federal appeals courtreinstated them on 16 June 1998. On 1 October1998 Espy went on trial. Smaltz himself prose-cuted Espy instead of having a subordinate do itfor him. During two months of testimony, accusa-tions that Espy, along with a girlfriend, his brother,and his aides at the Agriculture Department, ac-cepted gifts were presented. Espy’s defense coun-tered that despite accepting the gifts, he did not doanything in return for them.

On 2 December 1998, after Judge RicardoUrbina had thrown out eight of the charges forlack of evidence, a Washington, D.C., jury acquit-ted Espy of the remaining thirty charges. Despitespending some $17 million in the Espy case,Smaltz later said that he had nabbed more than adozen other people, including gathering a guiltyplea from Tyson Foods and gaining some $11 mil-lion in fines.“The actual indictment of a public of-ficial may in fact be as great a deterrent as a con-viction of that official,” Smaltz said in a statement.

Espy, his career in tatters, returned to Missis-sippi after resigning his office.

116 Espy, Michael Albert

References: Devroy, Ann, and Susan Schmidt,“Agriculture Secretary Espy Resigns,” WashingtonPost, 4 October 1994, A1; Lewis, Neil A.,“Espy IsAcquitted on Gifts Received while in Cabinet; Finishto 4-Year Inquiry,” New York Times, 3 December 1998,A1; Locy, Toni,“Ex-Agriculture Secretary Indicted,”Washington Post, 28 August 1997, A1; Locy, Toni,“Major Agricultural Co-Op Charged with Trying toInfluence Espy,” Washington Post, 14 June 1996, A27;Miller, Bill,“Espy Acquitted in Gifts Case,” WashingtonPost, 3 December 1998, A1.

Ethics in Government Act, Public Law 95-521 (1978)Congressional enactment (1978) that bars mem-bers of Congress, as well as “officers and employ-ees of the executive, legislative, and judicialbranches,” from soliciting or accepting anything ofvalue from any person or corporate concern thatdoes business with Congress or the otherbranches. The act also established the office ofspecial prosecutor, or independent counsel, to in-vestigate all allegations involving violations of thislaw and all others in government. This latter por-tion of the law laid out a specific series of actionsfor the attorney general to take and for a specialpanel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit toappoint an independent counsel. The third portionof the law requires the filing of financial disclosurereports (FDRs), which release information on thetypes and sources of all income of congressmenand related offices, as well as any candidates forthe U.S. House of Representatives. Under title 1 ofthe Ethics in Government Act (now at 5 USC §101), these reports are filed with the clerk of theU.S. House of Representatives and retained on filefor six years after filing.

The act has been amended several times, mostnotably by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

See also Ethics Reform Act of 1989References: Ethics in Government Act, Public Law 95-

521 (1978).

Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Public Law101-194 (1989)Congressional enactment, 30 November 1989, thatrevised the financial disclosure requirements forCongress first set forth in the Ethics in Govern-ment Act of 1978. The rules regarding honorariaand disclosure requirements were strengthened.

As part of 18 USC § 207(e), the act broadened thelist of officials subject to honoraria requirements.Prior to the 1989 revisions, only certain mattersand certain people were subject to the restrictions.The act also for the first time restricted gifts andhonoraria that could be received after an individ-ual left office, whereas previously only current of-ficeholders were covered. The act also named theOffice of Government Ethics, located in Washing-ton, D.C., as the “supervising ethics office” for theentire U.S. government.

When President George Bush signed the actinto law on 30 November 1989, he stated:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3660, the EthicsReform Act of 1989, which contains important re-forms that strengthen Federal ethical standards. Itis based on the legislation that I sent to the Con-gress last April, the recommendations of the Presi-dent’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform,and the report of the House Bipartisan Ethics TaskForce.

Key reforms in the Act include: the extension ofpost-employment “revolving door” restrictions tothe legislative branch; a ban on receipt of honorariaby Federal employees (except the Senate); limita-tions on outside earned income for higher-salaried,noncareer employees in all branches; increased fi-nancial disclosure; creation of conflict-of-interestrules for legislative branch staff; and limitations ongifts and travel.

In 1995 the United States Supreme Court struckdown part of the 1989 act as unconstitutional—that part that prohibited honoraria for executivebranch employees. In United States v. NationalTreasury Employees Union, 115 S. Ct. 1003, 513 U.S.454 (1995), the Court held that this provision vio-lated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutionsince honoraria allows for free speech.

See also Ethics in Government ActReferences: Text of act at Public Law 101-194; Bush

statement courtesy of the George Bush PresidentialLibrary, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Executive PrivilegeIn government affairs, the right of a president tokeep certain documents—secret papers, reports,etc.—from public or congressional examination.The antecedents of what is now known as “execu-tive privilege” started with George Washington,

Executive Privilege 117

who refused to give Congress the secret instruc-tions that he transmitted to the American diplo-mats whom he sent to negotiate the so-called JayTreaty with Great Britain in 1794. The first presi-dent to formally invoke a privilege to keep privatepapers not associated with government wasThomas Jefferson. In 1807 Jefferson received a let-ter from a military officer who was a close friendof his. At the time, former Vice President AaronBurr was on trial for treason. The court tryingBurr claimed that the letter Jefferson had receivedhad “relevant evidence” relating to the Burr trial.Jefferson relied on the advice of Chief Justice JohnMarshall, who told Jefferson that if the letter did infact contain such “relevant evidence,” Jefferson wascompelled to turn it over to the court. The Burrtrial ended before the issue was ever taken up.

Presidents from Andrew Jackson through Abra-ham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt have invokedthe right of presidents to withhold certain docu-ments from scrutiny, whether they be for congres-sional investigations or for public disclosure ofcertain government policies. During the Civil War,Abraham Lincoln refused to give to the War De-partment certain dispatches sent by Lincoln to thecommander of Fort Sumter. In 1954 PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower first used the term “execu-tive privilege” when he ordered his chief of staff,Sherman Adams, not to testify before the commit-tee led by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) onmatters regarding suspected communists in thegovernment. Eisenhower told Adams that “Con-gress has no right to ask [White House advisers] totestify in any way, shape, or form about the advice

118 Executive Privilege

A small man, labeled "Congress," is being hustled away from the Capitol by three hulking men in fedoras and black coats. All threemen have President Richard Nixon's features and are labeled "Executive Privilege," "Impounding of Funds," and "Veto Power." In1972 Nixon extended the principle of executive privilege, refusing to allow members of his staff to testify before congressionalcommittees, most notably the Watergate Committee. (Library of Congress)

that they were giving me at any time on any sub-ject.” McCarthy never pressed the matter, so Eisen-hower’s invocation was never formally challenged.

But executive privilege was rarely an issueuntil the administration of Richard Nixon. Whenthe Watergate affair exploded, Special ProsecutorArchibald Cox demanded certain White Housetapes. On 15 August 1973, Nixon said,“If I were tomake public these tapes, containing as they doblunt and candid remarks on many different sub-jects, the confidentiality of the office of the presi-dent would always be suspect from now on.” JudgeJohn Sirica, presiding over the trial of the Water-gate burglars, refused to listen to Nixon’s pleasand ordered that the tapes be handed over to Cox.When he initially dismissed the claims of Nixonas to privilege over the tapes, Sirica asked pub-licly, “What distinctive quality of the presidencypermits its incumbent to withhold evidence?”Nixon ordered Attorney General Eliott Richardsonto fire Cox; when Richardson refused, he resigned,as did his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, and it wasleft to Acting Attorney General Robert H. Bork tofire Cox. A new special prosecutor, Leon A. Ja-worski, was hired, but he picked up where Cox hadleft off and demanded the same tapes. Jaworskitook the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichheld in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974),that although a president did indeed possess a so-called executive privilege, such right was limited.“The President’s need for complete candor andobjectivity from advisers calls for great deferencefrom the courts,” the Court explained in its deci-sion. However, it set the bounds for such a privi-lege, holding that if evidence was needed in acriminal or civil case, such records must beturned over to a court or investigator. A certainthreshold must be met before a claim of executiveprivilege can be honored. Chief Justice WarrenBurger explained:

In this case we must weigh the importance of thegeneral privilege of confidentiality of Presidentialcommunications in performance of the President’sresponsibilities against the inroads of such a privi-lege on the fair administration of criminal justice.The interest in preserving confidentiality is weightyindeed and entitled to great respect. However, wecannot conclude that advisers will be moved totemper the candor of their remarks by the infre-quent occasions of disclosure because of the possi-

bility that such conversations will be called for inthe context of a criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, the allowance of the privilegeto withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevantin a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guaran-tee of due process of law and gravely impair thebasic function of the courts. A President’s acknowl-edged need for confidentiality in the communica-tions of his office is general in nature, whereas theconstitutional need for production of relevant evi-dence in a criminal proceeding is specific and cen-tral to the fair adjudication of a particular criminalcase in the administration of justice. Without accessto specific facts a criminal prosecution may be to-tally frustrated. The President’s broad interest inconfidentiality of communications will not be viti-ated by disclosure of a limited number of conversa-tions preliminarily shown to have some bearing onthe pending criminal cases.

We conclude that when the ground for assertingprivilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for usein a criminal trial is based only on the generalizedinterest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over thefundamental demands of due process of law in thefair administration of criminal justice. The general-ized assertion of privilege must yield to the demon-strated, specific need for evidence in a pendingcriminal trial.

Nixon was forced to hand over the tapes and,when evidence on one tape revealed that he hadimpeded justice in the Watergate case, he wasforced to resign.

During the Clinton administration (1993–2001), executive privilege was invoked numeroustimes. When Independent Counsel Donald Smaltzdemanded certain papers relating to AgricultureSecretary Mike Espy, the Clinton White House in-voked executive privilege—but a court ruled thatalthough a president and an administration doesin fact have the right of executive privilege, it canonly invoke it when it deals with “governmentalbusiness.” The White House also used this tacticwhen asked to provide papers in the so-called File-gate scandal, when presidential counsel JackQuinn refused to turn over some 2,000 documentsto the House Government Reform and OversightCommittee.

President George W. Bush has used the right ofexecutive privilege to shield papers from energymeetings held by Vice President Dick Cheneyfrom being released. In 2003, a federal court held

Executive Privilege 119

that the vice president did not have to turn overthe papers.

See also Espy, Michael AlbertReferences: Berger, Raoul, Executive Privilege: A

Constitutional Myth (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1974); Keighton, Robert Laurie,“The Executive Privilege and the CongressionalRight to Know: A Study of the Investigating Powersof Congressional Committees” (Master’s thesis,University of Pennsylvania, 1961); Mitchell, Jack,Executive Privilege: Two Centuries of White HouseScandals (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1992);United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 711–712(1974).

ExpulsionPolitical decision to expel, or remove, a memberfrom a political body for alleged or proved crimescontrary to the rules for that members’ seating inthat body. Officially defined as “the act of depriv-ing a member of a body politic, corporate, or of asociety, of his right of membership therein, by thevote of such body or society, for some violation ofhis duties as such, or for some offence which ren-ders him unworthy of longer remaining a memberof the same,” the act of expulsion for the twohouses of Congress is crafted in Article 1, Section5, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which holdsthat “each house may determine the rules of itsproceedings, punish its members for disorderlybehaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member.”

The decision—and ability—to expel a mem-ber of either the U.S. House of Representatives orthe U.S. Senate is one made with great delibera-tion, owing to both political and supportive con-siderations. Usually expulsion is in the hands ofthe majority; the minority party usually has littlesay one way or the other, unless the member to beexpelled is from the majority party and the moveto expel is politically popular. In 1797 WilliamBlount of Tennessee became the first U.S. senatorto be expelled, after the Senate found that he hadbeen involved in a conspiracy with former VicePresident Aaron Burr that the Senate found was“inconsistent with his public trust.” In the Senate,a total of fifteen members have been expelled, allbut Blount for supporting the Confederate rebel-lion. No senator has ever been expelled for politi-cal corruption; however, four senators—James

Simmons (1862), Joseph Burton (1906), TrumanNewberry (1922), and Harrison Williams (1982)—all resigned because of corruption, and mostlikely would have been expelled. One other, JamesPatterson (1873), had his term expire before hecould be expelled or resign. Only five members ofthe U.S. House of Representatives have ever beenexpelled. However, only two of the five were ex-pelled for political corruption. The other threewere for supporting the Confederate rebellionduring the Civil War. The Senate has consideredexpulsion in sixteen additional instances, allleading to censure or some other punishment.The House has considered it in twenty-two addi-tional instances, fourteen of which dealt with theissue of political corruption.

The grounds for expulsion have changed sincethe Senate first convened. When Senator JohnSmith was expelled in 1808, the committee thatrecommended expulsion reported “that the senatemay expel a member for a high misdemeanor,such as a conspiracy to commit treason. Its au-thority is not confined to an act done in its pres-ence. . . . That a previous conviction is not requi-site, in order to authorize the senate to expel amember from their body, for a high offenceagainst the United States.” However, in 1980, whenthe House expelled Mike “Ozzie” Myers, the factthat he had been convicted of conspiracy in theABSCAM scandal was the sole reason many votedto expel him. Representative James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled in 2002 when a federal jury inOhio convicted him of bribery and other offenses.Myers and Traficant are the only congressmen tobe expelled; however, several others have faced thepunishment of expulsion, only to resign before theHouse acted. This list includes RepresentativeMario Biaggi (D-NY) and Benjamin F. Whittemore(R-SC).

Representative Horace H. Harrison (R-TN)took to the floor of the House in December 1873and gave an impassioned explanation of the his-tory of expulsion as a power of punishment:

The framers of the Constitution of the UnitedStates, in prescribing or fixing the qualifications ofMembers of Congress, must be presumed to havebeen dealing with the question with reference to anobvious necessity for uniformity in the matter ofthe qualifications of Members, and with a jealous

120 Expulsion

desire to prevent, by the action of either House ofCongress, the establishment of other or differentqualifications of Members.

It was appropriate and proper—in fact, neces-sary—that the power should be given to eachHouse to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifi-cations of its Members; that is, to judge of the con-stitutional qualifications of its Members.

The exercise of this power requires only a ma-jority vote. But the House possesses another power,to decide who shall and who shall not hold seats inthat body. It is altogether distinct, in origin andcharacter, from that to which I have just referred. Itis the power of expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote for its exercise. It is conferred by the fol-lowing clause of the Constitution:

“Each House may determine the rules of its pro-ceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behav-ior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel aMember.”

This power of expulsion conferred by the Con-stitution on each House of Congress was necessaryto enable each House to secure an efficient exerciseof its powers and its honor and dignity as a branchof the National legislature.

It was too dangerous a power to confer on eitherHouse without restriction, and hence it was ex-pressly provided in the Constitution that there mustbe a concurrence of two-thirds of the Members toexpel.

Under this power, guarded as it has been by theconstitutional provision requiring a vote of two-thirds, there have been but a very few instances of ex-pulsion since the organization of the Government,and it would seem that a power so rarely exerciseddoes not require the agency of a standing committee.

In April 2002, following the conviction of Rep-resentative James A. Traficant Jr. (D-OH), manyHouse members demanded that Traficant eitherresign his House seat or face expulsion. He was fi-nally expelled on 24 July 2002, the second such ac-tion in the House since the Civil War.

See also Censure; Smith, John; Traficant, James A., Jr.References: Bouvier, John, A Law Dictionary, Adapted to

the Constitution and Laws of the United States ofAmerica, and of the Several States of the AmericanUnion: with References to the Civil and other Systems ofForeign Law, ed. Daniel Angell Gleason (Philadelphia:G.W. Childs, Printer, 1868); Butler,Anne M., andWendy Wolff, United States Senate Election, Expulsion,and Censure cases, 1793–1990 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1995); Byrd, Robert C.,The Senate, 1789–1989: Historical Statistics,1789–1992, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1993), IV:669–670; United StatesCongress, House, Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J.Myers: Report of Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct (to accompany H. Res. 794) (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1980).

Expulsion 121

Fall, Albert Bacon (1861–1944)United States senator (1912–1921) from NewMexico, secretary of the interior (1921–1923), im-plicated in the Teapot Dome oil scandal, one ofonly two sitting cabinet members ever to go toprison (the other being John Mitchell, PresidentRichard Nixon’s attorney general). Fall was born inFrankfort, Kentucky, on 26 November 1861, andattended local schools. He did not get a secondaryeducation. He earned a living by teaching in localschools, at night reading the law. In 1881 Fallmoved to Clarksville, Texas, where he went to workfor a time as a bookkeeper. He also served as acowboy, but he returned to Clarksville and workedin a general store before he married. He movedfarther west, eventually working as a miner inMexico, slowly becoming fluent in Spanish. Whilein the town of Kingston, New Mexico, he met alocal businessman who changed his life, for goodand for bad. This man was Edward L. Doheny. Be-cause of Doheny’s power to make fortunes, Fall de-cided to follow him and moved his family toKingston. Eventually he set up his business in thecity of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where he intendedto use his legal training and become an attorney.Instead, pushed by Doheny and pressing issues inthe New Mexico territory, Fall entered the politicalscene. He began by purchasing a local newspaperand renaming it the Las Cruces Independent Dem-ocrat. He turned the journal into a voice againstthe dominating hold of the regular Democratic

Party in the territory. In 1890 Fall was elected to aseat in the territorial legislature. He left that posi-tion when he was elected to a seat on the territorialcouncil in 1892. A leading Democrat, Fall came tothe attention of President Grover Cleveland, him-self an independent Democrat. In 1893, Clevelandnamed Fall an associate justice on the New Mexicoterritorial supreme court. Fall served in this capac-ity until 1895. He later served as territorial attor-ney general, as well as having repeat stints in theterritorial legislature and territorial council.

The son of a Confederate soldier, Fall was a life-long Democrat until President Theodore Roo-sevelt’s progressive Republican stands made Fallswitch to the Republican Party. It was at that time adangerous thing to do politically. Democrats ranNew Mexico, and being from an opposing partycould spell political death. However, Fall embracedthe new party, serving as a delegate to the 1908 Re-publican National Convention. In 1912, when NewMexico was granted statehood as the forty-sev-enth state, it was entitled to send two new UnitedStates senators to Washington. Fall was elected toone of these two seats and became one of the mostimportant men in New Mexico politics. He slowlybecame more conservative during his time in theSenate, standing in opposition to many of the poli-cies of President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, in-cluding Wilson’s plan to bring peace to Europe atthe end of World War I. While in the Senate, Fallbecame close friends—they played cards together

F

123

Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, shown sitting holding a cup of tea, was convicted of taking a bribe to sell the rich oil reserves atTeapot Dome, Wyoming. (Library of Congress)

regularly—with Senator Warren G. Harding ofOhio. In 1920 Harding shocked the political worldby gaining the Republican Party’s presidentialnomination in the midst of a tight contest betweenseveral candidates.What few people knew was thatone of his chief speechwriters was his good friendSenator Fall. Fall did not campaign for the Ohioan,however. When Harding was elected, he asked Fallto serve as secretary of state; regular Republicans,still suspicious of Fall being a former Democrat,protested, and a former associate justice of theU.S. Supreme Court, Charles Evans Hughes, wasnamed for that post instead. Taking into accountFall’s western experience, work on the land, andability to speak Spanish, Harding instead offeredhim the post of secretary of the interior. Fall wasconfirmed quickly and settled into office.

Fall’s connections with Doheny, a major busi-nessman in the West, should have aroused suspi-cion, but Fall was allowed to continue communi-cating with his old friend even while at the InteriorDepartment. Just three months after taking over atInterior, Fall met with Doheny, who was now thepresident of the Pan-American Petroleum Com-pany, as well as Harry F. Sinclair, the chief of theMammoth Oil Company. In 1921 the United Statesowned two major oil reserves at Elk Hills, Califor-nia, and Teapot Dome, Wyoming, established toaid the American oil market if there was some na-tional emergency or cause for shortfall. Both mendesired to have the rights to the oil reserves trans-ferred from U.S. government control to that oftheir companies. Without Fall’s assistance, thiswas impossible. To get Fall to move their way, themen allegedly paid Fall a bribe—estimated at$100,000, with an additional $300,000 in stockfrom Sinclair’s company. Because governmentcontrol over the oil reserves lay with the secretaryof the navy—in this case, Edwin Denby—Fall in-terceded with Denby, who convinced PresidentHarding to sign an executive order transferringcontrol of the reserves to the Department of theInterior. With the transfer complete, Fall thensigned secret leases with Doheny and Sinclair.

What might have been labeled as simple bu-reaucratic blundering instead led to scandal. Aspart of the transfer scheme, Fall had the U.S.Forestry Service moved from the Department ofAgriculture to Interior so that he could also selltracts of preserved forest land to the highest bid-

der. However, Harry Slattery, a bureaucrat in theU.S. Forestry Service, began to investigate theforestry deal and came across the secret oil leasesgiven to Doheny and Sinclair. Slattery took the evi-dence he collected to Senator Robert LaFollette, aProgressive Republican from Wisconsin, who in-troduced a resolution to initiate an inquiry. A se-lect committee in the Senate was established, withSenator Thomas Walsh (D-MT) as chairman.

Fall came under scrutiny for the Teapot Domeand forestry decisions, and, following a firestormof protest against him, he resigned on 4 March1923 and returned to New Mexico. The Walshcommittee, however, expanded its investigation.Forced to testify under oath, Fall denied that Do-heny or Sinclair bribed him and claimed that the$100,000 payment was a loan from newspaperpublisher Edward L. McLean. The committee didnot believe Fall and continued their inquest. Ap-peals to the courts voided the leases, and in 1929Fall was indicted for receiving a bribe. Fall was puton trial with Doheny and Sinclair. Doheny was ac-quitted of paying Fall the bribe, Sinclair was con-victed of contempt of Congress, but Fall was con-victed of taking the bribe, the first cabinet officerever to be convicted of a crime. Fall was already inill health when he began his prison sentence andserved only a year before being released. Hishealth and wealth sapped, he was mired in povertyuntil his death. Fall died in the Hotel Dieu Hospitalin El Paso, Texas, on 30 November 1944 at the ageof eighty-three. His ranch in New Mexico had beenconfiscated by the government in 1936.

See also Teapot Dome ScandalReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1013; “Fall LoanReprehensible in Last Degree, Is Declared by theWalsh Committee,” Santa Fe New Mexican, 5 June1924, 1; Grossman, Mark, Encyclopedia of the UnitedStates Cabinet, 3 vols.(Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO,2000), I:356–358; Werner, Morris Robert; and JohnStarr, Teapot Dome (Clifton, NJ: A. M. Kelley, 1950).

Fauntroy, Walter Edward (1933– )Delegate to Congress from the District of Colum-bia (1971–1991), pled guilty in 1995 to lying on afinancial disclosure form. Born in Washington,D.C., on 6 February 1933, Fauntroy attended thepublic schools of the nation’s capital, then earned

Fauntroy, Walter Edward 125

his bachelor’s degree at Virginia Union Universityin Richmond, Virginia, in 1955. Three years later,having studied theology with the intention of be-coming a minister, Fauntroy was awarded a bache-lor of divinity degree from the Yale University Di-vinity School in Connecticut. He then took theposition of pastor of the New Bethel BaptistChurch in 1959.

In 1960 Fauntroy, dedicated to gaining civilrights for black Americans, joined the SouthernChristian Leadership Conference (SCLC), headedby the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. From1960 until 1971 Fauntroy served as director of theSCLC’s Washington, D.C., bureau. During thissame period, from 1966 to 1972, he also served asthe founder, and then the director, of the ModelInner City Community Organization in Washing-ton. In 1967 Fauntroy was named vice chairman ofthe District of Columbia City Council, servinguntil 1969, and in 1969 served as the national co-ordinator of the Poor People’s Campaign to bringattention to poverty in America. He also served aschairman of the board of directors of the MartinLuther King Jr. Center for Social Change in Atlanta,Georgia, (1969–), and as a member of the Leader-ship Conference on Civil Rights from 1961 to 1971.

A Democrat, Fauntroy was elected in a specialelection to the U.S. House of Representatives as adelegate from the District of Columbia (the Dis-trict has only nonvoting delegates, not regular rep-resentatives, as the states do), serving in the 92ndto the 101st Congresses from 23 March 1971 until3 January 1991. During his time in Congress,Fauntroy was an outspoken advocate for civilrights and for full voting rights for the District res-idents he served.

In 1990 Fauntroy decided to run for Washing-ton, D.C., mayor, and did not run for reelection tohis House seat. He did not win the mayoralty andretired from public life. However, it was soon dis-covered that he was under investigation by the De-partment of Justice for allegedly lying on a finan-cial disclosure form regarding a charitablecontribution to his congressional campaign. InMarch 1995 he pled guilty to making false state-ments on a congressional financial disclosureform in violation of the False Statements Statute,18 USC § 1001, a felony that could have sent him toprison for up to five years. However, because theUnited States Supreme Court changed the way

such cases could be proved, the government wasforced to make a plea bargain. Fauntroy pled guiltyin federal court on 9 August 1995 to a misde-meanor and was sentenced to two years’ proba-tion. He occasionally appears on television to dis-cuss political issues.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1018; “Fauntroy Pleads Guiltyto Filing False Congressional Report,” WashingtonPost, 25 March 1995, B2; Locy, Toni,“Fauntroy Finedfor False Disclosure; Ruling in Other Case Saves Ex-Delegate from Felony Conviction,” Washington Post,10 August 1995, B1.

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910See Publicity Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 822

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925,43 Stat. 1070; 2 U.S.C. § 241 (1925)Congressional legislation, enacted 28 February1925, that adjusted the spending limits for U.S.House and U.S. Senate candidates and mandateddisclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures.The U.S. Congress enacted this legislation follow-ing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Newberry v.United States and the Teapot Dome affair, two fi-nance-related scandals that had hit Washington inthe previous three years. Specifically, this legisla-tion repealed the 1910 Publicity Act and the 1911amendments to the Publicity Act and to the 1907Tillman Act and mandated that all contributionsof fifty dollars and higher to any candidate for theU.S. House or U.S. Senate be reported to the gov-ernment.Any offer of contracts or patronage in ex-change for the contribution were outlawed, as wasplain bribery or the acceptance of such bribes.

This act was repealed by the act of 7 February1972 (86 Stat. 20).

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,Public Law 92–225, 86 Stat. 3, 2 USC §431 et seq. (1971)Congressional legislation, enacted 1971, that forthe first time set strict standards for campaign fi-nance reporting and monitoring. The law had fourdistinct goals: (1) it limited political contributionsby individuals to single candidates to $1,000 per

126 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910

year, and by political action committees (PACs) to$5,000 to single candidates; (2) it limited giftsfrom individuals and groups “relative to a clearlydefined candidate” to $1,000 per election; (3) it re-quired political committees to retain and file withthe government detailed records of campaign con-tributions and expenditures, including the nameand address of each contributor; and (4) it estab-lished an eight-member commission to monitorand oversee elections expenditures and contribu-tions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir-cuit, in upholding its decision in Buckley v. Valeo,stated that this act was “by far the most compre-hensive reform legislation [ever] passed by Con-gress concerning the election of the President,VicePresident, and members of Congress.” In FederalElection Commission v. Akins (1998), the samecourt stated,“The Federal Elections Campaign Actof 1971 seeks to remedy corruption of the politicalprocess.”

Following the reporting of numerous campaignfinance abuses by the Nixon reelection campaignin 1972, the Congress sought to reform the law,passing in 1974 the so-called Federal ElectionCampaign Act Amendments. The main portion ofthis secondary law established the Federal Elec-tion Commission (the 1971 law established an in-dependent agency, but it was struck down by theU.S. Supreme Court and was reinstituted to meetconstitutional scrutiny), an independent agencydesigned to enforce all campaign finance laws,monitor elections and campaign contributionsand spending, and fine those candidates who didnot follow the law. Following the U.S. SupremeCourt’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1975), theCongress again reformed the law in 1976 (PublicLaw 94-283, 90 Stat. 492, 11 May 1976), and in1980 amended it to compact and streamline dis-closure procedures (Public Law 96-187, 93 Stat.1354, 8 January 1980).

Several high-profile cases have challenged dif-ferent sections of the 1971 act and its revisions. InBuckley, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the contri-bution limits, disclosure requirements, and publicfinancing for presidential elections, but struckdown the expenditure limits and declared the Fed-eral Election Commission as it was established inthe 1971 law unconstitutional. In Colorado Repub-lican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Elec-tion Commission (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court

held that so-called independent expenditures,those made by state parties or independent groupsaside from national parties, were not subject to thespending limits imposed by the 1971 law and itsamendments.

See also Buckley v. Valeo; Colorado Republican FederalCampaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission;Federal Election Commission; Federal ElectionCommission v. National Right to Work Committee

References: Bartholomew, Paul C.,“Corrupt PracticesActs,” in Dictionary of American History, 7 vols. (NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976–1978),II:232–233; “Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,”in William C. Binning, Larry Esterly, and Paul A.Sracic, Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns,and Elections (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999),170; Public Law 86 Stat. 3.

Federal Election Campaign ActAmendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 1263(1974)See Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

Federal Election Commission (FEC)Independent federal agency established to overseethe spending of all congressional and nationalcampaigns and to make sure that no violations oflaw go unpunished. After allegations of massivecampaign financing abuses by the Nixon campaignin the 1972 election, Congress amended the Fed-eral Election Campaign Act of 1971, which had es-tablished the FEC as a government body to overseethe collection and distribution of the PresidentialPrimary Matching Payment Account, the funds col-lected when Americans check off the small box ontheir income tax returns for this purpose.

Following the allegations in the Watergatescandal, the FEC was empowered to oversee “thepublic financing of presidential elections by certi-fying Federal payments to primary candidates,general election nominees, and national nominat-ing conventions.” The amendment, containedpresently in 2 U.S.C. § 437(c), gives the commis-sion “exclusive jurisdiction in the administrationand civil enforcement of laws regulating the acqui-sition and expenditure of campaign funds to en-sure compliance by participants in the Federalelection process. It’s chief mission is to providepublic disclosure of campaign finance activities

Federal Election Commission 127

and effect voluntary compliance by providing thepublic with information on the laws and regula-tions concerning campaign finance.” The commis-sion is composed of six commissioners, all ap-pointed by the president with the advice andconsent of the U.S. Senate.

The FEC has made many controversial deci-sions over the years and has been taken to court toadvance or block certain campaign financialmoves.

The chairman of the FEC in 2000 was DannyLee McDonald, a Democrat placed on the commis-sion by President Ronald Reagan.

See also Colorado Republican Federal CampaignCommittee v. Federal Election Commission; FederalElection Commission v. National Conservative PoliticalAction Committee; Federal Election Commission v.National Right to Work Committee

References: “Federal Election Commission,” in TheUnited States Government Manual, 2000/2001(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2001),411–413; “Federal Election Commission,” in WilliamC. Binning, Larry Esterly, and Paul A. Sracic,Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns, andElections (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999),173–174.

Federal Election Commission v.Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.,479 U.S. 238 (1986)United States Supreme Court decision holding thata Federal Election Commission ban on corporateexpenditures in political campaigns did not ex-tend to nonprofit organizations. In September1978 Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL),a nonprofit advocacy group calling for the aboli-tion of abortion and enforcing the rights of the un-born, prepared a “special edition” pamphlet for theelection that year, identifying each official in thestate and showing their views on abortion. Thir-teen particular candidates were identified as “pro-life” in the publication. A complaint was filed withthe Federal Election Commission that the publica-tion violated Section 316 of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act (FECA), which prohibited corpora-tions from using general treasury funds “in con-nection with” any advocacy in an election and re-quired that any advertising come from voluntaryfunds given exclusively to a separate fund used forcampaign advocacy only. The FEC held that the“special edition” violated Section 316 and asked

for a civil penalty and relief. The MCFL was a non-profit advocacy group and as such it appealed to adistrict court in Massachusetts that Section 316was an unconstitutional infringement on its FirstAmendment rights. The District Court held thatSection 316 did not apply to the MCFL, but that ifit did the rule itself was wholly unconstitutional.The FEC appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe First Circuit, which held that Section 316 wasconstitutional but did not apply to the MCFL. TheFEC appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and ar-guments were heard on 7 October 1986.

On 15 December 1986, the Court held that Sec-tion 316 applied to the MCFL, but that as it waswritten, it was unconstitutional. Writing for a ma-jority of the justices, many of whom agreed toparts of the judgment and dissented from others,Justice William Brennan explained that “Section316’s restriction of independent spending is un-constitutional as applied to appellee, for it in-fringes protected speech without a compelling jus-tification for such infringement. The concernunderlying the regulation of corporate political ac-tivity—that organizations that amass great wealthin the economic marketplace not gain unfair ad-vantage in the political marketplace—is absentwith regard to appellee. Appellee was formed todisseminate political ideas, not to amass capital. Ithas no shareholders or other persons having aclaim on its assets or earnings, but obtains itsfunds from persons who make contributions tofurther the organization’s political purposes. It wasnot established by a business corporation or alabor union, and its policy is not to accept contri-butions from such entities.” Discussing the differ-ence between corporate advocacy and individualgroup advocacy, Brennan wrote:

We have consistently held that restrictions on con-tributions require less compelling justification thanrestrictions on independent spending. . . . It may bethat the class of organizations affected by our hold-ing today will be small. That prospect, however,does not diminish the significance of the rights atstake. Freedom of speech plays a fundamental rolein a democracy; as this Court has said, freedom ofthought and speech “is the matrix, the indispensa-ble condition, of nearly every other form of free-dom.” Our pursuit of other governmental ends,however, may tempt us to accept in small incre-ments a loss that would be unthinkable if inflicted

128 Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.

all at once. For this reason, we must be as vigilantagainst the modest diminution of speech as we areagainst its sweeping restriction. Where at all possi-ble, government must curtail speech only to the de-gree necessary to meet the particular problem athand, and must avoid infringing on speech thatdoes not pose the danger that has prompted regula-tion. In enacting the provision at issue in this case,Congress has chosen too blunt an instrument forsuch a delicate task.

In 2000 the Court reinstated many of the re-strictions used by campaign finance reform inNixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC.

See also Nixon v. Missouri PACReferences: Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts

Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986).

Federal Election Commission v. NationalConservative Political Action Committee,470 U.S. 480 (1985)United States Supreme Court decision that held onnarrow grounds that a political party does not havestanding to bring an action against another party toask if violations of the Federal Elections CampaignAct of 1971 have been committed. Under the Presi-dential Election Campaign Fund Act (Fund Act), acandidate may receive public financing of his or hercampaign; however, under 26 U.S.C. § 9012(f), itbecomes a criminal offense for an independent “po-litical committee” to expend more than $1,000 tofurther that candidate’s election. Believing that theNational Conservative Political Action Committee(NCPAC) intended to spend more than the allowed$1,000 on the reelection of President Ronald Rea-gan in the 1984 election, the Democratic NationalCommittee (DNC) filed suit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylva-nia to request that 26 U.S.C. § 9012(f) be declaredconstitutional. The court held that, although it feltthe DNC had standing to file suit, Section 9012(f)was unconstitutional on its face because “it violatedFirst Amendment freedoms of speech and associa-tion.” The United States Supreme Court agreed tohear the appeal of NCPAC, with the plaintiffs beingnamed as both the DNC and the FEC. Argumentswere heard on 28 November 1984, shortly after thepresidential election.

On 18 March 1985, the Supreme Court held thatthe Democrats had no standing to challenge a po-

litical action committee’s spending schemes.Speaking for a divided court, Justice William H.Rehnquist, however, did not strike down Section9012(f) as unconstitutional, holding that while it“abridges First Amendment freedoms of speechand association, that it is substantially overbroad,and that it cannot permissibly be given a narrow-ing construction to cure the overbreadth . . . thecourt did not . . . find [the act] unconstitutional be-cause the PACs had not filed a counterclaim re-questing such a declaration.” As to the actual issuein the case, whether the DNC had standing to sue,Justice Rehnquist explained, “It seems highly du-bious that Congress intended every one of the mil-lions of eligible voters in this country to have thepower to invoke expedited review by a three-judgedistrict court with direct appeal to this Court inactions brought by them against other private par-ties. The DNC is obviously not just another privatelitigant, and it would undoubtedly be a worthyrepresentative of collective interests which wouldjustify expedited review had Congress so pro-vided; but Congress simply did not draft thestatute in a way that distinguishes the DNC fromany individual voter.” He added, “The plain lan-guage of [the relevant sections] of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA)—whichprovides that the FEC ‘shall administer, seek to ob-tain compliance with, and formulate policy withrespect to’ the Fund Act and confers on the FEC ‘ex-clusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil en-forcement’ of the Act—clearly shows that theDemocrats have no standing to bring a private ac-tion against another private party.” Justices JohnPaul Stevens, Byron White, William Brennan, andThurgood Marshall dissented in whole or in part.

References: Federal Election Commission v. NationalConservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480(1985).

Federal Election Commission v. National Right to Work Committee,459 U.S. 197 (1982)United States Supreme Court decision that held thatcertain corporations and unions were prohibited bythe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 fromspending campaign funds. Under the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, corporationsand labor unions were prohibited from making

Federal Election Commission v. National Right to Work Committee 129

contributions with regard to national political par-ties. However, the law allowed these entities to es-tablish separate funds that could be used for federalelections; these funds were also tightly controlledby the FECA. One loophole in the law, which be-came the central issue in this case, allowed a corpo-ration without “capital stock” to solicit contribu-tions to a fund for political purposes from membersof that specific corporation. In 1976 the NationalRight to Work Committee (NRWC), an organizationthat fought against the power of labor unions butdid not have “capital stock,” solicited monies frompeople outside the organization for use in the 1976federal campaign. The Federal Election Commis-sion held that the NRWC violated that specific sec-tion of the FECA and sought an injunction againstthe group in court.A district court held for the Fed-eral Election Commission, but the U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that therule violated free speech. The U.S. Supreme Courtgranted certiorari (the right to hear the case), andarguments were held on 1 November 1982.

On 13 December 1982, six weeks after argu-ments were heard, the Supreme Court overturnedthe appeals court decision and upheld the right ofthe FEC to apply this provision of FECA. Holdingfor a unanimous court, Justice William H. Rehn-quist explained:

In order to prevent both actual and apparent cor-ruption, Congress aimed a part of its regulatoryscheme at corporations. The statute reflects a leg-islative judgment that the special characteristics ofthe corporate structure require particularly carefulregulation. . . . While 441b [the relevant section] re-stricts the solicitation of corporations and laborunions without great financial resources, as well asthose more fortunately situated, we accept Con-gress’ judgment that it is the potential for such in-fluence that demands regulation. Nor will we sec-ond-guess a legislative determination as to the needfor prophylactic measures where corruption is theevil feared. As we said in California Medical Assn. v.FEC, 453 U.S. 182, 201 (1981), the “differing struc-tures and purposes” of different entities “may re-quire different forms of regulation in order to pro-tect the integrity of the electoral process.”

To accept the view that a solicitation limitedonly to those who have in the past proved “philo-sophically compatible” to the views of the corpora-tion must be permitted under the statute in orderfor the prohibition to be constitutional would ig-

nore the teachings of our earlier decisions. The gov-ernmental interest in preventing both actual cor-ruption and the appearance of corruption of electedrepresentatives has long been recognized . . . andthere is no reason why it may not in this case be ac-complished by treating unions, corporations, andsimilar organizations differently from individuals.

References: Federal Election Commission v. NationalRight to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, at 210.

Ferguson, James Edward (1871–1944)Governor of Texas (1915–1917), impeached andremoved from office by the Texas state legislaturefor financial improprieties. He later directed hiswife’s election to the same office, but her two termswere likewise tainted by allegations of pardonssold for influence and other financial irregulari-ties, although she was not impeached. Born in Sal-ado, Texas, on 31 August 1871, Ferguson was theson of James Edward Ferguson, a farmer, and Fan-nie (née Fitzpatrick) Ferguson. The elder Fergusondied when his son was four, and within just a fewyears James Ferguson was working the fields of hisfarm. He received some primary education, butwas allowed to enter Salado College, a localpreparatory school, when only twelve. This educa-tional period ended when he was expelled for dis-obedience. Ferguson left home at age sixteen andfor the next several years drifted across the Ameri-can West, living hand to mouth. He returned toBell County in his mid-twenties and, while work-ing as a farmer and on a railroad bridge gang,studied the law. He was admitted to the Texas barin 1897 and he commenced a practice in the townof Belton, Texas.

In 1899 Ferguson married Miriam Wallace. Hewas able to use the proceeds from his law practiceto purchase tracts of land and invest in insurancecompanies, becoming a part owner of the FarmersBank of Belton and a member of the TexasBanker’s Association. At the same time, Fergusonbegan to enter the political realm. In 1902 heserved as the campaign manager for Robert L.Henry in his campaign for Congress, as well asseveral others, including the gubernatorial cam-paign of Democrat Oscar B. Colquitt in 1912.Colquitt did not seek reelection in 1914. The Dem-ocrats had split into prohibitionist and antiprohi-

130 Ferguson, James Edward

bitionist wings, and when the antiprohibitionistsmet they nominated Ferguson for governor, de-spite the fact that he did not ask for the nomina-tion or even campaign for it. Ferguson was able toconsolidate his support among the party as awhole and was nominated as the Democratic can-didate. Running in a nearly one-party state, Fergu-son was easily elected over Republican John W.Philip and Socialist E. R. Meitzen and took officeon 19 January 1915. During his first term, Fergu-son strongly supported increased aid to ruralschools, the building of state colleges and theAustin State School for the Feebleminded, andlarger appropriations for education as a whole inthe state. Ferguson was easily reelected for a sec-ond term in 1916, defeating Republican R. B. Crea-ger by more than 250,000 votes out of some300,000 cast. During this campaign, however,many critics of Ferguson raised charges that hehad misappropriated state funds. After he wassworn in for a second term, Ferguson raised the ireof the state legislature by vetoing the school appro-priation bill for the University of Texas. Fergusondemanded that certain members of the school’sfaculty whom Ferguson disliked be dismissed. In-stead of dismissing these members, the school andits supporters in the legislature opened up the oldcharges of misappropriation of funds and levelednew charges. A grand jury was convened in TravisCounty, Texas, and on 21 July 1917 Ferguson ap-peared before it. A few days later, the grand juryindicted Ferguson on nine counts, including mis-application of public funds and embezzlement.Ferguson posted bond, went back to being gover-nor, and announced that he would seek a thirdterm in office.

Because of Ferguson’s dismissive attitude to-ward the indictment against him, the Speaker ofthe Texas state house of representatives called for aspecial session to consider impeachment articles.Ferguson outdid the legislature and called a spe-cial session to consider a new appropriations billfor the University of Texas. Instead, the housebegan an impeachment inquiry.After a lengthy in-vestigation, the house approved twenty-one sepa-rate articles of impeachment, each alleging finan-cial misconduct by Ferguson. Calling the entireprocess a “kangaroo court” and claiming that thelegislature did not have the power to impeach him,Ferguson resigned on 25 August 1917. Five days

later, however, the state senate opened the im-peachment trial, and, after three weeks of testi-mony, convicted Ferguson on ten of the twenty-one articles. Five of the articles alleged thatFerguson had failed to enforce the banking laws ofthe state, and one charged that he had received anillegal gratuity of $156,500 that was found in hisbank account and that Ferguson refused to justify.The senate then voted to deny Ferguson the rightever to hold public office in Texas again. Despitethis setback, Ferguson remained politically active.He pushed to gain the Democratic nomination forgovernor in 1918, but was defeated by William P.Hobby. In 1920 he ran on the obscure American, orKnow-Nothing, Party ticket for president, but re-ceived few votes. In 1922 he was an unsuccessfulcandidate for the United States Senate.

In 1924 Ferguson turned the tables on his op-ponents and had his wife enter the field for theDemocratic gubernatorial nomination. He ran hiswife’s campaign against fellow Democrat JudgeFelix Robertson, who was supported by the KuKlux Klan. Remarkably, Miriam Amanda Fergu-son received the party nomination and defeatedRepublican George C. Butte, winning with the slo-gan “Two Governors for the Price of One!” She thusbecame the first woman elected governor of a statein the United States (Nellie Taylor Ross ofWyoming, the first female governor, succeeded herhusband into office following his death). Known as“Ma” Ferguson (her husband was known as “Pa”Ferguson), Miriam Ferguson spent much of herterm vindicating her husband. She helped to passa prohibition against the wearing of masks in pub-lic, a law aimed directly at the Ku Klux Klan. How-ever, she was alleged to have dabbled in the samecorruption that caused her husband’s downfall,and it was because of this that in 1926 she was de-feated in the Democratic primary by state Attor-ney General Dan Moody, who went on to beelected governor. Four years later, attempting tomake a comeback, “Ma” Ferguson entered theDemocratic primary again, but was defeated byRoss Sterling. In 1932, promising to cut taxes asthe Great Depression worsened, she took on now-Governor Sterling and defeated him in the Demo-cratic primary. She was elected over token Repub-lican opposition and served a second term as chiefexecutive. Her promise to cut taxes died in thestate legislature, but she did continue her policy of

Ferguson, James Edward 131

granting pardons, breaking state records. She leftoffice in 1934. She attempted a final comeback in1940 when she tried to unseat Governor Lee O’-Daniel, but she failed.

James Ferguson died in Austin on 21 Septem-ber 1944, three weeks after his seventy-third birth-day. His grave in the Texas State Cemetery inAustin simply reads,“He loved his fellow man andwas generous to a fault.” His widow lived until1961.

References: DeShields, James T., They Sat in High Places:The Presidents and Governors of Texas (San Antonio,TX: Naylor Company, 1940); “Ferguson, JamesEdward,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds.,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: MecklerBooks, 1978), IV:1532–1533; Nalle, Ouida Ferguson,The Fergusons of Texas, Or,“Two Governors for thePrice of One”: A Biography of James Edward Fergusonand his wife, Miriam Amanda Ferguson, ex-Governorsof the State of Texas (San Antonio, TX: NaylorCompany, 1946); “Record of Proceedings of the HighCourt of Impeachment on the Trial of Hon. James E.Ferguson, Governor, Before the Senate of the State ofTexas, Pursuant to the State Constitution and RulesProvided by the Senate during the Second and ThirdCalled Sessions of the 35th Legislature. Convened inthe City of Austin, August 1, 1917, and AdjournedWithout Day, September 29, 1917.” Published byAuthority of the Legislature, T. H.Yarbrough, JournalClerk, Senate (Austin: A. O. Baldwin and Sons, StatePrinters, 1917); Rutherford, Bruce, The Impeachmentof Jim Ferguson (Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1983).

Ferguson, Miriam Amanda Wallace(1875–1961)See Ferguson, James Edward

”Filegate”Political scandal in which officials in the WhiteHouse during the administration of President BillClinton received through various means the FBIfiles of numerous Republicans, many of whom hadformerly worked at the White House, to be used forunknown purposes. On 30 May 1996, reportsleaked to the press that Clinton administration of-ficials had requested through FBI channels theconfidential files of some 400 people, most if not allRepublicans who had served in the previous ad-ministration of President George Bush. The HouseCommittee on Government Reform and Oversight

came across the potential scandal while investigat-ing White House behavior in the case of Billy Dale,an employee in the White House Travel Office whohad been mysteriously fired soon after Clintoncame to power and later charged but acquitted ofstealing from the White House Travel Office fund.In January 1996 Representative William Clinger(R-PA), chairman of the House committee, sent asubpoena to the White House asking for all rele-vant files on Dale and the other Travel Office em-ployees who were fired. The White House reportedthat it had no documents on Dale. When Clingermoved to have the White House held in contemptof Congress, and a vote was taken on 9 May 1996,Dale’s file mysteriously appeared on Capitol Hill on30 May. However, President Clinton declared execu-tive privilege to prevent the disclosure of more than2,000 pages of documents relating to the Travel Of-fice requested by the committee.

Inside the file given to the committee was aWhite House request, dated 20 December 1993,asking the FBI for a copy of Dale’s confidential file.This had happened some seven months after Dalehad been fired, but before he was tried by the FBIfor allegedly stealing from the Travel Office fund.This story leaked to the press, and a firestormerupted—requesting such files violated the Pri-vacy Act of 1974. On 5 June 1996, White HouseSpecial Counsel to the President Jane Sherburneissued a statement claiming that Dale’s file hadbeen “mistakenly” requested. That same day, FBIDirector Louis Freeh released a statement that heand his office had never been informed by theWhite House of the file requests. On 6 June, aWhite House staffer stated that the White Housedid not request Dale’s file—the Government Ac-counting Office (GAO) did, in the midst of an in-vestigation. The GAO denied ever asking for thefiles.

More gasoline was poured on the fire of scan-dal, when it was learned that Dale’s file was not theonly one asked for by the White House—but thatit was one of at least 338, all of Republicans whohad worked in the White House in the Reagan orBush administrations. On 10 June, Sherburne ex-plained that because some of the former Republi-can officials had tried to gain access to the WhiteHouse, their files were necessary to get them a se-curity clearance to the building. Nine days later,the House Committee on Government Reform and

132 Ferguson, Miriam Amanda Wallace

Oversight held its first hearing on the issue. Priorsecurity programs from administrations back forthirty years, both Democratic and Republican,were examined. The committee was told by inves-tigators that in these prior instances a carefulprocess was instituted by each administration togain security information and that the Clinton ad-ministration, for the first time, handed these du-ties to political operatives and college-age internslacking security clearances.

As the press focused on the story, the WhiteHouse tried to limit growing political damage. On13 June this increased when the FBI reported thatseventy-one files not heretofore discussed had alsobeen requested by the White House; these alsowere of Republican officials from the Reagan andBush administrations. On 14 June, the official FBIreport, titled “Report on the Dissemination of FBIFile Information to the White House,” disclosedthat a total of 408 files had been requested by theWhite House. Director Freeh reported that theserequests had been “without justification,” and that“the prior system of providing files to the WhiteHouse relied on good faith and honor.” Among thefiles requested by the White House were those ofBilly Dale and Barnaby Brasseux, another TravelOffice employee. The House committee chargedthat Craig Livingston, in charge of White House se-curity, had been behind the files requests. His ownfile showed that White House counsel BernardNussbaum had told the FBI that Livingston hadbeen placed in his job by First Lady Hillary Rod-ham Clinton. Livingston had been aided by a for-mer military officer, Anthony Marceca. Neither ofthese men had ever been given a security clear-ance to see such information, much less to requestit from the FBI.

On 18 June 1996, Judge Kenneth Starr, the inde-pendent counsel in the Whitewater case, reportedthat he felt he did not have the proper jurisdictionto oversee the FBI files case. Attorney GeneralJanet Reno announced that she would ask thecourt that named Starr to expand his authorityover the FBI files case. This was done on 20 June1996, and the court approved the order the follow-ing day.

The press reaction to the growing scandal wasscathing, as it appeared that the files were re-quested to be used against President Clinton’s po-litical enemies, potential and real. Such FBI files

contained raw data on each subject’s background,and the information could be used in many ways.William Safire, a columnist for the New York Timesand an avowed political enemy of the Clinton ad-ministration, wrote on 4 July 1996, “Just as Water-gate was first dismissed as a ‘caper,’ the growingprotest at the invasion of privacy of nearly 1,000Americans by the cesspool of snoopery, suddendeath and obstruction known as the Clinton Officeof White House Counsel is being characterized asa mere ‘flap.’”

Livingston was placed on paid administrativeleave, but he never returned to the White House.Senate hearings were conducted in the Senate Judi-ciary Committee, but White House stonewalling—including the use of executive privilege—limitedthe inquiry. Although one of the impeachmentcharges against President Richard Nixon was thathe misused FBI files, such charges were neverbrought against Clinton or any of his aides. In theHouse committee official report, the majoritymembers reported, “In general, the FBI files issueshows a lack of respect by the Clinton administra-tion for proper security procedures to protect boththe President of the United States and the nationalsecurity. This is all the more so since the WhiteHouse ignored recommendations from a Demo-cratic committee chairman of the U.S. Senate totake security precautions in response to reportedsecurity irregularities in the first years of the Clin-ton administration. . . . The Clinton White Housedisplayed a lack of respect for the privacy and con-fidentiality of private citizens. The mere fact thatindividuals lacking in professional skills and dis-cretion were put in charge demonstrates the cava-lier approach of the Clinton administration towardsensitive security matters.”

References: Larson, Ruth,“Treasury Official AdmitsDestroying Filegate Documents,” The WashingtonTimes (National Edition), 16 November 1997, 1;Report of the FBI General Counsel on theDissemination of FBI File Information to the WhiteHouse, issued on June 14, 1996, by FBI GeneralCounsel Howard M. Shapiro; U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Committee on Government Reformand Oversight, Investigation into the White Houseand Department of Justice on Security of FBIBackground Investigation Files, House Report 104-862, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 28 September1996; “U.S. Requests Dismissal of FBI Files SuitWhite House Got Data on Employees,” WashingtonPost, 24 May 1997, A11; “The White House’s FBI

”Filegate” 133

Blunder,” The Weekly Standard, I:40 (24 June 1996),9–10.

Flood, Daniel John (1903–1994)United States representative from Pennsylvania(1949–1953; 1955–1980), indicted and later pledguilty to charges of conspiracy involving payoffs,for which he served a year’s probation. Flood wasborn in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, on 26 November1903. He attended the public schools of the area,particularly in Wilkes-Barre, and later in St. Au-gustine, Florida. In 1924 he graduated from Syra-cuse University in Syracuse, New York, after whichhe attended Harvard Law School before earninghis law degree from the Dickinson School of Lawin Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1929. He was admittedto the Pennsylvania state bar in 1930 and opened apractice in Wilkes-Barre.

During the Great Depression, Flood worked inprivate practice and in 1934 and 1935 as an attor-ney for the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation,which assisted with loans for home buyers inPennsylvania. He left this position in 1935, whenhe was named deputy attorney general for theCommonwealth, and at the same served as coun-sel for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Boarduntil 1939. From 1941 to 1944, Flood served as di-rector of the State Bureau of Public AssistanceDisbursements and as executive assistant to thestate treasurer.

In 1944 Flood was elected as a Democrat to aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives in theSeventy-ninth Congress (1945–1947). In 1946 hewas defeated for reelection by Republican MitchellJenkins and he resumed the practice of law. Twoyears later, in 1948, when Jenkins did not run for asecond term, Flood entered the race and defeatedRepublican Robert H. Stroh to take back his oldseat. Flood sat in the Eighty-first and Eighty-sec-ond Congresses (1949–1953). In 1952 he againlost his seat, this time to Republican Edward J.Bonin. Once again, Flood returned to the practiceof law. In 1954 Flood defeated Bonin and held hisseat until his resignation on 21 January 1980.Flood was known as much for “bringing home thepork” to his constituents as he was for his flowinghandlebar moustache.

In 1978 Flood was indicted on thirteen sepa-rate criminal charges. They alleged that he con-

spired with his former chief assistant, Stephen B.Elko, to collect bribes from several businessmen inexchange for Flood’s assistance in getting the busi-nessmen grants or contracts from federal agen-cies. The Justice Department had investigated allof the men, and several agreed to cooperate in theinvestigation or sought immunity for their testi-mony against Flood. One of these men, Lieb Pinter,a rabbi from Brooklyn, New York, pled guilty tocharges that he paid Flood more than $5,000 inbribes. Flood pled not guilty to the charges. In1978 he was reelected despite the indictmenthanging over his head. Flood’s attorneys asked tostay his trial, as a question involving bribery in-dictments against a sitting congressman was thenbefore the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, involv-ing Representative Henry Helstoski (D-NJ), theCourt was asked to decide whether the Speech orDebate Clause of the Constitution precluded anyinvestigation into how a congressman worked, orwhat legislation he introduced, despite bribes thatmay have been given to get that work or legislationenacted. Judge Oliver Gasch ruled against Flood’smotion to stay the trial, after prosecutors claimedthat legislation Flood may have worked on was notat issue, but rather his pushing federal agencies forcontracts for those who had bribed him. Flood’strial began on 15 January 1979, after two of thebribery charges were dropped. On 3 February,Judge Gasch ruled a mistrial after the jury re-ported back that it was hopelessly deadlocked onthe remaining counts. A second trial was set tobegin on 4 June, but on 30 May Flood collapsedand had to be hospitalized. The retrial was put offindefinitely. Facing this second trial, and potentialethics investigations in the House, Flood resignedhis seat on 31 January 1980. A new trial date of 8April 1980 was set, when Judge Gasch held thatFlood was mentally competent to stand trial.Fighting cancer and a host of other diseases thathis lawyers claimed made him unfit to stand trial,Flood pled guilty on 26 February to a single chargeof defrauding the government when he solicitedan illegal campaign contribution in exchange forhis support of obtaining a government contract,and was sentenced to one year’s probation. Moreserious charges were dropped in exchange for theplea bargain. After his plea, Flood told reporters,“The terrible burden of this case has been damag-ing to my health and I need peace from it. . . . I

134 Flood, Daniel John

deny with all my heart that I have committed anycriminal offense.”

Flood retired to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania,where he died on 28 May 1994 at the age of ninety.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1039; Congressional Ethics(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980),26–28.

Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Lamar,233 F. 3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2001)United States court of appeals decision that upheldthe right of certain organizations to make mone-tary contributions to political groups. FloridaRight to Life, Inc. (FRL), an antiabortion group,desired to raise money from certain political can-didates and groups to further their message. How-ever, Florida law (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 106.08(5)) pro-hibited this, stating that “[c]andidates . . . may not. . . make contributions to any religious, charitable,civic, or other causes or organizations establishedprimarily for the public good.” The FRL sued Law-son Lamar, the Florida state attorney, in districtcourt in Florida, claiming that the law violated theorganization’s First Amendment right to freespeech. The district court, however, upheld the lawas constitutional under both the First and Four-teenth Amendments. The FRL appealed to theCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Follow-ing arguments, the court handed down its deci-sion on 28 November 2001. In striking down thedecision, Judge Stanley Birch, speaking for a unan-imous three-member court, wrote that § 106.08(5)plainly violated the First Amendment of the U.S.Constitution. He wrote:

We have concluded that the plain language of §106.08(5) creates a blanket rule forbidding politicalcandidates from making any donations out of per-sonal or campaign funds to an organization, unlessone of the three exceptions applies. Florida con-cedes that if this is the proper interpretation of §106.08(5), the provision is facially unconstitutional.Thus, we hold that § 106.08(5) is facially unconsti-tutional in that it infringes upon basic First andFourteenth Amendment rights of expression andassociation held by organizations like FRL. . . .

In this appeal, we have concluded that §106.08(5), Florida Statutes, cannot be narrowly con-strued in a manner that avoids constitutional infir-

mities. As a result, we have decided that the provi-sion is facially unconstitutional under the First andFourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, we RE-VERSE the district court’s ruling that § 106.08(5) issusceptible to a narrowing construction that sur-vives constitutional scrutiny, and we remand forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The case was not appealed to the U.S. SupremeCourt.

References: Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Lamar, 233 F. 3d1288 (2001).

Fortas, Abraham (1919–1982)Lawyer and jurist, associate justice of the UnitedStates Supreme Court (1965–1969), implicated ina financial scandal for which he was forced to re-sign from the Court. Born on 19 June 1919 inNashville, Tennessee, he was the son of a Jewishcabinetmaker who had emigrated from England.He attended local schools in Memphis, working toenter Southwestern College in Memphis, fromwhich he earned a bachelor’s degree in 1930. In1933 he graduated from the Yale Law School, hav-ing served during his law studies as the editor ofthe Yale Law Review. For four years after earninghis law degree, Fortas taught at the Yale LawSchool. During this period, he also worked whileon leave from Yale for the Agricultural AdjustmentAdministration (AAA), a New Deal agency estab-lished by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whenone of his law professors, William O. Douglas, wasnamed to the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion, Fortas went to work as one of his advisers. In1938, when Douglas was named to the U.S.Supreme Court, Fortas became general counsel ofthe Public Works Administration. He moved overto the Department of the Interior, rising to becomefirst director of the Division of Electric Power andthen in 1942 undersecretary of the interior. In1945 Fortas left the government and went to workfor a private law firm,Arnold and Fortas. For manyyears, he practiced corporate law in Washington,D.C., defending numerous clients, including sev-eral McCarthy hearings suspects and ClarenceEarl Gideon, whose appeal to the U.S. SupremeCourt in Gideon v. Wainwright led the court tomandate legal counsel for all suspects, even indi-gent ones. One of his lesser-known clients was

Fortas, Abraham 135

Lyndon Johnson, an up-and-coming Texas politi-cian who retained Fortas as counsel for his 1948Senate race. Because of Fortas’s work for Johnson,the two men became close friends.

In 1960 Johnson was elected vice president, andFortas became one of his closest advisers. On 22November 1963, following the assassination ofPresident John F. Kennedy, Johnson made his firstofficial call as president to Fortas. He used Fortasto help name important Washington officials tothe Warren Commission, headed by SupremeCourt Chief Justice Earl Warren. In 1965, when theUnited States became caught up in the crisis in theDominican Republic, it was Fortas who gave John-son advice how to handle the emergency.

In 1964 Fortas refused Johnson’s request to be-come attorney general. When Arthur Goldberg re-signed from the U.S. Supreme Court to become theU.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Fortasagain turned down his friend. Johnson wantedFortas in the seat; he called his friend to the White

House, told him he would be naming him to theseat whether Fortas wanted it or not. Fortas reluc-tantly accepted. Nominated on 28 July 1965, he wasconfirmed on 11 August 1965. In his three-plusyears on the Court, Fortas became a reliable liberalvote, voting with the majority in the famed Mi-randa decision, which required police to read ar-rested suspects their rights, and in Witherspoon v.Illinois, which held that people who had a religiousview against capital punishment could not be ex-cluded from juries.

On 13 June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren senthis letter of resignation to President Johnson.Thirteen days later, Johnson named Fortas as hisreplacement and Judge Homer Thornberry of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to re-place Fortas as associate justice. If Fortas had beenconfirmed, he would have become the first Jew toserve as chief justice. Fortas’s connections withJohnson (as well as Thornberry’s longtime friend-ship with the president) made both of their nomi-nations contentious. Nonetheless, Fortas appearedbefore the Senate Judiciary Committee for his con-firmation hearing. Despite harsh questions frommany Republicans on his liberal rulings on theCourt, it appeared that Fortas had enough votes togain confirmation.

However, it was not to be. That September, priorto a Senate vote on his nomination, Fortas’s worldcame apart. A news source disclosed that monththat Fortas had received some $15,000 a month inpayments for teaching a course for nine weeks atthe American University Law School in the sum-mer of 1968. What made the payments suspiciouswas that they came not from the school, butthrough one of Fortas’s former law partners fromfive businessmen, one of whom had a son involvedin a criminal case before the federal courts. Thisstory did not altogether stop Fortas’s nomination:on 17 September, it was reported out of the SenateJudiciary Committee by a vote of eleven to six.However, a coalition of Republicans and conserva-tive Democrats sought to block the nominationthrough a filibuster. When Democrats backingFortas tried to end the debate by a cloture—orcutting off—motion, the motion failed, and For-tas’s nomination was dead. Chief Justice Warrenasked Fortas to withdraw his name from consider-ation, and he did, with Warren agreeing to remainon the Court until the new president could name

136 Fortas, Abraham

Abe Fortas waits outside the Senate Judiciary Committee thatis considering his nomination for Supreme Court Justice. LaterFortas was implicated in a financial scandal for which he wasforced to resign from the court. (Library of Congress)

his successor. Fortas remained on the court as anassociate justice.

On 4 May 1969, Life magazine reporter WilliamLambert reported on another Fortas scandal. Thejournal disclosed that in January 1966 Fortas hadaccepted a payment of $300,000 from the founda-tion of Louis E. Wolfson, an industrialist. Fortashad returned the money that December afterWolfson was indicted on stock fraud charges. For-tas denied accepting the money from Wolfson forany other reason other than “research and writingservices.” He declared that he had not intervenedfor Wolfson in any federal proceeding relating tohis criminal case. Despite Fortas’s denials, mem-bers of Congress began to demand Fortas’s resig-nation. On 11 May 1969, according to Newsweekmagazine, Attorney General John Mitchell al-legedly visited with Chief Justice Warren andwarned him that the Department of Justice haduncovered even more damaging allegations, andthat these would become public soon.Warren wentto Fortas and told him that for the sake of theCourt he needed to resign. Fortas did resign on 14May, admitting that he had made an arrangementwith Wolfson in 1965 to pay Fortas $20,000 a yearfor the rest of his life for unnamed services for theWolfson Foundation. These services were neverspelled out by Fortas, and he reiterated that he hadreturned the money in December 1966 as he hadstated.

In his letter to Chief Justice Warren, Fortaswrote,

It is my opinion, however, that the public contro-versy relating to my association with the Founda-tion is likely to continue and adversely affect thework and position of the Court, absent my resigna-tion. In these circumstances, it seems clear to methat it is not my duty to remain on the Court, butrather to resign in the hope that this will enable theCourt to proceed with it vital work free from extra-neous stress.

There has been no wrongdoing on my part.There has been no default in the performance of myjudicial duties in accordance with the high stan-dards of the office I hold. So far as I am concerned,the welfare and maximum effectiveness of theCourt to perform its critical role in our system ofgovernment are factors that are paramount to allothers. It is this consideration that prompts my res-ignation which, I hope, by terminating the public

controversy, will permit the Court to proceed withits work without the harassment of debate concern-ing one of its members.

Fortas thus became the first justice to resignfrom the Supreme Court under fire in the Court’s178-year history. On 20 May 1969 the AmericanBar Association’s Committee on ProfessionalEthics determined that Fortas’s conduct wasagainst the canons of judicial ethics. Despite this,the Department of Justice never released any fur-ther information on Fortas and never prosecutedhim for any crime.

Abe Fortas spent the remainder of his life as adisgraced lawyer, working in Washington, D.C. Hedied there of a ruptured aorta on 5 April 1982.

References: Abe Fortas Oral History Interview, LyndonBaines Johnson Library, 14 August 1969; “Abe Fortas:Quit Supreme Court Under Public Pressure,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 118–119; Greenhouse, Linda,“Ex-JusticeAbe Fortas Dies at 71; Shaped Historic Rulings onRights,” New York Times, 7 April 1982, A1; Witt, Elder,Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. SupremeCourt (1990), 874.

Foulke, William Dudley (1848–1935)Lawyer and public official, noted for his work forpolitical reform, including as a member of theNational Civil Service Reform League (for whichhe served as president) and the Civil ServiceCommission. Foulke remains an obscure figure.What is known about him is that he was born inNew York City on 20 November 1848 and appar-ently attended the local schools of New York. Heearned a bachelor’s degree from Columbia Col-lege (now Columbia University) in 1869 and twoyears later earned a law degree from the Colum-bia School of Law. He practiced law in New YorkCity until 1876.

In 1876 Foulke moved to Richmond, Indiana,where he went to work as a corporate attorney forthe Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad. ARepublican, Foulke was elected to a seat in the In-diana state senate in 1882 and served until 1886.

While in the Indiana state senate, Foulke be-came an advocate of civil service reform, at thattime one of the leading issues. In 1885 he intro-duced a bill to establish a civil service system in

Foulke, William Dudley 137

Indiana. At that time, he also established the Indi-ana Civil Service Reform Association and wasnamed president of the organization. In 1886,after he left the state senate, he was named presi-dent of the American Woman Suffrage Associa-tion. He stopped practicing the law in 1889,spending the remainder of his life in the cause ofreform. For the National Civil Service ReformLeague, he worked in 1889 and 1890 to investigateconditions in the federal civil service system. In1901 he was named to the U.S. Civil Service Com-mission by President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1907he was one of the key advocates behind a law thatprohibited the solicitation of political contribu-tions from employees in state offices, a precursorof the Hatch Act of 1939. After leaving the com-mission, he returned to Indiana, where he servedas the editor of the Evening Item, a Republican

newspaper that preached reform. In 1910 he wasnamed president of the National MunicipalLeague, serving until 1914.

In his last years, Foulke published a number ofworks, including Fighting the Spoilsmen: Reminis-cences of the Civil Service Reform Movement(1919) and A Hoosier Autobiography (1922). From1923 to 1924, he served as president of the Na-tional Civil Service Reform League. Until hisdeath, he continued to speak on behalf of civil ser-vice reform.

Foulke died in Richmond, Indiana, on 30 May1935 at the age of eighty-six.

References: William Dudley Foulke Papers (biographicalnote) Library of Congress, Washington, DC; “Foulke,William Dudley,” in The National Cyclopædia ofAmerican Biography, 57 vols. and supplements A-N(New York: James T. White & Company, 1897–1984),XXVI:429–430.

138 Foulke, William Dudley

Garcia, Robert (1933– )United States representative from New York(1978–1990), implicated and convicted for his rolein a kickback scandal after he took a $75,000bribe. A rising star in the Democratic Party whowas ironically elected to Congress as a Republican,Garcia was one of several congressmen broughtdown by allegations of corruption at the end of the1980s and beginning of the 1990s. Born in theBronx, in New York, on 9 January 1933, Garcia at-tended public schools in New York before attend-ing the City College of New York (CCNY) in 1957.He also went to the Community College of NewYork that same year. In 1950 he had left school tovolunteer with the Third Infantry Division of theU.S. Army, seeing action during the Korean War(1950–1953). After returning to the United States,Garcia completed his education. In 1957 he en-tered private business and worked as a computerengineer for several years.

In the 1960s increasing Hispanic politicalpower and Garcia’s growing interest in politics ledhim to run for and win a seat in the New York stateassembly (1965–1966) and the New York statesenate (1966–1978). A Democrat, he served asdeputy minority leader in the state senate from1975 to 1978. In 1978, following the resignation ofRepresentative Herman Badillo of New York, Gar-cia threw his hat into the race to succeed him, butregistered as a liberal Republican. He was electedon that ticket on 14 February 1978, but a week

after he took his seat he reregistered as a Demo-crat. Garcia would later serve until his resignationon 7 January 1990.

Garcia was implicated, with his wife, in the so-called Wedtech scandal. He was indicted for de-manding kickbacks from that company in ex-change for his assistance in gaining federalcontracts for it. Garcia was tried and convicted,and he resigned his office on 7 January 1990 be-fore he could be sentenced. On appeal, his convic-tion was overturned. He was tried a second timeand again convicted. However, this second convic-tion was also overturned, and in the end Garcianever served any prison time.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); French, Howard W.,“U.S. SaysMariotta Paid Garcia a $75,000 Bribe,” New YorkTimes, 19 July 1988, B3; Lynn, Frank,“FacingSentencing, Rep. Garcia Resigns,” New York Times, 3January 1900, A1; U.S. House of Representatives,Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,“Summary of Activities” 101st Congress, HouseReport No. 101–995, 101st Congress, 2nd Session(1990) (“In the Matter of Representative RobertGarcia”), 12–13.

Garfield, James Abram (1831–1881)U.S. representative from Ohio (1863–1880), twen-tieth president of the United States (1881), impli-cated, but never charged, in the Crédit Mobilierscandal. Garfield’s discussion of political ethics

G

139

and morality also attracts the interest of histori-ans. Born in the town of Orange, Ohio, on 19 No-vember 1831, Garfield attended local schools be-fore becoming a driver and helmsman on the Ohiocanal. As many people did in those days, Garfieldentered a religious life, attending the Geauga Sem-inary in Chester, Ohio. However, he did not followthrough with his religious studies and soon left toteach at a local district school. He continued hiseducation, attending the Eclectic Institute inHiram, Ohio, from 1851 to 1854, and graduatingfrom Williams College in Williamstown, Massa-chusetts, in 1858. For a time he served as a profes-sor of ancient languages and literature at HiramCollege; from 1857 until 1861 he served as thatcollege’s president.

A Republican, Garfield entered the politicalrealm in 1859 when he served as a member of theOhio state senate. He left that office, however, tostudy law and was admitted to the Ohio state barin 1860. When the Civil War began in 1861,Garfield volunteered for service in the Union armyas a lieutenant colonel in the Forty-second Regi-ment of the Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He saw actionat numerous battles, rising to the rank of major

general by the end of 1863, when he resigned hiscommission. In March 1863 he had been elected toa seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but be-cause he did not take his seat immediately he didnot serve in the first part of the Thirty-eighth Con-gress. Garfield served in this seat from 5 December1863 until he resigned on 8 November 1880, fromthe Thirty-eighth through the Forty-sixth Con-gresses. A leader in his party, Garfield served as amember of the Electoral Commission that decidedthe electoral vote count in the 1876 election be-tween Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Demo-crat Samuel Tilden.

In 1870 Garfield became involved in a famousexchange with Representative Ebon C. Ingersoll(R-IL) over the meaning of the word “ethical.” Theexchange came during the debate over a resolutionto allow Democrat John Coggswell Conner ofTexas to take his seat in the House. Conner hadbeen accused of whipping and abusing black sol-diers under his command in 1868 and the follow-ing year had bragged that he would be acquittedby a military court by bribing all the witnessesagainst him. Garfield, speaking on the House flooron 31 March 1870, said, “Allow me to ask . . . ifanything in the Constitution of the UnitedStates . . . forbids that a ‘moral monster’ shall beelected to Congress?” Representative Ingersollreplied,“I believe that the people may elect a moralmonster to Congress if they see fit, but I believethat Congress has a right to exclude that moralmonster from a seat if they see fit.” Nonetheless,Conner was allowed to take his seat.

During his time in Congress, Garfield appar-ently took money and other fees from several com-panies that did business before the Congress, in-cluding the Crédit Mobilier. Despite the fact thatmany congressmen and senators—includingGarfield’s fellow Republicans James G. Blaine andSchuyler Colfax—were politically ruined by thescandal, Garfield remained untouched, and evento this day his name is rarely mentioned in con-nection with these episodes. Historians have sim-ply passed over his corruption.

In 1880 Garfield became the first—and, as ofthis writing, the last—man to be nominated to aseat in the U.S. Senate and at the same time forpresident of the United States. These days, fewcandidates for the presidency come from the U.S.House of Representatives, but in Garfield’s day his

140 Garfield, James Abram

James A. Garfield, U.S. representative from Ohio (1863–1880)and twentieth president of the United States. During his time inCongress, Garfield was implicated, but never charged, in theCrédit Mobilier scandal. (Library of Congress)

leadership led his party to do just that, merginghim on the party ticket with Chester A. Arthur, alittle-known New York politician who had servedin the customs office. Looking at the ticket frommodern standards, it may have been perhaps themost inexperienced in the history of Americanpolitics. On 4 November 1880, Garfield was electedpresident and also won his Senate race, a seat henaturally declined to accept. He thus became thelast man to be elected directly from the House ofRepresentatives to the White House. His time inoffice was short—only six months. On 2 July 1881,while standing in a train station in Washington,D.C., he was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, a psychoticwho felt that his assistance in the 1880 electionwas the key to Garfield’s election and that he hadnot been remunerated properly for his work.Garfield, wounded seriously, clung to life, and aftera few weeks was moved from the White House to aseaside town in New Jersey. There he died—morefrom the ineptitude of his physicians than fromhis wound, which could have been treated prop-erly—on 19 September 1881, the second Ameri-can president to be murdered.

References: Balch, William Ralston, The Life of JamesAbram Garfield, Late President of the United States.The Record of a Wonderful Career (New York: WilliamH. Shepard, 1881); Conner exchange in“Congressional Ethics” (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, 1980); Peskin, Allan,Garfield: A Biography (Kent, OH: Kent State UniversityPress, 1999); Thayer, William Makepeace, From Log-Cabin to the White House (Boston: J. H. Earle, 1881).

Gaynor, William Jay (1848–1913)Lawyer and politician, nominated by TammanyHall for mayor of New York and then turnedaround and struck out against corruption, partic-ularly against Tammany. He died from the effectsof an assassination attempt. Born in Whitesboro,New York (some sources report it as being inOneida, New York), on 2 February 1848, he was theson of a blacksmith and farmer. He attended twolocal religious academies—considered properareas for higher learning—after which he enteredthe Roman Catholic order as a novice in 1863. Forthe next four years, he taught in religious schoolsin Baltimore and St. Louis. In 1868 Gaynor de-cided against life in the ministry and left it to pur-sue a career in the law, studying in Utica, New

York, and being admitted to the New York state barin 1871. He moved to Boston and may have prac-ticed there. After what can be called a short stay inBoston, Gaynor again moved, this time to Brook-lyn, New York, where he married about 1873. Thismarriage ended in divorce in 1881, and he remar-ried in 1886.

Despite having a law license, Gaynor worked inBrooklyn as a reporter for the Brooklyn Argusnewspaper and, when that paper ended produc-tion, in the same capacity for The Sun of New York.Sometime in the 1870s, Gaynor did in fact returnto the law and by the 1880s was a noted New Yorkattorney. His most important contribution at thistime was his stand for municipal reform and hisoutspoken lectures against political corruption,most notably that of the bosses from TammanyHall, the leading New York political organization.Although he was a Democrat, Gaynor did not shyaway from criticizing the corruption of officialswho were fellow Democrats. Because of thesestands, Gaynor’s popularity rose and in 1893 run-ning as a Republican, he was elected to the seat ofjustice of the New York state supreme court, thenan elected office. He remained in this seat fortwelve years. In 1905 Gaynor was named to the ap-pellate division of the New York state supremecourt. Despite being an outspoken advocate of re-form in political life, he was critical of those he feltpushed reform too far, including social reformers.

By the middle of the first decade of the twenti-eth century, many saw Gaynor as a possible politi-cal candidate. However, to win in New York City, acandidate had to be supported by Tammany Hall,an organization that Gaynor had a long history ofcriticizing. However, by 1909 Tammany was indeep trouble. Years of scandal, from the TweedRing to incessant corruption inside the organiza-tion, led many in the group to look for a candidatewho was “clean.” Tammany chief Charles F. Mur-phy saw such a candidate in Gaynor, and he tappedthe reformer to be the Tammany candidate formayor in 1909. The combination of Gaynor’s longrecord of reform and Tammany’s political strengthmade his candidacy an attractive one. BecauseTammany was a machine of the Democratic Party,the Republicans opposed him with Otto T. Ban-nard, an unknown banker who had a long recordof being a supporter of charities. He had alsoserved as a delegate to the Republican National

Gaynor, William Jay 141

Convention in 1908. An independent group, TheCivil Alliance, shying away from both parties,named New York Journal publisher William Ran-dolph Hearst as their candidate. Hearst had oncebacked Gaynor, but turned on the reformer for al-lying himself with the hated Tammany Hall. Theelection was tight, but in the end Gaynor was vic-torious, capturing more than 250,000 votes, withBannard in second with more than 177,000 andHearst in third with nearly 154,000. BecauseGaynor was running on a Tammany ticket, theforces of Bannard and Hearst elected much of theticket below Gaynor, making Gaynor the onlyTammany candidate to win.

Immediately, Gaynor set to work to implementhis reformist agenda, angering many in Tammanywho saw him as a pliant tool. He set the stage atthe beginning of his tenure: on 1 January 1910, in-auguration day, he walked from his home inBrooklyn to City Hall in Lower Manhattan. About1,500 people were assembled to hear him take theoath of office. He told the crowd,“I enter upon thisoffice with the intention of doing the very best Ican for the City of New York. That will have to suf-fice; I can do no more.” Starting with hiring,Gaynor filled city offices not with Tammany-approved candidates but with civil service work-ers, ending patronage. Political abuses that in-volved the subways were ended when he refused toexpand the system, thereby ending debate. Al-though historians who have examined his plan forreform almost unanimously consider him a failureas a mayor, nonetheless his ideas for reform andhis stands against his former allies at Tammanymade him immensely popular. There were calls forhis nomination for governor of New York in 1910and whispers that he would be a leading candidatefor the 1912 Democratic presidential nomination.

This talk all ended on 9 August 1910. Gaynorwas boarding a ship to go on a European vacation,when a disgruntled dock worker, James J. Gal-lagher, shot Gaynor in the throat. Although thewound was not fatal, Gaynor’s health was compro-mised, and future political plans were ended. Ittook two months for Gaynor to recover from hiswounds, after which he returned to office. The bul-let remained in his throat, never to be removed,and caused a decline in his health. His final twoyears were spent battling forces that either wantedno reform or reforms Gaynor could not support.

In 1913 Gaynor was not renominated for mayorby either Tammany or the Republicans, althoughan independent group did name him as their may-oral candidate. Six days after he was nominated,Gaynor was on board the steamship Baltic on hisway to another European vacation when he sud-denly died of a heart attack, believed brought onby the bullet wound he never fully recovered from.Dead at sixty-five, Gaynor was buried in theGreenwood Cemetery in Brooklyn near his home.

References: Cerillo, Augustus, Jr.“Gaynor, William Jay,” inJohn A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds.,American National Biography, 24 vols. (New York:Oxford University Press, 1999), 8:816–817; Pink,Louis Heaton, Gaynor, the Tammany Mayor WhoSwallowed the Tiger: Lawyer, Judge, Philosopher (NewYork: International Press, 1931); Smith, MortimerBrewster, William Jay Gaynor, Mayor of New York(Chicago: H. Regnery Co. 1951).

Gilbert, William Augustus (1815–1875)U.S. representative from New York (1855–1857),accused of corruption and the subject of an expul-sion hearing in the House in 1857. Born in Gilead,Connecticut, on 25 January 1815, William Gilbertmoved with his parents to Champion, New York.He attended the public schools in that town, after-wards studying the law, and was admitted to theNew York bar in 1843. He opened a practice inAdams, New York. Gilbert served as a member ofthe New York state assembly in 1851 and 1852.

In 1854 Gilbert was elected as a Whig to a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives, representingthe Twenty-third New York District. He entered theThirty-fourth Congress, serving from 4 March1855 until his resignation on 27 February 1857.Apparently, Gilbert became embroiled in some de-gree of political corruption. However, the record isvague and does not explain what Gilbert’s truecrime was. He was brought to the bar of the Housealong with several other House members, includ-ing William W. Welch, Orsamus B. Matteson, andFrancis S. Edwards, all of whom were accused ofcorruption and censured in 1857. Hinds’ Prece-dents explains the record of the investigation intoGilbert and the others:

On February 19, 1857, the committee made severalreports affecting severally the following Members:William A. Gilbert, of New York; William W. Welch,

142 Gilbert, William Augustus

of Connecticut; Francis S. Edwards, of New York,and Orsamus B. Matteson, of New York. Each reportwas accompanied by resolutions for the expulsionof the Member. Mr. [William Henry] Kelsey [of NewYork] submitted a minority report, in which he dis-sented from the several reports on the ground that,according to the rules of the House and parliamen-tary law, the committee had no power to instituteproceedings against any Member of the body underthe resolution by which the committee was ap-pointed. He quoted the rule of Jefferson’s Manual:“When a committee is charged with an inquiry, if aMember prove to be involved, they can not proceedagainst him, but must make a special report to theHouse; whereupon the Member is heard in hisplace, or at the bar, or a special authority is given tothe committee to inquire concerning him.”

In their replies the accused Members insisted onthis rule, quoting the opinions expressed at the timeof the investigation of the Graves-Cilley duel. Theyalso insisted that, as they had not been presentwhen the testimony against them was given, theyhad been deprived of the proper opportunities forconfronting their accusers. When the case of Mr.Gilbert was taken up in the House, on February 25,these objections of the accused were considered atlength. It was urged by Mr. Schuyler Colfax, of Indi-ana, among others, that the accused should not beexpelled without a public trial at the bar of theHouse. Mr. Samuel A. Purviance, of Pennsylvania,moved this resolution as an amendment to the res-olutions of expulsion: “Resolved, That this Housewill forthwith proceed with the trial of Hon. W. A.Gilbert, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directedto summon F. F. C. Triplett, James R. Sweeney, andother witnesses to the bar of the House; and thatthe said Gilbert be heard by himself or counsel.”

Mr. Henry Winter Davis spoke at length in de-fense of the procedure of the committee, and citedas a controlling precedent the action of the Senatein the case of John Smith in 1807, quoting the entirereport of Mr. John Quincy Adams in that case. Healso quoted the precedents in the [Preston] Brookscase in the House. Mr. Purviance’s resolution wasdisagreed to on February 27 by a vote of 110 nays to82 yeas. The resolutions of expulsion were then con-sidered, and Mr. Gilbert, by unanimous consent, ad-dressed the House, and concluded his remarks bysending to the Clerk’s desk to be read a paper inwhich he protested against the action of the House,impeached the proceedings, and finally announcedthat he resigned his seat in the House. Mr. James L.Seward, of Georgia, protested against the putting ofthe paper in the Journal. The Speaker said:

“The paper will not go upon the Journal unlessby direct order of the House. The only thing thatwill appear on the Journal will be the fact stated bythe Member from New York, in his place, that he re-signed his seat as a Member of this House.”

Mr. Gilbert having resigned, the resolutions ofexpulsion, which recited also the charges, were laidon the table.

Gilbert thus became one of only a handful ofrepresentatives to be censured by the House in thehistory of that body.

After leaving Congress, Gilbert returned to NewYork, where he served as president of the village ofAdams in 1859 and 1860, thereafter working in thebanking business. He died in Adams on 25 May1875 at the age of sixty and was buried in theRural Cemetery in that town.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1090; Hinds, Asher Crosby,Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of theUnited States, Including References to Provisions of theConstitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the UnitedStates Senate, 8 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1907–1908), II:833–836; UnitedStates Congress, House, Joint Committee onCongressional Operations, House of RepresentativesExclusion, Censure and Expulsion Cases from 1789 to1973, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1973).

Goebel, William (1856–1900)Governor of Kentucky (1900), assassinated by po-litical opponents in a bid to hold the power of thestate. Few historians note the name of Goebel, theonly state executive ever assassinated in the his-tory of the United States. He was born in SullivanCounty, Pennsylvania, on 4 January 1856, the sonof German parents who had emigrated to theUnited States. He received little primary educa-tion, but worked as a jeweler’s apprentice, thenstudied the law under former Governor John W.Stevenson before he went to the Cincinnati LawSchool and graduated in 1877. Goebel’s father hadfought in the Civil War; soon after, he moved hisfamily from Pennsylvania to Kentucky, whereGoebel grew up. Despite the fact that his father hadfought in the Civil War and was a vigorous oppo-nent of slavery, William Goebel became a Demo-crat in the years after the war. He joined Stevenson’s

Goebel, William 143

law firm in Kentucky (of whom future Secretary ofthe Treasury and Speaker of the House John G.Carlisle was also a member) and, in 1887, waselected to the Kentucky state senate. WilliamGoebel was a strong partisan Democrat: in 1895,he challenged one of his political enemies, JohnStanford, to a duel and shot the man dead. Al-though he was never charged with a crime, Goebelearned the wrath of many in the state. He rose tobecome the leader in the state senate, with Demo-crats in firm control.

In 1898 Goebel, anticipating a run for the gov-ernorship, pushed through the legislature the so-called Goebel Election Law, an enactment that es-tablished a Board of Election Commissions namedby the senate leader—Goebel—whose sole dutywas to judge the fairness of all gubernatorial elec-tions. Governor William O. Bradley, a Republican,vetoed the measure, but Goebel cobbled togetherenough Democrats to override the veto in bothhouses. Many conservative Democrats and Repub-licans opposed Goebel and saw him as a ruthlessdictator, hell-bent on winning the governorship atall costs.

In 1899 Goebel used all of his power to get theDemocrats’ nomination for governor. However, indoing so he angered enough old-line Democratsthat they bolted from the regular party andformed the Honest Election League, a third party.The Republicans nominated William S. Taylor, thestate attorney general. The election that year wasclose—a margin of approximately 2,400 votesseparated the men. It was so close, in fact, that thecontest was thrown before Goebel’s own Board ofElection Commissioners, all handpicked byGoebel himself. Thus, the people of Kentucky wereshocked when the board reported that Taylor, andnot Goebel, had been elected as governor. Taylorwas inaugurated as the second Republican to headthe state.

Goebel, however, was not satisfied. The Demo-cratic majority in the lower house, the general as-sembly, voted to initiate an investigation intowhether Taylor had committed fraud in his vic-tory. Ignoring any sense of justice, the Democratsnamed a panel with ten of the eleven membersbeing Democrats. Republican outrage boiled overwhen it was learned that the committee would im-mediately throw out enough ballots to swing whathad been a close election to Goebel, vacate the

election’s first results, and name William Goebel,and not William Taylor, as governor of Kentucky.

On 20 January 1900, Goebel and two support-ers marched toward the general assembly to ac-cept the committee’s findings that he should be thegovernor. As he approached the building, shotsrang out, and Goebel fell to the sidewalk, mortallywounded. The bullet had slammed into his chest ata downward angle, ripping through his lung andlodging in his spine. Governor Taylor called out themilitia and ordered the general assembly to dis-band to a safer location.When Democrats refused,Taylor ordered the militia to bar the doors to pre-vent their meeting there. The Democrats thenmoved to a local hotel where, without any Republi-cans present, they accepted the lopsided panel’srecommendation and declared on 31 January 1900that William Goebel was the rightful governor ofthe state. Democratic leaders in the state Houseand Senate went to Goebel’s bedside and had himsworn in as the state’s thirty-third governor. Mor-tally wounded, Goebel ordered that the militia dis-band and that the legislature reassemble in theirnormal place. When this militia refused to movefrom the places that Governor Taylor had placedthem, Goebel supporters established their ownmilitia and faced the official militia head on. Fornearly a month, Republicans refused to acceptGoebel as governor, and Democrats acceptedGoebel as the state’s chief executive. Kentuckycame close to a repeat of the civil war that had tornthe state asunder less than forty years earlier.

On 3 February 1900, William Goebel suc-cumbed to his wounds after serving as governorfor only three days. He thus became the first, andso far only, governor in American history to die atthe hands of an assassin. Governor Taylor was or-dered to be arrested on charges of conspiracy tocommit murder, but he fled to Indiana before thearrest could be done, and Lieutenant GovernorJohn Crepps Wickliffe Beckham, a Democrat, be-came the governor of Kentucky. (In a side story,Republicans refused to allow Beckham to serve inthe governor’s mansion, taking the case to the U.S.Supreme Court, which refused to act in May 1900,forcing Republicans to back down and allow Beck-ham to serve as governor.) Seven Taylor support-ers were arrested and charged with the murder, in-cluding Caleb Powers, the state secretary of state(who was initially sentenced to death before his

144 Goebel, William

sentence was reduced to life). Two of the men wereeventually convicted of the murder, and five oth-ers, including Powers, were convicted of conspir-acy. On 13 June 1908, Governor Augustus E. Will-son pardoned Taylor (who had become a wealthyexecutive in Indiana) and Powers for any role theymight have played in the Goebel murder. In 1909he pardoned all of the remaining conspirators savefor one, Henry Youtsey, whom Willson stated wasthe actual murderer of Goebel. Powers later ran fora seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, servingfour terms from 1911 to 1917. Taylor died in Indi-ana in 1928, never returning to Kentucky.

References: “Goebel, William,” in Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors ofthe United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:534; Klotter, James C.,William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath (Lexington:University Press of Kentucky, 1977); Powers, Caleb,My Own Story: An Account of the Conditions inKentucky Leading to the Assassination of WilliamGoebel, Who Was Declared Governor of the State, andMy Indictment and Conviction on the Charge ofComplicity in His Murder, by Caleb Powers(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1905); Short,Jim, Caleb Powers and the Mountain Army: The Storyof a Statesman from Eastern Kentucky (Olive Hill, KY:Jessica Publications, 1997).

Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr. (1948– )United States representative (1977–1985) and U.S.senator from Tennessee (1985–1993), vice presi-dent of the United States (1993–2001), implicatedbut never charged in the campaign finance scan-dal of the 1996 campaign, in which he claimed that“no controlling legal authority” had power over hisdecision to make campaign phone calls from hisoffice. Born in Washington, D.C., on 31 March1948, Gore is the son of Albert Arnold Gore Sr.,who served Tennessee as a U.S. representative(1939–1944, 1945–1953) and U.S. senator (1953–1971), and Pauline (née LaFon) Gore. Albert GoreSr. had already served eight years in Congress be-fore Albert Jr. was born, and in 1952 he was electedto the U.S. Senate, where he soon became, withSenator Estes Kefauver, one of the powerhouses ofTennessee politics. His son grew up in privilege,attending private schools (including St. AlbansSchool) and staying in the Washington, D.C., hotelwhere his father lived. He entered Harvard Univer-sity and graduated in 1969 with a bachelor’s de-

gree in government. His father, an opponent of theVietnam War, was in deep political trouble withhis constituents in Tennessee, so his son, straightout of college, volunteered for service in the U.S.Army in Vietnam. The junior Gore saw no action(he was in fact a reporter for the U.S. Army publi-cation Stars and Stripes and spent much of histime in the South Vietnamese capital, Saigon), andhe returned home after four months to assist inhis father’s reelection attempt in 1970. When thesenior Gore lost to Republican Bill Brock, his sonfelt destroyed by the loss and turned to his firstlove, journalism. Thus, when a close family friend,John Siegenthaler, editor of the Tennessean, themain newspaper in Nashville, offered him a posi-tion as a reporter, Gore took it. While working atthe paper, Gore also studied philosophy at the Van-derbilt University School of Religion from 1971 to1972 and at that college’s school of law from 1974to 1976.

In 1976 Gore entered the political realm andwon a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives asa Democrat representing Tennessee’s Fourth Dis-trict. He served in the Ninety-fifth throughNinety-eighth Congresses, from 3 January 1977 to3 January 1985. In 1984 he have up his seat to runfor the U.S. Senate vacancy left by the resignationof Senator Howard Baker, who had become chiefof staff to President Ronald Reagan. Gore won theseat easily, beating Republican Victor Ashe, and hesoon became a leader in such areas as environ-mental issues and national security. In 1988, justfour years into his Senate term, and at the age ofonly forty-three, Gore made then huge leap to runfor the Democratic presidential nomination. Hisrelative youth and inexperience in national af-fairs, however, cost him, and he won only fivesouthern states overall at the Democratic NationalConvention. The nomination went to Massachu-setts Governor Michael Dukakis. Gore remainedin the Senate, winning reelection in 1990. Itseemed as if he would make another run for theWhite House in 1992, but he announced early inthat campaign that he would decline to run be-cause his son had been critically injured in a caraccident. That year he authored Earth in the Bal-ance: Healing the Global Environment, in which hecalled for a government aid program to changethe way the world was allegedly abusing the envi-ronment. “I have come to believe that we must

Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr. 145

take bold and unequivocal action,” he wrote. “Wemust make the rescue of the environment the cen-tral organizing principle for civilization.”

When Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas wonthe Democratic presidential nomination in 1992,he selected Gore as his running mate, defying po-litical wisdom—one usually selects a runningmate from another part of the country or from adifferent political persuasion within one’s party—and launching the ticket to success in defeatingPresident George Bush. Gore became one of themost important vice presidents in modern history,helping to push the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) through Congress and be-coming a leader in environmental policy inside theadministration. Following Clinton’s reelection vic-tory in 1996, it was considered a given that Gorewould try for his party’s presidential nominationin 2000, and as the incumbent vice president, hewas favored against inconsequential oppositioninside the Democratic Party.

What got Al Gore in trouble were campaign fi-nance improprieties he committed during the1996 campaign. During that contest, Gore used a

White House phone in his vice presidential officeto call contributors, a violation of the Hatch Act.Gore also told these contributors that the moneythey contributed would go not to the Clinton/Gore campaign, which would be so-called hardmoney, but to the Democratic Party, and thuswould be so-called soft money. In fact, it was laterlearned that a large portion of these funds foundtheir way into the Clinton/Gore official campaignaccount, again a violation of campaign financelaws. Gore also made the calls using a creditcard—although he later said that this was aDemocratic National Committee credit card, pa-pers given to the Senate Governmental AffairsCommittee related that this was in fact a Clin-ton/Gore 1996 credit card. Gore told reportersthat he made about forty-eight calls—evidencelater showed that it was seventy-five.

Gore was also implicated in the foreign moneyscandal that enveloped the Clinton campaign—millions of dollars from foreign sources, particu-larly Chinese, flowed into the Democratic coffers,violative of campaign finance laws. Gore, while inCalifornia, had visited the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple

146 Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr.

A man and woman pass a bust of Vice President Al Gore atop an "explanation" machine; for 25 cents the machine will explainfundraising calls made during the 1996 presidential campaign. (Library of Congress)

on 29 April 1996, where he had received illegalcampaign contributions from nuns who had takena vow of poverty. On 22 October 1996, prior to theelection, Gore tried to quiet critics of thisfundraiser by saying he thought at the time that itwas “community outreach.”

On 3 March 1997, amid the uproar over thecalls and their implications for his potential presi-dential campaign, Gore held a hastily called pressconference at the White House to explain his situa-tion. In the parley, Gore brought more controversyonto himself when he said that “no controllinglegal authority” proscribed the kind of calling hehad done. The phrase would haunt him later:

My counsel advises me that there is no controllinglegal authority or case that says that there was anyviolation of law whatsoever in the manner in whichI asked people to contribute to our reelection cam-paign. I have decided to adopt a policy of not mak-ing any such calls ever again, notwithstanding thefact that they are charged to the Democratic Na-tional Committee as a matter of policy. We’re con-tinuing our review of this matter, and I think theentire episode constitutes further reasons why thereshould be campaign finance reform. The Presidentand I strongly support campaign finance reform,and we hope it is adopted.

The commotion over Gore’s apparent dismissalof the seriousness of the charges against him andthe Clinton/Gore 1996 campaign led to pressureon the Department of Justice and the Senate Gov-ernment Affairs Committee to open simultaneousinvestigations. On 3 September 1997, AttorneyGeneral Janet Reno announced that the Depart-ment of Justice would open what is called a “pre-liminary review” of the charges against Gore.Under the Independent Counsel Law then in ef-fect, the attorney general then had thirty days todetermine whether the charges were “specific andcredible,” and if so, to ask to have an independentcounsel named. Eventually, she decided againstcalling for an independent counsel, earning greatenmity from Republicans who saw her decision ascovering for fellow Democrat Gore.

As the 2000 election neared, more controversydogged Gore.A special investigator hired by the De-partment of Justice to look into the campaign fi-nance controversy, Robert J. Conrad Jr., interviewedGore in his office on 18 April 1998. In the interview,

Gore appeared belligerent and gave inconsistent an-swers regarding all of the controversies. With re-spect to the Buddhist temple fundraiser, Gore said,“I sure as hell don’t recall having—I sure as hell didnot have any conversations with anyone saying‘This is a fund-raising event.’” Conrad asked him,“You were aware in late February [1998], were younot, that there was a goal of raising $108 million bythe DNC [Democratic National Committee]?” Goreanswered, “Yes.” “Then, a couple of months later,there is a DNC-sponsored event at the temple, and itdidn’t raise any fund-raising issues in your mind?”“I did not know it was a fundraiser,”Gore answered.On 23 August 2000, Reno decided for the third timenot to name an independent counsel to investigateGore. In her press conference giving her reasons forthe decision, she said, “The transcript [betweenGore and Conrad] reflects neither false statementsnor perjury . . . I’ve concluded that there is no rea-sonable possibility that further investigation wouldproduce evidence to warrant charges.” The Econo-mist wrote at the time,“He was so deeply involved inthe campaign-finance scandals of 1996 that he waswidely known as the ‘solicitor-in-chief,’ hosting 23White House ‘coffees,’ phoning more than 50 poten-tial donors and even writing a memo volunteeringto do more of the same.”

Gore’s apparent lack of truth-telling may havecost him the votes of many who had once sup-ported him and Clinton. (In May 2001, a thinktank released a report showing that an analysis ofpolling numbers done during the 2000 campaignshowed that Gore’s numbers dropped becausepeople did not believe he was telling them thetruth.) Despite having won the popular vote, Gorelost the presidential election in the electoral col-lege. He conceded defeat and on 20 January 2001,he left office and was out of politics for the firsttime since 1977. Gore went on to teach at severaluniversities and as of this writing has only begunto reenter politics, speaking out on environmentaland other issues. In June 2002 he criticized hisown 2000 campaign, blaming his loss on “han-dlers” and “pollsters.” He claimed that if he ran forpresident again, he would just “let ’er rip.” Gorewas considered already a candidate for his party’s2004 presidential nomination, but he pulled out ofthe campaign in December 2002.

References: Baker, Peter,“White House Seeks to ProtectGore in Temple Inquiry,” Washington Post, 3

Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr. 147

September 1997, A1; Cockburn, Alexander, Al Gore: AUser’s Manual (London: Verso, 2000); Dionne, E. J.,and William Kristol, eds., Bush v. Gore: The CourtCases and the Commentary (Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press, 2001); “In Search of theReal Man,” The Economist, 356:8183 (12 August2000), 22–24; Marcus, Ruth,“GOP Hits Gore onTemple Fund-Raiser, Senate Draft Report AccusesDemocrats of Violating Campaign Laws,” WashingtonPost, 10 February 1998, A1; Zelnick, Bob, Gore: APolitical Life (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing,1999).

Grover, La Fayette (1823–1911)Governor of Oregon (1870–1877), United Statessenator from Oregon (1877–1883), implicated butnever charged in a vote-rigging scheme to throwthe presidency to Democrat Samuel Tilden in thecontroversial 1876 presidential election. Born inBethel, Maine, on 29 November 1823, La FayetteGrover was the son of John Grover, a wealthy man-ufacturer and Maine politician who served as amember of the Maine state constitutional conven-tion and later in that state’s legislature. Despite hiswealth, La Fayette Grover attended what werecalled “common” schools (usually those schoolsthat were not specialized academies), although hedid receive some schooling at the prestigiousGould’s Academy in Maine. He entered BowdoinCollege in Maine in 1844, but after two years hedeparted without a degree. Settling in Philadel-phia, Grover studied law in the offices of a local at-torney, Asa Fish, and attended legal orations andaddresses at the Philadelphia Law Academy. Hewas admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1850.

In 1850 Grover gave up a growing law practiceand moved west to Oregon. A fellow Maine politi-cian, Samuel Thurston, had himself moved to Ore-gon, was in charge of the Democratic Party appa-ratus in the new territory, and offered Grover achance to start in the formation of a new stateparty. Grover had intended to start a law practicewith Thurston, but shortly after Grover arrived inSalem, Thurston unexpectedly died. In 1851Grover was named clerk of the U.S. district courtin Salem and within a year became the prosecut-ing attorney for the city, as well as serving as theauditor of public accounts for the entire territory.During a series of wars against Indian tribes in thearea, Grover served as a recruiter for militia sol-diers. After the war, Grover was named a legal ex-

pert to settle claims by white homesteaders whohad been attacked by these Indian tribes. In 1853he entered the political realm, serving the first oftwo (1853, 1855) terms in the territorial legisla-ture. In 1854 he was named by the Department ofthe Interior to serve as a special commissioner toinspect the spoliation claims that arose from theRogue River Indian War. In 1857 he served as adelegate to the state constitutional convention,where he assisted in the drafting of a bill of rightsfor the citizens of Oregon. In 1859, when Oregonwas admitted to the union, Grover became thestate’s first congressman. However, because of thetiming of the admission of the state and whencongressmen were to be sent to Washington,Grover served only seventeen days before his sin-gle term ended. A different faction in the Demo-cratic Party, led by Joseph Lane, prevented Grover’srenomination to a second term. He left public life,returning to the practice of the law and investingin the Willamette Woolen Mills, a major concernand one of the new state’s largest enterprises.

In 1870 Grover was elected governor of Oregon,defeating Republican Joel Palmer in a narrow vic-tory. Grover was reelected in 1874 and ultimatelyserved from 14 September 1870 until 1 February1877. He left office on 1 February 1877 when he re-signed, having been elected to the United StatesSenate. He entered the Senate on 4 March 1877 andserved until the end of his term on 3 March 1883.Even before he took his seat, his political enemiesboth in Oregon and Washington accused him ofworking illegally to secure Oregon’s electoral votesfor Democrat Samuel Tilden in the controversial1876 election. On election night of that contest, itappeared that Tilden had edged out RepublicanRutherford B. Hayes by winning several smallstates, including Oregon and Louisiana. However,Hayes contested the election, and an ElectoralCommission, composed of representatives, sena-tors, and members of the U.S. Supreme Court, wentover each contested state and decided the electionin the end for Hayes. When Grover took his seat, itwas alleged that he had used illegal means, such asthe certification of votes known to be illegal andthe illegal delivery of voting lists, to push the state’selectoral votes for Tilden. One of the leaders behindthe movement to deny Grover his seat was SenatorJohn Hipple Mitchell, who was to become Oregon’ssenior senator. Mitchell presented a petition from

148 Grover, La Fayette

the citizens of Oregon demanding that Grover bedenied his seat. (Ironically, Mitchell would later beimplicated in a land fraud scheme in Oregon, andwould be convicted before his death in 1905.)Grover demanded an investigation into the chargesin an attempt to clear his name.

On 15 June 1878, the Committee on Privilegesand Elections, after a year-long investigation, re-leased its report, exonerating Grover of all charges.Had he been found guilty, Grover would have beenexpelled. Instead, he retained his seat, and finishedhis term in 1883, after which he returned to thepractice of law. Grover died on 10 May 1911 at theage of eighty-seven.

See also Mitchell, John HippleReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1130–1131; Butler, Anne M.,and Wendy Wolff, United States Senate Election,Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793–1990(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995),211–212; Higgens-Evenson, R. Rudy,“Grover, LaFayette,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen.eds., American National Biography, 24 vols. (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999), 9:672–673.

Grunewald, Henry W.See King, Cecil Rhodes

Grunewald, Henry W. 149

Hague, Frank (1876–1956)Mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey (1917–1947), ac-cused but never convicted of wholesale corrup-tion, allegations that forced his ouster from a seaton the Democratic National Committee (DNC).Born in Jersey City, New Jersey, on 17 January1876, Hague was the son of Irish immigrants.Hague grew up in poverty and had little education,leaving public school when he had finished onlythe sixth grade. He then worked in a series of oddjobs, including as a prizefighter.

From the time of Hague’s birth, Jersey City was,like many other large American cities at the end ofthe nineteenth century, a bastion ruled by immi-grants—in Jersey City’s case, Irish immigrantslike Hague’s parents. Jersey City was also a one-party town, and for any up-and-coming politicianit was a necessity to be a Democrat or forget politi-cal advancement. Hague entered the politicalarena in 1889, running for constable in the SecondWard of the city. He advanced slowly up the ladderof the Democratic Party.

In 1913 Jersey City established a commissionform of city government. Hague, running as a re-former, was elected to one of the commissionseats. He spent much of his term working to ex-pose police corruption. He also opposed MayorMark Fagan, the lone Republican elected in thecity. In 1917 Hague opposed Fagan for mayor and,with the backing of the Democratic machine, waselected. Hague was reelected every four years

until he left office after thirty years in power. Asmayor, Hague built a huge political machine. In1919 his candidate for governor, Edward I. Ed-wards, was easily elected. In 1922, when Haguewas elected to a seat on the Democratic NationalCommittee (DNC), he became the most importantpolitician in New Jersey. That same year, he de-cided to have Edwards run for a U.S. Senate seat,which Edwards won with Hague’s help. Haguethen handpicked George S. Silzer to be Edwards’ssuccessor as governor of New Jersey. Silzer waseasily elected. In 1924 Hague became vice chair-man of the DNC.

At the presidential level, Hague was also a forceto be reckoned with. He backed the candidacy ofGovernor Alfred E. Smith of New York in 1928, butfour years later moved away from Smith andbacked Smith’s rival, Governor Franklin DelanoRoosevelt of New York, for president. Roosevelt’selection brought Hague even more power. Al-though his candidates lost the gubernatorial elec-tions of 1928 and 1934—to Morgan F. Larson andHarold Hoffman, respectively—Hague did help inelecting Democrats A. Harry Moore and CharlesEdison to the governorship. The election of theselatter two men allowed Hague to avoid prosecutionfor various corruption charges. Hague’s absolutewielding of power in Jersey City led to investiga-tions by state officials. In 1937 Hague told a re-porter that “I am the law”—as to payoffs, bribes,and other allegations. Fortunately for Hague, he

H

151

was able to fend off these inquiries by using his in-fluence. Historian Robert Fishman wrote,

Protected from investigation, Hague never scru-pled to hide a lifestyle that bore no relationshipto his mayor’s salary, which never exceeded$7,500 [a year]: a fourteen-room duplex in JerseyCity’s most fashionable apartment house; a grandsummer house at the Jersey shore; and rented vil-las every winter in Miami or Palm Beach. Tall,well dressed, imperious, he lived like a million-aire but never lost the swagger and grammar ofthe slums.

Hague did lose a case in federal court in 1939when an ordinance he had passed banning certainspeech was set aside, but this was his only defeatin the court of law.

During the New Deal economic recovery pro-gram of President Franklin Roosevelt, millions ofdollars in federal monies were funneled into JerseyCity through Hague’s office, and it is alleged he si-phoned off some of that money for himself and hiscronies to hold on to power. However, because hewas never indicted or formally tried for any crime,allegations against Hague must remain that—al-legations.

The end of Hague’s reign of power began in1941, when Governor Charles Edison pushedthrough a series of judicial and constitutional re-forms that crushed Hague’s power. Hague per-sisted in allowing the Irish to hold the power Jer-sey City, pushing out other growing minorities. In1947, facing a rupture in his machine, Hague sud-denly quit and gave the office to his nephew, FrankHague Eggers. However, this set off an interpartystruggle, and in 1949 John V. Kenny, commissionerof the Second Ward, put together a ticket of disaf-fected Democrats and Republicans and won a ma-jority of commission seats. When Republican Al-fred E. Driscoll was elected governor of New Jerseyin 1947 and reelected in 1949, Hague saw thechange in power and resigned as Democraticleader in the state. In 1952 he resigned as theDNC’s national committeeman and vice chairman.

In 1953 Hague attempted a comeback, trying toback Democrat Elmer Wene for governor—Wenelost in the Democratic primary—and failed tolodge John V. Kenny from leading the Jersey Citycommission. Frank Hague Eggers’s death in July1954 put an end to Hague’s career. He died unre-

membered in New York City on 1 January 1956,three weeks shy of his eightieth birthday.

References: Connors, Richard J.,“Hague, Frank,” in AllenJohnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary ofAmerican Biography, X vols. and 10 supplements(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),6:265–266; Fishman, Robert,“Hague, Frank,” in JohnA. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., AmericanNational Biography, 24 vols. (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1999), 9:794–795; McKean, Dayton,The Boss: The Hague Machine in Action (New York:Houghton Mifflin, 1940).

Hall, Abraham Oakey (1826–1898)Mayor of New York City (1868–1872), known as“Boss Tweed’s Mayor,” tried but acquitted for hisrole in the Tweed Ring scandals. Known as A.Oakey Hall, he was born in Albany, New York, on26 July 1826, the son of an English immigrant,Morgan James Hall, who had come to America andsettled in upstate New York. There, he marriedElsie Lansing Oakey, the daughter of AbrahamOakey, a former state treasurer for the state of NewYork. In 1830 Morgan Hall died, leaving his widowwith two children. She moved to New York City,where her elder son, Abraham, attended localschools and then went to New York University.After graduating in 1844, he went to the HarvardLaw School, but after one year at that institutionhe departed, instead going to New Orleans wherehe was privately tutored in the law. In 1846 Hallwas admitted to the Louisiana bar, and, returningto New York City, opened a law practice with oneAaron J. Vanderpool. In a short time, Hall becamea prosperous attorney.

In 1849 Hall was named assistant district attor-ney for the city and three years later was electeddistrict attorney, holding the office from 1852 until1860. Although he had been elected as a Republi-can, Hall became disenchanted with the way he feltthe Republicans were harming civil liberties tofight the Civil War, and soon after the war began heswitched to the Democratic Party. In 1864 hejoined Tammany Hall, then dominating New Yorkpolitics with a combination of largesse and greed.Just four years after joining Tammany, Hall wasnominated as the Tammany candidate for mayor.He defeated Colonel F. A. Conkling by getting over75,000 of 96,000 votes cast to become mayor. Dur-ing his tenure, which lasted until 1872, Hall be-

152 Hall, Abraham Oakey

came an integral member of the “Tweed” Ring, runby state senator and Tammany leader William M.Tweed. With Hall’s signature on all city docu-ments, he was able to orchestrate a program ofcorruption and graft unseen in American historythen or since. Millions upon millions of dollarswere siphoned off from the city budget, landing inthe pockets of Tweed or his associates. It is un-known whether Hall himself profited from Tweed’scorruption. Historian George Kohn wrote:

The Tweed Ring, which began operation in 1866,was the first modern city machine in New York, andTweed was the nation’s first real ‘boss.’ He and hiscolleagues Peter Sweeny (city chamberlain), OakeyHall (mayor of New York), and Richard Connolly(city comptroller) comprised the inner circle of thering that dominated New York City politics for thenext five years. Though Tweed’s Tammany Hallnever proposed a broad remedy to New York’s enor-mous problems of poverty, education, and housing,his ring gained the support of immigrants by givingthem patronage jobs, of Catholics by giving city andstate money for parochial schools and private chari-ties, and of workers by encouraging unions to or-ganize and allowing them to strike.

By 1871 questions began to rise regarding cityfinances, and Republicans and writers for the NewYork Times began to look into the situation withearnest. Soon, stories of vast corruption werebeing aired, and Hall did not run for a secondterm. Instead, he was tried twice—a mistrial inthe first trial led to a second, where mysteriouslyhe was acquitted of all charges in October 1872.

Hall did not return to politics or the law—in-stead, he spent several years trying to be an actoron the stage. When his first wife died in 1897, Hallmarried a widow, Mrs. John Clifton. Just sevenmonths after he wed, on 7 October 1898, Hall col-lapsed and died from heart failure at the age ofseventy-two. He was buried in the Hall family vaultin Trinity Cemetery in New York City.

A. Oakey Hall in history is labeled as being partof the Tweed Ring, despite the fact that he was theonly one of the major players who escaped prison.

References: “A. Oakey Hall on Trial. One Warrant for$39,000 Said to Be a Forgery,” The Sun (New York), 25October 1872, 1; “‘Boss’ Tweed: Corrupt ‘TammanyTiger’,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of AmericanScandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York:Facts on File, 1989), 331; Clinton, Henry Lauren,

Celebrated Trials (New York: Harper and Brothers,Publishers, 1897); Hershkowitz, Leo,“Hall, AbrahamOakey,” in Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones,Biographical Dictionary of American Mayors,1820–1980: Big City Mayors (Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 1981), 146–147; “The Trial ofMayor Hall,” The Sun (New York), 29 October 1872, 1.

Hanna, Richard Thomas (1914–2001)United States representative (1963–1974), impli-cated in the Koreagate scandal to which he pledguilty to charges that he accepted a $200,000 bribeto help influence members of Congress. Born inthe city of Kemmerer, Wyoming, on 9 June 1914,Hanna attended local schools before he graduatedfrom Pasadena Junior College in Pasadena, Cali-fornia, and later earned a bachelor’s degree and alaw degree from the University of California at LosAngeles. For a time after he earned his law degreeand was admitted to the California bar, Hannapracticed the law. However, in 1942, after theUnited States entered World War II, he volunteeredfor service and became a member of the UnitedStates Navy Air Corps, serving until 1945. After re-turning to the United States, he resumed the prac-tice of the law.

In 1955 Hanna was elected as a Democrat to aseat in the California state assembly, serving from1956 until 1962. He served as a delegate from Cali-fornia to the Democratic National Convention heldin Los Angeles. In 1962, again running as a Demo-crat, he was elected to a seat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, representing California’s Thirty-fourth District. Entering the Eighty-fifth Congress,Hanna was reelected five additional times, servingfrom 3 January 1963 until 31 December 1974.

During the 1970s, Hanna allegedly acceptedmore than $200,000 in payments from agents ofKorean President Tongsun Park and Korean reli-gious figure Sun Myung Moon, in exchange for in-creased Korean influence on Capitol Hill. Al-legedly, approximately 115 congressmen acceptedmoney from the Korean agents. However, when thescandal broke, the investigation was narrowed toonly a few of those involved, and only one—Richard Hanna—was ever prosecuted (Represen-tative Otto E. Passman [D-LA] was charged butnever put on trial due to ill health). Hanna wascharged by a federal grand jury of accepting bribesfrom the Koreans and later pled guilty. He was

Hanna, Richard Thomas 153

sentenced to six to thirty months in prison, ulti-mately serving twelve months before he wasparoled.

Hanna never held political office again. He diedin Tryon, North Carolina, on 9 June 2001 on hiseighty-seventh birthday. His family scattered hisashes in the Atlantic Ocean.

See also Koreagate.References: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Boettcher, Robert, Gifts ofDeceit: Sun Myung Moon, Tongsun Park, and theKorean Scandal (New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1980), 61–73; Robinson, Timothy S., andCharles R. Babcock,“Ex-Rep. Hanna Pleads Guilty inInfluence Case,” Washington Post, 18 March 1978, A1,A12; Thompson, Dennis, Ethics in Congress: FromIndividual to Institutional Corruption (Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995), 46; U.S. Houseof Representatives, Committee on Standards andConduct, Manual of Offenses and Procedures: KoreanInfluence Investigation, Pursuant to House Resolution252 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1977).

Hastings, Alcee Lamar (1936– )United States district judge of the Southern Dis-trict of Florida (1979–1989), impeached and con-victed of soliciting a bribe to help fix a case. Bornin the village of Altamonte Springs, Florida, on 5September 1936, Hastings attended local schoolsbefore he graduated from Crooms Academy inSanford, Florida, and earned a bachelor’s degreefrom Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, in1958. He later attended the Howard UniversitySchool of Law from 1958 to 1960, and FloridaA&M University, the latter institution awardinghim his juris doctor, or law, degree in 1963. Hast-ings was admitted to the Florida bar the followingyear. Opening his own law office, Hastings was inprivate practice from 1964 until 1977. In that latteryear, he was elected a judge of the circuit court ofBroward County, Florida, in the southern portionof the state. Two years later, he was named by Pres-ident Jimmy Carter as the U.S. district judge forthe Southern District of Florida.

On 29 December 1981, after only two years onthe bench, Hastings was indicted by a grand juryin Miami for conspiring to accept a $150,000bribe. The indictment charged that Hastings,using his friend William A. Borders Jr., as a go-

between, offered to reduce the prison sentence oftwo racketeers whose cases had come before himin exchange for the bribe. Much of the evidenceagainst Hastings and Borders, both tried sepa-rately, was circumstantial, and Hastings main-tained that he was never in on the deal and thatBorders’s promises to the racketeers to have theirsentences reduced could not be carried out. Thekey prosecution evidence was a satchel full of $100bills found on Borders that he said was the payoffto Hastings. Two years later, in 1983, Borders wasconvicted on all counts, but Hastings was acquit-ted. Following the acquittal, two U.S. districtjudges, who felt that Hastings had lied in order toavoid conviction, filed a complaint with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, allegingthat Hastings had “engaged in conduct prejudicialto the effective and expeditious administration ofthe business of the courts.” As required by law, thechief judge of the circuit reviewed the complaintand then referred it to a special committee to in-vestigate the charges. In 1986, after three years ofinvestigation, this committee returned a reportthat concluded that Hastings had lied in his trialand had manufactured evidence to avoid convic-tion. The Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuitaccepted and approved the report and in Septem-ber 1986 reported to the United States JudicialConference (the policy-making branch of theAmerican federal judiciary) that Hastings had en-gaged in conduct that was potentially grounds forimpeachment and removal from office. The Judi-cial Conference agreed and on 17 March 1988, in arare move, Chief Justice of the United StatesSupreme Court William H. Rehnquist wrote to theU.S. House of Representatives that Hastings had“engaged in conduct which might constitute oneor more grounds for impeachment.”

Starting in May 1988 and continuing throughJune 1988, a subcommittee of the House JudiciaryCommittee held hearings over the Hastings case,and on 7 July 1988 unanimously adopted seventeenarticles of impeachment. The subcommittee wasled by Representative John Conyers, a black Demo-crat from Michigan. When Hastings charged thatthe proceedings were political revenge against anoutspoken black Democrat who had opposed thepolicies of the Reagan administration, Conyersreplied, “A black public official must be held to thesame standard any and every other public official

154 Hastings, Alcee Lamar

is held to.” The full House Judiciary Committeeadopted these seventeen articles on 26 July 1988.On 3 August, the House voted 413 to 3 to impeachJudge Hastings, and, 6 days later, the Senate re-ceived the articles from the House managers, who,according to tradition, demanded that the Senateprepare for a trial to hear the charges. Hastingsfiled a contest to the impeachment, claiming thathis acquittal of the charges in a criminal trialbarred any Senate trial on those charges due todouble jeopardy and that any remaining chargesmust be thrown out because he would be preju-diced by the span of time between the allegedcrime and the trial. He also argued that impeach-ment Article 17, alleging that “Hastings, through acorrupt relationship with Borders, giving false tes-timony under oath, fabricating false documents,and improperly disclosing confidential informa-tion acquired by him as the supervisory judge of awiretap, undermined confidence in the integrityand impartiality of the judiciary and betrayed thetrust of the people of the United States, therebybringing disrepute on the Federal courts and theadministration of justice by the Federal courts,” be

dismissed because it failed to allege a particular“high crime and misdemeanor” within the mean-ing of the U.S. Constitution. On 15 March 1989, theU.S. Senate heard from Hastings and his counsel onthese matters, as well as from the House managers,and, after meeting in closed session to deliberate,voted ninety-two to one to reject the motion to dis-miss Articles 1 through 15 and voted ninety-threeto zero to reject the motion to dismiss Article 17.

Hastings’s impeachment trial opened on 19July 1989 and lasted until 3 August of the sameyear. Instead of the full Senate hearing the evi-dence, a trial committee of twelve senators lis-tened instead to the account of the case againstHastings. On 2 October 1989, this committee re-ported to the full Senate, and the following day, thefull Senate met in closed session to hear the find-ings of the committee of twelve. On 20 October1989, the Senate met in open session to vote on thearticles. Prior to a vote, the senators agreed that ifHastings were acquitted on Article 1, a summarymotion to acquit him on Articles 2–7 would be en-tered, as all of them related to the same matter. Onthe first article, the vote was sixty-nine guilty and

Hastings, Alcee Lamar 155

Federal Judge Alcee Hastings addresses his supporters outside the Capitol in the midst of his ongoing impeachment hearing beforethe Senate. Hastings was eventually convicted of soliciting a bribe. (Bettmann/Corbis)

twenty-six not guilty, convicting Hastings. On Ar-ticle 6, the vote was forty-eight guilty to forty-seven not guilty, and as a two-thirds vote is neededfor conviction, he was acquitted on this article.Votes were taken on the other articles except forArticles 10–15, as it was deemed unnecessarywith the prior guilty votes. Hastings was immedi-ately stripped of his judicial office. However, theSenate did not vote to bar him from holding fur-ther office.

Hastings then appealed his conviction, a movemost legal scholars consider beyond the scope ofthe courts. Hastings was joined by Judge Walter L.Nixon Jr., who had also been impeached and con-victed by the Senate. The men argued that havinga Senate panel, and not the full Senate, hear theimpeachment trial was a violation of their consti-tutional rights. Nixon’s case was dismissed by thecourts, but Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in Hast-ings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (DistrictCourt of Appeals 1992), that Hastings’s case couldbe examined by the courts. Citing the fact thatHastings had been previously acquitted by a petitjury, he felt that the judge deserved to have hiscase heard by the full Senate. Sporkin ordered thatHastings’s Senate conviction be overturned and anew impeachment trial ordered. This was ashocking development in American constitu-tional law, a decision never before reached by anycourt in the history of the American nation. How-ever, soon after Sporkin’s milestone ruling, theU.S. Supreme Court held separately in Nixon v.United States that the courts could not review im-peachment trial outcomes emanating from theU.S. Senate. Sporkin at that point reversed his rul-ing and held against Hastings. The conviction ofthe judge and his removal from office stood, un-challenged.

Hastings remained popular in the black com-munity, and many saw his Senate impeachmentconviction as a political and racial move. In 1992Hastings ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives from the Twenty-third District ofFlorida. The district is heavily populated by blacksand other minorities, and Hastings won easily. Hetook his seat in a Congress among people who justa few years earlier had voted to impeach him. De-spite this, he was accepted as a member of the Con-gressional Black Caucus, and over the years he hasbecome a leading spokesman for black concerns.

On 20 January 2001, in his last hours in office,President Bill Clinton pardoned Hastings’s code-fendant William Borders Jr. for his crimes.

See also ImpeachmentReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1177; Connolly, Ceci,“Impeached Ex-Judge Revisits History,” WashingtonPost, 28 December 1998, A8; Cooper, Kenneth,“Hastings Joins His Former Accusers,” WashingtonPost, 6 January 1993, A10.

Hatch Act, 53 Stat. 1147 (1939)Congressional legislation, enacted 2 August 1939,officially called “an Act to Prevent Pernicious Polit-ical Activities,” also called “the Clean Politics Act of1939,” designed to prevent federal employees frombeing involved in federal elections. Prior to thepassage of this act, federal employees were some-times pressured into working for the campaigns ofthe administration in power, whether they agreedwith that administration’s policies or not. In addi-tion, federal employees were often working for theelection of an administration when they shouldhave been working on the business of their posi-tions. This act was initiated when allegations wereaired that the Democratic Party used officials ofthe Works Progress Administration (WPA) to so-licit contributions and votes for the party. SenatorCarl Atwood Hatch (D-NM) introduced the legisla-tion to end this practice. The enactment passedthe Congress in 1939 and was signed into law byPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was amended in1940. (This legislation is sometimes confused withanother Hatch Act, introduced by RepresentativeWilliam Henry Hatch of Missouri and enacted in1887, which pertained to the study of scientificagriculture.)

The Hatch Act, or Clean Politics Act, made it il-legal: 1) to threaten, intimidate, or coerce voters innational elections; 2) for administrators in civilservice positions to interfere with the nominationor election of candidates for federal office; 3) topromise or withhold any employment position asa reward, or a punishment, for contributing to, orrefusing to contribute to, political activity; and 4)to solicit political contributions from those on fed-eral relief (an action pertinent during the GreatDepression). On 19 July 1940, the act was amended(54 Stat. 767) to allow for a $5,000 limit on annual

156 Hatch Act

individual contributions to any one candidate inany one campaign, at the same time limiting theamount a political committee could receive andspend in one year to $3 million.

In 1942 a case came before the U.S. SupremeCourt that tested the constitutionality of the act. InUnited States v. Malphurs, 316 U.S. 1 (1942), a fed-eral employee was coerced to vote a certain way orlose his job, but the high court remanded the caseback to the lower court and never ruled on its mer-its. The lower court ruled that the men involvedwere indicted for violating the Hatch Act.

References: Bartholomew, Paul C.,“Corrupt PracticesActs,” in Dictionary of American History, 7 vols. (NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976–1978),II:232–233; Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield,“Precursors ofthe Hatch Act,” The Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview, XLVII:2 (Sept 1960), 247–262; Porter, David,“Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939,” NewMexico Historical Review, 48 (April 1973), 151–161.

Hays, Wayne Levere (1911–1989)United States representative (1949–1976), power-ful chairman of the House Administration Com-mittee and the Democratic National Congres-sional Committee (DNCC), implicated in a “sexand public payroll” scandal for which he wasforced to resign from the House. Born in Bannock,Ohio, on 13 May 1911, Hays attended the publicschools of Bannock and the nearby village of St.Clairsville. He graduated from Ohio State Univer-sity in Columbia in 1933 and spent some timestudying at Duke University in Durham, NorthCarolina, in 1935. He returned to Ohio, where heserved as a teacher in the towns of Flushing andFindlay. For a time he was involved in agriculturalpursuits.

In 1939 Hays entered the political arena andserved as mayor of Flushing until 1945. He alsoserved in the Ohio state senate in 1941 and 1942,and, after leaving the mayorship, as commissionerof Belmont County from 1945 to 1949. Havingjoined the Officers’ Reserve Corps of the U.S. Armyin 1933, Hays remained on inactive service untilcalled to active duty on 8 December 1941, follow-ing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.Commissioned a second lieutenant, Hays serveduntil he was given a medical discharge in August1942. Returning home, he finished his service asmayor of Flushing, Ohio, at the same time working

as chairman of the board of directors of the Citi-zens National Bank in Flushing.

A Democrat, Hays served as a delegate to theparty’s national nominating conventions in 1960,1964, and 1968. He also served as chairman of theU.S. House of Representatives’ delegation to theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Parliamentar-ians’ Conference and as president of the confer-ence in 1956 and 1967. In 1948 Hays ran for andwon a seat in the U.S. House of Representativesfrom the Eighteenth Ohio District, defeating Re-publican Earl Lewis. Hayes would retain this seatuntil he resigned on 1 September 1976. Risingthrough the ranks of the leadership of congres-sional Democrats, he eventually became chairmanof the Committee on House Administration. Haysbecame one of the most powerful politicians onCapitol Hill. In 1971, when Majority Leader CarlAlbert (D-OK) was elected Speaker, Hays was oneof those to throw his hat into the ring to succeedAlbert as majority leader—among these wereHale Boggs (D-LA), Morris Udall (D-AZ), B. F. Sisk(D-CA), and James O’Hara (D-MI). Boggs was theeventual winner.

Hays’s career began to unravel in 1976. Twoyears earlier he had hired a woman, Elizabeth Ray,as a typist on his staff, and paid her $14,000 a year.What no one knew was that Ray was hired not forher typing skills but because she was Hays’s girl-friend. Finally, Ray became disgusted at her situa-tion and went to the Washington Post, which ex-posed her story in a front-page article entitled“Closed Session Romance on the Hill.” When thearticle appeared in the Post on 23 May 1976, officialWashington was stunned. Even Hays was thrownfor a loop: his first reaction, when asked why hekept a mistress, was to say, “Hell’s fire! I’m a veryhappily married man.” The House Ethics Commit-tee, having a month earlier voted to investigate thealleged financial misconduct of RepresentativeRobert L. F. Sikes of Florida, proceeded to vote tolook into whether Hays had used public money topay off his mistress. Hays stuck by his story thatRay, who was on the staff of the House Administra-tion Committee, was making the story up, but theallegations took a strange turn when Ray, in an in-terview, claimed that “I can’t type, I can’t file, I can’teven answer the phone.” Finally, on 25 May 1976,before the House Ethics Committee, Hays admittedthat he had had a “personal relationship” with Ms.

Hays, Wayne Levere 157

Ray; however, he denied that she was his mistressor that he had hired her and paid her with publicfunds so that she could be by his side. That sameday, 25 May 1976, Hays requested in writing thatthe Ethics Committee investigate the allegationthat he had paid off Ray with public funds, andtwenty-eight members of Congress, in a letter toEthics Committee chairman John J. Flynt Jr. (D-GA), asked for the committee to investigate. On 2June 1976, the Ethics Committee voted eleven tozero to initiate an investigation. The Departmentof Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigationsecretly began to look into the corruption aspects,and on 26 May 1976 a grand jury in Washington,D.C., was empaneled to see if Hays had broken anylaws.

With allegations such as these—using publicfunds for immoral purposes—comes pressure toremove oneself from positions of power, and Hayswas not spared. On 3 June he voluntarily steppeddown as chairman of the Democratic Congres-sional Campaign Committee and, just fifteen dayslater, similarly removed himself as chairman of theCommittee on House Administration. That year,Hays ran for reelection, capturing the DemocraticParty nomination, but he withdrew before the gen-eral election so that another candidate could takehis place. Hays was never charged with a crimeand, after returning to Ohio, served as a memberof the Ohio state house of representatives from1978 to 1980. Hays retired to the village of St.Clairsville, Ohio. He was in Wheeling, West Vir-ginia, on 10 February 1989 when he died of a heartattack at the age of seventy-seven.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1188–1189; “A Capitol SexScandal,” Washington Post, 2 September 1999, C13;“[The Case of] Rep. Wayne L. Hays,” in CongressionalEthics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,1980), 22–23; Clark, Marion, and Rudy Maxa,“ClosedSession Romance on the Hill: Rep. Wayne Hays’s$14,000-a-Year Clerk Says She’s His Mistress,”Washington Post, 23 May 1976, A3.

Hayt, Ezra Ayres (1823–1902)Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1877–1880), im-plicated but never charged with gross irregularitiesin the Indian Office during his tenure. Hayt re-mains an obscure figure. He was born in Patterson,

New York, on 25 February 1823. His education isunknown; what is known is that he went into thedry goods business when he was about twenty-oneyears of age and made a good living—so much sothat he retired in 1868 with a fortune. A religiousman, he was a member of the Board of ForeignMissions of the Reformed Church. It was as a mem-ber of this congregation that Hayt was recom-mended for an appointment to the Board of IndianCommissioners, a panel established by Congress in1869 made up of famous and rich men and otherpeople who could oversee Indian affairs in theUnited States and make recommendations to thegovernment. In May 1874, in a clash with the De-partment of the Interior’s program for Indians, theentire board resigned. President Ulysses S. Grantnamed Hayt to the board on 15 August 1874 to fillone of these vacancies. Hayt served as the head ofthe purchasing committee, buying and overseeingthe purchase of supplies for Indian tribes. Accord-ing to all historical sources, Hayt did his job thor-oughly and without any hint of corruption.

Because of his work on the Board of IndianCommissioners, he was recommended and nomi-nated to succeed John Quincy Smith as the Com-missioner of Indian Affairs, the highest rankingofficer dealing with Native American affairs in theU.S. government. During his tenure, he handledseveral conflicts with Indians in the westernUnited States, as well as the massacre of troopsunder the command of General George ArmstrongCuster.

Starting in 1878, Hayt was answering allega-tions that he was involved in shady beef deals. Sec-retary of the Interior Carl Schurz, his superior,opened an investigation. The New York Times alsolooked into allegations that Hayt had used his of-fice for nepotism—hiring his son as an Indianagent, for instance—and that monies set aside forcertain tribes had not reached them. A riot by theWhite River Utes of Colorado, which led to thedeath of an Indian agent, exposed massive corrup-tion. When Schurz asked Hayt for informationabout the rations allegedly sent to the San CarlosIndians in Arizona, Hayt refused to offer therecords, and Schurz demanded his resignation.Hayt stepped down, although he was never for-mally charged with any crime. Many historiansconsider him, however, the most corrupt of thecommissioners of Indian Affairs.

158 Hayt, Ezra Ayres

Hayt returned to New York, where a series ofbusiness failures cost him his fortune. He died inpoverty on 12 January 1902, six weeks shy of hisseventy-ninth birthday.

References: Grossman, Mark, The ABC-CLIO Companionto the Native American Rights Movement (SantaBarbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1996), 152–153; Meyer, RoyW.,“Ezra A. Hayt,” in Robert M. Kvasnicka andHerman J.Viola, The Commissioners of Indian Affairs,1824–1977 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,1979), 155–156; Priest, Loring B., Uncle Sam’sStepchildren (New Brunswick, New Jersey: RutgersUniversity Press, 1975).

Helstoski, Henry (1925–1999)United States representative from New Jersey(1965–1977), indicted for taking bribes (but neverformally tried), whose name graces one of themost important U.S. Supreme Court decisionsdealing with congressional ethics and the rights ofcongressmen to speak on matters before theHouse. Henry Helstoski was born in Wallington,New Jersey, on 21 March 1925 and attended thepublic schools of Wallington and nearby Ruther-ford. During World War II, he served in the U.S.Army Air Corps as an instructor and as a radiotechnician. After the war, he attended PatersonState College and, after going to the Montclair StateTeachers’ College, he graduated from the latter in-stitution with a bachelor of arts degree in 1947and a master’s degree two years later. From 1949until 1962, Helstoski served as a teacher, a highschool principal, and the superintendent ofschools for Bergen County, New Jersey.

Helstoski, a Democrat, entered the politicalrealm in 1956 when he was elected a councilmanfor East Rutherford, New Jersey. The following yearhe was elected mayor of the city, serving until1965. In 1964 he was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives from the Ninth New Jer-sey District, taking his seat in the Eighty-ninthCongress on 3 January 1965. Helstoski would ulti-mately serve until 3 January 1977. During his sixterms, he became an influential congressman whoconsistently voted with his party.

In 1974 the U.S. Department of Justice beganinvestigating allegations that Helstoski had takenbribes from certain people in return for pushingimmigration waivers allowing them to remain inthe United States. This investigation lasted for

nearly two years. In June 1976 a grand jury in-dicted Helstoski on twelve counts, including ac-cepting bribes for the purpose of “being influ-enced in the performance of official acts, to wit:the introduction of private bills in the UnitedStates House of Representatives.” Helstoski had re-fused to cooperate during the grand jury hearings,claiming that the “Speech or Debate Clause” of theU.S. Constitution shielded him from any examina-tion of his work in the House. The provision of theConstitution, located at Article 1, Section 6, saysthat “for any Speech or Debate in either House,they [senators and representatives] shall not bequestioned in either place.”Constitutional scholarshad long questioned the precise meaning of thisphrase, and up until this case the U.S. SupremeCourt had ruled on its meaning in only one case,United States v. Brewster (1972). After Helstoski’sindictment, the trial court ruled that no evidenceof his work in the House could be introduced intrial—in effect assuring that no case could bebrought. In a rare move, the U.S. government ap-pealed the judge’s decision, going before the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Courtof Appeals ruled for Helstoski, holding that no leg-islative work by Helstoski could be introduced attrial. The U.S. government appealed a second time,this time to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the sametime, Helstoski sued the trial judge for refusing todismiss the indictment. On 18 June 1979, afterthree years of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court heldthat the “Speech or Debate Clause” was a propershield for Helstoski to use to block any introduc-tion of his legislative record into court. Ultimately,because of a lack of evidence arising from thislandmark decision, the charges against Helstoskiwere dismissed, and he never stood trial.

Despite his court victory (his lawsuit againstthe judge was initially dismissed), Helstoski’s po-litical career was ruined. In 1976, he was defeatedfor the Democratic nomination to retain his seat,and he ran unsuccessfully as an independent inthe 1978 general election. In 1980, in his last runfor office, he failed to gain the Democratic nomi-nation for Congress. In his last years, Helstoskiserved as the superintendent of the North BergenSchool District (1981–1985) and as a public rela-tions consultant. Henry Helstoski died in Wayne,New Jersey, on 16 December 1999 at the age ofseventy-four.

Helstoski, Henry 159

See also United States v. Brewster; United States v.Helstoski; United States v. Johnson.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1195–1196; CongressionalEthics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,1980), 24.

Helstoski v. MeanorSee United States v. Helstoski

Henderson, John Brooks (1826–1913)United States senator from Missouri (1862–1869), named as the first “special prosecutor”—the forerunner of the modern independent coun-sel—to investigate the Whiskey Ring frauds.Born near Danville, Virginia, on 16 November1826, Brooks moved with his parents to LincolnCounty, Missouri, when he was young, and it waswith this state that he was identified for the re-mainder of his life. He worked as a farmhand andlater taught school; at the same time he studiedlaw and was admitted to the Missouri bar in1844. He opened a practice, but it is unknownwhere. Initially a Democrat, Henderson waselected to the Missouri state House of Represen-tatives in 1848 and served two nonconsecutiveterms: 1848–1850, and 1856–1858.

When the Civil War began in 1861, Hendersonvolunteered for service in the Missouri state mili-tia and was commissioned a brigadier general inthat outfit. However, when Senator Trusten Polk, aDemocrat, resigned his Senate seat in 1862 toprotest the war, Missouri Governor Hamilton R.Gamble, who had just taken office himself, namedHenderson to the vacant seat. Henderson hadmoved from being a Democrat to a Unionist,which meant he was from a slave state but sup-ported the Union during the war. Henderson waselected by the state legislature to the seat and wasreelected in 1863 for a full six-year term. He ulti-mately served from 17 January 1862 until 3 March1869, acting as chairman of the Committee toAudit and Control the Contingent Expense and theCommittee on Indian Affairs. In 1868 he decidednot to stand for reelection.

For several years after he left the Senate, Hen-derson, now a Republican and a respected formermember of the Senate, practiced the law in Wash-

ington, D.C. However, in 1875 he was called uponfor the start of two important services for the gov-ernment. First, he was asked personally by Presi-dent Ulysses S. Grant to prosecute the so-calledWhiskey Ring fraud cases. Grant had become em-barrassed by a series of investigations by the pressthat uncovered massive fraud in the collection ofwhiskey revenue taxes, particularly in St. Louis.The ring of thieves was led by none other thanOrville E. Babcock, Grant’s personal secretary. On 1June 1875, to stem the flow of bad press, Grantnamed Henderson special U.S. attorney to investi-gate the fraud. Working with the U.S. attorneys inMissouri, Henderson brought indictments againstBabcock; John D. MacDonald, the supervisor ofrevenue for the District of Missouri (who had, al-legedly with Babcock’s full knowledge, gottenwhiskey distillers to pay less federal tax and bribeMacDonald and Babcock for the privilege); andseveral others. Henderson went to St. Louis andpersonally prosecuted MacDonald and obtained aconviction. During this period, Henderson cameacross damning evidence against Babcock and setabout to prosecute him as well. Grant, fearing thatHenderson would indict his own secretary, ap-pointed a special military board to investigate theallegations against Babcock. This special panelthen asked Henderson to turn over to it all evi-dence in the Babcock case. Henderson refused,and in December 1875 got a St. Louis grand jury toindict Babcock. During the trial, Henderson toldthe jury in his closing argument that PresidentGrant himself had worked to obstruct the investi-gation: “What right has the President to interferewith the honest discharge of the duties of the Sec-retary of the Treasury? None, whatsoever. Whatright has he to interfere with the discharge of theduties of Commissioner Douglas? None.”

Grant immediately fired Henderson, calling hisstatements “an impertinence.” He named a newspecial prosecutor, James Broadhead, who imme-diately had the trial of Babcock to deal with, aswell as other Whiskey Ring matters.

Two years after being fired from the WhiskeyRing matter, Henderson was named by PresidentRutherford B. Hayes to serve as a commissioner todeal with several tribes of Indians at war with theUnited States. Henderson used his experience aschairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Af-fairs in this position.

160 Helstoski v. Meanor

In 1888 Henderson moved permanently fromMissouri to Washington, where for several years hewas a writer. He died in Washington on 12 April1913 at the age of eighty-six. Although he had noconnection with New York State during his life, hisremains were laid to rest in the Greenwood Ceme-tery in Brooklyn, New York.

See also Independent Counsel Statute; Whiskey RingScandal

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Mattingly, Arthur H.“SenatorJohn Brooks Henderson, United States Senator fromMissouri.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Kansas StateUniversity, 1971); Roske, Ralph J.“The SevenMartyrs?” American Historical Review 64 (January1959): 323–330.

Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1946)Federal statute, enacted 3 July 1946, that outlawsrobbery and extortion and is used mainlyagainst those public officials involved in politicalcorruption.

The statute reads:

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, oraffects commerce or the movement of any article orcommodity in commerce, by robbery or extortionor attempts or conspires so to do, or commits orthreatens physical violence to any person or prop-erty in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do any-thing in violation of this section shall be finedunder this title or imprisoned not more than twentyyears, or both.

In McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257(1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that politicalcontributions per se are not a violation of theHobbs Act provisions.

References: Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951.

Hoeppel, John Henry (1881–1976)United States representative from California(1933–1937), convicted and sentenced to prisonin 1936 for conspiring to sell an appointment toWest Point. Hoeppel was born near Tell City, Indi-ana, on 10 February 1881. He attended a grammarschool in Evansville, Indiana, but he never re-ceived any secondary education. When the Span-ish-American War started, Hoeppel enlisted in the

U.S. Army on 27 July 1898, entering with the rankof private and rising to the rank of sergeant. Afterthe war, he remained in the service, eventually ser-ving with the U.S. Army in France during WorldWar I. He was released from the service in 1921with an honorable discharge.

In 1919 Hoeppel moved to Arcadia, California,where he served as the postmaster of that cityfrom 1923 to 1931. He also worked as a journalist,serving as the editor of National Defense magazinein 1928. A Democrat, in 1932 Hoeppel was electedto a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives fromthe Twelfth California District. That election her-alded the influx of so-called New Deal Democratsinto the federal government, and as such, Hoeppelwas a staunch supporter of President Franklin D.Roosevelt, also elected in 1932. Hoeppel took hisseat in the Seventy-third Congress and servedfrom 4 March 1933 until 3 January 1937. He servedas chairman of the Committee on War Claims inthe Seventy-fourth Congress.

In 1936, just as he was preparing to run for athird term in Congress, Hoeppel was indicted oncharges of conspiring to sell an appointment toWest Point. One of a congressman’s duties is to rec-ommend constituents for empty spaces at the mil-itary academies, including West Point in New Yorkstate. Hoeppel was quickly tried and found guiltyon all charges. Although he was sentenced toprison, Hoeppel ran for reelection that same year,but lost the Democratic nomination to JerryVoorhis. While running, Hoeppel had put out apamphlet that he said explained how he was set upby the political system: “My staunch refusal to be a‘yes man’ [is] responsible for my difficulties. Theblack hand of [Postmaster General James] Farleyand [Senator William Gibbs] McAdoo [of Califor-nia is] evident. The unethical and dishonest atti-tude of the prosecuting attorney exposed. The 11-juror verdict was one of persecution, not of justice.Official records show my distinguished Army ser-vice wherein I saved the Government thousands ofdollars overseas by exposing graft.”

Hoeppel served a short time in prison beforebeing paroled. In 1946 he was the ProhibitionParty candidate for the U.S. House, but was easilydefeated. Hoeppel then retired to Arcadia, wherehe remained for the rest of his life. He never re-ceived a presidential pardon for his crime. Hoep-pel died at his home in California on 21 September

Hoeppel, John Henry 161

1976 at the age of ninety-five and was buried inResurrection Cemetery in San Gabriel, California.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1223; “CongressmanHoeppel’s Statement of His Political Persecution,” inRemarks of Hon. John H. Hoeppel of California in theHouse of Representatives, Wednesday, June 17, 1936(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1936);“Hoeppel, John Henry,” in Jay Robert Nash,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), III:1153.

Hoffman, Harold Giles (1896–1954)United States representative from New Jersey(1927–1931) and governor of New Jersey (1935–1938) found to have embezzled state funds, a factnot uncovered until after his death. Born in SouthAmboy, New Jersey, on 7 February 1896, the sonof Frank Hoffman and Ada Crawford (née Thom)Hoffman, Harold Hoffman attended the publicschools of South Amboy, but after he graduatedfrom South Amboy High School in 1913, he neverreceived any further education. He worked forseveral newspapers, including the Perth AmboyEvening News, before he enlisted on 25 July 1917to serve in the American Expeditionary Forcesent to France in World War I. Serving as a privatein Company H of the Third Regiment of the NewJersey Infantry, Hoffman rose to the rank of cap-tain and saw action in the Meuse-Argonne cam-paign before he was released from the service in1919.

When he returned to South Amboy, Hoffmanwent to work as an executive with the SouthAmboy Trust Company, where he worked until1942. During this time, he also served as citytreasurer from 1920 to 1925 and, in 1923 and1924, as a member of the New Jersey state house.In 1925 he was elected mayor of South Amboy, ser-ving until 1926. A Republican, he was a delegate tothe Republican National Convention in 1936.

In 1926 Hoffman was elected to a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives, representing NewJersey’s Third District. He served in the Seventiethand Seventy-first Congresses (1927–1931) and al-though quite popular, refused to run for a thirdterm. Instead, he returned to New Jersey to acceptthe position of New Jersey’s commissioner of

motor vehicles. To all political spectators this moveseemed odd—a backward step for a man whocould have advanced in Washington politics. Whatno one knew was that Hoffman, as head of theSouth Amboy Trust Company, had started in theearly 1920s slowly removing small amounts ofcash from numerous inactive accounts and put-ting the funds into his own account. When hemoved back to New Jersey in 1931, he not onlycontinued siphoning money in South Amboy, butnow, as head of the motor vehicles division inTrenton, he could siphon money from thatagency’s accounts as well.

In 1934 the Republicans, unaware that Hoff-man was leading a secret life of thievery, nomi-nated him for governor. He defeated DemocratWilliam L. Dill by 12,000 votes out of some 1.3million cast and succeeded Democrat A. HarryMoore as the governor of New Jersey on 15 Janu-ary 1935. Historians Robert Sobel and John Raimowrote:

Hoffman’s administration was marked by continualstrife between the governor and the legislature overmethods to meet the cost of the state’s contributionfor [the] relief of the poor. The passage of a 2 per-cent sales tax, in part intended to provide funds forstate unemployment benefits, was later repealed.Also while Hoffman was governor the New JerseyCompensation Commission and the Banking Advi-sory Board were created; the Highway Commissionof four members was abolished and replaced by asingle commissioner appointed by the governor;provisions were made for uniform policies to coveraccident and health insurance; and anthracite coalentering the state by truck was required to bear acertificate of origin.

Hoffman became unpopular right after takingoffice for openly expressing doubts about the guiltof Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the key suspect inthe kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr. Haupt-mann, a German immigrant, had been tried andconvicted of the horrendous crime and sentencedto die in the electric chair. In order to satisfy hisown doubts about the case, Hoffman granted astay to Hauptmann so that he could investigate thecase.An uproar from the citizens of New Jersey ledto his retraction of the stay when Hoffman wasoutvoted on the Board of Pardons to issue a per-manent stay. Hoffman told reporters:

162 Hoffman, Harold Giles

I have never expressed an opinion upon the guilt orinnocence of Hauptmann. I do, however, share withhundreds of thousands of our people the doubt asto the value of the evidence that placed him in theLindbergh nursery on the night of the crime; I dowonder what part passion and prejudice played inthe conviction of a man who was previously triedand convicted in the columns of many of our news-papers.

After a single term in office, Hoffman left thegovernorship on 18 January 1938 because of aNew Jersey law limiting the governor to a singleterm. His successor, A. Harry Moore (the manHoffman had himself succeeded), appointed theformer governor as executive director of the NewJersey Employment Compensation Commission(ECC). Hoffman served until 15 June 1942, whenhe was granted leave to serve as a major in theU.S. Transportation Corps during World War II.He was promoted to the rank of colonel and heldthis rank when he was discharged on 24 June1946. He then returned to serving as executive di-rector of the ECC.

In 1954, following several discoveries of miss-ing funds, Governor Robert B. Meyner opened aninvestigation into allegations that Hoffman hadstolen millions of dollars from the state over atwenty-year period. Hoffman was suspended fromhis position as head of the EEC and claimed thathe was completely innocent. He never got a chanceto prove it: on 4 June 1954, Hoffman suffered aheart attack and died in a New York City hotelroom at the age of fifty-eight. After his death, thestate probe uncovered Hoffman’s career of massivetheft, including some $300,000 from the SouthAmboy Trust Company and more than $1.2 mil-lion in state disability funds that he used to coverup the bank fraud. It is estimated that Hoffmanmay have stolen as much as $600,000 in his life-time, although none of this money was ever foundafter his death.

References: “Harold Hoffman: Embezzling PublicOfficial,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of AmericanScandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York:Facts on File, 1989), 153–154; “Hoffman, HaroldGiles,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds.,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: MecklerBooks, 1978), III:1040–1041; New Jersey, Departmentof Law and Public Safety, Final Report on theInvestigation of the Division of Employment Security,

Department of Labor and Industry to Robert B.Meyner, Governor, State of New Jersey. With Foreword(Trenton: State of New Jersey Official Report, 1955).

Hoffman, John Thompson (1828–1888)Mayor of New York City (1866–1868), governor ofNew York (1869–1873), destroyed politically by histies to the administration of “Boss” William M.Tweed, although he was never accused of any im-propriety. Born in Sing Sing (later Ossining), NewYork, on 10 January 1828, Thompson was the sonof a doctor and was distantly related to Philip Liv-ingston, a signer of the Declaration of Indepen-dence. Thompson attended the prestigious MountPleasant Academy in New York, afterwards gradu-ating with honors from Union College in Schenec-tady, New York, in 1846. He then studied the lawwith Judge Albert Richmond and RepresentativeAaron Ward and was admitted to the New York barin 1849. He formed a law partnership with twolocal attorneys, Samuel M. Woodruff and WilliamM. Leonard.

A Democrat, Thompson became a member ofthe New York State Democratic Central Committeein 1848 and, just six years later, became a memberof the Young Men’s Tammany Hall General Com-mittee. In 1859 he became a full member of theTammany Society. Tammany was the leading polit-ical organization in New York City, controlling pa-tronage and, in effect, the entire political systemthat ran the city. Joining this society was the onlyway a politician could gain any semblance ofpower. Once he had joined Tammany, Thompsonwas elected to citywide office, starting as recorderof New York City in 1860. The youngest man everto hold that office at that time (he was only thirty-two), Thompson was forced to deal with the NewYork Draft riots that hit the city in 1863 in themidst of the Civil War. In 1865, barely five yearsinto his political career, Thompson was nominatedby the Democrats for mayor. Opposed by Republi-can Marshall O. Roberts—as well as John Hecker,a flour magnate who was the Citizens’ Union can-didate, and C. Godfrey Gunther, who was the anti-Tammany candidate—Thompson was electedwith a slim majority over Roberts. In 1867 he waselected to a second term. In 1866 he was nomi-nated by the Democrats for governor of New York,but the support of President Andrew Johnson, who

Hoffman, John Thompson 163

was widely unpopular for his stand against Recon-struction, helped Republican Reuben Fenton de-feat Thompson, who returned to his duties in NewYork City.

In 1868 the Democrats again nominatedThompson for governor, and this time he de-feated Republican John A. Griswold to becomethe state’s chief executive. Hoffman had beenstrongly supported by Tammany and by “Boss”William M. Tweed. At Tweed’s request, GovernorThompson named several Tweed allies to statejudgeships. Thompson had never been close toTweed—he was merely an ally in the Tammanyorganization as mayor—but when allegations ofgross fraud and mismanagement came to lightagainst Tweed, Thompson was stained by the ac-cusations. Thompson himself was always con-sidered honest and trustworthy, but as storiesleaked out about the millions of dollars stolen bythe so-called Tweed Ring of men who worked incollaboration with the Tammany leader, Thomp-son too became dishonored. Before the allega-tions arose, many in the Democratic Party weresaying that Thompson was likely to be nomi-nated for president in 1872; however, at theparty’s convention in Baltimore in July 1872,Thompson was merely an attendee and waspassed over for Horace Greeley, a former Repub-lican who had started a liberal Republican fac-tion. That year, Thompson did not run for a sec-ond term, leaving office on 1 January 1873.

In his last years, Thompson returned to thepractice of law. His health began to decline and hewent abroad to find treatment. He was in Wies-baden, Germany, when he died suddenly on 24March 1888 at the age of sixty.

See also Tweed, William MagearReferences: Calkins, Hiram, and Dewitt Van Buren,

Biographical Sketches of John T. Hoffman and Allen C.Beach: The Democratic Nominees for Governor andLieutenant-Governor of the State of New York. Also, aRecord of the Events in the Lives of Oliver Bascom,David B. McNeil, and Edwin O. Perrin, the OtherCandidates on the Same Ticket (New York: Printed bythe New York Printing Company, 1868); Hershkowitz,Leo,“Hoffman, John Thompson,” in Melvin G. Holliand Peter d’A. Jones, Biographical Dictionary ofAmerican Mayors, 1820–1980: Big City Mayors(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 166;Hoffman, John Thompson, Law and Order (New York:United States Publishing Company, 1876); “Hoffman,John Thompson,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo,

eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors of theUnited States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:1085–1086.

Holden, William Woods (1818–1892)Governor of North Carolina (1868–1870), im-peached and removed from office in 1870 in a cor-ruption scandal. Holden was one of seven south-ern governors (all Republicans) impeached duringthe Reconstruction period following the AmericanCivil War. Holden was born out wedlock near thetown of Hillsborough, North Carolina, on 24 No-vember 1818, the son of Thomas Holden, a miller,and Priscilla Woods. At the age of six, he was re-moved from his mother’s custody and placed inhis father’s home along with his father’s ten legiti-mate children. He was educated at what was calledan “old field school” near his home, but left schoolat age ten and became a printer’s devil (an appren-tice in a print shop, whose duties included settingthe type for the printing press and putting the typeback into the case) for one Dennis Heartt of theHillsborough (North Carolina) Recorder. Holdenlater worked for newspapers in Milton, North Car-olina, and Danville, Virginia, before he returned toHillsborough. In 1837 he moved to Raleigh, wherehe worked as a printer and studied the law. Li-censed to practice in 1841, it appears that he neverbecame an attorney and remained a printer untilhe entered the political realm.

In 1843 Holden was offered the prestigious postof editor of the North Carolina Standard on thecondition that he become a Democrat and agreewith the paper’s stands. Holden accepted theseconditions and turned the paper into the most in-fluential in the state. While serving as editor, andthen as a member of the state house of commons(the lower house of the state legislature) from 1846to 1847, Holden took an extreme prosecessioniststance. In 1858 he ran for the Democratic nomina-tion for governor, but lost to John Willis Ellis, anattorney, who went on to victory and served asgovernor until his death in 1861. That same year,1858, Holden was also unsuccessful in two at-tempts to capture a U.S. Senate seat, losing toThomas H. Bragg and David Settle Reid. In 1860Holden served as a delegate to the Charleston andBaltimore Democratic National Conventions,where the party broke into two separate wings;

164 Holden, William Woods

Holden backed the “Southern” wing, led by formerVice President John C. Breckinridge.

After the election of Republican Abraham Lin-coln to the presidency, Holden was sent to a seces-sion convention held in Raleigh. Although he wentto the convention still backing the Union, hechanged his support and became an ardent seces-sionist. As the war expanded and the likelihood ofa Confederate victory waned, Holden becamemore and more estranged with the cause he oncetrumpeted, and when he expressed his sentimentsin the North Carolina Standard the paper’s presseswere wrecked. In 1864 Holden decided to run as aPeace candidate against incumbent Governor Zeb-ulon Baird Vance. Holden had once been a firmsupporter of Vance, but in this campaign he calledfor the state’s secession from the Confederacy, sothat it could sue for a separate peace with theUnited States. Vance easily won, capturing morethan 58,000 votes out of some 72,000 cast.Holden’s political defeat would, in normal times,have spelled the end of any future political career,but the days of the Confederacy were numbered.With the collapse of the Southern insurgent gov-ernment, Holden formed a secret party, known as“The Heroes of America” or “The Red Strings.” Thegoal of this movement was to make a peace dealwith the U.S. government and then take control ofthe North Carolina state government machinery.On 29 May 1865, after the surrender of the Confed-eracy, President Andrew Johnson, who had as-sumed the presidency after the assassination ofPresident Abraham Lincoln, ordered Vance to beremoved as governor of North Carolina and ap-pointed Holden the provisional governor. In Octo-ber 1865, at the direction of President Johnson,Holden convened a state convention to pass a newconstitution, which gave blacks voting and othercivil rights, so that North Carolina could be read-mitted to the Union. The convention, which en-acted the new constitution, caused such bitternessthat when a new election for governor was set forlate October 1865, Holden was easily defeated bythe Democrat, Jonothon Worth. Johnson nomi-nated Holden in 1866 to be the U.S. minister to SanSalvador, but the United States Senate, already atodds with Johnson in a row that would lead toJohnson’s impeachment in 1868, refused to con-firm the appointment. Holden returned to his edi-tor’s position at the North Carolina Standard.

As editor, Holden took an opposite stand fromhis previous editorials: after his first term as gov-ernor, he stood for the ratification of the Four-teenth Amendment and defended Reconstruction.In 1867 he was one of the organizers of the state’sRepublican Party. Under the new constitution thathe had helped to bring about, he was nominatedby his party for governor and was elected overThomas Ashe by a sizeable vote, mainly becauseformer slaveowners and other whites were prohib-ited from voting because their citizenship hadbeen revoked for supporting the Confederate in-surrection. The military removed GovernorJonothon Worth, who had been legally elected gov-ernor, and replaced him with Holden. With hissupport, the legislature passed the Ku Klux KlanActs and ratified the Thirteenth and FourteenthAmendments to the U.S. Constitution. There werewidespread accusations of abuse of power andcorruption, although there was never any evidencethat Holden himself personally profited from anyof it.

Holden’s downfall came in 1869 and 1870when, amid reports of outrages by Klan members,he called on the legislature to grant him broadpowers to declare a county in insurrection. Heproclaimed Alamance and Caswell Counties to becenters of Klan violence and dispatched a stateguard to put down the outrages. When this guardinstead arrested political opponents of Holden’sand newspaper writers who were critics ofHolden’s administration, he timidly backed downand released all involved from incarceration. In1870 the Democrats were able to force black andwhite Republicans from the polls, resulting in amajor Democratic victory in taking control of thestate legislature. Their first order of business wasto impeach Holden and remove him from office.Although some Democrats feared that the U.S.government might step in and declare the 1870election void, they decided it was worth thechance if they could be rid of Holden. On 9 De-cember 1870, a resolution calling for Holden’s im-peachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors”was introduced in the state house, and just tendays later the full house voted on eight articlesthat had been agreed to by the Judiciary Commit-tee. They charged Holden with illegally dispatch-ing troops to put down the Ku Klux Klan, illegallypaying these troops from state coffers, refusing to

Holden, William Woods 165

obey a writ of habeas corpus, and illegally arrest-ing one Josiah Turner in the Klan sweep.When thefull house voted to accept the articles and offi-cially impeach Holden on 14 December 1870, hewas removed from office, and Lieutenant Gover-nor Tod R. Caldwell, a Republican, assumed thegovernorship. The trial started on 30 January1871, with former North Carolina GovernorsWilliam Graham and Thomas Bragg sitting asHolden’s counsel. After a few days of testimony, asHolden wrote in his memoirs (published in 1911):

In a few days I left for Washington City. In thecourse of a day or two I called in to see PresidentGrant. He asked me if I knew that a number of mytriers [sic], members of the Senate, were Ku Klux. Itold him I supposed they were, but that was a mat-ter for his Attorney-General and my two Senators.I had heard soon after my impeachment from aDemocrat of character that the Dems had decreedmy impeachment. In regard to my power as Com-mander-in-chief of the Militia of the State, I reliedfor power to pursue the course I did on the actknown as the Shoffner Act, which passed in Janu-ary, 1870. This act provided in express terms thatthe Governor “when in his judgment it was properto do so, could proclaim counties in insurrection,thereby suspending the operation of the civil law.”I had never heard the constitutionality of this actquestioned.

While in Washington, Holden was able to con-vince Grant of the necessity of federal legislationto stop the Klan, and Grant sent several acts toCongress. In North Carolina, Holden’s counselbrought in 113 witnesses to the impeachmentmanagers’ 61. Despite this, the trial was a foregoneconclusion: on 22 March, Holden was acquitted onthe first two articles dealing with his calling troopsillegally to put down Klan violence. But on the ar-ticles dealing with sending a force with state fundsto arrest suspected Klan members and payingthese troops with state funds, he was found guilty.A resolution removing him from office and everholding state office again was passed. Holden thusbecame the first state governor to be convicted inan impeachment trial.

Holden moved to Washington, D.C., where hebecame the editor of the Washington Daily Chroni-cle, a post he held until 1872. He declined an ap-pointment from President Grant in 1872 to be-

come the U.S. minister to Peru, instead accepting aposition as postmaster of Raleigh in 1873. He re-mained a stalwart Republican until he quit theparty in 1883 over the issue of suffrage for blacksand a tariff. Holden died in Raleigh on 1 March1892 at the age of seventy-three and was buried inthe Oakwood Cemetery in Raleigh.

Holden had become the symbol of everythingcritics of Reconstruction hated: the advocacy ofblack emancipation and suffrage, excesses bywhite Republicans in leading the former Confeder-ate states after the end of the Civil War, and cor-ruption in state government. Thomas Dixon, theSouthern writer famed for his work The Clansmen,which later became the 1915 film The Birth of aNation, used Holden as the model for his corruptgovernor Amos Hogg, who crushed the Ku KluxKlan in the book The Leopard’s Spots: A Romanceof the White Man’s Burden, 1865–1900 (1902).

References: Ewing, Cortez A. M.,“Two ReconstructionImpeachments,” The North Carolina Historical Review,XV:3 (July 1938), 204–225; Holden, William Woods,Memoirs of W. W. Holden (Durham, NC: The SeemanPrintery, 1911), 67; “Holden, William Woods,” inRobert Sobel and John Raimo, eds., BiographicalDirectory of the Governors of the United States,1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Meckler Books,1978), III:1138–1139; Raper, Horace Wilson,“WilliamWoods Holden: A Political Biography” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill, 1951), 285–409; State of North Carolina,Legislature, Articles against William W. Holden,Document No. 18, 1870–1871 Session (Raleigh: JamesH. Moore, State Printer, 1871); Zuber, Richard L.,North Carolina during Reconstruction (Raleigh: StateDepartment of Archives and History, 1996).

HonorariaPayment, given to a politician, usually for a speechor some other work not related to his or her con-gressional duty, including writing books and arti-cles for journals or magazines. The law at 5 USC §505(3), states:

The term “honorarium” means a payment of moneyor any thing of value for an appearance, speech orarticle (including a series of appearances, speeches,or articles if the subject matter is directly related tothe individual’s official duties or the payment ismade because of the individual’s status with theGovernment) by a Member, officer or employee, ex-cluding any actual and necessary travel expenses

166 Honoraria

incurred by such individual (and one relative) tothe extent that such expenses are paid or reim-bursed by any other person, and the amount other-wise determined shall be reduced by the amount ofany such expenses to the extent that such expensesare not paid or reimbursed.

The history of offering honoraria to politiciansis somewhat murky. Historian Mildred Amerwrites that the practice appears to have begun inthe early nineteenth century, when politicianswere paid to deliver lengthy lectures. A lecture bu-reau was established in 1873 to help politiciansfind opportunities to speak for the highest com-pensation possible. The Chautauqua movement, inwhich politicians and other speakers went to up-state New York to deliver speeches and addresseson various subjects of national interest, helped topromote the careers of politicians and otherspeakers. As Amer explained, “By the 1950s pay-ment[s] to members of Congress for speeches wasa widespread practice and cause for concern, asevidenced in the 1951 report of Senator Paul H.Douglas’s Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Stan-dards in Government.” But Douglas’s report (dis-cussed elsewhere in this book) did not end hono-raria, and the practice continued to constitute amajor source of politicians’ salaries. The post-Watergate reforms of Congress, most notably theFederal Election Campaign Act Amendments of1974 (88 Stat. 1263), for the first time limited hon-oraria and established a salary ceiling of $15,000per year for speeches, and a limit of $1,000 perspeech, book, or article. The Senate voted to ex-clude itself from these restrictions—it was notuntil 1983 that that body limited honoraria.

During the 1970s and 1980s, honoraria becamehighly controversial. Critics of the practice saw itas a back door for the corruption of politiciansand other officials. As the press reported more andmore stories of politicians accepting honoraria forbooks, speeches, and they even accepted dinners,the outrage among the public grew. But Congressremained loathe to cut off this cash cow, so vitalfor many politicians not only to receive additionalmoney aside from their salaries, but also for themto get their views out to the public through spokenand written means.

In 1989, however, Congress enacted the EthicsReform Act (103 Stat. 1716), to end the practice of

accepting honoraria or at least to rein it in. In theact, in which Congress stated that “substantial out-side earned income creates at least the appearanceof impropriety and thereby undermines publicconfidence in the integrity of government offi-cials,” section 501(b) of the Ethics in GovernmentAct of 1978 was amended, prohibiting honorariato be accepted while any person is a member, anofficer, or an employee of the U.S. government.This is called the “section 505(3) ban.” Immedi-ately, several groups of government employeeschallenged the ban, citing a potential violation totheir First Amendment right to free speech. Theleader in this lawsuit was the National TreasuryEmployees Union (NTEU).A district court hearingtheir suit ruled that section 505(3) was “unconsti-tutional insofar as it applies to Executive Branchemployees of the United States government.” Onappeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Co-lumbia Circuit affirmed, calling the section a bur-den on free speech. Again, the government ap-pealed, this time to the United States SupremeCourt. On 22 February 1995, that court held six tothree (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurredwith and dissented from various parts of the ma-jority opinion) that 505(3) did in fact violate thefree speech rights of government employees. Priorto this action, the U.S. Senate enacted the 1992Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (Public Law102-90), which contained a provision ending hon-oraria for senators.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has heldthat banning honoraria for public employees isviolative of the U.S. Constitution, the provisionthat it applied to the U.S. House of Representa-tives and U.S. Senate were allowed to stand, andas of this writing honoraria remains banned forthose officers.

References: Amer, Mildred Lehmann,“Honoraria,” inDonald C. Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and MortonKeller, eds., The Encyclopedia of the United StatesCongress, 3 vols. (New York: Simon and Schuster,1995), II:1048–1049; Ethics in Government Act, 5U.S.C. 505(3); United States v. National TreasuryEmployees Union, 115 S. Ct. 1103, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).

Hopkinson, Francis (1737–1791)Author and judge, impeached by the assembly ofPennsylvania for accepting illegal fees, but acquit-ted. Due to his long service to the nation, this

Hopkinson, Francis 167

episode of Hopkinson’s life has been forgotten.Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 2 October1737, Hopkinson was the son of an English-bornlawyer. Hopkinson was in the first class of the Col-lege of Philadelphia (later the University of Penn-sylvania) in 1757, receiving his master’s degree in1760 from that school. He studied the law withfamed attorney Benjamin Chew, who served as at-torney general for Pennsylvania, and was admittedto the Pennsylvania bar in 1761. He was not suc-cessful as an attorney, instead working as a secre-tary to the Pennsylvania Indian Commission in1761, helping to make treaties with several tribesin the colony. In 1763 he was named customs col-lector for Salem, New Jersey. He later opened a drygoods business in Philadelphia.

Having traveled to England and made closefriends with Lord North, he was named to theroyal council of New Jersey. He was elected an as-sociate justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court,but declined. He was a vestryman and layman inthe Christ Church in Philadelphia. But Hopkinsonwas not just an attorney—he was also a brilliantauthor and musician. He published numerousworks and essays and played the harpsichord.

In 1776 Hopkinson served as a delegate to theConstitutional Congress, serving on the commit-tee that drafted the Articles of Confederation. In1779 he was elected a judge of the admiralty courtfor Philadelphia. It was on this seat that Hopkin-son allegedly committed the crimes that got himimpeached. According to a little-known report onthe impeachment, on 22 November 1790 a reportwas presented to the speaker of the house of thePennsylvania legislature, charging Hopkinsonwith specific crimes. The report stated:

That having a power by law to appoint an agent forunrepresented shares belonging to absent seamen,and others, he offered and proposed to appoint Mr.Blair M’Clenachan, agent for a number of suchshares belonging to seamen, who had failed onboard the privateer Holker, upon the condition, thathe the said Blair M’Clenachan would make a pre-sent of a suit of cloaths [sic]; and, this condition notbeing complied with, he appointed others in hisstead;

Receiving presents from persons interested inthe condemnation of prizes, previous to their con-demnation; particularly a cask of wine from onboard the prize brigantine Gloucester, presented to

him by the captors before any condemnation, saleor distribution;

Conniving at, and encouraging the sale of prizesbefore condemnation, contrary to law, and mali-ciously before the honourable the Supreme Execu-tive Council; in the instance of the prize ship Char-lotte; issuing a write of sale, of the cargo of a prize,declaring in the same writ that it was testified tohim, that the same cargo was in danger of waste,spoil, and damage, when in fact and in truth nosuch testimony or return was ever given, or made tohim;—in the instance of the cargo of the prize shipAlbion.

In short, these charges accused Hopkinson ofusing his influence to sell captured ships(“prizes”) and their cargo when their ownershipwas in question, or for Hopkinson’s own personalbenefit. Tried before the Pennsylvania state senate,Hopkinson was acquitted of all charges.

These events did not end Hopkinson’s career—in fact, he was appointed to a federal judgeship byPresident George Washington in 1790. However, on9 May 1791, Hopkinson suffered an attack ofapoplexy and died, aged only fifty-three. The men-tion of his impeachment merited only one line ofone his biographies.

References: An Account of the Impeachment and Trial ofthe Late Francis Hopkinson, Esquire, Judge of the Courtof Admiralty for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia: Printed by Francis Bailey, at Yorick’sHead, 1795), 3–4; Ward, Harry M.,“Hopkinson,Francis,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen.eds., American National Biography, 24 vols. (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999), 11:190–192.

House of Representatives Banking ScandalScandal that arose in 1992 after it was discoveredthat numerous congressional representatives hadused the House of Representatives bank for checkoverdrafts. Two members—Mary Rose Oakar ofOhio and Thomas Downey of New York—losttheir reelection campaigns because of the scandal,and Oakar later pled guilty to using the bank tofunnel money from fake campaign donors. In ef-fect, the House “bank” was not a bank at all—itwas actually a credit union, run by the Housechamber’s sergeant at arms, where members coulddeposit their paychecks, campaign funds, andother monies and withdraw from the accounts via

168 House of Representatives Banking Scandal

official checks. They were allowed to write over-drafts, if they promised to return the money at afuture time. Such overdrafts were not penalizedwith fines, as at regular banks.

By 1991, many members had simply written astring of bad checks and had not paid back themoney, and although taxpayer funds were never injeopardy, the story that broke left many citizensoutraged at the conduct of their elected represen-tatives. One representative, with a paper bag overhis head, went to the floor of the House and admit-ted that he, too, had bounced many checks, buttold his colleagues that for the good of the institu-tion all the names of all of those involved neededto be revealed. The congressman was Representa-tive Jim Nussle (R-IA), who was reelected the fol-lowing year. On 27 March 1992, Attorney GeneralWilliam Barr named retired Judge Malcolm R.Wilkey as special counsel to investigate the Housebanking scandal. The following month, in April1992, the House Ethics Committee released thenames of 325 current and former House memberswho had abused their banking privileges.

The shockwaves of the scandal reached far andwide. The sergeant at arms, Jack Russ, resigned hisoffice in disgrace, later pleading guilty to numer-ous counts of wire fraud and filing false financialstatements with the House of Representatives. Hewas sentenced to two years in prison. Representa-tive Louis Stokes (D-OH), a member of the HouseEthics Committee, had to recuse himself from anyinvestigation after it was found he had 551bounced checks. Representative Oakar was latercleared of her role in the House banking scandal,but a subsequent investigation showed that sheused the bank to funnel campaign funds to fakedonors; Representative Downey lost his 1992 re-election effort, due in good part to his own checkwriting in the scandal. The House task force re-sponsible for initiating charges relating to thebank scandal also nabbed Representative CarrollHubbard, Jr. (D-KY), former Representative Carl C.Perkins (D-KY), and Perkins’s secretary, MarthaAmburgey.

References: Cooper, Kenneth J.,“House Bank SubpoenaIs Pressed, Early Inquiry, Said to Show Evidence ofCheck-Kiting Scheme,” Washington Post, 28 April1992, A1; “[Editorial:] The House Bank (Cont’d),”Washington Post, 28 April 1992, A14; HouseResolution 236, 3 October 1991; LaFraniere, Sharon,“Barr Takes Center Stage at Justice Department with

New Script,” Washington Post, 5 March 1992, A19;“Rehnquist Refuses to Bar Bank Probe,” WashingtonPost, 7 May 1992, A14; United States v. Oakar,Appellees (No. 96–3084), U.S. Court of Appeals for theDC Circuit, 111 F. 3d 146 (1997); United StatesCongress, House of Representatives, Committee onStandards of Official Conduct,“Inquiry into theOperation of the Bank of the Sergeant-at-Arms of theHouse of Representatives: Report of the Committeeon Standards of Official Conduct, House ofRepresentatives, Together with Minority Views (toaccompany H. Res. 393)” (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1992).

House of Representatives Committee onStandards of Official ConductCongressional committee, established 13 April1967, to oversee ethics in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives. The committee’s jurisdiction is strictlythe ethically behavior of the members of theHouse of Representatives, and is allowed to study,investigate, and recommend action to the fullHouse.

The committee’s main responsibilities are to:

A) Recommend administrative actions to establishor enforce standards of official conduct;

B) Investigate alleged violations of the Code ofOfficial Conduct or of any applicable rules, laws, orregulations governing the performance of officialduties or the discharge of official responsibilities.Such investigations must be made in accordancewith Committee rules;

C) Report to appropriate federal or State author-ities substantial evidence of a violation of any lawapplicable to the performance of official duties thatmay have been disclosed in a Committee investiga-tion. Such reports must be approved by the Houseor by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Com-mittee;

D) Render advisory opinions regarding the pro-priety of any current or proposed conduct of aMember, officer, or employee, and issue generalguidance on such matters as necessary;

andE) Consider requests for written waivers of the

gift rule.

The committee’s rules state:

The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) designatesthe Committee on Standards of Official Conduct asthe “supervising ethics office” for the House of

House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 169

Representatives and charges the Committee withduties and responsibilities for Financial DisclosureStatements (Title I) and for Outside Employment(Title V) with respect to Members, officers, andemployees of the House of Representatives.

The statute also charges the Committee with du-ties and responsibilities with regard to (1) the Fi-nancial Disclosure Statements of candidates for theHouse, and (2) the Financial Disclosure Statementsand Outside Employment of officers and employeesof certain legislative branch agencies, including theLibrary of Congress, the Congressional Budget Of-fice, the Government Printing Office, the Architectof the Capitol, and the United States Botanic Gar-den. However, the Committee has delegated much ofits authority with regard to the officers and employ-ees of those agencies to the heads of those agencies.

The most recent investigation regarding ethicsthat the committee handled was that of formerRepresentative James A. Traficant (D-OH), whowas expelled from the House in 2002.

References: United States Congress, House ofRepresentatives, Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, Ethics Manual for Members and Employeesof the U.S. House of Representatives. Prepared at theDirection of the Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, 96th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979); United StatesCongress, House of Representatives, Committee onStandards of Official Conduct, Rules of Procedure:Committee on Standards of Official Conduct(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1987).

House of Representatives Post OfficeScandalScandal in the U.S. House of Representatives,1992–1995, which exposed several members andformer members of that body to allegations ofprofiteering and obstruction of justice. The firstsign of trouble came on 19 March 1992, whenHouse Postmaster Robert V. Rota resigned. Rota,who had worked at the House post office for twodecades, resigned without explanation. The depar-ture sent shockwaves through the House and themedia. Suddenly, allegations of cash shortages,profiteering, and obstruction of justice came tolight. U.S. Attorney Jay B. Stephens, investigatingthe allegations, uncovered a pattern of obstructionof justice. In his initial probe, starting on 11 June1991, Capitol Hill police were refused entry to the

offices until 9 July 1991, when federal investigatorsordered records to be handed over. These investi-gators found that Rota had allowed postal employ-ees to cash checks for House members and redeemthem with stamps, allowing these members to cir-cumvent campaign spending and donation rules.One of the members accused of doing this wasRepresentative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), a pow-erful member and chairman of the House Waysand Means Committee. A federal grand jury, runby Stephens, subpoenaed three members of Con-gress. On 24 July 1992, Rostenkowski and the twoother members—Representative Austin J. Murphy(D-PA) and Representative Joseph Kolter (D-PA)—all stated that they would refuse to answerany questions regarding the post office matter andwould invoke their Fifth Amendment rightsagainst self-incrimination.

The press frenzy over the scandal exploded.The New York Times, the Washington Times, andthe Washington Post all covered it with hugeheadlines. Especially Rostenkowski’s own home-town paper, the Chicago Tribune, made light ofthe scandal. On 10 September 1992, a federalgrand jury indicted former House post officemanager Joanna G. O’Rourke on charges that sheconspired to make post office funds available forthe personal use of congressional members.House postmaster Robert Rota pled guilty in1993 to charges that he embezzled money fromthe House post office. On 31 May 1994, Ros-tenkowski was indicted on seventeen counts ofembezzling public and campaign funds, mail andwire fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.In 1994 he lost his bid for reelection and, on 9April 1996, pled guilty to two counts of mailfraud and was sentenced to seventeen months inprison and fined $100,000. Joseph Kolter pledguilty in May 1996 to pocketing $9,300 from theHouse post office and was sentenced to sixmonths in prison because of ill health.

The House post office scandal cost only a fewmembers their honor and/or positions, Ros-tenkowski most notably—but it was a turning pointin how the American public looked at Congress.

See also Rostenkowski, Daniel DavidReferences: Cooper, Kenneth J.,“House Postmaster

Resigns; New Allegations Raised on Policies,”Washington Post, 20 March 1992, A1; Cooper, KennethJ.,“Possible Obstruction Probed in House Post Office,”

170 House of Representatives Post Office Scandal

Washington Post, 26 March 1992, A1; Locy, Toni,“Ex-Congressman Kolter Indicted in House Post OfficeProbe,” Washington Post, 19 October 1994, A6;McAllister, Bill,“House Gives Up Its Post Offices,”Washington Post, 19 October 1995, A4; Pincus, Walter,“House Postal Cash Went for Loans; Ex-Workers TellProbe of Regular Shortages,” Washington Post, 27March 1992, A1; York, Michael,“Ex-Manager of HousePost Office Indicted; Grand Jury Charges Conspiracyto Use Tax Funds to Benefit Members of Congress,”Washington Post, 11 September 1992, A3.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)ScandalScandal uncovered in 1989 that implicated severalmembers of Ronald Reagan’s administration incorruption in the Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD), but in which Secre-tary Samuel Pierce Jr. was never implicated by thework of two independent counsels. The HUDscandal investigation ranks with the Iran-Contrainvestigation and the Whitewater investigation asone of the longest independent counsel inquiriesin American history.

The Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment, established in 1965 by Congress underthe direction of President Lyndon Johnson’s “GreatSociety” of social programs for the poor and un-derprivileged, was from its very inception a grandidea interspliced with the corruption of the bodypolitic. Secretary after secretary, under each newadministration, found a morass of waste, corrup-tion, and gross fraud in the way housing was con-structed, maintained, and provided for the poorercitizens of the nation.And with each new adminis-tration calls would come for a cleaning up of theproblem. New congressional oversight, new ad-ministrative measures, new offices—all were sentdown to end the corruption. But with each new ad-ministration it was discovered that the cleanupsonly made the problems worse. In fact, in 1994, theGeneral Accounting Office named the departmentthe only one in the federal government “a highrisk” for fraud, waste, and corruption. One of theprograms established inside the department wascalled “Section 8,” a fund from which housingvouchers were issued to the poor to rent or leasehousing. Unfortunately, this fund was controlledby the secretary of the department himself, inwhat was essentially an unchecked slush fund.

This program went on for years without any over-sight by Congress.

When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981,he appointed the well-respected Judge SamuelPierce Jr. as his secretary of housing and urban de-velopment. Despite his having no expertise inhousing matters, Pierce’s history of honestyseemed to be the one thing the departmentneeded most: an honorable leader. Pierce had asolid character and was later cleared of any wrong-doing, but his hands-off style led to massive thiev-ery by friends and cronies of Reagan administra-tion officials. Pierce, in congressional testimony,later said that the department when he found itwas open to “improper and even criminal con-duct.”A lack of congressional oversight was part ofthe problem, but the structure of HUD and billionsof dollars at the department’s disposal for housingwas another. Many lobbyists and friends of HUDofficials were able to put in for loans from the Sec-tion 8 fund, and the fund was drained of untoldmillions of dollars. The true toll of theft is un-known.

Pierce and the scandal surrounding HUD didnot surface until he was out of office. In April 1989,three months after Pierce had departed, PaulAdams, the HUD inspector general, issued a reportthat showed that Section 8 had become an unmiti-gated disaster of fraud and abuse. The portion ofthe program that he targeted for concern was theModerate Rehabilitation Program (called MRP orMod Rehab). Congress had created MRP as part ofthe Housing and Community Development Act of1978. Initially, the act forced the secretary of hous-ing and urban development to distribute MRPfunds evenly across the nation, regardless of need.In 1984, however, Congress changed the law sothat the secretary could, on his own, send fundswhere he felt they were needed most. Pierce tookfull advantage of this change, Adams charged inhis report. He documented that ten states receivedmore than 50 percent of MRP funds from 1984 to1988, the last being Pierce’s last full year in office.Pierce’s successor, former Representative Jack F.Kemp, ended the program as soon as these abusescame to light.

With the issuance of Adams’s report, Con-gress acted. The House Subcommittee on Em-ployment and Housing, of the House Committeeon Government Operations, opened hearings on

Housing and Urban Development Scandal 171

the allegations that Pierce and numerous staffmembers serving under him had engaged inwidespread corruption. The hearings, chaired byRepresentative Tom Lantos (D-CA), got boggeddown in partisan wrangling; however, the major-ity report of the committee stated, “During muchof the eighties, HUD was enveloped by influencepeddling, favoritism, abuse, greed, fraud, embez-zlement, and theft.” Based on the early committeefindings in late 1989, the majority asked AttorneyGeneral Dick Thornburgh to appoint an indepen-dent counsel to investigate the matter. In March1990 Arlin Adams, a former judge on the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and alawyer in Philadelphia, was named by a three-judge panel in Washington. Adams began his in-vestigation, which he told the court that ap-pointed him that he felt he could wrap up in a fewmonths, by looking at the documentary evidencepresented to the House committee. As his probeexpanded, so did the cost of the investigation; bythe time it was finished, it cost more than $28 mil-lion. Adams found a widespread array of fraudand corruption, ranging from a scheme by the

U.S. ambassador to Switzerland, Philip D. Winn, aformer assistant secretary of HUD, to pay bribesto HUD officials to steer lucrative Section 8 con-tracts to his Denver-based housing developmentcompany, to 250 units of housing being “given” asa severance package to DuBois Gilliam, a Pierceaide. Deborah Gore Dean, Pierce’s chief assistant,was later indicted and convicted of receiving abribe of $4,000. In all, the investigation producedseventeen convictions and led to more than $2million in fines. More than $10 million in housinggrants was recovered and returned to the federalgovernment. Former Secretary of the InteriorJames Watt later pled guilty to withholding docu-ments and information from a grand jury investi-gating his role in lobbying HUD officials in ascheme to get housing grants.

In 1995 Adams stepped aside and was replacedby Larry D. Thompson as the independent coun-sel. Thompson’s work lasted for three additionalyears, until his final report was released in October1998. The two men concluded that high HUD offi-cials engaged in a “monumental and calculatedabuse of the public trust.” The investigators dis-

172 Housing and Urban Development Scandal

Some thousand homeless and their supporters gather at the Washington Monument on 7 October 1989 to demand an end tohomelessness and restoration of billions of dollars slashed from scandal-scarred HUD. (Bettmann/Corbis)

covered “a pervasive pattern of improper and ille-gal behavior.”

The report went on:

High-ranking HUD officials put their own interestsahead of those of the members of the public theywere charged to serve and protect: the poor andhomeless of this nation. . . . At a time of dramaticcutbacks in federal funding—cutbacks that manyof these officials publicly supported—increasedvigilance was essential to ensure that the scarce re-maining funds were put to the best possible use. In-stead, a pattern of greed, criminal conduct and sys-tematic corruption of the government process byHUD officials emerged.

In the end, Pierce was never charged with acrime. He was offered a way out if he told prosecu-tors whether he did in fact foster an environmentin which HUD officials were involved in “improperand even criminal conduct.” Once Pierce made thisadmission, he was allowed to walk away from thescandal. But he was not unscathed. When he diedin November 2000, obituaries remembered himnot for his lifetime of public service, but for themassive scandal in his department that may havecost between $2 billion and $8 billion.

References: Cooper, Kenneth J.,“Pierce Misled Hill, PanelConcludes,” Washington Post, 2 November 1990, A23;Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: SamuelR. Pierce, Jr. Arlin M. Adams, Larry D. Thompson,Independent Counsels, 6 vols. (Washington, DC: U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,Division for the Purpose of Appointing IndependentCounsels, 1998); “Samuel Pierce, HUD Secretary,” inJeffrey D. Schultz, Presidential Scandals (Washington,DC: CQ Press, 2000), 405–407; Smith, J.Y.,“HUDSecretary Samuel Pierce, Jr., 78, Dies, Influence-Peddling Scandal Tainted the Legacy of ReaganCabinet Member,” Washington Post, 4 November 2000,B7; “Special Counsel Urges End to ‘Impasse,’”Washington Post, 3 August 1990, A6.

Hubbard, Carroll, Jr. (1937– )United States representative from Kentucky(1975–1993) who pled guilty in 1994 to conspir-ing to defraud the Federal Elections Commissionby illegally spending campaign funds for personaluses, and to the theft of government property.Born in Murray, Kentucky, 7 July 1937, he attendedthe public schools of the area. He received first hisbachelor’s degree from Georgetown (Kentucky)

College in 1959 and then his law degree from theUniversity of Louisville Law School in 1962. Ad-mitted to the Kentucky bar that same year, heopened a practice in the town of Mayfield. Heserved in the Kentucky Air National Guard from1962 to 1967, and in the Kentucky Army NationalGuard from 1968 to 1970.

A Democrat, Hubbard ran for a seat in the Ken-tucky state senate in 1967 and was elected, servinguntil 1975. In 1974 he had run for a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives, eventually serving inthat body from 3 January 1975 until 3 January1993. In 1979 he ran unsuccessfully for the Demo-cratic nomination for governor of Kentucky.

Hubbard got into ethical trouble when he wasaccused of using campaign funds for personalitems, including paying for his cable television billdirectly from these funds, as well as his wife’s hair-dressing bills. He was also accused of spending anadditional $154,000 on his congressional staff forpersonal favors. When congressional investigatorsopened an investigation into the alleged spendingirregularities, Hubbard staged a phony burglary athis congressional office in Paducah, Kentucky,later claiming that the documents that had beenasked for by the investigators had been stolen. Thisset off a deeper investigation, one that led directlyto Hubbard’s corrupt behavior. In 1992, under sus-picion, he failed to win his party’s nomination forCongress, and he left that body on 3 January 1993.A year later, in 1994, Hubbard pled guilty to con-spiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commis-sion of campaign funds, as well as to the theft ofgovernment property relating to the faked break-in in his office. Sentenced to three years in prison,Hubbard nonetheless was allowed to collect hiscongressional pension—$45,000 a year. His wife,Carol Brown Hubbard, also pled guilty to a misde-meanor and was sentenced to probation. CarrollHubbard ultimately served two years in prisonand was released in 1996.

In October 2001 Hubbard’s law license was re-turned by a unanimous opinion of the KentuckySupreme Court, despite the fact that the KentuckyBar Association Board of Governors voted unani-mously (sixteen to zero) to reject his reapplication.

See also Perkins, Carl ChristopherReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1248; Hubbard v. UnitedStates, 115 S. Ct. 1754, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).

Hubbard, Carroll, Jr. 173

Hubbell, Levi (1808–1876)Associate justice (1848–1853) and chief justice(1851) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court who re-signed due to alleged malfeasance relating tobribes paid to judicial officers. Hubbell laterserved as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern Districtof Wisconsin (1871–1875), but again was forced toresign when allegations of corruption surroundedhim. He died in disgrace and is the only judge inthe history of Wisconsin to face impeachment overpolitical corruption. Little is known about his life:he was born in the town of Ballston, New York, on15 April 1808, graduated from Union College inSchenectady, New York, read the law in Canan-daigua, New York, and was admitted to that state’sbar in 1827. He joined the Whig Party and servedas a member of the New York state assembly for asingle term. He was the editor of a small newspa-per, the Ontario (New York) Messenger, for a shortperiod of time.

In 1844 Hubbell moved from New York to Wis-consin, settling in Milwaukee and joining a lawfirm in that city that was run by Asahel Finch andWilliam Pitt Lynde, two leading local attorneys. In1848, when Wisconsin entered the Union as a state,Hubbell was elected a circuit judge for the SecondJudicial Circuit. His position was advanced when astate supreme court was established and he wasnamed to it, serving as a justice from 1848 to 1853,and as chief justice in 1851. Because the state’sterms of office had not been settled, justices drewlots and Hubbell was assigned a three-year term. In1851 he ran for reelection, this time allowed a six-year term. However, press reports from the nomi-nating convention in 1851 show that Hubbell wasnot popular in his first term, and his former lawpartner, Asahel Finch, was named to run againsthim. One case over which Hubbell had presided asa justice became the main objection to his candi-dacy: he had cleared a local attorney accused of po-litical corruption when the attorney pled ignoranceof the law. Despite press hostility, Hubbell easilywon the 1851 race. However, the Democratic Partysplit into three factions: pro-Hubbell, anti-Hubbell,and a third led by William Barstow, a crookedpolitician who was later elected governor of Wis-consin. Edward G. Ryan, a local judge and politicalstrongman, led the anti-Hubbell faction.

In the 1853 elections to the state supremecourt, Hubbell’s political enemies gathered around

and denied him a nomination. Ryan, incensed atsome of Hubbell’s decisions, moved to haveHubbell impeached in the state assembly, accusingthe judge of taking bribes and hearing cases inwhich he had a vested interest. On 22 March 1853,eleven separate charges containing more than sev-enty specific allegations were lodged againstHubbell in the state assembly. In all, Hubbell wascharged with accepting bribes, presiding overcases in which he had an economic interest, usingcourt funds for his own personal uses, and show-ing prejudice against some persons before himbased upon their political connections. Hubbellpled not guilty, and his trial opened on 13 June1853. Edward G. Ryan acted as the prosecutor, de-spite the fact that assembly managers for the im-peachment had been selected. Hubbell assisted histwo attorneys and made an impassioned plea be-fore the court of impeachment. Ryan savagedHubbell. In one lengthy accusation, he said of thejudge:

[He is] a judge of easy virtue; approaching and re-treating by turns, with a rare mockery of judicialvirtue on his tongue; promising to set aside ver-dicts; hinting the vacating of judgments; suggestingsettlements for his friends; dissolving injunctionsbefore they are issued; chambering in private withjurors in the jury room; divorcing women and in-structing them in the principles of divorcing in sa-cred privacy; promising to bring on causes for trial,when the paper evidences on which they werefounded were lost; tampering with the penal judg-ments of the law; when money was payable intocourt, offering to receive part into his own privatepocket, instead of the whole into the court, as re-quired by law; refusing to hear argument in court inorder to keep his promise made in private.

Hubbell’s attorneys argued that he had nevercommitted any illegal offense. Hubbell himselftold the court of impeachment, “I trust that suchwill be the judgment of this court as to satisfy thepeople, whose name has been used to sanctify thisimpeachment, and such as to satisfy posterity;that it has been, both in its beginning and in itsend, the work of public justice, and not the work ofprivate malice or of a diseased imagination.”

Hubbell was ultimately acquitted on allcharges, with only half of the senators agreeing toconvict. (A two-thirds vote is required for convic-

174 Hubbell, Levi

tion.) Despite the judicial clearance, Hubbell wasnot wholly exonerated, and his reputation was ru-ined. He resigned his court position.

For the remainder of his life, Levi Hubbell wasmarked as the man who suffered the first (and, asof this writing, the only) impeachment in Wiscon-sin history. In 1863, however, he was elected to aseat in the Wisconsin state assembly, serving forone one-year term. Despite being a Democrat, in1871 he was named by President Ulysses S. Grantto be the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District ofWisconsin, serving until 1875. It was in this officethat again Hubbell was tainted by whispers of po-litical corruption. In 1875 Hubbell was suspendedfrom the U.S. attorney position when several of hisassociates were implicated in the nationwideWhiskey Ring frauds, a series of swindles of gov-ernment money by whiskey revenue agents.Hubbell himself was never found to be involveddirectly in the frauds, but again his name was ru-ined, and he returned to private law practice inMilwaukee.

Only a year after being removed from the U.S.attorney position, Levi Hubbell died in Milwaukeeon 8 December 1876 after falling and being se-verely injured; he was sixty-eight.

References: Grant, Marilyn,“Judge Levi Hubbell: A ManImpeached,” Wisconsin Magazine of History, 64:1(Autumn 1980), 28–39; State of Wisconsin, StateSenate, Trial of Impeachment of Levi Hubbell, Judge ofthe Second Judicial Circuit, by the Senate of the State ofWisconsin, June 1853. Reported by T.C. Leland(Madison, WI: B. Brown, 1853).

Hunt, (Harold) Guy (1933– )Governor of Alabama (1987–1993), convicted ofmisusing campaign funds and removed from office.Hunt became one of the few governors in the his-tory of the United States to be removed from officefor corruption. Born in Holly Pond, Alabama, on 17June 1933, he is the son of William Otto Hunt andFances Orene (née Holcombe) Hunt. He attendedlocal schools, studying to be a farmer. He served aspresident of the local chapter of the Future Farmersof America. However, when the Korean War brokeout, Hunt volunteered for service, and, as a memberof the 101st Airborne Division and the First In-fantry Division, he saw major action, and wasawarded the Certificate of Achievement for Out-standing Performance of Military Duty.

When he returned home from the war, Huntgave up his dream of becoming a farmer and in-stead entered the ministry. He was ordained a Bap-tist minister in 1958. However, within four years,he decided to enter politics in Alabama. AthoughAlabama was a one-party state, ruled by Demo-crats from the highest office to the lowest, Huntbecame a Republican. In 1962 he ran unsuccess-fully for a state senate seat. Two years later, he waselected a probate judge for Cullman County, a seathe held until 1974. In 1976, when former Califor-nia Governor Ronald Reagan ran for president,Hunt served as his state campaign manager. Healso served as chairman of the state delegation tothe Republican National Convention in KansasCity that year.

In 1978 Hunt decided to run for governor. How-ever, his opponent was the popular Democrat, FobJames, and Hunt was defeated in a landslide bymore than 350,000 votes out of some 750,000 cast.Hunt again served as Reagan’s campaign managerin Alabama in 1980 and went to the party’s na-tional convention in Detroit. His longtime supportfor Reagan was rewarded, for when Reagan waselected president, Hunt was appointed state execu-tive director of the Agricultural Stabilization andConservation Service (ASCS), a post in the U.S.Department of Agriculture. Hunt held this officefrom 1981 to 1985.

Hunt resigned to make a second run for gover-nor. Again, he stood little chance of beingelected—the state had not sent a Republican tothe state executive mansion since 1874. WhenGovernor George Wallace decided not to run forreelection, it was assumed that whichever Demo-crat entered the race and won the party primarywould automatically be elected. Hunt won the Re-publican primary. It appeared that he would faceDemocratic state Attorney General Charles R.Graddick, who won his party’s primary, but Grad-dick was stripped of the nomination when it wasdiscovered he had called on Republicans to ille-gally cross over to vote for him. The courts namedGraddick’s opponent, Lieutenant Governor BillBaxley, as the nominee, but Graddick threw awheel in the political spokes when he announcedas an independent. However, when his supportgrew thin, he bowed out of the race, but the split inthe Democratic Party helped Hunt. On 4 Novem-ber 1986, Hunt defeated Baxley, 56 to 44 percent,

Hunt, (Harold) Guy 175

making him the first Republican governor of Al-abama since David Peter Lewis held the officefrom 1872 to 1874. However, Democrats controlledevery other state office, diluting Hunt’s power andmaking it appear he won only because of the Dem-ocratic Party split.

During his term, Hunt used his office to attractindustry to the state. However, when Democrats incontrol of the state legislature blocked his agenda,Hunt came off as a sympathetic figure. In 1990 hewon reelection by defeating Democrat Paul Hub-bert. However, soon after he was sworn in a secondtime, allegations surfaced that Hunt had violatedstate ethics laws. Historian Marie Marmo Mul-laney explained,

As a Primitive Baptist preacher, Hunt used stateplanes for trips to church meetings where he re-ceived cash offerings. In small fundamentalist Pri-mative Baptist churches, ministers are not paidsalaries but are given donations by churchgoers.Consequently, the state attorney general convened aspecial grand jury to review allegations of ethics vi-olations against [Hunt]. In response, Hunt wrote thestate a personal check to cover the costs of theflights and agreed to stop using state planes totravel to preaching engagements.

Despite this, Hunt was indicted in December 1992on thirteen charges of ethics violations. Althoughtwelve of these were eventually thrown out, the one

that stood alleged that Hunt had misused moniesfrom his 1987 inaugural. Hunt became the eighthgovernor in American history to be indicted whilein office, and the first Alabama governor to be socharged. Hunt was politically dead, despite the factthat he was limited by law to two terms in office.However, when his trial opened in April 1993, theallegations grew when it was shown that he di-verted some $200,000 from the 1987 inauguralcommittee to pay for personal charges. Hunt wasconvicted on one charge of ethics violations andremoved from office on 22 April 1993. LieutenantGovernor James E. Folsom Jr. was sworn into officethat same day. Hunt was given five years’ probationand ordered to repay the $211,000 and perform1,000 hours of community service.

Hunt appealed his conviction. Although it wasnever overturned, the Alabama Board of Pardonsand Paroles ruled in 1998 that Hunt was illegallydenied the right to vote and restored the right.Hunt immediately announced his candidacy forgovernor. However, he was defeated in the Republi-can primary by Winton Blount, a businessman,and left politics forever.

References: “Hunt, Guy,” in Marie Marmo Mullaney,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1983–1988 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1988), 9–11; “Hunt, Guy,” in Marie Marmo Mullaney,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1988–1994 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1994), 3–9.

176 Hunt, (Harold) Guy

ImpeachmentAct of Congress (or other legislative body) to re-move government officials who commit “highcrimes and misdemeanors,” although the exactdefinition of that phrase has been widely inter-preted since it was written into the U.S. Constitu-tion in 1787. The history of impeachment, how-ever, reaches back to England, when it wasestablished as a tool of the English Parliament topunish officers under the authority of the kingwho had committed a list of various offenses. His-torians differ on the exact date that the practice ofimpeachment began. Some say 1376, while histo-rian Alexander Simpson Jr. believes that the firstuse of impeachment was actually in 1283. In hisTreatise on Federal Impeachments, Simpson ex-plained:

The writers on the judicial history of England dis-agree as to when the English impeachments began.Stephens in his History of the Criminal Law of En-gland says that the first case was against David, thebrother of Llewellyn in 1283. Pike in his Constitu-tional History of the House of Lords says that it wasagainst Richard Lyons, a merchant of London, in1376. Hallam in his Constitutional History of En-gland and Anson in his Law and Custom of the Con-stitution agree with Pike that it was in 1376, but saythat it was against Lord Latimer.

Historian Elizabeth Hallam writes that the so-called Good Parliament of 1376, which met under

the leadership of King Edward III, “was of greatimportance because of the development of im-peachment, which rested upon the basic assump-tion that the king’s ministers, as public officials,were accountable not just to the king but to parlia-ment which represented the whole community ofthe realm.” Thus, under this standard, the first offi-cial impeachment was of Lord William Latimer in1376. The passage of the impeachment statute inthe laws of Henry IV in 1399 codified the im-peachment action into law. Sir James Fitz-JamesStephen, Bart., wrote in 1883,“From 1459 to 1621,a period of 162 years, no impeachment appears togave taken place. . . . It was not till Parliament re-asserted itself under James I and Charles I that itbecame natural or perhaps possible to use im-peachment for the punishment of ministers con-sidered corrupt or oppressive.” The English usedimpeachment quite frequently for a number ofcenturies; however, by the time of American inde-pendence, it had become a rare event. The last twoBritish impeachments were of Warren Hastings in1787 and Lord Melville in 1805.

In the American colonies, impeachment be-came a tool of the colonial governments, and in1635 John Harvey, the Royal Governor of Virginia,was removed from office. However, it was there-after used only sparingly, because oppositionfrom London precluded any further removalsfrom office without the consent of the king. Be-cause of this lack of authority, from 1700 until

I

177

1750 impeachment was used only four times.With the American Revolution, control from Lon-don ended, and some state impeachments wereinitiated, including a threat against GovernorThomas Jefferson of Virginia for failing to preparefor the British invasion of his state. John Adams,in his Thoughts on Government (1776), penned,“For misbehaviour the grand inquest of theColony, the House of Representatives, should im-peach [officials] before the Governor and Council,where they should have time and opportunity tomake their defence, but if convicted should be re-moved from their offices, and subjected to suchother punishments as shall be thought proper.”

When the Founding Fathers gathered inPhiladelphia in 1787 to compose the documentthat became the federal constitution, they decidedto insert a clause on impeachment based on theBritish model. In Federalist No. 65, AlexanderHamilton, writing under the pseudonym Publius,later wrote:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeach-ments is an object not more to be desired than diffi-cult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenseswhich proceed from the misconduct of public men,or, in other words, from the abuse or violation ofsome public trust. They are of a nature which maywith peculiar propriety be denominated POLITI-CAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immedi-ately to the society itself. The prosecution of them,for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the pas-sions of the whole community, and to divide it intoparties more or less friendly or inimical to the ac-cused. In many cases it will connect itself with thepre-existing factions, and will enlist all their ani-mosities, partialities, influence, and interest on oneside or on the other; and in such cases there will al-ways be the greatest danger that the decision will beregulated more by the comparative strength of par-ties, than by the real demonstrations of innocenceor guilt.

The delegates to the convention settled on hav-ing federal executive officers subjected to the im-peachment power and removal from office for“high crimes and misdemeanors,” although recentdevelopments have made that phrase seem am-biguous. This inclusion came about from the ideaof John Randolph of Virginia, who assigned theinitial impeachment trial to the national Supreme

Court. In his so-called Ninth Resolution, he ex-plained, “that a National Judiciary beestablished . . . that the jurisdiction of the inferiortribunals shall be to hear and determine in thefirst instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hearand determine in the dernier [last] resort . . . im-peachments of any National officers, and ques-tions which may involve the national peace andharmony.” Gouverneur Morris held that such atrial should take place in the Senate, but bepresided over by the chief judge of the nationalSupreme Court. Once this was agreed to, the exactlanguage regarding the reasons why an officershould be removed was debated. The delegateswere proceeding with an offer by Hugh William-son of North Carolina, whose state constitutionallowed for impeachment and removal for “con-viction of malpractice and neglect of duty.” In Au-gust, however, James Madison changed this stan-dard to one involving “treason, bribery, orcorruption.” Delegate George Mason objected tothis standard, declaring,“Why is the provision re-strained to Treason and bribery only? Treason asdefined in the Constitution will not reach manygreat and dangerous offences. . . . [I]t is morenecessary to extend the power of impeachments.”Mason argued that “maladministration” was toovague and insisted that “other high crimes andmisdemeanors” besides treason be included.Mason’s language was agreed to and became thestandard by which all federal executive and judi-cial officers in the United States are judged if im-peached. This so-called impeachment clause, lo-cated at Article I, Section 3, Clause 6, reads:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Im-peachments. When sitting for that Purpose, theyshall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the Presidentof the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shallpreside: And no Person shall be convicted withoutthe Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members pre-sent.

Since 1789, federal impeachment proceedingshave been initiated more than sixty times; in sev-enteen of these, impeachment articles were ap-proved by the House, resulting in fourteen trials(three subjects resigned before trial.) Of the four-teen trials in the Senate, there have been seven ac-quittals; seven of those tried were convicted: JohnPickering of the District Court of New Hampshire

178 Impeachment

(1804); West H. Humphreys, of the District Courtof the Eastern, Middle, and Western District ofTennessee (1862); Robert W.Archbald of the Com-merce Court (1913); Halsted L. Ritter of the South-ern District of Florida (1936); Harry E. Claiborneof the District of Nevada (1986); Alcee L. Hastings,United States District Judge for the Southern Dis-trict of Florida (1989); and Walter L. Nixon Jr.,United States District Judge for the Southern Dis-trict of Mississippi (1989). (See Appendix Sevenfor a complete listing.) As time has passed the in-terpretation of the impeachment statute hasgrown in importance; that is, what exactly is animpeachable offense? The phrase “high crimesand misdemeanors” leaves this particular offensequite vague and open to wide interpretation. Forinstance, during the impeachment trial of JudgeJames Hawkins Peck in 1833, House impeachmentmanager Representative James Buchanan of Penn-sylvania (later president of the United States,1857–1861), provided his thoughts on what con-stitutes an impeachable offense:

What is misbehavior in office? In answer to thisquestion and without pretending to furnish a defi-nition, I freely admit that we are bound to provethat the respondent has violated the Constitution,or some known law of the land. This, I think, is theprinciple fairly to be deduced from all the argu-ments on the trial of Judge [Samuel] Chase, andfrom the votes of the Senate on the Articles of Im-peachment against him, in opposition to the princi-ple for which his counsel in the first instance stren-uously contended, that in order to render an offenceimpeachable it must be indictable. But this viola-tion of the law may consist in the abuse, as well asin the usurpation of authority. The abuse of powerwhich has been given may be as criminal as theusurpation of a power which has not been granted.

One subject of impeachment proceedings,Judge George W. English, resigned before an im-peachment trial could be held. Another subject,District Judge Albert W. Johnson, resigned in 1946when it appeared the House would impeach him.When his resignation made the procedure moot,the House committee held that impeachment wasnot needed, despite the issues involved, becausethe Senate would have been occupied on such amatter “when that body is engaged in so many is-sues vital to the welfare of the nation.”

The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the solepower to conduct impeachment trials, and nocourt can review the results of a trial in that body.Two recent cases, however, have sought to have thepower amended. Following the Senate convictionsof Judges Walter L. Nixon Jr. and Alcee L. Hastings,both men asked to have the power narrowed be-cause, as Nixon argued, the Senate’s failure to givehim a full evidentiary hearing before the entireSenate violated its constitutional duty to “try” allimpeachments. The District Court for the Districtof Columbia ruled against him, and the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld that judg-ment. Judge Williams, writing for that highercourt, held that the U.S. Constitution grants theSenate “the sole Power to try all impeachments”and as well “gives it sole discretion to choose itsprocedures” to try such impeachments. However,in contrast to Nixon, Judge Stanley Sporkin of theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbiaheld in Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490(1992), held that the impeachment power could beexamined by courts. He wrote, “The key issue inthis case is whether a life-tenured Article III judgewho has been acquitted of felony charges by a petitjury can thereafter be impeached and tried for es-sentially the same alleged indiscretion by a com-mittee of the United States Senate consisting ofless than the full Senate. This court determinesthat the answer is no.” Sporkin granted Hastingsrelief by ordering his conviction before the Senatevacated and a new impeachment trial to be held.This was a landmark decision. However, when theU.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision inNixon v. United States, which held that all im-peachments before the Senate were beyond anyand all judicial review, Sporkin reversed his deci-sion and held against Hastings.

Although the issue of federal impeachmentpower is more often the subject of study, impeach-ment power in state constitutions deserves an ex-amination. For instance, since the Constitutionwas signed in 1787, every state save Oregon hasplaced this power to remove state officials in theirstate constitutions. The stipulations of how thepower is to be exercised vary from state to state. Afew states, such as New York, allow judicial over-sight on impeachment trials. For instance, duringthe impeachment of Governor William Sulzer in1913, Judge Edgar T. Cullen oversaw the case.

Impeachment 179

Other states in this category—Missouri and Ne-braska, among others—allow for judicial over-sight in whole or in part.

Another topic of interest is that in many statesthe offices that are subject to impeachment are setout. In Alaska, only judges and justices of the statesupreme court may be impeached—not the gover-nor, the cabinet, or other state officers. In Alabama,however, impeachment proceedings may bebrought against nearly every officeholder in thestate. As well, the grounds for impeachment—“treason, bribery, and other high crimes and mis-demeanors” in the federal Constitution—varystate by state. Louisiana specifies “incompetence,corruption, favoritism, extortion, or oppression inoffice, gross misconduct, or habitual drunkenness,”while Arizona designates impeachable offenses toinclude “malfeasance in office.”Alabama leaves it to“willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, in-competency, or intemperance in the use of intoxi-cating liquors or narcotics to such an extent, inview of the dignity of the office and importance ofits duties, as to make the officer unfit to dischargesuch duties, or the commission of any offense,while in office, involving moral turpitude.” Utahspecifies its impeachment clause with a series ofnumbered articles, making it one of the longest inthe nation. That state sets impeachment for:

(1) personal misconduct, usurpation of power, orhabitual disregard for the public interest in the dis-charge of his official duties;

(2) commission of an indictable criminal of-fense;

(3) [an] intentional act of omission or commis-sion relating to his official duties involving a sub-stantial breach of trust;

(4) substantial breach of the trust imposed uponthe official by the nature of his office, and whichconduct is offensive to commonly accepted stan-dards of honesty and morality;

(5) physical or mental disability which affectsthe person’s ability to function properly; or

(6) such other causes as have existed historicallyand at common law.

Impeachments of state governors include LeviHubbell of Wisconsin (1853), the aforementionedWilliam Sulzer of New York (1913), James Fergu-son of Texas (1917), John C. Walton of Oklahoma(1923), and Evan Mecham of Arizona (1988).

Impeachment differs from the ancient rite ofattainder, which is a trial in the English Parliamentbefore the king in which the assembled lords agreeto a charge, usually of treason, and discuss a sen-tence. This was outlawed in the United States bythe U.S. Constitution.

See also Hastings, Alcee Lamar; Nixon, Richard Milhous;Nixon v. United States

References: A Collection of Some Memorable and WeightyTransactions in Parliament in the Year 1678, andAfterwards, In Relation to the Impeachment of ThomasEarl of Danby (London: Privately Published, 1695);Buchanan statement in Peck trial in Hinds, AsherCrosby, Hinds’ Precedents of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States, IncludingReferences to Provisions of the Constitution, the Laws,and Decisions of the United States Senate, 8 vols.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1907–1908), III:2381; Farrand, Max, Records from theFederal Convention (New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1911), 550; Hallam, Elizabeth, ed., MedievalMonarchs (London: Tiger Books International, 1996),99; Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490, at 492(D.D.C. 1992); Hoffer, Peter C., and N. E. H. Hull,Impeachment in America, 1635–1805 (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Melton, Buckner F.,Jr., The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framersand the Case of Senator William Blount (Macon, GA:Mercer University Press, 1998), 25; Nixon v. UnitedStates, 506 U.S. 224 (1993); Plucknett, TheodoreFrank Thomas, Studies in English History (London:Hambledon Press, 1983); Simpson, Alexander, Jr., ATreatise on Federal Impeachments, With an AppendixContaining, Inter Alia, an Abstract of the Articles ofImpeachment in all of the Federal Impeachments inthis Country and in England (Philadelphia: LawAssociation of Philadelphia, 1916); Staff of the[Presidential] Impeachment Inquiry, ConstitutionalGrounds for Presidential Impeachment: Report(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1974); Stephen, Sir James Fitz-James, 1st Bart, AHistory of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols.(London: Macmillan and Company, 1883), I:158.

Income Tax Scandal, Department ofJustice (1951–1952)Scandal that implicated several officials in the De-partment of Justice in tax-fixing and briberycases. In 1950, in a growing move to cleanse theInternal Revenue Service (IRS) of potentiallyscandalous cases, the Truman administrationfired, or forced the resignations of, 166 employeesof the agency. A congressional subcommittee, in-vestigating allegations of corruption in the Trea-

180 Income Tax Scandal, Department of Justice

sury Department, came across the IRS corruptionat the same time that Congress was accusing theDepartment of Justice of stonewalling the investi-gations. The press got wind of the story and, withCongress, demanded that an independent counselbe appointed by Attorney General J. Howard Mc-Grath. Instead, Truman asked McGrath to investi-gate the allegations himself, a move loudly criti-cized both on Capitol Hill and in the media.

McGrath dragged his feet looking into the scan-dal. When the House Judiciary Committee an-nounced that it would investigate McGrath’s inves-tigation, Truman agreed that a special counselshould be named. Instead of allowing McGrath todo the naming, as was customary, Truman himselfnamed a New York Republican, Newbold Morris,to the position. Morris, a protege and former assis-tant to New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, ac-cepted the position when he was assured that Tru-man would back his entire investigation. Morristold the press on 1 February 1952, after taking of-fice, that he did not need the subpoena power,“be-cause if I want something and can’t get it, I can goto the President for it.” Morris set out to investigatethe corruption with vigor. He decided to send a de-tailed questionnaire to all Department of Justiceemployees whose salaries exceeded $10,000 a year.With the questionnaire, Morris wanted to see if theemployees were living within their means or hadadditional income from corruption. On 18 March1952, Morris distributed 596 questionnaires toDepartment of Justice employees. McGrath in-stantly ordered that they not be accepted and thatno more questionnaires be sent out. Morris, sens-ing that McGrath was trying to obstruct his inves-tigation, demanded that he be allowed access to allof McGrath’s official and personal records and cor-respondence. McGrath refused and, on 3 April1952, fired Morris. The special investigator hadbeen on the job only sixty-three days.

It is unknown what Truman’s response was toMcGrath’s move, but later that day he called Mc-Grath to the White House and fired him, announc-ing later that Judge James P. McGranery would bethe new attorney general. McGranery’s first an-nouncement was that the investigation of the De-partment of Justice and the IRS would be con-ducted by him and him alone.

Charles S. Murphy, former special counsel toTruman, later said in an oral history interview:

President Truman eventually requested McGrath’sresignation as Attorney General. There was a lot oftalk, public comment about scandal in the Trumanadministration. This involved Lamar Caudle, aboutwhom we have spoken sometime earlier, I guess,who was then an Assistant Attorney General. It in-volved some several collectors of Internal Revenue.Some of whom turned out quite badly. My recollec-tion is, that every one of them was appointed byPresident Roosevelt, and not one of them by Presi-dent Truman. However, this rubbed off on him andhis administration and there were some otherthings that were not terribly bad, but on the otherhand they were, I think, subject to some adversecriticism. Well, at any rate, this led President Tru-man to feel that it would be necessary and appro-priate to have some independent investigationmade of this problem in the executive branch of theGovernment and to do something about it, find outwhat needed to be done about it. And he tried, un-dertook to set up a group, I think a commissionto—at any rate, at one point he tried—I know hetried—there was a Federal Judge in New York Statenamed Murphy—still there I think. President Tru-man asked him to take charge of this activity andJudge Murphy came down to see him about it. And Iremember this because he came to see him at theWhite House and the President had left his officeand had gone over to Blair House and I took JudgeMurphy over to Blair House to see the President.And at that time Judge Murphy told him he woulddo it. Then he went back to New York and changedhis mind and called up and said he wouldn’t do it.My recollection is, and this is not just clear, that healso asked the then Dean of the Harvard Law Schoolto do this. A man who is now the Solicitor Generalof the United States, what’s his name? I think heasked him to do it and he declined. But at any rate,he finally did ask the man from New York Citywhose name was Newbold Morris, a Republicanwho had acquired quite a reputation as clean-upman in New York City to come down and work onthis and by this time the setup for the project, Ithink, had changed somewhat from the originalconcept.

One of McGranery’s first announcements wasthat he would have the investigation done as all in-vestigations were—through regular departmentprocesses. Many immediately saw this as a cover-up, mainly because it would be handled by politi-cal appointees. Sure enough, when the investiga-tion was completed one minor Department of

Income Tax Scandal, Department of Justice 181

Justice official was fired for “unethical conduct,”while those who had been initially implicated wereentirely cleared. McGranery announced that theinvestigation was complete, and that was that.

Historians believe that the income tax scandalwas one of the worst cover-ups in Washington his-tory—that major Truman administration officials,including T. Lamar Caudle, general counsel to theBureau of Internal Revenue; Charles Oliphant, thecommissioner of internal revenue; former Com-missioner of Internal Revenue Josef Nunan; Tru-man’s Appointments Secretary Matthew Connelly(who was nabbed and went to prison on anothercharge); and several others were heavily involved inembezzlement, and that they all escaped justicedue to political considerations and a cover-up bytwo attorneys general.

References: Abels, Jules, The Truman Scandals (Chicago:Regnery, 1956); Dunar, Andrew J.,“All HonorableMen: The Truman Scandals and the Politics ofMorality,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of SouthernCalifornia, 1981); “IRS Scandal,” in Jay Robert Nash,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989), II:1664; Logan, David A.,Historical Uses of a Special Prosecutor: TheAdministrations of Presidents Grant, Coolidge, andTruman (Washington, DC: Congressional ResearchService, 1973), 28–29; Oral History interview withCharles S. Murphy, 25 July 1969, Harry S. TrumanPresidential Library, Independence, MO; Perry, AnnaB.,“McGrath, James Howard,” in Allen Johnson andDumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography, X vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), 8:405–406.

Independent Counsel Statute, 28 U.S.C.1826Law enacted in 1978 in the wake of the Watergatescandal to solidify in the law the ability of the at-torney general to call for a person or persons to in-vestigate certain violations of law by executivebranch officers. Prior to the enactment of this law,investigations were carried out by what werecalled “special prosecutors,” usually named by theattorney general.

The United States, despite a myriad of scandals,went without a “special prosecutor” until 1875. Itwas at that time that the scandals surroundingPresident Ulysses S. Grant became overwhelmingin their scope and public importance. This period

of time, following the end of the Civil War, wasracked by massive corruption and profiteering inthe American South, especially within the confinesof Reconstruction, when many “carpetbagging” of-ficials moved from the North to the defeatedSouthern states and took advantage of the postwarchaos that permeated that region. As well, therewas no civil service system to oversee the hiring offederal officers. Grant blanketed the entire U.S.government with cronies, and one of these was hislong-time friend, Orville E. Babcock, who wasnamed his personal secretary. Babcock saw his of-fice not as one of responsibility, but as one to useto enrich himself and his friends. One of thesefriends was General John McDonald, a Civil Warveteran who was named supervisor of revenue forthe District of Missouri. McDonald used his of-fice—with the full knowledge of Babcock—tocharge local distillers less than the requiredwhiskey tax and ask for a kickback for the privi-lege. Babcock was himself involved, sending lettersin code to McDonald on how to run the operationin St. Louis. Secretary of the Treasury BenjaminBristow, who oversaw the office that collectedwhiskey taxes, discovered the scandal and went toGrant with clear and convincing evidence of the“Whiskey Ring” of thieves. Grant, embarrassed bypress coverage of the growing scandal, decided toname his own special prosecutor. This man wasGeneral John B. Henderson. Henderson, a formerU.S. senator from Missouri, went after the WhiskeyRing defendants as he felt he was supposed to do.In the process, his investigation and indictmentsled him to evidence against General Orville Bab-cock, Grant’s personal secretary. Grant then movedto block Henderson, calling upon a special mili-tary court to investigate any charges against Bab-cock. This court, stacked with Grant cronies, askedHenderson for all evidence against Babcock. Hen-derson refused and instead presented his caseagainst Babcock to a grand jury, which indictedBabcock in December 1875. The tribunal faced ei-ther throwing Henderson off the case, inciting afuror, or backing off. They took the latter action,and Babcock went to trial. However, during thetrial of another Whiskey Ring defendant, Hender-son slammed Grant’s interference with Hender-son’s investigation as well as that of the secretaryof the treasury. When Grant heard of Henderson’saccusations, he fired the special counsel. He then

182 Independent Counsel Statute

named another special prosecutor, James Broad-head, who was unfamiliar with the facts of the nu-merous Whiskey Ring cases. During Babcock’strial, the defense read a lengthy letter from Presi-dent Grant attesting to Babcock’s innocence. Thisled to an easy acquittal for Babcock and the end ofthe Whiskey Ring prosecutions.

In 1924 allegations that the secretary of the in-terior and the secretary of the navy—then an in-dependent cabinet department—had conspired tosell national oil reserves to cronies of the presidentin return for bribes led Congress to call for a spe-cial counsel to investigate what became known asthe Teapot Dome scandal. During congressionalinvestigations, President Calvin Coolidge, who hadtaken over the presidency upon the death of Presi-dent Warren G. Harding in August 1923, wanted toshort-circuit any findings by Congress by namingan “independent counsel.” His first picks for thisoffice, Silas Strawn and Thomas Gregory, wereboth attorneys who had connections with the oilindustry, and their confirmation was sorely indoubt. Senator George Pepper (R-PA) offered thename of an outstanding Philadelphia attorney,

Owen Roberts, who had prosecuted espionagecases during World War I. Coolidge decided toname Roberts, a Republican, and Democratic at-torney Atlee Pomerene as co-independent coun-sels. The two men then worked from February1924 until 1928 ferreting out the truth about thecorruption, an investigation that led to Secretaryof the Interior Albert Fall going to prison afterbeing convicted of taking a bribe and AttorneyGeneral Harry Daugherty resigning in the face ofallegations that he had obstructed the investiga-tion. Roberts later was named to the U.S. SupremeCourt by President Hoover in 1930, where he be-came one of the conservative bloc of justices dur-ing his fifteen years on that court.

During the administration of President HarryS. Truman, allegations arose that serious corrup-tion was occurring in the Internal Revenue Serviceand that the Department of Justice was actingslowly in investigating it. A congressional subcom-mittee, pursuing its own inquiry, demanded thatAttorney General J. Howard McGrath name a spe-cial counsel or independent counsel to look intothe allegations. Instead, President Truman ordered

Independent Counsel Statute 183

Archibald Cox (center) is sworn in as special Watergate prosecutor during a ceremony at the Justice Department on 25 May 1973.(Bettmann/Corbis)

that McGrath do his own internal examination.This move was heavily criticized by Truman’s ownparty, the opposition Republicans, and the press.When it appeared that McGrath, too, was actingslowly on the scandal, calls arose again for thenaming of an independent counsel. Seeking todouse the growing political firestorm, PresidentTruman named a New York Republican lawyer,Newbold Morris, to be the special counsel. Morrisbegan his investigation by sending inquiries to allDepartment of Justice employees remotely close toscandal. When Attorney General McGrath de-manded a cessation to Morris’s activities, Morrisrefused and was fired on 3 April 1952, just sixty-three days after being named. Truman, sensinggrowing frustration on Capitol Hill at McGrath’sintransigence, called the flustered attorney generalto the White House that same day and fired him,replacing him with Judge James P. McGranery. Mc-Granery, on orders from Truman, conducted hisown investigation, cleared all involved except forsome low-level workers, and ended the inquiry.

Following a break-in at Democratic Partyheadquarters in June 1972 at the Watergate Hotelin Washington, D.C., and the capture of severalmen who were later tied to the Republican Na-tional Committee and President Nixon himself, At-torney General Richard Kleindienst resigned, andhis replacement, Elliot Richardson, was forced toagree to name a special prosecutor to look intowhat became known as the Watergate scandal.This man was Harvard Law Professor ArchibaldCox. He opened his investigation into Nixon’s al-leged ties to the break-in by subpoenaing taperecordings allegedly made by Nixon and his aidesin the Oval Office. Nixon refused, citing executiveprivilege. Cox went to court, and a judge orderedNixon to turn over the tapes. Nixon went aroundCox and agreed to a compromise with SenatorJohn C. Stennis (D-MS) to listen to the tapes andreport back to the Senate. Cox refused the so-called Stennis Compromise and demanded thetapes. Nixon ordered that Attorney GeneralRichardson fire Cox; Richardson refused and re-signed. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also re-fused to fire Cox and also resigned, leaving Solici-tor General Robert H. Bork as acting attorneygeneral to fire Cox. This incident, on 20 October1973, was called the Saturday Night Massacre. Theoutrage of the press, the public, and Congress

forced Nixon to back down, and a new specialprosecutor was named by Bork: attorney Leon Ja-worski of Texas. Jaworski also subpoenaed thepresidential recordings, exposing Nixon’s role inthe Watergate cover-up and his resignation on 9August 1974.

In 1978 the U.S. Congress enacted the Ethics inGovernment Act, establishing a course of action tobe followed to name an independent counsel: if al-legations of an executive department employeewere brought to the attorney general, that attorneygeneral was to apply to a three-judge panel to havean independent counsel investigate the charges.The loophole in the law was that if the attorneygeneral was politically motivated, he or she wouldcover for the executive branch official, and no in-dependent counsel would ever be named. Allega-tions of this arose during the administration ofPresident Bill Clinton. When allegations arose thatboth Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore Jr. hadengaged in campaign donation and spending vio-lations, critics of the administration demandedthat Attorney General Janet Reno name an inde-pendent counsel to investigate the matter. On sev-eral occasions, despite overwhelming evidence—as well as support for the naming of a counsel byher own campaign task force leaders—Reno re-fused, and ultimately only two congressional com-mittees investigated the allegations. During the1980s, several independent counsels were namedto investigate certain Reagan administration offi-cials, as well as the Iran-Contra scandal.

The constitutionality of the Independent Coun-sel Statute was considered by the U.S. SupremeCourt in Morrison v. Olson, which found thestatute valid. In 1999, amid the anger over thestatute, Congress let the law lapse.

See also Henderson, John Brooks; Morrison v. Olson;Starr, Kenneth Winston

References: Harriger, Katy Jean, Independent Justice: TheFederal Special Prosecutor in American Politics(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992); Morris,Newbold, Let the Chips Fall: My Battles withCorruption (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1955); O’Keefe, Constance, and Peter Safirstein,“Fallen Angels, Separation of Powers, and theSaturday Night Massacre: An Examination of thePractical, Constitutional and Political Tensions in theSpecial Prosecutor Provisions of the Ethics inGovernment Act,” Brooklyn Law Review, 49 (1982),113; Treanor, William Michael,“GovernmentLawyering: Independent Counsel and Vigorous

184 Independent Counsel Statute

Investigation and Prosecution,” Law & ContemporaryProblems, 61 (1998), 149.

Independent ExpendituresCampaign finance practice, by which organiza-tions independent of a certain candidate air tele-vision or print advertisements that support thatcandidate, thereby being able to get around thespending limits of that particular candidate. TheFederal Election Commission (FEC) reports that:

An independent expenditure is an expenditure for acommunication which expressly advocates the elec-tion or defeat of a clearly identified candidate butwhich is made independently of any candidate’scampaign. Independent expenditures are specialbecause, unlike contributions, they are not subjectto any limits. However, an expenditure is “indepen-dent” only if it meets certain conditions: It must notbe made with the cooperation or consent of, or inconsultation with, or at the request or suggestion of,any candidate or any of his or her agents or author-ized committees.

For example, during the 1988 presidential elec-tion, a group called “Americans for Bush” aired anadvertisement on television that showed the faceof a convict, Willie Horton, who the Democraticnominee for president, Michael S. Dukakis, hadreleased on furlough from prison while Dukakiswas the governor of Massachusetts; Horton, amurderer in jail for life, then went on to rape awoman. Although the Bush campaign never sanc-tioned the ad, and the ad included a disclaimerthat the group was not affiliated with the Bushcampaign, the group was allowed to spendmonies that could not legally be credited againstthe Bush campaign itself.

Independent expenditure advertisements, start-ing in the late 1970s, gave the appearance of polit-ical parties trying to subvert the campaign fi-nance laws by producing ads not linked directly toa campaign. Prior to 1985, the FEC banned inde-pendent expenditures. Moreover, federal law (26U.S.C. 9012(f)) made it a criminal offense for anindependent “political committee” to expendmore than $1,000 to further a candidate’s elec-tion. However, that year, the Supreme Court heldin Federal Election Commission v. National Con-servative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), that “Section

9012(f)’s limitation on independent expendituresby political committees is constitutionally infirm,absent any indication that such expenditures havea tendency to corrupt or to give the appearance ofcorruption.”

The Federal Election Commission has formu-lated rules on independent expenditures: “Whenmaking an independent expenditure, you must in-clude a notice stating that you have paid for thecommunication and that it is not authorized byany candidate’s committee. (‘Paid for by John Doeand not authorized by any candidate’s commit-tee.’) Additionally, once you spend more than $250on independent expenditures during a year, youmust file a report with the Federal Election Com-mission, either FEC Form 5 or a signed statementcontaining the same information.”

See also Federal Election Commission v. NationalConservative Political Action Committee

References: Federal Election Commission,“IndependentExpenditures,” in Campaign Guide for CongressionalCandidates and Committees (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1995); Federal ElectionCommission v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S.480, 480 (1985); Federal Election Commission,“Supporting Federal Candidates: A Guide ForCitizens”—An Internet publication of the FederalElection Commission.

Influence PeddlingCriminal conduct, described officially as “thepractice of using one’s influence with persons inauthority to obtain favors or preferential treat-ment for another, usually in return for payment.”Several of the largest scandals in the UnitedStates in the last years of the twentieth centuryhad to do with influence peddling: allegations ofinfluence peddling by officers of the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development during theReagan administration; the investigation intoSecretary of Agriculture Mike Espy in the Clintonadministration; the allegations of the use of Chi-nese money to influence the 1996 Clinton/Gorepresidential campaign; the investigation by anindependent counsel against Secretary of LaborAlexis Herman; and the U.S. House of Represen-tatives investigation into Representative BudShuster (R-PA).

The bar against influence peddling is explicitlywritten into American law: at 18 U.S.C. § 215, it

Influence Peddling 185

states,“Whoever solicits or receives, either as a po-litical contribution, or for personal emolument,any money or thing of value, in consideration ofthe promise of support or use of influence in ob-taining for any person any appointive office orplace under the United States, shall be fined notmore than $1,000 or imprisoned not more thanone year, or both.” But the line between campaigncontributions to a candidate for office and influ-ence peddling is a thin and narrow one, which canbe crossed quite easily. Roger Pilon, director of fis-cal policy studies at the Center for ConstitutionalStudies at the Cato Institute said before a Senatehearing on campaign finance reforms:

But if the egalitarian impetus for public funding ismisplaced, that leaves the “corruption” of privatemoney as the main argument for such funding. Setaside the point that no one has stepped forward todeclare his own corruption—to say nothing of hiscolleague’s—we all know that money does buy, atleast, influence, whether or not that influence leadsto quid-pro-quo corruption. But influence wasaround long before the “reforms” of 1974; it is stillaround; and it will continue to be around as long aspoliticians have the power to redistribute and regu-late as they do today. Campaign finance “reforms”have done nothing to check that influence. To thecontrary, they have only further institutionalized it.For the natural antidote against those who woulduse their public trust contrary to their oaths of of-fice is a vigorous political campaign to unseat suchofficials.Yet that, precisely, is what modern “re-forms” have made more difficult—if not near im-possible, judging from House races—by restrictingindividual and PAC contributions to artificially lowlevels.

Influence peddling is considered a high crimeand misdemeanor as proscribed by the U.S. Con-stitution. One man, Judge Robert W. Archbald, wasimpeached on this very charge and convicted andremoved from office in 1912.

But, what is the difference between “lobbying”and “influence peddling”? Where is the fine linedrawn when such distinctions mean the differencebetween complying with the law and breaking it?Writing in Fortune magazine in December 1998,journalist Jeffrey Birnbaum called the lobbyistswho were in Washington, D.C.,“the influence mer-chants.”Each year, lobbyists for a multitude of spe-cial interests, both domestic and foreign, lobby

Congress and the administration in power, spend-ing tens of millions of dollars (in 1997, that num-ber was nearly $80 million). The only requirementfor foreign lobbyists is that they must register withthe U.S. government under the 1938 ForeignAgents Registration Act. It seems unlikely thatCongress will ever outlaw lobbying, which is seenby many as part of their First Amendment right tobe heard on issues.

References: Birnbaum, Jeffrey H.,“The InfluenceMerchants,” Fortune, 138:11 (7 December 1998),134–138; Birnbaum, Jeffrey H., The Lobbyists: HowInfluence Peddlers Get Their Way in Washington (NewYork: Times Books, 1992).

Ingersoll, Robert Green (1833–1899)American attorney and orator, counsel for thoseimplicated in the Star Route fraud trials (1880).Ingersoll was born in Dresden, New York, on 11August 1833, the son of the Reverend John Inger-soll, a Congregationalist minister, and Mary (néeLivingston) Ingersoll, a member of a famed earlyAmerican family. (Among her relatives were Ed-ward Livingston, who served as secretary of state,Philip Livingston, a signer of the Declaration ofIndependence, and Robert R. Livingston, who ad-ministered the oath to George Washington as thefirst president of the United States.) Robert Inger-soll received little education, instead being self-taught, but studied the law, and was admitted tothe Illinois bar in 1854, practicing in such cities asPeoria, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; and New YorkCity. For a time he practiced with his brother EbonClark Ingersoll, who later went on to serve in theU.S. House of Representatives. When the Civil Warbegan, Ingersoll volunteered for service with theEleventh Illinois Volunteer Cavalry, being commis-sioned a colonel. This service ended on 18 Decem-ber 1862, when Ingersoll was captured by Confed-erate forces near Lexington, Tennessee. However,the general who captured him, Nathan BedfordForrest, took such a liking to him that three dayslater Ingersoll was paroled. He resigned his com-mission and was honorably discharged on 30 June1863.

A Republican in politics, Ingersoll moved toIllinois after the war and in 1866 was elected stateattorney general, serving from 1867 to 1869. Be-cause of his war activities and commanding voice,

186 Ingersoll, Robert Green

he became a noted speaker for several Republicancandidates, including Republican presidentialcandidates Rutherford B. Hayes (1876) and JamesG. Blaine (1884). In 1876, in nominating Blaine ina losing cause, Ingersoll called the Maine Senatorand former House Speaker the “Plumed Knight,”and gave Blaine a nickname that stuck with himfor the remainder of his life. However, despite hissupport for the party, Ingersoll’s unorthodox reli-gious views prevented his being named to anycabinet or diplomatic post that he clearly desired:Ingersoll was a self-admitted agnostic (one whoneither believes nor disbelieves in God), and wascalled “The Great Agnostic.” Questioning Christianbeliefs, he explained his views in such works asThe Gods (1872), Some Mistakes of Moses (1879),Why I Am an Agnostic (1896) and Superstition(1898), the latter penned the year before his death.Despite his views, his public speeches drew tens ofthousands of spectators, enhancing his reputationas one of the finest public orators of his day. TheReverend Henry Ward Beecher called him “themost brilliant speaker of the English tongue of allthe men on the globe.”

It was perhaps for this reason that Ingersoll be-came caught up in one of the largest governmentalscandals of the nineteenth century. Starting in1880, he defended Thomas J. Brady and StephenW. Dorsey in the famous Star Route trial. (See theentry on the Star Route frauds for the full story ofthis scandal.) Dorsey, a former U.S. senator, andBrady, a former assistant postmaster general, wereaccused of exaggerating the costs of servicing cer-tain rural postal delivery routes—so called StarRoutes—to steal from the U.S. government. Be-sides Dorsey and Brady, there were several otherlesser-known Star Route defendants, and Ingersollbecame the main counsel for the entire group.Starting on 1 June 1882, Ingersoll claimed thatgovernment policy, and not the defendants, wereto blame for the alleged frauds.

In his closing address to the jury, Ingersoll said:

Let us understand each other at the very threshold.For one I am as much opposed to official dishon-esty as any man in this world. The taxes in thiscountry are paid by labor and by industry, and theyshould be collected and disbursed by integrity. Theman that is untrue to his official oath, the man thatis untrue to the position the people have honored

him with, ought to be punished. I have not one wordto say in defence of any man who I believe hasrobbed the Treasury of the United States. I want itunderstood in the first place that we are not defend-ing; that we are not excusing; that we are not en-deavoring to palliate in the slightest degree dishon-esty in any Government official. I will go stillfurther: I will not defend any citizen who has com-mitted what I believe to be a fraud upon the Trea-sury of this Government.

One newspaper had this to say about Ingersoll’sclosing argument:

The most characteristic feature of the trial was themarvelously powerful speech of Colonel Robert G.Ingersoll before the Jury and the Judge. People whoknew this gifted gentleman only superficially, hadsupposed that he was merely superficial as a lawyer.Although acknowledging his remarkable ability asan orator, and his vast accomplishments as aspeaker, they doubted the depth of his power. Theyheard him, and the doubt ceased. It can be said ofIngersoll, as was written of Castelar, that his elo-quent utterances are as the finely-fashioned orna-mental designs on a Damascus blade, the blade cutsas keenly, and the embellishments beautify withoutretarding its power.

The jury returned with guilty verdicts for twoof the lesser defendants, but there were mistrialsfor Dorsey and Brady. A second trial in late 1882,which stretched into 1883, led to not guilty ver-dicts for all. Although there were unsubstantiatedallegations of jury-rigging and massive bribery,historians credit Ingersoll for the acquittals.

Ingersoll died of heart failure on 21 July 1899 atWalston, his son-in-law’s palatial home in DobbsFerry-on-Hudson, New York. He was sixty-fiveyears old. He was buried with military honors inArlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Vir-ginia, where his large grave marker can still beseen. His epitaph reads, “Nothing is grander thanto break chains from the bodies of men. Nothing isnobler than to destroy the phantoms of the soul.”

See also Dorsey, Stephen Wallace; Star Route FraudsReferences: Cramer, Clarence Henley, Royal Bob: The Life

of Robert G. Ingersoll (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1952); Klotsche, J. Martin,“The Star Route Cases,”TheMississippi Valley Historical Review, XXII:3 (December1935), 415; Rogers, Cameron, Colonel Bob Ingersoll: ABiographical Narrative of the Great American Oratorand Agnostic (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page, 1927).

Ingersoll, Robert Green 187

Iran-Contra AffairScandal, 1986–1993, that implicated high-rank-ing members of the Reagan administration inselling weapons to Iran to pay for arms to be sentto the anticommunist rebels known as “contras”fighting the Nicaraguan Sandinista government.Following the 1979 Sandinista revolution inNicaragua, a communist government allied withthe Soviet Union came to power in that CentralAmerican nation and set about to export revolu-tion to its neighbors, most notably El Salvadorand Costa Rica. When Ronald Reagan came intooffice in 1981, he set about through secret meansto undermine the Sandinista government. In the1980s, several Americans in the Middle East,mostly in Lebanon, were captured by Islamic ex-tremists who held them for ransom and forpropaganda. Reagan ordered his National Secu-rity Council staff to find ways to secretly bargainfor the release of these hostages. Soon, the twoforeign policy aims collided. When Congresspassed the Boland Amendment, which specifi-cally banned all American aid to a group of anti-Sandinista rebels called the “contras,” Reagan setabout to use private money to go around thecongressional action. However, after he orderedin 1985 that all legal means be used to get thehostages out of Lebanon, national security aideOliver North, a former Marine officer in Viet-nam, approached the Iranian government, abacker of the Islamic extremists. Iran was thenin the midst of a horrific war with Iraq andneeded all the arms it could to win decisive vic-tories against the Iraqis. North offered themsome arms in exchange for their assistance ingaining the release of the Americans held inLebanon. In a back-door deal, North sold theIranians 1,000 tube-launched hand-held TOWmissiles, with a value of between $6 and $10 mil-lion, and the Iranians pushed to have the Ameri-cans in Lebanon released. However, Northskimmed the money from the Iranian arms dealand sent it directly to the contras to be used forarms, food, and other supplies.

In November 1986 the Lebanese magazine AlShiraa published a story alleging that the U.S. gov-ernment had been shipping missile parts andStinger anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in exchangefor American hostages held by pro-Iranian terror-ists in Lebanon. Because many of the hostages still

remained in captivity, the story was not given fullcredibility. However, as Attorney General Ed Meeseinvestigated, he found not only that the story wastrue, but that the proceeds from the sale to Iranwere used to aid the contras. Thus, the “Iran-Con-tra Affair” was born. In March 1987 President Rea-gan admitted that members of his administrationhad been conducting these deals, but that he didnot know of their extent—despite this, he took fullresponsibility for them. A panel, with Senator JohnTower of Texas as chairman and former U.S. Secre-tary of State Edmund Muskie and foreign policyexpert Brent Scowcroft, was named by Reagan toinvestigate the affair. Their report, called the TowerCommission Report, chastised President Reaganover the lax administration of the National Secu-rity Council, where the deals originated, but didnot blame Reagan directly for any violations oflaw. Despite this, the Congress established a selectcommittee to investigate the Iran-Contra Affair.Televised hearings were held, in which North andhis secretary, Fawn Hall, became media figures. Aspecial prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was named toinvestigate the affair.

Historian Peter Levey writes, “Ultimately,North, John Marlan Poindexter, McFarlane, andGeneral Richard Secord were indicted, tried, andconvicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair. Many of the convictions were subse-quently overturned on technical grounds—namely, that the special prosecutor had relied oninformation obtained by congressional investiga-tions while under grants of immunity to obtainthe convictions.” Special prosecutor Walsh in-dicted former Secretary of Defense Caspar Wein-berger just before the 1992 election, but PresidentGeorge Bush pardoned him.

On 18 January 1993, the special prosecutor re-leased his final report. He found that the Reaganand Bush administrations had not committed anycriminal offenses, but he did chastise the Reaganadministration for misleading Congress and thepublic.

References: Final Report of the Independent Counsel forIran/Contra Matters. Lawrence E. Walsh, IndependentCounsel, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Divisionfor the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsel,1993); Levey, Peter B., Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996),207–209; United States House of Representatives,

188 Iran-Contra Affair

President Reagan on his knees behind an empty television, presumably announcing the release of hostages in the MiddleEast, while he hands Ayatollah Khomeini an "arms payoff for hostage release." (Library of Congress)

Select Committee to Investigate Covert ArmsTransactions with Iran [with the U.S. SenateCommittee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran andthe Nicaraguan Opposition], Report of the

Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, With Supplemental, Minority, andAdditional Views, 3 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1987), I:3–21.

190 Iran-Contra Affair

Jackson, Edward Franklin (1873–1954)Governor of Indiana (1925–1929), implicatedand tried for taking a bribe while governor, butacquitted because the statute of limitations hadexpired. Jackson was also implicated in trying tobribe Governor Warren Terry McCray on behalfof the Ku Klux Klan. Born on his family’s farm inHoward County, Indiana, on 27 December 1873,Edward Jackson was the son of Presley Jackson, amillworker, and Mary E. (née Howell) Jackson.He attended the public schools of HowardCounty, then studied the law and, after being ad-mitted to the state bar, opened a law office in thetown of Kennard in nearby Henry County. A Re-publican, Jackson entered politics when he waselected prosecuting attorney for Henry County,serving from 1901 to 1906. On 13 July 1907, hewas appointed a judge of the Henry County Cir-cuit Court to fill a vacancy. He won the seat in hisown right in 1908 and served until 1914. In 1916Jackson was elected Indiana secretary of state.After the United States entered World War I inApril 1917, Jackson announced that he would re-sign as secretary of state to enter the U.S. Army,which he did on 27 November 1917, exactly oneyear after taking office. Commissioned a captainand later advanced to the rank of major, Jacksonwas assigned to Lafayette, Indiana, where heserved as commandant of the Student ArmyTraining Corps (SATC) at Purdue University.Jackson was discharged from the Army on 11

February 1919. He returned to the practice oflaw in Lafayette.

On 21 January 1920, Jackson reentered the po-litical field when he was appointed secretary ofstate of Indiana. William Roach had been namedto replace Jackson when Jackson had resigned in1917, but Roach had died on 18 January 1920 andJackson, ironically, replaced him. Jackson wonelection to the secretary of state position in 1920and served during the administration of Republi-can Governor Warren Terry McCray. It was duringMcCray’s administration that Jackson became in-volved in a series of schemes that led to briberyand the near cover-up of a murder. Jackson was afriend of David Curtis Stephenson, who was theGrand Dragon of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. UnderStephenson, the Klan in Indiana grew to morethan a quarter of a million members and was themost powerful single organization in the state. In1923 Jackson tried to get a Stephenson supporterappointed by the governor to the vacant office ofMarion County prosecuting attorney by passing abribe from Stephenson to McCray. McCray refusedto take the bribe, but then became caught up in anunrelated mail-fraud scheme and was forced to re-sign his office, leaving Lieutenant Governor Em-mett F. Branch as governor and Jackson as the sec-ond most powerful politician in the state. In 1924Branch did not run for reelection, and Jackson wasnamed the Republican gubernatorial candidate.He defeated Democrat Carleton McCulloch (who

J

191

had lost to McCray in 1920). Jackson was backedby the Klan, and their vote helped him to his con-siderable victory. It was after his election, on 12January 1925, that Jackson introduced a campaignworker and state government employee, MadgeOberholtzer, to Stephenson, and the two began todate. This action would be Stephenson’s, and theKlan’s, downfall.

On 15 March 1925, a drunk Stephenson tried toabduct Oberholtzer and take her to Chicago tomarry him. On the train to Chicago, Stephensonapparently raped the young woman, and to escapethe shame she took poison. She went into a comaand died in an institution one month later, on 14April 1925. Stephenson was indicted for murderand to avoid prison he threatened to release pa-pers on numerous state officials, mostly Republi-cans, who had benefited from the political andmonetary backing of the Klan. When his threatswere ignored, the incriminating papers were givento the press. These included papers on the bribethat he had given Jackson to give to McCray. How-ever, by the time this became public knowledge in1928, Jackson was in his last year of office, and thestatute of limitations on the bribe had run out. Hewas tried for the crime of bribery, but a convictionwas impossible because of this technicality andJackson walked free. His political career, however,was over.

Jackson returned to his law practice in Indi-anapolis and in 1937 he moved to his farm nearOrleans, Indiana, where he died on 18 November1954, a month shy of his eighty-first birthday. He isremembered by Indiana historians as one of thatstate’s most crooked governors, despite the factthat he never was actually convicted of a crime.

See also McCray, Warren TerryReferences: “Jackson, Edward L.,” in Robert Sobel and

John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), I:416–417;“Stephenson, David Curtis,” in David J. Bodenhamerand Robert G. Barrows, eds., The Encyclopedia ofIndianapolis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1994), 1296–1297.

Jackson, James (1757–1806)United States senator from (1793–1795, 1801–1806) and governor of Georgia (1798–1801), re-sponsible for the prosecution of the so-called

Yazoo Land frauds. Born in Moreton-Hampstead,in Devonshire, England, on 21 September 1757,Jackson emigrated to the United States when hewas fifteen. There he became a ward of one JohnWereat, a Savannah, Georgia, attorney. During theAmerican Revolution, Jackson took up armsagainst his native land and fought for the Georgiamilitia, seeing action in several battles, includingthe battle of Savannah (1778) and the battle ofCowpens (1781). In 1782, he was given the rank oflieutenant colonel when General “Mad” AnthonyWayne ordered him to march to Savannah andtake the town from the British. Once he accom-plished this action, Jackson became an Americanhero and was awarded by the Georgia legislature ahouse and a lot.

After the war ended, Jackson studied law withone George Walton and then opened his own prac-tice in Savannah. He served several terms in theGeorgia legislature and, still considered a hero, waselected governor of the state in 1788. He declinedthe honor. However, that same year he was electedto a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in theFirst Congress, which opened on 4 March 1789.Jackson held the seat for only one term, after whichhe was defeated for reelection by his former com-mander “Mad” Anthony Wayne. Jackson chargedthat Wayne was wrongly elected, but after theHouse declared the seat vacant Jackson failed towin it himself. The following year, 1793, the state ofGeorgia sent Jackson to the U.S. Senate, where heserved from 4 March 1793 until his resignation in1795 because of the Yazoo Land scandal.

The Yazoo Land scandal was perhaps the infantAmerican nation’s first major scandal. Land hadbeen sold by the Georgia state government to sev-eral land companies at ridiculously cheap prices,and Jackson, despite being in the Senate, thenseated in Philadelphia, led the opposition to thesale. After his resignation from the Senate so thathe could return to Georgia to concentrate strictlyon the matter, Jackson assisted in helping the staterescind the sale on 18 February 1796. During thenext two years, during which he was once againelected to the state legislature, Jackson was aleader in fighting the matter in court. For his ser-vice to the state, in 1798 both houses of the legisla-ture elected him governor, and he was inauguratedon 12 January 1798. Historians Robert Sobel andJohn Raimo write:

192 Jackson, James

During his administration, Jackson denouncedmany of the leading men of Georgia as being culpa-bly involved in the Yazoo fraud. John Berrien, StateTreasurer, although impeached for embezzlementbecause of irregularities in the receipt of paymentfrom some Yazoo purchasers, was not convicted.Governor Jackson recommended that the State Leg-islature pay Phineas Miller and Eli Whitney only amoderate sum for their patent right to the cottongin or suppress the right entirely.

Almost as soon as Jackson left the governor’smansion in early 1801, he departed for Washing-ton, D.C., having been elected a second time to theU.S. Senate. This would be the last office he wouldhold. On 19 March 1806, in the final year of hisSenate term, Jackson died in Washington at the ageof only forty-eight and was buried in the Congres-sional Cemetery in Washington. By his work toend the Yazoo Land frauds, Jackson’s name is mostremembered for his helping to resolve one of thefirst scandals of the new American nation. JacksonCounty, Georgia, was named in his honor in 1801.

References: Charlton, Thomas Usher Pulaski, The Life ofMajor General James Jackson (Augusta, GA: Geo. F.Randolph and Co., 1809); Foster, William, JamesJackson: Duelist and Militant Statesman (Athens:University of Georgia Press, 1960); “Jackson, James,”in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds., BiographicalDirectory of the Governors of the United States,1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Meckler Books,1978), II:282–283; Lamplugh, George R.“‘Oh TheColossus! The Colossus!’: James Jackson and theJeffersonian Republican Party in Georgia,1796–1806,” Journal of the Early Republic, 9 (Fall1989), 315–334; Lawrence, Alexander A.,“JamesJackson: Passionate Patriot,” Georgia HistoricalQuarterly, 34 (June 1950), 75–86.

Jenckes, Thomas Allen (1818–1875)United States representative from Rhode Island(1863–1871), one of the leaders in the UnitedStates for civil service reform. Born in Cumber-land, Rhode Island, on 2 November 1818, Jenckesattended the public schools of the area, before en-tering Brown University in Providence, Rhode Is-land, and graduating from that institution in 1838.He studied the law and was admitted to the RhodeIsland bar in 1840, opening a practice in Provi-dence. He supplemented this work by serving asthe clerk for the Rhode Island state legislaturefrom 1840 to 1844. In 1842 he served as the secre-

tary for the state constitutional convention. He wasa member of the state house of representativesfrom 1854 to 1857. In 1855 he served as the com-missioner of a group appointed to revise the lawsof the state.

In 1862 Jenckes ran as a Republican for a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives and waselected, serving in the Thirty-eighth through theForty-first Congresses, from 4 March 1863 until 3March 1871. It was during his congressional ser-vice that Jenckes became the leader of the move-ment for civil service reform. In 1866 he was askedby a congressional committee to report on what aprogram of civil service in the federal governmentwould look like. Two years later he submitted hisreport, and although it was widely praised, it dieda quick death when few people paid attention to it.Many people believed that the spoils system in hir-ing in government was an entrenched system thatcould not be rooted out.

Over the years that followed, Jenckes and manyother reform-minded individuals came out bothwith ideas and speeches on behalf of reform.George William Curtis, editor of Harper’s Weeklymagazine, was named by President Ulysses S.Grant to be chairman of a commission to draftrules for a civil service system. When Congress re-fused to enact appropriations for the continuationof the commission, Curtis angrily helped form theNational Civil Service League in 1881. Workingwith such men as Dorman Eaton, whose own re-port, Civil Government in Great Britain (1880)ranks with Jenckes’s report in the annals of civilservice reform, and Jenckes, Curtis was able tohelp with the enactment of civil service reform be-fore the end of the nineteenth century.

After leaving Congress in 1871, Jenckes re-turned to Rhode Island, where he resumed thepractice of law as well as working for civil servicereform. He died in Cumberland, Rhode Island, on 4November 1875, two days after his fifty-seventhbirthday.Although largely forgotten today, Jenckes’sname is well known among historians who studycivil service reform in the United States.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1282; Hoogenboom, Ari,“Jenckes, Thomas Allen,” in John A. Garraty and MarkC. Carnes, gen. eds., American National Biography, 24vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999),11:930–931; Hoogenboom, Ari,“Thomas A. Jenckes

Jenckes, Thomas Allen 193

and Civil Service Reform,” Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview, 47 (March 1961), 636–658.

Jenrette, John Wilson, Jr. See ABSCAM

Jerome, William Travers (1859–1934)American lawyer and reformer who served as amember of the Lexow Commission in New Yorkthat investigated police corruption. Jerome wasborn in New York City on 18 April 1859, the son ofLawrence Roscoe Jerome and Katherine (née Hall)Jerome. He received his education at the WillistonSeminary in Easthampton, Massachusetts, and at-tended a preparatory school in Switzerland. Hespent three years at Amherst College in NewHampshire, but left before earning a degree. He at-tended the Columbia University School of Law inNew York, after which he was admitted to the NewYork state bar and opened a law practice in NewYork City.

In 1888 Jerome was named New York districtattorney with the backing of Tammany Hall, thenthe dominant political organization. However,once in office, he sought to distance himself fromTammany at all costs. Just two years in office, in1890 Jerome backed the People’s MunicipalLeague, a reformist group, in their drive for “cleanelections” in the city. Because he opposed Tam-many Hall in the race, Jerome resigned and re-turned to private practice. In 1894 state SenatorClarence Lexow of Rockland County, New York,opened an investigation into corruption that wastraced directly to Tammany Hall. Jerome becamethe assistant to John W. Goff, the lead counsel forthe Lexow Committee. That same year, he servedas a member of the so-called Committee of Sev-enty, a reformist group that opposed TammanyHall’s power, and he served as the campaign man-ager for William L. Strong in his campaign formayor of New York City. As an attorney, Jeromehelped to draft legislation that established thecourt of special sessions in New York. FollowingStrong’s election, the new mayor named Jerome tobe the first justice of the new court, where heserved from 1895 until 1901. During this time, hechanged his party affiliation from Democrat toRepublican.

In 1901 Jerome was elected district attorney fora second time, this time without the backing or in-fluence of Tammany Hall. He found that office tohave been run as an arm of Tammany, with indict-ments of Tammany cronies long undelivered. Hecracked down on rackets and vice, including thegambling business of one Richard Canfield. How-ever, perhaps his most noted case came when heprosecuted millionaire Harry K. Thaw for the mur-der of architect Stanford White. He was reelectedin 1905 and served until 1909. During his secondterm, he was criticized for his failure to indict andprosecute the ranking members of the Metropoli-tan Street Railway after its bankruptcy, and a spe-cial counsel, Richard L. Hand, investigated the alle-gations. Although Hand found the accusations tobe unfounded, Jerome was stung by the criticismand retired at the end of his second term. He diedin New York City in 1934.

References: Hodder, Alfred, A Fight for the City (NewYork: The Macmillan Company, 1903); O’Connor,

194 Jenrette, John Wilson, Jr.

William Travers Jerome, an American lawyer and reformerwho served as a member of the Lexow Commission in NewYork, which investigated police corruption (Library ofCongress)

Richard, Courtroom Warrior: The Combative Career ofWilliam Travers Jerome (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963).

Johnson, Thomas Francis (1909–1988)United States representative from Maryland (1959–1963), convicted of conspiracy and conflict of in-terest in 1968 for his attempts to get the Depart-ment of Justice to back away from prosecuting afriend of Johnson’s who had given him campaigndonations. Johnson was born in Worcester County,Maryland, on 26 June 1909, and attended the pub-lic schools of that area. He later went to theStaunton (Virginia) Military Academy, graduatingin 1926, and to St. John’s College in Annapolis(Maryland), the University of Virginia, and theUniversity of Maryland. After studying law, he wasadmitted to the Maryland bar and opened a prac-tice in the village of Snow Hill. In 1932 Johnsonwas elected the chairman of the Commercial Na-tional Bank of Snow Hill.

In 1934 Johnson began his political careerwhen he was elected the state’s attorney; four yearslater he was elected to a seat in the Maryland statesenate and served until 1951. In 1958, after a pe-riod of years of out politics during which he be-came a leader in international law issues, Johnsonwas elected as a Democrat to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives, entering the Eighty-sixth Congress on 3 January 1959 and eventuallyserving until 3 January 1963. In 1962 he was de-feated by Republican Rogers C. B. Morton, thescion of a wealthy family (his brother later servedas secretary of the interior under Gerald Ford).

In 1963 Johnson was indicted, along with FrankW. Boykin, a former representative from Alabama;J. Kenneth Edlin of Miami, Florida, a savings andloan operator; and William J. Robinson, Edlin’s at-torney, on charges that he and Boykin had leanedon Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1961and 1962 to end the Department of Justice’s inves-tigation of Edlin on mail fraud charges, and that inexchange Edlin and Robinson had paid both con-gressmen $17,550 for their work. Johnson was in-dicted for violating the conflict of interest statute(18 U.S.C. § 281) and for attempting to defraud thegovernment of the United States. At trial in April1963, Prosecutor Joseph D. Tydings (later a UnitedStates senator from Maryland, 1965–1971) toldthe jury that Boykin and Johnson “personally con-

tacted the Department of Justice an average ofonce every three days during five months in 1961in an effort to obtain [a] dismissal of a mail fraudindictment against” Edlin. “The evidence willprove [that] these two Congressmen exerted a ver-itable drumbeat of pressure on the Department ofJustice.”

On 13 June 1963, a federal jury in Baltimoreconvicted Boykin, Johnson, and their two co-defendants—Johnson and Boykin on all eightcounts of conspiracy and conflict of interest.However, on appeal the U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-peals for the Fourth Circuit overturned both John-son’s and Boykin’s convictions, citing the “Speechand Debate Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. Inthis clause, Article I, Section 6, the Constitutionprovides that “for any Speech or Debate in eitherHouse, they shall not be questioned in any otherplace.” Johnson was claiming that his work on be-half of Edlin fell under the aegis of his work as acongressman and was protected by this clause.The United States appealed to the United StatesSupreme Court, and, after arguments were heardon 10 and 15 November 1965, the Court handeddown its decision on 24 February 1966. In a land-mark ruling, the Court held that the clause pro-hibited the government from using Johnson’s ac-tions on behalf of Edlin in trial, but that aconspiracy charge could still be tried in court.Johnson was reindicted on this charge and in1967 was tried again, this time with evidencemerely that he accepted a $17,550 bribe fromEdlin being shown to the jury, and, again, Johnsonwas convicted. On 30 January 1968, Federal JudgeR. Dorsey Watkins sentenced Johnson to sixmonths in prison. His appeals failed, Johnsonserved his time, after which he returned to privatelife and his law practice in Berlin, Maryland.

Johnson died in Seaford, Delaware, on 1 Febru-ary 1988 at the age of seventy-eight.

See also United States v. JohnsonReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1296; “Former LawmakerGets 6-Month Term,” New York Times, 31 January1968, 27; “Intercession is Laid to 2 Ex-Legislators,”New York Times, 11 April 1963, 43; “Two Ex-Congressmen Are Guilty of Conspiracy with TwoOthers,” New York Times, 14 June 1963, 64; “Two FaceU.S. Court in ‘Influence’ Case,” New York Times, 2April 1963, 32.

Johnson, Thomas Francis 195

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of1980, 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (1980)Act of Congress, enacted in 1980, allowing for theinvestigation and prosecution of federal judges forunethical conduct. Under the act, any person—even one having no connection with the judici-ary—may file a complaint in writing alleging ethi-cal misconduct by a judge. The complaint mustallege that the judicial officer has been involved in“conduct prejudicial to the effective and expedi-tious administration of the business of the courts,”or that the judicial officer “is unable to dischargeall duties of [their] office by reason of mental orphysical disability.”

(1) Any person alleging that a circuit, district, orbankruptcy judge, or a magistrate, has engaged inconduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditiousadministration of the business of the courts, or al-leging that such a judge or magistrate is unable todischarge all the duties of office by reason of mentalor physical disability, may file with the clerk of thecourt of appeals for the circuit a written complaintcontaining a brief statement of the facts constitut-ing such conduct. In the interests of the effectiveand expeditious administration of the business ofthe courts and on the basis of information availableto the chief judge of the circuit, the chief judge may,by written order stating reasons therefor, identify acomplaint for purposes of this subsection andthereby dispense with filing of a written complaint.

(2) Upon receipt of a complaint filed underparagraph (1) of this subsection, the clerk shallpromptly transmit such complaint to the chiefjudge of the circuit, or, if the conduct complained ofis that of the chief judge, to that circuit judge in reg-ular active service next senior in date of commis-sion (hereafter, for purposes of this subsection only,included in the term “chief judge”). The clerk shallsimultaneously transmit a copy of the complaint tothe judge or magistrate whose conduct is the sub-ject of the complaint.

(3) After expeditiously reviewing a complaint,the chief judge, by written order stating his reasons,may—

(A) dismiss the complaint, if he finds it to be (i)not in conformity with paragraph (1) of this sub-section, (ii) directly related to the merits of a deci-sion or procedural ruling, or (iii) frivolous; or

(B) conclude the proceeding if he finds that ap-propriate corrective action has been taken or thataction on the complaint is no longer necessary be-cause of intervening events. The chief judge shall

transmit copies of his written order to the com-plainant and to the judge or magistrate whose con-duct is the subject of the complaint.

Many legal scholars dismiss the effectiveness ofthe act, mainly because it allows the chief judge ofthe circuit where the complaint was issued to dis-miss the complaint if he or she finds it “directly re-lated to the merits of a decision or procedural rul-ing, or is frivolous.”

Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125(1935)United States Supreme Court decision upholdingthe Court’s finding in McGrain v. Daugherty thatthe Congress had the right to subpoena certain pa-pers, that refusal to furnish those papers was con-tempt of Congress, and that Congress could jail anonmember for such contempt. William P. Mac-Cracken Jr., along with three other men, was issueda citation on 5 February 1934 to appear before theU.S. Senate “to show cause why they should not bepunished for contempt of the Senate, on account ofthe destruction and removal of certain papers,files, and memorandums from the files of WilliamP. MacCracken, Jr., after a subpoena had beenserved upon William P. MacCracken, Jr., as shownby the report of the Special Senate Committee In-vestigating Ocean and Air Mail Contracts.” ThisSenate committee was ordered by the Senate to in-vestigate all mail contracts entered into by thepostmaster general for the carriage of air mail andocean mail. MacCracken, a D.C. attorney with thefirm of MacCracken and Lee, was ordered by thecourt to provide papers regarding some of theclients he represented who held these contracts.MacCracken maintained that some of the paperswere privileged communications. When Mac-Cracken appeared but held back some documents,he was arrested on 12 February 1934 and held byChesley W. Jurney, the sergeant at arms of the Sen-ate. MacCracken sought a writ of habeas corpus inthe Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; thewrit was issued, and, after the court heard thecase, it dismissed MacCracken’s writ. On appeal,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-bia Circuit reversed the judgment and ordered Jur-ney to release MacCracken. Jurney appealed to theU.S. Supreme Court, which, seeing the importance

196 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

of the matter, granted certiorari and heard argu-ments on 7 and 8 January 1935.

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion,“It is conceded [by MacCracken] that the Senatewas engaged in an inquiry which it had the consti-tutional power to make; that the committee hadauthority to require the production of papers as anecessary incident of the power of legislation; andthat the Senate had the power to coerce their pro-duction by means of arrest.”Justice Louis Brandeiswrote for the Court in a unanimous opinion (Jus-tice James McReynolds did not participate) thatupheld Jurney’s right to detain and arrest Mac-Cracken. Brandeis explained:

The power to punish a private citizen for a pastand completed act was exerted by Congress asearly as 1795; and since then it has been exercisedon several occasions. It was asserted, before theRevolution, by the colonial assemblies, in imita-tion of the British House of Commons; and after-wards by the Continental Congress and by statelegislative bodies. In Anderson v. Dunn, 6Wheat[on] 204, decided in 1821, it was held that

the House had power to punish a private citizenfor an attempt to bribe a member. No case hasbeen found in which an exertion of the power topunish for contempt has been successfully chal-lenged on the ground that, before punishment, theoffending act had been consummated or that theobstruction suffered was irremediable. The state-ments in the opinion in Marshall v. Gordon, supra,upon which MacCracken relies, must be read inthe light of the particular facts. It was there recog-nized that the only jurisdictional test to be appliedby the court is the character of the offense; andthat the continuance of the obstruction, or thelikelihood of its repetition, are considerations forthe discretion of the legislators in meting out thepunishment. . . . Here, we are concerned, not withan extension of congressional privilege, but withvindication of the established and essential privi-lege of requiring the production of evidence. Forthis purpose, the power to punish for a past con-tempt is an appropriate means.

See also McGrain v. DaughertyReferences: Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125, 143–152

(1935).

Jurney v. MacCracken 197

Keating FiveGroup of five U.S. senators implicated by varyingdegrees in trying to assist Charles Keating, thehead of a failing savings and loan (S & L) bank inavoiding federal regulation in exchange for cam-paign donations. Starting in the mid-1980s, whenKeating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan came underthe scrutiny of federal investigators, he gave largecampaign donations to five particular Senators:Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ),John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), andDonald Riegle (D-MI). Later, it was revealed dur-ing one of the most massive congressional investi-gations this century that the five men had receivedmore than $1 million in campaign donations.When Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed due tofraud and mismanagement, and Keating was in-dicted, fingers were pointed at the five senators,who had aided Keating in pressuring federal regu-lators to relax their investigations of Keating andhis institution.

In 1987 Charles H. Keating Jr., a real-estate de-veloper, was in deep financial trouble with his Lin-coln Savings and Loan, and the federal govern-ment seemed ready to take it over. However, overthe years, Keating had given tens of thousands ofdollars to politicians from both parties (Keatingwas a Republican, but saw the usefulness of con-tributing to Democrats as well), and now he usedthe influence these donations bought. He went toSenator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ). Keating asked

DeConcini if the senator could meet with the fed-eral regulators investigating Lincoln and ask themto back off. DeConcini, looking for political cover,invited his fellow Arizonan, Senator John McCain,a Republican, to join him. McCain was a goodfriend of Keating, having known him since 1981when the two men met at a dinner where McCainwas the featured speaker. In 1982, when McCainfirst ran for the U.S. House of Representatives,Keating raised money for him; in 1986, when Mc-Cain ran for the U.S. Senate, Keating once againdonated to his campaign. By 1987, when DeCon-cini asked McCain for his help, Keating had givenMcCain more than $112,000 in donations.

However, McCain was leery of helping Keating.The stories of savings and loans disasters were justhitting the pages of American newspapers, andMcCain had only been in the Senate for less than ayear. He initially refused to join DeConcini inmeeting with the regulators. Keating complainedto DeConcini, who told him that McCain was nerv-ous about how the meeting would look. “McCain’sa wimp,” Keating said. Later that day, Keating metMcCain, who promised he would meet the regula-tors and ask if Keating was being treated fairly. Butthe “wimp” comment had been told to McCain,and he told Keating off, after which the bankerstormed out.

On 2 April 1987, Ed Gray, chairman of the Fed-eral Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) was calledto DeConcini’s Senate office, where he met with

K

199

DeConcini, McCain, and two other senators: AlanCranston (D-CA) and John Glenn (D-OH). Themen asked Gray to ease up on his alleged toughtreatment of Keating and Lincoln Savings. Gray re-fused, but he did offer to set up a meeting betweenthe four senators and the actual investigators. Thiswas done on 9 April. The four initial senators werenow joined by a fifth—Donald Riegle (D-MI). Theinvestigators at the meeting were William Black,the deputy director of the Federal Savings andLoan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC); JamesCirona, the president of the Federal Home LoanBank of San Francisco; and Michael Patriarca, thedirector of agency functions at the FSLIC. The fivesenators told the investigators to either chargeKeating with a crime or back off the inquest.DeConcini and McCain, as the senators from Keat-ing’s home state of Arizona, told the investigatorsthat they were merely assisting a constituent. Evenwhen the senators were told that Keating was in-volved in criminal actions and that an indictmentwas being drawn up by the Department of Justice,they did not back off.

In September 1987, the story emerged aboutthe influence that the five senators used on behalfof Keating. Altogether, the five men had receivedmore than $1.3 million in political donations fromKeating. This was the same time that the full scopeof the savings and loan financial disaster was hit-ting home across the United States: billions uponbillions of dollars had been imprudently spent,and major financial institutions either went underor were on the brink of bankruptcy. The mainfocus of the investigation against the five senatorswas on DeConcini; McCain, as well as the others,claimed that they merely attended the meetingsand had done nothing improper. McCain held tothis story until 8 October 1989. That day, the Ari-zona Republic reported that McCain and his wifehad invested more than $350,000 in a Keating fi-nancial property and that Keating had paid forseveral trips that McCain and his wife had madeon Keating’s personal jet. McCain had initially de-nied any financial ties to Keating, calling the alle-gations lies. Even when faced with evidence of thedeal, he claimed that the arrangement did not in-

200 Keating Five

Senator John Glenn confers with his attorney during a break in the proceedings before the Senate Ethics Committee on 15 November1990. The committee probed the activities of five senators accused of involvement with savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating.(Bettmann/Corbis)

volve him, but a partnership that had been formedbetween McCain’s wife and her wealthy father. TheSenate Ethics Committee, investigating the roles ofthe senators on behalf of Keating, added McCainto their examination.

In November 1990 the committee held hearingsinto the conduct of the five senators. By now theywere being referred to in the press as the “KeatingFive.” The committee had hired Robert Bennett, awell known Washington, D.C., attorney who laterrepresented President Bill Clinton during the scan-dals of Clinton’s administration, as lead counselfor the committee. Glenn’s counsel was CharlesF. C. Ruff, who later served as White House counselduring the Clinton administration and was leadcounsel for the president during Clinton’s im-peachment trial in 1999. In his opening remarks tothe committee, he laid into the conduct ofDeConcini, Glenn, and Cranston, leaning less onRiegle and even less on McCain. “In the case ofSenator McCain, there is very substantial evidencethat he thought he had an understanding withSenator DeConcini’s office that certain matterswould not be gone into at the meeting with Chair-man Gray,” Bennett said. “Moreover, there is sub-stantial evidence that, as a result of Senator Mc-Cain’s refusal to do certain things, he had a falloutwith Mr. Keating.”

In its final report, the Senate Ethics Committeefound that Senators DeConcini, Cranston, andRiegle had interfered with the investigation ofKeating, but that McCain and Glenn had not beenintimately involved. The committee wrote:

[A] Senator . . . should make decisions aboutwhether to intervene with the executive branch orindependent agencies on behalf of an individualwithout regard to whether the individual has con-tributed, or promised to contribute, to the Sena-tor’s campaigns or other causes in which he or shehas a financial, political or personal interest. Sena-tors should make reasonable efforts to ensure thatthey and their staff members, including campaignstaff, conduct themselves in accordance with thisprinciple.

The committee recommended that SenatorCranston be censured by the full Senate for hisconduct, which he was. In 1991 Keating himselfwas convicted of seventeen counts of securitiesfraud, but in 1998 this conviction, as well as a 1993

conviction on racketeering and fraud, were over-turned by a federal appeals court. Keating served atotal of five years in prison.

See also Cranston, Alan MacGregorReferences: Binstein, Michael, Trust Me: Charles Keating

and the Missing Billions (New York: Random House,1993); Toner, Robin,“Battered DeConcini Fights forHis Reputation,” New York Times, 8 January 1990, A10;United States Congress, Senate, Select Committee onEthics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston: Reportof the Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991);United States Congress, Senate, Select Committee onEthics, Preliminary Inquiry into Allegations RegardingSenators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, andRiegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan: Open SessionHearings before the Select Committee on Ethics, UnitedStates Senate, One Hundred First Congress, SecondSession, November 15, 1990, through January 16, 1991(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991).

Kellogg, William Pitt (1830–1918)United States senator from Louisiana (1868–1872,1877–1883), governor of Louisiana (1873–1877),and U.S. representative from Louisiana (1883–1885), impeached as governor but acquitted in1876, as well the subject of a Senate expulsionhearing in 1884 due to charges of corruption. Hewas born in Orwell,Vermont, on 8 December 1830,the son of the Reverend Sherman Kellogg, a Con-gregationalist minister, and Rebecca (née Eaton)Kellogg. He apparently received his primary edu-cation at local schools, before attending NorwichUniversity in Vermont, although he never receiveda degree. In 1848, when he was eighteen, he movedto Peoria, Illinois, where he taught school for sev-eral years, studying the law at night. In 1853 hewas admitted to the Illinois bar and began a prac-tice at Canton, Illinois.

A Republican, Kellogg served as a presidentialelector in Illinois in the 1860 election. On 27March 1861, Kellogg was appointed to the post ofchief justice of the Nebraska Territorial SupremeCourt by President Abraham Lincoln. After just afew months on that court, Kellogg resigned whenthe Civil War began, and he returned home to Illi-nois to volunteer for service in the Illinois Volun-teer Cavalry, although he later resigned because ofill health and never saw any action. Controversyremains as to where Kellogg served from his resig-nation in the military to his showing up in New

Kellogg, William Pitt 201

Orleans as collector of the port of New Orleans.Every written biography of Kellogg says that Abra-ham Lincoln named him to the post in April 1865,despite the fact that Nebraska state historicalsources report that Kellogg served on the territo-rial supreme court for a second term and that hewas “granted a leave of absence by President Lin-coln to join the 7th Illinois Cavalry. [He] served asa colonel in the regiment from 8 September 1861to 1 June 1862. Resigned as territorial chief justicein 1865.” The questions may arise because Kel-logg’s nephew, named William Kellogg, was namedto that same court in 1865 and served until 1867.Lincoln apparently never named the elder Kelloggto the New Orleans position, having been assassi-nated on 15 April 1865. It was his successor, An-drew Johnson, who in fact named Kellogg to thecollector’s position on 15 January 1866. Kelloggwould ultimately serve in this position until 1868.

While in Louisiana, Kellogg became a part ofthe “carpetbag” government of Northerners whocontrolled post–Civil War Southern states. As aRepublican, he had every chance of being pro-moted, as former Democrats were refused theright to vote until the state was readmitted to theUnion after ratifying the Thirteenth and Four-teenth Amendments to the Constitution. In 1868,when this event occurred, Louisiana was eligibleto once again send two United States senators toWashington. The legislature chose Kellogg to fillone of these slots. He ultimately served in the Sen-ate from 9 July 1868 until 5 November 1872. In1872 Kellogg was nominated for governor ofLouisiana by the Republicans, and when he waselected he resigned his Senate seat and returned tohis new home state, having attained that state’shighest elected office. However, controversy aroseover whether Kellogg had been truly elected; aswell, the state was in the midst of another crisis.Outgoing Governor Henry Clay Warmoth had beenimpeached, and, despite the fact that no trial wasbeing held, he demanded to remain as governor; atthe same time, Lieutenant Governor PinckneyBenton Stewart Pinchback, a black man, was ser-ving as acting governor. Because of the serious-ness of the divide between the parties, a riot brokeout in the streets of New Orleans, in which formerConfederates backing John McEnery, the Demo-cratic Reform candidate, threatened Kellogg tosuch a degree that he fled the city. In January 1873

both Kellogg and McEnery announced that eachhad won the election, and both men were sworninto office. In a period of a few days Louisiana hadfour sitting governors. Two distinct legislatures,each backing the other “governor,” held sessions.Finally, in 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant orderedmilitary forces in New Orleans to take control ofthe state government and deliver it to Kellogg.

In 1874 Democrats, using scare tactics (and theKu Klux Klan) and the divisions in the RepublicanParty to their own benefit, were able to cobble to-gether enough votes to take control of the state leg-islature. These tactics reached a climax on 14 Sep-tember 1874, when white Democrats, callingthemselves the White League, tried to once againremove Kellogg from power. They marched onNew Orleans, where an overwhelmed police forcecould not contain them. Called the Battle of Lib-erty Place, the ensuing riot led to Kellogg fleeing tothe confines of the New Orleans Custom House forprotection until the siege could be lifted by federaltroops. The election just a few weeks later resultedin a rout by the Democrats. Kellogg refused toallow these Democrats to take power, however. Itremained for Representative William AlmonWheeler of New York (later to be elected vice presi-dent in the controversial election of 1876) to cometo Louisiana to settle the matter. Wheeler, a mem-ber of the House Committee on Southern Affairs,came with several other members of the commit-tee to hear evidence from both sides. It wasWheeler who manufactured a compromise, allow-ing Kellogg to remain as governor and for thecommittee to examine each legislative seat as towho won. In March 1875 Wheeler’s compromisewas enacted by the entire U.S. House of Represen-tatives. One of its effects, which came just twoyears later, was effectively to end Reconstructionin Louisiana and finally all of the Southern states.

The years of division, coupled with the eco-nomic panic of 1873, which crippled the nation asa whole, had destroyed Kellogg’s chances of gov-erning effectively. In February 1876, as he pre-pared to step aside to make way for his successorto be elected later in the year, Kellogg was im-peached by the Democrat-ruled state house. Fewbiographies of Kellogg mention this fact, but he re-mains one of four Louisiana governors to be im-peached, making Louisiana the state with moresuch impeachments than any other. Kellogg’s im-

202 Kellogg, William Pitt

peachment is so obscure that no records on itexist, and the few historians who do mention it donot specify what crimes were alleged or articlesdrafted and approved. What is known is that theRepublican-controlled state senate never took upthe impeachment, and it died a quick death. Kel-logg served as governor until the end of his termon 8 January 1877. He left office and headed im-mediately to Washington, after being elected bythe legislature to a seat in the U.S. Senate. Kelloggserved a single term there, until 1883. He served aschairman of the Committee on Railroads in theForty-eighth Congress. Remarkably, in November1882 he was elected to a seat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and when his Senate term endedhe moved to the opposite end of Capitol Hill. Theyear after taking office in the House, Kellogg wasaccused of political corruption and was the sub-ject of an expulsion inquiry, but was allowed toserve for the remainder of the two-year term. Heleft office on 3 March 1885, never to hold electiveoffice again. He served as a delegate to the Repub-lican National Convention in 1884, 1888, 1892, and1896. Moving to Washington, D.C., from Louisiana,in 1896, he spent his final years there. Kellogg diedin Washington on 19 August 1918 at the age ofeighty-seven. Because of his military service, hewas laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery inFort Myer,Virginia.

References: Angle, Paul M.,“The Recollections ofWilliam Pitt Kellogg,” The Abraham Lincoln Quarterly,3 (September 1945), 319–339; “Kellogg, William Pitt,”in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds., BiographicalDirectory of the Governors of the United States,1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Meckler Books,1978), II:573.

Kelly, Richard.See ABSCAM

Kerner, Otto, Jr. (1908–1976)Jurist and governor of Illinois (1961–1968), in-dicted and convicted of bribery, conspiracy, andmail fraud, who served the last years of his life inprison. Kerner led an exemplary life until greedgot the better of him. Born on 15 August 1908,Kerner attended local schools before he graduatedfirst from Brown University and then Northwest-ern Law School. He then married the daughter of

Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who had beenkilled in an assassination attempt on the life ofPresident-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt in early1933. Kerner went into private law practice, laterserving in the Illinois National Guard and the U.S.Army during World War II. He rose to the rank ofmajor general before leaving the army in 1947.

In 1947 Kerner, a Democrat, was named byPresident Harry S Truman to be U.S. attorney forthe Northern District of Illinois. In 1954 he waselected a county judge for Cook County (Chicago),where he served until 1961. In 1960 the Democratsof Illinois nominated Kerner as their candidate forgovernor. Running against incumbent William G.Stratton, a Republican, Kerner defeated Strattonby more than half a million votes out of some 4.5million cast. Kerner was reelected in 1964, defeat-ing Republican Charles Percy. Historians RobertSobel and John Raimo explain, “While in officeKerner supported an increase and widening ofsales tax coverage and an increase in corporatetaxes. He supported the passage of a fair employ-ment practices law, consumer credit law, and anew criminal code.”

Kerner, Otto, Jr. 203

Otto J. Kerner, jurist and governor of Illinois (1961–1968), ledan exemplary life until greed got the better of him and he wasindicted and convicted of bribery, conspiracy, and mail fraud.(Courtesy of Mark Grossman)

Kerner was seen as a moderating influence inracial problems in America. Ethnic tensions hadbeen rising in the nation for many years, but by themid-1960s they were on the verge of tearing thecountry apart. The middle of the decade wasmarked by riots in black areas in Los Angeles,Newark, and Detroit, among other cities. In August1967 President Lyndon B. Johnson established acommission to investigate the causes of these riotsand explore the area of black-white relations inAmerica. He named Kerner as the commissionchairman, and it became known as the KernerCommission. In March 1968 the commission re-leased its report, a massive 426-page tome thatblamed tense race relations on poverty and in-equality. On 22 May 1968, Kerner resigned the gov-ernorship when Johnson named him to a seat onthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,seated in Chicago.

On 15 December 1971, Kerner took a leave ofabsence from the bench after he was indicted by afederal grand jury on charges of bribery, conspir-acy, mail fraud, and income tax evasion. HistorianGeorge Kohn wrote, “The prosecution contended,and the jury concurred, that Kerner and TheodoreJ. Isaacs, the state revenue director of Illinois dur-ing Kerner’s governorship, had agreed to a lucra-tive stock offer that netted them more than$400,000 for an investment of $70,000. Theybought the stock at a bargain rate in exchange forsuch favors as helping the racetrack owner to ob-tain a longer season and giving him permission toexpand into harness racing. The two former stateofficials had declared their profits from the sale ofthe stock as long-term capital gains, when in factthe money should have been taxed as normal rev-enue.” He was tried and convicted on 19 February1973 and, on 22 July 1974, after his appeals wereexhausted, resigned his seat on the Circuit Courtand went to prison. (His resignation came only be-cause of moves in the U.S. House of Representa-tives to impeach and remove him from office.)With his conviction, Kerner thus became the firstsitting federal judge to be found guilty of an im-prisonable offense. Sentenced to three years inprison, Kerner soon discovered in jail that he wasdying of cancer and was released after only sevenmonths. He died at home on 9 May 1976 at the ageof sixty-seven; because of his war service, he wasburied in Arlington National Cemetery.

References: Barnhart, Bill, and Gene Schickman, Kerner:The Conflict of Intangible Rights (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1999); “Kerner, Otto,” in Robert Sobeland John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), II:389–390;Messick, Hank, The Politics of Prosecution: JimThompson, Marje Everett, Richard Nixon and the Trialof Otto Kerner (Ottawa, IL: Caroline House Books,1978); “Otto Kerner: Convicted Judge,” in George C.Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File,1989), 187–188.

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168(1881)United States Supreme Court decision that Con-gress could not hold in contempt those who werenot members of Congress, and thus could not im-prison such persons. A U.S. House of Representa-tives committee held a hearing on a real estatepool in which the government held debts, but Hal-let Kilbourn, who received a subpoena to testify,refused to appear. Kilbourn was then found incontempt of Congress. Speaker of the HouseMichael C. Kerr of Indiana ordered John G.Thompson, the sergeant at arms for the House ofRepresentatives, on 4 March 1876 to arrest Kil-bourn and place him in prison for thirty-five daysfor contempt of Congress. Thompson arrested Kil-bourn and took him to the Washington, D.C.,courthouse, where Kilbourn pled guilty to con-tempt and served thirty-five days in prison. There-after, he sued Thompson and Kerr for false arrest.Kerr died on 19 August 1876 and was thus re-moved from the lawsuit. The Supreme Court forthe District of Columbia ruled against Kilbourn,holding that Congress had a right to hold personswho refused to testify before it in contempt. Kil-bourn appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In amemorial to Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerrin 1876, Representative William Phillips of Kansassaid, “During the heated discussion had on thisfloor last session over the question of the surren-der of Hallet Kilbourn to the District Court, I metSpeaker Kerr near the door to the left of his chairand said to him, ‘What do you think of the policyof sending Kilbourn to the court and leaving theresponsibility of the judgment of the court withthe [R]epublican party?’ With nervous emphasishe instantly replied, ‘It will not do at all. This mat-

204 Kilbourn v. Thompson

ter involves one of the important constitutionalprerogatives of this House. To yield it would be toplace ourselves in the just contempt of the countryand to confess our imbecility.’”

On 24 January 1881, the Supreme Courthanded down its decision. Justice Samuel FreemanMiller spoke for the Court (there was no dissent-ing opinion, but no evidence that the opinion wasunanimous) in holding that Congress’s contemptpower was limited to its own members, and thusholding Kilbourn in contempt was an illegal act, aswas his jailing. Miller penned:

The powers of Congress itself, when acting throughthe concurrence of both branches, are dependentsolely on the Constitution. Such as are not conferredby that instrument, either expressly or by fair impli-cation from what is granted, are “reserved to theStates respectively, or to the people.” Of course, nei-ther branch of Congress, when acting separately,can lawfully exercise more power than is conferredby the Constitution on the whole body, except in thefew instances where authority is conferred on eitherHouse separately, as in the case of impeachments.No general power of inflicting punishment by theCongress of the United States is found in that in-strument. It contains in the provision that no “per-son shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law,” the strongest implica-tion against punishment by order of the legislativebody. It has been repeatedly decided by this court,and by others of the highest authority, that thismeans a trial in which the rights of the party shallbe decided by a tribunal appointed by law, whichtribunal is to be governed by rules of law previouslyestablished. An act of Congress that proposed to ad-judge a man guilty of a crime and inflict the pun-ishment, would be conceded by all thinking men tobe unauthorized by anything in the Constitution.That instrument, however, is not wholly silent as tothe authority of the separate branches of Congressto inflict punishment. It authorizes each House topunish its own members. By the second clause ofthe fifth section of the first article,“Each House maydetermine the rules of its proceedings, punish itsmembers for disorderly behavior, and, with the con-currence of two-thirds, expel a member,” and by theclause immediately preceding, it “may be author-ized to compel the attendance of absent members,in such manner and under such penalties as eachHouse may provide.” These provisions are equallyinstructive in what they authorize and in what theydo not authorize. There is no express power in that

instrument conferred on either House of Congressto punish for contempts.

This landmark decision held until the Court re-versed itself in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135(1927).

See also McGrain v. DaughertyReferences: Guenther, Nancy Anderman, United States

Supreme Court Decisions: An Index to Excerpts,Reprints, and Discussions (Metuchen, NJ: TheScarecrow Press, 1983), 98; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103U.S. 168 (1881); Phillips, Rep. William (remarks by)in Memorial Address of the Life and Character ofMichael Crawford Kerr (Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States,) Delivered in theHouse of Representatives December 16, 1876, and inthe Senate February 27, 1877. Published by Order ofCongress (Washington: Government Printing Office,1877), 61.

Kim, Jay C. (1939– )United States Representative from California(1993–1999) who pled guilty in 1997 to raisingmore than $230,000 in illegal campaign contribu-tions. Kim was born in Seoul, South Korea, on 27March 1939, but soon immigrated with his familyto the United States. He earned his bachelor of sci-ence and master of science degrees from the Uni-versity of Southern California in 1967 and 1973,respectively, and was awarded a second master ofscience degree from California State University inLos Angeles in 1980. With a civil engineering de-gree, Kim owned his own engineering firm, calledJAYKIM Engineers, and became a successful Cali-fornia businessman. His firm later became one ofthe top 500 engineering design firms in the UnitedStates.

In 1990 Kim ran for a seat on the Diamond Bar,California, city council. Popular with the people, ayear later he ran for mayor of that town and waselected. Kim served only one year in this position.In 1992 he ran as a Republican for a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives and, with his elec-tion, became the first Korean-born member ofthat body. Conservative in his positions, he be-came an outspoken member of the Republicanminority.

Starting in 1993, during his first term in office,Kim came under a cloud of suspicion, when FBIand Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigationsshowed that he had illegally used some $400,000

Kim, Jay C. 205

of his corporation’s money in his campaign for theU.S. House. Then, to make matters worse, Kimdipped into his campaign finance chest to extract$51,755 on legal advice in 1993 and 1994 and in1995, an additional $46,460. Several Korean compa-nies pled guilty to charges that they contributed ille-gally to Kim’s 1992 congressional campaign, andKim’s campaign treasurer, Seokuk Ma, was con-victed of soliciting and receiving illegal contribu-tions.Finally, in 1997,after years of refusing to admitto criminal activity, Kim and his wife, June, pledguilty to five counts of breaking campaign financelaws, admitting to accepting more than $230,000 inillegal campaign contributions. Despite the fact thatfederal prosecutors demanded that Kim be sent toprison for crimes that they called “substantial, pro-longed, deceptive, and serious,” Kim was sentencedto only two months’ home detention, 200 hours ofcommunity service, and a $5,000 fine. In 1998 heran for his old congressional seat, but did not receivethe Republican nomination.

Jay Kim is noted because he admitted to receiv-ing the greatest amount of illegal campaign contri-butions in American history.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1333; Eilperin, Juliet,“Days inthe Life of Jay Kim in the U.S. House of Correction,”Washington Post, 22 May 1998, A23; U.S. Congress,Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs,Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities inConnection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns—Final Report of the Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, 6 vols. Report 105–167, 105th Congress, 2ndSession, 10 March 1998 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1998), 6:5683–5690.

King, Cecil Rhodes (1898–1974)United States representative from California(1942–1969), head of the House committee inves-tigation that uncovered the tax fraud scheme thatimplicated Truman aide T. Lamar Caudle, as wellas a well-known influence peddler named HenryGrunewald. King was born in Fort Niagara, NewYork, on 13 January 1898. In 1908, when he wasten, he moved with his parents to Los Angeles, Cal-ifornia, where he attended the public schools. Dur-ing World War I, he served as a private in theUnited States Army, although his level of service,and whether he served overseas, is not known.

After he completed his military duty in 1919, hewent into private business, working in the publicsector until 1942. From 1932 to 1942, he served asa member of the California assembly.

A Democrat, in 1942 King was elected to theU.S. House of Representatives, when a special elec-tion was held to fill the vacancy caused by thedeath of Representative Lee E. Geyer. King was un-opposed in his election, which represented theSeventeenth California District. He would serve forfourteen terms, until he refused to run for reelec-tion in 1968.

King was the chairman of the House Ways andMeans Subcommittee that had jurisdiction over in-ternal revenue and tax laws. When rumors of mis-conduct in the Truman administration began tospread in 1950, Senator John J. Williams (R-DE)began an investigation in the Senate. In the House,King’s subcommittee launched a similar investiga-tion. The subcommittee called as a witness Abra-ham Teitelbaum, a Chicago real estate lawyer, whodescribed a scheme in which Bureau of InternalRevenue (BIR, the forerunner of the Internal Rev-enue Service) agents from Chicago tried to extort$500,000 from Teitelbaum if they dropped his caseof income tax evasion. Teitelbaum named Charles A.Oliphant, chief counsel of the BIR; George Schoene-man, former BIR commissioner; Henry W.Grunewald, a Washington, D.C., influence peddlerknown as “The Dutchman”; and T. Lamar Caudle,head of the Tax Division of the U.S. Department ofJustice, as being involved in the scheme. Oliphant,Schoeneman, and Caudle were well known in Wash-ington, but Grunewald was a mysterious figure.South African by birth, he had come to the UnitedStates in 1906 and had served for a short time as aprohibition agent before being indicted (and lateracquitted) on charges of issuing fraudulent customspermits and removing illegal liquor from govern-ment warehouses. Oliphant testified before the Kingsubcommittee that he had accepted loans fromGrunewald, who had assisted the BIR with tax cases,but denied the Teitelbaum allegations. Grunewaldrefused to testify, and he was cited for contempt ofCongress by a 332–0 vote in January 1952. He latertestified before another House subcommittee,headed by Representative Robert W. Kean (R-NJ),when the Republicans took control of Congress.

The King subcommittee spent all of 1951 and1952 examining the fraud and chaos in the Bureau

206 King, Cecil Rhodes

of Internal Revenue. King’s investigators foundthat James P. Finnegan, close friend of PresidentTruman and Secretary of the Treasury John W.Snyder, had sent the names of tax evaders to an in-surance company that then investigated and splitthe profits from the tax collections with Finnegan.Pressure from Truman brought his resignation on14 April 1951. A year later he was indicted, con-victed on two counts of bribery, and sent toprison. President Lyndon Johnson pardoned himshortly before his death in 1967.

In its final report to Congress, the King sub-committee reported on the tax scandal:

Two of the nine Collectors separated from servicehad extorted large sums from delinquent taxpayers.Several evaded personal income taxes while in officeand at least one Collector used his authority to pre-vent [the] audit of his returns. The total confusionwhich reigned in the office of the two Collectorsdemonstrated their incompetence as administra-tors. . . . Field investigations by this subcommitteedisclosed that in a number of these offices condi-tions had been allowed to deteriorate as long as 16years, because Bureau officials were unwilling to de-fend the politically appointed Collectors.

The BIR tax scandal inquiry led to the resigna-tion of several Truman aides (including AttorneyGeneral James P. McGranery) and the jailing ofsome of these men. King was widely praised forthe judicial manner in which he conducted thehearings.

King left office on 3 January 1969, having notrun for reelection in 1968. He resided in Ingle-wood, California, until his death on 17 March 1974at the age of seventy-six.

See also Income Tax Scandal, Department of JusticeReferences: “Bureau of Internal Revenue,” in Jeffrey D.

Schultz, Presidential Scandals (Washington, DC: CQPress, 2000), 326–328; Dunar, Andrew J., The TrumanScandals and the Politics of Morality (Columbia:University of Missouri Press, 1984), 96–134; “HenryGrunewald: Notorious Influence Peddler,” in George C.Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File,1989), 135–137.

King, William Smith (1828–1900)United States representative from Minnesota(1875–1877), nearly expelled from the House for

corruption. Born in Malone, New York, on 16 De-cember 1828, King attended the common schoolsof the area, later becoming engaged in agriculturalpursuits. In 1846 he removed to Otsego County,New York, where he went to work as a solicitor(lawyer) for several mutual insurance companies.Six years later he became the editor of the FreeDemocrat in Cooperstown, New York, and re-mained in this position for several years. However,by 1858 he had apparently tired of his native stateand headed west, settling in Minneapolis, Min-nesota, where he was engaged in agricultural pur-suits and journalism. He served as a postmaster ofthe state house of representatives from 1861 to1865, and again from 1867 to 1873, later serving asthe surveyor general of logs and lumber in the Sec-ond Congressional District of Minnesota in 1874.

In 1874 King was nominated by the Republi-cans for a seat in the U.S. House of Representativesand defeated a Democrat (identified only as “Wil-son”) by 3,000 votes out of some 33,000 cast. Kingtook his seat in the Forty-fourth Congress, whichopened on 4 March 1875. Almost from the start ofhis congressional term, King was tagged with alle-gations of political corruption. Unfortunately,there is no record as to what corruption wascharged to King—only that he faced expulsion.

The House Judiciary Committee, reportingback to the full House on the potential expulsionsof King and Democrat John G. Schumaker, bothhandled at the same time, explained:

Your committee are of the opinion that the House ofRepresentatives has no authority to take jurisdic-tion of violations of law or offenses committedagainst a previous Congress. This is purely a legisla-tive body, and entirely unsuited for the trial ofcrimes. The fifth section of the first article of theConstitution authorizes “each house to determinethe rules of its proceedings, punish its members fordisorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence oftwo-thirds, expel a member.” This power is evi-dently given to enable each house to exercise itsconstitutional function of legislation unobstructed.It cannot vest in Congress a jurisdiction to try amember for an offense committed before his elec-tion; for such offense a member, like any other citi-zen, is amenable to the courts alone.

King did not run for reelection, instead allowinghis seat to be filled by someone else. He returned to

King, William Smith 207

Minnesota, where he ran a cattle-raising operation.He died in Minneapolis on 24 February 1900 at theage of seventy-one, and was buried in LakewoodCemetery in that city.

See also Schumaker, John GodfreyReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1338; Report on King andSchumaker in House Report No. 815, 44th Congress,1st Session, 2 (1876).

Kolter, Joseph PaulSee House of Representatives Post Office Scandal

KoreagateScandal, 1977–1978, involving allegations thatagents of the government of South Korea bribedmembers of Congress to exert influence over deci-sions in Congress reflecting on South Korean pol-icy. Although it was alleged that more than 100congressmen accepted bribes from South Koreanagents, only one, Representative Richard Hanna(D-CA), pled guilty and served time in prison. Lit-tle is known of the roots of the scandal, except thatat the same time that Democrats were denouncingRepublicans in the 1974 midterm elections overtheir ties to Watergate, many high-ranking Demo-crats were deeply involved in taking money fromKorean businessmen and representatives of theSouth Korean government.

In 1970 President Richard Nixon proposed thatmany of the 20,000-plus American troops sta-tioned in South Korea since the end of the KoreanWar in 1953 be removed. South Korean PresidentPark Chung Hee, who had taken power in a coup in1961 (and who would be assassinated in 1979),opposed the Nixon program and decided to cir-cumvent the administration and influence con-gressional policy. Utilizing the powers and influ-ence of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency(KCIA), Park decided to lobby influential mem-bers of Congress, notably Democrats (who were incontrol of both houses of Congress), with free

trips, campaign contributions, and other gratu-ities. Park put one man, Park Tong Sun (no rela-tion) in charge of the operation.

Allegations that Park (under the name of Tong-sun Park) had paid senators and representativessome $1 million led the Department of Justice toopen an investigation in 1976. Soon it became ap-parent that a cover-up was being perpetrated. TheHouse Ethics Committee, handling the House in-vestigation, hired attorney Philip A. Lacovara, aformer member of the Watergate prosecutionteam, as the committee’s special counsel. However,after only a short time on the job, Lacovara re-signed and accused Ethics Committee chairmanJohn J. Flynt (D-GA) of obstructing his investiga-tion. Leon Jaworski, the former Watergate prosecu-tor, offered to work for the committee for free.

Tongsun Park had fled the United States, andthe South Korean government offered to send himback to the United States only if he received im-munity from prosecution. This was refused, andPark never testified.

In the end, only two members of Congress wereever charged with crimes stemming from the Ko-reagate scandal: Representative Richard T. Hanna(D-CA) and Representative Otto E. Passman (D-LA). Passman was not prosecuted due to ill health,and Hanna pled guilty and served a year in prison.The House Ethics Committee recommended thatthree other congressman—Edward Roybal,Charles H. Wilson, and John J. McFall, all Demo-crats from California—be reprimanded by theHouse, although Roybal’s punishment was to becensure. None of these three men were evercharged with a crime.

In 1979 the Carter Justice Department droppedall charges against Tongsun Park and closed theKoreagate investigation.

See also Hanna, Richard ThomasReferences: Boettcher, Robert B., Gifts of Deceit: Sun

Myung Moon, Tongsun Park, and the Korean Scandal(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980);“Koreagate,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 190–191.

208 Kolter, Joseph Paul

Lance, Thomas Bertram “Bert” (1931– )American banker, director of the Office of Manage-ment and Budget (1977), forced to resign over alle-gations regarding his management of a bank inGeorgia. A close friend of James Earl “Jimmy”Carter, who became governor of Georgia and thenpresident of the United States, Lance was born inYoung Harris (some sources note Gainesville),Georgia, on 3 June 1931, the youngest of four chil-dren of Thomas Jackson Lance and Annie Rose(née Erwin) Lance. One of Bert Lance’s olderbrothers, Robert, was killed during World War II.Bert Lance attended local schools in Calhoun,Georgia, before he went to Emory University in At-lanta for two years and then the University of Geor-gia, dropping out before he could earn a degree.Despite going to several other colleges and study-ing for a degree in banking, Lance never formallyearned a secondary educational degree. Althoughhe did not graduate, Lance did begin working in abank as a clerk in Calhoun. In 1958, with a group ofinvestors, Lance purchased control of the bank, theCalhoun First National Bank and was named itsvice president. In 1959 he was advanced to execu-tive vice president and in 1963 was named presi-dent and chief executive officer (CEO). The part-nership purchased other local banks and increasedtheir assets. Lance also helped to build local busi-nesses through investments.

In 1966 Lance met a man who would changehis life: James Earl Carter, a local peanut farmer.

The two men met at a regional planning confer-ence, where Carter was shopping around hisideas as he prepared to run for governor of Geor-gia. Seeing a potential political opportunity,Lance pushed for business support for Carter.But Carter lost the Democratic primary in Sep-tember 1966. Four years later, when Carter ranagain, Lance was there to support him a secondtime. This time Carter won the Democratic Partynomination and was elected the eightieth gover-nor of Georgia. After Carter took office in Janu-ary 1971, he named Lance director of the Geor-gia State Highway Department. Long considereda wasteful agency, the department was turnedaround by Lance into an efficient governmentbureau by a series of reforms and expanding ser-vices. Because of his work, Carter asked Lance toreorganize all of Georgia state government.Lance worked hard in the few months he was onthis job to succeed.

In 1974, as Carter neared the end of his term(he was disallowed by the Georgia state constitu-tion to run for a second term), he threw his sup-port behind Lance’s candidacy for the gubernato-rial nomination. Lance spent more than $200,000of his personal funds for the campaign and at thesame time funded it with $300,000 in unsecuredloans from banks, all of which skirted campaignfinance laws. And while Lance was never accusedof criminal activity, the revelation that he wasworth more than $3 million shattered his image as

L

209

a “country boy.” Lance was defeated in the Demo-cratic primary by former governor Lester Maddox.

Lance returned to banking after his defeat,again joining in a group of investors to purchasethe National Bank of Georgia in Atlanta for $7.4million, and in 1975 was elected the bank’s presi-dent.As before, Lance’s leadership helped the bankto increase its assets and become more successfulthan before.

In 1976 former Governor Carter ran for thepresidency of the United States and was elected,the first Southerner elected to that position sincethe end of the Civil War. During the contentiouscampaign, Lance served as one of Carter’s closestadvisors. Following Carter’s election, Lance, alongwith other economic advisors, went to Carter’shome in Plains, Georgia, to discuss the Americaneconomy. It was there, on 3 December 1976, thatCarter announced his selection of Bert Lance asdirector of the Office of Management and Budget(OMB), the leading executive branch office thatformulates budget and economic policy for the na-tion. However, with the announcement came alle-gations that Lance had “bought” the OMB positionbecause he had allowed his bank to give the Carterpeanut business loans and credits totaling some$4.9 million. During his confirmation hearings,Lance argued that he had given the loans andcredits because he felt that the Carter peanut busi-ness was a good business risk. Lance was con-firmed by the Senate with only one dissenting voteon 20 January 1977. He took office three days lateras the twenty-third director of the OMB.

Lance served as OMB director until August1977, when additional allegations arose that ashead of several banks in Georgia he had engagedin unethical business practices. Responding to theallegations, John Heimann, the comptroller of thecurrency, an office in the Department of the Trea-sury, opened an investigation. Heimann discov-ered that Lance had received several questionableloans, including one for $2.6 million from theManufacturers Hanover Trust Bank in New York,which was done after the bank created a businessrelationship with Lance’s National Bank of Geor-gia. However, despite this finding of possible vio-lations of banking law, the investigation wasclosed. Outrage from the press and Republicansled to Senate investigators looking into Lance’sbusiness dealings. These investigators discovered

that Lance, when reporting his income and otherrelated matters to the Senate Banking Committeeprior to his confirmation hearings, had shieldedsome assets. Heimann’s investigation was criti-cized and was reopened, along with the SenateBanking Committee inquiry. These explorationsdiscovered that Lance and his wife had borrowedupwards of $3.5 million from Lance’s banks over athirteen-year period and had not paid it back.Robert Bloom, a former comptroller of the cur-rency, admitted to the Senate Banking Committeethat he had not informed the panel of Lance’smisuse of funds when he supported Lance duringthe latter’s confirmation hearings. On 16 Septem-ber 1977, clearly under fire, Lance appeared be-fore the Senate committee to explain his position.(His two lawyers for the hearing were former Sec-retary of Defense Clark Clifford, and Clifford’sgood friend Robert Altman—both of whom,along with Lance, would later be caught up in theBCCI banking scandal in the 1990s.) Lanceclaimed that charges of misuse of funds were in-correct and that he had always been ethical in hisbusiness dealings with his banks. Despite his de-nials, the so-called Lancegate scandal continuedto dominate the headlines during the month ofSeptember, and it slowly began to become a dragon the Carter administration. On 21 September1977, after several months of intensive investiga-tion, Lance formally sent a letter of resignation toPresident Carter, claiming that the controversyover his business dealings, and not the actualdealings themselves, were the reasons behind hisdeparture. Carter replaced him with Acting Direc-tor James T. McIntyre, who became director at theend of 1977.

Lance’s departure from government did notend the investigations against him. In 1978 the Se-curities and Exchange Commission (SEC), after alengthy inquiry, filed fraud charges against Lance,after which he agreed not to continue any bankingpractices that were unethical. A federal grand juryin Atlanta, Georgia, indicted Lance and three of hisbusiness associates in May 1979. But after a trialthat lasted four months, Lance and was acquittedof some charges, while the jury was hung on theremainder. Lance was never retried on these. InSeptember 1982 Lance was elected chairman ofthe Georgia Democratic Party, a post he held untilJuly 1985.

210 Lance, Thomas Bertram “Bert”

References: “Bert Lance: Controversial Banker,” in GeorgeC. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal: FromABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File,1989), 196–197; Harris, Art, and John F. Berry,“ArabInvestors Want Lance to Manage Funds,” WashingtonPost, 16 December 1977, A1; “Lance, (Thomas)Bert(ram),” in Charles Moritz, ed., Current Biography1977 (New York: H. W. Wilson and Co., 1977),262–264; Lance, Bert, The Truth of the Matter: My LifeIn and Out of Politics (New York: Summit Books,1991); United States Congress, Senate, Committee onGovernmental Affairs, Matters Relating to T. BertramLance: Hearings Before the Committee onGovernmental Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session, Relating to T. BertramLance, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1977); United States Congress, Senate,Committee on Governmental Affairs, Nominations ofThomas B. Lance and James T. McIntyre, Jr.: HearingsBefore the Committee on Governmental Affairs, UnitedStates Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session, onNomination of Thomas B. Lance to be Director of theOffice of Management and Budget, January 17 and 18,1977, and Nomination of James T. McIntyre, Jr., to beDeputy Director of the Office of Management andBudget, March 4, 1977 (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1977).

Langer, William (1886–1959)Governor of North Dakota (1933–1934, 1937–1939) who was removed from office in 1934 for al-leged racketeering, although he was acquittedafter three trials. Born on his family’s farm inEverest Township, near Casselton, Dakota Terri-tory (now North Dakota), on 20 September 1886,he was the son of Frank Langer, a farmer, andMary Langer. Langer attended the rural schools ofthe area, then studied law at the University ofNorth Dakota at Grand Forks and received his lawdegree in 1906. He then headed east to attend Co-lumbia University in New York City, from which heearned his bachelor of arts degree in 1910. Re-turning to North Dakota, he was admitted to thebar in 1911 and he began a private practice in thetown of Mandan.

In 1914 Langer entered the political field andserved as state’s attorney for Morton County,North Dakota. He earned the enmity of corpora-tions when he swore out warrants for local liquordealers and sued the Northern Pacific Railroad formore than $1.2 million in taxes owed to the state.After two years he returned to private law practice.In 1916 he moved to Bismarck and opened a law

practice there. That same year, he was elected at-torney general of North Dakota on the Nonparti-san League ticket, serving until 1920. DuringWorld War I, he served as the legal advisor for theCouncil of Defense, a local defense organizationformed during the war. After two terms as state at-torney general, in 1920 Langer gave up his posi-tion to run for governor, but he was unsuccessful.After this loss, he left politics and returned to hislaw practice.

In 1932 Langer once again ran for governorand, with the backing of the Nonpartisan League,a group of independents, he was able to win theRepublican gubernatorial nomination and defeatDemocrat Herbert Dupuy by 24,000 votes out ofsome 245,000 cast. Facing a rising tide of eco-nomic misery from the deepening Great Depres-sion, Langer tried to help the state’s largest eco-nomic sector, farming, by placing moratoriums onthe foreclosures of farms deep in debt and embar-goes on the sale of wheat to keep the price artifi-cially high.

In 1934 Langer was accused of soliciting fundsfrom state and federal employees for campaignand personal use.After a trial, he was found guilty,sentenced to eighteen months in prison, and fined$18,000. The state supreme court stepped in and,in a rare and highly unusual move, removedLanger from the governorship. His conviction re-versed on appeal, Langer was able to clear hisname after three trials, and in 1936 he once againran for governor, this time as an Independent.Amazingly, after being removed from office for al-leged ethical violations, Langer was elected overthe incumbent, Walter Welford, and DemocratJohn Moses. Again, as governor, Langer sought todefend farmers from economic pressures. In 1938Langer ran as an Independent for the U.S. Senate,but lost to Gerald Nye. Two years later, having leftthe governorship, he ran again for the U.S. Senate,and, winning the Republican nomination, defeatedIndependent William Lemke and DemocratCharles Vogel. Democrats tried to block him fromtaking his seat, but after three weeks of debate theSenate voted fifty-two to thirty to allow him to beseated. He was reelected in 1946, 1952, and 1958,ultimately serving from 3 January 1941 until hisdeath. During his service in the Senate, he servedas the chairman of the Committee on the Post Of-fice and Civil Service (Eightieth Congress) and as

Langer, William 211

the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary(Eighty-third Congress).

While still serving in the Senate, Langer died ofa heart ailment in Washington, D.C., on 8 Novem-ber 1959 at the age of seventy-three. He was buriedin St. Leo’s Catholic Cemetery in Casselton, NorthDakota. He was the author of The NonpartisanLeague: Its Birth, Activities and Leaders (Mandan,ND: Morton County Farmers’ Press, 1920).

References: Anhalt, Walter C., and Glenn H. Smith,“HeSaved the Farm? Governor Langer and the MortgageMoratoria,” North Dakota Quarterly, 44 (Autumn1976): 5–17; Barber, Charles M.,“A Diamond in theRough: William Langer Reexamined,” North DakotaHistory, 64 (Fall 1998), 2–18; Geelan, Agnes, TheDakota Maverick: The Political Life of William Langer,also Known as ‘Wild Bill’ Langer (Fargo, ND: PrivatelyPublished, 1975); Hearings on A Protest to the Seatingof William Langer, before the Senate Committee onPrivileges and Elections, November 3, 18, 1941, 77thCongress, 1st Session (1941), 820; Hjalmervik, GaryL.,“William Langer’s First Administration,1932–1934” (Master’s thesis, University of NorthDakota, 1966); Holzworth, John M., The FightingGovernor: The Story of William Langer and the State ofNorth Dakota (Chicago: Pointer Press, 1938); Horne,Robert M.,“The Controversy over the Seating ofWilliam Langer, 1940–1942” (Master’s thesis,University of North Dakota, 1964); Johnson, GordonW.,“William Langer’s Resurgence to Political Power in1932” (Master’s thesis, University of North Dakota,1970); “Langer, William,” in Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors ofthe United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:1181; Larsen, Lawrence H.,“William Langer: A Maverick in the Senate,”Wisconsin Magazine of History, 44 (Spring 1961),189–198; Smith, Glenn H., Langer of North Dakota: AStudy in Isolationism, 1940–1959 (New York: GarlandPublishing, 1979).

Leche, Richard Webster (1898–1965)Governor of Louisiana (1936–1939) convicted in1940 of using the mails to defraud the state gov-ernment, becoming the first of two governors inLouisiana history to go to prison (Edwin Edwardsis the second). Leche was born in New Orleans,Louisiana, on 17 May 1898, the son of EustaceLeche, a schoolteacher and salesman, and StellaLouise (née Richard) Leche. He received a com-mon school education, then attended Tulane Uni-versity from 1916 to 1917, eventually graduatingfrom Loyola University in New Orleans with a lawdegree in 1923. He left Tulane in 1917 to volunteer

for service in the U.S. Army and was commis-sioned a second lieutenant of infantry, servinguntil 1919. It is not known if he served overseasduring World War I. After his service, Leche wentto Chicago, where for two years he worked as anauto equipment salesman. In 1921 he returned toNew Orleans, where he entered Loyola and re-ceived his law degree two years later. Admitted tothe bar in 1922, he entered into a private law prac-tice with a local attorney, John C. Hollingsworth.Leche eventually established his own practice in1924.

Leche was involved in politics as a Democratwhile he worked as an attorney, working in severalcampaigns. In 1928 he entered the political realmon his own, running for but losing a seat in theLouisiana state senate. However, his campaign at-tracted the attention of Huey Pierce Long, knownas the “Kingfish,” a major force in Louisiana poli-tics, who was serving as governor in 1928. Twoyears later, when Long ran for a seat in the U.S.Senate, Leche was his campaign manager. At thesame time, Leche also managed the congressionalcampaign of Democrat Paul H. Maloney, who wasrunning for a seat in the U.S. Congress. Both menwere successful, and when Long’s appointed suc-cessor, Oscar K. Allen, became governor, Allennamed Leche as his private secretary. For his loy-alty to the Long political machine, in 1934 Allennamed Leche as a judge of the State Court of Ap-peals for the Parish of New Orleans. He wouldserve in this capacity for two years.

On 8 September 1935, Long was the victim ofan assassination attempt and succumbed to hisinjuries two days later. Long’s death made Lechethe new leader of the Long machine. After thedeath of Governor Allen on 28 January 1936, Lieu-tenant Governor James Albert Noe became actinggovernor. However, he did not wish to remain inthat office, so the 1936 Democratic gubernatorialnomination was Leche’s for the asking. As theleader of the Long machine he easily won theparty nod and, as he was unopposed in the generalelection, became governor just eight years afterentering politics. He took office on 12 May 1936.Historians Robert Sobel and John Raimo wrote:

During his administration, he worked to restore astate torn by political strife [particularly over theassassination of Long], and tried to repair the

212 Leche, Richard Webster

state’s relations with the federal administration.New hospitals were built; roads and bridges wereconstructed; and schools improved. New industrieswere given a ten-year tax exemption, resulting inover $500 million in new industrial development;Louisiana’s Conservation Law was drafted; and aState Mineral Board was created.

In 1939, right before Leche might be expectedto announce a run for reelection, scandal en-veloped him. Upon entering office he had stated,“When I took the oath of office, I didn’t take anyvow of poverty.” It now appeared that he had livedup to that. Charges were brought that as governorLeche had conspired with state officials to selltrucks to the Highway Department from cronies,and that he pocketed some $31,000 in kickbacksfrom the purchase by the state of 233 trucks. Fac-ing indictment, Leche resigned as governor on 26June 1939 and was succeeded by Lieutenant Gov-ernor Earl K. Long, son of Huey Long. In 1940Leche stood trial for the charges: he was acquittedof bribery, but found guilty of using the mails tohelp defraud the state in the truck-buying scheme.He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but re-leased on parole in 1943. After leaving prison,Leche operated the Bayou Gardens, a tourist at-traction, in Lacombe, Louisiana. In 1953, beforeleaving office, President Harry S. Truman grantedLeche a full pardon, and the former governor wasable to return to his law practice three years later.He remained in New Orleans for the remainder ofhis life.

Richard Leche died in New Orleans on 22 Feb-ruary 1965 at the age of sixty-six.

References: “Leche, Richard Webster,” in Robert Sobeland John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), II:585–586;Reeves, Miriam G., The Governors of Louisiana(Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company, 1972);“Richard W. Leche Dead at 66; Louisiana Governor inScandals,” New York Times, 23 February 1965, 33.

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65, 109 Stat. 691, 2 U.S.C. § 1601 (1995)Congressional enactment, 1 January 1996, thatwas passed “to provide for the disclosure of lobby-ing activities to influence the Federal Government,

and for other purposes.” Its intent was to closeloopholes that had existed in the lobbying law upuntil that time, the Federal Regulation of LobbyingAct, which allowed certain categories of lobbyiststo avoid registering and for ineffective and incon-sistent reporting of those who did register.

In the legislation, Congress found that “existinglobbying disclosure statutes have been ineffectivebecause of unclear statutory language, weak ad-ministrative and enforcement provisions, and anabsence of clear guidance as to who is required toregister and what they are required to disclose . . .and the effective public disclosure of the identityand extent of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influ-ence Federal officials in the conduct of Govern-ment actions will increase public confidence in theintegrity of Government.”

The act (also called the LDA) also defined whatexecutive branch and legislative branch officialswere covered and which lobbying activities werepermissible and which were not.

References: Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (text) 109Stat. 691, 2 U.S.C. § 1601.

Lorimer, William (1861–1934)United States senator (1909–1912), expelled fromthe Senate for bribing a state legislator to help electhim, thus becoming the first sitting senator everexpelled for bribery or charges of political corrup-tion. Despite having this ignominy placed on hisname, Lorimer is barely known in American his-tory. He was born in Manchester, England, on 27April 1861. Five years later he emigrated with hisparents to the United States, where the family set-tled in Michigan. Little is known of his early life,except that he did not receive any formal educa-tion. He was apprenticed to a sign painter at theage of ten, later working in several odd jobs, in-cluding in the packinghouses. He rose to become areal estate agent, as well as a builder.

A Republican, Lorimer first ran for public officein 1894, winning a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives for the Illinois Second District. He de-feated Democrat John Hanahan and a PopulistParty candidate, entering the House in the Fifty-fourth Congress on 4 March 1895. He would servein the House until 3 March 1901. In 1900, after ser-ving three terms, Lorimer lost the election toDemocrat John J. Feely. Two years later, however,

Lorimer, William 213

after the state had redrawn the electoral districts,Lorimer ran for the House, this time from IllinoisSixth District, and defeated a Democrat to reenterthe Fifty-eighth Congress on 4 March 1903. Hewould serve until his resignation on 17 June 1909.

In 1908 Lorimer decided to run for the U.S.Senate for the seat filled by Republican Albert J.Hopkins. After a lengthy contest (prior to the rati-

fication of the Seventeenth Amendment to theU.S. Constitution on 8 April 1913, all U.S. senatorswere elected by state legislatures—thereafter, allwere elected by popular vote of the people),Lorimer was elected and took his seat on 18 June1909. However, whispers soon arose that Lorimerhad “bought” his seat through bribery and othermeans. In 1910 the Chicago Tribune ran a series of

214 Lorimer, William

Senator William Lorimer was expelled from the Senate for bribing a state legislator. Lorimer became the first sitting senator everexpelled for bribery or associated charges of political corruption. (Library of Congress)

articles that quoted a former state legislator whoclaimed he had accepted a bribe to vote forLorimer for the U.S. Senate. With these allega-tions, Lorimer rose in the Senate on 28 May 1910to ask the Senate to investigate the charges. TheSenate referred the investigation to the SenateCommittee on Privileges and Elections on 1 June1910. The majority report of the committee re-ported on 21 December 1910 that Lorimer hadnot taken any bribes or committed any corruptpractices. However, one of the committee mem-bers, Senator Albert Beveridge (R-IN), refused tosign the majority report and held that Lorimerwas guilty. Beveridge was joined by three othermembers of the committee, forcing a floor debateon the committee report. The debate began on theSenate floor on 18 January 1911 and went on forsix full weeks. Beveridge was Lorimer’s chief ac-cuser and took to the Senate floor to deliver animpassioned speech against his fellow Republi-can. Despite his remarks, the Senate voted on 1March 1911 to accept the majority report of thecommittee and find for Lorimer.

Beveridge left the Senate, but his call for actionwas taken up by incoming Senator Robert M. LaFollette (R-WI), who, acting on national outrageagainst the Lorimer decision, asked the Senate toagain investigate the charges. After further debate,on 7 June 1911 the Senate voted to initiate a sec-ond investigation of Lorimer and the 1908 elec-tion. On 20 May 1912, after hearing from nearly200 witnesses and releasing a report that includedeight volumes of testimony, the Senate committeeagain held that there was no evidence that Lorimerhad committed any corrupt act. However, the mi-nority in the Senate again argued that several wit-nesses who claimed to have been bribed had to bebelieved, and, led by Senator John Worth Kern(who had replaced Beveridge in the Senate) of In-diana, the Senate voted fifty-five to twenty-eighton 13 July 1912 that Lorimer’s 1908 election wasinvalid. Because the Seventeenth Amendment, en-acted a year later, took the power to elect senatorsfrom state legislators, Lorimer became the lastman to be charged with bribing state legislators tobe elected to the Senate.When Lorimer asked to bereimbursed some $55,000 in expenses he had in-curred in the two investigations, the Senate ad-journed, and he was forced to pay the amount outof his own pocket.

Lorimer, who declared his total innocence, re-turned to private business in Illinois. Despitebeing tossed out of the Senate due to corruptionallegations, he remained a power broker inside theIllinois state Republican Party until his death.Lorimer died in Chicago on 13 September 1934 atthe age of seventy-three and was buried in CalvaryCemetery in that city.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1413; Butler, Anne M., andWendy Wolff, United States Senate Election, Expulsionand Censure Cases, 1793–1990 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1995), 281–284; Tarr,Joel Arthur, A Study in Boss Politics: William Lorimerof Chicago (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971).

Louderback, Harold (1881–1941)Judge for the Northern District of California(1928–1941), impeached and acquitted on chargesof favoritism and conspiracy in the appointmentof bankruptcy officers who appeared before him.Louderback was one of only eleven judges to beimpeached and tried in the Senate in Americanhistory. He was born in San Francisco, California,on 30 January 1881 and received his bachelor’s de-gree from the University of Nevada in 1905 and hislaw degree from the Harvard Law School threeyears later. From 1908 until 1917, he was in privatelaw practice in San Francisco. During World War I,he served as a captain in the U.S. Army, returningto his law practice in 1919. From 1921 until 1928,Louderback was a judge for the Superior Court forthe City and County of San Francisco.

On 21 March 1928, Louderback was nominatedby President Calvin Coolidge for a seat on the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Califor-nia, a seat vacated by Judge John S. Partridge.Louderback, a Republican, was confirmed by theSenate on 17 April 1928 and took his seat on thatcourt.

After only five years on that court, allegationsthat Louderback had used his power to appoint cer-tain bankruptcy receivers—and set their fees fromwhich he got a portion—reached the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and an investigation was estab-lished. Although the House Judiciary Committeefound that Louderback had used bad judgment insuch appointments, the panel’s majority recom-mended that he be censured rather than impeached.

Louderback, Harold 215

A minority of the committee, however, urged thatthe House indeed impeach the Californian. Takingtheir concerns to the full House, the minoritypushed through five articles of impeachment, allcharging Louderback with corruptly using his influ-ence as a federal judge to appoint bankruptcy re-ceivers.The full House agreed on these articles on 24February 1933, making Louderback one of only ahandful of federal judges to be impeached in Ameri-can history. The trial in the U.S. Senate lastedthroughout all of May 1933, in the midst of the Con-gress’s legislative attempts to put President FranklinD. Roosevelt’s New Deal program into law. Numer-ous witnesses were called—one was a faith healerwho was brought in on a stretcher—all of whomcast doubt on the charges against the judge. On 24May 1933, only three months after he was im-peached by the House, Louderback was acquitted onall charges by the Senate. On only one article, thefifth, did a majority hold against the judge, but thiswas eight votes shy of the two-thirds necessary forconviction.

Louderback returned to his judge’s position,where he served until his death on 11 December1941, at the age of sixty. His name is now merely afootnote in judicial and impeachment history.

References: “Louderback, Harold,” in The NationalCyclopædia of American Biography, 57 vols. andsupplements A-N (New York: James T. White andCompany, 1897–1984), B:362; United States House ofRepresentatives, Conduct of Harold Louderback,United States District Judge, Northern District ofCalifornia. Hearing Before the Special Committee of theHouse of Representatives, Seventy-Second Congress,Pursuant to House Resolution 239, September 6 toSeptember 12, 1932, 3 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1933); United StatesHouse of Representatives, Conduct of Judge HaroldLouderback. Report to Accompany House Resolution387, House Report 72–2065, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1933).

Lyon, Caleb (1822–1875)United States representative (1853–1855) from NewYork, implicated, but never tried, on charges that heembezzled some $46,000 from funds intended toassist the Nez Perce Indians. Born in Grieg, NewYork, on 7 December 1822, Lyon attended a com-mon school in the town of Lyondale, apparentlynamed after his family, as well as a school in Mon-treal, Canada. He graduated from Norwich Univer-

sity in Northfield,Vermont, in 1841 and in the yearsfollowing this, traveled around the world, becominga well-known poet and author. In 1847 he was ap-pointed by President James K. Polk as the UnitedStates consul to Shanghai, but instead of taking hisoffice he entrusted it to an associate and went toCalifornia, where he settled. He was named secre-tary of the California constitutional convention andin 1849 designed the seal that was adopted whenCalifornia became a state.

After being in California for a short time andaiding in that state’s formation, Lyon changed hismind about settling there and went back to Lyons-dale, New York. In 1850 he was elected to a seat inthe New York state assembly, but he resigned afterhe opposed state aid in improving the Erie Canal.However, in 1851 he was elected to a seat in thestate senate because of his principled stand on thecanal matter. He was not connected with any par-ticular party of the time; instead, in 1852 he ran asan Independent for a seat in the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives and was elected, taking his seat in theThirty-third Congress on 4 March 1853. Lyon onlyserved a single term in the House, deciding not torun for reelection in 1854. He moved to Staten Is-land, near New York City, and remained there forseveral years.

In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln namedLyon governor of the Idaho Territory, replacingWilliam Wallace, the territory’s first governor. Lyonserved for two years until 1866. It was during thisterm that Lyon got into trouble. An audit con-ducted by the Idaho territorial government discov-ered that Lyon probably embezzled approximately$46,418 in government funds that were intendedfor the welfare of Nez Perce Indians. However, acongressional investigation that should have beeninitiated immediately by Congress was not, andyears went by before investigators did look into thematter in 1875. By that time, Lyon had returned tohis home, “Lyonsmere,” located in Rossville, NewYork. Lyon died there on 8 September 1875, hisname never cleared. All potential investigationswere dropped after his death.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1425; Brown, MargaretLouise,“Lyon, Caleb,” in Allen Johnson and DumasMalone, et al., eds., Dictionary of American Biography,X vols. and 10 supplements (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),VI:527–528.

216 Lyon, Caleb

Mandel, Marvin (1920– )Governor of Maryland (1969–1979), convicted in1977 of charges of mail fraud and racketeering,becoming the second Maryland governor in lessthan a decade to be convicted of a crime (SpiroAgnew was the other). Mandel, of a Jewish back-ground, was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on 19April 1920, the son of Harry Mandel and Rebecca(née Cohen) Mandel. He graduated from Balti-more City College in 1937, then attended the Uni-versity of Maryland and the University of Mary-land Law School, receiving his law degree in 1942.That same year, Mandel enlisted in the U.S. Army,and during his two years served as an instructor atthe Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, thearmy’s oldest active proving ground for testingarms and other military equipment, and atTexarkana, Texas, before he was discharged in1944. After returning to Baltimore, he opened alaw practice.

Mandel entered the political arena in 1952,when he was appointed by Maryland GovernorTheodore R. McKeldin to fill a vacancy in theMaryland state house of delegates. Elected on hisown, and eventually reelected eight times, Man-del served as the chairman of the Ways andMeans Committee and the Baltimore City delega-tion, before he was elected as Speaker of theHouse of Delegates in 1963. He gradually built uppower, becoming a kingmaker in 1966; when theDemocrats nominated George P. Mahoney for

governor, Mandel decided not to back Mahoneyand supported the Republican nominee, Spiro T.Agnew. When Agnew was elected, Mandel be-came the second most powerful politician in thestate. And, when Agnew was selected to run forvice president with Richard Nixon in 1968 andwas elected, Mandel, on 7 January 1969, was him-self selected by the house of delegates to becomeMaryland’s fifty-sixth governor. He was elected toa term on his own in 1970 and reelected in 1974.During his tenure, the state government was or-ganized into twelve separate executive depart-ments, and a system of public defenders to de-fend the poor was implemented. HistoriansRobert Sobel and John Raimo add, “Mandel re-stored persons to the Medicaid rolls who were re-moved in the Agnew administration; created aDrug Abuse Authority and a State Housing Au-thority; supported the passage of eight constitu-tional amendments in 1969; and secured the re-organization of the executive department.”

What got Mandel into trouble was his veto inMay 1971 of a racing bill that would have in-creased the number of racing days from the origi-nal eighteen to thirty-six allowed by the MarlboroRacing Track, in Prince George’s County. As soonas Mandel vetoed the legislation, several friendsrushed in to buy the track. These five men were W.Dale Hess, Harry W. Rodgers III, William A.Rodgers, Irvin Kovens, and Ernest N. Cory. Theycompleted the purchase at the end of 1971 and

M

217

began to secretly pay Mandel off with gifts—giftsthat were wholly illegal. By mid-1972 these “gifts”included a $140,000 interest in a security invest-ment company, and a $45,000 share in a land deal.As soon as his friends purchased the track, Man-del supported an extension of the racing days fromeighteen to ninety-four, but that legislation wasnot enacted. However, the State Racing Commis-sion did allow Marlboro to expand races from ahalf-mile to a full mile, which increased the num-ber of people going to the track.

In 1974 an investigation into the racetrack dealand Mandel’s role in it began. In April HarryRodgers III and W. Dale Hess were notified thatthey were under investigation by a grand jury.Hess wrote a letter, which he backdated six years,claiming that he owed Mandel fees from a legalmatter and that the income from the security in-vestment was to pay back these fees. Mandel wasreelected in November 1974 in a landslide, defeat-ing Republican Louise Gore by more than 250,000votes. In February 1975, after being inaugurated asecond time, Mandel held a press conference inwhich he denied any knowledge of the sale of theMarlboro track. However, that September, he, too,was informed that he was under investigation bythe federal grand jury.

On 24 November 1975, Mandel and all five ofthe Marlboro owners were indicted by the grandjury. Mandel faced counts involving racketeeringand mail fraud. The first trial opened on 6 Septem-ber 1976, but was declared a mistrial by JudgeJohn H. Pratt on 7 December 1976 after a jurorcame forward with information that two men—later identified as Mafia insiders—had offered thejuror a $10,000 bribe if they would hold out for anot guilty verdict. Because Mandel had such influ-ence in Maryland and had named many of thejudges who would possibly oversee a second trial,Judge Robert L. Taylor was moved from Tennesseeto Baltimore to hear the case. The second trialopened on 31 May 1977, despite the fact that Man-del had suffered a stroke and was hospitalized fornumerous illnesses. His own lawyer called him “abroken man.” Despite this, on 23 August 1977Mandel and all five of his codefendants were con-victed on eighteen counts of mail fraud and rack-eteering. The federal grand jury in Baltimore haddeliberated for 113 hours—the longest delibera-tions in history for a federal criminal trial—be-

fore returning with its verdict. Mandel thus be-came the first sitting governor in more than fiftyyears to be convicted of a crime. He faced morethan 105 years in prison and a fine of $42,000, butTaylor was lenient on him and only gave him afour-year sentence. At sentencing on 7 October1977, Mandel was suspended as governor and hislaw license was taken away.

Mandel was broken—physically and finan-cially—by the indictment and two trials. However,on 11 January 1979, a three-judge panel of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struckdown Mandel’s conviction, citing error by the trialjudge. Mandel returned to serve as governor on 15January for the final forty-five and one-half hoursof his term. On appeal by the government to thefull court, the court held six to three on 20 July1979 to reinstate Mandel’s conviction. In Novem-ber, eight judges, with one removed for personalreasons, split four to four on whether to hear Man-del’s appeal a second time. Faced with this action,Mandel had to start serving his sentence; in May1980 he entered the federal prison at Eglin AirForce Base in Florida. He only served nineteenmonths, being paroled in December 1981 whenPresident Ronald Reagan offered him a full par-don. He was the last of the six defendants to leaveprison.

Despite the fact that Mandel had completed hissentence, the courts continued to listen to the mat-ter. In November 1987 federal Judge Frederic N.Smalkin of Baltimore formally entered a judge-ment of not guilty for all six men, saying in hisopinion that the government had “liberally inter-preted” the mail fraud and racketeering statutes.The government appealed to the U.S. SupremeCourt, but on 19 November 1989 it failed to hearthe case, meaning that Mandel’s conviction was inessence overturned completely. He then got his lawlicense reinstated and opened a law office in An-napolis. A former aide, Maurice Wyatt, wasstripped of his law license in 1982 following abribery conviction, but after Maryland GovernorDonald Schaefer granted him a full pardon, he wasreinstated to the bar as well in 1996.

References: Jacobs, Bradford, Thimbleriggers: The Law v.Governor Marvin Mandel (Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1984); “Mandel, Marvin,” inRobert Sobel and John Raimo, eds., BiographicalDirectory of the Governors of the United States,

218 Mandel, Marvin

1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Meckler Books,1978), II:685; “Marvin Mandel: Governor Convictedin Office,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 217; Saperstein,Sandra,“Court Reinstates Conviction of Mandel,”Washington Post, 21 July 1979, A1; United States v.Mandel, 91 F.2d 1347, vacated en banc, 602 F.2d 653(4th Cir. 550 F. 2d 1001 [1977]), second rehearing enbanc denied, 609 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1979), cert.denied, 445 U.S. 961 (1980).

Manton, Martin Thomas (1880–1946)United States judge for the Second Circuit Court ofAppeals, convicted of taking bribes and sent toprison. Manton is barely remembered, despitebeing one of the few sitting federal judges inAmerican history to be convicted of a crime andimprisoned. Born in New York City on 2 August1880, Manton attended the public schools in thatcity, then Columbia University Law School, fromwhich he was awarded his law degree in 1901. Thatyear, after being admitted to the New York bar, heopened a law practice in the city, where he re-mained until 1916. In 1913 he became a law part-ner of former U.S. Senator W. Bourke Cockran,forming the firm of Cockran and Manton. In 1914Manton served as counsel for New York City PoliceLieutenant Charles Becker, accused of ordering themurder of a criminal. Becker was later convictedand executed in the electric chair.

Following the death of Judge Charles M. Houghof the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York, President Woodrow Wilson namedManton, a Democrat, to the vacancy. Confirmed bythe Senate on 23 August 1916, Manton took hisseat. Just two years later, upon the resignation ofJudge Alfred Conkling Coxe of the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit, President Wilsonelevated Manton to this seat. Confirmed by theSenate on 18 March 1918, Manton stood just onelevel below the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1939, Man-ton, as chief judge, was in the position of being apotential Supreme Court nominee.

However, on 28 January 1939, the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice announced that it was investigatingcharges of financial and other misconduct by Man-ton. The following day, the New York Times brokethe story that New York District Attorney ThomasE. Dewey had sent a letter to Representative Hatton

W. Summers, chairman of the House JudiciaryCommittee, alleging that Manton had been in-volved in massive and unethical corruption. In hisletter, Dewey wrote, “For the past twelve monthsmy office has been conducting an investigation ofJudge Martin T. Manton, senior judge of the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, witha view to possible criminal prosecution under theincome tax laws of the State of New York, amongothers, arising out of certain acts hereinafter re-ferred to.” Dewey charged that Manton had re-ceived more than $400,000 from “individuals orconcerns acting for parties interested in mattershandled by [his] court.” The day after the storybroke, Manton told reporters that he would issue astatement that would “satisfy the public that thereis nothing wrong or immoral” in his business deal-ings. That statement, issued on 20 January 1939,was a resignation letter to President Franklin D.Roosevelt. The resignation seemed to end matters.When Representative Summers was asked whetherManton should be impeached anyway, he stated,“Why kick at the place where the fellow used tobe?” Dewey, however, continued on, specifically onthe allegation that Manton had received a $77,000bribe from the Dictograph Products Corporation tofind in their favor against Schick Dry Shaver, Inc., acase before Manton. In April 1939 Manton was in-dicted on charges of bribery and conspiracy tocommit bribery. Tried in May and June of 1939,Manton was convicted only of conspiracy to ob-struct justice and sentenced to two years in prison.Because Manton had served on the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit, which would nor-mally hear his appeal, a special court consisting ofjudges who did not know Manton had to be createdjust to hear his appeal. The appeal was heard butdenied, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed theconviction to stand.

Manton served one year and seven months ofhis sentence in a federal penitentiary and was re-leased in 1941. He returned home in disgrace,where he died on 18 November 1946 at the age ofsixty-six. He was buried in the Immaculate Con-ception Cemetery in Fayetteville, New York. He re-mains one of the highest-ranking judges in Amer-ican history to go to prison for corruption.

See also Miller, Thomas WoodnuttReferences: “Dewey Says Judge Manton Got $400,000

from Litigants, Sends Charges to Congress,” New York

Manton, Martin Thomas 219

Times, 30 January 1939, 1; “Manton, Martin Thomas,”in Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, edited by JayRobert Nash, 4 vols. (Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc.,1989), 3:2112; “Martin T. Manton,” in Joseph Borkin,The Corrupt Judge: An Inquiry Into Bribery and OtherHigh Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Federal Courts(New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1962), 23–93;“Martin T. Manton Trial: 1939,” in Edward W.Knappman, ed., Great American Trials (Detroit, MI:Visible Ink Press, 1994), 403–405; “Manton’s ConductUnder U.S. Inquiry, He Defers Defense,” New YorkTimes, 29 January 1939, 1, 2.

Marshall, Humphrey (1760–1841)United States senator from Kentucky (1795–1801)accused of corruption, whose case helped estab-lish an early congressional rule that illegalitiesdone prior to congressional service would not bedealt with in Congress. Humphrey Marshall’s casewas one of the first dealing with ethics in the U.S.Senate. Marshall was born in Orlean, Virginia, in1760. He came from a venerable Virginia family,which included Colonel Thomas Marshall, a friendof George Washington, as well as John Marshall(chief justice of the United States Supreme Court).Marshall pursued what are called “classical stud-ies,” which include math, Latin, and Greek. He be-came a surveyor and served with the forces of Vir-ginia in the Revolutionary War. In 1782 he movedto Kentucky, which at that time was not yet a state(it would be admitted to the Union in 1792), wherehe studied law and, after being admitted to the bar,opened a practice in Fayette County. He served as adelegate to the so-called Danville Convention, con-vened in 1787 to decide whether to separate Ken-tucky from Virginia, which Marshall opposed.That same year, he also served as a delegate to theVirginia convention that ratified the federal Con-stitution along with such notables as his cousinJohn Marshall, James Monroe, George Wythe,Bushrod Washington, and Patrick Henry.

Marshall’s political career began when he waselected a member of the Kentucky state house ofrepresentatives, serving from 1793 to 1794. Theyear after this service ended, Marshall was electedas a Federalist to a seat in the U.S. Senate, serving asingle term from 4 March 1795 to 3 March 1801.Marshall’s service is unexemplary, except that inhis second year he became embroiled in a contro-versy that set a precedent in the area of congres-

sional ethics for more than a century. On 26 Febru-ary 1796, Vice President John Adams, sitting aspresident pro tem of the Senate, presented to theSenate a letter from the governor of Kentucky,Isaac Shelby, with a letter called a memorial (usu-ally signed by a number of prominent citizens),which made serious allegations against Marshall.Three days later, on 29 February, the letter and me-morial were referred to a select committee, con-sisting of Senators Samuel Livermore of NewHampshire, James Ross of Pennsylvania, RufusKing of New York, John Rutherfurd of New Jersey,and Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, to investigatethe allegations. On 17 March the committee re-ported to the full Senate. This report stated:

That the representatives of the freemen of Kentuckystate in their memorial that in February, 1795, apamphlet was published by George Muter and Ben-jamin Sebastian (who were two judges of the courtof appeals), in which they say that Humphrey Mar-shall had a suit in chancery in the said court of ap-peals, in which it appearing manifest from the oathof the complainant, from disinterested testimony,from records, from documents furnished by him-self, and from the contradictions contained in hisown answer, that he had committed a gross fraud,the court gave a decree against him; and that in thecourse of the investigation he was publicly chargedwith perjury. That Mr. Marshall, in a publication inthe Kentucky Gazette, called for a specification ofthe charge; to which the said George Muter andBenjamin Sebastian, in a like publication, repliedthat he was guilty of perjury in his answer to the billin chancery exhibited against him by James Wilkin-son, and that they would plead justification to anysuit brought against them therefor. That no suchsuit, as the said representatives could learn, hadbeen brought. The said representatives further saythat they do not mean to give an opinion on the jus-tice of the said charge, but request that an investiga-tion may immediately take place relativethereto. . . .

Your committee observe that the said suit wastried eighteen months before Mr. Marshall was cho-sen a Member of the Senate, and that previous tohis election mutual accusations had taken place be-tween him and the judges of the said court relatingto the same suit. . . .

The representatives of Kentucky have not fur-nished any copy of Mr. Marshall’s answer on oath,nor have they stated any part of the testimony, orproduced any of the said records or documents, or

220 Marshall, Humphrey

the copy of any paper in the cause, nor have they in-timated a design to bring forward those or anyother proofs. . . .

Your committee are informed by the other Sena-tor and the two Representatives in Congress fromKentucky that they have not been requested by thelegislature of that State to prosecute this inquiry,and that they are not possessed of any evidence inthe case, and that they believe no person is author-ized to appear on behalf of the legislature. . . .

Mr. Marshall is solicitous that a full investigationof the subject shall take place in the Senate, andurges the principle that consent takes away error, asapplying, on this occasion, to give the Senate juris-diction; but, as no person appears to prosecute, andthere is no evidence adduced to the Senate, nor evena specific charge, the committee think any furtherinquiry by the Senate would be improper. If therewere no objections of this sort, the committeewould still be of opinion that the memorial couldnot be sustained. They think that in a case of thiskind no person can be held to answer for an infa-mous crime unless on a presentment or indictmentof a grand jury, and that in all such prosecutions theaccused ought to be tried by an impartial jury ofthe State and district wherein the crime shall havebeen committed. If, in the present case, the partyhas been guilty in the manner suggested, no reasonhas been alleged by the memorialists why he hasnot long since been tried in the State and districtwhere he committed the offense. Until he is legallyconvicted, the principles of the Constitution and ofthe common law concur in presuming that he is in-nocent. And the committee are compelled, by asense of justice, to declare that in their opinion thepresumption in favor of Mr. Marshall is not dimin-ished by the recriminating publications whichmanifest strong resentment against him.

The members concluded: “[T]hey are also ofopinion that as the Constitution does not give ju-risdiction to the Senate the consent of the partycan not give it; and that therefore the said memo-rial ought to be dismissed.” By this statement, theSenate agreed, when it upheld the report, that if acrime was committed prior to the election of thesenator, and the courts had not heard chargesagainst him, the Senate should not and could nottry that senator. When the committee urged thatthe report be transmitted to the governor of Ken-tucky, with an eye toward a potential prosecutionof Marshall, the Senate voted seven to sixteen notto expunge the clause that would refer it to the

governor of Kentucky. The committee’s decisionwas also voted on but failed seven votes to seven-teen to expunge. The full Senate voted sixteen toeight on 22 March to accept the report. However,no charges appear to have been brought againstMarshall, and he concluded his term of office in1801.

Marshall returned to Kentucky, where he laterserved a second time as a member of the Kentuckystate legislature, from 1807 to 1809. It was duringthis period that he opposed a proposal by Ken-tuckian Henry Clay that all Kentucky legislatorswear domestic spun cloth instead of British broad-cloth; when the two men argued, a duel was called,and both men were wounded but lived. After fin-ishing his political career, Marshall took up agri-cultural pursuits and authored the comprehensivehistory of the state up to that time. Marshall diednear Lexington, Kentucky, on 3 July 1841 and wasburied on his farm, “Glen Willis,” in Leestown,Kentucky.

Today, Marshall’s name is not remembered forthe ignominious precedent he established in theSenate; rather, his famed work, The History of Ken-tucky (1812), has given him the sobriquet “TheHistorian of Kentucky.”

References: Debates and Other Proceedings of theConvention of Virginia, Convened at Richmond, onMonday the Second of June, 1788, for the Purpose ofDeliberating on the Constitution Recommended by theGrand Federal Convention. To Which is Prefixed theFederal Constitution. Taken in Short Hand, by DavidRobertson of Petersburg, 3 vols. (Petersburg: Hunterand Prentis, 1788–1789); Hinds, Asher Crosby, Hinds’Precedents of the House of Representatives of theUnited States, Including References to Provisions of theConstitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the UnitedStates Senate, 8 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1907–1908), II:816–817; Quisenberry,Anderson Chenault, The Life and Times of Hon.Humphrey Marshall: Sometime an Office in theRevolutionary War, Senator in Congress from 1795 to1801 (Winchester, KY: Sun Publishing Co., 1892).

Matteson, Orsamus Benajah(1805–1889)United States representative from New York(1853–1857, 1857–1859), accused of corruptionin 1857 and 1858, becoming the only representa-tive to face two distinct expulsion hearings in Con-gress. Matteson was born in Verona, New York, on

Matteson, Orsamus Benajah 221

28 August 1805. He attended the common schoolsof the area, after which he studied law in Utica,New York, in the offices of a local attorney, GreeneC. Bronson. Admitted to the state bar, he opened apractice in Utica and became a leading attorney inthat city. In 1834 and 1836, Matteson served as cityattorney of Utica. He later served as a commis-sioner of the state supreme court.

A follower of the Free Soil movement—whichlater was folded into the Republican Party—Matteson nonetheless ran as a Whig for a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives in 1846, losingto Democrat Timothy Jenkins. However, twoyears later, Matteson ran again for the same seatand was elected. He served for a single term dur-ing the Thirty-first Congress (1849–1851), los-ing his bid for reelection. He returned to his lawpractice. In 1852 he made a comeback, againwinning the seat representing New York’s Twenti-eth District as a Whig. Matteson remained inCongress until his resignation on 27 February1857, serving as chairman of the Committee onthe District of Columbia.

In 1857 and again in 1858, Matteson got intotrouble, so much that he was the subject of two ex-pulsion votes, the only congressman ever to facesuch disciplinary action. Both times, however,Matteson was censured. The only biography ofhim reports that “[h]e became conspicuous bybeing charged with declaring that a large numberof the representatives in congress were pur-chasable, and a resolution to expel him failed topass.”It does appear from the House report, as wellas the resolution to censure him, that Mattesonwas involved in influence peddling—selling hisvote for payment. The censure resolution stated:

Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, a Member ofthis House from the State of New York, did inciteparties deeply interested in the passage of a jointresolution for construing the Des Moines grant tohave here and to use a large sum of money and othervaluable considerations corruptly for the purpose ofprocuring the passage of said joint resolutionthrough this House. Resolved, That Orsamus B. Mat-teson, in declaring that a large number of the Mem-bers of this House had associated themselves to-gether and pledged themselves each to the other notto vote for any law or resolution granting money orlands unless they were paid for it, has falsely andwillfully assailed and defamed the character of this

House and has proved himself unworthy to be aMember thereof. Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matte-son, a Member of this House from the State of NewYork, be, and is hereby, expelled therefrom. Beforethe consideration of these resolutions had begun, acommunication was presented announcing the res-ignation of Mr. Matteson from the House.

After serving his final term in Congress, Matte-son left Washington on 3 March 1859 and was laterinvolved in a scheme for the construction of the St.Mary’s Ship Canal, as well as lumber and iron man-ufacturing concerns. He also purchased large tractsof land. Matteson died in Utica, New York, on 22December 1889 at the age of eighty-four and wasburied in Utica’s Forest Hill Cemetery.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1459; “Orsamus Matteson,” inRossiter Johnson, ed., The Twentieth CenturyBiographical Dictionary of Notable Americans: BriefBiographies of Authors, Administrators, Clergymen,Commanders, Editors, Engineers, Jurists, Merchants,Officials, Philanthropists, Scientists, Statesman, andOthers Who Are Making American History, 10 vols.(Boston: Biographical Society, 1897–1904),VII;United States Congress, House, Joint Committee onCongressional Operations, House of RepresentativesExclusion, Censure and Expulsion Cases from 1789 to1973, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1973).

Mavroules, Nicholas James (1929– )United States representative from Massachusetts(1979–1993) who pled guilty in 1993 to charges oftax fraud and accepting gratuities while in officeand was sentenced to fifteen months in prison.Mavroules was born in Peabody, Massachusetts,on 1 November 1929. He attended the schools ofPeabody, never attaining a secondary school edu-cation. Instead, in 1949, when he was twenty, hewent to work for GTE-Sylvania, serving during aneighteen-year career as a supervisor of personnel.

A Democrat, Mavroules was elected in 1958 asa city councilor for Peabody. He did not run for re-election in 1965; however, two years later, he waselected mayor of the town, serving from 1967 until1978. He was a delegate to the Democratic Na-tional Convention in 1976. In 1978 Mavroules ranfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, rep-resenting the Sixth Massachusetts District. He de-feated Republican William Bronson and took his

222 Mavroules, Nicholas James

seat in the Ninety-sixth Congress. Mavrouleswould serve seven terms, until 3 January 1993.

On 27 August 1992, Mavroules was indicted by afederal grand jury in Boston on seventeen countsof racketeering, bribery, and income tax evasion.The indictments were the result of a nine-monthinvestigation of Mavroules by the U.S. attorney’s of-fice in Boston. The Washington Post stated upon thenews of the indictments: “In the factory towns andfishing villages along Boston’s north shore, Rep.Nicholas Mavroules (D-Mass.) forged a reputationas a guy who worked his way up from the bottomand never forgot his roots. But federal indictmentsunsealed today allege that the popular politicianused his power to extract money and perquisitesfrom constituents.” Mavroules denied the allega-tions: he said,“In my 30 years as a public official, Inever asked for or took a bribe in my life.” The em-battled congressman spent the time prior to trialfighting a reelection campaign that went from badto worse. In November 1992 he lost to RepublicanPeter Torkildsen. He spent some $78,000 of hiscampaign funds for lawyer’s fees. On 15 April 1993,Mavroules pled guilty, admitting that he had ac-cepted seven new automobiles free of charge, falsi-fied financial disclosure statements, and failed toreport on his tax returns gifts that he received from1985 to 1990. He did, however, deny that he had ex-torted $12,000 from the family of an imprisonedconstituent whom Mavroules promised to help getreleased. On 29 June 1993, he was sentenced to fif-teen months in prison and fined $15,000.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1461; Hayward, Ed, and JackMeyers,“Mavroules to Talk About FederalistCorruption Probe,” Boston Herald, 11 December1996, A3; “Heavy Hearts for a Favorite Son—Massachusetts Rep. Mavroules Calls Indictments ‘ABunch of Lies,’” Washington Post, 29 August 1992, A3;“Indictments Reportedly Name Massachusetts Rep.Mavroules,” Washington Post, 28 August 1992, A4;“Mavroules Is Sentenced to 15 Months for Gifts,”Washington Post, 30 June 1993, A2; “Mavroules PleadsGuilty,” Washington Post, 16 April 1993, A4; UnitedStates v. Mavroules, 813 F. Supp. 115, 117 (D. Mass.1993).

May, Andrew Jackson (1875–1959)United States representative from Kentucky(1931–1947), convicted on charges of accepting

bribes for his influence in the award of munitionscontracts during World War II, for which he servednine months in prison. Born in Beaver Creek, nearLangley, Kentucky, on 24 June 1875, he attendedthe public schools, after which he taught for fiveyears in the schools of Floyd and Magoffin Coun-ties in Kentucky. May graduated from SouthernNormal University Law School (now Union Col-lege) in Huntingdon, Tennessee, in 1898. He wasadmitted to the Kentucky bar that same year andopened a practice in the town of Prestonburg,Kentucky.

Three years after commencing his practice,May was elected county attorney for Floyd County,Kentucky, serving from 1901 to 1909. After he leftthis position, he returned to private law practiceand remained there for the better part of a decadeand a half. It was not until 1925 that May reenteredthe political realm, serving as a special judge ofthe circuit court of Johnson and Martin Counties,both in Kentucky. During this period, May wasalso involved in banking and agricultural pursuits.

In 1930 May, a Democrat, ran for a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives, representing theTenth Kentucky District. He was elected over hisRepublican opponent, Kathryn Langley, and hetook his seat in the House on 4 March 1931. Be-cause May was elected two years before the so-called New Deal Democrats took control of theHouse, he not only had seniority but also was notbeholden to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, uponwhose coattails later Democrats were swept intooffice. During his service in the House in the1930s, despite his party affiliation, May served as acatalyst for anti-New Deal agitation, voting againstmany New Deal programs, as well as the Ten-nessee Valley Authority (TVA). However, after 1940he was more pro-Roosevelt, voting to increase mil-itary preparedness measures.

In 1946 May’s career came to a sudden and un-expected halt. In that year the U.S. Senate con-vened a committee, headed by Senator James M.Mead (D-NY), to investigate war contracts. Whenallegations arose that May had gone to bat for sev-eral constituents in an effort to gain war contracts,the committee called May, but time after time herefused to appear and explain his association withan Illinois munitions company headed by oneHenry M. Garsson. The Mead Committee estab-lished that during the war May intervened with

May, Andrew Jackson 223

federal agencies to gain contracts for Garssonworth an estimated $78 million. Finally, the com-mittee subpoenaed May, but on 25 July 1946, hesuffered an apparent heart attack. Once he was re-leased from the hospital, instead of returning toWashington, May went home to Kentucky, wherehe ran for reelection. The charges leveled by theMead Committee were too much, and May was de-feated by Republican Wendell Howes Meade.

Biographer Marian C. McKenna wrote:

Late in 1946 the Mead Committee turned its inves-tigation over to the Justice Department, and on 23January 1937, May and the Garsson brothers wereindicted by a federal grand jury on charges of con-spiracy to defraud the government. May pleadednot guilty to this and bribery charges, but testi-mony during the forty-seven-day trial revealed thathe had received more than $53,000 in bribes andthat some of the payments were made by the Gars-son companies through an affiliate, the CumberlandLand Company in Prestonburg, Kentucky, of whichMay was an agent. Witnesses at the trial includedGeneral Dwight D. Eisenhower, Secretary of StateGeorge C. Marshall, and Secretary of War Robert P.Patterson, who testified that May had come to himseeking wartime favors for the Garssons and theirfriends.

On 3 July 1947, May and the Garsson brotherswere convicted on all charges. Despite appeals thatwent all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, May’sconviction was upheld and in December 1949 heentered the Ashland Federal Correctional Institutein Kentucky to serve a sentence of eight months totwo years. Ill health caused him to ask for a re-prieve, but this was refused. He was released inSeptember 1950 for good behavior. In June 1952 aKentucky court of appeals restored May’s right topractice law, and he returned to Prestonburgwhere he remained for the remainder of his life. InDecember 1952, shortly before leaving office, Pres-ident Harry S. Truman gave May a full presidentialpardon.

May died in Prestonburg on 6 September 1959,reiterating his innocence to the end. He remainsone of a handful of congressmen to be convictedof a crime and serve time in a federal prison.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1462; McKenna, Marian C.,“May, Andrew Jackson,” in Allen Johnson and Dumas

Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of American Biography,X vols. and 10 supplements (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), 6:436–438.

McCray, Warren Terry (1865–1938)Governor of Indiana (1921–1924), forced to resignafter his conviction for mail fraud related to thecollapse of his finances, becoming one of only ahandful of American governors to serve time inprison. Warren McCray, the son of GreenberryWard McCray, a banker, and Martha Jane (néeGaley) McCray, was born near Kentland, Indiana,on 3 February 1865. He was educated in the publicschools of rural Indiana and from the age of fif-teen served as a clerk in his father’s bank. Whenhis father died in 1913, McCray became the presi-dent of the bank. He used his growing fortune toinvest in local business, including a grain elevatorand a farm on which he bred Hereford cows. A Re-publican, McCray was involved in many areas oflife in Indiana, including service as the treasurerfor Northern Hospital for the Insane from 1904 to1912 and as a member of the Indiana Board ofAgriculture from 1912 to 1916. He worked on agri-cultural issues during World War I, including ser-ving as chairman of the Food Conservation Com-mittee of Indiana and the Livestock AdvisoryBoard.

In 1920 McCray was nominated by the Republi-cans for governor, and he defeated Democrat Car-leton B. McCulloch by 170,000 votes out of some1.2 million votes cast, with several minor partycandidates getting the remainder of the vote. His-torians Robert Sobel and John Raimo wrote, “Anumber of public buildings were erected duringMcCray’s administration, including the reforma-tory at Pendleton, which had been moved from Jef-fersonville, and several buildings at the IndiansState Fairgrounds.” During his time as governor,McCray’s business affairs suffered and he took a fi-nancial blow. He was then indicted by a grand juryfor committing mail fraud in an attempt to staveoff bankruptcy. McCray was convicted of thecharges, and on 29 April 1934 he resigned the gov-ernorship. Sentenced to five years in prison, heserved three years, after which he was released andreturned to his estate, Orchard Lake Farm. In 1930President Herbert Hoover granted McCray a par-don. Eight years later, on 19 December 1938, Mc-

224 McCray, Warren Terry

Cray died at his farm near Kentland, Indiana, atthe age of seventy-three. He was buried inFairhaven Cemetery in Kentland.

See also Jackson, Edward FranklinReferences: “McCray, Warren T.,” in Robert Sobel and

John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), I:415–416;Ruegamer, Lana, Biographies of the Governors(Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1978).

McDade, Joseph Michael (1931– )United States representative from Pennsylvania(1963–1999), indicted and later convicted ofbribery. Although he had been indicted in 1992,McDade held his congressional seat until 1999.Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on 29 September1931, McDade attended local schools before he en-tered the University of Notre Dame and earned hisbachelor’s degree in 1953. He later received his lawdegree from the University of Pennsylvania in1956. Before he entered the field of law, McDadeserved as a clerk to federal Judge John W. Murphyof the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1957. Af-terwards, he opened his own law practice. In 1962McDade was elected the city solicitor for Scranton.

That same year, McDade entered the race for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives, repre-senting Pennsylvania’s Tenth District. A Republi-can, McDade was elected over Democrat WilliamCombar and took his seat in the Eighty-eighthCongress on 3 January 1963. He would eventuallyserve seventeen terms. Over the years, he becameone of the most powerful leaders in the Republi-can caucus, rising to become ranking member ofthe House Appropriations Committee.

On 6 May 1992, McDade was indicted by a fed-eral grand jury in Pennsylvania under allegationsthat he violated the Racketeer Influenced and Cor-rupt Organizations (RICO) Act by helping to se-cure a defense contract for companies that laterpaid him more than $100,000 in bribes and othergratuities. Despite being under indictment, Mc-Dade was serving at the time as the ranking mem-ber of the House Appropriations Committee, andon 8 December 1992, he retained his post. This ac-tion rubbed Democrats the wrong way; they re-called that when Democratic Representative DanRostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways andMeans Committee, had been indicted, he was

forced to relinquish control of his committee. Rep-resentative Mel Reynolds (D-IL) demanded thatRepublicans likewise punish McDade. (Ironically,Reynolds was later convicted of bank and wirefraud and served time in prison.) But because Mc-Dade was such a powerful congressman, no Re-publican challenged him, and he remained theranking member; although when the Republicanstook control of the House in 1995, he was deniedthe chairmanship of the committee. In 1995 Mc-Dade challenged his indictment in the U.S.Supreme Court, arguing that under the “Speechand Debate Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, his ac-tions were protected. On 6 March 1995, the Courtrefused to intervene.

On 1 August 1996, a federal jury acquitted Mc-Dade of all charges against him. The blow to Jus-tice Department lawyers who had battled McDadefor four years was stunning. However, McDade didnot emerge unscathed from the engagement: dur-ing the period in which he was under indictment,he developed Parkinson’s disease, and by 1996 hishands were noticeably shaking. In November 1996he was elected to his seventeenth term, but Repub-licans refused to remove Representative Bob Liv-ingston (R-LA), who had been named as chairmanof the House Appropriations Committee in Mc-Dade’s stead.

In 1998 McDade announced that he would notrun for an eighteenth term and departed from theHouse at the end of his term on 3 January 1999.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1478.

McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135(1927)United States Supreme Court decision holding thatCongress does have the right to compel certain tes-timony and/or papers from persons who are notmembers of Congress and that refusal to complymay constitute contempt of Congress, a jailable of-fense. In 1881 the Supreme Court had held in Kil-bourn v. Thompson that Congress could not find anonmember in contempt and could not jail thatperson; however, the Court had drastically chippedaway at Kilbourn over the years, especially in itsdecision in In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 66 (1897), inwhich it gave Congress the green light to compel

McGrain v. Daugherty 225

testimony in matters within constitutional andcongressional jurisdiction.

The subject of the McGrain case regardedHarry M. Daugherty, attorney general in the Hard-ing and Coolidge administrations from March1921 until March 1924, when he resigned amid al-legations of malfeasance—notably, that he ob-structed an investigation into the roles of Secre-tary of the Interior Albert B. Fall and Secretary ofthe Navy Edwin Denby in the Teapot Dome scan-dal. During the congressional investigation intoTeapot Dome and Daugherty’s role in it, the SenateCommittee (established by a resolution) founddocuments relating to Mally S. Daugherty, the for-mer attorney general’s brother and president ofthe Midland National Bank of Washington CourtHouse, Ohio. The committee issued a subpoena or-dering Daugherty to appear, as well as a subpoenaduces tecum to produce documents relating to cer-tain deposits in his bank since 1 November 1920.Mally Daugherty failed to honor the subpoenasand never appeared before the Senate.

Angered, the Senate committee ordered the ser-geant at arms to arrest Mally Daugherty at once.This officer dispatched his deputy, John J. McGrain,to Cincinnati, where he took custody of Daugherty.Immediately, Daugherty petitioned to the federaldistrict court in Cincinnati for a writ of habeas cor-pus, arguing that his arrest was illegal. The courtheld that because there was no arrest warrant,Daugherty had to be released. The U.S. Senate,backing McGrain, asked for an immediate appealto the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard argumentson 5 December 1924. Less than six weeks later, on17 January 1924, it handed down its ruling.

Justice Willis Van Devanter spoke for a unani-mous eight-to-zero Court (Justice Harlan FiskeStone did not participate) that the Senate’s sub-poena power gave that body the right to demandpersons and/or documents to be delivered, andthat avoidance of such subpoenas was a crime.VanDevanter explained:

We are of opinion that the power of inquiry—withprocess to enforce it—is an essential and appropri-ate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so re-garded and employed in American Legislatures be-fore the Constitution was framed and ratified. Bothhouses of Congress took this view of it early in theirhistory—the House of Representatives with the ap-proving votes of Mr. Madison and other members

whose service in the convention that framed theConstitution gives special significance to their ac-tion—and both houses have employed the poweraccordingly up to the present time. The acts of 1798and 1857, judged by their comprehensive terms,were intended to recognize the existence of thispower in both houses and to enable them to employit “more effectually” than before. So, when theirpractice in the matter is appraised according to thecircumstances in which it was begun and to thosein which it has been continued, it falls nothing shortof a practical construction, long continued, of theconstitutional provisions respecting their powers,and therefore should be taken as fixing the meaningof those provisions, if otherwise doubtful. . . .

We are further of opinion that the provisions arenot of doubtful meaning, but, as was held by thiscourt in the cases we have reviewed, are intended tobe effectively exercised, and therefore to carry withthem such auxiliary powers as are necessary andappropriate to that end. Although the power toexact information in aid of the legislative functionwas not involved in those cases, the rule of interpre-tation applied there is applicable here. A legislativebody cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the ab-sence of information respecting the conditions thatthe legislation is intended to affect or change; andwhere the legislative body does not itself possessthe requisite information—which not infrequentlyis true—recourse must be had to others who dopossess it. Experience has taught that mere requestsfor such information often are unavailing, and alsothat information which is volunteered is not alwaysaccurate or complete; so some means of compul-sion are essential to obtain what is needed. All thiswas true before and when the Constitution wasframed and adopted. In that period the power of in-quiry, with enforcing process, was regarded andemployed as a necessary and appropriate attributeof the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as in-hering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for think-ing, as we do, that the constitutional provisionswhich commit the legislative function to the twohouses are intended to include this attribute to theend that the function may be effectively exercised.

This landmark case, which is still used as thefoundation for congressional investigative power,was upheld by the Supreme Court in Jurney v.MacCracken (294 U.S. 125) in 1935.

See also Daugherty, Harry Micajah; Kilbourn v.Thompson; Teapot Dome Scandal

References: Giglio, James N., H. M. Daugherty and thePolitics of Expediency (Kent, OH: Kent State University

226 McGrain v. Daugherty

Press, 1978); Teapot Dome Resolution inCongressional Record (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1925), 68th Congress, 1st Session(1925), 3299, 3409, 3410, 3548, 4126; United StatesCongress, Senate, Select Committee on Investigationof the Attorney General, Investigation of Hon. HarryM. Daugherty, Formerly Attorney General of the UnitedStates. Hearings before the Select Committee onInvestigation of the Attorney General, United StatesSenate, Sixty-Eighth Congress, First Session, pursuantto S. Res. 157, Directing a Committee to Investigate theFailure of the Attorney General to Prosecute or DefendCertain Criminal and Civil Actions, wherein theGovernment Is Interested (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1924).

Mecham, Evan (1924– )Governor of Arizona (1987–1988), impeachedand removed from office for crimes allegedlycommitted before he took office, for which he waslater tried and acquitted. Mecham was born inDuchesne, Utah, on 12 May 1924. He attended Al-tamont High School in northeastern Utah, beforeentering Utah State University for a short term.When World War II broke out in 1941, he volun-teered for service in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Fly-ing a P-51 Mustang, he was shot down over Ger-many and spent twenty-two days as a prisoner ofwar, earning a Purple Heart for his wounds. In1947 he was discharged from the service and re-turned to Arizona, where he attended ArizonaState University in Tempe, majoring in economicsand business management. He never received hisdegree, instead leaving college in 1950 when hewas able to purchase a Pontiac car franchise inAjo, Arizona. Four years later, he moved the fran-chise to Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, and alsoinvested in automobile franchises in Californiaand Washington State. He also served as the pub-lisher of the American Newspaper Group, whichowned a number of newspapers across theUnited States.

In 1960 Mecham, a conservative Republican,entered the political realm when he ran for andwon a seat in the Arizona state senate, servingfrom 1961 to 1963. In 1962 he ran for governor ofArizona, but failed to get his party’s nomination.He tried again in 1978 and, although he was theRepublican nominee, lost to Acting GovernorBruce Babbitt, who had succeeded to the office fol-lowing the death of governor Wesley H. Bolin.

In 1986 Babbitt declined to run for reelection,leaving the race open for his successor. Mechamagain ran for the office, defeating RepresentativeBurton Barr, majority leader of the state house ofrepresentatives in the Republican primary.Mecham was given little chance of winning thegeneral election. However, the favored Democrat,Bill Schulz, left the race for personal reasons; then,after the Democrats had nominated state SchoolsSuperintendent Carolyn Warner, Schulz reenteredthe race as an Independent. This resulted in thesplitting of the Democratic vote. Mecham cap-tured 40 percent of the vote, which, in the three-way race, was enough to win.

Mecham had run on a platform of cutting thestate sales tax and ending drug abuse in the state.However, he got into trouble, first with the pressand then with the state of Arizona. He canceled thestate’s observance of the holiday for Dr. MartinLuther King Jr., precipitating a boycott of the stateby business and African American groups.Mecham also made comments against homosexu-als and blacks and refused to speak to reporterswho he felt did not give him proper respect. Fourmonths after he took office, a recall effort wasstarted against him.

The recall effort turned out not to be Mecham’sonly political problem: a grand jury in Phoenix wasinvestigating a $350,000 loan made to his guberna-torial campaign by Barry Wolfson, a real estate de-veloper. Wolfson had gone to federal investigatorsin November 1987, claiming that the loan had notbeen repaid. The loan had not appeared onMecham’s campaign contributions statement to thestate. Mecham paid off the loan when the story be-came public. On 8 January 1988, the grand jury in-dicted Mecham on six counts, including perjuryand filing a false campaign contributions report.Atthe same time, the grand jury indicted Mecham’sbrother Willard, who had served as campaigntreasurer, on three counts of perjury and one countof filing a false campaign contributions report. On25 January 1988, Arizona Secretary of State RoseMofford, a Democrat, announced that a recall peti-tion with some 300,000-plus signatures had beensubmitted to the state. This was more than the216,000 needed. Mofford set a date of 17 May 1988for the recall election. After the grand jury indict-ment, the Republican-led state house of represen-tatives conducted an impeachment inquiry into

Mecham, Evan 227

Mecham, the first of a sitting governor in theUnited States since Alaska’s William Sheffield’s in1985. On 5 February 1988, even as some in the statehouse broke down in tears, the body voted forty-sixto fourteen to impeach Mecham on three articles ofimpeachment: obstruction of justice, deliveringfalse sworn statements relating to official filingsmade while in office, and misuse of state funds.Mecham had testified before the state house thatthe charges were all false and that he would be vin-dicated in the criminal trial. Thus Mecham becamethe first governor in the history of the United Statesto be both the subject of a criminal proceeding andimpeachment at the same time.

On 29 February 1988, the Senate trial ofMecham began. During the trial, which lasted sixweeks, Mecham took the unprecedented move ofdefending himself. He claimed that he was a politi-cal outsider who had been under attack by his po-litical enemies, Majority Leader Burton Barr andstate Attorney General Robert Corbin, as well asthe press. He opined that he had moved againstspecial interests in getting rid of the King holidayand cutting taxes and had angered many groupswith his “naivete.” On 30 March 1988, the Senate,voting sixteen to twelve, dismissed the second ar-ticle, “Delivering False Sworn Statements Relatingto Official Filings Made While in Office,” so as notto prejudice any part of the pending criminal trial.(If convicted Mecham could have claimed doublejeopardy for this offense.) Despite this move, theSenate stood ready to convict Mecham. On 4 April,debating late into the night, the Senate finallyvoted twenty-one to nine to convict on the first ar-ticle and twenty-six to four to convict on the third.With that conviction, Mecham became the firststate governor since Henry S. Johnston of Okla-homa in 1929 to be convicted in an impeachmenttrial and removed from office. A vote to prohibitMecham from ever holding office again in the statefell short of the two-thirds required vote. Secretaryof State Mofford was named as acting governor.(Arizona has no lieutenant governor.)

Mecham still faced the criminal trial. His legalcounsel branded the prosecutors “guards atAuschwitz” who were toadies of state AttorneyGeneral Robert Corbin, widely rumored as want-ing to ride a Mecham conviction to the governor’schair, and Corbin’s aide, Chief Assistant AttorneyGeneral Steve Twist. On 16 June 1988, a Phoenix

jury acquitted Mecham and his brother of allcharges. Claiming complete vindication, Mechamberated the state officials who had impeached andremoved him. He said he wanted to form a group,“Forward Arizona,” to elect what he said was “anhonest legislature.” Ironically, just three years later,many of the legislators who had voted to impeachMecham were caught up in the “AZSCAM” scan-dal, when they were videotaped taking payoffsfrom an alleged underworld figure to promotegambling in the state.

In 1990 Mecham sought the Republican guber-natorial nomination, but lost. In 1992, running asan Independent against Senator John McCain forthe U.S. Senate, Mecham got 10 percent of the vote.

References: Jenkins, Sammy S., Mecham, Arizona’sFighting Governor: A Constitutional Conflict, ‘Freedomof the Press’ or Political Assassination (Albuquerque,NM: All States Publishing, 1988); “Mecham, Evan,” inJohn Raimo, ed., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1978–1983 (Westport,CT: Meckler Publishing, 1985), 27–31; Mecham, Evan,Impeachment: The Arizona Conspiracy (Glendale, AZ:MP Press, 1988); Record of Proceedings of the Court ofImpeachment: In the Trail of Honorable Evan Mecham,Governor, State of Arizona. Arizona State Senate,Sitting as a Court of Impeachment (St. Paul, MN: WestPublishing Company, 1991).

Miller, Thomas Woodnutt (1886–1973)United States representative from Delaware(1915–1917), alien property custodian in the ad-ministration of Presidents Warren G. Harding andCalvin Coolidge (1921–1925), whose receipt ofbribes landed him in prison for one year. Born inWilmington, Delaware, on 26 June 1886, he at-tended the prestigious Hotchkiss School, afterwhich he went to Yale University, graduating fromthat institution in 1908. His fascination with min-ing led him to go to work soon after leaving Yale asa steel roller for the Bethlehem Steel Company. Hisemployment there was short, however, lasting onlytwo years. In 1910 Miller entered the politicalarena, going to work as a secretary for U.S. Repre-sentative William H. Heald of Delaware until 1912.During this time, Miller studied law in Washing-ton, D.C., and in 1913 was named secretary of statefor Delaware. His father, Charles R. Miller, had beenelected governor of Delaware the previous year andupon taking office had filled the secretary of stateposition with his son. The following year, Thomas

228 Miller, Thomas Woodnutt

Miller was elected to a seat in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, serving a single term in the Sixty-fourth Congress from 4 March 1915 to 3 March1917. In 1916 he lost his bid for a second term.

In 1917, after leaving office, Miller volunteeredfor service in the U.S.Army and in 1918 saw actionin the European theater during World War I as amember of the Seventy-ninth Infantry. Woundedin action, he received the Purple Heart. By the endof the war in November 1918, he had risen to therank of colonel. After his return to the UnitedStates, his interest in the welfare of his fellow vet-erans led him to help form the American Legion,now the leading veterans’ rights and interests or-ganization. Miller was joined in this effort by suchmen as Eric Fisher Woods, George Ared White,William “Wild Bill” Donovan (who later helpedform the OSS, the forerunner of the modern CIA),Theodore Roosevelt Jr., and others. Miller servedas vice chairman of the Paris caucus, the meetingthat helped found the Legion, in March 1919.

In 1920 Miller reentered the political field whenhe served as a campaign manager for GeneralLeonard Wood in Wood’s fight for the Republicanpresidential nomination. Wood was unsuccessful,but Miller had attracted the attention of the even-tual nominee, Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio,who went on to win the election that year. WhenHarding took office, he named Miller alien prop-erty custodian. In 1917 Congress had establishedthe Office of Alien Property Custodian as part ofthe Trading with the Enemy Act (40 Stat. 411) to“administer all suits in federal courts and allclaims to seizure and vesting of enemy-owned orenemy-controlled property” during World War I.In an oral history interview conducted in 1966,Miller explained:

The office of Alien Property Custodian was chargedwith administering the several hundred millions ofdollars of property seized under the Trading withthe Enemy Act. . . . In addition to the administrativestaff of over 300 in the Washington office, therewere thousands of others employed to run the vari-ous businesses in every state of the Union and over-seas. This was the greatest patronage source of anydepartment of the federal government. When theHarding administration took over on March 4,1921, there were thousands of such jobs and posi-tions held by Democrats under the former AlienProperty Custodians, A. Mitchell Palmer, with

whom I had served in Congress before the war, andFrancis P. Garvin. This was the situation that con-fronted the newly-appointed Alien Property Custo-dian when taking over the operation in the office onMarch 12, 1921.

Despite Miller eventually getting caught up inthe scandals that haunted the Harding administra-tion, his name is barely known to history for thisreason. Even his alleged crime is mired in contro-versy—it is claimed that he took bribes. Millerstates:

While I was abroad in 1925, President Coolidge haddismissed Attorney General Daugherty from his cab-inet as a result of an investigation into the operationof his office which had included . . . jurisdiction overthe claims allowed by the office of the Alien PropertyCustodian. There was one such claim allowed for theAmerican Metals Company, which claimed Swissownership and was thereby entitled to have returnedseveral million dollars that had been impounded atthe start of World War I as enemy property under theTrading with the Enemy Act.

I was indicted by the grand jury in New York earlyin 1926 together with Mr. Daugherty. The first trial re-sulted in a hung jury in the fall of 1926. The secondtrial in the spring of 1927 resulted in a hung jury byone for Mr. Daugherty and a conviction for me.

The charge was “conspiracy to not give my bestservices to the United States government.” The fed-eral conspiracy statute is very broad and all-inclu-sive. My attorney, former Judge Seabury of investi-gation fame in connection with the former MayorJimmy Walker of New York City, advised me to ap-peal the conviction to the Circuit Court of Appealsof the Third District, as in his opinion there couldnot be a one-man conspiracy. Inasmuch as Mr.Daugherty had not been convicted of a similarcharge of conspiracy, such a charge could not legallystand against me.

On the United States Circuit Court of Appeals inNew York, one of the judges was Martin Manton. Tobe brief, I was approached by an emissary from Jus-tice Manton who indicated that for the sum of tenthousand dollars, an opinion would be written byJustice Manton quashing the conviction. This I re-fused to enter into. In due course, my appeal was de-nied, and a scathing opinion by Justice Manton sentme to Atlanta for one year, May 1928 to May 1929.

Miller was just one of many members of theHarding administration to be involved in graft and

Miller, Thomas Woodnutt 229

corruption: Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fallwent to prison for taking bribes to sell federal oillands to cronies; Jesse Smith, assistant to AttorneyGeneral Harry M. Daugherty, took bribes frombootleggers; Charles R. Forbes, administrator ofthe Veterans’ Bureau, took kickbacks from contrac-tors and stole government property; and Forbes’sassistant, Charles Cramer, committed suicide afterhis own corruption was revealed.

After getting out of prison, Miller moved toNevada and started his life over. In the nearly fourdecades following, until his death, Miller became a“spirited” public citizen, serving as a founder ofthe Nevada state park system and chairman of theNevada State Park Commission several times inthe 1930s, 1950s, and at the time of his death. In1945 he went to work as a staff field representativeof the United States Veterans’ Employment Ser-vice, serving until 1957. Miller died in Reno,Nevada, on 5 May 1973, at the age of eighty-six.His ashes were interred in the Masonic MemorialGardens in Reno.

See also Manton, Martin ThomasReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Memoirs of Thomas WoodnutMiller, a Public Spirited Citizen of Delaware andNevada. An Oral History Conducted by Mary EllenGlass (University of Nevada at Reno Oral HistoryProgram, 1966), 109, 127–128.

Mills, Wilbur Daigh (1909–1992)United States representative from Arkansas(1939–1977), caught up in the famous “TidalBasin” scandal of 1974, in which it was discoveredhe had hired a prostitute in his House office. Millswas at one time perhaps the most powerful politi-cian in Washington, responsible as chairman ofthe House Committee on Ways and Means for for-mulating tax policy. He was born in Kensett,Arkansas, on 24 May 1909 and attended the publicschools. He attended Hendrix College in Conway,Arkansas. He also attended the Harvard UniversityLaw School and after receiving his law degree re-turned to Arkansas, where he was admitted to thestate bar in 1933. He opened a practice in the townof Searcy, Arkansas.

In 1934, Mills, a Democrat, was elected as acounty and probate judge of White County,Arkansas, where he served until 1938. He re-

signed his seat to run for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives. In those days, winning theDemocratic primary was akin to winning theelection, and Mills easily won the primary and thegeneral election. He entered Congress on 3 Janu-ary 1939 and remained in that institution for thenext twenty-eight years. Mills served for the firsteighteen years of his congressional service as amember of the all-important House Ways andMeans Committee, where tax policy is debatedand written. In 1956 he became the second-rank-ing Democrat on that committee, under chairmanJere Cooper of Tennessee.

However, on 18 December 1957, Cooper diedsuddenly, and Mills was promoted to chairman ofWays and Means. Mills would serve as chairmanfrom 1958 until 1974—sixteen years, the longesttenure of one person as chairman of that commit-tee. Mills did not serve as chairman—he was theleader on Capitol Hill of tax legislation. Presidentsfrom Eisenhower to Nixon dealt with Mills to gettax cuts and raises passed. Mills set standards forthe committee by limiting membership to twenty-five members, whom he had to approve. He was re-sponsible for numerous tax bills, most notably the

230 Mills, Wilbur Daigh

In the famous “Tidal Basin Incident" (1974), Chairman of theHouse Ways and Means Committee Wilbur D. Mills was caughtwith a prostitute. Mills took a leave of absence from Congress.(Library of Congress)

1964 tax cut, the 1965 legislation that establishedMedicare, and the income tax bill of 1968, and formuch of his tenure he was considered a probablesuccessor to John W. McCormack as Speaker of theHouse.

What did Mills in was an event referred to as“The Tidal Basin Incident.” On 7 October 1974,Mills was driving near the Tidal Basin in Washing-ton, D.C., when he was pulled over by police fordriving erratically. As the police were giving him aticket, they noticed that Mills was obviously drunkand was bleeding from cuts on his face. They alsonoticed a woman slithering away from his car, whothen jumped right into the water of the TidalBasin. This woman was Annabel Battistella, an Ar-gentinian stripper who performed under thename of Fanne Fox; she was also known as the “Ar-gentinian Firecracker.” Details soon emerged, notonly about Mills’s extramarital relationship withBattistella, but also about his alcoholism, whichwas out of control and impairing his ability to con-centrate on his job. Mills took a leave of absencefrom the chairmanship of the Ways and MeansCommittee in an attempt to get his life back to-gether. Representative Al Ullman, Democrat ofOregon, stepped in as acting chairman and even-tually was made permanent chairman. The scan-dal, however, was ruinous to Mills’s ability to lead.He won reelection in 1974, but never returned aschairman of Ways and Means. In 1976 he did notstand for reelection. Despite his fall from power, hewas accepted as a tax consultant with the Wash-ington, D.C., office of the New York law firm Shea,Gould, Climenko and Casey, where he worked ontax policy for several years.

Retiring to his home in Kensett, Arkansas, Millsdied in Searcy,Arkansas,on 2 May 1992, three weeksshy of his eighty-third birthday.He was buried in theKensett Cemetery in Kensett. In 1991 the Universityof Arkansas established the Wilbur D. Mills Chair inAlcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention.

References: Congressional Biographical Directory; Foxe,Fanne,“Fanne Foxe, by Annabel ‘Fanne Foxe’Battistella with Yvonne Dunleavy” (New York:Pinnacle Books, 1975); Green Stephen, and MargotHornblower,“Mills Admits Being Present during TidalBasin Scuffle,” Washington Post, 11 October 1974;Hevesi, Dennis,“Wilbur Mills, Long a Power inCongress, is Dead at 82,” New York Times, 3 May 1992,53; Manley, John F., The Politics of Finance: the HouseCommittee on Ways and Means (Boston: Little, Brown,

1970); Zelizer, Julian E., Taxing America: Wilbur D.Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Mitchell, John Hipple (1835–1905)United States senator from Oregon (1873–1879,1885–1897, 1901–1905), implicated and convictedof various Oregon land frauds but died before hecould serve any time in prison. Born John MitchellHipple in Washington County, Pennsylvania, on 22June 1835, he was the son of John Hipple andJemima (née Mitchell) Hipple, both farmers. In1837 John Hipple moved with his parents to ButlerCounty, Pennsylvania, where he attended localschools as well as private schools and the Wither-spoon Institute. However, there is no record that hereceived any degree of what is considered second-ary education. He taught school for a time, thenread the law. In 1857 he was admitted to the Penn-sylvania state bar but moved west instead, settlingfor a time in California before he relocated to Port-land, Oregon, in 1860.At that time, he established alaw practice in Portland under the name John Hip-ple Mitchell.

In 1861 Mitchell was elected the corporationattorney for Portland. The following year, he waselected to the Oregon state senate, serving the lasttwo years as president of that body. In 1866 he ranunsuccessfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate, but in1872 he ran again and won, serving a single six-year term from 4 March 1873 until 3 March 1879.From the start of this tenure, he was plagued bytrouble: opponents charged him with bigamy, de-sertion from the army, and living under an as-sumed name, and they demanded that he not beallowed to take his seat. However, the Senate com-mittee hearing the charges found them to have nomerit and Mitchell served the full term. He left theSenate in 1879 but three years later attempted acomeback to the Senate, which was unsuccessful.In 1885 he ran again and was elected; this timebeing reelected in 1891 and serving until 1897,when he was defeated for a third term. For a time,it appeared that Mitchell’s career was over, and heresumed the practice of law in Portland. However,in 1900 he was elected a third time to the U.S. Sen-ate. It was during this tenure that Mitchell got intothe trouble that cost him his reputation and hislife.

Mitchell, John Hipple 231

Land claims in Oregon and other states in theAmerican West were under scrutiny from land of-fices—and for good reason: many “land grabbers”were using fictitious names and documents topurchase homesteads in areas that the U.S. gov-ernment was setting aside for wilderness. Thus,such claims, if valid, would be worth a tremendousamount of money. One such “land grabber” wasStephen A. Douglas Puter. When investigated fortwelve homesteads he had illegally set up in theCascade Mountains, Puter went to Mitchell, hisU.S. senator, and allegedly paid him $2,000 to askCommissioner of the General Land Office BingerHermann to certify the homesteads as valid andend the investigations. Upon Mitchell’s recom-mendation, Hermann did just that, and Puter re-turned to Oregon, sold the land, and made a quickprofit of more than $10,000.

By this time, Secretary of the Interior EthanAllen Hitchcock, who oversaw the General LandOffice, became suspicious of the quick patent ap-proval by Hermann (who was later fired but nevercharged with any wrongdoing). Bypassing localdistrict attorneys, Allen hired Francis J. Heney(later famed for prosecuting San Francisco MayorEugene Schmitz) to convene a grand jury. Puterand his accomplices were indicted, and, on 6 De-cember 1904 were convicted of conspiracy to de-fraud the government of its public lands. At thistime, Puter turned against Mitchell and offered toturn state’s evidence, implicating Mitchell in thefraud. Puter testified before a grand jury that hehad bribed Mitchell with $2,000 to use his influ-ence to speed the patents on the land in whichPuter had invested. Puter was eventually fined andhe ultimately served seventeen months in prisonbefore being pardoned by President TheodoreRoosevelt in 1907.

On 1 January 1905, Heney obtained an indict-ment against Mitchell. However, the local U.S. at-torney, John H. Hall, was due to prosecute the case;Heney obtained Hall’s dismissal, and Heney wasappointed to oversee the case. Mitchell, after post-ing bail, hurried back to Washington, where hetook to the floor of the U.S. Senate and denied thathe had taken a bribe in exchange for helping Puter.However, Mitchell was also indicted, on 1 February1905, with receiving $1,750 in fees for helping toexpedite seventy claims of one Frederick A. Kribs.William J. Burns, who later helped found the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation, traced money fromKribs back to Mitchell’s account. After Mitchell’slaw partner, Judge Albert H. Tanner, admitted tothe scheme, Mitchell was finished. Mitchell re-turned to the Senate after his second indictment,but whereas he had once been warmly received, hewas now a pariah. He retained former U.S. SenatorJohn M. Thurston of Nebraska as his counsel.

At trial, Thurston argued that Mitchell had anoutstanding record of fighting for Oregon and thatthe witnesses against him were perjurers andother assorted criminals. In his closing argument,Thurston pointed to the ailing, seventy-year-oldMitchell and said he was “already in the valley,with but a little way for his tottering feet to travelere he reached the river.” On 5 July 1905, Mitchellwas convicted on both counts and sentenced to sixmonths in prison and fined $1,000. Friends in theSenate pressured him to resign, but he refused. Be-fore an investigation whether or not to expel himcould be undertaken, Mitchell died in Portland on8 December 1905. The Senate did not pause to re-member their deceased colleague, and, in a largerslap, refused to send a delegation to his funeral.Another congressman, John Newton Williamson,was also caught up in the land frauds and con-victed, although his role had been far smaller thanMitchell’s had been. Mitchell became the firstAmerican politician convicted of fraud in thetwentieth century.

See also Williamson, John NewtonReferences: Byrd, Robert C., The Senate, 1789–1989:

Historical Statistics, 1789–1992, 4 vols. (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, 1993), IV:667;Cummings, Hilary Anne.“John H. Mitchell, a Man ofHis Time: Foundations of His Political Career,1860–1879.” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon,1985); O’Callaghan, Jerry A.“Senator John H. Mitchelland the Oregon Land Frauds, 1905.” Pacific HistoricalReview 21 (August 1952): 255–261; Robbins, WilliamG.,“Mitchell, John Hipple,” in John A. Garraty andMark C. Carnes, gen. eds., American NationalBiography, 24 vols. (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999), 15:609–610.

Mitchell, John Newton (1913–1988)Attorney general of the United States (1969–1973), implicated in his role in the Watergate affairthat brought down President Richard Nixon.Mitchell remains an obscure figure, despite hishaving served in World War II and as Nixon’s cam-

232 Mitchell, John Newton

paign manager in the 1968 election. Born in De-troit, Michigan, on 15 September 1913, Mitchellgrew up on Long Island, New York, attending theFordham Law School, from which he received alaw degree in 1936. That same year, he joined theNew York law firm of Caldwell and Raymond as aclerk. After he received his law degree, Mitchelljoined the firm as a staff attorney, where heworked on public housing and bond issues. Herose to become a full partner in the firm.

In 1943 Mitchell put his career on hold andjoined the U.S. Navy. He became the commander ofseveral squadrons of torpedo boats (PTs), includ-ing the PT-109, famed in the story of future U.S.President John F. Kennedy. For bravery during thisconflict, Mitchell was awarded the Silver Star, oneof the nation’s highest military honors. With theconclusion of World War II, Mitchell returned tohis position at his old law firm (now Caldwell,Trimble, and Mitchell), focusing his attention onthe issue of financing public housing throughbonds. His work brought him to the attention ofNew York state leaders, and beginning in 1960 heworked closely with Governor Nelson Rockefelleron how public housing could be financed.

On 1 January 1967, Mitchell’s firm merged witha major firm in California, and this broughtMitchell together with one of that firm’s leadingpartners: former Vice President Richard M. Nixon.This new firm became Nixon, Mudge, Rose,Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell. Mitchell and theformer vice president became close friends. Nixon,who had lost the 1960 presidential race (ironicallyto Mitchell’s friend John F. Kennedy) had passedup a chance to run again in 1964, but in 1968 hedecided to throw his hat into the political ring.Nixon’s closeness to Mitchell allowed the formervice president to select Mitchell as his campaignmanager. Mitchell had never run a political cam-paign before—he was basically apolitical—butNixon’s message was particularly attractive to him,and to others who had not voted for a Republicancandidate before, because of his sense of law andorder, particularly against Vietnam War protestorsand black radicals. Nixon won his party’s nomina-tion, and that November he was elected over Dem-ocrat Hubert Humphrey in one of the closest racesin American history.

On 11 December 1968, Nixon held a press con-ference and announced all of his cabinet selec-

tions—including John Mitchell as attorney gen-eral. Mitchell was easily confirmed by the Senateand took office as the sixty-seventh attorney gen-eral. In his four years at the Department of Justice,Mitchell used his powers to fight crime and drugs,as well as to use wiretaps to spy on protestors andblack radicals. In 1971, Mitchell became embroiledin what became known as the Watergate scandal.A series of leaks of information from the WhiteHouse and other executive departments led Nixonand his aides to form a secret unit of men called“the Plumbers,”who were to investigate these leaksand “plug”them. The head of this group, G. GordonLiddy, met with Mitchell in his office in the De-partment of Justice and briefed the attorney gen-eral on “Operation Gemstone,” a plan to perpetratea series of break-ins and other illegal acts to findevidence against Nixon’s political enemies.Mitchell did not initially agree with this plan, buthe did later authorize the payment of some$250,000 to “the Plumbers” directly from Nixon’s1972 election campaign fund. It was the first stepin Mitchell’s undoing.

On 15 February 1972, in the midst of the activi-ties that would culminate in the Plumbers’ break-in of Democratic Party headquarters in the Water-gate Hotel in Washington, D.C., Mitchell resignedas attorney general to once again become Nixon’scampaign manager for his reelection effort. How-ever, his wife, Martha, a colorful and mercurial fig-ure in Washington social circles, tired of her hus-band’s role in the campaign and demanded heresign. This was done on 1 July 1972 after onlyfour and one-half months on the job.

Just weeks earlier, on 17 June, five men work-ing for Liddy were arrested after breaking intoDemocratic Party headquarters at the WatergateHotel, and the scandal that had taken shape firstin Mitchell’s office in 1971 exploded into full pub-lic view. These men were found to have worked forthe Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP)in 1972, and, by extension, Mitchell. In 1973, asthe scandal expanded, the U.S. Senate called manyof Nixon’s aides in to testify before the Senate Se-lect Committee on Presidential Campaign Activi-ties, known as the Senate Watergate Committee,headed by Senator Samuel J. Ervin (D-NC). Thesehearings were televised on national television,and millions of people watched as some of themost powerful men in the nation were linked to a

Mitchell, John Newton 233

massive scandal of untold proportions. On 17May 1973, White House counsel John W. Dean IIItestified that Mitchell, along with White HouseChief of Staff H. R.“Bob” Haldeman and Presiden-tial Chief Advisor on Domestic Affairs John D.Ehrlichman, were the key men behind Watergateand the myriad of crimes arising from it, and thatNixon himself had approved of the cover-up of theinvestigation after the Watergate burglars hadbeen arrested. Dean’s allegation against Mitchellwas backed up by Nixon deputy campaign direc-tor Jeb Stuart Magruder, who also fingeredMitchell. Mitchell himself went before the com-mittee, testifying that Magruder’s and Dean’s alle-gations were “a palpable, damnable lie.”

On 29 September 1972, the Washington Post re-ported that Mitchell, as attorney general, had “per-sonally controlled a secret Republican fund usedto gather information about the Democrats.”Whenone of the two reporters on the story, Carl Bern-stein, called Mitchell for his comment on the story,he reached the former attorney general at homeasleep. Barely awake, Mitchell reportedly said, “Allthat crap, you’re putting it in the paper? It’s all beendenied. [Washington Post publisher] Katie Gra-ham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringerif that’s ever published. Good Christ! That’s themost sickening thing I ever heard.” The story, how-ever, blew open the investigation of Mitchell. Afederal grand jury began to look into his role, andin May 1973 he and former Secretary of Com-merce Maurice Stans, who had also worked forNixon’s campaign, were indicted on federalcharges of obstructing an investigation into illegalcontributions made to the campaign. The allega-tions were not related to Watergate. In April 1974both men were acquitted by a Washington, D.C.,federal jury on these charges. However, a monthbefore this acquittal, Mitchell was once again in-dicted by a federal grand jury on charges of con-spiracy, perjury, and obstruction of justice regard-ing his role in Watergate. Mitchell was chargedwith four other Watergate conspirators—Halde-man, Ehrlichman, former Assistant Attorney Gen-eral Robert C. Mardian, and Kenneth W. Parkin-son, an attorney who had worked for the Nixoncampaign after the Watergate scandal broke. On 1January 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty,and Mitchell was sentenced to two and one-half toeight years in prison. He was sent to a federal

prison at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama andwas released after only nineteen months in con-finement. He was paroled on 20 January 1979 andwent to work as a private consultant, having beendisbarred as an attorney. He was a common figurein his neighborhood in Washington, D.C., walkingand smoking his pipe. On 9 November 1988, onone of these walks, Mitchell suffered a fatal heartattack and died in the street. He was seventy-fiveyears old. Despite his conviction, he was laid torest in Arlington National Cemetery for his servicein World War II. His gravestone, a simple block,reads:“United States Attorney General 1969–1972.Lt. J.G. United States Navy.”

He is the only attorney general, or former attor-ney general, to actually serve a prison sentence forcrimes committed in office.

See also Nixon, Richard Milhous; WatergateReferences: Meyer, Lawrence,“John N. Mitchell: Principal

in Watergate, Dies at 75,” Washington Post, 10November 1988, A1; “Mitchell, John N(ewton),” inCharles Moritz, ed., Current Biography 1969 (NewYork: H. W. Wilson, 1969), 291–293; Oelsner, Lesley,“Watergate Jury Convicts Mitchell, Haldeman,Ehrlichman and Mardian in Cover-up Case; AcquitsParkinson,” New York Times, 2 January 1975, 1.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that up-held the Independent Counsel Act of 1974 as con-stitutional. In 1982 two subcommittees of the U.S.House of Representatives issued subpoenas to theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), request-ing documents relating to the enforcement of theSuperfund, a congressional action that funds thecleanup of hazardous waste sites. President RonaldReagan received advice from the Department ofJustice that the EPA invoke executive privilege (along-held grant, allowing a president to withholdcertain documents he or she deems sensitive fromCongress) and not turn over the documents. TheEPA administrator, Anne M. Gorsuch Burford,obeyed Reagan’s order and refused to turn over thedocuments. The House subcommittees held Bur-ford in contempt, at which time she and the U.S.government, represented by the Department ofJustice, filed suit against the House of Representa-tives. In March 1983, the suit was settled, with Bur-ford agreeing to allow limited access to some ofthe documents.

234 Morrison v. Olson

In 1984 the House Judiciary Committeelaunched an investigation into how the Justice De-partment handled the entire documents contro-versy. In 1985 the committee released a report ontheir findings. Part of the report centered on thetestimony of Theodore Olson, who was serving in1982 as assistant attorney general for the Office ofLegal Counsel (OLC) in the Justice Department.Olson had testified before the committee on 10March 1983, and in their 1985 report the commit-tee concluded that Olson had given “false and mis-leading testimony” regarding the role of the JusticeDepartment. Two other Justice Department offi-cials were accused of trying to obstruct the com-mittee investigation. The committee sent a reportto the attorney general, asking that he seek an in-dependent counsel to look into the charges. UnderTitle VI of the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 591–599, an independent counsel can be ap-pointed “to investigate and, if appropriate, prose-cute certain high-ranking Government officials forviolations of federal criminal laws.” The Act re-quires the attorney general, upon receipt of infor-mation that he determines is “sufficient to consti-tute grounds to investigate whether any person[covered by the Act] may have violated any Federalcriminal law.” The attorney general directed thePublic Integrity Section (PIS) of the Criminal Di-vision of the Department of Justice to see if such arequest was warranted. The PIS reported back thatan independent counsel should be appointed. Theattorney general then asked the three-judge panelin Washington, D.C., to name such a counsel. On 23April 1986, this panel, called the Special Division,named James C. McKay, to investigate “whetherthe testimony of Olson . . . violated either 18 U.S.C.§ 1505 or § 1001, or any other provision of federallaw.” McKay did not want the assignment and re-signed his office. On 29 May 1986, the Special Divi-sion named Alexia Morrison as his replacement.In January 1987 Morrison asked the attorney gen-eral to apprise her of the “related matters” regard-ing the two other Justice Department employeeswho were investigated by the Judiciary Committee.

Because the Special Division, in their ordernaming an independent counsel, had specified thatonly Olson be investigated, the attorney general re-fused the request and asked the Special Divisionfor a ruling. On 2 April 1987, the Special Divisionruled that, because there was no investigation

asked of the two other Justice Department employ-ees, there was no authority to demand the re-quested material. However, the court did rule thatthe independent counsel could investigate whetherOlson had conspired with the other employeesnamed. The independent counsel then convened agrand jury, which served subpoenas as testifican-dum (a subpoena that requires testimony), de-manding that all three testify and provide docu-ments. All three men moved to quash thesubpoenas, claiming that the Independent CounselAct was unconstitutional. On 20 July 1987, the fed-eral District Court for the District of Columbia heldthat the act was constitutional and denied theorder to quash. The men then appealed to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Then, on 22 January 1988, a divided court, vot-ing two to one in the case of In re Sealed Case, 838F.2d 476 (1988), held that because the act did notprovide for the nomination of the counsel, withthe “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate, the actwas unconstitutional. The majority also held thatthe act violated the “appointments clause” of theU.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:“[The President] shall nominate, and by and withthe Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall ap-point Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and allother Officers of the United States, whose Appoint-ments are not herein otherwise provided for, andwhich shall be established by Law: but the Con-gress may by Law vest the Appointment of such in-ferior Officers, as they think proper, in the Presi-dent alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads ofDepartments.” Morrison, the independent coun-sel, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That courtgranted certiorari (the right to hear the case), andheard arguments on 26 April 1988.

On 29 June 1988, the Court reversed the court ofappeals and held that the Independent Counsel Actwas indeed constitutional. The Court held seven toone (Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a scathing dis-sent, and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not partici-pate) that the act did not violate the AppointmentsClause, or the constitutional right of the president tonominate and the Senate to confirm judges andother “high government officers.” The majorityopinion, delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehn-quist, upheld the act with cogent arguments. How-ever, it is the dissent by Justice Scalia that came to

Morrison v. Olson 235

be quoted later, when independent counsels cameunder fire for their investigations in the 1990s:

The notion that every violation of law should beprosecuted, including—indeed, especially—everyviolation by those in high places, is an attractive one,and it would be risky to argue in an election cam-paign that that is not an absolutely overriding value.Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let justice be done, thoughthe heavens may fall. The reality is, however, that it isnot an absolutely overriding value, and it was withthe hope that we would be able to acknowledge andapply such realities that the Constitution spared us,by life tenure, the necessity of election campaigns. Icannot imagine that there are not many thoughtfulmen and women in Congress who realize that thebenefits of this legislation are far outweighed by itsharmful effect upon our system of government, andeven upon the nature of justice received by thosemen and women who agree to serve in the ExecutiveBranch. But it is difficult to vote not to enact, andeven more difficult to vote to repeal, a statute called,appropriately enough, the Ethics in Government Act.If Congress is controlled by the party other than theone to which the President belongs, it has little incen-tive to repeal it; if it is controlled by the same party, itdare not. By its shortsighted action today, I fear theCourt has permanently encumbered the Republicwith an institution that will do it great harm.

See also Independent Counsel Statute; Starr, KennethWinston

References: In re Sealed Case, 838 F.2d 476 (1988);Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).

MuckrakersSee Political Corruption as Portrayed in Literature.

MugwumpsName applied to a group of disaffected members ofthe Republican Party who bolted from that party in1884 to support Democrat Grover Cleveland forpresident. The term allegedly originates frommugquomp or muckquomp, Algonquin for “chief.” Ithas never been fully explained why this group usedthis word to delineate their members; but the Mug-wumps played a significant role in American his-tory, the first time members of a political party fledin such numbers that they caused the nominee oftheir party to be defeated. All were civil service re-formers who desired to see an end to the “spoils”system of putting cronies into administration and

other positions. Many of these men were key in thepassage of the Pendleton Act in 1883. Among themwere Edwin L. Godkin, editor of the journal TheNation; William Graham Sumner, a professor atYale University; Henry Adams, a writer and mem-ber of the famed Adams family that gave the UnitedStates two presidents, and in his own right authorof Democracy: An American Novel; David Wells, agovernment worker and statistician; and CarlSchurz, a United States senator from Missouri andformer secretary of the interior.

Prior to the 1884 election, these men wroteand spoke out on the leading economic and so-cial issues of the day, taking sides on questionssuch as tariffs and whether the nation shouldadopt bimetalism—the use of both gold and sil-ver as a standard for currency—a dispute thatcame to dominate the last twenty years of thenineteenth century. But their lead issue was civilservice reform and, as an extension, clean gov-ernment. When James G. Blaine, the longtimeU.S. senator from Maine who had served as sec-retary of state and Speaker of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, won the Republican presidentialnomination in 1884, many Mugwumps left theRepublican Party, incensed that a man whose po-litical credibility had been questioned (Blainehad been implicated in a railroad bond scandalbut had never been prosecuted) had been nomi-nated for the highest office in the land. For in-stance, Mark Twain wrote:

The Republican Presidential nomination of JamesG. Blaine resulted in a political revolt such as thenation had not known. Blaine was immensely pop-ular, but he had many enemies in his own party.There were strong suspicions of his being con-nected with doubtful financiering—enterprises,more or less sensitive to official influence, and whilethese scandals had become quieted a very largeportion of the Republican constituency refused tobelieve them unjustified. What might be termed theintellectual element of Republicanism was againstBlaine: George William Curtis, Charles DudleyWarner, James Russell Lowell, Henry Ward Beecher,Thomas Nast, the firm of Harper and Brothers,Joseph W. Hawley, Joseph Twichell, Mark Twain—infact the majority of thinking men who held princi-ple above party in their choice.

Democrats nominated as their standard-bearerNew York Governor Stephen Grover Cleveland,

236 Muckrakers

noted for his unusual honesty. The Mugwumps de-cided to side with Cleveland, assisting in his nar-row election victory over Blaine. During Cleve-land’s first administration, 1885–1889, Mugwumpinfluence was never higher.

The defeat of Blaine was the chief goal of theMugwumps aside from civil service reform. Theattainment of these two ideals led to a breakup ofthe informal group soon after Cleveland left officein 1889.

See also Blaine, James GillespieReferences: Blodgett, Geoffrey T.,“The Mind of the

Boston Mugwumps,” Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview, XLVIII:4 (March 1962), 614–634;McFarland, Gerald W., Mugwumps, Morals & Politics,1884–1920 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts

Press, 1975); Paine, Albert Bigelow, Mark Twain: ABiography (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1912),778–782; Tucker, David M., Mugwumps: PublicMoralists of the Gilded Age (Columbia: University ofMissouri Press, 1998).

Mulligan LettersSee Blaine, James Gillespie

Myers, Michael Joseph (1943– )United States representative (1976–1980) fromPennsylvania, expelled from the House in 1980after being convicted of bribery and conspiracy inthe ABSCAM sting by federal agents impersonating

Myers, Michael Joseph 237

The term "Mugwumps" applied to Republicans who left their party to campaign for Democrat Grover Cleveland—the first timemembers of a political party fled in such numbers that they caused their party's nominee to be defeated. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Arab sheikhs to gain political favors from Americanpoliticians. Known as “Ozzie” Myers, he was born inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, on 4 May 1943. He at-tended the Catholic schools and some public schoolsin Philadelphia; afterward, he worked as a long-shoreman on the docks of Philadelphia from 1961 to1970. He never received a secondary education. In1970 Myers was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvaniahouse of representatives, serving until 1976. On 12April 1976, Representative William Aloysius Barrett(D-PA) died, and Myers announced his candidacy tosucceed the late congressman. He was elected andtook his seat in the Ninety-fifth Congress on 2 No-vember 1976. Myers was reelected in 1978.

In 1980 Myers and several other congressmencame under scrutiny for taking bribes from sup-posed Saudi sheikhs—actually FBI agents in dis-guise—who expressed the desire to gain entry intothe United States, a scandal that later becameknown as ABSCAM, short for “Arab scam.” Myerswas perhaps one of the most egregious violatorsnabbed in the investigation. Although many ofthose implicated had taken bribes from the fakeSaudis, Myers was seen on videotape taking themoney with glee. In exchange, he simply intro-duced a bill in Congress to allow the phony sheikhsto emigrate to the United States without the normalimmigration procedures. The House JudiciaryCommittee held hearings on Myers and recom-mended he be expelled from the House. This is anunusually severe punishment—in the history ofthe Congress, only a handful of members have

faced expulsion, and even fewer have had that pun-ishment imposed on them. Nonetheless, a resolu-tion calling for Myers’s expulsion was introduced,and, on 2 October 1980, the House voted 376–30 toexpel the Pennsylvania Democrat. Myers thus be-came the first congressman to be expelled sinceJohn B. Clark of Missouri, John W. Reid of Mis-souri, and Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky were ex-pelled in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy.

Myers had already been convicted by a federaljury of taking a $50,000 bribe in the ABSCAMcase. His appeals exhausted, he went to jail. Myersultimately served twenty and one-half months inprison and was paroled in 1985. For a time afterleaving prison, because he was barred from everrunning for national political office, he worked inhis family’s restaurant in Philadelphia. At the timeof this writing, he works as a building contractorin New York.

See also ABSCAMReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Tolchin, Martin,“Myers IsOusted from the House in Abscam Case,” The NewYork Times, 3 October 1980, A1, A16; U.S. Congress,House, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers,House Report No. 96–1387, 96th Congress, 2ndSession (1980), 5; U.S. Congress, House, Committeeon Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter ofRepresentative Michael J. Myers: Report of Committeeon Standards of Official Conduct (to accompany H.Res. 794) (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1980).

238 Myers, Michael Joseph

1911 Amendments to the Publicity ActSee Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925; Public-ity Act of 1910

1940 Amendments to the Hatch ActSee Hatch Act

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S.232 (1921)Supreme Court decision holding that, because theConstitution did not bestow any power on Con-gress to regulate primary elections, any spendinglimits set on such elections were invalid. JusticeJames McReynolds wrote, “The ultimate questionfor solution here is whether under the grant ofpower to regulate ‘the manner of holding elections’Congress may fix the maximum sum which a can-didate therein may spend, or advise or cause to becontributed and spent by others to procure hisnomination.”

Truman H. Newberry (1864–1945), a Michi-gan politician who had served in the House ofRepresentatives (1879–1881) and as secretary ofthe navy (1908–1909), received the Republicannomination for a U.S. Senate seat in a primaryheld in August 1918 and was elected on 5 Novem-ber of that same year. After the election, it was al-leged that Newberry, in the period from Decem-ber 1917 until November 1918, “unlawfully and

feloniously did conspire, combine, confederate,and agree together to commit the offense on hispart of willfully violating the Act of Congress ap-proved June 25, 1910, as amended [the CorruptPractices Act], by giving, contributing, expend-ing, and using and by causing to be given, con-tributed, expended and used, in procuring hisnomination and election at said primary andgeneral elections, a greater sum than the laws ofMichigan permitted and above ten thousand dol-lars, to wit, $100,000.” Newberry and his codefen-dants (including Henry Ford, his Democraticrival for the U.S. Senate) were convicted on countone of the indictment. Newberry and the othersappealed to the United States Supreme Court onthe grounds that the Corrupt Practices Act gov-erned acts that were beyond congressional au-thority. The Supreme Court heard arguments on7 and 10 January 1921.

On 2 May 1921, Justice McReynolds held for asix-to-three majority (Chief Justice Edward Whitewas joined by Justices John Clarke and Louis Bran-deis in dissent) in striking down the convictionsand holding that section of the Corrupt PracticesAct to be unconstitutional. Justice McReynoldswrote, “Two Senators were allotted to each stateand the method was prescribed for determiningthe number of Representatives. Subject to theseimportant limitations, Congress was empoweredby law to regulate the times, places and manner ofholding the elections, except as to the places of

N

239

choosing Senators.” Quoting an earlier case, Kiddv. Pearson, he continued:

Many things are prerequisites to elections or mayaffect their outcome-voters, education, means oftransportation, health, public discussion, immigra-tion, private animosities, even the face and figure ofthe candidate; but authority to regulate the mannerof holding them gives no right to control any ofthese. It is settled, e.g., that the power to regulate in-terstate and foreign commerce does not reach what-ever is essential thereto. Without agriculture, manu-facture, mining, etc., commerce could not exist butthis fact does not suffice to subject them to the con-trol of Congress. . . . It should not be forgotten that,exercising inherent police power, the state may sup-press whatever evils may be incident to primary orconvention. As “each house shall be the judge of theelections, qualifications and returns of its ownmembers,” and as Congress may by law regulate thetimes, places and manner of holding elections, thenational government is not without power to pro-tect itself against corruption, fraud or other maligninfluences. The judgment of the court below mustbe reversed, and the cause remanded for furtherproceedings in conformity with this opinion.

In 1941, in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299(1941), the Supreme Court held that the Constitu-tion did allow Congress to oversee primary elec-tions, effectively overruling Newberry.

See also Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925References: “Convict Newberry, Who Is Sentenced to 2

Years in Jail; Senator Is Also Fined $10,000—Sixteenof His Aids [sic] Also Convicted in Election Plot,” NewYork Times, 21 March 1920, 1.

Nixon, Richard Milhous (1913–1994)Thirty-seventh president of the United States(1969–1974), forced to resign from the presidencyfor his cover-up of the Watergate affair (1974), thefirst president in American history to resign his of-fice. Nixon had one of the most illustrious careersin American political history, and despite his igno-minious departure from the presidency, he re-mained a respected statesman until his death.Born in Yorba Linda, California, on 9 January1913, he was the son of Frank Nixon, who ran agrocery store and gasoline station, and Hannah(née Milhous) Nixon, who was a Quaker and a dis-tant cousin of Herbert Hoover. Richard Nixon at-

tended local schools and worked his way throughnearby Whittier College, earning a degree andmoving on to Duke University. He graduated thirdin his class from Duke in 1937 and returned toCalifornia, where he went to work for the law firmof Kroop and Bewley. He moved up to become ajunior partner in the firm, as well as getting an as-sistant city attorney position. He met Pat Ryan, ateacher at Whittier High School and the daughterof a truck driver. The two married in 1940.

When the United States entered World War II,Nixon, despite being a Quaker and coming from apacifistic background, volunteered for service inthe U.S. Navy and was given a commission of lieu-tenant junior grade. He was sent to the South Pa-cific, seeing limited action before he returned tothe United States in 1945. He was discharged thefollowing year with the rank of lieutenant com-mander. Immediately, he threw his hat into the po-litical ring. Running as a Republican, Nixon chal-lenged veteran U.S. Representative Gerald Voorhisfor the seat representing California’s Twelfth Dis-trict. Nixon used his growing political acumen todefeat Voorhis by more than 15,000 votes. Nixontook his place in Congress on 3 January 1947, serv-ing until 4 March 1950. He won reelection in 1948,and it was during this second term in the Housethat Nixon achieved a national prominence fewpoliticians ever get.As a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), Nixonused a former Communist, Whittaker Chambers,to accuse Alger Hiss, a former State Departmentofficial, of being part of a major pro-Soviet Com-munist spy ring inside the U.S. government. Hisswent before the committee to refute Chambers andNixon’s charges, but he was eventually tried andconvicted of perjury. Nixon’s role in Hiss’s downfallled to national exposure.

In 1950 Nixon decided to forego reelection tothe House to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate. His op-ponent was Representative Helen GahaganDouglas, a left-wing Democrat who was the wifeof motion picture actor Melvyn Douglas. Nixonopenly accused Douglas of siding with left-wingand Communist forces in the United States. Nixonwas criticized for this tactic but the charge stuck,and he went on to win the election by some500,000 votes. Nixon would serve only two yearsof this Senate term. In both the House and theSenate, he became known for his strict conserva-

240 Nixon, Richard Milhous

tive views, both on domestic and internationalmatters.

In 1952, at the Republican National Conventionin Chicago, when former General Dwight D. Eisen-hower received the party’s nomination for presi-dent, he selected the thirty-nine-year-old Nixon ashis running mate. It was a daring selection—Nixon had served only two years of his Senateterm and had served only four years in the House.Yet he was considered a heavyweight on interna-tional issues, and his nomination seemed sound.During the campaign, however, word leaked thatNixon had illegally accepted some $18,000 in un-reported campaign funds from friends in Califor-nia to pay off his campaign debts. In addition, oneof these friends gave Nixon’s two daughters a smalldog they named “Checkers.” The furor over Nixon’salleged corruption forced the Californian to makea prime-time television appearance on 23 Septem-ber 1952, in which he said that he had done noth-ing wrong and that his children would keep thedog no matter what. The address, which has cometo be known as the “Checkers” speech, is perhapsone of the most important in history—one inwhich a vice presidential candidate spoke to thenation to avoid being thrown off the ticket. It waslater revealed that Eisenhower wanted Nixon toleave the Republican ticket if the press reports didnot cease on the funding matter. With the “Check-ers” speech, Nixon used his charm and politicalsavvy to his advantage and swayed public opinionin his favor. Eisenhower and Nixon won the 1952campaign by over 6 million votes, and on 20 Janu-ary 1953 Nixon, at just forty years old, became vicepresident of the United States.

As the second most powerful man behindEisenhower, Nixon was not only a reliable andtrusted aide to the president but also a politicalheavyweight who used his office to build up politi-cal capital. On 24 September 1955, Eisenhowersuffered a heart attack, but Nixon assured the na-tion and the world that his service as acting presi-dent was in accordance with Eisenhower’s wishes.In 1958 Eisenhower sent him to Latin America,despite warnings of rising anti-American feeling.Nixon was attacked by a mob in Caracas,Venezuela, on 13 May 1958, but once again he usedthe trip to show his political strength. In July 1959Nixon went to Moscow to attend the American Na-tional Exhibition. There, in front of a display of

American appliances that were unavailable in theSoviet Union, Nixon argued with Soviet PremierNikita S. Khrushchev. The contention becameknown as the “kitchen debate,” and once againshowed the world that Richard Nixon, despite hisyoung age, was able to take on even the most pow-erful of world leaders. In 1956 Nixon was renomi-nated for a second term as vice president withEisenhower, and the two men were easily reelectedover their 1952 opponent, Adlai E. Stevenson, whowas running for a second time. Nixon stood unop-posed for the 1960 Republican presidential nomi-nation. In perhaps one of the most important mo-ments in American political history, Nixon, as theRepublican nominee, took on Democrat John F.Kennedy in a nationally televised debate, the firstsuch event between two presidential candidates inAmerican history. Kennedy came off as smoothand cool, while Nixon, suffering from a virus,looked nervous and unsteady, with perspirationon his brow. The debate became the key momentin the campaign, and on election night Kennedywon a narrow victory over Nixon. For the first timesince 1947, Nixon was out of office and the politi-cal spotlight.

In 1962 Nixon sought and gained the Republi-can nomination for governor of California. He ap-peared a shoe-in but lost to newcomer DemocratEdmund G. “Pat” Brown. Angered that reporterswere always looking to trip him up, Nixon held apress conference that he called his last. “You won’thave Nixon to kick around anymore,” he stated.Nixon could have run for president in 1964, but hestuck by his original statement and bowed out ofthe race.

In 1968, however, Nixon attempted a politicalcomeback. Running in the Republican campaignagainst such heavy hitters as Governor NelsonRockefeller of New York, Nixon won early primariesin New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Despite this,polls showed that Nixon would lose if nominated,while Rockefeller would be elected. GovernorRonald Reagan of California threw his hat into thering for the party nomination but only drew votesaway from Rockefeller. In the end, Nixon capturedthe party’s nod and named Maryland GovernorSpiro T.Agnew as his running mate. The Democratsnominated Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey,whose nominating convention in Chicago wasnearly destroyed by anti-Vietnam War protestors. A

Nixon, Richard Milhous 241

third candidate, former Governor George C.Wallaceof Alabama, also entered the race as an Indepen-dent. From the start the race was close, and Nixonavoided an old mistake by refusing to debateHumphrey. On election night, 5 November 1968,Nixon won by a slim 500,000 votes, becoming thenation’s thirty-seventh president.

Nixon’s first term was mired in issues such as apoor economy and the war in Vietnam. Utilizing in-ternational issues to his credit, Nixon went to Com-munist China in 1972, the first American leader to

do so since the 1949 Communist revolution inChina. Nixon also established a policy of détentewith the Soviet Union and gradually ended Ameri-can involvement in Vietnam. On domestic matters,he helped to establish the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), a government bureau responsible foroverseeing the environment in the United States.With his renomination for president in 1972, Nixonbecame one of only two men to get five major nom-inations from their parties (Franklin Roosevelt isthe other).

242 Nixon, Richard Milhous

President Richard M. Nixon hangs tangled in a spider's web as recording tapes dangle above him. (Library of Congress)

On 17 June 1972, a group of burglars wascaught trying to break in and bug DemocraticParty headquarters in the Watergate Hotel inWashington, D.C. Unknown to many, Nixon wasmade aware the day after the arrests that the bur-glars were working for Nixon’s own 1972 reelec-tion effort. In the Oval Office, Nixon, on audio-tape, discussed with his aides how he could usecampaign funds to pay off the burglars to keepsilent about their ties to the Nixon campaign. Atthe same time, Nixon ordered the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI), the investigative arm of theDepartment of Justice, not to investigate the mendue to national security concerns. Sitting in thechair of the president of the United States, Nixonhad committed two crimes, one of which was toend his presidency.

As the Watergate case became bigger and big-ger in the national media, the U.S. Senate estab-lished the Senate Select Committee on PresidentialCampaign Activities, known better as the SenateWatergate Committee. In hearings that were tele-vised on national television, preempting manyprograms, Nixon’s aides went before the commit-tee and either confessed their role in Watergateand other activities that were violations of the law,or, like former Attorney General John N. Mitchell,denied that Watergate was tied to Nixon at all.However, on 17 May 1974, White House counselJohn W. Dean III told the committee that he hadwarned Nixon that “there was a cancer on the pres-idency” caused by wrongdoing by Nixon and hisaides.

Although the White House denied Dean’scharges, another witness, Alexander Butterfield,related that Nixon’s Oval Office conversations weretaped by Nixon himself so that he could keep anoral record of his presidency. A special prosecutornamed by the Department of Justice, ArchibaldCox, demanded to listen to these tapes. Nixon re-fused, and Cox took Nixon to court. When Cox de-manded further tapes, Nixon ordered AttorneyGeneral Elliot Richardson to fire Cox; whenRichardson refused, as did his deputy, WilliamRuckelshaus, it was left to Solicitor General RobertH. Bork, as acting attorney general, to fire Cox. Theevent, known as the Saturday Night Massacre, ledto public outrage against Nixon, and the presidentwas forced to allow for the hiring of a new specialprosecutor. This man, Leon A. Jaworski, followed

Cox’s lead and demanded to listen to the Oval Of-fice tapes. Nixon stonewalled, claiming that thetapes fell under the aegis of executive privilege,that special right granted to presidents and theiraides so that they could formulate policy withoutpolitical scrutiny. However, Jaworski refused to buythis excuse and took Nixon to court. A federalcourt, followed by an appeals court and the UnitedStates Supreme Court, all ruled against Nixon—the latter case, United States v. Nixon, was a land-mark decision in demonstrating that even a presi-dent could not be shielded from the law. Nixongave up the tapes.

One tape showed that in the days after the Wa-tergate break-in he ordered the FBI to drop its in-vestigation of the event, bolstering the claim thatNixon had obstructed justice. The House Judi-ciary Committee, holding hearings on Watergate,passed five articles of impeachment against thepresident. Nixon saw impeachment as a foregoneconclusion but felt he could be victorious in theSenate. On 7 August 1974, however, Senate Repub-licans visited him at the White House and toldhim that his chances in the Senate were rapidlyfading as the allegations against him were sub-stantiated. The following night, Nixon went on na-tional television and told the nation that he wouldresign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford—who hadcome into office when Vice President Spiro Agnewresigned due to his own political corruption—was sworn in as president the following day. Amonth later, Ford pardoned Nixon for all crimeshe may have committed.

In the years following his resignation, Nixon re-mained at the forefront of national affairs, speak-ing out on foreign policy matters and writing sev-eral important books. His wife’s death in 1993 wasa cruel blow and may have contributed to Nixon’sown death in New York the following year, on 22April 1994 at the age of eighty-one. He was buriednext to his wife at the Richard Nixon Library andBirthplace in Yorba Linda, California.

See also Agnew, Spiro Theodore; Executive Privilege;Mitchell, John Newton; Watergate

References: Costello, William, The Facts about Nixon:An Unauthorized Biography (New York: Viking Press,1960); Mazo, Earl, Nixon: A Political Portrait (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1968); Thompson, FredDalton, At That Point in Time: The Story of the SenateWatergate Committee (New York: Quadrangle/NewYork Times Book Co., 1975); White, Theodore H.,

Nixon, Richard Milhous 243

Breach of Faith: The Fall of Richard Nixon (New York:Atheneum Publishers, 1975); Williston, Samuel,“Does a Pardon Blot Out Guilt?,” Harvard LawReview, 28 (1915), 647–654; U.S. Congress,Memorial Services in the Congress of the UnitedStates and Tributes in Eulogy of Richard M. Nixon,Late a President of the United States (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), vii-viii,7–9.

Nixon v. Missouri PAC, 528 U.S. 377(2000)United States Supreme Court decision that heldthat the political contribution limits imposed bythe Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) could with-stand constitutional scrutiny. In 1994 the state ofMissouri enacted Senate Bill 650, which com-prised a series of campaign finance reforms.Under the law, limits were placed on the amount ofcontributions that could be given to candidates forpolitical office. These specified a maximum of$1,000 to a candidate for statewide office, $500 fora candidate to the state senate, and $250 to a can-didate for the state house of representatives. Theselimits took effect in January 1995, with the statelater adjusting these limits for inflation to $1,075,$525, and $275.

In 1998 the Shrink Missouri Government Polit-ical Action Committee (PAC) and Zev David Fred-man, a candidate for the 1998 Republican nomina-tion for state auditor, filed suit against the stateand Jeremiah Nixon, the state attorney general(who was in charge of enforcing the contributionlimits), claiming that the limits imposed by SenateBill 650 infringed on their First and FourteenthAmendment rights. The Shrink Missouri Govern-ment PAC had given Fredman the mandatory$1,025 in 1997 and reported that it wanted to givemore but was prohibited by the law, thus infring-ing on its free speech rights. Fredman alleged thathis rights were violated by not being able to raiseas much money as he could from contributors. Adistrict court hearing the case denied Fredman’smotion to set aside the limits during the hearingand, on 12 May 1998 held that the state limits wereconstitutional. The Shrink Missouri GovernmentPAC appealed to the United States Court of Ap-peals for the Eighth Circuit, which issued an in-junction against the limits, pending the outcomeof the appeal. This court heard arguments on 21

August 1988, and on 20 November held two to onethat the limits imposed by the state were unconsti-tutional, striking them down as “heavy handed.”Nixon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichgranted certiorari (the right to hear the case) on25 January 1999. Arguments were heard in thecase on 5 October 1999.

On 24 January 2000, the Court overturned theEighth Circuit ruling and reinstated the politicalcontribution limits. In a strongly worded six-to-three decision written by Justice David Souter(Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, andAnthony Kennedy dissented), the Court held thatthe limits did not violate the First Amendmentright to free speech. Upholding the arguments putforth in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), Souterheld that a state had an interest in setting limits topolitical contributions. He explained:

Even without Buckley, there would be no seriousquestion about the legitimacy of these interests,which underlie bribery and antigratuity statutes.Rather, respondents take the State to task for failingto justify the invocation of those interests with em-pirical evidence of actually corrupt practices or of aperception among Missouri voters that unrestrictedcontributions must have been exerting a covertlycorrosive influence. The state statute is not void,however, for want of evidence. The quantum of em-pirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened judi-cial scrutiny of legislative judgments will vary up ordown with the novelty and plausibility of the justifi-cation raised. Buckley demonstrates that the dan-gers of large, corrupt contributions and the suspi-cion that large contributions are corrupt are neithernovel nor implausible.

Souter noted that the evidence presented failedto show that the limits on contributions impairedthe ability of candidates to raise as much moneyas previously. He wrote:

Here, as in Buckley . . . there is no indication thatthose limits have had any dramatic adverse effecton the funding of campaigns and political associa-tions, and thus there is no showing that the limita-tions prevented candidates from amassing the re-sources necessary for effective advocacy. Indeed, theDistrict Court found that since the Missouri limitsbecame effective, candidates for state office havebeen able to raise funds sufficient to run effectivecampaigns, and that candidates are still able to

244 Nixon v. Missouri PAC

amass impressive campaign war chests. The plausi-bility of these conclusions is buttressed by petition-ers’ evidence that in the last election before the con-tributions became effective, 97.62 percent of allcontributors to candidates for state auditor madecontributions of $2,000 or less.

See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224(1993)United States Supreme Court decision ruling that aSenate panel, rather than the full Senate, couldhear and vote on articles of impeachment. WalterNixon, a federal district judge in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Mississippi, wasconvicted in that very court in 1986 for commit-ting perjury before a grand jury. Nixon had beencalled before the grand jury to respond to allega-tions that he had “accepted a gratuity from a Mis-sissippi businessman in exchange for asking alocal district attorney to halt the prosecution ofthe businessman’s son.” After he was convicted,Nixon refused to resign from the bench and con-tinued to collect his salary while he served time inprison. The United States then moved in the Houseof Representatives to impeach him and removehim from office. On 10 May 1989, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives adopted three articles of impeach-ment for high crimes and misdemeanors againstNixon. The first two articles charges Nixon withmaking two separate false statements before agrand jury, while the third alleged that he hadbrought “disrepute” upon the federal judiciary.

After the House delivered the articles of im-peachment to the Senate, the Senate voted to im-plement its own Rule XI, which called for a Senatecommittee, rather than the whole Senate, to sit andhear evidence in the case. Rule XI reads:

[I]n the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Of-ficer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall ap-point a committee of Senators to receive evidenceand take testimony at such times and places as thecommittee may determine, and for such purposethe committee so appointed and the chairmanthereof, to be elected by the committee, shall (un-less otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise allthe powers and functions conferred upon the Sen-ate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respec-

tively, under the rules of procedure and practice inthe Senate when sitting on impeachment trials. . . .

Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, therules of procedure and practice in the Senate whensitting on impeachment trials shall govern the pro-cedure and practice of the committee so appointed.The committee so appointed shall report to the Sen-ate in writing a certified copy of the transcript ofthe proceedings and testimony had and given be-fore such committee, and such report shall be re-ceived by the Senate and the evidence so receivedand the testimony so taken shall be considered toall intents and purposes, subject to the right of theSenate to determine competency, relevancy, andmateriality, as having been received and taken be-fore the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent theSenate from sending for any witness and hearinghis testimony in open Senate, or by order of theSenate having the entire trial in open Senate.

A committee was established, heard the evi-dence, and after four days in which ten witnesses,including Nixon, testified, a transcript was deliv-ered to the full Senate and both sides (the im-peachment committee and Nixon) were allowed topresent their evidence to the full Senate. Nixonhimself gave a final argument, and several sena-tors were allowed to question him personally. On 3November 1989, the Senate voted to convict on thefirst two articles of impeachment, and the presid-ing officer then entered a judgment that Nixon wasconvicted and ordered to be removed from office.Nixon then sued, claiming that under Article 1,Section 3, Clause 6, called the ImpeachmentClause, the “entire” Senate had to sit in on the im-peachment trial, and not just a committee, andthat Rule XI violated his constitutional rights to afair trial. The U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia held that Nixon’s claim was nonjusticia-ble (meaning that it did not have judicial merit)and, declining to intervene, dismissed the suit. Onappeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit upheld the lower court’s deci-sion. The United States Supreme Court agreed tohear the case and heard arguments on 14 October1992.

On 13 January 1993, almost seven years afterNixon was initially convicted, and more than threeyears after he had been impeached and convictedin the Senate, the Supreme Court held that he hadno claim under Rule XI and dismissed his suit,

Nixon v. United States 245

holding that the word “try” in the clause “lackedsufficient precision to afford any judicially man-ageable standard of review of the Senate’s actions,and such word did not provide an identifiable tex-tual limit on the authority which was committedto the Senate,” and that “the commonsense mean-ing of the word ‘sole’ in the impeachment trialclause was that the Senate alone had the authorityto determine whether an individual should be ac-quitted or convicted.” Writing for the unanimouscourt, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote:

In the case before us, there is no separate provi-sion of the Constitution that could be defeated byallowing the Senate final authority to determinethe meaning of the word “try” in the Impeach-ment Trial Clause. We agree with Nixon thatcourts possess power to review either legislativeor executive action that transgresses identifiabletextual limits. As we have made clear,“whetherthe action of [either the Legislative or Executive

Branch] exceeds whatever authority has beencommitted is itself a delicate exercise in constitu-tional interpretation, and is a responsibility ofthis Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitu-tion.” Baker v. Carr, [369 U.S. 186] at 211. . . . Butwe conclude, after exercising that delicate respon-sibility, that the word “try” in the ImpeachmentTrial Clause does not provide an identifiable tex-tual limit on the authority which is committed tothe Senate.

See also ImpeachmentReferences: United States v. Nixon, 816 F.2d (1987),

1022–1031; “Walter Nixon: Perjury on the FederalBench,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of AmericanScandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York:Facts on File, 1989), 245–246.

Nixon, Walter L.See Nixon v. United States.

246 Nixon, Walter L.

Oakar, Mary RoseSee House of Representatives Post Office Scandal

Obstruction of JusticeLegal term denoting the “impeding or obstruc-t[ion of] those who seek justice in a court, or thosewho have duties or powers of administering jus-tice therein.” The crime of obstructing justice ishard to prove without the testimony of insiders in-volved in the obstruction. For example, chargesagainst President Richard Nixon for obstruction ofjustice in the Watergate case were corroborated byhis White House Counsel, John W. Dean III, and bytapes recorded by Nixon himself showing thatsoon after he learned of the break-in at Demo-cratic Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, he or-dered the FBI not to investigate the ties the fiveburglars captured there might have with Nixon’sown 1972 reelection effort. The tape showingNixon’s order was the “smoking gun” proving ob-struction of justice.

In a more recent case, President Bill Clinton wasaccused of obstruction of justice in attempting toshut down an investigation of his conduct with anArkansas state employee who alleged that he sexu-ally harassed her. Despite an impeachment trial,none of Clinton’s cronies would testify against him,and the obstruction charge went unproven.

Although not listed in the Constitution as a“high crime and misdemeanor,” Congress has

agreed that any official guilty of obstruction ofjustice has committed an impeachable offense.

References: Nolan, Joseph R., and Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Black’s Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Termsand Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence,Ancient and Modern (St. Paul, MN: West PublishingCompany, 1990), 1077.

Ordway, Nehemiah George(1828–1907)Territorial governor of Dakota Territory (1880–1884), removed by President Chester A. Arthuramid allegations of rampant corruption. Ordwaywas born in Warner, New Hampshire, on 10 No-vember 1828. He was a nephew of Sergeant JohnOrdway, who had been a participant in the famedLewis and Clark expedition to the AmericanNorthwest. Nehemiah Ordway received his com-mon school education in Warner and prospered inthe mercantile and banking businesses. At the ageof thirty-one, in 1860, he became the chair of theNew Hampshire Republican Party and rose slowlythrough the party hierarchy. Three years after hisselection as state party chair, he was named thesergeant at arms for the U.S. House of Representa-tives, holding the same position in 1865, 1869, and1871. In 1875, he was elected a member of the NewHampshire state house of representatives, servinguntil 1878. In that year, he was elected to the statesenate from the Ninth New Hampshire District,where he served for a single year.

O

247

In 1880 President Rutherford B. Hayes namedOrdway the seventh territorial governor of theDakota Territory, replacing William AlansonHoward, who had died in Washington of heart andlung trouble on 10 April 1880. Ordway was inaugu-rated on 24 June 1880 and took over the territoryat a time of tremendous growth. The population ofwhite settlers was growing rapidly, and Ordwaymade it a point to travel to every settlement in theterritory. Seeing potential in further growth (andbacked by New Hampshire legislators who ownedmillions of acres of Western lands), Ordway pro-posed that the territorial capital be moved fromYankton to Bismarck. The press in the territory didnot support moving the capital so Ordway had hisown newspaper established and backed it up byfounding the Dakota Press Association. The rail-roads backed Ordway’s plan, and when the statelegislature met in 1883, it formed a capital com-mission. Backroom deals and land sales on areasin which Ordway had a financial interest were al-leged but never proved. In 1883, acting on these al-legations, a grand jury was seated. The following

year, the grand jury indicted Ordway on charges ofusing his influence to buy land in Bismarck andthen pushing to have the state capitol moved thereto benefit financially. His defense attorneys, how-ever, argued that a territorial governor was im-mune in territorial courts. Territorial officialswished to have Ordway gone, so they appealed toPresident Chester A. Arthur to remove Ordway andreplace him. Arthur named Chicago News editorGilbert Ashville Pierce, a Civil War veteran, to bethe new governor. Pierce was inaugurated on 25July 1884, and Ordway left the area. He returned toWashington, D.C, where he became a special agentfor the Northern Pacific Railway, as head lobbyistin the nation’s capital. He never faced any criminalcharges.

Ordway died, unknown and unremembered, inBoston, Massachusetts, on 3 July 1907, at the age ofseventy-eight. His son, George Ordway, served asDakota territorial auditor from 1883 to 1885.

References: Jennewein, J. Leonard, and Jane Boorman,eds., Dakota Panorama (Bismarck, ND: DakotaTerritory Centennial Commission, 1961), 396;

248 Ordway, Nehemiah George

The obstruction of justice case against President Nixon in the Watergate affair was backed up by his White House Counsel, John W.Dean III. In this photo, Dean testifies to the Senate Watergate Committee against the Nixon administration. (Bettmann/Corbis)

“Ordway, Nehemiah George,” in Thomas A. McMullinand David Walker, Biographical Directory of AmericanTerritorial Governors (Westport, CT: Meckler

Publishing, 1984), 87–90; Schell, Herbert S., History ofSouth Dakota (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,1975), 203–215.

Ordway, Nehemiah George 249

PardongatePolitical scandal, which came in the days before,and the weeks after, President William JeffersonClinton left the White House at the end of his presi-dential term in January 2001. Under the law, a par-don is a release from a sentence of guilt, a findingof guilt, or a potential finding of guilt.Although thepardon power is generally given to the chief execu-tive, either of a state or of the nation, legislatureshave the right to grant pardons, usually throughwhat is called an act of indemnity, either anticipa-tory or retrospective, for crimes done in the publicinterest, which are nonetheless illegal. Under theUnited States Constitution, the powers granted tothe president in the area of pardons are absolute,and it is beyond the scope of Congress or the courtsto change it without a constitutional amendment.This power was inserted into the Constitution aspart of the famed Virginia Plan by John Rutledgeand was supported by Alexander Hamilton, whowrote in Federalist No. 74 that the president “is alsoto be authorised ‘to grant reprieves and pardons foroffences against the United States except in cases ofimpeachment [Hamilton’s emphasis].’ Humanityand good policy conspire to dictate, that the benignprerogative of pardoning should be as little as pos-sible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code ofevery country partakes so much of necessaryseverity, that without an easy access to exceptionsin favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear acountenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

In 1820 Attorney General William Wirt wrote,“The power of pardon, as given by the constitu-tion, is the power of absolute and entire pardon.”The pardon power is situated in Article II, SectionII of the Constitution, which reads:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of theArmy and Navy of the United States, and of theMilitia of the several States, when called into the ac-tual Service of the United States; he may require theOpinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in eachof the executive Departments, upon any Subject re-lating to the Duties of their respective Offices, andhe shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardonsfor Offences against the United States, except inCases of Impeachment.

The pardon power has been used less and lessby recent presidents. Truman issued 1,913 par-dons and commutations from 1945 to 1953, whileEisenhower issued 1,110. Nixon issued 863, Carter534, Reagan 393, and Bush 74. Clinton, in total, is-sued 395, demonstrating a rise in pardons thatwas either a sign of a benevolent executive or, asmany critics charged, a sign that Clinton sold par-dons to cronies and financial friends.

Whatever the reason, as the end of his termneared in January 2001, President Bill Clintongranted numerous pardons and commutations,many to people who, as it later turned out, had con-tributed vast sums of money either to the Demo-cratic National Committee, to the Clinton Library

P

251

Fund, or to both. The use of the pardon has, in therecent past, been controversial. Richard Nixon’spardon of Teamster boss James R. “Jimmy” Hoffa(1971); the pardon of Nixon himself by his succes-sor, Gerald R. Ford, for any potential crimes Nixonmay have committed during the Watergate scandal;the pardon by Ronald Reagan of baseball teamowner George Steinbrenner; and the pardon byPresident George Bush in 1992 of former Secretaryof Defense Caspar Weinberger are some examples.However, the 140 pardons and 36 commutationsdoled out by Clinton in the final days of his admin-istration made for one of the biggest political scan-dals of 2001.

Normally, a president, when contemplating apardon or commutation, confers with the appro-priate office in the Department of Justice, knownas the Office of the Pardon Attorney. This officerinvestigates the background of the person consid-ered for the pardon or commutation and recom-mends a course of action to the president. Thisrecommendation is not binding, and the presidentcan choose to ignore it. However, a presidentshould be wary of ignoring the advice of his De-partment of Justice, either because the pardoncould be politically embarrassing or could help awanted felon or criminal evade justice.

In the days before his administration ended,Clinton issued 140 pardons to a range of criminals

and other felons who were either wanted or wereserving time for various offenses. Among thesewere his former secretary of housing and urbandevelopment, Henry Cisneros, who lied to the FBI;ex-CIA chief John Deutsch, who faced possiblecriminal charges for mishandling secret docu-ments; Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, whowent to jail on a contempt charge rather than tes-tify against Clinton; Clinton’s own brother Roger,who had been convicted of cocaine possession;and heiress Patricia Hearst. But Clinton also par-doned Marc Rich, a man wanted by the UnitedStates for tax fraud and conspiring to sell Iranianoil despite an embargo on that country, after hiswife, Denise Rich, gave Clinton and his presiden-tial library millions of dollars in donations. An-other Clinton pardon went to Carlos Vignali, drugdealer who was serving a fifteen-year sentence forimporting 800 pounds of cocaine, after Vignali’sfather, Horacio, donated thousands of dollars toDemocratic politicians, including RepresentativeXavier Becerra (D-CA), who lost his election formayor of Los Angeles because of the scandal. Par-dons also went to Charles Wilfred Morgan III, anArkansas man convicted and sentenced to threeyears in prison in the 1980s for cocaine distribu-tion (his attorney was former Clinton White Housecounsel William Kennedy III), and Palm Beach at-torney Arnold Prosperi, who evaded taxes on $3

252 Pardongate

100

200

300

400

2001’93’93’89’89’81’81’77’77’75’75’69’69’64’64’61’61’53’531945

Presidential PardonsNumber of pardons granted by presidents since 1945 (in some years none were granted).

EisenhowerRep.

1,110

TrumanDem.1,913TOTAL

KennedyDem.472

JohnsonDem.960

NixonRep.863

FordRep.382

CarterDem.534

ReaganRep.393

ClintonDem.395

BushRep.74

Source: Office of the Pardon Attorney

million and who donated $45,000 to the WhiteHouse Historical Association.

Despite the scandalous nature of Clinton’s par-dons, his power to award them was complete, andnone could be overturned. And despite investiga-tions by Congress into those who may have usedmoney and other powers to gain the pardons, noperson, as of this writing, has been indicted forany of the pardons.

More than 200 years ago, philosopher Im-manuel Kant warned that the pardoning power isthe “most slippery of all the rights of the sover-eign.” As Clinton’s pardons, and the scandal sur-rounding them, prove, Kant was more correct thananyone ever believed.

References: Grunwald, Michael, and Christine Haughney,“4 Pardons Probed for Ties to N.Y. Senate Bid, FelonsWere Leaders in Hasidic Community,” WashingtonPost, 24 February 2001,A1; Harris, John F.,“FromClinton Die-Hards, a Command Performance, PardonsPrompt Podesta, Others to Keep Up Defense,”Washington Post, 1 March 2001,A2; Moore, KathleenDean, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Smith, GregB.,“Clinton Library Fundraiser Helped Perjurer GetPardon,” Daily News (New York), 4 March 2001,A2.

Patterson, James Willis (1823–1893)United States representative (1863–1867) andU.S. senator (1867–1873) from New Hampshire,implicated in the Crédit Mobilier scandal andthreatened with expulsion from the Senate. Pat-terson was born in the town of Henniker, NewHampshire, on 2 July 1823 and attended localschools, pursuing what were then called “classicalstudies” (Greek, Latin, math, etc.). He entered andgraduated from Dartmouth College (now Dart-mouth University) in Hanover, New Hampshire, in1848, thereafter working as a principal at theWoodstock Academy in Connecticut for twoyears. Patterson attended the Theological Semi-nary in New Haven, Connecticut, after which hestudied the law. In 1854 he was hired by Dart-mouth as a professor of mathematics, astronomy,and meteorology, and he served there for elevenyears, until 1865. In 1863 he served for a singleone-year term as a member of the New Hamp-shire state house of representatives.

A Republican, in 1863 Patterson was elected toa seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (elec-tions for the House were then held in odd years bysome states), representing the state’s Third Dis-

trict. Patterson served in the Thirty-eighth andThirty-ninth Congresses (1863–1867). In 1866,prior to the end of his second term, Patterson waselected by the New Hampshire legislature to theUnited States Senate, and he entered that body on4 March 1867. In his single six-year term, Patter-son served as the chairman of the Committee onEnrolled Bills (Forty-first Congress) and of theCommittee on the District of Columbia (Forty-first and Forty-second Congresses).

In 1872 Patterson became mired in the intriguethat became the Crédit Mobilier scandal. He wasaccused by the newspapers of accepting stock inthe railroad concern known as the Crédit Mobilierin exchange for voting for increased appropria-tions for the company that was overseeing the con-struction of the Union Pacific Railroad. One of therailroad’s chief backers—and a member of theCrédit Mobilier—was Representative Oakes Amesof Massachusetts, who gave Patterson a goodnumber of shares in the company at a cut-rateprice. The Poland Committee of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, so named after its chairman,Representative Luke Poland of Vermont, lookedinto the charges against Patterson.

Historian Edward Winslow Martin wrote in1873:

James W. Patterson, Senator from New Hampshire,was one of those charged with purchasing Crédit Mo-bilier stock. He denied the charge, and declared thathe had had no connection with the stock at all. Mr.Ames, upon his examination by the Committee, madeoath that he had sold Mr. Patterson thirty shares ofthe stock of the Crédit Mobilier. Mr. Patterson thenstated that he had bought stock of Mr.Ames, but sup-posed that it was Union Pacific stock. He added, onthe 21st of January, in a voluntary statement beforethe Committee:“I have never received any certificateof stock or other evidence of ownership on the CréditMobilier, and am not enough of a lawyer to know howI could draw dividends on what I did not own.”Insupport of his assertion, Mr. Patterson produced a let-ter written to him by Ames during the late Senatorialcontest in New Hampshire [which Patterson hadlost]. Mr. E. H. Rollins had assailed Mr. Patterson inthis contest for owning Crédit Mobilier stock, andAmes, at Patterson’s request, write the latter a letterstating that the books of the Company did not showthat he owned any stock.

Mr.Ames, who had listened patiently to Mr. Pat-terson’s statement before the Committee, was thenquestioned by the Committee as to the accuracy of

Patterson, James Willis 253

Patterson’s statement. He at once produced hismemoranda, and proceeded to read from it, amid apainful stillness,“a connected account of his trans-action with Patterson. He invested $3,000 for Patter-son in Crédit Mobilier stock, in January 1868; onFebruary 14th he paid him $2,223 in cash, whichwere the proceeds of the sale of the first bond divi-dend; $3,000 in Union Pacific first mortgage bonds,less $105 retained for interest, and also thirty sharesof Union Pacific stock. On June 19th, 1868, he paidhim $1,800 as a sixty per cent, cash dividend. Sometime in 1871 he settled the transaction and gave himabout seventy shares [of] Union Pacific stock. Hesupposed that Patterson knew he was buying CréditMobilier stock; he talked of nothing else with him.Ames explained his letter by saying that it was liter-ally true although intended to give the wrong im-pression. His good nature led him to write it at Pat-terson’s opportunity—to help him out of a fix. IfPatterson had not gotten the certificate for the thirtyshares, then it had been lost. He [Ames] had all theother certificates in his pocket except that. Pattersonagain denied any knowledge of the fact that Ameshad invested his $3,000 in Crédit Mobilier stock.”

On 27 February 1873, the committee reportedback, and accused Patterson of lying to the com-mittee. In their report, they stated:

The Committee find in the statement of Mr. Patter-son before the Committee of the House of Repre-sentatives, and his statement before this committee,a contradictory relation of the transaction betweenhim and Mr. Ames; a suppression of material facts,and a denial of other facts which must have beenknown to him. . . . And further, that being inquiredof in relation thereto before committees of bothbranches of Congress, he gave a false account of thetransactions between himself and Mr. Ames, sup-pressed material facts, and denied the existence ofother material facts which must have been wellknown to him.

The committee have reached a conclusion, afterthe most attentive consideration and anxious de-liberation, which they would fain wish were other-wise, but a sense of duty compels them to de-clare—they submit the following resolution:Resolved, That James W. Patterson be, and ishereby expelled from his seat as a member of theSenate.

Two days later, on 1 March, a caucus of SenateRepublicans met and decided that because Patter-son would be leaving the Senate on 3 March in anycase, such a move to expel him was both unpro-ductive and unnecessary, and no action was takenon the committee’s recommendation.

254 Patterson, James Willis

Roger Adams (left), pardon attorney of the U.S. Department of Justice, and Eric Holder, former deputy attorney general, testifybefore the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the pardon of Marc Rich. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Patterson returned to New Hampshire, wherehe served as a member of the New Hampshirestate house of representatives from 1877 to 1878and as the state superintendent of instructionfrom 1881 to 1893. He died in Hanover, NewHampshire, on 4 May 1893, two months shy of hisseventieth birthday. He was buried in the Dart-mouth Cemetery.

See also Crédit Mobilier ScandalReferences: Crawford, J. B., The Crédit Mobilier of

America—Its Origin and History, Its Work ofConstructing the Union Pacific Railroad and theRelation of Members of Congress Therewith (Boston:C. W. Calkins & Co., Publishers, 1880), 148; Martin,Edward Winslow, Behind the Scenes in Washington.Being a Complete and Graphic Account of the CréditMobilier Investigation, the Congressional Rings,Political Intrigues, Workings of the Lobbies, Etc. Givingthe Secret History of Our National Government, in AllIts Various Branches, and Showing How the PublicMoney Is Squandered, How Votes Are Obtained, Etc.,With Sketches of the Leading Senators, Congressmen,Government Officials, Etc., and an AccurateDescription of the Splendid Public Buildings of theFederal Capital (New York: Continental PublishingCompany, 1873), 285–287.

Peck, James Hawkins (1790–1836)Federal judge, impeached by the United StatesSenate for his role in removing a lawyer from thepractice for criticizing the bench but acquitted.Little is known of Peck, but his case, one of only ahandful ever to go before the entire Senate in animpeachment trial, is part of American judicialhistory. What is known is that Peck was born inJefferson County, Tennessee, on 12 January 1790.He served in the U.S. Army during the War of 1812and was in private law practice in Tennessee from1818 until 1819 and in St. Louis, Missouri, from1819 until 1822. He was nominated by PresidentJames Monroe to a new seat, established by Con-gress—the U.S. District Court of Missouri—on 29March 1822 and confirmed by the Senate on 5April 1822.

In 1830 reports were sent to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives that Peck was abusing his powerto hold people in contempt in his court. Althoughthere is no strict holding as to what constitutes animpeachable offense, Peck’s alleged behavior wasenough for the House Judiciary Committee to rec-ommend he be impeached for this behavior. Thefull House voted for one article of impeachment

on 24 April 1830. As chairman of the House Judi-ciary Committee, Representative James Buchananserved as prosecutor in the Senate impeachmenttrial of Peck; Buchanan later served as U.S. minis-ter to Russia, secretary of state, and as the fifteenthpresident of the United States. The record of Peck’simpeachment, one of the first to be published inthe history of the country, is to be found in a workby Arthur J. Stansbury, published in 1833. Peck’salleged crime was held before the Senate to exam-ine, but it was found lacking in criminal intent,and the Senate acquitted Peck on 31 January 1831.Peck remained on the bench until his death on 29April 1836, almost six years to the day after theHouse had impeached him. His name passed intohistory.

In Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958),the Supreme Court wrote:

The subsequent development of the Federal con-tempt power lends no support to the Petitioners’position, for the significance of the Act of 1831, 3Stat. 487, at 488, lies quite in the opposite direction.Sentiment for passage of that act arose out of theimpeachment proceedings instituted against JudgeJames H. Peck because of his conviction and pun-ishment for criminal contempt of a lawyer who hadpublished an article critical of a decision of thejudge then on appeal. Although it is true that the actmarks the first Congressional step to curtail thecontempt powers of the Federal courts, the impor-tant thing to note is that the area of curtailment re-lated not to punishment for disobedience of courtorders but to punishment for conduct of the kindthat had provoked Judge Peck’s controversial action.As to such conduct, the 1831 act confined the sum-mary power of punishment to “ . . . misbehaviour ofany person . . . in the presence of the . . . courts, orso near thereto as to obstruct the administration ofjustice.”

See also ImpeachmentReferences: Bushnell, Eleanore,“The Impeachment and

Trial of James H. Peck,” Missouri Historical Review(January 1980), 137–165; Davis, Charles B.,“JudgeJames Hawkins Peck,” Missouri Historical Review,XXVII:1 (October 1932), 3–20; “James HawkinsPeck,” in Eleanor Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, andMisfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials (Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1992), 91–113; “OfficialRecords of the Impeachment of Judge James H. Peck,”File 21B-B1, in Records of Impeachment Proceedings,1st–90th Congresses (1789–1968), General Recordsof the U.S. House of Representatives, 1789–1968,Records Group (RG) 233, National Archives;

Peck, James Hawkins 255

Stansbury, Arthur J.,“Report of the Trial of James H.Peck, Judge of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Missouri, Before the Senate of the UnitedStates, on an Impeachment Preferred by the House ofRepresentatives Against Him for High Misdemeanors inOffice” (Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833).

Pendergast, Thomas Joseph(1872–1945)American political boss, head of the so-called Pen-dergast machine that controlled politics and pa-tronage in Kansas City, Missouri. The image of the“political machine” in American history wasmolded in large part by Pendergast, although hisname has faded into history. One of nine childrenof Irish immigrants, Pendergast apparently at-tended local schools but never received a second-ary education. His older brother James ran a sa-loon in Kansas City, where the Pendergastmachine started among the Irish who voted forDemocrats. James Pendergast was elected an al-derman in Kansas City in 1892, becoming the onlybrother to hold political office. Thomas Pendergasttook over the growing machine from his brother.When James Pendergast died in 1911, his brother,known as “Big Tom,” became one of the most pow-erful bosses in American political history. ThomasPendergast was named to a series of low-level ap-pointed offices during World War I, but it appearsthat elective office was not his interest—thoughpower was. Because Kansas City was not a meltingpot of immigrants, unlike New York City andChicago, for instance, Pendergast built his organi-zation with the help of people from all ethnicgroups and backgrounds.And, as historian GeorgeKohn wrote, “In the process, he made himself agreat deal of money from kickbacks, payoffs, andillegal settlements.”

Following World War I, a young up-and-comingMissouri politician came under the influence ofPendergast; he was a bespeckled veteran of thewar named Harry S. Truman. Tying his desire forpolitical office to Pendergast, Truman was electedto a series of offices, rising to be elected to theUnited States Senate in 1934. The story behindhow Truman became the candidate of the Demo-cratic Party is one cloaked in myth; one reportsthat Truman asked Pendergast for an office thatpaid at least $25,000 a year, a spectacular sum in

those Depression-era days. Pendergast demurred,saying that Truman did not deserve such a highlypaid post, instead offering him the Democraticnomination for the United States Senate, an officethat at the time paid only $10,000 a year. Anotherstory reports that Pendergast approached Trumanto run for the Senate to defeat another Demo-crat—Senator Bennett Champ Clark of Missouriand son of Champ Clark, a former Speaker of theU.S. House of Representatives. Either way, withPendergast’s backing, Truman easily won the partynod and the election.

The new senator was derided as being from“Tom’s Town” and “The Senator from Pendergast.”Truman later wrote in a letter, referring to pressureput on him by Pendergast to pad the county pay-roll with Pendergast-approved people,“I wonder ifI did right to put a lot of no account sons of bitcheson the payroll and pay other sons of bitches moremoney for supplies than they were worth.” How-ever, while in the Senate, he remained close to Pen-dergast, confiding with him on ways that Demo-crats could use the government to edge outRepublicans. During the Depression, when Frank-lin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” economic programpumped billions of dollars into public works proj-ects across the nation, Pendergast maneuveredhimself into controlling first the men who con-trolled the money, then controlled the money him-self via favors and backroom deals. Pendergasteven controlled the governor’s office—it wasdubbed “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

In 1936 Pendergast’s health began to fail, andslowly his grip on power slipped. Despite havingfriends in high places, Pendergast came under in-vestigation by U.S. District Attorney Maurice Milli-gan and Governor Lloyd Stark of Missouri. Forthree years, charges of vote rigging and vote fraudwere investigated. Finally, in 1939, the Bureau ofInternal Revenue, the forerunner of the modernInternal Revenue Service, investigated Pender-gast’s financial records and discovered more than$1 million in untaxed revenue. Pendergast was in-dicted on income tax evasion. On 22 May 1939, hewas convicted and sentenced to fifteen months inprison. He was released after serving 366 days. In1940 he was indicted with two others on chargesthat he had obstructed justice during the investi-gation of an insurance scam. He was also indictedfor contempt of court, but in 1943 the U.S. Su-

256 Pendergast, Thomas Joseph

preme Court dismissed this indictment on thegrounds that the statute of limitations on suchcharges had expired.

Nonetheless, Pendergast was too ill to celebratehis victory—he was dying of cancer and had suf-fered a series of strokes. He died on 26 January1945 at the age of seventy-four. Ironically, hisdeath came just days after his protege, Truman,was sworn in as vice president of the United States,and just months before Truman became presidentupon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Trumandid not attend the funeral. Pendergast was buriedin a simple, nondescript grave at Calvary Ceme-tery in Kansas City.

References: Larsen, Lawrence H., and Nancy J. Hulston,Pendergast! (Columbia: University of Missouri Press,1997); Pendergast v. United States, 317 U.S. 412(1943); “Tom Pendergast: Boss of Kansas City,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 262–263.

Pendleton, George Hunt (1825–1889)United States representative (1857–1865) and U.S.senator (1879–1885), author of the PendletonPlan, which established civil service rules in gov-ernment for the first time. Born in Cincinnati,Ohio, on 19 July 1825, Pendleton was the eldest ofthe ten children of Nathanael Greene Pendleton(named after the famed American general whoserved in the American Revolution) and JaneFrances (née Hunt) Pendleton. Nathanael Pendle-ton was elected to a seat in the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives in 1840 but served only one term andretired back to Ohio. His son, George, was to have afar longer political career. He attended localschools and the Cincinnati College. In 1844 he leftthe United States for Europe, touring numerouscountries and attending Heidelberg University inGermany. He eventually left the university, contin-uing his travels for a time before returning to theUnited States in 1846. That same year, he marriedthe daughter of Francis Scott Key, who had writtenthe “Star Spangled Banner” in 1814. He studied thelaw, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1847 andcommenced a practice in Cincinnati with local at-torney George E. Pugh.

After being a lawyer for six years, in 1853Pendleton was nominated by the Democrats ofOhio for a seat in the Ohio state senate. He was

easily elected and became the youngest member ofthat body. The following year, he was nominatedfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, thesame seat his father once held. However, becausethe controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska Act splitthe Democrats into pro- and antislavery factions,Pendleton was defeated in a close race by Republi-can Timothy C. Day, who had received the backingof the American, or “Know Nothing,” Party. Twoyears later, however, the Democrats coalesced, andPendleton won the seat over token Republican and“Know Nothing” opposition. In the House, Pendle-ton was a supporter of Senator Stephen A. Douglasof Illinois and denounced the Lecompton consti-tution, enacted in “bloody” Kansas by a proslaveryfaction. He maintained a moderate position onother issues of the day and was reelected threemore times, serving in the Thirty-fifth through theThirty-eighth Congresses, until 3 March 1865. Hetried to urge conciliation between the sections inthe days before the Civil War broke out, urging thatthe North “grant all their [Southern] reasonabledemands. . . . I beg you, in God’s name, do it! Do apatriotic duty! Give us peace instead of discord!”During the war, he was one of the group of “Cop-perheads,” Northerners who were critics of theconflict and demanded a quick peace with theSouth to end the fighting. His tenure in the Housewas marked by his service as one of the Housemanagers in the impeachment trial of West H.Humphreys, a judge in Tennessee who was re-moved from office for siding with the Confederacy.

In 1864 Pendleton was nominated for vicepresident of the United States by the Democrats,meeting in convention in Chicago, Illinois. Whenthe Democrats met, the war was going quite badlyfor the North, and it appeared that PresidentAbraham Lincoln would need a miracle to be re-elected. As the Democrats assembled, theyquickly nominated for president one of Lincoln’sformer generals who had begun to criticize theconduct of the war—General George B. McClel-lan. Initially, the Democrats sought to nominateJames O. Guthrie for vice president, but after twoballots the delegates turned to Pendleton, balanc-ing a military man with a “Peace Democrat.” Vic-tory for the Democrats seemed assured, so muchso that Lincoln named a “War Democrat,” Gover-nor Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, as his runningmate to balance his ticket. However, several events

Pendleton, George Hunt 257

occurred between the end of the conventions andthe election that led to a surprising electoral vic-tory by Lincoln. On 18 July, the president sentnewspaper editor Horace Greeley to Canada tomeet with representatives of the Confederate gov-ernment. Lincoln demanded that the Southernstates that had seceded reenter the Union and thatslavery be ended at once. Both of these demandswere rejected by the Southerners, and the confer-ence broke up. However, Lincoln looked reason-able in trying to end the war quickly, while theSoutherners were viewed as intransigent. On 2September, Union General William TecumsehSherman’s troops thundered into the state ofGeorgia and occupied Atlanta, giving a huge boostto Northern morale and cutting the Confederacyin two. Emboldened by Sherman’s victory, Lincolndemanded the resignation of his postmaster gen-eral, Montgomery Blair, a peace advocate insidehis administration. These events led to a turn-about in the election, and on 8 November, Lincolnwon by more than 500,000 votes out of some 4.16million cast, capturing the electoral vote 212 to21. In the end, the desires of the Democrats to endthe war quickly were dashed, and the oratory ofPendleton could not match the aloofness of Mc-Clellan, more a military figure than a politician.

Out of politics for the first time in fourteenyears, Pendleton ran unsuccessfully in 1866 for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1868he made a desperate but unsuccessful attempt towin the Democratic presidential nomination, los-ing out to New York Governor Horatio Seymour.The following year, he was nominated by the Dem-ocrats for governor, but lost in a close race to Re-publican Rutherford B. Hayes, who was laterelected the nineteenth president of the UnitedStates. Pendleton then took a position as presidentof the Kentucky Central Railroad, which he helduntil 1879.

In 1878 Pendleton was nominated by the Dem-ocrats for a seat in the United States Senate, afterSenator Stanley Matthews, who had been namedto fill the last two years of the term of Senator JohnSherman, decided against running for a full termof his own. Pendleton was easily elected and wasnamed chairman of the Senate Committee on CivilService. It was here that Pendleton became a giantin the pursuit of government service reform. Heembraced a reform measure drafted by reformer

Dorman B. Eaton, who called for a system of civilservice in federal government hiring. Prior to thistime, a new administration rewarded its friendswith plum government jobs. Thousands of work-ers nationwide, from postmasters to tax collectors,were given positions based on their political alle-giance. This system allowed for gross mismanage-ment and corruption, and Eaton, among others,wished to replace it with one in which jobs wouldbe doled out on the basis of ability rather than po-litical connections. Eaton drafted a plan of reform,and Pendleton introduced it in the Senate in 1882.The bill passed both houses of Congress and wassigned into law by President Chester A. Arthur on16 January 1883. The law’s impact was wide-rang-ing, ending the spoils system for a number of plumpatronage positions and making sure workers infederal offices were not forced to give contribu-tions to candidates for office in exchange for keep-ing their jobs.

Despite pushing through the most influentialreform bill of the late nineteenth century, in 1884Pendleton was not renominated by the Democratsin Ohio for the Senate, and he left office in March1885. President Grover Cleveland, the first Demo-crat to win election to the White House since 1856,appointed Pendleton envoy extraordinary andminister plenipotentiary to Germany, replacingJohn A. Kasson. Pendleton served in this positionuntil his death. He was on business in Brussels,Belgium, when he died on 24 November 1889, atthe age of sixty-four. His body was returned to theUnited States and interred at Spring Grove Ceme-tery in Cincinnati, Ohio.

See also Eaton, Dorman Bridgman; Pendleton CivilService Act

References: Bing, Julius,“Our Civil Service,” Putnam’sMagazine, New Series II, 8 (August 1868), 233;Bloss, George, Life and Speeches of George H.Pendleton (Cincinnati, OH: Miami Printing andPublishing Co., 1868); “Death of G. H. Pendleton. Ex-United States Senate and Ex-Minister to Germany,”The World (New York), 26 November 1889, 1; Mach,Thomas Stuart,“‘Gentleman George’ HuntPendleton: A Study in Political Continuity” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Akron, 1996); Mach,Thomas Stuart,“George Hunt Pendleton, The OhioIdea and Political Continuity in ReconstructionAmerica,” Ohio History, 108 (Summer-Autumn1999); 125–144; “New Ministers Selected: ThePresident Fills Four Diplomatic Missions [PendletonNamed to German Mission],” New York Times, 24March 1885, 1.

258 Pendleton, George Hunt

Pendleton Civil Service Act, 22 Stat. 403(1883)Congressional enactment establishing a system ofcivil service in the hiring and employment of fed-eral workers. Since the early days of the Republic,government ran on the “spoils” system—the rulingadministration doled out patronage and favors tothe people who supported its policies. Offices fromthe very top of government to the lowest rungs ofthe administration were filled by cronies of thepresident and his party, many of whom were nothired for their skill or experience but because oftheir largesse or vocal support for the candidate.

In Putnam’s Magazine in August 1868, JuliusBing wrote of the system prior to the PendletonAct’s passage, “At present there is no organizationsave that of corruption, no system save that ofchaos; no test of integrity save that of partisan-ship; no test of qualification save that of intrigue.”From that time, however, there was no push to endthe system in which corruption seemed to perme-ate at all levels. In 1871 Congress called on thepresident to decree a certain code of regulations,which led to the establishment of the Civil ServiceCommission, but that panel collapsed after just afew years. Reformers such as Eaton, Carl Schurz,and George W. Curtis, the latter the editor ofHarper’s Weekly stood for reform. The scandalsthat enveloped the Grant administration—fromthe Whiskey Ring to the Star Route frauds—led toan increase in calls for a revival of civil service leg-islation. In 1877 a New York Civil Service ReformAssociation was established, and four years laterGeorge W. Curtis formed the National Civil ServiceReform League.

One of the leading congressional adherents inan effort to pass civil service reform was Repre-sentative, then Senator, George Hunt Pendleton ofOhio. Pendleton, who had been the vice presiden-tial candidate of the Democrats in 1868, had formany years fought to get Congress to back a com-prehensive civil service reform law, to no avail. Thescandals of the administration of Ulysses S. Grant(1869–1877), however, changed all that. When nu-merous friends of the president were implicated inschemes to profit at public expense from their tiesto Grant, congressional, as well as public, supportturned toward reform.

George William Curtis, editor of Harper’sWeekly and a commissioner on the U.S. Civil Ser-

vice Commission, wrote in 1872, “It is not easy tocompute in figures the exact economical differ-ence between a good and bad system of the civilservice. It is necessarily a matter of inference andof comparison between the probable operations ofa careless and a careful method.”Working with thechairman of the commission, Dorman B. Eaton,Pendleton drafted a law in 1883 that passed bothhouses of Congress and was signed into law by areluctant Grant. Called the Civil Service Act of1883, or the Pendleton Act, it established for thefirst time a schedule to hire government workersnot on the basis of party affiliation or amount ofdonations given to a certain party or candidate,but because of their skill on a government test.

On 12 December 1882, as the civil service billneared passage in Congress, Pendleton took to theSenate floor and said:

The necessity of a change in the civil administra-tion of this Government has been so fully discussedin the periodicals and pamphlets and newspapers,and before the people, that I feel indisposed tomake any further argument. This subject, in all itsramifications, was submitted to the people of theUnited States at the fall elections, and they havespoken in low or uncertain tone. . . .

I do not say that the men who are employed in itare all corrupt or inefficient or unworthy. Thatwould do very great injustice to a great number offaithful, honest, and intelligent public servants.

All actions relating to civil service in the U.S.government relate to this enactment. Althoughthere have been reforms of the original law, it re-mains to this day one of the leading pieces of re-formist legislation that lessened to a great degreethe influence of parties upon government hiring.

See also Curtis, George William; Eaton, DormanBridgman; Pendleton, George Hunt; Whiskey RingScandal

References: Bartholomew, Paul C.,“Corrupt PracticesActs,” in Dictionary of American History, 7 vols. (NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976–1978),II:232–233; “George William Curtis” in Harper’sWeekly, XVI (7 September 1872), 819; Hoogenboom,Ari, Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil ServiceReform Movement, 1865–1883 (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1961); Hoogenboom, Ari,“ThePendleton Act and Civil Service,” American HistoricalReview, LXIV:2 (January 1959), 301–318; Pendleton’sSenate remarks in Congressional Record, 12 December1882, 47th Congress, 2nd Session; Rosenbloom, David

Pendleton Civil Service Act 259

H., ed. (with the assistance of Mark A. Emmert),Centenary Issues of the Pendleton Act of 1883: TheProblematic Legacy of Civil Service Reform (New York:M. Dekker, 1982); Van Riper, Paul P., History of theUnited States Civil Service (Evanston, IL: Row,Peterson, 1958).

Perkins, Carl Christopher (1954– )United States representative from Kentucky (1984–1993) who pled guilty to conspiring to defraud theFederal Elections Commission by writing badchecks and filing false personal finance disclosurestatements. The son of Congressman Carl DeweyPerkins (1912–1984), Carl Christopher Perkinswas born in Washington, D.C., on 6 August 1954.At the time, Carl Dewey Perkins was serving histhird term in the U.S. House of Representatives,where he would remain until his death on 3 August1984. Carl Christopher Perkins attended publicschools in Fairfax County, Virginia, near Washing-ton, and then received his bachelor’s degree fromDavidson College in North Carolina in 1976. Heearned his law degree from the University ofLouisville in Kentucky in 1978 and that year beganpracticing law in Kentucky. Elected to a seat in theKentucky house of representatives in 1980, he re-mained in that seat until 1984, continuing his lawpractice through that period.

After Carl Dewey Perkins died in August 1984,Christopher Perkins announced his intention torun for his late father’s seat in a special election tofill the vacancy. Perkins was elected and later re-tained the seat in the regular November election.He would hold it until 1993.

Starting in 1989, Perkins committed a series ofacts that would lead to his downfall. In an indict-ment later handed down, it was alleged that in1989 and 1990 Perkins filed false statements to theFederal Election Commission (FEC), listing ex-penses of $45,584 by his campaign committee thathad in fact been spent for personal reasons. It wasalso alleged that Perkins committed bank fraud byinvolving himself in a check-kiting scheme run bythe sergeant at arms of the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives. Allegations also were leveled at Perkinsfor attempting to defraud several banks and otherfinancial institutions in Kentucky by misrepre-senting loan information. A third count allegedthat Perkins gave false statements on his U.S.

House of Representatives Financial DisclosureStatement (FDS) of $946,135 for 1990. Perkins’ssecretary, Martha Amburgey, was also chargedwith conspiring to file false statements with theFEC; she later pled guilty.

In 1992, facing these charges, Perkins did notrun for reelection. On 13 December 1994, he pledguilty to all three counts and in 1995 was sen-tenced to twenty-one months in prison. The sameDepartment of Justice task force looking intoPerkins’s peccadillos had also nabbed a formersergeant at arms, Jack Russ, as well as Represen-tative Carroll Hubbard Jr. and his wife, CarolBrown Hubbard. After being released fromprison, Perkins returned to his home at Hind-man, Kentucky.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996, (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1649; Perkins pleainformation from the U.S. Department of Justice,Washington, DC.

Pickering, John (1737?–1805)Judge for the District of New Hampshire (1795–1804), impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senatefor intoxication and using profanity on the bench,expanding the definition of “high crimes and mis-demeanors.” Pickering himself has become almosta legend, and the facts about his life are few. Hewas born in New Hampshire about 1737 or 1738(sources on his impeachment give both dates, withno birthdate) and graduated from Harvard in1761. He was long remembered for his service tothe nation during the American Revolution, hisservice as a representative in the New Hampshirelegislature, as one of the drafters of the NewHampshire state constitution, as a member of hisstate’s convention for ratifying the federal Consti-tution in 1787, as chief justice of the New Hamp-shire state supreme court, and, finally, as a federaldistrict judge, placed on the bench by PresidentGeorge Washington in 1795. Pickering was a dedi-cated Federalist and, at some point in his career onthe bench, riled up the anti-Federalist elements inhis state.

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson became the firstpresident who was not a Federalist. However, hepresided over a government whose judicial branchwas filled entirely by Federalists. A congressional

260 Perkins, Carl Christopher

ally, Representative William Branch Giles of Vir-ginia, urged Jefferson to use the power of im-peachment to remove Federalist judges and re-place them with those with Jeffersonian leanings.Giles, in a letter to Jefferson, persuaded him to re-move “all of [the judges] . . . indiscriminately.” Jef-ferson and his allies searched the young nation fora plum target, and Pickering came into theirsights. By 1803 Pickering was demonstrating be-havior on the bench that could only be called ec-centric. Many historians believe that Pickering bythis time was wholly insane, as well as an alco-holic. Senator William Plumer, Federalist of NewHampshire, realized that Pickering had to be re-moved, but cautioned against the strong arm ofimpeachment: “[S]ome of our democrats feel un-easy [about impeaching Pickering]. They do notwish to act either as the accuser of judges or amadman; but one of my brother Senators told mehe was resolved not to believe Pickering insane;but if the facts alledged [sic] in the impeachmentswere proved to remove him from office. This is thecase with several of them. But they still feel embar-rassed [and] fear to meet the shaft of ridicule,should the accused attend, the trial would be farci-cal indeed!”

Jefferson and his allies were set to impeachPickering for insanity and alcoholism on thebench, when one of his rulings handed them theweapon they needed to finish the job. In 1802George Wentworth, a surveyor for the district ofNew Hampshire who had been appointed by Jef-ferson, seized a ship called the Eliza on groundsthat it carried goods on which duty had not beenpaid, a violation of the law. The owner, a Federalist,appealed to Pickering, who ordered the vessel andher cargo released. At a hearing to decide whetherthe seizure had been legal, Pickering, “in a state ofdistressing intoxication,” held for the owner. Jeffer-son became aware of how his surveyor had beenoverruled, and sent to the House on 4 February1803 criticism on Pickering’s conduct in the Elizatrial. A select committee was formed to investigatethe matter and on 18 February 1803 sent its reportto the full House.

On 2 March 1803, the House voted forty-eightto eight to impeach Pickering and established acommittee to draw up articles of impeachment.On 27 December 1803, this committee submittedfour articles of impeachment, which charged that

Pickering (1) had improperly allowed the cargo ofthe Eliza to be released without payment of duty“with the intent to evade federal law”; (2) duringthe trial refused to hear testimony from witnessesfor the United States,“with the intent to defeat thejust claims of the United States”; (3) refused toallow an appeal of his ruling,“disregarding the au-thority of the laws and wickedly meaning and in-tending to injure the revenues of the United Statesand thereby impair [sic] their public credit”; and(4) during the trial appeared on the bench “in astate of total intoxication, produced by the free andintemperate use of intoxicating liquors,” and that“in a most profane and indecent manner [did] in-voke the name of the Supreme Being, to the evilexample of the good citizens of the United States.”On 30 December 1803, the four articles wereadopted by the House. Eleven managers, all Jeffer-sonians, were selected; Representative JosephHopper Nicholson of Maryland served as chair-man of the group. (Included in the group of man-agers were several members who would also serveas managers in the impeachment trial of SupremeCourt Justice Samuel Chase in 1804: John Boyle ofKentucky, George W. Campbell of Tennessee, PeterEarly of Georgia, John Randolph of Virginia, Cae-sar A. Rodney of Delaware, and Nicholson.)

On 4 January 1804, the Senate trial againstPickering began. Pickering never even botheredto show up. His son, Jacob Pickering, also a judgeof the District Court for the District of NewHampshire, answered the charges in a petition,claiming that at the time of the trial “the saidJohn [Pickering] was, and for more than twoyears before, and ever since has been, and now is,insane, his mind wholly deranged, and altogetherincapable of transacting any kind of businesswhich requires the exercise of judgment, or thefaculties of reason; and, therefore, that the saidJohn Pickering is incapable of corruption of judg-ment, no subject of impeachment, or amenable toany tribunal for his action.” The Pickering im-peachment trial has become the subject of manyhistorical notes and works—the fact that he wasimpeached for “crimes” not considered jailable isjust one reason for argument; the other was thathis alleged insanity was used for his defense isanother. The Senate quickly voted that the trial’sboundaries would be confined as to whetherPickering was guilty or innocent of the charges,

Pickering, John 261

and declined to allow argument as to whether thecrimes alleged rose to the level of “high crimesand misdemeanors.”

However, many side issues were argued. For in-stance, Senator William Cocke, a Jeffersonianfrom Tennessee, asked that the words “accordingto law” be deleted from the oath taken by sena-tors, because, as Cocke saw it, “the judge is de-ranged—and I know of no law that makes de-rangement criminal.” Cocke’s motion was voteddown. Senator and future President John QuincyAdams, a Federalist from Massachusetts, calledon three senators who had been in the House andhad voted for impeachment to be disqualified asjudges, but this was voted down as well, twenty toeight. Vice President Aaron Burr was supposed topreside over the trial, but he was campaigning forthe governorship of New York and was replaced bySenator Jesse Franklin, a Jeffersonian from NorthCarolina. Former congressman Robert GoodloeHarper defended Pickering, presenting deposi-tions from doctors and other courtroom ob-servers who testified as to Pickering’s mentalstate. The House managers argued that Pickeringwas not insane, but drunk, and this was a “highcrime and misdemeanor” sufficient for removal.John Samuel Sherburne, the prosecutor in theEliza case, testified that Pickering was consis-tently drunk. Ironically, days after the Senate trialended, President Jefferson named Sherburne tothe vacancy created by Pickering’s removal. It wasa conflict of interest no one involved in the caseever broached.

On 12 March 1804, the Senate voted nineteen toseven that Pickering was guilty on all four articles.They then voted twenty to six to remove Pickeringoffice, Senator William H. Wells, a Federalist fromDelaware, moving his vote to join the majority.Historian Eleanore Bushnell explains:

Judge John Pickering goes into the history books asthe first United States official on whose conduct theSenate accepted jurisdiction, and the first to be con-victed and removed from office under impeach-ment. His conviction does not provide any constitu-tional precedent as might have emerged if Congresshad faced the question of Pickering’s incapacityhead-on and decided what could be done if futureinstances when a judge should not be permitted tostay on the bench and yet had committed no im-peachable offense.

William Maxwell Evarts, attorney general andchief counsel for President Andrew Johnson inJohnson’s 1868 impeachment, said,“[T]he accusa-tion against Judge Pickering partook of no quali-ties except of personal delinquency or misfortune,and whose results give us nothing to be proud of,and to Constitutional law give no precedent exceptthat an insane man may be convicted of crime by aparty vote.”

Pickering did not long survive his removal. Hedied on 11 April 1805, less than two years after hishistoric impeachment ended.

References: Hildreth, Richard, The History of the UnitedStates of America, from the Discovery of the Continentto the Organization of Government under the FederalConstitution, 6 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers,1880), II:518; “Impeachment of John Pickering,” inAlexander Simpson Jr., A Treatise on FederalImpeachments, with an Appendix Containing, InterAlia, an Abstract of the Articles of Impeachment in allof the Federal Impeachments in this Country and inEngland (Philadelphia: Law Association ofPhiladelphia, 1916), 192–194; “John Pickering,” inEleanore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes:The Federal Impeachment Trials (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1992), 43–55; “John Pickering: LooseMorals and Intemperate Habits,” in George C. Kohn,Encyclopedia of American Scandal: From ABSCAM tothe Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File, 1989),266–267; “Judicial Impeachment: District Judge JohnPickering,” in Emily Field Van Tassel and PaulFinkelman, Impeachable Offenses: A DocumentaryHistory from 1787 to the Present (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1999), 91–100;Robinson, William A.,“Pickering, John,” in AllenJohnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary ofAmerican Biography, 10 vols and supplements (NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),VI:563–564; Turner, Lynn W.,“The Impeachment ofJohn Pickering,” American Historical Review, 54:3(April 1949), 485–507.

Poindexter, George (1779–1853)See Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal

Poindexter CommissionSee Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal

Political Cartoons and CorruptionIt may be that the medium used most effectively toexpose political corruption, and with more biting

262 Poindexter, George

From its birth, the cartoon has been used to disclose political corruption. This 1871 political cartoon by Thomas Nast lampoonsHorace Greeley's opinion of O.K. Hall and the corrupt administration in New York City led by Boss Tweed and the Tammany Society.(Corbis)

satire than either film or the printed word, is thepolitical cartoon.

From early times, the cartoon was used to bringto light the stories of political corruption. Themedium got its start in the pages of English jour-nals, such as Punch, Puck, and Judge, in the early tomid-eighteenth century. The cartoons that appearedin the pages of these magazines exposed not just po-litical corruption in the hierarchy of power in GreatBritain but social problems as well. In the UnitedStates, these cartoons did play a role in the early for-mation of American political thought, but the fewthat did show corruption were unimportant.

This changed in the 1870s, when Thomas Nast,a cartoonist for Harper’s Weekly, illustrated the“corruption” of Horace Greeley, the Republican-turned-Independent who ran for president in 1872and whose death is widely believed to have comefrom the lambasting he took during the campaign,most notable from Nast and his depiction of Gree-ley. Nast later went after “Boss” William MagearTweed, head of the Tammany machine in New YorkCity, whose theft of city funds is infamous. Nastused the pages of Harper’s to publish his portrayalof Tweed as a greedy moneybags—in one famouscartoon, he used a bag with a dollar sign symbolwhere Tweed’s face should have been. Ironically,after Tweed escaped from prison and headed forEurope, he was recognized by someone who hadseen one of Nast’s cartoons. By the end of the cen-tury, Frederick Opper and Homer Davenport werepenciling political cartoons for William RandolphHearst’s New York Evening Journal.

In the twentieth century, the role of political car-toons waned, and while they are still in use—andare the bane of all politicians, usually ones of na-tional influence—they do not have the power thatthey did before the advent of radio and television.

References: Croker, Richard, Political Cartoons, Gatheredby Their Target, Richard Croker (New York: W.P.Mitchell & Sons, 1902?); Hess, Stephen, and SandyNorthrop, Drawn and Quartered: The History ofAmerican Political Cartoons (Montgomery, AL: Elliott& Clark, Publishers, 1996); West, Richard Samuel, ThePolitical Cartoons of Joseph Keppler (Champaign:University of Illinois Press, 1988).

Political Corruption as Portrayed in Filmsand on TelevisionHollywood’s zest to use film to portray the citizenor reporter who discovers political corruption in

high places and sets out to expose it at any cost hasresulted in a number of fine motion pictures sincethe beginning of the art at the end of the nine-teenth century.

The first film to use this motif as its main plotwas The Finger of Justice (Paul Smith Pictures,1918). Political boss William Randall (Henry A.Barrows) allows political corruption to flourish inhis city to advance his own power. Two citizens,Noel Delaney (Crane Wilbur) and his friendYvonne (Jane O’Rourke) set out to expose the cor-ruption. The 1919 drama of corruption in the bigcity, Beating the Odds, was based on Irving RossAllen’s 1918 novel The Money-Maker: The Ro-mance of a Ruthless Man. In 1915, impeached NewYork Governor William Sulzer played himself inthe drama The Governor’s Boss. In Thanks a Mil-lion (1935), Eric Land (Dick Powell) is recruited bya political machine to run for governor and duringhis campaign exposes the corruption behind themachine.

In 1939 perhaps the greatest film dealing withthe issue of American political corruption was re-leased. In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, JimmyStewart plays Smith, a politically naive and idealis-tic man who is elected to the U.S. Senate as a toadyto special interests in his state. Yet when Smith ar-rives in Washington, he sees why he has been sent tothe Senate—to help a powerful interest get a damconstructed. He decides to oppose the special inter-est and in doing so earns the enmity of the powersthat elected him, as well as that of other senators. Inorder to stop the bill he opposes from coming to thefloor, Smith launches into a filibuster, lasting morethan twenty-four hours. Distraught when the othersenators demand he end the tirade, Smith refuses,speaking until he collapses from exhaustion. As hefalls, he is covered with the telegrams of people de-manding he end the fruitless campaign. Suddenly,the sight of Smith barraged by the telegrams cas-cading down on his unconscious form forces thesenator who had so opposed him to confess his cor-ruption and demands that he, instead of Smith, beexpelled from the Senate. Claude Rains plays thecorrupt senator, and Jean Arthur plays Smith’s loyalsecretary. The film did not go down well in Wash-ington: Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley (D-KY) called it “silly and stupid,” and producer FrankCapra later admitted that several senators had triedto purchase the film and have it destroyed before itsrelease.

264 Political Corruption as Portrayed in Films and on Television

Orson Welles’s masterpiece Citizen Kane is thestory of a fictional political leader—Charles Fos-ter Kane—who sets out to become the governor ofNew York, but instead becomes one of the mostpowerful newspaper magnates in America. Mod-eled after real-life newspaper owner William Ran-dolph Hearst, the film investigates the life of Kane,who, like Hearst, was accused of political corrup-tion to further both his political and his newspa-per’s ends. Welles’s 1941 work did not focus oncorruption, however.

In Key Largo (1948), John Rocco (played by Ed-ward G. Robinson says,“I take a nobody, see. Teachthem what to say, get his name in the papers. Yes,pay for his campaign expenses. Dish out a lot ofgroceries and coal, get my boys to bring the votersout, and then count the votes over and over againuntil they add it up right and he was elected.”In Allthe King’s Men (1949), Broderick Crawford por-trays Willie Stark, who rises from the backwater tothe governor’s mansion, only to drown in thestench of corruption. The movie won the Best Pic-ture Oscar for 1949, as well as garnering the BestActor Oscar for Broderick and the Best SupportingActress Oscar for Mercedes McCambridge. The1949 film was based on Robert Penn Warren’s1946 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of the samename, which was loosely based on the life of HueyLong (nicknamed “The Kingfish”), who held swayover Louisiana politics because of political cor-ruption. Stark is seen at a picnic telling the peoplethat he is being manipulated to get their vote—and then gets the confidence of the people Starkcalls “the hick vote.”

The film On the Waterfront (1954) is the dra-matic award-winning film directed by Elia Kazanthat brings to the forefront problems with unioncorruption, political corruption, and racketeering.Set on the gritty New York docks, it was based onreporter Malcolm Johnson’s 1951 twenty-four-partseries in the New York Sun entitled “Crime on theWaterfront.” Marlon Brando plays Terry Malloy, adockworker; James Westerfield plays Big Mac, thepier boss. In The Boss (1956), John Payne playsMatt Brady, a crime boss who rises to the top bypaying off politicians. The film did not centersquarely on the theme of political corruption, butit was an important part of the backdrop.

On television from 1950 to 1956 was Big Town,in which a reporter, Steve Wilson (played by actorPatrick McVey), is the editor of the Illustrated

Press, a crusading newspaper exposing politicalcorruption in a big city and pushing for reforms incampaigns. The 1950 film The Reformer and theRedhead (MGM) has actress June Allyson expos-ing political corruption with the help of a youngattorney (Dick Powell). In Sharkey’s Machine, a1981 film starring Burt Reynolds as a brash vicecop, a scheme involving a candidate for governorof Georgia, who has been bought off by a criminalsyndicate, is exposed.

Recent films on political corruption have beenfew and far between. In the last thirty years, onlythree stand out: Chinatown (1974), Suspect (1987),and City Hall (1996). In Chinatown, film noir isused to ably demonstrate the corruption of politi-cians helping a billionaire (John Huston) buy upland at cheap prices. The film won Best Picture, BestActor (Jack Nicholson), Best Actress (Faye Dun-away), and Best Director (Roman Polanski) Acad-emy Awards, among many others. In Suspect, a fed-eral judge (John Mahoney), in line for a promotionto a higher court seat, murders a clerk who was toexpose corruption in his past, after which the judgetries to frame an innocent man for the crime. Hisexposure, by a juror (Dennis Quaid) in the trial ofthe innocent man and the innocent man’s attorney(Cher), leads to his attempt at another murder. CityHall has an up-and-coming mayor of New York City(Al Pacino), potentially destined for the WhiteHouse, involved in a circle of political corruption.Danny Aiello stars as Frank Anselmo, the head ofthe Brooklyn political machine who is also mired inthe corruption and takes his own life rather than goto prison. Aiello’s character is loosely based on thecase of Donald Manes, the Queens Borough presi-dent who, caught in a ring of corruption, took hisown life in 1986. In 1976 All the President’s Men,based on the bestselling work by Washington Postreporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, por-trayed the early years of the Watergate scandal thatconsumed the administration of President RichardNixon. Oliver Stone’s 1995 film Nixon highlights therise and fall of the thirty-seventh president, broughtdown by the Watergate scandal. The 1997 film Pri-mary Colors, starring John Travolta as a Southerngovernor running for president who is mired inscandal, closely mirrors the life and 1992 campaignof Bill Clinton, the Arkansas governor who ran forpresident and won.

References: Gianos, Phillip L., Politics and Politicians inAmerican Film (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999);

Political Corruption as Portrayed in Films and on Television 265

Omrcanin, Margaret Stewart, The Novel and PoliticalInsurgency (Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company,1973).

Political Corruption as Portrayed inLiteratureThe portrayal of political corruption in fictionalliterature in the United States has been extensive,although nonfiction historical and polemicalworks have been perhaps more influential.

In Democracy (1870), Henry Adams’s fictitiouscharacter Baron Jacobi rails against political cor-ruption in Washington, D.C.:

You Americans believe yourselves to be exemptedfrom the operation of general laws.You care not forexperience. I have lived seventy-five years, and allthat time in the midst of corruption. I am corruptmyself, only I do have the courage to proclaim it,and you others have it not. Rome, Paris,Vienna, Pe-tersburg, London, all are corrupt; only Washingtonis pure! Well, I declare to you that in all my experi-ences I have found no society which has had ele-ments of corruption like the United States. Thechildren in the street are corrupt, and know how tocheat me. The citizens are all corrupt, and also thetowns and the counties and the States’ legislaturesand the judges. Everywhere men betray trusts bothpublic and private, steal money, run away withpublic funds. Only in the Senate men take nomoney. And you gentlemen in the Senate very welldeclare that your great United States, which is thehead of the civilized world, can never learn any-thing from the example of corrupt Europe.You areright—quite right! The great United States needsnot an example. I do much regret that I have not yetone hundred years to live. If I could then comeback to this city, I should find myself very con-tent—much more than now. I am always contentwhere there is much corruption, and ma paroled’honneur!” broke out the old man with fire andgesture,“The United States will then be more cor-rupt than Rome under Caligula; more corrupt thanthe Church under Leo X; more corrupt than Franceunder the Regent!

In 1889 the Reverend J. McDowell Leavitt, in hisCapital and Labor in Pictures of Fiction. Being the‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the Great Labor Problem. AnExciting Story Illustrating by Powerfully DrawnFiction the Great Battle for Bread, explained thatpolitical corruption and social injustice were

plaguing the United States and that the Bible wasthe only solution. American writer Booth Tarking-ton’s first novel, The Gentleman from Indiana(1899), was a fictional expose of political corrup-tion in a small American town.

The first decade of the twentieth century saw amajor increase in the number of exposes printedon social ills and political corruption. Stories onalleged abuses by the railroads, monopolies, andtrusts began to appear in the pages of such jour-nals as Collier’s, McClure’s Magazine, and Every-body’s Magazine. In 1906, Socialist writer UptonSinclair used fiction to expose abuses in the meat-packing industry in his famed The Jungle.

In his slam against the people who ended slav-ery and fought the Ku Klux Klan in the Recon-struction period following the American Civil War,writer Thomas Dixon Jr. used the impeachedNorth Carolina Governor William Woods Holdenas the model for his character Governor AmosHogg in his 1902 work The Leopard’s Spots: A Ro-mance of the White Man’s Burden, 1865–1900.Dixon wrote:

This man, Amos Hogg, was a writer of brilliant andforceful style. Before the war, a virulent Secessionistleader, he had justified and upheld slavery, and hadwritten a volume of poems dedicated to John C. Cal-houn. He had led the movement for Secession in theConvention that passed the ordinance. But when hesaw his ship was sinking, he turned his back uponthe “errors” of the past, professed the most loyalUnion sentiments, wormed himself into the confi-dence of the Federal Government, and actually suc-ceeded in securing the position of Provisional Gov-ernor of the state! He loudly professed his loyalty,and with fury and malice demanded that Vance, thegreat war Governor, his predecessor, who, as aUnion man had opposed Secession, should now behanged, and with him his own former associates inthe Secession Convention, whom he had misledwith his brilliant pen.

Journalist Lincoln Steffens wrote of politicalcorruption in the big cities in The Shame of theCities (1904). In 1907, John T. McCutcheon “intro-duced” the world to the corrupt Representative E.Joseph Pumphrey in Congressman Pumphrey, ThePeople’s Friend (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,1907) in a brilliant satire on political corruption inWashington. The movement seemed to be on the

266 Political Corruption as Portrayed in Literature

verge of cracking the scourge of national politicalcorruption. David Graham Phillips, a writer forCosmopolitan magazine, wrote a series of articlesin that journal in 1906, calling attention to theDemocratic and Republican parties and accusingboth of taking money from large corporations andthen legislating the corporate agenda in the Sen-ate. Calling his article “Treason in the Senate,”Phillips wrote in March 1906:

Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rathertoo weak, to characterize the situation in which theSenate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agentof interests as hostile to the American people as anyinvading army could be, and vastly more danger-ous: interests that manipulate the prosperity pro-duced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few;interests whose growth and power can only meanthe degradation of the people, of the educated intosycophants, of the masses toward serfdom.

The Senators are not elected by the people; theyare elected by the interests. A servant obeys himwho can punish and dismiss. Except in extreme andrare and negligible instances can the people eitherelect or dismiss a senator? The senator, in thedilemma which the careless ignorance of the peoplethrusts upon him, chooses to be comfortable,placed and honoured, and a traitor to oath and peo-ple rather than to be true to his oath and poor andejected into private life.

Phillips accused Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (R-RI) of being the “right arm” of corporate interestsand Senator Albert Pue Gorman (D-MD) of being“the left arm.” This attack on the political allies ofthe president brought about a response which wasunprepared for by the crusading journalists. Presi-dent Theodore Roosevelt, despite being a re-former, called these writers, including Ida Tarbell,David Graham Phillips, Steffens, and Ray StannardBaker, “muckrakers,” after the character in JohnBunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress; From This Worldto That Which Is to Come, who was, as Bunyanwrote,“the man who could look no way but down-ward with the muck-rake in his hands; who wouldneither look up nor regard the crown he was of-fered, but continued to rake to himself the filth onthe floor.” Despite this slam, Phillips’s articles ledto the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment tothe Constitution, which provided for direct elec-tion of U.S. senators by the people, instead of by

state legislatures (many of which had been boughtover the years).

One of the better works of the middle twentiethcentury was Edwin Greene O’Connor’s The LastHurrah (1956), which, while not portraying politi-cal corruption, did exemplify the power of ma-chine politics in the big city. Loosely based on thelife of Boston politico James Curley, it is the storyof Frank Skeffington, the mayor of Boston, who isin the fight of his life in his final campaign formayor. The work was made into a motion picturein 1958, starring Spencer Tracy as Skeffington.

References: Omrcanin, Margaret Stewart, The Novel andPolitical Insurgency (Philadelphia: Dorrance &Company, 1973); Phillips, David Graham,“TheTreason of the Senate,” Cosmopolitan, XL: 5 (March1906), 487–502.

Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke (1816–1891)United States senator (1867–1873) from Kansas,accused, but never convicted, of bribing Kansasstate legislators to get himself elected to the Sen-ate. Pomeroy was born in Southampton, Massa-chusetts, on 3 January 1816, the son of Samuel andDorcas (née Burt) Pomeroy and a descendent ofEltweed Pomeroy, an immigrant from England tothe American colonies in 1630. Samuel Pomeroyapparently attended local schools before he wentto Amherst College, leaving in 1838 without a de-gree. He left Amherst and moved to New York,where he taught school. Four years later, however,he returned to Southampton, where for severalyears he held various local offices, including ser-ving as a member of the state house of representa-tives from 1852 to 1853.

While in Massachusetts, Pomeroy served as anorganizer and financial agent for the New EnglandEmigrant Aid Company, which assisted peoplemoving into the American West, then mostly un-populated territory. In 1854 Pomeroy became oneof these people himself, pulling up stakes andmoving to Kansas. He settled in the town ofLawrence, but later moved to Atchison. In 1858 thepeople of Atchison elected Pomeroy mayor, an of-fice held until 1859. It was during this period thatKansas became enveloped in a battle between theforces of slavery and abolition, leading to what hasbeen termed by historians “Bloody Kansas.” In anattempt to get Kansas entered into the Union as a

Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke 267

slave state, slaveowners moved into Kansas inlarge numbers and established a constitution atthe town of Lecompton. Trying to block this move,abolitionists met in convention at Lawrence in1859 and asked the U.S. Congress not to accept theLecompton constitution. Congress acceded tothese wishes, plunging Kansas into a bloody civilwar.When famine struck Kansas in 1860, Pomeroyserved on a committee that distributed relief tothe beleaguered victims.

On 29 January 1861, Kansas was admitted tothe Union as a free state, and the new entity wasentitled to send two senators to the United StatesSenate. Pomeroy, because of his work, was the firstof these two officers elected and was sworn in on4 April 1861. During his time in the Senate, heserved as chairman of the Committee on PublicLands. A Republican, he joined the ranks of theRadicals, who opposed any leniency towards therebellious Southern states that had started theCivil War by seceding to form the ConfederateStates of America. In 1864 Pomeroy made head-lines when he circulated a broadside, known asthe “Pomeroy Circular,” which claimed that Presi-dent Lincoln had no chance of being reelectedand that the Republican Party should back Secre-tary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase for presi-dent. When Lincoln was nominated anyway,Pomeroy spoke on the Senate floor that the oldpolitical parties were dead and that a new politi-cal entity was needed to oppose slavery at all costsand to fight the war until its end. With Lincoln’sreelection, and the war slowly turning in favor ofthe Union by the end of 1864, Pomeroy’s call be-came less and less important.

For his entire first term in the Senate, therewere whispers that Pomeroy had purchased hisSenate seat with money paid to Kansas legislators;these whispers became outright accusations whenPomeroy was reelected in 1867. The Kansas statelegislature convened a committee that investigatedallegations of vote buying and unanimously de-clared that Pomeroy was indeed guilty of the of-fense. Nonetheless, he was allowed to remain inthe Senate. However, in 1872 the Senate began aninvestigation, a few months before Pomeroy’s termended (he did not run for reelection in 1873).A se-lect committee, headed by Senator Frederick T.Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, was established to in-vestigate the allegations. On 3 March 1873, ironi-

cally Pomeroy’s last day in office, the committee’sreport was released: the committee in essence ex-onerated Pomeroy and released him from furtherscrutiny. The report explains, “The committee areunanimously of the opinion that even if the fore-going transactions were made out as cases ofbribery, there is no sufficient evidence to connectSenator Pomeroy with any of them.” However, Sen-ator Allen Granberry Thurman (D-OH) dissentedto a degree, writing a minority report of one page,in which he said:

I cannot agree with the report of the majority of thecommittee. I think that the testimony proves a cor-rupt offer by Mr. Pomeroy to [state] Senator Simp-son, of the Kansas legislature, to obtain the vote ofthe latter.

I also believe that the testimony convicts Mr.Pomeroy of having attempted to bribe [state] Sena-tor York, of that legislature, to vote for him; thatPomeroy delivered to York $7,000 is not denied. Theonly material issue between them is, for what pur-pose was the money delivered? York says that it wasa bribe for his vote. Pomeroy says that it washanded to York to carry it to one [Mr.] Page, whomPomeroy had promised to assist in starting a na-tional bank. In my judgment, the statements of Mr.Pomeroy on this subject are contradictory, are in-consistent with Page’s statements; are so opposed tothe usual circumstances attending a business trans-action, and are so improbable, especially in view ofthe circumstances attending the senatorial election,that reliance cannot be placed upon them. Perceiv-ing no good to result from an elaborate statement ofthe testimony, and reasons that bring me to theseconclusions, I refrain from making such statement.Were there time for the Senate to consider the sub-ject fully, I should feel it my duty to give at large thereasons for my convictions. But this is the last dayof the session and Mr. Pomeroy’s senatorial term.Before the reports can be printed, much less consid-ered, the session will be at an end. I therefore say nomore than to repeat the conclusions to which mymind has, reluctantly and painfully, been brought.

Pomeroy, out of office, remained in Washing-ton, D.C. In 1880 he was nominated for vice presi-dent by the American Masonic Party, and he ran anearly nonexistent campaign with John WolcottPhelps of Vermont for president. The ticket gotfew votes, and the party went out of existencesoon after the election. In 1884 Pomeroy was

268 Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke

nominated for president by the American Prohibi-tion Party, but, once again, the ticket got little at-tention and even fewer votes. After this second at-tempt at a political comeback, Pomeroy retired toMassachusetts.

Pomeroy died in Whitinsville, Massachusetts,on 27 August 1891, at the age of seventy-five, andwas interred in the Forest Hills Cemetery inBoston, Massachusetts.

See also Caldwell, AlexanderReferences: Butler, Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, United

States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases,1793–1990 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1995), 174–177; “Götterdämmerung inTopeka: The Downfall of Senator Pomeroy,” KansasHistorical Quarterly, XVIII:3 (Autumn 1950),243–278; “How Pom Tried to Buy In. And Paid HisMoney Like a Christian Statesman,” Sun (New York),18 February 1873, 1; “S. C. Pomeroy and AlexanderCaldwell,” in George S. Taft, Compilation of SenateElection Cases from 1789 to 1885 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1885), 368–385;Stephenson, Wendell H.,“Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke,” inAllen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al., eds.,Dictionary of American Biography, 10 vols. andsupplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995),VIII:55–56; U.S. Senate,“Report [of] theCommittee Appointed to investigate the Charges ofBribery in the Recent Senatorial Election of Kansas,Preferred against Senator Pomeroy by A. M.York andB. F. Simpson,” Senate Report No. 523, 42nd Congress,3rd Session (1873) (Thurman’s statement appears onthe final, unpaginated page of the report), 266.

Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr. (1908–1972)United States representative from New York(1945–1967, 1970–1971), the subject of a famedSupreme Court decision that forced the U.S. Houseof Representatives to seat him, despite that bodyhaving voted to strip him of his seat. Powell wasborn in New Haven, Connecticut, on 29 November1908, the son of the famed black minister AdamClayton Powell Sr.When the junior Powell was onlysix months old, his family moved to New York City,where the senior Powell became the head of theAbyssinian Baptist Church and turned it into oneof the most influential black churches in the na-tion. The junior Powell attended the public schoolsof New York City. He entered Colgate University inHamilton, New York, and graduated with a bache-lor’s degree in 1930. He then attended ColumbiaUniversity in New York City, graduating from that

institution in 1932 with a master’s degree in reli-gious education. Powell completed his educationby receiving a theological degree from Shaw Uni-versity in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1934. Takingtime off, he headed for Europe, North Africa, andAsia Minor for four months. Having been ordainedin 1931, he returned to the United States andpicked up his duties as a minister.

During the Depression, Powell was one of agrowing number of voices in the black communitycalling for civil rights. Powell served as a memberof the New York City Council in 1941, before he leftto become the editor and publisher of the People’sVoice, a weekly newspaper for the African Ameri-can community from 1941 to 1945. In 1942 he wasnamed a member of the New York State Office ofPrice Administration, a New Deal program, andserved until 1944. He also served as part of theManhattan Civil Defense until 1945. In 1944 Pow-ell was elected to a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, representing the Twenty-second NewYork District, which later became the EighteenthDistrict. Powell served from 3 January 1945 until 1March 1967. He sat as a member of the commit-tees on Indian Affairs, Invalid Pensions, Labor,and, when the latter committee was reorganized,on the Education and Labor Committee. Powellwas best known during his time in Washington forchallenging long-held policies in which even blackcongressmen ate in separate dining facilities in theCapitol. He was a leading author of antipoll tax andantilynching legislation that he introduced inevery Congress, only to see these bills go down todefeat. In 1961 he became the chairman of theHouse Committee on Education and Labor andoversaw a period of legislative initiatives that in-cluded school lunches funded by the government,vocational training, minimum wage increases,student loans, and vocational schooling.

In 1965 and 1966 Powell became the target of aseries of investigations into allegations that hemisused travel funds and his authority to hireclerks and pay them with public funds. These alle-gations were based on a series of events that wentback to the early 1950s.At that time, several Powellaides were convicted of income tax evasion, andthere were reports that Powell had received someof their income via kickbacks. Powell was indictedfor tax evasion in 1958, but a hung jury resultedand the Department of Justice did not retry him.

Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr. 269

In 1960 Powell accused a constituent of transport-ing payoffs to the police. This constituent suedPowell in New York for libel and won a large judg-ment against the congressman, who refused tohonor the court’s finding. Powell spent an incredi-ble amount of time in the early 1960s trying toavoid paying the fine, before he agreed to settle.

But it was the allegation that Powell had placedhis wife on the Education and Labor Committee’spayroll and took his wife on vacations to Europeand the Bahamas on committee funds that led tothe investigation against him. A special subcom-mittee of the Committee on House Administrationinvestigated these allegations and found them tohave merit. Because there was no House EthicsCommittee at that time, the subcommittee sub-mitted their findings to the House DemocraticCaucus. On 9 January 1967, the caucus strippedPowell of his chairmanship of the Education andLabor Committee. The full House then voted to re-fuse Powell his seat until the Judiciary Committeecould complete a fuller investigation. On 28 Febru-ary 1967, the Judiciary Committee recommendedthat Powell be censured, fined, and deprived ofseniority in the House. However, on 1 March, thefull House voted 307 to 116 to exclude Powell com-pletely from the House, despite his having won re-election in November 1966.

A special election to fill the seat was ordered on11 April 1967. Remarkably, Powell was elected tothe vacancy, but once again the House voted to re-fuse him his seat. Powell stood for reelection inNovember 1968, but despite once again winningthis seat, he was refused entry when the Ninety-first Congress assembled in January 1969. Powellsued to the U.S. Supreme Court to have himself re-instated to the House and, on 16 June 1969, theSupreme Court voted eight to one that Powell’s ex-clusion was illegal. (See Powell v. McCormack forthe issues before the Court in the case.) Because ofthe court action, Powell was allowed to take hisseat in the Ninety-first Congress, but without thetwenty-two years of seniority he had previouslyaccrued. Powell by this time was spent from hisyears of litigation, and when he stood for reelec-tion in 1970, Democrats chose a newcomer,Charles Rangel. Powell tried to get on the ballot asan Independent, but failed.

Finished with politics, Powell retired to becomea minister at his father’s church, the Abyssinian

Baptist Church in New York. On 4 April 1972, whilein Miami, Florida, Powell suffered a heart attackand died at the age of sixty-three. His remainswere cremated and the ashes scattered over SouthBimini in the Bahamas.

Powell’s case ultimately led to a major step inethics investigations: on 13 April 1967, the Houseof Representatives established the Committee ofStandards and Ethics in response to the Powellcase and named Representative Melvin Price (D-IL) its chairman. Today all ethics investigations inthe House are referred to that committee.

See also Powell v. McCormackReferences: “Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.: Fallen

Congressman,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 272–273; BiographicalDirectory of the American Congress, 1774–1996(Alexandria,VA: CQ Staff Directories, Inc., 1996),1682–1683; Hamilton, Charles V., Adam ClaytonPowell, Jr.: The Political Biography of An AmericanDilemma (New York: Atheneum, 1991); Powell, AdamClayton, Adam by Adam (New York: The Dial Press,1971).

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486(1969)Supreme Court decision that Congress could notformally remove a sitting member for any causewithout actually expelling that person. The casedealt with whether Congress could institute “re-quirements” for a member to take his or her seatother than those specified in the Constitution—age, citizenship, and residence. Adam Clayton Pow-ell Jr. was elected to the U.S. House of Representa-tives in 1944 from New York’s Twenty-secondCongressional District, later reorganized as theEighteenth District. A leading spokesman for civilrights in that body, he rose to become chairman ofthe Committee on Education and Labor in 1961,even though in 1958 he had been acquitted of taxevasion. However, during the Eighty-ninth Congress(1965–1967), Powell was accused of financial irreg-ularities in the management of the committee. ASpecial Subcommittee of the Committee on HouseAdministration commenced an investigation,which showed that Powell and some of his staff hadsubmitted false statements as to travel expensesand that Powell had illegally paid his wife a salarywhen she did not work. No action was taken during

270 Powell v. McCormack

the Eighty-ninth Congress, and Powell was re-elected in 1966. However, at the start of the Nineti-eth Congress in January 1967, the Democratic Cau-cus, meeting in session, decided to strip Powell ofhis chairmanship, and pursuant to a House resolu-tion, he was not allowed to take his seat. On 1 March1967, the report of the subcommittee was officiallyreleased, and a resolution was offered that Powell beexcluded from the House. On that date, the Housevoted 307 to 116 to exclude Powell and directed theSpeaker, John McCormack of Massachusetts, to no-tify the governor of New York that the seat whichPowell had held was vacant.

At this point, Powell and thirteen supporters inhis district sued in federal district court, claimingthat the House could exclude him only if he failedto meet those requirements specified in the Con-stitution—namely age, citizenship, or residence.The district court dismissed the suit “for want ofjurisdiction,” and the U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal.The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari andheard arguments in the case on 21 April 1969.

Less than two months later, on 16 June 1969,the Court held eight to one that Powell could notbe excluded from Congress except for failure tomeet the qualifications for election as prescribedin the Constitution. Chief Justice Earl Warren de-livered the opinion of the Court, holding that whilethe Court could not decide on cases of expulsion,Powell could not be “excluded” on the basis of theallegations made against him. The chief justice ex-plained:

Analysis of the “textual commitment” under ArticleI, section 5, has demonstrated that in judging thequalifications of its members Congress is limited tothe standing qualifications prescribed in the Con-stitution. Respondents concede that Powell metthese. Thus, there is no need to remand this case todetermine whether he was entitled to be seated inthe 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, sinceAdam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by thevoters of the 18th Congressional District of NewYork and was not ineligible to serve under any pro-vision of the Constitution, the House was withoutpower to exclude him from its membership.

Adam Clayton Powell had been reelected to hisseat in 1968, but at that time Congress refused toseat him, and he sat out the entire term. After the

Court reversed his exclusion, he returned to theHouse, albeit without his seniority or chairman-ship. In June 1970 he was defeated in the Demo-cratic primary and failed to get on the ballot as anIndependent. He retired to become the minister ofthe Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City,where his father had preached. Clayton died inMiami on 4 April 1972.

See also Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr.References: Dionisopoulos, P. Allan, Rebellion, Racism

and Representation: The Adam Clayton Powell Caseand Its Antecedents (DeKalb: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1970); Ragsdale, Bruce A., and JoelD. Treese, Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1989(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990),113–115; Weeks, Kent M., Adam Clayton Powell andthe Supreme Court (New York: Dunellen, 1971).

Publicity Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 822Act of Congress, enacted 25 June 1910, also calledthe Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910, whichsought to revise the Tillman Act of 1907, at thesame time requiring the disclosure of campaigncontributions and spending.

This legislation was pushed by the NationalPublicity Law Association (NPLA), a reformist or-ganization set up in the wake of the allegationsthat President Theodore Roosevelt took massivecorporate contributions in his 1904 campaign forpresident. The 1907 Tillman Act covered campaigncontributions by banks and corporations. In 1910Congress sought to cover reports of election con-tributions and spending not only by campaignsfor the House (Senate campaigns were not re-quired until the passage of the SeventeenthAmendment, which made election of senators di-rectly by the people), but by the national parties.

Excerpts from the law read:

An Act providing for publicity of contributions madefor the purpose of influencing elections at which Rep-resentatives in Congress are elected.

Be it enacted, That the term “political commit-tee” under the provisions of this Act shall includethe national committees of all political parties andthe national congressional campaign committees ofall political parties and all committees, associa-tions, or organizations which shall in two or moreStates influence the result or attempt to influencethe result of an election at which Representatives inCongress are to be elected.

Publicity Act of 1910 271

Sec[tion] 2. That every political committee asdefined in this Act shall have a chairman and atreasurer. It shall be the duty of the treasurer to keepa detailed and exact account of all money or itsequivalent received by or promised to such commit-tee or any member thereof, or by or to any personacting under its authority or in its behalf, and thename of every person, firm, association, or commit-tee from whom received, and of all expenditures,disbursements, and promises of payment or dis-bursement made by the committee or any memberthereof, or by any person acting under its authorityor in its behalf, and to whom paid, distributed, ordisbursed. No officer or member of such committee,or other person acting under its authority or in itsbehalf, shall receive any money or its equivalent, orexpend or promise to expend any money on behalfof such committee, until after a chairman and treas-urer of such committee shall have been chosen.

Sec[tion] 3. That every payment or disburse-ment made by a political committee exceeding tendollars in amount be evidenced by a receipted billstating the particulars of expense, and every suchrecord, voucher, receipt, or account shall be pre-served for fifteen months after the election to whichit relates.

Sec[tion] 4. That whoever, acting under the au-thority or in behalf of such political committee,whether as a member thereof or otherwise, receivesany contribution, payment, loan, gift, advance, de-posit, or promise of money or its equivalent shall,on demand, and in any event within five days afterthe receipt of such contribution, payment, loan, gift,advance, deposit, or promise, render to the treasurerof such political committee a detailed account ofthe same, together with the name and address fromwhom received, and said treasurer shall forthwithenter the same in a ledger or record to be kept byhim for that purpose.

Sec[tion] 5. That the treasurer of every such po-litical committee shall, within thirty days after theelection at which Representatives in Congress werechosen in two or more States, file with the Clerk ofthe House of Representatives at Washington, Districtof Columbia, an itemized, detailed statement, swornto by said treasurer and conforming to the require-ments of the following section of this Act. The state-ment so filed with the Clerk of the House of Repre-sentatives shall be preserved by him for fifteenmonths, and shall be a part of the public records ofhis office, and shall be open to public inspection.

In 1911, Congress desired to add amendmentsto the 1910 law and enacted these in a law on 19

August 1911 (37 Stat. 25). These amendments ex-panded the rules covering the financial disclosureof campaign spending and expenditures and setlimits for campaign spending by House candidatesat for $5,000 and by Senate candidates at $25,000.Disclosure was extended to primary, general elec-tion, and postelection expenditures, the first timesuch rules were established.

Excerpts from the amendments read:

An Act to amend an act entitled “An act providing forpublicity of contributions made for the purpose of in-fluencing elections at which Representatives in Con-gress are elected” and extending the same to candi-dates for nomination and election to the offices ofRepresentative and Senator in the Congress of theUnited States and limiting the amount of campaignexpenses.

Be it enacted, That sections five, six, and eight ofan Act entitled “An Act providing for publicity ofcontributions made for the purpose of influencingelections at which Representatives in Congress areelected,” . . . be amended to read as follows:

Sec[tion] 5. That the treasurer of every such po-litical committee shall, not more than fifteen daysand not less than ten days next before an election atwhich Representatives in Congress are to be electedin two or more States, file in the office of the Clerkof the House of Representatives at Washington, Dis-trict of Columbia, with said Clerk, an itemized de-tailed statement; and on each sixth day thereafteruntil such election said treasurer shall file with saidClerk a supplemental itemized detailed statement.Each of said statements shall conform to the re-quirements of the following section of this Act, ex-cept that the supplemental statement herein re-quired need not contain any item of which publicityis given in a previous statement. Each of said state-ments shall be full and complete, and shall besigned and sworn to by said treasurer.

It shall also be the duty of said treasurer to file asimilar statement with said Clerk within thirty daysafter such election, such final statement also to besigned and sworn to by said treasurer and to con-form to the requirements of the following section ofthis Act. The statements so filed with the Clerk ofthe House shall be preserved by him for fifteenmonths and shall be a part of the public records ofhis office and shall be open to public inspection.

Sec[tion] 8. The word “candidate” as used in thissection shall include all persons whose names arepresented for nomination for Representative orSenator in the Congress of the United States at any

272 Publicity Act of 1910

primary election or nominating convention, or forindorsement [sic] or election at any general or spe-cial election held in connection with the nomina-tion or election of a person to fill such office,whether or not such persons are actually nomi-nated, indorsed, or elected.

In 1921 the U.S. Supreme Court in Newberry v.United States held that the provisions of the 1911act that covered primary elections were unconsti-tutional and struck them down. The Congressthen voided this action with the passage of the

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. However,in United States v. Classic in 1941 the Court re-versed itself and held that Congress could overseespending limits for primaries and other preelec-tion activities.

See also Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925; Newberryv. United States, 256 U.S. 232; Tillman Act of 1907

References: “Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 and1911,” in William C. Binning, Larry Esterly, and PaulA. Sracic, Encyclopedia of American Parties,Campaigns, and Elections (Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1999), 169.

Publicity Act of 1910 273

RebukeSee Censure

RecallMechanism utilized to “recall” a politician by re-moving him or her from office via a special electionprior to the end of that politician’s set term. Now apopular plan of action against politicians involvedin corruption—but also against those politicianswho defy the will of their constituents—recall as ameasure was introduced into the American politicalsystem only in the twentieth century.

The recall, like its counterparts, the referendumand the initiative, was first used in California. TheLos Angeles city charter, drafted in 1903, providedfor recall. As the tax revolt of the 1970s swept thecountry, so did the use of the recall, mostly tocheck local officials who were accused of corruptactivities. Oregon was the first state to use it forstate officials (1908), with California adopting it in1911.Arizona, which became a state in 1912, madethe right of recall a part of its state constitution.(When President William Howard Taft was to signthe Arizona constitution, he objected to this singleprovision and vetoed the measure, but Congressoverrode his veto.) Kansas’s recall measure was ex-tended to appointed, as well as elected, officials.Several states, including Washington, disallow theuse of recall of judges as a check to ensure an inde-pendent judiciary.

Under a recall initiative, citizens opposing anincumbent politician collect signatures on a peti-tion to force a special election.A certain number ofsignatures from registered voters in the targetedpolitician’s district must be collected and verified

R

275

President William Howard Taft. When Taft went to sign theArizona constitution, he objected to the recall provision andvetoed the measure, but the Congress overrode his veto. Recallis now considered a popular plan of action used againstpoliticians involved in corruption. (Library of Congress)

to have such an election. Once this barrier ispassed, an election date is set, and the targetedpolitician must mount a campaign to convincevoters that he or she has been wrongfully accusedand is worthy of retention in office. An oppositioncandidate may enter the race to challenge the sub-ject of the recall. The election is conducted like anyother regular election. If there is no candidate op-posing the target of the recall, the governor mayappoint a person to fill the vacant seat if the recallis successful. If it is not successful, the politiciancontinues to serve the remainder of his or herterm until the next scheduled election.

References: Munro, William Bennett, The Initiative,Referendum and Recall (New York: Appleton, 1912);Taft’s veto in House Exec Doc 106, 62nd Congress, 1stSession (1912).

Reed, Harrison (1813–1899)Governor of Florida (1868–1873), the subject ofthree separate impeachment inquiries (and ac-quitted in trial once) on various charges, becom-ing the only state executive in American history tobe the subject of such numerous investigations inthe same term. None of the charges of politicalcorruption against Reed were ever proved, but thefact that he was nearly impeached three differenttimes makes his story an interesting one and illus-trative of how the procedure is used. Reed wasborn in Littleton, Massachusetts, on 26 August1813, the son of Serb Harrison Reed and Rhode(née Finney) Reed. He moved with his parents toWisconsin when he was twenty-three. In Wiscon-sin he served as editor of the Milwaukee Sentinelbefore leaving that paper to found the town ofNeenah, located on the Fox River. He got into aland dispute with some of the partners with whomhe had founded Neenah, and eventually he movedto found another town, Menasha, nearby. He thenbecame the editor of the Neenah-Menasha Obser-vator and, in 1857, became the editor of the Wis-consin State Journal, headquartered in Madison.

A Whig in politics, Reed was an early memberof the Wisconsin Republican Party, founded on aplatform of opposition to slavery. In 1861 hemoved to Washington, D.C., where he became anemployee in the Department of the Treasury. In1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed himthe direct tax commissioner for the state of

Florida, which was in the Confederacy and at warwith the United States. He remained in Washing-ton until the Union army occupied the city of Fer-nandina, Florida, after which time he set up his of-fices there. When the Civil War ended, Reed wasnamed the federal postal agent for the state ofFlorida by President Andrew Johnson.

After the state of Florida drafted a new consti-tution in 1868, Reed was nominated by the Repub-lican Party there for governor. He had been one ofthe party’s founders in 1867, and despite his beingconsidered a “carpetbagger” his moderate tonehelped him win election over two other candi-dates. Taking office on 8 June 1868 as Florida’sninth governor, Reed struggled from the start toreestablish law and order and make the state gov-ernment work again. The Republican Party inFlorida was at the time made up of numerous fac-tions, and some demanded that Reed move fasterto bring full rights to former slaves. Before Reedhad completed a year in office, an impeachmentinquiry began, initiated by these disaffected Re-publicans. Emboldened by the impeachment at-tempt earlier that year against President AndrewJohnson, Reed’s accusers advanced charges of var-ious nefarious schemes and crimes against him.Historian William Watson Davis, writing in 1913on the Reed case, gave this account:

At the beginning of the afternoon session of the[state] house, Horatio Jenkins, Jr., a member of thesenate, presented charges, as “a private citizen,”against Governor Reed. He accused him of “false-hood and lying” in transacting business with thelegislature; of “incompetency” in appointing stateand county officials; of lawlessness in declaringseats in the legislature vacant; of “embezzling” statesecurities; of corruption in the disposal of state of-fices. For these “high crimes and misdemeanors”Jenkins demanded the impeachment of the gover-nor at the hands of the house. . . . Reed, in themeantime, was little inclined to be passive or com-promising. The last two charges made by Jenkinswere grave and concrete enough to put the governorin the state penitentiary if they could be substanti-ated with reasonably good proof. As a matter of factno good evidence was ever forthcoming substanti-ating any of the charges. The state accounts up tothat time did not yield proof of executive embezzle-ment. If Reed traded in local offices he kept theproof of such transactions profoundly to himself. Ifthe appointees were bad or incompetent, the senate

276 Reed, Harrison

were equally guilty with the governor—it had rati-fied his choice[s].

Despite the charges by Jenkins, the legislatureadjourned on 7 November 1868 without bringingforth articles of impeachment. However, that sameday Lieutenant Governor William H. Gleason de-clared that he was the new governor. When he wasbarred from the official governor’s office by Reedsupporters and state officials, Gleason establishedhis own office and began to sign documents asthough he were the state’s chief executive. Reedpenned him a short and stern letter: “Sir: I am,under the Constitution and laws of this State, therightful Governor thereof, and shall continue toexercise the power and authority, and discharge allof the duties belonging to the office of the execu-tive Department until the Judicial tribunals of theState shall determine otherwise.—To the determi-nation of the Judiciary I will, like any other goodcitizen, yield peaceful and immediate obedience.”On 24 November, the Florida Supreme Court ruledthat because Reed had never been impeached,much less convicted and removed from office, heremained governor and Gleason was a usurper.Reed then had Gleason removed from office. Reednever faced an impeachment vote and remained inoffice despite his difficulties with the legislature.

In 1870 the Republicans in the state legislatureagain moved to impeach Reed. They accused himof attempting to bribe all the members of the leg-islature in 1869, of illegally receiving a payoff of$7,500 from a lobbyist for a railroad and of em-bezzling enormous sums from state coffers. How-ever, the state house adopted the minority report,which cleared Reed of any such charges.

Finally, in January 1872, when the legislatureagain convened, yet another impeachment inquirywas brought against Reed. This time, working withDemocrats, Republicans were able to pass (in themiddle of the night) sixteen separate articles of im-peachment, charging Reed with everything from il-legally issuing state bonds to embezzlement to brib-ing legislators to bribing a justice of the statesupreme court. The state senate convened as a courtof impeachment on 10 February, but when Reedasked for a quick trial the senate adjourned. Reedwas caught in a trap: the state constitution specifi-cally stated that “any officer when impeached by theassembly shall be deemed under arrest and shall be

disqualified from performing any duties of his of-fice until acquittal by the Senate.” This placed Reedin official limbo. However, Reed continued to act asgovernor, even taking with him to his home in Jack-sonville the state seal. President of the senate protem, Samuel T. Day, who was acting as lieutenantgovernor, proclaimed himself the new chief execu-tive and proceeded to name a new cabinet and offerappointments to supporters.

Finally, on 2 May, the trial opened in the statesenate. Reed’s attorneys demanded that the bodydismiss all charges and allow Reed to continue asgovernor. The vote was ten to seven in agreement,and Reed escaped being convicted for the thirdtime. Despite this vindication, Reed was personanon grata to the Republicans in Florida, and whenthey met in convention they nominated formerslaveowner and state supervisor of elections Oss-ian Bingley Hart, who went on to win the electionthat November. Reed left office exonerated of allcharges leveled against him, but he was broken bythe campaign that had been waged against him.He settled down on a farm along the St. JohnsRiver in Florida. He remained a staunch Republi-can, speaking out on issues ranging from eco-nomic development to agriculture. From 1875 to1878 he served as the editor of the Jacksonvillejournal the Semi-Tropical, a magazine devoted toagricultural issues related to the American South.From 1889 to 1893 he served as postmaster forJacksonville. Reed died in Jacksonville on 25 May1899 at the age of eighty-five.

References: Brown, Canter, Jr.,“Carpetbagger Intrigues,Black Leadership, and a Southern Loyalist Triumph:Florida’s Gubernatorial Election of 1872,” FloridaHistorical Quarterly, 72:3 (1994), 275–301; “TheCarpetbagger as Conservative: Harrison Reed,” inRichard N. Current, Three Carpetbag Governors(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,1967), 3–35; Davis, William Watson, The Civil Warand Reconstruction in Florida (New York: ColumbiaUniversity, 1913), 547; “Reed, Harrison,” in RobertSobel and John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory ofthe Governors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), I:256; “Reed toWilliam H. Gleason, 7 November 1868, Governor,State Governors’ Incoming Correspondence,1857–1888,” Series 577, Florida Department of State,Division of Library & Information Services, Bureau ofArchives & Records Management, Tallahassee,Florida; Shofner, Jerrell H., Nor Is It Over Yet: Floridain the Era of Reconstruction, 1863–1877 (Gainesville:The University Presses of Florida, 1974).

Reed, Harrison 277

Reeder, Andrew Horatio (1807–1864)Governor of Kansas Territory (1854–1855), impli-cated, but never charged or convicted, in illegalland speculation while in office. Born in the villageof Easton, Pennsylvania, on 12 July 1807, he wasthe son of Absalom Reeder and Christiana (néeSmith) Reeder. He was educated at a local schoolrun by a minister and then at a private school inLawrenceville, New Jersey. He then studied the lawin the office of a New Jersey attorney and was ad-mitted to that state’s bar in 1828. He married andbecame a leading Democrat in Pennsylvania, al-though he did not run for a local or state office.

In May 1854 the Kansas Territory had been es-tablished as part of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, di-viding that huge area into two smaller entities. On29 June 1854, President Franklin Pierce, a North-erner who supported slavery, appointed Reeder asthe first territorial governor of Kansas. Reeder wasset to uphold the right of popular sovereignty, theidea that the people of Nebraska and Kansaswould decide themselves whether these territorieswould allow slavery or outlaw it. Reeder arrived inLeavenworth in October 1854, called for the elec-tion of a congressional delegate to represent theterritory in Washington, conducted a census, andauthorized a session of the territorial legislature.Senator David Rice Atchison of Missouri, seeingan opportunity to help make Kansas a slave state,and thinking Reeder was proslavery as well, calledon Missourians to head into Kansas to vote for alegislative slate to help shape the territory’s poli-tics. When these migrants helped elect JohnWilkins Whitfield as the territorial delegate,Reeder threatened to declare the election null andvoid because outsiders decided the contest. Whenhis life was threatened by proslavery forces, hebacked down. In fact, Reeder was sympathetic toslavery—but he had warned President Pierce thatoutsiders invading Kansas would cause more trou-ble and asked for federal intervention.

What got Reeder into trouble, and led to whatmany historians claim was the real reason for hisdismissal by Pierce, was the allegation that hespent much of his time as territorial governor pur-chasing land illegally. In January 1855 he and twofederal judges purchased four large tracts of landillegally from the Shawnee Indians in the area. Assuch purchases had to be cleared through the De-partment of Interior, which oversaw Indian affairs,

the transaction was disallowed. The commissionerof Indian affairs, George W. Many Penny, alertedPresident Pierce of the matter.

Early in 1855 Reeder went to Washington topresent evidence that the 1854 election had beenrife with proslavery fraud. Pierce, already alertedto Reeder’s land dealings, asked him for evidenceof antislavery fraud. Reeder informed him thatthere had been none—only fraud from theproslavery side. Pierce asked about Reeder’s landpurchases, and, after having the deal explained,was wholly satisfied. But Pierce, bowing to hisproslavery supporters, asked for Reeder’s resigna-tion anyway. Reeder refused, left Washington, andreturned to Kansas. There, he faced the legislaturethat had been illegally elected, spending his timevetoing laws that made even the speaking againstslavery a criminal offense. He called for a new leg-islature to meet at Pawnee City, where, ironically,he had purchased several large tracts of land andwished to establish the state capital when the terri-tory entered the Union. Pawnee City, however, wasmore than 100 miles from the Missouri border,where many of the proslavery activists hid. In-stead, they assembled at Shawnee Mission, on theMissouri-Kansas border. Assembling there, theycalled on President Pierce to remove Reeder frompower. When Reeder protested the workings ofthis “legislature” directly to Pierce, the presidentremoved him on 28 July 1855. In retaliation, theantislavery supporters set up a rival governmentin Topeka. This was the start of the struggles thatgave the territory the epithet “Bloody Kansas.” Ter-ritorial Secretary Daniel Woodson, a slavery sym-pathizer from Virginia, replaced Reeder until Wil-son Shannon, a former representative in the U.S.Congress, could arrive as the new territorial gover-nor. It is not known what happened to Reeder’sland speculation, as he never returned to the area.

Reeder was made the scapegoat by Pierce for allthat happened in Kansas. In his 1856 state of theUnion speech, Pierce blamed Reeder outright.However, Democrats were upset that one of theirown had pointed out the failings of the popularsovereignty program in Kansas. At the 1856 Dem-ocratic National Convention, they withheldenough delegates from Pierce and instead nomi-nated former Secretary of State James Buchananfor president. Many historians blame Pierce’s at-tacks on Reeder for his failure to be nominated for

278 Reeder, Andrew Horatio

a second term, among other issues. In 1856 Reederbacked the first nominee of the new RepublicanParty, John C. Fremont.At the 1860 Republican Na-tional Convention, Reeder chaired the Pennsylva-nia delegation and received several votes for vicepresident. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Presi-dent Abraham Lincoln offered Reeder an appoint-ment as a brigadier general in the Union Army, butReeder, at fifty-four, turned down the honor.

Reeder retired to his home in Easton, Pennsyl-vania. He died there on 5 July 1864, a week shy ofhis fifty-seventh birthday. He was buried in theEaston Cemetery in that town.

References: “Reeder, Andrew,” in Thomas A. McMullinand David Walker, Biographical Directory of AmericanTerritorial Governors (Westport, CT: MecklerPublishing, 1984), 161–162; Schultz, Jeffrey D.,Presidential Scandals (Washington, DC: CQ Press,2000), 98–100.

Reynolds, Melvin Jay (1952– )United States representative (1993–1994) fromIllinois, convicted (1997) of fifteen counts of bankfraud, wire fraud, and lying to the Federal Elec-toral Commission. Reynolds was born in MoundBayou, Mississippi, on 8 January 1952. He attendedlocal schools before earning an associate of artsdegree from Chicago City College in 1972, a bache-lor’s degree from the University of Illinois in 1974,and a law degree from Oxford University in 1979.A master’s degree from Oxford in 1981 led to aprofessorial position in political science at Roo-sevelt University in Chicago, Illinois. For severalyears, Reynolds was interested in world hunger is-sues, and to this end he founded and served aspresident of the group called American Scholarsagainst World Hunger and as executive director ofthe Community Economic Development Educa-tion Foundation.

In 1988 Reynolds, a Democrat, ran for a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois, butwas unsuccessful. He also lost a second race in1990. However, in 1992 he ran a third time and waselected, entering the 103rd Congress. He was re-elected in 1994, ultimately serving until his resig-nation on 1 October 1995.

In 1994, in the midst of his reelection effort,Reynolds was accused of sexual assault on an un-derage girl as well as possessing child pornogra-phy. He won reelection despite these allegations;

however, soon after winning his second term,more serious allegations arose when Reynolds wasindicted by a federal grand jury on charges that heobstructed justice. In 1995 a grand jury indictedhim on charges of criminal sexual assault andpossessing child pornography. Forced to leaveCongress, he was sentenced to five years in prison.On 8 November 1996, Reynolds was indicted withhis wife by a federal grand jury in Washington onsixteen separate charges of defrauding severalbanks, misusing campaign funds, and makingfalse statements to the Federal Election Commis-sion. On 16 April 1997, Reynolds was convicted onall charges, sentenced to an additional six andone-half years in prison. His wife turned state’s ev-idence and testified for the prosecution.

On 20 January 2001, in his last day in office,President Bill Clinton commuted Reynolds’s sen-tence, and he was released from prison.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1723; Ordonez, Jennifer,“JuryFinds Former Rep. Reynolds Guilty of Fraud,”Washington Post, 17 April 1997, A3; “Reynolds Gets 6More Years for Bank Fraud Conviction; Ex-LawmakerAlready in Prison in Sex Case,” Washington Post, 16July 1997, A7; Walsh, Edward,“U.S. Indicts Illinois Ex-Rep. Reynolds and Wife,” Washington Post, 8November 1996, A12.

Richmond, Frederick William (1923– )United States representative from New York(1975–1982), convicted in 1982 and sent to prisonfor tax evasion and improper payments to a fed-eral employee. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, on15 November 1923, he attended local schools inMattapan and Roxbury, Massachusetts, andearned his bachelor’s degree from Boston Univer-sity in 1945. From 1943 to 1945, Richmond servedin the U.S. Navy. He returned at the end of WorldWar II and entered private business. He helped tofound the Walco National Corporation and in 1969merged it with the National Casket Company. Thiscompany was later to figure in massive corrupt ac-tivities by Richmond.

In 1958, Richmond, a Democrat, served asdeputy finance chairman for the Democratic Na-tional Committee. Later, from 1965 to 1975, heserved as budget director for the New York StateCouncil on the Arts. He also served as human

Richmond, Frederick William 279

rights commissioner (1964–1970), commissionerof the New York City Taxi and Limousine Service(1970–1972), and a New York City councilman(1973–1974). In 1974 Richmond was elected to aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives. His ca-reer was undistinguished in that body, and he didnot introduce any major pieces of legislation.

For many years, whispers of business and othercorruption against Richmond went unproved.However, in 1978, he was arrested for soliciting sexfrom a boy in Washington, D.C. Despite this, hewas reelected that same year to a third term. In1982 the Department of Justice opened an investi-gation into allegations of drug use and corruptioninside his congressional office. The investigationuncovered proof that Richmond had ordered hisstaff to purchase, and then he used in his office,marijuana and cocaine; that he had paid a kick-back to an employee of the U.S. Navy for a ship-repairing business established in Richmond’s con-gressional district; and that he had accepted apension of $100,000 from Walco, which was foundto be illegal. Further, Richmond had helped an es-caped convict named Earl Randolph to obtain ajob in the House of Representatives mailroom.Richmond decided to make a deal with the JusticeDepartment, pleading guilty to three minorcharges regarding tax evasion, possession of mari-juana, and improper payments to a federal em-ployee. He was sentenced to a year and a day inprison, but ultimately only served nine months,being released on 6 September 1983.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996, (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1730; “Frederick Richmond:Crooked Congressman,” in George C. Kohn,Encyclopedia of American Scandal: From ABSCAM tothe Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File, 1989),282–283.

Ritter, Halsted Lockwood (1868–1951)United States judge for the Southern District ofFlorida (1929–1936), impeached by the U.S.House and convicted by the U.S. Senate in 1936for accepting fees regarding cases he was adjudi-cating. Born in Indianapolis, Indiana, on 14 July1868, he was the son of Eli Foster Ritter, an attor-ney, and Narcissa (née Lockwood) Ritter. HalstedRitter earned his Ph.B. degree from Depauw Uni-versity in Indiana in 1891; he subsequently re-

ceived his law degree (1892) and master’s degree(1893) from the same institution. Admitted to theIndiana bar in 1892, he entered into a practicewith his father that same year in Indianapolis.However, three years later, he moved to Denver,Colorado, and began a law practice there that hecontinued until 1925. While in Denver, he servedas the assistant prosecuting attorney for Arapa-hoe County in 1897 and as city attorney for Den-ver from 1900 to 1903.

In 1925 Ritter moved to West Palm Beach,Florida, and became a senior partner in the firm ofRitter & Rankin. He remained a partner in thatfirm until 1929, when President Calvin Coolidgenamed Ritter, a Republican, to a seat on the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida,seated in Miami. Serving on this court until 1936,Ritter got himself into trouble regarding real estatedeals he had overseen while an attorney. In DenverRitter had been a corporation attorney; in Florida,he specialized in real estate. Even after he becamea judge and was required to remove himself fromthe cases he was handling, he did not do so and so-licited and accepted fees for this work. He also didnot pay income taxes on the income derived fromthis work in 1929 after he became a judge; this in-come was estimated later by the U.S. House to be$12,000. Additional unreported income in 1930equaled $5,300.

But what got Ritter into deeper trouble was hiscozy relationship with his former law partner. In1929, for instance, he conspired with his formerlaw partner to place a hotel into receivership andthen have the hearing on the receivership held be-fore Ritter’s own court. When the parties involvedin the receivership objected, Ritter dismissed theirmotion and appointed his former law partner as areceiver. In July 1930 Ritter appointed his formerlaw partner as the receiver for another piece ofproperty; after a fixed sum for the receivership wasset at $15,000, Ritter increased it to $75,000 andwas paid $4,500 from this.

In 1936 the U.S. House investigated Ritter’sdealings and issued seven articles of impeach-ment, all of which passed the House on 2 March1936. On 30 March, the House amended Article 5to make it more inclusive of several of the charges.The Senate held a trial and, on 17 April 1936, ac-quitted Ritter of six of the seven charges. The sev-enth article alleged that “[t]he reasonable and

280 Ritter, Halsted Lockwood

probable consequences of Ritter’s actions was ‘tobring his court into scandal and disrepute,’ to theprejudice of the court and public confidence in theadministration of justice therein. Specifically, inaddition to the conduct alleged in Articles 1–6,when one of his decisions came under public criti-cism, Ritter agreed to recuse himself from the caseif the city commissioners of Miami passed a reso-lution expressing confidence in his integrity. Ritterthereby bartered his judicial authority for a vote ofconfidence.” On this charge the Senate convictedRitter by a vote of fifty-six to twenty-eight, andRitter was removed from office, although the Sen-ate did not vote to disallow him from holding pub-lic office again. Ritter became one of only sevenpeople ever convicted by the Senate for impeach-able offenses, and the last until Judge Harry Clai-borne in 1986.

Ritter never did hold public office again. He ap-parently spent the remaining years of his life in thelaw. He died in Laurel, Mississippi, on 15 October1951 at the age of eighty-three.

References: “Halsted Ritter: ‘Scandal and Disrepute,’” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 283; “Ritter, Halsted Lockwood,” in TheNational Cyclopædia of American Biography, 57 vols.and supplements A-N (New York: James T. White &Company, 1897–1984), XLIII:549–550.

Roach, William Nathaniel (1840–1902)United States senator from North Dakota (1893–1899), accused of embezzlement and threatenedwith expulsion from the U.S. Senate, although hedid in the end serve out his term. Born in Wash-ington, D.C., the son of Edward Neale Roach andAnn (née Manning) Roach, both English emi-grants, on 25 September 1840, he attended thepublic schools of Washington. He then attendedGonzaga College, Holy Cross College, and George-town College (now Georgetown University), al-though he never earned his degree. In 1859 he leftcollege to work as a clerk and deputy to his father,the registrar of wills and a clerk of the orphan’scourt in Washington, until the elder Roach’s deathin 1861. William Roach served as a clerk in theQuartermaster’s Department of the Department ofWar during the Civil War. After the conflict ended,he entered the mercantile trade, which earned hima small fortune. In 1879 he moved west to the

Dakota Territory and settled in the burgeoningtown of Grand Forks. There, he opened a mailroute from Grand Forks to Fort Totten. Later, hepurchased large tracts of land and was one of thefounders of the town of Larimore.

A Democrat, Roach entered the political realmin the territory by running for a seat in the territo-rial house of representatives and winning, servingin 1885. When the territory broke into the states ofNorth Dakota and South Dakota, Roach was ap-proached to run for governor of the new northernstate. He captured the gubernatorial nomination,but lost to Republican and Farmer’s Allianceleader John Miller. Two years later, Roach was onceagain the Democratic nominee, but again he wasdefeated, this time by Republican banker AndrewH. Burke.

In 1892 Roach was the leading nominee of theDemocrats for election to the United States Senate.In 1889, with the admission of North Dakota to theUnion, Republican Lyman Rufus Casey had beenelected to the U.S. Senate, but only for a four-yearterm, so in 1892 his term was ready to expire. Thelegislature, which elected senators until the pas-sage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution, was composed of fifty-three Repub-licans, twenty-three Democrats, and seventeen In-dependents, so it appeared that Senator Caseywould easily be reelected. However, Casey was con-sidered a “machine Republican,” and many of theRepublicans in the legislature refused to vote forhim. This group, allied with populists sitting in theIndependent camp and the Democrats, helpedelect Roach after fifty-three separate votes, mak-ing Roach the first Democrat in Congress fromNorth Dakota.

Almost as soon as Roach journeyed east totake his seat, allegations began swirling aroundhim that nearly led to his expulsion from the Sen-ate. A charge of embezzlement from 1880 was res-urrected and brought forward against Roach, andthe Senate decided to inquire. Asher CrosbyHinds, editor of the Rules, Manual, and Digest ofthe House of Representatives in 1899, reported inhis Precedents:

On the 28th day of March, 1893, Mr. Hoar submitteda resolution providing for an investigation of cer-tain allegations charging Mr. Roach with the offenseof criminal embezzlement. On the 10th day of April,

Roach, William Nathaniel 281

1893 a substitute for this resolution was introducedby Mr. Hoar, and on the 14th day of April, 1893, asubstitute for the resolutions then pending in saidmatter was introduced by Mr. Gorman. The resolu-tion and the substitutes were the subject of debatein the Senate, but no action was had or takenthereon. It appears from the debates that the casepresented the question as to the right of the Senateto take cognizance of an accusation against a Sena-tor of an offense committed before his election tothe Senate.

After extensive deliberations and discussion,the Senate agreed that it lacked jurisdiction tohold a member accountable for an action commit-ted before the member’s election to the Senate.

Roach completed his single six-year term with-out any further difficulties. He served as the chair-man of the Select Committee to Investigate Tres-passes upon Indian Lands and was a member ofthe Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, In-dian Affairs, Irrigation, and the Five CivilizedTribes of Indians. He attempted to run for reelec-tion in 1898, but by then the coalition that hadserved to elect him had faded, and the Republi-cans, now in complete control of the legislature,elected Porter J. McCumber to the seat.

Roach retired to Washington, D.C., after hiselection loss. He was in New York City on businesson 7 September 1902 when he suddenly died, twoweeks shy of his sixty-second birthday. His bodywas returned to Washington and buried in theCongressional Cemetery in that city.

References: “Roach,William Nathaniel,” in BiographicalDirectory of the United States Congress, 1774–1989: TheContinental Congress, September 5, 1774, to October 21,1788, and the Congress of the United States, from theFirst through the One Hundredth Congresses, March 4,1789, to January 3, 1989, Inclusive (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1989), 1737;“Roach,William Nathaniel,” in The National Cyclopædia ofAmerican Biography, 57 vols. and supplements A-N(New York: James T.White & Company, 1897–1984),V:263; Schlup, Leonard C.,“William N. Roach: NorthDakota Isolationist and Gilded Age Senator,” NorthDakota History, 57 (Fall 1990), 2–11.

Roberts, Owen Josephus (1875–1955)Attorney who served as special counsel in theTeapot Dome investigation and later as an associ-ate justice on the United States Supreme Court. Hewas born in Germantown, Pennsylvania, on 2 May

1875. He attended local schools, including theprestigious Germantown Academy, before gradu-ating at the top of his class from the University ofPennsylvania in 1895. He then earned a law de-gree from the University of Pennsylvania lawschool. He opened a private law practice inPhiladelphia, at which he worked from 1898 until1903. He served as a professor of law at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania School of Law from 1898to 1919 and served as first district attorney for thecity of Philadelphia from 1906 to 1930. Robertsbecame one of Philadelphia’s most respected at-torneys, with his practice heavily involved in cor-porate law. In 1912 he formed a law partnershipwith two local attorneys, William W. MontgomeryJr. and Charles L. McKeehan, who later served onthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania. In 1918 Roberts was named by At-torney General A. Mitchell Palmer as his specialassistant to prosecute cases involving the 1917Espionage Act in Pennsylvania. Roberts obtainedseveral convictions.

In 1923 after Congress began to investigate theso-called Teapot Dome scandal, in which Secre-tary of the Interior Albert B. Fall had taken bribesfrom oil men to lease government reserves in Cali-fornia and Wyoming to their companies, Congressbecame suspicious that Attorney General HarryM. Daugherty was dragging his feet in the depart-ment’s own inquiry. Congress began to draft a lawto name a special prosecutor on Teapot Dome.However, before Congress could act, PresidentCalvin Coolidge, who had become president uponPresident Warren G. Harding’s death in August1923, announced he would name his own specialprosecutor “of high rank drawn from both politi-cal parties to enforce the law.” Coolidge asked thatCongress pass legislation allowing for two specialprosecutors—one Republican, one Democrat.These two men would have the full backing of thepresident and the Congress “to prosecute all illegalacts that occurred in connection with the grantingof the [oil] leases.”

On 16 February 1924 Coolidge named Robertsand Atlee Pomerene, a Democrat and former U.S.senator from Ohio, to the two positions. When theSenate confirmed them, it became the first andonly time in history that a special prosecutor’s po-sition was confirmed with the advice and consentof the U.S. Senate. As the American Bar Associa-

282 Roberts, Owen Josephus

tion Journal pronounced in 1955 upon Roberts’sdeath, “Six years were spent by the two counsel inthis litigation, resulting in a restoration to theNavy of all lands which had been leased, and laterin the conviction of Secretary of the Interior Al-bert B. Fall, and the holding in senatorial and judi-cial contempt of Harry F. Sinclair.” Roberts andPomerene proved that Fall had received some$300,000 in bribes, and Fall was sentenced toprison. Harry F. Sinclair and Edward Doheny, theoilmen who had bribed Fall, ironically were foundnot guilty of making the bribes.

On 2 June 1930, President Herbert Hoover re-warded Roberts for his work for the nation bynaming him to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.He was confirmed without delay by the U.S. Senateand took his seat on the high court, serving untilhis resignation on 5 July 1945. He was a moderate

voice on that court, swinging between conserva-tive and liberal positions. He retired to his farm inPennsylvania, where he died on 17 May 1955, justtwo weeks after his eightieth birthday.

See also: Teapot Dome ScandalReferences: District of Columbia, Supreme Court, Title

United States v. Harry F. Sinclair and Albert B. Fall.Indictment: Violation Section 37, Penal Code,Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. (Presented May27, 1925.) Atlee Pomerene, Owen J. Roberts, SpecialCounsel of the United States (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1925); District ofColumbia, Supreme Court, United States v. Edward L.Doheny and Albert B. Fall. Indictment: Violation Section37, Penal Code. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States(presented May 27, 1925). Atlee Pomerene, Owen J.Roberts, Special Counsel of the United States(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1925);“Owen J. Roberts, 1875–1955,”ABA Journal, 41:7 (July1955), 616–617;“Roberts Confirmed for Oil Counsel,

Roberts, Owen Josephus 283

Owen J. Roberts, special counsel in the Teapot Dome investigation. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover rewarded Roberts for his workfor the nation by naming him to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Library of Congress)

Philadelphian Is Accepted by the Senate by a Vote of 68to 8,”New York Times, 19 February 1924, 2.

Robinson, Charles (1818–1894)Governor of Kansas (1861–1863), impeached butacquitted of charges that he sold state bonds at aprice less than their actual value. Charles Robin-son was born in Hardwick, Massachusetts, on 21July 1818, the son of Jonathan Robinson, a farmer,and Huldah (née Woodward) Robinson. Robinsonattended a series of academies in the area, as wellas the Berkshire Medical School, graduating witha medical degree in 1843. He opened a medicalpractice serving the Springfield and Belchertownareas and also taught school. In 1849 he decidedto throw his lot in with a wagon train headed tothe California gold fields, and he settled downnear Sacramento, opening a restaurant and edit-ing a newspaper for gold field squatters. He be-came the president of the association that de-fended squatters’ rights and during a squatters’riot was severely wounded. Despite his wounds,Robinson won a seat in the California state houseof representatives, where he served from 1850 to1851. When he finished his term in the Californiahouse, Robinson returned to Massachusetts andtook up the editing of a newspaper in the town ofFitchburg.

When the Kansas Territory opened up on 30May 1854, Robinson was chosen by a group ofMassachusetts citizens to go to Kansas and be-come the leader of a colony of Massachusetts set-tlers there. Instead of practicing medicine inKansas, Robinson instead became a gentlemanfarmer, buying and selling land in the new terri-tory. He was one of the founders of the territory’sFree Soil Party (an offshoot of the Whig Party,whose main goal was the ending of slavery in theterritories) and served as a delegate to the consti-tutional convention held in Topeka in 1855. Whenthe Free Soilers at this convention formed a new“state” of Kansas, they elected Robinson governor,but the founding was invalid and Robinson neveractually served in any official function. Yet Robin-son was the leader of the antislavery movement inKansas.

In 1859, after another constitutional conven-tion, Robinson was nominated by the Republicans(a party which had grown out of the Free Soil

movement) for governor. Robinson had been oneof the organizers of the Republican Party and wasquite popular for his stand against slavery. On 1December 1859, while Kansas was still a territory,Robinson was elected governor over the incum-bent territorial governor, Samuel Medary, theDemocratic candidate, by 2,400 votes out of some13,000 cast. However, because Robinson was to be-come the first state governor (Medary was to bethe last territorial governor), Robinson could nottake office until Congress passed an enabling actmaking Kansas a state. Medary was proslavery,and he was able to delay passage of the act in Con-gress throughout all of 1860. Following the elec-tion of Republican Abraham Lincoln to the presi-dency in November 1860, Medary realized thatstatehood was inevitable, and he resigned the fol-lowing month. On 9 February 1861, Robinson wassworn in as the first state governor of Kansas. Hisjob was immediate and intense: he needed to forma state government (the territorial governmenthad been quite limited) and, when the Civil Warexploded, to hold the state together and remain inthe Union. The new state was also on the verge ofbankruptcy, and Robinson needed to sell bonds tobuild railroads and finance other pieces of the in-frastructure. But Robinson was also in a deadlygame with his arch-rival in the Republican Party,Senator James H. Lane.

The downfall of Robinson began when the statelegislature approved the sale of $150,000 in bonds.Robinson helped to sell the bonds but came underharsh criticism and was accused of selling thebonds at a rate lower than that established by thelegislature. On 14 January 1862 the legislature metand appointed a committee to investigate thesecharges. Two weeks later, on 30 January, this com-mittee submitted its report. It stated:

With regard to bonds issued by the state during theyear 1861, under the acts referred to, your commit-tee would state that the total issue of bonds, ofevery description, amounted to $189,400. Of these$40,000 were ten per cent. bonds, issued under theact of May 7th, and known as war bonds. Thirty-one thousand dollars of these ten per cent. bondshave been sold by the treasurer to R. S. Stevens, forforty cents on the dollar; the balance are in the trea-surer’s hands. It appears, on evidence before us, thata large portion of these bonds ($26,000) were soldby Mr. Stevens to the Interior Department at Wash-

284 Robinson, Charles

ington for ninety-five cents on the dollar. Of theseven per cent. bonds, $62,200 were used in takingup state scrip, and $87,200 were delivered to R. S.Stevens, for which sixty cents on the dollar was tobe accounted for by him to the state. It appears,from evidence before us, that these bonds were soldto the Interior Department at Washington foreighty-five cents on the dollar. The evidence beforeyour committee regarding the sale of the bonds isquite lengthy and will be placed before your body inprinted form.

The conclusions arrived at by your committeeare such as to warrant them in the belief that thisHouse will take decisive measures, and deeming afair and full examination of all the evidence properin the premises, would commend it to the attentionof the House.

Of the $40,000 issued under the act of May 7th,your committee are clearly of the opinion that$20,000 are illegal, and the House should take someaction regarding them.

Your committee also are clearly of the opinionthat the treasurer had no authority to sell any of theten per cent. bonds at less than par, and is liable tothe state for the face of all ten per cent. bonds sold,and of which $12,400 have been paid into the treas-ury, leaving a deficiency on bonds sold, to be ac-counted for, of $18,600.

The committee recommended that Robinsonand some of his cabinet be impeached. TheSpeaker of the state house appointed one PrestonB. Plumb (later a United States senator fromKansas) to head a committee to draw up impeach-ment articles; on 20 February 1862, this panel sub-mitted eight articles of impeachment against JohnW. Robinson (no relation), the secretary of state;on the 26th, it approved seven articles againstGeorge S. Hillyer, the auditor of the state; and, onthat same day, it reported five articles againstRobinson, making Robinson the first state gover-nor in the nation’s history to be impeached. Thetrial of the three men began on 2 June 1862.Hillyer testified that he had hired one R. S. Stevensas state agent to sell the bonds and that he, notGovernor Robinson, was solely responsible for thesale. Because Stevens had worked with Hillyer andJohn W. Robinson, both men were convicted andremoved from office. Governor Robinson was ac-quitted of all charges, but politically he was ru-ined. On 17 September the Republicans met inconvention in Topeka and nominated Thomas W.

Carney, a Leavenworth dry-goods entrepreneur,for governor. After Carney’s election, Robinson leftoffice on 12 January 1863.

Robinson remained in Kansas and took sides inmany political questions of the day, includingstanding for black and women’s suffrage andagainst the prohibition of alcohol. He became asupporter of the Kansas Union Party and, in 1872,was elected to the Kansas state senate, serving until1881. The following year he was nominated by theNational Labor Greenback Party for governor andgot more than 20,000 votes in a losing cause. Hethen became a Democrat and was nominated bythat party for seats in the state senate, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and for governor, but he was de-feated each time. In 1886 President Grover Cleve-land named him the superintendent of the HaskellIndian Institute in Kansas, and he served therefrom 1887 until 1889. Robinson died at his home,“Oak Ridge,” near Lawrence, Kansas, on 17 August1894, and was buried in the Oak Hill Cemetery. Thetown of Robinson, Kansas, is named in his honor.

References: Blackmar, Frank Wilson, The Life of CharlesRobinson, the First State Governor of Kansas (Topeka,KS: Crane & Company, Printers, 1901); Ewing, CortezA. M.,“Early Kansas Impeachments,” KansasHistorical Quarterly, I:4 (August 1932), 307–325;Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachment of CharlesRobinson, Governor, John W. Robinson, Secretary ofState, George S. Hillyer, Auditor of State, of Kansas(Lawrence: Kansas State Journal Steam Press, 1862);“Robinson, Charles,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo,eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors of theUnited States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), II:459–460.

Ross, Robert Tripp (1903–1981)United States representative from New York(1952–1953), deputy assistant secretary of de-fense for legislative affairs (1954–1956), anddeputy assistant secretary of defense for legislativeand public affairs (1956–1957), accused of a con-flict of interest in the awarding of a defense con-tract for which he was forced from his position.Ross was born in Washington, North Carolina, on4 June 1903 and attended the public schools there.In 1929, when he was twenty-six, he moved to NewYork and went to work as a druggist. Later he wasemployed by a large pharmaceutical firm in NewYork, where he rose to managerial positions andremained with the company until 1947.

Ross, Robert Tripp 285

In 1946 Ross entered the political arena, run-ning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representa-tives from New York’s Fifth District and defeatingDemocrat James A. Phillips. Ross ultimatelyserved a single term, losing in 1948 to DemocratThomas Vincent Quinn. He then reentered privatebusiness, working on the manufacture and sale ofclothing and athletic equipment. In 1950, in an-other attempt to recapture his House seat, he wasdefeated by Quinn. However, when Quinn re-signed on 30 December 1951 to become the dis-trict attorney for Queens County, New York, a spe-cial election was held, and Ross defeated Quinn’sson Hugh. Ross served from 19 February 1952until 3 January 1953. The Fifth District seat heheld was moved to the Sixth District, and Rosswas defeated by Democrat Lester Holtzman in the1952 election.

Again out of Congress, Ross returned to privatebusiness. In March 1954 President Dwight D.Eisenhower named Ross as deputy assistant secre-tary of defense for legislative affairs, a positionthat coordinated Department of Defense policywith legislators on Capitol Hill. In March 1956 thisposition was renamed deputy assistant secretaryof defense for legislative and public affairs.

While in this position, Ross was instrumentalin getting the Department of Defense to award acontract to a company called Wynn Enterprises,which provided army trousers. The contract to-taled $835,135. What Ross did not report was thathis wife was president of Wynn and that he hadonce served as the vice president of the companyand its affiliate, Southern Athletic Company. Bothcompanies were owned by Herman Wynn, thebrother of Ross’s second wife, Claire. In 1957 theU.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investi-gations came across the contract, saw its potentialconflict of interest, and the chairman, SenatorJohn L. McClellan of Arkansas, called Ross in forquestioning before the subcommittee.

Appearing for two hours on 13 February 1957,Ross said under oath that he had severed all con-tacts with the companies in 1952 and that he hadnot been responsible for the contract for trousersthat had gone to the company. However, he hadtaken a leave of absence from his position whenthe questions first arose. When Ross admitted thathe had arranged for a marine to meet with hisbrother-in-law, the handwriting was on the wall:

on 14 February, just a day after giving testimony tothe Senate subcommittee, Ross resigned his office.In his letter to President Eisenhower, Ross wrotethat “nothing was brought to my attention to indi-cate that the subcommittee had found any evi-dence of any wrongdoing, impropriety, or conflictof interest on my part,” but he conceded that hisposition had been “impaired by the serious impli-cations contained in the numerous press stories.. . . I feel it would be unfair to the Department ofDefense for me to continue.”

Ross returned to New York, where he went towork as assistant borough works commissionerfor Queens County, from March 1957 until January1958. He then went to work as vice president of theMerchandising Apparel Company, serving until1968. Thereafter he retired to Jackson Heights,New York, until his death there on 1 October 1981at the age of seventy-eight. He was buried in Oak-dale Cemetery in Washington, North Carolina.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1758; “Robert Ross:Questionable Awarding of Defense Contracts,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 289–290.

Rostenkowski, Daniel David (1928– )United States representative from Illinois (1959–1995), powerful chairman of the House of Repre-sentatives Committee on Ways and Means, impli-cated in the House Post Office scandal, for whichhe served 451 days in prison. Born in Chicago, Illi-nois, on 2 January 1928, Rostenkowski attendedlocal schools and graduated from St. John’s Mili-tary Academy before attending Loyola Universityin Chicago for a short time. He left Loyola when hevolunteered for duty in the U.S.Army and was sentto Korea, where he was stationed from 1946 to1948.

Rostenkowski was elected to a seat in the Illi-nois state house of representatives, where heserved in the Sixty-eighth General Assembly in1952. A Democrat, he was elected to a single termin the Illinois state senate, from 1954 to 1956. In1958 Rostenkowski was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives, entering the Eighty-sixth Congress on 3 January 1959 and servingthrough the next seventeen congresses until he left

286 Rostenkowski, Daniel David

on 3 January 1995. A member of the House Com-mittee on Ways and Means, he rose to becomechairman of the committee in 1981 rather thanbecome the Majority Whip for the Democrats inthe House and was without a doubt one of themost powerful members of Congress. Presidentshad to deal with him to get any legislation requir-ing appropriations passed in the House. His re-election campaigns were against either token op-position or none at all.

On 31 May 1994, a District of Columbia grandjury returned indictments against Rostenkowski,alleging that he and others had “devised . . . ascheme” to “defraud the United States of its money,its property, and its right” to what the jury calledRostenkowski’s “fair and honest services.” Seven-teen counts of malfeasance, including six counts ofdevising a scheme to defraud, two counts involv-ing a “Payroll Scheme,” two counts on a “HouseStationery Store Scheme,” and additional countsalleging that he defrauded the House Post Officeand appropriated vehicles which did not belong tohim, were returned. Rostenkowski then asked theCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-cuit to quash the indictment, claiming that all ofthe actions for which he was indicted were coveredby the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitu-tion, Article I, Section 6, which holds that “for anySpeech or Debate in either House, [a Member ofCongress] shall not be questioned in any otherplace,” and which has been held by the SupremeCourt to protect members of Congress from prose-cution for legislative actions. In a second motion,Rostenkowski sought an in-camera review by thejustices of all evidence presented to the grand jury.In United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C.Cir. 1995), argued on 17 March 1995 and decidedon 18 July 1995, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, holdingfor the circuit court, dismissed both of Ros-tenkowski’s arguments. Judge Ginsburg explained:

There is no reason on the face of the indictment tosuggest that any Speech or Debate material was pre-sented to the grand jury. Moreover, Rostenkowskioffers virtually no specific reason to believe thatsuch material was presented to the grand jury. In-stead, he gives us only the general warning that“courts should be wary of accepting prosecutorialassurances that constitutional violations have notoccurred” before the grand jury. Although Ros-tenkowski obviously cannot be expected to know

exactly what transpired before the grand jury orwhat was presented to that body, he must be able toprovide, either from the allegations of the indict-ment or from some other source, at least some rea-son to believe that protected information was usedto procure his indictment. To give him a right to in-camera review without any particular reason apartfrom his status as a Member of Congress and there-fore a person protected by the Speech or DebateClause would completely disregard the “long-estab-lished policy” in favor of grand jury secrecy . . . andwould fail to strike an appropriate (indeed any) bal-ance between the grand jury’s “functional indepen-dence from the Judicial Branch” . . . and a Congress-man’s right to be free from prosecution for hislegislative acts. Lacking any reason to think thatprohibited material was submitted to the grandjury, we have no reason to believe that the districtcourt’s denial of his motion was in error, and we af-firm that decision.

Because of the criminal indictment hangingover his head, in November 1994 Rostenkowskilost his reelection effort to an unknown Republi-can, Michael P. Flanagan. Having stepped asideearlier as chairman of the Ways and Means Com-mittee—Democrat Sam Gibbons (D-FL) servedas acting chairman for the remainder of the103rd Congress—Rostenkowski held steadfastthat he was innocent of any and all crimes. How-ever, on 9 April 1996, he pled guilty to two countsof mail fraud and was sentenced to seventeenmonths in prison and fined $100,000. He servedhis prison sentence in a minimum-securityprison in Wisconsin.

Richard Cohen, a journalist and biographer ofRostenkowski, wrote in the National Journal in1999:

Rostenkowski was convicted on charges that werepicayune compared with those of the indictment.Although prosecutors indicted him on 17 counts forallegedly misusing hundreds of thousands of dol-lars in official funds, he pleaded guilty to only twocounts. He admitted that he illegally purchased as-sorted china from the House stationary store, in-cluding $200 crystal sculptures of the U.S. Capitolthat were inscribed with his friends’ names—whichhe sent as gifts. The second charge he admitted incourt dealt with the “padding” of his payroll withemployees who did little or no work, aside fromroutine tasks for Rostenkowski and his family.

Rostenkowski, Daniel David 287

He steadfastly maintained his innocence on thebroader and more publicized abuses at the Housepost office, including the claim that he traded offi-cial stamps for personal cash, which was the linch-pin for the criminal focus. . . .

Perhaps the greatest personal tragedy was thatthe Chicago pol who had risen to such national in-fluence was brought down by the type of penny-ante abuse that ensnared two-bit local politicians.“Certain of his activities made sense from aChicago perspective,” said former Rep. Ed Derwin-ski, the Illinois Republican.“If you understand therelationship of ward committeemen, you can un-

derstand the mind-set of giving the gifts . . . andmaintaining the principle of loyalty.”See also: House of Representatives Post Office Scandal References: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1758–1759; Cohen, RichardE., Rostenkowski: The Pursuit of Power and the End ofthe Old Politics (Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1999);Cohen, Richard E.,“Rosty Revisited,” National Journal,31:42 (16 October 1999), 2956–2965; Merriner, JamesL., Mr. Chairman: Power in Dan Rostenkowski’sAmerica (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress, 1999); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 Federal3d 1291.

288 Rostenkowski, Daniel David

Schenck, Robert Cumming (1809–1890)United States representative from Ohio (1843–1851, 1863–1871), U.S. minister to Great Britain(1870–1876), accused, but later cleared, of usinghis office in London for financial gain. Born inFranklin, Ohio, on 4 October 1809, he attendedrural schools before graduating from Miami Uni-versity in Oxford, Ohio, in 1827. He served as aprofessor at the university for two years, afterwhich he studied the law and was admitted to thestate bar in 1833. He opened a practice in the townof Dayton, Ohio.

Schenck, a Whig, entered the Ohio state houseof representatives in 1839 and served until 1843.In 1842 he was elected as a Whig to a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives, entering theTwenty-eighth Congress on 4 March 1843 and ser-ving through the Thirty-first Congress. He servedas chairman of the Committee on Roads andCanals. When David Tod, U.S. minister to Brazil,was recalled in early 1851, President Millard Fill-more named Schenck to succeed him. At the sametime, Schenck was also accredited as the ministerto Uruguay, to the Argentine Confederation, and toParaguay. On 8 October 1853, after his successor,William Trousdale, had been selected, Schenckstated that he had been recalled, and he sailed forhome.

When the Civil War broke out in early 1861,Schenck volunteered for service, entering the U.S.Army on 17 May 1861. He was given the rank of

brigadier general of volunteers, eventually beingpromoted to major general, the rank he held untilhe resigned his commission on 3 December 1863.At that time, having again been elected to a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives, he left the fieldof battle to enter the political realm. This time,however, he was elected as a Republican, and hetook his seat in the Thirty-eighth Congress, ser-ving from 4 March 1863 until his resignation on 5January 1871. He eventually served as chairman ofthe Committee on Ways and Means and chairmanof the Committee on Military Affairs. As the chair-man of the House Committee on Ways and Means,he earned the nickname “Poker Bob” because ofhis card playing.

In 1870 Schenck was defeated for reelection,and to award him for his service to the RepublicanParty President Ulysses S. Grant named Schenck tothe post of minister to Great Britain. Grant hadfirst named U.S. Senator Frederick T. Frelinghuy-sen of New Jersey, and then U.S. Senator Oliver T.Morton of Indiana to the position, but both menhad declined. Schenck accepted and sailed to Lon-don, where he presented his credentials on 23 June1871.While in London, Schenck picked up his cardplaying, achieving some notoriety when hepenned a letter to an English duchess on how toplay poker.

What got Schenck into trouble was his invest-ment in the Emma Silver mine in Nevada. He de-cided to make money on the deal before the mine

S

289

went broke, selling near worthless stock to unsus-pecting British investors at the same time that hewas supposed to be carrying out his official duties.It was later ascertained that Schenck had beenpaid more than £10,000 for the mine to use hisname in its English advertisements. When themine did indeed go bankrupt, the investors com-plained, and a congressional investigation, initi-ated by Representative Abram S. Hewitt (D-NY),was begun to look into the matter. HistorianGeorge Kohn writes, “Ultimately, Schenck wascleared of fraud charges, but his reputation hadbeen badly stained. Both British and Americansaccused him of using his dignified public positionfor personal gain. His dealings caused a Britishcourt to issue a writ against him, which he dodgedby pleading diplomatic immunity. In May 1876,Schenck resigned and came home in shame, to bereplaced as minister to Great Britain by EdwardsPierrepont, who had been Attorney General of theUnited States.”

Schenck settled in Washington, D.C., where hepracticed law for the remainder of his life. In 1880he penned a book on card playing, entitled DrawPoker. He died in Washington on 23 March 1890,two weeks shy of his eighty-first birthday. He wasburied in Woodland Cemetery in Dayton, Ohio.

References: Joyner, Fred B.,“Robert Cumming Schenck,First Citizen and Statesman of the Miami Valley,” OhioState Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, 58 (July1949), 286–297; “Robert C. Schenck: HumiliatedDiplomat,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia ofAmerican Scandal: From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case(New York: Facts on File, 1989), 294–295; “Schenck,Robert Cumming,” in Allen Johnson and DumasMalone, et al., eds., Dictionary of American Biography,10 vols. and 10 supplements (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),VIII, 427–428.

Schmitz, Eugene Edward (1864–1928)Mayor of San Francisco (1902–1907), convicted ofnumerous counts of graft and bribery in his oper-ations of the city before and during the San Fran-cisco earthquake of 1906. Schmitz remains some-what obscure, despite being one of the mostcorrupt mayors in American history. Perhaps thiscorruption arises from the fact that little is knownof his life before he assumed the mayorship. Hewas born in San Francisco on 22 August 1864, theson of pioneer parents.What little education he re-

ceived has been lost to history, except that he ap-parently took up music at an early age; he becamea drummer boy working in the Standard Theaterin San Francisco. He rose to become president ofthe city Musicians’ Union and became the band-leader of the Columbia Theater orchestra in 1900.

Somehow, Schmitz’s musical talent caught theeye of Abraham Ruef, political boss of the city,and Ruef pushed Schmitz to run for mayor in1901. The city was looking for a change. Despitemany years of clean government under MayorJames Duval Phelan, mayor since 1897, a series oflabor disputes had become violent. When Phelanused the police to crush a strike by the City FrontFederation of Waterfront Workers against the Em-ployers’ Association, the unions formed the UnionLabor Party to gain political power. Ruef, head ofthe city’s Republican Party, moved to becomehead of the Union Labor group, and enlistedbandleader—and musical union member—Schmitz as the Union Labor candidate for mayor.Schmitz won easily over Phelan, becoming thefirst labor-backed candidate to win a major officein the United States. Historian Peter D’A. Joneswrites,

“Handsome Gene” Schmitz was good-looking, andwell-liked, and, although not “the smallest manmentally and meanest man morally” ever to bemayor, as one opponent claimed, he was easily ruledby Ruef. With each passing day, the links betweenthe city administration and the underworld rami-fied, especially after the large electoral victory of1905, after which the city began taking “tributes”from respectable businessmen.

By 1905 Schmitz and his administration wereopenly accused by several people of corruption,including taking kickbacks and bribery. AttorneyFrancis J. Heney, who had been named by Presi-dent Theodore Roosevelt to prosecute land fraudsin Oregon (and had netted U.S. Senator John H.Mitchell), held a rally in San Francisco and de-nounced Schmitz and Ruef as corrupt. Despitethis, Schmitz was easily reelected in 1905 over at-torney John S. Partridge, the candidate of theDemocrats and Republicans. Ruef, with Schmitz’sbacking, was given control of every department inthe San Francisco municipal government.

At this point, former mayor Phelan joined withlocal business leader Rudolph Spreckels and Fre-

290 Schmitz, Eugene Edward

mont Older, editor of the San Francisco EveningBulletin, to call on Heney in December 1905 toopen an investigation into the alleged corruption.Heney employed William J. Burns, founder of theU.S. Secret Service (which guards the president),to investigate. Heney and Burns worked in con-junction with San Francisco District AttorneyWilliam H. Langdon. Then the Great San FranciscoEarthquake, striking on 18 April 1906, derailed theinvestigation. During the crisis Schmitz rose to theoccasion, displaying great leadership to a torn anddestroyed city. As soon as the emergency passed,however, Schmitz resumed his parade of graft,shaking down builders for a piece of the action toreconstruct the city. On 24 October 1906, D. A.Langdon announced that Heney would becomedeputy district attorney to investigate alleged graftand corruption in city government. Ruef and theUnion Labor Party decried the selection; at a massrally on 31 October, Ruef denounced Heney as “theBenedict Arnold of San Francisco,” while otherspeakers called Schmitz “the peerless champion ofthe people’s rights” and Ruef “the Mayor’s loyal,able and intrepid friend.” Schmitz, on a businesstrip in Europe, was replaced for a time by Supervi-sor James L. Gallagher as acting mayor. Gallagher,working with Ruef and Schmitz, decided to fore-stall the investigation, and on 25 October removedD. A. Langdon and Heney from office and ap-pointed Ruef to investigate the alleged graft. TheSan Francisco Call printed, under a picture of Ruef,the words “This Man’s Hand Grips the Throat ofSan Francisco.”

Ruef moved to put an end to a grand jury,which had been empaneled to hear the charges.Ruef could not stop it, however, and Heney pre-sented the evidence. On 7 November Schmitz andRuef were indicted on charges of extorting kick-backs from brothels; members of the board of su-pervisors, testifying under grants of immunity,confessed to being in on the massive corruptionscheme. During Schmitz’s trial, the heads of theUnited Railroads (a labor union) were implicatedin payoffs. Editor Older was kidnapped to shut himup, but was later released, and an ex-felon waspaid to murder Heney in open court, shooting theprosecutor but merely wounding him in the jaw.(Heney was replaced for a time by a young attor-ney named Hiram W. Johnson, who rose to be-come governor of California and a U.S. senator.)

Schmitz was convicted of several counts and sen-tenced to five years in prison. His conviction wasultimately reversed by an appellate court and bythe state supreme court, and he ultimately neverserved any prison time, unlike Ruef. In 1915 and1919 Schmitz ran again for mayor, losing bothraces. In 1916 he was elected to a seat on the cityBoard of Supervisors, where he served until 1925.Thereafter he was engaged in private business.Schmitz died of heart disease in San Francisco on20 November 1928 at the age of sixty-four.

Historian Barnaby Conrad explained:

San Francisco cleared away not only the ruins of thefallen City Hall but the human rubble that had beenin it, for the graft and corruption had reachedheroic—if that’s the word—proportions. RudolphSpreckels financed an investigation of the appallingconditions to the tune of $100,000, and was aidedby his friend James Phelen and Fremont Older, edi-tor of the Call Bulletin, who dedicated his newspa-per to a crusade against the underworld. The ro-dents to be fumigated turned out to be MayorSchmitz himself and his sly cohort, Abe Ruef. Prose-cution was difficult because of lack of witnesses,who quite rightly feared for their lives if they testi-fied. The trials were the most explosive ever held inSan Francisco, with the house of the chief witnessbeing dynamited, prosecuting attorney Francis J.Heney was shot in the jaw, and Fremont Older him-self was kidnapped. The upshot was that in 1907Schmitz was sentenced to San Quentin for fiveyears, and in 1908 Ruef was convicted on 129counts of civic graft and sentenced to a fourteen-year term.

Perhaps Schmitz has been “lucky” in his obscu-rity, mainly because his graft did not occur in NewYork or Chicago. Books on city bosses do not listhim; even works on the history of graft and cor-ruption in municipal situations do not even men-tion him.

References: Conrad, Barnaby, San Francisco: A ProfileWith Pictures (New York: Bramhall House, 1959);Hansen, Gladys, San Francisco Almanac: EverythingYou Want to Know About the City (San Francisco:Chronicle Books, 1975), 85–86; Hichborn, Franklin,“The System” as Uncovered by the San Francisco GraftProsecution (San Francisco: Press of the James H.Barry Company, 1915), 18–21, 74–89, 370–373;“Indicted Mayor Gets Himself Into JapaneseControversy; Schmitz Advises School Board inMatter,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1 February 1907, 1;

Schmitz, Eugene Edward 291

Jones, Peter d’A.,“Schmitz, Eugene E.,” in Melvin G.Holli and Peter d’A. Jones, Biographical Dictionary ofAmerican Mayors, 1820–1980: Big City Mayors(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 320–321; SanFrancisco [Municipal Government],“Report on theCauses of Municipal Corruption in San Francisco, asDisclosed by the Investigations of the Oliver GrandJury, and the Prosecution of Certain Persons forBribery and other Offenses against the State; SchmitzAdvises School Board in Matter,” San FranciscoChronicle, 1 February 1907, 1; “William Denman,Chairman. Committee appointed by the Mayor,October 12, 1908. Reprinted with a Preface and Indexof Names and Subjects by the California Weekly.” (SanFrancisco: Rincon Publishing Co., 1910).

Schumaker, John Godfrey (1826–1905)United States representative from New York(1869–1871, 1873–1877), the subject of expulsionproceedings in the House in 1875 on allegations ofcorruption. He was born in the town of Claverack,New York, on 27 June 1826 and completedpreparatory studies at the Lenox Academy (Mass-achusetts). He studied law and was admitted to theNew York bar in 1847. That year he opened a prac-tice. In 1853 he relocated to Brooklyn, New York,and continued his law practice. In 1856 he wasnamed district attorney for Kings County (Brook-lyn), serving until 1859 and in 1862 as corporationcounsel for the city of Brooklyn (it became part ofNew York City in 1898), serving until 1864. In 1862(and later 1867 and 1894) he served as a memberof the New York state constitutional convention.

In 1868 Schumaker defeated Republican HenryS. Bellows to win a seat in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, representing New York’s Second Con-gressional District. In 1870 he did not run for re-election. Although he had served as a Democrat,Schumaker jumped on board the liberal Republi-can movement and ran under that banner in 1872,defeating a Republican only identified as “Perry”to win another term to the House. He won reelec-tion in 1874.

Although the cause has been lost to history,Schumaker was investigated for allegations of po-litical corruption. (An examination of congres-sional records from the period does not turn up thecharge or allegation.) At the same time, anotherrepresentative,William Smith King (R-Minnesota),was also investigated. Some light can be derived bythe report of the committee, which held that:

Your committee are of opinion that the House ofRepresentatives has no authority to take jurisdic-tion of violations of law or offenses committedagainst a previous Congress. This is purely a legisla-tive body, and entirely unsuited for the trial ofcrimes. The fifth section of the first article of theConstitution authorizes “each house to determinethe rules of its proceedings, punish its members fordisorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence oftwo-thirds, expel a member.” This power is evi-dently given to enable each house to exercise itsconstitutional function of legislation unobstructed.It cannot vest in Congress a jurisdiction to try amember for an offense committed before his elec-tion; for such offense a member, like any other citi-zen, is amenable to the courts alone.

Schumaker did not run for reelection in 1876and returned to private life. He died in 1905, hav-ing slipped into obscurity.

See also King, William SmithReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Schumaker and King reportin House Report No. 815, 44th Congress, 1st Session(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1876), 2.

Seabury, Samuel (1873?–1958)Noted jurist, head of the Seabury Commissionthat investigated and helped to bring downMayor James J. “Jimmy” Walker of New York City.Born in New York City possibly in 1873, he wasthe great-grandson of the famed clergymanSamuel Seabury (1729–1796) and was namedafter him. Seabury was educated at the New YorkLaw School and received his law degree from thatinstitution. In 1906 he was elected as a justice tothe New York Supreme Court and served until1914, when he resigned to take a seat on the NewYork Court of Appeals. In 1916 he resigned thatpost to run as the Democratic candidate for gov-ernor of New York, but he was defeated by Gover-nor Charles S. Whitman.

Ironically, Seabury had sat on the second trialin a case that had made Whitman governor—thatof Charles Becker. Becker, a police sergeant, hadbeen accused of participating in the murder-for-hire of gangster Herman “Beansie” Rosenthal in1912. After Becker’s first trial, in which he wasconvicted but the conviction was struck down on

292 Schumaker, John Godfrey

appeal, Seabury was named as the judge to overseethe second trial. Whitman was the prosecutor andobtained a second conviction before Seabury.Becker eventually died in the electric chair in1916. After losing to Whitman in the election in1916, Seabury then entered into a private law prac-tice for the next two decades.

In 1930 New York Governor Franklin D. Roo-sevelt, faced with a growing scandal involving alle-gations of corruption in the magistrate courts ofNew York City, appointed Seabury as a specialcounsel to investigate. His inquiry, while not head-line-grabbing, did result in the removal of twomagistrates, three magistrates resigning, and asixth running from the law. Impressed by his in-vestigative skill, Roosevelt named Seabury in 1931to be the special counsel for a state legislative com-mittee “to investigate the affairs of New York City.”After a period of investigation, Seabury, as coun-sel, called his first witness: New York Mayor JimmyWalker. The New York Times later commented,“Seabury was a patient, shrewd and tenaciouscross-examiner in connection with financial ad-vantages that had accrued to the Mayor.” In fact, inan unprecedented move, Governor Rooseveltpresided over the hearings. Walker, known as the“Debonair Mayor,” tried to use glib expressionsand humor to overcome the evidence that Seaburyhad collected; instead, the charm offensive back-fired, and Seabury’s relentless questioning droveWalker to crack on the stand. On 1 August 1932,Walker returned to New York City and resigned, af-terwards heading off to Europe. In early 1932, theplay Face the Music debuted on Broadway. Theplay, composed by playwright Moss Hart and lyri-cist Irving Berlin, was aimed directly at the Walkeradministration and the Seabury investigation.

But Seabury was not finished: instead, heturned his sights on corruption in the operation ofTammany Hall, the leading political organization inNew York City, one that controlled all patronageand other facets of city government. Starting withlower Tammany employees and working up to themore important ones, Seabury exposed the Tam-many operation. Thomas A. Farley, sheriff of NewYork City, admitted on the stand that $100,000 thathe had deposited in his account in 1928 “came outof a wonderful tin box.” James A. McQuade, registerof King’s County, could only say that he “borrowed”more than $510,000 in six years, but couldn’t say

from whom. Seabury’s extensive investigation castlight on massive corruption that had been going onfor years, unchallenged, in Tammany politics. Be-cause of the investigation, an “anti-Tammany” can-didate for mayor was named. Seabury himself ve-toed Robert Moses and Major General John F.O’Ryan, selecting instead Fiorello La Guardia, whowent on to victory in the 1933 election. La Guardiawent on to serve as mayor from 1934 to 1945.

After the corruption investigation, Seabury waselected president of the New York Law Institute.The author of New Federation (1950), Seaburydied in New York City on 7 May 1958. Although hewas one of the leading investigators into corrup-tion in New York state in the twentieth century, heis almost wholly forgotten.

See also Tammany Hall; Walker, James JohnReferences: Dewey, John, ed., New York and the Seabury

Investigation: A Digest and Interpretation of the Reportsby Samuel Seabury Concerning the Government of NewYork City, Prepared by a Committee of Educators andCivic Workers under the Chairmanship of John Dewey(New York: The City Affairs Committee of New York,1933); Mitgang, Herbert, The Man Who Rode theTiger: The Life of Judge Samuel Seabury and the Storyof the Greatest Investigation of City Corruption in ThisCentury (New York: Norton, 1979); Mitgang, Herbert.Once Upon a Time in New York: Jimmy Walker, FranklinRoosevelt, and the Last Great Battle of the Jazz Age(New York: Free Press, 2000); New York State SupremeCourt,Appellate Division, The Investigation of theMagistrates Courts in the First Judicial Department andthe Magistrates Thereof, and of Attorneys-at-LawPracticing in Said Courts: Final Report of SamuelSeabury, Referee (New York: The City Club of New York,1932); Northrop,William Bacot, The Insolence ofOffice: The Story of the Seabury Investigations (NewYork and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1932);“SeaburyDeclares Walker Is Not Worthy of Belief, Scores LegalQuibbling,” New York Times, 4 August 1932, 1.

Select Committee on U.S. NationalSecurity and Military/CommercialConcerns with the People’s Republic ofChina.See Cox Report

Senate Finance Committee Hearings1997 (Thompson Committee)Congressional investigation that examined cam-paign finance irregularities by the Democratic

Senate Finance Committee Hearings 1997 293

Party in the 1996 presidential campaign. Duringthat election campaign, allegations of improperfundraising were advanced against the DemocraticParty and its candidates for president and vicepresident, Bill Clinton and Albert Gore. These alle-gations reached a fever pitch that October, when itwas alleged that foreign donors, prohibited by lawfrom giving to American election campaigns, werenonetheless pumping funds into the Clinton/Gorecampaign as well as the Democratic National Com-mittee (DNC). On 14 October, the DNC acknowl-edged receiving more than $450,000 from an In-donesian couple, Arief Wiriadinata and his wife,both partners of a wealthy friend of Clinton, JamesRiady, head of the Lippo Group, an Indonesianbanking concern with a branch in Arkansas, whereClinton was governor. Allegations also arose that aBuddhist temple with ties to Taiwan had raisedfunds during a visit by Gore the past April. Gore ex-plained that he did not know the event was afundraiser, even though he was warned by his staffin memos that funds would be raised, a violation oflaw. On 28 October, the DNC refused to release apreelection spending report showing the donors totheir party; after an outcry, they relented two dayslater and released a partial list of donors. Clintonwas reelected overwhelmingly on 7 November, butthe controversy did not end there.

During his first postelection new conference, areelected Clinton declared that alleged contribu-tions from Indonesia had “absolutely not” influ-enced his policies toward Asia, and, at the sametime, he called for congressional passage of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, in-troduced by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) andSenator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin). The follow-ing day, DNC cochairman Don Fowler held his ownpress conference, in which he stated that “never hasthere been any desire, plan or intent to evade re-quirements of applicable laws and regulations. . . .In fact, we have tried to comply strictly with all rel-evant requirements.” On 13 November, the JusticeDepartment refused to honor a request from Mc-Cain for the appointment of an independent coun-sel to investigate DNC donations. By January, alle-gations of further wrongdoing by the Clintoncampaign and the DNC prompted further callsfrom congressional Republicans for either the ap-pointment of an independent counsel or a congres-sional investigation. When stories of “coffees,” or

meetings in the White House that were attended byClinton and Gore in which fundraising calls wereissued, a violation of law, became public, the poten-tial scandal reached a fever pitch. In February, Clin-ton acknowledged that he had rewarded top donorsto the DNC and his campaign with overnight staysin the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House.

On 11 March 1997, the U.S. Senate voted unani-mously to authorize the Governmental AffairsCommittee, headed by Senator Fred D. Thompsonof Tennessee, to conduct “an investigation of illegalor improper activities in connection with 1996Federal election campaigns”—a deadline of 31December 1997 was imposed as a condition thatthe hearings not get out of hand. Starting in Julyand lasting through October, in 33 total days oftestimony, the committee heard direct testimonyfrom more than 70 witnesses, with an additional200 witnesses interviewed; 418 subpoenas were is-sued for testimony and documents, and more than1.5 million documents were reviewed.

On the first day of the hearings, 8 July 1997, Sen-ator Thompson gave an opening statement thatoutlined what he saw coming out of the hearings:

On March 11 1997, the United States Senate voted99–0 to authorize an investigation of illegal or im-proper activities in connection with the 1996 fed-eral election campaigns. . . . Article One of our Con-stitution grants Congress its legislative powers.Implied within those powers is the right of Con-gress to conduct investigations with regard to mat-ters that are of concern to this nation. Therefore,from time to time throughout our history whenproblems arise that raise grave questions about ourgovernment, Congress has carried out such investi-gations through congressional hearings such as theones we begin today.

These hearings serve two purposes. One pur-pose is to make determinations as to whether or notour laws should be changed or whether additionallegislation is needed. The second purpose of hear-ings is to inform the American people as to howtheir government is operating—to pull back thecurtain and give the American people an unfilteredreview as to how their system is working.

Within this broad outline, I believe it is importantfor us to remember what these hearings are and whatthey are not. First of all, they are not trials where peo-ple are prosecuted. They are not soap operas, de-signed to titillate. They are not athletic events wherewe keep a running score. Rather, these hearings are

294 Senate Finance Committee Hearings 1997

serious looks at how our system is working with aview toward making our system better.

A lot of facts are already out on the publicrecord. In fact, there has been an outpouring of in-formation and allegations in the media for the lastseveral months. There has been so much troublinginformation that it is easy for the average citizen toget lost in the maze of competing stories. Therefore,we are tempted to look for one key witness or onedocument which will explain it all. However, thetruth seldom emerges that way. Our obligation inthese hearings is to take this virtual blizzard of in-formation, add new facts, provide some depth andcontext, and pull the material together and presentit in a comprehensible form. And at the end of theday, I’m convinced that the true picture will emerge.

The allegations before us are serious. They in-clude illegal foreign contributions and other illegalforeign involvement in our political process, moneylaundering, influence peddling, violations of theHatch Act—which prevents fundraising on govern-ment time or government property—violations ofthe Ethics in Government Act, violations of the con-flict of interest laws, the improper use of the WhiteHouse in fundraising activities and questions ofwhether our government’s domestic and foreignpolicy was affected by political contributions.

These matters go to the basic integrity of ourgovernment and our electoral process and will con-stitute the first phase of our hearings.

There apparently was a systematic influx of ille-gal money in our presidential race last year. We willbe wanting to know: Who knew about it? Whoshould have known about it? And was there an at-tempt to cover it up?

It has been pointed out that certain witnesseshave fled the country or taken the Fifth Amend-ment. It has also been noted that we have a cutoffdate of December 31. However, it should be remem-bered that we have much evidence available to us.And if anyone should unlawfully impede or misin-form this Committee, there are criminal sanctionsavailable.

Valuable information can be obtained in variousways. It seems that due to the fact these hearings areabout to start, the White House has decided to re-lease certain information before this Committeediscloses it. Since information is being disclosedthat the American people have long since been enti-tled to, we welcome being preempted. We expectthat those under investigation will have cause topreempt us many times in the future.

When the first phase of our hearings is com-plete, we will begin the second phase, in which we

will address the broader issues concerning our elec-toral process, including the role of soft money andthe role of independent groups.

While most of the activities examined in the sec-ond phase are presumably legal, I believe that com-mon practices in these areas by both parties are afar cry from the intent of Congress when it draftedour campaign finance laws after Watergate. I person-ally believe we can do much better than the cam-paign finance system we have today. However, wecannot move forward unless we have accountabilityfor the past.We cannot let calls for campaign financereform be used as a shield to prevent examination ofthe violations of existing law. Otherwise, calls for re-form will be viewed as merely partisan and thecause of reform will be harmed, not enhanced.

These hearings come at a time of economicprosperity, but at a time of increasing public cyni-cism about government. We now have less than halfour people voting. I believe that part of this is dueto what has happened to our political process, asevidenced by the matters before us. The Americanpeople see their leaders go to greater and more ex-treme lengths to raise unprecedented amounts ofmoney for their political campaigns.

During its hearings, the committee was facedwith several delays and obstructions. Despite thefact that the vote to authorize the hearings was bi-partisan, the Democrats on the panel, led by Sena-tor John Glenn (D-OH), orchestrated a campaign todenounce the hearings as one-sided and partisan,refusing at times to vote to issue subpoenas or tocooperate at all. In addition, twenty-three witnessescalled before the committee asserted their FifthAmendment rights against self-incrimination andrefused to testify; nine additional witnesses refusedto testify until the committee had granted them im-munity from prosecution. Ten other witnesses, in-cluded Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, a close friend of Clin-ton, Ted Sioeng, and Pauline Kanchanalak, fled theUnited States and refused to return or be inter-viewed. Another dozen foreign witnesses, includingJames Riady, also refused to be interviewed.

On 5 March 1998, the Senate Governmental Af-fairs Committee released its final report, a 1,100-page tome, on the campaign finance scandal.Writ-ing in the report, the majority explained;

In mid-1995, the President and his strategists de-cided that they needed to raise and spend manymillions of dollars over and above the permissible

Senate Finance Committee Hearings 1997 295

limits of the Presidential campaign funding law ifthe President were going to be reelected. They de-vised a legal theory to support their needs and pro-ceeded to raise and spend $44 million in excess ofthe Presidential campaign spending limits.

The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaignand the White House-controlled Democratic Na-tional Committee were willing to go in order toraise this amount of money is essentially the storyof the 1996 Presidential campaign scandal. ThePresident and his aides demeaned the offices of thePresident and Vice President, took advantage of mi-nority groups, pulled down all the barriers thatwould normally be in place to keep out illegal con-tributions, pressured policy makers, and left them-selves open to strong suspicion that they were sell-ing not only access to high-ranking officials, butpolicy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in ille-gal contributions, much of it from foreign sources.When these abuses were uncovered, the result wasnumerous Fifth Amendment claims, flights fromthe country, and stonewalling from the WhiteHouse.

See also Campaign Finance Scandal 1996; Clinton,William Jefferson; Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr.

References: Baker, Peter,“White House Seeks to ProtectGore in Temple Inquiry,” Washington Post, 3September 1997, A1; Baker, Peter, and Susan Schmidt,“President Had Big Role in Setting Donor Perks,”Washington Post, 26 February 1997, A1; Final Reportof the Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities inConnection With 1996 Federal Election Campaigns,together with Additional and Minority Views (Reportof the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 105thCongress, 2nd Session, 1998), i; Gugliotta, Guy,“ForTamraz, Pursuit of Presidential Access Was AlsoPursuit of American Dream,” Washington Post, 19September 1997, A7; Gugliotta, Guy.“SenateCampaign Probers Release Findings,” WashingtonPost, 6 March 1998, A6; “’92 Democratic Fund-RaisersMay Have Kept Cash: Almost $160,000 Went to Firmsof Couple Guilty in Separate Scheme,” WashingtonPost, 17 December 1997, A6; Suro, Roberto,“RenoDecides Against Independent Counsel to ProbeClinton, Gore,” Washington Post, 3 December 1997, A1;“White House, in Its Thirst For Money, Took Control,”Washington Post, 10 February 1998, A6; Woodward,Bob,“Gore Donors’ Funds Used as ‘Hard Money’,Federal Restrictions Apply to Such Gifts,” WashingtonPost, 3 September 1997, A1.

Senate Select Committee on EthicsUnited States Senate panel, established to overseeethics in that legislative branch body. Under Arti-

cle I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, each houseof Congress “may determine the Rules of its Pro-ceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Be-haviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds,expel a Member.” However, the Senate and Housedid not establish formal rules for members to fol-low, or to discipline members, until the 1960s.

The move to establish these rules started in the1950s, during hearings in the Senate into allegedcorruption in the Reconstruction Finance Corpo-ration, a government aid program created by Pres-ident Herbert Hoover in 1930. Chaired by SenatorJ. William Fulbright of Arkansas, the conclusion ofthe hearings called for ethics rules to be incorpo-rated into the Senate. Fulbright said on the Senatefloor, “What should be done about men who donot directly and blatantly sell the favors of their of-fices for money and so place themselves within thepenalties of the law? How do we deal with thosewho, under the guise of friendship, accept favorswhich offend the spirit of the law but do not vio-late its letter?” Fulbright offered a resolution call-ing for hearings into the creation of a code ofethics. Before a special subcommittee of the Sen-ate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,chaired by Senator Paul H. Douglas of Illinois,rules that had been advocated since 1951 by Rep-resentative Charles Edward Bennett of Florida,calling for “all Government employees, includingofficeholders” to adhere to a congressional ethicscode, were presented for consideration. Douglaslater said,“When is it proper to offer [gifts to] pub-lic officials and what is it proper for them to re-ceive? A cigar, a box of candy, a modest lunch . . .?Is any one of these improper? It is difficult to be-lieve so. They are usually a courteous gesture, anexpression of good will, or a simple convenience,symbolic rather than intrinsically significant. Nor-mally they are not taken seriously by the giver nordo they mean very much to the receiver. At thepoint at which they do begin to mean something,however, do they not become improper? Evensmall gratuities can be significant if they are re-peated and come to be expected.” Formal ruleswere established in 1958.

On 24 July 1964, following the famed case ofRobert Gene “Bobby” Baker, who was the secretaryto the Senate majority leader, the Senate adoptedResolution 338, which established the Senate Se-lect Committee on Standards and Conduct with

296 Senate Select Committee on Ethics

the power to “receive complaints and investigateallegations of improper conduct which may reflectupon the Senate, violations of law, and violationsof rules and regulations of the Senate.” As the newcommittee assembled to draft provisions forethics rules, the Senate was forced to deal withethics charges against Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT). After Dodd was censured by the Senate for fi-nancial impropriety, the committee released newrules on 15 March 1968. On 1 March 1977, Con-gress enacted the Official Conduct Amendmentsof 1977, which revised and expanded not only the1968 set of rules, but the jurisdiction and author-ity of the select committee. At the same time, in1977, the Senate Select Committee on Standardsand Conduct was changed into the modern SenateSelect Committee on Ethics.

This committee, the first to deal with the ethicsissue, was charged with the responsibility to:

Receive complaints and investigate allegations ofimproper conduct which may reflect upon the Sen-ate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Codeof Official Conduct, and violations of rules and reg-

ulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of in-dividuals in the performance of their duties asMembers of the Senate, or as officers of employeesof the Senate, and to make appropriate findings offact and conclusions with respect thereto;

Recommend, when appropriate, disciplinary ac-tion against Members and staff;

Recommend rules or regulations necessary toinsure appropriate Senate standards of conduct;

Report violations of any law to the proper Fed-eral and State authorities;

Regulate the use of the franking privilege in theSenate;

Investigate unauthorized disclosures of intelli-gence information;

Implement the Senate public financial disclo-sure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act;

Regulate the receipt and disposition of giftsfrom foreign governments received by Members, of-ficers, and employees of the Senate;

Render advisory opinions on the application ofSenate rules and laws to Members, officers, andemployees . . .

The committee’s rules have been expanded,most recently in 1995, with the enactment of the

Senate Select Committee on Ethics 297

Senator Tom Dodd, standing at right, attends a 1967 Senate hearing that is investigating his alleged financial wrongdoings. (WallyMcNamee/CORBIS)

Gifts Rule, which restricts the acceptance bymembers of gifts. In 2000 a new set of rules estab-lished by the committee included those coveringthe Internet.

According to the standing rules of the U.S. Sen-ate, the committee “investigates alleged miscon-duct of Senate members and employees, and alsokeeps senators and staff abreast of new rules andregulations of conduct.”

See also Dodd, Thomas JosephReferences: Amer, Mildred, The Senate Selection

Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolutionand Jurisdiction (Washington, DC: CongressionalResearch Service, 1993); “Ethical Standards inGovernment,” Report of the Special Subcommittee onthe Establishment of a Commission on Ethics inGovernment, Senate Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare, 82nd Congress, 1st Session (1951), 23; “Studyof Reconstruction Finance Corporation: HearingsBefore a Subcommittee of the Senate Comm. onBanking and Currency” (81st Congress, 2nd Session,and 82nd Congress, 1st Session (1950–1951)); UnitedStates Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, SenateEthics Manual (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 2000).

Senate Select Committee on Standards ofConductSee Senate Select Committee on Ethics

Shepherd, Alexander Robey(1835–1902)Territorial governor of the District of Columbia(1873–1874), known as “Boss” Shepherd for nu-merous acts of corruption of which he was accusedbut never found guilty. Shepherd remains a highlyobscure figure. He was born in Washington, D.C., on31 January 1835 and attended the schools of thatcity. Following his father’s death, Shepherd leftschool and worked in odd jobs, most notably as aclerk, a carpenter’s apprentice, and as a plumber’sassistant. He eventually opened his own plumbingbusiness and became a wealthy man. At the sametime, he was involved in numerous real estate deals.

A Republican, Shepherd volunteered for servicewhen the Civil War broke out and served in themilitary for three months before being elected tothe Washington, D.C., Common Council. He servedfor three years, rising to the presidency of thecouncil in 1862. Because Washington, D.C., at that

time was a run-down and dirty city with unpavedroads, Shepherd took on the task of advocating aprogram of construction and modernization. In1871 Shepherd was instrumental in establishing aterritorial form of government for the district. Twoyears later, Shepherd was named governor of theterritory by President Ulysses S. Grant, replacingHenry D. Cooke. Historian Lowell Ragatz wrote:

He quickly overshadowed his colleagues and wonthe name “Boss Shepherd” by assuming completecontrol. Imbued with the callous philosophy of anotoriously corrupt era and carried away by his en-thusiasm, he spent millions beyond the legally au-thorized expenditures and hopelessly involved Dis-trict finances. His custom of awarding contracts tofriends in casual fashion without competitive bid-ding led to accusations that he was sharing in thespoils. . . . His recklessness and unscrupulousmethods led to congressional investigation and thepassage of the act of June 20, 1874, which replacedterritorial government by commission rule. Grantthereupon named him commissioner, but the Sen-ate refused to confirm the appointment, althoughhe had been found innocent of dishonesty.

Hurt by the accusations made against him andthe Senate’s refusal to confirm him, Shepherd leftWashington and moved to Mexico, where he wentto work at a silver mine in Batopilas, Chihuahua.He died there of appendicitis on 12 September1902 at the age of sixty-seven.

References: Ragatz, Lowell Joseph,“Shepherd, AlexanderRobey,” in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, et al.,eds., Dictionary of American Biography, X vols. and 10supplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995), IX:77–78; “Shepherd, Alexander Robey,”in The National Cyclopædia of American Biography, 57vols. and supplements A-N (New York: James T. White& Company, 1897–1984), XIII:80–81; “Shepherd,Alexander Robey,” in Rossiter Johnson, ed., TheTwentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of NotableAmericans: Brief Biographies of Authors,Administrators, Clergymen, Commanders, Editors,Engineers, Jurists, Merchants, Officials, Philanthropists,Scientists, Statesman, and Others Who Are MakingAmerican History,10 vols. (Boston: BiographicalSociety, 1897–1904), IX.

Shuster, Elmer Greinert “Bud” (1932– )United States representative from Pennsylvania(1973–2001), rebuked by the House Ethics Com-mittee for allegedly accepting improper gifts and

298 Senate Select Committee on Standards of Conduct

A woman symbolizing justice talks to Ulysses S. Grant, who is reaching for a paper that reads "Shepherd rejected by theSenate. . . ." The Senate refused to confirm Shepherd's appointment as commissioner, although he had been foundinnocent of dishonesty. (Library of Congress)

favoring a lobbyist. Born in Glassport, Pennsylva-nia, on 23 January 1932, Shuster attended the pub-lic schools of Glassport before attending the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, from which he was awardeda bachelor of science degree in 1954, andDuquesne University in Pittsburgh, where heearned a master of business degree in 1960. Hecompleted his education by earning a Ph.D. in eco-nomics and management from American Univer-sity in Washington, D.C., in 1967. After receivinghis degree from the University of Pittsburgh, Shus-ter entered the U.S. Army and served in the in-fantry and as a counterintelligence agent from1954 to 1956. When he finished his duty, Shusterreturned to Pennsylvania and became involved inthe then-infant computer industry, becoming vicepresident of RCA’s Electronic Computer Division.Involved in the early installation of the UNIVAC,the world’s first computer system, he left RCA tofound his own computer software company.

A conservative Republican in politics, Shusterran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representativesin 1972. Defeating Democrat Earl D. Collins, Shus-ter entered the House on 3 January 1973, repre-senting the Ninth Pennsylvania District. Shusterwould eventually serve fourteen terms, from the93rd through the 106th Congress. A member ofthe House Transportation Committee, he wouldeventually become known as “The King of As-phalt” for helping to send millions of dollars to hishome state to pave roads, one of which wasnamed in his honor. During his tenure in Con-gress, Shuster became one of the leading authorsof much of the transportation-related legislationin Congress, including the Surface TransportationAct of 1982, the Surface Transportation and Uni-form Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, and theIntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Actof 1991 (ISTEA). This latter action completed theInterstate Highway System begun under the ad-ministration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.In 1995, when Republicans took control of theHouse, Shuster became chairman of his commit-tee, renamed the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure. Three years later, Shuster in-troduced the Transportation Equity Act for the21st Century, known as TEA-21. This legislationdirected that funds collected for highway con-struction nationwide be dedicated specifically forthat purpose.

Shuster got into ethical trouble starting in1996. On 6 March of that year, Common Cause, awell-known political watchdog group, sent a letterto the chair of the House Committee on Standardsof Conduct (known as the House Ethics Commit-tee), asking for investigation into Shuster’s deal-ings with Ann Eppard, a former Shuster chief ofstaff who left his employ to go to work as a lobby-ist for some of the companies doing business be-fore Shuster’s committee. Eppard was also incriminal difficulty—on 9 April 1998 she was in-dicted by a grand jury in Boston for embezzling$27,500 from Shuster’s campaign at the sametime that she accepted $230,000 in illegal pay-ments while working for Shuster to help in thepassage of the “Big Dig” construction project inBoston. On 9 November 1997, the chairman of thecommittee, Representative Lamar Smith, a Re-publican, and ranking minority member, Repre-sentative Howard Berman, a Democrat, formed aninvestigative subcommittee to look into the alle-gations. Representatives Joel Hefley, a Republican,and Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, were named tohead the subcommittee.

On 1 November 1999, Eppard pled guilty inBoston to accepting illegal compensation from alobbyist. On 26 July 2000, the investigative sub-committee of the House Committee on Standardsof Conduct concluded that Shuster had violatedHouse ethics rules and adopted a Statement of Al-leged Violation. Presented with this statement anda pending report, Shuster accepted the commit-tee’s findings. This 147-page report was releasedon 5 October 2000. In it, the committee explainedthat Shuster brought “discredit to the House ofRepresentatives.” In its letter to Shuster, the Com-mittee explained:

By a unanimous vote on October 4, 2000, the Com-mittee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting onbehalf of the House of Representatives, voted toissue to you this Letter of Reproval. The Committeeunanimously voted to adopt the Report of the In-vestigative Subcommittee concerning its investiga-tion of the numerous allegations of misconductlodged against you.

By your actions you have brought discredit tothe House of Representatives.

On November 14, 1997, the Chairman andRanking Minority Member of the Committee onStandards of Official Conduct established an Inves-

300 Shuster, Elmer Greinert “Bud”

tigative Subcommittee pursuant to Committee Rule17(c)(2) in the matter of Representative Bud Shus-ter. The Investigative Subcommittee’s inquiry fo-cused on the allegations in a complaint filed by theCongressional Accountability Project and expandedto include an examination of whether your cam-paign committee violated House Rules and/or fed-eral laws between 1993 and 1998. During the courseof its inquiry the Investigative Subcommittee thor-oughly investigated the allegations against you. TheInvestigative Subcommittee issued over 150 sub-poenas, counsel interviewed approximately 75 wit-nesses and the Investigative Subcommittee deposed33 witnesses. At the conclusion of the inquiry, theInvestigative Subcommittee found substantial rea-son to believe that you had committed violations ofHouse Rules within the Committee’s jurisdiction.On July 26, 2000, the Investigative Subcommitteeunanimously adopted a Statement of Alleged Viola-tion finding that you engaged in a pattern of con-duct that did not reflect creditably on the House ofRepresentatives in violation of former Rule 43,clause 1, of the House of Representatives. As part ofa negotiated settlement you admitted, underpenalty of perjury, to the Statement of Alleged Vio-lation. By voluntarily admitting to the Statement ofAlleged Violation, you agreed that your conduct didnot reflect creditably on the House of Representa-tives through five areas of conduct.

The Statement of Alleged Violation to which youadmitted provides that your conduct did not reflectcreditably on the House of Representatives in thefollowing manner:

You engaged in a pattern and practice of know-ingly allowing your former chief of staff to appearbefore or communicate with you in your official ca-pacity, during the 12-month period following herresignation from your staff, in a manner that cre-ated the appearance that your official decisionsmight have been improperly affected.

You violated House Gift Rules by accepting ex-penses from two sources related to a trip to PuertoRico with your family in December 1995 and Janu-ary 1996.

You violated former House Rule 45 by authoriz-ing and/or accepting the scheduling and advisoryservices of your former chief of staff on mattersthat were official in nature for approximately 18months after she resigned from your congressionaloffice.

While under your supervision and control, em-ployees in your congressional office worked for yourcampaign committee to the apparent detriment ofthe time they were required to spend in your con-

gressional office. While under your supervision andcontrol employees of your congressional office per-formed services for your campaign in your congres-sional office.

Expenditures for “political meetings” and ex-penditures for transportation on chartered aircraftby your campaign committee combined with inade-quate record-keeping practices to verify the legiti-mate campaign purposes of these expenditures,created the appearance that between 1993 and 1998certain expenditures of your campaign committeemay not have been attributable to bona fide cam-paign or political purposes.

Common Cause President Scott Harshbargerstated,“The sanction imposed today by the HouseCommittee on Standards of Official Conduct uponRepresentative Bud Shuster (R-PA) makes crystalclear that he brought discredit to the House ofRepresentatives by engaging in a staggeringlywide array of ethical violations. These include aproblematic relationship with his former Chief ofStaff, flagrant violations of the House Gift Rules,blurring of the lines between official staff andcampaign staff, and misuse of campaign funds forapparent personal benefit. . . . The Letter of Re-proval issued by the Committee also shows thatRepresentative Shuster has displayed a cavalierand arrogant attitude toward these seriouscharges—a tone, according to the letter, of ‘blame-shifting and trivializing of misconduct.’ But theCommittee’s report also shows that Shuster es-caped punishment for potentially more serious al-legations involving special favors and possiblequid-pro-quos.”

Despite this action, Shuster was overwhelm-ingly reelected in November 2000 to another term.However, health concerns and a feeling by Shusterthat he had “reached the pinnacle of my congres-sional career,” led the fourteen-term congressmanto announce on 4 January 2001 that he would re-sign from the House on 31 January. In May 2001,Shuster’s son, William “Bill” Shuster, won a specialelection to fill his father’s seat.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Pianin, Eric,“VeteranLawmaker Shuster to Retire—‘King of Asphalt’ CitesHealth Reasons,” Washington Post, 5 January 2001, A4;Plungis, Jeff,“The Driving Force of Bud Shuster,” CQWeekly, 7 August 1999, 1914–1919; U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Committee on Standards of Official

Shuster, Elmer Greinert “Bud” 301

Conduct, In the Matter of Representative E. G. ‘Bud’Shuster: Report (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 2000).

Sikes, Robert Lee Fulton (1906–1994)United States representative from Florida (1941–1944, 1945–1979), reprimanded by the U.S. Houseof Representatives for financial misconduct, forwhich he eventually lost his seat. Sikes was born inthe village of Isabella, near the town of Sylvester,Georgia, on 3 June 1906, the son of Benjamin Ful-ton Sikes and Clara (née Ford) Sikes. Robert Sikesattended the public schools of the area before heentered the University of Georgia at Athens, whichawarded him a bachelor of science degree in 1927.He later earned a master of science degree fromthe University of Florida at Gainesville in 1929,after which he entered the publishing business inCrestview, Florida. Through this business—andthe running of two local newspapers, in Crestviewand Valparaiso—Sikes gained important contactsand status in the community.

Sikes’s political career began in Florida in 1935,when he was elected to that state’s house of repre-sentatives, serving from 1936 until 1940. In 1940he ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representa-tives as a Democrat from the Third District ofFlorida. That seat had been held by RepresentativeMillard Caldwell, who had retired. Sikes, being un-opposed, was elected to the first of two terms. Hewould have been reelected in 1944, but on 19 Octo-ber 1944 he resigned his seat to serve in the U.S.Army during World War II. He was allowed to runfor his seat in the 1944 elections, however, andonce again he was elected. He would hold the seatuntil his resignation in 1979.

Sikes became an important leader for the dis-trict he represented; one constituent referred tohim as a “He Coon,” a metaphor for the reveredleader of a tribe of racoons, which were in abun-dance in West Florida when the first British andSpanish settlers arrived. It was a name that stuck,and his followers were called “He Coons.” It alsobecame the name of Sikes’s autobiography. Sikes’spraise was due mainly because of his leadership inbringing dollars to the area he represented for de-fense. Sikes was also a leader in helping to buildthe Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River sys-tem, which brought water to areas of Florida,

Georgia, and Alabama. For this work he was popu-lar among his constituents and his colleagues inCongress. But at the same time, Sikes was involvedin financial dealings that would ultimately causehis downfall. As chairman of the House MilitaryConstruction Appropriations Subcommittee, Sikeshad the power to push or resist lucrative militaryconstruction projects. On 28 April 1976, the HouseCommittee on Standards of Official Conductbegan an inquiry into conflict of interest allega-tions lodged against Sikes by Common Cause, thecitizens’ lobbying group that called for strict ethicsrules in Congress. Common Cause alleged thatSikes, as chairman of the House subcommittee,had not reported the ownership of stock inFairchild Industries Inc., a military contractordoing business before the subcommittee, as wellas stock in the First Navy Bank at the PensacolaNaval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, in violationof Rule 44 of the House Ethics rules. The groupalso charged that Sikes had sponsored legislationin the House in 1961 that removed restrictions onparcels of land in Florida for use in construction,despite the fact that Sikes had a financial interestin this land. On 12 May 1976, the panel voted nineto zero to initiate a “factual investigation” into thecharges. Committee chairman John J. Flynt Jr. (D-GA) told reporters that “as far as he knew” it wasthe first such intensive investigation by the Housecommittee charged with upholding ethics.

Following a comprehensive investigation, thecommittee voted ten to two on 21 July 1976 to ap-prove a report prepared by investigators that rec-ommended that the full House reprimand Sikesfor financial misconduct only, despite the over-whelming evidence of violations of conflict-of-in-terest laws. All three charges made by CommonCause were proved; however, the panel held thatSikes’s failure to report the Fairchild stock did notappear to be “an effort to conceal” ownership, butdeserved a reprimand nonetheless. The chargesinvolving the land deals were cited as a conflict ofinterest, but no further action was called for. Afourth charge, alleging that Sikes voted for a fiscal1975 military appropriations bill, which included$73 million for an aircraft contract with Fairchild,did not violate House rules because he had only alimited number of shares in the company, andsuch ownership did not disqualify him from vot-ing on the matter.

302 Sikes, Robert Lee Fulton

On 29 July 1976, the House voted 381 to 3 to rep-rimand Sikes, the first time a sitting member hadbeen so punished since Representative Adam Clay-ton Powell in 1969. Despite this punishment, Sikeswon reelection in 1976. However, on 27 May 1978,he announced he would not be a candidate for re-election in that year’s election. He left office on 3January 1979. He retired to Crestview, Florida,where he remained until his death from pneumoniaon 28 September 1994 at the age of eighty-eight.

References: “[The Case of] Robert L. F. Sikes,” inCongressional Ethics (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1980), 22; Sikes, Bob, He-Coon: The BobSikes Story (Pensacola, FL: Perdido Bay Press, 1984);United States Congress, Biographical Directory of theUnited States Congress, 1774–1989: The ContinentalCongress, September 5, 1774, to October 21, 1788, andthe Congress of the United States, from the Firstthrough the One Hundredth Congresses, March 4, 1789,to January 3, 1989, Inclusive (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1989).

Simmons, James Fowler (1795–1864)Rhode Island industrialist and U.S. senator (1841–1847, 1857–1862), who resigned his seat becauseof corruption. Born on his family’s farm near thetown of Little Compton, Rhode Island, on 10 Sep-tember 1795, Simmons attended a private schoolin Newport, Rhode Island. In 1812 he moved toProvidence, Rhode Island, and worked in variousmanufacturing concerns in both Rhode Islandand Massachusetts. In 1822 he again moved, thistime to a small town in New Hampshire that he re-named Simmonsville, and there he opened a yarnfactory. Five years later, he relocated the factory toJohnston, Rhode Island.

In 1827 Simmons was elected to the NewHampshire state house of representatives, wherehe served until 1841. A Whig, Simmons waselected to the U.S. Senate, where he initially servedfrom 4 March 1841 until 3 March 1847.

On 2 July 1862, Senator Joseph A. Wright, Union-ist of Indiana, submitted a resolution calling forSimmons’s expulsion.Wright claimed that Secretaryof War Edwin M. Stanton had reported to him thatSimmons had used his influence as a U.S. senator totry to obtain a war contract for two Rhode Islandcompanies that had contributed to Simmons’s elec-tion efforts—allegedly two $10,000 promissorynotes, as well as a promise of some $500,000 in prof-its from the company if they got the contract. The

matter was referred to the Senate Judiciary Commit-tee—there was no Ethics Committee as of yet—which reported back to the Senate within a week.Historians Anne Butler and Wendy Wolff explain:

The committee ascertained that an agent of aRhode Island business firm approached Simmonsand requested aid in procuring a government con-tract for the manufacture of 50,000 breech-loadingrifles. Simmons corroborated the testimony of theagent, C. D. Schubarth, but insisted that the manu-facturers’ payments to him were not tied to a guar-antee of government contracts. Simmons detailedthe transactions with great frankness, expressinghis complete astonishment at the charges and con-tending that he acted for the benefit of both hisconstituents and his government. Simmons citedthe recent Union draft of 500,000 men, for whomthe government had but 200,000 weapons. Withsuch a critical shortage, Simmons assumed that theprompt delivery from a responsible firm could onlyaid the war effort. The unabashed senator made nomove to deny that he still held the promissory notesor that he expected them to be paid in full.

In its July 14 report, the committee set forthSimmons’s case in the most deferential terms, citinghis age and honorable life, but ultimately found thesenator’s behavior entirely inexcusable.

However, because the Senate session was nearlyended, no action was taken on Simmons’s case.Simmons was warned that once the Senate recon-vened, he would be the subject of an expulsion res-olution. Facing this, he resigned his seat on 15 Au-gust 1862, one of only a handful of senators to takesuch a step because of political corruption.

Simmons returned to Rhode Island and hismanufacturing pursuits. He lived only two yearsafter leaving the Senate, dying in Johnston, RhodeIsland, on 10 July 1864 at the age of sixty-eight. Hisname, and his case, have slipped into obscurity.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Butler, Anne M., and WendyWolff, United States Senate Election, Expulsion andCensure Cases, 1793–1990 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1995), 115–116.

Small, Lennington “Len” (1862–1936)Governor of Illinois (1921–1929), implicated inmassive corruption in that state but acquitted by ajury. Born near Kankakee, Illinois, on 16 June

Small, Lennington “Len” 303

1862, Lennington Small, known as “Len,” was theson of a doctor. He attended public schools andNorthern Indiana Normal School. Little is knownabout his early life. A Republican, in 1901 Smallwas elected to a seat in the Illinois state senate,serving until 1905. He was elected state treasurerin 1904 and served until 1908. From 1908 until1912 he served as assistant treasurer in charge ofthe United States Subtreasury in Chicago. In 1916he was again elected Illinois state treasurer, ser-ving from 1917 until 1921.

In 1920 Small captured the Republican nomi-nation for governor and went on to defeat Demo-crat James H. Lewis by more than half a millionvotes out of 2 million cast. Assuming office on 10January 1921, Small won a second term in 1924.

Almost from the start of his administration,Small was beset by allegations of massive corrup-tion from his days as state treasurer from 1917 to1921. It was during this period that Small workedwith William “Big Bill” Thompson, mayor ofChicago and himself a corrupt politician. Smallaided Thompson in keeping Chicago in the gripsof the corrupt powers that had elected Thompsonas mayor. Historian Jay Robert Nash explained,“Not long after taking office for the first time in1921, [Small] was indicted for embezzling$600,000 during his previous term as state treas-urer. Small was charged with depositing millionsof dollars of state funds in a bank controlled by hisfriend, State Senator E. C. Curtis, and profited bythe interest in 1917 when he was serving as statetreasurer.” Historian George Kohn adds, “The ex-perience of undergoing judicial arraignment didnot, however, deter Small. He found a way to cir-cumvent the authority of the court. He teamed upwith a notorious gunman, a lawyer turned crook,and a dishonorable union official to bribe andthreaten members of the jury and their families.He was, in due course, acquitted.”

Small was now free from embezzlementcharges, but instead of remaining clean he decidedto use the governor’s office to sell pardons to thehighest bidder. From the time of his acquittal untilhe left office, Small sold some 8,000 pardons—making him one of the most corrupt governors inAmerican history. Working closely with Thomp-son in Chicago and Robert E. Crowe, the state’s at-torney for Cook County, Small would find convicts,have a third party approach them with the offer of

a pardon, and then grant it for a fixed sum. Smallwould then split the fees with Crowe. One suchparolee was Ignatz Potz, sentenced to death forkilling a police officer. Small commuted his sen-tence in 1922 to life and in 1926 granted him a fullpardon that released Potz from prison altogether.Small became known as “The Pardoning Governorof Illinois.”

In 1928 Small actually tried to run for a thirdterm. In what was called the “Pineapple Primary”(in which extremists from both sides set offbombs, nicknamed “pineapples,” to force the otherparties’ voters away from the polls), Small andCrowe were defeated, despite having the financialand political backing of Mafia boss Al Capone.Small lost the Republican primary to Louis L. Em-merson, the Illinois secretary of state. Small ranfor governor again in 1932, but lost to DemocratHenry Horner; he also ran in 1936, but lost the Re-publican nomination to C. Wayland Brooks.Shortly after the 1936 primary, Small died on hisfarm near Kankakee on 17 May 1936. He wasburied in Kankakee. Although it is obvious thatSmall was indeed one of the most corrupt, if notthe most corrupt, governor in American history,his name is almost wholly forgotten.

See also Thompson, William HaleReferences: “Len Small,” in Jay Robert Nash,

Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement,4 vols. (Wilmette,IL: CrimeBooks, Inc, 1989), IV:2780; “Len Small:Pardoning Governor,” in George C. Kohn, Encyclopediaof American Scandal: From ABSCAM to the ZengerCase (New York: Facts on File, 1989), 302; “Small,Lennington,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds.,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: MecklerBooks, 1978), II:384–385.

Smith, Frank Leslie (1867–1950)United States representative (1919–1921) and sen-ator-elect (1926–1928) from Illinois, refused hisseat in the U.S. Senate because of allegations offraud and corruption in his campaign. Born in thevillage of Dwight, Illinois, on 24 November 1867,Frank Smith attended local public schools and fora time taught in local schools, although it does notappear that he ever received any secondary educa-tion or a degree. Branching out into private busi-ness pursuits, he entered the fields of insurance,

304 Smith, Frank Leslie

real estate, banking, and agriculture. In 1894 heserved as the village clerk for Dwight, apparentlyhis first political position.

In 1904 Smith was nominated by the Republi-cans for the office of lieutenant governor of Illi-nois. However, although the Republican guber-natorial nominee, Charles S. Deneen, was electedeasily, Smith was defeated by Democrat Law-rence Yates Sherman (1858–1939), formerSpeaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.Smith did serve, from 1905 to 1909, as the inter-nal revenue collector for Illinois. Smith left officein 1909 and returned to private business, but tenyears later was elected to a seat in U.S. House ofRepresentatives, serving in the Sixty-sixth Con-gress from 4 March 1919 to 3 March 1921. In1920 he gave up his seat to try for the Republicannomination for the U.S. Senate, but lost toWilliam Brown McKinley. Again, he returned tohis business pursuits. In 1921 Illinois GovernorLennington “Len” Small named Smith chairmanof the Illinois Commerce Commission, where heserved until 1926. In 1926 Smith ran for the U.S.Senate seat held by McKinley—who was seri-ously ill—and defeated Democrat George E.Brennan. On 7 December 1926, Senator McKin-ley died, and Governor Small named Smith tothe vacancy, which expired on 3 March 1927.

Smith went to Washington, both as the ap-pointed senator and as the senator-elect in hisown right. As soon as he presented his credentials,protests were made to his taking his seat. Theseprotests alleged that Smith had used “fraud andcorruption” in his 1926 campaign for the U.S. Sen-ate, and the case was sent to the Senate Committeeon Privileges and Elections (now the Committeeon Rules and Administration). After a lengthy in-quiry into the 1926 contest, on 17 January 1928,the committee held that Smith not be allowed totake his seat because of corruption perpetrated byhim and his supporters. On 19 January the Senateadopted this resolution, and the seat was declaredvacant. Despite the fact that he had never served asingle day in the U.S. Senate, Smith “resigned” on 9February 1928. Otis F. Glenn, a Republican, waselected to take the vacant seat and he began hisservice on 3 December 1928.

Tarred by the scandal that cost him a seat in theU.S. Senate, Smith ran for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives in 1930, but was unsuccessful.

He served as a member of the Republican NationalCommittee in 1932, then left politics altogether toreturn to his business pursuits, including servingas chairman of the board of directors of the FirstNational Bank of Dwight, Illinois. Smith died inDwight on 30 August 1950 at the age of eighty-twoand was buried in Oak Lawn Cemetery in that city.

References: Wooddy, Carroll Hill, The Case of Frank L.Smith: A Study in Representative Government(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931).

Smith, John (1735?–1824)U.S. senator from Ohio (1803–1808), nearly ex-pelled (and later resigned) from the Senate for hisrole in the conspiracy of Vice President Aaron Burrto separate several western states from the Unionand create a new nation. Little is known of hisearly life: he was born in either Virginia or Ohioabout 1735. He prepared for the ministry and formuch of his life served as a pastor in various Bap-tist congregations in Ohio and Virginia. In 1790 hewas serving in a Baptist church on the forks of theCheat River in what is now West Virginia. In 1791he moved to Columbia, Ohio, later a part of the cityof Cincinnati, where he became a preacher andmerchant. His gifts of public speaking broughthim great notice, and in 1798 he was elected to thefirst of four terms in the Northwest Territorial leg-islature that ended in 1803.

When Ohio was admitted as a state into theUnion in 1803, the new state legislature moved toelect two men to the United States Senate. One ofthese men was John Smith, most likely to rewardhim for his actions in pushing statehood. While inthe Senate, from 1 April 1803 until 25 April 1808,he apparently made only one speech, spendingmost of his time engaged in private pursuits.These caused his downfall in 1808. Rumors of histies with Vice President Aaron Burr’s attempts toget several western states to secede from theUnion, as well as the obvious neglect of his senato-rial duties, led to his being called by a grand juryin Frankfort, Kentucky, which was investigatingBurr’s actions. Fearing that he would be called be-fore the panel, Smith fled to West Florida, where hewaited until Burr was tried and acquitted. Whenhe arrived back in Washington in January 1807,the U.S. Senate took up a call to investigate Smith’sactions. Senator John Quincy Adams, a Federalist

Smith, John 305

from Massachusetts, chaired the committee thatinvestigated whether to expel or censure Smith. Inits report, released 31 December 1807, the com-mittee stated, “When a man whom his fellow citi-zens have honored with their confidence on thepledge of a spotless reputation has degraded him-self by the commission of infamous crimes, whichbecome suddenly and unexpectedly revealed tothe world, defective, indeed, would be that institu-tion which should be impotent to discard from itsbosom the contagion of such a member.” Smith’scounsel was Francis Scott Key, who later wrote the“Star Spangled Banner.” On 9 April 1808, the Sen-ate voted nineteen to ten to expel Smith, but, lack-ing a two-thirds vote, Smith was saved from expul-sion. Sixteen days later, Smith resigned his seat.

In 1844 Representative Edward Junius Black ofGeorgia went before the House and spoke aboutthe right of either house to expel certain members,citing specifically the Smith case. He said:

In 1807, when John Smith was the unhappy culprit,Mr. [John Quincy] Adams, as chairman of the com-mittee to whom the case was referred, believed thatthe Senate might well entertain even the higher andmore important question of expulsion, without“depriving him of rights secured by the constitu-tion of the United States.” Hear him—for nothingcan so fully illustrate his position in 1842, and hisdeliberate opinions in 1807, as to place them incontrast by quoting his own words. How curses willcome home! Smith represented himself “as solitary,friendless, and unskilled”; and intimated that hisrights were about to be denied him by senators “li-able, so long as they held their offices, to have hiscase made their own.” The chairman, in his “prideof place,” not dreaming that his own words wereprophetic of his own future condition, replied: “Thecommittee are not unaware that, in the vicissitudesof human events, no member of this body can besure that his conduct will never be made a subjectof inquiry and decision before the assembly towhich he belongs. They are aware that, in thecourse of proceeding which the Senate may sanc-tion, its members are marking out a precedentwhich may hereafter apply to themselves. They aresensible that the principles upon which they haveacted ought to have the same operation upon theirown claims to privilege as upon those of Mr. Smith;the same relation to the rights of their constituentswhich they have to those of the legislature which herepresents.”

What John Smith did with the remainder of hislife remains unknown; what is known is that hemoved in 1812 to West Florida (now Louisiana),settling for a time in Pensacola and later in St.Francisville, now in Louisiana. He died in St. Fran-cisville on 30 July 1824.

References: Cox, Isaac J.,“Smith, John,” in Allen Johnsonand Dumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary ofAmerican Biography, X vols. and 10 supplements(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995),IX:296–297; Pitcher, M. Avis,“John Smith, FirstSenator from Ohio and his Connections with AaronBurr,” Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly,45 (1936), 68–75; Speech of Mr. Black, of Georgia, onthe Right of Members to Their Seats in the House ofRepresentatives. Delivered in the House ofRepresentatives, February 12, 1844 (Washington, DC:Printed at the Globe Office, 1844), 11; Wilhelmy,Robert W.,“Senator John Smith and the Aaron BurrConspiracy,” Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin, 28(Spring 1970), 39–60.

Special Prosecutor (Federal)See Independent Counsel Statute

Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S.ConstitutionSection of the United States Constitution provid-ing that legislators cannot he held criminally liablefor words spoken on the floor of the U.S. House orU.S. Senate, which the Supreme Court has inter-preted to protect “against inquiry into acts thatoccur in the regular course of the legislativeprocess and into the motivation for those acts.”Located in Article 1, Section 1, Clause 6, the clausereads, “They shall in all cases, except treason,felony and breach of the peace, be privileged fromarrest during their attendance at the session oftheir respective Houses, and in going to and re-turning from the same; and for any speech or de-bate in either House, they shall not be questionedin any other place.” Legislators under potentialcorruption charges have used this clause to shieldthemselves from inquiries into activities that in-volve their official duties.

The immunity for lawmakers from prosecutionfor speech pursuant to their legislative duties hasits origins in the fight between the English Parlia-ment and the king over control of the nation. Dur-ing the reign of Richard II (1396–1397), one mem-

306 Special Prosecutor (Federal)

ber of Parliament, Thomas Haxey, was thrown intoprison and condemned to death for introducing abill calling for the reduction of royal household ex-penditures. Richard was murdered before Haxeycould be put to death, and his successor, Henry IV,set aside the judgment. When Henry VII threwRichard Strode, another member of Parliament,into prison in 1512 for trying to regulate the En-glish tin industry, Parliament enacted a law an-nulling the judgment against Strode, releasing himfrom prison and declaring null and void all futureattempts by English monarchs to regulate thespeech of members of Parliament. This law wasfollowed by the monarchy until Charles I, in 1632,imprisoned Sir John Elliot and William and Valen-tine Strode (no known relation to the aforemen-tioned Richard Strode) for speaking against theCrown in Parliament. Elliot died in the Tower ofLondon, and it was not until 1643 that the Strodeswere released because Parliament had raised anarmy to fight the king. In 1689, as part of the En-glish Bill of Rights, Parliament declared “that theFreedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings inParliament, ought not to be impeached or ques-tioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”

The drafters of the Articles of Confederationwere so concerned about this freedom that theyincorporated into that document as Article V,“Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shallnot be impeached or questioned in any court orplace out of Congress.” The Speech or DebateClause was inserted into the Constitution withoutdebate or dissent—James Wilson, one of the sign-ers of the Constitution, penned,“In order to enableand encourage a representative of the public todischarge his public trust with firmness and suc-cess, it is indispensably necessary, that he shouldenjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that heshould be protected from the resentment of everyone, however powerful, to whom the exercise ofthat liberty may occasion offence.”James Madison,one of the framers of the Constitution, wrote inFederalist No. 48:

It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly be-longing to one of the departments, ought not to bedirectly and completely administered by either ofthe other departments. It is equally evident, thatneither of them ought to possess directly or indi-rectly, an overruling influence over the others in the

administration of their respective powers. It willnot be denied, that power is of an encroaching na-ture, and that it ought to be effectually restrainedfrom passing the limits assigned to it. After dis-criminating therefore in theory, the several classesof power, as they may in their nature be legislative,executive, or judiciary; the next and most difficulttask, is to provide some practical security for eachagainst the invasion of the others. What this secu-rity ought to be, is the great problem to be solved.

This right is considered one of the most funda-mental to the system of checks and balances,which is a major component of the American sys-tem of government. The clause has been used bothby those claiming heroic causes and those whoeventually fell in ignominy. The Speech or DebateClause slowed an investigation into a committeethat entered the Pentagon Papers into a hearing re-port and also delayed a probe into wrongdoing byformer House Ways and Means Chairman DanRostenkowski (D-IL). The Supreme Court has vis-ited the issue of the use of the clause in five sepa-rate cases: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168(1881); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951);United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966); Dom-browsky v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); and Powellv. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). Justice SandraDay O’Connor wrote in Flanagan v. United States,465 U.S. 259 (1984), “Similarly, the right guaran-teed by the Speech or Debate Clause is more thanthe right not to be convicted for certain legislativeactivities: it is the right not to ‘be questioned’about them—that is, not to be tried for them.” InUnited States v. Helstoski, 422 U.S. 477 (1971), ChiefJustice Burger wrote that the clause’s intent is “topreserve the constitutional structure of separate,coequal, and independent branches of govern-ment. The English and American history of theprivilege suggests that any lesser standard wouldrisk intrusion by the Executive and the Judiciaryinto the sphere of protected legislative activities.”The right of the Senate to use its investigativepowers under the clause, which fall under thepower of a “legitimate legislative sphere,” is ab-solute—so said the Court in Eastland v. UnitedStates Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975).However, in an earlier case, United States v. Brew-ster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972), the same Court held thatthe sole exception to the clause was an inquiry into

Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution 307

alleged criminal conduct by a congressman orsenator aside from his or her actions as a memberof Congress.

See also United States v. BrewsterReferences: Andrews, James De Witt, ed., The Works of

James Wilson: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ofthe United States and Professor of Law in the College ofPhiladelphia, Being his Public Discourses UponJurisprudence and the Political Science, IncludingLectures and Professor of Law, 1790–1792, 2 vols.(Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1896), II:38; Elliot,Jonathan, ed., The Debates in the Several StateConventions on the Adoption of the FederalConstitution, as Recommended by the GeneralConvention at Philadelphia in 1787. Together with theJournal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin’sletter, Yates’s Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginiaand Kentucky Resolutions of ’98-’99, and otherIllustrations of the Constitution. Collected and Revisedfrom Contemporary Publications, by Jonathan Elliott.Published under the Sanction of Congress, Printed forthe editor, 5 vols. (Washington, DC: Printed for theeditor, 1836–1845),V:406; Farrand, Max, ed., TheRecords of the Federal Convention of 1787, 3 vols.(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911), II:246;Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 266 (1984);Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of StatePapers: Domestic Series, of the Reign of William andMary. Preserved in the Public Record Office. Edited byWilliam John Hardy, 5 vols. (London, Printed for HisMajesty’s Stationery Office by Eyre and Spottiswoode,1895–1906), session 2, chapter 2; Helstoski v. UnitedStates, 442 U.S. 477, 491 (1979); “History of theFoundations of the Speech and Debate Clause,” inTrevelyan, George Macaulay, History of England (NewYork: Longmans, Green, 1927), 335–336, Tenney v.Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 371 n.2, (1951); Jefferson,Thomas, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Collectedand Edited by Paul Leicester Ford, 10 vols., PaulLeicester Ford, ed. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,1892–1899),VIII:322; Lederkramer, David M.,“AStatutory Proposal for Case-by-Case CongressionalWaiver of the Speech or Debate Privilege in BriberyCases,” Cardozo Law Review, 3:3 (Spring 1982),465–518.

Star Route FraudsScandal in which bribes were given to postal offi-cials in exchange for plum routes of mail sendingand delivery. In the nineteenth century mail wasdelivered in the western and southern UnitedStates via the sale of postal routes to locals whocould deliver the mail to rural areas at the lowestcost possible. Called “Star Routes” because an as-terisk appeared next to them on official post office

department documents, this program allowed formail delivery to some of the most remote areas ofthe western United States. Mail was delivered byhorse, buggy, and cart. Historian J. MartinKlotsche wrote that after the Civil War these routessprang up.“In time,” he explained,“the large unoc-cupied regions between the Pacific Coast and the‘jumping-off place’ were filled in and by the[1870s] weekly, semi-weekly, and daily mails werebeing carried to what at one time had been consid-ered inaccessible regions. So important had the‘star service’ become that by 1880 the total annualtransportation amounted to over 75 millionmiles.”

In 1880 James A. Garfield, a member of the U.S.House of Representatives from Ohio, was electedpresident. As soon as he took office the followingMarch, he discovered that the Star Route programwas rife with massive fraud and corruption—acircle of officials, mostly in Garfield’s own Republi-can Party, had used the Star Route program to linetheir own pockets at the same time that serviceswere either cut or nonexistent. It is estimated bysome that approximately $4 million dollars wasstolen from government coffers. He also discov-ered that the former postmaster general, John A. J.Creswell, had investigated these frauds in 1869and 1870, but had dismissed all claims of corrup-tion. A House committee investigation in 1872looked into the matter, but no charges werebrought forward.

Upon taking office and discovering the fraud,Garfield ordered Postmaster General ThomasLemuel James to investigate the corruption.Garfield allegedly told James “Go ahead [and in-vestigate]. Regardless of where or whom you hit, Idirect you to probe this ulcer to the bottom andthen to cut it out.” He added that “the proposed in-vestigation must be aimed at a system, and not atmen . . . that if the inquiry should disclose the factthat any person or persons had been guilty of cor-ruption or fraud, that person or those personsmust be handed over to the Department of Jus-tice.” Garfield also named William Cook, a crimi-nal attorney, to aid James with any criminal prose-cutions. In his own internal inquiry inside the PostOffice Department, James discovered that the sec-ond assistant postmaster general, Thomas J.Brady, was involved, and forced Brady’s resigna-tion. Brady had aided to increase compensation to

308 Star Route Frauds

Star Route contractors, many of whom were hisfriends. With Brady’s ouster, the investigation cen-tered on one of the contractors, former U.S. Sena-tor Stephen W. Dorsey. Dorsey, who served in theU.S. Senate from Arkansas (1873–1879), alsoserved as chairman of the Republican NationalCommittee during the 1880 election and had beeninstrumental in Garfield’s election. Letters laterturned up showed that when Garfield was com-posing his cabinet, Dorsey expressed his dissatis-faction with several reformist members beingnamed, most notably Thomas L. James in the PostOffice Department. When Brady was forced out,Dorsey threatened in a letter to The World of NewYork that if he were targeted for prosecution hewould name those officers of the party who wereinvolved in the fraud, corruption that he saidhelped to carry Indiana for the Republicans in1880.

On 2 July 1881, Garfield was shot by a crazedmental patient, and while he lingered over thesummer the Star Route investigation slowly fadedfrom the public. In 19 September 1881 Garfieldsuccumbed to his wounds, and Vice PresidentChester Alan Arthur was sworn in as his successor.Dorsey, seeing Arthur as more pliable thanGarfield, asked to meet with the new president, butwas refused. In fact, Arthur’s message to Congressin December called attention not only to the inves-tigations but also to his push for reforms in the de-partment.

On 4 March 1882, a federal grand jury in Wash-ington, D.C., indicted seven men, including Bradyand Dorsey, on charges of defrauding the govern-ment. The trial for the two men began on 1 June1882. From the start, the prosecution was ham-pered by several factors—one was in the choice ofone of the prosecutors, A. M. Gibson, who, it waslater proved, had been paid $2,500 by one StarRoute contractor. He was eventually removed fromthe case.Another factor was that the Star Route de-fense all pointed to a government conspiracy as thetrue cause of the prosecutions. The prosecution attrial presented 115 witnesses and more than 3,600exhibits. When the jury returned with verdicts, twolower defendants were acquitted, two were foundguilty, and for the rest there was a hung jury. Thejudge set aside the guilty verdicts, calling them“unreasonable.” The men, including Dorsey andBrady, were retried in late 1882 and 1883, but all

were found not guilty. Other cases around thecountry of lesser figures in the scandal also led tonot guilty verdicts. To recover some of the fundsstolen by those targeted, the government institutednumerous civil lawsuits, but local judges who sym-pathized with the defendants dismissed all ofthem—one as late as 1922. When the governmentattempted to prosecute alleged acts of bribery ofjurors, only one went to a jury trial, and that casewas dismissed by Grover Cleveland’s postmastergeneral, William F. Vilas. In total, of all the StarRoute trials, only two lesser figures, Thomas McDe-vitt and Christian Price, were convicted on chargesof defrauding the government and sent to prison.When the Democrats retook control of the Houseof Representatives in 1883, they opened an investi-gation into the frauds, but this investigation endedwith no further prosecutions.

The Star Route frauds were a turning point ingovernment corruption, leading to the passage ofcivil service reform. It also led to the wholesale re-pudiation of Republican rule in the 1884 elections.

See also Dorsey, Stephen Wallace; Ingersoll, Robert GreenReferences: Klotsche, J. Martin,“The Star Route Cases,”

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXII:3(December 1935), 407–418; “Star Route Frauds,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Facts onFile, 1989), 307; Star Route Transportation of Mails,House Report 1701, 47th Congress, 1st Session(1882), 1–6; Testimony Relating to Expenditures in theDepartment of Justice. The Star-Route Cases, HouseMiscellaneous Doc. 38 (Part 2), 48th Congress, 1stSession (1884), 1–9.

Starr, Kenneth Winston (1946– )Solicitor General of the United States (1989–1993), independent counsel in the Whitewater andMonica Lewinsky investigations (1994–2000), thefirst independent counsel to bring impeachmentcharges against the focus of his investigation,President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton. Starrwas born in Vernon, Texas, on 21 July 1946, the sonof a Baptist minister. He received his education inTexas, then earned a bachelor’s degree fromGeorge Washington University in 1968, his mas-ter’s degree in political science from Brown Uni-versity in Rhode Island in 1969, and law degreefrom Duke University in 1973. Because of his fam-ily’s poverty, Starr sold Bibles door to door to payfor his college education. After he received his law

Starr, Kenneth Winston 309

license, Starr went to work as a clerk for JudgeDavid W. Dyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit. Two years later, Starrjoined the Los Angeles, California, law firm of Gib-son, Dunn & Crutcher. In 1977 he became an asso-ciate partner in the firm.

In 1975 Starr was appointed a law clerk toSupreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, aposition he held for two years. He left his law firmto serve Burger, but, after leaving the Court, re-joined the firm as an associate partner. One of thepartners of the firm was William French Smith, aclose friend and confidante of former CaliforniaGovernor Ronald Reagan. In 1980 Reagan waselected president and named Smith his attorneygeneral. Starr, a conservative Republican, wasnamed a counselor at the Department of Justice.

After only three years in Washington, Starr wasnamed by Reagan to a seat on the U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one levelbelow the U.S. Supreme Court. Sitting on that

court with Starr were Antonin Scalia, who wouldone day sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and RobertH. Bork, a former solicitor general who was namedto the court by Reagan in 1987 but defeated in theSenate. Starr’s conservative philosophy shonethrough in his decisions—including strikingdown an affirmative action plan for the District ofColumbia—but his honesty and integrity earnedhim respect even among judges who disagreedwith him.

In 1988 Reagan’s vice president, George H. W.Bush, was elected president. He invited Starr toserve as his solicitor general, the chief govern-ment officer who argues the cases of the UnitedStates before the U.S. Supreme Court. Starr en-joyed his work on the Court of Appeals—often astepping stone to a Supreme Court appoint-ment—so he waited several days before acceptingthe offer. As solicitor general (1989–1993), Starrargued several important cases before theSupreme Court, most notably arguing that burn-ing an American flag was an activity not protectedby the First Amendment; as well, he penned briefswith a conservative outlook on such issues asabortion. Following the election of Bill Clinton in1992, Starr left office and became a partner in theWashington office of the Chicago law firm Kirk-land and Ellis. His clientele included numerousbusiness interests.

On 5 August 1994, Starr came back into thepublic eye when a three-judge panel in Washing-ton named him the new independent counsel tosucceed Robert B. Fiske Jr. in investigating theWhitewater affair, a complicated land deal inArkansas in which President Bill Clinton and hiswife, Hillary, had been involved. Fiske was delvingthrough allegations that the Clintons had usedshady means to finance the land deal when thecourt decided that Starr should replace him. Thedecision sent shockwaves through the media: whowas this man Starr, and why did the three-judgepanel decide Fiske needed to be replaced? It be-came known that several Republican senators,most notably Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina,had written to the court complaining about Fiske’sdilatory approach to the investigation. Starr tookup his duties.

Starr first went to Arkansas to investigateWhitewater. (See the entry on Whitewater for thefull information on this scandal.) He was later

310 Starr, Kenneth Winston

Ken Starr reading from the U.S. Constitution during theClinton impeachment inquiry of the House JudiciaryCommittee on November 19, 1998. Starr was also theindependent counsel in the Whitewater and Monica Lewinskyinvestigations (1994–2000). (Reuters NewMedia Inc./CORBIS)

asked to look into such issues as the suicide ofWhite House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr. in 1993,and the 1993 firing of White House Travel Officeemployees. Starr got several convictions relating toWhitewater, most notably Arkansas Governor JimGuy Tucker and the Clintons’ Whitewater businesspartners Jim and Susan McDougal.

In January 1998 a former White House em-ployee, Linda R. Tripp, brought to Starr severalaudiotapes. On these tapes, a former aide to Clin-ton, Monica Lewinsky, bragged that she had had along-running affair with Clinton. The presidentwas in the midst of a lawsuit brought by a formerArkansas worker, Paula Corbin Jones, in which itwas alleged that Clinton asked for sexual favorsfrom Jones and then retaliated against her whenshe resisted by hindering her career advance-ment. The U.S. Supreme Court had allowed herlawsuit to continue while Clinton was in office,and in January 1998 Clinton was deposed. Tripp’stapes implied that Lewinsky, asked by Jones’s at-torneys for information, was going to lie underoath in a deposition—and that Clinton had askedher to do it. Further, Lewinsky told of the destruc-tion of evidence, again ordered by Clinton. Lewin-sky said that she was being rewarded for her si-lence with a high-paying job arranged by Clinton’sfriend, civil rights advocate Vernon E. Jordan Jr. Ininvestigating Whitewater, Starr had suspected thatJordan was the middleman between Clinton andWebster Hubbell, a former assistant attorney gen-eral and law partner of Hillary Clinton, whenHubbell was allegedly paid off to keep silent aboutWhitewater.

When the allegations of Clinton’s affair withLewinsky and his role in trying to buy her silencewere uncovered, it exploded across the nation.Clinton denied all of the allegations in an angryspeech, his wife went on national television and al-leged that the whole scandal was part of some“right-wing conspiracy” to attack Clinton, and hispolitical allies openly declared “war” on Starr. Asthe months of investigation followed, Starrdoggedly followed uncovered evidence that Lewin-sky did indeed have an affair with Clinton and thatthe president had lied under oath before a grandjury. Starr, as part of his duties as an independentcounsel, sent a referral report to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, demonstrating several crimes byClinton that could lead to impeachment. Starr’s re-

port, laden with talk of sex and crimes by Clinton,was a national scandal in itself.

In December 1998 the U.S. House of Represen-tatives impeached Clinton on three articles dealingwith lying under oath and obstruction of justice.Starr thus became the first—and only—indepen-dent counsel to send a referral report to the Housethat led to impeachment articles being adopted.Clinton was tried in the Senate and acquitted on12 February 1999, and Starr was seen as anoverzealous prosecutor. He left the independentcounsel’s office in 2000 and returned to his lawpractice.

References: Labaton, Stephen,“Judges Appoint NewProsecutor for Whitewater; Ruling Is Surprise,” NewYork Times, 6 August 1994, A1; Lacayo, Richard, andAdam Cohen,“Inside Starr and His Operation, Time, 9February 1998, 42–48; Manegold, Catherine S.,“Kenneth Winston Starr: A Prosecutor Overnight,”New York Times, 6 August 1994, 12; “Starr, KennethW.,” in Clifford Thompson, ed., Current Biography1998 (New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1998), 50–54.

Sullivan, Timothy Daniel (1862–1913)New York political boss, known as “Big Tim” and“The Big Feller,” whose death in a strange accidentleft his place in history obscured. Sullivan was infact two men: one who worked for the needy ofNew York and one who profited from his own cor-ruption. Born in the rough Five Points section ofNew York City on 23 July 1862, he was the son ofDaniel Sullivan, an Irish laborer, and CatherineConnelly. Daniel Sullivan had emigrated, as did hiswife, from Ireland during the Potato Famine of the1840s, and their son was born in a tenement in theLower East Side of Manhattan. Timothy grew up inpoverty, exacerbated when his father died in 1867,leaving his mother to care for four small children.When Catherine Sullivan remarried, her family’scircumstances changed little as they moved to an-other ghetto. She did laundry, and one of TimothySullivan’s sisters worked in a sweatshop. Sullivanhimself started working at the age of seven, sellingnewspapers on corners. Four years later, when hefinished grammar school, he left school and sur-vived on the little education he had received. Heearned a reputation as a hard fighter who defendedthe poorer newsboys.

In 1882, when Sullivan was twenty, he hadsaved enough money to purchase a saloon. As a

Sullivan, Timothy Daniel 311

member of the Whyos, one of the city’s most noto-rious street gangs, Sullivan made his saloon ameeting place for the gang. However, Sullivan sawadvancement in politics instead of street robbery,so in 1886 he ran for a seat in the state assembly,representing the Five Points area. As he had whenhe was younger, he made his name in politics bystanding up for the rights of the poor and down-trodden. However, rumors surrounded Sullivanthat he was knee deep—if not deeper—in mas-sive corruption, including taking proceeds fromprostitutes working the seedy streets of New YorkCity. Daniel Czitrom wrote on Sullivan’s defense tothese charges:

On April 17, 1889, members of the New York StateAssembly crowded around an obscure young col-league as he angrily and tearfully defended himselfthat he was the boon companion of thieves, bur-glars, and murderers. Timothy Sullivan had firstbeen elected to represent the Five Points slum dis-trict of New York City in 1886, at the age of 23. Hisaccuser was the formidable Thomas E. Byrnes,chief inspector of the New York police department,hero of a popular series of mystery novels, and themost famous detective in the nation. Sullivan hadangered the inspector by opposing a bill that wouldhave given the city police the power to jail on sightany person who had ever been arrested. Afterlearning that his two saloons had been suddenly“pulled” for excise law violations and after readingByrnes’s denunciations of him in the New Yorkpress, Sullivan disregarded the advice of friends,rose on the assembly floor, and made what every-one agreed was an extraordinary response.“Thespeech,” reported the New York Herald, “was givenin the peculiar tone and language of a genuineFourth Warder, and while was interesting in thatrespect to the countrymen, its tone was so manlythat Tim gained much sympathy. If the Inspector’sbill had come up today it would have been beatenout of sight.”

As a member of the state assembly, Sullivanmade a name for himself—one that lasts to thisday—when he introduced a bill to make it a crimeto carry a concealed weapon in the state. Still onthe books, it is known as Sullivan’s Law. One of thewomen who lobbied him for increased protectionfor female laborers was future Secretary of LaborFrances Perkins. Sullivan was an early advocate ofthe suffrage for women.

Despite his protestations of innocence, Sullivanwas widely involved in a number of crookedschemes that netted his gang and Tammany Hall,whose backing he had, money and influence in thecity wards they controlled. Historian Jay RobertNash explained Sullivan’s connections this way:

For most of the nineteenth century, the political for-tunes of New York City were in the hands of a puis-sant ethnic-Irish cabal that came to be known asTammany Hall. Through the usual blend of charityand patronage dispensed through the wards by thedistrict leaders, the Tammany “Democracy,” as cor-rupt and venal as it was, became an invincible polit-ical machine. It reached the height of its poweraround 1901, when “Big” Tim Sullivan, the swagger-ing boss of the Lower East Side, installed Tom Foleyas the Tammany leader of the rebellious second dis-trict. To ensure the victory of this saloon keeperagainst the respected incumbent Paddy Divver, Sul-livan brought in members of Paul Kelly’s Five PointsGang to form a human chain around the pollingplaces. Kelly’s gang was composed mostly of Ital-ians. The Irish residents of the Fourth Ward organ-ized their own gang to do battle, but the heavilyarmed Italians drove them away from the polls,while Police Chief William Dovery and his men pas-sively stood by. Devery was Sullivan’s erstwhile“business” partner, who regulated (as opposed tosuppressing) gambling and vice in the city.

Sullivan also involved himself in legitimateenterprises, such as theaters and vaudevillehouses. However, he earned the name “the Kingof the Underworld.”

His time in Albany done, in 1902 Sullivan ranas a Democrat for a seat in the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives. Elected, he served in the Fifty-eighthand Fifty-ninth Congresses (4 March 1903–27 July1906), resigning before his second term was overbecause he was bored. He returned to the statesenate in 1908 and 1910; in 1912 he was electedagain to a seat in the U.S. House of Representa-tives, but never took it. It was at that time that hedescended into madness, possibly brought on bysyphilis. In January 1913 he was declared insaneand committed to a sanitarium in Yonkers, NewYork, on 10 January 1913. However, he was latermoved to his brother’s home in East Chester, NewYork.

On 31 August 1913, Sullivan escaped from hisbrother’s home. Meandering along the railroad

312 Sullivan, Timothy Daniel

tracks near what is today the Pelham Parkway inNew York City, Sullivan wandered into the path of atrain and was struck and killed. The train so dis-figured him that he remained unidentified for daysin the morgue before a policeman recognized himjust before he was to be shipped to a potter’s field.After a huge funeral attended by thousands of hissupporters, Sullivan was buried in Calvary Ceme-tery in Long Island City, New York.

References: Baldwin, Peter C.,“Sullivan, Timothy Daniel,”in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds.,American National Biography, 24 vols. (New York:Oxford University Press 1999), 21:126–127; Czitrom,Daniel,“Underworlds and Underdogs: Big TimeSullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York,1889–1913,” Journal of American History, 78:2(September 1991), 536–558; “Sullivan, Timothy,” inJay Robert Nash, Encyclopedia of World Crime:Criminal Justice, Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4vols. (Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc, 1989), IV:2876.

Sulzer, William (1863–1941)United States representative from New York(1895–1912), governor of New York (1913), im-peached and removed from office because of nu-merous financial and other improprieties. Born onhis father’s farm near Elizabeth, New Jersey, on 18March 1863, he was the second son of seven chil-dren of Thomas Sulzer, a German immigrant, andLydia (née Jelleme) Sulzer. Of his siblings, twobrothers eventually died in the Spanish-AmericanWar, and a third brother, Charles Augustus Sulzer(1879–1919), served as a territorial delegate fromAlaska (1919). William Sulzer attended a countryschool near his home and when still young went towork on a ship sailing to South America. In 1877his family moved to the Lower East Side of NewYork City, and Sulzer worked while he attendedclasses first at the Cooper Union and then at Co-lumbia University. He studied law and in 1844 wasadmitted to the New York bar. He opened a prac-tice in that city. He also went to work for the Tam-many organization, the powerful political associa-tion that controlled jobs, patronage, and all otherpolitical services in New York City.

Five years after beginning his practice, Sulzerentered the political arena, running for and win-ning a seat in the New York state assembly, repre-senting the Lower East Side. He served in this postfor five years, rising to serve as speaker in 1893. In

1894 he gave up his assembly seat to run for a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives. Elected to theFifty-fourth Congress, he sat as chairman of theCommittee on Foreign Affairs and was a supporterof progressive causes, including the passage of agraduated income tax. He was reelected eighttimes, serving until 1 January 1913.

In 1912 Sulzer was nominated by the Demo-cratic Party of New York as their candidate for gov-ernor. He ran in a crowded field that included JobE. Hedges, the Republican, and Oscar S. Straus (aformer secretary of commerce and labor), on theIndependence League ticket. Despite his once hav-ing worked for the Tammany organization, Sulzerwas considered a reformer, and the head of Tam-many, Charles F. Murphy, backed him only reluc-tantly. Sulzer campaigned as “The People’s Gover-nor.” On 5 November 1912, Sulzer was electedgovernor. Immediately, he angered Tammany bydenying that organization patronage in Albanyand ordering investigations into scandals in stategovernment offices that were run by Tammany-backed appointees. An investigation into the High-way Department led to Sulzer’s dismissal of theDemocratic superintendent, C. Gordon Reel. How-ever, Sulzer was bipartisan in his attacks on stategovernment—he demanded that the Republicanwarden of Auburn prison be replaced with aDemocrat. When the state prison superintendent,Joseph F. Scott, refused, Sulzer fired Scott for being“inefficient, incompetent, derelict and neglectfulof duty.” When the state legislature refused to con-firm several of Sulzer’s appointees to state posi-tions, he initiated what some legislators called “areign of terror” on the state. One assemblyman,Anthony Griffin, wrote that “until we destroy theConstitution, I will not take the dictation of oneman as to what I shall do as a legislator. . . . [Sulzeris trying] to usurp legislative functions.” Griffindenounced the governor as “Sulzer the First.”

To fight Sulzer, the state legislature establisheda committee under the direction of state SenatorJames J. Frawley, a friend of Tammany, to investi-gate how state government was running. HistorianRobert Wesser wrote:

Begun as a means of showing Sulzer “in his true lightto the voters,”the Frawley inquiry accomplishedmuch more. First in private investigations, then inpublic hearings in July and August, the legislative

Sulzer, William 313

snoopers unraveled a web of wrongdoing and chi-canery that made a mockery of the governor’scharges against the “crooks”and “grafters”of Tam-many and its allies. They discovered that his widelypublicized scrutiny of the prison department was afarce and a fraud. They heard testimony that he indi-rectly bargained with legislators for their support ofhis primary bill. They found that after the campaignof 1912 Sulzer had failed to report thousands of dol-lars as political contributions in violation of state law.Where had the money gone? The investigatorslearned that some of it went into Sulzer’s personal ac-count with the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company.Some of it also made it way into a secret investmentaccount held by the New York brokerage firm ofFuller and Gray. Known as “number 100”on thecompany books, this account was used to purchasenearly $12,000 of stocks in a mid-western railroad.The stocks were delivered to Sulzer by a “bagman.”The committee then heard testimony about the exis-tence of a second investment account, this one withHarris and Fuller, and designated “number 63.”Sulzer had utilized this account, kept open until July15, 1913, to speculate in the market at the very timethat he was sponsoring Wall Street reform legislation.Even the committee members who thought the worstof Sulzer were shocked by these disclosures.

In the end, the Frawley Committee found evi-dence of massive and gross fraud perpetrated bySulzer. Jacob Friedman, one of those who wrote onSulzer’s impeachment, explained, “The man whohad traveled from one end of the state to the other,calling his opponents crooks and grafters, hadhimself been caught in dishonorable dealings.” On8 August 1913 the Frawley Committee hearingsended, with the chairman declaring that the evi-dence already heard had proved Sulzer had vio-lated the New York Corrupt Practices Act. Sulzerdenied all—and also added that he could not beremoved from office for any crime committedprior to his taking office on 1 January 1913. Imme-diately word leaked that a resolution of impeach-ment would be introduced in the lower house ofthe legislature. On 12 August, seventy-two Demo-crats and seven Republicans voted to impeach,while twenty-six Democrats, sixteen Republicans,and three Progressives voted against it. A last-ditch confession by his wife that it was she whoforged her husband’s names on stocks and bankstatements did not halt the action. With his im-peachment, Sulzer was effectively removed as gov-

ernor, but he refused to relinquish power to Lieu-tenant Governor Martin H. Glynn.

Sulzer’s impeachment trial opened on 18 Sep-tember 1913 in front of the New York state senate,presided over by Judge Edgar T. Cullen. There werefew “new” revelations—much of the evidence pre-sented was the same that had been examined bythe Frawley Committee. Representing Sulzer wascriminal attorney Louis Marshall, while the prose-cution was presented on behalf of the impeach-ment managers by Judge Alton B. Parker, who hadbeen the Democrat’s presidential candidate in1904 and was himself a former chief justice of theNew York State Court of Appeals. Sulzer’s attorneysfirst argued that because the impeachment votehad been passed during a special session, whenonly legislation proposed by the governor could beheard, the vote was unconstitutional. When thatfailed, the defense maintained that the acts allegedoccurred before Sulzer took office and were out-side the scope of the legislature’s authority. One ofSulzer’s counsel said, “Was the proceeding insti-tuted because of a desire to accomplish a publicgood, or was it for the purpose of getting rid of apublic official who was performing his duty?” Theevidence against Sulzer was damning, and many(including the newspapers, which reported everyminute of the trial) speculated he would take thestand in his own defense. Sulzer even said that“amazing revelations” would come from his testi-mony. In the end, he did not testify, perhaps be-cause his attorneys knew that he could be cross-examined on the bank accounts that damned hiscase. On 15 October 1913, the Senate voted forty toseventeen to convict Sulzer on three of the eightcounts against him, count one being his filing of afalse campaign statement, count two that he com-mitted perjury in swearing to that statement’struthfulness, and count four that Sulzer sup-pressed evidence by threatening witnesses whowere to appear before the Frawley Committee.Cullen voted against conviction, but said of Sulzerthat his crimes were of “such moral turpitude anddelinquency that if they had been committed dur-ing the respondent’s incumbency of office I thinkthey would require his removal.” The followingday, the Senate voted forty-three to twelve to re-move Sulzer from office, and at that time Lieu-tenant Governor Glynn was sworn in as the newgovernor.

314 Sulzer, William

Despite becoming the first (and, of this writ-ing, the only) New York governor to be im-peached and removed from office, Sulzer was notbarred from further public office and in Novem-ber 1913, just a month after he was convicted, hewas elected as an Independent to a seat in thestate assembly. The following year he was nomi-nated by both the American Party and the Prohi-bition Party for governor of New York. GovernorGlynn, his successor, was defeated by Charles S.Whitman, a former prosecutor. In 1916 Sulzerrefused a nomination for president by the Amer-ican Party. Sulzer left office and returned to thepractice of law, in which he remained until hisdeath. In 1928 he came out against the electionof Governor Al Smith for president, and lettersfrom the time show Sulzer to have hated Smithfor Roman Catholicism and lack of support forProhibition.

On 16 September 1941, Sulzer collapsed at hislaw office and died in bed on 6 November 1941 atthe age of seventy-eight. His obituary was rele-gated to the back pages of the New York statenewspapers.

References: Friedman, Jacob Alexis, The Impeachment ofGovernor William Sulzer (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1939), 147; “Gov. Sulzer DeniesEverything After an All Night Conference, BoldlyDeclares He Did Not Speculate in Wall Street,” NewYork Times, 11 August 1913, 1; Morganthau, Henry,“All in a Life-Time—Chapters from anAutobiography. II. What I Learned From Sulzer andTammany,” The World’s Work, XLII:5 (September1921), 465–479; New York State, Court for Trial ofImpeachment, Proceedings of the Court for the Trial ofImpeachments. The People of the State of New York, bythe Assembly thereof, against William Sulzer asGovernor. Held at the Capital in the City of Albany,New York, September 18, 1913, to October 17, 1913(Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, Printers, 1913); “Sulzer,Guilty on Three Counts, to Be Ousted from Office To-Day, Acquitted of Bribery Charge,” New York Times, 17October 1913, 1; “Sulzer, William,” in Robert Sobeland John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1789–1978, 4 vols.(Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1978), III:1097; Weiss,Nancy J.,“Sulzer, William,” in Allen Johnson andDumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography, X vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), 3:751–752;Wesser, Robert F.,“The Impeachment of a Governor:William Sulzer and the Politics of Excess,” New YorkHistory, LX:4 (October 1979), 407–438; “WilliamSulzer, Ex-Governor, 78,” New York Times, 7November 1941, 23.

Swartwout-Hoyt ScandalNefarious doings in the Port of New York Collec-tors’ Office, exposed in 1841 by President JohnTyler. In 1829 President Andrew Jackson appointedSamuel Swartwout as collector for the Port of NewYork. During his nine years in that position, Swart-wout stole millions of dollars and, in 1838, whenPresident Martin Van Buren did not retain him,Swartwout sailed to Europe carrying the moneyfrom nine years of corruption. Van Buren orderedan audit of the office, which showed that Swart-wout had stolen nearly $2.25 million. Van Burennamed an old friend, Jesse D. Hoyt, as collector ofNew York to oversee correcting the problems thatallowed Swartwout to get away with such a degreeof theft. What Van Buren did not know is that Hoytsaw his own opportunity and began to steal fromthe office as well.

Rumors of Hoyt’s fraud began to surface in1841, after President John Tyler had taken officefollowing the death of President William HenryHarrison after only a month in office. In May 1841,only a month in office himself, Tyler, without theapproval of Congress, established a three-mancommittee, headed by Senator George Poindexterof Mississippi, to investigate the problems andfraud in the New York Collectors’ Office. In addi-tion to Poindexter, Tyler named two Boston manu-facturers, Samuel Lawrence and William W. Stone,as private members of the panel. The commissiondiscovered the Hoyt, in addition to Swartwout, hadembezzled government funds.

The Whig-dominated House, despite hearing offraud from two Democratic administrations, feltmore slighted that Tyler had named a commissionwithout their authority and had named two pri-vate citizens, to be paid with government funds, tothe panel. On 29 April 1842, when Poindexter de-livered the report to Tyler, the House demanded tosee it. Tyler assented and presented a copy the fol-lowing day. Again, despite the findings of massivefraud, the House passed a resolution asserting thata president had “no rightful authority” to name acommission to investigate fraud or other corrup-tion and that the president could not name privatecitizens to a commission to be compensated “atpublic expense.” The resolution was tabled at therequest of Representative John Quincy Adams, theformer president, but the final provision of the res-olution, that private citizens were not to be paid

Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal 315

with public funds to sit on commissions, wasadded to an appropriations bill enacted in Augustof that same year.

References: Review of the Communications of SamuelLawrence and William W. Stone, Manufacturers ofBoston: To the Speaker of the House of Representatives,on the Subject of the Investigation at the New YorkCustom-House, in Two Letters. From the Hon. Geo.Poindexter (Washington, DC: National IntelligenceOffice, 1842); Schultz, Jeffrey D.,“PresidentialScandals” (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000), 71–72,77; United States Congress, House, Select Committeeto Inquire into the Causes and Extent of the LateDefalcations of the Custom-House at New York andOther Places, Report of the Minority of the SelectCommittee of the House of Representatives, Appointedon the Seventeenth of January, 1839, to Inquire into theCauses and Extent of the Late Defalcations of theCustom-House at New York and Other Places(Washington, DC: Blair and Rives, 1839).

Swayne, Charles Henry (1842–1907)Judge for the Northern District of Florida (1890–1907), impeached but acquitted in the U.S. Senatein 1905 on charges of corruption, which may havebeen politically motivated. Little is known aboutSwayne. He was born in Newcastle County,Delaware, on 10 August 1842, the son of Henry andAnn (née Parry) Swayne, and the grandson of JoelSwayne, a Society of Friends (Quaker) missionaryto the Seneca Indians at Allegheny, New York.Henry Swayne served as a member of theDelaware legislature (1846–1847, 1880–1881). Hisson Charles grew up on his family’s farm and re-ceived his education in public schools and at anacademy in Wilmington. Brought up in the Quakerreligion, he served as a principal of a Society ofFriend’s scientific and mathematical school inWest Chester, Pennsylvania. In 1869 he moved toPhiladelphia, where he studied law under a localattorney, Joseph B. Townsend, and at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania, from which he earned a lawdegree in 1871. He was admitted to the Pennsylva-nia bar that same year and practiced in that stateuntil he moved to Florida in 1884. In May 1889President Benjamin Harrison named him a judgeof the District Court for the Northern District ofFlorida.

The state election of 1888 in Florida occasionedmany allegations of fraud and corruption, andmany of these charges, mainly against Democrats,

went before Judge Swayne, a lifelong Republican.Bitterness arose over his alleged handling of thecases, and Democrats swore to avenge his sentenc-ing of Democrats to prison. Starting in 1890,Florida Democrats sent memorials to the U.S.Congress, asking that Swayne be impeached. On 10December 1903, Representative William BaileyLamar (D-FL) presented a memorial from theFlorida legislature asking for Swayne’s impeach-ment. Lamar asked for an investigation, and theresolution was referred to the House JudiciaryCommittee. Despite the committee’s recommenda-tion of impeachment, Representative HenryWilbur Palmer of Pennsylvania asked for a delayso that the charges could be further investigated.On 9 December 1904, the Judiciary Committeeagain submitted a report recommending impeach-ment. The House adopted the report on 13 Decem-ber and asked a select committee to draw up im-peachment articles. Twelve articles were drawn up,and on 18 January 1905, Swayne was impeachedby the U.S. House of Representatives.

On 24 January 1905, only six days later, the firstfull impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate since thatof President Andrew Johnson in 1868 opened. (In1876 the Senate considered the impeachment offormer Secretary of War William Worth Belknap,but did not hold a trial because Belknap had re-signed his office.) Representative Palmer served asone of the House managers, along with JamesBreck Perkins of New York, Henry De Lamar Clay-ton of Alabama (who was later to serve as a Housemanager in the impeachment trial of Judge RobertW. Archbald in 1912), David Albaugh De Armondof Missouri, and David Highbaugh Smith of Ken-tucky. The charges against Swayne were small: Ar-ticle I, for instance, charged that as a judge he sub-mitted an expense report for travel in which hecharged $230, which the House alleged was false;Article VIII claimed that Swayne “did knowinglyand unlawfully” hold an attorney in contempt. Intotal, he was accused of filing false travel vouchers,improperly traveling on rail cars, and for livingoutside his district while he looked for a home in-side of it. Swayne’s attorneys admitted their clientwas guilty of the offenses, but called each one “in-advertent.” The Senate, on 27 February 1905, ac-quitted Swayne of all charges, holding that none ofthe crimes advanced to the level of “high crimesand misdemeanors,” the standard set for convic-

316 Swayne, Charles Henry

tion of impeachment. It was decided during theSwayne trial that if an impeachment trial would beheld, it should be before a small, established groupof Senators sitting as a jury, with their recommen-dation going to the full Senate. Senator George F.Hoar of Massachusetts recommended the change,and his suggestion is now embodied in Rule XI ofthe Senate rules.

Swayne returned to the bench, but it appearsfrom all historical evidence that he was physicallybroken by the impeachment. He died two yearslater, his name barely known if at all.

References: Johnson, Rossiter, ed., The Twentieth CenturyBiographical Dictionary of Notable Americans, 10 vols.(Boston: The Biographical Society, 1904), X; UnitedStates Congress, House, Proceedings in the House ofRepresentatives, Fifty-Eighth Congress, Concerning theImpeachment of Charles Swayne, Judge of the NorthernDistrict of Florida (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1905).

Symington, John Fife, III (1945– )Governor of Arizona (1991–1997) who was con-victed of fraud and resigned from office, but waslater cleared by a federal court and pardoned byPresident Clinton in 2001. The scion of a famousfamily, John Fife Symington III was born in NewYork City on 12 August 1945, a great-grandson ofthe industrialist and steel magnate Henry ClayFrick and a cousin of William (Stuart) Symington,a powerful senator from Missouri who nearly be-came John F. Kennedy’s running mate in 1960. Heattended the prestigious Gillman Country DaySchool and earned a bachelor’s degree from Har-vard University in 1968. While in Harvard, he be-came politically active and was a supporter of Ari-zona Senator Barry Goldwater’s presidential run in1964.After his graduation, Symington went to Ari-zona, where he was assigned to Luke Air ForceBase near Tucson as a U.S. Air Force second lieu-tenant. He was eventually moved to the 621st Tac-tical Air Command in Thailand, overseeing airflights over Vietnam. For his service, which endedin 1971, Symington was awarded the Bronze Starfor meritorious service.

After returning from Vietnam, Symington set-tled in Phoenix, Arizona, then a small metropoliswith huge potential for growth. He invested in nu-merous properties, using his name and his reputa-tion to accumulate a small fortune. By 1990

Symington decided to run for governor. Symingtonran against Phoenix Mayor Terry Goddard, a Demo-crat, and defeated him in the November 1990 elec-tion, but because neither man had more than 50percent of the vote a runoff was held. On 26 Febru-ary 1991, Symington defeated Goddard to becomethe eighth Republican governor of Arizona sincestatehood in 1912. He pushed new education re-forms, the cleanup of waste from incineration, andtried to put an end to Indian gambling on reserva-tions in Arizona. He was reelected in 1994, easilydefeating supermarket magnate Eddie Basha.

Although Symington was never accused of dis-honesty in office, his business dealings prior to be-coming governor resulted in his undoing. On 13June 1996, Symington was indicted by an Arizonagrand jury on twenty-three counts of making falsefinancial statements, bankruptcy fraud, and wirefraud. The indictment charged that in the 1980sSymington had exaggerated his net worth to obtainbank loans for properties he wanted to buy andthat properties he had purchased had declaredbankruptcy. Symington went on trial in 1997, dur-ing which he charged that the allegations were po-litically motivated by a Democratic U.S. attorneyand that any irregularities in his financial state-ments were due to his tax advisors and not him.Despite this, Symington was convicted on 3 Sep-tember 1997 on seven counts, and one hour later heresigned as governor, making Jane Dee Hull thesecond female governor in Arizona history.Symington was sentenced to two and one-halfyears in prison, five years probation, and a $60,000fine, all of which were stayed pending appeal.

However, it appeared Symington’s convictionwas in trouble. A juror had been dismissed prior tothe verdict; she claimed that she had been removedbecause the jurors had made up their minds aboutSymington’s guilt and wanted her removed becauseshe stood for an acquittal. Almost immediately, itbecame apparent that the dismissal of the singlejuror was potential reversible error. And on appealto the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,this was one of Symington’s motions. On 22 June1999, that court agreed that the juror should nothave been removed and vacated Symington’s con-viction. Until late 2000, prosecutors were still look-ing at how they could retry the former governor.

Then, on 20 January 2001, his last day in of-fice, President Bill Clinton gave Symington a full

Symington, John Fife, III 317

pardon. The reasons behind why a Democraticpresident would pardon a Republican governor areshadowy, but they are appear to be this: ThomasCaplan, a Baltimore novelist who went to schoolwith Clinton at Georgetown University, was also afriend of Symington’s and asked the president topardon the embattled former governor. What Ca-plan, nor anyone else, didn’t know was that in col-lege Symington had rescued Clinton from drown-ing, and Clinton had never forgotten the favor.Whatever the reason, Symington, now a chef at atrendy Scottsdale, Arizona, restaurant, was ecstaticat the prospect that he was freed from future crim-inal charges. “I’m humbled and gratified,” he saidin an interview after word of the pardon came out.“I thank the president, and I praise God.”

References: Flannery, Pat,“Clinton Pardons Symington,”Arizona Republic, 21 January 2001, A1; “J. FifeSymington III,” in Marie Marmo Mullaney,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1988–1994 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1994), 27–31; Kelly, Charles, and Jerry Kammer,“Symington Conviction Overturned, Court Voids1997 Verdict,” Arizona Republic, 23 June 1999, A1;United States Congress, House, Committee onBanking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Subcommitteeon General Oversight and Investigations, Relationshipof Arizona Governor J. Fife Symington III withSouthwest Savings and Loan Association: Hearingbefore the Subcommittee on Oversight andInvestigations of the Committee on Banking, Finance,and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, OneHundred Second Congress, Second Session, February20, 1992 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1992).

318 Symington, John Fife, III

Talmadge, Herman Eugene (1913–2002)Governor of Georgia (1947, 1948–1953) and a U.S.senator from that state (1957–1981), who was de-nounced by the Senate in 1979 for financial mis-conduct. Born on his family’s farm near McRae,Georgia, on 9 August 1913, he is the son of EugeneTalmadge, a long-time Georgia politician whoserved as governor from 1933–1937, and from1941–1943. He studied at local schools in McRaeand then went to the University of Georgia atAthens, where he studied law and earned his lawdegree in 1936. When his father decided to run forgovernor in 1932, Herman Talmadge left school fora period of time to serve as his father’s campaignmanager. After earning his law degree, Talmadgewas admitted to the state bar in 1936 and com-menced the practice of law in Atlanta. In 1941,when World War II broke out, he volunteered forservice in the U.S. Navy and saw major action inthe Pacific theater of operations and, by the end ofthe conflict, when he was discharged, he had at-tained the rank of lieutenant commander.

It was at this time that Talmadge got caught upin one of the most interesting moments in Ameri-can political history. Eugene Talmadge, Herman’sfather, had served two separate terms as governorbefore leaving office in 1943. In 1946 the elder Tal-madge, called the “Wild Man from Sugar Creek,”de-cided to take on Governor Ellis Arnall for anotherterm. But unknown to many, Talmadge was in de-clining health. Word spread among his supporters

to write in his son’s name in the Democratic pri-mary, which Eugene Talmadge won, with his son,just home from the war, coming in second. ThenEugene Talmadge suffered a burst blood vessel inhis stomach. His health slipped, and on 21 Decem-ber 1946, after he had been elected governor, Eu-gene Talmadge died. Governor Arnall announcedthat he could remain governor for Talmadge’s term,but instead would turn the office over to Melvin E.Thompson, the newly elected lieutenant governor.Talmadge supporters, now led by Herman Tal-madge, demanded that the legislature choose thegovernor from the candidates in the election. On 15January, the legislature chose Talmadge, and he wassworn into office.When Talmadge went to take overthe office, he found Arnall there, refusing to budgeand calling the new governor a “pretender.”The nextday, armed with a gun, Talmadge went to the gover-nor’s offices, changed the locks, and named severalstate officers. Arnall set up a governor’s office indowntown Atlanta. On 18 January, Lieutenant Gov-ernor Thompson was sworn in as governor and Ar-nall “resigned.” The two rival governors then tookthe case to the state supreme court, which held on19 March that Thompson was the actual governor.Talmadge had served for sixty-seven days. A yearlater, Talmadge was elected governor in a specialelection mandated by his father’s death and was re-elected in 1950, serving until January 1955. He wasa popular governor, but stood for segregation ofGeorgia and Southern society.

T

319

In 1956 Senator Walter F. George (D-GA) de-cided not to run for reelection in the midst offailing health. (He would die on 4 August 1957.)Talmadge, having the year before left the gover-norship and become a farmer, threw his hat intothe ring for the Democratic nomination. In thoseyears the primary was the general election, withthe Democrat winning the general election withease. Talmadge won the primary and was electedwithout opposition. He took his seat in the Sen-ate on 3 January 1957 and would serve until 3January 1981. During his tenure, Talmadge votedthe conservative Southern line, voting againstcivil rights measures. As the chair of the Agricul-ture Committee for many years, he worked forfarm subsidies for Georgia farmers. He remainedchairman when the committee was renamed theCommittee on Agriculture and Forestry. He was amember of the Ervin Committee, which heardcharges on the Watergate affair in 1973 and1974.

In August 1978 Talmadge’s administrative as-sistant, Daniel Minchew, told the Washington Starthat in 1973 and 1974 he had withdrawn, at Tal-madge’s request, expense money from his congres-sional expense fund totaling nearly $13,000, forthe senator’s private use. Secretly, a federal grandjury was assembled to hear the charges, and theSenate Select Committee on Ethics was investigat-ing. In December 1978 the Senate committee is-sued a report calling for a full-blown investigation,claiming that there was “substantial and credibleevidence” of financial misconduct by Talmadge. Bya four to one vote, taken on 18 December, the com-mittee decided to enter formal adjudicatory pro-ceedings. On 20 April 1979, Talmadge appearedbefore the committee, denouncing his accuser(Minchew), calling the charges “petty,” and claim-ing they were either untrue or the result of unin-tended negligence. When the panel questionedMinchew’s credibility, Talmadge’s ex-wife, Betty,came forward to substantiate the allegations. Dur-ing a second hearing, Ethics Committee chairmanSenator Adlai Stevenson of Illinois noted that Tal-madge had never expressed regret for “this wholesordid episode,” and asked him if he had any re-gret now. “I am human,” Talmadge answered. “Ihave made errors, and I am confident I will makeerrors in the future. I have never used my office forprofit and I never will.”

On 15 September 1979, after fifteen months ofinvestigation, the Senate Select Committee onEthics unanimously voted to denounce Talmadge,calling his conduct “reprehensible.” The committeedistinctly chose not to use the term “censure,” de-spite the fact that most congressional historiansequate a senatorial or House “denouncement” with“censure.” So stated the committee, “there is nofinding of intentional wrongdoing. There is no rec-ommendation of censure.” On 11 October 1979,the full Senate voted eighty-one to fifteen to up-hold the denouncement of Talmadge. After thevote, Talmadge called it a “victory.”“I stand beforeyou firmly criticized,” he said on the Senate floor.“But I am not found guilty of intentional, wrong-ful, unlawful conduct. There is no recommenda-tion of censure.”

In 1980, in the midst of the so-called “Reaganlandslide,” Talmadge won the Democratic pri-mary but lost his seat to Republican Mack Mat-tingly. Ironically, in the primary he had defeatedan up-and-coming politician, Zell Miller, wholater served as governor of Georgia and in theU.S. Senate.

Herman Talmadge died at his home in Hamp-ton, Georgia, on 21 March 2002 at the age ofeighty-eight.

References: Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr.,“Senate DenouncesTalmadge, 81 to 15, Over His Finances,” New YorkTimes, 12 October 1979, A1, D12; Congressional Ethics(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980),30–31; Hackbart-Dean, Pamela,“Herman E.Talmadge: From Civil Rights to Watergate,” GeorgiaHistorical Quarterly, 77 (Spring 1993), 145–157;Talmadge, Herman E., with Mark Royden Winchell,Talmadge: A Political Legacy, A Politician’s Life: AMemoir (Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers, Ltd., 1987).

Tammany HallPolitical organization, famed for its control of NewYork City machine politics and led by a number ofpoliticians either imprisoned or accused of cor-rupt activities. Also known as the ColumbianOrder, the Tammany Society was founded in NewYork City in 1789 by William Mooney, a veteran ofthe Revolutionary War, whose strident anti-Feder-alist thinking led him to form a political societywith the expressed intent of opposing all Federal-ist candidates and policies. Mooney chose thename “Tammany” after the Indian chief who al-

320 Tammany Hall

legedly sold the land now known as Pennsylvaniato William Penn. Mooney created thirteen “tribes”within Tammany, with one tribe representing eachof the thirteen original United States; as well, eachof the organization’s officers were given Indian de-nominations—leaders were endowed with thenames “sagamore” and “sachem.” But Tammanydid not become a national organization like theFederalist Party. Instead, the party organizationsoutside of New York City slowly died off, until onlythe New York City office remained open. It was thisgroup, which became known as “Tammany Hall”or the “Tammany machine,” that earned respectfor its mobilization of voters in New York City, butalso scorn for its incredible amount of corruptionthat drained untold millions of dollars from citycoffers through payoffs and bribes and shoddybookkeeping. At the same time the organizationhandled the patronage that kept the city moving.

Although Tammany was involved in several po-litical battles in the first half of the nineteenth cen-tury—most notably in the fight between Andrew

Jackson and the Congress over the Bank of theUnited States—it did not achieve any politicalpower until one of its officers, Fernando Wood,was elected mayor of New York City in 1855. Woodutilized the office of mayor to his and Tammany’sadvantage, doling out patronage and, as many his-torians suspect, using the city’s money for projectsthat aided Tammany cronies. Following Wood, themachine was commanded by William MagearTweed, Grand Sachem of Tammany, whose politi-cal control of the city was nearly absolute by 1868.Corruption in New York City reached its pinnacleunder Tweed, as he and his cronies stole in excessof some $200 million. Tweed was later prosecutedand (after escaping and being caught) later died inprison, but the rest of the “Tweed Ring” escapedharsh punishment.

Tweed’s successor, John Kelly, saw the need forreform within Tammany and was able to convincesuch reformers as Samuel Tilden and Horatio Sey-mour, leading New York Democrats, to join. How-ever, Kelly, followed by Richard Croker and Charles

Tammany Hall 321

Tammany Hall and 14th Street West in 1914.Tammany Hall was the headquarters of the Tammany Society, a major Democraticpolitical machine in New York City from the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries. (Library of Congress)

F. Murphy, failed to reign in massive corruption.Murphy was investigated by Mayor John P. Mitchelin 1906, but was cleared of wrongdoing.

Following Murphy’s death in 1924, JudgeGeorge W. Olivany, a district leader for the Demo-crats, became the titular head of Tammany Halland, with the assistance of New York Governor Al-fred E. Smith, planned a revolution in Tammany toclean it up once and for all. However, the old forcesof corruption went to work, and, in March 1929,after only five years in power, Olivany was tossedfrom the machine in favor of John F. Curry, a stu-dent of Croker and Murphy. When the Seabury in-vestigation showed massive corruption in the ad-ministration of Mayor James J.Walker, a Tammanyprotege, Curry was thrown into disfavor, but ittook several electoral defeats to dislodge him fromcontrol of Tammany. In July 1934 he was suc-ceeded by James H. Dooling. Dooling’s reign wasmarked mostly by the administration of MayorFiorello H. LaGuardia, a reformist who distancedhimself from Tammany, leaving the organizationfor the first time not in control of the mayor’s of-fice. At the same time, the rise in influence of lead-ers from the Bronx and Brooklyn also diminishedTammany’s power base. Battered by changingtimes, the Tammany society sold the buildingwhere its headquarters had been maintained.

Tammany was not dead yet, however. In the1945 citywide elections, William O’Dwyer, a Tam-many-backed candidate, was elected mayor ofNew York and dismissed Brooklyn DemocraticParty leader Edward Loughlin, replacing him withTammany crony Frank J. Sampson. Sampson waslater ousted by Hugo Rogers, who himself was re-placed by Carmine G. De Sapio. De Sapio may havebeen the most powerful Tammany leader sinceTweed, but he could not stem the flow of reform,aimed specifically at Tammany Hall. Robert F.Wagner Jr., son of the former senator and a re-formist in his own right, became the head of an“anti-Tammany” group of politicians. Wagner waselected mayor of New York in 1953 and began ananticorruption campaign that targeted Tammany.Despite De Sapio becoming a Democratic nationalcommitteeman, as well as secretary of state forNew York, Tammany’s days as a power force werenumbered. De Sapio was ousted from power in1961. Later attempts by De Sapio to regain powerand to revive Tammany failed. Under the leader-

ship of Mayor John V. Lindsay (1966–1973), NewYork was able to rid itself at last of the taint ofTammany. With its power gone, the Tammany ma-chine faded from existence.

See also Croker, Richard; Seabury, Samuel; Tweed,William Magear

References: Allen, Oliver E., The Tiger: The Rise and Fallof Tammany Hall (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1993); Myers, Gustavus, The History of TammanyHall (New York: Boni & Liveright, Inc., 1917);Riordon, William L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: ASeries of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics,Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt,the Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum—theNew York County Court-House Bootblack Stand—andRecorded by William L. Riordon (New York: McClure,Phillips, 1905); Werner, Morris Robert, TammanyHall (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co.,1928).

Tate, James Williams (1831–?)Kentucky state treasurer (1867–1888), known as“Honest Dick” Tate, impeached in absentia afterabsconding with the entire state treasury—some$247,000. He disappeared from the state and hiswhereabouts thereafter remained unknown. Thegrandson of a Revolutionary War soldier, Tate wasborn near the Forks of Elkhorn, Kentucky, on 2January 1831. Nothing is known of his early life oreducation. What is known is that he was heavilyinvolved in property speculation and accumulateda tremendous amount of wealth. In 1854 GovernorLazarus M. Powell named Tate assistant secretaryof state, and Governor Beriah Magoffin reap-pointed Tate to that office in 1859. In 1865 Tate be-came the assistant clerk of the state house of rep-resentatives and, two years later, was named statetreasurer. He held this office through a series of re-election victories, due mostly in fact to his allegedhonesty, earning him the nickname “Honest Dick”Tate. Historian John J. McAfee wrote in 1886 ofTate, “The secret of this ardent esteem may betraced to the fact that, beyond most men, he ad-heres strictly to principle in all his dealings withhis fellowmen. . . . In his boyhood he was taughtthat honesty was the best policy, and he grew up inthat belief.”

In 1888 questions began to be raised over Tate’soversight of the state treasury. This happened afterTate vanished. On 14 March, he told coworkers thathe was going on a trip to Louisville. After staying

322 Tate, James Williams

in Louisville, he took a train to Cincinnati—wherehe vanished into history. Officials looking into hisaffairs discovered that Tate had taken in total$247,000 in state funds in gold, silver, and cashwith him. Tate was not a poor man—his land in-vestments had kept him in good stead for manyyears, and he was well paid by the state—so hisabsconding with these funds surprised everyone.Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner announced thatTate had fled the state with the embezzled statefunds. An investigation later showed that for manyyears Tate had been forging official records tocover up a rampant pattern of fraud. Immediately,a chorus rose to impeach Tate in absentia. He wascharged with six offenses: among them abandon-ing his office, absenting himself without providingfor proper administration, “misapplying and per-verting, taking and converting” the sum of$197,000—this number representing an initial es-timate of how much Tate had stolen. The statehouse impeached on all six charges quickly, andTate’s trial in the state senate began on 29 March1888—just two weeks after he vanished. The triallasted for three days, and Tate was found guilty onfour of the six charges. He was removed from of-fice and disqualified from ever holding a state of-fice again.

Of Tate thereafter nothing is known, althoughsome rumors had him in Bremen, Germany, orToronto, Canada. In 1893, it was reported that hewas under arrest in Arizona Territory, but thisproved false. In 1897 his daughter came forward tohave him declared dead, although she had lettersfrom him from places as far away as China. He wasnever declared dead, but his date of death, andplace of burial, remain a mystery.

Because of the Tate case, Kentucky changedits laws allowing state officials to serve twoterms in succession. That did not change until2000, when several state officials were allowed torun for reelection.

References: The author would like to thank Joe Horton,reference librarian at the Department for Librariesand Archives, Frankfort, Kentucky, for his assistancein gathering the information on “Honest Dick” Tate.Bryant, Ron D.,“‘Honest Dick’ Tate,” Kentucky Gazette,4 November 1997, 15; Klotter, James C.,“Tate, JamesW.,” in John E. Kleber, ed., Kentucky Encyclopedia(Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1992),867–868; McAfee, John J., Kentucky Politicians—Sketches of Representatives (Louisville, KY: The

Courier Job Printing Company, 1886), 148;Mittlebeeler, Emmet V.,“The Great KentuckyAbsconsion,” Filson Club History Quarterly, XXVII(1953), 335–352; “Tate Captured Again. Kentucky’sDefaulting Treasurer Said to Have Been Seen on aCotton Belt Train,” Louisville Courier-Journal, 26October 1893, 1.

Teapot Dome ScandalFederal scandal (1923–1929) that forced AttorneyGeneral Harry Daugherty from office, led to the in-dictment and conviction of Secretary of the InteriorAlbert B. Fall, and nearly cost Attorney General Har-lan Fiske Stone a seat on the United States SupremeCourt. The scandal, in effect, started in 1915, whenthe administration of President Woodrow Wilson setaside several areas in the nation to be used as strate-gic oil reserve centers in case of a national emer-gency. Among these places were Naval ReserveNumber One at Elk Hills, California, and Naval Re-serve Number Three, located at Salt Creek,Wyoming, but better known as Teapot Dome be-cause of the resemblance of the shape of the land tothe top of a teapot. (The third reserve, listed as num-ber two, was located at Buena Vista, California.)

In 1920 Senator Warren G. Harding won thepresidency and named U.S. Senator Albert BaconFall of New Mexico to be his secretary of the inte-rior. He also named former Representative EdwinDenby of Michigan to be his secretary of the navy.Unknown to Harding, Fall was close friends withtwo oil men, Harry F. Sinclair, president of theMammoth Oil Company, and Edward L. Doheny,president of the Pan-American Petroleum andTransport Company. Once in office, Fall persuadedPresident Harding to transfer control of the re-serves from the secretary of the navy to the Inte-rior Department. Denby, convinced on his own byFall’s arguments, supported Fall’s move. Hardingthen signed an executive order on 31 May 1921,which transferred authority.

Fall then secretly leased Teapot Dome to Sin-clair and Elk Hills to Doheny—apparently in ex-change for bribes. In November 1921 Dohenymade what was later characterized as a “loan” of$100,000 to Fall. In exchange for rights to the oil,Doheny was supposed to erect a refinery in Cali-fornia and construct a pipeline from the reserve tothe refinery. For Teapot Dome, Sinclair paid Fall infourteen animals, including a thoroughbred horse

Teapot Dome Scandal 323

and a bull. On 7 April 1922, Fall, Denby, and Sin-clair signed a secret deal allowing full access toSinclair’s company to the Teapot Dome reserves.Historians Morris R. Werner and John Starr wrote,“By the time he was finished leasing the Navy’s re-serves, Fall had given his two benefactors reserveswhich each of them estimated roughly to be worth$100 million dollars, and he had collected fromthem $409,000 in cash and bonds.”

Before long, however, the “secret” deal behindthe oil reserve leases began to leak out. Oilmen inCalifornia and Wyoming began to get suspiciousthat Doheny was obtaining oil from a governmentoil lease. Fall was seen to be purchasing new landsaround his ranch in New Mexico, as well as show-ing off the horse and bulls and cows that he re-ceived as part of the deal. Soon, newspapermenwere hunting for clues. On 14 April 1922, the WallStreet Journal reported that Fall, in a secret deal,had illegally leased Teapot Dome to Sinclair. Thefollowing day, amid angry voices in the U.S. Sen-ate, that body passed Resolution 277, demandingthat the secretary of the navy and the secretary ofthe interior inform the Senate of any deals involv-ing the leasing of the oil reserves to anyone andwhether there was competitive bidding regardingthese leases. The resolution, submitted by SenatorJohn Benjamin Kendrick (D-WY) read:

Whereas, there have recently appeared in the publicpress statements purporting to have been author-ized by the Department of the Interior, to the effectthat the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretaryof the Navy are negotiating with private parties forthe operation of lands included in Naval PetroleumReserve Number 3, Wyoming number 1, withdrawnby Executive order of the President, dated April 30,1915, known as the Teapot Dome; therefore it is Re-solved that the Secretary of the Interior and theSecretary of the Navy are requested to inform theSenate, if not incompatible with the public interests,whether such negotiations are pending, and if sothe names of all parties, the terms and conditions ofall proposed operating agreements, and whetheropportunity will be given the public for competitivebidding for the operation of these lands, or whetherit is proposed to award a lease or other operatingcontract or agreement for the entire area to one per-son, corporation or association.

Acting Secretary of the Interior Edward Finney,in control of the department while Fall was out of

Washington, gave the Senate a copy of the leases on29 April 1922. Finney also told the Senate that thedeals were done in the name of national security, inthat the oil in the reserves could not be used inships and needed to be refined into fuel. This ex-planation was unacceptable to the Senate, and thatbody that same day enacted Resolution 282, whichestablished an investigation of the leases in theCommittee of Public Lands and Surveys. SenatorMiles Poindexter (R-WA) said: “I think Congressought to know, and that the country ought to know,whether or not the interests of the public are beingprotected by the terms of the contract or leasewhich has been made for the extraction of the oilfrom the Government reserve, and that will be as-certained, I assume, by this investigation.”

President Harding stood up for Fall and Denby,telling the Senate in an official letter that he wasinvolved in all of the negotiations regarding theleases.“The policy which has been adopted by theSecretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the In-terior in dealing with these matters was submittedto me prior to the adoption thereof, and the policydecided upon and the subsequent acts have at alltimes had my entire approval,” Harding wrote.Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT) was the chairman ofthe committee, but it included several Republicaninsurgents who differed with the administration,as well as Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-MT), whodesired to make the hearings part of his attack onthe Harding administration.

Walsh’s plans changed on 2 August 1923 whenHarding, while on a trip to Alaska and California,died in San Francisco. He was succeeded by his vicepresident, Calvin Coolidge. Hearings on the scandalnow known as Teapot Dome opened in the Com-mittee on Public Lands and Surveys on 15 October1923. Within a week, witnesses started to testify,starting with Secretary of the Interior Fall. FormerSecretary Fall, under pressure from the new presi-dent, had resigned his office on 4 March 1923. Fol-lowing Fall was Secretary of the Navy Denby. Walshdominated the hearings, releasing tidbits of infor-mation to reporters behind the scenes and then an-nouncing the stories the following day as importantinformation for the committee to investigate. Falltold the committee that he had borrowed $100,000in cash from Edward B. McLean, publisher of theWashington Post. McLean initially refused to testify,but finally denied that he had ever given Fall any

324 Teapot Dome Scandal

This 1924 cartoon shows the U.S. Capitol as a boiling and overflowing teapot.Teapot Dome remains one of the most extensivescandals implicating executive branch members of outright bribery and the selling of government assets for bribes. (Library ofCongress)

funds. Edward Doheny later admitted that he wasthe source of the payment, having paid it to Fall viaDoheny’s own son in “a little black bag.”

As new allegations appeared on the oil deals,political damage mounted for President Coolidgedespite his having no ties to any of part of thescandal. To clear his own administration of anytaint, Coolidge decided to name a special prosecu-tor to investigate the affair. When it appeared thatCoolidge was prepared to name the prosecutor toinvestigate Teapot Dome, Attorney General HarryM. Daugherty wrote him an impassioned letter, inwhich he explained:

May I again urge the desirability that you immedi-ately appoint two outstanding lawyers who as suchshall at once take up all phases of the oil leasesunder investigation of the Senate or others and ad-vise you as to the facts and law justifying legal pro-ceedings of any kind. As you know, I do not desireto evade any responsibility in this or other matters;but considering that Mr. Fall and I served in theCabinet together, this would be fair to you, to Mr.Fall, and the American people, as well as to the At-torney General, the Department of Justice, and myassociates and assistants therein. I do not desire tobe consulted as to whom you shall appoint. Theonly suggestion I have to make in that regard is thatthose appointed shall be lawyers whom the publicwill at once recognize as worthy of confidence andwho will command the respect of the people by notpracticing politics or permitting others to do so inconnection with this important public business.

Coolidge disagreed. He wrote:

It is not for the President to determine criminalguilt or render judgment in civil causes. That is thefunction of the courts. It is not for him to prejudge.I shall do neither; but when facts are revealed tome that require action for the purpose of insuringthe enforcement of either civil or criminal liability,such action will be taken. That is the province ofthe Executive.

Acting under my direction the Department ofJustice has been observing the course of the evi-dence which has been revealed at the hearings con-ducted by the senatorial committee investigatingcertain oil leases made on naval reserves, which Ibelieve warrants action for the purpose of enforcingthe law and protecting the rights of the public. Thisis confirmed by reports made to me from the com-mittee. If there has been any crime, it must be pros-

ecuted. If there has been any property of the UnitedStates illegally transferred or leased, it must be re-covered.

I feel the public is entitled to know that in theconduct of such action no one is shielded for anyparty, political or other reason. As I understand,men are involved who belong to both political par-ties, and having been advised by the Departmentof Justice that it is in accord with the former prece-dents, I propose to employ special counsel of highrank drawn from both political parties to bringsuch action for the enforcement of the law. Counselwill be instructed to prosecute these cases in thecourts so that if there is any guilt it will be pun-ished; if there is civil liability it will be enforced; ifthere is any fraud it will be revealed; and if thereare any contracts which are illegal they will becanceled.

Coolidge picked two lawyers—RepublicanSilas Strawn and Democrat Thomas Gregory (thelatter having served as attorney general in theWoodrow Wilson administration)—but becauseboth had ties to the oil industry, they faced a stormon Capitol Hill. Coolidge withdrew their nameswhen it appeared that neither would be confirmed.On a referral from Senator George Pepper (R-PA),Coolidge selected Philadelphia attorney Owen J.Roberts, a Republican, and attorney AtleePomerene, a Democrat and former U.S. senator.Pomerene was confirmed by the Senate by a voteof fifty-nine to thirteen on 16 February 1924, andRoberts was confirmed by a vote of sixty-eight toeight two days later. On the day Roberts was con-firmed, 18 February 1924, Secretary of the NavyEdwin Denby handed in his resignation.

Only a month into their inquiry, Roberts andPomerene indicted Fall, Doheny, and Sinclair. Fallwas later convicted of accepting a bribe, althoughSinclair and Doheny were acquitted of giving thebribe, a strange and ironic twist. Fall went toprison, the first of two cabinet members ever to besentenced to a prison term. (The other was Attor-ney General John Newton Mitchell, implicated inWatergate.) Attorney General Daugherty resignedon 28 March 1924, but he was never tried on anycharges relating to Teapot Dome. In all, Robertsand Pomerene indicted eight people, resulting insix criminal trials and two civil trials. Sinclair waslater sent to prison for contempt of Congress, andthe oil reserves were restored to the control of the

326 Teapot Dome Scandal

U.S. government. Roberts remained on the investi-gation until President Herbert Hoover elevatedhim to a seat on the United States Supreme Courtin 1930. Pomerene stayed with the prosecutionuntil he closed it, using his power to exact com-pensation from Sinclair’s and Doheny’s oil compa-nies for the oil they stole. Hoover named Po-merene, a Democrat, to head the ReconstructionFinance Corporation in 1932, where he serveduntil Hoover left office the following year.

Teapot Dome remains perhaps one of the mostextensive scandals implicating executive branchmembers and outright bribery and the selling ofgovernment assets for bribes. At the time of thescandal Senator Gerald Nye (R-ND) said:

The investigation has uncovered the slimiest ofslimy trails beaten by privilege. The investigationhas shown, let us hope, privilege at its worst. Thetrail is one of dishonesty, greed, violation of law, se-crecy, concealment, evasion, falsehood, and cun-ning. It is a trail of betrayals by trusted and pre-sumably honorable men—betrayals of agovernment, of certain business interests and thepeople who trusted and honored them; it is a trailshowing a flagrant degree of the exercise of politicalpower and influence, and the power and influenceof great wealth upon individuals and political par-ties; it is the trail of despoilers and schemers, farmore dangerous to the well-being of our Nation andour democracy than all those who have been de-ported from our shores in all time as undesirablecitizens. And in the end the story of one of thecrushing of brilliant careers when finally the lightwas played upon those who schemed those un-healthy schemes born in darkness.

See also Denby, Edwin; Fall, Albert BaconReferences: Busch, Francis X., Enemies of the State: An

Account of the Trials of the Mary Eugenia Surratt Case,the Teapot Dome Cases, the Alphonse Capone Case, theRosenberg Case (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,1954); Ferrell, Robert H.,“Teapot Dome,” in Donald C.Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds.,Encyclopedia of the United States Congress, 4 vols.(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), IV:1935–1937;Noggle, Burl. Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the1920s (New York: Norton, 1962); “Normalcy,” in DavidLoth, Public Plunder: A History of Graft in America(New York: Carrick & Evans, Inc., 1938), 312–323;Nye, Gerald, senator, comments in United StatesSenate, Leases Upon Naval Oil Reserves and Activitiesof the Continental Trading Co. (Ltd.) of Canada,Senate Report 1326, 70th Congress, 1st Session

(1928), II:2–3; Poindexter, Miles, senator, commentsin Congressional Record—Proceedings and Debates ofthe 67th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1922), 6048; Werner,Morris Robert, and John Starr, Teapot Dome (NewYork: Viking Press, 1959), 86.

Thomas, John Parnell (1895–1970)United States representative from New Jersey(1937–1950), convicted of fraud and sent toprison for nine months. Thomas was one of themost powerful lawmakers of the late 1940s in hisrole as chairman of the Committee on Un-Ameri-can Activities (HUAC). Thomas’s fall from gracewas perhaps one of the farthest of any politician inAmerican history, although his name is little re-membered today. Born in Jersey City, New Jersey,on 16 January 1895, Thomas attended localschools before studying at the University of Penn-sylvania. When World War I began, he volunteeredfor service and served as a second lieutenant inCompany B of the 306th Infantry, rising to therank of first lieutenant and then captain in theHeadquarters Regimental Staff of the 50th In-fantry. He was discharged in 1919 with the rank ofcaptain. For several years he worked in securitiesinvestments and later in the insurance business inNew York City.

In 1925, Thomas, a Republican, was elected amember of the borough council of Allendale, NewJersey, and a year later mayor of Allendale. Heserved in that capacity until 1930. In 1935 he waselected to a seat in the New Jersey House of As-sembly, where he served until 1937. In 1936 he ranfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, rep-resenting the seventh New Jersey district. He de-feated Democrat Harold J. P. Hoffmann and tookhis seat in the Seventy-fifth Congress on 3 January1937. Because of his conservative views, he harshlyopposed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s“New Deal” program of government relief, callingit a threat to the capitalist system. His greatestbarbs were aimed at the Federal Theater and Writ-ers Project, a New Deal program that gave stipendsto writers and performers. Many of the plays andworks that had been created during the programwere of a left-wing nature, and conservatives likeThomas objected both to their content and to thedonation of government funds to advance them.

Thomas, John Parnell 327

Thomas stated, “Practically every play presentedunder the auspices of the project is sheer propa-ganda for Communism or the New Deal.” Despitehis stands against the popular Roosevelt, Thomaswas reelected in 1938, 1940, 1942, 1944, 1946, and1948.

In 1947 Thomas was named chairman of theHouse Committee on Un-American Activities, de-signed to investigate alleged Communist influ-ences in the United States. Under Thomas, thecommittee began an investigation into the role ofCommunists in the motion picture industry. Call-ing numerous witnesses before the committee, in-cluding leading players in motion pictures, severalpeople in the industry were accused of being pre-sent or former Communists. Ten men—includingwriters Dalton Trumbo and Ring Lardner Jr. anddirectors Herbert Biberman, Edward Dmytryk,John Howard Lawson, and Lester Cole—refusedto answer any of the committee’s questions andwere cited for contempt of Congress. These menbecame known as “The Hollywood Ten.”

Rising anger about Thomas’s command overthe committee’s hearings led to secret investiga-tions of the New Jersey congressman’s personaldealings. Unfortunately for Thomas, scandal wasripe for the finding. Soon reports that Thomas hadsubmitted billing statements to Congress for al-legedly nonexistent employees and then pocketedthe excess payments, brought a grand jury investi-gation.Appearing before that panel, Thomas ironi-cally took the Fifth Amendment—the same tacticused by witnesses before his own committee.Thomas was indicted for conspiracy to defraudthe United States government. He was convictedon all charges and resigned his House seat on 2January 1950. He was sentenced to prison, servingonly nine before he was paroled. Ironically, heserved in the same prison with Lester Cole andRing Lardner Jr., who were still serving out theircontempt of Congress citations.

After being released from prison, Thomasworked as the editor and publisher of three dailynewspapers in Bergen County, New Jersey; later,he worked as a real estate solicitor and invest-ment adviser. He ran for a U.S. House seat in1954, but was defeated for the Republican nomi-nation. Thomas moved to St. Petersburg, Florida,where he died on 19 November 1970 at the age ofseventy-five.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996).

Thompson, Fred Dalton (1942– )Actor and politician, United States Senator (1995–2002), chairman of the Senate Governmental Af-fairs Committee’s hearings into campaign financeirregularities by the Democratic Party. Born inSheffield, Alabama, on 19 August 1942, Thompsongrew up in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He receivedhis undergraduate degree in philosophy fromMemphis State University (now the University ofMemphis) in 1964 and his law degree from Van-derbilt University in 1967, while working his waythrough school. Two years after law school,Thompson was named an assistant U.S. attorneyand at the age of thirty was appointed minoritycounsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, wherehe served from 1973 to 1974. It was Thompsonwho asked witness Alexander Butterfield whetherthe Oval Office had any recording devices, expos-ing the existence of tapes of the Watergate conspir-ators admitting to covering up criminal activitiesand heralding the beginning of the end for theNixon administration. In 1975 Thompson wroteAt That Point in Time: The Story of the Senate Wa-tergate Committee.

After leaving Washington in 1974, Thompsondefended the chairman of the Tennessee ParoleBoard after she had been suspiciously fired.Thompson’s work helped to expose a cash-for-clemency scheme that ultimately toppled the gov-ernor. The scandal became the subject of a best-selling book and later a film, Marie, starring SissySpacek, in which Thompson played himself. Therole exposed the dynamic Thompson to movie au-diences, and he began to get more acting opportu-nities. He went on to act in eighteen motion pic-tures, including In the Line of Fire (1993), Die HardII (1990), and The Hunt for Red October (1990).

In 1994 Thompson ran for the remaining twoyears left in the vacant U.S. Senate seat from Ten-nessee once held by Vice President Al Gore. FacingRepresentative Jim Cooper, an establishmentDemocrat with strong credentials and a largemonetary war chest, Thompson portrayed himselfas an outsider and won a bitter contest with 61percent of the vote to Cooper’s 39 percent in his

328 Thompson, Fred Dalton

first campaign for office. Once in Congress,Thompson quickly established himself as a forcefor change, making historic progress on the re-form of Congress and the balanced budget, work-ing for campaign finance reform, and calling for asmaller federal government. He was returned for afull term by the voters in 1996, winning his secondelection in two years, each by more than 20 per-centage points. In his reelection victory, SenatorThompson received more votes than any candi-date for any office in Tennessee history. Presently,Senator Thompson serves as a member of the Sen-ate Judiciary Committee, and in 1997 was electedchairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee,making him the first senator since World War II toserve as chairman of a major Senate committeeafter only two years of service.

After the 1996 election, reports of large irregu-larities in Democratic party fundraising, particu-larly by the Clinton administration, came to light.On 11 March 1997, the Senate voted ninety-nine tozero to direct the Governmental Affairs Committeeto investigate illegal or improper activities in con-nection with the 1996 federal election campaigns,giving Thompson a national spotlight. Thomp-son’s political career seemed on the rise, eventhough the Republicans were forced into the mi-nority in the Senate in 2001. In 2002, however,Thompson decided not to seek a third term, in-stead returning to his first love: acting. As of thiswriting, he works as the Manhattan district attor-ney in the popular NBC crime drama, Law andOrder.

See also Senate Finance Committee HearingsReferences: Duncan, Philip D., and Christine C.

Lawrence, Congressional Quarterly’s Politics inAmerica 1996: The 104th Congress (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1995), 1213–1214;Thompson, Fred D., At That Point in Time: The InsideStory of the Senate Watergate Committee (New York:Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1975).

Thompson, William Hale (1867–1944)Mayor of Chicago (1915–1923, 1927–1931), inves-tigated but never convicted for fraud, which forcedhim to leave the mayorship in 1923, but his sup-port of the sale of liquor and his backing of knowngangsters led to his reelection in 1927. Despite thelack of a conviction, Thompson is figured by histo-rians to have been one of the most corrupt mayors

to ever serve in American history. Soon after hewas born on 14 May 1867, in Boston, Massachu-setts, the son of Colonel William Hale Thompson,a Civil War veteran, he and his family moved to thegrowing metropolis of Chicago. Colonel Thomp-son was a member of an affluent New Englandfamily—he had served in the New Hampshirestate legislature in the late 1870s—and he passedon his wealth to his son William. The youngerThompson attended the prestigious Charles Fes-senden Preparatory School in Chicago, after whichhe decided to head west. His father bought him a3,800 acre ranch in Nebraska in 1888, but Thomp-son returned to Chicago in 1891 following his fa-ther’s death.

In 1899 Thompson entered the political realmafter one of his friends told him about an emptyaldermanic seat. Thompson ran and won the seat,representing Chicago’s Second Ward. Although hisrecord was undistinguished, he was noticed by Re-publican Party boss William Lorimer (later aUnited States senator), who pushed Thompson torun for a seat on the Cook County (Chicago) Boardof Supervisors in 1902. He was elected, but afteranother two undistinguished years in this posi-tion, he felt he had had enough of politics and re-turned to private life. This would be a short-termmove, however.

In 1915 Thompson was again convinced toenter politics, this time with the backing ofLorimer’s crony Fred Lundin, and run for mayor ofChicago. With Lundin’s backing, he defeated twoRepublicans in the February 1915 primary, thenovercame a massive field of several candidates—including Socialist Seymour Stedman, who wouldserve as the Socialist vice presidential candidatewith Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 election—to beelected Chicago’s thirty-third mayor. Although hehad never been involved in corruption, Thomp-son’s entire tenure as mayor was marked by mas-sive influence peddling and wholesale bribery. Thepolice department was left in the hands of thecriminals who paid for protection; a race riot inJuly 1919 was ignored as many died; and organ-ized crime figures were allowed to run their illegalbusinesses, usually involving liquor, as Thompsoneither didn’t care or was actively involved in theircrimes. During World War I, he openly espousedthe German cause and denounced the British. (Helater threatened to punch the king of England in

Thompson, William Hale 329

the face if the king ever appeared in Chicago.) TheChicago Tribune accused Thompson of stealing $2million from the city. In 1923, after eight years inoffice, Thompson backed off running for a thirdterm in exchange for not being prosecuted. (Priorto the election, Fred Lundin and his associates wereindicted for stealing more than $1 million from thecity’s education fund, but Lundin was acquitted,thanks to the tactics of his attorney, Clarence Dar-row.) In the 1923 election, a reformer, DemocratWilliam Dever, was elected and began a massivecleanup of the neglect and corruption that hadreigned for eight years of “Big Bill” Thompson’stenure. He cracked down on the huge number ofspeakeasies (illegal bars) that had sprouted up inthe city and began wholesale arrests of organizedcrime figures, including Chicago’s Johnny Torrio,and he harassed Alphonse Capone, the leader ofChicago’s mafia. He forced prohibition on the city,and threatened police with arrest if liquor was soldin their districts.

After four years, organized crime and the liquordistributors were fed up with Dever’s success andsought to toss him out of office. William Thomp-son was recruited to get his old job back on behalfof these criminal elements. Using strong-arm tac-tics, Capone initiated a citywide campaign of ter-ror to force people to vote for Thompson, or heused his muscle for massive vote fraud. Thompsonalso promised an end to prohibition, and a popu-lace more interested in drink than corruption lis-tened intensely. Thompson “defeated” Dever bymore than 80,000 votes, and as soon as Thompsontook office for his third term, the police crackdownof Capone and organized crime ended. This time,however, Thompson allowed wholesale corruptionto reign freely. Historian Jay Robert Nash ex-plained: “Chicago careened out of control between1927 and 1931 when Thompson left office for thefinal time. The city was in the hands of the gang-sters, and all the civil works projects the mayorhad introduced did little to compensate for thesorry record of the city police and the administra-tion which controlled them.”

In 1931 Thompson ran for a fourth term, butvoters, disgusted with the wholesale corruption,voted in another reformer, Democrat Anton Cer-mak, who ran on a platform of cleaning up the po-lice and reigning in organized crime. (Cermak waskilled in an assassination attempt on the life of

President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.)Undaunted, Thompson ran for governor of Illinoisin 1936 and 1939, but was defeated both times. Hedied from heart disease at the Hotel Blackstone inChicago on 19 March 1944 at the age of seventy-six. Many historians consider him to be the mostcrooked mayor in American history.

See also Small, Lennington “Len”References: Prinz, Andrew K.,“Thompson, William

Hale,” in Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones,Biographical Dictionary of American Mayors,1820–1980: Big City Mayors (Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 1981), 362; “Thompson, WilliamHale,” in Jay Robert Nash, Encyclopedia of WorldCrime: Criminal Justice, Criminology, and LawEnforcement, 4 vols. (Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc.,1989), IV:2936–2937; Wendt, Lloyd, and HermanKogan, Big Bill of Chicago (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1953).

Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864 (1907)Act of Congress, enacted 26 January 1907, whichattempted for the first time to limit campaign fi-nance spending.

Sponsored by Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillmanof South Carolina, this legislation for the first timeset out to limit the campaign spending contribu-tions from corporations and banking concerns. Itbanned corporate gifts to campaigns, a prohibi-tion that has remained in effect, despite the prolif-eration of “soft money” spending.

The act reads:

An Act to prohibit corporations from making moneycontributions in connection with political elections.

Be it enacted, That it shall be unlawful for anynational bank, or any corporation organized by au-thority of any laws of Congress, to make a moneycontribution in connection with any election to anypolitical office. It shall also be unlawful for any cor-poration whatever to make a money contribution inconnection with any election at which Presidentialand Vice Presidential electors or a Representative inCongress is to be voted for or any election by anyState legislature of a United States Senator. Everycorporation which shall make any contribution inviolation of the foregoing provisions shall be sub-ject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars,and every officer or director of any corporation whoshall consent to any contribution by the corporationin violation of the foregoing provisions shall uponconviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding

330 Tillman Act of 1907

one thousand and not less than two hundred andfifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of notmore than one year, or both such fine and impris-onment in the discretion of the court.

Despite the fact that the Tillman Act was revo-lutionary for its time, it was loaded with loopholes,and within three years Congress saw fit to revise it.In 1925, as part of the sweeping law known as theFederal Corrupt Practices Act, the Tillman Act wasrepealed.

See also Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925; PublicityAct of 1910

References: Simkins, Francis Butler, Pitchfork BenTillman: South Carolinian (Baton Rouge, LA:Louisiana State University Press, 1944).

Torricelli, Robert Guy (1951– )United States representative (1983–1997) and U.S.senator (1997–2002) from New Jersey, repri-manded by the Senate Ethics Committee for takingillegal gifts and aiding a donor with his influence inobtaining contracts with foreign governments. Tor-ricelli was born in Paterson, New Jersey, on 27 Au-gust 1951. He attended local schools in New York,particularly Storm King School in Cornwall-on-the-Hudson, New York, from which he graduated in1970. He attended Rutgers University in NewBrunswick, New Jersey, from which he earned abachelor’s degree in 1974, and Harvard University’sKennedy School of Government, which awardedhim a masters in public administration degree in1980. In 1973 Torricelli went to work on the cam-paign of Democrat Brendan Byrne, running forgovernor of New Jersey. Following Byrne’s election,Torricelli went to work as his deputy legislativecounsel, serving until 1977. Torricelli was admittedto the New Jersey bar in 1978. That same year, VicePresident Walter Mondale named Torricelli as hiscounsel, a post he held until 1980. Torricelli left theWhite House to earn his degree from Harvard.

In 1982 Torricelli ran for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives from New Jersey’s Ninth Con-gressional District. Defeating Republican HaroldHollenbeck, he entered the House on 3 January1983 and served in the 98th–104th Congresses. In1996, when Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey re-tired, Torricelli announced his candidacy for thatseat. He defeated Republican Representative DickZimmer and entered the Senate on 2 January 1997.

Torricelli, known as “the Torch” for his antago-nistic style, was linked for many years with shadydealings. However, it was not until late in his firstterm that the Department of Justice looked intothese allegations. It was discovered that one ofTorricelli’s campaign donors, David Chang, abusinessman, had given Torricelli improper cam-paign contributions as well as gifts that violatedthe gift ban established by the Senate. Chang wasarrested and sent to prison; Torricelli, however,decried the charges and maintained his inno-cence. On 3 January 2002, the Department of Jus-tice announced that it did not have clear and con-vincing evidence of wrongdoing by Torricelli, butit did hand over all of its materials to the SenateEthics Committee and asked the panel to make itsown findings.

On 30 July 2002, the committee released its re-port on the Torricelli/Chang investigation. Findingmany of Chang’s charges to be in fact true, thecommittee recommended that Torricelli be ad-monished by the full Senate rather than censuredor expelled. In their letter to Torricelli, the com-mittee wrote:

Your acceptance of a television and stereo CD playerupon payment to David Chang of an amount youunderstood to be the cost to Mr. Chang, rather thanfair market retail value, evidenced poor judgment,displayed a lack of due regard for Senate rules. . . .

Your acceptance on loan from Mr. Chang ofbronze statues . . . for display in your Senate officeunder your office’s policy of accepting the loan ofhome state artwork was not consistent with Senaterules governing such loans, evidenced poor judg-ment, displayed a lack of due regard for Senaterules . . .

Your failure to act to prevent the acceptance ofor to pay for gifts of earrings from Mr. Chang to in-dividuals (your sister, an employee, and a friend) inyour home at Christmas on the mistaken belief thatsuch items were of little value or were not gifts toyou . . . evidenced poor judgment, displayed a lackof due regard for Senate rules . . .

Continuation of a personal and official relation-ship with Mr. Chang under circumstances whereyou knew that he was attempting to ingratiate him-self, in part through a pattern of attempts to pro-vide you and those around you with gifts over a pe-riod of several years when you and your Senateoffice were taking official actions of benefit to Mr.Chang . . . evidenced poor judgment.

Torricelli, Robert Guy 331

After evaluating the extensive body of evidencebefore it and your testimony, the committee is trou-bled by incongruities, inconsistencies, and conflicts,particularly concerning actions taken by you whichwere or could have been of potential benefit to Mr.Chang.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics . . . ex-presses its determination that your actions andfailure to act led to violations of Senate rules (andrelated statutes) and created at least the appear-ance of impropriety, and you are hereby severelyadmonished.

You must pay Mr. Chang an amount sufficient tobring the total to fair market retail value of the TVand CD player, as well as the fair market retail valueof the earrings given to the three individuals at yourhome, with appropriate interest. The committee un-derstands that you have previously delivered thebronze statues to the Department of Justice, fromwhence they should be returned to Mr. Chang.

Torricelli, shocked by the findings and punish-ment by his Senate colleagues, appeared on theSenate floor late that same night and apologizedboth to his fellow Senators and to the people ofNew Jersey. “I want my colleagues in the Senate toknow I agree with the committee’s conclusions,fully accept their findings and take full personalresponsibility,” he said. “I want to apologize to thepeople of New Jersey for having placed the seat inthe United States Senate they have allowed me tooccupy to be placed in this position. . . . I neverstopped fighting for things I believed, I never com-promised the struggle to make the lives of the peo-ple I love better.”

Torricelli was deep in the middle of a tough re-election bid before the Ethics Committee admon-ished the New Jersey Senator; his work only be-came harder with this ethics violation on hisrecord just a few months before voters went to thepolls. On 26 September 2002, a federal appealscourt in Philadelphia held that legal documentsregarding Torricelli’s case, including a memo pro-duced by investigators in his case, must be re-leased immediately. Polls taken that same weekshowed that Torricelli’s campaign took a large hitfrom the fresh allegations in the memo—as wellas an interview with a local New York televisionstation with Chang—and, on 30 September 2002,just thirty-six days before the election, Torricelliannounced his resignation from the race, but not

his Senate seat. He was replaced on the ballot byformer Senator Frank Lautenberg, who had retiredfrom the U.S. Senate in 2000. Lautenberg won Tor-ricelli’s seat on 5 November 2002.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1956; Schmidt, Susan, andJames V. Grimaldi,“Torricelli and the Money Man:N.J. Senator Had Symbiotic Relationship withExecutive,” Washington Post, 13 May 2001, A1;VandeHei, Jim, and Helen Dewar,“Senate Ethics PanelRebukes Torricelli; Reprimand over Gifts Could HavePolitical Consequences for N.J. Democrat,”Washington Post, 31 July 2002, A1.

Traficant, James A., Jr. (1941– )United States representative from Ohio (1985–2002), convicted in April 2002 of bribery, racket-eering, and fraud, and expelled from the House ofRepresentatives, the second such action by theHouse of Representatives since the end of the CivilWar. He was later sentenced to eight years inprison. A colorful and mercurial politician whobucked his party to support ideas he felt deservedbacking, many of which were not positions of theDemocratic Party, Traficant was born in Youngs-town, Ohio, on 8 May 1941. He attended localschools in Youngstown before going to the Univer-sity of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, where heearned a bachelor of science degree in 1963 and in1973 a master of science degree from the sameuniversity. From 1971 to 1981, Traficant served asthe executive director of the Mahoning County(Ohio) Drug Program. In 1980 he was electedsheriff of Mahoning County and he earned a repu-tation as a strong law-and-order officer with ashort fuse. In 1983 he was tried on charges relatingto taking bribes, but he was acquitted.

In 1984, disgusted with what he felt was amalaise with the national Democratic Party, Trafi-cant ran as a Democrat for a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives, representing Ohio’s Seven-teenth District. Elected, he would serve until hewas expelled by a vote of Congress on 24 July 2002.During his tenure, he fought his party on tax in-creases and stood for stronger national security.Always a bane to the party’s leaders in Congress,he was nonetheless popular with his blue-collardistrict where Ronald Reagan earned many votes.In 2000, after he was reelected to his ninth term,

332 Traficant, James A., Jr.

he voted to seat Republican Dennis Hastert asSpeaker of the House, angering his Democraticcolleagues, which led to his being removed fromall committee assignments. Appearing on numer-ous talk shows, he used colorful language to de-scribe his views on important topics. He also usedthe same language during his speeches on theHouse floor—one of his favorite phrases was“Beam me up, Scotty!”

On 3 May 2001, Traficant was indicted on tencounts of bribery and conspiracy. Federal prosecu-tors alleged in the multicount indictment thatTraficant had received free labor and materialsfrom construction businesses in Youngstown,Ohio, which was in his district, in exchange for hisintervention on behalf of the construction busi-nesses before federal regulators; that he orderedone of his staff to turn over $2,500 from hismonthly paycheck; that he tried to get his staff todestroy evidence as well as provide false testi-mony; that he ordered his staff to do free work onhis farm and boat; that he filed false tax returns;and that he committed bribery and mail fraud.Traficant condemned the indictment and the pros-ecutors and said he would act as his own attorney(known as a pro se appearance). Two of his associ-ates, former Chief of Staff Henry DiBlasio and con-tractor Bernard Bucheit were also indicted on fed-eral charges of bribing Traficant and lying to afederal grand jury.

Traficant’s trial began on 13 February 2002.Traficant, acting as his own attorney, claimed thathe was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct andthat the witnesses called against him were eitherintimidated or bribed. These witnesses testifiedthat Traficant had received unknown amounts ofcash from unknown sources and that his staff wascharged with putting the cash into Traficant’s bankaccounts. Despite Traficant’s protestations about a“vendetta” against him, on 11 April 2002 the juryconvicted him of all ten charges after just fourdays of deliberations. Minutes after the guilty ver-dicts were announced, leaders of the House ofRepresentatives began an ethics investigation.Representative Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO), theMinority Leader, called on Traficant to resign.

On 23 July 2002, the House Ethics Committeereleased its report on the Traficant matter—it rec-ommended that the Ohio congressman be expelledif he did not resign his seat. Traficant refused to re-

sign, forcing an expulsion vote for the first timesince 1980. On 25 July, following a three-hour de-bate on the House floor, the House voted 410–1 toexpel him—the only vote against expulsion was byRepresentative Gary Condit (D-CA), who was en-tangled in his own ethical troubles and had lost inthe Democratic primary earlier in the year. Repre-sentative Joel Hefley (R-CO), the chairman of theCommittee on Standards of Conduct and floormanager of the expulsion proceedings, told theHouse that there were “1,000 pages” of evidenceagainst Traficant and that he had to be expelled.“Many of us are very fond of Representative Trafi-cant but at times like this we are required to setaside those feelings,” Hefley told a stunned House.

On 30 July 2002, Traficant was sentenced toeight years in federal prison by Judge LesleyBrooks Wells. He maintained his innocence andran a 2002 congressional campaign from hisprison cell that garnered few votes.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 1960; Eilperin, Juliet,“EthicsPanel Weighs Traficant Expulsion; ConvictedLawmaker Won’t Go Quietly,” Washington Post, 16 July2002, A4; Eilperin, Juliet,“House Votes 410 to 1 toExpel Traficant,” Washington Post, 25 July 2002, A1;Pierre, Robert E., and Juliet Eilperin,“Traficant IsFound Guilty; Ohio Congressman Could Face HouseSanctions,” Washington Post, 12 April 2002, A1.

Tucker, James Guy, Jr. (1943– )Governor of Arkansas (1992–1996), implicatedalong with his predecessor, President Bill Clinton,in the Whitewater affair, for which Tucker wasfound guilty of bank fraud. Although he rose toserve in some of the highest offices in Arkansas,Tucker was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on13 June 1943. However, he moved with his familyto Little Rock, Arkansas, as a youngster and at-tended the public schools of that city. He earnedhis bachelor’s degree from Harvard University in1964 and his law degree from the University ofArkansas at Fayetteville four years later. In 1964Tucker volunteered for service in the U.S. MarineCorps Reserve and served for two tours (1965,1967) as a free-lance reporter in Vietnam. Afterfinishing these stints, Tucker returned to LittleRock, where in 1968 he was admitted to theArkansas bar. He opened a practice in Little Rock.

Tucker, James Guy, Jr. 333

Two years after opening his practice, Tucker leftto run for the office of prosecuting attorney of theSixth Judicial District of Arkansas, which heserved in from 1971 to 1972. He left that office torun for Arkansas state attorney general. Elected,he served a single term (1973–1977). At that sametime, he served as a member of the ArkansasCriminal Code Revision Commission.

In 1976 Tucker was elected to a seat in the U.S.House of Representatives. He only served a singletwo-year term, declining to run for reelection in1978, to run instead for a seat in the U.S. Senate.Unsuccessful in that race, he found himself out ofpolitics for the first time in nearly a decade and re-turned to his law practice. Tucker remained in Lit-tle Rock for the entire decade of the 1980s. In 1990he was selected by the Democrats as their candi-date for lieutenant governor. Lieutenant GovernorWinston Bryant was stepping down from his posi-tion to become a candidate for state attorney gen-eral. Bryant had served in the state’s second execu-tive position since 1981 under two differentgovernors—William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton, andFrank D. White. Tucker was elected because of thepopularity of Clinton, the longest-serving gover-nor of the state. Tucker’s two years as lieutenantgovernor were undistinguished. In 1993, afterClinton left Arkansas to serve as the forty-secondpresident of the United States, Tucker was elevatedto become the forty-fifth governor of Arkansas. Aspecial election was held to select Tucker’s succes-sor as lieutenant governor, and Republican MikeHuckabee won, making him the highest-rankingRepublican in the state.

Tucker would have remained the governor of asmall state, barely noticed on the national stage,but for his association with Clinton, whose na-tional administration was racked from its startwith scandal and allegations of scandal. The firstlarge affair that struck the administration wasWhitewater, a land scheme gone wrong inArkansas that was financed with money fromfailing savings and loan institutions. Prosecutorsin the Whitewater scandal later accused Tucker ofmeeting in 1985 with Clinton friend James Mc-Dougal, head of the Madison Guaranty Savings &Loan, and David Hale, head of the ArkansasSmall Business Administration (SBA), andscheming to defraud the U.S. government of $3million through an illegal loan that was procured

from the SBA for Susan McDougal, some ofwhich ended up in the Whitewater land deal(which was run by McDougal and his wife, Susan,and Bill and Hillary Clinton), some in Tucker’spocket, and some in Clinton’s reelection cam-paign. In 1993 federal investigators looking intowhy McDougal’s savings and loan bank faileddiscovered the illegal loan and charged Hale. Heplea-bargained a lesser sentence in exchange fortestifying against Tucker, the McDougals, andClinton (who was never charged) and implicatedthe president and Tucker in illegalities. On 17 Au-gust 1995, Tucker and both McDougals were in-dicted by a Little Rock grand jury on numerouscounts alleging that they conspired to defraud thesavings and loan, and thus the government. Theconspiracy charge against Susan McDougal waslater dismissed. Their trial began in Little Rockon 4 March 1996. Hale testified against the threedefendants, and President Clinton likewise testi-fied, via videotaped statement, for the defen-dants. On 28 May 1996, all three were convicted,Tucker being found guilty on all counts. On 15July 1996, following the refusal of the judge over-seeing the case to set aside the verdict, Tucker re-signed as governor, and Lieutenant GovernorMike Huckabee became governor of Arkansas. Atthe time, Tucker pleaded to have his sentencingput off, as he was diagnosed with liver failure andsaid he needed a transplant. This operation oc-curred later in 1996. Because of his medical con-dition, Tucker was eventually sentenced to eigh-teen months’ home detention. However, whenprosecutors pushed in 1998 to have him sen-tenced to prison, Tucker agreed on 20 February1998 to plead guilty to charges of defrauding thegovernment. In exchange for not having to go toprison, he appeared before the Whitewater grandjury and cooperated in the investigation againstClinton. Because Clinton was never formallycharged with Whitewater crimes, Tucker becamethe highest-ranking public official to be tried inthe scandal.

See also Clinton, William Jefferson; WhitewaterReferences: Haddigan, Michael,“Tucker Sentenced to 4

Years’ Probation,” Washington Post, 20 August 1996,A1; “James Guy Tucker, Jr.,” in Timothy P. Donovan,Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., and Jeannie M. Whayne,eds., The Governors of Arkansas: Essays in PoliticalBiography (Fayetteville, AR: University of ArkansasPress, 1995), 284–287.

334 Tucker, James Guy, Jr.

Tweed, William Magear (1823–1878)New York alderman and powerful politician, in-dicted and sent to prison (where he died) for mas-sive corruption. Born in New York City on 23 April1823, he was the son of Richard Tweed and Eliza(née Magear) Tweed. Many historians have citedTweed’s middle name as “Marcy,” apparently afterWilliam Learned Marcy, a Jacksonian Democratwho was elected governor of New York in 1830. ButMarcy was unknown when William Tweed wasborn, and it is biographer Leo Hershkowitz whowrites that Tweed’s middle name is in fact Magear,his mother’s maiden name. He was born at hisfamily’s residence of 1 Cherry Street, which hassince been demolished to make way for the en-trance to the Brooklyn Bridge. Tweed did not at-tend school for long—he left at age eleven to go towork for his father learning the chair-makingtrade. Later, he was apprenticed to a saddler andfor a time studied bookkeeping and served as aclerk in a mercantile office in New York City. Healso became a fireman, joining a volunteer com-pany, Engine Company No. 12, when he was in-vited by the local assemblyman, John J. Reilly, tofirm a new company, No. 6, in 1848. Tweed becamethe foreman of the company the following year,and it was through this association that he becameinvolved in local municipal politics.

In 1852 Tweed, while running his father’s chair-making company, ran for the post of New York Cityalderman. He was elected and served until 1853.In 1852, as well, he ran as a Democrat for a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives, winning theelection and taking his seat in the Thirty-thirdCongress. However, when he stood for reelection,Tweed was defeated. In 1856 he was appointed tothe Board of Education, serving as schools com-missioner from 1856 to 1857; that same year, hewas elected to the board of supervisors for NewYork County. By 1858 he had become one of theleading politicians in New York City. Despite this,he was defeated as a candidate for sheriff in 1861.

Starting in 1861, Tweed began to hold a seriesof positions that took him to the pinnacle ofpower in the city. Elected deputy street commis-sioner, serving until 1870, he garnered power byattracting the votes of Catholics and immigrantsin his ward. Although he had never studied thelaw, Tweed was certified by a friend as an attorneyand opened a law office at 95 Duane Street in

1860. He was named chairman of the DemocraticGeneral Committee of New York County, and, on 1January 1864 was selected to lead Tammany Hall,the Democratic political machine in the city.When he was named as grand sachem, or leader,of Tammany, that April, he earned the nickname“Boss” Tweed.

Over the next decade, Tweed used his positionto build a power base that was a first in Americanpolitics. Having been influenced by the dictatorialcontrol of New York City Mayor Fernando Wood,Tweed assembled a group of men in control to robthe city of its wealth. Using the power of MayorAbraham Oakey Hall, Comptroller Richard B. Con-nolly, and chief of the Department of Public WorksPeter B. Sweeny, Tweed was able to siphon millionsof dollars from city coffers. Tweed also controlledthe votes of six Democrats on the Board of Super-visors and paid one of the six opposing Republi-cans, Peter Voorhis, to stay away from the meet-ings so he could have a majority of the votes.Judges were bought: one, Albert Cardozo, was thefather of future Supreme Court Justice BenjaminCardozo.Another, George G. Bernard, was a formerpimp who slept through the trials he was hearing.(Barnard was later the subject of impeachment in-quiries in New York State.)

Tweed used every avenue to bleed the city’sbudget. Historian Jay Robert Nash explained:

To control the elections of the late 1860s, Tweed andhis fellows took over the naturalization of immi-grants who made up almost half of New York’s pop-ulation. Tammany members sold naturalization pa-pers to those who would vote the Tammany ticket.These papers were genuine and issued by Tweed’scontrolled courts. A man named Rosenberg soldthousands of these papers to immigrants beforebeing arrested by U.S. Marshal Robert Murray, whoposed as a foreigner without papers. Said Rosen-berg before he was promptly set free by Tweed’shirelings: “Mr. Murray, every certificate that youhave purchased from me is genuine, and came outof the courtroom. I am at work for the democratic[sic] party, and paid for this thing[;] I get but verylittle of the $2 that is paid for these certificates.”

The corruption reached new levels in the1870s. After being named by Tammany to be thecommissioner of public works, Tweed pushed forthe building of City Hall Park and was paid

Tweed, William Magear 335

William "Boss" Tweed and members of his ring, Peter B. Sweeny, Richard B. Connolly, and A. Oakley Hall, weather a violent stormon a ledge, while the picked-over remains of New York City lie below. (Library of Congress)

through back channels; he also purchased benchesfor $5 each and resold them to the city for $600each. Tweed controlled all aspects of New York Citylife for the better part of a decade. It was not untilHarper’s Weekly and the New York Times started in-vestigating the city’s finances that the massive cor-ruption was uncovered, albeit slowly. On 21 July1870, the New York Times reported on its frontpage that cronies of Tweed’s were being paid mas-sive sums to do ordinary work—for instance, oneGeorge Miller, a carpenter with ties to Tweed, waspaid more than $360,000 a month for his labor.The governor of New York, Samuel Tilden, and thestate attorney general, Charles Fairchild, openedup investigations. Fairchild, figuring Tweed to be alow man on the totem pole, called him in and of-fered him freedom in exchange for his testimony.Tweed told Fairchild the whole story, but impli-cated himself as the leader of the crooked gang.Fairchild then backed off his deal and insteadcharged Tweed, using the evidence Tweed himselfhad supplied to indict him. Tweed was arrestedand his bail set at $6 million, an incredible sum inthose days. Using backdoor accounts, Tweed senthis entire family into exile in Europe.

Day after day, Tweed was pilloried in thepress—noted journalist/artist Thomas Nast drewTweed in his popular cartoon as a buffoon andeven drew him with a moneybag for a face. Tweedknew the impact these pictures would have on hiscase. He told the editor of Harper’s, “I don’t care astraw for your newspaper articles, my constituentsdon’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeingthem damned pictures.” Tweed approached Nastand offered him a bribe of $500,000—far morethan his $5,000 annual salary—to stop drawinghis cartoons, but Nast refused.

In 1874 Tweed was put on trial and convictedof embezzlement, although the prosecutors didnot fully divulge to the jury the vulgar amountsthat were stolen. Tweed was sentenced to eightyears in prison and served his time in the NewYork City prison called “The Tombs.” However, inDecember 1875, he managed to bribe a guard andescaped, catching a ship to Spain. He would havemade good his flight, but he was recognized inEurope due to Nast’s cartoons. Captured, he wassent back on a U.S. man-of-war and again con-fined in the Ludlow Street jail. Less than a yearand a half after he was returned to America,

Tweed, in rapidly declining health, died in prisonon 12 April 1878, eleven days shy of his fifty-fifthbirthday.

In the years since his death, Tweed has becomeknown as perhaps the greatest single instance ofpolitical corruption in American history. Few posi-tive assessments, if any could be found, have everbeen published on his reign of financial terror overNew York City. Because of his pudgy and scragglyappearance, the cartoons of Thomas Nast, and hisseeming lack of remorse for his thievery, Tweedcontinues to earn popular derision more than acentury after his death. Historians even continueto get his middle name wrong.

References: Allen, Oliver E., The Tiger: The Rise and Fallof Tammany Hall (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1993); Hershkowitz, Leo, Tweed’s New York: AnotherLook (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press-Doubleday,1977), 5; Lynch, Denis Tilden, ‘Boss’ Tweed: The Storyof a Grim Generation” (New York: Boni and Liveright,1927); Roger A. Fischer, Them Damned Pictures:Explorations in American Cartoon Art (North Haven,CT: Archon Books, 1996); Share, Allen J.,“Tweed,William M(agear) ‘Boss,’” Brown, Mary Elizabeth,“Tweed Courthouse,” and Mushkat, Jerome,“TweedRing,” in Kenneth T. Jackson, ed., The Encyclopedia ofNew York City (New Haven: Yale University Press,1995), 1205–1207; “Tweed, William Marcy,” in JayRobert Nash, Encyclopedia of World Crime: CriminalJustice, Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols.(Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989),IV:3007–3009; “Tweed, William Marcy,” in TheNational Cyclopædia of American Biography, 57 vols.and supplements A-N (New York: James T. White &Company, 1897–1984), III:389.

Tyner, James Noble (1826–1904)United States representative (1869–1875), post-master general in the administration of Ulysses S.Grant (1876–1877), charged but acquitted of mas-sive corruption in the Post Office Department.Tyner was born in the town of Brookville, Indiana,on 17 January 1826 (although the date had beenalso reported as 7 January 1826), the son ofRichard Tyner, a merchant and dry goods storeowner. James Tyner studied at local academies be-fore graduating from the Brookville Academy in1844. He entered private business, working for hisfather and spending ten years accumulating somewealth, before he studied law and was admitted tothe Indiana bar in 1857. He opened a practice inthe town of Peru, Indiana.

Tyner, James Noble 337

While studying for the bar, Tyner ran for a seatas a representative in the Indiana General Assem-bly, representing Miami County, but he was de-feated. However, soon after he was admitted to thebar, he was elected secretary of the Indiana statesenate, where he served until 1861. He left that po-sition to become a special agent for the UnitedStates Post Office Department, starting a career inthat government department that would last formost of his life. Five years after starting work therehe resigned to return to the practice of law. How-ever, his law practice period was short. In 1868,Tyner decided to reenter the political field. Repub-lican Daniel D. Pratt had been elected to a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives, but when a U.S.Senate seat had opened he was advanced to thatposition, opening the House seat. Tyner ran as aRepublican to fill the vacancy and was elected inearly 1869, taking his seat in the Forty-first Con-gress. In the House from 4 March 1869 to 3 March1875, Tyner, as a former member of the U.S. PostOffice Department, served as a member of theHouse Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.In the Forty-third Congress, the committee’s chair-man, Representative James A. Garfield, selectedTyner to oversee all congressional activity relatingto the appropriations for the Post Office Depart-ment. In February 1875 President Ulysses S. Grantnamed Tyner second assistant postmaster general,making the Indiana Republican the third mostpowerful man inside the Post Office Department.During his tenure in that office, from 26 February1875 until 12 July 1876, Tyner was put in charge ofthe department’s contract system with local post-masters.

On 11 July 1876, President Grant fired Postmas-ter General Marshall Jewell—historians believethat Jewell’s investigations into massive corruptionby Republican postmasters nationwide causedpressure on Grant to remove him. The followingday, Tyner was named as Jewell’s replacement. De-spite having served under Grant and being namedto the department’s top position by Grant, Tynerwas a close political ally of Ohio Governor Ruther-ford B. Hayes, who was being pushed by many inhis party to challenge Grant’s attempts at a thirdpresidential nomination in 1876. Numerous scan-dals during the eight years of Grant’s presidency,including the Whiskey Ring frauds, the IndianRing frauds, the Sanborn Contract scandal, among

others, led many Republicans to become disillu-sioned with Grant. Tyner secretly worked behindthe scenes to aid Hayes and was rewarded whenthe Ohioan received the presidential nominationof the party and was elected in a close election.Despite being demoted by Hayes to first assistantpostmaster general to make way for a Democrat,David M. Key, Tyner was given control of the day-to-day activities of the department. Many histori-ans believe that it was during this period thatTyner abetted corruption and may have even beeninvolved in it.

In October 1881, when the massive corruptionof the Star Route frauds came to light, Tynerclaimed that he had informed Postmaster GeneralKeys in 1878, and then Postmaster GeneralThomas L. James in 1879, but was ignored. Thishalf-baked story was believed by no one, and theconstant press attention forced Tyner to resign.The New York Times dubbed his story “Mr. Tyner’sLame Defense,” and editorialized, “Mr. Tyner, byhis report of August 1879, shows that he was cog-nizant of the fraudulent methods being practicedin connection with the postal service, and yet, inFebruary 1880, when the frauds were being ex-posed in Congress, Mr. Tyner was daily on the floorof the House exerting his influence, to shield[those accused in the frauds] and to secure thepassage of a deficiency appropriation of nearly$2,000,000 to continue to perpetuate frauds. It issingular that Mr. Tyner did not produce his reportat that time, and thus save the Treasury from fur-ther plunder.”

Despite this accusation, Tyner was nevercharged with a crime. And having helped Hayesgain the nomination in 1876, he remained a pow-erful force in Republican politics. In 1888, whenSenator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana was electedpresident, Tyner was rewarded once again, beingnamed assistant attorney general for the Post Of-fice Department. Again, Tyner allegedly set outand used his position to collect bribes and to lookaway while corruption went on unabated. He re-mained in the administration until Harrison leftoffice in 1893. However, in 1896, when RepublicanWilliam McKinley was elected president, againTyner was rewarded with the assistant attorneygeneral position and he spend five more yearsprofiting from his position. Finally, in 1902, afteryears and years of corruption, allegations arose as

338 Tyner, James Noble

to his deeds. President Theodore Roosevelt namedFourth Assistant Postmaster General Joseph L.Bristow to investigate. Bristow concluded thatTyner had been taking bribes and kickbacks formuch of his tenure. When word leaked what Bris-tow had concluded as to Tyner’s guilt, the seventy-six-year-old Tyner sent his wife and sister-in-lawto his Post Office Department office to retrieve anddestroy vital documents and other papers. Tynerwas indicted nonetheless, but without the key evi-dence he was acquitted. He then quietly resigned,his three-decade career of graft and corruptionput to an end.

Just two years after he was acquitted, on 5 De-cember 1904, Tyner died in Washington, D.C., atthe age of seventy-eight, and was buried in thatcity’s Oak Hill Cemetery. Despite his lengthy career

of corruption, one of the longest in American his-tory, his name remains unknown today.

References: Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield, The CabinetPolitician: The Postmasters General, 1829–1909 (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1943), 156; “JamesN. Tyner Dead. Was a Member of President Grant’sCabinet.Years in the Service. Was Recently Before theCourt on Charges and Was Acquitted by Jury,” EveningStar (Washington, DC), 5 December 1904, 8; “Mr.Tyner’s Lame Defense. His Unavailing Efforts toRetain Office,” New York Times, 24 October 1881, 1;“Mr. Tyner’s Pet Star Route. Costly Postal Service forhis Personal Benefit,” New York Times, 25 October1881, 1; “Tyner, James Noble,” in The NationalCyclopædia of American Biography, 57 vols. andsupplements A-N (New York: James T. White &Company, 1897–1984), IV:20; Tyner to Chandler, 1November 1876, in file “Correspondence 1876,”Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress.

Tyner, James Noble 339

United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503(1955)United States Supreme Court decision that “theDisbursing Office of the House of Representativesis a ‘department or agency’ of the United Stateswithin the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which for-bids the willful falsification of a material fact ‘inany matter within the jurisdiction of any depart-ment or agency of the United States.’” Bramblett, aformer Congressman, was found guilty aftertelling the House Disbursing Office, which payssalaries of House workers, that a particular personknown to Bramblett was serving as his clerk, whenin fact the person had no official duties in theHouse. Bramblett was convicted of violating 18U.S.C. § 1001, which states that “Whoever, in anymatter within the jurisdiction of any departmentor agency of the United States knowingly and will-fully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick,scheme, or device a material fact, or makes anyfalse, fictitious or fraudulent statements or repre-sentations, or makes or uses any false writing ordocument knowing the same to contain any false,fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall befined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned notmore than five years, or both.”Of the eighteen orig-inal charges against Bramblett, a trial judgment ofacquittal was entered in counts eight to eighteen,and the jury returned with guilty verdicts on theremaining seven counts. The court then grantedthe defendant’s motion that the verdict be ar-

rested, because he claimed that he had not falsifieda material fact “within the jurisdiction of any de-partment or agency of the United States,” and thatthe Disbursing Office was not such an office withinthe meaning of the statute. The United States ap-pealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted cer-tiorari (the right to hear the case). Argumentswere heard on 7 February 1955.

On 4 April of that same year, Justice StanleyReed spoke for a six-to-zero majority (Chief Jus-tice Earl Warren and Associate Justices HaroldBurton and John Marshall Harlan did not partici-pate) in holding that the Disbursing Office of theHouse was a “department or agency” of theUnited States government within the meaning ofthe relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. As JusticeReed explained:

It might be argued that the matter here involvedwas within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Depart-ment, as the appellee’s misstatements would requirethe payment of funds from the United States Trea-sury. Or, viewing this as a matter within the juris-diction of the Disbursing Office, it might be argued,as the Government does, that that body is an “au-thority” within the definition of “agency.”We do notrest our decision on either of those interpretations.The context in which this language is used calls foran unrestricted interpretation. This is enforced byits legislative history. It would do violence to thepurpose of Congress to limit the section to falsifica-tions made to the executive departments. Congress

U

341

could not have intended to leave frauds such as thiswithout penalty. The development, scope and pur-pose of the section shows that “department,” asused in this context, was meant to describe the ex-ecutive, legislative and judicial branches of theGovernment.

In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court overruledBramblett, holding it to be a “seriously flawed deci-sion,” in the case Hubbard v. United States.

References: Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 115 S.Ct. 1754 [1995]).

United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501(1972)United States Supreme Court decision holding thatthe Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitu-tion does not preclude an inquiry into the allegedconduct of a congressman or a senator apart fromhis or her actions as a member of Congress. Sena-tor Daniel Brewster (D-MD) was charged with thesolicitation and acceptance of bribes in violationof 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g) (the latternow 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B)), which read:

(c) Whoever (1) otherwise than as provided by lawfor the proper discharge of official duty (A) directlyor indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything ofvalue to any public official, former public official, orperson selected to be a public official, for or becauseof any official act performed or to be performed bysuch public official, former public official, or personselected to be a public official; or (B) being a publicofficial, former public official, or person selected tobe a public official, otherwise than as provided bylaw for the proper discharge of official duty, directlyor indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, oragrees to receive or accept anything of value per-sonally for or because of any official act performedor to be performed by such official or person shallbe fined or imprisoned for not more than two years.

Brewster lost his reelection bid in 1968 and in1969 was indicted on ten counts alleging that,while sitting as a member of the Senate Committeeon Post Office and Civil Service, he “directly and in-directly, corruptly asked, solicited, sought, ac-cepted, received and agreed to receive [sums] . . . inreturn for being influenced in his performance ofofficial acts in respect to his action, vote, and deci-sion on postage rate legislation which might at any

time be pending before him in his official capacity.”When the case got to trial, the district court judgethrew out five of the counts, holding that they re-lated to the acceptance of bribes in connectionwith the performance of a legislative function by asenator of the United States, which was protectedunder the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S.Constitution. The prosecutor appealed directly tothe U.S. Supreme Court; the Court agreed to hearthe case, and it was argued—first on 18 October1971, and again on 20 March 1972.

On 29 June 1972, the Court held six to three thatthe inquiry into taking bribes in contravention ofthe law was not protected by the Speech and De-bate Clause and reinstated the five counts that hadbeen dismissed. Holding for the majority, ChiefJustice Warren Burger (Justices William O.Douglas, Byron White, and William Brennan dis-sented) held that bribes were not part of the “per-formance of a legislative function,” and thus in-quiry into them were not shielded by the Speechand Debate Clause. Chief Justice Burger explained:

The question is whether it is necessary to inquireinto how appellee spoke, how he debated, how hevoted, or anything he did in the chamber or in com-mittee in order to make out a violation of thisstatute. The illegal conduct is taking or agreeing totake money for a promise to act in a certain way.There is no need for the Government to show thatappellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; accept-ance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, notperformance of the illegal promise. . . .

Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the leg-islative process or function; it is not a legislative act.It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an actperformed as a part of or even incidental to the roleof a legislator. It is not an “act resulting from the na-ture, and in the execution, of the office.” Nor is it a“thing said or done by him, as a representative, inthe exercise of the functions of that office,” . . . . Noris inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation fora legislative act necessary to a prosecution underthis statute or this indictment. When a bribe istaken, it does not matter whether the promise forwhich the bribe was given was for the performanceof a legislative act as here or, as in Johnson, for useof a Congressman’s influence with the ExecutiveBranch. And an inquiry into the purpose of a bribe“does not draw in question the legislative acts of thedefendant member of Congress or his motives forperforming them. . . .

342 United States v. Brewster

Nor does it matter if the Member defaults on hisillegal bargain. To make a prima facie case underthis indictment, the Government need not show anyact of appellee subsequent to the corrupt promisefor payment, for it is taking the bribe, not perfor-mance of the illicit compact, that is a criminal act.If, for example, there were undisputed evidence thata Member took a bribe in exchange for an agree-ment to vote for a given bill and if there were alsoundisputed evidence that he, in fact, voted againstthe bill, can it be thought that this alters the natureof the bribery or removes it from the area of wrong-doing the Congress sought to make a crime?

With these counts restored, and, having beenconvicted of the other five counts (which had beenreversed), in 1975 Brewster pled guilty to a chargeof accepting an illegal gratuity while a UnitedStates senator and served a short prison term.

See also Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S.Constitution

References: “Former Senator Brewster Charged withBribery,” News and Observer (Raleigh, NC), 2December 1969, 1.

United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360(1980)United States Supreme Court decision that upheldthe right of a court to allow the introduction of ev-idence involving a legislator’s legislative career incases dealing with political corruption. Althoughnot a corruption case per se, the determinationnevertheless allowed a widening of latitude insuch cases.

Tennessee State Senator Edgar H. Gillock wasindicted on 12 August 1976 in the federal DistrictCourt for the Western District of Tennessee on fivecounts of “obtaining money under the color of of-ficial right . . . one count of using an interstate fa-cility to distribute a bribe . . . and one count ofparticipating in an enterprise through a pattern ofracketeering activity.” The indictment chargedGillock, who was also a practicing attorney, “withaccepting money as a fee for using his public officeto block the extradition of a defendant from Ten-nessee to Illinois, and for agreeing to introduce inthe State General Assembly legislation whichwould enable four persons to obtain master elec-tricians’ licenses they had been unable to obtain byway of existing examination processes.” Before the

trial, Gillock asked that the court suppress all evi-dence relating to his legislative activities under aprivilege granted by Rule 501 of the Federal Rulesof Evidence, which prohibits courts from allowingthe introduction of evidence of one’s legislativeacts or “underlying motivations.” The districtcourt, in granting the motion, held that the ban onsuch evidence was necessary “to protect the in-tegrity of the [state’s] legislative process by insur-ing the independence of individual legislators”and “to preserve the constitutional relation be-tween our federal and state governments in ourfederal system.” The prosecution appealed, and theruling was struck down the by United States Courtof Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which vacated theorder and remanded back to the district court foradditional consideration. (See 559 F.2d 1222(1977).) In a hearing before the district courtjudge, the government explained that it intendedto use evidence of Gillock’s legislative activities toprove that he had violated his office to obtain abribe and fees for introducing certain legislation.After the hearing, the district court again sup-pressed this evidence. Again, the government ap-pealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-cuit. In a divided decision, the court upheld thesuppression, holding that “the long history and thefelt need for protection of legislative speech or de-bate and the repeated and strong recognition ofthat history in the cases . . . from the SupremeCourt, fully justify our affirming [the DistrictCourt] in [its] protection of the privilege in thiscase.” (See 587 F.2d 284, 290 (1978).) The govern-ment then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,which granted certiorari (the right to hear thecase). As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “Wegranted certiorari [in this case] to resolve a con-flict in the Circuits over whether the federal courtsin a federal criminal prosecution . . . should recog-nize a legislative privilege barring the introductionof evidence of the legislative acts of a state legisla-tor charged with taking bribes or otherwise ob-taining money unlawfully through exploitation ofhis official position.”

Arguments were heard on 4 December 1979.On 19 March 1980 the Court handed down its

decision. Speaking for a seven-to-two majority,Chief Justice Burger held that “in the absence of aconstitutional limitation on the power of Congressto make state officials, like all other persons, sub-

United States v. Gillock 343

ject to federal criminal sanctions, we discern nobasis in these circumstances for a judicially cre-ated limitation that handicaps proof of the rele-vant facts.” Finding on the grounds that Congressdid not intend for such legislative immunity to beextended to state officials, the Court ordered thatevidence of Gillock’s legislative activities may beallowed. “We conclude, therefore, that althoughprinciples of comity command careful considera-tion, our cases disclose that where important fed-eral interests are at stake, as in the enforcement offederal criminal statutes, comity yields,” Burgerwent on:

We recognize that denial of a privilege to a state leg-islator may have some minimal impact on the exer-cise of his legislative function; however, similar ar-guments made to support a claim of executiveprivilege were found wanting in United States v.Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), when balanced againstthe need of enforcing federal criminal statutes.There, the genuine risk of inhibiting candor in theinternal exchanges at the highest levels of the Exec-utive Branch was held insufficient to justify denyingjudicial power to secure all relevant evidence in acriminal proceeding. See also United States v. Burr,25 F. Cas. 187 (No. 14,694). Here, we believe thatrecognition of an evidentiary privilege for state leg-islators for their legislative acts would impair the le-gitimate interest of the Federal Government in en-forcing its criminal statutes with only speculativebenefit to the state legislative process.

References: Text of United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360(1980).

United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477(1979)United States Supreme Court decision holding thatthe legislative actions of a congressperson that areevidence of political corruption are inadmissiblein a court of law. Representative Henry Helstoski(1925–1999) served in the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives (1965–1977) as a representative fromNew Jersey. In 1974 the Department of Justicebegan investigating reports of political corruptioninvolving Helstoski, including allegations thataliens had paid him for the introduction and pro-cessing of private bills that would suspend the ap-plication of the immigration laws so as to allowthem to remain in the United States. In June 1976 a

grand jury returned a twelve-count indictmentcharging Helstoski and others with numerouscriminal acts, including “accepting money in re-turn for Helstoski’s ‘being influenced in the perfor-mance of official acts, to wit: the introduction ofprivate bills in the United States House of Repre-sentatives.’” During the grand jury proceedings,Helstoski refused to produce documents that dealtwith the controversy, citing the so-called Speech orDebate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This provi-sion, in Article 1, Section 6, says that “for anySpeech or Debate in either House, they [the Sena-tors and Representatives] shall not be questionedin any other Place.” On this subject, the trial courtheld that “The United States may not, during thepresentation of its case-in-chief at the trial of[this] Indictment, introduce evidence of the per-formance of a past legislative act on the part of thedefendant, Henry Helstoski, derived from anysource and for any purpose.” The prosecution ap-pealed to the United States Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit, which rejected both of the gov-ernment’s arguments: (a) that legislative actscould be introduced to show motive; and (b) thatlegislative acts could be introduced because Hel-stoski had waived his privilege by testifying beforethe grand juries. The court relied on United Statesv. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972), which prohibited“the introduction of evidence as to how a Con-gressman acted on, voted on, or resolved a legisla-tive issue,” reasoning that “to permit evidence ofsuch acts under the guise of showing motivewould negate the protection afforded by theSpeech or Debate Clause.” The government ap-pealed to the United States Supreme Court. Hel-stoski also sued Judge Meanor, the district judge,for refusing to allow him to quash the indictmentwith a writ of mandamus. The U.S. Supreme Courtheard arguments in both of Helstoski’s suits on thesame day, 27 March 1979.

The Court handed down its decision on 18 June1979. In Helstoski v. Meanor, the court held that awrit of mandamus was an improper way to get acourt to throw evidence out. In United States v. Hel-stoski, Chief Justice Burger spoke for a seven-to-one majority (Justice William Brennan dissented,and Justice Lewis Powell did not participate) in re-fusing to allow the government to introduce evi-dence of Helstoski’s legislative actions. “TheSpeech or Debate Clause was designed to preclude

344 United States v. Helstoski

prosecution of Members for legislative acts,” theChief Justice wrote. “The Clause protects ‘againstinquiry into acts that occur in the regular courseof the legislative process and into the motivationfor those acts’ . . . It ‘precludes any showing of how[a legislator] acted, voted, or decided.’” Chief Jus-tice Burger further explained:

The Clause does not simply state,“No proof of a leg-islative act shall be offered”; the prohibition of theClause is far broader. It provides that Members“shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Indeed,as MR. JUSTICE STEVENS recognizes, the admis-sion of evidence of legislative acts “may reveal [tothe jury] some information about the performanceof legislative acts and the legislator’s motivation inconducting official duties.” . . . Revealing informa-tion as to a legislative act—speaking or debating—to a jury would subject a Member to being “ques-tioned,” in a place other than the House or Senate,thereby violating the explicit prohibition of theSpeech or Debate Clause.

See also United States v. Brewster; United States v. JohnsonReferences: Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979), 489.

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169(1966)United States Supreme Court decision that repre-sentatives could not be convicted of political cor-ruption on evidence arising from their legislativeactivities.

Thomas Francis Johnson, a former UnitedStates representative from the state of Maryland,was indicted and convicted on seven counts of vi-olating the federal conflict-of-interest statute (18U.S.C. § 281) and on one count of conspiring todefraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371). Onappeal, the United States Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit set aside Johnson’s conviction onthe single conspiracy count, holding that the gov-ernment’s allegation that Johnson had conspiredto make a speech for compensation on the floor ofthe House of Representatives was barred by theso-called Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Con-stitution, which says that “for any Speech or De-bate in either House, they [Senators and Repre-sentatives] shall not be questioned in any otherPlace.” The court then ordered a new trial on theremaining counts, holding that the evidence

brought forth to prove conspiracy had “infectedthe entire prosecution.” The United States ap-pealed this ruling to the United States SupremeCourt. Arguments were heard on 10 and 15 No-vember 1965.

On 24 February 1965, Justice John MarshallHarlan spoke for a seven-to-zero majority (Jus-tices Hugo Black and Byron White did not partici-pate) in affirming the lower court’s decision. Jus-tice Harlan found, in giving a history of the Speechor Debate clause, that it was a fundamental right ofrepresentatives to be free from the “intrusions” ofother branches, namely the judicial branch, whendiscussing their legislative activities, particularlytheir speeches. He wrote,

[T]he Government contends that the Speech or De-bate Clause was not violated because the gravamenof the count was the alleged conspiracy, not thespeech, and because the defendant, not the prosecu-tion, introduced the speech itself. Whatever roomthe Constitution may allow for such factors in thecontext of a different kind of prosecution, we con-clude that they cannot serve to save the Govern-ment's case under this conspiracy count. It wasundisputed that Johnson delivered the speech; itwas likewise undisputed that Johnson received thefunds; controversy centered upon questions of whofirst decided that a speech was desirable, who pre-pared it, and what Johnson’s motives were for mak-ing it.

See also Johnson, Thomas Francis; Speech or DebateClause of the U.S. Constitution; United States v.Brewster; United States v. Helstoski

United States v. National TreasuryEmployees UnionSee Honoraria

United States v. Shirey, 359 U.S. 255(1959)Supreme Court decision holding that a law thatprohibits an “offer or promise . . . of money orthing of value, to any person, firm or corporation inconsideration of the use or promise to use any in-fluence to procure any appointive office or placeunder the United States for any person” includespolitical parties as well as people not in a legislative

United States v. Shirey 345

seat under the definition of “person.” George Don-ald Shirey was charged with violating this federallaw (18 U.S.C. § 214), when he told Congressman S.Walter Stauffer (R-PA) that he would “donate $1,000a year to the Republican Party to be used as they seefit” in return for Stauffer’s help in getting Shirey ap-pointed postmaster of York, Pennsylvania. Stauffertold the authorities, and Shirey was arrested. In fed-eral district court, Shirey asked that the indictmentbe quashed on the grounds that he was not a “per-son” covered by the statute, and that offering $1,000a year to the Republican Party was not offering abribe to a “person.” The district court agreed, andthe U.S. government appealed directly to the UnitedStates Supreme Court, which agreed to hear thecase. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, “One sensiblereading is to say that even though the RepublicanParty was to be the ultimate recipient of the money,this was a promise to Stauffer of money (which itplainly was) in consideration of his use of influ-ence.”Arguments were heard on 19 January 1959.

Almost exactly three months later, on 20 April1959, Justice Frankfurter spoke for a unanimouscourt in reversing the district court’s decision andholding that Shirey and the Republican Partycould be considered “persons” under the meaningof 18 U.S.C. § 214. Justice Frankfurter explained:

Applying these generalities to the immediate occa-sion, it is clear that the terms, the history, and themanifest purpose of 18 U.S.C. 214 coalesce in a con-struction of that statute which validates the infor-mation against Shirey. The evil which Congresssought to check and the mischief wrought by whatit proscribed are the same when the transaction istriangular as when only two parties are involved. Itis incredible to suppose that Congress meant toprohibit Shirey from giving $1,000 to Stauffer, to bepassed on by the latter to the Party fund, but thatShirey was outside the congressional prohibition forsecuring the same influence by a promise to deposit$1,000 directly in the Party’s fund. That is not thekind of finessing by which this Court has heretoforeallowed penal legislation to be construed. . . . thejudgment is reversed.

United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.)384 (1798)Important Pennsylvania district case, one of thefirst to be heard in the United States regarding

bribery of federal and state officials and how sucha crime could be charged under the common law.In 1792, Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of thetreasury, appointed Tench Coxe commissioner ofrevenue, a position in which he collected the taxesand tariffs accrued in the nation as a whole.

In 1794 Congress enacted a law calling for theconstruction of a lighthouse at Cape Hatteras,North Carolina. Coxe, in his position as commis-sioner of revenue, was put in charge of solicitingproposals for the project and settling on a builder.On 28 September 1797, he received a letter fromone Robert Worrall, who was interested in obtain-ing the contract to build the lighthouse. In his let-ter, Worrall wrote that he was the right man for thejob and, in his closing line, stated:

If I should be so happy in your recommendation ofthis work, I should think myself very ungrateful, if Idid not offer you one half of the profits as abovestated, and would deposit in your hand at receivingthe first payment £ 350, and the other £ 350 at thelast payment, when the work is finished and com-pleted [sic]. I hope you will not think me trouble-some in asking for a line on the business by yournext return and will call for it at the Post-Office, orin Third Street. In the mean time I shall subscribemyself to be, your obedient and very humble servt.[sic] to command.

Worrall was promising Coxe a bribe of some£700 pounds, or $1,866.67 at the time. AlthoughCoxe was in dire financial straits when the letterwas received, he presented it to authorities, whoarrested Worrall and charged him with trying tobribe a federal officer. Worrall was tried andfound guilty of both counts. He appealed to theCircuit Court of Pennsylvania’s Third Circuit—sitting as judges were Samuel Chase of the U.S.Supreme Court (on circuit duty) and JudgeRichard Peters. Two issues were presented: 1)whether a federal common law of crimes existedthat prohibited Worrall’s conduct, and 2) whetherCongress had lawfully passed a statute making itillegal for a federal officer to accept a bribe. Chaseargued that under the Tenth Amendment, the fed-eral government could not assume a power notspecifically granted to it by the Constitution.Moreover, even if Congress was permitted to enactthe law outlawing bribery to certain named fed-eral officials, the commissioner of revenue was

346 United States v. Worrall

not included, so any bribe to him was not coveredby the statute. Peters, however, claimed that politi-cal corruption went to the heart of a democracy’swell-being. He wrote:

Whenever a government has been established, Ihave always supposed, that a power to preserve it-self, was a necessary, and an inseparable, concomi-tant. But the existence of the Federal governmentwould be precarious, it could no longer be called anindependent government, if, for the punishment ofoffences of this nature, tending to obstruct and per-vert the administration of its affairs, an appealmust be made to the State tribunals, or the offend-ers must escape with absolute impunity. The powerto punish misdemeanors, is originally and strictly acommon law power; of which, I think, the UnitedStates are constitutionally possessed. It might havebeen exercised by Congress in the form of a Legisla-tive act; but, it may, also, in my opinion be enforcedin a course of Judicial proceeding. Whenever an of-fence aims at the subversion of any Federal institu-tion, or at the corruption of its public officers, it isan offence against the well-being of the UnitedStates; from its very nature, it is cognizable undertheir authority; and, consequently, it is within the

jurisdiction of this Court, by virtue of the 11th sec-tion of the Judicial act.

Because the court was split, Worrall’s convic-tion was upheld, and, after the two judges con-sulted with the other Supreme Court justices sit-ting in Philadelphia, they sentenced Worrall tothree month’s imprisonment and a fine of $200.

Although little studied today, United States v.Worrall was the first case dealing with the impactof political corruption on society and politics andwhether or not it could be punished or should bepunished.

References: Kawashima,Yasuhide,“Congress Should FirstDefine the Offenses and Apportion the Punishment:Federal Common Law Crimes [United States v.Worrall],” in John W. Johnson, ed., Historic U.S. CourtCases, 1690–1990: An Encyclopedia (New York:Garland Publishing, 1992), 19–22;“Trial of RobertWorrall, For Attempting to Bribe a Commissioner ofthe Revenue, In the Circuit Court of the United Statesfor the Pennsylvania District, Philadelphia, 1798,” inFrancis Wharton, ed., State Trials of the United StatesDuring the Administrations of Washington and Adams,With References Historical and Professional andPreliminary Notes on the Politics of the Times(Philadelphia: Carey & Hart, 1849), 189–199.

United States v. Worrall 347

Vare, William Scott (1867–1934)United States representative (1912–1923, 1923–1927) and U.S. senator-elect (1927–1929), deniedhis seat because of allegations of fraud in his sena-torial election, the legality of which denial was de-termined in a landmark Supreme Court decision.Vare was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 24December 1867. He attended public schools inPhiladelphia, but quit his formal education at theage of fifteen to enter the mercantile business inthat city. By 1893 Vare was a successful contractorin the city. In 1898 he entered the political realm,running for and winning a seat on the select coun-cil of Philadelphia, where he served until 1901.From 1902 to 1912, he served as the recorder ofdeeds for the city of Philadelphia and in 1912 waselected to a seat in the Pennsylvania state senate.With his brothers George and Edward, he came tocontrol the political machine in Pennsylvania oncerun by Simon Cameron and his son James DonaldCameron. Vare later succeeded Senator Boies Pen-rose as the political “boss” in the state.

Vare did not hold his state senate seat long; fol-lowing the death of Representative Henry Harri-son Bingham on 22 March 1912, a special electionwas held and Vare won the vacant seat. Vare wouldultimately serve in the U.S. House from 24 April1912 until 2 January 1923, when he resigned. Varereturned to Pennsylvania after his resignation andserved for a short time as a member of the statesenate. Elected back to the U.S. House of Represen-

tatives, he served in the Sixty-eighth and Sixty-ninth Congresses (4 March 1923–3 March 1927).

In 1926 Vare was elected to the United StatesSenate. At least, at first glance, it appeared that hehad been elected. Nominated by the Republicans,Vare easily defeated the Democrat and Labor can-didate, William B. Wilson (the former secretary oflabor (1913–1921) under Woodrow Wilson), bymore than 180,000 votes out of some 1.4 millioncast. When the new Congress began its session,Vare went to Washington to present his creden-tials. But Wilson, the defeated candidate, filed anappeal with the Senate, charging massive corrup-tion by Vare during both the Republican primaryand the general election. In his petition beforeCongress, Wilson alleged that Vare and his sup-porters used padded registration lists, misusedcampaign expenditures, counted votes for Varefrom persons who were dead or never existed, andengaged in intimidation and discouragement ofprospective voters. The Senate then voted to re-fuse Vare his seat until an investigation could beconcluded. The Senate Committee on Privilegesand Elections began to examine the election con-troversy. However, they were blocked: SenatorDavid A. Reed (R-PA) filibustered, forcing the in-vestigation to continue into the Seventieth Con-gress, which convened in December 1927. TheSenate’s refusal to act left the committee with nojurisdiction for nine full months, until the end of1927. The Senate had passed, on 11 January 1927,

V

349

Resolution 324, which empowered the Senatecommittee to “take . . . and preserve all ballotboxes, . . . ballots, return sheets . . . and otherrecords, books, and documents used in said Sen-ate election.” The committee appointed investiga-tor Jerry South to go to Pennsylvania to take con-trol of the materials specified. However, whenSouth went to the commissioners of DelawareCounty, who had custody of the ballots, they re-fused to hand them over. Reed, as a member of theSenate committee, demanded the boxes, andwhen the commissioners refused, he sued in fed-eral court. The case reached the U.S. SupremeCourt in 1928. In Reed v. County Commissioners ofDelaware County, 277 U.S. 376 (1928), the Courtheld that Reed and the Senate committee did nothave standing to sue. The Court held that since theSenate resolution did not allow for senators tosue, they could not even if the Senate Committeewas blocked in its investigation. When the Seven-tieth Congress convened on 5 December 1927,Vare presented his credentials, but was again re-fused his seat. The Senate committee then beganits investigation. Vare and Wilson were able to getthe records, and they were presented to the com-mittee for inspection. The Philadelphia district at-torney testified that Vare supporters had been in-volved in election fraud and that they had beenobstructing his own investigation into systematiccampaign fraud in the city. In examining the bal-lots from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the com-mittee found that “the fraud pervading the actualcount by the division election officers is ap-palling.” Vare was asked for additional testimonybefore the committee, but he suffered a cerebralhemorrhage, delaying the committee’s report. On22 February 1929, the committee reported unani-mously that because of the corruption, neitherVare nor Wilson was entitled to the seat. On 6 De-cember 1929, the Senate voted by fifty-eight totwenty-two that Vare could not be seated, and bysixty-six to fifteen that Wilson was equally ineligi-ble. On 12 December 1929, the Senate seatedJoseph R. Grundy, who had been appointed to thevacancy by Pennsylvania Governor John S. Fisher.

Vare was politically ruined by his failure to cap-ture the Senate seat and returned home to Pennsyl-vania, where he resumed his business activities.His health declined soon after, and on 7 August1934, while on a business trip to Atlantic City, New

Jersey, he died at the age of sixty-six. He was buriedin West Laurel Hill Cemetery in Philadelphia.

Although the name of William Vare is forgottentoday, his case ranks as one of the longest con-tested Senate campaigns in American history. Al-legations of excessive campaign expenditures andvoter fraud were as big a problem then as they aretoday.

See also Barry v. United States ex rel. CunninghamReferences: Astorino, Samuel J.,“The Contested Senate

Election of William Scott Vare,” Pennsylvania History,28 (April 1961), 187–201; Salter, John T., The People’sChoice: Philadelphia’s William S. Vare (New York:Exposition Press, 1971); Vare, William S., My FortyYears in Politics (Philadelphia: Roland Swain Co.,1933); “William B. Wilson v. William S.Vare,” in AnneM. Butler and Wendy Wolff, United States SenateElection, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793–1990(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995),323–329.

Vermont Right to Life Committee v.Sorrell, 19 F. Supp. 2d 204 (1998), 216F. 3d 264 (2000)Federal court of appeals decision holding that fed-eral or state governments may regulate only thosepolitical communications that expressly advocatethe election, or the defeat, of a clearly identifiedcandidate. In 1997 the state of Vermont enacted alaw to reform its campaign financing system. Thelaw, Act No. 64, specifically stated that it was “a re-sponse to rising costs of running for state office,the influence of those who make large campaigncontributions, and the effect of large campaign ex-penditures on what the Vermont General Assem-bly called the ‘[r]obust debate of issues, candidateinteraction with the electorate, and public involve-ment and confidence in the electoral process.’” Theact changed the way Vermont campaigns were fi-nanced. It provided for the “public financing ofcampaigns for the offices of governor and lieu-tenant governor, limited campaign contributionsand expenditures, amended the reporting require-ments for candidates and contributors, and im-posed disclosure and reporting requirements on,respectively, all ‘political advertisements’ and‘mass media activities.’” However, in this case, onlythe political advertising and the mass media activ-ities provisions were at issue. The plaintiff, the Ver-mont Right to Life Committee (VRLC), charged

350 Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell

that the statute was an unconstitutional abridge-ment on its ability to advertise during an election.The VRLC sued William H. Sorrell, the state attor-ney general, as well as numerous states’ attorneys,to stop the enforcement of three of the provisionsof the statute, namely the ones that required thatall “political advertisements” disclose the identityof the person or persons or entity paying for thead, as well as the candidate, party, or political com-mittee on whose behalf it was being aired, and thatexpenditures for “mass media activities” that weremade within thirty days of an election be reportedto the state twenty-four hours after they weregiven.

The VRLC claimed that its activities potentiallyviolated two sections of the act, namely, those re-garding “political advertisements” and their defi-nitions, and those requiring the name of a candi-date to be clearly given on each ad. The U.S.District Court for the District of Vermont gave asummary judgment to the state and to several “in-tervenor” organizations, among them CommonCause of Vermont, and the League of Women Vot-ers of Vermont. The VRLC appealed to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On 15 June 2000, the court of appeals reversedthe district court ruling. Basing its decision on theU.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo,424 U.S. 1 (1976), the court of appeals held that inorder for a state or the federal government to regu-late a “communication”—be it an ad in a paper, ontelevision, or on a billboard—“that communica-tion must actually advocate the election, or the de-feat, of a clearly identified candidate.”Judge RobertD. Sack, appointed to the court of appeals by Presi-dent Bill Clinton in 1998, spoke for the two-to-onemajority (Judge Milton Shadur, a district judge re-placing another judge on the Second Circuit, dis-sented) in holding that issue advocacy was pro-tected by the First Amendment and that theprovisions regulating issue advocacy, as well as thedisclosure requirements, which infringed on theprivacy of association, were unconstitutional.Judge Sack explained:

There is, meanwhile, reason to think that when theVermont legislature said “expenditures . . . for massmedia activities” it meant all “expenditures,” notonly “funds used for communications that expresslyadvocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified

candidate” under Buckley. We have seen in thecourse of our analysis of [the provisions in ques-tion] that the General Assembly was willing to at-tempt to regulate advertising that “implicitly advo-cates the success or defeat of a candidate” despiteBuckley’s clear mandate to the contrary. There istherefore no reason for us to think that when theGeneral Assembly came to consider [that provi-sion], it then intended to follow, rather than test orignore, principles established by Buckley, throughthe use of the word “expenditure” to exclude expen-ditures for issue advocacy.

In discussing the law’s provision that “commu-nications” such as ads in papers, on television, oron billboards had to clearly show the name of acandidate whom the ad was either supporting oropposing for election, Judge Sack explained:

In Virginia Soc’y for Human Life, 152 F.3d 268 (4thCir. 1998), the Fourth Circuit considered a Virginiastatute that required certain people or organiza-tions that spent money “for the purpose of influenc-ing the outcome of any election,” . . . to . . . reporttheir expenditures. . . . The plain language of thestatute suggested that it applied to issue advocacycontrary to Buckley. . . . The court of appeals disap-proved the district court’s narrowing constructionof the words “for the purpose of influencing theoutcome of any election” to exclude issue advocacyin an effort to conform the statute to the Buckley re-quirements. . . . The reviewing court reached thatconclusion in part because of the limited nature ofsuch a review of a state statute by a federal court—only if such a reading was readily apparent would itsurvive. But also,“[i]n fact, a de novo review of thetext, structure and history of the election laws atissue suggested to [the court] that they did apply toissue advocacy” contrary to Buckley. . . . We likewisefind that in light of the text, structure and history ofVermont’s [provision in question], the narrowingreading of the provision given to it by the districtcourt was unwarranted. . . . We conclude that thedistrict court erred in granting summary judgmentfor the defendants and in failing to enter an injunc-tion forbidding the enforcement by the defendantsof the provisions of [the statute].

There is no word as of this writing on whetherVermont will appeal this decision to the U.S.Supreme Court.

References: Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell,216 F. 3d 264 (2000), 270–272.

Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell 351

Walker, James John (1881–1946)Mayor of New York City (1925–1932), implicatedin, but never formally charged with, massive polit-ical corruption. Even though corrupt, Walker wasthe personification of the “dapper” politician,whose flamboyance was a key to his popularity.The second of nine children, he was born in theGreenwich Village section of New York City on 19June 1881, the son of an Irish immigrant fatherand an Irish woman born in America. He attendedCatholic schools in New York City, but droppedout. He was allowed to attend the New York LawSchool, from which he earned a law degree in1904. Walker did not enter politics immediately.His real calling was songwriting, and he began acareer in what was called “The Great White Way.”He wrote several songs that became popular andin 1912 married a singer. That same year, he wasadmitted to the New York state bar.

Walker’s father, William Henry Walker, whodied in 1916, was a longtime New York City politi-cian who worked under the aegis of TammanyHall, the preeminent political organization. Withthe recommendation of his father and an up-and-coming politician named Alfred Emanuel Smith(who would one day serve as governor of NewYork and the Democrat’s presidential candidate in1928), the younger Walker was allowed to joinTammany Hall and in 1909 was elected to a seat inthe New York state assembly. In 1914 he waselected to a seat in the New York state senate.

Hewing to the Democratic Party line, he workedclosely with Smith and Tammany to enact pro-gressive legislation. As such he remained in Tam-many’s good graces, and in 1925 Tammany nomi-nated Walker for mayor of New York City. In NewYork City in the 1920s, Tammany ruled the Demo-cratic Party machinery, and once Walker won theparty’s nomination he was a shoe-in to be elected.In his first term, he helped to create a Departmentof Sanitation, created parks for children, andpushed the Board of Transportation to establish acitywide train and bus system. In 1929 Walkerwas overwhelmingly reelected to a second term,defeating the fusion candidate, Fiorello H. LaGuardia. His dapper and freewheeling style en-deared him to the people of New York City andmade him a popular national figure. Walker wasso popular that when he marched in a street fairin Philadelphia in November 1926, people criedout that he be the next president of the UnitedStates. It seemed that nothing could go wrong forJimmy Walker.

Within two years of his second electoral vic-tory, however, Walker was under increasingscrutiny for alleged political corruption. In 1931the New York state legislature established the Hofs-tadter Committee to investigate allegations oframpant corruption in the Walker administration.The counsel for the committee, Judge SamuelSeabury, was allowed by Governor Franklin De-lano Roosevelt complete investigatory powers to

W

353

find corruption in New York City and root it out.Historian Jay Robert Nash wrote:

Judge Samuel Seabury . . . called on Walker to ex-plain his connection with Russell T. Sherwood, alow-ranking accountant who mysteriously accumu-lated a fortune of $700,225 and then disappeared.Seabury accused Sherwood of “fronting” for Walker,a charge vigorously denied by the mayor. But it wasconclusively shown that on the eve of a cruiseWalker took to Europe, Sherwood withdrew$263,838 from the bank for his boss.

Seabury called Walker before the committeeand placed him on the stand for lengthy cross-examination. On the stand, Walker admitted thathe had put a tremendous amount of money—up-wards of nearly half a million dollars—in his ownpersonal bank account, although he said it wasfrom stock speculation on Wall Street. Walker de-rided Seabury’s investigation; he said openly that“Little Boy Blue is going to blow his horn—or histop.” Historian Paul Sann noted:

[Walker] couldn’t explain—at least not with anyconviction—how he happened to make$26,535.51 in oil stock deals with taxicab impresa-rio J. A. Sisto without having to invest a dime of hisown. Nor why J. Allan Smith, contact man for a buscompany, staked him to a European jaunt in 1927with a $10,000 letter of credit and an extra $3,000to cover an overdraft. Or how he happened to pickup an extra $246,000 bonanza in a joint stock ac-count with Paul Block, Brooklyn financier andpublisher.

As the allegations of corruption rose, GovernorRoosevelt became more concerned for his partyand the appearance of Walker’s dishonesty. Roo-sevelt demanded that Walker resign before Roo-sevelt, slated to run for President in 1932, was him-self tarnished. On 1 September 1932, as Seaburywas getting closer to Walker’s cronies, Walker re-signed as mayor and set sail on a cruise to Europe.No charges were ever brought against him despitethe breadth and depth of the corruption tied tohim.

Walker returned to New York in 1935 and in1937 was named assistant counsel to the New YorkState Transit Commission. Three years later, hissuccessor as mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, namedhim municipal arbiter of the New York City gar-

ment industry. From 1945 until his death, Walkerserved as the president of Majestic Records in NewYork. Walker died of a cerebral hemorrhage—ablood clot in the brain—in Doctor’s Hospital inNew York City on 18 November 1946 at the age ofsixty-five. He was buried in the Gate of HeavenCemetery in Westchester County, New York.

Despite the allegations of corruption againsthim and the cowardice shown in his forced resig-nation, Walker remains a popular figure. In 1957Bob Hope played Walker in the film Beau James.

See also Seabury, SamuelReferences: Biles, W. Roger,“Walker, James John,” in

Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones, BiographicalDictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980: Big CityMayors (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 380;“[Editorial:] James J. Walker,” New York Times, 19November 1946, 30; “Ex-Mayor Walker Succumbs at65 to Clot on Brain, City Chief for Seven Years KeptPopularity After Resigning Under Seabury Charges,”New York Times, 19 November 1946, 1; “Hail MayorWalker as ‘Next President’; Philadelphians LineStreets as He Leads New Yorkers’ March to FairGrounds,” New York Times, 13 November 1926, 1;“Jimmy Walker: The Destruction of ‘Beau James’,” inGeorge C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Factson File, 1989), 346–347; “The Night Mayor of NewYork,” in Paul Sann, The Lawless Decade: A PictorialHistory of a Great American Transition: From theWorld War I Armistice and Prohibition to Repeal andthe New Deal (New York: Bonanza Books, 1977), 216;“Walker, James John,” in Jay Robert Nash,Encyclopedia of World Crime: Criminal Justice,Criminology, and Law Enforcement, 4 vols.(Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, Inc., 1989),IV:3076–3077.

Walsh, Thomas James (1859–1933)United States senator from Montana (1913–1933),the lead Senate investigator in the Teapot Domescandal, for which he was considered for the postof U.S. attorney general before his untimely death.He was born in the village of Two Rivers, Wiscon-sin, on 12 June 1859 and attended the publicschools, although he never earned a degree. Hetaught school for a time and then studied the law.In 1884 he earned a law degree from the Universityof Wisconsin at Madison and was admitted to thestate bar that same year. He immediately left thestate and settled in Redfield, in the Dakota Terri-tory, where he commenced a law practice. Six yearslater, he relocated again, this time to Helena, Mon-

354 Walsh, Thomas James

tana, where again he opened a law office. He wouldbe identified with the state of Montana for the re-mainder of his life.

In 1906 Walsh, a Democrat, ran for a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives, but was unsuccess-ful. Four years later, he tried for a U.S. Senate seat,but again was defeated, this time by DemocratHenry L. Myers. In 1912, however, when Republi-can Senator Thomas Henry Carter did not run forreelection, Walsh threw his hat into the ring. Priorto the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment,which allowed for the direct election of senators bythe people, legislatures chose senators, and Walshwas able to win because of the Democratic controlof the Montana state legislature. He entered theU.S. Senate on 4 March 1913 and remained in thatbody until his death. He served as the chairman ofthe Committee on Mines and Mining (Sixty-thirdto Sixty-fifth Congresses), the Committee on Pen-sions (Sixty-fifth Congress), and the Committeeon the Disposition of Useless Executive Papers(Sixty-fifth Congress).

Early in 1923, rumors surfaced that at least twomembers of President Warren G. Harding’s cabinetwere involved in potentially illegal activities, in-cluding his attorney general, Harry M. Daugherty.Then Harding died suddenly in San Francisco on 2August 1923, leaving Vice President CalvinCoolidge as the new president. Congress soon dis-covered that Harding’s secretary of the interior, Al-bert B. Fall, had leased oil reserves owned by thegovernment in Wyoming and California to two ofhis cronies. The Senate formed a special commit-tee to investigate the leases and whether any ille-galities were involved—Walsh was named chair-man of the committee. Using the power of theSenate, Walsh was able to uncover bribes paid toFall and helped drive both the interior secretaryand Attorney General Daugherty from office. Healso helped to expose illegal payments to WilliamGibbs McAdoo, former secretary of the treasuryunder Woodrow Wilson and a leading Democrat,lending a bipartisan flavor to the scandal. Walsh’sskilled oratory and demeanor during the hearingsearned him wide praise.

In an article that appeared in The Forum in July1924, Walsh explained:

An all too general view prevails that corruption inhigh places in the government is not uncommon,

but that the operators are ordinarily so clever as todefy detection, or that upon one consideration oranother, perhaps in anticipation of reciprocal toler-ation, even political opponents in a situation to doso refrain from making public official misdeeds ordelinquencies. Notwithstanding the startling revela-tions of the committees inquiring during the recentsession of Congress into the conduct of the execu-tive departments, I believe that “crookedness” inWashington is rare, and I am convinced that the no-tion that it is ever condoned by those who mightprofit politically by the exposure of it, eitherthrough hope or fear, is wholly false. It should beadded that I refer to instances in which conductwould be universally, at least generally, condemnedas contrary to good morals or plainly involvingturpitude. It would seem as though there could beno such thing as degrees of dishonesty, and yet ofmany acts of public officials varying views are heldas to whether they are culpable or as to the degreeof culpability which should attach to those con-cerned in them.

Walsh won considerable praise, both for hishandling of the committee hearings and for hissteadfast ability to reach across party lines in a fairmanner to get to the truth behind the scandal.

In 1932, when New York Governor Franklin D.Roosevelt won the presidency, he turned to Walshand named the Montana senator his selection forattorney general. Despite his age—Walsh was sev-enty-two when named—his appointment washailed. It appeared his confirmation would face noopposition. After the New Year, Walsh and his newwife traveled south for a vacation. He made thetrain trip back to Washington on 2 March to attendRoosevelt’s inauguration, to be held on the fourth.However, as the train neared Wilson, North Car-olina, Walsh suffered a fatal heart attack and diedbefore he could be revived. His death stunnedWashington, and his funeral was held in the cham-ber of the U.S. Senate, the body he had served infor nearly twenty years. Walsh’s body was takenback to Montana, and he was laid to rest in Resur-rection Cemetery in Helena. Today his name is for-gotten, but his work in exposing the Teapot Domefrauds shaped the way successful investigations ofgovernment corruption are conducted.

See also Teapot Dome ScandalReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Walsh, Thomas J.,“The True

Walsh, Thomas James 355

Story of Teapot Dome,” The Forum, LXXII:1 (July1924), 1–12.

Walton, John Callaway (1881–1949)Governor of Oklahoma (1923), impeached and re-moved from office for suspending the writ ofhabeas corpus to combat the violence of the KuKlux Klan. Walton is one of only a handful of gov-ernors ever to be impeached and removed fromoffice, but he remains the only one who was ac-cused of violating a state’s constitution to combatracial violence. He was born near Indianapolis, In-diana, on 6 March 1881, the son of Louis Walton, afarmer, and Callaway (also spelled Calloway) Wal-ton. In 1885 the family moved to Nebraska, butjust four years after that relocated to Arkansas.John Walton was educated in the public schools,completing his secondary education at Fort SmithCommercial College in Fort Smith, Arkansas, in1898. He volunteered for service in the U.S. Army’sfield artillery unit during the Spanish-AmericanWar, after which he returned to the United Statesand studied engineering in Mexico. In 1903 he set-tled in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He served in theEngineering Corps of the U.S. Army during WorldWar I with the rank of colonel.

A Democrat, Walton entered the political realmin 1916, when he was elected commissioner ofpublic works for Oklahoma City. Two years later, heran for and was elected mayor of Oklahoma City, aposition he held for four years. Considered honestand reliable (he was nicknamed “Our Jack”), inAugust 1922 he was nominated for governor by theDemocrats and in November 1922 was electedover Republican John Fields by more than 50,000votes out of some 510,000 cast. Almost from thestart of his administration, Walton became un-popular with the members of the state legislature.The early 1920s had seen a revival of the power ofthe Ku Klux Klan, and many legislative memberswere either backed by the Klan or were Klan mem-bers themselves. Thus when Walton placed TulsaCounty under martial law and suspended the writof habeas corpus, the legislature was up in arms.To stymie the legislature’s opposition, Walton usedthe power of the state National Guard to prevent itfrom being convened. However, members of thelegislature circulated a petition among the state’scitizens demanding that a special session of the

legislature be convened on the matter. Walton hadno choice but to call the legislature into specialsession. Immediately, the members set about animpeachment inquiry and, on 23 October 1923,impeachment articles were passed. Walton wassuspended from office pending the impeachmenttrial, and Lieutenant Governor Martin EdwinTrapp became acting governor. Walton’s criticscontended that it was not his opposition to theKlan that was his downfall, but his lavish spendingin the state budget and his attacks on the regentsof the University of Oklahoma and OklahomaA&M, whom he removed and replaced withcronies. These university presidents resigned inprotest, and there were street protests against Wal-ton’s administration. The legislature then met todiscuss this situation; however, once they assem-bled, Walton’s conduct was the main focus and hewas immediately impeached. Quickly, the statesenate voted to convict Walton, and, just tenmonths after entering office, he was removed.Lieutenant Governor Martin Trapp finished Wal-ton’s term.

Walton remained in Oklahoma, but lived therest of his life in disgrace. He died in OklahomaCity on 25 November 1949 at the age of sixty-eightand was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery in that city.

References: Neuringer, Sheldon,“War on the Ku KluxKlan,” Chronicles of Oklahoma, XLV:2 (Summer 1967);“Walton, John C.,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo,eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors of theUnited States, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT:Meckler Books, 1978), III:1244–1245.

Warmoth, Henry Clay (1842–1931)Governor of Louisiana (1868–1872), impeachedbut not removed (his term ended before a trialcould take place) on charges of massive corrup-tion of which many historians believe him tohave been guilty. Warmoth was born in McLeans-boro, Illinois, on 9 May 1842, the son of IsaacSounders Warmoth, a postmaster who worked inNew Orleans, and Eleanor (née Lane) Warmoth.The Warmoths apparently named their son afterthe famous U.S. senator and former secretary ofstate, Henry Clay, although this fact cannot becompletely substantiated. His paternal grandfa-ther, Henry Warmoth, had been an early settler inthe American Midwest, settling near Albion, Illi-

356 Walton, John Callaway

nois, in the early 1800s. Eleanor Lane Warmothwas the daughter of an Illinois state senator,Levin Lane. She died around 1853, when her sonHenry was eleven, and he moved with his fatherto Fairfield, Illinois, spending some time withfriends of the family. He received his education inthe public schools of Fairfield and Salem and,after completing his primary education, workedin the offices of the Springfield (Illinois) Journalwhile he studied the law. In 1861 he was admittedto practice the law in Lebanon, Missouri. The fol-lowing year, in the midst of the American CivilWar, Warmoth was appointed district attorney forthe Eighteenth Judicial District of Missouri, buthe soon resigned this office to volunteer for ser-vice in the Thirty-second Missouri Infantry,where he was given the rank of lieutenantcolonel. He assisted in the capture of ArkansasPost, after which he was assigned to the staff ofMajor General John A. McClernand, and saw ac-tion at Vicksburg, Mississippi, where he was ter-ribly wounded. In a personal battle for power be-tween McClernand and General Ulysses S. Grant,Warmoth was discharged. However, after a per-sonal appeal to President Abraham Lincoln, hewas reinstated to his previous rank and position.

In June 1864 Lincoln assigned Warmoth to thepost of judge of the Provost Court for the Gulf ofMexico, with its seat in Louisiana. When the warended,Warmoth remained in Louisiana, opening alaw office in New Orleans. In November 1865 hewas elected by a coalition of pro-Unionists inLouisiana to a seat as a “territorial delegate” toCongress (because Louisiana had not be readmit-ted to the Union, it was not allowed to have con-gressional representation), but he was denied hisseat due not to his own war stance but the state hewas representing. In 1868, when the Republicansin Louisiana met in convention to nominate a gu-bernatorial candidate, Warmoth was the over-whelming choice for governor, but because he wasonly twenty-six years of age, the conventionpassed a resolution ending the limitation on age(it was thirty at the time) for one to hold the gover-nor’s office. On his ticket was Oscar J. Dunn, ablack man, nominated for lieutenant governor, thefirst black in the history of the United States to benominated for such a high post. Because mostwhites in Louisiana had their voting rights takenaway, no Democrat was nominated for governor,

and Warmoth easily defeated Independent JamesTaliaferro by nearly 30,000 votes out of slightlymore than 100,000 votes cast. Joshua Baker hadbeen serving as governor, with General WinfieldScott Hancock serving as district military com-mander over the state. On 27 June 1868, Hancockwas removed from power by President AndrewJohnson, and Johnson named Warmoth to serve asmilitary governor of Louisiana until the state wasreadmitted to the Union. This occurred on 13 July1868, and Warmoth was inaugurated as thetwenty-third governor of Louisiana. His tenurelasted until 13 January 1873.

From the beginning, Warmoth fought againstthe Democrats, who did not want civil rights forblacks, and wings of his own party, which wantedmore civil rights for blacks. Warmoth explainedthe hostility against his administration in his 1930memoir, War, Politics and Reconstruction: StormyDays in Louisiana:

But, of course, my administration was exceedinglyobnoxious to the colored Lieutenant-Governor,Oscar J. Dunn, to the New York Orleans Tribune, toUnited States Marshall Packard, to Senator [WilliamPitt] Kellogg and the ‘Pure Radical’ Federal officials,who looked only to negro voters to support the Re-publican Party. They claimed that in my appoint-ment of conservative white men to office, I wasguilty of treason to the negro people.

But Warmoth also gradually dug his own politi-cal grave by speculating in railroad and treasurybonds, holding a partnership in the newspaperprinting company that was also the state printer,and establishing a State Returning Board, whichwas instilled with the power to throw out ballotsthought to be questionable. Warmoth used thisboard to have votes from Democrats routinely castaside, allowing him and his party to keep a firmreign on power. Historians Robert Sobel and JohnRaimo wrote,“His gubernatorial term was charac-terized by turbulence, discontent, a wild orgy ofspeculation in state-aided railroads, a depletedtreasury, and bitter strife over the question ofblack suffrage. He signed the bill which opened therestaurants, railroad coaches, and schools toblacks, but later vetoed a more radical measure.”Warmoth’s administration saw the state’s bonddebt rise from $6 million to over $100 million.

Warmoth, Henry Clay 357

After Dunn’s death early in Warmoth’s term, hewas replaced by the senate president pro tempore,Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback, also a blackman.

In 1872, as his term came to an end, Warmothwas passed over for renomination by his party,which then proceeded to break up into three dif-ferent factions, each nominating different guber-natorial tickets. Democrats and a Reform Partyalso nominated tickets for governor. After the elec-tion, in which there was a dispute over the winner,Warmoth on 4 November 1872 called for an extrasession of the state legislature to start on 9 Decem-ber. The Republicans, in control of the legislature,instead took control over all of state government,impeached Warmoth, and installed LieutenantGovernor Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback asacting governor. He was inaugurated on 8 Decem-ber as the new governor. Warmoth, in the midst ofan impeachment inquiry, nonetheless sued to theLouisiana Supreme Court, which held that Pinch-back was indeed the true governor. Pinchbackthen proceeded to sign ten bills into law and makeseveral appointments. Warmoth was not allowedto serve the last thirty-five days of his term. In themeantime Senator William Pitt Kellogg, a Republi-can but a political nemesis of Warmoth’s, had beendeclared the winner of the 1872 election, and hetook office on 13 January 1873 before an impeach-ment trial could be held on the charges againstWarmoth. Historians do believe that the allega-tions of widespread corruption, both by Warmothand his allies, were valid and could have led to hisconviction and removal from office. Because hewas out of office, Warmoth was considered beyondthe reaches of the impeachment inquiry, and itwas dropped.

Despite the turbulence of his last days in office,Warmoth remained in Louisiana and in 1876 waselected to a seat in the lower house of the state leg-islature, serving for one two-year term. In 1879 heserved as a delegate to the state constitutional con-vention and in 1888 ran for governor, but was de-feated badly by Democrat Francis Redding TillouNicholls by over 80,000 votes out of nearly 200,000cast. His last office held was as collector of cus-toms for New Orleans from 1890 to 1893.

In the last years of the nineteenth century andthe first years of the twentieth, Warmoth spent histime on his sugar plantation, “Magnolia,” south of

New Orleans. He outlived all of his contemporariesand lived long enough to publish his memoirs in1930. Warmoth died in New Orleans on 30 Sep-tember 1931 at the age of eighty-nine.

References: “The Carpetbagger as Corruptionist: HenryClay Warmoth,” in Richard N. Current, ThreeCarpetbag Governors (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1967), 35–66; “Warmoth, HenryClay,” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds.,Biographical Directory of the Governors of the UnitedStates, 1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: MecklerBooks, 1978), II:571–572; Warmoth, Henry Clay, War,Politics and Reconstruction: Stormy Days in Louisiana(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930), 165, 199.

WatergateAmerican political scandal that drove PresidentRichard Nixon from office before he could be im-peached for obstructing justice. Although no onein power profited financially from the matter, Wa-tergate nonetheless is perhaps the most egregiousexample of political corruption because of the ef-fect it had in subverting the political process.“Wa-tergate,” as the entire affair was called, did notstart, as many believe today, with the burglary byfive men from the Committee to Reelect the Presi-dent (ironically called CREEP) at DemocraticCommittee Headquarters located in the WatergateHotel Complex in Washington, D.C., in the morn-ing hours of 17 June 1972. From the start of hispresidency, faced with growing protests nation-wide over the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon ini-tialed the start of a massive use of illegal wiretap-ping and information gathering to seek out hisenemies, political and otherwise, with the ap-proval of his attorney general, John N. Mitchell.This gathered steam on 23 July 1970 when Nixonsecretly ordered expanded domestic intelligencegathering by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), andother federal government agencies. This approvalwas rescinded a few days later, but the die hadbeen struck: plans were then undertaken to stem aseries of leaks of government plans on the han-dling of the Vietnam War.

The publication, starting on 13 June 1971, byNew York Times (and, within a week, WashingtonPost) of the classified Pentagon report later knownas “The Pentagon Papers,” which was commis-sioned by President Lyndon Johnson’s secretary of

358 Watergate

defense, Robert McNamara, and detailed the his-tory of how the United States became involved inVietnam, enraged the administration. Nixon andhis administration were determined to find howthe report was leaked. A plan, called “OperationGemstone,” was conceived in Attorney GeneralMitchell’s office sometime in 1971, in which acovert White House unit, aptly called “ThePlumbers” (in order to “plug” security leaks), wasordered to use any means, including burglary, tofind and contain leaks of government secrets onadministration policy on Vietnam, and wasfunded with $250,000 directly from the account ofthe committee established to aid in Nixon’s reelec-tion efforts in 1972. When it was discovered that aformer Pentagon worker, Daniel Ellsberg, was re-sponsible for the release of the “Pentagon Papers,”the Plumbers, led by attorney George GordonLiddy, broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office inLos Angeles, California, on 3 September 1971seeking incriminating material on Ellsberg to de-stroy his reputation. None was found, but the ac-tion set the stage for grander and more dangerousschemes in the future. One of these was an abortedeffort to start a fire at the Brookings Institution, athink tank in Washington, D.C., where Plumbersmembers suspected files on Vietnam War policieswere housed.

Sometime in 1972, the Plumbers, backed bymen who worked directly for President Nixon, in-cluding White House Chief of Staff Harry Robbins(“H.R.”) Haldeman and Assistant to the Presidentfor Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman, wanted in-formation on the movement of Democrats run-ning for president in that election year. Ehrlich-man was the mastermind behind the Plumbers,and approved of their actions in the Ellsbergbreak-in. To get information on the Democrats,both Haldeman and Ehrlichman ordered thatwiretaps be established on the phone of LarryO’Brien, a former postmaster general and the pre-sent chairman of the Democratic National Com-mittee, whose offices were located in the WatergateHotel Complex in Washington, D.C. Sometime inJune 1972 members of the Plumbers broke in andtapped the phones, but some of the taps did notwork and much of the material that was collectedwas inadequate. A return visit was ordered. In theearly morning hours of 17 June 1972, five men,among them James McCord, a security official for

the Committee to Reelect the President, and E.Howard Hunt, a former CIA official who was theauthor of several spy novels, broke into O’Brien’soffice. Unknown to the men, a Watergate securityofficer found masking tape across a door lock sothat it would not close, and began to search for in-truders. The men were arrested, and the affairknown as Watergate began.

When the men were arraigned the followingday, two things were clear: the alleged burglarswere connected to the CIA in some way, as well asto Nixon’s reelection efforts. In response, the WhiteHouse called the break-in “a third-rate burglary.”On 19 June, Washington Post reported McCord’sconnection with CREEP; former Attorney GeneralMitchell, who had resigned to head up Nixon’s re-election campaign, denied any link betweenCREEP and the break-in. Two Post reporters, CarlBernstein and Bob Woodward, were placed on thestory, and soon traced a cashier’s check for$25,000 directly from CREEP accounts into thebank accounts of one of the Watergate burglars. On29 September, the Post reported that John Mitchell,while serving as attorney general, controlled a se-cret fund from CREEP coffers that was used “to fi-nance widespread intelligence-gathering opera-tions against the Democrats,” which includedstaging phony events, trailing candidates, and in-venting material that was used to destroy the can-didacies of Senator Edmund Muskie and formerVice President Hubert Humphrey. By October, justbefore the 1972 election, the FBI had discoveredthat Watergate was just a part of “a massive cam-paign of political spying and sabotage conductedon behalf of the Nixon reelection effort.” The nextmonth, even with these allegations swirling, Nixonwas reelected over South Dakota Senator GeorgeMcGovern with over 60 percent of the vote in oneof the largest landslides in American political his-tory.

Even after President Nixon was inaugurated fora second term on 20 January 1973, investigatorswere homing in on officials of his administration.Ten days later, the five Watergate burglars were con-victed in a District of Columbia court of conspir-acy, burglary, and eavesdropping. After being sen-tenced, James McCord sent a letter to Judge John J.Sirica, who presided over the trials, alleging that hehad taken his orders from high-ranking officers ofthe Republican Party, including former Attorney

Watergate 359

General John N. Mitchell (who served as the chair-man of CREEP in the 1972 election), and that hadthey were involved in the cover-up. As a result ofMcCord’s letter, federal investigators in the Depart-ment of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigationopened up an investigation into Nixon’s aides. Fed-eral grand juries were empaneled, and the U.S. Sen-ate established the Select Committee on Presiden-tial Campaign Activities, better known as theSenate Watergate Committee. Named to chair thispanel was Senator Samuel J. Ervin Jr. (D-NC). Inhearings that opened on 18 May 1973, held beforetelevision cameras and riveting the nation, Ervin’shomespun demeanor made him one of the mostimportant persons in the investigation. The Wash-ington Post later said of the senator,“With his arch-ing eyebrows and flapping jowls that signaled hismoral indignation at much of the testimony beforehis committee, his half-country, half-courtly de-meanor and his predilection for making points byquoting the Bible and Shakespeare and tellingfolksy stories, Ervin quickly became a hero tomany.” Numerous witnesses were brought beforethe committee, including White House counselJohn W. Dean III, who told the committee that hehad warned Nixon that “a cancer” was on the presi-dency regarding the cover-up of the Watergatebreak-in. Dean implicated most of the men aroundthe president and said that Nixon had ordered thepayoff of the Watergate burglars to buy their si-lence. Dean told Nixon that the cost of buying themen off would be $1 million. Dean quoted Nixon assaying,“You could get the money. . . . You could geta million dollars. And you could get it in cash. Iknow where it could be gotten.”

Allegations that had surfaced prior to the com-mittee hearings led to the resignations of WhiteHouse Chief of Staff H. R. “Bob” Haldeman, Presi-dential Adviser on Domestic Affairs John Ehrlich-man, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienston 30 April 1973. White House counsel Dean wasfired. To replace Kleindienst, Nixon tapped formercabinet Secretary Eliott Richardson. At the sametime that the Senate was investigating the scandal,a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who had tiesto Senator Edward Kennedy (and had beenRichardson’s law professor at Harvard), was em-powered by the Department of Justice and Attor-ney General Eliott Richardson to look into anypart of the scandal.

On 13 July 1973, Alexander P. Butterfield, theformer appointments secretary for PresidentNixon, told the Senate Watergate Committee thatNixon had been audiotaping Oval Office conversa-tions for several years and that a taped record ofthese conversations had been archived. At once,Special Prosecutor Cox demanded access to theWhite House tapes; the Senate Watergate Commit-tee followed suit. Five days later, according to sev-eral sources, Nixon ordered that the Oval officetaping system be disconnected. On 23 July, Nixonannounced that he would refuse to turn over anytaped conversation based upon the president’sright to executive privilege. Cox, undeterred, wentto court to get a subpoena to force Nixon to turnover the tapes.When Nixon ordered Cox to stop hisquest for a subpoena and Cox refused Nixon or-dered Attorney General Richardson to fire the spe-cial prosecutor. Richardson refused and resigned.Nixon then ordered Richardson’s assistant, DeputyAttorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, to fireCox—but Ruckelshaus also refused and likewiseresigned. It was left to the number three in the De-partment of Justice, Solicitor General Robert H.Bork, to assume the office of acting attorney gen-eral and fire Cox. This action, on 20 October 1973,became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.”Anger at Nixon exploded—politicians across thepolitical spectrum condemned the firing and de-manded that Nixon retract it. Among some, talk ofimpeachment arose.

To placate the critics, Nixon named a new spe-cial prosecutor, attorney Leon Jaworski. Jaworski,armed with confidence in his office that wasbacked by Congress and the American people,took up Cox’s crusade and went to court to get asubpoena to force Nixon to hand over his tapedconversations. Jaworski then got indictmentsagainst Haldeman, Ehrlichman, White Houselawyer Charles Colson, and others for conspiracy,perjury, obstruction of justice, and other crimes.He also revealed that when the five Watergate bur-glars had been indicted, Nixon had been named asan unindicted coconspirator.

Facing a revolt in Congress, Nixon offered to re-lease transcripts of the taped conversations thatJaworski wanted. Despite Nixon’s appearing to de-liver some of the tapes, Jaworski was unimpressedand fought to have the actual tapes heard. Whilepreparing the transcript of one tape, presidential

360 Watergate

President Nixon clings to his desk as the Watergate tidal wave crashes into the oval office. (Library of Congress)

secretary Rosemary Woods accidentally “erased”part of it—leaving a gap of eighteen and one-halfminutes. Many historians believe that Woodserased evidence showing crimes committed byNixon, but this has never been proved. On 30 April1974, Nixon released 1,200 pages of edited tran-scripts, turning them over to Jaworski and theHouse Judiciary Committee, now investigating po-tential impeachment charges against the presi-dent. The committee replied that this was not sat-isfactory, and Jaworski got a subpoena for thetapes. Nixon fought this decision to the U.S.Supreme Court, which held unanimously on 24July 1974, in United States v. Nixon, that the presi-dent could not use executive privilege as the basisfor withholding the tapes from scrutiny. Threedays later, the House Judiciary Committee passedan article of impeachment, charging Nixon withobstruction of justice. Two other articles followed,alleging abuse of power and defiance of congres-sional subpoenas. Nixon felt that while he wouldbe impeached in the House, he could win the bat-tle in the Senate. However, after he listened to thetapes that would soon be released, he found one,from 23 June 1972, in which he told Chief of StaffHaldeman that he ordered the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation to stop investigating the Watergatescandal and any ties to the White House. This tapewas clear evidence of Nixon’s obstruction of jus-tice. It was “the smoking gun.” Several senatorscame to the president and told him that he wouldbe convicted in the Senate and removed from of-fice. On 7 August 1974, Nixon told the Americanpeople in a televised speech that he would resignthe presidency the following day. Vice PresidentGerald R. Ford—who had replaced Vice PresidentSpiro T. Agnew when he resigned due to politicalcorruption—was sworn in as the thirty-eighthpresident on 8 August.

In the end, as many historians and commenta-tors explain, it was not the crime, but the cover-up,that destroyed Richard Nixon. Watergate’s effectsled to laws increasing the accountability of cam-paign finance laws and limiting the presidentialpower of executive privilege. Judge John Sirica,noted for his independence in forcing PresidentNixon to release the tapes that doomed his presi-dency, wrote of the scandal in his 1979 work, ToSet the Record Straight: The Break-In, the Tapes, theConspirators, the Pardon. He retired from the

bench in 1986 and died on 14 August 1992 at theage of eighty-eight. Former White House counselJohn W. Dean III, who literally brought down thepresident, was charged with obstruction of justiceand spent four months in prison for his role in theWatergate cover-up. After serving his sentence, hepenned the autobiographical Blind Ambition(1976), which became a national best-seller. Hiswife, Maureen, known as “Mo,” also wrote a Water-gate book—Mo: A Woman’s View of Watergate(1975). John Ehrlichman was convicted of con-spiracy to obstruct justice and perjury in Water-gate, and of conspiracy in the Ellsberg break-in,and served eighteen months in jail. He wrote Wit-ness to Power: The Nixon Years (1982). SenatorSam Ervin retired from the Senate in December1974, just four months after Nixon resigned, andreturned to his home in North Carolina; he wrote,among other works, The Whole Truth: The Water-gate Conspiracy (1980). Ervin died on 23 April1985 at the age of eighty-eight. H. R. ‘Bob’ Halde-man, Nixon’s chief of staff, spent eighteen monthsin prison after he was convicted of conspiracy andobstruction of justice in 1974. After leavingprison, he wrote The Ends of Power in 1978. In hislater years, Haldeman became a real estate devel-oper in California and an investor in restaurants.He died of cancer in California on 12 November1993 at the age of sixty-seven. Six months later,The Haldeman Diaries, about the initial days of theWatergate crisis, was published. G. Gordon Liddy,the former FBI agent, who was the brains behindthe Watergate break-in and was convicted for hisrole in that, as well as for conspiracy and contemptof court, spent four and one-half years in prison.When he emerged, unrepentant, he penned Will(1980), his explanation of the scandal. Today, he isa conservative radio talk-show host in Virginiaand has assumed an air of respectability morethan a quarter century after the break-in.

Watergate and its effects have lasted far longer,and cast a much broader shadow, across the politi-cal spectrum of today. Charles Ruff, the fourth andfinal Watergate special counsel, later served aschief counsel of the White House during the dark-est days of the Clinton administration. Earl Silbert,the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia inthe 1970s who prosecuted many of the Watergatefigures, was hired in 1997 as counsel for JamesRiady, the Indonesia businessman and friend of

362 Watergate

President Bill Clinton who was implicated in thecampaign finance scandal that rocked the Clin-ton/Gore 1996 reelection campaign. But it is theword “Watergate” that haunts American politics.Today, political scandals routinely append theword “gate” to their names—Travelgate, Irangate,and so on. The limits put on presidential power bythe U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Nixonhad consequences for the Clinton impeachment in1998–1999. The use of presidential immunity toshield the testimony of friends and cronies hasbeen given new boundaries. But perhaps Water-gate’s most lasting effect has been a loss of inno-cence for the American public as they came toview their government with distrust.

See also Federal Election Commission; Mitchell, JohnNewton; Nixon, Richard Milhaus; Thompson, FredDalton

References: Dickinson, William B., Jr., Watergate:Chronology of a Crisis, 2 vols. (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, 1974); The Fall of a President(New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1974);Mankiewicz, Frank, United States v. Richard Nixon:The Final Crisis (New York: Quadrangle/New YorkTimes Book Company, 1975); Meyer, Lawrence,“JohnN. Mitchell, Principal in Watergate, Dies at 75,”Washington Post, 10 November 1988, A1; Rosenberg,Kenyon C., and Judith K. Rosenberg, Watergate: AnAnnotated Bibliography (Littleton, CO: LibrariesUnlimited, 1975); Saffell, David C., Watergate: ItsEffects on the American Political System (Cambridge,MA: Winthrop Publishers, 1974); Smith, J.Y.,“H.R.Haldeman Dies, Was Nixon Chief of Staff, WatergateRole Led to 18 Months in Prison,” Washington Post, 13November 1993, A12; “Watergate,” in George C. Kohn,Encyclopedia of American Scandal: From ABSCAM tothe Zenger Case (New York: Facts on File, 1989),349–350; Weil, Martin, and Eleanor Randolph,“Richard M. Nixon, 37th President, Dies, FuneralScheduled for Wednesday for Only Chief ExecutiveForced From Office,” Washington Post, 23 April 1994,A1.

Welch, William Wickham (1818–1892)United States representative from Connecticut(1855–1857), accused of corruption and the sub-ject of an expulsion hearing in the House in 1857.Welch was a noted physician who happened to runfor a seat in Congress and win; little else is knownabout him. He was born in Norfolk, Connecticut,on 10 December 1818, the son of Benjamin Welchand Louisa (née Guiteau) Welch. Benjamin Welch,one of thirteen children, had studied medicine

under a local Norfolk doctor, Ephraim Guiteau,and married his daughter. William Welch was oneof ten children, of whom all five sons becamephysicians. He studied medicine under his father(nothing is noted of his primary school educa-tion), graduated from the Yale Medical School in1839, and began the practice of medicine in Nor-folk with his father. He apparently entered the po-litical realm when he ran for and won a seat in theConnecticut state house of representatives, servingfrom 1848 to 1850. He then won a seat in the statesenate, serving in that body in 1851 and 1852.Welch was a member of the American, or “KnowNothing,” Party, so named because its platform ofexcluding Catholics and immigrants was so con-troversial that its members claimed to “knownothing” if asked about it. In 1855 he ran for a seatin the U.S. House of Representatives under theAmerican Party banner and defeated a Democratnamed Noble (no first name has been found) towin the seat representing the Fourth ConnecticutDistrict.Welch’s time in Washington was limited toone term. Few sources note what occurred, but hewas under consideration first for expulsion and/orcensure by the House. However, after a thoroughinvestigation by “a committee, consisting of 5Members, to be appointed by the Speaker, withpower to send for persons and papers, to investi-gate said charges; and that said committee reportthe evidence taken, and what action, in their judg-ment, is necessary on the part of the House, with-out any unnecessary delay,” it was held that Welchwas not proved guilty and released from furtheraction.

Despite this, Welch did not run for a secondterm. He resumed the practice of medicine, al-though he later served as a member of the Con-necticut state house in 1869 and 1881. He alsoserved as president of the Norfolk Leather Com-pany and was one of the incorporators of the Con-necticut-Western Railroad and the Norfolk Sav-ings Bank. His biography in the Dictionary ofAmerican Biography highlights his work as a doc-tor rather than his congressional career. Welchdied in Norfolk on 30 July 1892 at the age of sev-enty-three and was buried in Center Cemetery inthat city.

References: Hinds, Asher Crosby, Hinds’ Precedents of theHouse of Representatives of the United States, IncludingReferences to Provisions of the Constitution, the Laws,

Welch, William Wickham 363

and Decisions of the United States Senate, 8 vols.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1907–1908),V:834–836; MacCullum, William G.,“Welch, William Wickham,” in Allen Johnson andDumas Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography,10 vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), X:624–625;United States Congress, House, Joint Committee onCongressional Operations, House of RepresentativesExclusion, Censure and Expulsion Cases from 1789 to1973, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1973).

Whiskey Ring ScandalNational scandal, in which government agents inSt. Louis, Missouri, were caught siphoning off taxrevenues intended to go into the national treasuryfrom the sale of whiskey. The scandal was exposedin 1875 through the efforts of Secretary of theTreasury Benjamin H. Bristow. Evidence showedthat for some years prior to 1875, the United Statesgovernment had lost at least $1.2 million of taxrevenue it should have received from whiskey salesin St. Louis, Missouri, alone. Yet special agents ofthe Treasury Department sent to investigate fromtime to time had failed to do more than cause anoccasional flurry among the thieves.

The Whiskey Ring was organized in St. Louiswhen the Liberal Republican Party in that cityachieved its first electoral success. Soon after theirelectoral achievement, it occurred to certain politi-cians to have revenue officers raise a campaignfund among the many liquor distillers in the city.This idea the officers later modified, raisingmoney in the same way for themselves and con-niving at the grossest thievery.As it became neces-sary to hide the frauds, newspapers and higher of-ficials were hushed with payoffs, until the ringassumed national dimensions, diverting untoldmillions from federal coffers. Its headquarterswere at St. Louis, but it had branches in Milwau-kee, Chicago, Peoria, Cincinnati, and New Orleansand even had an agent in Washington, D.C. A hugeill-gotten fund was distributed among storekeep-ers, collectors, and other officials, according to afixed schedule of prices.

Following an investigation—conducted in se-cret by Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin Bristowto avoid alerting any of those being targeted—fed-eral agents under the control of Bristow, workingwithout the knowledge of the attorney general or

the president, moved on the ring on 10 May 1875and arrested more than 350 men in raids across theUnited States. Indictments were handed down byfederal grand juries against 152 liquor sellers, aswell as 86 persons in the government, including thechief clerk of Bristow’s own Treasury Department.

Bristow was widely cheered for his actions,though not by everyone inside the administration.Grant had named Bristow to the Treasury in June1874 after criticism from reformers, both Republi-can and otherwise, who saw widespread politicalcorruption as the Achilles’ heel of the party for the1874 midterm elections.Yet Bristow’s actions wereconsidered unhelpful by Grant’s cronies as expos-ing the failings of friends of the administration.

Initially, Grant backed Bristow’s efforts. How-ever, as the continuing investigation uncoveredmassive graft and corruption by men tied directlyto Grant and the Republican Party, he became lessand less interested in getting to the bottom of thescandal. But still bowing to reformers and embar-rassed by press reports regarding the affair, he de-cided to name a special prosecutor to oversee all ofthe indictments and trials. This man was GeneralJohn B. Henderson, a former United States senatorfrom Missouri, who decided that his role requiredhim to prosecute these cases to the fullest extent ofthe law. As he began trials of Whiskey Ring defen-dants, evidence was discovered that implicatedPresident Grant’s personal secretary, GeneralOrville E. Babcock. The evidence linking Babcockto the graft came from the prosecution of JohnMcDonald, a revenue supervisor in St. Louis, wholater wrote a book, Secrets of the Whiskey Ring; andEighteen Months in the Penitentiary (1880), expos-ing some of the frauds. Letters in code writtenfrom Babcock to McDonald were found, with in-structions on how to siphon Whiskey Ring funds.When Henderson indicted Babcock, Grant inter-vened, arguing that as a military officer Babcockmust be tried by a military court. This court, withits members named by Grant, asked Hendersonfor copies of all of his evidence against Babcock.Henderson refused to allow a civilian court to giveway to a military one. Grant backed down, andBabcock went on trial in the civilian court. How-ever, when Henderson decried Grant’s interferencein the Babcock prosecution, Grant fired Hender-son—a move mirrored 100 years later when Presi-dent Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor

364 Whiskey Ring Scandal

Archibald Cox, a move called “The Saturday NightMassacre.” In 1875, though, few took notice ofGrant’s action, and Henderson left quietly. Grantreplaced him with James Broadhead, an attorneywith little experience in criminal prosecutionswho was unfamiliar with the facts behind theWhiskey Ring trials. In another move to block thetrials, Grant wrote a two-page letter on behalf ofBabcock, in which the president declared his sec-retary’s innocence. Babcock was acquitted, and theWhiskey Ring trials ended on a low note. Only afew defendants were ever found guilty, none tyingthe frauds to Grant or his administration.

Although many historians consider the Whis-key Ring frauds to be one of the worst governmen-tal scandals in American history, few people arefamiliar with it today, and historical works barelycover it. In October 1876 a lengthy article appearedunder the byline of one H.V. Boynton in regards tothe Whiskey Ring frauds. Summing up the com-plexity of the frauds, Boynton explained:

Congressional investigations and the press havemade known, though in somewhat disjointed form,the chief features of the late war upon [the] whiskeythieves and their abettors. . . . While this movementof Secretary Bristow for the suppression of whiskeyfrauds was a clearly defined campaign, having adefinite beginning, sharp outlines, and a suddenending, it is yet too early for any one to attempt itsfull history. Much of it cannot be known, unless theSecretary himself discloses it. The secret machina-tions by which a formidable array continually ex-cited the President against his Secretary as yet par-tially appear. For each of the cities where the blow[of prosecution] fell, there is a local history full ofinterest and illustrative of the political powerwielded by the ring, which was not fully known inWashington. Some further developments yet awaitthe ongoing chariot of justice, the wheels of whichdrag heavily just now.

To this day, the entire story of the Whiskey Ringfrauds, their cover-up, and the role of members ofthe Grant administration in the affair, has yet to befully told.

See also Henderson, John BrooksReferences: Boynton, H.V.,“The Whiskey Ring,” North

American Review, CCLII (October 1876), 280–281;Logan, David A., Historical Uses of a SpecialProsecutor: The Administrations of Presidents Grant,Coolidge, and Truman (Washington, DC:

Congressional Research Service, 1973), 13;McDonald, John, Secrets of the Great Whiskey Ring,Containing a Complete Exposure of the Illicit WhiskeyFrauds Culminating in 1875, and the Connection ofGrant, Babcock, Douglas, Chester H. Krum, and OtherAdministration Officers, Established by Positive andUnequivocal Documentary Proofs, ComprisingFacsimiles of Confidential Letters and TelegramsEmanating From the White House, Directing theManagement of the Ring. Also Photographs of Grant,Babcock, Bristow, Garfield and the Famous Sylph. ToWhich Is Added the Missing Links in the Chain ofEvidence of James A. Garfield’s Implication with theDistrict of Columbia Ring and Crédit Mobilier Bribery(Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Co., 1880); Rives,Timothy,“Grant, Babcock, and the Whiskey Ring,”Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives andRecords Administration, 32:3 (Fall 2000); Seematter,Mary E.,“The St. Louis Whiskey Ring,” GatewayHeritage (Spring 1988), 32–42; “The Whiskey FraudTrials: General Henderson’s Dismissal,” New YorkTimes, 11 December 1875, 1; “Whisky Trust Bribery,”New York Times, 9 February 1893, 9.

WhitewaterScandal, 1993–2001, that in many ways encapsu-lated the history of scandal in the administrationof President Bill Clinton. The scandal has it rootsin land fraud, Southern politics, a rising politicianin a small Southern state, and stolen U.S. govern-ment funds in the wake of the savings and loanscandal of the 1980s. The scandal started in 1978,when an Arkansas land broker, James McDougal,and his wife, Susan, formed a fifty-fifty land part-nership with a young up-and-coming Arkansaspolitician, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Hillary. Thisland deal encompassed a huge area of forty-twolots of land along the White River in Arkansas. Thetwo couples named the real estate concern theWhitewater Development Corporation, with theintention of selling the land for homes. Clintonand McDougal had become acquainted in 1968,when both men worked for the reelection of Sena-tor William Fulbright of Arkansas. McDougal him-self had never entered the political realm, insteadbecoming the owner of the Madison GuarantySavings and Loan in Arkansas. He secretly usedfunds from the S&L to finance the Whitewaterland deal. Although it appeared on paper that boththe Clintons and the McDougals lost money in theventure, many allegations later appeared thatmoney was indeed earned and hidden from the

Whitewater 365

state and federal government. The attorney for theland deal was Vincent Foster, an Arkansas attorneywho was a boyhood friend of Bill Clinton and laterserved with Hillary Clinton as a member of theRose Law Firm, one of the most prestigious lawfirms in Arkansas and the United States. In 1980Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas, and, al-though he lost the office in 1982, he won it back in1984 and held it until 1992. During this period,there were allegations that McDougal used fundsfrom his S&L to finance parts of Clinton’s guber-natorial campaigns.

For many years, the McDougals offered theClintons a buyout of their share of Whitewater, butthe Clintons refused until Clinton decided in 1991to run for president of the United States. AfterClinton was elected president, he named VincentFoster deputy White House counsel. However, dur-ing the 1992 campaign, the allegations of financialand other shenanigans involving Whitewater bub-bled to the surface, and reporters headed down toArkansas to look into them. After Clinton took of-fice, demands rose in Washington, D.C., that theland deal be investigated for possible illegalities.The voices rose to a crescendo when Foster wasfound dead in a Washington park on 20 July1993—an alleged suicide. Suspicion focused onthe White House when White House counselBernard Nussbaum ordered that confidential pa-pers, many possibly dealing with Whitewater, beremoved from Foster’s office after word came thathe was found dead. On 12 January 1994, Clintonhimself asked that an independent counsel benamed, and, on 20 January 1994, Attorney GeneralJanet Reno named New York lawyer and formerU.S. attorney Robert B. Fiske Jr., circumventing acourt that, under the Independent Counsel Statute,is required to get a recommendation for the nam-ing of an independent counsel and name one oftheir choosing. Fiske immediately launched an in-vestigation of Foster’s death and what he knew ofthe details of the Whitewater land deal. By August1994 Fiske had concluded that Foster’s death wasindeed a suicide and that the Clintons did not im-pede an investigation by the Resolution Trust Cor-poration (RTC), a federal government agency es-tablished to investigate potential savings andloans criminality. It appeared that the Clintonswere cleared and that the controversy would diedown.

However, on 5 August 1994, when Fiske went tothe special three-member judicial panel that hadauthority to name independent counsels, so thathe could close parts of the investigation and get ju-risdiction into other areas, the panel insteadshocked Washington by removing Fiske from hispost, explaining that he had not been properlynamed by the court initially. Instead, the courtnamed Kenneth Winston Starr Jr., a former federalappeals judge and a former solicitor general underPresident George H. W. Bush. Immediately, Starrissued subpoenas for documents, such as the RoseLaw Firm billing records relating to the land deal-ings. These records were missing from the firmand they did not turn up for two years, when theywere found lying on a table in the White House—eliciting even more suspicion of the Clintons.These records showed that, despite earlier state-ments that she had done little if any work on be-half of the Whitewater project, Mrs. Clinton in facthad done sixty hours of work on Whitewater. InJanuary 1996 Mrs. Clinton was summoned byStarr before a Washington grand jury to elaborateon the records issue.

The independent counsel’s investigation alsolooked into the role of the Clintons in the collapseof the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. Afterthe S&L went under in the mid-1980s, the U.S.government bailed it out at the expense of some$68 million. In 1989 James McDougal was in-dicted on state charges of bank fraud, but he wasacquitted in 1990. However, Starr looked intowhether Madison funds were used prior to thebank’s demise to bolster the Whitewater landdeal. Starr was able to track a 1985 fundraiser byMcDougal that assisted in retiring campaign debtfrom Clinton’s 1984 gubernatorial race. Thefundraiser raised some $30,000, but $12,000 wastraced to checks drawn from Madison. WhileStarr was investigating, both houses of the U.S.Congress opened investigations. The House Bank-ing Committee, chaired by Representative JimLeach (R-IA) held hearings, which concluded on10 August 1995, with the finding that no illegali-ties occurred in Whitewater. The Senate, however,formed the Senate Special Whitewater Commit-tee, chaired by Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY).This latter committee became bogged down inpolitics between Republicans and Democrats onthe panel.

366 Whitewater

On 17 August 1995, a grand jury in Little Rock,Arkansas, indicted James and Susan McDougal, aswell as Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker oncharges of bank fraud relating to loans to Whitewa-ter. On 28 May 1996, all three were convicted, despiteClinton testifying for the defense via videotape, thefirst time a president had testified in a criminal trial.James McDougal made a deal to turn states’ evi-dence against his ex-wife, Susan, and Jim Tucker.When Susan McDougal was offered a similar dealfor her testimony, she refused, and after being heldin contempt of court she was sent to prison for twoyears. She never testified against the Clintons.

In another trial in which Starr brought charges,Arkansas bankers Robert Hill and Herby Bran-scum Jr., political supporters of Clinton inArkansas, were tried on charges of using depositsfrom their Arkansas banks to reimburse them-selves for contributions to Clinton’s 1990 guberna-torial campaign. However, on 1 August 1996, anArkansas jury acquitted the two men on fourcharges and deadlocked on the others.

In all, Starr, and his successor, Robert Ray, whoclosed the Whitewater investigation in 2001, spentsome $52 million under the Independent CounselStatute, which was not renewed by Congress in1999. Starr officially ended the Whitewater investi-gation on 19 November 1998, reporting to thethree-member court that while he believed thatClinton himself lied under oath regarding White-water, he could not prove the case beyond a rea-sonable doubt. In 2000 Starr resigned his positionand was succeeded by Ray, who issued a report in2001 that while there were suspicions that theClintons were involved in illegalities, “this officedetermined that the evidence was insufficient toprove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that ei-ther President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly partici-pated in any criminal conduct.” The final White-water report, issued by Ray’s office on 20 March2002, specifically stated that while there was insuf-ficient evidence to indict either of the Clintons,both had been involved in illegal activity.

See also Clinton, William Jefferson, Tucker, James Guy, Jr.References: Thompson, Marilyn W.,“Whitewater Probe’s

Insufficient Evidence,” Washington Post, 20 November1998, A32; United States Congress, Senate, SpecialCommittee to Investigate Whitewater DevelopmentCorporation and Related Matters, Investigation ofWhitewater Development Corporation and RelatedMatters: Final Report of the Special Committee toInvestigate Whitewater Development Corporation andRelated Matters, Together with Additional andMinority Views (Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 1996).

Whittemore, Benjamin Franklin(1824–1894)United States representative from South Carolina(1868–1870), resigned his seat because of allega-tions that he sold appointments to the U.S. mili-tary and naval academies. Born in Malden, Massa-chusetts, on 18 May 1824, Whittemore attendedpublic schools in nearby Worcester and finishedhis education at Amherst. (However, Amherst doesnot have a record of his having attended or gradu-ating). He then entered private business, engagingin a mercantile concern until 1859, when he stud-ied theology and became a minister in theMethodist Episcopal Church in the New EnglandConference in 1859. It appeared that he wouldmake the church his life’s work.

Whittemore, Benjamin Franklin 367

James McDougal holds a Whitewater deed. McDougal wasconvicted of 18 felony counts but received a reduced sentence,from 84 years to 3, after he testified against his ex-wife, Susan,and Arkansas Governor Jim Tucker. McDougal died in prisonon 7 March 1998. (Reuters NewMedia Inc./CORBIS)

When the Civil War exploded in 1861, insteadof serving as a soldier, Whittemore served theUnion Army as a chaplain for the Fifty-third Regi-ment of the Massachusetts Volunteers, and laterwith the Thirtieth Regiment of the Veteran Volun-teers. There is no record of what kind of actionWhittemore may have seen during the war. Whenthe conflict ended, he settled in Darlington, SouthCarolina, serving as a delegate to the state consti-tution convention in 1867. Elected president of theRepublican state Executive Board that same year,he founded the newspaper the New Era in Darling-ton. In 1868 he served as a member of the SouthCarolina state senate. When South Carolina wasreadmitted to the Union under Reconstruction,Whittemore was elected to a seat in the U.S. Houseof Representatives as a Republican, serving in theFortieth and Forty-first Congresses from 18 July1868 to 24 February 1870.

Whittemore apparently got into ethical troublefor selling appointments to West Point and An-napolis for either political favors or cash—whichone is not specified. Following a House investiga-tion, it was recommended that Whittemore faceexpulsion from the House—a sanction not soughtsince the Civil War. Hinds’ Precedents, which arethe proceedings of Congress, reported:

On February 21, 1870, Mr. John A. Logan, of Illinois,from the Committee on Military Affairs, who wereinstructed to inquire into the alleged sale of ap-pointments to the Military and Naval Academies byMembers of Congress, submitted a report, in writ-ing, accompanied by the following resolution, viz:

“Resolved, That B. F. Whittemore, a Representa-tive in Congress from the First Congressional dis-trict of South Carolina, be, and is hereby, expelledfrom his seat as a Member of the House of Repre-sentatives in the Forty-first Congress.”

On February 23 the Speaker ruled that Mr.Whit-temore might, under the resolution, be heard eitherorally or in writing. So his affidavit was presentedand read, in denial of the charge.After it had beenread, Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, de-sired to be heard in behalf of the accused Member,having been deputed by him to make hisdefense. . . . On February 24, as the House was con-sidering the resolution of expulsion, the Speaker laidbefore the House a communication from B. F.Whit-temore, informing the House that he had transmit-ted to the governor of South Carolina his resignationof his seat in Congress. The same having been read,

Mr.Whittemore was about to address the House,when the Speaker decided that, in view of the com-munication just read to the House, he could not rec-ognize him as any longer a Member of the House orentitled to address the same. Mr.Whittemore’s no-tice to the Speaker that he had resigned did notreach the desk until after the speech had begun. TheSpeaker, as soon as he read the notice of resignation,caused Mr.Whittemore to suspend his remarks, andruled that it was not within the power of the Chair torecognize anyone not a Member of the House.Therefore he ruled that Mr.Whittemore might pro-ceed only by unanimous consent of the House.

After speaking, Whittemore left the House indisgrace. However, no legal or criminal action wasever taken against him. His constituents, angeredby his forced resignation, reelected him to fill thevacancy caused by his resignation, but when Whit-temore went to present the credentials of the elec-tion to the House, he was rebuffed, and the Housedeclined to seat him. Whittemore returned toSouth Carolina. He later served as a member of theSouth Carolina state senate in 1877, but after thisterm, left the state and returned to Massachusetts,where he became the publisher of a small newspa-per. Whittemore died in Montvale, Massachusetts,on 25 January 1894 at the age of sixty-nine andwas buried in the Salem Street Cemetery inWoburn, Massachusetts.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 2050; Hinds, Asher Crosby,Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of theUnited States, Including References to Provisions of theConstitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the UnitedStates Senate, 8 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1907–1908),V:829–832; WhittemoreAmherst information in Robert Fletcher, ed., AmherstCollege: Biographical Record of the Graduates andNon-Graduates. Centennial Edition, 1821–1921(Amherst, MA: Published by the College, 1927).

Willett, William Forte, Jr. (1869–1938)United States representative from New York(1907–1911), indicted and convicted for briberyand conspiracy in his attempts to secure a seat onthe Queens County (New York) Supreme Court, forwhich he served more than a year in prison. Wil-lett remains an obscure figure despite being one ofonly a handful of U.S. representatives to serve timein prison. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on 27 No-

368 Willett, William Forte, Jr.

vember 1869, he attended the public schools ofthat city before he received a law degree from NewYork University in 1895. He was admitted to thebar the following year and opened a law practicein New York City.

Willett was elected as a Democrat to the U.S.House of Representatives in 1906, taking his seatin the Sixtieth Congress on 4 March 1907. He wasreelected in 1908, but was not a candidate for re-election in 1910. Historians who have studied hiscongressional career note that he is known fordoing only two things: delivering a speech on theHouse floor on 18 January 1909 in which he calledoutgoing President Theodore Roosevelt “a grin-ning gargoyle,” and the House vote on 27 January1909 of 126 to 78 expunging that speech from thecongressional record. After leaving Congress, Wil-lett returned to New York, where he entered intothe business of selling real estate.

In October 1911, according to his indictment,Willett bribed Queens Democratic leader “CurleyJoe” Cassidy in the amount of $10,000 in order toget a nomination for a seat on the Queens CountySupreme Court. The scheme, however, somehowbecame public: on 1 November 1911, New YorkCity District Attorney Charles Whitman reportedthat he had proof that Willett paid $37,000 in totalbribes to get the Democratic nomination. Tam-many Hall leader Charles Murphy told reportersthat Tammany Hall did not get any of the money.Whitman went to court and presented evidenceagainst Willett; L. T. Walters Jr., who nominatedWillett; Cassidy; and Kings County DemocraticChairman J. H. McCooey on charges of conspiracyand corrupt practices, including bribery. On 2 No-vember, a Long Island bank where Willett bankedrevealed that Willett had borrowed $10,000 “forcampaign purposes.” McCooey denied that he hadbeen involved with Willett or his attempts to geton the ballot. On 20 November, Willett, Walters,and Cassidy were arrested; all three pled not guiltyand posted bail. Although a Queens County grandjury refused to indict the men, a grand jury inKings County opened an investigation and in-dicted Walters and Willett on 20 June 1912.

In 1913 all three men went on trial and wereconvicted on all charges. His appeals exhausted, in1914 Willett entered Sing Sing prison in upstateNew York state. He served fourteen months there,being paroled in 1915. While in prison, Willett be-

came unpopular for enforcing discipline and wasbeaten up severely.

After leaving prison, Willett quietly worked inreal estate ventures, never again surfacing in thepolitical realm. He died in New York City on 12February 1938 at the age of sixty-eight and wasburied in the Cemetery of the Evergreens in KingsCounty, New York.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 2058.

Williams, Harrison Arlington, Jr.(1919–2001)United States representative (1953–1957) and sen-ator (1959–1982) from New Jersey, the only sena-tor implicated in the ABSCAM scandal, resignedhis seat and was convicted of his involvement inthe scandal. Born in Plainfield, New Jersey, on 10December 1919, Williams attended the publicschools of New Jersey before attending OberlinCollege in Ohio and graduating from that institu-tion in 1941. He then moved to Washington, D.C.,where he went to work as a cub reporter for theWashington Post. He attended the GeorgetownUniversity Foreign Service School until he wascalled to active duty as a seaman in the UnitedStates Naval Reserve. He entered that service as anaval aviator, although it is unknown if he saw anyaction. When he was discharged in 1945, Williamsheld the rank of lieutenant, junior grade.

Following the war, Williams went to work inprivate business in the steel industry. However, hedecided to get his law license. He entered Colum-bia Law School in New York and graduated with alaw degree in 1948. He was admitted to the NewYork bar, but went to New Hampshire for a shorttime where he opened a law practice. He returnedto New Jersey, settled in the town of Plainfield, andopened a law practice there. A Democrat, he en-tered the political realm in 1951, unsuccessfullyrunning for a seat in the New Jersey House of As-sembly. He ran a campaign for the Plainfield citycouncil early the following year, but also lost thatrace. In late 1952, when Republican Clifford Caseleft his House seat to run for the U.S. Senate,Williams ran for Case’s seat in the U.S. House, rep-resenting the sixth district. Elected, he entered theEighty-third Congress on 3 November 1953 and

Williams, Harrison Arlington, Jr. 369

served in that body until 3 January 1957. He wasreelected in 1954, but defeated in 1956. In 1957 hecampaigned for the reelection of New Jersey Gov-ernor Robert B. Meyner, a Democrat. Meyner, re-turning the favor, pushed Williams to run in 1958for the U.S. Senate against Senator Robert W. Kean,a Republican.

In 1958 Williams defeated Kean and held hisSenate seat until his resignation on 11 March1982. A liberal, he supported Social Security, con-servation, and civil rights legislation. He rose tobecome chairman of the Senate Committee onLabor and Human Resources, losing the chair-manship when the Republicans took control in1981. He was reelected three times to the Senate.

In the late 1970s, the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation, acting on rumors that some congressmenand senators were willing to take bribes to aid for-eigners to gain citizenship, set up Operation ArabScam—better known as ABSCAM.An agent of thebureau was dressed as an Arab sheikh, and con-gressmen and senators who took the bait were in-vited to speak to the phony sheikh, who offeredthem bribes in exchange for getting the sheikh andhis friends American citizenship. The only senatorwho decided to take the money and work for thesheikh was Harrison Williams.Videotapes later re-leased showed Williams asking for a loan of $100million, which he said was to provide for his andhis family’s security after he left the Senate. TheSenate Ethics Committee later called these tapesnot just a “smoking gun,” but a “smoking machinegun.” Williams was indicted on 30 October 1980,and his trial began in Brooklyn, New York, on 1April 1981. The videotapes were the piece of evi-dence that nailed Williams. As the New York Timesstated:

The prosecutors sought to show that Mr. Williamsand [his codefendant, Alexander] Feinberg were“predisposed” to commit illegal acts in the immi-gration and titanium-mining matters. The prosecu-tors did this by introducing evidence of the defen-dants’ behavior in situations involving an AtlanticCity gambling casino and an unsuccessful ventureto build a New Jersey garbage-recycling facility—situations that were not part of the charges in thetrial.

In the casino matter, the prosecutors played avideotape of a 1979 meeting in which the Senatortold the Abscam agents that he had interceded with

a New Jersey official to help gain a decision from thestate’s Casino Control Commission that would havesaved a casino-development group $30 million, hadits proposed project been carried out. The casinohad been proposed by a company in which the con-trolling interest was held by a second company thatemployed the Senator’s wife as a consultant. . . .

The key prosecution evidence in the titanium-mining and immigration matters were videotapesof two meetings the Senator had with the bogussheik, played by F.B.I. agent Richard Farhart.

In the first tape, made at a meeting held in anArlington,Virginia, motel in June 1979, SenatorWilliams says that there would be “no problem” inusing his relationships with the nation’s top offi-cials—including President Jimmy Carter—in try-ing to get the government contract for the mine. Inthe second tape, made at the Plaza Hotel in January1980, the Senator gave the phony sheik assurancesof help in seeking permanent residency in theUnited States.

On 1 May 1981, Williams was found guilty ofbribery and conspiracy charges. He refused to re-sign from the Senate, and the Senate Ethics Com-mittee opened an investigation into whether or notWilliams should be expelled.Williams continued toassert his innocence, instead decrying FBI tactics insnaring him. Robert S. Bennett, the Washington,D.C., attorney who defended President Bill Clinton,served as special counsel for the Senate Ethics Com-mittee in the Williams investigation. However, thestunning evidence of Williams on tape shakingdown the fake Arab sheikhs was his undoing. TheEthics committee recommended on 24 August 1981that Williams be expelled for his crimes. Debate inthe Senate regarding the recommendation began on3 March 1982. Senator after senator took to the floorto discuss Senate Resolution 204—the expulsion ofHarrison Williams. “The unfortunate but unavoid-able task of considering Senate Resolution 204 is anarduous responsibility; a disturbing responsibilityfor every senator, a weighty responsibility for the in-stitution itself,” Senator Howard Baker (R-TN), thefirst speaker, stated. Senator Howell Heflin (D-AL)said,“At any point during this drawn-out, sordid af-fair, Senator Williams could have said, ‘Wait aminute.What you’re proposing is wrong. This is notwhat I had in mind. I can’t be involved in this.’ Buthe didn’t. . . . He stayed; he discussed; he agreed; hepromised; he pledged to abuse his office, his public

370 Williams, Harrison Arlington, Jr.

trust, for which, now he must be expelled.” SenatorDaniel Inouye (D-HI) was one of the few voices tospeak for Williams. The senator was guilty of noth-ing “so dastardly, so sinister,” but instead had beenentrapped “by the FBI, an agency of the executivebranch of government. . . . Who among us has nottouted our importance to our constituents? We arehere because our egos are immense.” Williamsspoke to his colleagues for four hours, imploringthem not to vote to expel. “It is not only PeteWilliams that stands accused or indicted. It is all ofus, the entire Senate, that stands accused and intim-idated by another branch of government. . . . Thechairman of the Select Committee on Ethics [then-Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-WY)] . . . shelters the FBIand its malcontents from criticism in his prosecu-tion of me. In so doing, I believe he makes the nextAbscam easier and more legitimate.”

Williams’s arguments fell on deaf ears—evenhis own fellow New Jerseyan, Senator Bill Bradley,supported his expulsion. A move by some Demo-crats only to censure Williams failed, and, facingan inevitable vote to expel him, the New Jerseysenator resigned on 11 March 1982. Williams toldhis supporters, “I announce my intention to re-sign. Time, history and Almighty God will vindi-cate me and the principles for which I fought herein the Senate. I will be vindicated before the peoplein our land.”Williams was sentenced to three yearsin prison, entering the federal correction facility inAllenwood, Pennsylvania, in 1983, becoming thefirst senator in eighty years to go to prison. He wasparoled in 1986, and returned home to Bedmin-ster, New Jersey.

In his final years, Williams sought the vindica-tion he argued for, asking President Bill Clinton fora pardon in 2000, but Clinton refused. Williams,suffering from cancer and other ailments, died on20 November 2001, one month shy of his eighty-second birthday.

References: Bernstein, Adam,“Harrison A. Williams Jr.Dies, Abscam Ousted N.J. Senator,” Washington Post,20 November 2001, B7; Biographical Directory of theAmerican Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQStaff Directories, Inc., 1996), 2061; Byrd, Robert C.,The Senate, 1789–1989: Historical Statistics,1789–1992 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, four volumes, 1993), IV:668; Fried, Joseph P.,“Senate Ethics Unit to Consider Action on WilliamsVerdict,” New York Times, 3 May 1981, A1; Fried,Joseph P.,“Williams Is Guilty on All Nine Counts inAbscam Inquiry,Vows Not to Resign,” New York Times,

2 May 1981, A1; Sullivan, Joseph F.,“Senate OpensDebate on Williams,‘Did Nothing Criminal,’ HeInsists,” New York Times, 4 March 1982, A1; Sullivan,Joseph F.,“Williams Pleads with Colleagues in 4-HourSpeech on Senate Floor,” New York Times, 5 March1982, A1; Sullivan, Joseph F.,“Williams Quits SenateSeat as Vote to Expel Him Nears, Still Asserts He IsInnocent,” New York Times, 12 March 1982, A1.

Williams, John James (1904–1988)United States senator (1947–1970) from Delaware,instrumental in numerous investigations into cor-ruption, including the Bobby Baker affair (1964).Born in Bayard, Delaware, on 17 May 1904, theninth of eleventh children of a farming family, heattended local schools before he borrowed somemoney and established the Millsboro Feed Com-pany in Millsboro, Delaware, with his brother Pres-ton. This enterprise grew to include the WilliamsHatchery, where chickens and turkeys were raised,as well as 2,000 acres of farms and other lands. In1946 he served in the Millsboro town council.

In late 1946, with little political experienceunder his belt, Williams decided to run for theUnited States Senate against Democratic incum-bent James M. Tunnell, a popular supporter ofPresident Harry S. Truman. Williams, a Republi-can who railed against what he perceived to be theslide of the Democratic Party toward socialismand who decried Truman’s economic and socialpolicies, was given little if any chance to upset thepopular Tunnell. Williams easily won the Republi-can nomination and, during the campaign, por-trayed himself as a small businessman fightingagainst big government. Tunnell, though only inhis first term, was nearly seventy, while Williamswas in his early forties. The contrast, and the argu-ments of Williams, swayed the electorate, and onelection day Williams was elected with a nearly12,000-vote advantage out of 113,500 votes cast.

Williams began his career in the Senate byspeaking out against the price supports of the ad-ministration, which he felt helped large corpora-tions over the small farmer, the policies of the NewDeal Office of Price Administration, and called fora cut in income taxes. In 1947 he was seated on theCommittee to Investigate the National Defense,which investigated contracts handed out duringWorld War II to see if there was fraud or waste inany of them. For his work, in 1949 he was named

Williams, John James 371

to the prestigious Finance Committee. He eventu-ally rose to become the ranking minority leader onthat panel. As a member of the committee, he be-came skilled in taxation and budgetary issues. Acritic of overspending in both Democratic and Re-publican administrations, in the early 1950s he al-leged bookkeeping errors that cost some $350 mil-lion at the Commodities Credit Corporation(CCC). As a member of the Agriculture Commit-tee, he worked to expose costly farm programsthat he felt benefited a few corporations and notthe family farmers the programs were intended tohelp. For this work, in 1967 he was awarded theAmerican Farm Bureau’s highest award for hiswork on agricultural issues.

Yet Williams’s greatest role was in the investiga-tion into Robert G.“Bobby” Baker, the secretary tothe former Senate Majority Leader and later VicePresident Lyndon Johnson. Starting in 1963, be-fore Johnson became president upon the assassi-nation of John F. Kennedy, Williams was tipped offthat Baker had been involved in shady businessdealings and called upon the Senate Rules Com-mittee to open a formal investigation. When theRules Committee seemed to hesitate to investigateone of their own (the issue could serve to embar-rass Johnson, running for a full term on his own in1964), Williams went public with his accusations.Because of this, in 1964 Johnson spearheaded aneffort to defeat him in Delaware, but Williamswon, despite the contest being the narrowest of hisfour victories. Williams was not shy in pointingout corruption within his own party—in 1959 hewas one of the first senators to call upon PresidentEisenhower to fire his chief of staff, ShermanAdams.

In 1960 Williams had been named to the For-eign Relations Committee and when he retired in1970, he became the last man to serve on both theSenate Finance and Foreign Relations Commit-tees. (A Senate rule passed during Williams’stenure prohibited joint service on two of the “bigfive” committees, which included Finance and For-eign Relations.) He criticized the misuse of fundsfrom the Agency for International Development(AID), and by the mid-1960s, was a major critic ofthe war in Vietnam. He opposed continuing thewar during both the Johnson and subsequentNixon administrations. He was, however, consid-ered a leading authority on the issue of honesty in

the Senate, and in 1952 and 1968 was considered aleading candidate for vice president, but he re-fused both times. In 1973, when Vice PresidentSpiro Agnew was forced to resign, Williams’s namewas floated as a possible replacement. Had he ac-cepted, Williams would have become the thirty-eighth president in 1974.

Starting in 1969, Williams announced that hewould retire at the age of sixty-five and not run fora fifth term in 1970. Representative William Rothwon the seat that year and has held it ever since.Williams retired with his wife to Millsboro, wherehe worked in real estate. He died there on 11 Janu-ary 1988 at the age of eighty-three.

Williams is considered by many historians tohave been one of the most honest men ever toserve in the Senate. He was called “The LonewolfInvestigator,” “Watchdog of the Treasury,” “HonestJohn,” “Mr. Integrity,” and “the Conscience of theSenate” by his peers, the press, and his con-stituents. In 1963 Senator Sam Ervin said of him,he is “the gadfly of the Senate . . . on many occa-sions he has stung the Congress and the executiveagencies into righteous conduct.”

See also Baker, Robert GeneReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996), 2063.

Williamson, John Newton (1855–1943)United States representative from Oregon (1903–1907), convicted, with Senator John HippleMitchell, of land fraud and forced to leave Con-gress before he could be stripped of his seat. Be-cause Mitchell was the leading character in thatepisode, Williamson’s name and deeds werelargely ignored by the media at the time, and hehas slipped into obscurity. Little is known of hislife—he was born near Junction City, Oregon, on8 November 1855, and he attended countryschools. He did attend Willamette University inSalem, Oregon, but he apparently never obtainedany degree from that institution. Sometime afterleaving school, Williamson went into businessraising livestock.

A Republican,Williamson was elected sheriff ofCook County, Oregon, in 1886, and served for twoyears. At the end of that term of office, he waselected to a seat in the Oregon state house of repre-

372 Williamson, John Newton

sentatives, where he served until 1898. From 1893until 1896, he owned and edited the Prineville Re-view. In 1900 Williamson was elected to a seat inthe state senate, where he served until 1902. In thatyear Williamson was elected to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, representing Oregon’s SecondDistrict. He served in the Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses, from 4 March 1903 until 3March 1907.

In his time before and during his congressionaltenure,Williamson became involved in purchasingland in Oregon. Working closely with Senator JohnH. Mitchell of Oregon, he bought up homesteadsfraudulently from the U.S. government by usingfake names and fake documents. Williamson wasconvicted of the same charges as Mitchell: con-spiracy to defraud the United States government.However, a study of Williamson’s biography showsno prison term, so the disposition of his case re-mains unknown. He did not stand for reelection in1906 and returned to Oregon.

Williamson spent the remainder of his life inOregon, working on a ranch and engaging in agri-cultural pursuits; he served as postmaster ofPrineville, Oregon, from 1922 until 1934. He diedin Prineville on 29 August 1943 and was buried inthe Masonic Cemetery in that town.

See also Mitchell, John HippleReferences: Biographical Directory of the American

Congress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996); Cummings, Hilary Anne,“John H. Mitchell, a Man of His Time: Foundations ofHis Political Career, 1860–1879,” (Ph.D. dissertation,University of Oregon, 1985); O’Callaghan, Jerry A.,“Senator John H. Mitchell and the Oregon LandFrauds, 1905.” Pacific Historical Review 21 (August1952): 255–261.

Wilson, Charles Herbert (1917–1984)United States representative from California(1963–1981), censured by the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives in 1980 for financial misconduct, one ofonly twenty-two House members ever to receivethat punishment. Wilson was born in Magna,Utah, on 15 February 1917, but moved with hisparents to Los Angeles, California, in 1922. He at-tended the public schools there and in the nearbytown of Inglewood, after which he went to work ina bank starting in 1935. In 1942 he was enlisted inthe U.S. Army, and, with the rank of staff sergeant,

served from June 1942 to December 1945, seeinglimited action in the European theater of opera-tions before he was discharged. Returning to theUnited States, Wilson established an insuranceagency in Los Angeles.

In 1953 Wilson entered the political arena andran as a Democrat for a seat in the California statelegislature. Elected, he served from 1954 to 1962 asan assemblyman from the Sixty-sixth CaliforniaDistrict. In 1962 he gave up this post to run for aseat in the U.S. House of Representatives, repre-senting the Thirty-first California District. Defeat-ing Republican Gordon Kahn, Wilson took his seatin Congress and ultimately served from 3 January1963 until 3 January 1981, from the Eighty-eighththrough the Ninety-sixth Congresses.

During the 1970s,Wilson was at the forefront ofa secret campaign inside the House to advance theinfluence of the Korean government—and he tookgifts and other remuneration from the Koreangovernment for his support. In 1980 the House in-vestigated the role of Wilson in the so-called Kore-agate scandal and found that he had accepted im-proper gifts, as well as used “ghost” employees inhis office (so he could collect additional pay-checks) and improperly used campaign funds.However, the House Ethics Committee recom-mended that Wilson be censured instead of beingthe subject of an expulsion vote. Wilson was cen-sured by the full House on 6 June 1980. Wilson lostin the Democratic primary in 1980 and left Con-gress on 3 January 1981.

In his final years, Wilson lived in Tantallon,Maryland, until his death in Clinton, Maryland, on21 July 1984 at the age of sixty-seven. He wasburied in Inglewood, California.

References: Biographical Directory of the AmericanCongress, 1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ StaffDirectories, Inc., 1996).

Worrall, Robert. See United States v. Worrall.

Wright, James Claude, Jr. (1922– )United States representative from Texas (1954–1989) and Speaker of the House (1986–1989),forced to step down from the speakership and hisseat after he was accused of violating House rules

Wright, James Claude, Jr. 373

on financial improprieties and limits on outsideearned income. Born in Fort Worth, Texas, on 22December 1922, James Wright Jr. attended thepublic schools of Fort Worth and Dallas, before hewent to Weatherford College in Texas from 1939 to1940 and the University of Texas from 1940 to1941. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harborand the entry of the United States into World WarII, Wright enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Force.Commissioned in 1942, he was posted to the Pa-cific theater of operations and flew combat mis-sions in the South Pacific, for which he wasawarded the Distinguished Service Cross.After thewar, Wright returned home and entered the Texaspolitical arena. He was elected to the Texas statehouse of representatives in 1946, but was defeatedafter serving a single term. He then moved toWeatherford, Texas, where he had gone to college,and ran for mayor. He was elected and served from1950 to 1954. In that latter year, he ran unopposedfor a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, rep-resenting Texas’s Twelfth District. Wright would bereelected seventeen times. (He ran unsuccessfullyfor a U.S. Senate seat in 1961.) In 1977, when Ma-jority Leader Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill was elevatedto the Speakership, Wright was named as his re-placement for the majority leader position. Wrightserved in this capacity from the Ninety-fifththrough the Ninety-ninth Congresses. WhenO’Neill retired from the Speakership and theHouse in 1985, Wright was elected by the Demo-crats, then in the majority, to be the Forty-ninthSpeaker of the House. Wright would serve asSpeaker through the 100th and the 101st Con-gresses.

Jim Wright got into ethical trouble just as he wasbecoming one of the most powerful politicians inAmerica. He rented a condominium in Fort Worthfrom a close friend, real estate developer GeorgeMallick, and paid Mallick for the use of thecondo—Mallick’s gift of the condo use was in vio-lation of a ban on more than $100 in gifts from anyone person. He intervened with federal regulatorson behalf of three Texans—a real estate developer,and two executives from a Fort Worth Savings &Loan—in dealings with the Federal Home LoanBank Board. However, the worst allegation came re-garding his memoirs. Wright had penned Reflec-tions of a Public Man in 1984; it was a 117-page tri-fle that was sold in bulk by lobbyists. It had been

published by Carlos Moore, whose printing firmhad worked for Wright’s campaigns for many years.Finally, Wright had gotten 55 percent in royaltiesfrom the sales of the book, when normally authorsget 10 to 15 percent. In May 1988 Common Cause, apublic citizens’ action group, called for a congres-sional inquiry into these allegations.Within days ofCommon Cause’s complaint, Representative NewtGingrich of Georgia, a firebrand member of the Re-publican minority in the House, sent a letter,cosigned by seventy-two of his Republican col-leagues, to the House Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct, the panel which oversees ethics inthe House, asking for an investigation of thecharges. The Democrat-led committee voted unan-imously on 9 June 1988 to conduct a preliminaryinquiry; later, a full-blown investigation was or-dered, and a special outside counsel, Chicago attor-ney Richard J. Phelan, was retained.Wright testifiedfor more than five hours before the committee, andon 22 February 1989, Phelan gave his 279-page re-port to the committee. It alleged that on sixty-nineseparate occasions, Wright had broken congres-sional rules—specifically regarding the cozy bookdeal from which he had profited and taking morethan $145,000 in gifts from his friend GeorgeMallick. An allegation that Wright was illegally in-volved in an oil-well deal that resulted in huge prof-its for him was never investigated, and, in the end,the House committee dropped more than half ofthe allegations Phelan disclosed. Wright’s attorneysclaimed that the committee and Phelan were “mis-interpreting” House rules so as to make Wrightlook guilty and asked for the Speaker to be exoner-ated. He was not.

On 31 May 1989, Wright took to the floor of theHouse to deliver his resignation speech and directa stinging rebuke at the “mindless cannibalism” ofethics investigations. As his voice quivered withemotion, Wright said, “Let me give you back thisjob you gave to me as a propitiation for all of thisseason of bad will that has grown up amongus. . . . I don’t want to be a party to tearing up thisinstitution. I love it.” Wright thus became the firstsitting Speaker of the House to resign his post be-cause of scandal. Less than a month later, on 30June 1989, Wright resigned from the House alto-gether, ending a forty-four-year congressional ca-reer. He and his wife returned to Texas, where hestill lives.

374 Wright, James Claude, Jr.

Dennis F. Thompson, writing on institutionalcorruption in American politics, explained in1995, “The charges against Wright combine in thesame case the individual and institutional corrup-tion found, respectively, in the cases of [SenatorDavid] Durenberger and the Keating Five. . . . Thepresence of both kinds of corruption in the samecase offer an opportunity for a direct comparison.Confronted with a case of both kinds of corrup-tion, the House ethics committee took seriouslyonly the allegations of individual corruption, eventhough they were arguably less serious than thoseof institutional corruption.”

References: Barry, John M., The Ambition and the Power(New York: Viking, 1989); Congressional Ethics(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980),20–21; “Impassioned Wright Quits, Speaker Asks Endto Rancor,” Miami Herald, 1 June 1989, A1;

Thompson, Dennis F., Ethics in Congress: FromIndividual to Institutional Corruption (Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995), 43–44; Toner,Robin,“Wright Resigning As Speaker, Defends HisEthics and Urges End of ‘Mindless Cannibalism,’” NewYork Times, 1 June 1989, A1, D21; “Transcript ofWright’s Address to House of Representatives,” NewYork Times, 1 June 1989, D22–23; United StatesCongress, Biographical Directory of the United StatesCongress, 1774–1989: The Continental Congress,September 5, 1774, to October 21, 1788, and theCongress of the United States, from the First throughthe One Hundredth Congresses, March 4, 1789, toJanuary 3, 1989, Inclusive (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1989); United StatesCongress, House, Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, Report of the Special Outside Counsel in theMatter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr. Committee onStandards of Official Conduct, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, One Hundred First Congress(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1989).

Wright, James Claude, Jr. 375

Zenger, John Peter (1697–1746)Journalist and writer, whose trial for exposing thecorruption of the British governor of New York setthe stage for the enunciation of the free speechprinciple in the colonies and later the UnitedStates. And although his name belongs to historyfor his role in standing for free speech, few know ofthe details of his life or his infamous trial. Zengerwas born in what was called the Upper Palatinate(now Bavaria, Germany) sometime in the year1697 and around 1710 emigrated with his family toNew York, then a prosperous English colony. Theelder Zenger died en route to the New World, leav-ing his widow, Johanna, to care for Peter and histwo siblings. The year after he came to the colonies,Zenger went to work as an apprentice for WilliamBradford, the famed printer who was the royalprinter for the New York colony. This apprentice-ship ended in 1719, but, six years later, Bradford in-vited Zenger to become his partner. In 1726 Zengerstruck out on his own, starting his own printing es-tablishment. His printing was little noticed exceptfor several theological tracts, but in 1730 he pub-lished the first arithmetic book in the colonies.

In 1733 Zenger founded the New York WeeklyJournal, which would become, in its short history,one of the most important newspapers in Ameri-can history. The first issue appeared on 5 Novem-ber 1733. Zenger’s enterprise was backed finan-cially by the Popular Party, a group of men in NewYork colony who opposed the administration of

William Cosby, the governor of the colony. One ofthe leaders of the Popular Party, James Alexander,served as the paper’s editor in chief.With each newissue, new editorials and stories called attention tothe corruption of Cosby. In these days before anysuch thing as the First Amendment existed, Zengerand his friends pushed an envelope that really wasnever opened.

The New York Weekly Journal explained in its 25February 1733 edition:

A Lible [sic] is not the less a Libel for being true,this may seem a Contradiction; but it is neither onein Law, or in common Scope. There are some Truthsnot fit to be told; where, for Example, the Discoveryof a small Fault may do mischief; or where the Dis-covery of a great fault can do no good, there oughtto be no discovery at all, and to make faults wherethere are none is still worse. . . . But this Doctrineonly holds true as to private and personal failings;and it is quite otherwise when the crimes of Mencome to Affect the Publick. Nothing ought to be sodear to us as our Country, and nothing ought tocome in Competition with its Interests. Every crimeagainst the Publick, is a great crime, tho there besome greater than others. Ignorance and Folly maybe pleaded in Alleviation of private Offenses; butwhen they come to be publick Offenses, they lose allBenefit of such a Plea; we are no longer to then con-sider, to what Causes they are owing, but what Evilsthey may produce, and here we shall readily find,that Folly has overturned States, and private Inter-est been the parent of Publick Confusion.

Z

377

Cosby and his friends, angered at the newspa-per’s growing popularity, established a grand jurythat found the editorials to be libelous and sedi-tious, and ordered Zenger’s arrest and for thepaper to be closed down. On 17 November 1734,Zenger was arrested and imprisoned in Manhat-tan. Two of the paper’s writers, James Alexanderand William Smith, condemned the move. Theyquestioned the authority of the Crown to arrestZenger and condemned the high bail set for him.They wrote a stinging letter to the colonial assem-bly: “Instead of consulting our law books, anddoing what we think consistent therewith, for thebenefit of our clients . . . [attorneys] must study ingreat men’s causes, and only what will please thejudges, and what will most flatter men is power.”

Initially finding a lawyer who would oppose theCrown proved difficult (all of those who had actedon behalf of Zenger were disbarred by the colonialauthorities), but Scottish attorney Andrew Hamil-ton (1676?–1741), a leading lawyer in the Pennsyl-vania colony, stepped forward to defend Zenger onprinciple despite his sympathy for the royal forces.The trial, taking place in 1735, dealt with whetherZenger’s editorials libeled Cosby. Hamilton arguedto the jury that the editorials were factually true,

and thus could not be libelous. In his classic state-ment before the jury, Hamilton told them that menhad a right “to complain when they are hurt . . .publicly to remonstrate the abuses of power in thestrongest forms . . . and to assert with courage thesense they have of the blessing of liberty, the valuethey put upon it, and their reputation at all haz-ards to preserve it.” Although the judge instructedthe jury that Zenger must be found guilty whetheror not his editorials were true, the jury returnedwith a not guilty verdict, accepting Hamilton’sstand that truth is a defense to libel. It was also thefirst known case of jury nullification. The verdictset the standard for freedom of the press—somuch so, that this case was used by the FoundingFathers forty years later as the basis for the FirstAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Zenger was released, but never made an impactin the printing world again. He worked, ironically,as the public printer for the colony of New York in1737 and in the same position for the colony ofNew Jersey in 1738. He died quietly in 1746.

References: New-York Weekly Journal, Containing theFrequent Advices, Foreign, and Domestick(Editorial), 25 February 1733, 1; Morris, Richard B.,“Zenger, John Peter,” in Allen Johnson and Dumas

378 Zenger, John Peter

The 1734 trial of Peter Zenger in New York. Defended by Andrew Hamilton, Zenger was acquitted of libel; the Court's decisionestablished freedom of the press in the United States. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Malone, et al., eds., Dictionary of AmericanBiography, 10 vols. and 10 supplements (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930–1995), X:648–650;Rutherfurd, Livingston, John Peter Zenger, His Press,His Trial and a Bibliography of Zenger Imprints, byLivingston Rutherfurd. Also a Reprint of the FirstEdition of the Trial (New York: Dodd, Mead,1904);“Trial of John Peter Zenger Before theSupreme Court of New York, For Two Libels on the

Government, New York, 1735,” in Peleg W. Chandler,American Criminal Trials, 2 vols. (Boston: Charles C.Little and James Brown, 841–844), I:154–209; TheTrial of John Peter Zenger, of New York, Printer: Whowas Charged with Having Printed and Published aLIBEL against the Government, and Acquitted. Witha Narrative of His Case (London: Printed for J.Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly,1735).

Zenger, John Peter 379

Under Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, each house of Congress may determine the rules of itsproceedings and set the rules for punishing members as it sees fit—and whether to reprimand, condemn, censure,or, in the most egregious examples, expel a member. Since 1789 the House has expelled only four men (three ofthese for supporting the Confederacy), and the Senate has expelled fifteen men, fourteen of whom were chargedwith supporting the Confederacy. Thus, despite a history of many members being accused of corrupt acts, only twohave been formally removed because of political corruption: Representatives Michael J.“Ozzie” Myers (D-PA),implicated in the famed ABSCAM scandal, and James A. Traficant (D-OH), who was convicted of several crimesrelating to corruption. In the Senate, only four members in total have been convicted in a courtroom of criminalacts: Republicans Joseph R. Burton (1905), John H. Mitchell (1905), and Truman H. Newberry (1920), andDemocrat Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry resigned, but his conviction was later overturned; Mitchell diedbefore he could be expelled from the Senate, and Burton and Williams resigned before they, too, could be expelled.

Cases of Expulsion in the House

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1798 Matthew Lyons (AF–Vermont) Assault on another representative Not expelled1798 Roger Griswold (F–Connecticut Assault on another representative Not expelled1799 Matthew Lyon (AF–Vermont) Sedition Not expelled1838 William J. Graves (W–Kentucky) Killing of another representative in a duel Not expelled1839 Alexander Duncan (W–Ohio) Offensive publication Not expelled1856 Preston S. Brooks (SRD–S.C.) Assault on U.S. senator1 Not expelled1857 Orsamus B. Matteson (W–New York) Corruption Not expelled1857 William A. Gilbert (W–New York) Corruption Not expelled1857 William W. Welch (Am–Connecticut) Corruption Not expelled1857 Francis S. Edwards (Am–New York) Corruption Not expelled1858 Orsamus B. Matteson (W–New York) Corruption Not expelled1861 John B. Clark (D–Missouri) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Henry C. Burnett (D–Kentucky) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 John W. Reid (D–Missouri) Support of rebellion Expelled1864 Alexander Long (D–Ohio) Treasonable utterance Not expelled2

1864 Benjamin G. Harris (D–Maryland) Treasonable utterance Not expelled2

1866 Lovell H. Rousseau (R–Kentucky) Assault on another representative Not expelled2

1870 Benjamin F. Whittemore (R–South Carolina) Corruption Not expelled2

Roderick R. Butler (R–Tennessee) Corruption Not expelled2

1873 Oakes Ames (R–Massachusetts) Corruption Not expelled2

1873 James Brooks (D–New York) Corruption Not expelled2

(continues)

APPENDIX ONECases of Expulsion, Censure, and Condemnation in the

U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 1798–Present

381

Cases of Expulsion in the House (continued)

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1875 John Y. Brown (D–Kentucky) Insult to representative Not expelled2

1875 William S. King (R–Minnesota) Corruption Not expelled1875 John G. Schumaker (D–New York) Corruption Not expelled1884 William P. Kellogg (R–Louisiana) Corruption Not expelled1921 Thomas R. Blanton (D–Texas) Abuse of Leave to Print Not expelled2

1979 Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (D–Michigan) Misuse of clerk funds Not expelled2

1980 Michael J. Myers (D–Pennsylvania) Corruption Expelled1988 Mario Biaggi (D–New York) Corruption Not expelled3

1990 Barney Frank (D–Massachusetts) Discrediting House Not expelled4

Cases of Expulsion in the Senate

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1797 William Blount (R–Tennessee) Anti–Spanish conspiracy Expelled1808 John Smith (R–Ohio)5 Disloyalty/Treason Not expelled1858 Henry M. Rice (D–Minnesota) Corruption Not expelled1861 James M. Mason (D–Virginia) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Robert M. T. Hunter (D–Virginia) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Thomas L. Clingman (D–N.C.) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Thomas Bragg (D–N.C.) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 James Chesnut Jr. (D–S.C.) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Alfred O. P. Nicholson (D–TN) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 William K. Sebastion (D–AR)6 Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Charles B. Mitchel (D–AR) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 John Hemphill (D–TX) Support of rebellion Expelled1861 Louis T. Wigfall (D–TX)7 Support of rebellion Expelled1861 John C. Breckinridge (D–KY) Support of rebellion Expelled1862 Lazarus W. Powell (D–KY) Support of rebellion Not expelled1862 Trusten Polk (D–MO) Support of rebellion Expelled1862 Jesse D. Bright (D–IN) Support of rebellion Expelled1862 Waldo P. Johnson (D–MO) Support of rebellion Expelled1862 James F. Simmons (R–RI)8 Corruption Resigned1873 James W. Patterson (R–NH)9 Corruption Term Expired1893 William N. Roach (D–ND)10 Embezzlement Not expelled1905 John H. Mitchell (R–OR)11 Corruption Not expelled1906 Joseph R. Burton (R–KS)12 Corruption Resigned1907 Reed Smoot (R–UT)13 Mormonism Not expelled1919 Robert M. LaFollette (R–WI)14 Disloyalty Not expelled1922 Truman H. Newberry (R–MI)15 Election fraud Resigned1924 Burton K. Wheeler (D–MT)16 Conflict of interest Not expelled1934 John H. Overton (D–LA)17 Election fraud No Senate action

Huey P. Long (D–LA)18 Election fraud No Senate action1942 William Langer (R–ND)19 Corruption Not expelled1982 Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (D–NJ)20 Corruption Resigned1995 Robert W. Packwood (D–OR)21 Misconduct Resigned

382 Appendix One

Cases of Censure in the House

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1798 Matthew Lyons (AF–Vermont) Assault on another representative Not censured1798 Roger Griswold (F–Connecticut Assault on another representative Not censured1832 William Stanbery (JD–Ohio) Insult to speaker Censured1836 Sherrod Williams (W–Kentucky) Insult to speaker Not censured1838 Henry A. Wise (TD–Virginia) Acted as Second in Duel Not censured1839 Alexander Duncan (W–Ohio) Offensive Publication Not censured1842 John Quincy Adams (W–Mass.) Treasonable Petition Not censured

Joshua R. Giddings (W–Ohio) Offensive Paper Censured1856 Henry A. Edmundson (D–Virginia) Complicity in Assault on a U.S. senator Not censured

Laurence M. Keitt (D–S.C.)1 Complicity in Assault on a U.S. senator Censured1860 George S. Houston (D–Alabama) Insult to representative Not censured1864 Alexander Long (D–Ohio) Treasonable utterance Censured

Benjamin G. Harris (D–Maryland) Treasonable utterance Censured1866 John W. Chanler (D–New York) Insult to House Censured

Lovell H. Rousseau (R–Kentucky) Assault on another representative Censured1867 John W. Hunter (I–New York) Insult to representative Censured1868 Fernando Wood (D–New York) Offensive utterance Censured

E. D. Holbrook (D–Idaho)22 Offensive utterance Censured1870 Benjamin F. Whittemore (R–S.C.) Corruption Censured

Roderick R. Butler (R–Tennessee) Corruption CensuredJohn T. Deweese (D–North Carolina) Corruption Censured

1873 Oakes Ames (R–Massachusetts) Corruption CensuredJames Brooks (D–New York) Corruption Censured

1875 John Y. Brown (D–Kentucky) Insult to representative Censured23

1876 James G. Blaine (R–Maine) Corruption Not censured1882 William D. Kelley (R–Pennsylvania) Offensive utterance Not censured

John D. White (R–Kentucky) Offensive utterance Not censured1882 John Van Voorhis (R–New York) Offensive utterance Not censured1890 William D. Bynum (D–Indiana) Offensive utterance Censured1921 Thomas L. Blanton (D–Texas) Abuse of leave to print Censured1978 Edward R. Roybal (D–California) Lying to House committee Not censured24

1979 Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (D–Michigan) Misuse of clerk funds Censured1980 Charles H. Wilson (D–California) Financial misconduct Censured1983 Gerry E. Studds (D–Massachusetts) Sexual misconduct Censured

Daniel B. Crane (R–Illinois) Sexual misconduct Censured1990 Barney Frank (D–Massachusetts) Discrediting house Not censured4

Cases of Censure in the Senate

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1811 Timothy Pickering (F–Massachusetts) Reading confidential documents; Censured “breach of confidence”

1844 Benjamin Tappan (D–Ohio) Releasing confidential documents; Censured “breach of confidence”

1850 Thomas H. Benton (D–Missouri) Disorderly conduct Not censuredHenry S. Foote (U–Mississippi) Disorderly conduct Not censured

1902 Benjamin R. Tillman (D–S.C.) Fighting in Senate chamber CensuredJohn L. McLaurin (D–S.C.) Fighting in Senate chamber Censured

(continues)

Appendix One 383

Cases of Censure in the Senate (continued)

Year Member Grounds Disposition

1929 Hiram Bingham (R–Connecticut) “Bringing Senate into Disrepute” Condemned25

1954 Joseph R. McCarthy (R–Wisconsin) Obstruction of legislative process Condemned25

1967 Thomas J. Dodd (D–Connecticut) Financial misconduct; Corruption Censured1979 Herman E. Talmadge (D–Georgia) Financial misconduct Denounced26

1990 David F. Durenberger (R–Minnesota) Financial misconduct Denounced26

1991 Alan Cranston (D–California) Improper conduct Reprimanded27

Key to Party Affiliation:AF = Anti-FederalistAm = AmericanF = FederalistI = IndependentJD = Jacksonian DemocratR = RepublicanS = SocialistSRD = States’ Rights DemocratTD = Tyler DemocratU = UnionistW = Whig

Notes1. Brooks was threatened with expulsion for physically attacking Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), who had made a speech attacking

Brooks’s cousin, Senator Andrew Pickens Butter (SC). Representatives Henry A. Edmundson (D-VA) and Laurence M. Keitt (D-SC) werethreatened with censure proceedings because of their complicity in Brooks’s attack. Keitt was censured, Edmundson was not.

2. Censured after expulsion move failed or was withdrawn.3. Facing probable expulsion, Biaggi resigned from Congress on 8 August 1988.4. Reprimanded after expulsion and censure moves failed.5. Expulsion failed on a vote of nineteen to ten, less than the necessary two-thirds majority. At the request of the Ohio legislature, Smith

resigned two weeks after the vote. (His counsel was Francis Scott Key.)6. On 3 March 1877, the Senate reversed its decision to expel Sebastian. Because Sebastian had died in 1865, his children were paid an

amount equal to his Senate salary between the time of his expulsion and the date of his death.7. In March 1861, the Senate took no action on an initial resolution expelling Wigfall because he represented a state that had seceded from

the Union. Three months later, on 10 July 1861, he was expelled for supporting the Confederacy.8. On 14 July 1862, the Judiciary Committee reported that the charges against Simmons were essentially correct. The Senate adjourned three

days later, and Simmons resigned on 15 August before the Senate could take action.9. A Senate select committee recommended expulsion on 27 February. On 1 March, a Republican caucus decided that there was insufficient

time remaining in the session to deliberate the matter. Patterson’s term expired 3 March, and no further action was taken.10. After extensive deliberation, the Senate took no action, assuming that it lacked jurisdiction over members’ behavior before their election

to the Senate. The alleged embezzlement had occurred thirteen years earlier.11. Mitchell was indicted on 1 January 1905 and convicted on 5 July of that same year, during a Senate recess. Mitchell died on 8 December

while his case was still on appeal and before the Senate, which had convened on 4 December, could take any action against him.12. Burton was indicted and convicted of receiving compensation for intervening with a federal agency. When the Supreme Court upheld his

conviction, he resigned rather than face expulsion.13. After an investigation spanning two years, the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported that Smoot was not entitled to his seat

because he was a leader in a religion that advocated polygamy and a union of church and state, contrary to the U.S. Constitution. By a vote oftwenty-seven to forty-three, however, the Senate failed to expel him, finding that he satisfied the constitutional requirements for serving as asenator.

14. The Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended that the Senate take no action as the speech in question (a 1917 speechopposing U.S. entry into World War I) did not warrant it. The Senate agreed fifty to twenty-one.

15. On 20 March 1920, Newberry was convicted on charges of spending $3,750 to secure his Senate election. The U.S. Supreme Courtoverturned this decision (2 May 1921) on the grounds that the U.S. Senate exceeded its powers in attempting to regulate primary elections. By avote of forty-six to forty-one (12 January 1922), the Senate declared Newberry to have been duly elected in 1918. On 18 November, two daysbefore the start of the third session of the Sixty-seventh Congress, Newberry resigned as certain members resumed their efforts to unseat him.

16. Wheeler was indicted for serving while a senator in matters in which the United States was a party. A Senate committee, however, foundthat his dealings related to litigation before state courts and that he received no compensation for any service before federal departments. TheSenate exonerated him by a vote of fifty-six to five.

17. The Committee on Privileges and Elections concluded that the charges and evidence were insufficient to warrant further consideration.

384 Appendix One

18. The Privileges and Elections Committee considered this case in conjunction with that against Senator Overton (see footnote 17) andreached the same conclusion.

19. Recommending that this case was properly one of exclusion, not expulsion, the Committee on Privileges and Elections declared Langerguilty of moral turpitude and voted, thirteen to two, to deny him his seat. The Senate disagreed, fifty-two to thirty, arguing that the evidence washearsay and inconclusive. Langer retained his seat.

20. The Committee on Ethics recommended that Williams be expelled because of his ethically repugnant conduct in the ABSCAM scandal,for which he was convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and conflict of interest. Prior to a Senate vote on his expulsion, Williams resigned on 11 March1982.

21. The Committee on Ethics recommended that Packwood be expelled for abuse of his power as a senator by repeatedly committing sexualmisconduct and by engaging in a deliberate plan to enhance his personal financial position by seeking favors from persons who had a particularinterest in legislation or issues that he could influence, as well as for seeking to obstruct and impede the committee’s inquiries by withholding,altering, and destroying relevant evidence. On 7 September 1995, the day after the committee issued its recommendation, Packwood announcedhis resignation without specifying an effective date. On 8 September he indicated that he would resign effective 1 October 1995.

22. Holbrook was a territorial delegate, not a representative.23. The House later rescinded part of the censure resolution against Brown.24. Roybal was reprimanded after the censure motion failed and was withdrawn.25. In the cases of Bingham and McCarthy,“condemned” carries the same weight as “censured.”26. In the cases of Talmadge and Durenberger,“denounced” carries the same weight as “censured.”27. The Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded Cranston on behalf of the full Senate, after determining that it lacked the authority to issue a

censure order in the same manner. The reprimand was delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate by committee leaders, but there was not vote orformal action by the full Senate. It is the first use of the punishment of “reprimand” in the U.S. Senate’s history.

References: U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases from 1793 to 1972,Senate Document No. 92-7, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 1972; Congress A to Z: CQ’s Encyclopedia of American Government (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, 1993), 462–465.

Appendix One 385

According to the rules of the U.S. House and Senate, the members themselves may establish regulations for whomay sit in those bodies. Over the 200-year history of the U.S. Congress, several members have had theirqualifications for membership questioned and investigated. The following lists these members, with the groundsfor potential disqualification, and the disposition of their cases.

Congress Year Member-elect Grounds Disposition

3rd 1793 Albert Gallatin (D-Penn.) Questioned Citizenship Excluded11th 1809 Stanley Griswold (D-Ohio) Questioned Residence Admitted28th 1844 John M. Niles (D-Conn.) Sanity Admitted31st 1849 James Shields (D-Illinois) Citizenship Excluded37th 1861 Benjamin Stark (D-Oregon) Loyalty Admitted40th 1867 Philip F. Thomas (D-Maryland) Loyalty Excluded41st 1870 Hiram R. Revels (D-Mississippi) Citizenship Admitted41st 1870 Adelbert Ames (R-Mississippi) Residence Admitted59th 1907 Reed Smoot (R-Utah) Mormonism Admitted1

69th 1926 Arthur R. Gould (R-Maine) Character Admitted74th 1935 Rush D. Holt (D-West Virginia) Age Admitted75th 1937 George L. Berry (D-Tennessee) Character Admitted77th 1942 William Langer (R-North Dakota) Character Admitted80th 1947 Theodore G. Bilbo (D-Miss.) Character None2

Footnotes:1. The Senate decided that a two-thirds majority, as in expulsion cases, would be required to exclude a senator from being seated in this case.2. Bilbo died before the Senate could act.

References: U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate Election,Expulsion and Censure Cases from 1793 to 1972 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972); Congressional Quarterly, CongressionalEthics (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), 152.

386

APPENDIX TWOSenate Cases Involving Qualifications for Membership

Independent Counsel Subject(s) Result(s) Cost

Arthur H. Christy (29 November 1979) Hamilton Jordan No charges $182,000

Gerard J. Gallinghouse (9 September 1980) Timothy Kraft No charges $3,300

Leon Silverman (29 December 1981) Raymond Donovan No charges $326,000

Jacob A. Stein (2 April 1984) Edwin Meese III No charges $312,000

James C. McKay (23 April 1986) Theodore B. Olson No charges $2.1 millionAlexia Morrison (29 May 1986)

Whitney N. Seymour, Jr. (29 May 1986) Michael K. Deaver 1 Guilty plea $1.6 million

Lawrence E. Walsh (19 December 1986)—(Iran Contra Scandal) Elliott Abrams, Carl Channell, 7 Guilty pleas, 4 Convictions (2 $47.4 million

Alan Fiers, Albert Hakim, Overturned on Appeal), 6 Robert McFarlane, Richard Presidential PardonsMiller, Richard Secord,Thomas Clines, John Poindexter, Oliver North, Clair George, Duane Clarridge,Joseph Fernandez, Caspar Weinberger

James C. McKay (2 February 1987) Lyn Nofziger, Edwin Meese III 1 Conviction (Overturned on $2.8 million

appeal), 1 Acquittal

Carl Rauh (19 December 1986) Investigated finances of former No charges $50,000James R. Harper (17 August 1987) Assistant Attorney General W.

Lawrence Wallace

Sealed (31 May 1989) Confidential Confidential $15,000

Arlin M. Adams (1 March Samuel Pierce, Deborah Dean, 7 Guilty pleas, 11 Convictions, $27.1 million1990)—(HUD Scandal) Tom Demery, Phillip Winn, 1 Acquittal

Larry D. Thompson (3 July 1995) S. DeBartolomeis, Lance

(continues)

APPENDIX THREEIndependent Counsel Investigations, 1979–1999

387

Independent Counsel Subject(s) Result(s) Cost

Wilson, Carlos Figueroa,J. Queenan, Ronald Mahon,Catalina Villapando, Robert Olson, Len Briscoe, Maurice Steier, Elaine Richardson, Sam Singletary,Victor Cruise

Sealed (19 April 1991) Confidential Confidential $93,000

Joseph diGenova (14 December Janet Mullins, Margaret Tutwiler No charges $3.2 million1992)

Michael F. Zeldin (11 January 1996)

Robert B. Fiske, Jr. (21 January William Clinton et al. 3 Guilty pleas $6.1 million1994)

Kenneth W. Starr (5 August 1994) William Clinton et al. 6 Guilty pleas, 3 Conviction, 2 $52 millionRobert Ray Acquittals, Impeachment

Report sent to Congress

Donald C. Smaltz (9 September Michael Espy 1 Guilty plea, 2 Convictions, 2 $11.9 million1994) Acquittals

David M. Barrett (24 May 1995) Henry G. Cisneros et al. Presidential pardon $3.8 million

Daniel S. Pearson (6 July 1995) Ronald H. Brown Terminated (subject deceased) $3.2 million

Sealed (27 November 1996) Confidential Confidential $48,784

Carol Elder Bruce (19 March Bruce Babbitt No charges Unknown or Not 1998) Released

Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr. (1998) Alexis Herman No charges Not Released

John C. Danforth (9 September Government Assault on Branch No charges Not Released1999)* Davidian Compound in Waco,

Texas

Footnote:*Because the Independent Counsel Act had expired, Attorney General Janet Reno herself named Danforth “special counsel,” and not anindependent counsel.

References: Office of the Independent Counsel, Washington, D.C.; “Clinton Probes Cost $60 Million; Total Counsel Costs for Administration Top$110 Million,” Washington Post, 31 March 2001, A10.

388 Appendix Three

Just like the Senate, the House of Representatives has had many cases in which members’ qualifications to holdtheir seats have been challenged. The following table highlights these cases, with the year, the member, the grounds,and what happened to that member’s case.

Congress Year Member–elect Grounds Disposition

1st 1789 William L. Smith (Fed.–S.C.) Questionable citizenship Admitted10th 1807 Philip B. Key (Fed.–Maryland) Questionable residence Admitted10th 1807 William McCreery (R–Md.) Questionable residence Admitted18th 1823 Gabriel Richard (I–Mich. Terr.) Questionable citizenship Admitted18th 1823 John Bailey (I–Massachusetts) Questionable residence Excluded18th 1823 John Forsyth (D–Georgia) Questionable residence Admitted27th 1841 David Y. Levy (R–Fla. Terr.) Questionable citizenship Admitted36th 1857 John Y. Brown (D–Kentucky) Age Admitted40th 1867 William H. Hooper (D–Utah Terr.) Mormonism Admitted40th 1867 Lawrence S. Trimble (D–Kentucky) Loyalty Admitted40th 1867 John Y. Brown (D–Kentucky) Loyalty Excluded40th 1867 John D.Young (D–Kentucky) Loyalty Excluded40th 1867 Roderick R. Butler (R–Tennessee) Loyalty Admitted40th 1867 John A. Wimpy (I–Georgia) Loyalty Excluded40th 1867 W.D. Simpson (I–S.C.) Loyalty Excluded41st 1869 John M. Rice (D–Kentucky) Loyalty Admitted41st 1870 Lewis McKenzie (U–Virginia) Loyalty Admitted41st 1870 George W. Booker (C–Virginia) Loyalty Admitted41st 1870 Benjamin F. Whittemore (R–S.C.) Malfeasance Excluded41st 1870 John C. Conner (D–Texas) Misconduct Admitted43rd 1873 George Q. Cannon (R–Utah Terr.) Mormonism Admitted43rd 1873 George Q. Cannon (R–Utah Terr.) Polygamy Admitted47th 1881 John S. Barbour (D–Virginia) Questionable residence Admitted47th 1881 George Q. Cannon (R–Utah Terr.) Polygamy Seat Vacated1

50th 1887 James B. White (R–Indiana) Questionable citizenship Admitted56th 1899 Robert W. Wilcox (I–Hawaii Terr.) Bigamy, Treason Admitted56th 1900 Brigham H. Roberts (D–Utah) Polygamy Excluded59th 1905 Anthony Michalek (R–Illinois) Questionable citizenship Admitted66th 1919 Victor L. Berger (Soc.–Wisconsin) Sedition Excluded66th 1919 Victor L. Berger (Soc.–Wisconsin) Sedition Excluded69th 1926 John W. Langley (R–Kentucky) Criminal misconduct Resigned

(continues)

APPENDIX FOURHouse Cases Involving Qualifications for Membership

389

Congress Year Member–elect Grounds Disposition

70th 1927 James M. Beck (R–Pennsylvania) Questionable residence Admitted70th 1929 Ruth B. Owen (D–Florida) Questionable residence Admitted90th 1967 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (D–N.Y.) Misconduct Excluded2

96th 1979 Richard A. Tonry (D–Louisiana) Vote fraud Resigned

Footnotes1. Discussions on Mormonism and polygamy led to a debate and to a declaration that Cannon’s seat was vacant.2. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Powell v. McCormack that the House had improperly excluded Powell and ordered his reinstatement.

References: Hinds, Asher Crosby, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, Including References to Provisions of theConstitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the United States Senate, 8 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1907); CongressionalEthics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), 18–19.

390 Appendix Four

The following listing examines the cases of those U.S. Senators who were tried in criminal courts for crimes, somerelating to corruption, others not. The table shows the name of the member, the date of conviction or acquittal, andthe resolution of his case.

Date DateSenator Acquitted Convicted Resolution of Case

John Smith (D–Ohio) 1806 Later subject of Senate Expulsion action, which failed. Resigned seat on 25 April 1808.

Charles H. Dietrich (R–Nebraska) 19041 Left the Senate 3 March 1905 at end of term.John H. Mitchell (R–Oregon) 1905 Died 8 December 1905, pending appeal.Joseph R. Burton (R–Kansas) 1905 Resigned seat in June 1906 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his

conviction.Truman Newberry (R–Michigan) 1920 U.S. Supreme Court reversed conviction, May 1921, but Newberry

resigned from Senate November 1922.Burton K. Wheeler (D–Montana) 1924 Acquitted of bribery charge. Returned to Senate seat.Edward J. Gurney (R–Florida) 1975/762 Had resigned seat 31 December 1974.Harrison A. Williams (D–New

Jersey) 1981 Resigned his seat, 11 March 1982, after it appeared that he would be expelled.

Footnotes:1. Charges were dropped on a technicality.2. Gurney was indicted in April 1974 for election law violations. This indictment was dismissed in May 1974. He was indicted in July 1974 oncharges of bribery and perjury, and Gurney resigned his Senate seat. He was acquitted of the bribery solicitation charge in August 1975, and onthe perjury charge in October 1976.

Reference: Congressional Ethics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), 18–19.

APPENDIX FIVEUnited States Senators Tried and Convicted

and Tried and Acquitted, 1806–1981

391

Governors have also had a long record of criminal mischief no different from their counterparts in the U.S.Congress. Although previous appendices examined only those members of Congress who were actually tried fortheir crimes, this specific appendix broadly examines all sitting or former governors who were merely accused ofcriminal activity. It includes the state they served, whether they were impeached, whether they were criminallycharged in a court of law, and the disposition of their cases.

Criminally Governor State Year State Action Charged? Outcome

John A. Quitman Mississippi 1851 None Yes Resigned1

Charles Robinson Kansas 1862 Impeached No AcquittedHarrison Reed Florida 1868 Impeached No AcquittedWilliam W. Holden North Carolina 1870 Impeached No Convicted and removedPowell Clayton Arkansas 1871 Impeached No AcquittedDavid C. Butler Nebraska 1871 Impeached No Convicted and removedHenry C. Warmoth Louisiana 1872 Impeached No Term EndedHarrison Reed Florida 1872 Impeached No AcquittedAdelbert Ames Mississippi 1876 Impeached No ResignedAlexander Davis Mississippi 1876 Impeached No Convicted and removedWilliam P. Kellogg Louisiana 1876 Impeached No AcquittedWilliam Sulzer New York 1913 Impeached No Convicted and removedJames Ferguson Texas 1917 Impeached No Convicted and ResignedLynn J. Frazier North Dakota 1921 Not impeached No Recalled by votersJohn C. Walton Oklahoma 1923 Impeached No Convicted and removedWarren T. McCray Indiana 1924 Not impeached Yes Resigned2

Edward F. Jackson Indiana 1928 Not impeached Yes Finished term3

Henry S. Johnston Oklahoma 1928 Impeached No AcquittedHenry S. Johnston Oklahoma 1929 Impeached No Convicted and removedHuey P. Long Louisiana 1929 Impeached No AcquittedHenry Horton Tennessee 1931 Impeached No AcquittedWilliam L. Langer North Dakota 1934 Not impeached Yes Removed from office4

Thomas L. Moodie North Dakota 1935 Not impeached No Removed from office5

Richard Leche Louisiana 1939 Not impeached No Resigned6

J. Howard Pyle Arizona 1955 Not impeached No Term ended7

Arch A. Moore, Jr. West Virginia 1975 Not impeached Yes Acquitted8

Marvin Mandel Maryland 1979 Not impeached Yes Removed from office9

Edwin Edwards Louisiana 1985 Not impeached Yes

(continues)

APPENDIX SIXUnited States Governors in Ethical Trouble—

Impeachments, Crimes, and Convictions, 1851–Present

392

Criminally Governor State Year State Action Charged? Outcome

Evan Mecham Arizona 1988 Impeached Yes Convicted and removed10

Guy Hunt Alabama 1992 Not impeached Yes Resigned11

David Walters Oklahoma 1993 Not impeached YesJ. Fife Symington Arizona 1997 Not impeached Yes Resigned12

Edwin Edwards Louisiana 2000 Not impeached13 Yes Out of office14

Footnotes:1. Quitman resigned on 3 February 1851 after he was indicted on charges of violating U.S. neutrality laws by collaborating with a Cubaninsurrection against Spain. He was later acquitted of all charges.2. McCray resigned following his conviction for mail fraud.3. Jackson was tried after leaving office on charges of conspiracy to bribe an official, but was cleared only because the statute of limitations hadexpired.4. Langer was removed from office by the North Dakota state supreme court after he was indicted for various crimes, including soliciting fundsfrom federal employees which he then used for his personal spending. He was tried four times with three hung juries before being acquitted onall charges in 1936. He later ran again for governor in 1936 as an Independent and was elected.5. Moodie was found to have been a citizen of another state when he ran for governor of North Dakota. He was removed from office by the NorthDakota state supreme court after serving just thirteen months in office.6. Leche was threatened with impeachment, forcing his resignation.7. A recall petition against Pyle was certified, but Pyle’s term expired before a recall election could be held.8. Moore was indicted in 1975 on charges of extortion, but acquitted in 1976. He pled guilty in 1990 to federal corruption charges.9. Mandel was removed after he was tried and convicted on charges of federal mail fraud and bribery.10. Mecham was impeached on charges that he accepted a loan for his business, charges unrelated to his term in office, but he was convicted andremoved. He stood trial in 1988 and, with his brother Willard, was acquitted on all charges.11. Indicted on 28 December 1992, on charges of taking more than $200,000 from his 1987 inaugural fund for personal uses, Hunt wasconvicted in April 1993. He then resigned his office.12. Symington was convicted in 1997 on charges that prior to becoming governor he had used his influence to get loans that he should havebeen denied. He resigned the same day of his conviction. An appeals court later overturned his conviction, and in January 2001 Symington waspardoned by President Bill Clinton.13. Edwards had already left office when he was indicted and tried.14. Edwards was convicted of nine charges relating to kickbacks on 9 May 2000, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Appendix Six 393

The Senate has sat as a court of impeachment in the following cases:

William Blount, senator from Tennessee; charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 14 January 1799.John Pickering, judge of the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire; removed from office 12 March 1804.Samuel Chase, associate justice of the Supreme Court; acquitted 1 March 1805.James H. Peck, judge of the U.S. District Court for Missouri; acquitted 31 January 1831.West H. Humphreys, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee;

removed from office 26 June 1862.Andrew Johnson, president of the United States; acquitted 26 May 1868.William W. Belknap, secretary of war; acquitted 1 August 1876.Charles Swayne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; acquitted 27 February 1905.Robert W. Archbald, associate judge of the U.S. Commerce Court; removed 13 January 1913.George W. English, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois; resigned 4 November 1926,

proceedings dismissed.Harold Louderback, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; acquitted 24 May 1933.Halsted L. Ritter, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; removed from office 17 April

1936.Harry E. Claiborne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; removed from office 9 October 1986.Alcee L. Hastings, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; removed from office 20

October 1989.Walter L. Nixon, Judge of the U.S. District Court for Mississippi; removed from office 3 November 1989.William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States; acquitted 12 February 1999.

Footnote:The procedure for the impeachment of Federal officials is detailed in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution.

APPENDIX SEVENImpeachments of Federal Officials, 1799–1999

394

[Revised pursuant to Senate Resolution 479, 99–2, 16 August 1986.]I.Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on

their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to theSenate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is readyto receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II.When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify thatthey are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall directthe Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz:“All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives isexhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against_____”; after which the articles shallbe exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take properorder on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III.Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sundayexcepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of sucharticles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unlessotherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in itsjudgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officershall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the othermembers of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

IV.When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powersand duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United Statesshall preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the PresidingOfficer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid,with a request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of theSenate and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the personimpeached therein.

V.The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, allorders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce suchother regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.

VI.The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders,mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, anddisobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules,and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, underthe direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carryinto effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

VII.The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and thePresiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of

APPENDIX EIGHTRules of Procedure and Practice in the

Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials

395

trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the PresidingOfficer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy,materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of theSenate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall besubmitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any suchquestion to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance withthe Standing Rules of the Senate.

VIII.Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbeforeprovided, a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him toappear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file hisanswer to said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon;which writ shall be served by such officer or person as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of daysprior to the day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in such precept, either by the delivery of an attestedcopy thereof to the person impeached, or if that can not conveniently be done, by leaving such copy at the lastknown place of abode of such person, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place therein; or ifsuch service shall be, in the judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person impeached to appear shallbe given in such other manner, by publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the writ aforesaid shallfail of service in the manner aforesaid, the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made insuch manner as the Senate shall direct. If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in personor by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles ofimpeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered,judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.

IX.At 12:30 o’clock afternoon of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the personimpeached, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senateshall administer an oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz:

“I,_____, do solemnly swear that the return made by me upon the process issued on the___day of___, by theSenate of the United States, against_____, is truly made, and that I have performed such service as thereindescribed: So help me God.”Which oath shall be entered at large on the records.

X.The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. Ifhe appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agentor attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears. If he does not appear, eitherpersonally or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.

XI.That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appointa committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee maydetermine, and for such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman thereof, to be elected by thecommittee, shall unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, exercise all the powers and functions conferred upon theSenate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and practice in the Senatewhen sitting on impeachment trials. Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice inthe Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee soappointed. The committee so appointed shall report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of theproceedings and testimony had and given before such committee, and such report shall be received by the Senateand the evidence so received and the testimony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject tothe right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and materiality, as having been received and takenbefore the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from sending for any witness and hearing histestimony in open Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in open Senate.

XII.At 12:30 o’clock afternoon, or at such other hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trialof an impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary shallgive notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the impeachment of_____, inthe Senate Chamber.

XIII.The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unlessotherwise ordered) 12 o’clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial shall causeproclamation to be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said

396 Appendix Eight

trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such adjournment the Senate shall resume theconsideration of its legislative and executive business.

XIV.The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case oflegislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of theSenate.

XV.Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment.XVI.All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating

immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arisingduring the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, orany Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.

XVII.Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.

XVIII.If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.XIX.If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person

impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and put by thePresiding Officer. The parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering questionspropounded at the request of any Senator and the merits of any such objection may be argued by the parties ortheir counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be in order for anySenator to engage in colloquy.

XX.At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall bekept open, unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions. A motion toclose the doors may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion shall be voted on withoutdebate by the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record.

XXI.All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour(unless the Senate otherwise orders) on each side.

XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made bytwo persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and theargument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

XXIII. An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time during thetrial. Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting shall be continued until voting has beencompleted on all articles of impeachment unless the Senate adjourns for a period not to exceed one day or adjournssine die. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on eacharticle of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, besustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if theperson impeached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, theSenate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior topronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgment, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in theoffice of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained orrejected shall not be in order.

FORM OF PUTTING THE QUESTION ON EACH ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in his

place and answer: guilty or not guilty.XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and

decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject, however,to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case no membershall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an interlocutory question, andfor not more than fifteen minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate;but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of themembers present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, andnot on the final question on each article of impeachment.

XXV.Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz: “You,_____, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be)that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the United States and_____, shall be the truth,

Appendix Eight 397

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: So help you God.”Which oath shall be administered by the Secretary, orany other duly authorized person.

FORM OF A SUBPOENA BE ISSUED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE MANAGERS OF THE IMPEACHMENT,OR OF THE PARTY IMPEACHED, OR OF HIS COUNSEL.

To_____, greeting:You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the United States, on the___day

of___, at the Senate Chamber in the city of Washington, then and there to testify your knowledge in the causewhich is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives have impeached_____.

Fail not.Witness_____, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at the city of Washington, this___day of___, in the year of

our Lord_____, and of the Independence of the United States the_____._____,[signed]Presiding Officer of the Senate.FORM OF DIRECTION FOR THE SERVICE OF SAID SUBPOENAThe Senate of the United States to_____, greeting: You are hereby commanded to serve and return the within

subpoena according to law.Dated at Washington, this___day of___, in the year of our Lord___, and of the Independence of the United

States the_____._____,[signed]Secretary of the Senate.FORM OF OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDING

OFFICER SITTING IN THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS“I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment

of_____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”FORM OF SUMMONS TO BE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE PERSON IMPEACHEDThe United States of America, ss:The Senate of the United States to_____, greeting:Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America did, on the___day of___, exhibit to the

Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said_____, in the words following:[Here insert the articles]And demand that you, the said_____, should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and

that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law andjustice.You, the said_____, are therefore hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United Statesof America, at their Chamber in the city of Washington, on the___day of___, at___o’clock___, then and there toanswer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders,directions, and judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to theConstitution and laws of the United States.

Hereof you are not to fail.Witness_____, and Presiding Officer of the said Senate, at the city of Washington, this___day of___, in the

year of our Lord____, and of the Independence of the United States the____._____,[signed]Presiding Officer of the Senate.FORM OF PRECEPT TO BE INDORSED ON SAID WRIT OF SUMMONSThe United States of America, ss:The Senate of the United States to_____, greeting:You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with_____, if conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave at

his usual place of abode, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place, a true and attested copy of thewithin writ of summons, together with a like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform the service,let it be done at least___days before the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of summons.

Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on orbefore the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of summons.

398 Appendix Eight

Witness_____, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at the city of Washington, this___day of___, in the year ofour Lord____, and of the Independence of the United States the____.

_____,[signed]Presiding Officer of the Senate.All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.XXVI. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the consideration of articles of impeachment on the day or

hour fixed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be adopted without debate, fix a day and hour for resuming suchconsideration.

Appendix Eight 399

1635April The first impeachment in the English coloniesoccurs. Governor John Harvey of Virginia is informedby the House of Burgesses that he is being impeachedaccording to provisions established by Parliament inLondon for his Indian, land-grant, and trade policies.No corruption is alleged, but this “petition ofgrievances” leads to Harvey's departure from thecolony and return to London in disgrace. Noimpeachment trial is ever held.

164922 May The first fraudulent campaign law in the Britishcolonies is passed. The General Court in Warwick, RhodeIsland, enacts the law, which provides that “no one shouldbring into any votes that he did not receive from thevoter’s own hands, and that all votes should be filed bythe Recorder in the presence of the Assembly.”

1685Nicolas More, chief justice of Philadelphia, isimpeached by the Pennsylvania Assembly on tencharges, among them “assuming himself an unlimitedand arbitrary power in office.” He is convicted andremoved from office on 2 June 1685, but the council inLondon overseeing the colony refuses to sanction theproceedings or the removal.

1757During his race for a seat in the Virginia House ofBurgesses, George Washington is questioned about thespending of money by his campaign. Washingtonreportedly bought wine and spirits for the few hundredconstituents in his district.

179528 December Robert Randall and Charles Whitneyare taken into custody for attempting to bribe several

congressmen. Whitney would be discharged on 7January 1796, before he could stand trial; however, on 6January, Randall is tried in Congress and found guiltyof contempt and breach of the privileges of Congress,reprimanded by the Speaker of the House, JonathanDayton of New Jersey, and committed to the custody ofthe sergeant at arms. On 13 January his petition to bedischarged is granted, after he pays a fine.

1795–1796The U.S. House of Representatives is asked toinvestigate Judge George Turner of St. Clair, in the OhioTerritory, for unspecified crimes.

1797The House committee investigating Judge GeorgeTurner recommends further proceedings, but Turnerresigns. A new judge, Jonathan Return Meigs, is namedto his vacant post on 12 February 1798.

July President John Adams sends a message to theU.S. Senate, describing in detail alleged charges againstSenator William Blount of Tennessee. Based onAdams’s letter, the Senate votes to expel Blount by avote of twenty-five to one.

179829 January Former U.S. Senator William Blount ofTennessee is impeached by the U.S. House ofRepresentatives for assisting in a “military expeditionagainst Spanish Florida and [the] LouisianaTerritories, [and] interference with [an] Indian agent,”among other crimes.

179911 January The U.S. Senate votes fourteen to eleventhat U.S. Senator William Blount of Tennessee is not acivil officer of the government subject to the

CHRONOLOGY

401

impeachment power and dismisses all charges againsthim.

1800The U.S. House of Representatives debates a measure ofcensure against President John Adams, criticizing himfor communicating with a judge, which is found to be a“dangerous interference of the Executive with Judicialdecisions,” but the censure motion is not passed.

180330 December The U.S. House of Representatives votesto impeach John Pickering, judge for the federal districtof New Hampshire, for tyrannical conduct anddrunkenness.

1804The U.S. House of Representatives investigates whetherto bring impeachment articles against Judge RichardPeters for misconduct in the so-called Sedition Trials.In the end, the House finds that such articles are notwarranted.

12 March The U.S. Senate votes nineteen to seven toconvict Judge John Pickering of all four impeachmentarticles against him and then votes twenty to six toremove him from office. Pickering becomes the firstfederal judge in the United States to be impeached andremoved from office.

4 December The U.S. House of Representatives votesto impeach Samuel Chase, associate justice of theSupreme Court of the United States, for “conduct[ing]himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, andunjust” during a trial he sat on, and for other crimes,totaling eight articles.

18051 March The U.S. Senate fails to reach a two-thirds voteon any of the impeachment articles against AssociateJustice Samuel Chase, leading to Chase’s acquittal.

1807–1808The U.S. House of Representatives investigates whetherJudge Harry Innis plotted with Spain “to seduceKentucky from the Union,” but absolves Innis of allcharges.

180811 April A resolution of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives orders Delegate George Poindexter,from the Mississippi Territory, to investigate allegations

against Judge Peter B. Bruin, presiding judge of theterritory.

18097 March The investigation against Judge Peter B.Bruin ends when Francis Xavier Martin is named toreplace Bruin on the bench. No explanation is found inthe records whether Bruin died or resigned.

181116 December The Speaker of the Mississippi Houseof Representatives, Cowles Mead, sends a letter to theU.S. House, asking for Judge Harry Toulmin, judge ofthe superior court for the Washington District ofMississippi, to be impeached and removed from office,after a grand jury in Mississippi brings an indictmentagainst Toulmin for alleged malfeasance in office.Delegate George Poindexter, from the MississippiTerritory, is asked to head up a panel to look intopotential impeachment proceedings.

181221 May The panel headed up by Delegate GeorgePoindexter finds no impeachable offenses committedby Judge Harry Toulmin and asks that the Houseinvestigation into the judge be closed.

1818The U.S. House of Representatives opens an inquiryinto the conduct of Judges William P.Van Ness andMathias B. Tallmadge of the district court of New Yorkand William Stephens, judge of the district court ofGeorgia. Under pressure, Stephens resigns, and he isdismissed from any further proceedings.Representative John C. Spencer of New York is orderedto make an inquiry into potential impeachableoffenses. Immediately, Spencer finds that thecomplaints against Van Ness relate to his judicialopinions, and it is agreed that any inquiry into his caseshould be dismissed immediately.

181917 February Representative John C. Spencer of NewYork reports that while Judge Mathias B. Tallmadge ofNew York had not held court on the dates he wasinstructed to by law, this was not an impeachable offense,and asks for and end to the inquiry against Tallmadge.

1822–1823The U.S. House of Representatives investigates chargesof improper court conduct against Judge Charles Tait.Tait is ultimately exonerated.

402 Chronology

1825The U.S. House is asked to investigate the conduct ofJudge Buckner Thurston, associate judge of the CircuitCourt of the United States for the District of Columbia.Representative William Plumer Jr. of the HouseJudiciary Committee finds no reason for an inquiry,and the case is closed.

1825–1826The U.S. House opens a series of three inquiries intoJudge Joseph L. Smith, judge of the Supreme Court ofthe Territory of Florida, calling attention to alleged“dictatorial powers” he wielded in court. All inquiriesare ended with no impeachment proceedings.

1829–1830The U.S. House of Representatives investigatespotential impeachment charges against Judge AlfredConkling for “unjudicial conduct, malice, andpartiality,” but tables the investigation.

1830The “citizens of East Florida” send a memorial to theU.S. House of Representatives asking for Judge JosephL. Smith to be removed because of “tyrannical andoppressive conduct,” but a motion to open animpeachment inquiry is tabled.

1 May The U.S. House of Representatives votes toimpeach James H. Peck, judge of the District ofMissouri, for a “misuse of powers.”

183121 January The U.S. Senate acquits Judge James H.Peck by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-two.

1833In United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150, at 160,Chief Justice Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Courtdefines a presidential pardon as “an act of grace,proceeding from the power intrusted [sic] with theexecution of the laws, which exempts the individual, onwhom it is bestowed, from the punishment the lawinflicts for a crime he has committed.” The U.S. Houseof Representatives investigates potential impeachmentcharges against Judge Benjamin Johnson for“favoritism and drunkenness.” The investigation isultimately tabled.

183731 January The House is asked to investigate JudgeBuckner Thurston, associate judge of the District Court

for the District of Columbia, for the second time (thefirst was in 1825). Evidence is eventually taken,including that from Judge Thurston. There is no recordrelating to the case, but the House later chooses not toimpeach the judge. He remains on the court until hisdeath in 1845.

1839The U.S. House of Representatives investigatespotential impeachment charges against Judge Philip K.Lawrence for “abuse of power and drunkenness.” Theinvestigation is tabled when Judge Lawrence resigns.

1841Charles Franklin Mitchell, a U.S. Representative fromNew York (1837–1841) is sent to prison for forgery.

184522 September After it is revealed that he gave aspeech that had been plagiarized from one delivered byformer Vice President Aaron Burr, formerrepresentative and Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives John White takes his own life.

1849The U.S. House of Representatives investigates, for thesecond time (the first was in 1829), charges againstJudge Alfred Conkling. Again, the investigation istabled.

1852–1853A major investigation by the U.S. House ofRepresentatives into charges against Judge John C.Watrous begins. He is accused of validating fraudulentland certificates. The investigation will ultimately lasteight years. Initially, it is tabled.

1857The investigation by the U.S. House of Representativesinto Judge John C. Watrous reaches a higher stage whenthe House Judiciary Committee recommends againstimpeachment.

1859The U.S. House of Representatives investigatespotential impeachment charges against Judge ThomasIrwin; the investigation concludes when Irwin resignshis seat.

1860The U.S. House of Representatives adopts a resolutionof “reproof,” similar to that of censure or a rebuke, by a

Chronology 403

vote of 106 to 61, against President James Buchananand Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey, accusing thetwo men of “receiving and considering the partyrelations of bidders for contracts with the UnitedStates, and the effect of awarding contracts uponpending elections” which was “dangerous to the publicsafety.”

1860–1861The House Judiciary Committee, investigating the caseagainst Judge John C. Watrous for the third time ineight years, recommends that impeachment charges bebrought, but reverses the action when Watrous resignshis seat.

1862The U.S. House of Representatives debates, and thentables, a resolution of censure against former PresidentJames Buchanan for not taking proper actions toprevent the secession of the Southern states from theUnion.

19 May The U.S. House of Representatives votes toimpeach West H. Humphreys, judge for the District ofTennessee, for siding with the Confederate revolt.

26 June The U.S. Senate votes to convict Judge WestH. Humphreys of six of the seven articles ofimpeachment against him and then votes thirty-eightto zero to remove him from office and thirty-six to zeroto disqualify him from holding any future office underthe United States.

15 August Senator James Fowler Simmons of RhodeIsland resigns his seat rather than face expulsion forhelping a contractor from his home state gain a federalcontract in exchange for a payoff of $50,000.

186626 March Governor Frederick Low of California signsinto law the first state fraudulent election law. Entitled“an Act to protect the elections of voluntary politicalassociations, and to punish frauds therein,” it becomesa landmark in state election law.

11 July Senator James Henry Lane (R–KS) takes hisown life after being implicated in the sale of illegalcontracts that provide services to Indian reservations.

1867Congress enacts, as part of the Naval AppropriationsBill, the first congressional attempt to regulate

campaign finance spending. An impeachmentinvestigation against Charles Francis Adams, U.S.minister to Great Britain, for “neglect of Americancitizens in England and Ireland,” is initiated, but noaction is taken. A second impeachment investigation isbegun against William West, American consul inIreland, for “failure to aid American prisoners inIreland.” No action is ever taken on the charges.

1868An impeachment investigation begins in the U.S.House of Representatives regarding Henry A. Smythe,the collector of customs in New York, for“maladministration of New York Custom Housereceipts and other charges.” No action is taken on thecharges.

2 March The U.S. House of Representatives votes toimpeach President Andrew Johnson for violating theTenure of Office Act.

16 May The U.S. Senate votes thirty-five to nineteento sustain Article 11 of the impeachment chargesagainst President Johnson, falling short of convictionby one vote. The Senate then adjourns.

26 May The U.S. Senate reconvenes then votes thirty-five to nineteen to convict President Johnson onArticles 2 and 3, again falling one vote shy of the two-thirds needed to convict. The Senate then votes toadjourn the impeachment trial, and Chief JusticeSalmon P. Chase, sitting as the trial judge, announcesJohnson’s acquittal.

1869–1877During the eight years of the administration ofPresident Ulysses S. Grant, Congress undertakes thirty-seven separate inquiries into maladministration in theexecutive and legislative branches—a record.

187122 March Governor William Woods Holden of NorthCarolina becomes the first state governor to beimpeached and removed from office. Charged in 1870with eight separate articles, he is convicted of six.

18722 December The U.S. House of Representativesappoints a select committee, headed by RepresentativeLuke P. Poland (R–VT), to investigate the allegationsinvolved in the Crédit Mobilier scandal.

404 Chronology

1873The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives recommends that Judge Mark H.Delahay be impeached for “intoxication and othercorrupt dealings,” but Delahay resigns before animpeachment vote can be taken.Vice President SchuylerColfax is investigated for his role in the Crédit Mobilierrailroad scandal, but because he has left office as of 4March, no action is taken. The House investigatescharges of alleged influence peddling by Judge CharlesT. Sherman, but before it can vote on potentialimpeachment charges Sherman resigns his seat.

6 January The U.S. House of Representatives forms asecond select committee to investigate the CréditMobilier affair, this time to investigate the financialrelationship between the company and the UnionPacific Railroad. This committee is headed byRepresentative Jeremiah M. Wilson (R–IN).

4 February The U.S. Senate establishes its own selectcommittee to investigate the Crédit Mobilier affair,headed by Senator Lot M. Morrill (R–ME).

18 February The Poland Committee files its reportwith the House, clearing Speaker of the House James G.Blaine of complicity in the Crédit Mobilier scandal, butrecommending that Representatives Oakes Ames andJames Brooks be expelled.

27 February The U.S. House of Representativescondemns Representatives James Brooks and OakesAmes for their roles in the Crédit Mobilier railroadscandal, passing over a chance to expel them.

1 March The Morrill Committee releases its report,saying that of all the senators alleged to have beeninvolved, Senator James W. Patterson (R–NH) wasfound to be liable, and asked for his expulsion from theSenate. Due to Patterson having lost his reelectionattempt in November 1872 and his leaving the Senateon 3 March, the Senate holds off action and allowsPatterson to simply retire.

3 March The Wilson Committee releases its report,saying that the financial relationship between theCrédit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Railroad was toocozy, and that some officers of both companies hadheld bonds illegally. Court action is recommended.

24 March Senator Alexander Caldwell of Kansasresigns his seat to avoid being expelled after he isaccused of using bribes to get elected to the Senate.

1874The U.S. House of Representatives investigates chargesof irregularities in court funds lodged against JudgeWilliam F. Story. The House decides to pass onimpeaching Story, instead passing the evidence on tothe attorney general, who closes the case with nofurther proceedings ordered. Kansas State TreasurerJosiah Hayes is impeached for financial irregularities;however, when his trial opens in Topeka on 12 May, hisresignation is announced, and the impeachment isabandoned.

1875The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives recommends that Judge RichardBusteed be impeached for “non-residence, failure to holdcourt, and [the] improper use of [his] official position,"but the vote is tabled when Busteed resigns his seat. TheHouse also investigates Judge Edward H. Durell fordrunkenness and improper business transactions. Theinquiry ends when Durell resigns his seat.

1876The U.S. House of Representatives investigates chargesof court administration irregularities against JudgeAndrew Wylie of the Supreme Court of the District ofColumbia. The inquiry ends when Wylie resigns hisseat.

2 March Secretary of War William Worth Belknapresigns his office amid allegations of massive financialmisconduct.

3 April Despite Belknap’s resignation, the U.S. Houseof Representatives impeaches him on five articlesaccusing him of taking bribes.

1 August Belknap appears at his Senate trial, butrefuses to enter a plea, saying that as a private citizenhe could not be impeached. The Senate agrees, votingon this date by a vote of thirty-seven to twenty-five tofind Belknap guilty, but short of the two-thirdsnecessary to convict. Twenty-two of the senators whovoted to acquit, as well as two who voted to convict,later report that they agreed that the Senate lackedjurisdiction over the case.

1878The U.S. House of Representatives investigates Consul-General Oliver B. Bradford on charges of corruption,but no action is taken after the matter is referred to theJudiciary Committee.

Chronology 405

1879The U.S. House of Representatives investigates Consul-General George F. Seward on charges of “corruptlyreceiv[ing] monies in the settlement of estates, andappropriat[ing] U.S. funds for [his] own use.” Nofurther action is ever taken on the ensuinginvestigation. Judge Henry W. Blodgett is alsoinvestigated by the House for allegedly “defraudingcreditors, enriching friends in bankruptcyproceedings, and exceeding jurisdiction” in cases, butthe investigation is tabled for lack of evidence.

1880The United States Supreme Court, in Kilbourn v.Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, holds that the Congress maynot hold persons outside of members of Congress incontempt and thus may not jail them for suchcontempt.

1883Congress enacts the Pendleton Act, which outlaws thecollection of campaign contributions on federalproperty. This ends the practice of forcing governmentworkers to contribute money to campaigns to keeptheir jobs.

1884The U.S. House of Representatives investigates JudgeJames W. Locke on charges of interfering in elections,but exonerates him. Judge Samuel B.Axtell is alsoinvestigated on charges of incompetence andmisconduct while in office, but a House committee findsthat the charges do not merit an impeachment vote.

23 May Speaker of the U.S. House of RepresentativesJohn G. Carlisle tells the House that no member of thatbody should ever be punished for any offense alleged tohave been committed previous to their congressionalservice and adds that “that has been so frequentlydecided by the House that it is no longer a matter ofdispute.”

1890Maryland state Treasurer Stevenson Archer is chargedwith embezzlement after an investigation finds some$132,000 in state funds under his control missing. Hepleads guilty to the charge, telling the court that hespent the money and had only $1 of it left. Sentenced tofive years in prison, by 1894 he is in failing health andis pardoned by Governor Frank Brown. He dies inAugust 1898, having never divulged where he spent themoney.

1892Judge Aleck Boardman is investigated by the U.S.House of Representatives on charges of the misuse ofcourt funds and is censured by the subcommitteehearing the evidence rather than face an impeachmenttrial.

1894May Responding to published charges that senatorshad taken bribes to support tariff schedules favorableto the sugar industry, the U.S. Senate establishes theSpecial Investigative Committee. Uncertain as to thescope of its investigative powers, the Senate in Augustorders a comprehensive survey of all othercongressional investigations. The resulting thousand-page compilation,“Decisions and Precedents of theSenate and House of Representatives Relating to TheirPowers and Privileges Respecting Their Members andOfficers,” usefully documents Congress’s institutionaldevelopment throughout its first century.

1895Delegate Robert William Wilcox from Hawaii is tried bya jury for his role in the Hawaiian Rebellion of 1895and sentenced to death; his sentenced is commuted tothirty-five years in prison, and he is pardoned by theHawaiian president in 1898. He dies in 1903.

1901Eugene Schmitz, a bandleader, is elected Mayor of SanFrancisco, California, and begins an era rife with graftand corruption.

190320 September In San Francisco, a deputy U.S.marshal takes his own life, and three deputy sheriffsfrom the city are arrested on charges of taking bribesto allow Chinese immigrants into the country inviolation of the Exclusion Act, which placed a barrieron immigration.

1904Theodore Roosevelt campaigns for a full term aspresident on a platform of campaign reform andcontrol of the so-called trusts despite the fact thatmany of these same trusts are funding his campaign.Democratic presidential candidate Judge Alton B.Parker alleges that corporations are funding Roosevelt’scampaign. Roosevelt initially denies this, only to admitto the charge after the election. Representative WilliamBourke Cochran of New York calls for federal financingof elections. San Francisco Bulletin publisher R. A.

406 Chronology

Crothers is mugged by an unknown assailant, after theBulletin charges the administration of Mayor EugeneSchmitz and Schmitz’s political leader Abe Ruef withgraft and corruption.

1905In his annual message, President Theodore Rooseveltcalls for campaign finance reform. This move, buildingon a second call in his 1906 annual message, leads tothe establishment of the National Publicity LawOrganization (NPLO), which lobbies for nationalcampaign finance reform.

190624 October San Francisco District Attorney WilliamH. Langdon names Francis J. Heney, the specialcounsel in the Oregon land frauds cases, to assist himin prosecuting fraud and corruption in SanFrancisco. Heney is appointed assistant districtattorney.

25 October Acting Mayor James L. Gallagher of SanFrancisco suspends District Attorney William H.Langdon for “neglect of duty” and appoints politicalboss Abe Ruef in his place. Assistant District AttorneyFrancis J. Heney says that he does not recognize Ruef asdistrict attorney.

26 October A local San Francisco judge signs atemporary restraining order barring Ruef frombecoming district attorney. District Attorney Langdonhas guards protect his office from Ruef or his cronies toprevent them from taking control.

31 October A demonstration held in San Francisco byRuef protests graft inquiries against the Schmitzadministration.

15 November A grand jury empaneled by DistrictAttorney Langdon hands down indictments againstMayor Eugene Schmitz,“Boss”Abe Ruef, and PoliceChief Jeremiah Dinan.

190726 January Congress enacts the Tillman Act, whichbans direct contributions from corporations toindividuals, but leaves a loophole allowing the heads ofcorporations to continue to contribute unlimitedamounts of money.

4 March “Boss”Abraham Ruef surrenders and isarraigned. He posts bond, then vanishes.

8 March The judge overseeing the Ruef prosecutionorders his arrest and names William J. Biggy to findhim. Two hours later, Ruef is found at the TrocaderoHouse, a hotel in Stern Grove, California, near SanFrancisco. Biggy is later named to replace JeremiahDinan as chief of police.

13 June Mayor Eugene Schmitz is convicted by a SanFrancisco jury of extortion.

190816 November Assistant District Attorney Francis J.Heney is shot in court by Morris Haas, whose criminalactivity had been revealed by Heney some monthsearlier. Heney survives, but must be replaced by HiramW. Johnson. Haas is a bagman for “Boss” Ruef. He islater found dead in his jail cell, a potential suicide froma smuggled gun. In the aftermath of the shooting ofHeney and the death of Haas, Chief of Police Biggy issuspected of being in the pay of “Boss” Ruef.

1 December Police Chief Biggy disappears off a policeboat in San Francisco Bay.

10 December “Boss” Ruef is found guilty of bribing asupervisor to vote to build the United Railroad and issentenced to fourteen years in prison.

15 December The body of Police Chief Biggy is foundnear Angel Island in San Francisco Bay. The coronerrules that his was an accidental death. Thecircumstances of his death are never revealed, and thecase goes unsolved.

1909After Theodore Roosevelt leaves the White House, it isdiscovered that his 1904 campaign was funded byrailroads, oil companies, and other businesses on whichhe was cracking down at the time as monopolies. Forinstance, J. P. Morgan alone gave $150,000.

191025 June Congress enacts the Federal CorruptPractices Act (also called the Publicity Act), requiringall U.S. House candidates—and, later, all U.S. Senatecandidates when such candidates are directly electedby the people—to fully disclose all campaigncontributions and spending.

191111 August Congress enacts amendments to thePublicity Act of 1910, which established firm spending

Chronology 407

limits for federal campaigns. The amendments aredesigned to improve disclosure requirements.

191213 July The U.S. Senate declares the election ofWilliam Lorimer (R–IL) to be invalid after it hearsallegations that he won the seat in the Illinoislegislature through bribery.

1913Colonel Martin M. Mulhall, a lobbyist for the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers (NAM), implicatesRepresentative James T. McDermott (D–IL) in bribetaking. Mulhall states that he had paid McDermottapproximately $2,000 for “legislative favors.” Acongressional investigation leads to disciplinarycharges against McDermott by the full House, but heis not expelled or censured. McDermott resigns hisseat in 1914, but is reelected in November to his oldseat.

1921Senator Truman H. Newberry (R–MI) is indicted by agrand jury and later convicted of violating campaignspending limits in his 1918 Senate race againstDemocrat Henry Ford. The U.S. Supreme Court, inNewberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232, holds thatcongressional authority to regulate elections does notextend to party primaries and election activities andstrikes down the spending limits Newberry had beenconvicted of violating.

1922Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall leases the TeapotDome oil reserves in Wyoming to cronies to pay themback for the campaign contributions they gave toPresident Warren G. Harding in his 1920 presidentialcampaign.

192322 October The first hearing on the Teapot Domeallegations takes place.

192528 February Congress revises the 1910 FederalCorrupt Practices Act, putting a cap on spending forsenatorial campaigns at $25,000 and congressionalcampaigns at $5,000. Passed in response to theburgeoning Teapot Dome scandal, the law does notcover primary campaigns. Despite flagrant violationsof this law and its revisions, only two men, RepublicansWilliam S.Vare of Pennsylvania and Frank L. Smith of

Virginia, are ever prosecuted for violating it. They areexcluded from Congress.

1926District of Columbia Commissioner Frederick A.Fenning is impeached for “acting as an attorney whilecommissioner, champerty [a sharing in the proceeds ofa lawsuit by an outside party who has promoted thelitigation], exorbitant remuneration for guardianshipof lunatics, among other charges.” Fenning is latercensured and forced to resign under pressure fromPresident Calvin Coolidge.

12 April In a stunning move, the U.S. Senate votesalong party lines, forty-five to forty-one, to seatDemocrat Daniel Steck over Republican SmithBrookhart, after Steck alleges voting irregularities.

1928Representative Edgar Howard (D–NE) proposes a billthat would mandate a prison sentence for any formermember of Congress who remains in Washington afterhis term of office to lobby his former colleagues.

1929Representative Frederick N. Zihlman (R–MD) offersnot to run for reelection and resigns as chairman of theHouse Committee on the District of Columbia, after heis indicted on charges of corruption.

1934Two members of the “Anti-Smith Committee ofVirginia,” James Cannon Jr. and Ada L. Burroughs, areacquitted of using campaign funds to defeat formerGovernor Al Smith of New York in violation of theFederal Corrupt Practices Act.

1936President Franklin Delano Roosevelt receives a$250,000 contribution from the head of the Congress ofIndustrial Organizations (CIO), the first majordonation from a union to a political candidate.

Donn M. Roberts, mayor of Terre Haute, Indiana, whohad been convicted in 1915 of bribery and served threeand one-half years in prison, is convicted ofembezzlement and sentenced to prison a second time;however, following a heart attack, he is released fromprison and dies on 3 August 1936.

1939Responding to allegations that the administration ofPresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt has forced

408 Chronology

federal government workers to donate to hispresidential campaign, Congress enacts the HatchAct, which prohibits federal employees fromcontributing to, or participating in, federalcampaigns.

25 June Roy E. Brownmiller, Pennsylvania secretaryof highways, is convicted of using state payroll funds tofinance the 1938 election campaign of GovernorGeorge Howard Earle III, who lost. Brownmillereventually serves prison time, but is released after oneyear due to declining health.

194019 July Congress enacts amendments to the HatchAct, imposing a limit of $5,000 a year on individualcontributions to federal candidates or national partycommittees.

1941In United States v. Classic, 31 U.S. 299, the U.S. SupremeCourt reverses its 1921 ruling in Newberry v. UnitedStates and holds that Congress does have the authorityto regulate spending limits for primaries and electionactivities.

1943Congress enacts, over President Franklin DelanoRoosevelt’s veto, the Smith-Connally Anti-Strike Act(also known as the War Labor Disputes Act) to preventlabor unions from making political contributions. It ispassed as a war measure only and expires six monthsafter the end of the war in 1945.

16 September A federal grand jury indictsRepresentative James M. Curley (D–MA) on charges ofusing the mails to defraud companies.

1 November A federal court voids the indictmentagainst Representative James Curley, stating that thegrand jury was “illegally summoned.”

194418 January Another federal grand jury inWashington, D.C., indicts Representative James M.Curley.

194618 January Representative James M. Curley isconvicted by a federal jury in Washington of using themails to defraud companies of mail contracts duringthe Second World War.

194713 January The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit upholds the conviction of Representative JamesM. Curley.

23 January A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.,indicts Representative Andrew J. May (D–KY) foraccepting funds to influence war contracts during theSecond World War.

18 February Representative James M. Curley issentenced to six to eighteen months in prison and fined$1,000 for mail fraud.

2 June The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Curley’sconviction.

23 June Congress reenacts the provisions againstcampaign spending by labor unions as part of theLabor Management Relations Act of 1947, also calledthe Taft-Hartley Act.

26 June Representative James M. Curley enters aprison to begin serving his sentence.

3 July Representative Andrew J. May is convicted oncharges of bribery and conspiracy.

26 November President Harry S. Truman commutesthe remainder of Curley’s jail sentence.

19488 November Representative J. Parnell Thomas (R–NJ)is indicted on charges of defrauding the government bypadding his congressional payroll and takingkickbacks from his staff.

194914 November The U.S. Supreme Court refuses toreview the conviction of Representative Andrew J. May(D–KY).

30 November Representative J. Parnell Thomaspleads no contest to charges that he took illicit payoffsfrom his staff.

5 December Representative Andrew J. May beginsserving his prison sentence.

9 December Representative J. Parnell Thomas issentenced to six to eighteen months in prison and fined$10,000.

Chronology 409

195010 September Representative J. Parnell Thomas isparoled from prison after serving eight and one-halfmonths in prison.

18 September Representative Andrew J. May isparoled after serving nine months of his prisonsentence.

20 December Representative Walter E. Brehm(R–OH) is indicted for accepting contributions fromhis congressional staff.

24 December President Harry S. Truman pardonsRepresentative Andrew J. May.

1951In the wake of charges that supporters of Taiwan’sNationalist Party (called “The China Lobby”) havebeen trying to influence Congress, Senator WayneMorse (R–OR) calls for an investigation into lobbyingby foreign governments to influence U.S. foreign policy.Representative Charles Bennett (D–FL) introduces aresolution calling on “all Government employees,including officeholders” to adhere to a congressionalethics code.

30 April Representative Walter E. Brehm is convictedof accepting campaign contributions from one of hisemployees.

8 June Representative Theodore Leonard Irving(D–MO) is indicted by a federal grand jury inWashington, D.C., for violating the Corrupt PracticesAct and the Taft-Hartley Act for misusing funds whenhe served as the head of a labor union during his 1948campaign for Congress.

11 June Representative Walter E. Brehm issentenced to five to fifteen months in prison andfined $5,000. His sentence is summarily suspendedby the judge, and Brehm never serves any time inprison.

28 December Representative Theodore LeonardIrving is acquitted by a federal jury of all charges.

195314 January Representative John L. McMillan (D–SC)is indicted for violating a law barring members ofCongress from making contracts with the government

when he leased oil and gas properties in Utah from theDepartment of the Interior.

16 May Representative John L. McMillan is acquittedof all charges.

17 June Representative Ernest K. Bramblett (R–CA)is indicted for making false statements in connectionwith a kickback investigation involving congressionalaides and staff.

19549 February Representative Ernest K. Bramblett isconvicted of charges that he lied during a Housekickback investigation.

14 April Bramblett’s sentencing is stayed pending anappeal to the United States Supreme Court.

19554 April The U.S. Supreme Court upholds theconviction of Representative Ernest K. Bramblett.

15 June Bramblett is sentenced to four to twelvemonths in prison and fined $5,000. The judge suspendsthe sentence, and Bramblett does not serve any jailtime.

19565 March Representative Thomas J. Lane (D–MA) isindicted for federal income tax evasion for the years1949–1951.

20 April Representative Lane pleads guilty to incometax evasion and is sentenced to four months in prisonand fined $10,000.

14 December Representative William J. Green (D–PA)is indicted with six others for conspiracy to defraud thegovernment when he accepted business for hispersonal company in exchange for working to gain acontract with the U.S. Army Signal Corps for acontributor.

19588 May Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D–NY)is indicted for federal income tax evasion.

195927 February Representative William J. Green isacquitted of all charges.

410 Chronology

19605 and 7 April A federal judge dismisses two of thethree charges against Representative Adam ClaytonPowell.

22 April Representative Adam Clayton Powell’s trialon a single charge of income tax evasion is declared amistrial due to a hung jury.

23 May The judge overseeing the trial ofRepresentative Adam Clayton Powell refuses to dismissthe indictment against him.

196113 April The U.S. attorney overseeing the trial ofRepresentative Adam Clayton Powell asks to have thesingle charge still against him dismissed.

196216 October Representative Thomas F. Johnson(D–MD) is indicted with Representative Frank W.Boykin (D–AL) and two others for conspiracy todefraud the government by trying to influence aDepartment of Justice inquiry into fraud at a Marylandsavings and loan bank.

196313 June Representative Thomas F. Johnson isconvicted on all charges relating to his attempt to endan investigation of a Maryland savings and loan bank.Also convicted is Representative Frank Boykin oncharges of conflict of interest and conspiracy todefraud the government.

7 October Representative Frank Boykin is sentencedto probation for six months and fined $40,000.

196424 July The U.S. Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration rules on the Bobby Baker case, holdingthat the Senate aide had used his office for personalgain. However, he is not charged with any crime.

16 September The U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit strikes down the conviction of RepresentativeThomas F. Johnson on the grounds that the convictionarose from a speech he gave on behalf of a Marylandsavings and loan bank; the court holds that such speechis protected by the Speech or Debate clause of the U.S.Constitution. The court does order a new trial on othercharges relating to a conflict of interest.

19659 July A year after it was established, the first membersof the Senate Committee on Standards and Conduct arenamed. John Stennis (D–MS) is named chairman.

17 December President Lyndon Baines Johnsonpardons Representative Frank Boykin of Alabama.

196624 February The U.S. Supreme Court affirms thestriking down of the conviction of RepresentativeThomas F. Johnson, sustaining the Speech or Debateclause of the U.S. Constitution.

196729 January Former Senate Majority Leader SecretaryBobby Baker is convicted on seven counts of incometax invasion, theft, and conspiracy to defraud thegovernment. On 7 April he is sentenced to at least oneyear in prison.

23 June Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D–CT) is censuredby the Senate for using campaign funds for personaluse, setting off a new wave of campaign finance reformefforts.

A former congressman, W. Pat Jennings, becomes thefirst clerk of the House to actually collect campaignfinance reports and to report violators to theDepartment of Justice, as directed by the 1925 FederalCorrupt Practices Act. The United States Senate opensan investigation into the dealings of Senator Edward V.Long (D–MO) for allegedly accepting legal fees from alawyer representing James R. Hoffa, the head of theTeamsters union, at the same time that Long wasconducting a Senate investigation of governmentwiretapping and electronic eavesdropping of officialsunder FBI investigation, which included Hoffa. TheSenate later clears Long of any wrongdoing.

196826 January Representative Thomas F. Johnson isconvicted of conflict of interest charges relating to hiswork to hinder the investigation of a Maryland savingsand loan bank.

30 January Representative Thomas F. Johnson issentenced to six months in prison.

4 October President Lyndon B. Johnson withdrawsthe name of Justice Abe Fortas for the position of chief

Chronology 411

justice after allegations of corruption against him areaired.

196918 December Representative Hugh J. Addonizio(D–NJ) is indicted on charges of extortion, conspiracy,and income tax evasion relating to crimes he allegedlycommitted while serving as mayor of Newark, NewJersey.

197031 March Representative John V. Dowdy (D–TX) isindicted on charges of bribery, conspiracy, and perjuryrelating to his receipt of money from a Marylandcompany under investigation for fraud.

22 July Representative Hugh J. Addonizio is convictedof sixty-four counts of extortion, conspiracy, andincome tax evasion.

23 July President Nixon secretly approves a plan toexpand domestic wiretapping and other intelligencegathering activities by the FBI, the CIA, and otherfederal agencies. A few days later, after having secondthoughts, he rescinds the order. Former Secretary ofHealth, Education, and Welfare John Gardner foundsCommon Cause, a citizen lobbying and reform group.

22 September Representative Hugh J. Addonizio issentenced to ten years in prison and fined $25,000.

16 December Representative Martin B. McKneally(R–NY) is indicted for failure to file federal incometaxes for the years 1964–1967.

1971Speaker of the House of Representatives JohnMcCormack (D–MA) retires after one of his top aides,Martin Sweig, is accused of using the Speaker’s officeand name for dishonest purposes.

3 September A unit is formed inside the White Houseto plug leaks inside administration offices. The group iscalled “The Plumbers.”

18 October Representative Martin B. McKneallypleads guilty to federal income tax evasion.

20 December Representative McKneally is sentencedto one year in prison and one year on probation andfined $5,000. The judge suspends the prison sentence,and McKneally does not serve any jail time.

30 December Representative John Dowdy isconvicted of all charges relating to bribery and perjury.

19727 February President Nixon signs the FederalElection Campaign Act, establishing spending limits onboth presidential and congressional candidates andrequiring the reporting of campaign contributions.

15 February Attorney General John N. Mitchellresigns from his post to serve as the chairman ofPresident Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign.

23 February Representative John Dowdy is sentencedto eighteen months in prison and fined $25,000.

7 April Representative Cornelius Gallagher (D–NJ) isindicted for federal income tax evasion for the years1966–1967, perjury, and conspiracy for his work inassisting two other people to evade income taxpayment.

28 May Unknown to all but the small group called“The Plumbers,” electronic surveillance equipment isinstalled at Democratic National Committeeheadquarters in the Watergate building in Washington,D.C.

17 June Five men break into the office of theDemocratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotelin Washington, D.C., in an attempt to fix a broken bugthat has been installed a few weeks earlier. All five arearrested.

19 June The Washington Post reports that aRepublican security aide, James W. McCord Jr., is one ofthe Watergate burglars.

1 August The Washington Post reports that a $25,000check, made out to the Nixon 1972 campaign reelectioncommittee, wound up in the bank account of one of theWatergate burglars.

30 August President Nixon reports that aninvestigation of potential White House involvement inthe Watergate break-in, conducted by White Housecounsel John Dean, shows no White Houseinvolvement.

15 September E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, andthe five Watergate burglars, Bernard Barker,VirgilioGonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, James W. McCord Jr., and

412 Chronology

Frank Sturgis are indicted by a federal grand jury inthe burgeoning Watergate scandal.

29 September The Washington Post reports that whileserving as attorney general, John Mitchell controlled asecret slush fund that he used to finance secret buggingand other intelligence-gathering activities, much ofwhich was illegal.

10 October The Washington Post reports that the FBIhas concluded that the Watergate break-in was part of amassive campaign of political spying and espionage bythe Nixon reelection committee.

21 December Representative Cornelius Gallagherpleads guilty to income tax evasion.

19738 January The trial of the Watergate defendantsbegins.

11 January Watergate defendant E. Howard Huntpleads guilty.

15 January Watergate defendants Barker, Gonzalez,Martinez, and Sturgis plead guilty.

30 January G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr.are convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretappingfor their roles in the Watergate break-in.

7 February Amid growing questions over the role ofhigh Nixon administration officials in the Watergatebreak-in, the U.S. Senate establishes the SelectCommittee on Presidential Campaign Activities, alsoknown as the Senate Watergate Committee. SenatorSam Ervin (D–NC) is named the committee’schairman, while Senator Howard H. Baker (R–TN) isnamed vice chairman.

13 March The U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit strikes down the bribery and conspiracyconvictions of Representative John V. Dowdy; however,the court does uphold the perjury conviction.

19 March Convicted Watergate defendant James W.McCord Jr. writes a letter to Judge John Sirica,overseeing the Watergate trials, and tells him that thefive Watergate defendants who pled guilty shortlybefore the start of their trial were pressured into doingso, that perjury was committed in the trial, and thatother people were involved in the break-in.

29 March The Los Angeles Times and the WashingtonPost both report that James McCord told Samuel Dash,chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, thatformer Nixon aide Jeb Stuart Magruder and WhiteHouse counsel John Dean knew of the plan to break into Democratic headquarters and bug the phones. ThePost states that Liddy had told McCord that theoperation had the backing and approval of formerAttorney General John Mitchell and Charles Colson,former special counsel to Nixon.

6 April White House counsel John Dean begins tocooperate with Watergate investigators.

30 April Nixon aides H. R. Haldeman and JohnEhrlichman, as well as Attorney General RichardKleindienst, resign in the midst of the growingWatergate scandal. President Nixon fires White Housecounsel John Dean.

18 May The Senate Watergate Committee beginstelevised hearings, capturing the nation’s attention.Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson namesformer Solicitor General Archibald Cox as theDepartment of Justice special prosecutor onWatergate.

3 June The Washington Post reports that John Deantold Watergate investigators that he discussed theWatergate scandal with President Nixon at least thirty-five times.

13 June Watergate investigators discover a memoaddressed to former Nixon aide John Ehrlichmanoutlining a plan to burglarize the office of thepsychiatrist of former Department of Defense officialDaniel Ellsberg, who had released the so-calledPentagon Papers.

15 June Representative Cornelius Gallagher issentenced to two years in prison and fined $10,000.

25 June In televised hearings before the SenateWatergate Committee, former White House counselJohn Dean tells the committee under oath that theWhite House had a major plan for domestic espionageof the president’s political enemies and that Nixonplanned the cover-up of the Watergate burglary withindays of the occurrence of the break-in.

7 July President Nixon tells the Senate WatergateCommittee that he will not appear in person before the

Chronology 413

committee or grant the committee access to anypresidential papers.

13 July Former presidential appointments secretaryAlexander Butterfield tells the Senate WatergateCommittee that President Nixon had been taping allWhite House conversations since 1971. The committeeconcludes that the Nixon campaign was involved indomestic spying, abuse of campaign funds, favors forthe milk industry in return for campaigncontributions, and that President Nixon had hamperedthe investigation, although no charge of obstruction ofjustice was put forward.

23 July Following a request from the SenateWatergate Committee and Special WatergateProsecutor Archibald Cox for any and all tapesregarding Oval Office conversations, President Nixonrefuses to turn over any tapes, citing executiveprivilege.

25 July Nixon refuses to comply with a subpoenafrom Cox.

26 July The Senate Watergate Committee votes tosubpoena the Nixon tapes.

2 August Vice President Spiro Agnew is notifiedthat he is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’sOffice in Baltimore, Maryland, for his role in a milkbribery scheme while he served as governor of thatstate.

9 August The Senate Watergate Committee suesPresident Nixon for access to the White House tapes.

29 August Judge John Sirica orders President Nixon todeliver nine Oval Office tapes for the judge to privatelyreview.

26 September Vice President Spiro Agnew’s requestfor a congressional investigation in his alleged role in amilk bribery scheme while he served as governor ofMaryland is refused by Speaker of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Carl Albert (D–OK).

27 September A federal grand jury in Baltimorebegins to hear evidence in the bribery investigation ofVice President Spiro Agnew.

9 October The U.S. Supreme Court upholds theperjury conviction of Representative John V. Dowdy.

10 October Vice President Spiro Agnew resigns,becoming the second vice president to resign hisoffice, the first being John Calhoun, who resigned in1832 over political differences with President AndrewJackson.

19 October President Nixon tries to broker a deal overthe White House tapes with Senator John Stennis(D–MS), under which Stennis would be allowed to hearthe actual tapes while Nixon would provide a detailedsummary to special prosecutor Cox.

20 October Special prosecutor Cox refuses to acceptthe Stennis compromise and demands additionaltapes from Nixon. President Nixon then ordersAttorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox.Richardson refuses and resigns. Deputy AttorneyGeneral William D. Ruckelshaus also refuses and alsoresigns. It is left up to Solicitor General Robert H. Borkto fire Cox. The event is known as the Saturday NightMassacre.

23 October Nixon agrees to comply with a subpoenato hand over certain White House taped conversations.

1 November Under increasing pressure in Congress,President Nixon names attorney Leon Jaworski as thenew Watergate special prosecutor.

12 November Nixon decides to hand over severalunsubpoenaed recordings and portions of his diary forinspection.

17 November In a press conference, Nixon tellsreporters that he is innocent of any crimes in theWatergate scandal.“I am not a crook,” Nixon says withfervor.

7 December Officials of the Nixon administrationcannot explain why there is a gap of eighteen and one-half minutes on one of the subpoenaed Watergatetapes.

197428 January Representative John V. Dowdy entersprison to serve a six-month sentence after the U.S.Supreme Court upholds his perjury conviction.

6 February The U.S. House of Representatives votesto authorize the House Judiciary Committee to holdhearings on possible impeachment charges beingbrought against President Nixon.

414 Chronology

1 March Seven former aides of President Nixon areindicted for various offenses relating to Watergate;Nixon is named as an unindicted coconspirator.

6 April Senator Edward J. Gurney (R–FL) is indictedby a Florida grand jury on charges that he violatedstate campaign finance laws.

16 April Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworskidemands access to sixty-four White House tapes.

30 April The White House releases 1,200 pages oftranscripts edited from Oval Office tapes, but theSenate Watergate Committee continues to demand thetapes themselves.

9 May The House Judiciary Committee beginshearings on possible impeachment charges againstPresident Nixon.

17 May The indictment against Senator Edward J.Gurney is dismissed.

10 July A federal grand jury indicts Senator EdwardJ. Gurney and six other defendants for conspiracy,perjury, and soliciting bribes in the form ofcampaign contributions from Florida constructionconcerns.

23 July Representative Lawrence Hogan (R–MD)becomes the first Republican in the Congress to call forPresident Nixon’s resignation.

24 July The U.S. Supreme Court, in Nixon v. UnitedStates, 418 U.S. 683, holds that Nixon must turn overtapes from sixty-four White House conversations andthat these conversations are not protected by executiveprivilege.

27 July The House Judiciary Committee votes for anarticle of impeachment, charging President Nixon withobstruction of justice.

29 July The House Judiciary Committee votes asecond article of impeachment, charging PresidentNixon with misuse of presidential powers and violationof his oath of office.

30 July The House Judiciary Committee adopts athird article of impeachment, charging President Nixonwith a failure to comply with House subpoenas forWhite House tapes.

5 August Nixon releases the transcript of aconversation with H. R. Haldeman from 23 June 1972,six days after the Watergate break-in, in which Nixonorders the Federal Bureau of Investigation to abandonits inquiry into the burglary. This tape is considered the"smoking gun" implicating Nixon in obstruction ofjustice.

7 August Republican leaders meet with Nixon, tellinghim that impeachment was assured in the House andthat he was quickly losing support in the Senate toforestall conviction.

8 August Nixon tells the nation in a televised addressthat he will resign the following day.

9 August Nixon resigns, becoming the first Americanpresident to do so.Vice President Gerald R. Fordbecomes the thirty-eighth president of the UnitedStates.

8 September One month after becoming president,Gerald Ford pardons former President Richard Nixonfor any and all crimes he may have committee duringhis presidency.

1975The Senate resolves one of the most corrupt electionsin American history. Senator Henry Bellmon (R–OK)was challenged by Democrat Ed Edmondson. In a closerace, Bellmon won, but Edmondson challenged theresult. After a Senate investigation, which held thatOklahoma election rules were violated, but that it wasunable to determine which side would have won theelection if the violations had not occurred, the fullSenate voted forty-seven to forty-six that Bellmonwould be seated and Edmonson’s challenge be thrownout.

26 June Jack L. Chestnut, a former aide to Senatorand former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, issentenced to four months in prison and fined $5,000for accepting an illegal campaign contribution duringHumphrey’s 1970 U.S. Senate campaign.

6 August Senator Edward J. Gurney is acquitted of thebribery charge, but the jury fails to reach a verdict onthe other counts.

197626 January Representative Andrew Jackson Hinshaw(R–CA) is convicted by a jury in California on two

Chronology 415

counts of bribery stemming from his first run forCongress in 1972.

29 January Representative James R. Jones (D–OK)pleads guilty to a misdemeanor on the allegation thathe failed to report a cash contribution in 1972 from theGulf Oil Corporation.

24 February Representative Andrew Jackson Hinshawis sentenced to concurrent one-to-fourteen-year prisonsentences.

2 June Representative Henry Helstoski (D–NJ) isindicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey oncharges that he solicited and accepted bribes fromChilean and Argentinean immigrants in exchange forintroducing bills in Congress designed to block theirextradition from the United States. Helstoski, alongwith three aides, were charged with bribery,conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to afederal grand jury.

21 September Former Representative James F.Hastings (R–NY), who had served in the House from1965 to 1975, is indicted by a federal grand jury inWashington, D.C., on charges that he operated akickback scheme out of his congressional office withmembers of his congressional staff. Despite pleadingnot guilty to the charges, Hastings is convicted ontwenty-eight counts on 17 December and sentenced toserve twenty months to five years in federal prison.

24 October The Washington Post breaks the“Koreagate” story, leading to the largest congressionalscandal in decades.

27 October The Justice Department announces that itis dropping its civil suit against Representative William“Bill” Clay (D–MO), after Clay agrees to reimburse theU.S. government $1,754 he overcharged on travelexpenses. Senator Edward J. Gurney (R–FL) isacquitted by a federal jury of lying to a federal grandjury.

1977April Former Representative Hugh J. Addonizio isreleased from prison after serving five years of a ten-year sentence.

11 April William Cahn, district attorney of NassauCounty, New York, is convicted of forty-five counts ofmail fraud arising from the embezzlement of travel

expenses. A first trial in February 1976 had ended witha hung jury.

197820 January Judge Herbert Allen Fogel of the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania writes to President JimmyCarter that he will resign from the bench, effective 1May, after the Department of Justice threatens toprosecute him for numerous offenses.

October Representative Charles C. Diggs Jr. (D–MI) isconvicted by a jury for illegally diverting more than$60,000 of his employees’ salaries for his personal use.On 20 November, he is sentenced to three years inprison.

21 November James Y. Carter, the Chicago taxicommissioner since 1960, is convicted of nine countsof extortion, racketeering, and income tax evasion.

1979Congress amends the Federal Election Campaign Actso that “soft money” is exempt from 1971 limitations.This allows the explosion of “soft money” advertisingand spending that is to dominate elections over thenext twenty years.

January House leaders convince RepresentativeCharles C. Diggs Jr. to resign as chairman of the HouseForeign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa after he isconvicted of financial misconduct.

18 July Cleveland City Council President George L.Forbes, the city’s top black leader, is acquitted by a juryof eleven counts of bribery, theft in office, andextortion, all tied to an alleged gambling kickbackscheme.

31 July The U.S. House of Representatives censuresRepresentative Charles C. Diggs Jr., by a vote of 414–0,for the misuse of his clerk-hire funds. This is only thesecond time in the twentieth century that a sittingmember has been censured. (The first, RepresentativeThomas L. Blanton (D–TX), was censured for usingobjectionable language that was printed in TheCongressional Record.)

198029 May The House Democratic Caucus passes a ruleto automatically remove a committee orsubcommittee chairmanship from any party memberwho is censured by the House or indicted or convicted

416 Chronology

of a felony with a sentence lasting more than twoyears.

198124 August The Senate Ethics Committee votesunanimously to expel Senator Harrison Williams forhis role in the ABSCAM scandal.

19823 March The Senate begins debate on thepunishment for Senator Harrison Williams of NewJersey.

11 March Senator Harrison Williams resigns after itappears he will be expelled from the Senate for hisconviction in the ABSCAM case.

19842 April Representative George Hanson (R–ID)becomes the first person convicted of violating theEthics in Government Act of 1978, when he is foundguilty by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., of fourcounts of filing incorrect financial statements. On 25June, Hansen is sentenced to five to fifteen months inprison and fined $40,000. On 31 July, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives votes 354–42 to reprimand Hansen.Hansen loses his seat in the election in November.

198610 January Queens (New York) Borough PresidentDonald R. Manes is discovered by police drivingerratically; upon closer examination, he is found withhis wrists slashed in a failed suicide attempt. It is soondiscovered that Manes is in the middle of a vastfinancial scandal.

11 February Queens Borough President Donald R.Manes resigns his office.

13 March Donald R. Manes commits suicide byshoving a knife into his heart.

25 November Bronx Democratic Party ChairmanStanley M. Friedman is convicted by a federal jury ofracketeering, conspiracy, and mail fraud. The U.S.attorney, Rudolph W. Guiliani, calls the scheme thatFriedman was involved in an “enterprise for illegalplunder.”

19 December A court in Washington, D.C., namesattorney Lawrence Walsh to investigate potentialviolations of law in the Iran-Contra Affair.

1987January William Sterling Anderson, a former Speakerof the South Carolina House of Representatives protem, is sentenced to fourteen months in prison forfalsifying the customer credit records of his mobilehome business.

21 January The U.S. Parole Commission votes eight tozero against an appeal for early release by impeachedJudge Harry E. Claiborne, convicted of tax fraud. Thecommission states that Claiborne had “seriouslybreached the public’s trust.”

22 January At a news conference prior to hissentencing for taking a $300,000 kickback, formerPennsylvania Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer shoots himselfin the mouth with a pistol in front of the televisioncameras in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

198818 May The public affairs group Common Cause callsfor an investigation of House Speaker Jim Wright,alleging that Wright may have broken the law in hisfinancial arrangement surrounding the publication ofhis book, Reflections of a Public Man, and that Wrightintervened with federal bank regulators regarding aTexas savings and loan bank.

26 May Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia,backed by seventy-two Republican members of theU.S. House of Representatives, files a complaint withthe House Committee on Standards of Official Conductregarding Speaker of the House Jim Wright.

9 June The House Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct votes unanimously to conduct an inquiry intothe Wright matter, including other allegations ofwrongdoing.

26 July The House Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct hires attorney Richard J. Phelan ofChicago as special outside counsel to investigate HouseSpeaker Jim Wright.

4 August Representative Mario Biaggi (D–NY)resigns from the House when he faces an almostcertain expulsion vote for his role in the Wedtechscandal.

14 September Speaker Jim Wright testifies before theHouse Committee on Standards of Official Conduct forfive hours.

Chronology 417

21 November Representative Robert Garcia (D–NY)is indicted on charges of influence peddling in theWedtech case.

198922 February Richard Phelan, special outside counselto the House Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, submits a 279-page report on the Jim Wrightinvestigation.

13 April Speaker Wright goes before television camerasto call for fairness, as word leaks out that special outsidecounsel Phelan has found evidence of serious crimescommitted by Wright. The Speaker is emotional as hetries to rebut the accusations lodged against him.

17 April The House Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct releases its report on Wright, detailingthat it has “reason to believe” that the Speaker hasviolated the rules of congressional conduct sixty-nineseparate times. These sixty-nine charges fall into twocategories that Wright conspired to use the sales of hisbook to hide income from House-imposed limits andthat he accepted $145,000 in improper gifts fromGeorge Mallick, a Fort Worth developer and real estatebusinessman who was a friend of Wright’s.

23 May Lawyers for Speaker Wright appear before theHouse Committee on Standards of Official Conductand claim that the panel has misinterpreted Houserules and ask that the charges against Wright bethrown out.

31 May Taking to the floor of the U.S. House, SpeakerJim Wright tells the members that he will resign asSpeaker and offers to vacate his House seat as well.

30 June Former Speaker Jim Wright resigns his Houseseat.

20 October Representative Robert Garcia (D–NY)and his wife are convicted on charges of extortion andinfluence peddling in the Wedtech scandal.

19907 January Representative Robert Garcia resigns fromthe House. Twelve days later he is sentenced to threeyears in prison for his role in the Wedtech case.

29 June The convictions of former RepresentativeRobert Garcia and his wife in the Wedtech scandal arestruck down by a federal appeals court.

199224 December In a controversial move, PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush, in his last days in office, pardonsformer Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger andfive others—Elliott Abrams, a former assistantsecretary of state for inter-American affairs; formerNational Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; andDuane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George, allformer employees of the Central Intelligence Agency—for their roles in the Iran-Contra scandal. Weinbergerhad been indicted shortly before the 1992 election andwas scheduled to go on trial 5 January 1993.

199319 May Several longtime employees of the WhiteHouse Travel Office are fired. Controversy erupts whenit is discovered that several of President Clinton’sfriends—including a cousin, Catherine Cornelius—were behind the firings, allegedly so that they could getthe business.

25 May Following a wave of protest and anger, fiveworkers from the White House Travel Office who werefired on 19 May are reinstated.

19 July Senator Robert J. Dole (R–KS) calls for theappointment of a special counsel to investigate theWhite House Travel Office firings.

19949 January Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D–NY)calls for the appointment of a special counsel toinvestigate the allegations against President Clintonand his wife regarding the Whitewater land deal inArkansas.

12 January Amid calls from other Democrats,President Clinton agrees to ask the attorney general toname an independent counsel to investigate theWhitewater land deal.

February Jay Stephens, a Republican attorney, isnamed to investigate the Resolution TrustCorporation’s investigation of the Clinton’s ties to thefailure of Little Rock-based Madison Guaranty Bank.

14 March Following allegations that he was involvedin misconduct at his law firm in Arkansas, AssociateAttorney General Webster Hubbell resigns.

26 July The U.S. House of Representatives openshearings on the Whitewater allegations.

418 Chronology

5 August A panel of three federal judges namesformer Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr to be theindependent counsel overseeing the Whitewaterinvestigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had beenon the job since January 1994.

3 October Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy resignsafter he is implicated in accepting gifts fromcompanies over which his department hadjurisdiction.

15 December Former Associate Attorney GeneralWebster Hubbell, a former law partner of First LadyHillary Rodham Clinton, pleads guilty in Arkansas tocharges of mail fraud and tax evasion and is sentencedto twenty-one months in prison.

19953 January The Senate Banking Committee holdinghearings on the Whitewater land deal finds that nolaws were broken and closes the investigation.

17 May The U.S. Senate votes ninety-six to three toestablish the Special Committee to InvestigateWhitewater Development Corporation and RelatedMatters, also known as the Senate WhitewaterCommittee, chaired by Senator Alfonse D’Amato(R–NY).

9 June The U.S. Court of Appeals for the SeventhCircuit upholds the conviction of Judge Adam Stillo Sr.,who had been convicted, along with his nephew, ofconspiracy to commit extortion under the color ofofficial right, in violation of the Hobbs Act.

10 August The House Banking Committee closeshearings on the Madison Guaranty Bank allegations,finding no illegalities.

17 August A grand jury in Little Rock, Arkansas,indicts Governor Jim Guy Tucker and James and SusanMcDougal on charges of bank fraud related to theWhitewater land scheme.

26 October The Senate Whitewater Committee issuesforty-nine subpoenas to the White House and otheragencies for documents.

19 December Congress enacts the LobbyingDisclosure Act of 1995, which requires the semiannualdisclosure of the hiring of lobbyists, the areas oflegislation they specialize in, and whether a certain

lobbyist has worked for the government in the pastyear.

19964 January First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s billingrecords from the Rose law firm in Little Rock are foundon a table in the White House residence book room; itis unknown how they got there, two years after beingsubpoenaed.

22 January Independent Counsel Kenneth Starrsubpoenas Hillary Rodham Clinton to appear before afederal grand jury on the Rose law firm billing records.

26 January First Lady Hillary Rodham Clintonappears before a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury,the first such case in the American history.

22 April David Hale, a former chief of a governmentlending agency, testifies at the trial of Governor JimGuy Tucker that then-Governor Bill Clinton pressuredhim to make a fraudulent $300,000 loan to SusanMcDougal.

26 April Vice President Al Gore attends a fundraisingevent at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Los Angeles.Initially billed as “community outreach,” it is laterdiscovered that money was raised from the monks forthe Clinton/Gore 1996 campaign in violation ofcampaign finance laws.

29 May A jury convicts Whitewater defendants Jamesand Susan McDougal. James is convicted of eighteencounts, while his wife is convicted of four.

14 June The FBI issues a report on the “Filegate”scandal stating that the White House had requestedspecific files.

17 June White House security chief Craig Livingstonis questioned by the House Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight on the “Filegate”scandal.

20 June Attorney General Janet Reno asksIndependent Counsel Kenneth Starr to take over the“Filegate” investigation.

15 July Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker resignsafter he is threatened with impeachment by LieutenantGovernor Mike Huckabee. Tucker resigns andHuckabee is sworn in as governor.

Chronology 419

20 August Facing ten years’ imprisonment for hisWhitewater crimes, former Arkansas Governor Jim GuyTucker, suffering from a failing liver, receives mercyand is given four-years’ probation.

17 October The Wall Street Journal reports thatmonks from the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple visited byVice President Al Gore in April had contributed some$50,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

18 October Following the story on the Hsi LaiBuddhist temple in the Wall Street Journal, theDemocratic National Committee announces it willreimburse the temple $15,000 for Gore’s fundraiser.

28 October The Democratic National Committee,stung by reports of alleged massive campaign financelaw violations, announces that it will not file apreelection spending report with the Federal ElectionCommission.

30 October After forty-eight hours of denunciations,the Democratic National Committee reverses courseand releases a partial list of DNC donors. John Huang,an agent of the People’s Republic of China, is shown tohave visited the White House seventy-eight times in theyear before.

8 November In his first postelection news conference,Clinton says contributions from Indonesian sourceshad “absolutely not” influenced his foreign policy. Thepresident calls for campaign finance reform andendorses the so-called McCain-Feingold campaignfinance bill.

13 November Attorney General Janet Reno turnsdown a request from Senator John McCain (R–AZ) toappoint an independent counsel to investigatePresident Clinton and Vice President Gore and their1996 campaign fundraising activities.

15 November The Democratic National Committeeannounces that it will investigate tens of thousands ofdollars in contributions made to the party by Thaibusinesswoman Pauline Kanchanalak and herAmerican company, Ben Chang International.

23 November The Democratic National Committeeannounces that it will return a $450,000 donationfrom Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata, former U.S.residents who had ties to the Lippo Group. This is thelargest donation returned by the Democratic

National Committee in the burgeoning financialscandal.

17 December The legal defense fund founded to aidPresident and Mrs. Clinton during their legaldifficulties while in office divulges that some $640,000in questionable donations had been returned; much ofthese funds had come from Clinton’s friend Yah Lin“Charlie” Trie, an Arkansas businessman. An additional$122,000 is later returned to Trie.

19 December The Department of Justice announcesthat its investigation into Democratic NationalCommittee fundraising is being expanded to examinethe Clintons’ legal defense fund. Department attorneysissue subpoenas to the Presidential Legal ExpenseTrust demanding documents on the funds returned toYah Lin “Charlie” Trie.

20 December The White House admits that Yah Lin“Charlie” Trie had helped Wang Jun, a Chinese armsdealer with connections to the Communist governmentin Beijing, get into the White House for a reception inwhich Wang met with President Clinton. White HousePress Secretary Mike McCurry says that Clinton had noidea who Wang was when he met him.

28 December The Democratic National Committeereleases documents showing that the party puttogether a program called the National Asia PacificAmerican Campaign Plan, established to raise some $7million from Asians and Asian Americans. Thedocuments show that John Huang, aided by DorisMatsui, a deputy assistant to President Clinton, puttogether the plan with officials from the DemocraticNational Committee and the Clinton/Gore 1996campaign.

1997January The White House releases documentsshowing that the Democratic National Committeesponsored thirty-one “coffees” at the White House, withan unknown number attended personally by PresidentClinton and Vice President Gore.

24 January Documents released by the White Houseshow that approximately 100 “coffees,” arranged by theDemocratic National Committee, were held at theWhite House, with President Clinton at most of themand Vice President Al Gore at several. In an interview,Gore admits to “mistakes” in raising contributions,especially the controversial 29 April 1996 Buddhist

420 Chronology

Temple event, of which Gore says,“I knew it was apolitical event and I knew there were finance peoplewho were going to be present.”

28 January In his first press conference since beinginaugurated, President Clinton admits that “mistakeswere made” in his 1996 fundraising effort but deniesthat any policies were made because of the donations.

29 January Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), in aspeech on the U.S. Senate floor, calls for aninvestigation of the burgeoning White Housefundraising scandal with a staff of some eighty peopleand a budget of $6.5 million.

12 February Allegations surface that the DemocraticNational Committee has accepted contributions fromthe Chinese government in Beijing.

13 February In a press conference, President Clintoncalls for a “vigorous” and “thorough” investigation intoallegations that people from the government of thePeople’s Republic of China used contributions to theDemocratic National Committee to influence Americanforeign policy.

14 February The White House releases documentsshowing that the National Security Council warned theClinton administration that Democratic NationalCommittee fundraising trips to Asia could endangerAmerican policy there. The documents focused onDNC official Johnny Chung, who gave some $366,000 tothe party in exchange for influence and contacts. Thedocuments from the National Security Council calledChung a “hustler” and denounced his trips to China,where he was flouting his ties to the White House, as“very troubling”.

16 February Representative Dan Burton (R–IN),chairman of the House Government Reform andOversight Committee issues twenty subpoenas in thegrowing DNC fundraising scandal and tells reportershe plans to interview some 500 people before thecommittee.

20 February News reports show that several AsianAmerican businessmen told investigators that JohnHuang pressured them to provide some $250,000 indonations to the Democratic National Committee andthe Clinton/Gore campaign and asked that the moneybe masked to show it came from their lobbying group.Huang denies the charge.

21 February John Huang and former AssistantAttorney General Webster Hubbell both take the FifthAmendment and refuse to provide congressionalinvestigators with documents relating to theDemocratic National Committee fundraising scandal.Huang reportedly demands partial immunity inexchange for the documents. Democratic NationalCommittee chairman Roy Romer admits that anadditional $1 million in donations to the party wouldhave to be returned due to questionable circumstances.

26 February In a press conference, President Clintonadmits that large donors to the Democratic NationalCommittee were rewarded with overnight stays in theLincoln Bedroom. Figures later reveal that these donorsgave the Clinton/Gore campaign and/or theDemocratic National Committee some $5.4 million.

28 February The Democratic National Committeediscloses that it will return an additional $1.5 millionin improper donations that it received from seventy-seven donors in the 1996 election year. Documentsreleased by the White House show that former DeputyChief of Staff Harold Ickes planned a program toreward large donors with “better coordination onappointments to boards and commissions.”

2 March The Washington Post reports that VicePresident Al Gore made numerous fundraising callsfrom his White House office in violation of the law.

3 March Former Clinton advisor GeorgeStephanopoulos tells reporters that Vice President AlGore did make fundraising calls from his office in theWhite House in violation of campaign donation law.Gore, in a press conference, says his calls were withinthe law and that he had used a Democratic NationalCommittee credit card to make the calls. It is laterrevealed that Gore had used a Clinton/Gore 1996 creditcard.

7 March The Senate Rules Committee approvesfunding of $4.3 million to probe the WhiteHouse/Democratic National Committee fundraisingscandal, specifying that the investigation must end by31 December 1997 and a report turned in by January1998.

9 March The Washington Post reports that the FBIwarned six unnamed members of Congress that theCommunist Chinese government was using Asiandonors to buy influence in Congress and the

Chronology 421

administration. In a press conference, PresidentClinton says that he had never received this warning.

10 March Senator Dianne Feinstein (D–CA) reportsthat she will return some $12,000 in donations fromthe Lippo Group.

11 March The U.S. Senate votes unanimously toauthorize the Senate Governmental Affairs Committeeto conduct “an investigation of illegal and improperactivities in connection with 1996 Federal electioncampaigns” in an effort to get to the bottom of theDemocrats’ potential illegal fundraising.

12 March The Democratic National Committeereports that it will return a donation of $107,000 froman American Indian tribe after it is reported that thetribe may have taken the funds from a tribal welfareaccount.

13 March White House Press Secretary MikeMcCurry reports that no further White House coffeeswill be held.

17 March Clinton Central Intelligence Agencynominee Anthony Lake withdraws his nomination inthe face of allegations over his finances and hiscontacts with controversial Democratic NationalCommittee donors.

18 March U.S. House of Representatives MinorityLeader Richard Gephardt (D–MO) reports that he willreturn donations totaling $22,000 given by the LippoGroup.

23 March White House documents released showthat White House coffees were estimated to raise$400,000 each time they were held, despite earlierWhite House statements that their main reason to wasdiscuss policy and government issues.

25 April The Washington Post reports thatDepartment of Justice and other investigators havediscovered a Communist Chinese plan to spend up to$2 million to buy influence in the Clintonadministration and Congress.

29 April Visiting Washington, Chinese foreignminister Qian Qichen denies the report on the Chinesegovernment plan to use money to buy influence in theU.S. government.

8 May The Republican National Committee reportsthat it has found donations of more than $110,000from Asian sources it could not properly identify.

9 May Chinese President Jiang Zemin denies that theChinese government contributed to Americanpoliticians to gain influence in the United States.

30 May The Federal Election Commission fines theClinton/Gore 1992 campaign $15,000 for illegal loans.

9 June Documents released by the RepublicanNational Committee show that the party raised some$1.6 million from Asian donors in Hong Kong.

8 July Hearings begin before Senator FredThompson’s committee. In his introduction, Thompsonreports that he has discovered links between theChinese government and the attempts to influence the1996 U.S. election.

13 July The Justice Department tells reporters thatSenator Thompson’s assertion that the Chinesegovernment was behind the fundraising scandal hasnot been proved.

15 July Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D–CT) backsSenator Thompson’s claim that the Chinesegovernment was behind the fundraising scandal.

24 July The first Republican to testify before theThompson Committee, former Republican NationalCommittee chairman Haley Barbour, testifies that therepayment of a loan from Asian sources was “legal andproper.” He says that the money was not used for the1994 elections and that he did not discover it camefrom foreign sources until the 1996 election.

25 July Lobbyist Richard Richards disputes Barbour’stestimony, claiming that the Asian loan was in fact toelect new congressmen in 1994 and that Barbour wastold in mid-1994 of the loan’s source.

5 August President Clinton tells reporters that he is“sick at heart” that the Democratic National Committeemay have accepted foreign donations. He calls for anend to soft money in American elections.

11 August Representative Jay Kim (R–CA) pleadsguilty to charges that he accepted illegal foreigndonations to his congressional campaigns.

422 Chronology

20 August NBC News airs an interview with JohnnyHuang in which he says that he funneled a $25,000donation from the Chinese government to theDemocratic National Committee to obtain a meetingbetween a Chinese chemical official and then-Secretaryof Energy Hazel O’Leary.

24 October The Washington Post reports that theRepublicans gave some $1 million to independentgroups for the 1996 election.

11 December Former Secretary of Housing andUrban Development Henry Cisneros is indicted by afederal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on charges thathe lied to the FBI regarding hush payments to amistress.

199818 March Ronald Blackley, the former chief of staffto former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, issentenced to twenty-seven months in prison forlying to federal investigators in the Espyinvestigation.

19 March A three-judge panel names Washington,D.C., attorney Carol Elder Bruce as the independentcounsel to investigate Secretary of the Interior BruceBabbitt and his potential ties to illegal fundraisingfrom Native Americans.

8 October The U.S. House of Representatives votes tostart an impeachment investigation of President BillClinton on charges of perjury and obstruction ofjustice stemming from his testimony in a lawsuitbrought by former Arkansas government employeePaula Jones who alleged that Clinton sexually harassedher when he was governor of the state. Clinton’s denialsthat he had a sexual relationship with White Houseintern Monica Lewinsky when he testified in the Jonescase were found to be untrue and are the basis of theimpeachment charges.

19 December The U.S. House of Representatives votesto impeach President Clinton.

199912 February The U.S. Senate acquits Clinton of bothimpeachment articles.

7 September Former Secretary of Housing and UrbanDevelopment Henry Cisneros pleads guilty to a

misdemeanor after a four-year, $9 million probe intocharges he lied about payments to a former mistress.

200020 September Independent Counsel Robert Rayclears both Clintons of criminal wrongdoing in theWhitewater land deal.

28 December President Clinton ends a five-year banon the lobbying of government appointees after theyhave left government.

200120 January In the final hours of his presidency,President Bill Clinton offers 140 pardons and 36clemencies and commutations, many to controversialfigures, including Marc Rich, a fugitive from Americanjustice for 18 years; Carlos Vignali, a convicted drugdealer; Glenn Braswell, convicted of selling vitamins asa cure for diseases in the 1980s; and JohnHemmingson, convicted in 1996 of laundering moneyto cover a campaign loan for the brother of formerAgriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

15 June A federal judge sentences former MayorMilton Milan of Camden, New Jersey, to seven years,three months in prison for his convictions on fourteencounts of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering,linked to his acceptance of bribes from undercoverworld figures. The judge tells Milan that he made hiscity “a laughingstock.”

21 June The House Ethics Committee unanimouslyrebukes Representative Earl Hilliard (D–AL) fornumerous campaign finance violations, but gives himthe mildest punishment because Hilliard admits to thewrongdoing and asks for leniency from the committee.

200211 April Representative James A. Traficant Jr. (D–OH)is convicted in a federal court in Cleveland of tencounts of racketeering, bribery, and fraud.

27 September Former Representative EdwardMezvinsky (D–IA) pleads guilty to thirty-one counts offraud after admitting to bilking investors in one of hiscompanies of more than $10 million.

7 November The U.S. government files a lawsuit forMedicare and Medicaid fraud against Dr. Steve Henry,the lieutenant governor of Kentucky, claiming that he

Chronology 423

was involved in fraud while running for office in 1995and even while serving as lieutenant governor of thestate.

20036 March A federal grand jury in Austin, Texas,indicts former state Attorney General Dan Morales oncharges of misusing state tobacco fund money andcampaign funds. Morales, who had once been theDemocratic candidate for governor of Texas, was also

charged with mail fraud, conspiracy, filing a false taxreturn, and making false statements on a loanapplication.

References: “Congressional Ethics: History, Facts, andControversy” (Washington, D.C.: CongressionalQuarterly, 1992); Hoffer, Peter C., and N. E. H. Hull,“The First American Impeachments,” The Williamand Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXV:4 (October1978), 653–667; The New York Times; The WashingtonPost.

424 Chronology

BooksAbbott, Richard H.,“The Republican Party Press in

Reconstruction Georgia, 1867–1874,” Journal ofSouthern History 61, 4 (November 1995), 725–760.

Abels, Jules, The Truman Scandals (Chicago: Regnery,1956).

Abernathy, Thomas Perkins, The Burr Conspiracy (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1954).

An Account of the Impeachment and Trial of the LateFrancis Hopkinson, Esquire, Judge of the Court ofAdmiralty for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia: Printed by Francis Bailey, at Yorick’sHead, 1795).

Adams, George Burton, and H. Morse Stephens, eds.,Select Documents of English Constitutional History(New York: Macmillan, 1927).

Adams, Samuel Hopkins, Incredible Era: The Life andTimes of Warren Gamaliel Harding (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1939).

Adams, Sherman, Firsthand Report: The Story of theEisenhower Administration (New York: Harper,1961).

Agnew, Spiro T., Go Quietly . . . Or Else (New York:Morrow, 1980).

Albright, Joseph, What Makes Spiro Run: The Life andTimes of Spiro Agnew (New York: Dodd, Mead,1972).

Allen, Oliver E., The Tiger: The Rise and Fall ofTammany Hall (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1993).

Amer, Mildred, The Senate Select Committee on Ethics:A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction(Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service,1993).

Ames, Blanche Ames, Adelbert Ames, 1835–1933:General, Senator, Governor (New York: Argosy-Antiquarian, 1964).

Amick, George, The American Way of Graft: A Study ofCorruption in State and Local Government, How ItHappens, and What Can Be Done About It (Princeton,NJ: Center for Analysis of Public Issues, 1976).

Andrews, James De Witt, ed., The Works of JamesWilson: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of theUnited States and Professor of Law in the College ofPhiladelphia, Being His Public Discourses uponJurisprudence and the Political Science, IncludingLectures and Professor of Law, 1790–1792, 2 vols.(Chicago: Callaghan, 1896).

Angle, Paul M.,“The Recollections of William PittKellogg,” Abraham Lincoln Quarterly 3 (September1945), 319–339.

Anhalt, Walter C., and Glenn H. Smith,“He Saved theFarm? Governor Langer and the MortgageMoratoria,” North Dakota Quarterly 44 (Autumn1976), 5–17.

Anyon, Jean, Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy ofUrban Educational Reform (New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1997).

Astorino, Samuel J.,“The Contested Senate Election ofWilliam Scott Vare,” Pennsylvania History 28 (April1961), 187–201.

Bacon, Donald C., Roger H. Davidson, and MortonKeller, eds., The Encyclopedia of the United StatesCongress, 3 vols. (New York: Simon and Schuster,1995).

Baker, Bobby, with Larry King, Wheeling and Dealing:Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator (New York:W. W. Norton, 1978).

Baker, Peter, The Breach: Inside the Impeachment andTrial of William Jefferson Clinton (New York:Scribner, 2000).

Baker, Ross K., The New Fat Cats: Members of Congressas Political Benefactors (New York: Priority Press,1989).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

425

Balch, William Ralston, The Life of James AbramGarfield, Late President of the United States. TheRecord of a Wonderful Career (New York: William H.Shepard, 1881).

Baltimore Reform League, Special Report of theExecutive Committee of Baltimore Reform League asto the Statements of Candidates and Others, Filedunder Provisions of the Corrupt Practices ActSubsequently to the Primary Election forRepresentatives in Congress, Held August 30, 1910(Baltimore, MD: The League, 1910).

Barber, Charles M.,“A Diamond in the Rough: WilliamLanger Reexamined,” North Dakota History 64 (Fall1998), 2–18.

Barnhart, Bill, and Gene Schickman, Kerner: TheConflict of Intangible Rights (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1999).

Barry, John M., The Ambition and the Power (New York:Viking, 1989).

Barth, Alan, Government by Investigation (New York:Viking, 1955).

Bates, J. Leonard,“Walsh of Montana in DakotaTerritory: Political Beginnings, 1884–90,” PacificNorthwest Quarterly 56 (July 1965), 114–124.

———,“Politics and Ideology: Thomas J. Walsh andthe Rise of Populism,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly65 (April 1974), 49–56.

———, Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana: Law andPublic Affairs, from TR to FDR (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1999).

Bean, Walton, Boss Ruef ’s San Francisco: The Story ofthe Union Labor Party, Big Business, and the GraftProsecution (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1952).

Beatty, Jack, The Rascal King: The Life and Times ofJames Michael Curley (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993).

Bell, William Gardner, Secretaries of War andSecretaries of the Army: Portraits and BiographicalSketches (Washington, DC: United States ArmyCenter of Military History, 1982).

Benson, George Charles Sumner, Political Corruptionin America (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,1978).

Berg, Larry L., Corruption in the American PoliticalSystem (Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press,1976).

Berger, Raoul, Impeachment: The ConstitutionalProblems (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1973).

———, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974).

Bernard, George S., Civil Service Reform versus theSpoils System. The Merit Plan for the Filling of PublicOffices Advocated in a Series of Articles OriginallyPublished in a Virginia Journal (New York: J. B.Alden, 1885).

Bingham, Alfred M.,“Raiders of the Lost City,”American Heritage 38 (July/August 1987), 54–64.

———, Portrait of an Explorer: Hiram Bingham,Discover of Machu Picchu (Ames: Iowa StateUniversity Press, 1989).

Bingham, Hiram, An Explorer in the Air Service (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1920).

Bingham, Woodbridge, Hiram Bingham: A PersonalHistory (Boulder, CO: Bin Lan Zhen, 1989).

Binning, William C., Larry Esterly, and Paul A. Sracic,Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns, andElections (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999).

Binstein, Michael, Trust Me: Charles Keating and theMissing Billions (New York: Random House, 1993).

Biographical Directory of the American Congress,1774–1996 (Alexandria,VA: CQ Staff Directories,1996).

Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Lobbyists: How InfluencePeddlers Get Their Way in Washington (New York:Times Books, 1992).

———,“The Influence Merchants,” Fortune 138, 11 (7December 1998), 134–138.

Black, Charles L., Jr., Impeachment: A Handbook (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974).

Blackmar, Frank Wilson, The Life of Charles Robinson,the First State Governor of Kansas (Topeka, KS:Crane & Company, 1901).

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West,1990).

Blodgett, Geoffrey T.,“The Mind of the BostonMugwumps,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review48, 4 (March 1962), 614–634.

Bloss, George, Life and Speeches of George H. Pendleton(Cincinnati, OH: Miami Printing and PublishingCo., 1868).

Bodenhamer, David J., and Robert G. Barrows, eds., TheEncyclopedia of Indianapolis (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1994).

Boettcher, Robert, Gifts of Deceit: Sun Myung Moon,Tongsun Park, and the Korean Scandal (New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980).

Bollens, John Constantinus, Political Corruption: Power,Money, and Sex (Pacific Palisades, CA: PalisadesPublishers, 1979).

Boomhower, Ray, Jacob Piatt Dunn, Jr.: A Life in Historyand Politics (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1998).

426 Bibliography

Borkin, Joseph, The Corrupt Judge: An Inquiry intoBribery and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanorsin the Federal Courts (New York: Clarkson N. Potter,1962).

Bouvier, John, A Law Dictionary, Adapted to theConstitution and Laws of the United States ofAmerica, and of the Several States of the AmericanUnion: with References to the Civil and other Systemsof Foreign Law, Daniel Angell Gleason, ed.(Philadelphia: G. W. Childs, Printer, 1868).

Boynton, H.V.,“The Whiskey Ring,” North AmericanReview 252 (October 1876), 280–327.

Bridges, Tyler, Bad Bet on the Bayou: The Rise ofGambling in Louisiana and the Fall of GovernorEdwin Edwards (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux,2001).

Brown, Canter, Jr.,“Carpetbagger Intrigues, BlackLeadership, and a Southern Loyalist Triumph:Florida’s Gubernatorial Election of 1872,” FloridaHistorical Quarterly 72, 3 (1994), 275–301.

Buice, S. David,“The Military Career of AdelbertAmes,” Southern Quarterly 2 (April 1964),236–246.

Burnham, David, Above the Law: Secret Deals, PoliticalFixes and Other Misadventures of the U.S.Department of Justice (New York: Charles Scribner’sSons, 1996).

Busch, Francis X., Enemies of the State: An Account ofthe Trials of the Mary Eugenia Surratt Case, theTeapot Dome Cases, the Alphonse Capone Case, theRosenberg Case (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,1954).

Bushnell, Eleanore,“The Impeachment and Trial ofJames H. Peck,” Missouri Historical Review 74(January 1980), 137–165.

———,“One of Twelve: The Nevada ImpeachmentConnection,” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 26,4 (Winter 1983), 2–12.

———,“Judge Harry E. Claiborne and the FederalImpeachment Process,” Nevada Historical SocietyQuarterly XXXII:32, 4 (Winter 1989), 3–12.

———, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The FederalImpeachment Trials (Urbana and Chicago:University of Illinois Press, 1992).

Butler, Anne M., United States Senate Election,Expulsion, and Censure Cases, 1793–1990(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1995).

Butler, Anne M., and Wendy Wolff, United States SenateElection, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793–1990(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1995).

Byrd, Robert C., The Senate, 1789–1989: HistoricalStatistics, 1789–1992, 4 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1993).

Calendar of State Papers: Domestic Series, of the Reignof William and Mary, 5 vols. William John Hardy,ed. (London: Printed for His Majesty’s StationeryOffice by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1895–1906).

Calkins, Hiram, and Dewitt Van Buren, BiographicalSketches of John T. Hoffman and Allen C. Beach: TheDemocratic Nominees for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New York. Also, a Record ofthe Events in the Lives of Oliver Bascom, David B.McNeil, and Edwin O. Perrin, the Other Candidateson the Same Ticket (New York: New York PrintingCompany, 1868).

Caperton, Thomas J., Rogue! Being an Account of theLife and High Times of Stephen W. Dorsey, UnitedStates Senator and New Mexico Cattle Baron (SantaFe, NM: Museum of New Mexico Press, 1978).

Caplan, Lincoln, The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor Generaland the Rule of Law (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1987).

Cary, Edward, George William Curtis (Boston:Houghton, Mifflin, 1894).

Chandler, Peleg W., American Criminal Trials, 2 vols.(Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown,1841–1844).

Charlton, Thomas Usher Pulaski, The Life of MajorGeneral James Jackson (Augusta, GA: Geo. F.Randolph & Co., 1809).

Chase, Harold, et al., comps., Biographical Dictionary ofthe Federal Judiciary (Detroit, MI: Gale ResearchCompany, 1976).

Chester, Edward W.,“The Impact of the CovodeCongressional Investigation,” Western PennsylvaniaHistorical Magazine 42 (December 1959), 343–350.

Clark, John G.,“Mark W. Delahay: PeripateticPolitician,” Kansas Historical Quarterly 25, 3(Autumn 1959), 301–312.

Clarke, Mary Patterson, Parliamentary Privilege in theAmerican Colonies: Essays in Colonial HistoryPresented to Charles McLean Andrews (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1943).

Clayton, Powell, The Aftermath of the Civil War, inArkansas (New York: Neale Publishing, 1915).

Clinton, Henry Lauren, Celebrated Trials (New York:Harper & Brothers, 1897).

Clopton, John, Mr. Clopton’s Motion Proposing anAmendment to the Constitution of the United States(Washington, DC: A. & G. Way, 1808).

Cockburn, Alexander, Al Gore: A User’s Manual(London: Verso, 2000).

Bibliography 427

Cohen, Richard E., Rostenkowski: The Pursuit of Powerand the End of the Old Politics (Chicago: Ivan R.Dee, 1999).

———,“Rosty Revisited,” National Journal 31, 42 (16October 1999), 2956–2965.

Cohen, Richard M., and Jules Witcover, A HeartbeatAway: The Investigation and Resignation of VicePresident Spiro T. Agnew (New York: Viking, 1974).

Cohen, William S., and George J. Mitchell, Men of Zeal:A Candid Inside Story of the Iran-Contra Hearings(New York: Viking, 1988).

A Collection of Some Memorable and WeightyTransactions in Parliament; in the Year 1678, andAfterwards; In Relation to the Impeachment ofThomas Earl of Danby (London: PrivatelyPublished, 1695).

Congressional Ethics (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1980).

Congressional Ethics: History, Facts, and Controversy(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1992).

Connally, John B., with Mickey Herskowitz, In History’sShadow: An American Odyssey (New York:Hyperion, 1993).

Conrad, Barnaby, San Francisco: A Profile with Pictures(New York: Bramhall House, 1959).

Cook, James F., The Governors of Georgia, 1754–1995(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995).

Costello, William, The Facts about Nixon: AnUnauthorized Biography (New York: Viking, 1960).

Cramer, Clarence Henley, Royal Bob: The Life of RobertG. Ingersoll (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,1952).

Crawford, Jay Boyd, The Crédit Mobilier of America–ItsOrigin and History, Its Work of Constructing theUnion Pacific Railroad and the Relation of Membersof Congress Therewith (Boston: C. W. Calkins & Co.,1880).

Croker, Richard,“Tammany Hall and the Democracy,”North American Review 154, 423 (February 1892),225–230.

Cumming, Hiram, Secret History of the Perfidies,Intrigues, and Corruptions of the Tyler Dynasty, withthe Mysteries of Washington City, Connected withthat Vile Administration, in a Series of Letters to theEx-acting President, by One Most Familiar with theSubject (Washington and New York: [Published by]The Author, 1845).

Curley, James Michael, I’d Do It Again: A Record of AllMy Uproarious Years (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1957).

Current, Richard N., Three Carpetbag Governors (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967).

Curtis, George William, Orations and Addresses ofGeorge William Curtis, Charles Eliot Norton, ed.(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1894).

Czitrom, Daniel,“Underworlds and Underdogs: BigTime Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in NewYork, 1889–1913,” Journal of American History 78, 2(September 1991), 536–558.

Daugherty, Harry M., and Thomas Dixon, The InsideStory of the Harding Tragedy (New York: ChurchillCompany, 1932).

Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek, Congressand Its Members (Washington, DC: CQ Press,1994).

Davis, Charles B.,“Judge James Hawkins Peck,” MissouriHistorical Review 27, 1 (October 1932), 3–20.

Davis, Joseph Stancliffe, Essays in the Earlier History ofAmerican Corporations (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1917).

Davis, William Watson, The Civil War andReconstruction in Florida (New York: ColumbiaUniversity, 1913).

DeShields, James T., They Sat in High Places: ThePresidents and Governors of Texas (San Antonio:Naylor Company, 1940).

Dewey, John, ed., New York and the SeaburyInvestigation: A Digest and Interpretation of theReports by Samuel Seabury Concerning theGovernment of New York City, Prepared by aCommittee of Educators and Civic Workers under theChairmanship of John Dewey (New York: City AffairsCommittee of New York, 1933).

Dewey, Thomas E., Twenty against the Underworld(New York: Doubleday, 1974).

Dickinson, William B., Jr., comp., Watergate: Chronologyof a Crisis (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1973).

Dictionary of American History, 7 vols. (New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976–1978).

Dimock, Marshall Edward, Congressional InvestigatingCommittees (Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1929).

Dinneen, Joseph F., The Purple Shamrock: TheHonorable James Michael Curley of Boston (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1949).

Dionisopoulos, P. Allan, Rebellion, Racism andRepresentation: The Adam Clayton Powell Case andIts Antecedents (DeKalb: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1970).

Dionne, E. J., and William Kristol, eds., Bush v. Gore:The Court Cases and the Commentary(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,2001).

428 Bibliography

Donovan, Timothy P., Willard B. Gatewood Jr., andJeannie M. Whayne, eds., The Governors ofArkansas: Essays in Political Biography (Fayetteville:University of Arkansas Press, 1995).

Dorman B. Eaton: 1823–1899 (New York: PrivatelyPublished, 1900).

Draper, Robert,“Elegy for Edwin Edwards, Man of thePeople,” GQ (July 2000), 160–167, 184–186.

Driggs, Orval Truman, Jr.,“The Issues of the PowellClayton Regime, 1868–1871,” Arkansas HistoricalQuarterly 8 (Spring 1949), 1–75.

Duker, William F.,“The Presidential Power to Pardon: AConstitutional History,” William and Mary LawReview 18 (1977), 475–538.

Dunar, Andrew J., The Truman Scandals and the Politicsof Morality (Columbia: University of MissouriPress, 1984).

Duncan, Philip D., and Christine C. Lawrence,Congressional Quarterly’s Politics in America 1996:The 104th Congress (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly, 1995).

Duran, Tobias,“Francisco Chalvez, Thomas B. Catron,and Organized Political Violence in Santa Fe in the1890s,” New Mexico Historical Review 59 (July1984), 291–310.

Dwight, Theodore,“Trial by Impeachment,” AmericanLaw Register (University of Pennsylvania LawReview) 6 (November 1866–November 1867),257–283.

Easby-Smith, J. S., The Department of Justice: Its Historyand Functions (Washington, DC: W. H. Lowdermilk& Co., 1904).

Eberling, Ernest J., Congressional Investigation: A Studyof the Origin and Development of the Power ofCongress to Investigate and Punish for Contempt(New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).

Elkin, Steven L.,“Contempt of Congress: The Iran-Contra Affair and the American Constitution,”Congress and the Presidency 18, 1 (Spring 1991),1–16.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed., The Debates in the Several StateConventions on the Adoption of the FederalConstitution, as Recommended by the GeneralConvention at Philadelphia in 1787. Together withthe Journal of the Federal Convention, LutherMartin’s letter, Yates’s Minutes, CongressionalOpinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of’98–’99, and other Illustrations of the Constitution.Collected and Revised from ContemporaryPublications, by Jonathan Elliott. Published underthe Sanction of Congress, 5 vols. (Washington, DC:Printed for the editor, 1836–1845).

Essays in the History of New York City: A Memorial toSidney Pomerantz (Port Washington, NY: KennikatPress, 1978).

Evans, C. Lawrence, Leadership in Committee: AComparative Analysis of Leadership Behavior in theU.S. Senate (Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1991).

Ewing, Cortez A. M.,“Early Kansas Impeachments,”Kansas Historical Quarterly 1, 4 (August 1932),307–325.

———,“Two Reconstruction Impeachments,” NorthCarolina Historical Review 15, 3 (July 1938),204–225.

———,“Notes on Two Kansas Impeachments,”Kansas Historical Quarterly 23, 3 (Autumn 1957),281–297.

The Fall of a President by the Staff of the WashingtonPost (New York: Dell, 1974).

Farrand, Max, Records from the Federal Convention(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911).

Faust, Patricia L., ed., Historical Times IllustratedEncyclopedia of the Civil War (New York: Harper &Row, 1986).

Federal Election Commission, Campaign Guide forCongressional Candidates and Committees(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1995).

Feerick, John,“Impeaching Federal Judges: A Study ofthe Constitutional Provisions,” Fordham LawReview 39 (1970–1971), 1–58.

Fischer, Roger A., Them Damned Pictures: Explorationsin American Cartoon Art (North Haven, CT: ArchonBooks, 1996).

Fisher, Louis, Constitutional Conflicts Between Congressand the President (Lawrence: University Press ofKansas, 1997).

Fletcher, Robert, ed., Amherst College: BiographicalRecord of the Graduates and Non-Graduates.Centennial Edition, 1821–1921 (Amherst, MA:Published by the College, 1927).

Foley, Michael, The New Senate: Liberal Influence on aConservative Institution, 1959–1972 (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1980).

Forward, Ross, Political Reform. An Exposition of theCauses Which Have Produced Political Corruption inthe United States, and a Presentation of the OnlyReform Now Adequate to Save Our Present Form ofGovernment (Cincinnati, OH: Printed by JamesBarclay, 1886).

Foster, William, James Jackson: Duelist and MilitantStatesman (Athens: University of Georgia Press,1960).

Bibliography 429

Fowle, Eleanor, Cranston, the Senator from California(San Rafael, CA: Presidio Press, 1980).

Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield, The Cabinet Politician: ThePostmasters General, 1829–1909 (New York:Columbia University Press, 1943).

———,“Precursors of the Hatch Act,” MississippiValley Historical Review 47, 2 (September 1960),247–262.

Foxe, Fanne, Fanne Foxe, by Annabel “Fanne Foxe”Battistella with Yvonne Dunleavy (New York:Pinnacle Books, 1975).

Frankfurter, Felix, and James Landis, The Business ofthe Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal JudicialSystem (New York: Macmillan, 1928).

Friedman, Jacob Alexis, The Impeachment of GovernorWilliam Sulzer (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1939).

Fuller, Hubert Bruce, The Speakers of the House(Boston: Little, Brown, 1909).

Galloway, George Barnes, History of the House ofRepresentatives (New York: Crowell, 1962).

Garment, Suzanne, Scandal: The Crisis of Mistrust inAmerican Politics (New York: Times Books, 1991).

Garraty, John A., and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds.,American National Biography, 24 vols. (New York:Oxford University Press, 1999).

Geelan, Agnes, The Dakota Maverick: The Political Lifeof William Langer, also Known as “Wild Bill” Langer(Fargo, ND: Privately Published, 1975).

Gertz, Bill, Betrayal: How the Clinton AdministrationUndermined American Security (Washington, DC:Regnery Publishing, 1999).

Gianos, Phillip L., Politics and Politicians in AmericanFilm (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).

Giglio, James N., H. M. Daugherty and the Politics ofExpediency (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press,1978).

Goehlert, Robert, Political Corruption: A SelectedBibliography (Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies,1985).

Golden, David A.,“The Ethics Reform Act of 1987: Whythe Taxman Can’t Be a Paperback Writer,” BrighamYoung University Law Review 1991 (1991),1025–1051.

Goodpasture, Albert V.,“William Blount and theSouthwest Territory,” American Historical Magazineand Tennessee Historical Society Quarterly 8(January 1903), 1–13.

“Götterdämmerung in Topeka: The Downfall ofSenator Pomeroy,” Kansas Historical Quarterly 18, 3(Autumn 1950), 243–278.

Grabow, John C., Congressional Investigations: Law andPractice (Clifton, NJ: Prentice Hall Law & Business,1988).

Grant, Marilyn,“Judge Levi Hubbell: A ManImpeached,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 64, 1(Autumn 1980), 28–39.

Griffin, Appleton Prentiss Clark, Selected List ofReferences on Impeachment (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1905).

Grossman, Mark, The ABC-CLIO Companion to theNative American Rights Movement (Santa Barbara,CA: ABC-CLIO, 1996).

———, Encyclopedia of the United States Cabinet, 3vols. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000).

Guenther, Nancy Anderman, United States SupremeCourt Decisions: An Index to Excerpts, Reprints, andDiscussions (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1983).

Hackbart-Dean, Pamela,“Herman E. Talmadge: FromCivil Rights to Watergate,” Georgia HistoricalQuarterly 77 (Spring 1993), 145–157.

Hall, Kermit L.,“West H. Humphreys and the Crisis ofthe Union,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 34, 1(Spring 1975), 48–69.

Hallam, Elizabeth, ed., Medieval Monarchs (London:Tiger Books International, 1996).

Hamilton, Charles V., Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.: ThePolitical Biography of an American Dilemma (NewYork: Atheneum, 1991).

Hamilton, James, The Power to Probe: A Study ofCongressional Investigations (New York: RandomHouse, 1976).

Hansen, Gladys, San Francisco Almanac: Everything YouWant to Know about the City (San Francisco:Chronicle Books, 1975).

Harriger, Katy Jean, Independent Justice: The FederalSpecial Prosecutor in American Politics (Lawrence:University Press of Kansas, 1992).

Hazard, Rowland,“The Crédit Mobilier of America: APaper Read Before the Rhode Island HistoricalSociety, Tuesday Evening, February 22, 1881, byRowland Hazard” (Providence, RI: S. S. Rider,1881).

Heidenheimer, Arnold, Michael Johnston, and VictorLeVine, eds., Political Corruption: A Handbook(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers,1990).

Herbert, Edward, The Impeachment of Sir EdwardHarbert, Knight, His Maiesties Attourney Generall, bythe Commons Assembled in Parliament (London:Printed for Iohn Burroughes, and Iohn Franke,1641).

430 Bibliography

Hershkowitz, Leo, Tweed’s New York: Another Look(Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1977).

Hichborn, Franklin, “The System” as Uncovered by theSan Francisco Graft Prosecution (San Francisco:Press of the James H. Barry Company, 1915).

Hildreth, Richard, The History of the United States ofAmerica, from the Discovery of the Continent to theOrganization of Government under the FederalConstitution, 6 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers,1880).

Hillin, Hank, FBI Codename TENNPAR: Tennessee’s RayBlanton Years (Nashville, TN: Pine Hall Press, 1985).

Hinds, Asher Crosby, Hinds’ Precedents of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States, IncludingReferences to Provisions of the Constitution, theLaws, and Decisions of the United States Senate, 8vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1907–1908).

Hodder, Alfred, A Fight for the City (New York:Macmillan, 1903).

Hoffer, Peter C., and N. E. H. Hull,“The First AmericanImpeachments,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3dSeries, 35, 4 (October 1978), 653–667.

———, Impeachment in America, 1635–1805 (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984).

Hoffman, John Thompson, Law and Order (New York:United States Publishing Company, 1876).

Holden, William Woods, Memoirs of W. W. Holden(Durham, NC: Seeman Printery, 1911).

Holli, Melvin G., and Peter d’A. Jones, eds., BiographicalDictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981).

Holzworth, John M., The Fighting Governor: The Storyof William Langer and the State of North Dakota(Chicago: Pointer Press, 1938).

Hoogenboom, Ari,“The Pendleton Act and CivilService,” American Historical Review 64, 2 (January1959), 301–318.

———,“Thomas A. Jenckes and Civil Service Reform,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (March1961), 636–658.

———, Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the CivilService Reform Movement, 1865–1883 (Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1961).

Hoogenboom, Ari, and Olive Hoogenboom, A History ofthe ICC: From Panacea to Palliative (New York: W. W.Norton, 1976).

Howard, Thomas W.,“Peter G.Van Winkle’s Vote in theImpeachment of President Andrew Johnson: A WestVirginian as a Profile in Courage,” West VirginiaHistory 35, 4 (1974), 290–295.

Humbert, W. H., The Pardoning Power of the President(Washington, DC: American Council on PublicAffairs, 1941).

“Impeachment of the President,” Law Reporter 7(August 1844), 161–169.

Impeachment Trial of David Butler, Governor ofNebraska, at Lincoln. Messrs. Bell, Hall and Brown,Official Reporters (Omaha, NE: Tribune Steam Bookand Job Printing House, 1871).

Ingersoll, Lurton D., A History of the War Department ofthe United States, with Biographical Sketches of theSecretaries (Washington, DC: Francis B. Mohun,1879).

Jackley, John L., Below the Beltway: Money, Power, andSex in Bill Clinton’s Washington (Washington, DC:Regnery Publishing, 1996).

Jackson, Brooks, Honest Graft: Big Money and theAmerican Political Process (Washington, DC:Farragut Publishing, 1990).

Jackson, Kenneth T., ed., The Encyclopedia of New YorkCity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

Jacobs, Bradford, Thimbleriggers: The Law v. GovernorMarvin Mandel (Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1984).

Jacobsen, Joel K.“An Excess of Law in Lincoln County:Thomas Catron, Samuel Axtell, and the LincolnCounty War,” New Mexico Historical Review 68(April 1993), 133–151.

Jefferson, Thomas, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10vols. Collected and edited by Paul Leicester Ford(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892–1899).

Jenkins, Sammy S., Mecham, Arizona’s FightingGovernor: A Constitutional Conflict,“Freedom of thePress” or Political Assassination (Albuquerque, NM:All States Publishing, 1988).

Jennewein, J. Leonard, and Jane Boorman, eds., DakotaPanorama (Bismarck: Dakota Territory CentennialCommission, 1961).

Johnson, Allen, and Dumas Malone, et al., eds.,Dictionary of American Biography, X vols. and 10supplements (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1930–1995).

Johnson, John W., ed., Historic U.S. Court Cases,1690–1990: An Encyclopedia (New York: Garland,1992), 19–22.

Johnson, Loch K., Erna Gelles, and John C. Kuzenski,“The Study of Congressional Investigations:Research Strategies,” Congress and the Presidency19, 2 (Autumn 1992), 137–156.

Johnson, Rossiter, ed., The Twentieth CenturyBiographical Dictionary of Notable Americans: Brief

Bibliography 431

Biographies of Authors, Administrators, Clergymen,Commanders, Editors, Engineers, Jurists, Merchants,Officials, Philanthropists, Scientists, Statesman, andOthers Who Are Making American History, 10 vols.(Boston: Biographical Society, 1897–1904).

Jones, Robert F.,“William Duer and the Business ofGovernment in the Era of the AmericanRevolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 32, 3 (July1975), 393–416.

Joyner, Fred B.,“Robert Cumming Schenck, FirstCitizen and Statesman of the Miami Valley,” OhioState Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 58(July 1949), 286–297.

Kleber, John E., ed., The Kentucky Encyclopedia(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992).

Klotsche, J. Martin,“The Star Route Cases,” MississippiValley Historical Review 22, 3 (December 1935),405–418.

Klotter, James C., William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1977).

Knapperman, Edward W., ed., Great American Trials(Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1994).

Kohn, George C., Encyclopedia of American Scandal:From ABSCAM to the Zenger Case (New York: Factson File, 1989).

Kvasnicka, Robert M., and Herman J.Viola, TheCommissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824–1977(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979).

Lacayo, Richard, and Adam Cohen,“Inside Starr andHis Operation,” Time, 9 February 1998, 42–48.

LaForte, Robert S.,“Gilded Age Senator: The Election,Investigation, and Resignation of AlexanderCaldwell, 1871–1873,” Kansas History 21, 4 (Winter1998–1999), 234–255.

Lamplugh, George R.“‘Oh The Colossus! TheColossus!’: James Jackson and the JeffersonianRepublican Party in Georgia, 1796–1806,” Journal ofthe Early Republic 9 (Fall 1989), 315–334.

Lance, Bert, The Truth of the Matter: My Life in and outof Politics (New York: Summit Books, 1991).

Larsen, Lawrence H.,“William Langer: A Maverick inthe Senate,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 44(Spring 1961), 189–198.

Larsen, Lawrence H., and Nancy J. Hulston, Pendergast!(Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997).

Lawrence, Alexander A.,“James Jackson: PassionatePatriot,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 34 (June1950), 75–86.

Lawrence, William,“The Law of Impeachment,”American Law Register 6 (1867), 641–680.

Lederkramer, David M.,“A Statutory Proposal for Case-by-Case Congressional Waiver of the Speech or

Debate Privilege in Bribery Cases,” Cardozo LawReview 3, 3 (Spring 1982), 465–518.

Lee, David D.“The Attempt to Impeach GovernorHorton,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, XXXIV:2(Summer 1975), 188–201.

Levey, Peter B., Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996).

Lewis, Alfred Henry, Richard Croker (New York: LifePublishing, 1901).

Littlefield, Charles E.,“The Impeachment of JudgeSwayne,” Green Bag 17 (April 1905), 193–207.

Logan, David A., Historical Uses of a Special Prosecutor:The Administrations of Presidents Grant, Coolidge,and Truman (Washington, DC: CongressionalResearch Service, 1973).

Lord, Stuart B.,“Adelbert Ames, Soldier Politician: AReevaluation,” Maine Historical Society Quarterly 13(Fall 1973), 81–97.

Loth, David, Public Plunder: A History of Graft inAmerica (New York: Carrick & Evans, 1938).

Lowry, Sharon K.,“Mirrors and Blue Smoke: StephenDorsey and the Santa Fe Ring in the 1880s,” NewMexico Historical Review 59 (October 1984),395–409.

Lucas, Jim Griffing, Agnew: Profile in Conflict (NewYork: Award Books, 1970).

Lynch, Denis Tilden, “Boss” Tweed: The Story of aGrim Generation (New York: Boni and Liveright,1927).

Mach, Thomas Stuart,“George Hunt Pendleton, TheOhio Idea and Political Continuity inReconstruction America,” Ohio History 108(Summer–Autumn 1999), 125–144.

Makinson, Larry, and Joshua Goldstein, Open Secrets:The Encyclopedia of Congressional Money andPolitics (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,1992).

Malone, Michael P.,“Midas of the West: The IncredibleCareer of William Andrews Clark,” Montana:Magazine of Western History 33 (Autumn 1983),2–17.

Mankiewicz, Frank, U.S. v. Richard Nixon: The FinalCrisis (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times BookCompany, 1975).

Manley, John F., The Politics of Finance: the HouseCommittee on Ways and Means (Boston: Little,Brown, 1970).

Marsh, Robert, Agnew: The Unexamined Man—APolitical Profile (New York: M. Evans, 1971).

Marshall, James V., The United States Manual ofBiography and History (Philadelphia: James B.Smith & Co., 1856).

432 Bibliography

Marshall, Prince J. The Impeachment of WarrenHastings (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).

Martin, Edward Sandford, The Life of Joseph HodgesChoate, As Gathered Chiefly from His Letters, 2 vols.(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920).

Martin, Edward Winslow, The Life and Public Servicesof Schuyler Colfax, Together with His Most ImportantSpeeches (New York: United States PublishingCompany, 1868).

May, Thomas Erskine, Lord Farnborough, A Treatise onthe Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage ofParliament (London: Butterworths, 1873).

Mazo, Earl, Nixon: A Political Portrait (New York:Harper & Row, 1968).

McAfee, John J., Kentucky Politicians—Sketches ofRepresentatives (Louisville, KY: Courier Job PrintingCompany, 1886).

McDonald, John, Secrets of the Great Whiskey Ring,Containing a Complete Exposure of the IllicitWhiskey Frauds Culminating in 1875, and theConnection of Grant, Babcock, Douglas, Chester H.Krum, and Other Administration Officers,Established by Positive and UnequivocalDocumentary Proofs, Comprising Facsimiles ofConfidential Letters and Telegrams Emanating Fromthe White House, Directing the Management of theRing. Also Photographs of Grant, Babcock, Bristow,Garfield and the Famous Sylph. To Which Is Addedthe Missing Links in the Chain of Evidence of JamesA. Garfield’s Implication with the District ofColumbia Ring and Crédit Mobilier Bribery(Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Co., 1880).

McFarland, Gerald W., Mugwumps, Morals & Politics,1884–1920 (Amherst: University of MassachusettsPress, 1975).

McGeary, Nelson, The Developments of CongressionalInvestigative Power (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1940).

McGinnis, Patrick J.,“A Case of Judicial Misconduct:The Impeachment and Trial of Robert W. Archbald,”Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography101 (1977), 506–520.

McMullin, Thomas A., and David Walker, BiographicalDirectory of American Territorial Governors(Westport, CT: Meckler Publishing, 1984).

McMurray, Carl D., The Impeachment of Circuit JudgeRichard Kelly (Tallahassee: Florida State University,1964).

Mecham, Evan, Impeachment: The Arizona Conspiracy(Glendale, AZ: MP Press, 1988).

Melton, Buckner F., Jr., The First Impeachment: TheConstitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator

William Blount (Macon, GA: Mercer UniversityPress, 1998).

Merriner, James L., Mr. Chairman: Power in DanRostenkowski’s America (Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University Press, 1999).

Messick, Hank, The Politics of Prosecution: JimThompson, Marje Everett, Richard Nixon and theTrial of Otto Kerner (Ottawa, IL: Caroline HouseBooks, 1978).

Miller, Lillian B., et al., “If Elected . . .”: UnsuccessfulCandidates for the Presidency, 1796–1968(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press,1972).

Milne, Gordon, George William Curtis and the GenteelTradition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1956).

Mitchell, Jack, Executive Privilege: Two Centuries ofWhite House Scandals (New York: HippocreneBooks, 1992).

Mitgang, Herbert, The Man Who Rode the Tiger: TheLife of Judge Samuel Seabury and the Story of theGreatest Investigation of City Corruption in thisCentury (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979).

———, Once Upon a Time in New York: Jimmy Walker,Franklin Roosevelt, and the Last Great Battle of theJazz Age (New York: Free Press, 2000).

Mittlebeeler, Emmet V.,“The Great KentuckyAbsconsion,” Filson Club History Quarterly 27(1953), 335–352.

Moore, Kathleen Dean, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and thePublic Interest (New York: Oxford University Press,1997).

Morgan, Chester, Redneck Liberal: Theodore G. Bilboand the New Deal (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1985).

Morgenthau, Henry,“All in a Life-Time—Chaptersfrom an Autobiography. II. What I Learned FromSulzer and Tammany,” World’s Work 42, 5(September 1921), 465–479.

Moritz, Charles, ed., Current Biography 1977 (New York:H. W. Wilson & Co., 1977).

Morris, Newbold, Let the Chips Fall: My Battles withCorruption (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1955).

Mullaney, Marie Marmo, Biographical Directory of theGovernors of the United States, 1983–1988(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988).

———, Biographical Directory of the Governors of theUnited States, 1988–1994 (Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1994).

Munro, William Bennett, The Initiative, Referendumand Recall (New York: Appleton, 1912).

Bibliography 433

Muzzey, David Saville, James G. Blaine: A Political Idolof Other Days (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1935).

Myers, Gustavus, The History of Tammany Hall (NewYork: Boni and Liveright, 1917).

Nalle, Ouida Ferguson, The Fergusons of Texas; Or,“TwoGovernors for the Price of One”: A Biography ofJames Edward Ferguson and His Wife, MiriamAmanda Ferguson, ex-Governors of the State ofTexas (San Antonio, TX: Naylor Company, 1946).

Nash, Jay Robert, Encyclopedia of World Crime:Criminal Justice, Criminology, and Law Enforcement,4 vols. (Wilmette, IL: CrimeBooks, 1989).

The National Cyclopædia of American Biography, 57vols. and supplements A-N (New York: James T.White & Company, 1897–1984).

Noggle, Burl, Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the 1920s(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,1962).

Northrop, William Bacot, The Insolence of Office: TheStory of the Seabury Investigations (New York andLondon: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1932).

O’Callaghan, Jerry A.“Senator John H. Mitchell and theOregon Land Frauds, 1905,” Pacific HistoricalReview 21 (August 1952): 255–261.

O’Connor, Richard, Courtroom Warrior: The CombativeCareer of William Travers Jerome (Boston: Little,Brown, 1963).

Omrcanin, Margaret Stewart, The Novel and PoliticalInsurgency (Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company,1973).

Paine, Albert Bigelow, Mark Twain: A Biography (NewYork: Harper & Brothers, 1912).

Peskin, Allan, Garfield: A Biography (Kent, OH: KentState University Press, 1999).

Phillips, Cabell B. H., The Truman Presidency: TheHistory of a Triumphant Succession (New York:Macmillan, 1962).

Phillips, David Graham,“The Treason of the Senate,”Cosmopolitan 40, 5 (March 1906), 487–502.

Pink, Louis Heaton, Gaynor, the Tammany Mayor WhoSwallowed the Tiger: Lawyer, Judge, Philosopher(New York: International Press, 1931).

Pitcher, M. Avis,“John Smith, First Senator from Ohioand His Connections with Aaron Burr,”Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly 45(1936), 68–75.

Plucknett, Theodore Frank Thomas, Studies in EnglishHistory (London: Hambledon Press, 1983).

Plummer, Mark A.,“Profile in Courage? Edmund G.Ross and the Impeachment Trial,” MidwestQuarterly, 27 (1985), 30–48.

Plungis, Jeff,“The Driving Force of Bud Shuster,” CQWeekly, 7 August 1999, 1914–1919.

Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., and Frederic WilliamMaitland, The History of English Law Before theTime of Edward I, 2 vols. (Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 1899).

Porter, David,“Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of1939,” New Mexico Historical Review, 48 (April1973), 151–161.

Posner, Richard A., An Affair of State: The Investigation,Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

Powell, Adam Clayton, Adam by Adam (New York: DialPress, 1971).

Powers, Caleb, My Own Story: An Account of theConditions in Kentucky Leading to the Assassinationof William Goebel, Who Was Declared Governor ofthe State, and My Indictment and Conviction on theCharge of Complicity in His Murder, by Caleb Powers(Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1905).

Prickett, Robert C.,“The Malfeasance of William WorthBelknap, Secretary of War, October 13, 1869 toMarch 2, 1876,” North Dakota History, 17:1 (January1950), 5–51, and 17:2 (April 1950), 97–134.

Priest, Loring B., Uncle Sam’s Stepchildren (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1975).

Proceeding in the Second Trial of the Case of the UnitedStates v. John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner, John M. Peck,Stephen W. Dorsey, Harvey M. Vaile, Montfort C.Rerdell, and Thomas J. Brady, for Conspiracy, 4 vols.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1883).

Quisenberry, Anderson Chenault, The Life and Times ofHon. Humphrey Marshall: Sometime an Officer inthe Revolutionary War, Senator in Congress from1795 to 1801 (Winchester, KY: Sun Publishing,1892).

Ragsdale, Bruce A., and Joel D. Treese, Black Americansin Congress, 1870–1989 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1990).

Reams, Bernard D., Jr., and Carol J. Gray, TheCongressional Impeachment Process and theJudiciary: Documents and Materials on the Removalof Federal District Judge Harry E. Claiborne (Buffalo,NY: W. S. Hein, 1987).

Record of the Proceedings of the High Court ofImpeachment on the Trial of Calvin Pease: Consistingof the Senate of the State of Ohio as Is Provided bythe Constitution and in Pursuance of a Resolution ofthe Senate (Chillicothe, OH: Nashee & Denny forCollins, 1809).

434 Bibliography

Reeves, Miriam G., The Governors of Louisiana (Gretna,LA: Pelican Publishing, 1972).

Remarks on the Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of theNew-York Weekly Journal, who was Lately Try’d andAcquitted for Printing and Publishing Two Libelsagainst the Government of That Province (London:Printed by J. Roberts, 1738).

Report of the Trial of the Hon. Samuel Chase: One of theAssociate Justices of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, before the High Court of Impeachment,Composed of the Senate of the United States, forCharges Exhibited against Him by the House ofRepresentatives, in the Name of Themselves and ofall the People of the United States, for High Crimesand Misdemeanors Supposed to Have Been by HimCommitted, with the Necessary Documents andOfficial Papers from His Impeachment to FinalAcquittal . . . Taken in Short Hand by Charles Evans,and the Arguments of Counsel Revised by Them fromHis Manuscript (Baltimore, MD: Printed for SamuelButler and George Keatinge, 1805).

Reston, James, The Lone Star: The Life of John Connally(New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

Review of the Communications of Samuel Lawrence andWilliam W. Stone, Manufacturers of Boston: To theSpeaker of the House of Representatives, on theSubject of the Investigation at the New York Custom-House, in Two Letters. From the Hon. Geo. Poindexter(Washington, DC: Printed at the NationalIntelligence Office, 1842).

Richardson, James D., ed., A Compilation of theMessages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1907, 9vols. and 1 appendix (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1896–1900).

Riordon, William L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Seriesof Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics,Delivered by Ex-Senator George WashingtonPlunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from HisRostrum—the New York County Court-HouseBootblack Stand—and Recorded by William L.Riordon (New York: McClure, Phillips, 1905).

Rogers, Cameron, Colonel Bob Ingersoll: A BiographicalNarrative of the Great American Orator and Agnostic(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page, 1927).

Rosenberg, Kenyon C., and Judith K. Rosenberg,Watergate: An Annotated Bibliography (Littleton,CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1975).

Rosenbloom, David H., ed. (with the assistance of MarkA. Emmert), Centenary Issues of the Pendleton Act of1883: The Problematic Legacy of Civil ServiceReform (New York: M. Dekker, 1982).

Roske, Ralph J.“The Seven Martyrs?” AmericanHistorical Review, 64 (January 1959), 323–330.

Rozell, Mark J., In Contempt of Congress: Postwar PressCoverage on Capitol Hill (Westport, CT: Praeger,1996).

Rudnick, Sharon A.,“Speech or Debate ClauseImmunity for Congressional Hiring Practices: ItsNecessity and Its Implications,” UCLA Law Review28, 2 (December 1980), 217–251.

Ruegamer, Lana, Biographies of the Governors(Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Historical Society, 1978).

Russell, Francis, The Shadow of Blooming Grove:Warren G. Harding in His Times (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1968).

Rutherford, Bruce, The Impeachment of Jim Ferguson(Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1983).

Rutherfurd, Livingston, John Peter Zenger, His Press,His Trial and a Bibliography of Zenger Imprints,by Livingston Rutherfurd. Also a Reprint of theFirst Edition of the Trial (New York: Dodd, Mead,1904).

Saffell, David C., Watergate: Its Effects on the AmericanPolitical System (Cambridge, MA: WinthropPublishers, 1974).

Salokar, Rebecca Mae, The Solicitor General: The Politicsof Law (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,1992).

Salter, John T., The People’s Choice: Philadelphia’sWilliam S. Vare (New York: Exposition Press,1971).

Sann, Paul, The Lawless Decade: A Pictorial History of aGreat American Transition: From the World War IArmistice and Prohibition to Repeal and the NewDeal (New York: Bonanza Books, 1977).

Schell, Herbert S., History of South Dakota (Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press, 1975).

Schlup, Leonard C.,“William N. Roach: North DakotaIsolationist and Gilded Age Senator,” North DakotaHistory 57 (Fall 1990), 2–11.

Schmidt, John R., The Mayor Who Cleaned Up Chicago:A Political Biography of William E. Dever (DeKalb:Northern Illinois University Press, 1989).

Schultz, Jeffrey D., Presidential Scandals (Washington,DC: CQ Press, 2000).

Sears, Edward I.,“The Impeachment Trial and ItsResults,” National Quarterly Review 17 (June 1868),144–156.

Seghetti, Michael R.,“Speech or Debate Immunity:Preserving Legislative Independence while CuttingCosts of Congressional Immunity,” Notre Dame LawReview 60, 3 (1985), 589–602.

Bibliography 435

Shapansky, Jay R.,“Congress’ Contempt Power,”Congressional Research Service Report No. 86–83A,28 February 1986.

Shofner, Jerrell H., Nor Is It Over Yet: Florida in the Eraof Reconstruction, 1863–1877 (Gainesville:University Presses of Florida, 1974).

Short, Jim, Caleb Powers and the Mountain Army: TheStory of a Statesman from Eastern Kentucky (OliveHill, KY: Jessica Publications, 1997).

Sikes, Bob, He-Coon: The Bob Sikes Story (Pensacola,FL: Perdido Bay Press, 1984).

Simkins, Francis Butler, Pitchfork Ben Tillman: SouthCarolinian (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress, 1944).

Simpson, Alexander, Jr., A Treatise on FederalImpeachments, With an Appendix Containing, InterAlia, an Abstract of the Articles of Impeachment inall of the Federal Impeachments in this Country andin England (Philadelphia: Law Association ofPhiladelphia, 1916).

Smith, Gaddis, Impeachment: What Are Its Origins,History and the Process by Which It Is Carried Out?(Washington, DC: Center for Information onAmerica, 1973).

Smith, Glenn H., Langer of North Dakota: A Study inIsolationism, 1940–1959 (New York: Garland, 1979.)

Smith, Mortimer Brewster, William Jay Gaynor, Mayorof New York (Chicago: H. Regnery Co. 1951).

Smith, Steven S., and Christopher J. Deering,Committees in Congress (Washington, DC: CQ Press,1990).

Smith, W. Calvin,“The Reconstruction ‘Triumph’ ofRufus B. Bullock,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 52, 4(December 1968), 414–425.

Sobel, Robert, and John Raimo, eds., BiographicalDirectory of the Governors of the United States,1789–1978, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Meckler Books,1978).

Speech of Mr. Black, of Georgia, on the Right of Membersto Their Seats in the House of Representatives.Delivered in the House of Representatives, February12, 1844 (Washington, DC: Printed at the GlobeOffice, 1844).

Stansbury, Arthur J., Report of the Trial of James H.Peck, Judge of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Missouri, Before the Senate of the UnitedStates, on an Impeachment Preferred by the House ofRepresentatives Against Him for High Misdemeanorsin Office (Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833).

Statement of the Measure of the Contemplates AgainstSamuel Bryan, Esquire, Register-General of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia:Printed by Francis and Robert Bailey, 1800).

Steffens, Lincoln, The Struggle for Self-Government:Being an Attempt to Trace American PoliticalCorruption to Its Sources in Six States of the UnitedStates (New York: McClure, Phillips, 1906).

Stephen, Sir James Fitz-James, Bart., A History of theCriminal Law of England, 3 vols. (London:Macmillan, 1883).

Stoddard, Lothrop, Master of Manhattan: The Life ofRichard Croker (New York: Longmans, Green, 1931).

Stolberg, Mary M., Fighting Organized Crime: Politics,Justice, and the Legacy of Thomas E. Dewey (Boston:Northeastern University Press, 1995).

Stratton, David H.,“Two Western Senators and TeapotDome: Thomas J. Walsh and Albert B. Fall,” PacificNorthwest Quarterly 65 (April 1974), 57–65.

Strong, Theron George, Joseph Choate, New Englander,New Yorker, Lawyer, Ambassador (New York: Dodd,Mead, 1917).

Stroud, Richard H., ed., National Leaders of AmericanConservation (Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1985).

Swindler, William F.,“High Court of Congress:Impeachment Trials, 1797–1936,” American BarAssociation Journal 60 (1974), 420–428.

Swinney, Everette,“United States v. Powell Clayton: Useof the Federal Enforcement Acts in Arkansas,”Arkansas Historical Quarterly 26 (Summer 1967),143–154.

Taft, George S., Compilation of Senate Election Casesfrom 1789 to 1885 (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1885).

Talmadge, Herman E., with Mark Royden Winchell,Talmadge: A Political Legacy, A Politician’s Life: AMemoir (Atlanta, GA: Peachtree Publishers, 1987).

Tarr, Joel Arthur, A Study in Boss Politics: WilliamLorimer of Chicago (Urbana: University of IllinoisPress, 1971).

Taylor, Hannis,“The American Law of Impeachment,”North American Review, 180 (January-June 1905),502–512.

Taylor, Telford, Grand Inquest: The Story ofCongressional Investigations (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1955).

The Testimony in the Impeachment of Adelbert Ames, AsGovernor of Mississippi (Jackson: Power &Barksdale, 1877).

Thayer, George, Who Shakes the Money Tree? AmericanCampaign Financing Practices from 1789 to thePresent (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974).

436 Bibliography

Thayer, William Makepeace, From Log-Cabin to theWhite House (Boston: J. H. Earle, 1881).

Theoharis, Athan G., ed. et al., The FBI: AComprehensive Reference Guide (Phoenix, AZ: OryxPress, 1999).

Thomas, David Y.,“The Law of Impeachment in theUnited States,” American Political Science Review 2(1908), 378–395.

Thomas, Lately, A Debonair Scoundrel: An Episode inthe Moral History of San Francisco (New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1962).

Thompson, Clifford, ed., Current Biography 1998 (NewYork: H. W. Wilson, 1998).

———, Current Biography 1999 (New York: H. W.Wilson, 2000).

Thompson, Dennis F., Ethics in Congress: FromIndividual to Institutional Corruption (Washington,DC: Brookings Institution, 1995).

Thompson, Fred Dalton, At That Point in Time: TheStory of the Senate Watergate Committee (New York:Quadrangle/New York Times Book Company,1975).

Thurber, James A., and Roger H. Davidson, RemakingCongress: Change and Stability in the 1990s(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995).

Tilden, Samuel J., The Writings and Speeches of SamuelJ. Tilden (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1885).

Timperlake, Edward, and William C. Triplett II, Year ofthe Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Securityfor Chinese Cash (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1998).

Trefousse, Hans L.,“Ben Wade and the Failure of theImpeachment of Johnson,” Historical andPhilosophical Society of Ohio Bulletin 18 (October1960), 241–252.

Trefousse, Hans L., Abraham Eisenstadt, and AriHoogenboom, eds., Before Watergate: Problems ofCorruption in American Society (New York:Columbia University Press, 1978).

Trevelyan, George Macaulay, History of England (NewYork: Longmans, Green, 1927).

The Trial in the Supreme Court, of the Information inthe Nature of a Quo Warranto Filed by the AttorneyGeneral on the Relation of Coles Bashford vs. Wm. A.Barstow, Contesting the Right to the Office ofGovernor of Wisconsin (Madison, WI: Calkins &Proudfit, and Atwood and Rublee, 1856).

The Trial of John Peter Zenger, of New York, Printer: WhoWas Charged with Having Printed and Published aLIBEL against the Government, and Acquitted. Witha Narrative of His Case (London: Printed for J.Almon 1735).

Tucker, David M., Mugwumps: Public Moralists of theGilded Age (Columbia: University of Missouri Press,1998).

Turner, Frederick Jackson, ed.,“Documents on theBlount Conspiracy, 1795–1797,” American HistoricalReview 10 (April 1905), 574–606.

Turner, Lynn W.,“The Impeachment of John Pickering,”American Historical Review 54 (April 1949),485–507.

The United States Government Manual, 2000/2001(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,2001).

Utter, Glenn H., and Ruth Ann Strickland, Campaignand Election Reform: A Reference Handbook (SantaBarbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997).

Van Nest, G. Willet,“Impeachable Offences under theConstitution of the United States,” American LegalReview 16 (1882), 798–817.

Van Riper, Paul P., History of the United States CivilService (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1958).

Van Tassel, Emily Field, and Paul Finkelman,Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from1787 to the Present (Washington, DC: CongressionalQuarterly, 1999).

Vare, William S., My Forty Years in Politics(Philadelphia: Roland Swain Co., 1933).

Volcansek, Mary L., Judicial Impeachment: None Calledfor Justice (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,1993).

Walden, Gregory S., On Best Behavior: The ClintonAdministration and Ethics in Government(Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1996).

Walsh, Thomas J.,“The True Story of Teapot Dome,”Forum 72, 1 (July 1924), 1–12.

Ward, Sir Adolphus William, et al., eds., The CambridgeHistory of English and American Literature, 18 vols.(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907–1921).

Warmoth, Henry Clay, War, Politics and Reconstruction:Stormy Days in Louisiana (New York: Macmillan,1930).

Weeks, Kent M., Adam Clayton Powell and the SupremeCourt (New York: Dunellen, 1971).

Wendt, Lloyd; and Herman Kogan, Lords of the Levee:The Story of Bathhouse John & Hinky Dink(Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1943).

———, Big Bill of Chicago (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953).

Werner, Morris Robert, Tammany Hall (Garden City,NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1928).

Werner, Morris Robert, and John Starr, Teapot Dome(Clifton, NJ: A. M. Kelley, 1950).

Bibliography 437

Wesser, Robert F.,“The Impeachment of a Governor:William Sulzer and the Politics of Excess,” New YorkHistory 60, :4 (October 1979), 407–438.

Westphall,Victor, Thomas Benton Catron and His Era(Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1973).

Westwood, Howard C.“The Federals’ Cold Shoulder toArkansas’ Powell Clayton,” Civil War History 26(September 1980), 240–256.

Wharton, Francis, ed., State Trials of the United Statesduring the Administrations of Washington andAdams, with References Historical and Professionaland Preliminary Notes on the Politics of the Times(Philadelphia: Carey & Hart, 1849).

White, Theodore H., Breach of Faith: The Fall of RichardNixon (New York: Atheneum, 1975).

Wilhelmy, Robert W.,“Senator John Smith and theAaron Burr Conspiracy,” Cincinnati HistoricalSociety Bulletin 28 (Spring 1970), 39–60.

Williston, Samuel,“Does a Pardon Blot Out Guilt?,”Harvard Law Review 28 (1915), 647–654.

Wolff, Wendy, ed., Vice Presidents of the United States,1789–1993 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1997).

Wooddy, Carroll Hill, The Case of Frank L. Smith: AStudy in Representative Government (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1931).

Woodward, C.Vann, Responses of the Presidents toCharges of Misconduct (New York: Delacorte Press,1974).

Wright, Marcus J., Some Account of the Life and Servicesof William Blount (Washington, DC: E. J. Gray,1884).

Zelizer, Julian E., Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills,Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Zelnick, Bob, Gore: A Political Life (Washington, DC:Regnery, 1999).

Zink, Harold, City Bosses in the United States (Durham,NC: Duke University Press, 1930).

Zuber, Richard L., North Carolina duringReconstruction (Raleigh, NC: State Department ofArchives and History, 1996).

Dissertations and ThesesBates, J. Leonard,“Senator Walsh of Montana,

1918–1924: A Liberal under Pressure” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill, 1952).

Benson, Harry King,“The Public Career of AdelbertAmes, 1861–1876” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofVirginia, 1975).

Beyer, Barry K.,“Thomas E. Dewey, 1937–1947: AStudy in Political Leadership” (Master’s thesis,University of Rochester [New York], 1962).

Brammer, Clarence Lee,“Thomas J. Walsh: Spokesmanfor Montana” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMissouri, Columbia, 1972).

Byler, Charles A.,“Trial by Congress: The Controversyover the Powers and Procedures of CongressionalInvestigations, 1945–1954” (Ph.D. dissertation,YaleUniversity, 1990).

Cognac, Robert Earl,“The Senatorial Career of HenryFountain Ashurst” (Master’s thesis, Arizona StateUniversity, 1953).

Cummings, Hilary Anne,“John H. Mitchell, a Man ofHis Time: Foundations of His Political Career,1860–1879” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofOregon, 1985).

Dodds, Archibald J.,“‘Honest John’ Covode” (Master’sthesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1933).

Dunar, Andrew J.,“All Honorable Men: The TrumanScandals and the Politics of Morality” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Southern California,1981).

Dunnington, Miles W.,“Senator Thomas J. Walsh,Independent Democrat in the Wilson Years” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Chicago, 1941).

Foot, Forrest L.,“The Senatorial Aspirations of WilliamA. Clark, 1898–1901: A Study in Montana Politics”(Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1941).

Forth, William S.,“Wesley L. Jones: A PoliticalBiography” (Ph.D. dissertation, University ofWashington, 1962).

Giglio, James M.,“The Political Career of Harry M.Daugherty” (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio StateUniversity, 1968).

Gregg, Leigh E.,“The First Amendment in theNineteenth Century: Journalists’ Privilege andCongressional Investigations” (Ph.D. dissertation,University of Wisconsin, 1984).

Hill, Janellen,“Spiro T. Agnew: Tactics of Self-Defense,August 1 to October 15, 1974” (Master’s thesis,Arizona State University, 1974).

Hjalmervik, Gary L.,“William Langer’s FirstAdministration, 1932–1934” (Master’s thesis,University of North Dakota, 1966).

Horne, Robert M.,“The Controversy over the Seating ofWilliam Langer, 1940–1942” (Master’s thesis,University of North Dakota, 1964).

Johnson, Gordon W.,“William Langer’s Resurgence toPolitical Power in 1932” (Master’s thesis, Universityof North Dakota, 1970).

438 Bibliography

Jones, Robert F.“The Public Career of William Duer:Rebel, Federalist Politician, Entrepreneur andSpeculator 1775–1792” (Ph.D. dissertation,University of Notre Dame, 1967).

Keighton, Robert Laurie,“The Executive Privilege andthe Congressional Right to Know: A Study of theInvestigating Powers of Congressional Committees”(Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1961).

Lowry, Sharon K.,“Portrait of an Age: The PoliticalCareer of Stephen W. Dorsey, 1868–1889” (Ph.D.dissertation, North Texas State University, 1980).

Mach, Thomas Stuart,“‘Gentleman George’ HuntPendleton: A Study in Political Continuity” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Akron, 1996).

Martin, Jennie McKee,“The Administration ofGovernor Barstow” (Bachelor’s thesis, University ofWisconsin, 1921).

Mattingly, Arthur H.,“Senator John Brooks Henderson,United States Senator from Missouri” (Ph.D.dissertation, Kansas State University, 1971).

Miller, Frank L.,“Fathers and Sons: The Binghams andAmerican Reform, 1790–1970” (Ph.D. dissertation,Johns Hopkins University, 1970).

Raper, Horace Wilson,“William Woods Holden: APolitical Biography” (Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1951).

Sherman, Robert Lindsay,“Public Officials and LandFraud in Arizona” (Master’s thesis, Arizona StateUniversity, 1978).

Sinow, David Martin,“The Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct of 1977” (Master’s thesis, University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign, 1982).

Smith, Charles P.,“Theodore G. Bilbo’s SenatorialCareer: The Final Years, 1941–1947” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi,1983).

Smith, Willard Harvey,“The Political Career of SchuylerColfax to His Election as Vice President in 1868”(Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1939).

Thompson, Margaret S.,“The ‘Spider Web’: Congressand Lobbying in the Age of Grant” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1979).

Government Documents,United States GovernmentBazan, Elizabeth B., and Jay R. Shampansky,

Compendium of Precedents Involving EvidentiaryRulings and Applications of Evidentiary Principlesfrom Selected Impeachment Trials, CongressionalResearch Service (CRS) Report for Congress, 3 July1989.

District of Columbia, Supreme Court, Title United Statesv. Harry F. Sinclair and Albert B. Fall. Indictment:Violation Section 37, Penal Code, Conspiracy toDefraud the United States. (Presented May 27, 1925.)Atlee Pomerene, Owen J. Roberts, Special Counsel ofthe United States (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1925).

Doyle, Charles, Impeachment Grounds: A Collection ofSelected Materials, Congressional Research Service(CRS) Report to Congress, 29 October 1998.

Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/ContraMatters. Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel, 3vols. (Washington, DC: U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit, Division for thePurpose of Appointing Independent Counsel, 1993).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: BruceEdward Babbitt. Before: Sentelle, Senior CircuitJudge, Presiding, Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge, andFay, Senior Circuit Judge. Carol Elder Bruce,Independent Counsel (Washington, DC: U.S. Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,Division for the Purpose of AppointingIndependent Counsel, 2000).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: Eli J.Segal. Curtis Emery Von Kahn, Independent Counsel(Washington, DC: U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit, Division for thePurpose of Appointing Independent Counsels,1997).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: Janet G.Mullins. Joseph E. diGenova, Independent Counsel(Washington, DC: U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit, 1995).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: MadisonGuaranty Savings & Loan Association. Kenneth W.Starr, Independent Counsel (Washington, DC: Officeof Independent Counsel, 2000).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: MadisonGuaranty Savings & Loan Association: in re: WilliamDavid Watkins and in re: Hillary Rodham Clinton.Robert W. Ray, Independent Counsel (Washington,DC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit, Division for the Purpose ofAppointing Independent Counsels, Division no.94–1, 2000).

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: RonaldH. Brown. Daniel S. Pearson, Independent Counsel(Washington, DC: U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit, Division for thePurpose of Appointing Independent Counsel,1996).

Bibliography 439

Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: SamuelR. Pierce, Jr., Arlin M. Adams, Larry D. Thompson,Independent Counsels, 6 vols. (Washington, DC: U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit, Division for the Purpose of AppointingIndependent Counsels, 1998).

History of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Houseof Representatives, House Committee Print, 97thCong., 2d Sess. (1982).

House Rules Manual, House Document No. 106–320,107th Cong. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1999).

Memorial Address of the Life and Character of MichaelCrawford Kerr (Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States). Delivered in theHouse of Representatives December 16, 1876, and inthe Senate February 27, 1877. Published by Order ofCongress (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1877).

Report of the Select Committee of the House ofRepresentatives, Appointed Under the Resolution ofJanuary 6, 1873, to Make Inquiry in Relation to theAffairs of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, theCrédit Mobilier of America, and Other MattersSpecified in Said Resolution and in Other ResolutionsReferred to Said Committee (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1873).

Shapansky, Jay R., Congress’ Contempt Power,Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report No.86–83A, 28 February 1986.

Speech of Mr. Black, of Georgia, on the Right of Membersto Their Seats in the House of Representatives.Delivered in the House of Representatives, February12, 1844 (Washington, DC: Printed at the GlobeOffice, 1844).

United States Information Agency, Office of InspectorGeneral. Report of Audit, Review of Planning andManagement of Lisbon Expo 98 (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1999).

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on CongressionalOperations, House of Representatives Exclusion,Censure and Expulsion Cases from 1789 to 1973, 93dCong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1973).

U.S. House, Conduct of George W. English, United StatesDistrict Judge, Eastern District of Illinois: HearingBefore the Special Committee of the House ofRepresentatives Pursuant to House Joint Resolution347, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1925).

———, Conduct of Harold Louderback, United StatesDistrict Judge, Northern District of California.

Hearing Before the Special Committee of the House ofRepresentatives, Seventy-second Congress, Pursuantto H[ouse] Res[olution] 239, September 6 toSeptember 12, 1932, 3 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1933).

———, Conduct of Judge George W. English: Report onthe Report of the Special Committee of the House ofRepresentatives Authorized to Inquire into theOfficial Conduct of George W. English [House Report69–653] (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1926).

———, Conduct of Judge Harold Louderback. Report toAccompany H[ouse] Res[olution] 387, House Report72–2065, (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1933).

———, Impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter. [HouseReport 74–2025] (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1936).

———, Impeachment of Judge Alcee L. Hastings: Reportof the Committee on the Judiciary to AccompanyH[ouse] Res[olution] 499, House Report 100–810,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1988).

———, Impeachment of Judge Harry E. Claiborne:Report to Accompany H[ouse] Res[olution] 461,House Report 99–668, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1986).

———, Impeachment of the President: Articles ofImpeachment Exhibited by the House ofRepresentatives Against Andrew Johnson, Presidentof the United States, House MiscellaneousDocuments 40–91, (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1868).

———, Impeachment of the President: [Report] fromthe Judiciary Committee, House Report 40–7,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1868).

———, Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, HouseReport 93–1305, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., 1974.

———, Impeachment of Walter L. Nixon, Jr.: Report toAccompany H. Res. 87, House Report 101–36,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1989).

———, Impeachment of West H. Humphreys, Judge ofthe United States District Court of Tennessee, HouseReport 37–44, (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1862).

———, Impeachment of William W. Belknap, LateSecretary of War, House Report 41–345,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1876).

———, In the Matter of Representative E. G.“Bud”Shuster: Report, House Report 106–979,

440 Bibliography

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,2000).

———, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette,Jr., House Report 96–1537, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.(Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office,1980).

———, In the Matter of Representative Mario Biaggi,House Report 100–506, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1988).

———, In the Matter of Representative Michael J.Myers, House Report 96–1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1980).

———, In the Matter of Representative Raymond F.Lederer, House Report 97–110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1981).

———, Investigatory Powers of Committee on theJudiciary with Respect to Its Impeachment Inquiry:Report Together with Additional, Supplemental, andSeparate Views (To Accompany a Resolution (H. Res.803) Providing Appropriate Power to the Committeeon the Judiciary to Conduct an Investigation ofWhether Sufficient Grounds Exist to Impeach RichardM. Nixon, President of the United States, and for OtherPurposes), House Report 93–774, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1974).

———, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., ImpeachmentInquiry: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civiland Constitutional Rights of the Committee of theJudiciary (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1989).

———, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., ImpeachmentInquiry Transcript of Proceedings U.S.A. v. Walter L.Nixon, Jr., 2 vols. Criminal Action No.H85–00012(L) (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1989).

———, Memorial Services Held in the House ofRepresentatives of the United States, Together withRemarks Presented in Eulogy of Thomas J. Walsh,Late a Senator from Montana (Washington:Government Printing Office, 1934).

———, Memorial Services in the Congress of theUnited States and Tributes in Eulogy of Richard M.Nixon, Late a President of the United States(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1996).

———, Proceedings in the House of Representatives,Fifty-Eighth Congress, Concerning the Impeachmentof Charles Swayne (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1912).

———, Report of the House Managers on theImpeachment of W. W. Belknap, Late Secretary ofWar, House Report 44–791, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1876).

———, Star Route Transportation of Mails, HouseReport 1701, 47th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1882).

———, Testimony Relating to Expenditures in theDepartment of Justice: The Star Route Cases, HouseMiscellaneous Document No. 38, Part II, 48thCong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1884).

U.S. House, Committee on Banking, Finance, andUrban Affairs, Subcommittee on General Oversightand Investigations, Relationship of ArizonaGovernor J. Fife Symington III with SouthwestSavings and Loan Association: Hearing Before theSubcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of theCommittee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs,102nd Cong., 2d Sess., February 20, 1992.

U.S. House, Committee on Government Reform andOversight, Report of the FBI General Counsel on theDissemination of FBI File Information to the WhiteHouse, Issued on June 14, 1996, by FBI GeneralCounsel Howard M. Shapiro; Investigation into theWhite House and Department of Justice on Securityof FBI Background Investigation Files, House Report104–862, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 28 September 1996.

U.S. House, Committee on the Judiciary, ConstitutionalGrounds for Presidential Impeachment: Report by theStaff of the Impeachment Inquiry House CommitteeReport, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., February 1974.

———, Hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary(Impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon), 93rdCong., 2d Sess., 1974.

———, Impeachment: Evidence on the ResolutionConcerning Charles Swayne, Judge of the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District ofFlorida, March 21, 1904, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1904).

———, Markup of House Resolution 461, Impeachmentof Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 99th Cong., 2d Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1986).

U.S. House, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,Display of Code of Ethics for Government Service:Report to Accompany H.R. 5997, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1980).

U.S. House, Committee on Rules, Congressional GiftReform: Hearings before the Committee on Rules,House of Representatives, on H. Res. 250, 104thCong., 1st Sess., November 2 and 7, 1995.

Bibliography 441

U.S. House, Committee on Standards of OfficialConduct, Ethics Manual for Members and Employeesof the U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 1stSess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1979).

———, In the Matter of Representative Charles C.Diggs, Jr.: Report, Together with Supplemental Viewsto Accompany H. Res. 378, 2 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1979).

———, Inquiry into the Operation of the Bank of theSergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives,Together with Minority Views (to accompany H. Res.393) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1992).

———, Manual of Offenses and Procedures: KoreanInfluence Investigation, Pursuant to HouseResolution 252, (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1977).

———, Report of the Special Outside Counsel in theMatter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., 101st Cong.,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1989).

———, Rules of Procedure: Committee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1987).

———, Summary of Activities 101st Congress, HouseReport No. 101–995, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1990)

U.S. House, Select Committee on U.S. National Securityand Military/Commercial Concerns with thePeople’s Republic of China, U.S. National Securityand Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’sRepublic of China. Submitted by Mr. Cox ofCalifornia, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1999).

U.S. House, Select Committee to Inquire into theCauses and Extent of the Late Defalcations of theCustom-House at New York and Other Places,Report of the Minority of the Select Committee of theHouse of Representatives, Appointed on theSeventeenth of January, 1839, to Inquire into theCauses and Extent of the Late Defalcations of theCustom-House at New York and other Places(Washington: Printed by Blair and Rives, 1839).

U.S. House, Select Committee to Investigate CovertArms Transactions with Iran [with the U.S. SenateCommittee on Secret Military Assistance to Iranand the Nicaraguan Opposition], Report of theCongressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, With Supplemental, Minority, andAdditional Views, 3 vols. (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office; three volumes,1987).

U.S. Senate, Answer of George W. English, District Judgeof the United States for the Eastern District ofIllinois: To the Articles of Impeachment Against Himby the House of Representatives of the United States,Senate Document 104, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1926).

———, Extracts from the Journal of the United StatesSenate in all Cases of Impeachment Presented by theHouse of Representatives: 1798–1904, SenateDocument 876, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, 1912).

———, Final Report of the Investigation of Illegal orImproper Activities in Connection with 1996 FederalElection Campaigns, Together with Additional andMinority Views, 10 vols. Senate Report 105–167,105th Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1999).

———, Final Report of the Senate Select Committee toStudy Undercover Activities of Components of theDepartment of Justice, Senate Report 682, 97thCong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1982)

———, Law Enforcement Undercover Activities:Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee to StudyLaw Enforcement Undercover Activities ofComponents of the Department of Justice, 97thCong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1982).

———, Leases Upon Naval Oil Reserves and Activitiesof the Continental Trading Co. (Ltd.) of Canada,Senate Report 1326, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1928).

———, Proceedings of the Senate Sitting for the Trial ofWilliam W. Belknap, Late Secretary of War, on theArticles of Impeachment Exhibited by the House ofRepresentatives, 4 vols. 44th Cong., 1st Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1876).

———, Proceedings of the United States Senate in theTrial of Impeachment of George W. English, DistrictJudge of the United States for the Eastern District ofIllinois, Senate Document No. 177, 69th Cong., 2dSess., 1926.

———, Proceedings of the United States Senate and theHouse of Representatives in the Trial of Impeachmentof Robert W. Archbald, Additional Circuit Judge of theUnited States from the Third Judicial Circuit andDesignated a Judge of the Commerce Court, 3 vols.

442 Bibliography

Senate Document 1140, 62nd Cong., 3d Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1913).

———, Proceedings of the United States Senate in theImpeachment Trial of President William JeffersonClinton, Senate Document 4, 106th Cong., 1st Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,2000).

———, Report [of] the Committee Appointed toInvestigate the Charges of Bribery in the RecentSenatorial Election of Kansas, Preferred againstSenator Pomeroy by A. M. York and B. F. Simpson,Senate Report No. 523, 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1873).

———, Report of the Senate Impeachment TrialCommittee on the Impeachment of Harry E.Claiborne, Judge of the United States District Courtfor the District of Nevada, of High Crimes andMisdemeanors, Senate Document 99–812, 99thCong., 2d Sess., August 15 to September 23, 1986.(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1989).

———, The Senate, 1789–1989: Addresses on theHistory of the United States Senate, by Robert C.Byrd, 3 vols. Senate Doc. 100–20, 100th Cong., 1stSess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1991).

U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs,Hearings on the Nomination of Thomas B. Lance toBe Director of the Office of Management and Budget,and Nomination of James T. McIntyre, Jr., to BeDeputy Director of the Office of Management andBudget, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., January 17 and 18,1977, and March 4, 1977.

———, Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities inConnection with 1996 Federal ElectionCampaigns—Final Report of the Committee onGovernmental Affairs, 6 vols. Senate Report105–167, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 March 1998(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 6volumes, 1998).

———, Matters Relating to T. Bertram Lance: HearingsBefore the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 3vols. 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1977).

U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Ethics, Investigationof Senator Alan Cranston, 2 vols. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1991).

———, Investigation of Senator David F. Durenberger:Report of the Select Committee on Ethics and theReport of Special Counsel on S. Res. 311,

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1990).

———, Preliminary Inquiry into Allegations RegardingSenators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, andRiegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan: Open SessionHearings, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., November 15, 1990,through January 16, 1991.

U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Investigation of theAttorney General, Investigation of Hon. Harry M.Daugherty, Formerly Attorney General of the UnitedStates. Hearings Pursuant to S. Res. 157, Directing aCommittee to Investigate the Failure of the AttorneyGeneral to Prosecute or Defend Certain Criminal andCivil Actions, wherein the Government Is Interested,68th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1924).

U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Standards andConduct, Hearings, on Allegations Against SenatorThomas J. Dodd, Pursuant to Senate Resolution 338,2 vols. 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1966–1967).

U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Official Conduct,Senate Code of Official Conduct: Report of theSpecial Committee on Official Conduct, United StatesSenate, to Accompany S. Res. 110, (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1977).

U.S. Senate, Special Committee to InvestigateWhitewater Development Corporation and RelatedMatters, Investigation of Whitewater DevelopmentCorporation and Related Matters: Final Report of theSpecial Committee to Investigate WhitewaterDevelopment Corporation and Related Matters,Together with Additional and Minority Views,(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1996).

Government Documents—Individual States[Arizona], Record of Proceedings of the Court of

Impeachment: In the Trail of Honorable EvanMecham, Governor, State of Arizona. Arizona StateSenate, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment (St. Paul,MN: West Publishing Company, 1991).

[California], San Francisco Municipal Government,Report on the Causes of Municipal Corruption in SanFrancisco, as Disclosed by the Investigations of theOliver Grand Jury, and the Prosecution of CertainPersons for Bribery and Other Offenses Against theState; William Denman, Chairman. CommitteeAppointed by the Mayor, October 12, 1908. Reprintedwith a Preface and Index of Names and Subjects bythe California Weekly (San Francisco: RinconPublishing Co., 1910).

Bibliography 443

[Kansas], Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachmentof Charles Robinson, Governor, John W. Robinson,Secretary of State, George S. Hillyer, Auditor of State,of Kansas (Lawrence: Kansas State Journal SteamPress, 1862).

[Massachusetts]. Report of the Trial by Impeachment ofJames Prescott, Judge of the Probate of Wills, &C. forthe County of Middlesex for Misconduct andMaladministration in Office, before the Senate ofMassachusetts in the Year 1821. With an Appendix,Containing an Account of Former Impeachments inthe Same State. By Octavius Pickering and WilliamHoward Gardiner, of the Suffolk Bar (Boston: Officeof the Daily Advertiser, 1821).

[New Jersey] New Jersey, Department of Law andPublic Safety, Final Report on the Investigation of theDivision of Employment Security, Department ofLabor and Industry to Robert B. Meyner, Governor,State of New Jersey. With Foreword (Trenton: State ofNew Jersey Official Report, 1955).

[New York] By His Excellency William Cosby, CaptainGeneral and Governour in Chief of the ProvincesNew-York, New-Jersey . . . a Proclamation: Whereasby the Contrivance of Some Evil Disposed andDisaffected Persons, Divers Journals or Printed NewsPapers (Entitled, the New-York Weekly Journal . . .)Have Been Caused to Be Printed and Published byJohn Peter Zenger . . . I Have Thought Fit . . . to IssueThis Proclamation, Hereby Promising a Reward ofFifty Pounds to Such Person or Persons Who ShallDiscover the Author or Authors of the Said . . .Journals or Printed News-Papers . . . Given Under MyHand and Seal at Fort-George in New-York ThisSixth Day of November . . . in the Year of Our Lord1734 (New York: Printed by William Bradford,1734).

[New York] Court for Trial of Impeachment,Proceedings of the Court for the Trial ofImpeachments. The People of the State of New York,by the Assembly thereof, against William Sulzer asGovernor. Held at the Capital in the City of Albany,New York, September 18, 1913, to October 17, 1913(Albany: J.B. Lyon Company, Printers, 1913).

[New York] Legislature, Senate, Standing Committee onJudiciary, New York’s Impeachment Law and theTrial of Governor Sulzer: A Case for Reform.Prepared by the Staff of the New York State SenateJudiciary Committee (Albany: The Committee [onthe Judiciary], 1986).

[New York] The Trial of the Hon. John C. Mather, One ofthe Canal Commissioners of the State of New York, inthe Court for the Trial of Impeachments, Held at the

Capitol in the City of Albany, CommencingWednesday, July 27th, 1853 . . . Richard Sutton, ShortHand Writer to the Court of Impeachments (Albany:H. H.Van Dyck, Printer—Atlas Steam Press, 1853).

[New York] State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,The Investigation of the Magistrates Courts in theFirst Judicial Department and the MagistratesThereof, and of Attorneys-at-Law Practicing in SaidCourts: Final Report of Samuel Seabury, Referee(New York: The City Club of New York, 1932).

[North Carolina] Legislature, Articles Against WilliamW. Holden, Document No. 18, 1870–1871 Session(Raleigh: James H. Moore, State Printer, 1871).

[Ohio], Record of the Proceedings of the High Court ofImpeachment on the Trial of William Irvin:Consisting of the Senate of the State of Ohio(Chillicothe: Printed by Thomas G. Bradford & Co.,Printers for the State, 1806).

[Pennsylvania]. The Trial of Alexander Addison, esq.:President of the Courts of Common Pleas, in theCircuit Consisting of the Counties of Westmoreland,Fayette, Washington and Allegheny: On anImpeachment, by the House of Representatives,before the Senate of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania . . . Taken in Short Hand by ThomasLloyd (Lancaster: Printed by George Helmbold,Junior, for Lloyd and Helmbold, 1803).

[Texas] Record of Proceedings of the High Court ofImpeachment on the Trial of Hon. James E. Ferguson,Governor, Before the Senate of the State of Texas,Pursuant to the State Constitution and RulesProvided by the Senate during the Second and ThirdCalled Sessions of the 35th Legislature. Convened inthe City of Austin, August 1, 1917, and AdjournedWithout Day, September 29, 1917. Published byAuthority of the Legislature, T.H. Yarbrough, JournalClerk, Senate (Austin: A.O. Baldwin & Sons, StatePrinters, 1917).

[Virginia] Debates and Other Proceedings of theConvention of Virginia, Convened at Richmond, onMonday the Second of June, 1788, for the Purpose ofDeliberating on the Constitution Recommended bythe Grand Federal Convention. To Which Is Prefixedthe Federal Constitution. Taken in Short Hand, byDavid Robertson of Petersburg, 3 vols. (Petersburg:Printed by Hunter and Prentis, 1788–1789).

[Wisconsin] State Senate, Trial of Impeachment of LeviHubbell, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, by theSenate of the State of Wisconsin, June 1853. Reportedby T. C. Leland (Madison: B. Brown, 1853).

[Wisconsin] State Senate, Trial of Impeachment of LeviHubbell, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, by the

444 Bibliography

Senate of the State of Wisconsin, June 1853.Reported by T. C. Leland (Madison, WI: B. Brown,1853).

Manuscript CollectionsHenry S. Johnston Collection, Special Collections and

University Archives, Edmon Low Library, OklahomaState University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

James Buchanan Papers, Historical Society ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia [Papers regarding theimpeachment of Judge James Hawkins Peck].

Letters to and from Senator Burton K. Wheeler,American Civil Liberties Union Papers, PrincetonUniversity, Princeton, New Jersey.

Matthew J. Connelly Official File, Harry S TrumanLibrary, Independence, Missouri.

Official Records of the Impeachment of George W.English, File 69B-A1 in Records of ImpeachmentProceedings, 1st–90th Congress (1789–1968),General Records of the United States House ofRepresentatives, 1789–1988, RG 233, NationalArchives, Washington, D.C.

Official Records of the Impeachment of Judge James H.Peck, File 21B-B1, in Records of ImpeachmentProceedings, 1st–90th Congresses (1789–1968),General Records of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, 1789–1968, RG 233, NationalArchives, Washington, D.C.

State Governors’ Incoming Correspondence,1857–1888, Series 577, Florida Department of State,Division of Library & Information Services, Bureauof Archives & Records Management, Tallahassee,Florida.

Warren Hastings Papers (minutes and related papersrelated to his impeachment in Parliament in 1787),Add[itional] MSS 17061–62, 16261–67,Add[itional] MSS 17066–082, 24222–268, BritishLibrary (London).

William Dudley Foulke Papers, Library of Congress,Washington, D.C.

William Wirt Papers, Maryland Historical Society,Baltimore, Maryland [Papers regarding theimpeachment of Judge James Hawkins Peck].

Zachariah Chandler Papers, Library of Congress,Washington, D.C.

Oral HistoriesAbe Fortas Oral History Interview, 14 August 1969,

Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, Austin, Texas.Charles S. Murphy Oral History Interview, 25 July 1969,

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library,Independence, Missouri.

Matthew J. Connelly Oral History Interview, 28November 1967, Courtesy Harry S. Truman Library,Independence, Missouri.

“Memoirs of Thomas Woodnut Miller, a Public SpiritedCitizen of Delaware and Nevada. An Oral HistoryConducted by Mary Ellen Glass” (University ofNevada at Reno Oral History Program, 1966).

Wilbur D. Mills Oral History Interview I, 2 November1971, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, Austin,Texas.

Court CasesAddonizio v. United States, 405 U.S. 936 (1972)Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652

(1990)Barry v. United States, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1989)Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 297 U.S. 597

(1929)Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (1905)Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906)Claiborne v. United States, 727 F.2d 842 (1984)Claiborne v. United States, 465 U.S. 1305 (1984)Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v.

Federal Election Commission, 116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996)Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986)Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative

Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985)Federal Election Commission v. National Right to Work

Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982)Finn v. Schiller, 72 F.3d 1182 (4th Cir. 1996)Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984)Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Lamar, (11th Cir. 2001)Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992)Helstoski v. United States, 442 U.S. 477 (1979)Hubbard v. United States,514 U.S. 695, 115 S. Ct. 1754

(1995)In re Grand Jury Investigation [Bert Lance], 610 F.2d

202 (5th Cir. 1980)In re Grand Jury Investigation Into Possible Violations of

Title 18, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1978)In re Sealed Case, 267 U.S. Appeals Court D.C. 178

(1988)In re Secretary of Labor Raymond J. Donovan, 838 F.2d

476, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29829 (D.C. Cir. SpecialDivision, 1986)

Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881)McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Bibliography 445

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921)Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, 528 U.S. 528 U.S. 377

(2000)Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United

States, 273 U.S. 456 (1927)Pendergast v. United States, 317 U.S. 412 (1943)Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979).United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955)United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)United States v. Eilberg, 465 F. Supp. 1080 (E.D. Pa. 1979)United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980)United States v. Eilberg, 536 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Pa. 1982)United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959 (11th Cir. 1983)United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980)

United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979)United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966)United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347, vacated, 602

F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1979) (en banc), second rehearingdenied, 609 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. denied,445 U.S. 961 (1980)

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513U.S. 454, 115 S. Ct. 1103 (1995)

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)United States v. Oakar, (No. 96–3084A), U.S. Court of

Appeals for the DC Circuit, 1997United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir.

1995)United States v. Shirey, 359 U.S. 255 (1959)United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 384 (1798)Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, (No.

98–9325), 19 F.2d 204 (1998)

446 Bibliography

Abrams, Elliot, 387, 418ABSCAM, 1–3, 120, 238, 369–371, 417Acton, Lord (John E. E. Dalberg-Acton),

xiActors. See Movies; Thompson, Fred

DaltonAdams, Arlin M., 172, 387Adams, Charles Francis, 404Adams, Clover, 93Adams, Henry, 44, 93, 236, 266Adams, John, 178, 220, 402Adams, John Quincy, 143, 262, 305–306,

315, 383Adams, Llewelyn Sherman, 3–5Adams, Paul, 171Adams, Roger, 254Adams, Sherman, 118Addonizio, Hugh Joseph, 5–7, 412, 416Advertising, 350–351, 416The Aftermath of the Civil War, in

America (Clayton), 57Age, as factor in eligibility for House or

Senate, 386, 389Agnew, Spiro Theodore, 7–10, 217, 414Alabama

campaign funds misused bygovernor Hunt, 175–176

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 383

rules of impeachment in, 180Alaska, 180Albert, Carl, 414Alcohol. See Whiskey Ring fraudsAlcorn, James Lusk, 10Alcorn, Meade, 5Aldrich, Nelson W., 267Alexander, James, 377–378Alexander, Lamar, 32All the King’s Men (1949 film), 265All the President’s Men (1976 film), 265

Allen, Irving Ross, 264Allen, Oscar K., 212Altman, Robert, 210Amburgey, Martha, 169, 260Amer, Mildred, 167American Legion, 229American Masonic Party, 268American Metal Company, 92, 93Ames, Adelbert, 10–11, 386, 392Ames, Blanche, 10Ames, Oakes, 11–13, 35, 67, 68, 83–84,

254, 381, 383, 404Ames, Oliver, 12Anderson, Jack, 101Anderson, William Sterling, 417Angel, Frank A., 16, 48Annapolis, appointments sold, 41,

96–97, 367–368Anthony, Henry B., 44Appard, Ann, 300Archbald, Robert Wodrow, 13–14, 114,

179, 186, 394Archer, Stevenson, 14–15, 406Arizona

corrupt governors of, 227–228,317–318, 392, 393

recall power in, 275rules of impeachment in, 180

Arkansascases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 382Clayton as governor of, 57–58, 392Clinton as governor of, 59, 334Tucker as governor of, 311,

333–334, 367, 419, 420See also Whitewater

Arkansas Central Railroad, 103Armellino, John R., 6Armstrong, C. Michael, 52Arnall, Ellis, 319

Arthur, Chester A.Curtis and, 89Dorsey and, 104, 309Eaton and, 109Garfield and, 141Ordway and, 247

Asher, Robert B., 108Atchison, David Rice, 278Attainer, rite of, 180Attorneys General

Clinton and. See Reno, Janetcongressional censure of, 51Teapot Dome scandal and, 92, 323,

355Watergate and, 232–234, 243,

258–260, 414See also Independent Counsel

Statute; Special ProsecutorsAustin v. Michigan Chamber of

Commerce, 15–16Autiello, Richard, 55Axtell, Samuel Beach, 16–17, 103, 406

Babbitt, Bruce, 82, 388Babcock, Orville E., 160, 182–183,

364–365Bailey, John, 389Baker, Howard, 370, 413Baker, Joshua, 357Baker, Ray Stannard, 267Baker, Robert Gene “Bobby,” 19–20,

296, 372, 411Banks, Nathaniel P., 85Banks and bank fraud

bank fraud by RepresentativeReynolds, 279

Carter administration and,209–210

House of Representatives bankingscandal (1992), 168–169, 260

INDEX

447

Keating Five scandal, 199–201Whitewater and. See Whitewater

Bannard, Otto T., 141–142Barbour, Haley, 422Barbour, John S., 389Barker, Bernard, 412, 413Barkley, Alben, 27Barlow, George H., 6Barr, Burton, 228Barrett, David M., 388Barrows, Edwin G., xiBarry v. United States ex re.

Cunningham, 20–22Barstow, William Augustus, 22–23, 174Battistella, Annabel, 231Battle of Liberty Place, 202Baxley, Bill, 175Beall, George, 9Beating the Odds (1919 film), 264Beau James (1957 film), 354Becerra, Xavier, 252Beck, James B. (1870s representative),

85Beck, James M. (1920s representative),

390Becker, Charles, 292–293Beckham, John C. W., 144Belknap, William Worth, 23–26, 316,

394, 404Bell, Griffin, 113Bellmon, Henry, 415Bennett, Charles Edward, 296, 410Bennett, Jackie M., Jr., 107Bennett, Robert S., 82–83, 107, 201, 370Benton, Thomas H., 383Bereuter, Doug, 81Berger,Victor L., 389Berlin, Irving, 293Berman, Howard, 300Bernard, George G., 335Bernstein, Carl, 234, 265, 359Berrien, John, 193Berry, George L., 386Beveridge, Albert, 215Biaggi, Mario, 26–27, 120, 382, 417Biaggi, Richard, 26–27Biberman, Herbert, 328Big Town (television show), 265Biggy, William J., 407Bilbo, Theodore Gilmore, 27–28, 386Billy the Kid, 48Bing, Julius, 259Bingham, Alfred, 29Bingham, Hiram, 28–29, 51, 384Bingham, John, 84Bingham, William, 106

Birch, Stanley, 135Birnbaum, Jeffrey, 186The Birth of a Nation (1915 film), 166Black, Edward Junius, 306Black, Jeremiah S., 25Black, William, 200Blackley, Ronald, 116, 423Blaine, Gillespie, 93Blaine, James G., 12, 30–31, 67, 85, 89,

187, 236, 383, 404Blair, Montgomery, 25Blanton, Leonard Ray, 31–33Blanton, Thomas L., 100, 383, 416Blanton v. United States, 33Blind Ambition (Dean), 362Block, Paul, 354Blodgett, Henry W., 406Blount, William, 120, 382, 394, 401Boardman, Aleck, 406Boland Amendment, 188Booker, George W., 389Borders, William A., Jr., 154–156Bork, Robert H., 119, 184, 243, 310, 360,

414Boschwitz, Rudy, 108The Boss (1956 film), 265“Bosses.” See Croker, Richard; Movies;

Pendergast, Thomas Joseph;Ruef, Abraham; Shepherd,Alexander Robey; Sullivan,Timothy Daniel; Tweed, WilliamMagear “Boss”; Vare, William S.

Boykin, Frank W., 195, 411Boyle, John, 261Boynton, H.V., 365Bradford, Oliver B., 404Bradley, Bill, 371Bradley, William O., 144Brady, Thomas J., 103, 104, 187,

308–309Bragg, Thomas, 166, 382Bramblett, Ernest K., 410Branch Davidian compound assault,

388Brandegee, Frank B., 29Brandeis, Louis, 197, 239Branscum, Herby, Jr., 367Brasseux, Barnaby, 133Braswell, Glenn, 423Breckinridge, John C., 382Brehm, Walter Ellsworth, 33–34, 410Brennan, William, 128–129, 342, 344Brewer, David J., 39Brewer, Earl L., 27–28Brewster, Daniel Baugh, 34, 342–343.

See also United States v. Brewster

Breyer, Stephen, 69Bribery, xi

Attorney General, 92Chief of Staff, 333chronology of misdeeds, 401–424and Code of Official Conduct, 63congressmen, 1–3, 40, 83, 112–113,

134–135, 139, 153–154, 159,208, 222–223, 225, 228,237–238, 332–333, 368–369

Congress’s right to ban, 38–39Crédit Mobilier scandal. See Crédit

Mobilier scandaldistrict court cases on, 346–347governors, 22–23, 72–73, 111,

191–192judges, 55–56, 154–156, 174–175,

203–204, 219, 280–281mayors, 290–291, 329, 408, 423Postal Service and, 338–339presidents, 78Secretary of Agriculture, 115Secretary of the Interior, 92, 94, 125Secretary of the Navy, 92, 94–95Secretary of War, 23senators, 1–3, 27–28, 37–38, 43–45,

56, 83, 213–215, 267–268,342–343, 369–371

state senators, 108state treasurers, 108, 417Supreme Court decisions on, 38–39,

55–56, 342–343, 345–346Teapot Dome scandal. See Teapot

Dome scandalvice-presidents, 83See also Influence peddling;

KickbacksBridges, Henry Styles, 4Briggs, Clinton, 40Bright, Jesse D., 382Briscoe, Len, 388Bristow, Benjamin, 182, 339, 364Broadhead, James, 160, 183, 365Brookhart, Smith, 408Brooks, James, 12, 34–35, 84, 381, 383,

404Brooks, Preston S., 381Brown, Cecil, 111Brown, Frank, 15, 406Brown, John Y., 382, 383, 389Brown, Ronald H., 51–52, 61, 388Brown, William Holmes, 75Brown, Wrisley, 13Brownmiller, Roy E., 409Bruce, Carol Elder, 388, 423Bruin, Peter B., 402

448 Index

Bryant, Winston, 334Buchanan, James, 179, 278

Covode’s investigation of, 77, 78House reproof/censure, 403–404Peck and, 255

Bucheit, Bernard, 333Buckley, James L., 35Buckley v. Valeo, 35–36, 37, 127, 244,

351Buford, Anne M. Gorsuch, 234Bullock, Rufus Brown, 36–37Bundling, 37Bunyan, John, 267Burchard, Samuel D., 31Burger, Warren, 119, 342–345Burnett, Henry C., 238, 381Burns, William J., 232, 291Burr, Aaron

Blount and, 120resignation of, 10Smith (John) and, 305–306tried for treason, 118western states and, 305White and, 403

Burroughs, Ada L., 408Burton, Dan, 421Burton, Joseph Ralph, 37–39, 120, 382,

391Burton v. United States, 39Bush, George H. W.

and Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 117number of pardons granted, 251pardons granted by, 418Starr and, 310Weinberger pardoned by, 188, 252

Bush, George W., 119Bushnell, Eleanore, 262Bustamante, Albert Garza, 39–40Busteed, Richard, 404Butler, Anne, 303Butler, Benjamin F., 368Butler, David C., 40–41, 392Butler, Pierce, 94–95Butler, Roderick Randum, 41–42, 381,

383, 389Butterfield, Alexander, 243, 328, 360,

414Bynum, William D., 383

Cabinet members. See Secretary ofAgriculture; Secretary of Labor;etc.

Cahn, William, 416Caldwell, Alexander, 43–45, 404Caldwell, Tod R., 166Calhoun, John C., 10, 414

Californiacases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 383–384recall power in, 275See also San Francisco

California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 130Calvin, Harvey Doolittle, 69Camden, NJ, 423Cameron, Simon, 51Campaign finance, 129, 416

bundled funds, 37campaign funds spent for personal

use, 100–102, 173, 260Chinagate, 51–53Clinton–Gore scandal (1996),

45–47, 61, 145–147, 293–296,419–422

and Code of Official Conduct, 63Corrupt Practices Act of 1910,

75–76early attempts to regulate, 404and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of

1925, 126, 408and Federal Election Campaign Act

of 1971, 126–127, 416and Federal Election Commission,

127–128and Florida Right to Life v. Lamar,

135independent expenditures, 185McCain–Feinglold campaign

finance legislation, 37, 294, 420Nixon and, 127, 241primary elections and, 126,

239–240, 273and Publicity Act of 1910, 271–273Roosevelt (Theodore) and, 271,

406–407Supreme Court decisions on, 15–16,

35–36, 68–69, 127–130,239–240, 244–245

and Tillman Act, 330–331, 407unlawful contributions to

congressmen, 33–34, 205–206,331–332, 410

unlawful fundraisers bycongressmen, 64–65

and Vermont Right to LifeCommittee v. Sorrell, 350–351

Washington and, 401Campbell, George W., 261Cannon, George Q., 16, 389Cannon, James, Jr., 408Capital and Labor in Pictures of Fiction

(Leavitt), 266Caplan, Thomas, 318

Capone, Al, 95, 96, 304, 330Cardozo, Albert, 335Carlisle, John G., 406Carpenter, Matthew, 25, 44Carter, James Y., 416Carter, Jimmy

Clinton and, 59Eilberg and, 113Lance and, 209–210number of pardons granted, 251Williams and, 370

Cartoons, political. See Politicalcartoons

Casey, Lyman Rufus, 281Casinos, 111, 370Cassidy,“Curley Joe,” 369Catron, Thomas B., 16, 48–49Caudle, T. Lamar, 74, 181–182, 206Censure, 49–51

cases listed, 381–385censure/reprimand of congressmen,

34, 41, 51, 85, 96, 99–100,142–143, 221–222, 331–332,373, 383 (table)

chronology of misdeeds, 401–424of presidents, 49–50, 403–404See also Impeachment

Cermak, Anton, 330Chambers, Whittaker, 240Chang, David, 331–332Chanler, John W., 383Channell, Carl, 387Charles I, King of England, 307Chase, Salmon P., 404Chase, Samuel, 261, 346, 394, 402Checkers (dog), 241Cheney, Dick, 119Chesnut, James, Jr., 382Chester, Edward, 77–78Chestnut, Jack L., 415Chicago

corrupt aldermen in, 76–77corrupt mayors of, 76–77, 95, 96,

304, 329–330corrupt taxi commissioner, 416corruption fighters in, 69, 95–96,

330Chiefs of Staff

bribery and, 333Watergate and, 234, 359, 362

Chinagate, 51–53, 61, 79–82, 185,420–423

Chinatown (1974 film), 265Chinese immigrants, 406Chisum, John, 48Choate, Joseph Hodges, 53–54

Index 449

Christy, Arthur H., 387Chronology, 401–424Chung, Johnny, 421Cianci,Vincent A., Jr., 54–55CIO. See Congress of Industrial

OrganizationsCirona, James, 200Cisneros, Henry G., 252, 388, 423Citizen Kane (1941 film), 265Citizenship, questionable, 386, 390City Hall (1996 film), 265Civil Government in Great Britain

(Eaton), 109, 193Civil Service Act. See Pendleton Civil

Service ActCivil Service reform. See Curtis, George

William; Eaton, DormanBridgeman; Foulke, WilliamDudley; Jenckes, Thomas Allen;Pendleton Civil Service Act;Pendleton, George H.

Civil War, and expulsion of Confederatesupporters, 120, 238, 381, 382.See also Reconstruction era

Civiletti, Benjamin, 1Claiborne, Harry E., 55–56, 179, 394,

417Claiborne v. United States, 55–56The Clansmen (Dixon), 166Clark, John B., 238, 381Clark, William Andrews, 56Clarke, John, 239Clarke, Sidney, 44Clarridge, Duane, 387, 418Classified information, 64. See also

Chinagate; Executive privilegeClay, Henry, 221Clay, William, 416Clayton, Henry D., 13, 316Clayton, Powell, 57–58, 103, 392Clean Politics Act of 1939. See Hatch ActCleveland, Grover

Blaine defeated by, 85Dorsey and, 104–105Fall and, 123Mugwumps and, 31, 236–237Pendleton and, 258Robinson and, 285

Clifford, Clark, 210Clines, Thomas, 387Clinger, William, 132Clingman, Thomas L., 382Clinton, Bill, 58–62, 388

as Arkansas governor, 59, 334campaign finance scandal, 45–47,

61, 293–296, 419–422

Chinagate, 51–53, 61, 79–82, 185,420–423

Espy and, 115executive privilege and, 119, 132Filegate, 119, 131–132, 419impeachment of, 62, 311, 363, 394,

423Monical Lewinsky scandal, 61–62,

311not censured by Congress, 49obstruction of justice and, 247, 423pardons granted by, 58, 62, 156,

251–253, 317–318, 423pardons refused, 371Paula Jones scandal, 61, 107, 311,

423perjury and, 62, 311, 423Primary Colors based on, 265Reno’s refusal to investigate

campaign fundingirregularities, 184

sentences commuted by, 279Starr and, 309–311Travel Office employees fired, 418Whitewater and, 61, 309, 310, 334,

365–367, 418–420Clinton, Hillary Rodham, 62, 133, 311,

419Whitewater and, 309, 334, 365–367

Clinton, Roger, 62, 252Cobbett, William, xiiCochran, William Bourke, 406Cocke, William, 262Code of Official Conduct, 62–64Coelho, Anthony Lee, 64–66“Coffees,” as fundraisers, 45, 47, 61, 420,

422Cohen, Richard, 287–288Cole, Lester, 328Colfax County War, 16, 48–49Colfax, Schuyler

Caldwell and, 44Crédit Mobilier scandal, 11, 12, 66,

83, 84, 404Gilbert and, 143

Collier’s, 266Colorado Republican Federal Campaign

Committee v. Federal ElectionCommission, 68–69, 127

Colson, Charles, 360, 413Columbia Savings & Loan Association,

65Columbian Exposition (1893), 77Columbian Order, 320. See also

Tammany HallComan, Thomas, 70

Commissioner of Indian Affairs,158–159

Committee of Seventy, 54, 194Committee of Standards and Ethics, 270Committee of Thirty, 54Committee to Re-Elect the President

(CREEP), 233, 258–260Common Cause, 70–71, 300, 301, 302,

374, 412, 417Condit, Gary, 333Confederacy, representatives expelled

for supporting, 120, 238, 381,382

Conflicts of interest, xi, 195, 285–286Congress

ban on bribes, 38–39Code of Official Conduct (1999),

62–64Congressional Ethics Code (1958),

71Contempt of Congress, 74–75judicial powers of, 25, 196–197,

204–205, 225–226, 296–298,406

power to exclude members,269–271

rules on illegalities prior to servicein, 220–221

Speech or Debate Clause and rightsof congressmen. See Speech orDebate Clause

See also Campaign finance;Honoraria; House ofRepresentatives; Senate

Congress of Industrial Organizations(CIO), 408

Congressional Ethics Code, 71Congressman Pumphrey, The People’s

Friend (McCutcheon), 266Conkling, Alfred, 403Conley, Benjamin F., 37Connally, John Bowden, Jr., 71–73Connecticut

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381, 384

questionable eligibility for Senate,386

Connelly, Matthew J., 73–74, 182Conner, John C., 140, 389Connolly, Richard B., 153, 335, 336Conrad, Barnaby, 291Constitution of the United States

direct election of senators, 267freedom of the press and, 377–378judicial powers of Congress and,

296

450 Index

presidential pardons and, 251Speech or Debate Clause. See Speech

or Debate ClauseSee also U.S. Supreme Court

Conyers, John, 154Cook, William, 308Coolidge, Calvin

Daugherty and, 91–92, 326Fenning and, 408Louderback and, 215Miller and, 228Teapot Dome scandal and, 92, 183,

282, 324–326, 355Corbin, Robert, 228Cornelius, Catherine, 418Corrente, Frank, 55Corrupt Practices Act of 1910, 75–76,

239Corruption, defined, xi, xiiCorruption, legislation against. See

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of1925; Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 1971; HatchAct; Pendleton Civil Service Act;Publicity Act of 1910; TillmanAct

Cory, Ernest N., 217–218Cosby, William, 377–378Cosmopolitan, 267Coughlin, John Joseph “Bathhouse

John,” 76–77Covode, John, 77–78Covode Committee, 78Cox, Archibald, 119, 184, 243, 360, 365,

413, 414Cox, Charles Christopher, 79–80, 81Cox, Samuel S., 12, 85Cox Committee, 61, 79–80Cox Report, 52, 61Coxe, Tench, 346Cramer, Charles, 230Crane, Daniel B., 383Cranston, Alan MacGregor, 82–83,

199–201, 384Craven, Emma, 33–34Crawford, William H., 51Crédit Mobilier scandal, 83–85,

403–404Ames and, 11–13Brooks and, 34–35Garfield and, 84–85, 139–141Patterson and, 253–255Schuyler and, 66

CREEP. See Committee to Re-Elect thePresident

Creswell, John A. J., 308

Crime, organized, 5–7, 329–330Croker, Richard, 54, 85–87, 321Crothers, R. A., 406–407Crowe, Robert E., 304Crozier, Robert, 44Cruise,Victor, 388Cullen, Edgar T., 179, 314Cunningham, Thomas W., 20–22Curley, James Michael, 87–88, 267,

409Current, Richard N., 11Curry, John F., 322Curtis, E. C., 304Curtis, George William, 88–89, 109,

193, 259Custer, George Armstrong, 158Czitrom, Daniel, 312

Dakota Territory, 247–248Dale, Billy, 132, 133D’Amato, Alfonse, 366, 419Dana, Charles A., 12Danforth, John C., 388Darrow, Clarence, 330Dash, Samuel, 413Daugherty, Harry Micajah, 91–93, 183,

226, 229, 230, 282, 326, 355Davenport, Homer, 264Davis, A. K., 11Davis, Alexander, 392Davis, Henry Winter, 143Davis, William Watson, 276Day, Samuel T., 277De Armond, David Albaugh, 316De Benedictis, Joseph, 6Dean, Deborah, 172, 387Dean, John W., III, 234, 243, 247, 248,

360, 362, 412, 413Dean, Maureen, 362Deaver, Michael K., 387DeBartolo, Eddie, 111DeBartolomeis, S., 387DeCarlo, Angel “Gyp,” 6DeConcini, Dennis, 82, 199–201Defense contracts/war contracts, 51,

223–224, 225, 285, 303, 404, 409,410

Delahay, Mark H., 404Demery, Tom, 387Democracy: An American Novel

(Adams), 93, 266Denby, Edwin, 92, 125, 226, 323–326Department of Agriculture, Department

of the Interior, etc. See Secretaryof Agriculture; Secretary of theInterior; etc.

Department of Justice. See AttorneysGeneral; Income Tax scandal(1951–1952); Judges

Derwinski, Ed, 288Deutsch, John, 252Dever, William Emmett, 95–96, 330Deweese, John Thomas, 41, 96–97, 383Dewey, Thomas Edmund, 97–99, 219Diamond, Gary L., 107DiBlasio, Henry, 333Dicks, Norman, 81Die Hard II (1990 film), 328Dietrich, Charles H., 391diGenova, Joseph, 388Diggs, Charles Coleman, Jr., 99–100,

382, 383, 416Dillinger, John, 101Dinan, Jeremiah, 407DiPrete, Edward, 55Disbursing Office of the House of

Representatives, 341–342District of Columbia

“Boss” Shepherd and, 298Commissioner Fenning impeached,

408Fauntroy and, 125–126

Divver, Paddy, 312Dixon, Thomas, Jr., 166, 266Dmytryk, Edward, 328Dodd, Christopher, 102Dodd, Thomas J., 51, 100–101, 297, 384,

411Doheny, Edward L., 123, 125, 283,

323–327Dole, Robert J., 45, 418Dombrowsky v. Eastland, 307Donovan, Raymond, 387Dooling, James J., 322Dorsey, John, 103Dorsey, Stephen Wallace, 102–105, 187,

309Douglas, Paul H., xii, 167, 296Douglas, William O., 342Dowdy, John V., 412, 413, 414Downey, Thomas, 168, 169Doxey, Wall, 27Driscoll, Alfred E., 152Drugs, illegal, 280Duane, William J., 49Dueling, 221, 381, 383Duer, William, 105–106Dukakis, Michael S., 185Duke, David, 111Duncan, Alexander, 381, 383Durant, Thomas, 83Durell, Edward H., 404

Index 451

Durenberger, David F., 51, 83, 106–108,375, 384

Dwyer, R. Budd, 417

Earle, Howard Earle, III, 409Early, Peter, 261Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s

Fund, 307Eaton, Dorman Bridgeman, 109, 193,

258Edison, Charles, 151, 152Edison, Franklin, 86Edlin, J. Kenneth, 195Edmondson, Ed, 415Edmundson, Henry A., 383Edwards, Edwin Washington, 109–112Edwards, Francis Smith, 112, 142–143,

381Edwards, Stephen, 111Egbert, Richard, 55Eggers, Frank Hague, 152Ehrlich, Bernard, 26–27Ehrlichman, John D., 234, 359–360, 362,

413Eilberg, Joshua, 112–113Eisenhower, Dwight D.

Adams (Llewelyn Sherman) and, 4executive privilege and, 118–119Nixon and, 241number of pardons granted, 251Ross and, 286

Election irregularitieschronology of misdeeds, 401–424early laws, 404senators, 20–22, 43–45, 56,

213–215, 267–268, 304–305,349–350, 408, 415

state governors, 23, 148See also Campaign finance; Primary

elections; WatergateElections, federal employees and. See

Hatch ActElections, primary, 126, 239–240, 273,

408, 409Elk Hills oil reserves, 94, 125, 323. See

also Teapot Dome scandalElko, Stephen B., 134Elliot, Sir John, 307Ellsberg, Daniel, 359, 413Embezzlement

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,105–106

congressmen, 216district attorneys, 416governors, 40–41, 162–163senators, 281–282

state treasurers, 14–15See also Chicago; New York City;

Tweed RingThe Ends of Power (Haldeman), 362English, George Washington, 113–115,

179, 394EPA scandal (1983). See Morrison v.

OlsonErie Railroad Company, 13Errichetti, Angelo, 2Ervin, Samuel J., Jr., 233, 360, 362, 372,

413Esposito, Meade, 26–27Espy, Henry, 116Espy, Michael Albert, 115–117, 119,

185, 388, 419, 423Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 117,

184Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 117, 167Evans, John S., 25Evarts, William Maxwell, 262Everybody’s Magazine, 266Executive privilege, 117–120

Bush (George W.) and, 119Clinton and, 119, 132Nixon and, 184, 243, 360, 362Reagan and, 234Washington and, 117–118

Expulsion, 120–121from House, 120–121, 237–238,

332–333, 381–382 (table)from Senate, 120–121, 213–215, 382

(table)Eyanson, Charles L., 29

Face the Music (1932 play), 293Fairchild, Charles, 337Fall, Albert Bacon, 48, 92, 94, 123–125,

183, 283, 355, 408Farley, James, 161Farley, Thomas A., 293Fauntroy, Walter Edward, 125–126FBI. See FilegateFEC. See Federal Election CommissionFederal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910.

See Publicity Act of 1910Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925,

126, 408Federal Election Campaign Act

Amendments of 1974, 167Federal Election Campaign Act

Amendments of 1979, 416Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,

68, 126–127, 129, 412, 416Federal Election Commission (FEC), 35,

127–128

Federal Election Commission v. Akins,127

Federal Election Commission v.Massachusetts Citizens for Life,Inc., 128–129

Federal Election Commission v. NationalConservative Political ActionCommittee, 36, 129, 185

Federal Election Commission v. NationalRight to Work Committee,129–130

Federal Rules of Evidence, 343Federal workers

improper payments to, 157,279–280, 341–342

participation in federal campaigns.See Hatch Act

payments to nonexistent employees,328

salaries diverted to congressman,99–100, 416

See also Patronage; Pendleton CivilService Reform Act; Spouses

Feinberg, Alexander, 370Feingold, Russ, 37, 294, 420Feinstein, Dianne, 422Fenning, Frederick A., 408Ferguson, James Edward, 130–132, 180,

392Ferguson, Miriam Amanda Wallace,

130–131Fernandez, Joseph, 387Ferry, Orris S., 44Fiers, Alan, 387, 418Figueroa, Carlos, 388Filegate, 119, 131–132, 419Financial disclosure

and Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 117and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of

1925, 126and Federal Election Campaign Act

of 1971, 126–127lying on financial disclosure form,

125–126, 260and Publicity Act of 1910, 271–273,

407The Finger of Justice (1918 film), 264Finnegan, James P., 207Finney, Edward, 324First Amendment

advertising and, 351campaign contributions and,

35–36, 68–69, 244–245and freedom of the press, 377–378honoraria and, 167

Fisher, Warren, Jr., 30

452 Index

Fishman, Robert, 152Fiske, Robert B., Jr., 310, 366, 388, 419Fitzgerald,“Honey Fitz,” 87Five Points Gang, 312Flanigan, Harris, 57Flanagan v. United States, 307Flood, Daniel J., 113, 134–135Florida

corrupt governors of, 276–277, 392impeachment of Judge Ritter,

280–281questionable eligibility for House,

390senator tried in criminal court. See

Gurney, Edward J.Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Lamar, 135Florida Territory, 389Flowers, Gennifer, 59Floyd, John C., 13Flynt, John J., 158, 208, 302Fogel, Herbert Allen, 416Foley, Tom, 312Foote, Henry S., 383Forbes, Charles R., 230Forbes, George L., 416Ford, Gerald R., 243, 252, 360, 415Ford, Henry, 239Forney, John, 78Forsyth, John, 389Fortas, Abraham, 135–137, 411–412Foster, Charles, 51Foster,Vincent W., Jr., 311, 366Foulke, William Dudley, 137–138Fowler, Don, 294Fox, John, 4–5Frank, Barney, 382, 383Frankfurter, Felix, 14, 346Franklin, Jesse, 262Fraud

chronology of misdeeds, 401–424congressional employees, 19–20congressmen, 11–13, 26–27,

99–100, 279, 332–333, 423HUD scandal (1989), 171–173lieutenant governors, 423–424mayors. See specific citiespresidential secretaries, 73–74senators, 102–105, 231–232,

372–373vice-presidents, 12, 66–68See also Banks and bank fraud;

Crédit Mobilier scandal; IncomeTax scandal (1951–1952); Landfraud; Mail and mail fraud; Taxfraud; Whiskey Ring frauds

Frawley Committee, 313–314

Frawley, James J., 313–314Frazier, Lynn J., 392Fredman, Zev David, 244Free Soil Party, 284Freedom of the press, 377–378Freeh, Louis, 132, 133Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., 44Fremont, John C., 279Friedman, Jacob, 314Friedman, Stanley M., 417Fulbright, J. William, 296Fuller, Hubert Bruce, 97

Gallagher, Cornelius, 412, 413Gallagher, James J., 142, 407Gallatin, Albert, 386Gallinghouse, Gerard J., 387Gambling, 111, 370, 416Garcia, Robert. See Foulke, William

DudleyGardner, John, 70, 412Garfield, James A., xii, 139–141

assassination of, 31, 141, 309Blaine and, 30–31Crédit Mobilier scandal and, 84, 85,

139–141Dorsey and, 103Star Route frauds and, 308–309Tyner and, 338

Garsson, Henry M., 223–224Gasch, Oliver, 134Gaynor, William Jay, 141–142The Gentleman from Indiana

(Tarkington), 266George, Clair, 387, 418Georgia

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 384

corrupt governors of, 192–193,319–320

questionable eligibility for House,389

Yazoo Land frauds, 192–193Gephardt, Richard, 422Gibson, A. M., 309Gibson, Kenneth A., 6Giddings, Joshua R., 383Gifts, illegal

to cabinet members, 115, 185, 419to congressmen, 222–223, 298–301,

374to senators, 34See also Bribery; Campaign finance;

HonorariaGilbert, William Augustus, 112,

142–143, 381

Gilliam, DuBois, 172Gillock, Edgar H., 343–344Gilroy, Thomas F., 86Gingrich, Newt, 45, 374, 417Ginsburg, Douglas, 287Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 69Gleason, William H., 277Glenn, John, 199–201, 295Godkin, Edwin L., 236Goebel, William, 143–145Goebel Election Law, 144Goff, John, 86, 194Goldfine, Bernard, 4–5Goldfine scandal. See Vicuna Coat

scandalGoldwater, Barry, 20Gonzalez,Virgilio, 412, 413Gore, Albert A., Jr., 145–147

campaign finance scandal, 45–47,61, 145–147, 293–296, 419–422

campaign manager for 2000election, 64, 65

Gore, Albert A., Sr., 101, 145Gorman, Albert PUe, 267Goss, Porter, 81Gould, Arthur R., 386Gould, Jay, 85Governors

bribery, 22–23, 72–73, 111, 191–192chronology of misdeeds, 401–424corruption fighters, 97–99impeachments, crimes, and

convictions, 130–132, 164–166,180, 201–203, 227–228,276–277, 284–285, 313–315,356–358, 392–393 (table)

Kentucky shootout, 143–145kickbacks, 109–112land speculation and, 278–279mail fraud, 212–213, 217–218,

224–225pardons sold, 31–33, 110, 304racketeering, 110, 211–212,

217–218The Governor’s Boss (1915 film), 264Graddick, Charles R., 175Graham, George Scott, 113Graham, Katherine, 234Graham, William, 166Grant, Hugh, 86Grant, Orville, 25Grant, Ulysses S.

Ames (Adelbert) and, 10, 11Axtell and, 16Belknap and, 23Colfax and, 67

Index 453

and Crédit Mobilier scandal, 11–13Eaton and, 109Hayt and, 158Holden and, 166Hubbell and, 175Kellogg and, 202number of investigations under, 404and Pendleton Act, 259Shepherd and, 298and special prosecutors, 182–183Tyner and, 337–338and Whiskey Ring frauds, 160,

182–183, 364–365Graves, William J., 381Gray, Ed, 199–200Greeley, Horace, 84–85, 258, 263, 264Green, William J., 410Green v. United States, 255Gregory, Thomas, 183, 326Griffin, Anthony, 313Griswold, Roger, 381, 383, 386Grover, La Fayette, 148–149Grundy, Joseph R., 350Grunewald, Henry, 206Guidry, Ecotry “Bobby,” 111Guiliani, Rudolph, 417Guiteau, Charles J., 141Gurney, Edward J., 391, 415, 416

Haas, Morris, 407Hague, Frank, 151–152Hakim, Albert, 387Haldeman, H. R.“Bob,” 234, 359–360,

413, 415Hale, David, 334, 419Hall,Abraham Oakey, 152–153, 335, 336Hall, Fawn, 188Hallam, Elizabeth, 177Hamilton, Alexander

Coxe and, 346Duer and, 105–106on impeachment, 178on judges, xiion presidential pardons, 251

Hamilton, Andrew, 378Hancock, Winfield Scott, 357Hand, Richard L., 194Hanna, Richard Thomas, 153–154, 208Hansen, James V., 81Hanson, George, 417Harding, Warren G.

campaign manager for, 91–92on corrupt friends, 92Miller and, 228, 229Teapot Dome scandal and, 92, 94,

125, 323–324, 355, 408

Harlan, John Marshall, 39, 345Harper, James R., 387Harper, Robert Goodloe, 262Harper’s Weekly, 89, 193, 259, 264, 337Harris, Benjamin G., 381, 383Harris, Oren, 4Harrison, Benjamin, 31, 51, 338Harrison, Carter, 76, 77Harrison, Horace H., 120–121Harshbarger, Scott, 301Hart, Moss, 293Harvey, John, 177, 401Hastert, Dennis, 333Hastings, Alcee L., 154–156, 179, 394Hastings, James E., 416Hastings v. United States, 156, 179Hatch, Carl Atwood, 156Hatch, William Henry, 156Hatch Act, 147, 156–157, 409Hauptmann, Bruno Richard, 162–163Hawaii, 406Hawaii Territory, 389Hawes, Harry Barstow, 113Haxey, Thomas, 307Hayes, Josiah, 404Hayes, Rutherford B.

Colfax County War and, 16–17, 48and election of 1876, 148Henderson and, 160Ingersoll and, 187Ordway and, 248Tyner and, 338Wheeler and, 84

Hays, Wayne Levere, 157–159Hayt, Ezra Ayres, 158–159Hearst, Patricia, 252Hearst, William Randolph, 142, 265Hefley, Joel, 300, 333Heflin, Howell, 370Heimann, John, 210Helstoski, Henry, 134, 159–160,

344–345, 416Helstoski v. Meanor, 344Hemmingson, John, 423Henderson, John Brooks, 160–161, 182,

364Heney, Francis J., 232, 290–291, 407Henry, Steve, 423–424Henry IV, King of England, 307Henry VII, King of England, 307Herman, Alexis, 185, 388Hermann, Binger, 232Hershkowitz, Leo, 70, 335Hess, W. Dale, 217–218Hewitt, Abram S., 86, 290Hill, Lister, 73

Hill, Robert, 367Hilliard, Earl, 423Hillyer, George S., 285Hinds, Asher Crosby, 281–282Hind’s Precedents, 41, 97, 112, 368Hines, James J., 99Hinshaw, Andrew Jackson, 415–416Hiss, Alger, 240Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 232Hoar, George F., 85, 317Hobbs Act, 32–33, 161Hoeppel, John Henry, 161–162Hoffa, Jimmy, 252, 411Hoffman, Harold Giles, 162–163Hoffman, John T., 70, 163–164Hogan, Lawrence, 415Holbrook, E. D., 383Holden, William Woods, 164–166, 266,

392, 404Holder, Eric, 254“Hollywood Ten,” 328Holt, Rush D., 386Honest Election League, 144Honoraria, 107, 166–167

and Code of Official Conduct, 63and Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 117

Hooper, William H., 389Hoover, Herbert, 283, 296, 327Hope, Bob, 64Hopkinson, Francis, 167–168Horton, Henry, 392Horton, Willie, 185House Committee on Un-American

Activities, 328House of Burgesses, 401House of Representatives, 157, 207

banking scandal (1992), 168–169,260

bribery, 1–3, 40, 83, 112–113,134–135, 139, 153–154, 159,208, 222–223, 225, 228,237–238, 332–333, 368–369

campaign funds used for personaluse, 100–102, 173

chronology of misdeeds, 401–424Code of Official Conduct (1999),

62–64Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct (1967),169–170, 270

conflicts of interest, 195, 285–286Congressional Ethics Code (1958),

71eligibility for membership

questioned, 389–390 (table)embezzlement, 216

454 Index

fraud, 11–13, 26–27, 99–100, 279,332–333, 423

illegal drug use, 280illegal fundraisers, 64–65illegal gifts/contributions accepted,

33–34, 205–206, 222–223,298–301, 331–332, 374, 410

influence peddling, 30, 39–40, 185,222, 418

irregularities in finances, 99–101,125–126, 157–158, 222–223,260, 374

kickbacks, 26–27, 139, 416members assaulted by other

members, 381, 383members censured/reprimanded,

34, 41, 51, 85, 96, 99–100,142–143, 221–222, 331–332,373, 383 (table)

members expelled, 120–121,237–238, 332–333, 381–382(table)

members not seated due tocorruption, 368

military appointments sold, 41,96–97, 161, 367–368

obstruction of justice, 279post office scandal (1992–1995),

170, 286–288power to exclude members,

269–271racketeering, 40, 223, 332–333,

423tax fraud/tax evasion, 279–280,

410–411, 412See also Censure; Congress;

HonorariaHousing and Urban Development

scandal. See HUD scandalHouston, George S., 383Howard, Edgar, 408Howe, Timothy O., 44Howland, Paul, 13Howrey, Edward F., 5Hoyne, Thomas, 69Hoyt, Jesse D., 315Huang, John, 46, 420, 421, 423Hubbard, Carol Brown, 173, 260Hubbard, Carroll, Jr., 169, 173, 260Hubbard v. United States, 342Hubbell, Levi, 174–175, 180Hubbell, Webster, 311, 418, 421Huckabee, Mike, 334, 419HUD scandal, 171–173, 185, 387Hughes Company, 52–53, 79, 81Humphrey, Hubert, 359, 415

Humphreys, West H., 179, 394, 404Hunt, E. Howard, 412, 413Hunt, (Harold) Guy, 175–176The Hunt for Red October (1990 film),

328Hunter, Robert M. T., 382

Ickes, Harold, 421Idaho: cases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 383Idaho Territory, 216Illinois

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 383

corrupt governor of, 303–304. Seealso Chicago

questionable eligibility for House,389

questionable eligibility for Senate,386

Impeachment, 177–180of cabinet members, 23–24, 394cases before Senate listed, 394chronology of misdeeds, 401–424in colonial times, 401of District of Columbia

Commissioner, 408of governors, 130–132, 164–166,

180, 201–203, 227–228,276–277, 284–285, 313–315,356–358, 392 (table)

of judges, 13, 55–56, 113–115,154–156, 167–168, 174–175,178–179, 215–216, 255,260–262, 280–281, 316–317,394

of presidents, 58, 61–62, 77, 243,309–311, 362–363, 394, 404,415, 423

rules of procedure, 395–399Supreme Court decisions on, 179,

245–246, 255In re Chapman, 49, 225In re Neagle, 54In re Sealed Case, 235In the Line of Fire (1993 film), 328Income Tax Cases, 54Income Tax scandal (1951–1952),

180–182, 206–207Independent Counsel investigations,

387–388 (table)on Clinton’s misdeeds, 309–311,

366–367on HUD scandal, 172on income tax scandal

(1951–1952), 181–182

on influence peddling by Secretaryof Labor, 185

on Iran–Contra scandal, 184on Teapot Dome scandal, 183See also Special Prosecutors

Independent Counsel Statute, 117,182–184, 234–236

Independent expenditures, 185Indian Affairs, corrupt commissioner

of, 158–159Indiana

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382–383

corrupt governors of, 191–192,224–225, 392

corrupt mayors in, 408questionable eligibility for House,

389Influence peddling, 185–186, 206

cabinet members, 115, 185chiefs of staff, 3–5and Code of Official Conduct, 63congressional secretaries/aids,

19–20congressmen, 30, 39–40, 185, 222,

418judges, 13–14, 186mayors, 329

Ingersoll, Robert, 30, 104, 140, 186–187Innis, Harry, 402Inouye, Daniel, 371Iran–Contra scandal, 184, 188, 387,

417, 418Irving, Theodore Leonard, 410Irwin, Thomas, 403Isaacs, Theodore, 204

Jackson, Andrew, 49–50, 414Jackson, Edward Franklin, 191–200,

392Jackson, Elihu E., 15Jackson, James, 192–193Jackson, Robert H., 101James, Thomas Lemuel, 103, 104,

308–309, 338James, William Hartford, 40–41Jannotti, Harry P., 2Jaworski, Leon A., 119, 184, 243, 360,

362, 414Jefferson, Thomas

executive privilege and, 118impeachment threat against, 178judges and, 260–261

Jenckes, Thomas Allen, 193Jenkins, Horatio, Jr., 276Jennings, W. Pat, 411

Index 455

Jenrette, John W., Jr., 1, 3Jerome, William Travers, 194Jersey City, corrupt mayors of, 6,

151–152Jewell, Marshall, 338Jiang Zemin, 422Johnson, Albert W., 179Johnson, Andrew, 394

Brooks and, 35Colfax and, 67Holden and, 165impeachment of, 77, 78, 404Kellogg and, 202Warmoth and, 357

Johnson, Benjamin, 403Johnson, Bobby, 111Johnson, Hiram W., 407Johnson, J. M., 57Johnson, Lyndon B.

Baker and, 19–20, 372Boykin and, 411Dodd and, 101–102Fortas and, 136Kerner and, 204

Johnson, Reverdy, 51Johnson, Thomas Francis, 195, 345, 411Johnson, Waldo P., 382Johnston, Henry S., 228, 392Jones, Indiana, 29Jones, James R., 416Jones, Paula Corbin, 61, 107, 311, 423Jones, Peter D’A., 290Jordan, Hamilton, 387Jordan,Vernon E., Jr., 311Judges

chronology of misdeeds, 401–424impeachment of, 13, 55–56,

167–168, 178–179, 215–216,255, 260–262, 280–281,316–317

Judicial Conduct and Disability Actof 1980, 196

Supreme Court decisions on,55–56

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of1980, 196

The Jungle (Sinclair), 266Junk bonds, 64, 65Jurney, Chesley W., 196–197Jurney v. MacCracken, 196–197, 226Jury nullification, 378Justice, obstruction of. See Obstruction

of justice

Kanchanalak, Pauline, 47, 295, 420Kansas

corrupt governors of, 392

impeachment of GovernorRobinson, 284–285

irregularities in election of SenatorClarke, 267–268

senator tried in criminal court. SeeBurton, Joseph Ralph

Kansas City, Missouri, 256–257Kansas Territory, land speculation in,

278–279Kant, Immanuel, 253Katz, George, 2Kazan, Elia, 265Keating, Charles H., Jr., 82, 199–201Keating Five scandal, 82–83, 199–201Keitt, Laurence M., 383Keller, Oscar O., 92Kelley, William D., 84, 383Kellogg, William P., 201–203, 358, 382,

392Kelly,“Honest John,” 86, 321Kelly, Paul, 312Kelly, Richard, 1–3Kelsey, William Henry, 143Kemp, Jack F., 171Kendrick, John Benjamin, 324Kenna, Michael “Hinky Dink,” 76–77Kennedy, Anthony, 15–16, 69, 244Kennedy, John F., 58, 72, 74, 241Kennedy, Robert F., 195Kenny, John, 6, 152Kenny, Thomas J., 87Kentucky

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381–383

corrupt lieutenant governor,423–424

questionable eligibility for House,389

shootout over governorship,143–145

state treasury stolen by treasurer,322–323

Kern, John Worth, 215Kerner, Otto, Jr., 203–204Kerner Commission, 204Kerr, Michael C., 204Kerr, Robert S., 19Key, David M., 338Key, Francis Scott, 306Key, Philip B., 389Key Largo (1948 film), 265Khruschev, Nikita S., 241Kickbacks

congressmen, 26–27, 139, 416governors, 109–112from Mafia to mayors, 5–7for presidential pardons, 62

vice-presidents, 7–10Kidd v. Pearson, 240Kilbourn, Hallet, 204–205Kilbourn v. Thompson, 204–205, 225,

307, 406Kim, Jay C., 205–206, 422King, Cecil Rhodes, 206–207King, Martin Luther, Jr. holiday, 227King, Rufus, 220King, William S., 207–208, 382Klein, Julius, 101Kleindienst, Richard, 184, 360, 413Klotsche, J. Martin, 104, 308Know Nothing Party, 112Kohn, George

on Belknap, 25on Crédit Mobilier scandal, 85on Kerner, 204on Schenck, 290on Small, 304on Tweed Ring, 153

Kolter, Joseph, 170Korean Gift Scandal, 110, 153, 208, 373,

416Kovens, Irvin, 217–218Kraft, Timothy, 387Kribs, Frederick A., 232Ku Klux Klan

Dodd and, 101Governor Clayton (AK) and, 57Governor Ferguson (TX) and, 131Governor Holden (NC) and,

165–166Governor Jackson (IN) and,

191–192Governor Kellog (LA) and, 202Governor Walton (OK) and, 356

La Follette, Robert M., 215, 382La Guardia, Fiorello, 293, 322, 354Labor Management Relations Act of

1947, 409Labor unions, 129–130, 409Lacavara, Philip A., 208Lacey, Frederick B., 6Laforte, Robert S., 44Lake, Anthony, 422Lamar, William Bailey, 316Lambert, William, 137Lancaster, Ralph I., Jr., 388Lance, Thomas Bertram “Bert,”

209–210Land fraud

Kansas Territory and, 278–279New Mexico Territory and, 48Oregon and, 231–232, 372–373Yazoo Land frauds, 192–193

456 Index

See also WhitewaterLane, James H., 284, 404Lane, Joseph, 148Lane, Thomas J., 410Langdon, William H., 291, 407Langer, William, 211–212, 382, 386, 392Langley, John W., 389Lardner, Ring, Jr., 328The Last Hurrah (O’Connor), 88, 267Law and Order (television show), 329Lawrence, Philip K., 403Lawrence, Samuel, 315Lawson, John Howard, 328LDA. See Lobby Disclosure Act of 1995Leach, Jim, 366Leavitt, J. McDowell, 266Lebanon, 188Leche, Richard, 212–213, 392Lecompton Constitution, 77, 78Lederer, Raymond, 1–2Lee, Henry, 106Lee, Wen Ho, 80Legislation. See Ethics Reform Act of

1989; Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1925; Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 1971; HatchAct; Lobbying Disclosure Act of1995; Pendleton Civil ServiceAct; Publicity Act of 1910;Racketeer Influenced CorruptOrganizations (RICO) Act;Tillman Act

Legislative Branch Appropriation Act,167

The Leopard’s Spots: A Romance of theWhite Man’s Burden (Dixon),166, 266

Lester, J. T., 27–28Levey, Peter, 188Levy, David Y., 389Lewinsky, Monica, 49, 61–62, 309, 311,

423Lexow, Clarence, 194Lexow Committee, 86, 194Libel, 377–378Liberty Place, battle of, 202Liddy, G. Gordon, 233, 359, 362, 412, 413Lieberman, Joseph I., 422Lincoln, Abraham

congressional censure of, 49executive privilege and, 118Kellogg and, 201–202Lyon and, 216Pendleton and, 257–258Reed and, 276Reeder and, 279Warmoth and, 357

Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, 45, 47, 61,421

Lincoln County War, 48Lincoln Savings and Loan, 199–201Lindbergh, Charles, Jr., 162–163Lippo Group, 45, 46, 294, 420, 422Liquor. See Whiskey Ring fraudsLiterature, 88, 166, 264, 266–267,

362Little Roch & Fort Smith Railraod, 30Livermore, Samuel, 220Livingston, Bob, 110Livingston, Craig, 133, 419Livingston, Walter, 106Livingston, William, xi–xiiLobby Disclosure Act of 1995, 213Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 419Locke, James W., 406Lofgren, Zoe, 300Logan, John A., 31, 44, 84, 97, 368Long, Alexander, 381, 383Long, Edward V., 411Long, Huey P., 212, 265, 382, 392Loral Corporation, 51–53, 79, 81“Lords of the Levee,” 76Lorimer, William, 213–215, 329, 408Louderback, Harold, 215–216, 394Louisiana

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

corrupt governors of, 109–112,212–213, 356–358, 392, 393

impeachment of governors,201–203, 356–358

questionable eligibility for House,390

rules of impeachment in, 180Low, Frederick, 404Low, Seth, 86Luciano,“Lucky,” 99Lundin, Fred, 329, 330Luso-American Wave Foundation, 65Lyon, Caleb, 216Lyons, Matthew, 381, 383

Ma, Seokuk, 206Maas, Peter, 33MacCracken, William P., Jr., 196–197MacDonald, John D., 160Machu Picchu, 28Macomb, Alexander, 106Madison, James

on conflicts of interest, xion government, xiiion impeachment, 178on Speech or Debate Clause, 307

Mafia, 5–7. See also Crime, organized

Magazines, 266–267. See also specificpublications

Magruder, Jeb Stuart, 234, 413Mahan, John H., 38Mahon, Ronald, 388Mahoney, Michael C., 107Mail and mail fraud, 195, 409

district attorneys, 416governors, 212–213, 217–218,

224–225House of Representatives post office

scandal (1992–1995), 170,286–288

judges, 203–204Postmaster Tyner and, 337–339Star Route frauds, 102–105,

186–187, 308–309, 338–339Maine

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 383

questionable eligibility for Senate,386

Mallick, George, 418Maloney, Paul H., 212Mammoth Oil Company, 323Mandel, Marvin, 217–218, 392Manes, Donald R., 417Manton, Martin Thomas, 219, 229Marceca, Anthony, 133Mardian, Robert C., 234Marie, a True Story (Maas), 33, 328Marquette, Turner Mastin, 40Marsh, Caleb P., 25Marshall, Humphrey, 220–221Marshall, John, 118, 220Marshall, Louis, 314Marshall, Thomas, 220Marshall, Thurgood, 15–16, 129Marston, David W., 113Martin, André, 111Martin, Edward Winslow, 253–254Martin, Francis Xavier, 402Martinez, Eugenio, 412, 413Maryland

Agnew and, 7–10, 414cases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 381–383corrupt governors of, 217–218, 392,

414embezzlement by state treasurer,

14–15, 406questionable eligibility for House,

389questionable eligibility for Senate,

386Mason, George, 178Mason, James M., 382

Index 457

Massachusettscases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 381–383questionable eligibility for House,

389Mathews, Burnita Shelton, 34Matsui, Doris, 420Matteson, Orsamus B., 142–143,

221–222, 381Matz, Lester, 9Mavroules, Nicholas James, 222–223May, Andrew Jackson, 223–224,

409–410Mazet Committee, 86McAdoo, William Gibbs, 161, 355McAfee, John J., 322McCain, John, 37, 82, 199–201, 294,

420McCain–Feinglold campaign finance

legislation, 37, 294, 420McCarthy, Joseph, 118, 384McCloskey, Matthew H., 20McClure’s Magazine, 266McComb, Henry S., 12, 84McCooey, J. H., 369McCord, James, 359–360, 412, 413McCormack, John, 412McCormick v. United States, 161McCrary, George W., 85McCray, Warren T., 191, 224–225, 392McCreery, William, 389McCurry, Mike, 420, 422McCutcheon, John T., 266McDade, Joseph Michael, 225McDermott, James T., 408McDevitt, Thomas, 309McDonald, Danny Lee, 128McDonald, John, 182, 364McDougal, James, 334, 365–367, 419McDougal, Susan, 252, 311, 334,

365–367, 419McEnery, John, 202McFall, John J., 208McFarlane, Robert, 188, 387, 418McGrain v. Daugherty, 196, 225–226McGranery, James P., 181–182, 184, 207McGrath, J. Howard, 181, 183–184McKay, James C., 235, 387McKenna, Marian C., 224McKenzie, Lewis, 389McKinley, William

Archbald and, 13Choate and, 54Clayton and, 57New York City and, 86Tyner and, 338

McKneally, Martin B., 412McLaurin, John L., 383McLean, Edward L., 125, 324, 326M’Clenachan, Blair, 168McMillan, John L., 410McNally v. United States, 33McNamara, Robert, 359McQuade, James A., 293McReynolds, James, 239–240McSween, Alexander, 48Mead, Cowles, 402Mead, James M., 223Mead Committee, 223–224Mecham, Evan, 180, 392Mecham, Willard, 227Media. See Advertising; Freedom of the

press; Literature; Movies; Plays;Political cartoons; Television;specific newspapers andmagazines

Medill, Joseph E., 69Meese, Edwin, III, 188, 387Meigs, Jonathan Return, 401Meredith, William M., 51Meyner, Robert B., 163Mezvinsky, Edward, 423Michalek, Anthony, 389Michigan

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382–383

senator tried in criminal court. SeeNewberry, Truman H.

Michigan Territory, 389Milan, Milton, 423Military appointments, selling of, 41,

96–97, 161, 367–368Military technology. See ChinagateMiller, George, 337Miller, Phineas, 193Miller, Richard, 387Miller, Samuel Freeman, 205Miller, Thomas Woodnutt, 228–230Milligan, Maurice, 256Mills, Wilbur Daigh, 230–231Milne, Gordon, 89Minchew, Daniel, 320Miner, John, 103Minnesota: cases of expulsion, censure,

and condemnation listed, 382Mississippi

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 383

corrupt governors of, 392questionable eligibility for Senate,

386Mississippi Territory, 402

Missouricases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 381–383rules of impeachment in, 180See also Kansas City, Missouri;

Whiskey Ring fraudsMitchel, Charles B., 382Mitchel, John P., 322Mitchell, Charles Franklin, 403Mitchell, John H. (senator), 148–149,

231–232, 372–373, 382, 391Mitchell, John N. (attorney general), 92,

123, 137, 232–234, 243,358–359, 412, 413

Mitchell, Martha, 233Mix, Elijah, 51Mix Contract scandal, 51Mo: A Woman’s View of Watergate

(Dean), 362Mofford, Rose, 227Mollenhoff, Clark, 5The Money-Maker (Allen), 264Montana

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

senator tried in criminal court. SeeWheeler, Burton K.

Moodie, Thomas L., 392Moon, Sun Myung, 153Mooney, William, 320–321Moore, A. Harry, 151Moore, Arch A., Jr., 392Moore, Carlos, 374Morales, Dan, 424More, Nicholas, 401Morgan, Charles Wilfred, III, 252Morgan, J. P., 407Mormonism, 382, 386, 389Morrill, Lot M., 404Morris, Dick, 45Morris, Newbold, 181, 184Morrison, Alexia, 235, 387Morrison, William Ralls, 25Morrison v. Olson, 184, 234–236Morse, Wayne, 410Moss, John, 5Movies, 166, 264–265, 328, 354Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 418Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939

film), 264Muffaletto, Richard, 2Mugwumps, 31, 89, 236–237Mulhall, Martin M., 408Mullaney, Marie Marmo, 176Mulligan, James, 30Mulligan letters controversy, 30–31, 85

458 Index

Mullins, Janet, 388Murphy, Austin J., 170Murphy, Charles F., 141, 313, 321–322Murphy, Isaac, 57Murphy, John M., 1–3Murray, Robert, 335Murtha, John P., 3Muskie, Edmund, 188, 359Muter, George, 220Myers, Michael J.“Ozzie,” 1–3, 120,

237–238, 382

Nash, Jay Roberton Baker, 20on Brehm, 34on Seabury, 354on Small, 304on Sullivan, 312on Thompson (William), 330on Tweed, 335

Nast, Thomas, 89, 263, 264, 337National Treasury Employees Union

(NTEU), 167Native Americans, 158–159, 216, 404Naval Academy. See Annapolis,

appointments soldNebraska

corrupt governors of, 40–41, 392rules of impeachment in, 180senator tried in criminal court. See

Dietrich, Charles H.Nepotism, 158Nesbitt, George F., 68New Deal, 152, 216, 223, 256, 327–328New Hampshire: cases of expulsion,

censure, and condemnationlisted, 382

New Jerseycases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 382corrupt mayors, 6, 151–152, 412,

423Mafia and, 5–7senator tried in criminal court. See

Williams, Harrison A., Jr.state funds embezzled by governor,

162–163“New Levee,” 77New Mexico Territory, 16, 48–49New York

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381–383

corrupt governors of, 313–315,392

corruption-fighting governors,97–99

questionable eligibility for House,390

rules of impeachment in, 179New York City

Committee of Seventy, 54, 194Committee of Thirty, 54corrupt mayors of, 70, 152–153,

292–293, 321, 322, 353–354corruption fighters in, 53–54, 86, 99,

141–142, 194, 292–293,321–322, 353–354

heads of Tammany Hall politicalmachine, 85–87

Hoffman as mayor of, 163–164Lexow Committee, 86, 194Mazet Committee, 86suicide of Queens Borough

president, 417Tweed Ring, 53–54, 70, 86, 152–153,

163–164, 321, 335–337Walker as mayor of, 292–293, 322See also Tammany Hall

New York Collector’s Office, 315New York Times

Star Route frauds and, 338Tweed Ring and, 337Watergate and, 358

New York Weekly Journal, 377–378Newark, NJ, 5–7, 412Newberry, Truman H., 76, 120,

239–240, 382, 391, 408Newberry v. United States, 126, 238, 273,

408Nez Perce Indians, 216Niblack, William E., 85Nicaragua. See Iran–Contra scandalNicholson, Alfred O. P., 382Nicholson, Joseph Hopper, 261Niles, John M., 386Nixon, Jeremiah, 244Nixon, Richard M., 240–243, 412

Adams (Llewelyn Sherman) and, 4, 5Agnew and, 9campaign finance abuses, 127, 241Eilberg and, 113executive privilege and, 119, 184,

243, 360films about, 265Hoffa pardoned by, 252number of pardons granted, 251obstruction of justice and, 247, 362,

415pardoned by Ford, 243, 252, 415South Korea and, 208Watergate and, 184, 232–234, 243,

258–263, 412–415

Nixon, Walter L., Jr., 156, 179, 245–246,394

Nixon (1995 film), 265Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, 36, 129,

244–245Nixon v. United States, 156, 245–246,

415Noe, James Albert, 212Nofziger, Lyn, 387Nonprofit organizations, 128–129Norris, George, 13–14, 29North, Oliver, 188, 387North Carolina

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

governor impeached, 164–166, 392North Dakota

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

governors removed from office,211–212, 392

questionable eligibility for Senate,386

NTEU. See National Treasury EmployeesUnion

Nunan, Josef, 181–182Nussbaum, Bernard, 366Nussle, Jim, 169Nye, Gerald, 327

Oakar, Mary Rose, 168, 169Oberholtzer, Madge, 192O’Biren, Larry, 359Obstruction of justice, 247

congressmen, 279presidential aids, 359–360, 362presidents, 247, 362, 415, 423See also Watergate

O’Connor, Edwin G., 88, 267O’Connor, Sandra Day, 15–16, 69, 307Office of Alien Property, 228–229Office of Management and Budget,

209–210Office of the Pardon Attorney, 252O’Hare, Michael, 101Ohio

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381–383

questionable eligibility for Senate,386

senator tried in criminal court. SeeSmith, John

Oil reserves. See Teapot Dome scandalOklahoma

corrupt governors of, 356, 392, 393election irregularities, 415

Index 459

Older, Fremont, 291Olin, Abram B., 78Oliphant, Charles A., 206Olivany, George W., 322Olson, Robert, 388Olson, Theodore B., 235, 387On the Waterfront (1954 film), 265Operation Gemstone, 233, 359Operation Plunder Dome, 55Opper, Frederick, 264Ordway, Nehemiah George, 247–248Oregon

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

land fraud in, 231–232, 372–373questionable eligibility for Senate,

386recall power in, 275rules of impeachment in, 179senator tried in criminal court. See

Mitchell, John H. (senator)Organized crime. See Crime, organizedO’Rourke, Joanna G., 170Overton, John H., 382Owen, Ruth B., 390

Packwood, Robert W., 382PACs. See Political action committeesPalmer, Henry Wilbur, 316Pan American Petroleum & Transport

Co. v. United States, 94–95Pan-American Petroleum and

Transport Company, 323Pardons, paroles, and commutations

granted by Bush (George H. W.),252, 418

granted by Clinton, 58, 62, 156,251–253, 279, 317–318, 423

granted by Ford, 243, 252, 415granted by Kennedy, 74granted by Nixon, 252granted by Reagan, 218, 252granted by Roosevelt (Theodore),

232granted by Truman, 88, 213, 224,

409–410number granted by various

presidents, 251–252Office of the Pardon Attorney, 252refused by Clinton, 371sold by state governors, 31–33, 110,

304Supreme Court decisions on, 403

Park Chung Hee, 208Park, Tongsun, 110, 153, 208Parker, Alton B., 314, 406

Parkinson, Kenneth W., 234Parole Commission, 7, 417Passman, Otto E., 153, 208Patriarca, Michael, 200Patronage, xi, 258, 259

Tammany Hall and, 312, 321See also Pendleton Civil Service

Reform ActPatterson, James W., 84, 120, 253–255,

382, 404Pearson, Daniel S., 388Pearson, Drew, 5, 101Peck, James H., 179, 255, 394, 403Peck, John M., 103Peckham, Rufus, 39Pendergast, Thomas Joseph, 256–257Pendleton, George H., 89, 257–258, 259Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, 89,

109, 257, 259, 406Pennsylvania

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382–383

election irregularities, 20–22judges impeached, 167–168questionable eligibility for House,

390questionable eligibility for Senate,

386suicide of state treasurer, 108, 417

Penny, George W. Many, 278Pentagon Papers, 307, 358–359, 413People’s Municipal League, 194Pepper, George, 183, 326Perjury

Bramblett and, 410Clinton and, 62, 311, 423Gallagher and, 412Marshall (Humphrey) and, 220Mechan and, 227Watergate and, 362

Perkins, Carl C., 169, 260Perkins, Francis, 312Perkins, James Breck, 316Peters, Richard, 346–347, 402Phelan, James D., 290, 291Phelan, Richard J., 374, 417, 418Phelps, John Wolcott, 268Phillips, David Graham, 267Phillips, William, 204Pickering, Jacob, 261Pickering, John, 178–179, 260–262, 402Pickering, Timothy, 383, 394Pierce, Franklin, 278Pierce, Samuel, 171, 173, 387Pilgrim’s Progress (Bunyan), 267Pilon, Roger, 186

Pinchback, Pickney B. S., 202, 358Pinter, Lieb, 134Piranha Press, 107Platt, Thomas C., 54Plays, 293Plumb, Preston B., 285“Plumbers,” 233, 359, 412“Plumed Knight,” 30, 187Plumer, William, Jr., 261, 403Plunder Dome operation, 55Poindexter, George, 315, 402Poindexter, John, 188, 387Poindexter, Miles, 324Poland, Luke, 12, 68, 85, 253, 404Poland Committee, 253Political action committees (PACs), 37,

185Federal Election Commission v.

National Conservative PoliticalAction Committee, 36, 129, 185

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, 36,129, 244–245

Political cartoons, 262–264Agnew and, 8Clinton and, 46Crédit Mobilier scandal and, 84Gore and, 146Jackson and, 50Nixon and, 118, 242, 361Reagan and, 189Shepherd and, 299Teapot Dome scandal and, 124, 325Tweed Ring and, 263, 336

Polk, James K., 49, 216Polk, Trusten, 382Polygamy, 389Pomerene, Altee, 92, 183, 282, 326–327Pomeroy, Kenneth, 4Pomeroy, Samuel Clarke, 44, 267–269Postal Service. See Mail and mail

fraudPotz, Ignatz, 304Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr., 269–270,

390, 410–411Powell, Lazarus W., 382Powell, Norman John, xiPowell v. McCormack, 270–271, 307Powers, Caleb, 144–145Presidents

censured, 49–50, 403–404chronology of misdeeds, 401–424executive privilege and, 117–120,

243, 360, 362impeachment of, 178, 243, 311,

362–363obstruction of justice and, 247, 362

460 Index

pardons granted by. See Pardons,paroles, and commutations

See also Campaign financePressler, Larry, 3Price, Christian, 309Price, Melvin, 270Primary Colors (1997 film), 265Primary elections, 126, 239–240, 273,

408, 409Prinz, Andrew, 96Prohibition, 329–330Prosperi, Arnold, 252Providence, RI, 54–55Publicity Act of 1910, 271–273, 407Puccio, Thomas P., 1Purviance, Samuel A., 143Puter, Stephen A. Douglas, 232Pyle, J. Howard, 392

Qian Qichen, 422Queenan, J., 388Quinn, Jack, 119Quitman, John A., 392

Racetracks, 218Racial violence, 10–11, 329, 356. See

also Ku Klux KlanRacketeer Influenced Corrupt

Organizations (RICO) Act, 111,225

Racketeeringcongressmen, 40, 223, 332–333, 423governors, 110, 211–212, 217–218mayors, 54–55, 423

Ragatz, Lowell, 298Ragghianti, Marie, 32–33Railroads

corrupt congressmen and, 30. Seealso Crédit Mobilier scandal

corrupt governors and, 37corrupt judges and, 13Crédit Mobilier scandal. See Crédit

Mobilier scandalRaimo, John

on Adams (Llewelyn), 4on Barstow, 22on Hoffman, 162on Jackson (James), 192–193on Kerner, 203on Leche, 212–213on Mandel, 217on McCray, 224on Warmoth, 357

Randall, Robert, 401Randolph, Earl, 280Randolph, John, 178, 261

Rauh, Carl, 387Raum, Green B., 51Rawlins, John Aaron, 23Ray, Elizabeth, 157–158Ray, Robert, 367, 423Raynolds, Mel, 225Reagan, Ronald

EPA scandal and, 234executive privilege and, 234HUD scandal and, 171, 185Iran–Contra scandal and, 184, 188,

387, 417pardons granted by, 218, 251, 252Starr and, 310

Real estate. See Land fraudRecall, 275–276Reconstruction era

governors impeached orinvestigated, 10, 57, 164–166,201–203, 266, 356–358

literature and, 266Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 296Redick, John I., 40Reed, David A., 349–350Reed, Harrison, 276–277, 392Reed, Stanley, 341–342Reed v. County Commissioners of

Delaware County, 350Reeder, Andrew Horatio, 278–279Reel, C. Gordon, 313Reflections of a Public Man (Wright),

374, 417The Reformer and the Redhead (1950

film), 265Rehnquist, William

and Claiborne v. United States, 55and Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee v. FederalElection Commission, 69

and Federal Election Commission v.National Conservative PoliticalAction Committee, 129

and Federal Election Commission v.National Right to WorkCommittee, 130

on Judge Hastings, 154and Morrison v. Olson, 235and Nixon v. United States, 246

Reid, John W., 238, 381Reno, Janet

Clinton–Gore campaign and, 47, 61,184, 420

Espy and, 116Filegate and, 133, 419Whitewater and, 61, 366

Rerdell, Montfort C., 103–104

Residence, as factor in eligibility forCongress, 386, 389

Revels, Hiram R., 386Reynolds, Melvin Jay, 279Rhode Island

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382

corrupt mayors in, 54–55Riady, James, 45, 46, 294, 295, 362Rialto Grain & Securities Company,

38–39Rice, Henry M., 382Rice, John M., 389Rich, Denise, 252Rich, Marc, 62, 252, 254, 423Richard, Gabriel, 389Richard II, King of England, 306–307Richards, Richard, 422Richardson, Elaine, 388Richardson, Elliot, 9, 119, 184, 243, 360,

413, 414Richardson, Sid Williams, 72Richardson, William A., 51Richmond, Frederick William, 279–280RICO Act, 111Riegle, Donald W., Jr., 82, 199–201Ringle, Ken, 111Rite of attainer, 180Ritter, Halsted L., 179, 280–281, 394Roach, William N., 191, 281–282, 382Roberts, Brigham H., 389Roberts, Donn M., 408Roberts, Owen J., 92, 183, 282–283,

326–327Robinson, Charles, 284–285, 392Robinson, James, 78Robinson, John W., 285Robinson, William J., 195Rocket technology. See ChinagateRodgers, Harry W., III, 217–218Rodgers, William A., 217–218Rodham, Hugh, 62Rodney, Caesar A., 261Roemer, Charles “Buddy,” 110–111Romer, Roy, 421Roosevelt, Franklin Delano

donation from CIO, 408Hague and, 151Hatch Act and, 156, 408–409investigation of NYC corruption,

293, 353–354Walsh and, 355See also New Deal

Roosevelt, Theodorecampaign contributions and, 271,

406–407

Index 461

journalists and, 267Mitchell pardoned by, 232New York City and, 86Tyner and, 339

Rose, Richard W., 55Ross, Edmund G., 43Ross, James, 220Ross, Nellie Taylor, 131Ross, Robert Tripp, 285–286Rostenkowski, Daniel D., 170, 225,

286–288, 307Rota, Robert V., 170Rousseau, Lovell H., 381Roybal, Edward R., 208, 383Roybal–Allard, Lucille, 81Ruckelshaus, William, 119, 184, 243,

360, 414Ruef, Abraham, 290, 407Ruff, Charles F. C., 201, 362Russ, Jack, 169, 260Rutherford, John, 220Rutledge, John, 251Ryan, Edward G., 174

Sack, Robert D., 351Safire, William, 133San Francisco, 290–291, 406, 407Sanborn Contracts scandal, 51Sann, Paul, 354Santa Fe Ring, 16, 48Satellite technology. See Chinagate“Saturday Night Massacre,” 360, 365,

414Scalia, Antonin, 15–16, 69, 235, 244, 310Scandalum magnatum, xiSchaefer, Donald, 218Schenck, Robert Cumming “Poker Bob,”

289–290Scherer, Roger, 107Schmitz, Eugene E., 232, 290–291, 406,

407Schoeneman, George, 206Schultz,“Dutch,” 99Schultz, Stanley, 88Schumaker, John G., 207, 292, 382Schurz, Carl, 109, 158, 236, 259Schwartz, Bernard, 5, 51–52Scioto Speculation, 105Scott, Bobby, 81Scott, Joseph F., 313Scowcroft, Brent, 188Seabury, Samuel, 292–293, 353–354Seabury Commission, 292, 322,

353–354Sebastian, Benjamin, 220Sebastion, William K., 382

SEC. See Securities and ExchangeCommission

Secord, Richard, 188, 387Secretary of Agriculture, 115, 185, 419,

423Secretary of Labor, 185Secretary of the Interior, Teapot Dome

scandal and, 48, 92, 94, 123, 183,323–326, 355, 408

Secretary of the Navycongressional censure of, 51, 404Teapot Dome scandal and. See

Denby, EdwinSecretary of the Treasury, 51Secretary of War, 51, 394Secrets of the Whiskey Ring

(McDonald), 364Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC), 5Sedition, 381, 389Sedition Trials, 402Select Committee on Standards and

Conduct, 101Select Committee on U.S. National

Security andMilitary/Commercial Concernswith the People’s Republic ofChina. See Cox Committee

Senatebribery, 1–3, 27–28, 37–38, 43–45,

56, 83, 213–215, 267–268,342–343, 369–371

chronology of misdeeds, 401–424Congressional Ethics Code, 71as court of impeachment, 178–179,

245–246, 394direct election of senators, 267disorderly conduct in, 383election irregularities, 20–22,

43–45, 56, 213–215, 267–268,304–305, 349–350, 408, 415

eligibility for membershipquestioned, 386 (table)

embezzlement, 281–282fraud, 102–105, 231–232, 372–373illegal gifts accepted, 34impeachment rules of procedure,

395–399judicial powers of, 20–22, 25members censured, condemned, or

denounced, 28, 51, 100–102,106–108, 383–384 (table)

members expelled, 120–121,213–215, 382 (table)

members not seated due tocorruption, 304–305, 349–350

trials and convictions listed, 391(table)

See also Censure; Congress;Honoraria

Senate Rule 22, 101Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 19,

296–298Seventeenth Amendment, 267Seward, George F., 406Seward, James L., 143Sex scandals, xii

Cisneros and, 423Cleveland and, 31Clinton and. See Flowers, Gennifer;

Jones, Paula Corbin; Lewinsky,Monica

Hays and, 157–158Reynolds and, 279Stephenson (KKK Grand Dragon)

and, 192–193Tidal Basin scandal, 230–231

Seymour, Horation, 321Seymour, Whitney N., Jr., 387Shadur, Milton, 351The Shame of the Cities (Steffens), 266Sharkey’s Machine (1981 film), 265Sheehan, John C., 86Sheffield, William, 228Sheldon, Allen, 17Shellabarger, Samuel, 85Shepherd, Alexander Robey, 298Sherburne, Jane, 132Sherburne, John Samuel, 262Sherman, William T., 23, 404Sherwood, Russell T., 354Shields, James, 386Shirey, George Donald, 346Shoffner Act, 166Shrink Missouri PAC. See Nixon v.

Shrink Missouri PACShuster, Bud, 185Shuster, Elmer Greinert “Bud,”

298–301Sikes, Robert L. F., 157, 302–303Silbert, Earl, 362Silverman, Leon, 387Silzer, George S., 151Simmons, James F., 120, 303, 382, 404Simpson, Alexander, Jr., 13–14, 177Simpson, W. D., 389Sinclair, Harry F., 125, 283, 323–327Sinclair, Upton, 266Singletary, Sam, 388Sioeng, Ted, 47, 295Sirica, John, 119, 359, 362, 413, 414Sisk, Bernie, 64

462 Index

Sisk, Thomas, 32Sisto, J. A., 354Slattery, Harry, 125Slocum, H. W., 85Smalkin, Frederic N., 218Small, Lennington “Len,” 303–304Smaltz, Donald C., 116, 119, 388Smith, Alfred E., 151, 408Smith, David Highbaugh, 316Smith, Frank Leslie, 304–305, 408Smith, J. Allan, 354Smith, Jesse, 230Smith, John, 120, 305–306, 382, 391Smith, Joseph L., 403Smith, Lamar, 300Smith, Robert Burns, 56Smith, William (journalist), 378Smith, William L. (representative),

389Smith–Connally Anti-Strike Act, 409Smoot, Reed, 324, 382, 386Smythe, Henry A., 404Snyder, John W., 207Sobel, Robert

on Adams (Llewelyn), 4on Barstow, 22on Hoffman, 162on Jackson (James), 192–193on Kerner, 203on Leche, 212–213on Mandel, 217on McCray, 224on Warmoth, 357

Soliday, Clara, 34Sorrell, William H., 350–351Souter, David, 244South, Jerry, 350South Carolina

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381–383

questionable eligibility for House,389

South Korea. See Korean Gift ScandalSpecial Prosecutors, 117, 182

and Iran–Contra scandal, 188and Teapot Dome scandal, 282–283,

326and Watergate, 184, 243, 360,

413–414and Whiskey Ring frauds, 160–161,

182–183, 364–365Speech or Debate Clause, 306–308

McDade and, 225United States v. Brewster, 342–343United States v. Helstoski, 159, 307,

344–345

United States v. Johnson, 195, 307,345, 411

United States v. Rostenkowski, 287Spencer, John C., 402Sporkin, Stanley, 156, 179Spouses

Code of Official Conduct and, 63conflicts of interest and, 286illegal payment of, 270

Spratt, John M., Jr., 81Spreckels, Rudolph, 291Stanbery, William, xii, 383Stans, Maurice, 234Stansbury, Arthur J., 255Stanton, Edwin M., 303Star Route frauds, 102–105, 186–187,

308–309, 338–339Stark, Benjamin, 386Stark, Lloyd, 256Starr, John, 324Starr, Kenneth W., Jr., 62, 107, 133,

309–311, 366, 367, 388, 419Stauffer, S. Walter, 346Stead, William T., 77Steck, Daniel, 408Stedman, Seymour, 329Steffens, Lincoln, 266, 267Steier, Maurice, 388Stein, Jacob A., 387Steinbrenner, George, 252Stennis, John C., 184, 411, 414Stephens, Jay B., 170, 418Stephens, William, 402Stephenson, David Curtis, 191–192Sterling, John A., 13Stevens, John Paul, 7, 69, 129Stevens, R. S., 285Stevenson, Adlai, 320Stevenson, Andrew, xiiStillo, Adam, Jr., 419Stone, Harlan, 323Stone, John Marshall, 11Stone, Oliver, 265Stone, William W., 315Story, William F., 404Stoughton, William L., 41–42Stowe, John, 3Strawn, Silas, 183, 326Strode, Richard, 307Strode, William and Valentine, 307Strong, Caleb, 220Strong, Theron George, 54Strong, William L., 86Studds, Gerry E., 383Sturgis, Frank, 413Suicide, 108, 417

Sullivan, Timothy Daniel, 311–313Sullivan’s Law, 312Sulzer, William, 179, 180, 264, 313–315,

392Summers, Hatton W., 219Sumner, William Graham, 236Sun Diamond Growers, 116Superfund, 234Supreme Court. See U.S. Supreme CourtSuspect (1987 film), 265Sutherland, George, 21Swann, Thomas, 85Swartwout, Samuel, 315Swartwout–Hoyt scandal, 314–315Swayne, Charles H., 13, 316–317, 394Sweeney, James R., 143Sweeny, Peter B., 153, 335, 336Sweig, Martin, 412Symington, John Fife, III, 317–318

Taft, William Howard, 13, 275Taft–Hartley Act, 409Tait, Charles, 402Tallmadge, Mathias B., 402Talmadge, Eugene, 319Talmadge, Herman E., 51, 319–320, 384Tammany Hall, 263, 320–322

Choate and, 54Croker and, 54, 85–87factions in, 86Gaynor and, 141Hall and, 152Hoffman and, 163–164Jerome and, 194Seabury and, 293Sullivan and, 311–313Sulzer and, 313Walker and, 353

Taney, Roger B., 49Tanner, Albert H., 232Tappan, Benjamin, 383Tarbell, Ida, 267Tarkington, Booth, 266Tarver, Greg, 111Tate, James William “Honest Dick,”

322–323Tauzin, Billy, 110Tax fraud

congressional secretaries/aids, 19congressmen, 279–280, 410–411,

412Mavroules and, 222–223See also Income Tax scandal

(1951–1952); Whiskey Ringfrauds

Taylor, Charles, 32

Index 463

Taylor, Glen H., 27Taylor, William S., 144Teapot Dome scandal, 94–95, 183, 226,

323–327, 408censure of government officials and,

51Daugherty and, 92Fall and, 123–125Roberts and, 282–283Walsh and, 354–355

Teitelbaum, Abraham, 206Television, 264–265, 329Templeton, Charles A., 29Tennessee

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 381–383

corrupt governors of, 31–33, 392questionable eligibility for House,

389questionable eligibility for Senate,

386Tenney v. Brandhove, 307Terre Haute, Indiana, 408Texas

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382–383

Connally as governor of, 71–73Governor Ferguson impeached,

130–132, 392questionable eligibility for House,

389Thanks a Million (1935 film), 264Thaw, Harry K., 194Thomas, Charles B., 114Thomas, Clarence, 69, 244Thomas, J. Parnell, 327–328, 409–410Thomas, Philip F., 386Thomas, Robert Young, Jr., 92Thompson, Bill “Big,” 95, 96Thompson, Dennis F., 375Thompson, Fred Dalton, 32–33, 61,

294–295, 328–330, 421, 422Thompson, John G., 204–205Thompson, Larry D., 172, 387Thompson, William Aubrey, 32Thompson, William Hale, 70, 76–77,

304, 329–330Thompson Committee, 293–296Thomson, Frank, Jr., 1–3Thornberry, Homer, 136Thurman, Allen Granberry, 268Thurston, Buckner, 403Thurston, John M., 232Thurston, Samuel, 148Tidal Basin scandal, 230–231Tilden, Samuel, 148, 321, 337Tillman, Benjamin R., 271, 383

Tillman Act, 126, 271, 330–331, 407Tonry, Richard A., 390Torricelli, Robert Guy, 331–332Torrio, Johnny, 96Toucey, Isaac, 51, 404Toulmin, Harry, 402Tower, John, 188Tower Commission Report, 188Traficant, James A., Jr., 120–121, 170,

332–333, 423Train, Charles, 78Trapp, Martin Edwin, 356Treason, 381, 382Treasury

embezzlement by Nebraskagovernor, 40

embezzlement by New Jerseygovernor, 162–163

funds speculated with, 105–106Kentucky state treasury stolen by

treasurer, 322–323suicide of Pennsylvania treasurer,

108, 417Treatise on Federal Impeachments

(Simpson), 177Trie,Yah Lin “Charlie,” 295, 420Trimble, Lawrence S., 389Triplett, F. F. C., 143Tripp, Linda R., 311Truman, Harry S.

appointments secretary of, 73–74Curley’s sentence commuted by, 409Curtis pardoned by, 88and income tax scandal, 180–182,

206–207Kerner and, 203Leche pardoned by, 213May pardoned by, 224, 410Medal of Freedom awarded to

Dodd, 101number of pardons granted, 251Pendergast and, 256–257

Trumbo, Dalton, 328Tucker, James Guy, Jr., 311, 333–334,

367, 419, 420Turner, George, 401Tutwiler, Margaret, 388Twain, Mark, xiiTweed, William Magear “Boss,” 54, 70,

86, 89, 152, 163–164, 263, 264,321, 335–337

Tweed Ring, 53–54, 70, 86, 152–153,163–164, 321, 335–337

Twist, Steve, 228Tydings, Joseph D., 195Tyler, Alexander, xii–xiiiTyler, Augustus C., 41

Tyler, John, 49, 315Tyner, James Noble, 337–339Tyson, Don, 116Tyson Foods, 116

Ullman, Al, 231Union Pacific Railroad, 35, 37. See also

Crédit Mobilier scandalUnited States v. Blandton, 33United States v. Bramblett, 341–342United States v. Brewster, 49, 307,

342–343United States v. Classic, 240, 273, 409United States v. Gillock, 343–344United States v. Helstoski, 159, 307,

344–345United States v. Johnson, 195, 307, 345United States v. Malphurs, 157United States v. National Treasury

Employees Union, 117, 345–346United States v. Nixon, 119, 362United States v. Rostenkowski, 287United States v. Wilson, 403United States v. Worrall, 346–347U.S. Supreme Court

bribery and, 345–346campaign contributions and First

Amendment, 35–36, 68–69, 127,129, 244–245

Congress’s power to excludemembers, 269–271

Congress’s right to ban bribery,38–39

corrupt nominees to, 135–137,411–412

Disbursing Office of the House ofRepresentatives and, 341–342

election irregularities and, 350executive privilege and, 119Hatch Act and, 157Hobbs Act and, 161honoraria and, 117, 167impeachments and, 179, 245–246,

255Independent Counsel Statute and,

184, 234–236judicial powers of Congress and, 49,

196–197, 204–205, 225–226,406

judicial powers of the Senate and,20–22

limitations on corporateexpenditures for campaignfinance, 15–16, 128–130

limitations on independentexpenditures by politicalcommittees, 129, 185

464 Index

Parole Commission and (Addoniziocase), 7

presidential pardons and, 403primary elections and, 126,

239–240, 273, 408, 409prosecution and impeachment of

judges, 55–56, 394, 402Speech or Debate Clause and rights

of congressmen, 159, 195,306–308, 342–345, 411

Teapot Dome scandal and, 94–95types of evidence allowed in

corruption cases, 343–345Watergate and, 362, 415

Utahcases of expulsion, censure, and

condemnation listed, 382questionable eligibility for House,

389questionable eligibility for Senate,

386rules of impeachment in, 180

Utah Territory, 16, 389

Van Buran, Martin, 315Van Devanter, Christopher, 51Van Devanter, Willis, 226Van Ness, William P., 402Van Voorhis, John, 383Van Wyck, Robert, 86Vance, Zebulon B., 165Vare, William S., 20, 349–350, 408Vermont: cases of expulsion, censure,

and condemnation listed, 381,383

Vermont Right to Life Committee v.Sorrell, 350–351

Vice-presidentsbribery/kickbacks, 7–10, 83campaign finance abuses. See Gore,

Albert A., Jr.fraud, 12, 66–68treason, 118

Vicuna Coat scandal, 3–5Vignali, Carlos, 62, 252, 423Vilas, William F., 309Villapando, Catalina, 388Virginia

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382–383

questionable eligibility for House,389

Voorhis, Peter, 335

Waco, TX, 388Walker, James J.“Jimmy,” 292–293, 322,

353–354

Walker, William Henry, 353Wallace, Lew, 17, 48Wallace, W. Lawrence, 387Wallop, Malcolm, 371Walsh, Lawrence E., 188, 387, 417Walsh, Thomas J., 125, 324, 354–355Walters, L. T., Jr., 369Walton, John C., 180, 356, 392Wang Jun, 420War contracts. See Defense

contracts/war contractsWar Labor Disputes Act, 409Warmoth, Henry C., 202, 356–358, 392Warren, Earl, 136, 137, 271Warren, Robert Penn, 265Washington, George

executive privilege and, 117–118House of Burgesses and, 401Judge Pickering and, 260

Washington, D.C. See District ofColumbia

Washington Post, 359, 360, 413Watergate, xi, 184, 243, 248, 258–263

chronology of events, 412–415executive privilege and, 119films about, 265Mitchell and, 232–234Thompson and, 328

Watkins, R. Dorsey, 195Watrous, John C., 403, 404Watt, James, 172Webb, Edwin Y., 13Webster, Daniel, xiiWedtech scandal, 26–27, 139, 417–418Weeks, John Wingate, 94Weinberg, Mel, 2Weinberger, Caspar, 188, 387, 418Welch, Neil J., 1Welch, William Wickham, 112, 142, 363,

381Weldon, Curt, 81Welles, Orson, 265Wells, David, 236Wells, Lesley Brooks, 333Wells, William H., 262Wentworth, George, 261Werner, Morris R., 324West, William, 404West Point, appointments sold, 41,

96–97, 161, 367–368West Virginia

corrupt governors of, 392questionable eligibility for Senate,

386Western and Atlantic Railroad, 37Wheeler, Burton K., 382, 391Wheeler, William Almon, 84, 202

Whelen, Thomas J., 6Whiskey Ring frauds, 160–161, 175,

182–183, 364–365White, Byron, 129, 342White, Edward, 39, 239White, James B., 389White, John (1840s representative), 403White, John D. (1880s representative),

383White, Stanford, 194White House Travel Office, 418White supremacy, 27Whitewater, 61, 309, 310, 333–334,

365–367, 418–420Whitman, Charles, 369Whitney, Charles, 401Whitney, Eli, 193Whittemore, Benjamin F., 41, 120,

367–368, 381, 383, 389The Whole Truth: The Watergate

Conspiracy (Ervin), 362Wickersham, George W., 13Wilcox, Robert W., 389, 406Wilde, Oscar, xiWilkey, Malcolm R., 169Wilkinson, James, 220Will (Liddy), 362Willett, William Forte, Jr., 368–369Williams, Harrison A., Jr., 1–3, 83, 120,

369–371, 382, 391, 417Williams, Jack, 116Williams, John James, 19–20, 206,

371–372Williams, Sherrod, 383Williamson, Hugh, 178Williamson, John Newton, 232,

372–373Willson, Augustus E., 145Wilson, Charles H., 208, 373, 383Wilson, Henry, 12, 67Wilson, J. M., 85Wilson, James, 307Wilson, Lance, 387–388Wilson, William B., 20, 349–350Wilson, Woodrow, 54, 219, 323Wimpy, John A., 389Winn, Philip D., 172, 387Winslow, Warren, 78Wiriadinata, Arief and Soraya, 46, 294,

420Wirt, William, 251Wisconsin

cases of expulsion, censure, andcondemnation listed, 382, 384

corrupt judges in, 174–175questionable eligibility for House,

389

Index 465

Wise, Henry A., 383Witness to Power (Ehrlichman), 362Wolff, Jerome, 9Wolff, Wendy, 303Wolfson, Barry, 227Wood, Fernando, 321, 335, 383Woods, Rosemary, 362Woodson, Daniel, 278Woodward, Bob, 265, 359Works Progress Administration (WPA),

156

Worrall, Robert, 346–347WPA. See Works Progress

AdministrationWright, James Claude, Jr., 373–375,

417–418Wright, Joseph A., 303Wyatt, Maurice, 218Wylie, Andrew, 404Wynn, Herman, 286Wyoming. See Teapot Dome scandal

Yah Lin Trie, 47Yazoo Land frauds, 192–193Young, John D., 389Young Democracy (Tammany Hall

faction), 86Youtsey, Henry, 145

Zeldin, Michael F., 388Zenger, John Peter, 377–378Zihlman, Frederick N., 408Zimmerman, Leroy, 108

466 Index