The Washington times., 1913-01-15
ARCHIBALD AND PUBLIC SENTIMENT.

On February 27, 1905, the Senate voted its vel
dict on the several counts of impeachment agains
Charles Swayne, United States district judge 70
Florida. Judge Swayne had been tried at length.
is the statement of many lawyers and others VIII
followed the proceedings in that case, and in tn
recent Archibald trial, that a stronger case wa
made, on the whole, against Swayne than agains
Archibald.
Therefore it is interesting to anayze the votes b
which Judge Swayne was acquitted and Judge Arch
bald convicted. Taking the first count against each
we find that Judge Swayne was voted guilty by s.
and not guilty by 40 Senators; while Archibald wa
voted guilty by 6s and not guilty by S Senators
The first count in each case is fairly representative
of the case whole.
Here are the Senators who seven years ago votet
that Swayne was guilty, and yesterday voted tina
Archibald was guilty:
Cuberson, Foster, McCumber, Martin, Nelson
Newlands, Simmons, Stones.
Here are the Senators who seven years ago votec
that Swayne was not guilty, and yesterday voted tina
Archibald was not guilty:
Burnham Penrose-2.
Now comes the illuminating exhibit, the testimony
that the world moves, that public opinion does reach
up even to the seats of our mighty that public
years ago, that our sacred judicial establishment is
no longer held immune to criticism. Here is the list
of Senators who seven years ago voted that Swayne
was not guilty, and yesterday voted that Archibald
rpas guilty:
Clapp, Clark of Wyoming, Crane, Cullom, Gal
linger, Lodge, Perkins, Smoot, Warren
In addition, these Senators voted that Swayne was
not guilty, but were absent or not voting" on the
Archibald case:
Dillingham;, Gamble
These were absent or not voting" on the Swayne
Case, but voted that Archibald was guilty:
Charge of Arkansas, Wetmore.
1t may be urged, of course that the Swayne case
and the Archibald case were not IDENTICAL that a
Senator might in all conscience find Swayne inno-
cent and Archibald guilty.
To be sure. But between the Swayne and the
Archibald cases there came tWo trials of the question
of whether William Lorimer had been corruptly
elected Senator; two roll CALLS two different ver-
diets. Let us what Senators voted first that
Lorimer was entitled to his seat, and then, after
public opinion had made itself felt changed and
voted that he was not entitled to it.
The first vote on the Lormer case was taken
March L. 1911, when 40 Senators voted to unseat and
46 voted not TO unseat Lormer.
me second wore on tHe same case was taken luly
13, 1912, when 55 Senators voted to unseat and %
voted not to unseat Lorimer.
Here are the Senators who voted at the first trial
to retain, and at the second to reject Lorimer:
Briggs, Cullom, Curtis, Simmons, Watson
In addition, these Senators voted for Lormer at
the first trial. but permitted themselves to be record
ed as absent or not voting" at the second:
Bankhead du Pont, Hepburn, Warren
The record of the Lorimer case makes it verv
plain that under pressure of aroused public opinion
Senators do change their minds
Tossing aside all bubbles and super-re6nements
about the Swayne and Archibald cases being essen
tally different-which they were, because the case
against Swayne worse than that against Arch
bald-the record of votes in these two impeachment
case shows that nine Senators who sat on both cases
voted Swayne innocent and Archibald guilty; that two
who voted Swayne innocent failed to vote at all on
Archibald; and that two more voted Archibald guilty.
who did not vote at all on Swayne.
1t is most interesting analysis; but after all the
big impressive fact is set forth by the totals in these
four trials. To recaptulate:
Swayne was not guilty, 49 to 80.
Archibald was guilty, 68 to 5.
Lorimer was not corruptly elected, 46 to 40.
Lorimer was guilty, 55 to %.
The United States Senate can see through mill
stone when the finger of public sentiment points it
to the hole. .-.- --