James Hawkins Peck (12 January 1790 - 29 April 1836) was a son of Revolutionary Soldier Adam Peck and his wife Elizabeth Sharkey Peck. He was a judge of the United States District Court for the district of Missouri. He was the third Judicial officer on whom the United States House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment and was acquitted by the United States Senate.
Peck was appointed by President James Monroe to the federal courts in 1822. Peck was involved in several land claim cases arising out of the Louisiana territory purchase; in one such case in 1825 he ruled against the client of the lawyer Luke Lawless and published his opinion in a St. Louis newspaper the following year.
In response, Lawless posted an anonymous letter rebutting Peck's ruling in another newspaper. The authorship of the letter soon became known and Peck found Lawless in contempt of Court for:
Intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of said court, and to bring odium upon the court, and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the cases now pending therein.
Peck had Lawless placed in jail for 24 hours and removed his right to practice in a federal court for 18 months. Lawless began a crusade against Peck, which included submitting his own memorial for impeachment to the House. This memorial resulted in Impeachment charges before the US House of Representatives.
He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on 24 April 1830 on a charge of abuse of the contempt power. The U.S. Senate began the trial of Peck on 26 April 1830 and acquitted him of the charge on 31 January 1831 with 21 votes for removal and 22 votes against. [1] He remained on the bench until his death in 1836.
Source: Wikipedia
[Hinds Precedents -- Volume III]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:hinds_lxxiii.wais]
Chapter LXXIII.
IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF JAMES H. PECK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Preliminary investigation by the House. Sections 2364-2366.
2. The impeachment carried to the Senate. Section 2367.
3. The articles and the managers. Sections 2368-2370.
4. Writ of summons and appearance of respondent. Section 2371.
5. Rules for the trial. Section 2372.
6. Answer of the respondent. Sections 2373, 2374.
7. Replication of the House. Section 2375.
8. Presentation of evidence. Section 2376.
9. Attendance of the House during trial. Section 2377.
10. Final arguments. Section 2378.
11. What are impeachable offenses. Sections 2379-2382.
12. Final decision. Section 2383.
13. Report of trial to the House. Section 2384.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2364. The impeachment and trial of James H. Peck, United States judge
for the district of Missouri.
The impeachment proceedings in the case of Judge Peck were set in
motion by a memorial.
The investigation into the conduct of Judge Peck was revived by
referring to a committee a memorial presented in a former Congress.
Form of memorial praying for an investigation into the conduct of
Judge Peck.
The House decided formally to investigate the conduct of Judge Peck
only after the Judiciary Committee had examined the memorial.
On December 8, 1826,\1\ Mr. John Scott, of Missouri, presented a
memorial of Luke Edward Lawless, for an inquiry into the official
conduct of James H. Peck, district judge of the United States for the
district of Missouri, in relation to certain proceedings on an
attachment for contempt had by said judge against said Lawless. This
memorial was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On February
15, 1827,\2\ the House ordered the committee discharged from the
consideration of the memorial, and gave leave to the memorialist to
withdraw the same.
On December 29, 1828,\3\ on motion of Mr. George McDuffie, of South
Carolina, it was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, House Journal, p. 32.
\2\ Journal, p. 300.
\3\ Second session Twentieth Congress, House Journal, p. 101.
Sec. 2364
Ordered, That the memorial of Luke Edward Lawless, presented on the
8th December, 1826, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No report was made at this session.
On December 15, 1829,\1\ on motion of Mr. McDuffie, it was
Ordered, That the memorial of Luke Edward Lawless, presented on the
8th December, 1826, praying for impeachment of John H. Peck, judge of
the United States court in the State of Missouri, be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
This memorial \2\ was addressed as follows:
To the honorable the House of Representatives of the United States:
The petition of Luke Edward Lawless, a citizen of the State of
Missouri, and of the United States, respectfully showeth:
That, on the 30th day of March, in the present year, 1826, there
appeared in the Republican, a newspaper printed in the city of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, an article purporting to be the final decree
or opinion of the judge of the district court of the United States for
the district of Missouri, in the cause in which the widow and heirs of
Antoine Soulard were plaintiffs, and the United States defendant, etc.
The memorial goes on to set forth that an appeal had already been
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States when this final decree
was published; that the petitioner wrote a letter, which was published
in a St. Louis newspaper, setting forth in courteous and decorous
language the errors of fact and law which he conceived to exist in the
decree. This publication, as petitioner conceived, was meritorious
rather than censurable, since the land titles of a large district were
affected adversely by the decree, and speculators were taking advantage
of this fact. The petition goes on to set forth that he was, for this
publication, punished by Judge Peck for contempt. In conclusion the
memoralist says:
Having thus submitted to your honorable body the facts of his case,
and the evidence in support thereof, your petitioner begs leave to
observe that it appears from those facts:
First. That the said James H. Peck has, in his capacity of judge of a
district court of the United States, been guilty of usurping a power
which the laws of the land did not give him.
Second. That said James H. Peck has exercised his power, be the same
usurped or legitimate, in the case of your petitioner, in a manner
cruel, vindictive, and unjust.
Wherefore, and inasmuch as the said James H. Peck has not only
outraged and oppressed your petitioner as an individual citizen, but,
in your petitioner's person, has violated the most sacred and undoubted
rights of the inhabitants of these United States, namely, the liberty
of speech and of the press, and the right of trial by jury, your
petitioner prays that the conduct and proceedings in this behalf, of
said Judge Peck, may be inquired into by your honorable body, and such
decision made therein as to your wisdom and justice shall seem proper.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will pray.
Luke Edward Lawless.
St. Louis, Mo., September 22, 1826.
Various documents accompanied this memorial, in substantiation of
those charges which he offered to prove.
On January 7, 1830,\3\ Mr. James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, from the
Com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-first Congress, House Journal, p. 39.
\2\ For copy of this memorial in full see ``Report of the trial of
James H. Peck,'' published in Boston, in 1833, by Hilliard Gray & Co.
This publication has the proceedings of the trial in full. The Debates
of Congress give them in a very fragmentary form.
\3\ House Journal, p. 138.
Sec. 2365
mittee on the Judiciary, reported the following resolution, which was
agreed to by the House:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to send
for persons and papers in the case of the charge of official misconduct
against James H. Peck, judge of the district court of Missouri.
2365. Peck's impeachment, continued.
In reporting in favor of impeaching Judge Peck the committee
submitted transcripts of testimony.
Following the Chase precedent, the committee refrained from giving
their reasons for concluding that Judge Peck should be impeached.
In the investigation of Judge Peck, the respondent cross-examined
witnesses, and addressed the committee.
The House declined to print with the evidence in the Peck
investigation the memorial or the address of respondent.
The report favoring the impeachment of Judge Peck was committed to
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
On March 23 \1\ Mr. Buchanan submitted from that committee the
following report:
That, in consequence of the evidence collected by them, in virtue of
the powers with which they have been invested by the House, and which
is hereunto subjoined, they are of opinion that James H. Peck, judge of
the district court of the United States for the district of Missouri,
be impeached of high misdemeanors in office.
In presenting the report Mr. Buchanan stated that the committee \2\
deemed it fairest toward the party accused not to report to the House
their reasons at length for arriving at the conclusion that he ought to
be impeached. In this respect they thought it advisable to follow the
precedent which had been established in the case of the impeachment of
Judge Chase.
The report contains, however, an abstract of the case of heirs of
Antoine Soulard v. United States, the opinion of Judge Peck therein,
the letter of Mr. Lawless criticising the opinion, and the court
records showing the arrest and punishment of the latter. The journal of
the committee also accompanies the report. It gives the testimony of
Mr. Lawless and others before the committee, and shows that Judge Peck
was present in the committee room in person, and cross-examined the
witnesses.
Mr. Buchanan moved that the report, with the documents as described
and the transcripts of the testimony, be printed. Thereupon Mr. Clement
C. Clay, of Alabama, moved to add to the matter to be printed ``the
memorial of Luke E. Lawless and the address of the judge to the
committee.'' This amendment was disagreed to, and then the original
motion of Mr. Buchanan was agreed to.
The report was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 454; Debates, p. 637; House Report No. 325.
\2\ This committee consisted of Messrs. Buchanan, Charles A.
Wickliffe, of Kentucky; Henry R. Storrs, of New York; Warren R. Davis,
of South Carolina; Thomas T. Bouldin, of Virginia; William W.
Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and Edward D. White, of Louisiana.
Sec. 2366
2366. Peck's impeachment, continued.
Judge Peck, threatened with impeachment, was permitted to make to the
House a written or oral argument.
Judge Peck, threatened with impeachment, transmitted to the House a
written argument, which was ordered to be read.
In Judge Peck's case the committee proceeded on the theory of an ex
parte inquiry.
Judge Peck was not permitted to bring witnesses before the House
committee, but cross-examined and filed a statement.
In the Peck case the House, with a view to English precedents,
discussed the nature of the inquiry preliminary to impeachment.
Form of memorial in which Judge Peck asked leave to state his case to
the House.
On April 5 \1\ the Speaker laid before the House a memorial:
To the honorable the Speaker and Members of the House of
Representatives of the United States:
The memorial of James H. Peck, judge of the district court of the
United States for the district of Missouri, respectfully represents:
That, by a report of the Committee on the Judiciary, made to your
honorable body on the 23d March, 1830, on the petition of Luke E.
Lawless, it is proposed that your memorialist be impeached of high
misdemeanors in office.
The memorialist goes on to describe the status of the case, and says
that in view of the gravity of the proceeding he--
presumes that it will not be displeasing to your honorable body to have
a full view of the whole ground of this accusation before you proceed
to decide finally on the report of the committee. In England, from
which we borrow the process of impeachment, the House of Commons has
been willing to receive such information from the party accused before
they will vote the impeachment.
The memorialist then cites in support of this assertion the case of
Warren Hastings.
The memorialist further asks that he may be permitted to adduce
against the prima facie impression to his disadvantage arising from the
report of the committee the fact that Mr. Lawless's petition had been
presented in former Congresses, and that the able men to whom it was
referred found no grounds for proceeding.
The petitioner suggests that any method which may be taken to enable
him to present ``a full exposition of all the facts'' will be
satisfactory to him, whether by direct address to the House or before a
committee.
When the memorial of Mr. Lawless had been referred to the Judiciary
Committee, they had notified the present memorialist, Judge Peck, that
they would receive ``any explanation'' which he might think proper to
make in reference to the charge. In the brief time allowed he had made
such a statement as was possible, although it was inadequate. But when
it was handed in, the chairman of the committee did not read it, but
proceeded immediately to examine the witnesses.
It is true, also,
continues the memorial--
that your memorialist was permitted to cross-examine, to a certain
extent, the witnesses who had been summoned and examined in support of
the charge, but this cross-examination was much restricted by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 499; Debates, p. 736; House Report No. 345.
Sec. 2366
frequent objections, and by the strong desire evinced by the committee
to get through the examination at least within the two remaining days
of the week; and your memorialist having been more than once admonished
that he was there ex gratia, felt himself checked and restrained from
extending the cross examination to points which seemed to him to belong
to the inquiry, so that his having been permitted to be present under
such circumstances is rather a disadvantage to him than a benefit,
because it gives to the transaction all the semblance of a free and
full investigation of the whole case, without the reality. Your
memorialist does not make this remark in censure of the honorable
committee; on the contrary, considering the proceeding, as they
manifestly seemed to do, as being analogous to an inquiry by a grand
jury and to be governed by the same rules, your memorialist is
sincerely satisfied that it was their purpose to treat him, as, in this
view of the subject, they did in fact treat him, with great liberality
and indulgence.
But your memorialist submits, with great respect, that the proceeding
of the House of Representatives, in inquiring whether they will, or
will not, institute an impeachment, is not to be governed by those
strict rules which confine a grand jury to ex parte evidence. It was
not the course pursued by the House of Commons of Great Britain, in the
case of Warren Hastings, to which he has referred, and in which the
House, before they voted the impeachment, heard not only the defense,
but the testimony of his witnesses.
And the memorialist concludes:
Your memorialist, therefore, respectfully prays that your honorable
body will receive from him a written exposition of the whole case,
embracing both the facts and the law, and give him, also, process to
call his witnesses from Missouri in support of his statements, before
any discussion or vote shall be taken on the evidence as it is now
presented with the report of the committee. * * *
If this prayer can not be granted, his hope and prayer is that your
honorable body will, if it meet your own approbation, vote the
impeachment at once, without any discussion on that partial evidence
which presents a garbled view of the subject, greatly to the prejudice
of your memorialist, and that he may have as speedy an opportunity as
the nature of the case will allow to exhibit before the tribunal of the
Senate and before his country the entire transaction, in all its parts,
as it really occurred, being conscious and confident that to insure his
acquittal from all censure in the minds of all honorable men accustomed
to discussions of this kind, the case requires only to be fully
understood.
And in the strong hope that the one or the other of these prayers
will be granted, your memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
James H. Peck.
Washington City, April 5, 1830.
Mr. Henry R. Storrs, of New York, at once moved that the memorial be
referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
to which the report of the Judiciary Committee had already been
referred.
A debate \1\ at once arose as to the propriety of granting the prayer
of the petitioner. Mr. Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, said:
As to precedents, there was no uniformity in them on this subject.
One high case had been referred to, that of Warren Hastings, and also
that of Judge Chase. But the practice in the several States differed
from that which had been pursued by the General Government. In his own
State (and he hoped he should not be considered as presumptuous in
referring to the practice of a State which had so recently been
admitted to the Union) the course pursued in cases of impeachment was
different and he thought there were many inducements for the House to
pursue the practice there adopted. He could not unite in the opinion
that the House should proceed precisely as did a grand jury in ordinary
cases of indictment. The present case was totally different. A great
officer had been accused of a great offense. Did gentlemen suppose,
could they think, that when a high officer of the Government was
accused by a private individual he must, on the mere ex parte testimony
of that accuser, be at once impeached? Mr. Clay said he should hesitate
much before he could subscribe to such an opinion. He thought the House
ought to proceed with very great caution. Merely to accuse was not all
that was necessary in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annals, pp. 737, 738.
Sec. 2366
order to have a judge impeached. Some gentlemen seemed to conceive that
the memorial of this petitioner asked that witnesses might be examined
at the bar of that House; but it made no such request directly. It only
asked this as one alternative--that his witnesses might be heard here,
if not elsewhere.
Mr. Buchanan said:
Judge Peck, in that memorial, suggests that the Committee on the
Judiciary sent for such witnesses only as had been selected by Mr.
Lawless. That is far from being the fact. The committee acted upon
higher principles. They were sensible of the high responsibility which
they owed, both to this House and to the country, for the correctness
of their proceedings; and had, therefore, inquired and ascertained,
from the best sources in their power, the names of such witnesses as
would be most likely to give an impartial and intelligent statement of
the transaction. They had sent for and examined seven witnesses; and he
owed it to them to say that, although he had long been in the habit of
examining witnesses in courts of justice, he had never observed, on any
occasion, more candor or more impartiality than these seven gentlemen
had exhibited upon their examination before the committee.
It is true, as the memorial suggests, that, in the case of Warren
Hastings, the House of Commons did hear the accused, and did permit him
to produce testimony, before they voted an impeachment against him. But
this was only a single instance. That course might have been adopted,
because Mr. Burke, merely as in individual Member of the House, had
risen in his place, and moved the impeachment. Whether he was correct
in this conjecture or not, it was certain there had been no case of an
impeachment by this House, in which so much indulgence was granted, as
had been allowed to the accused upon the present occasion. He was
permitted to furnish the committee with a written explanation of his
conduct, and his request that he might cross-examine the witnesses was
promptly granted.
Mr. Ralph I. Ingersoll, of Connecticut, confessed that this was, in a
great measure, a new case to him. The only one that he had ever before
witnessed was that in which charges, through a newspaper of this
district, had been brought against the Vice-President about three years
ago. That officer had presented these charges to the House, as the
grand inquest of the nation, and requested an inquiry. A committee had
been appointed to investigate them; and, before that committee, a
friend of the Vice-President had been permitted to appear and represent
him throughout the whole investigation. Witnesses, also, had been
examined on the part of the accused. How it had been in the case of
Judge Chase, or of Judge Pickering, from New Hampshire, he did not
recollect; but he well recollected that witnesses in favor of the Vice-
President had been examined, as well as against him, and that his
representative had been allowed to be present before the committee
through every stage of that examination. The committee at that time
took some pains to ascertain what was the proper mode of proceeding,
and they became satisfied that the party accused had, in these
preliminary proceedings, a right to be thus heard.
Mr. Spencer Pettis, of Missouri, said that the practice in cases of
impeachment, so far as regarded the proceedings of this House, was now
to be settled; for it was obvious that it had not yet been settled by
precedent. Gentlemen had, indeed, spoken of the case of Judge Chase;
but that case had no application to the present one as it now stands.
Judge Chase did not ask to make his defense before this House, nor did
he ask either to cross-examine witnesses on the part of the Government,
or to have an examination of his own witnesses. As the present question
was not then raised, that case can form no precedent to govern in this
instance.
Mr. Pettis also went on to cite the investigations of the conduct of
Mr. John C. Calhoun, as Secretary of War, and of Secretary of the
Treasury William H. Crawford. In both investioations the accused had
been permitted to have witnesses examined
Sec. 2366
before the committees. Both these gentlemen were charged with high
misdemeanors, and the charges had been preferred in times of great
political excitement.
Mr. James Strong, of New York, said that, from the little examination
he had been able to give to this subject, he had come to the conclusion
that the present proceedings should be strictly ex parte, rigidly so.
It had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Everett] that
the committee had departed somewhat from this line. It was true that
they had deviated from it in a slight degree, but the departure was not
such as to warrant the House in taking the other step which was now
requested. There was a very material difference between hearing the
party accused and hearing his witnesses. The Members of the House were
not judges to try or to condemn the accused. It was true that the
matters in this testimony might not be such as to mix themselves up
with party politics; but suppose that it were proposed to impeach a
political man of high standing, and that the witnesses were brought to
the bar of the House, he put it to every man to say whether the safety
of the country did not require that in such cases politics should be
thoroughly excluded from that tribunal. And how could this be done but
by keeping the proceedings strictly ex parte? Complaints had been made
that the committee had not reported articles of impeachment; the case
had been referred to them for no such purpose; their duty had been
simply to ascertain facts. The House did not want even their opinions;
it wanted the facts only, and on one side. What the House had to decide
was, whether the testimony did or did not contain matter to warrant an
impeachment. If it did, then the House would say the party should be
impeached, and the next step would be to appoint a committee to frame
the articles. These would be reported to the House, and, if they were
agreed upon, then managers would be appointed to conduct the trial
before the Senate. It struck him that the safest course would be to
keep the proceedings as near ex parte as possible.
Finally the memorial was ordered to be laid on the table for
printing, and was not referred to the Committee of the Whole.
On April 7,\1\ Mr. Pettis proposed a resolution which, after
modifications, read as follows:
Resolved, That James H. Peck, judge of the district court of the
United States for the district of Missouri, be permitted, at any time,
until Wednesday next at 12 o'clock, to make to this House any written
or oral argument on the law or matters of fact, now in evidence before
the House, he may think proper, in answer to the charges preferred
against him by Luke E. Lawless, esq., which charges have been reported
on by the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. William Drayton, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the words
``or oral.'' He said that in making the motion he had no intention of
preventing the individual concerned from availing himself of the full
benefit of what the resolution proposed to grant to him, but had been
influenced by the consideration that, if his exposition should be made
in writing all the Members of the House would have an opportunity of
examining it; but if made orally it would be impossible that all the
Members should distinctly hear it, and, if they did, they would
probably not retain the substance of it distinctly in their memories.
This was one reason which actuated him. Another was that, in his
opinion, ill consequences would be likely to arise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 513; Debates, p. 746-753.
Sec. 2366
from the personal appearance of the memorialist before the House. He
might aver that a material fact could be established by testimony
incorrectly or imperfectly referred to in the report of the committee,
and ask leave to introduce it fully. Should his application be
rejected, he might regard the permission to be heard as illusory.
Should his application be acceded to, they would be drawn into a trial
of the cause.
The amendment was disagreed to by the House.
On behalf of the resolution, Mr. Pettis said that he had examined the
precedents since 1640 and had found none against the proposed action.
Mr. Buchanan said that he had examined the British precedents, and
found that in several cases the party had been admitted to the floor of
the House of Commons simply to make an argument on the testimony which
had been previously given to the House. This was the utmost extent of
the privilege so far as he had examined, except in a single instance--
that of Warren Hastings. He should make no objection to a mere
permission to make an exposition of the law and an argument upon the
facts as they appeared in the testimony already taken.
Mr. William Drayton, of South Carolina, drew a distinction between
this House and the House of Commons. This House had no other
inquisitorial authority than was expressly delegated to it by the
Constitution. The House of Commons, on the other hand, was the ``grand
inquest'' of the nation. It may even supersede the courts in cases of
individual misdemeanors, as in the case of Alice Pierce, Sir John
Fenwick, etc. British precedents were more likely to mislead than
assist. The Constitution simply gives this House power to decide
whether the case shall be tried before another body. The House could
not itself try the case. Unless it should confine itself to what was
termed ex parte evidence there would be no bounds to the inquiry.
Mr. Buchanan said his desire was that the House might establish such
a precedent as should protect the interests of the accused in all
future time. The Judiciary Committee had Judge Chase's trial before
them. The mode of proceeding in that trial they considered as strictly
proper and delicate. The committee in that case were directed to report
their opinion on the charges against Judge Chase, which had been made
on the floor of the House. For the purpose of enabling them to do so
they procured all the testimony in their power. This they reported to
the House, together with a simple statement of their own opinion upon
it--nothing else. And why? He presumed that, as it was a judicial
proceeding, they wished to leave every gentleman to decide for himself
on the naked testimony. They considered one Member as competent to
decide as another. Their report was referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, and there it was discussed. If
in this case the Committee of the Whole should concur with the
Judiciary Committee in their view of the case, then the House would
appoint a committee to draft articles of impeachment. These articles
would be considered and adopted by the House. Until after this second
decision the accused would not be called upon to answer. As to the
course pursued by the Pennsylvania house in a similar case, it had
never met his approval.
The House agreed to the resolution proposed by Mr. Pettis without
division.
Sec. 2367
Judge Peck did not avail himself of the permission to come before the
House and make an oral statement; but on April 14 \1\ the Speaker laid
before the House a letter from Judge Peck transmitting his
``explanation in answer to the charges,'' with documents referred to in
the answer.
The House decided that the explanation should be read, but after a
time the reading was suspended and the statement alone having been
ordered printed, it was, with the documents, referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
2367. Peck's impeachment, continued.
After consideration in Committee of the Whole, the House concurred in
the proposition to impeach Judge Peck.
The impeachment of Judge Peck was only for ``high misdemeanors in
office.''
Forms and ceremonies of carrying the impeachment of Judge Peck to the
Senate.
The impeachment of Judge Peck was carried to the Senate by a
committee of two.
After discussing precedents the Senate appointed a committee to
consider the message impeaching Judge Peck.
The Blount precedent for requiring bonds of the respondent was
discussed adversely in the Peck case.
Mr. Senator Benton was excused from voting on a preliminary question
in the Peck impeachment.
On April 21, 22, 23, and 24 \2\ the Committee of the Whole House on