Highest Duty

Senators last week made a determined effort to keep the U. S. Judiciary pure. To the impeachment case of Judge Halsted L. Ritter of Florida, they gave their weightiest deliberation because they did not wish to be accused again, as they were in 1933, of acquitting an impeached judge because they were too lazy to listen to the evidence. Besides, the case against Judge Ritter had been presented with liveliness and ability by large, agile Representative Sam Hobbs of Selma, Ala., one of the three House prosecutors (TIME, March 16; April 20). Thus Senators settled down solemnly last week behind closed doors to discuss their verdict.

Their jury-room debate was not unpleasant because: 1) it gave them an opportunity to talk after eight silent days during which they had to ask their questions in writing; 2) they were allowed to smoke on the Senate floor, a privilege they enjoy at no other time. For two days Judge Ritter and his lawyers fretted nervously in an anteroom.

As Senators drifted in & out of the Senate Chamber, word went around that the division was going to be close, that a bitter debate was in progress. Senator Borah was credited with making a vigorous speech in favor of conviction. There was a highly involved constitutional debate. Judge Ritter of Florida was a Republican appointed by Calvin Coolidge. Republican Senator Austin of Vermont pointed out that the Constitution says, ". . . all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These offenses, he claimed, had not been proved against Judge Ritter. Democratic Senator George of Georgia pointed to another sentence in the Constitution: "The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. . . ." If Senators believed Judge Ritter guilty of misbehavior, regardless of high crimes and misdemeanors, it was, declared Georgia's George, their duty to convict.

On the third day the Chamber doors were opened and the Senate met publicly to do its highest duty. The gallery was packed for this rare and dramatic moment in constitutional history. Eighty-four Senators were in their seats. Vice President Garner had stepped aside to let Senator Pittman preside. Three empty black leather chairs stood in a row below the dais on the Republican side of the Chamber; Representative Hobbs and his fellow-prosecutors felt it more fitting to be absent when the Senate vote was taken. Three more black leather chairs stood on the Democratic side. The centre one was occupied by small, aging Judge Ritter. his arms folded, his face pale and expressionless. At his right sat his broad-beamed Chief Counsel, Frank P. Walsh, to hire whom, according to Florida newshawks in the press gallery, Judge Ritter was obliged to mortgage his Florida home. The third chair was occupied by his local counsel from Miami. Up rose the Secretary of the Senate to read the first article of the impeachment. It charged Judge Ritter with allowing a $75,000 fee to his onetime law partner in a bankruptcy case, getting a $4,500 kickback for himself.

"Senators," intoned Nevada's Pittman, "how say you? Is the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, guilty or not guilty? The clerk will call the roll."

As the clerk began calling, bells rang in the corridors to summon vagrant Senators. "Guilty," said Senator Adams. "Guilty," said Senator Ashurst. "Not guilty," said Senator Austin.

No means had Judge Ritter or his attorneys of keeping track of the votes. As it became apparent that there were more "guilty" than "not guilty" votes, Judge Ritter's face went whiter than ever. Finally Senator Pittman announced: "On the first article of impeachment 55 Senators have voted 'guilty' and 29 Senators have voted 'not guilty.' Less than two-thirds of the members present having voted 'guilty'. . . ."

Saved by one vote, Judge Ritter did not move a muscle as the clerk began to read aloud the second count of the indictment charging that Judge Ritter connived to have a receivership suit brought for his own profit. Again the roll was called: 52 "guilty," 32 "not guilty."

The third and fourth counts, in which Judge Ritter was charged with practicing law while on the bench, fell even shorter of the necessary two-thirds majority to convict. The fifth count, a charge of failure to report for income tax various sums received, actually produced a majority for acquittal. Still Judge Ritter did not move a muscle.

Meantime newshawks were keeping political score in the gallery: 30 Senators, nearly all regular Democrats, were voting "guilty" on every count; 26 Senators, the majority of them regular Republicans, were voting "not guilty" on every count. Mrs. Caraway was voting "guilty" with the Democratic regulars, Mrs. Long "not guilty," with the Republicans. The fate of Judge Ritter rested with the 28 Senators who were splitting their votes on the different counts. With the sixth count, another income tax charge, more of this group swung to vote for conviction: 46-to-37.

The seventh count summarized the other six, declared that "the reasonable and probable consequence" of Judge Ritter's actions was to "bring his court into scandal and disrepute ... to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice therein, and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the Federal judiciary. . . . Wherefore the said Judge Halsted L. Ritter was and is guilty of misbehavior, and was and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in office."

"Senators, how say you?" repeated Senator Pittman for the seventh time.. "Guilty," "Guilty," "Not Guilty," "Guilty," came the answers in order. It was going to be as close as the first ballot. Senator Bachman, who had consistently voted "guilty," had left the floor. Just as the roll call was ending he re-entered to cast the last vote, "Guilty." The tally clerks checked and rechecked the result.

"On the seventh article of impeachment," announced Senator Pittman, "56 Senators have voted 'guilty' and 28 Senators have voted 'not guilty'. . . ."

An exact two-thirds vote had convicted Judge Ritter on this omnibus charge. Newshawks hastily checked to see what changes had caused his conviction: Senator McNary who had voted "guilty" on the first count had voted "not guilty" on the last; Senators Pittman and Minton who voted ''not guilty'' on the first count had changed to "guilty'' on the seventh.

Judge Ritter's attorneys looked impotent and confused. Senator Austin tried to make a point of order against the verdict on the grounds that after being acquitted on six charges. Judge Ritter could not be convicted on a count that was but a summary of those six. He was overruled. Senator Pittman pronounced the Senate's judgment: "The said Halsted L. Ritter be, and he is hereby, removed from office."

One question remained: Should Halsted L. Ritter be "forever disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States?" It was put to a vote. Seventy-six Senators voted "Nay," none voted for the extreme penalty.

Sergeant-at-Arms Chesley Jurney beckoned to onetime Judge Ritter and his attorneys. It was all over. The two attorneys rose, started for the door. Mr. Ritter remained seated with arms folded, as if his disgrace glued him to his chair. Finally he half rose, and for a moment seemed about to collapse. Then, with an effort, he stood erect, marched out of the Senate Chamber with a firm step. Newshawks crowded around asking questions. With a look of anguish in his eyes he declared: "I have nothing to say. God, can't you see why I have nothing to say? I'm going back to Florida."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.