“Whereas it is editorially stated in the Evening Express, a newspaper published in this city, on the afternoon of Wednesday, January 29, as follows:  ’At a private gathering of gentlemen of both political parties, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court spoke very freely concerning the reconstruction measures of Congress, and declared in the most positive terms that all those laws were unconstitutional, and that the Court would be sure to pronounce them so.  Some of his friends near him suggested that it was quite indiscreet to speak so positively; when he at once repeated his views in a more emphatic manner; ’and whereas several cases under said reconstruction measures are now pending in the Supreme Court:  Therefore, be it—­

“Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to enquire into the truth of the declarations therein contained, and report whether the facts as ascertained constitute such a misdemeanor in office as to require this House to present to the Senate articles of impeachment against said Justice of the Supreme Court; and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers, and have leave to report at any time.”

An excited debate at once sprung up in the House, and in the course of it I was stated to be the offending Justice referred to.  Thereupon the members for California vouched for my loyalty during the war.  Other members wished to know whether an anonymous article in a newspaper was to be considered sufficient evidence to authorize a committee of the House to enquire into the private conversation of members of the Supreme Court.  The mover of the resolution, Mr. Scofield, declared that he knew nothing of the truth of the statement in the paper, but deemed it sufficient authority for his action, and moved the previous question on the resolution.  Several of the members protested against the resolution, declaring that it was unworthy of the House to direct an investigation into the conduct of a judicial officer upon a mere newspaper statement.  But it was of no use.  The resolution was adopted by a vote of 97 to 57—­34 not voting.  Some members, indeed, voted for its passage, stating that it was due to myself that I should be vindicated from the charge implied in the debate; the force of which reason I have never been able to appreciate.

The resolution was evidently intended to intimidate me, and to act as a warning to all the Judges as to what they might expect if they presumed to question the wisdom or validity of the reconstruction measures of Congress.  What little effect it had on me my subsequent course in the McArdle case probably showed to the House.  I had only one feeling for the movement—­that of profound contempt; and I believe that a similar feeling was entertained by every right-thinking person having any knowledge of the proceeding.

The facts of the case soon became generally known, and created a good deal of merriment in Washington.  But all through the country the wildest stories were circulated.  Communications of a sensational character relating to the matter were published in the leading journals.  Here is one which appeared in the New York Evening Post from its correspondent: