Area History: Judge Brumm's Impeachment Proceedings This copy contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by Jay Zane jay.zane@verizon.net USGENWEB NOTICE: Printing this file by non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites requires permission fromthe submitters PRIOR to uploading to any other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of contents. __________________________________________________________________ "Impeachment or resignation! Those are the only alternatives to bringing dignity back to the important office." These were the words of Pottsville resident Cornelius Foley as he talked to reporters at his barbershop located at 217 West Market Street during his press conference held in late March 1913. The object of his wrath was a prominent sitting Schuylkill County Court judge, Cornelius Napoleon Brumm. Foley told the press that he was asking for a State House committee to investigate wrongdoings by the famed Charles N. Brumm for the sole purpose of removing him from office. It appeared as if Schuylkill County would be headed for its second impeachment trial in its history. The first one having occurred in 1830 when charges were brought against Judge Franks. The House of Representatives had turned Mr. Foley's complaints over to a committee, and the committee moved to hold a historic investigation in Courtroom No. 1 at the Schuylkill County courthouse in April. The exact date set was Friday April 5th. "Although the committee promised to finish its investigation in two days, enough subpoenas have been served to have witnesses testify for weeks," Foley boasted to his supporters. The state committee would indeed convene in Pottsville for an April public hearing. Five members would sit as judge, jury and investigators over the fate of Charles Napoleon Brumm, an associate judge on the bench of the Common Pleas of Schuylkill County. After all of the testimony of the witnesses was taken, the legislators would adjourn and consider all of the evidence, formulate a report and then present the full report to the House of Representatives in Harrisburg. The House would then vote. If the report of the committee favored impeachment and the full House agreed, then Judge Brumm would stand trial before the entire State Senate which would act as a special court of impeachment. The House would appoint a committee and an attorney to prosecute the case. Judge Brumm could have his own counsel if he so desired. Judge Brumm's long public service career was at stake and it appeared that it would soon be all over for him. Charles Napolean Brumm was born in Pottsville on June 9, 1838. He attended local schools and then graduated from Pennsylvania College in Gettysburg. He then studied law for two years but after the Civil War broke out he enlisted as a private. It did not take him long to be promoted to a lieutenant. He remained in the Army until 1871. At the time of his discharge he was the assistant quartermaster and aide-de-camp on the staff of Generals Barton and Pennypacker. After completion of his military service he resumed the study of law. He soon was admitted to the bar and commenced a private legal career in his native city. He enjoyed politics and ran unsuccessfully for congress in 1878. However, in 1848 he was elected to Congress on the Greenbacker ticket and remained Congressman for four terms until he was defeated in the election of 1888. He resumed private practice but made a political comeback by winning his old congressional seat as a Republican in 1894. In 1898 he failed to be renominated but, once again, made another comeback by being elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Congressman George R. Patterson. His last term as Schuylkill County's U.S. representative was from November 6, 1906 to January 4, 1909 when he resigned after winning election on the court of common pleas of Schuylkill County. He had run for county judgeship while being a sitting U.S. Congressman. Judge Brumm brushed off the attack of Cornelius Foley. "The charges are without any basis. When the hearing is over, the truth will reveal the real people that are behind Foley. He is merely a puppet." Cornelius Foley quickly denied that he was being used or manipulated stating that he would "not spend a cent of anyone else's money is seeing that Brumm is removed from the bench. However, it was well known that Foley was one of the county's leading socialists and had a following of supporters. When Brumm finds out who the witnesses will be that will testify against him, he will surely be surprised. I have nothing against the man personally but he is acting on behalf of the people of Schuylkill County at large. The average poor litigant cannot afford to appeal the outrageous decisions that result from Brumm's prejudiced behavior. Judge Brumm is neither competent nor fair. He must be removed from the bench before any more damage is done to our judicial system." Foley had subpoenas served on every single member of the county bar. Many attorneys wanted to keep their own opinion of the Judge personal but now Foley was forcing every single lawyer to pick sides. Besides all of the lawyers, subpoenas went out to the entire jury panel of the March court term as well as all of the jurors on the previous criminal panels. Foley knew that the state and possibly the entire nation's attention would be on Schuylkill County and the impeachment proceedings. He did not want the proceedings to go unnoticed. If a spectacle would grab the people's attention, then he would give them a spectacle. In fact, subpoenas would go out to the court news reporters, court house employees and litigants that had appeared before the Honorable Charles Napoleon Brumm. The main topic of conversation on the streets of the county seat in early April was certainly the Brumm proceeding. Both sides appeared confident of victory. The only thing certain would be that the courtroom would be packed until the hearings were over. Thomas W. Barlow, Esq. a noted Philadelphia attorney would represent Foley. Speaking outside of the Hotel Allan, Barlow told reporters that he took the case in order to purify the judiciary. "It is time for members of the bar to come to realize that some action is needed to curb the powers of the judges. I admire Mr. Foley for the courage he has displayed and I am determined to help him in his cause. Judge Brumm is not the only judge that needs to be investigated, nor is Schuylkill County the only county that has this problem. If members of the Schuylkill County Bar were not so cowardly...if they would simply act together for justice's sake, then it would be an easy matter to rid the courts of such offending judges. I cannot understand why the Schuylkill County bar has allowed this behavior to go unchecked." As for political motives, Barlow stated that he was a Progressive. He had voted for Theodore Roosevelt in the last presidential election, as did Judge Brumm. Politics had nothing to do with his motives. As for Foley, he was an avowed socialist. As expected it was standing room only at the opening session of the Brumm hearing. Judge Brumm was seated with his Wilkes-Barre counsel, Attorney John T. Lenahan, as well as his local counsel, G. Franklin Brumm, the judge's son. It appeared as if every county attorney was either inside the courtroom or in the hall, along with employees of the various row offices. Newspaper reporters from all over Pennsylvania were also present to cover the historic proceedings. Foley must have thought that he was the David that would bring down the mighty Goliath. If this would be true, then the Philadelphia press wanted to make sure that such an occurrence did not go unnoticed. The lengthy charges against the county judge were read aloud at the commencement of the proceedings. "Since the first Monday of July 1909 when he took his oath of office, Judge Brumm has been biased, prejudiced, and unfair in his judgments, actions and determinations in matters that were heard by him...." There were many accusations but the most startling were the following: 1. That during criminal proceedings the Judge would leave the bench and sit with the prosecution and conduct cross-examination of the defense witnesses; 2. That his sentences were extremely harsh. In one instance he sentenced a young female first offender, Jennie Kane, who had been convicted of petty theft to four years confinement. Hours after her sentence she committed suicide; 3. He sentenced a 60 year old man convicted of stealing canned goods to 22 years confinement; 4. He would scorn jurors if they returned "not guilty" verdicts that did not suit him; 5. He ordered that a verdict slip not be read for 30 days, thereby keeping the defendant confined for a crime he was not found guilty of committing; 6. He adjourned a courtroom session so that he could attend a political convention; 7. He was tyrannical with the attorneys finding various lawyers to be in contempt of the court over trivial matters; 8. That he would reduce a sentence of a convicted person if his son, G. Frank Brumm, was then engaged as counsel; 9. That he would remove names from the jury pool and complained that the jury pool contained too many Irish and "ethnic"names. The hearings began in earnest on April 5th at 10:00 A.M. Attorney A.D. Knittle testified that during one proceeding Judge Brumm left the bench and pulled up a chair in front of the witness and began a vigorous cross-examination. "He nearly put his fingers into the witness' face, telling the witness that he has the power to put him in jail for perjury. In fact, he actually had the deputy take the witness away to the jail....Brumm said that he did not like the way he testified. Without any charges being filed, the witness spent hours behind bars until jail officials let him go!" State Senator Snyder, although in ill health, testified that he had been threatened three times with contempt by the judge. "I used to see him get off the bench and sit with counsel. Although I did not hear him examine any witnesses personally, he would whisper into counsel's ear and suggest questions. If I objected to the questions, the Judge would quickly overrule my objections." When cross-examined as to any political motive for his testimony, Senator Snyder stated that he and Brumm ran together on the same ticket. "There is no political motive on my part. We were both ran together and our philosophies are identical." Other respected attorneys also gave similar testimony. Attorneys Ulrich, Shepard, Rothstein, Bell, Smith,and Graeff were followed by ex-judge Shay who testified that Brumm was arbitrary and biased. President Judge Bechtel was called and swore that Brumm had "no judicial temperment" and that he was "incompetent." Associate Judge R.H. Koch, after persuasion by the lawyers, opened up and stated that Brumm was not qualified to sit on the bench. District Attorney Whitehouse followed and testified that most criminal defense attorneys do request that their cases not be heard before Judge Brumm, which puts a strain on the D.A.'s office. "I do recall the incident in which the acquitted man was kept confined for thirty days. That was most unfortunate." The District Attorney further stated under oath that the judge also had a habit of lecturing the jurors that he disagreed with. Later in the proceedings, a jury commissioner also swore that Judge Brumm often complained to him of the high number of Irish jurors being selected. The prosecution then presented some of the former jurors. Stuart Glover testified that after serving on a jury Judge Brumm stopped him on the street and started to badger him for his decision to acquit a defendant. Charles Ford, of Butler Township, testified that Judge Brumm told him that his name would be stricken from the jury wheel as the judge thought he was not qualified to be a juror. After several days and nights of testimony, the prosecution rested its case. Attorney Lenahan informed the panel of five that 200 subpoenas were being served on the Judge's behalf. Upon hearing that, the committee recessed and the committeemen went back to their respective homes located all over the state. However, rumors quickly began to spread. "Judge Brumm would tender his resignation." "Judge Bechtel would be the next to be impeached as Attorney Wilhelm, the head of the Progressive Party and an ally of Brumms, was going to file a complaint." During the recess, the friends of Brumm endeavored to create the impression that the charges were brought merely for political purposes. Brumm was a Roosevelt man and bucked the Republican candidate, President Taft. Wilson, the Democrat, was now the president of the United States winning the election as a result of the Republican split. His friends also emphasized the fact that only 13 attorneys testified against Judge Brumm while the bar membership totalled 120. If the committee would exonerate, then the full House was expected to sustain the recommendation. Therefore, the battle before the committee was critical to both sides. Brumm's supporters were extremely cognizant of this fact and the public relations phase began in earnest. A strong mechanics' union and civic organization publicly came out in favor of the Judge and both requested that the investigation be halted. Foley told the press that the public relations effort was pointless. The committee must rule on the evidence. In any event, he announced that one mine workers' local came out against Brumm. Brumm's supporters included many attorneys such as James Reilly, J.W. Moyer, S.M. Enterline, Harry Haag, as well as W.S. Pugh, the highway commissioner. However the defense's first witness was none other than the accused himself - The Honorable Charles Napoleon Brumm. When his name was called out he shuffled to the witness stand assisted by his son. He was well dressed and his soldier's button was quite visible. He told the committee that he would soon be 75 and immediately he began to lose his composure. Tears began to trickle down his face as he commenced his testimony. However after three hours of testimony he regained his aggressive poise and became more emphatic that he did not violate his oath of office. He told the committee of his military background and how he had been struck by lightening in South Carolina during the Civil War, which caused partial deafness and paralysis. "I was in Congress five terms and elected a judge while I was a sitting Congressman." He admitted that he occasionally would leave the bench but that was only to be able to hear the witnesses better. His deafness also caused him to speak loudly at times but it was not at all to be rude. He then went into detail as to his perception of the current make-up of the bench and the county as a whole. "Schuylkill County had the worst criminal calendar in the entire state! Schuylkill County had more liquor licenses than any other county! The ballot box stuffing was notorious throughout the state! Elections in many areas of the county were a farce! Good citizens would not even bother to vote due to the fraud committed. The jury system was corrupt. The jury commissioners rigged the jury pool. I did not think that it was right that the preponderance of foreigners should make up the jury pool since these foreigners also make up the majority of those accused of crimes. Many of those in the jury pool were not even citizens. I tried my best to do what was right for the county." Three attorneys that praised him, Haughawout, Woodbury and Moyer, followed his testimony. However, clearly the strongest testimony was that of old Judge Brumm. Even his detractors admitted that he made an excellent impression. Others that testified included a probation officer who told the committee that the young girl that was sentenced to four years for a first offense was known to have robbed other girls in the past but had never been caught or punished. "She would rob girls selling huckleberries in broad daylight!" Several other attorneys then testified supporting the Judge and swearing to his honesty and integrity. On April 11th the hearings concluded. The cost to the state taxpayers was estimated to be approximately $60,000. If an impeachment was recommended, then the costs would surely double. The committee would hear closing arguments in Harrisburg on April 29th. The committee thanked their hosts in Pottsville for the hospitality shown to them during such awkward circumstances. The closing arguments were held as scheduled. Judge Brumm arrived in the state capital and held a gala reception for many of the legislators raising some eyebrows. Both Barlow and Lenahan presented their respective positions to the five-member committee that consisted of three Republicans, one Democrat and one Progressive. Barlow reiterated that the judiciary must not allow a judge who is tyrannical and arbitrary to remain on the bench and the evidence was overwhelming that Judge Brumm had committed several misdemeanors that warrant impeachment. He was followed at 4:00 P.P. by Atty. Lenahan who brought forth a petition apparently signed by 88 members of the Schuylkill County bar requesting that the investigation be halted. He also presented a list of 40 patriotic organizations that supported the beleaguered Judge. Afterwards when questioned by the press as to the high number of attorneys signing the petition, Barlow stated that many signed due to pressure from their clients, out of fear of retaliation, out of sympathy from the accused who cried on the witness stand and as a result of their belief that the electorate should ultimately decide if the judge should remain in office. The committee then announced that the proceedings were completed and that report would be sent to the full House in a reasonable period of time. Supporters from both camps predicted victory. Rumors again circulated that a compromise would happen and that the elderly judge would tender his resignation and be pensioned. Many were worried that the committee would be political. Judge Brumm was a staunch supporter of the third party movement of Roosevelt. Would the Republicans try and punish him for that? Would a recommendation for impeachment lend the Socialists prestige statewide? These were a few of the questions being asked around the county and state. On May 28th two reports were made public. A majority of three voted against impeachment, while two dissenters voted in favor of impeachment. However, the committee recommended that both reports be reviewed by the full House and that the full House make its own decision. On June 10, 1913 the historic impeachment proceeding against Charles Napoleon Brumm reached the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. As expected the majority report was affirmed by a voice vote. The ayes in favor of the majority report that exonerated the judge was overwhelming. In fact, it appeared that only one nay voice was heard. The majority report found that the charges were unsubstantiated and that the judge did not abuse his judicial discretion. Judge Brumm would remain on the bench until his death four years later. His son, G. Franklin Brumm, would later be elected as a U.S. Representative for the district - a position once held for five terms by his father. At the end of the twentieth century, the nation's eyes would be riveted on the impeachment proceedings against U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. The similarities between the presidential and judicial impeachment proceedings must be noted. Judge Brumm argued that the charges against him were a creation of a left-wing conspiracy, while the President argued that his problems stemmed from a right-wing conspiracy. Brumm pointed out that Foley was a leader of the socialist movement and these socialists were behind the charges. Clinton pointed to the conservative Republicans in Congress as the source of his problems. Clinton, however, was impeached, but not convicted, while Brumm was never impeached.