Anyone with relevant info should be allowed to testify

To The Daily Sun,

I read with interest the recent letter of Mr. Schwotzer, which appears aimed at those unhappy that Ambassador Bolton might not be called as a witness in the current impeachment proceedings. Mr. Schwotzer’s point is that the House of Representatives is to blame for the problem because they failed to do their job when they voted for impeachment. According to him, those unhappy that Bolton may not testify should “take a civics course and/or read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. If they pay attention, they would learn that it is the House of Representatives that is charged with calling witnesses.”

Of course, Mr. Schwotzer does not point out where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers this responsibility is assigned. For good reason, as nowhere in either source is the calling of witnesses addressed. The Constitution simply gives the House the “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The Federalist Papers do not, at any point, address the responsibility for calling witnesses. On the other hand, actual history and common sense seem to tell us a lot.

In the first presidential impeachment, that of Andrew Johnson, in 1868, 41 witnesses were called to testify at the Senate impeachment trial (25 by the House Managers and 16 by the President’s attorneys). The overwhelming majority of these witnesses had not testified in the House impeachment proceedings.

Much more recently, in the Clinton impeachment trial, the House Managers called three new witnesses in the Senate trial. These three, who had not testified before the House during its impeachment proceedings, were deposed, and each side was allowed to present the testimony from each witness to the full Senate via videotape.

History does not show any occasion where the Senate has refused to allow the testimony of an additional witness where it appeared that the additional witness had information relevant to the issues in question. On no occasion has there been a determination disallowing testimony from a new witness because the witness had not been heard by the House in its impeachment inquiry.

Up until now the overriding aim has been to determine the actual facts. Given the wisdom of the founding fathers, it is reasonable to assume that they would have expected both the House and the Senate to always be guided by a search for the truth.

Hunter Taylor

Alton