U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts arrives at the U.S. Capitol to be sworn in and swear in senators before the start of the Senate Impeachment trial against President Donald Trump, in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 16.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday put to rest speculation about whether he would have broken a tie vote in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, saying it would have been "inappropriate" for him to do so.

Roberts made the comments shortly after a tight Senate vote, 51-49, against hearing witnesses and collecting further evidence in the trial. 

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer spurred Roberts' response with a "parliamentary inquiry," asking whether the chief justice was aware that then-Chief Justice Samuel Chase broke two ties during the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.

Roberts said he was and that the two votes were on procedural motions. One was on a motion to adjourn, the second was to close deliberations.

"I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties," Roberts said, appearing to read a prepared statement. "If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on the motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails."

"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed," Roberts added.

During a typical tie on a Senate vote, the vice president is brought in to break it. However, the chief justice takes the vice president's role as the presiding officer of the Senate during an impeachment trial, as the vice president would become the president if the Senate were to vote to remove a president.

There was much speculation on whether Roberts would break such a tie during this impeachment trial, although it was generally believed the chief justice would choose to stay away from such a contentious moment.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski had referenced some of the talk around Roberts' role in the Senate impeachment trial in her statement earlier Friday announcing that she would vote against the resolution for witnesses in the Senate proceedings.

"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice," Murkowski said. "I will not stand for, nor support that effort. We have already degraded our institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another."

Roberts has taken a largely backseat role in the Senate proceedings. He admonished both House managers and President Donald Trump's lawyers last week during an early hour debate on the rules for the Senate trial after an exchange between Rep. Jerry Nadler and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

The chief justice was also tasked with reading out loud the questions senators submitted to the House managers and president's lawyers, during a question period spread over Wednesday and Thursday. 

On Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, a former Harvard Law professor, had asked a question about Roberts' presiding over the trial.

"At a time when a large majority of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witness or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?" asked Roberts, in reading Warren's question out loud.

Lead House manager Adam Schiff, D-California, who is a former federal prosecutor, answered by saying he believed it did not. 

"I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice," Schiff said. "I think the chief justice has presided admirably."