[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[D. History of Proceedings]
[Â§ 16. Impeachment of Judge English]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2195-2198]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                       D. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Sec. 16. Impeachment of Judge English

Committee Report on Resolution and Articles of Impeachment

Sec. 16.1 In the 69th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
    a resolution of impeachment accompanied with five articles of 
    impeachment against Judge George English, which report was referred 
    to the House Calendar, ordered printed, and printed in full in the 
    Congressional Record.

    On Mar. 25, 1926, Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
privileged report from the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
impeachment case against George English, U.S. District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Illinois. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, 
ordered the report printed and referred to the House 
Calendar.(16) By unanimous consent, the entire report (H. 
Rept. No. 653) was printed in the Congressional Record.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 67 Cong. Rec. 6280, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at pp. 6280-87.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2196]]

    The committee's recommendation and resolution read as follows:

                               Recommendation

        Your committee reports herewith the accompanying resolution and 
    articles of impeachment against Judge George W. English, and 
    recommends that they be adopted by the House and that they be 
    presented to the Senate with a demand for the conviction and 
    removal from office of said George W. English, United States 
    district judge for the eastern district of Illinois.

                                 Resolution

        Resolved, That George W. English, United States district judge 
    for the eastern district of Illinois, be impeached of misdemeanors 
    in office; and that the evidence heretofore taken by the special 
    committee of the House of Representatives under House Joint 
    Resolution 347, sustains five articles of impeachment, which are 
    hereinafter set out; and that said articles be, and they are 
    hereby, adopted by the House of Representatives, and that the same 
    shall be exhibited to the Senate in the following words and 
    figures, to wit:
    Articles of impeachment of the House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in the name of themselves and of all 
        of the people of the United States of America against George W. 
        English, who was appointed, duly qualified, and commissioned to 
        serve during good behavior in office, as United States District 
        Judge for the Eastern District of Illinois, on May 3, 1918 
        (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For a more comprehensive discussion of the impeachment proceedings 
        against Judge English, see 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 544-
        547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Consideration and Debate

Sec. 16.2 The resolution and articles of impeachment in the George 
    English impeachment were considered in the House pursuant to 
    unanimous-consent agreements fixing the control and distribution of 
    debate.

    On Mar. 30, 1926, Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, called up 
for consideration in the House the resolution impeaching Judge English. 
By unanimous consent, the House agreed to procedures for the control 
and distribution of debate, thereby allowing every Member who wished to 
speak to do so:

        The Speaker: (19~) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Graham] asks unanimous consent that during today the debate be 
    equally divided between the affirmative and the negative, and that 
    he control one-half of the time and the other half be controlled by 
    the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bowling].(20~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Nicholas Longworth (Ohio).
20. 67 Cong. Rec. 6585-90, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 31, the second day of debate on the resolution, debate 
proceeded under a unanimous-consent agreement that debate

[[Page 2197]]

continue to be equally divided between Mr. Graham and Mr. William B. 
Bowling.(1) Mr. Graham obtained unanimous consent that 
debate be concluded in 7\1/2\ hours, such time to be equally divided as 
before.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 6645.
 2. Id. at pp. 6662, 6663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting; Motions

Sec. 16.3 The previous question having been ordered on the resolution 
    of impeachment against Judge George English, a motion to recommit 
    with instructions was offered and rejected, and a separate vote was 
    demanded on the first article, followed by a vote on the 
    resolution.

    On Apr. 1, 1926, Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, moved the 
previous question and it was ordered on the resolution impeaching Judge 
English. A motion to recommit the resolution with instructions was 
offered, the instructions directing the Committee on the Judiciary to 
take further testimony. The motion was rejected on a division vote-yeas 
101, noes 260.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 67 Cong. Rec. 6733, 6734, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pending the motion to recommit, Mr. Tom T. Connally, of Texas, 
stated a parliamentary inquiry:

        Under the rules of the House, would not this resolution be 
    subject to consideration under the five-minute rule for amendment?

Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, responded, ``The Chair thinks 
not.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 6733.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the rejection of the motion to recommit, the Speaker put 
the question on the resolution of impeachment and stated that it was 
agreed to. Mr. William B. Bowling, of Alabama, objected and stated that 
his attention had been diverted and that he had meant to ask for a 
separate vote on the first article of impeachment. The Speaker stated 
that the demand for a separate vote then came too late, since the 
demand was in order when the question recurred on the resolution. 
Because of the apparent confusion in the Chamber, the Speaker allowed 
Mr. Bowling to ask for a separate vote (thereby vacating, by unanimous 
consent, the proceedings whereby the resolution had been agreed to).
    The Speaker put the question on Mr. Bowling's motion to strike out 
Article I, which motion was rejected. The vote then recurred on the 
resolution, which was

[[Page 2198]]

adopted by the yeas and nays--yeas 306, nays 62.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 6734, 6735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker had previously stated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry by Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, that pursuant to Rule XVI 
clause 6, a separate vote could be demanded on any substantive 
proposition contained in the resolution of impeachment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 6589, 6590, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discontinuance of Proceedings

Sec. 16.4 Judge George English having resigned from the bench, the 
    House adopted a resolution instructing the managers to advise the 
    Senate that the House declined to further prosecute charges of 
    impeachment.

    On Dec. 11, 1926, the House adopted the following resolution in 
relation to the impeachment proceedings against Judge English:

        Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House of 
    Representatives in the impeachment proceedings now pending in the 
    Senate against George W. English, late judge of the District Court 
    of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois, be 
    instructed to appear before the Senate, sitting as a court of 
    impeachment in said cause, and advise the Senate that in 
    consideration of the fact that said George W. English is no longer 
    a civil officer of the United States, having ceased to be a 
    district judge of the United States for the eastern district of 
    Illinois, the House of Representatives does not desire further to 
    urge the articles of impeachment heretofore filed in the Senate 
    against said George W. English.(7)

    On Dec. 13, 1926, the Senate adjourned sine die as a court of 
impeachment after agreeing to the following order, which was messaged 
to the House:

        Ordered, That the impeachment proceedings against George W. 
    English, late judge of the District Court of the United States for 
    the Eastern District of Illinois, be and the same are, duly 
    dismissed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 68 Cong. Rec. 297, 69th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------