[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[D. History of Proceedings]
[§ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------