English Impeached

Lofty quotations from John Marshall ("the greatest judge over English-speaking peoples") and phrases of the latter (such as one which implies human descent from dogs) mingled last week in the most heated debate of the present session of the House of Representatives. After three days of it, the House impeached, 306-62, Federal Judge George Washington English on five counts, which in effect, are: 1, 5) Tyrannical, coarse, indecent manner and abuse of power.

2, 3, 4) Conspiracy in management of bankruptcy cases for the profit of himself, friends, relatives.

History of the Case. During the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and supposedly on the recommendation of William Gibbs McAdoo, an undistinguished lawyer associated with the Treasury Department was appointed Federal Judge for the Eastern District of Illinois. Federal Judges are appointed for life subject to one qualification, "during good behavior," and subject to right of the House of Representatives to impeach and the Senate to convict a Judge of "treason, bribery, high crimes Or misdemeanors." The new Judge, George W. English, took residence in East St. Louis with his wife, his son. There he became intimate with one Charles B. Thomas, who had been a local judge. The eastern Illinois district was not entirely civilized-- the Herrin massacres soon happened. Rough ways, rough words were not unknown. Money was made, lost, quickly, loosely. Judge English became careless. He got into the habit of assigning lucrative bankruptcy cases to his good friend, Mr. Thomas. In court he was heard, allegedly, to curse, to refer to a man as a--. Slipshod, he never got rich, but when he needed money to pay for an automobile, Friend Thomas provided it. Enemies, easily and multitudinously created, whispered to the St. Louis Post Despatch, which, hot for a good story, spent a few thousand dollars digging up unlovely testimony. Finally, complaints reached Congress. In February, 1925, the Judiciary Committee of the House was ordered to investigate. Representative Boise of Iowa set out for the scene of the odors. He brought back to his committee evidence, witnesses. Last month the Judiciary Committee recommended, 18-4, an impeachment.

What is Impeachment? On the basis of the evidence, nearly every Congressman agreed that Judge English was not an ideal--was, in fact, a bad Judge. He had no defenders. But, though the final vote would not indicate it, there were on the floor of the House many stubborn opponents of impeachment. Why? Because there were two interpretations of the word "impeachment."

Up, for example, got Representative Weaver of North Carolina--the kind of man that can make a jury weep. Interminably, passionately, he went through the record to show that there was no proof that Judge English had committed any crime. It is more serious, said he, to impeach a man than to convict of crime. Without substantial proof of crime, there can be no impeachment. He pleaded with the House to remember "the wild pulsations of a father's heart," not to "tear the ermine from this, old father," to remember that:

"Who steals my purse steals trash; . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed."

But then Representatives Montague of Virginia, Moore of Ohio, Graham of Pennsylvania, replied with logic, bantering, merciless. Impeachment, they said, was a formal accusation, not a conviction. And it is the duty of the House to impeach--i.e., formally accuse--any official who they have sufficient reason to believe has not lived up to the standards of his office. Crass ignorance may be ground for impeachment, or drunkenness or indecent conduct. Improper use of influence should certainly result in impeachment. Ungrammatical Representative Reed of Illinois suggested to the House that "if a lot of you people were to be impeached for some of your conduct in using your influence, there would be a lot of vacant chairs here." (Applause.) But that sally was considered irrelevant. And for this theory of impeachment there is good authority. Chief Justice Taft has said: "The trial and the judgment [of Judge Archibald in 1913] were most useful in demonstrating to all incumbents of the Federal bench that they must be careful in their conduct outside of court as well as in the court itself and that they must not use the prestige of their judicial position, directly or indirectly, to secure personal benefit. By the liberal interpretation of the term 'high misdemeanor' which the Senate has given it, there is now no difficulty in securing the removal of a judge for any reason that shows him unfit."

"All the House is asked to do," said Representative Graham, "and all it is bound to do is to say in effect to Judge English: 'Here are things which smirch your ermine. Stand up, sir, in the Senate, face these accusations and if you are innocent, God send a deliverance!'"

Things Which Smirch. The House impeaches; the Senate tries. The House does not declare an official guilty, but it does declare that it looks as if he might have been guilty of misconduct. Typical of the things which smirch the character of Judge English, as they were brought forth by Congressmen:

A bootlegger sentenced by Judge English to four months in jail paid Mr. Thomas $2,500. Soon Judge English vacated the sentence be cause jail might impair the bootlegger's health. Said Congressman Stobbs of Mass.: "$2,500 in my part of the country is a fairly good fee in a liquor case." Furthermore, Attorney Thomas did not even appear in court.

Judge English got his son a job in a bank in which some $70,000 of bankruptcy money had been placed by the Judge. The son, in addition to a good salary, received from the bank the equivalent of 3% interest on these deposits. Was it legitimate commission for securing the bankruptcy accounts, or was it graft?

Judge English said: "If I tell a jury to find a man guilty, and they do not, I will send them to jail." This remark is variously interpreted as 1) humor, 2) strenuous effort to get justice in an uncivilized community, 3) tyrannous conduct.

In Whole or Part. You can almost-violate the law a million times and the law cannot touch you. The opponents of impeachment argued that the same principle held for impeachments. A judge may make many errors of good taste, they said, but unless he has been guilty of one definite act worthy of impeachment, he cannot be impeached. The majority of the House took the exactly opposite view. They argued that Judge English's conduct must be considered as a whole, and if as a whole it stank to heaven, then he should be impeached even if there was no one proved crime or misdemeanor. The majority had a

Great Precedent. It was the case of Judge Archibald. Robert W.Archibald, an eminent, respected Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached on 13 articles, which charged that directly and indirectly he had profited by collusion with mine owners and railroad officials in cases before him. On Jan. 13, 1913, the Senate found him guilty on several articles, including the 13th, which was a general and inclusive charge of conduct unbefitting a Judge.

Final Scene. When the three day debate began, most Congressmen from what little they knew, thought Judge English should be impeached. Then as they learned that nothing had been indisputably proved against him, many wavered. Finally, however, the able lawyer-Congressmen who led the fight for impeachment convinced the House: 1) That it must impeach if it had reasonable suspicion; 2) That it was entitled to consider the Judge's general course of conduct (not merely this or that separate offense). On these two grounds, it was clear impeachment would be voted. Congressmen trooped to their seats, the amazing number of 400 being present. The galleries were packed. Speaker Longworth's wife*nee Roosevelt--was there. The time for voting came. Opponents of impeachment, their battle lost, tried to delay matters. Hot-headed Representative John E. Rankin of Mississippi asked for a useless roll-call. Irritated, the usually suave, immaculate Ogden Mills walked across to Mr. Rankin, pointed out that a delay would prevent his delegation (New York) from getting home for Easter. The Mississippian was obdurate, sniffy. Flashed Ogden Mills: "Its a damn mean thing to hold 20 men here!" Back came the retort: "Get over on your own side. You have no right here. You can't insult me in that manner. . . you dirty, contemptible scoundrel!" Fist--swinging arms--whites of eyes-- . . . Members rushed to separate the pair. After several minutes order was regained. Peacefully, the impeachment was overwhelmingly voted.

After the session, Ogden Mills haughtily avoided southern Democrats. But Speaker Longworth jokingly remarked: "This man Rankin knew how to get a quorum; starting a fight is the best way to fill the House."

In further corridor talk some stated that Mr. Rankin had flung at Mr. Mills an unprintable epithet. Others averred that he had not done so, but had merely started to. Mr. Rankin settled the question: "I would never call any white man by that name."

*Earlier in the debate, reference was so frequently made to vulgar epithets that the ladies, tittering, became embarrassed. The Speaker ordered the language stricken from the record, and asked members to avoid the vulgar quotation.