159

that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses, you will understand that they there knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its power having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, who had just been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will there find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population, the black population, to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the reorganized authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been recognized by the Government of the United States; and every man engaged in that rebellion in that convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States. I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced having its origin in the Radical Congress. *

"So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed; and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts, and they are responsible for it. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise.

"I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the Government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor because I exercised the veto power in attempting and did arrest for a time a bill that was called a 'Freedman's Bureau' bill; yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced, I have been slandered, I have been maligned, I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas and cry out traitor; but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot-Judas. There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve apostles. Oh, yes; the twelve apostles had a Christ. The twelve apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had had twelve apostles. If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad, Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Saviour; and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try and stay and arrest the diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas.

"Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action; if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to participate in these offices, God being willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can.

"Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said I intended to say. I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts, and the jeers, I care not for threats. I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."

Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly consurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office.

160

ARTICLE XI

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of the office and of his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm, in substance, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying and intending to deny the power of the said Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and, in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faith fully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the terrure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson, of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War, and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, and also to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867; whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles or other accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the article herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article, accusation, or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations. trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.

Attest:

EDWARD MCPHERSON,

SCHUYLER COLFAX, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Bingham having concluded the reading of the articles of impeachment, the President pro tempore informed the managers that the Senate would take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice would be given to the House of Representatives. The managers, by their chairman, Mr. Bingham, then delivered the articles of impeachment at the table of the Secretary, and withdrew, accompanied by the Members of the House of Representatives.

The Committee of the Whole, having returned to the Hall of the House, rose and the Speaker resumed the chair, whereupon Mr. Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, the chairman, reported:

Mr. Speaker: The House in the Committee of the Whole, by order of the House, have accompanied their managers to the Senate while they presented, in

161

the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, articles of impeachment agreed upon by the House against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. The President of the Senate announced that the Senate would take order in the premises, of which due notice would be given to the House of Representatives.

Resolution providing for introduction of the Chief Justice and the organization of the Senate for the trial of President Johnson.

The Senate ordered a copy of its rules for the trial of President Johnson to be sent to the House.

The notice to the Chief Justice to meet the Senate for the trial of President Johnson was delivered by a committee of three Senators, who were his escort also.

In the Senate, on the same day, Mr. Howard moved the adoption of the following:

Resolved, That at 1 o'clock to-morrow afternoon the Senate will proceed to consider the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, at which time the oath or affirmation required by the rules of the Senate sitting for the trial of an impeachment shall be administered by the Chief.

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE GEORGE W. ENGLISH*

On the 2d day of November, 1921, the said George W. English, as judge in the said eastern district of Illinois, designated the Union Trust Co., of East St. Louis, a Government depository of bankruptcy funds; afterwards, about the 1st of April, 1924, said George W. English, as judge, with the knowledge and consent of Charles B. Thomas, as referee in bankruptcy, entered into an agreement with the Union Trust Co. in consideration that said Union Trust Co. would employ Farris English (the son of Judge English) in the bank at a salary of $200 per month, he, the said George W. English, would become, with Charles B. Thomas, depositors in said bank, and that George W. English and Charles B. Thomas would cause to be removed from the Drovers National Bank of East St. Louis the bankruptcy funds deposited there and deposit the same in the said Union Trust Co, and that the Union Trust Co. would pay said Farris English a salary of $200 per month and a sum equal to 3 per cent on monthly balances on bankruptcy funds in addition to his salary and as a part of this agreement said funds should not be withdrawn and deposited in another Government depository while said English was employed.

Farris English was employed by the Union Trust Co. and remained in its employ for 14 months, during which time he received his salary of $200 per month and $2,700 as interest on bankruptcy funds, and the funds in the Drovers National Bank were withdrawn from it and deposited in the Union Trust Co.

On the 4th day of April, 1924, the said George W. English, acting as judge as aforesaid, designated the Merchants State Bank of Centralia, Ill., to be a Government depository of bankruptcy funds, the said George W. English and Charles B. Thomas being then and there depositors and stockholders in said bank. While the said George W. English was a director and said Charles B. Thomas a depositor, and while both were stockholders in the said bank of Centralia, and while said bank was a depository of Government funds deposited by said George W. English, he. George W. English, borrowed from the said bank, without security and at a rate of interest below the customary rate, the sum of $17,200; and the said Charles B. Thomas borrowed from said bank, without security and at a rate of interest below the customary rate, the sum of $20,000; said sums were excessive loans and were obtained by reason of the control of said George W. English and Charles B. Thomas over court funds in designating what disposition should be made of them and into what depository they should be placed.

On or about the 4th day of April, 1925, in concert with the officers and directors of said bank, said Charles B. Thomas and said George W. English, with said directors of said bank, obtained loans which in the aggregate exceeded the total capital stock and surplus of said bank, without security and at a low rate of interest, which facts were concealed from the public and from the public authorities.

*From the Congressional Record (House), Mar. 25, 1926 (6283-87).

(162)

163

THE LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENTS

The provisions of the Constitution of the United States bearing upon the impeachment of judges are as follows:

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. (Art. I, sec. 2.)

"Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. (Art. I, sec. 3.)

"The President * * shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Art. II, sec. 2.)

"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. (Art. II, sec. 4.)

"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." (Art. III, sec. 1.)

The case of Robert W. Archbald, who was convicted by the Senate and removed from office in 1912 (S. Doc. 1140, 62d Cong. 2d sess.), furnishes the latest case and precedent so far as any case may be a precedent upon the subject of impeachment of judges. Each case of impeachment must necessarily stand upon its own facts. It can not, therefore, become a precedent or be on all fours with every other case.

In the present case we are relieved from the consideration of the debated legal proposition whether or not a man may be impeached after the term of his office has expired or he has resigned. Other cases indicate that a judge may be impeached if he is still continuing in the same office although under a different commission and election. In the Archbald case it was held that he could not be impeached upon the ground of things done while he was a district judge, his term having ended in that court. In the case of George W. English, however, all of the acts complained of having been performed by him in his judicial capacity and in the exercise of his official functions and within his term of service.

Although frequently debated and the negative advocated by some high authorities, it is now, we believe, considered that impeachment is not confined alone to acts which are forbidden by the Constitution or Federal statutes. The better sustained and modern view is that the provision for impeachment in the Constitution applies not only to high crimes and misdemeanors as those words were understood at common law but also acts which are not defined as criminal and made subject to indictment, but also to those which affect the public welfare. Thus an official may be impeached for offenses of a political character and for gross betrayal of public interests. Also for abuses or betrayal of trusts, for inexcusable negligence of duty, for the tyrannical abuse of power, or as one writer puts it, for a "breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, including conduct such as drunkeness, when habitual, or in the performance of official duties, gross indecency, profanity, obscenity, or other language used in the discharge of an official function, which tends to bring the office into disrepute, or for an abuse or reckless exercise of discretionary power as well as the breach of an official duty imposed by statute or common law." No judge may be impeached for a wrong decision.

A Federal judge is entitled to hold office under the Constitution during good behavior, and this provision should be considered along with article 4, section 2, providing that all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Good behavior is the essential condition on which the tenure to judicial office rests, and any act committed or omitted by the incumbent in violation of this condition necessarily works a forfeiture of the office.