New Britain herald., 1926-10-23
IMPEACHMENT AND THE, "HALL OF FAME"

1 u ldl btlOlc IllC CtIlitc Oll bpllcllt of the House of Representative and "all of the people of the United States results in a species of mo- toriety that places the unfortunate victim of the Houses attack in the impeachment hall Of fame, where as If the incident had never occur red he may have lived and died scarcely known to more that a com paratively small section of his fel- low citizens.
 For instance, who In this section of the country-in most sections outside of Illinois-heard of Judge W. English, U. s. district judge for the eastern district of Illinois, be- fore the House started the impeach- ment case against him? Had this thing not transpired Judge English would have remained a submerged character in the judicial Armament, unsung, unlauded\ and his reputa- ton unassailed. His trial held over from the last Congress, will be held this fall and will gain con- siderable space in the public press. Whether acquitted or convicted, his name will go down in the an- nals of time and in the memories of his fellow citizens as one of the men who attained nationwide mo- toriety by gaining the superfervid attention of a Congress not afflicted with sufficient opacity to have over looked Judge Engish's forceful Eng fish while on the bench.
 The English impeachment trial will bring the total of such trials in the history of the United States l to ten; and of the nine previous trials, only three resulted in convic- tions, and in two cases the impeach- | ed officials failed to submit a de- 1 fense. But there have been 40 cases in which the impeachment machine " was set up in the lower house without resulting in trial by Senate; for instance, Attorney General Daugherty in 1922 and Federal Judge Landis In 1921. The only defended case in which a convic- ton resulted was that of Judge Robert w. Archibald, U. s. circuit judge, who had been designated a member of the short-lived Com merce court.
 The most spectacular impeach- ment trial was that of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Today when one thinks of President John- sons administration one usually for gets everything except the impeach- ment trial and his acquittal through the lack of one vote of the two thirds required for his condemna- ton.
 No one would remember a thing about Senator William Blount of Tennessee, were 1t not that name is identified with such a trial, which took place in 1797; nor would we remember much about Secretary of War William w. Belknap except for his acquttal in 1876.
 Of the federal judges whose names were inscribed in the hall of impeachments there was Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire, who was convicted; But in the case of Justice Samuel Chase Of Mary land, associate justice of the |. S. Supreme court, the case was differ ent, he being an exception. Chase was acquitted, although on three of the eight articles of impeach- ment a majority of the Senate voted for conviction.
 The impeachment of Judge James II. Peck of Missouri in 1880 will always have a special interest for those who are in doubt as to what formerly constituted contempt of court. He was charged with abuse of power and arbitrary conduct in severely punishing for contempt an attorney who had published a criti- cism of one of his decisions in a St. Louis newspaper. The trial re suited in 21 for conviction and 22 for acquittal.
 Judge West N. Humphreys, Of Tennessee made no defense when impeached in 1862 on charges of aiding the rebellion and was con- victod, Judge Charles Swayne, Of Florida, was acquitted in 1904.
 Most of these gentlemen were easy going. colorless individuals who would not have made a mark in history except for their impeach- ment trials. Yet an impeachment under the federal constitution Is nothing to sneeze at. For instance,