E 
 
3 1924 060 289 1 
 
 25 
 
 All books are subject io recall after two weeks 
 Olin/Kroch Library 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ..tsamgia^ 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 vJSrJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924060289125 
 
Production Note 
 
 Cornell University Library pro- 
 duced this volume to replace the 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 It was scanned using Xerox soft- 
 ware and equipment at 600 dots 
 per inch resolution and com- 
 pressed prior to storage using 
 CCITT Group 4 compression. The 
 digital data were used to create 
 Cornell's replacement volume on 
 paper that meets the ANSI Stand- 
 ard Z39. 48-1984. The production 
 of this volume was supported in 
 part by the Commission on Pres- 
 ervation and Access and the Xerox 
 Corporation. Digital file copy- 
 right by Cornell University 
 Library 1991. 
 
I ' 1 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 The Gift of 
 
 NEWTON C. FARR 
 
 Class of 1909 
 
 
 ^ i.^^^F*"^^^^^ 
 
 Til ilffrtf"^ 
 
 NANCY 
 HEWITT. 
 
HISTORY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 nirp An 
 
 T 
 
 '0 
 
 PKESIDENT OF THE I'NITEU STATES, 
 
 UV J' HE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 AND HIS 
 
 Trial by the Senate, 
 
 FOE 
 
 HIGH CEIMES AND MISUEMEANOES IN OFFICE, 
 
 18G8. 
 
 By Edmund G. Ross. 
 189G. 
 
Entered according to Act ot Congress in the 
 
 year 1896 by 
 
 Edmund G. Ross, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, 
 
 at Washington. 
 
 NEW MEXICAN PRINTING CO., 
 
 Printers and Binders, 
 
 SANTA KE, N. M. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Little is now known to the general public ot the history ot the at. 
 tempt to remove President Andrew Johnson in 1868, on his impeach- 
 ment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate for 
 alleged high crimes and misdemeanors in office, or of the causes that 
 led to it. Yet it was one of the most important and critical events, 
 involving possibly the gravest consequences, in the entire history of 
 the country. 
 
 The constitutional power to impeach and remove the President had 
 lain dormant since the organization of the Government, and apparent 
 ly had never been thought of as a means for the satisfaction of politi- 
 cal enmities or for the punishment of alleged executive misdemeanors, 
 even in the many heated controversies between the President and Con- 
 gress that had theretofore arisen. Nor would any attempt at impeach- 
 ment have been made at that time but for the great numerical dispar- 
 ity then existing between the respective representatives in Congress of 
 the two political parties of the country. 
 
 One-half the members of that Congress, both House and Senate, are 
 now dead, and with them have also gone substantially the same pro- 
 portion of the people at large, but many of the actors therein who have 
 passed away, lived long enough to see, and were candid enough to ad- 
 mit, that the failure of the impeachment had brought no harm to the 
 country, while the general judgment practically of all has come to be that a 
 grave and threatening danger was thereby averted. 
 
 A new generation is now in control of public affairs and the des. 
 tinies of the Nation have fallen to new hands. New issues have de- 
 veloped and will continue to develop from time to time; and new dan- 
 gers will arise, with increasing numbers and changing conditions, 
 demanding in their turn the same careful scrutiny, wisdom and 
 patriotism in adjustment. But the principles that underlie and con 
 stitute the basis of our political organism, are and will remain the 
 same; and will never cease to demand constant vigilance for their per. 
 petuation as the rock of safety upon which our federative system is 
 founded. 
 
 To those who in the study of the country's past seek a broader and 
 higher conception of the duties of American citizenship, the facts 
 pertaining to the controversy between the Executive and Congress as 
 to the restoration and preservation of the Union, set out in the follow, 
 ing pages, will be interesting and instructive. No one is better fitted 
 than the author of this volume to discuss the period of reconstruc- 
 tion in which, as a member of the Federal senate, he played so potent 
 and patriotic a part, and it is a pleasure to find that he has discharged 
 his task with so much ability and care. But it is profoundly hoped 
 that no coming generation will be called upon to utilize the experi- 
 ences of the past in facing in their day, in field or forum, the dangers 
 of disruption and anarchy, mortal strife and desolation, between those 
 of one rase, and blood, and rationality, that marked the history of 
 America thirty years ago. DAVID B. HILL. 
 
CHArTER 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 MR. LIXCOLN'S PI.AX. 
 
 The close of the "War of the Rebellion, in Isii-"}, found the 
 country confronted by a civil problem quite as grave as tlie 
 contest of arms that had been comp-osed. It was that of re- 
 construction, or the restoration of the States lately in revolt, to 
 their constitutional relations to tlie Union. 
 
 The countr)- had just emerged from a gigantic struggle of 
 physical force oi four years duration between the two great 
 Northern and Sourthern sections. That struo-tcle had been from 
 
 Do 
 
 its inception to its close, a continuing exhibition, ou both sides, 
 of stubborn devotion to a cause, and its annals had been crowned 
 with illustrations of the grandest race and personal courage the 
 history of the world records. Out of a [topulation of thirty 
 million peo[)le. four million men were under arms, from first to 
 last, and sums of monej- quite beyond the limit of ordinary 
 comprehension, were expended iu its prosecution. There was 
 bloodshed without stint. Both sides to the conflict fought for 
 an idea — on the one side for so-:;alled State Rights and local 
 self-government — on the other for national autonomy as the 
 surest guaranty of all rights — personal, local, and general. 
 
 The institution of negro slavery, the basis of the productive 
 industries of the States of the South, which had from the organ- 
 ization of the Government been a source of friction between 
 the slavediolding and uon-slave-holding sections, and was in 
 fact the underlying and potent cause of the war, went under in 
 the strife and was by national edict forever prohibited. 
 
 The struggle being ended by the exhaustion of the insur- 
 gents, tw(j conspicuous problems demaiuling immediate solu- 
 tion were developed: Tiie status of the now ex-slaves, or f reed- 
 men — and the methods to be ado[)ted for the re-habilitation of 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 the revolted States, including the status of the revolted States 
 themselves. The sword had declared that they had no consti- 
 tutional power to withdraw from the Union, and the result 
 demonstrated that they had not the physical power — and there- 
 fore that they were in the anomalous condition of States or 
 though not States technically in the Union — and hence proper- 
 ly subject to the jurisdiction of the General Government, and 
 bound by its judgment in any measures to be instituted by it 
 for their future restoration to their former condition of co-equal 
 States. 
 
 The now ex-slaves had been liberated, not with the consent 
 of their former owners, but bv the power of the conqueror as a 
 war measure, who not unnaturally insisted upon the right to 
 declare absolutely the future status of these persons without 
 consultation with or in any way by the intervention of their 
 late owners. The majority of the gentlemen in Congress repre- 
 senting the Northern States demanded the instant and complete 
 enfranchisement of these [persons, as the natural and logical 
 sequence of their enfreedment. The people of the late slave 
 States, as mvis to liave been foreseen, and not without reason, 
 objected— -especiallv where, as was the case in many localities, 
 the late slaves largely out-numbered the jieople of the white 
 race; and it is appaivMit from subsequent develojiments that 
 they had the sympathy of President Lincoln, at least so far as 
 to refuse his sanction to tlie earlier action of Congress relative 
 to restoration. 
 
 To add to the gravity of the situation and of the problem of 
 reconstruction, the people of the States lately in rebellion were 
 disfranchised in a mass, regardless of the fact that manv of 
 them refused to sanctii)n the rebellion oulv so far as was neces- 
 sary to tlieir personal satetv. 
 
 It was insisu'd by the dominant element of the part}" in con- 
 trol of Congre.-^.s. that these States were dead as political enti- 
 ties, having committed political suicide, and theii- peojile with- 
 out riglits oi- tlie protection of law. as malcontents. 
 
 It is of record tliat Mr. Lincoln objected to this doi-trine. and 
 to all pro[iosition> that contemplated the treatment f)f the late 
 rebellious States simply as con(2uered provinces and their peo- 
 [)le as having I'orfi-itcd all rights under a commcni government, 
 
OF PRKSIDEXT ANDREW .lOHXSOX. 
 
 and under the laws of Nations entitled to no concessions, or 
 even to consideration, in any proposed measures of restoration. 
 That he had no S3mpath3' with that theory is evidenced by the 
 plan of restoration he attempted to establish in Louisiana. 
 
 It was at this point that differences arose between Mr. Lin- 
 coln and his party in Congress, which became more or less 
 acute prior to his death and continued between Congress and 
 Mr. Johnson on his attempt to carry out Mr. Lincoln's plans 
 for restoration. 
 
 The cessation of hostilities in the field thus developed a 
 politico-economic problem which had never before confronted 
 any nation in such magnitude and gravity. The situation was 
 at once novel, unprecedented, and in more senses than one, 
 alarming. Without its due and timely solution there was dan- 
 ger of still farther disturbance of a far different and more alarm- 
 ing character than that of arms but lately ceased ; and of a 
 vastly more insidious and dangerous complexion. The war had 
 been fought in the open. The record of the more than two 
 thousand field and naval engagements that had marked its pro- 
 gress and the march of the Union armies tf) success, were 
 heralded day h\ day to every household, and all could forecast 
 its trend and its results. But the controversy now developed 
 was insidious— its iiifluence.s. its wea[)ons, its designs, and its 
 possible end, were in a measure hidden from the public — pub- 
 lic opinion was divided, and its results, for good or ill, proble- 
 matical. The wi.sest political sagacity and the broadest states- 
 manship possible were needed, and in their api)licatiou no time 
 was to be lost. 
 
 In his annual message to Congress, December 8th, 18f)3, 
 Mr. Lincoln had to a considerable e.\tent outlined his plan of 
 Keconstruction: principally by a recital of what he had already 
 done in that direction. That part of his message pertinent to 
 this connection is reproduced here to illustrate the broad, 
 humane, national aud patriotic purpose that actuated him, quite 
 as well as liis lack of .sympathy with the extreme partisan aims 
 aud methods that characterized the measures afterward adopted 
 by Congress in opposition to his well known wishes aud views, 
 and, also, as an important incident to the history of that con- 
 troversy and of the time, aud its bearing upon the fri'-tious that 
 
1 THE TMPRACHMRNT AND TRIAL 
 
 followed between Congress aud Mr. Lincoln's successor on that 
 
 subject. Mr. Lincoln said: 
 
 When Con<jvc-ss assi'iuhled a year ago the war liail alroad.v lasteil twenty 
 months, and there had been many conflicts on both land and sea, with 
 varyin<; results. The rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits; 
 yet the tone of public feeling and opinion, at home and abroad, was not 
 satisfactory. With other si^ns. the popular elections, then just past, indi- 
 cated uneasiness amon^ ourselves, while, amid much that wascoldand 
 luenacint;. the kindest wcjrds coming from Europe were uttered in accents 
 of pity that \vi- were too lilinil to surrender a hoi)eless cause. t.)ur com- 
 merce was suM'('riiij.r greally liy a few armed vessels built upon and furn- 
 ished from foreijiu shores: and we were threatened with such additions 
 from the same quarter as would swee)) our trade from the sea and raise 
 our blockade. \\\' liad failed to elicit from Euroi>ean tiovernments any- 
 thing hoijcful ujion this subject. The preliminary Emancipation Proclama- 
 tion, issued in September, was running its assigned period to the begin- 
 ning of the new year. .\ month later that tinal proclamation came, in- 
 cluding the annouiu-'-ment that colored men of siutable condition would 
 be received into the army service. The ]iolicy of emancipation, and of 
 enijiloying black soldiers, gave to the future a new aspect, about which 
 liojje and fear and doubt contended in uncertain conflict. According to 
 our ])olitical system, as a matter of civil administration, the (ieneral (iov- 
 erniuent had no lawful power to etTect emancipation in any State: and for 
 a long time it had lieen hoped that the rebellion could be su[)prpssed with- 
 out resorting to it as a military measure. It was all the while deemed 
 possible that the necessity for it might come, and that, if it sliould, the 
 crisis of the contest woidd then be iiresented. It came. and. as was anti- 
 cipated, was followed by ilark and doubtful days. Eleven months have 
 now passed, and we are ]jermitted to take another review. The rebel 
 borders are jiressed still further back, and l)y the com|ilete opening of the 
 Mississipiii the co\intry dominated by the rebellion is divided into distinct 
 liarts. with no i)raetieal communication between them. Tennessee and 
 .\rUansas have been substantially cleared of insurgent cimtrol. and in- 
 fluential citizens in each, owners of slaves and advocates of slavery at the 
 beginning of the rebellion, now ileclare openly for emancipation in their 
 respective States. Of those States not included in the Pjmancipation Pro- 
 clamation, Maryland and .Missouri, neither of which three years ago would 
 tolerate any restraint u|ion the extension of slavery into the new Terri- 
 tories, only dipi>ute now as to the best mode of removing it within their 
 own limits. 
 
 Of th<3se who wei-e sla\es at the beginning of the rebellion, full one hun- 
 dred thousand are now in the United States military service, about one- 
 half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks: thus giving the 
 double advantie.;-!' nl takiuL' so much labor from the insurgent cause, and 
 snp|)h ing the [■lares which must otherwise be tilled with so many white 
 njen. jSu far a?- tested, it is ililiicult to say they are not as goud soldiers as 
 any. No si'rvili- int-urreclion. or tendency to violence or cruelty, has 
 marke'd the nicisurc of emancipation and arming the blac;ks. Those 
 measures have bem discussed in foreign countries, and conti'inporary with 
 such di>cnssion tin- t'riie of sintiment there is much improved. ,^t home 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOIINSOX. 
 
 the same laeasures have been fully discussed, and su|iiiorti'd, criticised, 
 ami denounced, and the annual elections foUowinR arc hi<ihly encouraginij 
 to those whose ollicial duty it is to bear th(> counti'y through this frreat 
 trial. Thus we have the new reckoning,'. J'he m-isis which threatened to 
 divide the friends of the Union is past. 
 
 Looking now to the present, and future, and with reference to aresuni])- 
 tion of national authority within the States wherein tliat authority has 
 been suspended. I have thought tit to issue a Proclamation, a copy of 
 which is herewith transmitted. On examination of this T'roclamation it 
 will appear, as is believed, that nothing is attempted beyond what is amply 
 justified by the Constitution. True, the form of an oalh is given, but no 
 man is coerced to take it. The man is only promised a i)ardon in case he 
 voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes the Executive to 
 grant or withhold the iiardon at his own absolute discretion, and this in- 
 cludes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and 
 other authorities. 
 
 It is also proffered that, if in any of the States named a State (lovern- 
 uient shall be. in the mode jirescribed, set up. such Cuvernmeiit shall be 
 recognized and guaianteed l)y the United States, ami that umler it the 
 State shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion 
 and domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of the United States 
 to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, 
 and to protect the State, in the cases stated, is explicit and full. ]5ut why 
 tender the benefits of this provision only to a State (.ioverumcnt set up in 
 this particular way? This section contemplates a catc wherein the ele- 
 nient within a State favorable to a republican government, in the Union, 
 may be too feeble for an opposite and hostile external t(j or even within 
 the State; and such are precisely the cases with which we are dealing. 
 
 Any attempt to guaranty and protect a revived ^tate Uovernnient, con- 
 stituted in whole, or in preponderating part, from tlie very element against 
 whose hostility it is to be protected, is simply absurd. There must be a 
 test by which to separate the opposing elements, so as to build only from 
 the sound; and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound 
 whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness. 
 
 15ut if it be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political 
 l)ody. an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the I'nited States, and 
 to the Union under it, why also to the laws and Proclamation in regard to 
 slavery ■.■' Those laws and Proclamations were enacteil and i)nt f(n-th for 
 the purpose of aiding in the suiipression of the rebellion. To give them 
 their fullest effect, there had to be a pledge for their maintenance. In my 
 judgment they have aided, and will further aid, the cause for which they 
 were intended. To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a 
 lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of 
 faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present posi- 
 tion, r shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclama- 
 tion; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of 
 the Proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress. Eor these and other 
 reasons it is thought beet that support of these measures shall be included 
 in the oath; and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claim it in re- 
 turn for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, when he has clear con- 
 stitutional power to withhold altogether or grant upon terms which he 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AlS^D TRIAL 
 
 shall deem wisest for the public interest. It should be observed, also, 
 that this part of the oath is subject to the modif vino; and abrogating power 
 of legislation and supreme judicial decision. 
 
 The proposed acquiescence of the Xational Executive in any reasonable 
 temporary State arrangement for the freed people is made with the view 
 of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution which must, at best, 
 attend all classes by n total revolution of labor throughout whole States. 
 It is hoped that the already deeply afflicted people of those States may be 
 somewhat more ready to giye up the cause of their affliction, if, to this ex- 
 tent, this vital matter be left to themselves; while no power of the Xa- 
 tional Executive to prevent an abuse is abridged by the proposition. 
 
 The suggestion in the Proclamation as to maintaining the political 
 frame-work of those States on what is called reconstruction, is made in 
 the hope that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save labor 
 and avoid great confusion. 
 
 But why any proclamation on this subject? This question is beset with 
 the conflicting views that the step might be delayed too long or taken too 
 soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready for action, 
 but remain inactive apparently for want of a rallying point. Why shall A. 
 adopt the plan of li., rather than B. that of A.? Ana if A. and B. should 
 agree, how can they know but that the General Government here will re- 
 ject their plan'.' I!y the Proclamation a plan is presented which may be 
 accepted by them as a rallying point, and which they may be assured in 
 advance will not be rejected here. This may bring them to act sooner 
 than they otherwise would. 
 
 The objection to a premature presentation of a plan by the Xational 
 Executive consists in the danger of committals on points which could be 
 more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken to so shape 
 the document as to avoid enibarrasment from this source. Saying that, 
 on certain terms, certain classes will be pardoned, with rights restored, it 
 is not said that other classes on other terms will never be included. Say 
 ing that reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified way, it 
 is not saying it will not be accepted in any other way. 
 
 The movements, by State action, for emancipation in several of the 
 States not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, are matters of 
 profound gratulation, and while 1 do not repeat in detail what I have here- 
 tofore so earnestly urged upon this subject, my general views and feelings 
 remain unchanged, and i trust that Congress will omit no fair opportunity 
 of aiding these important steps to a great consummation. 
 
 In the midst of other cares, however important, we must not lose sight 
 of the fact that the war power i.s still our main reliance. To that power 
 alone can we look, (or a time to give confidence to the people in the con- 
 tested regions that the insurgent power will not again over-run them. 
 Until that confidence shall be established, little can be done anywhere tor 
 what is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest care must still be di- 
 rected to the Army and Xavy. who have thus far borne their hardest part 
 nobly and well. .And it may be esteemed fortunate that in giving the 
 greatest efficiency to these indispensable arms, we do also honorably 
 recognize the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose 
 
 % 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, T 
 
 them, to whuiu, more than to others, the world must stand indebted for 
 the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated, enluri^ed and perpetuated- 
 
 AllKAll\M Ll.NX'OLX. 
 
 December 8, 186.3. 
 
 The followiug is the Proclamation of Amnesty and Ilecon- 
 struction referred to in the foregoing Message, and further il- 
 lustrates Mr. Lincoln's plan for the restoration of the Union: 
 PROCLAMATION OF A.AINESTY AND REC(~»NSTRUCTION. 
 
 Bv THE PUESIDF.NT OF THK UnITKI) SlA'l KS OF .\MKU1C.\. 
 
 Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it it provided 
 that the President "shall have the jiower to grant reprieves and pardons 
 tor offenses against the United States, except in eases of impeachment;" 
 and 
 
 Whereas, a rebellion now e.xists whereby the loyal State governments of 
 several States have for a long time been subverted, and many persons 
 have committed, and are guilty of treason against the United States; and 
 
 Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have been 
 enacted by Congress, declaring forfeitures and confiscations of property 
 and liberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and 
 also declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any time 
 thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have parti- 
 cipated in the e.\isting rebellion, in any State or part thereof, pardon and 
 amnesty, with such e.\ceptions and at such times and on such conditions 
 as he may deem expedient for the public welfare; and 
 
 Whereas, the Congressional declaration for limited and conditional 
 pardon accords with well established judicial exposition of the i)ardoning 
 power; and 
 
 Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the United 
 States has issued several proclamations, with provisions in regard to the 
 liberation of slaves; and 
 
 Whereas, it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said 
 rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States, and to re- 
 inaugurate loyal State Governments within and for their respective States; 
 therefore. 
 
 I. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, de- 
 clare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, 
 participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that 
 a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of tlieni. with restora- 
 tion of all rights of property, except as to slaves and in [iroperty cases 
 where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condi- 
 tion that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath, and thence- 
 forward keep and maintain said oath inviolate, and which oath shall be 
 registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect 
 following, to-wit: 
 
 J, , do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty (iod. 
 
 that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder; 
 and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all acts of 
 Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so 
 long and so far as not repealed, modified or held void by Congress, or by 
 the decision of the Supreme Court; and that I will, in like manner, abide 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AXD TRIAL 
 
 by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during; 
 the existing: rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not 
 modified or declared void bv decision of the Supreme Court. So help me 
 God. 
 
 The persons exempted from the benefit.'? of the foregoing provisions are 
 all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the 
 so-called Confederate Government: all who have left judicial stations un- 
 der the United States to aid the rebellion: all who are or shall have been 
 military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate Government above 
 the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the Navy: all who have 
 left seats in the United States Congress to aid the rebellion: all who re- 
 signed commissions in the army or navy of the United States and after- 
 ward aided the rebellion: and all who have engaged in any way in treating 
 colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than law- 
 fully as prisoners of war. and which jiersons may have been found in the 
 United states service as sokliers. seamen, or in any capacity. 
 
 And 1 do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, in 
 any of the States of Arkansas. Texas. Louisiana, Mississii)pi. Tennessee. 
 Alabama, Georgia. Florida. South Carolina and North Carolina, a number 
 of persons, not less than one-tenth in number of the vote."? cast in such 
 State at the Presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid and not 
 having since violateil it, and being a qualified voter by the election laws of 
 the State existing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and 
 excluding all others, shall re-establish a State government which sliall be 
 republican, and in no wise contravening said oath, such sliall be recognized 
 as the true government of the State, and the State shall receive there- 
 under the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that "the 
 United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican 
 form of government, and shall jirotect each of them against invasion: and, 
 on the application of the legislature, or the executive (^when the legislature 
 cannot be convened) against domestic violence." 
 
 And 1 do further proclaim, declare, and make known, that any provision 
 which may be adopted by suc:h State government in relation to the freed 
 people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their permanent 
 freedom, provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent as 
 a temporary arrangement with their present condition as a laboring, land- 
 less, and homeless class, will not be objected to by the National Executive. 
 
 And it is suggested as not improper that, in cimstructing a loyal State 
 government in any State, the name of the State, the boundary, the sub- 
 divisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws, as before the re- 
 bellion, be maintained, subject only to the modifications made necessary 
 by the conditions hereinbefore staled, and such others, if any. not contra- 
 vening said conditions, and which may be deemed exjiedient by those 
 framing the new State government. 
 
 To avoid misunderstanding, it may be projier to say. that whether mem- 
 bers sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats, constitu- 
 tionally rests exclusively with the respective houses, and not to any extent 
 with the Executive. And still further, that this proclamation is intended 
 to present to the people of the States wherein the National authority has 
 been suspended, and loyal State governments have been subverted, a mode 
 in and by which the National authority and loyal State governments may 
 
OF PRESIDENT AXDREW JOIIXSOX. 
 
 be re-establisheil within said States, or in any cf tliem: and while tho 
 mode presented is the best the Exeuutivi' ean suii-^vst, with his present 
 impressions, it must not lie understood tluit no other possilile mode would 
 be acceptable. 
 
 • iiven under uiy liand at the City of 'Washington, the 
 eii,dith day of December, in the year of our Lord one thou- 
 (L,. S.) sand eight hundred anil si.x'ty-tliree. and of the Independ- 
 ence of the I'nited States of .\nu'ricii. tlie ei<;lity-eif,'hth. 
 By the President: Ahraiioi Lincoln'. 
 
 WiLl.i.wi H. SKw.Min. 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 How the revolted States could be most snccessfally and ex- 
 peditiously restored to their constitutional relations to the 
 Union on the cessation of hostilities, was the momentous ques- 
 tion of the honi-. upon which there were views and schemes as 
 varied and antagonistic as were the mental differences and 
 political disairreements of those who felt called upon to enga<,n^ 
 in the stupendous work. As history had recorded no similar 
 conditions, and therefoie no demand for the solution of such a 
 problem, there were no examples or historic lights for the guid- 
 ance of those upon whom the task had fallen. 
 
 It is apparent that Mr. Lincoln maintained the indestructi- 
 bility of the States and the indivisibility of the Union — that 
 the resolutions of secession were null and void, and that the 
 States lately in rebellion were never in fact but only in theory 
 out of the Union — that they retained inherently, though now 
 dormant, their State autonomy and constitutional rights as 
 before their revolutionary acts, except as to slaverv, and that 
 all their people had to do, to re-establish their former status, 
 as he declared to the Emperor of the French when that poten- 
 tate was about to recognize the Confederacy, was to resume 
 their duties as loyal, law-abiding citizens, and reorganize their 
 State Governments on a basis of loyalty to the C^onstitution and 
 the Union. The terms he proposed to formally offer them were 
 first illustrated in the case of Louisiana, early in iHi'iH, and later 
 in the foregoing Message and Proclamation ; and clearly indi- 
 cated what was to be his policy and proces.? of reconstruction. 
 
 Messrs. Flanders and Hahn were admitted to the House of 
 Representatives as members from Louisiana agreeably to the 
 President's views thus outlined. They had been chosen at an 
 election ordered by the Governor of the State (Gov. Shepley), 
 who had undoubtedly been permitted, if not specially authorized 
 
in TIIK TMPKACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 by the President, to take this step, but they were the last to be 
 received from Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln's plan, as the next 
 Congress resolved to receive no more members from the seced- 
 ed States till joint action by the two Houses therefor should 
 be had. 
 
 Prior to the election at which these jjentlemen were chosen, 
 Mr. Lincoln addressed a characteristic note to Gov. Shepley, 
 which was in effect a warning that Federal officials not citizens 
 of Louisiana must not be chosen to represent the State in Con- 
 gres'^. "^Ve do not,"" said he, referring to the South, "particu- 
 larly need members of Congress from those States to get along 
 with legislation here. AYhat we do want is the conclusive evi- 
 <len<;e that resi)ectable citizens of Louisiana are willing to be 
 members of C'ongress and to swear support to the Constitution, 
 and that other res])ectable citizens are willing to vote for them 
 and send them. To send a parcel of Northern men as Eepre- 
 sentatives, elected, as would be understood, (and perhaps really 
 soj at the point of the bayonet, would be disgraceful and out- 
 rageous." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln would tolerate none of the "carpet-baggiug" 
 that afterwards became so conspicuous and offensive under the 
 Congressional plan of lieconstructiou. 
 
 These stei)S for reconstruction in Louisiana were followed by 
 the assembling of a convention to frame a new constitution for 
 that State, The convention was organized early in 180J-, and 
 its most important act was the prompt incorporation of an anti- 
 slavery clause in its oi'ganic law. Jiy a vote of 70 to IG the 
 convention declared slavery to be forever abolished in the 
 State. The new Constitution was adopted by the people of 
 the State on the -jth day of the ensuing September by a vote 
 of (i.Sot) in its favor, to i.oUn against it. As the total vote of 
 Louisiana in IsCiO was 3U,510, the new government had ful- 
 tilled the re(]uirement of the President's Proclamation. It was 
 sustained by more than the required one-tenth vote. 
 
 In a personal note of congratulation to Gov. Hahn, of Loui- 
 siana, tliH President, speaking of the coming convention, sug- 
 gested that ••some of the colored people be let in, as for in- 
 stance, the very intelligent, and especially those who havefought 
 gallantly in our ranks." "They would," said he, "probably 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, 11 
 
 help ill some trying time in the future, to keep flic jcircl <if 
 liberty ill the famiJ/i of Freedovi." 
 
 This action in regard to Louisiana was accom[)finied. indeed 
 in some particulars preceded, by similar action in Arkansas. 
 A Governor was ele.cted, an aati-slavery Constitution ado[)ted, 
 a State Government duly installed, and Senators and Kepre- 
 seutatives in Congress elected; but were refused admission bv 
 Congress. Mr. Sumner, when the credentials of the Senators- 
 elect were presented, foreshadowing the i)Osition to be taken by 
 the Eepublican leaders, offered a resolution declaring that "a 
 State pretending to secede from the Union, and battling against 
 the General Government to maintain that position, must be re- 
 garded as a rebel State subject to military occupation and with- 
 out representation on this floor until it has been readmitted bv 
 a vote of both Houses of Congress; and the Senate will decline 
 to receive any such application from any such rebel State until 
 after such a vote by both Houses.'" 
 
 A few weeks later, on the '2Tth of June, 18tj4-, this resolution 
 was in effect reported back to the vSenate by the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee, to which it had been referred, and adopted by a vote of 
 27 to (5. The same action was had in the House of Eepresen- 
 tatives on the application of the Representatives-elect from 
 Arkansas for admission to that body. 
 
 This was practically the declaration of a rupture between tiie 
 President and Congress on the question of Reconstruction. It 
 was a rebuke to Mr. Lincoln for having presumed to treat the 
 seceded States as still in any sense States of the Union. It was 
 in effect a declaration that those States had successfully seced- 
 ed — that their elimination from the Union was an accomplished 
 fact — that the Union of the States had been broken— and that 
 the only metlujd left for their return that would be considered 
 by Congress was as conquered and outlying provinces, not even 
 as Territories with the right of such to membership in the 
 Union; and should be governed accordingh' until such time as 
 Congress should see fit ( // ever, to use the language of Mr. 
 Steveus in the House) to devise and establish some form 
 whereby they could be annexed to or re-incorporated into the 
 Union. 
 
 It was at this point — on the great question of Reconstruc- 
 
THE IMPEACIIMK.NT AND TRIAL 
 
 tiou. or more properly of llestoration — that the disagveeiiieiits 
 originnted between the Executive and Cougress which finally 
 culminated in the impeachment of Mr. Lincoln's successor; and 
 tliat condition of strained relations was measurably intensified 
 when, on the following July 4th. a bill was passed by Congress 
 making provision for the reorganization and admission of the 
 revolted States on the extreme lines indicated b}' the above ac- 
 tion of (^ongress and containing the very extraordinary pro 
 vision that the President. ((fU-r obiainhuj ihc voii^od of C'on- 
 (/yc.s.s, .shall recognize the State Government so established. 
 That measure was still another and more marked rebuki' by 
 Congress to the President for having presumed to initiate a 
 s\stem of restoration without its consultation and advice. 
 Xaturall\- Mr. Lincoln was not in a mood to meekly accept the 
 rebuke so marked and manifestly intended: and so the bill not 
 having i)assed Congress till within the ten days preceding its 
 adjournment allowed by tlie Constitution for its consideration 
 l)y the President, and as it proposed to undo the work he had 
 done, he failed to return it to Congress — "pocketed" it — and it 
 therefore fell. He was not in a mood to accept a Congressional 
 rebuke. He had given careful study to the duties, the respon- 
 sibilities, and the limitations of the respective L)e[)artments of 
 the Government, and was not willing that his judgment should 
 be revised, or his course censured, however indirectly, by any 
 of its co-ordinate bi'anches. 
 
 Four (lavs after the session had closed, he issued a Proclama- 
 tion in which he treated the bill merely as the expression of au 
 opinion by Congress as to the best plan of Reconstruction — 
 '■which [)lan,"" he icmarked, "it is now thought fit to lay before 
 the people for their consideration."' 
 
 He further stated in this Proclamation that he had already 
 ])reseuted one plan of restoration, and that he was "unprepared 
 by a formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly committed to 
 any single [ilan of restoration, and was unpre];ared to declare 
 that the free State Constitutions and Crovernments already 
 adojited and installed in Louisiana and Arkansas, shall be set 
 aside and held for naught, thereby repelling and discouraging 
 the loyal citizens who have set up the same as to further effort, 
 and unprepared to declare a constitutional competency in Cou- 
 
OF PRESIDENT AXDREW JoHN'SOX. 
 
 gress to abolish slavery in the States, though siiK-erely liopiiig 
 that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in all the 
 States might be adopted.' 
 
 While, with these objections, Mr. Lincoln could not a[)prov(' 
 the bill, he cnucbided his Proclamation with these words: 
 
 "Xevertheless. I am fully satisfied with the plan of restoration contained 
 in the bill as one very proper for the loyal people of any State choosing' to 
 adopt it. and I aui and at all times shall be prepared to ^ivc Exceutive aid 
 and assistance to any such people as soon as military resistance to the 
 United States shall have been suppressed in any such State and the jieo- 
 ple thereof shall have sufficiently returned to their obetlience to the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the United States in which Military (iovernors will 
 be appointed with directions to proceed accordine; to the bill." 
 
 "It must be frankly admitted," says Mr. Blaine in reciting 
 this record in his "Thirty Years of Congress,' —that Mr. Lin- 
 coln's course was in some of its respects e.xtraordinnry. It met 
 with almost unanimous dissent on the part of the liepnblican 
 members, and violent criticism from the uiore radic-d members 
 of both Houses. * * * Fortunately, the Senators and Itep- 
 resentatives had returned to their States and Districts before 
 the Eecoustructiou Proclamation was issued, and found the 
 people united and enthusiastic in Mr. Lincoln s su[>|>ort."' 
 
 In the last s[)eech Mr. Lincoln ever made. I .-Vpril lltli. 
 ISi;.-)) referring tn the twelve thousand men who had organ- 
 ized the Louisiana Government, (on the one-tenth basis) he 
 
 said: 
 
 ■■If we now reject and siiurn them, we do (Mir utmo.'^t to ilisori,'ani7.e and 
 disperse them. We say to the white man. you are worthlesp. or worsi'. 
 We will neither help you or be helped by you. To the black man we say. 
 "this cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we 
 will dash from you. and leave you to the chances of j^atheriuK the spilled 
 and scattered contents in some rague and inulejiiied irlicii aiul irhi'io <iii,l 
 hoir." If this course, discouraging and paralyzinj; to both white and 
 black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper iiractical relations 
 with the Union. T have so far been unable to perceive it. If. on the con 
 trary, they reorganize and sustain the new Government of Louisianii. the 
 converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the 
 arms of twelve thousand men to adhere to their work and ari,'ue for it, and 
 proselyte for it, and fight for it, and grow it. and rij.en it to a complete 
 success. The colored man. too, in seeing all unitetl for him. is inspired 
 with vigilance and with energy and daring to tlie same end. (irant that 
 he desires the elective franchise. He will yrf uttaiu il .«"",^ r hi/ .•iariny 
 the ulveudu (iilvuiiciil. steps toicai-d it tlmii bij niuniiifj hurl.- ,,rrr thviii. 
 Concede that the new Government of Louisiana is only to what it should 
 be as the egg to the fowl: we shall sooner have the fowl li> hatching the 
 c"g than by smashing it." 
 
14 THE IMPRACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 It is manifest that Mr. Lincoln intuitively foresaw the danger 
 of a great body of the people becoming accustomed to govern- 
 ment by military j)ower, and sought to end it b}- the speediest 
 practicable means. As he expressed it, ""We must begin and 
 mould from disorganized and discordant elements: nor is it a 
 small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ 
 among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of re- 
 construction." 
 
 Louisiana was wholly in possession of the I'nion forces and 
 under loyal influence in 18B3, and in his judgment the time 
 had come for reconstructive action in that state— -not merely 
 for the purpose of strengthening and crystalizing the Union 
 sentiment tht^-e. at a great gate-way of commerce, that would 
 become a conspicuous object-lesson to foreign governments in ' 
 liehaif of more favorable influences abroad, but also to the en- 
 couragement of Union men and the discouragement of the re- 
 bellion in all the other revolted States. He had fortified his 
 own judgment, as he frankly declared, "by submitting the 
 Louisiana plan in advance to every member of the Cabinet, and 
 every member approved it."' 
 
 The stejis taken in Louisiana were to be but a beginning. 
 The nature of subsequent proceedings on his [lart must be gov- 
 erned bv the success of this — that under thnn existincr condi- 
 tions it was inexpedient, in view of further po.ssible complica- 
 tions, to forecast further proceeding.^, and especially to attempt 
 to establisli. at the outset, and under the chaotic conditions of 
 tlie time, a general system of reconstruction applicable to all 
 the States and to varying conditions. So the beo-innino- was 
 made in Louisiana. It is manifest that the purpose of this 
 immediate .-iction was two-fold — not only to restore Louisiana 
 to the Union at the earliest practicable day— but also to so far 
 establish a process of general restoration before Conoress 
 should reconvene at the coming December session, that there 
 would be no sufficient occasion or excuse for mterferino- with 
 liis work by the application of the exasperating conditions that 
 had been foifshadowcd by that bodv. 
 
 On this point Mr. "Wtdles, his Secretary of the Navv, testifies 
 that at the close of a Cabinet meeting held immediatelv pre- 
 ceding Mr. Lincoln s death. "Mr. Stanton made .some remarks 
 
OF PRKSIDENT ANDREW .TOHXSON. 
 
 on the general condition of affairs and the new phase and 
 duties upon which we were about to enter. He alluded to the 
 great solicitude which the President felt on this subject, his 
 frequent recurrence to the necessity of establishing civil gov- 
 ernments and preserving order in the rebel States. Like the 
 rest of the Cabinet, doubtless, he had given this subject much 
 consideration, and with a view of having .something practical 
 on which to base action, he had drawn up a rough plan or or- 
 dinance which he had handed to the President. 
 
 '■The President said he proposed to bring forward tliat sul)- 
 ject, althongh he had not had time as yet to give nuich atten- 
 tion to the details of the paper which the Secretary of 'Win- liad 
 given him only the day before: but that it was suljstantially. in 
 its general scope, the plan which we liad sumetinies talked over 
 in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some moditica- 
 tious, prescribe further details: there were some sngge.-itioiis 
 which he should wish to make, and he desired ail tf) bring 
 their minds to the question, for no greater <n- njorc important 
 one could come before us. or any future Cabinet. He tlionght 
 it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as 
 Congress liad adjourned, and iherc ircrc none nftlir di^tiii-liiiuj 
 clcmciih of fhrit hodi/ in hinder (nid ciidxirns.-^ im. If we were 
 wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get llieir 
 governments in successful operation, wdth order pT'i'vailing and 
 the Union re-established, hofnrc Coiif/rr^t^ cciiiic fof/cllifi- in Dc- 
 cemher. This he thought important. We coiild do Ix^ter. ac- 
 compish more without than with them. There were men in 
 Congress who. if their motives were good, were nevertheless 
 impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindic- 
 tiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not parti- 
 cipate. Each House of Congress, he said, had the undoubted 
 right to receive or reject members, the Executive hnd no con- 
 trol in this matter. But Congress had nofiiiii;/ la dn irHh fhe 
 Sfafe Govcnniicnts. which the President could n^cogni/.e. and 
 under existing laws treat as other States. gi\e the >ame mail 
 facilities, collect taxes, appoint judges, marshals, ci'ilectors. 
 etc., subject, of course, to coutirmatiou. There were nu'u who 
 objected to these views, hid ihcij ircre )i(il licrc mrl ire lun^l 
 iii(d:c luixic fo do our dulij hcfoi-c thcij rutiu- lici-c." 
 
If) THK TMPEACHMKXT AXD TRIAL 
 
 The subjugated States were in a condition that could not be 
 safelj- permitted to continue for any indefinite period. It 
 would be inconsistent with the purpose of the war. incongruous 
 to the American system and idea of government, and antagon- 
 istic to American political, or even commercial or social auton- 
 omy. Naturally upon Mr. Lincoln would fall largely the 
 duty and r('S[)onriibility of formulating and inaugurating some 
 method of restoration. With the abolition of slavery, the most 
 difficult of settlement of all the obstacles in the way of recon- 
 struction had been removed. Naturally, to, during the later 
 months of the war. when it became manifest that the end of 
 the struggle was near, the question of reconstruction and the 
 methods wliereby it could be most naturally, speedily, and effect- 
 ively accomplished, came uppermost in his mind. A humane, 
 just man. and a sincere, broad-brained, patriot and far-seeiug 
 statesman, he instinctively rejected the many drastric schemes 
 which filled a large portion of the [)ublic press of the North 
 and afterwards characterized rnauA' of the sug-jjestions of Con- 
 gressional action. With him the prime purpose of the war 
 was the preservation of the [)()litical. territorial and economic 
 integrity of tiie Ke[)ublic- -in a word, to restt)re the Union, 
 without needless humiliation to the defeatml iiartv. or the im- 
 |)osition of unnecessarily rigorous terms which could but result 
 in future frictions — without slavery -and yet witli sufficient 
 safeguards against future disloyal association of the sections; 
 and that ])ur[>ose had been a[)proved bv an overwiielmino- ma- 
 jority of tlie people in his re-election in ISli-l. 
 
 In these purposes and methods Mr. Lincoln appears to have 
 had the active sympathy and co-o))erHtion of his entire Cabinet, 
 more especially of Mr. Stanton, his Secretary of AVar. Indeed, 
 Mr. Stanton is understood, from the reconl. to have been the 
 joint author, with ^[r. Lincoln, of the plan of reconstruction 
 agreed u]ion at the later meetiug.s of the Cabinet immediately 
 prior to Mr. Lincoln's death. Mr. Stanton [iroposed to ])ut it 
 in the form of a military order — Mr. Lincohi 7nade an E.xec- 
 utive order. The plan was embodied in wliat afterwards be- 
 came known as the ••North Carolina Proclamation.'" determined 
 upon by Mr. Lincoln at his last Cabini't niectiiig and [iromul- 
 gated l>\- Mr. Johnson slKjrtlv after his acce,- 
 
OF PRESTDEXT ANDREW JOHNSON'. 17 
 
 idency as Mr. Lincoln's successor, and is inserted in a subse- 
 quent chapter. 
 
 Mr. Lincolu unquestionably comprehended the [)eeuliar con- 
 ditions under which the Eepublican party had come to the 
 control of the legislative branch of the Government, and fully 
 realized the incapacity of the dominant element in that control 
 for the delicate work of restoration and reconstruction — lead- 
 ing a conquered and embittered people back peacefully and 
 successfully, without unnecessary friction, into harmonious 
 relations to the Union. 
 
 No such responsibility, no such herculean task, had ever be- 
 fore, in the history of civilization, devolved upon any ruler or 
 political party. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln seems to have realized the incapacity of party 
 leaders brought to the surface by the tumult and demoraliza- 
 tion of the time, whose only exploits and experiences were in 
 the line of destruction and who must approach the task with 
 divided counsel, to cope successfully with the delicate and re- 
 sponsible work of restoration the close of the war had made 
 imperative. He comprehended the incongruities which charac- 
 terized that great party better than its professed leaders, and 
 foresaw the futility of any effort on its part, at that time and 
 in its then temper, to the early establishment of any coherent 
 or successful method of restoration. Hence, unquestionably, 
 his prompt action in that behalf, and his failure to call the 
 Congress into special session, to the end that there should be 
 no time unnecessarily consumed and lost in the institution of 
 some efiFcient form of civil government in the returning States 
 — some form that would have the sanction of intelligent author- 
 ity competent to restore and enforce public order, without the 
 dangers of delay and consequent disorder that must result, and 
 did afterwards result, from the protracted debates sure to fol- 
 low and did follow the sudden precipitation of the questions of 
 reconstruction and reconciliation upon a mass of Congressmen 
 totally inexperienced in the anomalous conditions of that time, 
 or in the methods most needed for their correction. 
 
 That Mr. Lincoln contemplated the ultimate and not remote 
 enfranchisement of the late slaves, is manifest from his sugges- 
 tion to Gov, Hahn, of Louisiana, hereinbefore quoted in conuec- 
 
IS THK IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 tioD with the then approaching Convention for the re-establish- 
 ment of State Government tliere, and again still more manifest 
 from his last public utterance on April 11, 1865, deprecating 
 the rejection by Congress of his plan for the restoration of 
 Louisiana, in which, he said, speaking of that action by Con- 
 gress rejecting the Lousiana bill: '-Grant that the colored 
 man desires the elective franchise. He will attain it sooner by 
 saving the already advanced steps towards it than by running 
 back over them."' 
 
 It is also apparent in the light of the succeeding history of 
 that time and of that question, that if Mr. Lincoln's views had 
 bei n seconded by Congress, the enfranchisement of the negro 
 would have been, though delayed, as certain of accomplish- 
 ment, and on a vastly higlier and more satisfactory plane — and 
 the country saved the years of friction and disgraceful public 
 disorder that characterized the enforcement of the Con^res- 
 sional i)lan afterwards adopted. 
 
 As to the success of Mr. Lincoln's [)lans, had they been 
 sanctioned, or even had they not been repudiated by Congress, 
 Mr. Blaiue, in his book, asserts that Mr. Lincoln, "By his four 
 years of considerate and successful administration, by his j)a- 
 tient and positive trust in the ultimate triumph of the Union, 
 realized at last as he stood u[)on the edge of the grave — he had 
 acquired so complete an ascendency (jver the public control in 
 the loyal states, that (tiiij jwlicy iiKiiiirccJ and cninoiuiced hij 
 him iroiild hare hccii acccjitcd hij <i. t:(isf uKijorifij (if his coiiu- 
 frijincii.'' 
 
 It was indicative of the sagacious foresight of Mr. Lincoln 
 that he did not call the Congress into special session at the 
 close of the war, as would have been natural and usual, before 
 attempting the establishment of any method for the restoration 
 of the revolted States, The fact that he did not do so, but was 
 making prei)arations to proceed immediately in that work on 
 his own lines and in accordance with his own ideas, and with 
 the hearty accord of his entire Cabinet, of itself affords proof 
 that he was ajipreheusive of obstruction from the same element 
 of his party that subsequently arose in opposition to Mr. John- 
 son on that <|Ufstion, and that he preferred to put his plans 
 into ojicration before the assembling of Congress in the next 
 
OF PRESIDBXT ANDREW JOHNSON'. 19 
 
 regular winter session, in order that he might be able then to 
 show palpable results, and induce Cougress to accept and fol- 
 low up a humane, peaceful and satisfactory system of recon- 
 struction. Mr. Lincoln undoubtedly hoped thus to avoid un- 
 necessary friction. Having the quite unlimited confidence of 
 the great mass of the people of the couutrv, of both parties 
 and on both sides of the line of hostilities, there seem to l)e 
 excellent reasons for believing that he would liave succeeded, 
 and that the extraordinary and exasperating differences and 
 local turmoils that followed the drastic measures which were 
 afterward adopted by Congress over the President's vetoes, 
 would have been in a very large degree avoided, and there 
 would lun-e been no impcachmenf — either of Mr. Lincoln had 
 he lived, or of Mr. Johnson after him. 
 
 It was the misfortune of the time, and of the occasion, which 
 determined Mr. Lincoln to institute a plan of restoration dur- 
 ing the interim of Congress, that the Ke[)ublican party, then 
 in absolute control of Congress, was in no sense equipped for 
 such a work. Its first and great mission had been the destruc- 
 tion of slavery. Though not phrased in formal fashion, that 
 was the logic of its creation and existence. It was brought into 
 being purelv as an anti-slavery party, illustrated in the fact 
 that its membership included every pronounced anti-slavery 
 man, known as abolitionists, in the United States. All its 
 energies, during ail its life up to the close of the war, had 
 been bent to that end. It had been born and bred to the work 
 of destruction. It came to destroy slavery, and its forces had 
 been nurtured, to the last day of the war, in [lulling down— in 
 fact, did not then wholly cease. 
 
 The work of restoration— the rebuilding of fallen States — 
 had now come. The Kepublican party approached that work 
 in the hot blood of war and the elation of victory— a condition 
 illy fitting the demands of exalted statesmanship so essential 
 to perfect political effort. 
 
 Never had nation or party thrust upon it a more delicate 
 duty or graver responsibility. It was that of leading a con- 
 quered people to build a new civilization wholly different from 
 the one in ruins. It was first to reconcile two races totally 
 different from each other, so far as possible t<; move in har- 
 
'JO THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 moDv in supplanting servile bj' free labor, and the slave by a free 
 American citizen. The transition whs sudden, and the elements 
 antagonistic in race, culture, self-governing power — indeed, in 
 all the qualities which characterize a free people. 
 
 There was a wide margin for honest differences between 
 statesmen of ex[)erience. A universal sentiment could not ob- 
 tain. The accepted political leaders of the time were illy 
 equipped to meet the issue^ — much less those who had been 
 brought to prominence, and too often to control, in the hot 
 blood of war and the frictions of the time, when intemperate 
 denunciation and a free use of the epithets of -'rebel," and 
 "traitor." had become a ready passport to public honors. It 
 was a time when the admonition to make haste slowly was of 
 profound significance. A peril greater than anv other the 
 civil war had developed, overhung the nation. Greater than 
 ever the demand for couranfe in conciliation — for divesting the 
 issues of all mere partyisni, and the yielding of something bv 
 the extremes, both of conscrvutisni and radicalism. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE BALTIMOKE CONVENTION. 
 
 LINCOLN AND JOHNSON NOT NOMINATED AS REPUBLICANS, 
 
 Mr, Lincoln had been elected President in 18(50, distinctive- 
 ly as a Republican. In 1864, however, the conditions had 
 changed. The war had been in progress some three years, 
 during which the insurgents had illustrated a measure of cour- 
 age, endurance, and a command of the engineries of successful 
 warfare that had not been anticipated by the people of the 
 North. It was seen that to insure the success of the Union 
 cause it was imperative that there should be thorough uuity and 
 co-operation of the loyal people of all parties — that it was no 
 time for partisaii division among those who hoped ever to see 
 a restored Republic — that it was necessary to lay aside, as far 
 as possible, mere partisan issues, and to unite, in the then ap- 
 proaching campaign, upon a non-partisan, distinctively Union 
 ticket and platform. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln had given so satisfactory an administration — 
 so wisely, efficiently, and patriotically had lie conducted his 
 great office, that he was on all sides conceded to be the proper 
 person for nomination and election. The Convention of 180-4 
 was not called as a Republican Convention, but distinctively as 
 a Union Convention. 
 
 "The undersigned,'' so ran the call, --who by original ap- 
 pointment, or subsequent delegation to fill vacancies, consti- 
 tute the Executive Committee created by the National Conven- 
 tion held at Chicago on the lOth day of May, 18(50, do hereby 
 call upon nil qualified voters icho desire the uiimndiiional main- 
 tenance of the Union, the siqyremacij of tJie Constitution, and 
 the complete suppression of the existing rebellion, icdh tlie 
 cause thereof, by vigorous war, and all apt and effective means; 
 to send delegates to a convention to assemble at Baltimore, on 
 
THE niPEACHMEXT AND TRIAL 
 
 Tuesday, the Ttli day of June, 18()4, at 12 o'clock noon, for the 
 purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President 
 and Vice President of the United States." 
 
 The delegates met pursuant to this call. Hon. Edwin D. 
 Morgan, (jf New York, Chairman of the Union National Com- 
 mittee, called the Convention to order, and Eobert J. Breckin- 
 ridge, of Kentucky, was chosen temporary Chairman. In the 
 course of his introductory address, Mr. Breckinridge said: 
 
 Passing over many things which it would be right for me to say, did the 
 time serve, and were this the occasion- -let nie add, you are a Union party. 
 Your origin has been referred to as having occurred eight years ago. In 
 one sense it is true. But you are far older than that. I see before me not 
 only primitive Republicans and primitive Abolitionists, but I see also 
 primitive Democrats and primitive Whigs. '■ * * Asa Union party I 
 will follow you to the ends of the earth, and to the gates of death. Hut as 
 an -Abolition party -as a Republican party as a Whig party- as a Demo- 
 cratic party— as an American party, I will not follow you one foot. 
 
 Mr. William Dennison, of Ohio, was chosen President of the 
 
 Convention. On taking the chair he said: 
 
 In no sense do we meet as members or representatives of either of the 
 old political parties which bound the people, or as the champions of any 
 principle or doctrine peculiar to either. The extraordinary condition of 
 the country since tlie outbreak of the rebellion has, from necessity, taken 
 from the issues of these parties their practical significance, and compelled 
 the formation of substantially new political organizations; hence the or- 
 ganization of the Union Party if liarty it can be called of which this 
 Convention is for the purpose of its assembling, the accredited representa- 
 tive, and the only test of membership in which is an unreserved, uncon- 
 ditional loyalty to the Ciovernment and the Union. 
 
 After perfecting its organization the Convention proceeded 
 to ballot for a nominee for the Presidency, and Mr. Lincoln 
 was unanimously nominated — the Missouri delegation at first 
 casting its 22 votes for Gen. Grant, but afterwards changing 
 them to Mr. Lincoln, giving him the total vote of the Conven- 
 tion — 501) — on the first and only ballot. 
 
 Nominations for the Vice Presidency being next in order 
 Mr. Lyman Tremaine, of New York, an old time Democrat 
 nominated Daniel S. Dickinson, another old time Democrat and 
 a very distinguished citizen of that Ktate. In his nominating 
 s[)eech Mr. Tremaine again emjjliasized that this Convention 
 was a Union, and not a partisan body, in these words: 
 
 It was well said by the temporary and by the permanent Chairman, that 
 we meet not here as Republicans. If we do, I have no place in this Con- 
 vention; but, like Daniel S. Dickinson, when the tirst gun was fired on 
 
 « 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, '2:! 
 
 Sumter, I felt that I should prove false to my revulutionary ancestry if I 
 could have hesitated to cast partisan ties to the breeze, and rally around 
 the fiag fo the Union for the preservation of the Covernnient. 
 
 The Indiana delegation nominated Andrew Johnson, also a 
 Democrat, and the nomination was seconded by Mr. Stone, 
 speaking for the Iowa delegation. 
 
 In the earlier proceedings of the Convention tlieie had seemed 
 a disposition to exclude the Tennessee delegation, and Parson 
 Brownlow, an old line "Whig, being called on for a speech, evi- 
 denced in the course of his remarks the small part which parti- 
 san considerations were permitted to play in the purposes and 
 proceedings of the Convention. He said: 
 
 There need be no detaining this Convention for two days in discussions 
 of various kinds, and the idea I suggest to you as an inducement not to 
 exclude our delegation is. that we may take it into our heads, before the 
 thing is over, to present a candidate from that State in rebellion, for the 
 second office in the gift of the peojile. We have a man down there whom 
 it has been my good luck and bad fortune to fight untiringly and persever- 
 ingly tor the past twenty -five years— .\ndrew Johnson. For the first time, 
 in the Providence of God, three years ago we got together on the same 
 platform, and we are fighting the devil. Tom Walker, and Jeff. Davis, side 
 by side. 
 
 Mr. Horace Maynard. a conspicuous Eepnblican of Ten- 
 nessee, said: 
 
 Mr. President, we but represent the sentiment of those who sent here 
 the delegation from Tennessee, when we announce that if no one else had 
 made the nomination of Andrew Johnson, which is now before the Conven- 
 tion, it would have been our duty to make it by one of our own delegation. 
 That citizen, known, honored, distinguished, has lieen presented to this 
 Convention for the second place in the gift of the .American people. It 
 needs not that I should add words of comujendation of him here. From 
 the time he rose in the Senate of the United States, where he then was. 
 on the 17th day of December. 18(30, and met the leaders of treason face to 
 face, and denounced them there, and declared that the laws of the country 
 must and should be enforced, for which he was hanged in eHigy in the City 
 of Memphis, in his own State, by the hands of a negro slave, and burned 
 in effigy, I know not in how many iilaees throughout that portion of the 
 country — from that time, on during the residue of that session of the Sen- 
 ate until he returned to Tennessee after the tiring upon Fort Sumpter. 
 when he was mobbed in the City of Lynchburg, Virginia cm through the 
 memorable canvass that followed in Tennessee, till he jiassed through 
 Cumberland Gap on his way North to invoke the aid of the Government 
 for his people- his position of determined and undying hostility to this 
 rebellion that now ravages the land, has been so well known that it is a 
 part of the household knowledge of many loyal families in the country. 
 * * When he sees your resolutions that you have adopted here by ac- 
 clamation, he will resjiond to them as his sentiments, and I i)ledge myself 
 
2i THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 by all that 1 have to pledge before such an assemblage as this, that 
 whether he be elected to this high place, or whether he retire to private 
 lite, he will adhere to those sentimentB, and to the doctrine of those reso- 
 lutions, as long as his reason remains unimpaired, and as long as breath is 
 given him by his God. 
 
 Two ballots were taken on the nomination for Vice President. 
 Mr. Johnson, whose nomination was known to be desired by 
 Mr. Lincoln and his friends because of his prominence as a 
 Soutliern Democrat and an influential supporter of the Union 
 cause in his State, received 200 votes ou tlie first ballot, and 
 494 on the secoud--the delegations of Maine, New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, 
 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, 
 West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada, vot- 
 ing solidly for him — Massachusets, Rhode Island, Kentucky, 
 Wisconsin and Minnesota, only, being divided. 
 
 Thus a Rei)ublican and a Democrat were made the nominees 
 of the Convention, and its non-partisan character found further 
 expression in the first three liesoiutious of the Platform adopted, 
 which were as follows: 
 
 Resolved. Ist. That it is the highest duty of every .\iiiericun citizen to 
 maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union and the 
 paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; 
 and that laying aside all differeiiees of 2JoUtic(il opittiuu, we pledge our- 
 selves as Union men. animated by a common sentiment and aiming at a 
 common object, to do everything in our power to aid the Government in 
 quelling by force of arms the rebellion now raging against its authority, 
 and in bringing to the punishment due to their crimes the rebels and 
 traitors arrayed against it. 
 
 2nd. That we approve the determination of the Government of the 
 United States not to compromise with Rebels, or to offer them any terms 
 of peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of 
 their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, and that we call upon the Governnment to 
 maintain their position, and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible 
 vigor to the comjilete suppression of the Rebellion, in full reliance upon 
 the selC-eacriticing patriotism, the heroic valor and the undying devotion 
 of the American people to their country and its free institutions. 
 
 .3rd. That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength 
 of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the 
 principles of Republican Governiiierit. justice and the National safety de 
 mand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Repuplic- and 
 that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamation by which 
 the Government in its own defense, has aimed a death blow at this 
 gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the 
 Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions 
 as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the 
 limits or jurisdiction of the United States. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. i") 
 
 So there seems to be good ground for saying that this was 
 in no sense a partisan Convention, but, on the contrary, that it 
 was a Convention of the loyal people of the Northern and 
 Border States, of all parties, who were ready to lay aside party 
 creeds and partisan considerations, the better to make common 
 cause for the preservation of the Union. 
 
 Before the war, Mr. Johnson had been a Democratic Senator 
 from Tennessee, and during the war, a gentleman of great in- 
 fluence in support of the Union cause. So pronounced and 
 effective had been his loyalty that Mr. Lincoln appointed him 
 a Brigadier General and Military Governor of Tennessee, to 
 accept which he resigned his seat in the Senate, and so judi- 
 cious and successful had been his administration of that office 
 in behalf of the Union cause and of Union men, that Tennessee 
 was the first of the revolted States to be readmitted to repre- 
 sentation in Congress after the close of the war. 
 
 So it may be said of Mr. Johnson that he was a persistent 
 and consistent Union Democrat of the old school — for war so 
 long as war might be necessary to the preservation of the 
 Union — for peace when the war was ended by the abandon- 
 ment of the struggle by the insurgents — and for the restora- 
 tion of the Union on terms consistent with then existing condi- 
 tions — without slavery, which was dead — and the return of the 
 people of the South to their loyalty to and support of the Gov- 
 ernment without debasing exactions — after they had laid down 
 their arms. Aggressively radical so long as the people of the 
 South continued in rebellion, he was considerate and merciful 
 so soon as they yielded themselves to the authority of law and 
 of the Union. 
 
 Like Mr. Lincoln, he opposed the idea strenuously advanced 
 by Sumner, and Stevens, and that wing of the Republican 
 party which they led, that the States in rebellion liad committed 
 suicide and were therefore dead and without rights, or entitled 
 to consideration, even, in any proposition that might be adopt- 
 ed for their rehabilitation. 
 
 This record very effectually disposes of the criticisms of Mr. 
 Johnson's course, so common after he came to the Presidency 
 and growing out of his disagreements with the extremists of 
 
20 TJIE IMPEACIIMKXT ANJ) TRIAL 
 
 Congress, that he had deserted and betrayed the llepublicau 
 party after it hal elected him to the Vice Presidency and thus 
 made him Mr. Lincoln's immediate successor — the facts of his- 
 tory showing that neither Mr. Lincoln nor Mr. Johnson were 
 elected by the Eepublican party as Eepiiblicans, nor by the 
 Democratic party as Democrats, but by a union of all parties 
 of the North distinctivly as a I'nion party and on a Inion 
 ticket and platform for tlie preservation of the Union and the 
 destruction of slavery — and when those [jurpo^es were accom- 
 plished, the war ended and the Union party disbanded and was 
 never heard of ncrain. Mr. Lincoln, had he lived, would doubt- 
 less have still been a Ilepublican, as Mr. Johnson was still a 
 Democrat, as before the war— -the purpose of that war and of 
 the Convention that nominated him having been accomplished — 
 and under no obligations, especially of a partisan character, to 
 ado])t or promote the paitisan purposes relative to reconstruc- 
 tion or otherwise, that came to actuate the Republican parly. 
 
 As stated. Mr. Johnson had, during the later years of the 
 war. been acting as Military Governor of Tennessee, of which 
 State he had been a citizen nearly all his life. His administra- 
 tion had been so efficient that Tennessee was practically restored 
 to the Union at the close of the AVar. and so satisfactory to the 
 loyal people of the country, that though an old line Democrat 
 and a Southern man. Mr. Johnson's nomination by the National 
 Convention for Vice President on the ticket with Mr. Lincoln 
 for President, was. as has been shown, logical and consistent. 
 Though a pronounced State Rights Democrat and a citizen of 
 a Southern State in rebellion, he regarded himself as a citizen of 
 the L^nited States, to which he owed his first alleiriance. State 
 Rights meant to him, the rights of the States hi tlie Union, and 
 not oiii of the Union. 
 
 In evidence of the confidence and esteem in which Mr. John- 
 son was generally held by those who knew him and knew of 
 the valuable services he had rendered the cause of the l-nion, 
 the following letter from Mr. Stanton, then Secretary of "War 
 under Mr. Lincoln, is iiere reproduced. It was written to Mr. 
 Johnson on his tender to the "War Office of his resignation of 
 the Military Governorship of Tennessee to accept the office of 
 Vice President of the United States: 
 
OF PRESIDEXT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 Wak Df.I'akTiMi.nt. W \shim;t()N. March .'!, 186."). 
 Sir: — This Department has accepted your rpsiKiiation as lirifjaclier (ien- 
 eral and .Mihtary Governor of Tennessee. Permit me on this occasion to 
 tender to you the sincere thanks of this Department tor your patriotic and 
 able services during tiie eventful period through which you have exercised 
 the highest trust committed to }our charge. In one of the darkest hours 
 of the great struggle for National c.vistence, against rebellious foes, the 
 Government called you from the comparatively safe and easy duties of 
 civil life to place you in front of the enemy and in a position of personal 
 toil and danger, perhaps more hazardous than was encountered by any 
 citizen or military officer of the United States. With patriotic promptness 
 you assumed the post, and maintained it under circumstances of un- 
 paralleled trial, until recent events have brought safety and deliverance 
 to your State and to the integrity of the Constitutional Union, for which 
 you so long and so gallantly periled all that is dear to man on earth. That 
 you may be spared to enjoy the new honors and perform the high duties 
 to which you have been called by the people of the United States, is the 
 sincere wish of one who in every official and personal relation has found 
 you worthy of the confidence of the Government and the honor and esteem 
 of yourfellow citizens. Vour obedient servant, 
 
 Edwin M. Stanton. 
 His Excellancv. Andrew Johnson. Vice-President elect. 
 
28 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 MR. JOHNSON'S ACCESSION TO THE PEESIDENCT. 
 THE Rh:CONSTRUCTION ERA, 
 
 Mr. Johnson succeeded to the Presidential office on the death 
 of Mr. Lincoln, April 15th, 18G5. The conditions of the time 
 were extraordinar}'. The war, so far as operations in the field 
 were concerned, was at an end. The armies of the rebellion 
 had been vanquished and practically disbanded. The States 
 lately in revolt were prostrate at the feet of the conqueror, 
 powerless for further resistance. But the general rejoicing 
 over the hapjiy termination of the strife had been inexpressi- 
 bly saddened by the brutal assassination of the President who 
 had so wisely and successfully conducted his great office and 
 administered all its powers to the attainment of that happy re- 
 sult, and it was not unnatural or strange that the shocking 
 event should greatly re-inflame the passions of the strife that 
 the joys of peace had at last well nigh laid. 
 
 It was an especial misfortune that he who had so wisely and 
 safely conducted the Nation through the conflict of arms and 
 had forshadowed his beneficent measures of peace and the re- 
 storation of the shattered Kepublic, was taken away as he and 
 the Nation stood at last at the open door of successful rehabili- 
 tation on a broader and grander basis than had ever been 
 reached in all previous efforts of man at Nation building. From 
 day to day he had watched, with his haud on the key-board, 
 the development and trend of events. They had resulted as he 
 had planned, and he had become the most consi)icuous, the best 
 loved, and the most masterful of living man in the control of 
 the future. In his death the Union lost its most sagacious and 
 best trusted leader, and the South its ablest, truest, and wisest 
 friend. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that Mr. Johnson came to 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 29 
 
 the Presidency as Mr. Liucohi's successor — without a moment 
 of warning or an hour of preparation for the discharge of the 
 crushing responsibilities that had so suddenly fallen to his 
 direction. 
 
 Actuated, doubtless, and not unnaturally, by feelings of re- 
 sentment over the manner and circumstances of Mr. Lincoln s 
 death, Mr. Johnson at first gave expression to a spirit of hostil- 
 ity toward the leaders of the rebellion, and foreshawdowed a 
 somewhat rigorous policy in his methods of Reconstruction in 
 accordance with the views of the leaders of the Republican 
 party in Congress who had differed with Mr. Lincoln on that 
 subject: but later on, under the advice of his Cabinet — notably, 
 it is understood, of Mr. Seward — and under the responsibility 
 of action — his views became modified, till in time, it is not im- 
 possible, but by no means certain, that he went even beyond 
 the humane, natnral and logical views and pur[)oses of Mr. 
 Lincoln in that regard. 
 
 This did not comport with the purposes of the Congressional 
 faction that had opposed Mr. Lincoln's plans, which faction, 
 under the pressure of the general indignation over liis murder, 
 quickly rose to the absolute control of Congress. Mr. Lincoln 
 no lono-er stood in their wav. and Mr. John.son was then com- 
 paratively unknown to the great mass of the dominant party, 
 and therefore at a corresponding disadvantage in the contro- 
 versy. He had risen step by step to his new position from the 
 humblest walks of Southern life, and each succeeding step to 
 advancement had been made through personal conflicts such as 
 few men in public life in this or any other country had ever 
 borne. It was not unnatural, therefore, that he should have 
 faith in himself, and in the superiority of his judgment, or lit- 
 tle in that of others— and more especially when he was ap- 
 proached by those who had opposed Mr. Lincoln's plans in an 
 attitude of dictation, and with suggestions and unsought advice 
 as to the course he should pursue in the then absorbing ques- 
 tion of the restoration of the States lately in rebellion— himself 
 a citizen of one of those States, and for the preservation of 
 which, as a State in the Union, he had staked his life. 
 
 As with Mr. Lincoln, so with Mr. Johnson— the first thing to 
 be done, ur sought, was the restoration of the Union by the re- 
 
30 THK IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 turn of the .States in rebellion to their allegiauce to the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the country. Mr. Lincoln, to use one of 
 his cliai-acteristic Western phrases, had "blazed the way," and 
 Mr. Johnson took uj) that trail. A few weeks after his in- 
 auguration he issued a Proclamation outlining a plan for the 
 reorganization of the State of North Carolina. That paper was 
 confessedly designed as a general plan and basis for Executive 
 action in the restoration of all the seceded States. Mr. Lin- 
 coln had, nf course, foreseen that that subject would come up 
 very shortly, in the then condition of affairs in the South, and 
 it had therefore been considered in his later Cabinet meetings, 
 as stated, more especially at the meeting immediately preceding 
 his death, and a plan very similar to that afterwards determined 
 u[)OU by Mr. Johnson, if not identically so, was at that meeting 
 finally ado[)te(l. That plan was set out in the North Carolina 
 Proclamation, the essential features and general character of 
 which Ijecauie so cons[)icuous a factor in the subsequent 
 controversies between the President and Congress. It was as 
 follows: 
 
 Wheroas; Tlu' Fourth Section ot tht- Fourth Article of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States ileclares that the United States shall guarantee 
 to every State in the Union a Kepublican form of Ciovernnient, and shall 
 protect each of them af,^ainst invasion and domestic violence: and whereHS, 
 the President of the United States is, by the Constitution, made Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the .-Vruiy and Navy, as well as chief civil executive ot- 
 ticer of the United States, and is bound by soleuni oath faithfully to ex- 
 ecute the office of President of the United States, and to take care that 
 the laws be faithfully executed: and whereas, the rebellion which has been 
 waged by a portion of the peo))le of the United States ajjainst the proi)erly 
 constituted authority of the Government thereof in the most violent and 
 revolting form, l)ut whose organized and armed forces have now been al- 
 most entirely overcoun- has. in its revolutionar.v progress, deprived the 
 people of the State of Nortli Carolina of all civil government; and where- 
 as, it l)ecomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the obliga- 
 tions of the United States to the people of North Carolina in securing 
 them in the enjoyment of a reputilican form of Government: 
 
 Now. therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed 
 upon me by the Constitution of the United States, and for the i)urpose of 
 enaVjling the loyal people of said State to organize a State (iovernment, 
 whereViy justice may l)e established, domestic tranijuility insured. I, An- 
 drew .Johnson, President (jf the United States and Commander-in-Chief 
 (]f the .\rmy and Navy of the United States, do hereby appoint William 
 W. Holden Provisional (Governor ot the State of Nortli Carolina, whose 
 duty it shall be. at the earliest jiracticaliie period, to prescribe such rules 
 and regulations as inav be necessary and proper tor convening a^Conven- 
 
Ol'" PRESIDENT ANDREW .T(n[\S()\. :!l 
 
 tion, composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of the peojile of 
 the said State who are loyal to the United States, and no others, for the 
 purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof: and with 
 authority to exercise, within the limits of said State, all the powers neces- 
 sary and proper to enable such loyal people of the State of Xorth Carolina 
 to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the Federal Govern- 
 ment, and to present such a republican form of State (iovernment as will 
 entitle the said State to the guarantee of the United States therefor, and 
 its people to protection by the Uniteil States against invasion, insurrec- 
 tion and domestic violence: Proridcil. that in any election that may bi^ 
 hereafter held for choosing delegates to any State Convention as afore- 
 said, no person shall be qualifiod as an elector, or shall be eligible as a 
 member of such Convention, unless he shall have previously taken and 
 subscribed to the oath of amnesty, as set forth in the President's Pro- 
 clamation of May iiOth, A, D. ISd.'). and is a voter iiUHliticd as prescribed 
 by the Constitution and laws of the State of Xorth Carolina in force 
 immediately before the 20th of May, A. D. ISCl, the date of the so called 
 ordinance of secession: and the said Convention, when convened, or the 
 legislature that may be thereafter assembled, will lu-escribe the (|ualiKca- 
 tions of electors, and the eligibility of persons to hold office under the 
 Constitution and laws of the State a power the people of the several 
 States comprising the Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the 
 origin of the (iovernment to the present time. And I do hereby direct: 
 
 First -That the Military Commander of the Department, and all offi- 
 cers in the Military and Naval service, aid and assist the said Provisional 
 Governor in carrying into effect this Proclamation, and they are enjoined 
 to abstain from, in anv way, hindering, impeding, or discouraging the loyal 
 people from the organization of a State Government as herein authorized. 
 Second That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws of 
 the United States, the administration whereof belongs to the State Depart- 
 ment, apiilicable to the geographical limits aforesaid. 
 
 Third- That the Secretary of the Treasury proceed to nominate for a[i- 
 pointment assessors of taxes", and collectors of customs and revenue, and 
 such other officers of the Treasury Department as are authorized by law. 
 and put in execution the revenue" laws of the United States withm the 
 provisional liinits aforesaid. In making appointments, the preference 
 shall be given to qualified loyal persons residing in the districts where 
 their respective duties are to be performed. I'.ut if suitable residents of 
 the district shall not be found, then persons residing in other States or 
 districts shall be appointed. 
 
 Fourth- -That the Postmaster (ieneral proceed to establish postoffices 
 and post routes, and put into e.xecution the postal laws ot the Lnited 
 States within the said State, giving to loyal residents the preference of ap- 
 pointments: but if suitable residents are not found, then to appoint agents, 
 etc.. from other States. 
 
 Fifth -That District Judges for the judicial districts in which North 
 Carolina is included, proceed to hold courts within said ^*-dXe. in accord- 
 ance with the provisions of the Act of Congress. The .Utorney General 
 will instruct the proper officers to libel, and bring to judgment conhsca- 
 tion and sale, property subject to conHscation, and enforce the administra- 
 tion of justice within "said State in all matters within the cognizance and 
 jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 
 
 Sixth— That the Secretary of the Navy take possession nf all public 
 nroperty belonging to the "Navy Department withm said geographica 
 limits, and put in operation all Acts of Congress in relation to naval 
 affairs having application to said State. 
 
32 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 Seventh — That the Secretary of the Interior put in force all laws relat- 
 ing to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical limits afore 
 said. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set ray hand and caused the seal 
 of the United States to be affixed, 
 
 Done at the City of Washington, this '29th day of May, in the year of 
 our Lord 186."). and of the Independence of the United States the 89th. 
 Hy the President: Andrew Johnson. 
 
 William H. Sf.ward, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 North Carolina was the first of the revolted States to which 
 this identical plan of reconstruction, or reorganization, was 
 applied by Mr. Johnson. Its application to the several States 
 then lately in revolt, was continued till the meeting of Con- 
 gress in the following December, 1865. 
 
 On this matter Mr. Johnson, himself, testifies in his com- 
 munication to the Senate in 1807. relating to the removal of 
 Mr. Stanton, that "This grave subject (Reconstruction) had 
 engaged the attention of Mr. Lincoln in the last days of his 
 life, and the plan according to which it was to be managed had 
 been prepared and was ready for adoption. A leading feature 
 of that plan was that it was to be carried out by Executive au- 
 thority. * * * The first business transacted in the Cabinet 
 after 1 became President was this unfinished business of my 
 predecessor. A plan or scheme of reconstruction had been 
 prepared for Mr. Lincoln by Mr. Stanton. It was approved, 
 and at the earliest moment practicable was applied, in the form 
 of a proclamation, to the State of North Carolina, and after- 
 wards became the basis of action in turn for the other States." 
 
 Mr. Stanton also testified before the House Impeachment 
 Committee of 18li7, that he had "entertained no doubt of the 
 authority of the President to take measures for the reorganiza- 
 tion of the rebel States on the plan proposed, during the vaca- 
 tion of Congress, and agreed in the plan specified in the pro- 
 clamation in the case of North Carolina.'" 
 
 In the first attempt to impeach the President, in 1867, Mr. 
 Johnson's method of Reconstruction was the most conspicuous 
 feature of the prosecution. It was insisted by the extremists 
 that it wns a departure from Mr. Lincoln's plan — an unwar- 
 ranted assnm[)tion of authority by Mr. Johnson — that its r)ur- 
 pose was the recognition of the people of the South as Ameri- 
 can citi^eii.s with the rights of such, and even as an act not far 
 
OP PRESTDEXT AXDRKW JOfTX^;0\. 
 
 a'5 
 
 removed from treason. Id reference to this action of the 
 President, General Grant was called before the Committee and 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Question: I wish to know wiiether. at or about the time of the war be- 
 ing ended, you advised the President that it was, in your judgment, best 
 to extend a liberal policy towards the peojile of the South, and to restore 
 as speedily as possible the fraternal relations that existed prior to the war 
 between the sections? 
 
 Answer: I know tliat immediately after the close of the rebellion there 
 was a very tine feeling manifested in the South, and I thought we ought 
 to take advantage of it as soon as possible. 
 
 Quea. I understood you to say that Mr, Lincoln had inaugurated a 
 policy intended to restore these governments? 
 
 Ans. Yes sir. 
 
 Ques. You were present when the subject was brought before the Cabi- 
 net? 
 
 Ans. I was present. I think, twice before the assassination of >lr. Lin- 
 coln, when a plan was read. 
 
 Ques. I want to know whether the plan adopted by Mr. .Johnson was 
 substantially the plan which had been inaugurated by .Mr. Liiiclon as the 
 basis for his future action? 
 
 Ans. Yes sir: substantially. I do not know but that it was verbatim 
 the same. 
 
 Ques. I suppose the very paper of Mr. Lincoln was the one acted on? 
 
 Ans. I should think so. I think that the very paper which I heard 
 read twice while .Mr. Lincoln was President, was the one which was carried 
 right through. 
 
 Ques. What paper was that? 
 
 Ans. The North Carolina Proclamation. 
 
 In additional testimony that Mr. Jolinson was endeavoring 
 to carry ont Mr. Lincoln's methods of reconstruction, the fol- 
 lowing extracts from a speech by Gov. O. P. Morton, of In- 
 diana, delivered at Richmond, that State, Sept. 2rtth, 1865, are 
 here inserted : 
 
 An impression has gotten abroad in the North that Mr. Johnson has de- 
 vised some new policy by which improper facilities are granted tor the re- 
 storation of the rebel States, and that he is presenting improperly and un- 
 necessarily hurrying forward the work of reconstruction, and that he is 
 offering improper facilities for restoring those who have been engaged in 
 the rebellion to the possession of their civil and political rights. 
 
 It is one of my purposes here this evening to show that so far as his 
 policy of amnesty and reconstruction is concerned, he has absolutely pre- 
 sented nothing new, but that he has simply presented, and is simply con- 
 tinuing the policy which Mr. Lincoln presented to the Nation on the 8th 
 of December, 1S63. Mr. Johnson's policy differs from Mr. Lincoln's in 
 some restrictions it contains, which Mr. Lincoln's did not contain. His 
 plan of reconstruction is absolutely and simply that of Mr. Lincoln, noth- 
 ing more or less, with one difference only, that Mr. Lincoln required that 
 one-tenth of the people of the disloyal States should be willing to embrace 
 his plan of reconstruction, whereas -Mr. Johnson says nothing about the 
 number: but. so far as it has been acted upon yet. it has been done by a 
 number much greater than (jne-tenth. • '■ Their plans of amnesty 
 
 and reconstruction cannot be distinguished from each other except in the 
 particulars already mentioned, that Mr. Johnson proposed to restrict cer- 
 
31 THE IMPEACHMKNT AND TRIAL 
 
 tain persons from takinjj the oath, unless they have a special pardon from 
 him. whom Mr. Lincoln permitted to come forward and take the oath 
 without it. * * * That was .Mr. Lincoln's policy at the time he was 
 nominated for re-election by the Union Convention at Baltimore, last sum- 
 mer: and in that convention the party sustained him and strongly endorsed 
 his whole policy, of which this was a prominent part. Mr. Lincoln teas 
 triumplitnitlii uiiil ovi:rirhel)iu-)igly re-elected upon that poUci/. 
 
 Ill his last annual messa>;c to Confrress. December, 18Ci, he again brings 
 ftjrward this same l>olicy of his. and presents it to the Nation. 
 
 .\train. on the 12th of .Vpril, ISG."), only two days before his death, he re- 
 ferred to and presented this policy of amnesty and reonstruction. That 
 speech may be called his last speech, his dying words to his people. It 
 was after Richmond had been evacuated. It was the day after they had 
 received the news of Lee's surrender. Washington City was illuminated. 
 .\ large crowd came in front of the White House and Mr. Lincoln spoke 
 to them from one of the windows. He referred to the organization ot 
 Louisiana under his plan of amnesty and reconstruction, and in speaking 
 of it he gave the history of his policy He said; 
 
 In ray annual message of December. ISC'?, and accompanying the Pro- 
 clamation. 1 presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which 
 1 promised, if adopted by any State, would be acceptable and sustained by 
 the Executive Cxovernment of this Nation. I distinctively stated that this 
 was a plan which might possibly be acceptable, and also distinctively 
 protested that ihe Exc(;utive claimed no right to say when or whether 
 members should be admitted to seats in Congress from such States. 
 
 The new constitution of Louisiana, (said Mr. Lincoln) declaring eman- 
 cipation for the whole State, practically applies the Proclamation to that 
 part previously exempted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed 
 people, and is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission 
 of members to Congress. .\s it applied to Louisiana, every member of 
 the Cabinet approved the plan of the message. * * * Now. we find Mr. 
 Lincoln, just bef.)re his death, referring in warm and strong terms to his 
 policy of amnesty and reconstruction, and giving it his endorsement; giv- 
 ing to the world that which had never been given before- -the history of 
 that plan and policy —stating that it had been presented and endorsed by 
 every member of that able and distinguished Cabinet of 186.3. Mr. Lin- 
 coln may be said to have died holding out to the Nation his policy of 
 amnesty and reconstruction. It was held out by him at the very time the 
 rebels laid down their arms. Mr. Lincoln died by the hand of an assassin 
 and Mr. Johnson came into power. He took Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet as he 
 had left it and he took Mr. Lincoln's policy of amnesty and reconstruction 
 as he had left it, and as he had presented it to the world only two days 
 before his death. Mr.Juhnsoii has honestly and faithfully attempted to 
 administer that policy, which had been bequeathed by that man around 
 whose grave a whole world has gathered as mourners. I refer to these for 
 the imrjiose of showing that Mr. Johnson's policy is not a new one, but 
 that he is simpl} rarruiig out a polic} left to him by his lamented prede- 
 cessor a pcjlicy that had been endorsed hij the u-holc Xation in tlie re- 
 elicfiini nf Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 Again Guv. Mortou said: 
 
 -\n impression has gotten abroad in the North that .Mr. Johnson has de- 
 vised some new ]iolicy by which improper facilities are granteiLfor the re- 
 
OF PRESIDK.NT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 Btoration of the rebel States and that he is presenting improperly and un- 
 necessarily hurrying forward the work of reconstruction, and that he is 
 offering improper facilities for restoring those who have Vjoen engaged in 
 rebellion, to the possession of their civil and political rights. It is one of 
 my purposes here this evening to show that so far as his policy of amnesty 
 and reconstruction is concerned, he has absolutely presented nothing new. 
 that he has simply presented, and is nimplij coHtinuing the puUcy u-hich 
 Mr. Lincoln presented to the Nation on tli.e sY/i af Dewiiihcr, ISCli. 
 
 The following are extracts from Mr. Jolmsou's Message to 
 Congress, in December, 18().j, ou the re-assemhling of that 
 body — the first session of the 3yth Congress. Indicating, as 
 it did, a policy of reconstruction at variance with the views of 
 the Congressional leaders, it may be said to have been another 
 incident out of which arose the conditions that finally led to 
 his impeachment. Mr. Johnson said: 
 
 I found the States suffering from the effects uf a civil war. Resistence 
 to the General Government appeared to have exhausted itself. The United 
 States had recovered possession of its forts and arsenals, and their armies 
 were in the occupation of every State which had attempted to secede. 
 Whether the territory within the limits of those States should be held as 
 conquered territory, under Military authority emanating from the Pres- 
 ident as head of the Army, was the first question that jiresented itself for 
 decision. Military Governments, established for an indefinite period, would 
 have offered no security for the early suppression of discontent; would 
 have divided the people into the vanquishers and the vanquished; and 
 would have envenomed hatred rather than have restored affection. Once 
 established, no precise limit to their continuance was conceivable. They 
 would have occasioned an incalculable and e.xliausting e.\pense. * * * 
 The powers of patronage and rule which would have been exercised, un- 
 der the President, over a vast and populous and naturally wealthy region, 
 are greater than, under a less extreme necessity, 1 should be willing to en- 
 trust to any one man. They are such as, for mjself, 1 should never, un- 
 less on occasion of great emergency, consent to exercise. The wilful use 
 of such powers, if continued through a period of years, would have en- 
 dangered the purity of the General Administration and the liberty of the 
 States which remained loyal. * * •■ The policy of militury rule over 
 conquered territory would have implied that the States whose inhabitants 
 may have taken part in the rebellion had, by the act of those inhabitants, 
 ceased to exist. But the true theory is, that till preti'aded actn uf secen- 
 sion were, from the beginning, null and void. IVie Statcx can. not eoniinit 
 treason, nor screen the individual citizens who may have commited treason, 
 any more than they can make valid treaties, or engage in lawful commerce 
 with any foreign power. The States attempting to secede placed them- 
 selves in a condition where their vitality was impaired, hnt nut extin- 
 guished — their funetions suspended, but not destroyed. 
 
 Reports had been circulated in the North, and found ready 
 credence with a great many, that the people of the JSouth were 
 as a rule, insubordinate and indisposed to accept the changed 
 
3C THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 conditions there, and that insubordination and tarmoil were the 
 rule. To ascertain the facts in this regard, during the later 
 months of 18(35 Mr. Johnson commissioned General Grant and 
 others to make a tonr of inspection and investigation of the 
 condition of affairs iu the Southern States, especially as to their 
 disposition with reference to the acceptance by the people of 
 those States, of their changed relations to the Union, and to re- 
 port to him the results of their observations. 
 
 On the lUth of December, 1805, on motion of Mr. Cowan, 
 of Pennsylvania, the following resolution was ado[)ted by the 
 Senate: 
 
 Hesolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby 
 requested to furnish the Senate information of the state of that portion of 
 the Union lately in rebellion; whether the rebellion has been suppressed 
 and the United States put aRain in possession of the States in which it ex- 
 isted: whether the United States courts are restored, post offices re-estab- 
 lished and the revenue collected; and also whether the people of those 
 States have reorganized their State governments, and whether they are 
 yielding obedience to the laws and Government of the United States. 
 And at the same time furnish to the Senate copies of such reports as he 
 may have received from such officers or agents appointed to visit that por- 
 tion of the Union. 
 
 December I'Jth, 18(J5, in response to this resolution of the 
 Senate, the President transmitted the followinic Message to the 
 Senate inclosing Gen. Grant's Keport: 
 
 In reply to the resolution adopted by the Senate on the I'Jth inst., I 
 have the honor to state that the rebellion waged by a jjortion of the peo- 
 ple against the properly constituted authorities of the Government of the 
 United States has been suppressed; that the United States are in posses- 
 sion of every State in wliich the insurrection e.visted; and that, as tar as 
 could be done, the courts of the United States have been restored, post- 
 offices re-established, and stejis taiien to put into effective operation the 
 revenue laws of the country. As the result of the measures instituted by 
 the Executive, with the view of inducing a resumption of the functions of 
 the States comprehended in the inquiry of the Senate, the people in North 
 Carolina, South Carolina. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi. Louisiana, Ar- 
 kansas, and Tennessee, have reorganized their respective State Govern- 
 ments, and 'are yielding tlieir obedience to the laws and Government of the 
 United States' with more willingne.fs and greater promptitude than under 
 the circumstances could reasonably have been anticipated. The proposed 
 amendment to the Conititution. providing for the abolition of slavery for- 
 ever within the limits of the country, has been ratified by each one of 
 those States, with the e.xception of ."\Iississippi, from which no official in- 
 formation has yet been received; and in nearly all of them measures have 
 been adopted or are now pending, to confer upon freed men rights and 
 privileges which are essential to their comfort, protection and security. In 
 Florida and Texas, the people are making considerable progress in restor- 
 ing their State Governments, and no doubt is entertained that they will at 
 an early period be iu a condition to resume all their practical relations to 
 
OK PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 the Federal Government. In that portion of the Union lately in rebellion, 
 the aspect of affairs is more promising than, in view of all the eireuiii- 
 stances, could have been e.vpected. The people throughout the entire 
 South evince a laudable desire to renew their allegiance to the Govern- 
 ment, and to repair the devastations of war by a prompt and cheerful re- 
 turn to peaceful pursuits. An abiding faith is entertained that their a(.'- 
 tions will conform to their professions, and that, in acknowledging the 
 supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, their loyalty 
 will be given unreservedly to the Government; whose leniency they cannot 
 fail to appreciate, and whose fostering care will soon restore them to a 
 condition of prosperity. It is true, that in some of the States the demoral- 
 izing effects of war are to be seen in occasional disorders; but these are 
 local in character, not frequent in occurrence, and are really disappearing 
 as the authority of the civil law is extended and sustained. '■' * * Krom 
 all the information in my possession, and from that which I have recently 
 derived from the most reliable authority, 1 am induced to cherish the be- 
 lief that sectional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself into a 
 spirit of nationality, and that representation, connected with a properly 
 adjusted system of ta.vation, will result in a harmonious restoration of the 
 relations of the States and the National Union. Anorkw Johnson. 
 
 The followiuu; is General Graufs lieiwrt trausmitted to 
 Congress with the foregoiug Message: 
 
 Heauquabtebs Armiks ok thf. United States, / 
 Washington, D. C, Dec. 18, 1865. ) 
 
 Sir:— In reply to your note of the ICth inst., requesting a report from me 
 giving such information as I may be possessed, coming within the scope of 
 the inquiries made by the Senate of the United States, in their resolution 
 of the r2th inst., I have the honor to submit the following: 
 
 With your approval, and also that of the Honorable Secretary of War, 
 I left W^ashington City on the 27th of last month for the purpose of making 
 a tour of inspection through some of the Southern States, or States lately 
 in rebellion, and to see what clianges were necessary to be made in the 
 disposition of the Military forces of the country: how these forces could 
 be reduced and exjienses curtailed, etc, and to learn as far as possible, the 
 feelings and intentions of the citizens of those States towards the General 
 Government. 
 
 The State of Virginia being so accessible to Washington City, and in- 
 formation from this quarter therefore being readily obtained, I hastened 
 through the State without conversing or meeting with any of its citizens. 
 In Raleigh, North Carolina, I spent oneday; in Charleston. South Carolina, 
 I spent two days; Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, each one day. Both 
 in traveling and while stopping, I saw much and conversed freely with 
 the citizens of those States, as well as with officers of the Army who have 
 been stationed among them. The following are the conclusions come to 
 
 by me: 
 
 I am satisfied that the mass of the thinking men of the South accept 
 the present situation of atfairs in good faith. The questions which have 
 heretofore divided the sentiments of the people of the two sections- 
 Slavery and State Rights, or the right of a State to secede from the 
 Union— they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal 
 
;J8 THE IMPKACHMENT AND IRIAL 
 
 -arms- that uiau can resort tu. I was pleased to learn from the leadiufi' 
 men whom T met. that they not only accepter! the decision arrived at, as 
 tinal, but that now. when the smoke of battle has cleared away, and time 
 has been given for reflection, this decision has been a fortunate one for 
 the whole country, they receivinjj like benefits from it with those who 
 c)])p()sed them in the Held and in council. 
 
 Four years of war. during which law was executed only at the point of 
 the bayonet throuf,'h(mt the States in rebellion, have left the people pos- 
 sibly in a condition not to } ield that ready obedience to civil authority the 
 American people have been in the habit of generally yielding. This would 
 render the presence of small garrisons throughout those States necessary 
 until such time as labor returns to its jiroper channels imd civil authority 
 is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those holding places 
 under the Government or citizens of the Southern States, who think it 
 practicable to withdraw the Military from the South at jjresent. The 
 white and black mutually require the protection of the General Cjovern- 
 ment. There is such universal acquiescence in the authority of the Gen- 
 eral (ioverninent throughout the portions of the country visited by me, 
 that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is 
 sufficient to maintain order. The good of the country and economy re- 
 quire that the force kept in the interior where there are many freedmen 
 (elsewhere in the Southern States than at forts upon the sea cost, no more 
 is necessary.) .should all be white troops. The reasons for this are obvious 
 without mentioning any of them. The presence of black troops, lately 
 slaves, demoralizes labor both by their advice and by furnishing in their 
 camps a resort for freedmen for long distances around. White troops 
 generally e.vcife no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can 
 maintain order in a given district. Colored troops must be kept in bodies 
 sufficient to defend themselves. It is not thinking men who would use 
 violence towards any class of troops sent among them by the General 
 (jovernment, but the ignorant in some cases might, and the late slave 
 seems to be imbued witli the idea that the property of his late master 
 should of right belong to him, or at least should have no protection from 
 the colored soldiers. There is danger of collision being brought on by 
 such causes. 
 
 My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the 
 Southern States are anxious to return to self goverment within the Union 
 as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require pro- 
 tection from the Government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do 
 what they think is required by the Government, not humiliating to them 
 as citizens, and that if such is pointed out they would pursue it in good 
 faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater commingling at 
 this time between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly with 
 those ciiti-untcil with the laiciuakiiiy power. 
 
 1 did not give the ojieration of the Freedmen's Bureau that attention I 
 would liave done if more time had been at my disposal. Conversations on 
 the subject, however, with officers connected with the Bureau, led me to 
 think that in some of the States its affairs have not been conducted with 
 good judgment and economy, and that the belief, widely spread among the 
 freedmen of the Southern States, that the land of their former masters 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 39 
 
 will, at least in part, be divided among them, has come from the apentsof 
 this Bureau. This belief is seriously interferin;,' with the willingness of 
 the freedmen to make contracts for the coming year. In some form the 
 Freedmen"s Bureau is an absolute necessity until civil law is established 
 and enforced, securing to the freedmen their rights and full protection. 
 At present, however, it is independent of the Military establishment of the 
 country, and seems to be operated by the different agents of the Bureau 
 according to their individual notions, every where. Gen. Howard, the 
 able head of the Bureau, made friends by the just and fair instructions 
 and advice he gave; but the complaint in South Carolina was tha*^ when 
 he left, things went on as before. Many, perhaps the majority of the 
 agents of the Bureau, advised the freedmen that by their industry they 
 must e.^pect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure employment for 
 them, to see that both contracting parties comply with their agreements. 
 In some instances. I am sorry to say. the freedman's mind docs not seem 
 to be disabused of the idea that a freedman has a right to live without 
 care or provision for the future. The effect of the belief in the division 
 of lands is idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and cities. In such 
 cases, [ think it will be found that vice and disease will tend to the ex- 
 termination, or great reduction of the colored race. It cannot ho expected 
 that the opinions held by men at the South can bo changed in a day. and 
 therefore the freedmen require for a few years not only laws to protect 
 them, but the fostering care of those who will give them gofjd counsel and 
 in whom they can rely. U. S. Gr.ant, Lieutenant General. 
 
 This report was at ouce vigorously denounced in and out of 
 Conaress, bv the extremists. Mr. Snmnev characterized it in 
 the Senate, as a '-white-washing report." The standing of 
 General Grant in the conntry at large, however, was such that 
 few had the indiscretion to attack him openly. 
 
 The controlling element of the party which had elected Lin- 
 coln and Johnson, had acquiesced for a time in the plan of re- 
 construction foreshadowed by Mr. Lincoln and adopted by Mr. 
 Johnson, but during the summer of iHC.l. frictions developed 
 between Mr. Johnson and those who on Mr. Lincoln's death 
 had assumed the leadership in the work of reconstruction and 
 other matters of administration, came to take the opposite 
 ground, from the first occupied by Sumner and other extrem- 
 ists in Congress-- that the States lately in rebellion had de- 
 stroTed themselves by their own act of war. and had thereby 
 forfeited all the rights of Statehood and were but conquered 
 provinces, subject solely to the will of the comiueror. 
 
 From that point their ways parted and widened from month 
 to mouth, till bitter hostility, political and i)er.s()nal, came to 
 mark even their official intercourse. 
 
40 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRTAIj 
 
 Mr. Johnson was practically unknown to the great mass of 
 the people of the North till he succeeded to the Presidency. 
 He was ill no sense re<:farded as or assumed to be the leader of 
 the dominant ])arty ; while those who on Mr. Lincoln's death 
 became leaders of the dominant party in opposition to Mr. 
 Johnson's administration and policies, were widely known and 
 of long public experience, and had correspondingly the confi- 
 dence of their party. 
 
 So, in the strife that ensued, as it became embittered with 
 the lapse of time, Mr. Johnson was at great disadvantage, and 
 made little or no headway, bat rather lost ground as the con- 
 troversy progressed. His moderate, conservative views, radi- 
 cally expressed, in regard to what should be the. methods of 
 reconstruction and the restoration of the Union, found little 
 favor with the mass of the veterans of the Union armies who 
 had but latelv returned from the victorious fields of the South, 
 their blood not j-et cooled after the fury and heat of the strife — 
 while to mauv. who had witnessed the horrors of war at a safe 
 distance, with the cessation of hostilities in the field, to which 
 they had been only an.xions spectators, became suddenly 
 enthused over issues that others had fought out in battle, and 
 vigorously vicious towards Mr. Johnson for presuming to treat 
 Ihe conquered people of the South as American citizens and 
 entitled to the I'ights of such, after having laid down their arms 
 and peacefully returned to their homes and their respective 
 callings. 
 
 This temper, permeating, as it did, the dominant party of 
 practically everv Northern State, was not unstintingly reflected 
 upon the National Capitol in the return to Congress of a large 
 majority in both Houses, of men who sympathized with and 
 reflected back again upon their constituents the most extreme 
 views as to what should be the policy of the Government to- 
 wards the South. 
 
 These views characterized the legislation of the time. Par- 
 tisan rancor was unbridled, and found expression not onlv in 
 coercive legislation of various grades of severity, but in placing 
 the Southern States generallv under almost absolute military 
 control, and in the practical abrogation of the common ri"-hts 
 of American citizenship in most of them. 
 
OF PRF.STDKXT ANni^EW .TOHNfOX. 41 
 
 Quite every act of this sort of legislation was passed over 
 the official protest of the Presideut, and each of these i)i-otests 
 seemed but to add emphasis to each succeeding net of Congress 
 in that line, till it seemed that there could he no end to' the 
 strife, so Ion": as Mr. Johnson remaini'd in the Presidential 
 office. 
 
 Tlie ostensible basis of the disagreement which in a few 
 months after the accession of Mr. Johnson to the Presidency 
 began to develo[) between himself and the Eepublican leaders 
 in Congress, was tlie plan of reconstruction put in operation 
 by him during the recess of Congress that year, l^iCi-"), and out- 
 lined in his North Carolina Proclamation. It availed not, that 
 that plan had been adopted originally by Mr. Lincoln a 
 few days before his death — that it had been concurred in by 
 his entire Cabinet and would undoubtedly have been carried 
 out successfully by him had he lived— that plan was made the 
 ground of criticism of Mr. Johnson by the extreme party ele- 
 ment in control of Congress, which [tersistently accused him of 
 haviDc abandoned the r)lan initiated by Mr. Lincoln, and of 
 setting up another of his own, for [)urely personal and ambi- 
 tious purposes, and to the detriment of the peace of the coun- 
 try. 
 
 Mr. Johnson mav have been opinionated and headstrong, a 
 characteristic of a great many people of strong convictions of 
 duty and purpose: while the overwhelming numerical strength 
 of the dominant party in and out of Congress made it seem- 
 iuo-ly indifferent, reckle.ss and inconsiderate of the convictions, 
 as of the rights and prerogatives of the Chief Executive— treat- 
 ino- him more as a clerk whose sole duty it was to register 
 without suggestion the decrees of Congress. 
 
 That Mr. Lincoln, had he lived, would have pursued much 
 the same policy of reconstruction, is clearly indicated by the 
 established fact that he had determined to adopt precisely the 
 initial measures thereto which Mr. Johnson did inaugurate and 
 attempt to carry out. But Mr. Lincoln s su[ierior ability in 
 statecraft, his rare tact and knowledge of men, and his capacity 
 for moulding and directing public opinion, seeming to follow 
 where he actually led, would doubtless have secured a more 
 favorable result. And more than all else, it can scarcely be 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 doubted, that tlie unbounded coufidence of the people in his 
 patriotism and capacity to direct public affairs, would have en- 
 abled him to dictate terms of reconstruction strictly on the 
 lines he had marked out. and would have commanded the gen- 
 eral support of the countrv, regardless of partisan divisions, not- 
 wilhstanding the well known fact that at the time of his death 
 there were unmistakable indications of alienation from him of 
 the extreme element of his party because of his conservative 
 views as to the proper methods of reconstruction. 
 
 Meantime, in tlie effort to hamper the President, as far as it 
 was possible for Congress to do, the Teuure-of-Office Act was 
 passed, early in 18()T. The ostensible purpose of that Act was 
 to restrict the authority of the President in the selection of his 
 Cabinet advisers, and his power over appointments generally. 
 Its specific purpose, at least so far as the House of Representa- 
 tives was concerned, and measurably so in the Senate, was to 
 |)revent his removal of the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, with 
 the manifest if not avowed intent, as the sequel shows, to make 
 that Secretarv not onlv independent of his chief, but also to 
 make him the immediate instrument of Congress in whatever 
 disposition of the Armv, or of military affairs generally relat- 
 ing to the government of the Southern States, the raajoritj' of 
 Congress might dictate. In a word, the Congress, in that Act, 
 virtnallv assumed, or attempted to assume, that control of the 
 Army which the Constitutiim vests"on the President. 
 
 The first effort to impeach the President, in 1807, was based 
 upon a general accusation of high crimes and misdemeanors 
 without litei-al specification. The second, in 18(58, was based 
 upon his alleged violation of the Teuure-of-Office Act, in the 
 removal of Mr. Stanton. 
 
 While it is undoubted, as already shown, that Mr. Lincoln 
 and Mr. Johnson were in accord as to the methods to be adopt- 
 ed for the restoration of the revolted States, it was Mr. John- 
 son's misfortune that he had not Mr. Lincoln's capacity for so 
 great and so jieculiar a task; though a gentleman of proven 
 jiHlriolism, ability, of a kindly, genial nature, and with record 
 of valuable public service. Hampered by his lack of [lolitical 
 finesse and intricate knowledge of state-craft, and in view of 
 the conditions of that time, ana the people with whom he had 
 
OK I'RESIDEXT ANDREW JOHXSO.N. 4.! 
 
 to deal, it was obvious from the outset that the result of the 
 controversy could hardly be otherwise than disastrous to him. 
 Mr. Lincoln would undoubtedly have been met by the same 
 character of opposition, and from the same source. But there 
 would have been the appearance at least of mutual concession, 
 and while the aj^permice of concession would have been on Mr. 
 Lincoln's side, the actual concession, so far as essentials were 
 involved, would have been on the other. 
 
 Mr. Johnson was a Democrat of pronounced type and pro- 
 found convictions, and in no sense did he depart from his faith. 
 He belonged to the school of Jackson and Jefferson. He had 
 not the electric intuitions and impetuous will of the former, nor 
 the culture and genius of the latter. He adhered more relig- 
 ously to the letter of the Constitution than either. To him it 
 was the one law of supreme obligation, that never ceased its 
 guarantees. As fittingly expressed by one of his Counsel, Mr. 
 Groesbeck, in the trial: "'He was not learned and scholarly — 
 not a man of many ideas or of much speculation — but the Con- 
 stitution had been the study of his life, and by a law of the 
 mind he was only the truer to that which he did know." 
 
 As had Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Johnson keenly appreciated the 
 importance of the people of the South returning at once to the 
 Union, free and independent American citizens, clothed with 
 all the rights, privileges and obligations common to such. In 
 his Cabinet Councils, and to a degree supreme in that board 
 sat William H. Seward, as he had throughout Mr. Lincoln's 
 administration, than whom the Republic has jjroduced no 
 wiser, more sagacious, or patriotic statesman. He gave the sub- 
 ject his intense devotion in the maturity of his great powers. 
 
 There too, sat Secretary "Welles, another of Mr. Lincoln's ad- 
 visers, and a devoted friend of the Constitution and the sancti- 
 ty of the Union. Each of these men, thoroughly patriotic, and 
 eflBcient, and untiring in the administration of their respective 
 Departments, had commenced with the deluge of blood, and 
 they now hoped to crown their official careers by a triumphant 
 peace that would honor their lives and glorify the Mation. 
 These men had a salutary influence over Mr. Johnson, and 
 greatly modified the asperities of his disposition. 
 
 Mr. Johnson believed, as did Mr. Lincoln, that the revolted 
 States were still States of the Union — that all the pretended 
 
ii THE nrPEACHMEXT AND TRIAL 
 
 acts of secessiou were unll and void, and that the loyal people 
 therein had the riirht to reuoustruct their IState Governments 
 on the basis proposed to them first by Mr. Lincoln, and after 
 him by Mr. Johnson, and thus the right to representation in 
 the General Government. 
 
 It was upon this (luestiou that parties divided during the re- 
 construction [leriod. Mr. Lincoln, foreseeing danger in such a 
 division, was anxious to bring those States into such relation 
 that the people generally would consider them as virtually in 
 the Union, withont reference to the abstract question. It was 
 with this view, undoubtedly, that he advocated the admission of 
 Members and Senators whenever one-tenth of the voting po[)ula- 
 tion of iSbO should organize State Governments and ask for 
 readmission. He would not only not countenance, but re- 
 pelled the doctrine of "State Suicide,' as it was called, and 
 which came to characterize the methods of reconstruction sub- 
 sequently adopted 
 
 It is true, that on many occasions Mr. Johnson charged that 
 the Congress was only a Congress of part of the States, and 
 that its acts were therefore without validitv. Yet he continued 
 to execute those laws, and what to him was a verj' unpleasant 
 duty, the law which set aside the State Governments orjjanized 
 under his own direction, so that notwithstanding his violent 
 denunciations of the acts of Congress, and his personal opin- 
 ions, he did not presume to act upon them. Angry and un- 
 dignified language was uttered on both sides. Many of his 
 speeches were violent and in bad taste and temper. So were a 
 great many speeches uttered by Senators and members of the 
 House, and those bodies too often acted upon them. 
 
 It is therefore but repeating recorded history to say that 
 Mr. Johnson was earnestly seeking to carry out Mr. Lincoln's 
 plan of reconstruction, which was upon consultation with his 
 entire Cabinet, more especially with Mr. Stanton, adopted by 
 him as the basis for the restoration of the revolted States. 
 
 Yet. with these facts of record, that action was afterwards 
 assailed by the Republican leaders in and out of Congress, who 
 assumed to have become Mr. Lincoln's executors in the work 
 of reconstruction, as not only an abandonment of the plan in- 
 stituted by him, but a surrender of the issues fought out and 
 
OF PRKSIDKN'T AMDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 the results aL-complished by the war just closed — ucjtwithstaiul- 
 ing very many of these .criti';s of Mr. Johusou had but a few 
 mouths before criticised Mr. Lincoln with tjuite ecjual severity 
 for his suggestion of this same method of restoratiou. 
 
 Nor will it suffice to say that, though [)rofessing submission 
 and loyalty, the people of the 8outh were still hostile to the 
 Union, and that there was no safety there for Union men. It 
 is true that there came to be violence and disorder there upon 
 the rejection by Congress of Mr. Johnson's plan of restoration. 
 
 These were the inevitable results of the conditions. There 
 would also have been disorder and violence in the North and to 
 a far greater degree, had the results of the war been reversed — 
 ail arbitrary and tyrannical system of restoration insisted upon 
 — the established order of things destroyed — homes broken up — 
 the people impoverished, and hordes of unscru[)ulous adven- 
 turers swarmed up from the !South and overrun the country in 
 pursuit of schemes of political chicanery and personal ambi- 
 tion, peculation and plunder, as was the South after the close of 
 the war. 
 
 But when the fight was on, an overwhelmingly partisan 
 House, as a last resort, in the hope of at once ending, by re- 
 moval, all opposition on the part of the President to the views 
 and aims of the dominant party in Congress, resorted to the 
 first project of impeachment set out in the succeeding chapter. 
 
46 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 FIRST ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 THE ASHLEY INDICTMENT. 
 
 The iuitiutiou uf formal proceediugs for the impeachment 
 and removal of President Johnson occurred in the House of 
 Representatives on January 7th, 18G7, in the introduction of 
 three seperate resolutions for his impeachment, by Messrs. 
 Loan and Kelso, of Missouri, and Mr. Ashley of Ohio. As 
 Mr. Ashley's Resolution was the only one acted on by the 
 House, only the proceedings had thereon are here given, as 
 
 follows : 
 
 Mr. Si-k.^kek;- I rise to perform a painful but, nevertheless, to me, an 
 imperative duty; a duty which I think ought not longer to be postponed, 
 and which cannot, without criminalitj- on our part, be neglected. I had 
 hoi.>cd, sir, that this duty would have devolved upon an older and more ex- 
 perienced member of this House than myself. Prior to our adjournment 
 I asked a number of gentlemen to offer the resolution which I introduced, 
 but upon which I failed to obtain a suspension of the rules. 
 
 Confident, sir, that the loyal people of this country demand the adop- 
 tion of some such pro])Osition as I am about to submit, I am determined 
 that no effort on my part shall be wanting to see that their e.vpectations 
 are not disappointed. <^ * * On my responsibility as a Representative, 
 and in the presence of this House, and before the American people, I 
 charge Andrew Johnson, Vice President and acting President of the 
 United States, with the commission of acts which in contemplation of the 
 Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, for which, in my judg- 
 ment, he ought to be impeached. I therefore submit the following; 
 
 I do impeach Andrew Johnson, Vice President and acting President of 
 the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; 
 
 I charge him with a usurpation of power and violation of law: 
 
 In that he has corruptly used the appointing power; 
 
 In that he has corruptly used the pardoning power; 
 
 In that he has corruptly used the veto power; 
 
 In that he has corruptly disposed of public property of the United 
 States; 
 
 In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts 
 which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misde- 
 meanors; Therefore, 
 
OF PRKS?inK\T AXDREW JOHNSON'. 47 
 
 Be it Reanlred, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are 
 hereby, authorized to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew Johnson. 
 Vice President of the United States, discharging the powers and duties of 
 the office of President of the United States, and to report to this House, 
 whether, in tlieir opinion, the said Andrew Johnson, while in said office, 
 has been guilty of acts which are designed or calculated to overthrow, sub- 
 vert, or corrupt the Government of the United States, or any department 
 or office thereof: and whether the said .\ndrew Johnson has been guilty of 
 any act. or has conspired with others to do acts, which, in ccuiteinplation 
 of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, requiring the in- 
 terposition of the constitutional power of this House: and that said com- 
 mittee have power to send for persons and papers, and to administer the 
 customary oath to witnesses. 
 
 The question was taken on agreeing to the Resolution; and 
 it was decided iu the affirmative — yeas 107, naj-s 39, not vot- 
 ing 45. 
 
 On the 2nd of March. 1S()7, the subject of ii^ipeachment 
 again came up in the House, and the following proceedings 
 
 were had: 
 
 Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. (Rep.) — I am directed by the Committee on the 
 Judiciary to present a report relative to the official conduct of the Pres- 
 ident of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge, ( Dem.)— Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of order: 1 
 see by the clock that it is almost three o'clock in the morning: and I be- 
 lieve this is the Sabbath day. I think we should not do any more busi- 
 ness to night, except it be business of necessity or charity. 
 
 The Speaker.— This, in parliamentary view, is Saturday. The clerk will 
 read the report submitted by the gentleman from [owa. 
 
 The clerk read as follows: 
 
 The Committee on the Jutliciary, charged by the House with examina- 
 tion of certain allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors against the 
 President of the L'nited States, submit the following report: 
 
 On the Tth dav of January, 18G7, the House, on the motion of the Hon. 
 James M. Ashley, a Representative from the State of Ohio, adopted the 
 following preamble and resolutions, to-wit: 
 
 The dutv imposed upon this committee by this action of the House, was 
 of the hi''hest and gravest character. No committee during the entire 
 history of the (iovernment, has ever been charged with a more important 
 trust The responsibilv which it imposed was of oppressive weight, and 
 of a most unpleasant nature. Gladly would the committee have escaped 
 from the arduous labor imposed upon it by the Resolution ot the House: 
 but once imposed, prompt, deliberate, and faithful action, with a view to 
 correct results, became its duty, and to this end it has directed its ettorts. 
 
 Soon after the adoption of the Resolution by the House, Hon. James M. 
 Ashley communicated to the committee, in support of his charges against 
 the President of the United States, such facts as were in his possession, 
 and the investigation was proceeded with, and has been continued almost 
 without a day^s interruption. A large number of witnesses have been ex- 
 amined, manv documents collected, and everything done which could be 
 done to reach a conclusion of the case. But the investigation covers a 
 broad held, embraces manv novel, interesting, and imiKirtant (juestions, 
 and involves a multitude of facts, while most of the witnesses are (hstant 
 from the Capital, owing to which the committee, in view of the magnitude 
 of the interests involved in its action, have not been able to cfmclude its 
 labors an.: is not therefore prepared to submit a definite and final report. 
 If the inve£ti"-atiou had even approached completeness, the committee 
 
48 THK IMPBACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 would not feel authorized to present the result ot the House at this late 
 period ot the session, unless the charges had been so entirely negatived as 
 to admit of no iliscussion, which, in the opinion of the committee, is not 
 the case. 
 
 Certainly no atlirmativc report could be properly considered in the ex- 
 piring hours of this Congress. 
 
 The committee not having fully investigated all the charges prepared 
 against the President of the United States, it is deemed inexpedient to 
 submit any conclusion beyond the statement that sufficient testimony has 
 been brought to its notice to justify and demand a further prosecution of 
 the investigation. 
 
 The testimony which the committee has taken will pass into the custody 
 of the Clerk of the House, and can go into the hands of such committee as 
 may be charged with the duty ot bringing this investigation to a close, so 
 that the labor expended upon it may not have been in vain. 
 
 The committee regrets its inability definitely to dispose of the import- 
 ant subject committed to its charge, and presents this report for its own 
 justification, and for the additional purpose of notifying the succeeding 
 Congress ot the incompleteness of its labors, and that they should be com- 
 pleted, J.\MKs F. Wii.s()>-, 
 
 Chairman. 
 Francis Thomas, 
 D. Moiiiiis, 
 F. E. WoooniDOE. 
 Gf/ihoe S. Boutwell, 
 Thomas Williams, 
 BuKTON C. Cook, 
 William Lawrence. 
 
 Mr. Ancona, the only Democrat on the committee, presented 
 a minority report, as follows: 
 
 The subscriber, one of the Judicary Committee, to which was referred 
 by the House the inquiry into the official conduct of His Excellency, the 
 President of the United States, with a view to his impeachment upon cer- 
 tain charges made by Hon. .Tames M. .\shley. begs leave to suVimit the fol- 
 lowing report: 
 
 The Committee refuses to allow a Report to be made giving to the 
 House at this time upon grounds which are no doubt satisfactory to them- 
 selves: therefore. I cannot report the evidence upon which my conclusion 
 is based, which I would gladly do did the Committee deem it expedient. 
 The examination of witnesses and the records was commenced, as appears 
 by the majority report, about the time of the reference, to-wit: on the 7th 
 day of January. 18G7. and continued daily. A large number of witnesses 
 has been examined, and everything done that could be. to bring the case 
 to a close, as appears by the majority report: and the majority have come 
 to the conclusion "that sufficient testimony had been brought to its notice 
 to justify and demand a further prosecution of the investigation." I have 
 carefully examined all the evidence in the case, and do report that there is 
 not oneparticle ot evidence to sustain any of the charges which the House 
 charged the Committee to investigate, and that the case is wholly without 
 a particle of evidence upon which impeachment could be founded, and 
 that with all the effort that has been made, and the mass of evidence that 
 has been taken, the case is entirely void of proof. I furthermore report 
 that the most (if the testimony that has been taken is of a secondary 
 character, and such as would not lie admitted in a court of justice. 
 
 In view of thi.'^ cnnclusion I can see no good in a continuation of the in- 
 vestigation. I am corniced that all the proof that can be produced has 
 been before the Committee, as no iiains have been spared to give the case 
 a full investigation. Wliv. then, keep the country in a feverish state of 
 exi'itment ujjon this i|uestion any longer, as it is sure toend. in my opinion, 
 in a complete vindication ot the President, if justice be done hi"m bv the 
 committee, of «liich I ha\e no doubt, A. J. RootKs, 
 
OF PRE=^IDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 49 
 
 The two reports were ordered printed and laid on the table. 
 
 This session of the House, and with it the Thirtj'-Ninth 
 Congress, ended a few hoars later, the legislative day continu- 
 ing till twelve o"crlock, noon, on Sunday, March iird. The 
 House adjourned xiiic die at that hour, when all unfinished 
 business lapsed. 
 
 RENKWAL OF THE IMPEAOHMICNT. 
 
 The first session of the Fortieth Conjjress be<ran on Monday. 
 March 4th, l^t'iT. and on the 7th, in the House of Eepresenta- 
 tives, Mr. Ashley ( Eep. ; offered the following Preamble and 
 Resolutions: 
 
 Whereas the House of Representatives of the Thirty-Ninth C'onjrress 
 adopted, on the 7th of .January. 18(;7, a Resolution authorizinjj an inquiry 
 into certain chargess preferred against the President of the United States; 
 and whereas the Judiciary Committee, to whom said Resolution and 
 charges were referred, with authority to investigate the same, were unable 
 for want of time, to complete said investigation before the expiration of 
 the Thirty-Ninth Congress;' and whereas in the report submitted by said 
 Judiciary Committee on the "ind of March they declare that the evidence 
 taken is of such a character as to justify and demand a continuation of the 
 investigation by this Congress; therefore. 
 
 Bo it Resolved by the House of Representatives. That the .Judiciary 
 Committee, when appointed, be. and the> are hereby, instructed to con- 
 tinue the investigation authorized in said Resolution of Jan. 7th. 18(i7, and 
 that they have power to send for f)ersons and papers, and to administer 
 the customary oath to witnesses: and that the committ(>e have authority 
 to sit during the sessions of the House and during any recess which Con- 
 gress or this House may take. 
 
 Resolved. That the Speaker be requested to appoint the Committee on 
 the Judiciary forthwith, and that the Committee so appointed be directed 
 to take charge of the testimony taken by the Committee of the last Con- 
 gress; and that said Committee have power to appoint a clerk at a com- 
 pensation not to exceed six dollars per day. and employ the necessary 
 stenographers. 
 
 At the close of the debate on Mr. Ashley's Eesolution, it was 
 adopted without a division, its form being changed to the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Resolccd. That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to report (m 
 the charges against the President as aforesaid, on the tirst day of the meet- 
 ing of the House after the recess hereafter to be determined. 
 
 Congress adjourned a few days later. It re-assembled on 
 the ;-3rd of July, and on the 11th the following resolutions was 
 offered by Mr. tStevens, (Kep. ) of Pennsylvania; 
 
 Bexolrrd. That the Committee on the Judieiars. to whom was referred 
 the Resolution and Documents relative to the Iiu|ieachment of the Presi- 
 dent, be directed to report the evidence at this session, with leave to make 
 further report if tliey shall deem proper. 
 
 That the impeachment enterpi-ise was waning, and that its 
 forces had received little encouragement during the recess of 
 
THE TMPRACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 the Congress that had just closed, was evidenced by the fact 
 that there could not be mustered ayes enough to put the res- 
 olution to a vote, and Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, moved the follow- 
 ing substitute: 
 
 I-iCaulrcd. Th:it the C'ominittec on Judiuiary be. anil they are hereby, 
 authorized and directed to have the usual number of copies of the evi- 
 dence taken by said committee relative to the Impeachment of the Presi- 
 dent, printed and laid on the desks of Members of the House on the tirst 
 day of the next Congress, whether adjourned or regular. 
 
 The liesolution was adopted by a vote of H'> to 4N, where- 
 upon Mr. Stevens dejectedly remarked that, -'after the vote 
 which had been taken on this resolution, indicating the views 
 of a majority of the House in regard to it, I am willing to 
 •abandon it. 1 therefore move that the Resolution as amended 
 be laid on the table,"" which motion was agreed to. 
 
 On the l--)th of July, ISGT, Mr. Farnsworth, (Rep.) of 
 Illinois, offered the following resolution and demanded the 
 previous question thereon: 
 
 I\csolreil. That tlie (.'omniittpc on the Judiciary be discharged from the 
 further consideration of the question of the Impeachment of the President 
 of the United States, and that the testimony already taken by said com- 
 mittee be printed for the use of the House. 
 
 The resolution was not seconded, and went over under the 
 rules. 
 
 On the 2oth of Nov. ISiiT, Mr. Boutwell (Rep.), on behalf of 
 the Judiciary Committee, submitted the re])ort of the majority 
 of that committee, of the testimony taken in behalf of the pro- 
 posed impeachment of the President. The rejtort recommend- 
 ed his im[)eachment. 
 
 ^Ir. Wilson, subn)itted the report of the minority of the 
 Committee (himself and Mr. Woodbridge), and moved the 
 adoption of the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved. That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the 
 further consideration of the jiroposed impeachment of the President of 
 the United States, and that the subject be laid upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Marshall, on behalf of himself and Mr. Eldridge, the two 
 "Democratic members of the committee, stated that though thev 
 had not signed th^ minority report submitted by Mi-. Wilson, 
 the-\' joined in su[iport of the resolution submitted by him, and 
 asked leax'c to introduce and have printed se[)arate views. 
 
 Tliis, the tii'st sessiun of the Fortieth Congress, then ad- 
 journed. Dec. "Jiul. iSi'iT. 
 
 The second session of the Fortieth (Jongress was begun on 
 the same day, and on the otli. tlie iiujjeachuient question canie 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 up in its order iu the House, on the resohition reported from 
 
 the Judiciary Committee: 
 
 I'hat Andrew Johnson. Presiilont of the United Statfs, lie iuiiicachod of 
 high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 After a brief discussion of the order of business, the House 
 adjourned for that day. 
 
 The debate was closed on the 0th, by Messrs. Bontwell and 
 Wilson, the members of the Committee on the Jucbciary hav- 
 ing charge of the impeachment measure. The closing pas- 
 sages of Mr. BoutwelFs speech were as follows: 
 
 What is our position to-day? Can this House and tlie Senate, with the 
 knowledge they have of the President's purposes and of the eliaracter of 
 the men who surround hiui, give him the necessary power'.' (to remove al- 
 leged dishonest officials.) Do they not feel that if he lie allowed such 
 power these places will be given to worse men? Hence. I say. that with 
 Mr. Johnson in office from this time until the 4th of March. ISG'J, there is 
 no remedy for these grievances. These are considerations why we should 
 not hesitate to do that which justice authorizes us to do if we believe that 
 the President has been guilty of impeachable offenses. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, all rests here. To this House is given by the Constitution 
 the sole power of impeachment; and this power of impeachment furnishes 
 the only means by which we can secure the execution of the laws, and 
 those of our fellow citizens who desire the administration of the law ought 
 to sustain this House while it e.\ecutes that great law which is in its hands 
 and which is nowhere else, while it performs a high and solemn duty rest- 
 ing on it by which that man who has been the chief violator of law shall 
 be removed, and without which there can be no execution of the law any 
 where. Therefore the whole responsibility, whatever it may be, for the 
 non-execution of the laws of the country, is. (in the jiresence of these great 
 facts) upon this House. * * * j think that we can not do otherwise 
 than believe, that he has disregarded that great injunction of the Con- 
 stitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that there is 
 but one remedy. The remedy is with this House, and it is nowhere else. 
 H we neglect or refuse to use our powers when the case arises demanding 
 decisive action, the Government ceases to be a (io\ eminent of law and 
 becomes a Government of men. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Committee, closed tlie debate 
 in the following remarks: 
 
 The gentleman from Massachusetts has remarked that the President 
 may interfere with the next Presidential election in the Southern States; 
 that he may station soldiers at the voting places and overawe the loyal 
 people of those States, especially the colored vote: and we must, I suppose. 
 guard against the possibility of this by his impeachment and removal from 
 office. This position, if I state it correctly, is startling. Are we to im- 
 peach the President for what he may do in the future'.' Do our fears con- 
 stitute in the President high crimes and misdemeanors'/ Are we to wan- 
 der beyond the record of this case and found our judgment on the possi- 
 bilities of the future';' This would lead us beyond the conscience of this 
 House. 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, 
 
 Sir, we must be guiiled by some rule in this grave proceeding — some- 
 thing more certain than an impossibility to arraign the President for a 
 specific crime — and when the gentleman from Massachusetts, in comment- 
 ing on one of the alleged offenses of the President, that we could not 
 'arraign him for the specific crime.' he disclosed the weakness of the case 
 we are now considering. Jf we cannot arraign the President tor a specific 
 crime, for what are we to (iroceed against him? For a bundle of generali- 
 ties such as we have in the volume of testimony reported by the commit- 
 tee to the House in this case? If we cannot state upon jiaper a specific 
 crime, how are we to carry this case to the Senate for trial? 
 
 At the close of his speech, Mr. "Wilson moved to lay the sub- 
 ject of impeachment on the table, and the yeas and nays were 
 ordered. 
 
 Several motions were then made — to adjourn, to adjourn to 
 a day certain, etc. — which with roll calls practically consumed 
 the day, and the motion of Mr. Wilson went over. 
 
 The next day. Dec. 7th, the question again came up in it3 
 order, and after several unsuccessful attempts to procure a vote 
 on Mr. AVilson's motion to lay the Impeachment Eesoiution on 
 the table, Mr. AVilsou, by agreement, withdrew his motion, and 
 called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution: 
 
 That Andrew .Johnson. President of theVnited States, be impeached for 
 high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and the vote was yeas 57, 
 nays 108. 
 
 So the resolution to impeach the President was rejected by 
 the very emphatic vote of 57 to 108 — nearly two to one — and 
 by a House two-thirds Republican. 
 
 So ended the first effort to impeach the President —the first 
 formal action to that end having been taken on January 7, 
 1807, and the final vote at the close, and its abandonment, De- 
 cember 7, 1807. 
 
 For eleven months the overwhelming Eepublican majority 
 of the House had been vigoruously active in its search for evi- 
 dence of criminality on the part of the Pre.sident that would 
 warrant the basing of an imjieachment. No effort was left un- 
 tried — no resource that promised a possible hope of successful' 
 exploitation was neglected, llepublican partisans were set to 
 the work of sleuth-hounds in the search for testimony in main- 
 tenance of the charges preferred, and an ever ready partisan 
 press teemed from the beginning to the end of that time with 
 animadversions npon Mr. Johnson's administration and de- 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 uuuciatiou of his alleged desertion of Mr. Lincoln's [)lan of re- 
 storation, of treachery to the party that had elected hiui, and a 
 demand for his impeachment. 
 
 To be lukewarm in that controversy, (jr even to fail to join 
 in the popular denunciation of Mr. Johnson was to put one's 
 self at once under suspicion with the great mass of the domi- 
 nant party, and without the pale of its consideration. 
 
 For eleven months the country was kept iu the throes of 
 partisan turmoil — and for what? Simply to de])ose a Presi- 
 dent who had disappointed the partisan and personal ex[)ecta- 
 tions and schemes of a rule or ruin faction which was able, un- 
 der the peculiar conditions of the time, to subordinate to its 
 purposes a large proportion of the dominant party of that day. 
 
 The following are the material portions of the testimony 
 taken bj' the House Committee on the Judiciary under author- 
 ity of the resolutions passed by the House (jf Eepresentatives 
 on March 7. 181)7, for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. 
 
 Eighty-nine witnessess were summoned before the commit- 
 tee. All of them were rigidly examined, and several of them 
 were called and examiued the second and third times. Their 
 testimony fills more than twelve hundred octavo pages of print. 
 
 The first witness was Gen. L. C. Baker, of the War I)e[)art- 
 ment. His testimony related principally to a certain letter al- 
 leged to have been written by Mr. Johnson, in 18()4r. 
 
 The first question propounded to him by Mr. Ashley, was 
 
 as follows: 
 
 1 wish yuu to state to the committee the contents, as nearly as you can, 
 of a letter which you have in your possession, written by Anilrew John- 
 son, some time in the early jiart of 18(i4, to a Southern man. giving informa- 
 tion as to the troops about the Capitol anil elsewhere, and auvice to Jetfer- 
 son Davis. State where that letter is, and n'lve the contents as nearly as 
 you can, the history of it. 
 
 Mr. Baker answered that he knew there was a letter of that kind, pur- 
 porting to have been written by Andrew Johnson, when he was actinfj- 
 tiovernor of Tennessee. That the letter was dated at Nashville and 
 directed to Jetferson Davis, and related to some declared policy that had 
 been adopted by the Confederacy- -that the letter was beiny used to secure 
 an appointment— that reference was made to troojis, but nothinp; about 
 localities where stationed, or numbers, and nothing about shipment of 
 armor, and that the letter was stolen from Andrew Johnson's table and 
 never sent. 
 
 The question was then asked of the witness by Mr. Ashley: 
 
 State whether the whole import of the letter written l)y Mr. Johnson, 
 was not to turn the whole power which he possessed in 'I'ennessee. in a 
 certain contingency, over to the rebel cause? 
 
 Answer — No. T did not have that opinion of the letter exactly. From 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 what I recollect of it, the thipy; was that he was iiiakinn- a proiiosition 
 making suggestions as to what their policy should be. 
 
 (^ues. And it they accepted it? 
 
 Ans. It they accepted it, my impression was that he was going with 
 them. 
 
 (Jues. With the rebels? 
 
 Alls. — Yes sir. 
 
 Question by the Chairman.- If there are any other letters that you have 
 seen of llr. Johnsons written by him to any person connected with the 
 Confederate Government, or proposing to change the Administration of 
 the Government in their favor after he became President, or anything of 
 a public nature affecting the interests of the United States, please state 
 it and state all you know about such letters. 
 
 Ans. -I do not know of any letters of that character— or of any other 
 letters. 
 
 This constituted tlie substance of Gen. Bakers testimony. 
 His examination was very lengtliy, embracing more of this 
 character of testimony, and about pardon brokerage, and other 
 alleged corrupt practices — all evidencing a determination and 
 expectation to fix upon Mr. Johnson a disposition to disloyalty 
 and corruption, l)oth before and after his succession to the Pres- 
 idency, but no such testimony was obtained. 
 
 A considerable portion of the investigation was devoted to 
 Mr. Johnson's business and personal affairs, such as could have 
 no possible connection with or indicate implication in corrupt 
 or disloyal practices of any sort. 
 
 A strenuous effort appears to have been made by the Gom- 
 mittee throusfhout a lonjj and searchinjj examination of wit- 
 nesses, and constitutes a conspicuous feature of that investiga- 
 tion, to establish the charges of corruption and disloyalty m 
 the sale of public [iroperty, railways, etc., that had been con- 
 structed and equipped, or seized and operated, by the Govern- 
 ment in connection with its military operations in the South. 
 Such an accusation had been made with great pertiuacitj' 
 by Mr. Johnson's opponents, and was also then believed by a 
 great many people to be true. 
 
 Among the parties examined by the committee, were Mr. 
 James and Mr. Burns, of Nashville, Tenn., and Senator 
 Fowler, of that State, and also the Secretary of war. Mr. Stan- 
 ton. No facts whatever were elicited showing a privity to 
 corruption in these matters on the [)art of Mr. Johnson. 
 
 The information obtained from Mr. Stanton, however, put 
 an effectual estoppel to further investigation of the charo-e of 
 corrupt or disloyal disposal of public property by the Pres- 
 ident. The following are extracts from Mr. Stanton's testi- 
 mony, as given on February 11, 1867: 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHXSON. 
 
 Shortly after the surrender of the rebel armies, the attention ot the War 
 Department was directed to the proper disposition to be made of the rail- 
 roads and railroad stock throughout the rebel States which came into our 
 possession, either by capture or construction. It was the subject of a 
 good deal of consultation anel conference between the Secretary of War 
 and the Ciuartermaster General. It was the opinion of the Secretary of 
 War that it was wholly impracticable for the General Government to 
 operate these roads under any system, and that it would be greatly to the 
 advantage of the country to make such disposition as would allow them, 
 as speedily as possible, to become what they were designed for channels 
 ot commerce and trade between the States, and that any terms on which 
 that could be done would be advantageous. This was especially the case 
 in regard'to the Western and Southwestern roads, where it was said there 
 were large amounts of cotton that would be available to remove North, in 
 exchange for supplies to go South, of which it was said they were greatly 
 in want. 
 
 Qups. - In case of the construction of a railroad by the Government, the 
 Government furnishing the material and the labor, what has been the cus- 
 tom of the Department in surrendering such roads to the companies claim- 
 ing them'.' 
 
 Ans.---In all instances. 1 think such roads have been surrendered in the 
 same manner as if they had been constructed by the companies. That sub- 
 ject was talked of a good deal in conference between myself and the 
 Quartermaster General. My own views, that the great object on the part 
 ot the Government, was to get these roads operated: and that togo intoan 
 inquiry as to the cost of construction, would be impracticable, either as to 
 the cost of construction or as to any certain rule of compensation, because 
 manv ot them were constructed under the pressure of war, and [or tem- 
 porary purposes. The object of arriving at the cash value or equivalent 
 for the roads was not only impracticable, but really of very little practical 
 interest in comparison with the great end of having the channels of com- 
 merce in the rebel .'States opened and carried on, with a view of getting out 
 their produce, furnishing supplies, and getting commerce in its regular 
 channels. In mv own view, that appeared to be the most certain and most 
 s])eedv svstem of reconstruction we could adopt, and that it would tend 
 more to establish harmony than any other thing that could be done by the 
 (iovernment. In view of "all this, and after the most deliberate considera- 
 tion we could give it. it was the opinion of the Quartermaster General and 
 mvself-certainlv my own -that it would be impracticable to make any 
 distinction: and so far as I know, no distinction was made in any part of 
 the country in reference to roads built by the Government and roads that 
 had been constructed by Companies before the war commenced. 
 
 Mr. Stanton was asked this question : 
 
 Suppose the Government, at his own expense, had constructed seventy 
 miles of railroad in one of the rebel States, and that, at the close of the 
 war, a company should apply to the Executive Department of the Govern- 
 ment for a transfer of the road so constructed to it: by what authority or 
 provision of law would Executive Department be authorized to transfer 
 the road so constructed to the company making the application? 
 
 Mr. iStautou answered: 
 
 I do not know of any act of Congress that directly, in terms, would au- 
 thorize any such transfer; but regarding the construction of the road, in 
 time of war. simply as a means, or instrument, of carrying on war, when 
 the war was over 1 would consider it strictly proper and within the scope 
 of the powers ol tlie (ieneral Commanding, or especially of the President 
 
r,G THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 of the United States, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, to render 
 that instrument as available for peace purposes as possible. .\nd inas- 
 much as the road would be entirely useless unless it was ojierated. and it 
 would be for the benefit and interest of the public, to have it operated as 
 speedily as jiossible. I think it would be in the interest of a wise discretion, 
 and exercising proper authority, to turn over that road to any company 
 or individual who would operate it; for. in that way. he would beapplyinfr 
 the war material to the only available use to which it could be applied. * 
 '■' * I would regard the rolling stock as coming, to a certain extent, 
 within the same principle, t * * Nq transfer of title was at any time 
 made, so far as I know, or could be made, but only possession turned over. 
 When the military use was no longer required, the railroads were turned 
 over to their original owners, or their representatives, with permission to 
 use them, These railroads, their plant and track fixtures, real property, 
 of which the military authorities had only the possessory right and use, 
 but the rolling stock and equipments, and iron not laid down, were jier- 
 sonal property, which, by capture, or purchase, or construction, belonged 
 to the United States. Sale could be made, and was made, of the personal 
 property at values estimated by the proper officers. That which con- 
 stituted real estate, to-wit. the railroad track, fixtures, etc., the military 
 authorities might abandon altogether, or relinquish control and turn over 
 possession to those who would make a beneficial use of it by working the 
 road. Being in the nature of real estate, no title of the Government or of 
 otlier persons could be divested and conveyed by military authority, but 
 only the control relinquished and the use permitted during the existence 
 of military authority in the department where the roads were situated. 
 
 The ti-eud of a large portion of the testimony of witnesses 
 called by this committee to testify as to the clinr<res preferred 
 Mofainst Mr. Johnson and relatin-r to other allejrations of tlie in- 
 dictnient, (jnite clearly indicated that the chargi'S were based 
 solely npoii common street nimor, invented and <^iven currency 
 in partisan antagonism and for [lartisan [)nri>oses, and that the 
 witnesses were called in the hope and expectation, on the part 
 of the majority of the House, of develo[>ing [iroof of disloyalty 
 and corrnption on the part of the President, and, if not crimi- 
 nal connivance, at least, criminal knowledge of a conspiracy for 
 the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 But these expectations and hoj)es. in all respects, were so 
 utterly disappointed, that there was pathos, at least, as the in- 
 vestigation was jirotracted from month to month, with no indi- 
 cation of the lioped for development, in the despondent inquirj- 
 of Mr. Thaddeus IStevens to one of his colleagues of the Im- 
 jieachment Committee, as the inquest approached a close with- 
 out results — "Well, Jkicc ijok (jui (inijfhiiuj. ciiiijhoir'^" It was 
 moi-e an ejaculation of anger and disgust at failure, than a 
 (juery of one seeking hoped for information. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 57 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE ACT. 
 
 ITS HISTORY AND PURPOSE-THE PRESIDENT'S VETO 
 MESSAGE. 
 
 Mr. Johnson's alleged violation of the act of Congress known 
 as the TeQure-of-Offiee Act, constituted the ostensible basis of 
 his impeachment in 1868. As stated, it had been passed for 
 the purpose of restricting the power of the President over 
 Executive appointments. That Act, therefore, becomes a very 
 important and conspicuous incident in the impeachment affair, 
 as its alleged violation constituted the only material accusation, 
 set out in various forms, in the entire list of charses. 
 
 The proceedings had on the passage of that bill are inserted 
 at some length here, as a technical knowledge of its history, 
 character and purpose, is essential to a correct apprehension of 
 the controversy that had arisen between the President and Con- 
 gress. 
 
 The Tenure-of Office bill was introduced in the Senate by 
 Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Dec. 3rd, 186G, and on the 5th was 
 referred to the Committee on Retrenchment. Ou the 10th Mr. 
 Edmunds, in the name of the committee, reported it back to 
 the Senate with the followinor remarks: 
 
 o 
 
 The joint select Committee on Retrenchment, to whom was referred the 
 bill to regulate the tenure of ofiBces, have had the same under consideration, 
 and have instructed me to report the bill back, with a recommendation of 
 certain amendments, which being adopted, the committee are of the opin- 
 ion that the bill ought to pas3. I beg leave to say in connection with this 
 report that we have reported this bill and these amendments regulating 
 removals from office and appointments to office so far as concerns officers 
 whose nominations require the confirmation of the Senate, and have 
 adopted what appears to us to be a feasable scheme iu that respect, in no 
 spirit of hostility to any party or administration whatever, but in what we 
 conceive to be the true Republican interest of the country under all ad- 
 ministrations, under the domination of all parties in the growth which is 
 before us in the future; and in that spirit I shall ask the atttsntion of the 
 
58 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 Senate to the bill when it comes to be considered. I move that the amend- 
 ment be printed, and that the bill be made the special order for Thursday 
 next, at one o'clock. 
 
 On the 10th of January, 1867, on motion of Mr. Edmunds, 
 the bill was taken up for consideration. As the first section 
 of the bill was the only portion over which there was any 
 serious controversy, or pertinent to this recital, only that sec- 
 tion is produced here. It is as follows: 
 
 That every person (excepting the Secretaries o£ State, of the Treasury, 
 ot War, of the Xavy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the 
 Attorney General), holding any civil office to which he has been appointed 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who 
 shall hereafter he appointed to any such office, and shall become duly 
 ijualitied to act therein, is, and shall be, entitled to hold such office until a 
 successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, 
 except as herein otherwise provided. 
 
 Mr. Howe objected to the exception of the Cabinet officers 
 from the operation of the bill, and Mr. Edmunds responded 
 that: 
 
 It did seem to the Committee, after a great deal of consultation and re- 
 flection, that it was right and just that the Chief Executive of the Nation, 
 in selecting these named Secretaries, who, by law, and by the practice of 
 the country, and officers analagous to whom by the practice of all other 
 countries, are the confidential advisers of the E.xecutive respecting the ad- 
 ministration of all his Departments, should be persons who were personal- 
 ly agreeable to him. in whom he could place entire confidence and reliance, 
 and that whenever it should seem tt) him that the state of relations, 
 between him and any of them had become such as to render this relation of 
 confidence ar.d trust and personal esteem inh&Tmomous, he sliould in such 
 rase he (Mowed to disptnse with the services of that officer in vacation 
 and have some other person act in his stead. We thought that so much 
 discretion, so much confidence, so much respect ought to be properly at 
 tributed to the Chief Magistrate of the Nation. It may happen that at 
 some particular time — some people may suppose that it has happened 
 now — the Chief Magistrate for the time being ought not to be invested 
 with "such powers; but the Committee have recommended the adoption of 
 this rule respecting the tenure-of-office as a permanent and systematic, 
 and as they believe, an appropriate regulation of the Government for all 
 administrations and for all time; and it did appear to them (whether the 
 reason may command itself to the Senate or not), that it was just to the 
 Kxecutive, and on the whole best for the interest of the Nation, that he 
 should be allowed during a recess of the Senate to change his confidential 
 advisers if it should appear to him to be fit, subject to that general respon- 
 sibility which every officer must be held to the public and to the Senate 
 when they meet again. 
 
 Mr. Williams said: 
 
 1 prepared the original bill in this case, which contains in different words 
 the exception contained in the amendment reported by the Committee. I 
 do not regard the exception as of any great practical consequence, because 
 1 suppose if the President and any bead of a Department should disagree 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 59 
 
 so as to make their relations unpleasant, and the President should signify 
 a desire that the head of a Department retire from the Cabinet, tliat would 
 follow without any positive act of rewovcl on the part of the President. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden said: 
 
 The Constitution imposes upon the President of the United States the 
 duty of executing the laws; it does not impose that duty upon the Secre- 
 taries. They are creatures of the law and not of the Constitution direct- 
 ly. Some, and perhaps the greater part, of their functions are as advisers 
 of the President and to aid him in executing the laws in their several De- 
 partments. There are some duties that are specifically conferred upon 
 them by Congress. Their relation to the President, as has been well said 
 by gentlemen, is that mostly of conHdential advisers. With the exception 
 of the particular duties imposed upon them by law, and on the Secretary 
 of the Treasury more than on the others, they do nothing of their own 
 motion, but act by order of the President in discharging the particular 
 duties of their office. * * * That being the peculiar condition of affairs 
 it has always been considered since the foundation of the Government, as 
 a matter of course, as a general rule — there may have been one or two ex- 
 ceptions, and I think there have been, but I am not very positive on that 
 point — that the President might select such persons as he pleased to be 
 members of his Cabinet. Of course the confirmation of tte Senate is neces- 
 sary; but the general idea of the Senate has been, whether they liked the 
 men or not, to confirm them without any difficulty, because in executing 
 the great and varied interests of this great country it is exceedingly im- 
 portant that there should be the utmost harmony between those who are 
 charged with that execution. 
 
 The bill passed as reported aud went to the House. That 
 body amended it by making Cabinet officers non-removable by 
 the President without the consent of the Senate, and sent the 
 bill back to tho Senate, when Mr. Sherman said: 
 
 It (the Tenure-of-Office bill) ought to have been passed, and probably 
 would have been passed, long ago, if a different condition of affairs had 
 existed before. But when you propose to extend that principle to Cabinet 
 officers, a very different state of affairs arises, and different circumstances 
 apply to this subject. Now I say, that if a Cabinet officer should attempt 
 to hold his office for a moment beyond the time when he retained the 
 entire confidence of the President, I would not vote to retain him. nor 
 would I compel the President to have about him in these high positions a 
 man in whom he did not entirely trust, both personally and politically. It 
 would be unwise to require him to administer the Government without 
 agents of his own choosing. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be 
 unwise for the Senate to engraft in this bill a provision that would enable 
 a Cabinet officer to hold on to his office in violation of the will of his 
 Chief. * * * Suppose the personal relations between a Cabinet officer 
 and the President became so unpleasant that they could have no personal 
 intercourse. The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Howe), says in such a case 
 the Cabinet officer would resign. Suppose he should hold on to his power 
 and position— what then? There is no power to remove him, and the 
 PresideDt can have no intercourse with him. Would you compel such a 
 
eo THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 state of affairs? It seems to me that it would be uuwise to <io so. That 
 the Senate had no such purpose is shown by its vote twice to make this 
 exception. That this provision does not apply to the present case, is shown 
 by the fact that its language is so framed as not to apply to the present 
 President. * * * It would not prevent the present President from re- 
 moving the present Secretary of War. the Secretary of the Navy, or the 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 A considerable number of Senators participated in the debate, 
 which was able and exhaustive to an exceptional degree, on 
 both sides, and occupied several days in the various stages of 
 the proceeding. 
 
 Mr. Edmuuds closed the debate in the Senate with ibe fol- 
 lowing remarks: 
 
 I do not rise to prolong the debate, but only to e.\press the hope that the 
 debate on this question may terminate — that we may come to a vote. * 
 
 * * While 1 should be glad to occupy some time in reply to some 
 things that have fallen in the course of this debate, I feel it to be due to 
 the business of the Senate to abstain. I hope the Senate will disagree to 
 this amendment, (made by the House) and adhere to the bill as it stands. 
 
 The vote was then taken, and resulted iu 17 for agreeing to 
 the House amendment, and 28 against it. 
 
 The action of the Senate was reported to the House and 
 Conference Committees were ap[ioiuted by the two houses. 
 
 On the liSth of February, the following substitute for the 
 first section of the bill was reported by the Committee of Con- 
 ference and ado[)te(] by both Houses, and the bill went to the 
 President: 
 
 Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the 
 Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General and the Attorney Gen- 
 eral, shall hold Iheir offices respectively for and during the term of the 
 President by xt-hoiii they may liave been ajuiointed, and for one month 
 thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate. 
 
 On Monday, March '2nd, 1867, the President returned the 
 bill to the Senate, in which house it had originated, with his 
 objections thereto, as follows: 
 To the Senate of the United States: 
 
 I have carefully examimed the bill to regulate the tenure of certain civil 
 ofBces. The material portion of the bill is contained in the first section, 
 and is of the effect following, namely: 
 
 •'That every person holding any civil office to which he has been appointed 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who 
 shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become duly 
 qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a 
 successor shall have been appointed by the President, with the advice and 
 consent of the Senate, and duly qualified; and that the Secretaries of State, 
 of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster 
 General, and the Attorney General, shall hold their offices respectively tor 
 and during the term of the President by whom they may have been ap- 
 pointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the 
 advice and consent of the Senate." 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNaOX. 61 
 
 These provisions are qualified by a reservatiuii in tlie fuurth section, 
 "that nothing contained in the bill shall he construed to extend the term 
 of any office the duration of which is limited by law." In effect the bill 
 provides that the President shall not remove from their places any of the 
 civil officers whose terms of service are not limited by law without the ad- 
 vice and consent of the Senate of the United States. Tlie bill, in this re- 
 spect, contiicts, in my judgment, with the Constitution <if the United 
 States. 'I'he question, as Congress is well aware, is by no means a new 
 one. 'I'hat the power of removal is constitutionally vested in the Pres- 
 ident of the United States is a principle which has been not more dictinct- 
 ly declared by judicial authority and judicial commentators than it has 
 been uniformly practiced upon by the legislative and executive depart 
 ments of the Government. The question arose in the House of Representa- 
 tives so early as the IGth day of June, 1789, on the bill for establishing an 
 executive department, denominated "The Department of Foreign Affairs." 
 'I'he first clause of the bill, after recapitulating the functions of that oflfi 
 cer and defining his duties, had these words: "To be removable from 
 office by the President of the United States." It was moved to strike out 
 these words, and the motion was sustained with great ability and vigor. 
 It was insisted that the President could not constitutionally exercise the 
 power of removal exclusive of the Senate; that the Federalist so inter- 
 preted the ( onstitution when arguing for its adoption by the several 
 States; that the Constitution had nowhere given the President power of re- 
 moval, either expressly or by strong implication; but on the contrary, had 
 distinctly provided for removals from office by impeachment only. A con- 
 struction which denied the power of removal by the President was fur 
 ther maintained by arguments drawn from the danger of the abuse of the 
 power; from the supposed tendency of an exposure of jiublic officers to 
 capricious removal; to impair the efficiency of the civil service; from the 
 alleged injustice and hardship of displacing incumljents, dependent upon 
 their official stations, without sufficient consideration; from a supposed 
 want of responsibility on the part the President, and from an imagined 
 aefect of guarantees against a vicious President, who might incline to 
 abuse the power. 
 
 On the other hand, an exclusive power of removal by the President was 
 defended as a true exposition of the text of the (Constitution. It was 
 maintained that there are certain causes for which jiersons ought to be 
 removed from office without being guilty of treason, bribery, or malfeas- 
 ance, and that the nature of things demands that it should be so. "Sup- 
 pose," it was said, "a man becomes insane by the visitation of (iod, and is 
 likely to ruin our affairs; are the hands of Government to be confined from 
 warding off the evil? Suppose a person in office not possessing the talents 
 he was judged to have at the time of the appointment, is the error not to 
 be corrected; suppose he acquire vicious habits and incurable indolence. 
 or totally neglect the duties of his office, which shall work mischief to the 
 public welfare, is there no way to arrest the threatened danger? Suppose 
 he become odious and unpopular by reason of the measures he pursues, 
 and this he may do without committing any positive offense against the 
 law, must he preserve his office in despite of the popular will? Suppose 
 him grasping for his own aggrandizement and the elevation of his connec- 
 tions by every means short of the treason defined by the Constitution, 
 hurrying your affairs to the precipice of destruction, endangering your 
 domestic tranquility, plundering you of the means of defense, alienating 
 the affections of your allies, and promoting the spirit of discord, must the 
 tardy, tedious, desultory road, by way of impeachment, be traveled to over- 
 take the man who, barely confining himself within the letter of the law, is 
 employed in drawing off the vital principle of the Government? ' The 
 nature of thirlgs. the great objects of society, the express objects of the 
 Constitution itself require that this thing should be otherwise. To unite 
 the Senate with the President "in the exercise of the power" it was eaid, 
 "would involve us" in the most serious difficulty. "Suppose a discovery of 
 any of these events should take place when the Senate is not in session, 
 how is the remedy to be applied? The evil could be avoided in no other 
 way than by the Senate sitting always." In regard to the danger of the 
 
62 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 power being abused if exercised by one man. it was said "that the danger 
 is as great with respect to the Senate, who are assembled from various 
 parts of the continent, with different impressions and opinions;*' that such 
 a body is more likely to misuse the power of removal than the man whom 
 the united voice of America calls to the nresidential chair. As the nature 
 of Government requires the power of rernoval, it was maintained "that it 
 should be exercised in this way by the hand capable of exerting itself with 
 effect, and the power must be conferred on the President by the Constitu- 
 tion as the executive officer of the Government " Mr. .Madison, whose ad- 
 verse opinion in the Federalist had been relied upon by those who denied 
 the exclusive power, now participated in the debate. He declared that he 
 had reviewed his former opinions, and he summed up the whole case as 
 follows: 
 
 "The Constitution affirms that the executive power is vested in the 
 President. Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes, there are. The 
 Constitution says that in appointing to office the Senate shall be associated 
 with the President, unless in the case of inferior officers, when the law 
 shall otherwise direct. Have we (that is. Congress) a right to extend this 
 exception? I believe not. It the Constitution has invested all executive 
 power in the President, I return to assert that the Legislature has no 
 right to diminish or modify his executive authority. The question now 
 resolves itself into this: is the power of displacing an executive power? I 
 conceive that if any power whatever is in the Executive, it is in the power 
 of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws. If 
 the Constitution had not qualified the power of the President in appoint- 
 ing to office by associating the Senate with him in that business, would it 
 not be clear that he would have the right by virtue of his executive power 
 to make such appointment? Should we be authorized, in defiance of that 
 clause in the Constitution — 'the executive power shall be vested in the 
 President' — to unite the Senate with the President in the appointment to 
 office? I conceive not. It is admitted that we should not be authorized 
 to do this, I think it may be disputed whether we have anght to associate 
 them in removing persons from office, the one power being as much of an 
 executive nature as the other; and the first is authorized by being except- 
 ed out of the general rule established by the Constitution in these words: 
 'The executive power shall be vested in the President." '' 
 
 The question thus ably and exhaustively argued was decided by the 
 House of Representatives, by a vote of 3i to 2U, in favor of the principle 
 that the executive power of removal is vested by the Constitution in the 
 Executive, and in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President. 
 The question has often been raised in subsequent times of high excite- 
 ment, and the practice of the Government has nevertheless conformed in 
 all cases to the decision thus early made * * * Chancellor Kent's 
 remarks on the subject are as follows: 
 
 "On the first organization of the Government it was made a question 
 whether the power of removal in case of officers appointed to hold at 
 pleasure resided nowhere but in the body which appointed, and, of course, 
 whether the consent of the Senate was not requisite to remove. This was 
 the construction given to the Constitution while it was pending for ratifi- 
 cation before the State conventions by the author of the Federalist. But 
 the construction which was given to the Constitution by Congress, after 
 great consideration acd discussion, was different. The words of the act 
 (establishing the Treasury Department) are: 'And whenever the same 
 shall be removed from office by the President of the United States, or in 
 any other case of vacancy in the office, the assistant shall act.' This 
 amounted to a legislative construction of the Constitution, and it has ever 
 since been acquiesced in and acted upon as decisive authority in the case. 
 It applies equally to every other officer of the Government appointed by 
 the President, whose term of duration is not specially declared. It is sup- 
 ported by the weighty reason that the subordinate officers in the execu- 
 tive department ought to hold at the pleasure of the head of the Depart- 
 ment, because he is invested generally with the executive authority, and 
 the participation in that authority by the Senate was an exception' to a 
 general principle and ought to be taken strictly. The Presid^t is the 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 63 
 
 great responsible officer for the faithful execution of the law, and the 
 power of removal was incidental to that duty, and might often be requisite 
 to fulfill it." 
 
 Thus has the important question presented by this bill been settled, in 
 the language of the late Daniel Webster (who, while dissenting from it, 
 admitted that it was settled^ by construction, settled by precedent, set- 
 tled by the practice of the Government, and settled by statute. 
 
 The events of the last war furnished a practical confirmation of the wis- 
 dom of the Constitution as it has hetherto been maintained in many of its 
 parts, including that which is now the subject of consideration. When the 
 war broke out rebel enemies, traitors, abettors, and sympathizers were 
 found in every department of the Government, as well in the civil service 
 as in the land and naval military service. They were found in Congress 
 and among the keepers of the Capitol, in foreign missions, in each and all 
 of the E.xecutive Departments, in the judicial service, in the Post Office, 
 and among the agents for conducting Indian affairs; and upon probable 
 suspicion they were promptly displaced by my predecessor, so far as they 
 held their offices under executive authority, and their duties were confided 
 to new and loyal successors. No complaints against that power or doubts 
 of its wisdom, were entertained in any quarter. 
 
 Having at an early period accepted the Constitution in regard to the 
 executive office in the sense in which it was interpreted with the concur- 
 rence of its founders, I have found no sufficient grounds in the arguments 
 now opposed to that construction or in any assumed necessity of the times 
 for changing those opinions. For these reasons I return the bill to the 
 Senate, in which House it originated, for the further consideration of Con- 
 gress, which the Constitution prescribes. Insomuch as the several parts 
 of the bill which I have not considered are matters chiefly of detail, and 
 are based altogether upon the theory ot the Constitution from which I 
 am obliged to dissent, I have not thought it necessary to examine them 
 with a view to make them an occasion of distinct and special objections. 
 Experience, I think, has shown that it is the easiest, as it is also the most 
 attractive, of studies to frame constitutions for the self-government of tree 
 States and nations. 
 
 But I think experience has equally shown that it is the most difficult of 
 all political labors to preserve and maintain such free constitutions ot self- 
 government when once happily established. I know no other way in 
 which they can be preserved and maintained except by a constant adher- 
 ence to them through the various vicissitudes ot national existence, with 
 such adaptations as may become necessary, always to be effected, however, 
 through the agencies and in the forms prescribed in the original constitu- 
 tions themselves. Whenever administration fails or seems to fail in secur- 
 ing any of the great ends for which Republican Government is established, 
 the proper course seems to be to renew the original spirit and forms of the 
 Constitution itself. Andekw Johnson. 
 
 The bill was promptly passed in both Houses over the Pres- 
 dent's veto and became a law. 
 
 As pertinent and incident to the history of this controversy, 
 is the communication of the President notifying the Senate of 
 the suspension of Mr. Stanton, Aug. 12, 1867. The President 
 
 said : 
 
 The Tenureot-Office Act did not pass without notice. Like other acts, 
 it was sent to the President tor approval. As is ray custom I submitted it 
 to the consideration ot my Cabinet for their advice whether I siiould ap- 
 prove it or not. I was a grave question of constitutional law, in which I 
 would of course rely mostly upon the opinion of the Attorney General, and 
 of Mr. Stanton, who had once been Attorney General. Every member of 
 iiiy Cabinet advised me that the proposed law u-as unconstitutional. A|l 
 
64 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 spoke without doubt or reservation; but Mr. Stanton's condemnation of 
 the law u:as the most elaborate and emphatic. He referred to the Con- 
 stitutional provieions, the debates in Congres, especially to the speech of 
 Mr Buchanan when a Senator, to the dioisions of the Supreme Court, and 
 to the usage from the beginning of the Government through every suc- 
 cessive administration, all concurring to establish the right of removal as 
 vested in the President. To all these he added the weight of his own de- 
 liberate judgment, and advised me that it was my duty to defend the 
 power of the President from usurpation and veto the law. 
 
 During the recess of Congress in the Summer of 1867, the 
 President svisjiended Mr. Stanton from the War OfRce and ap- 
 pointed Gen. Grant Secretarj' of Vi^av adintcrim. Gen. Grant 
 was then understood as supporting the President in his contro- 
 versy with Mr. Stantou, and promptly accepted the appoint- 
 ment, holding it until the following December, when the 
 change was duly reported to the Senate. The Senate refused 
 to sanction Mr. Stanton's suspension, and he consequently re- 
 sumed his position of Secrear^' of /War and retained it until the 
 close of the Impeachment trial — the Senate then, in effect, bj' 
 rejecting the Impeachment, declaring that the President had 
 the right to remove him. 
 
 Very naturally, after Mr. Stanton's restoration to the War 
 
 Office by the refusal of the Ij^enate to sanction his suspension, 
 
 the relations between himself and the President were embittered 
 
 and many efforts were made by mutual friends to induce Mr. 
 
 Stantou to resign. Conspicuous among these were Gen. Grant, 
 
 the General of the Army, and Gen. Sherman, the next in rank, 
 
 as shown in the following note from Gen. Sherman to the 
 
 President, but a few weeks before the crisis came. It explains 
 
 itself, as showing the relations then subsisting between the 
 
 parties mentioned: 
 
 332 K. St., Wasiiinotox, Jan, 18th. 
 I regretted, this morning, to say that I had agreed to go down to Annap- 
 olis, to spend ilonday with Admiral Porter. Gen. Grant has to leave for 
 Richmond on Monday morning at 6 o'clock. At a conversation with the 
 General, after an interview wherein I ottered to go with him on Mon- 
 day morning to Mr. Stanton and say it was our joint opinion that he 
 should resign, it was found impossible by reason of his going to Richmond 
 and my going to Annapolis. The General proposed this course. He will 
 tell you tomorrow and otTer to go to Mr. Stanton to say that for the good 
 of thf service of the country he ought to resign -this on Sunday. On 
 Monday, 1 will call on you. and if you think it necessary, I will do the 
 same -call on Mr. Stanton and tell him he should resign. If he will not, 
 then it wil! be time to consider ulterior measures. In the meantime it 
 also happens that uu necessity exists for precipitating measures. 
 
 Yours truly. W. T. Shki;.m.^.n. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 65 
 
 Oa Saturday, February 23, 1868,the day following the removal 
 of Mr. Stanton, Mr. Johnson sent to the Senate the name of Mr. 
 Thomas Ewing, senior, of Ohio, as his successor. The Senate 
 had adjourned for the day when the President's Secretary 
 reached the Capitol, between 12 and 1 o'clock, but the nomina- 
 tion was formally comoQunicated on the following Monday. Of 
 this nomination, Mr. Blaine has written, that "no name could 
 have given better assurance of good intentions and upright 
 conduct than that of Mr. Ewing. He was a man of lofty char- 
 acter, of great eminence in his profession of the law, and with 
 wide and varied experience in public life. He had held high 
 rank as a Senator in the Augustan period of the Senate's learn- 
 ing and eloquence, and he had been one of the ablest members 
 of the distinguished Cabinets organized by the only two Pres- 
 idents elected by the Whig Party. He had reached the ripe 
 age of seventy-eight years, but still in complete possession of 
 all his splendid faculties. He had voted for Mr. Lincoln at 
 both elections, had been a warm supporter of the contest for 
 the Union, and was represented by his own blood on many of 
 the great battlefields of the war." 
 
 No notice was taken by the Senate of this nomination. 
 
 Here was offered an opportunity for the settlement of the dis- 
 pute over the War Office on fair and honorable terms to all 
 parties concerned. But that was not what the impeachers 
 wanted. They wanted to get Mr. Johnson out. They thought 
 they had a pretext that they could sustain by making it a party 
 question, and did not want a settlement on any other terms — 
 so no attention was given to Mr. Ewing's nomination. It was 
 ignored and the impeachment movement went on. 
 
66 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE. 
 
 Mr. Johusoa's veto of the Tenure-of-Office Bill, and the pas- 
 sage of that bill over his veto, of course iatensified the antago- 
 nism between himself and Congress. He not nnuaturally re- 
 garded that Act as an infringement of the Executive function 
 which it was his duty to his office and to himself to resent. 
 The culmination came upon his official notification to the Sen- 
 ate on February 2ist, 1868, of his removal of Mr. Stanton from 
 the office of Secretary of War, and his appointment of Gen. 
 Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary ad interim, nothwithstanding the 
 assumed interdiction of the Tenure-of-Office Act. 
 
 Immediately on receipt of this notification, the Senate went 
 into executive session, and the following proceeding was had: 
 
 Int Executive Session. 
 Senate of the United States, 
 February 21st, 1868. 
 
 Whereas. The Senate have read and considered the communication of 
 the President, stating that he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary 
 of War, and had designated the .Adjutant General of the Army to act as 
 Secretary of War nd interim. Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, by the Senate of the United States, That under the Constitu- 
 tion and laws of the United States, the President has no power to remove 
 the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to perform the duties 
 of that office ad interim. 
 
 The journal of the Senate shows that this Resolution was 
 
 adopted by the following vote: 
 
 Yeas— Messrs Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, 
 Harlan, Morril of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New 
 Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, 
 Tipton, Trumbull. Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams. Wilson, Yates— 28. 
 
 Nays — vlessrs. Huckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Hendricks, Patter- 
 son of Tennessee— 6. 
 
 Absent or not voting — 'K). Note. , 
 
 (NnTE — Ii 1- due to iiiy>plf to ^ny here, That the entry of my name in tlie ab(»ve vote, was 
 incorrect. .My dirtinct recollection is. Iliat tliongh present, I declined to vote, and from the 
 consideration tiientionert I wa;- intaljy unaware of my name bemir recorded as voting on 
 that proposition until Ion;: after I left the senate, wlieii of conrse. there \^■!^^ no opportnnily 
 to -ecure a correctKJii of liic journal i _ 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 67 
 
 This was au extraordinary proceeding. A proposition to 
 impeach the President had till recently been pending in the 
 House for nearly a year, and the ingenuity of the majority had 
 been taxed to the utmost to find some basis for an indictment 
 upon which a successful impeachment might be possible. There 
 is ground for the suggestion that much was hoped for in that 
 direction from the Tenure-of-Office Bill, at least so far as the 
 House was concerned. That hoped for opportunity had now 
 come — nor is it an unreasonable surmise, that this very extra- 
 ordinary action of the Senate was forced by outside as well as 
 inside influences for the purpose of testing the Senate, and com- 
 mitting it in advance and in anticipation of the preferment of 
 another impeachment by the House. 
 
 As to the question of the guilt or innocence of the President 
 of the commission of an impeachable ofifense, this vote of the 
 Senate was in the nature of a vote of "guilty." It was there- 
 fore to a degree an impeachment and conviction combined by 
 the Senate, prior to the bringing of an accusation by the House 
 of Representatives, the constitutional body for the preferment 
 of an impeachment of the President — and was an improper, 
 and not far removed from an indecent proceeding on the part 
 of the Senate. In effect, the President was thereby condemned 
 by the Senate without trial, and his later arraignment was sim- 
 plv to receive sentence — it being solely upon the removal of 
 Mr. Stanton that the impeachment was brought by the House. 
 It is noticeable, and possibly indicative, that the names of 
 twenty out of fifty-four members of the Senate do not appear 
 in this list — a very unusual occurrence in divisions of that 
 body; especially in the exciting conditions that then prevailed. 
 The absentees, or at least abstentions from voting, were fifteen 
 Kepublicans and five Democrats, more than one-third of the 
 body. That very unusual absence or abstention from voting 
 may well be attributed to the very proper hesitancy of Senators 
 to commit themselves in advance, either way, on a proposi- 
 tion that was reasonably certain to lead to an impeachment of 
 the President, then virtually pending and imminent in the 
 House, and upon which the Senate was equally certain to be 
 called upon to act. 
 
 The action of the President was also communicated to the 
 House of Eepresentatives by Mr. Stanton, at the same hour of 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL. 
 
 the same day, February 21st, 1868, in the following communi- 
 cation, enclosing a copy of the President's notification of his 
 dismissal. 
 
 War DBrPAEMENT, / 
 
 Washingtoh City, Feb. 21, 1868. S 
 
 Sir: — Gen. Thomas has just delivered to me a copy of the enclosed order, 
 which you will please communicate to the House of Representatives. 
 
 (Signed) E. M. Stanton, 
 Secretary of War. 
 Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker House of Representatives. 
 
 This gave new life to the impeachment cause, which had a 
 few weeks before been defeated in the House and since then 
 had, for lack of material, been lagging, to the discouragement 
 of many of its advocates; and the gleeful ejaculations, on the 
 floor of the House, in the lobbies, and on the streets, on receipt 
 of this news, and more especially after the action of the Senate 
 became known, which was not long in reaching the public, with 
 a common greeting and clasping of hands: "Well, we've got 
 him now!" 
 
 The communication of Mr. Stanton to the House of Represen- 
 tatives was immediately, after reading, referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Reconstruction. 
 
 In the evening of the same day, Mr. Gov ode, of Pennsylvania, 
 offered a resolution to impeach the President, which was also 
 referred to the same Committee. 
 
 On the next day, Feb. 22d, 1868, Mr. Stevens, Chairman of 
 
 that Committee, made the following report: 
 
 The Committee on Reconstruction, to whom was referred, on the 27th 
 day of January last, the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to in- 
 quire what combinations have been made or attempted to be made to ob- 
 struct the due execution of the laws; and to that end the committee have 
 power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses on oath, 
 and report to this House what action, if any, they may deem necessary; 
 and that said committee have leave to report at any time." 
 
 And to whom was also referred, on the 21st day of February, instant, a 
 communication from Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of Wiir, dated on 
 said 21st day of February, together with a copy of a letter from Andrew 
 Johnson, President of the United States, to the said Edwin M. Stanton, as 
 follows: 
 
 Executive Mansion, / 
 Washington, D. C, Feb. 21, 1868. \ 
 
 Sir: — By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President, 
 by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed 
 from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as 
 such will terminate upon the receipt of this communication. 
 
 You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, .^jutant 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 69 
 
 General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to 
 act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other 
 public property now in your custody and charge. 
 
 Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C. 
 
 And to whom was also referred by the House of Representatives the fol- 
 lowing resolution, namely: 
 
 "Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be 
 impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors." 
 
 Have considered the several subjects referred to them, and submit the 
 following report: 
 
 That in addition to the papers referred to the committee, the committee 
 find that the President, on the 21st day of February, 1868, signed and 
 issued a commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, direct- 
 ing and authorizing said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, 
 and to take possession of the books, records, and papers, and other public 
 property in the War Department, of which the following is a copy: 
 
 Executive Mansion, I 
 Washington, Feb. 21, 1868. S 
 
 Sir: — Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office 
 as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and 
 empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately 
 enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stan- 
 ton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, 
 and other public property now in his custody and charge. 
 
 Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the 
 United States Army, Washington, District of Columbia. 
 Official copy respectfully furnisheii to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton. 
 
 L. Thomas. Secretary of War ad interim. 
 Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is herewith pre- 
 sented, and in virtue of the powers with which they have been invested by 
 the House, they are of the opinion that Andrew Johnson, President of the 
 United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. They 
 therefore recommend to the House the adoption of the accompanying res- 
 olution. Thaddeus Stevens, 
 
 George S. Boutwell, 
 John A. Binghan, 
 c. t. hulbubd, 
 John F. Farnsworih, 
 F. C. Beaman, 
 H. E. Paine. 
 
 Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President 
 
 of the United States. 
 
 Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be im- 
 peached of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. 
 
 The following is a brief synopsis of the debate which ensued: 
 Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in 
 the first instance to discuss this question; and if there be no desire on the 
 other side to discuss it we are willing that the question should be taken 
 upon the knowledge which the House already has. Indeed, the tact of 
 removing a man from office while the Senate was in session without the 
 consent of the Senate, if there were nothing else, is of itself, and always 
 has been considered, a high crime and misdemeanor, and was never before 
 p racticed. But I will oot discuss this question unless gentlemen on the 
 
70 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, 
 
 other side desire to discuss it. If they do, I shall for the present give way 
 to them and say what I have to say in conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Brooks, (Dem. of N. Y.) Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an 
 opportunity, at least, to submit a minority report before we entered upon 
 this august proceeding of impeaching the chief executive officer of this 
 Government. But after a session of the Committee on Reconstruction, 
 hardly an hour in length, violating an express rule of this House by sitting 
 during the session — for Rule 72 provides that no committee shall sit dur- 
 ing the session of the House without special leave — we have been summoned 
 upon a very partial submission of facts, without any comprehension, in 
 reality, of the charges which are made against the President of the United 
 States, upon a new indictment, in a new form once more, and in a more 
 alarming manner than ever, in this but a partial Congress, representing 
 but a section of a portion of the people — in my judgment not representing 
 the people of the United States at all — to act as a grand jury, with a large 
 portion of that grand jury excluded from the juryroom here; and sud- 
 denly, impromptu perhaps, a vote is to be forced this very day — to impeach 
 the President of the United States! 
 
 I am utterly inadequate to discharge the duty which has devolved upon 
 me on this august day, the anniversary of the birthday of the Father ol 
 his country. I am utterly unable upon this occasion either to do my duty 
 to the people or to express myself with that deep solemnity which I feel 
 in rising to resist this untoward, this unholy, this unconstitutional pro- 
 ceeding. Indeed, I know not why the ghost of impeachment has appeared 
 here in a new form. We have attempted to lay it hitherto, and we have 
 successfully laid it, upon the floor of this House. But a minority of the 
 party on the other side, forcing its influence and its power upon a majority 
 of a committee of this House, has at last succeeded in compelling its 
 party to approach the House itself in a united, and therefore in a more 
 solemn form, and to demand the impeachment of the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 Sir, we have long been in the midst of a revolution. Long, long has our 
 country been agitated by the throes of that revolution. But we are now 
 approaching the last and the final stage of that revolution in which, like 
 many revolutions that have preceded it. a legislative power not represent- 
 ing the people attempts to depose the executive power, and thus to over- 
 throw that constitutional branch of the Government. 
 
 There is nothing new in all this. There is nothing new in what we are 
 doing, for men of the present but repeat the history of the past. We are 
 traversing over and over again the days of Cromwell and Charles I and 
 Charles II, and we are traversing over and over again the scenes of the 
 French revolution, baptized in blood in our introductory part, but I trust 
 in God never again to be baptized by any revolutionary proceeding on the 
 part of this House. 
 
 I have not and never have been a defender of all the opinions of General 
 Jackson, but those on the other side who pretend to hold him as author- 
 ity and those on this side who have ever held him as authority will find 
 that in uttering the opinions which I have I but reutter the opinions 
 which he advanced in his veto of July 10, 1832, when he said: 
 
 "The Congress, the Executive, and the court must each for itself be 
 guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who 
 takes the oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it 
 as he understands it, and not as it ia understood by others." 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 The President of the United States has given his opinion upon the offi- 
 cial tenure-of -office act and upon the Constitution of the United States by 
 the appointment of Adjutant General Thomas as Secretary of War ad 
 interim, and because of the exercise of that Constitutional right we are 
 called upon here at once to pronounce him guilty of high crimes and 
 
 misdemeanors and to demand his deposition and degradation therefor. 
 
 ***** 
 
 Mr. Spalding, (Rep. of Ohio). Mr. Speaker, I feel myself to be in no 
 proper frame of mind or heart to attempt rhetorical display on this occa- 
 sion. I can appreciate the sentiments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
 Brooks] when he says the question before us is filled with solemnity; but 
 when he attempts by gasconade to deter members on this side of the 
 House from the conscientious discharge of their duty I say to my friend 
 that he has '-mistaken his calling.'' Sir, no more important duty could be 
 devolved upon this House of Representatives than that of considering the 
 question whether articles of impeachment shall bo preferred against the 
 Chief Magistrate of the United States; and for long months, ay, for more 
 than a year, sir, I have resisted, with all my efforts and all my personal 
 influence, the approach of that crisis which is now upon us and before us. 
 The President has done many, very many, censurable acts; but I could 
 not, on my conscience, say that he should be holden to answer upon a 
 charge of "high crimes and misdemeanors" until something could be made 
 tangible whereby he had brought himself in open conflict with the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the Union. 
 
 It has seemed to me, sir, tor weeks, that this high officer of our govern- 
 ment was inviting the very ordeal which, I am sorry to say, is now upon 
 us, and the dread consequences of which will speedily be upon him. He 
 has thrown himself violently in contact with an Act of Congress pasted on 
 the 2d day of March last -by the votes of the constitutional two-thirds of 
 the Senate and two-thirds of the House of Representatives over his veto 
 assigning his reasons for withholding his assent. Now. it matters not how 
 many acts can be found upon the statute books in years gone by that 
 would sanction the removal of a cabinet officer by the President; the gen 
 tleman from New York numbers three. He may reckon up thirty or three 
 hundred and still if, within the last six or nine months. Congress has, in a 
 constitutional manner, made an enactment that prohibits such removal, 
 and the executive wantonly disregards such enactment and attempts to 
 remove the officer, he incurs the penalty as clearly and as certainly as if 
 there never had been any legislation to the contrary. That subsequent 
 enactment, if it be constitutional, repeals, by its own force, all other prior 
 enactments with which it may conflict; and in nothing is that enactment 
 more significant than in this, that the President shall not remove any civil 
 officer, who has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate, without the concurrence of that body, when it is itself in session. 
 
 Mr. Bingham, (Rep.) of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, all right-minded men must 
 concede that the question under consideration is one of supreme moment 
 to all the people of the Republic. I protest for myself, sir, that I am utter- 
 ly incapable of approaching the discussion of this question in the spirit of 
 a partisan. I repel, sir, the intimation of the gentleman from New York, 
 [Mr. Brooks,] that I am careless of the obligation of my oath or uncon- 
 cerned about the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws. I look 
 
72 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 upon the Constitution of the country as the very breath of the nation's 
 life. I invoke this day upon the consideration of this great question the 
 matchless name of Washington, us did the gentleman, and ask him, in the 
 consideration of the matter now before us, to ponder upon those deathless 
 words of the Father of our Country, wherein he declares that "the Consti- 
 tution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic 
 act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all"— upon all sir, from 
 the President to the humblest citizen — standing within the jurisdiction of 
 the Republic. Washington but echoed the words that himself and his 
 associates had imbedded in the text of the Constitution, that "this Con- 
 stitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme 
 law of the land.'" It shall be supreme over every officer; it shall be su- 
 preme over every State; it shall be supreme over every territory; it shall 
 be supreme upon every deck covered by your flag in every zone all round 
 the globe. Every man within its jurisdiction, official and unofficial, must 
 bow to the supremacy of the Constitution. 
 
 The gentleman says that the issue involved is an issue about an office. 
 I beg the gentleman's pardon. The issue involved is whether the suprem- 
 acy of the Constitution shall be maintained by the people's Representa- 
 tives. The President of the United States has assumed, sir, to set himself 
 above the Constitution and the laws. He has assumed to defy the law, he 
 has assumed to challenge the people's Representatives to sit in judgment 
 upon his malfeasance in office. Every man who has considered it worth 
 while to observe my conduct touching this question that has so long agi- 
 tated this House and agitated this country may have discovered that I have 
 kept myself back and have endeavored to keep others back from making 
 any unnecessary issue between the President and Representatives of the 
 people touching the manner in which he discharged the duties of his great 
 office. I had no desire, sir. to have resort unnecessarily to this highest 
 power reposed by the people in their Representatives and their Senators 
 for the vindication of their own violated Constitution and violated laws. 
 Notwithstanding there was much in the conduct of the President to en- 
 danger the peace and repose of the country, yet, so long as there was any 
 doubt upon the question of his liability to impeachment within the text 
 and spirit of the Constitution, I was unwilling to utter one syllable to 
 favor such a proposition or to record a vote to advance it. * * * 
 
 Mr. Beck, (Dem. of Ky.) The single question upon which the decision 
 of this House is now to be made is that the President has attempted to 
 test the constitutionality of a law which he believes to be unconstitutional. 
 All the testimony heretofore presented upon which to base an impeach- 
 ment of the President was decided by even a majority of the Republican 
 members of this House to be insufficient to justify impeachment. All 
 questions growing out of the combinations and conspiracies lately charged 
 upon the President were ruled by the Reconstruction Committee to be in- 
 sufficient, and were not brought before this House. And the sole ques- 
 tion now before us is, is there anything in this last act of the President re- 
 moving Mr. Stanton and appointing Adjutant G'eneral Thomas Secretary 
 of War <td interim to justify his impeachment by this House? 
 
 I maintain that the President of the United States is in duty bound to 
 test the legality of every law which he thinks interferes with his rights 
 and powers as the Chief Magistrate of this nation. Whenever he has 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 73 
 
 powers conferred upon him by the Constitution of the United States, and 
 an act of Congress undertakes to deprive him of those powers, or any of 
 them, he would be false to his trust as the Chief Executive of this nation, 
 false to the interests of the people whom he represents, if he did not by 
 every means in his power seek to test the constitutionality of that law, 
 and to take whatever steps were necessary and proper to have it tested by 
 the highest tribunal in the land, and to ascertain whether he has a right 
 under the Constitution to do what he claims the right to do, or whether 
 Congress has the right to deprive him of the powers which he claims have 
 been vested in him by the Constitution of the United States, and that is 
 all that he proposes to do in this case. * * * 
 
 Mr. Logan. (Rep. of Ills.) Now. Mr. Speaker, let us examine this ques- 
 tion for a moment. It seems to me very plain and easy of solution. It is 
 not necessary, in order to decide whether this action of the President of 
 the United States comes within the purview and meaning of this statute, 
 for us to talk about revolutions or what this man or that man has said or 
 decided. What has been the act of the President is the question. The 
 law is plain. If the President shall appoint or shall give a letter of author- 
 ity or issue a commission to any person, without the consent of the Senate, 
 he is guilty of — what? The law says of a high misdemeanor. And, under 
 and by virtue of the Constitution, the President can be impeached — for 
 what? For high crimes or misdemeanors. This law declares the issuing 
 a commission to, or giving a letter of authority to. or appointing to or re- 
 moving from office, any person, without the advice and consent of the 
 Senate of the United States, shall be a high misdemeanor, which is within 
 the meaning and within the pale of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Xow, what is the evidence presented to this body by one of its commit- 
 tees? It is of this character: The Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, 
 has been declared by a solemn vote of the Senate to be the Secretary of 
 War, by virtue of — what? By virtue of an appointment to that office; by 
 reason of the fact that Andrew Johnson did not relieve him from office 
 when he had the right to present the name of somebody else — soon after 
 his taking the presidential chair — not the right to turn him out, but the 
 right to nominate some one else to the senate and ask them to confirm him 
 to that office. That the President failed to do. Then, acting under the 
 provisions of this statute, the President suspended Mr. Stanton as Secre- 
 tary of War, but the Senate passed upon that act, and decided that the 
 reasons given by the President for suspending Mr. Stanton were not satis- 
 factory; and accordingly, by virtue of this law, Mr. Stanton was contirmed 
 and reinstated in his position as Secretary of War. 
 
 Now, all this having been done, it cannot certainly be claimed that the 
 President, in his recent course in regard to Mr. Stanton, has acted with- 
 out any intention of violating the law. Nor can it be claimed that the 
 President is ignorant of the law. * * * 
 
 Mr. Holman (Dem., Ind.) We have listened to much excited eloquence 
 upon this question. It is too manifest that Congress, moving on with that 
 impetus which is ever the result of excessive iiolitical power, seeks to 
 usurp those powers which are by the Constitution vested in the other 
 Departments of the Government. I do not propose to discuss this subject 
 or answer the speech of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Logan] with any 
 words of my own. 1 have before me a paper which is full of mature wis- 
 ■J 
 
74 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 dom and patriotic counsel, a speech that comes from the solemn past, yet 
 speaks to every heart that beats tor the Union ot these States, and the 
 prosperity of the American people; a voice that is answered back from 
 every battlefield of the Revolution, and from the grave of every soldier 
 who has fallen in defense ot American liberty. I ask that this speech 
 may be read to the House, as appropriate to this day, the 22nd of February, 
 a day once so venerated. I ask that this immortal address to the Amer- 
 ican people, a speech that needs no revision: a speech in which there can 
 be no interruptions, may, in this moment of passion, be read to the Amer- 
 ican Congress, for I can well afford to be silent while that great voice 
 speaks to the Representatives ot the people of this Republic. 
 
 The Clerk commenced the reading of Washington s Fare- 
 well Address. 
 
 Mr. Peters: I rise to a question of order. I insist that that address is 
 not germane to the question before the House. 
 Mr. Holman: I insist that it is exceedingly germane. 
 Mr. Lawrence, ot Ohio: Allow me to suggest that it is germane, tor the 
 reason that it relates to retirement from office. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. Peters: That is too remote. 
 
 The Speaker pro tempore. (Mr. Blaine, in the chair.) The Chair sustains 
 the point of order. 
 
 Mr. Ilolman: I hope no gentleman will object to the completion of the 
 reading; it will only occupy the time I am entitled to. 
 
 Mr. Peters: It is doubtless very instructive, and so would a chapter of 
 the Bible be, but it has nothing to do with the question V)efore the House, 
 and I insist upon the point of order. 
 
 The Speaker pro tf)njiorr'. Vp to this point the discussion has been 
 pertinent and germane to the question -very closely so — and the Chair is 
 compelled to rule, the question of order being raised, that this is not ger- 
 mane or in order. The gentleman from Indiana will proceed in order. 
 
 Mr. Holman: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution ot the United 
 States would scarcely be in order. I will not ask to have it read. 
 
 The debate continued in the vein illustrated in the foregoing 
 extracts, from the morning of February 22, notwithstanding it 
 was a National Holiday, such was the haste of the impeachers, 
 to the evening of the 24th, almost without interruption. It 
 was at times illustrated by marked ability, and on the Repub- 
 lican side by intense bitterness and partisan malignity, A large 
 number of the members of the House participated in the debate. 
 Mr. Thaddeus Stevens then closed the debate in the follow- 
 ing arraignment of the President: 
 
 Now, in defiance of this law, (the Office-Tenure Act) Andrew Johnson, 
 on the 21st day of February, 1S08, issued his commission or letter of 
 authority to one Lorenzt) Thomas, appointing him Secretary of War ad 
 iitterini. and commanded him to take possession of the Department of 
 War and to eject the incumbent. E M. Stanton, then in lawful possession 
 of said office. Here, if this act stood alone, would be an undeniable official 
 ' misdemeanor not unly a uiisdenieanor jier sf. but declared to be »i by the 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 75 
 
 act itself, and the party made indictable and punishable in a criminal 
 proceeding. If Andrew Johnson escapes with bare removal from office, if 
 he be not fined and incarceraled in tlic penitentiary afterward under 
 criminal proceedings, he may thank the weakness or the clemency of 
 Congress and not his own innocence. 
 
 We shall propose to prove on the trial that Andrew Johnson was guilty 
 of misprision of bribery by offering to General Grant, if he would unite 
 with him in his lawless violence, to assume in his stead the penalties and 
 to endure the imprisonment denounced by the law. Bribery is one of the 
 offenses specifically enumerated tor whichthePresident may be impeached 
 and removed from office. By the Constitution, article two, section two, the 
 President has power to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent 
 of the Senate, to appoint all officers of the United States whose appoint- 
 ments are not therein otherwise provided for and which shall be estab-, 
 lished by law, and to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the re- 
 cess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end 
 of their next session. Nowhere, either in the Constitution or by statute, 
 has the President power to create a vacancy during the session of the Sen- 
 ate and fill it without the advice ana consent of the Senate, and yet, on the 
 2l8t day of February, 1868, while the Senate was in session, he notified the 
 head of the War Department that he was removed from office and his suc- 
 cessor ad interim appointed. Here is a plain, recorded violation of the 
 Constitution and laws, which, if it stood alone, would make every honest 
 and intelligent man give his vote for impeachment. The President had 
 persevered in his lawless course through a long series of unjustifiable acts. 
 When the so call ed Confederate States of A merica were conquered and had 
 laid down their arms and surrendered their territory to the victorious 
 Union the government and final disposition of the conquered country be- 
 longed to Congress alone, according to every principle of the law of na- 
 tions. 
 
 Neither the Executive nor the judiciary had any right to interfere with 
 it except so far as was necessary to control it by military rule until the 
 sovereign power of the nation had provided tor its civil administration. 
 No power but Congress had any right to say wliether ever or when they 
 should be admitted to the Union as States and entitled to the privileges of 
 the Constitution of the United States. And yet Andrew Johnson, with 
 unblushing hardihood, undertook to rule them by his own power alone; to 
 lead them into full communion with the Union; direct them what govern- 
 ments to erect and what constitutions to adopt, and to send Representa- 
 tives and Senators to Congress according to his instructions. When 
 admonished by express act of Congress, more than once repeated, he disre- 
 garded the warning and continued his lawless usurpation. He is since 
 known to have obstructed the re-establishment of those governments by 
 the authority of Congress, and has advised the inhabitants to resist the 
 legislation of Congress. In my judgment his conduct with regard to that 
 transaction was a high-handed usurpation of power which ought long ago 
 to have brought him to impeachment and trial and to have removed him 
 from his position of great mischief. * * * 
 
 I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall remem- 
 ber that although it is the duty of the President to see that the laws be 
 executed, the sovereign power of the nation rests in Congress, who have 
 been placed around the executive as muniments to defend his rights, and 
 as watchmen to enforce his obedience to the law and the Constitution. His 
 oath to obey the Constitution and our duty to compel him to do it are atre- 
 mendous obligation, heavier than was ever assumed by mortal rulers. We 
 are to protect or to destroy the liberty and happiness of a mighty people. 
 
76 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 and to take care that they progress in civilization and defend themselves 
 against every kind of tyranny. As we deal with the first great political 
 malefactor so will be the result of our eflforts to perpetuate the happiness 
 and good government of the human race. The God of our fathers, who 
 inspired them with the thought of universal freedom, will hold us responsi- 
 ble tor the noble institutions which they projected and expected us to 
 carry out. 
 
 The Clerk theu read the Resolutiou aud the House pro- 
 ceeded to vote, as follows: 
 
 Resolution providing tor the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Presi- 
 dent of the United States: 
 
 Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be 
 impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James 
 M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benton, Bing- 
 ham, Blaine, Blair, Houtwell, Bromwell, Broomall. Buckland, Butler, Cake. 
 Churchill, Reader W. Clarke. Sidney Clarke. Cobb, Coburn. Cook, Cornell. 
 Covode, CuUom, Dawes, Dodge, Driggs, Ecklcy, Eggleston, Eliot, Farns- 
 worth. Ferries. Ferry. Fields, Gravelv. Griswold, Halsy. Harding, Higby, 
 Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Hul- 
 burd. Hunter, IngersoU, Jenckes, .ludd. Julian. Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, 
 Kitchen, Lafiin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lincoln. Loan, 
 Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McCarthy, McClurg. Mercur, 
 Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Mulline. Myers. Newcomb, Nunn, 
 O'Neill, Orth, Paine. Perham, Peters, Pike. Pile, Plants. Poland, Polsley, 
 Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scoheld, Selye, Shanks, Smith, 
 Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, 
 Taffe, Taylor. Trowbridge, Twitchell, L'pson, Van Aernani. Burt Van Horn. 
 Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Ellihu B. Wasburne, William 
 B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wil- 
 son, Stephen F. Wilson. Windom, Woodbridge and tiie Speaker — 126. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Adams, Archer. "Vxtell, Barnes, Barnum, Beck, Boyer, 
 Brooks, Burr. Cary. Chanler. Eldridge. Fox, Getz. Glossbrenner. Galladay, 
 Grover, Haight, Holman, Hotchkiss, Richard D. Hubbard. Humphrey, 
 Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott. .Marshall, McCormick, McC'ullough, Morgan, 
 Morrissey, Mungen. Niblack. Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Ross, 
 Sitgreaves, Stewart, Stone, Taber. Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Van 
 Trump, Wood and Woodward — 47. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stevens the following- resolutions were 
 
 adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to the Senate 
 and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives and 
 of all the people of the United States, to impeach .\ndrew Johnson, Presi- 
 dent of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and 
 acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, 
 exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good the 
 same; and that the committee do demand that the Senate take order tor 
 the appearance of said Andrew Johnson to answer to said impeachment. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and report 
 articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United 
 States, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to take 
 testimony under oath. 
 
 The Speaker announced the following committee under these resolutions: 
 Committee to communicate to the Senate the action of the. House order- 
 ing an impeachment of the President of the United SJaies.— Thaddeus 
 Stevens, ot Pennsylvania, and John A. Bingham, of Uhio. 
 
 Committee to declare articles of impeachment against the President of 
 the United States.— George S. Boutwell ot Massachusetts; Thaddeus 
 Stevens, ot Pennsylvania; John A. Bingham, ot Ohio; James F. Wilson, of 
 Iowa; John A. Logan, ot Illinois; George W. Julian, of Indiana, and Ham- 
 ilton Ward, of New York. _ 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT REPORTED TO THE SENATE. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWER. 
 
 On February 25th, 1868, Messrs. Stevens and Bingham, a 
 committee of the House, appeared at the bar of the Senate, and 
 Mr. Stevens said: 
 
 Mr. President, in obedience to the order of the House of Representa- 
 tives, we appear before you, and in the name of the House of Representa- 
 tives and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew 
 Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors 
 in office; and we further inform the Senate that the House of Representa- 
 tives will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against 
 him and make good the same; and in their name we demand that the 
 Senate take order for the appearance of said Andrew Johnson to answer 
 said impeachment. 
 
 The committee retired, and after debate the following resolu- 
 tion was adopted by the Senate: 
 
 Resolved. That the Message of the House of Representatives relating to 
 the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be 
 referred to a select committee of seven, to consider and report thereon. 
 
 On the 26th, Mr. Howard, from the select committee ap- 
 pointed to consider and report upon the Message of the House 
 of Representatives in relation to the impeachment of Andrew 
 Johnson, President of the United States, reported the follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 Whereas, the House of Representatives, on the 25th day of the present 
 month, by two of their members, Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens and John A. 
 Bingham, at the bar of the Senate, impeached Andrew Johnson, President 
 of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and in- 
 formed the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time ex- 
 hibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good the 
 same; and likewise demanded that the Senate take order for the appear- 
 ance of said Andrew Johnson, to answer to the said impeachment: There- 
 fore, 
 
 Resolved, That the Senate will take proper order thereon, of which due 
 notice shall be given to the House of Riepresentatives. 
 
 On the 28th, Mr. Howard, of the Select Committee appoint- 
 ed to prepare rules for the government of trials of impeach- 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 mtjut, reported a series of rules, which were adopted by the 
 Senate on March 2rid, after a three days debate. 
 
 On the same day, the following gentlemen were elected by 
 the House of Representatives as Managers to conduct the 
 prosecution of the impeachment of the President before the 
 Senate: 
 
 Hous. Jno. A. Bingham, of Ohio; George S. Boutwel), of 
 Massachusetts ; James F. Wilson, of Iowa ; Beuj. F. Butler, of 
 Massachusetts; John A. Logan, of Illinois; Thomas Wilson, of 
 Pennsylvania, and Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 On March 3rd it was ordered by the Senate: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Senate inform the House of Representatives 
 that the S^enate is ready to receive the managers appointed by the House 
 of Representatives to carry to the Senate articles of impeachment against 
 Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. 
 
 In the Senate, on the 4th, the following formal proceed- 
 ings were had : 
 
 The managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives appeared at the bar, and their presence was announced by the 
 SergeantatArms. 
 
 The PreBidentp?'o tempore: The managers of the impeachment will ad- 
 vance within the bar and take the seats provided for them. 
 
 The managers came within the bar and took the seats assigned to them 
 ID the area in front of the Vice President's Chair. 
 
 The Speaker of the House of Representatives advanced and took a seat 
 on the right of the President pro tempore of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Manager Bingham : 
 
 Mr. President, the managers on the part of the House of Representa- 
 tives, by order of the House, are ready at the bar of the Senate, whenever 
 it may please the Senate to hear them, to present articles of impeachment 
 and in maintenance of the impeachment preferred against Andrew John- 
 son, President of the United States, by the House of Representatives. 
 
 The President 2J7'0 tempore: 
 The Sergeant-at-arms will make proclamation. 
 
 The Sergeant-at-arms: 
 
 Hear ye! Hear yel .\11 persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain 
 of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is e-iihibiting to the 
 Senate of the United States, articles of impeachment against Andrew 
 Johnson, President of the United States. 
 
 The managers then rose and remained standing, with the 
 exception of Mr. Stevens, who was too feeble to do so, while 
 Mr. Manager Bingham read the articles of impeachment, as 
 follows : _ 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 79 
 
 Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States. 
 in the name of themselves and all the people of the United States. 
 against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in mainten- 
 ance and support of their impeachment against him for high crimen 
 and misdemeanors in office. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st 
 day of February, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty 
 eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high 
 duties of his ofHce, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Con- 
 stitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, 
 did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton 
 from the office of Secretary for the Department of War. said Edwin M. 
 Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such 
 secretary, and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on 
 the twelfth day of August in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and 
 sixty-seven, and during the recess of said Senate, having suspended by 
 his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after 
 the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, that is to say, on the 
 twelfth day of December in the year last aforesaid having reported to said 
 Senate such suspension with the evidence and reasons for his action in 
 the case and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of 
 such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Sen 
 ate thereatterwards. on the thirteenth day of January, in the year of our 
 Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, having duly considered the evi 
 dence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, 
 and having refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of 
 the provisions of an act entitled "An Act regulating the tenure of cer- 
 tain civil offices." passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty seven, 
 said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, 
 whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said 
 Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, 
 being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary tor the Department 
 of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M, Stanton is in 
 substance as follows, that is to say: 
 
 Executive Mansion. / 
 
 Washington, D. C , Feb. 21. 1868. ( 
 
 Sir;— By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President 
 by the Constitution and laws of the United States you are hereby removed 
 from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as 
 such will terminate upon the receipt of this communication. 
 
 You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant 
 General of the army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to 
 act as secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other 
 public property now in your custody and charge. 
 
 Respectfully yours, .Vndrew Johnson. 
 
 To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Which order was unlawfully issued with intent then and there to vio- 
 late the act entitled "An Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," 
 passed March 2d, 1867, and with the further intent contrary to the provis- 
 ions of said act, in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the 
 Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of 
 the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in 
 session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for 
 the Department of War. the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there 
 Secretary for the Department of War, and being then and there in the 
 due and lawful execution and discharge of the duties of said office. 
 whereby said Andrew Johnson. President of the United States, did then 
 and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
80 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 That on the said twenty-first of February, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of 
 ('olumbia, saiu Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmind- 
 ful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of 
 the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of 
 an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed 
 March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, without the advice and 
 consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there 
 being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate 
 the Constitution of the United States, and the act aforesaid, issue and de- 
 liver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in substance as follows, 
 that is to say: 
 
 Executive Maksion, I 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 21, 1868. ) 
 
 Sik:— The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from 
 office as Secretary tor the Department of War, you are hereby authorized 
 and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will imme- 
 diately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. 
 
 Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, 
 books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge. 
 
 Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General U. S. 
 
 .\rmy, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the De- 
 partment of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson. President of the United 
 States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor 
 in office. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 That said .\ndrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the twen- 
 ty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did com- 
 mit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office in this, that, without 
 authority of law. while the Senate of the United States was then and there 
 in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the 
 Department of War ad interim, without the advice and consent of the 
 Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, 
 and no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Depart- 
 ment of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in 
 said office at the time, and which said appointment, so made by said An- 
 drew Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas, is in substance as follows, that is 
 to say: 
 
 Executive Mansion, / 
 
 Washington, D. C, Feb. 21, 1868. \ 
 
 Sir: — The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from 
 office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized 
 and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will imme- 
 diately enterupoD the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. 
 
 Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, 
 books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge. 
 Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General, U. S. Army, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 ARTICLE iV. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, in violation of the 
 Constitution and laws of the United States, on the twenty first day of Feb- 
 ruary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty -eight, 
 at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with 
 one Lortuzo Thumas, and with other persons to the House of Kejjreseuta- 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 81 
 
 tives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, unlawfully to hin- 
 der and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there the Secretary for the 
 Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, 
 from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary 
 to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the 
 provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspira- 
 cies," approved July thirty-first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, whereby 
 said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there 
 commit and was guilty of a high crime in office. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the twentv-first 
 day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-eight, and on divers other days and times in said year, before the sec- 
 ond day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully 
 conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House 
 of Representatives unknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of an 
 act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed 
 March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and in pursuance of said 
 conspiracy, did unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and 
 there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and com- 
 missioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, 
 whereby the said Andrew Johnson. President of the United States, did 
 then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the twenty-first 
 day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia did unlawfully 
 conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas by force to seize, take and possess the 
 property of the United States in the Department of War. and then and 
 there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said 
 Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define 
 and punish certain conspiracies," approved July thirty-one, eighteen hun- 
 dred and sixty-one, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled 
 "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March sec- 
 ond, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, whereby said Andrew Johnson, 
 President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in 
 office. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the twenty-first 
 day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully 
 conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, 
 and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, 
 in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton Secretary for ,said Depart- 
 ment, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled "An act regu- 
 lating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March second, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-seven, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the 
 United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of 
 the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, with intent unlaw- 
 fully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the 
 military service and for the Department of War, on the twenty-first day 
 of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully 
 
 10 
 
82 THE niPEACHMEXT AND TRIAI. 
 
 and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the 
 tenure of certain civil offices,'" passed March second, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-seven, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, 
 and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, 
 and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being no 
 vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with 
 intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and 
 deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in writing, in sub- 
 stance as follows, that is to say: 
 
 Executive Mansion. ' 
 
 Washikoton, D. C, Feb. 21. 1868. 'i 
 
 Sir:— The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from 
 office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized 
 and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad intej-iiiu and will imme- 
 diately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. 
 
 Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, 
 books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge. 
 
 Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General, United 
 
 States Army, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then 
 and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 ARTICLE L\'. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 
 twenty-second day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred ami si.xty-eight. at Washington, in the District of Columbia, 
 in disregard of the Constitution, and the laws of the I'nited States duly 
 enacted, as commander-in-chief of the army of the United States, did 
 bring before himself then and there William H. Emory, a major general by 
 brevet in the army of the United States, actually in command of the 
 department of Washington and the military forces thereof, and did then 
 and there, as such commander-in-chief, declare to and instruct said Kmory 
 that part of a law of the United States, passed March second, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty seven, entitled "An act making appropriations for the 
 support of the army for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-eight and tor other purposes," especially the second section 
 thereof, which provides, among other things, that "all orders and instruc- 
 tions relating to military operations, issued by the President or Secretary 
 of War, shall be issued through the General of the army, and, in case of 
 his inability, through the next in rank," was unconstitutional, and in con- 
 travention of the commission of said Emory, and which said provision of 
 law had been theretofore duly and legally promulgated by General Orders 
 for the government and direction of the army of the United States, as the 
 said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to 
 induce said Emory, in his official capacity as commander of the depart- 
 ment of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and 
 receive, act upon, and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, 
 might make and give, and which should not be issued through the Gen- 
 eral of the army of the I'nited States, according to the provisions of said 
 act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew 
 Johnson, to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act regulating 
 the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March second, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-seven, and to unlawfully prevent Kdwin M. .-^tanton, 
 then being Secretary for the Department of War, from holding said office 
 and discharging the duties thereof, whereby said Andrew Johnson, Pres 
 ident of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a 
 high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 .■\nd the House of liepresentatives by protestation saving to themselves 
 the liberty of pxhibitin<,' at any time hereafter any further articles, or other 
 accusation or iiiipoachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President 
 cif the United states, and also of replying to his answers which he shall 
 uiuke unto the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 83 
 
 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 AndrewJohnson may be put to an- 
 swer 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 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his office, and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and 
 of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained be- 
 tween the executive and legislative branches of the government of the 
 United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority 
 and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, 
 hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the 
 several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of 
 all the good people of the United States tor the Congress and legislative 
 powers thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to 
 preserve and maintain.) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the 
 good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly 
 and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and in- 
 tent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of 
 the United States, convened in divers parts thereof to meet and receive 
 said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did. 
 on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well 
 before as afterward, make and deliver, with a loud voice, certain intem- 
 perate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter 
 loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of 
 the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers, and laughter 
 of the multitudes then assembled and in hearing. 
 
 ARTICLE XI. 
 
 That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful 
 of the high duties of his 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 eighteenth day of August, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty-six, 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 con 
 trary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying, and in- 
 tending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obliga- 
 tory 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 twenty first day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 eiffht at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, did, unlaw- 
 fully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution that he 
 should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent 
 the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain 
 civil oflBces," passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, by 
 unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive 
 means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith re- 
 suming 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 Secretarv tor 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 end- 
 
84 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 ing June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, and tor other pur 
 poses," approved March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; 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 second, eigh- 
 teen hundred and sixty-seven, whereby the said .Andrew Johnson, Presi- 
 dent of the United States, did, then, to wit, on the twenty-first day of Feb- 
 ruary, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, at the city of Washington, 
 commit, and was guilty of, a high misdemeanor in oiBce. 
 
 Schuyler Colfax, 
 Attest: Spealier of the House of Representatives. 
 
 Edward McPherson, 
 
 Clerk of the House of Representatives. 
 
 At the conclusion of the reading of the Articles of Impeach- 
 ment, the President of the Senate responded that "the Senate 
 will take order upon the subject of impeachment, of which 
 proper notice will be given to the House of Representatives." 
 
 In addition to the Speaker and Managers, a large number of 
 the members of the House of Representatives were present to 
 witness the extraordinary and impressive proceedings, and at 
 its close all withdrew and the Senate resumed the routine busi- 
 ness of the day's session. 
 
 On Monday, March 23rd, 1868, the President, by his attor- 
 neys, appeared at the bar of the Senate and made answer to 
 the several Articles of Impeachment, as follows: 
 
 (Answer to only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Articles, are here given, as 
 the 2nd, 3rd and 11th were the only Articles put to vote — all others being 
 abandoned, and as the 1st Article, though never put to vote, contained 
 practically all there was of the impeachment.) 
 
 ANSWER TO ARTICLE I. 
 
 For answer to the first article he said: That Edwin M. Stanton was 
 appointed Secretary for the Department of War on the 15th day of January, 
 A. D. 18G2, by Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, 
 during the first term of his presidency, and was commissioned, according 
 to the Constitution and laws of the United States, to hold the said office 
 during the pleasure of the President; that the office of Secretary for the 
 Department of War was created by an act of the first Congress in its first 
 session, passed on the 7th day of August, A. D. 1789, and in and by that 
 act it was provided and enacted that the said Secretary for the Depart- 
 ment of War shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to 
 time be enjoined on and intrusted to him by the President of the United 
 States, agreeably to the Constitution, relative to the subjects within the 
 scope of said department; and furthermore, that the Secretary shall con- 
 duct the business of the said department in such a manner as the Pres- 
 ident of the United States shall, from time to time, order and instruct. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says that by force of the act 
 aforesaid and by reason of his appointment aforesaid the said Stanton be- 
 came the principal officer in one of the executive departments of the gov- 
 ernment within the true intent and mewning of the second section of the 
 second article of the Constitution of the United States, and according to 
 the true intent and meaning of that provision of the Constitution of the 
 United States; and, in accordance with the settled and uniform practice 
 of each and every President of the United States, the said Stanton then 
 became, and so long as he should continue to hold the said office of Secre- 
 tary for the Department of War must continue to be, one of the advisers 
 of the President of the United States, as well as the person intrusted to 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 85 
 
 act for and represent the President in matters enjoined upon him or in- 
 trusted to him by the President touching the department aforesaid, and 
 for whose conduct in such capacity, subordinate to the President, the 
 President is, by the Constitution and laws of the United btates. made re- 
 sponsible. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says he succeeded to the office 
 of President of the United States upon, and by reason of, the death of 
 Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, on the 15th day 
 of April, 1865. and the said Stanton was then holding the said office of 
 Secretary for the Department of War under and by reason of the appoint- 
 ment and commission aforesaid; and; not having been removed from the 
 said otHce by this respondent, the said Stanton continued to hold the same 
 under the appointment and commission aforesaid, at the pleasure of the 
 President, until the time hereinafter particularly mentioned; and at no 
 time received any appointment or commission save as above detailed. 
 
 -And this repondent, further answering, says that on and prior to the 5th 
 day of August, A. D. 1867, this respondent, the President of the United 
 States, responsible for the conduct of the Secretary for the Department of 
 War, and having the constitutional right to resort to and rely upon the 
 person holding that office tor advice concerning the great and difficult 
 public duties enjoined on the President by the Constitution and laws of 
 the United States, became satisfied that he could not allow the said Stan- 
 ton to continne to hold the office of Secretary for the Department of War 
 without hazard of the public interest; that the relations between the said 
 Stanton and the President no longer permitted the Preaident to resort to 
 him for advice, or to be, in the judgment of the President, safely respon- 
 sible for his conduct of the affairs of the Department of War, as by law 
 required, in accordance with the orders and instructions of the President; 
 and thereupon, by force of the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
 which devolve on the President the poyrer and the duty to control the 
 conduct of the business of that executive department of the government, 
 and by reason of the constitutional duty of the President to take care 
 that the laws be faithfully executed, this respondent did necessarily con- 
 sider and did determine that the said Stanton ought no longer to hold the 
 said office of Secretary for the Department of War. And this respondeat, 
 by virtue of the power and authority vested in him as President of the 
 United States by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to give- 
 effect to such his decision and determination, did, on the 5th day of Au- 
 gust, A. D. 1867, address to the said Stanton a note, of which the following 
 is a true copy: 
 
 Sir:— Public considerations of a high character constrain me to say that 
 your resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted. 
 
 To which note the said Stanton made the following reply: 
 
 War Depabtment, / 
 
 Washington, August 5, 1867. J 
 
 Sir:— Your note of this day has been received, stating that "public con 
 . siderations of a high character constrain you" to say "that my resignation 
 as Secretary of War will be accepted." 
 
 In reply I have the honor to say that public considerations of a high 
 character, which alone have induced me to continue at the head of this 
 department, constrain me not to resign the office of Secretary of War before 
 the next meeting of Congress. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, i,DwiN M. Stanton. 
 
 This respondent, as President of the United States, was thereon of opin- 
 ion that, having regard to the necessary official relations and duties of the 
 Secretary for the Department of War to the President of the United States 
 according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and having 
 regard to the responsibility of the President for the conduct of the said 
 Secretary, and having regard to the permanent executive authority of the 
 office which the respondent holds under the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States, it was impossible, consistently with the public interests, to 
 allow the said Stanton to continue to hold the said office of Secretary for 
 
86 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 the Department of War; and it then became the official duty of the re- 
 spondent, as President of the United States, to consider and decide what 
 act or acts should and might lawfully be done by him, as President of the 
 United States, to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office. 
 
 This respondent was informed and verily believed that it was practically 
 settled by the ttrst Congress of the United States, and had been so con- 
 sidered and uniformly and in great numbers of instances acted on by each 
 Congress and President of the United States, in succession, from President 
 Washington to, and including President Lincoln, and from the first Con- 
 gress to the thirty-ninth Congress, that the Constitution of the United 
 States conferred on the President, as part of the executive power and as 
 one of the necessary means and instruments of performing the executive 
 duty expressly imposed on him by the Constitution of taking care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed, the power at any and all times of removing 
 from office all executive officers for cause to be judged of by the President 
 alone. This respondent had, in pursuance of the Constitution, required 
 the opinion of each principal officer of the executive departments upon 
 this question of constitutional executive power and duty, and had been 
 advised by each of them, including the said Stanton, Secretary for the De- 
 partment of War, that under the Constitution of the United States this 
 power was lodged by the Constitution in the President of the United 
 States, and that consequently, it could be lawfully exercised by him, and 
 the Congress could not deprive him thereof; and this respondent, in his 
 capacity of President of the United States, and because in that capacity 
 he was both enaVjled and bound to use his best judgment upon this ques- 
 tion, did. in good faith and with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth, 
 come to the conclusion and opinion, and did make the same known to the 
 honorable the Senate of the United States by a message dated on the 2nd 
 day of March. 1867, that the power last mentioned was conferred and the 
 duty of exercising it, in fit cases, was imposed on the President by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, and that the President could not be de- 
 prived of this power or relieved of this duty, nor could the same be vested 
 by law in the President and the Senate jointly, either in part or whole. 
 * * * 
 
 This respondent was also then aware that by the first section of "An act 
 regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed JIarch 2, 1867, by a 
 constitutional majority of both houses of Congress, it was enacted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 ■'That every person holding any civil office to which he has been ap- 
 pointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every per- 
 son who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become 
 duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office 
 until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qual- 
 ified, except as herein otherwise provided: Provided, That the Secretaries 
 of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the 
 Postmaster General, and the Attorney General shall hold their offices 
 respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may 
 have been appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and 
 with the advice aud consent of the Senate.'" 
 
 This respondent was also aware that this act was understood and in- 
 tended to be an expression of the opinion of the Congress by which that 
 act was passed, that the power to remove executive officers for cause 
 might, by law, be taken from the President and vested in him and the 
 Senate jointly; and although this respondent had arrived at and still re- 
 tained the opinion above expressed, and verily believed, as he still believes, 
 that the said first section of the last mentioned act was and is wholly in- 
 operative and void by reason of its conflict with the Constitution of the 
 United States, yet, inasmuch as the same had been enacted by the consti- 
 tutional majority in each of the two houses of that Congress, this re- 
 spondent considered it to be proper to examine and decide whether the 
 particular case of the said Stanton, on which it was this respondent's duty 
 to act, was within or without the terms of that first section of the act; or, 
 if within it, whether the President had not the power, according to the 
 terms of the act, to remove the said Stanton from the office ol» Secretary 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 for the Department ot War, and having, in his capacity of President of 
 the United States, so examined and considered, did form the opinion that 
 the case of the said Stanton and his tenure of office were not affected by 
 the tiret section of the last-named act. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says, that although a case thus 
 existed which, in his judgment as President of the United States, called 
 for the exercise of the executive power to remove the said Stanton from 
 the office of Secretary for the Department of War. and although this re- 
 spondent was of the opinion, as is above shown, that under the Consti- 
 tution of the United States the power to remove the said Stanton from 
 the said office was vested in the President of the United States; and also 
 this respondent was also of the opinion, as is above shown, that the case 
 of the said Stanton was not affected by the first section of the last named 
 act, and although each of the said opinions had been formed by this respon- 
 dent upon an actual case, requiring him, in his capacity ot President of the 
 United States, to come to some judgment and determination thereon, yet 
 this respondent, as President of the United States, desired and determined 
 to avoid, if possible, any question of the construction and effect of the said 
 first section of the last named act, and also the broader question of the 
 executive power conferred on the President of the United States, by the 
 Constitution of the United States, to remove one of the principal officers 
 of one ot the executive departments for cause seeming to him sufficient; 
 and this respondent also desired and determined that if, from causes over 
 which he could exert no control, it should become absolutely necessary to 
 raise and have, in some way, determined either or both of the said last 
 named questions, it was in accordance with the Constitution of the United 
 States, and was required of the President thereby, that questions of so 
 much gravity and importance, upon which the legislative and executive 
 departments of thegovernment had disagreed, which involved powers con- 
 sidered by all branches of the government, during its entire history down 
 to the year 1867, to have been confided by the Constitution ot the United 
 States to the President, and to be necessary for tbe complete and proper 
 execution of his constitutional duties, should be in some proper way sub- 
 mitted to that judicial department of the government instrusted by the 
 Constitution with the power, and subjected by it to the duty, not only of 
 determining finally the construction of and effect of all acts of Congress. 
 but of comparing them with the Constitution of the United States and 
 pronouncing them inoperative when found in conflict with that fundamen- 
 tal law which the people have enacted for the government of all their 
 servants. And to these ends, first, that, through the action of the Senate 
 of the United States, the absolute duty of the President to substitute some 
 fit person in place of Mr. Stanton as one of his advisers, and as a principal 
 subordinate officer whose official conduct he was responsible tor and had 
 lawful right to control, might, if possible, be accomplished without the 
 necessity of raising any one of the questions aforesaid; and, second, if this 
 duty could not be so performed then that these questions, or such ot them 
 as might necessarily arise, should be judicially determined in manner 
 aforesaid, and for no other end or purpose, this respondent, as President 
 of the United States, on the 12th day of August. 1867, seven days after the 
 reception of the letter of the said Stanton of the 5th of August, herein- 
 before stated, did issue to the said Stanton the order following namely: 
 
 ExECUTivK Mansion, / 
 
 Washington, August 12, 18G7. \ 
 Sir-— By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President 
 by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby sus- 
 pended from office as Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any ana 
 all functions pertaining to the same. , , i.u- j 
 
 You will at once transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day- 
 been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary ot War nd tiitenm, 
 all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody 
 and charge. 
 To Hon. Kdwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. 
 
 To which said order the said Stanton made the following reply: 
 
8S THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 War Depaktmf-nt, } 
 
 Washington Citv, August 12, 1867. \ 
 Sir: — Your note of this date has been received, informing. me that, bv 
 virtue of the powers vested in you us President by the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, I am suspended from office as Secretary of War, 
 and will cease to exercise any and all functions pertaining to the same, and 
 also directing me at once to transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has 
 this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad 
 interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in my 
 custody and charge. Under a sense of public duty I am compelled to deny 
 your right, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, without 
 the advice and consent of the senate, and without legal cause, to suspend 
 me from office as Secretary of War, or the exercise of any or all functions 
 pertaining to the same, or without such advice and consent to compel me 
 to transfer to any person the records, books, papers, and public property 
 in my custody as Secretary, But inasmuch as the General commanding 
 the Armies of the United has been appointed ad interim, and has notified 
 me that he has accepted the appointment, I have no alternative but to 
 submit, under protest, to superior force. 
 To the President. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says, that it is provided in and 
 by the second section of "An act to regulate the tenure of certain civil 
 offices,'" that the President may suspend an officer from the performance 
 of the duties of the office held by him, for certain causes therein desig- 
 nated, until the next meeting of the Senate, and until the case shall be 
 acted on by the senate; that this respondent, as President of the United 
 States, was advised, and he verily believed and still believes, that the exec- 
 utive power of removal from office confided to him by the Constitution 
 as aforesaid includes the power of suspension from office at the pleasure 
 of the President, and this respondent, by the order aforesaid, did suspend 
 the said Stanton from office, not until the next meeting of the Senate, or 
 until the Senate should have acted upon the case, but by force of the 
 power and authority vested in him by the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States, intlertnitely and at the pleasure of the President, and the 
 order, in form aforesaid, was made known to the Senate of the United 
 States on the 12th day of December, A. D. 1867, as will be more fully here- 
 inafter stated. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says, that in and by the act of 
 February 13, 179.3. it was, among other things, provided and enacted that, 
 in case of vacancy in the office of Secretary tor the Department of War, it 
 shall be lawful for the President, in case he shall think it necessary, to 
 authorize any person to perform the duties of that office until a successor 
 be appointed or such vacancy filled, but not exceeding the term of six 
 months; and this respondent, being advised and believing that such law 
 was in full force and not repealed, by an order dateii August 12, 1867, did 
 authorize and empower Ulysses S. Grant, General of the armies of the 
 United States, to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim. 
 in the form in which similar authority had theretofore been given, not 
 until the next meeting of the Senate and until the Senate should act on 
 the case, but at the pleasure of the President, subject only to the limita- 
 tion of six months in the said last-mentioned act contained; and a copy of 
 the last-named order was made known to the Senate of the United States 
 on the 12th day of December, 1867, as will be hereinafter more fully stated; 
 and in pursuance of the design and intention aforesaid, if it should become 
 necessary to submit the said question to a judicial determination, this re- 
 spondent, at or near the date of the last-mentioned order, did make known 
 such his purpose to obtain a judicial decision of the said question, or such 
 of them as might be necessary. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says, that in further pursuance 
 of his intention and design, it possible, to perform what he judged to be 
 his imijeratlve iluly. to prevent the said Stanton from longer holding the 
 office of hecretarj for the Department of War, and at the same time avoid- 
 ing, if possible, any question resjjecting the extent of the power of removal 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, 89 
 
 from executive ofBce confided to the President by the Constitution of the 
 United States, and any question respecting the construction and effect of 
 the first section of the said "act regulating the tenure of certain civil 
 offices," while he should not, by any act ot his, abandon and relinquish, 
 either a power which he believed the Constitution had conferred on the 
 President ot the United States, to enable him to perform the duties ot his 
 office, or a power designedly left to him by the first section ot the act ot 
 Congress last aforesaid, this respondent did. on the 12th day ot December, 
 1867, transmit to the Senate ot the United States a message a copy where- 
 of is hereunto annexed and marked U, wherein he made known the orders 
 aforesaid and the reasons which had induced the same, so tar as this re- 
 spondent then considered it material and necessary that the same should 
 be set forth, and reiterated his views concerning the constitutional power 
 of removal vested in the President, and also expressed his views concern- 
 ing the construction of the said first section ot the last mentioned act, as 
 respected the power ot the President to remove the said Stanton from the 
 said office ot Secretary tor the Department ot War, well hoping that this 
 respondent could thus perform what he then believed, ?.nd still believes, to 
 be his imperative duty in reference to the said Stanton, without derogat- 
 ing from the powers which this respondent believed were confided to the 
 President, by the Constitution and laws, and without the necessity of rais- 
 ing, judicially, any queetions respecting the same. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering, says, that this hope not having 
 been realized, the President was compelled either to allow the said Stan- 
 ton to resume the said office and remain therein contrary to the settled 
 convictions of the President, formed as aforesaid respecting the powers 
 confided to him and the duties required of him by the Constitution ot the 
 United States, and contrary to the opinion formed as aforesaid, that the 
 first section ot the last mentioned act did not affect the case ot the said 
 Stanton, and contrary to the fixed belief ot the President that he could no 
 longer advise with or trust or be responsible for the said Stanton, for the 
 said office ot Secretary for the Department of War, or else he was com- 
 pelled to take such steps as might, in the judgment of the President, be 
 lawful and necessary to raise, for a judicial decision, the questions affect- 
 ing the lawful right ot the said Stanton to resume the said office, or the 
 power of the said Stanton to persist in refusing to quit the said office if he 
 should persist in actually refusing to quit the same; and to this end, and 
 to this end only, this respondent did, on the 21st day ot February, 1868 
 issue the order tor the removal of the said Stanton, in the said first article 
 mentioned and set forth, and the order authorizing the said Lorenzo F. 
 Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, in the said second article 
 set forth. v. i f i 
 
 And this respondent, proceeding to answer specifically each substantial 
 allegation in the said first article, says: He denies that the said Stanton, 
 on the 21st day of February, 1868, was lawfully in possession ot the said 
 office ot Secretary tor the Department of War, He denies that the said 
 Stanton, on the day last mentioned, was lawfully entitled to hold the said 
 office against the will ot the President ot the United States. He denies 
 that the said order for the removal ot the said Stanton was unlawfully 
 issued. He denies that the said order was issued with intent to violate 
 the act entitled "An act to regulate the tenure ot certain civil offices. He 
 denies that the said order was a violation of the last mentioned act He 
 denies that the said order was a violation ot the Constitution of the United 
 States, or ot any law thereof, or of his oath of office. He denies that the 
 said order was issued with an intent to violate the Constitution ot the 
 United States or any law thereof, or this respondent's oath of office; and 
 he respectfully, but earnestly, insists that not only was it issued by himin 
 the performance ot what he believed to be an imperative official duty, but 
 in the performance of what this honorable court will consider vvas. in point 
 of tact, an imperative official duty. .\nd he denies that any and all sub- 
 stantive matters, in the said first article contained, in manner and form as 
 the same are therein stated and set forth, do, by law. constitute a high 
 misdemeanor in office, within the true intent and meaning of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, 
 
90 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 ANSWER TO ARTICLE II. 
 
 And tor answer to the second article, this respondent says that he ad- 
 mits he did issue and deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas the said writing set 
 forth in said second article, bearing date at Washington, District of Col- 
 umbia, February 21, 1863, addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo 
 Thomas, Adjutant General United States army, Washington, District of Col - 
 umbia. and he further admits that the same was so issued without the ad- 
 vice and consent of the Senate of the United States, then in session; but he 
 denies that he thereby violated the Constitution of the United States, or any 
 law thereof, or that he did thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the 
 United States or the provisions of any act of Congress; and this respondent 
 refers to his answer to said first articles for a full statement of the pur- 
 poses and intentions with which said order was issued, and adopts the 
 same as part of his answer to this article; and he further denies that there 
 was then and there no vacancy in the said office of Secretary for the De- 
 partment of War, or that he did then and there commit or was guilty of a 
 high misdemeanor in office; and this respondent maintains and will insist: 
 
 1. That at the date and delivery of said writing there was a vacancy 
 existing in the office of Secretary for the Department of War. 
 
 2. That notwithstanding the Senate of the United States was then in 
 session, it was lawful and according to long and well established usage to 
 empower and authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad 
 interim. 
 
 3. That if the said act regulating the tenure of civil offices be held to 
 be a valid law, no provision of the same was violated by the issuing of said 
 order or by the designation of said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad 
 in terim. 
 
 ANSWER TO ARTICLE III. 
 
 And for answer to said third article, this respondent says that he abides 
 by his answer to said first and second articles in so far as the same are re- 
 sponsive to the allegations contained in the said third article, and, without 
 here again repeating the same answer, prays the same be taken as an an- 
 swer to this third article as fully as if here again set out at length; and as 
 to the new allegation contained in said third article, that this respondent 
 did appoint the said Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War 
 ad interim, this respondent denies that he gave any other authority to 
 said Thomas than such as appears in said written authority set out in said 
 article, by which he authorized and empowered said Thomas to act as 
 Secretary for the Department of War ad interim; and he denies that the 
 same amounts to an appointment, and insists that it is only a designation 
 of an officer of that department to act temporarily as Secretary for the 
 Department of War ad interim, until an appointment should be made. 
 Hut whether the said written authority amounts to an appointipent or to 
 a temporary authority or designation, this respondent denies that in any 
 sense he did thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the United 
 States, or that he thereby intended to give the said order the character or 
 effect of an appointment in the constitutional or legal sense of that term. 
 He further denies that there was no vacancy in said office of Secretary for 
 the Department of War existing at the date of said written authority. 
 
 ANSWER TO ARTICLE XI. 
 
 And in answer to the eleventh article, this respondent denies that on the 
 18th day of August, in the year 1866, at the City of Washington, in the 
 District of Columbia, he did. by public speech or otherwise, declare or 
 affirm, in substance or at ali. that the thirty-ninth Congress of the United 
 States was not a Congress uf the United States authorized by the Consti- 
 tution to exercise legislative i)Ower under the same, or that he did then 
 and there declare or affirm that th« said thirty-ninth Congress was a Con- 
 u'ress of only piirt of the States in any sense or meaning other than that ten 
 r-tates uf thi- Ciiioi} w tc cKmhi.-iI repn-sentiitiun thert'in: or that he made 
 ,., y or fithei- ol ll'r dcrluratiuns (jr affiriuatiuus in this behall^in tlie saiu 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOH.NSON. 91 
 
 article alleged, as denying or intending to deny that the legislation of said 
 thirty- ninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this respondent, except 
 so far as this respondent saw Ht to approve the same; and as to the allega- 
 tion in said article, that he did thereby intend or mean to be understood 
 that the said Congress had not power to propose amendments to the Con- 
 stitution, this respondent says that in said address he said nothing in ref- 
 erence to the subject of amendments of the Constitution, nor was the 
 question of the competency of the said Congress to propose such amend- 
 '"^^''^'j^'*^""* ^^® participation of said excluded States, at the time of 
 said address in any way mentioned or considered cr referred to by this 
 respondent, nor in what he did say had he any intent regarding the same, 
 and he denies the allegation so made to the contrary thereof. But this 
 respondent, in further answer to, and in respect of, the said allegations of 
 the said eleventh article hereinbefore traversed and denied, claims and in- 
 sists upon his personal and official right of freedom of opinion and freedom 
 of speech, and his duty in his political relations as President of the United 
 States to the people of the United States in the exercise of such freedom 
 of opinion and freedom of speech, in the same manner, form and effect as 
 he has in this behalf stated the same in his answer to the said tenth ar- 
 ticle, and with the same effect as if he here repeated the same; and he 
 further claims and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article he has 
 claimed and insisted, that he is not subject to question, inquisition, im- 
 peachment, or inculpation, in any form or manner, of or concerning such 
 rights of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech or his alleged exercise 
 thereof. 
 
 And this respondent further denies that on the 21st day of February, in 
 the year 1868, or at any other time, at the City of Waghington, in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, in pursuance of any such declaration as is in that be- 
 half in said eleventh article alleged, or otherwise, he did unlawfully, and 
 in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take 
 care that the laws should be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the 
 execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil 
 offices," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising or contriving, or at- 
 tempting to devise or contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin 
 M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of Secretary tor the 
 Department of War, or by lawfully devising or contriving, or attempt- 
 ing to devise or contrive, means 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, 
 or 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. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says 
 that he has, in his answer to the first article, set forth in detail the acts, 
 steps, and proceedings done and taken by this respondent to and toward 
 or in the matter of the suspension or removal cf the said Edwin M. Stan- 
 ton in or from the office of Secretary for tha Department of War, with the 
 times, modes, circumstances, intents, views, purposes, and opinions of offi- 
 cial obligation and duty under and with which such acts, steps, and pro- 
 ceedings were done and taken; and he makes answer to this eleventh 
 article of /the matters in his answer to the first article, pertaining to the sus- 
 pension or removal of said Edwin M. Stanton, to the same intent and ef- 
 fect as if they were here repeated and set forth. 
 
 And this deponent, further answering the said eleventh article, denies 
 that by means or reason of anything in said article alleged, this respond- 
 ent, as President of the United States, did, on the 21st day of February, 
 1868, or at any other day or time, commit, or that he was guilty of, a high 
 misdemeanor in office. 
 
 And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says 
 that the same and the matters therein contained do not charge or allege 
 the commission of any act whatever by this respondent, in his office of 
 President of the United States, nor the omission by this respondent of any 
 act of official obligation or duty in his office of President of the United 
 States; nor does the said article nor the matters therein contained name 
 
92 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 designate, describe, or define any act or mode or form of attempt, device, 
 contrivance, or means, or of attempt at device, contrivance or means, 
 whereby this respondent can know or understand what act or mode or 
 form of attempt, device, contrivance or means, or of attempt at device, 
 contrivance, or means are imputed to or charged against this respondent, 
 in his office of President of the United States, or intended so to be, or 
 whereby this respondent can more fully or definitely make answer unto 
 the said article than he hereby does. 
 
 And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his an- 
 swer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, respectfully 
 reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to time, as may 
 become necessary or proper, and wh^n and as such necessity and propriety 
 shall appear. Andeew Johnson. 
 
 Henry Stanbery, 
 
 B. R. Cdrtis, 
 
 Thomas A. R. Nelson, 
 
 William M. Evarts. 
 
 W. S. Groesbeck. 
 
 Of Counsel. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 93 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OEGANIZATION OF THE COURT. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. 
 
 On Thursday, March 5th, 1868, the Senate of the United 
 States was organized for the trial of the charges brought against 
 Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by the House 
 of Representatives — Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Jus- 
 tice of the United States, presiding. 
 
 The following gentlemen appeared as managers of the prose- 
 cution on the part of the House: 
 
 Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio; Hon. George S. Boutwell, of Massachu- 
 setts; Hon. James F. Wilson, of Iowa; Hon. John A.Logan, of Illinois; Hon. 
 Thomas F. Williams, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massa- 
 chusetts; and Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The following gentlemen appeared as counsel for the Presi- 
 dent: 
 
 Messrs. Henry Stanbery, of Kentucky; Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massa- 
 chusetts; Thomas A. R. Nelson, of Tennessee; William M. Evarts, of New 
 York, and William S. Groesbeck, of Ohio. 
 
 The following gentlemen comprised the United States Sen- 
 ate, sitting for the trial of the President: 
 
 California— Cornelius Cole, (R)— John Conness, (R). 
 
 Connecticut— James Dixon, (D)— Orris S. Ferry, (R). 
 
 Delaware— Willard Saulsbury, (D)— James A. Bayard, (D). 
 
 Illinois— Lyman Trumbull, (R)— Richard Yates, (R). 
 
 Indiana— Oliver P. Morton,(R)— Thomas A. Hendricks, (D). 
 
 Iowa— James W. Grimes, (R)— James Harlan, (R). 
 
 Kansas— Samuel C. Pomeroy, (R)— Edmund G. Ross, (R). 
 
 Kentucky— Thomas C. McCreary, (D)— Garrett Davis, (D). 
 
 Massachusetts— Charles Sumner, (R)— Henry Wilson, (R). 
 
 Maine— William Pitt Fessenden, (R)— Lot M. Morrill, (R). 
 
 Maryland— Reverdy Johnson, (D)— George Vickers, (D). 
 
 Michigan— Zachariah Chandler, (R)— Jacob M. Howard, (R). 
 
 Missouri— John B. Henderson, (R)— Charles D. Drake, (R). 
 
 Minnesota— Alexander Ramsay, (R)— Daniel S. Norton, (D). 
 
 New York— RoBCoe Conkling, (R)— Edwin D. Morgan, (R). 
 
94 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 Nevada— James W. Nye, (R)— William M. Stewart, (R). 
 Nebraska— Thomas W. Tipton, (R)— John M. Thayer, (R). 
 New Jersey— Alexander G. Cattell, (R)— F. T. Frelinghuysen, (R). 
 New Hampshire- Alexander H. Craigin, (R)— Jas. W. Patterson, (R). 
 Ohio— John Sherman, (R)— Benjamin F. Wade, (R). 
 Oregon— Henry W. Corbett, (R)— Geo. H. Williams, (R). 
 Pennsylvania — Simon Cameron, (R) — Charles R. Buckalew, (D). 
 Rhode Island- Henry B. Anthony, (R)— William Sprague, (R). 
 Tennessee — David T. Patterson, (D) — Joseph S. Fowler, (R). 
 Vermont— George F. Edmunds, (R)— Justin S.Morrill, (R). 
 West Virginia— W. T. Willey,tR)- Peter G. VanWinkle, (R). 
 Wisconsin — James R. Doolittle, (D)— Timothy U. Howe, (R). 
 [Forty-two Republicans and twelve Democrats.] 
 
 The House bringing the Impeachment was three-fourths 
 Republican — the Senate that tried it was more than three- 
 fourths Republican — the managers on the part of the House 
 were all Republicans — the counsel for the President were three 
 Democrats and one Republican — the President on trial was a 
 Democrat — the interrogatories propounded to witnesses were 
 generally received or rejected, according as their probable 
 answers would make for or against the President — the people 
 of the country at large were, as a rule, rigidly divided on party 
 lines relative to the case, Republicans demanding the convic- 
 tion of the President and Democrats urging his acquittal. The 
 Chief Justice presiding in the trial was the only strictly non- 
 partisan factor in the case. 
 
 The answer of the President to the Articles of Impeachment 
 having been presented on the '23rd of March, 1868 — the repli- 
 cation of the House duly made, and all the preliminary steps 
 completed, the proceedings in the actual trial commenced on 
 the 80th day of March, 1868. Gen. Butler, one of the man- 
 agers on the part of the House, made the opening argument 
 for the prosecution, from which the following extracts are 
 taken : 
 
 The first eight articles set out in several distinct forms the acts of the 
 respondent removing Mr. Stanton from office, and appointing Mr. Thomas, 
 ad interim, differing in legal effect in the purposes tor which and the in- 
 tent with which, either or both of the acts were done, and the legal duties 
 and rights infringed, and the acts of Congress violated in so doing. 
 
 All the articles allege these acts to be in contravention of his oath of 
 office, and in disregard of the duties thereof. 
 
 If they are so, however, the President might have the power to do them 
 under the law; still, being so done, they are acts of official misconduct, and 
 as we have seen, impeachable. 
 
 The President has the legal power to do many acts which, if done in 
 disregard of his duty, or for improper purposes, then the exercise of 
 that power is an official misdemeanor. 
 
OP PRESIDENT Am)REW JOHNSON. 95 
 
 Ex. gr: he has the power ot pardon; if exercised in a given case for a 
 corrupt motive, as for the payment of money, or wantonly pardoning all 
 criminals, it would be a misdemeanor. Examples might be multiplied in- 
 definitely. 
 
 Article first, stripped of legal verbiage, alleges that, having suspended 
 Mr. Stanton and reported the same to the Senate, which refused to concur 
 in the suspension, and Stanton having rightfully resumed the duties ot his 
 office, the respondent, with knowledge of the tacts, issued an order which 
 is recited for Stanton's removal, with intent to violate the act of March 2. 
 1867, to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices, and with the further 
 intent to remove Stanton from the office of Secretary ot War, then in the 
 lawful discharge of its duties, in contravention ot said act without the ad- 
 vice and consent of the Senate, and against the Constitution ot the United 
 States. 
 
 Article 2 charges that the President, without authority ot law, on the 
 21st ot February. 1838, issued letter ot authority to Lorenzo Thomas to act 
 as Secretary ot War ad interim, the Senate being in session, in violation 
 of the tenure-ot-office act, and with intent to violate it and the Con- 
 stitution, there being no vancancy in the office ot Secretary ot War. 
 
 Article 3 alleges the same act as done without authority ot law, and al- 
 leges an intent to violate the Constitution. 
 
 Article 4 charges that the President conspired with Lorenzo Thomas 
 and divers other persons, with intent, by intimidation and threats, to pre- 
 vent Mr. Stanton from holding the office ot Secretary ot War, in violation 
 ot the Constitution and ot the act ot July .31, 1861. 
 
 Article 5 charges the same conspiracy with Thomas to prevent Mr. Stan- 
 ton's holding his office, and thereby to prevent the execution ot the civil 
 tenure act. 
 
 Article 6 charges that the President conspired with Thomas to seize and 
 possess the property under the control ot the War Department hy force, 
 in contravention of the act ot July 31, 1861, and with intent to disregard 
 the civil tenure-ot-office act. 
 
 Article 7 charges the same conspiracy, with intent only to violate the 
 civil tenure-ot-office act. 
 
 Articles 3d, 4th. 5th, 6th and 7th may all be considered together, as to 
 to the proof to support them. 
 
 It will be shown that having removed Stanton and appointed Thomas, 
 the President sent Thomas to the War Office to obtain possession; that 
 havin" been met by Stanton with a denial ot his rights, Thomas retired. 
 and after consultation with the President, Thomas assfrted his purpose to 
 take possession ot the War Office by force, making his boast in several 
 public places of his intentions so to do, but was prevented by being 
 promptly arrested by process from the court. 
 
 This will be shown by the evidence ot Hon. Mr. Van Horn, a member of 
 the House, who was present when the demand tor possession ot the War 
 office was made by General Thomas, already made public. 
 
 By the testimony of the Hon. Mr. Burleigh, who, after that, in the even- 
 ino- of the twenty-first ot February, was told by Thomas that he intended 
 to'^take possession ot the War Office by force the following morning, and 
 invited him up to see the performance. Mr. Burleigh attended, but the 
 act did not come off, for Thomas had been arrested and held to bail. 
 
 By Thomas boasting at Willard's hotel on the same evening that he 
 should call on General Grant for military force to put him in possession 
 of the office, and he did not see how Grant could refuse it. , . , 
 
 Article 8 charges that the appointment of Thomas was made for the 
 purpose of getting control of the disbursement of the moneys appropriated 
 for the military service and Department of War. .u . ». *i. 
 
 In addition to the proof already adduced, it will be shown that, after the 
 appointment of Thomas, which must have been known to the members ot 
 his cabinet, the President caused a formal notice to be served on the Sec 
 retary ot the Treasury, to the end that the Secretary might answer the re 
 quisitions for monev of Thomas, and this was only prevented by the firm_ 
 ness with which Stanton retained possession ot the books and papers of 
 the War Uffiir,' 
 
96 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 It will be seen that every fact charged in Article 1 is admitted by the 
 answer of the respondent; the intent also admitted as charged; that is to 
 say, to set aside the civil tenure-of-office act. and to remove Mr. Stanton 
 from the office of the Secretary for the Department of War without the 
 advice and consent of the Senate, and, if not justified, contrary to the pro 
 visions of the Constitution itself. 
 
 The only question remaining is, does the respondent justify himself by 
 the Constitution and laws? 
 
 On this he avers, that by the Constitution, there is "conferred on the 
 President as a part of the executive power, the power at any and all times 
 of removing from office all executive officers for cause, to be judged of by 
 the President alone, and that he verily believes that the executive power 
 of removal from office, confided to him by the Constitution, as aforesaid, 
 includes the power of suspension from office indefinitely.'" 
 
 Now, these offices, so vacated, must be filled, temporarily at least, by his 
 appointment, because government must go on; there can be no interreg- 
 num in the execution of the laws in an organized government; he claims, 
 therefore, of necessity, the right to fill their places with appointments of 
 his choice, and that this power can not be restrained or limited in any de- 
 gree by any law of Congress, because, he avers, "that the power was con- 
 ferred, and the duty of exercising it in fit cases was imposed on the Presi- 
 dent by the Constitution of the United States, and that the President 
 could not be deprived of this power, or relieved of this duty, nor could the 
 same be vested by law in the President and the Senate jointly, either in 
 part or whole.'" 
 
 This, then, is the plain and inevitable issue before the Senate and the 
 American people; 
 
 Has the President, under the Constitution, the more than kingly prerog- 
 ative at will to remove from office and suspend from office indefinitely, all 
 executive officers of the United States, either civil, military or naval, at any 
 and all times, and fill the vacancies with creatures of his own appointment, 
 for his own purposes, without any restraint whatever, or possibility of re- 
 straint by the Senate or by Congress through laws duly enacted? 
 
 The House of Representatives, in behalf of the people join this issue by 
 affirming that the exercise of such powers is a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 If the affirmative is maintained by the respondent, then, so far as the 
 first eight articles are concerned — unless such corrupt purposes are shown 
 as will of themselves make the exercise of a legal power a crime — the re- 
 spondent must go. and ought to go quit and free. 
 
 Therefore, by these articles and the answers thereto, the momentous 
 question, here and now. is raised whether the presidential office itself (if 
 it has the prerogatives and power claimed for it) ovght, in fact, to exist 
 as a part of the constitutional government of a free people, while by the 
 last three articles the simpler and less important inquiry is to be deter- 
 mined, whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted himself that he ought 
 longer to hold any constitutional office whatever. The latter sinks to mer- 
 ited insignificance compared with the grandeur of the former. 
 
 If that is sustained, then a right and power hitherto unclaimed and un- 
 known to the people of the country is engrafted on the Constitution most 
 alarming in its extent, most corrupting in its influence, most dangerous in 
 its tendencies, and most tyrannical in its exercise. 
 
 Whoever, therefore, votes "not guilty" on these articles votes to enchain 
 our free institutions, and to prostrate them at the feet of any man who. 
 being President, may choose to control them. * * * 
 
 A few days after this, Judge Curtis, of the President's coun- 
 sel, spoke on behalf of the President. The first and principal 
 averment of the Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Johnson 
 was violation of the Office-Tenure Act, which had been passed 
 the year before for the undisguised purpose of restricting the 
 President's power to remove his Cabinet officers, particularly. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 97 
 
 his War Minister, Mr. Stanton. It was apparent that Mr. 
 
 Butler had been embarassed in his plea by the proviso of that 
 
 Act, that members of the Cabinet should hold "during the 
 
 term of the President hy lohom theij may have been appointed, 
 
 and for one month longer." 
 
 Mr. Butler had asked— By whom was Mr. Stanton appointed? By Mr. 
 .Lincoln. Whose presidential term was he holdinK under when the bullet of 
 Booth became a proximate cause of this trial? Was not this appointment 
 in full force at that honr. Had any act of the respondent up to the 12th 
 dayof .\ugust last vitiated or interfered with that apiwintment? Whose 
 Presidential term is the respondent now servinc; out? His own, or Mr. 
 Lincoln's. If his own. he is entitled to four years up to the anniversary 
 of the murder, because each presidential term is tour years by the Con- 
 stitution, and the regular recurrence of those terms is tixed by the Act of 
 May 8, 1792. If he is serving out the remainder of >Ir Lincoln's term, 
 then his term of office e.\pires on the 4th of .March, 18G9. if it does not be- 
 fore. 
 
 Judge Curtis struck his first blow at the weak point of Gen- 
 eral Butler's speech. He said: 
 
 There is a question involved which enters deeply into the first eight 
 Articles of Impeachment and materially touches two of the others; and to 
 that question I desire in the first place to invite the attention of the court, 
 namely — whether 3/)-. Stanton's case comes tinder the Teiuire-of -Office Act? 
 
 * * * I must ask your attention therefore to the construction and 
 application of the first section of that act, as follows: "that every person 
 holding an official position to which he has been appointed by and with 
 the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall here- 
 after be appointed to any such office and shall become duly qualified to 
 act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor 
 shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualifiod, e.xcept as 
 herein otheriviae provided.'' Then comes what is otherwise provided. 
 Provided, hoicever. That the Secretaries of State. Treasury, War, Navy, 
 and Interior Departments, the Postmaster General and .\ttorney General, 
 shall hold their offices respectively /or and during the term of the Presi- 
 dent by whom they may have been appointed." 
 
 The first inquiry which arises on this language, is as to the meaning of 
 the words "for and during the term of the President." Mr. Stanton, as 
 appears by the commission which has been put in the case by the Honor- 
 able Managers, was appointed in January, 186'2. during the first term of 
 President Lincoln. Are the words "during the term of the President," 
 applicable to Mr. Stanton's case?. That depends upon whether an ex- 
 pounder of this law, judicially, who finds set down in it as a part of the 
 descriptive words, ''during the term of the President," has, any right to 
 add, "and during any other term for which he may he afterwards elected.''' 
 
 I respectfully submit no such judicial interpretation can be put on the 
 words. Then, if you please, take the next step. "During the term of the 
 President by whom he was appointed, ".At the time when this order was is- 
 sued for the removal of Mr. Stanton, was he holding the term of the Presi- 
 dent by whom he was appointed? The Honorable Managers say yes; be- 
 cause, as they say. Mr. Johnson is merely serving out the residue of Mr. 
 Lincoln's term. But is that so under the provisions of the Constitution of 
 the United States? * * Although the President, like the Vice Presi- 
 dent, is elected for a term of four years, and each is ele(jted for the same 
 term, the President is not to hold the office aljsolutely during tour years. 
 The limit of four years is not an absolute limit. Death is a limit. "A 
 conditional limitation," as the lawyers call it. is imposed on his tenure of 
 office. And when the President dies his term of four years, lor which he 
 was elected and during which he was to hold provided he should so long 
 live, terminates, and the office devolves upon the Vice I'l-i'sidcnt. For what 
 
98 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 period of time? For the remainder of the term for which the Vice Presi- 
 dent was elected. And there is no more propriety, under the provisions ol 
 the Constitution of the United states, in calling the terna during which 
 Mr. Johnson holds the office of President, after it was devolved upon him, 
 a part of Mr. Lincoln's term, then there would be propriety in saying that 
 one sovereign who succeeded another sovereign by death, holds his prede- 
 cessor's term. * * 
 
 They (the Cabinet officers) were to be the advisersof the President; they 
 were to be the immediate confidential assistants of the President, for whom 
 he was to be responsible, but in whom he was expected to repose a great 
 amount of trust and confidence; and therefore it was that this Act has 
 connected the ten ure-of -office of these Secretaries to which it applies with 
 the President by whom they were appointed. It says, in the description 
 which the Act gives of the future tenure-of-office of Secretaries, that a con- 
 trolling regard is to be had to the fact that the Secretary whose tenure is 
 to be regulated was appointed by some particular President; and during 
 the term of that President he shall continue to hold his office; but as for 
 Secretaries who are in office, not appointed by the President, we have 
 nothing to say; we leave them as they heretofore have been. I submit to 
 Senators that this is the natural, and, having regard to the character of 
 these officers, the necessary conclusion, that the tenure-of-office of a Sec- 
 retary here described is a tenure during the term of service of the Presi- 
 dent by whom he was appointed; that it was not the intention of Congress 
 to compel a President of the United States to continue in office a Secre- 
 tary not appointed by himself. * * * 
 
 Shortly after this, occurred one of the most amusing aud in- 
 teresting incidents of the trial. Mr. Boutwell. who was alto- 
 gether a matter-of-fact man. though at times indulging in the 
 heroics, ventured, iu the course of his argument, upon a flight of 
 imagination in depicting the punishment that should be meted 
 out to Mr. Johnson for venturing to differ with Congress upon 
 the constitutioualit)- of an act of that body. He said: 
 
 Travelers and astronomers inform us that in the Southern heavens, near 
 the Southern cross, there is a vast space which the uneducated call the 
 "hole in the sky,'' where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of the 
 telescope, has been unable to discover nebulae, or asteroid, or comet, or 
 planet, or star, or sun. In that dreary, cold, dark region of space, which 
 is only known to be less infinite by the evidences of creation elsewhere, the 
 great author of celestial mechanism has left the chaos which was in the 
 beginning. If this earth were capable of the sentiments and emotions of 
 justice and virtue which in human mortal beings are the evidences and 
 pledge of our divine origin and immortal destiny, it would heave and throb 
 with the energy of the elemental forces of nature, aud project this enemy 
 (referring to President Johnson) of two races of men into that vast region, 
 there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life or as the absence of life, 
 emblematical of. if not really, that outer darkness of which the Savior of 
 mankind spoke in warning to those who are enemies to themselves and of 
 their race and of God. 
 
 Mr. Evarts followed Mr. Boutwell, and in the course of his 
 
 argument referred to this paragraph in Mr. Boutwell's speech 
 
 in the following humorously sarcastic vein, during the delivery 
 
 of which, thf^ Senate wa.-; repeatedly convulsed with laughter. 
 
 Mr. Eviirtis »n'u\ : 
 
 I iiiiiy as convfTiirntly iit tli'iL- iioint of the arguinciU as at any other pay 
 s'lnu' altentioii tn liir iKlioiioinicai punishment which the learned and 
 I. iiiorable iiiaiuii;i'i- \lr. Boucuoil, iiiinks should be applied lochia novel 
 
OB^ PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 99 
 
 case of impeachment of the President. Cicero, I think it is, who says that 
 a lawyer should know everything, for sooner or later, there is no fact in 
 history, science or human knowledge that will not come into play in his 
 arguments. Painfully sensitive of my ignorance, being devoted to a pro- 
 fession which "sharpens and does not eolarge the mind." I yet can admire 
 without envy the superior knowledge evinced by the honorable manager 
 indeed, upon my soul, I believe he is aware ot an astronomical fact which 
 many professors of the science are wholly ignorant of; but nevertheless 
 while some of his colleagues were paying attention to an unoccupied and 
 unappropriated island on the surface of the seas, Mr. Manager Boutwell 
 more ambitious, had discovered an untenated and unappropriated region 
 in the skies, reserved, he would have us think, in the final councils of the 
 Almighty as the place of punishment for deposed and convicted American 
 Presidents. 
 
 At first, I thought that his mind had become so enlarged that it was not 
 sharp enough to observe that the Constitution has limited the punish- 
 ment, but on reflection I saw that he was as legal and logical as he was 
 ambitious and astronomical, for the Constitution has said "remove from 
 office," and has put no limit to the distance of removal so that it may 
 be without the shedding of a drop of his blood or taking a penny of his 
 property, or confining his limbs. Instant removal from office and trans- 
 portation to the skies. Truly this is a great undertaking, and if the 
 learned manager can only get over the obstacle of the laws of nature, the 
 Constitution will not stand in his way. 
 
 He can contrive no method but that of a convulsion of the earth that 
 shall project the deposed President to this indefinitely distant space; but 
 a shock of nature of so vast an energy and for so great a result on him 
 might unsettle even the footing of the firm members of Congress. We 
 certainly need not resort to so perilous a method as that. How shall we ac- 
 complish it? Why, in the first place, nobody knows where that space is 
 but the learned manager himself, and he is the necessary deputy to exe- 
 cute the judgment of the court. Let it then be provided that, in case of 
 your sentence of deposition and removal from office, the honorable and 
 astronomical manager shall take into his own hands the execution of the 
 sentence. With the President made fast to his broad and strong shoulders, 
 and having already assayed the flight by imagination, better prepared than 
 anybody else to execute it in form, taking the advantage of ladders as far 
 as ladders will go to the top of this great capitol, and spurning there with 
 his foot the crest of Liberty, let him set out upon his flight while the two 
 houses of Congress and all the people of the United States shall shout — 
 "Sic itur ad astra!" But here a distressing doubt strikes me. How will 
 the manager get back. He will have got far beyond the reach of gravita- 
 tion to restore him, and so ambitious a wing as his should never stoop to a 
 downward flight. Indeed, as he passes through the constellations, the 
 famous question of Carlyle (by which he derides the littleness of human 
 affairs upon the scale of the measure of the heavens,) "What thinks Bootes 
 as he drives his hunting dogs up the zenith in their leash of sidereal fire?" 
 will force itself on his notice. What, indeed, will Bootes think of this 
 new constellation? Besides, reaching this space beyond the power of Con- 
 gress ever to sena for persons and papers, how shall he return, and how 
 decide in the contest there become personal and perpetual — the struggle 
 of strength between him and the President? In this new revolution thus 
 established forever, who shall decide which is the sun and which is the 
 moon? Who determine the only scientific test, which reflects hardest 
 upon the other?" 
 
 Gen. Logan, one of the managers, appeared for the prosecu- 
 tion, upon the close of the examination of witnesses. The fol- 
 lowing is a brief extract from his very long and labored argu- 
 ment, and relates to the Tenure-of-Office Act: 
 
 It is a new method of ascertaining the meaning of a law, plain upon its 
 face, by resorting to legislative discussions, and giving in evidence opin- 
 
100 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 ioDS affected by the law. As a matter of fact, it is well known the act was 
 intended to prevent the very thing Mr. Johnson attempted in the matter 
 of Mr Stanton's removal. I think this manner of defense will not avail 
 before the Senate. The law must govern in its natural and plain intend- 
 ment, and will not be frittered away by extraneous interpretation. The 
 President in his veto message admits substantially this construction. 
 
 The proviso does not change the general provisions of the Act. except by 
 giving a more definite limit to the tenure-of-office, but the last paragraph 
 of the Act puts the whole question back into the hands of the Senate ac- 
 cording to the general intention of the Act, and provides that even the 
 Secretaries are subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of 
 the Senate. 
 
 The Act first provides that all persons holding civil offices at the date of 
 its passage appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 shall only be removed in the same manner. This applies to the Secretary 
 of War. This jiroviso merely gives a tenure running with the term of the 
 President and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the 
 advice and consent of the Senate. The law clearly gives Mr. Stanton a 
 right to the office from the 4th of March, 1865, till one month after the 
 ith of March. 1869. and he can only be disturbed in that tenure by the Pre- 
 sident by and with the advice arid consent of the Senate. 
 
 Yet, although Mr. Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln in his first 
 term, when there was no tenure-of-office lixed by law, and continued by 
 Mr. Lincoln in his second term, it is argued that his term expired one 
 month after the passage of the Tenure-ot-Office Act, March 2nd, 18ti7, for 
 the reason that Mr. Lincoln's term expired at his death. This is false rea- 
 soning; the Constitution fixed the term of the President at four years, and 
 by law the commencement of his term is the 4th of March. Will it be said 
 that when Mr. Johnson is deposed by a verdict of the Senate, that the 
 officer who' will succeed him will serve for four years? Certainly not. 
 Why? Because he will have no Presidential term, and will be merely 
 serving out a part of the unexpired term of Mr. Lincoln, and will go out 
 of office on the 4th of March, 1869, at the time Mr. Lincoln would have 
 retired by expiration of his term, had he lived. * * * 
 
 The only question, then, which remains, is simply this: Has the accused 
 violated that (Tenureot-Office) Act? No one knows better than this ac- 
 cused the history of, and the purpose to be secured by, that Act. It was 
 ably and exhaustively discussed on both sides, in all aspects. In the de- 
 bates of Congress it was subsequently reviewed and closely analyzed in a 
 Veto Message of the respondent. No portion of that Act escaped his re- 
 mark, and no practical application which has been made of it since did he 
 fail to anticipate, lie knew before he attempted its violation that more 
 than three-fourths of the Representatives of the people in Congress assem- 
 bled had set their seal of disapprobation upon the reasons given in the 
 ■Veto Message and had enacted the law by more than the constitutional 
 number of votes required. Nay, more; he was repeatedly warned, by in- 
 vestigations made looking toward just such a proceeding as now being 
 witnessed in this court, that the people hud instructed their Representa- 
 tives to tolerate no violation of the laws constitutionally enacted. * * * 
 
 Mr. Groesbeck, in behalf of the defense, said, in closing his 
 argument: 
 
 What is to be your judgment. Senators, in this case? Removal from 
 oflBce and perpetual disqualification? If the President has committed that 
 for which he should be ejected from office it were judicial mockery to stop 
 short of the largest disqualifications you can impose. Jt will be a heavy 
 judgment. What is his crime, in its moral aspects, to merit such a judg- 
 ment? Let us look to it. 
 
 He tried to pluck a thorn out of his very heart, for the condition of 
 things in the War Deiiartment, and consequently in his Cabinet, did pain 
 him as a thorn in his iieart. You fastened it there, and you are now asked 
 to punish him for attempting to extract it. What more? He made an ad 
 interim appointment to last for a single day. You could have terminated 
 
OF PRESIDEKT ANDREW JOHNSON. 101 
 
 it whenever you saw fit. You had only to take up the nomination which 
 he had sent to you, which was a good nomination, and act upon it and the 
 ad interim vanished like smoke. He had no idea of fastening it upon the 
 department. He had no intention of doing anything of that kind. He 
 merely proposed that tor the purpose, if the opportunity should occur, of 
 subjecting this law to a constitutional test. That was all the purpose it 
 was to answer. It is all tor which it was intended. The thing was in your 
 hands from the beginning to the end. You had only to act upon the nom- 
 ination, and the matter was settled. Surely that was no crime. 
 
 I point you to the cases that have occurred—of ad interim appointment 
 after nd interim appointment; but I point especially to the case of Mr. 
 Holt, where the Senate in its legislative capacity examined it, weighed it, 
 decided upon it, heard the report of the President and received it as satis- 
 factory. That is, for the purpose of this trial, before the same tribunal, 
 res adjudicata, I think, and it will be so regarded. 
 
 What else did he do? lie talked with an officer about the law. That 
 is the Emory Article. He made intemperate speeches, though full of honest, 
 patriotic sentiments; when reviled, he should not revile again; when smit- 
 ten upon one cheek he should turn the other. 
 
 "But," the gentleman who spoke last on the part of the managers, "he 
 tried to defeat pacification and restoration." I deny it in the sense in 
 which he presented it — that is, as a criminal act. Here, too, he followed 
 precedent and trod the path in which were the footsteps of Lincoln, and 
 which was bright with the radiance of his divine utterance, "charity for 
 all, malice toward none." He was eager for pacification. He thought that 
 the war was ended. The drums were all silent— the arsenals were all shut; 
 the roar of the canon had died away to the last reverberation; the armies 
 were disbanded; not a single army confronted us in the field. Ah. he was 
 too eager, too forgiving, too kind. The hand of conciliation was stretched 
 out to him and he took it? It may be he should have put it away; but 
 was it a crime to take it? Kindness, forgiveness a crime! Kinaness a 
 crime! Kindness is omnipotent tor good, more powerful than gunpowder 
 or canon. Kindness is statesmanship. Kindness is the highest statesman- 
 ship of heaven itself. The thunders of Sinai do but terrify and distract; 
 alone they accomplish little; it is the kindness of Calvary that subdues and 
 pacihes. 
 
 What shall I say of this man? He is no theoriest; he is no reformer; I 
 have looked over his life. He has ever walked in beaten paths, and by the 
 light of the Constitution. The mariner, tempest-tossed in mid-sea, does 
 not more certainly turn to his star for guidance than does this man in 
 trial and difficulty to the star of the Constitution. He loves the Constitu- 
 tion. Jt has been the study of his life. He is not learned and scholarly 
 like many of you; he is not a man of many ideas or of much speculation 
 but by a law of the mind he is only the truer to that he does know. He is 
 a patriot, second to no one of you in the measure of his patriotism. He 
 loves his country; he may be full of error; I will not canvass now his views; 
 but he loves his'country; he has the courage to defend it, and I believe to 
 die for it if need be. His courage and patriotism are not without illustra- 
 tion. My colleague (Mr. Nelson) referred the other day to the scenes 
 which occurred in this Chamber when he alone of twenty-two Senators 
 remained; even his State seceded, but he remained. That was a trial of 
 his patriotism, of which many of you. by reason of your locality and of 
 your life-long associations, know nothing. How his voice rang out in this 
 hall in the hour of alarm for the good cause, and in denunciation of the 
 rebellion! But he did not remain here; it was a pleasant, honorable, safe, 
 and easy position; but he was wanted for a more difficult and arduous and 
 perilous service. He faltered not, but entered upon it. That was a trial 
 of his courage and natriotism of which some of you who now sit in judg- 
 ment on more than his lite, know nothing. I have often thought that 
 those who dwelt at the North, safely distant from the collisions and strifes 
 of the war, knew little of its actual, trying dangers. We who lived on the 
 border know more. Our horizon was always red with tlame; and it some- 
 times burned so near us that we could feel its heat upon the outstretched 
 hand. But he was wanted for a greater peril, and went into the very fur- 
 
102 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 nace uf the war, and there served his country long and well. Who <pf you 
 have done more? Not one. «= * * it seems cruel, Senators, that he 
 should be dragged here as a criminal, or that any one who served his coun- 
 try and bore himself well and bravely through that trying ordeal, should 
 be condemned upon miserable technicalities. 
 
 If he has committed any gross crime, shocking alike and indiscriminately 
 the entire public mind, then condemn him; but he has rendered services 
 to the country that entitle him to kind and respectful consideration. He 
 has precedents for everything he has done, and what excellent precedents! 
 The voices of the great dead come to us from the grave sanctioning his 
 course. All our past history approves it. How can you single out this 
 man, now in this condition of things, and brand him before the world, put 
 your brand of infamy upon him because he made an ad interim appoint- 
 ment for a day, and possible may have made a mistake in attempting to 
 remove Stanton? I can at a glance put my eye on Senators here who 
 would not endure the position he occupied. You do not think it is right 
 yourselves. You framed this civil tenure law to give each President his 
 own Cabinet, and yet his whole crime is that he wants harmony and peace 
 in his. 
 
 Senators, 1 will not go on. There is a great deal that is crowding on my 
 tongue for utterance, but it is not from my head; it is rather from my 
 heart; and it would be but a repetition of the vain things 1 have been say- 
 ing the past half hour But I do hope you will not drive the President 
 out and take possession of his office. I hope this, not merely as counsel 
 for .\ndrew Johnson, for Andrew Johnson's administration is tome but as 
 a moment, and himself as nothing in comparison with the possible conse- 
 quences of such an act. No good can come of it. Senators, and how much 
 will the heart of the nation be refreshed if at last the Senate of the United 
 States can, in its judgment upon this case, maintain its ancient dignity 
 and high character in the midst of storms, and passion, and strife. 
 
 A somewhat startling iuuideut, which for the momeut threat- 
 ened unpleasant results, occurred in the course of the trial. 
 In his opening speech for the prosecution, Mr. Manager Bout- 
 well used this language, speaking of the President: 
 
 The President is a man of strong will, of violent passions, of unlimited 
 ambition, with capacity to employ and use timid men, adhesive, subservi- 
 ent men, and corrupt men, as the instruments of his designs. It is the 
 truth of history that he has injured every person with whom he has had 
 contidentiMl relations, and many have escaped ruin only by withdrawing 
 from his society altogether. He has one rule of his life: he attempts to use 
 every man of power, capacity, or influence within his reach. Succeeding 
 in his attempts, they are in time, and usually in a short time, utterly 
 ruined. If the considerate liee from him, it the brave and patriotic resist 
 his schemes or expose his plans, he attacks them with all the energy and 
 patronage of his office, and pursues them with all the violence of his per- 
 sonal hatred. He attacks 1o destroy all who will not become his instru- 
 ments, and all who become his instruments are destroyed in the use. He 
 spares no one. * * * Already this purpose of his life is illustrated in 
 the treatment of a gentleman who was of counsel for the respondent, but 
 who has never appeared in his behalf. 
 
 The last paragraph of the above quotation manifestly re- 
 ferred to a disagreiueut between the President and Jud^e 
 Black, which led to the retirement of that gentleman from the 
 Management of the Defense of the President, a few days prior 
 to the beginning of the trial. 
 
 To this criticism of the President, Judge Nelson, of Counsel 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 103 
 
 for Defense, responded a few days later, with the following 
 
 statement: 
 
 It is to me. Senators, a source of much erabarassment how to speak in 
 reply to the accusation which has thus been preferred against the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. * * * 
 
 In order that you may understand what I have to say about it I desire 
 to refer the Senate to a brief statement which I have prepared on account 
 of the delicacy of the subject: and. although I have not had time to wri'e 
 it out as I would have desired to do, it will be sufficient to enable you to 
 comprehend the facts which I am about to state. You will understand. 
 Senators, that I do not purport to give a full history of what I may call the 
 Alta Vela case, as to which a report was made to the Senate by the Secre- 
 tary of State upon your call. .\ mere outline of the case will be sufficient 
 to explain what I have to say in reference to Judge Black; 
 
 Under the guano act of 1850. William T. Kendal on the one side, and 
 Patterson and Marguiendo on the other, filed claims in the Secretary of 
 State's office to the island which is claimed by the government of St. Do- 
 mingo. 
 
 On the 17th of June, 1867, the examiner of claims submitted a report 
 adverse to the claim for damages against the Domincan government. On 
 the 22d of July, 1867. ^Ir. Black addressed a letter to the President, (page 
 10) and another on the 7th of August, 1867. On page 13 it is said that Pat- 
 terson and Marguiendo acquiesce in the decision. On page 13 it is shown 
 that other parties are in adverse possession, tin page 15 it is asserted that 
 the contest is between citizens of the United State?, and can be settled in 
 the courts of the United States. The contest now seems to be between 
 Patterson and Marguiendo and Thomas B. Webster >t Co. 
 
 On the lith of December, 18.59. Judge Black, as Attorney General, re- 
 jected the claim of W. J. Kendall to an island in the Carribean Sea. called 
 Cayo Verde, and Mr. Seward seems to regard the two cases as resting on 
 the same principle in his report of 17th of January, 1867. 
 
 On the 22d of July, 1867, Judge Black addressed a letter to the President 
 enclosing a brief. On the 7th of August. 1867. he addressed another com- 
 munication to the President. On the 7th of February, 1868, an elaborate 
 an able communication was sent to the President, signed by W. J. Shaffer, 
 attorney for Patterson and Marguiendo. and Black. Lamon it Co., counsel. 
 in which they criticised with severity the report of Mr. Seward and asked 
 the President to review his decision. 
 
 According to the best information I can obtain, I state that oij the !)th 
 of March, WCS. General Benjamin F. Butler addressed a letter to J. W. 
 Shaffer, in which he stated that he was "clearly of the opinion that, under 
 the claim of the United States its citizens have the exclusive right to take 
 guano there," and that he had never been able to understand why the ex- 
 ecutive did not long since assert the rights of the government, and sustain 
 the rightful claims of its citizens to the possession of the is\nr\A in the 
 moat forcible manner consistent with the dignity and honor of the Nation. 
 The letter was concurred in and approved of by John A. Logan, J. A. 
 Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead and John A. Bingham, on the same 
 day, 9th of March, 1868. 
 
 This letter expressing the opinion of Generals Butler, Logan and Gar- 
 field was placed in the hands of the President by Chauncey F. Black, who. 
 on the 16th of March, 1868, addressed a letter to him in which he enclosed 
 a copy of the same with the concurrence of Thaddeus Stevens, John A. 
 Bingham, J. G. Blaine, J. K. lloorhead and William H. Koontz. 
 
 After the date of this letter, and while Judge Black was the counsel of 
 the respondent in this cause, he had an interview with the President, in 
 which he urged immediate action on his part and the sending an armed 
 vessel to take possession of the island; and because the President refused 
 to do so. Judge Black, on the 19th of March, 1868. declined to appear 
 further as his counsel in this case. 
 
 Such are the facts in regard to the withdrawal of Judge Black, accord- 
 ing to the best mformiitiou 1 can obtain. 
 
 'I'he island of Alta Vela, or the claim for dama^'cs. is said lo amount in 
 
'104 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 value to more than a million dollars, and it is quite likely that an exten- 
 sive speculation is on foot. I have no reason to charge that any ot the 
 Managers are engaged in it, and presume that the letters were signed, as 
 such communications are often signed, by members of Congress, through 
 the importunity of friends. 
 
 Judge Black no doubt thought it was his duty to other clients to press 
 this claim; but how did the President view it? 
 
 Senators, I ask you for a moment to put yourself in the place of the Pres- 
 ident of the United States, and as this is made a matter ot railing. accusa- 
 tion against him, to consider how the Presidentot the United States felt it. 
 
 There are two or three facts to which I desire to call the attention of the 
 Senate and the country in connection with these recommendations. They 
 are, first, that they were all gotten up after this impeachment proceeding 
 was commenced against the President of the United States. 
 
 Another strong and powerful fact to be noticed in vindication of the 
 President of the United States, in reference to this case which has been so 
 strongly preferred against him. is that these recommendations were signed 
 by four of the honorable gentlemen to whom the House of Representatives 
 have intrusted the duty of managing this great impeachment against him. 
 
 Of course exception was taken to this statement, and to the 
 logical inferences therefrom, and the authenticity of the signa- 
 tures mentioned at first denied, and then an effort made to ex- 
 plain them away, but it is unsuccessful. 
 
 The incident left a fixed impression, at least in the minds of 
 manj' of the Senators, that an effort had been made to coerce 
 the President, in fear of successful impeachment, into the per- 
 petration of a cowardly and disgraceful international act, not 
 only by his then Chief of Counsel, bat also by a number of his 
 active prosecutors on the part of the House. 
 
 It would be difficult to fittingly characterize this scan- 
 dalous effort to pervert a great State trial into an instrumen- 
 tality for the successful exploitation of a commercial venture 
 which was by no means free from the elements of international 
 robbery. 
 
 Yet to Mr. Johnson's lasting credit, he proved that he pos- 
 sessed the honesty and courage to dare his enemies to do their 
 worst — he would not smirch his own name and disgrace his 
 country and his great office, b\' using its power for the promo- 
 tion of an enterprise not far removed from a scheme of per- 
 sonal plunder, let it cost him what it might. It was a heroic 
 act, and bravely, unselfishly, modestly performed. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 105 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND THEIR 
 TESTIMONY. 
 
 The initial proceeJings to the taking of testimony, while to 
 a degree foreshadowing a partisan division in the trial, also de- 
 monstrated the presence of a Republican minority which could 
 not at all times, be depended upon to register the decrees of 
 the more radical portion of the body. The first development 
 of this fact came in the defeat of a proposition to amend the 
 rules in the interest of the prosecution, and again on the ex- 
 amination of Mr. Burleigh, a delegare from Dakota Territory 
 in the House of Representatives and a witness brought by the 
 prosecution on March 31st. Mr. Butler, examining the witness, 
 
 asked the question: 
 
 Had you on the evening; before seen (Jeneral Thomas? * * * Had 
 you a communication with him? 
 
 Answer. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Stanbery objected, and the Chief Justice ruled that the 
 testimony was competent and would be heard "unless the Sen- 
 ate think otherwise." 
 
 To this ruling Mr. Drake objected and appealed from the 
 decision of the Chair to the Senate. It appeared to be not to 
 the ruling per se, that Mr. Drake objected, bi:t to the right of 
 the Chair to rule at all upon the admissibility of testimony — 
 Mr. Drake representing the extremists of the dominant side of 
 the Chamber. There seemed to be apprehension of the effect 
 upon the Senate of the absolute judicial fairness of the rulings 
 of the Chief Justice, and the great weight they would natural- 
 ly have, coming from so just and eminent a jurist. After dis- 
 cussion, Mr. Wilson moved that the Senate retire for consulta- 
 tion. 
 
 The vote on this motion was a tie, being twenty-five for and 
 
 twenty-five against retiring, whereupon the Chief Justice an- 
 
 13 " 
 
106 THE IMPEACHMEXT AND TRIAL 
 
 nounced the fact of a tie and voted "yea;" and the Senate re- 
 tired to its consultation room, where, after discussion and re- 
 peated suggestions of amendment to the rules, the following 
 resolution was offered by Mr. Henderson: 
 
 Resolved. That rule 7 be amended by substituting therefor the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations 
 in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer in the trial shall direct 
 all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of 
 trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise pro- 
 vided for. And the presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions of 
 of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judg- 
 ment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a 
 formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the 
 Senate for decision; or he may, at his option, in the first instance, submit 
 any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Morrill, of Maine, moved to amend the proposed rule by 
 striking out the words "which ruling shall stand as the judg- 
 ment of the Senate," which was rejected without a division. 
 
 Mr. Sumner then moved to substitute the following: 
 
 That the chief justice of the United States, presiding in the Senate on 
 the trial of the President of the United States, is not a member of the 
 Senate, and has no authority under the Constitution to vote on any ques- 
 tion during the trial, and he can pronounce decision only as the organ of 
 the Senate, with its assent. 
 
 It is not insisted here that there was any sinister purpose iu 
 this proposition, yet the possibilities, in case of its adoption, 
 were very grave. Like the wasp, the sting was in the tail — 
 "he (the chief justice) can pronounce decision only as the 
 organ of the Senate, iriili ih assent.' Had that rule been 
 adopted, suppose the Senate, with its vote of forty-two Kepub- 
 licans and twelve Democrats, upon failure of conviction by a 
 two-thirds vote had refused or refrained on a party vote from 
 giving "its assent" to a judgment of acquittal? 
 
 The vote upon this proposed amendment was as follows: 
 
 For its adoption — Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Con- 
 ness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine. Morton, 
 Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay. Stewart. Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wil- 
 liams, Wilson — 22 — all Reijublicans. 
 
 .\gainst its adoption — Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, 
 Doolittle, F.dmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, 
 Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patter- 
 son of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague. 
 Van Winkle. Vickers, Willey— 26— 15 Republicans and U Democrats. 
 
 So the resolution v.vas rejected — every aye vote a Repub- 
 licJui, and all but one, Mr. Trnmbull, afterwards voting to im- 
 peach the President at the close of the trial— eleven Democrats 
 iiud fifteen Eepublicaiis voting uav. 
 
 Mr. Drake then (offered the followiuij 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 107 
 
 It is the judgiueu't of the Senate that under the Constitution the Chief 
 Justice presiding over the Senate in the pending trial has no privilege of 
 ruling questions of law arising thereon, but that all such questions shall 
 be submitted to a decision by the Senate alone. 
 
 It would be diflScult to formulate a propositiou better cal- 
 culated to taint the proceedings with a partisan bias than this 
 one by Mr. Drake. The impeachment movement was in a very 
 large sense, if not entirely, a partisan enterprise. It had its 
 origin in partisan differences, and was based mainly on differ- 
 ences as to public policies at issue betweeu the two great 
 parties of the country — and while it was expected thpt every 
 political friend of the President would vote against the 
 impeachment, it was demanded, and made a test of parly fealty, 
 that every Republican Senator should vote for his conviction. 
 Therefore, and perhaps it was not illogical from these premises, 
 party leaders of Mr. Drake's inclination should not relish the 
 influence the legal, unbiased and non-partisan rulings of the 
 Chief Justice might have upon his more conservatively in- 
 clined fellow partisans of the body. 
 
 Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, 
 and the vote was yeas 20, nays 30. The personality of this 
 vote was very much the same as on the previous proposition. 
 
 The rule proposed by Mr. Henderson was then adopted. The 
 conference closed shortly after, and the session of the Senate 
 was resumed. 
 
 The next day, April 1st, Mr. Sumner renewed in the Senate 
 his proposition submitted at the Conference the day before but 
 not acted upon, to change the rules of the Senate iu the follow- 
 ing form: 
 
 It appearing from the reading of the Journal yesterday that on a ques- 
 tion where the Senate were equally divided, the Chief Justice, presiding 
 on the trial of the President, gave a casting vote; it is hereby ordered that, 
 in the judgment of the Senate, such vote was without authority under the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The proposition was put to vote with the following result: 
 Yeas— Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, 
 Drake, Howard, Howe, Morgan. Morril of Maine, Morton, ^;o^ton, Ram- 
 say, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Williams, Wilson.-21- 
 20 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doo- 
 little Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hen- 
 derson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery. Jlorrill of Vermont Patterson of 
 Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle. Vickers, \\illey-26-lt) 
 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 
 
 So the proposed order was rejected. 
 
108 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 The trial then prodceeded. The answers to a very large pro- 
 portion of the interrogatories propounded to the witnesses, on 
 both sides, were unimportant, having very little bearing, either 
 way, upon the case. Twenty-eight of those interrogatories, 
 however, were more or less important, and were challenged, 
 seven by the defense, and twenty-one by the prosecution. For 
 convenience of reference, these interrogatories are numbered 
 from one to twenty -eight, inclusive, with the answers thereto, 
 when permitted to be answered, as follows: 
 
 Question submitted by Mr. Butler, of the prosecution, April 
 
 1st, 1868, to Mr. Walter A. Burleigh, witness on the stand, 
 
 called for the prosecution: 
 
 Xo. 1. 
 
 You said yesterday, in answer to my question, that you had a conversa- 
 tion with General Lorenzo Thomas on the evening of the 21st of February 
 last. State if he said anything as to the means by which he intended to 
 obtain, or was directed by the President to obtain possession of the War 
 Department. If so, state all he said, as nearly as you can? 
 
 Mr. Staubery objected. 
 
 Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, 
 
 and the vote was as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, 
 Corbett, Cragin. Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Freling- 
 huysen, Grimes. Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, 
 Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, 
 Ramsay, Ross, ."^herman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, 
 Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson — 39 — all Republicans. 
 
 Nays — Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks. Johnson, 
 McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Vickers — 11 — all Democrats. 
 
 So the Senate decided that the question should be answered. 
 
 General Butler repeated the interrogatory, and Mr. Burleigh's 
 
 answer was as follows: 
 
 On the evening of February 21st last, I learned that General Thomas 
 had been appointed Secretary of War ad interim, I think while at the 
 Metropolitan Hotel. I invited Mr. Leonard Smith, of Leavenworth, Kas., 
 to go with me up to his house and see him. We took a carriage and went 
 up. I found the General there ready to go out with his daughters to 
 spend the evening at some jilace of amusement. I told him I would not 
 detain him if he was going out; but he insisted on my sitting down and I 
 sat down for a few moments. 1 told him I had learned he had been ap- 
 pointed Secretary of War. He said he had; that he had been appointed 
 that day, 1 think: that after receiving his appointment from the President 
 he went to the War Office to show his authority, or his appoiniment, to 
 Secretary Stanton, and also his order to take possession of the office; that 
 the Secretary remarked to him that he supposed he would give him time 
 to remove his personal effects, or his private papers, or something to that 
 effect; and the answer was "certainly." He said that in a short time the 
 Secretary asked him if he would give him a copy of his order, and he re- 
 plied •'certainly,' and gave it to him. He said "that it was no more than 
 right to give him time to take out his personal eflfects. I asked him when 
 he was going to assume the duties of the ofiBce. He remarked that he 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 109 
 
 should take possession the next luornitifj at ten o'clock, which would be 
 the 22nd; and I think in that connection he stated that he had issued some 
 order in regard to the observance of the day; but of that I am not sure. 
 I remarked to him that I should be up at that end of the avenue the next 
 day, and he asked me to come in and see him. I asked him where I could 
 find him. and he said in the Secretary's room up stairs. 1 told him I 
 would be there. Said he, "be there punctually at 10 o'clock.' Said I, "you 
 are going to take possession to-morrow'?" "Yes." Said he, "suppose 
 Stanton objects to it — resists'?" "Well," said he, "I expect to meet force 
 by force. Or use force." 
 
 Mr, Conkliiig: "Repeat that." 
 
 The witness. I asked him what he would do if Stanton objected, or re- 
 sisted. He said he would use force, or resort to fon^e. Said I, "Suppose 
 he bars the doors?" His reply was, "I will break them down." i think 
 that was about all the conversation that we had there in that connection. 
 
 No. 2. 
 The next disputed ioterrogatory put by General Butler to 
 
 the witness was: 
 
 Shortly after this conversation about which you have testitied, and after 
 the President restored Major General Thomas to the office of Adjutant Gen- 
 eral, if you know the fact that he was so restored, were you present in the 
 War Department, and did you hear Thomas make any statements to the 
 officers and clerks, or either of them, belonging to the War Office, as to the 
 rules and orders of Mr. Stanton or of the War Office which he, Thomas, 
 would make, revoke, relax, or rescind, in favor of such officers or employes 
 when he had control of the affairs therein? If so, state as near as you can 
 when it was such conversation occurred, and state all he said, as near as 
 you can? 
 
 Mr, Howard demauded the yeas and nays and they were or- 
 dered and were as follows: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, (.'ole, Conkling, Conness, 
 C'orbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of 
 Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, 
 Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wilson- 28— 
 
 all Republicans. ,. , t^ , , ,-, i.-, 
 
 Nays— Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doohttle, Edmunds, I' erry, tes- 
 senden. Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, 
 Morrill of Maine, Norton. Patterson of Tennessee, Sherman, Van Winkle, 
 Vickers, Willey, Wilson— 22— 11 Republicans. 11 Democrats. 
 
 So the Senate decided that the question should be answered. 
 Mr. Butler: With the leave of the President, I will put this question 
 by portions. , ro . i 
 
 Did you hear Thomas make any statement to the officers or clerks, or 
 either of them, belonging to the W,ar Office, as to the rules and orders of 
 Mr Stanton, or of ■ the office, which he, Thomas, would revoke, relax, or 
 rescind, in favor of such officers and employes when he had control therein ? 
 
 \nswer- The General remarked to me that he had made an arrange- 
 ment to have all the heads, or officers in charge of the ditferent depart- 
 ments of the office come in with their clerks that morning, as he wanted 
 to address them. He stated that the rules which had been adopted for 
 the government of the clerks by his predecessor were of a very arbitrary 
 character, and he proposed to relax them. I suggested to him that perhaps 
 1 had better go. He Faid, "no, not at all— remain," and I sat down and he 
 had some three or four officers— four or tive, perhaps-come in, and each 
 one brought in a roomful of clerks, and he made an address to each com- 
 uany as they came in, stating to them that he did not propose to hold 
 them strictly to the letter of the instructions; but when they wanted to go 
 out they could go out, and when they wanted to come in they could come 
 
110 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 in; that he regarded them all as gentlemeD. and supposed they would do 
 their duty, and he should require them to do their duty; but so far as their 
 little indulgences were concerned — 1 suppose such as going out across the 
 street or something of that kind— he did not intend to interfere with them; 
 all he expected was that they would do their duty. I waited until he con- 
 cluded, and we took a walk, and I came away. 
 
 Mr. Samuel "Wilkinson testified in response to an interroga- 
 tory by Mr. Butler: 
 
 I asked him (Thomas) to tell me what had occurred that morning be- 
 tween him and the Secretary of War in his endeavor to take possession of 
 the War Department. He hesitated to do so till 1 told him that the town 
 was tilled with rumors of the change that had been made, of the removal 
 of Mr. Stanton and the appointment of himself. He then said that since 
 the affair had become public he felt relieved to speak to me with freedom 
 about it. He drew from his pocket a copy, or rather the original, of the 
 order of the President of the United States, directing him to take posses- 
 sion of the War Department immediately. He told me that he had taken 
 as a witness of his action General Williams, and had gone up into the War 
 Department and had shown to Edwin M Stanton the order of the Presi- 
 dent, and had demanded by virtue of that order the possession of the War 
 Department and its books and papers. He told me that Edwin M. Stan- 
 ton, after reading the order, had asked him if he would allow him sufficient 
 time for him to get together his books, papers, and other personal property 
 and take away with him; that he told him that he would allow to him all 
 necessary time to do so, and had then withdrawn from Mr. Stanton's room. 
 He further told me. that day being Friday, that the ne.\t day would be 
 what he called a dies uon, being the holiday of the anniversary of Wash- 
 ington's birthday, when he had directed that the War Department should 
 be closed, that the day thereafter would be Sunday, and that on Monday 
 morning he should demand possession of the War Department and of its 
 property, and if that demand was refused or resisted he should apply to 
 the General-in-Chief, of the Army for a force sufficient to enable him to 
 take possession of the War Department; and he added that he did not see 
 how the General of the Army could refuse to obey his demand for that 
 force. He then added that under the order that the President had given 
 to him he had no election to pursue any other course than the one that 
 he indicated; that he was a subordinate officer directed by an order from 
 a superior officer, and that he must pursue that course. 
 
 Hon. T. "W. Perry, called by the Prosecution, testified from 
 
 memoranda taken down at the time of the demand of General 
 
 Thomas for possession of the War Office (Mr. Ferry being 
 
 present), as follows: 
 
 Wak Department, / 
 
 Washington, Feb. 22, 1867. \ 
 
 In the presence of Secretary Stanton, Judge Kelley, Morehead, Dodge, 
 Van U yck. Van Horn, Delano, and Freeman Clarke, at 25 minutes past 12 
 m.. General Thomas, Adjutant-General, came into the Secretary of. War 
 Office, saying "Good morning,"" the Secretary replying "Good morning, sir." 
 Thomas looked around and said, "I do not wish to disturb you gentlemen, 
 and will wait."' btanton said. "Nothing private here; what do vou want?'' 
 Thomas demanded of Secretary Stanton the surrender of the Secretary of 
 War Office. Stanton denied it to him, and ordered him back to his own 
 office as Adjutant-General. Thomas refused to go. "I claim the office of 
 Secretary of War, and demand it by order of the President." 
 
 Stanton : "I deny your authority to act, and order you back to your own 
 office." 
 
 Thomas: "I will stand here. I want no unpleasantness in the presence 
 of these gentlemen."' 
 
 Stanton: ""iou can stand there if you please, but you c^ not act as 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. Ill 
 
 Secretary of War. I am Secretary of War. I order you out of this office 
 and to your own." 
 
 Thomas: •'! refuse to go, and will stand here." 
 
 Stanton: "How are you to get possession? Do you intend to use force?" 
 
 Thomas: "I do not care to use force, but my mind is made up as to 
 what I shall do. 1 want no unpleasantness, though. I shall stay here and 
 act as Secretary of War." 
 
 Stanton: "You shall not, and I order you, as your superior, back toyour 
 own office." 
 
 Thomas: "I will not obey you. but will stand here and remain here." 
 
 Stanton: "You can stand there if you please. I order you out of this 
 office to your own. I am Secretary of War, and your superior." 
 
 Thomas then went into opposite room across hall (General Schriver'sl and 
 commenced ordering General Schriver and General Townsend. Stanton 
 entered, followed by Moorhead and Ferry, and ordered those generals not 
 to obey or pay any attention to General Thomas' orders; that he df-nied his 
 assumed authority as Secretary of War ad interim, and forbade their obe- 
 dience of his directions. "I am Secretary of War. and 1 now order you. 
 General Thomas, out of this place to your own quarters." 
 
 Thomas: "I will not go. I shall discharge the functions of Secretary of 
 War." 
 
 Stanton: "You will not." 
 
 Thomas: I shall require the mails of the War Departmont to be deliv- 
 ered to me, and shall transact the business of the office." 
 
 Stanton: "You shall not have them, and I order you to your room." 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 On Tuesday, April 2nd, the prosecution put iu evidence a 
 letter from the President to Gen. Grant, dated Feb. 10, 18GS, 
 in answer to a prior letter from the General. The President's 
 letter, as introduced in evidence, purported to contain certain 
 enclosures relating to the subject matter of the President's 
 letter. The following is that portion of the President's letter 
 which speaks of the enclosures accompanying and included 
 therein : 
 
 General:— The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3rd instant 
 would seem to preclude any reply on my part: but the manner in \vhich 
 publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms 
 a part, and the grave questions which are involved, induce me to take this 
 mode of givng, as a proper sequel to the communications which have 
 passed between us. the statements of the live members of the cabinet who 
 were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. 
 Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the subject 
 are accordingly herewith enclosed. 
 
 Counsel for the President objected that the letter introduced 
 by the prosecution was not evidence iu the case unless the 
 managers should also produce the enclosures therein referred 
 to and made a part of the same. The following was the vote 
 on sust.iining the objection: 
 
 Yeas- Bavard, Conkling, Davis, Dixon. Doolittle. Fouler. Grimes, Hen 
 derson Hendricks, Johnson. McCreery, Morrill of \'erniont. .Norton. 1 utter- 
 son of Tennessee. Ross, Sprague, Trumbull. Van \^ inide. \ ickers and 
 Willev ~120 HI Republicans and 10 Democrats. 
 
 Nays \nthunv. Buckalcw. Cameron. Cattell. C^handlHi-. ('..Ic. C nnnos?. 
 Corbett. t'ragin.' Drake Kdmunds. Ferry. I'eKseiiden. 1- i-clin>;hu> sen. 
 
112 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 Howard, Howe. Morgan, Morril of Maine, Nye, Patterson of New Hamp- 
 shire. Pomeroy. Ramsay, Sherman. Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton. Wil- 
 liams, and Wilson— 29— 28 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 
 
 So the evidence offered by the prosecution was admitted as 
 
 offered, without the enclosures referred to, the objection by the 
 
 defense not bein<^ sustained. (For these rejected enclosures 
 
 see appendix. | 
 
 No. i. 
 
 The prosecution offered to prove (Mr. Geo. A. Wallace, of 
 
 the Treasury Department, on the stand) : 
 
 That after the President had determined on the removal of Mr. Stanton, 
 Secretary of War, in spite of the action of the Senate, there being no va- 
 cancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the President 
 unlawfully appointed his friend and theretofore private secretary, Edmund 
 Cooper, to that position, as one of the means by which he intended to de- 
 feat the tenure of civil office act and other laws of Congress. 
 
 After debate and Mr. Wallace's answer in explanation of the 
 usages of the department in the disbursement of moneys, dur- 
 ing which it was shown that no moneys could be drawn out of 
 the treasury on the order of the assistant secretary except when 
 authorized by the Secretary- of the Treasury to draw warrants 
 therefor, a vote was taken, and resulted as follows: 
 
 Yeas— .\nthony, Cameron, Cattell. Chandler. Cole. Conkling. Corbett, 
 Cragin. Drake, Howard, Howe. Morgan, Morrill, of Vermont, Nye. Pome- 
 roy, Ramsey. Ross. Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton and Wilson —22 — all 
 Republicans. 
 
 Nays — Bayard. Kuckalew. Conness. Davis. Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, 
 Ferry. Fessenden. Fowler. Frelinghuysen. Grimes. Henderson. Hendricks, 
 .lohnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of New Hamp- 
 shire, Patterson of Tennessee, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 
 Vickers, Willey and Williams— 27 — 16 Republicans, 11 Democrats. 
 
 So the testimony was not received, as it was shown in the 
 
 debate thereon that it would prove nothing against the President 
 
 which the prosecution liad expected to prove. 
 
 No. o. 
 
 Friday April 3rd, the Prosecution offered two telegraphic 
 messages, one from Lewis E. Parsons to Andrew Johnson, and 
 the other Mr. Johnson's answer, as follows: 
 
 MoNTGOMEKY, Ala., Jan. IT, 1867. 
 Legislature in session. Efforts making to reconsider vote on Constitu- 
 tional Amendment. Report from Washington says it is probable an en- 
 abling act will pass. We do not know what to believe. I Hnd nothing 
 here. ^ 
 
 (The State Legislature had previously rejected the Constitutional 
 Aiueudnient.l 
 
 The respousi' is: 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 113 
 
 U. S. Military Telegraph, Executivb Office, 
 Washington, D. C, Jan. 17, 1867. 
 
 What possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the Constitutional 
 Amendment? I know of none in the present posture of affairs; and I do not 
 believe that the people of the whole country will sustain any set of indi- 
 viduals in attempts to change the whole character of our Government by 
 enabling acts or otherwise. I believe, on the contrary, that they will 
 eventually uphold all who have patriotism and courage to stand by the 
 Constitution, and who place their confidence in the people. There should 
 be no faltering on the part of those who are honest in their determination 
 to sustain the several co-ordinate Departments of the Government in ac- 
 cordance with its original design. Andrf.w Johnson. 
 Hon. L. E. Parsons, Montgomery, Alabama. 
 
 The yeas ani nays were demanded by Mr. Drake, and were 
 as follows: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, 
 Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, 
 Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman, 
 Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Wilson— 27— all Repub- 
 licans. 
 
 Nays — Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Frelinghuysen, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Norton. Patterson of 
 Tennessee, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Williams— 17— 8 Democrats 
 and 9 Republicans. 
 
 So the testimony was decided admissible, and was claimed 
 by Mr. Manager Boutwell to be in substantiation of the charges 
 contained in the eleventh article. 
 
 NO. 6. 
 
 The prosecution offered in evidence a copy of the Cleveland 
 Lender, a newspapsr purporting to contain a speech delivered 
 by Mr. Johnson at the City of Cleveland, Ohio, on September 
 30th, 1866, as evidence against the President. It was objected 
 to by the defense, and on the call by Mr. Conness and Mr. 
 Sumner the yeas and nays were ordered, and the vote was as 
 
 follows: 
 
 Yeas— Anthonv, Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness. 
 Corbett, Cragin," Drake, Edmunds. Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Hen- 
 derson, Howard, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, 
 Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, bher- 
 man, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer. Tipton, Van Winkle, WiUey, 
 Williams— 35— :-.3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Howe, 
 McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Trumbull, Vickers— 11— 8 Democrats 
 and 3 Republicans. 
 
 So the evidence was received. It related to the tenth article, 
 and was based on a certain speech delivered by Mr. Johnson 
 
 at Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Saturday, April 10th, 1868, General Lorenzo Thomas on the 
 stand, called by the Defense. Mr. Stanbery asked him, with 
 reference to certain interviews with the President: 
 
114 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 What occurred between the President and yourself at that second inter- 
 view on the 21st (February)? 
 
 Mr. Drake demanded the yeas and nays, and they were or- 
 dered and were as follows: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew. Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, 
 Davis, Dixon, Doolittle. Edmunds, Ferry. Feseenden, Fowler, Frelinghuy- 
 sen. Grimes, Henderson. Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont. Morton, Norton, Patterson of New 
 Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, 
 Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, VanWinkle,Vickers, Willey, Williams, 
 Wilson, Yates — 42—31 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Chandler, (^onness, Cragin, Drake, Harlan. Howard, 
 Nye, Ramsay, Thayer — 10— all Republicans. 
 
 So the testimony was received, and General Thomas' answer 
 
 was: 
 
 I stated to the President that I had delivered the communication, and that 
 Mr. Stanton gave this answer: "Do you wish me to vacate at once, or will 
 you give me time to take away my private property?" and that I replied, 
 "At your pleasure." I then said that after delivering the copy of the let- 
 ter to him, he said? "I do not know whether I will obey your instructions 
 or resist them." This I mentioned to the President, and his answer was: 
 •'Very well, go and take charge of the office and perform the duties."' 
 
 * * * 
 
 Quesiton by Mr. Stanbery: What first happened to you the next morn- 
 ing. 
 
 .Answer. The first thing that happened to me the next morning was the 
 appearance at my house of the marshal of the district, with an assistant 
 marshal and a constable, and he arrested me. 
 
 Question: What time in the morning was that? 
 
 Answer: About 8 o'clock, before I had my breakfast. The command 
 was to appear forthwith. 1 asked if he would permit me to see the Presi 
 dent. * * * He went with me to the President's and went into the 
 room where the President was. I stated that I had been arrested, at whose 
 suit I did not know. He said, "very well, that is the place I want it in — 
 the courts." * * * i ^yas required to give bail in $5,000. I asked the 
 judge what it meant. He said it was simply to present myself there at 
 half past ten the following Wednesday. I asked him if it suspended me 
 from any of my functions. He said, "no, it has nothing to do with theib." 
 
 * * * I went immediately from there, first stopping at the President's 
 on my way, and stating that I had given bail. He made the same answer, 
 "very well, we want it in the courts." 
 
 Question: Did the President at any time prior to or including the 9th 
 of March, authorize or direct you to use force, intimidation or threats, to 
 get possession of the War Office? 
 
 Answer: He did not. 
 
 NO. 8. 
 
 April 11, Gen. Sherman was called by the defense. In the 
 course of his examination Mr. Stanbery asked him the follow- 
 ing question; 
 
 In that interview, (referring to a previously mentioned interview be- 
 tween the General and the President in the presence of Gen. Grant) what 
 conversation took place between the President and you in regard to the 
 removal of Mr. Stanton? 
 
 Mr. Bntler objected and the yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fes- 
 Kenden, Fowler. Grimee. Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Norton, 
 I'atterson of Tennessee. Ross. Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle' 
 \'.ckers and Willey -23-12 Republicans and 11 Democrat* ' 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 115 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Oonness, Corbett. Cragin, 
 Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Mor- 
 rill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont. Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hamp- 
 shire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Williams, 
 Wilson and Yates— 28— all Republicans. 
 
 So the proffered testimouy was refused. 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 Counsel for defense put the following question to Gen. Sher- 
 man: 
 
 At the first interview at which the tender of the duties of the Secretary 
 of War ad interim was made to you by the President, did anything fur- 
 ther pass between you and the President in reference to the tender or 
 your acceptance of it? 
 
 Mr. Drake demanded the yeas and nays, and they were as 
 
 follows : 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fes- 
 senden. Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Norton, 
 Patterson of Tennessee. Robs, Sprague. Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 
 Vickers, and Willey — 23 — 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, 
 Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinhuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New 
 Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Wil- 
 liams, Wilson and Yates — 29^— all Republicans. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was refused. 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 The next question put to Gen. Sherman by the Defense was; 
 
 In either of these conversations did the President say to you that his 
 object in appointing you was that he might thus get the question of 
 Mr. Stanton's right to the ofiBce before the Supreme Court? 
 
 Objected to by Prosecution, and yeas and nays were taken : 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Fowler, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross 
 and Vickers — 7. 4 Democrats 3 Republicans. 
 
 Nays— Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, 
 Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessen 
 den, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan. Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, 
 Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, 
 Norton, JSye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, 
 Sprague,Stewart,Thayer,Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, 
 
 Wilson, and Yates— 44-37 Republicans and 7 Democrats. 
 
 So this proffered testimouy was refused. 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Mr. Stanbery, for Defense, suggested that the question had 
 undoubtedly been overruled upon matter of form, at least, and 
 
 put it again in this form. 
 
 Was anything said at either of those interviews by the President, as to 
 any purpose of getting the question of Mr. Stanton's right to the office be 
 fore the courts? 
 
 This was put and determined in the negative without a divi- 
 sion, when Mr. Henderson offered it again in this form : 
 
116 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 Did the PresiJent. in tendering you the appointment of Secretary of 
 War ad interim, express the object or purpose of so doing? 
 
 Prosecution again objected, and the yeas and nays were 
 taken : 
 
 Yeas— Anthony. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Orimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of 
 Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, 
 Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers. and Willey— 25 — 14 Republicans 
 and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness. Corbett, 
 Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, 
 Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson" of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, 
 Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 27— all 
 Republicans. 
 
 So the proffered evidence was refused. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 April 13, 1868 — General Sherman's examination continued: 
 
 Question: After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to office, did you form 
 an opinion whether the guoA of the service required a Secretary of War 
 other than Mr. Stanton; and if so, did you communicate that opinion to 
 the President? 
 
 Mr. Conness called for the yeas and nays and they were 
 
 ordered, and resulted: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, 
 Hendricks, Jolinson, McCreery, Patterson, of Tennessee, Ross, Trumbull, 
 Van Winkle and Vickere — l.j — 6 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, 
 Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, 
 Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Ver- 
 mont, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ram- 
 say, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates 
 — 3.5 — 33 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was refused. 
 
 No. 13. 
 
 The next question asked of Gen. Sherman was by Senator 
 
 Johnson : 
 
 Question: Did you at any time, and when, before the President gave 
 the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War, advise the 
 President to appoint some other person than Mr. Stanton? 
 
 Mr. Drake demanded the yeas and nays, which were as fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessen- 
 den, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patter- 
 son of Tennessee, Ross, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers — 18—9 Republi- 
 cans and 9 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett 
 Cragin, Dixon, Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen. Harlan, Howard, Howe, Mor- 
 gan, Morrill of Maine. Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patter- 
 son of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer 
 Tipton, Willey Williams, Wilson, Yates— 32— 30 Republicans and 2 Dem- 
 ocrats. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was refused. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. H7 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 Counsel for defense offered : 
 
 A warrant of arrest of Gen. Thomas, dated February 22, 18G8, and the 
 affidavit on which the warrant issued. 
 
 (This warrant had been issued ou the aflSdavit of Mr. Stan- 
 ton.) 
 
 The yeas and nays were as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Anthonj, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, 
 Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, 
 Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, 
 Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, 
 Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, 
 Williams, Yates — 34 — 24 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Conkling, Chandler, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, 
 Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Nye, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, 
 Wilson — 17 — all Republicans. 
 
 So the warrant was received in evidence. 
 
 That warrant was issued by Judge Carter, Chief Justice of 
 the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, upon the com- 
 plaint of Edwin M. Stanton, and charged Thomas with at- 
 tempting forcibly to seize and take possession of the War Of- 
 fice, in violation of the fifth section of the Tenure-of-Office 
 Act. The warrant was as follows: 
 
 Unitrd Statks of America, ) ^^ 
 
 DiSTKIOT OF Col-UMBIA. ) 
 
 To David S. Gooding, United States Marshal for the District of Columbia: 
 I, David K. Carter, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the District 
 of Columbia, hereby command you to arrest Lorenzo Thomas, of said Dis- 
 trict, forthwith, and that you have the said Lorenzo Thomas before me at 
 the chambers of the said Supreme Court in the City of W ashington, forth- 
 with, to answer to the charge of a high misdemeanor in this, that on the 
 2lBt day of February, 1868, in the District of Columbia, he did unlawfully 
 accept the appointment of the office of Secretary of War ad interim, and 
 did then and there unlawfully hold and exercise and attempt to hold and 
 exercise the said office contrary to the provisions of the act entitled "An 
 Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, and 
 hereof fail not, but make due return. , . „^ , , • n u 
 
 Given under my hand and seal of said court this 22nd day of t ebruary, 
 ig(jg D. K. Cautee. 
 
 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. 
 Attest: R. J. Meigs, Clerk. 
 
 (marshal's return). 
 
 Washington, D. C, ) 
 February 22, 1868. \ 
 
 The within writ came to hand at 7 o'clock a. m. and was served by me 
 on the said Lorenzo Thomas at 8 o'clock a. m , and 1 now return this writ 
 and brine him before Chief Justice Carter at 9 o'clock a. m. of today. 
 ^ David S. Gooding, 
 
 U. S. Marshal, D. C. 
 No. 15. 
 Mr. Johnson, (of the Court,) asked this question of General 
 Sherman, witness on the stand: 
 
118 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 When the President tendered to you the office of Secretary of War, ad 
 interim, on the 27th of January, 1868, and on the Slat of the same month 
 and year, did he, at the very time of making such tender, state to you what 
 hie purpose in so doing was? 
 
 Counsel for Prosecution objected, and Mr. Drake called for 
 the yeas and nays, which were taken, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fes- 
 senden. Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, McCreery, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Ten- 
 nessee, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey — 
 26 — 16 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness. Corbett, Cragin, Drake, 
 Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, 
 Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Williams. Wilson, Yates— 22— all Republicans. 
 
 The question was decided to be admissible, and the answer 
 
 was "yes." 
 
 No. 16. 
 
 The next question, in immediate connection with the last, 
 
 was: 
 
 If he did, state what he said his purpose was? 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered and the vote was: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Cobertt, Davis, Dixon, Doolit- 
 tle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, brimes, Henderson, Hendricks, 
 Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sher- 
 man, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey— 26 — 15 Republicans 
 and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, 
 Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Mor- 
 rill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, 
 Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, Yates — 25 — all Republicans. 
 
 So the question was permitted to be answered, and General 
 Sherman said: 
 
 The President told me that the relations between himself and Mr. Stan- 
 ton, and between Mr. Stanton and the other members of the Cabinet, were 
 such that he could not execute the office which he tilled as President of 
 the United States without making provision ad interim for that office; 
 that he had the right under the law; he claimed to have the right, and his 
 purpose was to have the office administered in the interest of the Army 
 and of the Country; and he offered me the office in that view. He did not 
 state to me then that his purpose was to bring it to the Courts directly; 
 but for the purpose of having the office administered properly in the inter- 
 est of the Army and the whole Country. I asked him why lawyers could 
 not make a case, and not bring me, or any officer of the Army, into the con- 
 troversy. His answer was that it was found impossible, or a case could 
 not be made up; but, said he '"if we can bring the case to the Courts, it 
 would not stand half an hour." 
 
 Mr. Butler, of the Prosecution, objected, and after debate, 
 
 General Sherman continued: 
 
 The question first asked me seemed to restrict me so close to the purpose 
 that I endeavored to confine myself to that point alone. On the first day, 
 or first interview, in which the President offered me the appointment ad 
 interim., he confined himself to very general terms, and I gave him no 
 definite answer. The second interview, which was on the afternoon of the 
 30th, was the interview during which he made the points which 1 have 
 testified to. In speaking he referred to the constitutionality of the bill 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 119 
 
 knowD as the civil tenure-ot-office bill, I think, or the tenure of civil office 
 bill; and it was the constitutionality of that bill which he seemed desirous 
 of having tested, and which, he said, if it could be brought before the Su- 
 preme Court properly, would not stand half an hour. We also spoke of 
 force. I first stated that if Mr. Stanton would simply retire, although it 
 was against my interest, against my desire, against my personal wishes. 
 and against my official wishes, I might be willing to undertake to admin- 
 ister the office ad interim. Then he supposed the point was yielded; and 
 I made this point? ''Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield?" He answered. 
 "Oh! he will make no objection; you present the order and he will retire." 
 I expressed my doubt, and he remarked. "I know him better than you do; 
 he is cowardly." I then begged to be excused from giving him an answer 
 to give the subject more reflection, and I gave him my final answer in 
 writing. I think that letter, if you insist on knowing my views, should 
 come into evidence, and not parol testimony taken up; but my reasons for 
 declining the office were mostly personal in their nature. 
 
 Mr. Henderson (of the Court) asked this question: 
 
 Did the President, on either of the occasions alluded to. express to you 
 a fixed purpose or determination to remove Mr. Stanton from his office? 
 
 General Sherman answered: 
 
 If by removal is meant a removal by force, he never conveyed to ray 
 mind such an impression; but he did most unmistakably say that he 
 could have no more intercourse with him in the relation of President and 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 Mr. Howard (of the Court) asked the General: 
 Vou say the President spoke of force. What did he say about force? 
 General Sherman answered: 
 I enquired, "Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield? What then shall be 
 
 done?" "Oh," said he, "there is no necessity of considering that question. 
 
 Upon the presentation of an order he will simply go away, or retire." 
 
 Mr. Henderson (of the Court) asked the question: 
 Did you give any opinion, or advice to the President on either of those 
 occasions in regard to the legality or propriety of an ad interim appoint- 
 ment; and if so, what advice did you give, or what opinion did you express 
 to him? 
 
 Mr. Bincham of the prosecution, objected, and the Chair 
 put the question to the Senate whether it should be answered. 
 The Senate, without a division, refused answer to the ques- 
 tion, and the examination of Gen. Sherman closed for that day. 
 
 No. 17. 
 
 Wednesday, April loth. The defense offered several ex- 
 tracts from records of the Navy Department, to prove the 
 practice of the Government iu cases of removal from office by 
 different Presidents prior to Mr. Johnson, of which the fol- 
 lowing are samples: 
 
 NAVY AGENCY AT NEW YORK. 
 
 1864 June 20. Isaac Henderson was, by direction of the President, re- 
 moved from the office of Navy Agent at New York, and instructed to 
 transfer to Paymaster John U. Gibson, of United States Navy, all the 
 public funds and other property in his charge. 
 
120 THE IMPEACHMENT AXD TRIAL 
 
 NAVY AGENCY AT PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Dec. 26, 1861. James S. Chambers was removed from the office of Navy 
 Agent at Philadelphia and instructed to transfer to Paymaster A. E. Wat- 
 son, U. S. Navy, all the public funds and other property in his charge. 
 
 The prosecution objected and the yeas and nays were 
 ordered. 
 
 Yeas:— Anthony. Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, 
 Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry. Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, 
 Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of 
 Maine, Morrill of Vermont. Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patter- 
 son of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbery, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, 
 Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, Yates— 36— 25 Republicans and 11 
 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin. Drake, Harlan, 
 Howard, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Thayer, Tipton, Williams — 15 — 
 all Republicans. 
 
 So the evidence was admitted. 
 
 No. 18. 
 
 Thursday. April 16, Mr. Walter S. Cox on the stand. The 
 defense offered to prove: 
 
 That Mr. Cox was employed professionally by the President, in the pre- 
 sence of General Thomas, to take such legal proceedings in the case that 
 had been commenced against General Thomas as would be effectual to 
 raise judicially the question of Mr. Stanton's legal right to continue to hold 
 the office of Secretary for the Department of War against the authority of 
 the President, and also in reference to obtaining a writ of quo warranto 
 tor the same purpose; and we shall expect to follow up this proof by evi- 
 dence of what was done by the witness in pursuance of the above employ- 
 ment. "• 
 
 Mr. Drake demanded the yeas and nays, and they were 
 ordered : 
 
 Yeas — Anthony. Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, 
 Fessenden, Fowler. Frelinghuysen. Grimes, Hendricks, Howe. Johnson, 
 McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, 
 Patterson of Tennessee. Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, 
 Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey — 29— 17 Republicans and 12 Demo- 
 crats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, 
 Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ram- 
 say, Stewart, Ihayer; Tipton, Williams. Wilson, Yates — 21 — all Republi- 
 cans. , 
 
 So the testimony was received, and the witness proceeded to 
 detail the steps he had taken by direction of the President to 
 procure a judicial determination of General Thomas' rio-ht to 
 the office of Secretary of War and to put him in possession, 
 till the following question was asked. 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 What did you do toward getting out a writ of habeas corjjus under the 
 employment of the President. 
 
 Prosecution objected, and the yeas and nays were ordered: 
 
 Veus— Aiithouy, Bayard. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 121 
 
 Fowler, Prelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks. Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of 
 Maine, Morgan, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Ten- 
 nessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner. Trumbull, Van 
 Winkle, Vickers, Willey— 27 — 15 Republicans and 12 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conne^s, Cragin. Drake, 
 Edmunds, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Howe. Morgan. Morrill of Vermont, 
 Nye. Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Williams. Wilson, Yates 
 — 23— all Republicans. 
 
 The Senate having decided the evidence to be admissible, 
 Mr. Cox proceeded: 
 
 When the Chief Justice announced that he would proceed as an exam- 
 ining Judge to investigate the case of General Thomas, and not as holding 
 Court, our first application to him was to adjourn the investigation into 
 the Criminal Court then in session, in order to have the action of that 
 Court. After some little discussion this request was refused. Our next 
 effort was to have General Thomas committed to prison, in order that we 
 might apply to that Court for a habeas corpus, and upon his being re- 
 manded by that Court, it that should be done, we might follow up the ap- 
 plication by one to the Supreme Court of the United States. * * * The 
 Chief Justice having indicated an intention to postpone the examination, 
 we directed General Thomas to decline giving any bail for further appear- 
 ance, and to surrender himself into custody, and annou nee to the Judge that 
 he was in custody, and then present to the Criminal Court an application 
 for a writ of habeas corpus. The Counsel on the other side objected that 
 General Thomas could not put himself into custody, and they did not de- 
 sire that he should be detained in custody. The Chief Judge also declared 
 that he would not restrain General Thomas of his liberty, and would not 
 hold him or allow him to be held in custody. Supposing that he must be 
 either committed or finally discharged, we then claimed that he be dis- 
 charged, not supposing that the Counsel on the other side would consent 
 to it, and supposing that would bring about his commitment, and that we 
 should then have an opportunity of getting a habeas corpus. They made 
 no objection, however, to his final discharge, and accordingly the Chief 
 Justice did discharge him. 
 
 No. 20. 
 
 The witness, Mr. Cox, was asked by counsel for defense: 
 
 After you had reported to the President the result ot your efforts to ob- 
 tain a writ of habeas corpus, did you do any other act in pursuance of the 
 original instructions you had received from the President on Saturday to 
 test the right of Mr. Stanton to continue in the office; and it so, state what 
 the acts were? 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered on the demand of Mr. 
 Howard. 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Hondricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, 
 Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, 
 Ross, Salusbery, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 
 Vickers, Willey— 27— 15 Republicans and 12 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron. Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, 
 Edmunds, Ferry, Prelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Ver- 
 mont, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Williams, Wilson, 
 Yates — 23— all Republicans. 
 
 So the evidence was admitted, and Mr. Cox continued. 
 
 On the same day or the next, I prepared an information in the nature of 
 a quo warranto. 1 think a delay of one day occurred in the effort to 
 nrocure certified copies of Gen. Thomas' commission as Secretary of War 
 ad interim, and of the order to Mr. Stanton. I then applied to the Dis- 
 trict Attorney to sign the information in the nature of a quo warranto, 
 
122 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAb 
 
 and he declined to do so without instructions or a request from the Presi- 
 dent or the Attorney General. This fact was communicated to the Attorney 
 General and the papers were sent to him. Nothing was done after this 
 time by me. 
 
 No. 21. 
 
 The defense offered to prove : 
 
 That the President then stated that he had issued an order for the re- 
 moval of Mr. Stanton and the employment of Mr. Thomas to perform the 
 duties ad interim; that thereupon Mr. Perrin said, "Supposing Mr. Stan 
 ton should oppose the order." The President replied: -'There is no danger 
 of that, for General Thomas is already in the office." He then added: 
 "It is only a temporary arrangement; I shall send in to the Senate at once 
 a good name for the office. 
 
 Mr. Butler, for prosecution, objected, and the vote was: 
 
 Yeas — Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks. McCreery, 
 Patterson of Tennessee, and Vickers — 9 — all Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cra- 
 gin, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, 
 Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, 
 Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy. Ramsay, Ross, Sher- 
 man, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey. 
 Williams, Wilson, and Yates — 37 — 36 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 
 
 So this testimony was rejected. 
 
 No. 22. 
 
 Friday, April 17. The defense offered to prove: 
 
 That on this occasion (a Cabinet meeting previously mentioned), the 
 President communicated to Mr. Welles, and the other members of his Cab- 
 inet, before the meeting broke up, that he had removed Mr. Stanton and 
 appointed General Thomas Secretary of War ad interim; and that, upon 
 the inquiry by Mr. Welles whether General Thomas was in possession of 
 the office, the President replied that he was, and on further question of 
 Welles, whether Mr. Stanton acquiesced, the President replied that he did; 
 all that he required was time to remove his papers. 
 
 Mr. Butler objected and the yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Yeas — Anthony. Bayard. Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, 
 Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, Mc-' 
 Creery, Morton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbery, Sherman, 
 Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull. Van Winkle. Vickers, Willey— 26— 15 Repub- 
 licans and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron. Cattell, Conness. Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fre- 
 linghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of 
 Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart. 
 Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, Yates — 23 — all Republicans. 
 
 So the testimony was received, and the following proceeding 
 was had: 
 
 Mr. Evarts, of Counsel for the President, Mr. Welles on the 
 stand : 
 
 Please state. Mr. Welles, what communication was made by the Presi- 
 dent to the Cabinet on the subject of the removal of Mr. Stanton and the 
 appointment of General Thomas, and what passed at the time? 
 
 Mr. Welles: .\s I remarked, after the Departmental business had been 
 disposed of, the President remarked, as usual when he had anything to 
 communicate himself, that before they separated it would be proper for 
 him to say that he had removed Mr. Stanton and appointed the Adjutant 
 (ieneral Lorenzo Thomas, Secretary ad interim. I asked wl^pther Gen 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 123 
 
 eral Thomas was in possession. The President said he was; that Mr. 
 Stanton required some little time to remove his writings, hie papers; I 
 said, perhaps, or I asked, "Mr. Stanton, then, acquiesces?" He said he 
 did, as he considered it. * * * 
 
 Question: Now, sir, one moment to a matter which you spoke of inci- 
 dentally. You were there the next morning about noon? 
 
 Answer: I was. 
 
 Question: Did you then see the appointment ot Mr. Ewing? 
 
 Answer: I did. 
 
 Question: Was it made out before you came there, or after, or while 
 you were there? 
 
 Answer: While I was there. 
 
 Question: And you then saw it? 
 
 Answer: I saw it. 
 
 Question by Mr. Johnson (of the Court): What time of the day was that? 
 
 Answer: It was about twelve. 
 
 * * * Question by Mr. Evarts: Did you become aware ot the Tenure- 
 of -office bill, as it is called, at or about the time that it passed Congress? 
 
 Answer: I was aware of it. 
 
 Question: Were you present at any Cabinet meeting at which, after the 
 passage of that Act, it became the subject of consideration? 
 
 Answer: Yes, on two occasions. The first occasion when it was brought 
 before the Cabinet was on the 26th of February, 1867. 
 
 Question : Who were present? 
 
 Answer: All the Cabinet were present: 
 
 Question: Was Mr. Stanton there? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Stanton was there, I think, on that occasion. 
 
 Question: This civil tenure act was the subject of consideration there? 
 
 Answer: It was submitted. 
 
 Question: As a matter of consideration in the Cabinet? 
 
 Answer: For consultation for the advice and opinion of members. 
 
 Question: How did he submit the matter to your consideration? 
 
 Mr. Butler objected and demanded that the offer be put in 
 writing. 
 
 No. 23. 
 
 That the President at a meeting ot the Cabinet, while the bill was be- 
 fore the President for his approval, laid before the Cabinet the tenure-of- 
 civil-office bill for their consideration and advice to the President respect- 
 ing his approval of the bill; and thereupon the members of the Cabinet 
 then present gave their advice to the President that the bill was unconsti- 
 tutional and should be returned to Congress with his objections, and that 
 the duty of preparing a message, setting forth the objections to the con- 
 stitutionality of the bill, was devolved on Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton; to 
 be followed by proof as to what was done by the President and Cabinet up 
 to the time ot sending in the message. 
 
 After argument the yeas and nays were taken : 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon. Doolittle, Fessenden. 
 Fowler. Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, JlcCreery, Patterson 
 of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, andWiUey 
 —20— 9 Republicans and 11 Democrats. r^ . ^^ 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, 
 Craein, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, 
 Morean Morrillof Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hamp- 
 shire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, 
 Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 29— all Republicans. 
 
 So this testimony was rejected. 
 
124 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 No. 2i. 
 
 Counsel for Defense offered to prove : 
 
 That at the meetings of the Cabinet at which Mr. Stanton was present, 
 held while the tenure-of-civil-office bill was before the President for approval, 
 the advice of the Cabinet in regard to the same was asked by the Presi- 
 dent and given by the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr. 
 Stanton and the other Secretaries who had received their appointment 
 from Mr. Lincoln were within the restrictions upon the President's power 
 of removal from office created by said act was considered, and the opinion 
 expressed that the Secretaries appointed by Mr. Lincoln were not within 
 Buch restrictions. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and the vote was: 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of 
 Tennssee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, 
 Vickers, and Willey — 22 — 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, 
 Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghusen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pome- 
 roy, Ramsay, Stewart. Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 26 — 
 all Republicans. 
 
 So this testimony was rejected. 
 
 No. 25. 
 
 Counsel for defense offered to prove: 
 
 That at the Cabinet meetings between the passage of the tenure-of -civil 
 office bill and the order of the 21st of February, 1868, for the removal of 
 Mr. Stanton, upon occasions when the condition of the public service, as 
 affected by the operation of that bill, came up for the consideration and 
 advice of the Cabinet, it was considered by the President and Cabinet 
 that a proper regard to the public service made it desirable that upon 
 some proper case a judicial determination of the constitutionality of the 
 law should be obtained. 
 
 The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted : 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of 
 Tennessee, Ross, Saulsberry Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers, — 19 — 8 
 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays — Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling. Conness, Corbett, 
 Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, 
 Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hamp- 
 shire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, 
 Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates— 30 — all Republicans. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was rejected. 
 
 No. 26. 
 
 Counsel for defense put this question to witness, (Mr. 
 
 Welles, then Secretary of the Navy.) 
 
 Was there, within the period embraced in the inquiry in the last ques- 
 tion, and at any discusEions or deliberations of the Cabinet concerning 
 the operation of the tenure-ofcivil-office act and the requirements of the 
 public service in regard to the same, any suggestion or intimation what- 
 ever touching or looking to the vacation of any ofiBce by force or getting 
 possession of the same by force? ^ 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 125 
 
 Counsel for prosecution objected, and the vote was : 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Bayard, Buckalow, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, JohnsoD, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, 
 Ross, Saulebury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers— 18— S Republicans 
 and 10 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry, 
 Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill 
 of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, 
 Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 26— all Re- 
 publicans. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was rejected. 
 
 No. 27. 
 
 Defense offered to prove: 
 
 That at the meetings of the Cabinet at which Stanton was present, held 
 while the tenure-ol-civiloffice bill was before the President for approval, 
 the advice of the Cabinet in regard to the same was asked by the Presi- 
 dent, and given the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr. 
 Stanton and the other Secretaries who had received their appointments 
 from Mr. Lincoln were within the restrictions upon the President's power 
 of removal from o£Eice created by said act, was considered and the opinion 
 expressed that the Secretaries appointed by Mr. Lincoln were not within 
 such restrictions. 
 
 Mr. Johnson: I ask that the question propounded by the 
 
 Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) shall now be read. 
 
 The Secretary read the question as follows: 
 
 State if, after the 2d of March, 1867, the date of the passage of the 
 tenure-of-office act, the question whether the Secretaries appointed by 
 President Lincoln were included within the provisions of that act came be- 
 fore the Cabinet tor discussion; and if so, what opinion was given on this 
 question by members of the Cabinet to the President? 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken resulted: 
 
 Yeas— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, 
 Robs. Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Willey— 
 20—9 Republican and 11 Democrats. 
 
 Nays— Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, 
 Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pome- 
 roy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton. Williams, Wilson, and Yates— 26— 
 all Republicans. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was rejected. 
 
 No. 28. 
 
 The Prosecution proposed to put in evidence the nomination 
 of Lieutenant General Sherman, to be General by brevet, sent 
 to the Senate on the 13th of Febrnary, 1868, also the nomina- 
 tion of Major General George H. Thomas to be Lieutenant Gen- 
 eral by brevet, and to be General by brevet, sent to the Senate 
 on the 21st of February, 1868. 
 
 The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted: 
 
126 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 YeaB — Anthony, Cole, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Morton, 
 Ross, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey and Yates— 14— all 
 Republicans. 
 
 Nays— Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cor- 
 bett, Cragin, Davis, Uixon, Doolittle, Drake. Edmunds. Ferry, Frelinghuy- 
 sen, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard. Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Mor- 
 rill of Maine, Morrill ot Vermont, Patterson ot New Hampshire, Patterson 
 of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Srague, Stewart, Thayer, 
 Vickers, Williams, and Wilson— 35— 26 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 
 
 So the proffered testimony was refused. 
 
 GENERAL EMORY'S TESTIMONY. 
 The Ninth Article of the Impeachment was based upon al- 
 leged military changes in the City of Washington whereby 
 the number of troops on duty there was rumored to have been 
 largely increased, with a view to their use in the controversy 
 between the President and Congress, and more especially for 
 the expulsion of Mr. Stanton from the War Office in case of 
 his resistence to the order of the President for his retirement. 
 The wildest rumors of that character prevailed — that Mr. John- 
 son proposed to throw off all disguise and assume direct mili- 
 tary control and the establishment of practically a military 
 dictatorship. Congress had some months previously enacted 
 that all military orders from the President should be issued 
 through the General of the Army — the Congress thereby as- 
 suming to practically abrogate a constitutional function of the 
 Chief Executive. 
 
 There was considerable confidence among the supporters of 
 the impeachment that they would be able to prove these allega- 
 tions by General Emory, then in local command of the troops 
 and Department of Washington. General Emory was called 
 by the prosecution, and the following was his testimony. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Butler: 
 
 Question: Will you have the kindness to state, as nearly as you can, 
 what took place then? (Referring to an interview with the President at 
 the Executive Mansion.) 
 
 Answer: I will try and state the substance of it, but the words I can 
 not undertake to state exactly. The President asked me if I recollected a 
 conversation he had had with me when 1 first took command of the 
 department. I told him that I recollected the facts of the conversation 
 distinctly. He then asked me what changes had been made. I told him 
 no material changes, but such as bad been made I could state at once. I 
 went on to state that in the fall six companies of the 29th infantry had 
 been brought to this City to winter; but as an offset to that, four companies 
 of the 12th infantry had been detached to South Carolina on the request 
 of the Commander of that District; that two companies of artillery had 
 been detached by my predecessor, one of them for the purpose of aiding 
 in putting down the Fenian difiSculties, had been returned to the com- 
 mand, that although the number of companies had been inu'eased, the 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 127 
 
 numerical strength of the command was very much the same, growing out 
 of an order reducing the artillery and infantry companies from the 
 maximum of the war establishment to the minimum of the peace estab- 
 lishment. The President said: "I do not refer to those changes " Ire- 
 plied that if he would state what changes he referred to, or who made the 
 report of the changes, perhaps I could be more explicit. He said "I refer 
 to recent changes within a day or two," or something to that effect. I told 
 him 1 thought I could assure him that no changes had been made- that 
 under a recent order issued for the government of the armies of the United 
 btates, founded upon a law of Congress, all orders had to be transmitted 
 through General Grant to the army, and in like manner all orders coming 
 from General Grant to any of his subordinate officers must necessarily 
 come. If in my department, through me; that it by chance an order had 
 been given to any junior officer of mine, it was his duty at once to report 
 that fact. The President asked me. "What order do you refer to?" I re- 
 plied. "To order number 17 of the series of 1867." He said, "I would like 
 to see the order." and a messenger was dispatched for it. At this time a 
 gentleman came in who I supposed had business in no way connected 
 with the business I had in hand, and I withdrew to the farther end of the 
 room, and while there, the messenger came in with the book of orders and 
 handed it to me. As soon as the gentleman had withdrawn. I returned to 
 the President with the book in my hand, and said I would take it as a 
 favor if he would permit me to call his attention to that order; that it had 
 been passed io an appropriation bill, and I thought it not unlikely that it 
 had escaped his attention. He took the order and read it, and observed. 
 "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, that 
 makes me Commander-in-Chief, or with the terms of your commission." 
 I replied, "That is the order which you approved and issued to the army 
 for our government," or something to that effect. I can not recollect the 
 exact words, nor do I intend to quote the exact words of the President. 
 He said, "Am I to understand that the President of the United States can 
 not give an order except through the General of the Army? Or General 
 Grant?" I said in reply, that that was my impression — that that was the 
 opinion that the .^rmy entertain, and I thought upon that subject they 
 were a unit. I also said, "I think it is fair, Mr. President, to say to you 
 that when this order came out. there was considerable discussion on the 
 subject as to what were the obligations of an officer under that order, and 
 some eminent lawyers were consulted. I myself consulted one — and the 
 opinion was given to me decidedly and unequivocally that we were bound 
 by the order. Constitutional or not Constitutional. The President ob- 
 served that "the object of the law was evident." 
 
 The following is that portion of the act referred to: 
 
 "Section 2. Be it further enacted: That the headquarters of the Gen- 
 eral of the Army of the United States shall be at the City of Washington, 
 and all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by 
 the President and Secretary of War shall be issued through the General 
 of the Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank. The 
 General of the Army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from 
 command or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters except 
 at his own request loithout the previous approval of the Senate; and any 
 orders or instructions relating to Military operations issued contrary to 
 the requirements of this section, shall be null and void. And any officer 
 who shall issue orders or instructions, contrary to the provisions of this 
 section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office; and any officer 
 of the Army who shall transmit, convey or obey any orders or instructions 
 so issued contrary to the provisions of this section, knowing that such 
 orders were so issued shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than two 
 nor more than twenty years upon conviction thereof in any Court of com- 
 petent jurisdiction." 
 
 By turning to the Congressional Becord of that day. it will 
 
 be found that Mr. Johnson was perfectly aware of the exist- 
 
128 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TEIAL 
 
 ence of the foregoing provision of the Act of Congress in the 
 bill referred to, at the time he returned the bill to the House 
 with his signature. His reasons for so signing it are set out 
 in the following communication to the House accompanying 
 the bill: 
 
 The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support ot the 
 Army tor the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," contains 
 provisions to which I must call attention. There are propositions con- 
 tained in the second section which in certain cases deprives the President 
 of his Constitutional functions of Commander in Chief of the Army, and 
 in the sixth section, which denies to ten Istates of the Union their Consti- 
 tutional right to protect themselves in any emergency, by means of their 
 own militia. These provisions are out of place in an appropriation act, 
 but I am compelled to defeat these necessary appropriations if I withhold 
 my signature from the act. Pressed by these considerations, I feel con- 
 strained to return the bill with my signature, but to accompany it with 
 my earnest protest against the section which I have indicated. 
 
 Andrew Johnson. 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 2, 1868. 
 
 That Congress was to expire by limitation at 12 o'clock on 
 the 4th, thirty-six hours later. If Mr. Johnson had vetoed the 
 bill, as under ordinary conditions it would have been his duty 
 to the Constitution and to himself to do, its re-passage through 
 the two Houses in that limited time would have been impossi- 
 ble, and the appropriations carried by the bill for the support 
 of the Army would have been lost. To save them Mr. John- 
 son submitted to the indignity put upon him' by Congress in 
 denying him a guaranteed and manifest Constitutional right 
 and power. In that act Mr. Johnson illustrated a magnanimity 
 and a consciousness of public responsibility that was most credi- 
 tible to himself, and in marked contrast to the action of Con- 
 gress toward him. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 329 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 A CONFEEENCE HELD AND THE FIKST VOTE 
 
 TAKEN. 
 
 A few days prior to the day set for taking the vote on the 
 several Articles of Impeachment, and after the conclusion of 
 testimony, it was proposed that there be a private session for 
 conference of the Senate on a day named. May 11th, to give 
 Senators an opportunity to declare themselves on the pending 
 impeachment. 
 
 Neither the precise object or the utility of a conference were 
 then apparent, but the result was somewhat of a surprise to 
 those who had, up to that time, been undoubtingly confident 
 of the President's conviction. Comparatively few Senators had 
 previously declared their position. Very few, if any of the 
 Republican Senators had indicated a disposition to vote against 
 any of the articles, but the silence of a number of them, and 
 their refusal to commit themselves even to their associates, was 
 a source of uneasiness in Senatorial Impeachment circles. 
 Hence, possibly, the suggestion of a "conference." 
 
 It was taken for granted that every Democratic Senator 
 would vote against the impeachment. But the idea was not to 
 be entertained that the "no" votes would extend beyond the 
 Democratic coterie of twelve. There were, however, anxious 
 misgivings as to that. There was too much silence — too much 
 of saying nothing when so little that might be said would go 
 so far to relieve an oppressive anxiety. 
 
 So a session for "conference" was ordered and held, much to 
 the surprise of gentlemen whose silence had become somewhat 
 oppressive, and was becoming equally painful — to those who 
 wanted a "conference." It savored of an attempt to "poll the 
 Senate" in advance of judgment. It was resolved at the ses- 
 sion of May 7th, to hold a session for deliberation on the fol- 
 lowing Monday, May 11th. 
 
 10 
 
130 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 The most surprising development of that session was the 
 weakness of the bill of indictment at the very point where it 
 was apparently strongest — the first Article. Two conspicuous 
 and influential Senators — Messrs. Sherman of Ohio, and Howe 
 of Wisconsin — declared, and gave convincing reasons there- 
 for, that they would not vote for the impeachment of Mr. John- 
 son on that Article. 
 
 In his remarks on this occasion, after giving a history of the 
 
 enactment of the Tenure of-Office law, the first section of which 
 
 specificaly excepts from its operation such members of Mr. 
 
 Johnson's Cabinet as had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln and 
 
 still remaining, though not recomissioned by Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
 
 Sherman said: 
 
 I can only say as one of the Senate confereeB, under the solemn obliga- 
 tions that now rest upon us in construing this Act, that I did not under- 
 stand it to include members of the Cabinet not appointed by the Presi- 
 dent, and that it was with extreme reluctance and only to secure the pas- 
 sage of the bill that, in the face of the votes of the Senate I agreed to the 
 report limiting (it all the power of the President to remove heads of De- 
 partments. * * * J stated explicitly that the Act as reported did not 
 protect from removal the members of the Cabinet appointed by Mr. Lin- 
 coln, that President Johnson might remove them at his pleasure; and I 
 named the Secretary of War as one that might be removed. * * * 1 
 could not conceive a case where the Senate would require the President to 
 perform his great executive office upon the advice and through heads of 
 Departments personally obnoxious to him, and whom he had not appointed, 
 and, therefore, no such case was provided for. * * * Can I pro- 
 nounce the President guilty of crime, and by that vote aid to remove him 
 from his high office for doing what I declared and still believe he had a 
 legal right to do. God forbid: * * * What the President did do in the 
 removal of Mr. Stanton he did under a power which you repeatedly re- 
 fused to take from the office of the President — a power that has been held 
 by that officer since the formation of the Government, and is now limited 
 only by the words of an .\ct, the literal construction of which does not in- 
 clude Mr. Stanton. * * * Jt follows, that as Mr. Stanton is not pro- 
 tected by the Tenure-of-Civil-Office Act, his removal rests upon the Act 
 of 1789, and he according to the terms of that Act and of the commission 
 held by him, and in compliance with the numerous precedents cited in 
 this cause, was lawfully removed by the President, and his removal not 
 being contrary to the provisions of the Act of March 2nd, 1867, the 1st, 
 4th, 5th. and 6th Articles, based upon his removal, must tail. 
 
 On this point, Mr. Howe said: 
 
 If Mr. Stanton had been appointed during the present Presidential 
 term. I should have no doubt he was within the security of the law. But 
 I cannot find that, either in fact or in legal intendment, he was appointed 
 during the present Presidential term. It is urged that he was appointed 
 by Mr. Lincoln, and such is the fact. It is said that Mr. Lincoln's term is 
 not yet expired. Such I believe to be the fact. But the language of the 
 proviso is, that a Secretary shall hold, not during the term of man by 
 whom he is appointed, liut during the term of the President by whom he 
 may be appointed. Mr. Stanton was appointed by the President in 1862. 
 The term of that President was limited by the Constitution. It expired 
 on the 4th of .March, 1805? That the same incumbent was re-elected for 
 the next term is conceded, but I do not comprehend how that fa(^ extended 
 the former term 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 13] 
 
 EntertainiDg these views, and becauBe the first Article of the Impeach- 
 ment charges the order of removal as a violation of the Tenure of-office 
 Act, I am constrained to hold the President not guilty upon that Article. 
 
 These declarations, coming from two gentlemen of distinc- 
 tion and influence in the party councils, both of whom had act- 
 ively participated in framing the Tenure-of-Office Act, became 
 at once the occasion of genuine and profound surprise, and it 
 is unnecessary to say that they tended largely to strengthen 
 the doubts entertained by others as to the sufficiency of all the 
 other allegations of the indictment. They naturally and logi- 
 cally reasoned that the removal of Mr. Stanton, set out in the 
 first Article, constituted, in effect, the essence of the indict- 
 ment, and that all that followed, (save the 10th Article) was 
 more in the nature of specifications, or a bill of particulars, 
 than otherwise — that if no impeachable offense were set out in 
 the first Article, then none was committed, as that Article con- 
 stituted the sub-structure of all the rest — its essence and logic 
 running through and permeating practically all — and that with- 
 out that Article, there was no coherence or force in any of 
 them, and consequently nothing charged against the President 
 that was impeachable, as he had not violated the Tenure-of- 
 OflBce law, and was not charged with the violation of any other 
 law. 
 
 That conference developed, further, that a large majority of 
 the Articles of Impeachment were objectionable to and would 
 not be supported by a number of Republican Senators. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds would not support the 4th, 8th, 9th, and 10th 
 Articles, being "wholly uusustained by proof," but would sup- 
 port the 11th, though apparently doubtful of its efficiency. 
 
 Mr. Ferry could not support the 4th, 5th, Gth, 7lh, 9th, or 
 10th Articles. 
 
 Mr. Howard declared that he would not support the 9th 
 Article. 
 
 Mr. Morrill of Vermont, would not support the 4th, 6th, 
 9th, or 10th Articles, as they were unproven. 
 
 Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Mr. Yates, Mr. Harlan, and Mr. 
 Stewart, would vote to convict on the Articles relating to the 
 removal of Mr. Stanton — uncommitted on all others. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Henderson, 
 Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Van Winkle, each declared, at that 
 
132 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL. 
 
 conference, their opposition to the entire list of the Articles of 
 Impeachment. 
 
 But eighteen Republicans committed themselves at that 
 conference, for conviction, oiat of twenty-four who filed opin- 
 ions. While it was taken for granted that the six Democrats 
 who had failed to declare their position at that conference 
 would oppose conviction, the position of the eighteen Repub- 
 licans who had failed to declare themselves became at once a 
 source of very grave concern in impeachment circles. Out of 
 that list of eighteen uncommitted Republicans, but one votfe 
 was necessary to defeat the impeachment. This condition was 
 still farther intensified by the fact that eight of the eleven 
 Articles of Impeachment were already beaten in that confer- 
 ence, and practically by Republican committals, and among 
 them the head and front and foundation of the indictment — 
 the First Article — by Messrs. Sherman and Howe, two con- 
 spicuous Republican leaders. 
 
 A forecast of the vote based on these committals as to the 
 several Articles, would be — against the First Article, twelve 
 Democrats and eight Republicans, one more than necessary 
 for its defeat — the eight "not guilty" votes including Messrs. 
 Sherman and Howe. 
 
 Against the Fourth -Article — twelve Democrats and nine Re- 
 publicans — including Messrs. Edmunds, Ferry, and Morrill of 
 Vermont. 
 
 Against the Fifth Article — twelve Democrats and eight Re- 
 publicans — including Messrs. Edmunds and Ferry. 
 
 Against the Sixth Article — twelve Democrats and nine Re- 
 publicans — including Messrs. Ferry, Howe, and Morrill of 
 Vermont. 
 
 Against the Seventh Article — twelve Democrats and seven 
 Republicans — including Mr. Ferry. 
 
 Against the Eighth Article — twelve Democrats and seven 
 Republicans — including Mr. Edmunds. 
 
 Against the Ninth Article — twelve Democrats and twelve 
 Republicans — including Messrs. Sherman, Edmunds, Ferry, 
 Howe, Howard, and Morrill of Vermont. 
 
 Against the Tenth Article — twelve Democrats and ten Re- 
 publicans — including Messrs. Edmunds, Sherman, Ferry, and 
 Morrill of Vermont. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 133 
 
 It is somewhat conspicuous that but three gentlemen — 
 Messrs. Sumner, Pomeroy, and Tipton, in their urguments in 
 the Conference, pronounced the President guilty on all the 
 charges — though five others, Messrs. Wilson, Patterson of 
 New Hampshire, Frelinghuysen, Cattell and "Williams, pro- 
 nounced the President guilty on general principles, without 
 specification ; and Messrs. Morrill of Maine, Yates and Stew- 
 art, guilty in the removal of Mr. Stanton, without further 
 specification of charges. 
 
 As but one vote, in addition to the twelve Democratic and 
 the six Republican votes pledged against conviction at the Con- 
 ference, was necessary to defeat impeachment on the three re- 
 maining Articles — the 'ind, 3rd, and 11th — and as nearly a 
 half of the Republicans of the Senate had failed to commit 
 themselves, at least in any public way, the anxiety of the ad- 
 vocates of Impeachment became at once, and naturally, very 
 grave. How many of the eighteen Republicans who had failed 
 to declare themselves at that Conference might fail to sustain 
 the Impeachment, became, therefore, a matter of active solici- 
 tude on all sides, especially in impeachment circles in and out 
 of the Senate. Republican committals in the Conference had 
 rendered absolutely certain the defeat of every Article of the 
 Impeachment except the Second, Third, and Eleventh, and the 
 addition of but a single vote from the eighteen uncommitted 
 Republicans to the "No" side, would defeat them. 
 
 It was under this unfavorable condition of the Impeachment 
 cause, that the Senate assembled on May 16th, 1868, for the 
 purpose of taking final action on the indictment brought by the 
 House of Representatives, the trial of which had occupied the 
 most of the time of the Senate for the previous three months, 
 and which had to a large degree engrossed the attention of the 
 general public, to the interruption of legislation pending in the 
 two Houses of Congress, and more or less to the embarassment 
 of the commercial activities of the country. 
 
 For the first time in the history of the government, practic- 
 ally eighty years, the President of the United States was at the 
 bar of the Senate, by virtue of a constitutional warrant, on an 
 accusation of the House of Representatives of high crimes and 
 misdemeanors in office, and his conviction and expulsion from 
 office demanded in the name of all the people. 
 
134 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 No event in the civil history of the couatry had ever before 
 occurred to so arouse public antipathies and public indignation 
 against any man — and these conditions found special vent in 
 the City of Washington, as the Capitol of the Nation, as it had 
 become during the trial the focal point of the politically dis- 
 satisfied element of the entire country. Its streets and all its 
 places of gathering had swarmed for many weeks with repre- 
 sentatives of every State of the Union, demanding iu a pratic- 
 ally united voice the deposition of the President. 
 
 On numbers of occasions during the previous history of the 
 Government there had been heated controversies between the 
 Congress and the Executive, but never before characterized by 
 the intensity, not infrequently malevolence, that had come to 
 mark this — and never before had a division between the Exe- 
 cutive and the Congress reached a point at which a suggestion 
 of his constitutional ostracism from office had been seriously 
 entertained, much less attempted. 
 
 But it had now come. The active, intense interest of the 
 country was aroused, and everywhere the division among the 
 people was sharply defined and keen, though the numerical 
 preponderance, it cannot be denied, was largely against the 
 President and insistent upon his removal. 
 
 The domioant party of the country was aroused and active 
 for the deposition of the President. Public meetings were 
 held throughout the North and resolutions adopted and for- 
 warded to Senators demanding that Mr. Johnson be promptly 
 expelled from office by the Senate — and it had become appar- 
 ent, long before the taking of the vote, that absolute, swift, and 
 ignominious expulsion from office awaited every Ptepublican 
 Senator who should dare to disregard that demand. 
 
 Under these conditions it was but natural that during the 
 trial, and especially as the close approached, the streets of 
 Washington and the lobbies of the Capitol were thronged from 
 day to day with interested spectators from every section of the 
 Union, or that Senators were beleaguered day and night, by 
 interested constituents, for some word of encouragement that 
 a change was about to come of that day's proceeding, and with 
 threats of popular vengeance upon the failure of any Eepubli- 
 can Senator to second that demand. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 135 
 
 In view of this intensity of public interest it was as a matter 
 of course that the coming of the day when the great contro- 
 versy was expected to be brought to a close by the deposition 
 of Mr. Johnson and the seating of a new incumbent in the 
 Presidential chair, brought to the Capitol an additional throng 
 which long before the hour for the assembling of the Senate 
 filled all the available space in the vast building, to witness 
 the culmination of the great political trial of the age. 
 
 Upon the closing of the hearing — even prior thereto, and 
 again during the few days of recess that followed, the Senate 
 had been carefully polled, and the prospective vote of every 
 member from whom it was possible to procure a conjmittal, as- 
 certained and registered in many a private memoranda. There 
 were fifty-four members — all present. According to these 
 memoranda, the vote would stand eighteen for acquittal, thirty- 
 five for conviction — one less than the number required by the 
 Constitution to convict. What that one vote would be, and 
 could it be had, were anxious queries, of one to another, espe- 
 cially among those who had set on foot the impeachment enter- 
 prise and staked their future control of the government upon 
 its success. Given for conviction and upon sufficient proofs, 
 the President must step down and out of his place, the highest 
 and most honorable and honoring in dignity and sacredness of 
 trust in the constitution of human government, a disgraced 
 man and a political pariah. If so cast upon insufficient proofs 
 or from partisan considerations, the office of President of the 
 United States would be degraded— cease to be a co-ordinate 
 branch of the Government, and ever after subordinated to the 
 legislative will. It would have practically revolutionized our 
 splendid political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy. 
 A political tragedy was imminent. 
 
 On the other hand, that vote properly given for acquittal, 
 would at once free the Presidential office from imputed dishonor 
 and strengthen our triple organization and distribution of 
 powers and responsibilities. It would preserve the even tenor 
 and courses of administration, and effectively impress upon the 
 world a conviction of the strength and grandeur of Eepublican 
 institutions in the hands of a free and enligthened people. 
 The occasion was sublimely and intensely dramatic. The 
 
136 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 President of the United States was on trial. The Chief Justice 
 of the Supreme Court was presiding over the deliberations of 
 the Senate sitting for the trial of the great cause. The board 
 of management conducting the prosecution brought by the 
 House of Representatives was a body of able and illustrious 
 politicians and statesmen. The President's counsel, comprising 
 jurists among the most eminent of the country, had summed up 
 for the defense and were awaiting final judgment. The Senate, 
 transformed for the occasion into an extraordinary judicial tri- 
 bunal, the highest known to our laws, the Senators at once 
 judges and jurors with power to enforce testimony and sworn 
 to hear all, the facts bearing upon the case, was about to pro- 
 nounce that judgment. 
 
 The organization of the court had been severely Democratic. 
 There were none of the usual accompaniments of royalty or 
 exclusivism considered essential under aristocratic forms to im- 
 press the people with the dignity and gravity of a great occh- 
 sion. None of these were necessary, for every spectator was 
 an intensely interested witness to the proceeding, who must bear 
 each for himself, the public consequences of the verdict, what- 
 ever they might be, equally with every member of the court. 
 
 The venerable Chief Justice, who had so ably and impartially 
 presided through the many tedious weeks of the trial now 
 about to close, was in his place and called the Senate to order. 
 
 The impressive dignity of the occasion was such that there 
 was little need of the admonition of the Chief Justice to absten- 
 tion from conversation on the part of the audience during the 
 proceeding. No one there present, whether friend or opponent 
 of the President, could have failed to be impressed with the 
 tremendous consequences of the possible result of the prosecu- 
 tion about to be reached. The balances were apparently at a 
 poise. It was plain that a single vote would be sufficient to 
 turn the scales either way — to evict the President from his 
 great office to go the balance of his life's journey with the 
 brand of infamy upon his brow, or be relieved at once from the 
 obloquy the inquisitors had sought to put upon him — and more 
 than all else, to keep the honorable roll of American Presidents 
 unsmirched before the world, despite the action of tl^f House. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 137 
 
 The first vote was on the Eleventh and last Article of the 
 Impeachment. Senators voted in alphabetical order, and each 
 arose and stood at his desk as his name was called by the Chief 
 Clerk. To each the Chief Justice propounded the solemn in- 
 terrogatory — "Mr. Senator , how say you — is the 
 
 respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, 
 guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in this 
 Article?" 
 
 Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, was the first of Republican Sen- 
 ators to vote "Not Guilty." He had long been a safe and 
 trusted leader in the Senate, and had the unquestioning confi- 
 dence of his partisan colleagues, while his long experience in 
 public life, and his great ability as a legislator, and more espe- 
 cially his exalted personal character, had won for him the admi- 
 ration of all his associates regardless of political affiliations. 
 Being the first of the dissenting Republicans to vote, the in- 
 fluence of his action was feared by the impeachers, and most 
 strenuous efforts had been made to induce him to retract the 
 position he had taken to vote against conviction. But being 
 moved on this occasion, as he had always been on others, to 
 act upon his own judgment aud conviction, though foreseeing 
 that this vote would probably end a long career of conspicuous 
 public usefulness, there was no sign of hesitancy or weakness 
 as he pronounced his verdict. 
 
 Mr. Fowler, of Tennessee, was the next Republican to vote 
 "Not Guilty." He had entered the Senate but two years be- 
 fore, and was therefore one of the youngest Senators, with the 
 promise of a life of political usefulness before him. Though 
 from the same State as the President, they were at political 
 variance, and there was but little in common between them in 
 other respects. A radical partisan in all measures where radical 
 action seemed to be called for, he was for the time being sitting 
 in a judicial capacity and under an oath to do justice to the 
 accused according to the law and the evidence. As in his judg- 
 ment the evidence did not sustain the charge against the Presi- 
 dent such was his verdict. 
 
 Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, was the third anti-iaipeacliiug Repub- 
 lican to vote. He had for many years been a conspicuous and 
 deservedly influential member of the Senate. For some days 
 
to 
 
 138 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 prior to the taking of the vote he had been stricken with what 
 afterwards proved a fatal illness. The scene presented as he 
 rose to his feet supported on the arms of his colleagues, was 
 grandly heroic, and one never before witnessed in a legislative 
 chamber. Though realizing the danger he thus incurred, and 
 conscious of the political doom that would follow his vote, and 
 having little sympathy with the policies pursued by the Presi- 
 dent, he had permitted himself to be borne to the Senate cham- 
 ber that he might contribute to save his country from what he 
 deemed the stain of a partisan and unsustained impeachment 
 of its Chief Magistrate. Men often perform, in the excitement 
 and glamour of battle, great deeds of valor and self sacrifice 
 that live after them and link their names with the honorable 
 history of great events, but to deliberately face at once inevit- 
 able political as well as physical death in the council hall, and 
 in the absence of charging squadrons; and shot and shell, and 
 of the glamor of military heroism, is to illustrate the grandest 
 phase of human courage and devotion to convictions. That was 
 the part performed by Mr. Grimes on that occasion. His vote 
 of "Not Guilty" was the last, the bravest, the grandest, and the 
 most patriotic public act of his life. 
 
 Mr. Henderson of Missouri, was the fourth Republican Sen- 
 ator to vote against the impeachment. A gentleman of rare 
 industry and ability, and a careful, conscientious legislator, he 
 had been identified with the legislation of the time and had 
 reached a position of deserved prominence and influence. But 
 he was learned in the law, and regardful of his position as a 
 just and discriminating judge. Though then a young man 
 with a brilliant future before him, he had sworn to do justice 
 to Andrew Johnson "according to the Constitution and law," 
 and his verdict of "Not Guilty" was given with the same 
 deliberate emphasis that characterized all his utterances on the 
 floor of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Eoss, of Kansas, was the fifth Republican Senator to 
 vote "Not Guilty." Representing an intensely Radical consti- 
 tuency — entering the Senate but a few months after the close 
 of a three years enlistment in the Union Army and not unna- 
 turally imbued with the extreme partisan views and prejudices 
 against Mr. Johnssn then prevailing — his predilections were 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 139 
 
 sharply against the President, and his vote was counted upon 
 accordingly. But he had sworn to judge the defendant not by 
 his political or personal prejudices, but by the facts elicited in 
 the investigation. In his judgment those facts did not sustain 
 the charge. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, was the sixth Republican Senator 
 to vote against the Impeachment. He had been many years in 
 the Senate. In all ways a safe legislator and counsellor, he 
 had attained a position of conspicuous usefulness. But he did 
 not belong to the legislative autocracy which then assumed to 
 rule the two Houses of Congress. To him the Impeachment 
 was a question of proof of charges brought, and not of party 
 politics or policies. He was one of the great lawyers .of the 
 body, and believed that law was the essence of justice and not 
 an engine of wrong, or an instrumentality for the satisfation of 
 partisan vengeance. He had no especial friendship for Mr. 
 Johnson, but to him the differences between the President and 
 Congress did not comprise an impeachable offense. A profound 
 lawyer and clear headed politician and statesman, his known 
 opposition naturally tended to strengthen his colleagues in that 
 behalf. 
 
 Mr. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, was the seventh and last 
 Eepublican Senator to vote against the Impeachment. Methodi- 
 cal and deliberate, he was not hasty in reaching the conclusion 
 he did, but after giving the subject and the testimony most 
 careful and thorough investigation, he was forced to the con- 
 clusion that the accusation brought by the House of Represen- 
 tatives had not been sustained, and had the courage of an 
 American Senator to vote according to his conclusions. 
 The responses were as follows: 
 
 Guilty— Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Chandler; Conkling, Conness, 
 Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen. Harlan, Howard, 
 Howe, Morgan, Morton, Morrill of Maine. Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patter- 
 Bon of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, 
 Sumner, Tipton, Thayer, Wade, Williams, Wilson, Willey, Yates. 
 
 Not Guilty— Bavard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doohttle, Feeeenden, 
 Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Pat- 
 terson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers. 
 
 Not Guilty — 19. Guilty— 35 — one vote less than a Con- 
 stitutional majority. 
 
140 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE IMPEACHERS IN A MAZE. A KECESS ORDEEED. 
 
 THE FINAL VOTE TAKEN. 
 
 The defeat of the Eleventh Article was the second official 
 set-back to the Impeachment movement^ — the first being the 
 practicbl abandonment of the First Article by the change in 
 the order of voting. 
 
 The vote had been taken on what its friends seemed to con- 
 sider its strongest proposition; the Eleventh Article having 
 been so framed as to group the substance, practically, of all the 
 pending ten Articles. The impeachers had staked their cause 
 upon that Article, and lost. They seemed not to have contem- 
 plated the possibility of its defeat. So confident were they of 
 its success, in which event it would be immaterial what became 
 of the other Articles, that they apparently had agreed upon no 
 order of procedure after that should have been defeated. They 
 were in the condition of a flock of game into which the sports- 
 man had fired a shot and broken its ranks. They were dazed, 
 and for a moment seemed not to know what next to do, or 
 which way to turn. They did not dare now go back to the 
 fated First Article, according to the program agreed upon, as 
 Mr. Sherman and Mr. Howe had demonstrated its weakness, 
 and they were fearful of going to the Second or Third, as in 
 the then temper of the anti-impeachers it was manifest there 
 would be little hope for either of them, and the other eight had 
 been already beaten without a vote, at the conference previous- 
 ly held, and by Eepublican commitals. 
 
 The Chief Justice ordered the reading of the First Article, 
 according to the order agreed upon, but before that could 
 begin, apparently to gain time for recovery, Mr. Williams 
 moved that the Senate take a recess of fifteen minutes, but the 
 motion was not agreed to. « 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 141 
 
 The Chief Justice again ordered the readiug of the First 
 Article, but again, before the clerk could begin the reading, 
 Mr. Williams intervened to move an adjournment to Tuesday, 
 the 26th day of the month. 
 
 After numerous conflicting motions relating to the date of 
 the proposed reassembling, and several roll calls thereon, the 
 auti-impeachers generally insisting on proceeding at once to 
 vote on the other articles of impeachment, the motion of Mr. 
 Williams to adjourn to June 26th, prevailed. 
 
 Of course the purpose, and the only purpose then apparent, 
 of that adjournment, was to gain time, apparently in the hope 
 of more favorable developments in the next ten days. 
 
 The supposably strongest count of the indictment having been 
 beaten, it was apparent that it would be folly to hazard a vote on 
 any other at that time. There was a possibility that changes 
 might occur in the personnel of the Senate in the interim. As 
 but one article had been put to vote, and as that was beaten by 
 the lack of a single vote, there seemed a further possibility that 
 influences could be brought to bear, through the industry of 
 the House, as was very soon after developed, to secure the sup- 
 port of an anti-impeaching Senator on at least one of the arti- 
 cles of impeachment yet to be voted upon. A vacancy in the 
 ranks of the anti-impeaching Eepublicans to be filled by an 
 impeaching appointee might happen. Many contingencies were 
 possible during the next ten days for a reversal of the action 
 of the Senate just had. At all events, everything would be 
 hazarded by permitting further immediate action, while the 
 situation could be rendered no worse by delay, and time and 
 other mollifying conditions and influences might bring changes 
 more promising of success. 
 
 The anti-impeachment Republicans had not long to wait for 
 the development of the purpose of the recess, at least so far its 
 supporters in the House were concerned. Immediately upon 
 the adjournment of the Senate, the House re-assembled, and 
 the following proceeding was had: 
 
 Mr Bingham: 1 have been directed by the Managers on the part of the 
 House of Representatives, in the matter of the Impeachment of Andrew 
 Johnson, to report the following preamble and resolutions for considera- 
 tion at this time: 
 
 Whereas, information has come to the Managers which seems to them 
 to furnish probable cause to believe that improper or corrupt means have 
 
142 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 been used to influeDce the determination of the Senate upon the Articles 
 of Impeachment submitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives 
 against the President of the United States; therefore, 
 
 Be it Resolved, That for the further and more efficient jjrosecution ot 
 the Impeachment of the President, the Managers be directed and in- 
 structed to summon and examine witnesses under oath, to send for per- 
 sons and papers, and employ a stenographer, and appoint sub-committee 
 to take testimony; the expense thereof to be paid from the Contingent 
 Fund of the House. 
 
 This resolution was immediately and without debate adopted 
 by a vote of 88 to 14. It would be stating it mildly to say 
 that the House was in a tumult. The Republican leaders were 
 wild with rage. They had selected for the first vote what they 
 deemed the strongest point in their indictment, and lost; and 
 their vengeance now turned upon those Republican Senators 
 who had failed to support them. Hence the adjournment of 
 the Senate for ten days to afford them time to discipline the 
 recusants and force an additional vote for conviction on the 
 next ballot. 
 
 The conspicuous indelicacy of this move was two-fold: 1st, 
 in that the House proposed to investigate the action of a co-or- 
 dinate branch of Congress — and 2nd, that the trial not being 
 concluded, it had to a pointed degree the appearance of an at- 
 tempt to intimidate Senators who had voted against conviction 
 into changing their votes at the next ballot in fear of an in- 
 quisition for alleged corruption. In that sense it was an act 
 of intimidation — a warning. It was an ill-disguised threat and 
 a most unseemly proceeding — yet there was not one among the 
 supporters of the Impeachment to condemn it, and few who 
 failed openly to justify it. Partisan rancor and personal and 
 political hostility to the President had reached a point that con- 
 doned this indelicacy of the House towards the Senate, and 
 justified the public assault upon the dissenting Republican 
 Senators, and the insult to the Senate itself. 
 
 The demand for adjournment and delay seemed to have been 
 understood by the impeaching majority of the Senate, and was 
 of course promptly granted and further voting postponed, and 
 the Senate adjourned to May 26th. 
 
 The next ten day were days of unrest — of anxiety to all who 
 were involved or in any way interested in the impeachment 
 proceeding. While the result of the 16th gave hope and com- 
 fort to the opponents of impeachment, it caused little^r no per- 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 143 
 
 ceptible discouragement to its more radical friends. They were 
 more active and persistent thao ever. The footsteps of the anti- 
 impeaching Republicans were dogged from the day's beginning 
 to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, coQsiderations 
 and threats, in the hope of securing a revei-sal of the result of 
 the 16th. The partisan press of the States represented by the 
 anti-impeaching Republicans came daily filled with vigorous 
 animadversions upon their action, and not a few threats of vio- 
 lence upon their return to their constituents. Bat it was in vain. 
 
 The Senate reassembled on the 26th of May to complete the 
 vote on the articles of impeachment. After the usual prelim- 
 inary proceedings, Mr. Williams moved to begin the voting on 
 the Second Article, which was had with the same result as on 
 the 11th — and then the Third, and still with the same result. 
 It then became manifest that it was useless to go farther, as all 
 the balance had been rendered certain of defeat, and by still 
 more decisive votes — a considerable number of those so far vot- 
 ing for impeachment having committed themselves in the pre- 
 vious conference against all the balance. So, to save themselves 
 from being forced to vote against impeachment on any of the 
 articles, there was a unanimous vote of the impeachers to aban- 
 don the case and adjourn — and with it went glimmering the 
 visions of office, and spoils, and the riotous assaults on the pub- 
 lic treasury that had for months been organizing for the day 
 when Mr. Johnson should be put out and Mr. Wade put in, 
 with the political board clear for a neiu deal. 
 
 An analysis of the Eleventh Article shows that it comprised 
 four distinct counts, or accusations. 
 
 First— That Mr. Johnson had said that the Thirty-Ninth Congress was 
 not a Congress of the United States, but a Congress of only part of the 
 States, and therefore had no power to propose amendments the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 The latter clause of this accusation was the only portion of 
 the first count that received any consideration during the trial, 
 and the only testimony brought in its support was the Parsons- 
 Johnson telegraphic correspondence set out in Interrogatory 
 No. 5. 
 
 In that dispatch, referring to then pending Constitutional 
 amendment (the 14th) Mr. Johnson referred to Congress as "a 
 set of individuals." Mr. Manager Boutwell declared this ex- 
 
144 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 pression to be "the gist of the offense of this particular tele- 
 graphic dispatch." 
 
 Counsel for defense objected to this testimony, but it was 
 received by a vote of yeas twenty-seven, nays seventeen. 
 
 As the Fourteenth Amendment was not declared adopted or 
 a part of the Constitution for more than a year after the trans- 
 mission of that dispatch, and as the Constitution of the United 
 States prohibits any abridgment of the freedom of speech, and 
 as this remark was unaccompanied by any act in violation of 
 law, it is difficult to see how it could be construed into an 
 impeachable offense. Moreover, saying nothing of the good 
 taste or propriety of that dispatch, Mr. Johnson was opposed to 
 the proposed amendment, and had the same right to oppose it, 
 or to characterize it or the members of Congress favoring it, 
 as had any private citizen, or as had the members of Congress 
 to characterize his action in the premises, without being called 
 to account therefor. 
 
 The secound count of that article was: 
 
 Violation of the Tenure-of Office Act of March 2Dd, 1867, in seeking to 
 prevent the resumption by Mr. Stanton of the office of Secretary of War. 
 
 This clause had been very effectually disposed of by Messrs. 
 Sherman and Howe several days before the vote was taken on 
 the Eleventh Article, when thej' pointed out the fact that the 
 language of the first section of the Teuure-of-office Act clearly 
 excepted, and was intended by the Senate, to except Mr. Stan- 
 ton and all other persons then in Mr. Johnson's Cabinet who 
 had been originally appointed by Mr. Lincoln and were still 
 holding over under Mr. Johnson without having been recom- 
 missioned by him ; and that Mr. Johnson had therefore the legal 
 right and power to remove them at his pleasure. 
 
 And so convincing had been the argument of those gentle- 
 men at that time, that there was unanimous consent on the pro- 
 impeachment side of the Senate, on two different occasions, to 
 set aside the First Article, of which the alleged unlawful at- 
 tempt to remove Mr. Stanton was practically the principal accu- 
 sation. Not illogically, that unanimous consent to abandon the 
 First Article by thus setting it aside-, and afterwards refusing 
 to put it to a vote, may be said to have been equivalent to a vote 
 of its insufficiency. 
 
 It is pertinent to suggest here that the President believed the 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 145 
 
 Tenure-of-OflBce Act to be unconstitutioual, as it was clearly an 
 attempted abridgment of his power over his Cabinet which had 
 never before been questioned by Congress. The only method 
 left him for the determination of that question was in the course 
 he took, except by an agreed case, but it is manifest from the 
 record that no such agreement could be had, as an effort thereto 
 was made in the Thomas case in the District Court, but failed, 
 the prosecution withdrawing the case at the point where that 
 purpose of the President became manifest. 
 
 The third count was: 
 
 Attempting to prevent the execution of the Army appropriation Act of 
 March 2nd, 1867. 
 
 The means specified in this alleged attempt was the appoint- 
 ment of Mr. Edward Cooper to be Assistant Secretary of the 
 Treasury, with power to draw warrants on the Treasury with- 
 out the consent of the Secretary — the purpose being to show 
 that, with General Thomas acting as Secretary of War, and 
 Mr. Cooper as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to honor 
 General Thomas' drafts, and thus, in control of expenditures 
 for the support of the Army, a conspiracy was sought to be 
 proven whereby the President intended and expected to defeat 
 the Reconstruction Acts of Congress by preventing the use of 
 the Army for its enforcement. 
 
 Mr. Johnson, of the Court, asked this question: 
 
 The Managers are requested to say whether they propose to show 
 whether Mr. Cooper was appointed by the President in November, 18G7, as 
 a means to obtain unlawful possession of the public money, other than by 
 the fact of the appointment itself? 
 
 Mr. Manager Butler answered: 
 We certainly do. 
 
 Mr. Butler read the law on this subject, passed March 2nd, 
 1867, as follows: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power, by appointment 
 under his hand and official seal, to delegate to one of the Assistant Secre- 
 taries of the Treasury authority to sign in his stead all warrants for the 
 payment of money into the public Treasury and all warrants tor the dis- 
 bursments from the public Treasury of money certified by the accounting 
 officers of the Treasury to be due upon accounts duly audited and settled 
 by them; and such warrants signed shall be in all cases of the same validi- 
 ty as if they had been signed by the Secretary of the Treasury himself. 
 
 Mr. William E. Chandler, who had been Assistant Secretary 
 of the Treasury, was on the witness stand, called by the prose- 
 cution. 
 
 18 
 
146 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Butler asked whether it was the practice of the Assist- 
 ant Secretary to act as Secretary in case of removal of the 
 Secretary. 
 
 Answer: I am not certain that it is, without his appointment as Act- 
 ing Secretary by the President. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden, of the Court, propounded this inten-ogatory ? 
 
 Ist — Has it been the practice, since the passage of the law, for an As- 
 sistant Secretary to sign warrants unless especially appointed and author- 
 ized by the Secretary of the Treasury? 
 
 2nd — Has any Assistant Secretary been authorized to sign any warrants 
 except such as are specitied in the Act? 
 
 The witness answered as to the first: 
 
 It has not been the practice for any Assistant Secretary since the passage 
 of the Act to sign warrants except upon an appointment by the Secretary 
 for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Imme- 
 diately upon the passage of the Act, the Secretary authorized one of his 
 Assistant Secretaries to sign warrants of the character described in the 
 Act, and they have been customarily signed by that Assistant Secretary in 
 all cases since that time. 
 
 As to the second question the answer was: 
 
 No Assistant Secretary has been authorized to sign warrants except such 
 as are specified in this Act, unless when acting as Secretary. 
 
 That disposed of the third count in the Eleventh Article, 
 and the testimony was rejected by a vote of yeas 22, nays 27. 
 
 These answers to the interrogatories seemed to prove the re- 
 verse of what the Prosecution had expected. The accusation 
 of the Third count was not sustained. 
 
 As to the Fourth count of the Eleventh Article, that Mr. 
 Johnson sought to prevent the execution of the "Act to pro- 
 vide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," 
 passed March 2nd, 18G7, by the removal of Mr. Stanton from 
 the War Office, the proceedings of the trial disclose no testi- 
 mony of a sufficiently direct character for specification, except, 
 possibly, a number of speeches delivered at different points by 
 Mr. Johnson, which are set out in the Tenth Article of the Im- 
 peachment. As that Article was by unanimous consent aban- 
 doned and never put to vote, all its allegations logically fell as 
 unproven. 
 
 There was, therefore, no force and little coherency in the 
 Eleventh Article. It fell of its own weight. Every one of its 
 several averments had been disproven, or at least not proven. 
 It was to a good degree a summing up — an aggregation, of the 
 entire bill of indictment on theseveral distinct forms of offenses 
 charged — a crystallization of the whole. , 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. . 147 
 
 The eutire impeachment scheme was in reality beaten by 
 the vote on that Article, and the adjournment of ten days then 
 taken could have been only in the hope on the part of the ma- 
 jority that ultimate success on some one of the remaining 
 Articles could be made possible, in some way, legitimate or 
 otherwise, in part by the importunate throng of visitors to the 
 Capitol who were vociferously and vindictively urging Mr. 
 Johnson's removal largely for reasons personal to themselves — 
 but more especially through the efforts of the House of Eepre- 
 sentatives to discipline one or more of the anti-impeaching Ke- 
 publicans of the Senate. 
 
 The allegation of the Second Article, put to vote on the 2Gth, 
 and beaten by the same vote as was the Eleventh, was a corol- 
 lary of the First — violation of the Tenure-of-Ofl5ce Act in the 
 appointment of General Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim, 
 without the advice and consent of the Senate. This was the first 
 declaration ever made in the Senate that an ad interim or mere- 
 ly temporary appointment to till a vacancy, required confirma- 
 tion by that body. The power to make such an appointment 
 is so clearly possessed by the President without consultation of 
 the Senate — had been so uniformly exercised by every preced- 
 ing President without question, that argument on that point 
 would be superfluous. 
 
 In reality the essence of the Second Article, as of the First, 
 was the removal of Mr. Stanton. If the President could re- 
 move him without the consent of the Senate, which was clearly 
 established in the debate in the conference by Messrs. Sherman 
 and Howe, the way was clear for the appointment of an ad in- 
 terim Secretary, to the end that the office be filled until such 
 time as the President would be prepared to refill the place with 
 a Secretary on consultation with the Senate. That was the 
 very thing he attempted to do on the 22nd of February, the 
 day after Mr. Stanton's removal, when he sent to the Senate 
 the nomination of Thomas Ewing, Senior, to be Secretary of 
 War, for the action of that body. 
 
 The Third Article was so closely analagous to the Second, 
 that an analysis of it would be in the nature of repetition. If 
 there were any distinctions between them, they were so finely 
 drawn that they amounted simply to a distinction without a 
 
148 • THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 difference — a characteristic, indeed, of a large part of the eleven 
 Articles of Impeachment — a characteristic so conspicuous that 
 it was not deemed worth while by the majority to go further in 
 their submission to the Court. 
 
 These three Articles — the Second, Third and Eleventh — 
 being the only Articles of the entire list of eleven put to a vote, 
 and having been taken up and passed upon out of their nume- 
 rical but in the order of their supposed availability — must 
 therefore be regarded as confessedly the strongest and most 
 likely of the entire list to command the support of the Senate. 
 They were selected and set out for the test. That selection was 
 equivalent to saying, "we put the Impeachment cause to test on 
 these three Articles. If they fail, we have nothing more to 
 offer." 
 
 They were put to test and failed. They failed because of ' 
 their innate weakness. Failed because they proved nothing. 
 Failed because not a siugle allegation of the entire indictment 
 was or could be proven or tortured into an impeachable offense. 
 Not a remark made by the President or an act performed in all 
 the long and bitter controversy that had subsisted between him- 
 self and Congress could be brought nearer to the impeachment 
 mark, in fact, few if any of them so near, as had been the every 
 day rule in the House of Representatives during the previous 
 two years in their treatment of the President. Yet nobody 
 thought of impeaching members of the House for their every 
 day personal vituperations against him. 
 
 Bill after bill had been offered in Congress, and law after 
 law enacted, with apparently the sole purpose of hampering 
 the Constitutional authority and functions of the President — 
 even the assumption of Executive powers and judicial functions 
 by Congress — the not remote purpose of which seemed to be 
 his entrapment into some measure of resistance upon which 
 could be based an indictment. The House seemed to be liter- 
 ally "lying in wait" for him, with traps set on every side for 
 his ensnarement. 
 
 At last, after two years of this sort of scheming and im- 
 patient and anxious waiting, the opportunity seemed to have 
 offered in the alleged violation of the Tenure-of- Office Act. 
 The fosterers of the impeachment crusade, weary wiib their long 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 149 
 
 vigil and growing desperate with every additional day's delay, 
 clutched at the new turn of affairs like a drowning man at a 
 floating straw, and with the avidity of a starved gudgeon at a 
 painted fly. 
 
 It was not strange that this sort of diplomacy, developed and 
 exposed as it was in the Senate, in spite of the unfair and 
 partisan maneuvering of the prosecution to prevent it, should 
 have reacted, and contributed to turn against the impeachment 
 movement gentlemen who entered upon the investigation under 
 oath to give Mr. Johnson a fair, non-partisan trial. The only 
 surprise was' that, after the exposure of the malignant partisan 
 spirit that sat in judgment upon Mr. Johnson, and the utter 
 and absolute failure to prove any violation of la won his part, but 
 on the contrary, a determination to preserve from infringement 
 the functions of his office and prevent a revolution from funda- 
 mental political forms by the absorption of the Executive au- 
 thority by the legislative branch of the government — that even 
 a majority, and more especially, that nearly two-thirds of the 
 Senate, could have been found' at the close in support of the 
 Impeachment. 
 
 This record will serve to explain the omission to vote on the 
 First Article — Messrs. Sherman and Howe being precluded 
 from supporting it in consequence of the position taken by 
 them in the controversy between the two Houses of Congress 
 over the first section of the Tenure-of-Office Bill while that 
 bill was pending, and to avoid defeat on the first vote taken, 
 which was inevitable on that Article — and also to explain, so 
 far as any explanation is possible, the zig-zag method of con- 
 ducting the ballot — skipping all the first ten Articles and going 
 down to the bottom of the list for the first vote, with the pro- 
 mise of then going back to the first Article and continuing to 
 the end, but, instead, skipping that for the second time, and 
 starting in again on the Second and then the Third. 
 
 Of course, the natural effect of this battle-dore and shuttle- 
 cock method of treating so grave a matter as an impeachment 
 of the President of the United States, added to the effect of 
 the manifest unfairness of the majority in their treatment of 
 testimony offered in the President's defense — was to disgust 
 some who doubtless entered upon the trial honestly inclined to 
 
350 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 vote for Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but wanted it done 
 fairly and openly, without any suppression of pertinent testi- 
 mony or juggling for a verdict — and amusing to others, who 
 viewed it as proof of weakness in the indictment, and of mis- 
 giving as to the result on the part of its supporters. 
 
 To still others it was more than that. It was not only an 
 indication of weakness, but of a determination to take every 
 possible advantage, fair and unfair, to save votes for conviction. 
 The impeachers not unnaturally feared the effect of the defeat 
 of the First Article by the nay votes of Messrs. Sherman and 
 Howe, and probably other Republicans, which was certain to 
 follow the submission of that Article to a vote. Its only alle- 
 gation was the unlawful removal of Mr. Stanton from the office 
 of Secretary of War in violation of the Tenure-of-OiEce Act. 
 That alleged offense was repeated in varied but more or less 
 specific forms, in every succeeding Article of the Impeachment 
 except the Tenth, and constituted the sum and substance — the 
 gravamen — of the entire indictment. It was the basis upon 
 which the impeachment super-structure had been erected. 
 Without that Article there was not only no foundation, but no 
 coherence in the recital of Mr. Johnson's alleged offenses, and 
 when that fell by its abandonment, the entire impeachment 
 scheme fell with it — as, if there were nothing in the Ficst Arti- 
 cle on which to hang an impeachment, there could be nothing 
 in those that followed and were but an amplification — a mere 
 exploitation — of the First. 
 
 In substantiation of this view of the First Article, the decla- 
 ration of Mr. Boutwell to that effect is here inserted. Mr. Bout- 
 well was chairman of the committee of the House appointed to 
 prepare the Articles of Impeachment upon which Mr. Johnson 
 was tried. On his report of these Articles to the House he said, 
 after speaking particularly of the Tenth Article: 
 
 The other Articles are based upon facts which are of public knowledge, 
 growiog out of the attempt of the President to remove Secretary Stanton 
 from the office of Secretary for the Department of War. 
 
 That is, that the basis of the entire accusation was the alleged 
 violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act in the removal of Mr. 
 Stanton, as recited in the First Article. 
 
 So, after taking the vote on the Second and Third Articles 
 and their defeat by the same vote as that on the Eleventh, it 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 15] 
 
 became manifest that further effort to the impeachment of the 
 President on any of the remaining eight Articles would be use- 
 less, and Mr. Williams moved that the Senate, sitting as a 
 Court of Impeachment, adjourn sine die, which motion was 
 carried by the following vote: 
 
 Yeas — Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, 
 Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Perry, Prelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, 
 Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson o£ New 
 Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, 
 Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade. Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates — 34. 
 
 Nays — Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon. Doolittle, Fowler. Henderson, 
 Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, 
 Sauliibury, Trumbull, Vickers — 16. 
 
 Every Senator present who had voted for conviction voted to 
 abandon the prosecution and end the trial, and every Senator 
 present who had voted against conviction, voted to, continue and 
 go through the indictment. 
 
 Of course, it was useless to go farther with any hope of suc- 
 cess, as, it will be seen by this record, all the remaining Arti- 
 cles were dead, beaten in caucus before the voting commenced, 
 and by the professed friends and leaders of the movement. 
 
 Possibly it was the anticipation of this effect of the abandon- 
 ment of the First Article, that was the "sickness" to which Mr. 
 Edmunds, at the outset of the voting, ten days before, ascribed 
 the peculiar order of taking the vote. 
 
 It is not intended to aver that there was any privity or con- 
 cert in this particular manipulation — yet it is suggestive. The 
 Impeachment had been dragging since the 22nd of February, 
 to May 26th— more than three months — and had been every- 
 where the engrossing topic of the time. It was becoming tire- 
 some — not only to the Senate, but to the general public. 
 
 Notwithstanding the City of Washington was still filled with 
 people who had been waiting weary weeks and months for the 
 deposition of Mr. Johnson and the accession of Mr. Wade to 
 the Presidency, for the fulfillment of pledges of appointment 
 based thereon, and who were still importunate for impeach- 
 ment, the business element of the country at large was tiring 
 of it and its depressing effect upon the commercial activities. 
 Even Senators and Congressmen were being moved to a sense 
 of the obstructive and somewhat ridiculous phases the impeach- 
 ment movement was beginning to take on — and not a few of 
 those who in its earlier stages had honestly favored the move- 
 
152 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 ment, inside as well as outside the membership of both Houses 
 of Congress, had begun to realize the actual nature and pur- 
 pose, as also the shallowness of the impeachment movement — 
 that from whatever motives it had originated, it had degener- 
 ated very much iuto a game of personal ambition — of vindictive- 
 ness — and of office getting and spoils — and pratically nothing 
 higher. 
 
 While some of its supporters who had manifestly entered 
 upon the trial with a determination to convict, were still in- 
 sistent for further prosecution had there been a shadow of 
 ultimate sxiccess, there were others who had begun to realize, 
 weeks before the end came, the awkwardness of the predica- 
 ment in which they had allowed themselves and their party to 
 be placed, and desired to abandon the enterprise. 
 
 The strain was becoming too great — there was certain to be a 
 recoil sooner or later. The foundations of the Impeachment 
 were shown to be too slender. There was a future ahead that 
 must be faced, but Senators must preserve their consistency. 
 They could not go before their pro-impeachment constituencies 
 with a record indicating any degree of weakening in the im- 
 peachment crusade. They had insisted for months that Mr. 
 Johnson must be removed, and it would be politically inexpedi- 
 ent to retract. 
 
 But they wanted somebody to "help them let go." 
 
 So the plan of "desultory" procedure herein outlined seems 
 to have "happened" — whether by design or otherwise, is im- 
 material — and that plan was made easy by the concerted aban- 
 donment of the head and front of the indictment — the First 
 Article — which was side-tracked and logically carried with it 
 all that followed, as would manifestly have been the result if 
 the voting had begun on that Article. 
 
 While, to degree, the turmoils and bitterness of that time 
 have passed out of public mind, there are still many living who 
 retain a keen remembrance of the struggle and the enmities it 
 produced. There were during the trial many thousands of 
 men in the City of Washington awaiting the Impeachment and 
 removal of the President for the fulfillment of pledges of offi- 
 cial appointment based thereon, and their numbers increased 
 as the trial progressed. 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. . 153 
 
 . These anticipated beneficiaries were naturally not idle in 
 efforts to the stimulation of zeal in the cause of Impeachment, 
 and Senators were importuned at all seasonable and unseason- 
 able hours in behalf of immediate and positive action. The 
 lively anxiety, even anxious haste, of these patriots for their 
 earliest possible entry upon the service of the Government, was 
 emphasized on every corner and at every place of gathering, 
 day and night, and the lobbies of the Capitol were thronged by 
 them during the sessions of the Senate. No opportunity for a 
 word with a Senator in behalf of the immediate deposition of 
 the President, nor any appliance that seemed to promise a suc- 
 cessful overture, was overlooked or forgotten. 
 
 "When these seemed to fail of the desired effect, more direct 
 and, it was hoped, more effective methods were resorted to. 
 The beleaguered Senator was reminded that the applicant rep- 
 resented the united sentiment of the people of the State from 
 which he held his Senatorial seat — that they demanded Mr. 
 Johnson's conviction and removal — that that demand could not 
 be safely denied, trifled with, or delayed; and that if money was 
 wanted, to use the language of a notorious inquisitor of the 
 House, Mr. Butler, speaking of the possibility of securing a 
 
 designated vote for Impeachment — "tell the d d scoundrel 
 
 that if he wants money, there is a bushel of it here to be bad!" 
 Mr. Butler's message was delivered. 
 
 So desperate were the inquisitors, and so close the certainty 
 of the vote, that even a project of kidnapping a Senator under 
 the pretense of taking a trip to Baltimore for much needed rest, 
 where, if the terms to'be there proffered were refused, a vacancy 
 was to be created — by assassination, if necessary — then a 
 recess of the Senate to afford time for the appointment by the 
 Governor of that Senator's State of a successor who would vote 
 for the Impeachment of the President— was entered upon and 
 its execution attempted. But the trip to Baltimore for "rest" 
 . was not taken. 
 
 These are not pleasant facts to contemplate, but they some- 
 what conspicuously characterized the conditions of that time, 
 and illustrate the real nature of the impeachment scheme. 
 They boded the control of the Government by the worst ele- 
 ment of American politics. It is unnecessary to say here what 
 
154 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, 
 
 that control would have involved. During all the previous 
 history of the Government — its wars and political turmoils — 
 the Democratic-Republican forms that characterize its admi- 
 nistrations have never faced so insidious or threatening a danger 
 as during that hour. It was a crucial test, and the result a 
 magnificent vindication of the wisdom and patriotism of the 
 founders of our composite form of Government. Its results 
 have but strengthened those forms and broadened the scope of 
 the beneficent political institutions that have grown up under 
 and characterize its operation. 
 
 It was a test such as probably no other form of Government 
 on earth could have successfully passed, and it is to be hoped 
 that its like may never return. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 155 
 
 CHAPTER XT I. 
 
 WAS IT A PAKTISAN PKOSECUTION? 
 
 The weakest point in the entire record of the Prosecution of 
 President Johnson, from the indictment by the House of Rep- 
 resentatives to the finish in the Senate, (except the Bill of Im- 
 peachment itself,) -was the refusal of the more than three- 
 fonrths Eepublican majority of the Senate to permit the recep- 
 tion of testimony in his behalf. That majority naturally gave 
 them absolute control of the proceedings, and they should have 
 realized from the outset that they could not afford to give it 
 the least tinge of partisan bias. 
 
 It is therefore not material to discuss in detail the instances 
 of the two interrogatories put by counsel for the Prosecution 
 and rejected, Nos. 4 and 28, because it was shown that their 
 answer would prove nothing against the President, but rather 
 to his vindication, and their rejection could not have occurred 
 but for the intervention of many more nay Republican than 
 Democratic votes — but will pass to the analyzation of the votes 
 on the twelve interrogatories propounded by counsel for Defense 
 and rejected, which rejections could not have occurred but by 
 the intervention of a large preponderance, in every instance, of 
 the Republican vote^ cast thereon, and many of them by a 
 unanimous Republican vote. 
 
 Without doubt, many of these votes on the admissibility of 
 testimony were governed by the usual rules prevailing in the 
 courts, but it was deemed by others that every question not man- 
 ifestly frivolous, or not pertinent, should be permitted answer 
 without objection, regardless of such rules — that the Senate 
 sitting for the trial of an Impeachment of the President of the 
 United States — the occasion a great State Trial— should not be 
 trammeled or belittled by the technicalities common to ordinary 
 court practice — that the Senate was composed supposedly of 
 
156 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 gentlemen and lawyers of high standing in their profession and 
 familiar with public affairs and public law — that they were sit- 
 ting in a semi-judicial capacity — not merely as Senators or 
 jurors, but judges also — judges of fact as well as of law — and 
 constituted the highest trial body known to our laws — a tribu- 
 nal from which there was no appeal — that each of its members 
 had taken a solemn oath to "do impartial justice" in this cause, 
 absolutely unswerved by partisan or personal considerations, 
 and that as such each member had not only the right, but it 
 was his duty under his oath, as well, to permit no obstacle or 
 condition to unnecessarily keep from him a knowledge of all 
 available facts pertinent to the cause, no matter on which side 
 the}' might weigh — to help or to hurt. That the body, each 
 member for himself, was the pi-oper party to determine the ad- 
 missibility of testimony, as Mr. Manager Boutwell had declared 
 in his opening argument, '■'■after he had heard it,^^ and knew its 
 trend an purport. Every member ot that body had the right 
 to know all the witness knew about the case, and, moreover, the 
 witnesses were brought for the purpose, and for the sole pur- 
 pose, of telling what they knew. 
 
 The same assurance of absolute fairness as that of Mr. Bout- 
 well, was also given by Mr. Bingham, another of the Managers 
 of the Prosecution on the part of the House, in his opening 
 plea before the Senate: "It is," said he, "certainly very com- 
 petent for the Senate, as it is competent for any court of jus- 
 tice in the trial of cases where questions of doabt arise, to hear 
 the evidence, and, where they themselves are the judges of both 
 the law and the fact, to dismiss so much of it as tliey may find 
 incompetent, if any of it be incompetent. , * * * Under the 
 plea of Not Guilty, as provided in the rules, every conceivable 
 defense that the accused party could make to the Articles here 
 preferred, can be admitted." 
 
 Mr. Manager Butler also said, on the same occasion : "Upon 
 this so great trial, I pray let us not belittle ourselves with the 
 analyses of the common law courts, or the criminal courts, be- 
 cause nothing is so dangerous to mislead ns." 
 
 These and other like assurances were given of the widest 
 reasonable latitude in the reception of testimony in the trial 
 then opening. There was thus every reason to expe^that Mr. 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 157 
 
 Johnson would have a fair trial. But no sooner had the Pros- 
 ecution completed its examination of witnesses, in which but 
 seven interrogatories had been objected to of the long list 
 proffered by the Prosecution, than a different rule seemed to 
 have been established for the treatment of proffered testimony, 
 and a large mass of relevant and valuable testimony in behalf 
 of the President was ruled out on objection of the Prosecution, 
 as inadmissible, and, as a rule that had very few exceptions, on 
 partisan divisions of the Senate. 
 
 Of course it will not be admitted, nor is it here charged, that 
 these refusals to hear testimony were because of any fear that 
 the answers would have auy improper force or effect upon the 
 Senate. Nor will it signify to say that the President's attor- 
 neys could not have proved what they offered to prove. They 
 had the right to an opportunity to so prove, and the denial of 
 that right and opportunity was not only a denial of a manifest 
 right of the attorneys, but especially in this case, a more 
 flagrant denial of the rights of the accused, and not only that, 
 but they amounted to an impugnment of the discretion of the 
 Senate. 
 
 It is conspicuous, too, that while the defense objected to but 
 seven of the interrogatories submitted by the Prosecution, and 
 five of them were permitted answer by the vote of the Senate ; 
 twenty-one of the proffers of testimony by the defense were 
 objected to by the prosecution and but nine of them permitted 
 answer: and that condition was aggravated by the fact that the 
 numerical strength of the majority party in the Senate was 
 sufficient to determine absolutely the disposition of every ques- 
 tion, and they could therefore afford to be strictly fair to the 
 accused, and by the further fact that the objections to testi- 
 mony offered in behalf of the defense were as three to one of 
 the objections to testimony offered in behalf of the prosecution. 
 These denials of testimony in behalf of the defense were un- 
 fortunate. That practice lowered the dignity of the occasion 
 and of the proceeding, as they could but have given ground for 
 criticism of partisan bias and a vindictive judgment in case of 
 successful impeachment. Most, if not all these rejected inter- 
 rogatories implied important information in possession of the 
 witnesses which the Senate had a right to, and which the party 
 
158 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 offering had the right to have produced. Moreover, it was the 
 right and the duty of the Senate to know what the witness was 
 presumed to know, and then to judge, each Senator for himself, 
 of the relevancy of the testimony. 
 
 As stated, the principal averment against the President, was 
 his alleged violation of the Tenure-of-OflBce Act in the removal 
 of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, presented 
 in various phases throughout the Articles of Impeachment. 
 
 In illustration of the treatment of testimony offered in the 
 President's behalf by a majority of the Kepublican Senators, 
 the record shows that on the eighth disputed interrogatory, the 
 second put by the defense, General Sherman being on the wit- 
 ness stand :. — Defense asked as to a certain conversation relat- 
 ing to that removal, had between the General and the Presi- 
 dent at an interview specified. The prosecution objected to 
 the question being answered, and a vote of the Senate was de- 
 manded. The vote was — for receiving the testimony, 23; 
 against receiving it, 28. Of the latter number, twenty-seven, 
 all Republicans, voted at the close of the trial to convict the 
 President of violating the Tenure-of Office Act, in the removal 
 of Mr. Stanton, after refusing to hear testimony in his behalf 
 on that charge. 
 
 The next interrogatory, No. 9, was "when the President 
 asked the witness (Gen. Sherman,) to accept the War Office, 
 was anything further said in reference to it?" This was ob- 
 jected DO by the prosecution, and the vote thereon was 23 to 29. 
 Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine gentlemen thus refusing an- 
 swer to this question, afterwards voting to convict the Presi- 
 dent, after refusing to hear the testimony of a very important 
 witness in his behalf, which his counsel proposed to produce 
 and tried in vain to get before the Senate. 
 
 On the tenth interrogatory, by Defense, "whether the Presi- 
 dent had stated to the witness, (General Sherman), his object 
 in asking him to accept the War Office," the vote was 7 to 44 
 against receiving it, and thirty -one of the gentlemen voting not 
 to hear this testimony, at the close of the hearing voted to con- 
 vict Mr. Johnson of a high misdemeanor in office in the removal 
 of Mr. Stanton, after refusing to hear his defense. 
 
 The next. No. 11, was as to the President's attempt to get a 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 159 
 
 case before the Supreme Court for a judicial determination of 
 Mr. Stanton's right to retain the War Office against the Presi- 
 dent's wish. This testimony was refused by a vote of 25 to 27 
 — every nay vote being cast by a Republican, every one of whom 
 at the close of the trial, voting in effect to convict Mr. Johnson 
 of a high misdemeanor in office in seeking resort to the courts 
 to test the legality of an act of Congress passed for the prac- 
 tically sole purpose of restricting an executive function never 
 before questioned. 
 
 The next interrogatory. No. 12, was whether the witness, 
 (General Sherman), had formed an opinion whether the good 
 of the service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stan- 
 ton. It was well understood that General Sherman believed 
 that for the good of the service Mr. Stanton ought to retire, and 
 as the Chief Officer of the Army his opinion was certainly en- 
 titled to weight, and the President had a right to the benefit 
 of his judgment. This interrogatory was objected to by the 
 Prosecution, and was rejected by a vote of 18 to 35 — thirty- 
 one of the thirty-five being Republicans, who at the close 
 of the trial voted to convict Mr. Johnson of a high mis- 
 demeanor in the removal of Mr. Stanton, after refusing him the 
 benefit of the opinion of the Chief Officer of the Army on a 
 question affecting the military service, and to which he was in 
 all fairness clearly entitled. 
 
 No. 13, General Sherman was asked whether he had advised 
 the President to appoint a successor to Mr. Stanton. (It was 
 well understood that he had.) Answer to this was refused, 18 
 to 32 — thirty of the latter, all Republicans, voting at the close 
 of the trial to convict Mr. Johnson, after refusing to hear this 
 important testimony in his behalf. No. 16. The answer to the 
 last interrogatory, ("if he did, state what his purpose was,") 
 was received by a majority of one, 26 to 25— every nay vote 
 being a Republican, and constituting a majority of the Repub- 
 licans of the Senate. 
 
 No. 21. Mr. O. E. Perrin on the stand, was asked as to the 
 President's statement that Mr. Stanton would relinquish the 
 office at once to General Thomas — "that it was only a tempo- 
 rary arrangement" — that he would "send to the Senate at once 
 the name of a good man," (which he did). This testimony was 
 
160 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 rejected by a vote of 9 to 37 — thirty of the latter number being 
 Republijans who at the close of the trial voted to convict Mr. 
 Johnson of a hi^h misdemeanor in sending to the Senate the 
 name of Thomas Ewing, Senior, for appointment as Secretary 
 of War, vice Stanton removed in assumed violation of the Ten- 
 ure-of-OflBce Act. 
 
 The next offer of testimony to be rejected was No. 23 — Mr. 
 Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, on the stand, to prove 
 that the Cabinet had advised the President to veto the Tenure- 
 of-Office Bill as unconstitutional. The Chief Justice ruled the 
 testimony admissible for the purpose of showing the intent 
 with which the President had acted in the transaction. Pros- 
 ecution objected, and by a vote of 20 to 29, the decision of 
 the Chief Justice was overruled. No answer to this interroga- 
 tory was permitted, every vote to refuse this testimony being 
 cast by a Republican, every one of whom, at the close of the 
 trial, voting to convict and remove Mr. Johnson for alleged 
 violation of a law which he believed to be unconstitutional — 
 which he was advised by the head of the Law Department of 
 the Government was unconstitutional and therefore not a law 
 which he had sworn to execute, and the constitutionality of 
 which he had endeavored to get before the courts for adjudica- 
 tion — those 29 Eepublicans 3o voting after having refused to 
 hear testimony in his defense on these identical points. 
 
 The next disputed interrogatory was No. 24 — that Mr. John- 
 son's Cabinet had advised him that the Secretaries who had 
 been appointed by Mr. Lincoln and still holding, (Mr. Stanton, 
 Mr. Seward, and Mr. Welles, ) were removable by the Presi- 
 dent, notwithstanding the assumed restriction of the Tenure-of- 
 Office Act. The Chief Justice ruled this testimony to be ad- 
 missible. Objection was made by the Prosecution, and a vote 
 taken, and the interrogatory was rejected — 22 to 26 — every 
 nay vote being a Republican, every one of whom at the close 
 of the trial, voting to convict and remove Mr. Johnson from 
 office, after having refused to hear this very important testi- 
 mony in his behalf. 
 
 Defense next offered to prove (No. 25) that it was deter- 
 mined by the President, with the concurrence of the Cabinet, 
 that an agreed case for the determination of the constitutional- 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 161 
 
 ity of the Tenure-of-OflBce Act should be made. This testi- 
 mony was objected to, and a vote taken, which was 19 to 30. 
 Every one of the gentlemen voting to reject this testimony, 
 Mr. Johnson's right to which cannot with any possible show- 
 ing of fairness be successfully disputed, were Kepublicans, and 
 after so voting, at the close of the trial, declared by their 
 several verdicts that he had been fairly proven guilty of a high 
 misdemeanor in office, by violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act 
 in seeking a judicial determination of the validity of a disputed 
 Act of Congress, and should be expelled from office. 
 
 No. 26, was as to any suggestion by the President of the 
 employment of force for the vacation of any office, (relating of 
 course, to the War Office.) Mr. Johnson had been charged 
 with seeking the removal of Mr. Stanton by force, should he 
 resist. Knowing perfectly that the answer would be in the 
 negative, the Senate refused to permit answer to this interroga- 
 tory, by a vote of 18 to 2(5, every one of the twenty-six gentle- 
 tlemen at the close of the trial in effect voting that the Presi- 
 dent was guilty as charged, of seeking to remove Mr. Stanton 
 by violence, after refusing to hear either his deniel or witnesses 
 in his behalf on that point. 
 
 No. 27. Defense proposed to prove that the Cabinet had 
 advised the President that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not pre- 
 vent the removal of those members who had been originally 
 appointed by Mr. Lincoln. This testimony, which, if per- 
 mitted answer, would, in the minds of unprejudiced people, 
 have at once set aside the entire impeachment scheme, was not 
 permitted answer. The vote was 20 to 26 — every one of the 
 twenty-six gentlemen who voted to reject that most important 
 and conclusive testimony in Mr. Johnson's behalf, at the close 
 of the examination voting to convict him of a high misdemeanor 
 in office by violating the Tenure-of-Office Act in removing Mr. 
 Stanton from the office of Secretary of War — after refusing 
 this offer to prove by his Cabinet advisers, the witness himself, 
 (Mr. Welles, and his testimony, if received, was to be followed 
 by that of Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton, all of whom had been 
 appointed by Mr. Lincoln and not re-appointed by Mr. John- 
 son,) that that act did not apply to or protect them against re- 
 moval at the pleasure of the President. 
 
162 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 So that on eighteen of these twenty-one disputed interroga- 
 tories put in behalf of the Defense, a majority of the Repub- 
 licans of the Senate refused in every instance to hear testi- 
 mony, after having sworn to give Mr. Johnson a fair and im- 
 partial trial. 
 
 But the most flagrant case of unfairness to the defendant in 
 this examination of witnesses occurred in the treatment of in- 
 terrogatory No. 3, put by the prosecution, in their introduc- 
 tion of a letter from the President to General Grant, purport- 
 ing to enclose letters from different members of the Cabinet in 
 substantiation of the position of the President in the contro- 
 versy then pending between Gen. Grant and himself. These 
 letters were enclosed with, and specifically referred to and 
 made a part of the President's communication, and were neces- 
 sary to a correct apprehension of the controversy, from the 
 President's or any other standpoint. 
 
 Being so enclosed and referred to in the letter transmitting 
 and enclosing them, they became quite as much a part of the 
 President's communication as his own letter which enclosed 
 them. Counsel for Defense objected to the introduction of the 
 President's letter without the enclosures, but the objection was 
 not sustained and the letters were not permitted to be intro- 
 duced, but the letter enclosing and referring to them was. The 
 vote on the production of the enclosures was, yeas 20, nays 29 
 — twenty-eight of the thirty-eight Republicans present, voting 
 to exclude this essential testimony in the President's behalf, 
 and twenty-seven of the number afterwards, voted to convict him 
 of a high misdemeanor in oflice in removing Mr. Stanton from 
 the War Office, after refusing him the benefit of the testimony 
 of his Constitutional Cabinet advisers in this important matter. 
 
 It is possible that under other conditions this proceeding 
 might have been legitimate and proper; but Mr. Johnson was 
 on trial under grave charges, before the highest, and supposably 
 fairest tribunal on earth, and had a right to the benefit of the 
 testimony of his cabinet, in full, and more especially when that 
 testimony was presented in a distorted and garbled shape by 
 his accusers. Moreover, every member of the Court had the 
 right to know what was in those letters, if any part of the cor- 
 respondence was to be received. But whether or not BJr. John- 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 163 
 
 son had the right to the testimony in his behalf which it was 
 claimed these enclosures contained, he certainly had the right 
 to resist the introduction of mutilated testimony against him. 
 The purpose of the trial was to ascertain the facts in the case 
 — all the facts bearing on either side. The Court was sitting 
 and the witnesses were called for that purpose, and no other. 
 
 This record shows, that in but three instances out of twenty - 
 one, did a majority of the Republicans of the Senate vote to re- 
 ceive testimony offered in the President's behalf — that on one 
 interrogatory there was an equal division — that on seventeen 
 of the twenty -one interrogatories put by the Defense, a major- * 
 ity of the Ilepublicans voted to exclude testimony, in several 
 cases by a two-thirds vote — and that but nine of the twenty- 
 one interrogatories put in behalf of the President were by Re- 
 publican votes permitted to be answered — also that, as a rule 
 which had very rare exceptions, such interrogatories in behalf 
 of the President as were permitted answer, were so permitted 
 by very close majorities. 
 
 It is undoubted that every Republican member of the Sen- 
 ate entered upon that trial in the expectation that the allega- 
 tions of the Prosecution would be sustained, but it was also ex- 
 pected that a fair, free, full, open investigation of all the 
 charges preferred would be had, and that all the information 
 possible to be obtained bearing upon the case, pro and con, 
 would be admitted to testimony — but that expectation was not 
 realized. 
 
 To sum up this feature of the proceeding — the Republican 
 majority of the Senate placed themselves and their party in the 
 attitude of prosecutors in the case — instead of judges sworn to 
 give the President an impartial trial and judgment that their 
 course had the appearance, at least, of a conspiracy to evict the 
 President for purely partisan purposes, regardless of testimony 
 or the facts of the case — that public animosity against Mr. 
 Johnson had been manufactured throughout the North by wild 
 and vicious misrepresentations for partisan effect — that practi- 
 cally the entire Republican Party machinery throughout the 
 country was bent to the work of prosecution. The party cry 
 was "Crucify him !" "Convict him anyway, and try him after- 
 
164 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 wards!" With rare exceptions, the Republican Party of the 
 country, press and people, were a unit in this insensate cry. 
 
 They were ready to strike, but not to hear. 
 
 There can be but one conclusion from these premises, estab- 
 lished by the record of the trial — that the entire proceeding, 
 from its inception in the House of Representatives to its con- 
 clusion in the Senate, was a thoroughly partisan prosecution on 
 the part of the majority in both Houses, and that the country 
 was saved from the shameful spectacle, and the dangerous con- 
 sequences of such a proceeding, by the intervention and self- 
 .sacrifice of a few gentlemen who proposed to respect the obli- 
 gation of their oath, and give Mr. Johnson, so far as in their 
 power, a fair trial and judgment — and not having had such a 
 trial — to give him the benefit of what he claimed he could prove 
 in his own behalf and was not permitted to — and a verdict of 
 "Not Guilty," regardless of consequences to themselves. 
 
 What every member of the Court had sworn todo was "impar- 
 tial justice" to Andrew Johnson, and nothing less. The Counsel 
 on neither side had taken that oath, but the Court had; audits 
 performance of that oath was impossible without possession of 
 all the information relating to and bearing upon the case that 
 it was reasonably possible to obtain. That is the essential in- 
 gredient and characteristic of a fair trial. 
 
 That esseniud hujredient of judicial fairness was not shown 
 to Mr. Johnson in this case by the Republican majority of the 
 Senate, as the oflBcial record of the trial clearly establishes. It 
 was an ill-disguised and malevolent partisan prosecution. 
 
■OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 1C5 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWEE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 The power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress to 
 impeach and remove the President for cause, is unquestionably 
 a wise provision. The natural tendency of the most patriotic 
 of men, in the exercise of power in great public emergencies, 
 is to overstep the line of absolute safety, in the conscientious 
 conviction that a departure from strict constitutional or legal 
 limitations is demanded by the public welfare. 
 
 The danger in such departures, even upon apparent necessity, 
 if condoned or permitted by public judgment is in the establish- 
 ment of precedents whereby greater and more dangerous in- 
 fractions of organic law may be invited, tolerated, and justified, 
 till government takes on a form of absolutism in one form or 
 another, fatal to free institutions, fatal to a government of law, 
 and fatal to popular liberty. 
 
 On the other hand, a too ready resort to the power of im- 
 peachment as a remedial agent — the deposition of a public offi- 
 cer in the absence of proof of the most positive and convinciug 
 character of the impeachability of the offense alledged, natur- 
 ally tends to the otlier extreme, till public officers may become 
 by common consent removable by impeachment upon insuffi- 
 cient though popular charges — even upon partisan differences 
 and on sharply contested questions of public administration. 
 
 The power of impeachment and removal becomes, therefore, 
 a two-eged sword, which must be handled with consummate 
 judgment and skill, and resort thereto had only in the gravest 
 emergencies and for causes so clearly manifest as to preclude 
 the possibility of partisan divisions or partisan judgments 
 thereon. Otherwise, too ready resort to impeachment must 
 inevitably establish and bring into common use a new and 
 dangerous remedy for the cure of assumed political ills which 
 
16G THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 have their origin only in partisan differences as to methods of 
 administration. It would become an engine of partisan in- 
 tolerance for the punishment and ostracism of political oppo- 
 nents, under the operation of which the great office of Chief 
 Magistrate must inevitably lose its dignity, and decline from 
 its Constitutional rank as a co-ordinate department of the Gov- 
 ernment, and its occupant no longer the political head and 
 Chief Executive of the Nation, except in name. 
 
 It was in that sense, and to a pointed degree, that in the 
 impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson the quality of co- 
 ordination of the three great Departments of Government — the 
 Executive, Legislative, and Judicial — was directly involved — 
 the House of Representatives as prosecutor — the President as 
 defendant — the Senate sitting as the trial court in which the 
 Chief Justice represented the judicial department as presiding 
 officer. 
 
 The anomally of the situation was increased and its gravity 
 intensified, by the fact that the President pro tempore of the 
 Senate, who stood first in the line of succession to the Presi- 
 dency in case of conviction, was permitted, in a measure, indeed, 
 forced by his pro-impeachment colleagues, on a partisan divis- 
 ion of the Senate, to sit and vote as such President pro tem- 
 pore for the impeachment and removal of the President whom 
 he was to succeed. 
 
 These facts of condition attending and characterizing the 
 trial of President Johnson, pointedly accentuate the danger to 
 our composite form of government which the country then faced. 
 That danger, as it had found frequent illustration in the debates 
 in the House of Representatives on the several propositions for 
 the President's impeachment preceding the bringing of the 
 indictment, lay in the claim of superiority of political function 
 for the Legislative branch over the Executive. The quality of 
 co-ordination of these departments was repeatedly and emphat- 
 ically denied by conspicuous and influential members of that 
 body during the initial proceedings of the impeachment move- 
 ment, and even on the floor of the Senate by the managers of 
 the impeachment. To illustrate: 
 
 Mr. Bingham, in the House, Feb. 22nd, 1868, announced the 
 extraordinary doctrine that "there is no power to review the 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 167 
 
 action of Congress." Again, speaking of the action of the Sen- 
 ate on the 21st of February, on the President's message an- 
 nouncing the removal of Mr. Stanton, he said: "Neither the 
 Supreme Court nor any other Court can question or review 
 this judgment of the. Senate." 
 
 The declaration was made by Messrs. Stevens and Boutwell 
 in the House, that the Senate was its own judge of the validity 
 of its own acts. 
 
 Mr. Butler, in his opening speech to the Senate, at the be- 
 ginning of the trial, used this language: 
 
 A Constitutional tribunal solely, you are bound by no law, either Statute 
 or Common, which may limit your constitutional prerogative. You con- 
 sult no precedents save those of the law and custom of parliamentary 
 bodies. You are a law unto yourselves, bound only by the natural prin- 
 ciples of equity and justice, and salus populi suprema est lex. 
 
 Feb. 24, 1868, Mr. Stevens said in the House: 
 
 Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary had any right to interfere with 
 it (Reconstruction) except so far as was necessary to control it by military 
 rule until the sovereign power of the Nation had provided for its civil ad- 
 ministration. No power but Congress had any right to say whether ever, 
 or when, they (the rebel States), should be admitted to the Union as States 
 and entitled to the privileges of the Constitution of the United States." * 
 * * "I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall re- 
 member that although it is the duty of the President to see that the laws 
 be executed, tlie sovereign power of the Nation rests in Congress. 
 
 Mr. Butler, the leading spirit of the impeachment enterprise, 
 went so far as to make the revolutionary suggestion of the 
 abrogation of the Presidential office in the event of final failure 
 to convict the President — set out in the 8th Chapter. 
 
 Mr. Sumner insisted that in no judicial sense was the Senate 
 a Court, and therefore not bound by the rules of judicial pro- 
 cedure : 
 
 If the Senate is a Court bound to judicial forms on the expulsion of the 
 President, must it not be the same in the expulsion cf a Senator? But 
 nobody attributes to it any such strictures in the latter case. * * In 
 the case of Blount, which is the first in our history, the expulsion was on 
 the report of a committee declaring him guilty of a high misdemeanor. At 
 least one Senator has been expelled on simple formal motion. Others have 
 been expelled without any formal allegations or formal proofs. * * * 
 The Constitution provides that "Each House shall determine its rules of 
 proceeding." The Senate on the expulsion of its own members has already 
 done this practically and set an example of simplicity. But it has the same 
 power over its "rules of proceeding'' on the expulsion of the President, and 
 there can be no reason for simplicity in the one case not equally applicable 
 in the other. Technicality is as little consonant with the one as with th 
 
168 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 other. Each has for its object the Public Safety. For this a Senator is 
 expelled; for this, also, the President is expelled. Salus Populi Suprema 
 Lex. The proceedings in each case must be in subordination to this rule." 
 
 Thus, Mr. Sumner would have removed the President by an 
 ordinary concurrent resolution of Congress. 
 
 The purpose of all this was apparent — that the President was 
 in effect, to be tried and judged before a Court of Public Opin- 
 ion, and not before the Senate sitting as a High Court of Im- 
 peachment, but by the Senate sitting in its legislative capacity 
 — to create the impression in the minds of Senators that in this 
 high judicial procedure they were still acting as a legislative 
 body — simply as Senators, and not in a judicial capacity, as 
 judges and jurors, and therefore not bound specifically by their 
 oaths as such, to convict only for crime denounced by the law, 
 or for manifest high political misdemeanors, but could take 
 cognizance of and convict on alleged partisan offenses and alle- 
 gations based on differences of opinion and partisan prejudices 
 and partisan predilections — that it was not essential that the 
 judgment of Senators should be confined to the specific allega- 
 tions of the indictment, but that the whole range of alleged 
 political and partisan misdemeanors and delinquencies could be 
 taken into account in seeking a pretext for Mr. Johnson's con- 
 viction. 
 
 The superiority of the Legislative branch was thus openly 
 advocated and insisted, and uncontroverted by any Republican 
 supporting the impeachment. Mr. Johnson, according to these 
 oft repeated declarations, was to be tried and convicted, not 
 necessarily for any specific violation of law, or of the Constitu- 
 tion, but by prevailing public opinion — public clamor — in a 
 word, on administrative differences subsisting between the 
 President and the leaders of the dominant party in and out of 
 Congress, and that public opinion, as concurrent developments 
 fully establish, was industriously manufactured throughout the 
 North, on the demand of leaders of the impeachment move- 
 ment in the House, through the instrumentality of a partisan 
 press and partisan public meetings, and in turn reflected back 
 upon the Senate, in the form of resolutions denunciatory of the 
 President and demanding his impeachment and removal. 
 
 That was in fact, and in a large sense, the incentive to the 
 impeachment movement, and it was not confined to a faction, 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 169 
 
 but characterized the dominant portion of the political party 
 then in the ascendency in and out of Congress. 
 
 In this state of facts lay largely the vice of the impeach- 
 ment movement, and it illustrated to a startling degree the 
 danger in the departure from established forms of judicial pro- 
 cedure in such cases. 
 
 It became apparent, long before the close, that it was but 
 little if anything more than a partisan prosecution — and that 
 fact became more generally and firmly fixed, from day to day, 
 as the trial approached conclusion. 
 
 In that state of facts, again, and in that sense, the impeach- 
 ment of the President, was an assault upon the principle of co- 
 ordination that underlies our political system and thus a 
 menace to our established political forms, as, if successful, it 
 would, logically, have been the practical destruction of the 
 Executive Department — and, in view of previous legislation 
 out of which the impeachment movement had to a degree 
 arisen, and of declarations in the House and Senate quoted 
 in this connection, the final and loffical result of conviction 
 would have been the absorption of the Executive functions of 
 the Government by the Legislative Department, and the conse- 
 quent declension of that Department to a mere bureau for the 
 registration of the decrees of the Legislature. 
 
 Conscious of the natural tendency to infringement by a given 
 Department of the Government upon the functions of its co- 
 ordinates, the framers of the Constitution wisely defined the 
 respective spheres of the several departments, and those defi- 
 nitions constitute unmistakable admonition to each as to tres- 
 pass by either upon the political territory of its co-ordinates. 
 
 As John C. Calhoun wrote, in the early days of the Republic : 
 
 "The Constitution has not only made a general delegation of the legis- 
 lative power to one branch of the Government, of the executive to another, 
 and of the judicial to the third, but it has specifically defined the general 
 powers and duties of each of those departments. This is essential to peace 
 and safety in any Government, and especially in one clothed only with 
 specific power for national purposes and erected in the midst of numerous 
 State Governments retaining exclusive control of their local concerns, * 
 * * Were there no power to interpret, pronounce and execute the law, 
 the Government would perish through its own imbecility, as was the case 
 with the Articles of Confederation; or other powers must be assumed by 
 the legislative body, to the destruction of liberty."' 
 
170 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, 
 
 Again, as was eloquently and forcefully said by Daniel Web- 
 ster in the U. S. Senate in 1834: 
 
 "The first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty, and 
 liberty is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional restraints and 
 just division of political power. Nothing is more deceptive or more dan- 
 gerous than the pretense of a desire to simplify government. The simplest 
 governments are despotisms; the next simplest, limited monarchies; but 
 all republics, all governments of law, must impose numerous limitations 
 and qualifications of authority and give many positive and many qualified 
 rights. In other words, they must be subject to rule and regulation. This 
 is the very essence of free political institutions. The spirit of liberty is, 
 indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but it is also a sharp-sighted spirit; it is 
 a cautious, sagacious, discriminating, tar-seeing intelligence; it is jealous 
 of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of man. It demands checks; it 
 seeks for guards; it insists on securities; it entrenches itself behind strong 
 defenses, and fortifies itself with all possible care against the assaults of 
 ambition and passion. It does not trust the amiable -weaknesses of human 
 nature, and, therefore, it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed 
 limits, though benevolence, good intent, and patriotic purpose come along 
 with it. Neither does it satisfy itself with flashy and temporary resitance 
 to illegal authority. Far otherwise. It seeks for duration and permanence; 
 it looks before and after; and, building on the experience of ages which 
 are past, it labors diligently for the benefit of ages to come. This is the 
 nature of constitutional liberty; and this is our liberty, if we will rightly 
 understand and preserve it. Every free government is necessarily compli- 
 cated, because all such governments establish restraints, as well on the 
 power of government itself as on that of individuals. If we will abolish the 
 distinction of branches, and have but one branch; it we will abolish jury 
 trials, and leave all to the judge; if we will then ordain that the legislator 
 shall himself be that judge; and if we will place thee.vecutive power in the 
 same hands, we may readily simplify government. We may easily bring it 
 to the simplest of all possible forms, a pure despotism. But a separation 
 of departments, so far as practicable, and the preservation of clear lines of 
 division between them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of all our 
 constitutions; and, doubtless, the continuance of regulated liberty depends 
 on maintaining these boundaries."' 
 
 Each department is supreme within its own constitutionally 
 prescribed limits, and the Supreme Court is made the umpire 
 for the definition of the limits and the protection of the rights 
 of all. Neither Congress, nor the Executive, are authorized to 
 determine the constitutionality and therefore the validity of 
 their acts, or the limits of their jurisdiction under the Consti- 
 tution, but the Supreme Court is so authorized, and it is the 
 umpire before which all differences in that regard must be de- 
 termined. It is the tribunal of last resort, save the people 
 themselves, before whom both Senate and House, and the Ex- 
 ecutive, must bow, and its decision is final in the interpretation 
 of the Constitution. _ 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 171 
 
 A due regard, therefore, for the interpretation of law and 
 the division of powers thus established, constitutes the great 
 safeguard upon which the harmonious and successful operation 
 of our political system depends. On its religious observance 
 rests, primarily, the preservation of our free institutions and 
 the perpetuation of our peculiar system of popular government. 
 That quality of co-ordination — of the equality of the several 
 Departments as adjusted by the Organic Act — constitutes the 
 balance wheel of our political system. 
 
 The logical effect of the doctrines promulgated by the House 
 of Representatives in that regard, and re-echoed on the floor of 
 the Senate, in the press and on the stump throughout the North, 
 were therefore not only revolutionary, but destructive. To have 
 removed the President upon accusations in reality based upon 
 partisan and personal — not amounting even to substantial poli- 
 tical difiEerences — would have been the establishment of a pre- 
 cedent of the most dangerous character. 
 
 In a large sense, the American system of politics and of gov- 
 ernment was on trial, quite as much as was Andrew Johnson. 
 The extreme element of American politics was in absolute con- 
 trol in the House of Representatives, and practically so, in the 
 Senate. The impeachment and removal of the President on 
 unsubstantiated, or even remotely doubtful charges, simply be- 
 cause of a disagreement between himself and Congress as to 
 the method of treating a great public emergency, would have 
 introduced a new and destructive practice into our political 
 system. 
 
 Logically, the introduction of such a practice on that occa- 
 sion would have been construed as a precedent for the treat- 
 ment of future public emergencies. Thus, it would have tended 
 to disturb the now perfect adjustment of the balance of powers 
 between the co-ordinate branches. That quality of absolute 
 supremacy of the several departments in their respective spheres, 
 or functions, and of co-ordination or equality in their relations 
 to each other, established by the Constitution as a guarantee of 
 the perpetuity of our political system, would have been endan- 
 gered, and the result could not have been otherwise than dis- 
 aster in the future. 
 
 Logically, the Presidency would in time have been degraded 
 
172 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 to the position of a mere department for the execution of the 
 decrees of the legislative branch. Not illogically, the Supreme 
 Court would have been the next object of attack, and the legis- 
 lature have become, by this unconstitutional absorption of the 
 powers of Government, the sole, controlling force — in short the 
 Government. 
 
 That would, in time, by equally logical sequence, have been 
 the natural, inevitable result — and the end. The wreckage of 
 the Great Republic of the age would have been strowu upon the 
 sands of the political seashore — relics of the disregard of the 
 checks and balances established by the wisdom of its framers, 
 in the fundamental law — and all for the satisfaction of personal 
 ambitions and the hates of factional animosities. 
 
 History affords too many illustrations of that tendency to 
 decadence and disruption from disregard of the proper and 
 necessary checks and balances in the distribution and equaliza- 
 tion of the powers of government, to permit us to doubt what 
 the final end would have been had the President been removed 
 on the unsubstantiated accusation preferred by the House of 
 Representatives. Our peculiar system of political government 
 — a Democratic Republic — passed the danger point of its history 
 in that hour. • 
 
 It was indeed a narrow escape. The history of civilization 
 records no precisely similar condition. The country then passed 
 the most threatening period of its history — but passed it safely. 
 The result was the highest possible testimonial to the strength 
 and endurance of properly adjusted Democratic institutions that 
 history records. 
 
 It emphasized not only the capacity of the American people 
 for intelligent and orderly self-government, but also the 
 strength ind endurance of our popular forms. It was a profound 
 surprise to those habituated to different political conditions. 
 They had witnessed with astonishment the quiet disbandment 
 of millions of men but as yesterday engaged in mortal strife 
 — the vast armies as peacefully returning to former vocations 
 as though from a great parade — and now, from a state of civil 
 convulsion that in many another nation would have produced 
 armed collision and public disorder, they saw an entire people 
 quietly accepting the verdict of the highest authoritijie body 
 
OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 173 
 
 of the land, and practically dismissing the subject from thought. 
 It was a splendid world-wide tribute to the strength and endur- 
 ance of our system of popular government. 
 
 Yet the conclusion must not be deduced that the power of 
 impeachment is not a wise provision of our Constitution, nor in 
 any sense inconsistent with our popular forms. Conditions may, 
 and are not nnlikely to arise, some day, when the exercise of 
 the power to impeach and remove the President may be quite 
 as essential to the preservation of our political system as it 
 threatened to become in this instance destructive of that sys- 
 tem. Should that day ever come, it is to be hoped that the 
 remedy of impeachment, as established by the Constitution, 
 may be as patriotically, as fearlessly, and as unselfishly applied 
 as it was on this occasion rejected. 
 
SUPPLEMENT. 
 
 Copy of letter addressed to each of the members of the Cabinet present at 
 the conversation between the President and General Grant on the 14th 
 of January, 1868, and the answers thereto : 
 
 Executive Mansion, [ 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 5, 1868. ) 
 Sir: — The Chronicle of this morning contains a correspondence between 
 the President and General Grant, reported from the War Department, in 
 answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives. I beg to call your 
 attention to that correspondence, and especially to that part of it which 
 refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant, at 
 the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, and to request you 
 to state what was said in that coversation. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 5, 1868. 
 Sie:— Your note of this date was handed to me this evening. My recol- 
 lection of the conversation at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of 
 January, corresponds with your statement of it in the letter of the .Slst 
 ultimo, in the published correspondence. The three points specified in 
 that letter, giving your recollection of the conversation, are correctly stated. 
 
 Very respectfully, Gideon Welles. 
 
 To the President. 
 
 Treasury Depaktment, February 6, 1868. 
 
 Sir: — I have received your note of the 5th instant, calling my attention 
 to the correspondence between youself and General Grant, as published in 
 the Chronicle of yesterday, especially to that part of it which relates to 
 what occurred at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday the 14th ultimo, and re- 
 questing me to state what was said in the conversation referred to. 
 
 I cannot undertake to state the precise language used, but I have no 
 hesitation in saying that your account of that conversation, as given in 
 your letter to General Grant under date of the 31st ultimo, substantially 
 and in all important particulars accords with my recollection of it. 
 
 With great respect, your obedient servant, Hugh McCullooh. 
 
 To the President. 
 
 Post OrncE Department ( 
 
 Washington, February 6, 1868. ^ 
 Sir: — I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th of February, calling my at- 
 tention to the correspondence published in the Chronicle between the 
 President and General Grant, and especially to that part of it which refers 
 to the conversation between the President and General Grant at the Cabi- 
 net meeting on Tuesday, the ]4th of January, with a request that I state 
 what was said in that conversation. 
 
176 THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL 
 
 In reply, I have the honor to state that I have read carefully the corres- 
 pondence in question, and particularly the letter of the President to Gen- 
 eral Grant, dated January 31, 1868. The following extract from your letter 
 of the 31st January to General Grant is, according to my recollection, a 
 correct statement of the conversation that took place between the Presi- 
 dent and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th of January 
 last. In the presence of the Cabinet the President asked General Grant , 
 whether, "in conversation which took place after his appointment as Sec- 
 retary of War ad interim, he did not agree either to remain at the head of 
 the War Department and abide any judicial proceedings that might follow 
 the non-concurrence by the Senate in Mr. Stanton's suspension, or, should 
 he wish not to become involved in such a controversy, to put the President 
 in the same position with respect to the office as he occupied previous to 
 General Grant's appointment by returning it to the President in time to 
 anticipate such action by the Senate." This General Grant admitted. 
 
 The President then asked General Grant if, at the conference on the 
 preceding Saturday, he had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested 
 General Grant to state what he intended to do; and further, if in reply to 
 that inquiry he (General Grant) had not referred to their former conversa- 
 tions, saying that from them the President understood his position, and 
 that his (General Grants) action would be consistent with the understand- 
 ing which had been reached. To these questions General Grant replied in 
 the affirmative. 
 
 The President asked General Grant it, at the conclusion of their inter- 
 view on Saturday, it was not understood that they were to have another 
 conference on Monday, before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr. 
 Stanton. 
 
 General Grant replied that such was the understanding, but that he did 
 not suppose the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday he had been 
 engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and was occupied with 
 "many little matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on 
 that day. 
 
 I take this mode of complying with the request contained in the Presi- 
 dent's letter to me, because my attention had been, called to the subject 
 before, when the conversation between the President and General Grant 
 was under consideration. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Alexander W. Randall, Postmaster General. 
 To the President. 
 
 Depaetment OF THE Interior, > 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 6, 1868. \ 
 
 Sir: — I am in receipt of yours of yesterday, calling my attention to a 
 correspondence between yourself and General Grant, published in the 
 Chronicle newspaper, and especially to that part of said correspondence 
 "which refers to the conversation between the President and General 
 Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January,"' and re- 
 questing me "to state what was said in that conversation."' 
 
 In reply, I submit the following statement: At the Cabinet meeting on 
 Tuesday, the 14th of January, 1868, General Grant appeared and took his 
 accustomed seat at the board. When he had been reached in the order of 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 177 
 
 buBiDeBB the President asked him, as usual, if he had anything to present? 
 In reply, the General, after referring to a note which he had that morn • 
 ing addressed to the President, inclosing a copy of the resolution of the 
 Senate refusing to concur in the reasons for the suspension of Mr. Stanton , 
 proceeded to say that he regarded his duties as Secretary of War ad in- 
 terim terminated by that resolution, and that he could not lawfully exer- 
 cise such duties for a moment after the adoption of the resolution by the 
 Senate. That the resolution reached him last night, and that this morn- 
 ing he had gone to the War Department, entered the Secretary's room, 
 bolted one door on the inside, locked the other on the outside, delivered 
 the key to the Adjutant General, and proceeded to the headquarters of the 
 Army, and addressed the note above mentioned to the President, inform- 
 ing him that he (General Grant) was no longer Secretary of War ad in- 
 terim. 
 
 The President expressed great surprise at the course which General 
 Grant had thought proper to pursue, and, addressing himself to the Gen- 
 eral, proceeded to say, in substance, that he had anticipated such action 
 on the part of the Senate, and being very desirous to have the constitu- 
 tionality of the Tenure-of OflSce bill tested, and his right to suspend or re- 
 move a member of the Cabinet decided by the judicial tribunals of the 
 country, he had some time ago, and shortly after General Grant's appoint- 
 ment as Secretary of War ad interim, asked the General what his action 
 would be in the event that the Senate should refuse to concur in the sus- 
 pension of Mr. Stanton, and that the General had agreed either to remain 
 at the head of the War Department till a decision could be obtained from 
 the court or resign the office in the hands of the President before the case 
 was acted upon by the Senate, so as to place the President in the same 
 situation he occupied at the time of his (Grant's) appointment. 
 
 The President further said that the conversation was renewed on the 
 preceding Sunday, at which time he asked the General what he intended 
 to do it the Senate should undertake to reinstate Mr. Stanton, in reply to 
 which the General referred to their former conversation upon the same 
 subject, and said. "You understand my position, and my conduct will be 
 conformable to that understanding:" that he (the General) then expressed 
 a repugnance to being made a party to a judicial proceeding, saying that 
 he would expose himself to tine and imprisonment by doing so, as his con- 
 tinuing to discharge the duties of Secretary of War ad interim, after the 
 Senate should have refused to concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton 
 would be a violation of the Tenure-of-Office bill. That in reply to this he 
 (the President) informed General Grant he had not suspended Mr. Stan- 
 ton under the Tenure-of-Office bill, but by virtue of the powers conferred 
 on him by the Constitution; and that, as to the fine and imprisonment, he 
 (the President) would pay whatever fine was imposed and submit to what- 
 ever imprisonment might be adjudged against him (the General.) That 
 they continued the conversation for some time, discussing the law at 
 length, and that they finally separated without having reached a definite 
 conclusion, and with the understanding that the General would see the 
 President again on Monday. 
 
 In reply. General Grant admitted that the conversation had occurred, 
 and said that at the first conversation he had given it as his opinion to the 
 President that in the event'of non-concurrence by the Senate in the action 
 
THE IMPEACHMKNT AND TRIAL 
 
 of the President in respect to the Secretary ot War the question would have 
 to be decided by the court; that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the 
 court to reinstate him in office; that he would remain in till they could 
 be displaced and the outs put in by legal proceeding; and that he then 
 thought so, and had agreed that if he should change his mind he would 
 notify the President in time to enable him to make another appointment, 
 but that at the time of the first conversation he had not looked very close- 
 ly into the law; that it had recently been discussed by the newspapers, and 
 that this had induced him to examine it more carefully, and that he had 
 come to the conclusion that if the Senate should refuse to concur in the 
 suspension Mr. Stanton would thereby be reinstated, and that he (Grant) 
 could not continue thereafter to act as Secretary of War ad interim with- 
 out subjecting himself to fine and imprisonment; and that he came over on 
 Saturday to inform the President of this change in his views, and did so 
 inform him, that the President replied that he had not suspended Mr 
 Stanton under the Tenure-of-Office bill, but under the Constitution, and 
 appointed him (Grant) by virtue of the authority derived from the Con- 
 stitution, &c.; that they continued to discuss the matter some time, and 
 finally he left without any conclusion having been reached, expecting to 
 see the President again on Monday. He then proceeded to explain why 
 he had not called on the President on Monday, saying that he had had 
 along interview with General Sherman; that various little matters had 
 occupied his time till it was late, and that he did not think the Senate 
 would act so soon, and asked, "did not General Sherman call on you on 
 Monday?" 
 
 I do not know what passed between the President and General Grant 
 on Saturday, except as I learned it from the conversation between them 
 at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, and the foregoing is substantially 
 what then occurred. The precise words used on the occasion are not, of 
 course, given exactly in the order in which they were spoken, but the 
 ideas expressed and the facts stated are faithfully preserved and presented. 
 I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant. 
 
 O. H. Browning. 
 The President. 
 
 Department, of State, 
 Washington, February 6, 1868. 
 
 Sir: The meeting to which you refer in your letter was a regular Cabi- 
 net meeting. While the members were assembling, and before the Presi- 
 dent had entered the Council Chamber, General Grant, on coming in, said 
 to me that he was in attendance there, not as a member of the Cabinet, 
 but upon invitation, and I replied by the inquiry whether there was a 
 change in the War Department. After the President had taken his seat 
 business went on in the usual way of hearing matters submitted by the 
 several secretaries. When the time came tor the Secretary of War Gen- 
 eral Grant said that he was now there not as Secretary of War, but upon 
 the President's invitation, that he had retired from the War Department. 
 A slight difference then appeared about the supposed invitation, General 
 Grant saying that the officer who had borne his letter to the President 
 that morning, announcing his retirement from the War Department, had 
 
OP PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. 179 
 
 told him that the President desired to see him at the Cabinet, to which the 
 President answered, that when General Grant's communication was deliv- 
 ered to him the President simply replied that he supposed General Grant 
 would be very soon at the Cabinet meeting. I regarded the conversation 
 thus begun as an incidental one. It went on quite informally, and con- 
 sisted of a statement, on your part, of your views in regard to the under- 
 standing of the tenure upon which General Grant had assented to hold 
 the War Department ad interim, and of his replies by way of answer and 
 explanation. It was respectful and courteous on both sides. Being in 
 this conversational form, its details could only have been preserved by 
 verbatim report. So far as I know, no such report was made at the time. 
 I can give only the general effect of the conversation. 
 
 Certainly you stated that although you had reported the reasons for 
 Mr. Stanton's suspension to the Senate, you nevertheless held that he 
 would not be .entitled to resume the office of Secretary of War, even it the 
 Senate should disapprove of his suspension, and that you had proposed to 
 have the question tested by judicial process, to be applied to the person 
 who should be the incumbent of the Department, under your designation 
 of Secretary of War ad interim in the place of Mr. Stanton. You con- 
 tended that this was well understood between yourself and Gen. Grant; 
 that when he entered the War Department as Secretary ad interim he 
 expressed his concurrence, in a belief that the question of Mr. Stanton's 
 restoration would be a question for the courts; that in a subsequent con- 
 versation with General Grant you had adverted to the understanding thus 
 had, and that General Grant expressed his concurrence in it: that at some 
 conversation which had been previously held General Grant said he still 
 adhered to the same construction of the law, but said if he should change 
 his opinion he would give you seasonable notice of it, so that you should^ 
 in any case, be placed in the same position in regard to the War Depart- 
 ment that you were while General Grant held it ad interim. I did not 
 understand General Grant as denying, nor as explicitly admitting, these 
 statements in the form and full extent to which you made them. His ad- 
 mission of them was rather indirect and circumstantial, though I did not 
 understand it to be an evasive one. He said that, reasoning from what oc- 
 curred in the case of the police in Maryland, which he regarded as a parallel 
 one, he was of opinion, and so assured you, that it would be his right and 
 duty, under your instructions, to hold the War Office after the Senate 
 should disapprove of Mr. Stanton's suspension until the question should 
 be decided upon by the courts; that he remained until very recently of 
 that opinion, and that on the Saturday before the Cabinet meeting a con- 
 versation was held between yourself and him in which the subject was 
 generally discussed. 
 
 General Grant's statement was, that in that conversation he had stated 
 to you the legal difficulties which might arise, involving fine and impris- 
 onment under the civil tenure bill, and that he did not care to subject 
 himself to those penalties; that you replied to this remark, that you re- 
 garded the civil tenure bill as unconstitutional, and did not think its pen- 
 alties were to be feared, or that you would voluntarily assume them; and 
 you insisted that General Grant should either retain the office until re- 
 lieved by yourself according to what you claimed was the original under- 
 standing, between yourself and him, or, by seasonable notice of change of 
 
180 IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON. 
 
 purpose on his part, put you in the samfl situation which you would be if 
 he adhered. You claimed that General Grant finally said in that Satur- 
 day's conversation that you understood his views, and his proceedings 
 thereafter would be consistent with what had been so understood. Gen- 
 eral Grant did not controvert nor can I say that he admitted this last 
 statement. Certainly General Grant did not at any time in the Cabinet 
 meeting insist that he had in the Saturday's conversation either distinctly 
 or finally advised you of his determination to retire from the charge of the 
 War Department otherwise than under your own subsequent direction. 
 He acquiesced in your statement that the Saturday's, conversation ended 
 with an expectation that there would be a subsequent conference on the 
 subject, which he, as well as yourself, supposed could seasonably take 
 place on Monday. 
 
 You then alluded to the tact that General Grant did not call upon you 
 on Monday, as you had expected from that conversation. General Grant 
 admitted that it was his expectation or purpose to call upon you on Mon- 
 day. General Grant assigned reasons for the omission. He said he was in 
 conference with General Sherman; that there were many little matters to 
 be attended to. He had conversed upon the matter of the incumbency of 
 the War Department with General Sherman, and he expected that Gen- 
 eral Sherman would call upon you on Monday. My own mind suggested 
 a further explanation, but I do not remenber whether it was mentioned 
 or not— namely, that it was not supposed by General Grant on Monday 
 that the Senate would decide the question so promptly as to anticipate 
 further explanation between yourself and him if delayed beyond that day. 
 General Grant made another explanation — that he was engaged on Sunday 
 with General Sherman, and, I think, also on Monday, in regard to the War 
 Department matter, with a hope, though he did not say in an effort, to pro- 
 cure an amicable settlement of the affair of Mr. Stanton, and he still hoped 
 that it would be brought about. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 William H. Seward. 
 To the President.